Nationalism

Talking heads spar over Carrefour boycott

Posted by Joel Martinsen, April 28, 2008 3:43 PM

Tan Fei argues with Wang Xiaodong while Zhang Huajie and Lao Ma look on

There's nothing wrong with opposing the boycott against Carrefour, but you need to be more sophisticated in your techniques.

So said Wang Xiaodong, a well-known nationalist academic and essayist who defended the Carrefour boycotts during a televised discussion last week that erupted into a heated argument.

Wang's admonition is eye-catching because we've mostly seen the warnings going in the other direction over the past few weeks, from blogger-celebrities like Han Han warning readers against extreme displays of patriotism, to public figures interviewed by the liberal press speaking in measured tones about the need for cool heads.

Black and White Cat translated a Southern Weekly interview with Wu Jianmin, former ambassador to France, who disapproved of the boycott:

Some self-styled "patriotic" actions have damaged the interests of these staff, damaged the interests of China and damaged China's image. If there are many excessive actions people don't know what you might do next. They can't be sure about you and their misgivings and anxiety about you will increase. Patriotism is a good thing, but it must be guided by reason. Patriotism must be in line with core national interests.

Southern Weekly also interviewed TV host Bai Yansong, who was an early opponent of the proposed boycott. From ESWN's translation:

One must be restrained by rationality when one expresses one's voices. One must observe the legal and moral bottom lines. When passions coalesce, it is easy to step past the line with bad consequences. Since the law does not hold bar these expressions, people seldom reflect and discipline themselves and they will repeat the same thing the next time. The attraction of democracy is rationality. A democracy not supported by rationality is destructive as opposed to constructive.

The Inner Mongolia TV panel show On the Scene (现场), hosted by Zhao Chuan, formerly of Beijing TV's Who's Talking? (谁在说), pitted Wang Xiaodong, whom Sina identifies as an "exponent of nationalism," against several individuals opposed to the boycott. Wang felt that the panel seemed specially chosen to marginalize patriotic support for the boycott, and when he returned from the taping, he wrote up a blog post elaborating on arguments he attempted to make during the session:

Patriots are the majority, so is patriotism a disgrace for intellectuals?

by Wang Xiaodong

Today (23 April, 2008) at 6 pm, I went to a TV station (so as not to cause trouble for the station employee who invited me, I have to hide its name) to do a program about the Carrefour boycott. This program was hosted by a famous TV host (so as not to cause trouble for the station employee who invited me, I have to hide the host's name).

The station invited the person who opposed the Carrefour boycott in Kunming and was struck by a water bottle, as well as a young person who had held a sign at the Zhongguancun Carrefour in Beijing. Later, the person who had started putting hearts on MSN came out, too. When they started their discussion, I was in the control room watching on the screen. Apart from me, there were also three so-called "intellectuals" in the control room. They seemed to know each other, and they discussed the Carrefour boycott in extremely dismissive tones. One of them, a college professor, had been assigned to the side supporting the Carrefour boycott, but he wasn't too thrilled. I didn't know them, but I sat watching the television as I listened to them berate the boycotters.

After about 50 minutes, the first segment of the program had finished recording. The host called us up, so we went up. I found that next to me was a very pretty young woman whom I later learned was a singer, so for a time I felt slightly less alone (the professor was merely assigned with us, but he was obviously on their side: bluntly speaking, he was nothing more than an agent provocateur. Of course, so long as it was a fair debate, then it didn't matter if they were three or thirty together—they weren't more than I could handle. But you never want to be lonely, so having this pretty young woman next to me made me feel a little better). The host was quite polite toward me and told me to speak after the pretty young woman had finished talking. During the first segment, I had already thought out what I was going to say. I had noticed that the youngster who had held up the sign boycotting the Zhongguancun Carrefour was kind of naive and was unable to combat some of the more obvious distorted arguments, so I had felt anxious for him. Now that I had the chance to speak, I first wanted to help him clear up some of the specious arguments against the boycott. I started by saying, there's nothing wrong with opposing the boycott against Carrefour, but you need to be more sophisticated in your techniques. Then I went on to present rebuttals to the more common specious arguments against the boycott.

Here, let me inform you that you'll never see my rebuttals on the TV screen. But I can write them out here. None is my own invention: I saw some online, while others I learned from listening to experts at conferences, like the lectures of professor Cheng Xiaoxia of the China University of Political Science and Law.

(1) Refuting "Carrefour is innocent and French goods are innocent, so they shouldn't be boycotted." I said that regardless of whether Carrefour had done anything wrong, regardless of whether French goods had done anything wrong, boycotting Carrefour and French goods is permisible. The objective of the boycott is to (a) express an opinion that can easily reach people's ears, and (b) put pressure on France. In answer to the challenge, "if you've got the guts, why not go demonstrate in front of the French embassy?" I said, for the purposes of the two objectives mentioned above, I am completely entitled to choose a convenient boycott target. When group A in some country offends us, we may not have the wherewithal to counter A, but we are entirely able to choose to retaliate against group B in order to exert pressure against that country. This is the principle of "cross-retaliation" in international law. The WTO clearly recognizes the use of this principle in international trade, so there's nothing wrong with using it in other international conflicts. If you say that cross-retaliation isn't easy to understand, then I'll use a more obvious example. I asked the host, does the Beijing Olympic Torch Relay have anything to do with China's policies in Tibet? The host said, no it doesn't. Then I asked, is Jin Jing able to decide China's policy in Tibet? The host said, no she can't. Then, I said, why did they try to disrupt the torch relay and attack Jin Jing in order to protest China's policies in Tibet? It's obvious that this is common international practice. You're always for pushing for "adherence to international standards," so why can't you accept this standard? In answer to my statement, the guy who got hit with the water bottle in Kunming seized the opportunity and said, if it's like you say, then everyone can boycott Carrefour, except for you, Mr. Wang, because you're just like those people who wrecked the torch relay in France. Of course, this is more specious reasoning that people who've been brainwashed by so-called gentleness and cultivation over the past few years can't easily see through. I refuted this in (2).

(2) Refuting "because the French were wrong in boycotting the torch relay, we shouldn't be like them, so we shouldn't boycott anything French." I said, your argument's nonsense. For example, when someone hits you out of the blue, of course he's wrong, then if I say you can in no way hit him, then aren't you're also in the wrong if you hit him? But in that case, I've stripped away your right to self-defense; you can't say anything even if you're beaten to death, because a great deal of self-defense involves hitting people! The guy from Kunming said, but Carrefour wasn't the one who attacked Jin Jing. I said, that's more specious reasoning. The guy who's boycotting Carrefour just put it like this: the issue now is not between someone in China and someone in France—fundamentally, it's an issue between the countries of China and France.

(3) Refuting "90% of Carrefour's products are from China and 90% of Carrefour employees are Chinese, so by boycotting Carrefour you're hurting Chinese suppliers and employees." I said, first, the goal of the majority of Carrefour boycotters is just to express their opinions, or to put pressure on the French government. They don't want to ruin Carrefour, so "hurting Chinese suppliers and employees" is an untenable argument. In addition, as lots of online posts have pointed out, even if Carrefour is ruined, China has other major chain supermarkets, so Chinese suppliers can go there to sell their goods, and Chinese employees can go there to find work.

If I could continue speaking along these lines, and my opponents could continue to rebut me in the same way, everything would be good—everyone could expect to see a great debate. However, I didn't get a chance to speak two words when the guy opposite me, looking really fierce with his shaven head (I recall that he was called "Huajie" [Zhang Huajie], by the host and others; he seemed to be a filmmaker and was quite well-acquainted with the TV station people), started to berate me: You're just sucking up to the government! You're bold enough to boycott Carrefour, but do you dare boycott anything else? The best line from the fierce guy with the bald head was this: Now that the majority of people are showing patriotism, patriotism is powerful. As an intellectual, standing on the side of power, your patriotism is your shame! He continued to repeat that sentence and I started and stopped a number of times. I looked at the host—this extremely well-known TV host had no reaction whatsoever. I finally understood: the arguments I wanted to present were understandable to legal experts and to politically-concerned netizens, but much of the TV audience may not have understood. And they were afraid, they were very afraid that the audience in front of their TV screens would understand my arguments. So they stirred things up so that they basically didn't broadcast any scenes of me presenting my arguments. Even so, I didn't hold back—what I could do today was to let the twenty-some members of the studio audience know that those so-called "liberal" rascals weren't at all reasonable. I couldn't be cultivated, because if I were, then the studio audience would have only heard that boycotting Carrefour was sucking up to the government, that intellectuals who supported the boycott were not only sucking up to the government but pandering as well, that patriotism was intellectuals' shame. So I talked back loudly.

I've been a guest on countless TV stations in China and in other countries in the world—many countries in Europe, the Middle East, the US, and Australia. I've done many segments of TV discussion programs and have been gotten good reviews countless times. The other night I did an interview at my home with a Spanish TV station that was on the same topic as today's program. When I work with TV stations, a basic principle I use is that while I am expressing my independent opinions, I try as hard as possible to cooperate with the TV station employees and not do anything to mess them up. Because I know that doing a TV program is like when I write an essay: it draws together the efforts of lots of people, so I can't destroy their labors simply for a brief thrill. However, this time, when I saw that the host and the other program people weren't at all concerned when the bald guy with the fierce expression started wrecking the program, I felt that there was no reason for me to worry about protecting it. Indeed, I was angry; I saw that those people who claimed to be "liberal" were actually a group of dark-hearted people, scum who were up to tricks and schemes. They're afraid of the truth so they won't let you speak the truth, they won't permit the public, whom they've hoodwinked, to learn that there is another truth in the world. Liberalism is the last refuge of hucksters and scoundrels—that's how the line should really go.

(4) Refuting "Now that the majority of people are showing patriotism, patriotism is powerful. As an intellectual, standing on the side of power, your patriotism is your shame!" In the studio, I couldn't rebut this in calm tones. I could only shout. Here, I can calmly write out what I shouted at the time: Aren't you all about democracy? Isn't democracy decided by the majority? By that reasoning, aren't democratic policies simply mistresses to money, and isn't that a disgrace? Who'd have thought you could come up with this kind of shameful logic! This is the stupid, shameful, and gangster logic of the so-called "liberals."

(5) Refuting "It's no use to boycott Carrefour. The French president may apologize, but what's important is that 20 billion euros." This wasn't spoken by that bald liberal scoundrel; it was said by someone on his side who was relatively courteous. He said to me, "Boycotting Carrefour gave the expected pressure to the French government. Didn't the French president write a letter of apology to Jin Jing, which was personally delivered by the president of the senate?" In answer to this question, I said, there was that 20-billion euro order, but that wasn't able to prevent them, including their government, from supporting Tibetan independence and disrupting the torch relay, was it? And the French president's letter of apology came late, too, after the mass boycotts against Carrefour all over China. The New York Times commented: the French president "appeared to be kowtowing more to French commercial interests than to Beijing." Without the boycott by the Chinese public, would those businessmen have put pressure on their own government?

I've finished discussing the issues I wanted to clear up. Finally, let me speak of some other impressions about the process. I think that the young man who held up the sign boycotting the Zhongguancun Carrefour was pretty indecisive. He didn't utter a word, perhaps because of stage-fright, or perhaps he was grumbling to himself that I was a "Boxer" who had disgraced him (that bald liberal scoundrel was shouting: You're a disgrace to nationalism! I answered: You're a disgrace to the human race! Those scoundrel liberals are so low that calling them amoebas would be praising them—and insulting amoebas). I wanted to tell that young man, if you think that, you're wrong, you've fallen in their trap. They're telling you that "Boxers" and "angry youth" are boycotting Carrefour, so you're really afraid that other people will see you as one of them. You really want to appear genteel, so you've bound up your hands and feet. But they can act as hooliganish as they please—that's what they want. Let me tell you: you don't need to feel so inferior: the "Boxers" and "angry youth" of today's China for the most part come out of big-name universities in China and the west. The scoundrel liberals don't have any reason to feel superior in learning, intelligence, ethics, or even cultural sophistication. They can still hold that stance because they still control the dialogue. But this control was given to them by the same government that they criticize and pretend not to know. We have no reason to feel inferior in learning, intelligence, ethics, or even cultural sophistication.

I haven't forgotten that pretty young singer, although I don't remember her name. Of course, she was no match for an old warrior like me in the argument department, but her pretty face, should the program be broadcast, would certainly make her words more convincing. But the important thing wasn't her pretty face, but rather, in an environment that cut down Chinese who boycotted Carrefour (actually, I was quite aware in the control room, during the first segment when we so-called "intellectuals" and that singer had not yet gone on, that the atmosphere of this program had already been set), she bravely explained her opinion in support of the Carrefour boycott. Don't be misled that under today's "patriotic power" conditions that everything is easy. This is not an easy thing to do, because even today, it's hard to say whether there is "patriotic power," and in that small group in that atmosphere, patriotism was disadvantaged, and was even condemned as a "shame" by that bald liberal scoundrel. Look at the young man who had bravely held up a sign outside of the Zhongguancun Carrefour—during the second segment he dare stand up and say anything. This shows us even more the singer's courage. In the past, I've been really put off by the idea of "women rising and men declining" (阴盛阳衰), but recently, in the series of discussions I've had with traitors (that word does not in any way mistreat those liberal scoundrels), I've repeatedly seen women who are resolute and courageous, while men are cautious and indecisive. Chinese young men, you can't just let us old men charge the enemy lines with young women while you hide in back! You've got to stand up!

However, this old warrior isn't dead yet. Old warriors never die; they just pass on.

Sina's report on the program illustrated just how heated the argument became:

Tang Fei and Zhang Huajie said, "This saber-rattling attitude toward a boycott is cheap, hypocritical, and a way to suck up to the government." "Nationalism exponent" Wang Xiaodong reacted immediately and stood up on stage, pointing at Tang and Zhang: "You're the running dogs, yet you criticize me! You're a disgrace to everyone on earth!"

Host Zhao Chuan was eventually able to get everyone to return to their seats, but to everyone's surprise things started up again. This time Tan Fei jumped up too, and the two faced each other center-stage, arguing heatedly. Zhao had to use his powers as host to take over and force the end of the debate. When recording had finished, Zhang Huajie got up and extended his hand to Wang in a gesture of peace, but Wang walked off stage without looking back.

Afterward, Zhao Chuan said in an interview that the Carrefour boycott topic could easily get people riled up. Although the guests each came with their own opinions, and although there were heated debates and arguments on-stage, they were all expressing their patriotic feelings. If the broadcast on the 27th can resonate with TV viewers, then the program will have achieved its objectives.

Zhang Huajie has taken issue with Wang's characterization of his attitude, in particular the line about "intellectuals' shame," which he says he never uttered. He's offering 300,000 yuan for a recording of the entire session and has threatened to take Wang to court

Links and Sources

Wang Xiaodong's blog (China): Most people are patriots, so patriotism is a disgrace for intellectuals? via Song Qiang's blog
Tan Fei's blog (Chinese): Two guests nearly come to blogs over whether to boycott Carrefour
Zhang Huajie's blog (Chinese): My "traitorous" actions
Sina (Chinese): Tan Fei, Zhang Huajie guest on
New York Times: Paris draws China's wrath even as France tries to smooth things over

China Digital Times (Chinese): He Yanguan on opposing the Carrefour boycott

Guardian: The future is China's: profile of Wang Xiaodong from 2005

See also: When China learned to say no

Tags for this entry:

boycotts
,
Carrefour
,
nationalism
,
patriotism
,
Tan Fei
,
TV
,
Wang Xiaodong

tweet facebook bookmark HaoHao digg
<< Preserving traditional homes in Fujian | Intestinal virus kills 19 >>

There are currently 26 Comments for Talking heads spar over Carrefour boycott.

Comments on Talking heads spar over Carrefour boycott

Can anyone provide a link to the video? Thx

Posted by: Ma Bole | April 28, 2008 3:54 PM

In answer to my own question, Tan Fei's blog (see link above) includes a brief excerpt (1:46) from the show.

Posted by: Ma Bole | April 28, 2008 4:38 PM

i was planning to take Wang Xiaodong's side on this one just for ha-ha's until i read his rebuttal "arguments."

what university did this guy graduate from and where is teaching now?

i'll give him this though: it takes nerve to hurls accusations of speciousness at one's opponents even as one's own blunderings epitomize the absence of reason.

Posted by: b. | April 28, 2008 7:14 PM

I echo the above comment from b. The arguments and reasoning that Wang Xiaodong present in his blog post are flawed to the point of stupidity. I can't believe people like him are being invited as 'experts' to defend the side of the Carrefour boycotts. Too many people like Mr. Wang getting a stage will make everyone who is Chinese just look stupid to the rest of world.

Someone with some actual intellect needs to take his place when debating the arguments on the side of pro-Carrefour boycott...

Posted by: James | April 28, 2008 8:08 PM

Thanks for mentioning that, Ma Bole - I should have put that in the post itself.

Posted by: Joel Martinsen | April 28, 2008 10:29 PM

Well, b. and James, let's hear you knock down his arguments. Just one of them, to show you can "walk the walk". ;)

Posted by: P | April 28, 2008 10:50 PM

Frankly, how about before jumping into the substance of what was discussed, how about a round of hands for *policy debate* on Chinese TV? Furthermore, everyone involved (Wang, Zhang) are being forced to defend their subsequent positions through further online discussion. This is very meaningful stuff for Chinese society in general.

(As some have pointed out on their blogs, however... Zhang is deleting the vast majority of negative comments on his blog, if not responding with outright profanities... while Wang is leaving the debate going on his. Who's the defender of Western values in this debate, again?)

I think Tan Fei's take on things give a much less "emotional" version of what was actually discussed. And I look forward to hearing the actual points of discussion.

I hope that after everyone's gotten the vinegar out of their system, we can settle down on a more meaningful compromise: everyone has the right to boycott, or not boycott as they see fit. Neither side should resort to demonizing the position held by the other side.

Personally, I support the concept of a limited boycott as a way of sending a protest message, a message backed by a show of strength and unity. The debate has gone off-course by comparing boycotters with those who attacked Jin Jing in Paris. In reality, those who boycott peacefully are engaged in precisely the same exercise as those who protested the torch *peacefully* in Paris.

Protesters in Western capitals came out to shame the Olympic torch and (they hoped) the Chinese government by verbally/visually expressing their dissatisfaction, and they realized that they could only a make a statement about their dissatisfaction through strength of numbers.

Well, boycotters in Chinese cities should exercise the same right. They have the right to come out and shame a government that they strongly disagree with.

When I look at this debate, it's easy to identify the Western equivalents to Wang Xiaodong; various political activists in the West have been calling for a boycott of Chinese products, Chinese companies, and Chinese stocks for years.

But can someone explain to me why there isn't a Western equivalent to Zhang Huajie? Why aren't there Western intellectuals or statesman essentially condemning these activists for these (peaceful) actions?

Posted by: CCT | April 29, 2008 1:26 AM

I applaud Wang Xiaodong

You folks from a country with Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Bill O’Rielly opinionating on TV 24/7 are not in a position to call Wang Xiaodong stupid. He is way smarter than your talking heads. Good job, Xiaodong.

Posted by: bianxiangbianqiao | April 29, 2008 2:03 AM

Wang Xiaodong's argument is so stupid that I feel ashamed for him.

His logic is simple: end justifies means. How could one treat other people and their interests as mere means to achieve one's own end?

This Wang is intellectually hopeless.

Posted by: wenwu | April 29, 2008 10:21 AM

"I applaud Wang Xiaodong

You folks from a country with Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Bill O’Rielly opinionating on TV 24/7 are not in a position to call Wang Xiaodong stupid. He is way smarter than your talking heads. Good job, Xiaodong."---bianxiangbianqiao

How do you figure? Bill O'Reilly is a Harvard graduate. I don't know anyone ever graduating from there being stupid. Isn't one of the requisites to gaining admission to arguably the world's best school to first be smart?

Posted by: SGT. SLAUGHTER | April 29, 2008 11:44 AM

I read this blog entry first, then I read the Chinese original blog. Boy, it sounds sooooooooo different. If I didn't know better, I'd thought they are two completely different blogs. @_@

Not to say the translation isn't good. But there are really just somethings that doesn't carry over with translation, or gets mutated after translation. It's a hard job.

Posted by: Opersai | April 29, 2008 12:07 PM

"You folks from a country with Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Bill O’Rielly opinionating on TV 24/7 are not in a position to call Wang Xiaodong stupid."

That, sir, is a non sequitur.

"I applaud Wang Xiaodong"

Being dumb myself, I also agree with the substance of his arguments.

That said, isn't it interesting how the PRC debate surrounding Tibet has nothing whatsoever to do with Tibetans? In my view, this represents a clear triumph of official discourse. Looking at the 'nationalistic' arguments (if you will allow me to appropriate that term), I've seen statements regarding the need to protect China's territorial integrity, the government's (overstated and widely parroted) historical claims, endless reportage on the Han victims of the riots and how these victims represent the 'facts' of the situation (unlike, say, any unpleasantness done to Tibetans), complaints regarding media distortion, complaints regarding the protests during the Olympic torch relay, speculation of how these activities are aided and possibly directed by foreign governments/agencies, speculation on the agenda of "The West", discussion of how China should best defend itself... etc.

While I actually share many of these concerns, I have yet to meet a single Han Chinese who can explain to me why the Tibetans protested or rioted. If government policies regarding Tibet are so generous, why is discontent so widespread? Is it really all because of The Dalai Clique and bogus foreign reporting? Something is missing.

Forget westerners for a moment. Not having conducted a scientific survey, but having met my share of Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongolians inside China, I would like to make the following observation: they don't consider themselves Chinese. They consider themselves separate nationalities (not merely ethnic groups) who currently hold PRC citizenship - against their will. They don't consider their homelands to be an 'eternal part of China' any more than the Vietnamese feel that way about north Vietnam.

The official PRC version of history & ethnicity is a Han version, and simply is not shared by the other groups it is constructed to encompass. They have their own histories (both factual and fictional), and their own identities, which stand in contradistinction to official discourse - which takes the form it does precisely to exclude all others. They are conspicuous in their absence.

Please understand that in principle, I find official PRC discourse regarding Tibet generally pretty reasonable. In practice, things are somewhat more complicated. Think of it this way: Imagine you're the PRC government, and have just taken control of a society dominated by a feudal theocracy, with a living god-king. What would you do? The PRC answer seems eminently sane: Let the locals keep their religion, but insist that the system operate under government supervision. When the Dalai Lama went AWOL (this term is employed in the service of American cultural hegemony - and, what the hell, in honor of Mr Dobbs), it made this system temporarily untenable. Since his absence, the government has forced Tibetan monks to denounce His Holiness (TM) on a daily basis, while it waits for him to die. Until then, the only way for it to establish its legitimacy with the local population is to improve their material lives and direct their secular education. However, it seems evident that these in themselves are not enough. Religious convictions are characterized by their tendency to be irrationally powerful and resilient.

Given this situation, what policy would you choose? It's clear the daily denunciations etc. haven't worked - on the contrary. The problem is obviously festering. However, it seems to me that all options currently available to the government are dangerous. It's a complex problem.

So how did we get from there to the current debate? Well, it is clearly in the interest of the 'Free Tibet' groups to link their agenda to the Olympics, and equally in the interest of the government to keep them separate. In this contest, it seems to me that the government has won, at least as concerns the domestic population. The discussion has entirely left Tibet and focused instead on western media and a supposed general western bias against China. Note that this denies the possibility that any potentially legitimate Tibetan concerns should even be considered. The government's objective - which it has met - is to control discourse, not damage its international relations. That's why the official position is opposed to the boycott. Nationalist sentiment has served its purpose. Wang Xiaodong was put on television so the government could again control discourse, not so he could articulate his arguments. His purpose was to help establish a context to redirect the discussion. His presence was to make this seem reasonable - an arrangement with which he is evidently dissatisfied. It remains to be seen how many others feel the same way.

Now if you will excuse me, I must go Hurt The Feelings Of The Chinese People.

Cheers

Posted by: du yisa | April 29, 2008 12:27 PM

There's little debate about Tibet because there's little to debate about. To put it mildly, 99.999999% of Chinese (or at least those who have an opinion) feel very strongly that Tibet must remain part of China.

There are in fact *discussion* about how to improve policies in Tibet, but not much debate. Average laobaixing aren't going to get excited debating whether Han language education should begin in the 3rd grade or 7th grade.

So, all discussions involving Tibet and the Olympics must keep in mind this fundamental fact.

The Dalai Lama has a clear history of advocating independence, and a very murky history of supposedly not supporting it (while not opposing it). And as such, few Chinese sympathesize with Tibetan monks that want to "worship" him more freely. Americans don't seem concerned there are people out there who can't freely worship Mullah Mohammed Omar in Pakistan (purely religiously of course), either.

The only debate happening in China today is about *how* to oppose those who're seeking an independent Tibet, not whether we should do so.

Posted by: CCT | April 29, 2008 2:36 PM

du yisa, with all your grudge, you have to make a choice. You either choose to become a Chinese, or choose to become a separatist, or none of them. Becoming a Chinese, you and your fellow Chinese can create a new Chinese identity together. After all, history is made, and identity is created. Hans are the congregation of descendants of many different ethnicities, and current Han identity is historically created, just like the current American identity, or actually any other identities. Becoming a separatist, you have to collaborate with foreign manipulators, fight against Chinese, including many of your own people, and be satisfied with all the dents you may possibly make on China.

Posted by: wenwu | April 29, 2008 2:45 PM

The Chinese netizens are certainly exerting their influence, but what is of concern is their easy reception to 'patriotic and nationalistic' views (be they right or wrong) and heated language. Within their ranks, it is almost impossible to become (or at least known as) a dissident on any issue laced with a touch of nationalism, for fear of obvious negative repercussions....so that way you get the impression:

1. They are surprisingly 'united', or homogenous, in their views on certain matters despite their huge numbers.

2. You could rally a very very large number of Chinese to do almost anything under the sun, as long as they believe it is something for the sake of national interest.

So, like it or not, the boycotts and volume of irrational comments on Chinese bbs-es are contributing to the image of 'China Threat'. If fanning the flames of nationalism is part of the formula, that has certainly succeeded beyond anybody's expectation. At this point, perhaps one could start to better appreciate the tough governmental controls; the rulers have a real need to protect themselves from the people, who can kick some serious butt if they ever revolt in unison.

Posted by: Ark | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM

CCT, the issue the government needs to consider is not whether you "feel very strongly that Tibet must remain part of China", but whether the majority of people in Tibet feel that way. That is what will determine Tibet's social stability, *not* what the Han population thinks. If the government cannot convince the Tibetans to embrace or at least accept a Chinese identity, further social unrest is guaranteed. Whether you or the rest of the general population "sympathesize [sic] with Tibetan monks" or not partly determines the scope of the problem facing the government, but not its root cause. With all due respect, I suggest your comment illustrates my overall point regarding this discussion.

I am not advocating any particular position on the issue of Tibet's status as part of China. My comment was an attempt at dispassionate analysis. I suggest that yours entirely fails to address the fundamental problem, which is how the PRC can establish its legitimacy with the Tibetan population. If it can't, the region faces ongoing unrest, which is likely to become increasingly violent. This observation is not intended to promote such activity. I'm merely noting that your comments do nothing to help resolve this situation. Negotiations with the Dalai Lama might, or not. I share your reservations regarding his intentions. I assume he wants to preserve the theological institution of which he is a part (which he may well conflate with 'Tibetan culture'), and that this is his reason to make a deal with the PRC government. I also suspect he believes that Tibet will not remain "an eternal part of China", and he wants to ensure his institution is around when that happens. If the government can, it will deepen the connections between Tibet and the rest of China so as to make them inseparable even in times of social instability - which hopefully will be many centuries down the road, although almost certainly not never. Regarding the current negotiations, it remains to be seen whether the two sides have enough to give each other to make a deal possible.

Wenwu, your comment is very nuanced and interesting. I completely agree, with the caveat that identity cannot be forced. Just look at the troubles in Muslim countries, and I personally can't think of more coercive social and religious systems. The PRC government cannot forcefully assimilate Tibetans into a de facto Han society without questioning its own identity. Its historic claims on Tibet were a matter of imperial power, and the PRC is not an empire. Its current identity necessitates a different mandate.

Also, what makes you think I have a grudge? Maybe you misinterpreted some of my asides, such as when I mentioned that I consider the government's historical claims to Tibet overstated (for example, Tibet was mostly self-governing during the Ming dynasty, and during part of the Qing dynasty; cf. this paper by Elliot Sperling, which really isn't as long as it looks; another interesting and far shorter article by Francesco Sisci is here).

To both you guys: I am not attempting to rehash the arguments regarding whether China has legitimate historical, legal, territorial etc. claims to Tibet, although I do consider the official government positions oversimplified and biased (as they always are). What interests me are the dynamics of the current situation, which are complex. For instance, it is my inexpert opinion that although many Tibetans are currently living better material lives than ever before, they feel left behind as they see Han Chinese fare even better, and that this disparity can partly be explained by simple differences in things such as work ethic and entrepreneurialism areas in which Han consistently outperform members of other cultures (e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, United States, etc.).

It is my opinion that the Tibetan, Uyghur and Mongolian populations will present an ongoing problem unless the government can cooperate with them to create a national identity satisfactory to all parties. To date, the situation indicates this has not happened. I believe it can be done without damage to China's territorial integrity, but that this outcome is not certain.

Do you think I'm missing anything?

Posted by: du yisa | April 29, 2008 4:41 PM

du yisa, I agree with your conclusion. The government needs to show its leadership. However, the leadership and creativity of the social elite of all ethnicities are even more important. National identity is a collective project that reaches every arena, and it is now also a project of national security. China has to learn a lot of lessons from this year's events, and what you said in the conclusion is a key lesson.

Posted by: wenwu | April 29, 2008 8:27 PM

When I said "national identity is a collective project that reaches every arena", I was actually thinking about sports. China is colonized in the area of sports. We have our national sport, but we treat it as second class. We only favor those that are loved by westerners. We can learn from the Americans who have turned the football into a part of their national identity.

Sports is not the only area in China that has been colonized, nor is it the most important one.

Posted by: wenwu | April 29, 2008 8:43 PM

"...this disparity can partly be explained by simple differences in things such as work ethic and entrepreneurialism areas in which Han consistently outperform members of other cultures (e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, United States, etc.)."---DU YISA

You have to be kidding. There is no way you can possibly back up this statement. Americans work just as hard if NOT harder than their Chinese counterpart. Americans are just highly efficient creatures so we can take days off for Christmas and Sundays during NFL season.

Posted by: SGT. SLAUGHTER | April 29, 2008 9:36 PM

Du Yisa,

First off, my previous post had nothing to do with government policy. I wasn't making a statement about how Beijing should react, but merely making an observation about how the Chinese public at large view questions about independence for Tibet.

But to go off on your tangent regarding government policy...

"It is my opinion that the Tibetan, Uyghur and Mongolian populations will present an ongoing problem unless the government can cooperate with them to create a national identity satisfactory to all parties."

I do not agree with this statement fully. There are numerous minority populations within China, many of which traditionally has had very contentious (and violent) relationships with the Han majority + central government.

I'm referring to peoples like the Miao and the Hui. I'd even include Koreans and Mongolians within that group; despite your implications (and a US-funded effort), there is simply no meaningful separatist sentiment in Inner Mongolia.

In other words, it's not clear that there's anything at all wrong with Chinese policy in the long-term.

I believe creating some sort of a compromise solution which preserves Tibetan culture would be helpful, in terms of maintaining short-term stability. But for China, our priority must always to focus on long-term interests and values.

Posted by: CCT | April 30, 2008 1:11 AM

Well said Du Yisa. My question to you is how should the Chinese government go about "cooperating with (the minorities) to create a national identity satisfactory to all parties"? What are you suggesting?

Posted by: Pffefer | April 30, 2008 6:14 AM

Wenwu, your comments continue to be interesting, and in my personal opinion, extremely germane - particularly your observation on cultural colonization. Let me come back to that later, as I believe it helps to address Pffefer's question.

Fritz, in your country, the phrase "model minority" is used to refer to the Asian-American community, notably the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. These three ethnicities consistently outperform others in terms of education and income - and this includes the Caucasian majority. If you instead divide the population according to religion, the groups that do best are Hindus and Jews. This means that even when you factor in these two communities, the entire Caucasian population in the US underperforms the three ethnicities mentioned above, and conversely, even though many Koreans are devout Korean evangelical Christians, and many Chinese and Japanese in the US are Protestant Christians as well, Protestants as a whole still underperform Hindus and Jews (that said, it should be noted that the Hindus are largely a recent and elite community, who entered the country already possessing a high level of education, and are employed in sectors like hi-tech; however, this is not the case for the other groups mentioned above).

So what? Since Korean and Japanese culture and values are largely Chinese (I'll leave it to CCT to estimate a percentage), by which I mean Han, there is empirical evidence to suggest that Han culture, like Jewish culture, promotes excellence in these areas. This holds true even in situations like Indonesia under the recently deceased Suharto, who imposed a wide range of discriminatory laws against the country's Chinese community (these laws were subsequently repealed). You can check Malaysia for yourself.

CCT, it is my opinion that the Tibetan, Uyghur and Mongolian populations present challenges to the PRC beyond those related to other ethnic groups. Of the three, it does seem the Mongolians present the smallest problem. However, Mongolian nationalism is building across the border in tandem with anti-Chinese sentiment, and it seems reasonable to expect this development will have some effect on the Mongolian population inside China. It seems premature to dismiss this as inconsequential. That in itself doesn't mean that current PRC policy is in any way wrong, but the perennial unrest among the Tibetan and Uyghur populations suggests it has been less than entirely successful.

That said, I completely agree with you that China's top priority must be its interests. Anything else would be national suicide. It seems to me that widespread resentment and unrest among the Tibetans and Uyghurs is a clear threat to China's national interests. The trick is to get these populations to endorse and genuinely invest themselves in a nationalist program. How is this to be done? This brings us to Pffefer's question.

First, they must participate in this conversation as equals, with the understanding that the goal is to build a new national identity together, not separately. Current official discourse - including official history - is simply inadequate, in that it is not a collective effort. It has been imposed on the population. This includes the Han majority. The development of Tibetans and Uyghurs as Chinese citizens could be the catalyst for greater freedom in Chinese society as a whole. Admittedly, I'm speaking in very general terms (I'm squeezing in this comment at the end of the work week), but consider this: Tibetans should feel that Chinese identity is theirs, that it's something that belongs to them, not something imposed on them. They should feel it is something in which they actively participate, something they can shape, and that cannot mean simply agreeing with everything the government tells them.

This brings me back to Wenwu's comments. Chinese people have the freedom and ability to promote their own culture, yet they pursue many western things. The identity they want is significantly westernized - or colonized, as Wenwu mentioned. This is not necessarily a problem, and can be an advantage. Foreign music, foods, holidays, practices, etc. in themselves won't kill Chinese culture. Ignorance will. The government can and should support Chinese culture rather than shutting out others. The same obtains for the Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc. To the extent their cultures, histories and thinking are distinct from that of the Han, this should be celebrated, not suppressed. Again, the PRC is not an empire. Its institutions and history must be open to examination and debate for them to develop. I'm not saying 'anything goes'. I'm saying 'China is bigger than this'. That includes Tibet.

I have to go, and this is already quite long. I know I haven't mentioned anything specific, but the previous paragraph points in the direction that I believe needs to be taken. If you're looking for specific ideas, think of yourself in a westernized China. The position of Han culture in the face of westernization is similar to the position of Tibetan culture in the face of both. The same debates regarding the former position (e.g. regarding whether Christmas should be celebrated, 'cultural pollution' etc.) must be allowed for the latter. That gives you the general direction of my thinking.

Workers of the world unite! Enjoy your holiday.

Posted by: du yisa | April 30, 2008 5:17 PM

Ethnic minorities co-existing in a sovereign nation state has been a universal phenomenon as people has to accept and live with whatever history befalls them. The state of union is mostly based on mutual interest (political and economic) and cultural respect rather than on the so called shared cultural identity, something nearly impossible to achieve anyway. History has showed that harmonious co-existence of many ethnicities within a country is possible (a long and strenuous workout), but whenever things get terribly wrong, with eruption of ethnic wars and clashes, more often than not it is due to the intervention of the outside forces. This has made an extremely hard situation for any multi-ethnic sovereign nation to deal with its minorities, almost a life and death matter. You simply cannot have a minority policy without taking account into the present world order. world

Posted by: hc95 | May 1, 2008 2:52 PM

du yisa that is the most well said solution to this problem I have yet to hear. Is it possible that I can have your e-mail?

Posted by: silent observer | May 2, 2008 11:01 AM

Du Yisi:

Do you think China needs another Seventeen Point Agreement with Tibet?
Personally, I would say yes, and that the CCP could look at modern Canadian government treaty-making with Aboriginal Canadians, or New Zealand's Waitangi Tribunal for case studies in how to move forward. (Note: this isn't to say that China must learn from the enlighted Westerners. In fact, the building blocks for more positive relations with Tibetans are all there already in China's history -the Seventeen Point Agreement, various declarations such as the Yihai Jiemeng to the effect that minority peoples have a right to genuine autonomy. The challenge is to start putting them to use.)

Posted by: JL | May 2, 2008 3:17 PM

Sorry for the delay getting back to this.

Dear (formerly) silent observer, although I have no idea who you are, I will ask Joel to pass along my email. Please note I claim no expertise in anything whatsoever, including prolix commentary on Danwei.

JL, I don't know. The Seventeen Point Agreement does seem somewhat outdated (e.g. the many references to the Guomindang), and was repudiated by the "Tibetan Government in Exile" after they fled the country. It was an agreement to which the Tibetans acquiesced under duress. The "peaceful liberation of Tibet" wasn't. That said, the seventeen points themselves still seem largely applicable. I agree with you that in many cases, better implementation of existing policies and laws could well be more necessary, beneficial and challenging than drafting new ones.

That said, it seems to me some rethinking is needed on both levels to promote reconciliation. This is because we need an agreement the Tibetans genuinely endorse and work to support, not one they merely begrudgingly accept. It's my opinion it should offer a vision of Tibet's role in the further development of China - which is to say it should do more than simply state that Tibet is part of China, or that it was, but why it should continue to be. Perhaps that seems unnecessary - one could counter with the question "but it is, so why *shouldn't* it be?" However, the PRC is not a continuation of the Qing empire. Tibetans need to see it as their future. This necessitates their participation, not merely agreement.

Yesterday saw the first round of talks between the two sides begin here in Shenzhen, and apparently they've agreed to hold a second round at some point in the future.

It's not clear to me whether the government just wants to use the Dalai Lama to hamper the activities of the Tibetan Youth Congress and overseas protesters, plus whatever PR benefits it gets, or whether it sees a future for him in China. Based on the comments by President Hu, I'm hopeful for the latter, mostly because I suspect the alternative would be worse, and that the government may have made similar calculations.

That's my "useful contribution" to this discussion.

Cheers

Posted by: du yisa | May 5, 2008 11:35 AM

Post a comment

All comments are moderated and subject to review by Danwei contributors and editors, but well-grounded and articulate comments will be published regardless of which way they lean. Because comments published on any website ultimately contribute to the character of that website, we may decline to publish comments that are irrelevant, redundant, or that do not adhere to generally accepted standards of courtesy; if you are looking for a fight, there are plenty of other venues available online.

Name

Email (this will not be published)

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments:

Some useful html: <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>,
<a href="http://www.danwei.org">link</a>