Posted on 02/24/2020 9:07:24 AM PST by Kaslin
American media woke up Wednesday to shocking news: the Chinese government announced it would expel three Wall Street Journal journalists based in Beijing: deputy bureau chief Josh Chin and reporter Chao Deng, both U.S. citizens, and reporter Philip Wen, an Australian citizen. The last time China expelled so many foreign journalists from a single Western media organization, Mao Zedong was dictator.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said the expulsion was retaliation for a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “The Real Sick Man of Asia” by Walter Russell Mead. In it, Mead discussed how the Chinese government’s initial response to the coronavirus outbreak was “less than impressive” and how the outbreak would affect China and the global economy in both the short and long term. The article is thoughtful and contains nothing provocative. In fact, it reiterates a number of points many China observers and strategists have made in other public forums.
Many Chinese readers, however, took offense at the headline. The term “sick man of Asia” (東亞病夫), is a derogatory term, originally referring to Chinese men who were sickened by imported opium from Great Britain. Later, this term was widely used to refer to China in general during the “century of humiliation,” a period from 1840-1949, when China was subjected to foreign invasions and repeated defeat.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has successfully covered up its bloody history; it was responsible for 40-60 million deaths from 1949 to 1976. To justify its legitimacy as China’s savior, the CCP has heavily focused on embedding the “century of humiliation” deep into Chinese people’s psyche through government-sanctioned history education. Therefore, the term “sick man of Asia” evokes strong emotions from Chinese people.
Mead made it clear on Twitter that he wrote only the article, while the Journal’s editors chose the title. As a Wall Street Journal editorial points out, many countries have been labeled a “sick man” in the past and present: The Ottoman Empire was called “the sick man of Europe,” the Philippines was called “the sick man of Asia,” and Great Britain was called “the sick man of Europe” during the Brexit delay. So the Wall Street Journal meant no disrespect when it chose the headline.
Still, the Journal received many complaints. Wall Street Journal publisher and Dow Jones CEO William Lewis expressed “regret” for how much the headline has caused “upset and concern amongst the Chinese people.” Lewis also emphasized that the Journal “operates with a strict separation between news and opinion.”
Most importantly, the three expelled journalists have nothing to do with the opinion piece, and their visas are still valid. But China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman insisted, “[W]hat the WSJ has done so far is nothing but parrying and dodging its responsibility. … The Chinese people do not welcome those media that speak racially discriminatory language and maliciously slander and attack China.”
The op-ed in question was published Feb. 3. Why did Beijing wait two weeks to respond? The timing suggests the expulsion was more than a response to a “racist” headline.
Only a day before China’s announcement, the U.S. State Department identified five Chinese media, including the state news agency Xinhua, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, China Daily, and Hai Tian Development USA (a U.S.-based company that distributes People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party), as “foreign mission[s] under the Foreign Missions Act, which is to say that they are ‘substantially owned or effectively controlled by a foreign government.’” The “foreign mission” designation means employees of these five organizations will have to register with the U.S. State Department the same way employees of foreign embassies and consulars do.
This designation may cause inconvenience to employees of these five organizations, but it won’t restrict their ability to do their jobs. In truth, no one, not even these five organizations, can deny the fact that Beijing controls them. Such an ownership structure clearly dictates what they can or can’t say, especially when reporting on China’s domestic affairs.
Going through the websites of these five organizations, you won’t find even one line criticizing Chinese authorities’ early cover-up of the coronavirus, nor the mass internment of Uyghurs and persecution of Christians. You won’t read one sympathetic report about Hong Kong protesters, nor any report about the Chinese people’s overwhelming anger and frustration after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the eight early whistleblowers of the coronavirus outbreak.
The domestic news sections of all five organizations are committed to spreading Beijing’s propaganda and helping to shape a positive public opinion of the CCP on foreign soil. It is embarrassing that in order to make a few extra bucks, some U.S. news organizations, such as the Washington Post, have been delivering some of China Daily’s propaganda to its subscribers since 2011, as Mark Hemingway noted in his recent article.
Beijing’s expulsion of the three journalists is obviously a retaliation to the U.S. State Department’s latest action. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China nailed another reason for China’s action in a strongly worded statement: “The action taken against the Journal correspondents is an extreme and obvious attempt by the Chinese authorities to intimidate foreign news organizations by taking retribution against their China-based correspondents.”
Chinese authorities have been subjected to a lot of international criticism lately for their poor handling of the coronavirus outbreak. The expulsion of the Journal’s China-based journalists was meant as a warning to all foreign news organizations that if they want to maintain their presence in China, they need to play nice.
Beijing probably thought calling the Journal’s headline “racist” would give China a moral high ground for its action. Instead, expelling journalists over a headline only makes China seem small and unbecoming of its world-power status. Beijing also lost control of the narrative; the Wall Street Journal op-ed has become the most popular article on the outlet’s website because of Beijing’s retaliation.
Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, China has expelled or effectively expelled (not renewing visas) nine foreign journalists as part of the government’s effort to control the narrative of China, especially during the coronavirus outbreak. The Chinese government routinely uses access to China to pressure foreign governments, businesses, and news organization to toe the tight line Beijing sets. But as the latest data presented by The Economist shows, epidemics like the coronavirus are more deadly in a non-democracy than a democracy at any given income level because the free flow of information, fostered by a free press and freedom of speech, actually helps save lives.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board echoed a similar point in its response to China: “What Chinese officials don’t understand is that a free press would have helped them better cope with the virus fallout. Democracies are resilient because a free media sends signals and information that allow an outlet for grievances and alert leaders to problems before they become crises.” If the Chinese government truly wants to get the coronavirus under control, maybe it should encourage free speech and protect both foreign and domestic press.
Let’s see if they keep their globalist Panda-humping.
[The rest of the title is: Telling The Truth About State-Owned Media]
China’s case is a little different from everyone else’s - even other dictatorships. For most civilizations, the population’s reaction to Four Horsemen-style calamities is to hunker down and grit their teeth through it, pretty much like drones on an ant hill. In China’s case, the internal reaction can be and has periodically been extremely violent. As I’ve noted elsewhere, for 800 out of the last 2200 years, China has been ruled by regimes established by peasant rebels* who went for broke and struck at the throne, while muttering the usual pieties about looking to replace the corrupt courtiers giving the emperor bad advice.
Once they lay their hands on the emperor (or his designated heir), the narrative would evolve. After a suitable interlude during which they held the emperor hostage in all but name, the emperor would abdicate (or disappear), handing over the reins of power to the new regime. The emperor’s and principal courtiers’ kin and acquaintances would be erased from the gene pool, with a body count rising to the tens or hundreds of thousands. That is the worst-case scenario, but a specter that faces Communist Party bigwigs if a latter day rebel strikes at the throne again, and prevails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_Xiaoru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations
Individual revolts generally don’t have a huge chance of success. But China’s history isn’t of individual revolts. It’s of one large-scale failed revolt after another, each hammering away at the resources and loyalties of the regime’s supporters, while offering opportunities for advancement at the expense of the regime. Until the regime runs out of resources and loyal supporters, at which point it is toppled and its adherents and their kin are wiped out in a bloodbath.
The potential for a new cycle of revolts followed by regime collapse is why Xi Jinping worries about this disease, the way he worries about every aspect of Chinese society that might threaten his rule. Whether the rest of the world should be as worried is an open question. At the moment, though, the cure for the disease - drastic quarantines and mass hysteria dwarfing the actual mortality numbers vis-a-vis something like the flu - almost seems worse than the disease itself.
* Prior to the last 2 or 3 centuries, it’s hard to think of any regime outside of China where peasants upended existing regimes. In China, it occurred 2200 years ago, with the establishment of Liu Bang as emperor and the founder of the Han dynasty. Spartacus’s revolt, over a century later, consisted of little more than rabble fighting the organized formations of the Roman army. Liu’s involved hundreds of thousands of trained men in armor going up against the ancien regime’s front line troops. He wasn’t only a charismatic leader - he co-opted large numbers of regime stalwarts to his side during the ebbs and flows of his campaigns throughout the empire. And then made them hand over their personal armies or crushed their revolts once he won power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Gaozu_of_Han#Birth_and_early_life
That term also was used for the Ottoman Turk empire or the “sick man of Europe” at one time.
The UK was "the sick man of Europe" pre-Thatcher, too.
That’s an interesting insight into Chinese culture. A eight hundred year track record is a eight hundred year track record, and not something to casually ignore.
[That’s an interesting insight into Chinese culture. A eight hundred year track record is a eight hundred year track record, and not something to casually ignore.]
What distinguishes Chinese rulers from others isn’t how far forward they look, but how far backwards they reach in looking for pitfalls and challenges that might lead to a disastrous end for them and their kin. Mao’s twin bibles during his successful insurrection against the ruling Nationalists were two works about peasant revolts that form half of China’s Four Classic Novels - the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Water Margin.
Xi Jinping is making a big deal about this not just for propaganda purposes. He’s also wary of domestic opponents, in and out of the Party, taking this as a portent of regime vulnerability, and making their individual moves. Both Xi and his potential challengers are all reading from the same historical playbook.
Individual revolts generally don’t have a huge chance of success. But China’s history isn’t of individual revolts. It’s of one large-scale failed revolt after another, each hammering away at the resources and loyalties of the regime’s supporters, while offering opportunities for advancement at the expense of the regime. Until the regime runs out of resources and loyal supporters, at which point it is toppled and its adherents and their kin are wiped out in a bloodbath.
The potential for a new cycle of revolts followed by regime collapse is why Xi Jinping worries about this disease, the way he worries about every aspect of Chinese society that might threaten his rule. The fact that it is now acknowledged as a very big deal means that potential Chinese rivals are now looking at challenging his rule. Big crises have traditionally been the equivalent of a dinner bell or the report of a starter’s gun for ambitious Chinese power contenders because they signal regime vulnerability. China is entering a period of potential regime collapse, and Xi knows it.
.
China is now in the Commie Dynasty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.