One China, many borders – the WTO-column

(soon at Chinabiz too)

What I try to avoid to newcomers in China is explaining the ‘one China, two system’ relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong works. Only the Dutch broadcasting system might be hard to explain to the inaugurated.
But the often murky ways how decisions in China are being made, or not, is part of what makes it both fun and troublesome to get things done.

A few days ago one of my friends told me yet another reason why the internet connections in Shanghai nowadays are so troublesome. There is a war going on between the southern part of China Telecom and their brethren in Beijing, who would rather have the lacking capacity for their own region, in stead of sharing it equally with Shanghai.
I have not checked this rumor, but it is so telling it explains much about the way China is working, or often not working.
Newcomers have heard in relation to China mostly the mantra of “one China”. Most people still know that the traditional communist manuals describe a heavy-handed top-down way of government. It is very hard for them to imagine that under this thin layer of unity, a wealth of diversity, bureaucratic warfare and turf picking is dominating much of life in China, not only in the government departments, but also in companies and between regions.

Media tend to reinforce this misunderstanding by putting much ‘China’ into their headlines. That might be correct on a political or diplomatic level, but in many cases that description is not precise enough and very often not helpful in understanding China.
So, it is not ‘China’ that closed 1,600 internet cafes, but is was the ministry of culture who claimed so, and most likely they made most of the cases up to look good for a Chinese audience.
When China opens its media sector up for minority stakes by foreign investors, it is good to know that it is the State Administration of Radio, Film and TV, who still can be overruled by a higher administrative body.
Even when state-councilor Qian Qichen criticizes US president George Busch a day before his reelection, it does not mean that this is the official Chinese viewpoint.
At Chinabiz I have tried to ban ‘China’ from the headlines, since in this case it is obvious articles very seldom focus on Zimbabwe. Only in a weak moment of laziness ‘China’ slips through.

Of course it is still correct to write that ‘China’ closes down 1,600 internet cafes, opens up its media industry for foreign investments or criticizes US president Busch. But as China opens up, gets more complicated it is more helpful to identify the culprits more precise.

Fons Tuinstra