"A Sichuan Family and Tibet’s Future"

A friend alerted me to this interesting article on the NY Times website. The friend has an indirect connection with the author, and I heard that it was not easy getting the article published, despite the author's credential. It seems anything from a Chinese perspective is a lot harder to get in than the opposite views. Still I applaud the NY Times for eventually getting it out. Balanced reporting is important for a renowned paper like NY Times.

The comments below the article are also very interesting to read as a whole.

Are Overseas Chinese More Patriotic?

Last Sunday, May 4^th, two counterpoint Chinese activities occurred, one in New York, involving an estimated ten-thousand people, and another in Boston, conducted by one man. The media had counter-counterpoint reactions to these two events: a total silence on the former and enthusiasm, albeit to limited market, on the latter.

I was out of town in Vermont and did not know about the New York Chinese rally until a friend emailed me a video clip two days later. I couldn't believe that there hadn't been any media coverage. I have a daily email subscription to New York Times' "Today's Headlines," and also Salon's news coverage. In addition, despite CNN's biased reputation, it is the easiest venue for current news and I check its website several times a day.

According to a Chinese post on mitbbs.org, the New York Times did send reporters but apparently chose not to publish any report. That the NY Times would smother news on such a huge event in its backyard is oddly surprising. The vast silence from all the US media is simply bizarre. It makes one suspect a sanction or conspiracy. A familiar uneasiness crept through my nerves as I researched this: Am I living in America or China?

The main body of the pro-Olympics rally was overseas Chinese students, but there were also people from all walks of life, including some Americans. Thousands of people shouting "We love China, more than ever!" and singing China's national anthem, "Rise, rise, …use our blood and flesh to build our new Great Wall" can really be blood boiling. Even as I watched the video I felt a slight urge to open my mouth and follow the chorus – what a familiar song can do to you. The friend who sent me the video clip, a high-tech professional in his early fifties, reflected on his participation: "I come to show my support. I just feel I am back to my student time in Chengdu and that is a great feeling."

Nationalism is a strange thing – it is more an emotion than rational thought. I didn't even think I had it. I was a political dissident when I lived in China. In my twenties I nearly went to jail for a "contentious" story I wrote. Two decades of living in the US further opened my mind to all points of view and to otherwise unavailable historical materials. Since I began to write in English in 2002, I've always been critical – if more rationally than when I was young – of things in China. I was becoming more and more American. Once I even asked myself in a diary entry: Am I having deeper feeling toward America than toward China now?

Yet look what the media's overdone bias can do to a person like me: it unearths whatever little Chinese nationalism I'd had. This is called backfire.

Growing up during the Cultural Revolution, I'm usually suspicious of any mass activity. The excitement alone can be an irresistible magnet and rationality need not play a role. Similarly, rampant nationalism, be it American or Chinese, is a double-edged sword. It can unite a nation; it can also be divisive and make inter-cultural understanding that much more difficult. It can even lead to imperialism. In short, I have issues with nationalism. Still, even with all those misgivings, I felt strong sympathy toward the Chinese ralliers in New York. The Western media has shown too much animosity in its reporting related to China. When CNN considers it commentary of the day to describe Chinese as "goons and thugs," perhaps a bit of Chinese's nationalism is called for as a balance.

This said, it is time for the young Chinese to watch out for their overheated nationalism. Things turn to their opposites when they reach the extreme, as the adage goes.

Given this large background, I have mixed feelings toward the other, much quieter, event on the same day, at a different location: the launch of Yang Jianli's "Citizen Walk," starting from Boston and destined for Washington DC. The Boston Globe has a long, enthusiastic report on this titled "A Sense of Direction."

It is a bit ironic that, Chinese who are either pro Beijing Olympics or protesting China's government find May 4^th a meaningful date for action, and both sides claim to carry forward the spirit of the 1919 student movement that began the modern history of China. The holding of the same symbol for opposite reasons seems another example of "four blind men touching an elephant." From an objective point of view, the May 4^th movement in 1919 had both positive and negative impacts on China's development, but when people need a flag to wave they only talk about one side of it.

I learned about the "Citizen Walk" from another friend's email days before. I don't know Yang Jianli personally, but have heard about his arrest and five-year imprison in China. More than sympathy, I admire his courage and determination to protest against injustice. My concern, however, is whether his timing is right in light of the recent events.

The reason that Yang Jianli chose June 4^th as his arrival date at Washington DC is apparent. He had participated in the 1989 student movement, and June 4^th is another symbolic day. (It seems that a symbol is essential to any activist.) I don't know if he is aware of Chinese people's attitude change toward that symbol. When the Tiananmen massacre occurred, I had already moved to the US, and I remember it as the only time that all people I knew, inside or outside of China, Americans or Chinese, had a united attitude. We cried for the students. We cursed Deng Xiaoping. A decade later, when I returned to China for a visit, I was shocked to hear in private conversation that old friends and acquaintances, including participants in 1989, saying the government took the right action in suppressing the student movement. Otherwise, they argued, China wouldn't have had today's prosperity; the students were actually impeding China's economic development, something everyone wants. (Well, I disagree, but my reasons would require another long entry.) They believed that the ends justify the means, and China's economic success has proven Deng Xiaoping's vision.

On the other hand, the June 4^th's gunshots and tanks became a fixture of China's image in Western eyes. This view won't change for a long time even as China's political situation improves.

Given this, I'm not sure whose awareness Yang Jianli's walk will raise. Is it Americans or Chinese? If it's the latter, will a walk from Boston to DC achieve anything? I'm also not entirely clear why his action is titled "Citizen Walk." It is a confusing banner: citizen of what, America, China, the world?

I had planned to report Yang Jianli's walk, but wanted to clarify a few points and gain a bit more understanding. I sent an email on May 3^rd to ask the following questions, but did not receive a response.

- How do you think this walk will impact people now living in China?
- What is the distinction between "Citizen Power" and "people power" as the term used in 1960s-70s America?
- Do you think the strong nationalism among China's young generation today is going to be impediment to achieving democracy in China?
- Why do you need to connect your activity with the Tibetan monks, given that they don't even want to be citizens of China?

I will share his response if I receive it – so far it doesn't look like he will.

The quiet steps of one man echo in the media while the shouts of thousands find no ears. It is easy to impress the Western media with any anti-Chinese government activity, unfortunately that may not be an advantage if Yang Jianli wants to get his message across to the real audience – the Chinese. This is not his fault; rather the complex situation makes his mission a more challenging one. A more thoughtful approach might be called for.

To put things in perspective, let me end this entry by quoting Zhou Shuguang, a 26-year-old blogger who lives in my home city Chongqing at the moment. He is neither elite nor privileged, and he often makes good points. The following is from a post on his blog Zola.com the other day: [In translation]

"I feel overseas Chinese students are more patriotic than us. They attach more importance to their identification possibly because they are discriminated against and experiencing cultural dislocation abroad. For those of us who live domestically, we don't feel what they feel. …they at worst are bullied by a different race; we who stay in the Mainland suffer from our own."

For this reason I give my best wishes to Yang Jianli; meanwhile I hope he will take the time to mull over my questions.

Chinese Cyber Nationalists Hit the West Where it Hurts

New America Media , News Analysis, Jun Wang, Posted: Apr 28, 2008

(This report has an interesting argument.)

While the Olympic torch may have lit the way for international anti-China protests, it was also the catalyst for Chinese nationalists to develop their voice – especially on the Internet. Now these Chinese cyber nationalists are flexing their power as a nation of consumers by calling for a series of boycotts – proving that the issues might be more about economics than Democracy. Continue to read >>

No Conversation on BBC

BBC's "World Have Your Say" called again this afternoon, inviting me to join a "conversation" between Chinese and Tibetan students, with Grace Wang's help in mediating. I was interested, but because they gave me only a 20-minute advance notice, I wasn't able to make it. I did try to listen to the recording on their website later. The program runs for 2 hours; I listened for about 45 minutes and gave up – there was simply no conversation whatsoever, albeit some good questions from the audience.

Among the participants, besides the BBC mediator and Grace Wang, there were two Chinese students, a half-Tibetan, and a Tibet-born Ph.D. student from India, all studying in London. From beginning the panel did not go well. Grace Wang spent too long trying to describe her ordeal, but after 10 minutes still hadn't got to the point how she and her parents in China were harassed. The BBC mediator had to politely (as far as I could tell, he was most polite to Grace) steer her to the point by interrupting and asking whether the Chinese government helped her parents defend themselves against attack. The answer was expected: No, the police knew there was damage done to her parents' house, but did not know who did it. A poor excuse apparently. And again the expected reaction from the BBC guy and the Tibetans – untiredly condemning "China has no basic human rights!"

Then Grace Wang tried to point out that China not only has no respect for human rights, it has no respect for its citizens' rights. She kept saying – whether because of her ignorance of the Tibetans' feelings or her insensitivity – that "We are all Chinese; Han Chinese and Tibetans are all Chinese," which was bound to make the exiled Tibetans furious. ("Well, no," the Tibetan, or the half one, protested right away.) It was so ironical that BBC invited this victim of her fellow Chinese to be the main guest in order to further bash China, though they claimed to have sought her help "for both sides to find a common ground," and ended up only widening the crack. Grace and the Tibetan student got into argument about the identity issue, and the BBC moderator had to interrupt again.

Next, the BBC guy wanted the participants to talk about China's blocking of foreign media, and one of the Chinese students made a stupid (really stupid) defense: "This is for the safety concern of the Western journalists!" (Couldn't the BBC find a more intelligent Chinese student? There are plenty of them.) The same student then began to list the benefits Tibetans received from the Chinese government, including a railway to Tibet. His way of arguing by ignoring the feelings of the other side is quite common in what I see from the Chinese internet.

The Indian Tibetan wasn't being any smarter. He claimed that the railway was built by prisoners of the Cultural Revolution. Such nonsense. Apparently he had no idea when the railway was built.

At one point someone mentioned how Tibetans suffered during the Cultural Revolution. Grace Wang made a good point that all people in China suffered then. "It was the Cultural Revolution," she said.

An audience called in and made comment on China's civil rights (don't remember what he said), and the BBC moderator asked Grace Wang to respond. Grace tried to say that there should be equal civil rights between the Han Chinese and the Tibetans (which I happen to agree), however she stammered and didn't finish the sentence, and the moderator came to her rescue by announcing a break. ("I need to improve my English," Grace tittered. "Your English is fine," the BBC guy said.)

After the break, the students got into arguments on who caused the riots, the Tibetan monks or the Chinese government. The Indian Tibetan (Ph.D student in Economics), who insisted many Tibetans got killed or beaten up by doing a peaceful demonstration, lost his temper and kept shouting, using his voice volume to suppress every feeble attempt at rebuttal from the Chinese student (poor guy, who did not have a higher voice, therefore). "You listen to only the Chinese government!" The Indian Tibetan roared. He didn't seem to realize that, by the same token, he only listened to the Dalai government.

The BBC moderator seemed to enjoy this one-side overwhelming scene for a while. He eventually raised his next question about Chinese's criticism on BBC's biases. "How did they even know we have biases? The Chinese government blocked us!" Well, that was again a stupid one. For a moment I couldn't figure out what was his real motivation – was it a rhetorical question trying to prove the BBC's unbiased? Or was he suspecting China did not succeed blocking the BBC? In any case, didn't this guy even know that there are a huge number of Chinese students studying all over the world, including London? And there are such things exist as email and the internet?

An audience called in and said that he visited China last summer and was able to download files from BBC site. This really annoyed the moderator. He shouted at the caller: "I'm telling you, I'm not asking you! It is a fact that China blocked BBC! Two weeks ago!" This anger took the poor caller by surprise and he mumbled, "Well…I only know about last summer…" and the moderator hung up on him.

Another caller asked about Tibet's serfdom before the 1950s and whether the serf's were better off because of China's action. (A very good question - I wanted to know the answer, too.) The Indian Tibetan replied, "Tibet wasn't perfect, but the Chinese replaced the Tibetan upper class with the CCP upper class!" He said if Tibet needed reform, it should be carried out by the Tibetans, in their own pace, not by the Chinese. That might be the best argument I'd heard so far, however he never did answer the question. But by the same token, if China needs reform on its human rights issues, shouldn't the West let it develop on its own pace as well?

Any how, there was shouting but no conversation, and there were more stupid arguments than intelligent ones. I lost patience and could not go beyond 45 minutes. I do hope the second hour went better, but I doubt it. Good that I wasn't there. #

Extinguishing the Olympic Torch of Hope

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

It is often said that all effects are side effects and that seems to be true for the passage of the Olympic torch. The tradition of running the torch through different countries is intended to promote the games, show the inextinguishable nature of the Olympic spirit and, of course, promote the host country. I have never followed the torch relay very closely in the past, but was still struck by how worrisome it must be for those bearing the torch to not let it go out. I picture myself doing it, falling face first in a mud puddle valiantly holding up the torch only to have it put out by the water splashing up as my face goes under. The whole world gasps and I am the link that breaks the chain that holds together the games.

The pressure, it turns out, is not quite so great. There is a backup plan, a “real” torch that is kept burning in a nice dry place just in case the bearer has a mishap. Likely the backup has been invoked before, but it was not until the recent chaos in France that I found out about the dirty little secret. Symbolism – if it is going to be real shouldn’t it have to be fragile too?

That is a different topic, the side effects I am talking about relate to the goals of giving voice to the “Free Tibet” movement and embarrassing the Chinese government. By striking at that oddly honored Olympic symbol, this primary goal did meet with some success. The embarrassment, however, was not restricted to the Chinese government and the International Olympic Committee. Many people in and from China, especially young people, have taken these statements very personally. Intended or not, they see the whole thing as an attack on their motherland, not just the government that controls it. The words “Shame on China” go directly to the heart.

Worse still, and I think this is one reason the anger is so great, they see it as racial statement against Han Chinese. Though many were hoping that the Olympics would be an opportunity to increase freedom and curtail human rights abuses in China, that inclusive goal has been lost. The loud voices no longer carry a global message. Instead, what comes across loud and clear to Han Chinese is that they are being blamed for the conditions of other ethnic groups within China. When perceived in this way it suggests that the rights of those groups, especially ethnic Tibetans, trump any claim that Han Chinese have on free speech or other civil liberties. Given this interpretation, I am not surprised that so many people in China seem to be so mad.

Some, presumably a small portion, of young Chinese activists have become quite extreme in voicing their anger. They are hunting a particular protester and declaring people (including some of their own) enemies in a manner reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, an event they are too young to have any firsthand knowledge of. Whether this worrisome behavior is condoned by their majority remains to be seen. Still, the young people of today are the rulers of tomorrow and the attitudes currently being engendered will be with them when they come into power.

So far, the anger generated seems to be directed at those directly involved in helping mire the torch in the mud. I am relieved at this; the scale of suffering that ethnic retribution within China could cause is overwhelming. But that anger, and its focus on outside influences is still troubling. The Olympics may indeed be the catalyst that aligns the attitude of the Chinese government with that of the Chinese people. Unfortunately, the emerging alignment is that the people are remonstrating against the rest of the world with exactly the same voice that the government has had for decades.

There is a tendency, especially prevalent in America of late, to label countries as good or bad. You can try to finesse that by saying what you will of the people making up that country but what comes across is: America (or substitute your country name) is evil! It is kind of hard not to be upset by such a blanket statement. Such absolutism, absolutely is bad.

I am not sure who will bring home the Golds at the upcoming games, but I have a feeling many of us have already lost. #

Also by Larry Mongoss:

Finding Silver in the Cloud of CO₂
Paterson the Blind New Governor
Also on Literal and Literary Truth
Disagreeing with Smart People
Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

What Will Happen to the Olympic Flame in San Francisco

A friend suggested me to report the "spontaneous reaction from oversea Chinese in San Francisco." She pointed me to a post on a popular American Chinese website, mitbbs.org. The post, titled "April 9^th, Flags Flapping, Sacred Flame Glows in San Francisco," is time-stamped 15:09:25 today:

----------------------------------[in translation]

Yesterday afternoon, I got some of the flags made by volunteers.

The flags are small, only 8"x10", and the poles are two feet long. A phoenix fire ball on the white background is especially eye-catching. Volunteers in San Francisco made the flags through the night by their hot blood.

I held several tens of the little flags, feeling like a general on a Beijing Opera stage. Wouldn't tomorrow's San Francisco be like a battlefield without gun smoke?

This evening I watched TV news. Once again the Western media disgusted me. In Paris, the violent protesters kept attacking the Olympic torchbearers. They even attacked a handicapped female athlete on wheelchair! …Yet the media is still burnishing up the image of those ugly terrorists.

Friends, give up delusion! Wherever you are, whatever dialect you speak, come to San Francisco, shout with us in the cold wind by the seaside, and let our voice spread! We Chinese have been silent for too long…

-----------------------------------

Below the post are comments from about 80 supporters. The continuing support has kept the post on top of the page.

On a related note, this morning a CNN news alert titled "Protesters warming up as Olympic flame arrives in U.S." hit my inbox at 10:53 am. (The title has been changed at the time of this writing.)

The agitated voices from both sides are really worrying me. I heard from the AP that IOC was considering ceasing the relay. I think that will be good for everyone. Here's to hoping that IOC will do one thing right and carry through with the idea!

An Effort to Understand More about the Dalai Lama

This book, The Open Road: the Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama by Pico Iyer, is on my immediate reading list. My interest is raised by a book review in the New Yorker titled "Holy Man," and also the radical actions of the protesters in London who tried to douse the Olympic flame. I question how much those protesters knew about the Dalai Lama or Tibet. They certainly had no respect for the Dalai Lama's position on the Beijing Olympics or Tibet autonomy.

Read "Holy Man" here.

"How To Find The Truth About Lhasa?"

In these two articles, a Chinese journalist and a blogger speak out against the nationalism fervor and media blockage in China. This voice is like the sound of footsteps in a deserted valley. Their courage is especially admirable not only because their view dissents from the government's, but because it is against the rising sentimental tide of the Chinese masses. For the former the authors might have a chance for the Nobel Peace Prize, for the latter the only reward they get is drowning in a sea of people's angry saliva. The journalist, for example, was condemned as a "traitor," not by the government but by readers of his article.

Sometimes what is important is not the exact view of a dissenting voice, rather it is the fact that you can hear such a voice.

I don't mind repeating what I said in another post: Propaganda works by providing one and only one view to the audience. In China it is achieved through government censorship. In the United States it is propagated by people who pick a side first then choose to eschew any other point of view.

If you are hearing one and only one voice without any dissenting view, in the media or in your community, it is time to question if you are receiving propaganda. Sadly, oftentimes it is much easier and more comfortable to accept than fight it.

Tibet: A Balanced View Is Called for

by Xujun Eberlein

Getting a clear picture of what is happening in Tibet is no easy task. Bias is evident in both the Chinese and Western media coverage. A number of interested and thoughtful bloggers, however, have managed to paint a plausible picture, from which one does get important on-the-scene observations that help spotlight what's going on. Continue to read>>

Tibetan Cowboys' Last Stand: Globalism Sets Grasslands on Fire

by Yoichi Shimatsu

"A peaceful rally on March 10 by monks of the Dalai Lama’s Gelugpa, or Yellow Hat, school was all it took to spark uncontrollable fires across the Plateau. In the first day of the Lhasa riots, most of the casualties of arson were Hui Muslim noodle-restaurant workers who migrated to the newly prosperous provincial capital over the past decade – just as Mexican immigrants have immigrated to Chicago and New York to work as dishwashers....The frustration and anger of the Tibetan mobs will not immediately result in either independence or genocidal repression – only a heightened state of anxiety and distrust." Read the story here

What Is Going on in Tibet

Yesterday, a few writer friends asked me what I thought about what was going on in Tibet. I was at the Nieman Conference from Friday to Sunday, and had only heard sporadic mention of the situation in the car radio. Yesterday I spent hours digging around for more information, but the Western media lacks first-hand citations, while the cyber voices on the Chinese internet are ruthlessly, though not surprisingly, uniform ("Resolutely oppose separatism!"). One thing is clear though: there has been significant violence, as if this world has not gotten enough of that. Photos can be found on this Chinese website.

Probably the best place to start looking if you want to try to understand the situation yourself is Danwei.org, a website run by several level-headed Americans living in Beijing. I have been reading this site for quite some time and find its reporting objective and honest. For the Tibet situation, they summed it up with an apt quote:

"Today, information on Tîbet is duopolized by two different political propaganda machines. One machine is located in Beijing, and the other in Dhåramsala. ...

...Faced with this absurd situation, the solution is to choose your position first and decide which side you want to stand with, and then you treat the information from that side as true and everything from the other side as false."

The only Western eye-witness report appeared in The Economist: "Fire on the roof of the world," which contradicts both Dhåramsala and Beijing. Some readers commented that the reporter owed us an explanation as to why he was the only foreigner allowed to stay – a legitimate question that I hope the Economist will answer.

My main question is: What caused the violence in Tibet? Ethnic hatred seems the most likely answer. How to alleviate such hatred, on the other hand, is not easy to figure out.

For a deeper understanding of the Tibet issues, Danwei.org recommends an excellent 1999 article from The Atlantic, "Tîbet through Chinese Eyes" by Peter Hessler. It provides rich information and multiple points of view, and puts things in a historical perspective with objective, though not comprehensive, reporting. This is an anti-propaganda article in all senses. Propaganda works, as we all know, by allowing one and only one view to the audience. In China it is achieved through government censorship. In the United States it is propagated by people who pick a side first then choose to eschew any other point of view.

Peter Hessler's article reminds me a dear friend, a Sichuan writer, Gong Qiaoming, who died in a car accident during her volunteer service as an editor at Tibet Literature in the 1980s. An extremely kind and compassionate heart loved by both her Tibetan colleagues and Han friends, if Qiaoming saw today's violence, she would have died of heartache.

In my twenties, an idealist myself, I had also seriously considered doing volunteer service in Tibet. I can see the source of tragedy only now: what one side views as a cultural service, the other may see as cultural intrusion. Perhaps the best thing to do is to abandon the notion of "advanced" or "backward," and to leave every independent culture alone, to develop at its own pace. Globalization is not an absolutely benign concept.

Another writer friend, Qiu Shanshan, wrote a very moving novel I am Waiting for You in Heaven (in Chinese), after she visited Tibet eight times. The center story in the novel is how the Chinese soldiers built the highway from the inner cities to Tibet in the 1950s. Many died during the long road construction. While the idealism behind the sacrifices is a questionable one to my Americanized mind, the novel certainly provides a different perspective on the historical event, and different perspectives are the only way to counter propaganda. I wonder if any American publisher would dare to publish a translation of that novel; certainly it would offend those who wave "Free Tibet" banners. America is, after all, not completely free from fear of politics.

Hessler's article points out both good and bad things brought by the Chinese government to Tibetans: the former includes economic growth, medicine and education; the latter is mainly the suppression of religion and freedom of speech, things familiar to people throughout China be they Tibetan or Han.

Puzzlingly though, when Hu Yaobang, one of the few post-Mao leaders loved by the Chinese people, carried out a political reform to allow more religious freedom in Tibet, it ended with a series of riots in Lhasa in the late 1980s. Why? I wish Hessler's article had more explanations on this; I don't know myself and would like to find an answer.

Unfortunately, the Tibet problem is complex, and does not have as easy a solution as many Americans think. Certainly a "Free Tibet" banner won't bring peace and tranquility. When we take sides, we need to consider whether our shouting encourages more hatred and violence.

Shaming China? – My Response to Mr. Kristof

Nicholas Kristof, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, yesterday began a "shaming China" effort with his op-ed piece, "China’s Genocide Olympics," as he believes this is "the best way to make progress on Darfur."

When Mr. Kristof calls the Beijing Games "genocide Olympics," he mentions no words about the 1936 Berlin Olympics, in which the United States took part. That one was the true "genocide Olympics," as Hitler tried to use it to promote his agenda of ethnic cleansing. There is no compatibility between the natures of the Games in Berlin and Beijing. This fact makes Mr. Kristof's name-calling a bit laughable.

Further, I am surprised that Mr. Kristof, who writes about China often, is so ignorant of Chinese mentality, or even basic human nature.

Speaking of human nature, here's a small but illustrative incident:

One day, when I finished shopping in the local Stop & Shop, several heavy bags in my hands, my exit was blocked. A middle-aged man was standing in the middle of the narrow doorway talking on a cell phone. I waited for a few moments. He glanced at me but did not make a move. I finally said, "Excuses me, why do you stand in the door?" The man turned to me and said, "Fuck you, foreign lady!"

His wife, who was still in the store with a child, rushed over and pushed him out of my way. I heard the wife say, "She's right. You shouldn't stand in the door." The husband replied, "But she could have asked nicely!"

Apparently my accusing tone toward the man did not help. It only angered him.

A country is much like a person, only its reaction could be longer lasting and have higher impact. China has a long history resisting foreign insults and threats. With the nationalism sentiment rising higher than ever in China right now, branding the Beijing Olympics will only run counter to Mr. Kristof 's stated intentions.

I, too, want a better situation in Darfur. China's selling weapons to Sudan is disturbing, but in order to stop it, first we need to know why they did it. Is it because the Chinese government is evil in nature? If so, Mr. Kristof, you certainly can't shame an evil being by calling it evil.

The US government also sells weapons to many countries, probably more than China does. The difference between the two, as far as I can see, is that the US government's motivations are political, while China's are economic. A reader who commented on Mr. Kristof's blog suggests that China is after Sudan's oil – a plausible reason. In either case, the US and China are selling weapons out of self-interest.

Weapons are for killing. Any country selling weapons to any other country is a shame, be it the U.S. or China.

A more effective approach to restrain international weapon sales might be to establish an international treaty, much like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If so, the first question that comes to mind is, would the United States sign such a treaty?

By the way, I am not an advocate of the Beijing Olympics, for reasons I give in another journalism piece, "Beijing Olympic Boycott Over Burma Will Only Alienate Chinese People."