Foundinchina.com

One of the arguments I hear a lot from Chinese lately is that Tibet has been a part of China for hundreds of years. Although I don’t want to get into that particular debate here, I would like to know why on Earth the Chinese government has such a problem with the Tibetan flag.

Go here and you will read exactly how much Tibetan symbolism and culture is wrapped up in the flag’s design. It is no exaggeration to say that the flag is an integral part of Tibetan culture, the very thing that the CCP would have us believe they are committed to protecting.

The origins of the Tibetan flag, which adopted its present form in 1912, date back nearly 1200 years, longer than the Chinese claims that Tibet has been part of its territory. If anyone has more information about the history of the Tibetan flag, please let me know.

So why do these new CCP boys have such an issue with the Tibetan flag when previous dynasties just looked on admiringly at the lovely design (the PRC flag is very young by comparison).

Of course, the CCP’s jealous nature views the flag as a symbol of a Tibetan identity outside of their control, and Beijing has never displayed tolerance for anything or anyone that challenges them for popularity. Just ask the Falun Gong.

On a related note, I’ve been appalled at the weakness of foreign governments in bowing to Chinese pressure and harassing or arresting those protesters waving the Tibetan flag in countries that are supposedly defenders of free speech. Equally troubling to my mind have been the enraged reactions of overseas Chinese at the sight of the flag, often chasing down and fighting with those displaying it.

I have this message for all Chinese for whom this beautiful design induces hysteria: It’s a flag for Christ’s sake, and it’s been around for centuries longer than your own. It really is time to grow up on this issue. 

The flag will remain on this site as a symbol of the tolerance the world demands and expects (but is so often denied) of a powerful country. If Tibetan history is intertwined with that of China and its people, then the flag is a part of their cultural heritage too. And yet, anyone daring to display these colours risks certain arrest and imprisonment. 

Many people will be taking this flag to Beijing. How China chooses to deal with its display will say more to the watching world about China’s progress as a nation than gold medals or large buildings. If you’re in China, of course, delayed coverage and censorship will certainly deny people the right to see such images. 

The Tibetan flag is full of meaning; it is a rich tapestry of history and culture dating back centuries. In the name of peace, harmony, and tolerance, let it fly.    

Read this article from the NYT. It reports an incident and repercussions that are by no means isolated. 

Empowered the right to protest that living abroad offers them, Chinese citizens the world over are riding a wave of nationalistic frenzy. The irony is staggering in the light of the present storm over perceived western media bias.

The NYT article highlights the danger of stoking up emotions through the carefully tailored story that the rest of the world are against China and its people. This plays perfectly to the deep sense of victimisation felt by so many Chinese, making it all too easy for their government to turn its citizens into an angry nationalistic mob.  

As Richard points out over at Peking Duck:

China has come so far so fast, but if it doesn’t grow up along the way it will be doomed to wallow in impotent and pointless rage. It can do better than this. 

There is certainly something worryingly child-like in these sorts of mass responses. A responsible government would address such an issue head-on, rather than instructing embassies around the globe to mobilise Chinese students abroad to do their bidding. So much for the promise of a peaceful, tolerant, and harmonious rise. 

Western press ‘demonises’ China

This was the headline for a BBC article putting forward the views of Fu Ying, the Chinese ambassador in London. Here’s what she said:

The Chinese ambassador to London has accused the Western media of demonising China and says there are “complicated problems” in Tibet.

Fu Ying also said that a young Chinese woman asked her: “Where is the gentlemanship?” after the protests during the Olympic torch run in London.

Many of the visitors from China who were in London last week felt that Britain was against them, she added.

Ms Fu said in the Sunday Telegraph that Tibet is “loved” by the Chinese.

The ambassador wrote: “I am concerned that mutual perceptions between the people of China and the West are quickly drifting in opposite directions.

“Of those who protested loudly, many probably have not seen Tibet. For the Chinese people, Tibet is a loved land and information about it is ample.

“There may be complicated problems of religion mixing with politics, but people are well-fed, well-clothed and well-housed.

“That has been the main objective of China for centuries. Tibet may not grow into an industrial place like the eastern cities in China, but it will move on like other parts of China.”

According to BBC political correspondent, Laura Kuenssberg, officials from the British Foreign Office suggest that one way to settle disputes about biased reporting would be for China to allow the international press free access to Tibet.

But Ms Fu says that Western media has to earn China’s “respect”.

She said: “Many complain about China not allowing enough access to the media. In China, the view is that the Western media needs to make an effort to earn respect.

“Coming to China to report bad stories would not be stopped, as China is committed to opening up.”

All of Fu’s comments are strictly CCP and most are laughably hypocritical. Imagine the China Daily publishing comparable utterances from Britain’s ambassador in Beijing. That’s right; you can’t imagine it because it would never be permitted. 

I’m going to examine Fu’s words more closely tomorrow, when I have more time.

In the meantime, I would like all readers to be aware of the wave of anti-western sentiment sweeping across China right now. And why is this happening? Because China’s state controlled media has been busy demonising the west (whatever that is) by telling its people that the ‘west’ is demonising China. 

Utter crap is my initial response. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’ll be my response tomorrow as well.

Update

Richard Spencer did a far better job of deconstructing Fu’s interview (objectively, too) so I’ll redirect readers here. The comments are interesting, offering a good cross-section of opinion. It is worth mentioning that many of those comments would not be allowed in a China Daily forum – I’ll leave you to guess which ones.

Here is part of an analysis of Rudd’s speech to the students at Peking University:

Rudd then spoke about China joining the rest of humanity as “a responsible global stakeholder” – a lead-in to addressing the pressing issue of Tibet. By framing his comments in such a manner, he established his right – and by extension the right of others – to disagree with both Chinese official and mainstream opinion on matters of international concern. There is a venerable Chinese expression for this position: “A true friend,” Rudd went on, “is one who can be a zhengyou, that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship.”

The subsequent Chinese media discussion of Rudd’s use of the powerful and meaning-laden term zhengyou – the true friend who dares to disagree – has been considerable. That is because the more common word “friendship” (youyi) has been a cornerstone of China’s post-1949 diplomacy.

To be a friend of China, the Chinese people, the party-state or, in the reform period, even a mainland business partner, the foreigner is often expected to stomach unpalatable situations, and keep silent in the face of egregious behaviour. A friend of China might enjoy the privilege of offering the occasional word of caution in private; in the public arena he or she is expected to have the good sense and courtesy to be “objective”, that is to toe the line, whatever that happens to be. The concept of “friendship” thus degenerates into little more than an effective tool for emotional blackmail and enforced complicity.

Rudd’s tactic was to deftly sidestep the vice-like embrace of that model of friendship by substituting another. “A strong relationship, and a true friendship,” he told the students, “are built on the ability to engage in a direct, frank and ongoing dialogue about our fundamental interests and future vision.”

The distinction was not lost on the Chinese. The official newsagency Xinhua reported: “Eyes lit up when [Rudd] used this expression … it means friendship based on speaking the truth, speaking responsibly. It is evident that to be a zhengyou first thing one needs is the magnanimity of pluralism.” Of course, in the land of linguistic slippage it is easy to see that while for some zhengyou means speaking out of turn, for others it may simply become another way for allowing pesky foreigners to let off steam.

Read more here

This is exactly how all foreign leaders should be engaging China, and who better than Rudd with his command of the language and culture after spending years as a diplomat in Beijing. As Rudd realises, you get nowhere by kowtowing to Beijing’s expectations of flattery with superlatives and the use of language designed to tread safely on eggshells.

There is a real need for the kind of frankness that China typically reacts to using empty terms such as ‘unwise’, ‘irresponsible’, or ‘unnecessary’.  Let’s hope that the Chinese government can embrace the hand of zhengyou and learn to accept criticism and disagreement from overseas with the same alacrity that she currently criticises foreign countries. That will need a more widespread adoption of pluralism than Beijing is presently comfortable with. 

It is the rejection of pluralism (as in the case of the recent and ongoing Tibet/torch saga) that has caused a wave of anti-western feeling to sweep over the country through the use of emotive propaganda in the state-controlled media. This has even reached my door. Simply by being a foreigner I’ve been informed several times (anonymously, I should add) that I should be ashamed of myself for the west’s portrayal of China!!  This does not augur well for a country preparing to play host to the world.

Ultimately, in a totalitarian regime, the government is responsible for producing this self-serving anger against western critics. Rudd was brave enough to tell the Chinese in their own language that criticism is not synonymous with being anti-China, and that Beijing has a responsibility to allow the dissenting voice to be heard.