Aftermath News
Beijing’s Propaganda Goes Global
May 6, 2009 · No Comments
Shouldn’t we be blocking Chinese state media in the U.S.?
by Gordon G. Chang
On April 30, China’s State Council banned “foreign financial information providers” from undertaking “news gathering activities” inside the country. The new measure appears inconsistent with Beijing’s agreement, reached last November with Canada, the European Union and the U.S., to withdraw rules that severely restricted the activities of foreign news organizations. The withdrawn rules were clearly in violation of China’s World Trade Organization obligations.
While Beijing was further restricting foreign media in China, the country’s Communist Party was launching its English-language Global Times newspaper. This publication, which joins an existing Chinese-language tabloid of the same name, is a product of Beijing’s latest initiative to create international media giants.
The primary beneficiaries of Beijing’s media-building efforts, first revealed this January by Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post,will be state broadcaster China Central Television, better known as CCTV; the Communist Party’s flagship publication, People’s Daily, and state-run Xinhua News Agency.
In addition to the new Global Times, Beijing’s media initiative contemplates that Xinhua will almost double the number of its bureaus so that it will have offices in almost every country; CCTV will add Russian and Arabic channels to its Chinese and other language broadcasting and Xinhua will begin a worldwide 24-hour news channel on the model of Al Jazeera.
The new Global Times, in an editorial issued on its launch date, stated that it would “strive to reveal a complete and true picture of China” and that it is “dedicated to conveying the original voices of Chinese people,” but it is almost impossible for a Communist Party publication to do any of this. What the paper really meant is what Beijing said in January: Its goal is to “better convey a good image of China to the world.” That’s a difficult task for Beijing. Unfortunately for the one-party state, many of its messages sound off-key or, worse, belligerent.
So it’s no surprise that Beijing’s publications often appear propagandistic. Even when they don’t, they look bland, especially the official China Daily, which just launched a U.S. edition this February. Due to these disadvantages, if the Chinese people had a real choice, state media would be commercially unviable in China. And, despite recent improvements in presentation and content, some of it already is.
So how will the Communist Party’s media survive outside the Chinese homeland? To overcome the handicap, the Ministry of Finance will be supporting Beijing’s January plan to the tune of 45 billion yuan–about $6.6 billion–in grants and subsidies. Undoubtedly, the Chinese central government will be providing more assistance when this initial funding runs out.
The subsidies inevitably raise a trade issue. Xinhua, CCTV and People’s Daily all will be competing with privately owned media that is not supported by government grants. Moreover, there is an even more important trade question. The Chinese central government blocks Voice of America and Radio Free Asia and severely restricts CNN and other privately owned networks, of course. Yet at the same time, CCTV is allowed to distribute widely its English and Chinese programming on cable in the U.S. So should we allow any Chinese media–TV programming, books, newspapers or magazines–here? The buzz word is “reciprocity,” and we should be demanding it.
For far too long, however, the U.S. has not protected its own businesses from Chinese restrictions. In a series of agreements–especially the 1999 deal paving the way for China’s WTO membership–Washington has accepted less access to the Chinese market than China has to the American one. Worse, successive administrations have failed to hold Beijing to its trade promises–enforcement has almost always been lackadaisical–and neglected to take full advantage of the trade benefits previously negotiated.
At one time, not requiring reciprocity may have made sense, but in past years, China’s trading relationship with the U.S. has become unbalanced and unsustainable. The Chinese have run a trade surplus against the United States for every year since 1983. And the problem is getting worse: Beijing’s surplus with America was $232.6 billion in 2006, $256.2 billion in 2007 and $266.3 billion last year. The trade deficit with China was just $304 million in 1983.
Beijing’s “go global” media initiative raises more than just trade issues, of course. The U.S. is an open society, protected by the First Amendment, the core of American civil liberties. We have operated under the principle that a vigorous public debate is essential to a free society. Yet now an authoritarian state is seeking to influence that debate by spreading what it calls “external propaganda.”
Should we permit China to do that? Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, the Chinese government views the U.S. as an adversary in much the same way the Soviet Union once did. Although Beijing’s acts are more subtle than those of Cold War-era Moscow, its tactics–like the covert spread of nuclear weapons technology to dangerous regimes–are often just as disruptive.
So, it is time to begin thinking about the national security implications of China’s trade practices. The first thing we can do is impose the same prohibitions on Chinese media in the American market that Beijing imposes on American media in China. We can do that within the framework of both WTO rules and our constitutional principles. After all, this is a trade issue, and the Chinese government does not have a First Amendment right to disseminate propaganda in the United States. As the Supreme Court has noted, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
→ No CommentsCategories: Big Media · Communism · Globalization · Propaganda
House of Lords holds hearing on effects of adding toxic nanotechnology to food supply
May 6, 2009 · No Comments
Experts Present Evidence to Committee on Nanotechnology in Food
In a hearing held yesterday in the U.K. House of Lords, Professor Ken Donaldson from the University of Edinburgh and Dr Qasim Chaudhry from the Food and Environment Research Agency presented evidence to the Select Committee on Nanotechnologies in Food. The hearing focussed specifically on nanoparticles in food. Both Donaldson and Chaudhry are leading experts in the field of nanotechnology risk issues, and both are members of the Safety of Nanomaterials Interdisciplinary Research Centre (SnIRC) and have worked extensively with IOM and SAFENANO.
As part of the evidence given, several key points were raised including:
1. the ability of nanoparticles to cross the gut wall and other cellular barriers;
2. the potential novel toxic effects of such nanoparticles in the human body;
3. the possibility that other materials in the gut (e.g. bacteria or other contaminants) may attach to the nanoparticles and be transported across the gut wall (the Trojan Horse Effect).
Other important concerns included the ability of nanoparticles to interfere with cellular processes in the body e.g. oxygen metabolism, and the antimicrobial properties of some nanoparticles which may result in further harmful effects.
It was also emphasised that research to date has primarily been investigator driven, a consequence of the responsive funding mode adopted in the UK, and as such has focussed primarily on inhalation and dermal exposure to nanoparticles. This has led to a lack of research into the effects of ingestion of nanoparticles combined with a non-generalisability of current research. A more strategic coordinated approach, such as that recommended in the 2004 Royal Society Report, was necessary. These major gaps in the knowledge base, specifically relating to ingestion, was a key finding of the recent SAFENANO-led report EMERGNANO, one of the documents discussed at the hearing.
_______
