BEIJING--Public opinion in China is not as monolithic as many foreign reports suggest, says a journalist renowned for his popularity and long-time research of the Chinese Twitter community.
Using the pen name of Anti, chosen for its meaning in English, the 37-year-old freelance writer began his career at a Chinese newspaper.
In an interview, he explained his views on a range of matters, including the recent anti-Japanese demonstrations in China and possible solutions to the dispute.
Translation of excerpts of the interview follow:
* * *
Question: How do the latest protests differ from those in 2005?
Anti: In 2005, college students were at the center of the demonstrations. The Chinese government allowed those students to unleash their unvarnished patriotic enthusiasm because the government's ultimate objective was to prevent Japan from becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
The objective of the latest protests was to underscore China's stance on the issue over the Diaoyu Islands which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands.
Most of the participants in the demonstrations do not own cars. Nor do they have sufficient income to shop regularly at Seven-Eleven or Uniqlo.
But the college students who took part in the 2005 demonstrations have since graduated and started working. Most of them are well on their way to joining the middle class, which buys Japanese brand products and enjoys Japanese food.
They were frightened by the rioting this time and condemned what the protesters did.
There was strong criticism on the Internet. Some commentators dubbed the protesters "aiguozei" (a term that can be translated as patriotraitor). The criticism hinged on the logic of Chinese people damaging cars built, sold and driven by fellow Chinese.
Q: Why were there so many portraits of Mao Tse-tung in the crowds?
A: The demonstrations were complicated. They represented anti-Japanese sentiment mixed with a certain form of class confrontation.
The rapid rise in references to Mao, including by groups that support Bo Xilai (a senior official recently expelled from the Communist Party), has surprised many Chinese people, including me.
Mao and Bo have no relationship to anti-Japan sentiment or to Diaoyu/Senkaku. Instead, it reflects the thinking of a faction that seeks to use Mao's methods, socialist solutions, to solve the serious economic disparity.
They also criticize the government's policy of opening the country to the world as traitorous.
Q: Many Japanese people were both angered and shocked at the scenes of factories run by Japanese companies being set on fire and of products being looted from retail outlets.
A: That was a shock, too, to many Chinese.
There was a brutality there that was reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, even though more than 30 years have passed since the start of economic reforms and an open-door policy. Many people felt it was not a part of the Chinese society they now know.
To begin with, China is not a society where free speech and spontaneous demonstrations are possible. Rallies cannot be held without government approval. Likewise, protesters cannot produce placards and banners.
Because protests are in general prohibited, when a window of opportunity was opened, people from a range of backgrounds took part. The demonstrations would have ended if the government had shut that window.
However, I do not think the government encouraged protesters to be violent.
In cities in provinces such as Shandong and Hunan, whose governments have had almost no experience of handling peaceful demonstrations, the ability of the police to control crowds is low. Very likely they would be unable to restrain the protesters as officers could in Beijing or Shanghai.
The latest anti-Japanese protests were encouraged for only a short period so I do not believe that the boycott of Japanese products will continue for very long.
Besides, there are Chinese people who want to read Japanese manga and the works of Haruki Murakami and to eat delicious Japanese food.
Q: How do people in China view the confrontation over the Senkakus?
A: Many of the people who criticized the violence nevertheless feel that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China. Therefore, they are flabbergasted at the Japanese government's insistence that no territorial issue exists.
That feeling persists even though many intellectuals also know how many Japanese people feel about it, that putting the islands in state ownership was merely to simplify their control: Japanese government ownership being more straightforward than purchase by the governor of Tokyo.
Regardless of who buys the islands, the Chinese people believe Japan broke a status quo and an understanding between Chou En-lai and Deng Xiaoping and Japanese politicians that the issue should be shelved.
Because of that, China has been forced to proclaim loudly that the islands belong to China.
In 2005, I wrote about the existence of the islands issue on my blog.
Now the matter is discussed not only by government-affiliated media, but also by more liberal media and intellectuals who distance themselves from the government. This shows they have come to realize the issue exists.
Against that background, the stance of the Japanese government—which insists that no dispute exists—cannot be understood, not only by the Chinese government, but also by ordinary Chinese citizens.
Q: Will it be possible to restrain the nationalism that is increasing on both sides? Will the Chinese government take the matter to the International Court of Justice?
A: China would never submit a territorial issue to an international court. Major powers like the United States traditionally dislike having domestic law infringed upon by an external organization. Moreover, one of the judges at the International Court of Justice is Japanese.
Rather, what is urgently needed is a forum for dialogue to handle risk management among the United States, Japan, Beijing and Taipei. Such a forum should be created to keep the situation from worsening rather than deciding ownership of the islands. That would also help to keep nationalism on all sides from escalating further.
And while there are some in China who would prefer the United States to remain uninvolved, realistically that nation is already a stakeholder in the matter.
However, none of this will get off the ground as long as Japan insists no dispute exists.
Q: Will public opinion support efforts at dialogue?
A: I believe many people would accept it.
However, there is no single "public opinion" in China. There are opinions from conservative elements as well as from liberals.
In future relations with China, I hope Japan will listen more to those in China who seek greater freedom and democracy. Such opinion exists not in official media, but over the Internet or in market-oriented media.
I believe deeper dialogue with such people would be in Japan's national security interests. Furthermore, I believe a freer and democratic China will serve the peace that Japan needs, and that's the reason you should listen to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment