Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    463

Posts posted by JW Insider

  1. 2 hours ago, Arauna said:

    You have really put yourself forward as a spokesperson for china and you do not even know the true nature of the CCP and its goals.

    I am not a spokesperson for China, nor do I think you are a spokesperson for the West. China, like most countries, has made terrible mistakes. The West exploits those mistakes and makes sure they are all blamed on the CCP and its goals. But it's just as easy to defend the Western propaganda about China without realizing that the West's propaganda is due to the nature of its goals, too.

    Just focusing on the topic of deforestation for a moment again, I noticed this statistic in an article that blames Chinese consumption for a portion of the deforestation in Kenya for example: https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/02/11/chinese-companies-named-and-shamed-on-list-of-deforestation-powerbrokers/

    • China is in many ways itself the world’s poster child for deforestation. Back in the Qin dynasty, circa 221 BCE, nearly half the country was covered in forest. (Not incidentally, it had a much smaller population of 20 million.) By 1949, when the Communist Party took power, forest cover had dropped to 10%. Between 1981 and 2001, the country planted at least 35 billion trees to try and rectify the decline. Still, today forests account for only 22% of the country’s land, compared to the global average of 31%.

    This doesn't absolve China at all, but I notice that Chinese forests were supposed to have covered 50% of the country long before the CCP took power. And it was already down to 10% by 1949 when the CCP took over. Today, it's back up to 22%. So it was not the CCP that reduced the forests as much as the misuse of resources prior to the CCP. Under the CCP the forest coverage more than doubled!

    This doesn't mean we need to start praising the CCP, but it also doesn't mean that we need to focus on China while ignoring the rape of the resources by the West (including Brazil, for example.)

  2. 1 hour ago, Arauna said:

    They are decimating the fish next to Mauritania (Africa)... there is concerns that it will be depleted..... but as I said above they go into other areas.

    Yes, this is a common concern all over the world. Reuters has an item about it here: https://www.reuters.com/article/ozabs-mauritania-china-fish-idAFJOE7570JS20110608

    Mauritanian opposition seethes at China fish deal

    NOUAKCHOTT (Reuters) - Mauritanian opposition lawmakers and fishermen are fuming over what they say is a lack of transparency and safeguards in a 25-year offshore fishing licence granted to a Chinese firm.

    Backers of the deal ratified on Monday say it helps Mauritania by requiring that Poly Hon Done Pelagic Fishery spend $100 million on building a processing factory, a manufacturing site for traditional fishing boats, and a training centre.

    Mauritania, a predominantly Arab desert nation, has some of West Africa’s richest fishing waters. Fishing accounts for about 10 percent of its gross domestic product and up to 50 percent of its export earnings. The European Union pays Nouakchott about $100 million annually for fishing rights.

    ...According to the Poly Hon Done Pelagic Fishery deal, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, the firm is spared all import customs. For the first five years, it is exempt from paying tax on profits equivalent to 20 percent of its investments and may employ foreigners to make up as many as 30 percent of its staff.

    . . .The adviser, Yang Poipoi, dangled the prospect of 2,000 Mauritanians being hired by Poly Hon Done, even if they are not professionally qualified.

    But this is part of the same complaint we hear from Western leaders about why some countries prefer to deal with China than with the Western nations (or Russia, which has also fished Mauritania's waters). China tends to make deals that do something good for the local population in addition to doing something good for themselves. The West tends to exploit without doing anything for the local population.

    In the case above, China is spending $100,000,000 on a processing factory, and a training center, and will hire up to 70% of its workers from Mauritania. Compare that to what the EU does for the $100,000,000 a year that they pay for fishing rights in the same place. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jun/09/eu-european-union-accused-exporting-problem-overfishing-mauritania-deal

    EU accused of exporting problem of overfishing with Mauritania deal

    EU vessels to catch shrimp, tuna and other fish in return for funds, but critics say there is little evidence that EU cash is helping Mauritanian fishing communities

    ... But the fishing deal has received growing criticism from researchers and environmentalists who have accused the EU of exporting its problem of overexploitation to African waters.

    While the bloc has tried to save face by, for example, introducing the fisheries partnership agreement, which seeks to abolish purely commercial deals and instead introduce mechanisms that encompass fishing communities in decision-making, little has changed, according to its critics.

    ...

    But the fishing deal has received growing criticism from researchers and environmentalists who have accused the EU of exporting its problem of overexploitation to African waters.

    While the bloc has tried to save face by, for example, introducing the fisheries partnership agreement, which seeks to abolish purely commercial deals and instead introduce mechanisms that encompass fishing communities in decision-making, little has changed, according to its critics.

     

  3. 6 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    If you want to believe all these empty promises in the headlines you have quoted above you are welcome.

    Thank you. 😉

    But as I already said above:

    • I don't put any stock in promises, but at least it comes from a country that has built more efficient public transportation, fast trains, etc, than all the other countries in the world combined. And it comes from a country that has raised more people out of poverty than the rest of the world combined.

    One thing I found interesting in one of the links was from this one:

    It seems that the WORLD can already reap some small benefit in the overall level of carbon emissions due to changes in China. If you look closely at the West, you will see most regulations get reversed or overlooked when convenient. And many regulations are about a drop in the rate of increase in emissions, not a drop in emissions.

  4. 17 minutes ago, Anna said:

    The ability to edit is also gone (for me anyway).

    I think there may have always been a time limit on editing, but for me it's not completely gone. But I thought it was until I noticed the . . . up in the upper right hand corner of the post. Do you have that? If you click on it, it has "Report" "Edit" etc., in a drop-down menu. (At least on my version.)

    As Chavez just pointed out though, I am now a full-fledged moderator. Perhaps I have this ability and you don't. But, then, how does anyone "Report" a post?

  5. 8 hours ago, Arauna said:

    They are decimating fish in the seas..... by means of predatory agreements or by encroachments in other countries waters.

    This has been another problem that China has not tried to control effectively in the past. Although it is reportedly taking action in the last couple of years. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/china-issues-new-sustainability-rules-for-its-notorious-fishing-fleet/

    China issues new sustainability rules for its notorious fishing fleet

    For years, reports of illegal fishing activities have dogged China’s distant-water fishing fleet. Now, China is significantly tightening regulations governing these vessels for the first time in 17 years, with a slew of new rules taking effect throughout 2020, including harsher penalties for captains and companies found to have broken the law.

    Estimated at a minimum of 2,900 vessels, the country’s distant-water fleet, active outside its maritime borders, dwarfs that of other nations. Since 2003 it has grown by at least 1,000 boats and doubled its reported annual catch.

    The rule changes include revisions to the Distant-Water Fishing Management Regulations, new Management Measures for High Seas Squid Fishery and a new Rule for High Seas Transshipment released earlier this year; as well as a revision to the Administrative Measures of the Vessel Monitoring System released in 2019. They all take effect between January 2020 and January 2021. Leaving less space for illegal activities, the changes are geared toward increasing transparency and promoting more sustainable practices.

    “China is the country that will shape what the future of ocean health becomes,” said Douglas McCauley, professor of marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “No other nation has more say as to what will become of the future of our ocean.”

    The country hauls in around 15% of the world’s reported wild fish catch, according to a 2020 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report. Discrepancies in reported fish catches and lack of transparency over fleet sizes globally mean no one really knows how much seafood humans remove from the ocean. But studies indicate an alarming drop in marine fish and invertebrate populations over the past 50 years.

    More than a third of the planet’s fish stocks are overfished to biologically unsustainable levels, the FAO report said, with a further 60% of stocks fished to the sustainable maximum. Those numbers have far-reaching implications not only for marine ecosystems but for humans: fisheries provide direct employment for almost 60 million people globally and around 20% of essential protein intake for more than 3 billion people, according to the report.

    China has previously signalled its intent to promote sustainable fishing practices. In 2017, the country pledged to cap its distant-water fleet at 3,000 vessels by 2020 and outlined comprehensive intentions in its 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Distant-Water Fishery. However, it has taken little concrete action until now.

     

    This seems comparable to rules that other countries have implemented, and which the United States has recently accepted: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21906

    I notice that even in US based journalism and reports, that Japan gets more attention for overfishing:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/challenges-facing-japans-marine-fisheries/

    Challenges Facing Japan's Marine Fisheries

    While fisheries depletion is a global issue, it is especially relevant in Japan where seafood consumption is staggeringly high. 23% of the average Japanese person’s protein intake comes from the ocean, almost 3 times that of the average American. As a nation, Japan consumes 7.5 million tons of seafood annually (Balfour et. al 2011). Tokyo is home to the world’s largest fish market, where roughly 2300 tons of seafood is sold daily for an average profit of $15.5 million. The largest marine fisheries in Japan are tuna, bonito, sardines, Alaskan Pollock, crabs and squid (Statistical Handbook of Japan 2012).

    ...Overfishing is largely the cause of this decline. The increased use of powered trawlers and other gear innovations paired with a growing demand for seafood has resulted in the overexploitation of marine resources. In addition, development has led to destruction of seagrass beds, crucial habitat for coastal species (Makino 2011).

    ... Fearing radiation from the nuclear plant, countries such as China and Korea banned seafood exported from Japan in the weeks following the tsunami. It took a month before fish sales finally recovered. In April 2012, researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute reported that elevated levels of radiation were still present in fish caught off the coast of the Fukushima plant. In October, they announced that 40% of fish from the area still contained unsafe levels of radioactive cesium. In January 2013, a fish was caught that contained 2500 times the legal amount of radiation (Mosbergen 2013).

    ...

    Japan’s Bluefin fishery has declined dramatically in recent decades, with some scientists estimating that their current stock is only 4% of its original un-fished population (Jolly 2013). As the consumer of 80% of the world’s Bluefin tuna (Foster 2013), Japan is largely responsible for this decline. Most Bluefin are caught by large purse seining vessels that indiscriminately catch fish of all sizes and ages, including juveniles.

    The high market value of Bluefin has contributed to its popularity and subsequent decline. In January 2013, a single fish was auctioned off for $1.76 million (Foster 2013). While tighter regulations have been implemented as called by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, they have not been strictly enforced in Japan. Ties between the government and fishing industry, a largely apathetic media and sushi-craving public have not helped the situation. Japanese fishermen see little need to stop fishing the Pacific Bluefin as fishing boats from Taiwan and South Korea take from the same stock (Foster 2013).

  6. @Arauna The list of links I provided earlier has some more links about China and the environment. I will highlight the ones dealing with water and reforestation, some of the others deal more with the air pollution pollution and related issues:

     

  7. 7 hours ago, Arauna said:

    Another thing I would like to mention is the Chinese destruction of forests, rare animals and total lack of care for the environment since communism took over. They have pollution everywhere.

    Yes. China has had a huge problem with pollution, and had apparently done little about it until this past decade or so. Some things to consider:

    Here's what the BBC admitted: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40341833

    Future Energy: China leads world in solar power production

    ... China may consume more electricity than any other country, but it is also now the world's biggest solar energy producer

    ...According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the country installed more than 34 gigawatts of solar capacity in 2016 - more than double the figure for the US and nearly half of the total added capacity worldwide that year.

    Early figures for 2017 show China has added another eight gigawatts in the first quarter alone.

    ...Within China, distributed generation is growing at an extraordinary rate, driven in large part by farmers who use the panels to power agricultural equipment that might not be connected to the grid.

    ...The largest solar farm in the world - Longyangxia Dam Solar Park, all 30sq km of it - is a Chinese project. And the country recently opened the world's largest floating solar farm, in Huainan, Anhui Province. It has been constructed over an old coal mine, which over the years had filled with rainwater.

    Solar panels on a hillside in a village in Chuzhou, in eastern China's Anhui province

    And here's an admission by Forbes magazine's website:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/06/16/how-china-not-obama-waged-the-war-on-coal-and-won/#1f9466b57a5f

    How China, Not Obama, Waged The War On Coal

    Global coal production is down record amounts thanks largely to China, BP's chief economist said Thursday, and coal's probably not coming back.

    "I think we are seeing a significant and decisive shift in coal, a break from the past in terms of coal," said BP Group Chief Economist Spencer Dale at a Washington D.C. forum sponsored by the Atlantic Council on Global Affairs.

    "Many of the factors driving that—the key, the heart of that shift—are structural, long-term factors: the growing competitiveness of natural gas and renewable energy combined with mounting government and societal pressure to move towards cleaner, lower-carbon fuels."

    That pressure has been strongest in China, he said. Chinese coal production has declined for three consecutive years, coinciding with the slowing of industrial growth, but according to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy 2017, released this week, it has never declined more than it did in 2016. At the beginning of 2016 China enacted a series of policies designed to reduce a supply glut, including closing 1,000 mines and restricting mining days to improve the profitability of the ones that remained open.

    "The impact of these measures was really stark," Dale said, calling it a "magnificent policy."

    And here is an admission by TIME magazine's website:

    https://time.com/3848171/china-environment-promotions/

    China Ties Officials' Promotions to Saving the Environment

    For decades, Chinese officials’ job prospects have depended on one factor above all others: economic growth. The incentive structure seemed to make sense given that China has enjoyed one of the greatest economic expansions in human history. But on May 5, new Chinese regulations added another inducement to the mix: environmental protection. Officials will be held accountable for the air, water and soil in areas under their control. Should they fail an environmental responsibility audit, promotions will be nixed.

    It’s no secret that China’s breakneck growth has devastated the country’s environment. Even by the government’s own reckoning — which some consider an underestimation of the problem — only eight of 74 Chinese cities met national standards for clean air last year, according to state newswire Xinhua. Sixty percent of ground water in one official survey was deemed “bad” or “very bad,” reported Xinhua.

    Beijing is now talking tough and last year declared a “war against pollution.” A revised environmental law, which took effect on Jan. 1, promises to target polluters and officials who fake environmental data. Last month, construction on a controversial $3.75 billion dam was blocked. During his annual address in March, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang vowed “a firm and unrelenting approach to ensure blue skies, clear waters, and sustainable development.”

    According to Xinhua, the government guidelines released on May 5 state that “by 2020, China aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% to 45% from the 2005 level, and increase the share of nonfossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15%.”

    And here is Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-20/how-china-beats-the-u-s-at-clean-air-progress

    How China Beats the U.S. at Clean-Air Progress

    Americans were pretty rich before they tackled pollution. Poorer Chinese are already doing it.
     

    China launches 8,000 water clean-up projects worth $100 billion in first half of 2017

    SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China launched nearly 8,000 water clean-up projects in the first half of 2017 with projected total investment of 667.4 billion yuan ($100 billion), the environment ministry said on Thursday. 

    ...

    The projects were devised as part of a 2015 action plan to treat and prevent water pollution, and cover 325 contaminated groundwater sites across the country, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) said in a notice.

    A total of 343 contaminated sites had been identified, meaning that 95 percent had drawn up plans to bring water quality up to required standards, it said.

    And this from https://www.firstpost.com/world/watch-china-is-building-worlds-first-forest-city-3761401.html

    Watch: China is building world's first forest city

    China is building the world's first forest city in Liuzhou to combat its pollution problem.

    FP Staff June 30, 2017 15:22:10 IST

      China is building the world's first forest city near its southern region of Liuzhou. Commissioned by the Liuzhou Municipality Urban Planning, this initiative is taking place to combat the country's pollution problem.

      All of the city's structures – offices, houses, hotels, hospitals, and schools – will be entirely covered in plants and trees, and the city itself will be equipped to produce 900 tons of oxygen. The "green" setup includes 40,000 trees and almost one million plants of over one hundred species, and is expected to absorb almost 10,000 tonnes of CO2 and 57 tonnes of pollutants per year.

      For connectivity, a fast rail line is being set up, on which electric cars will run. It will connect the forest city to the main city of Liuzhou. To maintain energy efficiency, the design uses the help of solar panels and a geothermal energy source.

      The architects of this forest city, Stefano Boeri Architects Group, have built vertical forest towers in cities like Milan, Antwerp and Nanjing, among others.

      Slated to be complete by 2020, the city will house 30,000 people.

       
      And ecosnippets.com, covering ecology topics, sustainable living, small farming, natural herbs, etc., reported this about CHina:
       
      China Announces That It Will Cover Nearly A Quarter Of The Country In Forest By 2020
       
      China has announced, via a United Nations report, that it will be covering nearly a quarter of the country with forests by 2020.  The plan is to turn China into an “ecological civilization” and function as a model for future building projects.
       
      ...The report also indicated that by 2020 the country plans on cutting water consumption by 23 percent, energy consumption by 15 percent and carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 18 percent.

      There is also action to restore 35 percent of the natural shorelines, increase prairie vegetation coverage by 56 percent and reclaim more than half of reclaimable desert in the country. (Via Minds)

      -----
      I don't put any stock in promises, but at least it comes from a country that has built more efficient public transportation, fast trains, etc, than all the other countries in the world combined. And it comes from a country that has raised more people out of poverty than the rest of the world combined.
    • An article on the Uyghur issue that I pretty much agree with so far is found here: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

      I don't have time to reduce it because I have to leave for 24 hours, so here it is with comments removed and only a couple of sentences highlighted in red.

      The US House of Representatives passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act on December 3, legislation which calls for the Donald Trump administration to impose sanctions against China over allegations that Beijing has detained millions of Muslim-majority Uyghurs in the western region of Xinjiang.

      To drum up support for the sanctions bill, Western governments and media outlets have portrayed the People’s Republic as a human rights violator on par with Nazi Germany. Republican Rep. Chris Smith, for instance, denounced the Chinese government for what he called the “mass internment of millions on a scale not seen since the Holocaust,” in “modern-day concentration camps.” 

      The claim that China has detained millions of ethnic Uyghurs in its Xinjiang region is repeated with increasing frequency, but little scrutiny is ever applied. Yet a closer look at the figure and how it was obtained reveals a serious deficiency in data.

      While this extraordinary claim is treated as unassailable in the West, it is, in fact, based on two highly dubious “studies.” 

      The first, by the US government-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, formed its estimate by interviewing a grand total of eight people.

      The second study relied on flimsy media reports and speculation. It was authored by Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist Christian who . . .  believes he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China.

      As Washington ratchets up pressure on China, Zenz has been lifted out of obscurity and transformed almost overnight into a go-to pundit on Xinjiang. He has testified before Congress, providing commentary in outlets from the Wall Street Journal to Democracy Now!, and delivering expert quotes in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ recent “China Cables” report. His Twitter bio notes that he is “moving across the Atlantic” from his native Germany.

      Before Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal questioned Zenz about his religious “mission,” at a recent event about Xinjiang inside the US Capitol, he had received almost entirely uncritical promotion from Western media.

      The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, which first popularized the “millions detained” figure, has also been able to operate without a hint of media scrutiny.

      Washington-backed NGO claims millions detained after interviewing eight people

      The “millions detained” figure was first popularized by a Washington, DC-based NGO that is backed by the US government, the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD).

      In a 2018 report submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – often misrepresented in Western media as a UN-authored report – CHRD “estimate[d] that roughly one million members of ethnic Uyghurs have been sent to ‘re-education’ detention camps and roughly two million have been forced to attend ‘re-education’ programs in Xinjiang.” According to CHRD, this figure was “based on interviews and limited data.” 

      While CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals

      Screen-Shot-2019-12-20-at-6.14.02-PM.png

      Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD “extrapolated estimates” that “at least 10% of villagers […] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.”

      Applying these estimated rates to the entirety of Xinjiang, CHRD arrived at the figures submitted to the UN claiming that one million ethnic Uyghurs have been detained in “re-education detention camps” and two million more have been “forced to attend day/evening re-education sessions”. 

      Thanks to questionable sources like the CHRD, the United States government has accused China of “arbitrarily detain[ing] 800,000 to possibly more than two million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslims in internment camps designed to erase religious and ethnic identities.”

      Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2018, State Department official Scott Busby stated this this “is the U.S. government assessment, backed by our intelligence community and open source reporting.”

      The Chinese government has rejected US allegations, and claims that it has in fact established “vocational education and training centers […] to prevent the breeding and spread of terrorism and religious extremism.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that “there [are] no so-called ‘re-education camps’ in Xinjiang at all. The vocational education and training centers legally operated in Xinjiang aim to help a small number of people affected by terrorist and extremist ideologies and equip them with skills, so that they can be self-reliant and re-integrate into society.”

      In its mounting pressure campaign against China, the US is not only relying on CHRD for data; it is directly funding its operations. As Ben Norton and Ajit Singh previously reported for The Grayzone, CHRD receives significant financial support from Washington’s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

      The NGO has spent years campaigning on behalf of extreme right-wing opposition figures who celebrate colonialism and call for the “Westernization” of China.

      ‘Leading expert’ on Xinjiang relies on speculation and one questionable media report

      The second key source for claims that China has detained millions of Uyghur Muslims is Adrian Zenz. He is a senior fellow in China studies at the far-right Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was established by the US government in 1983.

      The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an outgrowth of the National Captive Nations Committee, a group founded by Ukrainian nationalist Lev Dobriansky to lobby against any effort for detente with the Soviet Union. Its co-chairman, Yaroslav Stetsko, was a top leader of the fascist OUN-B militia that fought alongside Nazi Germany during its occupation of Ukraine in World War Two. Together, the two helped found the World Anti-Communist League that was described by journalist Joe Conason as “the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries.”

      Today, Dobriansky’s daughter, Paula, sits on the board of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. A former Reagan and George HW Bush official and signatory of the original Project for a New American Century document, Paula Dobriansky has become a fixture in neoconservative circles on Capitol Hill.

      From its office in Washington, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation agitates for regime change from Venezuela to the periphery of China, advancing the “double genocide” theory that rewrites the history of the Holocaust and posits communism as a deadly evil on par with Hitlerian fascism.

      Zenz’s politicized research on Xinjiang and Tibet has proven one of this right-wing group’s most effective weapons. 

      In September of 2018, Zenz wrote an article published in the Central Asian Survey journal concluding that “Xinjiang’s total re-education internment figure may be estimated at just over one million.” (A condensed version of the article was initially published by the Jamestown Foundation, a neoconservative think tank founded during the height of the Cold War by Reagan administration personnel with the support of then-CIA Director William J. Casey).

      Like the CHRD, Zenz arrived at his estimate “over 1 million” in a dubious manner. He based it on a single report by Istiqlal TV, a Uyghur exile media organization based in Turkey, which was republished by Newsweek Japan. Far from an impartial journalistic organization, Istiqlal TV advances the separatist cause while playing host to an assortment of extremist figures. 

      One such character who often appears on Istiqlal TV is Abdulkadir Yapuquan, a reported leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a separatist group that aims to establish an independent homeland in Xinjiang called East Turkestan. 

      ETIM has been designated as a terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda by the US, European Union, and UN Security Council’s Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee. The Associated Press has reported that since “2013, thousands of Uighurs… have traveled to Syria to train with the Uighur militant group Turkistan Islamic Party and fight alongside al-Qaida,” with “several hundred join[ing] the Islamic State.” 

      The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) has been among the most recalcitrant forces operating in the Al Qaeda-controlled Idlib province, rejecting all ceasefire efforts while indoctrinating children into militancy. TIP leadership has called on foreign Muslims to wage jihad in Syria, publishing an online recruitment video in 2018 that celebrated the 9/11 attacks as holy retaliation against a decadent United States awash in homosexuality and sin.

      Kids1-768x432.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1

      Children of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Idlib, Syria

      According to the Los Angeles Times, Yapuquan is “a regular guest on Istiqlal TV… where his interviews often extended into hours-long emotional tirades against China.”

      Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt reported that Istiqlal TV has also hosted fanatical anti-Semites like Nureddin Yıldız, who in an interview on the network, “called for armed jihad not only in China’s autonomous Xinjiang region but all over the world and described China as a nation of savages, worse than the Jews.”

    • On 8/19/2020 at 4:19 AM, Arauna said:

      Because the billion dollar Teck companies are censoring all information the UN does not want you to see.

      And what the US doesn't want you to see, too. Another woman who has long identified herself as a Uyghur Muslim was just removed from Twitter for simply saying that China is not mistreating Muslims in the region.

      You have spoken about how China pays journalists to write positive stories. I haven't seen the evidence for that, although it could well be true, but it reminded me of the news about Steve Bannon today:

      Trump's one time appointee, Steve Bannon, was just arrested in a scheme that raised $25 million to construct portions of a Mexican border wall (and spend a million on himself). Bannon is well-known for paying people to spread outlandish propaganda against China in regular media and social media.

      Other organizations that write against China are paid in US Government grants. The World Uyghur Congress is a US-backed, right wing, regime change network that seeks the fall of China. The US pays it millions through grants from the NED (National Endowment for Democracy).

      If you don't think the NED is about US imperialism and covert regime change, just listen to ex-CIA whistle-blower, Philip Agee:

       “Nowadays, instead of having the CIA going around behind the scenes and trying to manipulate the process by inserting money here and giving instructions secretly and so forth, they have now a sidekick, which is this National Endowment for Democracy, NED.”

      Allen Weinstein, a founding member of the NED, admitted this to the Washington Post: ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence-abroad-the-new-world-of-spyless-coups/92bb989a-de6e-4bb8-99b9-462c76b59a16/ )

      “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” 

      NED's own website has admitted giving money the World Uyghur Congress and its affiliate organizations, and their focus is on influencing US Congressmen.

      On 8/16/2020 at 10:20 AM, Arauna said:

      To apologize for any of the empire building, subversions, predatory loans, human rights abuses etc (pretty everyone is doing them but to different degrees at present) is taking sides.

      I won't apologize for any empire building, subversions, predatory loans, or human rights abuses. But I also won't try to "call out" a specific country for such abuses unless I have seen credible evidence. I don't believe nations are altruistic, and I believe all of them do things to varying degrees. I don't say there have been no abuses by Chinese against Uyghur Muslims, either. But I have seen and heard much evidence that the Chinese government has done much to mitigate these abuses. And I have seen several claims from the Uyghur side that are easily shown to be complete lies. And I have seen the Western media so anxious to "eat up" any claims and then allow those claims to be exaggerated 1,000 times over. (And of course this fits a pattern that can easily be found in almost all anti-Chinese propaganda from the West.)

      I found another article on the Uyghur separatist propaganda, that I will try to cut down a bit to quote it in my next post.

       

    • BTW, I just discovered this link on Ajit Singh list of links which I had not yet seen before today. It aligns pretty well with the estimate of famine deaths that I already gave, based on the problems with the statistical methods used:

      https://mronline.org/2011/06/26/revisiting-alleged-30-million-famine-deaths-during-chinas-great-leap/

      It's worth a read, but a couple of points are highlighted here:

      • There are two routes through which very large ‘famine deaths’ have been claimed — firstly, population deficit and, secondly, imputing births and deaths which did not actually take place.  Looking at China’s official population data from its 1953 and 1964 censuses, we see that if the rate of population increase up to 1958 had been maintained, the population should have been 27 million higher over the period of 1959-1961 than it actually was.  This population deficit is also discussed by the demographers Pravin Visaria and Leela Visaria.  The population deficit was widely equated with ‘famine deaths.’  But 18 million of the people alleged to have died in a famine were not born in the first place.  The decline in the birth rate from 29 in 1958 to 18 in 1961 is being counted as famine deaths.
      • To say or write that “27 million people died in the famine in China” conveys to the reader that people who were actually present and alive starved to death.  But this did not actually happen and the statement that it did is false.
      • China had lowered it death rate sharply from 20 to 12 per thousand between 1953 and 1958.  (India did not reach the latter level until over a quarter century later.) ...That a dramatic reduction in the rural death rate was achieved is not disputed by anyone.  During the early commune formation from 1958, there was a massive mobilisation of peasants for a stupendous construction effort, which completely altered for a few years the normal patterns of peasant family life....The birth rate fall from 1959 had to do with labour mobilisation, and not low nutrition since the 1958 foodgrain output was exceptionally good at 200 million tons (mt).
      • There was excess mortality compared to the 1958 level over the next three years, of a much smaller order.  Let us be clear on the basic facts about what did happen: there was a run of three years of bad harvests in China — drought in some parts, floods in others, and pest attacks.  Foodgrain output fell from the 1958 good harvest of 200 mt to 170 mt in 1959 and further to 143.5 mt in 1960, with 1961 registering a small recovery to 147 million tons.  This was a one-third decline, larger than the one-quarter decline India saw during its mid-1960s drought and food crisis.  Grain output drop coincided in time with the formation of the communes, and this lent itself to a fallacious causal link being argued by the academics who were inclined to do so, and they blamed the commune formation for the output decline.  One can much more plausibly argue precisely the opposite — that without the egalitarian distribution that the communes practised, the impact on people of the output decline, which arose for independent reasons and would have taken place anyway, would have been far worse.
      • As output declined from 1959, there was a rise in the officially measured death rate from 12 in 1958 to 14.6 in 1959, followed by a sharp rise in 1960 to 25.4 per thousand, falling the next year to 14.2 and further to 10 in 1962.  While, clearly, 1960 was an abnormal year with about 8 million deaths in excess of the 1958 level, note that this peak official ‘famine’ death rate of 25.4 per thousand in China was little different from India’s 24.8 death rate in the same year which was considered quite normal and attracted no criticism.  If we take the remarkably low death rate of 12 per thousand that China had achieved by 1958 as the benchmark, and calculate the deaths in excess of this over the period 1959 to 1961, it totals 11.5 million.  This is the maximal estimate of possible ‘famine deaths.’

      ----------

      Of course, this high number of famine deaths is still a terrible thing, and there is photographic evidence of areas where some of this actual starvation occurred. But there is also evidence that the more egalitarian distribution system, and irrigation work, may have actually saved lives overall. The timing of the droughts/floods coinciding with the most disruptive periods of communal projects was devastating. But several scholars have seen these projects as emergency measures that helped immensely in the immediate future, protecting against just such future years of potential drought/flood conditions. If some of Mao's "Great Leap Forward" projects had been completed just a couple of years earlier, it may have even saved millions more from the droughts/floods of 1959 to 1962. But I'm sure Mao knew there was a risk of such disasters happening during the mobilization for these projects. Therefore, better planning and less emphasis on simultaneous large projects would have been much smarter. Some of the projects were wasteful, producing some good, but not overall. This includes the inefficient, low quality steel production in small furnaces heated with wood instead of coal.

    • On 8/16/2020 at 10:20 AM, Arauna said:

      But is does intimidate its neighbors.  They built 7 artificial islands and then promised USA they will not militarize it.  Next thing they have airports and ports where war ships are docked and airplanes ready to take off. …on these islands.... which may lead to problems.  They are claiming seas and fishing areas which have never belonged to them historically (for past 150 years).

      This is mostly false.

      A high-level, general summary of China's border disputes is found here (as reported from India): https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/not-just-india-tibet-china-has-17-territorial-disputes-with-its-neighbours-on-land-sea/461115/

      Not just India, Tibet — China has 17 territorial disputes with its neighbours, on land & sea China has disputes with Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Singapore, Brunei, Nepal, Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Tibet.

      The article will provide a good starting point for anyone who wants to look into each dispute, one by one.

      I've looked into details of most of the disputes already, and think that the following article gives the best high-level summary of what is really going on. I'll re-quote it here. For anyone who doesn't wish to read it, I thought the main points were these:

      • The US has hundreds of battle ships in the South China Sea, including aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, bombers and underwater drones. The US has carried out several threatening military operations in the South China Sea. (Imagine if China carried out military operations in the Gulf of Mexico!)
      • The US has 400 military bases "encircling" China, which a US strategist has called a "perfect noose." [Some corroboration at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2331190/us-readies-for-war-with-china-with-400-bases-of-ships-and-nukes-to-create-perfect-noose-around-superpower-rival/ ]
      • China's claims in the South China Sea are based on a 1947 map made by the pre-revolutionary Kuomintang government and recognized by the U.S. at the time, defining what is called the “nine-dash line.” It encompasses about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including areas claimed by Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

      Here is the article:

      U.S. threats in South China Sea

      Does the People’s Republic of China have the right to defend its sovereignty in the waters surrounding China?

      What are U.S. aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, bombers and underwater drones doing in the South China Sea? China has no such force in the Gulf of Mexico; yet China is depicted here as the aggressor.

      For more than 100 years, the imperialists invoked the “freedom of navigation” to dominate Chinese trade. U.S. and British gunboats controlled China’s Yangtze, Yellow and Pearl rivers and coastal waters, where they patrolled up to 1,300 miles inland. Finally, in 1949 with the successful Chinese Revolution, the People’s Liberation Army kicked out all foreign forces and their hated battleships from its rivers.

      “Freedom of navigation” is a despised term in China, reeking of past colonial domination.

      A Chinese ‘slingshot’

      Almost daily we hear that China is “militarizing” the South China Sea by building air bases on seven small islands.

      President-elect Donald Trump has tweeted that “China is building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea.” These expanded mini-islands are described in the U.S. media as a great threat to world peace and regional stability.

      China’s Defense Ministry announced on Dec. 16 that it would arm the islands with defensive anti-ship missiles: “They are primarily for defense and self-protection and this is proper and legitimate. For instance, if someone was at the door of your home, cocky and swaggering, how could it be that you wouldn’t prepare a slingshot?”

      Washington has demanded that China stop this island construction. It carried out several highly threatening “freedom of navigation operations” close to these mini-islands last May.

      The Chinese military responded by scrambling J-11 fighter jets. Chinese pilots reportedly issued warnings to an American destroyer, the USS William P. Lawrence, to leave Chinese territorial waters or face engagement. The Chinese Navy dispatched three warships and again officially opposed the repeated intrusions by air and ships in Chinese waters.

      Then, on Dec. 17, China snatched an underwater drone operated from the USNS Bowditch, which was carrying out reconnaissance to detect Chinese submarine routes and construction on the seven islands. After objecting to U.S. intrusion in its waters, China returned the drone.

      ‘Pivot to Asia’

      A new documentary by filmmaker John Pilger, “The Coming War on China,” describes the U.S. military presence in Asia in the film’s opening moments: “Today, more than 400 American military bases encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and, above all, nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to Japan, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, as one U.S. strategist puts it, ‘the perfect noose.’

      “The greatest build-up of NATO military forces since the Second World War is under way on the western borders of Russia. On the other side of the world, the rise of China as the world’s second economic power is viewed in Washington as another ‘threat’ to American dominance.”

      President Obama announced this provocative U.S. military offensive, called the “pivot to Asia,” in 2011. It includes a plan to move two-thirds of the U.S. Navy to Asia and the Pacific. The weapons are aimed at China.

      Conveniently, the latest confrontations in the South China Sea come at a time when the U.S. Navy needs to justify its biggest expansion in 35 years.

      It presently has 273 battle force ships. Obama’s Asia Pivot would increase it to 308. Trump pledged to increase it to 350. The U.S. Navy immediately put forward a plan for 355 ships.

      Building this fabulously expensive new fleet means guaranteed long-term profits and decades of cost overruns for the largest U.S. corporations, including General Dynamics, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and L3; power suppliers General Electric and Babcock and Wilcox; and shipbuilders such as Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).

      This costly new fleet to threaten the world will rob from every U.S. social program not already gutted by past military expenditures.

      South China Sea, a chokehold

      China has claimed the majority of the South China Sea for centuries. Now the People’s Republic of China, with 1.3 billion people, is determined not to relinquish its sovereign right to protect and defend this Chinese territory.

      Its claim is based on a 1947 map made by the prerevolutionary Kuomintang government and recognized by the U.S. at the time, defining what is called the “nine-dash line.” It encompasses about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including areas claimed by Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

      U.S. imperialism has attempted to strike deals and exert enormous pressure on these countries to force alliances against China by claiming to be a protector of small nations and their rights.

      The decision of President Duterte of the Philippines to open relations with China during a state visit in late October and step back from being a U.S. pawn has sent shockwaves through Pentagon planners.

      The area holds the richest fisheries in the world and possibly rich deposits of oil and natural gas.

      The location of the South China Sea, which links the Indian and Pacific oceans, makes it strategically important. About half the world’s merchant ships pass through it. Keeping the South China Sea open for commercial navigation is a top priority for China.

      Eighty percent of China’s oil imports pass through the narrow Malacca Straits, where ship traffic is three times greater than through the Suez Canal and five times more than through the Panama Canal. A blockade by the U.S. Navy could strangle China’s economy and devastate all the countries in the region.

      The region surrounding the South China Sea accounts for over 60 percent of U.S. exports. It was the focus of the recently failed U.S. effort to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership — a regional trade alliance of 11 Pacific-rim countries that would have excluded China.

      The setbacks for U.S. imperialism’s arrogant plans for the TPP, as well as a realignment of the Philippines, may bring more reckless threats.

      China is determined to keep the South China Sea open to all commercial ships. But not to uninvited military ships.

    • 56 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

      Did I read the report wrong? Bond has been posted. Lock-up was “pre-trial.” I don’t believe he has been.

      That's how I read it too. I hadn't seen your post until after I posted and came back. I realize that I also said a court appearance was to be today. I should have said yesterday, but it hadn't made the newspaper ( gastongazette.com/news/courts ) yet, so I had a note to check again today.

    • On 8/16/2020 at 2:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

      Did he really say that? One time I called him out on how it is not much of a “last days” if it began in 33 and he said that as far as he was concerned, Armageddon might come in the next 5 minutes.

      I appreciated that Arauna was "addressing" me obliquely rather than through direct accusations. This is good manners on a forum, because the person will "know" he or she is being addressed, and can consider the merit of the accusation, but not feel threatened or feel a need to take it personally. You yourself have also been thoughtful and diplomatic in counseling me without direct confrontation. Of course, I know for a fact that some people seem to get even more irritated and defensive from this oblique manner than if they were accused directly. I'll take it either way.

      And to your defense of me, thanks. That's my view. I've seen quite a bit of political "sign-watching" that ends up with the idea that, for example: "It kind of prepares us for what we can expect in future." (Not very oblique.) This is a valid opinion, but I notice the sheer magnitude of some of these expectations: like implementing a new world currency, or implementing and enforcing UN directives or "agenda" on a global scale which are slated for many years in the future. These types of things might very well happen, but thinking things like this must happen before the end can easily lull others into thinking that the real Global Government solution must be at least 5 to 10 years' off.

      On 8/16/2020 at 2:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

      Far more likely, I think, nobody reads this thread—I note that my invitation to respond in any way, with either an upvote or downvote, has attracted only two hits.

      I was the first to bother, but only flippantly, to see if I could safely predict the following outcome:

      image.png

      Exactly!!! It was too easy. You probably don't even need names to know who was who.

    • Also, just to show how most American headlines might differ from non-Western headlines due to bias and perspective, imagine how Iranian or Venezuelan newspapers would react to American acts of piracy on the sea, boarding ships, to steal medical supplies going to Iran, or Iranian oil going to Venezuela, for example. Yesterday there was a headline on CNBC, and I heard it in the car when another news station was on yesterday.

      U.S. seizes multimillion-dollar Iranian fuel shipment bound for Venezuela, largest ever of its kind, DOJ says

      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/14/us-seizes-iranian-fuel-shipment-bound-for-venezuela.html

      This was reported widely a couple days ago, on channels and sites that are pro-US, so it was not a revealed "secret." The DOJ and the administration were proud of it. It's because there are sanctions on Venezuela because the United States has been pushing for a regime change to swap out a democratically elected president for one who was not elected (Juan Guaido). Also, even though the US government has sponsored and supported much more international terrorism than Iran ever has, the USA has listed an Iranian group and tied them to the shipment of oil to Venezuela.

      The article in CNBC explains:

      The U.S., with the assistance of foreign partners, confiscated a total of 1.1 million barrels of petroleum from four foreign-flagged oil tankers, as Tehran and Caracas attempt to sidestep U.S. sanctions.

      ...

      “We are seeing more and more global shipping fleets avoiding the Iran-Venezuela trade due to our sanctions implementation and enforcement efforts,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus wrote in a statement. “The United States remains committed to our maximum pressure campaigns against the Iranian and Maduro regimes,” she added.

      In June, five Iranian oil tankers brought approximately 1.5 million barrels to gas-starved Venezuela, which was once a prominent fuel exporter. ...

      Venezuela — once the crown jewel of Latin America’s developing economy — has hit dire straits in recent years.

      That last quoted sentence might give an idea of the real reason behind the US economic attacks on Venezuela. The United States learned how quickly a poor country like the Soviet Union became a world competing economy in just a few short years after being devastated in WW2. The economy was finally ruined by talks convincing them to drop communism. China, under its form of socialism, was an even poorer country, and has already moved more persons out of poverty than the rest of the world combined. The real fear by the West is that socialism will raise people out of poverty unless it is attacked and sabotaged everywhere.

      Of course, think about what would happen if another country did this to the USA. It would be an act of terrorism or an act of war. Even if another non-Western country attempted sanctions on another country to starve its economy (and ultimately starve its people, or force migrations) it would be considered an act of war. The United States has often gone much further than sanctions and added bombings, coup attempts, promotion of civil war, attacks on civilian water sources, attacks on electricity production, bridges, airports, ship ports, etc. Often these are done through pro-Western proxies. When you add it up, this has resulted in millions of civilian deaths of Iranians, Yemeni, Libyans, Syrians, Afghani, etc., etc.

      But it's not funny how these reports are quickly forgotten in the United States. Here are two more:

      https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-us-accused-of-diverting-medical-equipment-from-countries-2020-4

      At least 5 countries — including a small Caribbean island — are accusing the US of blocking or taking medical equipment they need to fight the coronavirus

      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-works-assure-allies-deny-allegations-seizing-supplies/story?id=70019576

      US works to assure allies, deny allegations of seizing supplies in 'mask wars'

      In this case, and in spite of the headline, look who was accusing the United States of diverting, bribing, pirating and stealing:

      In particular, the accusations have revealed some sharp divides between the U.S. and key Western allies that have been exacerbated during Trump's presidency and the growing every-country-for-itself mentality around the world amid dire shortages that has fueled distrust. ...

      In France, regional officials, including the presidents of the Paris and Grand Est regional councils, said Americans paid cash on airport tarmacs to secure masks shipped from China to France.

      "On the tarmac, the Americans arrive, take out cash, and pay three or four times more for the orders we have made, so we really have to fight," Grand Est president Jean Rottner told RTL, a French radio broadcaster. . . .

      In Germany, a senior Berlin official specifically accused the U.S. on Friday of confiscating 200,000 masks that were in transit from a manufacturer in China to Berlin through Bangkok, Thailand.

      "We view this as an act of modern piracy," said Andreas Geisel, interior minister of Berlin's city government. "Such wild west methods can't dominate, even in a time of global crisis."

      So much for free trade.

    • Above, I mentioned Ajit Singh, a journalist and author who offers a 28 page document full of links to reputable sites that help expose the anti-Chinese bias. https://docs.google.com/document/d/16iw83noTdWvDiECaITX83rGhP_lros8QdBTrNnCoe6c/edit#heading=h.1x3j818zcp4p

      Here's a recent story from the day before yesterday, related to Ajit Singh, that should embarrass the West, but will likely get very little press. There is an anti-China, pro-West, pro-Hong Kong newspaper called the South China Morning Post (scmp.com). Even this paper had to finally agree with Ajit Singh, who had for years already exposed one of the most prolific anti-China, Hong Kong activists as a fake. Turns out that the activist was an American, even faking a Hong Kong accent to record interviews with himself. He has authored three books on the HK protests.

      No one believed Singh, of course, because it seems nothing is really "true" until a reputable news outlet says so. (The American finally had to admit he was fake.) Here's the headline:

      https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3097523/hong-kong-activist-writer-kong-tsung-gan-confirms-thats-only

      Hong Kong activist, writer ‘Kong Tsung-gan’ confirms that’s only a pen name; website says he’s really Brian Kern, an American

      • Prolific writer of columns, tweets, books on social unrest concealed true identity for five years

      • Former Amnesty International staffer Kern taught at Hong Kong school, took part in protests

      For more than five years, Kong Tsung-gan was a name that turned up regularly as a Hong Kong protest activist and writer quoted frequently by foreign media.

      Now, the revelation that “Kong” is in fact a pen name of possibly an American named Brian Kern has ignited debate over the legitimacy of using a pseudonym in Hong Kong’s highly charged political environment.

      The controversy was sparked recently by an American alternative news website that accused Kern of adopting a fictitious identity as an ethnic Chinese grass roots activist as a “deceptive ploy” to “disseminate anti-China propaganda”.

      ...

      On August 8, news website The Grayzone reported that Kong was in fact Brian Kern, an American who worked with human rights group Amnesty International before moving to Hong Kong to teach.

      The site, run by American journalist and author Max Blumenthal, accused Kern of using his fake identity to spread anti-China propaganda through his writing.

      I should add that I have long been impressed with the exposure of bias by Max Blumenthal, and have mentioned him previously. I did not know he had a website.

    • 12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

      I just need everyone to understand, the banner of Jehovah Witness still exist on top, and the name Jehovah should not play in anyone's mind when dealing with politics.

      Actually, it doesn't. I purposely started this topic in a non-Jehovah's Witnesses area of the forum. And no one has moved it to a JW area, even though several people kept bringing up JW beliefs here.

      But I do agree that it should be clarified for everyone that this is just a discussion of politics. As far as I am concerned it's just another area where we can learn about history, geopolitics, and political biases. I never came at this topic from a religious perspective. (Just as when I post something about a singer or musician, I don't come at it from a religious perspective.) Things that catch my attention in this area often start from noticing the bias in the way things are worded in the news, or the way reports and statistics can be so easily skewed. I've probably already mentioned that my first full-time job started out from an internship after I took a course called "Statistics in the Social Sciences." The Computer Science degree required at least one course to be from that department. It turned into an internship with the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) which was highly political. That turned into a few years with A.D.Little where the statistics were used to promote policy. I even worked on the Trump account, when D.Trump was still more of a "player" and not so political yet. But, even here, it turned more and more political in pushing a landlord-supportive policies on NYC. I tried to get less political accounts, but it turned out that A.D.Little was geared to this kind of thing, so I left it to do IT and ROI projection work for a global financial company, and kept that job for nearly 30 years before retiring. But my interest is still piqued when I hear the common patterns of statistical skewing and the patterns of "spin" that the media is famous for.

      So studying some historical politics and geopolitics is just something triggered by reading the news. Also, one of my sons went to school with several Chinese students, and is becoming more proficient in the Chinese language, and has several acquaintances from all parts of China with whom he writes and speaks in Chinese. (Before graduation, he had an offer to do physics research in China for a semester.) That, coronovirus, and my Chinese boss before my retirement, have all influenced my more recent interest in China.

    • On 8/16/2020 at 12:25 PM, César Chávez said:

      Just keep in mind that I don't quote from google books that I have not acquired in full.

      That can be a good thing. And it's good to know. Because I really wanted to know the source of footnote 5 which immediately followed the 3 sentences you bolded. I don't have the book, and don't plan to look for it. But I find the content very interesting, and obviously a biased promotion of the separatist movement which are know for calling the region "East Turkistan."

      Although I should mention that, on this forum some time back, I already explained a 'hack' to easily get content from many (and in some cases all) of those skipped pages that are not displayed by Google. And, yes, I also have full access to the content on all the particular pages you showed. I had already done this simple 'hack' to display the undisplayed footnote, which was how I knew that the writer of the article you quoted had given a very biased and ill-informed version of events:

      image.png

      The NY Times article admitted that the scientific sampling showed that the Uyghur claims were evidently false:

      "And the region’s Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim people, have hailed the discovery of these non-East Asian mummies as proof of their own historical claims. There is a separatist movement of Uighurs;  . . . But the DNA and cultural analysis support neither opposing claim. (Nor would it matter if they did.)"

      On 8/16/2020 at 12:25 PM, César Chávez said:

      This suggests I use certain information from google books to make a point. I encourage everyone to have a good library.

      By giving away the link to the section you quoted, I was not trying to make it look like you only use Google Books, and I was not claiming that you don't have full access to the book yourself. I was only providing the evidence that the bolding of those sentences was not in the original book, but something you added. And I don't have any problem at all with you, me, or anyone else, using certain information from Google Books to make a point. I think it's great.

      On 8/16/2020 at 12:25 PM, César Chávez said:

      Therefore, I don't have a library to view the politics of nations, I use my intelligence in search of history, and what I can learn from that history that may have a bearing in prophecy. Let me make that abundantly clear for you and TTH. 

      Sounds like a good perspective.

       

    • Sorry about the formatting of that list of links. I started to write, got interrupted, and then just came back to the forum and just now saw the post for the first time in a couple days. I was able to fix it (I think).

      15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

      Is it, any different with what Russia is attempting to do with Ukraine and other Baltic States?

      As for my opinion, I'd say 'Yes, it is different.'

      15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

      The question in geopolitical populace should be, why is China, now so focused on this region? It’s disputed land between Muslims and china.

      Your question and response are very political. However they got to this point, whether it was merely "contact" starting in 176 BCE or governance from the 1st century BCE, it has long been considered to be a part of China. Early Chinese dynastic empires took over by force, brutally I'm sure, long before there was a Muslim religion, even before there was a Christian religion. (The very interesting book you quote from says that Han China sent 30,000 troops in 176 AD to try to squash the uprising of Kashgar, a major city in the region.) 

      15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

      People would need to understand the history of that region, and then simply conclude what China has been doing with disputed lands as to take them by force just as it has been doing.

      Another politically loaded statement.

      Here's an example to consider: Prisons in Texas are considered extra harsh, and the Texas legal system has put more people to death than any other state, and Texas is always among the top two states for school shootings. But we don't typically go back and remember how this was once Mexico, and how the USA took it by force, and how Texas was once an autonomous region. (From 1836-1845, Texas was a separate country from Mexico and the United States.) In other words, to explain certain issues in Texas, we don't say that the United States is still taking Texas by force, just because it once took Texas by force.

      15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

      Uyghurs claimed that the mummies provided inarguable evidence that their ancestors were the first inhabitants of Eastern Turkistan. This claim and the research findings of Western scholars disturbed the Chinese authorities. A minor crisis ensued when the mummies were sent to the United States for an exhibition in 2011

      I noticed that you bolded these three sentences from the book you were quoting (link here). It intrigued me because it made no sense that China would be disturbed to find out that ancestors of Uyghurs were in this part of the world nearly two thousand years before China claimed any interest in it. (Evidence seems to show that Uyghurs themselves may not have come into the region until the 800's AD, but this does not mean that many didn't intermarry after that with those original inhabitants. And China had long admitted that these "ancestors" had Caucasoid features.) Besides, it was China that sent the mummies to the United States for an exhibit, along with other artifacts from the "Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China." China allowed the additional artifacts to remain on exhibit from February to June 2011, but had the mummies returned after less than two months. China said they were fragile and shouldn't be outside the country for too long.

      National Geographic ( https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/intelligent-travel/2011/03/07/4000yearold_chinese_mummies_pr/ ) said that some suspected it might have been about "cultural sensitivities." There is no evidence that Chinese authorities were disturbed by what China was already exhibiting, and have continued to exhibit since 2011.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

      The article in Wikipedia does give a source that explains how some Uyghur separatists were making some questionable claims about the mummies. (Claiming that Uyghurs as a whole, were directly descended from inhabitants of the region from 4000 years ago.) But the research of Western scholars actually disputed those Uyghur claims. The portion of the book you highlighted can be seen as a clever manipulation that juxtaposes the Uyghur claims, evidently false, and the findings of Western scholars, evidently true, which the Chinese authorities seemed to have no problem with:

      "Chinese historian Ji Xianlin says China 'supported and admired' research by foreign experts into the mummies."

      Without taking sides on who is right, you can at least see just how political those three sentences were, made even more so by the fact you highlighted them.

    • Ajit singh, Chinese inv popular, small in comparison to debts africa owes to the west, building much needed infrastructure, jobs for chinese, ... 5g in italy. US is trying  ... aainst free market... if us doesn't want competition, crushes by sanctions.

      Soviet Union unfree .. ? US goes around interfering in other countries. Marshall plan.

      On 8/14/2020 at 1:31 AM, Arauna said:

      I quote from your article link:  Interest-free loans account for less than 5 percent of Africa’s rapidly mounting debt to China, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

      This might be confusing. To make a point, I often try to quote admissions by those whose general goal appears to denigrate China. It's like quoting a kid in a schoolyard who was just bested in some athletic match-up, who says, "As you know, I've always hated Shawna, but I have to admit that at least she played fair." My takeaway from such a statement is that this provides more evidence that Shawna played fairly than if Shawna herself had said she played fairly.

      I saw this chart below re-quoted once with the heading, "Guess which color is China ?"

      Image

      ---

      The link to sais-cari.org (China Africa Research Initiative) in the charts footnote, is related to the same link you would get if you clicked on the words "5 percent" in the portion of the link content that you quoted from. (Actually that particular link is dead in my browser, but you can still find the intended document on Google here. Perhaps it's an update.) It's a document called Debt Relief with Chinese Characteristics by Kevin Acker, Deborah Brautigam, and Yufan Huang. This is the major source for the article in the Foreign Relations site, that I cited above.

      At issue is not the amount of interest free loans, but the amount of loans undergoing a much restructuring and outright forgiveness. The article mentions the much "friendlier" methods used by China vs. the methods of the World Bank/IMF/G-20. Also, it's odd that with such a small footprint of investment, they are still the largest investors in real infrastructure. What are the debts from the other countries for? And, of course, I don't think China is being altruistic, but they are giving that impression.

      A journalist named Ajit Singh has said: "About that so-called "debt trap": China is a tiny source of African debt, yet the U.S. and West endlessly fear-monger about this. It is the cynical propaganda of imperialists who are afraid of losing their stranglehold on the continent." Singh has collected a huge list of links here, although below I will only include those on Africa in general, not the projects listed by specific country.

    • 5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

      China had their own plan to rule the world economically and take the reigns from USA. They were quietly working towards it with long term plans. Subversion and infiltration etc.

      They were actually very open about it. Western countries could share in the Chinese market, and make use of Chinese labor and factories and supply chains only if they agreed to turn over their technology and/or give up much of their long term profits. Capitalists often think in the short term. As you say they aren't good with long term plans. The financial services company I worked for for 20-some years wanted to open up offices in China and we had to consider their offers. (I had to work on statistics and projections for the crossover point of profitability and yearly ROI.) But we knew we had to agree to their terms of giving up our "secrets" so that China could run the same type of company on their own terms, and might even compete with our own company, or more likely, kick us out in less than 10 years and copy what we were doing. In the meantime, of course, we were hiring so many consultants from India, that the two largest consulting companies in India were already using our "secrets" in their own country and with other competing companies in the US where the same consulting companies from India had been hired. (After an Indian company we were using made a big presentation and proposal for some product changes, I caught a glimpse of another company's name in the footer of a page of the proposal. On a shared drive I found several documents from another company where they had worked.)

    • 23 hours ago, Arauna said:

      He worked for NSA and other organizations linked to CIA which made predatory loans to countries which had resources such as oil etc... which USA wanted the control of.

      I have not read the 2005 version nor the 2016 version of this book (Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins), but I have heard people for years corroborate and document exactly what he claims has been done. I have no idea if he himself was personally involved in so much of it, of course, but this has been documented for years.

      23 hours ago, Arauna said:

      America was doing this since the fall of the Iranian government and putting the Shah in his place. ….CIA did this everywhere....also in countries they did not have cooperative regimes.

      I once listened to many hours of the "secret recordings" from the White House phone of Lyndon Johnson. These were once aired on a Cable C-Span channel maybe 20 years ago? I heard some things on those recordings that first made me think that this type of predatory lending was being used "effectively" in the 1960's and prior. I remember having the channel on just as background noise while doing something else, and then I heard the name of a person I had known. In fact, for many years I attended the Congregation Bible Study in his home down the street from 124 Columbia Heights. I also visited and stayed overnight in his home in Southampton, NY, for  weekend summer "vacations" from Bethel. Although the wife and children and some grandchildren were active Witnesses, he himself was not active.

      He had been the best-known president of the World Bank, and special financial consultant to the United Nations, after which he became special adviser to the ruler of Kuwait. His obit in the NYT says that "He also brought a bluntness that disabused heads of state and finance ministers of any notion that he was an international Santa Claus." It also quoted him as saying: "He sought to engender an international social conscience -- a feeling that extreme differences of poverty and wealth were intolerable among nations." And: "I don't think you can combat Communism, no matter how much money you give, unless the money is properly spent." 

      Even though he died in 1992 and his wife died in 2001, for the sake of the grandchildren's privacy (they are friends) I don't want to use the names here. If anyone really wants to know, LBJ finally appointed him to a post, and he was under consideration to work on an "oil deal" with Kuwait, Algeria, UAR, and Iraq after a shipping stoppage. Editorial Note #180 here: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28058.htm

      What else caught my attention was the context, that LBJ was wanting to nominate him for a position with Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert MacNamara. Later LBJ ended up appointing him to start up a special UN-backed development bank for South East Asia to counterbalance the Vietnam fiasco. Encyclopedia.com says:

      In April 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson chose [him] to create a United Nations—sponsored multinational Asian Development Bank to provide investment funds and research staff to Southeast Asian nations, an attempt to deflect criticism of American involvement in Vietnam.

      And guess who got the job as president of the World Bank after retiring as Secretary of Defense? Robert MacNamara himself, of Vietnam-era infamy.

      Anyway, it's well documented what the World Bank, the IMF, and USAID, and others have been doing.

      USAID, by the way, is often presented as non-political by most media outlets, but it's so full of CIA spies and propagandists that many countries prefer to just send them away and not allow them to bring aid into their country. I'll have to look it up again, but I believe that it was a FOXNews or similar reporter was interviewing a State Dept retiree last year, and she was laughing off China's claim that the US was interfering by inciting riots in Hong Kong. She expected him to play along, but the State Dept man --I'll look up his name later if needed-- went off script and said something like, "No. They're right, we are there in Hong Kong. We have USAID there, . . . ."  [and he named a few other entities]. She dropped it quickly, probably for fear he was having a senior moment, and might end up revealing CIA ops.

      Also, I heard John Bolton in an interview upset that China was giving interest-free loans in Africa, employing a lot of local African people, and doing things that were building up friendly relations that made it difficult for us (the US) to make the same inroads in Africa, because their style is so different.

      You can read a lot between the lines here, especially when you know the bullying, imperialist methods that the United States has regularly backed.

      Bolton must be even angrier now at headlines like this: https://www.cfr.org/blog/africa-faces-covid-19-chinese-debt-relief-welcome-development

      As Africa Faces COVID-19, Chinese Debt Relief is a Welcome Development

      This has been a common theme for years as China's economy has been growing. Except in the West, they are not generally known to the rest of the world for using debt as a weapon the way the US and the EU (mostly German banks) have done. You can see this as buying good relationships with countries, but in practice, that is still better than forcing the hiring of US corporations, creating complex infrastructure that requires an ongoing US presence, and then using debt default as leverage in exchange for building a military base, leveraging UN votes, etc. (Western media is always reporting about non-existent Chinese military bases, too, which is another form of projection.)

      After the EU bludgeoned Greece, and threatens Italy and Spain over economic debt, China has even stepped in here. And this is not just a recent development, but goes back to at least 2009. Note: https://theconversation.com/chinas-relationships-with-greece-and-italy-are-deepening-eu-is-reaping-exactly-what-it-sowed-127087

      China’s relationships with Greece and Italy are deepening – EU is reaping exactly what it sowed

      You can watch YouTube interviews with Greek leaders praising China. They have stepped in to help Greece out, for free. And the EU is therefore mad at Greece for not joining them in condemning China on human rights.

    • 3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

      It is not the type of rights violation that they are into. Maybe they should be, so as to be more “even-handed,” but they don’t. To that extent, I guess it is fair to say that they do have Western leaning.

      The Western leaning is often subtle, but not at all surprising. Human rights organizations in the United States are full of idealistic persons who want to publicize what is going wrong in many different places. There are areas where, if one can't get close enough to the situation, one can only expect the outrage to align with the most common version of the story. Hutu and Tutsi, Ukraine and Ukraine/Crimea, Myanmar, Milosevic, Assad/Syria, Bolivia, Libya, Venezuela, China. And, of course, most of the human rights issues that the US is responsible for are often handled through proxies and puppets, or are not seen unless pictures or documents leak (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Libya, Syria).

      But another problem is a less perceptible method following of the West's policies. HRW and Amnesty International once included major sections on economic and labor rights, but these have nearly disappeared from their websites. Especially as the West (with EU and UN support) has increased the use of economic sanctions. Back before the US invasion of Iraq (Libya, etc) there were discussions of violence imposed on other countries, citing appropriate UN Security Council Resolutions. Now, there have been statements (interviews) to the effect that these organizations don't get involved in the causes or stated reasons for war or conflict, but only concern themselves with the conduct of those prosecuting and/or defending the ensuing conflict.

      Another point of comparison will get lost due to the ability to hide abuses that are considered "expected" but relatively minor exceptions to the rule. For example, even if it were true that ALL those suspected facilities in China were actually jails of some sort for a million Uyghurs, then even with the this number, the United States still out-imprisons its people at a much higher rate than China.

      Prison guards, prison officers, soldiers and military officers, and police officers often get caught abusing human rights. I'm sure this happens everywhere. Russia, China, United States. One can reasonably assume that much of this abuse never gets caught. The United States has military bases all around the world, more than most other countries combined. And more soldiers based outside the country than anyone else. The United States has more prison guards than anywhere else, and a larger police force than China per capita. So most abuses will likely be considered a few bad apples hidden in the millons of bushels of generally good apples. Therefore few people think to roll those numbers up to compare all the "bad apples" to any other country's "bad apples." [Now compare this idea with the statistics released by reporters who have admitted that they learned of a bad report coming out of a specific city or region, and then merely multiplied that bad report by a specific factor because they assumed it must also be happening in all other parts of the country in question.]

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.