CHINA ESQUIRE

I just wanted to write a quick post as I’ve been traveling. We were in Beijing last week, and met with the blogger behind A Modern Lei Feng and Stan Abrams of China Hearsay. I also had the chance to have lunch with a pair of Chinese lawyers from King & Wood, which is so large in Beijing that it needs floors in two office buildings here. I attach a photo of myself and Zhang Yongliang, corporate partner at King & Wood.

Nearly everyone concurred that the legal market in China has slowed to some degree–but for those dealing with foreign clients, their work has slowed considerably. Those dealing with Chinese clients, while slower, still are keeping themselves busy enough. Of course, it’s hard to say whether my sampling is fair considering that I talked with only a few people. Still, it’s something to keep in mind–especially with Kinney Recruiting and Above the Law saying that things are “booming” here in China. Many here on the ground say its not as booming as you would suspect.

One thing I note is the amount of nationalism I’ve seen here so far. None of it is blatantly anti-western. In fact, much of the nationalism is based around the Olympics. I’ve received a fair number of Olympics related souvenirs this past year while in America… and coming to China, I’ve only received more. I now have a 1 and a half feet tall stuffed Jingjing doll (which is cute, I must admit) among other new Olympics related souvenirs. Sometimes I wonder if the Chinese ever buy Olympics gear for themselves.

Another time, I observed nationalism in a dinner with some relatives. We were talking about the Olympics, and many of them noted that there weren’t many foreigners around in town. (Stan Abrams told us the hotel industry is taking a beating right now) And I thought to myself “visas”. What was their reasoning? They were “informed” that many Americans and westerners were boycotting the Olympics over the whole T***t issue. To which I thought, “you’ve got to be kidding me.” Sounds like no one here on the ground even knows that the government has tightened down the visa situation so much that much of summer tourism is griding to a slow halt. If I had a nickel for everytime I read or heard that someone couldn’t get themselves a visa in China, I wouldn’t need to be blogging right now. But that being said, no one here knows. And I think the default Chinese viewpoint is to take a nationalist approach: it must be some boycott or anti-western sentiment against China.

While the necessity of a siege mentality for Chinese is debatable, I see more and more of it happening… and even when the Olympics goes away, I still see the nationalist siege mentality staying a little longer. Let’s just hope that it doesn’t stay too long or things could get ugly.

PBS recently aired a series on its Frontline program called “ Young and Restless in China“.  It covers the stories of nine young people in China who come of age in a rapidly changing society.  Those 9 include a rapper, a consultant, a marketing executive, a hotel owner, etc.  Of course, it wouldn’t be on this website if it didn’t have a lawyer, and here is her bio from the website:

Zhang Jingjing
Public interest lawyer

Jingjing’s parents worked in a chemical fertilizer factory on the outskirts of Chengdu (near the epicenter of the May 12, 2008, earthquake). Her father was an engineer and her mother a doctor.

Jingjing’s fondest childhood memories are of playing in the yellow sage fields around the plant. While the scenery was lush and beautiful, it was also marred by the waste that ran out of the factory and into little rivulets through the fields. Her parents often discussed the high cancer rates among the plant’s workers and wondered if there was a connection. So Jingjing became aware of environmental health issues at an early age. As she says, she never intended to take on the system; she just wanted to protect people’s health.

Jingjing’s candor in the film was remarkable. She had no idea of how we would cut together her story, what images we would use to help tell it. Her life is lived on the cutting edge of reform in China, a place that is never easy and never safe.

Related Links: Visit the Web site of Jingjing’s organization, the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims; click on the word “English” in the upper right corner for the translated site. In August 2007, Jingjing answered questions about China’s environmental challenges as part of a New York Times expert roundtable.

Since it’s summer and hopefully more relaxed for lawyers, we all have more time to watch programs like this.  It’s all online streaming video.

I have been thinking about the role of the media in both societies. And I have long been critical of the media no matter what country you are in. Here’s why.

Within the past few months in America, we have seen China being vilified for the Tibet uprising, the Olympic Torch relay coverage being dramatized (and somewhat overblown in my view, at least, with the San Francisco portion), and now a lot of sympathy in the China quake. Now it seems that China can do no wrong: it has been transparent in its reporting, and western journalists have been singing China’s praises for the last week. It almost seems like the CNN coverage is bi-polar. Of course, it isn’t. But I know that many of my Chinese friends and colleagues were deeply offended one month ago and now fairly happy about the media coverage as of late.

Yes, this blog post is not about law and business, but about the role of the news reporting. While the Chinese might accuse the media of being anti-Chinese and yet very fair in the rest of its reporting, let me assure you that the media is going to be biased… I don’t think it is necessarily anti-Chinese, though I do think it is biased period. Even when it reports on American news. It is hard to find purely objective reporting on anything.

I was reading this little tidbit on CNN the other day about American politics. (yes, I know its not the normal purpose of this blog) And it takes a particular political leaning that has little to do with reality:

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday served a subpoena on former top Bush aide Karl Rove to compel his testimony concerning allegations that the Department of Justice had dismissed U.S. attorneys based on party affiliation.

It had authorized the subpoena earlier, but only delivered it Thursday after Rove’s attorney said he would not appear voluntarily, Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said in a written statement.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests,” Conyers said. “Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”

Now what does this have to do with the law? Well, quite a bit actually. Because by law, every President is allowed to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys. 28 U.S.C. section 541(a) reads “The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.” It seems to me that it is the President’s right to hire and then subsequently can their judicial watchdogs. The folks on wikipedia justify their position by saying that the President’s power should be governed by “tradition”. But that is not what the law says. (this is a law blog, so you should expect that there is at least something law related here) Of course, CNN and other media outlets have been very selective reporting about the law. Perhaps the journalists tend to be Democrats–and frankly, I don’t doubt that.

But that’s not the point of this article. All media will be somewhat selective and biased… either for a political agenda, or for what I think is more true, an economic agenda. Reporting will be done to make money in the west. Yes, there is some truthful and transparent reporting involved… but much of the media here is also driven by money. Sell newspapers, sell ad revenue, etc. This is a product to sell. And what sells is usually not objective reporting.

It’s a little different than the Chinese media, which often has a political agenda. So which is better? Probably neither. For better or for worse, each media source, whether Chinese or American, will be trumping their own viewpoints.

The important part is to read as much as you can about any story–and get the facts. I tell this to American friends wanting to understand China. I tell this to Chinese friends wanting to understand America. Read as much as you can, and get both sides. Draw out the factual content. And then go from there. That’s how you can (hopefully) learn to read around media biases. The media has a powerful role in all cultures. And in an information driven world, it is even more powerful. And sometimes, that means we will have to do a little more homework so that we can get real news without the media biases–whether in China or America.

The proper way to undermine bias is not by being biased against that bias. The proper way to undermine bias is by knowing the facts and then drawing a reasonable conclusion. I have a feeling this post is going to ignite a lot of flames…

Yes, the famous line from the Rodney King Riots in the 1990’s seems to apply today so well. I wanted to highlight a piece by Paul Denlinger at China Vortex this weekend, partially because I enjoyed it, and partially because it ignited a storm of comments on his blog. Frankly, I thought it worth the read. So here you have it, the weekend review piece:

Following the Sichuan Wenchuan earthquake, it has been very interesting to watch how the Chinese government and people have reacted, and how many western observers have reacted. For the first time in Chinese history, the Chinese government has ordered that Chinese flags have to be lowered to half-staff, for three days from May 19-21. What is most significant, is that this is the first time that the flag has been lowered for ordinary civilians in Chinese history, ever.

Unlike in Washington DC, where you can find war monuments to Americans killed in WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, there are no war memorials to Chinese soldiers or civilians killed in these wars, or to any who died as a result of bad government policy decisions. For the most part, they have just become unknown individuals who died and are now forgotten.

This is why the decision to lower the Chinese flag for ordinary civilians is so different and marks a break with the past. For the first time in its history, the Chinese government is saying that it is OK to mourn for ordinary civilians. This did not happen during the Tangshan earthquake, which killed some 450,000 civilians in 1976, or in 1989, or even so much during the SARS crisis of 2003.

For the first time, a Chinese government has embraced the idea that any human life, even that of ordinary human lives, has value. Actually, this is a very western concept, and is a very important step on the road to democracy. Is this not a valuable change in China’s reforms and opening up? This will make it that much more difficult for any Chinese government to dismiss the value of any Chinese lives which are lost in the future, whether they are due to natural disaster, or war, or for political reasons.

I don’t disagree at all… and in fact, I think its a great thing. I am not necessarily pro-democracy like Paul here, though I am American and I do recognize its benefits over most other forms of government. But I digress.

What caught me is this statement: “Chinese government has embraced the idea that any human life, even that of ordinary human lives, has value.” I don’t know if you think about this too much, but this is the basis for many rights, freedoms, and privileges. The idea of the right to life (and the subsequent abortion debate) springs directly from this. The value of a human life also means the value of a human to express opinions and dialogue… or freedom of speech. I don’t think I need to carry on too much about this. But it’s an astounding concept that China has picked up from the west. Because this can be the beginning of a worldview change for the Chinese people. I don’t know it if actually will be, but this is the concept that shakes up all things.

It also means that the rule of law should become more important. Which is something I heavily favor in any society. Yes, law can be abused, no question. And it can be harsh. But in general, rule of law means that each person is treated equally under the eyes of law. Which has a host of implications, frankly. But as an advocate for the rule of law, this is one concept that leads directly to it. Because without inherent human dignity, it is hard to figure out why we want treat people equally.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but can some people, Americans especially, try to look at China through the eyes of the Chinese, and not always try to scare and frighten other Americans into asking what the “rise” of China means to the US and the west? Is it too much to think or ask that maybe, just maybe, Chinese don’t spend everyday plotting how to steal their jobs and turn America into a third-world economy? And that maybe, they are just ordinary people who are trying to get along in life, and raise their child and get him/her in a good school, and buy a house? And that the government is far from perfect, but it has allowed ordinary Chinese to have a much better standard of living than before, and is now, for the first time, beginning to care for and mourn the loss of ordinary civilian lives?

There’s a very simple rule: If you reach out and treat people like friends, they tend to act like friends, and if you treat them suspiciously, they become enemies.

I am with Paul on this one too. Getting information and displaying true sympathy and empathy will go a long way in bridging the cultural gap that exists between Americans and Chinese.

Okay, I know this is controversial… My blog says that I comment on law, business, society, and of course, anything else interesting. Anyone following these blogs can quickly tell I normally talk law and business, and rarely about anything else. (maybe some American politics once or twice) But Chinese society is something I rarely talk about. Frankly, it is hard to do in an objective way. I was a sociologist in college, and I disliked a lot of the biased sociologists back then as well.

Well, California Magazine (the alumni magazine of UC Berkeley) recently did a cover on China with the Olympics coming up. There is an interesting article called “The Great Leap Nowhere” (credit to my Chinese lawyer friend at Boalt), which argues that Chinese “culture” is becoming more and more amorphous. I am not terribly surprised because globalism, with international media, pop culture, music, movies, etc., seems to bring more conformity in terms of culture. Here are some excerpts from the article:

The Chinese are not polled about feelings of national identity; such questions, much less their answers, would too dangerously approach the political nerve of China’s ruling mandarins. Polling on other issues, however—tastes in carbonated drinks, preferences for shampoos, ratings of certain sports celebrities, the appeal of mobile phone designs—is commonplace and, in a real way, reflects a changing social landscape. Despite the lack of significant data, after many years in China I am most acutely struck by China’s confusion over what, in the end, it means to be Chinese.

The rapidly shifting cultural footing is nowhere more apparent than for China’s urban 20-somethings. Take, for example, Yang Ling, as I will call her. Born in Xian to a military family—her father retired before reaching the rank of general—she chose, perhaps as a dutiful Chinese daughter, to attend a local university rather than a more prestigious institution in Beijing or Shanghai, so that she could be close to her recently divorced mother. “Now I realize I probably made a mistake,” says Yang, a petite woman of 27 who sports radically fashioned bobbed hair and, she confides, a splendid polychromatic butterfly tattoo on her shoulder. “Chinese children are supposed to take care of their parents and I thought it was the thing to do. But now I think I should have gone to Beijing.”

For her fealty, or perhaps because of her family background, she was invited to join the Communist Party but never did. “I just forgot to fill out the paperwork,” she recounts. “It wasn’t important to me. There were other things in my life that mattered more.” For hundreds of thousands of young people like Yang who have migrated to Beijing for professional reasons, the Party is no longer meaningful. “I’m not even sure I know anybody in the Party,” she says. “What’s the point? How does it help you? It’s just ancient history.”

Yet it is true that for up-and-coming 20- and 30-somethings in a cosseted and increasingly international metropolis such as Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou, all history is ancient, and largely irrelevant. Yang Ling sped from provincial Xian after college to Beijing, where she worked as a marketing consultant before founding her own consultancy targeting medium-sized Chinese companies. For her, there is little about China’s history or culture that is either particularly appealing or necessary except, perhaps, the multiplicities of Chinese cuisine. She and other young Chinese live their lives in a world that would fit as easily in Europe or America, a world that is ultimately more recognizable as Western than Chinese.

For most Beijingers, the rhythms of daily life have been inexorably recast by the modern, largely Western economy that undergirds China’s astonishing growth. Consider “Tang Wenhai,” a 40ish director of corporate communications for one of the capital’s largest commercial and residential developers. Because her husband travels extensively for work, as does she, their son boards during the week at an elite primary school. Every morning Tang leaves her utterly modern 22nd floor apartment just off the Fourth Ring Road and drives her gleaming white Honda to an office in a gray, crystalline trapezoidal tower in the CBD. With an MBA from Tsinghua University (”China’s MIT”), she worked on her company’s recent $1.5 billion initial public offering, jetting around the globe with other senior company officers and their investment banking consultants. She’s taken her staff on whirlwind tours of Europe, and most recently vacationed in Egypt with friends.

“Of course this isn’t how my parents live,” she laughs, “or frankly how I thought I would live when I was growing up. My parents”—working-class people from China’s far northeast—”could never have imagined a China like this. The funny thing is, now we live like everyone else in the world.” Or at least like other First World corporate executives. “It’s globalization,” she says.

The article notes, to its credit, that much of the analysis does not apply in the rural areas of China. But is this really all that different from what has happened in places like Tokyo or Seoul? Those are metropolitan areas that are reminiscent of western cities as well. Tall buildings, flashing lights–very New York-ish.

This is not a critique necessarily on Chinese culture. It is, however, a warning that the global economy–and its attendant culture–does threaten any country’s native culture. China is not exempted from this either. Not exactly rocket science, but still makes for an interesting read.