Archive

Author Archive

Liu Xiaobo: RIP. But we should never forget the 14 million yuan from the National Endowment for Democracy!

July 13th, 2017 5 comments

1. Grants in US$ from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government entity, to «Minzhu Zhongguo» or «Democratic China, Inc.», where Liu Xiaobo is the founder.

2005: $136,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2005/
2006: $136,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2006/
2007: $145,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2007/
2008: $150,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2008/
2009: $213,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2009/
2010: $220,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2010/

Total sum from NED to «Democratic China, Inc.»: $1,000,000

 

2. Liu Xiaobo also received money from National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as president of «Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.»:

2005: $99,500; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2005/
2006: $135,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2006/
2007: $135,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2007/
2008: $152,350; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2008/
2009: $152,950; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2009/
2010: $170,000; http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-2010/

Total sum from NED for «Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.»: US $844,800

 

Total support from NED during these six years is US$1,844,800, which is about 14 million yuan – a huge sum of money in China – where salaries at that time were about 25% of the level in the West.

 

What’s the purpose of National Endowment for Democracy?

The National Endowment for Democracy’s  purpose is to fund individuals, political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) favorable to US interests.

Former CIA-agent Ralph McGehee writes: «… the current US policy of using (rightly or wrongly) the theme of human rights violations to alter or overthrow non-US-favored governments. In those countries emerging from the once Soviet Bloc that is forming new governmental systems; or where emerging or Third World governments resist US influence or control, the US uses ‘human rights violations,’ as an excuse for political action operations. ‘Human Rights’ replaces ‘Communist Conspiracy’ as the justification for overthrowing governments.»

Patrick French writes: «The NED constitutes, so to speak, the CIA’s “civilian arm”».

Norwegian media, Hu Jia and Liu Xiaobo

April 12th, 2017 2 comments

The Norwegian prime minister, Mrs. Erna Solberg, visited China April 7–10 this year. This was the first visit by a Norwegian prime minister in seven years, since diplomatic relations between Norway and China has been frozen – due to the 2010 Nobel peace prize.

Personally I am shocked about how Norwegian media covered our prime minister’s visit.

The Norwegian national broadcasting station (NRK) starts one of its net articles with an interview with dissident Hu Jia. It goes like this: «Hu Jia, one of Liu Xiaobo close allies, is shocked to hear that the Norwegian prime minister is not going to address human rights issues when she visits China. … We live like in the German movie ‘The Lives of Others’.» (Oscar rewarded movie about Stasi during DDR-time)

Also the biggest newspaper in Norway «Aftenposten» and «VG» the second biggest, focus 60-70% on Hu Jia, Liu Xiaobo and the 2010 Nobel peace prize. They also carry attacks on the Norwegian prime minister, «who lacks courage», and (of course) on the Chinese government, who should «immediately release Liu Xiaobo».

Since these news organizations are independent from each other, such a similar way of reporting can’t be coincidental and must be organized. To me it seems that there must be a Nato-connection to the editor or the editorial board.

By the way: In the book «What the U.S. Can Learn from China» by Ann Lee at page 81, she refers a conversation with Michael Massing, former executive editor of Columbia Journalism Review: «Mr. Massing informed me that a reporter and friend of his who worked at the Beijing office of the Wall Street Journal told him that the editors in Washington regularly changed material information and opinions in his articles. Given the twelve-hour time difference, by the time his stories went to press in the West, the editors had found the time to replace all the Chinese interviews with statements from American talking heads who work at think tanks promoting anti-China perspectives.»

It is also thoughts-provoking that the editors of Wikipedia has removed the information on Liu Xiaobo receiving NED-money – information which were there in 2011/2012.

In 2010 I posted an article at Fool’s Mountain, http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/10/08/liu-xiaobo/ . But since the NED-links do not work any longer, I post an update here at Hidden Harmonies:

 

Liu Xiaobo has received money from the American government for years:

1. Grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government entity, to «Minzhu Zhongguo» or «Democratic China, Inc.», where Liu Xiaobo is the founder.

2005: $136,000

China 2005

2006: $136,000

China 2006

2007: $145,000

China 2007

2008: $150,000

China 2008

2009: $195,000 + $18,000 (supplement): $213,000

China 2009

2010: $220,000

China 2010

Total sum from NED to «Democratic China, Inc.»: $1,000,000

 

2. Liu Xiaobo has also received money from National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as president of «Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.»:

2005: $99,500

China 2005

2006: $135,000

China 2006

2007: $135,000

China 2007

2008: $152,350

China 2008

2009: $152,950

China 2009

2010: $170,000

China 2010

Total sum from NED for «Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.»: US $844,800

 

Total support from NED during these six years is US$1,844,800, which is about 14 million yuan – a huge sum of money in China – where salaries are about 25% of the level in the West.

In addition Liu and his staff has probably also received training from the Americans.

 

What is NED?

NED (National Endowment for Democracy) is funded by the American government, and is subject to congressional oversight. The purpose is to fund individuals, political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) favorable to US interests.

The payment from NED to US-friendly groups is not a new thing. Eric T. Hale shows in his dissertation (2003) that during the 1990s, China and Russia were awarded the highest number of NED grants with 222 and 221, respectively. Total payment to groups in China during these ten years was astonishing US$ 20.999.229. His dissertation can be found at: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1105103-140728/unrestricted/Hale_dis.pdf

Former CIA-agent Ralph McGehee writes: «… the current US policy of using (rightly or wrongly) the theme of human rights violations to alter or overthrow non-US-favored governments. In those countries emerging from the once Soviet Bloc that is forming new governmental systems; or where emerging or Third World governments resist US influence or control, the US uses ‘human rights violations,’ as an excuse for political action operations. ‘Human Rights’ replaces ‘Communist Conspiracy’ as the justification for overthrowing governments.»

Patrick French writes: «The NED constitutes, so to speak, the CIA’s “civilian arm”».

Conclusion: In this meaning Liu Xiaobo becomes an American agent. And the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s 2010 decision, since I already had forwarded them the NED information listed above, becomes a political plot.

Important arguments on the South China sea tensions

July 15th, 2016 13 comments

South China Sea tensions stem from the ‘nine-dash line’

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Manila

The South China Sea territorial disputes between China and its neighbours can be partly traced to an internal map published by the Republic of China government in 1947 that included an “eleven-dash line” enclosing much of the waters. China did not explain the significance of the line at the time. It was adopted by the People’s Republic of China government after the Communists came to power two years later. Then, in 1953, China unveiled a new map with a “nine-dash line” that covered a slightly smaller area of the South China Sea, losing two dashes that ran through the Gulf of Tonkin between China and Vietnam.

The US remained silent on the “nine-dash line” until February 2014 when Daniel Russel, a top state department official, said China should clarify its meaning.

 

*Trefor Moss, 12 September, 2013:
Diaoyu/Senkaku islands … administered from Taiwan long before Japan annexed them.

China arguably has a decent case regarding Scarborough Shoal. Here’s one important element of the case: China publicised its claim in 1948, and it took the Philippines five decades to object and counter with a claim of its own. Prima facie, that strengthens China’s claim quite substantially.

 

*On the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA):

From wikipedia:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties. It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency.

1899
The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie.

Unlike the judges from the International Court of Justice who are paid by the UN, members of the PCA are paid from that same income the PCA earns.

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

 

*South China Morning Post, 14 July, 2016:

The Permanent Court of Arbitration rents space in the same building as the UN’s International Court of Justice, but the two organisations are not related.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1989486/united-nations-stresses-separation-hague-tribunal

 

*Members of «the court»:

Most of them come from countries unfriendly towards China – and most of these countries are characterized by heavy American news domination:

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/Current-List-Annex-1-MC-updated-20160705.pdf

 

*One person wrote on the lawsuit process:

… an American-initiated, American-paid, American staffed lawsuit to a private, self-appointed, fee-for-service corporations (with no connection to the United Nations) that is not a real court.

 

*Many «international courts» are dominated by American and Western lawyers. Here is one of the reasons:

From Yale Law School guide (2012):
This guide provides information regarding some of the courts outside of the U.S.—international tribunals and intergovernmental courts, as well as national courts—where current law students and graduates may find temporary positions, paid and unpaid:

https://law.ucdavis.edu/career-services/files/Opportunities%20with%20International%20Tribunals%20and%20Foreign%20Courts%202012.pdf

 

*On UNCLOS

Huffington Post on UNCLOS: China, the Philippines and the Rule of Law

The threshold question really is whether the PRC can be bound by UNCLOS courts and tribunals, including its arbitral panels. The PRC ratified UNCLOS in 1996, but in 2006 the Chinese government filed a statement with UNCLOS saying that it “does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.” These provisions of the Convention refer to “Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions” issued by at least four venues: the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an “arbitral tribunal” which may refer to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and a “special arbitral tribunal.”

While there are venues available for the resolutions of disputes under the UNCLOS regime, the PRC does not wish to be bound by its compulsory processes — the ICJ and PCA included.

The PRC knew this day would come. Its 2006 statement effectively served as a “reservation” against any binding outcome of UNCLOS’s grievance procedure in the future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/china-philippines-rule-law_b_2533736.html

Categories: Foreign Relations, history, media, News, politics Tags:

Extremely biased Aljazeera program

June 18th, 2016 4 comments
Extremely biased by Aljazeera English
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F821Fe2_wBk
If you get the message «The uploader has not made this video available to your country», try http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2015/01/transcript-dr-zhang-weiwei-150130115930963.html
 …
«Interviewer»: Mehdi Hasan (born in the UK)
«Guest»:
Zhang Weiwei, professor of international relations at Fudan University; author of «The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State» (World Century Publishing Corporation, 2012)
In the panel:
Diane Wei Liang, who left China in august 1989 for US and now lives in London; author of «Lake With No Name – a memoir of Tiananmen and love.» https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_drwuQ8o1R0
Steven Chan, professor of international relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London; author of the book «Robert Mugabe: A Life of Power and Violence», https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Mugabe-Life-Power-Violence/dp/0472113364
In the audience:
Amnesty international Asia Pacific director Richard Bennet asking on behalf of «New citizens’ movement» 中国新公民运动 – which in 2014 got NEDs (CIA) «Democracy Award», http://www.ned.org/events/2014-democracy-award/
Rahima Mahmud, probably East Turkestan movement
Here are some comments to the program from Youtube:
«This man is so rude. He don’t even give the guest a chance to speak.»
«… the interviewer in this video is very obnoxious and disrespectful, if I’m Dr Zhang Weiwei, I will tell him: «Your country is advance enough to give you this level of education of manners.»
«The interviewer is very unprofessional. Your job is to ask questions and listen, not to express your opinions and argue with the guest let alone adding insults and condescension to your speech for a subject that you do not fully understand.»
«Quality of the questions are below bar. Typical biased provocation.»
«The whole purpose of this is to humiliate Zhang»
«This racist Indian is not qualified to host event, he is extremely rude»
«Thank you Mehdi Hasan. I’ve learned absolutely nothing.»
«The more propaganda against China by BBC, CNN & now Al Jazeera, the more I admire China.»
Regards Rolf
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Is «the tank man»-story true?

June 11th, 2016 3 comments

"Tank Man"

As we all know – every year around June 4th, Western media has stories about «the tank man» – like then The New York Times first printed «the tank man»-photo, and wrote: «A single man stopping a column of tanks rumbling toward Tian’anmen Square». Similar narrative has been repeated by Western news outlet every year since 1989. TIME magazine even declared «the tank man … one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century».

But is this narrative true?

Read more…

Categories: General, history, human rights, media, politics Tags: