Foundinchina.com

50 000 dead and rising. Still there is no answer in Beijing.

As southern Asia’s powerhouse and self-appointed guardian of peace, harmony, and regional stability, where the hell is China when their neighbours need them?

State media have been updating on the climbing death toll as the scale of the cyclone disaster unfolds, but in the same manner that they might report a minor landslip on the other side of the planet. Newsflash: this is happening next door - so pull your fingers out!

If China was sending in bundles of aid, we’d have heard about it. And even if they can’t spare the manpower or rice, why not whisper in their friend the Junta’s ear about letting other foreign aid workers in to help alleviate some of the suffering? Or would that be interfering in another county’s internal affairs? You’re damn right it would, and in a most positive, humane, and responsible way.

The Chinese government have influential relationships with many of the world’s despots, including Burma’s (or Myanmar’s, if you will) brutal leaders. For China to earn universal plaudits they need only use their leverage to intervene on purely humanitarian grounds. The people of Burma are waiting for their big brother to step up.

China is on the doorstep, yet the pleas for entry and offers of assistance, at time of writing at least, are coming mainly from countries thousands of miles distant from the disaster zone.  I understand Hu Jintao is a little tied up in Japan right now, but he watches the news, doesn’t he? 

Updated (9/5/2008) to provide this CDT story of the ongoing ’ship of shame’ saga. Apparantly it’s still patrolling African waters looking for a place to offload its deadly cargo. Disgraceful.

An important recent event slipped largely under the radar in the China blogosphere as attention continued to focus on the troubled torch and Tibet tantrums. It seems that these two old pals were trying to do a deal. Here’s a snippet:

The boycott of a Chinese ship laden with weapons for Zimbabwe has cast new light on the connections between the African country’s president, Robert Mugabe, and a secretive Chinese arms-trading firm with a controversial track record from the Congo to Darfur.

Recent comments on this blog have, predictably, pointed the finger at western imperialism and the slave trade, emphasizing the perception in China that their country would never engage in such immoral dealings or interfere in the politics of another country. Really?

It would have been wonderful to see a condemnation and removal of the high ranking officials lining their pockets at the expense of African lives; I guess their connections to the party elite are a little too strong:

Major General He Ping, the company’s chairman, is the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese leader; its president, Wang Jun, is the son of a vice-president and a Deng ally. Its upper ranks are stuffed with military veterans and their offspring, who have greatly enriched themselves with arms sales to some of Africa’s bloodiest trouble spots.

Read the entire report here.

What sort of strategy, I wonder, lies behind the intended sale of this particular arms shipment to a man devoid of any good intentions? Maybe these two guys can tell us:

Perhaps the Chinese mob that attacked an American who was simply doing some shopping should reflect on their actions and apologise. Read all about it here.

More importantly, China needs to act immediately to get their house in order before things get completely out of control.

This is how insensitivity and short-sighted ignorance can make a mountain out of a molehill. In response to the torch protests in Paris and the boss of Carrefour holding a different view of the Dalai Lama than the Motherland, Chinese anger has led to the French tricolour being adorned with swastikas.

As commenters at Zhongnanhai and Peking Duck point out, it is not hard to imagine China’s response to their flag being covered with the symbol of their WW2 occupiers.

I’m neither French nor Chinese, but this action is far more worthy of an apology than the disruptions of a few protesters in Paris. I suspect France will be waiting for a long time.

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.

….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!

Timesonline today runs an article about Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker who exercised his right to petition the government on behalf of farmers who have had their land swiped by local authorities. He was protesting that the Olympics ought not to be the government’s priority in light of so many injustices. One would have thought that such an act of goodwill would bring praise from the party who came to power on the back of a peasant insurgency. After all, it is the People’s Republic of China; right? Apparently not:

China has sentenced a man to five years in prison for protesting against the Beijing Olympics. The sentence was passed only a month after the Foreign Minister of China told David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, that police would offer a cup of tea to any Chinese protesting against the Olympics.

That ‘cup of tea’ offer sounded a bit hollow, if not sinister, at the time. Another remark made by Yang Jiechi, China’s Foreign Minister, during Miliband’s visit can only be regarded as a lie:

“No one will get arrested because he said that human rights are more important than the Olympics. This is impossible.”

Beijing’s capacity for making the ‘impossible’ possible is truly amazing. Five years in jail for a legitimate protest on behalf of the nation’s backbone! That’s one year for every millennium of civilization in this part of the world.

Of course we can’t forget another of China’s greatest heroes, Hu Jia, at this time either. I’ll have more to say about his case later. In the meantime, if the Chinese Foreign Minister offers you a cup of tea, run away as fast as you can.

Jeremiah is once again doing a great job of advancing the understanding of current events in a historical context. I recommend the whole piece, but here’s a taster:

The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) is a good place to start as the Manchus did maintain garrisons on the ?ibetan plateau while administering the region through local elites. The Qing rulers, great patrons of Lamamism, consolidated their rule by maintaining cultural and religious ties with ?ibet beyond mere military occupation. They also–generally but not always–ruled with a light touch, allowing relative autonomy in religious and cultural matters, which suited the situation quite well. The Qing Dynasty was, after all, a large, multi-ethnic empire, and maintaining order and peace in outlying territories was the utmost concern.

The problem is that the PRC is a nation-state, and the demands a nation-state places on its people are different than those of an empire. It is not enough that Tibetans merely pay taxes and not revolt, they must also identify with the nation-state first and foremost, with other cultural and religious aspects secondary to the demands of modern state building. Empires want to be respected, nation-states want to be loved. That’s a sticky wicket the Qing never had to face.

This is a telling point. The CCP have always demanded allegiance and have often demonstrated brutality when they don’t get it. Intolerance towards the true feelings of Tibetans with regard to their cultural and spiritual leanings is one example. The latest evidence of this has been the petulant demonisation of the Dalai Lama by China’s leaders, and the requirement of Tibetan students in Beijing to denounce His Holiness:

They are required to provide four answers, Tibetan sources told The Times. First, they must write a reply to the question “What position does the Dalai Lama occupy in your heart?” Second, they must provide the address and place of work of their parents. Third, they must give details of their own identity card. Finally, they must guarantee not to take part in any political activities.

The recent violence should be condemned, as should some of the actions and policies in the last 50 years of Tibetan history that lie at the heart of the current problems. But forcing citizens to swear ‘loyalty to the emperor’ can only be seen as a backward step in a progressive society. This move would be embarrassing even if it was a joke. We know that it’s not a joke because the CCP don’t have a sense of humour, much less respect for free thought.

Whatever the geopolitical reality is for the Tibetan region, its marginalised indigenous population regard their land as being occupied by unwanted forces. There are two alternatives open to the Chinese government. One is to enter into a meaningful dialogue that will produce a framework acceptable to both Beijing and the Tibetan people, a dialogue that must include the Dalai Lama. The other is to drive every last vestige of cultural identity from the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. Indications so far are that Beijing favours the latter approach.