Via Imagethief, Xinjiang scholar James Millward has some PR advice for the PRC. As Imagethief points out, good PR is 90% commonsense, which why I feel that for Professor Millward’s six points for China, there are six corollaries for the rest of the world:
▪ Remember that what you say to a Chinese audience is heard by the world audience
Likewise, remember that what you say in English is often heard by a Chinese audience. I’m looking at you, Jack Cafferty.
▪ Consider how your statements sound in English
I’ve previously written about how Steven Spielberg missed an opportunity to address the Chinese public in Chinese about his concerns when he withdrew as an adviser to the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony Committee. Similarly, Twofish has pointed out the language used in the English version of Dalai Lama’s appeal to the Chinese people has alot of conversation stoppers in it. The Chinese version doesn’t, but see Rule #1. If the two contradict one another, you’ll look like a hypocrite.
▪ Don’t employ ancient or strained historical arguments about territorial questions
Here we start to drift away from literal reversals of these rules. Western critics typically do not cite medieval princesses when giving its perspective on Tibet or Xinjiang. There isn’t a Western “5,000 years of separatism” argument. But if you buy the China “dog years” theory, then in the hyperkinetic temporal distortion that is China, a dude in the street in 1989 is ancient history. And we all know that image is burnt into alot of skulls. It’s not in China. So either you’re going to have to go through the enormous effort of convincing these people that something they never heard of happened the way you say it did, or if they have heard of it, they’re gonna say that was sooooo 19 years ago (approximately 163 China years).
▪ Do consider more recent and more realistic historical precedents
In the case of something like the Lhasa incident, it would serve Western critics well to place it in a contemporary Chinese context. For instance, there has been plenty of other riots and demonstrations in China the past few years. Had the emphasis been on this being yet another in a long string of mass incidents, except that it had Tibetan citizens instead of Chinese ones, rather than placing it in the context of independence, a narrative that everyone in the West knows implicitly but in China is not only offensive but completely unknown, perhaps it would’ve found more reception (as opposed to the current 37 Chinese people in Shanghai and Beijing who agree with external perspectives). It also makes more sense; Tibetans in Lhasa face a political environment and injustices closer to those in rural Sichuan than anywhere else in the world, save maybe Xinjiang.
▪ Don’t deny that China has problems; instead, see how they resemble those of other countries
I actually believe the opposite advice applies outside of China – stop thinking China’s communist government parallels the Soviets. Learn some specifics. Stop generalizing based on some shallow surface similarities.
▪ Let reporters report: transparency engenders credibility
On American television and the like, I would suggest focusing more on Chinese voices. How about fewer really pale thinktank analysts and a few more Chinese-American community leaders? How about some more voices from the sea turtle community? Make a bigger effort to have Chinese people representing their own people rather than non-Chinese China Hands.
great post! Thanks!
I feel very strongly about the last point. It annoys me to no end that even after tens of thousands of Chinese have walked onto the streets overseas, our opinions are still generally dismissed as being products of a censored media. And the only international attention we can get for our actions? The existence of a dissenting voice amongst the Chinese community.
Chinese rallies overseas are going to continue, and I have a feeling they’re going to escalate until our message is finally received loud and clear by the West. Europe this weekend; Australia when the torch arrives; New York in early May.
Yes. The best coverage of Tibet in the media that I have heard was in the podcasts on the BBCs Chinese website, including interviews with Hong Kong, Taiwanese and mainland scholars. It’s a pity they didn’t dub them into English, because they provided more history than most English language coverage, and Chinese people would have been less likely to reject such people as biased.
This insightful-cut-to-the-point article explains a lot about the current situation in THE WORLD and is definitely worth a read for all geopoliticals.
Below: “Why Washington Plays ‘Tibet Roulette’ with China,” by FW Engdahl
http://yanfeng.org/2008/04/why-washington-plays-tibet-roulette-with-china
Excellent & insightful post! This is the first report I’ve seen that has a truly balanced outlook. I am a repatriated expat of many years in China. I speak and read Chinese and know too well that it is rare to see the truth in either the Chinese or the western media on these divisive issues.
I agree with many of the Chinese nationals posting here that the coverage of the Tibetan riots in the Western press was disgraceful (especially initially) – an embarrassment to me as a US citizen. It was as if the Han people that were killed or economically ruined in the riots were a just a faceless extension of an evil empire, and therefore expendable in the Tibetans pursuit of freedom. In the western world, if you indiscriminately harm civilians, you are branded either a terrorist or a war criminal.
Nationalism is scary in any extreme form – think Milosevic. The knee-jerk nationalism in the Chinese blogosphere is really sad in its lack of perspective, but we should really know better.
Both the Chinese and Western media are propaganda machines. Many in China realize that they don’t get the entire story, whether they admit it outright or not (thus the high prevalence of rumors outside of the press). The danger is that most Westerners truly believe that they read the “truth,” or at least something with just a minor spin on it.
This is a difficult position to hold in discussions with proponents of either side. I can see China continuing to gradually opening up its press freedoms. But what can we do in the West? It’s one thing to be ignorant, when you are deprived of information, it is quite another when you choose not to acknowledge it.
You perpetuate the idea that China has a PR problem. No, China has a Tibet problem that it will not acknowledge. No amount of PR spin will change that. The claims that the media is to blame sound eerily familiar – the same mantra as the neo cons. When things go wrong, blame the media.
The reason why the western media aren’t given much time to these mass demonstrations is because they have no coherent message other than “We love China” and “You are Liars”.
The best “PR” for the Chinese side would be to engage in a bit of thoughtful discussion about why Tibetans are rioting. Why are Tibetans angry? What do they want? What can Beijing
realistically do to address their concerns? I’ve just come back from Tibet and the Tibetans I met don’t want a Free Tibet and don’t support that movement. But they ARE very unhappy about what Han Chinese dismiss as irrelevant matters: it’s very simple. They revere the Dalai Lama. They don’t want him vilified. They don’t want to have to denounce him. They would like to display his picture. They would like to be given the opportunity to visit him in Dharamsala. This DOES NOT mean they support Tibetan separatism. In other words, the Tibetans want religious freedom, not a Tibetan state.
If the Chinese side can’t get past the stage of “They are encouraged by the sneaky terrorist Dalai Lama and funded by the CIA” then no amount of PR tweaking will make any difference.
Re: Twofish’s assessment of the Dalai Lama’s appeal to the Chinese people, it’s nonsense. Twofish is basically suggesting that in order for Chinese people not to be offended he should have ensured that his statements conform to the People’s Daily style guide. Dream on.
China does not has a Tibet problem, China has a Tibet “situation”, just like each and every major country in this world has in their closet, it can be nothing serious, gets a free pass easily like Kashmir(where the hell is that?), or … Free Tibet.
To Peanut Butter,
Actually it’d be very easy for Dalai Lama to apeal to chinese people like me, I like him anyway.
1. Disavow his 1963 constitution.
2. Segeragate himself and his ppl with TYC.
3. Denounce 3.14 Tibetan rioters.
From Letters to The Australian April 18 2008
PROTESTS against the Olympic torch relay, which arrives in Canberra next week (“Guards to travel on foot for torch leg’’, 17/4), have raised some interesting issues.
“Whether you carry a Chinese passport or are an Australian citizen, I believe that each and every one of you, the sons and daughters of China, are as one with us in loyalty and love for the motherland!’’ is reportedly a quote from a letter widely circulated in Australian Chinese communities.
Does that mean we have a Chinese fifth column in Australia, and the Chinese Students and Scholars Association is a front organisation for the Chinese Government. Association spokesman Zhang Rongan should be under intense surveillance from this time on. The letter is also reported to state no Chinese can tolerate being humiliated by “scum of the Chinese nation’’ and “running dogs’’, an apparent racial vilification of the Tibetan protesters. Will our law enforcement agencies tolerate that sort of language?
John Stickle
Daglish, WA
@James: The article referred to is here.
http://tinyurl.com/3u9v8f
I don’t see why Australian law enforcement shouldn’t “tolerate” such language, since its protected free speech. I can’t think of any law being broken here. Just because they agree with and use government rhetoric, moreover, does not mean they are a “front organization” or “fifth column”. I don’t see how responding to Cold War era invective with more of the same does anyone any good.
Its just that Australia has very strict vilification laws aimed at protecting all sectors. Of course anyone can see how they could be misconstrued. These words could be in breach in regards vilifying protesters who have the right to do so without condemnation and to exercize their right to protest in their own country. The law is set up to defend that right yu claim for the anonymous Chinese voice here. As yu know different countries have different laws. Yu must have been told that in China. Australia is a sovereign nation with its own laws. So yes despite you not seeing any law being broken it is possibly a breach of the Australian vilification law which yu must respect if yu live here and with which yu are obviously unfamiliar. Maybe your country doesn’t have such protective laws?
Anyway, I doubt if anyone would press charges but they could under law have a case. The writer of the letter is making a point of something going on possibly directed from outside the country (a crime under Chinese law-sometimes punishable in the extreme in places like Xinjiang and Tibet as collaboration with outside forces – “the unseen hand”) which is detrimental to Australian law and the right to free speech and open protest in Australia and sets about to vilify those expressing their sentiments in regard the torch being on Australian soil.
BTW thanks Dave for the link form the Age.
Some excerpts are of interest:
“Zhang Zhuning, chairman of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, said police were underestimating the “piles of monks” and “paid” thugs who would create trouble in Canberra. But he said he was not afraid of local Falun Gong groups because Chinese triad gangs had “quietened them down”.
“The friend-and-enemy language about Tibet and the Olympic torch is more extreme inside China. Individuals who have called for moderation or dialogue, such as an editor called Chang Ping at the Southern Metropolis Daily, have been subjected to vicious, personal denunciations on blog sites and in state-controlled newspapers.”
Sorry. to be pest. but I should have posted this link above. Blog comments on the letter:
http://tinyurl.com/3nca6a
I don’t think there is a unified Chinese American voice on the subject, and I also don’t think there’s a Chinese Community leader in the US that has a high enough profile to speak for the whole community.
Then, there’s also the fact that the Chinese American Community and Tibetan American Community are two stakes in the Asian American Tent. I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but it’s an interesting factor nonetheless.
Unless one subscribes to the notion that Asian-Americans are somehow genetically wired to CCP mandates.
That’s pretty much what the reception of the counter protests has been – we are not brainwahsed when we demonize China, but you are brainwashed when you disagree.