If you would like to comment, PLEASE stay narrowly to this question as to why you say “yes” or “no” or if you agree with Chan’s reasoning.  I sincerely would like to move this debate forward and look forward to your response.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

EDIT 20090703
Guys, please see Chan’s comments below that his issue is not with the U.K. government, but rather with the democracy “campaigners.” I thought about ways to “correct” this post, and thought it best to explain here. “Britain” should be replaced by “democracy campaigners” to be fair to Chan’s post. My aplogies, Chan.
Guys, please see other comments if you like of the issues they raised with this poll.

***

As promised, this is the “follow-on” article I was meant to write. As mentioned earlier, this article does not attempt to answer all questions, but will instead focus on a few main points that I personally believe may have the most impact on the bigger picture.

However I like to point out that I have read all your comments here, and believe that I would have no problem in debating any of the points raised so far. Unfortunately it would not be feasible for me to do so for the reasons I have explained earlier.

aaa
There are 3 general main points I like to tackle in this article. These are :

1. Your perception of my original Sichuan Quake article. (Thereafter referred to as “the article”)
2. The most common root cause of contention in almost all China related debates
3. Assumptions in this debate (in relation to the Chinese government)

aaa
Point 1 above will in turn be broken down into :

1. Your interpretation of the article. (This will be covered in the “Background” section below).
2. The relevancy of the article. (This will be covered in section 1 that follows).

aaa
Point 2 will be covered in section 2 “The Anti-China ‘Label’“. And point 3 will be covered in section 3 “Anger towards the Chinese Govt“.

aaa

************************************************************

Background :

The “Putting the Sichuan Quake into Perspective” article is a re-post. It was 1st published on my own blogsite on may 10, just before the quake anniversary. This article was not meant to be just an academic discussion about a past event, but was written for a specific purpose.

First, let me briefly explain the reason, and then the motive behind the article, before responding to feedbacks in the sections that follow.

The reason for writing the article (and all the other articles on my site) was to counter the control of opinions by the mainstream Western media by exposing details that Western media would most likely never tell you. Hopefully, by doing that, we create a platform for a healthier debate from which one can then make his/her own judgements.

The motive behind this article was my wish to contribute to helping the victims and their friends and families to rehabilitate. I firmly believe that anger and hatred would not only NOT help the rehabilitation process, but in fact make things worse. Therefore if we are sincere in wanting to help, our job MUST be to do what we can to highlight those facts that can create the desired results.

One thing we all need to understand is regardless of whether you like the Chinese govt, they are here to stay. I have very good opinion of the Chinese (central) government. Perhaps you don’t. But they are here to stay, and no-one can change this fact. We must all therefore understand the implications of this, and work within the confines of that environment.

Perhaps I should not need to tell you that in China, making massive protests during sensitive dates against government orders do NOT work, and have never worked. Participating would very likely have consequences. In the past, protestors and anti-China groups ask for US intervention. Today the US won’t be able to “protect” you. And the involvement of the Western media would only force people such as myself further to the opposing side.

Under this context then, (regardless of your intentions being sincere or otherwise) urging the victims out to the streets to protest clearly CANNOT be in the interest of the victims, while on the other hand fanning their anger WITHOUT urging them to go out to the streets to protest would only further intensify their suffering.

One must therefore focus on finding a PRACTICAL way to help the victims move forward and rebuild their lives WITHOUT needlessly creating further suffering for them. The intention of the article was never meant to justify or otherwise any action or inaction, nor is it about moral issues. If one is at all touched by the suffering of these victims, one does NOT use those victims as cannon fodder for your fight against the government regardless of your well intentions or otherwise.

If one is sincere in helping, then ALL of the above must be considered. If helping is at all the objective, then THIS objective must be the guide eyes for ALL our analysis. It is with THIS in mind that I have written the “Putting the Sichuan Quake into Perspective” article. And it should be with THIS in mind that the reader should judge the article.

***

Responding to Your Feedback

aaa

Section 1 : Relevancy of the Article — Comparing Quakes

A few here reject the relevancy of the article because it focusses on comparing earthquakes.

I do NOT agree.

Regardless of whether the points about school collapses is valid, there is certainly undeniable value in raising the awareness of relevant factors so far untouched, and providing another perspective to the understanding of the events.

If we can put ourselves in the shoes of the angry victims, perhaps we may understand the relevance and significance of comparing these quakes. Most victims, especially those whose anger was fanned by interest groups, blame the govt, and by association, the country. They fantasize that if they were in another country, they would not have faced the same fate. As a result, many of them may never rehabilitate as they trap themselves in this cocktail of hatred, despair and anger.

If we can help them alleviate some of this hatred and anger by helping them understand the fact that, had they been in another country, they would probably NOT have survived any better; if we can help them understand that immensely wealthy 1st world countries such as Japan and Italy can NOT even protect their citizens from (relatively) small quakes, would that not change their outlook? Would that not minimize the destructive effects of the dangerous cocktail of hatred, anger and despair?

This is of course not to say that there should be no investigations into the school collapses. There is nowhere in the article that argues against investigation. As far as I know, there were continuing investigations at the time I was writing that article.

Comparing these quakes puts the whole thing into perspective. Facts and figures play a powerful stabilizing role during intensely emotional periods. Understanding that it was a miracle that they survived changes the mindset. There are always 2 sides to a debate. But if we are at all sincere about helping, THIS, is what we should aim to achieve.

aaa

Section 2 : The Anti-China ‘Label’

Most in China related debates would at some stage either refer to “anti-China groups” or accuse the other side of referring to “anti-China groups”. This is probably by far one of the most common ROOT causes of contention between the 2 sides of China related debates. If only we can overcome this difference, most of these debates would not be necessary. Unfortunately, I don’t see how we can do that.

We form our view of the world by the way we interpret events. This is in turn influenced by our own experiences. There is no way I can project my life experiences into your brain, and neither can you do that to mine. It isn’t like I can write a one page article or a one-hour speech that can undo your life experiences.

On this topic, we probably both feel that we haven’t heard any plausible reason backing the other side’s claims. Perhaps no matter what either side says, this situation will never change. That being the case, let me at least bring up some facts that (hopefully) both sides should be able to agree on :

(1) There are anti-china groups — just like there are anti-American groups, anti-Arab groups, and anti-Israel groups, etc. There is no reason to deny their existence.

(2) Most anti-China groups either (1) want to harm China, or (2) bring down the Chinese govt — just like most anti-US groups want to harm America or bring down its govt. Again there should be no reason for a neutral person to deny that. The claims that those groups only want to liberate the countries concerned are hardly convincing. SOME of those groups may do, but some don’t.

(3) My articles are based on the premise that there are anti-China groups. NOWHERE have I ever said in any of my articles that ALL on the opposing side are anti-China. Neither have I said ALL those who do belong to anti-China groups have malicious intent.

Each of the above points by itself does not mean much. But if you agree with them and put them together, then it should be clear that at the very least the concerns I raised are valid. You may disagree with the logic or the facts, but there should be no reason to insist that one should simply “drop” these legitimate concerns as a few have insisted here. Simply labelling other’s reasons as “excuse” as someone here has done does not help the debate.

Perhaps it helps to understand that it isn’t that I WANT to go against the crowd, but you need to at least give me a justification for change. Simply accusing others paranoid or saying “give those labels a rest” can hardly provide the justification for a change of mindset.

There are 2 most common indefensible attacks I’ve experienced on blogs. One is that, virtually anyone speaking well of the government is paid. The other is that we create this “anti-China” label to justify vitually everything.

The reason the 1st is indefensible is clearly that there is no way for me to disprove the claim. The 2nd is indefensible for the reasons I summarized above. Both may be seen as justified attacks in the minds of many on my opposing side. But from my side, this is simpy the ultimate silencer to shut up dissenting voice without giving reasons.

Fortunately, I haven’t seen any more of the 1st type of attacks since late last year. Unfortunately, the 2nd type persists. I would sincerely look forward to the day where everyone would just focus on the issues at hand and debate purely on the subject matter. I have seen many here with better minds than myself. There is no reason we cannot focus our debates purely on the subject matter.

aaa

Section 3 : Anger towards the Chinese Government

(i) Investigations :

One of the most common complaints against the Chinese government on this topic is that it refuses to investigate the disaster. Indeed, some here have even accused myself of arguing against investigation. But the fact is I have never even THOUGHT about arguing against investigation. As I have stated very clearly on my own website, and then here, and now repeat again : “If there are school collapses while buildings around them remain intact, then I would agree that they need to be investigated”.

Most would readily assume that if the authorities do not approve of investigation results being made public, it automatically means the govt itself doesn’t want to investigate what happened, and doesn’t want to learn from mistakes. But that could hardly be believable. It is hard to imagine that the authorities would not want to find out what happened, and what lessons they can learn from this.

You can state your disapproval about the lack of transparency, but to blindly accuse the govt of refusing to investigate is hardly a rational charge. I cannot imagine any govt in the world would not want to learn and prevent future catastrophes. There can be little doubt that governments would, and the Chinese govt is, actively and thoroughly investigating in order to try to prevent a repeat of history.

They would be insane if they don’t. And I doubt any reasonable person would seriously think the Chinese leadership is insane. It is hard to imagine insane people can build the country China is today within one single generation. You may not like them, but you have to agree they don’t look like people who don’t believe in investigations.

(ii) Accountability :

Let me first state that I am NOT against holding the wrongdoers accountable for their actions. So that itself is not the point of contention. What differs between us is our respective assumptions on this case.

Let me 1st restate something from my “follow-on” article. And that is :

“Many people have the impression that China protects corrupt officials. This is despite the fact that in the last decade alone, thousands of corrupt officials in China have fled the country. Clearly, if corrupt officials are protected, there is no reason to flee.
The central government in China has been fiercely fighting corruption for the most part of this decade, and has made many significant inroads in many areas in the last 5 years.”

Indeed, in the last few years, even some of the very high ranking officials have been brought down with corruption charges. There should be no reason to believe the govt would protect the local authorities in Sichuan. The fact that the process itself is not transparent does NOT imply that those responsible would not be brought to justice.

Again, You can state your disapproval about the lack of transparency, but to blindly accuse the govt of protecting corrupt officials without any evidence to back up the charge is completely unreasonable.

In the case of this Sichuan quake, I do believe as I stated in the artcle that it would be in the interest of the central government to weed out bad elements in the local governments, and that this has presented them a good chance for that. I simply find it unimaginable that they would not make use of this opportunity.

***

Conclusion :

The world is not black and white. There are always 2 sides to a debate. Assuming yourself on moral high ground is to assume the other party is wrong even before the complete picture is revealed. This sets in prejudices that mars the debate and also one’s ability to understand opposing arguments.

The intention of my original article was never meant to justify or otherwise any action or inaction, nor is it about moral issues. Neither have I argued against investigation nor many of the other claims against myself in the Comments sections. Unless we overcome this superiority mentality, we can never have an appropriate debate.

The objective of the article was to suggest a practical way for the victims and their families to move forward and rebuild their lives. This was stated very clearly at the beginning of the article, and has remained the main theme for the most part. Anyone without preconceptions should have been able to see the article for what it is.

I like to conclude with one paragraph from the “Background” section above :

“Under the context (described in that section) then, regardless of your intentions being sincere or otherwise, urging the victims out to the streets to protest clearly CANNOT be in the interest of the victims, while on the other hand fanning their anger WITHOUT urging them to go out to the streets to protest would only further intensify their suffering.”

If one is at all touched by the suffering of these victims, one does NOT use those victims as cannon fodder for your fight against the government regardless of your well intentions or moral high ground. If one is sincere in helping, then ALL of the above must be considered. If helping is at all the objective, then THIS objective must be the guide eyes for ALL our analysis.

************************************************************

These two mini-documentaries show the trials and tribulations of trying to establish modern music venues in China. So far, the audience has too many non-Chinese expats along with too few locals, though locals form most of the bands themselves. Right now, Beijing is the hot spot in northern China with the most popular bands in the country. Outside of Beijing, legitimate venues are hard to come by and the money isn’t very lucrative. In these places, rock n’ roll comes strictly from the heart.

These two videos are courtesy of Tripfilms.com, a site specializing in travel videos from all over the world. Here is Part 1:

Right now, Beijing is exploding with really awesome live music. We just had a festival in Qingdao, Max 09, www.qingdaomax.com (actually it was shut down by the government and we were forced to take all the bands to a local bar to play).  It was still a really good time and the bands fuckin’ blew my mind. Snapline, The Swamp, Ziyo were my favorites.  Really amazing, and every band was so different.

A couple of other of may favorite bands are TooKoo (Beijing) and the Dama Llamas (Qingdao) but I’m a little biased about them cause its my band.

As far as the scene goes, the talent is there, the drive is there, but it seems like the money is not. Its pretty hard to justify going to a club paying a 50RMB cover and then being charged 20-50RMB per drink when you can have just as good of a time drinking 2RMB beers in the street.  I feel like most of the shows I have been to in China are rarely full and  half foreigners and half Chinese. And then from a bands point of view, its tough to go out and spend thousands on new gear, alcohol and drugs at the bar, transportation costs, accommodation costs and then play free shows.  Its a fine line that has to find a balance that I don’t think is there yet.  However, some of the bands are getting good enough where in the larger cities they can charge a lot of money.  As an example I just saw that the Carsick Cars (amazing by the way) are charging 180 HK dollars for their shows in Hong Kong.  That’s pretty impressive.

So I guess to stop my rambling, the live music explosion is gonna happen, its just waiting for the market catch up and the pop phenom to die down.

Musically, I think more and more synths with dancy beats are on the horizon and coming fast.

Seriously check out The Swamp.  Their recorded music is good, but their live shows are some of the most mind-melting around.

Brendan, thanks for spending the time and effort to create these videos. They really give us an insight into the struggles incurred trying to build an audience from scratch in a land where this is all very new.

Another hot Beijing metal band is Brain Failure. Their Douban site is here and you can stream six of their songs.

Here’s a song from the Carsick Cars, whom Brendan had mentioned…

Hell United are three metal bands based in Shanghai that have joined together to try and increase the popularity of that style. Those bands are Chaos Mind, October Capricorn and Six Shot.

I also want to feature Hard Queen, a Shanghai band that recently released Holiday, their debut CD. If you like them, you can also check out their Neocha page.

Here’s another video of Hard Queen, to give you a better idea of their music.

For those of you unfamiliar with Zhong Chi, her music is pop tinged with a spacey, otherworldly essence. You can stream her entire Easyworld CD here.  Just go halfway down the page on the left. I think her style could make her a breakout artist. Here’s a video to check out.

Of course, nuthin’ like a little Pinkberry…

What is the state of music in China right now? From a Cantopop standpoint, there are plenty of popular singers doing the usual ballads that sell so well but aren’t my cup of tea. I have to admit, I’m not as enthusiastic as Brendan is with the rest of the scene. Too many bands haven’t mastered their instruments and tightened their performances. Music tends to be relative so after living there awhile, the bands that were better than average seemed much better than they really were. When I returned to the States, I quickly discovered that $10 small club bands were far better than most of what I had seen in China. A friend of mine who was a professional DJ/producer spent five years in Shanghai and had the same experience as I did when he returned to the States. But that’s a progression that WILL take place, and bands such as Cold Fairyland are already excellent musicians with terrific songs.

Several Chinese bands are making great music right now. Better venues need to be created, this kind of music needs airplay, and producers need to keep their hands off the bands and stop trying to turn the decent ones into pop acts.

Maybe the bigger problem is that there has never been a “transition” band to take their audience from Cantopop to indie and rock. The great transition band in the rest of the world was the Beatles and the two key albums were “Rubber Soul” and “Revolver”. They took a generation from “yeah, yeah, yeah” to “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”. If an ultra popular Chinese singer could make that same transition, then I think the audience would follow. I’ve always wished Wang Fei would have cut a CD that was similar style wise to the Cocteau Twins, one of her favorite bands. It would have jump started progressive music in China and I’d bet she tried, but couldn’t convince her label.

I agree with Brendan that synth, dance, trip hop styles will be the first to break through. I’m a big fan of Shanghai’s I-GO and their synth beats.

How do I keep up with the Shanghai music scene? That’s easy; I bookmark the best damn music blog in China and check it out on a regular basis!

I’d like to share with you some graphs (based on numbers I got mostly through Wikipedia, and I believe their “ballpark” to be about right):

With the U.S. bailouts, Obama’s plan will add $1.7 trillion to the U.S. national debt, bringing the total to $13 trillion by the end of 2009.

China and Japan are two of the top holders of U.S. debt.  Rest of the debt are held by oil producing countries, U.K., and just about every other country on this planet.  Note that China’s holding as of January 2009 was $739 billion vs. the $3.178 trillion owned by all foreign countries combined.  The vast majority of the U.S. national debt are held by the American public.

The chart above shows the top trading partners for the U.S..  Note that Canada and Mexico are on the top 3 due to their proximity to the U.S..  China’s $345billion for the first 10 months in 2008 is only about 12% of total U.S. imports and exports.

Bottom line: The American public wanting to tackle their national debt, more aggressive trade policies with China will not yield much difference.

Senior U.S. trade officials called on China to revoke an order for personal computers to be shipped with Web-filtering software, saying the requirement could conflict with Beijing’s obligations under the World Trade Organization.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke urged the Chinese government to reverse its decision in a joint letter submitted to two Chinese ministries Wednesday. The letter said the software rule also raised concerns about censorship and Internet security.

It was the highest-level U.S. complaint so far against the rule, which is due to take effect July 1 and has already angered free-speech advocates and industry groups.  The letter, sent separately to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Commerce, said the Chinese move raises “fundamental questions” about regulatory transparency and compliance with a number of WTO rules. WTO rules include agreements that are meant to prevent governments from erecting protectionist barriers to trade.

“China is putting companies in an untenable position by requiring them, with virtually no public notice, to pre-install software that appears to have broad-based censorship implications and network security issues,” Mr. Locke said, according to a statement.

…

The U.S. letters “expressed that the U.S. government is seriously concerned about the Green Dam [requirement], including wide-ranging concerns about the scope of the measure, the censorship implications, trade impact and security flaws which create serious problems for the IT industry and Chinese consumers,” a U.S. official said.

The official indicated concerns have been magnified by the Chinese government’s unwillingness to explain the intent and scope of the new measure, which was introduced at short notice. On Friday, U.S. officials from the State and Commerce departments, as well as U.S. Trade Representative officials based in Beijing, met with officials from the MIIT and Ministry of Commerce to express concerns that Green Dam would restrict access to the Internet and infringe on “internationally recognized rights to freedom of expression,” a U.S. Embassy spokesman said.

…

China’s state-run Xinhua news agency Wednesday quoted Jinhui’s founder, Bryan Zhang, as saying his company received more than 1,000 harassing calls from inside and outside China, as well as attacks by hackers, since the Green Dam requirement was made public this month.

“Most of the calls came at late night, cursing our staff and uttering obscenities, voicing their resentment against the software,” Xinhua quoted Mr. Zhang as saying.

While Western concerns regarding “freedom of expression” in China always “touches” my heart at some levels - this latest development to me smacks of more attempts to interfere with Chinese government power to regulate its own internal affairs.

The U.S. is claiming that China’s requiring Green Dam to be provided with new computers (whether installed on the computer or provided on an installation CD - I’m leaving that debate alone here) inhibits trade. Providing Green Dam is allegedly so complex that China should have notified the WTO earlier and given foreign firms more time to prepare for the change in the name of fair trade.

This is absurd…

Do you know how many pre-installed software usually ships with a computer box (even the cheapest ones) these days?  Utilities, multimedia applications, Internet programs, office suites, internet access, antivirus-antiphishing-antispyware software, browsers, games, etc., etc.  The fact that these computer manufacturers now have to provide one more software now makes trade with China unfairly burdensome?

If Green Dam is burdensome, perhaps the installation of Chinese versions of OS and various software in computers to be sold in China should also all be considered a burden?

I am not advocating for Green Dam (as I have admitted in a previous comment, I don’t like Green Dam), but I am advocating against using whatever opportunity available (Green Dam in this case) to smear and attack China. Besides, in this case, hijacking the WTO for political expediency is not only disingenuous, but also hogs up precious resources that can better be deployed to solve real economic problems - such as the world financial crisis.

It is highly unlikely that this tactic by the U.S. would scare the Chinese government. China has come a long way in the last 10-15 years and now has pretty strong WTO expertise herself. The U.S. could have started a conversation about the censorship software requirement with the Chinese government, but instead chooses now to make a scene.

Irrespective of where you stand with respect  to Green Dam, does everyone agree with me that the WTO is not the place to take up political issues such as censorship?

Or do some people think that WTO is a perfectly legitimate forum to bring all issues touched by trade - including political issues such as censorship, human rights, democracy, etc.?

***

Please note that this follow-on article was written back in May, and is NOT the follow-on article I promised to write here. It does NOT therefore cover many of the points you have raised here which I hope to cover. However it should answer some of the questions while I try to find the time to write that “follow-on” article I promised. I hope to do that before this weekend.

***

Here is the original “follow-on” article written in May :

aaa

Chinese President Hu Jintao and India PM Manmohan Singh recently appeared together at the BRIC summit in Russia. Things seemed friendly enough at the time. What has changed since then? And why would China have a problem with the Asia Development Bank financing development projects in Arunachal Pradesh? I would think economic development in an area that China considers to be a part of her territory would be viewed by China in a positive manner, as it would be beneficial to the people of that region.

Something is going on here. Does anyone care to try and interpret the meaning behind this dispatch? I’m not asking for a slew of insults directed at India, but the reasons behind this apparent dispute. What has really changed in the last couple of weeks to instigate this response?

Veiled threat or good neighbor?

By Li Hongmei People’s Daily Online

15:12, June 19, 2009

Some are afraid that a fresh border dispute between China and India would become the spark plunging the two neighbors again into a ‘partial military action.’ And India seems to have been conspiring to create the picture of an imminent war by deploying 60,000-strong additional troops and four SU-30 fighters along the 650-mile unfenced border with China.

The Sino-Indian border dispute dates back to almost half a century ago, when in 1962, China and India fought a serious border war, with Indian troops retreating with a complete defeat. And in 1986, the region, referred to as Southern Tibet since China laid claim to it, suddenly flared up again, as a result of India’s continued and enhanced presence in the Chinese territory.

Decades have elapsed since the border war, but Indians still look on China through the tinted lens, which could merely produce untrue pictures and even distortions. As an Indian military official put it, ‘Indians maintain the same national sentiments towards China as the way the Chinese do at the mention of Japan and Japanese,’ many Indians actually have very subtle impression upon China, which has been translated into a very complicated mindset—awe, vexation, envy and jealousy—in the face of its giant neighbor.

The reason for this mentality is multi-faceted, and brought about by both historical factors and reality. In 1947, when India freed itself from the British colonization and won independence, it was one of the global industrial powers, ranking Top 10 in the world and far ahead of the then backward China. But today, China’s GDP has tripled that of India and per capita income doubled, which turns out to be a totally unacceptable fact to many Indians. And with China’s galloping economic growth since its adoption of the reform and opening up policy in late 1970s, the wealth gap between China and India has increasingly widened.

On top of that, some Western powers have been inciting India to challenge China, and even insidiously convince India that China would be the ‘greatest obstacle’ threatening India’s rise. To feed its ambitions, the West has gone so far as to devise ways to extol India as a potentially No.1 democracy in Asia, but meanwhile intentionally play down China’s social and economic progress.

India, on the other hand, draws the Western hint trying for dear life to surpass China. For years, it has also attempted, but in vain, to suppress China by taking advantage of its ‘friendship’ with the West. Obsessed with the crazy idea of ‘enemy’s friend being enemy,’ India has gone out of its way to blemish the brotherly ties between China and Pakistan, which India regards as its arch-foe, even staking out a position that Pakistan would have no courage to challenge it without the back-up of China.

Indian people have heavily relied upon its media coverage to learn about China. Unfortunately, the Indian media have long been so accustomed to calibrating to curry favor with the Western anti-China forces that they invariably present their readers with biased information and fabricated stories about China. This will further deepen the gap between the two peoples, and fuel the national discontent against China among ordinary Indians. Additionally, India media seem always overzealous in spreading the so-called ‘China Threat’ theory, manipulating its audience and fanning up an intense feud over China.

Indian government, instead of working in a constructive direction to clear up its people’s misunderstandings about China, which has gravely hampered the normal development of the bilateral relations, has consistently adopted a hostile foreign policy toward China, in an effort to win the support from its hawkish MPs and strength its rein in the nation. Under the pretext of ‘China Threat’, India finally launched a nuclear test in 1998. Only in recent years, Indian government shifted to a more pragmatic stance in dealing with China with the aim to enhance the bilateral cooperation.

Emerging from the dust of border dispute, Chinese President Hu Jintao and India PM Manmohan Singh appeared hand-in-hand Tuesday on the same arena of the first ever BRIC summit, hosted by Russia. This seems to deliver a message to the outside world that, plagued by the global financial crisis, both of the Asian giants need to reach out to each other seeking more cooperation rather than confrontation. ‘Both sides should make a steady progress in pushing for dialogue and cooperation,’ as President Hu was cited as saying.

But what is more irritating, Asia Development Bank (ADB) recently adopted the Country Partnership Strategy for India (2009-2012), involving disputed areas between China and India. The $2.9 billion plan approved this week by the ADB board includes the financing of projects in the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’, an area which India regards as its 24th state, but actually much of it being part of China’s Tibet Autonomous Region.

ADB’s unbecoming program proves counterproductive, in that it has again dealt a blow to the already rickety China-India relationship. And moreover, the active steps lately taken by the leaders from both sides to thaw the feud would be more or less hobbled by it.

1) Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

Based on the coverage I’ve seen, both governments were cast as being in the wrong and both protest movements as in the right. In the case of China, the government sent in tanks and used live ammunition to break up a protest movement that was alleged to have turned violent. Most of the reporters in the world press were located in or near the same area, and their reports reflected what occurred in that vicinity. Analyzes of this event in most cases pointed to the government as the culprit and the demonstrators as being victims and responding in a suitable fashion. Is this an accurate assessment? The Chinese government attempted to confiscate film of the event from foreign sources but those attempts were successfully evaded in most instances.

In Iran, the government has sent most of the world press home but there were many first hand reports from the scene of the demonstrations. In this case, the reporters were scattered in several different areas. The government was portrayed in most media as having stolen the election and the protesters were seen as defending their candidate and trying to overthrow a tainted election. The government has recently tried to shut down Twitter in an attempt to limit coverage and communication by the protesters.

2) Was the violence committed by both governments labeled as violations of human rights while the violence committed by the protesters cast as legitimate or de-emphasized?

Based on what I’ve read, I think this is a fair assessment for both situations. If attacks were committed on both sides, then they should both be reported. If the attacks are overwhelmingly from one side, that should also be stated but not to the exclusion of attacks from the other side.

3) Were government limitations of world press freedom to report on these demonstrations seen as evidence of government weakness, moral inferiority, corruption, etc.?

I think most would agree that this is how those restrictions were cast in the world press. Some might believe this is a legitimate claim while others might that these governments have the right to limit reporter’s freedom during violent or anti-government demonstrations or uprisings. My personal opinion is that when governments restrict the press’ ability to cover a story, they will rightfully come under fire by that press for trying to hide something. I believe that limiting press freedom does indicate government weakness. This is true not only in China and Iran, but also during the Bush administration when they also attempted to limit press coverage in certain military zones. I believe the vast majority of people would and did take it in this way.

Let’s look at specific press coverage in Iran from major media sources. In this video, George Friedman of Stratfor gives his evaluation of the Iranian election. This was one of the more objective analyzes I could find.

Now let’s look at similar coverage from major media. Stories of the Iranian election and subsequent demonstrations were reported from the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The London Times, The Times of India, Cape Argus (Cape Town, South Africa), Bangkok Post, and The Jakarta Post. I linked to these various websites to provide a broad example of world media coverage.

Was the election actually manipulated in Iran? Let’s hear from the Iranian National Guard: “Statistics provided by Mohsen Rezaei in which he claims more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 170 cities are not accurate - the incident has happened in only 50 cities.” Iran Guardian Council spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, responding to complaints by a candidate defeated in the June 12 election.

Hmm… seems suspicious to me.

Do world press analyzes always take the side of the demonstrators, or do they present both sides accurately? Is it just a case of demonstrator abuses being “buried” deep within the story, or are these instances deliberately excluded?

Thanks to Allen for suggesting this topic and contributing to the post.

( Note : This is a re-post of the same article taken from the blogsite : chinablogs.wordpress.com dated May 10, 2009. You are most welcomed to give your feedback using the Comments section here or on my above blogsite. You may also find the comments and my feedback on the above blogsite interesting. It includes an interesting comment from an American with first hand experience of the quake. )

***

Recently a prominent Chinese activist has demanded a name list from the Chinese government of the children killed in the Sichuan earthquake. This demand will presumably be increased to include the names of all 90,000 victims in order to work out exactly how many of the dead were children.

Personally, I don’t think he would be successful. I have never known of any governments in the world that have released name lists of catastrophies that have resulted in deaths of that magnitude. I don’t think China would be any different.

Most likely, this effort, no matter how well the original intention is, would just turn out to be yet another prolonged confrontation destined to stir up further unrests and even more hardship for the parents in the future. Given that is the case, I believe it is worthwhile trying to assess objectively whether this is the best way forward for the victims, their family and everyone else.

To do that, we need to understand the motivation behind the demand, and the facts surrounding the events, in order to correctly assess the situation and address the underlying issues.

The first question we need to ask is why the need to know exactly how many children died from the quake. Why the need to single out one particular attribute of the dead? In other words, why is no-one just as desperate to find out the sex or ethnicity, or any other attribute of the dead. There has to be a reason for such firm determination to know the age.

If you have been following the news, then the answer should be quite obvious. There is this wide spread belief that the school collapses were a result of shoddy workmanship caused by corrupt government officials. Therefore an exact count of the number of children killed is believed by many to provide incriminating “evidence” against the authorities.

The root of the suspicion is the fact that while some buildings did not collapse, most of the schools in the area did. But is that evidence of shoddy workmanship, let alone “evidence” of corruption? In order to find out, we need to explore some facts.

————————————————————–

Facts :

So let’s consider some facts.

1) The power of the Sichuan quake was aprox. 251 times that of the recent Italian L’Aquila earthquake.
2) It rocked for 3 minutes instead of seconds as was in the Italian quake.
3) The energy released was equivalent to almost 560 atom bombs of the grade used in the WW2
4) It is the world’s 19th deadliest earthquake of all time.

The recent L’Aquila quake in Italy flattened or severely damaged most of the buildings in the area. Imagine what would happen if you increase that 251 times while also increasing the duration to 3 minutes. It is hard to imagine any buildings left standing. Perhaps a better question is NOT why so many schools collapsed, but why some schools did not collapse.

Despite the fact that Italy is a wealthy first world European country, there are those who seem to think that it is somehow not good enough to be used as a comparison to tiny remote villages in China. To satisfy those people, let’s have a look at another even more wealthy and powerful country. The economic superpower of the 1980s, Japan.

The 1995 Kobe earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Moment Magnitude Scale completely devastated the city of Kobe. Within 20 seconds, the massive quake collapsed 200,000 buildings, 1 km of the Hanshin Expressway, and 120 of the 150 quays in the port of Kobe.

Yet, the Sichuan quake is almost 45 times the strength of the Kobe quake, and lasted for approximately 9 times the duration. Imagine what would happen to the city of Kobe if you increase the quake 45 times and the duration 9 times.

Wealthy Japan is no stranger to earthquakes. Indeed, it is well known for having plenty of earthquakes on a regular basis. Buildings are built to a very high standard. There is no reason why it cannot be used as a comparison to a remote village in a developing country such as China.

———————————————————-

Conclusions :

It is clear from the comparisons above that the collapse of the scools in remote villages should not be a surprise to anyone. They do not in any way prove poor quality construction. The question instead should be how did some Chinese schools survive the world’s 19th deadliest earthquake of all time.

While I of course don’t object to the idea of finding out if your child survived the quake, I do think it is quite pointless confronting the authorities simply to find out if they know the name of your deceased child. After all, it isn’t like the parents do not know the names of their dead children. And there is no reason why they so desparately need to know the names of someone else’s dead children.

Perhaps there is a need for everyone to calm down. Perhaps there is a need for everyone to reflect on whether this is the best way forward for the victims and their family, and indeed for the nation.

Imagine for a moment that, if the people involved were less ready to blame the government ; that if the internet was not filled with nasty allegations all pointing the same direction ; that if the different interest groups (both within and outside China) did not stir the emotions of the people to fuel this allegation. The situation would surely be much less potentially explosive.

The numbers would then not serve any purpose other than as statistics. In that case, it would be hard to imagine why the authorities would not be willing to share the statistics with you. And everyone can then concentrate their efforts on rehabilitation and improving their livelihoods. There is no reason why this is not achievable. In my opinion, this is the correct way forward.

———————————————————-

Sources :

Sources for the calculations used above are based on information extracted from the following websites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=2&faqID=33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_earthquake#Damage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake

Nine years ago, the director of Jiangsu Provincial Department of Construction, Xu Qiyao (徐其耀), was arrested  for taking bribes of over 20 million yuan. He also distinguished  himself among other corrupted officials by having extramarital affairs with 146 women,  including a mother and her daughter. Recently, a letter to his son, allegedly found in his diary during the investigation, is circulating on the internet.  In that letter, he demonstrated his theoretic superiority in the application of “thick face, black heart.”

Here is a translation for your enlightenment.

Dear son,

I received your letter. I am really proud of your achievement in the university. Keep it up!

As you have chosen to join politics, you must bear in mind the following advice:

1. Don’t seek truth, and don’t search for the essence of things.

Leave these tasks to intellectuals. The credo you have to firmly keep in mind: “as long as it is advantageous to oneself, it is correct.” If you have difficulty to grasp this, then follow this simplified principle: “whatever the higher-ups promoting is correct.”

2. Not only you have to be a liar, but also you have to be a virtuoso liar.

You should build a habit of telling lies. No, actually you should treat it as a mission with the goal that you are able to believe your own lies. Prostitution and politicians are very similar professions. The difference is that being an official is to sell one’s mouth. Remember, your mouth does not belong to you anymore once you become an official. You have to say according to what you need, not what you think.

3. Get diplomas, but not knowledge, which is detrimental to your career.

With knowledge you will be able to think independently, and independent thinking is the death knell in politics. Do not be fooled that there are so many officials with master’s, or even doctoral degrees. Some people immediately enter the public service after earning their degrees. It is apparent that the true purpose of their education is not to study, but to use it as a stepping stone. They are frauds. Remember, a real doctor and an official is not truly compatible.

4, What is the purpose of becoming an official? To gain interests.

You have to work tirelessly to grab all the interests you can get. It is called corruption by some people. You must be clear that gaining interests is not “a” purpose, but “the” purpose for being an official. Your boss promote you because you can serve his interests. Your subordinates obey you because you can bring interests to them. Your colleagues and friends take care of you because you can exchange interests with them. You may forfeit your own interests, but you are useless unless others can benefit from you. Remember, once you lose focus on gaining interests, you are just one step away from failure.

5. Conduct yourself before conduct business.

Please don’t get confused and think I want you to be a mensch. What I mean is to conduct yourself in networking (guanxi). To conduct business, or to get things done, is not really important. Weave a comprehensive network and make yourself a node of this network. You see, nowadays when we say somebody is capable, we actually mean he is capable of networking. LOL. And if someone thinks otherwise and concentrates his energy on getting things done, I will be dumbfounded if his life is not miserable.

6. Our society is always a peasants’ society in essence no matter what has transpired on the outside.

Whoever caters the interests of peasants will be successful. Regardless of the appearance of the people around us, deep down, they are peasants. Peasants are characterized by their short-sightedness and the thirst for immediate benefits. Therefore, you have to do things in ways that share the characteristics of peasants, to pursue short-term benefits and to be short-sighted. If you have a long term vision, you will isolate yourself and the consequence is obvious. Learn some medieval practices, such as the ritual of pledging brotherhood.

7. Currying favor is a form of high art.

Don’t mistake blandishment simply as shameless. There are a lot of women who degrade themselves  but few of them get rich or find their sugar daddies by doing so. Most of them are stuck as low-paying sexual workers. To apply the same underlying principle, a sycophant has to be a master at pleasing his most important client, his boss. In a society without the rule of law, the only way to go “up” is via the appreciation from your superiors. All other factors are peripheral. You must be cognizant of this.

8.  All the laws and regulations, policies and protocols should not be strictly observed; or more precisely, they should be implemented flexibly.

The makers of laws and regulations, policies and protocols are intent to control others, not themselves. What you have to know is, however, the rules cannot be randomly breached. You have to know when to adhere them firmly, when to violate them secretly and who can violate them. Gauge carefully, or you’ll be in trouble.

These are the principles of being an official. Think carefully now, if you can do all of these, your will have a smooth sailing career. Not up to the task? It’s high time to switch to another profession.

It seems the western media and Chinese blogosphere agree on one thing; Green Dam is not winning any popularity contests. Today, the Chinese government backed down on the mandatory usage of the software, though it will still come either pre-loaded or be included on a compact disc with all PCs sold on the  mainland from July 1st.

There are several problems associated with this software, each one an interesting topic in itself. I’d like to run down the issues associated with its release, one by one.

1) Why the sudden announcement of this invasive software with virtually no implementation time given to the manufacturers?

The Chinese government instituted this requirement less than a month before the mandatory start date. That time period is incredibly brief for manufacturers to test the software for compatibility and vulnerability. That is what I meant when I used the word “invasive”. We can only speculate on the answer. My guess is that the government wanted to keep reaction time to a minimum, anticipating that this would be unpopular.

2) Since the purpose of the software is to allow parents to keep their children from viewing pornography and sexually explicit material, why make the installation mandatory on all computers?

There can be a few reasons for this. The government might feel the parents aren’t sophisticated enough to install the software. The government might want to eliminate pornography and sexually explicit material for all Chinese netizens. The government might want to censor more than just pornography; i.e. Falun Gong, Tibetan issues, Tiananmen, etc. in a more active method compared to the current GFW. However, it also filters out flesh-colored images such as Garfield and Hello Kitty. The government might want to have a channel into personal computers in order to have the ability to censor other information in the future.

3) Is the software reliable and secure?

Apparently, it is not. Tests have shown it censors innocent sites and misses some harmful ones. Worse than that, it has major security vulnerabilities. A University of Michigan study found numerous security flaws in the software, with the potential for hackers to steal personal information, send spam or introduce malicious viruses.The Chinese government has already ordered Green Dam to release patches that would fix the security holes. If the program is as infected as it apparently is, what is to prevent a foreign entity from using this vulnerability to cripple millions of Chinese personal computers in a massive attack?

4) Are parts of the software stolen from Solid Oak Software’s CyberSitter program?

Solid Oak Software thinks so and is prepared to go to court over it. The University of Michigan study, which you can read here, lists the specific files pirated from CyberSitter. Green Dam disputes this and has threatened Solid Oak with legal action. Today, Solid Oak sent HP and Dell “cease and desist” letters.  Lenovo has already agreed to include the software in China, so could this directly affect Lenovo’s business in the States and HP and Dell’s business in China?

5) If you buy a computer in China and this program is already installed, what are your options?

Net polls in China have indicated that 80% of Chinese computer users plan to uninstall this software. Per the University of Michigan study:

“Green Dam allows users who know its administrator password to uninstall the software. We tested the uninstaller and found that it appears to effectively remove Green Dam from the computer. However, it fails to remove some log files, so evidence of users’ activity remains hidden on the system.

In light of the serious vulnerabilities we outlined above, the surest way for users to protect themselves is to remove the software immediately using its uninstall function.”

I recommended to my Chinese friends that if this goes through, they re-format their hard drive after purchase, then re-install software excluding Green Dam. Personally, I always re-format my hard drive after purchase to remove the unwanted junk programs that I’ll never use.

6) Final issue: How can China protect children from pornography on the net in a responsible manner?

The current method is the GFW, which has been shown to be effective concerning Falun Gong, Tiananmen and Tibetan issues in the past. However, the keywords for those issues are relatively easy to control. Pornography is another matter altogether. Is there a reactive way to do so without having to actively run programs on individual computers? And if Green Dam isolates individual websites, why can’t the GFW do the same thing? Will Chinese netizens ever agree to have programs installed on their computers that have the potential to allow the government to know every website they visit and have access to all their personal information?

I’m more of a hardware than software guy, and I know we have quite a few commentators that are very good with software. What do you think? Is there a better way for the government to protect children in a more benign manner?

My Daughter, who is in the first grade, was reading her homework to me, “On My way to school, I saw beautiful flowers. Some flowers were hanging on stems …”

“That’s very good” I said.

“Others felt on the grass after a thunderstorm, but they are still beautiful” She continued.

“Yes, they are.”

Every life is a flower. Twenty years ago, in the morning of June 4th, 2009, I saw flowers fell.

At the end of May, 1989, like many other university students in Beijing, I already left the TAM square after participating numerous protests big and small and a long hunger strike.

On the night of June 1, I was sitting on a bench outside our campus, chatting with several students. Suddenly I heard someone was shouting: “the devil has come to the village; the devil has come to the village” (this is a phrase used to refer the Imperial Japanese invasion army in movies). I saw three or four student-looking people shouting and riding rapidly south on bikes.

The army was ready to enter the city. The previous evening, I saw squadrons of motorcycles cycling around the Tiananmen Square, with riders chanting “defend the students!”

The following night I heard the crowd had blocked several buses carrying plain-clothes soldiers. There was physical confrontations and violence.

At the noon of June 3rd, I heard rumors that the 27th army and the 38th army had begun fighting outside the city and a civil war had started. In the evening, announcements were broadcast in radio and TV advising everyone to stay home to ensure their personal safety. It seemed that the army was ready to expel the students from the square.

I went to Renming University with two of my classmates. We heard from loudspeakers set up by student organizations that the army had opened fire. One girl in her tearful voice said that her boyfriend was shot and taken to the hospital.
I thought he was hit by rubber bullets. They could be dangerous too. What is going on? As an active participant of the early protests and the hunger strike, my heart was still with this movement and I determined to see in my own eyes.

I went back to my dormitory and took my bike. I rode south towards the Chang’An Avenue and picked up a student along the way. We can gradually hear gunshots from a distance. I also faintly smelt of burning rubber. I thought it must be the smell of rubber bullets.

<update: a map shows BMY’s bike route>

When we were getting closer to Muxudi (木樨地), the sound of gunshots became clear and the smell of burning rubber got intense.

Near Muxudi, I saw there was fire. Gunshots and the cries of the crowd were coming from there, and ambulances were roaring out one after another. In the middle of the road, a Uighur student was shouting and waving, trying to direct the traffic.
I got off from my bike. The student I picked up waved goodbye to me and disappeared into the crowd. I dared not to go any further. Two times, people crouched and I stood there at a loss. There might be bullets flying overhead. I still need to be careful even though they are rubber bullets, I thought. So I hid behind a tree.

The sound of gunshots moved gradually eastward. I then went to the Muxudi intersection. I saw two burning cars and two buses used to block the road. The smell was coming from the burning cars. There were several bullet holes on the wall of the subway station. There was also a bullet hole on the metal fence of the pedestrian crossing in front of the subway station. I finally realized that the bullets were real. About a dozen meters down the road, there was a cart with broken yogurt glass bottles in and around it. Clearly, those yogurt bottles were used as weapons.

Concerned about my own safety, I went through an alley to the Xuanwumen avenue, a street parallel to the Chang’an avenue, and continued to ride east towards the square.

Very soon, I saw a long line of military trucks full of soldiers stopped along the road. Some Beijingers were talking to the soldiers, saying that the students are not causing turmoil, they just want to get rid of corruption. The soldiers lowered their heads and did not say a word. A few of them shook their heads. I thought they must be ordered to not talk. There are several officers were talking with civilians along the road.

I stayed for a while, and then moved on. I saw there were a bus parked sideways and some other road blockers ahead of the leading military vehicle. Some residents were removing smaller road blockers.

I arrived at the southwest corner of the Square at the early dawn. I saw the area between the Memorial Hall and the Qian Gate was filled with sitting soldiers. Not far away, a group of men were shouting indignantly against the soldiers, “1, 2, fascist! 1,2, fascist!”
I also saw the last group of students filing out to the southeast corner of the square with their banners. Behind them, there is a phalanx of armored vehicles slowly moving from north to south to fill the void left by the students.

It was broad daylight now. I can see the faces of every soldier in front of me. They were of similar age as me, wearing helmets, griping rifles and sitting facing south. Many soldiers look like country boys with naive eyes and rosy faces.

Several Beijingers and I whispered to the soldiers, “Students are not engaged in unrest.” A soldier retorted, “look what a mess you have made”. Other soldiers kept silent. A middle-aged military officers suddenly stood up and shouted toward a woman next to me, “no pictures, hand over the camera and it is confiscated.” He stepped forward and grabbed the camera. The lady begged,” could you please take away the film but return the camera.” The officer shouted, “All confiscated.”

All of a sudden, a series of gunshots erupted behind me. Soldiers in front of me all stood up and looked to the direction of my back. I quickly turned around and saw another group of soldiers sitting eastward about 10 meters away. There were one official and a soldier stood. The official yelled at a group civilians mixed in age and gender about 2-30 meters away. The soldier was firing upwards.
Then suddenly an ambulance came and someone was taken into it. The ambulance rushed away in sirens. An old gentleman pointed at the officer and said something indignantly.

Feeling unsafe, I wanted to go back to the campus. I rode westward and at the first intersection, I decided to go back along the Chang’an avenue. I turned north into an alley. At the end of it, a tank was parked there with its cannon pointing toward the alley. Two or three soldiers wearing helmets were standing beside the tank. I rode past them nervously along with a few civilians and entered the Chang’an avenue.

There were already some people riding on the Chang’an Avenue. An armored vehicle traveling from the west going super fast and the people were scattered to avoid it. I felt angry at the recklessly APC driver.

I felt lethargic while riding the bike. A student wearing black plastic framed glasses was shouting something. I stopped. Beside him, there were two mangled bicycles. There were also two bodies whose faces and upper bodies were covered. Between the bikes and the bodies, there was a pool of red and a pool of white. I had never seen corpses before. I felt even dizzier and my breathing became difficult. I was two meters away from the shouting student and I could see tears dripping down on his cheeks. Yet I still could not quite understand him. On the back of my mind I thought he was shouting “could somebody help me?” “Could someone help me move the bodies?” I did not have the courage to move the body. I left in humiliation, without saying a word or looking back. I felt I was a coward.

I rode my bike like a robot and a person rode along with me asking, “Student, do you know what happened last night?” I did not answer. I cried.

Near Muxudi , I saw a body lay in the middle of the road with its face covered.

And not far away, a few people were yelling and chasing a person in military uniform.

I did not stop.

Going north, on the road near the Purple Bamboo Park, I saw a lonely tank with its hatch door open. I did not see the troops.

It was almost 11 o’clock when I finally came back to the dormitory. My roommate asked me where I had been. I replied that I took a walk, and then I went to sleep.

At noon in June 5, I went to Muxudi again; the bullet holes were still visible. I went to the nearby hospital (复兴医院). There was a notice posted outside, requesting family members to claim bodies. A crowd gathered outside and I followed the flow of people walking inside. I saw from a window that there were about a dozen corpses lay on the floor with face covered.

On the utility pole near the entrance of our university, a bulletin was posted stating two students in our institute were killed. Mourning halls were set up for them. I went to the one for a sophomore. I bowed 3 times in front of his portrait.

It was rumored that the army was going to be stationed on campus. Some students swore to defend the campus with their lives. Others wanted to empty the campus in protest. Once when I passed through the Beijing University, I saw two young men in black clothes rode on the street, with axes strapped around their waists.

Classmates started to go home one after another. Teachers came to request us leaving.

My two classmates and I were the last three students in our class to leave campus. On June 9, in a campus used to be full of vim and vigor, there were only 3 of us, walking lonely for 15 minutes from the dormitory to the school gate.

When our bus passed the Capital Indoor Stadium, I saw the courtyard was filled with heavily armed soldiers, their helmets glittering under the sun. Most passengers turned to watch the soldiers, silently.

In the morning of June 11, after lost touch with my family for several months, I finally went back home. My dad said slowly, “You must be hungry, go get your breakfast.” My mom, with tears flashing in her eyes, turned back her face.

There were many other parents waiting for their children to come home. For some of them, the wait was in vain.

The first draft of history can be crude. Even if the thrust of a story is well described by journalists on the scene, some of its details might need refinement, and sometimes even correction. Such was the case with the massacre in Beijing on 3 and 4 June, 1989. I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night….

On the morning of 4 June, reporters in the Beijing Hotel close to the square saw troops open fire indiscriminately at unarmed citizens on Chang’an Boulevard who were too far away from the soldiers to pose any real threat. Thirty or 40 bodies lay, apparently lifeless, on the road afterwards.

That scene outside the Beijing Hotel alone justified the use of the word massacre. But the students who had told me and other journalists of a bloodbath on the square proved mistaken.

Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops (Only a handful of journalists were on hand to witness this moment - I, like most others at the time, had spent the night in various different parts of the city monitoring the army’s bloody advance). A few of the students were crushed by armoured vehicles some distance from the square after the retreat….

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who did some admirable detective work in Beijing hospitals in the weeks after the massacre, said in a report published on 21 June 1989 that “it seems plausible that about a dozen soldiers and policemen were killed, along with 400 to 800 civilians”.

The Chinese government was quick to exploit the weaknesses in our reporting. By focusing on what happened in the square itself, it began sowing seeds of doubt about the general accuracy of Western reports among Chinese who did not witness what happened.

At first this made little difference, since most Beijing residents at least had friends of friends who had seen for themselves that there had been a massacre, even if not in the square. But as the years passed, a new generation emerged with few eyewitness accounts to cling to. Public discussion of Tiananmen was taboo, and those who had lived through its horrors became increasingly disinclined to dwell on them….

Beijing was peaceful in the days leading up to the massacre and many students were beginning to grow weary of the protests. But it is not uncommon to find Chinese who believe the Communist Party’s fiction that there was a riot in Beijing on 3 June that warranted intervention. Rioting did occur, but involving angry residents outraged by the army’s brutal entry into the city.

I believe that eventually, as part of a process of political change in China, the government will revise its official account of what happened. We journalists have long since revised ours, but misleading terms persist. These terms can be faulted on points of detail. But their failing could also be said to be that they understate the magnitude of what happened.

There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.

Miles repeats the accepted view that few, if any, people died in Tiananmen Square itself. However, he is right to point out that the fact many reports were confused about where some deaths took place does not by itself diminish the validity of what else was said. Foreign journalists didn’t get their reporting all right, but much of what they had to say was correct.

I am the person who believes communication, dialogue and mutual understanding are the best route to solve complicated ethnic issues. So it gives me great hope that Gongmeng, a Chinese NGO, took the initiative to provide an in-depth analysis of the social and economical challenges faced by Tibetans. I think this report will signal the beginning of a new bottom-up approach to solve the mistrusts demonstrated on both sides. The initial steps will be small and the progress will probably be slow, but, let’s get started!

Finally, I want to express my deep appreciation to Khechog’s friend, Ben, who translated the complete report (it is also posted on the ICT site), and others who gave feedback. The report is over 20,000 words long and I break it down into multiple pages. A previous post on this report has already generated a lot of interest, and I hope this full report will lead to a great discussion.

Fool’s Mountain General Principles

These set out some general principles about the website that will help you stay within the rules whilst you’re here.

1. Everyone is welcome.

This is not a website for any particular group of people and/or group of political views. Do not try to chase people off because you do not like their positions.

2. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

Do not be unpleasant to other members, just as you would not like to be treated poorly.

3. No mobs allowed.

The Administration is here to deal with problematic comments. Do not take it on yourself to mete out “justice”, and do not feed the trolls.

4. Everyone gets a second chance.

Even if you are banned, you will be allowed back on at least once. Do not throw temper-tantrums if you face sanctions for your posts. Change your behavior and you can’t easily go wrong.

5. This is a privately-run website – the Administration’s decisions are final.

The Administration will make decisions as it sees fit. It can make mistakes and will try to be fair, but at the end of the day it’s in charge.

Fool’s Mountain Rules

Quite simply put these are the specific rules concerning general behavior on the blog that must be followed at all times.

1. No trolling or flaming.

We know what this sort of behavior is. If you are unsure, this webpage lists some examples of both.

2. No personal attacks or otherwise unpleasant personal comments.

Don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.

3. No racial, racist or anti-religious remarks.

Do not attack groups based on their race, nationality or religion.

Some recent examples of bad comments from Fool’s Mountain (revised to accentuate main points):

[Person A] is working for the CCP, or [Person B] is working for the CIA, etc.

[Person B] is a human rights scum, or [Person A] is a 50 center, a FQ, etc.

You are stupid, a buffoon, the person I truly despise, etc.

Get lost if you don’t like China, or if you don’t like the comments here, etc.

I am here to disabuse the notion that all young Chinese men are self-pitying inadequates filled with impotent rage.

If you’re unsure, please try to write only pleasant comments.

4. Stay on topic.

Whilst it can be interesting to talk about other issues, please respect the topic raised by the commentator. Do not attempt to divert the conversation to unrelated matters if you don’t like the original question being asked/point being made. You should not use other countries’ circumstances as justification for what happens in China. Two wrongs do not make a right. Also, the past is not justification for the present. Do not prattle on about something that happened two hundred years ago if the discussion is about today or the recent past.

On the other hand, country-to-country comparisons can be useful to provide a historical context, although there are rarely perfect analogies. To discuss China’s acts in context of other country’s act - both present and past - is acceptable and helpful, as long as the purpose of the discussion is to broad understanding of the issues at hand.

5. Post in English.

Please post in English. Do not reproduce large pieces of un-translated Chinese. If you want to inform people of information in Chinese, just post a link. We also have a Chinese section that you can post/comment on in Chinese.

6. No spamming.

Do not keep repeating a point, make stacks of small posts, etc. Use the edit function if you want to add something or wait a bit until other people have had an opportunity to read your first points.

7. No excessive self-promotion.

You can link to your website in your posting profile – do not repeatedly republish links to your website in your posts or to suggest people read/buy/etc works you have partly or wholly contributed to.

8. No commercial posts.

Simple enough.

9. No obscene, indecent or profane comments.

Self-explanatory.

10. Respect the Administration.

The Administration is a group of people who moderate comments. Their instructions are not optional, and they have the final word on posting here. Do not complain about sanctions imposed on you on the website – send an e-mail if you are unsatisfied.

Do not act as if you have the Administration’s authority, such as say someone is not welcome or they will be/should be banned.

Rules Enforcement

New members will always receive at least one warning before sanctioned for their comments. Other members may be warned, though not in every case.

Comments may be hidden (collapsed), deleted or edited depending on the nature of the rule(s) violated.

Repeat offences can lead to suspension of posting privileges without warning. They will be notified by e-mail of the duration, so please use real e-mail addresses when you leave comments.

Suspensions range from 24 hours to indefinite. All suspensions are logged privately, so repeat offenders will have their sanctions escalated promptly. Everyone has a second-chance, so you will be allowed back on ahead of the expiration of longer suspensions if we are convinced that you can behave. However, you must use that second-chance wisely – you are not entitled to another one.

All official comments will be identified with a poster name of “The Administration”. We know who we are, so do not try to impersonate us – you will be automatically banned for doing so.

Regards,

The Administration