Blogs » Politics » Apple Solves Diaoyu Dispute, but Drains the Yangtze
Blogs » Politics » Apple Solves Diaoyu Dispute, but Drains the Yangtze |
- Apple Solves Diaoyu Dispute, but Drains the Yangtze
- Photo: “Diaoyus Belong to China …”, by Christopher Cherry
- Lunch with Chen Guangcheng
- The Dangerous Game of Protesting in China
- The Recklessness of Nationalist Brinksmanship
- China’s Most Colorful Philanthropist Is At It Again
- Wen's Speech Cut Off
- Drawing the News
- Message to the Candidates: Talk China Policy not China Smack
- The Slap Heard ‘Round the World, And the Netizen Innovation That Followed
- Chinese Children Killed in Axe Attack
- Chinese Web Giant Tencent Throws Its Weight Behind “Philanthropy 2.0″
- Smiling official sacked for serious wrongdoing
- Censorship Vault: Guiding Protests Then and Now
- Lin Chiling’s lingerie commercial banned in mainland
- Frustration Over Huawei-ZTE Congressional Hearing
- Wukan June 2012, by Remko Tanis
- Wukan Villagers Protest Over Lack of Progress
- Observations of a Protest
- The Economist’s Anti-China Stance on Diaoyu Islands
| Apple Solves Diaoyu Dispute, but Drains the Yangtze Posted: 21 Sep 2012 11:34 PM PDT Alongside promised features for Chinese users such as enhanced language support and integration with Baidu, Youku, Tudou and Sina Weibo, Apple's new iOS 6 has brought an unexpected solution to the thorny dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Rumours had circulated (via Bill Bishop) of a boycott on the iPhone 5 because the OS's new maps were said to attribute ownership of the islands to Japan. In fact, the islands are unlabelled, and outside China they can be located by searching for either "Diaoyu Islands" or "Senkaku Islands", or their hanzi/kanji equivalents. (Searches for Senkaku or other Japanese place names are blocked in China, according to Matthew Stinson). Apple went further, however, duplicating the islands so that China and Japan could each have a set:
Elsewhere, the maps' idiosyncracies are perhaps less inspired. Australian Business Traveller (via Brian Wong) noted some China-specific problems, including a missing Yangtze River:
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Photo: “Diaoyus Belong to China …”, by Christopher Cherry Posted: 21 Sep 2012 10:37 PM PDT  "Diaoyus Belong to China …" © Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Posted: 21 Sep 2012 10:33 PM PDT The Financial Times' Jamil Anderlini has pizza with Chen Guangcheng and discusses food in New York, house arrest in Dongshigu, and Chen's plans to return to China.
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Dangerous Game of Protesting in China Posted: 21 Sep 2012 09:15 PM PDT Some observers of the recent anti-Japan protests have questioned the government's role in facilitating the demonstrations. Skeptics are pointing out that nationalistic protests provide the perfect distraction for the public from the upcoming leadership transition, the scandal surrounding Bo Xilai, and a host of other domestic sources of discontent. For the New York Review of Books, Perry Link looks at the political manipulation of the protests and compares them to the May 4th demonstrations (as did our correspondent, Jane Wang, who recently sent in her observations of the protests in Shanghai):
A report in the Economist echoes Link's concern that the protests risk going off-script to focus on discontent closer to home, and quotes a recent study which found that, indeed, "nationalism serves as a powerful instrument in impeding public demand for democratic change." For Foreign Policy, Shanghai writer Qi Ge writes about his experience growing up with anti-Japan propaganda and how the recent protests serve to distract young Chinese from the real problems of their lives:
An Al Jazeera Stream episode focused on the social media reaction to the protests and asks whether the protests really reflect common concerns of the majority of Chinese people:
© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Recklessness of Nationalist Brinksmanship Posted: 21 Sep 2012 10:38 AM PDT So after a wave of rather violent anti-Japan protests I argued were state-supported, the madness has wound down — or rather, been wound down — by the same folks who drummed it up: the government. This is not an uncommon tactic at all, but it is an exceedingly dangerous one. Let us take, for example, the attack on US Ambassador Gary Locke's car that occurred near the end of this wave of protests. Chinese security stepped in fairly quickly and there was little damage to the car and no injuries to anyone involved. That's fortunate, but just consider the ramifications if something had gone differently. Say Chinese security reacted too slowly, being unprepared for a threat to the US Ambassador's life at a time when everyone was busy destroying Japanese things. Say some overzealous protester in the crowd brought a molotov cocktail, or that Locke had been dragged out of the car and beaten or killed. It is certainly possible; while the vast majority of protesters would certainly never go this far, there were reported beatings in several areas during the protests and the ethnically Chinese US Ambassador could feasibly become a target of some rage if the US is perceived as opposing China's claim to the islands. Anyway, let's say things go badly and Locke is dragged out of the car and beaten, perhaps killed. The damage to China's international reputation would be immediate and severe. China's government will claim that the protests were not government-supported and point out that Chinese security forces were attempting to protect and rescue the Ambassador, but these claims will be downed out as the international media reports on the many inflammatory articles and reports that appeared in state-owned media prior to the protests, and compares China's approach to controlling anti-Japan protests to its approach to controlling pro-democracy ones. It will point out articles like this one by Evan Osnos of the New Yorker, which says that police loudspeakers were blaring messages of sympathy and support even as they urged rationality and calm. The foreign media will come to the basically same conclusion I did: at best, China's government could have done far more to control these protests; at worst, China's government was actively encouraging them and supporting them until they got out of hand. Opinions of China will plummet internationally, and the incident will reinforce the stereotype that Chinese people are brainless nationalist drones. (To a certain extent, this has happened anyway). China will condemn the attack, and find and punish the rioters responsible, but this will not sake the anger of the United States Congress, which will (because it is mostly full of idiots) be screaming for blood. Some will consider it an act of war. Chinese flags will be burned in the streets, and Chinese-Americans will start saying their parents are Taiwanese, at least for a little while. It will get ugly, and even imagining the best case scenario, it will impede any kind of development in the Sino-US relationship for years to come. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalists will be protesting the backlash, creating an echo-chamber of nationalist yelling and mutual flag-burning. Of course, it's possible that this will never happen. I'm not sure what the chances are. But the government is rolling the dice every time it encourages outpourings of nationalism like this with a media frenzy like the one we saw leading up to these protests. The media should be free to report whatever it deems newsworthy, and protesters should be free to protest whatever they want. But in China, where neither of those things are the case, the government must understand that it is going to be seen as ultimately responsible for what the press says and what protesters do. If it keeps allowing things to reach the brink of boiling point before pulling back, one of these times, it is going to be too late, and even though it wasn't the government committing the crimes, the government will ultimately be left holding the ball. VN:F [1.9.10_1130] Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast) Tags: brinksmanship, Nationalism  |
| China’s Most Colorful Philanthropist Is At It Again Posted: 21 Sep 2012 04:26 PM PDT  The redoubtable Chen Guangbiao. Via Hexun Recent tensions between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands have brought out the best and worst in Chinese society, and have also led to some unusual displays of patriotism. Recycling tycoon and eccentric philanthropist Chen Guangbiao, known as "Brother Biao" (标哥) by his fans, announced on September 18 that he would personally replace any car damaged in acts of "irrational patriotism." His notice, translated below, was retweeted over 115,000 times on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter: Urgent Notice Hello friends! In response to recent irrationally patriotic events, Brother Biao will arrange for the unconditional replacement of absolutely any car destroyed in China, as long as you are a follower of Brother Biao on one of the seven main microblogging platforms (People's Daily, Xinhua, Sina, Sohu, Tencent, Netease, or Hexun Caijing) and bring valid proof from your local public security organization. Registration email: lixingaiguo918@163.com Special notice Guarantor: Chen Guangbiao Date: 2012.9.18 – 2012.9.30 In an update posted an hour later, he responded to netizen questions about the notice, writing, "Some netizens have asked me if I regret making this offer. Brother Biao is a national model for morality, the top philanthropist in Asia, and the Chinese benchmark for honesty. I practice what I preach and have no regrets." [Chinese] He also specified that those who had begun to follow him after the original notice was posted would not be eligible for new cars. (But to those who tried that trick—can't say we blame you.) This offer encouraging "rational patriotism," as promoted by Chinese authorities in the wake of violent protests against Japan, comes on the heels of Chen's announcement that he followed through on his plan to sell canned air (see pictures–lots of them–below). Chen claims the air is not only more pure than that in cities, but reportedly also comes from "revolutionary" regions. Proceeds, Chen says, will go to Chinese military efforts to defend the Diaoyu Islands. The canned air sold out in just a few days, and Chen told his social media followers to hold on to the cans, promising to buy them back for 40 or 50 RMB (about US$7) in ten years. Despite the controversy surrounding his patriotic stunts, however, it is a fact that Chen Guangbiao has donated the equivalent of millions of dollars to charity and pledged to give away his fortune when he dies. Brother Biao is certainly unusual–he is impulsive, flashy, and even refers to himself in the third person–but he puts his money where his mouth is.  The cans say "Chen Guangbiao: Good Guy" Footnotes (? returns to text)
|
| Posted: 21 Sep 2012 10:15 AM PDT China's Premier Wen Jiabao was giving an opening remark at the EU-China summit in Brussels. After a long list of achievements reached in his ten years tenure as China's premier, Wen stressed his disappointment over two issues: lifting arms embargo and nonrecognition of fully-fledged market economy status. While Wen was still speaking, the live feed was cut abruptly before he could finish the sentence. A diplomat who attended the meeting said the request came from China. It's interesting to learn someone in the Chinese delegation could order speech of Wen, the Prime Minister and No. 3 in CCP, to be cut off. It's also interesting to speculate how did the organizer recognize and accommodate the request to mute the top Chinese official at the meeting. As the lonely minority among his peers, Wen was always muted on sensitive talks in China. Wen also use his oversea trips to talk about his visions on political reform. Professor Tian Xie of University of South Carolina Aiken commented that Wen probably wanted to use his last EU-China summit to advocate for importance and urgency of political reforms. The two issues would have been a good talk point for that. |
| Posted: 21 Sep 2012 01:19 PM PDT The China news cycle has been dominated by anti-Japan protests following the Japanese government's purchase of three Diaoyu Islands. This week, Drawing the News looks at netizen cartoons tackling this and other timely issues, as well as some more timeless problems in China.
As his body is consumed by flames, a man in a sports jacket shouts, "Look, someone's house caught on fire!" Cartoonist Murong Gao'ao is making a dig at "a certain TV channel" which has played up the reaction to the incendiary YouTube film The Innocence of Muslims. Murong writes on his blog, "I watched a little TV on the subway last night. It was still focused with the utmost intensity on anti-American protests and riots in the Arab world. I really wanted to pat them on the shoulder and say, 'Yo, bro, we have that here, too.'"
Artist: Dashix Dashix addresses the anti-Japan fever that has stricken many Chinese since Japan announced it would purchase the Diaoyu Islands. In "The Day in the Life of a Patriotic Loser," a man makes signs, attacks "foreign devils," smashes cars, steals Japanese goods, rubs one out (to Japanese porn, no less) and finally lands in jail. "Oppose violent patriotism and don't be brain-damaged," the friendly skeleton says at the end. "Love of country begins with loving your neighbor."
Artist: Peaceful House Pearl Shimao The world is dancing to "Gangnam Style," Korean pop star Psy's whimsical music video. Psy taught Ellen Degeneres and Britney Spears his moves and has inspired reactions in Utah and remakes in Mongolia. Here, Shimao catches the Gangnam Style bug, dancing his way through New York, Paris and Tokyo. But what is Shanghai style? Our friend has been committed to a mental institution for "involvement in multiple activities," "running crazily all over the place" and being a pig.
Artist: B. Kuang Is this a surgeon suturing a "wound" or a bandit shutting up his victim in the middle of the night? One netizen interprets this cartoon with his own caption:
Posted on Weibo by @PlatoK (@柏拉图K), this anonymous cartoon shows old matches wilting before the newest stock. Above the stage, a lit match hangs where you would expect to see the hammer and sickle. It seems to allude to the 18th Party Congress, where the used-up will make way for the new leadership. But is the system destined to burn itself out in one bright flash? © Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Message to the Candidates: Talk China Policy not China Smack Posted: 21 Sep 2012 12:28 PM PDT  In one U.S. Presidential election after another, the media hype the specter of China as an issue of real policy import. It has been two decades, however, since China has been anything more than a blip on a Presidential debate television screen; and frankly, that has been a good thing. Campaigns rarely elevate thinking on substantive issues. This time around, however, China is becoming a genuine political football, tossed around without any clear aim but hard enough to cause some real damage. Out on the campaign trail, China rhetoric lives mostly in the realm of political insult. Governor Romney's campaign argues "President Obama promised to take China 'to the mat' but instead he has allowed China to treat the United States like a doormat." Should he become president, Governor Romney has stated that "I will finally take China to the carpet and say, 'Look you guys, I'm gonna label you a currency manipulator and apply tariffs unless you stop those practices." For his part, President Obama has railed against Governor Romney's private equity experience with China: "I understand my opponent has been running around Ohio claiming he's going to roll up his sleeves, and take the fight to China…. Ohio, you can't stand up to China when all you've done is send them our jobs." In reference to China's trade subsidies, President Obama has asserted that "It's not right, it's against the rules and we will not let it stand." Such throwaway campaign lines are part and parcel of U.S. presidential politicking, but China deserves to be treated seriously in the Presidential race for all the reasons everyone already knows, including: it manipulates its currency; its companies routinely violate intellectual property rights and engage in cyber-espionage; its regional security rhetoric and military activity have become much more assertive in the past few years; and its political practices—both at home and abroad—challenge U.S. notions of good governance and often undermine U.S. efforts to address crises in global hot spots. While China's policies may not be that different or even as detrimental as those of many other countries, the size of its population, economy, and military greatly amplify its impact. Thoughtful discourse should not be difficult. President Obama has a record on China that he can defend and Governor Romney can challenge. There are also emerging issues that have yet to be tackled and desperately need to be addressed. Here are my suggestions for four China-related issues the candidates might debate: 1) Is the U.S. pivot toward Asia the right strategy? This is one of President Obama's hallmark initiatives, and Governor Romney asserts it has been oversold and under-resourced. 2) Assuming China is not going to wake up tomorrow and decide it is important to play by all the rules of international finance and trade, what should the United States do? President Obama has focused much of his energy on the WTO and multilateral engagement and enforcement mechanisms; in contrast, Governor Romney has advanced a set of unilateral and punitive actions. 3) How will the United States manage the wave of Chinese investment activity that may soon be washing up on its shores? What is the potential upside, as well as downside risk? I haven't heard anything from either candidate on this front. 4) Are we making China into an enemy we don't need and they don't want to be, and if so, how do we avoid this trap? If the candidates themselves can't get China right, the Chinese media are apparently ready to step in to help. The Global Times, for one, has offered up its services: "As US elections often involve China-bashing, China cannot remain out of the affair. China should play a role in the elections and correct the attitude of both candidates and the American public toward China." My guess is that on this particular China policy, both candidates would have the same reaction: Thanks, but no thanks. |
| The Slap Heard ‘Round the World, And the Netizen Innovation That Followed Posted: 21 Sep 2012 11:22 AM PDT
Netizens responded with an outpouring of creative, coded language. Photoshopped images of Wang Lijun with a slap mark across his face began making the rounds on Weibo. Meanwhile, the term "slap" (耳光) rose as high as second place on the list of Weibo trending terms. But TLN's favorite response had to be @米蛋饭's below tweet, a breathtaking exercise at summarizing Xinhua's account in vivid pictographs: We invite readers to venture their own translations and add them in the comments. Here's the tweet:
Here's TLN's shot at it: The policeman spied on Gu Kailai telling him about poisoning Neil Heywood to death, then Bo Guagua drove his Ferrari to see him and Wang Lijun wrote a report pointing to the Bo family's corruption. Bo Xilai got mad and slapped him and OH SNAP their bromance was over, then Wang became a traitor and ran to the U.S. consulate. He was taken by security forces away in a plane, locked up, and tried. Then there's this:
Wang's sentencing is set for Monday, according to the BBC. Online censorship a sad fact of life in China, but at least it means that linguistic creativity abounds. We can't wait to see what China's netizens think of next. |
| Chinese Children Killed in Axe Attack Posted: 21 Sep 2012 10:07 AM PDT Three children were killed and 13 injured when a man entered their childcare center in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and began slashing students with an axe. The BBC reports:
A similar incident occurred in a kindergarten in Wuhan in 2010. © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Chinese Web Giant Tencent Throws Its Weight Behind “Philanthropy 2.0″ Posted: 21 Sep 2012 06:58 AM PDT  Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch? If one were to characterize China's online netizens, it would be tempting to describe them as a rowdy group of hard-hitting and disillusioned social critics. But, despite their online spewing of profanity and frustration, reason does occasionally prevail, in particular when social media's immense potential is leveraged to do good works. At Tea Leaf Nation, we have covered this topic before (see here and here), but now we ask, how is social media in China being used to carve out a new role for netizens, transforming them from mere watchdogs or critics into real citizens for change? Notable social campaigns that have found their footing through the power of social media tweeting platforms like Weibo include the Free Lunch (免费午餐) and the Love Save Pneumoconiosis (大爱清尘) initiatives. Both were championed by investigative journalists who uncovered atrocious cases of social injustice in the course of their work. The "Free Lunch for Children" was designed to provide free lunches for rural children at school after Deng Fei, a famous journalist from the Phoenix Weekly (凤凰周刊) discovered many schools had no canteens for students. He began raising money from his 1.4 million followers on Weibo and TMall, the largest B2B online shopping site in China, soliciting small donations of only 3 RMB, or about US$ 0.40. Love Save Pneumoconiosis was founded by fellow journalist Wang Keqin (@王克勤) from The China Economic Times (经济时报), in an effort to publicize the horrors of black lung disease, which affects nearly 6 million Chinese people who have contracted the disease by inhaling dust from coal and building materials. It is the most common terminal illness contracted in the Chinese workplace. Wang has used Weibo as his primary fundraising channel, raising 80 million RMB (about US$12.1 million) online. The Love Save Pneumoconiosis Sina Weibo account now has over 12,000 "fans," or followers. However, these online fundraising campaigns straddle a murky legal line. In the world of Chinese nonprofits, government-supported organizations enjoy limited regulation and oversight while private organizations lumber through a mountain of legislation and arbitrary crackdowns. Public foundations are allowed to raise funds from the public while private foundations are not. This prohibition extends to online solicitations. Many organizations or individuals raise money anyway, but are hampered in their ability to disperse the money without the government's consent to set up a bank account.  Wang Keqin was horrified by the effects of black lung disease and determined to do something about it. Via Weibo Enter Philanthropy 2.0, Tencent's attempt at an Internet revolution to change philanthropy in China. Tencent Foundation's Executive Secretary, Dou Ruigang, puts it more elegantly: "Using the power of Web 2.0 and social networking platforms, we can develop products that connect netizens and arouse their interest to participate in philanthropy. We hope to make philanthropy a new and trendy lifestyle choice that appeals to the youth." By launching Tencent Gongyi (腾讯公益), Tencent, a massive Chinese company that includes "social networks, web portals, e-commerce, and multiplayer online games" in its portfolio, aims to mobilize its impressive user base and create the most efficient and influential, go-to site for charity in China. Tencent's online donation platform Tencent Gongyi has been systematically integrated with many of their social features, including the ubiquitous QQ instant messaging application, which boasts 590 million users. Users donating to the causes featured on Tencent Gongyi earn "compassion points" that are visible to their QQ friends, earn a special crop for their QQ Farm, and get shiny silver and gold badges for their avatars in the QQ Show online game. Even Tencent's version of Paypal, Caifu Tong (财付通), is used as an online donation payment method. By highlighting the donation on their individual profiles, users broadcast their philanthropic interest to their peers and to a greater degree define their online identities. To date, Tencent Gongyi features 760 organizations and foundations, 441 online projects, and 1,347 offline projects from which to choose. If that sounds dizzying, there are useful filters such as location and area of interest to organize the information. They've also provided a safe haven for important movements like Love Save Pneumoconiosis, both online and offline. Tencent not only provided an online platform for Love Save Pneumoconiosis, one of the few external platforms to promote the cause, but also connected founder Wang Keqing with a public foundation, allowing the charity to register as a public fund and thus to ask for donations from the public. It remains to be seen how effective Tencent's vision for Philanthropy 2.0 will truly be, and there is surely a long way to go. Tencent Gongyi has so far only raised donations from 2 million-plus users, a paltry proportion of its 590 million user base. However, its work to support Love Save Pneumoconiosis points to a hopeful future for other grassroots organizations wishing to enable netizens to mobilize for social good in China. |
| Smiling official sacked for serious wrongdoing Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:41 PM PDT
Yang Dacai, who aroused wide public indignation after he was caught smiling at the site of a deadly rear-end accident in Shaanxi that killed 36 people, has been dismissed from his posts as the director of Shaanxi Work Safety Bureau and member of Commission over a serious violation of discipline, according to Chinese authorities. The infamous smiling official was targeted by netizens and exposed to have worn eleven luxury wristwatches in various activities and conferences, after the picture of his "inappropriate" smile was spread on the Internet. Though Yang had responded that he used his legal income to buy the watches, Chinese netizens argued that a public servant could not possibly afford so many luxury watches and demanded disclosure of Yang's annual income. An investigation into the case then found him guilty of "serious wrongdoing". And a further investigation against Yang is now still under way, said Chinese authorities. |
| Censorship Vault: Guiding Protests Then and Now Posted: 21 Sep 2012 07:00 AM PDT Editor's Note: From the Censorship Vault features previously untranslated censorship instructions from the archives of the CDT series Directives from the Ministry of Truth (真理部指令). These instructions, issued to the media and/or Internet companies by various central (and sometimes local) government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. CDT has collected the selections we translate here from a variety of sources and has checked them against official Chinese media reports to confirm their implementation.  A pro-Tibet protester tries to take the Olympic torch, Paris 2008. (Yang Zhen Dong) This week's featured directive, issued in April 2008 by the Heilongjiang Province information portal, shows the power of "guidance" (引导) over protest in China. At that time, the Olympic torch relay was plagued at every stop by human rights groups and Tibet independence supporters. After a wheelchair-bound torchbearer was attacked in Paris, netizens called for a boycott of the French hypermarket Carrefour. "The biggest shareholder of Carrefour donated huge money to the Dalai Lama," fumed the netizen demanding the boycott, "and even the French president has announced boycott of the Beijing Olympics." The directive below instructs provincial websites on how to direct online discussion of the boycott. Read the original Chinese here:
Since directives are sometimes communicated orally to journalists and editors, who then leak them online, the wording published here may not be exact. The original publication date is noted after the directives; the date given may indicate when the directive was leaked, rather than when it was issued. CDT does its utmost to verify dates and wording, but also takes precautions to protect the source. © Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Lin Chiling’s lingerie commercial banned in mainland Posted: 20 Sep 2012 05:40 PM PDT
Lin Chiling's latest lingerie commercial has been banned by mainland authorities, for being too sexy! The ad put up at some subway stations in Beijing was said to have been removed too, because residents feared it may "raise the crime rates." However on the web, the sexy video has sparked much interests in sex appeal of the Taiwan-based supermodel, who remains smokin' hot even she has reached age 38 now. She is seen tearing apart her shirt to show off brassieres and cleavage, and taking off pants to reveal lacy briefs. Check it out: Still there is a group of people labeling the commercial as poor taste. But a radio presenter's comment "woman wearing revealing clothes can be perceived as harassment to others" has aroused h/o to May Daily |
| Frustration Over Huawei-ZTE Congressional Hearing Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:01 PM PDT
When I first heard about this hearing, several months ago I believe, I thought it was a big win for these companies. There was so much rumor and speculation about these firms that the hearing would give them the chance to present their side and "clear the air." Perhaps that would lead to a better environment for these companies to then ramp up their U.S. foreign investment plans. Then again, maybe not. Reporting on the hearing, tech site CNET went with this headine: "Lawmakers frustrated by Huawei, ZTE during hearings." What was the problem? Apparently several of the members of the committee expected these folks to be more forthcoming during Q&A:
Granted, there are some legitimate issues here. ZTE has been accused of violating sanctions against Iran, Huawei has been less than forthcoming about its corporate structure, and neither company has explained in detail their relationship with government regulators. As potential investors in the U.S. or suppliers of sensitive technology, it is quite reasonable for the U.S. government to take a close looks at these guys. We're not talking here about a chair or a pair of shoes, but telecommunications infrastructure. So I'm willing to meet the U.S. government at least halfway here when it comes to investigating these companies. Moreover, I can understand the frustration of the committee members when they ask questions and receive unclear or evasive answers. After looking at the press coverage and some of the materials from the hearing, I have to admit that I'm somewhat frustrated too. However, for me the frustration stems from the difficult position Huawei and ZTE have been forced into and the useless nature of a hearing where the committee members have already made up their minds on the subject at hand. Before we get to some of the details, I also want to point out that it's not like these guys from ZTE and Huawei showed up out of the blue and that this testimony was the first time that these House members were exposed to these companies. No, in fact, the committee has been investigating them for some time, and there has been plenty of Q&A (written and oral), submitted materials, and even site visits (in China) made by members of the committee. I have to wonder whether the questions raised at the hearing had already been asked and answered a long time ago. And if not, why not? Perhaps the hearing was all a big media show? {gasp!} OK, let's look at some of these "frustrating" exchanges. Here's Rep. Sue Myrick, which some of you may recognize as the co-author of that disgusting letter about ZTE's legal representation (I wrote a lengthy rant on that topic last week):
Come on. This is an ongoing investigation, for which, by the way, Myrick doesn't think that ZTE should be entitled to legal counsel. And she's asking if they shredded documents? Are you shitting me? I wonder if she's ever asked that question before at a hearing? She was obviously just throwing crap out there in an attempt to make these guys look bad. Very common at a House hearing unfortunately. Here's a question that actually includes reference to Chinese law:
I'm not surprised that Ding, who works for Huawei, isn't familiar with that law. Unless I missed an amendment somewhere, I believe Article 11 of the Constitution says this:
Are you confused? Me too. Maybe he's trying to hang everything on that "supervision and control" language? I don't know where Schiff was going with that Constitution reference, but I understand his general point. What would Huawei or ZTE do if the State came knocking on their door and demanded that they cooperate in some way that would compromise privacy or integrity, etc.? Everyone knows the answer: they would cooperate! Ding replied that Huawei would refuse, which was obviously disingenuous, but what was he supposed to say? There was no good answer there, and Schiff certainly knew that when he asked it. And the underlying issue is an important one. If you believe, as it seems many House members do, that the Chinese government will use these companies to spy on the U.S., then it is troubling that they essentially cannot refuse a direct order from the public security folks. Fair enough, but then why bother asking the question? Everyone already knew the answer, and again, if you believe all that about Beijing and spying, then isn't your mind already made up on these companies anyway? Why bother with the hearing at all? The opening statement by Chairman Mike Rogers sheds more light on this. His prepared statement set out a very scary scenario, filled with the following kinds of accusations:
Rogers' statement ties all this in to accusations that have been made against China with respect to hacking and a variety of other cybersecurity and commercial espionage activities. The bottom line for Rogers is this: 1. China is a big time spy. 2. People say that Huawei and ZTE work closely with the government. 3. Chinese law forces Huawei and ZTE to work closely with the government. 4. Telecom is a sensitive sector. The argument makes sense, but the bottom line is frustrating not only for ZTE and Huawei, but for any Chinese telecom firm hoping to do business in the U.S. Why? Although Rogers and his fellow House members complained that these companies did not turn over sufficient documentation, the question remains what could have satisfied their concerns. To a certain extent, these companies are being asked to prove a negative. Prove that you are not somehow controlled by the government, or the army. Prove that you would not accede to the government's wishes when it comes to espionage. While there was obviously some documentation that the committee asked for that Huawei and ZTE, for whatever reason, simply refused to turn over, I'm not sure that doing so would have allayed fears anyway. If you read Rogers' statement, it doesn't just say that the House is investigating these companies because of the rumors surrounding them. His distrust also stems from the perception of China's record on cybersecurity issues and the inability of Chinese companies to refuse to cooperate with the State. As a practical matter, there is some merit to these arguments. However, what this means is that all Chinese telecom companies will suffer similarly, and none of them will be able to rise above suspicion sufficient to pass muster with the U.S. government. If I'm a Chinese telecom company with designs on the U.S. market, this is extremely disturbing. In addition to Rogers' statement, we also see this broad brush approach in the words of the ranking member, Rep. Ruppersberger, whose prepared remarks included this little nugget, which was apparently written by a third grader:
Poor grammar aside, his point is clear: these companies are Chinese, and the commies can force them to do their bidding. End of story. At the end of the day, I share the concern of U.S. lawmakers and believe an investigation makes sense. Moreover, if Huawei and/or ZTE refused reasonable document requests, this is a problem. On the other hand, it also seems clear that these House members are looking at all this in very simple, stark terms (i.e., China – Communist – authoritarian) that lead me to the conclusion that the hearing was a huge waste of time and not at all the opportunity that I originally assumed it could be. The big news here is that compared to the U.S. Congress, I come off as hopelessly optimistic and naive. Imagine that. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Wukan June 2012, by Remko Tanis Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:56 PM PDT
© Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Wukan Villagers Protest Over Lack of Progress Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:53 PM PDT A year after land grab protests began in the Guangdong fishing village of Wukan, and just six months after electing a new village committee in what many hailed as a new approach to dealing with social unrest in China, about 100 villagers gathered outside the village's Communist Party offices to voice their frustration at the lack of progress that their new leaders have made in securing the return of their land. From Reuters' James Pomfret:
The Financial Times reports that while some villagers have argued for more patience, others prefer action:
Meanwhile, the South China Morning Post reports that Guangdong party chief Wang Yang, who earned praise for his progressive handling of the Wukan incident, has made a fresh call for reform as he continues to maneuver for a seat on the next Politburo Standing Committee. But while The New York Times' Didi Kirsten Tatlow writes that Wang has positioned himself well as a reformer, The South China Morning Post's Mimi Lau asks whether the party is ready for him:
© Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:37 PM PDT The following dispatch was sent to CDT by an American who was visiting Shanghai during the recent anti-Japan protests:
© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Economist’s Anti-China Stance on Diaoyu Islands Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:07 PM PDT The following tweet by Gady Epstein, a correspondent for the Economist based in Beijing, is not surprising. The way I read it, he seemed dissatisfied that China and Japan haven't yet escalated their tension into war. First of all, check out the image below. This was the fishing trawler from Hong Kong recently being harassed and trapped by the Japanese coast guard ships. This is obviously no fishing ship ramming into Japanese coast guard ships.  About two years ago, another trawler was caught by the Japanese coast guard. The Japanese government actually raided Google's office in Japan to take down a video that was leaked unto Youtube of the incident, recorded by it's own coast guard. From that video, it looks more like the fishing trawler collided with the Japanese coast guard ship because the coast guard ship maneuvered into position to block. Below is The Economist's narrative on that event:
Ridiculous. Whenever Chinese fishing vessels go near to fish, they are the ones to be harassed by the Japanese! What the Economist has done here is to flip truth upside-down, turning Japanese coast guard aggression into Chinese fishing ship aggression. Especially considering that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China; look at official Japanese and Chinese government records. (See Han-Yi Shaw's exhaustive analysis of both government's records here.) The Economist writes:
China is merely asserting what is rightfully hers. If any parallel to be drawn to pre-WW2 Germany, it is Japan. This is a country defeated (as Germany was in WW1), and now leveraging America's 'pivot' to be more aggressive in laying claims to land not hers. Japan has just taken the step to 'nationalize' the disputed islands. That is extreme provocation. It continues:
This logic is rather silly. So, the Japanese government buying the islands is not for its own "mischievous hands?" Since Gady Epstein is based in Beijing, I wonder why he doesn't talk to the Chinese to get this logic straight. If that stupid logic is to be in the article, then for balance's sake, at least offer a Chinese perspective to refute, no? Why shouldn't China be affronted by this agitation to further 'legitimize' Japanese claim to the islands within the Japanese public? The Economist is correct to say that this bolsters the right-wing vote within Japan. However, in Xi Jinping's case, it does not matter. China will react the same way no matter which candidate is contending to be the next President. For all the talks about the desire for a more 'free' Chinese society and for more 'human rights,' the Economist certainly knows how to propagandize against Chinese interests when they matter. Below is another twist of facts:
Ordinary Chinese anger comes from Japan being increasingly aggressive in the Diaoyu Islands over the last couple of years. What evidence does The Economist have for the Chinese government "creating nationalism?" The article presented no evidence whatsoever. The anti-China view towards that public anger is 'nationalism,' because such an emotive word suggests irrationality and unjust. Chinese anger is perfectly justified. If anything, the Chinese media are doing their share to warn people against violating laws and to remain calm. Imagine if Japan blocks American access to Guam and harasses American fishermen there. Americans protest against Japan. Now try to argue American government creating nationalism. At least there is more hope within the magazine's readership. A reader, typingmonkey, responds:
Ever wonder why a growing number of Chinese netizens think pieces like this Economist article in the Anglophone media are propaganda? The Economist would conclude with the following advice:
Very cute. What the world needs is for the likes of The Economist to be more honest in their reporting about our world. We do not need it to fan the flames of mistrust through distortions of facts. The people sorely lacking sincerity are in fact the likes of The Economist! |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Update » Blogs » Politics To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Comments