:-( Beijing Olympics -- A Lot of Unhappy People

[Wolfman]

Original, unedited thread can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119050



It is with much sadness that I watch the preparations for the Olympic Games here in 18 more days. Oh, there have been some great accomplishments...the opening of two new subway lines (one of which has a station right outside my apartment, YAY!); the opening of the new international airport (which really is an amazing airport); improvement of transit/transportation in general; etc.

But there are other things which cast a terrible pall over these noteworthy accomplishments. Now, I should emphasize that the Chinese gov't does have real cause for concern. There's a very real and significant threat of terrorist attacks, both from Chinese Muslims from Xinjiang province, and from foreign terrorists who may seek to attack/kill western tourists/athletes. These are far from being imagined threats; in fact, many western gov'ts are sending regular updates to the Chinese gov't about information they are getting regarding potential terrorist actions in China.

And the gov't also has at least somewhat justifiable concerns about crime...if foreign tourists come to Beijing during the Olympics, and then are the victims of crime, it makes Beijing lose face.

But their reaction to these threats is typical overreaction. Here is a list of some of the things the gov't is doing now (or will be doing over the next two weeks), some of which are reasonable, some of which are just way, way too much.

* All flights in and out of the Beijing airport will be cancelled for about 6 hours during the Opening Ceremonies

* Everyone entering the Beijing airport must now go through full security screening, even if just sending off friends, or picking someone up

* When you go on the subway, you have to put your bags through an x-ray scanner just like the ones used at airports

* Russians run a lot of organized crime in Beijing; so Russians are being denied visas or asked to leave Beijing.

* A lot of the drug trade in Beijing is being run by Africans; so not only are Africans being denied visas or asked to leave, but all blacks are being targeted. Many bars and restaurants have been instructed by the police not to accept blacks, period.

* A lot of the higher-class prostitutes in Beijing are Mongolian; so Mongolian women are being targeted and made to leave Beijing.

* The Uigher minority (a Muslim minority who live in China's north-west Xinjiang province) has some people pushing for autonomy/independence from China, and have sometimes resorted to violence. There's a significant threat of terrorism from them during the Olympics, so all Uighers are being made to leave BJ. A female friend of mine who is a Uigher has been living/working in Beijing for the past 10 years, as marketing manager in a foreign company. Two days ago, the police informed her that she has to leave Beijing until after the Olympics.

* Anti-aircraft and anti-missile guns have been set up outside of major Olympic venues

* To decrease traffic, Beijing two days ago initiated a policy whereby cars with even-numbered and odd-numbered license plates drive on alternate days (which really has made a big difference to traffic)

* The gov't, in its normal desire to micro-manage every aspect of how the Chinese people behave, has designed their own cheer that all Chinese are supposed to use during the Olympics. Two claps, thumbs up, two claps, arms in air, repeat.

* Many foreigners -- especially teachers, students, tourists -- have been denied visas; and even those living/working here full time are having difficulties getting visas renewed

* Despite promises of giving complete access to foreign journalists, the gov't is instituting a number of controls, mostly justified in the name of 'protecting them from potential terrorist activities'

A significant reason for all of this was the Tibetan protests, followed by the earthquake in Sichuan. Both events gave the military leaders within the Chinese gov't more power (and the military leaders tend to be the hardliners), taking it away from the more moderate leaders who'd been in charge prior to that. Behind the scenes, a number of moderate Chinese gov't officials have actually resigned from their positions out of frustration over these events.

China's moderate leaders had a chance to do something really special...but circumstances and politics took it out of their hands. Now, it remains to be seen what happens.

[Hokulele]

* Anti-aircraft and anti-missile guns have been set up outside of major Olympic venues.


:eye-poppi

[Wolfman]

And in related news, the city of Kunming (where wollery lives) was shocked when two buses (or three, according to some accounts) exploded today, apparently from bombs planted in them. Three people dead, according to the official media. Although there's speculation that it is anti-gov't terrorism by the Uighers, that seems unlikely, given that Kunming is far from Beijing, and not that important. Is more likely to be a more local issue. But nevertheless, when we're constantly hearing about the potential threats of terrorism during the Games, this hardly helps keep people calm.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I feared it would be like this. Add to it, according to Danish press:

* Triple rings of control around making transit from other provices slow and tedious.

* Cars are stopped and searched when driving to and from BJ.

As some of you know, I travel to China regularly, on business. We have made a conscious decision to avoid going there till well after the olympics.

This is not a demonstration, but simply to avoid problems and hardships due to all the expected "precautions".

I can't help wondering: In the eyes of the surrounding world, what makes China loose more face? All these abuses or the odd terrorist attack?

Hans

PS: Of the more entertaining preparations, we have, this last year, seen them wall in everything that looks ungainly. If you visit BJ, and go to the Lama temple, notice the nice park across the street. See the picture. Looks strange? Well, it is a photostat. Behind is a junkyard or something like that.

[cgallaga]

I have to say I am already olympiced out. And here the "support your our proud olympics" tv public service messages are so 1950's.

Ahhhhh I want to run away until September waaaaaaaaaaaa.

[Gurdur]

.. China's moderate leaders had a chance to do something really special...but circumstances and politics took it out of their hands.

Meh. "China's moderate leaders"? Really? Compared to what? Compared to Mao Tse-Tung, the Gang Of Four, or saya, abroad, Stalin?

Their reactions are typical for a nasty clique who rule by force; it's got nothing to do with "circumstances and politics", but rather the fact that the gerontocracy in China is a dictatorial regime who react correspondingly.

[Cleon]

Meh. "China's moderate leaders"? Really? Compared to what? Compared to Mao Tse-Tung, the Gang Of Four, or saya, abroad, Stalin?

Er, yes. Quite moderate compared to Mao, the Gang of Four, or Stalin.

[Foolmewunz]

And let's not forget Beibei Jingjin Huanhuan Yingying and Nini.

The Chinese call toddlers by dual names (Meimei, Lingling, Baobao, etc...) so if you take off the second part, you get Beijing Huan Ying Ni. Beijing welcomes you.

Cute? Well, this one, which is the plush version of Yingying,... perhaps. But the ones they're peddling in the supermarkets and drugstores are vinyl looking and horrible.

This is Yingying.... (s)he is a panda. Get a good look. In a couple of days I'm going to shove a firecracker up its butt and blow it to smithereens. I am so sick of these little things. They're like frakkin' Gremlins. They multiply when I'm not watching.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1108548849f562ec74.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13120)

Wolfman, they're even making border crossings down south difficult. They have stopped letting HongKongese cross by car and now make everyone get out, scan their bags, and cross on foot. They are inspecting every stick of luggage or cargo that crosses into Guangdong from here. And they've made it next to impossible to get plain old visitor visas for Shanghai, Nanjing, Dalian, etc... for the past five weeks. Our visitors have had to come up with as many as six documents to support a visa, including a Ministry stamped invitation letter.

And the fish they threw Hong Kong is that we get to host the equestrian events. Yeah, Muffy and I will be out there waiting for the Van Hornes and their million dollar horses. Frankly, the horsey set better stay out of Wanchai, or the fate of Yingying may await them!

Here's hoping for a nice dust storm rising up in the Gobi! They could've made so much of this. They're setting the country back about ten years.

[cgallaga]

I'm actually doing cooking demos on the 16th as part of the Hong Kong Chefs Association. We are part of the half time entertainment, they have two Equestrian events that day separated by 8 hours and so they are trying to keep Muffy and the Van Hornes entertained all day with goofballs like us...and we can't actually cook anything because the universtiy where all this is gonna be held doesn't allow cooking in its common areas. Talk about bside.

[Wolfman]

Meh. "China's moderate leaders"? Really? Compared to what? Compared to Mao Tse-Tung, the Gang Of Four, or saya, abroad, Stalin?

Their reactions are typical for a nasty clique who rule by force; it's got nothing to do with "circumstances and politics", but rather the fact that the gerontocracy in China is a dictatorial regime who react correspondingly.Ah, yes, of course. Please forgive me.

Every single leader within the Chinese Communist Party is a mini-Mao. They care only for personal power and benefit, and not a whit for the Chinese people, or freedom. Let us not make the mistake of actually trying to differentiate them, and notice that among the many Chinese leaders in the national government, there are some who've been fighting quite hard for reform and change.

Gurdur, I'd call you an idiot, except the rules forbid me from doing so, so I won't. I'll simply point out that the ideas you express are simplistic and ignorant. There are people within the Chinese gov't who very much want reform and change; unfortunately, recent events in China have put those people out of the picture for the time being.

Let me put it this way -- there are Chinese in the national government who are literally putting their lives on the line in order to push reform and change in China. This is not hyperbole; if a major crisis were to hit China, and the hardliners took back full control of the gov't, its quite possible these people would be imprisoned or killed. Yet they still make the effort, and push for change.

And it is incredibly insulting for some armchair quarterback who obviously doesn't have a friggin' clue what he's talking about to come in and paint those people with the same brush as the hardliners within the Chinese Communist Party. You sit in the comfort of your home, facing little or no risk whatsoever, and pronounce judgement on people whom you don't know at all, and who are risking a great deal to try to make things in China better.

The things I described above? Some of them are necessary (and not unlike precautions or preparations made at Olympic Games held in other countries); others are a result of paranoia over potential terrorist threats, a fear that while unfortunate, has similar parallels in American gov't policy; and others still are terrible overreactions, the response of more conservative hardliners within the Chinese party to perceived threats. But even within the Party, many people disagree with these actions.

[Wolfman]

They could've made so much of this. They're setting the country back about ten years.Yeah, no kidding. I've talked with some of the people on the Olympic Committee who are incredibly pissed off and frustrated about it all; there are rumors that the previous Mayor of Beijing (who was the one who won the Olympic bid, and was subsequently promoted to the national gov't) will actually resign from the Party over this. There were quite a few reformers who hitched their horse to this wagon, hoping it would serve as impetus for change.

Then along came the Tibetan protests, and the earthquake in Sichuan. Both issues gave the military huge power (stopping the protests in Tibet, and carrying out rescue operations in Sichuan), and with them, the hardliners within the Party.

Its gonna' be a media circus. Complaints that the media doesn't have the free and open access it was promised as a condition for holding the Games. Complaints from black tourists that they aren't allowed in certain restaurants or bars because of their skin color. Or any of a million other things.

And god forbid that some terrorist group actually manages to pull off some kind of attack during the Games. Not only would it cast a terribly pall over the Games, but it would be the final pretext for the hardliners to seize even more power, and set China back even further.

I've gotta' say...I'm worried.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

* To decrease traffic, Beijing two days ago initiated a policy whereby cars with even-numbered and odd-numbered license plates drive on alternate days (which really has made a big difference to traffic)


South Korea did this in Seoul the last several years at various times. However, I never noticed a huge impact on traffic.

Then again, South Koreans tend to flagrantly ignore and break their laws more often than they follow them, so I'm pretty sure it was ignored. I'd guess it probably works better in Beijing.

[Wolfman]

South Korea did this in Seoul the last several years at various times. However, I never noticed a huge impact on traffic.

Then again, South Koreans tend to flagrantly ignore and break their laws more often than they follow them, so I'm pretty sure it was ignored. I'd guess it probably works better in Beijing.
Actually, thus far its working brilliantly. Traffic is far, far better...and city buses, that are famous for always running behind schedule because of traffic delays, are now running about 90% on time.

[Policenaut]

It should. I bet most Chinese people don't want to go to a Chinese prison.

[SezMe]

Wolfman, you didn't say if the Olympics had personally affected your daily life.

[Puppycow]

Wolfman: This sounds like a major news scoop if all these things are true.
Did you learn this through the news media or some other way?
If racial discrimination is an official or semi-official policy, that would be newsworthy.

It's a little hard to imagine that they wouldn't realise that such policies themselves would be the bigger scandal and bigger loser-of-face in western eyes.

[Foolmewunz]

Wolfman: This sounds like a major news scoop if all these things are true.
Did you learn this through the news media or some other way?
If racial discrimination is an official or semi-official policy, that would be newsworthy.

It's a little hard to imagine that they wouldn't realise that such policies themselves would be the bigger scandal and bigger loser-of-face in western eyes.


Racial stereotyping isn't against the law (and certainly isn't against the culture) in China. They tend not to think too much about what the western eyes are seeing - at least not when it comes to issues of what they perceive to be local security. They're sure we all hate them and want to see their downfall (they are after all, the old guard, and they're somewhat correct about that), so being Chinese, and successful Chinese at that, they feel they know what's good for China.

The more moderate factions definitely understand that perception is very important, but they also know that Mr. and Mrs. Tourist will complain about the food, the heat, the air and the hotel room,.... plus the security and waiting in line. But that's nothing compared to 15 million Beijingese complaining about bombs going off in the city. One leads to loss of face in countries who you hate, anyway. The other leads to overthrow of their status quo.

Alway remember that the single interest of Chinese politicians is like the interest of all politicians, everywhere. To stay in office. When we look at the impact in the west as to something done in China, the easiest way to figure it out is to say, "How does this effect the population of China? Is there any perceived threat in this to the ruling order." That's where the answer usually lies.

[Puppycow]

Actually, thus far its working brilliantly. Traffic is far, far better...and city buses, that are famous for always running behind schedule because of traffic delays, are now running about 90% on time.

I sense a business opportunity for the person who can invent a false digit for the license plate.

How about raising the price of gas instead? Isn't it subsidized in China?

I've heard from some in California that the infamous and often clogged California Freeways have become more drivable with these higher gas prices.

Licence plate numbers are too arbitrary. What if you need to use your car on the wrong day?

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, you didn't say if the Olympics had personally affected your daily life.Certainly. I've had major problems getting my visa renewed (got a temporary renewal that lasts until the Olympics are over); and business sucks right now, won't get back to normal until the Games are over.

Wolfman: This sounds like a major news scoop if all these things are true.
Did you learn this through the news media or some other way?
If racial discrimination is an official or semi-official policy, that would be newsworthy.

It's a little hard to imagine that they wouldn't realise that such policies themselves would be the bigger scandal and bigger loser-of-face in western eyes.Actually, pretty much all of this has appeared in the media (Chinese and/or Western); the only part that hasn't is my evaluation of the inner workings of the Beijing Olympic Committee, and how much the actions of the gov't have upset some of the gov't officials involved with that. This info comes from personal contact with them.

[Wolfman]

I sense a business opportunity for the person who can invent a false digit for the license plate.

How about raising the price of gas instead? Isn't it subsidized in China?

I've heard from some in California that the infamous and often clogged California Freeways have become more drivable with these higher gas prices.

Licence plate numbers are too arbitrary. What if you need to use your car on the wrong day?This is intended as a purely local and temporary measure, only within Beijing, and only during the Olympics. Raising gas prices would be too problematic for that kind of strategy (it would affect people outside of Beijing). The license plate strategy, while not perfect, does the job as a temporary measure.

[Beerina]

Don't serve blacks, period.

You, you, and you, you get the hell out.


I can't wait for NBC's in-depth coverage...of the lives of the athletes in Up Close and Personal segments*! :rolleyes:










* Which, by the way, will replace broadcast of actual sports since more people watch when those are on than when actual sports are on.

Alls I have to say is I hope CBC is showing it this year so I can tune in Windsor 9. From previous Olympics to Space 1999, it's served me well.

[King of the Americas]

Athletes are being asked to wear 'smog masks'...? REALLY?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sports/othersports/24mask.html

Is this a political protest of the conditions there?

[Foolmewunz]

Athletes are being asked to wear 'smog masks'...? REALLY?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sports/othersports/24mask.html

Is this a political protest of the conditions there?

The organizing committee will freak out!
This is the kind of thing they truly don't want. If you get miles of video footage of premier athletes getting off the plane or bus with smog masks on, it's going to make every newscast in the world.
I'm betting there will be huge political pressure from the USOC to not have the athletes do this. (Barcelona has equally bad pollution.... no one made such a dramatic move, there.)

[Radrook]

They weren't that protective when I went there and was surrounded by five Chinese airport taxi and hotel accommodation employees and threatened with violence if I didn't hand over money I didn't owe and which they demanded I fork over immediately in USA dollars or else. Had my luggage held hostage until payment was given.

Strange also that the woman I was to marry was hit and killed by a car that same day at the airport she was waiting for me. Going to Beijing? Beware!

BTW

They need to explain to their militarily-uniformed airport security guards that people are not luggage to be moved from one location to another via grabbing suddenly by the arm and without even being given a warning. Need to not move airplain arrivals from one gate to another without warning non-Chinese speakers. Need to not to take a respectful request for English to be spoken if possible as an insult and a reason to call security. And a host of other common courtesies which they seem to naturally lack.

[a_unique_person]

The irony is that China is determined to show itself to the world as a modern, free country. Everything it does just shows that it is not. I was watching a news report about a house on a street that is being turned into a showcase, where a garden was to go. Overnight, the house was knocked down, and the garden planted. Amazing. The harder they try, the worse it gets.

[Policenaut]

That sounds kind of like the dog and pony show North Korea does whenever outsiders visit. Lights on, lights off.

[moon1969]

China should stop supporting Robert Mugabe and the Darfur genocide. Maybe then there should be olympics. I got no problem with China hating that hypocrite and liar Dalai Lama aka holy man Tenzin Gyatso.

[Darth Rotor]

Wolfman, I note that in your discussion with Gurdur on this bit about Chinese moderates that you come off as an apologist for the Chinese government. It's not important what some people in government want, claim to want, or appear to want, it is what is done that makes a difference, and sends the message. (See also the problem the Bush administration has over its actions, versus its stated intentions. )

While I love your local knowledge, and the insights you offer, I am skeptical about your objectvity. I have blind spots on a few subjects, so I know how easy it is to go in that direction.

DR

[Father Dagon]

I got no problem with China hating that hypocrite and liar Dalai Lama aka holy man Tenzin Gyatso.More a case of realpolitik and collegial jealousy. Realpolitik also dictates that we should support Dalai Lama in order to annoy the chinese.

Also, I just LOVE the way the chinese burrow themselves deeper and deeper into failure. And the best part of it all - the chinese might not even know that banning all blacks can be considered racist. It's China who is the big victim after all. Enemies of the people stole mah crops and Taiwan!The irony is that China is determined to show itself to the world as a modern, free country. Everything it does just shows that it is not. I was watching a news report about a house on a street that is being turned into a showcase, where a garden was to go. Overnight, the house was knocked down, and the garden planted. Amazing. The harder they try, the worse it gets.Dude, that's old hat! Have you read Anhua Gao's To the edge of the sky? The best howler in the book is when the commies are playing international trade fair (I have only read the book in swedish, so it's probably called something else in english.) They are instructed to fool, trick and con the foreigners as much as possible - i.e. exactly how the commies thinks what capitalism is about. It could only be funnier if a bunch of nazis tried to emulate what they thought was proper jewish business practices.

[Radrook]

....Also, I just LOVE the way the chinese burrow themselves deeper and deeper into failure. And the best part of it all - the chinese might not even know that banning all blacks can be considered racist. It's China who is the big victim after all. Enemies of the people stole mah crops and Taiwan!....


Banning all blacks? From the Olympics? Are you serious or jesting? I did hear the "N" word used by an interpreter while I was there. I also heard that they complained about the USA sending such an ugly woman as Condolizza Rice on official business to their country. Also, the way they represent blacks, as hyperactive word-drivelling idiots in their martial arts films is a bit weird. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they would come up with something like that privately but publicly I doubt it since there would be an international outcry to boycot the event.

[Father Dagon]

Banning all blacks? From the Olympics? Are you serious or jesting? I did hear the "N" word used by an interpreter while I was there. I also heard that they complained about the USA sending such an ugly woman as Condolizza Rice on official business to their country. Also, the way they represent blacks, as hyperactive word-drivelling idiots in their martial arts films is a bit weird. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they would come up with something like that privately but publicly I doubt it since there would be an international outcry to boycot the event.Ok, I was a bit improving on Wolfmans's OP (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3879015&postcount=1):* A lot of the drug trade in Beijing is being run by Africans; so not only are Africans being denied visas or asked to leave, but all blacks are being targeted. Many bars and restaurants have been instructed by the police not to accept blacks, period.As ham fisted as it gets. And internets to everyone who can provide pictures of any "no blacks"-signs.

[MG1962]

I dont know - a lot of the precautions are very reasonable - Sydney had a squadron of Black Hawk helicopters in the air full of anti terrorist troops the whole time. We had mulitple bag checks, ID checks etc. Bomb squads, sniffer dogs. Every delivery vehicle was x-rayed and visually checked. All the venues were locked down for a week before the games started and this was all in a pre 911 world

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, I note that in your discussion with Gurdur on this bit about Chinese moderates that you come off as an apologist for the Chinese government. It's not important what some people in government want, claim to want, or appear to want, it is what is done that makes a difference, and sends the message. (See also the problem the Bush administration has over its actions, versus its stated intentions. )

While I love your local knowledge, and the insights you offer, I am skeptical about your objectvity. I have blind spots on a few subjects, so I know how easy it is to go in that direction.

DR
Darth,

I'm not an apologist for the government as a whole; I am, however, quite a sincere advocate for specific people within that government who are working very hard to bring about positive change (and facing significant risk for doing so). The problem here is the inability of many people to differentiate between the actions of the government as a whole, and the actions/beliefs of individuals within that government.

Consider the American gov't back when slavery was legal. You had people in the gov't who supported slavery (for quite some time, a majority); and you had people in the gov't who opposed slavery. Would it be fair to condemn those who opposed slavery, because the gov't itself supported slavery? Or should we, rather, admire and respect those who, despite the fact it was not popular or even safe (anti-slavery proponents could face violence for their beliefs), worked within the government to try to change the situation for the better?

An "apologist" would argue that the gov't's abuses are acceptable, or that they are not true. That is not what I've done. Quite the opposite, I started a thread that specifically highlighted some of the abuses that are currently taking place.

And I'm trying to demonstrate that the simplistic view of people like Gurdur -- views based on absolute ignorance of the actual situation -- that everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot are fundamentally untrue. Yes, there are power-hungry despots within the gov't; there are also those who are working very hard to bring about positive change.

That doesn't mean that those who want that change are always successful; but for all the problems and difficulties, the Chinese people today enjoy more freedom than they have ever had in 5000 years of Chinese history. And the situation is continuing to improve. That is no small accomplishment, and the people within the gov't who have helped to bring that about -- and who are working from the inside to continue that process of change -- deserve recognition and praise for that. Not to be tarred with the same brush as people like Mao or Stalin.

In general, those who accuse me here of being an "apologist" tend to be those who consider that saying anything good about China, or about specific people within the Chinese gov't, as 'bad'. They have a black-and-white view of the world in which you are either 'all good', or 'all evil'. I attempt to demonstrate that it is very far from being that simple; that while there are still abuses and problems in China, nevertheless the situation is, overall, changing for the better. And the people who are leading that change are people who deserve our support, not our condemnation.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,

I'm not an apologist for the government as a whole; I am, however, quite a sincere advocate for specific people within that government who are working very hard to bring about positive change (and facing significant risk for doing so).
While the potential is tantalizing, results are what we see. ;)
Consider the American gov't back when slavery was legal. You had people in the gov't who supported slavery (for quite some time, a majority); and you had people in the gov't who opposed slavery.
An odd analogy, until I look back at your OP and see the blacks being shown the door among "polite company" in some places in China. I noted in Japan that racism was casually worn like a sweater. Likewise, I imagine, in China.
An "apologist" would argue that the gov't's abuses are acceptable, or that they are not true. That is not what I've done. Quite the opposite, I started a thread that specifically highlighted some of the abuses that are currently taking place.
Fair enough. Keep the updates coming.

DR

[Wolfman]

While the potential is tantalizing, results are what we see. ;) Yes, and no. As I pointed out, China's gone through phenomenal positive change in the past 15-20 years. It is far, far more free today than it was even a decade ago. Yet many people, whenever they refer to the Chinese gov't today, refer to the Cultural Revolution and the Tianmen Square Massacre (actually, a significant number of modern Chinese leaders were victims of the Cultural Revolution, and quite dedicated to trying to prevent such a thing from happening again).

And despite the fact that numerous positive changes have taken place under this government, at the instigation of people within the gov't who seek positive change, many people still insist on comparing them to people like Mao and Stalin.

So many people are not seeing the 'results'; they are seeing only what they want to see, and ignoring everything else.
An odd analogy, until I look back at your OP and see the blacks being shown the door among "polite company" in some places in China. I noted in Japan that racism was casually worn like a sweater. Likewise, I imagine, in China. The analogy was not in regards to racism, but rather in regards to the fact that it is more than possible to have a government which, as a whole, does things that we consider wrong/evil; yet within that gov't, to have people who are sincerely seeking change and improvement. China still has a long way to go with regards to racial issues.

[Radrook]

Don't you think it's rather hipocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hipocrisy and dubious priorities.

[Wolfman]

Don't you think it's rather hipocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hipocrisy and dubious priorities.
Consider that the United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy, took some 150 years to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. And there are still struggles related to equality and equal rights.

Now consider that China, which in 5000 years of history never had principles of democracy or equality, only began the process of change and reform about 20 years ago.

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to expect China to accomplish in 20 years what it took the U.S. 150 years to do? Change doesn't happen overnight; and people back in the West seem to prefer to remain intentionally ignorant of just how long (and how much struggle) it took to get to where they are today. China's moving in the right direction; and while we should not turn a blind eye to their abuses, or excuse those abuses, we nevertheless should also acknowledge the advances they are making, and encourage further change and reform.

[MRC_Hans]

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hypocrisy and dubious priorities.It could be hypocritical, ..... or pragmatic.

Cuba is small and so close it is totally dependent on the US. Embargo is (probably) an efficient tool against it.

China is larger than the US, lies on the other side of the planet and has plenty of potential trade partners. An embargo will not affect her any more than it will affect the US in reverse. Maybe less.

ETA: Or in other words, if the bully is small, whop him. If the bully is big, join him.

Hans

[Radrook]

Consider that the United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy, took some 150 years to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. And there are still struggles related to equality and equal rights.

Now consider that China, which in 5000 years of history never had principles of democracy or equality, only began the process of change and reform about 20 years ago.

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to expect China to accomplish in 20 years what it took the U.S. 150 years to do? Change doesn't happen overnight; and people back in the West seem to prefer to remain intentionally ignorant of just how long (and how much struggle) it took to get to where they are today. China's moving in the right direction; and while we should not turn a blind eye to their abuses, or excuse those abuses, we nevertheless should also acknowledge the advances they are making, and encourage further change and reform.

Sorry I gave the impression that China deserves absolutely no credit for its efforts. All efforts at treating people fairly should be commended. Also, there is much that I admire of Chinese culture. For one, its women in my opinion are the most desirable for marriage precisely because of the values they have acquired from Chinese culture. Second, I admire the scientific accomplishments of the past and their ability to move forward again industrially. What I don't admire is their present form of government. But I do recognize that things take time to mend and am in no way judging their efforts at doing this as halfhearted or hypocritical since I am unfamiliar with the details of their efforts and am therefore not qualified to evaluate the situation either pro or con because of that.

[Radrook]

It could be hypocritical, ..... or pragmatic.

Cuba is small and so close it is totally dependent on the US. Embargo is (probably) an efficient tool against it.

China is larger than the US, lies on the other side of the planet and has plenty of potential trade partners. An embargo will not affect her any more than it will affect the US in reverse. Maybe less.

ETA: Or in other words, if the bully is small, whop him. If the bully is big, join him.

Hans

Since that is the case, then is it any wonder that weak nations try to acquire nuclear weapons in order to attiain the
same "respect" from the USA that Korea attained in view of the modus operandi you have just described? Shouldn't it be more than obvious that such a policy of respecting the strong and beating up on the weak encourages precisely that reaction? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Any explanation as to why those in charge of foreign policy are so nearsighted?

[mrbaracuda]

And in related news, the city of Kunming (where wollery lives) was shocked when two buses (or three, according to some accounts) exploded today, apparently from bombs planted in them. Three people dead, according to the official media. Although there's speculation that it is anti-gov't terrorism by the Uighers, that seems unlikely, given that Kunming is far from Beijing, and not that important. Is more likely to be a more local issue. But nevertheless, when we're constantly hearing about the potential threats of terrorism during the Games, this hardly helps keep people calm.

I just read on my e-mail-provider's page and article from the Spiegel about a Muslim terrorist group called 'Islamic Party Turkistan' claiming responsibility for bus bombs in Yunnan (spelling?) and an explosive-laden tractor attack in Wenzhou (spelling?) on the 17th. They're threatening more attacks etc. Much of that on Chinese TV and are those attacks in Kunming included in the claims, too?

[Wolfman]

I just read on my e-mail-provider's page and article from the Spiegel about a Muslim terrorist group called 'Islamic Party Turkistan' claiming responsibility for bus bombs in Yunnan (spelling?) and an explosive-laden tractor attack in Wenzhou (spelling?) on the 17th. They're threatening more attacks etc. Much of that on Chinese TV and are those attacks in Kunming included in the claims, too?
Yeah, I'm honestly not sure what to think of this at all. The Chinese authorities are denying it is part of any organized terrorist effort; and there seems to be little or no evidence to support the IPT's claim that they're responsible.

The talk about this -- and the rumors that are flying around -- is quite fevered, with numerous different theories. Some foreigners lean towards a belief that the Chinese gov't engineered the attacks in order to justify increased military presence at the Games...I personally discount that theory entirely.

First, some clarification -- "Turkistan" is the name of the independent nation that some Uigher Muslims want to establish in north-western China. While it seems that overall only a minority of Uighers support this notion, those who do support it have a fairly active terrorist faction that has been responsible in the past for bus bombings, and other such activities.

However, their attacks in the past have tended to target cities that represent Chinese power -- Beijing, Shanghai, or cities within the Uigher Autonomous Region that have predominantly Han Chinese populations. Hitting places like Kunming -- that is far from the Uigher area, and has no real significance to their struggle -- has never been a strategy they've used in the past, and one that doesn't seem to make much sense.

But then others point out that, with the increased security surrounding the Games, Beijing and other such targets may be too difficult...so they could be seeking to disrupt the Games with a strategy of fear by hitting other, less protected targets.

Added to all this, while bombing a bus may seem an implicity terrorist action, it is actually not that uncommon in China for other people to use such a tactic; similar to the "going postal" idea, if someone feels that they've been unfairly fired from their job working for public transit, or has a family member killed when hit by a bus, or just someone who hears voices telling them to destroy the buses, they may decide to bomb the buses.

I personally tend towards the belief that it is just a local thing, that the IPT has seized on to gain publicity; the main reason for this is that the bombs they've used in the past have been more powerful, and more effective. The bombs used in this instance were very amateurish, not at all like what they've used before. But its still possible that the IPT is responsible; or that the IPT will get inspired by this to launch other, similar attacks.

Given the level of security in Beijing these days, I'd say that a well organized attack within the city is fairly minimal (they've had American anti-terrorist military forces consulting with them for the past year on this); but that doesn't rule out attacks on other more vulnerable targets.

And to add to the list of inconveniences -- the gov't has announced that from now until the end of the Games, any public meetings of over 20 people must get special authorization in advance. This, unfortunately, includes the training classes that my company offers; and getting permission is a pain in the tuckus. So we're taking a one month holiday.

In addition to this, all "non-residents" of Beijing must get special identity papers in order to stay in Beijing during the Olympics; if the police stop a non-resident, and they don't have the papers, they can be escorted out of Beijing until the Games are over. Here's where it gets tricky. China has a system called "hukou" (who-koe), whereby each person is given 'citizenship' in a specific town/city. In order to live in another city, you must transfer your hokou to that city (similar to getting a visa to visit another country, or a green card to live in another country). It's a little complicated, so let me try to explain it like this:

Buy property in another city -- you must have a hukou for that city. So a person with a Xi'an hukou can't buy property in Beijing.

Work in another city -- technically, you're supposed to have a hukou to get a job in a particular city; however, the authorities tend to overlook this (although it can be a handy rational for getting rid of someone they find undesirable).

Live in another city -- as long as you are renting (not buying), you can live in another city without a hukou for that city

Visit another city -- travel is no problem whatsoever, your hukou doesn't matter.

What the Beijing gov't has done is to significantly tighten the normal hukou restrictions. If you don't have a Beijing hukou (and there are lots of Chinese in Beijing who don't), you either get the special permit, or you leave. And if you want to go to Beijing, you have to apply for the permit in advance (similar to getting a visa, although it is much faster).

Foreigners are subject to the same restrictions; I'm considered a resident of Beijing, since my visa and residence permit were issued here. But other foreigners may be required to get the additional permit (although this does not seem to be strongly enforced right now).

More fun times in jolly ol' Beijing.

[Wolfman]

And in regard to the Wenzhou bomb, it appears that the claims from the IPT are completely fabricated. Here's an article (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/18/content_6693820.htm) from the China Daily:
An explosion that killed 17 people in what was originally thought to be a traffic accident was in fact caused by a disgruntled gambler plotting revenge with an apparent bomb attack, police in east China said on Sunday. Investigators had found fuses and other explosive-making materials in the home of a tractor driver who was killed in the blast in Longwan Village, Wenzhou City in Zhejiang Province, said police. The explosion occurred outside a small building alleged to have been a local gambling den when the tractor was involved in a collision with a car and a minibus, said police.While it is not unknown for the Chinese media to cover up or fabricate stories when deemed necessary, this seems a pretty open-and-shut case. There have been interviews on TV with people who witnessed the blast, and with people who knew the farmer who made the bomb. Furthermore, the farmer (who was driving the tractor, and was killed in the blast) was not Uigher, or Muslim.

So I'd say that we take the claims of the IPT with a rather significant dose of salt.

[mrbaracuda]

Sounds like a load of paper work, this Hokou business.
Does China regularly - more or less - have a problem with bombings and terrorism?

And yea, as for the less protected targets, the article said the self-proclaimed leader of the group said in the video which was released they were hitting anything Olympics-related and using 'never before tried' methods as well. We'll see. Meh.

[PixyMisa]

I dont know - a lot of the precautions are very reasonable - Sydney had a squadron of Black Hawk helicopters in the air full of anti terrorist troops the whole time. We had mulitple bag checks, ID checks etc. Bomb squads, sniffer dogs. Every delivery vehicle was x-rayed and visually checked. All the venues were locked down for a week before the games started and this was all in a pre 911 world
Mind you, if you weren't near one of the Olympics sites, you hardly knew anything unusual was happening. Things sound a bit more extensive in Beijing.

[gumboot]

I love how the Olympic Games is such a powerful symbol of human unity, even after all these centuries. :rolleyes:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Beijing begins massive Olympic shutdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_on_re_as/china_the_shutdown;_ylt=AkDn5g8cKgzaU3gLQqBqEXqs0N UE)
(AP via Yahoo)

BEIJING - Beijing's Olympic shutdown begins Sunday, a drastic plan to lift the Chinese capital's gray shroud of pollution just three weeks ahead of the games.

Half of Beijing's 3.3 million vehicles will be pulled off the roads and many polluting factories will be shuttered. Chemical plants, power stations and foundries left open have to cut emissions by 30 percent — and dust-spewing construction in the capital will be halted.

In a highly stage-managed Olympics aimed at showing off the rising power of the 21st century, no challenge is greater than producing crystalline air for 10,500 of the world's greatest athletes.

"Pea-soup air at the opening ceremony would be their worst nightmare," said Victor Cha, director of Asian Studies at Georgetown University.

...

Beijing 2008: bars forbidden to serve "blacks" and Mongolians, outdoor tables banned (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12796)
(Asia News)

Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) - For "reasons of safety", bars are forbidden to serve "blacks"" and Mongolians or place tables in the street. Street musicians are being banned, and so is buying medicines containing "stimulants" without a prescription. Prohibitions are on the rise for the Olympic capital, while the first leaks reveal a grandiose fireworks display for the inauguration.

Bar owners around the Workers' Stadium in downtown Beijing say that public security officials are telling them not to let in "blacks" and Mongolians, and many of them have even had to sign a pledge. The official reason is the fight against drugs and prostitution, dominated in the past by Mongolians and persons of colour.

...
Black pimps and prostitutes in China? Where did they come from? I'm sure the Olympics would be much better if it weren't for all these foreigners showing up.



The Sporting Spirit (http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Sporting_Spirit/0.html)
Tribune 14 December 1945

...

If you wanted to add to the vast fund of ill-will existing in the world at this moment, you could hardly do it better than by a series of football matches between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Russians and Poles, and Italians and Jugoslavs, each match to be watched by a mixed audience of 100,000 spectators.

...

[mrbaracuda]

Germans and Czechs? I don't know about any beef we might have with them.
Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing crystal clear skies above Beijing. Or if they can actually achieve it.

[Wolfman]

Mind you, if you weren't near one of the Olympics sites, you hardly knew anything unusual was happening. Things sound a bit more extensive in Beijing.
Actually, you can't see the military stuff at all...its quite unobtrusive. Other security measures, such as the seemingly omnipresent metal detectors that seem to be everywhere in the city now, are not to unobtrusive.

[Wolfman]

And another article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080726.wchina-legacy26/BNStory/International/home) about the security measures for the Games; this one about the fact that the Beijing gov't has 400,000 "security volunteers" for the Games. These are basically retired men and women who will serve as a local neighborhood watch, looking for suspicious people or activities in their neighborhood. The article is written by Geoffrey York, who is quite notorious for slanting all articles about China in as negative a manner as possible, and this one is no exception:
In the small Beijing suburb of Hongxialu, there's a new force in town. The government has recruited a special unit of 288 residents, mostly middle-aged or elderly, to work as “security volunteers” in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Wearing red armbands with Olympic badges, the volunteers loiter near the entrance gates of their neighbourhood. They scrutinize every visitor and report to the police if they see anyone unfamiliar or suspicious.The volunteers of Hongxialu are just one cog in a vast machinery of surveillance in Beijing these days. Across the city, a network of 400,000 informants and volunteers has been mobilized to keep an eye out in their communities. The old Maoist system of neighbourhood committees, which had largely fallen into irrelevance in the past decade, is being revived again as a tool of social control.


When the last gold medal has been awarded and the athletes have left, this network of informers – along with an estimated 300,000 surveillance cameras and a strengthened security apparatus – will remain as perhaps the biggest legacy of the historic Beijing Olympics.Now, first of all, I know quite a few of these "security volunteers" personally...they are the parents and grandparents of my friends here. And with the -- very real -- threat of terrorism during the Olympics, they've been told simply to watch for suspicious people or activities in their communities. It is, as I said above, essentially a large-scale neighborhood watch program.


Geoffrey York tries to raise the spectre of bringing back the old system of neighborhood committees; a spectre that is entirely unfounded, and reveals either gross ignorance of what he's talking about, or else a willing eagerness to distort facts to his own end. To whit:


Old System -- Nobody wore identification, they were hidden within the community, you didn't know who it was


New System -- They wear clear identification


Old System -- Their primary purpose was to spy on people within their community, and report them to the authorities


New System -- Their primary purpose is to watch for outsiders who don't belong in the community, and report them if they seem suspicious


Old System -- The focus was political, reporting people for any statements or beliefs that contradicted those of the government


New System -- The focus is primarily non-political, to prevent potential terrorist attacks, or other kinds of crime. There is a political aspect to this, in that it will also be used to try to stop unauthorized protests (Falun Gong, Tibet, Human Rights, etc.) in such communities.


Old System -- was controlled by the Politburo (to enforce correct political thinking)



New System -- is controlled by the Public Security Bureau (the police) (tho prevent crime)



Geoffrey then goes on to raise the even more frightening -- if entirely unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever -- spectre that after the Games are over, this terrible system will not only remain in place in Beijing, but will be extended throughout China. I thought that reporters were supposed to "report"...since when did being able to predict the future become part of a reporter's domain?

[Policenaut]

I saw someone interviewing a woman in china today (I think on CNN) and she was saying "Oh the grey sky just means it's about to rain. See that's why I have this umbrella. It's not pollution." Now is this possibly just self delusion or government fed?

[Oliver]

I saw someone interviewing a woman in china today (I think on CNN) and she was saying "Oh the grey sky just means it's about to rain. See that's why I have this umbrella. It's not pollution." Now is this possibly just self delusion or government fed?


... Or simply a rainy day? :boggled:

[Wolfman]

Following up on the article I linked to above, I decided to actually write a letter to Geoffrey York, and cc: it to his editors. Not that I expect much from it...but if there's any response, I'll share it here.
Dear Mr. York,

As a Canadian who has been living and working in China for the past 15 years (including running my own business, and establishing a non-profit organization to work with one of the Chinese minority groups), it is with some dismay that I've read your ongoing reports about China. Your very obvious negative bias, combined with your willingness to distort facts and jump to unwarranted conclusions, is quite something to behold.

Your latest article, about the local "security volunteers" in Beijing, is perhaps one of your greatest triumphs in this regard, and I wanted to write to congratulate you on perhaps one of the best example of non-journalism that I've seen within the pages of the Globe and Mail. If this were written as an opinion piece, it might pass muster (in that it obviously reflects your personal opinions); but as actual reporting, it is abysmal. Of course, making such an accusation, without actual examples, would be pointless. So, let me address some of the points you raised in your article.

"Security volunteers" are a revival of the old system of "neighborhood committees".

You are, apparently, fairly knowledgeable about China. Yet your comparison of these two systems can be attributed only to one of two factors: complete ignorance of the topic which you are discussing; or a willful distorting of the truth in order to pursue your own agenda.

There are, in fact, numerous differences between the security volunteers, and the neighborhood committees. To list the more relevant differences:

1) People within neighborhood committees wore no identification, and generally nobody knew who they were. Security volunteers, on the other hand (and I should mention that the parents and grandparents of many of my Chinese friends are included in the ranks of the "security volunteers"), wear very clear and obvious identification as to who they are. There is nothing secret or hidden about it.

2) The purpose of the neighborhood committees was to spy within the community, to watch and report on the people with whom they lived. The purpose of the security volunteers is to watch for outsiders who do not belong there, and who are acting in a suspicious manner (or are actively engaging in illegal activities). It is, in fact, quite remarkably similar to neighborhood watch programs back in Canada, where local community volunteers wear arm bands and patrol their community, looking for outsiders who don't belong there, and who are acting in a suspicious manner (or are actively engaging in illegal activities).

3) The purpose of neighborhood committees was primarily political, to enforce "correct thinking", and to report those expressed ideas contrary to those of the government. The purpose of the security volunteers is primarily crime prevention, to report people engaged in activities that are (or appear to be) illegal. This includes potential terrorists (who are, sadly, a real threat at present). Yes, there is a political aspect to this, in that they are also supposed to report anyone organizing unapproved protests within their community. But it is a far, far cry from the way that the old neighborhood committees worked.

4) The old neighborhood committees were controlled by the politburo, with a focus on enforcing correct political thinking. The new security volunteers are controlled by the Public Security Bureau, with a focus on crime prevention.
And kudos on your use of the term "network of informants", and the threat that they will continue to be used after the Games are over. This despite the fact that you offer not one piece of evidence that the government intends to continue to use these volunteers after the Games finish (and despite the fact that not only has the government stated that it will only use them during the Olympics, but the volunteers themselves have been explicitly told it is only a temporary measure -- facts that you neglected to mention in your report). And despite the fact that they aren't "informants". At least, no moreso than the local neighborhood watch volunteer in Canada who, seeing a person who seems suspicious in their community, reports it to the police for investigation. In China, "informant" has a very specific connotation -- someone who reports on other people for their political beliefs. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with what these security volunteers are doing.

China's Security Obsession

Your reporting on the security measures that the Beijing gov't is taking are, generally, quite accurate. And I have no issue with that. However, it is curious to note not just what you report, but also what you omit. For example, you omit to mention that many of the security measures Beijing is taking have been used at other Olympic Games. You omit to mention that there is a very real and serious threat of potential terrorist attacks, both from internal groups (the Uighers) targeting Chinese, and external groups (Al Qaeda) targeting foreigners; and that many of these security measures are taken specifically to counter that threat. You omit to mention that many Western cities are setting up networks of security cameras similar to that in Beijing (London, England being a fairly notable example of this). In other words, you seek to present as negative an image as possible by simply bombarding the reader with a long list of apparent dangers/abuses, without giving any perspective whatsoever.

Now, I'm far from being an apologist for the Chinese government. There are numerous problems and abuses here. In 15 years in China, I've seen plenty of that. And although I live in Beijing (and am CEO of my own business here), I am not one of those isolated expats who lives in a comfortable community, away from normal life. I established the Lugu Lake Mosuo Cultural Development Association (www.mosuoproject.org (http://www.mosuoproject.org/)), which works with one of China's poorest and most isolated minority groups, in the Himalayan mountains on the border of Yunnan and Sichuan. Their religion is Tibetan Buddhism, and there have been numerous injustices perpetrated against them...injustices that we seek to redress, and to improve.

And yes, many of the measures that the Beijing gov't have taken are quite overboard, and should not be ignored. Telling bars and restaurants to turn away black customers, for example. Or reneging on their promise to provide unfettered media access during the Games. Or only allowing protests that have "proper permits" (effectively barring all protests that the gov't doesn't want).

And yes, if I compare China today to Canada today, it is pretty darn difficult to come up with a lot of positive comparisons.

However, if I compare China today with China 15 years ago, the amount of positive change is absolutely mind-boggling. When I arrived in China, they still had two different currencies -- one for foreigners, another for Chinese. All my mail was opened and read by the police. Chinese who visited me had their identity recorded, and if they visited me more than two or three times, would get a visit from the local PSB. If I wanted to visit a Chinese person's home, I'd have to go to the local PSB to get permission first. The list goes on and on and on.

The amount of positive change that has taken place in China -- within a period of only 15 years -- is almost unprecedented. And deserves to be recognized.

I agree 100% with informing the world about the abuses that take place within China. We should be unrelenting in continuing to place pressure on the Chinese government to continue the process of change and reform that is taking place. But likewise, we should make equal efforts to recognize and praise the positive advances that are made. Advances in gender equality (Chinese women enjoy one of the highest levels of social equality of any Asian nation today). Advances in education. Advances in health care. Again, the list could go on, and on, and on.

Therefore, I don't object to the fact that you report negative issues in China; what I object to is the fact that your reports are almost exclusively negative. And not only are they almost exclusively negative, but they rely on tactics of misinformation and propaganda that would be worthy of the Communist leaders you so regularly vilify. It is interesting to note that for all your condemnation of how the Chinese leaders control and distort the information they give to their public, you use exactly the same techniques yourself! You use intentionally inflammatory language (such as referring to security volunteers as "informers"); you use negative and frequently inaccurate comparisons (such as comparing security volunteers to the old neighborhood committees); you leave out relevant information that does not suit your specific agenda (such as the fact that security volunteers have been specifically informed that their positions will be terminated as soon as the Games finish); you leap to entirely unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusions (such as your claim that this "network of informants" will remain in place after the Games are finished); etc., etc., etc.

I do not expect this email to make any difference to your reporting; you obviously have your own agenda, and you aren't going to let little things like "accuracy" and "balance" get in the way of that. However, I felt a distinct need to respond to your article, and to let you know that the travesty you call "journalism" has not gone unnoticed. And I will cc: a copy to Edward Greenspon and Stephen Northfield, simply so that they will be aware of my concerns regarding "journalistic integrity", and the apparent lack of standards they use in evaluating the articles printed within their pages.

If you bother to reply to me at all, I'd appreciate it if you would make an effort to actually address the specific points I raised in regard to your article. If you can actually give points to defend the claims you made, or to contradict the points that I have raised, I would welcome those. However, if its going to be a simple "You're entitled to believe what you want" kind of response, please don't bother; if you are unable or unwilling to make an actual defense of the points I've raised, I don't really see much purpose in any further correspondence.

Regards,

[Wolfman]

I saw someone interviewing a woman in china today (I think on CNN) and she was saying "Oh the grey sky just means it's about to rain. See that's why I have this umbrella. It's not pollution." Now is this possibly just self delusion or government fed?
...or could it be that she knows it is a foreign TV station, and doesn't want to say something negative about a city she is proud of, that would be broadcast to the entire world?

...or could it be that it is, in fact, about to rain?

[Oliver]

...or could it be that she knows it is a foreign TV station, and doesn't want to say something negative about a city she is proud of, that would be broadcast to the entire world?

...or could it be that it is, in fact, about to rain?


Being in Beijing yourself, was it a rainy day? :confused:

[Wolfman]

Being in Beijing yourself, was it a rainy day? :confused:
It has rained twice this week (and looks like it may rain today). Since I'm not sure exactly what day this woman was actually interviewed, I can't really say whether or not it rained on that day. But it would not be an unreasonable assumption.

[Policenaut]

I don't think it was going to rain because she was the only one with an umbrella and no one had any jackets. Also you couldn't see any clouds or anything to tell what the weather pattern might have been. The sky was just one solid light grey color. This "grey haze" was talked about and the reporter I believe said it had blown in from an industrial area. Anyway I think the first of your hypothesis is a reasonable conclusion.

So anyway I hear Tony Leung is getting married finally. Big news in China? I'd imagine so.

[Wolfman]

Well, Geoffrey York has replied to my email, and given quite a detailed and extensive reply, at that. It is only fair that his response and rebuttal be included here for everyone's consideration.
Dear Mr. Lombard --
Thanks for your comments. I'm very interested in your work in China, especially the Lugu Lake cultural development project. In 2004, I visited Lugu Lake and wrote a lengthy article about the problems of the Mosuo people, so I believe your project is an important and much-needed one.
Thanks also for your detailed confirmation of my earlier article about the systematic discrimination against blacks at many of Beijing's bars and nightclubs, including the new restrictions that prevent many blacks from entering bars in Beijing. The confirming evidence, which you posted in the comments section of our website, is valuable and much appreciated, because the Chinese authorities have tried to deny this report.
Let me respond to the other main points in your message:
1) You say that I have a "negative bias" in my reports about China. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'd like to note that since 2002, when my posting began, I have written hundreds of articles about positive changes in China, including economic and social changes. Most recently, you could look at my blog, which is well-promoted on our website, in which I mention many of the positive things about China. If you go back to May, in my extensive coverage of the Sichuan earthquake, you'll find that I wrote many positive articles about the changes in China. I'm happy to send you copies of these articles if you would like.
2) You argue that the "security volunteers" should not be described as informants. Yet according to Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, the job of the security volunteers is to inform the police if they see any strangers or suspicious behavior in their neighborhood. If their job is to inform the police, I don't think it is inaccurate to describe them as informants. In addition, of course, the network of informants goes far beyond the security volunteers. For example, China admitted last week that the so-called "Olympic volunteers" at the Olympic venues will include many security agents in plainclothes disguises. China also disclosed that taxi drivers have been trained as informants. It's clear that a massive effort is being made to set up a network of informants this year. Even if the "security volunteers" take off their armbands and are officially disbanded after the Olympics, the network will still exist.
3) You argue that the "security volunteers" are different from the neighborhood committees of the past. But you are describing the neighborhood committees which existed in the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. As you must know, the neighborhood committees continued to exist long after the death of Mao, and they became more regularized and began wearing red armbands. In the past decade, these committees have focused mostly on minor issues such as sanitation and fire prevention. By reviving these "volunteers" and giving them new duties of security and surveillance, it is a return to the situation of the 1980s (not the 1960s). Nowhere in my article did I suggest that the new "security volunteers" are a return to the Cultural Revolution.
4) You seem to believe that I am the only one who sees the similarity between the "security volunteers" and the neighborhood committees of the past. Many others, including well-respected scholars and human rights groups, see the same parallel, and are very worried about it. They, too, believe that this apparatus will continue to exist after the Olympics, even if the armbands are removed. Here, for example, is a link to an article published by the well-respected Jamestown Foundation which makes the same points: http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2374309
5) You argue that the "security volunteers" are no different from the "Neighborhood Watch" associations in Canada. This is surely an inaccurate comparison. If you walk into ordinary residential communities in Toronto or Ottawa, I doubt very much that you will be scrutinized by "volunteers" in red armbands who are standing at the entrance gates with an obligation to report any strangers to the police. By the way, it is Xinhua (not just me) that described how the "volunteers" are loitering by the entrance gates to scrutinize visitors.
6) You admit that there is a "political aspect" to what these volunteers are doing in Beijing, and you admit that one of their jobs is to prevent "unapproved protests" within their community. This is precisely my point. China has revived the political duties of the neighborhood committees which had been previously reduced to sanitation and fire-prevention duties. By contrast, there is no "political aspect" to the Neighborhood Watch associations in Canada.
7) Your comparison to Neighborwood Watch is inaccurate for another reason: the sheer size and scale of these volunteer committees in Beijing. For example, the neighborhood of Hongxialu has 288 volunteers to watch a neighborhood of 70 buildings in a 1.4-square-kilometre area. This is a ratio of four informants for every apartment building in the entire neighborhood. (These numbers are taken from Xinhua and the Chinese government.) I think Canadians would be shocked if their neighborhood had four official informants for every apartment building. Of course, these special Olympic informants in Beijing are in addition to the existing network of police, security agents and other plainclothes personnel, which is already very large.
8) You argue that "security measures" are justified because of the "very real" threat of terrorism by Uyghurs and Al Qaeda. This is a matter of opinion, of course, and you're entitled to your opinion. But you didn't mention that Uyghur terrorists have not killed civilians anywhere in China since 1997, and Al Qaeda has never attacked anyone in China.
9) You mention that other countries have surveillance cameras too. Of course this is true, but Britain is the only country in the world with a network of surveillance cameras that rivals the network in China. And Britain has a system of legal checks and balances that doesn't exist in China. In Britain, there are privacy protections and legal protections that prevent the abuse of surveillance cameras. This does not exist in China.
10) I would like to add one further point, about something that you posted on the Globe and Mail website. You criticized me for my description of the 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen students. Your specific complaint is that I wrote that "hundreds and perhaps thousands" of people were killed by the Chinese military in June 1989. You said that "nobody" has ever supported an estimate of "thousands" of people killed. In reality, of course, the estimated death tolls by a variety of well-respected sources have ranged from several hundred to several thousand. The Chinese Red Cross, on the day of the massacre, estimated that 2,600 people were killed. Jan Wong, an eyewitness to the massacre, concluded -- after much research over a period of many years -- that about 3,000 people were killed in June 1989. See her book, Red China Blues, p. 278.
Best regards,
Geoffrey YorkAnd, in an additional email:
Dear Mr. Lombard --
Just one final point that I'd like to add. You accuse me of bias. But I have no connections to any advocacy group and no organization except The Globe and Mail. I have no financial interests in China, and nobody pays my salary except The Globe and Mail. If you check my background, you'll see that I have worked for The Globe and Mail for the past 27 years and have reported in dozens of countries around the world. I have no reasons for any personal bias. On the other hand, your biography on the Internet shows that you have worked for the Beijing Olympic Bid Committee. You were a speech-writer for the Mayor of Beijing, you helped to "facilitate communication" for the Mayor, and you even wrote his speech in his final presentations to the IOC in 2001. This is all very impressive, but it certainly suggests that you have a personal bias in promoting the Olympics and promoting the Chinese authorities. I think you should have declared your personal bias and financial interests when you wrote your lengthy letter to my bosses. (Perhaps you were unpaid by the Mayor of Beijing, but you have certainly used your Beijing government experience to promote your business interests in China.)
Best regards,
Geoffrey YorkI should note here that his replies were quite civil, and quite thorough in responding to all the points I raised. He deserves significant credit for that.

[Wolfman]

And, of course, I replied to him. Following is my return correspondence:
Geoffrey,

I do not deny having any "bias" whatsoever; every person has their biases. However, if you check the things that I write about China (and if you follow the link that I have provided in the Globe and Mail discussion, you can find an extensive discussion that I initiated about these very issues), you will find that I always seek to provide a balanced perspective. Yes, I have bias...but I present both sides of the argument. The good, and the bad. The "bias" I may have from having worked with the Mayor is also rather counter-balanced by the "bias" I have from seeing the abuses that the Mosuo (many of whom are very close friends) have suffered at the hands of the government. If you're going to use the former against me, I'd expect that the latter be considered in my favor.

I might also add that, besides helping the Mayor of Beijing, I've also been quite active in criticizing many of the government's policies, and have actually been asked in the past to be a consultant on national education policies. I've fought adamantly for improvement of the situation of the Mosuo people. The fact that I've been involved with the Olympics in no way means that I'm some sort of lap dog or lackey for the government. Quite the opposite, as you found in your own brief internet search, there is plenty of publicly available information about me, including my criticisms of the government, and many of their policies.

Nor do I use a national newspaper as a pulpit for preaching my biases -- presenting conclusions that are unsubstantiated by any actual facts, or presenting information in a manner that is entirely one-sided. I'm sure that, when you write about Canada, you don't include a description that includes "where 22,000 Japanese were interned and had their property illegally seized during WW II" (or any of the other numerous abuses that have been visited upon people by our government throughout Canadian history). And regarding the numbers you cite -- you quote a single author, and an estimate made on the same day as the event happened (a number that the same organization later stated was wrong). I keep a fairly close watch on human rights groups and their claims, and even those who are quite adamantly anti-China quote numbers in the hundreds. In fact, one of my best friends here, a lawyer, has a brother who was killed in Tiananmen Square, and who was there himself. He most certainly would have noticed "thousands of dead bodies". As would the countless thousands of other Chinese who witnessed the event. Yet not one single Chinese I've ever talked to who was actually there -- and I've talked to many -- puts the number at anything more than a few hundred. It is notable here that even among those dissidents from Tiananmen Square who've fled China, and live in places like Canada, also put the number (at the most) in the hundreds.

Regarding the "security volunteers", I have them in the compound that I live in, also. They are mostly retirees who wear an armband and sit in chairs while ********ting with each other. They watch people as they come in and out, but that's about it. Several friends have parents or grandparents who are doing this. I called two different friends, before I wrote this, simply to confirm, and both replied that the only obligation they have in regards to reporting is that if they see activity they actually consider suspicious, they should notify they authorities. They are neither required nor expected to report on the movements or activities of every stranger. I have likewise visited many areas in Beijing that have their own security volunteers. Not once have I, or any of my Chinese friends, been stopped by them, asked for identification, or any other such nonsense...despite the fact that we were strangers. I'm quite sure, however, that if I'd unrolled a "freedom for Tibet" banner, I'd have been reported pretty damn quickly.

You say that you've written positive articles about China. Yes, you have. And I'm always rather surprised when I see them. Because the vast majority of your articles are overwhelmingly negative; not only do they report only the bad news, but they use language that intentionally incites hatred or fear. Those grandparents sitting in chairs outside my compound aren't just "security volunteers". No, they are Maoist informants!

Which brings me to your protest that what I said about the neighborhood committees applied only during the Cultural Revolution. That is true...in later years, they changed somewhat. However, your article refers /specifically /to, "the old Maoist system of neighborhood committees". And it is that Maoist system -- the one implemented under Mao Zedong, during the Cultural Revolution -- to which I refer. It seems rather vain to use intentionally evocative language like "the old Maoist system", then turn around and complain that its not relevant when I in turn do a specific comparison between the system Mao set up, and the modern volunteers.
And, of course, you roll out the tried and true "I'm only quoting what other knowledgeable people have said" response. This, of course, ignores the fact that you are very blatantly quote-mining. You simply look for quotes that support the position you've already decided upon, and ignore all others. Are there knowledgeable and authoritative figures who would disagree entirely with your assessment, and give an entirely different picture? Of course there are. But we won't find them anywhere in your article.

As I said, I have no problem with what you say, /if it is presented as opinion/. People are more than entitled to have differing opinions, and I fully support that. I do not in any manner, shape, or form expect everyone to agree with me; and acknowledge that it is quite possible that some of the things I believe are, in fact, false. Which is why I always seek to present my arguments simply as personal opinion; and to keep a balance in those opinions.
My problem is that what you write is opinion pieces that masquerade as news reports. There is no objectivity here, no attempt to present a balanced view. No attempt to simply report the facts, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. You reach your conclusions in advance, and then do everything that you can to support those conclusions. Quote-mining to find only those quotations that support your position, while ignoring opinions or quotations from others who are equally or more knowledgeable. Deliberate use of negative language to further stigmatize your target. Coming to sweeping conclusions that are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but based instead on your own personal opinion -- or would you care to cite the specific sources that can authoritatively state that the "security volunteers" will be a network of informants that will remain in place long after the Games are finished? You stated this as a fact, as a conclusion; not as simply an opinion (yours, or anyone else's).

I do want to thank you very much for your extensive reply; and you did raise some valid points. It is, obviously, a rather confrontational email, and I appreciate the fact that you did reply in a rational and intelligent manner. I just wish that the news you presented in the Globe and Mail provided even a modicum of the balance as the replies you wrote to me.

Regarding the Mosuo...while I very much seek to let more people know about the Mosuo, and the work we are doing with them, I've also learned to be extremely wary of the media. I've had several different times when interviews with foreign media have been altered in a manner that entirely misrepresent my own position. Given what seems to me an obvious negative bias on your part, I would have very little faith at all that what I said would be presented accurately and honestly; I see too much danger of isolated comments being used to misrepresent myself, and my organization.

And I'm happy to provide the confirmation regarding the treatment of blacks; so long as you also notice that I specifically stated that although it exists, it seems very much to be a result of independent actions by local police, not a result of any government policy. If you choose to use the former information, I would expect that you also use the latter. If you choose not to use the latter, then I would respectfully ask that you not use me as a source for the former...as it would, once again, be quoting me entirely out of context, and a blatant misuse of my own statements.

And one final comment, regarding your statement that, "Perhaps you were unpaid by the Mayor of Beijing, but you have certainly used your Beijing government experience to promote your business interests in China" -- Yet another example of jumping to conclusions without any evidence or substantiating material whatsoever. No, I have not used my connections for my business at all; my involvement with the Mayor was some eight years ago, my new business was just established this year. I did it entirely on my own, with no appeal to government connections whatsoever. I did, however, use my connections with the Mayor to assist in setting up my non-profit organization...one of the very first non-profits to be established by a foreigner at the provincial level of approval (Yunnan province, in this case). So yes, I did benefit from my connection with the Mayor; but your own conclusion as to the nature of that benefit is entirely incorrect.

Thank you again for your response; I greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to provide a reasoned rebuttal to my comments, regardless of the fact that it is doubtful that you and I will come to any real agreement on most of these issues.

Regards,

John Lombard
And since he added an extra email the first time...so did I!
Geoffrey,

One more quick comment, regarding the terrorist threat. You said, "You argue that "security measures" are justified because of the "very real" threat of terrorism by Uyghurs and Al Qaeda. This is a matter of opinion, of course, and you're entitled to your opinion. But you didn't mention that Uyghur terrorists have not killed civilians anywhere in China since 1997, and Al Qaeda has never attacked anyone in China." Let me set the record straight; nowhere did I make a blanket statement that all security measures were justified (again, drawing conclusions that never existed). Only that, given a distinct and real terrorist threat, some degree of security measures are necessary (and, in fact, there were numerous security measures at Olympics in Atlanta, Syndey, etc., for exactly the same reason). I do feel that some of the security measures go too far.

And regarding the question of whether there is a "real threat", I wouldn't consider it "just a matter of opinion". The Islamic Party of Turkistan (a terrorist branch of the Uigher independence movement) just this week not only took credit for bus bombings in Kunming that killed three people, but specifically threatened more violence and attacks across China. Surely, as a reporter focused on China, you are aware of this, and didn't intentionally choose to ignore that fact when you stated that, "Uigher terrorists have not killed civilians...since 1997". Nor, I'm sure, did you intend to deliberately avoid the fact that non-civilian targets have been hit by Uighers in more recent years...by any reasonable standard, they're a threat.

Now, there's some question as to whether or not the bus bombings in Kunming were the work of the IPT. I myself am skeptical, but on the other hand, nobody else has taken credit for it (and bus bombings have been one of their signature tactics in the past). And the fact remains that a known terrorist organization, that has been responsible for the deaths of both civilians and non-civilians, has specifically stated their intent to carry out terrorist attacks during the Games.

Then there's Al Qaeda. Surely, again, you are not unaware of the fact that the U.S. gov't considers their athletes to be very likely targets of terrorist actions, and in fact has provided assistance to the Chinese government in their anti-terrorist efforts in preparing for the Games? And likewise, surely you are aware that Al Qaeda has proven their willingness, time and time again, to attack Americans (or other 'enemies') in any country or location they can do so?

So, let me put it to you.

We have one terrorist organization, with a proven record of violence and killing, taking credit for bus bombings this week, and stating their intent to carry out attacks during the Games. We have another terrorist organization with a stated intent to attack its enemies anywhere in the world, and that many world governments consider a significant threat at the Olympic Games (not just those in China, but also in other countries).

Yet you argue that this is just "a matter of opinion"?

I'd argue that /any/ government -- Chinese or otherwise -- would be grossly negligent /not/ to take significant security measures against such a threat.
Now, once again, if you have any actual evidence to the contrary -- that in fact, the IPT has no intent of carrying out terrorist attacks, or that Al Qaeda respect the sanctity of the Olympic Games and would not try to attack American (or other) civilian or government targets present at the Games, please feel free to offer those up for consideration.

Regards,

John

[Boo]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?


As an aside, it would be interesting to see some of the "black" athletes from around the world going out and trying to eat in the restaurants away from the Olympic Village.



Boo

[Skeptic Guy]

Wolfman,

This point is concerning to me. In your postings on the Globe and Mail site, you weren't trying to sugar coat or revise the Tienanmen massacre were you?


10) I would like to add one further point, about something that you posted on the Globe and Mail website. You criticized me for my description of the 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen students. Your specific complaint is that I wrote that "hundreds and perhaps thousands" of people were killed by the Chinese military in June 1989. You said that "nobody" has ever supported an estimate of "thousands" of people killed. In reality, of course, the estimated death tolls by a variety of well-respected sources have ranged from several hundred to several thousand. The Chinese Red Cross, on the day of the massacre, estimated that 2,600 people were killed. Jan Wong, an eyewitness to the massacre, concluded -- after much research over a period of many years -- that about 3,000 people were killed in June 1989. See her book, Red China Blues, p. 278.

[Skeptic Guy]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?


As an aside, it would be interesting to see some of the "black" athletes from around the world going out and trying to eat in the restaurants away from the Olympic Village.



Boo

And it would be even more interesting for an international news agency to follow those atheletes around Beijing while trying to do so. In fact, I have a number of friends in such organizations and will email them to ask if they are planning to cover that side of the news.

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

This point is concerning to me. In your postings on the Globe and Mail site, you weren't trying to sugar coat or revise the Tienanmen massacre were you?
Not at all. Although no exact count is possible, I fully believe that quite likely hundreds of people died at Tiananmen Square. But not thousands...a figure that Geoffrey York has used very frequently in numerous reports about China. The only sources that he's able to cite are A) a report that was made on the day of the massacre, in the midst of massive confusion (and a report that was later revised by the same organization that made the initial report), and a single author who was not even present at the event in question.

By contrast, as I mention in my reply, I personally know several people who were there, and one whose brother was killed that day. Not a single one of them comes even close to "thousands" of people killed. And if you want to argue that perhaps they are afraid of the government, then how about Chinese dissidents from the Tiananmen Square protests who have since left China, and now live in Canada, and the U.S. Surely, if thousands of people had been killed that day, they would be the first ones to declare that...yet to my knowledge, not a single one of them makes such a claim.

And if you check out any of the numerous human rights groups that address the Tiananmen Square Massacre, you will likewise find that they pretty much universally put the numbers in the hundreds. These are people who are pretty strongly anti-Chinese...yet even they don't claim it was "thousands" of people killed.

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?
I would hesitate to make any predictions at all, simply because so much depends on what happens during the Games.

Take a worst-case scenario: someone actually does make a terrorist attack (or multiple attacks) at the Games. The gov't responds in the only way it knows how...with massive overreaction, sending in the military, and giving hardliners and excuse to seize even more power within the government.

Or a best-case scenario: the Games go off relatively smoothly, and the increased international attention puts more pressure on China for continued positive change (they are, after all, hosting the World Expo in Shanghai in 2010). Increase tourism and business fosters continued economic growth in China, which in turn fosters education and a middle class that has ever increasing economic power. That, in turn, drives a process of change that leads to the continuing democratization of China.

Or...it could be anywhere in between.

[The Painter]

I fully believe that quite likely hundreds of people died at Tiananmen Square. But not thousands

Oh, well I guess that makes it OK? It is so silly of people to complain about deaths in Tienanmen Square when it was only hundreds of people, not thousands, killed.

Wolfman, since you are the self proclaimed authority on China, what is the acceptable official government number of deaths per protest?

[Wolfman]

Oh, well I guess that makes it OK? It is so silly of people to complain about deaths in Tienanmen Square when it was only hundreds of people, not thousands, killed.

Wolfman, since you are the self proclaimed authority on China, what is the acceptable official government number of deaths per protest?For Forum Spotlight

As Cleon states, at no time have I ever said that Tiananmen Square was acceptable, or excusable. Quite the opposite. Not only do I condemn it absolutely, but I have close friends here who lost family members there.

The discussion about this particular issue began in the Globe and Mail forums (a copy of which I have not posted here), in which I referred to Geoffrey York's tendency to include the sentence "Tiananmen Square, where hundreds or even thousands of people were killed in 1989". He has since corrected me in a subsequent email (our exchange continues, and is quite interesting), that while he used the expression a few times, apparently the other uses were by other journalists, not by him.

However, my point of disagreement with his was not that Tiananmen Square was in some way excusable, or acceptable. It was the fact that the Globe and Mail's articles about China tended to use this description regardless of what the article was about; and that the estimate of "thousands" of people killed at Tiananmen Square was not one widely supported by the vast majority of authorities on the massacre. It was a deliberately prejudicial sentence, inserted because the author knew the negative sentiments that its inclusion would immediately arouse. Since my bone of contention with Geoffrey York is that he presents a very deliberately biased perspective, this was relevant.

One of the issues that has come up in my exchange with Geoffrey is the ongoing use of Tiananmen Square in many articles about China. If we're going to talk about Tiananmen Square every time we mention China, then why do we not talk about the 22,000 Japanese who were interred during WW II in Canada, and had all their property illegally stolen from them, every time we talk about Canada?

Geoffrey's response was that the Japanese internments happened some 60 years ago, and were no longer relevant; whereas the events at Tiananmen Square happened 2 decades ago, and were still relevant.

I then replied that if we are going to apply time limits, then since China's invasion of Tibet was some 50 years ago, we should also stop mentioning that. Its old news, no longer relevant...if one accepts the premise that such things have pre-determined time limits.

My own argument is different. I argue that such things should be based on the current government's involvement in the issues being discussed. The current leaders in China had nothing to do with Tiananmen Square; nor have they engaged in any massacres of a similar nature. Criticize them for abuses that they are responsible for, yes. But constant and deliberate efforts to tar them with the imagery of 1989 are intellectually and morally dishonest.

By the same token, although the invasion of Tibet happened some 50 years ago, there are still specific abuses being acted upon the peoples of Tibet by the current government; and therefore, even though it happened 50 years ago, it is still a relevant issue, and it should be discussed in relation to the current government's actions and responsibilities.

[Boo]

Wolfman,

I understand your hesitation and reservations. I think I worded my question poorly in what I was asking.

Given the changes made, how likely is it that these changes will remain in effect after the games or will policies return to the status quo? Do you see the overall changes made as positive or negative in the life of the general population?

Much of what I've read seems to focus on the negatives and the restrictions being placed on anyone that might be considered a minority or outsider. There have also been the positives such as the new railways lines and the alternating traffic days that have seem to have alleviated much of the traffic congestion and possibly improved the local air quality. The security patrols seem a potential for both positive and negative depending on the level of paranoia and zealousness of those patrolling along with the response to information passed on by the patrols.




Boo

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

I understand your hesitation and reservations. I think I worded my question poorly in what I was asking.

Given the changes made, how likely is it that these changes will remain in effect after the games or will policies return to the status quo? Do you see the overall changes made as positive or negative in the life of the general population?

Much of what I've read seems to focus on the negatives and the restrictions being placed on anyone that might be considered a minority or outsider. There have also been the positives such as the new railways lines and the alternating traffic days that have seem to have alleviated much of the traffic congestion and possibly improved the local air quality. The security patrols seem a potential for both positive and negative depending on the level of paranoia and zealousness of those patrolling along with the response to information passed on by the patrols.

BooBarring unforeseen events of a particularly dramatic nature -- such as terrorist attacks -- I believe that once the Games are over (and by this, I mean both the regular Olympics and the Paralympics...the regulations will stay in place until both events are concluded), things will pretty much return to 'normal'.

[Cleon]

Back on the topic of the Olympics, rather than Wolfman's unwillingness to simply dismiss and condemn everything related to the Chinese government, this story on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/29/china.humanrights/index.html) caught my eye.

[Beerina]

* A lot of the higher-class prostitutes in Beijing are Mongolian; so Mongolian women are being targeted and made to leave Beijing.

For Forum Spotlight


Are Mongolian women particularly hot for some reason? Or just kind of exotic, like the African woman's window had a small line outside it in Amsterdam's red light district?


It's true! :)

[Wolfman]

Are Mongolian women particularly hot for some reason? Or just kind of exotic, like the African woman's window had a small line outside it in Amsterdam's red light district?


It's true! :)Its not so much that they're exotic. Its that they're trained extensively before coming to China. They speak excellent English (most Chinese prostitutes do not), they know lots of 'tricks' to make a man happy, etc.

And if you get caught, it is two 'foreigners'...which is treated much less seriously by the authorities than if a foreigner is doing it with a Chinese woman (which causes the entire nation of China to lose face, of course).

And no...I don't know this from personal experience. However, it is a frequent topic of discussion here.

[Darth Rotor]

I would hesitate to make any predictions at all, simply because so much depends on what happens during the Games.

Take a worst-case scenario: someone actually does make a terrorist attack (or multiple attacks) at the Games.
An unsophisticated group, Black September, pulled it off in 1972. Modern terrorist groups are varied in their level of sophistication, and the security measures to prevent their successful pulling of some stunt/slaughter certainly improve since Munich.

But the sordid fact is that "there is no security."

For the sake of people in Beijing, including an old high school buddy of mine, I hope no terrorist attack takes place. I am not optomistic.

DR

[BenBurch]

DR, I would more suspect attacks on aircraft en-route to China as a possibility. When you know in advance where the security attention is going to be, its much more likely that you will attack where it is not.

For example, suppose some religiously radicalized air force pilots of some nation bordering china decide to take it upon themselves to arm an aircraft and attack a plane from Israel? I really doubt they will have a fighter escort all the way to Chinese airspace, and if it is a suicide mission, a fighter has a lot more range than if it is a sortie you plan to return from.

But yeah, I expect the worst regardless of the fact that I can always imagine the worst!

[The Painter]

. . Not only do I condemn it absolutely, but I have close friends here who lost family members there.


The way read it, you were implying that 100's were an acceptable number and that 1000's were not. I will not let a third party tell me what to think. Now that it has come directly from you. I apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote.

I have some financial investments in China and I will say they have done very well for me. I do fear that these upcoming Olympics may show the dark side of China, instead of the shining jewel of the orient they want everyone to see. I hope it comes off good for them. Good for them will also be good for me.

I also understand your position in China can be perilous. If you do say the wrong thing, you could wind up in prison at the whim of some bureaucrat. Good luck to you.

[Giz]

Perhaps now would be a good time for a sing-a-long:

Official 2008 Olympics Song: Please Ignore The Communism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDU3ePlyH8&feature=user

[gtc]

This ad is so annoying it made the news in Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/off-the-field/chinas-florid-horrid-shocker/2008/07/30/1217097289401.html):
a2dI6dQzqYo

The company behind the advert is the same company behind the Opening Ceremony uniforms of the Chinese Athletes which has been compared to Tomato Scrambled Eggs (http://foodmakesmehappy.blogspot.com/2007/12/scrambled-eggs-with-tomato-every.html):


"When the Chinese delegation comes out, they will certainly catch the eyes of the audience," the outfit's designer, Liu Ruiqi, told The China Daily.
The state-run newspaper didn't make it clear whether the Liu Ruiqi it quoted was the same Liu Ruiqi who is the chairman of the Hengyuanxiang Company Ltd, which selected the winning design from thousands of entries in a year-long competition.

[a_unique_person]

I saw a picture in the local paper of the Nepalese police beating up Tibetan protesters in Tibet. I could be wrong, but some of the police looked distinctly Western, with pale skin and blond hair.

[Wolfman]

I saw a picture in the local paper of the Nepalese police beating up Tibetan protesters in Tibet. I could be wrong, but some of the police looked distinctly Western, with pale skin and blond hair.
Ummmm...Nepal is a separate country, no way there are Nepalese police in Tibet.

[Grillfire]

Although no exact count is possible, I fully believe that quite likely hundreds of people died at Tiananmen Square. But not thousands...a figure that Geoffrey York has used very frequently in numerous reports about China. The only sources that he's able to cite are A) a report that was made on the day of the massacre, in the midst of massive confusion (and a report that was later revised by the same organization that made the initial report), and a single author who was not even present at the event in question.

By contrast, as I mention in my reply, I personally know several people who were there, and one whose brother was killed that day. Not a single one of them comes even close to "thousands" of people killed. And if you want to argue that perhaps they are afraid of the government, then how about Chinese dissidents from the Tiananmen Square protests who have since left China, and now live in Canada, and the U.S. Surely, if thousands of people had been killed that day, they would be the first ones to declare that...yet to my knowledge, not a single one of them makes such a claim.

And if you check out any of the numerous human rights groups that address the Tiananmen Square Massacre, you will likewise find that they pretty much universally put the numbers in the hundreds. These are people who are pretty strongly anti-Chinese...yet even they don't claim it was "thousands" of people killed.

Here is an eyewitness account that supports your claim.

"As a researcher in 1989 for Human Rights Watch in Beijing, Robin Munro witnessed first hand the weeks of pro-democracy demonstrations in the city and the People's Liberation Army's final assault on June 3-4."

...Can you describe that what happened on the night of June 3 and [the morning of the] 4th out there and your personal experiences?

<long response> ..... <final words below>

... Reports in the week after June Fourth stated that troops had assaulted the monument about 4:30 a.m. and massacred all the students on the monument, saying that thousands of students had been shot down in cold blood. That didn't happen, and had it happened, I wouldn't be here today -- as simple as that. ...

I can't post a link because my post count is less than 15. Just Google for "Robin Munro PBS" and click on the first link.


Also Google for "Black Hands of Beijing". Click on the second link. (The first link the Amazon page for the book.)

I hope Robin Munro is credible enough for Geoffrey York.

[gtc]

Ummmm...Nepal is a separate country, no way there are Nepalese police in Tibet.

It was the Nepal side of the border apparently (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/28/asia/AS-Nepal-Tibetans-Detained.php).

[cgallaga]

Wolf can I ask an aside? What do you think of the depiction of events in the movie Gate of Heavenly Peace? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_of_Heavenly_Peace_%28documentary%29)

[Wolfman]

Wolf can I ask an aside? What do you think of the depiction of events in the movie Gate of Heavenly Peace? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_of_Heavenly_Peace_%28documentary%29)
I haven't seen it, although I'd like to. It is, for obvious reasons, rather difficult to get a copy in China; and the Great Firewall has prevented my attempts to download it from other sources.

But others I know here who have seen it -- including a few Chinese -- seem to feel that it mostly deals with the issues fairly.

[cgallaga]

I'll agree with the consensus you note. I thought it was very good, very moving, and showed quite well the varied sides including he cultural systems/issues. I think it gets a pretty good review as well because both sides thought it treated their side unfairly of course it was panned by Beijing but also and protesters like Wer kaizi and Chai Ling.

[luchog]

Looks like the Chinese government is backtracking on some of the pre-Olympics assurances as well.

China restricts Web access at Olympics (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=da5debc9-7234-4558-9d51-759f1b0399b2)

China was under fire Wednesday in another controversy leading up to next week's Olympic Games, this time after admitting foreign journalists will not have unrestricted Internet access as promised.

Adding to the controversy was the International Olympic Committee's acknowledgment that it knew and "negotiated" over the censorship plans.

[Wolfman]

Yup, very true; there are a number of other promises that they've gone back on, as well. I'm not going to attempt to justify this; only to point out that there are gov't officials here who very much disagree with these decisions, and are quite angry/disappointed because of it. For the most part, the people who made the initial promises were at the municipal level of government (the Beijing government); the people who are insisting on these changes, and breaking the initial agreement, are at the national level of government.

[cgallaga]

Par for the course where governments are concerned, anywhere. Anybody remember

CP9_kkzfN-w

[a_unique_person]

Yup, very true; there are a number of other promises that they've gone back on, as well. I'm not going to attempt to justify this; only to point out that there are gov't officials here who very much disagree with these decisions, and are quite angry/disappointed because of it. For the most part, the people who made the initial promises were at the municipal level of government (the Beijing government); the people who are insisting on these changes, and breaking the initial agreement, are at the national level of government.

China's government seems to be unaware that the harder they try to look good by manipulating the situation, the worse they look.

[Wolfman]

China's government seems to be unaware that the harder they try to look good by manipulating the situation, the worse they look.
Actually, there's more to it than that.

While the Communist leaders of China are coming in for a lot of criticism internationally, they are enjoying a very high level of popularity and support within China. The actions taken against Tibet? Most Chinese people support it, and would consider the gov't weak and indecisive if they had not taken action. And the earthquake? That garnered the gov't huge points with the populace, for how rapidly and effectively they responded.

Consider it this way.

'Face', as everyone knows, is very important for Chinese people. But you have to understand how 'face' works.

If a bunch of foreigners try to tell China what they should or should not do, and then start criticizing China because it doesn't do what they think they should do...the Chinese people don't feel that they've lost face. Quite the contrary, it tends to make them more self-defensive. They criticize their own government quite regularly; but get pissed off when outsiders do so (and be honest...most of us are the same way about our own countries, too).

But when foreigners come to China, they are the guests of the nation -- and anything bad that happens to them reflects negatively on the nation, causing all Chinese people to lose face.

So, for example, if a terrorist attack took place during the Olympics; or if foreign guests were the victims of other kinds of violent crime; then all of China would lose face. And the Chinese people will support pretty much any and all policies in order to reduce as much as possible the chance of such a thing happening.

When the American gov't does anything, it doesn't give much of a damn about international opinion...what it cares about is whether or not that action will have (or increase) the support of the American people. The same is true in pretty well every other country in the world, China included. Heck, look at how long the international community's been screaming about the treatment of prisoners in Guantanemo Bay...and not one single policy has changed as a result of that pressure. Any changes have come as a result of internal pressures...either pressures from the American people, or more often, pressures from the American legal system, which has found various practices illegal, and demanded change.

My point? You're barking up entirely the wrong tree if you're thinking about this from the point of view of "what the rest of the world will think".

The Chinese gov't currently has very high support among the Chinese people; and much of that is because of many of the same policies that outsiders are criticizing. The Chinese view "human rights" in terms of the collective whole, not the individual; and they believe that individuals can and should be sacrificed for the good of the whole. Nor is this a "Communist" thing...it is a cultural thing, dating back thousands of years before Communism ever even existed.

I'm not saying this is good, or bad; right, or wrong. I'm simply trying to explain the Chinese perspective on this. Ask the majority of Chinese about the current regulations and restrictions in place in China, and the vast majority will complain about the inconvenience. But they'll also support the gov't's decision to do it, and defend it as necessary.

By far the majority of change and reform in China in the future is going to be driven internally, by the Chinese people themselves; not by outsiders. Oh, outsiders can play a role, certainly -- but only if they take the time to really invest themselves in the issues, to come to China, observe the situation first-hand, and learn to understand the full complexity of the situation. And then comment on it.

Armchair critics who've never been to China, or who have had only a brief experience of it, are going to be ignored. By the government, and by the people. Not only are they going to be ignored, they are going to strengthen the gov't's position, because the Chinese people will inevitably react defensively to such criticism.

[a_unique_person]

Actually, there's more to it than that.

While the Communist leaders of China are coming in for a lot of criticism internationally, they are enjoying a very high level of popularity and support within China. The actions taken against Tibet? Most Chinese people support it, and would consider the gov't weak and indecisive if they had not taken action. And the earthquake? That garnered the gov't huge points with the populace, for how rapidly and effectively they responded.

Consider it this way.

'Face', as everyone knows, is very important for Chinese people. But you have to understand how 'face' works.

If a bunch of foreigners try to tell China what they should or should not do, and then start criticizing China because it doesn't do what they think they should do...the Chinese people don't feel that they've lost face. Quite the contrary, it tends to make them more self-defensive. They criticize their own government quite regularly; but get pissed off when outsiders do so (and be honest...most of us are the same way about our own countries, too).

But when foreigners come to China, they are the guests of the nation -- and anything bad that happens to them reflects negatively on the nation, causing all Chinese people to lose face.

So, for example, if a terrorist attack took place during the Olympics; or if foreign guests were the victims of other kinds of violent crime; then all of China would lose face. And the Chinese people will support pretty much any and all policies in order to reduce as much as possible the chance of such a thing happening.

When the American gov't does anything, it doesn't give much of a damn about international opinion...what it cares about is whether or not that action will have (or increase) the support of the American people. The same is true in pretty well every other country in the world, China included. Heck, look at how long the international community's been screaming about the treatment of prisoners in Guantanemo Bay...and not one single policy has changed as a result of that pressure. Any changes have come as a result of internal pressures...either pressures from the American people, or more often, pressures from the American legal system, which has found various practices illegal, and demanded change.

My point? You're barking up entirely the wrong tree if you're thinking about this from the point of view of "what the rest of the world will think".

The Chinese gov't currently has very high support among the Chinese people; and much of that is because of many of the same policies that outsiders are criticizing. The Chinese view "human rights" in terms of the collective whole, not the individual; and they believe that individuals can and should be sacrificed for the good of the whole. Nor is this a "Communist" thing...it is a cultural thing, dating back thousands of years before Communism ever even existed.

I'm not saying this is good, or bad; right, or wrong. I'm simply trying to explain the Chinese perspective on this. Ask the majority of Chinese about the current regulations and restrictions in place in China, and the vast majority will complain about the inconvenience. But they'll also support the gov't's decision to do it, and defend it as necessary.

By far the majority of change and reform in China in the future is going to be driven internally, by the Chinese people themselves; not by outsiders. Oh, outsiders can play a role, certainly -- but only if they take the time to really invest themselves in the issues, to come to China, observe the situation first-hand, and learn to understand the full complexity of the situation. And then comment on it.

Armchair critics who've never been to China, or who have had only a brief experience of it, are going to be ignored. By the government, and by the people. Not only are they going to be ignored, they are going to strengthen the gov't's position, because the Chinese people will inevitably react defensively to such criticism.

Thank you, that is very informative, and I see your point. I did read an article yesterday, though, (and I can't find the link to it), that showed the extent to which petty interference is happening. Foreigners in a large country city, refused a booking at a hotel that was made months ago, for no reason. The only hotel they were allowed to stay at was one that was intended purely to make them move on. Journalists being told that they could broadcast from the Great Wall, only to find when they get there that they are not allowed to broadcast. If it is intended to save face, it's not working.

However, it is interesting looking at China. Australia has a population of just over 20 million. I can't imagine how a country with a population of over 1.3 billion can even function.

[Wolfman]

Thank you, that is very informative, and I see your point. I did read an article yesterday, though, (and I can't find the link to it), that showed the extent to which petty interference is happening. Foreigners in a large country city, refused a booking at a hotel that was made months ago, for no reason. The only hotel they were allowed to stay at was one that was intended purely to make them move on. Journalists being told that they could broadcast from the Great Wall, only to find when they get there that they are not allowed to broadcast. If it is intended to save face, it's not working.I'd want more info on that hotel story...tons of people coming here to stay in hotels, and I've never heard of anyone facing a problem like that. The only time it would be likely to happen would be if these particular people had been specifically identified as 'suspicious' by the gov't (ie. planning to organize pro-Tibetan independence protests, for example). And the restrictions on the press are for a similar reason -- high profile places like the Great Wall are likely places for people to hold protests (its been done plenty of times before). I'm not saying its right (I disagree with it, personally).
However, it is interesting looking at China. Australia has a population of just over 20 million. I can't imagine how a country with a population of over 1.3 billion can even function.This is one of the things that many people fail to appreciate. The fact that, with a population this size, and with the significant problems it faces, it not only functions, it is growing. I would argue that, given the current conditions in China, a truly democratic system would not work...that it would cause more damage than good. I don't argue that the abuses of the current gov't are therefore justifiable; just that, for all the problems here now, the situation still could be far, far worse than it currently is. And that a change to a fully democratic system at this point in time would likely be an even worse option than what the Chinese people face right now.

ETA: I should clarify that I don't mean democracy could never work in China; only that it will take more time and further development before it could be effectively implemented.

[cgallaga]

My own feeling is that China will continue to evolve at its pace and is on the way to becoming much more of a communitarian social democracy than libertarian free market democracy.

The Confucian societal duties philosophy is far stronger and more culturally entrenched than the Taoist laissez faire philosophy.

ETA: I think I am in agreement with Wolf on his key point: That modern western societies have an odd way of demanding that what took them hundreds of years to reach (their current imperfect society) should be achieved by the rest of the world immediately. And also that these imperfect first world societies are the best way for society to evolve. Neither assertion can bear much scrutiny, no matter from what political direction one looks at the issues.

[Policenaut]

Isn't the main reason for this boom the consolidation of people? They are moving out of the rural areas into large urban cities. Could this not have some future bearing on how the government of China will work? More people will have more money (and possibly influence) and may want more freedoms.

[Wolfman]

Isn't the main reason for this boom the consolidation of people? They are moving out of the rural areas into large urban cities. Could this not have some future bearing on how the government of China will work? More people will have more money (and possibly influence) and may want more freedoms.
Actually, this is exactly what is happening. And it is why I stressed the importance of internal pressures, as opposed to external pressures. As of five years ago, the Chinese Communist Party officially changed their charter to allow "capitalists" to join the Party...with the result that a number of quite staunch capitalists are now technically members of the Party, and have a say in government. (Not sure how you can still call yourself a Communist Party with a policy like that)

My meaning is not that the rest of the world should ignore the problems or abuses in China; but that if they feel it is important enough to comment on and criticize China about, then it is also important enough for them to educate themselves first. Not just about the abuses, but about the positive changes. Not just to see the label "Communist" and denounce it as all evil, but to recognize the good things the CCP has done (including one of the fastest increases in literacy rates of any country in the world, massive funding of education to improve both access and quality, and promoting women's rights to the point where in 60 years women have gone from being third-class citizens to having among the highest levels of equality of any Asian nation).

[mrbaracuda]

the Great Firewall has prevented my attempts to download it from other sources.

:drinkspit:

'Face', as everyone knows, is very important for Chinese people. But you have to understand how 'face' works.

Is there a moment where you have lost so much face you become faceless? Or is losing it once as bad as losing it twice and so on?

How do you measure face? ;)

[Wolfman]

Is there a moment where you have lost so much face you become faceless? Or is losing it once as bad as losing it twice and so on?

How do you measure face? ;)Certainly, the Chinese talk about someone who "has no face", or "doesn't want face". This doesn't so much mean that they've lost so much face they couldn't get it back; it means rather that the person is entirely untrustworthy, and doesn't care about their reputation or responsibility to others.

And how is it measured? There are no absolute ways...it is very much a relative thing. You can cause yourself to lose face; and others can cause you to lose face (although lost face caused by others would never lead to people saying you have no face). And likewise, you can cause yourself to gain face, and others can give you face.

[MRC_Hans]

ETA: I should clarify that I don't mean democracy could never work in China; only that it will take more time and further development before it could be effectively implemented.

I agree. Democracy has never been tried in a country that large and diverse. There are simply no current models of democracy that can be expected to work properly on this scale. When, and I do say when, China becomes a democracy, it will be a model developed specifically for her.

Hans

[gtc]

MRC Hans,

How about India?

[Wolfman]

I agree. Democracy has never been tried in a country that large and diverse. There are simply no current models of democracy that can be expected to work properly on this scale. When, and I do say when, China becomes a democracy, it will be a model developed specifically for her.

Hans

MRC Hans,

How about India?
I was actually going to bring up the same issue -- if we're talking simply about size, then yes, India is roughly comparable in population (and in fact will soon exceed China's population), but let me point out a few crucial issues:

* India's democracy came after an extended colonization by Britain; this introduced many of the structures and ideas necessary for a democracy. China has not had this experience.

* In India, which is democratic, it is impossible to implement effective birth control restrictions, because the people will never vote for a government that wants to impose such restrictions. Therefore, India's population continues to grow at a very rapid pace, a pace that sees it set to soon replace China as the most populous nation in the world (with significantly less land). I would argue that this is not a benefit; and although I disagree with some of the methods that China's government uses to enforce its birth control laws, I do believe that such restrictions are necessary.

* Chinese people enjoy far higher levels of social equality than Indians do. Previous systems in China that promoted social inequality -- inequality based on gender, inequality based on social level, etc. -- were largely destroyed by Communist policies. For all the abuses that happen here, the status of China's women, for example, has been massively improved. In India, on the other hand, the caste system still retains an oppressively strong grip on the culture. And again, it is difficult for any government to take strong action against is, because any government that does so will generally be voted out of power.

* To further support my argument, China's growth far exceeds that of India's. Not just economic growth, but overall improvement of standard of living, standard of education, etc.

It is a sad but true reality that countries like China and India face significant problems that more developed nations do not. And because of that, they must sometimes make hard decisions that are very unpopular with the people of that country, but nevertheless are quite necessary. A democratic country in such a situation is essentially handcuffed, because any government that tries to enact such policies will be voted out of power and replaced by a government that will immediately rescind them.

[cgallaga]

Yeah I was gonna interject that India's democracy is still largely caste based and I wouldn't call it a very model democracy.

[Wolfman]

I'd like to point out that even in democracies, governments are able to assume extensive dictatorial powers in times of major crisis. Just declare a state of emergency. The thing is, the crises that these countries face tend to be more short-term -- riots, or an earthquake, or a terrorist attack, for example.

But what about when the 'crisis' is one that is going to last for 25, or 50, or 100 years? China faces such a crisis in relation to its population. The country is already terribly overpopulated; and were the population to continue to grow unchecked, at the same rate it did prior to the implementation of the one-child policy, it would be an ever-increasing crisis which would affect the nation as a whole.

Implementing a 2-year or 5-year policy, in this case, won't accomplish a thing. If it was a democratic system, and one party imposed some sort of restriction on child births, it would be next to useless if they simply got voted out of power and the next party revoked those measures five years later. Any meaningful policy in this regard needs to have a guarantee that it will be in effect for 25-50 years. Which is effectively impossible in a standard democratic system.

I'll support this assertion with the following facts.

* 60%-75% of China's population is still a 'peasant' population (depending on how one defines this).

* Among the peasant populace, there is very high desire to have many children. Children are your old age pension plan...the more kids you have, there more people there will be to care for you when you are old. The desire for multiple children in such areas is very, very high.

* If there were democratic elections in China, it is absolutely certain that some of the parties would campaign based on promises to revoke or decrease the current limits on how many children a family can have.

* Any party that made such a promise would be pretty much assured a significant support from the peasant populace, as well as from a smaller portion of the urban populace (pressures for more children in urban households are not as strong).

* Once revoked, China's population would once again begin to grow out of control. Furthermore, you'd see drastically increased birthrates among the rural population -- who can least afford to care for those children -- while you'd see much less of an increase in urban households. The net result would, by any reasonable analysis or standard, be devastating for the country.

By contrast, a dictatorial government is able to impose long-term restrictions, without fear of having them revoked by a subsequent government, and enact long-term strategies. By reducing China's birthrate, the rate of population growth is significantly decreased. This means that, as the economy improves, there is more money available to improve the situation of existing peasant families -- improve both their education, and their standard of living. 25 or 50 years later, when their standard of living has improved to the point where the majority of Chinese no longer feel the need to have many children, then these laws will no longer be necessary, and a democratic government would have a far better chance of operating effectively.

[mrbaracuda]

Certainly, the Chinese talk about someone who "has no face", or "doesn't want face". This doesn't so much mean that they've lost so much face they couldn't get it back; it means rather that the person is entirely untrustworthy, and doesn't care about their reputation or responsibility to others.

And how is it measured? There are no absolute ways...it is very much a relative thing. You can cause yourself to lose face; and others can cause you to lose face (although lost face caused by others would never lead to people saying you have no face). And likewise, you can cause yourself to gain face, and others can give you face.

Thank you so far! :)
What would be the easiest way for you to lose / gain face as an 'outsider' and for a native Chinese in comparison if I may ask? :D

[Wolfman]

Thank you so far! :)
What would be the easiest way for you to lose / gain face as an 'outsider' and for a native Chinese in comparison if I may ask? :D
I don't think I can answer that easily, in that there are so many different ways. But let me give some real-world examples from my own experience, to demonstrate not only how complicated -- and sometimes anti-intuitive -- it can be.

Example #1

At a banquet with various Chinese businessmen, we were all quite drunk (normal for such banquets), and someone mentioned a particular Chinese gov't official that I didn't like. I said something critical about him, essentially calling him an idiot. It was then revealed that he was the brother-in-law of one of the businessmen at the table (which was why someone else had mentioned him).

My comment caused a loss of face for that man, and effectively destroyed any chance of doing business with him. A simple apology or retraction wouldn't make a difference -- everyone there basically agreed with my opinion, but I was the one who caused the loss of face by stating it out loud.

The only way that I could remedy the situation was by giving him more face than I'd caused him to lose. Which is what I did. I was already quite drunk, but I filled a large glass with Chinese bai jiu (about 60% alcohol, tastes vile), told him that I was doing this to demonstrate my respect to him, and then downed the whole glass.

It made me quite sick...I didn't even make it to the toilet before puking up the entire contents of my stomach. Yet it did the job, because the message I gave to him and to everyone else there -- in a very visible and undeniable fashion -- was that his respect was so important to me that I'd damage my own health to demonstrate it. The result was that not only was our relationship not damaged, but it was actually strenghthened.

Example #2

I was working as a consultant for a Chinese-owned 5-star hotel in Qingdao in 1999. I was the only foreigner working there, everyone else from the Board of Directors on down was Chinese. I was hired to help them change to a more western style of management, in order to attract more foreign guests.

I did about a month of extensive research, both at our hotel, and our competitors. I wrote up a brilliant analysis of the problems the hotel faced, and the strategies we needed to adopt in order to deal with them. And I then did a half-day presentation to the Board of Directors.

The response at the meeting itself seemed quite enthusiastic, and I was given the green light to go ahead and begin implementing the changes that I'd suggested. However, I quickly discovered that every attempt I made to actually facilitate those changes was stonewalled...and eventually I figured out that it was the Board of Directors who were presenting all these barriers.

Now, the hotel was losing money; and from my western perspective, if I was on the Board of Directors of a hotel that was losing money, and I brought in someone who implemented changes that caused the hotel to become profitable, that would mean a great increase in my own face. However, that's not the way that the Chinese looked at it.

From their point of view, they were older than me, and had a longer history in hotels than me. Many of the plans and policies that I suggested directly contradicted plans and policies that they themselves had implemented in the past. To accept my ideas meant to implicitly admit that they had been wrong; and for me to be successful meant to implicitly admit that they did not know what they were doing, that they were incompetent leaders.

In other words, it meant that they lost face.

So, from their perspective, making money and becoming profitable meant losing face; but continuing to lose money meant no loss of face, because by stone-walling me to ensure I wasn't successful, they could later claim A) that my plans failed, and it was my fault, and/or B) attribute the losses to other factors, such as bad economy.

I learned my lesson the second time around...I was hired to do almost the same job for a Chinese 4-star hotel. This time, I started by going to the President of the hotel, and explaining things to him. I was very careful not to say, "This is what we should do", and rather say, "Here are some possible ideas, what do you think?". And I was careful to leave a few key questions that had obvious answers..."And what do you think we should do about such-and-such?"

Then, when we had the meeting with the full Board of Directors, the President started the meeting by saying, "I met with John to discuss these matters, and I have decided that we are going to do such-and-such". He then turned the meeting over to me to explain what we were going to do.

I presented exactly the same ideas both times; the first time was a miserable failure, the second time was a sparkling success. The difference came down to understanding how face worked. In the second situation, everyone knew that the ideas were my ideas...but I gave the President the appearance of being the one responsible for all of it, and thereby giving him face for all accomplishments.

There are numerous small ways you can cause someone to lose face (or lose face yourself)...sometimes things we wouldn't consider important at all. For example:

* When receiving a person's business card, failing to accept it with both hands, or to read it for at least 30 seconds before placing it in a special business card case (never just put it in your pocket)

* At a dinner, failing to drink exactly the same amount of alcohol as the person who toasts you (drinking more can make them lose face, unless you specifically state you are drinking more to demonstrate your respect for them; drinking less can make you lose face)

* At a dinner, not being aware of the proper seating, and sitting somewhere that you should not.

* Accepting praise for a job well done, without attempting to deny your accomplishment, or deflect the praise onto someone else.

[Darth Rotor]

Example #1
The only way that I could remedy the situation was by giving him more face than I'd caused him to lose. Which is what I did. I was already quite drunk, but I filled a large glass with Chinese bai jiu (about 60% alcohol, tastes vile), told him that I was doing this to demonstrate my respect to him, and then downed the whole glass.

It made me quite sick...I didn't even make it to the toilet before puking up the entire contents of my stomach. Yet it did the job, because the message I gave to him and to everyone else there -- in a very visible and undeniable fashion -- was that his respect was so important to me that I'd damage my own health to demonstrate it. The result was that not only was our relationship not damaged, but it was actually strenghthened.
Lesson Learned:

Drinking is good for you, and good for business.

I heartily endorse this anecdote being taught at Harvard Business school, and to any and all tea totallers who do not grasp the role of the booze for schmooze in the international business environment.

DR

[Wolfman]

Lesson Learned:

Drinking is good for you, and good for business.

I heartily endorse this anecdote being taught at Harvard Business school, and to any and all tea totallers who do not grasp the role of the booze for schmooze in the international business environment.

DR
Oh, in China, I'd consider drinking to be almost indispensable in doing business. Oh, sure, you can do business without drinking...but you're never going to build the relationships and networks that will guarantee the greatest opportunities, and minimize your risks.

[Wolfman]

I'll expand on the drinking scenario, to try to explain it more effectively.

Think of 'face' as being determined by points. Lying to someone who is a close friend means you lose eight face-points. Lying to someone you don't know means you lose one face-point. Making a sacrifice to help a friend gives you five face-points. Etc.

It is all relative, but consider my drinking story in the following manner:

When I insulted the person who happened to be this guy's brother-in-law, I effectively caused the entire family to lose face...let's say five face-points. These face-points cannot be erased (the concept of 'forgiveness' is not a strong one in the Chinese culture). Forever and always, these negative face-points will exist.

So apologies -- attempts to take back what I've said, or to ask for forgiveness -- are largely useless.

The only thing I can do is try go do something that gives more face-points than have been lost. In this case, let's say that drinking an entire glass of bai jiu (when I was already quite drunk) to demonstrate my respect to this man is worth seven face-points. Then the net sum of face-points is plus two. I haven't erased my past error; but have compensated for it.

And face-points are not cumulative. If I did three different actions that were each worth three-face points (ie. telling him what a great man he is, complimenting other people in his family, and saying that I am stupid to have said such a thing), it doesn't total to nine face-points...it will still be only three face-points, and I'll still have a negative two score on the final tally.

Of course, no Chinese think of face in terms of face-points; it is a completely subconscious thing, almost instinctive. But there are definitely relative values ascribed to different actions, and you need to be aware of what those values are. If you cause someone to lose face in a big way, you could spend the rest of your life doing small things for that person to try to regain their trust/friendship, and never get anywhere; yet one single action of high enough value could effectively compensate for it.

[Cleon]

Oh, in China, I'd consider drinking to be almost indispensable in doing business. Oh, sure, you can do business without drinking...but you're never going to build the relationships and networks that will guarantee the greatest opportunities, and minimize your risks.

Clearly, my job is in the wrong country.

[a_unique_person]

I was actually going to bring up the same issue -- if we're talking simply about size, then yes, India is roughly comparable in population (and in fact will soon exceed China's population), but let me point out a few crucial issues:

* India's democracy came after an extended colonization by Britain; this introduced many of the structures and ideas necessary for a democracy. China has not had this experience.

* In India, which is democratic, it is impossible to implement effective birth control restrictions, because the people will never vote for a government that wants to impose such restrictions. Therefore, India's population continues to grow at a very rapid pace, a pace that sees it set to soon replace China as the most populous nation in the world (with significantly less land). I would argue that this is not a benefit; and although I disagree with some of the methods that China's government uses to enforce its birth control laws, I do believe that such restrictions are necessary.

* Chinese people enjoy far higher levels of social equality than Indians do. Previous systems in China that promoted social inequality -- inequality based on gender, inequality based on social level, etc. -- were largely destroyed by Communist policies. For all the abuses that happen here, the status of China's women, for example, has been massively improved. In India, on the other hand, the caste system still retains an oppressively strong grip on the culture. And again, it is difficult for any government to take strong action against is, because any government that does so will generally be voted out of power.

* To further support my argument, China's growth far exceeds that of India's. Not just economic growth, but overall improvement of standard of living, standard of education, etc.

It is a sad but true reality that countries like China and India face significant problems that more developed nations do not. And because of that, they must sometimes make hard decisions that are very unpopular with the people of that country, but nevertheless are quite necessary. A democratic country in such a situation is essentially handcuffed, because any government that tries to enact such policies will be voted out of power and replaced by a government that will immediately rescind them.

I knew, you're a communist. ;)

[mrbaracuda]

Clearly, my job is in the wrong country.

Also a great excuse when you're a drunk, isn't it?
'I .. dirnk to zee, *hic* I respect *slurslur* you sooo much *hic*'

:alc:

Thanks again Wolfman. :)
Many strange things there in China. :p