The Longbow Papers

Link to Main Blog Page

Friday, July 07, 2006

Chinapolers - Philip Cunningham Responds

11:20 AM

The one or two personal shots I received were well worth it. What I hoped for has happened; Phil Cunningham has written a response. I have removed the opening graph, which contained only warm pleasantries between good friends. I left the final pleasantry because I am not totally altruistic and appreciate a compliment from such a source as much as the next fellow. It is my pleasure to present Philip Cunningham:

This Chinapol teapot tempest has a slightly unreal quality here in my little cottage in the Japanese countryside, surrounded by the greenest rice fields you've ever seen, chirping frogs, lightning bugs and mist-covered hills.

The place is isolated enough to be outside of NTT's internet range and I have to bike down the road to the nearest campus to get on line. I'm sitting outside now enjoying a summer evening and the beauty of wireless internet.

I'm not sure to what extent I want to pursue the Chinapol thread, though some of those who posted on Danwei, especially Chinapolers like ymc (of the US Naval War Academy, trying to insinuate himself into being a chum of Rumsfeld and Cheney) inspires me to give it another try. There are a few other recognizable Chinapol voices showing up, and lots more who are writing letters of support and solidarity, albeit in private communications.

As for the rather vitriolic posts from laowai who apparently spend a considerable amount of time watching CCTV the sarcastic comments for the most part seem to be a delayed payment (in addition to the honorariums just big enough to buy bagels and cream cheese) for being one of the "guys of Dialogue."

I first got to know CCTV staffers as a Knight International Journalism fellow doing journalism outreach in China. In my talks and consultations, I continually stressed the desirability of going live and presenting more than one point of view and urged them not be afraid to disagree, but to do so agreeably on TV and to my surprise they asked me to put my money where my mouth was, that is to say, they asked me to be on the show.

That was the beginning of a professional and private association with CCTV that I continue to be proud of. Chinese television is not only improving with time, but there's a real desire on the part of newscasters and talk show hosts such as Yang Rui and Tian Wei to raise the bar higher and higher. Thus, the mostly snarky viewer comments, written mostly in ignorance, don't bother me much, though if any of those posters were sincerely interested in "dialogue" it would be easy to clear up some of the more elementary misunderstandings.

Am I really so far to the left, or have things swung madly to the right? I'm not at all anti-US, though I am highly critical of the petro-junta that has taken charge of Washington and shamelessly exploited 9-11 to narrow partisan ends.

I rather liked President Clinton in his first term, I saw him in Tokyo when he first visited in Japan, and though I felt disappointed with his second term for fairly common reasons that need not be gone into here, I shook hands with him again at a reception at the US Embassy in Beijing. Yes, I've been inside the embassy gates. They used to make a mean BLT in the snack bar and I got to know Ambassador Sasser a bit, a true gentleman.

As for Clinton, to lift a phrase from one of my more subtle detractors, I found him "brilliant and charming," even when I really disagreed with him. I also met Jimmy Carter and saw Ronald Reagan in Beijing, and Bush Senior just a few months ago at a reception in the Great Hall of the People, which is to say I have been consistently interested in the Sino-US relationship for a few decades now, in part inspired by my teacher, fellow teacher, friend and mentor, Michel Oksenberg.

Mike Oksenberg is not exactly anyone's idea of a leftist, bless his soul; he worked in the Carter White House and like Rick Baum, Chinapol meister, enjoyed a certain amount of intelligence access due to his White House work.

One reason Mike and I got along is that I dared to disagree with him and he respected that. Sam Huntington at Harvard will tell you the same. Okay, on some issues I may be said to lean a bit to the left, but during a widely-viewed argument I had with Mike Oksenberg on Ted Koppel's Nightline (with Mike defending China in the aftermath of eighty-nine and me criticizing it) Mike flew me into Ann Arbor to attend a Michigan football game and we remained close until his death. In a not entirely unrelated vein, I also once had a rather public argument about the Jiang visit to Harvard with Ezra Vogel (after his stint in the CIA) many years later and even he had the extreme courtesy to write a letter to apologize for the misunderstanding.

I'm American and I like America (though I shouldn't feel the need to say this and I defend the right of people not to like it) but I really hate what's happened to my country. It's passion and concern for a good place with good people gone bad, not cynicism nor hatred.

There's a difference between bringing up the US on each and every occasion as a deliberate ploy to obfuscate the issue, sort of like the incessant harping on what the white man did to the Indians in the context of today's current events. However history cannot be completely ignored, especially by historians and political scientists such as you have on Chinapol. Furthermore, it is well-nigh impossible to have a well-rounded discussion about CONTEMPORARY China without reference to its leading CONTEMPORARY rival which pushes and prods it in mores ways than one, playing the human rights card here, the trade card there, the spy plane game, etc.

To sum up my thoughts on Chinapol, the organization has an America problem. There's a dialectic in play, the US influences that which US critics criticize, but free discussion of the US role in all this is not welcome. Okay, Rick Baum has to keep the CIA members happy, but I found them generally thoughtful and intelligent. It was wannabe defense types and human rightists who deep-sixed many a good discussion.

I joined Chinapol sight unseen, having no idea of who constituted its membership, with an open mind to see what it was like and was gradually dismayed to see how often the dynamics of discussion got railroaded by a handful of reactionaries, a dynamic not unlike that which recently took place on Danwei and is now unfolding on the Longbow site. Finally I felt uncomfortable with the Chinapol habit of criticizing behind closed doors, doors which are closed to the very people being studied and observed.

A tip of the hat to you Joe, for your spirited loyalty and appreciation of the seriousness of the issues involved.

Best,

Phil

Thank you, good buddy. All right, folks, speak your piece if you have one--but not with personal attacks or extremely foul language, that stuff will come down quickly.

11:20 AM / Editor / permalink 7 comments

Links to this post:

<\$BlogBacklinkControl\$> <\$BlogBacklinkTitle\$> <\$BlogBacklinkDeleteIcon\$>: <\$BlogBacklinkSnippet\$>
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>

7 Comments:

PC: I joined Chinapol sight unseen, having no idea of who constituted its membership, with an open mind to see what it was like and was gradually dismayed to see how often the dynamics of discussion got railroaded by a handful of reactionaries, a dynamic not unlike that which recently took place on Danwei and is now unfolding on the Longbow site.

Hi Philip,

There are now 13 comments in the earlier Longbow thread on this topic. Of those 13 comments, which do you see as being the products of "reactionaries"? Seriously. Because I honestly don't see it, and I have a low tolerance level for reactionaries. (I did see that kind of comment in the Danwei thread, but not here, not even a little bit.) Which makes me wonder if anyone who criticizes you is labelled a reactionary. I hope not.

By richard, at 1:34 PM

Update to my own comment: I did see some rudeness in the thread, mostly toward Yang Rui and (from commenter Mike) toward Joseph, which I felt was uncalled for and immature. But reactionaries...?

By richard, at 1:54 PM

PC wrote: "In my talks and consultations, I continually stressed the desirability of going live and presenting more than one point of view and urged them not be afraid to disagree."

So what happened? I don't see any evidence in the reports, guest selection, or questions asked that Yang Rui and Tian Wei have any inclination or stomach for deviation from the party line. It is, by any reasonable judgement, an embarrassment to the name of objective journalism.

Even a man of your considerable intelligence and experience, it would appear, is capable of naivety. I believe that you are too blinded by the platitudes peddled by 'team dialogue' to realise that your participation is dependent upon the alacrity with which you criticise the USA and your reluctance to place China under the same microscope.

Having got your foot in the door you should really push for genuine debate. However, any indication that you might stray from the herd would certainly coincide with your last visit to the studio; that's the reality of China's state controlled media, and it is pure nonsense to pretend that they warming to the concept of pluralism.

That said, you clearly know these people and if you are serious about persuading them to ask searching questions of guests with diverse opinions (including views not flattering to China), then you may yet have an important role to play in the removal of their journalistic blinkers. Good luck.

By Stuart, at 6:00 PM

Mr Cunningham,

I note you spent a long time talking about things other than the mailing list. This is fair enough given that the discussion has moved on.

Now I must say that although I believe some elements of the Chinese media have moved forward a lot, CCTV (and CCTV 9 especially) is still utterly terrible. You look at the way they have come, but I look at what it still is. It is basically a propaganda channel for foreigners. I watch it sometimes with a friend that can pick it up and we can't help but laugh.

The Dialogue shows I have seen are ridiculous, because on the important issues the people there don't disagree. As stuart said, they toe the Party line and don't question it. So it is basically a means of justifying what the Party says is "right".

You have a special position to carefully push for more openness and could persuade these people to change. So why don't you use it? Afraid that you won't be the darling of CCTV anymore?

As to Chinapol, I still await you to authorise them to publish the comments that got you kicked. You keep acting innocent but fail to produce evidence to that effect. You're also now shifting your stance. First it was that you were unfairly kicked, now it seems to be that you felt uncomfortable and didn't want to be there. So why didn't you leave rather than wait to be kicked? I think you rather did know that it was a relatively closed environment, given that it was a closed mailing list. Even I know the nature of such a thing, and I haven't been on any!

By the way, China has other major critics, such as Japan that do not embark on US-style interventions and activities. Even today a lot of Chinese I know dismiss the US as a failing country (not justified, but what-the-hey) and focus on Japan instead. So in the future why not ditch the US and talk about Japan instead? Sometimes you Americans wrongly believe yourselves to be at the centre of everything.

In any case, I don't see how what the US does makes what China does acceptable. The US is rather single-minded in going after terrorists, but then again China has done the same thing (even worse). It also has a tough foreign policy. But it also still affords it citizens many rights, whereas China does not. If you want to compare the two countries, how they treat their own citizens is the greatest contrast - one that you should focus on.

By Raj, at 7:40 PM

Phil I don't agree with you being kicked off Chinapol (though why you should worry about a "no dogs or Chinese" forum, I don't know). However, I've got to say that your ongoing appearances on Dialogue lend this slick half-truth show a little bit of undeserved credibility. Or rather I should say it blows your own credibility out of the water. I'm sure Yang Rui is a nice guy in person, but his discussion programme is remarkable exercise in deceit, only useful for what goes unsaid. It's like a TV equivalent of the People's Daily - if you can read between the [autocue] lines you might find out what the authorities deem acceptabtle. If the Chinapol bubbleheads are guilty of excessive deference to "Secretary Rice", you are guilty of excess deference to Comrade Hu Jintao. Surprise us and speak the truth to power, on air. Maybe the 20 second delay censors will miss it.

By Anonymous, at 8:07 PM

very typical defence. the cctv attackers are ignorant laowai full of misunderstandings. Well, no, some of us have met yang rui and comment from experience. Also, as regular viewers (why would you castigate people for wacthing a tv show you feel so strongly about participating in?) we are entitled to our opinion.

mr cunningham, like bosco and many more before and after, has fell for the oldest chinese trick in the book: flattery. make the foreigner feel important. call him a professor or a foreign expert. then, before you know it, s/he is perfoming exactly the role you always wanted him/her to. In this case, an apologist for the Chinese right wing.

and mr bosco, defending the position of yourself and cunningham by saying it would be impolite to do any different is ridiculous. as least the post war nazis had the nouse to say they were only following orders. If you want to be part of one of the most repressive media organizations in the world, then fair enough. But don't cower behind empty justifications.

By Anonymous, at 3:39 PM

Congratulations on your true and human defense of Phil Cunningham. Here in Brazil we follow and applaude. I knew Philip bach in the 70s, please be so kind as to forward my e-mail to him, it is very important we share some information, rogeriozola@ig.com.br

Thank you so very much for the chance to get in touch with this wonderful person, a journaist like myself
.

By rogerio santiago, at 3:07 PM