I'm pretty sure that Frank is one of my former students who lives in Beijing. It isn't always easy for people in China to gauge what the rest of the world is hearing about China.
do you know the earthquake in Wenchuan of China on May 12?
So, yes Frank, the news here is dominated by stories about the earthquake and about how well the Chinese government is responding to the earthquake and how Chinese citizens are all volunteering to help in any way possible. For the most part the news is strongly positive, and I'm wondering a little bit about how the reporters are getting the stories. Who are the interpreters? How are they getting to the various sites? What is happening in areas where Western journalists are not getting access? I don't know, I'm just a little skeptical.
For the western readers of the blog who aren't sure where the earthquake and the cyclone happened, here are some maps.
You can see on the first map where China and Burma are in relationship to Alaska. (And for those of you wondering why Alaska is the benchmark, well, I live in Alaska. Since we have to see everything in the Main Stream Media from New York or LA's perspective, it does the NY and LA types some good to see that not everyone thinks that they are the center of the universe.)
And then this map shows where Sichuan Province (the location of the earthquake) is in relationship to where the cyclone did most damage in Burma. It's only about 1000 miles apart. The same approximate distance as:
Berlin-Istanbul Moscow-Prague Bangkok-Hong Kong Cleveland-Dallas
Pittsburgh-Miami Boston-St. Louis San Francisco-El Paso Los Angeles - Seattle
I'm thinking about the enormous difference in response between the Burmese cyclone and the Chinese earthquake. Sichuan is about 1000 miles away from the Irrawaddy Delta where the cyclone had its biggest effect.
China is the major supporter of the Burmese government. Without China's economic and political support, the Burmese regime would fall. Some news reports have said that China's openness to the world press in the earthquake disaster is aimed at showing that China is a world player that can handle emergencies. And the contrast between the way China is handling the earthquake and the way Burma is handling the cyclone is extreme.
But I can't help but wonder why, with Burma on its border, and with so much influence over the Burmese government, China hasn't helped to save tens of thousands of lives in Burma. They could have leaned on the military leaders quietly and even gotten publicly invited to assist. So they wouldn't have to worry about setting a precedent for interfering with the internal matters of another country. What they are doing in Sichuan proves they can do this work. So they certainly could have gone into Burma.
Perhaps Burmese lives aren't important, only Chinese lives. Helping the victims of the earthquake in China effectively will help China's world image. But not nearly as much as helping the victims in Burma would.
By the way, my post called "What's the difference between a cyclone, hurricane, typhoon, and tornado?" got listed as the first blog post in Google Trends "Difference between hurricane and cyclone" which was number 90 on May 6 and suddenly today is sending a lot of folks my way. I should have my highest single day hit count (I think I got to about 270 once during one of the trials). I was never aware of Google Trends and I'm not quite sure how it works. And very few have stopped to see more than that one page.
斯蒂文先生，
ReplyDelete我不认同你的观点。 你说的不能说没有任何道理，但是我觉得有很多偏颇。我想说的有两点：
1、中国的确帮助了缅甸受灾群众，而不是你说的没有帮助。那是不正确的。至少有3700万物资已经捐往缅甸灾区。而且，至少有两次。http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256825530.shtml
& http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256810895.shtml
2、至于中国政府为什么在救助四川地震和救助缅甸灾区有那么大的差别，这个问题太简单了。
第一，缅甸军政府一开始拒绝国外的援助，直到5月10号左右才同意接受国际援助，但仍然拒绝外国人进入灾区。（http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-05/12/content_6677849.htm）这和中国地震之后政府的开放态度是完全不一样的。
第二，地震之后，中国国内民众对于灾区的热情支援一方面是政府的号召，另一方面成了督促政府尽力救助的力量。在这种情况下，政府只能全力以赴。
第三，对于缅甸热带风暴灾害，中国政府做了大量援助工作，但不可能出动军队像救助四川地震一样去救助缅甸灾区。打个比方，你的家失火了，你可能会冒着生命危险去抢救物资，但是别人的家着火了，你可能只是去打个火警电话一样。没有办法让这两种不同的情况有同样的态度。
第四，中国对缅甸的帮助正在进行之际，突然国内遭受了四川地震这样巨大的灾害，伤亡惨重，可以说已经无暇顾及其他了。但是，我们看到的报告是，5月13日，中国外交部还对缅甸进行救助。（http://news.sohu.com/20080514/n256834966.shtml）
综上所述，我认为你的思考是有偏颇的。你是一个独立的思考者，我很赞赏这一点。但也许更多西方人的观点影响了你。你提到，中国政府这么大力地救助灾区，可能是为了中国政府的国际形象，但我想这绝不是问题本身。我不能否认这一点，但我觉得在目前中国正举全国之力救助灾难的时候，有这样的外国评论，我认为是不合适的。
也许， 我可能误解了你文章中的意思，我希望是那样。但这确实是我读了你的博客之后想到的。也许，我们以后可以关于这个问题充分地探讨。
Dear Steven,
I can’t agree with you, sir.Something you said is right. I thought your opinion are partial.What I want to say are the followings:
1. China did helped Burmese, not “isn’t” like you said.
As far as I know, China government has offered more than 37,000,000 Yuan, at least twice. You can check the following links, while, it needs you Chinese skill..
http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256825530.shtml
&http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256810895.shtml
2. Why it is so different between saving Sichuan victims and helping Burma victims? I think this question is so simply and obviously.
First, the Burma military government strictly refrained from accepting foreign aid. And they made it clear that foreigners are prohibited to enter the disaster-hit areas. That is to say, they blocked out the news about the hit-areas.
（http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-05/12/content_6677849.htm）While ,this is very different with China government’s open attitude on quake.
Secondly, after the earthquake, most China people paid much attention to Sichuan, and this is a very important factor to drive the Government to carry out saving. Another factor comes from the central government leadership of the Premier Wen jiabao. He is respectable.
Thirdly, when the China were thinking about more aid to Burma, the Sichuan earthquake happened. And it ‘s greatly series and challengeable for the government to handle with. Especially, China suffered much from series of troubles. I talked about that in my blog. (http://binmei.blog.sohu.com/86657618.html)
Fourthly, the difference between savings in two country is fair and reasonable.
For example, if your house are on fire, you would to save your belongings at all adventures, but if your neighbor’s house are on fire, maybe you would just call 911. Especially, China are suffering from the same big disaster as Burma cyclone. So it could not be no different.
In a word, I thought your blog on “Why Isn’tChina helping---” are prejudicial. I think you are a independent thinker. While, on this question, I think maybe the western media influenced you much.
You mentioned that China “Helping the victims of the earthquake in China effectively will help China's world image. ” I think that is not the point. I can’t refuse to admit that maybe the government official has the same thinking. But I am pretty sure that the Image is not the first important when they face the great disaster. You also hypothesize that “Perhaps Burmese lives aren't important, only Chinese lives.”And I also think, at this time, it’s unfair or not appropriate to say that when Chinese people pull together to save victims.
My English is just so so, maybe I misunderstand your opinion on your blog and imprudent to post this comment.I hope that. But that is what I thought after read your blog. Maybe we can talk more about that later.
Frank
Frank, your response is exactly what blogging should be about. Very clearly, American and Chinese people 1) receive different facts about what is happening in the world and 2) have different world views with which to interpret the information they receive.
ReplyDeleteEach group 'knows truths' the other group doesn't know. So your comments make me think about how much I don't know.
1) I never heard about the money China offered Burma. I'm not sure if it was reported here and I missed it, or it wasn't reported.
2) Once the earthquake happened, China had to concentrate on China. No question.
However, before the earthquake, I have questions. China has influence over Burma that no other countries have on the generals in Burma. That relationship is, obviously, not clear. But it appears that without China's support, (and some international corporations' support) the Burmese generals would not be able to hold power.
4) China's image. I don't doubt that the Chinese people are totally genuine in their efforts to help the victims of the earthquake. However, the Chinese government appears to be handling this emergency very differently from previous emergencies. Foreign reporters have been give immediate access to Sichuan province and the government has publicly talked about this from the very beginning. This is very different from the Chinese government's policy on other disasters where first they said nothing, then they downplayed the problems, all along keeping foreign journalists out of the area.
It is also clear that the world has abruptly stopped talking about Tibet as the Chinese government shows care and compassion for its citizens. And, I would add, set a model for Burma, which has only now had a day of remembrance for the cyclone victims, seemingly copying China.
I don't know how much you know about the government of Burma and how the ruling generals appear to be taking all the money from the natural resources of Burma while the people of Burma are treated terribly. I posted something on this recently.
So, thank you very much for your comments. They are thoughtful and help me understand better what China is doing and how I can be misled by my Western view of the world.