[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_In...
Also a couple of criticisms from Australian elected officials themselves
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-be...
https://www.australiachinarelations.org/content/theres-more-...
on the ASPI who still defends the Iraq War, Syrian regime change war and argues that the west should have went to war in Ukraine.
There's a longer editorial version of the criticism here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nat...
Ya, no disagreements there. The Chinese government has zero PR capabilities. Every response from their foreign ministry's spokesperson to a leading question sounds like a painful mea culpa.
> No matter what is happening there, even what officials have officially shown western media, crosses our moral boundaries.
Who is "our" in this case? It doesn't seem to include the U.N. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-say... or Organization of Islamic Cooperation https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250. Not that any of them have more PR power than China either.
I don't think most consider the UN to be upholding Western values. That's also not their prerogative since they also aren't distinctly Western. The permanent members are: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Sure, that's 3 to 2, but not exactly like US/Western overlords.
> OIC
Since when is the OIC considered "Western"?
> The Chinese government has zero PR capabilities.
> Not that any of them have more PR power than China either.
China has a lot of PR power. part of which is exactly what the article and topic at hand are about. This is so far removed from reality that I'm not exactly sure how to respond.
> I don't think most consider the UN to be upholding Western values.
Of course my reply doesn't respond to your questions on western values. It's the first time you bring up "western values". That's why I asked what you're referring to as "our".
> China has a lot of PR power. part of which is exactly what the article and topic at hand are about. This is so far removed from reality that I'm not exactly sure how to respond.
Maybe you're right. I wouldn't know how to quantify it. Can you name a single thing in the past decade came into your consciousness from Chinese PR (that isn't re-broadcasted from western editorials)?
> Since when is the OIC considered "Western"?
Wait, I thought the west cares about the whole thing now because of Muslim freedom and eagles and all. Now Muslim opinions on Muslims are irrelevant? That's the most "Western" thing to say :)
See my original comment
> Can you name a single thing in the past decade came into your consciousness from Chinese PR (that isn't re-broadcasted from western editorials)?
What's in the parenthesis makes that a near impossible criteria since western media does do global coverage depending on what you mean by editorials. It is important to remember that the media here doesn't have to report back to any single entity. There's multiple countries, multiple organizations. Each with their own bias. But every country does report on global news.
If we are considering news that isn't editorials, then yes, plenty. There's been plenty here on HN. TikTok's response was on the front page. Several news organizations have defended TikTok. Some have issued (non-editorial) pieces on both sides. There's a lot of talk of military, which is PR. Economics. Quite a lot of economics and how fast China is growing. That's PR too. How quickly China dealt with covid 19. That's PR too.
So either this is trivial or impossible depending on your statement in parenthesis.
> Now Muslim opinions on Muslims are irrelevant?
HN has rules about acting in good faith. Willfully misrepresenting comments, trolling, and baiting are not allowed here. [0]
HN has rules about acting in good faith. Willfully misrepresenting comments, trolling, and baiting are not allowed here. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> This is so far removed from reality that I'm not exactly sure how to respond.
HN has rules about acting in good faith. Willfully misrepresenting comments, trolling, and baiting are not allowed here. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We're going places my friend.
ASPI sponsors and ICPC sponsors are listed separately on ASPI's official website for a reason.
But it’s really besides the point. Instead of attacking the authors or their sponsors, perhaps we should focus on the content instead. What’s happening here would be equivalent to me attacking you or the parent (and vice versa) for having a comment history pushing CCP talking points.