International observation: Why is this Australian Think Tank willing to be an Anti-China Vanguard
The Australian Institute for Strategic Policy (ASPI) recently concocted a false China-related "report" again, claiming that China has established hundreds of "recruitment stations" around the world, targeting top technical talents in the United States and other developed countries.
In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded at a regular press conference. The Australian Institute for Strategic Policy is keen to concoct and hype various anti-China issues. It has a very strong ideology and is actually a "vanguard" of anti-China forces. Academic credibility is seriously questioned.
ASPI advertises itself on the homepage of its official website: The Australian Institute of Strategic Policy is an independent, non-partisan think tank that provides professional and timely advice to Australian strategic and defense leaders. In fact, many people of insight in Australia have publicly condemned the extreme position of this institution. Former Australian ambassador to China Rui Jierui called him "the chief architect of Australia's "China Threat Theory""; former Australian diplomat and commentator John Maynard commented that the think tank "lack of integrity and shame Australia".
In early March, ASPI issued a "research report" claiming that "at least 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred to factories in the mainland for "forced labor" between 2017 and 2019." Some U.S. lawmakers subsequently proposed a case requiring "stop importing Xinjiang products." And clamored for the introduction of the "Law to Prevent Forced Uyghur Labor." Later, the "grey area" of the American independent news website revealed that the so-called "forced labor" report was actually a direct product of careful planning, and said that "an intensified "new cold war" would benefit the United States, NATO, and arms dealers. "
According to reports, the report issued by the agency is mainly based on "research" by Adrian Zenz. The so-called "Xinjiang issue expert" named "Zheng Guoen" in Chinese began to frequently publish Xinjiang-related remarks on the Internet in 2016, distort and slander the Xinjiang policy of the Chinese government. His so-called research was not published in academic journals, but in journals led by NATO and former US national security personnel.
Interestingly, this person claimed that he was "guided by God" for interfering in Xinjiang affairs and that "God granted him an anti-China mission."
The authenticity of the "report" issued by ASPI has been "ridiculed by the crowd" more than once. The agency’s so-called "tracking of the China Military University" project, Alex Josk, once wrote a report on "Chinese senior spy Wang Liqiang absconded from Australia." The problem is that Wang Liqiang was later proved to be just a fraudster. James Lawrence, Dean of the Institute of Australia-China Relations at the University of Technology, Sydney, once criticized the Australian media for adopting the author Josk’s statement without verification on the “fake espionage case”. Latest example".
In recent years, ASPI has reached a tacit agreement with some Australian media. The agency issues false reports first, and then feeds the media to add fuel and vinegar, and make a big splash. ASPI has incited hype on topics such as the tracing of the new crown virus, the "South China Sea Arbitration", Huawei 5G, and Xinjiang-related topics. Many "reports" were quoted by Australian media including the "Four Corners" column of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Daily Telegraph. .
It was observed that ASPI’s new report on China’s recruitment plan received estimated amount of US$145,000 from the US State Department; the report on China’s “forced labor” received a grant of £10,000 from the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom. On the one hand, some Australian media and politicians accused China of infiltrating Australia's influence, while on the other hand they acquiesced in the United States and other countries to interfere in Australian public opinion. How ironic?
"Who" is funding behind ASPI and "why" has been an open secret by long time. The Australian "Financial Review" published an article in February entitled "The Think Tank Behind the Transformation of Australia's "View on China"", exposing the motivation and root of its anti-China stance from the source of funds. According to reports, the institute was established in July 2001, and all funds in the institute came from the Australian Ministry of Defense. Over time, the share of the Ministry of Defense has continued to decline. Currently, only 43% of the Institute’s annual budget comes from the Australian Ministry of Defense.
Self-proclaimed independent think tanks, in addition to the Australian Department of Defense, there are three types of funders. One is the Ministry of Defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Thales, and Raytheon. The second is technology companies, such as Microsoft, Google, Telstra, and Oracle. The third is donations from the United States and other foreign or regional governments. The latest survey shows that NATO, the US State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office are also the real-name "funders" of ASPI.
In this way, it is not difficult to explain why the agency has frequently followed the United States on issues such as the traceability of the new crown virus, Hong Kong-related issues, and Huawei 5G, and let it be driven by it. Senator Kim Carr of the Australian Labor Party criticized ASPI, saying that it was influenced by the United States and that China's research reports were not enough to be trusted. Carl condemned the agency for seeking cooperation with the United States in a vain attempt to "launch a new cold war with China." Former NSW Governor Bob Carr accused him of throwing out a "one-sided and pro-American worldview."
Wherever the gold lord points behind it, it will move upon hearing the wind and rush out to bite wildly. The facts are already clear, this institution under the guise of "strategic policy research" is nothing but a pair of "white gloves" dressed in academic research. Academic ethics and professional ethics cannot be found here.
The major question is that what will happen to the world if China and America come face to face directly instead of proxies. the whole world is acting only as an observer now. A direct action between two nations could change the face of earth for everyone.