|
Angry Chinese Blogger (Mirror)
http://20six.co.uk/angrychineseblogger
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
Wo Ting Bu Dong: Mandarin Fever - American Style
There's a new kind of panic in town, and it's all about China, but its not what you might otherwise expect.
It's not about Chinese factories pirating American DVDs, Chinese workers stealing American
jobs, or Chinese soldiers killing Americans in a war over
Chinese-Taiwan. It's not even about China doing any of those dastardly
things that Congress tells you that 'commies' do. but which ex-pats in
China see neither hide nor hair of while they're there. No, in fact
it's about America waking to the fact that very few Americans speak
Mandarin Chinese.
Wo Ting Bu Dong: Sorry mate, Can't understand a Word You're saying.
While
the US government seems to be doing all that it can to restrict China's
growth, and to keep the Chinese influence on America's economy to a
minimum, there appears to be one group of people with a more pragmatic
approach; America's parents, who are increasingly keen to see their
children study Mandarin Chinese as a way of boosting their chances of
grabbing hold of a piece of the modern world's fastest rising star.
However
this sudden demand for Mandarin Chinese raises some awkward problem for
Washington, whose tough immigration and anti-terrorism regulations laws
make obtaining a working Visa for a native speaking Mandarin teacher
about as much fun as having your toenails pulled out at the roots by a
Guantanamo guard, and whose failing education system is in dire need of
both teachers and funding for basic subject like English and Math, and
cannot afford for valuable resources to be drawn away to yet another
curriculum area.
It also raises some embarrassing questions for
America, including; why doesn't the largest single military power in
the Asia Pacific region already have an established nationwide program
for teaching the largest single language in the Asia Pacific region?,
and why, when Congress is still pushing China as being an irrelevant
and predatory country, good only for making cheap T-shirts at the
expense of American jobs, are so many American families seeing such a
large slice of America's future prosperity in doing business with
China?
For some of the answers, and a lot more questions, read on:
|
America in 'critical need' of Mandarin by Julian Borger
The
US is being swept by a rush to learn Mandarin, the official form of the
language used in mainland China. From wealthy New York mothers hiring
Chinese nannies for their toddlers, to west coast parents demanding
classes from their local schools to a defence department education
project in Oregon.
The twin forces driving Mandarin's momentum
are parental ambition for children facing a future in which China is
almost certain to be a major player, and a government worried that
America may get left behind in that new world order.
Grassroots
demand is expanding exponentially. In a recent survey of US high
schools 2,400 said they would consider teaching Mandarin if resources
were available. By comparison, only 240 chose Italian and 175 chose
Japanese, which was the fashionable language some 20 years ago when
Japan was still considered an economic miracle.
However, the
last time a reliable survey was done a couple of years ago, only 203
high schools across the country and about 160 elementary schools were
actually teaching Chinese.
All in all, there are thought to be
about 50,000 American schoolchildren studying Mandarin at public
schools and another 50,000 outside the public system, in private and
specialist schools. In 2002, there were about 34,000 Mandarin students
in US universities, a 20% increase on the 1998 figure but hardly a
revolution in US language education.
The bottleneck is the
supply of teachers. Mandarin instructors are difficult to import and
difficult to train. There are visa problems in bringing over teachers
from China but the biggest barrier is cultural. Teaching in Asia is
generally done by rote and the change to western, interactive styles of
instruction can be a substantial leap.
On the other hand, it
requires enormous tenacity for westerners to learn a language like
Mandarin, with its thousands of written characters and its tonal
nuances. According to the Asia Society in New York, all of America's
teacher-training institutions turn out only a couple of dozen
home-grown Mandarin teachers a year.
"Our teacher education
system is not geared up for producing these teachers," said Michael
Levine, the Asia Society's head of education. "We need to figure out
some incentives."
One way to ease the shortage is to find native
Mandarin speakers and use fast-track methods to train them. However,
the majority of Chinese-Americans grew up speaking Cantonese, the
dialect spoken in Hong Kong, where their parents came from. Many are
themselves signing on as Mandarin students at the private language
schools springing up on the west coast.
Alarmed at the shortage
of Chinese language speakers in its ranks, the Pentagon is trying a
pilot project of its own in Oregon, funding an integrated chain of
Mandarin classes from kindergarten to university.
Bret Lovejoy,
the executive director of the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages, which is helping coordinate the defence department
programme, said three more Mandarin projects and one in Arabic would be
started this year around the country. But, for the moment, these are
just isolated experiments. "The money that has come from the federal
level so far has been a drop in the bucket," he said.
There are
various bills making slow progress around Congress aimed at changing
that and channelling significant federal investment into Chinese
language learning. One bill sponsored by senators Lamar Alexander and
Joseph Lieberman envisions spending $1.3bn on US-Chinese cultural
exchange projects, mostly involving language.
Without White
House backing, congressional spending bills often end up as little more
than good intentions, but that has changed this year. As part of his
drive to maintain and improve American competitiveness, George Bush
unveiled what he called his National Security Language Initiative in
January, aimed at a dramatic increase in the number of Americans
learning "critical need" languages, including Chinese, as well as
Arabic, Russian, Hindi and Farsi.
"Deficits in foreign language
learning and teaching negatively affect our national security,
diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence communities and cultural
understanding," the White House warned in a statement marking the
launch of the programme.
Lovejoy is optimistic that the
initiative could mark a turning point in foreign language teaching,
which has always been the poor cousin of the US education system.
"I
hope the president's announcement shakes something loose in Congress
this year, or at least sets in motion a serious debate about language
learning in this country. This is of critical importance to our
economy, not just our national security," he argued.
There are,
however, dissenting voices who see the rush to Mandarin as little more
than a fad fuelled by over-hyped anxiety over impending Chinese
hegemony. Writing in the International Herald Tribune in January, Andy
Mukherjee, a commentator for Bloomberg News, scoffed: "Fear of China is
making Americans so nervous that some of them have stopped thinking
rationally. At least that is the impression I draw from the whole craze
in the US about learning Chinese."
Mukherjee argued that so many
Chinese students were learning English that it would not be
cost-effective for Americans to pour hundreds of millions of dollars
and years of their time into learning Mandarin. English would become
the norm for commerce in China. The money, he concluded, would be
better spent on teaching mathematics, in which American children are
falling far behind their Chinese counterparts.
Unsurprisingly,
Lovejoy is unimpressed by these arguments, which he sees as a form of
linguistic Luddism. "To ignore a language spoken by more than 1 billion
people is idiotic and dangerous," he wrote in response. "We will only
maintain our position at the international trade table if we learn to
speak to our suppliers and customers in other countries on their terms."
The
White House and the Pentagon clearly agree, judging by the seriousness
with which they are treating the widening "language gap" with China.
It
does seem that big federal money is beginning to flow into Mandarin
teaching. The question now is whether American students can rise to the
linguistic challenge.
Care of the Guardian, Original URL
http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,1727000,00.html |
|
|
10.3.06 21:03
|
|
The Rights and Wrongs of Buying Back China's History
When
most people are asked about China, there are a number of images that
people think of, and one of the most prominent is that of China being a
country with a long and proud history.
However, one of the
reasons that this image comes so readily to mind is not because of any
effort of the Chinese people. Instead, it is largely due to the fact
that a many of the physical epitaphs of this long and proud history
have been systematically removed from China, by generations of foreign
interlopers, and have been put on display in museums and private
collections around the world.
Naturally, this is something that a lot of Chinese are none to happy about.
This is where the 'the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program' steps up to the plate.
The Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program?
The
Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program is a Mainland Chinese NGO and
subsidiary of the China Foundation for the Development of Folklore
Culture.
It was founded in October 2002 and has since dedicated
itself to locating Chinese cultural artifacts that were taken by
foreigners, and to raising the funds necessary to return them to the
Mainland..
|
"We
want to retrieve the lost artworks, because they belong to this country
and its culture. They originated in China, and China is where they
should be, forever. Their cultural value can be appreciated by the
world, but they should be preserved in their home countries"
Zhang Yongnian, Director, Lost cultural relics recovery program (2003) |
|
As part of this ongoing mission, the
Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program have, this week, announced that
they are about to embark on a substantial artifact cataloging program.
Although
details are sketchy at present, organization representatives have
announced that they are to begin searching overseas antique and
antiquities expositions in order better assess the market for Chinese
relics, with the eventual aim of locating artifacts that are 'of
significant importance' and returning them to China.
According
to Niu Xianfeng, a senior figure with the group, the expedition will
begin in Asia this May before expanding to cover Europe and potentially
the US.
In addition to seeking out and retrieving lost relics,
the group is also to be accompanied by a group of Chinese antiquities
and craft experts, who will be providing advice and information on
Chinese arts and crafts.
What Came Before?
China
and Chinese groups have previously made a number of formal and informal
requests for the return of Chinese artifacts from overseas collections,
but have, for the largest part, been turned down or met with requests
to pay the market price for artifacts.
The most notable of these
occasions was in 2002, shortly after the founding of the Lost Cultural
Relics Recovery Program, when curators and officials from 18
international institutes issued a joint declaration in which they
declined calls for the wholesale return of Chinese artifacts in their
possession.
|
"The
objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even
centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired
under conditions that are not comparable with current ones"
Joint Declaration (19 December 2002) |
|
China had claimed that artifacts in the
museums possession had been stolen or looted from China, by foreigners,
and thus should be returned. Stating that refusal to return artifacts
was in breach of a United Nations treaty (Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property), which mandates signatory nations to
return artifacts that were plundered during times of war.
|
“If the relic is stolen or was taken out of China illegally then it clearly should be returned to the motherland"
Forbidden City Museum, Beijing |
|
Legally, however, the treaty is only binding for items obtained after 1970, and does not cover most Chinese relics.
Institutes
involved in the joint declaration included France's Louvre, America's
Metropolitan Museum of Art and Spain's Prado Museum.
Buying back History
While
relatively unknown outside of interested circles, the Lost Cultural
Relics Recovery Program is not alone in its endeavors to return Chinese
artifacts to China.
In recent years, a number of Chinese
businesses and business men have made a concerted effort to recover
Chinese artifacts, and have repeatedly moved to use their new found
wealth in order to 'buy back' culturally important items as they appear
in auction around the world.
At the forefront of this effort have been organizations like the China-Poly Group, which, in 2000, famously 'brought back' three 18th century bronze Zodiac statues at auctions.
The
statues, a Boar's head brought at the Sotheby's auction house, and an
Ox and a Monkey's head brought at the Christie's auction house, were
originally part of a water feature at the the Old Summer Palace in
Beijing.
They were stolen by British and French soldiers when they sacked the site in the 1860s.
A
fourth Zodiac statue in the set, a Tiger's head, was later brought at
auction, from a New York collection, by Macao based Casino millionaire
Stanley Ho
Ho later donated the statue to China-Poly as a 'gesture of good will'.
Accounts of the prices paid for these artifacts vary.
Some sources
put the combined values of the Pig, Ox and Monkey heads at half a
million US Dollars, and the Tiger's head at three quarters of a million
US Dollars.
Other sources have, however, put the three statue's purchase price at between $US4 and $US5 Million and the Tiger's head at $US1 Million.
The lower of the two figures is converted from Hong Kong Dollars.
Why should Chinese buy back what is already theirs?
While
many wealthy Chinese have coveted the face and attention borough to
them by publicly 'buying back' China's heritage, others in China have
suggested that they might be doing more harm than good. With some
observers warning that the large amounts of money being expended by
some groups may actually exasperate problems by driving up the price of
Chinese artifacts on the open market.
A situation that would
likely encourage the theft or sale of artifacts already in China, and
would certainly push the price of many artifacts out of reach of less
wealthy Mainland interests. Thus depriving China of harming efforts to
keep relics in China and damaging efforts to return lost relics.
|
"money can only stimulate illegal relics dealing"
Wang Shixiang, scholar |
|
Other observers have also voiced that
Beijing should be engaged in rigorous legal actions action, rather than
sitting back and allowing business to take the lead, and have condemned
what they see China 'buying back' items that rightfully belonged to the Chinese people anyway.
As
such, these groups have called on Beijing to formally step up efforts
to demand the wholesale return of relics, and to use both the legal
system, and political, pressure to force foreign museums and collectors
to 'hand-over' Chinese relics.
|
"I
think we should show the world just how determined we are to regain our
relics as we have lost so many throughout history. We need them to
preserve our traditional culture and so future generations can marvel
at their beauty. We should therefore do everything in our power to get
them back"
Li Xueqin, Director, Study Center on Ancient Culture, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences |
|
As would be expected, this suggestion
has caused a great deal of concern in some circles, and have lead to
fears that Beijing might soon launch 'a legal crusade' in an
attempt to force private collectors and historical institutions to
return artifacts that it believes were wrongfully taken.
Property and Propriety
While
agreeing that China does have an indisputable and inalienable right to
have looted artifacts returned to it, observers have warned that a
program of legal claims, calling for the return of artifacts, has the
potential to turn into an accusation filled farce because of two simple
facts:
1) A substantive proportion of 'stolen Chinese artifacts'
were not considered to have been stolen at the time that they were
removed from China.
2) The origins of many artifacts, particularly smaller items, are not clear, or are disputed.
Indeed,
although invading Japanese soldiers and colonial western imperialists
did unlawfully remove many Chinese treasures, many other artifacts were
traded legally by merchants and even brought by colonists and 'free spending imperialist soldiers' looking for trinkets to send home as souvenirs.
Many
more artifacts were also sold under duress, sold by parties whom
historians feel had no right to sell them, or have disputed origins.
All of which make it almost impossible to tell if many artifacts were
looted or if they were legally exported.
In this light, critics
have warned that, were China to take wholesale legal action, disputes
could break out that have the potential to substantively tarnish the
relationships between Chinese and foreign institutes. Damaging China's
image in the eyes of the foreign public, and making collectors and
museums less likely to reach acceptable compromises on the return of
relics in the future.
While largely speculative at present, such concerns are not without their presidents.
For
decades, the British Museum, one of Europe's most prestigious
institutions, has been engaged in a bitter dispute with Greece over a
number of statues, known in Britain as the Elgin Marbles, which were
borough legally and transported to Britain during a time when the
marbles held little value to Greece, but which were demanded back later
when their cultural value was more greatly appreciated.
Similarly,
there are many outstanding cases in Europe and the US regarding
artworks and cultural treasures that were claimed to have been looted
by the Nazi during WWII.
Some of which have been resold many
times since their original theft, with the current owners being
unwilling to part with relics on the grounds that they brought them
legally and were unaware of their status as 'war booty', and others
voicing that many artifacts are being illegally claimed, without the
promise of financial compensation, by greedy descendants of their
original owners seeking to reclaim property that was sold or traded
legally, rather than stolen.
Naturally, many of these fears, of
disputes over artifacts, center on Japan and Britain. Both of which are
known to have looted a great many cultural items from China during
their respective colonial periods, but both of which are also known to
have historically coveted Chinese artifacts as a sign of cultural
advancement, and to have had a long trading relationship with China
during which time they legally imported many artifacts.
Buying History, or Buying Hatred?
In
addition to fears over potential acrimony if China were to launch a
legal campaign, some observers have also criticized moves to 'return Chinese artifacts to China',
as being a sign of China's growing nationalism and, as such, have
accused proponents of this cause of supporting it in order to create 'a sense of united outrage' designed specifically to rouse nationalist sentiment, and of promoting the idea of 'looted treasures' in order further the mindset that all of China's present day problems are the result of 'wicked and exploitative foreigners'.
|
"[Many
of these artifacts] were looted at a time when China was at its
weakest. We feel heartache about the weakness of the government at that
time. We feel hatred and anger at that government and the forces that
invaded us. It was a humiliation -- just like the U.S. invasion of
Iraq, which was a disaster for Iraq's cultural relics. We just want to
recover what is rightfully ours."
Yang Laiyun, Director, Office for relics and history, Old Summer Palace, Beijing |
|
Claims of links between relic recovery
and China's growing nationalism have however been vigorously denied by
some academics, who have voiced that China is simply moving to protect
its own heritage, as any country would, and who have proffered the
suggestion that recent returns result from increased awareness of the
problem of 'cultural leakage', as well as from the increased ability of Chinese business and businessmen to actively 'buy back' items that were previously out of their price range.
|
"It's
absolutely not ultra nationalism and, on the contrarily, we are just
protecting our rights. Culture is the spirit of a nation and relics are
the purveyors of culture"
Li Xueqin |
|
Though disputed, the idea of this being
a nationalist backed move has been given particular validity, in the
eyes of some, by the fact that the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery
Program has chosen to launch its 'cataloging drive' in the cities of Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka. All of which are located in neighboring Japan.
|
"[These excursions] will be a good chance for us to get information on Chinese relics scattered around Japan"
Niu Xianfeng, Initiative Leader, Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, China Foundation for the Development of Folklore Culture |
|
For historically understandable
reasons, Japan's past transgressions against China are commonly
targeted by Chinese nationalists seeking to rally support.
Ironically
though, while Japan was probably chosen as a starting point by the Lost
Cultural Relics Recovery Program because it is far easier for Chinese
to travel there than countries like the US, which is currently using
the threat of Arab terrorism to place draconian visa restrictions on
Chinese, and because has a long history of legally and illegally
collecting and trading in Chinese artifacts, not to mention because of
possible nationalist ties, Japan is actually home to very few of the
items at the top of China's repatriation list.
In reality, many of the 'looted' items that China most desires to be return home, including the paintings, jade carvings and bronze works of the Chinese 'Imperial collection',
and the Bronze Horse head statue that accompanies the Zodiac bronzes
brought by China-Polly, are currently located in Chinese-Taiwan rather
than Japan.
Leaving the artifacts within 'greater China' as claimed by Beijing, but still outside of direct Mainland control. Effectively putting them in 'foreign hands' withouth them actually being in foreign hands.
Other
items, including the much coveted Bronze Rabbit and Mouse head Zodiac
statues, from the Old Summer Palaice, are currently located in France.
While many more items are located in Museums in Britain and the US.
Leaving Japan as little more of a convenient 'market sample', and a nationalist rallying point, than a means to an end.
Coincidentally,
and in the face of claims that the return of artifacts has little to do
with nationalism, some China watchers have felt compelled to direct
observers attention towards China-Polly's involvement in the return of
artifacts..
While it lists itself as being a communications and
development group, China-Polly is better known as an arm dealer which
was spun off from the PLA in 1999.
A fact which gives it solid nationalist credentials.
The Numbers
According
to statistics touted by the Chinese Government, there are currently
over 16 million Chinese 'cultural relics' in foreign hands.
Approximately
10 percent of these artifacts are believed to be housed in museums
around the world while the rest are thought to be owned by private
collectors and or to be in the hands of retailers.
These
statistics are, however, disputed and do not extensively distinguish
between artifacts which were stolen by invaders and occupiers,
artifacts which were legitimately sold by their owners or creators, and
artifacts that were made exclusively for export and thus hold no
cultural/historical value or significance to the Chinese people.
Irony and Infamy
Ironically,
while China is making increased efforts to reclaim artifacts that it
believes were stolen from it by foreigners, many of the most recent
artifacts to have left China were, and still are being, stolen by
native Chinese, and then sold on to both knowing and unknowing
foreigners.
Many such items are taken from temples, tombs, and archaeological, excavation each year.
In
some instances, those stealing Chinese artifacts, and selling them on
to foreigners, have even been found to be those assigned with the task
of protecting them.
In 2002, Li Haitao, was detained after being found to have stolen 158 artifacts from the 外八廟
(Waibamiao/ Eight outer temples) museum, 承德 (Chengde). At the time, Li was the Head of Security for the complex.
Li
was later sentenced to death. Two men, Wang Xiaoguang, Yan Feng, who
accused of helping him to smuggle and sell the stole artifcats, were
sentenced to 7 and 5 years imprisonment while another two accomplices,
Zhang Huazhang and Chen Fengwei were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Many of the items stolen by Li are believed to have been sold through western auction houses operating out of Hong Kong.
Additionally,
a significant portion of the artifact, demarcated as being Chinese
artifacts in foreign hands, are not in fact Chinese, but are instead of
Tibetan origin, and were, again, looted and sold on by Chinese.
| |
"During
the Mao era, [Chinese] considered the artifacts dross and destroyed
them. Now, they see them as merchandise and sell them. Speaking
overall, either way, it is an abuse"
Wang Lixiong, (Han) Author and Cultural scholar |
|
Original Article: The rights and wrongs of Buying Back China's History
|
16.3.06 14:12
|
|
The Sino-American Security Dynamic:- Download the Full 2006 “US National Security Strategy” Here.
If there is one sentence that sums up America's official stance on China, it must be this:
|
“Our
strategy seeks to encourage China to make the right strategic choices
for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities.”
US National Security Strategy, 2006 |
|
This sentence comes from the official
“US National Security Strategy”, released earlier this month, and it
can mean two different things depending on who you are and how you read
it.
If you are an optimist it, it clearly means that America
will continue to engage China on all fronts, rather than acting to
isolate it. Thus helping China to rise peacefully, and to become a
productive and integrated member of the international community, while,
at the same time, showing that America is not being afraid to give
China the occasional nudge should it overstep the boundaries.
|
"As
China becomes a global player, it must act as a responsible stakeholder
that fulfills its obligations and works with the United States and
others to advance the international system that has enabled its
success:"
US National Security Strategy, 2006 |
|
However, if you are a pessimist, this
sentence clearly states one thing and one thing only: China must
change, it must reform, and it must conform to OUR vision of how it
should be, and, should China fail to comply, we will not hesitate to
step in and contain it.
Of course, things are not always black
and white, and nobody should ever take the work of a singe source for
anything, so, for your reading pleasure, Angry Chinese blogger is happy
to make the US 2006 “National Security Strategy” available on line so
that readers may make up their own minds, and decide how they feel the
future is likely to go for the worlds most powerful nation, and the
worlds fastest rising nation.
Click to Download.
Although China is mentioned throughout the document, readers should pay particular attention to the following pages:
Page 26: Deals with China's role in 6 party talks
Page 31: Deals with China as a 'growth engine' and the China's Forex
Pages
46 and 47: Deal with the changes that China is undergoing and the
reforms that the US sees as being important to ensuring that China's
rise is peaceful and does not destabilize the region, and with China's
military.
Now That you've read it
Feel free to comment.
Other Content
Additional
sections of this report cover non China related issues including WMD,
the threat of terrorism, and America's reaffirmation of 'no smoking
gun' policy, under which it reserves these right to launch pre-emptive
conventional or nuclear strikes against any hostile nation that it
considers to be a threat to the US, or to be developing WMD
capabilities that may one day pose a threat to the US.
Original Article:
The Sino-American Security Dynamic
|
17.3.06 11:33
|
|
Surprise Release: Beijing to drop all charges again Zhao Yan
In a surprising turn of events, it has
been announced that Beijing is to release jailed dissident, and former
New York Times employee, Zhao Yan, who has been in custody since 2004
under charges that he revealed Chinese state secrets to his US based
employer.
According to his legal representatives, the Chinese
government has agreed to drop all charges against Zhao, and is set to
release him from custody later this month once the formalities and
paperwork have been dealt with.
|
"[We] applied to withdraw the charges and the Beijing court agreed."
Mo Shaoping, attorney to Zhao Yan |
|
A Closed System
The
current lack of transparency within the Chinese legal system makes the
exact reason for Zhao's release unclear, though it has been widely
speculated that it may be connected to fears that the US might 'make a fuss' over China's human rights record, during President Hu Jintao's forthcoming visit to Washington, scheduled for April.
|
"One
reason for his release was that the accusations were simply
unsustainable. But more important was pressure from the United States
government, especially with Hu Jintao going there,"
Yu Meisun, Legal expert and Jailed Dissident |
|
Back-Story
Zhao,
an employee of the New York, was originally detained in the city of
Shanghai on 17 September 2004. It took Beijing four day to notify his
family that he was in custody.
|
"We
are seeking clarification of his status, and expressing our concern for
his welfare, and underscoring our view that the role of a free press is
critical in providing information to build a strong civil society"
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman (September 2004) |
|
Even after notification of his
detention was given, state officials refused to provide specific
information as to the reason for his detention. Saying only that he was
suspected of transferring secret information to a foreign country.
|
"[Zhao is] in criminal detention under suspicion of illegally providing state secrets to foreigners''
Official (September 2004) |
|
It is widely believed that his
detention is related to an article that appeared in the New York Times,
on 7 September, which revealed that Jiang Zemin was planning to
announce his resignation as the chairman of the Central Military
Commission.
It has also been suggested that news articles penned
by Zhao, which criticized the state for failing to protect farmers and
the rural poor, might have been a contributing factor in his detention.
Get Out of Jail Free Card?
While
this latest announcement means that Zhao will soon be released from
custody, and is no longer living under the threat of a 10 year prison
sentence for 'revealing State Secrets', it does not mean that he has
been granted a 'get out of jail free' card.
Zhao may yet face face official censure in the form of 'the removal of political rights',
or other restrictions. Meaning that he may loose his freedom to travel
within China, be banned from speaking to press/working for the media,
and that he may be prohibited from meeting with other dissidents and
suspected dissidents.
Additionally, the charges against Zhao are
being dropped, but he has not been cleared of the crime of which he was
accused. Leaving room for Beijing to recharge him at a latter date.
Though his legal representatives believe that this is unlikely at
present.
|
"In
effect, this means that only if new evidence or facts come up, can
prosecutors revive these charges and I'm confident that's not going to
happen"
Mo Shaoping |
|
What is a State Secrets?
Revealing
State Secrets is an offence under clause 3 of Article 4 of the State
Security Law of the People's Republic of China, which forbids
“stealing, secretly gathering, buying, or unlawfully providing State
secrets”.
In principle, the nature of a 'State Secret' is defined under Article 8, Clauses 1-7, of the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets”
In reality, any individual or organization can be detained for 'Revealing State Secrets'
for revealing any information that has previously been censored,
removed from circulation, or prohibited from circulation, by the state.
Additionally,
it can also be applied to any individual who reveals and information
from within the workings of the state that has not been specifically
cleared for publication, or to any individual who moves to correct any
publicly available information that has been distorted by the state.
|
Article 8)
In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of this Law, state secrets shall include the following:
(1) secrets concerning major policy decisions on state affairs;
(2) secrets in the building of national defence and in the activities of the armed forces;
(3) secrets in diplomatic activities and in activities related to
foreign countries as well as secrets to be maintained as commitments to
foreign countries;
(4) secrets in national economic and social development;
(5) secrets concerning science and technology;
(6) secrets concerning activities for safeguarding state security and the investigation of criminal offences; and
(7) other matters that are classified as state secrets by the state secret-guarding department.
Law of the People's Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets
|
|
Unusually, in China, state secrets can
also include publicly available information taken from books or
newspapers that has not been previously been censored..
As such,
in 1999, Rebiya Kadeer, an ethnic Uighur, was detained under Article 4,
Clause 3, for attempting to mail several local newspaper articles, on
Uighur issues, to her husband in the US.
Further Reading
Original Article: Surprise Release: Beijing to drop all charges again Zhao Yan
|
17.3.06 14:55
|
|
Harmless Entertainment, An Economic tool, or Government Brainwashing: Even Children's Cartoons are
While
China might be a net exporter as far as finished goods like clothes,
shoes, and electronics are concerned, there remains at least one area
at least in which China is a net importer - Children's animation.
Strange
as it may seem, especially for a country that is so closed to foreign
media, of the estimated 5,000 hours of children's animation shown on
Chinese television each year, only about 500 hours are domestically
produced, with the rest being made up of material imported from
America, Europe and other Asian countries.
Largely, this
situation exists because China's animation industry remains
under-developed and underfunded, and because China has yet to exploit
its domestic talent, but this might all be about to change.....
In
line with recent announcements, that it plans to increase the number of
hours of children's animation currently on television to an astounding
16,700 hours per year, or 45 hours per day, Beijing has also announced
that the forthcoming opening of 'The Tianjin Sorun Digital Media
school', a joint venture designed to train China's next generation of
animators.
Scheduled to open this fall, The Tianjin Sorun
Digital Media school is a joint venture between the Sorun Corporation,
a Japanese IS consultancy and venture capitalist, Digital Hollywood, a
Japanese digital media college, and Tianjin's Nankai University.
According
to initial media releases, the school is to be based on the grounds of
Nankai University, and is to provide four year courses, covering
everything from the latest digital animation techniques to business and
marketing skill, which have been specially designed or adapted for the
school by Digital Hollywood.
Reports indicate that Sorun is
fronting approximately $US1.8 million, or 81 percent of the cost, with
Digital Hollywood and Nankai supplying 9.5 percent each, and the latter
of the two supplying the grounds on which the school is housed.
Mixed Views
News
of the schools opening has been greeted with a variety of reactions
from observers, with opinions ranging from optimistic: That the new
animation schools is legitimate expansion of China's domestic creative
industry, and a welcome move into new territory, to the pessimistic:
That Tianjin-Sorun is 'a thinly veiled protectionist measure', designed
to work with restrictive new media regulation (see below), in order to
force foreign competitors our of China's marked.
Looking closely
though, observers have however noted China's reliance on imported
children's animations, and the opening of Tianjin-Sorun, might have a
number of deeper implication for China. Implications that cover both
the country's economy, and it obtuse socio-political situation.
The Economic Front
Though
only a small factor in China's wider economy, fact that China is
currently reliant on imported Children's cartoons does, nonetheless
have an impact.
Not only is animation made outside of China
animation that China must buy in at a cost to its economy, but it is
also animation that is not the property of China, and so cannot be
exported in order to bring valuable foreign currency in to the Chinese
economy.
As such,the founding of institutes like Tianjin Sorun have a three fold advantage for China
- They will allow China to
reduce the portion of its entertainment budget that is being spent
externally to China (a budget that will need to be dramatically
increased to import sufficient to cover the domestic shortfall on the
16,700 Hours target). - They
will stimulate an underdeveloped area of China's domestic economy,
providing work for animators, script writers, voice actors and other
industry workers, as well as those involved in distribution and
marketing. - They will
allow China to become an exporter of animation, allowing it to recoup
costs incurred by importing entertainment, and to spread Chinese
culture further around the world.
In addition to this, were China to
develop a strong animation capability, it could also potentially become
a outsourcing and finishing hub; A professional producer of animation
for other countries that have their own creative talent; for character
design and script witting, but whose labor costs make producing 'in
between' cells; cells used to express complex movements but do not
requiring high levels of detail, an expensive task.
For years,
neighboring South Korea has had an a substantial production and post
production industry, with Korean animators producing 'in between' cells
for Fox's "the Simpsons", and Studio Ghibli's “Princess Mononoke”.
South
Korea also exports a wide variety of its own domestic animation,
including such features as Mangchi (Hammer Boy) and Toy warrior.
Even
North Korea has advanced beyond China in terms animation, having both a
strong domestic market and an established Animation 'finishing'
industry that uses modern techniques and equipment rarely found in
China.
Though not widely advertised, North Korea's SEK Studio
produced many of the 'in between' cells for Disney's "The Lion King"
and “Pocahontas”. Both of which are believed to have been managed by
outsourced companies in Europe/Asia, due to America's trade sanctions
against the communist state,
|
"Our
company, staffed with highly skilled creators and equipped with high
performance computers, is capable of responding to any orders"
Kim Thae Hong, Chief, Studio No. 3, SEK Studio, North Korea |
|
Socio-Political Front
While
importing so much animation bring little to the Chinese economy, it
brings a lot to Chinese society, and not all of it is welcome. With
foreign animation comes foreign influences; something that Beijing is,
unsurprisingly, rather concerned about.
Publicly, a number of
senior Chinese officials have voiced the concern that imported
animation has been introducing Chinese children to 'bad habits' and
'unhelpful images', and have called on Beijing to increase China's
domestic animation output in order to 'create a healthy environment'
for Chinese children, which is 'conducive to learning and social
responsibility'.
They have also called for the production of
more children's cartoons for use in education, and which promote
Chinese history and culture 'in a child friendly manner', so as to
counteract fears that too many cartoons will harm children's
schoolwork, and concerns that too much exposure foreign culture will
hamper their understanding and appreciation for their own.
Privately,
though the same officials have also voiced that the import of foreign
animation has been teaching Chinese children about alternative
perspectives on society. Creating expectations of social norms and
conditions that either do not exist in China, or which Beijing desires
to suppress, and encouraging Chinese children to begin to 'think like
foreigners'.
In light of these concerns, both those expressed in
public and private, Beijing recently leveled the decree that 60% of all
animation broadcast in China should be domestically produced. A target
that is difficult to meet, without disenfranchising viewers, given the
low level of domestic production.
Chinese officials have also
and made moves to ban television stations and networks from
broadcasting foreign animation during popular prime time slots, and to
limit children's exposure to particular animation that they feel carry
'harmful messages' or encourages children to 'disrupt social order'.
Both of which are euphemisms for free thinking and the raising issues
that the government would prefer were not raised.
Cultural Conundrum, or Cultural Control?
While
the importation of foreign culture in children's media has been of
concern to many people in many countries for quite some time, it is a
particularly particularly problematic issue in China because its the
countries two primary sources of animation are America and Japan. Both
of whom have very different social circumstances from China, and both
of whom carry ideals, through their animation, that clash with the
ideals that Beijing commonly wishes to instill in its children.
On
the 'soft' side, characters in US cartoons are often seen to promote
'overt consumerism' and to 'magnify trivial issues in order to avoid
tackling real world problems', while Japanese animation, known
internationally as Anime, typically promotes loyalty to friends and
family over other figures of authority.
On the 'hard' side,
American cartoons often encouraging civil disobedience and freedom of
speech, and promote individuality among children, in the face of
opposition for figures of authority.
Diverging significantly
from the US cartoons, which often 'dumbs down' situations to make
itself suitable for all age groups, Japanese Anime commonly encourages
'early maturity' in children. With its characters undertaking roles,
and entering into situations, that are older than is considered
appropriate for their age group in China. As such, they often include
depictions of youth romance and marriage, which are considered
inappropriate in China.
Additionally, US cartoons often
encourage children 'to be more assertive' and 'to make a stand' when
they feel that they are being unjustly treated. Something that is
directly discouraged by Beijing. Which prefers Chinese children to be
totally compliant, and to respond only to the 'injustices' that are
specifically pointed out to them by the state.
Similarly,
Japanese Anime also often includes favorable depictions of
homosexuality and deep same sex relationships. Something that Beijing
regards as being 'disruptive to social order' and which is largely
forbids.
Cutting Room Floor
While
'objectionable scenes', such as those depicting sex, violence, or the
direct promotion of democracy, can be removed or toned down through
selective editing during the dubbing process, many of the other areas
that Beijing considers to be 'unhealthy', including most of the above
hard and soft topics, are very difficult to remove from an imported
animated franchise while keeping the franchise intact.
Such
areas tend to be contained in the form of 'creping social trends and
imagery' that can slip past censors unless they are specifically
looking for them, and their removal often require entire episodes to be
deleted from a franchise, or to have their plots rewritten. Which is
both time consuming and expensive to do, particularly given that
popular animations can run to 50-100 episodes and often require such
edits and rewrites throughout their length.
This problem is
compounded by the fact that China's domestic dubbing industry is not
tightly integrated into its censorship apparatus. Which leaves the
dubbing and editing process in the hands of people who concerned with
accuracy and relevance, and who would often only remove the most
obvious components.
Additionally, some imported animations are
dubbed overseas, in Chinese-Taiwan, and thus are difficult to rewrite
or re dub while keeping continuity. Creating further problems.
In
both of which cases, censors are often left only with the options of
retaining or scrapping an entire franchises, that they likely have not
had time to view to any extent, rather than individually tailor it to
meet state needs.
Wider Phenomena?
Ironically,
although it is a well know proponent of social censorship, China is not
the most active when it comes to concerns that imported media might be
spreading 'unhealthy' messages to its children, and it is not the
largest censor of imported children's animation. This honor actually
falls to the US.
However, while both parties do censor
children's animation, this is about where the similarity ends; Whereas
much of the animation censorship in China is state motivated and state
mandate, most imported animation censorship in the US self censorship
and financially motivates.
King of the Prudes?
With
American companies being keen to able to deliver imported animation to
as wide a market as possible, they are often unwilling to include any
content which may cause offense to conservatives, or which might
trigger a boycott among of programs or merchandise by free spending
parents.
As such, anything that may be deemed 'controversial or contentions' is often emoved.
Elements commonly cut from imported children's animation in the US include.
- Sex, (including non-sexual activities associated with love, romance or dating, or the showing of underwear)
- References to puberty (excluding pimples)
- Curse words (including mild curse words)
- Violence involving physical contact (for example, martial arts) or wounding with blades
- Foreign religions
- Smoking
- References to the death of friends or family members
- References to history made from perspectives that differ from that of the US
- Deep social issues.
All of which US culture is uncommonly sensitive to.
References
to taboo topics of the day; including school shootings, terrorism and
environmentalism, are also removed on an irregular basis. As are guns
that fire physical ammunition, or depictions of bladed weapons.
Similarly, many animations imported into the US are often 'dumbed down' when they are distributed, or dubbed into English.
This
is done because US animation audiences are commonly several years
younger than their foreign counterparts, and they generally lead more
sheltered lives, making them unlikely to watch the same shows, or be
able to deal with the same issues, at the same ages as the original
intended audience.
In some instances such rewrites and
'dematuring' have resulted in the removal of up to 1/3 of footage form
an imported animated franchise, the rearranging of episodes so as to
lessen/greaten the emotional impact of certain plot lines or to
increase the prominence of certain characters, or even the wholesale re
branding of foreign franchises to make them appear to contain American
characters and to be set in American cities.
Mostly, these
rewrites and extensive edits are seen as being impossible in Chinese
markets because the of the limited number of networks and stations who
available to to buy broadcast rights for each animated franchise, and
because rampant piracy makes it difficult to make an profit on DVD and
merchandise sales. None of which are a problem in the the fully
realized and commercial US markets, where costs incurred through
censorship can often be recouped through the additional market coverage
that censored show can obtain.
Unlike China thought, America
also has issues with its domestic animation, and there have already
been a number of outrages in the US regarding the values that they
taught to children's by animation.
As such, several prominent
conservative parents groups have accused 'liberal elements' of
hyjacking the American animation industry and using it as 'a stealth
platforms' to promote 'unhealthy ideas'.
Examples of this
include complaints that Walt Disney has been placing hidden sexual
messages and subliminal social cometary in its feature films, and
accusations that the popular children's cartoon characters, including
Nickelodeon's 'Sponge Bob Square Pants', are being used as back door
through which children can be 'indoctrinated into the acceptance of
homosexuality' and other 'undesirable' tendencies.
|
"While
we want everyone to respect other people's beliefs, we do not consider
it appropriate for children's television to be used in an effort to
indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality,"
Ed Vitagliano, Researcher, American Families Association (US pressure Group) |
|
While of these complaints are not
usually taken seriously outside of conservative circles, the impact of
bad publicity, and fears over loosing ground in the conservative sector
of the market, often leads to the kind of censorship, as listed above,
that is deployed by the animation importation and dubbing industry.
Original Article: Harmless Entertainment, An Economic tool, or Government Brainwashing: Even Children's Cartoons are Political in China
|
20.3.06 08:32
|
|
Road Kill: Development aid, or slow genocide?
In a move which has been described as being being 'a vital for regional economic growth', and 'an important step towards raising the local standard of living',
Beijing has, this week, announced plans to plough an estimated $US700
Million into road building and improvement schemes in Tibetan, during
2006.
According to Xinhua, China's state controlled news
agency, the money is to be spent on the construction of 21 new or
improved Tibetan highways and 9 other multi-carriageway roads.
In
addition to highway construction and upgrade work, the money is also
expected to be used to improve road links between Tibet and neighboring
Nepal, and to upgrade local roads, from dirt tracks to asphalt roads, capable of supporting year round traffic from moderate to heavy cargo carrying vehicles.
In
announcing the cash allocation, Beijing voiced the hope that enhancing
Tibet's roads will help to facilitate the local movement of goods and
people, and to attract factories and other economic interests to set up
in Tibet. Thus helping to develop the local economy, and to improve the
standard of living for native Tibetans.
This latest announcement
was not made in isolation, and comes during an extended 5 year period
that has seen $US1.81 Billion being spent in Tibetan road construction
and improvement programs, and the construction of the 1,142 kilometer
long Qinghai to Tibet railroad, which due to open this summer.
Beware Han Bearing Gifts
While
Beijing's moves have been greeted by enthusiasm by some, not all
observers have such buoyant opinions about Beijing's latest
announcement.
Indeed, a number of critics have voiced that, rather than helping 'the average Tibetan',
recent road and rail enhancement programs have actually been
purposefully designed to allow Beijing to consolidate its hold on its
reluctant neighbor. A move that is doing nothing but harming the Tibetan people.
As
such, critics have voiced the opinion that this latest announcement is
nothing more 'a thinly veiled to aid Beijing in its quest to eradicate
the Tibetan identity'.
Controversially, some observers have even
gone so far as to compared China's Tibetan road and rail enhancement
program to the construction of the Manchurian railroads by Japan and,
as such, have voiced that Beijing appears to have 'learnt the trick of the trade' from its former occupier.
Accusations made, in regards to the road construction program, include that:
- Beijing has been systematically confiscating Tibetan farmland in order to build roads that are of little or no use to the 'average' Tibetan people.
- Beijing has been using the
construction, maintenance and management of transport links as a
pretext to resettle an increasingly large numbers of Han workers and
officials in Tibet.
- Beijing has been using enhanced transport links and economic 'sweeteners' to encourage Han industry to relocate to Tibet, in order to force out native Tibetans.
- Beijing has been using the
promise of work, in the factories and industries attracted by enhanced
transport links, to encourage Han workers to relocate to Tibet
Additionally, critics have acted to point
out that the enhanced transport links server a dual function, not only
allowing the transportation of Han goods, people and raw materials into
and out of Tibet, but also allowing China to rapidly deploy troops
deeper than ever before into Tibetan territory. Enhancing it ability to
react swiftly in the event of an uprising.
State of Play
Officially,
Tibet is guaranteed a high level of independence under Section 6 of
Chinese constitution; which provides the sub state with the legal right
to maintain its own cultural and religious identity.
|
“In
the past 40 years or so, Tibet has inherited and developed its cultural
heritage, Tibetan customs and religions have been fully respected, and
people have enjoyed full freedom of religious faith”
Xinhua, State Controlled media agency. |
|
In reality though, Beijing commonly
encourages native Tibetans to take on Han traits, under the claim that
they are advancing by discarding their own 'outdated cultural epitaphs' in favor of 'more advanced'
Chinese practices, and routinely bans any aspects of Tibet’s indigenous
culture that separates Tibetan and Chinese identities, or which Beijing
fears could be used to encourage Tibetan nationalism.
These
cultural restrictions include a blanket prohibition on the possession
of images of the Dalai Lama, or a recording of his voice.
|
"The
Dalai Lama is not a simple or a pure religious figure. He is a
political exile who undertakes secessionist activities abroad"
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China (2005)
|
|
The only aspects of traditional Tibetan
culture which are allowed to be practiced freely, are those practiced
in remote rural areas that remain outside of direct Han control, and
those in Han areas which hold little bearing on modern day life and
thus can be used both to promote tourism and to spread the idea that
Tibetan traditions are ‘relics of the past’.
On top of
the erosion and prohibition of Tibetan culture, it is currently Chinese
policy to encourage Han Chinese to migrate to Tibet, where they are
offered jobs that are unobtainable to Tibetans, and to provide 'sweeteners' to Han industries, including land confiscated from Tibetans, if they relocate to Tibet.
Even
though a substantial amount of industry has relocated to Tibet, few
jobs have been created for Tibetans, with many jobs going to Han
migrants, and senior positions only being offered to Tibetans
collaborators who are seen as being 'sufficiently Han-like'.
Manchuria 2?
Though considered to be 'coincidental' by all but the most hardened of conspiracies, and described as being 'generic long term occupation tactics' by others, China's tactics in Tibet bear a remarkably level of similarity to the 'Assimilation' tactics that were employed by Japan, against Korea, Chinese-Taiwan, Mainland China and the former Manchurian state.
Tactics
under which Imperial Japan attempted to subdue and subsume the native
peoples of the countries that it occupied during the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, by slowly destroying their cultures, forcing them
to take on 'Japanese characteristics', and by moving Japanese colonists into key areas. Leading some to question whether China 'had learnt more from Japanese wartime history than Japan had'.
Of
course, such accusations are speculative at best, and deliberately
provocative at worst, particularly as such tactics have also been
deployed by numerous times by both Ameirca and the European powers
during their colonization of Asian, not to mention during their wars
with each other.
Coincidentally, Japan also often used regional
development, including the construction of roads, railroads irrigation
facilities, and industrial complexes, in order to consolidate its regional power base.
Head Count
In total, over 1 Million Tibetans are said to have died as a result of 'maltreatment'
Since the PLA takeover of the region in 1951. However, these figures
are disputed, and accurate statistics are almost impossible to obtain.
Current
statistics do however indicate that there are now over 7.5 million Han
Chinese in Tibet, and that they now outnumber the native Tibetans
population by at least so 500,000 people.
Such figures exclude
the 'floating population'; Han who are resident in Tibet, but who have
not officially registered as being residents.
Original Article: Road Kill: Is Beijing Employing 'Japanese Tactics' Against Tibet?
|
25.3.06 10:46
|
|
Dangerous Trends: The Hard Truth About the Future of China and Japan
For quite some time now, we have been hearing about the deterioration in Sino-Japanese relations.
We
have seen icy reports in Xinhua, skipped through fiery blog entries by
China's young angry nationalists, and even laughed our ways though
spiels for foreign political pundits who have about as much grasp on
the Sino-Japanese situation as the afore mentioned Chinese nationalists
have on reality, however, it may now truly be time to worry.
For
years, much of the strain in the Sino-Japanese dynamic has been
political, with China's government constantly browbeating Tokyo over
whose grandfather did what to who, and the Japanese government
resolutely planting its fingers in its ears and pretending that Beijing
doesn't exist unless its saying something that it wants to hear.
However,
while your average Chinese might have spat in the street at the mere
mention of Nanjing, Yasukuni Jinja, or the war reparations that Beijing
doesn't tell them that they are still receiving, Chinese businessmen
still shook hands warmly with their Japanese counterparts and Chinese
children still watched Anime, and coveted Japanese fashions, without a
second thought.
Likewise, your average Japanese might have
wondered 'what all of the fuss is about' when it comes to Yasukuni
Jinja, and a text book that is so domestically discredited that it is
used by less than 0.04 percent of Japanese schools; simply dismissing
Chinese anger as being the product of poor education on the issue and
nationalist rabble rousing, and they might have had less than
sympathetic words to say about certain museum exhibits that don't stand
up to international scrutiny, but they still looked up to China as
being a source of history and culture, and they still had a well worn
copy of 東史郎 (Azuma Shiro)'s seminal “My Nanking Platoon” on their
bookshelves as a reminder of things that must never be forgotten or
denied.
Over the last few years though, things appear to have
steadily deteriorated, and the rot appears to have filtered down.
Spreading beyond the political sphere and into the public domain.
Successive
poles have seen public opinion of China slipping to record lows in
Japan, and public opinion of Japan going into all out free fall in
China.
A surge of nationalism in China has seen opinions switch
from an image of Japan being ignorant and in denial to one of it being
aggressive and maliciously unrepentant.
While weariness over
Chinese browbeating in Japan has also dissolved, only to be replaced
with a growing attitude of defiance and increased support for any
politician who is willing to stand up to China. A situation that many
observers fear could be the beginning of a self fulfilling prophesy
that could see Japan becoming more nationalistic in response to Chinese
accusations that it is becoming more nationalistic.
Recently,
even Japan's outgoing ambassador to China, a man whom, by tradition and
character, rarely speaks publicly about such things, warned of the fact
that the Chinese and Japanese people were increasingly growing apart,
and voiced that it was a far more worrying trend than the current
diplomatic chill.
|
"I think what is an even more serious issue is that the thoughts of the people of both countries are growing distant"
Anami Koreshige, ambassador to China, Japan |
|
Naturally, one must ask “Is this really
a problem?” After all, China and Japan are the original international
odd couple; so similar yet so different.
They have quarrelled on
and off for the last 500 years, fought wars, and even systematically
edited respective histories to prove points that probably don't exist
outside of their own imaginations. Yet, throughout this, their
cultures, attitudes and economies are often so intertwined that it is
often hard to tell where one starts and the other finishes, and their
business ties have grown stronger even as the political ties have grown
more caviling.
Well, I'm afraid to say that the answer to this question is a resounding “Yes”. It most certainly is time to worry.
A
few decades of bad political feelings has seen rising economic ties and
increased trade that might have been a little better had Beijing and
Tokyo been on closer terms, and the printing of some pithy newspaper
articles aimed at people who had already made their mind up before the
started reading.
However, a few years of bad public feeling have
seen riots in China where feeling became so heated that some Chinese
forgot the difference between Japanese war criminals and Chinese stores
selling Japanese products, and treated the latter as if they were the
former, and have seen discredited groups like にっぽんコミント becoming so
angered emboldened that they dared to attack the Chinese consulate in
Osaka.
Reminding us that, at the end of the day, a government is
just one branch on a very large tree, but the people are the roots -
and when the rot reaches the roots of a tree ....
Let's just say, we should all be hoping not to be on the windward side if this tree finally topples over.
Original Article: Dangerous Trends: The Hard Truth About the Future of China and Japan
|
27.3.06 11:08
|
|
[first page] [previous page]
|
