Click Logo for the Wow Main Blog Page
A WOW Special Feature:
China, Journalism and the State series
WOW is a news magazine produced by the students of the Journalism Department of Beijing Foreign Studies University.
China, Journalism and the State series
WOW is a news magazine produced by the students of the Journalism Department of Beijing Foreign Studies University.
|
|
Managing Editor:
Beryl Hou
Chief Editors:
Lianne Li, Ellen Ji, Julia Zhu
Design Editor:
Teru Chen
Sports Editor:
Christina Liang
Entertainment Editor:
Vivian Guo
Lifestyle Editor:
Linda Lin
Art and Books Editor:
Moonlet Ding
Faculty Advisor:
Joseph Bosco
Website Angel:
Ellen Sander
| E-mail WoW |
| About Wow |
| China Digital News |
| Living In China |
| The LongBow Papers |
| Crackpot Chronicles |
| Peking Duck |
| Simon World |
Saturday, February 05, 2005
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Hard Times For Journalists and Writers
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Stephy Zhai
Late last year, Li Boguang, a Chinese journalist and advocate for poor farmers was detained for unspecified alleged criminal offenses in Fujian Province. The action announced against Mr. Li followed closely the detention of several other writers as Chinese authorities, concerned over the public anger at official abuses, intensified a crackdown on the media.
"We took him in on a Friday. His activities here constitute a criminal offense," said a police official in Fu'an, a city in southeastern China's Fujian province. He gave the reporter only his surname, Zheng.
Li hadn't yet been formally arrested, Zheng said.
But, "We have reason enough to charge him," Zheng said. "I don't want to tell you for what crime. We are now detaining him for 15 days. We can prolong it to one month if we need to."
Sound familiar?
As it almost always does, word of Li's detention first came from an overseas human rights group. Li had run into trouble for working with farmers in Fu'an, who accused local officials of corruption.
In an article posted on the Internet in October, Li wrote that he planned to return to Fu'an despite threats by officials that he and another reporter, Zhao Yan, would be "thrown to the sharks."
According to that article, Li and Zhao were helping farmers in Fu'an to petition the central government for help in a land use dispute with local officials.
Zhao was arrested in September and accused of "leaking state secrets," a few months after he began working as a research assistant for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. The status and facts of his most recent case are very unclear.
Zhao, who had worked for a Chinese magazine, was well known for exposing official abuses. He was a political activist and had already spent three years in prison after taking part in a failed attempt to create a new political party.
Pu Zhiqiang, a lawyer in Beijing who has represented other writers involved in farmers' rights cases, said he received a call over a weekend saying Li had run into trouble in Fujian.
"I'm not clear about Li's situation now. As a civilian lawyer, I don't handle criminal cases," Pu told a reporter in a telephone interview. "I can't help if he's caught on criminal charges."
More recently, activists Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, whose writings frequently criticized the Communist Party, were detained overnight in Beijing and questioned.
All of this is why I think Chinese political development must go along at the same pace as the economical development. These tragedies of free speech happened because today there is a regression in Chinese politics.
The media no longer plays up the themes of dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle. One reason is that this line of propaganda was used as sort of a magical potion by the Gang of Four, who were overthrown and repudiated. Another reason, which is even more important, is that the people have had enough of it and can no longer be deceived.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Stephy Zhai
Late last year, Li Boguang, a Chinese journalist and advocate for poor farmers was detained for unspecified alleged criminal offenses in Fujian Province. The action announced against Mr. Li followed closely the detention of several other writers as Chinese authorities, concerned over the public anger at official abuses, intensified a crackdown on the media.
"We took him in on a Friday. His activities here constitute a criminal offense," said a police official in Fu'an, a city in southeastern China's Fujian province. He gave the reporter only his surname, Zheng.
Li hadn't yet been formally arrested, Zheng said.
But, "We have reason enough to charge him," Zheng said. "I don't want to tell you for what crime. We are now detaining him for 15 days. We can prolong it to one month if we need to."
Sound familiar?
As it almost always does, word of Li's detention first came from an overseas human rights group. Li had run into trouble for working with farmers in Fu'an, who accused local officials of corruption.
In an article posted on the Internet in October, Li wrote that he planned to return to Fu'an despite threats by officials that he and another reporter, Zhao Yan, would be "thrown to the sharks."
According to that article, Li and Zhao were helping farmers in Fu'an to petition the central government for help in a land use dispute with local officials.
Zhao was arrested in September and accused of "leaking state secrets," a few months after he began working as a research assistant for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. The status and facts of his most recent case are very unclear.
Zhao, who had worked for a Chinese magazine, was well known for exposing official abuses. He was a political activist and had already spent three years in prison after taking part in a failed attempt to create a new political party.
Pu Zhiqiang, a lawyer in Beijing who has represented other writers involved in farmers' rights cases, said he received a call over a weekend saying Li had run into trouble in Fujian.
"I'm not clear about Li's situation now. As a civilian lawyer, I don't handle criminal cases," Pu told a reporter in a telephone interview. "I can't help if he's caught on criminal charges."
More recently, activists Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, whose writings frequently criticized the Communist Party, were detained overnight in Beijing and questioned.
All of this is why I think Chinese political development must go along at the same pace as the economical development. These tragedies of free speech happened because today there is a regression in Chinese politics.
The media no longer plays up the themes of dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle. One reason is that this line of propaganda was used as sort of a magical potion by the Gang of Four, who were overthrown and repudiated. Another reason, which is even more important, is that the people have had enough of it and can no longer be deceived.
Friday, February 04, 2005
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Crabs, Heroes -- and Zhao Yan?
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Wendy Li
People always say that the first person who dares to eat crab is a hero. Although Zhao Yan is not the first journalist to dare to speak the truth, even at great risk to his own interests, all for the benefit of the voiceless and powerless people, he is a hero. But the hero is in a fix.
Let's look at the case. Reports say he was involved in revealing national secrets. Some people guess that he was arrested because of an article Joseph Kahn wrote last September for The New York Times predicting the resignation of Jiang Zemin as the military chief of China. Some people suspect he wasn't arrested simply for this reason, but for other, more severe reasons, because this charge does not deserve a prison sentence. But still, the officials have not given a clear explanation of Mr. Zhao's alleged crimes.
From the Internet, I got a lot of information about Mr. Zhao. It is said that he is a very responsible journalist who consistently points out flaws in society and government. He helps peasants ask for their money back. He gives voice to the voiceless, and monitors power. I really admire him and journalists like him. They are heroes of the society. And China, or rather every country, needs this kind of a journalist.
However, even though I don't know whether the news of the resignation of a high level leader can be called a national secret, I do feel that it is not proper to see this news appear first in a foreign newspaper, reported in part by a Chinese journalist. In that case, Mr. Zhao might have done something improper.
Firstly, I think, as a Chinese journalist, Mr. Zhao shouldn't have given this news to a foreign media first, even though he was working for them. As a result, he put the Chinese government and Chinese media in an embarrassing situation.
Second, I think a good journalist must learn to protect himself, otherwise no matter how great a mission he has, he won't have a chance to realize it. And in China, journalists have unique situations and rules to consider, which inevitably demands them to be on alarm and careful to protect themselves. As for Mr. Zhao, to have such news printed in a foreign media was not a sensible choice. For two reasons: it may have caused the nation a bad effect, and it gave the country a chance to arrest him.
In all countries, the press is working for the party it supports, and China is not an exception. Communism is the national Party of China, it is easy to understand why it chooses to control the media. The state-owned media is the throat of the Party. Therefore media can not exactly be independent from the seat of power. Which makes it very hard for them to monitor power, and expose it when power corrupts. But what is exciting is that in China today we have a lot of media or programs that strive for the achievement of democracy and the right to monitor power, like China Youth, Southern Weekend, and some TV programs on CCTV.
Nowadays, merely announcing information is not the most important task for print journalists, since there are more and more media offering more convenient and faster news. For newspapers, and other print media, new angles and deeper reporting with additional knowledge are more and more important.
This is also important: Since there is a unique situation in China, journalists have to adapt a particular way to express our views, and it must be above the bottom line of protecting ourselves.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Wendy Li
People always say that the first person who dares to eat crab is a hero. Although Zhao Yan is not the first journalist to dare to speak the truth, even at great risk to his own interests, all for the benefit of the voiceless and powerless people, he is a hero. But the hero is in a fix.
Let's look at the case. Reports say he was involved in revealing national secrets. Some people guess that he was arrested because of an article Joseph Kahn wrote last September for The New York Times predicting the resignation of Jiang Zemin as the military chief of China. Some people suspect he wasn't arrested simply for this reason, but for other, more severe reasons, because this charge does not deserve a prison sentence. But still, the officials have not given a clear explanation of Mr. Zhao's alleged crimes.
From the Internet, I got a lot of information about Mr. Zhao. It is said that he is a very responsible journalist who consistently points out flaws in society and government. He helps peasants ask for their money back. He gives voice to the voiceless, and monitors power. I really admire him and journalists like him. They are heroes of the society. And China, or rather every country, needs this kind of a journalist.
However, even though I don't know whether the news of the resignation of a high level leader can be called a national secret, I do feel that it is not proper to see this news appear first in a foreign newspaper, reported in part by a Chinese journalist. In that case, Mr. Zhao might have done something improper.
Firstly, I think, as a Chinese journalist, Mr. Zhao shouldn't have given this news to a foreign media first, even though he was working for them. As a result, he put the Chinese government and Chinese media in an embarrassing situation.
Second, I think a good journalist must learn to protect himself, otherwise no matter how great a mission he has, he won't have a chance to realize it. And in China, journalists have unique situations and rules to consider, which inevitably demands them to be on alarm and careful to protect themselves. As for Mr. Zhao, to have such news printed in a foreign media was not a sensible choice. For two reasons: it may have caused the nation a bad effect, and it gave the country a chance to arrest him.
In all countries, the press is working for the party it supports, and China is not an exception. Communism is the national Party of China, it is easy to understand why it chooses to control the media. The state-owned media is the throat of the Party. Therefore media can not exactly be independent from the seat of power. Which makes it very hard for them to monitor power, and expose it when power corrupts. But what is exciting is that in China today we have a lot of media or programs that strive for the achievement of democracy and the right to monitor power, like China Youth, Southern Weekend, and some TV programs on CCTV.
Nowadays, merely announcing information is not the most important task for print journalists, since there are more and more media offering more convenient and faster news. For newspapers, and other print media, new angles and deeper reporting with additional knowledge are more and more important.
This is also important: Since there is a unique situation in China, journalists have to adapt a particular way to express our views, and it must be above the bottom line of protecting ourselves.
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Who’s To Say What Zhao Yan Did
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Teru Chen
On September 7, 2004, The New York Times published an article written by Joseph Kahn, in which he told readers that an offer by Mr. Jiang Zemin to retire would be announced in two weeks. Several days later, the authorities arrested Zhao Yan, a local journalist working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. There wasn't a clear reason for Zhao's arrest until October 20, when it was announced that he was detained on charges of providing state secrets to foreigners. Some of Zhao's friends believe that State Security officials are seeking to tie Mr. Zhao to the Kahn article.
Zhao Yan is a famous journalist in China who fights for people's rights. It surprised many people when he was arrested for leaking state secrets. For further information on the case, I searched on the Internet. But I was surprised: I found many comments on the topic on Google, but almost all of them brought me the dreaded "This page cannot be found" message when I clicked on them. But soon I knew what had happened.
Our press is now under a repressive atmosphere. Free speech about sensitive topics is banned, and Zhao's case is just one of them. As far as I can see, the Zhao Yan affair is only a small part of a much larger event. Many people are confused as to whether the retirement of Mr. Jiang Zemin should even be a state secret. Many people are also wondering if it was Zhao Yan who leaked the information, or if it was the authorities themselves who leaked it. There wasn't any evidence to prove that Zhao had leaked state secrets when he was placed under arrest, and till now we still know nothing about the real reason for Zhao's detention. It is only a supposition that he was arrested because of the article published in The Times on September 7.
But let us suppose the article is the reason Zhao is under arrest. If that is the case, many people think that it is unreasonable. Reasoning that Mr. Jiang's retirement was going to be announced sooner or later, they believe it was only a serious problem because foreign media announced the information first.
I had this opinion at first; but after thinking it over deeply, I think it may be a problem of state security. If foreign media can know the retirement plans of Mr. Jiang before it is announced in China, what will happen if other military secrets are released like this? The authorities may consider it a very serious problem which may do harm to the state and its national interests. Maybe Zhao's case is not as serious as what we have considered, but it was necessary to arrest and punish him in order to set an example to others who intend to do such reporting.
If the article was not the reason for this event, what might be the cause? I read many articles and found that many people have the opinion that Zhao was arrested because of his fight against corrupt officials. It reminded me of Jiang Weiping, another journalist who fought against corruption. He was put into prison several months after he had written an article exposing the serious corruption committed by Ma Xiangdong, a high-level official in Da Lian Province. He was also arrested on charges of providing state secrets and sentenced to five-year’s imprisonment. He is still in prison.
There is another such event that happened recently: on December 14, the Chinese police detained three leading intellectuals who have been critical of the government, apparently stepping up a campaign to silence public dissent. They are Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, literary figures, and Zhang Zuhua, a political theorist. They were suspected of "participating in activities harmful to the state."
That's why I said Zhao's detention is only a small part of the whole. There have been a string of arrests recently of journalists, writers and scholars, most of whom have spoken out their opinions on sensitive topics or written articles or essays that officials have deemed damaging. The media in China is party-controlled, so there are many unwritten rules for journalists to obey.
It is the media's responsibility to tell the truth to the public, but unlike in the U.S. where there is the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the authority in China is only the Communist Party. If too many critical comments are published against this authority, the whole state may become precarious. So it can be understood why the authorities pay so much attention to the behavior of media.
However, it is still just a guess about the reason for Zhao's arrest. We certainly cannot pronounce a reason because it involves many political rules and sensitive matters we don't know about. As far as I am concerned, Zhao's situation is not a simple thing that can be solved with a few discussions in a classroom. Everybody has his or her opinion on this.
What is certain is that for those of us who want to be journalists in the future, this event gives us a good opportunity to see clearly the circumstances journalists are working under in China.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Teru Chen
On September 7, 2004, The New York Times published an article written by Joseph Kahn, in which he told readers that an offer by Mr. Jiang Zemin to retire would be announced in two weeks. Several days later, the authorities arrested Zhao Yan, a local journalist working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. There wasn't a clear reason for Zhao's arrest until October 20, when it was announced that he was detained on charges of providing state secrets to foreigners. Some of Zhao's friends believe that State Security officials are seeking to tie Mr. Zhao to the Kahn article.
Zhao Yan is a famous journalist in China who fights for people's rights. It surprised many people when he was arrested for leaking state secrets. For further information on the case, I searched on the Internet. But I was surprised: I found many comments on the topic on Google, but almost all of them brought me the dreaded "This page cannot be found" message when I clicked on them. But soon I knew what had happened.
Our press is now under a repressive atmosphere. Free speech about sensitive topics is banned, and Zhao's case is just one of them. As far as I can see, the Zhao Yan affair is only a small part of a much larger event. Many people are confused as to whether the retirement of Mr. Jiang Zemin should even be a state secret. Many people are also wondering if it was Zhao Yan who leaked the information, or if it was the authorities themselves who leaked it. There wasn't any evidence to prove that Zhao had leaked state secrets when he was placed under arrest, and till now we still know nothing about the real reason for Zhao's detention. It is only a supposition that he was arrested because of the article published in The Times on September 7.
But let us suppose the article is the reason Zhao is under arrest. If that is the case, many people think that it is unreasonable. Reasoning that Mr. Jiang's retirement was going to be announced sooner or later, they believe it was only a serious problem because foreign media announced the information first.
I had this opinion at first; but after thinking it over deeply, I think it may be a problem of state security. If foreign media can know the retirement plans of Mr. Jiang before it is announced in China, what will happen if other military secrets are released like this? The authorities may consider it a very serious problem which may do harm to the state and its national interests. Maybe Zhao's case is not as serious as what we have considered, but it was necessary to arrest and punish him in order to set an example to others who intend to do such reporting.
If the article was not the reason for this event, what might be the cause? I read many articles and found that many people have the opinion that Zhao was arrested because of his fight against corrupt officials. It reminded me of Jiang Weiping, another journalist who fought against corruption. He was put into prison several months after he had written an article exposing the serious corruption committed by Ma Xiangdong, a high-level official in Da Lian Province. He was also arrested on charges of providing state secrets and sentenced to five-year’s imprisonment. He is still in prison.
There is another such event that happened recently: on December 14, the Chinese police detained three leading intellectuals who have been critical of the government, apparently stepping up a campaign to silence public dissent. They are Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, literary figures, and Zhang Zuhua, a political theorist. They were suspected of "participating in activities harmful to the state."
That's why I said Zhao's detention is only a small part of the whole. There have been a string of arrests recently of journalists, writers and scholars, most of whom have spoken out their opinions on sensitive topics or written articles or essays that officials have deemed damaging. The media in China is party-controlled, so there are many unwritten rules for journalists to obey.
It is the media's responsibility to tell the truth to the public, but unlike in the U.S. where there is the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the authority in China is only the Communist Party. If too many critical comments are published against this authority, the whole state may become precarious. So it can be understood why the authorities pay so much attention to the behavior of media.
However, it is still just a guess about the reason for Zhao's arrest. We certainly cannot pronounce a reason because it involves many political rules and sensitive matters we don't know about. As far as I am concerned, Zhao's situation is not a simple thing that can be solved with a few discussions in a classroom. Everybody has his or her opinion on this.
What is certain is that for those of us who want to be journalists in the future, this event gives us a good opportunity to see clearly the circumstances journalists are working under in China.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: The Law is The Law
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Joyce Zhang
When I first learned the news that Mr. Zhao Yan, a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times, had been detained by the authorities for leaking state secrets since September and not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers, I was shocked. In the past 20 years, rarely have I ever been exposed to this kind of news; this kind of news is usually banned in China.
What secret did Mr. Zhao leak? This is the most important question we should ask before making any judgments on the issue. Most of the news from abroad says that the Chinese government detained Mr. Zhao because they believed he was behind the September scoop by The Times' Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, that China's former leader, Jiang Zemin, was about to retire from his last formal position.
Isn’t it too weak an accusation for the Chinese authorities to bother detaining a journalist over at the risk of being criticized by foreign media? That was my thought. But, after reading the original article “China Ex-President May Be Set to Yield Last Powerful Post,” I changed my mind. It was not just the simple fact that Mr. Jiang Zemin planned to retire from his military position that was leaked, but a lot of secret information about different opinions among the authorities as well. All of it involves really sensitive topics that are banned and have to be banned in China.
As we know, there are many factors that may influence news reporting: economic gain, political bias, personal whims, etc. This determines that there may be some unintentional or intentional distortions in news reporting. Take the comments that foreign journalists made after Mr. Zhao was arrested for example, the secret was condensed into a simple assumption that Mr. Jiang might retire, which is not complete in its context, and might mislead readers to form an opinion that the Chinese Government is too sensitive and fussy.
Actually, that is not the case. I’m not saying that foreign media mean to insult the Chinese government by distorting the facts; but due to different cultural backgrounds, we share utterly opposite understandings of certain issues. As a matter of fact, the condensed truth from the foreign media would have formed an improper idea about the issue among Chinese citizens.
Undoubtedly, Public opinion is vital to a government. Therefore, it is reasonable that no government should ever risk indulging the media with reporting whatever however they want; neither should the Chinese Government. Let alone allow the release of sensitive information to the foreign media. China is a huge society consisting of 13 hundred million people, and difficult to govern. Any scandal may result in chaos.
The public is sometimes restrained by the environment--a specific knowledge level, social class, or current economic situation. In most cases, people are exposed to only a part of the truth, which might be caused by their own choice, friend’s influence, certain media, as well as restrictions from the government. Not seeing the whole picture, they are easily blinded and provoked into extreme reactions. In order to prevent this terrible result, the Chinese government chooses to cut the root by not releasing the information in the first place.
As for Zhao Yan, I’m not sure whether he really leaked a state secret to The New York Times. Although The Times claimed that Mr. Zhao was not their source, that might be a method that The Times uses to protect its sources. If he did so, I would say that he deserved being sentenced. As a citizen, we have responsibilities as well as rights. There’s no excuse for anyone breaking the law. That’s the only way our society is guaranteed to work properly.
The journalism ethics we’ve learned say that we should not report at the risk of breaking laws or moral codes. It is true that every legal citizen has the right to speak, but with a precondition that he does not break the law. If anybody breaks it, he is to be punished. As an experienced journalist, I believe that Mr. Zhao should know the principles and he should obey them.
If Mr. Zhao was not the one who released the state secret, the Chinese government is to blame. If Mr. Zhao didn’t leak state secrets, there’s only one possibility left: he was arrested for exposing the corruption cases as most foreign reporters have suspected. In that case, the Chinese government will be accused again of trying to hush up the scandals and taking revenge on Zhao Yan for his reporting. I would be ashamed of such a government if that is the real reason for Mr. Zhao’s detention.
Concerning this case, I urge a relatively perfect law governing journalism being established as soon as possible. Clear principles about what can be reported and what should be banned should be listed in it. The ban on releasing the news of SARS in China two years ago was a complete failure. Though the intention was to prevent chaos, the Chinese government underrated the Chinese public, which led to a disaster.
Restrictions are not always the best way to solve a problem; the Chinese government should have more confidence in Chinese people, and let them know what they are obliged to know.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Joyce Zhang
When I first learned the news that Mr. Zhao Yan, a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times, had been detained by the authorities for leaking state secrets since September and not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers, I was shocked. In the past 20 years, rarely have I ever been exposed to this kind of news; this kind of news is usually banned in China.
What secret did Mr. Zhao leak? This is the most important question we should ask before making any judgments on the issue. Most of the news from abroad says that the Chinese government detained Mr. Zhao because they believed he was behind the September scoop by The Times' Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, that China's former leader, Jiang Zemin, was about to retire from his last formal position.
Isn’t it too weak an accusation for the Chinese authorities to bother detaining a journalist over at the risk of being criticized by foreign media? That was my thought. But, after reading the original article “China Ex-President May Be Set to Yield Last Powerful Post,” I changed my mind. It was not just the simple fact that Mr. Jiang Zemin planned to retire from his military position that was leaked, but a lot of secret information about different opinions among the authorities as well. All of it involves really sensitive topics that are banned and have to be banned in China.
As we know, there are many factors that may influence news reporting: economic gain, political bias, personal whims, etc. This determines that there may be some unintentional or intentional distortions in news reporting. Take the comments that foreign journalists made after Mr. Zhao was arrested for example, the secret was condensed into a simple assumption that Mr. Jiang might retire, which is not complete in its context, and might mislead readers to form an opinion that the Chinese Government is too sensitive and fussy.
Actually, that is not the case. I’m not saying that foreign media mean to insult the Chinese government by distorting the facts; but due to different cultural backgrounds, we share utterly opposite understandings of certain issues. As a matter of fact, the condensed truth from the foreign media would have formed an improper idea about the issue among Chinese citizens.
Undoubtedly, Public opinion is vital to a government. Therefore, it is reasonable that no government should ever risk indulging the media with reporting whatever however they want; neither should the Chinese Government. Let alone allow the release of sensitive information to the foreign media. China is a huge society consisting of 13 hundred million people, and difficult to govern. Any scandal may result in chaos.
The public is sometimes restrained by the environment--a specific knowledge level, social class, or current economic situation. In most cases, people are exposed to only a part of the truth, which might be caused by their own choice, friend’s influence, certain media, as well as restrictions from the government. Not seeing the whole picture, they are easily blinded and provoked into extreme reactions. In order to prevent this terrible result, the Chinese government chooses to cut the root by not releasing the information in the first place.
As for Zhao Yan, I’m not sure whether he really leaked a state secret to The New York Times. Although The Times claimed that Mr. Zhao was not their source, that might be a method that The Times uses to protect its sources. If he did so, I would say that he deserved being sentenced. As a citizen, we have responsibilities as well as rights. There’s no excuse for anyone breaking the law. That’s the only way our society is guaranteed to work properly.
The journalism ethics we’ve learned say that we should not report at the risk of breaking laws or moral codes. It is true that every legal citizen has the right to speak, but with a precondition that he does not break the law. If anybody breaks it, he is to be punished. As an experienced journalist, I believe that Mr. Zhao should know the principles and he should obey them.
If Mr. Zhao was not the one who released the state secret, the Chinese government is to blame. If Mr. Zhao didn’t leak state secrets, there’s only one possibility left: he was arrested for exposing the corruption cases as most foreign reporters have suspected. In that case, the Chinese government will be accused again of trying to hush up the scandals and taking revenge on Zhao Yan for his reporting. I would be ashamed of such a government if that is the real reason for Mr. Zhao’s detention.
Concerning this case, I urge a relatively perfect law governing journalism being established as soon as possible. Clear principles about what can be reported and what should be banned should be listed in it. The ban on releasing the news of SARS in China two years ago was a complete failure. Though the intention was to prevent chaos, the Chinese government underrated the Chinese public, which led to a disaster.
Restrictions are not always the best way to solve a problem; the Chinese government should have more confidence in Chinese people, and let them know what they are obliged to know.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Not Enough Facts In Evidence
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Daisy Hao
A Chinese journalist, Zhao Yan, had a special job--working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of the New York Times. Since September 17, he has been detained by Chinese authorities for "providing state secrets to foreigners."
There are a lot of debates and remarks on the Internet about this case. Some criticize that China is moving backwards on human rights; some are worried about the freedom of journalism in China. All these remarks are based on an assumption--that Zhao Yan was detained for reporting Jiang Zemin's retirement. In my opinion, this assumption is worth discussing.
According to the presumption of his colleagues and friends, the so-called "leaking state secrets" charge is linked to an article published in The New York Times on September 7, 2004, revealing Jiang Zemin's retirement from the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the transfer of full leadership to President Hu Jintao. The story proved to be accurate on September 19, when Mr. Jiang's resignation was officially announced.
Here is a truth: Zhao Yan was detained by Chinese authorities. And the accusation is leaking national secrets.
Here is an assumption: the secret might be the retirement of Jiang Zemin.
As a matter of fact, no one really knows what is the so-called "secret." Even the New York Times said that the Chinese authorities have not told them what secret information Zhao Yan allegedly revealed, or to whom.
As a student majoring in journalism, I am told all the time to never present any information before I can verify it myself and never to take anything for granted. So, I don't think it is proper to make any comment, especially sharp comments, before we are clear about the whole issue.
How come we combined a truth with an assumption as a premise for a later series of logical inferences and as the base for remarks?
Let's come back to the case itself. First of all, focusing on Zhao's special job, I have something else to say. As we know, large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, with great reputations attract many people who want to work for them. And most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help assemble and sort out information from official sources, newspapers and the Internet, and to assist in translations.
Working there is an extremely special job; and you must consider the risks because it is not a government organization. In some sense, it is a business and you are working for a foreign company whose product is news for people in another country. However, you are working on the mainland, so you should obey the law here; meanwhile, you work for a foreign organization which has a different system and style, and you have to follow your boss's principles. In addition, some rules and laws in China are often considered unreasonable or ridiculous by your foreign colleagues and boss. Thus, there is a conflict in most cases: being committed to your job and being loyal to your country.
It is an open secret that some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive. Therefore, you should keep the national honor and laws in mind, and make every decision deliberately.
Apart from that, we should think about other questions concerning this issue. Is it real that the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement led to Zhao Yan's misfortune? Who is the source of the news?
The New York Times foreign editor confirmed that Zhao Yan had been working for the newspaper as a researcher, not as a reporter, and that he was not the source of the information about the retirement of Jiang Zemin. Almost everyone knows that large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, have their own sources of information. Is it possible for Chinese authorities not to know this? Moreover, it is said in Joseph Kahn's article that the information came from a high-level source inside the government.
In other words, Zhao Yan is not the source that leaked the information, nor the one who investigated or dug up the information. Besides, in China, people such as Zhao Yan are little potatoes. You must remember, the state system and conditions are different between China and Western countries. Such little potatoes have no way to seek or get inside information about the government and the Party by themselves--unless people inside the government leak the information.
Now, the sky is clear. Zhao Yan is not the one who leaked the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement. What he did was present news to the public. As a student majoring in journalism, my teachers taught me the principles of journalism and the personalities and abilities we should possess and process to be a journalist; no one taught me that pursuing and presenting truth is a crime. I think that the Chinese authorities also understand this. Therefore, it is unlikely that they detained Zhao Yan for reporting this news. In other words, he was detained for leaking national secrets, and the secret is something else--something that we don't know.
That is a piece of news worth investigating by journalists. What is the real reason the State Security Bureau detained him and what is the secret he leaked? I'd like to devote all my time, energy, and intelligence to figuring out the answers, because I resolve to be a good journalist. But, now, it is beyond my reach.
My wish is that some day I am able to investigate this kind of mystery on my own and report the truth hiding under the complicated, puzzling surfaces to the public. This is the most basic responsibility and also the ultimate objective of a journalist, every where.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Daisy Hao
A Chinese journalist, Zhao Yan, had a special job--working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of the New York Times. Since September 17, he has been detained by Chinese authorities for "providing state secrets to foreigners."
There are a lot of debates and remarks on the Internet about this case. Some criticize that China is moving backwards on human rights; some are worried about the freedom of journalism in China. All these remarks are based on an assumption--that Zhao Yan was detained for reporting Jiang Zemin's retirement. In my opinion, this assumption is worth discussing.
According to the presumption of his colleagues and friends, the so-called "leaking state secrets" charge is linked to an article published in The New York Times on September 7, 2004, revealing Jiang Zemin's retirement from the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the transfer of full leadership to President Hu Jintao. The story proved to be accurate on September 19, when Mr. Jiang's resignation was officially announced.
Here is a truth: Zhao Yan was detained by Chinese authorities. And the accusation is leaking national secrets.
Here is an assumption: the secret might be the retirement of Jiang Zemin.
As a matter of fact, no one really knows what is the so-called "secret." Even the New York Times said that the Chinese authorities have not told them what secret information Zhao Yan allegedly revealed, or to whom.
As a student majoring in journalism, I am told all the time to never present any information before I can verify it myself and never to take anything for granted. So, I don't think it is proper to make any comment, especially sharp comments, before we are clear about the whole issue.
How come we combined a truth with an assumption as a premise for a later series of logical inferences and as the base for remarks?
Let's come back to the case itself. First of all, focusing on Zhao's special job, I have something else to say. As we know, large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, with great reputations attract many people who want to work for them. And most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help assemble and sort out information from official sources, newspapers and the Internet, and to assist in translations.
Working there is an extremely special job; and you must consider the risks because it is not a government organization. In some sense, it is a business and you are working for a foreign company whose product is news for people in another country. However, you are working on the mainland, so you should obey the law here; meanwhile, you work for a foreign organization which has a different system and style, and you have to follow your boss's principles. In addition, some rules and laws in China are often considered unreasonable or ridiculous by your foreign colleagues and boss. Thus, there is a conflict in most cases: being committed to your job and being loyal to your country.
It is an open secret that some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive. Therefore, you should keep the national honor and laws in mind, and make every decision deliberately.
Apart from that, we should think about other questions concerning this issue. Is it real that the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement led to Zhao Yan's misfortune? Who is the source of the news?
The New York Times foreign editor confirmed that Zhao Yan had been working for the newspaper as a researcher, not as a reporter, and that he was not the source of the information about the retirement of Jiang Zemin. Almost everyone knows that large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, have their own sources of information. Is it possible for Chinese authorities not to know this? Moreover, it is said in Joseph Kahn's article that the information came from a high-level source inside the government.
In other words, Zhao Yan is not the source that leaked the information, nor the one who investigated or dug up the information. Besides, in China, people such as Zhao Yan are little potatoes. You must remember, the state system and conditions are different between China and Western countries. Such little potatoes have no way to seek or get inside information about the government and the Party by themselves--unless people inside the government leak the information.
Now, the sky is clear. Zhao Yan is not the one who leaked the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement. What he did was present news to the public. As a student majoring in journalism, my teachers taught me the principles of journalism and the personalities and abilities we should possess and process to be a journalist; no one taught me that pursuing and presenting truth is a crime. I think that the Chinese authorities also understand this. Therefore, it is unlikely that they detained Zhao Yan for reporting this news. In other words, he was detained for leaking national secrets, and the secret is something else--something that we don't know.
That is a piece of news worth investigating by journalists. What is the real reason the State Security Bureau detained him and what is the secret he leaked? I'd like to devote all my time, energy, and intelligence to figuring out the answers, because I resolve to be a good journalist. But, now, it is beyond my reach.
My wish is that some day I am able to investigate this kind of mystery on my own and report the truth hiding under the complicated, puzzling surfaces to the public. This is the most basic responsibility and also the ultimate objective of a journalist, every where.
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Don’t Sacrifice Any Excellent Life
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Christina Liang
When I first heard of the "Zhao Yan" case in class, I felt quite surprised. I was not surprised at the case itself, however; I was surprised at the passion in my foreign professor's voice and on his face as he spoke of it. To tell the truth, I don't see Mr. Zhao's case as anything special. Neither is the case about Mr. Yu, or Mr. Liu, or Mr. Zhang. They are just more examples of the authoritarian, press-restrained system in China. Also, they are about Chinese politics.
First of all, I should say that I sincerely respect Mr. Zhao's bravery. Just as his former colleague Mr. Kristof wrote in his column: He was a valiant man in such an environment. I suppose that any individual who knows a little about the Chinese government and its policies could have predicted the result Mr. Zhao received. And so could he. But still he took aim at the authoritarian system.
In this society, we are not lacking ideas--many of us have great ideas, or say, illusions, about real democracy and freedom of the press. However, we always choose to speak about them only among a few intimate friends, on the Internet, or in our diaries. With a common understanding, most of us are "clever" enough to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble. But the truth is, we are getting used to the authoritarian system and gradually becoming its guards. What we are lacking is "Zhao-type" courage. We need such people to challenge the authoritarian system. What's more, we need them to wake us up.
However, I don't encourage such doings. I mean, I don't encourage all of the excellent journalists or "leading intellectuals" to follow such examples. It is too dangerous and isolated.
In China, it is not hard to understand the danger. Actually, we have heard of several such cases before. Once, a Chinese journalist gave a file leaked to him by an organizer of the 1997 People's Congress to a Hong Kong newspaper three days before the congress convened. Consequently, the agenda of the meeting was first reported in the foreign press. Later, the journalist was arrested. Only three days.
We can say that it wasn't really about that file, or in Zhao's case, the news of Mr. Jiang's resignation. The party, the government, must protect its authority, its face. That's so important for a ruling party, especially in China. Regardless of the politics, that is an important psychological reason. Although it is announced that we are democratic, there is an unwritten rule, rooted in the rulers' hearts, that no one can "intrude" upon their authority of power. They should be the first to announce what they are going to do next.
Born in a country with a two-thousand-year-old tradition of feudalism, most of us have gotten used to this reasoning and have unconsciously accepted it. Besides, I don't think there is any need to go into the details to check whether it was Mr. Zhao who "leaked national secrets." In my opinion, he was destined to be arrested--as long as there was someone in authority who thought he should be, even if only as a scapegoat.
Maybe from my words many foreigners won't understand our acceptance of unbridled power, and even blame us for lacking rebellious spirits and democratic ideas. But I should say that our government is not like Saddam Hussein's regime. People here don't want to overthrow the Party because, in general, we are benefiting from it, for example, the great economic growth.
I have to mention the psychological aspect again. The Chinese nation by tradition is a practical nation. What most people care about is whether the governors can improve their living conditions. And there are other psychological characteristics, such as circumspection and toleration. Chinese people try to avoid trouble as long as the intrusion upon their rights is not beyond their tolerance; most of us are likely to be satisfied with current conditions.
In a word, it's very unlikely that a few "intellectuals" can instigate reform among Chinese people unless the people feel they can't keep their contented conditions. This is the root of the intellectuals' isolation.
Therefore, I don't advocate such brave doings. In consideration of the powerful government, no one should sacrifice themselves. We must have other ways to protect the freedom of our voice. In such an environment, we should be wise enough to speak against unfair policy in a pragmatic, responsible way. We need the ability to gradually change the situation while protecting ourselves. In consideration of its supporters, the Zhao Yan type courage is of too high a price to ever be popular. Maybe it suits western culture, but in China, we need practical and efficient ways to implement change with "Chinese characteristics" so that most of the people will give it their support.
Moreover, the corrupt system isn't worth even one excellent life.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Christina Liang
When I first heard of the "Zhao Yan" case in class, I felt quite surprised. I was not surprised at the case itself, however; I was surprised at the passion in my foreign professor's voice and on his face as he spoke of it. To tell the truth, I don't see Mr. Zhao's case as anything special. Neither is the case about Mr. Yu, or Mr. Liu, or Mr. Zhang. They are just more examples of the authoritarian, press-restrained system in China. Also, they are about Chinese politics.
First of all, I should say that I sincerely respect Mr. Zhao's bravery. Just as his former colleague Mr. Kristof wrote in his column: He was a valiant man in such an environment. I suppose that any individual who knows a little about the Chinese government and its policies could have predicted the result Mr. Zhao received. And so could he. But still he took aim at the authoritarian system.
In this society, we are not lacking ideas--many of us have great ideas, or say, illusions, about real democracy and freedom of the press. However, we always choose to speak about them only among a few intimate friends, on the Internet, or in our diaries. With a common understanding, most of us are "clever" enough to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble. But the truth is, we are getting used to the authoritarian system and gradually becoming its guards. What we are lacking is "Zhao-type" courage. We need such people to challenge the authoritarian system. What's more, we need them to wake us up.
However, I don't encourage such doings. I mean, I don't encourage all of the excellent journalists or "leading intellectuals" to follow such examples. It is too dangerous and isolated.
In China, it is not hard to understand the danger. Actually, we have heard of several such cases before. Once, a Chinese journalist gave a file leaked to him by an organizer of the 1997 People's Congress to a Hong Kong newspaper three days before the congress convened. Consequently, the agenda of the meeting was first reported in the foreign press. Later, the journalist was arrested. Only three days.
We can say that it wasn't really about that file, or in Zhao's case, the news of Mr. Jiang's resignation. The party, the government, must protect its authority, its face. That's so important for a ruling party, especially in China. Regardless of the politics, that is an important psychological reason. Although it is announced that we are democratic, there is an unwritten rule, rooted in the rulers' hearts, that no one can "intrude" upon their authority of power. They should be the first to announce what they are going to do next.
Born in a country with a two-thousand-year-old tradition of feudalism, most of us have gotten used to this reasoning and have unconsciously accepted it. Besides, I don't think there is any need to go into the details to check whether it was Mr. Zhao who "leaked national secrets." In my opinion, he was destined to be arrested--as long as there was someone in authority who thought he should be, even if only as a scapegoat.
Maybe from my words many foreigners won't understand our acceptance of unbridled power, and even blame us for lacking rebellious spirits and democratic ideas. But I should say that our government is not like Saddam Hussein's regime. People here don't want to overthrow the Party because, in general, we are benefiting from it, for example, the great economic growth.
I have to mention the psychological aspect again. The Chinese nation by tradition is a practical nation. What most people care about is whether the governors can improve their living conditions. And there are other psychological characteristics, such as circumspection and toleration. Chinese people try to avoid trouble as long as the intrusion upon their rights is not beyond their tolerance; most of us are likely to be satisfied with current conditions.
In a word, it's very unlikely that a few "intellectuals" can instigate reform among Chinese people unless the people feel they can't keep their contented conditions. This is the root of the intellectuals' isolation.
Therefore, I don't advocate such brave doings. In consideration of the powerful government, no one should sacrifice themselves. We must have other ways to protect the freedom of our voice. In such an environment, we should be wise enough to speak against unfair policy in a pragmatic, responsible way. We need the ability to gradually change the situation while protecting ourselves. In consideration of its supporters, the Zhao Yan type courage is of too high a price to ever be popular. Maybe it suits western culture, but in China, we need practical and efficient ways to implement change with "Chinese characteristics" so that most of the people will give it their support.
Moreover, the corrupt system isn't worth even one excellent life.
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Thinking Over Zhao Yan’s Case
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Julia Zhu
I am really upset by what the government has done to the journalists Zhao Yan and Shi Tao, etc. According to the information I can find, our new political leaders seem to be adopting harsh measures on the journalism sector, especially on its coverage of an increasingly long list of sensitive issues. However, what really caused our government to charge Zhao Yan is unknown.
If it does accuse Mr. Zhao of providing state secrets to foreigners due to the article published in The New York Times reporting an offer by Mr. Jiang to retire two weeks before the leadership change was announced, as many people have guessed, then this act seems ridiculous to me for two reasons: First, the authorities of The New York Times have claimed many times that Mr. Zhao was not the source of the story; second, the article did not expose a serious issue threatening our country's security, though it did have something to do with our government's future plans. Actually I think its content was more an assumption than a declaration of fact on Mr. Jiang's retirement.
What the real problem with the article was that it touched on the issue of a power struggle inside the party. Such cases, especially when they happen continuously, are, of course, not pleasant phenomena. The historical conflict between the media and government is clearly demonstrated here: Journalists are obligated to play the watchdog role, while government, to maintain its rule and reputation over the society, is going to try to avoid being criticized.
One teacher in our university told us that no matter which country, there is this inevitable clash between the government and the press. In the fierce conflict between the interests of journalists and the interests of governments, it is always the journalists' side that is hurt; the only difference among countries is the degree of hurt.
China, as the facts show, is an inescapable example of this. Then, since this is the undeniable reality, every journalist needs to be on alert; that is, he or she must pursue the truth bravely, as this is their sacred obligation, but to be well informed on the ways to protect themselves while doing so.
This can be done either through the law or by technical reporting methods. Pressmen should acquire the ability, and it is also what we journalists-to-be have to learn. Moreover, Zhao Yan, no matter whether he is involved in leaking state secrets or not, is a national hero. Loving his country so much, though he knew it might be dangerous, he didn't hesitate to challenge authority and expose defects in the government when he discovered them.
As a Chinese journalist-to-be, I know that's what I should possess: bravery and enthusiasm. And I also know that there is something I should be aware of: Though media will never defeat government, it can make a difference by waking the public up to reality. This is the most important duty of the press.
As I understand it, among the different models of expression and speech, China belongs to the communist or state one, in which press controls are in the lap of government. Theoretically speaking, this model intends the press to speak for ordinary citizens and workers so that the government can be enlightened and the media can serve the common goals of the state. It calls for press and government cooperation.
Judging from the present reality, the system in China is far from perfect and allows for no delay in change. As Chinese, we are obligated to make a difference, every one of us.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Julia Zhu
I am really upset by what the government has done to the journalists Zhao Yan and Shi Tao, etc. According to the information I can find, our new political leaders seem to be adopting harsh measures on the journalism sector, especially on its coverage of an increasingly long list of sensitive issues. However, what really caused our government to charge Zhao Yan is unknown.
If it does accuse Mr. Zhao of providing state secrets to foreigners due to the article published in The New York Times reporting an offer by Mr. Jiang to retire two weeks before the leadership change was announced, as many people have guessed, then this act seems ridiculous to me for two reasons: First, the authorities of The New York Times have claimed many times that Mr. Zhao was not the source of the story; second, the article did not expose a serious issue threatening our country's security, though it did have something to do with our government's future plans. Actually I think its content was more an assumption than a declaration of fact on Mr. Jiang's retirement.
What the real problem with the article was that it touched on the issue of a power struggle inside the party. Such cases, especially when they happen continuously, are, of course, not pleasant phenomena. The historical conflict between the media and government is clearly demonstrated here: Journalists are obligated to play the watchdog role, while government, to maintain its rule and reputation over the society, is going to try to avoid being criticized.
One teacher in our university told us that no matter which country, there is this inevitable clash between the government and the press. In the fierce conflict between the interests of journalists and the interests of governments, it is always the journalists' side that is hurt; the only difference among countries is the degree of hurt.
China, as the facts show, is an inescapable example of this. Then, since this is the undeniable reality, every journalist needs to be on alert; that is, he or she must pursue the truth bravely, as this is their sacred obligation, but to be well informed on the ways to protect themselves while doing so.
This can be done either through the law or by technical reporting methods. Pressmen should acquire the ability, and it is also what we journalists-to-be have to learn. Moreover, Zhao Yan, no matter whether he is involved in leaking state secrets or not, is a national hero. Loving his country so much, though he knew it might be dangerous, he didn't hesitate to challenge authority and expose defects in the government when he discovered them.
As a Chinese journalist-to-be, I know that's what I should possess: bravery and enthusiasm. And I also know that there is something I should be aware of: Though media will never defeat government, it can make a difference by waking the public up to reality. This is the most important duty of the press.
As I understand it, among the different models of expression and speech, China belongs to the communist or state one, in which press controls are in the lap of government. Theoretically speaking, this model intends the press to speak for ordinary citizens and workers so that the government can be enlightened and the media can serve the common goals of the state. It calls for press and government cooperation.
Judging from the present reality, the system in China is far from perfect and allows for no delay in change. As Chinese, we are obligated to make a difference, every one of us.
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Who Does He Think He Is?
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
Charlotte Li
I cannot imagine that a journalist who truly loves China could describe it as "donkey droppings." This title deeply hurts my feelings. I feel very angry about Mr. Kristof's attitude towards my country.
Yes I know little about the detention of journalists in my country. But I think the police had proper reasons to arrest Zhao Yan.
From the view of Mr. Kristof, there is no freedom of speech in our country. The Chinese people are still living in hot waters. All of the Chinese leaders are dictators who can do nothing but persecute the people. These groundless accusations are ridiculous.
First of all, the journalist Mr. Kristof has no right to comment on the judicial system of my country. It is none of his business to say who should be arrested or not. He is not god. Indeed, I recall a few years ago, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an expert on nuclear physics was accused of leaking advanced skills to China and was detained for many days by the American government.
What I want to express by taking this case as an example is that each country has its own situations, and they're obviously different from other countries. But Mr. Kristof's article gives me the impression that some journalists, especially American journalists, enjoy criticizing other countries.
The world is complicated. Each country has its history, culture, religion and traditions. As an English saying goes: "one man's meat is another man’s poison." It is no good if the American government pushes its democracy to other countries. We can see this in Iraq. Although personally I don't like the former president Saddam Hussein, I am worried about the Iraqi people. By watching television and reading newspapers, I can see the country has turned into a hell.
Also Mr. Kristof indicates that the Chinese leaders want to maintain dictatorship by persecuting Falun Gong adherents. This accusation is even more ridiculous. Because China is a developing country, many people do not receive an adequate education. It is easier for them to believe in dangerous cults. One of my neighbors suffered from such an illness. But he believed in the cult and he was instructed not to take any medicine otherwise he would not become a good follower. In the end, he died a miserable death.
In fact, China is very open now. You can voice your opinion if you wish to. And the government welcomes foreigners to give advice and criticism so long as they are out of good intentions. And, yes, China needs not only spaceships and big buildings but also freedom and democracy. However, I don't think any Chinese can accept such words as "donkey droppings."
One of the jobs of a journalist is to pay close attention to evil social phenomena. But he must study it and reveal it on the basis of facts so as to supervise government functions instead of making personal attacks. I don't know if Mr. Kristof often reads Chinese newspapers. If so, he should know that nearly every week the newspapers publish articles on officials arrested for corruption. If it's true that journalists who expose corruption take such a great risk of being arrested in China, then there should be thousands of journalists ensnared, far more than the 42 mentioned by Mr. Kristof.
China is a great country, so is America. Both countries share dreams and glory and want to contribute much to mankind. But the dream and the glory should be based on mutual respect and understanding.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
Charlotte Li
I cannot imagine that a journalist who truly loves China could describe it as "donkey droppings." This title deeply hurts my feelings. I feel very angry about Mr. Kristof's attitude towards my country.
Yes I know little about the detention of journalists in my country. But I think the police had proper reasons to arrest Zhao Yan.
From the view of Mr. Kristof, there is no freedom of speech in our country. The Chinese people are still living in hot waters. All of the Chinese leaders are dictators who can do nothing but persecute the people. These groundless accusations are ridiculous.
First of all, the journalist Mr. Kristof has no right to comment on the judicial system of my country. It is none of his business to say who should be arrested or not. He is not god. Indeed, I recall a few years ago, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an expert on nuclear physics was accused of leaking advanced skills to China and was detained for many days by the American government.
What I want to express by taking this case as an example is that each country has its own situations, and they're obviously different from other countries. But Mr. Kristof's article gives me the impression that some journalists, especially American journalists, enjoy criticizing other countries.
The world is complicated. Each country has its history, culture, religion and traditions. As an English saying goes: "one man's meat is another man’s poison." It is no good if the American government pushes its democracy to other countries. We can see this in Iraq. Although personally I don't like the former president Saddam Hussein, I am worried about the Iraqi people. By watching television and reading newspapers, I can see the country has turned into a hell.
Also Mr. Kristof indicates that the Chinese leaders want to maintain dictatorship by persecuting Falun Gong adherents. This accusation is even more ridiculous. Because China is a developing country, many people do not receive an adequate education. It is easier for them to believe in dangerous cults. One of my neighbors suffered from such an illness. But he believed in the cult and he was instructed not to take any medicine otherwise he would not become a good follower. In the end, he died a miserable death.
In fact, China is very open now. You can voice your opinion if you wish to. And the government welcomes foreigners to give advice and criticism so long as they are out of good intentions. And, yes, China needs not only spaceships and big buildings but also freedom and democracy. However, I don't think any Chinese can accept such words as "donkey droppings."
One of the jobs of a journalist is to pay close attention to evil social phenomena. But he must study it and reveal it on the basis of facts so as to supervise government functions instead of making personal attacks. I don't know if Mr. Kristof often reads Chinese newspapers. If so, he should know that nearly every week the newspapers publish articles on officials arrested for corruption. If it's true that journalists who expose corruption take such a great risk of being arrested in China, then there should be thousands of journalists ensnared, far more than the 42 mentioned by Mr. Kristof.
China is a great country, so is America. Both countries share dreams and glory and want to contribute much to mankind. But the dream and the glory should be based on mutual respect and understanding.
Monday, January 31, 2005
CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Unheard Voices in China
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Lianne Li
Zhao Yan, The New York Times Beijing Bureau, suspected of leaking state secrets; Shi Tao, Hunan journalist and poet, suspected of leaking state secrets; Jiang Weiping, journalist of Wen Hui newspaper, imprisoned for leaking state secrets; Yu Hua, Liu Xiaobo, founders of the Chinese PEN Chapter, arrested and released, after allowing police to search their computer; Jiao Guobiao, a professor of the Journalism Department of Peking University, banned from lecturing.
The list goes on, and still the general public is kept from knowing any of it. Although the call for press freedom has been increasingly louder with the opening up of China's media market and the growth of market-oriented media, there are still voices unheard, arrested mainly by three types of force: the force of routine, the force of opposition, and the force of corruption.
Routine kills voices. It cannot be more plain than in Zhao Yan's case. The New York Times employee was arrested on suspicion of leaking former President Jiang Zemin's plan of resignation. Suppose he did leak the secret, regardless of a lack of proof and the Times' claim that he had not been the source, the state had the need to arrest him in order to exercise regulation in the media sphere.
The Chinese law concerning secrecy in public media states that any one working in the government has to apply for permission before revealing information concerning state secrets to journalists. The confidential information of Jiang Zemin's plan for resignation was known only within the government. Since the state-controlled media had been kept away from it, it was therefore inevitably considered illegal for a Chinese journalist to pass on the information to foreign media without notifying the authorities.
The problem lies in a contradiction of news value and practices--what was considered news was held to be a state secret by the central government. Outsiders of the government may argue that the resignation of a former governmental leader was only a small piece of Party news; but to the insiders, it was not something that would contribute to press freedoms, instead, it could be a destroyer of peace, something always feared by the government.
The September 7 article written by Joseph Khan revealed not only the plan of resignation of a government leader, but also the possible existence of a power struggle within the outwardly peaceful central government. If such a power struggle existed, it was definitely not a good idea to let the citizens know what was happening, for it "threatens the stability of the state." If the power struggle didn't exist as spectators assumed, the government would still want to quell such rumors for they would still "threaten the stability of the state." The practice of journalism, according to the regulations, should be guided by the policies and strategies of the central government and the party, and represent the eyes and nose and throat and tongue of the party and the people.
Journalism in China is never considered, as in some western countries, to be the independent fourth power of the state, and to serve the citizen's interest. State and party has to come first. Although it's true that journalists are given the right of reporting freely, political matters are required to be reported under the rules of the Party; the disclosure of any unchecked information is bordering on leaking state secrets.
The western media's commonplace practice of uncovering "real" news from confidential sources within the government inevitably fails in China, labeled with spying. Secret, inside voices are routinely held dangerous on account of their potential to arouse rumors and unrest, and are hushed up with little regard for the general effect. But, people won't stop suspecting government without inside information; instead, they may fall deeper into disbelief and doubt when there are only hints of something wrong. What is meant to bring peace and stability might produce the opposite.
Opposition arrests a different kind of voice. Jiao Guobiao, a Peking University Professor, wrote a radical article mocking the propaganda ministry of the government and published it on the Internet more than half-a-year ago. The article enumerated 14 "diseases" of the propaganda ministry in offensive language, which became the main reason for the ban on his lectures.
Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo were detained for several days and returned with the warning not to publish political arguments on the Internet. They were banned under a different charge: spreading criticism of the government. Their opposing views, whether right or not, were only meant to express their opinions, but were considered by the authorities to be a negative influence on the public.
The government's promise to allow more freedom of expression makes the arrest of such voices inexplicable. The growth of Chinese society has seen much intellectual progress, but tolerance and freedom are still coming up short. Nevertheless, the liberal trend is unlikely to turn back. With much confidence, we can say more criticisms are bound to be heard.
The cruelest arrests result from corruption. Jiang Weiping, a journalist who uncovered the corruption of Ma Xiangdong, the former leader in the local government of Dalian, Liaoning province, is still serving a six-year sentence for "leaking state secrets," even when the corruption was found out and the corrupted leader was sentenced. Jiang's sentence was a mistake, and remains so with no measures yet taken to release him. Surely, corruption does more harm than the "leaking of state secrets" in such a case.
If no prevention is taken, there will be no chance for those righteous voices to be heard, no matter how loud are the promises for freedom of expression. The reason why these righteous voices are so vulnerable is that they have little legal protection. China's media legislation is far from being mature; the lack of protection for journalists working to expose corruption places them in a precarious position between right and wrong. The tragedy of Jiang Weiping is not merely his own, but belongs to an entire generation of journalists.
It won't be possible for the state to be free and stable without different voices. It won't be possible to rid the unheard voices from prison without a fair government. And it won't be possible for more such voices to be heard without a harmonious political environment. What is needed by the journalists of tomorrow is a guarantee of their right to speak.
[See Series Introduction-- the Editors]
By Lianne Li
Zhao Yan, The New York Times Beijing Bureau, suspected of leaking state secrets; Shi Tao, Hunan journalist and poet, suspected of leaking state secrets; Jiang Weiping, journalist of Wen Hui newspaper, imprisoned for leaking state secrets; Yu Hua, Liu Xiaobo, founders of the Chinese PEN Chapter, arrested and released, after allowing police to search their computer; Jiao Guobiao, a professor of the Journalism Department of Peking University, banned from lecturing.
The list goes on, and still the general public is kept from knowing any of it. Although the call for press freedom has been increasingly louder with the opening up of China's media market and the growth of market-oriented media, there are still voices unheard, arrested mainly by three types of force: the force of routine, the force of opposition, and the force of corruption.
Routine kills voices. It cannot be more plain than in Zhao Yan's case. The New York Times employee was arrested on suspicion of leaking former President Jiang Zemin's plan of resignation. Suppose he did leak the secret, regardless of a lack of proof and the Times' claim that he had not been the source, the state had the need to arrest him in order to exercise regulation in the media sphere.
The Chinese law concerning secrecy in public media states that any one working in the government has to apply for permission before revealing information concerning state secrets to journalists. The confidential information of Jiang Zemin's plan for resignation was known only within the government. Since the state-controlled media had been kept away from it, it was therefore inevitably considered illegal for a Chinese journalist to pass on the information to foreign media without notifying the authorities.
The problem lies in a contradiction of news value and practices--what was considered news was held to be a state secret by the central government. Outsiders of the government may argue that the resignation of a former governmental leader was only a small piece of Party news; but to the insiders, it was not something that would contribute to press freedoms, instead, it could be a destroyer of peace, something always feared by the government.
The September 7 article written by Joseph Khan revealed not only the plan of resignation of a government leader, but also the possible existence of a power struggle within the outwardly peaceful central government. If such a power struggle existed, it was definitely not a good idea to let the citizens know what was happening, for it "threatens the stability of the state." If the power struggle didn't exist as spectators assumed, the government would still want to quell such rumors for they would still "threaten the stability of the state." The practice of journalism, according to the regulations, should be guided by the policies and strategies of the central government and the party, and represent the eyes and nose and throat and tongue of the party and the people.
Journalism in China is never considered, as in some western countries, to be the independent fourth power of the state, and to serve the citizen's interest. State and party has to come first. Although it's true that journalists are given the right of reporting freely, political matters are required to be reported under the rules of the Party; the disclosure of any unchecked information is bordering on leaking state secrets.
The western media's commonplace practice of uncovering "real" news from confidential sources within the government inevitably fails in China, labeled with spying. Secret, inside voices are routinely held dangerous on account of their potential to arouse rumors and unrest, and are hushed up with little regard for the general effect. But, people won't stop suspecting government without inside information; instead, they may fall deeper into disbelief and doubt when there are only hints of something wrong. What is meant to bring peace and stability might produce the opposite.
Opposition arrests a different kind of voice. Jiao Guobiao, a Peking University Professor, wrote a radical article mocking the propaganda ministry of the government and published it on the Internet more than half-a-year ago. The article enumerated 14 "diseases" of the propaganda ministry in offensive language, which became the main reason for the ban on his lectures.
Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo were detained for several days and returned with the warning not to publish political arguments on the Internet. They were banned under a different charge: spreading criticism of the government. Their opposing views, whether right or not, were only meant to express their opinions, but were considered by the authorities to be a negative influence on the public.
The government's promise to allow more freedom of expression makes the arrest of such voices inexplicable. The growth of Chinese society has seen much intellectual progress, but tolerance and freedom are still coming up short. Nevertheless, the liberal trend is unlikely to turn back. With much confidence, we can say more criticisms are bound to be heard.
The cruelest arrests result from corruption. Jiang Weiping, a journalist who uncovered the corruption of Ma Xiangdong, the former leader in the local government of Dalian, Liaoning province, is still serving a six-year sentence for "leaking state secrets," even when the corruption was found out and the corrupted leader was sentenced. Jiang's sentence was a mistake, and remains so with no measures yet taken to release him. Surely, corruption does more harm than the "leaking of state secrets" in such a case.
If no prevention is taken, there will be no chance for those righteous voices to be heard, no matter how loud are the promises for freedom of expression. The reason why these righteous voices are so vulnerable is that they have little legal protection. China's media legislation is far from being mature; the lack of protection for journalists working to expose corruption places them in a precarious position between right and wrong. The tragedy of Jiang Weiping is not merely his own, but belongs to an entire generation of journalists.
It won't be possible for the state to be free and stable without different voices. It won't be possible to rid the unheard voices from prison without a fair government. And it won't be possible for more such voices to be heard without a harmonious political environment. What is needed by the journalists of tomorrow is a guarantee of their right to speak.
CHINA, JOURNALISM: A Free Press and a Strong Government? Note From the Editors
In September 2004, Zhao Yan, a native Chinese journalist working for The New York Times, was arrested by the Beijing State Security Bureau and accused of "revealing state secrets." Since it is a journalism story that goes to the heart of the ages-old conundrum of how to balance the people's right to know with the sworn duty of a government to protect national interests, as English language journalism majors, Mr. Zhao's case and his continued detention became a part of our studies. And our writing. Consequently, a series of opinion and commentary essays representing a wide range of thoughts on the issue will follow in these pages. We believe you will find much food for thought on a complex dilemma.
To bring you up to date on the Zhao case, below are three articles published in the New York Times.
Thank you,
The editors
* * *
The New York Times FOREIGN DESK | September 24, 2004, Friday
Researcher for The Times in China Is Detained
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 9 , Column 1
A Chinese research assistant in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times has been detained on suspicion of revealing state secrets.
The research assistant, Zhao Yan, was detained on Sept. 17 while in Shanghai on personal business. His family received formal notice on Sept. 21, from the Beijing State Security Bureau, that Mr. Zhao was "in criminal detention under suspicion of illegally providing state secrets to foreigners."
"We are deeply, deeply concerned about the detention of Zhao Yan," said Susan Chira, foreign editor of The Times. "We are doing everything we can to assure his safety and we are helping his family get legal assistance."
"We can state categorically that Mr. Zhao has not provided any state secrets to our newspaper," Ms. Chira said.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, has contacted the White House, the State Department and the Chinese government on Mr. Zhao's behalf.
Some Beijing journalists have speculated that the detention is linked to an article in The Times on Sept. 7 reporting the unexpected news that the former Communist Party chairman, Jiang Zemin, planned to resign his last position of power, as chairman of the Central Military Commission. The article cited unnamed sources with ties to the leadership.
Deliberations among party leaders are highly secretive in China, and leaks are considered a crime. In this case, the accuracy of the article was confirmed last Sunday, when Mr. Jiang relinquished his military post.
The Chinese authorities have not notified The Times about Mr. Zhao's detention and have not said what secret information he allegedly revealed, or to whom, Ms. Chira said.
Most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help scour official sources, newspapers and the Internet for information, and to assist in translations. Some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive.
But the criminal laws on leaking state secrets, while vague about the definition of a secret, are unusually severe, with lengthy prison terms possible for those convicted.
"We are eager to ensure that no local employee of The Times be held responsible for news coverage by our correspondents," Ms. Chira said.
Ms. Chira stressed that Mr. Zhao was employed as a researcher, to assist correspondents in gathering information, and that he had not functioned as a reporter or writer.
The Times's Beijing bureau hired Mr. Zhao in May of this year. He previously worked for China Reform, a magazine known for its articles on farmers' and labor rights, and he was known for aggressive reporting on government abuses of power.
* * *
Next we have an excerpt from the article in question, written by Joseph Kahn:
China Ex-President May Be Set to Yield Last Powerful Post
BEIJING, Sept. 6 - Jiang Zemin, China's military chief and senior leader, has told Communist Party officials that he plans to resign, prompting an intense and so far inconclusive struggle for control of the armed forces, two people with leadership connections say.
Mr. Jiang's offer to relinquish authority as chairman of the Central Military Commission potentially gives Hu Jintao - who succeeded Mr. Jiang as head of the Communist Party and president of China in 2002 and is now vice chairman of the military commission - a chance to become the country's undisputed top leader, commanding the state, the army and the ruling party.
But people here who were informed about a bargaining session under way at a government compound in western Beijing said it remained unclear whether Mr. Jiang genuinely intended to step aside, or if he would do so on terms acceptable to Mr. Hu.
Chinese political battles are often waged by indirection, with senior officials rarely stating their bottom line and often relying on supporters to represent their interests. Thus, one official said, it is possible that Mr. Jiang, 78, has calculated that he will be called on to remain military chief or to hold another position of influence.
Still, Mr. Jiang's planned resignation, which he announced to a meeting of senior party officials late last week, is an indication that the horse-trading under way before the convening of a national party meeting this month is the most contentious since a partial transfer of power to younger leaders took place in 2002, the people who were told about the proceedings said.
If Mr. Hu, who is 62, were to gain control of the armed forces, he could potentially carry out an agenda that some analysts say is more open to change at home and possibly less truculent in managing local hot spots like Hong Kong and Taiwan.
China's party-controlled news media have not reported on the secretive meetings. People who described the proceedings on condition of anonymity probably have only a partial understanding of what happened and have received their information from other individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome.
There are signs, though, that the jockeying goes beyond the closed-door deliberations that precede any major party meeting. A party official said he had been notified that the formal agenda for the coming meeting of the party's 198-member Central Committee - a discussion of how to improve party governance - had been scrapped, an indication that it had been overtaken by the broader power struggle. ...
For a fuller understanding of the issue, you should read the complete article at The New York Times.
* * *
Next comes a column written by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. Kristof, a former Beijing bureau chief for The New York Times, returns frequently to China, and writes frequently about China. In the American spectrum of political thought, he is considered solidly in the pro China camp. Notwithstanding the provocative title; and it did indeed provoke.
The New York Times EDITORIAL DESK | December 1, 2004, Wednesday
China's Donkey Droppings
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 31 , Column 6
For the last century, the title of "most important place in the world" has belonged to the United States, but that role seems likely to shift in this century to China.
So what are China's new leaders, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, really like? Are they visionaries who are presiding over the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever known? Or are they ruthless thugs who persecute Christians, Falun Gong adherents, labor leaders and journalists in a desperate attempt to maintain their dictatorship?
There's some evidence for both propositions, and they are probably both true to some degree.
When Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen rose to the helm of the Communist Party two years ago, many Chinese hoped they would bring a new openness to a nation that is dynamic economically but stagnant intellectually. Instead, China has become more repressive.
The repression has now engulfed a member of The New York Times's family. Zhao Yan, a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The Times, has been detained by the authorities since September and is not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers.
Mr. Zhao is accused of leaking state secrets, a very serious charge that could lead to a decade in prison. China's government may believe that he was behind the September scoop by The Times's Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, that China's former leader, Jiang Zemin, was about to retire from his last formal position.
While The Times's policy is, wisely, never to comment on the sources of articles, my own private digging indicates that Mr. Zhao was not the source for that scoop. He is innocent of everything except being a fine journalist who, before joining The Times, wrote important articles in the Chinese press about corruption.
(In fairness, sending journalists to prison for doing their job is not an exclusively Chinese phenomenon. Several American journalists - Jim Taricani of NBC, Judith Miller of this newspaper and Matthew Cooper of Time - may be sent to U.S. prisons in the next month or two for refusing to reveal their sources.)
Mr. Zhao's case is depressingly similar to that of another Chinese journalist, Jiang Weiping. He is serving a six-year sentence for "revealing state secrets," even though his real crime was exposing corruption.
"China has changed so much economically, but not politically," Jiang Weiping's wife, Li Yanling, told me. "It's a puzzle to me."
The authorities ordered Ms. Li to keep quiet about her husband's arrest, and detained her when she didn't. The couple's daughter, now 15, was traumatized at losing first her father and then her mother to the Chinese prison system. When Ms. Li was finally released, the daughter called her constantly from school to make sure that she had not been arrested again.
Mr. Zhao's arrest is just the latest in a broad crackdown in China. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that 42 journalists are now in prison in China, more than in any other country.
"There was a period of openness, a period of hope, when the new leaders first came to power," said Jiao Guobiao, a journalism professor at Beijing University. "But now they've consolidated power, and everything has closed up again."
Mr. Jiao should know. He wrote an essay this year denouncing censorship, and it was immediately censored. Now the government has banned Mr. Jiao from teaching.
I've felt this cooling as well. I was planning to visit China this month, but the government has declined to give me a visa. It's the first time I've been refused, and the State Security Ministry may have worried that I would write a column about its unjust imprisonment of Mr. Zhao.
I love China, and I share its officials' distaste for those who harm it. That's why I'm angry that hard-liners in Beijing are presenting China to the world as repressive, fragile, tyrannical and backward. They are also undermining China's long-term prospects by gagging its people.
China now dazzles visitors with luxury skyscrapers, five-star hotels and modern freeways. This boom is real and spectacular, but for China to be an advanced nation it needs not only spaceships, but also freedom.
Otherwise, all that dazzle is just a mirage. The Chinese leaders might recall an old peasant expression, "Lu fen dan'r, biaomian'r guang." It means, "On the outside, even donkey droppings gleam."
The New York Times
In September 2004, Zhao Yan, a native Chinese journalist working for The New York Times, was arrested by the Beijing State Security Bureau and accused of "revealing state secrets." Since it is a journalism story that goes to the heart of the ages-old conundrum of how to balance the people's right to know with the sworn duty of a government to protect national interests, as English language journalism majors, Mr. Zhao's case and his continued detention became a part of our studies. And our writing. Consequently, a series of opinion and commentary essays representing a wide range of thoughts on the issue will follow in these pages. We believe you will find much food for thought on a complex dilemma.
To bring you up to date on the Zhao case, below are three articles published in the New York Times.
Thank you,
The editors
* * *
The New York Times FOREIGN DESK | September 24, 2004, Friday
Researcher for The Times in China Is Detained
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 9 , Column 1
A Chinese research assistant in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times has been detained on suspicion of revealing state secrets.
The research assistant, Zhao Yan, was detained on Sept. 17 while in Shanghai on personal business. His family received formal notice on Sept. 21, from the Beijing State Security Bureau, that Mr. Zhao was "in criminal detention under suspicion of illegally providing state secrets to foreigners."
"We are deeply, deeply concerned about the detention of Zhao Yan," said Susan Chira, foreign editor of The Times. "We are doing everything we can to assure his safety and we are helping his family get legal assistance."
"We can state categorically that Mr. Zhao has not provided any state secrets to our newspaper," Ms. Chira said.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, has contacted the White House, the State Department and the Chinese government on Mr. Zhao's behalf.
Some Beijing journalists have speculated that the detention is linked to an article in The Times on Sept. 7 reporting the unexpected news that the former Communist Party chairman, Jiang Zemin, planned to resign his last position of power, as chairman of the Central Military Commission. The article cited unnamed sources with ties to the leadership.
Deliberations among party leaders are highly secretive in China, and leaks are considered a crime. In this case, the accuracy of the article was confirmed last Sunday, when Mr. Jiang relinquished his military post.
The Chinese authorities have not notified The Times about Mr. Zhao's detention and have not said what secret information he allegedly revealed, or to whom, Ms. Chira said.
Most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help scour official sources, newspapers and the Internet for information, and to assist in translations. Some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive.
But the criminal laws on leaking state secrets, while vague about the definition of a secret, are unusually severe, with lengthy prison terms possible for those convicted.
"We are eager to ensure that no local employee of The Times be held responsible for news coverage by our correspondents," Ms. Chira said.
Ms. Chira stressed that Mr. Zhao was employed as a researcher, to assist correspondents in gathering information, and that he had not functioned as a reporter or writer.
The Times's Beijing bureau hired Mr. Zhao in May of this year. He previously worked for China Reform, a magazine known for its articles on farmers' and labor rights, and he was known for aggressive reporting on government abuses of power.
* * *
Next we have an excerpt from the article in question, written by Joseph Kahn:
China Ex-President May Be Set to Yield Last Powerful Post
BEIJING, Sept. 6 - Jiang Zemin, China's military chief and senior leader, has told Communist Party officials that he plans to resign, prompting an intense and so far inconclusive struggle for control of the armed forces, two people with leadership connections say.
Mr. Jiang's offer to relinquish authority as chairman of the Central Military Commission potentially gives Hu Jintao - who succeeded Mr. Jiang as head of the Communist Party and president of China in 2002 and is now vice chairman of the military commission - a chance to become the country's undisputed top leader, commanding the state, the army and the ruling party.
But people here who were informed about a bargaining session under way at a government compound in western Beijing said it remained unclear whether Mr. Jiang genuinely intended to step aside, or if he would do so on terms acceptable to Mr. Hu.
Chinese political battles are often waged by indirection, with senior officials rarely stating their bottom line and often relying on supporters to represent their interests. Thus, one official said, it is possible that Mr. Jiang, 78, has calculated that he will be called on to remain military chief or to hold another position of influence.
Still, Mr. Jiang's planned resignation, which he announced to a meeting of senior party officials late last week, is an indication that the horse-trading under way before the convening of a national party meeting this month is the most contentious since a partial transfer of power to younger leaders took place in 2002, the people who were told about the proceedings said.
If Mr. Hu, who is 62, were to gain control of the armed forces, he could potentially carry out an agenda that some analysts say is more open to change at home and possibly less truculent in managing local hot spots like Hong Kong and Taiwan.
China's party-controlled news media have not reported on the secretive meetings. People who described the proceedings on condition of anonymity probably have only a partial understanding of what happened and have received their information from other individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome.
There are signs, though, that the jockeying goes beyond the closed-door deliberations that precede any major party meeting. A party official said he had been notified that the formal agenda for the coming meeting of the party's 198-member Central Committee - a discussion of how to improve party governance - had been scrapped, an indication that it had been overtaken by the broader power struggle. ...
For a fuller understanding of the issue, you should read the complete article at The New York Times.
* * *
Next comes a column written by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. Kristof, a former Beijing bureau chief for The New York Times, returns frequently to China, and writes frequently about China. In the American spectrum of political thought, he is considered solidly in the pro China camp. Notwithstanding the provocative title; and it did indeed provoke.
The New York Times EDITORIAL DESK | December 1, 2004, Wednesday
China's Donkey Droppings
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 31 , Column 6
For the last century, the title of "most important place in the world" has belonged to the United States, but that role seems likely to shift in this century to China.
So what are China's new leaders, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, really like? Are they visionaries who are presiding over the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever known? Or are they ruthless thugs who persecute Christians, Falun Gong adherents, labor leaders and journalists in a desperate attempt to maintain their dictatorship?
There's some evidence for both propositions, and they are probably both true to some degree.
When Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen rose to the helm of the Communist Party two years ago, many Chinese hoped they would bring a new openness to a nation that is dynamic economically but stagnant intellectually. Instead, China has become more repressive.
The repression has now engulfed a member of The New York Times's family. Zhao Yan, a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The Times, has been detained by the authorities since September and is not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers.
Mr. Zhao is accused of leaking state secrets, a very serious charge that could lead to a decade in prison. China's government may believe that he was behind the September scoop by The Times's Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, that China's former leader, Jiang Zemin, was about to retire from his last formal position.
While The Times's policy is, wisely, never to comment on the sources of articles, my own private digging indicates that Mr. Zhao was not the source for that scoop. He is innocent of everything except being a fine journalist who, before joining The Times, wrote important articles in the Chinese press about corruption.
(In fairness, sending journalists to prison for doing their job is not an exclusively Chinese phenomenon. Several American journalists - Jim Taricani of NBC, Judith Miller of this newspaper and Matthew Cooper of Time - may be sent to U.S. prisons in the next month or two for refusing to reveal their sources.)
Mr. Zhao's case is depressingly similar to that of another Chinese journalist, Jiang Weiping. He is serving a six-year sentence for "revealing state secrets," even though his real crime was exposing corruption.
"China has changed so much economically, but not politically," Jiang Weiping's wife, Li Yanling, told me. "It's a puzzle to me."
The authorities ordered Ms. Li to keep quiet about her husband's arrest, and detained her when she didn't. The couple's daughter, now 15, was traumatized at losing first her father and then her mother to the Chinese prison system. When Ms. Li was finally released, the daughter called her constantly from school to make sure that she had not been arrested again.
Mr. Zhao's arrest is just the latest in a broad crackdown in China. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that 42 journalists are now in prison in China, more than in any other country.
"There was a period of openness, a period of hope, when the new leaders first came to power," said Jiao Guobiao, a journalism professor at Beijing University. "But now they've consolidated power, and everything has closed up again."
Mr. Jiao should know. He wrote an essay this year denouncing censorship, and it was immediately censored. Now the government has banned Mr. Jiao from teaching.
I've felt this cooling as well. I was planning to visit China this month, but the government has declined to give me a visa. It's the first time I've been refused, and the State Security Ministry may have worried that I would write a column about its unjust imprisonment of Mr. Zhao.
I love China, and I share its officials' distaste for those who harm it. That's why I'm angry that hard-liners in Beijing are presenting China to the world as repressive, fragile, tyrannical and backward. They are also undermining China's long-term prospects by gagging its people.
China now dazzles visitors with luxury skyscrapers, five-star hotels and modern freeways. This boom is real and spectacular, but for China to be an advanced nation it needs not only spaceships, but also freedom.
Otherwise, all that dazzle is just a mirage. The Chinese leaders might recall an old peasant expression, "Lu fen dan'r, biaomian'r guang." It means, "On the outside, even donkey droppings gleam."
The New York Times