西方指責產業 如何針對中國運作

西方“指責產業”如何針對中國運作？

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1236588.shtml

環球時報 2021 年 10 月 18 日

編者注：
一些西方主流媒體從未放棄抹黑中國的企圖。 西方國家為何花這麽大力氣抹黑中國？ 他們如何從中受益？ 為什麽以美國為首的西方不能客觀地解讀中國？ 環球時報記者就這些問題采訪了瑞典智庫跨國和平與未來研究基金會（TFF）主任簡·奧伯格（Oberg）。

GT：TFF發表了一份題為《煙幕背後：西方破壞性的中國冷戰議程及其為何必須停止的分析》的報告。 西方媒體的“指責產業”如何針對中國運作？

奧伯格：我們在該報告中提出的是，該議程是由我創造的軍事-工業-媒體-學術綜合體（MIMAC）製定的。 這一複合體由關係密切的精英組成，他們有共同利益，指定一個又一個國家對美國/北約世界構成威脅。

在危險的程度上，MIMAC 在公開的民主決策之外運作。 與當時的蘇聯一樣，今天的美國也沒有 MIMAC。 這個美國本身就是一個MIMAC。 如果沒有虛構的敵人形象，MIMAC 及其對納稅人巨額資金的吸收將變得不可能。 它建立在“恐懼學”的基礎上——讓公民感到恐懼，然後含蓄地接受他們的政府在破壞、武器和戰爭上花費了大量資金，而不是解決人類的真正問題。

軍事實力與和平之間沒有關聯。 最大的軍事強國美國幾乎永久處於戰爭狀態並感到受到威脅。 而北約以軍事為基礎的“安全、穩定與和平”自1949年以來就沒有創造過和平。大多數國家都有某種MIMAC。 軍國主義——包括核主義——是當今地球上最大的問題。 它是每個帝國衰落的核心指標：軍事化導致經濟死亡、失去戰爭和人類尊重。 因此，我們所說的針對中國的指控行業背後的一個主要原因是它使 MIMAC 能夠進一步發展，但所有此類社會學現象都有一個頂峰：然後是衰落、衰退和崩潰。

環球時報：既然你提到了軍國主義，那麽你對美國與英國和澳大利亞最新建立的印太安全聯盟AUKUS有何看法？ 這是進一步說明“美帝國衰落”的“核心指標”嗎？

奧伯格：媒體和大多數人都關注陸地戰爭，卻忘記了世界海洋上正在發生永久的冷戰——主要是潛艇和反潛戰。

從定義和哲學上來說，聯盟是“我們”團體聯合起來反對“他們”，因此是對抗性的。 與北約一樣，AUKUS 也不例外，當它聲明這不是針對中國時，我在衝突分析和締造和平領域已經有足夠長的時間來解釋這正是它的本質。

10月2日，美國一艘核武裝攻擊潛艇在南海擊中“不明物體”。 這種事情的危險性是無法用言語來形容的。 得益於先進的水下監視，華盛頓當然知道那個物體是什麽以及它發生的原因。

西方媒體沒有對這一重大事件進行任何調查，卻把更多的精力花在了布蘭妮身上！ 一個簡單的問題：如果中國潛艇擊中加州或佛羅裏達州以外的地方，美國會如何反應，媒體會如何炸毀它？

總的來說，這是一場不對稱的衝突，沒有人問：美國、英國、澳大利亞等在地球上——或者更確切地說在海上——在那裏做什麽？ 可以理解的是，中國想知道。 但全人類都有知情權，但我們隻了解了冰山一角。

還記得 1981 年在瑞典的蘇聯“威士忌威士忌”潛艇嗎？ 後來有記載稱，這是美國與少數瑞典軍人勾結的一次心理行動。

如果美國聲稱它確保了世界海洋的自由通行，我們就不應該允許它這麽做。 相反，我們應該建立一支聯合國海上維和部隊，在各地巡邏，尊重國際法，降低風險，服務於聯合國和人類的利益，而不僅僅是美國的利益。

環球時報：TFF今年5月發表了一份題為《將新疆種族滅絕確定為議程》的報告。 西方媒體和機構為了宣揚新疆發生“種族滅絕”，利用反華人士，給他們編造“受害者”身份。 你對此有什麽看法？

奧伯格：在那份報告中，我們沒有分析單個證人或其身份。 我們逐條表明，一係列西方學者和非政府組織的分析和記錄在很大程度上不符合合格的社會研究的要求。 它們建立在估計、奇怪的方法、可疑的數據、片麵的觀點和有偏見的解釋的基礎上。 它們是委托工作，而不是免費研究。

這尤其適用於新線研究所的報告。 就在同一天，許多西方主流媒體都強調了這一點——這些媒體的記者不做檢查消息來源的基本工作，而顯然隻閱讀摘要——以保持政治正確。

自美國前國務卿蓬佩奧“認定”新疆涉及種族滅絕以來，美國尚未提供任何證據。 新疆為遏製暴力分裂分子所采取的行動不是我們報告的對象，因為我們不是人權組織，也沒有實地考察過。

我把報道發給了20多家曾經報道過新疆的重要媒體人士，指出了嚴重的來源和方法論問題。 沒有人回應。 此外，盡管有幾千家西方媒體收到了我們的新聞稿，但沒有任何西方媒體接受 TFF 的兩份報道。

所以MIMAC的策略就是沉默。 可悲的是，新聞自由也包括無知的自由和隻宣揚一種政治正確但往往是錯誤的敘述的自由。

環球時報：您在最近的采訪中提到，美國將在未來5年內撥款15億美元，培訓西方媒體專門撰寫對華負麵報道。 美國為何投入如此巨資抹黑中國？ 美國如何從中受益？

奧伯格：如果一個政府想通過對抗、冷戰或熱戰來滿足其貪得無厭的MIMAC，就必須抹黑、妖魔化和指責他人。 其基本理念是“我們是全世界的榜樣，他們很糟糕，因為他們不像我們。你要麽與我們站在一起，要麽與我們的敵人站在一起。”

西方傳教士思想一直是這樣的，深深植根於我們/他們、非此即彼、善/惡的二分法哲學。 現實——用平庸的話說——所有的係統都有好的一麵，也有不好的一麵。

上述法律令人難以置信，因為它完全損害了西方對自由媒體、言論自由、報道不同立場的公平性等的自豪感。

多年來我一直認為，美國/北約世界的真正敵人不是俄羅斯、中國、伊朗或其他任何人，而是美國/北約世界本身：它的軍國主義、缺乏遠見、領導力和自我創新。 如果美國和西方內部沒有發生根本性的改變，這種情況就無法再繼續下去了。

馬丁·路德·金幾十年前就說過：“美國，你變得太傲慢了。” 如果一個國家排名第一，它往往不會學習，而是會教導、掌握並拋棄謙遜。

如果我們選擇多樣性中的合作與團結，而不是永久的對抗和主導，整個世界將會獲得巨大的收獲和發展。 但我認真地想知道，西方是否可以在沒有不斷察覺敵人的情況下生存？

環球時報：西方媒體炮製錯誤信息和假新聞抹黑中國。 它們能在多大程度上迷惑國際社會？如何抵消這種負麵影響？

奧伯格：是的，主流媒體這樣做是因為他們是 MIMAC 的組成部分。 我認為他們確實讓很大一部分公民感到困惑。 但正如一句廣為流傳的名言所說，“你可以在某些時候欺騙所有人，也可以在所有時間欺騙某些人，但你不可能在所有時間欺騙所有人。”

雖然我在職業和私人生活中遇到很多人受到有關中國的十個標準負麵故事的影響，但人們的看法正在變得更加平衡。 我相信，這就是為什麽受國家影響的媒體因恐慌而損失 15 億美元的原因。

這是短視的——正如大多數心理戰嚐試一樣。 獨立的思想會審視它，而新媒體——例如好書、博客和視頻博客——塑造了媒體場景。 人們會發現自己被愚弄了。

打擊這些心理戰的一種方法是讓數百萬外國遊客、學生、專業人士和文化工作者進入中國。無知、仇華觀點和從未訪問過（或研究過）中國之間以及更平衡的觀點之間存在高度相關性 並曾訪問或研究過中國。

我堅信為合作與和平而“搭建公民橋梁”——就像中國對“一帶一路”倡議所做的那樣。 我們必須而且能夠減少戰爭風險。 當我們想要和平時，讓我們為和平做好準備。

How does Western 'accusation industry' operate against China?

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1236588.shtml

By Global Times Oct 18, 2021

File photo of USS Connecticut Photo: AFP

Editor's Note:  
Some mainstream Western media outlets have never given up their attempts to smear China. Why do Western countries invest so much effort to smear China? How can they benefit from it? Why can't the US-led West read China objectively? Global Times (GT) reporter talked to Jan Oberg (Oberg), director of Sweden-based think tank Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF), on these issues.

GT: The TFF published a report titled, "Behind the Smokescreen: An Analysis of the West's Destructive China Cold War Agenda and Why it Must Stop." How does the Western media's "accusation industry" operate against China?

Oberg: What we present in that report is that this agenda is produced by what I have coined the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex (MIMAC). This Complex consists of tightly connected elites with a common interest in appointing one country after another as a threat to the US/NATO world. 

To a dangerous extent, MIMAC operates outside open democratic decision-making. Like the Soviet Union back then, the US today does not have a MIMAC. This US itself is a MIMAC. Without invented images of enemies, the MIMAC and its absorption of grotesquely huge taxpayer money sums would become impossible. It builds on "fearology" - on making citizens fear and then implicitly accept that their governments spend so much on destruction, weapons and wars instead of on solving humanity's real problems. 

There is no correlation between military strength and peace. The largest military power, the US, is almost permanently at war and feels threatened. And NATO's military-based "security, stability and peace" has created no peace since 1949. Most countries have some kind of MIMAC. Militarism - including Nuclearism - is the single largest problem on today's Earth. And it is a central indicator of every Empire's decline: militarizing itself to economic death, losing its wars and humanity's respect. So a major reason behind the mentioned accusation industry, as we call it, against China is that it enables the MIMAC to grow even more, but there is a peak point for all such sociological phenomenon: Then come decline, decay and fall.

GT: Since you've mentioned militarism, what is your opinion about the US' latest Indo-Pacific security alliance with the UK and Australia, AUKUS? Is it a "central indicator" further illustrating the "US empire's decline"? 

Oberg: The media and most people focus on land warfare while forgetting that a permanent Cold War takes place in the world's oceans - predominantly by submarine and anti-submarine warfare. 

Alliances are, by definition and philosophically, "we" groups that ally against "them" and, therefore, confrontational. Like NATO, AUKUS is no exception and when it is stated that this is not directed against China, I've been long enough in the conflict analysis and peace-making profession to interpret that that is exactly what it is.

On October 2, a US nuclear-armed attack submarine hit some "unidentified object" in the South China Sea. This sort of thing is dangerous beyond words. Thanks to sophisticated underwater surveillance, Washington of course knows what that object was and why it happened. 

The Western media have done nothing to investigate this hugely important event but spent more energy on Britney Spears! A simple question: How would the US react if a Chinese submarine hit something outside California or Florida, and how would the media have blown it up?

In general, this is an asymmetric conflict and nobody asks: What on earth - or rather on sea - does the US, the UK, Australia, etc, do over there? Understandably, China wants to know. But all humanity has a right to know but we only get the top of the iceberg. 

Remember the Soviet "Whisky On The Rocks" submarine in Sweden in 1981? It has later been documented that it was a Psychological Operation  orchestrated by the US in cahoots with a handful of Swedish military people.

If the US argues that it secures free passage on the world's oceans, we should not let it. Instead, we should establish a UN Maritime Peace-Keeping Force to patrol everywhere, respect international law, reduce risks and serve the United Nations' - humanity's - interest and not only those of the US.
 

Jan Oberg Photo: Courtesy of Oberg

GT: The TFF published a report titled, "The Xinjiang Genocide Determination as Agenda" in May. To declare the "genocide" in Xinjiang, Western media and institutions have taken advantage of anti-China activists and given them fake identities as "victims." What is your take on this?

Oberg: In that report, we do not analyze the single witnesses or their identities. We show, point-by-point, that the analyses and documentation by a series of Western scholars and NGOs largely do not hold water as qualified social studies. They build on estimates, strange methodology, dubious data, one-sided perspectives and biased interpretations. They are commissioned work, not free research. 

This applies in particular to a report from the Newline Institute. On one and the same day, it was highlighted by lots of Western mainstream media - whose journalists don't do their basic job of checking sources but evidently read only summaries - to keep politically correct. 

The US has not delivered any evidence since former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo's "determination" that Xinjiang is about a genocide. What has been done in Xinjiang to contain violence-based secessionists was not the object of our report since we are not a human rights organization and have not been on the ground. 

I sent our report to more than 20 important media people who had written about Xinjiang and pointed out the serious source and methodology problems. Not one responded. Further, no Western media has taken up TFF's two reports - although a couple of thousand receive our press releases. 

So the MIMAC strategy is silence. Sadly, the free press includes also the freedom to be ignorant and promote only one politically correct - but often false - narrative.

GT: In a recent interview, you mentioned that the US sets off $1.5 billion in the next 5 years to train Western media to write exclusively negative reports about China. Why has the US invested so much in smearing China? How can the US benefit from it?

Oberg: If a government wants to satisfy its insatiable MIMAC by confrontation and cold or hot war, it has to smear, demonize and accuse others. The underlying philosophy is that "We are the model for the whole world and they are bad because they are not like us. You are either with us or with our enemies."

Western missionary thinking has always been about that, deeply rooted in a dichotomizing we/them, either/or and good/evil philosophy. Reality - to state the banal - is that there is something good and something not so good in all systems.

The mentioned law is mind-boggling because it totally undermines the West's own pride in free media, freedom of expression, fairness in reporting different standpoints etc. 

I've argued for years that the real enemy of the US/NATO world is neither Russia, China, Iran or anyone else but that US/NATO world itself: its militarism, lack of vision, leadership and self-innovation. It just cannot go on any longer without fundamental change from inside the US and West. 

Martin Luther King Jr. said it decades ago: "America, you have become too arrogant." If a country is No.1, it often doesn't learn, it teaches, masters and discards humility. 

The whole world would gain and grow tremendously if we chose cooperation and unity in diversity instead of permanent confrontation and dominance. But I seriously wonder whether the Occident can live without perceiving enemies constantly?

GT: Western media have concocted misinformation and fake news to smear China. To what extent can they confuse the international community and how to offset such a negative impact?

Oberg: Yes, the mainstream media do that because they are one element of the MIMAC. I think they do confuse a large part of the citizenry. But as a wide-spread quote said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." 

While I meet lots of people in my professional and private life who are influenced by the 10 standard negative stories about China, perceptions are changing towards more balance. That's what explains, I believe, the panic-driven $1.5 billion for state-influenced media. 

It's short-sighted - as are most attempts at PSYOPs, Psychological Operations. Independent minds look through it and new media - such as good books, blogs and Vlogs - shape the media scene. People will find out that they were fooled. 

One way of combating these PSYOPs would be for China to have millions of foreign tourists, students, professionals and cultural workers come in. There is a high correlation between ignorance, Sinophobic views and never having visited (or studied) China and between more balanced views of China and having visited or studied it. 

I believe strongly in "citizens bridge building" for cooperation and peace - as China does with the Belt and Road Initiative. We must and can reduce the risk of warfare. Let's prepare for peace when that's what we want.