>It seems that China is angry because the highly touted CIA cannot read >street maps, which clearly show the Chinese embassy, while the US is >angry because China has been able to discover top secret information. >Does anybody else find this imbalance curious? > >-- >Michael Perelman Not really. I suspect that the US bombed the embassy in retaliation for alleged theft of top secret information. Here's an interesting report from Saul Thomas, a member of the Marxism mailing-list, based in China: ========= I stayed inside this Sunday morning to watch the TV coverage of the demonstrations. The news was essentially the same as Saturday night, reading the same statements from the government, with some added coverage of the protests in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. They did not report on any of the attacks on the US embassy and consulates in these areas. The government has until now refrained from reporting that NATO says the bombing was an accident, and has not reported that Clinton and NATO have made their lame apologies. After the news there was a news-in-depth show, the host interviewed some professor from the People's Liberation Army University. The attack on the embassy, said the professor, was part of America's global strategy, and part of its attempt to keep China down. The professor said that there was no need to worry, however, because the Party Central Committee under the leadership of Jiang Zemin, along with the PLA, would protect the interests of the nation. The rest of the program was devoted to the three reporters killed by the bombing, with interviews of their co-workers, friends, family, etc. I left my apartment around noon to meet my roommate and a Chinese-American friend, who had gone out about half an hour earlier. When I met up with my roommate (a big white guy), he told me that he had been stared at and talked about as soon as he left the apartment. Finally someone asked him where he was from, a huge crowd gathered around when he replied that he was American. The crowd was not threatening, but asked if he supported the attack on the embassy. He replied that of course he did not. I had heard the previous night that some people had attacked the McDonalds nearby. We went to have a look. The McDonalds was closed and there were some posters pasted on the windows and door, saying "Dissolve NATO!", "Repay Blood with Blood!", "Down with America!". The signs were much more "bloody" than they were yesterday, as many were splattered with red paint. Pasted on the inside of the door was a sign directed at the protesters: "This McDonalds restaurant is entirely managed and operated by Chinese people. We are just as upset and angry at the bombing of the Chinese embassy as all Chinese people!" Later in the evening, I learned that at least two McDonalds restaurants and a Kentucky Fried Chicken had closed down because all of the workers (mostly university students) had all gone on strike to protest the bombing. But I also heard that another McDonalds about a mile away was still open, and was packed with people. As we stood looking at the signs on the McDonalds, a crowd began to gather around us. Someone told our Chinese-American friend, "You had better take them out of here," so we turned and started walking down the street. Someone shouted after us "Down with America!" My roommate turned around and used this as an opportunity to speak. He said that although he was American, he opposed the bombing, and that the actions of the US government and the will of the people are often at odds. He said that he has opposed this war from the beginning, and that he also opposes the bombing of the Chinese embassy. The crowd clapped and cheered. It seems as though most people are very quick to accept the argument that the policies of the government and the will of the people can be very different, and that the US government should be blamed for the bombing. Several of the students then said to us that the American government was bad, but the people were good. But then my roommate told them that he truly thought that the embassy bombing was an accident. The mood of the crowd turned immediately. One person in the crowd raised his fingers in defiance "Three missiles! From three different directions!" My roommate tried to explain that such a mistake is possible, but he was not confident enough with his Chinese vocabulary to begin discussing errors in coordinates, etc. As my roommate was talking to the crowd, a little kid, about 12 years old perhaps, tried to sneak around and put a sign on his butt: "Yankee-boy, get the hell out!" I shouted "Hey!" and knocked the sign down. The kid was young enough that he didn't protest. As we began to move away a couple of students holding a banner came forth from the back. They spread out the banner in front of us, and it said something about hegemony and human rights. The banner was covered with signatures, and they handed my roommate a pen. I looked at it enough to tell that it didn't say anything that I opposed, and then called out, "I'll sign it!" The crowd cheered. As I was signing, though, someone called out "Is that his real name?" I didn't respond, but instead finished signing and yelled out "Dissolve NATO!" The crowd cheered again, and we turned our backs to leave. As we walked away a couple of the students shouted after us "Down with America!" More shouts of "Down with America!" came from a couple of groups of migrant workers as they passed us by. We passed by a newspaper stand selling a small paper about the events of the last evening. The headline of the paper was "Today, China says NO!", the title referring to the very strongly nationalistic (even vaguely fascistic) book "China Can Say No!" published in 1996. According to the paper, 10,000 students marched in Nanjing last night. One of the pictures on the front page of the paper showed a Polish student in the front line of one of the groups of protesters. I began to think that I should be more active in my support of the progressive aspects of what is going on here. It's not my responsibility to argue that the bombing was an accident--that's Clinton's responsibility. My responsibility is not to criticize or fear the protesters, but to oppose the war. Displaying opposition to the war as an American would also perhaps also undermine some of the nationalistic assumptions that might push the demonstration in a more negative direction. I also started to become more cognizant of the fact that, because of these nationalist assumptions, I am perhaps less likely to be treated poorly or bullied now because I am not white. Although many people guess that I am American, others think that I am an Arab or a Pakistani. I resolved to make contact with some of the demonstrators. We headed toward the Hopkins-Nanjing Center, and there spoke to the director. She informed us that the American embassy in Beijing issued instructions that US citizens staying in China should avoid going outdoors for the next few days. We ate lunch and began to head back home. My roommate decided to avoid the demonstrators by taking a cab home. I walked back alone, determined to meet some of the demonstrators. I reached an intersection where a long line of marchers was passing by. I stopped and watched for a while. The signs people carried were definitely more nationalistic than the day before. On Sunday there were many signs saying "Repay Blood with Blood", and many again were splashed with red paint. Other signs focused on the three people killed in the bombing. Others said "Down With America", "Dissolve NATO", and "Stop the Bombing!" The marchers were all chanting slogans. Several hundred people passed by while I mustered up my courage to do something. I waited for a pause in the chanting, and then shouted out "Strongly Oppose All NATO Violence!" The demonstrators passing by me at that point cheered. I joined in with the crowd and started walking with them. No one spoke to me, and I was still too nervous to think of what to say to them. A couple of students in front of me began to ask each other where I was from. I called out, "Me? I'm American." The crowd around me cheered again. A young photographer from the Xinhua news agency came up and told me how upset he was that his fellow Xinhua reporter had been killed. I apologized, and reiterated my opposition to the US government. He told me that it was not my fault, but the fault of the American government. Another student told me that Americans should study my behavior, and I replied that American people should study his behavior and take to the streets to protest the war. A woman in front of me, clearly uncomfortable with the presence of an American in the crowd, said under her breath, "The American people should apologize to the Chinese". I said replied, "That's true. America should apologize to the Chinese." She did not respond. A bus with several students hanging out of the windows edged by the crowd. One of the students waved a huge PRC flag, and as he rode by shouted out in English, "Fuck America!" Part of the crowd cheered, probably those who knew what "fuck" meant. The slogans people shouted today were much more nationalistic on Sunday. During the time that I marched with the crowd, people chanted Down with America! Down with NATO! Protect Peace! Chinese People Stand Up! Give back my Embassy! Give Back my Countrymen! [referring to the ones killed in the bombing] Protect Sovereignty! Love our Motherland! Protect our Motherland! Repay Blood with Blood! There was a problem with two contradictory slogans: Protect Peace and Repay Blood with Blood. Both slogans are chanted by the same crowd. Repay Blood with Blood seemed to be on the ascendent. We marched to the Gulou traffic circle. The crowd was as large as it had been the previous night, and there were many hundred more onlookers and supporters on the sidelines. As we marched near where I live, I left the demonstration to go and speak to a worker friend of mine. He advised me not to let anyone know where I am from, but I told him that when the demonstrators heard that I am an American who opposes the war they welcomed me. He pointed out to me that the marchers were all students, and no older people were taking part. I asked why, and he said that after the 1989 demonstrations many more workers were caught and punished by the government than students. The students were characterized as "patriotic", but workers who joined the demonstrations were accused of trying to overthrow the government. So although many workers now supported the students in opposing the bombing, they didn't dare to take to the streets to demonstrate. I recalled then that on television, there were some factory workers interviewed, but they all said that the way that they should oppose the bombing is to work even harder to develop the wealth and power of the country, so that it can't be bullied in the future. Presumably they were directed to say this. Any other actions by workers would apparently keep the country weak and threaten stability. I had not slept much during the previous night, so I returned home to rest. I went out again at night. The Gulou traffic circle was no longer blocked off, and there were many fewer protesters than there were on Saturday night or in the afternoon. The students had set up a small stage, and although it was clear that there was one leader, a few others got up to chant slogans as well. Three large signs were near the podium. One was a picture of Clinton holding an olive branch, with a skeleton holding a bomb behind him. Another said "Repay Blood with Blood!", and another was an elaborate picture of a bomb, which simply said "No Bombing!" Groups of marchers periodically arrived from the streets coming toward the circle, and they were greeted with cheers by the students around the stand. My anxiety about moving around the crowd had completely disappeared, and I moved in and out freely. I also saw a small group of five or six white students moving through the traffic circle unmolested. The vast majority of the demonstrators appeared not to hate all Americans as Americans. A minority do have such bitterness, and I think only a very small number of extremists would resort to violence. The nationalists seem to be gaining influence, though. I suppose that the correct thing to do would be for an internationalist to try to challenge the nationalists, and engage them in a public dialogue. I should have been braver in this respect. I'll bet that they would have let me speak on the stand. I don't think that Americans who are not hesitant to express opposition to the bombing are at risk at all. As the demonstrations become more nationalistic, Americans who are not opposed to the bombing and Americans who are too frightened by the crowd to say anything are perhaps at risk. Saul Thomas Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
