|
Angry Chinese Blogger (Mirror)
http://20six.co.uk/angrychineseblogger
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
China: The Locust of Asia?
When
you ask people what comes to mind when they think about China, the
answer will, undoubtedly, vary depending on who is asked. For example,
if you ask a tourist they may say 'history'. If you ask a consumer,
they will probably say 'cheap electronics'. However, if you ask an
environmentalist, they might just respond by describing China as being
like a swarm of locusts; descending on a location and consuming all
natural resources, before moving on to the next feeding ground without
a thought for sustainability or the harm that it causes.
Though
this last response might sound bigoted, and more than a little harsh,
it is not entirely inaccurate. At least not in some instances.
The Locusts of Asia?
For
some time now, China has been well known as a nation on a destructive
path of domestic over consumption. A nation where over-logging has
brought flooding and desertification, where a penchant for rare
delicacies and has borough many animal species to the brink of
extinction, and where the trade in so-called 'traditional medicines'
reads like an A-Z for poachers of endangered animals.
However, in recent years, a new trend has begun to emerge, which has not only pushed the boat out in China's consumption habits, but has pushed it out far beyond China's borders.
As
China's demand grows, and its government moves to protect its dwindling
domestic resources, many in China have been increasingly turning abroad
for to satisfy their tastes.
After informally raiding its
neighbors of Tigers and other animal for medicine and fir and, more
recently, being found to be heavily involved with logging groups who
are stripping large tracts of Indonesia for hardwood from which to make
furniture and flooring, it now appears that China's has developed a
liking for carved ivory.
Of course, trading in ivory has largely
been illegal under international law since 1989, and China is not a
land known for its profusion of elephant. Which is where Africa comes
into the picture.
If information released by the International
Fund for Animal Welfare is accurate, which it is believed to be, China
is now both the world's single most significant destinations for
illegal ivory, and the primary factor in the poaching of African
elephants.
|
"The major driving force for illegal ivory is demand in China"
Jason Bell-Leask, Southern African Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). |
|
Big Business, Bad Businessmen
Recent
reports indicate that up to 75% of all ivory that is poached in Africa
now ends up in China, and that this situation is largely facilitated by
China's substantial industrial and commercial presence on the
continent; A factor which makes it easy for Chinese to obtain ivory at
its source, and which provides the it with a substantial business and
trade network from which to breed middlemen willing to source ivory, or
to put buyers in touch with sellers, and vis versa.
|
"There
have been numerous ivory seizures in Africa which involve Chinese
nationals so we know they are engaged in the trade as one feature of
their [economic] presence on the continent."
Dr Thomas Milliken, Conservationist |
|
According to reports, much the ivory in
places such as Sudan is now being brought by Chinese industrial and
oil. With some buying for their own personal use, but many more buying
in order to re-sell it in China.
|
"[Chinese businessmen and workers] are not buying small quantities, they are buying huge quantities to take back home"
Dr. Esmond Martin |
|
Why?
As with
many similar trends, the reason behind China's entry into the ivory
market is simple; Wealth. With ivory decorations and jewelry
augmenting, or even replacing, more common elements like Jade as the
status symbol of choice among China's newly affluent upper and middle
classes.
Old News
While reports of
China's part in the ivory trade, by the IFWA, make for uncomfortable
reading for both conservationists and China watchers, they come as
little surprise to some, as they fall into line with earlier data
gathered for such reports as the 'Elephant Trade Information System';
an international document on the state of the global trade in illegal
ivory, which have previously reported that much of the the illegal
ivory trade in Africa was being fueled by demand from China.
|
"The
data show that the volume of ivory seized declined from 1989 to 1994,
then gradually increased from 1995 onwards .... If Chinese demand is
removed, the trend line is essentially flat from 1994 onwards,
indicating that this single market alone accounts for the increase in
illegal trade in ivory in recent years"
The Elephant Trade Information System |
|
IWFA reports are also backed up by data from Beijing, which show customs services, in Shanghai alone, as having made an average of 97 ivory seizures per year since 2000, including one instance in September 2002 when 3.3 metric tonnes of ivory was seized by at the Shanghai port of 外高桥 (Waigaoqiao), in 浦东 (Pu Dong).
In
another prior instance, in August 1999, 6 men were taken into custody
after 221 pairs of South African elephant tasks, weighing in at 2
metric tonnes, were seized by Chines officials.
A tale of two trends
Uncomfortably
for China, a similar phenomena of coveting ivory was observer in Japan
during it's economic boom time, with many newly wealthy Japanese
seeking ivory as a status symbol during the 1970s and 80s, in the same
way as them modern Chinese counterparts.
Japan's ivory fever
was, however, largely killed off during the late 80s and early 90s,
when the world wide ban on ivory trading came into force. Though the
current ban which seems to have had little influence on Chinese demand
for ivory.
The Numbers Game
Due to the
covert and dispersed nature of ivory poaching, it is not currently
known exactly how many elephants are killed each year to fuel the ivory
trade. Conservative estimates put the figure at around 4000, though
others go much higher; stating that between 6,000 and 12,000 elephants
are killed by poachers each year.
China is currently believed to
have as few as 150 Asian elephants remaining in the wild. Though some
estimates put their numbers as high as 250. Most of these are believed
to reside in 雲南 (Yunnan) province.
|
1.1.06 11:35
|
|
The 'Wong' Stuff
Organizers
of the Cannes film festival took great pleasure, this week, in
announcing the appointment of the renowned Chinese director 王家衛 (Wong
Karwai), as the jury president for the 59th annual Cannes Film
festival, which is scheduled to begin on 17 May and to run until 28 May
this year.
|
"I am eager to share the dreams of the greatest talents of contemporary cinema with my jury comrades."
王家衛 (Wong Karwai), Director |
|
While not extensively known in the
west, 王家衛 (Wong Karwai) is widely regarded as being one of Asia's most
noteworthy contemporary directory, and is himself, a former veteran of
Cannes; having been awarded a coveted Best Director award in 1997, for
his stirring portrayal of the relationship between two Chinese
homosexuals in 春光乍泄 (Happy Together).
王 (Wong) will be the first Chinese director to head the jury at Cannes.
Questions
Despite
王 (Wong)'s undeniable directorial pedigree, some questions have however
been raised in regard to the placement of a Chinese director at the
head of the jury; Specifically, as to what might occur if he is paired
up against a film that touches on Chinese sensitivities.
Cannes, Controversy, and China
Though
questions have been raised in regards to 王 (Wong) and the judging of
Chinese films, such questions mostly have had less to do with his
honesty and integrity when judging, and more to do with Cannes'
tendency to openly defy Beijing.
As such, questions regarding 王
(Wong) have largely been in relation to concerns that he might come
under pressure form Beijing to come down against any productions that
have been censored or banned in China, and fears that his career might
suffer if he makes a decision that goes against the will of the state
during the festival.
Previously, internationally acclaimed
Chinese director 張藝謀 (Zhang Yimou) was twice censured for his
involvement with the Cannes film festival. Once when his 1994 film
活着 (Lifetime/To live) was screened without approval from state censors,
and once due to the use of his 1997 film 有話好好說 (keep Cool) as a
political pawn by Beijing.
活着 (Lifetime/To live) - a depiction
of the downfall of a wealth Chinese, was banned by Beijing for being
'anti-communist'. It was however show at Cannes without state
permission, going on to win the Special Jury Prize and best actor award
(葛優:Ge You).
It is widely believed that 有話好好說 (keep Cool) was
banned from display at Cannes in order to pressure organizersinto not
displaying another, more controversial, Chinese films; 东宫西宫 (East
place, West place); a rendition of the lives and treatment of
homosexuals in modern day China.
|
"The Ministry of Radio, Film and Television and the Film Bureau will not allow Zhang Yimou's 'Keep Cool' to be sent to Cannes"
Beijing |
|
As a result of his involvement with
Cannes, and his film making, 張 (Zhang) was forbidden from filming
outside China and from accepting external funding.
Despite
actions by Beijing, including the prohibition on 有話好好說 (keep Cool) as
bargaining tool, a copy of 东宫西宫 (East place, West place) was smuggled
out of China by associates of its director 张元 (Zhang Yuan), who was
under house arrest at the time in order to prevent his attendance of
Cannes.
It went on be displayed at Cannes, and to win critical acclaim - much to the fury of Chinese officials.
More
recently, Cannes caused outrage in Beijing in 2004, when it screen Ce
qu'il reste de nous (What remains of us); a documentary depicting the
repression of the Tibetan people, and the erosion of their culture,
under Chinese occupation.
Ce qu'il reste de nous (What remains
of us) was considered so controversial that attendants of its screening
were stripped of cameras, video cameras, and tape recorder, in order to
prevent them from revealing, to Beijing, the identities of the Tibetans
who participated in the documentary.
Comically, Beijing was
unable to publicly denounce Cannes' screening of Ce qu'il reste de nous
(What remains of us) in China because doing so would have been
tantamount to admitting the existence of dissent in Tibet; which
Beijing claims as an integral, and willing, components of China.
王 (Wong) V Beijing
Though
largely avoiding many of the stickier situations in China, by virtue of
operating out of Hong Kong, 王 (Wong) has, himself, run up against a
number of problems when attempting to work with Beijing, and has issued
several vocal criticisms of Chinese tactics in regard to the Honk Kong
films.
|
"we
wanted to make a film in Beijing and call it 'Summer In Beijing'. It
was a love story about two homeless citizens working in Beijing. But
because we had to shoot in Mainland China, we had to submit the script
for approval from the censors, and they had problems with it"
王家衛 (Wong Karwai) |
|
Notably, in 2001, 王 (Wong) struck out
against the mainland's attitude towards free artistic expression
through film, saying that, while Beijing had yet to directly censor the
Hong Kong film industry in the same way as it has done with the
mainland, it has gone out of its way to place barriers between the
territory and the rest of China under which censorship could be
enforced; specifically, that China persists in defining Hong Kong
productions as being 'foreign'.
Though seemingly senseless, and in direct contradiction to Beijing's assertion that the territory is an integral part of China, this categorization allows Hong Kong movies to be restricted under the same system of censorship and quotas, that is used against
films make outside greater China, without the need for Beijing to
directly monitor or intervene with Hong Kong movie institutions, and to
apply censorship to Hong Kong films in a way that is less likely to
arouse the international community.
|
"On
the good side, we can still make films the way we like. We don't have
censorship problems in Hong Kong. On the down side, [Honk Kong
Productions are] still considered foreign films ....... since Hong Kong
films are considered imports, it's very difficult to get a film shown
in China”
王家衛 (Wong Karwai) |
|
|
7.1.06 09:59
|
|
Bigger isn't always better
At
a time of heightened global tension over terrorism and militarism, when
countries like America and Britain are fast seeking to bulk up their
armies with new recruits and reservists in order to meet their
international commitments. It seems rather incongruous that China, an
emerging military superpower, should be doing the exact opposite.
However, that is exactly what has happened.
According to
reports, released through China's state controlled media, the PLA;
China's de-facto military, have announced the completion of a
downsizing exercise which has seen it shed some 200,000 men-at-arms.
Officially,
the troop reductions were made to "improve the quality and structure of
the forces and improve troops combat readiness" and are known come as
part of a three year restructuring plan which was announced in 2003,
which is, in itself, part of a greater military realignment that has
seen China's armed forced reduced in size by approximately 1.7 million
men over the last two decades.
Reports
indicate that most of the cuts have been made among ground troop, and
are thought to be centered on infantry and other low-level 'foot
soldiers', rather than officers, engineers or other specialists.
Estimate
now put the PLA's total number of men-at-between arms 2.3 and 2.5
million. Significantly lower than the 4.2 million men that it is
reported to have possessed during the cold war.
Paradoxical Reasoning
While
some might look at China's manpower reductions and point to them as
being an indicator that China is becoming less hostile, and other's may
be inclined to celebrate them as being a sign that China's military
strength is crumbling under the weight of its economic commitments,
more informed China watchers have however been quick to point out that,
far from making China's military weaker, these reductions actually
serve to strengthen China's military hand, and to bring it closer to
being a force able to directly challenge the other powers operating in
Asia.
Less is More
While, at first, it
may seem paradoxical - reducing troop number to increase military
strength - it make eminent tactical sense for China.
By reducing
troop numbers, Beijing has been able to make substantial cost savings.
Savings which have been ploughed back into the military budget.
Allowing China to purchase more advanced equipment for its remaining
troops, to concentrate its training efforts in more specialist areas;
including special forces and electronic warfare, and to boost its
R&D spending. All without necessitating an increase in total
military budget.
Savings include reduced spending on:
- Troop wages
- Military training
- Combat and non combat equipment
- Barracks, food and lodging
Additionally, by reducing the number of
footsoldiers under its command, Beijing has been able to make
substantial cost savings on equipment storage facilities, equipment
maintenance and administration. Thus streamlining its procurement lines
and reducing the overall overheads involved in keeping troops which are
essentially idle, and allowing it to shorten both its chain of command
and its communications chain.
Alternate Angles
While
military sources, both in the east and west, including those within
China, have summarily backed up the principle - that China has indeed
been cutting troop number in order to free up resources and to raise
the overall quality of its forces - there have been a number of
alternative opinions expressed as to the reasoning behind China's troop
reductions and the motives that spurred such radical departure from the
traditional Chinese military thinking that 'manpower alone would allow China to wear down an opponent through constant attrition'.
As
such, some observers have voiced that Chinese troop reductions may in
actual fact contain a large element of self-protection, and come in
response to a very real fear; 'That a large domestic army, under
the control of politically ambitious Generals, might posse a greater
threat to Beijing than an external force.'
Sound Reasoning
Though
such a fear is one of the contributing factors as to why a number of
countries, most nobably Britain, have never historically maintained a
large standing army, and it is known that there have been fears of
mutiny within China's armed fores in the past, in this instance, it is
widely believed that this fear is only secondary or even tertiary
concern.
As such cost cutting is still though to be the primary factor behind Chinese troop reductions.
|
19.1.06 14:30
|
|
Aiding the enemy: Congress's New Dilema
Given
that the world's headline have recently been brimming over with stories
about the ever increasing number of American companies that have been
checking their morals at the door as they rush commit the acts of
censorship and self censorship necessary to be part of China's
burgeoning internet market, it will probably come as little surprise to
observers to hear that Congress now appear ready to look a lot closer
at the distinctly 'un-American' activities of some American companies
and, if necessary, to put a stop to them.
Congressional Voices
According
to its Chairman - Republican Representative Christopher Smith - the
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights is scheduled to
convene soon, to hear testimonies from human rights group and corporate
interests, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Cisco Systems and Google, in
order to fathom out embarrassing problem of 'the complicity of US companies in internet censorship overseas' and what legislation or guideline, if any, should be introduced in order to put a stop to it.
Though approaching the issue from different political angles, and having different levels of legislative influence/ability,
the Congressional Human Rights Caucus will also be holding its own
independent hearing under the stewardship of Democrat Timothy Ryan, in
regards to the same thorny topic.
The hearings are scheduled for
Mid and early February respectively, with no firm date yet available
for the convening of the Human Rights subcommittee, and a date of 1
February set for the Human Right Caucus.
After a noticable
period of near silence from America's administration, much of this new
attention is thought to be due to a combination of bad press; with the
world's newspapers questioning why American companies have been failing
to uphold American values, and a number of reports from human rights
groups - which have been carrying fewer questions, and more criticisms.
|
“[Technology
and expertise provided by US companies] allows the authorities to read
data transmitted on the Internet and to spot 'subversive' key words”
Reporters Without Borders – Report on information freedom in China |
|
A great deal of this new attention is
also thought, in no small part, to have something to do with recent
reports from closer to home. Including those from influential
Washington think-tanks, which have bee backing up, rather than
disputing, international opinions.
|
"U.S.
companies continue to play an active role in China's Internet
censorship, providing hardware, software and content filtering services"
US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2005 |
|
A Complex Issue?
Although
welcomed by human rights interests and freedom of speech campaigners
alike, this new interest from Congress brings a great many potential
complications with it, and has lead to the asking of a number of
important questions, including:
- What can be done?
- Exactly how involved the federal government should be (legislation V Guideline)
- Who should legislation/guidelines apply to?
- How should legislation/guidelines be enforced?
- Should they be enforced at all (self regulation)?
- Are certain forms of censorship acceptable (censorship to uphold legal/moral standards)?
- Where does responsibility for censorship begin/end?
Already, some observers have answered the
most imediate of these questions by recommending that Washington adopt
an aggressive stance and draft new legislation that would actively
inhibit American companies from being complicit in censorship, and
which would allow the leveling of sanctions against them if they
persist.
Conversely, other groups actively prefer a more
informal approach. Favoring the drafting of self-regulatory guidelines
and a 'voluntary code of practice', which companies could choose to
follow, or ignore, as as appropriate.
Additionally, and in the
light of existing confusions, a number of observers have also voiced
strong fears that, unless measures are well drafted, and set within a
strong framework, they could potentially have serious and unexpected repercussions for American businesses, or even be open to abuse
The Moral Paradox
Among
the fears being held by some, one of the greatest is that, unless
clearly defined, any Congressional moves to stop US companies from
being complicit in overseas censorship, may have unexpected side
effect, particularly where freedom of expression conflicts with moral
imperatives, and that any new legislation could potentially be used to
put US companies in the impossible position having to choose between
breaching local laws or face censure back home.
As such, worried parties have cited a
recent case where the French arm of Yahoo, at the request of the French
judiciary, censored its users by removing items relating to the Nazi (ナチ / 納粹 from its French auction and dissemination services
Critics have voiced that the same
legislation that would prevent US a company from censuring a Uygur
website seeking to 'revise' Chinese history in regards to 新疆 (Xingjiang),
and to oust Han rule in East Turkestan, could, potentially, also be
also used to compel Yahoo to allow French citizens to deny the
holocaust and trade in Nazi (ナチ / 納粹 memorabilia on their website.
While, under French law, the sale of items, promotion of ideologies, or denial of war crimes, relating to the the Nazi (ナチ / 納粹,
is forbidden, all of these activities are protected as basic human
rights under the US constitution; which guarantees freedom of
expression and association, even in the case of revisionism and hate
speeches.
|
"It
is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom
in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous
course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say
and hear”
Judge Bernard M. Decker, US District Court (Speaking in regards to National Socialist Party V Village of Skokie) |
|
As such, the removal of Nazi (ナチ / 納粹 item
from Yahoo's French website, under local law, could be constituted as
illegal censorship under any new US laws governing complicity in
overseas censorship.
Similarly, the same legislation that would
punish a US search engine for blocking access to sites about democratic
reform, in China, could also be used to punish them for blocking
Chinese users who are trying access pornographic or 'adult' art sites.
Which which are illegal in China, but protected under US statutes on
Freedom of Expression,
The Economic Paradox
In
addition to moral issues, Congress also faces a number of stark
concerns from the business community. With US companies stating bluntly
that, if they refuse to comply with Chinese demands, and the
requirement that all web services must be hardwired for censorship,
China will simply switch to other foreign companies that are more
willing to please.
Warning that, In effect, any legislation to enforce domestic constitutional standards on companies working in China could 'hand American contracts, and American jobs, to oversea competitors who are not 'burdened' by such regulations'.
|
"If Yahoo [doesn't do] business in China, someone else will"
Sonia Arrison, Director of Technology Studies, free-Market Pacific Research Institute. |
|
Observers have also raised questions
regarding the scope of any legislation, and its application to
culpability and 'duel use' technology. Specifically:
- To what level a company can be held responsible if its products are used for censorship
- Exactly what constitutes an American company.
In this line, observers have raised the
case of California based California Cisco Systems, which is known to
have provided Beijing with a substantial proportion of its internet
filtering capabilities.
Participant, Bystander, or Blameless Tool?
While Cisco's products are is used extensively to filter the internet in China,
and to block sites deemed 'unhealthy' by Beijing, they can also be used
and used for legitimate filtering efforts, including the filtering out
of sites containing child pornography or terrorist bomb making
instructions.
Additionally, Ciso's products are designed for
network control, with filtering, and thus censorship capabilities,
being only a small part of a much larger package of features.
Cisco's
products can also be purchased, installed, or reprogrammed for active
censorship, without Cisco's knowledge, assistance, or consent.
As American as Fried Tofu?
Further
more, Cisco is a multi national company with operations and facilities
in a significant number of countries. Leading observers to question
whether or not it could simply 'spin off' its China arm in order to
escape legislation; Effectively creating a new company that could
operate outside US law.
How any future legislation might deal with such an eventuality is, as yet, unclear.
Other Voices
Though
coming at a particularly public juncture of the row, current efforts
are not the first time that legislation to prevent the censorship of
foreign internet access has been proposed to Washington. Though, most
previous proposals have been broader in scope, and have focused more on
the prevention of censorship, than the disassociation of US companies
from it.
The Global Internet Freedom Act?
In
October 2002, Congressmen Christopher Cox and Thomas Lantos proposed
legislation (The Global Internet Freedom Act) to create the 'Office of
Global Internet Freedom'. A body working under the auspices of the
'Broadcasting Board of Governors'; the federal agency that maintains
the 'Voice of America' and 'Radio Free Asia'.
Under proposals,
the Office of Global Internet Freedom would have the remit to "develop
and implement a comprehensive global strategy to combat state-sponsored
and state-directed Internet jamming, and persecution of those who use
the Internet."
|
"The
Chinese government, and sadly, too many other regimes around the world,
have been aggressively blocking access to the Internet, monitoring
Internet activity and punishing those who seek only to share
information"
Christopher Cox, Congressman, US (speaking before the US-C ESRC, June 2003) |
|
Initially, OGIF was proposed as having
a budget of $US100 Million over two years, however, this was paired
down to $US16 in July 2003.
Controversy
Despite
the apparent benevolent intentions of the proposed body and bill,
critics have however questioned whether they would really be a force
for the preservation and promotion of global internet freedoms, or if
they would merely be another avenue for the furtherance of US
ideologies. With critics asking whether such an office would, for
example, fight with equal vigor to protect websites promoting socialism
in South America, as it would sites promoting US style democracy in
China.
Irony
Ironically, just as any new
legislation to prevent US companies from assisting repressive regimes
in censoring the internet could potentially force US companies to host
or promote hate speeches, or force them out of expanding markets –
handing sizable economic advantages over to foreign competitors – it is
also thought that the actions by the OGIF might have a number
'undesirable' consiquences.
Currently, it is thought that a
substantial component of the OGIF budget would likely be devoted to the
development of filter avoidance software, and the creation of
proxy/cached servers to allow people to access information without fear
of being traced or identified. However if left open and unmonitored -
as would be required in order to be trustworthy to many seeking access
to politically sensitive websites - the same systems that would allow
users in China to access pro-democracy sites without being blocked or
traced, could also be used by pedophiles and other sexual offenders in
America to 'cloak' their identities and gain access to pornographic
material, and by those seeking to commit online crime against US
citizens, including perpetrating acts of identity theft and the
collecting of information that could be used to commit acts of
terrorism.
Explanations, or Excuses?
In
the face of criticism, both from home and abroad, most US based most
multi-nationals, involved in Chinese censorship claims, have fallen
back to two common lines of defense;
- That they are following local laws, and have no choice but to comply if they wish to continue to operate in that market.
|
"wherever
we do business around the world [governments] impose restrictions on
access to information, and of course we are obliged by law to follow
them"
Debbie Frost, Google |
|
- That they are providing a services or product, and cannot be held accountable if the client misuses or abuses it.
|
"Our perspective is that it's the user, not Cisco, that determines the functionality and uses to which the technology is put"
Terry Alberstein, Asia-Pacific Spokesperson, Cisco Systems |
|
Some companies, most notably the
internet each giant Google, have also responded that their 'apparent
acts of censorship' actually have no impact on access to information in
countries like China because of restrictions that are already in place.
In
an earlier statement, representatives from Google issued the defense
that, while they did prevent users from searching for pages containing
certain keywords, and they did ban certain stories from their news feed
system, this did not impact on the overall experience of Chinese users
because they was merely filtering out pages that Chinese users would
not be able to access anyway, due to existing government censorship; In
effect saying that, because users could not open a page, there was
little point in returning a heading for it in a Chinese search engine.
|
"The experience for users in China searching on Google.com has not been changed by Google in any way"
Debbie Frost, Google |
|
While
proponents have claimed that Google is merely excluding 'unreachable
pages', and that in doing so it is sparing users the frustration of
being presented with pages that they cannot open, critics have equally
voiced that Google's actions are harmful because they not only
prevented users from learning of a pages existence, so that they could
use anti-censorship software to view it, but that it also created the
dangerous illusion that, because a user could not find pages on a
certain topic, that there were no pages in existence on that topic.
Thus creating a highly polarized, and very dangerous, environment,
where it appears that no dissenting information exists.
Complicity
So far, US Companies implicated in Chinese censorship include, but are not limited to:
- Yahoo
– Handing over of documents and IP record necessary to convict the
journalist Shi Tao, and the long term blocking of 'key words' from its
Chinese language search engine.
- Google – Active censorship of its Chinese language of news service and search engine.
- Cisco Systems – Complicity in censorship through the provision of internet filtering and monitoring systems
- Microsoft
– The banning of 'key words' from its Chinese language blogging service
and the recent deletion a prominent pro-democracy blog at the request
of the Chinese state
- Sun Microsystems – The Supply of advanced filtering equipment
- Websense – The Supply of internet censorship software
Readers are free to add their own names to the above list using the comments box below.
|
19.1.06 14:30
|
|
'Bear' faced cheek
As
anybody who ever has done business in China will tell you, there are
two golden rules that should be followed at all times if you want your
dealings to bear fruit:
1) NEVER put a Chinese in a situation where they will loose face
2) NEVER question or insult any element of Chinese tradition
Unfortunately, nobody seems to have told this to the EU.
Unfortunate Remarks
Condemning
the practice as being "cruel and uncivilized", the EU, last month,
issued a blanket statement to Beijing. Demanding that China put an end
to the practice of farming bears for their bile before the 2008 opening
of the Olympic games, and linking China's treatment of animals to its
image in the international community.
|
"We want China to shut all the bear farms before the 2008 Olympics,"
Peter Skinner, Member of the European Parliament (Britain) |
|
Predictably, China's response to this demand was, metaphorically at least, to politely request that
EU member states insert their collective heads into the backside of a
large bear. Then take five minutes out to reflect on why 'insulting a
country's traditions', and 'threatening its face', are not good
negotiating tactics.
This is to say, that the answer was a resounding NO.
The Rebutal
Speaking
during a press briefing on animal welfare, made on 12 January, Wang
Wei; the Deputy Chief of the State Forestry Administration's
'Department for Wildlife Conservation', strongly denied claims by the
EU, that China's bear farms were "cruel and uncivilized". Stating
firmly that farms were well regulated and that bears did not suffer.
Moving
to dismiss any fears over the bear farming industry, and to confirm
Beijing's continued commitment to it, Wang stressed that modern
technology was now being using in China's bear farms, and that strict
regulations meant that China had largely eradicated the cruel bear
farming tools of the past.
Wang also took time out to stress the
role that bear farms played in conservation: stating that each farmed
bear saved the life of up to 220 wild bears, who would otherwise be
poached for their gallbladders, and to denounce western environmental
groups. Who he accused of using 'misleading' file-photographs -
pictures that were many years out of date – which were representative
of the way that Chinese bear farming was many years ago, but not of the
way that it is today, in an effort to raise funds for themselves, and
to smear the Chinese bear farming industry.
|
“We
have noticed that some organizations or individuals still use the past
videos and photos or some illegal cases to cover or exaggerate the
current status. This is actually distorting the facts and shows the
intension of misleading donors for resource mobilization”
Wang Wei |
|
As is customary for Chinese officials
when making such accusations, Wang did not name any specific group as
being involved in misleading fundraising practices, or provide any
information that could be used to independently verify his claims.
White Makes Right?
Aside from ruffling feathers in Beijing, the EU's ultimatum to China has also not gone down to well among some observer's camps.
With a number of China watchers accusing the EU of 'gross hypocrisy'
and of possessing a 'typical white superiority complex'. Suggesting
instead that the European Union might be well served if it directed its
attention towards the so-called 'traditions' of its own member states,
before it begins criticizing China of animal cruelty.
As such,
observers directed attention towards EU members France and Spain.
Noting that, while Spain continues to maintain numerous cruel practices
towards bulls; including bull fighting and bull running, France
recently signed into law a directive protecting Pate Foie Gras as a
'national institution'.
Pate Foie Gras is produced by force
feeding birds with up to almost 1KG of food per day, resulting in organ
damage, and causing the animal significant distress.
The
production of Pate Foie Gras is currently banned in many countries, but
France still persists in producing in the region of 14000 tons per year.
The 'Bear' Facts
Each
year, China's bear farms are believed to produce approximately 7000kg
of bile, half of which is used in modern and traditional medicine;
where it can be used to treat ailments of the liver and gallbladder,
and half of which is used in cosmetics and other luxury products; where
it serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
Most of these luxury
bile products are considered to be a 'cash crop' and are often sold to
tourists, despite export restrictions. Bringing in a health profit for
Chinese bear farmers and bile product sellers.
|
"It is an added disgrace that an oversupply of bile is being used in products with no medicinal value”
Peter Skinner |
|
At current market prices, bear bile can sell for $US4,500 per kilo.
According
to EU statistics, China currently is currently 'framing' approximately
7000 bears in aournd 200 active farms, though some outside estimates
put the figure closer to 70 farms.
Tradition or Tragedy?
While
bear farming is a tragedy in itself, what makes this situation all the
more tragic is that bear bile is medically unnecessary.
Although
bear bile is known to have some curative properties, its active
ingredient, ursodeoxycholic acid (C24H40O4), was identified by Japanese
scientists approximately 50 years ago, and is it now available in a
synthesised form that is both, as effective as the bear based product,
and readily available on the open market.
Current estimates put
the current consumption of synthetic bear bile at 100 tons each year,
with Japan, South Korea and China being the primary consumers.
According
to Chinese herbalists, there are also at least 50 herbal alternatives
to bear bile. Most of which are not only more humane, but also more
affordable and easier to prepare and administer, than bear bile.
|
"Research
shows there are many combinations of herbs available that can be
administered for ailments currently treated with bear bile. And they
are easier and cheaper to use"
Dr. Lo Yan-wo, Herbalist and Traditional Chinese healer |
|
However, despite the availability of a
synthetic product, and numerous traditional alternatives to bear bile,
many Chinese still prefer the 'natural' version. A situation that many
observers have put down to a combination of Chinese superstition and
pride. With many Chinese still holding on to the belief that the body
parts of a strong animals are endowed with the animal's strength; thus
will make potent medicines, and the idea that consuming expensive
products, such as bear bile, is a legitimate symbol of status and power.
|
"It's a mystique thing -- superstitious thinking. They believe a powerful animal should produce a powerful medicine."
Anthony Marr, Environmentalist |
|
Image Problems
Though
Chinese traditions have undoubtedly played a part in the continuance of
bear farming, environmentalists have also voiced that Beijing's
attitude to bear farms has been a great hindrance. Stating that,
because bear farming is regulated by the state, many in China view it
in the same light as the farming of any other livestock, and because
protests against bear farms are 'discouraged' in the same way as
protests for democracy, that there is little or no social pressure on
bear farmers, or bile users, to stop.
|
"People believe because it's farmed, it's okay."
Judy Mills, Wildlife Trade monitoring program, World Wildlife Foundation |
|
A full English language transcript of Wang's speech can be found at http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/xw/t231011.htm
|
19.1.06 14:31
|
|
The Banning of a Geisha: Is the only good Japanese a bad Japanese?
It goes without saying that one of the most important maxims in life is that 'You shouldn't criticize something until you have gotten to know it'.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what many Chinese may never get a chance
to do with Rob Marshall's contentious new film 'Memoirs of a Geisha'
because, according to rumor at least, it is about to be 'banned in
China'.
Memoirs of a Geisha, titled 艺伎回忆录 in Chinese, had
originally be scheduled to appear in Chinese theatres on 19 February,
but it has now been officially put on hold, with no date yet available
for its release, and little state comment on when, or even if, it will
be approved for viewing in China.
A situation that has been
heightened by reports in number of Chinese newspapers, including the
Shanghai Youth Daily, which claim that 'Geisha' may be banned from
release all together, on the grounds that it might incite anti-Japanese
sentiment, and that its screening might provoke a sharp backlash among
viewers and critics.
Tension?
Though not
tackling Sino-Japanese affairs, 'Geisha' earlier created outrage among
many Chinese nationalist because of its cast. Specifically, the fact
that two of the lead Japanese characters were played by the Chinese
actresses 章子怡 (Zhang Ziyi) and 鞏俐 (Gong Li). With nationalists calling
both 章子怡 (Zhang Ziyi) and 鞏俐 (Gong Li) 'traitors' for acting outside
their race, and voicing the opinion that no Chinese should play a
Japanese because of Japan's record of aggression against China during
WWII.
章子怡 (Zhang Ziyi) also received sharp Criticism for
engaging in a number of 'intimate' scenes with Japanese actor 渡辺謙
(Watanabe Ken), who played the male lead. Chinese nationalists have
decried 章 (Zhang)'s participation in these scenes being “Shameful”.
Observer
however noted that, while nationalist complained bitterly about 章子怡
(Zhang Ziyi) and 鞏俐 (Gong Li)'s roles in 'Geisha', they did not extend
their criticism of Chinese playing Japanese to the hundreds of other
Chinese actors and actresses who have been cast as 'wicked Japanese' in
numerous Chinese made movies.
Leading some to questions the true
motives of critics, and to suggest that their complaints may have had
more to do with the sympathetic way that 章子怡 (Zhang Ziyi) and 鞏俐 (Gong
Li) portrayed their Japanese characters, than the fact that they were
playing Japanese at all.
The State?
According
to Mao Yu, a senior official with China's state run Film Bureau, who
described 'Geisha' as being a "very complex" issue, no formal decision
has yet been made in regards to whether 'Geisha' will be released,
censored or banned.
When pressed on the issue, Mao refused to
give further information on 'Geisha' or its release. Intimating that
the issue was still under consideration, but that was too sensitive to
discuss at the present time.
|
"I can't tell you anything more because it is just too sensitive,"
Mao Yu, Director Propaganda and Publishing, state Film Bureau, China. |
|
The Only Good Japanese is a Bad Japanese
Despite
there being some genuine reasons to fear that 'Geisha' might generate a
nationalist backlash, particularly in light of the approaching
anniversary of the state backed anti-Japanese demonstrations that
rocked China during 2005, some observers have expressed that there
might be an additional motive behind Beijing's reluctance to permit the
film's screening.
This being the fact that 'Geisha' contains a
number of emotionally intense scenes that could well compel a Chinese
audience to sympathises with the main character, and to empathising
with a Japanese as a victim of the Japanese system, rather to feel
hatred towards her for being part of aggressor nation, as Japan was
during the period in which 'Geisha' was set.
This view is
regarded as being made all the more pertinent by the fact that much of
the film takes place during a time when Chinese history records
Japanese as suffering few hardships, particularly in relation to the
war and its aftermath, and as being near incapable of feeling pain,
sorrow or regret in the same way as a Chinese.
Were a Chinese to
watch the film, and to empathises with a Japanese of the time or the
Chinese actress playing her, they might also be more willing to
empathise with modern Japanese, and to accept that only a few Japanese
fit the stereotypical views perpetuated by Chinese cinema. A situation
that Chinese nationalists no doubt wish to avoid at all costs.
What's
more, because the film is American in origin, not Japanese, and has a
substantial Chinese cast, it cannot be dismissed by nationalists as
being Japanese propaganda or a Japanese whitewash of the period.
Further
credibility is leant to this, as being a factor, by the notion that the
Chinese media still maintains a highly combative image of Japan and
Sino-Japanese history - particularly in regards to Japanese aggression
- which have a far higher potential to bring about, or maintain,
anti-Japanese sentiment than 'Geisha', but it has suffered little or no
censorship in this area.
Broader Implications
Although
some observers have noted that, were Beijing to ban 'Geisha', it would
likely still be available to many Chinese on pirate DVDs and VCD, one
of the wider implications of a ban would be that discussion of the film
would also likely be restricted to state approved topics because it is
a standard practice for Chinese censors to ban the media from
reviewing, discussing, or reporting on the content of a banned film,
and to restrict all media comment to 'pre approved' articles produced
by the state.
Were this to be the case with 'Geisha', as it has
been with many other films, this would not only mean that many Chinese
would not have the opportunity to view the film, and to make up their
own minds, but those who had seen it, or were interested in the topic,
would be largely unable to publicly discuss it.
Uncertainty
At
this time, it is not clear whether of not 'Geisha' will be banned, and
many live in the hope that the rumors of its impending banning are just
rumors, and that Chinese censors will permit it to be screened in full.
In
this light, supporters have voiced that 'Geisha' might actually have a
soothing effect on Sino-Japanese relations, rather than an agitating
one as it brings together Chinese and Japanese actors and shows
Japanese society in a way rarely seen in China/
|
21.1.06 15:52
|
|
You don't have to be mad to protest in China, but it helps.
To paraphrase the old wester adage, "You don't have to be crazy to protest in China, but it help".
And if you don't happen to be crazy, there is apparently nothing to
stop the state from saying that you are, and locking you up.
According a reports released by the New York based human rights group 中國人權 (Human Rights in China) , Liu Xinjuan, a prominent 上海 (Shanghai)
land activist who is well known for her efforts in fighting forced
evictions and illegal land-seizures, was detained earlier this week,
and committed to a mental institution on state orders.
Although
there has been little official word on the reasons for Liu's detention
and subsequent committal, sources indicate that she was seized by
Chinese security force in 静安 (Jiang'an) District Park, Shanghai, on 16 January.
After her seizure, Liu was taken to a secured compound, thought to be the Qibao Dispatch Station, in 上海 (Sanghai)'s 闵行区 (Minhang
District), where she was interrogated by security forces for several
hours, before being transfered to the Beiqiao Mental Hospital. Where
she was committed for 'treatment' on the grounds that she was 'mentally
unsound'.
Reports indicate that Liu was 'bound and gagged' during the transfer, and that she had been badly beaten while in custody.
Prior to her detention, Lui had been attempting to meet with fellow activists in 静安 (Jiang'an) District Park, in preparation for a march to deliver a petition to state official meeting in the Sanghai Sino-Soviet Friendship Building.
"litigation mania"
Although
not often spoken of, it is a well known for Chinese authorities to
commit persistent protectors and activists, like Liu, to mental
institutions, under the claim that they are suffering from persecution
complexes that cause them to mount 'irrational campaigns of harassment'
against state or corporate interests.
This condition has been
colloquially dubbed "litigation mania" by Chinese Police psychiatrists,
and authorities claim that, by detaining activists in mental
institutes, they are 'serving the public good' and 'protecting
stability.
However, "litigation mania" and the detention of
activists in mental institutions has been categorically dismissed, by
human rights interests, as being 'an excuse' to detain persistent
protectors outside of the normal judicial system, and as a tool to
discredit them as being 'mentally unsound' in a country where mental
illness is still not publicly understood
Liu was previously committed to a mental institution in 2003 because of her protest activities.
|
21.1.06 15:53
|
|
[next page]
|
