Share This Page

China doing itself no PR favors

| Saturday, Nov. 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

It's well known that Chinese censors shape and limit the news and history their people can learn. What might be more surprising is how Chinese officials shape and limit what Americans learn about China.

Last month, a cultural attache in the Chinese Embassy in Washington invited Perry Link to attend a Forum of Overseas Sinologists in Beijing in December. Given that Link is one of America's eminent China scholars, this might not be surprising — except that he had not received a visa to enter China since 1996 for reasons the Chinese have never explained.

Link replied that he would be interested in attending, but would he receive a visa?

Absolutely, he was told.

You're sure? Link emailed back.

Of course, the attache replied. Just send your passport “and I can help you to finish the visa application.”

Link sent his passport and application, and on Nov. 8 received the following message: “After review, I'd like to inform you that you will not be invited to the forum.”

The Lucy-and-the-football quality of this exchange is striking, but Link is far from the only foreign scholar to be blacklisted. In 2011, 13 respected academics who had contributed chapters to a book on Xinjiang, a province of western China that is home to a restive Muslim minority, found themselves banned.

Link, who has forged a distinguished career at Princeton and the University of California at Riverside, can survive a visa ban. But for a young anthropologist seeking tenure, the inability to do field research could be terminal. And because China never explains its refusals or spells out what kind of scholarship is disqualifying, the result is a kind of self-censorship and narrowing of research topics that is damaging even if impossible to quantify.

“The costs to the American public,” Link told me, “are serious and not well appreciated. ... It is deeply systematic and accepted as normal among China scholars to sidestep Beijing demands by using codes and indirections. One does not use the term ‘Taiwan independence,' for example. It is ‘cross-strait relations.' One does not mention Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who sits in prison. ... Even the word ‘liberation' to refer to 1949 is accepted as normal.”

Academics understand the code, he added, “but when scholars write and speak to the public in this code, the public gets the impression that 1949 really was a liberation, that Taiwan independence really isn't much of an issue, that a Nobel Prize winner in prison really is not worth mentioning.”

Increasingly, foreign journalists, too, are subject to similar pressure.

Chinese leaders' desire to have China be seen as a confident new power on the world stage is undermined by their apparent fear of honest scrutiny. And stifling scholarship and journalism doesn't just harm Americans' ability to understand the complexities of the world's most populous country. It also limits information and analysis for China's decision makers. In the end, that can't be an advantage.

Fred Hiatt is editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.