Global Voices » John Kennedy

China: Veto of UN Security Council Draft Resolution on Syria Draws Praise and Grief

John Kennedy — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:24:32 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.

Russia and China seem to have voted with their own interests in mind yesterday in their controversial opposition to a draft resolution at the UN Security Council which calls on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to stop the killings in his country, a revision of an earlier draft calling on Assad to relinquish power.

China justified its decision to veto the draft resolution, saying it wants to promote peace in Syria, and Russia claims to hope for a diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict in the country. As FireDogLake writer David Dayen points out: “The fact that Russia still supplies arms to the Syrian security forces clearly weighed heavily on the vote today.”

US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, confronting Li Baodong, China. Image posted to Weibo.

Unrest in the country has led to an estimated 7,000 deaths since March last year, with more than 200 lives lost in a massacre earlier this week.

Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the People's Daily tabloid Global Times, made today what is perhaps one of the most vocal statements in support of China's decision to veto the draft resolution, ending up under heavy fire in the comments section. Taking offense at Susan Rice's reported “disgust” at China's vote, Hu confuses her [zh] with Condoleezza Rice but also writes:

美国代表不点名批评中俄“出卖了叙利亚人民的意愿”。骂去好了。美国多次在安理会涉以色列提案表决时搞“一票否决”，这次中俄是“两票否决”。叶利钦当年说的好：只要中俄联手，美国无论捣鼓什么，“都是手淫”。赞呵。

The American representative has criticized China and Russia for their “betrayal” of the Syrian people. Whatever. America has vetoed a number of Security Council propositions dealing with Israel with a lone vote. China and Russia's “veto” now was done with two votes. Yeltsin said it best: As long as China and Russia stick together, the most America can do is play with itself. Awesome.

Almost as a sort of response, writer Ran Yunfei wrote [zh] shortly after that:

一个政府做一次错事可以原谅，不可原谅的是把做错事当成事业。我不是个民族主义者，但百年来的历史证明，中国与俄国的联手从来都没有对过。

A government can be forgiven for making one mistake, but it becomes unforgivable when making mistakes becomes a legacy. I'm not a nationalist, but a hundred years of history has proven that China and Russia have never done anything right by sticking together.

One “verified” commentator on Sina Weibo wrote [zh] early Sunday morning Beijing time that Russia and China ought now to be removed the Security Council and China replaced by Taiwan; that post was quickly deleted.

Sorry world, sorry Syria, we Chinese have an evil government. —Michael Anti, on Twitter.

The horrific video below [WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT], however, purportedly of the massacre Thursday in Homs, has not yet been deleted and has gathered hundreds of comments across the different spaces on which it's been embedded. At Sina Video, where it's currently being hosted, the most recent comment reads:

尼玛的我们国家在干什么鸟呀

Damnit, what the hell is our country doing?

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011/12.

China: Not Worried About Twitter's Decision to Self-Censor

John Kennedy — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:50:09 +0000

Twitter's announcement Thursday that the site will begin censoring content according to the relevant laws, regulations and policies of each country in which it has users, was followed not only by American netizens, but discussed as far away as China.

Although Twitter remains blocked in China, the site's Chinese-language users, an assorted bunch, moved quickly to source people to translate [zh] the company's statement and figure out what it might mean—a Twitter.cn, for example, or, as Ai Weiwei wonders, if the time has come to move on in search of a new platform with more respect for its users [zh].

Wen Yunchao, a well-known Internet activist from Guangzhou now working in a sort of domestic exile in Hong Kong as a producer for a new TV station, posted his thoughts on Twitter's new censorship measures to his Twitter account (@wenyunchao) several hours ago:

Image from Weibo

从推特发布的公告来看，现在是比以前进步了，以前是接到一国政府要求删除推特信息时，全球均不可见，现在是只是该国用户不可见。（1）

1. From the looks of Twitter's announcement, this is an improvement. Previously, a tweet could be deleted at the request of a country's government, leaving no one in the world able to see it. Now, only the users in that specific country won't be able to see it the information in question.

推特新的审查政策不会对现有中文用户产生影响。现在翻墙使用推特的用户，推特很难从技术上认定这些用户来自中国，因此亦无足够的依据屏蔽这些信息在中国的显示（无从显示）。（2）

2. Twitter's new censorship policy won't affect current Chinese-language users. It won't be easy for Twitter to determine through technical means which of its users come from China, as they have to scale the GFW to access the site, meaning the company won't have enough information to know who in China to block information from.

推特想进入中国，至少存在两在不可克服的障碍。一是黑箱的审查机制与透明规则之间的冲突无法解决。除非像谷歌那样以内资公司的方式存在，否则推特屏蔽特定信息将面临用户的诉讼。（3）

3. If Twitter decides to set up operations in China, there are at least two obstacles it won't be able to overcome. The first is that there's no way of resolving the conflict between black box censorship mechanisms and transparent regulations. Unless Twitter were to do like Google and set up a joint venture in China, it's going to have to deal with lawsuits from all the users who get singled out.

二是推特既然有新浪的政府公关能力，亦无法做到像新浪一样巨量的审查投入。对于中国当局来说，不会允许一个比新浪更宽松的类推特平台在中国提供服务。（4）

4. The second is that even if Twitter had as much PR sway over the government as Sina, it still wouldn't be able to commit as vast an amount of resources as Sina has to censoring content. Nor would Chinese authorities permit a platform like Twitter, far more open than Sina, to provide services within China.

China: ‘Anti-American Warrior' Gets Head Stuck in DC Airport Escalator

John Kennedy — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:00:20 +0000

“America is the enemy of all the people in the world.”

So wrote Sima Nan, one of China's most vocal opponents of Western liberal values, before he boarded a plane to Washington, DC, on January 20, 2012. At some point after arriving at Dulles International Airport, Sima leaned over the handrail of an escalator and wound up getting his head pinched between the handrail and an approaching section of wall.

Sima was put in a neck brace and taken to a hospital where he remains today, partially mobile and busy updating his microblog [zh].

The news that the media figure, who has made a career out of bashing the United States, quietly traveled there on the eve of Chinese New Year broke first online and, among other things, led to rumors that Sima had gone stateside to reunite with his wife and daughter. Sima has claimed that no warning sign was posted on the escalator and has said that he will sue the airport.

Sima, who was on his way to a conference, has been mocked to no end over the past week, as dragonwell summarizeshere at the Tea Leaf Nation blog, along with some of what he has written since confirming the news of his injury on January 24.

Image from Rebel Pepper

On the Phoenix TV blog portal, Canada-based blogger Yu Xiaoping has written on the hypocrisy [zh] of Sima's position, regardless of the nature of the conference he had been invited to attend:

刚刚听说反美斗士司马南在美国机场被人认出来还以为是有人在造谣呢，结果网上登出来伤者的照片。而他也在自己的微博当中证实，的确他在美国的机场被滚梯卡住了脑袋。乘坐滚梯不要将脑袋伸到外面，这是正常人都能知道的道理。每天都有成千上万的人往返于这个华盛顿机场，能把个强烈反美的人脑袋卡住，这显得特别不可思议。

Just heard that the anti-American warrior Sima Nan was spotted at an American airport and I thought it must have been a rumor, but then photos of the person injured appeared online. He's confirmed this on his own Weibo, that he did in fact get his head stuck on an escalator in an American airport. You don't stick your head out when you're riding an escalator, this is something all normal people know. Tens of thousands of people pass through this Washington, DC, airport each day, which makes it all the more hard to believe that someone as fiercely opposed to the US as this could get his head stuck there.

对伤者我深表同情，我觉得不宜在这种时候讽刺人家。对网上流传的他是与家人团聚，在未经证实的情况下也不好传播。不可否认的是，很多当年反美的斗士在中国赚足了稿费，然后一家人移民到了美国。

倒是有一点，大家不知是否注意到了。经此人个人微博的表述是去美国开会，而不是与家人团聚。虽然无法证实真假，我觉得这比他的家人在美国更发人深省，一个强烈反美的人，能够得到美国的签证，以工作的理由进入美国，而不是由于家庭团聚人道的理由拿到签证。这在天朝，你能想象吗？

I deeply sympathize with the injured person, and I don't think this is the time to be ridiculing him. As for the rumors online that he'd gone to see his family, it's best not to spread that sort of thing until the situation has been clarified. What is undeniable, however, is that many people who once spent years fighting America from China, have immigrated to the US with their families after having saved up enough through writing earnings.

There's one point, though, I don't know if people have noticed, that he's written on his personal Weibo account that he went to the US for a conference, and not to reunite with his family. Although it's impossible to confirm either way, what's far more telling I think is to know that someone so fiercely opposed to the United States can still receive a visa to go there, for work purposes in particular, rather than obtaining a visa for the humane reason of going to join his family. Can you imagine China doing the same thing?

龙年新气象。认同美国价值的人往美国跑，因为在国内受到了迫害。反对美国价值的人也往美国跑，不是因为在国内受到迫害，而是至少受到美国方面的邀请，这是所有以开会的理由取得签证的人都可以证明的常识。

一个国家是不是强大，到底怎样才能变得强大？就要看他是否能够包容反对自己的人。我们回顾中国历史，真正盛世的时期都是从大臣到老百姓能够胡说八道的环境。为什么？因为皇帝不怕有人谋反，因为你没那个本事，没那个能力，想胡说八道就说吧，变不了天。一朝皇帝只要是根基不稳，则会严格控制老百姓的言论，特别是控制大臣们的言论，采取酷刑政策，怕是有人谋反，每天惶惶不可终日。

Fresh into the Year of the Dragon. Those who accept American values have run off to America, because staying in China they just endure persecution. Those against American values are also running off to America, not for fear of facing persecution at home, but at the very least due to an invitation from the US, which as everyone knows is necessary to obtain a visa to go take part in a conference.

What is it that allows a country to grow to become great? You need only look at whether it can tolerate those who oppose it. If we look back at Chinese history, the truly prosperous periods were all times in which everyone from top officials down to common folk could all say whatever they wanted. Why is that? The emperors weren't afraid of anyone rebelling because no one was capable of pulling something like that off, and knowing that it wouldn't change anything, people could speak whatever nonsense they chose. Only the emperor of an unstable dynasty, meanwhile, will strictly control what people can say, exercising the most control over what top officials say, even employing torture out of fear of a rebellion, spending each day in a panic.

这位司马南到底去参加颂美的会议准备只身去舌战群儒，还是去参加反美的会议，去锦上添花，都代表美国社会的包容。前者是这个会议包容他这个人，后者是美国政府包容这个会议。只有包容才能使一个国家强大，美国不用担心什么，只有虚弱的政府才会担心，不敢让反对者进来。很多异见人士因为不堪在国内的迫害逃到国外，结果中国的护照不能更新，取得国外护照以后拿不到中国的签证，导致再也无法见到国内的亲友，其实这就是一种流放，天朝连文弱的书生都怕，你就可想而知了。

很好奇想知道这位反美的斗士到底去参加什么性质的会议，成果能否和大家分享一下，所以希望伤者早日康复，给大家一个真相。这一现象难道不令人深思吗？

This Sima Nan, was he on his way to a verbal showdown at a pro-US conference, or was he going to take part in an anti-American conference, like the frosting on a cake, a representation of the tolerance within America's society. In the case of the former, it would have been the conference tolerating this individual, and in the latter, the US government tolerating such a conference. Only tolerance can make a nation great, and America has nothing to worry about. Only a weak government would worry about something like this and not let its opponents in. Many dissidents, unable to bear the persecution at home, have fled overseas and found themselves unable to renew their Chinese passports. Similarly, once they receive foreign passports, they can't obtain visas to China, leaving them unable to see their friends and family in the country. What this actually is is a form of exile, and for China to fear even frail intellectuals, you can figure out the rest yourself.

I'm curious to know just what sort of conference this anti-American warrior was on his way to attend, so I hope the injured person recovers soon to share the truth with everyone. Either way, it's gotta make you wonder.

China: Only Talking About a Revolution

John Kennedy — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 06:24:52 +0000

Race car driver, author and one of China's most popular bloggers, Han Han dropped a bomb this weekend with three new blog posts, respectively discussing the possibilities for revolution, democracy and freedom in China.

Unlike Chen Wei, who was just sentenced to nine years in prison for writing four essays, Han and his views on the reform vs. revolution debate and Chinese citizens' ability to survive institutions such as freedom or democracy have, at least for the moment, brought discussion of a more open future China from the academic and ‘dissident' spheres to the top of mainstream blog portals and all throughout microblog sites.

Between the three essays, Han frankly addresses questions that Chinese public intellectuals are often criticized for shying away from, but is himself now being accused of misrepresenting the many people in China who do advocate serious political change.

Roland Soong at EastSouthWestNorth has translated two of Han's essays, On Revolution, On Democracy with the third, ‘Wanting Freedom', ~~probably coming soon~~here.

We're trying to keep up with the hundreds of responses from public intellectuals and netizens to Han's ‘gauntlet', which we'll be adding below as we come across them. First up, Han's own father, Han Renjun, who at times seems to take on the role of Han Jr.'s spokesperson on Sina Weibo:

我电话问韩寒，你为什么这么取题目，谈革命和说民主，又大又危险。他说，两篇小文章哪里说的明白啊，只是这样取名字，让人可以开始敢于谈论这些以前不太敢触碰的词语，能争鸣总是一件好事。我一想也是，无奈有些学者不解风情，大谈什么读书少，学术差，不专业最好闭嘴，肤浅不配这些标题啊，真滑稽。

I called Han and asked why he chose grandiose and dangerous titles, ‘On Revolution' and ‘On Democracy'. He said he wouldn't have been able to make his point in short posts and that only titles like these will bring people to start discussing these words that they're normally afraid to use, that a little contention is always a good thing. It makes sense to me, but certain scholars don't seem to get it, saying that instead of talking big about something, unlearned or uneducated people are better off keeping their mouths shut, that these subjects aren't fit for such shallowness. What a joke.

我还是觉得那些不解风情的朋友不能因为韩寒读书少学术差不专业就要求他闭嘴；韩寒说的话再肤浅，也不能不许他用这些词作标题，就像你姓金的话生了儿子哪怕智障也大可文不对题取名正日、日成，只要不讳本朝就行；韩寒两篇博文只是一些问答，大家有才能有兴趣尽可以去写专著系统论述，供全国人民学习。

These people who don't see Han's point shouldn't be telling him to shut up just because he isn't educated or his analysis is weak or unprofessional. Even if he were being more superficial, there's no justification for saying he can't use words like these in titles of his posts. […] All Han's done is answer a few questions. If people are capable or interested enough, they can write a systemic discourse for the whole country to study.

Han Han: [T]he leader of the revolution is not going to be the good-natured, benevolent character that you imagine as you sit in front of your computer right now. Such a revolutionary leader is most likely going to be dictatorial, domineering, egotistical, presumptuous, venomous and incendiary. Yes, this sounds familiar but the Chinese people fall for this kind of style. This society is used to seeing the villains take charge and the good folks get slaughtered. The leaders who are preferred by the young culturati won't last a week.

Michael Anti:

韩寒这篇《谈革命》的文章没什么，就是他读书太少而已。台湾1980年代党外运动推动民主化的时候，国民党的启蒙者改革者拒绝民主化都是类似的腔调：不遵守公德的人如何能谈民主、中国人你为什么不生气之类。结果都是屁话，还不是正常民主化了？

There isn't much to say about Han Han's piece ‘On Revolution' except that he needs to read more. When the Tangwai movement was calling for democracy in Taiwan in the 1980s, leaders and reformers in the Kuomingtang used similar arguments to reject democratization: People who don't respect public morality aren't fit to be discussing democracy, asking why people weren't angry, etc. Didn't it all just turn out to be hot air, when Taiwan democratized normally?

Hu Xijin, editor of Global Times:

韩寒连发博客，他“不认为天鹅绒革命能发生在中国”，认为“革命的最终收获者一定是心狠手辣者”，因此支持“更有力的改革”。他还认为中共有8000万党员，3亿亲属，“已不能简单被认为是一个党派或阶层了”，“党组织庞大到一定程度，它就是人民本身，人民就是体制本身”。当下中国难得听到的大实话！

Han Han has written several posts, with lines like “I do not believe that a Velvet Revolution can take place in China,” and that he thinks “the ultimate winner in a revolution must be a vicious, ruthless person,” which is why he supports “stronger reforms” for China. He also says that the Chinese Communist Party has 80 million members, and 300 million people belong to families in which someone has Party membership: “The Party is no longer just a political party or a class,” “When the party organization reaches a certain size, it becomes the people itself, and people form the system.” This is some real truth you rarely hear in China today!

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei:

没有看到辩论，就文章而言，太落俗套的腔调，向权利倾斜的立场，乏于认真的论述，过于默契、几近谄媚的论断，主动放弃和偏颇的贬褒。。。适合环球时报采用。

I haven't seen any debate, but speaking strictly of his essays, the tone is too orthodox and his stance is too close to that of authorities. His writing lacks honest discourse and is too acquiescent, almost predicated on flattery. It's biased and degraded, like he's surrendered voluntarily…it'd be a good piece for Global Times to run.

Han's publisher, Lu Jinbo, who some suspect came up with the idea for the three posts as a promotional tactic:

几日没怎么上网，各种文章都没看。我先说一句：在这甜腻腻的岁末季节，韩寒用两篇合计四千字博客文章，成功掀起了关于政治、民主的网络大讨论。这本身就是载入史册的大事件。

I haven't been online for a few days, haven't seen any essays. But I will say first: In this sweet and fattening year-end holiday, Han Han has used around 4,000 characters in two essays to successfully start a major online discussion about politics and democracy. This in itself will go into the history books.

Beijing Film Academy professor Cui Weiping, who interrupted her live-tweeting of Vaclav Havel's state funeral to share her thoughts:

仅仅说一句，通常革命是突然爆发的，不可预期和难以逆料。因此，就目前而言，即使是革命论者，也不可能提前进入难以预料的未来之中，显得与他人有什么不同。

当时许多的捷克人有住房，有小汽车，但为什么还要起来革命？天鹅绒革命是一场人的尊严的革命，存在和价值的革命。这场革命远远没有结束。哈维尔也并非是一个成功人士，也许是一个失败的典型。他是一个永远异议者，令权贵们不舒服，也刺痛一向自满的人。

There's only one thing I want to say: Revolutions usually erupt suddenly, they aren't scheduled and they can't be predicted. Which is why, at present, not even those who theorize about revolutions are able to preemptively distance themselves from others in some unforeseeable future scenario.

At the time, a lot of Czechs had housing, their own cars, so why did they have a revolution? The Velvet Revolution was a revolution in human dignity, both in people's existence and values. It's also a revolution which isn't even close to being over. Havel wasn't someone who excelled through life, you might even say he was a typical loser. But he was an eternal dissenter, afflicting the comfortable, a constant thorn in the sides of the complacent.

Academic Xue Yong:

我劝韩寒多读些书，去哈佛。我并不主张谁都要读书。但他要纵论历史、革命，基本的书还是要读的。否则只会拿共产党教他那几个概念胡乱演绎。什么东方社会不能革命。日本，韩国、台湾等，都已经是现代民主社会。其生成过程有许多革命（当然不仅仅是革命）。

I've told Han Han that he should study more, go to Harvard, not the sort of thing I encourage everyone to do. But if he's going to discuss things such as history and revolutions, he needs to have at least read some of the basics, otherwise he'll just end up making the same reckless deductions taught to him by the Communist Party. Where is it written that Asian societies can't experience revolutions? Japan, Korea and Taiwan are all modern democratic states, formed through multiple revolutions (though not only revolutions).

Chinese businessman and online personality Bei Zhicheng:

常识1：民主靠得不是民众的素质，靠的是人贪婪的本能；贪婪的本能决定了人会把选票投给他认为能带给自己最大利益的政客。所以你要说有个什么地方的人连这种本能都木有了，那真是邪门鸟。

常识2：老有人抱怨说“我身边的朋友不关心政治，只关心自己涨工资卖房子”。错了，你的朋友只是胆小而已，等到他真的能自由选择了，再有人告诉他你每年交的税有2万块是去养一帮无用的官员，你买房的房价里有70%也是养他们，现在你如此如此就可以不承担这些，你看他们不一蹦三丈高的。

我老在想动不动说中国人素质低农民根本不懂维护自己利益，和乌坎村一有骚乱就大喊这样的暴民太不理性了的是不是一拨人啊

Democracy doesn't depend on a populace with high quality of character, it depends on people's instinctual greed, which determines that people will cast their vote for the politician which stands to work most in their interest. Which is why there's something wrong with you if you say there exists a place where people lack this instinct.

People always complain that those around them aren't interested in politics, that they only care about getting a raise or paying off their mortgage. Wrong. Your friends are just afraid. Wait until they have the freedom to choose, and see what happens when they're told that the 20,000 RMB they pay in taxes every year goes toward raising a bunch of useless officials, that 70% of the price of your house also goes toward raising them, and if you do this and that, you won't have to put up with this anymore.

These people who are always quick to say that Chinese people have poor quality of character, that rural residents don't know how to defend their interests, how are they different from the people who started calling the Wukan villagers irrational thugs the second unrest broke out?

独立思考本身是种可贵的品质，但不是为逻辑不通辩护的理由，也不是为不读书辩护的理由。一个人物理就小学水平，当然会独立思考出“宇宙怎么会有边界呢？宇宙怎么可能起源于一个奇点呢？”，这时候你应该劝他却学习，而不是夸奖“很欣喜他确实在独立思考”

别拿中国民众的素质说事，要说民主制度下民众素质低的例子容易得很。英国贵族统治早早就废除了奴隶制没有种族隔离，美国白人老百姓就是看黑人讨厌经历了血腥内战还又过了百年才搞定种族隔离。这是不该实行民主的理由吗？不是，因为你避免了这些缺点会有更可怕的东东等着你，例如“三年自然灾害”

我认为韩寒是个很好的作家，出道以来一直保持独立思考不被拥趸所裹挟，对于社会问题他善于站在普通人的感受角度漂亮的批判；但是他的确在社会科学知识储备不够，复杂的问题容易绕晕。

Independent thought is a valuable trait, but it's not a reason to defend an illogical argument or not wanting to educate yourself. Can someone with just an elementary school level grasp of physics use independent thought to tell you whether or not the universe is finite? You would want to encourage him to study more, not exaggerate how much you love his independence of thought.

Leave the quality of character of Chinese people out of this, examples of low quality people in democratic systems are easy to find. The British aristocracy did away with the slave trade and racial segregation ages ago, but white Americans had a bloody civil war just because they didn't like the sight of black people and took a hundred years to finally eradicate racial segregation. Is that a reason not to implement democracy? No, rather it's that when you start avoiding defects like this you end up with the “three years of natural disasters.”

I think Han Han is a good writer. He's been able to maintain independence of thought without getting carried away with fans, and he's great at delivering criticism of social problems from the average person's point of view. But he truly does lack familiarity with sociological theory and easily gets in over his head in complex issues.

[…]
如果看完韩寒三篇文章，可以看出他是改良主义者，作为中产阶级和父亲担心彻底改变政体的变动带来的动荡和不可知的后果，这是可以理解的。可以先把之前举出的他的逻辑不清放在一边。事实上，如果他期望的改革能成功，革命派应该也能接受。只怕执政者顽固到底把改革派都变成革命派

If you read through Han Han's third essay, you can see that he's a reformist. As a middle class father, it's understandable that he would be worried about the unrest and unpredictable result of a complete change in the political system. You could even put aside his logical inconsistencies. In fact, if the reforms he hopes for were to be realized, revolutionaries could probably even accept that. The only worry is that those in power wouldn't budge and would portray reformers as revolutionaries to the end.

Window on the South journalist Xiong Peiyun:

韩寒没有有些朋友批评的那么差，但也没强到可做救世主。他只是个有独立人格的正常人。一个正常人能在这个国家成为时代偶像是这个时代的悲剧，但也说明这个时代悲剧正接近尾声。韩寒谈革命一文，我读到更多的是无奈、诚恳与责任。这些年我们批评政府很多，却忘了建设社会同样是关键，甚至是最重要一环。

今之时代，一个人如果指出国王没穿衣服，他是勇敢的批评者；如果他指出民众可能也没有穿衣服，那么他就成了懦弱的背叛者。这样的思维是非常可怕的，这也恰恰是统治者思维。最理性的方法，我仍旧认为是对于政府与社会，都要坚持批评。舍此，我们不可能有可靠的进步。

Han Han's essays aren't as bad as some critics have made them out to be, but they're also not strong enough to make him a savior. He's just a normal guy with independent thoughts. That a normal guy can become a popular idol in this country is a tragedy of this era, but it also shows that this tragic period is nearly over. In Han's essay on revolution, what I felt most were hopelessness, sincerity and responsibility. We do a lot of criticizing the government these days, but we've forgotten that building up society is equally important, possibly even more so.

Today, any person who points out that the emperor has no clothes on is a brave critic, but if the same person points out that the public might also not be wearing any clothes, well then he's just a spineless traitor. This train of thought is very frightening, and is exactly the way rulers see things. The most rational option, I've always felt, is to be thorough in criticizing both government and society. Only this way will we see lasting progress.

Media commentator Wuyue Sanren:

绕口令：韩少的粉丝面对别人对韩少批评时的态度，正好给韩少所有的论点补充了论据。奇怪的是，韩少提出问题是寻求某种解决，而崇拜他的很多人恰恰是解决问题的阻力。仿韩少说一句：你们就是那些会车时从来不关的远光灯。

韩寒的两篇文章出来之后，有个很奇怪的现象，就是我心目中那些大知识分子基本都反对他，而中小知识分子以及我这种知道分子最多是对其某些论点不同意，大方向上是赞同的（胡锡进就算了，他无法归类）。我不知道谁对，但我觉得这就是目前的现状与韩寒文章最好的注释。

Han Han's fans' attitude toward people who criticize Han serves precisely as additional support for Han's argument. The strange thing is, Han raises these issues to find some sort of a solution, but the many people who worship him are actually an obstacle to solving these kinds of problems. Like Han said: You're the people who never turn off their high beams when they drive.

After Han published his two essays, something strange occurred: those I consider to be the greatest of intellectuals are now all criticizing Han, whereas lower to mid-level intellectuals and commentators like myself stopped at disagreeing with certain parts of his argument but agreeing overall (Hu Xijin too, but then he is unclassifiable). I can't say who's right, but I think this is the current situation and the best footnote to Han's writings.

每个人最大限度的、不伤害其他人的自由，是人类社会追求的目标，民主是目前所有试验过的手段中，最有效达成这个目标的方式，而宪政则是保证民主不演变成“大多数的暴政”的防波堤。我个人理解这三者的关系是：宪政为民主之基、民主是自由之路——就教于方家。

韩寒新文章《要自由》比前面两篇好，有妥协也有要求、有威胁，是个讨价还价的路子。其实我个人欣赏的恰恰就是这种看上去不彻底的东西，当年那些学生就是想一夜之间全部翻盘，最终才造成的不进反退。只谈应该如何、不谈合理妥协的，不是政治白痴就是别有用心。

The greatest limit on the individual, which all human societies pursue, is to not infringe upon other people's freedom. Of all the means attempted in attaining this goal, democracy is currently the most effective method, and a constitutional government is the bulwark keeping democracy from turning into a tyranny of the majority. My personal understanding of the relationship between these three components is: constitutionalism is the basis for democracy, and democracy is the road to freedom, just so we're clear on that.

Han's latest essay, Wanting Freedom, is better than the first two. It makes both compromises and demands, threats, and proposes a quid pro quo relationship. My preference is for things like this which don't appear complete. Those students that year wanted to see change overnight, and in the end there was no space left for discussion. If you talk only of how things should be done and not of reasonable compromises, then you're either an idiot in politics or you have an ulterior motive.

个人而言，非常欣赏wk的这次对抗与结果。我也想看着那里的村民完胜，但谁都知道那是不可能的。这事儿牛逼在于村民的组织与决心，以及最后求得一个目前所能达到的最好结果，为以后的解决做了范例。结合韩寒这三篇文章看，暗室之灯看来真的点亮了。

Speaking for myself, I was happy to see how the resistance in Wukan was dealt with. I also want to see the Wukan villagers succeed, but everyone knows this is impossible. The cool part was the villagers' organizing efforts and determination, and that in end they attained the best result currently possible, which now serves as a precedent for resolving other situations. If you read all three of Han's essays together, it does indeed seem that the light in the darkroom has been switched on.

China: A Week Later, Wukan Remains Under Siege

John Kennedy — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000

The Nanfang has compiled a day-by-day summary of the recent events in the village of Wukan in southern China's Guangdong province, still under siege.

China: Pandaman vs. Christian “Batman” Bale Goes Viral

John Kennedy — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:43:21 +0000

The news yesterday that human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng has been sent back to prison for somehow violating the terms of his parole while being held incommunicado for the past 20 months - “We though he was dead,” said his wife He Geng - once again brings us back to the question of whether foreign pressure is beneficial to those held in such extreme circumstances.

The issue has proven to be highly divisive among Chinese activists and public intellectuals in past months, something addressed in this post about Hollywood actor Christian Bale's failed attempt to visit equally incommunicado rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng.

Tom at the Seeing Red in China blog also raised the issue in a post yesterday, ‘Christian Bale visited Linyi – Does foreign pressure mean anything to the Chinese gov’t?':

Many observers worry that foreign coverage will allow the Party to label these incidents the result of foreign involvement, but there is a growing gap between what the gov’t says and what the people believe (as evidenced by the air monitoring debate in Beijing). Claims of “foreign involvement” have already been made in both places, and have been soundly rejected by Chinese activists. In one case, a prominent commentator claimed that Chen had been funded by foreign forces and was met with a lengthy confrontation by a young woman wearing sunglasses, a symbol of Chen’s supporters, demanding proof that he couldn’t provide. The video spread quickly across Chinese forums.

The crux of Chen Min's argument, shared by many, seems to be that domestic Chinese voices have more potential to help improve the situation of political prisoners like Chen and Gao than those of foreigners who don't have all the details.

But in that vein: move along, pepper spraying cop:

Pandaman on a school bus about to crash

Pandaman in Wukan

Pandaman with Ai Weiwei and friends

Pandaman in Times Square

Pandaman ends Batman

China: Actor Christian Bale Roughed Up Trying to Visit Chen Guangcheng

John Kennedy — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:11:11 +0000

Following an eight-hour drive from Beijing where he was promoting his upcoming film The Flowers of War, British actor Christian Bale was roughed up on Thursday 15 December, 2011, after attempting to visit the home of detained rights activist Chen Guangcheng.

A screen capture of CNN's video of Bale being turned away.

CNN reporters were with Bale as he tried to enter Chen's village and was forced to leave by guards, who then pursued Bale and company by minivan for more than 40 minutes. Batman jokes are cascading across Sina Weibo and other online spaces.

In a New York Times opinion piece last month, respected Chinese journalist Chen Min sparked major controversy among Chinese activists with his stance that only quiet diplomacy will lead to lessened repression in cases like that of Chen Guangcheng, that the Chinese government's loss of ‘face' on an international level only makes officials more unwilling to back down.

If elaborate censorship and policing measures prevent Chinese citizens from speaking on Chen's behalf, others retort, and foreigners should keep quiet about such cases, are people held completely incommunicado like Chen Guangcheng meant to be left to speak for themselves?

Christian Bale, image from Weibo

See Global Voices coverage on Chen Guangcheng:

10 Nov - China: Free Guangcheng, Dark Glasses Portraits
2 Nov - China: Visit Blind Activist in November
31 Oct - China’s Stability Machine and the Detention of Chen Guangcheng
11 Oct - China: More Visits to the Blind Activist Chen Guangcheng

China: Why Didn't Putin Come Pick Up His Confucius Peace Prize?

John Kennedy — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:57:12 +0000

Nationalist Chinese leftists seem to have been left out in the cold with their annual Confucius Peace Prize, the second of which was awarded to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin last month. China's Ministry of Culture has publicly distanced itself from the Prize and even tried to shut it down.

As with last year's recipient, Putin didn't turn up to accept the award at a ceremony held in Beijing this past weekend; Phoenix blogger Cai Shenkun tells us why [zh]:

颁奖仪式上，孔子和平奖评委会主席谯达摩详细介绍了第二届孔子和平奖得主俄罗斯总理普京，并由来自白俄罗斯的女留学生莎莎、玛莎用俄语宣读了关于普京的介绍。

At the award ceremony on December 9, Chairman of the Confucius Peace Prize (CPP) jury committee, Qiao Damo, introduced this year's recipient, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in great detail and awarded the Prize in Putin's place to Belarusian~~Russian~~ exchange students, Sasha and Mascha, who then read out an introduction to Putin in Russian.

接着北京大学教授、孔子和平奖评委会评委孔庆东宣读第二届孔子和平奖授予普京的获奖理由：“鉴于弗拉基米尔·普京先生在担任俄罗斯总统和总理期间，政绩斐然，在内政外交方面均取得了卓越成就，给伟大的俄罗斯人民带来了福祉；以及他于2011年春夏之交，坚决反对北约轰炸利比亚，为维护世界和平做出了杰出贡献，从而为当代人类和平史提供了经典范例，特此颁发2011年第二届孔子和平奖。”

Then, Peking University professor and CPP jury member Kong Qingdong read out the reasons why Putin was chosen as the recipient for the second annual CPP: “Given Vladimir Putin's remarkable achievements throughout his terms as president and prime minister of Russia, distinguished both among his domestic peers and in foreign policy circles, and the wellbeing that he has brought the majestic people of Russia, but also through his resolve in early 2011 to oppose NATO strikes against Libya, Putin has made an outstanding contribution to maintaining world peace and serves as a model figure for contemporary humans. For these reasons, he has been awarded the 2011 2nd annual Confucius Peace Prize.”

Kong Qingdong (bottom), image from Shanghaiist.com

有趣的是，俄罗斯官方无一人到场参会领奖。此前，文化部发文下令停办了该项未经批准的评选活动。有评论认为，孔子和平奖这个为对抗诺贝尔和平奖而设的奖项，不但没有为国际社会认可，就连中国官方也极力与其撇清关系。

去年的首届孔子和平奖授予台湾国民党荣誉主席连战，不过，连战并没有接受这个奖项，而是由主办者找了一位小女孩代替连战领奖。

What's interesting is that not a single Russian official was on site to accept the award. Prior to this, the Ministry of Culture ordered that candidate selection for this unapproved activity be put to a halt. Some feel that the CPP, established to oppose the Nobel Peace Prize, not only hasn't received international recognition, but even Chinese officials have tried to sever all connection to it.

Last year's CPP went to Kuomintang honorary chairman Lien Chan, but even Lien didn't accept the award and instead a young woman was selected by its organizers to accept Lien's prize on his behalf.

第二届孔子和平奖评选是在今年11月13号揭晓的，评委会由十六名国内学者组成，包括北京大学教授孔庆东、清华大学教授邱拙、清华大学博士费毕刚以及第一届孔子和平奖候选人谯达摩。对这个奖项，俄罗斯官方没有作出任何表态，一些俄罗斯媒体认为，普京获此奖让他感到“非常尴尬”。

事实上，官方也与“孔子和平奖”保持距离。文化部网站郑重刊登声明，表示下属“中国乡土艺术协会”从未授权任何分支机构举办孔子和平奖颁奖活动，任何机构以该协会名义举办活动，将被追究法律责任。外交部发言人也拒绝回答这届孔子和平奖的问题。

The recipient of the 2nd CPP was revealed on November 13 this year, selected by a jury comprised of 16 domestic academics, including Peking University Professor Kong Qingdong, Tsinghua University Professor Qiu Zhuo, Tsinghua PhD holder Fei Bigang, as well as CPP candidate from the previous year, Qiao Damo. Russia has yet to make any official statement regarding this year's award, but some Russian media have said that Putin himself feels “extremely awkward” at having been chosen as the recipient.

In fact, even China has tried to distance itself from the CPP. The Ministry of Culture even issued a formal statement on its website saying that the “Chinese Folk Art Association” has never received authorization from any branch of the Ministry to hold the CPP award ceremony, and that any group which organizes an activity under that name will be held legally responsible. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson, when asked about the CPP, refused to answer the question.

一个号称中国级的大奖让孔庆东这样的玩家来把玩，实在让官方难堪。去年第一届孔子和平奖，评选组织者是文化部所属的中国乡土艺术协会。今年第二届孔子和平奖活动一波三折，主办单位中国乡土艺术协会被文化部撤销，主办单位随后换成中华社会文化发展基金会，很快又被官方叫停。最后去年孔子和平奖候选人谯达摩在香港新注册的了一个新的机构：“中国国际和平研究中心”。

The antics of this player Kong Qingdong in trying to pass the award off as representing the country have truly embarrassed the government. Responsible for organizing and selecting the recipient for last year's CPP was the Chinese Folk Art Association, a part of the Ministry of Culture. This year has been an uphill battle for the CPP. After the Chinese Folk Art Association, the official sponsor of CPP events, was revoked by the Ministry of Culture, it changed its name to the Chinese Society Cultural Development Fund, but that too was quickly shut down. In the end, CPP candidate Qiao Moda registered a new organization in Hong Kong, the “China International Peace Studies Center.”

号称是孔子后代的孔庆东在颁奖仪式上除了赞扬俄罗斯总理普京之外，还对美国进行了猛烈抨击。他认为“美国是强盗国家、流氓国家，美国破坏了这个世界上所有人的和平”。
按照孔庆东的逻辑，只要反对美国，就可以获得孔子和平奖。

具有讽刺意味的是，就在北京授予普京“孔子和平奖”时，普京正被俄罗斯50多个城市反普京的抗议示威活动搞得头疼不已，来自北京的这个大奖似乎对他没有多少帮助。

At the award ceremony, Kong Qingdong, who claims to be a descendant of Confucius, aside from praising Russian Prime Minister Putin, also strongly attacked the USA. “The USA is a country of gangsters, a rogue state. The USA has destroyed peace for all people on earth.”

So according to Kong's logic, anyone who opposes the USA can win themselves a Confucius Peace Prize.

The most ironic part is that right while Beijing was awarding Putin his “Confucius Peace Prize,” Putin himself was facing down anti-Putin demonstrations in more than 50 cities across Russia, and receiving this prestigious award from Beijing couldn't have helped him much.

China: Monitoring the 2012 Presidential Election

John Kennedy — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:40:51 +0000

The first of three televised debates in Taiwan's upcoming presidential election was held this weekend, and watched closely by mainland Chinese microbloggers.

MoveOn.org.tw

Ma Ying-jeou still leads the Kuomintang (KMT), but the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), now rid of Chen Shui-bian, looks ready to make a comeback headed by Taiwan's first female presidential candidate, Tsai Ing-wen.

A third candidate, James Soong, has registered as a candidate but says he'll only follow through if he can get a million signatures.

Screen capture of Ma Ying-jeou (L) and Tsai Ing-wen speaking during the televised debate.

People were able to watch the debate live through various browser-based streaming TV feeds, and clips of it have have been posted to all the major video websites, but the discussion has centered around Sina Weibo. Many viewers expecting something as lively as a US Republic Party primary debate wound up disappointed, and a lot of ‘livetweet' online discussion sought to point out what many accept as obvious:

大明宫梦锦瑟年华：真的是民主，既然台湾可以这样，中国也可以这样子。

If Taiwan can pull off true democracy, then China can too.

鸣者自在：台湾最寻常的民主政治被天朝屁民像看即将被取缔的超女总决赛一样娱乐围观。

What's just common democratic politics in Taiwan is treated by shitizens of the celestial kingdom the same way we treat the soon-to-be canceled Super Girl finals: entertainment to stand around and gawk at.

薛蛮子: 请教专家，全世界不民主选举领导人的国家：朝鲜；古巴。还有吗？有木有？

Experts, please tell me: aside from North Korea and Cuba, are there any other countries in the world with nondemocratically elected leaders? Really? None?

Carrying on with Sina Weibo's legacy of turning lies into ‘fact', discussion there leading up to the debate even prompted Weibo Piyao, the microblogging platform's official rumor-quashing account to write:

近日有用户发布微博，称马英九提出必须在“代表自由、代表民主、代表公平”前提下谈统一。@微博辟谣就此联系了马英九竞选总部发言人李佳霏，对方否认马英九曾发表此言论。因此，该用户账号已被注销。

Recently, a user wrote on Weibo that Ma Ying-jeou has said that discussions of reunification will be able to take place if and only when the issues of “freedom, democracy and equality” are all on the table. @WeiboPiyao has contacted Ma's campaign office spokesperson, Lee Chia-fei, who denies that Ma Ying-jeou has ever made such a statement. As such, this user's account has been deleted.

From Wikipedia, ‘Republic of China presidential election, 2012′ (12/04/2011):

One big election topic appears to be the 1992 consensus, a term describing the outcome of a meeting in 1992 between the semi-official representatives of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. The KMT is putting this consensus forward, which aims to be more democratic and to be ratified by the legislature and a referendum for ROC citizens. Under the DPP's new consensus, this should be the basis for negotiations with the PRC.

According to some news junkies, however, in comparison to Taiwan's 2008 presidential election, more Chinese netizen attention was focused during this debate on issues other than just the future of cross-Strait relations. Phoenix blogger Zheng Dongyang covered the whole range of issues, domestic policies included, in his lengthy post about the things which interested him in this debate. With regard to the debate over reunification vs. independence, however, Zheng writes:

个人认为，虽然现在说谁能胜出为时尚早，但可以预见的是，即将到来的选举将是台湾民主化后最理性和温和的选举。民进党利用群众街头运动帮助选情，打悲情牌、族群牌、省籍牌、统独牌的情况会越来越少，虽然其两岸政策虽然摆脱不了“台独”思维，但也不会像陈水扁一样，不断挑战大陆的底线。而国民党也将重心放在政策诉求上，随着马英九的闽南话的日趋流利，他出现在台湾南部的次数越来越多。

Personally, I feel that although it's too early to say who will win, what can be foreseen now is that this election at hand will be the most rational and moderate since Taiwan democratized. The DPP is relying less on a mass people movement to carry it to the top, appealing less and less to public sympathy, ethnic groups, Taiwanese identity, or playing the independence card. Although the DPP has yet to abandon its pro-Taiwan independence policy, it won't like it was under Chen Shui-bian, constantly testing the mainland's bottom line. The KMT, meanwhile, has put the focus on its policy pursuits; as Ma Ying-jeou's Min Nan continues to get better by the day, so too have the number of his trips to the south increased.

这次电视辩论给我的感觉是，如果“统独”之争过去是蓝绿给台湾民众的传统印象，而如今双方施政政策也在民众形成一个新的烙印。传统的“浊水溪”线正在逐渐淡化，双方都将中间选民视为可以团结的对象，而中间选民大多数支持两岸关系维持现状，没有历史包袱，更看重的是两个政党的具体政策是否有利其事业发展及生活质量取得改善，这是过去选举给台湾选民带来的变化。

[…]
What I feel with this televised debate, though, is that if the lasting impression the blue and green camps have given the Taiwanese public is their division over the issue of reunifying with China or remaining independent, the policies of the administrations on both sides have been rebranded in the eyes of the populace. The Choshui River [which traditionally divides the pro-independence south from pro-reunification north] “line” is gradually fading, and both parties have begun to see voters in the middle, the majority of whom support maintaining the status quo in cross-Strait relations, as people who can be united. Absent this historical burden, people are focused more on which of the two parties' policies are best for their career development or improving their quality of life. This change is what past elections have brought the voters of Taiwan.

China: United States Begins ‘Pacific Century', Online Nationalism Follows

John Kennedy — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:38:59 +0000

Most of China's popular blog portal sites have sections for military news, often buried below panels for entertainment and love/relationship stories. Starting roughly in October with the quiet story that India continues to build up its presence along the border with China, posts on military topics seem to have grown in number and prominence on major blog hosting sites, reaching a peak this past week with reactions to United States (US) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US President Barack Obama's Pacific swing, which wrapped up in Indonesia on Saturday.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao insists that China is a good neighbor, but much of what's been written in many recent blog posts and comment threads sort of suggests otherwise.

Earlier on Wednesday, Obama's assertion while in Australia that he doesn't fear China became the headline in Chinese reports of his plans to expand US military presence there, and has had emotional comments voted to the top of comment threads on sites such as Tencent [zh], where readers are usually a mix of the liberal and cynical:

奥巴马说话太牛气中国现实需要一个年轻时期的诸葛亮

Obama speaks with too much arrogance. What China needs now is someone like Zhuge Liang [zh] in his early years.

求求中国那些懦夫们不要在发言了，羞死国人！气死我了！！！！！！
为丧失国土而哭！为美债而怒！为汉奸论而怒火冲霄！
我愿为中华民族而拔刀。。。。。。。。。。

All you cowards in China, please stop talking, you embarrass us to death and you piss me off!!!!
I'm crying over China's lost territory! I'm furious about America's debt! And I'm brimming with rage at these traitorous comments!
I'm ready to draw my sword for the Chinese nation………..

Obama didn't explicitly say this past week that his recent moves are aimed at checking Chinese power in Asia, but Chinese nationalist sentiment has taken them not just as confirmation of a larger strategy to encircle China, but also an expanded approach.

Australian writer and international affairs scholar Yang Hengjun wrote on that [zh] this week:

美国要对付中国，军事围堵当然少不了，而且他正好可以消化十年反恐中剩下的军力。这对于中国是很不妙的，我们过去20年经济大发展就得力于相对和平的国际环境，一旦北京决策者像年轻人一样头脑发热，要在军事上应战，像前苏联一样勒紧裤腰带、穷兵黩武，那么离苏联曾经走过的路就不远了。

在目前的国际环境与历史时期，我认为中美之间开战的可能不是没有，但战场是在经济领域。真正能够打得起来的战争其实是“经济战”，或者说“经济冷战”，军事部署只不过是美国人的大战略的一部分，决定胜负的是经济——是民众的生活水平能否提高，民众是否感到幸福，人心向背等等。其中最关键的因素是价值理念等“软实力”、“巧实力”的交锋。

If the United States is to take on China, military encirclement will be part of that, and it just happens America has military strength freed up from ten years in a war on terror. None of this is good for China. Twenty years of expansive economic grown should have prepared us for relative peace on the international stage, but if policymakers in Beijing get the childish idea in their heads that there's need to prepare for war and start tightening belts like the former USSR did, militarizing and becoming aggressive, then they won't be far from going down the same road that the former Soviets did.

At this point in history and in this international climate, I don't think that war between China and the US is impossible, but rather that it will be war in the economic sense. The true war that will be fought will be an economic war, or an ‘economic cold war'. Deploying troops is just one part of America's overall strategy. What will determine who wins or loses is the economy, whether people's standard of living is increasing, whether or not the public is satisfied, popular support, etc. The key confrontations will be over things like values and soft and smart power.
[…]

如果我没有说错，中美在经济领域的前哨战已经打响了。事实上，我们已经看到美国在经济上全面出击了。我们告别了“中国可以说不”的时代，迎来的却是“世界开始对中国说不”。

Unless I'm mistaken, the first shot in the economic war between China and the US has already been taken. In fact, we can already see that the US is now attacking on all economic fronts. We've left behind the era of “China Can Say No“, and are now entering the period of “The World Has Begun Saying No to China”.

And from comments on Yang's blog post:

不知要到何时中国人成能真真站起来，做一个有尊严的人！！

When will the Chinese people finally be able to stand up and receive respect?

我们要在软实力上战胜美国，先得战胜国人的心。

Our soft power needs to win over America's, and win over our own hearts and minds.

美国对中国是从希望到失望。国人只知道美国军舰进入太平洋，只知道希拉里去菲律宾，奥巴马进澳大利亚，美国大兵进驻澳洲，可就是不知道他们为什么来到这里，是谁把他们引到这里来的。

The US has gone from hope for China to disappointment. The only thing Chinese people know is that American navy ships have entered the Pacific, that Hillary went to the Philippines, that Obama spoke in Australia and that US troops will be stationed there. What we don't know is why they've come or who brought them here.

All of ASEAN, it seems, but the Philippines in particular, as it took aim at China during last week's summits in Indonesia.

“Since the US is serious about this,” reads the comment voted most popular (by a large margin) on a Tencent story on Hillary's recent commitment to provide military support to the Philippines if it's ever attacked, “then we'll meet them head on. We won't allow being put through another century of humiliation, even if it means killing Americans.”

Now bloggers are posting possible conflict triggers and resolution scenarios to mainstream blog portals, not just the regulars at the usual nationalistic niche online communities. On his Phoenix blog, Shi Weisong writes that as the number of disputed territories grows, China needs to start getting proactive in finding ways to prevent a crisis. Military presence needs to be strengthened, he writes, and military and economic means need to be used to rope in neighboring countries and keep them from leading the US on.

North Korea can keep keep South Korea distracted and be used as leverage against the United States and, similarly, movement toward reunification with Taiwan will take away America's advantage. As for the South China Sea, Shi writes, we need to find an opportunity to strike as well as an appropriate opponent, a role which suits the Philippines.

美国力量进入东亚地区是不可避免的，也是无法避免的。中国如何与美博弈，保障自身利益与战略空间，特别是周边国家借此翻江倒浪，将是中国无法躲避的问题。

The entry of American power into East Asia can't be prevented, and won't be. An encounter with the US and, in it, how China will ensure its own interests and strategic space—particularly as surrounding countries move in—is something China won't be able to avoid.

Cover image borrowed from Wikipedia user Bazonka.

China: On the Rise But Feeling Boxed In

John Kennedy — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:29:01 +0000

It's been a month since United States (US) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that Asia is now the focus of her country's diplomatic, economic and strategic foreign policy, meaning both stability and instability for the region, depending largely on how Sino-US relations develop as the two countries learn to share the same geopolitical theater.

In China, it still all sounds a lot like an encirclement conspiracy, something which Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, touched on in this blog post [zh] from last week, which contains an excerpt from his latest book [zh], “The Road to Great Power: China and the Reshaping of World Order,” (通往大国之路：中国与世界秩序的重塑) due out later this month:

中国的地缘政治非常特殊。中国周边有21个国家(与中国陆地相邻的国家有15个，同中国隔海相望的国家有6个)。从上往下，有朝鲜、日本，接下来是东南亚国家，再下来是印度、缅甸。中国是世界上唯一被核武器包围的国家。中国有安全感吗？如果墨西哥、加拿大要发展核武器，美国拼了老命也不会让它们发展。

China is in an extremely special geopolitical situation, surrounded by 21 countries (15 by land, 6 by sea). From top to bottom these are North Korea, Japan, followed by Southeast Asian countries, then India and Myanmar. China is the only country on earth surrounded by nuclear weapons. Should China feel safe? If Mexico or Canada decided to develop nuclear weapons, the United States would do everything in its power to stop them.

Maritime claims in the South China Sea. Image available on Wikipedia

中国没有国际空间，拿海权来说，中国有海权吗？没有。往东，走不出去，有美、日、澳大利亚、新西兰等国挡着，往印度洋，有印度。印度的唯一假想敌是中国。现在唯一剩下的是南海，但美国等国都对南海感兴趣，如果那里被堵住，中国一点出海口都没有。中国连航空母舰都没有，怎么去投送兵力？怎么去履行国际责任？更不用说国际领导权。

China also lacks any international space. Does China have any power at sea? No, it doesn't. Eastward, there's nowhere to for China go, blocked as it is by the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. Toward the Indian Ocean, there's India. India's only perceived enemy is China. All that remains, then, is the South China Sea, in which the USA and other countries have interest. Blocking China there leaves it without a single point of access to the sea. China doesn't even own any aircraft carriers, so how is it supposed China would deploy forces? And, how then is China meant to fulfill its international obligations, not to mention assume any sort of international leadership role?

Also, Sara K. added an important point to my previous post, writing that:

If China really wants to prevent the perpetuation of the “China Threat Theory”, they should stop pointing so many missiles at Taiwan – and if the PLA had access to Taiwan, it would be much easier for them to attack Japan. If you point weapons at people, you are going to look like a threat.

China: Japan's Imaginary Enemy

John Kennedy — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:03:57 +0000

Territoriality over the waters between China and Japan continues to limp along after yet another Chinese fish boat captain, Zhang Tianxiong, was arrested this past weekend for drifting into Japanese waters and then leading that country's coastguard on a four-hour high speed sea pursuit. It ended when the Chinese boat was rammed and its crew of ten were taken in for questioning.

By most accounts, Zhang was fishing well inside an area where he would have known he ought not be, but the chance to make the incident a nationalistic showdown was too good for some to pass up. Or, as military affairs commentator and magazine editor Wu Ge wrote [zh] on his blog:

这类事件，往往不可避免地牵动两国关系，外交部门不得不从较高层面加以关注、协调和化解，但是一个大问题来了。中国不少公众总是自动将所有这类事件（有时甚至包括所有不友好，挑衅性甚至挑逗性言论）统统上升到国家荣辱，大国地位，对外强硬，甚至两国要不要一战的层面。

This sort of incident always inevitably end up affecting relations between the two countries, leaving the diplomatic services no choice but to address it from above, to work to together and diffuse the situation. But then the big problem comes along. Quite a few Chinese citizens automatically escalate (unfriendly, defiant and sometimes even provocative language included) all incidents of this sort into a matter of national honor or this large's country's status, taking a hard stance, even delving into whether the two countries need to go to war.

Television news screenshot

And yet Zhang's arrest, sanctioned as it might be by international law, also happened to coincide with Chinese media reports, which cite Japanese media as saying that a large joint Japan-US naval drill will take place off Kyushu this week. Not only will this reportedly be the first of several large defensive drills to come, but Japanese media are now widely said to have alleged that China will serve as the imaginary enemy.

On that, Phoenix blogger Jin Zishan writes [zh]:

日本媒体大肆渲染把中国作为“假想敌”，不知道是不是代表了日本官方的态度。是日本官方把不方便说的话借由媒体说出，还是日本媒体以说出这样的话起到推波助澜的作用，可以仁者见仁智者见智地去分析玩味。在官方的外交中，在军事的演习中，一般的惯例是不轻易将“假想敌”公然说出口。

把中国作为“假想敌”本就没有道理，何况是“公然”地。中国与日本最前沿的博弈是在钓鱼岛海域与东海海域，但是中国仍然一直保持了相当的克制，并没有作出太多的咄咄逼人的姿态。以此实况，中国怎么会公然上了日本媒体的“假想敌”榜单。

Japanese media are playing up China as “the imaginary enemy”, but we don't know if that represents Japan's official stance. It could be that Japan is using its media to say what it's not convenient for the state to say itself, or it could be that Japanese media are just trying to throw fuel on the flames. People will see what they want to see. At the official diplomatic level, though, and when it comes to military drills, the convention is that the term “imaginary enemy” just doesn't get used so overtly so easily.

It makes no sense to have China be the “imaginary enemy”, and especially not so “overtly”. The forward game between China and Japan is played out in areas surrounding the Diaoyu islands and the East China Sea, yet China has always managed to maintain a certain amount of restraint, and seldom takes an aggressive stance. Considering this, how is it that China has ended up listed as “the imaginary enemy” in Japanese media?
[…]

公然以中国为“假想敌”，无非是在制造新一轮的所谓的“中国威胁论”。给中国扣上莫须有的“威胁”的帽子，既是想借机利用国内不健康的政治生态，又在国际上捏造出中国的坏形象，试图以此达到有利于自己，让自己获利，使日本在与中国的竞争中占据上风的目的。同时也可以掩盖自己对外露出的“`”。

Declaring China the “imaginary enemy” is unquestionably just another attempt at perpetuating the so-called “China threat theory”. Giving China this groundless “threat” label is merely an attempt to manipulate Japan's unhealthy domestic political environment, as well as to tarnish China's image on the international stage. It's an attempt by Japan to gain the upper hand over China in competition between the two countries, a beneficial move with which it also intends to conceal its own “fangs” from the world.

树起一个中国“假想敌”，能够为日本的扩军备战、对外扩张营造舆论的氛围，进而逐步付诸行动。日本一直在实际加强自卫队的武装，日本有着极强的核能力、核积累，日本自卫队不断迈出向海外派军的步伐，是众所周知的事。11月3日是日本现行宪法（“和平宪法”）公布65周年纪念日，日本右翼媒体借机大肆鼓吹修改和平宪法，并将“自卫队”改变为“军队”。日本计划年内给39座离岛“命名”，搞不符合国际法的扩大日本“专属经济区”的“圈海”运动。日本还在有意将势力伸展到南海周边，对外扩张的倾向似乎越来越明显。

Setting China up to be the “imaginary enemy” allows Japan to build up its military and war capabilities, allowing it to shape policy in the region, and gradually lead to action. It's no secret that Japan, which possesses great nuclear strength and a nuclear stockpile, has always sought to strengthen its defense capabilities, and takes every opportunity to steadily extend those beyond its borders.

This November 3 was the 65th anniversary of Japan's ratification of its post-war “Peace constitution”, which the country's right wing took as an opportunity to demand that the “Peace constitution” be amended, that its “Self-Defense Forces” be renamed as its “Army”. Japan also plans to “give names” to 39 offshore islands before the end of this year, and, in violation of international law, even expand its offshore exclusive economic zone.

It's becoming increasingly evident that Japan intends to expand and extend its reach to the edge of the South China Sea.

China: Questions Following Mekong River Massacre

John Kennedy — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:34:59 +0000

The Mekong River Massacre, as it's being called in Chinese, refers to an attack on October 5, 2011, by unidentified armed men against two Chinese cargo boats, Hua Ping and Yu Xing 8, in the Thai portion of the Golden Triangle.

Thirteen Chinese sailors were killed in the attack, for which nine Thai soldiers later turned themselves in. Thai police Chief General Priewpan Damapong has said the killings had nothing to do with the Thai army, and as a joint Sino-Thai investigation continues, speculation varies on the reason why the attack took place.

Chinese military affairs blogger Jun Xiliu wrote [zh] this weekend about the online outrage arising from the attacks and took a closer look at reports from media in Thailand and Myanmar, as well as the latest details, from ammunition recovered during autopsies to statements from different eyewitnesses.

Sailor's hands tied behind his back.

Chinese members of the investigation team have said the next step is to put the nine suspects on trial, leaving Jun demanding answers to a few questions:

第一，泰国军人为什么枪杀中国船员，它的动机是什么？笔者相信，这是国际、泰国政府、中国政府和人民急切想了解的。笔者以个人之见，在这里可以肯定地说，绝不是泰国警察总监飘潘说的“9名军人的所作所为系个人行为”那么简单。他们也许相当仇视中国、仇视这13位船员，并且在湄公河上等这13名船员等待多时了，有组织、有预谋地反铐着船员双手、进行枪杀，宁可承担起与中国为敌的责任，否则，从哪个方面都解释不通。如果动机不调查一清二楚，这就是导致此案接下来不了了之的重要原因。

Why did Thai soldiers murder Chinese sailors, what was their motive? This is what the governments and people in Thailand, China and around the world are anxious to know. Personally, I can say now with assurance that it definitely was not as simple as Thai police chief Priewpan Damapong said, that “all” the acts of the nine soldiers had “nothing to do with the Thai army.”

They might see China or those 13 sailors as the enemy, which is why they sat waiting on the Mekong River, premeditated and ready to tie the sailors' hands behind their backs and shoot them all, willing to take responsibility for making China an enemy, otherwise the various explanations make no sense. If their motives aren't made clear through the investigation, this probably won't disappear and that'll be why.

第二，先不说泰国媒体与军方开初的一唱一合、上演双簧，意下如何，就说泰国媒体画出“乌龙”误导舆论、泰国军方信誓旦旦直指“佤邦联合军所为”，也显得是有意而为之。按照中国“此地无银三百两”的剖析法：一要栽赃、二要转嫁，三要搞乱视线，最后达到为某方开脱的目的。那么，为谁开脱呢？为泰国政府？政府说此事与己无干。为警方？警察正懵懂地配合中国联合调查组调查呢，这下才明白，当然是为9名作案军人开脱，如果不把媒体与军方一唱一合的“双簧”戏解释清楚，军方事先不知情是说不通的。

Second, overlooking that both Thailand's media and military are singing some duet now, with media now backing the military version of events and dismissing initial reports [that the drug-smuggling Chinese boats were blocked by Thai police and both sides exchanged fire] as some sort of mix-up and the military swearing that the United Wa State Army was responsible, this all looking all too deliberate.

Chinese thinking says that people who doth protest too much usually try and exculpate themselves by either framing someone else, passing the buck, or tampering with the evidence. So in this case, who's trying to get away with it? The Thai government? They've said this had nothing to do with them. The police? The police are muddling along in cooperation with China in investigating the case, given which, of course the goal is to get the nine suspected soldiers off.

If an explanation isn't given why Thai media are now backing up the military version, then the military's claim that it had no idea of any problems before this took place just doesn't add up.

第三，最早媒体说，泰国警方与毒贩在水上交火长达半小时，这次泰方通报案件时，闭口不提“交火事件”，但据多名目击者证实，警察（或军方）的确与“毒枭”交过火。是媒体的过失、还是政府的疏忽，或者干脆某方的故意省略。如果不解释清楚，是不是连政府部门和警察都牵扯进去了？看来，破案距结案的路还很长。

Third, the earliest media reports said that Thai police exchanged fire for about 30 minutes with drug smugglers, but now all mention by the Thai side of “the shooting incident” has disappeared. Yet, many eyewitnesses verified that the police (or the military) and the “drug smugglers” were definitely shooting at each other. Was this media negligence or an oversight by the government?

Or is it just simply that someone is trying to cover something up? If this doesn't get cleared up, then doesn't that also implicate the government and the police? Apparently there's still a long way to go from having suspects to actually closing this case.

第四，在“华平号”和“玉兴8号”货船上查出的大量毒品，如果不还原于藏毒、运毒过程，即使9名军人自首了也等于没有破案。正如媒体说的，9名泰国军人的归案并未使得“10·5”惨案的真相大白于天下，反倒使案件早先的几个疑点更为突出。泰国警方负责刑侦事务的副总监批西（音译）少将，尽管大多数问题他都表示不便回答，但有一个问题他回答清楚就行：调查组还未查到军方，为什么9名军人就主动前来自首？是他们的首长知道后督促他们前来的，还是他们9人的良心发现而祈求上帝的宽恕？如果按他们的说法，这9名军人的作案仅仅是孤立的案件，笔者倒是替湄公河四国三方庆幸，如若不然，湄公河水比南海还深……并且已经楔入国际背景了。

Fourth, if large amounts of drugs were discovered on the Hua Ping and Yu Xing 8 cargo ships and not found to have been stored and transported [by the Chinese crew], then even with the nine soldiers turning themselves in, the case still won't have been solved. As media have said, the arrest of the nine Thai soldiers hasn't brought out the truth behind the October 5 Mekong Massacre, but rather has led to more doubts over the course of events in the case.

A Thai colonel leading the Thai side of the investigation has declined to answer most questions about the case, but one response he did give was clear enough for us to ask: if the investigative team still hadn't questioned the military, then why did the nine soldiers suddenly decide to turn themselves in? Did their superiors push them to, after learning of their involvement? Or were the nine forced to seek god's mercy by their own conscience?

Because given what the Thais have told us, what these nine soldiers did was an isolated crime. But the four countries bordering the Golden Triangle have to be celebrating this particular outcome, otherwise the waters of the Mekong run even deeper than the South China Sea…and have all sorts of international implications.

Jun's post has been viewed more than 400,000 times, but brought in less than 100 comments. Here's some of what his readers had to say:

山笛子 [2011-10-30 10:10:21 AM] 软弱的对外政策导致没有尊严的后果就是可以随便被杀

Our weak foreign policy has left us with no respect and people thinking they can just kill us as they like.

热爱比他 [2011-10-30 10:15:54 AM] 只要把这个事件放在近来的周边事件中看就很清楚啊。

This incident makes clear sense if you consider it against other recent incidents surrounding our border.

[2011-10-30 10:30:56 AM] 只有把9名罪犯引渡过来由中国审讯才可能真相大白，否则又是一个不了了之。文章的最后一段本人认可，就是牺牲中国人的生命，达到阻吓中国国人的目的，让中国退出对湄公河的开发从而达到在南海问题上东盟一致对付中国。有些事真的要顺其自然，不能强求，中国要敢于面对挑战。对东盟国家区分对待，各个击破！

The truth will only come out if these nine criminals are extradited and tried in China. Otherwise, nothing will come of it. I agree with your last statement, that by sacrificing Chinese lives, the goal of frightening Chinese citizens has been accomplished, that making China back off from developing trade along the Mekong will also serve the ASEAN goal of containing China in the South China Sea. Some things just need to be allowed to develop naturally and can't be forced. China needs to rise to the challenge: treat each of the ASEAN nations separately and destroy them one-by-one!

hbxbattery [2011-10-30 10:44:07 AM] 中国人，真的活得有尊严吗？屡屡被小国戏弄，为的是战略机遇期？不懂了！我们想知道，发展的目的是为了什么？是不是就为了被无辜地枪杀？

Can Chinese get any respect in their lives? These little countries keep playing us, is it part of some larger strategy? It makes no sense! We wonder what the point of economic development is—is it to be murdered like this even when innocent?

闫桥 [2011-10-30 11:10:42 AM] 看了您上一篇分析湄公河惨案的文章就一直感觉此事一定同泰国警方有关，可现在却出现了九名军人自首的事，这会不会是欲盖弥彰的障眼法呢？又有报道说这九人根本不承认杀人的事。泰国警方“事关两国友好”的言论又能说明什么呢？是不是和船上发现的毒品有关。总之，从现在的情况看案情调查不会一帆风顺，需要投入更大的力量。

From your last blog post about the Mekong Massacre, it seems that the Thai police are definitely involved in this somehow, but now with these nine soldiers turning themselves in, is this just an obvious cover-up attempt? There have also been media reports saying that these nine refuse to admit that they killed anyone. And what does it mean that the Thai police are bringing “the friendship between the two countries” into this? Does it mean that large amounts of drugs were found on the cargo ships? In any case, it doesn't look like the investigation will just wrap up quietly, much more effort needs to be put in.

China: No Clear Solution to the Wall Street Occupation

John Kennedy — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:28:01 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage #Occupy Worldwide.

A month on since the Wall Street demonstration began, “Occupy” protests even spread to several cities in Asia this past weekend.

According to New York-based investment banker and adjunct professor in the Zicklin School of Business at CUNY, Jay Guo, writing on his Sina.com blog [zh], protesters at the original site have yet show much sign of being ready to pack up and head home, while in the meantime similar protests have popped up across the country in 70 other cities, finding lots of support in each.

The American dream is fading away, Guo says, and a lot of the blame falls on United States President Obama, who despite repeated calls made during his 2008 election campaign to initiate reforms, has yet to deliver:

更为担心的是，不同于以往经济危机，目前美国还没有出现一个行业有希望能够带领国家走出这场危机。而现有的权力结构也未能展现出任何变革的魄力。在民众没有希望可看时，矛盾向社会的蔓延也是必然趋势。

美国梦在渐行渐远。占领华尔街运动还将继续。

What's more worrisome, though, is how this differs from past economic crises. There isn't a single profession that shows any hope of being able to bring the country out of this crisis. Not just that, but the present power structures haven't shown any will to push through reforms. With the public left with no hope in sight, conflict is guaranteed to continue spreading through society.

The American dream is drifting away, and the Occupy Wall Street movement is going strong.

Occupy Hong Kong in Exchange Square, Hong Kong, China. Image by anissatung, copyright Demotix (15/10/11).

Then, if bankers say they don't have the answers and the political process is equally unable to repair either itself or the economy, how do you start over? National Business Daily columnist Ye Tan looked at the more radical, or possibly legal, approach in her post this weekend [zh] of chasing the “fat cats” out of Wall Street and the global economic system:

占领华尔街运动旷日持久，四处蔓延，华尔街上的金融家成为部分民众泄愤的对象。贪婪的金融肥猫，成为失业率上升、经济疲软的罪魁。抗议者占领了华尔街之后怎么办？无非是走了一批旧肥猫，再来一批新肥猫。
[…]
目前的金融时代极端不公平，不仅仅在美国国内，在全球、在中国，莫不如此。民众赶走肥猫，也占领不了华尔街。

The occupation of Wall Street drags on and has spread everywhere, with public anger directed at the bankers there on Wall Street. The greedy banker fat cats are being held as the criminals responsible for rising unemployment and the sluggish economy. After they take over Wall Street, though, what will the protestors do? If the fat cats go, they'll just be replaced by a bunch of new fat cats.
[…]
The extreme inequality seen in the current financial era isn't just present in the United States, but globally, and China is no exception. You can get rid of the fat cats, but you can't just take over Wall Street.

What if, though, instead of more fat cats, zombies end up taking over Wall Street and start working on a public bailout plan? That's almost the question Yale Professor of Finance Zhiwu Chen seemed to be asking in a recent interview he gave [zh] to Phoenix TV:

他们肯定有这样的权力，但从另一个角度来讲，作为经济学家，我是觉得他们自己搬起石头砸自己的脚，因为说到底，你说当然我知道这些抗议华尔街那些人，每一个人的原因不一样，理由各种各样的，所以他们可以根据各自的原因去游行、去示威。

但是，到最后如果他们真的把华尔街给打垮了，尤其是他们通过游行，给美国民主党的那些议员和政客提供更多的理由去推出更多的监管政策，甚至推出新的法律，加强对于高收入群体的征税等等。到最后，必然的一个结果，会使得美国社会的总体金融服务的供给量会下降的。

Of course they have the right [to be there], but looking at it from another aspect, as an economist, I think that what they're actually doing is shooting themselves in the foot. To the point, I know that they all have their own reasons for being there, and that the protesters have different reasons for wanting to demonstrate.

But in the end, if they truly do end up taking Wall Street down, and especially if, through their rallies, they end up giving politicians and those in Congress from the Democratic Party more reason to introduce greater regulatory measures—or even laws—which raise taxes on high-income earners, in the end there's only going to be one result, and that will be an inevitable decline in the supply of financial services available to the American public.

因为简单的说，你把很多的华尔街公司都打垮了，把很多银行都赶跑了，到最后整个美国经济不管是企业家，还是企业他们能够得到的资金的支持，资本的支持，会比以前更少。这么多企业和创业家甚至于像未来的乔布斯这样的人物，都得不到很多的资本，得不到很多的华尔街的支持了以后，那美国的就业靠什么来增长。

这些去游行示威抗议的人，和他们的盟友，他们的支持者以后要找工作的时候谁来给他们提供工作。

Put simply, if a number of Wall Street firms end up getting shut down and banks are forced to leave, in the end it's going to be the overall American economy, affecting both entrepreneurs and corporations, that won't be able to receive sufficient financial support, enough capital support, as there just won't have been as much as there once was. If this means that all the future Steve Jobs among all these corporations and entrepreneurs aren't going to be able to raise much capital, or receive much support from Wall Street, then where will American job growth come from?

These people out rallying and demonstrating and protesting, their allies and supporters, when it comes time for them to find work, who's going to be there to give them a job?

This post is part of our special coverage #Occupy Worldwide.

China: The Cost of Space Ambition

John Kennedy — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:13:50 +0000

China's launch last week of the Tiangong-1 inhabitable space station signals a shift in the space race, one everyone should be worried about. Especially the USA's allies in Asia, right?

Among those who would disagree is Jiang Feng, editor-in-chief of the Japan-based Chinese-language newspaper New-generation Overseas Chinese; in a blog post [zh] earlier this week in which he looks at how Japanese media covered the news of the launch, Jiang attributes a large part of the motivation behind China's space program to the simple fact that China happens to have more money than most countries right now to keep funding space exploration.

Inside the Jiuquan satellite launch center. Image by AAxanderr via Wikimedia Commons, in public domain.

Jiang also argues that space exploration benefits all humankind, even contrasting the kind of Chinese engineering that led to the train collision in July with Japan's superiority in robotics and other areas of critical space travel technology.

He writes:

此时此刻，尽管中国官媒强调“中国不会因为有了自己的空间站就改变和平利用外空的原则立场”，但西方媒体仍然坚疑不信。可以这样说，中国在太空探索领域的卓著成就，让美俄等老牌太空强国倍感压力，其中感到压力最大的恐怕就是中国的近邻日本。

Right now, we find that Western media remain doubtful [about our intentions in space], even after emphasis from official media that “China will not change its stance regarding peaceful uses of outer space just because it now has its own space station.” Put another way, China's remarkable achievements in the field of space exploration have left the United States, Russia and other countries with presence in outer space feeling some heat. The country feeling the most pressure is none other that China's neighbor, Japan.

中国“天宫一号”发射成功的新闻，日本主流媒体均给予突出报道。仔细阅来就会发现，《读卖新闻》注重的是中国特意把发射时间选定在国庆节前夕，希望以此振奋国威，提升民气；《每日新闻》注重的是世界上已有的空间站几乎都是几个国家联袂打造，如今中国则是凭一国之力独自开发，强调“独自的技术”；《东京新闻》指出中国开始走上“宇宙强国”的道路；《产经新闻》则刻意报道围绕着发射中心的名称，内蒙与甘肃正在进行激烈的“争夺战”；《朝日新闻》指出此举意味着中国正在宇宙开发领域紧随美俄之后，打开了新的突破口。应该说，《日本经济新闻》的报道最为给力，不仅在第一版做出要闻式报道，还在第十四版做出详细报道，其分析也很雷人，一方面指出包括日本在内的西方媒体都怀疑“中国正在企图建立宇宙霸权”。另一方面怀疑中国未来对此可能进行“军事利用”，有些无奈地指出现在世界上只有中国一个国家可以把国家预算集中性地投入到战略领域，西方发达国家都处于不同程度的财政危机中而无法这样去做，同时中国载人空间站的开发又是在解放军的主导下进行。

The news of China's successful launch of Heavenly Palace 1 has been reported on by all mainstream Japanese media.

Looking closely at these reports, we see that The Daily Yomiuri's focus has been that China deliberately chose to launch the space station on the eve of National Day to inspire people and raise a sense of prestige for the country; The Mainichi Daily News' focus was that of all the countries now with their own space station, nearly all these reached that stage through cooperation with other nations, and China is the first country to date to achieve this through its own efforts, through “its own technology”; The Tokyo Shimbun pointed out that China is now on the path toward becoming a “great space power”; Sankei Shimbun, meanwhile, focused its reports on the name of the launch center and the “fight” between Inner Mongolia and Gansu province to claim it as located within each of their borders; The Asahi Shimbun's take is that China is now catching up to earlier advancements in the space exploration field from the United States and Russia, and has now made a breakthrough of its own.

Reports from The Nikkei, however, have been the most encouraging, as not only was the story put on the front page, but an in-depth report was also run on pg. 14. The analysis was stunning, pointing out on one hand that Japanese and Western media suspect that “China is now attempting to establish hegemony in space,” while at the same time suspecting that China possibly intends to use outer space for its own military purposes in the future. It wrote of how some media have helplessly pointed out that China is the only nation on earth now which is capable of concentrating its national budget on strategic investments, that the varying degrees of economic crisis in western developed nations have left them unable to do the same, while development of China's inhabitable space station was led by the People's Liberation Army.

必须看到，日本媒体这样报道是有原因的。在开发太空领域方面，日本一直是落后于中国。迄今为止，不但日本国民对宇宙开发没有取得共识，日本国家也没有将其列入重大决策范畴。也许正因为这样，现任日本首相野田佳彦此前才在国会积极推动制定“宇宙基本法”，声称要以此“开创日本的百年大计”。不过，在经济低迷、震灾需救的今天，日本要想用国家拨款开发载人空间站，实在不是一件容易的事情。

It must be clear why Japanese media have chosen to report this news as they have. In the field of space exploration, Japan has always been behind China. Even today, not only have the people of Japan yet to come to a consensus regarding the nation's space program, but even the Japan the state itself has failed to make it an issue of key strategic importance. This, perhaps, is the reason why Japan's current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, recently went before legislators in Japan to press for a “Basic Law” for the universe, saying that it could serve as the beginning of a major “hundred-year” plan for Japan. Given the current economic slump, however, and the ongoing recovery from the earthquake disaster, if Japan decides that it wants to use state funding to build its own manned space station, that's not going to be an easy mission at all.