March 2008 Archives

Beijing is facing a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario right now in southern Africa, and one that threatens to bring more heat on a central Chinese government already struggling to paint a positive image of itself in the midst of international criticism over the situation in Tibet. At issue is the election in Zimbabwe.

As it stands now, the people of Zimbabwe are waiting to find out whether President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF will maintain its 28 year hold on power, or whether the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) will take over. Governments the world over are watching this situation quite closely, and none more than Zimbabwe's largest investor, China. But rather than having any sort of concern over losing investment in Zimbabwe, the central government is most likely concerned about what a Mugabe win will do when it comes to public relations on the international stage.

In the lead up to the British handover of Zimbabwe back to its people in 1980, two Marxist factions within the country warred with one another for ultimate supremacy. The then-Soviet Union backed the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), while China put its support behind Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). China bet on the right horse, with Mugabe's ZANU sweeping into power in the 1980 elections. From that point on, the Chinese government has been one of Mr. Mugabe's strongest supporters, and continues to heap aide and investment into his country, despite numerous sanctions levied against the Zimbabwean government over alleged human rights abuses. As such, these elections in Zimbabwe this weekend couldn't have come at a worse time for China.

Many observers believe that Mr. Mugabe will not release his grip on power, even if the polls show that the MDC has won victory. And, given previous election controversy in Zimbabwe, even if Mr. Mugabe's ZANU-PF does win, it's highly likely that the results of the vote will be condemned by the majority of the international community, given consistent allegations of vote rigging. Hence the bad PR situation Beijing finds itself in.

If Mr. Mugabe is declared the winner, Beijing will be obligated to sanctify the election results and continue to throw its support behind Mr. Mugabe's government, which will fly in the face of the vast majority of the international community, and will give more fuel for those who would use China's actions as a reason to boycott the Olympics. If Mr. Mugabe loses, but still maintains power, Beijing will be called to the carpet to justify allowing Chinese companies to continue to do business in a country with an illegitimate government.

The best case scenario for Beijing is the election and safe transition of power to Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC. Whether or not that will happen is anyone's guess over the coming hours and days. If it does, the CPC might lose an ideological partner, but will avoid giving more political ammunition for the anti-China ideologues around the world.

It appears - and I stress the term appears -- today that Beijing municipal authorities have confirmed a rumor that has been circulating around the capital's pubs and restaurants the past couple of weeks; smoking restrictions are going to be implemented in advance of the Olympics.

Beijing to ban smoking in public places from May
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2008-03-31 11:57

BEIJING -- The Chinese capital will ban smoking in most public places starting from May 1 -- a big step toward tobacco control in a nation of 350 million smokers. The move will also meet China's pledge of a smoke-free Olympics. More than 150 Chinese cities already have limited restrictions in place, but the capital will be the first to ban smoking in all restaurants, offices and schools, English-language China Daily reported Monday. Beijing has had some smoking restrictions since 1996, when the municipal government prohibited lighting up in large public venues such as schools, sports arenas and movie theaters. The new rules, which were announced on Saturday, expand the scope to include restaurants, bars, Internet cafes, hotels, offices, holiday resorts and all indoor areas of medical facilities. Hotels must also have rooms for non-smokers, but the ratio is still being discussed, said Cui Xiaobo, a renowned tobacco control expert who helped draft the new rule. Institutions that fail to comply face immediate fines of up to 5,000 yuan (713 U.S. dollars), while it has not yet been decided how to deal with smokers breaking the new rule.

Speaking to a manager last week at one of my favorite haunts here in Beijing, The Purple Haze, I was told that while there had been quite a bit of discussion within bar and restaurant circles, no official rules have been brought forth.

I'm of two minds on this subject. Having lived previously in Vancouver, which had a city-wide smoking ban in place in bars and restaurants, I found that it was somewhat nice not having to get strong whiffs of smoke up my nose while I was trying to eat. That said, I am a smoker myself. And I enjoy nothing more than being able to relax with a beer at a pub or restaurant and have a cigarette. And I really wasn't a fan of having to trudge outside during a rainy Vancouver winter to hack a butt. But, much like a lot of things in life, you get used to it. Before the smoking ban was implemented in Vancouver, the bar and restaurant owners association was screaming bloody blue murder, saying a complete ban would cause incalculable financial losses. That never happened. However, Beijing may be a bit different. This is a smoking society. Anyone who has ever been to an official function is likely aware that its almost protocol to offer guests cigarettes as a gesture of respect. Handing out cigarettes has also become a tradition at weddings. Smoking is almost a way of life here in China.

With that in mind, I have my doubts about whether this smoking ban will be put in place. Reading through the Xinhua report, one can't help but recognize the vagueness of the language, which leads me to believe that the government is simply planning on saying one thing, and doing another. As well, one has to wonder how Beijing is going to enforce any type of smoking ban. In this new era of bureaucratic reduction here in China, I highly doubt were going to be seeing roving bands of Taliban-like beard inspectors cruising around Beijing looking for bars and restaurants breaking a smoking ban. So, unless a snitch line is set up, there is going to be little incentive for bar and restaurant owners to enforce the rules.

I am not a supporter of smoking. I know it sounds hypocritical, but it's true. I have warned off numerous young people who have considered lighting up, because I know what a pain in the arse it is to try to quit. That said, come May 1st, I highly doubt I'm going to be forced outdoors to get my fix.

CNN has decided to issue a statement regarding the criticism it has received online and elsewhere:

CNN has been singled out for criticism for our coverage of events in Tibet through an anti-CNN.com Web site and elsewhere. We have provided comprehensive coverage of all sides of this story, but two specific allegations relate to pro-Tibetan bias. We would like to take this chance to respond to them:

Allegation 1: CNN intentionally cropped an image in order to remove Tibetan protesters throwing stones at Chinese trucks.

CNN refutes all allegations by bloggers that it distorts its coverage of the events in Tibet to portray either side in a more favorable light. We have consistently and repeatedly shown all sides of this story. The one image in question was used wholly appropriately in the specific editorial context and there could be no confusion regarding what it was showing, not least because it was captioned: "Tibetans throw stones at army vehicles on a street in the capital Lhasa." The picture gallery included in Tibet stories includes the image. (See the gallery)

We have also published images showing violence by Tibetans against the Chinese. A March 18 story shows Tibetan youths attacking a Chinese man. (Read the story)

Additionally, we have published video from the Chinese media apparently showing Tibetans attacking Chinese interests in Lhasa. (Watch the video)

Allegation 2: CNN referred to Tibet as a "country."

CNN's policy is to refer to Tibet as "Tibet Autonomous Region of China." In our dozens of stories on the topic to date, we are aware of only two instances where it was incorrectly referenced as a country.

CNN's reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially, while our coverage through the use of words, images or video always reflects a wide range of opinions and points of view on every story.

Nobody on this blog dislikes China, and nobody wants to see China fail. In fact, in discussions with friends, relatives, and colleagues overseas, almost all of us defend China against unfair criticism or accusations (obviously much more recently, as the Tibet situation has unfolded). China is a complicated place, and there are no easy answers.

But man, this stuff is getting harder and harder to defend. Western news organizations in China have been called repeatedly and harassed over their apparently biased news coverage:

CNN was the chief target of the Chinese ire, but hardly any western press escaped the torrent of rage. Their anger even spilled over to the New York Times and Washington Post, which Chinese consider, or used to consider, beacons of journalism. Staff at the papers' Beijing offices have been busy answering anonymous, angry phone calls and enduring a torrent of insults. As the Xinhua News Agency puts it, western press has "intentionally played tricks on photos and TV footage to mislead the audience" and the "biased reports by western press is the result of infiltration by political force." A website (www.anti-cnn.com) was established to "gather, sort through, and publish evidence of the EVILS of mainstream western media."

Similar comments can be found on any online bulletin board discussing the incident. "The time has passed when the western countries could try covering the sky with the lies of a few filthy mouthpieces," wrote one anonymous commentator. The revolutionary fever and provocative slogans are most familiar to people who have lived through the Cultural Revolution and they still work pretty well--the campaign attracted thousands of supporters in only a couple of days.

Is this how the majority of people in China feel? When I tentatively raised the topic with a long-time friend, who is well-educated and mild in manner, I was immediately cut short by a righteous lecture. "What do you have to complain about hostile phone calls?" he said. "Those shameless western mouthpieces deserved it! And It's only for the best that CNN and BBC are blacked out so your lot could not pollute those weak-minded Chinese with your lies!"

And lest anybody think these are polite calls expressing distaste for western journalism procedures, the TIME China blog sets us straight according to an Internet post it has found:

"The phone is our weapon," he writes, then advises people to "Phone them to death. If someone answers, uses Chinese English to ask about their mothers, then hang up. If no one answers, keep calling so they can't receive calls or make them. Drown the sons of bitches with noise!" 『传媒江湖』 [焦点评论]拿起电话 呼死 XXXX (转载) 作者：scqx88 提交日期：2008-3-24 21:55:00 　　电话就是我们的武器， 呼死 XXXX，　　如果有人接， 请用中英文问候他老妈， 然后挂掉，　　如果没人接， 就一直打， 这样让他们没电话进也没电话出， 吵死这帮狗杂种！

Look... I will be the first one to say that Chinese people have a right to question the coverage they receive (although, from time to time, it would be nice if they took their newfound dedication to fair and unbiased journalism practises and focused it at their own domestic press). However, calling these news organizations and hanging up, or insulting them, is childish, and completely unbecoming of a great nation. The people that engage in this kind of petty behaviour not only have little effect on the journalists they torment, but also hurt the image and genuine concerns of the people they claim to represent (ie. the Chinese people).

Complaining is your right. Being upset is your right. But handle it in a mature and adult fashion. Call and discuss what you don't like. Make suggestions and constructive criticism. Write letters to CNN headquarters in Atlanta. I'm afraid the receptionist who picks up the phone in Beijing can't be of much help.

If the Chinese people are concerned about their image in the west (and I'm not saying they are), this doesn't help. And neither does this.

Let's hope this is just an aberration.

An excellent opinion piece by Richard Spencer in the Daily Telegraph tells a side of the Tibet unrest that we haven't heard:

Those dependent on what the government has to say saw only soft-focus pictures of smiling folk dancers and peasants improving their lives through money funnelled from Beijing. That many Tibetans resented the Chinese would have seemed at best incomprehensible and at worst racist to an audience brought up on an ideologically correct vision of China's ethnic minorities living in harmony.

He looks at a friendship between a Han Chinese and an ethnic Tibetan that has fallen apart since the protests (or riots -- take your pick) in Lhasa.

Check it out.

UPDATE:

Not that we want to promote Richard Spencer too much, but he has just posted his latest blog entry. It's his persperspective on the accusations of western media bias, and it's a fascinating read:

Sure, it is easy to jump from these errors to "the western media is biased and hates China so why don't you just go and leave us alone". But that, as far as I can see, is pretty much it. Why are we biased? How are we biased? What, specifically, are we saying or not saying about China and Tibet that so offends? What, apart from these pictures, have we got wrong?

It seems that Xi'an is where it's at for the BBC. At least, that is, in terms of web-blocking--user reports pinpoint the city as where it all became accessible first. But now a slightly more surprising bit of information has been thrown into the mix: BBC Chinese is reportedly unblocked in Xi'an, according to users reporting to the Chinese Service:

According to the BBC, Xi'an users say mainland Internet users in Xi'an can access the BBC Chinese network, but Beijing netizens say they are still unable to see the BBC Chinese network.

As the Chinese Service correctly identifies, the site is not easily accessible in Beijing. Yet there have been some reports saying the site loads in the capital.

Western media bias has come to the fore in recent days with the launch of the Anti-CNN website, which outlines some of the apparent western media bias with regards to the unrest in Tibet. The Chinese mainstream media have picked up on the theme, and have run stories criticizing western outlets for not fact-checking their material.

There is no doubt that the cases cited are abhorrent examples of what journalism should aspire to be. Anytime simple facts are incorrect, or photos mislabelled, it shows carelessness and a lack of attention to the craft. Anybody who labels Nepalese police as Chinese, labels protests in Nepal as protests in Lhasa, or artfully crops photographs to alter the context (all of which happened) should face full criticism of not only the Chinese, but anyone who cares about free speech, fairness, and objectivity.

Mistakes made in the western media were timely, as it nicely coincided with Tuesday night's Danwei Plenary Session. I attended along with fellow Zhongnanhai writer Chris, and we both came away rather impressed with the guests, the audience questions, and the nuanced discussion which followed. There are, however, a couple of things I'd humbly like to add on this general topic, if not on the Plenary itself.

First, there must be tens of thousands of stories, photos, and videos of the unrest in Tibet. Mistakes should never be tolerated, but if, in that avalanche of coverage in this digital era, only a handful of examples of bias have been discovered, I would say that strengthens the argument that the western media generally does a decent job.

Second, an audience member asked a question regarding the use of the word "crackdown", and more specifically why western journalists use this word in relation to Tibet, but not in relation to the semi-recent riots in France. I met up with a few colleagues for hot pot afterwards, and we got into an interesting debate on this word. I generally feel "crackdown" doesn't necessarily come with negative connotations. For example, a Chinese "crackdown" on DVD piracy is generally believed to be a good thing (well, unless you like stocking up at the Lido). The problem, we felt, is that "crackdown" reminds people of the non-event in a big square in Beijing in 1989. To western minds, I would submit, a "crackdown in Tibet" conjures up images of peaceful monks praying for a modicum of freedom and peace while big, burly Chinese military officers come in to crack some skulls. If this is the perceived notion, then journalists should be careful when using the word "crackdown".

Jonathan Watts, the correspondent for the Guardian newspaper (who was filling in for an absent Jaime FlorCruz from CNN), said that he has struggled to use the correct terminology in his stories. Are the Tibetans rioters or protesters? Are the Chinese "cracking down" or "restoring order"? He said that he's used nearly all the terms, and makes a judgement call based on that individual situation. I believe that's as best as can be asked.

Lindsey Hilsum, the China correspondent for Britain's Channel 4 News, said the biggest problem isn't the terminology or bias but rather the lack of access to Tibet. Whether it was a crackdown, riot, protest, or civil disorder, no journalist can label anything properly unless they get access to the region. Unfortunately, that hadn't happened at the time of the plenary (it was reported later that journalists are now trickling into Tibet).

The other two panelists, Raymond Zhou from the China Daily and Steven Lin from Sohu also provided unique insights. Raymond feels that western journalists spend too much time focusing on issues like censorship and democracy. Both feel a free press would be good for China, but must be introduced slowly. They also feel that foreign reporters tend to gravitate towards the negative.

Generally speaking, I don't believe the foreign journalists based in China have been churning out biased coverage. In fact, of all the foreign media, those who have lived and worked in China will most likely provide the most nuances to their coverage - which is why it's surprising the government wouldn't allow them into Tibet. There are a number of western commentators based in the UK, America, and other countries that like to bloviate on China's crimes without having much understanding of the country. I might not like it, perhaps the Chinese don't like it, and maybe Danwei doesn't either, but in a free-speech environment they're entitled to their opinions, too. If China is confident in itself, it must allow these reporters into the region to verify the government's word. If the Chinese authorities can't manage that, then suspicions are raised and fodder is given to its harshest critics.

Finally, slightly off topic, I was a guest on Adler Online, a nationally-syndicated Canadian radio show, at 2 o'clock Tuesday morning (gotta love that time difference) to discuss Tibet. His producer called me for a chat prior to the segment, and her anger at China was vitriolic. She favors a boycott of the Olympic games. I reckon the host of the program, Charles Adler, does too. Following our segment, he took calls from Canadians to get their opinions. 100% of the callers (the phone segment was only 15 minutes in length) favoured a complete Olympic boycott by the Canadian Olympic Committee.

Feelings on the subject of Tibet are obviously running deep. While I tend to consider "moral equivalency" a convenient but often inaccurate crutch when two sides are firmly entrenched, both sides of this dispute nontheless need to look in the mirror, calm down, and begin making efforts to understand the other.

Journalists are caught in the middle, and whether Chinese or foreign, their jobs are under that much more scrutiny on such a polarizing issue.

(Note: You can listen to the interview on the national edition of Adler Online via its flagship station, CJOB in Winnipeg. Go here, click on Mon Mar 24, 1pm. The interview will start following the 5 minute hourly news.)

With all the turmoil and controversy that's been brewing in China's southwestern regions as of late, I find it somewhat ironic that this week has seen a self-motivated decision of an autocratic leadership to endow its people with the right to choose. And right next door, no less. I direct your attention to Bhutan.

This country is really an enigma, and is simply unknown to the vast majority of the world, given its size, location and policies toward tourism. Known to its people as the Land of the Thunder Dragon, and often described as the last Shangri-La, Bhutan this week became a democracy. After just over 100 years of Royal rule, the people of Bhutan voted on Monday in parliamentary elections for the first time ever.

Bhutan is really an interesting story, and one that could call into question the CPC's theory about 'liberating a backwards people.' For those who aren't familiar with Bhutan, allow me to give you a somewhat brief synopsis of the country.

The Bhutanese people share a common ancestry with the Tibetans and the Nepalese. Some archaeological evidence suggests that the region might have been settled around 4,000 years ago, but no one is really sure. Bhutan wasn't even really a country until the early 1600's when a Tibetan lama unified a collection of tribal states under one law. And in 1907 Bhutan became an absolute monarchy. From all accounts, the Bhutanese people were quite happy to be ruled by the monarchy. But despite this, the monarchy decided in 2005 to bring in a new constitution, and the vote by the people this week officially sealed Bhutan as the world's newest democracy.

Bhutan's whole mandate is happiness. In fact, this is a country that has developed a system to measure happiness. It's even got a term: Gross National Happiness. Though it's pretty difficult to define, it is a system that Bhutan uses to measure quality of life. Because Bhutan is made up predominantly of Buddhists and some Hindus, there is a very strong spiritual base. As such, back in 1972 the then-king decided that instead of focusing on economic development, his country would try to grow under a more holistic approach, something that flies in the face of the break-neck economic growth mandate Bhutan's giant neighbor to the north has undertaken. Still, Bhutan's economy is growing quite quickly. In 2006, Bhutan's Gross Domestic Product grew by 14 percent, thanks to the sale of Hydro electric power to India. And a survey done to calculate the Gross National Happiness in 2005 showed that 45 percent of Bhutanese were 'very happy,' 52 percent were just 'happy' and 3 percent were 'unhappy.' It's with this in mind that I consider the 'liberation' of Tibet by China.

Nobody came into Bhutan and messed with it. Nobody tried to 'help' it develop. The world left Bhutan alone. As a result, the some 700,000 people of Bhutan are now determining their own political future and - according to the GNH stats from that country - seem to be doing just fine.

What's done is done. No one can change what has happened with Tibet. But given what is happening next door in Bhutan, I can't help but wonder what things would be like if the Chinese government didn't decide to 'help' in Tibet some 50 odd years ago.

When I first arrived in China over two years ago, I was somewhat irked by the fact that I was unable to get my daily dose of news from the BBC. Now after using hundreds of Proxies, and investing in a VPN -- What happens? You guessed it. It's unblocked -- kind of. It seems as though the firewall is still in place for Chinese language services on the website and for any links in Chinese.

'People in China are able to access English language stories on the BBC News website in full, after years of strict control by Beijing.

The Communist authorities often block news sites such as the BBC in a policy dubbed the "great firewall of China".

But BBC staff working in China now say they are able to access news stories that would have been blocked before.'

Now, the cynic in me questions the reasoning behind this. And bear with me here. Could it be that this website has become unblocked as part of a 'knee jerk' reaction to the fact that Media coverage of recent events has, at best, been 'questionable due in part, to the fact that foreign journalists have been denied access to these troubled areas? And that the authorities are trying to give a 'balanced' viewpoint to those that can read English? Or, is it another way to inflame people by saying: 'Look, this is what they're saying...'

Or are we seeing the start of the 'Opening Up' policy in the final countdown to the Olympics? If so, why have the BBC been rejected by the Chinese government as part of the foreign media organisations trip to Tibet?

Full article available here.

By Cam MacMurchy

The protests against the Chinese government - and more specifically, it's hosting of the Olympic Games - are spreading. The lighting of the Olympic torch, a normally sombre ceremony in Greece, was disrupted by a group from Reporters without Borders calling on China to ease up on Tibetan protesters:

"We cannot let the Chinese government seize the Olympic flame, a symbol of peace without denouncing the dramatic situation of human rights in the country," the group said.

Moments after the incident, a Tibetan woman doused herself in red paint and lay in the road before a torch runner while police arrested two other Tibetan protesters planning a peaceful demonstration about a mile from the ancient sanctuary at the birthplace of the Olympics Games.

The incident was being broadcast live on Chinese TV when it had to cut away.

The protests have begun stirring some deeper feelings, which perhaps other foreigners can attest to as well. There is no doubt that the Chinese government has created this situation itself; it has dismissed its foreign critics and resorted to vitriolic hyperbole anytime somebody challenges the official government position. As anybody in PR well knows, this doesn't work when dealing with a free press and free people. The party's stubbornness and lack of finesse on this issue is coming home to roost.

For all those that claim China is effective at controlling information, I agree - but only information for domestic consumption. Normally that's good enough, but the Olympics are a global event and don't just belong to China. As such, it needs to do a better job of communicating effectively in a language (and I mean figuratively, not literally) that can be understood by people and critics outside of the country.

I had a talk with a good friend tonight about these most recent protests. She told me, over MSN:

I feel sorry for my country ... we try hard to hold the Olympics ... and we put our effort ... but we don't know how to deal with the rest of the world

Everybody is shocked by this ... I mean Chinese ... they don't know how to handle it ... but it is just common for foreigners to criticize government

I feel for her, and I feel for China. I would submit that the Chinese people will feel attacked by these protests and criticisms, when in fact they are aimed at the Chinese government. I think criticisms in other countries are assumed to be directed at the government and not necessarily the people, but an extra effort is needed in China to make this distinction. Here, many people consider the government and the country to be one and the same.

Finally, as someone who has lived in China for nearly four years and has been visiting since the 1990s, I feel a sense of pride in China's accomplishments. I want to see the country succeed and do well, and stage a memorable games. With this in mind, I'm saddened by the protests, which seem to be becoming even more vitriolic. The Chinese people are invested emotionally in these games, and an Olympics marred by violence, protests, and boycotts would be a loss of face that may take decades to fully overcome.

That being said, and this is where the moral dilemma comes in, China must answer for its policies. I just wish this government was more prepared for this, and cleaned up its own house before inviting over the guests.

The Communist Party of China had this coming, and it chose to ignore the warnings. Now it is faced with a mess of its own making.

It's just too bad the Chinese people are caught in the crossfire.

Now imagine that you are a the epitome of the perfect Mother -- all that you want is to desperately find your daughter the perfect husband. After a quick Google search it appears as though your prayers have been answered, or have they? Read on...

A Chinese 'army major' who dated a string of girls and cheated them out of £16,000 (RMB 224,031) has allegedly been exposed as a con artist - and a woman.

Police say Li Xu, from Anxian town, Sichuan province, had been disguising herself as an army officer for two years.

She was arrested after Liu Lian, of Datong city, Shanxi province, reported she had been cheated out of £11,000 (RMB 154,021) by an army major named Li Zhanyu who she had met on the internet.

Li had described himself as a university-educated army major, reports Oriental Today.

Liu Lian said: "He said he wanted to date my daughter, but first needed money to break up with his current girlfriend. He also promised to find my daughter a good job."

But, after Liu wired the money, Li disappeared from her life.

Police caught up with him at an internet cafe in Kaifeng city. He reportedly told arresting officers: "You'll regret this. You'll pay for this. I'll call the leaders of the National Public Security Department."

Police thought he was a conman at this stage but their suspicions grew during questioning as they noticed his high-pitched voice and fair complexion.

A check-up by female police revealed Li to be a 25-year-old woman. She confessed she had cheated another two women with the same marriage con.

Li has been transferred to police in Shanxi province where she faces charges.

Hold on a minute...

'...their suspicions grew during questioning as they noticed his high-pitched voice and fair complexion.'

And...

'A check-up by female police revealed Li to be a 25-year-old woman.'

Now one look at the above photograph reveals to me that the person in it either has some kind of 'padding' of the chest, or -- shine a light -- is a woman. And before I get inundated with comments about how some men can be a little large in that area, spare me.

Now I'm all for meeting people online, and indeed meeting them socially for a drink or dinner, from what I've been told it can be relatively harmless. But if that picture would have ended up in my inbox -- believe me I would have been suspicious.

But really, I ask you -- How can it take three people to identify this person as a woman?

I guarantee that this 'Major' didn't take part in any of the winter training that Chris mentions below...

Full story available here.

China Intercontinental Press (CIP) has once again bagged its That's China title. And along with it goes the magazine's entire staff.

The publisher, which is linked to the Chinese State Council, says they pulled the title for "restructuring." Yet one former employee holds a different view: "the real reason [for the shutdown] is we've begun making a profit and started building the brand; the press obviously does not want to share the cake with other investors," a former editor notes.

It isn't immediately clear who the other investors are.

Still, this has a familiar ring to it.

In 2004 CIP, the publisher of the That's series in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou, sparked a legal battle with Mark Kitto, the then CEO of the three publications. Seeing the huge profits the monthly English language listings magazines were making, the Chinese publisher launched a rival title, That's China. That the new title directly infringed on the That's brand name and duplicated its content was of little concern to CIP. In an article titled That's China in Prospect magazine, the rightfully embittered Kitto explains what happened:

After seven years building up a magazine empire in China, I had it stolen by the state. I lived in the grey zone that is China's media business and, despite my commitment to the country, paid a high price.

The price does indeed appear to have been high. He later continues:

The three that's magazines I had built from an investment of $20,000 were turning over $4m a year, with annual profits from Shanghai alone of half a million, ploughed back into the business. Once Beijing broke even, I would be in the money. I was managing 120 staff and four offices, and printing magazines with combined circulations of almost 100,000 a month. But they existed only on their own paper. No one owned them. Not me, not one of the many publishers I worked with, none of the advertising agencies I put my business through, not even government agencies like Yangzhou news, which sheltered us. The publisher, now China Intercontinental Press, held the licences, which I rented from them. I owned the trademark to the that's name, my trump card, and I controlled the operation of the magazines from a grey zone between official sanction and popular appeal.

That's China continued publishing for a time, only later to fall off the radar. It appeared again as a direct mail magazine under the same name in the middle of 2007, this time without duplicating content.

Much of the CIP's influence on these publications has to do with it holding their publication licenses, called kanhao (刊号) in China. It is extremely difficult to obtain a legal license, leaving few options for those hoping to enter the business. Many operate without one, which usually doesn't last long. Another choice is partnering with an exiting title and renting their license, but this kind of arrangement often sours. Danwei has excellent posts about the kanhao system here and here.

Before its second wind faded, That's China was available at large hotels across the country for free. There were also plans to make it available internationally. Will the "restructuring" give That's China a Third Coming? Some things, it seems, are not meant to happen. Working with CIP is surely one of them.

Found via Shanghaiist, this clip shows how one group of Chinese military police warmed themselves through a winter training session. I'm left wondering how effective this actually is. Let the war games begin, gentleman.

This is the latest article by your correspondent in the Victoria Times Colonist. In it, I take a look at the deep-seated resentment on either side of the divide and what compromises might be made in an effort to find a solution:

China will not let go of Tibet. The region's only chance for full independence is with the overthrow of the Communist party, which is as firmly entrenched as ever.

China is so confident of its hold on the region it will send the Olympic torch through the streets of Lhasa in mere weeks as a reminder of its control. Resorting to violence and the killing of Chinese will reduce the cause's moral authority and only stiffen the resolve of the Chinese.

You can read the full article here.

I find it difficult being on the edge of a knife at times. It is often difficult being a Western journalist who works for a state-run organization here in the Middle Kingdom. That being said, I do love my life here in China. The people are generally friendly and the weather isn't as bad as I thought it would be (save the 'non-blue sky days). But what drew me to China more than anything was the fact that I was just not happy in my native Canada. And why was I unhappy? It wasn't the non-blue sky days or the liberal freedoms that we're entitled to as Canadians. No... it was the hypocracy and unfavorable way in which those who choose to idealize a subject will portray it in the media organs that I worked at.

I love being a Westerner in China. It affords me a lot of opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be available to me. It also gives me a chance to absorb different concepts and theories that aren't my own. Are they right? Not sure. Maybe some. Maybe not. I'm not one to make a definative judgement on the grander scale. I mean, who is (minus your particular diety)? But what I do get peeved at is obvious attempts within the media to skew a concept to their own thinking. I posit this slight snippit from the South China Morning Post article about the situation in Tibet as an example of what I'm trying to convey:

Beijing should open up talks with the Dalai Lama, allow UN investigators into Tibet and stop using rhetoric redolent of the Cultural Revolution, mainland intellectuals have said in an open letter.

The article goes on to say the letter was penned by

"30 intellectuals, including writer Wang Lixiong, a respected author on Tibet, dissident writer Liu Xiaobo, novelest Yu Jie, human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang and Ding Zilin of the Tian'anmen Mothers group, which represents families of victims of the Tian'anmen Square crackdown.

Ok... well, I understand why these people would be making these statements. And hell, I probably agree with them. But to use this item, and these people who have and obvious axe to grind against the government, as the front left article on page 4 of the in SCMP, which also includes the banner:

Well... I'm no editor...but really?

This whole Tibet issue has become too polarized. We need to take a step back from the situation, especially those of us in the media. I can understand why we Westerners have this prediliction toward wanting to back up this cause. Hey, it's catchy... people dig it... it's the groovy thing to talk about. But when it comes to reporting on it, let's try to get our 'facts' in line. The 'fact' is that we have no 'facts.' And using B-S like this from a group of 'scholars' is just a cheap way to fill a page, and does nothing toward understanding the situation that is unfolding.

With all the world's attention focused on the situation in Tibet right now, with the Dalai Lama holding news conferences and the Chinese government trotting out a list of countries that support China's efforts (Myanmar being conspicuous in its absence), China may have lucked out in avoiding a lot of scrutiny over the latest tainted product scandal.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has identified a contaminant in batches of blood-thinner heparin supplied by a U.S.-owned plant in China for export to the United States that has been linked to serious reactions and deaths. It is the latest in health scares involving Chinese exports in recent months which have ranged from food and drugs to toothpaste and pet food. China's State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) said that the contaminant was "basically the same" as that found by U.S. health regulators in batches of Baxter International Inc's blood-thinner heparin. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday said it had identified "over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate" in Baxter's drug, and was investigating whether the chemical was purposely or inadvertently added during manufacturing in China. Last month Baxter recalled most if its U.S. supplies of heparin, used in kidney dialysis as well as heart and other surgeries to prevent blood clots. Chondroitin sulfate is widely sold as a dietary supplement to treat joint pain. The over-sulfated version is not know to occur naturally and therefore likely was chemically modified, an FDA official said on Wednesday. The FDA is probing whether the contaminant is the cause of up to 19 deaths and hundreds of serious breathing problems and other reactions reported in the United States.

Ah, how quickly we forget all the other woes this country faces sometimes when the tanks start rolling!

The unrest in Tibet is having a dramatic effect on Taiwan's national elections. Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT candidate, had held a commanding lead in the polls by advocating a common market, or economic zone, with China.

Of course, Ma's lead was also attributable to rampant corruption within the DPP. Many Taiwanese feel the economy, rather than relations with China, is the number one concern heading into Saturday's elections. But Tibet has thrown a wrench into everything.

Ma's traditional pro-China policy has come under fire (courtesy of the Thirsty Ghosts blog, h/t to Michael Turton's A View from Taiwan blog):

Those plans now appear in danger as public outrage here over Beijing's ongoing crackdown in Tibet has forced Ma to mothball his ''China-friendly'' persona. With just three days left before the island's presidential election Saturday, the frontrunner is scrambling to prevent rival Frank Hsieh of the DPP from painting him as a Beijing apologist amid the clampdown.

''At the beginning of Mr. Ma's campaign, he was rarely harsh on China. But because of [Hsieh's] attacks for being soft on the Tibet issue, Ma's had to adjust his strategy,'' said Huang Kwei-bo, a political scientist at National Chengchi University.

''I sense a shift [in Ma's rhetoric],'' Huang said.

Making matters worse were Wen Jiabao's Tuesday comments, which ''forced Mr. Ma's hand,'' he said.

'"It was very unwise for Wen to talk about Tibet and Taiwan together -- that will remind people here of China's view of the island as a renegade province,'' he added, referring to Wen's blaming the Dalai Lama for riots by Tibetans and then slamming Taiwan's referenda in the same press conference.

Yes, that was a bad move by Wen. Any issue regarding separatism involving Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, or Hong Kong is felt by the other three. Tibetan protesters, and Beijing's military, have unwittingly given the Taiwanese a huge reason to return the DPP to power under Frank Hsieh. Taiwanese have traditionally looked at Hong Kong, and problems in the territory under Chinese rule, to justify their decision to remain independent. But Tibet provides a more startling comparison.

And it looks like China's crackdown in Tibet is putting the scare into Taiwan voters:

Ma enjoyed a 20-point advance in the last opinion poll 11 days ago before a pre-election ban took effect, but that was before bloodshed in the Himalayan region focused attention on Taiwan's own future.

The self-ruled island split from the mainland in 1949 but is still claimed by China, and the pro-independence Hsieh has argued that a Ma-led Kuomintang administration would make reunification more likely.

"Ma's lead over Hsieh is narrowing," said George Tsai, a political science professor at Chinese Cultural University.

Turton agrees with this sentiment after attending an event featuring Jonathan Manthorpe, a Canadian who wrote the book Forbidden Nation (an excellent history lesson on Taiwan, by the way):

Manthorpe talked for roughly 45 minutes. Unlike many newsman, Manthorpe was aware that the published polls in the pro-Blue papers are nonsense. He said that people he respected from both parties had told him the election was tight. It's Ma's election to lose, but if he screws up, he could lose.

On Tibet, Manthorpe said that everyone had told him that it would have little effect on the election. He did say it could have an effect if the election is close. My own prediction is that if Hsieh wins, the KMT will immediately blame it on Tibet even though they are saying beforehand that Tibet will have no effect.

I still think Ma has the advantage, mainly because of the DPP's corruption scandals. Corruption has a way of bringing down governments awfully fast, and the Pan-Green coaltion will be no exception.

But Tibet has thrown the DPP dog a bone; it remains to be seen whether it will be enough. Turton argues, however, that even if Ma wins, he will merely be a figurehead:

As everyone braces for a probable Ma victory, there's a new line out that Ma and Beijing might not necessarily work with each other as well as people like me believe. Lots of people in the community of Taiwan observers are taking that position. I remain skeptical. Because for all that Ma has criticized Beijing, he hasn't said that Tibet should be independent. At heart, I believe, Ma remains committed to the China-as-Zion theology of the ROC. In any case, the focus on Ma is wrong; if Ma himself ran the KMT, I would have fewer worries -- but the ideologues at the top like Lien Chan, who think of themselves as Chinese and despise Taiwan, are running the show. Ma has never shown any ability to stand up to them. I'm afraid that those betting on a Ma show of strength are trying to build castles out of pudding....

Election day is Saturday. Let's hope CNN returns by then.

By Hugh Jorgen

I'm no angel; my parents will regrettably attest to that. Taking the family car out for a late-night joy ride when I was 12 years old and getting caught by the cops was probably one of the higher profile moments of my childhood that will forever exclude me from owning my own pair of wings. But if I had to describe myself as either a bad boy or a nice guy, I guess I'd have to put a tentative checkmark in the box next to the latter. So I was somewhat heartened to come across this article on a Harvard University study. This is another one of those "human nature" experiments that tests our innate tendencies toward niceness or nastiness, punishment or rewards. In this particular experiment, researcher Howard Nowak focused on human behavior in brinkmanship-style situations. Essentially, his findings indicate that punishment by adversaries may not be as effective as incentives. More interestingly, adversaries who lean toward offering incentives tend to get what they want. In other words, nice guys do finish first.

It's with this tiny bit of scientific enlightenment that I dare to draw a parallel with the current Tibet conflict in an attempt to glimpse the big picture. In this case, the game would be the "Court of Public Opinion" and the players are obviously native Tibetans vs. the Chinese government. In my humble opinion, regardless of what the magnitude of these protests is or the reason behind them, the Chinese government has lost this round. There are plenty of deep-seated, historical reasons for the protests and the debate continues about who the real victims are. But in a wider context, the reasons for the unrest may not be as important right now as the results of it. The reality is that the damage has been done. Those results, and the opinions and sentiments of the international community, stem, in large part, from credibility - and China's central government has been running low on that for a long time.

Credibility is something that takes a long time to earn, and, like trust, can be lost in an instant. But credibility, and having more of it than your adversary, comes in extremely handy in the court of public opinion. It can make the difference in swaying public opinion in your favor. The Dalai Lama, for instance, has for decades built up vast amounts of international credibility. For starters, he does not and never has advocated violence. He is charismatic and inspirational. He is a man of peace and compassion whose message of mutual respect has been embraced by people and governments from around the world. He welcomes other points of view. He does not seek independence for Tibet. He has repeatedly stated he only seeks a degree of autonomy for Tibet. The Dalai Lama meets with world leaders and average people regularly and - more importantly- he speaks to them in words and language they can understand.

By contrast, the Chinese government is afraid of words. It believes words can somehow lead to destabilizing its grip on power, and as such, it expends colossal amounts of energy and resources to control words. The evidence of this fear is endless. Youtube is blocked, website access is squeezed, foreign reporters are barred from Tibet, and international news broadcasts are censored incessantly. But it goes well beyond just suppressing freedom of speech. It relentlessly propagates its own message through state-run media. Whether it's protests in Tibet or the recent snow job during the spring festival, the message is always the same and always one-sided: the government is in control and the government is doing a wonderful job of looking after the welfare of the Chinese people. Several of my younger Chinese friends, who come from various regions of China, tell me younger generations are becoming increasingly disaffected by what they call empty words from their government. For historical reasons, they say, Chinese leaders have always felt compelled to consistently preach morality to the people. The problem is the message has never been updated and it no longer resonates with large segments of the population. One friend recently told me that the inability of the government to speak to and connect with the people is leading to an ever-widening chasm between Chinese leaders and the younger generations. To achieve the same old predictable message in English, state-run media like Xinhua and CCTV consistently roll out a dusty old basket of archaic phrases. Chris Obrien, a former Xinhua editor, has written a great piece on the garbled language that is constantly churned out by state-run agencies.

This political terminology even has a Chinese name: ti fa. "Unswervingly promoting a moderately prosperous society", "deepening trust in an all-round way", "extending bilateral cooperation for win-win results", and "vowing to strengthen strategic ties with country X" are vague, stiff phrases that are rolled out daily on the propaganda conveyor belt. They sound important, but really don't mean anything.

Let's be clear: every government does propaganda. But there is a difference between effectively controlling the message, and floating out the same old crap. In this case, the PR folks in the central government could use a refresher course on getting their message out to the international community in the 21st century. Wagging your finger at a deeply religious man who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and is looked up to by billions of people and trying to convince the world that he is the nefarious mastermind of a "clique" that was instrumental in promoting unrest in his homeland is absolutely pointless. In fact, it makes you look foolish. And how was this menacing "Dalai clique" conjured up? Has the Dalai Lama, as the central government would have us believe, been parading around a Beverly Hills mall with a bunch of valley girls saying things like "That's sooo whatever"? The bottom line is when you try to feed the world and your own people the same old tired one-sided lines, sooner or later most everyone catches on and changes the channel. Bye bye credibility. So when an inevitable crisis comes along and the foreign media smells blood, who are you going to believe? The Nobel Peace Prize winner or the folks who are unswervingly vowing to suppress other points of view, in an all round way? My guess is the score in this latest round is Dalai Lama 1, Chinese central government 0.

The solution to these recurring dilemmas is to start allowing more access to both sides of the story - and there will always be more than one side of the story. If a thinking person doesn't get more than one side of the story, the reaction will always be one of suspicion about the messenger. Stop looking like you have something to hide. If you look like you have something to hide, you probably do. Take your itchy trigger finger off that censor button. In the case of Tibet, open up a dialogue with the indigenous people to find out what they need beyond a flashy new railway and flush toilets. (Had Serbians done a better job of this earlier, cartographers could put their markers and maps back in their desks). Instead of expending vast amounts of energy on trying to convince the world there is no problem in Tibet, use that energy to preempt the inevitable flare-ups. Stop demonizing their spiritual leader and learn what it will take to the ease this simmering resentment. And while you're at it, start talking with the Dalai Lama. He's not such a bad guy. More importantly, he's got international credibility - and he's nice.

It's important to note that the Harvard study focused on individuals, not countries, ethnic groups or governments, but it is not unreasonable to extrapolate the wider implications of this study. As the study's co-author, David Rand, notes from the results: "In general, the thing that is most, sort of, rational and best for your own self-interest is to be nice." That's the kind of message anyone could believe.

Hugh Jorgen works in Chinese state-run media. Zhongnanhai welcomes submissions at cam@zhongnanhaiblog.com.

For those interested in the detailed control structure within the Tibet Government in Exile, related NGO's, and those who are calling for armed resistance against the Chinese government, you could do worse than reading China Matters (proxy required).

China Matters is a high-level blog which delves deeply into hot political subjects, most recently Benazir Bhutto's return and assassination in Pakistan and the North Korean nuclear issue. The writer behind the blog has turned his attention to the power struggle for the heart of Tibet's resistance in his post titled "Black Days for the Dalai Lama":

The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) describes itself as the largest Tibetan emigre NGO, with 30,000 members and over 80 chapters.

It's pretty militant.

Its Secretary for Cultural Affairs, Lhakpa Tsering, set himself on fire in Mumbai in November 2006 to protest Hu Jintao's visit--an interesting nugget that the Washington Post's Rama Lakshmi failed to share with her readers when she quoted Tsering's emotional account of a phone call from Lhasa during the current unrest.

He argues the Dalai Lama's "Third Way" may be losing steam. Check it out.

You know something is big news when the headline screams from the Drudge Report:

Ah, I thought to myself. Tibet has finally pushed the Eliot Spitzer $4,300 hoooker off the front page. And Obama and Hillary's cage match. And the Bear Stearns meltdown. Yes, it's a good week if you're a news junkie, if nothing else.

What this means is that the crackdown in Tibet is gathering steam internationally, fulfilling one of China's worst nightmares. It has worked tirelessly to compromise on nearly every sensitive issue to halt talks of a boycott, even agreeing to press Sudan to ease up in Darfur. Nothing has rattled the Olympic plans yet: no country is boycotting, no sponsors have pulled out. Only the odd athlete or politician with an axe to grind made comments about China's human rights situation, but nothing seemed to gain any traction. Even Steven Spielberg's withdrawal didn't seem to have much affect.

The wheels haven't fallen off yet, but they are getting rickety. I would suggest there is a finite amount of time for China to wrap up this Tibet mess in the cleanest and most efficient way possible to avoid any lasting fallout. If it doesn't - or can't - do so, the growing calls among people in other nations will continue getting louder. At some point, foreign governments will have to do something - anything - to show their displeasure.

That's where the Olympic opening ceremony boycott comes in, which Paul referenced below (for the record, I planned to write about this idea before noticing Paul's post).

Pressure is mounting, and politicians are starting to feel it:

A Dutch lawmaker, Joel Voordewind, had already suggested last month that countries "take part in the games but skip the party beforehand."

Even before the Tibetan protests, three-time Olympic swimming gold medalist Pieter van den Hoogenband of the Netherlands called on Rogge to speak out on behalf of all athletes urging China to improve its human rights situation. On Monday, world 50-meter butterfly champion Roland Schoeman of South Africa said the IOC "should stand up and say, 'The way these people (Tibetans) are being treated is not acceptable.'"

Luciano Barra, a longtime Italian Olympic official who was deputy CEO of the 2006 Turin Winter Games, also believes the IOC should prepared to do and say more.

"For a question of credibility, the public opinion will say, 'You are just thinking about the games, not thinking about millions of people and freedom," he said.

Public opinion is powerful everywhere, but especially in western democracies. If enough people cause enough trouble, raise awareness of the Tibet issue, and swing the pendulum of public opinion in favor of punishing China, governments of these nations will have little choice but to comply. The question is, what can they do to appease domestic rabblerousers without damaging often lucrative trading relationships with China?

I happen to think an opening ceremony boycott might work. Paul mentioned below that China wants everything to go perfectly and that it's serious about its image. It is for this exact reason that, if governments feel strongly enough about the Tibet issue, it must make use of China's weakness on this point. I have been interviewed repeatedly on Canadian radio, and one of the questions I get asked most is: why don't people push China more to improve its human rights record and democratic freedoms? The answer lies in the economics: China is simply too vast of a market, with too much cheap labor, and too many money-making opportunities to be messed with. Western governments turn a blind eye to China's record (as noted recently when the US removed China from it's top 10 worst human rights offenders list), as do western companies. Nobody cares if Chinese people, like Hu Jia, or the Tibetans or Xinjiang people, suffer if there is a buck to be made. It's amazing how fast champions of liberty and human rights start towing the Communist Party line.

I write this somewhat hypocritically. I am in China and I'm enjoying it. I genuinely love the country, its people, and its history, and I highly I doubt I would risk what I'm doing here to stand up for Tibetans or other jailed dissidents. For this, I openly admit my shame. I don't like what's happening in Tibet right now, and I genuinely would like to see the Olympic games go off without a hitch. Even after this violence in Tibet, I am still personally opposed to a full Olympic boycott. This is a big moment in China's recent history, and the whole country is deeply emotionally involved. But, at some point China will have to answer for some of its past sins, just like America is still doing with regards to slavery, and Germany is still doing with regards to the Holocaust. It would be great of China had dealt with this already, leaving critics little to chew on as August 8th nears. But China hasn't admitted it's done anything wrong in Tibet yet (and surely even the die-hard Sinophiles must admit China has committed crimes in Tibet) - worse, it's still moving full-steam ahead with oppression, censorship, and brutality. If one can't use the one moment when China may listen to these concerns - the Olympics - when can one?

At the end of the day, as I mentioned previously, China and Tibet will need to come to a long-term solution to this problem. If China believes that crackdowns and demonizing the Dalai Lama will work, it is dead wrong. It will need to show some compromise on the issues that are important to Tibetans; not just dumping economic aid and development money into the region and expecting graciousness and undying loyalty to the motherland in return. China has shown little interest in treating the Tibetans as equal partners, and honestly listening to their concerns and desires. Perhaps a little soft pressure from foreign countries during China's big moment might help.

(Note: This article assumes that China has committed crimes in Tibet. This is a personal belief based on a number of books and periodicals that I've read on Tibetan history. That being said, this is a sensitive and emotional issue and is open to debate.

Furthermore, this article did not touch on the violence the Tibetans have instigated during this specific period of unrest. I'm aware that many innocent Han Chinese were attacked, and this should never be supported or tolerated, regardless of one's position. I have ignored the minutiae of these specific incidents to focus on the broader question, which is the general discontent among Tibetans living under Chinese rule.)

The Chinese government likes to put on a good (and I use that term loosely) show. Watching the closing ceremony of the National People's Congress (repeatedly, and one full day after the whole thing was wrapped up!) on CCTV 新闻 (News), one quickly realizes that this government puts an S-load of emphasis on outward appearances. And that's S-load with a capital 'S.' Each and every one of the stone-faced politicians was neatly trimmed and pressed. President Hu Jintao smiled at the appropriate occasions. It was communist theatre at its finest. I think a lot of this goes back to the old, cold-war theory that if something looks out of place, it might be seen by the CIA or other covert agency as a sign of weakness, which will open the door for Chiang Kai-shek to reinvade or some damn thing. Whatever the reason behind it, the CPC loves its theatrics. As such, this is why I think this new theory being kicked around now about 'punishing' China over this whole Tibet situation by boycotting the opening ceremonies at the Olympics isn't such a hot idea.

As I've stated on numerous occasions in the past, I don't mind at all when someone sticks their finger in this government's eye from time to time. But when it comes to the Olympics, I don't think it's the right move. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in this country knows that this government and the people in general are going 'koo koo for Olympic puffs,' or something to that effect. They're throwing their heart and soul into trying to prove that China is all growed up and ready to come out and play with the big boys. As such, if there are empty seats on August 8th beside Hu Jintao, Chiang Kai-shek might just see his opening.

The CPC knows how to hold a grudge. And nothing is going to piss off this government more than screwing with this country's 'coming out party.' As such, my advice to world leaders is to tread cautiously when it comes to this issue. Criticize from afar if you so desire, but when August 8th rolls around, just kick back and enjoy the show, because, even with the dramatic loss of Spielberg, I have a feeling that his Mexican, non-union equivalent has a shiny firework or two in his bag of tricks that should make for some at least mild entertainment to crack open the 2008 Games.

I was struck by a post on Tim Johnson's excellent China Rises blog. He, like dozens of other foreign correspondents, are doing their best to get inside the Tibetan Autonomous Region and find out, first hand, what's going on.

He describes his experience this way:

We foreign reporters all take precautions. We have to switch vehicles often. Some of us swap out SIM cards in our mobile phones, or just turn them off. That way, authorities cannot triangulate mobile phone signals and figure out our locations.

None of us are doing anything illegal. It's just that it's very easy for officials in the hinterlands to stop us and ask endless questions, creating delays, or simply bar us from entering areas for unspecified security reasons.

You could be forgiven for thinking Johnson is in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Myanmar, or some other brutal authoritarian regime. But no, this is the Olympic host; in a country, I might add, which says foreign correspondents can travel and report the news freely.

Like Paul mentioned, not every western person supports full Tibetan autonomy (and by autonomy, I think you know what I mean... just trying to avoid putting too many watchwords together). It's a complicated situation.

The only thing we know for sure, and I know I am stating the incredibly obvious, is this is not good for China in the lead-up to the Olympics. From what I've read so far, the military has used restraint. This is a good move if China is to salvage any respectability when this is all said and done.

I've thought to myself in the past that I'd rather eat sand than watch a Chinese government news conference. Well... thanks to today's sandstorm and the end of the NPC session, both have become a disturbing reality.

Beijing's proximity to the Gobi Desert aside, what's really got my dander up today isn't the fact that Premier Wen Jiabao spewed a boatload of nothing for an hour to the foreign media news conference...it was the phraseology that this government has adopted when it comes to the situation with the Tibetans, and in particular with their spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama's supporters have now become a 'clique.'

Unlike many of my fellow Westerners, I have very little interest in the Tibetan independence movement. Call it apathy if you will, or perhaps a lack of understanding, but I've become somewhat jaded by the fact that many a self-righteous wanker has jumped onboard the Tibetan cause because it seems like the cool thing to do. I don't begrudge the Tibetans for doing what they think they need to do. Give'r. But don't start preaching to me about the right to freedom and all this other kind of crap because you watched Richard Gere on