Eric's Beijing Diary

Sunday morning. Took a walk in the park before I rode the bus into church. There is a guy with a little blackboard who likes to give impromtu math lessons to anyone who happens by. His thing is using shortcuts to work complex math problems. It's interesting to me how he always seems to be able to find an audience. Folks are interested in seeing how he does it, and they generally seem to have a good grasp of what he is saying. I think he'd be a bit frustrated if he were doing this in an American park. The level of math skill that an average person is expected to have is considerably higher in China than it is in America. I remember when I was in teacher's college in the seventies, and a professor was working some math problems on the board. One of the students, became very worried and asked if we really needed to know this stuff. Appalling. The professor had been demonstrating root operations on common fractions.

The park is peaceful on Sunday morning, because the crowds have not come out from the city yet. And it is perhaps a little more peaceful now because the summer heat discourages many hikers. I don't like Beijing summers. Autumn is beautiful. Winter is not bad. Lots of nice days. And spring is pleasant most of the time. But summer in Beijing is steamy. I have never spent an entire summer in Beijing. I always escape to Western China for at least a few weeks.

Ghastly article in the Global Times recently about press freedom in China. The article concerns a discussion on freedom of the press between members of the Chinese and German media, which was held in Shanghai the end of May.

Pretty mundane story until this: Horst Kohler, the German president, asked the members of the Chinese media in attendance about the level of freedom for Chinese journalists.

Chen Xiaochuan, editor of the China Youth Daily responded immediately, "The German media believe the Communist Party of China has set a red line for all of us. That line does not exist."

Rubbish. It was a completely dishonest thing to say, and the worst of it is that it was presented in the Global Times article as a serious comment. There is no integrity in that kind of "reporting."

Mr. Chen does "qualify" his statement somewhat: "However, we may have one red line, which is the common belief that the Dalai Lama is a separatist." Fascinating. So every single journalist in China has exactly the same opinion about the Dali Lama? I'd like to see if a mathematician at the Academy of Science could figure the odds of that happening by chance. If it's really true that every journalist in China sees that issue (or any issue, for that matter) exactly the same way, that speaks volumes about the kind of country China is with respect to news and information. Can you imagine a Japanese or American journalist daring to speak for every journalist in the country on such a hot button issue? In either of those countries, his colleagues would crucify him.

Certainly it is true that Chinese newspapers discuss a wide variety of subjects. It is not fair to characterize them all as being mere mouthpieces of the Communist Party. I have read many interesting feature articles in the China Daily, and quite a number of issues-oriented spots in the Global Times. Some issues are debated freely.

But some are not, and both the editor of the China Youth Daily, who made that horrendous statement, and the Global Times reporter who quoted him, know that. They know that there are some issues the Party does not allow papers to talk about, and especially some positions the Party does not allow papers to express. The whole piece was an exercise in practiced dishonesty. Here's how it actually works in China:

Most newspapers are not controlled by the government. But they are ALL regulated by the government. The party does not supervise the writing of every article in every paper. But they do read the papers, and tell the editors if there is something that they object to. And there are also times when they will issue an order in advance related to a given issue. A gag order, if you will. These orders are extra-legal, and they cannot be appealed. Thanks to some few courageous journalists, they are sometimes ignored, with consequences.

On occasion, a paper will publish something that crosses the line (and yes, there most certainly is a line, even when a specific gag order has not been issued), and they will get a warning. At other times, the infraction will be considered more serious, and there will be a punishment of some kind. There are many cases of this. One that got quite a bit of attention recently concerns the editor of the Southern Weekend, who was demoted after he interviewed Barack Obama during his visit to China in November of 2009. You can google this pretty easily and get several reports on it. It's a little hard for me to do from here, because most of the sites reporting this incident are blocked in China, but I did manage to find one. Again, I emphasize, for most papers, there is not micromanagement of every article. But there is definitely a clear understanding among editors of the "line" they must not cross, which results in a high degree of self-censorship.

But while most news reports are not specifically supervised by the party, there are times when the party will order a paper to publish a propaganda piece, which is not on the editorial page, and is presented as a news item. I am not sure which papers are subject to this. My surmise is that private papers are probably not as likely to be subject to this aspect, but the Global Times and the China Daily definitely are. I know that, because they are both English language papers, so I have seen many cases of these kinds of dictated reports. Headlines like "Government Policies Not to Blame" (China Daily), [The link goes to a Global times piece that references the original China Daily article. The headline in the Global Times piece is slightly different] and "Google Totally Wrong" (Global Times) are clearly dictated by the party. How do I know this? Because no self-respecting reporter would write an article with this kind of a headline. A reporter who did something like that in an open society like Japan or America would have a short career indeed.

Government Policies Not to Blame. It was clear at the time, and has become more clear since then, that, in fact, it was government policies that created much of the unrest that resulted in the Xinjiang riots. The party leader for Xinjiang was known to be a hard guy. His approach to the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang created a lot of bad feeling, and it is not a surprise that he was removed from his position at the recent party congress. Took awhile for it to happen, because he was a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. I don't think he was a member of the standing committee--I mean, one of the top eight or nine guys. But he was a member of the Politburo, so it was a little touchy getting rid of him. But they did it.

Google Totally Wrong. In this case, the article itself is much less obnoxious than the headline, and, to be fair, the Global Times has, at one time or another, allowed Google's position on the matter to slide through. But the reason that this headline is such an obvious example of propaganda is because everybody knew that Google was not totally wrong. If the headline had said, "Google Not Totally Right," it would have had considerable credibility, because, in fact, Google's actions were self-serving in a way that was not completely honorable. They violated their own principles when they thought there was money in it for them, then suddenly became righteous when it was clear that they weren't making that much money in China anyway. An article presenting these inconsistencies would have been helpful and informative. But the article Global Times decided to publish (more likely was ordered to publish) was, shall we say, less than interesting, and also patronizing, especially in the last paragraph. Again, Google was not totally right. But it was partly right. Google was right to correct their original decision to block access to certain sites. And they were certainly right to respond vigorously to the violent attacks on the email accounts of human rights activists, which we now know came from China (though not necessarily from the government).

We foreigners are often too quick to judge China. This is a big country with an extraordinarily diverse and complicated populace. As guests in this country, we should try to be patient and understand that China cannot just instantly adopt American standards of openness and democracy. So I try not to make bold pronouncements about what China ought to do, and I have learned to have a great deal of respect for the journalists who have to deal with that "red line" every day. If they are sometimes too cautious, who am I to criticize? But pretending that the red line doesn't even exist is inexcusable. The readers of the Global Times deserve better. More importantly, the courageous men and women of the journalism community who have paid the price for crossing that red line (sometimes unwittingly, but sometimes otherwise) for the betterment of the country they love also deserve better.

Labels: Obfuscation

Ever watch Talk Asia? I watched an interview there the other day that I think you would find interesting. Maybe it was more interesting to me because I am a blog writer. But you're a blog reader, so I think you will find it interesting, too. It is an interview with Han Han, a very well known blogger in China. Everybody here knows this guy, especially the young folks. He writes in Chinese, of course, so I have not read his blog, but the interview gives a very good idea what it is like, and his answers to questions are insightful--I mean the way he deals with the government, and the possibility that he might someday say something that raises their ire (if he hasn't already). He is quite tactful, not angry and hostile. But he does not mince words, either. Because of this, it would be tough for the government to shut him up. He is not a freedom fighter or a democracy activist. But he does speak out quite freely against corruption and bad policy. But I will let you watch it.

Currency. The issue keeps coming up. I have been reading comments on several sides of this controversy ever since I came to China. It has been debated several times on CCTV. The Wall Street Journal has, of course, addressed the issue many times in the six years I have been in this country. And the issue is discussed frequently in the China Daily.

Here is what it comes down to: When I first came to China, the currency was pegged. What that means is that the value of the Renminbi was arbitrarily set at about 8.2 yuan to the dollar. It was not allowed to fluctuate naturally. This was good for China, because it tends to promote stability, and because a cheap RMB made it easy for Americans to buy Chinese goods.

But many Americans complained about this. They said that if the RMB were allowed to float, it would soon rise to a level much higher than 8.2 yuan per dollar. In fact, the Chinese government did allow the dollar to float slightly beginning in 2005. But it was pegged again at the beginning of the economic crisis.

But let's say they were right. Let's say that China floated their currency, and it immediately rose in value to 4 RMB per dollar. What would have happen? Probably several things, but in the minds of many Americans, the most important result would be that Chinese goods would suddenly cost twice as much (in dollars) as they had before. People would be less likely to buy stuff made in China, and American manufacturers who hire high priced union workers would be able to compete with Chinese manufacturers who hire poor people from the countryside of China, and so all the manufacturing jobs that went to China would magically return to the United States.

What's wrong with this thinking? Or right with it? If the RMB moved upward suddenly, you could probably argue that jobs that have not left America might be more likely to stay there. For the most part, though, those jobs that have already moved to China would not come back to the United States. They would move to other countries in Asia. The reason for this is that those other countries are less developed and have not seen the kinds of wage increases that have taken place in China in the years of China's recent rapid development. Their manufactured goods would still be much cheaper than American made stuff for some time. But the larger problem is that, in fact, the RMB is not going to be allowed to float naturally. It is being allowed to float very slowly and slightly at a strictly controlled rate, and only because of strong pressure from the United States. This fluctuation is simply not enough to have the effect of moving jobs back to the United States. It will just mean that Chinese goods will be a little more expensive for Americans.

My frustration with this whole question comes from my observation of how the the same issue played out in America's relations with my home country (Japan) an economic generation ago. I was in college when I turned on the TV and watched American congressmen bashing a Toshiba radio with their sledge hammers. In some ways, the injustice was greater then, because it was a rage against Japanese products, which were competing because they were of excellent quality. The Japanese deserved to be winning This time it is not an expression of rage against Chinese products, but an anger about American products manufactured in China at much lower costs, taking jobs away from American factory workers. There are no shoes made in America anymore. I ordered a pair of shearling moccasins a few years ago from L. L. Bean. You can't buy anything like that in China, but they were, in fact, made here.

But both in the case of Japan and China, the real problem is that labor costs in America are just too high. This is America's problem. It is was not something Japan had any control over that time, and it is not something China can do anything about this time. This is my beef with the Americans. They expect China to raise the currency rate and send the poor factory workers in the Pearl River Delta back to the countryside just so that overpaid unskilled workers in America can make more money to put in the coffers of union fat cats. And what do the unions do with this money? In the last election, the AFL-CIO set aside a fund of $53 million to get Obama elected. Assuming a salary of 1200 RMB per month, that money would feed and clothe 25 thousand factory workers in China for a year. Fifty-three million dollars. This is why American factory workers are overpaid. So that the labor unions can put their man in the White House. And you can imagine Obama owes a huge debt to those unions.

But there is also the issue of productivity. I will certainly concede that there was a time in the United States when unions were necessary. Unions did a lot to improve working conditions for laborers. I remember sitting in a truck stop one time watching a movie about Jimmy Hoffa. One driver said, "You can say what you want about him, but every truck driver in America owes that man a debt of gratitude." I suppose he was partly right. Even non union workers' wages are influenced indirectly by what is gained by the unions. But they have gone too far. I had a friend once who went to work for a General Motors plant in Minnesota. He had been brought up to work hard, but the other workers felt threatened by his diligence. They began pestering him to slow down. He ignored them. Pretty soon the union boss came to him and ordered him to slow down, because he was making the other workers look bad. He ignored the union boss. He told me that it wasn't more than two or three weeks before his supervisor came to him, and said, "I'm sorry, but if you don't slow down, I'm going to have to let you go. The union is complaining about you, and we don't want labor problems."

Can you imagine a factory worker in South China being punished for excessive productivity? The labor unions have destroyed the auto industry in the United States, and instead of confronting this problem head on, The Americans want China to prop up the decrepit American labor system by adjusting currency rates at the expense of Chinese factory workers who are working to support their families. So far, China has stood firm against this pressure--something the Japanese were not able to do. Japan bowed to American pressure, and it flattened their economy. They have never recovered. China (so far) has been more independent. But recent indications are not encouraging. I had thought China was all through letting the Western powers tell them how to run their economy.

The Americans have been right about many things, but they are dead wrong about this one. And their position is fundamentally hypocritical. Hong Kong has pegged to the dollar for many years, and I have never heard a complaint. And several countries use the dollar as de facto currency. The country of El Salvador doesn't even have it's own coinage. The U.S. dollar is used exclusively. If that's not a peg, I don't know what is. So why all the fuss about China? Because China provides the competition that ought to motivate the Americans to fix their labor problems. But the unions will have none of it. And they are spending lots and lots of money to ensure that their voice predominates.

I do not suggest that the issue should not be debated. There may be other reasons for allowing the yuan to elevate a little. Haven't seen any that impress me yet, but I allow that possibility for the sake of argument. But China must make this decision, and it must be made in consideration of what is best for the working people of China, not in response to pressure from American politicians, whose election campaigns are financed by union war chests.

I'd be tempted to ask this guy why he is using an umbrella. He would probably say, "Because I don't want to get wet."

Seems like China has these floods every spring. And the problem in China, is that they always tend to upend things for many thousands of people. Floods don't generally kill as many people as earthquakes do, but they sure destroy a lot of property. I don't know why, but in China, it seems like with the weather, it's either feast or famine. Either massive drought and no water, or so much rain you are (quite literally) drowning in it.

It's mostly the middle belt of the country. Perhaps I should say central and/or South China. Beijing has had it's share of disasters, too, over the years, but they tend to be political rather than natural. Earthshaking cultural upheaval (such as the Cultural Revolution); a severe knowledge drought caused by a government-enforced dearth of untainted, objective information; and a flood of corruption, encouraged in part, I think, by a stream of money--hundreds of billions of dollars--flowing in from the United States like a raging river.

This has been a frustrating year for blogging. First, China blocked access to Blogspot (where my blog is hosted), then Facebook (where my pictures were hosted). I managed to get a proxy set up so that I could get into Blogspot, and found another place to put my pictures. Now that location has also been blocked, and the proxy is clogging up.

Recently, Eason found a pretty good VPN, so I am able to get in without too much trouble. But it is a bit of a hassle. The constant challenge to circumvent the GFW (Great Firewall of China), which the Chinese government refers to euphemistically as the "Golden Shield Project," has spawned a whole generation of network sleuths in this country. Necessity is the mother of invention. Without getting too technical, the GFW is used to block certain IP addresses or Internet domains from getting through. In the West, many have thought that China scrutinizes every web site and reads every email to search for terms that are considered objectionable. But most people don't stop to think about the logistics of actually doing that. Certainly the government does some of this, but what is far more common (and much easier to do) is the blocking of specific offending domains. Finding objectionable emails requires an army of snoops. But blocking a domain is as simple as a few mouse clicks--assuming, of course, that all Internet traffic is let into the country through routers controlled by the government. My problem is that I have never purchased my own domain. If I had, I may not have any trouble. The government probably doesn't even know who I am. I don't think I have ever said anything "bad" enough to be censored by the net nanny. But my blog is hosted on Blogspot, which hosts gazillions of blogs. If the government finds an offending blog post somewhere on Blogspot, they don't filter it out. They don't have the technology to do that. They just block the entire domain (blogspot.com), because, as I said, that is so easy to do. For the first few years I was in China, this never bothered me, because if you have a blog on Blogspot, you actually update your blog from a different site (blogger.com, which was never blocked before.

But since Obama was elected--or more specifically, since Hillary Clinton came to Beijing and told officials here that America would keep quiet about human rights if China would keep buying Treasury bills, the noose has been tightening. Now both Blogspot and Blogger are blocked.

Hillary Clinton has never said that the Americans do not care about human rights. But she said that America's concerns would be expressed privately, not publically. This was an invitation to Beijing to tighten the screws, and the change has been noticable.

So what to do? If you are located in the United States, and you have a server that can access a given domain (such as Blogspot), I can connect directly to your server, and access Blogspot through your server. How can I do this? Because Blogspot is blocked, but your server is not blocked. If I try to access Blogspot directly, I will be unable to reach it. But If I access Blogspot through your server, I can get right through, because the government knows about Blogspot, but it doesn't know about you. A server that serves as a proxy for someone who is trying to access the Internet is called a "proxy server."

I have access to a proxy server for my blog, and I have a virtual private network I use to upload jpegs, so I am more or less able to function, now, but I think you can understand that it is tentative. If the government discovers a proxy that is giving access to web sites the government wants to block, they can simply block the proxy. It takes them awhile to find these, but eventually they often do. Keep in mind that none of this is a legal issue. I suppose the government could have just passed a bunch of laws prohibiting access to certain sites, but they have not done that, perhaps because such a law would be hard to enforce. So it is not illegal to access blocked sites, just challenging.

Caught this picture of a sidewalk merchant catching some Z's. If you click on the picture and blow it up, I think you will be able to see the little critter resting on his belly. These merchants are not legal, so they have to be ready at any time to wrap up their wares and head out when the cops show up. Sometimes this results in altercations with the police, but this is usually not a good idea, so if the merchants can't outrun the cops, they usually just throw up their hands.

I have mixed feelings about these guys. I have bought several ties from a street vendor in Wudaokou who is a pretty nice guy. I have lived in Beijing for awhile, so I don't bargain with him. I just pick one out, hand him 20 kuai, and take the tie. He never argues with me, perhaps because he can tell that I have lived locally for sometime, and also perhaps because he is probably getting them for 5 or less a piece. I have bought ties for 30 RMB, but I have also bought ties on sale for 10. I think 20 (about 3 US dollars) kuai is fair. But if you go to the U Center, an upscale shopping center on the east side of the tracks in Wudaokou, they will charge you 400 kuai. Twenty times as much as what I give the sidewalk merchant. To be fair, he probably gets quite a bit more than that from other foreigners who are just passing through, and don't know local prices. But I think even his best price would be quite a bit less than the U Center price.

So I do like these merchants. But I also don't blame the city for wanting to manage things a bit. Sometimes it gets so bad that you can't even walk. They have the sidewalks covered with their stuff, which moves the pedestrians out into the bicycle lane, which moves the bicycles out into the street with the cars. It's almost as bad as trying to ride a bicycle in an American city, where most streets don't even have bicycle lanes.