Mediaboss Marketing

Once seemingly on the path towards liberalisation, China is now in position to redefine the term for the region, taking ownership and reshaping the term in its own, more authoritarian image

By Rana Mitter

15 Jul 2017

As I walked through central Beijing this week, I passed endless posters promoting democracy (minzhu). One might be forgiven for raising ones eyebrows at a moment when the 20th anniversary of the Hong Kong handover prompts elegies for the fate of democracy in the SAR. Yet it is no longer just greater China where liberal democracy seems in peril. It may be in retreat all across Asia.

If so, that political trend would be a reversal of the past three decades. When the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was signed in 1984, both the Chinese and the British sides shared two assumptions. One was that China would become more democratic over time. This was the era of top Communist leaders Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, who at times allowed startling levels of freedom of speech that seemed to indicate eventual liberalisation in a way hard to imagine in todays China. The other assumption was that China would liberalise in the context of a rather undemocratic continent. In those cold war years, Japan and India were the only full liberal democracies in Asia.

The situation had changed hugely within a decade. By the mid-1990s, China was in a much harsher mode, its governing party burnt by the 1989 Tiananmen uprising, but also taking advantage of its new double-digit growth. In contrast, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and the Philippines had democratised.

One reason that the struggle for democratisation in Hong Kong has become so fierce in recent years is that the comparators have changed. Between 1984 and 1989, Hong Kong could believe it was going back to an authoritarian but liberalising power in a continent that was mostly undemocratic; rule by Beijing didnt look so bad, or at least so anomalous. Today, Hong Kong can compare itself to cities such as Seoul, Taipei, and even Singapore and ask why it has less autonomy than these other cosmopolitan and democratic cities. Even a couple of years ago, the direction of travel in Asia itself seemed to be firmly toward democratisation.

Yet if the tide is not going out on democracy in Asia, it certainly seems to have seriously stalled in the past couple of years. In Thailand, a formerly raucous and flawed democracy, is now very much under the control of the military. In Myanmar, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi seems to be in close collaboration with that countrys military as political prisoners remain in detention, and the countrys Rohingya inhabitants have their rights restricted. Indonesia has seen religiously inspired prosecutions. The Philippines has certainly elected its president, but much of its political culture seems to have turned brutally authoritarian. Even in democratic Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abes regime has been accused of pressuring the free media and trying to stack the governing council of NHK, the national broadcaster.

Meanwhile, as China rises, the exhortations to civilisation and democracy are plastered far and wide in its capital. However, little in the direction of Chinas political travel in recent months suggests any version of liberal democracy. Rather, there have been discussions among Chinese think-tankers over whether China is a meritocracy rather than a democracy.

Why, then, is the term democracy so powerful that the Party wants to own it? The answer may be a nod both to the past and the future. Back in the days of Chinas war against Japan, Mao Zedong pioneered the three-thirds system which actually preserved the majority (two thirds) of the local assemblies for non-Party members. President Xi Jinpings party is unlikely to permit that much loss of control, but it certainly wants to use an association with the Mao era to burnish its brand.

But its the future that might be the more powerful factor. If China can persuade new partners to redefine democracy in its own terms, as a system that somehow does not involve national votes, free media or popular participation in government, then it will have won ownership in a powerful linguistic battle. The record of peoples democracies in Eastern Europe doesnt suggest success, but then they didnt have Chinas advantage of decades of high economic growth or attractive technological and consumer goods to make their model attractive.

We now face the prospect of two hegemons in the region with different, but damaging views on liberal democracy. The US administration no longer seems to care for the presence of liberal government in Asia (or at home) as a good in its own right, a situation which has given Beijing the opportunity to redefine democracy in its own terms. Now the region needs a champion who will defend democracy not just for the economic and security benefits that it brings, but as a powerful ethical good in its own right. Ideally that should be a power within Asia; it is strange that a North American power has held that role for so many decades. But does such a champion exist?

See the article here:
The mystery of China's eagerness to own the term 'democracy' - South China Morning Post

Taiwans president marked the 30th anniversary of the lifting of martial law on Saturday by crediting the public rather than late leader Chiang Ching-kuo for putting the island on the path to democracy.

The comments prompted the opposition Kuomintang to hit back, saying Chiangs role in the process was undeniable.

In a Facebook post, President Tsai Ing-wen said many nameless people from truck drivers, to dissidents, teachers, factory workers and owners of small businesses were behind the struggle to remove martial law.

For a long time, some people have been in the habit of crediting former president Chiang Ching-kuo for Taiwans democratisation, but I would say [the credit] should go to the Taiwanese public, Tsai said.

Tsais independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party also called for the younger generation to have a correct perception of history, saying the removal of the martial law was neither an act of grace nor wisdom by the governing authority at that time.

70 years after Taiwans White Terror, relatives of victims still seeking justice

On July 15, 1987, Chiang announced the lifting of martial law, which had been in place on the island since May, 1949, seven months before the KMT forces led by his father, Chiang Kai-shek, were defeated by the Communists and fled to Taiwan.

The martial law period is associated with the so-called white terror, when many political dissidents, including communists and supporters of Taiwanese independence, were either jailed or executed.

But the KMT, now in opposition, insisted on Saturday that Chiang Ching-kuo was a central player in the shift to democracy on the island.

Former president Chiang laid the foundation for freedom and democracy in Taiwan by lifting martial law in 1987, which was followed by the removal of bans on the founding of new political parties and new newspapers, the KMT said.

It said the changes spurred the formation of many new political groups and expanded freedom of speech in Taiwan, paving the way for several peaceful transfers of power.

Game set during Taiwans White Terror garnering rave reviews

The DPP government has tried to use the anniversary to manipulate public feeling towards the old authoritarian regime in a bid to make political gains, the KMT said.

It also accused the DPP of pursuing a political witch hunt against the KMT.

The DPP has previously blamed Chiang Kai-shek for a massacre in 1947 in which thousands of Taiwanese were killed by KMT troops sent to suppress an uprising on the island.

Some KMT lawmakers and local news outlets have said that since Tsai became president in May last year, the DPP government has sought to not only minimise the islands historical links with the mainland, but also to eradicate the legacies of both Chiangs.

Originally posted here:
People power not politicians put Taiwan on path to democracy, island's president says - South China Morning Post

IsPope Francis a Catholic? Or is the Pontiff a communist?

Jacksonville City CouncilmanBill Gullifordhas a take.

I am a Catholic and he is a Communist, Gulliford said of Pope Francis on Facebook Thursday, reacting toan online publication (M2 Voice) that said the Pope asserted that world government must rule the United States for their own good.

Notable: the quote was not in the original interview the website claimed to cite, which was conducted in Italian and translated by Agence France Presse before the M2 Voice aggregation.

Gullifords comments drew sharp criticism online Thursday, and on Friday, we reached out to him for further clarification and many of his comments came back to schisms in the Church between the conservative American Catholic wing and the liberation theology school from which Pope Francis hails.

Liberation theology, said Gulliford, is a form of Christian communism, and one that Francis narratives and pronouncements still echo.

All he talks about is social justice, Gulliford added.

If he is the head of the Catholic Church, he should put salvation over social justice, Gulliford continued, adding that any friend of the United Nations is no friend of mine.

Gulliford also believes that, even if the quote he reacted to was not in the interview, there is plenty of evidence of Francis anti-American animus, reflected in his comments against the United States, which reflect a definite anti-American bent.

Gulliford alsonoted that Pope Benedict XVI condemned liberation theology as being in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

Meanwhile, several Catholics with a different take weighed in Friday also.

When right-wing politicians and conservative media pundits dont want to hear what Pope Francis has to say about inequality or the failure of trickle-down economics, they hurl the communist epithet at him, said John Gehring, Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, and author of The Francis Effect.

But the popes economic message is rooted in traditional Catholic teaching. The catechism of the church talks about inequality as sinful. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI strongly challenged free-market fundamentalism. Conservative Catholics have a history of conveniently wishing that part of their own church tradition away.

A local Priest offered a similar sentiment.

Pope Francis stands solidly in line with his predecessors. William F. Buckley, Jr. rejected Pope John XXIIIs Mater et Magistra, and admirers of Pope John Paul II cherry picked from his teaching on communism and capitalism, passing over his critiques of the latter while trumpeting his critiques of the former, said Jacksonville local Pastor Tim Lozier of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church.

I absolutely agree that Pope Francis is simply preaching the Gospel and we all are often more aligned with the worldly values of success and prosperity than we are with the values Jesus taught and lived.

See the article here:
Jacksonville Councilman doubles down on describing Pope Francis as a 'communist' - Florida Politics (blog)

Most people have been told not to take free things from strangers in a white van, Guisepi Spadafora joked. But thats exactly what I am.

Spadafora known to some as the tea man travels around the country, serving free tea and offering conversation to anybody who stops by and sits in one of the camping chairs set up around his parked 1989 Ford/Thomas bus.

For the past 11 years, Spadafora has been the man behind Free Tea Party. In that time, he estimates he has served over 30,000 cups of tea across 35 different states.

It all started when he was a recent college graduate, living in Los Angeles and working as a film editor for no pay. He was living out of a truck and found that his interactions with people didnt fill his need for genuine human interaction, he told Travel + Leisure.

After work, I started going to Hollywood Boulevard, Spadafora said. I opened up my tailgate, put out camping chairs, and turned on my Coleman stove to cook dinner. After a while, people would ask what I was doing and I would say Care to join?

A diverse group of people would join Spadaforas dinners college professors, tourists from around the world, street punk kids, etc. When the food was all done, Spadafora would put on a kettle of tea and people would stay to continue their conversations.

Spadafora said he was impressed by what happened when he took money out of the equation people from all different walks of life would sit down and have meaningful conversations about universal human topics.

It was never a conscious act to make a community, Spadafora told T+L. I was never like I am going to fill this loneliness by going around the country and making people tea. I just found that when I took money out of the equation, it made interactions much more genuine. It all happened pretty naturally.

After a few years, Spadafora took his van up and down the west coast. After about seven years of that, he started to criss-cross the rest of the country from coast to coast.

In the late afternoon, he will pull up to a random street and unpack his party: camping chairs, a giant kettle, and a sign that says free tea. Hell brew a large pot (generally non-caffeinated, herbal teas) and wait with his bus, named Edna Lu.

It may take a while, but eventually one brave person will sit down for a cup of tea, Spadafora said. Then another will join. Then more and more will join until its a party, with an eclectic group of people sitting around and talking about subjects as varied as hometowns, funny stories, or the economy of the world. Spadafora said the Free Tea Parties are reclaiming public space for noncommercial use.

While traversing the country, Spadafora takes a slow travel approach. He may only stay in certain cities for one night, but he may stay elsewhere for a few months, often helping with renovation or building projects and always serving free black, white, green, or oolong tea.

Because of the Tea Bus, strangers in the communities where Spadafora stops are no longer strangers. People exchange information and stay in contact. They have fallen in love, made friends, and even formed bands because of conversations in the Tea Bus.

His goal is to remind people that before currency was invented, humans had a sharing culture. Relationships are the highest form of value, Spadafora said.

Those questioning the bus's anti-monetary business model can learn how the project sustains itself on the Free Tea Party blog.

Spadafora and Edna Lu are currently on a writing hiatus in Arkansas. Later this summer, they will start serving free cups of tea again en route to Colorado.

Read more:
This Man Is Traveling the US and Hosting Free Tea Parties From His Van - Travel+Leisure

Mr. Yanukovych was driven from office in the Maidan Revolution of 2014, after having stolen, according to the current Ukrainian government, at least $1 billion. In the years before his fall, Mr. Manafort took lavish payments to burnish the image of Mr. Yanukovych and the Party of Regions in Washington, even as the party acknowledged only very modest spending.

In 2012, for example, the party reported annual expenses of about $11.1 million, based on the exchange rate at the time, excluding overhead. For the same year, Mr. Manafort reported income of $12.1 million from the party, the Justice Department filing shows.

In 2013, the Party of Regions reported expenses of $3.7 million, while Mr. Manafort reported receiving payments of $4.5 million.

Handwritten ledgers that surfaced last year indicated that the party had actually spent about $2 billion over the past decade or so, much or most of it illegally. Some outlays like payments to an election official possibly amounted to criminal bribery.

Mr. Manafort has not been charged with breaking any laws regarding the reporting of income derived from his efforts on behalf of the party. The disclosures cap lengthy negotiations between Mr. Manafort and officials at the Justice Department, which monitors the activities of Americans who work on behalf of foreign political parties and governments.

In a statement, Mr. Manaforts spokesman, Jason Maloni, suggested that the Party of Regions was accountable for the contradiction between the two disclosures.

Any questions about the reporting obligations of the Party of Regions should be directed to those within the party responsible for such reporting, he said in a statement. Mr. Manaforts work in Ukraine was widely known and the firm was paid only for the work it performed. In fact, just last month Ukraine officials indicated that there is no proof of illicit payments.

Though documents discovered after the 2014 revolution show the partys coffers were padded with donations from Ukraines ultrawealthy steel and natural gas tycoons, it tried to keep up a populist image and declared only a modest, even minuscule, annual budget.

It means either Manafort is lying, or the Party of Regions was lying, Serhiy Leshchenko, an investigative journalist and a member of Parliament who has been critical of Mr. Manaforts work in Ukraine, said in an interview.

A Ukrainian investigation of this discrepancy is not likely. The Party of Regions is now disbanded, and prosecutors are looking into far more serious crimes than campaign finance filing errors.

Moreover, at the time the party made its declarations, filing a false campaign finance report was considered an administrative offense akin to a parking ticket and punishable by no more than a fine of a few hundred dollars, said Ostap Kuchma, a party finance analyst at the anticorruption group Chesno.

Mr. Manaforts reports to the Justice Department do not cover the entire period he worked in Ukraine. Last summer, The New York Times reported that the partys handwritten ledgers showed $12.7 million in undisclosed payments designated for Mr. Manaforts firm from 2007 to 2012.

Anticorruption officials in Ukraine assert that the payments were part of an illegal off-the-books system. Mr. Manafort, who resigned from his campaign post shortly after the article appeared, has denied receiving any cash, and state prosecutors in Ukraine have not accused him of wrongdoing.

Ukraines chief anticorruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky, reiterated that assessment last month, telling Ukrainian television that ledger entries provided no proof of Mr. Manaforts having receiving illegal payments.

But the investigation into the accounting book, including the entries mentioning Mr. Manafort, is still open, and recently shifted from one branch of the prosecutors office to another, Serhiy Gorbatyuk, the prosecutor in charge of the case, said in an interview.

The Party of Regions was spending a lot of cash, to bribe voters and for illegal advertising, Daria M. Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, said in an interview. Manafort took the money to whitewash its reputation in the West.

Iuliia Mendel contributed reporting.

Excerpt from:
Huge Manafort Payment Reflects Murky Ukraine Politics - New York Times