Posted on 01/14/2018 10:00:38 PM PST by cba123
A little-noticed passage in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released last month previewed a new push to combat Chinese influence operations that affect American universities, think tanks, movie studios and news organizations.
The investigations by Congress and the FBI into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign won’t be affected by the added focus on China, officials say. Instead, the aim is to highlight Chinese activities that often get a free pass but can have a toxic long-term effect because of China’s growing wealth and power.
Please see link in post, for full article.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
--
China’s glittering modern facade often convinces outsiders that it’s a country just like those in the West. Not so, says Peter Mattis, a former CIA analyst who now studies Chinese influence activities for the Jamestown Foundation. When American thought leaders interact with Chinese representatives, it’s not a free-flowing “conduit,” he says, but a controlled circuit.
America has never faced a rival quite like China, which presents such a compelling, well-financed challenge to democratic values. America certainly doesn’t want a new “Red Scare,” but maybe a wake-up call.
Meddling the WashPoo calls it.
70 years again when Soviet Russia was meddling anyone who pointed it out was accused of hysteria.
Third article on China you’ve posted from WaPo tonight. Mighty interesting reading.
„former CIA analyst“
so he is incompetent & a deep state propagandist ?
Yes I followed a link from the Drudge report for the first one.
The other two were on the bottom of the page I linked to. I am actually in a coffee shop, on small tablet and figured how to also link to the other two.
Again I encourage anyone to post articles which interest you as well.
AS LONG AS I CAN GET TWICE COOKED PORK,,I’M OKAY! BEST FOOD IN THE WORLD!
Vooch your response is proof that during the leadership vacuum in the West left in the wake of Clinton-Bush-Obama years:
disenchanted Americans got swept up in revisionist narratives of the world as touted by Putin’s Russia and Jinping’s China...
So that now even with Trump and “good guys” stepping up to power again, you still buy into all the anti-American propaganda.
Deep state American corruption or not, China and Russia are not superior societies and they act out of envy and resentent towards us for this very fact!
Former CIA analysis doing stories for the Washington Post no less. What’s to mistrust?
„America“ is not a bunch of politicians inside the beltway. stop equating the 2
‚...Former CIA analysis doing stories for the Washington Post no less. What’s to mistrust?...‘
LOL
“America is not a bunch of politicians inside the beltway, stop equating the 2.”
Then stop defending Putin who does just that!
As part of a broad effort to interfere in U.S. institutions, China tries to shape the discussion at American universities, stifle criticism and influence academic activity by offering funding, often through front organizations closely linked to Beijing.
Now that aspect of Beijing’s foreign influence campaign is beginning to face resistance from academics and lawmakers. A major battle in this nascent campus war played out over the past six months at the University of Texas in Austin.
(CIRCA 2015—HAT TIP NICK GASS) ......questions about Bill Clinton’ Chinese government-supported speeches in China surfaced early on in Hillary Clinton’s SoS tenure, as requests from Bill Clinton’s office continued to roll in.
In 2009, State officials appear to have forced cancellation of a planned video address by the former president to a sports gala in Shanghai sponsored by a hedge-fund titan routing money through a Chinese-government-run foundation.
In addition to the Beijing Forum, there were red flags from State for proposals for paid speeches to the Chinese E-Commerce Association, the China Association for International Friendly Contact and a business aviation event to take place in Shanghai in 2012.
Kathryn Youel Page said that aviation event raised questions because the request “states that the Shanghai Airport Authority (SAA), a state-owned enterprise, would be a ‘title sponsor only.’”
“Does this mean that SAA is not contributing any funds to pay for President Clinton’s speaker fees?” she asked Krinvic via email. “I don’t believe we’ve previously cleared acceptance of fees from PRC [People’s Republic of China]-linked entities but could consider this variation.”
“We are actually pulling that offer from our list,” Krinvic replied. “It’s not feasible schedule wise now.” (Former Republican presidential candidate and publisher Steve Forbes appears to have taken the speaking slot first offered to Bill Clinton.)
cont
cont
A proposed Bill Clinton speech in Turkey in 2009 met similar resistance, with State lawyers asking about possible government funding. The “keynote address” planned for the International University Festival in Istanbul was to be underwritten by Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Office of then-Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.
The proposal generated email traffic between State headquarters and U.S. diplomats in Ankara, as well as with climate change experts, since that was one proposed subject of Clinton’s talk. The substance of the exchanges was redacted from the released documents, but the speech appears to have never taken place.
A friendlier reception was accorded to the Canadian government when aides to Bill Clinton asked ethics officials to approve a speech to the Canadian National Exposition in Toronto. Clinton’s participation in a “photoline, speech and moderated Q&A” was to be paid for by a tourism-promotion agency of the Canadian government, Clinton’s office said in a July 21, 2009 request.
State Department lawyer Violanda Botet wrote back 10 days later asking Clinton’s people to clarify the foreign government funding.
“All funding for this event comes from a Government program that supports tourism in Canada,” Krinvic replied. “Funds have been provided in the grant from Industry Canada to market President Clinton’s appearance in key US border states (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan).”
By August 5, Krinvic had grown frantic.
“Anyword [sic] on this? I have about 30 more min before we lose the offer,” he wrote via email.
One hour and one minute later, Thessin — State’s top ethics official — finally weighed in.
“I do not have a problem with this as long as President Clinton is not serving as a U.S. government employee at the time of the appearance and when he is paid an honorarium,” Thessin wrote. “If not an employee, he may accept reimbursements of expenses and an honorarium for his speech/talk, but he may not receive any gifts from the Canadian government.”
That speech, delivered on August 29, 2009, brought Clinton a fee of $175,000, according to his wife’s financial disclosure.
Bill Clinton got similar approval for the 2010 speech sponsored by the Thai government, for an unknown amount, and for an environmental event in Abu Dhabi in 2011, which carried a $500,000 paycheck.
The records suggest that ethics reviewers generally did not know how much money Clinton was receiving for the speaking engagements until his wife’s disclosure form was filed months or even a year or more after the events.
Spokespeople for the Clintons and for the Clinton Foundation did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
However, traveling in Africa for the Clinton Foundation this week, the former president said he needed to give the paid speeches to keep his family finances afloat. “I’ve got to pay our bills,” Bill Clinton told NBC in Nairobi.
Clinton said the speech circuit was the least problematic way for him to bring in income without establishing permanent business ties to individuals or companies.
“It’s the most independence I can get,” he argued in the NBC interview. “If I had a business relationship with somebody, they would have a target on their back from the day they did business with me until the end….People like hearing me speak. And I have turned down a lot of them. If I think there`s something wrong with it, I don`t take it. And I did disclose who gave them to me so people can make up their own mind.”
A State Department spokesman declined to comment when asked why the ethics reviewers seem to have concluded that government funding from some countries was problematic, but money from other nations was not.
At a regular briefing for reporters Thursday, a State Department spokesman said the agency does not plan to take any action to address or investigate the failure by the Clinton Foundation and related organizations to submit some foreign government donations for review or to make public the names of donors.
”The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” spokesman Jeff Rathke said.
Rathke noted that the various ethics-related agreements struck just prior to Clinton becoming secretary of state did not require any approval of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by private individuals or businesses, just foreign governments. The agreements do raise the possibility of State ethics officials advising Clinton personally on potential conflicts of interest arising from her husband’s speeches and business contacts.
Rathke said that while any omissions in the donation vetting process are unfortunate, there is no indication that any gifts to the foundation or payments for husband’s speeches or advice impacted her work at State
“We regret that we did not have the opportunity to review all new and increased foreign government donations,” Rathke said.” The department’s actions under Secretary Clinton were taken to advance administration policy as set by the President and in the interest of American foreign policy…. We aren’t aware of any actions taken by Secretary Clinton that were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation or its offshoots, or by speech honoraria and consultancies of former President Clinton.”
CIRCA 2015——Hillary’s State Dept. aides consulted on Bill’s speeches / By Josh Gerstein
Hillary Clinton’s State Department aides were sometimes consulted “as a practical matter” during the independent review process of President Bill Clinton’s lucrative global appearances and business deals to get “additional perspective,” a State Department official acknowledged to POLITICO.
In one instance, the department’s top ethics lawyer Jim Thessin decided to consult with the secretary’s close aides about a 2010 request from the former president to accept an invitation to speak in China, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
One instance centered on a proposed speech the former president would give in China.
The planned speech was to the Beijing Forum, an annual education-related event paid for by the state-run Peking University, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission and a Korean foundation. The fact that two of the three sponsors were effectively part of the Chinese government raised a red flag.
When Bill Clinton’s team pressed for an answer on whether he could speak to the event devoted to “The Harmony of Civilizations and Prosperity for All,” they were told Thessin needed to consult with Hillary Clinton’s staff about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.