These suggestions are totally out to lunch. The Chinese community in North America, which has only seen western media coverage on the events, is just as outraged as anyone in China. That should be a pretty convincing proof that the anger on the streets of China had little to do with the Chinese media coverage. Besides, the protesters were mostly university students, and western reporters in Beijing conveniently ignored the fact that virtually every university student in China listens to the US government supported radio station Voice of America. The Voice of America is listened to by all walks of life in China very openly. The Chinese protesters were certainly not short of any information. Not to mention that millions of Chinese have access to the INTERNET to get the most up to date news. The Chinese media is not capable of preventing all that information from getting to the people. The claim that only government sponsored demonstrations are possible in China simply does not hold. The 1989 student demonstrations were certainly not government sponsored, and went on for months; the protests following the NATO bombing lasted only few days. Both the 1989 and 1999 demonstrations were spontaneous, the only difference is how the government sided with the demonstrators, against in the former and with in the latter case. There is a big difference between a government siding with spontaneous demonstrators and a government creating demonstrators.
The Chinese government has good reasons to side with the demonstrators this time. Immediately after the embassy bombing, the expressions of western leaders were mostly "regrets" not "apologies", with qualifying ifs. Such insincere comments simply cannot be treated seriously by the Chinese. After the "regrets" became "apologies", the Chinese media carried the news promptly. But the sincerity of these apologies is still very much questionable. While Clinton made apologies to the Chinese, other US government officials including top officials from the department of defense blasted the Chinese protests. The US media covered the protests in China as if China was the bully and US was the victim. It was NATO's attack on the Chinese embassy that sparked the protests, and the damages caused by the protesters to the US embassy in Beijing are regrettable but disproportional compared to what the Chinese has suffered. Clinton urged the Chinese to use a sense of proportion when he made the apology; how about the US media use some sense of proportion? As the attacker of the Chinese embassy, the onus is on NATO to explain and convince the Chinese that the attack was an honest mistake. If anything, the wave of protests only proves that NATO failed to do so. NATO's explanation so far is that it was a mistake due to an outdated map, which in turn is a result of tight funding preventing the maps from being updated. This may convince many citizens of NATO countries without too much questioning, but as the victim the Chinese is bound to scrutinize any explanation to question its validity. If you put yourself in the shoes of the Chinese, as a citizen of a relatively poor country compared to the US, it must be pretty hard to believe that the richest and most powerful nation in the world does not have enough money to update its maps used in a war. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the money US spends on the high tech weapons used in the war makes the money required to update the maps look peanuts. Why should the Chinese accept that explanation at face value? Why should the Chinese find that explanation convincing? Can you blame the Chinese on the streets for being angry? Of course, the US media could not afford to acknowledge that. How could the US media admit that over one billion people, one fifth of the population on earth, are genuinely angry against US and NATO for good reason? That would be such a blow to the ego of the superpower. That would not fit the image of the superpower. That would discredit the west to a degree.
While the western media and government officials are quick at creating a conspiracy theory for the Chinese street protests, or anything that goes on in China, the Chinese has much better reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory of their own against the US. While one could relatively easily believe that NATO would not have approved a deliberate attack on the Chinese embassy, it would be difficult to rule out the possibility that, a single country or commanders of certain level from a single country sabotaged the Chinese without the approve of NATO. The motive: hatred. From the hostile media coverage of the Chinese protests and the alleged stealing of nuclear technology by the Chinese, it should not be hard to see that in the US there is no lack of hatred toward the Chinese. Certain factions in the US would love to turn China into the official enemy of US. If the US public takes in a conspiracy theory easily, why wouldn't the Chinese? The onus is on NATO and the US to provide convincing evidence to the Chinese to dispel any conspiracy theory. The west must realize, that is a tough job. Do a good job at that before pointing fingers at the Chinese protests.
The Chinese has demanded an investigation. In my opinion, the outcome of the investigation will always be questionable. If the investigation is done by the US or NATO, the results will be questionable due to conflict of interests. If the investigation is done by the Chinese or a third party such as the UN, it is questionable that the US will fully co-operate and meanwhile all the relevant evidence could have been destroyed already if sabotage was involved. So the Chinese might accept the explanation of NATO and US at face value, but there will always be a question of doubt in their head.
If the US and NATO are sincere about their apologies to China, they should offer to compensate the Chinese victims and their families. They should offer compensation to the child of the journalist couple Mr. Xu Xinghu and Ms. Zhu Ying, for the loss of two parents. They should offer compensation to the parents of female journalist Ms. Shao Yunhuan, for the loss of a daughter. They should offer compensation to Ms. Shao Yunhuan's husband, who was blinded by the attack. They should offer compensation to many others who were wounded in the attack, many will never be able to make a living the same way as before. They should also offer to pay for the rebuilding of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Only the gesture of offering compensation will be accepted by the Chinese on the streets and in the government as a real sincere apology. Any other spoken words will remain questionable. You admitted you have made a mistake, so take the responsibility. Besides, if you claim to fight a war on behalf of human rights, you better show that. Offering compensation will go well with that image, not offering will not. You certainly don't want to wait for the victim's families to sue for compensation, for the tragedy caused by the negligence of using a wrong map.
Published at
http://homepages.go.com/~weimingpage.com
fter the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade ignited a wave of protests in China, western media reported the protest events with much bias and hostile attitude toward the Chinese. Commentators used every opportunity to suggest that the protests in China were perpetuated by the Chinese government. They claimed that for days the Chinese media had not reported the regrets and apologies expressed by NATO and leaders of NATO countries, suggesting that that was an important factor creating the anger of the Chinese protesters. They also claimed that in China, only government sponsored demonstrations are possible, therefore these demonstrations must be creations of the Chinese government.
If you put yourself in the shoes of the Chinese, as a citizen of a relatively poor country compared to the US, it must be pretty hard to believe that the richest and most powerful nation in the world does not have enough money to update its maps used in a war
From the hostile media coverage of the Chinese protests and the alleged stealing of nuclear technology by the Chinese, it should not be hard to see that in the US there is no lack of hatred toward the Chinese.
Wei Ming is a medical physicist, doing work in radiation cancer therapy.
comments about this article? give us feedback