Civic China

According to the latest entry on Zeng Jinyan’s blog [zh], Zeng Jinyan was (finally) allowed to visit her husband this Sunday, May 4. Accompanied by Hu Jia’s mother and younger sister, she was invited to the detention center where Hu Jia is still being held.

Asked about his health, Hu Jia told them that according to a recent check up his liver is inflamed and also that his vision has deteriorated quite dramatically. He is not getting sufficient nutrition due to a poor diet that lacks vegetables, and the prisoners are not often let out for exercise.

Jinyan tried to help Hu Jia apply for a release on bail to get medical treatment but Hu Jia never received the application. Jinyan asked Hu Jia to try applying to the authorities directly for it. Despite Hu Jia’s weak health, Jinyan noted that he seems to be in a good mental state, better than the last few times they visited him.

Asked by his sister whether he believes that his efforts have been worth being incarcerated, Hu Jia answered:

坐牢是不可避免的一步

Imprisonment is something that could not have been avoided.

He also repeatedly told Zeng Jinyan:

你一定要有尊严地、完全自由地活着。

You have to insist on living in dignity and absolute freedom.

We are full of admiration for this couple. Not only have they been doing their best to contribute to the betterment of Chinese society (until they suffered the unfortunate consequences), but they are not wavering in their determination even when the authorities act against them.

We cannot but hope that many people in China and abroad feel inspired and work up the courage to take up the immense task that is left behind: to help the poor, sick, and disadvantaged in Chinese society.

While Peter has just gone off to Los Angeles to put the finishing touches on his Ph.D. dissertation, Sophia has moved to rural Guangxi province in Southern China where she volunteers at a small minority village school cum orphanage.

Thank you all for reading our blog and in advance for checking back for occasional updates. We are sorry that the posts on our blog may be a bit spotty until we reunite again in mid-June but we promise that we will make up for it!

          –  Peter & Sophia

In early April we spent a few days on the fabulous little islet called 鼓浪屿 (gulangyu means “Drum Wave Island”). It is located off the coast of Xiamen City (which is itself an island) in Fujian province.

The roar of the waves breaks on the rocks. Impressive melodies surround and linger on this island made famous because of its piano-laden past. As a place of residence for Westerners during Xiamen’s colonial past, Gulangyu is famous for its architecture and for being home to China’s largest piano museum.

Read more.

The weather was warm and sunny and the place was not very touristy (particularly during the week). No cars or motorcycles are allowed on the island (apart from those of the fire department). Laid back people, great cafes, seafood, and beachwalks.

An unexpected paradise on earth. In China.

Xiamen City in the background. The air was comparatively good (particularly if compared to Beijing).

Sandy beaches just like on Hainan Island, but without the resort style commercialization and the tons of affluent (and sometimes quite obnoxious) tourists.

Subtropical gardens and lots of places to explore.

We wished we had found this place earlier. A great place to wind down and pay attention to our daydreams. We can only recommend it.

In China the media is first and foremost a tool for political control. Therefore most of the balanced reporting on Tibet has come from Western media.

Please understand that we are not affiliated in any way with the world of professional journalism. Our personal contact to Beijing-based Western reporters is limited to Peter’s attending the Danwei.org Plenary Session, and although some of our friends are Chinese and are also journalists, we are far from having any profound insider knowledge of Chinese journalism. Therefore, please take in these thoughts with a grain of salt, as they are an outsider perspective at best, a heap of misunderstanding at worst.

We deem it important to keep in mind that ‘Western reporters’ and ‘Chinese reporters’ are individuals, united loosely by their professional values and responsibilities. Of course, these vary greatly from individual to individual. Also, the ‘West’ is simply not sufficiently homogenized to warrant that label, and the same holds true for ‘China’. Ultimately, talking about ‘Western reporters/reporting’ or ‘Chinese reporters/reporting’ is therefore pretty much nonsensical.

This said, it is our view that the ‘species’ of journalists (reporting in / on China) does have some commonalities:

They tend to be a bit like flies – they are attracted to light. Or maybe better, they are a bit like children sent off to play in a huge shopping mall while their parents follow other commitments. A bit fearful, but also full of curiosity and eager to examine the flashy things that are exotic enough to attract their attention and that are different from what they already know.

Of course they look at these things with their own eyes and their own mindset and experiences, filled with preconceived notions that are often guided by ‘given’ cultural tenets such as ‘free speech + rule of law –> Western-style democracy’; or ‘critical reporting may disturb societal harmony’.

They search for objective facts, and then they make up the story around those facts, without being completely aware (which of course would be impossible) of how much personal bias is necessarily included or without having a very sharp picture in their mind of the greater whole. Doing so, the unfamiliar often remains incommensurable and thus beyond their gaze or the grasp of their critical apparatus.

One point that unites many ‘Western reporters’ may be their genuine concern and wariness whether those who promise to restore order and security can be trusted to do so without exerting excessive violence — in particular when they prefer to adopt an approach that is not accompanied by an open information policy. At least some of the ‘Western reporters’ based here in Beijing have this lesson fresh in their minds, from former commitments reporting on the so-called ‘war against terror.’

Also, quite a number of ‘Western reporters’ may have internalized the importance to insist on free speech and a free press, and this may be the reason why anyone who tries to put limits on these basic rights should thus expect a harsh response.

As was corroborated during the Danwei Plenary Session, ‘Western reporters’ also don’t seem to attach as much importance as they maybe should to the fact that the world not only changes through the things they are writing, but also organically, on the ground in China. Instead of taking the time (which they may not have) to ‘go native’ and delve deeply into their immediate surroundings (given that they actually are in China, speak the language, understand the culture, and know where to best get a ‘sense’ and ‘feel’ for what is really happening here) they often have no choice but to perceive ‘the world’ through the distorted lenses of other media professionals, as they are constantly pressured by assignments and deadlines.

In other words, while becoming very good at ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ some ‘Western reporters’ may lose their investigative instincts and the ability to know what stories would really capture the diversity of everyday reality on the ground.

For example, many of the journalists who attended the Danwei Plenary Session don’t surf the Chinese-language internet and don’t look regularly at Chinese-language blogs unless news aggregators such as danwei.org or ESWN translate them – but of course these blogs also focus mainly on Chinese mainstream media stuff.

ADAPTING TO A CHANGING WORLD AND A CHANGING CHINA

This said, we are increasingly living in an age of media politics and scandal politics (in Manuel Castells’s terms). Media are being used for propaganda, by myriad different actors, not merely by governments but also an increasing number of nongovernmental institutions. All these ‘players’ want to sell their take on a given issue to the global public, with various emphases and appealing to various ‘target groups.’

All of us, both as part of the global public and as individual human beings, have the choice. We can either choose to believe whatever story we want to believe, or, and this is the hard way, we can make up our own minds, based on careful accumulation and digestion of facts we consider relevant, lots of critical thinking, and guided by the openness to reconsider our opinion once new facts or coherent ways of seeing become available.

This is exactly why we have been arguing in our first post on ‘Tibetan Incommensurabilities’ for freedom of information and press: because we consider it to be a prerequisite for figuring out not only what the facts are, but also why they are such, and where the responsibilities lie, who is to be commended for successes and blamed for failures.

The recent ‘Tibetan Incommensurabilities’ have exposed some shortcomings of the current media world, and we hope that this will eventually bring about institutional changes in the world of Chinese media development. As David Bandurski reports:

Media reform is an indispensable part of the overall process of economic and political reform in China, veteran magazine editor Hu Shuli (胡舒立) told a packed auditorium at the University of Hong Kong last week.

“What do we mean when we say media reforms and economic and political reforms go together? Broadly speaking, we mean the sharing of ideas,” said Hu, who launched Caijing magazine in April 1998 and helped craft it into one of China’s most respected business publications.

We also concur with Rebecca’s wish that

Hopefully most of China’s netizens will draw the obvious conclusion: that in the end you shouldn’t trust any information source - Western or Chinese, professional or amateur, digital or analog - until and unless they have earned your trust.

OUR WAY OF SEEING

Only trust based on engagement with each other’s ideas and opinions and resulting “shared meanings” makes it possible to truly understand other people’s personal experiences and perspectives, by transcending the all-pervasive media politics driven by hidden agendas of agencies that often prefer to stay beyond the public’s gaze and scrutiny.

Such a process towards a more solidaristic society is necessarily messy and fraught with great obstacles. We hope that we have contributed to it in a constructive manner, by sharing our ideas that we hope will facilitate a better understanding of underlying processes that drive the current ‘propaganda battle’ / ‘information war’ as well as larger projects that may attempt to undermine, but ultimately can also be adopted to strengthen, shared meanings and solidarity between all of us.

We believe that without the freedom of information, a free press and free speech, China can not organically develop its civil society, which thrives on the existence of a broad base of facts and opinions that fosters critical awareness and thinking, organic journals and points of view, and a concerned citizenry more involved in public affairs.

Some further readings:

1) Tibet sources from around the web, collected by Global Voices Online.

2) An insightful recent blog post titled Forcing Ignorance on the Chinese People:

During the last few days, the online rantings of some Chinese people have been posted in Western media outlets. Westerners have been shocked to hear Chinese people saying things like, “Those Tibetans are getting just what they deserve”, or “Who cares about Tibet?”. Other comments are even more hateful and explicit. Many Westerners are angered by these comments, and dismiss the Chinese people as hateful and uncaring. I would urge the Western world not to rush into judgment so easily.

We would urge the WHOLE world not to rush into judgment so easily!

Westerners would do well to remember two things. First, our hands aren’t totally clean, either. The West has done its share of terrible things, and we should always approach the Chinese people with an attitude of humility, respect, and a willingness to listen. Second, we should never allow the fact that we have a wider access to diverse sources of information to cause us to become arrogant, or to lecture the Chinese as a parent lectures a child. The goal should be to present the relevant information to the Chinese, so that they can make their own decisions.

Remember, the Chinese have heard, and are hearing, a much different story on Tibet than the rest of us. Until that changes, real dialogue cannot take place. On most of the hot-button issues in China, the ironic fact remains that the Chinese people themselves may be hearing the least of the story. [emphasis by us; P&S]

For those of you who are less familiar with the way things work in China and thus ask: For what?

Please pick and choose:

1. For trying to create the public awareness necessary to improve conditions for the poor and disadvantaged of Chinese society, for example by talking to foreign journalists about human rights violations in China;
2. For uttering criticism against the Chinese party-state, and thus not silencing himself to the extent deemed adequate by the Chinese government;
3. For not protecting the face of those who are in charge of bringing about a truly (?) ‘harmonious’ society.

Observing the process beginning from when Hu Jia was arrested and his family was placed under house arrest all the way to the verdict, it becomes clear to us that China still has a long, long way to go before it can implement a fair, transparent, and independent judiciary.

In recent days and weeks, we have seen countless reports on all the ‘deliberate lies’ made by the Western media (mainly in the Chinese press) and on China’s reactions to these ‘genuine mistakes’ (mainly in the Western press).

This post is about the different and often conflicting narratives we get to hear. It is about the telling of lies. Or in a more distinguished terminology: It is about the social production of misinformation.

The good news is that the riots/protests in Tibet are now mostly under control. At the same time the issue has (been) escalated into what John Kennedy from Global Voices Online aptly calls a “ruthless propaganda battle” and what Rebecca MacKinnon has dubbed “the Tibet information war.”

While the Chinese propaganda machine is busy “incit[ing] patriotism and hatred of the Dalai Lama Clique” among the Chinese people (according to an internal directive by the Ministry of Publicity, cited from Beijing Newspeak) we decided to look in some depth at the myths of reporting as an innocent quest for objective truths. We begin by suggesting four ‘facts’ about reporting in/on China, and hope that our chain of arguments will nurture mutual understanding across national and cultural boundaries.

FOUR ‘FACTS’ ABOUT (WESTERN) REPORTING IN / ON CHINA

1. Reliable information from independent sources is not always readily available – sometimes there is no way of knowing the facts on the ground.
2. Chinese society changes more rapidly than the ability of Western (or Chinese) reporters to record that change.
3. Objective reporting is a myth. Each narrator, journalist, reporter, approaches a story with a set of individual prejudices and each reader perceives what he reads with a different set of individual prejudices.
4. Human beings have a tendency to vent what they perceive to be their righteous anger, and are often guided by preconceived notions about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. This arguably holds true not only for Western reporters and audiences, but also for Chinese reporters and audiences.

ON THE UBIQUITY OF ‘TRIVIALIZING’ BIASES

Now let us share an example that elucidates on the Western media’s anti-China bias as well as the China media’s anti-Western bias.

In his/her response to our last post, one commentator pointed out to us the following article by Richard Spencer from the Telegraph. Let us quote one paragraph:

Since the protests began, many Chinese have turned on the Western media for misrepresenting the troubles. That is hardly surprising: at times of disaster, it is important to find someone to blame.

Fair enough. But now please read what “Bismarck” wrote in response to exactly this paragraph, in his comment to our last post (comment #10):

It is imperative that such respectable writers as Mr. R. Spencer stop writing this way […] as if all that Chinese netizens can do were to find scape-goats. This is as condescending as it is trivializing. Mr. Spencer must, I dare say, have hardly thought of saying that “it is hardly surprising that in such a crisis each and every Western medium would rush to vilify a communist regime, regardless of what has happened on the ground; for it is the West’s perennial need to justify its DO-GOODER IMPULSE and righteous anger.”

[…] But the way he approaches the media war shows how easy it is, for a Western observer of China, tacitly to adopt, in a time of controversy, the mode of thinking quite dominant in many quarters in the West. This is no trivial matter. One might even do a thorough study on it.

Let us expand on this by emphasizing two points:

First, we believe that “Bismarck” indeed has a point: Human beings and societies often tend to (subconsciously or not) vilify each other in condescending and trivializing ways, rather than actually making the effort to engage with each other and with the various ways of perceiving underlying issues, based on mutual respect and the genuine desire to resolve the specific issue at hand.

Second, “Bismarck” has reminded us that there are indeed studies that shed considerable light on (Western) media involvement in the social production of misinformation.

FROM TIBET TO IRAQ (AND BACK AGAIN)

Let us share some of the findings from a fascinating academic study published in 2006, with the captivating name

Conquering the Minds, Conquering Iraq: The social production of misinformation in the United States – a case study

Please bear in mind that although the following findings may not come as a surprise, and although they are based on a study of Western media coverage related to the Iraq war, they may provide insights that help us understand the structural underpinnings that facilitated the abundance of Western media ‘inaccuracies’ and biased reporting on Tibet. The findings may also elucidate some of the underlying reasons that led to the strong counter-reactions in China’s media sphere:

Misperceptions about the Iraq War were socially produced.

Mainstream media are plural in their approach to information, but this plurality follows a business logic rather than an ideological logic. What matters for media is their business success, measured by their share of the audience and their ability to command advertising revenue.

[W]ithout administration agenda-setting based on misleading information about Iraq, there would not have been misinformation in the media. But once misinformation is produced, media have to deal with it, given the source of the message. And the way they manage it derives from the interaction between media strategy vis-a`-vis the audience, the climate in public opinion, and the overall range of methods of agenda-setting by the political agency (e.g. raising the level of terror alert, concealing information or defining other issues indirectly associated with a strong government).

The authors further conclude that

[T]he traditional claim that the antidote to manipulation resides in the independence and professionalism of the media does not seem to hold any longer.

The media remain professional and independent by and large, yet they are used as conveyors of misinformation leading to misperception, albeit in different degrees.

And speculate about alternatives:

A different informative outcome would require two simultaneous transformations: the rise of a concerned citizenry more involved in public affairs, and the development of alternative, horizontal networks of communication that bypass business media while keeping an appropriate level of accuracy and credibility in the content of their messages.                       [emphases by us]

We personally believe this to be quite accurate and very applicable to the ‘propaganda battle’ / ‘information war’ waged over the recent riots/protests in Tibet.

Here you can find the whole academic paper, written by globally renowned sociologist and communication theorist Manuel Castells (his Chinese name: 曼纽尔.卡斯特) and Amelia Arsenault, one of his former doctoral students.

OUR WAY OF SEEING (BACK FROM IRAQ TO TIBET)

Drawing on this study, and assuming some applicability for the current ‘Tibetan Incommensurabilities,’ we do have some hope:

1) Personal experiences in recent days corroborate that here in Beijing there is “a concerned citizenry” that does not blindly fall for what any media want them to believe.

2) And the explosion of thoughts and opinions on what we termed ‘Tibetan Incommensurabilities’ on the Chinese and English language Internet also shows the rapid “development of alternative, horizontal networks of communication that bypass business media.”

This said, we also see some reasons for concern.

1) The existence of a “concerned citizenry” does not automatically translate in them also being “more involved in public affairs.”

2) The ubiquity of thoughts and opinions available on the Internet is not necessarily characterized by “an appropriate level of accuracy and credibility in the content of their messages.”

There is a lot more that could be said about this, but as we are writing a blog post and not an academic treatise we are sorry for not spelling all these linkages out in detail.

Please feel free to chime in! We are trying to respond to every comment.

Today we share with you where our quest for facts has led us. First we list the facts, and then we draw some conclusions that elucidate how our way of seeing could present a solution that may or may not be acceptable to the parties involved.

As you will see, we argue that shedding the medial spotlight of factual truth on whatever is happening is crucial for ultimately setting off a dialogue that could lead to a peaceful resolution in the future.

As we hope you will see from the list of facts below, we have tried our best to steer clear of contested issues such as the questions since when Tibet is a part of China, whether or not Tibet has been invaded by China, or if it should be independent or not. For us, and a considerable part of the international community, these issues are not the point of immediate concern, and are best left to be negotiated in due course by the parties involved.

In our quest for facts, we tried as hard as we could to avoid being taken in by distorted or speculative ‘reporting’, particularly ‘reporting’ done by people with hidden agendas or by those wearing ideological blinders. Also, we are aware of the fact (!) that all facts are partial as they are based on intentional selection. Needless to say, we are certain that we have only been partly successful. It is for you to decide whether we left out crucial facts and thus skewed the picture in any particular way.

Please comment if you would like to contest any of the issues we list as facts below, or would like to add important facts that we, intentionally or not, left out. Please also feel free to enter into a dialogue and share with us your own views on how to best resolve this issue!

You may or may not recognize a narrative order in the facts below. Please feel free to remix them according to your own liking and way of seeing.

FACT SET 1: GROUND TRUTH

There have been violent riots/protests by Tibetans.

The riots/protests have spread to neighboring regions outside Tibet.

China’s central government is determined to curb the violence, stop any illegitimate secessionist movements, and to reinstate stability and harmony in Tibet.

According to an internal directive of the Ministry of Publicity, China’s propaganda strategy is to “incite patriotism and hatred of the Dalai Lama clique” among the Chinese people. (Judging from what we saw on Chinese television and in the Chinese-language cyberspace, this directive has been very successful.)

Thus far, at least a few Chinese have been killed by ethnic Tibetans, and at least a few Tibetans have been killed by ethnic Han-Chinese.

On the Tibetan side there are expressions of desire for more cultural autonomy and/or independence.

Many Chinese have more individual freedoms now than anytime before in history.

Many Tibetans feel that they don’t. While their standard of living has gone up, they remain particularly unhappy with issues of forced resettlements, the widespread ‘patriotic education’ that involves being forced to say “I love China” and to denounce their spiritual leaders, and with the fact that the subsidies ‘to Tibet’ by the Chinese government are actually given to companies (mainly construction, transportation, mining) from other provinces that mainly employ non-Tibetans and that are expropriating Tibetan resources.

On Chinese television, many people inside and outside Tibet express strong resentment against the violent riots/protests.

Thus far there is no evidence of monks shooting or monks being shot.

Thousands of Tibetan monks and rioters have been arrested.

Virtually all the remaining monks are sealed off from the outside world, and (depending on which news outlet you choose to believe) are either “protected” or “in custody.”

FACT SET 2: GENERALLY ACCEPTED TRUTHS

Generally speaking, all violence should be condemned.

Facts are the basis of all informed discussion and fruitful dialogue.

An essential role of the media is to report the truth.

Reporting the truth hinges on access to reliable information, the freedom and determination to avoid ideological blinders, and the willingness to disseminate the gathered information without attempts to manipulate the audience by propagating a hidden agenda. Many media outlets are not doing a very good job at this, as they often follow economic or other considerations.

Whoever wants to really understand the whole situation needs to have lots of time, the capacity of critical thinking, as well as access to a vast variety of information, presented with various intentions and foci. This aids the development of our own critical apparatus, by looking beyond what is being reported and by finding answers to crucial questions about the underlying rationale and responsibilities of the different agencies involved.

Such critical engagement empowers us to find our own truths, by developing a balanced picture that heeds to the various ways of seeing, without taking the short cut of adopting the most convenient or the apparently ‘correct’ one.

One important aspect in finding reliable information is asking eyewitnesses. History shows that they often do not have as big a personal stake in telling an ideologically tinted story than, say, members of revolutionary forces or government officials.

Less opportunity to ask eyewitnesses and report on the findings often means an increase of speculative and distorted reporting based on lies and propaganda. This precludes possibilities to find the ‘truth’.

China’s political reform has been lagging behind its extraordinary economic development. This creates contradictions. For example, uttering dissent publicly is still taboo in China as well as in Tibet. All over the country, protests and unrest are ubiquitous but are often battled fiercely.

Generally speaking, dialogue and open discourse are more promising than violence when it comes to resolving existing discontents.

All human beings should be allowed freedom from fear. They should be treated with respect and dignity and be free to say whatever they want to say, to whomever they want to say it. This is in accordance with China’s constitutional rights.

FACT SET 3: DICHOTOMIES BETWEEN CHINA AND THE WEST

Many Chinese think Westerners are being brainwashed by biased reporting from Western media and that most Western reporting follows hidden agendas.

Many Westerners think Chinese are being brainwashed by biased reporting in official Chinese-language media such as CCTV and that Chinese media are but a mouthpiece of government propaganda.

In exchange for the opportunity to host the 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese government publicly promised to improve its human rights record, i.e. be more tolerant of dissenting voices and allow for more open reporting and public discussion.

This promise was made before the troubles with Tibet began.

Recently there have only been very few signs that China is taking its promise seriously.

The international community is rather disappointed about this, and is increasingly exerting pressure on China to focus on attempts to resolve the crisis that do not require violence, further isolating Tibet, or suppressing information.

FACT SET 4: SUPPRESSION OF TRUTH AND WESTERN REACTIONS

All foreign media representatives have been ordered to leave Tibet.

Given the resulting limited opportunities to seek the truth, it is currently still not possible to say who is responsible for the killings.

This hurts China’s reputation in the West, and thus the Olympic spirit of “同一个世界，同一个梦想” – One World, One Dream.

China is closing video websites that feature eyewitness videos, and China’s censorship regime, also known as the Great Fire Wall or Cyber Nanny, is working overtime to selectively block certain information regarding the happenings in Tibet.

Western countries such as the United States, Germany, or Australia, have expressed their official discontent and protest against the complete isolation of Tibet. They uttered their serious concerns that information blockage may spur more violence and may lead to dictatorial clampdowns without allowing for global scrutiny.

Only extreme voices advocate an Olympics boycott, all moderate voices link a possible boycott to the condition that a massacre against Tibetans is being committed by the Chinese government.

Limited information gives way to lies, propaganda, distorted and speculative reporting – some of which may feed international fears that the Chinese government is capable of anything.

Fear undermines trust, and feed speculations concerning the theoretical possibility of such a massacre.

OUR WAY OF SEEING

Now we are leaving behind the comparatively cozy world of facts, and share some specificities of our own assessment of this issue.

First of all, we believe that the converging of vast Chinese paramilitary or military forces in Tibetan areas is not exactly a trust-building measure. It is a show of force that may succeed in preventing further violence but it certainly does not bring about dialogue or provide information about what has been happening and why.

Dialogue and the willingness to allow for some measure of cultural and spiritual autonomy and personal freedom in Tibet would go a long way. This dialogue is predicated on balanced reporting that, in theory, has the capacity to transcend and conciliate (and ultimately maybe even dissolve) the negative feelings and the increasing gulp of gloom and distrust between Chinese government and various Tibetan groupings.

This balanced reporting necessitates the availability of information and a widespread discussion of the myriad ways in which this information can be interpreted.

We do see the need to curb existing violence in the affected areas. However, we argue that (instead of, for example, indulging in retaliatory violence) it would be strongly advisable for the Chinese government to take the initiative in seeking dialogue with recognized leaders on the Tibetan side. This could even include the Dalai Lama who is a widely and internationally recognized spiritual leader.

Such a step would be a great chance for China to gain international respect and prove itself worthy of trust and as indispensible part of the international community.

CHOOSING AMONG THE OVERWHELMING POLYPHONY OF VOICES AVAILABLE IN CYBERSPACE

Almost deafened by the ubiquitous twitter of voices available in cyberspace, we would like to share two that we consider particularly relevant:

1) Lian Yue’s way of seeing (esteemed blogger, journalist, and one of the key intellectuals in the Xiamen PX Incident we wrote about before)

The following is a translation of Lian Yue’s blog post [zh], translated by Danwei:

1. Any power which tries to withhold information should be regarded as a bad power.
2. Any power that keeps people from getting information should be regarded as a bad power.
3. Any information released by a power that has monopoly over releasing information should be regarded as a lie.
4. A power that tries to distort and withhold information should be responsible for the consequences.
5. A power that keeps people from getting information does not have the credibility to tell people what is true and what is false.
6. Information being suppressed is the only cause of the worsening situation and deepening disagreement, because each side can say whatever they want and none of it is provable.
7. Extreme nationalism is passionate and irrational. It is nourished by the suppression of information. Tibetan supremacist, Han supremacist, anti-Japanese sentiment and anti-Taiwan sentiment run rampant in an environment where information is suppressed.
8. Mainland China is a place where [people with] extreme feelings are the biggest supporters of power, and these people and feelings prevent power from reforming itself.
9. Only freedom of information expression can dissolve extreme sentiments. Trying to withhold dangerous information is the most dangerous way to act.
[10.] Therefore, one important way to solve the problem is to give the media freedom to interview in Tibet.

2) A blogger named “Drunkpiano” wrote:

我总觉得在这件事情上，以下现象是可以同时谴责的：

1）臧 人滥杀滥烧无辜；

2）政府封锁信息、限制宗教自由，或甚至滥杀无辜（后一点有待确认）。

3）大多数西方媒体刻意的误导性报导。

但我感觉，对有些人 ，谴责了第一条第三条就不用谴责第二条，而对另一些人来说，谴责了第二条就不用谴责第一、第三条。说白了，还是那种“站队”思维。为什么一定要“站队”呢？我觉得，这两种情况的任何一种，都够格“傻气腾腾”。

Translated by ESWN:

I feel that in this matter, the following things should be condemned:

1. Some Tibetans committing looting, vandalizing, arson and assault (even deadly) on Han and Hui civilians
2. The Chinese government locking down information and restricting freedom of religion, and even slaughtering innocent people (the last point remains to be confirmed)
3. The majority of western media were deliberately producing misleading reports.

I feel that some people deplored items #1 and #2 but they did not feel that they have to say anything about item #3.  Meanwhile other people condemned item #2 and completely ignored item #1 and #3.  To say it out aloud, this is the idea of “taking positions.”  Once you take a position, your actions are determined.  Why do you have to “take a position”?  I feel that both positions are “asinine to the extreme.”

STEPPING BACK AND SEEING THE LARGER PICTURE

Seeking truth from facts predisposes the availability of facts for public scrutiny, our capacity to detect presences and absences in media coverage, and our willingness to hold back on ‘taking a position’ until we tried our best to at least catch a glimpse of the complexities of the larger picture.

As global citizens in a globalizing world, how can we simply trust anyone (!) who tells us what is happening, without being able to look at the facts ourselves, particularly as the agencies demanding our trust often are the same agencies that also do their best to prevent ‘inconvenient’ information from spreading?

TIBET AND THE OLYMPIC GAMES

Ultimately, the ‘Tibet Incident’ is not (only) a global competition to win over public opinion and shed a bad light on China and the Olympic Games. It involves real people, all with their own experiences, intentions, and associations.

It is important to keep in mind that a vast majority of human beings couldn’t care less about what is happening in Tibet, and only want a great and truly harmonious Olympic experience this summer.

This said, to us the Olympic Games are best conceived as an opportunity for everyone involved to get to know each other better, by shifting the competition between different cultures to the realm of sports – while at the same time expressing solidarity between all mankind.

Since ancient times, the Olympic motto has been:

Citius Altius Fortius.

Faster, Higher, Stronger.

Not Faster, Higher, Stronger than others.

Just Faster, Higher, Stronger.

Rather than simply winning over others, the beauty inherent in the Olympic spirit has to do with overcoming our own shortcomings and striving to give our best. We can only hope that the solidaristic foundations of this idea will some day extend into the larger political sphere.

About what is happening in Tibet right now (see here and here and here for more), what we find most striking are the discrepancies between reporting in international media and in China-based media.

We wonder why so many people all over the world simply choose to unquestioningly adopt what people want them to think. Not all foreigners are brainwashed, and the same holds true for Chinese.

We urge everyone who is really interested in this issue to SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS.

Most news on Tibet are censored here in China, and it is up to everyone of us to try and circumvent these censorship measures and strive to get a picture of what is really happening and why — and who is responsible.

Information is the basis for critical thinking, and critical thinking is necessary for everyone who wants to go beyond what dominant representations of reality want us to believe.

Good luck!

If you are planning to visit a bookstore in China, do keep a lookout for a book titled

《攻坚：十七大后中国政治体制改革研究报告》

(Storming the Fortress: A Research Report on China’s Political System Reform after the 17th Party Congress.)

Written by scholars from the Central Party School, Beijing’s training ground for political leaders (and home to one of the regime’s elite think tanks), the report expresses the urgent need for Chinese government to undertake gradual comprehensive political reforms in the next few decades. The book proposes [zh] that – by 2040 – China will hopefully have developed into a modernised country governed by a mature democracy and rule of law.

The following quote from a Reuters report [en] reflects part of the underlying rationale that this report is based on:

“Citizens’ steadily rising democratic consciousness and the grave corruption among Party and government officials make it increasing urgent to press ahead with demands for political system reform,” the report states. “The backwardness of the political system is affecting economic development.”

As elaborated in detail in the 366-page report, further indefinite delays in political reforms may bring grave consequences that threaten the current regime’s legitimacy – such as economic turmoil, aggravation of corruption, and people’s dissatisfaction with the government.

No western-style democracy

Notably, the elite think tank responsible for the report does not support a western-style democracy that features direct elections of political leaders by the people or a multi-party political system with unrestricted press freedom.

Equally unsurprising, the report stipulates that it is best to preserve [en] the one-party rule.

This is no manifesto for outright democracy. The authors say the Party must keep overall control and “elite” decision-making will help China achieve lasting economic prosperity by pushing past obstacles to economic reform.

SLOW and GRADUAL political reform

Zhou Tianyong (周天勇), one of the editors and contributors to the report, disagrees [zh] with the suggestion of some western scholars that China should speed up its political reform process.

Instead, Zhou argues [zh] that the economic and political transformations have to be a long-term, gradual, and steady process divided into different phases.

In congruence with Zhou’s viewpoint, the CCP intellectuals have designed an impressive 12-year plan detailed with concrete goals. Here are some [en] of their report’s specific suggestions:

 … on Press Freedom

“Freedom of the press is an inevitable trend,” they said, calling for a law to protect reporters and “effectively halt unconstitutional and unlawful interference in media activities.”

… on Religious Freedom

They also urge greater official respect for religion — a sensitive topic in China, where the atheist Party is wary of growing numbers of Christians, and unrest in Buddhist Tibet and the largely Muslim region of Xinjiang in the country’s far west.

“Political faith and religious faith are not in contradiction,” the scholars said.

… on Parliament’s Power and Legislation

They propose that China’s nearly 3,000-delegate national parliament be slimmed down and given direct powers to set the budget and audit government spending.

Candidates for legislatures should be allowed to actively compete for votes, which is now banned, the authors said. And the Communist Party itself must bind itself under rule of law.

If the Chinese government was determined to wholeheartedly endorse these suggestions, the report certainly would hold many promises for the future of China’s 1.3 billion people.

Some pessimistic reactions

However, some people sound less optimistic. Li Datong, the managing editor of ‘Freezing Point’ - 冰点 (a weekly publication in the China Youth Daily that was shut down by the Chinese government in January 2006), is one of them. Though he has not read the book, he was cited as saying [en] (to the Guardian):

I believe it will only be a thought rather than a political trend of the Communist party. The Communist party might take some suggestions from the plan but I don’t think it can be seen as a signal. […] There won’t be any serious discussion about the political system reform before the Olympics. There might be something coming out by the end of the year and before that [there] will just be stabilisation.

Less than hopeful sentiments also emanate from some of the comments left behind by netizens on the China Elections and Governance website which featured a detailed report [zh] on this matter:

大清预备立宪也才12年，这个三十年太长啦，骗不了多少人啊……
用户：holmes221 发表于 2008-2-22 21:32:09

The Qing government only used 12 years to establish its Constitution, 30 years is too long, they won’t be able to cheat a lot of people… …
User “holmes221” said on 2008-02-22

我也可以说出一个时间，反正三十年之后也没人记起。作为每一个活在当下的人，我们能等上三十年吗？因一己之私害人等上三十年，罪莫大也。
用户：无踪云 发表于 2008-2-21 16:09:11

I can also state a timeframe; anyway nobody will remember it 30 years later. As a person living in the present, can we wait for another 30 years? It is a big sin to cause others to wait for 30 years just because of some self interests.
User “Traceless Cloud” (无踪云) said on 2008-02-21

As this is not the first time that Chinese elites or government bring up the issue of political transformations, no wonder some people are getting impatient. In fact, in October 2005, the Chinese government had already produced a white paper on political democracy [en], outlining the underlying principles and overarching goals of building a “[s]ocialist democracy with Chinese characteristics”

The socialist democratic system that the Chinese government aspires to achieve actually (at least in theory) upholds many universal values and fundamental human rights (in particular, see section VII in the second part of the report here).

The following quote shows yet another example [en] of first-rate (yet ultimately empty) rhetoric:

Last February [in 2007], Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrote in People’s Daily that “democracy, the rule of law, freedom, human rights, equality and mutual respect are not exclusively capitalist values. They have come about as the result of the gradual advance of history. They are common human values.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In the upcoming week, the Central Committee Parliament will meet [en] to discuss new political plans. Whether or not China will embark on the path of deeper political reforms depends very much on the outcome of such meetings.

Afraid of losing control, conservative parts within the Chinese government are averse to taking radical or hasty steps in political reforms. From this perspective it is understandable that these forces want the transformation process to be as gradual and steady as possible.

However, further sustained inaction by the government may erode people’s trust in the leadership. Therefore the ruling powers urgently need to implement concrete measures that improve social justice and equity. These include strengthening the rule of law, respecting of freedoms and citizen rights, and safeguarding the human rights of all people – principles that are already long enshrined in China’s Constitution.

We hope that the plans for political reforms will not just remain yet another paper tiger but will soon be put into action. The Chinese people and the rest of the world are waiting and watching. We contend that a significant number of China’s well-educated and increasingly well-off urbanites may not be willing to wait another 30 years before they finally get to fully enjoy their constitutional rights.

According to the latest blog posts on hu jia & jinyan’s spirit [en] and 1bao [zh] (both blogs are blocked in China), Zeng Jinyan was finally permitted to visit her husband Hu Jia at the detention centre last week. However, apparently the state police still restrict many of her rights, particularly her freedom of movement.

Please refer to our earlier blog posts (for example here) for background stories.

Some details

From an AOL News Story that was reposted on hu jia & jinyan’s spirit:

Zeng Jinyan told Kyodo News she has been able to visit her husband at a detention center — fellow rights activist Hu Jia who was arrested at the same time on charges of inciting subversion — and she is now allowed to make phone calls on her mobile phone.

But she said it is still difficult for her to go out and she is barred from using the Internet.

[…]

Her home is effectively sealed off by plainclothes police officers who are permanently stationed outside and only her in-laws are allowed to visit her.

Zeng said her husband appeared “tired and stressed.” Hu received a visit from his lawyer earlier this month, the first time he has had legal representation since his arrest.

Notes from a friend

Apparently, the police returned Zeng her mobile and house phone last week so she is now able to make phone calls. In the afternoon of 20 February, Zeng called her friend Zhai Minglei (the blogger behind 1bao [zh]) to allay his worries. Apart from the meeting with her husband, this was her first contact with the outside world after she was placed under total house arrest nearly two months ago.

According to Zhai Minglei’s blog post detailing their phone conversation [zh], Zeng told Zhai that their lawyer also met with Hu Jia, and that Hu looks pale but does not seem to have any physical injuries.

Zhai could feel Zeng’s tiredness through her voice but she claimed that she is in good health.

Zeng also pointed out that she and her husband do not agree with the reason for Hu’s arrest. The charge against Hu is “incitement to overthrow the government.”

Zeng and Zhai contend that contrary to this charge, Hu has always been encouraging the people that he is helping to make use of existing laws to protect their rights.

Our way of seeing

This approach to direct people to turn to legal institutions in order to seek social justice shows that Hu Jia does support the current regime and can thus not be guilty of the charges brought against him.

We also share Zhai Minglei’s view that Zeng Jinyan, who is not charged or guilty of any crime, should immediately be allowed access to her basic rights, particularly freedom of movement and access to information.

We also suggest that the media – local and international, printed and online – should be allowed to report on and discuss this issue. In line with Zhai’s statement

我们可以达成一定的共识，扩大我们共同的部分。

We can accomplish a necessary consensus as well as expand the commonalities [between the government and the people,]

We argue that these above steps are crucial for creation of shared meanings between the party-state and its citizens.

We hope to see more dialogue and open discussion initiated by the authorities.

We wish that involved institutions will realize that developing a healthy civil sphere based on openness and creative engagement would help to create a win-win situation: it would support governmental legitimacy as well as strengthen Chinese society as a whole.

Please note: At the end of his blog post, Zhai Minglei noted worryingly that Qi Zhiyong, who has been supporting Hu Jia, has gone missing for 2 months.