"Let's Talk" and "Avatars of Nonviolence" in Hong Kong

While in Hong Kong earlier this year during January, I saw the following signs posted publicly in several locations by Hong Kong's government:

One sign said the closing date to "express your views" about "methods for selecting the chief executive in 2017" was May 3rd. After yesterday's announcement that Beijing will "filter" the possible candidates for the position of Hong Kong's top leader, some Hong Kong citizens still want to "talk and achieve universal suffrage", but they are "facing tough choices":

In the near future, the protests will achieve nothing, said Brian Fong Chi-hang, a political science scholar at the Hong Kong Institute of Education and a supporter of the democracy movement.

“The most important challenge is that even if they succeed in mobilizing a large-scale Occupy Central movement in a peaceful and orderly manner, they will finally get nothing,” he said. “We cannot change anything.”

But leaders of the movement expect to wage a protracted struggle nonetheless.

“This is a long, long cause,” said Chan Kin-man, an associate professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and co-founder of the movement, known in full as Occupy Central With Love and Peace. “Civil disobedience is the starting point. Look at what happened in Martin Luther King’s case.”

The mention of Martin Luther King Jr. is a sign of how some will "look to avatars of nonviolence":

[T]housands of people gathered in intermittent rain to protest a decision by China’s legislature to put firm restrictions on a plan to expand the franchise to allow all adults in the territory to vote for their leader, the chief executive.

The demonstrators, many of whom wore headbands emblazoned with the Chinese characters for “civil disobedience,” said they drew inspiration from thinkers and practitioners of nonviolent protest, including Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Dr. King.

And this reminds me of something else I saw this past January: shirts for sale at Hong Kong's Lunar New Year Fair pro-democracy booths.

It wouldn't surprise me if the shirts are available again at next year's fairs.

A Decision in Beijing, A Response in Hong Kong

As part of upcoming voting reforms for Hong Kong, today Beijing announced it will maintain tight control over the selection of candidates for Hong Kong's chief executive. As The New York Times reports, although most Hongkongers desire more freedom in choosing their leader, much of the response will be guided by multiple concerns:

Opinion polls show that most Hong Kong citizens support the demand for “unfiltered” electoral choice, but also that many have qualms about possible disruption from protests.

The Chinese government and the Hong Kong political establishment have accused Occupy Central and allied groups of recklessly imperiling the city’s reputation for political stability and support for business. And many ordinary Hong Kong residents have voiced worry about any political conflict that could hurt their livelihoods.

But Occupy Central says it will engage in nonviolent civil disobedience calibrated to avoid major disruption. Its organizers have said that they do not plan to plunge immediately into any protests after the Chinese authorities announce their plans.

Beijing's decision was not surprising. What happens next, though, seems harder to predict.

See "Live blog: Occupy Central leader declares 'era of civil disobedience' for Hong Kong" on the South China Morning Post for some of tonight's initial response in Hong Kong.

Assorted Links: Internet Cafes, Johnny Cash, Needing Google, and Discouraging Protests for Democracy

Now seems like a good time for some assorted links. Here we go:

1. One man dreams of a salaried job. Another man never wants one again. They both live in a Japanese Internet cafe as featured in a video by MediaStorm.

2. On a musical note, one man:

had never been a huge music lover. His musical taste was broad, covering Dutch-language songs, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, with a preference for the last named. While music did not occupy an important position in his live, his taste in music had always been very fixed and his preferences stayed the same throughout decades.

But as described in a Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience paper, with a bit of technology he "developed a sudden and distinct musical preference for Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation".

3. Several years ago I spoke to a student in Guiyang, Guizhou, who was concerned if Google "left China" that her academic research would suffer. With most of Google's services now blocked in China, Offbeat China shares that others in China are expressing similar pragmatic concerns.

4. Finally, but definitely not least . . .

Many Hong Kongers seek a level of democracy that Beijing has indicated it won't allow, regardless of any past promises. In response to plans for large-scale protests in support of more democracy, the international Big Four accounting firms decided to pay a leading role and placed public ads in Hong Kong.

They basically say, "please don't protest for democracy, it could hurt business".

Good to know where Ernst & Young, KPMG, Deloitte Kwan Wong Tan & Fong (Deloitte's Hong Kong unit), and PricewaterhouseCoopers stand.

Seven Tiananmen Tweets

Much has been recently expressed and shared regarding the events at Tiananmen Square 25 years ago and their lasting impact in China today. Below are seven people's tweets I retweeted (shared) last week during my moments on Twitter (if no images automatically appear, viewing this post on the blog (not in a reader) and / or enabling javascript may do the trick). The tweets are brief and only a small piece of the picture, but they say much.

Priceless. Mandatory 'enrichment' trip away from Beijing on June 3-4, via @ComradeWong MT@lee91741: pic.twitter.com/KP6rpOYHpL
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) June 2, 2014

June 4 official souvenir, given by Beijing Gov to each soldier who took part in the crackdown. #64 #89 #memory pic.twitter.com/nbIrA2UtwN
— gilles sabrie (@GillSabrie) June 3, 2014

Wish the tanks had some LV logos. http://t.co/OaatIW4XNS #TAM25 pic.twitter.com/Hm7nVijYZj
— FAN Wenxin (@xinwenfan) June 4, 2014

Today, June 4, 2014, Sina Weibo began censoring searches for "Today." #Tiananmen pic.twitter.com/lUm6rQQ9E0
— William Farris (@wafarris) June 4, 2014

A beautiful night in HK as crowd at Tiananmen vigil fills six soccer fields -- and more keep arriving. pic.twitter.com/JsW3OkJi4T
— Philip Pan (@panphil) June 4, 2014

Always loved this picture of #TiananmenSquare protesters, from the college text that intro'd me to #China pic.twitter.com/sH8iVvgqOF
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 4, 2014

This was among the images deleted on #weibo yesterday ... pic.twitter.com/1gHatSGG8H
— Rohit Mahajan (@heresrohit) June 5, 2014

An Expiring Deal with a Changing Chinese People

In "For Tiananmen leader, a permanent exile" Ananth Krishnan's interview of Chinese dissident Wu’er Kaixi touches on a deal the Chinese government made decades ago:

Despite the two decades of unprecedented growth in China since 1989, [Wu’er Kaixi] believes the Party will face growing calls for political reform and anger against rising corruption — the same two demands that propelled protests 25 years ago.

“They struck a deal with the Chinese people in 1992 to give people a certain degree of economic freedom in exchange for political submission. That was a lousy deal because both economic freedom and political freedom is something that, to begin with, the Chinese people are entitled to. But this deal is also expiring. Once you give people economic freedom, they will become a little bit more powerful and they want more freedom. Because they want to be able to protect the money they made, they want rule of law, fair competition.”

In "Tiananmen, Forgotten" Helen Gao shares what it has been like for some to grow up under that deal:

[In] the post-Tiananmen years, life was like a cruise on a smooth highway lined with beautiful scenery. We studied hard and crammed for exams. On weekends, we roamed shopping malls to try on jeans and sneakers, or hit karaoke parlors, bellowing out Chinese and Western hits.

This alternation between exertion and ennui slowly becomes a habit and, later, an attitude. Both, if well-endured, are rewarded by a series of concrete symbols of success: a college diploma, a prestigious job, a car, an apartment. The rules are simple, though the competition never gets easier; therefore we look ahead, focusing on our personal well-being, rather than the larger issues that bedevil the society.

And in "The economic backdrop to Tian'anmen" Rob Schmitz highlights how even though people may want a new deal, whether because they feel "left behind" or a "little bit more powerful", people whose life has been more "like a cruise on a smooth highway" can have concerns about possible changes:

University of California’s Jeffrey Wasserstrom says 25 years later, with China’s economy now slowing down, there are signs the Chinese people want to renegotiate this deal – it’s no longer clear that making more money is an option. "Now I think there’s a sense that if you’ve been left behind, maybe you’ll be permanently left behind," says Wasserstrom. "And also, with the rising concern with issues like food safety, and heavy polluted air and water, I think it’s not so clear to people anymore that they can assume their children will live better lives than they did."

"People are angry, but people are worried that if something changes, would anything get better?" asks University of Michigan's Mary Gallagher. "I don’t think people in China have much confidence in democracy right now, and looking around them they may feel particularly people in the cities and people in the middle class may feel that democracy could end up even worse. It’s a much more segmented society, and people who are wealthy and who are middle class have much more to protect. And when they think about democracy, they think about majority rule. And I think majority rule is scary to them."

These excerpts together tell a story which resonates with what I have learned in China. In the future, I will share some thoughts on some of the seeming contradictions and important issues they raise. But for now, I simply recommend reading the pieces by Krishnan, Gao, and Schmitz. They each have their own story to tell about China 25 years after June 4, 1989.

Voices for Change and Democracy at a Hong Kong Fair

Booths selling flowers, food, stuffed toys, creatively designed bags, spices, and other items filled Hong Kong's Lunar New Year Fairs last month. The fairs I visited shared some similarities with one I visited 3 years ago in nearby Guangzhou. But one category of booths at Hong Kong's Victoria Park left no doubt that I could not be in mainland China.

At many of these booths, people used microphones to loudly express themselves and attract attention.

And volunteers handed out informational literature.

The booths' messages varied in some respects and the people running them ranged from student groups to political parties, but they held in common a belief that a select few unfairly controlled too much power and money in Hong Kong and that democracy could greatly benefit the Hong Kong people. With details for planned elections in 2017 soon to be announced, several weeks earlier people marched in support of full democracy for selecting Hong Kong's leader.

The booths sold items expressing messages in different manners and with varying degrees of explicitness. One notable item was toilet paper with current Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's face printed on it.

The alpaca-like grass-mud horse--a symbol of protest against censorship in mainland China--was a popular offering, even at booths which overall did not appear political in nature.

Shirts with a variety of designs were also available.

For example, a large "Z" in one design represented the idea that people needed to "wake up" if they wanted democracy to take hold in Hong Kong.

One university student explained that the less explicit designs took into consideration the discomfort some in Hong Kong feel expressing themselves directly on such issues. On a related note, as I stood talking to one group of students, I observed a number of older passersby discreetly slipping money into donation boxes without saying a word, stopping, or making direct eye contact. The students made no effort to interact with these people, and there was no sign any acknowledgement was expected.

All of the organizations lead broader efforts, and they don't expect it will be easy. A few people told me they expect a substantial struggle will be required.

Much of what was occurring at these booths would not have been allowed at the Lunar New Year fair I saw in Guangzhou due to greater restrictions on expression, especially when organized, in mainland China. For me, the contrast was unmistakable. But many Hongkongers are not content with the additional freedoms they enjoy, some of which are deteriorating or are threatened. The 2017 election presents a dilemma for China's Communist Party: "shackling the territory’s democracy could pose as much risk to Beijing as agreeing to a truly free vote". It's not just about Hong Kong. People elsewhere are watching as well.

The people I met at Victoria Park face imposing obstacles. It's not clear whether they'll be able to rally the type of support and action that may be required to achieve their goals, if possible at all. It would be easy to bet against them.

But even though they may be unsure of what the future holds, they aren't saying, "I don't know a way to make it happen." They have hope, and they are trying.

A Chinese View on America's Hoary President

The beginning of Barack Obama's second term is newsworthy in many regions around the world. But I wonder if anyone captured it quite like Chen Zhi did for Xinhua (H/T Aaron Black). The title for the article almost says it all: "Barack Obama -- from handsome young to hoary old". And the article's beginning holds true to the title's theme:

Barack Obama, a personable middle-aged man, inaugurated as the first African-American president of the United States four years ago with an ambitious oath -- "Yes, we can."

However, when Obama swore in for a second term as the country's top leader on Monday, a man with eyebags, black spots and white hair stepped on the stage.

Chen's focus on (and description of) Obama's appearance raises two issues (among many others):

• It isn't clear whether or not the change in a US president's visual appearance over the period of time during their term would have been any different if had they not been president.
• One study found that being president had no impact on life expectancy: something one wouldn't expect to find if there was such a thing as "presidential aging".

For more on these two points, see a post on the Harvard Health Blog.

If you think Obama could make a rebound in his second term, Chen tempers such hope by closing the article with:

Whether the next four years could be easier for him remains a mystery, but it is for sure that Obama, buried in unstopping affairs at home and abroad, could never be any younger.

I suppose it is hard to argue with that point. Though, I am surprised Chen didn't conclude with a pitch for Just For Men.

On that note, for more insights about why Chen might be so concerned about Obama's hoary hair, it might not hurt to read Jason Leow's article on The Wall Street Journal: "Chinese Bigwigs Are Quick to Reach For the Hair Color".


UPDATE: Michele Obama may not have liked it, but how would have Chen's story differed if Obama had gone with this look?

Thankfulness and Hope, An Election Epilogue

I am not aware of having earned the location of my birth. And I believe that humanity matters more than nationality. Nevertheless, recents days are symbolic of several reasons why I am proud to be a citizen of the United States of America.

The debate over America's next president was not always constructive. And even between friends discussions could sometimes prove frustrating. But I find it all to be a small cost for the immense benefits of free expression and democracy.

At his re-election victory celebration, President Barack Obama captured some of my feelings (full transcription here):

Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

That won’t change after tonight, and it shouldn’t. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

"People in distant nations" who desire a similar liberty yet see no obvious path to obtain it might hear a message for themselves in Obama's later words for Americans:

...I ask you to sustain that hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.

I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

Today I am especially thankful for what requires no hope--Americans possessing the rights to engage in debate and to choose their own leaders.

I hope Americans work better together in achieving their common goals. I hope America meets the many challenges it faces. I hope Obama plays a positive role in improving America and the world. I hope I contribute.

And I hope people all around the world who seek liberty continue to hope.

Pundits and Teepees

I typically only post about U.S. politics here if it relates to China or one of my other "big" interests. Like many other people, the topic has attracted an unusually large amount of my online attention over the past few days due to the upcoming presidential election. My mind has been flooded with news reports, analyses, polls, pundits, polls of pundits, pundits on polls, pundits on pundits, and so on. I have also been occasionally distracted by other topics friends send my way such as $88 cat teepees. Although I have no plans to buy a cat teepee, it made me more aware of the benefits brief diversions can have in the midst of an information overload.

So in that spirit, during the next day or two I will do a series of very brief but more frequent China-related posts. They can serve as moments for some readers to flex their eyes on something different while allowing me to share with everyone more of what I have seen in China.

Soon, I will return to earlier themes here, such as college dormitories, and also reply to some readers' questions. In the meantime, though, I will keep things relatively simple.

More soon.

Mitt Romney and Counterfeit Valves from China

I previously shared this quote of Romney from the second U.S. presidential debate (full transcript here):

We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China's been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that's number one.

I argued that even under a generous interpretation of his comment about the Apple store, it was not particularly relevant to whether the "playing field is level" for the U.S. and China. In short, most accounts and my own many experiences do not support a belief that many "fake" Apples stores in China are selling counterfeit Apple products (more about Romney's earlier comment and the many "fake" Apple stores I have seen in China here).

In the third and final U.S. presidential debate both candidates made a few comments about China. Romney again raised the issue of counterfeit products (full transcript here):

We have to say to our friend in China, look, you guys are playing aggressively. We understand it. But this can't keep on going. You can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even to the United States.

I was with one company that makes valves and - and process industries and they said, look, we were - we were having some valves coming in that - that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty and we looked them and - and they had our serial number on them. And then we noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. They were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a U.S. company, the same packaging, these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the U.S. competitor. This can't go on.

It is notable that Romney mentioned counterfeits, but did not mention any counterfeit Apple stores this time. I'll admit, I am pleased to know that Romney must have read this blog. It is worth noting that he did not use the tech-related examples involving either Google or Microsoft that I thought could be useful for his uneven playing field claim. As I mentioned before, this may be because it would not be beneficial for such companies to be publicly mentioned by a leading political figure in the U.S. If they were, it could increase perceptions in China that they are arms of the U.S. government.

Instead, Romney used an example of counterfeit valves. I have no familiarity with the valve trade nor do I have any experience with fake valve stores in China. I will just say there is nothing in his account that strikes me as peculiar or especially unlikely. In fact, it reminded me of a wholesale counterfeit toy store I saw in Guangzhou which had several customers in the U.S. I can only assume Romney chose an example of valves instead of my example of cuddly stuffed toys because most of the toys in the store I highlighted were of animated characters from Japanese games, TV shows, and movies. If only the store had sold counterfeit stuffed Disney toys my post might have made it into a presidential debate. Oh well.

That's all for U.S. politics here for now. Like before, I doubt this particular comment in the debate will be what matters most to American voters as they consider their vote in the upcoming election. But I assume many Americans would agree that China selling counterfeit goods is not good for the U.S.

After all, someone could seriously hurt themselves using a counterfeit bayonet.

Mitt Romney and Counterfeit Apple Stores in China

The most recent U.S. presidential debate touched on some China-related issues, and I would like to comment on at least one of them.

No, this post will not be about the single question from a Shanghainese female I know:

Binders of women. What does 'binders' mean here?

Nor will it be about the many creative answers she received from friends.

Instead, I want to focus on this statement by Mitt Romney (copied from a debate transcript here):

We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China's been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that's number one.

When listening to the debate live, Romney's reference of the "counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods" struck me as peculiar. I had assumed he was talking about the widely-reported "fake Apple Store" in Kunming. But that situation has long since been resolved, and I am not aware of any evidence that the Apple products it sold were counterfeits. However, it would be easy for me to believe there exists at least one store somewhere in China that could be reasonably called a "counterfeit" Apple store and that sells counterfeit goods of some sort (even if they aren't Apple products but instead are accessories designed by other companies). Since it is not clear which exact store Romney is referencing and he does not specify which type of goods are being counterfeited, I would not consider Romney's Apple store claim to be necessarily untrue. But whether he was referencing the store in Kunming or another store in China that has somehow caught his attention, I am not convinced the example was relevant in regards to arguing that the playing field is not level in China.

As I have detailed before, what counts as a "fake" Apple store can be fuzzy. And since so many potential offenders can still be found, at least at the moment Apple may only be taking action against those that go to extremes in imitating a real Apple Store. Furthermore there exist many Apple-authorized retail stores in China that are not Apple Stores, and it is not illegal for unauthorized stores to resell genuine Apple merchandise in China (see previous two links for more about these topics and examples of both fake and authorized Apple stores in China). Although I have seen mobile phones for sale in China that appear to inappropriately use Apple's trademarks (see here and here for two of my favorite examples), I have never seen such phones for sale in what I think could reasonably be called a "counterfeit Apple store". Also, I am not aware of any evidence that many fake Apple stores are selling counterfeit products that look and function like genuine Apple products. Instead, most reports and my own experience suggest that the Apple products being sold at such stores are purchased from authorized Apple stores. The Apple Store in Hong Kong has been a particularly popular source due to differences in prices and availability of products, and it plays a role in China's extensive grey market (for other examples of grey market activities see here and here). See here for some examples of stores in Guangzhou who earlier this year openly stated that their iPhones come from Hong Kong (also includes many examples of stores in Hunan province and elsewhere in Guangzhou province). See here for a more recent example in a Reuters report from nearby Shenzhen.

So, although Apple certainly faces challenges in China, I don't think the "counterfeit stores" are effective for the point Romney was making. After all, those stores mostly appear to be selling genuine products purchased from Apple.

If Romney had his heart set on using a tech example to make his case, I think there would have been more suitable options. For example, an online service that is blocked by China's Great Firewall, such as Google's YouTube, could touch on the issue of fairness while also touching on another issue that can stir up American voters. Mentioning YouTube's situation could show Romney is concerned about the restrictions on free speech in China. It is also an example of where China's censorship leads to a playing field that is not level. After all, YouTube cannot expect to make much profit in China if it is blocked. China's Great Firewall is even helping Chinese companies get business from American companies (see here for one example related to YouTube). And if you think services such as YouTube are only blocked due to reasons of censorship, read here about a Chinese woman in Guizhou who thinks there are also economic reasons for Google's "problems" in China. Regardless of the reasons for the blocking, though, I think it is fair to assume that most American voters could be easily convinced (if they aren't already) that YouTube is not on a level playing field with its potential competitors in China.

However, some would largue that all is indeed fair in regards to YouTube and that Google just has to observe China's censorship laws. Well... if Romney is sensitive to such concerns, then he can mention another well known tech company. Microsoft could make a kadzillion* dollars if all the copies of its software in China were used under proper licenses and not pirated versions. The problem is so extreme that Microsoft has reportedly even had to make a formal request in China that several state-owned companies stop using pirated copies of Microsoft software (see here). And although there may be disagreements over the severity of the problem (at least in public statements), the Chinese government has openly stated it wishes to reduce software piracy. So even they appear to acknowledge (at least in their words) that there is a problem. Again, I think American voters would readily view Microsoft's situation as not fair. The only caveat that now comes to mind is any Chinese software company probably also faces issues with piracy in China. So I suppose one could say there is a level playing field in that regards. However, the problem has a much larger financial effect on American companies such as Microsoft, and no Chinese company faces a similar problem succeeding in the US.

So why did Romney mention Apple's situation instead of Google's or Microsoft's? I could speculate about reasons that relate to either Romney's interests (for example, he might think Apple is "sexier" to voters or he might have a very specific definition of "level playing field") or Google's and Microsoft's interests (for example, they may not consider it to be beneficial to resolving their China-related problems for them be publicly stated by a prominent U.S. politician) but... I think it is best to just say I really don't know.

Finally, I don't expect this critique to pose a significant setback for Romney. Although I was puzzled by his statement about a counterfeit Apple store and wanted to comment on it, American voters will likely be far more concerned about many other statements made during the debate.

Even those about binders.


*"Kadzillion" equals whatever amount Microsoft would make under such conditions.

UPDATE: Paul Mozur in the China Real Time Report writes that Jessica Angelson, the blogger who brought attention to the fake Apple Store in Kunming, "didn’t feel her find was being used properly" by Romney. Again, even though it was my first interpretation as well, at the moment I don't think it can be said that Romney's words definitely refer to the Kunming store. But even if they don't, the example would not seem to be highly relevant to his point. Maybe Romney will shed more light on this issue.


Disclosure: I previously worked as a user experience researcher at Microsoft China. All of the information and claims about Microsoft in this post are based solely on public sources (except for my newly-created word "kadzillion") and in no way represent "inside knowledge" on my part. The rampant pirating of Microsoft's products in China is well-known and easy to see.

Managed Protests, Restricted Speech, Counting Silently, Japanese Records, and Self-Medicating

I have read a number of pieces regarding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands dispute and the related anti-Japan protests in China. I do not plan to comment on all of them, but I would like to recommend a few (in addition to those I mentioned before) simply because I think they add intriguing details or perspectives worth considering.

1. One of the often-discussed issues surrounding the recent anti-Japan demonstrations is the degree to which they were supported or organized by the Chinese government. In her piece on NPR "China Ratchets Up The Rhetoric In Island Spat With Japan", Louisa Lim touches on this topic and shares an intriguing discussion she had at a protest last week:

Almost all the demonstrators say they came out spontaneously to protest. But an onlooker who gave his name as Mr. Luo lets slip that he'd like to march, but today isn't his day to do so.

"I haven't been organized to demonstrate," the man says. "I'm having the day off. The government controls and organizes the demonstrations. You can't just go if you like. At the very least, there's organization among the universities. There are half a million college students in Beijing. If they all came here at once, it'd be unimaginable."

I would not argue with that last statement. See (and hear) more of what Lim found here.

2. William Farris, a lawyer for an Internet company in Beijing, in a blogpost "What Protesters Could and Could Not Say During Demonstrations In Front of Japanese Embassy" shared an excerpt from Caixin Online which provides a bit of evidence supporting the idea that the protests were examples not of free speech, but of government-permitted speech. He also shared photos of a number of strongly-worded signs that were permitted at a protest in Beijing. He provides English translations for the signs so more people can understand their messages. See and ponder the signs here.

3. Previously, a reader commented:

As a Chinese, I'm sad to see all the violence that's been going on, even in a modern city like Shanghai. I know that most Chinese don't agree with this, but 60+ years of anti-Japan brainwashing propaganda is hard to simply ignore.

The topic of brainwashing also appeared in Qi Ge's article "China's Brainwashed Youth" on Foreign Policy:

Ever since the 1970s, I have known that the Chinese people are the freest and most democratic people in the world. Each year at my elementary school in Shanghai, the teachers mentioned this fact repeatedly in ethics and politics classes. Our textbooks, feigning innocence, asked us if freedom and democracy in capitalist countries could really be what they proclaimed it to be. Then there would be all kinds of strange logic and unsourced examples, but because I always counted silently to myself in those classes instead of paying attention, the government's project was basically wasted on me. By secondary school and college, my mind was unusually hard to brainwash.

Even so, during my college years, I still hated Japan.

See what else this Chinese writer in Shanghai had to say here.

4. Regardless of any protests, many are focused on applying research to better determine who has a stronger claim to the disputed islands. Nicholas Kristof in his blog on The New York Times shared an article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan. In "The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" Shaw shares some "new" evidence:

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

See Shaw's review of the evidence here.

5. In his post "Seriously Hooked on Nationalism" Jeremiah Jenne shared his theory for why the island dispute has recently received so much attention in China:

Yes, I know thar’s oil and gas under them thar rocks, but the real concern is that the current storm of violent knucklehead patriotism no longer has anything to do with national interests and has become all about national pride and transition politics.

China’s leadership swap is in a few weeks and it’s fair to say that things have not gone according to plan. A little bumptious distraction like, say, everybody hating on Japan for a week or two might seem like the perfect remedy.

But basically it’s just the Party self-medicating.

See Jenne's argument for his claim here.

That is all for now. I am not sure how much more I will focus on this topic, but other topics are definitely on the way.

The Impact of China's Anti-Japan Protests on a Japanese Mother in Shanghai

There has been a growing clamor in China about some small islands in the East China Sea -- in China they are named Diaoyu and in Japan they are named Senkaku. Strong feelings pervade in China that it, and not Japan, is the righteous owner of these islands. If you are not familiar with the competing claims see an overview of the dispute's history by Scott Neuman on NPR.

There have been numerous protests in China during recent days, seemingly in response to the Japanese government purchasing the islands from a private owner. As summed up by Richard Burger:

We always knew the Diaoyu islands were a tinder box; now it’s exploded.

Disputes over land are one thing, but the anti-Japanese sentiment now being expressed in China is disturbing to say the least. One sign held by people proclaimed (as translated by Charlie Custer):

Even if China becomes nothing but tombstones, we must exterminate the Japanese; even if we have to destroy our own country, we must take back the Diaoyu Islands.

For more about the protests I recommend several recent pieces for an assortment of perspectives: "The Anti-Japanese Eruptions" by James Fallows, "Anti-Japan Protests Erupt In China Over Disputed Islands" by Louisa Lim, "On Beijing’s Anti-Japan Protests" by Eric Fish, "China’s Anti-Japan Riots Are State-Sponsored. Period." by Charlie Custer, and "Anti-Japan protests a double-edged sword" by Ko Hirano. Some of the titles on their own say so much.

Although the dispute has received attention in Western media, earlier I noticed a relative silence about one key aspect. Emily Parker summed it up in a tweet:

We keep hearing about Chinese "public opinion" (namely via weibo) in island dispute. Hear nothing about Japanese public opinion
— Emily Parker (@emilydparker) August 20, 2012

So before sharing one Chinese perspective and some of my own, I first want to share the thoughts and experiences of a female Japanese acquaintance who is now living in Shanghai, China. They highlight some of the protests' effects, intended or not, on Japanese in China.

Today I asked her if she had been impacted by the recent demonstrations in any way. She has (italics for emphasis are mine):

Things have been a bit tense... Yesterday I could see "the Red People" marching right through the street in front of our apartment. Hearing the news and actually seeing them was quite different. I actually felt fear, though I've heard some of those people are getting paid to participate in the march, without really knowing what for.

My daughter's soccer team's practice was cancelled and my husband was refused by 2 taxi drivers. I intend not to go out except to pick up my kids from the school bus for the next few days or however long it may take to calm down. Tomorrow there's supposed to be another big one.

In the Japanese news, they tell about many small clashes that have happened in towns, such as a Japanese civilian getting soup noodles thrown into his face, another had his glasses taken away and broken, etc., none of which is told in the Chinese news. Obviously the Western world doesn't care much about the situation.

I personally don't care to whom the island belongs, I just want everyday security. A lot of the educated, wealthy Chinese people don't care either, they know it's just another camouflage. They're probably bummed that their shopping trip to Japan on October holiday week may be cancelled. :(

This is all just too frustrating...

I followed up with some questions. Her reply:

Many of the weekend events are cancelled among the Japanese community, because the protesting and demonstration marching get really big on weekends. We think we need to be extra cautious and keep a low profile. The Japanese school in Shanghai decided to cancel all classes for at least next two days, and depending on how the situation turns out after the 18th (supposed to be the big anti-Japan day for Chinese people). There was supposed to be a big sporting event held this weekend, where all the parents and friends get to go watch, but it got postponed 'till next Tuesday, for the time being. There's a big chance it may get cancelled altogether.

Shanghai has quite a few soccer teams which are coached in Japanese by Japanese coaches, where naturally most kids are Japanese, though my daughter's team actually has a few Chinese kids and a Chinese coach, too. The practice was cancelled over the weekend for the same reason as above. The team uses the field that belongs to a Chinese school and there are many other people using the track, the basketball court, and other facilities. We want to avoid any kind of situation that may cause "clashes" between Chinese and Japanese.

I don't think the kids have had first hand experience of such anti-Japanese sentiments yet. In a way they are the least exposed to the real Chinese community, as they take the school bus to and from the Japanese school and don't get a chance to mingle with local kids much, which I personally feel that they are missing out on an opportunity, but living in a country like China, it can't be helped. (Americans or Europeans who send their kids to American, British, or International schools may think they're a bit more "Internationally" exposed, but I don't see much difference in terms of being cut off from the Chinese community.)

Today I had to go to the shop across the street to get enough groceries to last for the next few days. I was quite nervous just to cross the street and was hoping people woudn't be able to tell that I was Japanese (though I think they could).

I felt the same as I was walking back with my kids from the school bus stop back to our building. I figured as long as we stay withing the compound, there shouldn't be a big problem since most people living here are wealthy, educated Chinese along with other foreigners. But as I was entering the door, I heard a voice coming out of the doorman's walkie-talkie, and it completely freaked me out. It supposedly was a voice of another doorman who could see us from a distance saying, "Are they Japanese?". I know my Chinese isn't perfect, but I heard it clearly. I couldn't believe my ears. I just pretended I didn't hear it and walked right into the building, saying "Xie xie" ["Thank you"] to the doorman as usual. This doorman usually says "Bu yong xie" ["You're welcome"] back to me, but today he didn't. Believe it or not, this little incident gave me the biggest FEAR in these past few days. Much more so than seeing the protest marching outside my window.

Having lived in the US as a minority, I've had people say discriminatory words towards me, or look down on me. But this is nothing of that sort. This is a simple, but very strong FEAR towards the unknown, something completely irrational.

As for my husband, he was told to get off after he got onto the taxi once. I think they could tell from his accent.

3 Panasonic factories have been severely destroyed and also a Toyota dealer was burned down, as well as many Japan-related shops and restaurants having been attacked and plundered. The thing is that most of the workers at these factories are Chinese, and they'll be without jobs for the next however many weeks or months until these factories are restored. Also, most of the shops and restaurants are owned by Chinese.

OK, I still have to cook dinner. We still get hungry.

Based on earlier conversations, I know she appreciates much about her life in China and has found living there to be a special experience. She is someone who could potentially be a positive voice for China in Japan. But now, despite not caring who owns some small islands, doing her best to avoid any potential "clashes", and recognizing that in some ways the protests have hurt Chinese people more than herself, she is living in China with her husband and children in fear.

To the Chinese people who have been expressing anti-Japanese sentiment, whether through words or actions, I have one question:

Mission accomplished?

Outer Space, International Internet Regulations, and Invading North Koreans

Since I may never get around to writing the full commentary several pieces I recently read deserve, I want to at least make sure I share some of them here before they gather too much dust:

1. There have been a steady stream of stories about China's various disputed claims to islands near or not so near its undisputed borders. This combined with America's recent success of landing a large rover on Mars had me pondering a related question: Does China have plans to make any territorial claims if it places people or a piece of equipment on the Moon or Mars even though no other countries have made any such claims (at least not yet)?

I am happy to see that someone has given this question deeper analysis. Based on what he wrote in Foreign Policy, it appears that John Hickman woud agree that I am not crazy for pondering such an issue:

You might be asking: Why on God's green Earth would Beijing want to colonize the moon? The crazy thing is that, if one analyzes China's interests and the relevant international law, the Chinese moon scenario seems not only plausible but smart.

And even though there is an international treaty protecting objects such as the Moon and Mars from territorial claims, it has a rather large loophole:

Would a Chinese moon claim even be legal? At the moment, no, but international law would provide only the flimsiest of barriers. Although the 1967 space treaty asserts common ownership of the entire universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, it also permits signatory states to withdraw from its terms with only a year's notice. And there's no law governing whether you can fly a rocket to the moon and land a ship there.

Read the article for more about why China may have some hopes for expansion much farther away than any currently disputed islands.

2. Outer space is not the only place where there may be changes in international agreements. The same holds true for the Internet. Rebecca MacKinnon in Foreign Policy points out that a variety of interests are at stake in making changes to the institutions which play important international roles in regulating the Internet:

China, Russia, and many developing countries have complained for nearly two decades that the new, nongovernmental multistakeholder institutions are dominated by Americans and Western Europeans who manipulate outcomes to serve their own commercial and geopolitical advantage. These critiques converge with the interests of former and current state-owned phone companies wanting to restore revenues of yore before email and Skype wiped out the need for most international phone calls.

Read MacKinnon's article for an overview of how some countries may have reasonable gripes and how nothing less than the Internet's current openness is at stake.

3. A soon-to-be-released remake of the movie Red Dawn will include a major plot change -- North Korea, not Russia, will be invading the U.S. Max Fisher in The Atlantic details several factual mistakes in the movie. Needless to say (I hope), the idea of North Korea invading the U.S. requires a great deal of imagination. In fact, so much is required that Fisher suspects some viewers will replace North Korea with China in their minds. But even though China is far more powerful than North Korea, Fisher explains why the U.S. still has little to fear:

China has no incentive to attack America, its most important trade partner and thus the central pillar in the economic growth strategy around which its entire polity is organized, and every incentive not to. Even if China did want to attack, its military isn't nearly strong enough. And even if it were strong enough, some analysts say it is too riddled with internal problems.

Read Fisher's article in full for more details about why the U.S. is unlikely to be seeing thousands of red parachutes any time soon -- whether they may be made in mainland China or on Mars.

Hillary Clinton and Eric Schmidt on the Economics of Freedom in China

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt recently made separate but similar comments that China needs to provide more freedoms for its people. There is much to mull over, and I recommend reading both of the pieces I reference below and Clinton's speech. In future posts I will soon cover other issues, but I will now briefly focus on a common theme in what Clinton and Schmidt said -- the belief that free expression is critical to China's continued economic development.

Jane Perlez in The New York Times shared some of what Clinton recently said while in Mongolia, a young democracy on China's northern border:

“You can’t have economic liberalization without political liberalization eventually,” [U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] said. “It’s true that clamping down on political expression or maintaining a tight grip on what people read, say or see can create an illusion of security. But illusions fade — because people’s yearning for liberty don’t.”

In a dig at China as it wrestles with an economic downturn after a decade of double-digit growth, Mrs. Clinton added, “Countries that want to be open for business but closed to free expression will find that this approach comes at cost: it kills innovation and discourages entrepreneurship, which are vital for sustainable growth.”

Clinton's speech also includes a telling passage where she mentions that wealth is not sufficient without freedom but then emphasizes how freedom can lead to more wealth:

We need to make the 21st century a time in which people across Asia don’t only become wealthy; they also must become more free. And each of us can help make that happen through our policies, our programs and our actions. And if we do, the benefit is not only will people be more free, but they will be more secure and more prosperous. If we don’t, we will limit the human and economic potential of this great region.

On the same day as Clinton's speech, Josh Rogin in The Cable shared some of what Schmidt said about his expectation that China's "active, dynamic censorship" will eventually fail:

"I personally believe that you cannot build a modern knowledge society with that kind of behavior, that is my opinion," he said. "I think most people at Google would agree with that. The natural next question is when [will China change], and no one knows the answer to that question. [But] in a long enough time period, do I think that this kind of regime approach will end? I think absolutely."

The push for information freedom in China goes hand in hand with the push for economic modernization, according to Schmidt, and government-sponsored censorship hampers both.

"We argue strongly that you can't build a high-end, very sophisticated economy... with this kind of active censorship. That is our view," he said.

The way Clinton and Schmidt both frame the benefits of increased freedoms is significant. The freedoms they speak of do not always directly address the pragmatic day to day concerns of many Chinese and may be easily dismissed in the face of other challenges. But expressing their value in terms of an issue that is a major concern for most in China -- economic growth -- may catch more attention and cause deeper consideration. Even if people are not convinced of the connection between free speech and China's economy, what could matter most at first is if more people in China simply further consider the possibility that what is in the interests of the U.S. and Google could also be in their own best interests.

There may be some short term pains due to what has been recently said, and the potential gains may not appear soon (something I will further address in a later post). But Clinton and Schmidt do not appear to be solely focused on the short term. One of Clinton's goals is to help convince China to change. Her speech is just a small part of that effort. One of Schmidt's likely goals is for Google to be prepared for the changes that he believes are inevitable. Yet these changes will still require "a long enough time period" to be realized. And both of their hopes for increasing freedoms in China may be more likely or more quickly realized due to something that matters to many people in China and elsewhere --- money.

More on Chen Guangcheng and Yang Rui

I want to follow up my earlier post of links to pieces about Chen Guangcheng and Yang Rui with two more related links worth checking out.

1. In an earlier post I questioned some of the criticism of how U.S. officials handled the Chen Guangcheng case. An article by William Han in The Washington Post shares a taste of some of the challenges they faced. For example, at times U.S. officials could not even be sure of the identities of those present at negotiations:

The Americans were greeted at 10 a.m. on Sunday, April 29, by familiar faces from the ministry — chief among them Cui Tiankai, a diplomat they had dealt with countless times. But on either side of the Chinese diplomats were two men who did not introduce themselves and were not introduced by others.

Not until days later, with an initial deal in sight, did the Americans learn that one of them was a representative of China’s Ministry of State Security — a powerful branch in charge of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence operations. The other, the Americans later surmised, was from an unidentified branch of China’s intelligence apparatus.

The article is also valuable in highlighting some of the positive aspects in how China handled the negotiations.

2. Chinese television host Yang Rui is certainly not the only person in China expressing concerns about foreigners in China. The Chinese news site SINA English has posted an entire page titled "Beijing Welcomes You -- Decent Foreigners". I am hesitant to guess the true intended purpose of the site. Maybe it was to influence foreigners. Or maybe they just wanted to convince "higher-ups" that they were doing their duty. I suspect the second case would have a better chance of success.

It includes links to a variety of articles. One provides advice to foreigners:

As it happens, whether or not you are a popular guest and can win the due respect from the host will all depends upon your behaviors, and whether or not you wholly alienate or even hostile to the host.

It is advisable to bear in mind: “Only good scouting is likely to preserve the respect and freedom so dear to the heart of the eternal Boy Scout.”

I fear my year or two of Cub Scouts might not be enough.

One of the more notable sections of the page is the poll question which seems representative of some other online polls I have seen in China:

Beijing started a three-month campaign on May 15 targeting foreigners illegally staying in the capital. Your say?

• Support, as management is desirable.


• Hard to say.

I am torn as to whether it is better or worse than the paradoxical text message I received from China Mobile last year. What do you think?

Bo Xilai's Image and Police Platforms in Chongqing

Although the case of Chongqing's former party chief Bo Xilai has been overshadowed in Western media by recents events surrounding Chen Guangcheng, it remains an important issue in China. Xujun Eberlein, a writer who grew up in Chongqing, in a recent post discusses the views of a group of people who were impacted by many of Bo Xilai's actions--Chongqing's residents. She also describes how their various perspectives have lead to different interpretations of recent events. For example:

Bo’s supporters and dissenters all believe their side is in the majority, and each side uses very different logic when interpreting the charges against Bo and his wife. Four out of five taxi drivers I spoke to, for example, said they didn’t believe that Gu Kailai had murdered Neil Heywood or that Bo was corrupt and hiding money overseas. “Think about it,” one driver said in a teaching tone. “Gu Kailai is a very smart lawyer, wouldn’t she know the consequences of murder? Bo Xilai’s interest is in politics, would he care about a few bucks? It is just that simple!” Their interpretation is that all the charges are made-up excuses to bring Bo down because Bo is more capable than Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and Xi Jinping. The dissenters, on the other hand, believe Bo is completely capable of murder because he has no regard for the life of someone standing in his way. Curiously, regardless of their stance on the Bo affair, most of those I spoke to suspected that Wang Lijun’s entry into the US consulate was part of a plot to bring Bo down.

I would be interested to learn more about why there was general agreement about the purpose of Wang Lijun's visit to the U.S. consulate. I wonder whether Bo's supporters and dissenters shared similar motivations for their belief.

But there are always more questions to ask, and Eberlein presents a far more nuanced account than most others. In addition to adding important context to the Bo case, the post provides a hint of the challenges in answering "What do Chinese people think?" or even "What do Chongqing people think?". I find Eberlein's account fascinating and have nothing more to say at the moment other than to recommend reading the full post which can be found here.

However, I do have something to say regarding one of the "leftovers" from the Bo era which Eberlein describes in another post. During a recent trip to Chongqing she noticed some well-equipped police platforms:

Each of these modern-equipped platforms cost 5 million Yuan, according to sources. And there is one at every big intersection in the city. To Bo Xilai's supporters, this is what makes them feel safer. Bo's dissenters, however, say this unnecessarily high-expense contributes to the city's huge fiscal deficit. A local journalist said that, in the summer, the platform's air conditioning runs fully 24 hours a day in the open air. Chongqing is notoriously hot. "Think how much electricity it wastes!" He said.

The disgrace of Bo Xilai and Wang Lijun makes the police platforms a difficult issue to deal with: Get rid of them? People who are used to them will protest. Keep them? maintenance cost is very high.

I am wary of providing suggestions for Chongqing's government, but in this case I have a "creative" idea to share that I have not yet seen anyone else suggest: Chongqing should partner with Coca-Cola. Last year in Kunming, Yunnan province I discovered that the police not only had a far less expensive version of Chongqing's police platforms, but they had appeared to have even found a sponsor for them. From my post "Coca-Cola and the Chinese Police", here is one of the police tents I saw in Kunming:

Coca-Cola may be more than happy to form a similar partnership in Chongqing. And if free cold drinks were provided like at a Coca-Cola tent I visited in Shanghai, people may be more accepting of shutting down the wasteful air conditioners. Between the money brought in through the sponsorship and the reduced costs on air conditioning (keeping the drinks chilled would surely cost less), the worries about adding to the city's deficit would be eliminated.

Though, I do see a potential problem--the color of Coca-Cola's brand. I doubt Chongqing needs any more "red culture" at the moment. Maybe Coca-Cola could promote Sprite instead.

Has the U.S. Government Been Naive in the Chen Guangcheng Case?

Since my previous post, the Chen Guangcheng case had continued to develop. Most importantly, he has communicated to numerous people including reporters Louisa Lim, Melinda Liu, Steven Jiang and others that he now wants to leave China and is seeking U.S. assistance.

One of the issues concerning me is that some have questioned why the U.S. would believe China would keep its side to the agreement made with Chen. For example, Charlie Custer, editor of ChinaGeeks, tweeted:

Regardless of how this ends, needs to be a serious discussion in US State Dept of why the hell they would believe CN assurances on CGC.

And with some additional qualifications (which are of course more difficult to capture in a tweet) Peter Foster for The Telegraph wrote:

...it is hard to know whether the US State Department was being naive or cynical by accepting assurances that Chen would be allowed to settle down in peace with his family and study law unmolested...

However, some of the language coming from the US State Department suggested they really believed they had a "deal" that would enable Chen to remain in China. If so, they must have taken leave of their senses, and to listen to senior State Department officials involved in negotiations, perhaps they had.

Although it remains possible a major blunder has been made, I am not at all convinced the U.S. has acted unwisely or been duped. I will focus on two of the reasons I feel this way.

One, there is reason for the U.S. to give China the benefit of the doubt publicly and in the recent negotiations, whatever officials may think privately. Especially with China's role in the world so quickly changing and China seeking to increase its influence, it could be an especially opportune time for the U.S. to provide China the chance in a unique case to show it can be trusted in such a situation. If China does break the agreement then the U.S. has reasons for other approaches in the future. But if the U.S. had fully applied a belief that it must openly question China's intentions or insist on stronger oversight measures not only may have China responded in a less preferable manner in Chen's case, but an opportunity for important future gains may have been lost.

In addition to the stakes for the relationship between the U.S. and China, there is a second issue in considering whether the U.S. should be seen as foolish. Even if the U.S. had significant questions about the agreement, the decision to leave the embassy was ultimately Chen's, and there are reasons to believe he was willing to accept a less than perfect offer. At the time, Chen expressed a strong desire to stay in China and very much wanted to be reunited with his family. Also, Chen has said that he felt unfairly pressured. China's statement that they would return his wife to Shandong province if he did not leave the embassy could be perceived as a veiled threat to harm her. On the side... some have criticized U.S. officials for their refusal to characterize this as a threat, but their decision seems reasonable. If the U.S. publicly stated otherwise it would likely only anger China and create the potential that Chen would face increased difficulties. Once Chen was in China's hands, the U.S. needed to do everything possible to put the best face on matters to improve the chances for a positive resolution.

Certainly, as time passes more will be learned to better judge recent actions. But at this point, I believe some of the reasons the U.S. has been criticized could be indicative of prudent actions. Actions taken to best facilitate Chen Guangcheng's own choice in a difficult situation and to provide the best chance for improving broader conditions in the future.


Added note: As I am about to publish I see that James Fallows has recently also questioned whether it can be assumed U.S. officials have made significant mistakes. I have only skimmed his post at this point, but it appears to raise other issues, including that the U.S. had "an incredibly weak hand". I will read it and the cited material more closely. My only comment at this point is that I am encouraged to see others are urging caution in judging recent U.S. actions. You can find the post by Fallows here: More on Chen Guangcheng: The Limits of Outside Power.

An Overview of the Chen Guangcheng Story

The Bo Xilai story I wrote about yesterday is not the only important and Hollywood-like news in China at the moment. Civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng has also been the center of an also incredible but very different story. Especially since events have recently taken a significant turn, I will share some recent pieces that I have found to helpful in understanding them.

Chen Guangcheng previously led efforts to expose forced abortions and sterilizations occurring in Shandong province. After serving four years in prison for questionable reasons, he had been held in his home since 2010. In addition to there being no apparent legal merits for Chen's home detention, the scope of the efforts were striking. Tania Branigan in The Guardian describes them in her article "Chen Guangcheng: how China tried to lock down a blind man":

The campaign to keep Chen Guangcheng locked away from the world — defeated at least temporarily by his escape — has been as remarkable in its pettiness as it has been comprehensive in scope. A massive security operation has swamped the small village of Dongshigu. Scores of thugs armed with surveillance cameras, floodlights and phone-jamming technology have watched an ailing blind man, his wife, frail mother and small daughter round the clock. Relatives and neighbours who have tried to help have faced retribution. Supporters who have attempted to visit have been beaten, detained and pelted with stones.

But beyond the lockdown lies a grindingly intrusive exercise of power. At times, according to human rights groups, seven or eight men have been stationed inside the family compound. Steel shutters bar the windows of the home. Chen's elderly mother has been harassed when working in the fields. Guards escort his six-year-old daughter to school and have confiscated her toys.

Amazingly, despite the large amount of security and Chen being blind, he recently evaded his captors. David Eimer's article "Dissident Chen Guangcheng 'chased by undercover Chinese agents' as he fled to US Embassy" in The Telgraph describes Chen's escape:

"Chen told me he had prepared for the 'prison break' for at least two months. He knew the patrolling routines of the guards by heart, before climbing over the wall around his house on Sunday night," said Mr Hu.

"He injured his leg when he landed and it took him 20 hours to make his way around eight roadblocks. He told me he fell over at least 200 times, before he got picked up on Monday and driven to Beijing."

It is believed that He Peirong, a long-time friend, drove Mr Chen to Beijing, where he spent three sleepless nights before making his break to the US embassy. Ms He was later detained at her home in Nanjing, in eastern Jiangsu Province. Mr Chen's brother and nephew were also arrested, raising speculation that they played a part in his escape.

That Chen had sought the safety of the U.S. Embassy was particularly notable since Wang Lijun, once very close to Bo Xilai, had not long ago fled for his own reasons to the U.S. Consultate in Chengdu. However, the comparisons between Wang and Chen are few. Wang is reportedly connected to acts of torture. Chen is connected to acts of protecting people's rights.

With Chen at the U.S. Embassy, significant hurdles faced the U.S. and Chinese governments to resolve the issue. Some expected that Chen would eventually be granted asylum in the U.S. despite the complications involved. But there were also reports that Chen desired to stay in China. Chen made some of his hopes clear in a 15 minute video addressing Premier Wen Jiabo. A version with English subtitles was produced by CHINAaid:

Today, in a key development Chen left the protection of the U.S. Embassy. On the way to a hospital with U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, Chen requested to speak to The Washington Post, possibly due to its early coverage of his efforts (thanks to Gady Epstein for noting this connection). The Washington Post's Keith Richburg and Jia Lynn Yang describe the current situation in their article "Chen Guangcheng leaves U.S. embassy after assurances he will be treated humanely, U.S. says":

Accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, Chen went to Chaoyang Hospital in Beijing and was apparently taken to the VIP clinic, which was blocked off from reporters by hospital security guards and plainclothes police. U.S. officials said Chen, a self-taught lawyer, was to be reunited with his family at the hospital...

U.S. officials said Chen made clear from the beginning that he did not want to leave China, and that he wanted his stay in the embassy to be temporary. He did not seek asylum. His priority was reuniting with his wife, two children and other family members. He has a son who he has not seen in about two years.

The Chinese government agreed that Chen would be treated humanely, moved from his village to a safe place, reunited with his family and allowed to enroll in a university, the officials said. “We understand there are no remaining legal issues . . . and that he will be treated as any other student in China,” said a senior official.

They also said Chinese authorities agreed to investigate the “extralegal” activities of the local authorities in Chen’s hometown, who have allowed armed men to effectively confine Chen to his farmhouse in Shandong province, preventing celebrities, journalists and others who tried to visit him from entering.

The story remains fluid but assuming the above it will be critical to see how China will carry out its side of the agreement. For example, what assurances are there that Chen will not be later subjected to trumped-up charges to justify detaining him again?

Like the Bo Xilai case, there is also much to say about how the story was reported in China and the heavy (and sometimes amazingly quick) censorship of online discussion. But again, I think the above is enough to digest for one post. I highly recommend reading all of the mentioned articles and viewing the video. I have provided some more details on my Twitter account, primarily through retweeting some of what has caught my eye. As I look now, a variety of details about today's events continue to evolve.

Making Sense of the Bo Xilai Story

The downfall of Chongqing's former party chief Bo Xilai and the allegations that his wife Gu Kailai was responsible for the death of British businessman Neil Heywood is a story fit for Hollywood and of immense significance in China. I refrained from writing anything about it since I saw little I could add to what had already been written. But I will share some of the recent pieces I have found either useful for understanding the evolving story or simply eye-opening.

The article "China's Bo Xilai affair: where the case stands" by Peter Ford on The Christian Science Monitor provides an overview of what is known at the moment:

Heywood's death and the Bo couple's detention are two of the few indisputable facts in a murky affair whose political ramifications are magnified by Bo's importance: Until scandal overtook him, he was a contender for one of the top nine jobs in the ruling Communist Party. It is clear to anyone familiar with the way Chinese politics works that Bo's enemies have used and amplified the scandal to bring him down.

Almost everything else about the case is speculation based on unidentified sources whose motives in recounting the case's details are unclear. The police have said nothing, and the absence of reliable information has left the field clear for a welter of dramatic rumors, spreading like wildfire on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter, ranging from the type of poison used to kill Heywood to an impending military coup.

The case began to crack open Feb. 7, when photographs appeared on Weibo (China's version of Twitter) showing an unusual congregation of police outside the US Consulate in Chengdu, 170 miles from Chongqing. Two days later, another blogger posted the passenger manifest of a flight from Chengdu to Beijing showing that Bo's right-hand man, Wang Lijun, had taken that flight in the company of a vice minister of security.

Mr. Wang, it transpired, had fled to the US consulate, apparently seeking asylum, but left of his own accord when he was sure that regional police loyal to Bo wouldn't take him into custody.

Wang was almost certainly not going to be given asylum by the United States. He had been the chief of police in Chongqing during Bo's noisy antimafia campaign, which critics and victims complained had relied heavily on torture. But before handing himself over to the Chinese security chief and disappearing into an interrogation room somewhere, Wang showed US diplomats a police file suggesting that Ms. Gu had been involved in Heywood's murder.

As mentioned by Ford, there is much about the case that is only speculation. Hannah Beech on Time in her post "The Bo Xilai Rumor Mill: Is There a Method Behind the Wild Speculation?" (H/T Gady Epstein) shares some of the challenges in piecing together the truth. For example:

While reporting this week’s TIME’s magazine story about Bo, I talked within a 24-hour period to five Chinese (academics, advisers and state-linked journalists) with access to the halls of power in Beijing. Three of them compared Bo to Hitler, each saying that Bo was manipulating a naive populace just like the German dictator once did. I would have believed one person coming up with a Hitler analogy on his own. But three? Then two of the five gave the exact same convoluted explanation of how Bo’s transgressions were worse than that of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair. I pushed one of the experts, and it became clear he didn’t really know much about the Lewinsky scandal at all. Later that day, a Chinese journalist told me that the media publication he worked for had received an internal notice comparing Bo’s actions to that of Clinton. While his media organization did not run any editorial comparing Bo and Clinton, I was the recipient of this talking point from two different people.

Regardless, more details continue to be reported. Today I saw what has to be one of the most bizarre in the Reuter's article "Exclusive: Bo's wife dressed as Chinese army general after Heywood death: source" by Chris Buckley (H/T Ray Kwong for the link and appropriate adjective):

A few days after Heywood was killed in Chongqing, southwest China in November, Gu strode into a meeting of police officials wearing a military uniform and gave a rambling speech in which she told the startled officials that she was on a mission to protect the city's police chief, Wang Lijun, the source said.

"First she said that she was under secret orders from the Ministry of Public Security to effectively protect Comrade Wang Lijun's personal safety in Chongqing," said the source, adding that she wore a green People's Liberation Army (PLA) uniform with a major-general's insignia and bristling with decorations.

"It was a mess," he said of Gu's speech, which circulated among some police and officials. "I reached the conclusion that she would be trouble."

It was not clear to those present why Gu, who had never served in the military, had put on a PLA uniform or what she was trying to convey with her vow to protect Wang, the source said. The incident, on or about November 20, left the officials even more bewildered about her mental state, he added.

Despite having a deep background in cognitive neuroscience, without more details I will restrain myself from any commentary on this report.

Later, I will share in a similar fashion some pieces about how the story is being reported in China and the heavy censorship of related online discussion. For now, I recommend reading the above pieces which provide enough to digest for one post. Or movie.