Just got this message from the American consulate in Shenyang:
Any large-scale public event such as the upcoming Olympic Games may present an attractive target for terrorists. There is a heightened risk that extremist groups will conduct terrorist acts within China in the near future. In light of these security concerns, U.S. citizens traveling in China are advised to use caution and to be alert to their surroundings at all times, including at hotels, in restaurants, on public transportation and where there are demonstrations and other large-scale public gatherings. Consistent with our standard advice, American citizens are urged to avoid the areas of demonstrations.
In accordance with these security concerns, Chinese authorities have increased security in China’s airports during recent months. For example, Chinese airport authorities recently implemented tighter restrictions on taking liquids, aerosols, or gels aboard flights in carry-on baggage. Such restrictions may apply to food, cosmetics, toiletries and medicine. Travelers should contact their air carrier before their flight to determine the precise regulation in place.
American citizens are strongly encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance, be aware of local events, and take the appropriate steps to bolster their personal security. For additional information, please refer to “A Safe Trip Abroad found at travel.state.gov.
Stephen Hadley is the National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush. He was Condoleeza Rice’s number two in Bush’s first term, before Rice moved to State.
Think what you want about China’s policy out west, where dissidents have clashed with police over religious freedom and national identity, where history can be confusing and complicated and politics even more so.
Just make sure you know what country you’re thinking about.
Hadley said two days later he favors “quiet diplomacy” with China. The Australian quotes him saying:
“If other countries are concerned about Tibet, they ought to do what we are doing through quiet diplomacy - send the message clearly to the Chinese that this is an opportunity with the whole world watching, to show they take into account and are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect. They would put pressure on the authorities quietly to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama and use this as an opportunity to help resolve that situation.”
One has to wonder, just how quiet is this diplomacy?
George Stephanopoulos did western media no favors, either. Maybe he knows where Nepal is, but he didn’t show any sign of it, any more than Hadley.
People are already asking whether Western media gets China. I’m starting to wonder, does anybody know what’s going on? Anybody? Bueller?
“Do you feel western media is misinformed about China? If so, what source of information do you rely on when it comes to staying informed on China?”
Plenty of Chinese think so. A Sina.com petition has garnered 1.19 million protest signatures alleging, “Western media organisations such as CNN and BBC have churned out untrue and distorted reports of the event,” according to AFP (via CDT). China Daily chimes in with an editorial: Media must be objective.”
“If you go on acting like CNN, get out of China. Chinese people do not welcome you,†[the fax to Johnson's office] concluded. The writer signed off simply as “a Chinese person.”
Only one foreign journalist was actually in Lhasa when the riots broke out, James Miles of the Economist. He told the China Beat this:
The foreign media were almost entirely absent from Lhasa (a couple may have sneaked in under cover after the riots broke out but would have had limited access). Yet I have seen some very good reporting on what happened, notwithstanding the Chinese media’s nitpicking. Reporting in the official press, by contrast, while reasonably on the mark as far as the violence goes, has been highly misleading by failing to look at the bigger picture of unrest in Tibet and beyond, by not asking what might have caused this anger and by portraying this as the actions of a handful of people organised by the Dalai Lama’s “clique.” It wasn’t a handful, and I saw no evidence to suggest anything other than spontaneity.
Richard Spencer, from the Daily Telegraph, makes a similar point.
But explicitly - and in this they represent reality - government spokesmen do not want us to be “balanced”, and nor can we. We do of course quote government spokesmen, like Mr Zhang - and it makes them look absurd. But more than that, to “give both sides” means doing so with a level of engagement which the Chinese side is clearly determined not to allow. We cannot engage with the claims and counter-claims, often contradictory, coming out of officials and the state media.
A release through Xinhua says a policeman somewhere has been killed by rioters. We report this. But how easy is it coherently to quiz anyone about how, why and when this occurred? Will an eye-witness account be given? Will an honest assessment of injuries on both sides be given? When we ask, in what direction were the retaliatory shots fired, who was running where, do we get a response? There is no-one to give one. Phones are hung up. Spokesmen churn out one-liners, platitudes and what my old assistant used to call “nonsense-speak” which no-one believes. The government would rather not give us a narrative than give us one that we can pick at.
The pro-Tibet people, on the other hand, do answer their telephones (both the campaigns and the government). They engage in questioning. They differentiate between the claims of which they are certain, the claims they attribute to eye-witness reports, and the claims they say are second-hand and unverified. They seek to make what they say coherent and comprehensible.
They may not always be right, and to be sure they have an agenda, but the attempt to make sense at least wins some of our sympathy (though a surprising number of journalists remain suspicious of them).
Here’s my take: There isn’t nearly enough news coming out of China. What we get on this side of the Pacific is incomplete, often anecdotal, and for the most part written for an audience with little background on China.
The answer here is more news, more information, more voices. If China—its government and its people—want truly fair, factual reporting, the door is theirs to open.
