Qing Shuihe: US Cover-Up of Its Support for Occupy Central Belies Its Intentions
The “Occupy Central” movement has received the human, financial and material support of the United States; this is already a public “secret.” Nevertheless, at a recent congressional “hearing,” Assistant Secretary of State Daniel R. Russel stated that “…the United States is [not] in any way involved in the protests." It’s truly laughable: If the U.S. doesn’t support “Occupy Central,” then why is there a need to call a “hearing,” and — even more — why is there a need to resurrect the “Hong Kong Policy Act?” Russel is clearly speaking nonsense.
At yesterday’s “hearing,” Russel first admitted that “the NPC [National People’s Congress] decision conformed to requirements of the Basic Law,”* but then pretended to make a serious analysis of the “Occupy Central” incident by stating that “the decision … triggered the public protests that are still underway” and that the “flare-up on Nov. 30” was “alarming.” Finally, he said, “We have also categorically denied allegations from China that the United States is in any way involved in the protests.”
Of course the United States hasn't been "involved in the protests," but is it not possible that Americans have played a role in them in their whole process of conception through organization and execution?
The fact is that secret documents revealed after “Occupy Central” show that American authorities financially assisted primary opposition figures through all sorts of quasi-official funds. What was known for years simply as the National Endowment for Democracy provided tens of millions of Yuan worth of financial support, and these funds entered the “Occupy Central” movement through a variety of channels and under a variety of names.
During October, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission consecutively issued two anti-China reports that used their full ability to distort the facts and attacked China’s central government and the Special Administrative Region government and tried to “legitimate” “Occupy Central.” In mid-November, the U.S. Congress invited four politicians, including Chris Patten and Mark Largon, to attend a “hearing” and to support “Occupy Central” politicians in Hong Kong. That same month, the bipartisan “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was introduced, which lays out all sorts of so-called “reported” evidence, unscrupulously attacks the Chinese central government, Americanizes “Occupy Central,” and also resurrects the “Honk Kong Policy Act.”
With all that, can they still say they have not in fact participated? Russel “categorically denying such accusations” seems more to be a case of a cover-up making the facts more clear. Was his participation in yesterday’s “hearing” not in itself positioning him as a supporter of the “Occupy Central” position?
As director of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of East Asian Affairs, Russel needs to speak pleasing words on behalf of the U.S. government — this is understandable. However, that the magnificent United States of America has suddenly sunken into a state of daring to act but not admitting its actions, even to the point of allowing distortion of facts in order to make a specious political argument, is dumbfounding.
*Editor’s note: Basic Law refers to the law governing relations between Hong Kong and China’s central government.
At yesterday’s “hearing,” Russel first admitted that “the NPC [National People’s Congress] decision conformed to requirements of the Basic Law,”* but then pretended to make a serious analysis of the “Occupy Central” incident by stating that “the decision … triggered the public protests that are still underway” and that the “flare-up on Nov. 30” was “alarming.” Finally, he said, “We have also categorically denied allegations from China that the United States is in any way involved in the protests.”
Of course the United States hasn't been "involved in the protests," but is it not possible that Americans have played a role in them in their whole process of conception through organization and execution?
The fact is that secret documents revealed after “Occupy Central” show that American authorities financially assisted primary opposition figures through all sorts of quasi-official funds. What was known for years simply as the National Endowment for Democracy provided tens of millions of Yuan worth of financial support, and these funds entered the “Occupy Central” movement through a variety of channels and under a variety of names.
During October, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission consecutively issued two anti-China reports that used their full ability to distort the facts and attacked China’s central government and the Special Administrative Region government and tried to “legitimate” “Occupy Central.” In mid-November, the U.S. Congress invited four politicians, including Chris Patten and Mark Largon, to attend a “hearing” and to support “Occupy Central” politicians in Hong Kong. That same month, the bipartisan “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was introduced, which lays out all sorts of so-called “reported” evidence, unscrupulously attacks the Chinese central government, Americanizes “Occupy Central,” and also resurrects the “Honk Kong Policy Act.”
With all that, can they still say they have not in fact participated? Russel “categorically denying such accusations” seems more to be a case of a cover-up making the facts more clear. Was his participation in yesterday’s “hearing” not in itself positioning him as a supporter of the “Occupy Central” position?
As director of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of East Asian Affairs, Russel needs to speak pleasing words on behalf of the U.S. government — this is understandable. However, that the magnificent United States of America has suddenly sunken into a state of daring to act but not admitting its actions, even to the point of allowing distortion of facts in order to make a specious political argument, is dumbfounding.
*Editor’s note: Basic Law refers to the law governing relations between Hong Kong and China’s central government.