Zhongnanhai

First, the Chengdu Evening News runs a classified advertisement honoring the mothers of Tiananmen Square victims. And now, courtesy of ESWN, this:

At 20:31 on August 8, 2007, China Daily posted an article titled: "China invites the world to Olympics." The following sentence appeared: "Security was tight around Tiananmen Square, where troops crushed pro-democracy demonstrations in 1989 with huge loss of life, as crowds gathered for the celebrations.". (See Google Cache's screen capture below). This came about because someone did a copy-and-paste job from Reuters' Nick Mulvenney (dated 19:54 on the same evening) without checking the content. Within 12 hours, a revised version was posted (see China Daily). Someone over at China Daily is in big trouble for this slip-up.

I can only assume that the editor(s) in charge of the copy were just lazy and didn't copy edit the story properly. Unlike the Chengdu Evening News case, where the advertising clerk wasn't familiar with June 4, this sentence which was published on the China Daily site was spelled out for all to see. Surely even an editor that wasn't familiar with the event would know this sentence shouldn't be included.

At the end of the day, though, what appears in the English language press doesn't really matter. People familiar with English are usually (and this is a large generalization, I admit) at least somewhat familiar with June 4. If this kind of thing made it into the Chinese language media, I'd be much more surprised.

The IHT has recently published a story on former Shanghai Party Chief Chen Liangyu, who was purged from his post and put under house arrest for his alleged involvement in the Shanghai Pension Fund Scandal (is it necessary to use the word "alleged" in China?).

It's been widely reported that Chen refused to cool Shanghai's hot property market under strict orders from the central government, which was one of many reasons for his downfall. Now it turns out Chen was interested in much more than just property, according to today's story in the IHT.

The "hai" in the word Shanghai means ocean, but the city had no beach, he would lament. So city officials built a 6-mile, or 10-kilometer, beach in the suburbs, using 128,000 tons of sand shipped in from southern China.

Chen liked tennis, too, so a world-class tennis complex was built at a reported cost of $290 million, even though few Shanghai people play the game.

In a city where relatively few can afford to own personal cars, Chen's government built a $300 million racetrack that critics say is the fanciest on the Formula One circuit.

I am a fan of Shanghai, and this is perhaps a selfish thing to say: but I like the Forumla One track and the tennis center. Both venues have drawn world class sporting events to China. (As for the beach, well, I never made it while I lived there.) Oddly, while he's criticized for this, China is about to spend more on the Olympic games than any previous host country, ironically, building world class sports venues. Tough to single Chen out for this one.

But, the IHT article continues, the final nail in the proverbial coffin came with this:

...he proposed a $5 billion expansion of a magnetic levitation, or maglev, rail line to the neighboring city of Hangzhou, a widely criticized project that raised something relatively new for China: a storm of public protest.

I lived in Shanghai during this period of public protest, and I can attest that people were very angry and were not scared of venting their frustrations. In fact, while I was employed at Jongo News, I sent out our video team to do a story on this.

At the time, we interviewed people along the proposed route who complained mostly of noise pollution. The project, which would see a new $5 billion Maglev line link Shanghai with Hangzhou, was halted in May. And many believe it was a case of the government listening to protesters:

For many, the apparent demise of the project in the face of widespread public opposition marked the end of an era of glitz-driven development, with attendant opportunities for high-level corruption, and the beginning of a new one in which the voice of China's growing middle class can no longer be ignored.

"The public is concerned with the electromagnetism of the train and the government is studying this, and that is one of the reasons the project has been stopped," a People's Congress official was quoted as having said in the China Business Daily newspaper, one of many news reports that suggested that residents' complaints had played a major role in the suspension.

I am of two thoughts on this. One, this is a sign of new China. Residents here have become much more socially active, and no longer fear the government as much as they once did. This is a sign that China is moving down a path which will hopefully lead to more responsible development and engagement with residents.

Two... I can't help but admit that I wouldn't have minded the high-tech, fast connection between Hangzhou and Shanghai. One thing that has made China special is that it is free of feasibility studies, open houses, and compromises. Because it is a communist country, it can build the biggest, most elaborate, high-tech buildings or transportation infrastructure without any public accountability. This has led to many of Beijing's Olympic venues and the current Maglev in Shanghai.

It appears those days are over. And probably for the best.

I was struck by a comment on Danwei recently regarding Chinese thoughts on foreign correspondents and foreign NGOs working in China:

In honor of this date, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Sans Frontières, and the Foreign Correspondents Club of China have all released reports and held press conferences to tell the world that foreign reporters continue to be hassled and the local media still is not free.

Many of your correspondent's Chinese friends think that the organizations listed above are just silly, trouble-making foreigners who don't really get it.

I surely hope the founder of Danwei, Jeremy Goldkorn, wasn't using the words of his friends to illustrate his own beliefs.

Too often, and much to the approval of the Chinese government, critics of foreign journalists lump them into the same ideologically-driven camp as their state-run counterparts, just at opposite ends of the same spectrum. As someone who has worked in a plethora of state-run media (and media in Canada), I can confirm that the two entities are not the same -- not even close.

First of all, it's convenient, for argument purposes, to dismiss critics of China as "silly". But those organizations listed above, and foreign media in general, have a much higher bar to reach than their Chinese counterparts. Let me give you an example:

My loyal Communist party girlfriend, who works in state-run media and can speak perfectly from Communist party talking points, recently dismissed Jung Chang's latest book, Mao: The Untold Story as utter propaganda. No, she didn't read it. But she has read reviews of the book, and I've shared its contents with her on numerous occasions.

The book is not one of my favorites, and I object to Jung Chang's obvious agenda, which is to tear down Mao's image and turn legends around Mao into myths. But the book, which took 10 years of meticulous research, can stand on its own, despite the criticism. There are detailed endnotes supplied and her work will be/has been reviewed and criticized and pulled apart at various academic institutions and by other Sinofiles. This is the process of finding the truth: letting work be dissected by peers.

Foreign journalists must also live up to this responsibility, even if they fail from time to time. If Joseph Kahn of the New York Times writes an incredibly biased story on China, it will be torn apart in the blogosphere, be criticized by other journalists at home, and hurt the reputation and credibility of his employer. It is this peer pressure which helps enforce journalistic ethics. In addition, in an open society, work can be dissected publicly. As a journalist, you do your best to ensure your bases are covered, because your own reputation is on the line.

Now, to Chinese media. As I have mentioned before, I have worked at CCTV 9 and China Radio International, among others. In both places, we talked about how Tibet has been a part of China for centuries, how the living standards of Tibetans have improved, and how Tibetans have embraced the motherland. I don't object to an organization reporting this, if they have the facts to back it up. But other organizations should be allowed to go to Tibet, and talk to Tibetans, to verify this. This is what would happen in an open and free media environment. Because China can report what it wants internally, and control what other media report, it's much less likely the truth will come out. The bar is lowered for what can pass as "journalism", because nobody's personal reputation can be challenged publicly. Thus, the credibility problem.

So when people in China, the government, or other organizations dismiss foreign reporters, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, or Reporters Sans Frontiers as "silly", it reveals the lack of hard evidence to support critical claims against these organizations and brings them down to the level of their Chinese counterparts.

Foreign journalists aren't perfect, and often foreign organizations have agendas. But in free countries, we are allowed to determine that on our own, and decide which groups we can ignore and which ones are beneficial.

I'm tempted to go into the problems with state-run media (of which there are many), but this subject was summarized well recently on Imagethief and on Richard Spencer's blog. Both are well-deserving of a read.

I meant to chime in much earlier on this topic, but didn't have the time. Now I feel a bit late to the game, but still feel I have 2 cents to add.

When it was originally reported the cardboard baozi were fake, I believed it. I am no conspiracy theorist, and after reading certain blog posts I was sure that the story must have been fake.

Then I saw the photos on ESWN which showed how disgusting and obvious baozi made with cardboard would look. Is any more proof needed?

Well, despite these facts, it appears some people will never believe the government on this issue. My good friend and fellow Zhongnanhai writer Paul James is one who refuses to believe the government's stand on the issue, and I may, slowly, be coming around to his point of view.

The first reason is that the reporter being accused of faking the story, Zi Beijia, had a long history as a credible reporter. He originally worked at China Central Television before being poached by BTV. He was the one who uncovered the use of fake vinegar in China, as well as the fake yangrou chuan story (pork was being doused in spices and tenderizers to taste like lamb). So the question is, why would this reporter, with a strong journalistic track record, all of a sudden plant a fake story?

The second reason is this, and one that I don't pretend I can prove. Hearsay is hearsay, and I'll leave it at that. But one of my very close friends is a high-level employee in state-run media. She was called, along with other state-run managers and staff, to a retreat in the south of Beijing the day after the story was declared fake by management. She was not told at the event whether the story was true or not, but journalists were scolded for not being "politically aware" (as in, don't report stories about food scares at the exact moment China is being criticized internationally on this issue). She believes, 100%, that the fake baozi story was, in fact, real.

Like the assassination of JFK, I'm afraid we'll never know.

I have already staked out my claim on the 2008 presidential election, and perhaps I was the earliest guy to do so. That being said, other factors can shake up the race, and we are getting lots of other factors.  Over the past couple of weeks Fred Thompson has emerged as a possible front-runner for the Republicans, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has just pulled out of the Republican party amid speculation he will run as an independent. Despite all this, New York Times editorial board describes the '08 race this way:

Mr. Bloomberg’s announcement that he is getting out of the G.O.P. but not getting into the race, certainly brought some fresh air into the longest and already most airless presidential campaign in memory.

Really?  For the first time in history, a black man (okay, he's not totally "authentic" black, which is the buzzword in the US media at the moment) has a realistic shot at becoming President.  Likewise, Hillary Clinton has a legitimate chance of breaking the gender barrier and becoming the country's first woman President. Either one of those two storylines are great, and this year we have both!  Not to mention the candidates on the Republican side: an actor-cum-senator Fred Thompson shaking up the race, America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, formerly-popular maverick Senator John McCain, a Mormon candidate (Mitt Romney) and now a potential respectable and formidable third-party candidate.  This is hardly what I would describe as an "airless campaign." What more does the Old Grey Lady expect? 

Anyway, I am just leaving the office, so don't have a lot of time to expand on this (although I certainly have lots to add!). Below are a few links you might want to check out, with a focus on Bloomberg's decision to bolt the Republican party and speculation on his next move.

• Some say Bloomberg has been preparing this bid for nearly two years, and has been studying Ross Perot's third-party run from 1992. He doesn't want to simply be a spoiler.
  
• Needless to say, his decision hasn't made his predecessor, Rudi Giuliani, too happy.
• The Boston Globe isn't too confident of Bloomberg, or any person who decides to run as an independent.
• And finally, if there is one MUST READ for politicos, it's The Note by ABC News.  My former media relations boss (one of the smartest men I've ever met) turned me on to this, and it's a must for those serious about US politics. Many of the links I've listed here are courtesy of the Note.
  

A huge hat-tip to Danwei for this article on a controversy in Salt Lake City. As I was reading through it, I couldn't believe this wasn't a satire of some kind. There are so many angles to this story.

The premise is this: Real Salt Lake hosted China in a football friendly at Rice-Eccles Stadium. Considering the game was in the United States, it could be expected that the fans cheered for the home team, and they didn't disappoint. That wasn't the problem -- the problem was the taunts given to the Chinese side. Did they hurl racial epithets? Make faces with squinty eyes? No. Their crime was to wave the flags of Tibet and Taiwan.

Coker said he and several others, including five Tibetan men, were escorted out of the University of Utah's Rice-Eccles Stadium by about 10 officials, including stadium personnel and Real Salt Lake representatives, because they had been waving Tibetan flags and had refused to put them away when the officials told them to do so.

The controversy began shortly after halftime, when Chinese players complained about fans displaying Taiwanese and Tibetan flags and a sign that said "6-4," written in Chinese. That sign referred to June 4, 1989, the date of the Chinese government's attack on protesters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Members of the Chinese National Team stepped off the field and refused to continue playing unless the flags were put away.

Now, clearly waving the Tibet and Taiwan flags would not be appreciated by the Chinese players. Although I'm sure chants of Osama in Mexico City a few years ago didn't impress the American side, either. Unlike Tibet and Taiwan, 9/11 happened only a few years ago and left a deep scar on the American psyche.  It has directly lead to two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of Americans are dying overseas. Many people lost loved ones in Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York that day.  I would argue most Americans have been personally touched by 9/11 in some way, whether they lost someone in the attacks, lost a family member or friend in the wars, or has seen someone head off to Iraq or Afghanistan. As such, I would argue that the wounds from 9/11 go much deeper to today's generation of Americans than the plight of Tibet does to today's generation of Chinese.

Despite this, fans in Mexico city chanted "Osama! Osama!" to throw off the American players and score political points. One American player summed up his experience in the game this way.

"Since Mexico won convincingly, every fan walked out cheering," U.S. goalkeeper D.J. Countess said Wednesday after training. "I've been hit with bags of urine, limes and batteries. There even was a dead chicken thrown on the field next to me in El Salvador, but since Mexico got the result they wanted, there wasn't much of that.

"I'm sure if we would have won the game, there would have been a lot of stuff thrown at us and a lot of chants."

Dead chickens? Being pelted with batteries? The Americans played through it regardless, even though there were threats against their personal safety. The Chinese can't bear seeing a flag they consider offensive. Draw your own conclusions.

Sports is about having fun, and generally shouldn't be political. That being said, fans will be fans. I'm a big Vancouver Canucks fan, and their playoff drive this spring saw them go through the Dallas Stars and struggling goaltender Marty Turco. Game in and game out, fans chanted "Turco Sucks!" I couldn't image how hearing 18,000 fans, chanting in unison that you suck, could make a player feel. Nonetheless, he played his heart out, was terrific, and was arguably Dallas' best player in the series. In other words, he was mature about it.

I don't totally object to taking things to a political level either, as long as it's done with respect. No burning flags, no burning effigies, no racial epithets. Waving a Tibet flag, while it carries inferences of "Tibetan Independence" does not necessarily mean so. It's a fairly benign way to make a point. Likewise with Taiwan, which has a flag that is flown in Olympic ceremonies and in places all over the world. Perhaps references to 6-4 were a little over the top, but I still err on the side of free speech. At the end of the day, the game was in America, and if you can't make political points there without fear of repercussion, where can you?

I can understand why the government and players objected to having these banners and flags flown while they played. Just like I understand why goalkeeper D.J. Countess didn't like being pelted with batteries, or why Marty Turco didn't like being told repeatedly he sucked. But I can't help but think that this is life, and this is sports -- grow up, and get over it. I'm still waiting for an official Chinese government spokesperson to say that the flags "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people", a phrase that turns supposedly thinking, mature adults into defenseless children. It's a sorry state of affairs when the world's apparent future superpower won't even play football because it's offended by some piddly flags.

Regardless of the political implications, many fans admitted they were just trying to throw the team off.

Fitzgerald said the fans who were ejected weren't really interested in protesting China's politics and instead just wanted to harass and disrupt the Chinese team. He said other fans have frequently complained about those particular fans' use of profanity and sexually explicit language and props during previous games.

Again, trying to distract the opposition is perfectly normal. Just watch an opposing player try and throw a free throw in the NBA.

Despite Fitzgerald's reasons for being there, others were definitely trying to make a political point, and feel their rights were infringed upon -- and rightly so.

Coker admits that he displayed the flag partly to distract and annoy the visiting team, but he said it was mostly a "form of expression about the plight of the people of Tibet."

"I'm going to be contacting the ACLU, and I'm going to pursue it," he said. "I want to hold people accountable if they broke the law, because I know I didn't."

Ironically, the flags flown by Tibetans, Taiwanese, and other concerned Americans was nearly a direct result of China's control of information within the P.R.C. When people can't make these points directly to the Chinese government, they spill out in sporting events and other activities. If China was to allow free debate and discussion on things like Tibet and Taiwan, or engage with those critical of it, perhaps there would be no need to use this kind of an event to score political points. I highly doubt people would be carrying banners saying "6-4" if the Chinese government had already given a full vetting of the event.

At some point the Chinese government and people will have to come to terms with its sometimes brutal and controversial past.  The longer things like June 4th are ignored, the more they will crop up in events like this.  Keeping the people shielded from opinions and events that might be uncomfortable may work inside the P.R.C. for the time being, but it will spill out in other places, like this week's football match. And it's going to spill out a lot more frequently in the years to come.

This also boils down to the players, management, and owners of China's football team.  Were they really so offended that they couldn't play?  Was seeing a Tibetan flag so offensive and utterly disgusting that they were prepared to walk off the field?  Is this the mindset of the Chinese people?  And if so, the rest of the world is scared about what, exactly? 

__________________ 

Notes:

• Video from the game, including shots of the forbidden flags, can be found here.
  
• A fan, who was at the game and waved an ROC flag, blogged about his experience getting kicked out of the stadium here.
  

This is a letter that was published in Wednesday's edition of the National Post.  It is a follow-up of a column that was published on Monday to coincide with the June 4th anniversary.  I think the letter writer raises some good points.

Tiananmen no concern of a 'capitalistic' China
National Post
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Page: A15
Section: Letters
Byline: Petros Dratsidis
Source: National Post

Re: Chinese amnesia, Cam MacMurchy, June 4.

With all due respect to Cam MacMurchy, the so-called Tiananmen Square Massacre is not a major anniversary in Chinese history. We are talking about a nation with a 5,000-year history, a nation whose population is one-fifth of humanity, an emerging and ambitious superpower. What happened in early June, 1989, in Beijing is merely an episode in history caused by misguided and impressionable students, an episode equivalent to the 1968 riots in Paris or the student unrest in North American universities between 1968 and 1972, but far smaller in scale.

Talk about amnesias: Should the French commemorate the anarchy on their streets some 40 years ago? Should the U.S. president lay a wreath every May 4 to commemorate the killing of the four students at Kent State University in 1970?

I have just returned from China, and I can assure you that the epithet "communist" does not fit China today. There are no pictures of Mao glancing admonishingly from billboards -- except the one overlooking Tiananmen Square, where his mausoleum is. The police on the streets are almost invisible, and owning private property is encouraged, as is opening a private business. Western music is everywhere, Shanghai's stock market is booming and China is full of "capitalistic" energy, in fact, too much of it.

If we must give a name to the Chinese system of government, then a correct name would be centralized democracy. Foreign investment agrees with this assessment, and is pouring into China at rates never seen before in history.

David Brady, deputy director of the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, recently said: "The normal pattern is for at least two parties to alternate in power … but I wouldn't say that has to be China's way. I am not smart enough to tell what China should do."

The same should apply to Mr. MacMurchy. Is he, a freelance journalist, knowledgeable enough to tell the Chinese people how to conduct their affairs?

Petros Dratsidis, Toronto.

Petros makes some good points about other movements that have been crushed by the government or law enforcement officials, especially the one at Kent State in the United States (although that was 4 people to an estimated 3,000 in Beijing).

Governments, including the Chinese one, should never feel obligated to remember those who died challenging their authority. However individuals -- the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins of the victims -- should be able to remember what happened, publicly, if they so choose. 

People in Paris can read about the riots of 1968, and lay a wreath if they like.  People in America can read about what happened at Kent State or watch a documentary on the subject.

Unfortunately, when it comes to June 4, 1989, people in China aren't so lucky. 

It's nice to see Canada having a bit more flair. Yesterday, current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to decline a meeting with U2 star Bono.

"I've got to say that meeting celebrities isn't kind of my shtick, that was the shtick of the previous guy," said Harper in a dig at his Liberal predecessor Paul Martin, who met Bono regularly.

"I hope we do it at some point but my principle focus in public policies is not kind of to meet celebrities," added the prime minister, a Conservative.

The Reuters story says Bono has met with George W. Bush and Angela Merkl already, but Harper says he's too busy to meet the star. 

While relieving debt to African nations is a laudable goal, it's nice to come across a politician who is more concerned with actual politics instead of photo-ops with celebrities. 

Huang's funeral was held at Babaoshan Cemetary, where all the major government leaders and revolutionaries are buried.  Even disgraced former leader Zhao Ziyang was buried there, despite his opposition to the government's crackdown on June 4, 1989 and subsequent house arrest, which lasted untl his death in January 2005.

Jiang Zemin and his ailing wife made it up from Shanghai and all the way out to Shijingshan for the memorial, which makes it all the more curious that Li Peng and Qiao Shi weren't there - as Beijing residents, they didn't have nearly as far to go.

Those familiar with Li Peng will know he was the Premier under Zhao Ziyang in 1989. He was the most vocal and supportive of bringing in the military to rid Tiananmen Square of protesters. Students in the square (and people around the country) loathed Li Peng for everything from corruption to overusing government vehicles and stopping traffic for simple trips to the grocery store (Zhongnanhai hears this may have also been his wife). 

Li Peng was no fan of Huang Ju, and speculation has run rampant for the reasons behind this.

As for Qiao Shi, he served as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress from 1993-1998.  He was previously known for his dislike of Jiang Zemin, and Huang Ju was a Jiang loyalist and member of his Shanghai clique. 

They were the only two high-level officials or former leaders who were not present for the memorial. 

It's been a big week here.  Besides moving from Shanghai to Beijing (and I am still seeking suitable living quarters in Beijing), trying to blog, Huang Ju's death, and the passing of the June 4th anniversary, lots has been happening.

Fortunately one of my columns this week was picked up by Canada's Toronto-based national newspaper, the National Post.  I was subsequently called to be a guest on Adler Online, a nationally-syndicated radio program. Yes, despite everything that's going on in China, the Tiananmen Square crackdown (or massacre, if you prefer -- see Imagethief for an excellent post on this) remains one of the most compelling stories for foreign audiences.

I hope to post the audio from the interview here shortly, but for the time being you can find it here.  Click "Mon June 4" and "2:00pm" and then fast forward to about 2:45. They have a nice intro complete with broadcast news snippets from June 4, 1989.

The article I've posted below, and my radio interview, largely deals with the lack of attention (obviously) paid to the June 4 anniversary.  It's remembered by those who lived in Beijing, and discussed by the older generation in the provinces.  But thanks to strong and centrally-controlled media, many in the younger generation have no idea what happend.  Here is proof. 

In the meantime, I have posted the National Post column below.

------------ 

Chinese amnesia; Today is the 18th anniversary of Tiananmen. But few in China know --or care
National Post
Monday, June 4, 2007
Page: A12
Section: Editorials
Byline: Cam MacMurchy
Dateline: BEIJING
Source: National Post

BEIJING - Today is a major anniversary in Chinese history -- but you wouldn't know it from the country's media. In fact, China's Communist rulers go to great pains to make sure no one publicly mentions what June 4, 2007 represents: the 18th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

At least that's what the West calls the event. In China, it's simply known as "June 4th." On the 15th anniversary, in 2004, a large sign on the front door of state-run China Radio International informed staff not to mention the date, and all programs were pre-recorded for the entire week lest anybody slip-up.

The seeds of the massacre were sown when the Communist Party declared martial law on May 20, 1989, after a month of protests and hunger strikes by hundreds of thousands of students calling for improved economic conditions, a crackdown on corruption and democracy. The tanks rolled into the outskirts of Beijing, where they sat until June 3, when then-supreme leader Deng Xiaoping gave the orders to clear the Square "at all cost." The tanks began heading through the streets of the capital after sunset.

What happened that night is hard for me to imagine, though I've lived in Beijing for nearly two years. Tanks rumbled through neighbourhoods such as Muxidi, which I used to pass daily on my way to work, and Dongzhimen, where many of the city's best eateries are located. The troops met fierce resistance, as citizens clamoured onto overpasses and hurled rocks at their countrymen. The army responded by firing into the crowd, and even into people's homes.

That night, the city burned. Estimates of the number of people who died vary from a few hundred to several thousand. No clear number has ever emerged, partly because the Communist Party still denies what happened. To this day, the event, in official terms, is dubbed: "The counterrevolutionary riot."

I went down to the square late at night on June 3 a few years ago to mark the anniversary. The lights that normally lit the revolutionary statue and Mao's famous portrait were turned off, and the middle of the square was closed. It was crawling with plain-clothes police, some of whom were flying kites -- in the dead of night. Police cars with lights flashing were doing laps around the square, looking for the first sign of anything suspicious, such as somebody laying flowers to remember those who died.

This campaign of official amnesia is working: Many in the younger generation have no idea what happened 18 years ago. I had a local friend visit me the other day, a woman who was seven years old in 1989. I asked her about the event, and she said, "Nobody ever told me what happened. I just know it was bad."

I brought her to the computer, clicked on Google and searched for images of "Tiananmen Square." Dozens of photos popped up -- including images of that famous unnamed man, standing defiantly along Chang'an Avenue in front of a tank. She had never seen the photo.

I proceeded to give her a brief description of what happened. She had no idea of the carnage in her own hometown.

The event is slowly being forgotten in China as people clamour to make money, live in luxurious apartments, and buy BMWs and Prada handbags. The Communist Party opened fire on its own young, and the bloody offensive seems to have paid off.

Even foreign governments, which initially imposed sanctions on China following the massacre, long ago moved on. They now trip over themselves to please China's Communist emperors and tap into the country's massive market.

An English-language Web forum was launched two years ago in China. Surprisingly, it allows a great deal of free debate. Included among the permitted topics is Tibetan Independence, the status of Taiwan and relations with Japan --all hot-button issues in China. But discussing June 4 remains forbidden.

Despite this, ghosts of the event still haunt the country and foreign news pages. Yu Dongyue, now 40, was released in February last year after spending 17 years in prison for throwing ink at Mao's looming portrait during the protest. He was tortured for his crime, and his father said he's unable to properly communicate with his family.

And leading up to last year's anniversary, a group of mothers of Tiananmen Square victims again asked the government to review its official position on June 4 and remember those who died. The mothers, and the rest of the world, may be waiting a long time for satisfaction.

Yes... it could be true!  Zhongnanhai has confirmed this morning that all state-run media have been instructed to refrain from giving Huang's cause of death, which is widely believed to be cancer.

The concern stems from recent stories about China sending shipments of tainted toothpaste overseas. The toothpaste contained a chemical widely believed to cause cancer.  And... just what if... Huang Ju had been using that kind of toothpaste?  What if using tainted toothpaste killed Huang Ju?  The story was too sensational for China's Propaganda Department, which issued an edict ordering newspapers, radio and TV stations to refrain from giving Huang Ju's cause of death. 

One can never be too careful. 

Now, it's one thing if the hated Japanese and their former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi make visits to the infamous Yasukuni Shrine.  The disgust with the Japanese runs deep here, and Koizumi's decision to attend the shrine each year he was in office just confirmed Chinese beliefs that Japan, and its ruling Liberal Democratic Party, had not "come to terms with history."

But now this... former Taiwan President Lee Tung-hui plans to visit the shrine to pay respects to Japan's war dead.  Why, you ask?  According to an article in the Taipei Times, he will be honoring his brother. 

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday said he would like to visit the Yasukuni shrine, a controversial memorial to war dead where his elder brother is enshrined.

Lee's elder brother served in the Japanese navy and died while on duty in February 1945 in the Philippines.

"I have not yet decided on the timing, but since I am here, I think that I should go see my brother," Lee told reporters on his arrival at Narita airport near Tokyo.

"I will meet my brother for the first time in 60 years," Lee said.

Lee, accompanied by his wife Tseng Wen-hui, left for Japan yesterday for a 10-day visit.

Speaking to Japanese reporters on the flight from Taipei, the 84-year-old former leader said he wanted to pray at the Yasukuni shrine because he did not know how much longer he would live.

The issue has touched a nerve in Taiwan, and rightly so.  Last year I made a visit to Yaskuni myself.  It's a very sombre place, and steeped in history. Adjacent to the shrine is the Yasukuni War Museum, which I also visited.  Outside the building it lists the different exhibits inside.  For example, "World War II", "The Meiji Restoration", etc.  And at the bottom of the list is the last exhibit, simply titled "The China Incident."

Inside, great pains are made by the museum to explain that Japan was never at war with China, because Tokyo had never "declared" war.  Thus, the word "incident".  After reading Iris Chang's excellent book on the Nanjing Massacre, I was anxious to read what the museum had to say.  Indeed, it was simply called the "Nanking Incident". This is the exact wording:

After the Japanese surrounded Nanking in December 1937, Gen. Matsui Iwane distributed maps to his men with foreign settlements and the Safety Zone marked in red ink. Matsui told them that they were to observe military rules to the letter and that anyone committing unlawful acts would be severely punished.  He also warned Chinese troops to surrender, but Commander-in-Chief Tang Shengzhi ignored the warning.  Instead, he ordered his men to defend Nanking to the death, and then abandoned them.  The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties.  Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace.

I added the Italics. If that's not enough, here is the official Japanese take on "the Russo-Japanese War to the Manchurian Incident".

Japan's victory in the Russo-Japanese War and subsequent annexation of Korea resolved concerns about national security, which had been festering for years. Relief and exultation delayed the Japanese response to a new world situation. When World War I began, Japan cooperated with the Allies, capturing German possessions (Qingdao and the Mariana, Caroline and Marshall Islands), and dispatching a special fleet to the Mediterranean Sea and other troops to Siberia. Meanwhile, at the Washington Conference in the U.S., plans were made to disrupt the new, postwar order in Asia and to prevent further Japanese expansion. The Chinese, now nationalistic and xenophobic after the revolution, focused their animosity on Japan.  An anti-Japanese movement in Manchuria and discord within the Kwantung Army resulted in the Manchurian Incident and the establishment of Manchukuo.

The exhibit goes on to say that Manchukuo is territory that is "currently governed by the Chinese."

Clearly, this is the way that the Japanese military establishment views its past, and on that note I sympathize with the Chinese.  Anyone that knows me knows I love Japan and Japanese culture.  Japan, and what the country has been able to accomplish in the past 60 years, sets a great example for other countries, like China.  Japan is industrious, the people are hard-working, and it has been able to pull off something perhaps China is failing at: holding onto old traditions while embracing western culture and modernity (which are not the same, I hasten to add).

Nonetheless, places like the Yasukuni Museum puts a taint on Japan. I have no problem with Japanese leaders remembering their war dead, but enshrining class A war criminals goes too far. 

Back to Lee Tung-hui. His visit is being criticized by lawmakers in his former party, the KMT. This, from a second article in the Taipei Times:

KMT lawmakers Hung Hsiu-chu and Joanna Lei called a press conference yesterday morning to condemn Lee's planned visit, calling Lee a "liar" for saying he wished to honor his deceased brother.

They said the spirit of Lee's elder brother had been brought back to Taiwan about 20 years ago and put in Chihua Temple, Peipu Township, Hsinchu County.

They showed a picture of a tablet bearing the Japanese name of Lee's brother, his date of birth and pointed to the name of Lee's father, Lee Ching-long, as evidence.

"There is no tablet, remains or any spirit of his brother at Yasukuni. There is only an enshrinement list there. The spirits of [Taiwanese] soldiers enshrined at Yasukuni were all relocated to the Chihua temple. I don't know what Lee is going to honor." Hung said.

Hung said she suspected that Lee's planned visit to the shrine was aimed at infuriating China.

I would guess the two lawmakers are correct.  As much as I support the right of the Taiwanese to determine their own future, actions like Lee's can only be seen to enrage China, and he has a long history of such actions. Hopefully Chinese leaders will ignore Lee's provocative move.

In the 2004 Democratic primaries, I slowly became a John Edwards fan.  I felt John Kerry was unelectable to red-meat red-staters, and it turned out to be true.  Howard Dean was obviously too shrill and generally just nuts.  Edwards' drawback was his inexperience (much like Barack Obama today), but he had charisma, was a great orator, was from the south, and seemed generally likeable (also like Obama, minus the south part).

It could be argued Edwards' star has fallen since then, especially according to an article published in TIME magazine.  The article, written by veteran campaign manager Bob Shrum, recounts the days John Kerry was agonizing over who to select as his running mate. It says veteran Missouri Senator Dick Gephardt was the man Kerry felt most comfortable with.

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Kerry did go on to pick Edwards, and the article concludes with Kerry regretting the decision. It also says Edwards promised Kerry he wouldn't run against him in 2008, a promise we will never know if he had any intention of keeping.  But Shrum makes Edwards seem vacuous and power-hungry.

The article is actually an excerpt from Shrum's new book, No Excuses - Concessions of a Serial Campaigner. Having read the article and some of the reviews on Amazon.com, I think this is a book I'll likely be picking up on my next trip home.  Publisher's Weekly characterized the book this way:

With this lengthy but frequently gripping memoir, Shrum recounts his three-decade career in American politics, which he began as a speechwriter for New York's Mayor John Lindsay and ended as a campaign strategist for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. More insider history than memoir, the book focuses almost exclusively on the author's professional experience, featuring richly detailed accounts of his efforts working on Edward Kennedy's, Al Gore's and John Kerry's unsuccessful presidential bids (conversely, Shrum covers his engagement and wedding to Marylouise, his wife of 18 years, in three swift pages). Unsurprisingly, given his background, Shrum writes with eloquence and passion; more unexpected is his disarming candor. He's by turns effusive and brutal, for example waxing poetic about Edward Kennedy after vehemently criticizing Jimmy Carter. Later, he voices somewhat harsh ambivalence toward Bill Clinton. A deep sense of disappointment pervades the book: Shrum's string of failed presidential campaigns led to talk of the "Shrum curse," which the author never managed to overcome. Casual judgments and frank disclosures along the way make this a provocative and entertaining behind-the-scenes look at American politics.

As an avid follower of American politics, I routinely get asked* about who will win the Presidency in 2008.  Perhaps, considering the election is over a year and a half away, it's too early to say. But I'm on a 2-election winning streak (called George W. Bush both times!), and I think this election is a lot more clear than most people think.

I've said for a few years now that the Republicans have much stronger candidates than the Democrats.  Unlike Canadian, British, or Australian politics, the United States Presidential election is far more focused on the individual personality rather than the party. There's no question that the electorate is tired of George W. Bush, and want his team and philosophy swept from the White House.  But that doesn't necessarily mean the Republicans are dead.

I remember covering a George Bush campaign stop in Bellevue, Washington back in 2000.  That night, as he did throughout his campaign, he called himself a "uniter, not a divider".  Seven years on, America is arguably more divided than at any time since the civil war. 

I think the electorate is tired of the Fox News vs. Michael Moore partisan politics.  The winner of the 2008 Presidency will not be the candidate that can "bring out the base", which George Bush was successful in doing.  The winning candidate will have strong cross-party appeal and a pragmatic streak. The winning candidate will not be an ideologue. The winning candidate will have a mix of foreign policy experience, will be trusted by the American people, and will have a strong track record in politics.  The winning candidate will be Rudolph Giuliani.

The media attention is currently focussed on the Democrats, primarily Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I've warmed to Hillary Clinton in recent months, however she is still too polarizing a figure to win in a general election. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will face a strong Republican party campaign machine that will attack him for his youth and inexperience.  I don't believe Americans, when the chips are down, will vote for a junior Senator with zero foreign policy experience in a time of war.

Unless Al Gore steps into the race (and he, too, may still be too polarizing) the door is open for a strong Republican candidate. John McCain has proved himself a maverick and used to have strong cross-party appeal. However his support for the Iraq war and the troop surge has hurt his credibility among middle-of-the-road Americans. His age is also a factor.  Many felt he was too old in 2000 for the Presidency, and he is now 70.

Mitt Romney, who is favored by my father, could be the dark-horse candidate.  He has good buzz at the moment, but his Mormon faith is bound to be an issue in the US media.

There's no doubt, to me, that at this stage, Rudy Giuliani is the man to beat.  Nobody sums up America's resolve in the "War on Terror" better than Giuliani, who defiantly marched through the streets on the morning of September 11th. For his efforts, he was selected as Time's Person of the Year, ahead of George Bush.  

Rudy Giuliani has a strong record as Mayor of New York. His most notable achievement was drastically reducing the city's crime rate and turning areas, like Times Square, into safe havens for tourists. I visited New York three years ago, and found many parts of Manhattan even safer than my native Vancouver. Giuliani is an excellent orator and, regardless of his most recent comments, is known as a pro-choice candidate, and is pro-gun control. This makes him a safe choice for Democrat and swing voters.

Giuliani's toughest challenge will be winning the Republican nomination, because of his well-known Liberal views.  But if he can succeed in doing that, and I believe he will, the Presidency will be his to lose. He is likeable, polls well, and has significant cross-party appeal.  I really believe the White House will be staying Republican in '08.

*And by that I mean, a friend once asked me what I think. :)

Canada underestimates Chinese power
Times Colonist
Published: Sunday May 27 

You wouldn't know it by our relatively small population, but Canadians have managed to really spread out worldwide. Here in China, it seems like every other foreigner I meet is from Toronto or Vancouver or Edmonton.

And on a recent trip to Bangkok, I saw lines of foreigners waiting to check in at a budget hotel. A majority were faithfully carrying navy blue Canadian passports as identification.

The good news is being a Canadian overseas is often much easier than being an American, or even a German or Briton for that matter, because we are generally viewed favourably.

Toronto and Vancouver have become magnets for overseas Chinese and many who fled the country during Mao's years often tried to reach our shores. We have traditionally had a good reputation as being fair and honest. But times are changing.

"Only the corrupt Chinese go to Canada," an elderly man in spectacles told me over a steaming dim sum breakfast at a park in the southern city of Guangzhou. "I don't like the Canadian government."

He wasn't referring to our government's complaints about the treatment of Huseyin Celil, the Canadian who is being held by the Chinese authorities for "terrorist activities and plotting to split the country," according to state-run media.

He also wasn't referring to the Conservative government's decision to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to the Dalai Lama, who is still seen here as a "splittist" set on breaking up the country. He wasn't talking about the frequent trips Canadian MPs are making to Taiwan, either.

No, he was talking about Lai Changxing, one of China's most notorious criminals, accused of embezzling billions of dollars and then fleeing to Vancouver, where he remains today.

Despite repeated requests to have him turned over to Chinese authorities, our government has let the legal process take its course. He's been in Canada for years and has just been given another chance to fight deportation.

It's not a good time to be a Canadian in China, because these issues are starting to trickle down into mainstream opinion, obviously guided by the monolithic state-run media machine.

But whereas Xinhua wire stories used to regularly blast former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for paying respects to war criminals at the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, now the target is Canada, and most recently Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, who was being warned not to "damage Sino-Canadian ties."

But judging from the two countries' laundry list of grievances, perhaps the ties are already damaged. Canada has been one of the few countries insisting China improve its human rights record, becoming a thorn in the side of the Communist emperors in Beijing.

A recent Angus Reid poll showed 76 per cent of Canadians want our long-term policy with China based on advancing human rights and minority rights, not just economics. But the chances of that happening are slim, because there's simply too much money to be made.

China is not an "emerging" or "growing" superpower. Many feel it's become one already, and has enough economic clout to tell other countries what to do. And as much as Canadians like to think we have a say, we don't.

Other than natural resources, which are also found in other countries with friendly ties to China, we don't have a lot to bargain with. We have a relatively small population, no substantial military strength and aren't one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

We can either look the other way and cash in on China's dizzying economic growth, or we can cease trading with one of the world's largest and most dynamic economies.

CEOs, governments and companies have overwhelmingly chosen the former. They are lining up to obey whatever rule China puts in place for access to its 1.3-billion person market.

From Google and MSN, which willingly block Internet searches not palatable to the Communist regime, to the World Health Organization, which most recently denied Taiwan and its 23 million people membership thanks to pressure from Beijing, China is becoming used to getting its way.

Canadian consumers, if they are honest, would likely also prefer being able to buy cheap Chinese-made goods at Wal-Mart rather than paying more as part of an effort to pressure some far-off government to improve the human rights of people they've never met in a land they'll never see.

It all boils down to money, for governments, companies and individuals.

The one bright spot for social activists will be the Olympic Games next year. China views the Olympics as a major coming-out party and the Asian ideal of "face" means China is very sensitive about ensuring the event goes off without a hitch.

Linking Darfur to the Olympics worked for 107 U.S. congressmen, who wrote a letter urging China to take action or face an Olympic boycott. China responded by sending 275 military personnel to the region.

But it can go the other way, too, as five protesters learned when they unfurled a banner calling for a Free Tibet on Mount Everest. Instead of giving Tibetans more autonomy, China cracked down on Tibetan travel permits issued to foreigners.

Dealing with China is a complex game. But while our government's moral stance is admirable and commendable, it is ultimately doomed to fail.

If this is the best that we can expect from Democratic contenders for President, it will be a boring campaign season for China-watchers.  China has only come up fleetingly so far in the Democratic debates, but Senator and leading Democratic nominee Barack Obama finally discussed China's military buildup and relations with Taiwan in a speech given on the Senate floor.  But what he said was hardly shocking.

He talked about China's "peaceful rise", called for more military transparency, and a continuation of the status-quo in cross-strait relations.  Is China too sensitive a topic for presidential contenders to tackle?  It seems so.

Obama's comments, and the full story, can be found here. 

After much reflection on this question, I've come to the conclusion that..... I don't know.  My good friend Tim Stoney, a former reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, believes that Asian culture and democracy just don't mix.  He claims that Asians, by their very nature, are adverse to change, and don't like the see-saw back-and-forth scheming that makes democracies so vibrant.  I'm paraphrasing, but he says Asians (and this is a vast, vast generalization, something I normally try and refrain from doing) prefer to know who the government will be, and what the policies will be, 10 or 15 years from now.  That allows proper planning.

Perhaps my friend is on to something, or perhaps it's hogwash, as the democracies in Taiwan (Province!) and South Korea can attest.  Whatever, below is a column I wrote on this subject after a recent trip to Bangkok.  (Yes, honest, I was there to write hard journalism stories!!!).

Desire for order trumps democracy; Thais' contentment with military coup points to Asia's different values
Published: Sunday May 13
Times Colonist 

The Chinese propaganda machine is very effective. Ask anyone in China about democracy and they will reel off reasons why now is not the right time.

"China isn't developed enough yet." "Chinese people aren't educated enough." "China needs stability first." The list goes on.

Decent reasons really, but not for most of us in the West. We're accustomed to believing that democracy is the only way. Challenging that belief is tough, but it's necessary.

And Thailand offers a good example of a country where democracy has gone horribly wrong.

Western governments and media outlets were quick to denounce the overthrow of a democratically elected prime minister in a bloodless military coup last year. Thaksin Shinawatra was fresh off an election victory, his second landslide majority.

But while images of tanks in the streets of Bangkok were enough to make CNN headlines, the reasons behind the coup -- and the feelings of the Thais -- were often left unreported.

"I hope he never returns," a Thai taxi driver told me en route to Bangkok's sparkling new Suvarnabhumi Airport last week. "If he does, somebody will kill him."

Thaksin, who has been ordered to stay away from Thailand by the military, is not well-liked in the country's urban areas. His election victories and popularity were owed to the rural areas which didn't see firsthand the level of corruption in his government.

"Look at that," the taxi driver said, waving a finger towards a giant, concrete rapid-transit line along the highway. "What a waste." The multi-billion-dollar line was intended to connect downtown Bangkok with its new airport. But now it sits there, unfinished.

You don't have to go far to see other evidence of waste and mismanagement. Thaksin rushed the new $4.5-billion Suvarnabhumi Airport to completion. After only months in operation, complaints about construction quality, crumbling runways, overcrowding and an embarrassing lack of bathrooms have forced the military junta to re-open the old Don Muang Airport.

Thais say his real sins go much deeper. Thaksin is accused of perverting democracy to centralize power and limit dissent, creating an authoritarian regime with him at its centre.

And questions are mounting about his sale of communications giant Shin Corp., controlled by his family, to a Singapore government agency. The deal earned his family $2.1 billion -- tax-free.

All that helps explain why, when the military decided something had to be done, the country's revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej gave his blessing.

Most Thais told me that life carries on as it did before. They are happy to know the circus atmosphere surrounding Thaksin is gone and the government is now "much less prominent," according to the driver.

While the military regime has promised the return of democracy and a new constitution, they have cracked down on the media in the meantime. The government blocked the YouTube website for showing a video of King Bhumibol next to images of feet. The king is regarded as semi-divine and generally loved, while feet are considered offensive. It has also blocked websites and broadcast reports about the deposed prime minister.

But despite the erosion of a free press, the Thais seem to be taking everything in stride -- just as the Chinese do.

One of my friends from Australia once told me that democracy doesn't fit easily with Asian culture. I argued about the importance of freedom of speech, human rights and all the other ideals we are raised with in the West.

But the longer I've remained in Asia, the more I'm gaining perspective on his point of view. Here, the value of stability trumps democracy.

Asian people generally respect authority and their elders. The Western ideas of activism, questioning authority and individuality are as foreign to Asian cultures as authoritarian regimes have become to Europeans and their descendants. Asia has very few truly democratic countries and even those that can hardly be called democracies by Western standards.

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has been solidly in power for half a century, except for a short-lived opposition coalition government in 1993. Singapore is an apparent democracy, but it has been run by Lee Kuan Yew, his son, and their People's Action Party since it gained independence in 1959. Malaysia has been run by a single multi-party coalition since the 1950s and Indonesia is unstable at best.

Taiwan and South Korea could turn out to be success stories, but both are too young to be judged. And Taiwan's chaotic, fight-filled legislature is often cited as proof that China doesn't need that "immature" form of government.

India might be a bright light, but its cumbersome democratic system is often blamed for its failure to match China's rapid economic growth.

"We have to sacrifice for the good of the whole," a close Chinese friend once told me. She was referring to the bloody crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters back in 1989 and explaining how many Chinese believe the students who died that June were paying the price for their country's success today.

Many Thais see their military coup in the same light, except this time the sacrifice was democracy.

There are splinter groups calling for the right to vote in Thailand and China.

But there is no massive underground network advocating democracy, no widespread support and no large-scale threats to the two governments.

Even without democracy, everything seems to be working just fine.