January 18, 2005
所谓华威学生报纸"诬蔑中国报道"事件
原文：Great leap forward?
评论：Comments
以下由hunter-ray 发表: 2005-01-13 on 10:20 节选自超级苹果 URL
Great leap forward?
‘At the time of writing, Japan has given a massive $500m. America, $350m plus free use of cargo planes, aircraft carriers, helicopters and 1,500 Marines. The UK, $100m plus naval frigates and expertise in delivering frontline aid. All these nations and many others have, despite pressing domestic concerns, given generously to save lives in the watery hell that is the Indian Ocean's coastline. China? A belated $60m, and not much else. A country which is the foremost power in the region, has its own space program and will soon overtake Britain as the world's 4th largest economy finds itself donating less as a proportion of its total GDP than mighty Holland.
Before anyone writes in to accuse me of turning the worst natural disaster of our time into some kind of ghastly league table of international munificence, don't. It is entirely China's business how much of its own wealth it donates, and the Asian tsunami isn't even what concerns me here - nothing worthwhile can be said about such a calamity. The question is this: why are we so relaxed about China's ongoing rise to superpower? After all, this is a country whose ills go way beyond fiscal parsimony. From its pervasive militarism to its suppression of political dissent to its repression of religious freedom to its brutal one-child policy to its butchery in Tibet to its meddling in Hong Kong to its intimidation of Taiwan, China stands out as by far the most authoriarian of the world's power blocs, including Russia, India, Europe, America and Japan.
Yet nobody seems troubled by its remorseless ascent. From the right, there is the idle hope that China's successful economic liberalisation (it is now communist in name only) will lead to political liberalisation. From the centre, there is a detached curiosity about Chinese hegemony, as though it were nothing more serious than a novel anthropological experiment. Most revolting, however, is the European left's reaction: gleeful anticipation of a rival to America - however illiberal, however threatening, however alien to the values the left is supposed to believe in. In an act of what can only be called "pre-emptive suicide", the EU even wants to resume selling arms to China despite the fact that, if Vladimir Putin gets his wish of a Russia-China alliance, Europe will suddenly find itself amounting to little more than a vulnerable peninsula of a vast authoritarian landmass stretching from Moscow to Beijing.
The one good thing about China's rise is that it will expose America's critics as the morally selective hypocrites they are. If they freak out when the Marines down in Gitmo "torture" detainees by playing Metallica CDs at maximum volume, will they also be outraged about the millions of Chinese dissidents who are sent to "re-education" camps by their government? If they question America's democratic credentials because some poor sod in Miami Beach is wrongly registered as a felon, will they also be troubled the fact that China hasn't had a single national election in its 5,000 year history? If they tut-tut at Bush's use of pugnacious rhetoric such as "smoke 'em out" and "let's roll", will they also condemn the Chinese generals whose idea of nuclear diplomacy is saying things like "America cares more about Los Angeles than it does about Tai Pei"?
Not only is the liberal world sleeping while an illiberal giant grows, it is embracing it at the same time. Record numbers are travelling to China as tourists. As someone who refuses to visit any country which is even remotely authoritarian - even Germany is out of bounds, as it retains national service - I watch as friends who have marched against the policies of their own government cheerfully visit a country where, only 15 years ago in Tiananmen Square, Chinese kids of their age were murdered and maimed for doing the same. Sometimes, you cannot eat enough to vomit enough.’
http://www.warwickboar.co.uk/boar/opinion/great_leap_forward/
最新動態
13.01.05
这 件事情的发生，所有的中国人都很生气，尤其是我们warwick的中国学生，但是请那些针对warwick和中国学生会的朋友把你们的注意力转 移到文章作者本人和warwick boar的编辑。不要因为这样一件事情就说warwick不好，而且我要强调，warwick boar是每周二出版，我们committe在周二发现这篇文章之后马上在我们自己的论坛上发帖子讨论这件事情，星期三又开会讨论了具体的细节。经过和 warwick boar联系后他们只同意给我们600字的地方，而且只可以刊登在读者来信里面，所以后来我们才决定星期五的联名抗议的。我们并不是什么事情都没做，我们 只是没有时间到这里来一一汇报。而且对中国有想法的人到处都是，不只在warwick，这和你来大学里学习知识并不冲突,学校里还是友好的人多。最后再说 一句，虽然这样的事情发生，但是我还是很爱我的大学，更爱我们的society.
14.01.05
今 天的活动一直持续到五点钟，我们一共收到约300份签名支持的调查问卷，大家都一致要求warwick boar作出书面道歉，甚至请出面学校干涉解决。也有一部分英国学生来参加我们的活动，部分人觉得这篇文章确实报道失实，并且严重诋毁了中国的形象和地 位。但是大部分英国人觉得这只是作者个人的观点，warwick boar不应该负任何责任。活动当中，warwick boar的president亲自过来承认这篇文章是她同意发表的，她现在意识到自己的做法是错误的，但是我们不应该针对文章的作者。最后我们和他们商议 决定在下期的warwick boar上面他们将做出书面的道歉（道歉信须经我们阅读同意后方可刊登。），。并且在相同的版面，将发表一篇有我们写的反驳Jana Ganesh的文章。
14.01.05
大家好，我是华威大学生中国学生会主席，感谢大家对本次校刊反华文章事件的关注。
今天的签名活动取得了圆满的成功，虽然这次决定非常仓促，在准备不足和宣传时间不够的情况下，学生会依然得到了近300名中外学生的支持。
在签名活动中，Warwick Boar的主席来到了签名现场，学生会由我出面和她进行了交涉，她对此事件表示明确的歉意，以下是现阶段我们的处理方案：
1，在下一期的Warwick Boar发表有学生会整理并拟写的反驳搞。
2，在下一期的Warwick Boar发表Warwick Boar主席的道歉信，学生会将在周末与他们进行进一步交涉，一定要让道歉信刊登在Warwick Boar的头版。
3，中国学生会保留采取进一步行动的权利，前提条件是Warwick Boar能够令人满意地对此事向华威中国学生进行道歉。
华威中国学生会
1月14日
14.01.05
主编的发言：
Kate Dunn (Editor, Warwick Boar) on Fri Jan 14 16:27:37 2005 wrote:
"Firstly, let me thank everyone for making their views of the Boar's article, The Great Leap Forward? known on this site.
As editor of the Boar, I am fully aware of the reactions to this piece and today met with people, including the President of the Chinese Society, personally in order to hear their views. As a result, I am certain that next Tuesday's issue of the Boar will contain a 'Right to Reply' piece in response to Janan Ganesh's article that you may all be interested in reading.
The Boar welcomes people's feedback and responses to articles, as proven by the existence of these very comment boards.
However, as President of the society of the Warwick Boar, I have a responsibility towards the society's members, one of which is Janan.
Consequently, I would suggest that remarks of a personal nature should not be posted on this site.
The Boar stands by its decision to print the article, in the knowledge of the outlets of response available to those who disagree. Rather than direct comments regarding the publishing of the article towards Janan, then, please instead email me at mailto:editor@warwickboar.co.uk
16.01.05
这是DIRECTOR OF PRESS AND MEDIA SERVICE OF WARWICK UNIVERSITY 给偶的回信：
The Boar is an independent student newspaper. It is not printed by the University and it has an independent website not on the University's server ie
http://www.warwickboar.co.uk/
The university does not endorse any of its content and indeed as you can see that newspaper is often critical of the University. You should address your comments direct to that newspaper.
Peter Dunn
我想去找大学的领导是解决不了问题的，所以矛头就应该转向WARWICK BOAR的主管。
16.01.05
以下是Janan Ganesh发给Chinese Society的一封信：
Dear Sir or Madam,
I know my article in the Boar has offended many Chinese students, but I hope you
will allow me to explain. I had no idea that my article would provoke so much
hostility. Today, I even received a threatening email from a Chinese student,
which has never happened to me before in all my time at the Boar.
I am sending a letter to the Boar which explains my position, but I want you to
read it first. It is below:
Dear Editor,
As author of the "Great Leap Forward?" article which has upset so many people, I
am writing to offer an explanation.
I have written articles critcising many individuals and many governments, but I
have never provoked this kind of reaction before. Some of it has been
unreasonable, such as the claim that I should master the history and culture of
a country before being "allowed" to write about it, and some of it has been
revolting, such as the threatening email I received from someone who apparently
"knows where I live". Some of it, however, has been fair and civil, and it is to
these people that I direct this letter.
I acknowledge that parts of my article were misjudged. The opening paragraph was
clumsy as it gave undue prominence to an essentially irrelevant issue (tsunami
aid donations), and the closing line was perhaps too brutal. I regret this, and
any offence it casued. However, I cannot apologise for expressing sincerely-held
views which have nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality, but simple
political principles. I don't dislike China, I dislike authoritarianism.
If I had unlimited space, I would have stressed that China has more often been a
victim of imperialism than a perpetrator of it, that China's GDP per capita is
low even though its overall GDP is very high, that China has made some progress
on political liberalisation, and that it is the Chinese government, not its
citizens, that I was arguing against. However, Boar columnists only have around
600 words in which to state their case. We are required to be concise and
provocative. Nobody wants to read a PhD thesis on a Tuesday morning.
As I mentioned on the Boar website, I spent part of my childhood in Singapore
being raised by a Chinese lady who had been taken into my extended family when
she was young. She is, effectively, my auntie. I have no wish to cause offence
to any Chinese students at Warwick, any more than I wish to offend her.
Semper fidelis,
Janan Ganesh
参看： 华威学生报纸"诬蔑中国报道"事件
Liu Haining‘s Right to Reply Comments
Haining Liu responds to the article 'Great Leap Forward?', which appeared in last week's issue
In a free society where free speech is protected, Mr. Ganesh has every right to express his personal views, which should be considerate and responsible - not offensive as in this case. The author's opening accusation of China's donation being too stingy is totally flawed. The cited data is outdated even at the time of writing. I am unwilling to go through the numbers again, as it would be an insult on humanity to turn this tragedy into some sort of donation contest fuelled by Ganesh's own political agenda. However, I do wish to point out that China made much of her donation in personnel assistance and kind. Considering the cost of labour and manufacturing in China, these donations would have been far more valuable if they were from a developed country. One other mistake that Mr Ganesh made was that he forgot China honoured all her donations immediately, unlike many of Ganesh's listed countries who merely "pledged" aid.
Basic economics would teach one that a large GDP does not automatically translate into wealth per capita. By picking data that fitted his need, it is clear the author believes in such ludicrous claims as countries like India being richer than Switzerland. Taking GDP per capita into account China has done a far more generous favour for the disaster-stricken nations.
I am not here to defend the Chinese government's mistakes in any way. The author has certainly made some good points in his criticism of the Chinese government. Unfortunately he seems to have picked the wrong sources. The current rise of China has prompted fear in some countries, not due to their genuine concerns regarding the nation's yet-to-be-improved political landscape, but to selfish fears of them losing their once-unchecked hegemony. As a result there is a string of right-wing running dogs in the media that are more than happy to publish exaggerated vicious attacks on China simply with the aim of demonising her. Every country has its own record of mistakes. One can certainly gather negative record of any 'democratic nation' and compile a collection of raped words that make this article look like Disneyland. I do not believe any responsible journalist should write a critical report of this nature without studying the subject in full detail. Ganesh must be blind, or he must be wearing a pair of spectacles made by Rumsfield Le Pen and Co.
It is apparent from Ganesh's article that the author has no intention in assisting China to improve and prosper, instead he uses phrases such as "I watch as friends who have marched against the policies of their own government cheerfully visit a country " and "sometimes, you cannot eat enough to vomit enough". One can only conclude that the author was simply a step away from urging his readers to shun China completely, not just the government, but the country as a whole: her people, her culture, her economy. One starts to wonder how the author could have the guts to later declare that he was not writing against the Chinese people? The Chinese student community at Warwick has taken deep offence in the author's irresponsible face-smudging of their beloved motherland. Chinese patriotism has its roots in China's two centuries' of humiliation, as a once-proud world power, by Western nations and Japan. As a result the Chinese people are extremely sensitive to this kind of ill-intended China-bashing coming from people who once would have stamped a foot on the bullied gentle giant.
China has indeed taken some ill-judged actions in Tibet; her handling of Hong Kong is also debatable. However the author seems to have forgotten that some Western media persistently focus on these dark moments while completely ignoring China's vast improvements in such areas as the people's standards of living and human freedom. Contrary to popular myth, the Chinese government is not widely hated in China. Despite well-publicised and criticised cases of corruption and inefficiency, most people still support the government. This is not down to the fact that there is supposedly no freedom of speech. Like the Chinese people in general, most Chinese expatriates abroad support the government as a whole. This has to be an informed choice as the overseas Chinese are not subject to any kind of control over free speech.
Being a leader of the world for almost two millennia, China was reduced to a pitiful Third World country by Western nations and Japan, starting with the Opium Trade in the early 19th century. In the two centuries that followed the Chinese have been massacred, had their land taken, and their ancestral treasures stolen (visit the British Museum). This is a wound to the heart which hurts every Chinese. The communist government does have its problems, but one good thing it did was to create a strong and growing China, raising the standard of living in the process. This is something the Chinese people wanted. For this single reason people support it. People are calling for improvements, not for an overthrow.
'Thought-provoking' is certainly an irreducible property of journalism, and Mr. Janan's article is certainly this. However, articles consisting of direct presentation of biased facts and distorted occurrences with little attempt of reasonable analysis or interpretation are undoubtedly pathetic pieces. The author's article on China obviously belongs to this sort. Mr Ganesh may have been a successful writer with some recognition by respectable newspapers. However, I feel sorry for them if his other articles published were of similar quality.
Posted by CY at January 18, 2005 04:47 PM
