Speaking at a summit with EU leaders in Nanjing, Mr Wen said it was unfair of Europe to demand exchange rate changes while maintaining trade protectionism.

Mr Wen condemned countries that demand an appreciation of the yuan while engaging in “brazen trade protectionism against China”.

He added: “This is unfair. In fact, this amounts to restricting China’s development.”

(Note to self for next meeting with WJ: tell him to grow the fuck up and get a new hat, because the old one is far too CCP).

Update

Now he wants to ban golf. Power’s clearly gone to his head.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/

James Fallows’ page at The Atlantic should be the first port of call for anyone interested in a balanced perspective of what’s up with China. Fallows  is one of the most well-connected, respected, fair-minded, and knowledgeable China commentators out there. Which is probably why a member of Obama’s Asia delegation contacted him to set the record straight on the spreading of a false perception of failure following the US president’s recent China visit.

As Fallows was already on the record as being displeased with the negatively skewed American press coverage of the Sino venture, he was the perfect recipient of the inside scoop. Some of the insights (see here, here, and here) are both revealing and fascinating, providing some real money quotes about the difficulties of negotiating the big issues with China.

Below are a few samples of the what was really happening on inside, both on the run-up to, and during,  the China visit :

Administration hopes for the trip

“In thinking about the trip, the things we were trying to accomplish were all basically long term things. We were not looking for ‘deliverables’ or one-day stories. You’ve now got eight or nine countries among the G20 that are Asia-Pacific countries. The historic shift of power and influence from West to East is reflected in that number.

“Obama is very focused on global issues, things like climate change, financial imbalances, non proliferation, energy issues. We saw all the countries on this trip as players on those global issues. Of course China is important in particular, but also Korea and Japan and the ASEAN countries. So we saw this as a way of developing relationships that would be helpful to us as we tackled these issues coming down the road.

DPRK and Iran

“In the joint statement, the Chinese did in fact commit to seeking resumption of Six Party Talks at an early date. They agreed to that principle, and they were pretty robust in their insistence that they care about the denuclearization of North Korea. In fact they more than anyone else have reasons to be troubled by the program. The missiles may not be aimed at China, but they are right next to China. So our perspectives are not identical, but on North Korea, we’re doing pretty well.

“Iran has been more difficult, and will probably become a more sensitive issue. On the one hand, they get it. But as a matter of principle they don’t like sanctions and are concerned about their energy supplies, and they always like to free-ride. If the Russians are on board they will be on board too. At the end of the day, I expect the China will be on board. There may be some foot-dragging about specifics of a resolution, depending on how draconian it is.

Economics

“Discussions with the Chinese just don’t offer dramatic breakthrough moments. It’s water on a stone. They don’t reveal their Eurekas to you. While you’re there you get fairly predictable responses. Next time you go back and get a little different treatment.”

Town hall meeting

“We negotiated endlessly against a very difficult Chinese government on the issue. Their intransigence tells me several things. It was the day before the meeting with Hu Jintao, and there were uneasy about what might be said in a live format. ["Surprise" = "unacceptable risk" in many official Chinese dealings.] This was also a townhall format of a type they had never had before. We wanted to have 1000 or 1500 people. They said No. Security problems, and so on. So, we got to 500. We insisted on live streaming. Endless fights on that. Then live TV. Endless fights. And questions from the internet. Huge fights over who would pose them and who would screen. There wasn’t a single aspect of the meeting that wasn’t hard fought.

“It was tortured enough that we thought about pulling the plug. At the end of the day we decided to go through. The point is that on the Chinese side, this showed more than the usual anxiety. I think there was a genuine anxiety about the possible… force of Barack Obama. I would say a word short of “subversive” or “destabilizing.” But something profoundly disturbing to their system of government and control. The anxiety was a tribute to the kind of inspirational force he has.”

This represents just a little of what is offered by The White House insider. Tomorrow, James Fallows promises a final installment. I thoroughly recommend tuning in.

http://www.movieprop.com/

10. Seven Years in Tibet (1997) Jean-Jacque Annaud’s film dared to tell of the young Dalai Lama’s friendship with Austrian mountain climber Heinrich Harrer and the brutality dished out by the new communist rulers of China after 1949. The truth hurts, especially in Beijing. So intense was China’s pain that in retribution stars Brad Pitt and David Thewlis are currently serving lifetime bans. Too bad nobody cares.

9.  The Departed (2006) Martin Scorsese was already in China’s bad books for his biopic of the 14th Dalai Lama Kundun, and this film made the banned list for a passing reference to China’s purchasing of military equipment (damned if I can recall the scene). Setting aside Scorsese’s wanton disregard for state secrecy, how can anyone have a problem with a film starring Martin Sheen? Madness I tell you.

8. Brokeback Mountain (2005) Ang lee’s Oscar for his directing of homosexuality in a Stetson was celebrated (overlooking Lee’s Taiwanese status) in the Motherland as ‘China sticks it Uncle Sam in the imperialist’s own backyard’. After national pride subsided however, China banned the film for its portrayal of intra-masculine love. Perhaps the film’s theme hit a little too close to home for the boys at Zhongnanhai. More progressively, elsewhere in China the gay community is beginning to stand up.

7. Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003) In a petulant response that’s as ancient as the hills of Chinese history, Beijing took exception to what they considered a less than visually superlative portrayal of China. Jolie was so traumatised by this news that she sought solace in the arms of a fellow ‘enemy’ of China. I wonder if the Brangelina kids are banned by default?

6. Memoirs of a Geisha (2005) In a predictable move by censors that clearly have difficulty grasping the fundamentals of the cinematic medium and the roles of the actors bringing performances to our screens, China refused approval of Memoirs for Chinese audiences. It was felt that the sight of Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li giving satisfaction while playing Japanese women would induce national apoplexy in the Chinese populace. Go figure.

5. To Live (1994) Zhang Yimou’s widely acclaimed film is representative of the countless cinematic efforts that have touched upon the reality of life in China under Communist Party rule during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Our boys at HQ are as uncomfortable with accountability today as they were then. Consequently, To Live was banned and Zhang forced to write a formal apology. He also received a two year filmmaking ban for his honest portrayal of the trials of life during the Mao years. Long live the king.

4. Lost in Beijing (2007) As China careered towards Olympic infamy glory any depictions of Beijing that deviated from ‘gleaming modern metropolis’ were met with a clumsy swing of the jack boot from the censors. Thus,  Li Yu’s wonderfully evocative and moving low budget film was first heavily cut and then pulled completely. Unsurprisingly, but with unequivocal thuggish petulance, authorities further punished producer Fang Li and Laurel Films with a two-year ban. Somebody needs to remind SARFT that there exists a relationship between progress in the arts and the advance of civilisation.

3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Not banned in China but certainly tinkered with, despite the lack of laundry on a Shanghai washing line to complain about. China’s real problem with the movie is the paranoid perception of an undercurrent of American technological hegemony and military propaganda. Those boys really could do with a good night out, as could the author of the China Youth Daily op-ed (translation) and those who share the view of dark imperialistic deeds. Or even those that just like the idea.  Alternatively, they could just try to reverse engineer a Transformer in their spare time and sell it to the PLA. Problem solved.

2. Lust, Caution (2008) Another Ang Lee film upsetting Chinese sensibilities, but this time Beijing authorities (authority on what exactly isn’t clear) took exception to Tang Wei’s portrayal of a student activist who falls in love with a collaborator during the Japanese occupation. For that cinematic sin Tang was accused of ‘glorifying traitors and insulting patriots‘. In an act of sheer malice authorities banned the media from any mention or image of Tang Wei, and, taking their lead, the fenqing did the rest.

1. Ten Conditions of Love (2008) Jeff Daniels’ film tells the story of Rebiya Kadeer, who looks set to displace the Dalai Lama as China’s number one terrorist in exile. It’s OK to laugh; in fact, I encourage it. The ongoing Uighur furore is causing ruptured spleens throughout the Beijing hierarchy as Melbourne prepares to screen the film in what is sure to be a blaze of publicity. Strictly speaking the film is not banned from Chinese cinemas because I doubt that any application for approval has been submitted. There’s a reason for that. It’s the same reason that the Chinese government descends into adolescent tantrum whenever freedom of expression presents a view of the world contrary to the output of its propaganda department. I’m not the only one who finds this trend tiresome. My confidence in China’s ability to exercise restraint during the Melbourne festival, much less respect the rights of free expression outside its borders, is not high. Rebiya Kadeer has the right to be heard – she’s certainly not a terrorist – and Jeff Daniels’ film has a right to be screened and viewed. I urge Beijing to get used to those ideas.

True to form, China is already irked by the  embarrassment this will cause them, a state of affairs for which the Chinese leaders only have themselves to blame. One has to pity the CCP for whatever malady causes them to maintain their petty charade of a harmonious society while treating free speech and human rights with such complete disdain.

Much has been written about Hu Jia in the Chinese blogosphere. The unassuming human rights campaigner is currently serving a three and a half year jail sentence simply for being a caring, honest, decent citizen. His wife remains under house arrest. An overview of his current predicament can be found here:

Sadly the reality is that even if he gets the prize, which will be announced in a week, it will make about as much difference to his situation as giving it to jailed Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi did: none whatsoever.

Maybe so. But it will embarrass the Chinese government and deservedly so. In company with the Olympics politics plays a role here where some would argue that it has no place, just as some past recipients of the prize have been about as connected to peace as the Chinese media is to reality.

Besides, the nominations alone keep Gao and Hu in the spotlight and – quite possibly - alive. This is particularly true of Gao, who insiders say has been brutally tortured during his imprisonment.

It would be interesting to know who the Chinese leaders would nominate from among their people for this award. For certain, none of the names put forward could hold a candle those brave campaigners for justice currently incarcerated for ill-defined crimes against the State, among whose number are counted Hu Jia and Gao Zhisheng. They are Chinese citizens and, all politics aside, their names belong on the shortlist.

Good luck to them both.

I was concerned when I saw a white paper  published in the China Daily a couple of days ago together with an article refuting accusations of cultural genocide in the region. It read (as CD usually does) like government propaganda, in this case designed to shore up domestic opinion ahead of a post-Olympic backlash.

The white paper begins:

China is a unified multi-ethnic country. Tibet is an inseparable part of China, and the Tibetan ethnic group is an important member of the big family of the Chinese nation. The Tibetan ethnic group has a long history and a splendid culture. Tibetan culture is a lustrous pearl of Chinese culture as well as a precious part of world culture.

Important eh? So their opinions and beliefs must count for something. You’ve probably guessed at this point that His Holiness is excluded from descriptions such as splendid, lustrous, or precious: 

Before 1959 the 14th Dalai Lama, as a leader of Tibetan Buddhism and also head of the Tibetan local government, monopolized both political and religious power.

Sounds familiar. Anything else?

The serfs and slaves … suffered destitution, cruel oppression and exploitation, and possessed no means of production or personal freedom …

Unimaginable! That sounds awful - what happened next? 

The founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 brought hope to the protection and development of Tibetan culture. Through the peaceful liberation in 1951 Tibet shook off imperialist invasion and trammels, ended its chronic isolation and stagnancy, and created the basic conditions for realizing progress and prosperity along with the rest of China.

My faith in human nature is restored. Is there more?

After the peaceful liberation of Tibet, the Central People’s Government actively helped Tibet protect and recover its traditional culture, and develop its modern cultural, educational and health sectors, opening up a completely new chapter for the development of Tibetan culture.

A new chapter? I’ll say!! What else?

This white paper is published to give the international community a better understanding of the reality of the protection and development of Tibetan culture, citing facts to expose the lie about the “cultural genocide” in Tibet fabricated by the 14th Dalai Lama and his cohorts…

How very thoughtful of the CCP to produce a white paper for the international community. One world, one dream? Not if you’re a Tibetan living on the soil of your forefathers, apparently. Timesonline today reports on the unrest that followed the latest episode of brutality dished out to the robed men of the plateau by armed police:

Other monks went to the police station to protest against the treatment of their colleague and an argument ensued. Police said that they would call local authorities to discuss the matter but shortly afterwards two truckloads of armed officers arrived and began to beat the monks.

I feel talk of a ‘free Tibet’ is counter-productive and naive if it is discussed in terms of independence. That’s never going to happen. True, there was a need for reform, long since acknowledged by the Dalai Lama, but not of the kind imposed by Beijing since 1951. Typically, the Chinese government  propagandise their Tibetan intervention as ‘a backward people in need of a helping Han hand’. Some help.

Human rights activists would do better to concern themselves with the restricted freedoms of ethnic Tibetans (monks in particular) in a vast area of the country that was, irrefutably until the CCP era, an area dominated by Tibetan culture and governed (albeit undemocratically) by Tibetan people.

No longer.

Unlike the vast majority of Han Chinese, I’ve spent some time in the region. The ill-feeling towards Beijing is palpable and justified. Tibetan monasteries have been destroyed and plundered so that Han businessmen can sell artefacts to the highest bidder. At the same time Beijing seeks plaudits for having saved Tibetan culture and promoting tourism (nothing wrong with that) so that more Han businessmen can exploit and marginalise the very people on whose culture their wealth is founded (very wrong). 

Further, Beijing’s idea of freedoms don’t extend to taking a walk if you’re a monk, or extend as far as decorating your home if it includes a picture of His Holiness. One can only imagine what ‘education’ for Tibetan children must look like.

The Olympics was the lull before the storm for Tibetans; now it really could be all over. I fear for them, as should any individual with a vestige of human compassion.