WORLD VIEW/Paul Gillespie: WHEN WE were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called the Yellow Peril. When we are billed to be the next superpower, we are called the threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to our open
markets.
When we embrace free trade, You blame us for taking away your
jobs.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and
took what you wanted.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again,
Free Tibet you screamed, It was an invasion!
So begins a polemical poem posted on several websites to explain why the Chinese bitterly resent the surge of political and media criticism directed against them from the West over Tibet. The country's 200 million internet users have staged a spectacular counter-surge, based on pride in its achievements to be showcased at the Olympic Games 100 days from now.
The poem goes on, in a necessary plea for mutual comprehension:
Why do you hate us so much, we asked. No, you answered, we
don't hate you.
We don't hate you either, But do you understand us?
As seen in counter-demonstrations over Tibet in China itself and abroad in Sydney, London, Dublin and elsewhere, the counter-surge variously combines politically directed and spontaneous elements. Boycotts of the French supermarket chain Carrefour's 119 outlets in China were another popular expression.
Chinese nationalism is an important legitimising glue for its one-party state since the market-based modernisation began in the 1980s. One commentator put it like this: "Since the Chinese Communist Party is no longer communist, it must become even more Chinese." But embracing nationalism is a double-edged sword precisely because it is not only a top-down phenomenon but a bottom-up one too. What can be given can be taken away.
The veteran correspondent Philip Bowring writes from Hong Kong in the International Herald Tribune: "On the horizon is the possibility that these [ Tibet protests and Olympic threats] will combine with high inflation, stagnating exports and trade tensions with the United States to create a perfect nationalistic storm. The Chinese leadership faces a difficult balancing act." Endemic social problems, falling stock markets or rising food prices could equally be blamed on party failings in such a storm.
The dilemma can be seen in these comments by the state-run English-language newspaper China Daily: "Patriots are supposed to adopt a tolerant attitude toward others and be broad enough to see what is good and what is bad in them. Over-the-top nationalism is not constructive, but can do harm to the country." Protest organisers and websites are being curtailed.
There is a worry that protests could backfire during the Olympics, deeply affecting the country's international reputation. But backing off from the official and popular anger is difficult for fear of being seen as weak under foreign pressure. Such "face nationalism", meaning "the figurative self shown to others", is an important ingredient of Chinese political culture, according to Peter Hays Gries, author of a study of the subject. Yesterday's news that a Chinese representative will meet the Dalai Lama shows political skills are asserting themselves.
Kenneth Lieberthal of the University of Michigan says the western view of Tibet is shaped by a notion of Shangri-La, while the Chinese assume Tibetans are backward, feudal, superstitious, and badly in need of modernisation. "So I think they regard it as bizarre that the advanced industrial countries would humiliate them by boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympics over the Tibet issue."
Bowring notes how official Chinese media have portrayed the violence in Tibet as attacks on Han Chinese. "This predictably arouses the hackles of the Han, who comprise 90 per cent of China's population . . . They see no reason why Tibetans should be unhappy with Han migration and dominance of trade."
Lieberthal says the Chinese see these anti-Olympic protests as an indication that, regardless of how much China strives to become a constructive player in the world, "many in the West will never accept that, [ and] will seek to humiliate them".
The protest poem goes on, illustrating this very well:
When we tried communism, you hated us for being communist.
When we embrace capitalism, you ridicule us for being
capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying
the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human
rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debt.
When we build our industries, you call us polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of
law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it
violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free
speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-
xenophobics.
But it concludes more hopefully:
Enough is enough, Enough hypocrisy for this one world. We want
one world, one dream, and peace on Earth.
This big blue Earth is big enough for all of us.
A more critical empathy is needed both ways.