美 Mei - Zhong 中 關 Guan - Xi 系

Was the New York Times a bit CNN today?(1)
纽约时报今天有点CNN?

By 小丁 (Xiao Ding)

Original Publication Info:

中国选举与治理 (China Elections & Governance)
http://chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=130548

Translated and Republicated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi (www.mei-zhong.com)

On July 2nd (American Eastern time), the New York Times (NYT) seemed to pay especially close attention to China.  On this day in which nothing newsworthy burst on the scene, the NYT published three articles on China.  The headlines were as follows, ‘China’s Inside Game,’ ‘Quake Revealed Deficiencies of China’s Military,’ and ‘China Inspired Interrogations at Guantanamo.’

The first article about the Olympics was somewhat cliché.  The author felt that China does not care in the least how the world views the 2008 Olympics.  In this view, Beijing’s only goal is to establish the government’s image and authority, even to the point of the Olympics being for ‘domestic consumption.’  The article embroidered the facts in its description: “My neighbor’s 12-year-old son has been reminded of the Olympics every day at school.  He watches Olympic publicity on TV, and he listens to Olympic tunes — one of which sounds like a drill sergeant singing along to carousel music.”

Disregarding the reference to Olympic songs (as there actually are some songs which are a bit difficult to listen to), this article’s approach failed to be fair and equitable.  The article said, “for Chinese leaders, the competition is pretty much over. They triumphed in 2001 when the International Olympic Committee selected Beijing as the site for this year’s games.”  This implies that the only reason China is holding the Olympics is to ‘consolidate political power.’  This kind of thinking reveals the author’s crude understanding of China and the Chinese people.  Hosting the Olympics was absolutely not merely the wish of the Chinese government, but was also the wish of all the Chinese people.  For many years, the Chinese people have been waiting for an opportunity for the national doors to be opened amongst feelings of pride and elation.  The Olympics are the best way to achieve this wish.  I feel that if this NYT author was not just paying attention to his neighbor’s son, and instead spent some time taking a cram Chinese class and then talking to common Chinese people, perhaps she would recognize that Chinese people actually only want the honor, brilliance, and excitement associated with the Olympics.  I’m afraid that the so-called ‘consolidation of political power through the Olympics,’ is merely this author’s ignorant or prejudiced idea.

The second article, ‘Quake Revealed Deficiencies of China’s Military,’ basically summarized the results of a former American intelligence official and scholar’s ‘reconnaissance’ on China.  The article stated that “the earthquake showed the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) best and worst sides.”  The ‘best side’ referred to the speed of the soldiers and to effective command.  The ‘worst side’ referred to the lack of preparation in the army during the first 72 hours of rescue work as the soldiers were only able to use a strategy involving sending waves of personnel to save lives bare-handed.  The article also pointed out that the air force dispatched 6,500 paratroopers to Sichuan, but only 15 of them successfully parachuted in.  Moreover, their 44 hours of preparation time was labeled ‘disgraceful’ by some.  The article cited the views of an American specialist who claimed that “the Chinese military was evidently still focused on conventional warfare rather than engineering skills.”(2)

This article’s logic seems tight, and it cited the views of several expert scholars, but its problem can be summarized with an old Chinese saying, ‘standing up to talk doesn’t make your back hurt.’(3)  By working under premises that didn’t properly analyze the terrain or the extent of the disaster, and then saying that the PLA wasn’t prepared enough, it will only make people think that the NYT’s report was excessively sloppy.  The effect on the terrain caused by the earthquake was extremely large.  In less than one day, the map was completely changed, and then several days of continuous downpours were added to the problem.  If the PLA hadn’t braved the aftershocks, marched forward on foot, and surveyed on foot, it’s possible that reaching the epicenter would have been delayed again and again.  If this is compared with the disaster caused by the hurricane in New Orleans, one realizes that sometimes a disaster relief effort does not completely depend on technology and equipment.  Determination and manpower are often more important.  As for the ‘position’ of the PLA, I feel that the primary purpose for the existence of any country’s armed forces always should be national defense.  If one chooses to focus on how much China’s military spent on engineering and facilities for the rescue effort, perhaps the Pentagon would be happy, but it is definitely inconsistent with China’s national interest.

The third article is perhaps the most interesting one in today’s paper.  The article pointed out that all the methods of interrogation of suspected terrorists used at America’s Guantanamo Bay facilities were taken from techniques used in the interrogation of American war criminals(4) by the Volunteer Army(5) during the Korean War.  The article asserted that a now-deceased American air force sociologist, Albert D. Biderman, published an article in 1957 which recorded all the methods used in the interrogation of American air force prisoners of war by the Volunteer Army during the Korean War.  The methods of interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, which were recently made public, unexpectedly bore an astonishing resemblance to the records in Biderman’s article.  As a result, American politicians and analysts began asserting that methods used in Guantanamo Bay such as ‘sleep deprivation,’ ‘prolonged posture constraint,’ and ‘exposure to a vile environment,’ along with other extortion methods, were learned from the Chinese.  Also mentioned was the use of ‘brainwashing,’ which gave criminals no option but confession, even if many times they were compelled only by torture and had no choice but to lie.

Regardless of how trustworthy Mr. Biderman’s report is, and even if all of it is true, because the NYT decided on the headline ‘China Inspired Interrogations at Guantanamo,’ on the whole, there is no possibility that China’s image will suffer.  Instead, it was a case of America dropping a rock and smashing its own compatriots’ feet.  In the 21st century, as the Defense Department and the CIA deal with all their captives and criminal suspects under non-wartime conditions, they are using all the techniques which had been used in the 1950’s in the middle of a ‘live ammo’ war.  It can only be concluded that this constitutes a historical regression and lack of respect for human rights.  People should be aware that in the 1950’s, America was still deeply trapped in its system of racial segregation.  If in today’s modern world, some country suddenly decided to implement racial segregation and proclaimed that it was ‘inspired by America,’ wouldn’t people all over the world regard it as a joke?

Of course, Chinese people should pay attention to some of the criticism in the NYT.  For example, it was right in saying that Olympic songs should sound better, at least to avoid making foreigners think they are strange.  Also, while ensuring the security of the Olympic Games, attention should also be paid to public relations, an open attitude should be maintained, and foreigners should not be made to feel that China is closing its doors as it hosts the Olympics.  As for the army’s rescue effort, there are already those in China who are currently reflecting on whether the army command neglected certain things during the effort and whether the army should be provided with more specialized machines and equipment.  In short, ‘correct mistakes if you have made them, guard against them if you haven’t.’  As for the interrogations at Guantanamo, it would be better if everybody views the article as a joke, as the ideas found in these reports are just for  attracting attention and needn’t be taken seriously.

Note: The above is a translation of an article by a Chinese author and has been provided for informational purposes only, not to represent my own viewpoint.

1. After the uprising in Tibet, ‘CNN’ became an adjective used by the Chinese to denote media sources deemed to be subjective, filled with Western bias, and anti-China.
2. The specialist was actually Australian.
3. The meaning of this Chinese saying is similar to something like ‘it’s easier to point out problems than to solve them.’
4. The author may have meant to use the term ‘prisoners of war’ as he does later in the paragraph.
5. The Volunteer Army refers to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops who fought with the North Koreans.  The Chinese were not officially fighting the war, so the term ‘Volunteer Army’ is being used as a euphemism for the PLA.

Related Posts

• The Discrediting of the New York Times in the Chinese Media
• China Shouldn’t Care So Much About World Leaders Attending the Opening Ceremony