Showing posts sorted by date for query IAN JOHNSON. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query IAN JOHNSON. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, August 20, 2021

“I just had the feeling that he was so wrapped up in the decision itself that he forgot the basics of implementation. The American people may be with you on the decision, but if they see chaos, they’re going to be very concerned that the president doesn’t have his act together.”

 

Biden Ran on Competence

and Empathy. Afghanistan

Is Testing That.

The chaotic endgame of the American withdrawal has undercut some of the most fundamental premises of President Biden’s presidency.


For most of the last week, in the fires of the worst foreign policy crisis of his young administration, the president who won the White House on a promise of competence and compassion has had trouble demonstrating much of either.

The chaos in Kabul and his own conflicting messages have left President Biden struggling to assert command over world events and seemingly more intent on washing his hands of Afghanistan than expressing concern over the humanitarian tragedy unfolding on the ground.

Mr. Biden’s team argues that it will not matter in the long run because Americans agree with his decision to pull out after 20 years of war and do not care what happens in Afghanistan as long as their fellow citizens are extracted safely.
...
But the tumultuous endgame of Mr. Biden’s withdrawal has nonetheless undercut some of the most fundamental premises of Mr. Biden’s presidency — that unlike his erratic, self-absorbed predecessor, he brought foreign policy seasoning, adults-in-the-room judgment and a surfeit of empathy to the Oval Office.

“I just had the feeling that he was so wrapped up in the decision itself that he forgot the basics of implementation,” said Leon E. Panetta, the former defense secretary who served alongside Mr. Biden in President Barack Obama’s administration. “The American people may be with you on the decision, but if they see chaos, they’re going to be very concerned that the president doesn’t have his act together.”

Secretary Panetta's wording sounds the most accurate to me: Biden "forgot." He "doesn’t have his act together.” So, the concern is beyond incompetence and lack of empathy. Panetta's wording goes to Biden's mental capacity. I have written on both of the president's speeches that it was as if he was not perceiving reality correctly. They both had Iraqi foreign minister surreality to them.

David Axelrod, a former strategist for Mr. Obama, said he had no doubt that most Americans agreed with Mr. Biden that it was time to wrap up the Afghanistan operation. “The way it’s ending, at least thus far, is more problematical,” he said, “and cuts against some of his core perceived strengths: competence, mastery of foreign policy, supreme empathy. It’s as if his eagerness to end the war overran the planning and execution.”

Mr. Biden...on Friday...asserted that the evacuation operation had “made significant progress” 

Faulted earlier in the week for not consulting with allies, Mr. Biden made a point of noting that he had now called the leaders of Britain, Germany and France. 

That's another one. He "forgot" to call Boris and Angela and Emmanuel.

Mocked for spending time at Camp David, where he had gone for summer break, while Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, Mr. Biden delayed plans to fly Friday afternoon to his home in Wilmington, Del., until Saturday.

And that's the "not in touch with reality" one.

Mr. Panetta said Mr. Biden seemed to have realized that he had mishandled the message, at least, and needed to make adjustments. “I just had a sense that he was back on his feet today as opposed to earlier in the week,” he said.

Maybe I'm...Didn't Panetta just say... I most assuredly did NOT have a sense that he was all person-woman-man-camera-tv today. I had the sense his staff told him, "You have to call Johnson and Merkel and Macron, YOU FUCKING DOTARD!" I had the feeling (because it was like reported this way) that he returned from Camp David only after his staff urged him to return, implored him to return, and finally told him "You must". So to me, those two decisions did not occur to him.

Was Leon interviewed by the Times before it was revealed that Secretary Austin had told Congress that Americans had been beaten by the Taliban?

Something odd to me that he had Harris and Blinken with him today, no? Why? We're supposed to go, "Ooh, he's got Kamala and Tony backing him up"? If you put a photo lineup together of a person, Kamala Harris, Antony Blinken, a camera and a tv, and asked them who the man in the mask was they would have no fucking idea.

Beyond repeating that “the buck stops with me,” [which he did in his first speech also] however, Mr. Biden conceded no mistakes of his own and again deflected the harsh reviews by focusing on his desire to end the war rather than directly addressing what many consider the botched execution of that decision.

As he has all week, Mr. Biden made assertions seemingly at odds with reality. 

BINGO! There you go.

His description of a smoother evacuation contrasted with the continuing confusion at the Kabul airport, 

He made it seem like Southwest was in charge, somebody said.

where flights were halted for hours on Friday until they resumed late in the day. His claim that there was “no question of our credibility” with NATO allies belied the deep frustration in European capitals. And while Mr. Biden hailed the “degree of precision” of the operation, he could not say how many Americans were still in danger.

He has this reality in his head that is not the reality in the real world. 

Those comments came after other suspect statements earlier in the week. A month after he said it was “highly unlikely” the Taliban would take over Afghanistan and there was “no circumstance” that would lead to a chaotic, Saigon-like exit, Mr. Biden told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News this week that chaos was in fact always inevitable. While multiple reports indicated that military leaders argued to keep a small force in Afghanistan rather than pull out entirely, Mr. Biden insisted that “no one said that to me that I can recall.”

He doesn't recall.

At points, the president has evinced little sense of the human toll as the Taliban swept back to power. Asked about pictures of fleeing Afghans packed into planes and some even falling to their death after trying to sneak aboard, Mr. Biden interrupted. “That was four days ago, five days ago,” he said, when in fact it was two days earlier and hardly made less horrific by the passage of a couple of sunsets.

When your mind starts to go, your emotional response often gets blunted, too.--I think that that is correct statement.

Mr. Biden instead has pointed the finger d, [sic, "at"] the now-deposed Afghan government, the vanishing Afghan security forces and even Afghan civilians who he said resisted being evacuated earlier. He has avoided blaming the Taliban, presumably to avoid antagonizing them while executing the evacuation.
...
The Biden team’s cold political calculation is that the outrage expressed by the Washington political class and the ghastly images shown by the national news media will have little lasting effect on Americans who will soon forget the messy departure but remember that the president got the United States out of a failed war.

Americans have now been beaten. The president could not guarantee that all Americans would make it out alive. If some Americans are repatriated in wooden boxes, the American people will jump at any alternative, even Trump.

They may be right. By Friday, newspapers in places like Phoenix, Fresno, Jacksonville, Minneapolis and Providence had no stories about Afghanistan on their front pages. Americans historically have not voted much on foreign policy unless it directly involved Americans, which is why Mr. Biden’s main priority has been to get his own citizens out without casualties or a hostage situation.

I’ll be a sonofabitch. You know, that’s the way it is with my adult children, too. I was wiped out by this week and went over to visit my son yesterday afternoon. He was playing Rocket League, same as always. On Thursday, I was on my phone feverishly reading the news when I got a text message that my daughter had a new vlog up. 

“Biden thinks he gets away with this as long as there are no Americans that are killed on the ground, which is a big if because a lot of things could go wrong,” said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk firm. “But I happen to agree with him. I think that’s right.” At the same time, he added, “I’m amazed at how he’s mishandled this with the allies.”

The political danger for Mr. Biden may be that the chaotic exit provides fodder for a broader Republican argument that he is not up to the job and has left the United States humiliated on the world stage. 

Forget the last clause of that sentence. Republicans cannot capitalize on "competence" for reasons previously stated. But "not up to the job"--That's too vague. Trump was "not up to the job." If Republicans can make this into a mental capacity issue...but they've got Trump there, too. I don't know, mental capacity is more dangerous than competence.

Some of those who have criticized Mr. Biden nonetheless said the final verdict was yet to be written. It will hinge, they said, on whether he can ensure the safety not just of Americans trying to leave the country but also the Afghans who worked with the United States over the past two decades, even if it takes longer than Mr. Biden’s Aug. 31 deadline.

“The president still has a lot of agency over how this will be perceived and the impact on our reputation for compassion and competence,” said Representative Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from New Jersey. “It all depends on whether he’s willing to do what it takes and to allow our military to do what it’s capable of doing to rescue everybody we can without regard to any artificial deadline.”

Friday, January 13, 2017

Eyes

Oh. Dr. Mo is so dear to me. Years ago, one of the first emails I got from him, I think, he wrote about a post he had seen here on 凌迟; 凌遲, death by slicing. It was one of the posts that just about drove me mad. I didn't know Weimin well then and didn't know how he expressed himself and so that email made a deep impression upon me because it fairly shrieked with anguish. "Where did you find those pictures!," it began something like that. Weimin's pain just crackled across cyberspace.

So, Weimin and I were emailing again this week-Ah! I sent him the link to Ian Johnson's article and I appended a forewarning, "This is not for the faint of heart." I remembered his email on 凌迟; 凌遲 and he remembered. He recalled,

I can never forget the eyes in the photo, the eyes of the victim and the eyes of the executioner. The victim's horrified eyes indicate he is about to faint like a little rat in the mouth of a snake. The executioner's eyes seem to search the victim's body in order to find the best spot to begin the slicing with a butcher's precision. His whole mind seems to be totally focused on how to do a neat job and it doesn't make a difference to him whether it is a human body or a pig. I was frozen by the sight.

That is a POWERFUL paragraph, do you not feel it? Can you not see the photograph, just from that description? That is brilliant writing. It reminds me of Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness. It is not. That is my friend, Weimin.

Monday, January 09, 2017

Oh one more thing: Ian Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner for China reporting and brief correspondent with the "cut off" undersigned, writes in the current edition of the New York Review of Books an article entitled "When the Chinese Were Unspeakable." IanJohnsonUnspeakableChinese

I hesitated to read it but finally did and sent Mr. Johnson the following email:

Oh my God, Ian, what an excruciating story. Thank you for writing it.
There were times during my amateur's work on the CR that I thought, "This is going to drive me out of my mind." I had to take breaks, I couldn't do it non-stop, all the time. It is unspeakable.

Regards,
Ben

Monday, April 06, 2015

Two esteemed China scholars, Frank Dikotter and Ian Johnson, had books named to Fortune Magazine's ten must-reads on China. Frank's book is Mao's Great Famine, Ian's, Wild Grass. http://fortune.com/2015/04/04/china-modern-economy-10-books/. Well-deserved congratulations to both.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Email sent:

These articles by Ian Johnson bring back a lot of memories for me. China makes me paranoid.

... like so many things about China truth seems to be nested somewhere there...

I have thought hard about China over the years, harder than I have ever thought about anything else in my life, and I have gotten surprises. I don't know if I have gotten close to the truth about anything China related, however. I don't believe all of the official account of the Lin Biao affair; I don't believe Bo Xilai murdered Neil Heywood, I don't believe Gu Kailai murdered Neil Heywood. I also don't believe Jonathan Ansfield and Ian's NYT account that Bo was purged because he was wiretapping Hu Jintao. About the only thing I have confidence in about either incident is that both Lin and Heywood are dead. 

I also don't think foreign writers are going to get the whole truth about anything in China. Are the Tienanmen Papers real? Not even the publishing scholars are 100% sure. Some of the worst writing on the Cultural Revolution was done early on, by esteemed western journalists.The Center has got people planting information to foreign reporters everywhere and ordinary Chinese, like Wang Jingyao to me, are not going to tell the truth to a foreigner. I think Ian Johnson does a good job on Remembrance, as good as can be done by a foreigner but I do not think, as he does, that Remembrance is "brave," or truthful. The sections I read, that "interview" of Song Binbin, were ludicrous. He seems to like Wu, had lunch with him, seems to find him credible, seems to believe him. Whatever. I don't know.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Remembrances.

This is a good article.http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/18/chinas-brave-underground-journal-ii/. I like it. Several months ago Ian Johnson emailed me, he asked only for one specific thing, the source of one of Dr. Weimin Mo's translated documents. I provided it, put him in touch with Weimin. Ian and I corresponded just a few more times after that.

I had not remembered Ian when we were emailing. Last night I was fooling around on Public Occurrences; as I recall I was reading a post on China that someone had clicked on and then went to some related posts around the same time and I saw that I had heard of Ian Johnson before, had written a short post on him by name! http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/search?q=IAN+JOHNSON. That post was follow-up on earlier post, which was commentary on a New York Times article. I read that post. http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/2012/04/bo.html I liked it. In the retrospect of three years I liked that post, sometimes I don't like posts I've written so much, but I still liked that one, I thought it was good. In that April 26, 2012 post, "Bo Did It," I questioned the accuracy and the sourcing of the Times article, which I saw had been the lead article in the whole paper the previous day. I didn't mention the writers by name but they were Jonathan Ansfield and Ian Johnson.

"China's Brave Underground Journal--II, Ian Johnson, New York Review of Books, December 18, 2014:

-Don't like that title. Don't know if Ian is responsible for that title, don't think he is, but don't like it. Remembrance, the Chinese ezine, which published the ludicrous roundtable discussion of Song Binbin's role in Cultural Revolution violence, is not brave, imo. http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/2010/11/chinas-great-wall-of-silence_28.html

-"Bian was beaten badly on August 4." I don't remember badly, I remember beaten.

-"That evening she told her husband that the girls would kill her." Yes, and bathed so that her corpse would be clean.

- "He [Wang Jingyao] urged her to somehow escape..." Not what he told me.

-"...but she was proud and certain she was a good Communist." Yes, she was.

-"The next day when she left for the school, she formally shook her husband’s hand, as if to say farewell." Yep, and he walked her partway to the school, watching her disappear around a corner, the last time he would see her alive.

-"Bian was tortured all day." Hot day, too.

-"In Though I Am Gone..."

What follows indented is from Though I am Gone, which Mr. Johnson has watched, which I have watched, which I don't have with me now so can't check, so when I say below "I don't remember that" or "No, that's not true," it is from my memory of Though I am Gone and my knowledge of the facts from all sources combined. I have no reason to doubt Ian's account of what was said in "Though I am Gone."

     -"witnesses say the girls wrote slogans over her clothes..." Don't remember that.

     -"...shaved her head..." Her corpse had hair so if they shaved her head they didn't do a good job.

     -"... jabbed her scalp with scissors..." Don't remember that.

     -"...poured ink on her head..." Yes.

     -"...beat her [Yes.] until her eyes rolled into her head..." Don't remember the eyes.

     -"...When she started foaming at the mouth..." [I know her body was found with foam around the mouth, you often see that in dead bodies, but I do not remember an account of her foaming at the
mouth while still alive.  "...they laughed"...[Don't remember that] "...and ordered her to perform 
manual labor..." [Yes] "...by scrubbing the toilets." [And carrying heavy objects, other "manual labor," yes.]

     -"...She collapsed and died there, her clothes soaked in blood and feces." Yes.

     -"...Hours later, some students carted her away in a wheelbarrow." Yes, to the hospital right across the street.

     -"When students mentioned Bian’s death to Party officials, they brushed it off as not inconsistent with Mao’s orders." They reported it, like an official notification, they didn't mention it in passing conversation. Not in those words but "brushed off," okay, the party didn't arrest anyone. I think Deng Xiaoping himself was notified.

End indent. That concludes the direct references to Though I am Gone if I am reading the article correctly.

-"Song’s direct role in Bian’s killing is unclear." Yes.

-"She has never been credibly linked to the beating," Yes.

-"...but as one of the student leaders, many assumed she must have at least known about it." Oh, she knew about it for godssake; at best for Song, she was in a meeting while Bian was being beaten, was told that the beating was occurring and went out to check on it. The key point about her culpability is that she was the leader of the Red Guards at the school and the beating could not have occurred at all unless she approved it. That is from Dr. Youqin Wang who was a student and who was there.

-"...Still, all accounts show that it had been an anarchic and confusing day, and she might not have done any worse than the scores of other girls who were in the school at the time but did nothing to stop the violence." Anarchic and confusing, yes,  but absolutely not that she was just one of girls who did nothing. She had the power to approve it, and she did, and she had the power to stop it, and she didn't. The other girls, like Dr. Wang, had no power to do anything. You can't lump Song in with
"other girls who did nothing."

-The meeting with Mao on August 18, Song Binbin becomes Song Yaowu: "The next day, an article under the byline Song Yaowu condoned extremism, saying that “violence is truth.” [Yes.] "Song became one of the most famous Red Guard leaders." [Yes.] Song denied that she ever changed or adopted the name "Yaowu" or wrote the article! She said, in Morning Sun, that the article was written by someone else and she was shocked, SHOCKED to see her new name associated with content like "violence is truth." She took great umbrage at that article and said "Then why did my father name me 'refined and gentle,' huh?" lol.

-"In Beijing alone, 1,772 people were killed that August, with Vice-Principal Bian’s murder usually reckoned to be the first." No. Bian was the first teacher killed, not the first person.

-"For years, many believed that Song killed Bian as well as others." Under the law of principals, if the evidence was that Song knew about the beating and approved it, then Song killed Bian as well as the others who struck the blows. If I hire a hitman to kill my business associate I am as guilty of first degree murder as the guy who pulled the trigger.

-"In the 1980s, she emigrated to the United States, changed her given name to Yan (which means “stone”), earned a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology," And in geology or some rock-related field, which I have always thought funny. But in Morning Sun, Binbin/Yaowu denied that she had changed her name to "stone;" she said some friends picked it out of a hat for her, lol.

-"In the 2003 film Morning Sun by the US filmmaker Carma Hinton, she consented to be interviewed, portraying herself as an unwitting girl who had been almost tricked into meeting Mao on the rostrum. She also said she didn’t write the article condoning extremism, and generally abhors violence. Hinton, who grew up in China and participated as a Red Guard at another Beijing school, was a gentle interviewer:"[I love that: "gentle interviewer." She didn't ask her a question. Hinton didn't ask her a single question on the film.] "...in the film, she doesn’t ask Song about Bian’s killing, and she filmed Song in a dark room so that her face was obscured." [Man, I wish everybody could see that. It is like something out of Borat.]

-"Instead, Bian’s death was discussed by one of Song’s classmates who had not been present at the 
school that day. She started her account by saying that Bian had been in poor health, implying that this was an important reason for her death." I'm pretty sure that was Weili Ye.

-"That same year, Song threatened to sue the University of California Press for a book, Chinese Femininities, Chinese Masculinities: A Reader, that made several assertions about Bian’s murder, including that Song “led” the students in torturing Bian to death. The two sides reached an agreement, with Song not pursuing legal action in exchange for the press issuing an erratum to the book and promising to make corrections to the second edition. The editors and authors also issued an apology for presenting Song “as responsible for violent acts that occurred near the start of the Cultural Revolution. Including these statements in the book was a serious error in judgment.” Yes, but Jung Chang also directly implicated Song and Song didn't sue her. Jung would have fought back and would have won!

-"A few years later, Song again surfaced in the media. To celebrate its ninetieth anniversary, the experimental high school published a picture book of famous alumni, including Song, and prominently featured the picture of her meeting Mao on the rostrum. Almost perversely, the facing page has a picture of Bian, with no mention of the link between the two women. Pictures taken at the anniversary event show a banner that Song’s classmates made for her that flew outside the school. It is adorned with photos from her youth, including the picture with Mao. The photos were widely circulated in China, eliciting scorn and anger among many victims of Mao-era violence." There is a snap of Songie herself looking at the book open to those facing pages!

-"But friends close to Song say she was troubled by being associated with violence, [She didn't look troubled up there on the Tienanman Gate with Maoie, hoo-doggie, and that was only 13 days after Bian's murder!] especially Bian’s death. [Oh, puhlease. Ditto hoo-doggie.] That led to the involvement of the underground magazine Remembrance, whose editor, Wu Di, decided to get involved." 

-"Wu told me that Song had long wanted to speak out about the violence but was discouraged by her husband." Bullshit. I'm sure that's what Wu Di told Ian Johnson but Song didn't want to, and didn't, talk about this for her whole life until Morning Sun. After seeing that performance I'm sure her husband advised her never to do that again. If I had been her lawyer I would have physically prevented her from appearing on Morning Sun with her face blacked out, lmao.

-"When he died two years ago, she participated in a roundtable discussion that was reprinted in Remembrance." It really would have been better for Song to have been a more traditional dutiful Chinese wife and obeyed her husband's sage advice to not speak.

-" Later that year, the magazine also published a piece by her called “The Words I’ve Wanted to Speak for Forty Years.” I did not know that! Or if I did, I've forgotten.

-"In it, she recounted the circumstances surrounding Bian’s death..." [:o I swear I didn't know about this.]"...explaining how she urged her classmates not to be violent." [BULLSHIT! This is Song now, so that can be said, and has been said will be said again, BULLSHIT!]

-"The article went on at length about how Song hated the given name “Yaowu” (be militant)..."[Nope.] "...and had suffered for being associated with violence. [Nope] "Reading Song’s essay is an unsettling experience." [I bet.] "One senses that her feelings are honest"... [This "one" does not even though he hadn't read it.] "...but muddled, a misguided attempt to equate her sufferings with the atmosphere of terror and violence that she helped create."

-"Song’s article was criticized as an attempt to whitewash her role in Bian’s death. Wu and Remembrance, too, came in for criticism for giving her a platform. Wu told the group of us at the table, however, that this had been his goal. By giving Song a place to air her views, he hoped to open up the discussion on responsibility." Song does not deserve any more platforms unless it's the hanging platform. Song should be questioned, and not gently, she should be interrogated.

-"When Chen Xiaolu, the general’s son, apologized last year, Wu urged Song to take the next step and apologize formally herself."

-"In January, Song returned to her old high school, where a bronze bust of Bian stands on a pedestal in a conference room. Bowing before it with several other classmates, Song pulled out a written apology, saying she felt “eternal regret and sorrow” for her actions. At first, Song largely reiterated her 2012 article, saying she’d tried but failed to disperse the girls."

"But then she went further, trying to explain her actions that day. She said that she had been scared. People who had sided with the moderates were being accused of not following the correct political line. Worried about the consequence for herself, she “followed those making errors…. For this, I have responsibility for the sad death of Principal Bian.” This is what Ian Johnson asked of me, the original source for Dr. Mo's translation of Song's apology. I remembered it being from China Digital Times but Ian said that page was no longer available. So Song changed her story. I do not remember Song admitting having "followed those making errors," I do remember her taking "responsibility" for Bian's murder, I thought that was a commendable thing by Song and I commended her for it. It was up to the Chinese people to decide if it was good enough, I wrote, I think I hinted that I was Chinese I would find it acceptable but my recollection is the Chinese people did not find it acceptable.

-"Wu also helped to organize a conference to discuss the violence at the girls’ school. Song sat hunched over a MacBook Air, and gave her account again, as did numerous other participants. A few weeks later, Wu dedicated an issue of Remembrance to Bian’s killing, including essays by Song and some of her classmates describing their experiences that summer, the violence, and how it happened." Didn't know about none of that there. Nobody tells me anything. :(

-"In some ways the apology was remarkable." [I found it so. And commendable.] "Unlike the statement by the general’s son, Song’s apology is more detailed. She describes her actions and how, in effect, she had been too cowardly to defend her teacher—"...[I do not find that remarkable or commendable.]..."a plausible enough explanation given her age and the totalitarian atmosphere at the time." [Disagree vehemently.]

-"But Song wasn’t entirely convincing. Crucially, she doesn’t explain why she had assumed that the girls wouldn’t beat Bian when they had disobeyed her once before..".[They didn't disobey her once before...I will have to go back and check this. I know that Song was notified; I know she left her meeting to come out and check the beating situation out; I know she didn't stop it. My recollection is her reaction was "Eh," it didn't look too bad to her; I know she didn't say, "What, are you wusses? Harder! Harder!" ] "...or how she could not have known that Bian was being beaten..."[She knew; she saw it with her own eyes.]  ..." after she left the girls—the campus is not that big..." [She did not leave the girls by going off campus if that is what he is saying Song said.]

-"In essence she explains these points by alluding to the fear that possessed her, and one can read between the lines and understand that she probably knew what was going on but didn’t act." [She was not afraid; she had no reason to be afraid, she was in charge. But that sentence in its entirety, I agree with Ian's reading between the lines, she knew what was going on and didn't act. I agree with that completely. Song did not deliver a blow that there is any evidence of and in the way normal people think of these things that is a distinction with a difference. Until normal people think of the hired hitman situation. Or, in the analogous Rodney Dangerfield joke, "Frank Sinatra's a great guy, saved my life once. Yeah, these three guys were beating me to death, Frank came over, said "Okay, that's enough."]

-"Wu is happy about the resulting public discussion but not about how Song was attacked. “I thought liberal intellectuals would applaud us for trying to get this discussion going,” he said to our group. “But after all this criticism of Song Binbin, who’s going to apologize again in the future?” [Validity to that point but it's up to the Chinese people to decide if any apology is acceptable.]

-"Others said they could understand the unwillingness by some to accept Song’s apology, noting that she and her friends still wouldn’t say which of them actually had beaten the vice-principal." [That is a KEY point. Song and her friends know damn well who struck the blows and they won't say. So they are playing this game of hide and seek where they say "Song didn't strike the blows!" If they KNOW Song DIDN'T strike the blows because they were there and were eyewitnesses that Song didn't strike the blows then they know who DID strike the blows and they won't say. That really grates on people. On me, too.]

-Johnson quotes a discussion he heard at lunch among the Remembrance guys:

     -“The point is if they were Red Guards they were under Song’s control.” [That is the point.]

     -“They know who did it—why don’t they say?” [That is also the point.]

     -“What purpose would that serve? It would end in suicide.” [That's a point. The perps ought to confess on their own, not be outed if possible]

     -“She excused herself but she did apologize.” [Imo, Song did more than excuse herself and she did apologize.]

     -“Don’t forget that Bian was the highest Communist Party official at the school. If you put it this way—they beat to death the highest Communist Party official at the school—haha, so if you think of it like this, the West can accept it. The people who beat her to death were anti-Communist heroes!” That bothers me because it is not the West's role to accept or reject. This is an entirely internal Chinese matter. Nobody in the West has any right to accept or reject anything here. The only reason I got involved in this was because Song came to the U.S., took a degree here, lived the Chinese-American dream here and was still living here when I called her on her home phone! Nobody picked up and a few hours later got a call back, id'd myself and they hung up. Wrote about that. Song had not moved back to Beijing permanently in 2007, or in 2003 as Ian Johnson wrote above. Once she did, and I forget when I knew she was gone for good, I lost interest. It was now strictly a Chinese affair. However, I do acknowledge that I agitated, really agitated about this while she was here. It really pissed me off that she got away with this, fled China and came to my country! Really pissed me off.

-"Everyone stopped and looked at the person who had made that dark joke. He looked down a bit embarrassed. “Just a jest, sorry.”

-"After hours of discussion, the meeting was almost over...But first Yin Hongbiao spoke. He is a Peking University international relations specialist who also writes on student violence."

-"Yin reminded them that people like Song had been teenagers at the time."

“Children can commit crimes, but you have to ask, who raised them?” He spoke slowly, and looked up at the others who had gathered around the wooden table. “Who encouraged them?” he continued. “We want them to apologize, but shouldn’t others, too?” That's not the point,

"The room went silent. Then they started speaking, incoherent but passionate and urgent, as memories of the past collided with questions about the future."

Okay, well, good luck! Y'all keep in touch, hear?

Monday, May 21, 2012

China.

In re: "China is so damn opaque."  Last month I took issue with some reporting done by two New York Times reporters on Bo Xilai. Here is the link to the Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/world/asia/bo-xilai-said-to-have-spied-on-top-china-officials.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and to the post here http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/2012/04/bo.html.

Now one of the reporters, Ian Johnson, has written an article in the New York Review of Books that, by any reasonable reading, is more skeptical of the reporting he co-wrote with Jonathan Ansfield in the Times.  The Times article reported on a metastasis of the original account of the murder cover-up accusation as the basis for the falling out between Bo and Wang Lijun, his police chief.  According to the Times, the Center had been investigating Bo and Wang before Neil Heywood had even died. Here is the first sentence of the Times article:


"When Hu Jintao, China's top leader, picked up the telephone last August to talk to a senior anticorruption official visiting Chongqing, special devices detected that he was being wiretapped — by local officials in that southwestern metropolis."


Fact. That's a fact. Reported by The New York Times as a fact. That's all we do at The New York Times, report facts. Fact, fact, fact.

Now Johnson writes in the current issue of the New York Review of Books:

"Of course, one can come up with other explanations [for the Bo-Wang falling out].  ...  Another possibility is that...they were investigating Wang and Bo for wiretapping senior leaders who had been visiting Chongqing, and so on.(3)"

"3. I contributed to a report on the possible wiretapping in The New York Times [citing to the Times article]."

That's not a fact, that's "another possibility," one of many that Johnson writes about in the New York Review of Books; there are "other explanations."   Why weren't these other possibilities and explanations written about in The New York Times?  I don't know.

Ian Johnson should be commended for writing this.  Commend.