The Global Times, a state-run Chinese tabloid newspaper, had high praise for George Osborne’s visit. But the English translation of its article was heavily edited, cutting out much of the emotion found in the original. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese translation has a rather different tone and is about twice as long. It refers to the ‘little’ West, a derogatory phrase that doesn’t quite translate into English (it means ‘little’ as in ‘inferior’).
The article draws a contrast between Western public opinion, reflected in the media, where there are (unwelcome) concerns about Chinese human rights, and Osborne’s uncritical and polite approach. The Chinese version, however, oozes arrogance, saying that Osborne’s more deferential tone is “only indicative of a natural order”.
The English version has the headline: “Osborne’s Xinjiang trip shows pragmatism”. The Chinese version had a little more to say:-
The British Chancellor becomes realistic; Western media continues to put on an act of superiority
The British Chancellor George Osborne is currently visiting China. He undertook a high-profile visit to Xinjiang, becoming the first western high level politician from recent years to have sought business opportunities in the region without focusing on ‘human rights abuse’. [NB: the inverted commas were used in the Chinese version, but not the English translation]. Moreover, he also expressed his trust in the Chinese economy in the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Public opinion in the west has been severely critical of him, with commentators arguing that he talked ‘too little’ about human rights in China, even arguing that his visit to Xinjiang will be used by China as propaganda.
Osborne is 44 years old, and a forerunner for the future British Prime Minister. Apart from his youth, if there was anything else that distinguishes him, then it must be his relatively realistic approach to China. He doesn’t stubbornly put on an act, appropriately treating Sino-British relations from the viewpoint of Britain’s material interests.
Osborne’s unwillingness to bring up the human rights issue with the Chinese upfront is the least he can do as a diplomat. For a foreign finance minister seeking business alliances in China, humility is the appropriate attitude. Some westerners always think that their politicians must pretend to be ‘human rights lecturers’ when visiting China, thus maintaining western society’s feeling of superiority over China and eastern society as a whole. They would accidentally forget that this is an ugly stance.
The human rights issue isn’t ungrounded in its creation. From a relatively lengthy historical view, the West has contributed positively in the area of human rights to Chinese society. But this isn’t the whole story. In recent years, western pressures towards China regarding human rights has seen the west become ever more obsessive. They ignore the facts or find counter-intuitive and ineffective interpretations for them. Gradually, they have sunk into an extremist position that they are incapable of detecting, or of pulling themselves out of. Their many demands are not thought through and have completely departed from China’s reality – leading to Chinese irritation.
To tell the truth, with an internal political climate as complicated as China’s, Chinese society has always been seriously exploring and constantly reflecting on the question of effective governance, and of the balance between human rights and collective power. In this respect, the west’s little society has little right to criticise. The experience of the west’s dominance* (1) has long been learnt by the Chinese, what we can borrow we have also largely borrowed. Of these, there are inevitably some western experiences that are dangerous for Chinese society, impossible to incorporate, let alone copy. Western society should be able to understand the ability of China to choose for itself.
If some western politicians are still arrogantly seeking to teach us step by step about human rights, whilst criticising us, shouldn’t they think about whether or not we want to listen? It might not matter so much if it was someone who specialised in criticising China. But is it really the task of a finance minister on a business trip of the utmost importance to go to China and point his fingers at us?
Osborne earns the respect of Chinese people precisely because his mannerisms are normal, not weird, as befitting an important official from a civilised country, as opposed to raising suspicions that his country doesn’t understand manners, or is an arrogant and barbaric state. The Chinese don’t want to use Osborne’s visit to Xinjiang as any sort of propaganda, the Chinese media only factually reported it. If it weren’t for the western media making a big deal of criticising him, Chinese public opinion wouldn’t really care about what he did when he went to Xinjiang.
Perhaps Osborne has demonstrated a new generation of European politicians’ vision. He was the main architect of Britain’s support for the Asia Infrastructure Bank, which led support for the bank in the West. He values the impact of RMB’s offshore centres on London’s status as a financial power, advocating a big increase in Britain’s trade with China. Some believe that his Chinese policy demonstrates his creation of a high level strategic alliance between China and Britain, arguing that Britain hopes to secure its place as a global superpower through leading Europe’s relations with China.
The Chinese people welcome Britain’s valuing of Sino-British relations, but we do not think that Sino-British relations will suddenly break free of the incumbent global framework, thus creating certain challenges.
We believe that Osborne’s attitude on his visit was only indicative of a natural order. We hope for a future when the natural order forms the basis for international peace, instead of the old ideology-driven, stubbornly one-sided style of international relations.
European public opinion is still sometimes incapable of letting go of its act of superiority, keen to assume ideological leadership on every aspect of China. Currently, western governments are generally more realistic than public opinion. Of course, this is unsurprising – only the housekeeper knows the price of running a house* (2) – whereas the West’s ideology warriors have no responsibility, thus they continue with their impulsive self-entertainment.
Translation notes:
(1) This sentence is oddly phrased in the original piece – this is one of three potential interpretations. The other two: ‘the large part of western experience’ and ‘the positive experience of the west’
(2) This is rather lost in translation: the original proverb is ‘only the housekeeper knows the price of rice and fuel’ which has a touch of silliness and arrogance to it.
Also, the Chinese original reads more like a badly-written blog, strewn with grammatical mistakes. More care was taken with the English translation.
Comments