soc.culture.asian.american

This is a well researched article on US British propaganda against
China.
Chinese readers may want to remember the names of these traitors
mentioned in the article.
Qiang Xiao (=CF=F4=C7=BF), this guy is the most sickening Chinese in the wor=
ld
today. His only equal is Harry Wu (=CE=E2=BA=EB=B4=EF)
All his work is centered around the NED, particularly anything to do
with promoting Tibet independence. Any time they need a chinese to
praise the Tibet independence, eg during rock concerts, he is there to
represent the Chinese.

Wang Dan (=CD=F5=B5=A4)
He travels to Taiwan frequently. Appear on TV everytime there is an
election to promote Chen Sui Bian's DPP. He claim to be neutral but
everything he says is the opposit. Documents leaked out from Chen Sui
Bian's office showed that Wang Dan received secret funding from CSB.

Isabel Hilton (of The Guardian also the BBC) put out huge amount of
lies about Tibet. She is one of the British authors who claims that
Chinese kill 1.2 mil Tibetans.
I ve written several times about her.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

Human Rights and Media Manipulation
=46rom Pinochet to =A1=AEHuman Rights=A1=AF in China


by Michael Barker
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3Dva&aid=3D8465

Global Research, March 29, 2008

When the twentieth century becomes history it will be seen as
distinctive, I believe, for three developments in liberal Western
societies: the growth of democracy; the rise of huge concentrations of
economic power, known as corporations; and the professionalizing and
institutionalizing of propaganda, especially as a means for safe-
guarding the power of free-enterprise corporations against
democracy.=A1=B1 (Alex Carey, 1987) [1]

Most regular readers of alternative media will be acutely aware of the
US government=A1=AFs antidemocratic history. Indeed, according to William
Blum and Dr Danielle Ganser, since 1945 this much neglected history
has seen the US government attempt to =A1=B0overthrow more than 40 foreign
governments=A1=B1, =A1=B0crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements=
=A1=B1 and
provide support to right-wing terrorist (stay behind) armies in every
European country. Unfortunately as most members of the public rely
upon the corporate media =A8C for the most part unaware that a useful and
democratic alternative media exists =A8C they are for the most part
unaware of the extent of this antidemocratic foreign policy (and
perhaps more importantly still they are unaware that they can do
something to change it).

This is not to say that the journalists within the corporate media
suffer from amnesia: indeed, with regard to the coverage of the death
of Chile=A1=AFs former dictator, Augusto Pinochet (in 2006), an exchange
between British-based media watchdog, Media Lens, and The Guardian=A1=AFs
(UK) Isabel Hilton, illustrates that, in spite of their reporting,
many journalists are well aware of the US=A1=AFs antidemocratic history.
Responding to Hilton=A1=AFs article recalling Pinochet=A1=AFs life and death=
,
Media Lens wrote to her, suggesting that the =A1=B0real shock value=A1=B1 of=

Pinochet=A1=AFs rise to power =A1=B0lies in the fact that the United States
organised the coup=A1=B1. Media Lens challenged Hilton about this,
asserting that =A1=B0not a word in your article even hinted at it. Why
not?=A1=B1 Hilton=A1=AFs full response was:

=A1=B0There is never room to say everything in a rather short article and I
have written about the US role many times. Is it surprising or
shocking that the US played a central role? Hardly. The US had played
that role in coups all over the sub continent for some time, (for me
the worst was the one against Arbenz -- worse for its long term
effect) their role in Chile was not surprising for anyone who followed
Latin American events, and the shock factor had long since worn off.=A1=B1

Given her evident knowledge of American history it is strange that
regular consumers of British corporate media are still shocked when
they first learn of the US=A1=AFs antidemocratic role in Chile; a subject
that recently gained widespread attention in John Pilger=A1=AFs excellent
documentary The War on Democracy. Thus Media Lens replied to Hilton:

=A1=B0Yes, you know that, but do your readers? In fact journalists
generally refer to the US role in Pinochet's coup in vague terms (as
in current reporting) =A8C the details and motives are rarely discussed.
As for the wider US pattern of forcibly subordinating people to
profit, this is essentially a taboo subject for the media.=A1=B1

Media Lens received no further response from Hilton.

While Hilton may not be shocked by the antidemocratic nature of the
US=A1=AFs involvement in Chile, I remain shocked by the CIA=A1=AFs brutal
intervention. Moreover, I am equally shocked by the ongoing
antidemocratic work of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) =A8C an
Orwellian =A1=AEnongovernmental organization=A1=AF that was formed in the ea=
rly
1980s to wage the cultural cold war that was formerly fought by the
CIA. William Colby, who directed the CIA from 1973 until 1976, noted
that the beauty of the NED=A1=AFs PR-friendly approach to imperialism is
that: =A1=B0It is not necessary to turn to the covert approach. Many of the
programs which=A1=AD were conducted as covert operations [can now be]
conducted quite openly, and consequentially, without controversy.=A1=B1

Professor William I. Robinson has described this rhetorical shift in
US foreign policy =A8C from CIA to NED (and CIA) =A8C in much detail; most
notably in his seminal book Promoting Polyarchy (1996). With regard to
Chile, Robinson highlights how with NED aid Patricio Aylwin rose to
the Chilean presidency in 1990 a fitting reward for an individual who
worked with the CIA to play a critical role in facilitating the 1973
military coup. As Robinson observes:

=A1=B0The Chilean coup was part of a pattern in Latin America of military
takeovers in the 1960s and 1970s with U.S. approval and often active
assistance, in the face of mass struggles that broke out everywhere
against the prevailing social and economic inequalities and highly
restricted political systems. But Washington abruptly switched tracks
in the mid-1980s and began to =A1=AEpromote democracy=A1=AF in Latin America=
and
around the world. In Chile, Aylwin and his party once again received
U.S. assistance, this time as part of a =A1=AEdemocracy promotion=A1=AF prog=
ram
channelled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the
U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), which would help
Aylwin become president. Ironically, the return to power in 1990 of
Aylwin and the party that openly participated in the 1973 military
coup was projected around the world as the culmination of a
=A1=AEdemocratic revolution=A1=AF sweeping Latin America.=A1=B1

Understanding this shift of =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF aid from the CIA to the N=
ED
is critical to understanding the nature of contemporary imperialism,
but unfortunately it is a shift that for the most part has remained
unchallenged (in both the corporate media and alternative media alike)
=A8C for a discussion of The New York Times=A1=AF coverage of the NED see
here. Consequently it is not surprising that critical attention has
not turned to the activities of the NED in China =A8C either in the
mainstream or alternative press =A8C despite the fact that in 2006 the
NED distributed $5.7 million of grants to China-related groups. This
sum is more significant because the NED is active in =A1=B0over 90
countries=A1=B1 and in 2006 they distributed a total of $94 million to
groups all over the world, which means that in 2006 Chinese groups
received a massive six percent of their total grants. [2]

In order to begin to remedy this information deficit surrounding the
work of the NED in China, this article examines the =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF
background of one group that obtained excellent access to both the
alternative and corporate media, this group is Human Rights in China.

=A1=AEHuman Rights=A1=AF in China

Human Rights in China (HRIC) was founded in 1989, and according to
their website they are an =A1=B0international, Chinese, non-governmental
organisation with a mission to promote universally recognised human
rights and advance the institutional protection of these rights in the
People=A1=AFs Republic of China (China).=A1=B1 According to the NED=A1=AFs s=
enior
program officer for Asia, Louisa Coan Greve, =A1=B0Human Rights in China is
considered as reliable as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
as a source of accurate human rights information.=A1=B1 Moreover, despite
the fact Human Rights in China have received ongoing support from the
NED, one of their reports (from 1997) disingenuously notes that their
work is =A1=B0independent of any political groups or governments.=A1=B1 [3]

According to the NED=A1=AFs project database, Human Rights in China
received their first NED grant in 1992 (which was worth $74,000) to
=A1=B0support a Legal Education and Assistance Project that provides legal
advice and support for prisoners of conscience and victims of
political persecution in China=A1=B1. [4] This legal project then received
a further $120,000 in 1993, and another $155,000 the ensuing year. On
top of this $155,000 grant, they obtained an additional $20,000 in
1994 to help them prepare for the UN World Conference on Women which
was held in Beijing in September 1995.

In 1995, as a result of Human Rights in China=A1=AFs =A1=B0emergency respons=
e to
the =A1=AEMay crackdown=A1=AF in Beijing=A1=B1 they received a supplement NE=
D grant
worth $10,000 for its Human Rights Education and Assistance Project.
They also obtained $25,000 for its Women's Rights Assessment Project,
and a further $140,000 to produce their twice-monthly radio program,
and to help them engage =A1=B0with international NGOs, the media,
governments and intergovernmental bodies to maintain pressure on the
Chinese government to improve its human rights record.=A1=B1

Human Rights in China obtained continued NED support in 1996 and 1997,
and in 2001 they received a grant to allow them to publish their
quarterly journal China Rights Forum and maintain a web site. Since
2000, Human Rights in China have been given a further five NED grants
worth a total of $1.8 million =A8C which have increased in size each year
(the largest being their most recent $0.5 million grant). [5]

=A1=AEDemocratic=A1=AF Directors

Human Rights in China (HRIC) work appears to be closely related to
that undertaken by it=A1=AFs better known counterpart, Human Rights Watch,
as Robert L. Bernstein, the founder and former chair of Human Rights
Watch is currently the chair of HRIC=A1=AFs board of directors (he is also
a member of the national council of the =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF Human Rights
First). Not surprisingly Human Rights Watch and HRIC regularly work
together to publish human rights reports, which is fitting as
extremely close ties exist between Human Rights Watch and the global
democracy manipulators (like the NED).(For further details see,
Hijacking Human Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watch=A1=AFs
Americas Branch and their Links to the =A1=AEDemocracy=A1=AF Establishment.)=


The founder of Human Rights in China, Fu Xinyuan, is Associate
Professor of Pathology at Yale University School of Medicine; he also
sits on the advisory board of the Israel Science Foundation (which is
=A1=B0Israel=A1=AFs predominant source of competitive grants funding for bas=
ic
research=A1=B1). [6] Ironically, in 2005, The Guardian (UK) reported that
foreign grant reviewers were boycotting the Israel Science Foundation
due to the Israeli government=A1=AFs human rights violations.

Since 2002, Human Rights in China=A1=AFs executive director has been Sharon
Hom =A8C an individual who also serves as a member of Human Rights
Watch=A1=AFs Asia Advisory Committee, and is an emerita professor of law at
the City University of New York School of Law. Prior to Hom=A1=AFs
appointment to Human Rights in China, the organization=A1=AFs longstanding
executive director =A8C from 1991 to 2002 =A8C was Qiang Xiao, who was
formerly the vice-chair of the steering committee of the NED-initiated
World Movement for Democracy, and presently acts as the director of
the China Internet Project (at the University of California at
Berkeley), sits on the board of advisors for the NED-funded
International Campaign for Tibet, and is the chief editor of China
Digital Times.

The China Digital Times (formerly the China Digital News) at which
Qiang Xiao is chief editor, describes itself as a =A1=B0collaborative news
website covering China=A1=AFs social and political transition and its
emerging role in the world.=A1=B1 The project receives funding from the
MacArthur Foundation amongst others, and their executive editor,
Sophie Beach, was formerly a senior research associate for Asia at the
=A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF Committee to Protect Journalists. In addition, the ch=
air
of the China Digital Times advisory board is Orville Schell who is an
emeritus board member of Human Rights Watch and a vice chair of their
Asia Advisory Committee, is a director of the =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF Nationa=
l
Committee on United States-China Relations, a member of the core
founding group of the Dalai Lama Foundation (a group whose president,
Tenzin Tethong, is also the founder of the NED-funded Tibet Fund), and
has worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia. In 2004 (at least)
Schell was a director of Human Rights in China, and he also acts a
member of the elite planning group, the Council on Foreign Relations,
is the founder of the Pacific News Service, and ironically serves on
the advisory board of the Center for Investigative Reporting. Finally,
John Gage, another member of China Digital Times=A1=AF advisory board with
strong =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF ties, currently serves on the advisory board o=
f
the deceptively named US Institute of Peace (the NED=A1=AFs sister
organization), and is a director of Relief International.

Returning to Human Rights in China, although their website provides no
current list of their staff or directors (one is available for 2004,
see here), a basic internet search has shown that the following people
act as their directors:

=A1=A4 Andrew J. Nathan =A8C who is a trustee of Freedom House, a director=

of the NED-funded Center for Modern China, a member of the editorial
board of the NED=A1=AFs Journal of Democracy, the former Director of the
Weatherhead East Asian Institute where he is presently a faculty
member, is a member of Human Right Watch=A1=AFs Asia Advisory Committee =A8C=

where he was chair from 1995 to 2000, and is a member of the both the
Council on Foreign Relations and the National Committee on United
States-China Relations

=A1=A4 R. Scott Greathead =A8C who is also a founder and director of Human=

Rights First , and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations

=A1=A4 Harold Hongju Koh Koh =A8C who was the assistant secretary of state=

for democracy, human rights and labor during the Clinton
administration, and is a director of both the National Democratic
Institute (a core NED grantee) and Human Rights First

=A1=A4 Perry Link =A8C who serves on the advisory board of the NED-funded
Beijing Spring (see later), is the former chair of the Princeton China
Initiative, and is a member of Human Rights Watch=A1=AFs Asia Advisory
Committee

=A1=A4 Hu Ping =A8C who is a former president of the NED-linked Chinese
Alliance for Democracy, a =A1=B0regular commentator for Radio Free Asia=A1=
=B1,
and has been chief editor of Beijing Spring since 1993

=A1=A4 Nina Rosenwald =A8C who is a trustee of Freedom House, serves on th=
e
advisory board of the American Center for Democracy, is a director of
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations

In addition, former Human Rights in China director Fiona Druckenmiller
is a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and is a former
director of Human Rights Watch. Other people involved with Human
Rights Watch with =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF ties include the chair of their
executive committee Liu Qing, who serves on the advisory board of
Beijing Spring, is a former editor of the April Fifth Forum, and is =A1=B0a
close ally of Wei Jingsheng=A1=B1 =A8C a Chinese activist who won the NED=A1=
=AFs
1998 Democracy Award. As a number of HRIC=A1=AFs team are linked to Beijing
Spring, the following section will introduce their =A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF wo=
rk.

Beijing Spring: =A1=AEDemocratic=A1=AF Media

Beijing Spring is a monthly Chinese-language magazine (sold in and
outside of China) that was founded during the Democracy Wall Movement
by Wang Dan (who in 1998 received the NED=A1=AFs 1998 Democracy Award, and
since 2002 has been the president of Beijing Spring), Zhou Weimin, and
Chen Ziming (who founded the Beijing Social and Economic Sciences
Research Institute in 1986, and in 1991 won the Committee to Protect
Journalists=A1=AF International Press Freedom Award along with his
colleague Wang Juntao). [7] According to the NED, the magazine
=A1=B0carries analysis and commentary by authors inside and outside China
regarding political developments, social issues, and the prospects for
democratization in China=A1=B1, and since 2001, Beijing Spring has received
annual NED aid (in 2006 they received $195,000). [8]

Beijing Spring=A1=AFs editorial board is home to the following
=A1=AEdemocratically=A1=AF linked individuals Wang Dan, Hu Ping, Kuide Chen =
(who
has worked for both the NED-funded Princeton China Initiative, and the
NED-funded Center for Modern China), Yu Dahai (who was the founding
president of the NED-funded Chinese Economists Society), Zheng Yi, and
Beijing Spring manager Xue Wei (who between 1982 and 1993 worked for
the Chinese Alliance for Democracy =A8C a group that received a single
NED grant in 1992).

Likewise, the members of Beijing Spring=A1=AFs advisory board exhibit many
=A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF ties and include Perry Link, Andrew J. Nathan, Liu Qi=
ng,
Fang Lizhi (who, in 1995, was a board member of HRIC, in 2000 was a
member of Human Rights Watch=A1=AFs Academic Freedom Committee, and is a
member of the international council of advisors for the International
Campaign for Tibet), Su Shaozhi (who is the former chair of the
Princeton China Initiative), and Yu Ying-shi (who helped set up the
Princeton China Initiative). As a number of people affiliated with
Beijing Spring have also been linked to the Princeton China
Initiative, this organization will now be briefly examined.

The Princeton China Initiative (the Initiative) was founded in 1989
and closed operations in 2004, and between 1992 and 2005 they received
seven grants from the NED to allow exiled Chinese dissidents to
publish two monthly newsletters, China Focus (English-language), and
The Road (Chinese-language). [9] In 1989 Liu Binyan (deceased December
5, 2006) a key person at the Initiative was =A1=B0China=A1=AFs most prominen=
t
journalist=A1=B1 and a Neiman fellow at Harvard University, but when he was
banned from returning to China that year he helped found and head the
Initiative. One important =A1=AEdemocratically=A1=AF linked person who was
involved with the Initiative during it=A1=AFs early years was their
managing director Lorraine Spiess. Prior to joining the Initiative,
Spiess had been the executive director of the Canada China Business
Council, and had =A1=B0worked on Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA) programs to support China=A1=AFs ongoing economic reforms.=A1=B1 Spie=
ss=A1=AF
=A1=AEdemocratic=A1=AF links were strengthened when she left the Initiative,=
as
from 1993 to 1995 she was the regional program director for the
International Republican Institute (a core NED grantee) during which
time she also worked closely with Phyllis Chang, the Ford Foundation=A1=AFs
program officer for Democracy and Rights in Beijing.

What Next?

As noted at the start of this article, the corporate media do not
provide an accurate reflection of society, thus it is not surprising
that the democracy manipulating nature of Human Rights in China (and
Human Rights Watch) remain unmentioned in their coverage. This is
because as Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky suggested in their
seminal work Manufacturing Consent, the mass media=A1=AFs primary (usually
unstated) goal is to manufacture public consent for elite interests.
Bearing this in mind, it is logical =A8C in spite of contrary evidence =A8C
that the mass media portrays a NED-funded group as a progressive
organization, and that this critique of Human Rights in China will be
rendered invisible in the mainstream media. (It probably doesn=A1=AFt help
that even the BBC World Service Trust received a grant from the NED in
2006.) Thus the anti-democratic nature of mainstream media is an
obvious impediment to progressive social change: indeed concerned
citizens:

=A1=B0=A1=ADneed to consider whether the same media system that serves to
naturalise and legitimise elite decision-making, can really encourage
its antithesis, collective grassroots decision-making. It seems an
anathema to even consider that by working on the terms set by the mass
media, social movements are actually legitimising and tightening its
hegemonic power over society, even while it simultaneously acts to de-
legitimise or ignore the global justice movement.=A1=B1

Short of working with others (like Media Lens) to challenge the
(il)legitimacy of the mainstream media, another immediate solution to
some of the problems identified in this article involves supporting
independent investigative journalism by giving money to the
alternative media instead of the corporate media. To pay for their
valuable services simply click on one of the following links, Centre
for Research on Globalization, CounterPunch, Medialens, Monthly
Review, Spinwatch, Znet, or alternatively support a local outlet of
your choice.

Furthermore, to prevent elite manipulation of human rights and
democracy, first and foremost progressive citizens will also have to
educate themselves about the work of democracy manipulators (like the
NED) a process that has been made easier by the launch of two groups,
the International Endowment for Democracy and In the Name of
Democracy. However, although it is certainly important to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the role of the democracy manipulating
establishment in circumscribing progressive social change, people can
begin to rectify the democratic dilemma posed by the NED and its
supporters by publicly denouncing their activities, and by refusing to
work with them in the future. It seems that only then can progressive
groups begin considering adopting more participatory funding
arrangements that will help to allow them to promote a popular form of
democracy that serves people not imperialism. [10]


Michael Barker is a British citizen based in Australia