Beijing Newspeak

There are few things more unseemly than when diplomatic squabbles overshadow the potential loss of human life.

On Monday, Xinhua reported 12 Chinese fishermen were missing “in south China’s Nansha Islands”. It said the fishermen were working on a fish farm in the Meiji coral islands, also known as Mischief Reef. Some of them were on board the ship “Qiongze Fishing 820″, which was anchored near the fish farm, according to a local Party official in Hainan. The location of the remaining fishermen was unclear. It emerged that the men were reported missing the previous Wednesday, five days before the information was released. The report said local fishery administration staff were searching for the fishermen and the boat.

Now seems a good time to mention the dispute over the sovereignty of this group of islands in the South China Sea. Western media refer to them as the Spratly Islands, Chinese media refer to them as the Nansha Islands. They are claimed either partially or entirely by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan. On seeing “Spratlys” in a foreign media report, one of my Chinese colleagues said, “Urr, I hate that.” Understandable. It reminded me of the reaction of a British polisher in the international department a couple of months ago when he saw the Falkland Islands being referred to as Islas Malvinas in Xinhua copy.

So two days after the initial Xinhua report, a very different version of events emerged in an AP report, which quoted the Philippine coast guard:

Twelve Chinese fishermen were missing after strong winds and big waves battered their two boats near a Philippine-held island in the South China Sea, the Philippine coast guard said Wednesday.

The Chinese Embassy asked the Philippines to help search for the fishermen, coast guard spokesman Lt. Armand Balilo said.

Chinese Consul General Guo Shaochun reported that the Chinese fishermen had called the China Maritime Rescue Center to ask for help after their boats encountered the waves. It was not immediately clear when or how they called.

Balilo said the fishing boats were presumed to have sunk in bad weather near Pag-asa Island - one of several islands held by the Philippines in the disputed Spratly island chain.

The coast guard has asked Philippine ships in the area to search for the missing Chinese. It already has a vessel in the vicinity, searching for 26 missing Filipino fishermen whose boat capsized in a storm Friday.

The location of the missing fishermen had shifted about 250 kilometres northwest to the island of Pag-asa, also known as Thitu Island, which is part of the province of Palawan, the largest province in the Philippines in terms of land area. Xinhua had not reported the Chinese embassy’s request for help because that would be admitting this part of the Nansha Islands was in fact held by the Philippines and not China. According to the Chinese consul, the fishermen had contacted the China Maritime Rescue Centre for help. The centre had remained silent.

For Xinhua to report the situation properly, the task would have to be given to the international department, which could make full use of its bureau in Manila. But handing the task over to the international department would be implying that this part of the islands was not under Chinese control. So nothing was written until the next day, when three of the fishermen were reported to have been found.

The details in the Xinhua report released on Thursday night were sparser than Room 101. There was no indication where the fishermen had been found. Had they been clutching on to wreckage for five days and survived? Who found them? What about the other nine? What did the fishermen say when they were rescued? And so on. The translator of the story contacted the official quoted in the report directly but he denied knowledge of anything. In the end, after polishing, the story adopted the appearance of an irritable note designed to make it clear that no information was being made available.

HAIKOU, Nov. 29 (Xinhua) — Three of the 12 Chinese fisherman who went missing in the Nansha Islands in the wake of Typhoon Hagibis have been rescued, according to the Hainan search and rescue center, but official reluctance to impart information has left details hazy.

The three fishermen were rescued by a foreign ship heading to Singapore, an official surnamed Zhong told Xinhua by phone.

He claimed not to know which country the rescue ship was registered to, the condition of the rescued fishermen or where they were found.

Maybe the “foreign ship” was from the Philippines and had been alerted to the situation by the coastguard. If so, China has gone a bit easy on the gratitude. By Friday afternoon, there were still no further updates from anywhere. As the writer of the story summarised so succintly: “Absurd.”

I wrote a very foolish thing in a previous post. I referred to a story released on October 22 as “(seemingly) Xinhua’s final congress story”. It wasn’t. I somehow managed to forget about the in-depth ”analysis” of Hu Jintao’s speech and the exclusive report on how such a barnstorming piece of oratory came into being, which, in basic terms, was achieved by “extensively soliciting suggestions” and “pooling wisdoms” from Party and non-Party members.

My premature statement also failed to take into account what was happening in the international news department. One polisher from the English-language section spoke of the unbridled joy brought about by editing endless reams of congratulatory addresses from foreign heads of state and leaders of political parties on the successful conclusion of the congress and Hu’s reelection as CPC general secretary. An example. It was worse for those working in the Spanish, French, Russian, Portuguese and Arabic departments though - they have to translate these reports rather than being mere grammar janitors.

Dress me up in an anorak, sellotape up my thick-rimmed glasses and call me a geek but I had a look through these congratulatory messages during a quiet night shift. And what fine records of China’s diplomatic relations they are. The first set of congratulations for Hu from China’s bestest buddies was released on October 22 in careful order. Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Nong Duc Manh of Vietnam, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Choummali Sayasone of Laos.

The following day, the first goodwill messages from Africa were released. Gabon, Zambia and the Seychelles. Then Syria, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Singapore. Nicholas Sarkozy appeared the next day as did Sonia Ghandi. The list goes on and on with well over 200 names, some fairly obsure such as Doureid Yaghi, the vice president of the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon. This did serve to highlight the absence of certain names from the list. No Bush or Brown. And no Merkel, who riled China by meeting with the Dalai Lama in September. Five years ago, the then German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was one of the first names on the list to congratulate Hu on his election as CPC leader.

You can read into it what you will I suppose, concocting theories about the order in which the names appear on the list, the inclusion of some and the exclusion of others. I have no idea myself - you would need to sit down and study these lists going back a couple of decades, an act that does not tickle me into action. (It reminds me a bit of Ian Lamont at Harvard Extended, who has just completed his thesis in which he used “a computer content analysis based on state-run media content to evaluate China’s foreign policy stance towards Vietnam during the Deng Xiaoping era”. His blog is well worth a read as, I’m sure, is his thesis). However, I did notice one significant omission from the stream of congratulators. Robert Mugabe. (He was present and correct in 2002).

Anyway, these stories are now gathering dust but the spirit of the Party congress lives on. Journalists from the main mouthpieces - Xinhua, People’s Daily, China Daily etc - are currently being sent all over the country to report on how the Scientific Outlook (the word “Concept” seems to have been ditched by Hu Jintao’s speech translators) on Development is being implemented in the provinces. A few lucky journalists have been given a month in Hainan to carry out this task, an opportunity that proves working for state media certainly has its perks. Presumably, most will lounge on the beach and knock up a report on some local entrepreneur who has invented a highly accurate toe nail trimming machine which highlights the wave of innovation that is spreading through the land. And why not - good luck to them.

The congress is still fresh in the minds of Xinhua journalists in the Beijing headquarters simply because they can’t forget about it. Workshops are being arranged in which Hu’s speech can be studied and discussed. It seems the “shi qi da” has taken a lot out of the whole agency in fact. In the last couple of weeks, we have welcomed three new polishing comrades which has coinicided with stories drying up faster than a thimble of water on the Saharan sand. Why the drop to around five stories between 9am and 4am every day? Some people cite post-congress tiredness, even those who didn’t report on it. Others say there are no stories coming from the local bureaus. Maybe everyone is too busy writing about scientific development. Apparently, at this time of year the bureaus in Xinjiang, Tibet and other western areas go into some form of semi-hibernation because of the cold weather. It’s like the West’s silly season without the frivolity.

At least there is a reminder of Xinhua’s congress glories though. As you enter the main building, to the left stands a huge collage of the front pages of the Chinese newspapers which Xinhua was entrusted to monopolise during the congress. A source of pride no doubt. And a beautiful reminder that all the front pages of the main Chinese newspapers during the congress period were virtually identical. And on that note, Happy 8th Journalists Day!

This post is balancing on the edge of the out-of-date shelf but I feel like I’m playing catch-up after two weeks at home (voluntarily) wrapped in China-resistant clingfilm. One story that did fox the sieve while I was away was Richard Spencer’s story in the Daily Telegraph headlined “China to withdraw backing for Mugabe”. 

Robert Mugabe is to lose vital support from one of his few remaining allies on the world stage, China.

One of the Zimbabwe president’s oldest diplomatic friends, China yesterday told Lord Malloch Brown, the Foreign Office minister, that it was dropping all assistance except humanitarian aid.

The move follows a decision by China, a permanent member of the United Nations security council, to work more closely with the international community in bringing pressure to bear on “rogue regimes”. It represents a major shift in its previous policy of refusing to attack the internal policies of long-standing allies.

“I was told that Chinese assistance to Zimbabwe was now limited to humanitarian assistance, which is enormously important,” Lord Malloch Brown said. “That puts it in the same position as Britain, which is the second biggest provider of humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe.”

The Chinese embassy in Zimbabwe was first to deny a change in stance, a week after the Telegraph report was published, through a report released by Xinhua’s bureau in Harare.

The Chinese Embassy in Zimbabwe on Tuesday dismissed as false media reports claiming that China has withdrawn all assistance except humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe.

A spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy said contrary to the reports, Zimbabwe and China share a long history of friendship and have cooperation agreements in various fields which include agriculture, education, health, and science and technology.

“Recently, some media published reports claiming that China was dropping all assistance except humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe. The Embassy of China in Zimbabwe wishes to clarify that this is simply not the fact,” said the spokesperson.

Of course if the Chinese government really wished to reject Malloch Brown’s comments it would do so through the Foreign Ministry. But that would be against all known laws of diplomacy. I’m always wary about analysing the specific vocabulary used in Xinhua’s English language service because I know how inconsistent it can be. On this occasion, however, the report does emphasise the distinction between the Communist Party and the central government.

The spokesperson added that apart from assistance promised to Zimbabwe during the visit by Chinese Communist Party senior official, Jia Qinglin, in April, the two governments had also concluded negotiations for China to supply Zimbabwe with 4,000 tons of soybeans.

“During the visit by Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, to Zimbabwe this April, China promised to help build two primary schools, one hospital and an Agriculture Technology Demonstration Center in Zimbabwe.

This point is made by a Harare-based journalist writing anonymously for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting:

The Chinese embassy in Harare issued a statement on September 4 denying any policy u-turn and citing ongoing projects as evidence of continued collaboration. However, analysts attributed this to “diplomatic double speak” and said the embassy statement referred to the policy of the Chinese Communist Party and not the government, which Malloch Brown was referring to.

At this point it would be useful to note that Hu Jintao did not visit Zimbabwe on a tour of southern Africa at the beginning of the year. In addition, one of my colleagues at Xinhua was most disappointed, while on a reporting trip to Africa before the China-Africa Cooperation Forum last November, to find that a planned interview between a delegation of Xinhua journalists and Mugabe was cancelled at the last minute.

An interesting article by South Africa’s Mail & Guardian (linked here via zwnews.com) on Monday quoted a British diplomatic source in Harare saying the reports of China scaling down aid were a “gross exaggeration”.

The picture clouds further with these comments:

Christopher Burke, a research fellow at Stellenbosch University’s Centre for Chinese Studies, doubted whether China had changed its policy toward Zimbabwe. He said none of the Chinese government officials he has been in contact with is aware of a change in the government’s policy toward Zimbabwe. Burke said much of the trade between China and Zimbabwe is conducted using barter and exchange, a form of commerce that requires a “high degree of goodwill”. “I do not expect we will see any significant changes in Beijing’s policy toward Harare,” Burke said.

For good measure the conflicting view is also put forward at length in the same article. An extract:

However, Garth le Pere, executive director at the Institute for Global Dialogue, said China has been scaling down its involvement in Zimbabwe. “That has been the trend since 2005,” he said.

And another:

“A range of factors has soured the bilateral relationship,” Le Pere said, pointing out that thousands of textile workers in Zimbabwe have lost their jobs because of cheap Chinese imports. He said the joint venture that established a cement manufacturing company in Gweru has suffered because of poor infrastructure, energy and transport problems. Le Pere said China’s involvement in Africa is propelled by its own economic interests, which are the basis of any political engagements. There is a growing realisation that the agreements that have been entered into have not borne fruit, largely because of the economic crisis, he said, describing the relationship as “unpredictable”. Although China has a policy of non-interference in sovereign states “it can’t turn a blind eye to what is going on”, Le Pere said. However, he argued, if the security council proposed sanctions against Zimbabwe, China would veto the move.

Well, whatever the true situation, Xinhua News Agency continues to skip happily hand in hand with Zimbabwean “local media”, according to this article published in the Zimbabwean government-run newspaper The Herald (linked via allAfrica.com) on August 25.

Xinhua provides its news service free of charge to many countries in Africa who can’t afford to pay the subscription fee. This results in some African media relying on Xinhua for its news coverage in the absence of a Reuters or AP package. In return, the Chinese government has more opportunity to spread its take on international affairs around the continent. (Note to African media actually paying for Xinhua’s service: don’t!) It is clear The Herald has learnt carefully from Xinhua’s news style, and indeed taken it to another level, judged by this opening paragraph:

XINHUA, a Chinese international news agency, has pledged to continue working with and supporting Zimbabwean media to correct the distortions peddled by the hostile Western media on the situation in the country.

Xinhua’s Harare bureau chief nicely demonstrated how much time Xinhua journalists spend in their agency compounds when posted abroad:

Speaking after handing over two computers to Herald Editor Pikirayi Deketeke and the Head of New Ziana Rangarirai Shoko, Xinhua Harare bureau chief correspondent Li Nuer said the agency would do its best to help the country overcome the challenges.

“We thought we should do something as we are good corporate partners.

“The most important factor is the bilateral relations enjoyed between our two countries.

“As media, when Zimbabwe is facing challenges, we do our best to promote the country, especially with the Western media distortions on the true picture in Zimbabwe,” Nuer said.

He said the agency, which has over 100 bureaus all over the world, would continue to assist Zimbabwe by disseminating information on the real situation in the country.

“We want to help you overcome your difficulties and we hope this will further strengthen our relationship,” he said.

“Disseminating”. Good choice of word that. Plenty of negative connotations. And two computers I hear you cry! Well, the gift may not be generous as it seems. The hub of Xinhua’s operations in Xuanwumen (where I work) has just moved to its newly renovated office tower and is overflowing with brand spanking new technology. There were a few rusty PC models lying around as a result.

I had plenty of time last week to pour over the news agency wires and marvel at the latest confusion over the six-party talks. Despite Xinhua’s diplomatic desk being a few metres up the corridor, I rely firmly on Reuters and AP for the breaking news for obvious reasons. Substitute pretty much any country you like for Romania in this article and it is nearly always applicable. I have long suspected the overuse of the cut and paste function in the diplomatic section.

Not that I’m being given much of Xinhua’s convoluted spiel, translated word for word from Foreign Ministry statements, at the moment. This may have something to do with me completely losing the plot last week, launching a tirade of foul abuse at the unfortunate soul who had concocted the latest piece of unintelligble nonsense and tossing the wretched hard copy on the floor. I was told my anger was “unnecessary” and I would have to agree entirely. On a selfish note, I felt much better. Especially when I had more time to appreciate the KCNA’s latest poetry, which is still a couple of notches of below Xinhua in terms of logic but a darn sight more pleasurable to read.

However, I have to say the reporting of the breakdown of the six-party talks on the foreign wires grated somewhat. There appeared to be a total lack of analysis. I appreciate a news agency is required to be as objective as possible but international newspeak always requires interpretation. I was particularly suprised at AP’s effort - and therefore half the world’s press - which allowed the U.S. negotiator to lay the blame for the collapse of the negotiations firmly at the door of North Korea.

“The problem has been that the North Koreans said they must have this BDA matter finalized before they move forward on the other issues and that sort of sequential approach slowed us down,” Christopher Hill, the chief American envoy, told reporters.

This was then quickly followed by a quote from some guy from a Washington think-tank to ram home the downright stubbornness of those naughty Kim Jong Ilians.

Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, said the stalemate could have been predicted as Pyongyang was following its usual tactic of committing, then pulling back.

“This is what they do and no one should be surprised,” Eberstadt said in a telephone interview. “It’s absolutely business as usual. They don’t play until you pay. Then they will return to discussions to find out what they can get at the next round.”

I rarely stick up for North Korea (how pleasurable it is to be released from the Xinhua shackles and be able to ignore that most ludicrous of abbreviations, DPRK) but hang on a minute. North Korea made it quite clear the talks could continue once the 25 million U.S. dollars had been transferred to the Bank of China from Banco Delta Asia in Macao. Ah, behold the 13th paragraph, when the true situation begins to emerge:

Russian envoy Alexander Losyukov, who also left for home Thursday, was quoted by ITAR-Tass news agency as saying “the whole problem came from the American side.”

He said the United States failed to assure the Chinese side that the Bank of China could receive the funds without fear of U.S. sanctions or discrimination by the banking community and the U.S. government.

What blatant contempt for the basic news-writing principle of the inverted pyramid! That shining gem of a rule that taught budding writers, within the first ten minutes of journalism school, to put rescuer, cat and tree all in the lead paragraph. This is the reason for the breakdown of the talks but, it seems, Russian words do not carry much weight.

The Reuters report chose to elevate the Japanese chief negotiator’s comments to prominence.

“It is deplorable that North Korea did not show a positive stance and stuck to its position to the bitter end that it would not take part in talks unless the funds were returned,” Japanese chief negotiator Kenichiro Sasae said.

This is before they chose to reveal the crux of the issue - China’s seeming inability to persuade the Bank of China (BOC) to accept 25 U.S. million dollars of dirty money from a bank that has been crippled by U.S. financial sanctions. Apparently, it is frightened the money - which after all is a piddly sum for the BOC - will damage its credit rating. Can’t imagine why.

Chinese chief envoy Wu Dawei said the problem hinged on convincing the Bank of China to accept the transfer.

“Whether or not the Bank of China can fulfil this responsibility, we need to consult with them,” Wu told a news conference. “This is a matter that cannot be decided by the government.”

A Bank of China spokesman, asked about reports it was blocking the transfer, said it had not been asked to conduct the transaction and stressed that the bank was obliged to abide by anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws.

Now, I am confused. Forgive me for being sceptical but BOC, as a state-owned bank, should dam well do what the Chinese government tells it to do. Except it hasn’t been told anything. The matter can not be decided by the government you say? Well that claim is shot to pieces by the BOC spokesman saying the bank has not been asked to transfer the money. If it was asked, would it be in a position to say, “actually boss, no can do”?

The clear problem here is a disagreement between the U.S. and China - North Korea is merely waiting for them to sort it out. China is reluctant to harbour the money on the mainland and the U.S. has failed to assure it that there will be no problems for the BOC. Sorry if this is so incredibly obvious but my point is this: the news reports from both AP and Reuters fail to provide the international press with the proper story. Which means the phrase “bloody North Koreans” will be uttered by the majority of the world’s newspaper readers.

More galling is a brief look at the minutes to the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman’s press briefing (always a barrel of laughs by the look of the transcripts), where all the right questions were asked, including:

Q: I asked the Bank of China of how to resolve the transfer issue today and was told that the Foreign Ministry will have the answers. Has the Chinese Foreign Ministry discussed the issue with the Bank of China?

A: If the Foreign Ministry has the answer, this issue has already been resolved. Now this issue is still under discussion.

Still, I won’t be turning to Xinhua’s coverage just yet.