CNN
THE SITUATION ROOM
Transcript
YouTube video clip
Aired April 9, 2008 - 18:00 ET
*****PART 1*****
BLITZER: All right. Abbi, thanks very much. We will stay on top of this story.
I want to go to Jack Cafferty right now. He's got "The Cafferty File."
Jack, it's been a pretty amazing couple hours.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: I have been sitting in my office watching your coverage the last two hours. I have never seen anything like this.
BLITZER: Yes.
CAFFERTY: I can remember 1980 when Jimmy Carter said we weren't going to send the Olympic team to the Games in Moscow because of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and that had repercussions and implications.
But we didn't have the kind of instantaneous communication capability that we have now with the Internet and satellites. And all of a sudden, this thing just grows right up out of the ground and becomes this huge event. And the people in -- in Beijing, I mean, this is a preview of the kind of thing that they're going to have to deal with on some level, when these Games happen later this summer. I mean, memories of Tiananmen Square come to mind when we had the military finally crack down on those pro-democracy demonstrators.
What's the Chinese government going to do when people who are sympathetic to the folks in Darfur or Tibet dare to venture out into Red Square or one of those main thoroughfares with a Tibetan flag or something?
The Chinese government is going to be in a very, very difficult position. And I have never seen anything quite like this. And it's interesting to think what might be lying ahead in the summertime.
BLITZER: You have got to ask yourself, be careful what you wish for. The Chinese really wanted to host these Olympic Games. Maybe it was not necessarily such a great idea years ago when they were awarded the Games.
CAFFERTY: A lot of people at the time argued against giving them the Games for this very reason.
The other consequence of all of this controversy is the sponsorship. I was reading a thing this morning at home, where some of the sponsors are beginning to get concerned about the controversy surrounding just the running of the torch through the various streets.
If the sponsors get cold feet and begin to back away -- and you can't blame them -- they don't want anything controversial to be associated with their products -- then there's a whole other dimension to this that begins to develop.
The network that's going to -- is it NBC carrying the Summer Games?
BLITZER: NBC, yes.
CAFFERTY: I mean, they paid billions of dollars for the rights to carry these Games. If their get sponsors that say, hey, you know what, we're not comfortable, I mean, it's -- this is going to be quite a story. It may pale these political conventions as we move through the summer.
Anyway, I have rattled on long enough. But you guys have done a great job, I thought, watching the coverage. I enjoyed it.
BLITZER: Thank you.
*****PART 2*****
BLITZER: All right, thanks very much.
Susan Roesgen reporting.
We'll talk a little bit more about those airline delays later, as well as the massive and controversial changes to the Olympic torch relay that we just saw in San Francisco.
In fact, I want to talk about that right now, as well as the growing calls on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies in Beijing.
Let's discuss this and more with our CNN senior analyst, Jeff Toobin. He's in New York along with Jack Cafferty. Gloria Borger is here in Washington.
I'm going to play a little clip of what Hillary Clinton says about boycotting the opening ceremonies and then we'll discuss.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I think you've got to separate out the Olympic movement, which is an international sporting event that's hosted every two years in the summer and winter by a host nation. And that's why what I've called for is a government to government response. I believe that the president should not attend the opening ceremonies because that is giving a seal of approval by our United States government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: So far, Jack, we haven't heard specifically from the White House whether the president will attend that opening ceremony. He's going to Beijing to watch the Games. Barack Obama hasn't taken a specific statement -- a position on that yet, either.
What do you think about this growing call to boycott the opening ceremonies?
CAFFERTY: Well, I think, you know, that based on China's record in some of these places, like Darfur and Tibet, that you could justify boycotting the opening ceremonies.
But the bigger issue is how do you separate the Games from the politics. And I don't think you can unless you establish a permanent home for the Olympics in some place like Geneva, Switzerland. I mean it's a small global village we're a of now. And whoever is going to host those games, you can bet, you know, your allowance that there's going to be somebody who's coming to the games that doesn't think you've done the right thing about X, Y and Z. And I don't know how you avoid combining the politics with the athletics.
BLITZER: The theory, Gloria, as you know, in awarding China the venue, the host -- to be the host of the Olympic Games was that international responsibility would make them a more cooperative partner globally on many of these issues.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, how has that worked out?
CAFFERTY: Sure.
BORGER: Not particularly well. And, you know, the opening ceremony, Wolf -- and I think Hillary Clinton said this does put that stamp of approval on the host country. And so I think the president is kind of staying back and keeping his options open. That's what John McCain said the president ought to do in a radio interview today.
Hillary Clinton has already come out and said you ought to boycott it. The prime minister in Great Britain has said that he would boycott it. So I think the president's hanging back and perhaps trying to use this as some leverage with the Chinese.
But the question of whether it should have been in China in the first place, it's a little late at this point, you know, to try and revisit that. It's there.
BLITZER: What do you think, Jeff?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the hosting of the Olympic Games is a political act. And whether it was the Nazis in 1936 or the Chinese communists in 2008, they are all using it to promote their country. And if we want to take a stand against that kind of repression, not going to the opening ceremony is a very appropriate way of doing it because it doesn't penalize the athletes at all.
The athletes can still compete. But it does say the United States government doesn't approve of the Chinese government. And that seems like a very appropriate message to send right now.
BLITZER: One of the arguments that some of the pro-China elements is making, Jack, is that this is a very different China today than existed 10 years ago, certainly 20 or 30 years ago. This communist regime today is almost like a capitalist regime. They're a huge economic superpower and that we have a lot at stake in maintaining this economic relationship with China.
CAFFERTY: Well, I don't know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hock to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-Mart. So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
"Let the Games go on", by Joan Chen
The Washington Post
Let the Games Go On
By Joan Chen
Wednesday, April 9, 2008; Page A19
I was born in Shanghai in 1961 and grew up during the Cultural Revolution. During my childhood, I saw my family lose our house. My grandfather, who studied medicine in England, committed suicide after he was wrongly accused of being a counterrevolutionary and a foreign spy.
Those were the worst of times.
Since the Cultural Revolution ended in the late 1970s, however, I have witnessed unimaginable progress in China. Changes that few ever thought possible have occurred in a single generation. A communist government that had no ties to the West has evolved into a more open government eager to join the international community.
A state-controlled economy has morphed into a market economy, greatly raising people's standard of living. It's clear that the majority of the Chinese people enjoy much fuller, more abundant lives today than 30 years ago. Though much remains to be done, the Chinese government has made rapid progress in opening up and trying to be part of the international community.
Last month I went to China and spent four weeks visiting Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and Chengdu. The people I met and spoke with are proud and excited about the Beijing Games. They believe that the Olympics are a wonderful opportunity to showcase modern China to the rest of the world. Like many Americans, most Chinese people are disturbed by the recent events in Tibet. But after watching the scenes of violence and arson by the rioters, the Chinese believe that the government is doing the right thing in cracking down to restore order.
The Olympic torch is in California and is to be carried through San Francisco today. In a resolution criticizing China, Chris Daly, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said that demonstrating against the torch relay would "provide the people of San Francisco with a lifetime opportunity to help 1.3 billion Chinese people gain more freedom and rights." To his credit, Mayor Gavin Newsom did not sign Daly's resolution.
This statement could not be further from reality. For one thing, the Chinese are a proud people. They want freedom and greater rights, but they know they must fight for them from within. They know that no one can grant them freedom and rights from afar. The stigma of Western imperialism and the Opium Wars also remains a strong reminder of the past, and Chinese people do not want their domestic policies to be dictated by outside powers. They also do not want the United States to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Games. The U.S. boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow and the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles accomplished nothing. A U.S. boycott of the opening ceremonies in Beijing would be counterproductive for relations between the two countries.
For decades, anti-China human rights groups in Washington have spent millions of dollars denouncing China. To many Chinese, it seems that this lobby is the only voice that's acceptable or newsworthy in the U.S. media and to the U.S. government. But times are changing. We need to be open-minded and farsighted. We need to make more friends than enemies. Remember what a little ping-pong game did for Sino-U.S. relations in the 1970s? Let's celebrate the Olympics for what the Games are meant to be -- a bridge for friendship, not a playground for politics.
The writer is an actress and director. She became a U.S. citizen in 1989.
im so surprised that she is such a good critic and her timely comment under current situation as an actress demonstrates a call for more voices from various grounds in support of chinese justice upholding and unity of peoples.
Lawrence Zhan Zhang
Lawrence Zhan Zhang
you certainly cannot rule out the possibility that some great writer's behind her. Anyway, it's the kind of voice acutely lacking in the mainstream media, and it's from the bottom of hearts of many Chinese people.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Note to the founder of "Save That Fire Union"
Dear Ted:
Thanks for your initiative of establishing this group. It is a great idea, and the action is right in time.
I have invited each and every one of my facebook friends, altogether 185, to join this group. Many of them are not Chinese, but I want them to see how we Chinese see these protests and the broader picture, and our solidarity (and yes, our diversity too).
We want to make friends with as many people in the world as possible, regardless of nationality, race or age. We certainly don't want to create a "China vs. rest of the world" impression, which is untrue: most of the people, at least all my facebook friends, are very friendly. And we want them to see beyond the biased, filtered information provided by the "free" media, and have some reality check.
Your description of the purpose of STFU is wonderful. However, some language do not seem to serve our broader purpose ideally, like the sharp opposition of "You" and "We". Many of the foreigners who are going to see this group in the coming hours and days don't have the least intention to protest the Torch Relay or boycott the Olympic Games. They want the Games to be successful as much as we do.
I understand it would be hard to make this literal change. To back up one step, can you at least change the title of the group to "Save That Fire Union -- Chinese and all PEOPLE in the world backing the torch relay"?
Thank you very much for your consideration. And again, I applaud your initiative of setting up this group.
Best wishes,
Lawrence
Some follow-up exchange between Teddy and me -- I like what Teddy said.
Hi Lawrence,
I appreciate your suggestions and they are really well said. I can change the description but the change in group name has to go through written request made to facebook people, it's a technical issue. I thought about the "China v.s. rest of the world" thing when writing the description, and I did have concerns you have. But the thing is, it is unlikely that we can be too friendly in such condition. Confronted by such hostility, are we supposed to react like Gandhi? By choosing the wording of "You" and "We", I really meant to groups of people on rivalry. "We" are those who are going to protect it, "You" are not the rest of the world, but those who are disrupting the relay and damaging our dignities. I truly believe the kind of wording would not offend those who believes in goods. Please keep that passion ('save that fire') for the on-going event and write to me again when any idea pops up. You can also write to savethatfireunion@gmail.com. The email address is valid.
Thanks again,
Teddy Yang
Hi Teddy:
I appreciate your quick response and I do echo with your thoughts. The subtle changes you made, such as keeping only the acronym of S-T-F-U, do make our group look more civilized, in keeping with our nation's core value. I'm not familiar with Gandhi's deeds nor do I necessarily identify with his ideology as described in the textbook, but I think it's in our best interest not to offend people of good will. It's OK for a person to be outraged at violent behaviors, but as a group we need more rationality in order to maximize our long term appeal. The Torch still has a long way to go.
Just my two cents, kudos to you for doing this for all of us!
Take care,
Lawrence
Thanks for your initiative of establishing this group. It is a great idea, and the action is right in time.
I have invited each and every one of my facebook friends, altogether 185, to join this group. Many of them are not Chinese, but I want them to see how we Chinese see these protests and the broader picture, and our solidarity (and yes, our diversity too).
We want to make friends with as many people in the world as possible, regardless of nationality, race or age. We certainly don't want to create a "China vs. rest of the world" impression, which is untrue: most of the people, at least all my facebook friends, are very friendly. And we want them to see beyond the biased, filtered information provided by the "free" media, and have some reality check.
Your description of the purpose of STFU is wonderful. However, some language do not seem to serve our broader purpose ideally, like the sharp opposition of "You" and "We". Many of the foreigners who are going to see this group in the coming hours and days don't have the least intention to protest the Torch Relay or boycott the Olympic Games. They want the Games to be successful as much as we do.
I understand it would be hard to make this literal change. To back up one step, can you at least change the title of the group to "Save That Fire Union -- Chinese and all PEOPLE in the world backing the torch relay"?
Thank you very much for your consideration. And again, I applaud your initiative of setting up this group.
Best wishes,
Lawrence
Some follow-up exchange between Teddy and me -- I like what Teddy said.
Hi Lawrence,
I appreciate your suggestions and they are really well said. I can change the description but the change in group name has to go through written request made to facebook people, it's a technical issue. I thought about the "China v.s. rest of the world" thing when writing the description, and I did have concerns you have. But the thing is, it is unlikely that we can be too friendly in such condition. Confronted by such hostility, are we supposed to react like Gandhi? By choosing the wording of "You" and "We", I really meant to groups of people on rivalry. "We" are those who are going to protect it, "You" are not the rest of the world, but those who are disrupting the relay and damaging our dignities. I truly believe the kind of wording would not offend those who believes in goods. Please keep that passion ('save that fire') for the on-going event and write to me again when any idea pops up. You can also write to savethatfireunion@gmail.co
Thanks again,
Teddy Yang
Hi Teddy:
I appreciate your quick response and I do echo with your thoughts. The subtle changes you made, such as keeping only the acronym of S-T-F-U, do make our group look more civilized, in keeping with our nation's core value. I'm not familiar with Gandhi's deeds nor do I necessarily identify with his ideology as described in the textbook, but I think it's in our best interest not to offend people of good will. It's OK for a person to be outraged at violent behaviors, but as a group we need more rationality in order to maximize our long term appeal. The Torch still has a long way to go.
Just my two cents, kudos to you for doing this for all of us!
Take care,
Lawrence
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Reining in the blogging impulse
(This was originally posted on my Chinese blog; and yes it was written in English)
I've been inhibiting my blogging impulse since the Spring Semester began. To make up for that loss, each time I am struck by some good idea but don't have the time to flesh it out, I briefly record the title in a notepad and hope to come back to it later. However six weeks into the semester and two weeks before the spring break, I finally realize that it is all but impossible, because the backlog (or inventory, depending on how you see it) just keeps growing, with more than a dozen items on it now. Having so many good stuff sedimenting in the brain is like having a lot of food in the stomach -- you know it's not such a great feeling -- and overnutrition can be as painful as malnutrition.
Many of the potential entries have even taken full shape in my brain and it really takes just a short while to download it from the brain to the computer. I think this is in part attributable to the difference of driving on my own and riding the bus. When driving, I listen to the radio and the flow of information or music keeps my mind busy. But when it comes to waiting for the bus, that's really a lot of free capacity in the brain, and sitting on the bus staring at all those strange faces...that's simply "thought-provoking"!...(yeah several of my potential entries are bus-related)
I also came to realize that the blogging behavior has an unmistakably impulsive nature. It is often most efficient to do it when you really feels like doing it. Revisiting the items on my backlog, I generally feel less compelled to write and it takes a while to recollect the thoughts. On the flipside, it is perhaps those things that still excite you after some time that's truly valuable.
I told my friend that recently I always wish I had 48 hours everyday, so that I can get everything I want to do done. It seems that this fresh feeling has come along with the new year of 2008. 2007 witnessed so many of my personal failures that it easily eclipses any of my previous years; or maybe I was just too lucky all along. Yet I came through the ordeals feeling more in love with life itself than ever before. I should really thank God for endowing me with such an unfaltering passion for life. I know that when I get older, I'll look back at this age and say: what a beautiful journey it was.
I've been inhibiting my blogging impulse since the Spring Semester began. To make up for that loss, each time I am struck by some good idea but don't have the time to flesh it out, I briefly record the title in a notepad and hope to come back to it later. However six weeks into the semester and two weeks before the spring break, I finally realize that it is all but impossible, because the backlog (or inventory, depending on how you see it) just keeps growing, with more than a dozen items on it now. Having so many good stuff sedimenting in the brain is like having a lot of food in the stomach -- you know it's not such a great feeling -- and overnutrition can be as painful as malnutrition.
Many of the potential entries have even taken full shape in my brain and it really takes just a short while to download it from the brain to the computer. I think this is in part attributable to the difference of driving on my own and riding the bus. When driving, I listen to the radio and the flow of information or music keeps my mind busy. But when it comes to waiting for the bus, that's really a lot of free capacity in the brain, and sitting on the bus staring at all those strange faces...that's simply "thought-provoking"!...(yeah several of my potential entries are bus-related)
I also came to realize that the blogging behavior has an unmistakably impulsive nature. It is often most efficient to do it when you really feels like doing it. Revisiting the items on my backlog, I generally feel less compelled to write and it takes a while to recollect the thoughts. On the flipside, it is perhaps those things that still excite you after some time that's truly valuable.
I told my friend that recently I always wish I had 48 hours everyday, so that I can get everything I want to do done. It seems that this fresh feeling has come along with the new year of 2008. 2007 witnessed so many of my personal failures that it easily eclipses any of my previous years; or maybe I was just too lucky all along. Yet I came through the ordeals feeling more in love with life itself than ever before. I should really thank God for endowing me with such an unfaltering passion for life. I know that when I get older, I'll look back at this age and say: what a beautiful journey it was.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Dear G
Should I call you smart or stupid? You've left me speechless this time.
So Hu Jia was arrested on Dec. 27, 2007, as the world learned immediately via the media. Some called you smart, since that date coincided with Benazir Bhutto's assassination, when everybody looked to Pakistan, shocked. But that sounds to me like a real big exaggeration of your intelligence, and prescience, because the arrest actually took place hours before the assassination.
And Jinyan's MSN Space has stopped updating, making me really concerned about her and their newborn baby. Her other blog, supposedly a mirror image of her MSN Space, keeps updating, yet it's not her style anymore. Apparently some colleague has taken over.
Assuming one of your big aims of hosting this Olympics is to boost your, no, our image around the world, just don't do this anymore. Whatever has been achieved is offset by this matter. You are not just offering ammunition to those who crave to denigrate you, but also hurting the feelings of all the kind-hearted people who cares deeply about human dignity, and justice. And you know what, it will cost you many times more efforts to erase it from people's memories than to commit this violation, and it will be talked over and over and over again, with disgust, like what appears in today's New York Times.
So stop shooting yourself on the foot, because in my dictionary, that's called stupid, super.
On top of all that, I, for one, will hold you responsible should anything happen to my classmate and the baby.
So Hu Jia was arrested on Dec. 27, 2007, as the world learned immediately via the media. Some called you smart, since that date coincided with Benazir Bhutto's assassination, when everybody looked to Pakistan, shocked. But that sounds to me like a real big exaggeration of your intelligence, and prescience, because the arrest actually took place hours before the assassination.
And Jinyan's MSN Space has stopped updating, making me really concerned about her and their newborn baby. Her other blog, supposedly a mirror image of her MSN Space, keeps updating, yet it's not her style anymore. Apparently some colleague has taken over.
Assuming one of your big aims of hosting this Olympics is to boost your, no, our image around the world, just don't do this anymore. Whatever has been achieved is offset by this matter. You are not just offering ammunition to those who crave to denigrate you, but also hurting the feelings of all the kind-hearted people who cares deeply about human dignity, and justice. And you know what, it will cost you many times more efforts to erase it from people's memories than to commit this violation, and it will be talked over and over and over again, with disgust, like what appears in today's New York Times.
So stop shooting yourself on the foot, because in my dictionary, that's called stupid, super.
On top of all that, I, for one, will hold you responsible should anything happen to my classmate and the baby.
Reaction to Kristof
Target article: Nicholas Kristof's Thursday column on the New York Times, Jan 24, 2008.
My comment can also be found on his blog.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
My comment can also be found on his blog.
135.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Perfect Day
By Lou Reed, originally featured in the 1972 album Transformer.
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Friday, January 18, 2008
Gordon Brown and Wen Jiabao made joint appearance at Renmin University
Friday, January 18, 2008. During his State Visit to China, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Renmin University of China with Premier Wen Jiabao to talk with Chinese and British citizens.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
George Loewenstein is fantastic
I'm taking George Loewenstein's Behavioral Economics seminar this semester. George is really fantastic, not just an outstanding researcher, but a great teacher -- although he seems quite modest about his teaching abilities. Talking about the tenure system of American universities that put overwhelming emphasis on publishing research papers, he said something like "If you are good at teaching, that could be a curse, because when you are best at doing something, even just marginally better than doing anything else, you tend to do it more and more, and getting rewards intrinsically." This is not nearly well-versed as his original sentence. I like these casual and witty remarks.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
James Fallows: The $1.4 Trillion Question
Another stunningly insightful and well-written article by James Fallows:
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
