Dear Mr. York,
As a Canadian who has been living and working in China for the past 15 years (including running my own business, and establishing a non-profit organization to work with one of the Chinese minority groups), it is with some dismay that I've read your ongoing reports about China. Your very obvious negative bias, combined with your willingness to distort facts and jump to unwarranted conclusions, is quite something to behold.
Your latest article, about the local "security volunteers" in Beijing, is perhaps one of your greatest triumphs in this regard, and I wanted to write to congratulate you on perhaps one of the best example of non-journalism that I've seen within the pages of the Globe and Mail. If this were written as an opinion piece, it might pass muster (in that it obviously reflects your personal opinions); but as actual reporting, it is abysmal. Of course, making such an accusation, without actual examples, would be pointless. So, let me address some of the points you raised in your article.
"Security volunteers" are a revival of the old system of "neighborhood committees".
You are, apparently, fairly knowledgeable about China. Yet your comparison of these two systems can be attributed only to one of two factors: complete ignorance of the topic which you are discussing; or a willful distorting of the truth in order to pursue your own agenda.
There are, in fact, numerous differences between the security volunteers, and the neighborhood committees. To list the more relevant differences:
1) People within neighborhood committees wore no identification, and generally nobody knew who they were. Security volunteers, on the other hand (and I should mention that the parents and grandparents of many of my Chinese friends are included in the ranks of the "security volunteers"), wear very clear and obvious identification as to who they are. There is nothing secret or hidden about it.
2) The purpose of the neighborhood committees was to spy within the community, to watch and report on the people with whom they lived. The purpose of the security volunteers is to watch for outsiders who do not belong there, and who are acting in a suspicious manner (or are actively engaging in illegal activities). It is, in fact, quite remarkably similar to neighborhood watch programs back in Canada, where local community volunteers wear arm bands and patrol their community, looking for outsiders who don't belong there, and who are acting in a suspicious manner (or are actively engaging in illegal activities).
3) The purpose of neighborhood committees was primarily political, to enforce "correct thinking", and to report those expressed ideas contrary to those of the government. The purpose of the security volunteers is primarily crime prevention, to report people engaged in activities that are (or appear to be) illegal. This includes potential terrorists (who are, sadly, a real threat at present). Yes, there is a political aspect to this, in that they are also supposed to report anyone organizing unapproved protests within their community. But it is a far, far cry from the way that the old neighborhood committees worked.
4) The old neighborhood committees were controlled by the politburo, with a focus on enforcing correct political thinking. The new security volunteers are controlled by the Public Security Bureau, with a focus on crime prevention.
And kudos on your use of the term "network of informants", and the threat that they will continue to be used after the Games are over. This despite the fact that you offer not one piece of evidence that the government intends to continue to use these volunteers after the Games finish (and despite the fact that not only has the government stated that it will only use them during the Olympics, but the volunteers themselves have been explicitly told it is only a temporary measure -- facts that you neglected to mention in your report). And despite the fact that they aren't "informants". At least, no moreso than the local neighborhood watch volunteer in Canada who, seeing a person who seems suspicious in their community, reports it to the police for investigation. In China, "informant" has a very specific connotation -- someone who reports on other people for their political beliefs. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with what these security volunteers are doing.
China's Security Obsession
Your reporting on the security measures that the Beijing gov't is taking are, generally, quite accurate. And I have no issue with that. However, it is curious to note not just what you report, but also what you omit. For example, you omit to mention that many of the security measures Beijing is taking have been used at other Olympic Games. You omit to mention that there is a very real and serious threat of potential terrorist attacks, both from internal groups (the Uighers) targeting Chinese, and external groups (Al Qaeda) targeting foreigners; and that many of these security measures are taken specifically to counter that threat. You omit to mention that many Western cities are setting up networks of security cameras similar to that in Beijing (London, England being a fairly notable example of this). In other words, you seek to present as negative an image as possible by simply bombarding the reader with a long list of apparent dangers/abuses, without giving any perspective whatsoever.
Now, I'm far from being an apologist for the Chinese government. There are numerous problems and abuses here. In 15 years in China, I've seen plenty of that. And although I live in Beijing (and am CEO of my own business here), I am not one of those isolated expats who lives in a comfortable community, away from normal life. I established the Lugu Lake Mosuo Cultural Development Association (
www.mosuoproject.org), which works with one of China's poorest and most isolated minority groups, in the Himalayan mountains on the border of Yunnan and Sichuan. Their religion is Tibetan Buddhism, and there have been numerous injustices perpetrated against them...injustices that we seek to redress, and to improve.
And yes, many of the measures that the Beijing gov't have taken are quite overboard, and should not be ignored. Telling bars and restaurants to turn away black customers, for example. Or reneging on their promise to provide unfettered media access during the Games. Or only allowing protests that have "proper permits" (effectively barring all protests that the gov't doesn't want).
And yes, if I compare China today to Canada today, it is pretty darn difficult to come up with a lot of positive comparisons.
However, if I compare China today with China 15 years ago, the amount of positive change is absolutely mind-boggling. When I arrived in China, they still had two different currencies -- one for foreigners, another for Chinese. All my mail was opened and read by the police. Chinese who visited me had their identity recorded, and if they visited me more than two or three times, would get a visit from the local PSB. If I wanted to visit a Chinese person's home, I'd have to go to the local PSB to get permission first. The list goes on and on and on.
The amount of positive change that has taken place in China -- within a period of only 15 years -- is almost unprecedented. And deserves to be recognized.
I agree 100% with informing the world about the abuses that take place within China. We should be unrelenting in continuing to place pressure on the Chinese government to continue the process of change and reform that is taking place. But likewise, we should make equal efforts to recognize and praise the positive advances that are made. Advances in gender equality (Chinese women enjoy one of the highest levels of social equality of any Asian nation today). Advances in education. Advances in health care. Again, the list could go on, and on, and on.
Therefore, I don't object to the fact that you report negative issues in China; what I object to is the fact that your reports are almost exclusively negative. And not only are they almost exclusively negative, but they rely on tactics of misinformation and propaganda that would be worthy of the Communist leaders you so regularly vilify. It is interesting to note that for all your condemnation of how the Chinese leaders control and distort the information they give to their public, you use exactly the same techniques yourself! You use intentionally inflammatory language (such as referring to security volunteers as "informers"); you use negative and frequently inaccurate comparisons (such as comparing security volunteers to the old neighborhood committees); you leave out relevant information that does not suit your specific agenda (such as the fact that security volunteers have been specifically informed that their positions will be terminated as soon as the Games finish); you leap to entirely unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusions (such as your claim that this "network of informants" will remain in place after the Games are finished); etc., etc., etc.
I do not expect this email to make any difference to your reporting; you obviously have your own agenda, and you aren't going to let little things like "accuracy" and "balance" get in the way of that. However, I felt a distinct need to respond to your article, and to let you know that the travesty you call "journalism" has not gone unnoticed. And I will cc: a copy to Edward Greenspon and Stephen Northfield, simply so that they will be aware of my concerns regarding "journalistic integrity", and the apparent lack of standards they use in evaluating the articles printed within their pages.
If you bother to reply to me at all, I'd appreciate it if you would make an effort to actually address the specific points I raised in regard to your article. If you can actually give points to defend the claims you made, or to contradict the points that I have raised, I would welcome those. However, if its going to be a simple "You're entitled to believe what you want" kind of response, please don't bother; if you are unable or unwilling to make an actual defense of the points I've raised, I don't really see much purpose in any further correspondence.
Regards,
