President Clinton has avowed that Asia will be an integral part of his foreign policy for the second term. An essential part of Asia is China and indeed his administration has already designated constructive engagement as the preferred approach over containment--a term dusted off from the Cold War days. However, to succeed, the Administration needs the support of Congress. This in turn requires a knowledgeable population that understands today's China and what's at stake. Unfortunately, the way the media has been slanting their coverage of China, the general public stands virtually no chance of getting the information needed to make a sound and objective judgment.
The Chinese nation makes up one-fifth of the world's population and the size of its economy is expected to overtake the U.S. sometime early next century and become the largest in the world. While its economic impact alone justifies a role on the center of the world stage, its growth does not have to come at the expense of U.S. interests. Instead of going out of the way to turn China into a belligerent adversary, the U.S. has much to gain from China's successes by promoting economic cooperation.
China is neither the understudy taking over the mantle of the evil empire from the fallen Russians nor, as any visitor to China can attest, the oppressive police state suggested by the images from Tiananmen Square in 1989. To look at the real China rationally, it will be necessary for the popular press to present objective findings from credible sources.
Most Americans probably do not know that the current Chinese government operates under a parliamentary system structurally similar to the French form of government. Michael Dowdle, a law professor at New York University, has been studying China's constitutional development for the last three years with support from the Ford Foundation. He reports, "The 1982 constitution is becoming increasingly relevant to China's decision making process."1 He pays particular attention to the activities of the National People's Congress (NPC), the highest constitutional body, consisting of almost 3000 elected delegates.
While NPC used to be known as a rubber stamp of the Chinese Communist Party, Dowdle reports that the body is beginning to take independent action and getting away with it. In April 1995 for the first time, an unprecedented one-third of the delegates rejected Jiang Chunyun for vice premier notwithstanding that he was President Jiang Zemin's nomination. Earlier this year, NPC drafted and passed amendments to the criminal procedure code greatly liberalizing the provisions handling criminals. These procedures were passed despite opposition and displeasure from the Ministry of Public Security.
Henry Rowen, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and professor emeritus of Stanford Business School, confirms Dowdle's findings in his recent research paper.2 He says, "The National People's Congress is rewriting the criminal laws to state that defendants shall not be presumed guilty, that they shall have lawyers, and that the police shall no longer be able to hold them without charge. Doubtless, for some time to come these new laws will often be observed in the breach, but their passage is an indicator of the growing demand for democratic procedure."
Rowen makes the case that China is likely to become a democracy around 2015. His prediction assumes that China's economy will continue to grow and the country will continue to follow the worldwide pattern wherein the personal degree of freedom increases with per capita income. He points out that Spain, Portugal, Chile, Argentina, Taiwan and South Korea all made the transition to democracy when they reached a certain income range--the income range China is expected to reach in 2015.
The reason the rule of democracy follows personal income is really quite simple. Growing wealth is accompanied by a better educated populace with increasing expectations, if not for themselves then, for their children. Better education also leads to a population more likely to understand that privileges in a democracy also come with responsibilities and obligations. Without that understanding, the practice of democracy is a mere pantomime or worse--every so often, Americans need to be reminded that Hitler was first elected to power in Germany.
Make no mistake, the Beijing regime, in transition from a planned economy to a market driven one, does not willingly liberalize its grip on the society but the rulers have no choice. As Rowen, former assistant secretary of defense in the Bush Administration,3 points out, it's not possible for China to import advanced technology without letting in foreign businessmen and experts with the attendant exchange of ideas and exposure to external sources of information. As its standard of living rises, China has become a major producer and consumer of TVs, VCRs, satellite dishes, and, in a recent emerging trend, PCs with Internet connections. Try as they might, the Chinese authorities simply cannot control the deluge of information. Information and knowledge change attitudes.
This October, I visited an interior city of China. Over a casual lunch with some local government officials in the presence of an official from Beijing and one other Chinese American "foreign expert," the conversation was informal and lighthearted. One of the officials reminisced about how he was successful in convincing some of the student leaders to tone down their protest during the "June 4 movement"--Chinese euphemism for the Tiananmen protest. Thus their political indiscretion did not lead to arrests though costing them chances for promising careers in government. Instead they have since become highly successful entrepreneurs, the official noted with a touch of paternal pride.
While sightseeing in the countryside, a funeral dirge wafted from the PA system of a nearby village. One of the young officials in our group said, "Hey, who died? This is the funeral music played whenever somebody important dies. May be it is for Lao Deng (meaning old Deng Xiaoping)." Another member of the group replied, "Probably not. Nowadays anybody can use that music, including anyone in the village." Sure enough, at the conclusion of the solemn piece, the village disc jockey said that he simply played it for enjoyment. The official who took the music to heart became the butt of some good-natured ribbing from his colleagues.
These casual conversations could not have taken place a few years ago. They serve as a barometer of how relaxed a place China has become. Americans with the opportunity to visit China invariably comes home saying they saw the vitality of a purposeful people but did not see or feel the presence of a police state. Sadly, not enough Americans can go and see for themselves.
Americans also need to understand that China, with five times the population of the U.S. and about one-fourth the amount of arable land, is a challenge for any form of government. In opening their economy, the officials have to loosen the controls which in turn multiplies the complexity and difficulty of government. If China does not continue to overcome and solve their very real problems, the consequence could be catastrophic, not just for China but for the world.
With the loosening of its internal controls, the underworld has found China's southern border to be an attractive conduit for heroin from the infamous Golden Triangle to Hongkong and beyond, to the West. While China is cracking down on illicit drug trade, it needs cooperation from the West, not condemnation every time they execute a few drug runners.
As its economy continues to expand, China will have to meet increasing demands for energy. This means increased coal-firing power stations, more vast hydroelectric projects such as the controversial Three Gorges Dam, more nuclear power generation and an increase in offshore drilling for oil. All comes with worrisome environmental risks, dangers that respect no national boundaries. The technologically more advanced nations can help China avert global-scale disasters by selling their pollution control technology to China.
With an improved standard of living, the Chinese population now enjoys a higher quality diet. A whole lot more grain is needed to produce the cattle and hogs that make up a meat laden diet than if the grain is consumed directly in a predominantly vegetarian diet. While China can afford to buy grain on the world market to supplement their shortfalls, there is increasing concern that a booming economy from one-fifth of world's population could be taking basic food from the backward economies leading to starvation elsewhere.
The opening of China's markets has led to uneven economic development. The result is massive internal migration of a population that some estimate as large as 100 million on the move at any one time. This migration comes from the interior of China to the coastal regions and from the rural areas to the cities. Such a massive movement has de-stabilizing consequences resulting in homelessness, prostitution, worker exploitation and breakdown in public order. The human rights infringement associated with this sort of social disorder is magnitudes more severe than the fate of a few prominent dissidents. But these human rights problems are in common with those found in the West and is perhaps the reason why they are seldom discussed. (Imagine the chaos of a hundred million or two breaking out of China, if for unforeseen reasons the economy should suddenly collapse.)
In conducting his research, Rowen4 discovers that since January 1991, major American media, as represented by New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek, has published 12 negative articles about China to every one talking about the reform under way in China. The media coverage of China's problem with intellectual property rights (IPR) is a clear example. During the peak of the controversy last summer, the American public can't help but conclude that the Beijing government is itself the biggest pirate. Yet recently, David Buxbaum5 , a Hongkong based attorney who has represented western clients in thousands of IPR cases in China, was interviewed by an affiliate of The Economist. He said, "The problem of piracy in China is comparable to what it was in Taiwan ten years ago. But in terms of willingness of government to attack the problem, China is 30 light-years ahead of where Taiwan was. It may even be ahead of Taiwan today." No popular press has yet to find this quote.
Corruption remains a problem from the highest rank to the lowest customs official and is one problem widely discussed inside and outside of China. Outside discussions almost invariably imply that graft is a way of life in China condoned by the authorities. That is not exactly the reality. Chen Xitong, former mayor of Beijing is under house arrest pending formal charges of corruption. Zhou Beifang was given the death sentence, albeit suspended, for corruption which was upheld by China's Supreme Court early in November. Zhou's father was ousted as chairman of Capital Iron and Steel Works even though this family has long enjoyed the close personal support of Deng Xiaoping. Of course, when lower ranking officials without powerful connections are caught embezzling, they can and have been summarily executed.
One can correctly surmise that the application of law is rather uneven in China, but that does not mean the government sanctions piracy of IPR or officials on the take. On the contrary, the leaders in Beijing fully appreciate that the elimination of piracy and corruption is essential for ensuring future growth of the economy. It is simply a matter easier said than done.
It may amaze the American public to hear that the Chinese Minister of Justice, Xiao Yang, has publicly stated that China needs to govern all its affairs by the rule of law. He also admitted that China is not there yet. In the June 18, 1996 issue of China Daily, the quasi-official English daily of Beijing government, Xiao indicated that "the aim is to ensure over 80% of the villages, 80% of State-owned enterprises and 70% of other institutions conscientiously administer affairs by law by year 2000." I personally have no idea if those percentages are realistic, but I find the candor refreshing and the recognition that China needs rule of law encouraging.
Just because China is inexorably on the road of reform doesn't mean the road isn't bumpy. Furthermore, whether it's economic reform, social reform or political reform, it will always be with "Chinese characteristics." China will not simply follow historical templates from the West. American engagement and sharing of common interest will allow us to exert positive influence on the future course of China. Engagement doesn't mean quiet acquiescence, but hopefully sincere criticisms will be based on facts and not based on lurid tales emanating from grinding axes of professional China bashers.
-------------------------------------------
1 Michael Dowdle, "Realizing Constitutional Potential," The China Business Review, (the magazine of the Washington-based US-China Business Council) p30ff, Nov.-Dec. 1996
2 Henry S. Rowen, "The Short March, China's Road to Democracy," The National Interest, p61ff, Fall 1996
3 Neither Rowen, former assistant secretary of defense in the Bush Administration or the Hoover Institution can remotely be regarded as "friends of China."
4 His Lexus/Nexus search covered the New York Times, Wall Street journal, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek from January 1991 through June 1996.
5 "Business China," a high priced publication of The Economist Intelligence Unit, November 11, 1996.
Thursday, December 5, 1996
Wednesday, November 13, 1996
A Troubling Review of Harry Wu's Latest Book
"You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time," according to Abraham Lincoln, arguably the most famous of all advocates for human rights. Nonetheless, judging from his latest book, Troublemaker, Honest Abe's admonition has not deterred Harry Wu from trying to pull the wool over the public's eye. Written in collaboration with George Vecsey, a New York Times reporter, the polished prose is an interesting read in the tradition of a potboiler. Unfortunately, the book is supposed to be a factual account of Harry Wu's latest adventure in China--not a work of fiction.
Wu takes obvious pride in his self-acclaimed label as a trouble maker, hence the title of his book, and he sets out early in his book to stake his claim. Wu confesses that even in grade school he was "a bit of a troublemaker." His biology teacher had asked the class to go to the school yard and bring back any randomly selected plants for the teacher to identify, and thus show off his knowledge. Wu stuck a small piece from one plant into the stem of another in an attempt to fool the teacher. He was spanked for his troubles, by the teacher at school and then by his father at home, but apparently the lesson did not stick. Perhaps that was a prophetic indication of the kind of person to come. At his trial in Wuhan, Wu was accused of yihuajiemu, i.e., splicing a flower onto another stick--a Chinese saying for someone skilled at embellishing the facts and telling plausible lies.
Indeed, Wu's book is full of careless and florid statements without any substantiation and consequently raised more questions than answers. For example, he says that the Beijing government admitted to China having 1.2 million prisoners in 685 camps in 1995, but he counters with 1155 camps and 6-8 million prisoners as being more accurate. Wu offers no explanation or evidence for his numbers, but expects the reader to take his word for them. Of course, depending on his mood and the venue, I have seen Wu publicly proclaimed as many as ten million prisoners in China. So, why the embellishment? According to an article in the New York Times (11/7/95), there were more than 1.4 million inmates in the American prison system in 1995. Perhaps Wu feels it unseemly that a country with five times the U.S. population should claim to have fewer prisoners. He may have felt compelled to boost the numbers so as to reinforce America's preconceived negative image of China.
In Troublemaker, Wu reiterates his claim to having protested the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary as "a violation of international law." A young student journalist from San Francisco State University interviewed Wu in 1995, after Wu's release from Wuhan, and asked him about his alleged protest of the invasion as the original cause of his being branded a trouble maker by the Chinese authorities. The reporter asked why there was no mention of Hungary in his earlier memoir, Bitter Winds. Wu's response was to blame the error on "a mistake in translation." (Prism, SFSU, November 1995)
I among many others have pointed out that Wu was only 19 at the time of the invasion and graduated from college three years later, apparently uneventfully. Wu has been portraying himself as an undergraduate activist majoring in geology with expertise in international law. An alternate explanation that I believe to be more credible, is that Wu became aware of the West's sympathy towards the Hungarians after the first book was written. He proceeded to burnish his credentials by adding the protest to his resumé. In my view, it is another example of pinning on a flower to dress up a plain stump.
Unfettered by the need to provide footnotes and citation of sources, Wu's book is full of provocative but dubious statements. If he had any documents to prove that "Zhou Enlai had gone scurrying to Moscow to convince Nikita Khrushchev to send tanks and troops to Budapest to crush the Hungarians," Wu does not share them in this book. Later in the book, Wu claims, "Some hospitals advertised their kidney transplant operations in Hong Kong and other cities. You could even express interest by sending a fax." Given Wu's self proclaimed wide network of supporters in Hong Kong, I am surprised that the book contained not one example of such advertisements nor a list of fax numbers.
Many of Wu's statements are designed to deceive, even if for gratuitous reasons. He begins one of the chapters with "On July 10, I was one meal into starving myself to death when the guards announced a surprise." A dramatic statement indeed. Careful reading reveals that what Wu meant was that he had missed one meal before ending his fast that might have led him to his maker. Elsewhere in the book, Wu provides his analysis of the "pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen." He concludes by the reassurance that "I had nothing to do with Tiananmen Square," as if anyone could make such a mistake and identify him with the student-led protest of 1989.
Name dropping is another of Wu's favorite techniques. He wastes no time linking himself with Hillary Clinton in the second chapter and a page later with Wei Jingsheng. He has never met Wei and has nothing in common with Wei. In fact he admitts, "I do not have the courage of Wei Jingsheng, speaking his mind, writing stinging criticisms of Deng Xiaoping." Yet the one name he mentions most frequently throughout his book is Wei, as if frequency could substitute for intimacy, for the linkage he craves. Wu sprinkles Wei's name liberally throughout the book down to the very last page.
Wei is the best known name in the West for his pro-democracy advocacy, for speaking his mind and for openly standing on his beliefs. Whether one agrees with all his views or his approach, few would question his integrity or his sincerity. Wei has not been known to lie or distort. Wei has not been known as a master of splicing facts and rumors and outright fabrications into plausible lies. By making this unauthorized and obsessive association with Wei, I believe, Wu hopes to gain some trickle-down legitimacy to his own position.
Wu needs to invoke Wei to partly compensate for the conspicuous lack of empathy for him from the community of students and scholars from China that are residing in the U.S. Many were given the opportunity to remain in the U.S. by the Bush Administration in response to Tiananmen. Some were activists and protesters. As a group, they are at best neutral and hardly sympathizers of the Beijing government. Yet they hold Wu in disdain and do not rally to his cause. Wu explained the phenomenon this way, "I suspect that the Chinese government is mobilizing all its students who are in the States. I don't mind. Let's have an open debate--no holds barred." To my knowledge, he has yet to accept any invitation to public debates where his views would be subject to scrutiny and challenge.
The most amusing passage is Wu's account of the interrogation during his incarceration in Wuhan in 1995 prior to his release and return to the U.S. The Chinese authorities apparently used a documentary from Taiwan as basis for their accusations which Wu claimed was spliced from various sources. "Look at it carefully," Wu told the interrogator, "Why do they put Chinese characters on the script, have outside people making comments? Don't you listen? The original was in English. There's no sound in this one. No dialogue. How can it become evidence? The Taiwanese translation is different from the British original. You better get the original Yorkshire film. You want to use Taiwan rumors?" At last I find in Wu's plea to his interrogator something with an authentic ring. Discerning viewers will find the very same techniques that he was protesting in Wuhan used in documentaries on China produced by Wu. Obviously Wu is trading on insider knowledge.
At least from Troublemaker, the reader can find a logical explanation for Wu's actions. Wu arrived in the U.S. on a fluke based on his alleged expertise in geology. Supposedly, he published a paper on a paper he read on "a very advanced French design for a drill that would transmit information into a computer." The paper caught the eye of someone at Berkeley, that Wu did not identify, who extended him an invitation to come to the U.S. After his arrival, Wu was eking out an existence by staying with a grudging older sister in San Francisco that barely tolerated his imposition. He gave his first talk on China at U.C. Santa Cruz in 1986, and his break came when he received a $18,000 research grant from Hoover Institution. In 1991, with the help of Jeff Fiedler, secretary-treasurer of Food & Allied Services Trade department of AFL-CIO, Wu founded Laogai Research Foundation and discovered his pot of gold.
Wu proudly states that he now owns a house in Milpitas with a swimming pool and two cars. There can be no doubt that becoming a professional China basher has been extremely lucrative for Wu personally. Readers may wish to buy Wu's book and supplement his income but should only expect entertainment value in exchange. This is not a book where one can readily distinguish facts from fiction, and therefore Wu's book cannot be considered a reliable commentary on today's China.
Wu takes obvious pride in his self-acclaimed label as a trouble maker, hence the title of his book, and he sets out early in his book to stake his claim. Wu confesses that even in grade school he was "a bit of a troublemaker." His biology teacher had asked the class to go to the school yard and bring back any randomly selected plants for the teacher to identify, and thus show off his knowledge. Wu stuck a small piece from one plant into the stem of another in an attempt to fool the teacher. He was spanked for his troubles, by the teacher at school and then by his father at home, but apparently the lesson did not stick. Perhaps that was a prophetic indication of the kind of person to come. At his trial in Wuhan, Wu was accused of yihuajiemu, i.e., splicing a flower onto another stick--a Chinese saying for someone skilled at embellishing the facts and telling plausible lies.
Indeed, Wu's book is full of careless and florid statements without any substantiation and consequently raised more questions than answers. For example, he says that the Beijing government admitted to China having 1.2 million prisoners in 685 camps in 1995, but he counters with 1155 camps and 6-8 million prisoners as being more accurate. Wu offers no explanation or evidence for his numbers, but expects the reader to take his word for them. Of course, depending on his mood and the venue, I have seen Wu publicly proclaimed as many as ten million prisoners in China. So, why the embellishment? According to an article in the New York Times (11/7/95), there were more than 1.4 million inmates in the American prison system in 1995. Perhaps Wu feels it unseemly that a country with five times the U.S. population should claim to have fewer prisoners. He may have felt compelled to boost the numbers so as to reinforce America's preconceived negative image of China.
In Troublemaker, Wu reiterates his claim to having protested the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary as "a violation of international law." A young student journalist from San Francisco State University interviewed Wu in 1995, after Wu's release from Wuhan, and asked him about his alleged protest of the invasion as the original cause of his being branded a trouble maker by the Chinese authorities. The reporter asked why there was no mention of Hungary in his earlier memoir, Bitter Winds. Wu's response was to blame the error on "a mistake in translation." (Prism, SFSU, November 1995)
I among many others have pointed out that Wu was only 19 at the time of the invasion and graduated from college three years later, apparently uneventfully. Wu has been portraying himself as an undergraduate activist majoring in geology with expertise in international law. An alternate explanation that I believe to be more credible, is that Wu became aware of the West's sympathy towards the Hungarians after the first book was written. He proceeded to burnish his credentials by adding the protest to his resumé. In my view, it is another example of pinning on a flower to dress up a plain stump.
Unfettered by the need to provide footnotes and citation of sources, Wu's book is full of provocative but dubious statements. If he had any documents to prove that "Zhou Enlai had gone scurrying to Moscow to convince Nikita Khrushchev to send tanks and troops to Budapest to crush the Hungarians," Wu does not share them in this book. Later in the book, Wu claims, "Some hospitals advertised their kidney transplant operations in Hong Kong and other cities. You could even express interest by sending a fax." Given Wu's self proclaimed wide network of supporters in Hong Kong, I am surprised that the book contained not one example of such advertisements nor a list of fax numbers.
Many of Wu's statements are designed to deceive, even if for gratuitous reasons. He begins one of the chapters with "On July 10, I was one meal into starving myself to death when the guards announced a surprise." A dramatic statement indeed. Careful reading reveals that what Wu meant was that he had missed one meal before ending his fast that might have led him to his maker. Elsewhere in the book, Wu provides his analysis of the "pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen." He concludes by the reassurance that "I had nothing to do with Tiananmen Square," as if anyone could make such a mistake and identify him with the student-led protest of 1989.
Name dropping is another of Wu's favorite techniques. He wastes no time linking himself with Hillary Clinton in the second chapter and a page later with Wei Jingsheng. He has never met Wei and has nothing in common with Wei. In fact he admitts, "I do not have the courage of Wei Jingsheng, speaking his mind, writing stinging criticisms of Deng Xiaoping." Yet the one name he mentions most frequently throughout his book is Wei, as if frequency could substitute for intimacy, for the linkage he craves. Wu sprinkles Wei's name liberally throughout the book down to the very last page.
Wei is the best known name in the West for his pro-democracy advocacy, for speaking his mind and for openly standing on his beliefs. Whether one agrees with all his views or his approach, few would question his integrity or his sincerity. Wei has not been known to lie or distort. Wei has not been known as a master of splicing facts and rumors and outright fabrications into plausible lies. By making this unauthorized and obsessive association with Wei, I believe, Wu hopes to gain some trickle-down legitimacy to his own position.
Wu needs to invoke Wei to partly compensate for the conspicuous lack of empathy for him from the community of students and scholars from China that are residing in the U.S. Many were given the opportunity to remain in the U.S. by the Bush Administration in response to Tiananmen. Some were activists and protesters. As a group, they are at best neutral and hardly sympathizers of the Beijing government. Yet they hold Wu in disdain and do not rally to his cause. Wu explained the phenomenon this way, "I suspect that the Chinese government is mobilizing all its students who are in the States. I don't mind. Let's have an open debate--no holds barred." To my knowledge, he has yet to accept any invitation to public debates where his views would be subject to scrutiny and challenge.
The most amusing passage is Wu's account of the interrogation during his incarceration in Wuhan in 1995 prior to his release and return to the U.S. The Chinese authorities apparently used a documentary from Taiwan as basis for their accusations which Wu claimed was spliced from various sources. "Look at it carefully," Wu told the interrogator, "Why do they put Chinese characters on the script, have outside people making comments? Don't you listen? The original was in English. There's no sound in this one. No dialogue. How can it become evidence? The Taiwanese translation is different from the British original. You better get the original Yorkshire film. You want to use Taiwan rumors?" At last I find in Wu's plea to his interrogator something with an authentic ring. Discerning viewers will find the very same techniques that he was protesting in Wuhan used in documentaries on China produced by Wu. Obviously Wu is trading on insider knowledge.
At least from Troublemaker, the reader can find a logical explanation for Wu's actions. Wu arrived in the U.S. on a fluke based on his alleged expertise in geology. Supposedly, he published a paper on a paper he read on "a very advanced French design for a drill that would transmit information into a computer." The paper caught the eye of someone at Berkeley, that Wu did not identify, who extended him an invitation to come to the U.S. After his arrival, Wu was eking out an existence by staying with a grudging older sister in San Francisco that barely tolerated his imposition. He gave his first talk on China at U.C. Santa Cruz in 1986, and his break came when he received a $18,000 research grant from Hoover Institution. In 1991, with the help of Jeff Fiedler, secretary-treasurer of Food & Allied Services Trade department of AFL-CIO, Wu founded Laogai Research Foundation and discovered his pot of gold.
Wu proudly states that he now owns a house in Milpitas with a swimming pool and two cars. There can be no doubt that becoming a professional China basher has been extremely lucrative for Wu personally. Readers may wish to buy Wu's book and supplement his income but should only expect entertainment value in exchange. This is not a book where one can readily distinguish facts from fiction, and therefore Wu's book cannot be considered a reliable commentary on today's China.
Saturday, June 1, 1996
"Lost" Jews of Kaifeng
An exhibit organized by the Sino-Judaic Institute of Menlo Park, California and held at the Koret Gallery in Palo Alto tells a little known story about the early settlement of Jews in China. Hebrew letters and notes found on the ancient silk route suggest that Jewish traders have been coming to China as early as the eighth century during the Tang dynasty. The proof: The documents were written on paper and in those days only China knew how to make paper.
By the Northern Sung dynasty (960-1127AD), a thriving Jewish community existed in Kaifeng, a city south of Beijing that was then the capital of China. From engraved messages on steles (stone tablets) that have survived ravages of time, we now know that Jewish traders were granted audience with the emperor who bade them to revere and preserve the customs of their ancestors, consistent with well established Chinese tradition. The synagogue in Kaifeng was built in 1163AD and a Rabbi Levi was in charge of the first congregation.
As the capital, Kaifeng would have been the terminus of the Silk Road and thus it was natural for the largest concentration of Jews to settle there. Various historical sources also described Jewish communities at various trade ports such as Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Ningbo and Yangzhou. Only the community in Kaifeng survived.
Apparently the emperor also bestowed seven surnames to eight Jewish families. The surnames were Ai, Gao, Jin, Li, Shi, Zhang and Zhao. The descendants today still refer themselves as belonging to "qixingbajia," seven surnames in eight families. It's not clear why these names were selected. One speculation is that they sounded close to actual Jewish surnames.
The presence of Jews in China was forgotten until 1605 when a Jew, Ai Tian, heard about a new arrival in Beijing, by then the capital of Ming dynasty, who seemed to believe in the same God as he. Whereupon Ai went to Beijing to seek out this visitor. The new visitor turned out to be Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit that was to become the most influential European ever served at the imperial court. Ricci's report of having discovered a Jewish community in China aroused considerable interest in the Vatican and made the West aware of the existence of Jews in China.
The exhibit presents many other tantalizing and fascinating bits of information on Jews in China. It portrays a China that has been broadly tolerant of other people and religion. During her lecture at the gallery, Dr. Wendy Abraham, noted lecturer and writer on this subject and board member of the institute, remarks more than once that China is the only nation in the world that has never persecuted the Jews on account of their beliefs. Today there are descendants of Kaifeng Jews in China that still identify themselves as ethnically Yutai, i.e., Jew, in the government census forms.
By the Northern Sung dynasty (960-1127AD), a thriving Jewish community existed in Kaifeng, a city south of Beijing that was then the capital of China. From engraved messages on steles (stone tablets) that have survived ravages of time, we now know that Jewish traders were granted audience with the emperor who bade them to revere and preserve the customs of their ancestors, consistent with well established Chinese tradition. The synagogue in Kaifeng was built in 1163AD and a Rabbi Levi was in charge of the first congregation.
As the capital, Kaifeng would have been the terminus of the Silk Road and thus it was natural for the largest concentration of Jews to settle there. Various historical sources also described Jewish communities at various trade ports such as Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Ningbo and Yangzhou. Only the community in Kaifeng survived.
Apparently the emperor also bestowed seven surnames to eight Jewish families. The surnames were Ai, Gao, Jin, Li, Shi, Zhang and Zhao. The descendants today still refer themselves as belonging to "qixingbajia," seven surnames in eight families. It's not clear why these names were selected. One speculation is that they sounded close to actual Jewish surnames.
The presence of Jews in China was forgotten until 1605 when a Jew, Ai Tian, heard about a new arrival in Beijing, by then the capital of Ming dynasty, who seemed to believe in the same God as he. Whereupon Ai went to Beijing to seek out this visitor. The new visitor turned out to be Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit that was to become the most influential European ever served at the imperial court. Ricci's report of having discovered a Jewish community in China aroused considerable interest in the Vatican and made the West aware of the existence of Jews in China.
The exhibit presents many other tantalizing and fascinating bits of information on Jews in China. It portrays a China that has been broadly tolerant of other people and religion. During her lecture at the gallery, Dr. Wendy Abraham, noted lecturer and writer on this subject and board member of the institute, remarks more than once that China is the only nation in the world that has never persecuted the Jews on account of their beliefs. Today there are descendants of Kaifeng Jews in China that still identify themselves as ethnically Yutai, i.e., Jew, in the government census forms.
Sunday, May 12, 1996
Whether it is better to sanction...
The trade sanction debacle with China is a consequence of Clinton Administration's preference for confrontation over diplomacy and the need to appease a China-bashing Congress by trumpeting concessions wrestled from China. Unfortunately, while badgering the Beijing government may play well back home, a real solution is not that simple.
Today's China is no longer the police state with a central government that sees all, knows all and controls all. Microsoft, with much to lose over unauthorized copying of their software, has discovered that external pressure applied at the local level can be more effective. In a recent case, company representatives reported the pirating facility to the local authorities and participated in the subsequent raid to halt production.
The plant fingered by Microsoft turned out to be a joint venture with Hongkong investors. Indeed, piracy of intellectual properties is instigated by those trafficking in the bogus products. They know which products are hot and where to sell them. Disrespect for intellectual properties is endemic in Asia. These intermediaries can come from Hongkong, Taiwan and even the U.S., and putting them out of business is a complicated but essential part of the solution.
Microsoft's overall approach to China will contribute to accelerating the acceptance of intellectual property as real property. While pursuing pirating plants, Microsoft also invested 100,000 staff hours completing a Chinese version of Windows 95. The core of its strategy is to help China develop an industry based on respect for software products and the rule of law. China's own software developers have the same objective. At the rate China's economy is developing, it won't take as long as elsewhere in Asia to see the illegal practices taper off-- bearing in mind that even today, faux Rolex watches are still available in Taipei, just not in open markets.
Even though the U.S. is China's most important export market, the pain of a trade war works both ways as hinted by the recent $1.5 billion aircraft order that China placed with Airbus instead of Boeing. The $3.1 billion that Americans invested in China in 1995, though 25% higher than in 1994, represented only 8% of the total foreign direct investment China received last year. Clearly the economic clout that U.S. has over China is much less than is imagined in the U.S. American businesses like Microsoft have recognized China to be a major market that requires a long term strategy. It's time the political leaders understand the importance of working with China on the basis of common interests.
Today's China is no longer the police state with a central government that sees all, knows all and controls all. Microsoft, with much to lose over unauthorized copying of their software, has discovered that external pressure applied at the local level can be more effective. In a recent case, company representatives reported the pirating facility to the local authorities and participated in the subsequent raid to halt production.
The plant fingered by Microsoft turned out to be a joint venture with Hongkong investors. Indeed, piracy of intellectual properties is instigated by those trafficking in the bogus products. They know which products are hot and where to sell them. Disrespect for intellectual properties is endemic in Asia. These intermediaries can come from Hongkong, Taiwan and even the U.S., and putting them out of business is a complicated but essential part of the solution.
Microsoft's overall approach to China will contribute to accelerating the acceptance of intellectual property as real property. While pursuing pirating plants, Microsoft also invested 100,000 staff hours completing a Chinese version of Windows 95. The core of its strategy is to help China develop an industry based on respect for software products and the rule of law. China's own software developers have the same objective. At the rate China's economy is developing, it won't take as long as elsewhere in Asia to see the illegal practices taper off-- bearing in mind that even today, faux Rolex watches are still available in Taipei, just not in open markets.
Even though the U.S. is China's most important export market, the pain of a trade war works both ways as hinted by the recent $1.5 billion aircraft order that China placed with Airbus instead of Boeing. The $3.1 billion that Americans invested in China in 1995, though 25% higher than in 1994, represented only 8% of the total foreign direct investment China received last year. Clearly the economic clout that U.S. has over China is much less than is imagined in the U.S. American businesses like Microsoft have recognized China to be a major market that requires a long term strategy. It's time the political leaders understand the importance of working with China on the basis of common interests.
Tuesday, May 7, 1996
Is the Chinese Culture Better Equiped to Deal with Change?
"Domains under heaven, those long asundered must reunify, long united must disintegrate." Thus begins The Romance of Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yan Yi).-- arguably the novel read by greatest number of Chinese school boys and not a few school girls as well. The opening sentence was to set the stage for the epic narrative of the chaotic end of the Han dynasty and the subsequent division into three kingdoms more than 1700 years ago. I believe this sentence also aptly summarizes an aspect of Chinese culture not often discussed.-- namely, the Chinese resignation to change. Perhaps from their acceptance comes their ability to deal with change.
In fifteen years, China has transformed from a state-controlled, planned economy to a booming economic power that has been ranked second or third largest in the world, from no where to become world's 10th largest trading nation and now holds fourth largest hard currency reserve, at over $80 billion --though still less than Taiwan.
In about the same 15 year-span, Taiwan has emerged from a low cost, contract manufacturing base to becoming the world's capital for the design and manufacturing of personal computers.
Hongkong, of course, is world famous for spotting a trend and get in and out of the market before anybody even appreciates what has happened --witness plastic flowers, Cabbage Patch dolls, handheld games and the like.
Singapore, which is over 70% ethnic Chinese, became the disc drive capital of the world in a decade and is now 9th in the world in per capita industrial output.
Even though their political system may vastly differ, these Chinese run economies all seem to share one common characteristic: namely the ability to move quickly, the willingness to adopt and not resist change. Perhaps this is the trait that enables many of the Chinese to become such successful entrepreneurs.
In fifteen years, China has transformed from a state-controlled, planned economy to a booming economic power that has been ranked second or third largest in the world, from no where to become world's 10th largest trading nation and now holds fourth largest hard currency reserve, at over $80 billion --though still less than Taiwan.
In about the same 15 year-span, Taiwan has emerged from a low cost, contract manufacturing base to becoming the world's capital for the design and manufacturing of personal computers.
Hongkong, of course, is world famous for spotting a trend and get in and out of the market before anybody even appreciates what has happened --witness plastic flowers, Cabbage Patch dolls, handheld games and the like.
Singapore, which is over 70% ethnic Chinese, became the disc drive capital of the world in a decade and is now 9th in the world in per capita industrial output.
Even though their political system may vastly differ, these Chinese run economies all seem to share one common characteristic: namely the ability to move quickly, the willingness to adopt and not resist change. Perhaps this is the trait that enables many of the Chinese to become such successful entrepreneurs.
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
Origin of Chinese Triads
Although secret societies existed in China since 1500 B.C., the Triad societies were founded in late seventeenth century by ethnic Han Chinese for the purpose of repelling the Manchus and restoring the imperial throne to the Ming dynasty. The Triad was derived from a symbolic equilateral triangle, each side representing the Chinese concepts of Heaven, Earth and Man. I believe the idea was that with the backing of the harmonious triangle, patriotic efforts against the invading foreigner (in this case, the Manchus from northeast of China) would succeed.
The Triads did not succeed. Instead the Manchus juggernaut crushed the few pockets of resistance in southern China and forced the societies underground and on the run. Deprived of support from local populations and nationalistic organizations, the Triads by mid-1800s had to turn to criminal activities such as piracy, smuggling and extortion to support themselves. To that end, the Triads sent their members overseas to Chinese communities to organize and reap the profits of vice and crime among the overseas Chinese.
By the 1900s, the time frame of the movie Shanghai Triads, most Triads had abandoned their patriotic raison d'etre and just concentrated on the highly profitable criminal activities. Since then the Triads are said to have modernized and expanded into more legitimate businesses. Suggested reading for readers wishing to know more is Warlords of Crime - Chinese Secret Societies: The New Mafia by Gerald L. Posner (Penguin 1988).
The Triads did not succeed. Instead the Manchus juggernaut crushed the few pockets of resistance in southern China and forced the societies underground and on the run. Deprived of support from local populations and nationalistic organizations, the Triads by mid-1800s had to turn to criminal activities such as piracy, smuggling and extortion to support themselves. To that end, the Triads sent their members overseas to Chinese communities to organize and reap the profits of vice and crime among the overseas Chinese.
By the 1900s, the time frame of the movie Shanghai Triads, most Triads had abandoned their patriotic raison d'etre and just concentrated on the highly profitable criminal activities. Since then the Triads are said to have modernized and expanded into more legitimate businesses. Suggested reading for readers wishing to know more is Warlords of Crime - Chinese Secret Societies: The New Mafia by Gerald L. Posner (Penguin 1988).
Monday, April 29, 1996
If not China, Where?
Advocates in favor of economic cooperation with China have been urging Congress and Clinton Administration not to hold American trade policy hostage to our political agenda with China. Timothy Taylor's recent opinion piece on "Investing in Beijing" (Mercury News, 4/26/96) came to a similar conclusion but from a startlingly different perspective. Basically he said that the U.S. should go ahead and bash China on human rights and other issues because U.S.-China trade is not that important and American businesses have many other markets to pursue in lieu of China.
While he grudgingly admits that China is the biggest of the emerging markets, he suggests South Korea, India and Indonesia as major fall back markets should errant U.S. policy destroys any semblance of a relationship with China. What is the reality?
Korea has a population of 45 million compared to China's 1.2 billion. Office of U.S. Trade Representative considers Korea to be one of the most tightly controlled markets, far more closed than even Japan. Combined with the vast difference in population size, Korea is not in the same league as the potential of the China market. Multinational companies are going to China in droves to form joint ventures there; they have either pulled out of Korea or have given up trying to enter. Even the Korean companies recognize the relative maturity of their domestic market and have become highly aggressive investors in China.
India has many attractive considerations but is a newly recognized emerging market. The jury is still out on the extent foreign investments will be welcomed and the degree the market will be open to outside participation. According to the World Bank, while some 11% of China's population live in absolute poverty (i.e., without even enough food) in 1990, for the same year, more than half of India's population are in that category. Obviously, India's economy will have some catching up to do before it can be as attractive as the China market.
Indonesia is branded with the same alleged offenses as China, namely, corruption, human rights violations, and political uncertainty. The only significant difference is in the market size. Indonesian population is "only" 195 million. Indonesia will attract its share of foreign investments but again its potential is not large enough to take the place of China.
The simple truth of the matter is that the rest of Asia, the part that Taylor recommends as alternative markets to replace lost opportunities in China, are themselves leading investors in China. Taiwan has been the second largest investor in China and Singapore is fourth (in recent years, U.S. has been third). Thailand and Malaysia as well as Japan and Korea are all active investors there.
Conveniently overlooked by Taylor is that China received 41% of the $227 billion total foreign direct investments (FDI) made in Asia for the recent ten year period ending 1994. Furthermore, foreign investments in China show no signs of faltering. FDI in China for 1995 reached $38 billion which was approximately 12% higher than 1994. Obviously the working stiffs looking for business deals do not share his ivory tower perspective of pooh-poohing the importance of China.
Taylor suggested "agonizing over the importance of the Chinese market" as the cause of America's diplomatic inaction and ineffectiveness with China. That's incorrect. The U.S. diplomatic failure with China is due directly to its insistence in bundling their human rights and other geopolitical concerns with bilateral economic cooperation rather than working on a genuine diplomatic rapport where differences can be discussed and resolution attempted.
The lack of diplomatic effort towards China is conspicuous if one just count the number of visits Secretary of State Christopher has been to China since the beginning of this administration: once. President Clinton has met Boris Yeltsin ten times to date; he has only met Jiang Zeming three times during the same span and all were incidental to conferences of nations, none on a one-on-one basis.
Taylor's presumption that the Chinese government should not "get away with bad behavior" is unfortunately typical of the attitude that the American government has the duty (and right) to tell China what's wrong and what to do. William Overfelt is an American banker residing in Hongkong, known as a human rights activitist, who also wrote a book on the economic rise of China. He recently expressed concern that this very attitude is pushing the two sides toward "an utterly gratuitous second cold war."
It may be easy for Taylor to suggest that American businesses look elsewhere for fast growing markets. Boeing could hardly be as blasé about the $1.5 billion of orders for jetliners that China signed with the European Airbus recently. While four international and non-American consortia are competing for billion dollar contracts for the Three Gorges Dam, Caterpillar can only stand by the sidelines wistfully lamenting over $200 million of earth moving equipment business that they won't be getting for lack of U.S. government support.
In a sense, Taylor is quite right that the U.S. government should not factor the importance of China's economy into its diplomatic effort, but not because it would give the Chinese government more leverage. The reality is that it hasn't given the American side any leverage. Taylor is also sadly mistaken if he thinks what passes between U.S. and China now is any exercise in diplomacy.
While he grudgingly admits that China is the biggest of the emerging markets, he suggests South Korea, India and Indonesia as major fall back markets should errant U.S. policy destroys any semblance of a relationship with China. What is the reality?
Korea has a population of 45 million compared to China's 1.2 billion. Office of U.S. Trade Representative considers Korea to be one of the most tightly controlled markets, far more closed than even Japan. Combined with the vast difference in population size, Korea is not in the same league as the potential of the China market. Multinational companies are going to China in droves to form joint ventures there; they have either pulled out of Korea or have given up trying to enter. Even the Korean companies recognize the relative maturity of their domestic market and have become highly aggressive investors in China.
India has many attractive considerations but is a newly recognized emerging market. The jury is still out on the extent foreign investments will be welcomed and the degree the market will be open to outside participation. According to the World Bank, while some 11% of China's population live in absolute poverty (i.e., without even enough food) in 1990, for the same year, more than half of India's population are in that category. Obviously, India's economy will have some catching up to do before it can be as attractive as the China market.
Indonesia is branded with the same alleged offenses as China, namely, corruption, human rights violations, and political uncertainty. The only significant difference is in the market size. Indonesian population is "only" 195 million. Indonesia will attract its share of foreign investments but again its potential is not large enough to take the place of China.
The simple truth of the matter is that the rest of Asia, the part that Taylor recommends as alternative markets to replace lost opportunities in China, are themselves leading investors in China. Taiwan has been the second largest investor in China and Singapore is fourth (in recent years, U.S. has been third). Thailand and Malaysia as well as Japan and Korea are all active investors there.
Conveniently overlooked by Taylor is that China received 41% of the $227 billion total foreign direct investments (FDI) made in Asia for the recent ten year period ending 1994. Furthermore, foreign investments in China show no signs of faltering. FDI in China for 1995 reached $38 billion which was approximately 12% higher than 1994. Obviously the working stiffs looking for business deals do not share his ivory tower perspective of pooh-poohing the importance of China.
Taylor suggested "agonizing over the importance of the Chinese market" as the cause of America's diplomatic inaction and ineffectiveness with China. That's incorrect. The U.S. diplomatic failure with China is due directly to its insistence in bundling their human rights and other geopolitical concerns with bilateral economic cooperation rather than working on a genuine diplomatic rapport where differences can be discussed and resolution attempted.
The lack of diplomatic effort towards China is conspicuous if one just count the number of visits Secretary of State Christopher has been to China since the beginning of this administration: once. President Clinton has met Boris Yeltsin ten times to date; he has only met Jiang Zeming three times during the same span and all were incidental to conferences of nations, none on a one-on-one basis.
Taylor's presumption that the Chinese government should not "get away with bad behavior" is unfortunately typical of the attitude that the American government has the duty (and right) to tell China what's wrong and what to do. William Overfelt is an American banker residing in Hongkong, known as a human rights activitist, who also wrote a book on the economic rise of China. He recently expressed concern that this very attitude is pushing the two sides toward "an utterly gratuitous second cold war."
It may be easy for Taylor to suggest that American businesses look elsewhere for fast growing markets. Boeing could hardly be as blasé about the $1.5 billion of orders for jetliners that China signed with the European Airbus recently. While four international and non-American consortia are competing for billion dollar contracts for the Three Gorges Dam, Caterpillar can only stand by the sidelines wistfully lamenting over $200 million of earth moving equipment business that they won't be getting for lack of U.S. government support.
In a sense, Taylor is quite right that the U.S. government should not factor the importance of China's economy into its diplomatic effort, but not because it would give the Chinese government more leverage. The reality is that it hasn't given the American side any leverage. Taylor is also sadly mistaken if he thinks what passes between U.S. and China now is any exercise in diplomacy.
Friday, April 26, 1996
Are National Strategies in the Asia Pacific Relevant?
The Monterey conference on National Strategies in the Asia-Pacific sponsored by The National Bureau of Asian Research was the first of its kind that I had ever attended. I found the program informative, stimulating and entertaining and the speakers knowledgeable, articulate, opinionated and persuasive. That was my first reaction. My second reaction was: What a shame and what a waste that so little of this will trickle down to the level that can really have an impact on public opinion. In a private conversation, Rich Ellings, Executive Director of NBR, assured me that NBR publications are widely distributed and well received among the policymakers in Washington. Unfortunately, that was not my point.
Policymakers, whether they are in Congress or in the executive branch, are subject to political pressures exerted by the public. A poorly informed public is easily manipulated by special interest groups for the purpose of supporting (or withholding support for) certain causes. A better informed public would be more resistant to crass and willful manipulations. Rational policies can then be formulated free from unwarranted pressure. A challenge before NBR is to find the means of gaining maximum leverage from the work being done under its sponsorship and conclusions being reported at conferences, such as the recent one in Monterey. Just reaching the policymakers and political leaders is not enough. NBR needs to find ways of reaching the public directly and help shape the public opinion so as to be more consistent with the real world.
Inviting members of the media to attend was just one step in the right direction. However, a large number of them in attendance is needed in order to openly examine and debate the ideas being presented and reach some consensus. From the reassurance of a consensus, some individuals of the media may then be suitably emboldened to break new ground and introduce the real Asia to their audience.
Harry Wu is a case in point. Since his return from his arrest in China, he has testified before Congress, appeared before the United Nations and made a keynote speech before the national convention of the AFL-CIO. No one can deny that abetted by the media shower of publicity, his public clout "normalized" against his real and imagined credentials far surpasses that of such esteemed scholars as Dwight Perkins or national policy makers as Douglas Paal. Comparing Wu with persons of such illustrious academic record or distinguished government service would be ludicrous were it not so tragic. Tragic because Wu and his handlers are pushing U.S. towards what William Overfelt* called "an utterly gratuitous second cold war." Wu's success in getting his views conveyed to the general public should be a constant and embarrassing reminder that the voices of real China experts are rarely heard above Wu's din. The media picks up Wu's skewed but sensational charges about China with the greatest of ease, but rarely ever asks the China experts to explain their queasy assessments of Wu's exaggerations and distortions.
The China expert's reluctance to publicly confront the likes of Wu seems only partly due to the fear of soiling one's credentials. The rules of academia also work against such participation. Apparently academicians are graded by their symposium presentations and publication in prestigious proceedings --such as the NBR. Some quarters apparently even look askance at Foreign Affairs as not being sufficiently esoteric. Yet it is the informed op-eds in local newspapers and national magazines that will do more to influence public opinion than profound expositions in journals that the public does not see. More not fewer Michel Oksenbergs are needed to write for Newsweeks and compete for the minds of the uninformed.
China is not the only country the American public peers through warped lenses. All of Asia is poorly understood by essentially an Eurocentric public easily exploited with bits of partial truths and distorted views. Few Americans appreciate that Asia now has as much or more impact on U.S. national policies as Europe, be it trade, export related jobs, security, environment, human rights, or nuclear non-proliferation. Even many members of Congress are poorly informed having never ventured to that part of the world.
If the rules of the profession do not allow the authentic experts to get down on the mat and engage the likes of Harry Wu in open debate, --and, there's no doubt in my mind, blowing him away-- then NBR has an invaluable role to play. NBR can and must spread the message beyond the exclusive --and comfortable-- circle of policymakers and get to the public directly. By taking on the role of educating the public, NBR will enhance its relevance and greatly expand its support base. The point of the facetious title of this piece is that national strategies do not become policies if the public does not understand and support them. Even if the political leaders understand the stakes, they need easily digestible and readily available factual ammunition, sound bites if necessary, to give them the courage to explain the issues to their constituents. The American public needs to understand that the United States is as much a Pacific Rim nation as it is an Atlantic one. NBR has much to contribute to that endeavor.
Policymakers, whether they are in Congress or in the executive branch, are subject to political pressures exerted by the public. A poorly informed public is easily manipulated by special interest groups for the purpose of supporting (or withholding support for) certain causes. A better informed public would be more resistant to crass and willful manipulations. Rational policies can then be formulated free from unwarranted pressure. A challenge before NBR is to find the means of gaining maximum leverage from the work being done under its sponsorship and conclusions being reported at conferences, such as the recent one in Monterey. Just reaching the policymakers and political leaders is not enough. NBR needs to find ways of reaching the public directly and help shape the public opinion so as to be more consistent with the real world.
Inviting members of the media to attend was just one step in the right direction. However, a large number of them in attendance is needed in order to openly examine and debate the ideas being presented and reach some consensus. From the reassurance of a consensus, some individuals of the media may then be suitably emboldened to break new ground and introduce the real Asia to their audience.
Harry Wu is a case in point. Since his return from his arrest in China, he has testified before Congress, appeared before the United Nations and made a keynote speech before the national convention of the AFL-CIO. No one can deny that abetted by the media shower of publicity, his public clout "normalized" against his real and imagined credentials far surpasses that of such esteemed scholars as Dwight Perkins or national policy makers as Douglas Paal. Comparing Wu with persons of such illustrious academic record or distinguished government service would be ludicrous were it not so tragic. Tragic because Wu and his handlers are pushing U.S. towards what William Overfelt* called "an utterly gratuitous second cold war." Wu's success in getting his views conveyed to the general public should be a constant and embarrassing reminder that the voices of real China experts are rarely heard above Wu's din. The media picks up Wu's skewed but sensational charges about China with the greatest of ease, but rarely ever asks the China experts to explain their queasy assessments of Wu's exaggerations and distortions.
The China expert's reluctance to publicly confront the likes of Wu seems only partly due to the fear of soiling one's credentials. The rules of academia also work against such participation. Apparently academicians are graded by their symposium presentations and publication in prestigious proceedings --such as the NBR. Some quarters apparently even look askance at Foreign Affairs as not being sufficiently esoteric. Yet it is the informed op-eds in local newspapers and national magazines that will do more to influence public opinion than profound expositions in journals that the public does not see. More not fewer Michel Oksenbergs are needed to write for Newsweeks and compete for the minds of the uninformed.
China is not the only country the American public peers through warped lenses. All of Asia is poorly understood by essentially an Eurocentric public easily exploited with bits of partial truths and distorted views. Few Americans appreciate that Asia now has as much or more impact on U.S. national policies as Europe, be it trade, export related jobs, security, environment, human rights, or nuclear non-proliferation. Even many members of Congress are poorly informed having never ventured to that part of the world.
If the rules of the profession do not allow the authentic experts to get down on the mat and engage the likes of Harry Wu in open debate, --and, there's no doubt in my mind, blowing him away-- then NBR has an invaluable role to play. NBR can and must spread the message beyond the exclusive --and comfortable-- circle of policymakers and get to the public directly. By taking on the role of educating the public, NBR will enhance its relevance and greatly expand its support base. The point of the facetious title of this piece is that national strategies do not become policies if the public does not understand and support them. Even if the political leaders understand the stakes, they need easily digestible and readily available factual ammunition, sound bites if necessary, to give them the courage to explain the issues to their constituents. The American public needs to understand that the United States is as much a Pacific Rim nation as it is an Atlantic one. NBR has much to contribute to that endeavor.
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
Open Letter to Harry Wu
April 17, 1996
Mr. Harry Wu, guest speaker
Stanford University, School of Law
Stanford, California
Dear Mr. Wu:
Now that you have become a person of international renown, isn't it time for you to clarify some confusions in the public mind that were direct results of your remarks and activities? All of the questions I would like to ask you are based on information in the American media, not Xin Hua News Agency or other sources from China.
(1) In the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue, you said: "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." The BBC broadcast in fact has no such footage. What was the reason for you to lie to the interviewer?
(2) Your Laogai Foundation now claims that BBC's use of the open heart surgery scene clandestinely taken by Sue Lloyd Roberts in Chengdu was not intended to deceive the viewing public. If the intention was not deception, what was the reason for taking the video and then presenting it in the broadcast?
(3) At the AFL-CIO National Convention last year, didn't you say, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Isn't your Laogai Foundation based in the AFL-CIO headquarter building in Washington D.C.? Aren't you being paid by organized labor to help stop imports from China?
(4) When you were arrested upon entering from Kazakstan last summer, there was a young woman with you. ABC Nightline reported that she was employed by the AFL-CIO. What was the reason for her being on the trip?
(5) You have entered China under at least three different names. How were you able to get three different U.S. Passports when the rest of us are entitled to only one?
(6) Recently you were at Columbia University to receive another of many awards you have coming to you. Did you not have a private conversation with a law student there by the name of Li Qiang in Shanghainese? Did you not admit to Li that human rights conditions in China are better now than ever in 50 years but the "Americans don't know anything"?
(7) In your speech at Cal State Hayward this February, you seem to imply to the audience that in 1994, you real wife as well as Sue Roberts, the free lance reporter who posed as your wife, went to Chengdu with you for the BBC assignment. How many "wives" did you actually take to Chengdu?
(8) You like to claim that you first got in trouble for protesting the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. You were only 19 years old then, so did the Chinese authorities kindly allow you to complete your college education before throwing you in jail?
(9) You claim to be in Chinese prison for 19 years, which is most of your adult life before coming to the U.S. If this is the case, how did you come to know some of the most obscure places in China like the back of your hand?
(10) Can you tell the public as to what credentials and circumstances were used initially to become a Hoover scholar?
I believe most Americans prefer truth and reality to hyprocrisy and phony causes. If you are able to respond to above question with truthful answers, I am sure the public would enjoy seeing it. In the meantime I will continue to collect inconsistencies and dubious statements from your public appearances and do my best to call them to the public's attention if not to your attention.
George Koo
A concerned U.S. citizen
Mr. Harry Wu, guest speaker
Stanford University, School of Law
Stanford, California
Dear Mr. Wu:
Now that you have become a person of international renown, isn't it time for you to clarify some confusions in the public mind that were direct results of your remarks and activities? All of the questions I would like to ask you are based on information in the American media, not Xin Hua News Agency or other sources from China.
(1) In the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue, you said: "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." The BBC broadcast in fact has no such footage. What was the reason for you to lie to the interviewer?
(2) Your Laogai Foundation now claims that BBC's use of the open heart surgery scene clandestinely taken by Sue Lloyd Roberts in Chengdu was not intended to deceive the viewing public. If the intention was not deception, what was the reason for taking the video and then presenting it in the broadcast?
(3) At the AFL-CIO National Convention last year, didn't you say, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Isn't your Laogai Foundation based in the AFL-CIO headquarter building in Washington D.C.? Aren't you being paid by organized labor to help stop imports from China?
(4) When you were arrested upon entering from Kazakstan last summer, there was a young woman with you. ABC Nightline reported that she was employed by the AFL-CIO. What was the reason for her being on the trip?
(5) You have entered China under at least three different names. How were you able to get three different U.S. Passports when the rest of us are entitled to only one?
(6) Recently you were at Columbia University to receive another of many awards you have coming to you. Did you not have a private conversation with a law student there by the name of Li Qiang in Shanghainese? Did you not admit to Li that human rights conditions in China are better now than ever in 50 years but the "Americans don't know anything"?
(7) In your speech at Cal State Hayward this February, you seem to imply to the audience that in 1994, you real wife as well as Sue Roberts, the free lance reporter who posed as your wife, went to Chengdu with you for the BBC assignment. How many "wives" did you actually take to Chengdu?
(8) You like to claim that you first got in trouble for protesting the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. You were only 19 years old then, so did the Chinese authorities kindly allow you to complete your college education before throwing you in jail?
(9) You claim to be in Chinese prison for 19 years, which is most of your adult life before coming to the U.S. If this is the case, how did you come to know some of the most obscure places in China like the back of your hand?
(10) Can you tell the public as to what credentials and circumstances were used initially to become a Hoover scholar?
I believe most Americans prefer truth and reality to hyprocrisy and phony causes. If you are able to respond to above question with truthful answers, I am sure the public would enjoy seeing it. In the meantime I will continue to collect inconsistencies and dubious statements from your public appearances and do my best to call them to the public's attention if not to your attention.
George Koo
A concerned U.S. citizen
Friday, April 12, 1996
Is Harry Wu Capable of Telling the Truth?
The publicity attendant upon his arrest in China last summer endowed Harry Wu with far more influence than he possessed before his attempted clandestine entry. He is now running amuck appearing everywhere to disrupt and disturb American foreign policy towards China. He has challenged the World Bank on their investment policy in China and told Boeing how they should not do business with China and is telling how Congress should vote on China's MFN status and even predicting a subsequent overriding veto from the President. With constant media attention, there is no stopping this fellow now.
Unfortunately overlooked by the media is Harry Wu's web of deceit built on grains of half truths elaborated with outright lies. One only has to review Harry Wu's own words already in the public domain to come to this conclusion. Normally the veracity of any one person is not worth fussing about. In Wu's case, he is capable of doing considerable damage to public interest, especially in the coming months as the national policy towards China come to forefront of debate. Thus, the public has the right to know the dubious pulpit from which Wu is bullying governments, corporations and other legitimate organizations.
One simple example of his propensity to lie is to look at his own statement in the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue. He said, "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." One has to wonder about the professional qualifications of the interviewer to record such an outrageous statement unchallenged. Organ transplant from prisoners has been one of Wu's most dramatic accusations about China and pivots on the evidence presented by the BBC broadcast.
Recently I had the opportunity to review a videotape of that infamous BBC telecast and can find nothing that comes close to depicting any organ removal. It did include a snippet taken by the Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the freelance reporter pretending to be Wu's wife, of an open heart surgery taking place in a Chengdu hospital. Publicly, Wu has admitted that the scene from the civilian hospital had nothing to with organ removal from prisoners and attributed the use of the footage to error in editing by BBC.
After his return last summer, the Laogai Research Foundation, of which he is the executive director, issued the claim that no attempt to mislead was intended, since BBC never claimed the incision in the middle of the chest cavity to be related to kidney removal or implantation. ("Laogai" is an abbreviated Chinese term for "reform through labor.") According to the statement released by the Foundation: "The operating room video was used as a background shot." The disclaimer did not explain why Wu and his "wife" took the trouble of surreptitiously filming such a non-relevant and innocuous scene. They certainly didn't need to go all the way to China for a "background shot."
Wu frequently made the claim, including in the Playboy interview, that it was his protest of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 that got him in trouble with the Chinese authorities. It took a reporter from San Francisco State University to point out to Wu that he was 19 and in college at the time. (In the context of the 1956 environment in China, he would have been exceptionally precocious--at least politically, predating Wei Jingsheng by about a quarter of a century.) When Mike Mattis questioned him about the accuracy of attributing his political problems to the purported protest, Wu's response was to deny ever making such a protest and shift the blame to "a mistake in translation" of his statements. This interview was published in November, 1995 issue of Prism, a monthly publication of SFSU.
Inconsistencies and shifting statements abound from Wu's public utterances and activities. The issue isn't that they exist and is pointless to analyze every one of the inaccuracies. The real puzzle is why and how the media have so willingly swallowed Wu's utterances. I believe there is more to this behavior than simply that today's media are overcome by the tabloid mentality and are too lazy to conduct the necessary due diligence. I believe Wu has sponsors and supporters with vested interests in containing China through public opinion, irrespective of truth and facts. One of Wu's more obvious sponsors is the AFL-CIO.
Shortly after Wu's arrest in China became known, an ABC Nightline program revealed that his clandestine trip into China via Kazakstan was financed by the AFL-CIO, and the attorney who accompanied Wu was on the AFL-CIO payroll. After the two were detained, she was promptly released and that was how the world first heard about Wu's arrest. In retrospect, she was an essential part of Wu's cover and protection.
An article covering Wu's participation in the picket line at Boeing, in the November 30, 1995 issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, quoted Wu as saying, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Matt Bates, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, on whose behalf Wu was appearing, said, "Clearly, a major part of the fight here is over the loss of jobs to overseas producers." With a 15-year suspended sentence awaiting him, Wu is unlikely to return to China, not even under cover. Consequently, Wu is now more useful to the AFL-CIO by becoming a public anti-China spokesperson on behalf of American labor.
When I tried to find out more about the Laogai Research Foundation, I found out that the Foundation is in the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarter building. Directory assistance for area code 202 (Washington area) cannot provide a listing for the Foundation. I then tried to reach the Foundation via the AFL-CIO. The headquarter switchboard transferred my call to their Food and Allied Services Trade who then switched the call over to a line with a recorded message representing the Foundation.
The AFL-CIO's motivation is naive but transparent. The AFL-CIO seems to believe that by stopping imports from China, they can preserve American jobs. For example, organized labor accused Boeing of exporting jobs to China. Actually, as Boeing's spokesman rebutted, by subcontracting certain sections of the 737 to the Chinese, Boeing is assured of continued future sales. Keeping all the manufacturing at home won't do any good, if China's orders for planes all go to European Airbus. Conversely continued sales to one of the largest markets in the world would allow Boeing and the Machinist Union to keep more jobs. It is not very complicated logic or economics, but has so far eluded the American labor leadership.
According to data presented to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee in May 1995 by Robert Kapp, president of the Washington-based US-China Business Council, America exported $9.3 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, equivalent to the support of approximately 187,000 jobs. According to Department of Commerce data presented at the same testimony, China will be buying $90 billion worth of power generation equipment, $65 billion worth of commercial jets, $40 billion of telecommunication equipment, $18.2 billion of oil field and gas machinery and $4.3 billion of computers in the coming years. Getting a fraction of that business will create many more jobs than the low cost goods imported from China that AFL-CIO objects to but America can no longer produce competitively.
AFL-CIO'S agenda on China and its dependence on Wu is no secret; the media simply have not seen fit to report the matter. In a testimony before the House of Representatives in July, 1995, Peggy Taylor, Director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO, made specific mention of "this lucrative trade" in organ transplants from prisoners as reason to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status to China. There is no need to speculate as to where her "data" came from.
At the airport interviews immediately upon his release and return to the United States, Wu freely admitted to the San Francisco Bay area reporters that lying, stealing, impersonating a police officer and adopting other underhanded means were perfectly acceptable while undercover in China. He has never responded on whether it is also acceptable to lie to the American public. However, he was at Columbia University recently to receive another of many awards. He was delighted to discover a fellow native of Shanghai in Li Qiang, a law student. He spoke to Li in Shanghai dialect and according to Li, Wu admitted that human rights conditions in China now has been the best in recent 50 years, but, he added, the Americans don't know anything.
While the Clinton Administration is working to open foreign markets and promote trade as the surest means of creating jobs, the AFL-CIO is working to undermine such efforts by sneaking Wu across the Chinese border. The public has the right to know the truth. Cut through all the hypocrisy about defending human rights, and one sees Wu performing dubious activities to support AFL-CIO in their efforts to stopping the flow of low cost goods from China. It's lucrative work for Wu and that's all there is to it.
AFL-CIO needs to review its policy towards China. The issue before the leadership is whether such a broad brush smearing of one of the America's major trading partners would not simply erode its credibility and neutralize the potency of the organization on those occasions when they actually need to intervene in specific trade issues.
Responsible journalism requires a willingness to look at all sides of the issues. Being a gullible pushover for easy to digest sensationalism is hardly discharging its duty to the public. Too much is at stake for someone not to take up the challenge and set the record straight.
Unfortunately overlooked by the media is Harry Wu's web of deceit built on grains of half truths elaborated with outright lies. One only has to review Harry Wu's own words already in the public domain to come to this conclusion. Normally the veracity of any one person is not worth fussing about. In Wu's case, he is capable of doing considerable damage to public interest, especially in the coming months as the national policy towards China come to forefront of debate. Thus, the public has the right to know the dubious pulpit from which Wu is bullying governments, corporations and other legitimate organizations.
One simple example of his propensity to lie is to look at his own statement in the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue. He said, "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." One has to wonder about the professional qualifications of the interviewer to record such an outrageous statement unchallenged. Organ transplant from prisoners has been one of Wu's most dramatic accusations about China and pivots on the evidence presented by the BBC broadcast.
Recently I had the opportunity to review a videotape of that infamous BBC telecast and can find nothing that comes close to depicting any organ removal. It did include a snippet taken by the Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the freelance reporter pretending to be Wu's wife, of an open heart surgery taking place in a Chengdu hospital. Publicly, Wu has admitted that the scene from the civilian hospital had nothing to with organ removal from prisoners and attributed the use of the footage to error in editing by BBC.
After his return last summer, the Laogai Research Foundation, of which he is the executive director, issued the claim that no attempt to mislead was intended, since BBC never claimed the incision in the middle of the chest cavity to be related to kidney removal or implantation. ("Laogai" is an abbreviated Chinese term for "reform through labor.") According to the statement released by the Foundation: "The operating room video was used as a background shot." The disclaimer did not explain why Wu and his "wife" took the trouble of surreptitiously filming such a non-relevant and innocuous scene. They certainly didn't need to go all the way to China for a "background shot."
Wu frequently made the claim, including in the Playboy interview, that it was his protest of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 that got him in trouble with the Chinese authorities. It took a reporter from San Francisco State University to point out to Wu that he was 19 and in college at the time. (In the context of the 1956 environment in China, he would have been exceptionally precocious--at least politically, predating Wei Jingsheng by about a quarter of a century.) When Mike Mattis questioned him about the accuracy of attributing his political problems to the purported protest, Wu's response was to deny ever making such a protest and shift the blame to "a mistake in translation" of his statements. This interview was published in November, 1995 issue of Prism, a monthly publication of SFSU.
Inconsistencies and shifting statements abound from Wu's public utterances and activities. The issue isn't that they exist and is pointless to analyze every one of the inaccuracies. The real puzzle is why and how the media have so willingly swallowed Wu's utterances. I believe there is more to this behavior than simply that today's media are overcome by the tabloid mentality and are too lazy to conduct the necessary due diligence. I believe Wu has sponsors and supporters with vested interests in containing China through public opinion, irrespective of truth and facts. One of Wu's more obvious sponsors is the AFL-CIO.
Shortly after Wu's arrest in China became known, an ABC Nightline program revealed that his clandestine trip into China via Kazakstan was financed by the AFL-CIO, and the attorney who accompanied Wu was on the AFL-CIO payroll. After the two were detained, she was promptly released and that was how the world first heard about Wu's arrest. In retrospect, she was an essential part of Wu's cover and protection.
An article covering Wu's participation in the picket line at Boeing, in the November 30, 1995 issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, quoted Wu as saying, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Matt Bates, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, on whose behalf Wu was appearing, said, "Clearly, a major part of the fight here is over the loss of jobs to overseas producers." With a 15-year suspended sentence awaiting him, Wu is unlikely to return to China, not even under cover. Consequently, Wu is now more useful to the AFL-CIO by becoming a public anti-China spokesperson on behalf of American labor.
When I tried to find out more about the Laogai Research Foundation, I found out that the Foundation is in the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarter building. Directory assistance for area code 202 (Washington area) cannot provide a listing for the Foundation. I then tried to reach the Foundation via the AFL-CIO. The headquarter switchboard transferred my call to their Food and Allied Services Trade who then switched the call over to a line with a recorded message representing the Foundation.
The AFL-CIO's motivation is naive but transparent. The AFL-CIO seems to believe that by stopping imports from China, they can preserve American jobs. For example, organized labor accused Boeing of exporting jobs to China. Actually, as Boeing's spokesman rebutted, by subcontracting certain sections of the 737 to the Chinese, Boeing is assured of continued future sales. Keeping all the manufacturing at home won't do any good, if China's orders for planes all go to European Airbus. Conversely continued sales to one of the largest markets in the world would allow Boeing and the Machinist Union to keep more jobs. It is not very complicated logic or economics, but has so far eluded the American labor leadership.
According to data presented to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee in May 1995 by Robert Kapp, president of the Washington-based US-China Business Council, America exported $9.3 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, equivalent to the support of approximately 187,000 jobs. According to Department of Commerce data presented at the same testimony, China will be buying $90 billion worth of power generation equipment, $65 billion worth of commercial jets, $40 billion of telecommunication equipment, $18.2 billion of oil field and gas machinery and $4.3 billion of computers in the coming years. Getting a fraction of that business will create many more jobs than the low cost goods imported from China that AFL-CIO objects to but America can no longer produce competitively.
AFL-CIO'S agenda on China and its dependence on Wu is no secret; the media simply have not seen fit to report the matter. In a testimony before the House of Representatives in July, 1995, Peggy Taylor, Director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO, made specific mention of "this lucrative trade" in organ transplants from prisoners as reason to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status to China. There is no need to speculate as to where her "data" came from.
At the airport interviews immediately upon his release and return to the United States, Wu freely admitted to the San Francisco Bay area reporters that lying, stealing, impersonating a police officer and adopting other underhanded means were perfectly acceptable while undercover in China. He has never responded on whether it is also acceptable to lie to the American public. However, he was at Columbia University recently to receive another of many awards. He was delighted to discover a fellow native of Shanghai in Li Qiang, a law student. He spoke to Li in Shanghai dialect and according to Li, Wu admitted that human rights conditions in China now has been the best in recent 50 years, but, he added, the Americans don't know anything.
While the Clinton Administration is working to open foreign markets and promote trade as the surest means of creating jobs, the AFL-CIO is working to undermine such efforts by sneaking Wu across the Chinese border. The public has the right to know the truth. Cut through all the hypocrisy about defending human rights, and one sees Wu performing dubious activities to support AFL-CIO in their efforts to stopping the flow of low cost goods from China. It's lucrative work for Wu and that's all there is to it.
AFL-CIO needs to review its policy towards China. The issue before the leadership is whether such a broad brush smearing of one of the America's major trading partners would not simply erode its credibility and neutralize the potency of the organization on those occasions when they actually need to intervene in specific trade issues.
Responsible journalism requires a willingness to look at all sides of the issues. Being a gullible pushover for easy to digest sensationalism is hardly discharging its duty to the public. Too much is at stake for someone not to take up the challenge and set the record straight.
Thursday, April 11, 1996
Tensions Across the Formosa Strait
At the end of March, I attended a conference on "National Strategies in the Asia-Pacific" held in Monterey. It was jointly sponsored by the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research and The Monterey Institute of International Studies. This took place shortly after the presidential election was held in Taiwan and the military exercises on the mainland had ended. Thus appropriate to the event just passed, one of the panel discussions was on a post mortem analysis of the repercussions and aftermath.
The distinguished panel consisted of: Michel Oksenberg, a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Asia/Pacific Research Center and former President of the East-West Center; Douglas Pall, President of Asia-Pacific Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and former Special Assistant to President Bush; and Dwight Perkins, Professor of Economics at Harvard University. All have published widely on China and are well known authorities on U.S.-China relations, China politics and economics, and related subjects.
The rules of the conference were that the substance of the discussion may be reported but not for attribution. Therefore I will report on some of the more interesting points raised without identifying who said what.
• Based on rudimentary analysis of the parties involved, we can expect a military exercise from the mainland, everytime an election is held in Taiwan. The latest exercise was no different in scale than the previous ones. Only 15,000 troops were involved, same as before, and not enough to overrun even one island within the shouting distance of the mainland. Only the media coverage was greatly expanded.
• The report on human rights conditions in China from the office of John Shuttack, the Assistant Secretary of State on Human Rights, was issued without any concensus or approval from within the Clinton Administration.
• All three parties lost in this exercise. Taiwan had to spend tens of billions of foreign exchange to support the stock market to keep it from collapsing. China has lost credibility in the forum of world opinion. The U.S. showed its absence of any consistent foreign policy in having to call in gun boat diplomacy.
• A positive spin of the hereafter is that Taiwan has already taken a significant positive step in recognizing Beijing as the legitimate government on the mainland. Both sides having participated in high theater for months will now get down to the serious business of negotiating direct mail, shipping visits across the straits and other issues of mutual interests.
• A contrary view is that the positive spin presupposes that all parties are rational actors. Unfortunately the actions of all three parties, including the U.S., are driven by domestic politics and not by what is necessarily rational and in the best self-interest. For example, having to put China's MFN status back on the table again is against everybody's self interest.
• As one indication of the current Administration's skewed foreign policy is to point out that Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, has been to China only once but Syria 17 times. Another from the audience pointed out that in view of the lack of progress with Syria, perhaps it is just well that the Secretary hasn't been to China 17 times.
The distinguished panel consisted of: Michel Oksenberg, a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Asia/Pacific Research Center and former President of the East-West Center; Douglas Pall, President of Asia-Pacific Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and former Special Assistant to President Bush; and Dwight Perkins, Professor of Economics at Harvard University. All have published widely on China and are well known authorities on U.S.-China relations, China politics and economics, and related subjects.
The rules of the conference were that the substance of the discussion may be reported but not for attribution. Therefore I will report on some of the more interesting points raised without identifying who said what.
• Based on rudimentary analysis of the parties involved, we can expect a military exercise from the mainland, everytime an election is held in Taiwan. The latest exercise was no different in scale than the previous ones. Only 15,000 troops were involved, same as before, and not enough to overrun even one island within the shouting distance of the mainland. Only the media coverage was greatly expanded.
• The report on human rights conditions in China from the office of John Shuttack, the Assistant Secretary of State on Human Rights, was issued without any concensus or approval from within the Clinton Administration.
• All three parties lost in this exercise. Taiwan had to spend tens of billions of foreign exchange to support the stock market to keep it from collapsing. China has lost credibility in the forum of world opinion. The U.S. showed its absence of any consistent foreign policy in having to call in gun boat diplomacy.
• A positive spin of the hereafter is that Taiwan has already taken a significant positive step in recognizing Beijing as the legitimate government on the mainland. Both sides having participated in high theater for months will now get down to the serious business of negotiating direct mail, shipping visits across the straits and other issues of mutual interests.
• A contrary view is that the positive spin presupposes that all parties are rational actors. Unfortunately the actions of all three parties, including the U.S., are driven by domestic politics and not by what is necessarily rational and in the best self-interest. For example, having to put China's MFN status back on the table again is against everybody's self interest.
• As one indication of the current Administration's skewed foreign policy is to point out that Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, has been to China only once but Syria 17 times. Another from the audience pointed out that in view of the lack of progress with Syria, perhaps it is just well that the Secretary hasn't been to China 17 times.
Tuesday, February 13, 1996
Harry Wu Lies for the AFL-CIO
The publicity attendant upon his arrest in China last summer endowed Harry Wu with far more influence than he possessed before his attempted clandestine entry. He is now in a position to disrupt and disturb American foreign policy towards China. He has challenged the World Bank on their investment policy in China and told Boeing how they should not do business with China. Unfortunately overlooked by the media, Harry Wu is also a purveyor of lies. One only has to review information already in the public domain on Wu to come to this conclusion. Normally the veracity of any one person is not worth fussing about. In Wu's case, he is capable of doing considerable damage to public interest. Thus, the public has the right to know the dubious pulpit from which Wu is bullying governments, corporations and other legitimate organizations.
One simple example of his propensity to lie is to look at his own statement in the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue. He said, "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." Organ transplant from prisoners has been one of Wu's most dramatic accusations about China and pivots on the evidence presented by the BBC broadcast.
Recently I had the opportunity to review a videotape of that infamous BBC telecast and can find nothing that comes close to depicting any organ removal. It did include a snippet taken by the Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the BBC reporter pretending to be Wu's wife, of an open heart surgery taking place in a Chengdu hospital. Publicly, Wu has admitted that the scene from the civilian hospital had nothing to with organ removal from prisoners and attributed the use of the footage to error in editing by BBC. After his return, the Laogai Research Foundation, of which he is the executive director, issued the claim that no attempt to mislead was intended, since BBC never claimed the incision in the middle of the chest cavity to be related to kidney removal or implantation. ("Laogai" is an abbreviated Chinese term for "reform through labor.") According to the statement released by the Foundation: "The operating room video was used as a background shot." The disclaimer did not explain why Wu and his "wife" took the trouble of surreptitiously filming such a non-relevant and innocuous scene. They certainly didn't need to go all the way to China for a "background shot."
Wu frequently made the claim, including in the Playboy interview, that it was his protest of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 that got him in trouble with the Chinese authorities. It took a reporter from San Francisco State University to point out to Wu that he was 19 and in college at the time. (In the context of the 1956 environment in China, he would have been exceptionally precocious--at least politically, predating Wei Jingsheng by about a quarter of a century.) When Mike Mattis questioned him about the accuracy of attributing his political problems to the purported protest, Wu's response was to deny the existence of such protest and shift the blame to "a mistake in translation" of his statements. This interview was published in November, 1995 issue of Prism, a monthly publication of SFSU.
Inconsistencies and shifting statements abound from Wu's public utterances and activities. The issue isn't that they exist and is pointless to analyze every one of the inaccuracies. The real puzzle is why and how the media have so willingly swallowed Wu's utterances. I believe there is more to this behavior than simply that today's media are overcome by the tabloid mentality and are too lazy to conduct the necessary due diligence. I believe Wu has sponsors and supporters with vested interests in containing China through public opinion, irrespective of truth and facts. One of Wu's more obvious sponsors is the AFL-CIO.
Shortly after Wu's arrest in China became known, an ABC Nightline program revealed that his clandestine trip into China via Kazakstan was financed by the AFL-CIO, and the attorney who accompanied Wu was on the AFL-CIO payroll. After the two were detained, she was promptly released and that was how the world first heard about Wu's arrest. In retrospect, she was an essential part of Wu's cover and protection.
An article covering Wu's participation in the picket line at Boeing, in the November 30, 1995 issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, quoted Wu as saying, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Matt Bates, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, on whose behalf Wu was appearing, said, "Clearly, a major part of the fight here is over the loss of jobs to overseas producers." With a 15-year suspended sentence awaiting him, Wu is unlikely to return to China, not even under cover. Consequently, Wu is now more useful to the AFL-CIO by becoming a public anti-China spokesperson on behalf of American labor.
When I tried to find out more about the Laogai Research Foundation, I found out that the Foundation is in the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarter building. Directory assistance for area code 202 (Washington area) cannot provide a listing for the Foundation. I then tried to reach the Foundation via the AFL-CIO. The headquarter switchboard transferred my call to their Food and Allied Services Trade who then switched the call over to a line with a recorded message representing the Foundation.
The AFL-CIO's motivation is naive but transparent. The AFL-CIO seems to believe that by stopping imports from China, they can preserve American jobs. For example, organized labor accused Boeing of exporting jobs to China. Actually, as Boeing's spokesman rebutted, by subcontracting certain sections of the 737 to the Chinese, Boeing is assured of continued future sales. Keeping all the manufacturing at home won't do any good, if China's orders for planes all go to European Airbus. Conversely continued sales to one of the largest markets in the world would allow Boeing and the Machinist Union to keep more jobs. It is not very complicated logic or economics, but has so far eluded the American labor leadership.
According to data presented to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee in May 1995 by Robert Kapp, president of the Washington-based US-China Business Council, America exported $9.3 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, equivalent to the support of approximately 187,000 jobs. According to Department of Commerce data presented at the same testimony, China will be buying $90 billion worth of power generation equipment, $65 billion worth of commercial jets, $40 billion of telecommunication equipment, $18.2 billion of oil field and gas machinery and $4.3 billion of computers in the coming years. Getting a fraction of that business will create many more jobs than the low cost goods imported from China that AFL-CIO objects to but America can no longer produce competitively.
AFL-CIO'S agenda on China and its dependence on Wu is no secret; the media simply have not seen fit to report the matter. In a testimony before the House of Representatives in July, 1995, Peggy Taylor, Director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO, made specific mention of "this lucrative trade" in organ transplants from prisoners as reason to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status to China. There is no need to speculate as to where her "data" came from.
At the airport interviews immediately upon his release and return to the United States, Wu freely admitted to the San Francisco Bay area reporters that lying, stealing, impersonating a police officer and adopting other underhanded means were perfectly acceptable while undercover in China. He has never responded on whether it is also acceptable to lie to the American public.
While the Clinton Administration is working to open foreign markets and promote trade as the surest means of creating jobs, the AFL-CIO is working to undermine such efforts by sneaking Wu across the Chinese border. The public has the right to know the truth. Cut through all the hypocrisy about defending human rights, and one sees Wu performing dubious activities to support AFL-CIO in their efforts to stopping the flow of low cost goods from China. It's lucrative work for Wu and that's all there is to it.
AFL-CIO needs to review its policy towards China. The issue before the leadership is whether such a broad brush smearing of one of the America's major trading partners would not simply erode its credibility and neutralize the potency of the organization on those occasions when they actually need to intervene in specific trade issues.
Responsible journalism requires a willingness to look at all sides of the issues. Being a gullible pushover for easy to digest sensationalism is hardly discharging its duty to the public. Too much is at stake for someone not to take up the challenge and set the record straight.
# # #
About the Author:
George P. Koo, founder of International Strategic Alliances, Mountain View, California, assists and advises American companies on doing business in Asia. He first became aware of Harry Wu during the past summer and he organized Concerned Citizens for Rational Relations with China to protest the nomination of Wu for the Nobel Peace Prize by the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional delegation. (see SF Chronicle, and SF Examiner, 8/16/95) He is the Chairman of Asian American Manufacturers Association, based in Silicon Valley and is a Human Relations Commissioner in City of Mountain View.
One simple example of his propensity to lie is to look at his own statement in the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue. He said, "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." Organ transplant from prisoners has been one of Wu's most dramatic accusations about China and pivots on the evidence presented by the BBC broadcast.
Recently I had the opportunity to review a videotape of that infamous BBC telecast and can find nothing that comes close to depicting any organ removal. It did include a snippet taken by the Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the BBC reporter pretending to be Wu's wife, of an open heart surgery taking place in a Chengdu hospital. Publicly, Wu has admitted that the scene from the civilian hospital had nothing to with organ removal from prisoners and attributed the use of the footage to error in editing by BBC. After his return, the Laogai Research Foundation, of which he is the executive director, issued the claim that no attempt to mislead was intended, since BBC never claimed the incision in the middle of the chest cavity to be related to kidney removal or implantation. ("Laogai" is an abbreviated Chinese term for "reform through labor.") According to the statement released by the Foundation: "The operating room video was used as a background shot." The disclaimer did not explain why Wu and his "wife" took the trouble of surreptitiously filming such a non-relevant and innocuous scene. They certainly didn't need to go all the way to China for a "background shot."
Wu frequently made the claim, including in the Playboy interview, that it was his protest of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 that got him in trouble with the Chinese authorities. It took a reporter from San Francisco State University to point out to Wu that he was 19 and in college at the time. (In the context of the 1956 environment in China, he would have been exceptionally precocious--at least politically, predating Wei Jingsheng by about a quarter of a century.) When Mike Mattis questioned him about the accuracy of attributing his political problems to the purported protest, Wu's response was to deny the existence of such protest and shift the blame to "a mistake in translation" of his statements. This interview was published in November, 1995 issue of Prism, a monthly publication of SFSU.
Inconsistencies and shifting statements abound from Wu's public utterances and activities. The issue isn't that they exist and is pointless to analyze every one of the inaccuracies. The real puzzle is why and how the media have so willingly swallowed Wu's utterances. I believe there is more to this behavior than simply that today's media are overcome by the tabloid mentality and are too lazy to conduct the necessary due diligence. I believe Wu has sponsors and supporters with vested interests in containing China through public opinion, irrespective of truth and facts. One of Wu's more obvious sponsors is the AFL-CIO.
Shortly after Wu's arrest in China became known, an ABC Nightline program revealed that his clandestine trip into China via Kazakstan was financed by the AFL-CIO, and the attorney who accompanied Wu was on the AFL-CIO payroll. After the two were detained, she was promptly released and that was how the world first heard about Wu's arrest. In retrospect, she was an essential part of Wu's cover and protection.
An article covering Wu's participation in the picket line at Boeing, in the November 30, 1995 issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, quoted Wu as saying, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Matt Bates, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, on whose behalf Wu was appearing, said, "Clearly, a major part of the fight here is over the loss of jobs to overseas producers." With a 15-year suspended sentence awaiting him, Wu is unlikely to return to China, not even under cover. Consequently, Wu is now more useful to the AFL-CIO by becoming a public anti-China spokesperson on behalf of American labor.
When I tried to find out more about the Laogai Research Foundation, I found out that the Foundation is in the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarter building. Directory assistance for area code 202 (Washington area) cannot provide a listing for the Foundation. I then tried to reach the Foundation via the AFL-CIO. The headquarter switchboard transferred my call to their Food and Allied Services Trade who then switched the call over to a line with a recorded message representing the Foundation.
The AFL-CIO's motivation is naive but transparent. The AFL-CIO seems to believe that by stopping imports from China, they can preserve American jobs. For example, organized labor accused Boeing of exporting jobs to China. Actually, as Boeing's spokesman rebutted, by subcontracting certain sections of the 737 to the Chinese, Boeing is assured of continued future sales. Keeping all the manufacturing at home won't do any good, if China's orders for planes all go to European Airbus. Conversely continued sales to one of the largest markets in the world would allow Boeing and the Machinist Union to keep more jobs. It is not very complicated logic or economics, but has so far eluded the American labor leadership.
According to data presented to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee in May 1995 by Robert Kapp, president of the Washington-based US-China Business Council, America exported $9.3 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, equivalent to the support of approximately 187,000 jobs. According to Department of Commerce data presented at the same testimony, China will be buying $90 billion worth of power generation equipment, $65 billion worth of commercial jets, $40 billion of telecommunication equipment, $18.2 billion of oil field and gas machinery and $4.3 billion of computers in the coming years. Getting a fraction of that business will create many more jobs than the low cost goods imported from China that AFL-CIO objects to but America can no longer produce competitively.
AFL-CIO'S agenda on China and its dependence on Wu is no secret; the media simply have not seen fit to report the matter. In a testimony before the House of Representatives in July, 1995, Peggy Taylor, Director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO, made specific mention of "this lucrative trade" in organ transplants from prisoners as reason to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status to China. There is no need to speculate as to where her "data" came from.
At the airport interviews immediately upon his release and return to the United States, Wu freely admitted to the San Francisco Bay area reporters that lying, stealing, impersonating a police officer and adopting other underhanded means were perfectly acceptable while undercover in China. He has never responded on whether it is also acceptable to lie to the American public.
While the Clinton Administration is working to open foreign markets and promote trade as the surest means of creating jobs, the AFL-CIO is working to undermine such efforts by sneaking Wu across the Chinese border. The public has the right to know the truth. Cut through all the hypocrisy about defending human rights, and one sees Wu performing dubious activities to support AFL-CIO in their efforts to stopping the flow of low cost goods from China. It's lucrative work for Wu and that's all there is to it.
AFL-CIO needs to review its policy towards China. The issue before the leadership is whether such a broad brush smearing of one of the America's major trading partners would not simply erode its credibility and neutralize the potency of the organization on those occasions when they actually need to intervene in specific trade issues.
Responsible journalism requires a willingness to look at all sides of the issues. Being a gullible pushover for easy to digest sensationalism is hardly discharging its duty to the public. Too much is at stake for someone not to take up the challenge and set the record straight.
# # #
About the Author:
George P. Koo, founder of International Strategic Alliances, Mountain View, California, assists and advises American companies on doing business in Asia. He first became aware of Harry Wu during the past summer and he organized Concerned Citizens for Rational Relations with China to protest the nomination of Wu for the Nobel Peace Prize by the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional delegation. (see SF Chronicle, and SF Examiner, 8/16/95) He is the Chairman of Asian American Manufacturers Association, based in Silicon Valley and is a Human Relations Commissioner in City of Mountain View.
Monday, January 1, 1996
Comparing West with East
"...the history of the West, more than any others (civilizations), has swung between savagery and idealism, a contradiction apparently deeply rooted in our character and our history. The inescapable lesson of history is that for all the great achievements of the West, for all its humanistic values and its egalitarian principles, its character is touched by a deep strain of violence. And that's the paradox that confronts us..." -- Michael Wood, narrator and producer of "Legacy," a PBS series that compared the ancient civilizations of China, Egypt, India, Iraq, and Middle America with the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)