President Hu's Visit Series: Lunch vs. President's Visit
by Deng Jing
The meeting between two of the most powerful men in the world inevitably results in great expectation and excitement, especially to journalists. As a journalist-to-be, I am supposed to have immersed my whole self into the follow-up coverage of President Hu's visit to America. Pitifully unprofessional of me, I find that my concern for the meeting of President Hu and President Bush is far less than for what I am having for lunch right now.
Ironically, my connecting these two seemingly irrelevant things is quite natural. My lunch shares something in common with his visit: both are routines with few alternative results.
What I will eat at lunchtime is comparatively certain, as long as my teachers release class on time. Though there are some choices between No. 1, 2 and 3 Dining Hall, I do not need to make a route plan, analyze statistics and food reports from First Mover, our school newspaper, or consult with experts about which dish comes first. Seldom do cooks innovate the dishes served. Nor is the school planning to open a new dining hall.
Then what can I expect from this prominent meeting? Similar things but in a much more troublesome manner. The acknowledgement is already known; the proposals are put forward in a paraphrased version in order to differ from those of previous times; the topics and reactions have been analyzed by journalists and experts, each seems reasonable in their own logic.
Hence I would rather think about my lunch: it's easier for me to decide where and what to eat, but harder to know whatever new I can get from this meeting as well as this visit.
if one often keeps abreast with the media, an illusion may take form: given both sides are rational beings, they can hardly miss the right, broad path to mutually beneficial, win-win results. It is, mysteriously, seldom the case.
Politics now has snowballed into a giant complex, too big to get an overall view of, and too intricate to see through. From the news reports I cannot discern the actual difference between this meeting and previous meetings of President Hu and President Bush. The topics and collocations in addressing those topics are so alike that they sound like a play of words. As outsiders, we cannot realize whether there is an actual breakthrough in Sino-U.S. relations brought by this visit, though as the audience, we seem to see it happen.
There is always something in politics that is beyond my understanding. The visit is thought to propel the state-to-state relation to a higher level since it is the first time Mr. Hu visits USA as a Chinese president. I don't know how higher the level has become. What I wonder about, however, is something trivial. I witness the visit from the beginning without being ensured whether it is a state visit or a working visit. The difference between the two terms, and the reason that causes the disagreement in addressing protocol may indicate something, something I don't know and don't have access to know. On Chinese media the information is similar to the former meetings. On American media are comments without explanation.
The dining halls in my school are far less complex. As long as I have enough money to buy food, my identity as a customer is guaranteed. And when I pay for "beef and tomatoes," the cook will not give me fried eggs.
Eating a plate of many tomatoes and little beef is not a happy experience, but easier than thinking of the difference between "state visit" in Chinese media and "working visit" in American media, and much more enjoyable than hearing the title of my country announced as "Republic of China", the government existing in Taiwan.
Even though the quality of my lunch is comparatively poorer than the food for thought provided by journalists and experts, it goes without saying how important a lunch is to a young student who later has much homework to do and harsh teachers to deal with. Contrary to that, the significance of this visit is questionable.
I don't believe that the relations between the two countries can be determined or influenced to a great extent by mere visits of presidents without significant groundwork. Presidents are neither the sole decision-maker in a government nor the sole ruler in a country. It is various interests groups that participate in the course of decision-making and function behind the scenes when leaders perform under the spotlight, doing what they are expected by their countries to do.
(Robert Cappa used to say that if your pictures are not good enough, that is because you are not close enough to the front. However, people who start wars are always far from the front. Getting too close to the front does not necessarily lead to the truth.)
As for the agreements, oral agreements can be reached in every meeting and visit, but few take function after the press conference.
Signed pacts may not be reliable as well. As early as 1982, the American government promised in a Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqué to settle the question of United States' arms sales to Taiwan. Up to today, this question remains a question. And one does not have to go far to see that the settlement of either China's trade surplus and the question of piracy demands a long time. After all, as the cliché goes, Rome was not built in a day.
Therefore, let's have lunch first.
The meeting between two of the most powerful men in the world inevitably results in great expectation and excitement, especially to journalists. As a journalist-to-be, I am supposed to have immersed my whole self into the follow-up coverage of President Hu's visit to America. Pitifully unprofessional of me, I find that my concern for the meeting of President Hu and President Bush is far less than for what I am having for lunch right now.
Ironically, my connecting these two seemingly irrelevant things is quite natural. My lunch shares something in common with his visit: both are routines with few alternative results.
What I will eat at lunchtime is comparatively certain, as long as my teachers release class on time. Though there are some choices between No. 1, 2 and 3 Dining Hall, I do not need to make a route plan, analyze statistics and food reports from First Mover, our school newspaper, or consult with experts about which dish comes first. Seldom do cooks innovate the dishes served. Nor is the school planning to open a new dining hall.
Then what can I expect from this prominent meeting? Similar things but in a much more troublesome manner. The acknowledgement is already known; the proposals are put forward in a paraphrased version in order to differ from those of previous times; the topics and reactions have been analyzed by journalists and experts, each seems reasonable in their own logic.
Hence I would rather think about my lunch: it's easier for me to decide where and what to eat, but harder to know whatever new I can get from this meeting as well as this visit.
if one often keeps abreast with the media, an illusion may take form: given both sides are rational beings, they can hardly miss the right, broad path to mutually beneficial, win-win results. It is, mysteriously, seldom the case.
Politics now has snowballed into a giant complex, too big to get an overall view of, and too intricate to see through. From the news reports I cannot discern the actual difference between this meeting and previous meetings of President Hu and President Bush. The topics and collocations in addressing those topics are so alike that they sound like a play of words. As outsiders, we cannot realize whether there is an actual breakthrough in Sino-U.S. relations brought by this visit, though as the audience, we seem to see it happen.
There is always something in politics that is beyond my understanding. The visit is thought to propel the state-to-state relation to a higher level since it is the first time Mr. Hu visits USA as a Chinese president. I don't know how higher the level has become. What I wonder about, however, is something trivial. I witness the visit from the beginning without being ensured whether it is a state visit or a working visit. The difference between the two terms, and the reason that causes the disagreement in addressing protocol may indicate something, something I don't know and don't have access to know. On Chinese media the information is similar to the former meetings. On American media are comments without explanation.
The dining halls in my school are far less complex. As long as I have enough money to buy food, my identity as a customer is guaranteed. And when I pay for "beef and tomatoes," the cook will not give me fried eggs.
Eating a plate of many tomatoes and little beef is not a happy experience, but easier than thinking of the difference between "state visit" in Chinese media and "working visit" in American media, and much more enjoyable than hearing the title of my country announced as "Republic of China", the government existing in Taiwan.
Even though the quality of my lunch is comparatively poorer than the food for thought provided by journalists and experts, it goes without saying how important a lunch is to a young student who later has much homework to do and harsh teachers to deal with. Contrary to that, the significance of this visit is questionable.
I don't believe that the relations between the two countries can be determined or influenced to a great extent by mere visits of presidents without significant groundwork. Presidents are neither the sole decision-maker in a government nor the sole ruler in a country. It is various interests groups that participate in the course of decision-making and function behind the scenes when leaders perform under the spotlight, doing what they are expected by their countries to do.
(Robert Cappa used to say that if your pictures are not good enough, that is because you are not close enough to the front. However, people who start wars are always far from the front. Getting too close to the front does not necessarily lead to the truth.)
As for the agreements, oral agreements can be reached in every meeting and visit, but few take function after the press conference.
Signed pacts may not be reliable as well. As early as 1982, the American government promised in a Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqué to settle the question of United States' arms sales to Taiwan. Up to today, this question remains a question. And one does not have to go far to see that the settlement of either China's trade surplus and the question of piracy demands a long time. After all, as the cliché goes, Rome was not built in a day.
Therefore, let's have lunch first.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home