Facing US Media Ridicule, China Has No Need for Anger

“China’s Claims Have Delayed the Search for MH 370.” America’s Fox News Network republished the New York Times report on April 15, accompanied by this title. The New York Times’ original title for its article was “Chinese Claims in Malaysia Plane Hunt Reportedly Seen as Slowing Down Search.” The Global Times believes that although the title is fairly polite, the subject nevertheless comes down to this — China “slowed down” the search for the Malaysia Airlines passenger jet.

Whether or not China hindered the aircraft search and rescue is obviously not determined by what The New York Times says. As the country with the most victims in this air disaster, China’s concern and respect for the 154 lives are clearly there for everyone to see.

So-called “Chinese claims” undoubtedly indicate the information from China’s Haixun 01 concerning “underwater signals perhaps from the missing plane,” which was issued on April 5. This clue, later negated by news from Australia’s prime minister, has now become grounds for certain U.S. media to mock China. They complain with the borrowed voices of anonymous U.S. Defense Department officials and analysts that China’s announcement was “intended to project competence, but only served to distract and delay the search effort.”

  

MH 370 has been missing for 40 days now; affirmation and negation, negative and affirmative clues abound, so why does the U.S. media pick at China’s wounds? This is beyond the understanding of any self-respecting Chinese citizen, who may also reasonably feel severely offended. In truth, the U.S. media is hiding contradictions within its report — not in the divisions between the U.S. and Chinese surrounding China’s management of the Malaysian flight incident, but in inciting the antagonistic mood between China and Malaysia.

There is still no trace of MH 370, and the U.S. media indicates China is to blame. Actually, wishing to vilify China, other countries participating in the search — especially those Southeast Asian countries which already feel opposed China — also intend to provoke the Chinese people’s antipathy against government policy, thus killing two birds with one stone. So while this report states that “at present, many ships in the south Indian Ocean participating in the search are Chinese ships,” on the other hand it describes the Chinese government’s humanitarian sentiments and responsible image as a world power as “a prime opportunity for the Chinese government to demonstrate its determination and technological abilities to its domestic audience.” However, The New York Times’ dishonoring taunts have instead provided an unexpected lesson in patriotism for many Chinese.

Actually, speaking of delays, since contact was lost with the Malaysian flight, there has been all kinds of chaotic information indicating north then south, east then west, raising the suspicions of people all over the world. Analyzing this in a more benevolent way, perhaps technology fell short; casting a more suspicious eye on the situation, perhaps there is an inside story that is difficult to uncover. However, certain U.S. media have entirely ignored the fact that the search technology may not have been up to the task, instead using the first clue that China publicized and that may have been proved to have been in error, using “hinder” to indicate blame. This kind of prejudice has already extended beyond the realm of a discussion of technology, towards disparaging a nation’s dignity. In the eyes of the Chinese people, this is unacceptable.

  

Objectively, when the facts of this Malaysian flight do someday come to light, it certainly will be possible to find disparities by comparing science and technology levels as well as between military and civil use. Even if the results are never clear, in comparing Chinese technology with that of other developed nations, the disparity is obvious. However, as “at present, many ships in the south Indian Ocean participating in the search are Chinese ships” — this exhibits China’s indefatigable pursuit of the missing souls, showing its muscle in the purest sense. One may see a kind of “political disunity” concerning human nature, morality and responsibility in the demeanor of certain U.S. media as they pursue their nation’s interests. This hides their motives — certainly Chinese people would be included in this — and there is a basic ability to determine right and wrong that people feel to be beneath them.

To ramble on in a different direction now. The media uses freedom of the press as an excuse. Whatever the political background or position, it is not worth China getting angry. MH 370 has been missing for 40 days, and there are only a few reports like the one in The New York Times which invert the truth to blame China. It’s not that other countries or other media are not brave enough to criticize China, but that the Chinese government and people performed blamelessly, if not flawlessly. Even in America, web users harshly critiqued this New York Times article.

So regardless of whether it’s the Chinese government or the Chinese people, with regard to this kind of media scandal, the best attitude which displays the dignity of a world power is not one of anger, nor of rebuttal, but one with an unwavering passion to promote the development of science and technology and continue the search for those missing souls. Even if there is only one last boat remaining in the Indian Ocean, suspended from that boat will certainly be the five-starred red flag of China. What China needs is to turn the warping and disparaging style of the New York Times article into a kind of motivation or energy, seeing the disparity of its own technological might, and thereby advance the solidity of its technical and equipment strength, becoming a major component of future national dignity.

Value the lives of the missing a bit more seriously, regard this groundless ridicule a little more lightly. This is the only fitting manner for a world power. China has no need for anger.

About this publication


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply