There's a general misalignment in FVEY countries between security and trade interests. Australia is particularly divided due to huge Chinese economic dependency but also absolute US security dependency (also Pine Gap). It's not surprising that intelligence agencies in countries in similar positions have tried protect their organizational interests - see UK defense Secretary Williamson fired over Huawei leak when US threaten to sever intelligence sharing if UK allowed even limited Huawei presence. AU PM basically admitted that the main reason for banning Huawei was because they didn't want to lose intelligence sharing not risk of Chinese spying. Then you have the recent fiasco with Wang Liqiang in Australia, the defecting Chinese "spy" whose ridiculous claims unsurprisingly turned out be sensationalist farce, debunked by multiple AU security sources including ASIO who vetted Wang a month before China Hawk MP Andrew Hastie tried to make his defection a narrative. They still let the story play out. It's textbook western propaganda. In the coordinated reports at the time, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings said something to the affect that Wang's testimony provided unprecedented insight into Beijing’s espionage activities, when all of Wang's dubious claims was immediately identified by anyone with 2 brain cells to be false. I mentioned in another post that ASPI does some decent work on aggregating Chinese data points, but their conclusions skew anti-China and pro-US because despite being and AU think tank, much of their funding comes from US and US aligned parties. Biased sources can still be useful, as long as you're aware it's biased.
>>Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business consultant Geoff Raby.
Alternatively these figures are themselves incentive to maintain friendly relationship with China. Every faction has their interests.
Also I didn't claim CCP was unbiased, the assertion is that neither is ASPI. Being cognizant the history of western foreign policy and their never ending lies and manipulation as per parent comment to evaluate like with like.
- Don't trusting it, does not equal dismissing the entire data, rather analysing it with an extra bit of salt. It means that the situation is probably even worse, because as you yourself said, one can expect it to be 'over inflated to look good'.
> Many of the transfers in the appendix do not mention prisoners or transfers in the re-education camps, merely people were given jobs as part of poverty alleviation program with much higher wages in exchange for brainwashing on the side - i.e. they're migrant labors.
Now you're just parroting CCP propaganda and omitting facts of the research: "The ILO lists 11 indicators of forced labour. Relevant indicators in the case of Uyghur workers may include:
-being subjected to intimidation and threats, such as the threat of arbitrary detention, and being monitored by security personnel and digital surveillance tools
-being placed in a position of dependency and vulnerability, such as by threats to family members back in Xinjiang having freedom of movement restricted, such as by fenced-in factories and high-tech surveillance
-isolation, such as living in segregated dormitories and being transported in dedicated trains abusive working conditions, such as political indoctrination, police guard posts in factories, ‘military-style’ management, and a ban on religious practices
-excessive hours, such as after-work Mandarin language classes and political indoctrination sessions that are part of job assignments.26
Chinese state media claims that participation in labour transfer programs is voluntary, and Chinese officials have denied any commercial use of forced labour from Xinjiang. However, Uyghur workers who have been able to leave China and speak out describe the constant fear of being sent back to a detention camp in Xinjiang or even a traditional prison while working at the factories..."
>I'm sure there's coercive assignments going on, but the paper seems to conflate all sources as so.
Rather nit-picky or what evidence do you rely on making that judgment, except your own highly biased opinion.
> And ultimately they crawled through Chinese news sources and found a pool of 80,000 workers over 2 years of which some could have came directly from the camps. That's 0.03% of Chinese migrant working labour force, 0.07% of Chinese manufacturing force - aka rounding error, but somehow this small percentage, where an even smaller % is alleged coerced, tainted the supply chain of 87 of the largest western companies because this is definitely not spinning a relatively minor issue into the western companies should disengage with China narrative. If anything this report illuminates that the "vocational" training element of the entire XJ strategy barely exists, and the question is why?
They found 'a' pool of 80000, so there are probably even more the researchers couldn't find, with all the effort the CCP puts into hiding their atrocities. That is furthermore just a plainly disgusting attempt to sweep the exploitation of 80000 'workers' (the real number is probably even higher, not that it needs to be, this is already product of systemic abuse of human rights, also correction: - FORCED labour i.e. slave labour) under the rug, by deceptively belittling the figures playing number's game. The irony is that you are accusing the researchers of 'bias', while your apologetic rhetoric is the ultimate manifestation of bias.
>Because of all the heavy handed cultural genocide strategies employed in XJ right now, indoctrination through economic development is the least bad.
This is a rather bizarre statement, the cultural genocide is incorporated as part of the indoctrination! It's in the research, if you read it properly that is.
Fine, then expose the lies. Also, typing "CCP" makes it very obvious you have an agenda. And as I said, everybody lies.
> What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China, when much of their economy relies on them!
It's called the american/anglo-american/western world order. The same reason Canada arrested a chinese executive. Before ww2, germany relied on soviet union for their economy and Japan relied on the US for their economy. WW2 still happened. Not sure why you think economic reliance necessarily prevents national rivalries. Especially during a major trade war.
> On top of that, most of the provided information just matches other independent research.
I'm sure they do. Propaganda usually works that way. And I wouldn't be so loose with words like "indepedent research".
> The only one who is defending propagandists is you.
Aren't you the one defending Australian Strategic Policy Institute? The only one defending propagandists is you. I'm more than happy to call all propagandists out.