Reports - 40. page

On September 24, Germany’s government-funded international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) revoked Zhang Danhong’s official title as the deputy chief of its Chinese division after her public defense for Beijing’s human rights policy and Internet censorship. Four days before the Beijing Olympics, Zhang hailed the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) practice of article three of Universal Declaration of Human Rights unmatched by any other political force. She also likened Beijing’s blocking of Falun Gong and Tibetan movement websites to Germany’s restriction on child pornography or right-wing extremist sites. She has since been taken off the air by DW. On September 26, 2008, numbers of Chinese scholars cosigned the following open letter to the German Parliament. [1]

Authors: Ah Hai, Zhong Weiguang, et. al.

The Epoch Times, Sept. 26, 2008

This year, after the Federal Republic of Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel met with the Dalai Lama concerning the Olympic Games held in China, the issue of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle (Voice of Germany) at last triggered the concern of the German community.

The editors of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle (Voice of Germany), represented by Zhang Danhong, due to their directly disseminating the social ideology of the Chinese government and reflecting the Chinese government’s requests, have caused attention and widespread criticism from German media, politicians, as well as overseas Chinese media. After the incident, the Propaganda Department of the CCP and its mouthpiece Xinhua News Agency jumped to the front from behind the scenes and attacked with typical methods of the Cold War on the German community, media, and politicians for their criticism to the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle (Voice of Germany) and its vice director, Zhang Danhong, which indicated the seriousness of the issue of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle.

For this reason, as exiled Chinese intellectuals in Germany due to our thoughts, beliefs, and so on, we, with Chinese individuals and groups living in Germany, would like to take this opportunity to publicly express our views to the German Parliament, the government of Germany and the German media on the issue of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle and call for a thorough restructuring of the “Deutsche Welle” Chinese Department.

In our view, due to the special Chinese broadcasting, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has separated itself from mainstream society and become an isolated island in the German community. To a certain extent, its reporting has turned away from the station’s primary objective—to promote human rights and democracy, and spread a positive image of Germany worldwide. It is shown in the following areas:
{mospagebreak}
First, the audience of mainland Chinese think that the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has been seen as the most reliable overseas media by the mainland Chinese government. (See Annex II) We believe that this view is accurate. It manifested in the following:

1. The Chinese media are all under the control of the government. The Chinese government strictly examines and controls live broadcasting. However, in the 2007 Spring Festival, the Central People’s Broadcasting Station live broadcasted the interview with Zhang Danhong, deputy director of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle, indicating that the political ideology department of Chinese government has a high degree of confidence in her.

2 It is well known that the journalists of Western media are subject to rigorous surveillance and even being hindered when they work, travel, or visit relatives in China. However, Zhang Danhong and other Chinese editors of Deutsche Welle have received high-level receptions each time they come to China.

3. The mainland Chinese audience, either dissidents or the general public, think that Deutsche Welle is very different from other television stations such as German TV-1, German TV-2, CNN, Chinese Ministry of France Radio, and other Chinese radio stations, and it is a friendly media to the Chinese government. It is rare for Chinese people to hear from Deutsche Welle the truth that they are eager to know but is blocked by the Chinese government. (See Annex II)

4. Before the Beijing Olympic Games, the speeches of Zhang Danhong in the German media and some reports from the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle were completely opposite to the critical attitude of Germany and the European community to the human rights situation in China and the Chinese government’s press censorship. From the Chinese government’s position, they praised the Chinese government’s human rights achievements and attacked the Western media, the German government’s foreign policy, as well as Chancellor Angela Merkel. (Annex I, II)

5. China’s human rights and the general audience at home and abroad can see that the political orientation, style, and language in some Chinese radio programs of Deutsche Welle, especially its Chinese website, are very similar to that of China’s official propaganda mouthpiece, the “People’s Daily” Overseas Edition. Some important news in its Chinese website, such as the Dalai Lama’s visit to Germany, were taken out of context to mislead the public. The reports on Lhasa, Tibet were entirely the same as the media of the Chinese government. (See Annex III)

Second, before the Beijing Olympic Games, Zhang Danhong and other Chinese editors of Deutsche Welle were so active to safeguard the Chinese government of the Communist Party, but very negative to report civic movements, sounds, and activities of the criticism in the society of the Communist Party.
{mospagebreak}
1. Very different to German TV-1 and German TV-2’s rapid, sharp, and dynamic reports on the civic movements in the Chinese society of the Communist Party, there are few such reports in the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle. In Germany, the reports on China’s domestic and even overseas dissidents, the rights and the groups and individuals with different beliefs are always firstly from the German media.

2. According to the knowledge of ourselves and our friends and relatives in mainland China, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle is very negative to reporting news that the Chinese Communist Party does not like, such as events relate to human rights, democracy, and dissidents. They do not report these as far as possible. When they have to report them, they just forward the reports from other media, with the timeliness, importance, and space greatly reduced. (See Annex II) Such characteristics are most prominent on its Chinese website. There are few words and little news on domestic and exiled Chinese human rights, civic activists, dissident intellectuals, as well as the pro-democracy movement.

3. As “Radio Free Europe” in the Cold War, the Chinese Department of “Free Asia” and “wide” etc., contact closely with domestic and overseas dissident individuals and groups, and often report their views and trends. However, in contrast to their good relations with and reports on the Chinese government, nearly all the editors of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle seldom contact with and report the dissidents, with their political point of view out of tune.

Third, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has not rightly spread the political image of Germany.

As to the Chinese audience, nowadays Germany, like the United States, Britain, and France, is one of the representative countries of democratic society. In particular, the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification have an extremely important historical significance. However, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has not rightly spread such a political image of Germany.

1. As we all know, the Dalai Lama has a good relationship with the politicians of each German party and has a wide range of influence in Germany civil society. The Chinese government has blockaded the Dalai Lama and his worldwide influence for a long time. Chinese society has a lack of information in this regard. The Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has been very negative toward reporting such information. Moreover, we can see that the criticism on Chancellor Angela Merkel from Zhang Danhong and other Chinese editors of Deutsche Welle before the Beijing Olympic Games is not the same as the different views in Germany. They did not discuss how China should do better, but fundamentally support the Chinese government, and attacked the agreement of German government and civil on the Dalai Lama’s principles and values. The reports on their website even deviated from the facts. (Annex III)

From the hostile attitude to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Zhang Danhong and some editors of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle, we can see that on this issue, they violated the purpose of Deutsche Welle and cannot rightly spread the true political image of Germany.
{mospagebreak}
2. The absence of German President Kohler and Chancellor Angela Merkel in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, and the discussion of the German society about how to look at the Olympic Games held in Beijing before the Olympic Games have shown Germany’s basic position as a democratic society. However, the radio and website of Deutsche Welle have not reflected such principled and conditional support, and is also without the discussion of how to promote and support the people in the autocratic country to strive for human rights and freedom.

3. During the 19 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 60 years after World War II, Germany has had a very valuable historical experience in cleaning up, studying on, and discussing the problems of society under the Communist Party and the problems of totalitarian dictatorship, especially for studying on the Communist Party of East Germany, many new events and files have been revealed one by one. These events have had a significant impact on the life of the international community, for example, the film “The Lives of Others,” which has won an Academy Award. However, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has not presented timely, accurately, or frequently to Chinese world the profound, sharp, and historic response of Germany to the society of the Communist Party.

Fourth, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle has a serious problem in its human resources.

The political orientation and ideology of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle are closely related to its personnel issue. So we ask the German Parliament and the relevant departments to get to know and clarify the personnel issue of Deutsche Welle.

1. We heard that certain editors of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle refused to make any interview programs on dissidents and the Falun Gong issue. We request the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle to answer if it is true. It should not be tolerated if this kind of thing really took place in the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle.

2. Is the Deutsche Welle radio station aware that its editors should pay attention to avoiding political and interests? The phenomenon that the editors can come in and out of China freely and become honored guests of the official government departments of the Communist Party can affect the impartiality of Deutsche Welle at any time. In addition, this phenomenon can even affect the safety of the persons inside Deutsche Welle and their family members, who dare to contact with dissidents, and affect the safety of the dissidents both at home and abroad who have contacted Deutsche Welle.

3. Zhang Zhenhua, the father of an important editor of Deutsche Welle, worked in the Cultural Services Department of China’s consulate in Bonn. During his return to China, he reported to the resident committee of Waiwenju Street the information he collected in Germany, saying that Dr. Huang Sifan, the daughter of his neighbor Jiang Xiaochai, is a Falun Gong activist in Germany, and called for measures to keep the home of Jiang Xiaochai under close surveillance. After the resident committee received the report, someone told it to Jiang Xiaochai and asked Jiang Xiaochai and her family to be careful. Ms. Jiang Xiaochai urged again and again her daughter, Dr. Huang Sifan in Germany, to pay attention to those associated with Zhang Zhenhua.
{mospagebreak}
Ms. Jiang Xiaochai is also a Falun Gong practitioner. In 2006, when she was seriously ill in the hospital, she was reported again, and was raided, arrested, and sentenced to three years in detention and probation. She died in the hospital on Dec. 6.

We have heard that the editor has been apparently negative toward reporting any Falun Gong issues and on dissidents. Now she is an important staff member of Deutsche Welle for contact with China. In our view, in terms of protecting herself from being reported secretly by her father, or the possible negative impact she might bring on the safety of people around her, Deutsche Welle has been very careless to employ and appoint such a person, and hasn’t paid attention to avoid many kinds of negative impacts.

In conclusion, in our view, for the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle to become a normal media in Western democratic society, we appeal and request the necessary structural and personnel reorganization for Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle.

1. Zhang Danhong should leave the leadership position (Fuehrungsposition); key staff must be checked on their various backgrounds; make sure of the necessity of avoiding of interests.

2. In view of its facing a society of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle should select professionals who have adequate understanding on the society and the problems of the Communist Party, and persons who have experience on the former Eastern Europe and East Germany. And there is no lack of such people in Germany.

3. Some standards should be set up for recruitment of staff for the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle. It is necessary to check on ideology and the social background. We think that the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle should avoid employing those who used to be members and cadres of the Chinese Communist Party if they cannot prove that they have severed relations with the organization of the Chinese Communist Party Organization.

4. The news work of the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle should be checked on regularly. Persons from different classes of the community, human rights groups, former East German citizen activists, and Chinese dissidents, can be invited to give comments to and identification of the programs of certain days or certain parts of the programs.

5. The news exchanges with the society of the Communist Party directly involve the fundamental issues of a democratic society such as ideology and value. It is fundamentally different from economic exchanges. So the cooperation and exchange between the Chinese Department of Deutsche Welle and Chinese officials should be carried out under strict supervision and control. Otherwise, it will damage the positive image of Germany, the policy of German government, and even the safety of Chinese dissidents!
{mospagebreak}
Signed by:
Ah Hai (freelance writer, publisher), Fei Liangyong (chairman of the Democracy United Front), Gao Qinghong (chairman of Germany branch of all overseas Chinese democratic and peaceful Union), Huan Xuewen Huan (freelance writer), Huang Sifan (free reporter), Peng Xiaoming (chairman of the Chinese-German Student Association), Pan Yongzhong (secretary of the Global Forum on Supporting Freedom in China and Asia), Wang Rongfen (freelance writer), and Zhong Weiguang (freelance writer)

Source:
http://www.ncn.org/view.php?id=73085
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/world/voice-of-germany-chinese-communist-ccp-4769.html

Below are translated comments from Xizhe Wang[1], a well-known dissident from Mainland China, on tainted milk. [2] 

September 20, 2008

The tainted milk scandal has caused a destructive blow to China’s dairy industry and even to the whole of China’s food industry. It has done horrific physical and psychological harm to the health of Chinese children. What is the root cause of the problem then? It is exactly in the unrestrained capitalism practiced today in China.

Question:  Why the capitalism practiced in China today is “unrestrained”? What is the  cause? The answer is the unrestrained government of the unrestrained Chinese Communist Party!

In the past thirty years, China’s capitalism has produced all the past “poison”, all the present “poison” and there is no doubt that it will surely continue to produce future “poison”. The root of the cause lies in the very vicious system that continues to harm the Chinese people and the society. In a word, it is the Chinese Communist Party governing the country without any constraint that has given rise to and developed all the evils of the unrestrained capitalism in China.

China has to develop capitalism. It is only capitalism that can bring out the initiatives of the whole nation to become prosperous and powerful. But capitalism is after all a kind of evil force and therefore must be restrained, for it was established on the basis of selfish and greedy nature of human beings. As it endlessly pursues profit，once it is without or with little control, it would be a very evil thing with “every pore full of blood and dinginess”.

Who can restrain the evil capitalism? The government in power. They should remain an outsider of capitalist operations with the responsibilities of using the power entrusted by the public to guarantee the benefits of capitalism for the people. At the same time, they should do their best to protect the people from the harm that capitalism may bring. But when capitalism seeks power from the governments at all levels, those governments at various levels and  their leaders exchange their power entrusted by the public for operating capital. Then the power entrusted by the public, together with capitalists becomes an organic composition of capitalism to recklessly pursue profit. As a result, both the communist bureaucrats and capitalists have been a personification of capital. Then, this kind of capitalism expands its evils without limit by using its power to guarantee that the evils go unchecked. It always opens green right to evils and stops the dissatisfaction, exposition and revolt from the people. The capitalism of this type is the most vicious in the world, thus it is the most evil capitalism that does not give its people room to breathe.
{mospagebreak}
Then how can we prevent the power of the governments from being hired or capitalized? There must be an independent judiciary system that follows only the constitution and with the power to monitor, inspect and adjudicate, watching the government of all levels. Only when China has this kind of independent judiciary system, can it restrain the Chinese communist government and fundamentally solve the problem of the expansion of a non-restrained evil capitalism.

The door was opened and reform carried out. The capitalism has developed but the powerful independent judiciary system has not been established yet, which has caused a large number of corruption and criminal cases. The problem can be solved as long as China moves toward the direction of a democratic judiciary system step by step, therefore the stability of the country can be maintained accordingly. Many countries and regions have been through such developmental process. But the sad thing here is that the Communist regime does not want to establish such an independent judiciary. In the past, it practiced “centralized socialism”.  But now while it practices free capitalism, it still adheres to centralized power without letting loose any control over anything, not even a little bit of power for its people to inspect and constrain the government.   We all know that a network of checks and balance is beneficial not only to the people but also to the CCP in the long run. Otherwise, the centralized government plus the capitalism could only cause the CCP and the country to be completely corrupted until the country plunges into political catastrophes and tsunamis!

Hu Jintao came out and spoke. He represents the top power of CCP in China. What is his insight? He simply made some cliché remarks and scolded some CCP bureaucrats under him. He said they lacked “the sense of mission” and criticized them as being “insensitive to the safety and well-being of the common people”, so on and so forth. It was as if nothing would go wrong if his bureaucracy had paid attention to “the safety and well-being of the common people”. And there would have been no “disastrous accidents of unsafe production and unsafe food”.  It is simply the issue of carrying out the order and there is nothing wrong with the system.   Hu Jintao has no idea that the bureaucrats, sitting in front of him and dozing off, have already been transformed into capitalists. Their heart has become capitalized. Their “mission” has become the “mission” of capitalist profit. They can only keep the capitalist profit in their heart. They would never put the safety and well-being of the people in their heart.

Perhaps there are still a few “good Party members” left, right? But if they were put in the position of Tian Wenhua, Zheng Xiaoyu, and even Chen Liangyu, then they are driven by the unfettered power to seek capitalism.  They will commit evil deeds as time goes on. This is the “black hole” of capitalism, a power to endlessly seek capital and profit. The centralized power with capitalist system is the evil system that changes “good party members” into evil ones. A man at the royal court of Wu Ze Tian (Woman Emperor of Tang Dynasty) said, “The ghost has come back again!” As long as the evil system that turns men into ghosts exists, what is the point of catching the ghosts and killing them?
{mospagebreak}
Tainted milk scandal has been exposed.  The major turning point would be we understand the problem and find the ultimate solution.  Jintao Hu cannot avoid facing the political system that lies behind the scandal. 

Endnote:
[1]  Xizhe Wang, born on August.13, 1948 in Sichuan, China, male, a well-known dissident from Mainland China.
[2]  Boxun, September 20, 2009
http://peacehall.com/forum/200809/boxun2008b/7615.shtm

Below is a special report by Globe on NED which was published on October 6. [1] Globe is a Xinhua News publication.

By special U.S. correspondent, Xu Deshui, special Russia correspondent, Zhang Guangzheng, and reporter Gu Di

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is no stranger to those who are familiar with international politics. It is known as the largest among up to one million non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the United States and has close ties with the State Department, the IDP Education Pty Ltd., and the CIA. It is considered a CIA alias. Because NED is a NGO, it is unnoticeable. Even Western research reports say, “in providing strategic funds to NGOs, U.S. foreign policy elites consider the NED to be more reliable than secret support.”

Established in the early 1980s, this NGO, which mainly relies on American government funding, has played special political roles in many places in the world. Those in counting include Latin American nations like Venezuela, Commonwealth of Independent States such as Ukraine, western Asian countries such as Iran, and Southeastern Asian countries such as Burma. They have all be the target of its subversive activities or have been affected by “color revolutions.” The NED also repeatedly financed anti-China groups such as the “Democracy Movement,” “Tibetan Independence,” and “Eastern Turkestan,” directly interfering with internal Chinese affairs.

NED Funds Mostly from the U.S.

During and after the Cold War, the U.S. Congress, using the United States as a nation founded on democratic ideals, has always used NGOs to promote American-style democracy, infiltrating its influence in the world. In this, the NED and its subordinate organizations have become important tools. Venezuelan President Chavez has many times directly accused the NED of being a U.S. governmental weapon that interferes with Venezuela. The NED calls itself a nonpartisan and non-government organization, but it actually relies on the U.S. Congress’s massive appropriation for survival. Alan Weinstein, one of its cofounders, described NED’s activities as “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

On the NED website itself, it starts to speak about its founding history but then hesitates. The website’s self-descriptive article says, “In the aftermath of World War II, faced with threats to our democratic allies and without any mechanism to channel political assistance, U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties.[2] When it was revealed in the late 1960s that some American PVOs were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of ‘a public-private mechanism’ to fund overseas activities openly.”
{mospagebreak}
In 1982, then-American President Reagan, in a significant foreign policy speech, proposed a plan to “foster the infrastructure of democracy” and promote democracies around the world. In November 1983, the U. S. Congress passed the State Department Authorization Act, which appropriated $31.3 million dollars to establish the NED. It enjoys tax-free treatment under the American tax law 501(C)3. The NED’s main income comes from American government funding. From 1983 to 1994, it had been entirely dependent on funding from the U.S. State Department. Thereafter, it began to receive small donations from society.

At present, the U.S. government’s funding for the NED mainly includes three parts: The biggest amount comes from the Congressional annual appropriation. Statistics demonstrate in FY2006, Congress allocated US$74,040,000, and in FY2007, approximately US$50 million. In FY2008, the NED applied for a proposed US$80 million. Next, is the Congressional aid to foreign democracy projects. In FY2006, Congress, through democracy funding, gave the NED US$15,250,000 extra. The third is the U.S. State Department human rights democratic foundation appropriation. This appropriation began in 1999. At first it was US$1,650,000 and increased progressively each year. By 2005, it had already reached nearly US$8 million.

The NED, which flaunts the banner of “strengthening other nations’ democratic groups and organizations,” has four major subordinate organizations. Namely the National Republican Institute for International Affairs, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Center for International Private Enterprise, and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.

In addition, it also finances many so-called NGOs, including the Journal of Democracy, World Movement for Democracy, International Forum for International studies, Center for International Media Assistance, etc.

The NED has conducted support activities in over 100 countries and regions. Starting from the 1980s, the NED has successively perverted elections in countries such as Central America’s Panama and Nicaragua. From 1990 to 1992, the NED financed the counter-Castro group, “Cuban American National Foundation” with US$25 million. In Iran, over ten associations have accepted NED aid. In France, the NED financed extreme-right trade unions. In Eastern Europe, some critics say that the NED had invested several million US$ during the 1990s to carry out free trade and shock therapy.

NED Finances ‘Lama Revolution’

China’s democracy and human rights have always been the object of irresponsible talks of some American government officials and organizations, and even more so, for organizations such as the NED, [they have] interfered with internal Chinese affairs through fund allocation, training, providing equipment, and so on to finance anti-China forces such as the “Democracy Movement,” “Tibetan independence”, “East Turkestan” and so on. In 2007 alone, the NED’s total subsidies to China reached over US$6 million, of which the “Democracy Movement” received $2.5 million, “Tibetan independence” received US$450,000, and “East Turkestan” received US$520,000. Australia’s The Courier-Mail newspaper once disclosed that the NED’s funds to the Dali Lama were mainly given to three organizations: the Tibetan Foundation, the International Tibet Independence Movement, and the Tibet Information Network. According to the NED’s own published data, from 2002 to 2006, the NED had provided US$1,357,700 in special support fund to the Dali Lama group. Among them, Tibetan Women’s Association, Gu-Chu-Sum Movement of Tibet, etc. received US$85,000.
{mospagebreak}
On February 27 of this year, the Dali Lama group, Gu-Chu-Sum Movement of Tibet, applied for an emergency grant as funding for activists to deal with dangerous times. The NED once again provided US$15,000 and financed the Dali Lama group in the so-called “Peaceful March for a Free Tibet.” At the beginning of April this year, American international political economist William Engdahl, who described the March 14 incident as the “Lama Revolution,” said, in the article “Washington plays ‘Tibet Roulette’ with China,” “The actors behind the March 14 incident are the usual suspects, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the CIA’s Freedom House,” etc. “Indisputable is the fact that since fleeing to Dharamsala until now, the Dali Lama has been surrounded and financed by the western intelligence agencies and their gaggle of NGOs.”

The article said that the NED not only provides funds to support to the Dali Lama group, it has also flamed and fanned the “Color Revolution” this time in Tibet. This foundation single-handedly controlled every “Color Revolution” supported by the United States, from Serbia to Georgia and from Ukraine to Burma. The article also disclosed that beginning in 1994, the NED started to provide funds to International Campaign for Tibet. Moreover, it also supported Dharamsala’s Tibet Times newspaper and provided funds to Tibet Multimedia Center and to Tibet Center for Human Rights and Democracy. Engdahl believes, like past Color Revolutions, it is precisely through the NED, that the U.S. financed demonstrations in Tibet and overseas, which caused China instability.

The NED’s anti-China funding mainly comes from the State Department’s appropriation, which has a tendency to grow year by year. In 2001, the U.S. State Department allocated an additional US$120,000 to promote the so-called China’s human rights and democracy, and US$508,700 for the Republican Institute for International Affairs to study China’s election, legislative, and judicial reform. In 2002 and 2003, the U.S. State Department allocated approximately an additional US$1,100,000 each year. In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. State Department’s extra allocation had increased to about US$1,900,000 each year. In 2006, the U.S. State Department allocation reached as high as US$3,430,000. The abovementioned State Department appropriation accounts for 75% to 90% of the NED’s funds in these types of projects. Since 2002, the U.S. State Department allocation for Tibetan independence has accounted for more than two-thirds of the NED’s annual Tibet project funding. In 2003, the figure was even higher, 92%.

The NED’s Activities in Venezuela and Russia Exposed

Speaking about the NED’s activities in Venezuela, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Latin American Research Institute researcher Xu Shicheng mentioned to the World reporter The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, a London-published book by Venezuelan-American scholar, Eva Golinger. Xu Shicheng said that although this book is not a record of what the NED has done in Venezuela, the NED’s activities is actually its primary content. This book’s content exposed contents like secret telecommunication between and financial support by the NED to organizations and institutions within Venezuela. Since Chavez established his left-wing government in February 1999, the United States has made all possible attempts to subvert this left-wing political power.
{mospagebreak}
This book disclosed that the NED has operated through the U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela and through three “private” offices (one is the Office of National Republican Institute for International Affairs established in 2000; one is the Office of National Democratic Institute for International Affairs established in 2001; and the third is the office of a USAID contractor). These three offices flaunt the banner of “promoting democracy,” “resolving conflicts,” and “bettering citizens’ lives.” They contacted several dozen Venezuelan organizations, opposition parties, and groups, provided them with activity funds, and carried out a silent interference plan against the Chavez regime. Some NED-financed individuals and groups participated in the April 2002 coup, the December 2002-February 2003 oil worker strike, and the August 2004 forced referendum in an attempt to remove Chavez. During the December 2006 general election, these few American offices, again, tried all means of preventing Chavez from being reelected. Any organizations that wish to join the anti-Chavez campaign will receive US$2.7 million in aid. However, none of these subversive activities succeeded.

For many years, the United States, in the name of promoting democracy and through NGOs such as the NED, has planted a pro-American influence, meddling in internal Russian affairs. A Russian news agency’s September 21 report said, in meeting with spokesmen of public organizations on the 19th, Medvedev said, “This morning when I surfed my favorite Internet, I found my American friends saying that they will continue to support teachers, doctors, scientists, trade union leaders, judges in the RF. The latter was something outstanding for me.” Medvedev said, “What do they mean? Are they going to take our judges for feeding? Will they bolster corruption?” “If it goes on like this, they will be soon choosing presidents for us.” “Things have not developed to the point of Washington choosing the president for the Russian Federation,” he responded the U.S. government “in kind.” Russia’s Far East University’s political professor Alexander said to the reporter in an interview that the NED is a typical tool of how the United States uses NGOs to interfere with other countries’ internal politics. “It doesn’t matter if it’s Russia or China, because [they] are not one mind with the United States, they are all ‘the other kind’ in the eyes of these NGOs and are [their] main attack targets.”

NED Wants to Wash Off its Government Tint

All key NED officials in the past have had governmental backgrounds or had very complicated relationships with the government. Its first acting chairman was the then-congressman Fascell. Its first chairman was the former Secretary of State John Richardson. The current chairman Weber and vice chairman Gephardt are all former U.S. congressmen. Its president, Carl Gershman, who is responsible for daily affairs, is a former senior counselor to United States representatives to the United Nations. Of its twenty-three-member board, there are three senators, two congressmen, five former congressmen and five former ambassadors to foreign countries.
{mospagebreak}
The former State Department official William Blum is a critic of American policy. He was the author of Killing Hope: U.S. and CIA Interventions since World War II. Blum said the NED’s main support is closely tied with the U.S. military or with those political party candidates who have been favorable to the interest of American investments. This organization has never supported those candidates who opposed U. S. corporate investments. American political critic Buchanan uncovered the bottom, saying that the NED had been instigation revolutions in those so-called dictatorial and undemocratic nations, and regularly interferes with other nations’ internal affairs.

An American think tank researcher, Barbara Conry, in Cato Institute wrote in her 1993 appraisal of the NED, the “NED is a foreign policy loose cannon. Promoting democracy is a nebulous objective that can be manipulated to justify any whim of the special-interest groups, including the Republican and Democratic parties, organized labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As those groups execute their own foreign policies, they often work against American interests and meddle needlessly in the affairs of other countries, undermining the democratic movements NED was designed to assist.” The “NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements.” Yet, it is an organization like this that was commemorated for its “important contribution to promoting democracy in the twentieth century” from the United States Congress on its 20th anniversary in 2003.

A researcher from the Beijing University School of International Studies said during an interview with World, because the NED’s funds mainly comes from the U.S. Congress, it uses American taxpayer’s money, and through the Internet one can check its annual project funding. But upon closer examination, one will discover that its total project funding is less than the total appropriation received. This implies that part of the funding is not made public. The NED’s appropriation system is also very complex. Firstly, the Congress appropriates funding to the NED, which then divides it among its four subordinate research institutes, which in turn finance NGO foundations or NGOs. A part of the funding will not be delivered further through these NGOs. Because the funds have been channeled one layer after another, much of the funds have lost its government tint.

Endnote:
[1] Xinhua, October 6, 2008
http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2008-10/06/content_10156377.htm
[2] The Chinese original left out the words “under siege in Europe” at the end of this sentence.

The following is a translation of news report regarding Hu Jintao’s speech at the Central Party School in September, criticizing cadres for lack of “objective consciousness, a general situation consciousness, a sense of hardship, and a consciousness of responsibility”, as reflected in the recent series of food quality scandals. [1]
On September 19, 2008, China News Net broadcast that, according to a CCTV News Broadcast report, the opening ceremony for a special topic seminar for state level main cadres  was held that morning at the Central Party School. This seminar was to mobilize the party to further study scientific development activities. Hu Jintao, the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), State President, and Central Military Committee President, pointed out during the meeting that some significant production safety and food accidents had happened during the year, which had caused significant losses to people’s lives and property. He emphasized that the severity of these accidents and their consequences must be fully evaluated, and some sad lessons must be firmly remembered.

Hu Jintao stressed that since the reform and open policy began, the CCP has emphasized restructuring, and has insisted that the party must manage the party, govern the party strictly, advance the party’s structuring of its magnificent projects, and drive the party’s structure to grow stronger through constant reforms. At the same time, we must see soberly, along with the continuous development of the reform and open policy and socialist market economy, and along with the increase in time, that the party has been in power and the change in the party’s team, and that the party’s self structuring faces many new topics and new tests. The tests of the party’s power, the reforms and open policy, and the development of a socialist market economy are all long-term and complex, and the task of managing and ruling the party is more arduous than at any time in the past.

Hu said that this year, some places had significant production safety incidents and food safety incidents, which caused a significant loss of people’s lives and property. From these incidents, it shows that some cadres lack objective consciousness, a general situation consciousness, a sense of hardship, and a consciousness of responsibility, and that they show an attitude drift, loose management, and that they have slacked off in their work. Some don’t even listen to the people’s voices, and don’t care about those significant problems that relate to the safety of people’s lives. We must fully evaluate these incidents and their severity, and firmly remember the sad lessons.

Hu Jintao pointed out that those incidents told us again that only if we resolved the existing significant problems in the team of the party members, let the party comrades build the party to better serve the people, build the government for the people, always think of the people first, and always care for the people, can the CCP lead the people to strive for the victory of completely building an affluent society.

Endnote:
[1] www.china.com, September 19, 2008
http://news.china.com/zh_cn/domestic/945/20080919/15097074.html

On September 26, 2008, an article in The Economic Observers Network from China, in regards to the new trend in foreign exchange investments of China after the economic crisis in the U.S. The following is the translation of the Article. [1]

 
In recent two weeks, many high-level executives, from a number of the European private equity investment firms, who frequently showed up in Beijing, revealed by insiders. Some of them were invited by the interrelated Chinese government authorities to teach the technical skills and methods of investing in Europe. Some came on their own to search for investment opportunities in Europe.
 
This is a sign of concern. The insider informed the Economic Observers that following the U.S. financial crisis, the Chinese government is expected to speed-up the diversification of its investment of foreign exchange reserves. “The Chinese foreign exchange reserves hold too much U.S. dollars, and exactly they need to be diversified,” outright said Fu Yong Hai, the CEO of Asia-Pacific region, the Wealth Management Research Department of Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS).

The Investments of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE)

As a matter of fact, the pertinent Chinese institutions have previously made many attempts. It began in 2007, SAFE has already held small amount of equities from close to 50 British publicly listed companies.

Since the beginning of 2008, SAFE has been frequently appeared on the list of international companies. This has attracted the attention of the global financial organizations.

On April 15, 2008, a spokesperson, in charge of the global investors’ relations of the British Petroleum (BP), confirmed that a Hong Kong-registered Hua (SAFE Investment Company, Ltd.) a subsidiary company of SAFE, purchased a grand total nearly 1% of the BP stocks. In terms of BP’s market value of the day, the investment from SAFE was almost $2 billion.

Previously, SAFE purchased 1.6% stocks, from the Total Petroleum (TOTAL), a French oil company. The said investment became the hot topic news among the investors. It was stated the grand total investment in TOTAL was around $2.8 billion.

Subsequently, SAFE has become a stockholder of Prudential, the second-largest British insurance company, holding 1% of the equities of Prudential. (It is estimated according to the current market value of Prudential,) SAFE invested about 1.34 million British pounds. It was said that SAFE used a Nominee Account; that is, through a secondary market agent to complete the transactions. After purchasing the stocks, SAFE has become one of the top 25 stockholders of Prudential.

According to the latest news, SAFE holds a small amount of equity, approximately, in50 British public listed companies.

By the end of March 2008, the total foreign exchange reserves have reached $1.68 trillion. The current data showed that they have already risen to $1.81 trillion. SAFE is faced with the troublesome management know-how problems.

Actually, according to the State Council of PRC, “The Three-Fixed Policies,” is one of SAFE’s main responsibilities to manage the nation’s foreign exchange reserves in accordance with the provisions of the foreign exchange reserves management of China.

It was reported in the beginning of 2005, SAFE has been permitted to invest 5% of the foreign exchange reserves in the overseas equity investments. Based on the total amount of $1.5 trillion in the foreign exchange reserves by the end of 2007, the total amount could have been invested were no less than $75 billion. For the present, SAFE has acquired, at least, $6.7 billion of stocks from the U.K. stock market through its Hong Kong-registered Hua (SAFE Investment Company, Ltd.) In actuality, this type of small-scale investment is in line with the investment policy of SAFE, which is to invest for financial returns, rather than control the companies, or influence the stability of the financial market.

The stock holdings from the U.K. stock market, Hua controls less than 1% of the total stock capital values of the companies, the vast majority holdings belongs to 100 (FTSE100) index of stocks, and the rest are from FTSE250 index of stocks.

Lu Ting, the Economist of the Merrill Lynch (Asia-Pacific) Ltd., believed that was a good phenomenon. He pointed out that the mid- to long-term investment of China’s foreign exchange reserves
will move to the long-term, non-U.S. assets, and proceed to diversified investments.

The external environment is also helpful to the changes in investment of SAFE. In January 2008, during the Prime Minister Brown’s visit in China, he bid his welcome to the Chinese Sovereignty Funds to invest in the U.K., hoping the U.K. could become the most favorable overseas investment nation of China.

“Timing is very essential to any investment; furthermore, the evaluation of different asset categories of the investment is also necessary,” said Deng Dade, the Senior Advisor from TerraFirma Foundation. The British Prime Minister’s comments, at least, should be viewed as the British is welcoming the economic investment of China in a positive cue.

Speed-up the Process

At present, the investments, in Europe is similar to that of SAFE, could be expedited in the near future.

The Economic Observers was informed that SAFE is not the only foreign exchange reserves, there are many other forms of foreign exchanges will be investing in Europe, the relevant Chinese authorities are discussing the issues related to such investments. This is a start-up of the selection process.

Some of the European financiers warned China that the Chinese need to be more honest and open in its process of investing in Europe. In the past, the low-profile investments from SAFE and the China Investment Corp had become the target of the “attacks,” from the people outside of their organizations.

Deng Dade, in charge of the state-owned assets management in Sweden, specified, “There is no fundamental difference in the nature between the China Investment Corporation and SAFE in terms of a sovereign wealth fund investment.” “The sensible way is to consult other state-owned organization’s principles of management.” “There are three principles to abide by: To be independent of politics, own self-decision making rights, and the clear objectives that benefit all parties concerned.” “Openness and honesty are guaranteed, and the rules and regulations will lead you to success.” Deng emphasized repeatedly. 

His comments were not without reasons. The Western media, in general, believe that SAFE and the China Investment Company don’t disclose their investment contents to the public. In the past, they even denied the existences of their registered companies outside of China. Their investments are also very difficult to be away from the political ditch.

Kerry Brown, the senior research analyst of Asian Projects from The Royal Institute of International Studies (the Chatham House,) indicated that the people are suspicious of SAFE’s other investment projects. As SAFE is purchasing stocks from the well-known companies in some of the areas, for the aforementioned-facts, the politicians and businessmen in these areas are filled with apprehension.

The Auvitek Financial Consultation expressed, “The proposals to the government investment institutes and the sovereign wealth fund investors show concerns about other investors enjoying the same consultation services. First of all, focus on the specific investment, and the investments in the currency market to bear the risk; secondly, evaluate the assets allocation from a long-term perspective, especially, in the currency and assets types of diversification; thirdly, give full consideration to build up systematic internal control, management system and risk assessment system to ensure that the future investment decisions on the risk and return.

Endnote:
[1] The Economic Observers, September 26, 2008
http://www.eeo.com.cn/eeo/jjgcb/2008/09/29/115028.html

Below is a translation of “Lies and Dissension Regarding ‘The Tenth War’ in Top American Politics,” which appeared in the August issue of Globe, a Xinhua news magazine. [1]

“We create our own reality,” is a classic quote used by American President Bush during the Iraq war. Today, as the Iran nuclear controversy frequent the papers, a reexamination of this quote especially offers food for thought.

“We live in a ‘desert of the real’—an evermore virtual reality where fact and firsthand experience are displaced by media fictions.” Perhaps, the post-modern French philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s description is the best annotation to Bush’s quote, and history is indeed proving this.

From the 1960s until now, the United States waged nine wars. Before each war, the American government and media had to fabricate a set of huge lies.

In order to prevent Vietnam’s independence, the White House groundlessly concocted the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident;” in order to sustain its control of the Panama Canal, the United States condemned President Noreiaga for drug trading; in order to defeat Yugoslavia, the [American] media described the place of exchanging prisoners as the “concentration camps set up by Serbians;” in order to obtain the Middle East’s oil, Iraq unprecedentedly owned “weapons of mass destruction” …

Under the American government’s lie of “safeguarding justice,” it started imperial invasions one after another. At the same time, it also molded “classic example” one after another. If the Iran nuclear controversy should initiate America’s “tenth war,” what “ingenious” relationship actually exists among hegemony, war, and lies?

Reemergence of ‘Fire God’ (Pro-War) Faction

In those years, the new conservatives headed by Cheney had a well-known saying before the Iraq war, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”

In February 2003, just before the American attack on Iraq, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz revealed that the then Under Secretary of State John Bolton blatantly said to Israeli offices that after defeating Iraq, the United States will start punishing Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Five years later, Bolton, who had retreated from Bush’s cabinet but who has been hidden and bearing patiently in the new conservative think tank research institute, again appeared in the news. This time there is only one target—Iran.
{mospagebreak}
Firstly, on June 20, 2008, when the United States was conducting large-scale military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, the New York Times reveal a piece of news that immediately caused a large increase in oil price. The article quoted Bolton, stating that attacking Iran before the next president takes office is possible.

Thereafter on July 15, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Israel, Iran and the Bomb.” In this article, Bolton clamored that the United States give support to Israel to ensure the success of a successful Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear facility. The article point out, “There was a time when the Bush administration might itself have seriously considered using force, but all public signs are that such a moment has passed. But the U. S. can support Israel … we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible.”

Bolton is the main go-getter in the “fire god” (pro-war) faction during Bush’s first term. This nickname represents advocating use of military power, advocating using military power to promote the American “democratic” ideal. Although the former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz have bowed out, Bolton has recently has frequently come to the public again, and his message is of considerable interest.

On July 7, the famed American journalist Seymour M. Hersh published an article in The New Yorker titled “Prepare for War: The Bush Administration Quickens Secret Actions Against Iran.” The article revealed that the United States Congress has appropriated up to $400 million for American special forces to carry out subversive activities and prop up dissidents in preparation for war.

The Double Face of Bush’s Secretary of State

Only July 17, 2008, as Israel and Iran’s disputes around Iran’s nuclear plans were escalating, news from Washington caused a stir. The United States Secretary of State Rice announced that the United States will dispatch the State Department’s number three man, Undersecretary Burns to participate in the negotiation meeting between the European Union’s High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana Madariaga and Iran’s senior negotiation representative Jalili in Geneva on July 19.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper commented that this indicates a major turning point in U.S. foreign policy, and the foreign negotiator faction has won.  However, perhaps like some analysts have pointed out, to pronounce right now the end of the “Cheney Era” is still too early.
{mospagebreak}
In The New Yorker article, Seymour M. Hersh disclosed a heated dispute between the Cheney and Rice factions in December 2007. At the time, the plan to attack Iran backed by the pro-war faction headed by Cheney met strong resistance from part of the Pentagon senior commandeering staff, including chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Michael G. Mullen, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Rice opposed the plan among others. As Bush’s second term draws to an end, the dispute on the Iran controversy between Cheney’s small group and the State Department under Rice has become white-hot.

In Bush’s cabinet, Cheney, who is known as the “godfather” of the new conservatives, is undoubtedly the number one advocate of attacking Iran. Last February, while being exclusively interviewed by The Australian, Cheney blatantly pointed out, “The only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.” Cheney also mentioned many times that a military attack against Iran is a must; there isn’t much time left.

However, some analysts believe that during Bush’s first term, the pro-war cabinet headed by Cheney undoubtedly dominated U.S. defense policy. But during his second term, the foreign negotiators had gained the upper hand. Therefore, they predict Washington will not attack Iran.

However, on July 3, 2008, Rupert Murdoch’s Australian published an article that initiated wide discussions. Senior editor Greg Sheridan, who had known Cheney for sixteen years, wrote in the beginning of the article, “I would guess, somewhere between a 30 and 40 percent chance that the Bush administration will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year.”

What prompted Sheridan to make this prediction was his secret meetings with the U.S. Homeland Security advisor and senior officials in the two prior weeks. Sheridan, who has close ties with Washington, has always been considered as an “insider.” His relationship with Cheney and their prior tacit cooperation in the Iraq war are not news.

Sheridan believes that the policy of Bush’s secretary of state has two faces.

Bush understands that he is unpopular in many places in the world. It is also the case in the United States. Therefore as to some proposals regarding North Korea and Africa, he will, whenever possible, display a side of kindness, warmness, multilateralness. What Rice displays is precisely this side.

Bush also understands that history will judge him based on the result of the Iraq war, so he does whatever is possible to win the Iraq war, and this means he needs to follow Cheney’s suggestions. Rice opposed increasing troops in Iraq, but the plan to increase troops was carried out nevertheless. This is precisely Cheney’s side displayed by Bush’s cabinet.
{mospagebreak}
At the end of the article, Sheridan asked, “[I]n the second half of 2008, does the Rice side of Bush or the Cheney side win the argument on Iran?”

Washington political commentator Steven Clemens seemed to give the answer. In his blog, he disclosed that from 2006, Cheney’s Homeland Security squad had met many times with the policy group of Bolton’s research institute. According to insider(s), Cheney is hastening the deployment of an “outflank policy” to prevent setbacks in the Iran policy struggle. The policy is to use the moment when global society enters into an impasse on the Iran question, and push Israel to carry out regular small-scale attacks against Iran’s nuclear facility.

Cheney’s Global Oil Domain

Recently, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan published a memoir—What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. The forty-year-old McClellan, a core staff member who had been instrumental in Bush’s presidential campaign, alleged in this book that the Bush administration, in order to sell the Iraq war to the public, concealed the truth and launched a propaganda war.

Although that Iraq didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction was a well-known fact, on July 15, when being interview by the Canadian Broadcast Company on his memoir, McClellan revealed another truth: “Certain you can’t discount the large oil reserves inside Iraq and how much that plays into our national security interests and I don’t think you can discount how that plays into the vice president’s thinking.”

In February 2007, Cheney told The Australian, “And that gives them the capability to interfere with about 20% of the world’s daily supply of oil, 18mn barrels a day that flows in the Straits of Hormuz. And obviously a large part of the world’s oil production is within range of Iranian military capabilities.”

In the 1970s, the world’s oil prices rose 400 percent, creating a huge worldwide impact. The then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “Control the oil and you’ll control the nations.” This well-known assertion speaks of the power philosophy of a few elites who have been hidden backstage and who have been determining America’s foreign and domestic policies. Cheney is precisely one among them.

After becoming the vice president, the first thing Cheney did was to comprehensively review and evaluate the U.S. energy policy. From the Cheney clique, although the price and cost of American military control of the security of Iraq oil and of the entire gulf region is high, it determined the entire Euro-Asian and other countries’ future—when oil is controlled, so is potential competitors’ economic development. This is a matter of life and death to Cheney and the new conservatives’ new imperial war.
{mospagebreak}
On the basis of a large amount of demonstrative analysis, the German economist William Engdahl pointed out that in the next several years, most of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves will have been depleted. This is also the motive behind the Bush administration’s great risk in unilaterally attacking Iraq. Engdahl believes that because the world’s major oil fields are close to peak extraction level, an unprecedented energy crisis has already drawn near. Yet, the only region where there is still a large amount of untapped oil that can be developed at low cost is the Middle East.

What Bush calls the “evil axis”—Iran—occupies an unquestionably important strategic position in energy. According to the American oil security expert, Michael T. Klare, Iran will play a crucial rule in the future of world energy. Iran has considerable potential to increase oil production. Currently it produces approximately four million barrels per day, but in the future it can increase another three million barrels per day. Iran not only has oil, it is also the largest natural gas provider in the world. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 16 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves. In addition, from the view point of Washington, Iran is becoming a main oil and natural gas provider to its competitors such as China, India, etc. This makes Tehran of extra importance in international affairs.

Therefore, oil isn’t a simple commodity. As Venezuelan President Chavez had clearly set forth before his first election campaign, “Oil is a geopolitical weapon.”

This consideration has become a main strategic plan of the Cheney clique in the Iran question. According to Cheney’s global oil domain, American control of global energy will be unprecedented. Through controlling existing and potential oil production sites and transportation routes, the United States will decide who will get energy and how much they will pay for it, thus controlling the development process of its competitors and the world.

Deception Mechanism Recreates Reality

Not long after Iraq occupied Iraq, the scholar Edward Wadie Said published an article in Egypt’s Al-Ahram. “Every single empire, in its official discourse, has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilise, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort.” said Said. This is a “classic battle of mind control.”

In order to control popular will and create consensus, terms such as “enduring freedom,” “weapons of mass destruction,” and “evil axis” have been precisely placed among the target group—the average people.
{mospagebreak}
During the Iraq war, through a series of media manipulations, the Bush administration successfully concocted “reality.” In 2004, the New York Times published an interview with one of Bush’s senior advisors, in which he said, “in what we call the reality-based community … [they] believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. … That’s not the way the world really works anymore. When we take action, we are also creating our own reality. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Many people believe that this “senior advisor” is the “Bush-minded” Karl Rove. The role that the former White House press secretary McClellan played in those years was undoubtedly as an out and out member in the plan of “recreating reality” as Rove had mentioned above. McClellan in his memoir described how he and his staff continuously won the “axis of evil” propaganda war—by employing psychological research and purposefully creating terms such as “axis of evil.” The White House, through “labeling,” successfully turned complex regional politics into simple dualism of good and evil, thus creating the mirage of American troops fighting against the “axis of evil.”

A classic case took place before the first Gulf War. In October 1990, three months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, a Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah walked into the U. S. Congress. She cried before the members of the Congress that she had witnessed Iraq soldiers taking thousands of Kuwaiti infants from incubators, and saw them pass away on the frozen floor. Nayirah’s testimony shocked the anti-war American public and ultimately became the main factor in the American public supporting Operation Desert Storm.

After the end of the Gulf War, the “testimony” of the girl was laid bare. Nayirah was in reality the daughter of former Kuwaiti oil minister Al-Sabah. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, she wasn’t at all in Kuwait. This incident later on was boosted as a classic case by a public relations company. Un-coincidentally, the Kuwaiti girl’s father is Cheney’s old friend and an old acquaintance of the former Secretary of State James Baker, who later became a member of the Baker Institute’s board.

The same scenario is playing out. On December 3, 2007, the United States National Intelligence Council’s report pointed out that Iran had stopped the nuclear project in the autumn of 2003. The release of this report immediately initiated a huge wave. The American Alaska Report carried the headline “Bush and Cheney Exposed as Liars” afterwards. Yet, this report that was drafted by the highest U.S. intelligence institution has disappeared in the Washington political circle. According to the American reporter Seymour M. Hersh, this report was more or less openly despised by the Bush administration and was selectively “filtered out.”
{mospagebreak}
Like the commentary in the political satire magazine CounterPunch, “To understand the Iraq war you don’t need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit. The war on Iraq won’t be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold.”

There is a scene in the 1998 Oscar-nominated film Wag the Dog: the U.S. president was involved in a sex scandal. Facing the pressure of the scandal becoming the headline news and the presidential election two weeks away, how should the White House respond? Wage a war! The White House crisis expert was ordered to save the president from the embarrassment. He hired a Hollywood film maker, who shot an illusionary war in Albania in the movie studio and concocted various news clips regarding the war thus successfully diverted the public attention.

Today, who can guarantee that such a seemly preposterous movie will not became reality?

Endnote:
[1] Globe, August 5, 2008
http://news.xinhuanet.com/globe/2008-08/05/content_8968039.htm

On September 24, Germany’s government-funded international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) revoked Zhang Danhong’s official title as the deputy chief of its Chinese division after her public defense for Beijing’s human rights policy and Internet censorship. Four days before the Beijing Olympics, Zhang hailed the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) practice of article three of Universal Declaration of Human Rights unmatched by any other political force. She also likened Beijing’s blocking of Falun Gong and Tibetan movement websites to Germany’s restriction on child pornography or right-wing extremist sites. She has since been taken off the air by DW. On October 1, 2008, Wei Jingsheng, a long-time activist in the Chinese democracy movement, wrote a letter to the German Parliament (cc US Congress and National Assembly of France)

Respectful members of the German Parliament,

The Deutsche Welle (the German Wave) is a broadcasting station fully funded by the country of Germany. Yet, we have learned recently that not only do the Chinese programs broadcast by Deutsche Welle lack attention to Chinese human rights, but also the station even employed a pro-CCP (Chinese Communist Party) person as editor, who would defend Chinese human rights abuses for the Chinese Communist Party.

1. In many countries, there are directly funded broadcasts to other countries. The purpose of these broadcasts is to introduce the political, economic and cultural lives of these countries, as well as propagate the ideologies of these countries. Just like other similar broadcasting services in Europe and America, the Deutsche Welle were born a half century ago as a declaration of democracy against dictatorship. Therefore, Deutsche Welle (DW), Radio France Internationale (RFI), British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Voice of America (VOA) became the important windows for the democratic world to propagate information to the dictatorial countries. These broadcasting services made incalculable contributions to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Europe in 1989. People will never forget that it was you who gave moral support and spiritual encouragement to the people of Eastern Europe during the most difficult time of dictatorial rule, and thus enabled them to crush the dictatorship, walking toward democracy.

2. Very unfortunately, with the ease of the Cold War, especially the development of economic globalization, some politicians and business enterprises of the democratic countries have given up the political and moral support to the people of the developing countries (especially the dictatorial countries), for their short-term economic benefits. Reviewing the programs at DW, RFI, BBC, VOA, even RFA (Radio Free Asia) in these years has often made me disappointed and angry. Some people willingfully support the idea of “economic exchanges to bring political reforms”. They are even willing to accommodate dictatorial governments in an effort to maintain association with these governments, and thus take a low-key treatment of the human rights abuses by them. This approach severely damaged the Chinese people’s confidence for human rights and freedom.
{mospagebreak}
3. Nowadays, the Chinese Communist Party has stepped up its human rights abuses. This increase is already sufficient to prove that the theory of “economic exchanges to bring political reforms” is totally wrong. “To exchange” with the CCP dictatorial government has in fact pushed the CCP to be even more dictatorial, and thus to suppress the Chinese people unbridled. The CCP has been putting the wealth it controls into its armaments to threaten the peace in Asia on the one hand, while on the other hand to play “diplomacy of business orders” in an effort to prevent democratic societies to condemn its tyranny against its people. The CCP uses hundreds of thousands of Internet police for information blockage. Furthermore, the CCP invested a great deal of money to seal or buy out overseas Chinese media in various forms. So this “Zhang DanHong incident” at Deutche Welle is not an accidental incident, but a big exposure of how the CCP has infiltrated the media. After it was reported by the German news media, the CCP promoted an Internet protest movement to fan up Chinese’ nationalism against the West. This is a very dangerous omen. After 60 years of dictatorship by the CCP, social conflict has been increased to such a degree that even the CCP itself has totally given up communism, so only nationalism becomes the open spiritual weapon for the CCP to use. The CCP wants to use nationalism to shift the focus of the Chinese people, in an effort to reduce the social conflict that could explode any time inside of China. People should remember what deep disaster nationalism brought to the world during World War II. Now this disastrous bomb is in the hand of the CCP. And just like before World War II, it has received support by some Western politicians.

4. We have never given hope to a dictatorial government. We put our hope on the shoulders of the Chinese people. However, just like that peaceful revolution in the Eastern Europe, without the wakening of the Chinese people, without the support of the international society, the Chinese Communist government would not make any political compromises. Thus, the Chinese will not be able to peacefully realize democracy and human rights. Therefore, we need more importance placed on the voice of the international society to the Chinese democracy and human rights movement. The theory and experience of human rights and democracy should be the main theme of the international Chinese broadcasting services and Internet websites. Unfortunately, Deutche Welle, Radio France Internationale, British Broadcasting Corporation, Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia have done far less than enough. In particular, Deutche Welle, as an organization fully supported by German taxpayers, went the wrong way. It was supposed that the Chinese people could hear more truthful information from this radio, in an effort to supplement the lack of information and errors due to the blockage by the Chinese Communist Party. But the reality is that, the Chinese government heard distorted voice, a voice in defending the CCP’s tyranny, a voice that was helping the Chinese government to block information and betray its audience, a voice making the Chinese audience to think that the country of Germany is in support of the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party.
{mospagebreak}
German Parliament must give full attention to this “Zhang DanHong incident” in Deutche Welle and give a throughfully investigation of the related personnel and adjust the Chinese broadcasting programs at Deutche Welle as well. Both program arrangements and personnel arrangements must take the principle of promoting Chinese democracy and human rights, with the purpose of being to supplement of the blocked information by the CCP, instead of being a repeat and supplement of the false propaganda of the CCP. Hereby, I am also sincerely hoping that Deutche Welle could be waked up from this lesson, to assure that promoting human rights to be not only the guideline of the German constitution, but also the spirit of Deutche welle. It would not just be beneficial to the Chinese for China to realize democracy, but also beneficial to all the people of the world.

Sincerely yours,

Wei Jingsheng
In Washington, DC
Cc: US Congress and National Assembly of France
[1] The Wei Jingsheng Foundation, October 1, 2008
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2008/report2008-10/GermanParliament081001WeiJSopenletterA413-W223.htm

The following is a translation of widely spread article on Chinese language websites in August. Although the postings on China-based websites have now disappeared, uncensored overseas websites have preserved the posting. [1]
Beijing, China – Today (August 8, 2008) the Beijing Olympics opened. A few days ago, the authorities in charge of news media in China issued several notices to media on propaganda of the opening ceremony, and on rules and regulations pertaining to news reports of the Olympics. The notices emphasized positive reporting and reducing negative reporting such as the protest zone, the Kashgar incident [2], and misappropriation of the Sichuan disaster relief funds and other negative news.

On reporting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, media is required to:

1. Report effectively on leaders of other countries present at the Opening Ceremony who are gathering in Beijing;

2. Report effectively on congratulations and wishes from the athletes from other countries, and guests from all walks of life;

3. Report effectively on the opening ceremony, the torch lighting, and athletes entering the stadium;

4. Report effectively on positive remarks and comments on the opening ceremony both from home and abroad;

5. Report effectively on services provided on the opening day including transportation and security checks, etc;

6. Report effectively on the August 7 press conference (including announcements about the Opening Ceremony, news releases, and feature articles, etc);

7. Report effectively on the August 8 Rogge Press Conference and the Head of State Reception in the morning and the Opening Ceremony in the evening;

8. Report effectively on the press conference of the design and production of the Opening Ceremony;

9. Report effectively on cultural activities related to the Olympics;

10. On each day before 5:00 p.m., file internal briefings on reports from the Internet, including photos and reports, video, interactive discussions from all channels, and new reporting styles and highlights;

11. Establish a designated topic consisting of highlights of comments on the Opening Ceremony. (Positive Comments Only)

12. Provide good propaganda of the two songs on the Opening Ceremony day. Use Chinese red (regular red), make good use of the whole screen and apply other special effects.

When reporting on the Olympic Grams, pay attention to the following items:
 
1. Report the good news only when covering the Opening Ceremony; make full use of the news sources from the News Agency and; cannot use other sources but Xinhua and the People’s Daily for viewing ratings and the commentaries;

2. Do not report the Olympics as an entertainment;

3. Do not report any news on the protest zone;

4. Make effort to ensure the success of every detail, and pay close attention to the poem with hidden message and old photos;

5. Report the cost of the Olympics accurately;

6. Do not hype the selections of athletes;

7. Do not hype and predict our country’s goal for gold medals;

8. Do not hype the issues of the reward, retirement, placement and security of the athletes;

9. Positively report our country’s anti-stimulant effectiveness, standpoints, achievements, and attitudes;

10. Downplay the disrespectful behavior of any individual athlete;
 
11. The news reports on Kashgar Incident must fully comply with propaganda guidelines and must be from “conformed” sources;

12. When reporting the lifting of Internet ban, make best efforts to closely monitor and control live chat sessions;

13. When browsing on the Internet, do not deliberately search overseas websites;

14. The pictures of the Olympics cannot be vulgar or risqué;
 
15. Nie Weiping criticized Lang Ping vehemently. He needs to cool off and be careful in his choice of words when commenting;
 
16. On reporting the economy, the party line is that it is “good and fast,” includes the real estate and stock markets;

17. As regards the interactive aspect of the green channel, comments must be pasted to all without any problem;

18. For example, for emergency reports like in “The Four Men Climbed the Pole,” reporting must be in line with the “instructions.” This applies to blogs and videos;

19. Serious incidents like the two songs should not occurred again;

20. Pay attention to the selection of media reports: There’s a difference between the domestic and the international reporting. “China News Agency” and “The Global Times” are media reports geared to overseas;

21. The National Office of Audit has pointed out that one cannot report on misappropriation of the Sichuan disaster relief funds;

22. Do not over-report Alexander Solzhenitsyn

23. Do not report the attacks made by Western media linking the earthquake to the Olympics.

Endnotes:
[1] Source: http://www.aboluowang.com/comment/data/2008/0808/article_10089.html
[2] Sixteen Chinese policemen were killed on Monday August 4 in Kashgar city, of the western province of Xinjiang in an assault using explosives and knives that the state news agency described as a “suspected terrorist attack”. The attack, which also injured sixteen other policemen, came just four days before the opening of the Beijing Olympics, an event which had already put China’s security forces on high alert including the mobilization of 100,000 soldiers and police.