China: The Global Paradox

In January 2011, Hu Jintao, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, visited the USA to hold talks with the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama. To place an important perspective to this meeting, the current Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, resides incarcerated in Jinzhou Prison for “his part in creating Charter 8, a document calling for greater freedoms and democratic reforms in China.” Ultimately, Hu Jintao holds responsibility over Liu’s freedom, or lack thereof.

So, what were the reasons for the meeting of these two world leaders? The discussion of the meaning of peace, human rights and freedom of press? If you followed the western media, the impression given was that Obama was outspoken about human rights in China; highlighting that “there are areas where we disagree”. But how far did those discussions delve into the deep and widespread problems in China? Did Hu really go to the US to talk about these issues? It seemed that the visit was more about building stronger ties, and this means one thing: $45 Billion worth of export trade deals. So we can be pretty certain Liu will remain in prison.

To contrast, at the beginning of Hu’s visit, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher expressed on CNN: “…the trouble is we’ve been dealing with these people [CCP] as if they’re Englishmen, or Belgians… when in reality, this is a gangster regime that murders they’re own people… there’s no freedom of speech, freedom of press, there’s no freedom of assembly…what you have is the ongoing repression of religion. People like the Falun Gong, who are people who believe in nothing more than a yoga, a meditation, are being thrown into prison by the thousands, and there’s all sorts of evidence to suggest they are being beaten to death in order to steal their organs and sell their organs. It doesn’t get more ghoulish than this, but that also doesn’t touch bases with the suppression of the Tibetan people, and the Uighars, and many other groups in China…the Chinese government is a gangster government…and it should be treated as an adversary, as an anti-democratic adversary.”

So why is there such a disparity in how Rohrabacher would expect the West to deal with a regime like this, and how it actually interacts with it? In addition, if you have watched Transmission 6-10, you will understand just how bad the situation in China really is; in summary, mass Genocide. Would Obama have entertained Adolf Hitler with a view to “building stronger ties”? Perhaps a strong statement for those who are yet to watch Transmission 6-10, but for the lives of those whom have been lost, and the families which have been destroyed in truly horrific circumstances, the stance that human rights in China is a side ‘issue’ that requires resolving is an insult at a best.

One argument is that only through strengthening ties with China can it possibly lead to a change in the regime. To stoke the flames of this debate, let’s agree with this stance. A massive move to build a relationship was to award Beijing with the 2008 Olympic Games, done on the pretext of two very specific promises from the CCP; that they would improve human rights and freedom of press. An incredible promise from the CCP, and an equally incredible achievement from the West for inspiring this change. The IOC recognised it as an opportunity to give an honour to China in return for positive change. Yet, these promises were not kept, and the 2008 Olympics began to parallel the ‘Genocide Games of 1936‘. When it became painfully clear that these promises were empty (literally painful for many millions of Chinese people who suffered a pre-Olympic crackdown to silence them) , the IOC turned around and stated that the Olympics had nothing to do with politics (as if the right to be a human being was a political issue).

…it was an enormous public relations scam…and they got away with the imprisonment of people who were attacking the Chinese record on human rights inside China. Men like Hu Jia, who went to jail for saying “hey wait a minute, what kind of a country is this which is putting on the Olympics in the way that it is, but at the same time it oppresses its own people.” But the fact is, to a great degree, with most people, the Chinese got away with.Jonathan Mirsky, Transmission 6-10 Source.

But, critics to this standpoint would highlight that during his visit to the US, Hu Jintao himself expressed that the country “faces many challenges in social and economic development. A lot still needs to be done in China on human rights.” In the past, Hu Jintao himself has also promised “[China] will continue to make government affairs public, enhance information distribution, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign news organizations and reporters, and facilitate foreign media coverage in China….” So was this another monumental gesture by the regime in recognising that change is needed, or another example that the West is failing to learn from it’s past mistakes? Fresh reports are emerging that the blind human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng and his wife, who have worked against forced abortion and the one child policy, have been severely beaten by Chinese police. This is does not bode well.

The answer becomes even more apparent when we learn that Hu’s speech about human rights was censored by Mainland Chinese State (government controlled) media . In short, they did not want Chinese people to be aware Hu had raised human rights. Does the CCP want real change, or simply portray this desire for change in order to appease critics? However, this may not be the most important question here. Regardless of whether the CCP wants to change, which evidently it does not, does the West really want the CCP to change, or simply to profit from the business opportunities with it? Aren’t both appeasing critics with hypocrisy?

According to a survey in June 2009, the U.S. Treasury owed China $757 billion in long-term debt. According to Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton said of this fact, “how do you deal toughly with your banker”?

The paradox deepens.

In January 2011, Chinese Vice-Premier Li Keqiang visited the UK on a trade mission (mirroring a similar visit to China in November 2010 by the British government with an entourage of leading UK business representatives), securing deals worth over £2.6 Billion. He met with Foreign Secretary William Hague, banqueting at The Royal Courts of Justice. Hague said, “it was a great pleasure to have welcomed Vice-Premier Li Keqiang to the UK…I see this visit as another important step in cementing the UK and China as “Partners for Growth” and continuing to build our trade and investment relationship.” Yet, The Guardian reported William Hague revealing that in the very same month, “China… penetrated the Foreign Office’s internal communications in the most audacious example yet of the growing threat posed by state-sponsored cyber-attacks…” Is this building “partners for growth?” One individuals response to these cyber-attacks highlighted that the UK is probably doing exactly the same to China. Probable yes, but rather than beginning to answer this paradox, this only strengthens the question, “what is really going on?”

Vice-Premier Li also visited Germany as part of his trade visit in Europe, where he sealed $11.3 Billion worth of trade deals. A few weeks later, German federal prosecutors say they have indicted a man for allegedly spying on the Falun Gong movement, in Germany, on behalf of China’s intelligence service. This man is almost certainly part of the 6-10 Office system. “Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a part of the 6-10 Office system, majorly in propaganda role, as a propaganda machine overseas.Chen Yonglin, Transmission 6-10 Source.

Increasingly we are seeing that the further the West delves into it’s ‘engagement’ with the CCP, the sharper the double-edged sword becomes. With trade and investment, the West also has to deal with the glaring fact that the CCP is still, at heart, a dictatorship, and will continue to use all of the tools of one. The partnerships and relationships it seeks with the West are not friendly, and as these windows of evidence suggest, are actually contrary to the “promotion of peace”. Transmission 6-10 believes that only by drawing together many seemingly disparate pieces of information, can one truly open a window into what is really going on in the West’s ‘relationship’ with China.

Transmission 6-10 also predicts that as the West’s ‘relationship’ with China grows stronger, so will evidence of the paradox it creates, so long as information remains obtainable. Given the track record of Western media, it is only by connecting the dots can anyone gain a truer picture of what is really going on in the world.

It isn’t the stance of the T6-10 team that there is an easy solution to all of this, but governments have a responsibility to upholding the most basic moral principles of humanity. The unpalatable truth is that we are all, in part, to blame. We all like to be able buy a plethora of ‘made in China’ products at affordable prices, and we all want our economies to prosper. The CCP provides these ‘opportunities’, but at great cost, both to ourselves and in reality, to the Chinese people.

China: A Global Paradox

In January 2011, Hu Jintao, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, visited the USA to hold talks with the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama. To place an important perspective to this meeting, the current Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo (linked http://www.liuxiaobo.eu/ ), resides incarcerated in Jinzhou Prison for “his part in creating Charter 8, a document calling for greater freedoms and democratic reforms in China.” (linked http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2010/06/chinese-writer-liu-xiaobo-transferred-to-prison-camp.html ). Ultimately, Hu Jintao holds responsibility to Liu’s freedom, or lack thereof.

So, what were the reasons for the meeting of these two world leaders? The discussion of the meaning of peace, human rights and freedom of press? If you followed the western media, the impression given was that Obama was outspoken about human rights in China; highlighting that “there are areas where we disagree”. But how far did those discussions delve into the deep and widespread problems in China? Did Hu really go to the US to talk about these issues? It seemed that the visit was more about building stronger ties (linked http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12223965 ), and this means one thing: $45 Billion worth of export trade deals. (linked http://www.batangastoday.com/hu-jintao-us-state-visit-update-china-and-us-export-firms-agreed-on-45-billion-worth-of-trade-deals/9068/). So we can be pretty certain Liu will remain in prison.

To contrast, at the beginning of Hu’s visit, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (linked http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/19/congressman-chinas-hu-a-gangster/) expressed on CNN: “…the trouble is we’ve been dealing with these people [CCP] as if they’re Englishmen, or Belgians… when in reality, this is a gangster regime that murders they’re own people… there’s no freedom of speech, freedom of press, there’s no freedom of assembly…what you have is the ongoing repression of religion. People like the Falun Gong, who are people who believe in nothing more than a yoga, a meditation, are being thrown into prison by the thousands, and there’s all sorts of evidence to suggest they are being beaten to death in order to steal their organs and sell their organs. It doesn’t get more ghoulish than this, but that also doesn’t touch bases with the suppression of the Tibetan people, and the Uighars, and many other groups in China…the Chinese government is a gangster government…and it should be treated as an adversary, as an anti-democratic adversary.”

So why is there such a disparity in how Rohrabacher would expect the West to deal with a regime like this, and how it actually interacts with it? In addition, if you have watched Transmission 6-10, you will understand just how bad the situation in China really is; in summary, mass Genocide. Would Obama have entertained Adolf Hitler with a view to “building stronger ties”? Perhaps a strong statement for those who are yet to watch Transmission 6-10, but for the lives of those whom have been lost, and the families which have been destroyed in truly horrific circumstances, the stance that human rights in China is a side ‘issue’ which requires resolving is an insult at a best.

One argument is that only through strengthening ties with China can it possibly lead to a change in the regime. To stoke the flames of this debate, let’s agree with this stance. A massive move to build a relationship was to award Beijing with the 2008 Olympic Games, done on the pretext of two very specific promises from the CCP; that they would improve human rights and freedom of press. An incredible promise from the CCP, and an equally incredible achievement from the West for inspiring this change. The IOC recognised it as an opportunity to give an honour to China in return for positive change. Yet, these promises were not kept, and the 2008 Olympics began to parallel the ‘Genocide Games of 1936’. When it became painfully clear that these promises were empty (literally painful for many millions of Chinese people who suffered a pre-Olympic crackdown to silence them) , the IOC turned around and stated that the Olympics had nothing to do with politics (as if the right to be a human being was a political issue).

“…it was an enormous public relations scam…and they got away with the imprisonment of people who were attacking the Chinese record on human rights inside China. Men like Hu Jia, who went to jail for saying “hey wait a minute, what kind of a country is this which is putting on the Olympics in the way that it is, but at the same time it oppresses its own people.” But the fact is, to a great degree, with most people, the Chinese got away with.” Jonathan Mirsky, Transmission 6-10 interviewee.

But, critics to this standpoint would highlight that during his visit to the US, Hu Jintao himself expressed that the country “faces many challenges in social and economic development. A lot still needs to be done in China on human rights.” (linked http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12230982 ). In the past, Hu Jintao himself has also promised “[China] will continue to make government affairs public, enhance information distribution, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign news organizations and reporters, and facilitate foreign media coverage in China….” (linked http://impunitywatch.com/?p=5846 ). So was this another monumental gesture by the regime in recognising that change is needed, or another example that the West is failing to learn from it’s past mistakes?

The answer starts to reveal itself when we learn that Hu’s speech about human rights was censored by Mainland Chinese State (government controlled) media . In short, they did not want Chinese people to be aware Hu had raised human rights. Does the CCP want real change, or simply portray this desire for change in order to appease critics? However, this may not be the most important question here. Regardless of whether the CCP wants to change, which evidently it does not, does the West really want the CCP to change, or simply to profit from the business opportunities with it? Aren’t both appeasing critics with hypocrisy?

According to a survey in June 2009, the U.S. Treasury owed China $757 billion in long-term debt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt). According to Wikileaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/04/wikileaks-cables-hillary-clinton-beijing), Hillary Clinton said of this fact, “how do you deal toughly with your banker”?

The paradox deepens.

In January 2011, Chinese Vice-Premier Li Keqiang visited the UK on a trade mission (mirroring a similar visit to China in November 2010 by the British government with an entourage of leading UK business representatives), securing deals worth over £2.6 Billion. He met with Foreign Secretary William Hague, (linked http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=533076482 ) banqueting at The Royal Courts of Justice. Hague said, “it was a great pleasure to have welcomed Vice-Premier Li Keqiang to the UK…I see this visit as another important step in cementing the UK and China as “Partners for Growth” and continuing to build our trade and investment relationship.” Yet, The Guardian (linked

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/chinese-super-spies-foreign-office-computers ) reported William Hague revealing that in the very same month, “China… penetrated the Foreign Office’s internal communications in the most audacious example yet of the growing threat posed by state-sponsored cyber-attacks…” Is this building “partners for growth?” One individuals response to these cyber-attacks highlighted that the UK is probably doing exactly the same to China. Probable yes, but rather than beginning to answer this paradox, this only strengthens the question, “what is really going on?”

Vice-Premier Li also visited Germany as part of his trade visit in Europe, where he sealed $11.3 Billion worth of trade deals (linked http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3229c2ae-1cf3-11e0-8c86-00144feab49a.html#axzz1DE2ThcFo ). A few weeks later, German federal prosecutors say they have indicted a man for allegedly spying on the Falun Gong movement, in Germany, on behalf of China’s intelligence service (linked http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gA_38Xg0ZmkVJ8GCMQ9TZ3I8Gimg?docId=5812067 ). This man is almost certainly part of the 6-10 Office system. “Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a part of the 6-10 Office system, majorly in propaganda role, as a propaganda machine overseas.” Chen Yonglin, Transmission 6-10 Interviewee.

Increasingly we are seeing that the further the West delves into it’s ‘engagement’ with the CCP, the sharper the double-edged sword becomes. With trade and investment, the West also has to deal with the glaring fact that the CCP is still, at heart, a dictatorship, and will continue to use all of the tools of one. The partnerships and relationships it seeks with the West are not friendly, and as these windows of evidence suggest, are actually contrary to the “promotion of peace”. Transmission 6-10 believes that only by drawing together many seemingly disparate pieces of information, can one truly open a window into what is really going on in the West’s ‘relationship’ with China.

Transmission 6-10 also predicts that as the West’s ‘relationship’ with China grows stronger, so will evidence of the paradox it creates, so long as information remains obtainable. Given the track record of Western media, it is only by connecting the dots can anyone gain a truer picture of what is really going on in the world.

It isn’t the stance of the T6-10 team that there is an easy solution to all of this, but governments have a responsibility to upholding the most basic moral principles of humanity. The unpalatable truth is that we are all, in part, to blame. We all like to be able buy a plethora of ‘made in China’ products at affordable prices, and we all want our economies to prosper. China provides these ‘opportunities’, but at great cost, both to ourselves and in reality, to the Chinese people.