US Sponsored “Color Revolution” Struggles in Hong Kong. UPDATE: US Target Xinjiang

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
India-and-US.jpg

31 October 2020
The US Alliance with India: Bipartisan Issue of Strategic Importance
By Andrew Korybko

The US’ alliance with India will remain a mainstay of its grand strategy regardless of who wins next week’s elections since it’s a bipartisan issue of the highest importance for its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”).

***
The US-Indian Alliance

Analysts are scrambling to speculate the possible foreign policy changes that a Biden presidency might bring if he wins next week’s election, but one aspect of American grand strategy that isn’t likely to change is the US’ alliance with India. The two Great Powers formalized their military partnership earlier this week with the signing of the “Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement” (BECA), the third so-called “foundational pact” after the “Logistics Exchange Memorandum Of Agreement” (LEMOA) and “Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement” (COMCASA) which collectively improve these countries’ military interoperability. Neither side hides their shared anti-Chinese intentions either, as the author explained at length in his September analysis about how “It Was Inevitable That India Would Seek To Actively ‘Contain’ China”, which is a trend that he’s been closely following since mid-2016 when it was still “taboo” for the Alt-Media Community to discuss it. This trajectory will remain on track for several key reasons regardless of whoever wins the presidency.

Step By Step, President By President

The first is that the American bureaucratic machine has already kicked into gear and is intensely focusing its military, intelligence, and diplomatic (“deep state”) efforts into actualizing this alliance. It will therefore be extremely difficult to reverse this trend even if Biden sincerely wanted to, yet there’s no reason to suspect that he does since he was one of the overseers of the Obama-era “Pivot to Asia” which laid the basis for Trump’s formalization of America’s alliance with India. In fact, it can be argued that Obama — who built upon the progress pioneered by Bush Jr. such as the nuclear cooperation pact during that time — is one of the forefathers of this alliance since it wouldn’t have happened had it not been for his decision to continue his predecessor’s policies in this respect. As such, there’s no doubt that America’s alliance with India is a bipartisan issue for the US establishment.

“Pivoting” From West To East Asia Via The South

Another point to made is that the “Pivot to Asia” naturally transitions the US’ strategic focus from West Asia to East Asia while traversing through the South Asian space between both.


India isn’t just an ordinary country in US foreign policy planning, though, since its demographic and economic capabilities pair perfectly with its geostrategic location atop the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean to make it attractive as a “counterweight” to China. This explains its pivotal importance in the emerging Quad military network of anti-Chinese states, as well as the fact that its location is almost smack dab in the center of the Eastern Hemisphere which thereby makes it more important than any of that bloc’s other members. Neither Trump nor Biden could afford to ignore this unprecedented geostrategic opportunity, hence why they’re predicted to actually double down on it regardless of whoever wins since it best serves their nation’s interests to do so.

India’s Role In Trump & Biden’s China Strategies

While Trump and Biden have different attitudes towards China, that still won’t change the importance of India for their foreign policy visions. The incumbent will likely employ a more aggressive strategy of openly exploiting India as China’s foil in “Greater South Asia” (Central Asia/Afro-Asian Ocean/Southeast Asia) whereas Biden might be “gentler” with his approach out of a desire to reach a “New Detente” with China (whether for pragmatic or corrupt reasons). The Democrat candidate would continue the US’ growing trend of arms sales to that state but might care more about political and economic cooperation with India than any military-driven approach to “containing” China. If the prediction about Biden’s desire for a “New Detente” with the People’s Republic plays out, then India’s role would simply be to keep China “in check” as opposed to actively countering it like Trump envisions. Either way, India still serves a very strategic purpose for both presidential candidates.

Russia Must Urgently Recalibrate Its “Balancing” Act

This fact should be taken into consideration by all relevant stakeholders, especially Russia, which is already intensely competing with the US simply to retain its decades-long dominant position in the Indian arms market. That’s not at all to say that Russia should “dump” India, but just to propose that it must begin seriously countenancing contingency plans in the event that it loses more influence in the South Asian state otherwise it stands to become New Delhi’s “junior partner” and risk provoking an unintended “security dilemma” with China. The author warned about that scenario in his September analysis asking “Is Russia ‘Abandoning’ Or ‘Recalibrating’ Its ‘Balancing’ Act Between China & India?” and recommended that decision makers consider the dual response of reaching out to India to form a new Non-Aligned Movement (“Neo-NAM”) while enhancing strategic relations with Pakistan in order to restore “balance” to Russia’s “balancing” act. Failing to do so might destabilize the central tenet of Russian grand strategy, which is become Eurasia’s supreme “balancing” force.

Concluding Thoughts

No observer should doubt for a moment that America’s alliance with India will remain among its top grand strategic priorities regardless of the outcome of next week’s election. The gears of government are working in unison to promote this goal, which represents the culmination of Trump, Obama, and Bush Jr.’s efforts in a truly remarkable display of bipartisan agreement on a pressing issue of foreign policy significance. While Trump and Biden have different visions of how best to utilize their country’s alliance with India, the fact remains that they’ll nevertheless employ this partnership with increasing frequency to advance their respective goals, be it actively “containing” China like the incumbent envisions or more “gently” keeping it “in check” to uphold the “New Detente” that his opponent wants to clinch during his (or even more likely, his Vice Presidential pick’s) potential term. As this game-changing trend accelerates and increasingly becomes one of the main geostrategic determinants of Eastern Hemispheric affairs, Russia will be forced to recalibrate its “balancing” act with India.


Link:
The US' Alliance With India Is A Bipartisan Issue Of Grand Strategic Importance
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
ESTT342322.jpg

12 November 2020
US De-Lists Uyghur Terrorist Organization Aimed at China
By Brian Berletic

AFP in an article titled, “US removes group targeted by China from terror list,” would report:

The United States said Friday it had removed from its list of terror groups a shadowy faction regularly blamed by China to justify its harsh crackdown in the Muslim-majority Xinjiang region.

In a notice in the Federal Register, which publishes new US laws and rules, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was revoking the designation of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (Etim) as a “terrorist organization”.

The AFP article also claims:

“Etim was removed from the list because, for more than a decade, there has been no credible evidence that Etim continues to exist,” a State Department spokesperson said.

Yet this – according to US State Department-funded sources themselves – is entirely untrue. This includes articles as recent as 2018 from the Department’s own Voice of America admitting the ongoing threat the group still poses not only to China but to the world.

VOA’s 2018 article titled, “Uighur Jihadis in Syria Could Pose Threat,” admits that:

Analysts are warning that the jihadi group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in northwestern Syria could pose a danger to Syria’s volatile Idlib province, where efforts continue to keep a fragile Turkey-Russia-brokered cease-fire between Syrian regime forces and the various rebel groups.

In essence – the US State Department is simply removing a known and still very active terrorist organization from its lists to both politically attack and undermine China further – but to also likely provide more direct support to the group and those affiliated with it in Washington’s widening conflict against Beijing.

ETIM has carried out bus bombings, shootings, suicide bombings, mass knife attacks, and other forms of terrorism stretching across a period of more than 20 years.


It has been listed by the UN Security Council as a terrorist organization for nearly as long and is still designated as such to this day.

A post on the UN Security Council’s official website titled, “Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement” notes that:

The Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement was listed on 11 September 2002 pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 1390 (2002) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of” or “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Al-Qaida.

Similar patterns by the US were seen in relation to proxy warfare waged by Washington against the nations of Libya and Syria. Terrorist organizations like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) were likewise removed from US terror lists despite at the time the group still openly carrying out armed violence.

The US State Department – according to its own statements – de-listed LIFG in 2015. The UK also de-listed the terrorist organization.

Yet as recently as 2017, terrorists linked to LIFG continue to carry out terrorism internationally.

The Guardian in its article, “Reading terror suspect came to UK as refugee from Libyan civil war,” would note:

The backwash from the 2011 intervention led indirectly to the Manchester bombing. Abedi, 22,, whose parents fled Libya in 1994, returned to the country after Gaddafi’s fall in 2011 only to come back to the UK as the fighting continued in Libya. Abedi and his family developed links to the Libyan Islamic Fighting group, an Islamist group that helped oust Gaddafi.

While the US and its partners remove terrorist organizations from terror lists, claiming it is because the threats from these groups are subsiding – in truth – it is because the US and its partners simply seek to aid and abet their violence further and much more directly.

Just as the US and UK used LIFG to overthrow the Libyan government in 2011 and create social division and fear within their own societies from 2011 onward – the US is removing the East Turkistan Islamic Movement for the very same reasons.

The ETIM serves US interests in many ways – from providing foot soldiers for Washington’s proxy war against Syria to carrying out terrorist attacks against disobedient nations like Thailand (the 2015 Erawan Shrine bombing in downtown Bangkok), to creating violence, unrest, and even fuelling separatism inside China itself. The US is not taking ETIM off its lists because it no longer poses a threat – it is taking it off its lists to sharpen this weapon for further use.
Link:
US De-Lists Uyghur Terrorist Organization Aimed at China - Global Research
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
Trump Signs Bill That Could Lead To Delisting Of Chinese Stocks Including Nio, Li, Xpeng, Alibaba
by Gary Anglebrandt



U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a billcalling for the delisting of foreign companies that don't adhere to the same accounting transparency standards that securities regulators impose on public U.S. firms.

Why It Matters: The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act takes aim at Chinese companies and drew rare strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress before arriving on Trump's desk.


The act says delisting could happen if a given company doesn't comply with audit inspections three years in a row.

China's government does not allow the board to perform audit inspections of Chinese companies listed in the US. Audit inspections are performed on other U.S.-listed companies by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, set up after accounting scandals such as the one that blew up Enron in the early 2000s.

Chinese companies listed in the U.S. have been embroiled in financial scandals in the past — including Luckin Coffee Inc - ADR (OTC: LKNCY) this year, which led to a Nasdaq delisting.

link:
Actionable Trading Ideas, Real Time News, Financial Insight | Benzinga
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
B-Trump-Tibet-1024x768.png

29 December 2020
Tensions Between China and India May Soon Rise as Trump Approves Historic Tibet Act
By Uriel Araujo


US President Donald Trump signed into law on Sunday the historic Tibet bill. US Congress had passed this bill on December 21. The Tibetan Policy and Support Act (TPSA), which supports Tibet in key areas, even includes possible sanctions against Chinese authorities should they try to appoint the next Dalai Lama themselves and calls for building an international coalition to ensure such appointment is only carried out by the Tibetan Buddhist community. The bill has bipartisan support and demands Beijing allow Washington to set up a consulate in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. Finally, it has safety provisions regarding the Tibetan environment calling for greater international cooperation to monitor this issue besides providing funds.


The Act also allocates $6 million for Tibetans living in India and 3 million for Tibetan governance, as well as $575,000 for scholar exchange programs, $675,000 for scholarships, and $1 million every year for the Special US Coordinator on Tibet. The Act also extends to Taiwan (another hot topic in the region), supporting its participation in United Nations bodies.

China sees such move as interference in its internal affairs and has responded by announcing it could start imposing visa bans against US officials.

In 1995, the Chinese government arrested Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (aged 6 then) who was identified by the Dalai Lama as a reincarnation of the Panchen Lama who is the second most important figure in Tibetan Buddhism after the Dalai Lama himself. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima remains detained by Beijing, residing along with his family in an undisclosed location since 1995. In light of this incident, there are concerns over the choice of the next Dalai Lama. The current one, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is now 85 years old. From a Chinese perspective, Tibet is a domestic issue and the current 14th Dalai Lama (exiled in India) is a separatist. The Dalai Lama, besides being a spiritual leader for Tibetan Buddhists, is the Head of state of the Central Tibetan Administration in exile based in Dharamshala, India.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin warned last week after Congress passed the bill, that such “meddling in China’s internal affairs” could harm “cooperation and bilateral relations” between Washington and Beijing. Lobsang Sangay (president of the Central Tibetan Administration), stated that the Act sends a “powerful message” of “justice and hope” for Tibetans.

Over 80,000 in exile Tibetans currently reside in India, and 150,000 others live in other countries, especially the US and in Europe.

On November 23, Lobsang Sangay, Head of Tibet government-in-exile, visited the White House for first time in six decades. In October, the US named Robert Destro as its Human Rights Envoy for Tibet, a post which had been vacant since 2017.

The environmental provisions are clearly aimed at some Chinese projects in the Tibetan region. Retired Indian official Amitabh Mathur stated that after Trump signing the bill, “it’s time for India to also follow suit” blacklisting companies engaged in environmental damage through mining and other actions.

The Tibet issue can potentially increase Chinese-Indian tensions, especially after the Ladakh standoff. Tensions are already high. On December 14, Indian Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat commented that there was Chinese development work going on in Tibet but this should not be a cause for concern because India was “ready for any eventuality”.

China in fact plans to build a historic hydropower project in Tibet on the Yarlung Zangbo River, which also passes through Bangladesh and India. New Delhi is concerned that Chinese activities there could have ecological impacts. Part of the Tibet Autonomous Region, controlled by China, is claimed by India: the Aksai Chin region which is part of the larger Kashmir region claimed by India. India has often been accused by Beijing of using the Tibet issue as a kind of bargaining card.

Tibet is also important for China to access Pakistan (a traditional Indian rival) since Beijing has orchestrated the China Pakistan Economic Corridor infrastructure projects since 2013. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor complements the so-called Western Development plan, which includes Xinjiang, Tibet and Qinghai. One could say that in a number of ways, the Tibetan issue lies at the heart of India-China relations and tensions.

US President-Elect Joe Biden dreams of a great US-India alliance – after the new BECA US-India defence deal, and now such dream might become closer to reality. This new development regarding Tibet might place India in a position to be pressured to strongly support Tibet, further increasing Chinese-Indian tensions. As of now, India has its hands tied, so to speak. Should New Delhi take a clear stand on Tibet now, Chinese retaliation would be sure to follow. However, should the QUAD group (US, India, Japan and Australia) in fact become a kind of Asian NATO or something resembling it – as China fears – would India feel empowered enough to pursue such line of action regarding Tibet in the near future?

For Beijing, its interests in Tibet (as well as in the South China Sea) are essential; should New Delhi meddle into it, Beijing will retaliate. Tensions could then escalate, maybe even leading to a new Chinese-Indian war – ironically over the same border issue of the 1962 war.

Biden is expected to continue pursuing a kind of “dual containment” policy on both China and Russia. Nonetheless Biden has signaled, that the US under his presidency will antagonize Russia mainly, trying to isolate it from Europe as a kind of rogue state – while treating China more “cordially”, so to speak, as a competitor while trying to forge closer ties with India and other Chinese rivals to “counter” Beijing. That being so, Biden would be expected to back off from some of Trump’s policy regarding Tibet. However, the bipartisan support for the bill in the Congress, under the guise of “human rights” and “care for the environment” narrative will pressure him into not backing off. So, as is also the case with Trump’s support for Morocco(Trump’s “parting gift” to his successor, as it has been described), Biden might find himself with his hand tied too, in a way.

Once more, a US move has heightened tensions and may also have created a dilemma for all parties involved.

link:

Tensions between China and India may soon rise as Trump approves historic Tibet Act
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
Today’s anti-China hit piece from self-proclaimed ‘left’ cites:
- 3 white anthropologists incl (you guessed it) Adrian Zenz
- HRW China watcher
- Secessionist with NED-funded World Uyghur Congress
- Scary info graphic showing Xinjiang surveilled at almost the same level as the US



 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
Next stage


us-china-696x365.jpg

5 February 2021

Atlantic Council Calls for Regime Change in China

The report outlines a plan for the US to pursue a China without Xi Jinping, with a weakened Communist Party, and operating in a region dominated by the US and its allies.

By Alan MacLeod


Influential D.C. think tank the Atlantic Council has printed a 26,000-word report laying out its strategy for combating China. Published anonymously, the report states that “the single most important challenge facing the United States” in the twenty-first century is China’s growth to rival their own power.

To do so, the report states that the U.S. must use “the power of its military,” the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, and American control over technology and communication to suffocate the nation of 1.4 billion people. It advises President Biden to draw a number of “red lines” past which the U.S. would directly intervene (presumably militarily). These include Chinese attempts to expand into the South China Sea, an attack on the disputed Senkaku Islands, or moves against Taiwan’s independence. A North Korean strike on any of its neighbors would also necessitate an American response against China, the report insists, because “China must fully own responsibility for the behavior of its North Korean ally.” Any backing down from this stance, the council states, would result in national “humiliation” for the United States.

Perhaps most notably, however, the report also envisages what a successful American China policy would look like by 2050: “the United States and its major allies continue to dominate the regional and global balance of power across all the major indices of power;” and that head of state Xi Jinping “has been replaced by a more moderate party leadership; and that the Chinese people themselves have come to question and challenge the Communist Party’s century-long proposition that China’s ancient civilization is forever destined to an authoritarian future.” In other words, that China has been broken and that some sort of regime change has occurred.

Repping the national security state

The Atlantic Council is a NATO-offshoot organization funded by the U.S. and other allied governments, including the Gulf dictatorships. Among its largest corporate sponsors include weapons manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Its board of directors is full of high statespeople like Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice as well as senior military figures such as retired generals Wesley Clark, David Petraeus, H.R. McMaster, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Lt. General Brent Scowcroft and Admiral James Stavridis. At least seven former CIA directors are also on the board. Thus, the council could be said to represent the consensus opinion of the national security state.

The organization has been responsible for much of the most hawkish, bellicose rhetoric surrounding Russia and China for some time. For instance, it has put out a number of studies that claim that virtually every European political party outside the establishment beltway — from Labour and UKIP in the U.K.


to Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece and PODEMOS and Vox in Spain — are secretly controlled by Russia, functioning as the “Kremlin’s Trojan Horses.”

“The Longer Telegram”

The council’s new anonymous report, named “the Longer Telegram,” is a direct reference to American diplomat George Kennan’s 1946 “Long Telegram.” Kennan’s report, sent from Moscow, argued that the U.S. should completely abandon its wartime alliance with the Soviet Union and immediately pursue a strategy of hostile “containment,” and is considered one of the founding documents of the Cold War. By consciously associating itself with Kennan, the Atlantic Council is implicitly heralding the arrival of a new global conflict with China.

Kennan is appreciated among historians for being one of the most straightforward talkers in the national security establishment. In 1948 he outlined what the U.S. position and interests were:

We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population…. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction…We should cease to talk about vague and… unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Biden takes the helm

Throughout 2020, President Biden’s team quietly stated that their entire industrial and foreign policy would revolve around “compet[ing] with China,” with their top priorities being “dealing with authoritarian governments, defending democracy and tackling corruption, as well as understanding how these challenges intersect with new technologies, such as 5G, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and synthetic biology.” The Trump administration had already beguna global campaign to damage Chinese giants like Huawei and TikTok. From his team’s statements, it appears likely that Biden will carry on its anti-Beijing stance.

However, many top officials in Washington see the prospect of a hot war with China as a distant one. “Most of the U.S.-China competition is not going to be fighting World War Three…It’s going to be kicking each other under the table,” one source toldthe Financial Times in May. Others argue for a worldwide culture war against Beijing, including the Pentagon commissioning “Taiwanese Tom Clancy” novels, intended to demonize China and demoralize its citizens, bombarding its people with stories of the deaths of their (only) children.

Whatever Washington decides to do, it appears that the groundwork has already been laid at home. Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of China (and nine years ago it was strongly favorable). Today, the same polls show that 73% of Americans dislike China, with only 22% holding a positive opinion of the country. Thus, it is far from clear that there will be much public pushback at all to a coming second Cold War.

link:
Atlantic Council Pens Anonymously Authored Expose Calling for Regime Change in China
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
ofcom.jpg

10 February 2021

UK Bans China’s CGTN for Being Too Much Like the BBC


The British Office of Communications (Ofcom) has pulled the license for China Global Television Network (CGTN) effectively terminating its ability to operate in the UK.

A Bloomberg article titled, “UK Ends Chinese TV License, Stoking Tensions With Beijing,” would claim:

CGTN had asked for its license to be transferred to an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation, but “crucial information” was missing from the application, and the new owner would be disqualified from holding a license as it would be controlled by a body ultimately directed by the Chinese Communist Party, Ofcom said.

The article would also claim:

Ofcom is required by law to prevent bodies whose goals are mainly political from becoming or remaining TV license holders. Last year Ofcom found CGTN breached impartiality rules in its coverage of Hong Kong protests.

Yet if CGTN was actually guilty of this, and this standard was practiced as an international norm, it would spell the end of the UK’s own British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – British state media that admittedly exists to promote UK interests globally.


Accusing CGTN of Being Too Much Like the BBC?

The BBC’s own website claims:

The BBC should provide high-quality news coverage to international audiences, firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. Its international services should put the United Kingdom in a world context, aiding understanding of the United Kingdom as a whole, including its nations and regions where appropriate.

While there is no doubt that the BBC operates under and to promote British values, it is doubtful at best that those values include “accuracy, impartiality, and fairness.”

Even studies carried out in the UK itself regarding the BBC’s “accuracy, impartiality, and fairness” reveal quite the opposite.

A 2003 Guardian article titled, “Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news,” would note:

Downing Street’s complaints about anti-war bias within the BBC appear to be disproved by an academic analysis that shows the corporation displayed the most “pro-war” agenda of any broadcaster.

Of course, the US-led invasion of Iraq, eagerly promoted by the British state and British state media like the BBC was predicated on a deliberate lie regarding Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.”

The BBC’s lies were promoted specifically in service of UK special interests including corporate-financiers who sought to remove Iraq – as well as other nations – from the list of potential collaborators with a re-emerging Russia and a rising China.

The BBC’s deliberate campaign of lies about Iraq was not its first nor last role in supporting illegal armed aggression around the globe – including armed aggression the British military participated in.

Similar lies would be spread by the BBC regarding Libya and Syria – with at one point in the Syrian conflict BBC staff rode with militant extremists as they invaded Syria from Turkey.

Regarding Hong Kong – an area Ofcom cited as a breach of its impartiality rules – the BBC itself presented one-sided reporting, omitting mention of US government funding behind the Hong Kong protests and deliberately downplaying or omitting egregious violence carried out by the so-called “pro-democracy” protesters.

The BBC’s framing of the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement was also decidedly leaning heavily toward the interests of the UK and far from any genuinely objective assessment of the colonial roots of that arrangement or the duress Beijing agreed to it under at the time.

The West’s Censorship Spree will Boomerang

In reality – shutting down CGTN and restricting other media operations from Eurasia is aimed at maintaining the West’s primacy within the global information sphere as a whole, and continuing its unimpeded intrusion into the information space of other nations.

However, habitually and transparent hypocrisy, coupled with the West’s waning economic and military power, will open the door for other nations to take the UK’s own practices of strangling alternative media within its own information space to finally and fully purge the BBC and other Western state media operations from their own, respective information spaces.

Members of the Western media – who often organize themselves into “Foreign Correspondent Clubs” in foreign nations and operate more like public relations agents, intelligence operators, lobbyists, and agents of foreign interests than actual journalists – have already been exposed in recent years as the public grows increasingly aware of their role in Western-backed political interference around the globe in places like Libya and Syria in 2011, Ukraine in 2013-2014, and more recently in places like Hong Kong, Thailand, and now Myanmar.

Coupled with Ofcom’s campaign of censorship is US-based social media giants purging their networks of alternative media – both independent and state-sponsored.

If allowing alternative voices to speak to international audiences on US-based social networks or to operate in the West is no longer permissible, why are US-based social media networks and Western media operations allowed to operate abroad with impunity? It is a lopsided equation that has long-since needed balancing – and one nations need to – and in some cases already are – addressing.

Just like Western sanctions against an ever-growing list of nations who refuse to submit to the West’s “international order” have ultimately begun isolating the West itself from the rest of the world – the same will happen to its media if the West finds itself incapable of striking a better balance and more respect for the nations its media operates in.

link:

UK Bans China’s CGTN for Being Too Much Like the BBC | New Eastern Outlook
 
Last edited:

The Amerikkkan Idol

The Amerikkkan Nightmare
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,428
Reputation
3,418
Daps
35,955
Top