Japan's claim to Okinotori Atoll as island rejected by the U.N.

UN decision over Japan’s ‘island’ claim shows justice
By Zhong Sheng (People’s Daily)
16:32, May 18, 2012

Edited and Translated by People’s Daily Online

The U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has decided not to adopt Japan’s claim of an outer continental shelf based on Okinotori Atoll, meaning that the country cannot classify the atoll as an island to illegally expand waters under its jurisdiction, according to a statement recently published on the website of the United Nations. The commission has maintained the international maritime order and safeguarded international justice by performing its duties in a fair and independent way.

It matters much whether Okinotori Atoll can be classified as an island. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an island can have the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf, while rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no EEZ or continental shelf. Any attempt to illegally expand territorial waters simply based on an atoll will seriously damage the fair and reasonable international maritime order.

Okinotori is an atoll in the western Pacific Ocean far away from Japan, but the country has insisted that it is an island, which is entitled to a continental shelf and an EEZ covering more than 100,000 square kilometers. Over the past 30 years, Japan has spent heavily fortifying the atoll and creating artificial facilities there, in order to develop the area into island status.

Shockingly, Japan submitted to the CLCS information on the limits of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines of Okinotori Atoll in November 2008, in an attempt to take advantage of the commission to seek legitimacy and international recognition for its illegal claim.

Japan’s illegal claim has unsurprisingly received strong opposition from the international community. After Japan’s submission of its claim to the CLCS, China and South Korea have repeatedly expressed their concerns to the U.N. secretary-general, and clearly noted that Japan’s claim of an outer continental shelf based on Okinotori Atoll violates international law, and damages the interests of the entire international community. The two countries have called for the commission to ignore Japanese claims over the geopolitical classification of Okinotori Atoll.

After nearly four years of deliberation and investigation, the commission decided not to adopt Japan’s claim, saying that before the concerns of China and South Korea are solved, it cannot take action on Japan’s claim regarding the atoll. The fair and reasonable decision is a de facto rejection to Japan’s illegal claim, and serves the overall interests of the international community.

Japan is unwise in its attempt to practice deception when knowing that it cannot hide the truth, untrustworthy to flagrantly violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a contracting state, and is unethical to damage the interests of the international community for its own benefits. No wonder its illegal claim failed to gain international recognition.

Oceans connect the world’s five continents and various civilizations. A fair and reasonable international maritime order is of great significance to maintaining international peace and stability and promoting global prosperity and development. Japan should abide by international norms, and give up its illegal claims. International justice will not permit Okinotori Atoll to be classified as an island.

Read the Chinese version:国际正义不许冲之鸟变礁为“岛”

According to CIA, Here are top 15 country oil import break down (The figure is in BBL/Day):

1 United States 10,270,000 2009 est.
2 European Union 8,613,000 2009 est.
3 China 5,080,000 2011 est.
4 Japan 4,394,000 2009 est.
5 India 3,060,000 2009 est.
6 Germany 2,671,000 2009 est.
7 Netherlands 2,577,000 2009 est.
8 Korea, South 2,500,000 2011 est.
9 France 2,220,000 2009 est.
10 Singapore 2,052,000 2009 est.
11 Italy 1,800,000 2009 est.
12 Spain 1,584,000 2009 est.
13 United Kingdom 1,450,000 2009 est.
14 Canada 1,088,000 2009 est.
15 Belgium 1,007,000 2009 est.

Below is the top 15 natural gas importation nations (Figures are Cubic Meter):

1 European Union 420,600,000,000 NA
2 United States 105,800,000,000 2010 est.
3 Germany 99,630,000,000 2010 est.
4 Japan 98,010,000,000 2010 est.
5 Italy 70,200,000,000 2011 est.
6 United Kingdom 53,630,000,000 2010 est.
7 France 46,200,000,000 2010 est.
8 Korea, South 42,380,000,000 2010 est.
9 Russia 38,200,000,000 2010 est.
10 Turkey 38,040,000,000 2010 est.
11 Spain 36,710,000,000 2010 est.
12 China 30,000,000,000 2011 est.
13 Ukraine 26,700,000,000 2009 est.
14 Netherlands 25,770,000,000 2010 est.
15 Canada 22,530,000,000 2010 est.

Wait a minute, isn’t China the largest energy guzzler according to the mainstream western press? Well, if we go by per capita consumption, China isn’t even in the top fifty! And to argue that China is the biggest energy user and polluter by virtue of its 1.3 billion population base is either malicious or intellectually deficient. Because if one is to argue that the USA should have the same total energy consumption as Canada (a country 1/10 the population of the USA), it would make no sense. However, China is always conveniently labelled the biggest polluter for reason only those writers understood.

As we are know, energy and mineral resources of planet earth is finite. This article is not to support continual increased consumption by China or point finger at any country. It is imperative that we as citizens of the world find a sustainable consumption rate for the sake of our future generation. For example, if we believe that the per capita consumption of the leading nations is sustainable than by all mean encourage everybody to reach the same level. If not, we should figure out the sustainable per capita consumption.

China is presently the largest consumer of many minerals like aluminum (1/3 of world’s total), iron ore (1/2), copper, zinc, tin and even gold. But most people do not know that China is the world’s largest producer of aluminum (1/4), zinc, lead, gold and is also major producer of iron, copper, tin, nickel etc. Contrary to common belief most of the mineral resources consumed are not for manufacturing re-export. For example, in 2005, China consumed 2,318, 000 metric tons of zinc but still managed to export 7,000 metric tons.

Of course, this is a rather short term development and will not continue indefinitely. China since early 2000s is going through a gigantic phase of construction and development. In the past decade, China on average produced new dwelling for 20 million people a year. In 2012 China has an urbanization rate of 51% meaning approximately 660 million people are still living in small rural villages. Depending on national policy and eventual economic progress another 300-400 million people would be urbanized. And when China’s urban population stabilized and stop growing the demand will wind down. In contrast the UK, US, Germany urbanization rate is 90%, 82% and 74% respectively. In 2010 China also has 86,000 km of railway behind 224,792 km of the US and 87,157 km of Russia. China also have 3,860,800 km (2009) of roadway behind 6,506,204 km of the US. So it is obvious, China’s construction boom will continue for easily twenty years. Again China is described as veraciously building for the sake of building or for show off purpose. Nothing is mentioned that China is woefully under developed compared to developed economies.

Due to recent publicity of China’s rare earth export policy, it is common knowledge that China has around 1/3 of rare earth reserve but supplied 9/10 of the world’s demand for this mineral. China is also the largest producer of antimony (alloying material for lead and tin), manganese (treatment for rust and corrosion prevention on steel), molybdenum (alloying agent each for stainless steels, tool steels, cast irons and high-temperature super alloys), vanadium, magnetite, tungsten and important exporter of barite (used in oil drilling fluids, flares, paint and medicine), fluorspar (used in metallurgical and chemical industries), graphite (used in metallurgical processes. The US imports 87% of its fluorspar and all of its graphite.

With so much misinformation few would realized that China is the 3rd largest country in term of mineral and energy reserve after Russia and Canada. In fact, if China is to be removed from the supply and consumption chain the world would suffer an even more catastrophic financial collapse than the 2008 fiasco. As for energy reserve China has the 3rd largest coal reserve. China’s oil reserve is ranked no.14 while its natural gas reserve is no.29. The present coal production is 1/3 of the world’s production and is definitely unsustainable. However, China has the largest shale gas reserve anywhere in the world. A U.S. Energy Information Administration report in April 2011 said that China had 1,275 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of technically recoverable shale gas resources — by far the largest in the world, followed by the United States with 862 tcf and Argentina with 774 tcf. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/china-shale-sinopec-idUSL5E7N705Y20111207

On the negative side the burning of coal, oil and gas which account for 9/10 of China’s present energy need is creating unnecessary pollution which will costs more in term of health and environment. To counter that the Chinese government is investing heavily in cleaner coal fired plants and alternate energy.

Below is an interview abstract with Fred Palmer who has worked in the US coal industry for more than 30 years. He is the senior vice president of government relations at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company which bases itself in St Louis, Missouri. He gave a very good summary of China’s coal consumption usage:
On China’s efforts to clean up coal: “China is ahead of the US and we should be doing what they are doing. We’ll figure it out, though. We’re not about saying we’re better or worse than another country. We believe that everyone on Earth has the right to live as well as we do.”

“I think it’s good for the US [that China uses so much coal] because it is taking the pressure off of oil. China uses coal the way the world uses oil. Last year, China did 3.5 billion tonnes of coal. When I started at Peabody 10 years ago, they were at 1.5bn tonnes. They’ve grown by [the equivalent of] two USAs in the last 10 years. Half of it is not electricity generation, though. A big slug is steel, but some is coal-to-chemicals, coal-to-liquids, coal-to-hydrogen, and coal-to-methanol. Their biggest use for coal right now is not electricity generation, but Btu conversion. In a ‘peak oil’ world, we should applaud what China is doing because it makes the world better for everyone for no other reason that it takes huge price pressures off of oil.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/mar/08/fred-palmer-peabody-coal-interview

On top of that China has potentially the highest renewable energy reserve in the form of hydroelectricity, solar and wind. The Chinese government has announced plans to expand the installed Hydroelectricity energy to 300 Gigawatts (GW) in 2020 and solar power capacity to 20 GW by 2020 . http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/03/content_8350947.htm

China aims to have 100 GW of on-grid wind power generating capacity by the end of 2015 and to generate 190 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of wind power annually. If all go according to plan renewable energy would account for 1/5 of China’s energy need by 2020. China has planned to build another 30 nuclear power generators within 15 years with total installed capacity of 80 GW by 2020. For comparison purpose China has total electricity consumption of 4,693 billion kW (2011), US 3,741 billion kW (2009), EU 3,037 billion kW (2009), Japan 859 billion kW (2011), Russia 857 billion kW (2008), India 600 billion kW (2008), Canada 549 billion kW (2008), Germany 544 billion kW (2008).

So in no way is China an excessive consumer of energy. As can be seen by the figures, most industrialized countries with manufacturing capacity are top of the list. This reflect the fact that a part of the energy used is actually for finished goods export. Heating is also a large source of energy usage for some of these countries. What is certain is the energy consumption of China and India is set to increase because it is obvious that no matter how one want to twist fact a higher quality lifestyle requires more energy. It is imperative that a greener lifestyle is required of all the leading economies.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=341&catid=9&subcatid=63#11

But what struck me is that the lead prosecutor (an American) said that his team had tried to prosecute Bush and Co in many Western countries including Spain, Canada and Germany but were “thwarted” by their governments.

What made me disgusted in reading that article is that many of these countries have been at the international forefront in seeking to prosecute people in other parts of the world for human rights abuses in their own human rights courts. Spain, for example, 5 years ago put on trial in absentia Chinese leaders for what prosecutors there (who represented some Tibetan exiles) for “genocide.”

So why have their governments obstructed justice in prosecuting them in their own courts?

Partly I think it is because Spain was an early and eager supporter of the invasion of Iraq and were part of coalition forces in Iraq that left 1.4 million Iraqis dead, millions more injured and the whole country’s infrastructure destroyed and at the mercy of terrorists.

Canada and Germany, while not supportive in that invasion, did support (along with Spain) and help with the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

So what we see here is a clear example that the human rights actions and words from western nations such as Spain and Germany are just a  sham. They use such actions and words only when it suites them but will not apply those rules to themselves and will even obstruct the rule of law when it suites them. Where there is such double standards, there is no rule of law, there is only law as a tool for oppression against the weak. One shouldn’t be surprised at some level because Spain and Germany have histories of brutal oppression of non white peoples around the world. So the fact that they would use human rights as a tool to ironically further oppression on others may simply be an extension of that behavior. Human rights as they use the term is a crafty device spoken with a forked tongue in order to shift accusations at non white peoples while abusing them at the same time.

Advocacy of human rights and the rule of law, when coming out of the mouths of the oppressors, serve to undermine those very principles.

If China does not offer a competing voice in that international discourse, it can only be harmful to China and the world. This is why those who do not think China ought to take a more proactive approach to international affairs and especially to international law is holding a very naive view. If China does not contribute, others, often hypocrites, will inevitably take up the slack by making and interpreting the rules themselves which they will then leverage against China. The law will be by them and for them. China cannot sit back and allow the hypocrites to make and interpret all the rules but must take a very proactive stance within international law to make them what they are supposed to be, fair and just.

To the Western audience, Fallows might appear objective, especially as he rightfully acknowledges some of the problems from the West, especially the ‘gaps’ in the universalism claimed. Below is Fallows’ article, on the left column, and my take, mostly on points where I disagreed, to the right. Following that I will summarize my analysis.

In the lede, Fallows wrote:

The nation may have larger-than-life ambitions, but it hasn’t figured out how to win over the world.

We can also say that a bum on the street has larger-than-life ambitions, but how is he suppose to out-dream another person who is already a billionaire?  That bum will have incredible soft power if he could teach other bums on how to get out of poverty, perhaps not to earn a billion dollars but to have enough to buy a modest home.

Well, the bum may in fact still have grander dreams, but he dare not be so public about it.  He could parade around dreaming to be a billionaire.  In such a case, he would likely invite ridicule.

Imagine if China dreams “full spectrum domination” or in similar fashion as Obama (and other presidents) who says it is America’s “God-given” to be number one!  Is that helpful?

In my view, I hope China succeeds in this industrial revolution.  In few centuries from now, I hope China can assert a more humane culture in international relations (see Tsinghua University Professor, Yan Xuetong, “The Rise of China in Chinese Eyes.”)

Eric X Li once said, “universalism is singularity.”  By definition, it also means intolerance.  If Fallows is looking for that one word which culminates what the Chinese dream is, then it might be PLURALISM.

But pluralism clearly doesn’t capture it.  There’s peaceful coexistence.  Scientific development model.  And others.  Perhaps the bigger truth is when you distill a whole civilization’s dream down to a single word, then its rather ridiculous.  The true allure of the West is not ‘universalism.’  I think it’s safe to say everyone wants to enjoy the relative power and wealth the West enjoys.

Imagine a quantum entangled particle is placed on the moon and it’s partner is placed on earth. Sending information between the moon and earth would be instantaneous. For many people who followed the 2009 Mars rover, they will likely know it takes a very long time for new control signals to reach it. Quantum entanglement may hold the key to solve that latency issue.

In 2010, a team of Chinese physicists lead by Juan Yin, at the National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai in conjunction with Chinese Academy of Sciences, set a world record of 16 kilometers in distancing entangled particles.

(Source: Juan Yin, et al, "Teleporting independent qubits through a 97 km free-space channel," May 10, 2012, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.2024v1.pdf)

This same team has now made another major breakthrough – 97 kilometers! In their May 10, 2012 paper, “Teleporting independent qubits through a 97 km free-space channel,” the team demonstrated sending 1100 entangled photons 97 km away over a lake. Photons over any medium could easily get destroyed. The team has invented a way to preserve them over such a large distance.

As their paper states, an application for this is also satellite communications:

Moreover, the high-frequency and high-accuracy acquiring, pointing and tracking (APT) technique developed in our experiment can be directly utilized for future satellite-based quantum communication.

Nobel Prize for Physics?

Remember, once the entangled pair are apart, information exchange between them cannot be intercepted. Information between the pair can be passed regardless of distance and medium. Communications faster than the speed of light?!

MIT’s Technology Review has picked up on this breakthrough. This is an exciting technology to follow.

Sure, I don’t deny that the phenomenon of Chinese women looking to date and marry white men do raise some broader potential social / cultural issues for me.  Why does it seem like some Chinese women are purposefully shunning Chinese men?  Why are so many white men successful in looking to date and marry only Chinese women but why is it much rarer to find Chinese men dating and marrying white women?

I usually chalk up these nagging social issues to women looking to move up the social and economic ladder.

Because of the history of the last 200 years, Westerners typically make more money, are financially more successful and stable, than Chinese.  To the extent women (Chinese included) marry for security, dating and marrying white men seems only natural.  From the Chinese perspective, it might even be encouraged, if nothing else than to improve the quality of life some of its people through the fast track.

But recently, I came across this WSJ report that seems to turn that theory upside down.  It appears in Hong Kong, the real action is not of poor Chinese women marrying rich foreign men, which I understand, but rich Chinese women seeking out to marry white men.

The above picture apparently caused quite a stir and went viral in Hong Kong cyberspace recently.

Here is a copy of the WSJ article in full:

Three words ignited a social-media storm in Hong Kong this past week: free for foreigners.

It started with an advertisement that depicted a young Asian woman smiling at a Caucasian man, who eyed her while holding a martini glass. Created by a Hong Kong speed-dating company, the flier was intended to promote a matchmaking event over the weekend that asked women to pay HK$4,800—more than US$600—to meet expatriate men, who were urged to attend and dine for free. The invitation defined eligible men as “35-48, professionals and foreigners only.”

The ad went viral online, infuriating some who decried the event as degrading to native Hong Kong men and women alike.

“Free food and a easy chick for white guys?! Only in Asia,” says the Facebook page of Kamy Yeung, in a post that accompanied a picture of the ad. The post was shared 840 times.

While there was no explicit mention of race in the invitation for the event,  social-media commentators homed in on the issue.

“Are you a foreigner? Preferably white? Are you rich? Do you have stocks and bonds? A passport? Do you like hot Chinese girls? Come have a free dating dinner,” one Hong Kong-based user wrote on Weibo, China’s Twitter-like microblogging service.

The founder of Hong Kong Speed Dating, Rachael Chan, said Hong Kong’s five-star Mandarin Hotel refused to host the weekend dinner party just hours before the event, which was open to 20 diners total (both men and women), and the event was moved to a venue in Soho, an upscale bar-heavy district.

A Mandarin Oriental spokeswoman said it wasn’t a hotel event, and declined to comment further.

Ms. Chan defended the event, saying that asking women to pay US$600 was a way to screen attendees and an attempt to help serve her customers better. “When it comes to foreigners of the top 0.1% kind—those bank managing directors—all they ask for is someone smart and financially independent,” she says.

Depicting a young girl on the poster that sparked the backlash, Ms. Chan says, was a mistake.

“This event, I made a mistake because my assistant did the flier. I didn’t approve it. If I saw the photo I would not have used it,” Ms. Chan said in an interview.

“For most guys, especially bankers, they say, ‘I’ve seen many, many pretty girls and I’m looking for a wife.’”

But the company doesn’t limit itself to collecting fees only from wealthy women. Ms. Chan said this weekend her company is hosting a dating event that matches female flight attendants, who will attend free of charge, with men who will pay HK$5,000 to mingle with them.

So far, about 10 men have signed up for the event, which isn’t restricted based on nationality for men or women. She refused to disclose the location, out of fear of sparking further backlash, but says that the event shouldn’t be construed as just a way for men to meet good-looking women.

Why flight attendants, then? “It’s not necessarily because they’re pretty,” Ms. Chan explains. “It’s because they travel around the world, and can carry on a conversation,” she says.

Are rich Chinese Women in Hong Kong disproportionally seeking out Western men? How prevalent is this phenomenon of economically well-off Chinese (or more broadly Asian) women seeking Western men in other regions of the world: Taiwan, Malaysia, Europe, America?

Are these even the right questions to ask?  Perhaps I am making too much of a big deal out of stories like this.

After all, individuals will always have personal preferences for personal reasons.  Just because a dating service has found a market of bringing Chinese women together with foreign men, one might argue, does not say anything about Chinese culture per se.  Just because it has found a market of finding foreign men interested in Chinese women does not indicate a slighting of Chinese tradition through Western eyes per se.

What evidence did they have to offer for this claim? Apparently nothing. So these Koreans claim that the reason they have not given any evidence that these pills are from China is that they feared “diplomatic problems” with Beijing (doesn’t the allegation already accomplish that?). How convenient. How cowardly. Make groundless disgust-inducing accusation at another group which diverts negative attention away from own’s own group to another without any evidence then claim that the refusal to provide evidence for that claim is to avoid “diplomatic problems”! Right. Korean officials, knowing full well the PR disaster this might cause to their country, now seems to wage a campaign war to divert negative attention to another country and people who are commonly marked for such allegations. The western press of course, being composed of mostly mindless, functionally illiterate sheep, have drooled over this story. It contains everything they want in a China-story. Demonic Chinese grounding up babies for consumption. So the South Korean ploy seem to have worked. They took advantage of the west’s racism for their own benefit.

Koreans find pills made from human flesh in their country that other Koreans are using for their own weird purposes and are now blaming it (apparently without evidence) on the Chinese all by exploiting the myth in the west that Chinese are so subhuman that they would ground up their babies for medicine.

However, it is not clear that the powder is even really from ground up babies. A Korean documentary claimed that the powder was tested and results suggests that it is from human tissue but they may be from fetuses or even other sources (such as corpses or human tissue from medical waste, etc). The Chinese government have said that their previous investigations have found no support for the claim that these pills are manufactured inside China. So is this another case of the Chinese being defamed by racist propagandists?

The evidence, like I’ve said, is non existent as the Korean officials have refused to offer any proof that the pills are from China and I find the accusations highly suspicious with possible nefarious  motives. Apparently this is not the first time these Korean officials have alleged the same accusations at China without evidence.

The baby eating claim  has a notorious history. It is a wonderfully effective instrument to manufacture hate for any group to accuse them of eating children. This is most clearly seen during the Middle Ages when a similar defamation was used against Jews (Blood Libel). Indeed, many persecuted groups may have experienced such defamatory accusations.

The Chinese are the latest group commonly suspected of Blood Libel. These accusations almost always turn out to be false such as the claim that a famous Chinese performance artist once ate aborted fetus corpses as a performance. Pics are found all over the internet of him dinning fork and knife in hand at a plate of dead babies (or fetuses depending on who you ask). Some rumors speculated that the pics were from a restaurant in Taiwan where babies are routinely served as a delicacy. Notice that in all cases, the word “babies” are used even when the accusations are originally of aborted fetuses. One wonders why the western press don’t called abortions in the western world “aborting babies”.

When Hong Kong authorities in conjunction with the help of Scotland Yard investigated the allegations of the artist, they found that this is likely an urban legend where the “baby” he was “eating’ was likely made of doll parts (he is an artist after all, and they create things out of scratch and perform scenes that are fabrications of reality).

The problem is that often these accusations are made then when no further evidence substantiating the claims subsequently appear, no effort is made to follow up and show that they were baseless so many people go on accepting them.

Furthermore, no context is given and innuendos are used to suggest that these practices are part of Chinese culture or even Chinese peoples’ nature and only pertain to them (and not normal humans). For example, in the latest episodes of these allegations, articles often point out (with the most loaded and sordid language they can manage) that placentas are sometimes made into traditional Chinese medicine. This conveniently shields the fact that placentas are used as medicine and eaten in almost all cultures including that of the west even today (see here and here for example).

Furthermore, European culture have long history of eating human flesh used as medecine. Mummy powder was popular till relatively recently in Europe for treating all sorts of illnesses. Many people in Europe also once gathered for public executions to collect the blood and bones of those executed to make things like soup.

Cosmetic companies in the west also use fetal tissue in cosmetics such as face creams. But the virulently racist denunciations are not forthcoming for all these other verified instances of human cannibalism and medicinal fetal tissue use which are directed at white people.

At this point we would like to remind our readers this blog’s Terms of Service. To date, we have resorted to an open commenting policy. While the editors and authors here may reply to certain comments, but as we all do in forums like this, entertaining a particular point in a comment simply means one finding that point worthwhile engaging in. It says nothing about whether other points within the same comment is condoned, agreed with, or disagreed with. We all run busy lives, and that’s the nature of these anonymous Internet forums.

[Update 1]
User registrations are done directly with this blog. Hidden Harmonies is not using a third-party discussion forum, nor is it relying on WoredPress.com’s “global registration” process to work across multiple blogs. Your registration is strictly with this blog, and our policy is to keep personal information confidential.

China obviously has many problems; pollution, corruption, food safety, poverty, wealth gap, and so on. Why are comparisons often employed by “pro-China” arguments? That’s because advancing society, especially a county of 1.3 billion, is an arduous task. Despite the shining examples that are developed countries, especially the supposed ‘democracies,’ who are often put on a pedestal, they nevertheless are full of faults. Despite their best efforts, they still have tons of problems not able to overcome. The comparisons are employed because the “pro-China” arguments are trying to appeal to rationality; perhaps some of China’s problems given her unique circumstances are difficult to overcome too.

Understanding the “two wrongs don’t make a right” fallacy does not mean others don’t understand that idea. Using that fallacy to dismiss other’s perfectly valid argument is a fallacy itself; it’s hypocrisy and I dare say, low quality in one’s character.

That’s because every one in the Western Media, the Western NGO’s, the Activists, and the US government, knows, CGC’s case has nothing to do with “Rule of Law”, It’s all out no holds bar, “vigilante Human Rights justice”.

Because, by “Rule of Law”, there is a long held US-China diplomatic agreement, that says plainly, those who live in US, live by US laws and legal systems, and those who live in China, live by Chinese laws and legal systems.

That means, if you are a US citizen, and you commit a crime under Chinese law while you are in China, you can be arrested by the Chinese police, and be prosecuted under Chinese law, and serve prison time in Chinese jail.  (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just like in US).  Similarly, a Chinese citizen would be subject to US laws and US prisons if committed a crime in US.

Certain things are not crimes in China, but are crimes in some US states (for example, illegal abortion, importing Cuban cigars).  Some things are crimes in China, but not in US.

That also means, the US State Department and the US Embassies have publicly warned US citizens that they will be subject to Chinese laws while in China, and if you don’t like Chinese laws, don’t go to China, but if you go to China, US government cannot “rescue” you just because you don’t like the crime in China you are being prosecuted under.

That’s one of the oldest diplomatic AGREEMENTS nations have agreed to.

What we see in CGC is clearly a violation of that “rule of law”.  And I am surprised that the strongest advocates of this “rescue” came from some US lawyers and Congressman, such as Jerome Cohen, a self-proclaimed China law expert, who are effectively saying, “We don’t like the results of Chinese legal system on this Chinese citizen CGC, so let’s spring him from China.”  (BTW, Jerome Cohen regularly writes about “rule of law” in China, but it appears, not so much when he’s busy bypassing those same rule of laws when he doesn’t like their results).

Umm, Excuse you, you are a bunch of law respecting people, supposedly.  If you are really interested in “rule of law” and “human rights” for CGC, you should be insisting on a legal Appeal for CGC, NOT a literal “flight from jurisdiction”.

By the type of cloak and dagger operation you have conducted, you have further nothing but street justice, “vigilante human rights”, a hollow victory for your own personal cause of 1 man.

You know why you are not insisting on a legal Appeal for CGC in China?  Because CGC has exhausted his appeal in the Chinese legal system.  He had his appeal in a higher Chinese court and lost.  And that means, in China’s “rules of law”, CGC was treated fairly in the justice system.

Not fair, you say, well, no legal system is perfect.  Some say, he didn’t have access to his lawyers in the appeal.  Well, nothing in Chinese law says guarantee to lawyers in the appeal, and incidentally, he claimed to be a competent lawyer himself, (a rather flimsy lie), then he had himself as his lawyer.

And in the Chinese Civil Law system, the appeals court’s function is not to rehear the previous arguments from the actual case, but to examine correctness of lower court’s process.  Thus, lawyers are rarely used in the appeals process.

And if you are willing to sacrifice the “RULE of LAW” (and the long held diplomatic agreement) for your sense of Perfect justice, then that is “RULE Of MAN” and “vigilante justice” that you respect.

If CGC himself is claiming that he wants “rule of law” in China, then he should insist on staying in China, appeal if possible, and if he loses, live out the consequences.  Appealing for “rescue” from foreigners is hardly an act of “Rule of Law”.

But before you become content with that, let me give you the simple consequences:

(1) since US is breaking the diplomatic agreement on jurisdiction of laws, that means, China (and other nations) can “rescue” which ever criminal they feel are being wrongfully prosecuted in US, and give them “asylum”.

(2) since US is breaking the diplomatic agreement on jurisdiction of laws, that means, even if China does reach an “agreement” with US on CGC, that “agreement” may be later declared void, because China determines that it is being “unfairly” targeted by US justice system, and wants a little of its own “vigilante justice” payback.  ”Rule of Law”, go suck it, US broke it 1st.

Hey, why should US be the ONLY one getting to have “vigilante justice”??

And if Western Media wants to romanticize this CGC affair, let’s just keep clear the imagery:  CGC will remain, by the Chinese legal system, an Ex-Convict, even if “free” by agreement with US.  US is thus, falling in love with an Ex-Con after much distant exchange of letters of love and affections for each other.

Appropriately, there are many women in US who fall in love with Ex-Con’s and get married to them to “rescue” them.

It may be romantic by some definition and even fashionable in US and the West.  Hey, that’s what it really is.

**

And it’s not just the CGC affair.  Recently, US and the West in general has been on a slew of “vigilantism” running amok in the world, even in itself.

Take for example, the Hacktivist groups who went after the US government and big corporations.  The Message from them is simple, if things are not fair, we will take matters into our own hands in our own ways to seek “justice”, forget the process, because the process is not fair.  Heck, the process might be defined by some Communist leader in China, enforced by Chinese loans through US banks and corporations.

Well, with US government doing the same, how do you tell the Anarchists on the net and on the street that they should obey the “rules”?

US government can even order death by drone on one of its own citizens, without trial, without even warrants, by Executive order alone!  Hey, nothing speedier than flying death justice!

Well great, Command in chief of instant justice, you have inspired many to follow their own justice.  I can’t wait to see what the 99% might do next in US and Europe.

***I further pose a question, if so many of the self-proclaimed “human rights leaders” of China leave China, who will become the “Martin Luther King Jr.” of China?  (for the sake of indulging in their own fantasies).

For the sake of indulging in fantasies, did MLK Jr. “escape” to another country, in view of his prison terms, the death threats to his family, the violent confrontations potential for every protest, the FBI surveillance on him, etc.??

SophosLab published a list of top 12 email SPAM sources by country,

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/23/india-becomes-the-king-of-the-spammers-stealing-americas-crown/

the top twelve spam relaying countries for January – March 2012

Noticed any thing?

That’s right 9 of top 12 are self-declared “democracies”.  Russia being a “maybe democracy”.

Personally, I am saddened by Chen’s plight. Before his troubles began, Chen was in fact lauded in fighting for the rights of ordinary Chinese citizens. He successfully sued a Beijing metro, forcing the company to comply with new law permitting handicapped individuals to ride free on public transport. He was even featured on CCTV.

What is impressive is that his legal activism was based on Chinese law learned on his own. What makes him even more amazing is he did all that despite being physically blind.

Chen’s troubles began after he sued local Linyi officials for alleged brutalities in enforcing the “one-child” policy. While his suit was not accepted by the courts, that, however, prompted the National Population and Family Planning Commission to investigate, and in September 2005, some local officials were detained.

The “one-child” policy is very complex, and within China today, debate still rages on in terms of how to reform. Some even call for its abolition. Enforcement has been problematic, especially with the many changes in the policy over the last few decades. (For a detailed report, see this Global Times article, “Baby Steps.”)

To understand Chen’s case, it is important to have a broader perspective on that policy objectively. Lawrence W. Green wrote the following abstract for an article in the Journal of Public Health Policy which provides that:

After years of urging China to take more aggressive action to control its population, the United States government withdrew support from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities on the grounds that that agency supported China’s new policy. The policy provided for the achievement of a norm of one child per couple through economic incentives and rewards, and family planning services including abortion. Charges of forced abortion in the Western press led to withdrawal of the U.S. funds by the Agency for International Development. In this analysis of the policy and its implementation, the alleged incidents of forced abortion were found to be isolated cases of overzealous local functionaries trying to meet quotas. Publicity and public education surrounding the policy and campaigns to implement it provide the best assurances that most people would know that they have options and should not be subjected to coercion for abortion. The Chinese government has implemented new safeguards to prevent and punish cases of attempted abortion against the will of couples. ¹

That perspective must be understood, for Western press frequently bashes China whenever the “one-child” policy makes news. For example, in The Telegraph’s latest article about Chen, it referred to the Chinese family planning policy as:

China’s draconian family planning policy

The use of negative emotive words like ‘draconian’ to describe everything ‘China’ or ‘Chinese’ in fact fits the larger pattern of a Collective Defamation in the Western press.

If you accept the propagandized view of the “one-child” policy as ‘draconian,’ then you are more likely to be biased towards seeing Chen’s fight, either to undermine it completely or to resist partially as nothing but ‘just,’ let alone against specific instances of brutal enforcement.

What transpired following Chen’s failed law suit? Well, some would in fact argue what Chen had done was already a success, since some Linyi officials were detained as a result of the investigation by the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

The blind legal activist started to engage with entities outside China, including TIME. This is likely where he might have run afoul with Chinese authorities.

In March 2006, Chen lead a public protest against local authorities, resulting in damaged properties, and was arrested. He was convicted and imprisoned. According to this Washington Post report, local Linyi authorities also charged him colluding with foreign anti-China forces:

Party sources said Linyi officials distributed a report in Beijing that portrayed Chen as a tool of “foreign anti-China forces,” accused him of violating the one-child policy and made much of the fact that he had received overseas funding for his work as an activist on behalf of the disabled. ²

After serving his sentence, Chen was put under house arrest. Christian Bale, with assistance from CNN, made headlines in the West while trying to gain access to Chen for which the network was criticized for making news.

Anyways, Chen is making headlines in the Western press again for having escaped Linyi few days ago. His whereabouts are still unknown.

Few facts have emerged, which I think is going to be damning for Chen as far as Chinese authorities are concerned. While this is circumstantial, Chen’s recent escape has been assisted with ‘activists’ linked to China Aid, where the NGO is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This is the same organization that gave money to Liu Xiaobo. The purpose of NED is to foment political opposition in foreign countries by the United States.

It is also interesting that Chen has appeared with Hu Jia following the escape, who too ran afoul with Chinese authorities. And, yes, Hu was also a recipient of NED money.

Chen has made a video asking Wen Jiabao to personally intervene on his behalf. In the video, he recounts the brutality from Linyi authorities. The latest report from USA Today says he is under U.S. protection, and that high level talks are under way.

This leads to my final remarks; my speculation on what happened and my thoughts.

Between September 2005 and March 2006, there are not much information publicly available detailing what transpired. My guess would be that Chen likely received money from abroad, perhaps from the “China Aid” NGO which is funded by the NED.

Chen at some point realized he would be in a lot of trouble. His only recourse is to resort to a populist strategy – to get the Chinese public to sympathetize with him. If that fails, which is going to be the case, because the Chinese government censors, then he will have to rely solely on organizations like “China Aid” – and obviously on the Western press who gladly circulate his videos and always ready to speak against the Chinese government.

It seems Chen’s plight now rests on the outcome of the talks between the U.S. and China. The narratives, either in China or in the West will be certain though. Need I spell that out?

[Update April 29, 2012]

This update is based on the following response from “>Kai, where he wrote:

DeWang, most people familiar with your blogging already know of your criticisms against:
1. Westerners voicing opinions about what happens in China;
2. Bias and prejudice against China in the Western media;
3. The raison d’etre and activities of the NED;
4. Chinese citizens labeled as “dissidents”;

Those are all worthwhile issues for discussion and even criticism, but I fear they’re being used here to conflate and muddy the issue, even poisoning the well.

What I and I’m sure quite a lot of other people are interested in reading are your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities throughout all of this. Specifically:

1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?
2. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in speaking to or engaging with foreigners?
3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?
4. Why was he not charged with illegal speech or engagement with foreigners and instead charged with property destruction and obstruction of traffic?
5. Was his subsequent unofficial house arrest legal according to Chinese law?
6. Is escaping unofficial house arrest wrong and illegal according to Chinese law?
7. Is guilt by association and circumstantial evidence punishable under Chinese law?
8. Is receiving money or funding from abroad illegal under Chinese law?
9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?
10. Is there something wrong and illegal with populist strategies under Chinese law?
11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?
12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?

The attention and opinions of foreigners is irrelevant to whether or not we can judge the legality of both Chen Guangcheng’s activities and those of Chinese authorities. Chen Guangcheng must abide by the laws of the nation he resides in. Chinese authorities too must abide by the laws of the nation they both reside and serve in. Moreover, the guilt or innocence of Chen Guangcheng has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the authorities.

First of all, I disagree with Kai about those criticisms are conflating and muddying the issue. If there is any poisoning of the well, then the Western media have long ago poisoned the entire ground water. Even now, their narrative about Chen is unanimous and singular: Chen’s plight is the entire fault of Chinese authorities and there is no rational basis for what is happening. Opinions of foreigners do impinge upon the relationship, especially between China and the U.S.. They either pressure U.S. officials to take certain stance or escalate official United States foreign policy. What the Western press so far has failed to do is to look at how Chen is possibly used.

We should ask a simple question: why would Linyi authorities restrict Chen following serving his full sentence?

There could be corruption within the Linyi municipality. But, I don’t think the central government would allow Chen to be under house arrest for no reason. It is not that the central government is unaware of the issue.

I will repeat what the Washington Post wrote which I believe is at the crux:

Party sources said Linyi officials distributed a report in Beijing that portrayed Chen as a tool of “foreign anti-China forces,” accused him of violating the one-child policy and made much of the fact that he had received overseas funding for his work as an activist on behalf of the disabled.

Now, if the Western press care so much about transparency, then why haven’t they asked the National Endowment for Democracy whether they have given money to Chen? Why don’t they look into whether it was “ChinaAid” colluding with Chen to protest in March 2006? Certainly, I am speculating here, but not on groundless basis. As I have written above, “ChinaAid” seems to be intimately tied to Chen’s escape from house arrest.

ChinaAid’s mission is tantamount to undermining Chinese law, as they implicitly advocate for underground churches. Underground churches are illegal in China. China does not want religion to participate in politics. China does not want religious groups to align politically with the Vatican or any organization outside China.

It is also worthwhile noting the Washington Post’s narrative about what the local Linyi authorities are charging Chen with. ChinaAid would argue they are simply there to advocated “religious freedom,” but they won’t say in the process they are breaking Chinese law. Similarily, as Chen was featured on CCTV for advocating rights of handicapped persons on public transport, it is preposterous for the Washington Post narrative to say that he would simply get into trouble for receiving foreign money to do the same.

In combating terrorism, American citizens have largely accepted detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo. One may ask under what law? I am not so sure if Americans understand the legality of it. However, what is clearly a rational view is that many of the detainees had or possibly had connections with Al Qaeda. Those individuals could harm America, and hence the public supports their detention. (Some may argue there’s opposition to Guantanamo. Sure, as there are supporters of Chen in China too. However, such voices are in the minority, because Guantanamo is still there.)

Liu Xiaobo was convicted by the Chinese courts for attempted subversion of state power, which is a very serious crime in China. On similar grounds, I don’t think the Chinese government would be bashful in restricting Chen.

At a personal level, as I stated above, I am saddened by Chen’s plight. Chen and his wife’s recount of the brutish treatment their family received, if all true, is indeed a testament of how bad things can still be in China. I have seen the video they smuggled out around the time of the CNN/Bale confrontation.

I also should point out about the moralist hypocricy that exists in the Western press. Imagine if we have as many articles written about brutally killed Iraqi and Afghan children as are for Chen? Can we imagine CNN bringing activists to confront a NATO operation in Afghanistan where children were killed? Imagine if we have as many articles written about the plight of the Libyans following the bombing of NATO since the rebel faction have taken control of that country?

Now I will answer each of the questions Kai raised:

1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?

Of course not. However, his suit was not accepted. That suit might have been too broad or denied for any number of reasons. We don’t know. To suggest that a Chinese citizen for merely attempting to sue can be viewed as illegal in China is naive.

2. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in speaking to or engaging with foreigners?

Local Linyi authories alleged him colluding and receiving funding from abroad to undermine China’s one-child policy.

3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?

I haven’t seen any.

I find it interesting that Western journalists in China thus far haven’t gotten Linyi authorities to speak. Equally interesting is why they haven’t pressed the NED whether one of the NGO’s they have funded were involved with Chen.

The Chinese media have largely been censored from covering Chen. I can see the Chinese position that they don’t necessarily have to indulge in certain infatuations that the Western press so happens to be fixated on.

4. Why was he not charged with illegal speech or engagement with foreigners and instead charged with property destruction and obstruction of traffic?

Fair question.

I don’t know, and I hope too one day China gets to a legally ‘matured’ society like the U.S. where charges are clearly stated. But as I have noted above, Guantanamo is a clear example even in such a society whom I just put on a pedestal, can have its excesses. At least Chen is not being water-boarded, chained, or locked up in solitary confinement.

5. Was his subsequent unofficial house arrest legal according to Chinese law?

This really comes down to how much the Chinese government as a whole believes in local Linyi authority’s allegation that Chen was “colluding with anti-China forces.”

6. Is escaping unofficial house arrest wrong and illegal according to Chinese law?

Is escaping from your kidnapper illegal? Of course not! Your question presupposes the allegations false. How did you know?

7. Is guilt by association and circumstantial evidence punishable under Chinese law?

Normally I wouldn’t think so, but when it comes to national security issues, I think every country exercise with certain amount of excess or precaution. Again, witness Guantanamo. And, again your question presupposes the allegations false.

8. Is receiving money or funding from abroad illegal under Chinese law?

Receiving funding from abroad is not illegal. Witness the number of foreign funded NGO’s in China doing many great things! Receiving funding from organizations abroad to do illegal activities in China is of course illegal.

9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?

What’s the point of this question while both you and I know that the Chinese authorities have not divulge this information? Well, at least I haven’t been able to find thus far.

10. Is there something wrong and illegal with populist strategies under Chinese law?

I am not sure what you mean by this.

David Li, who is (or will soon be) on People’s Bank, China’s central bank, policy committee recently commented that Bo Xilai’s policies in Chongqing is populist. He is using public funds to dish out short-term benefits to the population. That makes him popular, but he is not making the necessary reforms that are fundamental to the progress of the municipality.

I would argue the Chinese government see populism as a cancerous side-effect of some democracies. Bo Xilai is a serious test case where the current leadership have decided to make an example of.

As relates to Chen, I think it’s possible his March 2006 public protest was a populist strategy to counter what the local Linyi authorities were about to charge him with.

Pop stars engage in populist activities all the time. So, obviously, populism per se is not illegal. Context matter. I am not certain what you are trying to imply with this question.

11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?

Is this a trick questions? The way you have asked, who would say “yes?”

Collective Defamation in the Western press against ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’ is a serious matter which this blog spends a great many articles on.

I would add, even domestically, American media in the U.S. polarizing the population is cancerous to American society. What the U.S. media have done thus far is legal (I think), but is that necessary good for society? Many Americans would say no.

12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?

Looking at the smuggled video from February 2011, I believe some of his rights were likely not upheld. I personally yearn for China to become better than what Chen and his wife have alleged – some of which we can clearly see in the video.

In summary, I will simply quote what reader hehe had just said below:

I doubt that people shouting at each other about CGC’s case actually have the full set of information available before they are determined to make a case for/against him/his case. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between I dare to say, i.e. CGC is neither a devil nor an angel. I would pay particular attention to the context in which CGC transferred himself/was transferred from a citizen rights advocate into a political dissident icon of China.

First of all, it is actually at least two bundled fallacies in one. One major fallacy that it commits is the false dilemma fallacy. It assumes that there are only two viable options available: namely, complete servile silence or agreement when it comes to the US or moving out of the US to some foreign country.

Obviously, restricting to these two options are not justified. One can live in this country and still criticize it without any contradiction. A third option may be the best option. One of the duties of any citizen, American or not, is to make their country better. The best way to do that is through constant vigilance and criticism where criticism is due. The Founding Fathers of America realized this. Haters often do not. Obviously, there are more options available than falling into servile silence or full endorsement on the one hand or leaving this country. One can criticize a country and still live in it even as a patriotic American. In fact, many patriotic people may view leaving the country as not an option not because they believe the US to be the best country but because they view leaving as a cowardly act not benefiting the country. Instead, staying and improving its deficiencies is viewed as the most patriotic choice, one that is most expressive of love for one’s country.

The fallacy is also a strawman fallacy. Because the haters often assumes that those who criticize the country don’t love it. They may also assume that those who criticize this country are, in fact, Americans or even live here.

All these assumptions may be false. First of all, many patriotic people may criticize this country precisely because they love it. They want this country to be the best it can possibly be. Just as I may complain about my house having certain structural defects and still love my house, I may criticize my country and still love it. In fact, in criticizing my house’s defects and trying to fix it, I am demonstrating a love of my house in not letting it fall into dilapidation.

Furthermore, one may assume that a person that criticizes the US actually lives in the US. Several of the bloggers here either live in another country full time or part time. Though all bloggers here as far as I know, have lived extensively in the US, many choose to live a large portion of their lives in other countries. Some aren’t even US citizens. So obviously, telling them to move out of the country is comically stupid.

Haters may also have the assumption that by living in the US it is a kind of tacit agreement that the US is the best country in the world for why would you live here when you can live anywhere else? This is silly. Even if someone living in America really disliked America and wanted to move to another country, that may be difficult to do. Countries in other parts of the world simply don’t just let anyone move in. One has to go through many procedures and even then, may not let you in. I’ve known many Americans who have or want to move to Canada or some other country permanently. There may be little choice to live in the US. Those who do have a choice sometimes do move out. For example, a large portion of Chinese citizens who studied in the US are known as “sea turtles” or those who study in the US but eventually move back to China. Other practical difficulties with moving or immigrating out is that some people may have family, work, friends, spouses, etc in the US and that makes moving out difficult even when wishes to.

Naturally, one judge asked Ye whether he considered going transgender.

Allow me to digress a little first. Chinese language content on the Internet is growing by leaps and bounds. According to this article, such content now comprises 24% and will soon surpass those in English. A bit hard to believe, but I can see that, given Chinese netizens make the largest population group on the Internet. As Warren Buffett not so long ago observed, China is unleashing her people’s potential. That also means China is brimming with just about everything imaginable, manifesting in all media, especially on the Internet.

When it was the third judge’s turn to vote, he offered a story as a caution to Ye to not cross the line. I know what some readers at this point might think. Is the judge expressing some kind of transgender phobia? I don’t think so. In order to understand where I am going with this though, I ask that you drop your value judgement on that issue. That is not where I am heading.

The judge essentially says that there is a proper function to everything. Perhaps defying nature might sow disharmony, he continued. He advised Ye keeping his on-stage identity separate. (Though in answering the first judge, Ye has already said that he is dressed as a woman more often than not.) He laments “losing” a good friend from a top Shanghai university (which he explicitly didn’t want to name). That friend was researching into the plight of prostitutes. Over time, she took gradual steps to learn the environment and talk to sex workers. Eventually, she would cross the line and become a prostitute her self.

Implicitly, the judge advises Ye to not blur the line, otherwise Ye will become a transsexual.

What really struck me about the video has more to do with the discourse in Chinese media about these sort of issues. This judge’s view is unvarnished, and done so in a very respectful tone. Some may argue that the ‘political correctness’ phenomenon hasn’t gripped Chinese society as it has the West. Definitely true. In my opinion, I think it can also be viewed as a good thing. I think what is perhaps more important is tolerance and respectfulness. Isn’t that the most conducive way to maximize pluralism in a society?

Politically-correct all the time with intolerance or polarization bubbling beneath the surface versus unvarnished but tolerant and respectful speech; which is better?

This finally brings me to what I wrote two years ago, “If Confucius is alive today, he would advise the Western media: ‘中庸’.”

In thinking about 中庸, my choice is definitely unvarnished, tolerant and respectful speech.

What accounts for this high rate and what are some things the government or others do to reduce this trend?

The pattern for Chinese suicides is odd. Most of the people committing suicide are women. China has one of the highest suicide rates in the world for women. In most countries, men far out commit suicide than women (by a factor of 4-5 to 1). This is not because men are more likely to suffer mental problems or more likely to attempt suicide but because men tend to be far more effective at committing suicide (they use more violent methods such as guns or jumping off buildings, etc while women tend to use drug overdose which has a much higher survival rate). I wonder if Chinese women tend to use different methods of attempting suicide than their western counterparts or whether the high suicide rate is matched by a proportionately higher attempted suicide rate.

If it were not for the high rates of Chinese women committing suicide, China would have a very low suicide rate as Chinese men have some of the lowest suicide rates in the world. I think the reason why so many Chinese women commit suicide is because when they get old or sick, many think of themselves as a burden on their families. Many Chinese women also may feel helpless because in much of China, there are few resources to help abused, neglected and poorly educated women.

In building a socialist state with “Chinese characteristics” one thing that China ought to do is find ways to support older women and set up mental help institutions that are free of charge and help educate women especially in the country side of social benefits available to them.

[Disclaimer] Many ignorant people in the west may look at these figures and think, “ahah! I knew it. Chinese society is sexist and that is why there are so many female suicides!” But the statistics in the US of Asian (and especially Chinese) women show that Asian women in the US has some of the highest suicide rates of any group and moreover, the longer they stay in the US, the higher their rates of suicide, attempted suicide, thinking about suicide and mental health problems. It’s way too simplistic to put all the blame on Chinese culture. We can equally look at these statistics and apply the same kind of “logic” and say that it’s because US culture is so sexist and perhaps racist that accounts for the increase in suicide rates the longer they stay in the US.