Arnaud Bertrand Profile picture
Aug 6 3 tweets 7 min read Read on X
That's an extraordinary story by @NPR and an all-too-rare example of good diligent journalism from U.S. media:

At the origin of the story is NPR investigating a highly mediatized instance of China allegedly harassing "dissidents" abroad, namely Wang Jingyu @WANGJINGYU2001 as well as Gao Zhi and his family (his son Gao Peng, daughter Gao Han and his wife Liu Fengling).

These allegations had given rise to scores of articles in the media globally such as AP, the Washington Post, ABC News, the Independent, Japanese media like The Asahi Shimbum, etc. All uncritically sharing the "dissidents'" story that they were being harassed by the "CCP". All in all, as NRP notes, "through his many interviews and claims, Wang Jingyu became one of the most public victims of Chinese government repression in Europe. More than 50 news organizations have quoted, mentioned or featured him. Witnesses have also referenced Wang’s story in U.S. congressional testimony."

NPR however decided to dig further and to actually - believe it or not - verify if the alleged harassment claims were true or not before publishing them, which is very much NOT the norm when it comes to negative stories on China.

And what they found out was that it was actually all a con! Wang Jingyu had actually faked everything and had pulled a very sophisticated con on Gao Zhi and his family to steal their life savings.

Basically what happened is that Wang and Gao were both residing in the Netherlands. Wang, claiming that the "CCP harassment" was so intense he could no longer stay in his apartment, started living in an empty room in Gao's apartment. Gao meanwhile was trying to get his family - who at that time were in Thailand - to join him in the Netherlands.

In Thailand however Gao's wife got contacted by a man who said he was a Chinese diplomat and told her that Chinese authorities believed her son had threatened to blow up the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok. She also received an email that appeared to come from the Dutch immigration service and said airports in Europe had received bomb threats claiming to be from her and her son, and that “therefore [your] travel to the EU is legally restricted”.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands Gao also received a message from the same Dutch immigration email account, which said his wife and daughter had confessed to making additional bomb threats against EU embassies in Thailand and that “they apologized for this and volunteered to return to China”.

At the time they all believed that these fake bomb threats - which they hadn't made - was a form of "CCP harassment" to put pressure on them, a form of power play to show they could get to them.

What they didn't know, and what NPR found out, was that there was actually no bomb threats and that the calls and emails they'd received from the "Chinese diplomat" and "Dutch immigration" were actually all fakes, made by Wang Jingyu.

How did they find out? As per the story "NPR contacted the press office for Dutch immigration and sent a screenshot of one of the messages Gao said he'd received from it. At first, Dutch immigration refused to discuss the case, citing privacy laws. When pressed, an official said the agency had 'no record' of the email. Then, she confirmed — the email was a forgery."

NPR also "called police in Europe about the alleged bomb threats", but "the police had never heard of them."

Worst yet, the "Dutch immigration" emails tricked Gao's wife and daughter into overstaying their visa in Thailand and they ended in immigration detention. Meanwhile the same Dutch immigration account told Gao that his family has arrived in Germany, making him travel there only to be welcomed by German police who arrested him on the basis of allegations made by a close associate of Wang who told German police that "Gao is part of a Chinese Communist Party cell and has threatened his life".

And meanwhile Wang tricked Gao into spending $17,000 - his life savings, including loans from relatives - on various fraudulent pretexts, with schemes such as "a fake Thai Airways email account telling the Gao family to obtain and turn over credit cards to facilitate flights to Europe".

That's actually how NPR confirmed that it was all a con by Wang - the good old journalistic principle of following the money: looking through the Gao's credit card records they noticed that "at least one charge went to a PayPal account that includes Wang’s name." NPR also found Wang's insistence to them that "the Dutch immigration email account was authentic" very suspect, given that when they looked into it, "the emails came from a Proton Mail account".

Even more dystopian, after Gao's arrest in Germany (which again was due to Wang and his associate lying to the German police), Wang told Gao's son Peng that "his father has been arrested for threatening to kill someone" followed by "the fake Dutch immigration account instructing Peng to record a video denouncing his father" and Wang subsequently "posting the video to X".

All in all the picture that emerges is that of Wang as a master-manipulator benefitting from the paranoia of the "CCP", conning people out of their life savings and trying to then get rid of them by either getting them arrested or discrediting them publicly (e.g. the video Peng got tricked into making by Wang where he denounces his father).

Thankfully in this particular instance the Gao family ended up reunited in the Netherlands after Gao's wife and daughter spending nearly four months in detention in Thailand. Gao himself only spent a few days in detention in Germany. Still, they lost all their life savings in the process...

Wang however still seems to be at large. As a matter of fact he's still here on Twitter - @WANGJINGYU2001 - posting regular paranoid and hateful posts about the "CCP" in Chinese, describing himself in his bio as someone "wanted by CCP for exercising my right to freedom of speech"...

The only beef I have with the NPR story is that they make a point of writing that what happened with Gao and Wang is a shame because it can discredit other stories on China and its alleged "harassment of dissidents".

When actually a much more logical conclusion should be: "wait a minute, if that story is false and was originally believed uncritically by all the world's media until an unusually diligent outlet looked into it, so could other similar stories. Aren't Western media way too eager to believe negative stories on China, so much so that they end up becoming useful idiots for all sorts of conmen?"

It's far from the first time this happens. Another extremely famous case is that of exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui who also was originally presented everywhere as a "Chinese dissident" and his now behind bars in the U.S. for... just being a conman (he pulled off a $1bn scam: ). Or of course you have all the claims, often shared uncritically, by the Falun Gong cult and its followers, who remain by far the biggest spreaders of fake news on China.

So this story is very much a microcosm of a larger, more insidious problem: the confluence of confirmation bias, lazy reporting, and the insatiable appetite for sensational stories about China by the media. How many other "truths" have they accepted without question? How often have they allowed their biases to cloud their judgment? Will the media continue accepting convenient narratives at face value, or will they emulate this rare instance of actual journalism by NPR, with the skepticism and thoroughness that should normally characterize all stories? Only the latter can begin to restore the considerable amount of trust they've already lost from the public.npr.org/2024/08/03/g-s…
bbc.com/news/articles/…
Screenshots of the "harassed dissident" story in the Washington Post, ABC News, the Independent, and The Asahi Shimbum, published before the NPR story proving it was all fake and a con.

As far as I can see, most of these outlets have now unpublished it.


Image
Image
Image
Image
For proof that Wang Jingyu is still very much at large and active on Twitter, he just blocked me. Which wasn't the case one hour ago before I wrote my post. Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Arnaud Bertrand

Arnaud Bertrand Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RnaudBertrand

Jul 8
That's incredible: Baidu last year set up a driverless taxi service in Wuhan and a few other places called "Carrot Run" (萝卜快跑), and the experiment is proving super popular with already 6 million rides completed with a fleet of just 1,000 cars.

The main reason is cost: without a driver and able to operate 24/7, it costs only 1/3rd of the price of a taxi or Uber. The cost paid by users is between RMB0.5 to RMB1.0 per km ($0.07 to $0.14) which is INSANELY cheap. With such a service, a drive between Boston and NYC (348 km) would set you back between $24 and $48, in your own private taxi!

Another added benefit is that they've set up the cars so that customers can sing karaoke or watch movies in the back (something you can't exactly do in a typical Uber). And safety-wise it's also proving much better than human drivers with no major accident in 100 million kilometers travelled.

So obviously a better experience from a consumer standpoint and it'll doubtlessly become the norm in a few years. Which of course raises questions with regards to jobs: millions if not tens of millions of people in China live off driving (taxis, delivery, etc.) so we're looking at quite a disruption if all those jobs get replaced by AI. And at the pace at which China moves, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Sources

mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU2OT…
wap.xxsb.com/content/2024-0…
More details 👇 In Wuhan they're allowed to cover 40% of the city
Read 4 tweets
Jun 29
The most important event in the world yesterday wasn't the disastrous presidential debate in the US, but it was the 70th anniversary of the 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence happening in Beijing.

I was lucky enough to be attending in person.

A 🧵
Image
Image
First of all, what are the 5 principles of peaceful coexistence, and why do they matter?

The principles were first proposed by China for the purpose of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, also called the Panchsheel Agreement.

They are:
1) mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty,
2) mutual non aggression,
3) mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs,
4) equality and co-operation for mutual benefit
5) peaceful co-existence
Read 22 tweets
Jun 21
Whenever I want to be reminded of what a wise politician sounds like, I listen to George Yeo, the former Foreign Minister of Singapore (he was Singaporean cabinet minister during 21 years!).

A small 🧵 with video extracts from a talk he made at @AsiaSocietyNY recently.

Here he explains why it's "troubling" that the US keeps making the remark that they won't become number 2, "because it suggests that the US will do everything it can to prevent China from being number 1".

All the more troubling because:
- "China is prepared to accept the US for what it is"
- "It is completely unrealistic" for the US to think it can "change China". He sees US aspirations to change China as "hope built on an illusion [which] can only lead to one outcome: to tragedy".
- "China doesn't want to be number one politically, [...] it doesn't want to take on the burden of being the global hegemon, the global policeman". So "in a multipolar world, the US can still be Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, because of the English languages, because of standards, because the US itself is a metasystem."
Here Yeo relates a powerful anecdote where the Secretary to Pope John Paul II wrote in a speech: "despite our diversity, we are one".

The Pope asked to replace the word "despite" with "because". Yeo interpreted it as meaning: "we are one only because we respect that each of us is unique, that each culture is unique, that each country is unique. If we want as a condition of the relationship that the other person should be like us, that's not a relationship, that's a dictatorship."
Yeo makes the point that today liberalism "has become doctrinaire, has become ideological", and that we need to recover the original liberal idea "of accepting differences and finding commonalities in our differences".
Read 5 tweets
Jun 14
The Economist: "China has become a scientific superpower"

Rare for me - maybe even unprecedented - to praise the Economist but this might be the seminal article on the current status of China's scientific might.

Let's take a look 🧵
economist.com/science-and-te…
Firstly, surprising that The Economist would publish this, given how much they've pushed the "China collapse" narrative over the years, and how negative they've always been about the country.

Maybe they figured that at some point they could only get away with so much... Image
So what proves that China has now become the world's foremost scientific power?

Firstly, China has now overtaken both the US and entire EU in number of high-impact scientific papers produced each year, including in the Nature Index which is virtually impossible to game. Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 13
These have undoubtedly been the wildest 72 hours in French politics in my lifetime. Pretty incredible stuff.

A 🧵
So after losing big time in the EU elections to Le Pen's Rassemblement National (RN), Macron decided to dissolve the National Assembly, calling the French to elect new MPs on the 30th of June 👇
This started what can only be called a movement of total panic throughout the French political class, because parties only have until this weekend to present candidates, and therefore decide on a strategy, who to ally with, etc.
Read 24 tweets
May 24
This FT article by former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy @ElbridgeColby is insane, it puts us straight back to the 19th century.


He literally proposes a plan for continued Western domination of the world that would involve a war on 2 fronts against both China and Russia. He writes that the US should focus all its military might on Asia to ensure it has primacy there over China, and fight a war for that purpose if need be, and Europe should rearm in a massive way to face Russia. As he explains it, poor little America doesn't have enough resources for global domination on its own anymore, which is why it needs help by rearming Europe so they can share the burden.

That's it, that's the gist of the article.

Which makes the "America must face reality" title for the piece deeply ironic and cynical: what "reality" are we talking about here? Because I think that over 90% of the planet wouldn't quite agree that this way of seeing the world is "facing reality". Quite the contrary, they'd argue it's holding on to a deeply troubling imperialist and supremacist vision of the world that has historically caused untold suffering...

It gets better. Why should the US, and not China, be the dominant power in China's region, you ask? Because see, America can't afford a "potentially hostile power dominating the most important industrialised region of the world" (actual quote from the article).

It doesn't matter apparently that Asia is "the most important industrialised region of the world" in huge parts THANKS TO CHINA! 🤦 In other words it's akin to saying "thanks guys for building such a vibrant economy in this place, we'll take it from here..."

Another hilarious yet deeply depressing part of the article is when he describes China as "doing almost everything consistent with preparing for a war with America". Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, this is China "facing the reality" that it's surrounded by US military bases and facing an America that keeps repeating its primary goal is to contain them and building multiple military alliances with their neighbors for that very purpose? Isn't it in the realm of possibilities that it might have something to do with that? And that as such the solution isn't upping the ante with yet more military buildup around China? How would the US react if China were to somehow decide that the US couldn't be the dominant player in America and were to progressively encircle the place militarily, making military alliances with Mexico and Canada: wouldn't it "do almost everything consistent with preparing for a war with China"?

Anyhow, conclusion: I feel like eating crazy pills when reading articles like this. But I, and the world at large, need to "face the reality" that this is America today: a power dominated by an extremely aggressive imperialist ideology. And we shouldn't resign ourselves to this, we need to do our outmost to call it out and stop this insanity before it's too late and they trigger the devastating world war they're actively preparing for.ft.com/content/b423aa…
Colby says I "caricature" his article without being specific how, so it's hard to reply...

I invite everyone to read the article and judge for themselves.
Sorry but that's patently untrue.

Based on your article, and your book Strategy of Denial, which I read in details, under the guise of "balance of power", you actually argue for US primacy in Asia, which means you don't even want a balance of power in China's own region, let alone the world...

In your book you describe "hegemony" as "a state exercising authority over other states and extracting benefits from them but without the responsibilities or risks of direct control" and you say that the US's principal objective should be to deny China the possibility of becoming a regional hegemon in Asia, and that the US should mount an "anti-hegemonic coalition" for that purpose. Fair summary, right?

But, ironically that anti-hegemonic coalition you envisage would of course be US-dominated and principally serve US interests because the very purpose of its existence would be to fulfill what you yourself describe as America's foremost strategic objective. Which means that as such it involves the US "exercising authority over other states and extracting benefits from them".

QED: you want the US to have the hegemonic power in Asia that you say you want to prevent China from having...

You will also note, by the way, that there is only one country between China and the US that's actively putting together military alliances against the other in Asia. And it's not China... So it's a bit rich to accuse them of seeking hegemony and say you're the good guys merely seeking "balance of power".
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(