Antony Loewenstein

After years of propagating lies about Iraq and its alleged threat to the world, the New York Times continues to publish Bush administration talking points, this time outlining the supposed menace of Iran.

Critical thinking? Don’t expect that from the “paper of record.”

Share This

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The nationalistic genie has escaped the Chinese bottle. Citizens across the world have reacted strongly to the perceived anti-Chinese political and media elite in the West. Protests have mushroomed throughout China against what demonstrators view as a slight against benevolent rule in Tibet. The government is clearly behind much of the reaction.

The internet, mobile phones and chat rooms have become the new meeting place for such activities. More than twenty million people have signed a petition against the French retailer Carrefour because of the failure of authorities in Paris to protect the Olympic torch. Conspiracy theories abound in the Chinese blogosphere about these events.

Student Zhu Xiaomeng made comments to the New York Times that reminded me of similar sentiments I heard in China last year. “Tibet is our country’s territory. You have no right to interfere in our interior affairs.” Microsoft’s China homepage has become a natural home for this kind of venting.

“Love Our China” is a familiar refrain of the protestors. The relationship between the West and China is inevitably being affected, with both sides seemingly incapable or unwilling to engage rationally with the other. Surely now is the time to reach out to Chinese people and try and explain why many Westerners are upset with Beijing’s role in Tibet.

I’ve even tried to contact a few Chinese friends in China to gauge their perspective, and many of them have oscillated between damning the violence on both sides and not fully understanding why pro-Tibetan activists in London, Paris and San Francisco were so vehemently critical of their regime. Evidence that now proves Chinese regime meddling in San Francisco’s pro-China protests reveals the level of paranoia in Beijing.

A recent study found that a majority of Australians wanted the Olympic sponsors to speak out strongly about China’s human rights record. This is unsurprising considering the fact that Amnesty International and Chinese human rights activists have found China falling short of the commitments it made when negotiating the 2008 Games. Arresting a leading Tibetan performer, writer and blogger only reinforces this belief. Equally problematic is a forthcoming museum in Beijing dedicated to the “official” version of Tibetan history.

One prominent, former Chinese diplomat turned spy novelist has argued that pro-China protests will only inflame racial tensions. I was more encouraged to see a recently released Beijing-based news researcher for the New York Times call this week for greater press freedom.

However, the ongoing controversy over China’s human rights record is not just about the Beijing Olympic Games. As the West wrestles with the notion of an “after-America” world, despotic regimes are increasingly turning to China for moral, military and diplomatic assistance. Recent evidence suggests that China is providing arms and troops to save Robert Mugabe’s embattled Zimbabwean dictatorship.

London’s Independent warned that after years of complaining about Washington’s support of barbaric regimes, it’s time to worry about the dawning of a new age:

“As for Mr Mugabe, he marked Zimbabwean Independence Day yesterday by complaining of neo-colonialism and how Britain wants to retake control of Zimbabwe. He and other African leaders should think more carefully. There is a danger of their countries becoming a victim of a re-colonisation. But the threat is not from the West. It comes from the East.”

While it’s never healthy to romanticise the Tibetan cause or the Dalai Lama and the history often paints a contradictory picture, one can hope that the Olympic Games provides international attention to an occupation that is largely forgotten in the Western media.

Share This

The New York Times features a stunning report in today’s edition, on the Pentagon’s manipulation of information about the “war on terror”:

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

An interactive feature explains more.

Share This

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The international outcry over China’s human rights abuses was temporarily disrupted this week with news from Beijing that the regime was determined to manage the city’s pollution problems by halting building construction after July for two months. Unfortunately, many of the Games’ venues are not yet finished and it remains to be seen whether they will be completed in time. The exact plans remain a state secret, but at least half of Beijing’s 3.3 million cars will probably be banned during the Games.

The real story, however, remains the growing international calls for action on China’s belligerence. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent trip to Beijing highlighted the difficulties of this position. The British press fawned over him. London’s Independent praised him for speaking “unpalatable home truths” about the troubles in China. “The world needs more leaders like this”, they gushed. “We hope he has started as he means to go on.”

The Guardian warned China not to parade the Olympic torch through Tibet, calling it “cultural imperialism”. Murdoch’s Sun tabloid, however, appeared unwilling to upset the Chinese. At least Olympic organisers finally admitted the protests were a “crisis” and Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, announced he would boycott the opening ceremonies.

Leading Australian Sinologist Professor Geremie Barme explained that the Chinese people were aware that Rudd had spoken Mandarin at Peking University, “but all mention of Tibet, apart from Tibet being part of China’s sovereign territory, has been expunged from the record.” One brave Chinese dissident even challenged the Chinese people to seriously examine the country’s record in Tibet. “I urge the Chinese people to take a long, hard look at themselves”, Jonathan Li said, “and stop being so uptight”.

Rudd was walking a fine line, of course. Amnesty International Australia has called on the Australian government to engage in a “strong and robust dialogue” between Australia and China, especially the promotion of human rights and minority rights. Human Rights Watch’s position is similar.

The expected backlash against protestors is starting to occur - and not just Chinese President Hu Jintao defending his crackdown in Tibet as “a problem of safeguarding national unification”. One leading human rights campaigner, Liu Xiaobo, warns demonstrators that: “If the Games fail, human rights will suffer. The government would stop paying attention to the rest of the world. I personally think: We want the Games and we want human rights to be respected.” One Chinese-American woman, Helen Zia, explained why she wanted to carry the torch in San Francisco, in a show of solidarity towards a “changing” China.

The global outrage over the torch relay has sparked a dormant nationalistic surge in China. “Tibetans have a strong case against Beijing”, wrote Philip Bowring in the International Herald Tribune, “but mixing it in with the Olympics and Darfur is a red rag to a wounded, young bull”. Some Chinese bloggers are calling for a blacklist of French goods after the recent scuffles in Paris. Chinese hackers are targeting pro-Tibetan websites and remain unforgiving of perceived slights against their Olympic moment.

A former Beijing chief for the New York Times explained the majority of Chinese youth have been beneficiaries of massive economic growth and “can’t imagine why Tibetans would turn up their noses at rising incomes and the promise of a more prosperous future. The loss of a homeland just doesn’t compute as a valid concern.” Perhaps the Tibet protests have backfired?.

The most moving news of the week was the words of Zeng Jinyan, the wife of recently imprisoned dissident Hu Jia. “I feel great pain and hopelessness”, she wrote. “But no matter what, I will do my best to protect my family, and do all I can to allow Hu Jia to come back home as soon as possible.”

Share This

Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

Share This

Inside the mind of a neo-conservative (and yes, Iraq is as fun as Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children before breakfast):

Share This

Calling for war to bring peace to Darfur.

(That’s something only the mainstream media could achieve.)

Share This

Wikileaks, one of the most important websites at the moment for releasing information bound to embarrass the establishment, scores another exclusive:

American military forces in Iraq were authorized to pursue former members of Saddam Hussein’s government and terrorists across Iraq’s borders into Iran and Syria, according to a classified 2005 document that has been made public by an independent Web site.

The document, which was disclosed by the organization Wikileaks and which American officials said appeared authentic, outlined the rules of engagement for the American division that was based in Baghdad and central Iraq that year.

It also provided instructions for how to deal with the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr: his status as a hostile foe was “suspended,” and he and his key associates were not to be attacked except in self-defense.

Wikileaks, a Web site that encourages posting of leaked materials, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. It has previously posted the United States military’s manual for operating its prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; a military assessment of a 2004 attack in Falluja; and lists of American military equipment in Iraq.

The American military command in Baghdad on Sunday sharply criticized the group’s decision to post the document.

Share This

Afraid that Google has far too much power in the marketplace?

David Eun, Google’s VP of Content Partnerships, tries to calm the fear:

The biggest misconception is that they fear Google has aspirations to become a media company, meaning that we would produce and own content that would compete against theirs. That’s a major misconception. We don’t produce or own content. In fact, we see ourselves as a platform for our partners that do.

But such soothing words don’t stop rumours circulating, such as the idea that Google may one day buy the New York Times.

Share This