How to ruin your Olympic image: suppress your critics

Blogger "lao jiang" has posted this humorous flash file: a clock counting down the days till the Olympics are finished. We're going to see more and more of these kinds of viral jokes - many people it seems aren't against the Olympics being held in China per se, they just can't wait for the games and all related insanity to be over. Mind you, a lot of people in Sydney, Athens, and Atlanta felt the same way.

Jim Yardley has a story today in the NYT titled Dissident's Arrest Hints at Olympmic Crackdown. He mainly talks about Hu Jia's case, but mentions others as well. Zeng Jinyan, the famous human rights blogger and Hu Jia's wife, remains under house arrest with their two month old baby in their apartment. While the government claims they've relaxed controls on journalist interviews, Yardley was prevented by police from interviewing Zeng. In his article he describes how the police hastily put up "crime scene" tape around the area. I'm quoted in the article saying that the Chinese government is shooting themselves in the foot by behaving this way.

What Olympics host city or country hasn't had critics?  A quick Google search turns up plenty of information about dissent and protests surrounding previous games.  Do any of us remember hearing much about these things in the international media at the time? I don't. Why?  Because the host governments treated dissent as a normal thing and didn't go around throwing everybody in jail or suppressing their publications. And guess what? The international media didn't pay too much attention to the dissenters and protestors anyway. What the Chinese government doesn't get is that the mainstream international media views protest and dissent as a pretty normal thing which often isn't newsworthy in it's own right about 80% of the time - that is, unless you make martyrs out of the protestors and dissenters and put their 2-month old babies under house arrest. Then it becomes a big story, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are even making a coherent or logical point, or whether they have much of a following.

Why can't China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country? Why behave in such an insecure manner that violates international human rights norms, damages China's international image, and distracts media attention away from the Chinese people's genuine accomplishments over the past 30 years - as well as from the excitement of the sports competition itself?  The only rational conclusion can be one of the following: a) China's security and law-enforcement apparatus is out of control, unaccountable, power-hungry, and can't be reined in by the other branches of the government; b) the Chinese government really is on the verge of losing its grip at any moment and thus really has more reason than we realize to fear all of its citizens.

The other problem is that the Chinese government acts like it views pretty much all criticism as anti-China, intended to drag the country down and deny the Chinese nation the global status it deserves. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from the Foreign Ministry complains to the NYT about Jim's article - not that the NYT will heed the complaint. But foreigners who publish things highlighting criticism of how Beijing is handling the Olympics, or who point out that maybe some citizens aren't so happy about hosting the games, or that some think the money might have been better spent elsewhere, tend to be considered "not friends of China."  This is false, and sad.  A couple years ago, after Hu Jia was released from detention the first time around and when my friend Wu Hao had gone missing, I wrote about how outsiders like myself who've spent a lot of time living and working in China want the Chinese people to succeed, want them to be recognized and rewarded for their successes, and believe that the international community should engage with China. The Chinese people deserve no less. The point is not to "demonize" China or treat it like an enemy who should be prevented from succeeding. But how can we respect this  regime when people we know to be good people are jailed, and their children and spouses harrassed, for no good reason we can see? Somehow Beijing needs to stop shooting itself in the foot. The leaders in Beijing should be proud of their intelligent, hardworking people who naturally hold a diverse range of ideas and opinions. Stop fearing them, or you'll turn more citizens who originally supported you into opponents.

UPDATE:

Somebody just pointed out to me that Jinyan's blog has a new post, showing a picture of her 2-month old daughter followed by the caption: "In the Harmonious Society, the World's Smallest Political Prisoner - Hu Qianci" (Jan.31 update: name is corrected - I wrote the pinyin wrong yesterday). Ironically the baby's given name means "modest and compassionate". Seriously, if the Chinese security apparatus intentionally wanted to subvert state power, they couldn't be doing a better job.  Jinyan also points us to the memorial website for a baby martyred in 1949 for the cause of China's Communist revolution.

Comments

[nickwong]

Actually,the "小萝卜头"(little radish head）cannot be called a baby martyr,he died at eight,called a boy martyr better,but the tragedy is same.

[Aaron]

Excellent article as usual, Rebecca. One point though:

"Why can't China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country?"

Perhaps we could re-phrase that:

"Why can't the Chinese accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal family?"

Dissent and argument are not part of traditional Confucian values. This is a characteristic within families, businesses and government in China (and Asia in general). I know I'm painting with a rather wide brush here, but I honestly feel that at least part of this attitude stems from these millennia old perceptions of proper human interactions.

[Yiu-cho Chan]

I suppose the old expression works here: The tighter one closes their fist, the more that slips through their fingers. Ever since the beginning of the Communist Party with Chen Duxiu, they've been pretty paranoid of losing their hold on people, which is understandable when your party history was truly forged during a civil war. But they need to understand that the times, they are a-changin'.

[CCT]

Rebecca,

Are you familiar with the United States' Foreign Agents Registration Act? Chinese-American engineer Chi Mak was found guilty of this law, apparently due to his association with what the prosecution painted as Chinese government representatives.

I'm not suggesting a broad equivalency between the Chinese and American justice systems. But I, for one, understand that even in this day and age the liberal-minded, progressive, United States government remains very concerned about the activities of her citizens acting on behalf of foreign governments... enough so that the FBI finds it appropriate to monitor the private communication, of such individuals, and even seek jail-time for those found sufficiently guilty.

I don't mean to imply that jail time is appropriate for Ms. Zeng or Mr. Hu. But at the very least, I think the American case is enough precedent that I feel morally justified demanding that Ms. Zeng and Mr. Hu publicly and completely describe the sources of their financial support, as well as anyone that they may have contact with overseas. I too would like to know if they are potentially unregistered agents of an organization affiliated with a foreign government.

When questioned on the issue of financial support by someone claiming to be Zeng's former middle-school teacher... (how are they able to afford their upper middle class existence while under "house arrest" without any obvious form of employment?)... Ms. Zeng suggested that in the Internet age, they're able to make a living simply by "writing essays" and other online activities.

I personally find that defense less than convincing, but I'm open enough to want to at least hear the details. Using the United States as our moral compass, let's have a thorough study of who they've been talking to, and who's paying their mortgage and subsidizing their political activities.

[kailing]

True. In Spain with Barcelona Olympics there was many people who dissented and criticized, and it was a sensitive issue due to Spain's Madrid-Catalonia political, economic and nationalistic rivalries. Also with Madrid's bidding for the 2012 games many people openly expressed in their blogs, newspapers, magazines... their disagreement with the bid due to many different reasons: expenditure, white elephant, more important issues (housing, health, unemployment...), by the way same reasons I am hearing from some of my Chinese friends. In the end it is a Political thing, that is, a politician telling the world and his own country comrades in power "I did what you can not, host the Olympics during my mandate". Politics are basic in Olympics.

Really many intelligent Chinese people is on the countdown... but in the "alternative"one, like the Flash image.

[Jeremiah]

Rebecca,

Simply perfect. Thank you for expressing the sentiments of so many so cogently and passionately.

And the line "Seriously, if the Chinese security apparatus intentionally wanted to subvert state power, they couldn't be doing a better job" just made diet coke come out the old nose.

Brava.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

@CCT you write "the liberal-minded, progressive, United States government"... Honestly I have never described the U.S. government under Bush in such terms. Never have I ever attempted to argue that the U.S. ought to be held up as some kind of gold standard for human rights - particularly given the Bush administration's odious policies on surveillance, not to mention torture. Honestly, I have relatives who were under surveillance in the 70s for their stances on the Vietnam War and for visiting China, and I believe that what freedoms we have in the U.S. are only preserved because enough people keep pushing back hard against those who would like to take them away. I would also point out that Hu Jia was not arrested on state secrets charges, which is the charge normally used when a person is suspected of espionage. If they have undeclared income, perhaps that is a tax matter? Does it justify holding a woman and a newborn baby under house arrest? Or are you arguing that they should not have a right to engage in non-violent political activities, and that it is correct to define non-violent political speech as crime? That's kind of like saying the Bush administration is justified in jailing everybody who is actively advocating for a Republican-free white house in 2009.

@Aron - how do you explain Taiwan then? Or Korea which is a very Confucian society, perhaps even more so than China? My mother's relatives are Norwegian. They hate arguing and when she was growing up her family never tolerated dissent or expressions of contrary opinions. Yet as a society the Norwegians have figured out how to tolerate dissent and debate without resorting to human rights violations. Likewise the people of Taiwan and the Koreans - it took a while, but both societies have come to realize that they don't have to shed their cultural identity in order to put an end to state violence or thuggery. I just dont see how this cultural relativism argument justifies treating citizens with dissenting opinions like crap and violating their human rights.

[mahathir_fan]

Dissent and criticism is tolerated in China. Don't you remember the Cultural Revolution?

During the cultural revolution, even students criticized their professors, dragged their professos on the street and shamed them.

It is a perfect example of dissent and criticism. Just look at the Cultural Revolution.

[Twofish]

The Chinese government is rather harsh against dissidents because they believe that if you allow people to cross the red lines then everyone will end up crossing the red lines and that things will fall apart. So you draw lines and anyone who crosses them gets stomped on, but you draw them in such a way that most people don't cross them.

The thing that has people in Beijing spooked are the color revolutions.

RMackinnon: Then it becomes a big story, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are even making a coherent or logical point, or whether they have much of a following.

In which case it appears on the front page of the New York Times and then two weeks later, everyone forgets about it. People have rather short memories, and arguing that China needs to change a major part of state policy to avoiding looking bad in the NYTimes, I think overestimates the power of public opinion. People know that China is an authoritarian regime that behaves badly at times, but given the mess in Iraq, people are less willing to oppose authoritarian regimes than they were a few years ago.

The other problem is compassion fatigue. Yes you can bring up heart-rending stories about Chinese dissidents fighting the system, but those are the same stories as existed last year, and they are likely to be the same stories that you will get next year. After a while, people lose interest.

RMackinnon: Why can't China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country?

It does, but the question then becomes the limits of that dissent and argument. Most of my time is spend in talking about economics and when it comes to policies like the RMB appreciations and monetary policy, there is no shortage of dissent and argument, and this is because all of that argument and dissent gets channeled into areas that ultimately strengthens the ruling system.

RMackinnon: The only rational conclusion can be one of the following: a) China's security and law-enforcement apparatus is out of control, unaccountable, power-hungry, and can't be reined in by the other branches of the government; b) the Chinese government really is on the verge of losing its grip at any moment and thus really has more reason than we realize to fear all of its citizens.

I pick b)

The fear of the Chinese government is that you will end up with another Tiananmen in which everyone shows up on the streets and they have to start shooting people to stay in power. This is something that they don't want, and by showing that they can keep a few dissidents in jail, the Chinese government is sending a message that whatever red lines it draws needs to be respected.

Personally, I think this does pose a dilemma, because I really do believe that if the Communist Party were to say tomorrow, you can say what you want, that you'd end up with mass demonstrations, and by the end of the year you'd could have the government out of power. A triumph for freedom and democracy!!!!! No, since there is no particular reason to think that any government that follows is going to be more competent or even more friendly to human rights than they current one.

The question that I have to ask human rights activists is what do you do if the Chinese government happens to be right? Suppose it were the case that if China suddenly relaxes dissent then you'd end up with the government collapsing followed by another government which is worse than the current one. Ten years ago, you could argue that this just wasn't going to happen and that any democratic transition was going to bring peace and happiness forever. You just can't win that argument now by ignoring it.

You can bring up Taiwan and South Korea, but those areas took decades to come up with systems that could handle dissent without collapsing. It's not as if the KMT or the Korean general's just one day said, fine, everyone can do what they want.

There is a wonderful short story by Ursula Le Guin called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" that really captures the basic moral issue involved.

[mahathir_fan]

"I pick b)"

Wrong. Why don't you go to chinadaily.com and make pro-Communist comments. They'll remove you too.

Please do not think that because you make anti-China comments, they censor you. They'll censor you even if you make pro-Communist comments.

I do not think that they are pro or against dissent, rather they are against extremism. They fear Communists who are extreme as much as they fear the capitalists extremists.

And btw, they didn't go in and start shooting people at Tiananmen. NOBODY DIED AT TIANANMEN SQUARE.

See minute 5:57
http://youtube.com/watch?v=igsW5yQ6428

where student leader who was on the square until 6:30 that morning did not witness any massacre. He further implied that those who claim there was a massacre are creating lies.

[mahathir_fan]

"Ten years ago, you could argue that this just wasn't going to happen and that any democratic transition was going to bring peace and happiness forever."

Sometimes in having these dicussion, I feel like we are not even talking the same language.

It seems to me that some people associate "DEMOCRACY" as meaning a "rejection of Communism".

That is not what democracy is. Democracy is about the power in the people.

China is already a democracy. There is no need for any "Democratic" transition. The communists toppling of KMT was a democratic movement. It had the support of the people.

Read Article 2 of China's constitution. It clearly states that all powers belong to the people.

Read the constitution further and you will find that ANYBODY in China can run for office, and can vote in elections.

Read the news about China and you will find that China holds nationwide elections every 5 years.

What more criteria must China still fulfill before it can be conferred a "Democracy"?? How else must the constitution be amended before it can be called a "Democracy" in your definition? That the Communism Party must first collapse?

[RealityBytes]

Ok - a lot here to talk about & not much time to write about it.

The govt. absolutely fears the people. I saw security cameras in little used alley's everywhere.
Tiananmen Square - get real. It was not genocide, but it was not a love-in either. A close friend of mine saw maybe 10-15 bodies after the shootings.
There are over 20,000 people employed to censor the internet. And yes, I WAS Censored during my recent visit.
I would also like to add this for thought - China is more capitalistic than America will eve be, and America is more Socialistic than China ever will be. For example, where is Social Security? Medicaid? etc. If you are lucky you either retired from the state, or you bribed someone to get state retirement. Corruption is an institution upon itself in China. If you are poor and dieing in the streets of Shanghai - no one cares - just don't do it near the malls or close to the Bund.

[RealityBytes]

Just another note - the person who did not know whom paid for their apartment... hmmm... state agent??? seen those trolling on the net. They seem to have learned a lot from their favorite hero - Bill Gates. F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). As the write know.. You can either rent a nice house - cheaply, or buy one.. (Expensive). But - it is the FAMILY and EXTENDED family who help with the purchase. Also - if they where renting the house - the Govt. absolutely would not throw them out - kind of hard to be under house arrest if you don’t have a house? The owner (person renting/leasing) the house would avoid the situation – who wants to get involved with the police?

[Dingo]

mahathir_fan: You've got to be kidding me. Not even the Chinese agree with you on this one. The Chinese constitution says a lot of things, including the freedom of speech, but do you see that being upheld? No. It is a document that sounds great and promises plenty but it isn't reality...by far.

Nationwide elections? Are you kidding me? Do you really think Hu Jintao was elected by the Chinese people?

Be that it may that the Communist Party took over China from the Republicans over 50 years ago due to sufficient popular support (or sufficient popular dissatisfaction with the Republicans), I fully grant that as some measure of the people's will. However, if you think that event in of itself or some nonsense written on a piece of paper that is never realized makes China a DEMOCRACY, then you're clearly out of your mind. Either you don't really understand the definition (much less the connotations) of "democracy" or you don't know squat about China. I didn't want to sound offensive but given how self-assured you came across to me, I reckon it is a combination of the two.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

MF hangs out here quite a lot for some reason. He must be taking some really great drugs, or something.

[Twofish]

About the Chinese constitution and laws, the Chinese government I think generally does a very good job of following the PRC constitution and the laws on the books. The trouble is that you have to read the fine print. For example Article 35 states that citizens have freedom of speech, but Article 51 states that citizens can not use their rights to threaten state interests.

However I think even with the compromises, the Chinese legal structure is a good thing because:

1) They provide some protections. For example, the police are harrassing Hu Jia's family under the provisions of the Criminal Procedures Law. They might want to detain his wife and kid in jail, but they can't because the law won't let them.

2) They also establish some norms. For example, in areas of freedom of speech, the Chinese government can argue that people are being detailed under the provisions of Chinese law on charges of subversion of public order and the socialist system. If you read the law, that's what the law says. Fine.

However there are areas of law in which the actions of local officials *are* clearly illegal (corruption, torture and extrajudicial detention), and in those areas you can actually have some cooperation with the Communist Party to enforce the law. If the Party doesn't like the law, it can change it, so if the law says no torture, that's an order from the Emperor and you can use that fact to your advantage.

A legal strategy however requires knowledge of the law, and the ability to figure out what fights you are likely to win and those that are a waste of time and energy that could be better spend elsewhere.

[Peter]

I know it seems like the "Chinese government is shooting themselves in the foot by behaving this way," and many informed observers would agree with this.

But just to point out an alternative way of seeing, one that the Chinese party-state seems to favor: 杀一儆百 -- Execute one as a warning to one hundred.

As becomes clear from closely following the Hu Jia case, this is the strategy Beijing chose, and I think that at this point it is quite impossible to assess which strategy, in terms of desired outcome(creating "harmony" through silencing dissent), is the "more successful" one.

Much depends on the scale of national and international, online and offline, reactions, and if those reactions die down soon (which, in a world ruled by 60-second sound-byte type attention spans, seems likely), then I think the Chinese government is not quite as stupid as it appears.

[mahathir_fan]

"The Chinese constitution says a lot of things, including the freedom of speech, but do you see that being upheld? No."

Yes, except in cases where speech is used for the purpose of unlawful overthrowing the government. Freedom of speech is not protected in this case, in accordance with Article 1 of the constitution. This is normal practice in any country including the US.

The US constitution also says a lot of things, including freedom of speech. Do you see that being upheld in cases when used to overthrow the government? No. See Gitlow vs New York:

Gitlow v. New York was also important for defining the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech following the period of the "Red Scare," in which Communists and Socialist Party members were routinely convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918. Gitlow, a Socialist, had been convicted of criminal anarchy after publishing a "Left Wing Manifesto." The Court upheld his conviction on the basis that the government may suppress or punish speech when it directly advocates the unlawful overthrowing of the government.

[Twofish]

There is a sort of attitude I've seen among human rights activists about how stupid and short-sighted the Chinese government is, but if they are so stupid and short-sighted, how come they are still in power?

The cynic in me thinks that the Chinese government is tossing all of the dissidents it can in jail now, so that they will be in jail and hence invisible during the Olympics.

Day one of the Olympics, New York Times writes an article about all of the dissidents in jail, but because they are in jail, you don't have a human face. Day two. dissidents are still in jail. Day three. The dissidents are *still* in jail. Day four, the dissidents are *still* in jail. Ho hum.... No pictures. No front page story.

By contrast if you have them roaming the streets, they'll start some demonstration and you'll get some really nice and dramatic pictures of the police carting someone away "FREE HU JIA!!!!!" By contrast if you have a thousand people in jail, they are all statistics and you don't get nice pictures, and you might not even get an article since you talked about that three months ago.

One of the things that I think that the Communist Party unfortunately learned from the color revolutions is that governments that let people demonstrate soon found themselves looking at situations that they could not control, whereas government that stomped on small demonstrations hard, tended to stay in power. Recent events in Pakistan and Burma seem to confirm this.

Being cynical, Let me propose a scenario. The Chinese government goes through and figures out how might be a real embarassment to the regime now, and tosses them in jail. During the Olympics there will be demonstrations by all sorts of people who really don't have that much following, and the government will let those go in order to show "tolerance." Then after the Olympics all of the dissidents that got picked up in get released, so you suddenly have these nice stories about how liberal the Chinese government has become.

One thing I find really interesting.....

Under Articles 124, 126, 127, and 138 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Chinese prosecutors at the provincial level can keep someone in detention for eight and a half months before they are required to bring the defendant before a judge for trial.

So if someone was detained recently, that keeps them out of circulation until after the Olympics. Which explains the flurry of recent detentions, the police are couldn't detain people earlier without being forced to release them before the Olympics, and Chinese judges have actually been from time to time impartial and independent.

So if this is what is going on, it means that the police are doing what they are doing because of legal restrictions and that most everyone detained will be out after the Olympics.

Glass half empty. Glass half full.

[mahathir_fan]

"Nationwide elections? Are you kidding me? Do you really think Hu Jintao was elected by the Chinese people?"

I hope you can do some google before asking this question becuase I seem to have to repeat this many times.

Elections are held every 5 years in China. Google or check the CIA world fact book for confirmation.

Hu Jin Tao is not elected by the Chinese people for a good reason. According to the constitution, the President subordinates to the National People Congress. The NPC have complete control over the President, can recall the President, sack him, etc. etc. at any time. Therefore it is the NPC that elects him to his post, not the people. In other works, he works for the NPC, and only indirectly for the people. The NPC in turn works for the people.

[CCT]

Rebecca,

You missed my point. The Foreign Agent Registration act isn't a law only on the books of the Bush administration: it's been on the books since 1938. If you're trying to distance yourself from its implications... then you better repudiate every American president from FDR onwards. That includes Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton... and every single Congressman who has served in office during the past 7 decades and found it unnecessary to erase the law.

The law remains in place in the United States, and it says something very simple: those of you who serve foreign interests without opening yourself up for official monitoring are criminals who deserve imprisonment and worse.

So, from a moral and legal point of view... why shouldn't Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan be held up to the same standard in China? Who *is* paying their bills? Is it (indirectly) coming from the Falun Gong? Or the Taiwanese government? Or is it the NED? If their writings aren't just representatives of human curiosity and good-will, but rather serve the interests of a hostile foreign force... then why shouldn't the Chinese government preserve Chinese interests by pursuing legal remedy? Just as the United States government has done for 70 the past 70 years?

I will thank you for one thing though. Your second link to that Jinyan site brought me to an incredibly revealing phone conversation between Hu's parents and Hu's activist lawyer, Li Jinsong.

I wonder if you'll be kind enough to translate this as well for your English readers... as I, for one, thinks it provides precisely the other side of the story, the depth in understanding that just about everyone in the West completely misunderstand.

I'll start with one paragraph... from Hu's father:

"实际上胡佳是个傻蛋，就是在被反对国家现在领导政策的人利用拿他毁坏我们国家的声誉。
Really, Hu Jia's an idiot. He's being used by others opposed to our country's leadership's policies. They're using him to destroy the credibility and honor of our country."

Hu Jia's father and mother are both members of the Communist Party of China. Li Jinsong, his attorney/activist colleague representing him in this case, is also a member of the Communist Party. How many of those reading the standard Western coverage of this issue are aware of that?

How many of these Western papers, or even this blog, will understand both sides of the coin? Can they understand that they don't like the treatment Hu Jia has received, but neither do they agree with his political positions?

Do they, *do you*, understand that Hu's closest supporters are actually defending the Communist Party's position on suppressing his type of dissent?

[e.r.]

"Why can't China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country?"

What about... because it's a sixty years dictatorship?
It's good to go into the subjects, but sometimes answers are more simple.

Best.

E.R.

[Peter Marolt]

@CCT: If the Chinese government had had any indication that a "hostile foreign force" was paying Hu Jia or Zeng Jinyan, then it would not have hesitated for one second and would have brought state secret charges against Hu and Zeng. I think Rebecca made this point already.

Whether *anyone* understands that "Hu's closest supporters are actually defending the Communist Party's position on suppressing his type of dissent", as you contend, or whether "Hu is being used" is actually completely beside the point.

The point is that holding a woman and her baby under house arrest, or preventing lawyers to talk with their clients is *not* something happening in a 'normal' country. How do you justify these actions?

Also, I'm not sure whether *you* really understand that for Chinese, there are myriad reasons for being a member of China's communist party. Simply stating the facts (if they are facts) is not leading anywhere.

Seriously, reading your comment, your claim to be "arguing from a moral and legal point of view" sounds very hypocritical to me.

Who are you and what is your agenda?

[John Kennedy]

It would be interesting to hear from Hu Jia on where, if any, his funding comes from. I can't imagine that he needs much. Zhai Minglei just wrote this week that Hu pretty much lives off his mom, which doesn't come as a surprise, I have friends older than Hu who still live with their parents, and they have pretty high-paying jobs. Speaking of jobs, Zeng did have one until very recently, presuming she no longer has it.

Their car is obviously not a very expensive one, in terms of the Chinese automotive market. Their mortgage, you say? They don't live anywhere near the city center, in fact they live quite near the Hebei border, which makes a lot of sense for a couple of their apparent economic state. Not exactly FLG high shamans or whatever the equivalent is, but I suppose one could harbor suspicions eternally and that will be useful for some, because you never know, Hu and Zeng's lives could just be one extremely elaborate facade.

The couple sure don't seem too popular with the diaspora. This guy sure thinks pretty lowly of them: http://blog.dwnews.com/?p=33519, and my reading of what's written there is that Hu doesn't play along with the old demo movement crowd. At least that writer suggests that Hu receives no money from that part of the world.

[mahathir_fan]

Thanks CCT. Very informative.

FYI, I as a non-Chinese or non-Western citizen had always had a skeptical stand on Hu Jia. An AIDS activists put under house arrest? Clearly, if it were that simple, we were not being told the full story. I had never believed that he was only an AIDS activist and nothing more. My hunch was right and once again the Western press isn't telling both sides of the story.