In the aftermath of the Tibet/China/Torch protests, one thing is clear:
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
All the way around–from City Hall to the Board of Supervisors, from the street protestors to the pro-China counter-protestors to the Olympic committee to China–no one has found an effective way to persuade the other to move an inch from their respective stands.
So we end up with last week’s intransigent mess: A lot of noise. High stress levels. Parallel lines of communications, just like the parallel torch route that left real Olympics fans high and dry.
That was some brilliant act of deception on the part of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. The mayor hid behind the issue of public safety as his plausible excuse for the route debacle. But where was his concern for public safety at the city’s recent anti-war demonstrations? Was that just another ho-hum event? But of course, the torch protest was different. With the whole world watching, what politician wants a riot on his resume? So Newsom ducked and covered. Free speech is a relative thing.
Meanwhile, everything stays the same because China isn’t really listening to any of it anyway. And the Olympics remain the full-body deodorizer of China’s questionable policies including the iron-hand rule of Tibet.
To this, people every day show their support by visiting the de facto Chinese Embassy: Wal-Mart.
The more vocal pro-China folks show their support by invoking the Cold War, charging racist meddling by U.S. protestors. It’s the only thing they can do to not be seen as apologists. Sure, they can claim that China’s record is improving. Amnesty International this week reported that China only excecuted 470 people in 2007. That’s down from 1,010 in 2006. Of course, these are the killings we know about. China’s still No.1 in the world in executions. Iran is number 2. And the old hypocritical U.S. is number 5 with 42 executions.
And then there are the protestors who clamor for human rights and global responsibility. In their protest, everything is qualified. They’re not anti-Olympics, anti-sports, nor anti-Chinese. But they end up communicating only with other humanitarians who dread injustice and bloodshed. They’re the ones who stand out in the cold to hear Richard Gere and Desmond Tutu.
China? Again, it’s not listening.
To add to the futility, after the protests, what are demonstrators left to urge? That George Bush not go to Beijing?
This is George W. Bush, the former governor and master executioner of Texas, who as president has regaled torture as standard operating procedure.
Does anyone really think George Bush’s presence anywhere would make a difference?
But until that cherished day in January 2009, we’re stuck with him. He’s our symbol in this clash of symbols. And he’s not even as bright as the Olympic torch.
If he went to China, he’d be one lame Peking duck.
Does anybody out there speak Chinese?
If the goal is to change China’s policy, last week everybody seems to have been doing it the wrong way.
That leaves the tried and true ways as all that’s available. Not public communications, but private and out of view. Of course, that’s anathema to true advocates of democracy, who clamor for everything out in the open. Transparency is a virtue, after all.
But that’s not how to influence China.
Maybe we all should take a lesson in communicating with China from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Ruud.
Ruud is one of the few world leaders who actually speaks Chinese. And his speech to students at Peking University the same week as the torch protest in San Francisco has generated a lot of attention.
Geremie Barme, a professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University, translated and analyzed the speech in the Sydney Morning Herald, and remarked on the significance of Ruud’s use of one word: zhengyou.
It means “friend” but is vastly different from the more commonly used “youyi.”
A “youyi” friend never presumes to disagree in public. Friendship means the privilege of being a friend comes at a price—especially for foreigners. You shut up and accept all of China’s actions because you value what that friendship brings.
But Barme says Ruud’s use of ‘zhengyou” puts the friendship on a different level. It’s “true friendship” where disagreement with the party line can be possible.
“A true friend,” Rudd said in his talk, “is one who can be a zhengyou, that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship.”
When the official newsagency Xinhua reported the speech, it hung on the usage and definition of zhengyou as “friendship based on speaking the truth, speaking responsibly.”
But it’s clear that Ruud’s use of the word has struck a chord; one that may have opened up a path to more constructive communication. If the example is followed, it could help bring China more in line with the responsibilities of a global partner.
Protest and free speech may work in America. To influence China, may require we communicate in the way China understands.
So should our dim symbol Bush pick up some Chinese? What’s the Chinese word for being “overly optimistic.” Given Bush’s facility with his native tongue, a Chinese malaprop is likely to start World War III.