China Daily News, Date: 03/06/97

Zhao Jinglun

THE New York Times is waging a verbal war on China. Its constant diatribe is both tiresome and dangerous. Tiresome because it goes on relentlessly, day after day. Dangerous because it misleads readers and damages Sino-US relations, described by some as the world's most important relationship in the post-Cold War era.

What causes the NY Times to suffer from such paranoia? The short answer is Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan, criminals jailed in China. But hang on for a moment! Things are not so simple. The CIA supported the Guatemalan military in killing 140,000 villagers. Most of the victims were Indians. But there were at least 10 US citizens who died. The Times did report on this and criticized the CIA for persecuting Nuccio, the employee who leaked the "secret." But more detailed reports on the atrocities could only be found in other periodicals and newspapers.

Why this double, or should it be, triple standard? In the eyes of the Times, China is an enemy, or at least a potential enemy. And the CIA is, of course, US's own spy agency. one of its commentaries calls China "the most brutal and dangerous dictatorship" and Tibet "the occupied Tibet," even though the international community, including the United States, recognizes Tibet as part of China. the commentary condemns the Clinton administration as having betrayed Chinese "dissidents" for commercial interests and insists that China is developing trade only for the purpose of strengthening its military and police forces to suppress the people.

The fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty, and economic growth has contributed to the rise in decentralization, grassroots political reform and expression of diverse opinion, means nothing to him.

The Times' editorials are less strident, but just as biased. When President Bill Clinton nominated Madeleine Albright as secretary of state, the Times, in an editorial, pinned its hope on her to increase the pressure on China, especially on human rights issues. But in a follow-up editorial, it indicated its disappointment because when Albright testified at Senate confirmation hearings, she spoke rather mildly about China.

When the Senate unanimously confirmed Albright, the Times, in yet another editorial, wanted the new secretary of state to place the pressurizing of China at the top of the US foreign policy agenda. A series of three editorials followed, one close on the heels of the other. Isn't it a bit too much?

When it was reported that a Chinese official indicated his displeasure at Time Warner's role in the making of "Kundun," a biographical film of the Dalai Lama, the New York Times cried "censorship" and suppression of the freedom of speech. Does the Times really want freedom of speech? It is more than generous with its space for pro-Taiwan independence and pro-Tibet independence articles and letters, even though some of these were written with confused logic. But it is reluctant to give divergent outside views much of an airing. The president of an important organization promoting US-China relations complained that he had been unable to get anything into the New York Times in over a decade.

The Times abhors engagement of any kind. Then what does it want? It says "America... does not need a containment policy to deal with Beijing." That disclaimer is sheer hypocrisy. It in fact advocates "hidden containment" (in Thomas Friedman's words. "Hidden" because no other country would follow an open containment policy), even to the point of provoking a major war. This is no exaggeration. In an editorial, it proclaimed Taiwan a de facto independent entity. Only, it said, the time was not yet ripe for advocating independence de jure. It added that that day would eventually arrive. That is a recipe for war.

Why does New York Times hate China? Because China is an emerging power. China pursues an independent foreign policy and refuses to dance to the tune called by the United States.

Ideology also plays a role. There are quite a few "universalists" as defined by professor Samuel Huntington in "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," who seek to remake the world in America's own image. But that faith, as Huntington proclaims, is false, immoral and dangerous.

Last, but not least, is ignorance. Shouln't the New York Times people open their minds just a little, and try to learn more about what is really going on in China? That way they will not keep giving journalism a bad name.