Week 2 - Actors and Venues as "China" Engages the World (February 7)

[Kirstjen Pollock]

This week, I see a lot of information from Chinese-Australians. 

 

The opinions I encountered in these articles were largely pro-China, with some expressing confusion about any anti-Chinese sentiments, whether overt racism or otherwise. It was interesting to read comments such as the suggestion that “those who have left authoritarian regimes to settle in a stable democracy do not always regard democracy as the only option” (The Interpreter) and to hear that one person was requested to take what amounted to a loyalty oath (SBS Dateline). It makes me wonder what’s wrong with something other than democracy, and if there might be a type of government not yet established that is superior to the types we have now. I was also struck by the implied questioning of the validity of Chinese-Australian political activism based on the fact that Chinese-Australians get news from censored sources (The Interpreter). I wonder how common this line of thinking truly is in Australia

 

Because these are news articles, I also noticed a certain dramatic flair, such as the music (SBS Dateline) and the government officials stalking the journalist (CNN). It’s hard for me to take such things seriously when there’s a clear reason for bias. Something new for me was the “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy” (SBS Dateline) — a name I hadn’t heard, but a concept that made sense. Another thing that resonated was the excuse that foreign countries have committed crimes in the past, so developing countries should be given equal opportunity (SBS Dateline). I have encountered this line of thinking in regards to the environment, but never before in regards to human rights. 

 

As an expat, I did connect with some of the things mentioned. For instance, since 2016, I have noticed a rise in nationalism both in the USA and in China. Since Covid, I have noticed and experienced strong anti-foreign sentiments and rhetoric in both countries as well. For example, in China, the rhetoric for much of 2020-2022 was that Covid only existed overseas, so people avoided being near me since I obviously come from overseas. Foreign imports were also increasingly difficult to obtain for a while, and packages from my parents were impossible to receive, whereas previously these things were no problem. 

 

A further personal anecdote that got me wondering: my school previously had an Australian deputy director who did not return after Covid in 2020, citing his government’s warnings against traveling to China. At that time, the US State Department did have some government warnings against heading to China, and over the next two years (especially during the Shanghai lockdown), the warnings became stronger. However, my family still felt comfortable returning. As I highly respect this individual and his decisions, I wonder if the Australian rhetoric was that much stronger against China to drive away this individual. 

 

I’m left with these ponderings: with global interactions changing daily, especially as Covid has now ended China, I wonder if we will see a return to globalization. I wonder how identities, especially nationalism vs globalization, will play out in the next few years. Will they will balance together, or play off of each other? And how will they each earn places in the hearts and minds of people around the world?

[Kirstjen Pollock]

Hi Brendan, 

American Factory came to mind for me as well! The idea that China is now directly investing in foreign countries (Belt & Road, too) when only 45 years ago it started incentivizing incoming FDI holds a lot of power for Chinese citizens. You said, " it hinges on the promise that this generation will have a better life than their parents, and their children will have a better situation than themselves."  I actually discovered that for myself about 13 years ago in conversation with a Chinese colleague, who said something to the effect that the average citizen has no desire to question/challenge/criticize the government when things are so much better for each passing generation. There is a lot of talk about how GDP can continue to accelerate, and when you look at rural regions as you did, it's hard to imagine how they will become developed amidst shrinking populations. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They really struck a chord with me.

[Isaac Esquivel]

Having read the Cheng Lei journalist story.  My take is that in today's modern age, and certainly not limited to China, it's concerning to consider the reach and influence that Governments have in our news outlets (and I hesitate to put quotes around the word "news," but that is almost the case).  Certainly Cheng Lei being one of them, but John Snowden and Julian Assange being others that have been recently fallen into the proverbial doghouse of their respective governments. 

I can't help but think about the countless journalist that have mysteriously died or "disappeared" in Mexico when investigating local government officials with suspected ties to cartels and corruption.  Not unlike Russian journalists critical of the Kremlin.  

It'd be very easy to come up with lessons in the classroom about selfless individuals that, despite all odds, have continuously fought for whatever they thought was right, despite the dangers imposed to their lives.  Weather fighting to expose corruption or inequalities, it's hard not to be inspired by such individuals.

Somewhat related to this, I also found The Voice Behind China's Aggresive New Voice very interesting and somewhat frustrating. This is yet another attempt to influence public opinion through the media.  The frustrating aspect of this comes from a large majority of the population being swayed by exagerated, meaningless, but pointed and insulting rethoric through news outlets and social media ("dirty lies" or "has no soul or nationality". It reminds me of our own media wars between the "Left" and the "Right," creating an environment of noise, but neither side doing a particularly good job of shedding light in any significant manner on issues that materially affect everyday people. Instead, they seem to consciously preoccupy themselves in culture wars, sensationalism (Breaking News: speed chase on the 5 North), and feel-good stories.

[Jerrica Keane]

Hi Victoria, 

I had the same thoughts when I was reading your comment about the history of China's isolationism and how the current policy seems to have the goal of global recognition. China also seems to be very purposeful in acknolwedging the global heirachy of superpower countries versus middle power countries. This is evident in the relationship dynamics between China and Australia video assigned this week "The China Dream: Tensions With Australia".

[Elizabeth Quintero]

For the lecture, video and readings I zeroed in on the issue of Australia-China tensions as I found it most fascinating. From the lecture, I was surprised to learn just how big of a role China plays in Australia’s economy and how many Chinese Australians the country has. I am by no means an expert on the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in foreign countries, but I will mention that much of what I have seen and read (materials provided by this course and outside materials I have come across) I can surmise the Chinese government will go to extraordinary lengths to censor any voices it deems threatening. As I was reading and watching the materials for week 2, I began to think back to a prior video provided during Week 1 where journalists were interviewing people in rural China about Covid 19 and they had people working for the Chinese government following them around and interjecting by quite literally pulling people away on the streets as they were getting interviewed.

All this being said I do not think this is a “manufactured” crisis that the United States is ultimately behind. The first article I read was about Cheng Lei’s detention and prison conditions. She is accused of “suspicion of illegally supplying state secrets overseas." I was shocked to learn the conditions Cheng Lei is experiencing for merely being a suspect. The next article I read was the Global Times Article that attributes the tensions between Australia and China as a “difference in values” and states that Australian politicians who have adopted an Anti-Chinese stance have done so at the behest of the United States. This article read as an opinion piece although I could not find “opinion” anywhere on the article’s page as I usually do when reading articles written by the New York Times, for example. I couldn’t help but get the feeling that this is a propaganda piece by a Chinese government friendly media outlet. Knowing nothing about the Global times, I researched it and found a slew of “anti U.S” articles and discovered that the People's Daily owns the Global Times. The People’s Daily is the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It seems like it is very believable and most likely possible that the Chinese Communist Party has “donated” or rather bribed government officials in Australia all to control the narrative that is written by them. I then watched the video about the Four Corners investigation titled “Interference: China’s covert political influence campaign in Australia” and was surprised to learn the extent to which Chinese government officials but also wealthy businesspeople working with the Chinese government have ties to Australian politicians. It made me wonder whether if anything similar to that could be happening in the United States and our government officials considering special interest play a huge role in shaping policy in the legislative branch.  

With regards to the questions posed in the lecture…I believe the perceptions of one’s homeland can have a significant effect on self-image. I cannot speak on behalf of Chinese people who often have to clarify that the Chinese Communist Party is not representative of China’s people as a whole. However, I imagine it must be very challenging being associated with a government that has such a bad reputation (from a Western lens). Living in a country that regards the Chinese government as hostile, authoritarian and interventionist may have a negative impact on how Chinese people living abroad in Western countries view themselves. In the U.S. for example, there is a constant flow of negative media coverage about China. Living and working in a new place can sharpen one’s ideas about what is important to them because it gets people out of their bubble, their comfort zone. An American for example, living and working in China would have the opportunity to step out of the barrage of negative perceptions about China they were exposed to in the U.S.

[Bridget Ruiz-Acevedo]

In reading some articles about journalism in China, what stood out to me the most would be how limited journalists are in reporting and the risks they are taking just doing their jobs. My first thought is why would soemone even take that risk. One of the journalist in the articles stated that you must be ready to just pick and go if needed which he eventually did. The way he described his family needing to relocate to Austrailia and leaving family and friends behind is so dissapointing. There is also a high conviction rate for people that China places under arrest, so the chances of the high-profile jounalist who was arrested will most likley be convicted. My heart truly goes out to her two children who have limited communication with her. In class, I can see how this discussion/debate of doing ones job,in this case journalism, is worth it in the end knowing the consequences that may result. 

[Brendon McGirr]

Its not just journalism. I remember being at an IB training and a teacher saying he couldnt offer parts of the history curriculum because of how Mao is portrayed (he is covered in the Authoritarian Leaders section, so you could imagine how China might view that). It goes back to the idea of how China has used its education and messaging to allow the citizens to accept this. At the end of the day, the average Chinese citizen has a higher standard of living as before, so from their perspective if its not broke, why fix it I suppose.

[Brendon McGirr]

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227217.shtml

 

I used this article earlier this year to talk about perspectives. It essentially boils down to Western nations condeming China's actions, but Ukraine withdrawing when a similar response was not drafted for their situation. 

 

A quote that summerizes it well

Ukraine's change of attitude shows that the so-called alliance did not really care about the Xinjiang human rights issue when those countries signed the Canada-led joint statement. The joint statement was just a temporary clique of interests cobbled together by a few countries. China does not need to care about the "claims" of these countries, especially when the leading country is basically a dehumanizing and brutal country in itself. Breen Ouellette, who is Métis and once served as counsel for the Canada National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, said on Twitter on May 21 that he learned of incidents within the past decade in which Indigenous children as young as 9 years old in foster care were forced to get intrauterine devices instead of access to safer care. 

[Author]

Posts