One of the themes of the US Pavilion is the involvement of Chinese-Americans in the society of the United States. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlights this in her opinion-editorial piece at Global Times.

She mentions both the more famous ones…

One of the most moving exhibits they will find there is dedicated to the millions of Chinese-Americans who have contributed so much to the cultural and economic development of the United States. From Yo-Yo Ma to I.M. Pei to my Cabinet colleagues Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Chinese-Americans have achieved great success in business, government, the arts and sciences.

…and the rest of the Chinese-Americans in general.

But at the US Pavilion, we also celebrate the lives and contributions of all the Chinese- Americans whose names are unlikely to ever end up in the newspapers. Thousands of them have sent photographs and testimonials documenting the Chinese experience in the US, parents and children, teachers and students, small business owners and hardworking professionals – a true pageant of American life.

Probably the largest cultural group in the world are the Chinese. This is because an indication of cultural survival is the continued use of traditional language and dialects, and Mandarin has the largest number of native speakers in the world. You would be surprised to know that English ranks only third.

Joy Luck Club

The Chinese diaspora began many years ago. This mass emigration mainly occurred in the 19th century to 1949 due to harsh lifestyles and political unrest in the Mainland. Many of these oversease Chinese have established themselves in specialized industries in the places they are residing. For example, Southeast Asian Chinese have made a name for themselves in the field of business. And like Clinton mentioned, Chinese-Americans (generally North American Chinese) are known in the arts, academics, and sciences.

However, the one thing I noticed is that even with this worldwide diaspora, the Chinese relate to each other more in terms of ethnicity rather than nationality. For example, one is not just an American. Even if you are not ethnic Chinese (meaning you are “mixed-blood”), you are still Chinese-American. Think “Joy Luck Club”. [This is my observation only from my interactions. Feel free to contradict.]

Going back to Hillary Clinton, it’s interesting to note how she bridged the Sino-American relations through their people (and emphasized heavily on it in fact). In one of the videos showing inside the US Pavilion, she described the United States of America as a “nation of immigrants”. I wonder how other mass-Chinese-immigrated countries are taking this topic (or if they are taking it at all) especially that the main visitor to their pavilions are the native Chinese themselves.

But then, I think this has also something to do with how assimilated a Chinese-[insert nationality] is with their surrounding Chinese community and China. Intermarriages are common in the United States whereas maintaning a communal identity among themselves is still regarded as important in other overseas Chinese communites.

Aside from the architecture-and-learning-from-each-other’s-culture publicity, the World Expo can be seen like a Chinese homecoming of sorts. It is when the younger generation touches down to their ethnic roots and discover more about themselves.

Last year, I read about the homeland tours where Chinese orphanage adoptees from the United States are encouraged to come to China so that they could simply connect to their “homeland”.

That term again–”homeland”. What is home and homeland? Relative terms which I think are subject to debate.

Post from: CN Reviews

The World Expo And The Chinese Homecoming

US Ambassador Huntsman addressed FACES, a group of American & Chinese students, on Nov. 21, 2009

The student group FACES (Forum for American/Chinese Exchange at Stanford) offers one vision: it brings together 20 American and 20 Chinese students at Stanford University in the spring and then the same students again in China in the fall–the latest conference was jointly held at Peking and Remin Universities in Beijing last week. Three takeaways from my FACES experience:

1. Pragmatists trump ideologues;
2. Familiarity breeds friendship;
3. US-China programs benefit from robust institutional support.

These three lessons lead me to believe that student exchange can contribute to a more cooperative US-China relationship.

1. Pragmatists Trump Ideologues

Students care more about economics and exchange than politics, if FACES is any indication. Admittedly, there is a selection bias: top students passionate about the US-China relations tend to be cooperatively inclined.

Still, the group is willing to tackle sensitive topics: a discussion of religious freedom raised more than a few eyebrows because student groups tend to be closely monitored in China, especially at elite universities. One panelist addressed the subject of why some Chinese youth choose to join the CCP despite then having to renounce (or disguise) their religious faith: “I ask them, ‘Why do you want to join the CCP?’ ‘To get a good job,’ they reply. It’s not because they’re Marxists. I’ve been in China for 6 years and never once met a Marxist.” In the end, materialism–not ideology or the CCP–was cited as the main inhibitor of religion in China.

When a Taiwanese student (3 of the 20 “Chinese” were from Taiwan) indicated a separation between China and Taiwan, he was jokingly jeered. But in a later serious discussion, students were all in favor of holding a FACES “China” conference in Taiwan in the future. The mainland Chinese sounded eager to visit Taiwan—more interested in sights, clubs, and the reputedly gorgeous girls than any political symbolism. The risk lies with older, powerful, and more political generations: jeopardizing sponsorship from Peking, Renmin, and Fudan Universities, for example.

2. Familiarity Breeds Friendship

For one week, students room, debate, karaoke, joke, feast and gan bei together. This in-person exchange is of a different nature from the impersonal internet exchange that can arguably further entrench “rednecks, red guards, and trolls.” Diverse ideas are exchanged in a civil forum, instead of an echo chamber of pre-existing views. I know of innumerable friendships (and a few relationships) that have arisen from FACES, but have not yet spoken to anyone alienated by “the other side.”

Is the social integration seamless? Absolutely not. Social differences persist even among the most internationally-oriented students. Karaoke kept all of the Chinese up late (followed by mafia, the wildly popular group game until 4am). The Americans all dropped out early, with waning enthusiasm for public singing and many exhausted from an earlier night at a club. Many Chinese, on the other hand, paid their first visit to a club (which can be viewed as locales of ill-repute in Chinese culture). Suffice it to say that not all were converted into Paris Hilton, or clubbers at all. On a positive note, it is reported that students were universally satisfied with the copious quantities of banquet food.

3. US-China Programs Benefit from Robust Institutional Support

It seems everybody needs a China strategy today—not just companies, but also governments, universities, and donors, which is good news for China-oriented student groups. FACES was founded at Stanford University to promote mutual understanding following the hysterical reactions to the 2001 spy plane incident. While it required tireless effort, the group has since garnered institutional support from universities (Stanford, Peking, Renmin, Fudan, and Zhejiang) and private donors, as well as corporations (New Oriental and Renren were conference sponsors).

US Ambassador Jon Huntsman feels the air of cooperation in the room

The same goes for attracting speakers: US Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman delivered the keynote address on Nov. 21 at Peking University, stating that President Obama told him, “some relationships transcend politics” and touting a seemingly genuine spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship; Huntsman did after all give up a governorship and shot at the presidency in 2012 for the post. President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have spoken in the past, while the President of Stanford University, John Hennessy, regularly addresses the FACES conference at Stanford. Such institutional and financial support indicates that political, business, and academic leaders do attach importance to the US-China relationship.

Hopeless Idealists?

While perhaps idealistic, these students are not of the fresh-off-the boat, coming to see “Red China” for the first time variety. The majority of the Americans speak decent Chinese (some excellent) and have a strong China focus (whether it be politics, arts, economics, sports, or cuisine). The Chinese students all speak fluent English and most have been abroad. FACES students include Rhodes, Marshall, and Truman Scholars, the discoverer of a new species of newt, an accomplished concert pianist, and perhaps the world’s foreign expert on China’s Happy Farm game—future leaders. President Obama was not the only one striving to strengthen the US-China relationship in Beijing last week.

More:

• FACES Website (now accepting applications for the 2010 student delegate class)
• FACES Blog
• Twitter: @StanfordFACES

Kai Lukoff, American, was a FACES delegate ‘07, executive ‘08, and is now a proud alum. He is also perhaps the world’s foreign expert on China’s Happy Farm game. His opinions do not represent the official views of the FACES Organization. On Twitter: @klukoff

Post from: CN Reviews

Stanford’s FACES Student Exchange Program Experiences

“…or obtaining political or diplomatic results with China, I think the evidence is the contrary,” criticizes Howard French, associate professor at Columbia University and former senior foreign correspondent for the New York Times, of the premise underlying the negative conclusions the American press have made of United States President Obama’s recent diplomatic visit to China:

…the problem with the way the press has covered this is there’s a kind of implicit premise [that...] is misleading, I think. Maybe disingenuous is even a better word, because it seems to suggest that if Obama had pulled a Khrushchev and banged his shoe on the table on these [human rights] issues and really jumped up and down and made a lot of noise, then this would have achieved a markedly different result for the better. I don’t think there’s any evidence of that. It may have made certain people in this society feel better about themselves, but if the goal is changing behaviors in China or obtaining political or diplomatic results with China, I think the evidence is the contrary.”

The above comes from an interview with Mr. French in the Columbia Journalism Review, by way of James Fallows and his excellent coverage on “how badly the mainstream American press distorted the picture of what happened during Barack Obama’s just-ended tour of Asia.” In short, the American media and thus many Americans feel Obama disappointingly failed to accomplish anything in and with China.

Naturally, a part of this is hardcore politics, which I won’t comment much on here, but the reason French’s comment stands out is because of how poignant a reminder it is that so much — not all — of the commentary, suggestions, and demands (mine likely included) critics of China make of China are often exasperatingly divorced from reality. I say this because too often — not always — these efforts are premised upon amplifying the complaints instead of considering feasible solutions to very real challenges. Too often, these efforts seem more about assuaging selfish consciences (and moralities) or sending messages to audiences back home instead of really communicating with the Chinese that actually hold any real power in driving change. It’s more about “look at me, this is what I stand for”. It’s about “we need more outrage and more outside pressure on China”. It’s about “we need to get them to change for us now!”

Post from: CN Reviews

Quote: Howard French on China-Obama Press

Thanks to Richard Burger of The Peking Duck (still blocked in China), I just read Joshua Kurlantzick’s recently published “Nonstop party: The surprising persistence of Chinese communism” on The Boston Globe. It’s a lengthy article telling Americans how China and its government has thus far managed to defy the expectations and predictions of American leaders and China-watchers, by simply not imploding and still be around…arguably stronger than ever.

For example, China’s economic rise has led to the growth of a Chinese middle class, but this middle class that many Americans imagined would gradually hanker for greater political freedoms to complement their growing economic freedom has instead largely stood behind the CCP authoritarian government. Why? Because they see the Party as both the entity that gave them their economic prosperity and their best bet for safeguarding those economic gains.

Kurlantzick outlines how China has seemingly successfully managed — even co-opted — the effects of other things such as global integration, ethnic minorities, and increasing technology (in both information and communications), “forcing the world to re-evaluate the stability of authoritarian regimes”, forcing Western countries to realize that countries can “survive” (what about “thrive”?) without making a transition to democracy as they get richer.

Then, after noting (or threatening) that many countries are eying and trying to emulate this new, apparently feasible, and so-called “China model”, Kurlantzick reminds us that this model “contains some serious flaws,” or rather persistent problems: growing income disparity and wealth gap, disaffected rural masses despite economically bullish urbanites, increasingly violent mass incidents, the double-edged volatility of nationalism, and the friction between economic control and economic growth. He’s fair, however, by acknowledging that China “appears to understand its own weaknesses and is prepared to combat them”, trying to direct investment towards those being left behind and reining in excessive, counter-productive nationalism.

All of this is more or less matter-of-fact. I may not necessarily agree with the degree to which Kurlantzick attributes or frames certain things to CCP machinations and control, but overall, he’s offering a lot of clarity on a very complex but immensely important to understand conclusion that The Peking Duck summarizes as:  “China is not about to collapse, democracy is not arriving in the forseeable future, censorship will continue, the CCP isn’t going away and it may still be in power generations from now.”

But then Kurlantzick offers some political advice and guidance on how America can mind China’s business:

An effective American China policy, then, should balance greater acceptance of Beijing’s rising power with a demonstration that, despite China’s rising influence, the US is not going to back off core beliefs, such as human rights advocacy. Washington also must recognize that trade and investment alone will not open up Chinese politics; the US could focus on areas where Beijing, though increasingly sure of itself, remains weak – such as providing technology for Chinese bloggers to get around Internet filters, or highlighting the vast problems of rural Chinese society (both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia have extensive Chinese broadcasts which penetrate rural China).

Washington has walked this line before. In a previous era when many academics believed the Soviet regime would last for decades, American administrations both dealt with Moscow on issues like arms control and pressured it on human rights. And the Soviet Union, perhaps like China today, had internal fissures whose extent went unappreciated. Ultimately, the USSR’s weaknesses overwhelmed it.

Emphases mine. Make no mistake, I’m personally all for freedom of information and society being aware of its problems, but this is, without a doubt, interfering with another country’s internal affairs. These are premeditated and coordinated efforts to influence and affect what goes on in another sovereign nation’s society, with its people, involving its politics.

And I say, “so what?”

Nations have been doing this to each other ever since ideology has existed as a concept. There’s no big surprise that we seek to influence each other both on an individual level and in aggregate as families, towns, cities, states, countries, and geo-political spheres. It’s just the way we function as a species in a shared, now global, society. Ideas and the will to use ideas cannot always be stopped by arbitrary and artificial lines drawn with blood, nationality, or race. We are organisms that seek to control our existence by controlling our environment, and whatever shares that environment with us.

China and the United States, Chinese and American, authoritarian and democratic, nationalism and patriotic dissent, oppression and freedom…these all coexist in a shared environment.

So when China and Chinese complain that Americans (and/or Westerners) are once again trying to subvert their sovereignty or sow discord, they’re not always wrong. We can argue about specific instances and degree, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking they’re spouting nonsense. It’s true.

Likewise, when America and Americans complain that China and the Chinese are exporting their propaganda and censorship overseas, they’re not necessarily wrong either. Again, we can argue about specific accusations and extent, but let’s not pretend China doesn’t have interests it wants to protect or project.

It’s only fair.

Post from: CN Reviews

America Interferes With China’s Internal Affairs, Yes, True, And…?

Kelly Hammond, Ph.D. candidate in Chinese History at Georgetown University, wonders how a fizzy drink like Pepsi became the object that Chinese people rally around, whereas the other nationalities represented in the pre-2008 Beijing Olympics Pepsi commercial filming she was participating in had more “traditional” acts like cheerleaders, samurai drummers, Mardi Gras dancers, and sombreros. Sombreros!

Sound interesting? If so, be sure to check out the entire interview of Ms. Hammond by Micki McCoy on The China Beat concerning the former’s experiences being part of a Pepsi commercial filmed in Urumqi, Xinjiang China. Before you ask, the commercial featured a Chinese soccer team (sorry, football team) losing to a foreign team (apparently a multinational but non-Chinese mix) but eventually makes a comeback after Pepsi, of all things, brings all the Chinese fans together. Yeah, great China vs. Everyone dichotomy, eh? It’s a bit long but is full of interesting observations on modern conceptions of ethnicity and nationality in mainland China (or at least through the eyes of the Hong Kong people directing the commercial shoot).

Below, an excerpt (that includes the above quote):

I think the one thing that was important about this ad and how it was conceived was that each international group had their “traditional” mechanisms for exciting a crowd (of course, all this was as envisioned by the HK director): Americans had cheerleaders; Africans had drums; the Japanese also had a pseudo-Judo/samurai drummer; Brazilians had Mardi Gras dancers; Mexicans had ponchos, sombreros and mandolins; the South Asians had cricket bats. And, the Chinese had Pepsi. I think this posits the most interesting question that was raised for me at this shoot, which deals with the continued quest for modernity in China. And, more importantly, how Chinese people who drink Pepsi envision modernity. Unlike KFC, which is decisively Western in the eyes of people I have spoken to in China, there isn’t the direct association with Pepsi and the West (ironic, since they are owned by the same company). And, this idea that the Chinese people didn’t need any remnants of their traditional society—like the rest of the world—as they rallied together with the modern to overcome the international team was a theme I picked up on right away. Why did everyone else have some sort of “traditional” act to perform, whereas the Chinese only needed Pepsi? What does all this mean for scholars who work so hard to deflate this false conflation of westernization and modernization? And, where do the ethnic minorities fit into this equation? By purposefully excluding them and incorporating the minorities into the other “international” groups, I think the director sent a clear message—China is for the Han and we are modernizing without you.

The entire post is actually over a year old, having first been published in late 2008. Read it all here »

By the way, why this quote instead of her many other great quotes? Because I think there is indeed a difference between “Westernization” and “modernization”.

Post from: CN Reviews

Quote: Kelly Hammond on Pepsi for China

Rumors of Censorship Persist

There have been quite a few reports commenting at length on 2012 pandering to Chinese audiences, making the Chinese out to be the saviors of humanity, and thus escaping China’s censors. Interestingly, there are rumors amongst Chinese that the movie they’re seeing is still edited, that scenes involving flooding of China (one specifically being Tiananmen Square) were cut. Having seen the movie in a Chinese theatre, I can attest to several scenes that looked tampered with, where dialogue seemed to jump, but I’m not sure if those were just bad edits by the filmmakers. Therefore, I can’t confirm the validity of those rumors and suspect them to be just that: rumors. That, however, is what’s so interesting and says tons about mainland Chinese self-awareness, that they may be bitter enough with their own censors that they’ll propagate, believe, and perpetuate such rumors. I’m with them. I almost wanted to return my ticket if I was paying to see an incomplete film. Principles, man, principles!

Pandering to Chinese Audiences

Rumors of censorship aside, the other big issue is the aforementioned “pandering” to Chinese audiences, the alleged portrayal of Chinese greatness and benevolence. Uh what? Did we watch the same movie? I didn’t see squat that made China look good. Let me address the big plot points these reports mention:

‘The task would be impossible if given to any other nation.”

I didn’t see Americans “exclam[ing] that entrusting the Chinese to build [the arks] is the wisest decision“. I saw business as usual, that being China continuing to be the world’s factory. It’s not so much the wisest decision as the obvious decision. It wasn’t China being the “savior to the world, prying it from the edge of impending doom,” it’s just that China is the only nation with enough man-power to possibly build humanity-saving arks in under two years. Who else would you give the project to if you needed tons of labor, secrecy, and expediency? The United Auto Workers union? A Chinese even quipped, “Wait, I thought Americans wouldn’t trust Chinese product quality? Why would they have us build them?” OMG, they used lead paint in these arks! The Chinese are waging chemical warfare against us even in the end of days!

The People’s Liberation Army descends from the skies to offer help to Americans

I didn’t see the People’s Liberation Army helicopter dropping down to offer help. I saw it landing only to pick up those who possessed the one billion euro green boarding pass, as agreed, and no one else. Sure, he saluted, but that’s what soldiers do. If your “400-seat threater broke into a full-house applause“, believe me, it had little to do with how the movie positively portrayed the Chinese and everything to do with simply seeing your country and people making an appearance in a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster. Don’t forget, that saluting PLA officer (who, by the way, spoke remarkably American English) took the rich fat Russian and his fat twin sons but then proceeded to leave the “American survivors” to freeze to their deaths in the freakin’ Himalayas! Yeah! Go China!

China among the first nations to save those poor refugees

I didn’t see China as “among the first nations to open the gates” of its ark towards the end of the movie “to admit more refugees” (aka, the rich bastards whose own scheduled Ark #3 was damaged by a collapsed roof during the latest tremor and thus rendered unusable). We don’t even know if China had its own ark, as it seemed to be only a contingent of the people and nations aboard one of the eight arks headed by and represented by one of the G-8 nations. For all we know, the Chinese in that group of nations on that ark could’ve said, “Hell no! You crazy?!? Don’t open the gates!” but were nevertheless overruled by the others. It wasn’t a benevolent “China” that proactively did the compassionate thing versus a refusing selfish “America”, it was general human compassion winning over general selfish self-preservation. Heck, it was a black American who played the role of humanity’s conscience, was it not?

Seriously, what else was there in 2012 that could be misconstrued as being pro-China? Nothing really. In fact, the usual Hollywood romanticized ascetic Tibetan Buddhist monks probably got more screen time than the Chinese. Of course, I don’t think there were any egregious portrayals of China and the Chinese (at least on the surface, and a Tibetan grandma chopping off a chicken’s head off-screen for dinner doesn’t count, PETA) but what’s all this nonsense about 2012 praising or pandering to Chinese audiences? Give me a break. Anyone, Chinese or otherwise, presenting this movie as “pro-China” is egotistically reading way too much into an otherwise dumb but dazzling movie. Sorry.

Still Worth Watching

That said, Roland Emmerich’s 2012 is still  marginally better than, say, Alex Proyas’ Knowing. Both are 2009 films about the end of the world but only the latter descended into preachy pseudo-religious pseudo-science (yeah). The former just remains steadfastly focused on delivering edge-of-your-seat digitally-generated calamities with a half-hearted reminder that 1) life isn’t fair, and 2) who gets to live on says something about us as a society. Oh, and the kids in the latter were a lot more annoying.

2012 is about 2 hours and 40 minutes long, available in mainland China theatres in English with Chinese subtitles. Note that there are several portions of the movie where the characters speak other foreign languages, which are subtitled in Chinese but not English. Despite the cliched plot, as a special FX movie, 2012 is still worth plopping down some cash to enjoy on the big screen of a cinema.

Trailers and Previews:

Post from: CN Reviews

2012 Movie: Praising China & The Chinese? No, Not Really

I’ll first summarize Kaiser’s comments, and then share my own reactions and feelings below.  I do want to quickly say that this centripetal force of the Internet is the opposite of what I had in mind when I started CNReviews in 2007.  I expected that smart use of  internet media, even on a small niche blog like CNReviews, could create awareness and attention far greater than any person-to-person effort.  But the seeds planted by online outlets like Danwei, ESWN, Global Voices Online, Shanghaiist, even chinaSMACK, have not resulted in a great harvest of ongoing interest and understanding in China among Western readers, and instead remain a relatively small niche community serving Chinese expats and those with pre-existing interest in China.  And yes, the comment threads are indeed full of unthinking China-bashers, unthinking China defenders, self-important egomaniacs, and even sock puppets (and the China “experts” that hold them).

Meanwhile, in the real world, we continue to live apart (in geography and in mindset) as the dynamics of global capitalism increasingly tie us together.

Introduction: Kaiser Kuo

Kaiser Kuo (Twitter) moved to China in 1996 and is a rock musician in a band Chunqiu, writer, journalist, and speaker.   He most recently served as director of digital strategy for Ogilvy Digital China, where he wrote at the (now defunct) blog Ogilvy China Digital Watch.  In my opinion, he is one of the most articulate thinkers and writers about how internet and technology is shaping the most important bilateral relationship in the world today: US-China.

Will online relationships boil down to Red Guards vs. Rednecks?

Kaiser spoke on the growing awareness of the chasm between Chinese and Westerners thanks to increasing interconnectedness on the internet.  He gave a longer speech (video, 78 min)  at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, entitled “Shouting across the Chasm.”  His TedX speech was a shorter version but sounded the same themes (I will link to it when it is available).  Bob Page, at The Mercury Brief, did an exceptional job summarizing the speech.  The post, and the speech was picked up by numerous esteemed China blogs including China Herald, Useless Tree, China Digital Times, ChinaGeeks, Danwei, and Peking Duck.  Plenty of discussions have happened already around this speech.

Earthquakes happen when pressure builds up under the surface

By and large, US-China relations at a government to government level have been as healthy as it ever has been.  Last summer, during the Beijing Olympics, I recall watching George W. Bush enjoying the autumn days of his Presidency watching the US Women’s Volleyball team and thinking that China was one of the one bright spots of the presidency of George the Younger.  I (who never had a good thing to say about George W) even stuck my neck out and wrote about George Bush’s Uncharacteristically Nuanced Approach toward US-China Relations.  With Obama’s arrival 11/16 in Shanghai on his first trip to China as President (see itinerary on ForeignPolicy.com), a fairly functional relationship exists between governments.

But under the surface, according to Kaiser, at a people-to-people level, “a real crisis exists, and relations between Chinese and Anglophone Westerners are at a real low.”  To use the analogy of an earthquake, the surface looks calm, but the invisible shifting of the techtonic plates.

In the past, contact between Chinese and Americans “took place at small scale and with intermediation” often in “painfully polite settings.”  Bob Page summarized Kaiser’s contrast of the past with the present in his blog post:

“For most of the 30 years since China’s reforms began, Chinese and American civilians rarely met face-to-face in significant numbers,” Kuo says. “When encounters did take place, they were typically stage-managed events among civil, often painfully polite participants in sister city arrangements, trade delegations and cultural exchanges.

“In March 2008, in the run-up to the Olympic Games, Chinese people were curious about what the world would say about them…. But they were blindsided by negative English-language reporting. While hundreds of millions of Chinese had risen out of poverty, while the Chinese economy had grown by 10 percent annually for nearly three continuous decades, while China’s biggest cities had become forests of skyscrapers with vibrant cultural scenes, none of this was deemed newsworthy by Western news media….

“Instead, Chinese and Americans went after each other in the comment sections of news stories, blog posts, YouTube, forums and boards in an escalating people-to-people brawl that continues to this day. They fight over a litany of issues: Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, trade, Internet censorship, religious freedom, Myanmar, Darfur, sanctions on Iran, carbon emissions, and so on. The first real people-to-people encounter between the world’s reigning and rising superpowers did not bode well.

What changed?  In short, English literacy in China, and the internet.  “What has happened since is two things.  One, has been the ubiquity of English language education in secondary schools in China, and the other thing that has happened is the stupendous rise of the Internet.” said Kaiser.  “In 1999, there were only 8 mm people on the Internet. Fast forward to today, we have 338 mm Internet users (in China) and in the course of 10 years, have achieved 94% penetration of broadband….this has made it possible for unmediated, large scale interaction with Westerners and Chinese.”

In this new media landscape, government-to-government relations are on the surface, while a hot, turbulent sub-surface of popular opinion continues a hidden techtonic shift.  What if a crisis were to happen?  How could popular opinion shape and limit government’s response?

Welcome to the Internet:  where your one-sided beliefs are reinforced by others just like you

Even within the West, with its tradition of free press and free speech, we see how the Internet has caused us to self-segregate into communities of similar interest and political leaning.  From Bob Page’s post:

But this is the Internet we’re talking about, which many of us believed would bring down barriers and usher in the death of distance, the good times of a global village. Instead, it has made us more fractured and tribal…. It’s also true within America, where nowadays you only read the political blogs and viewpoints of those who happen to be on your side of the political aisle.

We read what we want to read, according to Kaiser.  Those on the left read Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, and those on the right read “whatever wacko right wing website they read.”  (Its clear where Kaiser falls on the ideological divide).  The “kumbaya” factor of the Internet is, in fact, more dead than alive.

In China, the internet “has historically been dismissed as greasy kids stuff” (e.g. internet games, internet cafes, entertainment) but is “also the emerging public sphere in Chinese life.  China has never had a public sphere for intellectuals to gather and discuss the issues of the day,” according to Kaiser.  As a result, the internet in China is extremely important for shaping popular opinion.  But the internet in China is no more enlightened than in the US.  In fact, at Chinese Blogger Conference 2008, Chinese blogger Ping Ke (平客 aka buchimifan) spoke on the need for greater rational online debate within the Chinese blogosphere.  And Roland Soong, in a speech prepared for Chinese Blogger Conference 2009 (see 1kg CNBloggerCon minisite and summary of event on GlobalTimes) and Blogfest Asia, shared the reasons why he doesn’t allow comments on the EastSouthWestNorth translation portal that he runs.  An excerpt:

I do not think it helps for me to facilitate this kind of exchange between “Red Guards versus Rednecks” (or “Chinese Fenqing (angry youth) PK Foreign Fenqing (angry youth)”).  I may want to communicate some information to people, but I am likely to encounter the kind of situation as described by Leung Man-tao (梁文道) in Southern Weekend:

在一篇一萬字的文章裏看見一句令我不滿的話，忘記剩下那部分吧，我要寫一篇兩萬字的回應來批判它。我為什麼要耐著性子看完 那篇東西呢？我為什麼要深入甚至同情地理會它的真正含義呢？它只不過是我用來表達自己的機會和藉口罷了。

In a 10,000 word essay, I came across one sentence that displeased me.  I forgot about the rest of that essay and I wrote a 20,000 word essay to criticize it.  Why should I bother to read the whole essay?  Why should I bother to delve into it or try to comprehend its true meaning?  It is merely an excuse and opportunity for me to express myself.

Indeed, I have come across someone who wrote: “I am not interested in the facts about what happened in Tibet, because I already know how to define the event.”  What is the point for providing information to people like that?  They are not interested in any information.  My own utility to them would be to provide the excuse and/or platform to rave and rant about their pre-established and immovable positions.

Spiraling toward bipolar disorder?  Toward a more resilient system of US-China relations

Unfortunately, the diagnosis of our condition is more painfully clear than the remedy.  Kaiser, blogger Roland Soong, journalist/professor Rebecca McKinnon and blogger Aimee Barnes have each shared some thoughts on how we can prevent the downward spiral that we won’t even recognize until something goes wrong.  I’ll caveat this by saying that these suggestions are in English for the English speaking audience.  Of course, there is just as much work to be done on the Chinese side, and supporting those who can influence Chinese opinion in a positive way is just as much part of the prescription of success.  It is very much a two-way relationship.  Here are Kaiser’s recommendations:

1. Cultivate personal knowledge – From Roland Soong’s post: “Knowledge is the first step. You can[not] talk about something unless you are knowledgeable about it. Why do you want to talk about that something? Because you think that the knowledge has changed your position. And that knowledge may also change your readers, especially those who form the subject of the discussion.”  Blogs are a great place to start.  For English-language readers, Kaiser mentioned several sources including Alltop China, CN Reviews, ChinaGeeks, Danwei (Danwei China mirror site) and ESWN. CNReviews had highlighted blogs that translate Chinese netizen comments and other blogs to watch in 2009.
2. Understand Chinese History – Accept the need to understand Chinese history.  Chinese current events are framed by a view of history held by elites.  Understand that view as best you can.  According to Kaiser, a place to start would be The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
3. Learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses are down. The conversations taking place when it’s not believed ‘whitey’ is around are decidedly more nuanced.  Blogs that translate Chinese content (listed above) can be a starting point.

Rebecca MacKinnon wrote an open letter to Barack Obama advocating a people-to-people approach toward building relationships between Americans and Chinese.  I posted on an Aug 2009 conversation I had with Rebecca and excerpted from the original letter:

Just as you have used new technology to engage with the American electorate, your China policy can be greatly strengthened if you conduct a real conversation with the Chinese people. Listen as much as you talk; provide a much-needed platform for open discussion. The U.S. embassy in Beijing should build a Chinese-language website modeled after change.gov, focused not just on U.S.-China relations, but on the range of concerns and interests – from environment, to food safety, to factory safety standards, to education and real estate law — shared by ordinary Chinese and Americans. Some linguistically talented State Department employees should start blogging in Chinese. Open up the comments sections, see how the Chinese blogosphere responds, then respond to them in turn. Translate some of the Chinese conversation into English for Americans to read and react, then translate it back.

Perhaps the idea of open comments will just draw out “those shouting loudest on both sides…Red Guards and rednecks,” as Kaiser Kuo characterizes the internet.  I believe that more person-to-person efforts are complementary to and more important than an online approach.  This could potentially involve study abroad, educational tourism, volunteer tourism, sponsored events, cross-border events, and informal delegations.  The goal of online efforts should be to convert online connections into in-person connections, and take it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of real-world discussions.

Aimee Barnes comes up with a 5 point approach:

1. Including youth leaders and business influencers into the dialogue now hosted by academic and governmental elites
2. More support for business leaders in both countries to build bilateral relationships
3. More study of Mandarin among US kids and adults
4. Deeper understanding of China’s history and government among Western media
5. New “equal access” research institutions/think tanks that include more Chinese-born specialists

In my opinion, based on 2 years of following English-language Chinese blogs, mainstream media, and actively blogging on CN Reviews, I am more and more convinced that actual person-to-person contact, as opposed to online blogging and conversation, is the most important ingredient to building trust, relationships and increased understanding and mutual respect.  I suppose many of you would say “Duh, of course.”  But if we believe that the internet can be a force for evil (or divisiveness) we must also conclude that it can be a force for good (or improved mutual understanding).  In any case, the “genie can’t be put back in the box” and online discourse will continue on both sides of the Pacific.  But energy should be placed toward efforts that bring together business leaders and non-governmental leaders on issues that we both care about, and rely on material self interest as a mechanism for building bridges.  And a much heavier investment in person-to-person connections between leaders in all fields in China and US is necessary and cannot be replaced by the online discourse dominated by trolls, fenqing, panda-huggers, panda-bashers, Red Guards, and rednecks. In the meantime, your free speech is not guaranteed on the Internet, at least not on our blog.  You can go create your own blog if I don’t like what you have to say!

From written content, to community organizing

For people like Kaiser and Rebecca MacKinnon who are working on writing books, I feel a key metric of success is not just the number of books sold and the number of online references, but the number of influential people on both sides that engage in a deeper and more informed dialogue with the other side as a result of the book.  It is an exercise in community building and community organizing, rather than just the act of authorship.  The pen is mightier than the sword, but only in combination with eye-to-eye contact (or at least numerous meals and drinking together), and trust built over time.

Business partners, motivated by self-interest properly understood

In an article entitled “New Friction and Vast Agenda Awaits Obama on China Trip” in the Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson highlights that the issues that require US-China coordination have exploded:

A decade ago, most issues discussed at China-U.S. summits were limited to three issues: human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and trade. Now, the list of topics has grown to include almost every problem facing the world, from clean energy and the war in Afghanistan to African development and fixing the world economy — all of which are expected to have a place in talks between Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao.

“For the first time in the history of our relationship, global issues are at the top of the agenda,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a special assistant on Asian affairs to former President Bill Clinton. “This is new territory for us.”

It is a change that analysts on both sides see as potentially problematic. Chinese officials and analysts note that the U.S. still has an arms and high-tech embargo on China — hardly something one does with a true partner, they say. “Obama wants us to become strategic partners or friends but we aren’t either of those,” says Yan Xuetong, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. “We are business partners who share material interests rather than common values.”

It is this last comment from Yan Xuetong that gives me hope and concern.  We indeed have significant material interests, from energy, environment, the monetary system…so lets start there.  With self-interest properly understood, we can build a more resilient global system between the US and China.

Lest you think that Kaiser is too distraught about our future, he claims to be optimistic about our future, and we recently had a great time on Oahu.  Here’s a picture:

I’m interested in your comments.  Even if you are a Red Guard or a Redneck!

Post from: CN Reviews

Rednecks, Red Guards & Trolls: Kaiser Kuo on US-China Online

If you’re not familiar with BON, you’re not the only one. Apparently, however, it’s “a brand new, pioneering television network producing a wide range of objective English language content bringing the human side of China to homes across the Western world.  BON goes live on air in Summer 2009 in the United States.” You can read more about them here.

I’ve personally never heard of David Moser but that’s probably because I spend too little time rubbing elbows with major figures in China academia and media and waste too much of my time slumming it at chinaSMACK . Apparently, Moser has even been a host for everyone’s favorite CCTV. Either way, he seems like a nice guy.

Jeremy Goldkorn and Michael Anti, however, are both names long-time China watchers are probably familiar with. South African Goldkorn is the founder of  Danwei (Danwei.tv for those behind the GFW), one of the largest, oldest, and most influential English-language blogs covering China, updated multiple times a day with links to great reading as well as plenty of original content, including tons of excellent translations. Michael Anti is the Chinese journalist-blogger with the cool name, having worked for a number of known and reputable news organizations both domestic and foreign.

Reviewing the two part video took some time, as the videos often would not stream smoothly and happily, if at all. To help you decide if you want to try loading them up, I’ve included some of my notes from each part below the embedded videos here:

Part 1

Interesting Points:

• Goldkorn: SARS situation in 2003 and American political blogs helped inspire him to start Danwei, he felt there wasn’t enough English information available on China’s media to adequately reflect its “vibrancy and diversity”.
• Anti: China is so large that it is fragmented with influence only extending so far. “Internet is the first time in Chinese history we have a national community.”
• Anti: English blogs like Danwei and ESWN have a “two-direction effect” that benefits and “is crucial” for both English-readers and Chinese. Websites like these help the outside world better understand China and also help “make public” the Chinese voice. “If something isn’t written in English, it does not really exist in the world.”
• Anti: Bridge-blogging becoming bridge-tweeting.
• Moser: Questions the word “blog”. Is “blog” the right word? Or is “website” better because “blog” suggests “personal expression”. How should we refer to these “English blogs about China”?
• Moser: Brings up word “aggregator” and asks if ESWN’s content is Roland Soong’s own content or he just “translates and copies” other people’s material.
• Goldkorn: “Sex scandals, people doing disgusting things” and “scandalous” BBS comments are things chinaSMACK does well.
• Anti: Reference News translates English news into Chinese to help Chinese know more of how the outside world is looking at China.
• Moser: On blogs replacing the fourth estate, discusses downside of blogs not being vetted, being “wild”.
• Goldkorn: Says blogs and newspapers can both make mistakes, vetting or not, but reputation and trust is built up over time.
• Moser: Alludes to process journalism.

English Blogs About China Mentioned:

• Danwei
• EastSouthWestNorth
• chinaSMACK
• RConversation
• Global Voices Online
• Sinosplice

Part 2

Interesting Points:

• Goldkorn: On financing Danwei, they make “some” money on advertising, “a little more” on job advertising/recruitment advertising, and make “most” of their money on research services for corporate customers.
• Goldkorn: Says most people use blogs as “loss-leaders” to build influence and reputation for other things like consulting.
• Anti: Blogs cannot depend on advertising because of possibility of being blocked.
• Moser: Suggests that English blogs have “a certain immunity” because most of the audience is English and overseas.
• Goldkorn: While Moser and Anti discuss Anti-CNN, jokes about American nationalists being scarier than their Chinese counterparts.
• Goldkorn: “So difficult when discussing China in English to get the right mix”, referring to always being criticized by someone for writing critical or complimentary pieces about China.
• Anti: On power of new technology like Twitter, Kaiser Kuo tweeted about Xinjiang riots 1 hour before Xinhua English news reported about it.
• Anti: Described NYT’s “agenda” as being “weird” for himself and many Chinese people because Chinese people come from a “propaganda society” where the media is usually used to promote or inspire people to do things, “positive media report”, but the NYT and most foreign media is mostly “negative reporting”.
• Anti: On fact-checking: “Don’t trust anything until someone denies it.”

English Blogs About China Mentioned:

• China Digital Times
• China Media Project

Post from: CN Reviews

English Blogs About China: Moser Interviews Goldkorn & Anti

Jeremiah Jenne of Jottings from a Granite Studio explains, in general, how the Chinese may differ from North Americans and Western Europeans when it comes to what they fear and expect from their government. From “It’s not ‘Who do you love?’ that matters, but ‘What do you fear most?’“, Jeremiah starts off with an anecdote, setting up the question:

In class two weeks ago we were watching the documentary series China From the Inside, when one of my students asked, with some reason, that if there was so much hardship and discontent why does the CCP enjoy such broad support?

It was a good question, and like all good questions it depends on whom you ask and how you phrase the question.

He explains how Chinese citizens may often be at odds with each other with different — even violently conflicting — views on the current CCP government’s policies. However, in contrast to the “tyranny” that many “Westerners” have traditionally and been socialized to fear from their governments (but not only governments), these same divided Chinese citizens are united by a common fear:

And so  I try to remind my students that the question to “What do you fear most?” looks very different from the Chinese historical experience, particularly that of the last 140 years or so.

From the Chinese perspective, particularly as written in the history textbooks used in PRC schools today, the greatest horrors have not come at the hands of the all-powerful state, but in times when the state was too weak to defend itself and the people.  Think of the depradations of the European imperialist powers in the 19th century at the expense of a rapidly weakening Qing Empire. There is the starvation and disasters of the warlord period in the early 20th century, when China was for all intents and purposes Afghanistan on steroids, and the ‘central government’ consisted of a parade of military leaders in control of the 10 square blocks around the “Presidential Palace” in Beijing.  Even under a period of relative prosperity in the 1930s, Chiang Kai-shek’s control never extended much past a few central provinces in the Yangzi region.  Locked in struggle with the CCP, the Nanjing government lacked the political will or wherewithal to build a new society or improve the lives of China’s rural population, and  soon even that gargantuan task would take a back seat to mere survival as the forces of both the KMT and the CCP were overrun by the Japanese onslaught.

Even if we look at the latter half of the 20th century, a period not covered quite so thoroughly in the PRC school curriculum, the personal experience of so many Chinese during the Cultural Revolution serves as fresh reminder as to what happens when the central government abandons order and stability in the name of “idealism.”

Whether or not you personally agree with this interpretation or not, the salient point is that many Chinese see their history through the lens of chaos/order with the forces of the latter fighting a constant battle against the former.

So, the Chinese tolerate, support, or defend the bullying and tyranny of a CCP government because it keeps order and stability. This makes little sense to many who come from other nations and backgrounds, but isn’t seeing and understanding these things from the Chinese background, history, and experiences the whole point? If we do, genuinely, understand these fears of the Chinese people, are we stuck begging them to let go or are we actually trying to help them move on? Do we actually know how to help? Are we supposed to?

Read the full — and excellent — post over at Jottings from the Granite Studio»

Image source:  appow

Post from: CN Reviews

Quote: Jeremiah Jenne on What Chinese Fear

What’s Richard angry about?

He’s angry at the people angry about the the Empire State Building, a New York City icon, commemorating the PRC’s anniversary by lighting itself up in red and yellow colors. For those of you trapped behind the Great Firewall in China, I’ve reprinted most of Richard’s comments below. If you use RSS, you can copy and paste The Peking Duck’s RSS feed address directly into your RSS reader to bypass the GFW.

China has done bad things, and it’s done good things, like all countries. China has its fair share of atrocities, injustices and a considerable legacy of repression and injustice. But China is not Nazi Germany, they are not a nation of deranged Maoists, and they happen to be one of the linchpins in the global economy that keeps America afloat. They happen to be moving in the right direction, despite some infuriating steps backwards. We all know the story, we all know the bad stuff and the good stuff.

So when I see Americans go insane over the Empire State Building turning red and yellow to mark the 60th anniversary of the PRC, I have to say it’s simply nuts. We recognize China, we trade with China, we work with China – our fates are tied together, perhaps inextricably. Seeing the outpouring of hate and paranoia from the right-wing blogs, while predictable. is a good reminder of the prejudices many in America bear toward our No. 1 trading partner, and of our ongoing inbred stupidity when it comes to scare words like “Red China.”

Here, Richard links to a Village Voice article reporting on some of the American bloggers going completely ape-shit over the news. He also quotes some of them more completely. The anti-Chinese comments on Village Voice responding to that article also rank right up there with the most retarded Chinese netizen comments chinaSMACK regularly finds and translates, a similarity I openly hope some foreigners remind themselves of before fashioning themselves superior by default.

Richard continues:

I know, the Chinese blogs and message boards aren’t always overflowing with nuanced, compassionate, thoughtful dialogue about the US, but really, this is absurd. The hypocrisy is beyond belief as these bloggers pound on their made-in-China keyboards.

I’m all for constructive criticism of any autocratic regime. I’m for calling China (and the US, etc.) out for their crimes and misdemeanors. But this is not only ridiculous when you consider how innocuous the actual event it – this hyperbolic, coordinated reacton is much more sinister than that. It is being used as a tacit attack on “Obama’s America,” as Rush Limbaugh has proudly called it. What these ignoramuses are saying has almost nothing to do with China, a country they know virtually nothing about. It is all about smearing Obama, because this is happening here, in “Obama’s America,” an America that encourages palling around with terrorists and coddling dictators and appeasing madmen, the new socialist communist fascist Muslim America.

…It’s embarrassing and it’s stupid. The PRC plays a vital role in America’s interests, it’s here to stay (at least throughout our lifetimes), it sucks in many ways but the extension of this courtesy, lighting up the Empire State Building, is not an act of appeasement or treason. This is diplomacy, whether it’s done by Bush or Obama. Grow up and get used to it.

Richard makes another good point here. Above and beyond the criticism of many Americans suffering from the same ignorance and hypocrisy that afflicts China’s worst hypernationalist fenqing, this is a veiled cheap shot against Obama’s administration. No, his administration isn’t beyond criticism, but the rhetorical tactic employed here is contemptible, a tactic based not on facts but on fears and misleading associations.

Speaking of fears and misleading associations…let’s go back and take a look at that AFP news report again:

NEW YORK — New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

The upper sections of the building are regularly illuminated to mark special occasions, ranging from all blue to mark “Old Blue Eyes” Frank Sinatra’s death in 1998 to green for the annual Saint Patrick’s Day.

Just last week the tower turned bright red.

However, that was not to mark some other communist achievement, but the 70th anniversary of the film “The Wizard of Oz” in which Dorothy wears ruby slippers rather than the silver of the original L. Frank Baum novel.

Emphases mine. Now, feel free to accuse me of reading too much into this…but was it really necessary or relevant to mention “communist” in this piece of news? Other than to tap into their target audience’s negative preconceptions about “communism”, for a country that is “communist” only in name?

Does the Chinese media emphasize “democratic” or “capitalistic” descriptors when they mention the United States of America or other Western nations? Any other fear-mongering descriptors? If they do, what’s the next appropriate question?

From the official AFP (Agence France-Presse) website:

The 1957 statute

It defines the fundamental principles that guarantee the independence of AFP and the freedom of its journalists.

Article 2

“Agence France-Presse may not under any circumstances take account of influences or considerations that would compromise the accuracy or objectivity of the news; it must not under any circumstances pass under legal or de facto control of an ideological, political or economic group.”

Is the 60th anniversary of the PRC a “communist” achievement? Or a Chinese one? Is “communist” ideology the main reason behind the PRC making it to 60 years? Would “PRC” or “Chinese” not have been a better, more objective descriptor to use before “achievement”?

Yes, there are far more obvious examples of media bias but I like this one for its simplicity. In fact, it stands out to me precisely for how subtle it is in reinforcing — and propagating — dangerously out-dated but still closely-held Cold-War rhetoric and attitudes amongst the Western world.

Seriously, what use is the word “communist” in today’s world, as applied to the PRC? What, if anything, does it tell us about how to deal with modern China and all its problems, including the problems the West loves assailing it for? Does it say anything about Tibet? About Xinjiang? About human rights? About censorship? About corruption? No, it says nothing. All it is today is a catch-all bogey word, used to represent, convolute, and confuse a multitude of ills without providing any meaningful information or guidance.

Post from: CN Reviews

Empire State Building Honoring PRC 60th Anniversary Outrage