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.    

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.

Unbelievable

This can only lead to trouble in my opinion. Beijing needs to grow up to the idea that when you invite the world’s people to visit, many different opinions come with them.

You can’t say to athletes, tourists, or journalists that they are welcome in China as long as they only say, do, and think what we tell you. That is simply a recipe for disaster.

I rarely bother with the annoying drivel disseminated by China’s English language channel. In the interests of seeing the unfolding torch troubles from all angles, however, I switched on this evening to watch old wooden-top Edwin Mar squirm his way through some truly juvenile propaganda. Everything was going swimmingly we were assured, despite the efforts of a few separatists on route. No mention of the widespread criticism of the Chinese torch guardians and their aggressive behaviour on foreign soil; no word about the scuffles; and silence surrounding the fact that the torch was extinguished three times in Paris.

Next up was Aussie PM Rudd delivering a speech in Beijing. We heard about his view that Olympic boycotts don’t work, but heard nothing about his warning to Beijing about rights abuses in Tibet. Nor was there ant mention of Rudd’s noncommital stance on attending the Games or his praiseworthy refusal to allow the Chinese entourage in blue anywhere near the torch in Canberra.

Just imagine for a second a 30-strong team of trained henchmen from foreign shores, acting without authority, and shoving locals around in Beijing. London and Paris showed zero inclination to confront the Chinese on this issue, allowing the ’thugs’ (go here) to fuel the chaos and mayhem while preventing anyone from getting a look at the torch. Hats off to Rudd for laying down the law; in Australia, security is the responsibility of Australians.

The news hour was cut short for a special report from Tibet. It defies credibility that any educated Chinese can possibly swallow this patronising shit. Sadly, if the comments I’ve been reading recently are a guide, credibility has indeed been defied. In one typically pathetic piece of CCP theatre we saw the smashed windows of a hospital van and a close-up of a rock lying inside the vehicle. Next, in one of the poorest amateur performances I’ve ever witnessed, a tearful nurse described the anguish of being prevented from attending to the needs of a six-year-old boy by the stone-throwing ‘Dalai clique.’

Any criticism of western media lacks credibility when it emanates from a government still spoon feeding its citizenry with increasingly dodgy-sounding party rhetoric. It really is time for the CCP to stop treating its people like fools, even if that means the end of comedy hour on CCTV9.   

Interesting few days.

China revealed that the Dalai Lama’s terrorist codename among those notorious wild boys the Tibetan monks is ‘uncle’ (no, I’m not joking). No evidence was presented with this latest nugget.

What else? Oh yes, Kim Jong Il and his merry men threatened to blow their South Korean buddies off the face of the Earth. Seriously, it’s about time that crackpot got himself a new hairdo.

Next, the IOC decided to flex some muscle (luckily, they managed to locate some), telling China to stop blocking internet sites and fulfil one of their Olympic promises in the process. Listen very carefully and you can hear the laughter from Beijing.

Finally, there were contrasting fortunes for the two old pals in this photo:

The man on the left is officially a gonner; the guy on the right is officially a torch bearer. Well, we can’t have everything!  

….well written essay on the Chinese response to recent foreign media coverage of the T1betan protests. Here’s a taster:

For its part, Xinhua blamed the Western media bias on a “cognitive blackout,” and many foreign journalists in China do need a more sophisticated understanding of the issues in Tibet. Unfortunately, the government chose to respond to this cognitive blackout with a news blackout. In the absence of information, the mind races even as the fingers type, and western journalists are generally trained in such a way that when a government appears to be hiding something, it must be something worth hiding, and so they begin to suspect the worst. On the day the violence erupted, only The Christian Science Monitor and The Economist had people on the ground filing stories as Beijing Street in Lhasa burned. Everybody else was in Beijing (the city) desperately trying to get as close as they could to the action but to little avail: the government was not letting any more foreign journalists into Tibet.

The site is well worth a visit, but you’ll need a proxy if you’re in China!

Click here to see it.

I’m not sure how long this will last - until the next criticism, I suspect.

The timing is interesting. My guess is that Beijing are confident in the way they have been spinning stories of bias in the western media, such that any alternative views on Tibet, for example, will now serve only to reinforce the seed planted in the mind of most Chinese.

I suppose it had to happen. How can you marginalise an entire culture for half a century without breeding resentment? That resentment is more likely to find a voice when the world is watching. On whichever side of the political divide you find yourself encamped on the Tibet issue, it is an issue; and there is trouble relating to that issue happening right now. A good account of events as told through various media outlets can be found at chinadigitaltimes.

If you’re in China you might have problems accessing that link without a proxy, one of the reasons I choose to raise the issue here. The CCP could be a lot smarter in handling its coverage of these incidents in the months preceding the Games. But nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

A reasonable discussion of current events is underway at Peking Duck. However, some of the party faithful seem unable to contain themselves:

Chinese governement should crush tibetan people as hard as possible. If you have to drop a bomb in the crowd, do it.

We should set an example. Now is the Opportunity. Just crush Tibetans. Maim them, burn them, destroy them. And make the world know, it if you want to take the advantage of Olympic games to destabilize china, you shall pay with your life, your family’s life and your country men’s life!

A more sober and detailed account of events to date can be found at the timesonline:

In the Barkh_r market that winds around the J_khang temple, Tibet’s holiest site, they reported the bodies of two Tibetan men and two Tibetan women. The body of a Tibetan man was seen in the Lugu district and a Tibetan woman lay dead on Qingnian Road, near the city centre. They said all appeared to have been shot but no monks were seen among the dead.

Many ethnic Han Chinese, a minority in Tibet, were wounded in attacks by Tibetans hurling rocks and bricks as they vented their anger against Beijing rule. Residents said a number of Han had been killed but no figures were available as the city was engulfed in chaos.

China Daily predictably puts a slightly different spin on events:

Xinhua reporters in Lhasa saw many rioters were carrying backpacks filled with stones and bottles of inflammable liquids, some holding iron bars, wooden sticks and long knifes, a sign that the crowd came fully prepared and meant harm.

The mobs assaulted passersby, sparing no women or children, witnesses said.

I can just imagine the glee of the Xinhua reporters who found ‘witnesses’ telling them that protesters were “sparing no women or children”. It would be nice if Xinhua reporters could exhibit the same level of journalistic enthusiasm with regard to the police and military excesses against Tibetan people.

That said, there does appear to have been some needless violence directed towards those regarded as occupiers by Tibetans. This will not help their cause. And the Chinese government needs to restrain the brutal inclination of its recent history if it is to keep its Olympic dream alive.

China’s petty film authorities have done it again. Timesonline today reports that Lust, Caution star Tang Wei has been blacklisted (unofficially, of course) because Ang Lee’s film is considered to “glorify unpatriotic behaviour.”

This action has been taken despite - or possibly because of - the films popularity in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Ang Lee is widely celebrated in China for the many international honours bestowed on his films and their actors: ‘This is our boy’, they cry, ’And we Chinese can show you western types a thing or two about film-making.’

Beijing clearly don’t mind Ang Lee collecting a few gongs and statues on their behalf, but have no inclination to allow the Chinese public to judge his award-winning films on their artistic merit. Instead, they censor, ban, and blacklist their home-grown talent in the great tradition of petulant state interference. 

Thanks to the internet and widespread piracy, banning a film has little or no effect on who gets to see it in China these days. They’ve tried many times before, as in the recent cases of Lost in Beijing  and Brokeback Mountain. Keep up the good work, boys.

The targeting of actors strikes me as being especially nonsensical and childish. I confidently predict more success for Tang Wei, at which point I hope she gives a defiant finger to the clowns who are compromising artistic expression by telling people what they should be watching.