Download us-china - Rice University

Anti-Chinese, Anti-Chinese-American, Anti-Asian
Chinese-Americans have been under political assault by the media organ for about ten years, now.
The attacks on Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Johnny Lee, and James Wang have contributed to an anti-Chinese political
atmosphere, and have damaged the dignity of every Asian American who dares hold her head up in this
country. Our lack of political awareness as a community has finally taken toll on us. Chinese-Americans
are realizing that to maintain enough cultural capital to live in this country without being constant victims
of racism and discrimination, we need political awareness and collective action. Asian-Americans are all
paying the price for our marked lack of political power and presence in this country. Who will represent us
in the lily-white, mainstream media? The events of the past decade and the present political atmosphere are
a wake-up call for Asian Americans in this country.
When did it start? How did it get this bad? In cities across the country, why do we sense an
attitude that exudes condescension and lack-of-respect from people we don’t even know? The truth is, the
Ho case actually has its roots in a political campaign that isn’t aimed at Chinese-Americans, but at China.
In order to fully grasp the origins of the present political discrimination in this country, we have to
accurately understand what has been going on in China for the past twenty-five years.
Why China, and why now?
China is a country where cultural forms and patterns of thought have always been different; why all of the
attention and criticism now? The truth is, the atmosphere has come about gradually. The media organ’s
anti-China propaganda has been building since the late 1980’s.
To respond to the “why China” question, the answer is that China is an economic power growing
at an exponential rate. China has the second largest economy, with a GDP of 4.25 trillion in 1997—more
than quadruple the GDP in 1978(footnote:worldbank). Its annual rate of GDP growth is 8%, and from
1992-1997, GDP averages a 10% growth rate in coastal areas of China! The attacks on China arise
because, due to socialist policy, foreign publications can’t enter the Chinese market or distribute without
permission from the Chinese government. There are quite a few foreign publications that have gained
access to the Chinese market now; Esquire, Cosmopolitan, and Elle, to name a few. But by and large, the
Chinese market remains largely untapped by media conglomerates. For example, none of the $ 278 +
million earnings of the New York Times Company(NYTC) in 1998 come from China. Huge media
conglomerates such as the NYTC are frustrated by their inability to have a stake in the huge consumer
market (1.2 billion people) in China. The anti-China media campaign is ultimately driven by a desire for
increased profit and earnings abroad. The refusal to grant such companies access to the consumer market
in China is as much motivated by Chinese government desire to create a competitive socialist market
economy where state-owned-enterprises are the primary types of companies, as it is ideological censorship.
It is in this context of competing economic powers--capitalist conglomerates versus socialist stateowned-enterprises, that the true meaning of events like the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident make
themselves clear. Chinese policy makers have been struggling to create a competitive socialist market
since the end of the Cultural Revolution. The gradual de-privatization of state-owned-enterprises(SOEs),
the chinese version of our company, has lead to the rapid rate of economic growth China is famous for
today, as well as large amounts of domestic corruption by party representatives associated with profitable
SOEs. Significantly, the decentralization of government taxation responsibilities in 1970-1971 gives
provincial and local governments an increased sense of financial responsibility for profitable SOEs. What
this means is that, in SOEs where management has a Chinese Communist Party(CPC) representative, that
CPC representative is controlled by local interests. That is why the majority of the economic growth China
is experiencing is guided by local governments, and doesn’t follow the CPC’s central plan. Much different
from Soviet-Style policy, Chinese growth and economic power belongs to district, city, and provincial
planners; not to the government.
It is common practice for SOEs in China to keep two account books; one to show party inspectors
from Beijing, and the real one, for themselves. Obviously, the book shown to party inspectors gives
ludicrously low reports on assets and profitability, so that unreported profits can be pocketed. There is no
invoice system in China; the rate of SOE tax remittances are decided upon through negotiation(with the
CPC’s stated rate as a rough guideline) where local interests work hand-in-hand with management in order
to get a disproportionate share of revenue. Corruption at the local level leads to corruption at higher levels,
since tax remittances from lower level townships and districts to upper level provincial governments also
rely on negotiations. Top level officials, sensing that they are only receiving a fraction of the taxes they
ought to be receiving, join in the embezzlement of money. It’s a chain reaction that can lead to top party
officials pocketing huge amounts of money. The big irony is that, although China boasts the fastestgrowing economy through its SOEs, the amount of tax revenues the CPC receives as a proportion of GNP
has declined over the past two decades(footnote SOE receipts in 1985 make up 9.2% of total GNP, but
steadily decrease to 5.2% by 1991. See China Statistical Yearbook 1991, CFS 1989, 1992. For extensive
information, see Fiscal Management and Economic Reform in the PRC(Hong Kong: Oxford UP) table 2.1)
That’s what Tiananmen was really about. Elitist students at Beijing Daxue, the most prestigious
and elitist University in China, were calling for reforms in Chinese policy to put a halt to the massive
amounts of corruption occurring at several levels within the Chinese government. The students were
calling for reforms in the framework of a socialist government that would put an end to such corruption,
and would bring about a more democratic distribution of wealth. Their desires weren’t for a western-style
“democracy and freedom of the press”(James C.F. Wang pg 272 in Contemporary Chinese Politics)or even
for the overthrow of the Chinese government. Furthermore, the student movement wasn’t lead by students
with homogenous political aims. In fact, the students from Beijing Daxue refused to even associate with
students from other Universities. From the very beginning, the Tiananmen incident was one where student
factions with differing interests vied for power. The faction that ended up taking control in the end was
lead by leaders who wanted bloodshed. The CPC offers for negotiation through a nationally televised
meeting on May 18th fell on deaf ears because student leaders such as Chai Ling, Wuer Kaixi, and Wang
Dan refused to negotiate, and called upon the students to instigate violence by burning cars, flipping cars,
throwing rocks, etc…
What does it mean for us?
After close examination, it is clear that the student movements for reform in China have little to do
with western-style democracy or free markets. Of course, some students believe that the laissez-faire
model of government is an effective way of ridding their government of corruption, and providing a more
equitable distribution of wealth. Most, however, believe in reforming the existing socialist system, as the
main agenda of the student groups illustrates.
But the media’s coverage on China reveals nothing about the complex problems the Chinese
government faces, nor does it do justice to the true spirit of the student movements it so vehemently
publicizes. The stories we get on China, and the images we receive of its people, are aimed at painting a
picture of China that is disproportionately focused on the government and its military. We see dictators,
communist flags, ranks of soldiers, missiles, and tanks. Lacking the intellect to portray the real faults of the
Chinese government, the reporters of the mass media present us with cold war images of a Chinese
government ruling with an iron fist. The media is appealing to a familiar story that we all know in order to
attack a country that refuses to let the media expand its own profit-making machine. Tiananmen is the
media’s “proof” that Chinese markets ought to be opened—it is their way of saying “look, Chinese people
want our company to profit under a laissez-faire system as well.” They veil this attack on China by
evoking the “d” word—democracy in the western sense of the word.
But make no mistake, democracy has little to do with the media’s attack on China: it is no
coincidence that the anti-China stories began coming out right around the time when China’s economy
jumped up to number two, following the United States. It is also no coincidence that the attacks started
coming when the buying power of Chinese consumers began to grow at an alarmingly high rate(per-capita
income has more than doubled in the last ten years), providing a potentially huge market for media
publications and associated products. The New York Times Company could care less about democracy,
and its board members certainly didn’t care about democracy as an agenda in the early 80’s, when China
was still perceived to be a poor developing country.
These attacks have spilled over into the ring of American domestic politics. The reports on
Chinese espionage and technology theft, neither of which have been confirmed with evidence, were merely
the media organ’s attempt to stir-up anti-China sentiment from a different angle. A foreign policy that
intends to economically contain China needs domestic support, and the media is doing everything it can to
gain that support.
Realization
Finally, after a string of domestic media attacks that question the patriotism of Chinese-American
professionals, Chinese-Americans are beginning to see that attacks on their dignity as American citizens are
linked to their country of origin: China. Whether it’s apolitical professionals focused on making money, or
color-blind generation Xers, Chinese-Americans today are forced to pay more heed to the part of their
name on the left side of the hyphen. China is a part of our identity, whether we choose to accept it or not,
and political, social, and cultural attacks on China lead to assaults on our own dignity as American citizens.
Asian Americans are also being forced to organize for political action. To ignorant non-Asians, Asians
from the Pacific look and might as well be the same. Because of blind discrimination, Asians with Pacific
origins all feel the effects of discrimination against any particular group. That is why after WWII and the
Korean War, significant amounts of Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans were all subjects of racism and
discrimination.
Action
The 80-20 voter drive initiative in California is a reflection of the realization by Chinese-Americans that we
are, compared with other minority communities, politically weak. If the mass media ever attacks the Black
Community, its Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are out organizing demonstrations and votes the next day.
Blacks know through extensive experience that their rights will be violated without political action.
Chinese-Americans are, for the first time in a long time, attempting to mobilize political power. But for the
purposes of maintaining our rights to life and property in this country, 80-20 alone is too little, too late.
There are still too many Asian-Americans who don’t give a fuck about politics or anything else that has no
relationship with their own careers. If these people continue not to care, the only place safe for ChineseAmericans will be in China, and the rights of all Asian Americans will be violated. Our safety in this
country, our rights, and our lives will soon be valueless because of a combination of irresponsible reporting
by a profit-driven media and our own political complacency.