Biden administration says Iran could now be 'weeks away' from having material to build a nuclear bomb.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
The Anglo leadership in Australia is getting nervous and now they're leaning on their pet Morrison to make nice with China or else be replaced.
Problem is, at the opposing end are Cold Warrior types who are looking for a six figure Washington think tank job once they get out of government.
The anglo elites are split, especially where their profits are concerned, this from the leading anglo 1%er broadsheet:
broadsword
Brigadier
Morrison is using "protection of the country's interest" as an excuse to help the US in containing China. This has been the long standing theme of their leadership and they are mostly bipartisan on this issue. The Anglo elites are just pundits and are not going to have a persuasive effect on the leaders. Even Kevin Rudd is acting as a commentator in his personal capacity.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
With this verdict awarding half a million Aus $ to Chinese businessman, Finally Aussi medias should learn their lesson not to throw accusation wantonly and drive hysteria
Chau Chak Wing leaves the Federal Court in Sydney, June 19, 2018. Chinese-Australian billionaire Chau Chak Wing was awarded 590,000 Australian dollars ($450,000) in damages on Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2021, after winning his defamation case over an a state broadcaster's investigation that suggested he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party who bribed Australia lawmakers to make decisions in China's interests. (Chris Pavlich/AAP Image via AP)More
ROD McGUIRK
Updated Tue, February 2, 2021, 12:59 AM
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — A Chinese-Australian billionaire was awarded 590,000 Australian dollars ($450,000) in damages on Tuesday after winning his defamation case over a state broadcaster’s investigation that suggested he was a Chinese Communist Party member who bribed Australia lawmakers to make decisions in China’s interests.
Chau Chak Wing, a businessman, philanthropist and political donor, sued Australian Broadcasting Corp. and Fairfax Media over the joint investigation that was broadcast on the national “Four Corners” program and published in newspapers in 2017.
Federal Court Justice Steven Rares ruled in Sydney that the 45-minute television program, presented by investigative journalist Nick McKenzie, contained several defamatory suggestions.
Two claims were rejected by the judge: that the program accused Chau of betraying Australia by engaging in espionage for China and an accusation that Chau paid a corrupt Chinese agent to assist him to infiltrate the Australian government on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
But Rares found four accusations were proven to be defamatory, including that Chau, who became an Australian citizen in 1999, was a member of the Chinese Communist Party who worked for the United Front Work Department, a secret lobbying arm of that party.
Also found defamatory was an accusation that Chau donated enormous sums to Australian political parties as bribes intended to influence politicians to make decisions in China’s and the Chinese Communist Party’s interests, the judge found.
The ABC and Nine Entertainment, which bought Fairfax Media in 2018, said in a joint statement that they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
The ABC episode, “Power and Influence,” plus associated reports in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers “raised matters of vital public interest around the issue of Chinese foreign interference in Australia’s democracy,” the joint statement said.
“The reporting resulted in an important national discussion about the issue of foreign interference in Australia and led to the landmark Foreign Interference and Espionage laws being introduced in 2018,” the statement added, referring to a ban on covert interference in Australian politics that has angered China.
ABC and Nine said they were considering an appeal. The publishers had previously had their truth defense struck out, leaving only the question of whether the suggestions that Chau alleged had been conveyed in the reporting.
Chau’s lawyer Mark O’Brien welcomed the ruling.
“Dr. Chau is very pleased to have his reputation restored after such a baseless attack by Nick McKenzie and Four Corners,” O’Brien said in a statement.
Chau was born into a poor family in Guangdong province in China in 1949 and founded the Kingold Group of companies in Guangdong in the 1990s, according to court documents.
Australian judge: Suggested China links defamed billionaire
Chau Chak Wing leaves the Federal Court in Sydney, June 19, 2018. Chinese-Australian billionaire Chau Chak Wing was awarded 590,000 Australian dollars ($450,000) in damages on Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2021, after winning his defamation case over an a state broadcaster's investigation that suggested he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party who bribed Australia lawmakers to make decisions in China's interests. (Chris Pavlich/AAP Image via AP)More
ROD McGUIRK
Updated Tue, February 2, 2021, 12:59 AM
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — A Chinese-Australian billionaire was awarded 590,000 Australian dollars ($450,000) in damages on Tuesday after winning his defamation case over a state broadcaster’s investigation that suggested he was a Chinese Communist Party member who bribed Australia lawmakers to make decisions in China’s interests.
Chau Chak Wing, a businessman, philanthropist and political donor, sued Australian Broadcasting Corp. and Fairfax Media over the joint investigation that was broadcast on the national “Four Corners” program and published in newspapers in 2017.
Federal Court Justice Steven Rares ruled in Sydney that the 45-minute television program, presented by investigative journalist Nick McKenzie, contained several defamatory suggestions.
Two claims were rejected by the judge: that the program accused Chau of betraying Australia by engaging in espionage for China and an accusation that Chau paid a corrupt Chinese agent to assist him to infiltrate the Australian government on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
But Rares found four accusations were proven to be defamatory, including that Chau, who became an Australian citizen in 1999, was a member of the Chinese Communist Party who worked for the United Front Work Department, a secret lobbying arm of that party.
Also found defamatory was an accusation that Chau donated enormous sums to Australian political parties as bribes intended to influence politicians to make decisions in China’s and the Chinese Communist Party’s interests, the judge found.
The ABC and Nine Entertainment, which bought Fairfax Media in 2018, said in a joint statement that they were “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
The ABC episode, “Power and Influence,” plus associated reports in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers “raised matters of vital public interest around the issue of Chinese foreign interference in Australia’s democracy,” the joint statement said.
“The reporting resulted in an important national discussion about the issue of foreign interference in Australia and led to the landmark Foreign Interference and Espionage laws being introduced in 2018,” the statement added, referring to a ban on covert interference in Australian politics that has angered China.
ABC and Nine said they were considering an appeal. The publishers had previously had their truth defense struck out, leaving only the question of whether the suggestions that Chau alleged had been conveyed in the reporting.
Chau’s lawyer Mark O’Brien welcomed the ruling.
“Dr. Chau is very pleased to have his reputation restored after such a baseless attack by Nick McKenzie and Four Corners,” O’Brien said in a statement.
Chau was born into a poor family in Guangdong province in China in 1949 and founded the Kingold Group of companies in Guangdong in the 1990s, according to court documents.
It's very telling. They talk smack about China yet want to profit from them. As their saying goes: 'You can't have your cake and eat it too' Either choose a side or don't at all.
This isn't about sides or choosing or the dichotomy within being able to choose or forced into a choice binary like we sometimes treat as the default status in these political allegiances. This was an issue about truth and it's good to see that Australia at least seems to have a truly independent and working judiciary. At least for this case it might be. The broadcasters can appeal if they want but my bet is they actually have so little evidence, even a corrupted and anti-China judiciary would have nothing to go on without destroying its reputation and setting uncomfortable precedents.
The issue with the media is now becoming a topic within Australia with an ex-Prime Minister going in to fight Rupert Murdoch's hell spawn media scum collective. Lol you can probably tell where I stand.
The media within Anglo nations have long been corrupted by some awfully evil forces that pull in multiple ways for their own agendas (sometimes they don't even align perfectly) but it's high time they ease on the slandering, defamation, exaggerations, bias, misrepresentations, and downright false suggestions. When it comes to China these things aren't only done regularly but also to a worrying intensity. Worrying not just for China and Chinese people all over the world but also for the sake of their own decency. A diminishing of collective intelligence on these matters is harmful not only to China but all stakeholders. It's only in the interest of these evil cunts at some top places that they see it fit because they "lose" less by hurting China the most. Any damage done to the west is just collateral to these devils.
Unfortunately it is easy for them because China is easy to fault due to developing status, imperfect everything, most populous pool so many bad eggs as good examples to point out by their media and so on. They use confirmation bias on the snapshot issues but ignore the trends and improvements and literally ignore or dismiss ALL the positives.
Last edited:
New Administration. Same bullshit.
Here is a talk given by Gyude Moore at University of Chicago less than two years ago. It's a good presentation with some interesting stories and tidbits, like the Head of Parliament from an African country requesting a meeting with Nancy Pelosi when visiting the US was turned down because "Nancy only meets with head of state." Yet in Beijing, they got VIP treatment and was given a meeting with Xi Jinping.
One viewer (John Yossarian) of the video wrote a nice summary of the talk in the comment section:
I have written down and paraphrased his main talking points:
- Mr. Moore structured his thoughts under three heading: The Inadequacy of Africa's Previous Relationships, The Suitability of China as A Partner for Africa, and What's Next Going Forward.
- China didn't just suddenly show up in Africa.
- Africa in the 1990's was mired in wars (stimulated by the flow of weapons from ex Soviet republics), diseases (malaria, HIV), and foreign debt (took on by African govts from Western institutions in the 1970's) that brought a lot of humanitarian crisis.
- Because of all that, Western countries looked at Africa primarily through developmental aid perspective. No Western business wanted to invest or trade with Africa (except for resource extraction businesses, I guess).
- In 2000, China invited African governments for the FORCAC (Forum on China and African Cooperation).
- In the same year, Chinese firms were also encouraged to go abroad to seek resources and market.
- At the same time China was also beginning to become the factory for the world, so they begun to seek access to resources at source in Africa. The reason was because China didn't want to depend on the international resources markets.
- So Chinese companies began to negotiate with African governments by offering a completely different model. - 100 companies listed on London Stock Exchange or domiciled in the UK own 1 trillion dollar worth of resources in Africa.
- Western companies come to Africa, pay for royalties and taxes to African government for resources and the governments use the payment to pay for services and infrastructure, etc. - Chinese companies offer infrastructure for resources.
- Africa lacks infrastructure. Especially paved road and electricity. Only 43% of all roads in Africa are paved. 30% of them in South Africa. - Because of this lack of infrastructure. Africa's total share of the global trade in 2017 was equal only to South Korea.
- The Chinese showed up and began to build infrastructures that were not based on the old colonial infrastructure model, which was to facilitate the exploitation and movement of resources from the periphery (the African colonies) to the center (Western colonizer countries) and not meant to connect African countries with each other.
- What China is doing now is to build infrastructure to connect African countries and cities, which makes it possible for regional value chain to develop.
- After the end of Western colonialism of Africa, Western states in Africa were replaced with Western companies that negotiated unfair deals with African governments.
- It was the inadequacies of these deals that made African countries welcomed Chinese companies.
- The suitability of China as a partner of Africa lies in the fact that Chinese companies offer to do projects on lower costs when compared to Western companies.
- Why? Although it's true that Chinese companies sometimes bribe African officials to win projects, but it's also true that Chinese companies operate on lower costs than Western companies without reducing the quality of the work.
- Another facet of the suitability of China as a partner is how the Chinese government officials treat African governments official. Issues:
- Around 2000, Western powers through World Bank created Highly Indebted Countries program through which African countries can have their debts waived. Most African countries have gone through the program or close to it.
- However, in six years some of these countries have incurred new high debt and a big chunk came from China (not the majority). - China's share of total African debt stock is 17%. Most of Africa's debt are owed to multilateral developmental banks and private Western institutions, which is the main driver of debt in Africa.
- There are 54 countries on the African countries. Close to 90% Chinese debt to Africa went to 7 or 8 countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Angola, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo.
- China's role in decimation of wildlife in Africa. Chinese government introduced a ban in 2015 which drove down ivory price by 75%. - China's sale of arms to Africa.
- There is also the argument that the availability of Chinese products makes it difficult for African domestic industries to develop.
- In the year 2000 there were less than 1,000 African students in China. Today, only France exceeds China as destination for African students. China will exceed France in ten years. On the other side there was a conference on Africa at USC in 2018 that had to be cancelled because all African invitees were denied US visas.
- EU's policy towards Africa today is shaped by immigration issue: How to prevent more Africans from immigrating to the EU.
- The new US policy on Africa seems to be driven by the US need to response to what China is doing in Africa and not based on what Africa needs.
- China's presence in Africa has been and continues to be a net positive. The future is unknown. - Between 2000 and 2019, China has waived, restructured, and rescheduled debt payment 87 times.
- Agro-tech is one possible path out of poverty for Africans.
