Chinese patriotism will backfire, and already does (爱国护奥活动的误区)

I will write this in Chinese, because I intend this as an appeal to the Chinese people, domestic or overseas.

---

首先声明一点，这里的观点，是针对民间活动一些策略和战略上的误区。本博客基本上不赞同政府劝退民间活动的理据--虽然这里部分结论有雷同之处。对于中国政府最近的一系列动作，除了公开愿意和DL对话是一个高招之外，窃以为绝大部分是败笔。

民间爱国护奥活动的误区

误区A） 当LVMH和JLF出了声明，法国总统派了特使送了信之后。已经绝对是不应该再缠着JLF不放了。理由如下

• JLF本来就无辜的
• JLF显然已对其国内的政治家施加了压力，因此才会有总统特使访华
• 应该把精力集中于如何惩罚公开宣扬种族歧视的“西嗯嗯”（咖啡提先生）。这有点难度，因为中国人本来就不准看西嗯嗯，有何来杯葛？不过，也不是没办法。比如：
（1）"以本伤人"法：已有海外华人对西恩嗯提诉，每个人都可以在提诉。（而且赢面不低）（2）"围魏救赵"法：罗列并定期更新其广告客户及其投放量，选择性杯葛其客户在中国的产品，对戏嗯嗯的客户施加压力，就像让JLF对法国政客施加压力一样。当然，对于其产品不在中国销售的西恩嗯客户，产生不了作用。不过，在意中国市场的西恩嗯广告客户在戏嗯嗯的客户表列里也已挺可观了。

我不同意政府或晶晶同学反对杯葛的理由(影响到员工和厂商），因为这些员工和厂商完全是可以转到别的超市去的。因为整个国家的零售市场量没变，所以中国队与产品和人员的总需求是一个不变量（其实还会增长）。而且这总量不会因为杯葛JLF而改变。我的结论只是巧合的与晶晶同学和政府的结论雷同。

我想说的是，继续惩罚JLF会产生更严重的负面(反）效果。就是说，假如JLF看到它做什么都无法改变自己的命运，下一次它还会如此屈服吗？西恩嗯的客户看到，他还会理睬你们吗？

信赏必罚，是商鞅变法的先行原则之一。我之前反对西梅不分青红皂白抹黑中国，用的也是同一原因。

---

误区B) 观众的错位

中国人民，特别是留学生，犯了一个极其严重的错误。他们要告诉世界，奥运和政治需要分离，奥运是人民的，不是政府的。他们（中国的普通平民）是支持奥运的。不过却偏偏把护炬集会变成一片红旗海洋。 政府和国内网站，竟然会公开支持邮寄国旗到国外去，难道1960年代印尼的教训都玩的一干二净了？

这些了海外华人团体，没搞清楚一点，就是这是要做给谁看？其他华人需要看这些才知道西梅报道的种族偏向吗？需要知道，有意义的观众只有是外国人。特别是接待了这些海外华人的国家和人民。(民进党输掉台湾选举的原因，不是马英九的帅，而是民进党拼命去讨好自己的铁票，而把中间选民拱手让与国民党）为什么他们不用五环旗？甚至客居国的国旗呢？本来根本就不应用五星旗。在这么多图片里，都是一片红色的旗海，少有五环旗，更从没看到地主国的旗帜。想想看，假如在韩国的同学，举起韩国和五环旗，然后说，奥运是我们的，也是你们的，说服力有多强？加入他们举的是南北朝韩的旗，然后说，奥运缔造一个你们兄弟相见的机会，他们能不感动？可惜的是，我们华人太自我中心，少有站在别人的角度考虑问题。

本来一直想写，想不到已经太晚了（而且相信区区一小博也改变不了最多热血青年）。日本和韩国，都是同属亚洲文化的邻居，已经开始对这些留学生产生了反感。 人家北朝鲜的难民，因为亲人被遣回北朝，抗议不合理吗？这里是人家韩国的地方，你们不能就对人家表示一下同情，希望人家的体谅吗？人家没有打砸抢啊。

---
整场“爱国护奥”活动，本来把握了ZT和欧美媒体犯错的玄机，可以翻盘大胜的公关战。可惜落得赏罚不明，还搞错的观众对象。犯了和ZT势力所发的完全一样的错误。海外学者精英们，是时候好好反省了。

海外Z人只有二十来万，加上一些好莱坞Scientologists的“同门”兄弟（Richard Gere们）和Hippies，缺乏人才，常犯一些低级错误（如，夸大伤亡数字，120万种族灭绝等损害本身公信力的蠢事），非战之罪也。 我们这些海外留学生，可都是13亿人里通过高考挑出来的精英中的精英。看来我们国内教育的确需要改革了。 留法学生李洹巴黎演讲本来已把握到了要点，可惜得不到一众旅外华人行动的配合，对于法国民众李洹的苦心就只成为一纸空谈。

相关链接：
It is time to claim victory and call off the boycott... and why boycott is often a bad idea

Update: regarding my previous query of quantifying Carrefour's loss, here is some sampling -- seems not insignificant.

杨恒均: CNN为何爱国 (Interview with Rebecca McKinnon and others)

Source: (via Wenxuecity) YHJ Blog

对于西方媒体报道中国时的那种片面和偏激，我是早就领教过的。记得十几年前第一次到美国工作，为了尽快让英语听力过关，每天趴在电视机前看新闻实事或脱口秀节目。起初，由于熟悉新闻背景，完全能够听懂的几乎只有关中国的新闻报道和评论。说实话，从美国新闻里看到报道中国的新闻和他们的评论，确实很让人不爽。

即便在我自己把批评中国当作己任，自认通过批评自己的国家从而促使其进步就是最好的爱国的今天，看到西方媒体对中国的负面报道，我心里还是很不舒服。有时真想找人教训他们一下，可是找谁呢？西方的新闻媒体好像没有主管单位，看看他们如何整天批评甚至攻击总统和政府就知道了。特别是美国的福克斯新闻(FOX)攻击起克林顿夫妇，简直可以用极尽侮辱之能事。

但我也注意到一个现象，那就是在美国遭受到911袭击，以及美国先后出名阿富汗和伊拉克期间，美国的各大新闻媒体包括CNN等都显得非常爱国。这真让我迷糊了。因为那时我也对美国媒体有了一定的了解，确实知道这些媒体是享受充分独立和自由的，和政府没有什么关系，更不是什么上下级关系。那么他们怎么都那么爱国起来？好像是白宫统一安排了舆论导向似的。

这个问题也就放下了，直到两个月前我到香港参加文学节，正好和前CNN驻北京首席记者芮贝卡（Rebecca Mackinnon）同台主持我的作品研讨会。芮贝卡父亲是汉学家，她自己说很流利的中文。她以前长期在CNN工作，从1992年到2001年在CNN驻北京站任首席记者。我最早见到她就是从电视屏幕上开始的。她目前在香港大学从事媒体教学工作。以她对CNN的了解，我想，我自然会为自己的问题找到最准确或者最接近真相的答案。

在我们一起吃中饭时，我提到了这个问题。我说，一向对美国政府桀骜不驯的新闻媒体特别是CNN怎么一到了阿富汗和伊拉克战争时就忽然爱起国来，弄得我不得不怀疑白宫有幕后黑手在操纵。我想，芮贝卡一向对美国的媒体拥有比较独立和公正的看法，对中国人民也持友好的态度，她会给我一个满意的答案。

芮贝卡的回答证实了我的观察没有错。那段时间，CNN等美国大媒体确实“挺爱国的”。但她纠正我说，政府没有给压力，白宫更不敢干涉，也不会是因为CNN的老板是美国人这些原因，主要原因是有一双更加有力的无形的大手在操控。芮贝卡要用自己的亲身经历来向我解释。

阿富汗战争期间，她曾经带一个（日裔）摄影师前往阿富汗前线，为CNN作现场报道。她说，作为一名记者，她自然知道该报道些什么。当时，阿富汗战争刚刚打响，很多阿富汗人因为战争而流离失所。当时芮贝卡所在地方（名字我记不起）正是遭受战乱的阿富汗穷人逃乱的必经之地。芮贝卡看不断涌来的阿富汗难民在美国的炮火下不得不逃离家园，扶老携幼，有的妻离子散。于是，具有敏锐新闻头脑和人文关怀心的芮贝卡把这些难民的真实生活都一一拍摄下来，不停地发回美国CNN总部。

就在芮贝卡以为找到了最好的新闻素材，干得正起劲时，来自CNN的指令下来了。指令要求芮贝卡少报道一些这些（难民）——这些被美国炮火赶离家园的难民潮对于美国那场反恐战争来说毕竟是负面的消息。CNN总部希望芮贝卡多报道一些来自阿富汗前线的能够激励美国人爱国心的新闻。CNN总部的理由很简单：观众不爱看那些难民，他们要看反恐的，爱国的。

芮贝卡给我讲这件事后有些无奈，她说，现在你明白了，CNN为什么爱国了吧。不是政府让他们爱，更不是他们那些老板良心发现突然想爱国，而是因为当时美国观众 们在911后正在爱国的兴头上，不喜欢看那些“不爱国的”——如美国发动的战争造成的大量的难民。

当时CNN的对手福克斯新闻（FOX news）狂热地支持布什政府（福克斯一直为难克林顿政府），赢得了很高的收视率，CNN处于明显的劣势。为了迎合美国主流的爱国激情，CNN不得不放下一些原本够料的新闻，而去报道能够激起美国人爱国热情的东西。

芮贝卡后来离开了CNN，我想这也许就是原因之一，她对于那些超级的国际大媒体持一定的批评态度，认为他们往往为了收视率，为了广告，为了迎合主流人群而放弃一定的新闻原则。

现在不妨把话题转到最近CNN主播卡弗蒂的辱华事件上，我想结合我自己的一些经验和认识谈一些看法，与网友商榷。

1）卡弗蒂的话是不是辱华？

我一早就从网络上看到了卡氏的那段话，今天在写这篇文章的时候，我又核对了英文原文。从我自己的理解来判断，卡氏的讲话确实侮辱了中国人民，他可以说自己没有把话说清楚，那个“他们”可以指中国政府也可以指中国人民。然而，从话语的上下文来看，卡氏说他指责的是中国政府这件事有些牵强。所以，可以这样，卡氏的话是严重地辱华，而且带有种族主义的偏见。

我们回过头来分析，卡氏为什么在中国外交部提出抗议后辩称他是批评中国政府呢？原因很简单，按照西方媒体的标准，任何媒体和新闻人都有批评政府的权力，至于批评的是否有证据，是否正确，那是另外一回事。但媒体拥有批评甚至攻击政府的权力是不容置疑的。所以，在为自己辩解时，卡氏率先抛出了这一点。

卡氏当时说了一长串的话，是关于贸易和“中国产品是垃圾”的。我认为说中国产品是垃圾并不构成辱华，中国出口美国的产品都是很便宜的，相对于欧洲进口的自然质量不高，而且也出现了一些安全问题（据说美国最近要公布中国产品安全问题调查），所以，一个新闻主播带着激动的情绪说“中国产品是垃圾”并不构成什么辱华事件，听说一些公司要起诉，没有这个必要。可是，这位卡氏话锋一转，就说到中国人身上，什么五十年来都是——

这句话，无论按照中国标准，抑或是美国标准，都超越了一个新闻主播的底线，不单单是侮辱中国人，而且带有严重的种族歧视了。卡氏在这句侮辱的话语里虽然使用了一个时间概念（“近五十年”），这也就成为他强调的他在攻击“中国政府”而不是中国人民的依据。

无论卡氏如何辩解，中国人这一次是有理由要求道歉的。问题在于：我们该使用什么方法对付CNN？

2）CNN为什么对中国政府的抗议和愤怒的中国民众漫不经心？

中国外交部连续三次提出严厉交涉，谴责并督促一个私人媒体CNN做出真心的道歉，中国大陆网络爱国者也大张旗鼓口诛笔伐，更有世界各地的华人华侨特别是留学生举行了历史上极其罕见的声势浩大的游行示威活动，真可谓众志成城。

可是迄今为止，不但西方媒体鲜有报道，而且CNN也按兵不动。确实让人费解。然而，结合我上面的故事——CNN为何忽然爱国来分析，我们就不难看出问题的症结所在。

无论西方媒体如何标榜新闻自由，讲究职业道德，他们充其量还是一个赢利的跨国大公司，他们也有上帝——就是他们的观众，也就是暗中操控他们的那只无形的手。从某种意义上说，抛开自由民主等这些核心价值不表，西方媒体要供奉起来的是他们的衣食父母——广大的西方观众。当然，这和他们崇尚民主自由并不一定矛盾，因为西方的绝大多数观众已经接受了民主自由的核心价值理念。

现在，我们来看一下CNN的情况，它的上帝——观众在哪里？很显然，现在起来抗议他的中国人，几乎一个都不是他的观众。中国大陆民众根本不允许看CNN，CNN的收视率自然从来不把中国的观众统计在内。

CNN的衣食父母，和控制它的那只巨大的手——观众几乎全部在中国大陆以外，那么，中国外交部目前连续三次提出抗议，中国民众群情激愤，在外面的观众——特别是西方的观众看来，又是什么情况？

问题就出在这里。目前从中国大陆网络到中国外交部以及席卷全球华人圈的谴责和抗议CNN的活动，看在CNN的观众，特别是西方的观众眼里，对CNN不但没有损害，甚至正在直线提高它的收视率。我想，就这一点来说，CNN的高层也许此时正躲在阴暗角落里偷偷直乐。

中国网民、外交部和全球留学生抗议CNN事件不但CNN本身鲜有报道，其他大的电视台如FOX和BBC等也很少报道，为什么？这当然有其他的原因在里面，但有一个重要的因素不能忽视。举例说，当FOX报道CNN遭到13亿中国人的抗议的时候，那么十有八九的正在观看FOX的观众会立即转台去看看CNN 到底出了啥事。而且，还有一个让我们难堪的现象就是，在目前西方人眼中，中国仍然是一个没有新闻自由的国家，记者动辄因言获罪。于是，头脑简单的西方人也就会以此反推：得罪这样一个国家，能够惹得没有新闻自由的13亿人愤怒的CNN，一定是我们西方为之自豪的新闻自由的榜样。此时不看，更待何时？

我的分析当然不是全面的，只是就某一方面深入浅出。但是，我也并不是没有依据的。那么，这样分析下来，是不是说，我们中国人被一个电视台的主播侮辱了，我们就没有办法了？就要忍受？就要不了了之？

那也未必，外交部发言人说得好：中国人不是好欺负的！

3）我们到底应该怎么办？

在我提一些建议前，我首先表明，外交部目前连续三次严重交涉，以及一些民众自发组织抗议，都是合法合情合理的。但是否还有更好的选择，或者说从长远来说，我们是否还有更好的办法？又或者说，我们是否还有更见效的方法？这些都应该群策群力。

我提几个看法：

第一， CNN作为一个世界性的大媒体，它的触角伸到世界各个角落。可想而知，它在中国自然也有办事处，而且业务量也不会小。这就很自然地让人联想到，如果它不配合我们的要求真诚道歉的话，我们把它赶出中国。那样对于一个世界性的大媒体，被赶出了有13亿人口的中国，自然是损失惨重的。可是，这种方法绝对不能用，因为这种方法在世界上造成的对中国政府形象的损害相比于我们赶走了一个私人媒体获得的尊严要大得多，得不偿失的事我们不能做。更何况今年是奥运年。
第二， 按照我的分析，CNN之所以对中国外交部的抗议和民众的声讨置若罔闻、漫不经心，是因为我们的行为不但不影响它的收视率和经济收入（主要是广告），而且甚至有可能让它在西方获利。从这里我们看出来，就算如CNN这样的超级媒体，剥掉了冠冕堂皇的外衣（新闻自由等），充其量也就是一个企业，一个追逐利润的公司，为老板和股东赚钱赢利是它的目标。那么，中国是否在这方面有一定的作为？我想还是有的，据我观察，CNN的大量广告来自中国大陆和华人世界，如果CNN不对辱华事件做出更真诚的道歉和处理，如果中国人够团结的话（真像愤青们说的那么团结的话），威胁CNN，停止所有来自中国大陆和华人世界的广告，将会对CNN造成巨大的打击。
第三， 但那绝对不是致命的一击。那么，我们还有什么办法从本质上解决这个问题？虽然说卡弗蒂是有名的大嘴巴，也是“臭嘴巴”，他不但辱华，也侮辱过无数的人包括美国人，可是，我们即使通过抗争，让CNN解雇了他，取得了阶段性的胜利，我们能够改变什么？我们能够改变西方媒体对中国的偏见吗？能够保证不会有更多的卡弗蒂出现在西方人的电视台里？我们当然不能，西方媒体不可能因为一个不发达地区的一些侨民和留学生的抗议，就改变他们上百年来形成的新闻模式和理念。那么，我们有什么办法从本质上解决问题？方法倒是有，不过说起来很简单，做起来却很难。那就是从操控西方媒体的那只无形的大手入手——也是西方媒体的上帝——西方观众、西方民众入手。增加西方民众对中国的了解，把中国开放给西方普通民众。

俗话说：说起来容易，做起来难。按说，西方媒体敢于屡次歪曲对中国的报道是有西方民众撑腰的，或者说有民众的基础。说到这里，有人也许就说了，西方民众不是通过西方媒体了解中国吗？那不是恶心循环？话是这样说，但却不尽然。因为在西方包括美国毕竟还是有新闻自由的。至少，如果你愿意，我们的中央电视台在全美国都可以收看得到，没有人会屏蔽你。这些年中国人在西方媒体投入的钱，明里的暗里的，不可谓不多，就拿中文报纸来说，基本上都能够越来越多地正面报道中国大陆，越来越多华人媒体转向，开始走上正确引导华人的舆论导向这条路。

西方观众如果想看，中央电视台的英文节目也是完全可以看到的，但据说世界上收视率最高的新闻节目是我们的新闻联播，可在美国除了搞情报的以及那些和中国大陆做生意的华人外，很少有人会去看中央电视台的新闻。这并不是让我们值得骄傲的。中国大陆的朋友大多想看海外的新闻节目却看不到，而西方人可以看到中国的新闻节目却根本没有人愿意看。

虽然说我们的新闻媒体具有中国特色，但不要忘记，新闻媒体本身就是从西方引进到中国的，我们虽然谴责西方媒体歪曲报道中国的新闻，但却不能把自己孤立于西方媒体之外。西方媒体在舆论监督，民意表达，以及报道真相上，还是有积极意义的。如果中国想从本质上解决问题，想从坐在电视机前的上帝——观众入手，彻底解决问题的话，还应该在自己的新闻媒体的改革上加大力度，学习西方媒体的积极一面。放弃一言堂，放弃只报喜不报忧的新闻模式，放弃把新闻当成喉舌，当成说教的工具——

也许有人会问，你说的这些和我们面临的问题有直接关系吗？当然有，也许不能立即解决问题，但却能够从根本上彻底解决问题。我们中国一向是可以用大钱集中起来做大事的，可是，迄今为止，13亿人的大国怎么就无法弄出一两个国际性的媒体？在美国开办电视台和办办报纸都是绝对自由的，我们为什么办不起来？没有人看，为什么没有人看？如果我们拥有能够得到世界观众信任的媒体，就能够把更公正的中国介绍给世界。

以上只是一个方面，还有一另外一个方面，那就是在我们发现西方媒体在报道中国存在偏见和偏激的时候，我们是否反省过，中国大陆的媒体是否对世界也存在严重的偏见和偏激？

我已经不止一次说过，中国的一些主流媒体对世界的歪曲和偏激也是让人胆颤心惊的。要知道，我这里不是小看CNN，以我对他们的理解，他们那个辱华节目的收视率并不怎么样，而且，就算西方观众听见了他的辱华，也不会太介意，影响也很有限。而且美国观众有很多选择，甚至有权选择看你的中央电视台。

但是，我们中国大陆的媒体就不同了，基本上是一个声音说话，所以，以前出现过关起门来，八亿人民激动兮兮，一个个磨拳擦掌准备解放全世界的奇观。现在当然好多了，但还远远不够。

一个在自己的国家只能听到一种声音的，言论自由还有待发展的国家，且不要说在面对世界时会显得过于简单、易于愤怒，容易受伤，而且也是很难得到国际社会的民众真心地尊重的。

还有一个事情不能不提，因为看到世界各地华人华侨特别是留学生涌上街头抗议西方媒体的对中国的偏见，我很高兴，因为对西方人对中国的偏见，最直接的受害者就是生活在海外的中国人。但我们大家激动之余都不要忘记，西方民众了解中国不仅仅是通过那些西方媒体，而且更主要的是通过住居在他们 国家的华人华侨以及特别是中国留学生。

说到这里，也该结束了，我只希望最后我们的华人华侨和留学生也要问自己一句：除了这一次我站出来抗议西方的媒体歪曲报道中国、表达爱国之外，我平时在西方的一言一行和所作所为，是否能够让西方人看到一个和平、文明和尊重人权与普世价值的中华民族的身影？而且我再问一句：通过这次我们全球总动员来举行针对一个CNN的游行示威后，西方媒体也许会有所收敛，但那些媒体的上帝——西方民众到底会如何看待我们？！

杨恒均 2008-4-22

MSM's knee-jerk reporting: Nepal as an example

Yes, I mean Nepal. My geography is good enough to know Nepal from T0bed to its north, unlike the host who interviewed the US government official (my theory differs from the American left - the Security Adviser did it on purpose and host Stephanopolous did not, or was so absorbed in his 'pointed questions' that he did not care).

For the case of To-bed (东躲）, enough have been said about how the editor/boss abuse the MSM to suit his own prejudice or agenda, or simply to reflect the partial point of view he sees, in which he either abandoned the ethic or was just unprofessional. So I thought I should look at other topics/geographies, to see if the same phenomenon is observed, without the noise of racism, or anti-China agenda. So I browsed MSM coverage on an adjacent country, by a much more respected media, the Economist. The Economist is reputed for its quality and 'neutrality'. So the shortfall in the Economist will probably mean there is similar flaw across the whole of MSM. (The reverse may not necessarily be true)

This is from the April 10th issue: titled "Mountains to climb"

• More worrying, most of the pre-election violence was carried out by one of the main contestants: the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which in 2006 ended a decade-long armed struggle. Its 23,000-strong rebel army is corralled under UN eyes, but intact. On the stump, Maoist leaders argued that anything less than a sweeping victory for their party would be evidence of massive rigging.

• That was ominous: the Maoists are believed, in the absence of any reliable opinion poll, to be widely detested. But that they took part in the election—twice postponed, once on their account—was worth celebrating. Nepal, a country of 28m people, is a poor, lawless and fractious place. It faces worsening ethnic, caste-based and regional conflicts. The hoarding of power and riches in the capital, Kathmandu, causes huge resentment, which fed the Maoist insurgency. Indeed, under the terms of a shambling peace process, the basic shape of the Nepali state is an open question. The election has improved the odds the answer will be found peacefully.

• Assuming, that is, the Maoists accept the results. Winning at least 80 seats—out of a possible 601—is rumoured to be the bottom line for their continued commitment to democracy. But a convoluted electoral system, voter intimidation and the passage of time since Nepal's last serious election, in 1999, make the outcome hard to predict. The aggrieved southerners should also win at least 80 seats, though split between different parties. They are one of several marginalised ethnic or caste groups for whom a block of seats has been reserved. The Terai lot successfully agitated for improved terms in February through a two-week blockade of Kathmandu.

Reading this, my impression was, the Maoists are "widely detested" ("albeit absent of any reliable poll") in Nepal, and ([hence]), they probably won't accept the results, because they wanted to win at least 80 seats (out of a total of 601). Except that, I only got to read this issue one week later. i.e. I already knew the election result, as reported, e.g., by the Economist

• The former rebels surprise everyone with a stunning electoral success. That may prove to have been the easy part
• Defying every prediction but its own, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), until two years ago a feared rebel army, won handsomely.
• A complicated electoral system, in which around 40% of seats are directly elected and 60% through proportional representation, has held up final results. But the Maoists, proscribed by America as terrorists, were on course for a clear majority in the first tranche, with 119 seats out of 224. And they had 33% of the vote in the second. They will certainly be the biggest party, but without a majority, in a 601-seat assembly, which will have a 30-month term limit and will be charged with drafting a new constitution.
• The Maoists ended a decade-long armed struggle in 2006, after Nepal's King Gyanendra, who the previous year had seized absolute power, was compelled by street protests to hand it back. Entering a coalition government with six political parties, the scrubbed-up insurgents committed themselves to the democratic process. To many, this looked like either a tactical ploy or noble folly. Led by a charismatic guerrilla, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Prachanda (“awesome”, pictured above), the Maoists held sway in much of Nepal. But they were thought to be loathed for their part in a nasty war that left more than 10,000 dead. Most pundits expected them to be trounced at the polls.
• They reckoned without three factors. First was the Maoists' manipulation of the result. Thugs from several parties terrorised voters. European Union observers of the election concluded it was held in a “general atmosphere of fear and intimidation”. But the Maoists' thugs were chiefly to blame. The party's candidates also hinted that if it lost, they might resume the war. And no doubt, in the country's many remote and lawless places, some voters wanted the Maoists in faraway Kathmandu—not their forests, stealing their food and pressganging their children.

This sounds quite familiar, the English use of the familiar word 'thug' (which we will see again later), and 'manipulation'. And should I say "pundit" who has (mis-)led the Economist in its prediction just a week ago that "the Maoist are widely detested"?

Fortunately, the Economist is still good when facts are so obvious that manipulation (or misconception) is not easy. It only try to sway you the less than obvious. Further down the article, we see the real truth

• Yet even near Kathmandu, where some 2,000 foreign election observers were clustered and there were few reports of malpractice, the Maoists won seven of 15 directly elected seats. In the eastern Terai area, next to India, the Maoists had been supplanted by local nationalist groups, both armed and democratic. Yet they have so far won ten out of 27 seats there.
• A second explanation for the results is more convincing: that Nepalis were sick of the alternatives. These were chiefly the Nepali Congress (NC) party, which dominates the ruling coalition, and its traditional rival, a mainstream leftist party known as the UML (for “Unified Marxist-Leninist”). Both were tarnished by spells of corrupt and ineffective rule during the 1990s. As for King Gyanendra, he can also take his cue from the electorate. At the Maoists' insistence, the 240-year-old monarchy was provisionally abolished in December—a sentence that the next assembly is due to confirm. This seemed undemocratic at the time; it doesn't now. Nepal's three small royalist parties won no directly elected seat: ie, one fewer than the tiny Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party, which supports North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
• ..As the biggest party of government, the Maoists may now be in a position to insist. However, their deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai, implies that they will test their new strength carefully. “Before, we were in a stage of making demands; now we are in a stage of implementation,” he said, seated beneath a poster exhorting workers everywhere to unite behind “Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Prachandaism!!” This last “ism”, which describes the Maoists' struggle as a “bourgeois peasant revolution”, is tricky to pin down. Their economic policies, which include seeking foreign investment for Nepal's hydropower industry, seem quite liberal. Many of their social policies, which the Maoists describe as a war against “feudalism”, are also laudable. Besides scrapping a discredited monarchy, they would fight caste-based discrimination, the deprivation of tribal groups and the exploitation of landless labourers. For poor Nepalis, all this makes a popular message. That is the third—weirdly overlooked—reason for the peasant revolutionaries' great victory. Of course, making big promises is easier than keeping them, and the Maoists will disappoint. The question is: how badly?

Now you can see, how presumption could blind even the high-IQ, mostly oxbridge-educated Economist researchers and editors, as reflected in the difference between its two reports, and how it has learned (together with its readers). The "Maoist" must be bad and detested (which could be safely assumed "absence of any reliable poll"), since Mao himself had made so many major mistakes in China in his later years, and that other Maoist (Peruvian) had failed eventually. What the Economist had "weirdly" overlooked was, the similarity in Nepal today vs China in the early half of the last century, or for that matter, T1-bet in 1950s with a "“feudalism with caste-based discrimination".

Now let's go back to Tobed, and the Olympic, and see how it was reported by the Economist --not sure if James Miles wrote it, or a heavy-handed editor chipped in and secretly loaded the language

• The torch's bad week started in London on April 6th, where hundreds of protesters dogged it, as it was passed from famous hand to hand. At one point, protesters were blocked as it was whisked to Chinatown to give China's ambassador the chance to clasp it for a while. China's flag had an outing too. Hundreds of Chinese students were bused in. Some protesters were unruly, and 37 arrested.
  

This looks like an even handed writing, at first. Except if you read a bit more carefully. Are the "hundreds of Chinese students "bused in"? (or some of the hundreds took the bus?) The way I understand "bused in" is some pre-arranged trip for some elderly innocent people who may not know where they were bused to when they boarded the bus. Is this what our reader could have thought as well (or are intended to be led to think so)? When "some" protesters became unruly, clearly both side, but more likely, "some of those hundreds who bused in" (it was deliberately unclear given where this line is located) were unruly, one was led to think. In reality, was any single one of the 37 arrested those Chinese students? The Economist must have known the answer. But it would try not to clarify. Propaganda is better this way.

Further down,

• The torch was guarded not just by the police but by a phalanx of Chinese men in blue-and-white tracksuits. Their jurisdiction was hazy, but their demeanour unmistakable. As Lord Coe, chairman of the committee organising the 2012 London Olympics, was heard to say, they were “thugs”. Their presence outraged even those who could not find Tibet on a map.
• ...The Chinese press have called the thugs in blue and white “valiant and heroic”. It has reported that the squad is made up of officers from the paramilitary People's Armed Police, who have been training for this role since last August, including learning to give orders in five languages.

I was first amused, what is the percentage of the protestors who were neither Tibetan nor Chinese could find Tibet on a map? But what troubled me more is, the unfortunate torch guards were first described with a quotation mark in an alleged quote, as "thug", a paragraph later the quotation mark has mysteriously been edited away and "thug" morphed officially into the thugs in blue and white, without the quotation mark. I wish Mr Miles, whom I respect, could explain this, and I do not accept that this is a typo. Otherwise, the anonymous editor could have tainted his professionalism for the rest of his life.

Tobed and China is not small country like Nepal. I am also pretty sure the Economist knows the complexity of the Tobed issue (many smaller media could pass as an honest mistake or being ignorance. But I have too much respect for the Economist for such a simple explanation). Yet for Nepal it reckoned its mistake and tried hard to find an explanation, perhaps successfully, while in the case of Tobed it continues to plunge and self-indulge.

The lesson of the comparison of the 2 Nepal reports:

1. The press has its prejudice, due to lack of information, laziness or lack of resources, which is the same in either the case of Nepal or Tobet. In these two cases the link to communist or mao puts one in innate disadvantage. Perhaps our friend 88s has correctly put it, had the C-cp changed its name and claim to be no longer communist, as it really is not, the whole situation may be different
   
2. The Economist (or MSM, or Western in general), respect democracy. i.e., had the Chinese government gone through the test of democracy, like the Maoist in Nepal did, the MSM might eventually have to go through a soul-searching process (like the Economist in its second article). Perhaps until that day, the MSM is still against China, consciously or subconsciouly?
   

It thence appears, it is not really free reporting in T0bet that had contributed to the MSM biase. It is the original sin of China as a communist country in name (even though it is now more capitalistic than 2/3 of the European countries), and perhaps also about other something, for example, this, and this.

Reading list Mar-Apr 2008

(see"slitty eye" link below -- btw, the railway is on electric cars and there is no smoke)

On T0-bed

• Blogdai interview with Kadfly
  
• Kadfly replied
• Why They Hate China
  Well, you have to hate someone…(antiwar.com)
• A Compendium of Recent Anti-Anti-Chinese (Government?) Articles
• Slitty eyes and buck teeth? It must be China
• Backstage Role of China's Army in Tibet Unrest Is a Contrast to 1989
• 留法学生李洹的精彩演讲全文
• Don't Feed China's Nationalism
• On Tibet and Propaganda: Follow the "Information"
• Tibet history (and geography)
• 西媒的新闻专业错误 / 停云
• The invasion of the robotic thugs
• 西藏问题的困境和未来
• What matters is people understand that California is the most powerful state in the world!
• Did the Tibet protests backfire?
• zt汉藏和谐
• Bowring: Beware an angry China
• The Protests, the Olympics, and Race.
• At war with the utopia of modernity
• CHINA'S COMING OUT PARTY
• Tibet and Palestine - by an Israeli
• MIDDLE WAY TO THE MIDDLE KINGDOM
• Interview with Frank Sieren
• The Economist on Nepal's Tibetans
• 為西藏問題尋找最大公約數
• Even Jogging Is A Crime Post-March 14
• 英国对西藏的“关注”
• 藏独的暴力准备
• Protests in Tibet and Separatism: the Olympics and Beyond
• 看西藏问题媒体战：中国政治改革何不从媒体开始
• Tibet Through Chinese Eyes
• 拉萨之春
• 陰謀與虔誠﹕西藏騷亂的來龍去脈
• A few notes on Tibet
• 今日的黄沙，和上周六晴空万里对比图
• Same 'Facts', Two Conspiracy Theories
• Taiwan's political business
• Lhasa under siege
• 藏传佛教与藏族兴衰
• 英国对西藏的“关注”

Others

• 色戒电影与剧本之差异探究
• 民主耆英面對現實
• 流感高峰 2.0 (?)
• 嫉妒制造神话
• 真虚伪 - 林奕华
• 阿娇何需道歉? - 林奕华
• 他還欠一個交待
• 王佳芝和易先生的相互识破
• 北京奥运会的绊脚石
• A sorry Hollywood story
• Mia Farrow's "Genocide Olympics"
• 斯皮尔伯格，奥运以及石油

It is time to claim victory and call off the boycott... and why boycott is often a bad idea

The Carrefour boycott seems to be sending a signal to its German counterpart. Meanwhile, the LVMH "kow-towed".

Size does matter. An a limited scale boycott demonstrated the China consumer power. The Chinese citizens seems to have won a small battle in the game of boycotting buff with the West. But it is hard to see who will win the war in the longer term.

Simple economic: free market economy values choice. The more choices you have, the more opportunity you will find a better deal.

As a result, any boycott in trade, whether it hurts your target or not, hurts yourself first.

That is why I always think boycott, any kind of boycott, be it Chinese product, Olympic, Carrefour, are stupid ideas. Threatening of a boycott is also in general a bad idea, though there is occasional exception -- i.e., if you achieve your objective before you begin to hurt your own interest. The American have palyed this game on "Made in China" for quite a while, only in very isolated cases it worked.

So it is time for the Chinese citizens (and netizens) to claim victory and retreat. Carrefour is (1) innocent and (2) surrendered. There is really no point fighting again. Continue the boycott will not only hurt both side, but worst of all, it will convince Carrefour that it does not really matter what it does (see earlier post of why you should tell the truth if you really want to help the Tibetans)

If they still find themselves energetic, then bluff at Mercedes-Benz/BMW, or Walmart. But the games of bluffing are dangerous, they could backfire. Because anyone who is calling for a boycott of any kind, remember there are a few conditions that need to be met

1. A specific result (which is achievable). e.g. a clarification announcement from Carrefour's major sharehold Arnault is one, something which violates WTO rules is not
2. You need to be able to materialize your bluff. It seems Arnault yielded before we could see how large the impact on Carrefour could be. Apparently the capitalists does not want to risk even a single cent of revenue
3. There is cost in any kind of boycott. So the calculate your cost before carrying it out. Usually your cost is higher than the cost of your target (anyone venture a proof?)
4. If your bluff is called and couldn't be fulfilled. Then you can never bluff again. (e.g., the Schumer-Graham Bill)
   

---
p.s. The fact that I do not buy Luis Vuitton because I think it is over priced is not an act of boycott, but an act of expressing my personal choice.

p.s.2. Why boycott is a bad idea

While I agree with Jin Jing on not boycotting, I do not agree with her reasoning (I also disagree with those who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with the angry netizens, they have become angry netizens themselves by saying so)

• Jin Jing said boycotting Careefour will hurt its employee's, this is not quite true
• (1) A limited boycott will only hurt short term profit, not the employees, assuming Carrefour started as a financially sound company
• (2) Boycotting Carrefour mean purchasing somewhere else (the demand is still there), so whoever laid off by Carrefour could still find job in, e.g. Walmart, as revenue is shifted there and so is the job opening
• This works in parallel to Americans(or French) boycotting Made in China goods, the factory may shift to Vietnam but the demand change is usually small (unlesss price is changed significant)
• In the end, the consumer (whoever limited himself with less choice) is the one who suffer (most), as he is seeking a less than optimal deal

Having said that, there are other reasons not to boycott Carrefour. Carrefour's operating in China, assuming it is reasonably successful, means it has contributed to China by bringing in competition and hence skills. As a result, the Lian Hua/etc needs to play catch up (and it could poach managers Carrefour trained). In the longer run, perhaps this would stimulate a strong retail enterprise from China (maybe Lian Hua or Jingkelong/etc).

-- this is, in addition to Carrefour helping the Chinese consumer to get better service and price from the retailing industry.

So, think thrice before you boycott.

Propaganda war

I guess by the end of today those who have friends in China would have seen a full MSN of "Heart China" signs.

There is, of course, difference voices. Some naughty people put on "Broken heart", some hearted "dalainana", some even went as far as hearting Corsica and placing a Free Corsica flag as his picture.

But mind you, this is a double edged sword. This is a way to show people's power. Imagine what would have conquered your MSN screen were it there exactly 19 years ago, or more precisely the couple days after April 15, and how the signs would have changed in the 2 months that followed. Because of this thought, I have hearted China wholeheartedly today, on my MSN.

---

However, the best propganda of the day has to be this one (via Hecaitou). It demonstrates, sort of, a similar analogy (youtube link here) --- after you finished, see this link for the theory.

video about T1bet

1) Here is a blog post from Philadelphia Inquirer on the pop song "Don't be too CNN". The Youtube video (via ESWN) is not accessible directly here in China (!!!) but can be viewed via that blog site. The blog also links to a Reuter video on the song.

The video is also not availablein other Chinese youtube clones (eg tudou), perhaps because the right was given to CCTV.com (!!!!!). Well, as we all know, putting it on cctv just provides ammunition for the "western media" (from the way that the report misread her surname we know how good the reporter understands China or even bother to check with any Chinese speaking person) to discret her. Not sure what went on the mind of this Ms Muyong Xuan. But cctv.com is not likely to let this piece of meat slip from its mouth. It is about internet traffic, clicks and pay-per-click and money.

2) "A Year in Tibet" was aired in BBC (whic started on March 6, a week beore the riot started). Video download links included in the post - look for tinyurl, they are bittorrents (or here). I do not have time to view it yet. According to the blogger it seems to be a balanced report. (I seem to remember reading a blog in 1510, complaining the biase in a BBC documentary, I suspect it is the very same one. So "balanced" or not is really very subjective)

What amused me is the blogger found a new substitute for the taboo T word. In Han chinese it literally could mean "Hidding in the West" and there is a proverb in Chinese called "Shun in East and Hide in West". It took me a while to figure out where the hell "Dongduo 东躲 " (Shunned in East) refers to.
GFW did eventually contributed something to us, fodder for humour.

"What matters is people understand California is the most powerful state in the world"

I received this sms, from a very senior executive of an major MNC (i.e. extremely unexpected)

• Forwarded to me from a friend, thanks for your attention.
• "May 8-24, exactly 3 months before the Olympic. Everybody boycott Careefour. Reason: major shareholder of Carrefour donated huge sum to Dalai Lama. In France the T-I supporters are plentiful, even the French President vowed to boycott the Olympic as a result. The duration of the boycott is the same as the duration of the Olympic, 17 days long. Let them see the power of Chinese and Chinese network [internet and sms, I suppose].
• Please forward
• Chinese version can now be found in many internet sites (e.g.) 5月8日-24日，正好是北京奥运会的三个月之前。所有人都不要去家乐福购物，理由是家乐福的大股东捐巨资给达赖，法国支持藏独者甚众，甚至法国总统也因此而声言抵制北京奥运会。那们现在就抵制一下家乐福，为期与北京奥运会同长，前后17天。让他们看看中国人和中国网络的力量。请转发给你所有的手机、MSN等的联络人，并且让他们的家人一起参与。让家乐福门可罗雀17天！

Well, I do not know how true the accusation on "Carrefour's major shareholder(s)" is. So I googled to find this article (which did not help)

• On one Internet bulletin board, writers urged the boycott because of perceived French support for the Tibetan independence movement. One writer claimed Carrefour has been donated a lot of money to the Dalai Lama.

While I do not know whether Carrefour is 'guilty' as alleged, I am impressed by how thoughtful the boycott has been planned

• It only ask for a 17 day boycott, instead of an all out boycott which is not practical
• It stated its objective very clearly, "to show the power of the 'network' "
• The start date if May 8th, allowing for sufficient time of networking

Whatever the result is, I bet Carrefour would not release its sales figure. So it may be a futile effort to show the 'power of the network' or 'power of the chinese economic influence', well, unless someone is doing "exit poll" at the doors of the carrefour, to compare the sales (or just count the number of visitors) at its doors.

The power of the network, as we all know, is a double-edge sword. (c.f. PX incidence)

Since it demonstrates the people's power, be it justifiable or not for this particular incidence, I will like to see the results in some quantified form.

---

This is probably the best analogy (or, Shanghai's response) to the San Francisco gentleman who proclaimed "It doesn't matter where Tibet is, what matters is what is going on there. What matters is people understands California is the most powerful state in the world." (via ESWN)

It is extremely unclear whether he knows " what is going on there", not to say understands. But it doesn't really matter. The more important issue seems to be what he stated in the next second. The same goes for the Chinese people who vowed to join the boycott. My hypothesis (from googling the internet forum) is that it seems to be that they first idenitifed Carrefour as a feasible target, before the donation allegation surfaced.

BBC's sudden brain death

I have always thought BBC was better than CNN (though not as good as the Economist, but certainly on par with the Guardian).

Well, it could be brain dead at time.

In a bid to defend its (and the fellow western media's) "neutral" coverage, it went in great length to show that it is better than "People's Daily"! So now we all know the western media are as fair and unbiased as Xinhua and People's Daily.
Even after so much disappointment not just recently, I still held thought that they were way above the bar set by the Xinhua's and PD's. Seems that BBC is telling me I was wrong.

(via http://gavinski.stumbleupon.com/)

Update: is the West justified in criticizing China in its human right record? Yes, according to this Chinese writer. But just say human right, the situation in Tibet is mild compared with many other places in China.

--- (cached below)

BBC NEWS / ASIA-PACIFIC
18:55 GMT, Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:55 UK
Olympic media coverage: China vs West

Pro-Tibet protests disrupting the Olympic torch relay have dominated many Western media outlets recently.

But is the coverage itself perpetuating anti-China bias? And how are Chinese journalists covering the same events? Here is a snapshot of some of the prominent coverage:

SAN FRANCISCO
US press
There was a tight focus on the protests and the disruption they caused.
The New York Times described the torch's progress around the city as an "elaborate game of hide-and-seek... as city officials secretly rerouted the planned torch relay, swarmed its runners with blankets of security and then whisked the torch to the airport in a heavily guarded motorcade".
The San Francisco Chronicle also focused heavily on the change of route. Under the headline: "No torch, no problem - they came to protest", the paper painted a picture of a colourful array of protesters, all with different axes to grind, both pro and anti-China.
In a strident editorial, the Washington Post reflected on the events, saying: "The Chinese are seeing for themselves how public opinion around the world has been repulsed by their government's cynical and amoral foreign policy in places such as Sudan and Burma and by its repression of the Tibetan minority."
Chinese press
Under headlines including "Olympic torch relay concludes in San Francisco without major incidents" and "Chinese ambassador: Olympic torch relay in San Francisco 'successful'", state-run news agency Xinhua generally painted a positive picture of the relay.
The protests were mentioned in Xinhua's main news story, where it reported: "At one point, Tibetan separatists tried to disrupt the torch relay. They tried to grab the torch, but were pushed back by police escorting the torch relay."
Further down, the Xinhua article states: "Many San Francisco citizens expressed dismay at attempts to link the Olympic Games with politics."
Another state-run outlet, China Daily, carried articles similar in tone, with headlines including: "San Franciscans denounce disruptions." It also published picture galleries of angry clashes between pro-China and anti-China demonstrators.

PARIS
French press
There were straightforward headlines, including Le Parisien's "The fiasco" and L'Equipe's "Paris extinguishes the flame", combined with much reporting of the protests, with colour from the scene in most papers.
The left-leaning daily Liberation reported how the torch was greeted with jeers by protesters, who threw flags with an image of Olympic rings as handcuffs.
Right-leaning Le Figaro had some words of comfort for the Chinese government, arguing in an editorial: "While the defence of Tibetans is a noble cause, the gesticulations that we have witnessed over the holding of the Olympic Games in Paris are exaggerated."
The paper claims that the Beijing Olympics is a "golden opportunity" to advance the cause of liberty in China.
Chinese press
Xinhua's coverage of the Paris protests kicked off with the headline "French official lashes out at 'kidnapping of Olympics'".
In the archive of Xinhua's website, direct reporting of the protests that accompanied the torch around Paris is scant.
A one-line dispatch states: "The Olympic Torch was put on an accompanying bus due to technical reasons for the third time during its relay in the French capital Monday afternoon, a Xinhua photographer witnessed."
But there was considerable focus on the torchbearers, particularly Jin Jing, a disabled athlete who competes in the Paralympics. She was holding the torch during protests.
The Shanghai Daily reported: "A craven protester has attacked a wheelchair-bound female torchbearer from Shanghai being pushed by a blind Chinese teammate during the Paris section of the Beijing Olympics torch relay."
Xinhua also focused on Ms Jin, putting out several dispatches describing her bravery and reporting on how she received a hero's welcome when she returned home.

LONDON
UK press
Even before the torch touched down in London, the British media was speculating about possible protests.
On 5 April the Times reported under the headline "Police fear Olympic torch protests after China shootings in Tibet", following up the next day with "Met on protest alert as Olympic torch lands".
The Daily Telegraph preview of the London torch route concluded that the protests were "bringing light to political murk", and the paper's website later invited its readers to answer the question: Will you be boycotting the 2008 Olympics?
The tabloids rustled up a chorus of disapproval of China, with the Daily Mirror labelling the London leg of the torch's journey a "disturbing farce".
Under the headline "flaming injustice", the Mirror said: "The oppressive security needed to protect the Olympic torch in London should ram home to China's dictators what the world really thinks of them."

Chinese press
One of Xinhua's main news stories began with a flowery passage proclaiming: "The unseasonable snow in London did little to dampen people's passion for Beijing's Olympic flame as large crowds lined the street to greet the torch relay on Sunday."
The piece went on to describe the torch as a "sacred symbol of the Olympic spirit" spreading the "ideal of peace, friendship and progress" and labelled any attempt to "sabotage" the torch relay as running "against the trend of the times".
Xinhua published several pieces devoted to the protests, under headlines including "London police foil attempt to grab Olympic torch away".
But the main focus of their coverage was the colour and carnival of the torch's procession - an interview with classical violinist Vanessa Mae was more typical.

Lhasa Anecdote (2) - the Potala crowd

The streets around Potala looks just as normal as it could be, except for a few PAP on the East side. I was perhaps the only no-Tibetan walking together with perahps a thousand Tibetan people, but I feel quite safe. Occasionally there are a few suspicious eyes but when I smiled at them most smiled back.
The Northeast side of the route is a market, where many of the hawkers are Han Chinese.
(When I was in Xinjiang a few years ago, the eyes (on average) seems more suspicous/hostile)

Aerial map of Potala Palace (the red "B" to the right are the burnt building, further east and south are the areas cover in anecdote (1) )


Potala Palace from the south og Beijing Road. The 5 star flag and a few guards in morning


The view to south (front door) from atop Potala. Tibetans praying in the front of the Palace (on Beijing Road)


Tibetans pray in front of Potala

Front gate. Tibetans waited at the Potala gate. By showing a Tibetan ID they can enter Potala (I assume other monasteries as well) for free, since this is part of their religious activities

Walking up the stairs on Potala

Tibetan Pilgrims. For security reason liquid is not allowed in (!). But this Tibetan pilgrim has a thermo-flask. I had been puzzled for a while but later found that it was a container for the "candle oil"

Atop the palace. A dozen PAP there seems to be quite relaxed. One of their jobs is stopping people from taking pictures upstairs.

"Pagodas" on Northeast corner under Potala

East side of Potala: crowd full of Tibetan pilgrims

West side of Potala. Tibetans walk around the Palace. The pilgrims perform the ritual (full body on floor facing downward) at the front (The pilgrims from out of town have to do this every few steps for the whole journey).

Tibetan collecting ashes. They pack and take it home. I do not know how the ashes are used. For Han Chinese they used it to make soup/tea to cure diseases (which is clearly unscientific).

"Dharma wheels" (法轮) around the Potala

Crowd. Seems a festival or a market day. This reminds me of Causeway Bay in HK, except the sky is bluer, and air fresher.

Let's find out the truth

Update: Interesting research from the Dailykos (Chinese translation), which seems to echo the message in this seemingly "far-fetched" video.

(update 2: the GFW is blocking this post, such that my whole front page was blocked. so i have shift the date to March (instead of Apr) so that my blogspot page can appear normally inside China)

--
An Anon commentator left some good links regarding casulaty of the "March 10-14 crackdown" here. Let's document (and update) on this.

This is a list of 40 names from the pro-T1-bet camp (which is now gone, not sure if it is due to the GFW or took down by the webmaster) released on March 26. Google brought me to another site where the list is still available

• Update on Death Toll from Tibet demonstrations
  Mar 27, 2008 in News
  Update for Tuesday, 25 March 2008, last updated 3 pm (IST)
  While the most recent death toll from the demonstrations in Tibet is around 140, we are releasing the names and details of 40 identified people.
  Since the start of the Demonstrations in Tibet on March 10, there has been a steady rise in the death toll. As the demonstrations continue to spread vastly to many areas in Tibet, the number of people who have died from the brutal military and police suppression during the peaceful demonstrations is astounding.
  While we have confirmed information on the death toll from the demonstrations so far, it has been extremely difficult to get the details due to all the restrictions that have been imposed by Chinese authorities, especially since March 10th.
  The most recent death toll from the demonstrations in Tibet is around 140 and we are releasing the names and details of 40 identified people. While we do have reliable information on other individuals killed during the demonstrations, we are gathering more comprehensive information before we release more names from the death toll list.
  We have reliable sources confirming the death of numerous individuals killed during the recent demonstrations; however, we are still in the process of gathering more details (such as name and place of residence). For instance, while we can confirm that during the protest in Dabpa County (Karze “Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture,” Sichuan province), an elderly person, a young girl and a boy were shot and killed by the Chinese military, further details are still being gathered.
  Many of the dead bodies from the recent demonstrations are being turned into the People’s Procuratorates instead of being returned to their respective families. This has also made it more difficult to gather details on the death toll.
• S. No. / NAME/ AGE/GENDER/PLACE OF RESIDENCE/BIRTH/ DETAILS
• 1 Phurbu 37 M
  Lhasa(Ch:Lasa), & TAR
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 2 Sonam Norbu 27 M
  Derge,(Ch:Dege), Karze (Ch:Ganzi)TAP,Sichuan Province
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 3 Azin around 30 M
  Palyul(Ch:Baiyu),Karze (Ch:Ganzi) TAP, Sichuan Province
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 4 Sonam Lhamo 21 F
  Palyul(Ch:Baiyu),Karze (Ch:Ganzi) TAP, Sichuan Province
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 5 Dhargye 22 M
  Damshung (Ch:Dangxiong),Lhasa Municipality,TAR;
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 6 Kunchok Samphel 21 M
  Damshung (Ch:Dangxiong), Lhasa Municipality, TAR;
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 7 Lhakpa Tsering 21 M
  Lhasa(Ch:Lasa),TAR
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 8 Thupten Tsering 24 M
  Lhasa(Ch:Lasa),TAR
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 9 Tenzin Samdup 39 M
  Lhasa(Ch:Lasa),TAR
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 10 Rigzin Choenyi 26 F
  Shugseb Nunnery, Lhasa
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 11 Lobsang Tsepel 31 M
  Sera Monastery, Lhasa TAR
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 12 Ngodup 28 M
• Tibet University, Lhasa, "TAR"
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 13 Lobsang Doma 23 F
  Garu Nunnery
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 14 Ngawang Thekchen 20 M
  Taklung Drak Monastery, Toelung
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 15 Dhondup Dolma 19 F Student
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 16 Dechen Dolma 57 F
  Lhasa Drashi, "TAR"
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 17 Phurbu Tsamchoe 20 F
  Lhasa,"TAR"
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 18 Tashi Dorjee 22 M
  Nagchu (Naqu), Nagchu(Naqu) Prefecture
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 19 Tashi Tsering M
  Bathang(Batang)County, Karze(Ganzi)"TAP" Sichaun Province
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 20 Kalsang Yeshi M
  Markham(Ch:Mangkang) Chamdo(Ch:Changdu) Prefecture, "TAR"
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 21 Penpa (monk) 29 M
  Toelung(Ch:Dangxiong), Lhasa Municipality
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 22 Tenzin 20 F
  Toelung(Ch:Dangxiong), Lhasa Municipality
  Died on 14 March in Lhasa
• 23 Jinpa M
  Phenpo, 3 hours northeast to Lhasa
  Died on 15 March in Phenpo
• 24 Thokmey M
  Gyangtse, Ramoche
  Died on 23 March evening in Lhasa
• 25 Ngogha M
  Karze (Ch:Ganzi), Karze (Ch:Ganzi) "TAP", Sichaun Province
  Died on 18 March in Karze
• 26 Jamyang/Jampel M
  Karze (Ch:Ganzi), Karze (Ch:Ganzi) "TAP", Sichaun Province
  Died on 18 March in Karze
• 27 Tashi Gyaltsen 18 M
  Karze (Ch:Ganzi), Karze (Ch:Ganzi) "TAP", Sichaun Province
  Died on 18 March in Karze
• 28 Tsedup M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), Ngapa(Ch:Aba) "TAP", Sichaun Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 29 Tashi Wangchuk M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), Ngapa(Ch:Aba) "TAP", Sichaun Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 30 Gegyam M
  Soruma,Ngapa(Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 31 Gephen Thaklo M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 32 Norbu M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 33 Lotse M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 34 Ngodup Tso F
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 35 Atisha around 25 M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 36 Sangye M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 37 Tsezin M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 38 Gonpo Lhagon around 30 M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 39 Pelkho M
  Ngapa (Ch:Aba), TAP; Sichuan Province
  Died on 16 March in Ngapa
• 40 Rinchen M
  Machu(Ch:Maqu) County, Kanlho, TAP; Gansu Province
  Died on 18 March in Machu

and 4 more names released on April 2

• 41 Kunga M Monk from Chokri monastery, Drakgo (Ch: Luhuo) County, Karze "Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture," Sichuan province Was shot and killed during demonstration on March 14
• 42 Kyari around 36 M Resident of Khekor Township, Serthar (Ch: Seda) County, Karze "TAP," Sichuan province Killed on March 20 in Khekor Township
• 43 Gyalpo 33 M Phenpo Lhundrup (Ch: Lingzhi) County, Lhasa Municipality Died on March 26 due to severe injuries sustained from beatings during demonstrations
• 44 Dawa Male DagpoTownship, Phenpo Lhundrup (Ch: Lingzhi) County, Lhasa Municipality Died on March 27 due to severe injuries sustained from beatings during demonstrations

It is quite likely that the 140 or 150 number is an exaageration. But it is normal under such confused condition. Let's try to verify if the 44 is an honest number. Well, if there are a couple of them really died during 14th, before the riot, the the riot is probably justified.

• I think the government said that 3 of the casulties (when the total was 12) were Tibetan fleeing arrest, "jumped from the building".

---

This is the refutal from the government

• Tibet police: Victim list fabricated
  
  14:19, April 07, 2008
  People whose names were included on a list of riot victims given by the Dalai clique are still alive, an investigation by Lhasa police has found.The Dalai clique's "government-in-exile" on March 25 released the "names and details of 40 identified people" alleged to have died in the recent riots.
• However, the Lhasa police bureau found five of the people are still alive or never existed. The other 35 people, whom the clique merely mentioned the birthplaces or residences of as "Lhasa, Tibet" or "Aba, Sichuan province", were impossible to locate, the police said.
• The Dalai clique announced the death of 31-year-old Lobsang Tsepel in Sera Monastery. However, the police investigation found the monk, 36, was still in the monastery.
• The investigation found there were 12 people whose names include Ngodup at Tibet University, and all of them were alive and still working there. The Dalai clique had said a 28-year-old by that name had been killed in the unrest.Also, Lobsang Doma, of the Garu Nunnery, was age 39 and alive - not 23 and dead, as the Dalai clique had claimed.There was nobody named Rigzin Choenyi in the Shugseb Nunnery, while the nunnery has two people whose names included only the Rigzin part, and both were alive.Also, there was nobody named Ngawang Thekchen in Taklung Drak Monastery, the investigation found.
• .....Source: China Daily

Commentators below will be the judge (and also updaters). I think we all want the real truth.

Is this what you want for the Tibetan people?

I had refrained from commenting on the Tibet issue, as I really had nothing new to add. I think I am with the mainstream and informed rationals, Chinese or Western. After my Lhasa trip, and seeing the continued media distortion (e.g. 1, 2), I feel there is something I need to say.

1) The Tibetans have the right of self determination. Their freedom and their rights supersedes whatever history argument. Even if it would mean that T1bet will become a satellite state of the American or Indian imperialists like Mongolia had become of the USSR, it is their choice

2) PRC has legitimate claim to Tibet (just as legitime as UK over North Ireland, Canada over Montreal, France over New Calendonia and other Pacific islands, USA over the various Indian Reserves and every single other inch of land it owns, and more legitimate than Israel over Gaza and West Bank), however, refer to (1) above.

3) Western media, people and governments apply double standard toward PRC vs the other cases above

4) There might have been brutal crackdown in 1987-1989. But what happened in March 2008 is really no different from Los Angeles in 1992

• One of the arguments is what the West was not able to see all of Lhasa during that week (Mar 10-17). Bloggers and reporters like James Miles disclaim that they can only talk about what they saw. And "PRC is to be blamed because they do not know about what happened in areas that they were not allowed to see"
• Well, after my Lhasa trip, I was quite certain that there is nothing Mr James Miles and blogger Kadfly/etc had not seen. Because, if you look at the maps in my previous post, we have seen photos and witness accounts on almost all of Lhasa where there was demonstration and riot, except a few alleys. There was actually not much that the PRC government had been able to hide (just examine the map)
• Furthermore, so far no picture or video had been provided to prove any brutality of PAP during that week in Lhasa. On the contrary, we had seen pictures of wounded PAP and violence from the demonstrator. and stones thrown at PAP shield formations, plus shield phalanx being broken through with PAP heads bleeding
• While there had been claims of 80-100 dead in Lhasa from pro-Tibetan organizations/individuals, they had not been able to provide a single name or picture! (not to say picture or PAP beating up demonstrators -- I am sure some demonstrator had the handphone to take such picture. It is surreal no western reporter or commentator has asked such question (had they done so they may risk being lynched by the Richard Gere's of this world)
• In Kadfly's pictures, we can see clearly that the PAP has been very restrained, and let the demonstrators stoned through the alley
• All the above, is not to say that Freedom of Speech should be violated. I am just saying the PAP approach was not "brutal", which seems to be the word every western media had chosen to use automatically

5) Of course, the ideal situation is for PRC government to hold dialogue with the demonstrators and allows for a referedum. But we all know that this is not possible, not in the near term, unless something drastic happens in China, which is also extremely unlikely

6) What the western media, and the Richard Gere's have done now, by ignoring or distorting the improved and restrained efforts by the PRC, is to deny its effort to adopt a relatively restrained approach to the demonstration and demonise it

7) Now try to put yourself into the shoes of the PAP commanders. You have two options.

1. stay back and act like a civilize western anti-riot police, use tear gas and your bare hands, perhaps suffering some casualties
2. use force, bats, or even gun -- the most convenient way to gain control

What would you do if the result is the same anyway. i.e. you would be condemned as people shooters in either case, whether you are black or white (most likely you are light gray) you will still be painted black. Is there still such need to "pretend"?

---

When I was in Lhasa, just when I became fairly convinced that the PAP had been restrained (listening to words from both Hans and Tibetans). My Blackberry showed a news article from Apple Daily that a few were killed in Sichuan (Chamdo area). At first I doubted the credibility. But I saw victim names were quoted for the first time. Then the reasoning above (#7) came to my mind. I am starting to worry about these Tibetan people.

我不杀伯仁，伯仁却因我而死

I doubt if TYL cares about the death of a few fellow Tibetans. After all, "Revolution is not taking your guests to a dinner" (Mao Zedong quote). But I suppose such an outcome (PAP choosing the convenient approach) is certainly not what Dalai Lama wants. If this is not what Dalai Lama wants to see, I suppose this should not be what the Richard Gere's want to happen.

Now I don't give a damn about the Olympic torch relay in Paris or San Francisco. Such shows are rather silly and I do not think the disruption means much to the majority of the Chinese people who do not even see it on their TV, perhaps the government would care but I do not care what it cares. What such silly ascts achieve is to feed fodder for quarrels (For the TYL/Geres it could mean gaining support over from Dalai Lama). But I care about the aftermath to the Tibetan people, they are our cousins. So I urge the western media and the Richard Gere's, to give some credit to what PRC has done between March 10-17. Tell them the 2 approaches are different, with your action.

---

I met an old man while touring Potala. He has some difficulty walking up and down the steps. I offered to hold his hand down the stairs and we were together for rest of the tour. We talked little as his Han is not very fluent but we were able to communicate in simple sentences. I know he is from Chamdo and lived in Lhasa for about 20 years. At the end of the trip he mumbled next to my ears something like "Dalai Lama Ho--". I do not know what exactly he meant but I could guess. Another lady who have been walking with him then showed me a faded picture of his 2 sons (in mid-teen) and said they are in India. I asked "Daramsala?" and they nodded and smiled at me.

I know they would do whatever Dalia Lama tell them to do. They had perhaps burned their fur a few years ago.

But this is what they think and believe in. And all I know is they are nice and kind people not unlike our aunts and uncles. I do not want them to sacrifice and suffer for the gain of some politicians, Han or Tibetan politician, or European/American pseudo-politicians. It is easy to talk about freedom and democracy when you live in mansions on Hollywood hill. But it is a crime to sacrifice the lives of the people you claim to love and save, even indirectly and unintentionally.

---

P.S. Reading what I have written again, I realize this is just one way to reason for a non-violent, less-confrontative approach. But I do believe such approach is the more productive (and perahps the only) option available to the Tibetan -- because of the imbalance of power, and demography, the confrontational approach will get you nowhere.

Lhasa anecdote (1): The adventure into the alleys

The Romoche block - guarded (the "PAP Shield formation is refers to this photo taken by kadfly on 3-14)


The Jokhang Block - guarded (this map is right south of the map above)

There were check points in the alleys around the 2 blocks leading to the 2 major monasteries which seems to be the focal points of the riot in mid-March. (above and below photo from google earth -- see coordinates at the bottom of the first map)

They checked IDs at each point. Only residents were allowed in.
Therefore, most businesses in the alleys were closed, except for convenience stores and small Tibetan teahouses, which caters to the locals.

I picked a small alley and ventured into the North (the Ramoche block). I was surpised when they just let me in without a question, after checking my ID. I proceeded and went to another check point (marked as "C's" on the maps above) and asked the guards how to get to Romoche Monastery (I was a bit lost inside the alley maze). The young men even told me the direction. "make a left", "Is it closed?", "I don't know". So I was happy until I reached the east gate of Ramoche, where I saw a dozen PAP hands in hands blocking the gate. I asked and was told to go away (not surprising by then). I took a picture with my handphone pretending to be talking (see picture below, I couldn't look at the screen when I ended up taking the left 1/4 of the gate).

I wandered around a bit in front of the Ramoche. There are plenty of people, children in school uniforms are going home, playing soccers in the alleys. If you ignore the PAP, it is almost like a usual afternoon, sans tourists.

My adventure to the Johkang block was not as lucky. I was turned away a couple times at the alley entrance. The young soldier (in green, see picture below) went to ask his superior (who wears no helmet), then they asked another PAP in blue (looks like Tibetan, I suspect the blues are local and the greens are from Neighbouring provinces). I almost gave up. But I finally got lucky when I tried a small alley where there were only a few junior PAP. Even after I got in, there was another layer of check points on exits to Bakhorn. I pretended I was lost and they again let me in.

The soldiers were perhaps told to be polite. They salute before and after checking IDs. Saluting seems to be part of their routine.

There are small temples inside the block there are still open. But I had no luck seeing what is beyond the walls in these 2 major monasteries.

---

See pictures below

Gate of Ramoche Monastery(小昭寺). Guarded.


Front (west) door of Johkang Monastery (大昭寺). Guarded. (but fewer gaurds than Ramoche, perhaps because there is a large plaza as buffer zone) -- this photo was cropped as my finger was blocking the right hand side of my camera-phone


North side of Bakhorn Square, deserted as no tourist allowed in

North side of Bakhorn Street, taking this picture almost got me into trouble. The PAP asked to check my mobile phone suspicious of me taking pictures. I showed him my blackberry which had no camera function:)

Ramoche Street. Between the Ramoche Temple and the famous PAP Shield (south entrance of Ramoche Street). enter with ID check but still quite busy

Alley east of Johkang Monastery

North of Johkang on North Bakhorn, old Tibetan ladies were amused at my hiding behind to take pictures. They were friendly.


Solar pot, in a residential courtyard, in alleys east of Johkang Monastery. A couple middle age ladies were looking at me suspiciously when I walked into the courtyard, but smiled back when I smiled at them


This is inside a small temple south of Jokhang, in the same block ("small templet" in the satellite map). Open, looks like business as usual

Children after school, in the alley

---
There pictures below were taken outside the two blocks.

Intersection of Beijing East Rd and Dougeseng Rd (1 block west of Ramoche Street, East of Potala Palace), Burnt buildings


The Bank of China we see on TV. 20 metres east of Ramoche Street (the famous PAP shield picture), south side of Beijing East Road

---
Note: personal bloggers are welcome to use these pictures, as long as you do not crop the picture (the pictures here are the original ones without cropping), do not distort through captioning, and provide a courtesy link/acknowledgement.They should not be used by any organization (profit or non-profit) without seeking permission.This is the first time I put up such note. But I do not want my pictures be distorted as Kadfly's shield formation picture was.

Lian Yue's double edge sword

via Lian Yue

C-C.P.'s view on Mongolia's independence about 60 years ago. This double edge sword works both ways, for the pro-Tibetan activist the analogy (and incocnsistency within C+C=P) is obvious; for the Han-imperialists it would be easy to replace USSR with American/Indian imperialists, and tell about what this buffer state has gone through between then and 1990.

---

1) 反动派才恨独立

所以，在一九四五年八月十日订“中苏友好同盟条约”的同时，双方又交换了“关於蒙古人民共和国之独立的问题”的文书。在文书中，中国国民党政府声明： “……由於外蒙古人民屡次所表示出的对於独立的热望，中国政府声明：在日本失败以後，若是外蒙古人民的投票公决证实此种热望时，那麼，中国政府将承认具有其现时境界的外蒙古之独立。……”

“投票公决”的结果如何呢？一九四五年十月二十日举行的蒙古人民投票的结果，有百分之九十七·八的人，投票赞成独立，连国民党政府派去监票的内政部次长雷法章，也对投票手续表示满意（见塔斯社一九四五年十月二十二日库仑电）。 蒙古的独立，就是在民族自决的原则下，一个新国家的诞生，给世界的和平民主阵营增加了一份力量。承认蒙古独立，对每个真正爱国的中国人来说，是天经地义的事，只得欢呼的事。只有国民党反动派才痛恨蒙古独立，他们在当时被迫成全了蒙古独立，事後又大肆造谣，侮蔑人民的蒙古，侮蔑苏联，说：“蒙古独立是中国领土的丧失”。反动派这样说原也不足为怪，可怪的是，我们人民中有的人居然也有宗主国的情绪，似乎蒙古也非得划在中国“版图”上不可以似的，这实在是中了大汉族主义的毒。

———— 1950年2月24日 人民日报 发表了一篇历史学家、中共党专家胡华的文章，题为 只有国民党反动派才痛恨蒙古独立！

2) 郭沫若论独立

这些歪曲中的另一个例子是关于外蒙古的独立的。在这一点上我想多说几句。反动分子企图煽动某些中国人的大汉族主义的感情，反对外蒙古人民建立自主的人民国家。　　

但是请问。外蒙古附属于中国的时候，中国人对于外蒙古人民究竟给了些什么福利呢？难道不是某些中国的侵略主义者，派兵攻入外蒙古，在政治经济方面压迫外蒙古人民，这才激起外蒙古人民脱离中国而独立的要求吗？我们自己在封建主义与帝国主义双重压迫之下差不多不能自保，难道一定要强迫外蒙古人民跟着我们殉葬吗？我们在双重压迫之下，稍微有点觉悟的人便知道要求解放，难道外蒙古人民就不应该有点觉悟，不应该有解放的要求吗?　　

认真说，倒是外蒙古人民比我们争气些，比我们觉悟的早，比我们更清醒地能和社会主义地苏联做朋友，因而得到了帮助，而比我们早解放了。我们假如是站在大公无私地立场，我们倒应该向外蒙古人民告罪、向外蒙古人民致敬、向外蒙古人民学习地。更那里有什么理由跟在美帝国主义和蒋介石反动地后面，来对苏联“愤慨” 呢？再请问，由于外蒙古的独立，在苏联方面究竟得到了些什么呢？岂不是和我们一样，仅仅得到了一个邻邦？　　

问题应该是——外蒙古脱离了我们之后，外蒙古人民是不是更加幸福了？事实告诉我们，外蒙古人民是更加幸福了。前几年国民党政府派到库仑去监视公民投票的一位姓包的，事毕回重庆，曾经在报上发过谈话。“库仑街头差不多每家人家都有了无线电。”这是国民党说的话，而且是有报可查的。在得到解放之后，外蒙古人民的生活和生产不是都已经充分地提高了吗？　　

人民中国和人民蒙古今后应该是亲密的兄弟，我们不能够固执着那种宗主和藩属的落后观念了。那是丝毫也不足引为光荣的！　　

今年四月，我们中国代表团到欧洲去，在捷克的布拉格参加拥护世界和平大会的时候，外蒙古代表团的团长齐登巴而先生，曾经为我们革命战争的辉煌胜利向我们致敬。他说：“日本帝国主义在远东称霸的时候，蒙古人民是寝息不安的，今天民主中国做了东方的盟主，我们蒙古人民就可以放心了。”　　

请看看蒙古朋友们的这种坦白的风度吧。难道我们不应该有同样坦白的气概吗？

———以上文字摘自郭沫若 中苏友好同盟条约四周年纪念日在北京新华广播电台对全国的广播词

The danger of confusing "patriotism" with economic opportunity

The Economist is one of the best, if not the best, magazine in this world, in my view.

However, there are misses, from time to time.

In the current issue there is an article called "Land of the Yellow Emperor - The dangers of confusing patriotism with ethnic pride", and under a heading called "Chinese nationalism".

No doubt the line between patriotism and nationlism is very thin. It is also true there the Yellow Emperor as an icon is related to both patriotism and nationalism issues. However, the preeminent reason for what we see (and what the Economist reporter observed) is something he hinted but failed to spelled out.

• Governments in Shaanxi and in Henan province, which claims to be the emperor's birthplace, are competing (and reportedly spending millions of dollars) to make their respective Yellow Emperor shrines pre-eminent. Officials in Henan say they are expecting 20,000 emperor-worshippers this month.

Yes, 20,000 tourists is not a lot, but it will grow. This is the underlying reason for the "Governments". To read the Eocnomist you need to pay keen attention to each word it has chosen, the subtlety and the message underneath. Yes, it is about money, tourism yuan, which means GDP, which in turn means promotion. The reporters has very carefully placed the last sentence and used plural and capital letters in the word "Governments" (competition among the provinces). If you have toured China you would have seen these "Yellow Emperor" phenomenon is nothing new. It is not about 'patriotism', it is about money.

There are other lines one can nitpick, which could draw vehement criticism from the anti-cnn.com crowd, such as

• "China has produced little convincing evidence of any terrorist campaign within its borders" -- seems the bus bombs in Beijing and Urumqi did not count, however, the Economist could have added "in recent years", which may be a more reasonable statement


• "The state media's focus on the alleged pro-Tibetan bias of the Western press in covering the violence in Lhasa has triggered an outpouring of anti-Western sentiment on the internet." -- rather the opposite is true. i.e. it is the internet which started the sentiment and the state media only followed. The Econmist, in its prejudice against the government, played down the power and the will of the people, be it justifiable or not.

It is the nuance and subtlety of wirtings as such which really cultured the "outpouring sentiment".

Lhasa in April

Just came back from Lhasa. It was a sight-seeing trip I had planned for many years but I was never able to get to it - due to issues related to travel permit, holiday constraint, plane schedule, hotel booking, etc. Now, everything is easy to book and i know I won't have to fight for the Potala ticket.

I will upload some more photos, plus sharing some anecdotes.

A few quick facts

• City is calm and normal, daily business seems thriving (but I should add "sans tourism"), so it looks well on-track to the re-open in May


• Potala is quiet, no need for reservation nor even guided tour. Paid 100 Yuan and wandered around freely


• Outside Potala is full of Tibetans, almost like a Causeway Bay weekend in HK. Perhaps the closing of the major monasteries have also contributed to driving the people there


• The Jokhang and Ramoche Monasteries are still blocked. PAP (or perhaps soldiers) guard every single alley around the block to check IDs. Only local residents are allowed in (but it is not difficult to get into these alleys, and even into Bakhorn street -- will elaborate). The gates of these 2 monasteries are guarded. However, the smaller monasteries around (there are 2 small temples just outside Johkang) are open


• PAP are still on major intersections in the city and a few key check points (eg the 2bridge+1tunnel to the airport). Local told me the number of guards per intersection was double what I saw a week or so ago (I saw 6 in that intersection, just enough to stop the people)


• "PAP" (they look like younger soldiers) are very courteous and salute to us every time they checked our ID. Seems they had been trained for this and told explicitly to appear polite


• Photos are forbidden in guarded areas as a general rule. I had been stopped many time for taking photo with my handphone (mainly around the guard points) but they are satisfied when I obeyed


• Gas stations inside Lhasa city are also regulated (but no PAP), only drivers are allowed in, passengers need to wait outside

---
Note: personal bloggers are welcome to use these pictures, as long as you do not crop the picture (the pictures here are the original ones without cropping), do not distort through captioning, and provide a courtesy link/acknowledgement.
They should not be used by any organization (profit or non-profit) without seeking permission.
This is the first time I put up such note. But I do not want my pictures be distorted as Kadfly's shield formation picture was.

Yi Hion Fashion Store, where 5 girls were killed by arson during the riot. On Beijing Road East, about 1 km west of Ramoche Street. There are flowers on the doorsteps, to mourn the victims


The South end of Ramoche Street, guarded - same location as Kadfly's PAP shield pictures, 3 weeks afterward, a new banner was put up in front of the old one.

South of Beijing Road East, opposite to the Ramoche Street picture above, guarded - should be where Kadfly stood while he was taking the photo - the shops behind were burnt (perhaps a few hours after he left).
This alley leads to Bakhorn Street. I tried to enter. They checked my ID and turned me away.

Bakhorn Street, as empty as it could be

It took me some convoluted detour to get to this street

-- more later