In response
Back in Beijing now. A good time to have another look at the questions I raised last week. I've read all of your comments, and want to run through some of them...
1) How has the earthquake changed China?
Many of you think it's brought out a side of China that was already there. Here's what bluejeansbj says: "Don't think that the earthquake has changed China, or Chinese. It has simply brought out the patriotism, endurance, and generosity which are at the bottom of the hearts of many Chinese."
buaadallas also makes an interesting point: "This earthquake and the Olympic torch relay united all of the Chinese people. It's very important because our Chinese people paid all our attention in the economy in the past 20 years, maybe something we forgot are important for a nation."
But many of you think that it's too soon to make any sweeping judgements. I tend to agree. Remember what China's long-time premier Zhou Enlai is reported to have said in 1972 when he was asked about the impact of the French Revolution of 1789, "It's too soon to say."
2) How has the earthquake changed the way the West sees China?
Two fascinating posts to compare...
Firstly, mbplee: "The West I believe are impressed with the rapid response, and the ability of the Chinese to manage the logistics of the rescue operations without delays. It shows that China is not the primitive, disorganized and divided country she once was. I shows that the armed forces, the backbone of the rescue effort is organized and disciplined and human (not robots)."
Secondly, jcxjeff: "Hopefully some Western fear mongers will realize that much of China is still quite poor, and underdeveloped, and this is why the death toll and building collapses were so pervasive and devastating. California would not have this kind of death toll from an earthquake because it can afford very strict standards. Therefore, it is not necessary for Western leaders to go on and on about how China is about ready to crush 'us', stoke up fear, etc."
It's also worth saying this - China is often a hard country for outsiders to understand. Most people in the West have never come here, even fewer speak Mandarin, and there are quite a few Westerners who wouldn't even be able to name a single living Chinese person (I want to pick up on this thought in a few days.) So, it's a hard nation to grasp.
But human suffering is not hard to get - everyone can identify with the kind of pain and grief we've all watched over the last three weeks.
Previously, it may have been difficult for many in the West to feel compassion or pity for a hard-to-understand country which is also a rising superpower - complete with nuclear weapons, the world's largest army, and its own space programme. But perhaps the earthquake has made it easier for people in the West to identify with and feel sympathy for people in China.
3) The Chinese government acted with unusual openness during the earthquake and has been widely praised for it. Does this openness set a standard that the government will feel obliged to follow in other areas (eg access to Tibet.) Or do the old rules still apply?
First of all, a couple of interesting points which might explain the government's openness during the earthquake.
liushiyisui writes: "friends of mine here in China believe that in the age of modern communication the government was left with little choice but to act openly so they decided to ride the wave of information rather than try to stem the tide."
cissylau says: "This earthquake is not a political issue, it is a natural disaster. So it is nature for the government to show the truth."
That combination might explain the government's initial openness. But this standard is now being tested. Parents whose children died when their badly-built schools collapsed are now campaigning for justice - they believe their children were killed by man-made negligence and corruption. We're getting reports that the government has told the Chinese media to rein in its coverage of this subject. So, it may be that the government's new openness has already come up against a limit.
When it comes to other areas, including access to Tibet, most of you seem to think that openness won't apply.
EWONGNL makes the point pretty directly: "NO. Old rules still apply. The reason is simple: the main goal of politburo is not to satisfy the west media, but to safeguard the stability of China."
I’m 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~05~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
James, you understood it's hard to understand China, this is very true, hope you can bridge the misunderstanding between China and the West, like what you have done in Sichuan earthquake, rather than widening the gap, like what you have done on Olympic Torch relay and Tibet.
Complain about this comment
Well, I think the changes in media openess should trace to 2003 when SARS epidemics broke out. Government officials tried to cover up at first which lead to a disasterous consuequence. Then Hu and Wen used the opportunity to sack several high ranking officials, including the Minister of Health and Beijing's Mayor, and show the public a sense of openness and accoutability.
Recently, a law about disclosure of public information was also passed and the earthquate happened to occured after that.
Therefore, it is not the natural disaster that changed China. It is a series of development in the government leadership, policy and regulations that lead to an open coverage of the earthquake so that the world can see what is going on in China...
Complain about this comment
James, as a Chinese living in the UK for nearly nine years, I can see China never stop changing, of course in her own speed. I have read a lot of nonsense report from you about China before, however, after reading your earthquake report, I understand that the main reason you made those nonsense report before is mainly because you do not understand that country even though you have been living in that country for nearly two years. You use your pre-fixed judgement to measure Chinese society. You do not understand the culture, the history, the society, just like a lot of British people here. I thought you deliverately did this Before, but now I think it is because of your limited knowledge of that country.
However, I would encourage you to keep eyes on Chinese government. China does not have opponent party, western media existence will help Chinese government behave better and better. Even sometimes your criticism is not justified, it will help the country keep alert and make positive progress. When the opportunity comes, China will become a more open and healthy country. The so called "western democracy" is a dose of poison to China now, but in 50 or 100 years, when China is ready, it might be good to her.
Complain about this comment
"The so called "western democracy" is a dose of poison to China now, but in 50 or 100 years, when China is ready, it might be good to her." -- well said. I agree. China is by no means ready for that yet.
Besides, China doesn't need to copy exact "western democracy". Chinese style democracy is fine, as long as the government is accountable, efficient ...
Complain about this comment
James:"it's hard to understand China" HaHa, I was so wondering why BBC let you as a Beijing correspondent?
yjianbo2007 wrote: "You(James) use your pre-fixed judgement to measure Chinese society."
It is the reason why James come to China as a Beijing correspondent.
Complain about this comment
Plus, to the Tibet issue, the same words I want mention to you -- "It's too soon to say." for you and me.
Complain about this comment
i have seen timely, accurate, compassionate and investigative chinese reporting during the aftermath to the earthquake. especially in the case of the collapsed schools, this tells a story of a press whose output is not expressly in the best interests of those in government, but stands in solidarity with the people at large. i hope the initial domestic momentum of this story is sufficient to help deliver the bereaved parents of those children dead in collapsed schools justice for their terrible loss. if such a case does go ahead, it has the potential to inform not only the debate on construction standards, but also the mobilisation of public opinion in lawmaking in china more generally.
ps. i'm quite impressed about the plastic bag ban, which i haven't seen much of in the western media.
Complain about this comment
For the Tibet issue, I think nothing will be changed before Olympics. Because Dalai Lama and Tibetan separatists use the Beijing Olympics to get what they want--independence! In this moment, Chinese gov. won't discuss any concrete issues with them.
But after Olympics, Tibet will open to world again, that's no problem. And I am wondering, before Tibet riot, why you western media not concern Tibet? In that time, you have all right and freedom to enter Tibet for visiting. Why in that time, no one condemn Chinese gov.? So, everything proved that it's a conspiracy of Dalai Lama which instigate this riot before Beijing Olympics. So, if he use Olympics to achieve his goal, I do not believe Chinese gov. will bend to him.
Complain about this comment
If the CCP has any socialist ideals left in it, the "old rule" will prevail in Tibet especially at a time when the integrity of the nation is at serious risk. Even a free country in the US has to sacrifice its much treasured liberty in its current War on Terror.
A country whose official ideal is that of a classless society where everyone is born equal will not tolerate efforts by outsiders to revert Tibet back to a medieval theocracy, just as it will never allow the semi-divinistic imperial system back into China.
Unlike the papacy, the seat of the Dalai Lama is not democractically elected but is hand-picked by religious elites on the belief of re-incarnation. History have shown that serious human rights abuses have been committed by past Dalai Lamas on the premise of sins committed in past lives. The Dalai Lama, if he were to resume leadership of Tibet, will not renounce the abusive deeds of his past re-incarnations as they are theoretically of the same soul!
It amazes me that while the west is fighting a moral crusade over Tibet they are overlooking the equally sacred human right that a person must not be prejudged by birth. No dignified person with a sense of individuality will ever tolerate being judged lowly based on the supposed bad dids of his/her past life.
Dalai Lama as a religious leader should be respected, even by the CCP, but as a politician a truely socialist or democractic society he must not.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the Tibet issue, the Chinese government will not (and cannot) change. I agree the Dalai Lama and his separatist supporters are using the Olympic to grasp at a last chance for independence. I also admit they have effectively won some support from many people and press in the West, particularly those are are uninformed and lack of knowledge of China, Tibet, Buhdism, and their history.
But if they are to win real independence, the support of the West will not be enough. Tibet could only be independent if they could win the support of the 1.3 billion Chinese - i.e. win the Chinese' hearts and minds to grant independence to Tibet. The Dalai Lama and his independent supports have failed to do so miserably. In fact, the backlash in their violent attempt during the riot in Tibet has been so strong that any Chinese government (including the current Chinse Communist Party) that even attempts to consider giving Tibet independence would be over-thrown by the Chinese people.
Getting the support of the West might in the short term win some brownie points, but the West cannot make Tibet independent short of war with China (another Opium War?). It's doubtful the West is willing to take such a risk given the interdependency of interests the West has with China.
For half a century including recent developments, the Dalai Lama is in the wrong side of history. The recent unrest shows that he still doesn't "get it". He and his supporters are too removed from issues in Tibet. Afterall he has not even been there for half a century, and many of his supporters are not even born in Tibet, but rather in Daramsala or those in the West, and thus could not speak on behalf of Tibet. In fact, they would be considered foreigners in Tibet.
Those who succeed in their quest for power are the ones who have vision and truly understand where the tide of history is heading. The Dalai Lama is not one of those, and will likely become irrelevant prior to his death. He had a chance to be a religious leader in China and perhaps a highly respected one; afterall, a large proportion of Chinese people are Budhists and want greater spiritual guidance. But his desire for personal political power will doom him. History does not judge kindly to those who are losers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hopes and Disturbing Facts
(Today is a special day for some Chinese. When we are still morning our lost ones in the earthquake, I cannot help thinking that, in this country, for 19 years, there are wives, husbands, and parents not allowed to openly morn their spouses or children they lost in the early summer of.... )
To understand China, one has to bear in mind that this is a vast country muddling through its way from an ancient age to the modern time. Hu Jingtao and Wen Jiabao's administration is a mixture of traditional Chinese political thoughts and an effort of modernization.
The government's rapid response to the quake and its relief effort showed some of the achievements Hu and Wen's administration had attained.
1) The change of outdated ideas.
Like people of many ancient civilizations, Chinese traditionally believed that nature phenomenon is the sign of the attitude the Heavenly holds towards the current regime. Natural disasters were usually read as the disproval of the Heavenly, or even a punishment to the current authority. Fearing being held guilty for causing natural disasters, the government used to downplay the damage of nature disasters (e.g., when the earthquake hit Tangshan in 1978), or even try to hide it from its people (e.g., for the first couple of weeks, when SARS burst out in Guangzhou, taking hundreds of lives, the authority had been suppressing the spread of the news).
Now the government has realised that nature disasters aren't a shame had to be hidden, instead, it is the government's responsibility to let people know about it, and openly ask for aids from any part of the world. It is not just a switch of ideas. The change underneath is profound: influenced by the idea of humanism, many Chinese, consciously or unconsciously, are experiencing a rising respect to human's life. It is with this respect to life that Chinese and its government began to view natural disasters as natural, not a heavenly will of punishment.
2) The emphasis of the government's social serving role
In the traditional Chinese political structure, the relationship between officials and ordinary people is barely beyond "rule-obey". It is still true in many cases in China. But the Chinese leaders like Hu and Wen's have realised more than ever that, conducting social function is the requirement that a government in a modern society must fulfill. So, as Hu Jingtao called on "to improve the Party's ruling and administrative ability (????????)", while never loosening its control over the people, the government has made a great effort to build up its social serving role. The government's ability of tackling with such a disaster today is part of the results of Hu's strategy.
3) A wealthy leap
China has never seen such an economical flourish before. The growth of wealth not only lends the government the power of rescue, but also the society the ability of aiding.
All the changes cited above are undoubtedly the bright sides we've seen during this tragedy. However, there is something rather disturbing that may have caught the eyes of some observers.
1) The ever escalating nationalism
It may be common when facing disasters, a country's people go much closer. But the problem is, in China, nationalism, which equals to patriotism to almost every Chinese, is a myth never being (and never can be) questioned, reflected, and qualified. With a blind pride of their own culture and tradition, many Chinese tend to be narrow-minded in appreciating other civilizations. "If you criticize us, that only means either you misunderstand us or you are biased against us." This is all too common of a Chinese's response to foreigners' criticism. It is difficult for Chinese to establish the concept of perspective, due to its relatively closed value system. This narrow-minded nationalism will induce ignorance and arrogance which makes communication almost impossible. Although the international aids have, to some extend, unarmed the hostility some Chinese hold against westerners and even Japanese, the pride(or even arrogance?) of Chinese is entrenched, which makes it more unlikely that Chinese will view what happened during the torch relay in a broader picture, let alone reflect their standing point on Tibetan issue.
2) The popularity of a totalitarian ruling power: a good thing or bad thing?
The actions the government has been taking in the relief effort are so widely appraised that the government is enjoying its record popularity since 1989. It seems like a proof that a totalitarian polity can do good things when it is reined in the hands of good-willed and wise people. But libertarians will probably see the dangers of such a well-supported strong power.
China has a more-than-2300-years history of centralized governing and dictatorship. The Chinese ancient books are filled with teachings and advise for politicians on how to run a totalitarian system. When the system is handled in skillful hands, it may last fairly long.
3) Openness: a tricky one?
I do appreciate what people like James have done in covering this disaster. If you put James' clips and Chinese state-run TV show together, you will feel the difference. Yes, it is the same disaster they are covering, and maybe foreign journalists and Chinese journalists have all been given the same free access to the affected area. But the way they cover the issue can be different. James' coverage shows more about the suffering of victims and the helpless survivors, which brought you closer to the feelings of those people, while Chinese TV show focus more on how the relief efforts were made and how grateful people were when being rescued or helped. While making a great relief effort, the government never gives up running a campaign of image-improving. Maybe the openness IS unusual, but the way Chinese reporters tell the stories may not go too far beyond the tune set by the government, just as usual. I do doubt how far the government will go in the term of openness.
Yes, it is difficult for westerns to understand Chinese. But I think it is more difficult for Chinese to understand the western values.
China's modernity began in 1860 when the aged great kingdom was forced by western army to open its gate to outside world. The values that modern societies hold strong-for example, the rule of law, individual's rights, etc. - are quite foreign to China's own culture. Rather, they are something being imposed on today's Chinese, though many Chinese are now willing to take them in. But after all, they are ideas from outside, not rooted in China's own culture. In addition to this, reason is also not something that traditional Chinese way of thinking is good at. So it would take a very long time, probably several more generations, for Chinese to fully understand and absorb the ideas of modern society. For now, I think, most Chinese are having a traditional Chinese way of thinking deep inside while carrying a mind stuffed with undigested modern ideas and confused opinions.
Despite that I am critical to our government, generally speaking, China is becoming better. It is hard to imagine how this big country will evolve into a higher civilization, but I believe, some changes are inevitable.
Complain about this comment
James, I guess it won't superise you if I tell you that Chinese(as whole) are much more complicate than you think. I have travelling to Picific rim (which including the China) 6 to 7 times annually for the past decades. I'm not try to discourage you, but actually, do courage you dig in and ask you read as many as you can the Chinese books (historys, cultures, religions etc..) during your spare time. Anyway, you may set on this post for a while!? Chinese is actually not true "Han" as in the mind of most western people think. They are truely race melt pot during past millenniums. They had been mix by so many different races, cultures, religions during in their long history. Even most of Chinese can't count exactly how much(merges) of it. The Chinese are very much flexible, and willing to accept those differences and become their own unique Chinese one.
Zhow Erlai may be as an example of what bright Chinese are thinking. Any system change (such as what you had mentioned - French revolution), to them any judgement, need much longer time (than western) to die the cast. Jump into a conculsion are stupid (risk?) as their history told them many time otherwise. The Chinese are taking "wait and see" to see where the French revolution may lead to, and how far it can modify. Today's democratic, which most countries adopted, are more likely base on what the system of either British or States(both of them are far different than what was created in the beginning) are. The Chinese don't really see eye to eye with western people, meaning, they don't think this system may as prefect as western believing in(or it should be?). They have steer away from communism to socialism slowly and carefully (under microscope or beneath the skin). The Chinese believe they're abling to absorb any different culture, political and religion, cherry pick and mode it become their own Chinese way of the system (because of their huge population and civilization reservoir?) You will have a hard time to win the agruement with those lessons give from their ancient. The today's Chinese are not same as what it was in 1950 and 1989. They're going to keeping change, but at their own path. The Chinese believe they will be there for long whatever will happen (or whether you like or not), as history telling them so many times. Any dramatic pressure prove to be back fired. I rather agree on Chinese may merge (again) with the Confucianisms soon or later, with a twist of modification (not exactly as the western democratic which most westerm may up set) just like past thousands of years had been done.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to recommend an article on Wen Jiabao:
From Tiananmen to the Sichuan Quake: A Profile of Wen Jiabao
By Maochun Yu
Here is the link: http://jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2374216
Complain about this comment
I do agree the comment3 from yjianbo2007. Normal Chinese are eager to democratic very much and quite aware it maybe the only way to get human rights condition better and fight agaist corruption. But the problem is we cannot do it now. I believe If now we change to democratic politics the rival will destroy China quickly. Firstly China will be seperated into several small countries. Then these small countries will fight with each other. If we strong enough and rich enough, we will make everything better.
But democratic is a good thing, we know it. But we have to do step by step.
Complain about this comment
to starapplekingdom:
well, according to your logic, let's imagine a scene:
one day before the 2012 London Olympic , the Irisher and the Scotch don't satisfy with the rule of Englander, they organize a "peace" protest, they loot, burn and even kill citizen. they say Englander seized their country, they want to free their country.
meanwhile England troop "crackdown" them, certainly some "peace protesters" lost their lives. after that, people in other country criticise the English government's "crackdown". many of them protest in street, chanting the slogan "free Ireland, free Scotland!", presidents in other country boycott the Olympic. all these things excite the English' patriotism, they are angry. but this patriotism are considered as an ignorance and arrogance, a result of England government's brainwash. very funny ,isn't it?
Complain about this comment
James:
thanks for your reporting in China during the recent Earthquake....
Complain about this comment
James:
How much coverage in hours and many reports did the BBC did during the initial hours of the BREAKING NEWS.
Complain about this comment
1) How has the earthquake changed China?
i think that the earthquake has changed china, in the way the country is run by the central government....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS