Why so many French attended the anti-China protest?

Le Métèque,

Thank you for your effort to make room for the communication between the east and the west, which is really the key to solve the current misunderstanding and related problems.
I read your last blog(Why are the French angry too - 为什么法国人也生气?), which is really interesting and helpful. However, I would like to present the other side of story from some Chinese and westerners:
1. Why the Chinese extinguished the flame?
answers most of your questions about the Chinese security service ("trampling underfoot French sovereignty" and thugs blah blah blah).
The most interesting part is rumours around the blue-men, referred as thugs in London.
For all I know, neither the IOC nor the Chinese authority have admitted that those blue-men are Chinese police. I cannot find any solid evidence to prove that they are actually Chinese police either. Apparently they didn't come to Paris as Chinese police in police uniforms, and they were not functioning as police either. So who in the first place tried the find the identity of those blue-men and why he wanted to?
Who do they work for and what do they protect? For the first question you may answer " the Chinese government". Yet the answer is false. They were "employed" by the Chinese branch of IOC. The so-called Chinese authority is NOT the Chinese government, but BOCOG(The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad). The employment is approved by the IOC, which is an international organization. Will you call people who work for IOC "the Chinese police"? Now you may laugh out saying "who are you trying to fool? we all know that the Chinese government is behind BOCOG" Exactly, but what's the matter here? Those blue-men were hired not as police, not to appear as police, not to "function" as police. So I really cannot understand the obsession with whether they are police or not. What they were protecting in Paris is the flame, which is NOT possession of the Chinese government or China. The flame belongs to all human beings in the world. So did they protect the wrong thing? And how the hell does protecting the world's flame has anything to do with whether the protectors are Chinese police or not?
Let's assume those blue-men were Chinese police. Then they were fired. Then they were employed by the IOC as protectors. Then they came to Paris to protect the flame. If so would French still feel that these men were "trampling underfoot French sovereignty"? If so would you feel better?

The French cameraman, knowing his rights, would only accept to get removed by anyone else but a French policeman. He believes the Chinese will not bother asking the French police to remove him, as he believes this would be absolutely outrageous - as he broke no rule, he's got the needed clearance, and that under any circumstances, the French policemen are not supposed to take orders from the Chinese.

You clearly noticed that it was not the Chinese who removed the French cameramen, it was the French policemen who removed the French cameramen. That means, the Chinese DID NOT exercise the right which was not given to him. It was the French policemen who exercised his right (given by the French law) to remove him. So how was the French sovereignty "trampled underfoot"? The police of course were not supposed to take orders from the Chinese, unless the Chinese is NOT ONLY a Chinese. So who was he? I don't know. You(and many others) don't know either. Let me give you some of my imaginations:
1) He is a French Chinese officer in the police department.
2) He is a Chinese in the BOCOG.
3) He is a Chinese in the IOC.
4) He is a "Chinese" Chinese working for the Chinese government.
5) He is a Chinese student in France.
Which one will you pick? Which one will the guy pick, the guy who made you feel " the French sovereignty was trampled underfoot" and wonder who those blue-men are?
(to be continued)

(continued)
3), so Carrefour's clarification was completely ignored until the state-run media put it into people's sight after the French envoys' arrival.
There have been rumours that Chinese government actually "supported" the boycott. This is totally irresponsible. At the beginning, when the boycott call first appeared on the internet, the Chinese government didn't pay attention to it. Soon the situation got worse, more and more people knew this(power of modern technology). And the demonstration broke out in some second-tier cities. Then it was not possible to put it down. At first, the demonstration also can be taken as a pressure against the French government(that's why politics is dirty). Beijing needs France's support for the Olympics, that's a chance to impose pressure on the French government, so that Sarkozy could change his mind and stop playing games with Beijing. That's why the first one or two demonstration happened. But the nationalism has already got burnt. It's impossible to put it down soon. So there were around 12 cities involved finally before Beijing eventually cooled down the nationalism. Yet none of these demonstrations focused on what happened in Paris. This pic

demonstrated the real reasons. It was far more than "losing face".
Every time I see a westerner come up with the idea "losing face" I just can't help laughing out. "Face" is not like what you thought. "Face" is not as important to Chinese now as it used to be. That's far more than "face".
Another western thing annoying me is that westerners tend to think of themselves individually, while tend to think of Chinese collectively. When they see some Chinese, they immediately go to a vague image of Chinese people, yet it is only a ghost which never exists. Chinese people, like others in this world, should be viewed individually. They don't the SAME thing. They are not ROBERTS. They have their thoughts and emotions. They take different actions. They move in different directions.
Those who actually demonstrated against Carrefour amounted to less than 500,000 as I guess. Those who tried to stop others shopping in Carrefour amounted to less than 1,000 as I guess. There are nearly 1.4 billion people in China. Most of them are silent. So the generalization of Chinese or my Chinese friends is totally meaningless here. Most of (including some who went to demonstrate against Carrefour) won't give a damn about how the outside think of them, or how the outside "should think of the Chinese". Just like most of French don't care what's going on in China at all. There are crazy people in every country. Given the assumption that the proportion is the same, is 500,000 a large number compared with France's number? They are just similar to people in Paris who shouted "Free Tibet" aloud. Most of them don't really care what's going on, nor they know what's actually going on(in Tibet or in France). They might not locate Tibet or France on the map. They might not know whether Tibetans were treated that bad or whether the French government should be responsible for the attack on Jin Jing. The only difference between them, is that one group fighting for "universal value" like human rights and freedom, while the other group fighting for "national stability" or even "face"(laugh out when I type "face"). There are some more thoughts .
Unless both the west and the east can view each other individually not collectively, abandon all kinds of stereotypes and try to develop a comprehensive understanding of each other, the current misunderstanding will go on and on.
4. Paris and the city government
If I have to find someone to blame and to punish(I hate to do so), I would choose "Le maire PS de Paris Bertrand Delanoë".
1) The city government's ineffectiveness. It "failed" to stop sending a wrong message.(or it wanted to in fact.) Some may argue that France is a democracy, people have the right to speak out, the freedom of speech is protected here blah blah blah...I totally agree. Those protesters have every right to protest, no matter they are Tibetans or French. But the miserable thing is the city government let the protesters' voice become its own voice, by failing(really?) to stop hanging out that Tibet flag.
2) Paris' honoring Dalai Lama. After French envoys' arrival and meeting with Chinese leadership, Paris announced that "she" honors Dalai Lama. Most Chinese don't give a damn on which city honors Dalai Lama(and Hu Jia-another topic). Paris did this only to slap the French government. When Sarkozy sent his envoy, and Chinese people's old friend Chirac sent Raffarin, perceived by French people as "the kneeling of our leaders in front of their Chinese masters", Bertrand Delanoë pushed to honor Dalai Lama. It didn't hurt Chinese or China at all. It only made another excuse for the Chinese government to bargain. Chirac made great efforts to establish a worm relation with China, which benefits both sides. Will the French government do nothing to see the relation hurt? I doubt that. It is not Chinese people who made your leaders "kowtow", however the pressure came from the inside. Don't shoot the wrong people please.
3) A big liar. I know freedom of speech is valued in the west(and in the east too, just not as much as in the west). But have you noticed who in the first place wanted to violate the freedom of speech? It was the city government. The torch relay required a lot of arrangements involving the local government and the BOCOG. There was a pre-arrangement that the police will take orders from BOTH sides.(That's why you see the policemen took the Chinese's order to remove the cameramen. That Chinese, for my guess, worked for BOCOG, which had the right to "order" the policemen, not because it has Chinese government backup, but because it's part of IOC. It's non-political, nor it "trampled underfoot the French sovereignty". All cities agree the same, even in Canberra where Kevin Rubb didn't agree to let the blue-men in). What's interesting for Paris is that the city government promised NOT to approve the pro-Tibet demonstration before the torch relay. In a way it can be taken as violation of freedom of speech and also a huge compromise, which was not the case in London. However, after the torch relay began, the Chinese side actually found that the city government approved the demonstration and there were more than 3000 pro-Tibet demonstrators. Yes the city government defended the freedom of speech, by turning itself into a liar. Is it ironic? I still cannot understand why it did this. If it need to approve the demonstration, then it should do it and make it clear in the first place. Yet it didn't. It made a promise then broke it. That leaves me a big question, is Bertrand Delanoë reliable? I don't know. But I don't want to answer it anyways.
5. Bad impression of French people
You have said that many protesters were actually not French, including the ones who attacked Jin Jing. That's true. But there are also many protesters(mostly youth) were French. And there were witness accounts reflective of French people's bad behaviour(not non-violent at all). There were also videos and pics showing that. I would say many Chinese who were in Paris then were seriously hurt not because there were demonstrations against China or there was the so-called media bias but because French people's hostility.
(to be con't)

(continued)
6.Sarkozy

they never said anything worse about China or Tibet that the German Chancellor or the British Premier didn't say first.

I don't want to talk about politics. I hate politics. And politics is dirty. NOTE: Below is only MY opinion, which can be totally wrong.
If Sarkozy wanted to follow the German Chancellor, Chirac would send his envoy sooner than we could see. The Germany-China relation has been seriously damaged since her meeting with Dalai Lama. Both Germany and China have paid for it. And I am sure Sarkozy doesn't want to see a similar damage to the France-China relation.
The British Premier, who is also gonna meet Dalai later on, has communicated with China about that, which was really appreciated by China. So the British Premier's absence was nothing at all, especially when he was not threatening.
But Sarkozy made a mistake I think. He can be absent in the opening ceremony of course. China doesn't expect world leaders to attend the ceremony so eagerly. But Sarkozy said he would consider to boycott Olympics if blah blah blah. That's the mistake. If he didn't want to come, then don't, just make up an excuse. But he gave China some pre-conditions, only if these pre-conditions are satisfied would he come. It's nothing but threatening. This is the last thing that China wanted to see. You may ask what's wrong about it, his requirements were right and good. Nothing wrong with it except the way it was presented.
In the west, if you care about somebody, then criticize him to let him know his drawbacks. But in the east, if you care about somebody, don't criticize him. The only way to convey a friendly message is implicit suggestion, not criticizing. Things like freedom of speech, religious freedom, human rights are also accepted by Chinese people, there is nothing wrong to improve these in Tibet(and in other parts of China). But the current message from the west in completely considered hostile not friendly. That's why you see Chinese people protested against the west even if the Chinese government didn't push it.
BTW: Now Brown decided to come to the opening ceremony and China offers talk with Dalai Lama. Don't take this as China's compromise. It's not. It serves to save the relation between China and France. It is a friendly reply to the French government's action. What would Sarkozy do? I don't know. But I bet he will come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am totally aware what I gave you is one-sided. But it's supposed to be one-sided because I suspect that side is the one which is often neglected in the west.
China is always misinterpreted in the west, as the west is always misinterpreted in China. That's why mutual understanding is so important. So I really appreciated you efforts and this great site.
Some suggestions:
Don't misunderstand Chinese people's voice because they are new in the stage.
Don't make your values theirs because they have a different value system.
Don't take a good number of Chinese as ALL Chinese because ALL French population is no more than that of a province in China, not a big one.
Don't pity them because you are not in a morally or intellectually higher position to.
Do try to listen to them because listening is the first step to understand.
Do try to put yourself into their shoes because they are so culturally and historically different.
Do find an acceptable way to convey your message because courtesy has a different definition in China.
Do view them individually because stereotypes are already dated and mostly wrong.

The west and the east are so different. But that's why communication between the two are so exciting. Thanks again for your effort. I really love France and so do many other Chinese people. They don't hate France or its people(the same way with every other country). I have tried to learn French but eventually gave up. But I still have to say:
Merci.
J'aime la France!

Le Métèque,

Thank you for your effort to make room for the communication between the east and the west, which is really the key to solve the current misunderstanding and related problems.
I read your last blog(Why are the French angry too - 为什么法国人也生气?), which is really interesting and helpful. However, I would like to present the other side of story from some Chinese and westerners:
1. Why the Chinese extinguished the flame?
[url=http://luchan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B4B321552DC8CF71!12128.entry]Here[/url] is a Chinese journalist's explanation. (It's in Chinese. I don't have time to translate it but I think you may understand Chinese since you claim to be half-Chinese)
One thing you didn't mention in your blog is what happened in front of the city hall. There was a Tibetan flag on the city wall, which was interpreted as a governmental gesture of supporting separatism.
Here are two things I need to clarify. French people may think a Tibetan flag does not necessarily mean separatism. French thought they used the Tibetan flag to express their support for human rights and freedom. However, the Tibetan flag is a political symbol. That flag has never been approved to appear in any occasion, from the UN to the IOC. It is neither acceptable in China. There are only three territories of China have their own flags: Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan(let's not argue about that.), while Tibet is not one of them. So basically a Tibet flag means separatism to Chinese and the Chinese government. A banner will be way better for French to express their support for human rights and freedom. The Tibet flag is a total mistake.
The second is that the Tibet flag appeared on the city hall, which is another political symbol. The city hall means the government. So how would Chinese think of a Tibetan flag on the city hall? They only considered it as a governmental support for separatism. I believe neither the French government nor the city government wanted to send such a message. However, it's their fault not to stop the message being sent. You could argue that the Tibet flag was not hung out by the government. But that's not the Chinese authority and people's fault to "misinterpret" the message. So basically the (city) government is the author of its misfortune.
I agree that extinguishing the flame is a punishment to an innocent person and is undeniably wrong. But I also think that messing Olympics with politics is undeniably wrong and disgusting.
Besides, I can hardly believe that the French police was "effective". Let's take a look at the torch relay in London and Canberra. In the two places there are also democracy and freedom of speech however the circus in Paris didn't happen(not to mention the attack on Jin Jing. Frenchmen should really feel ashamed about it).So who is to blame? I heard that the commissioner for the Metropolitan Police felt ashamed after watching the torch relay in Canberra, should his French counterpart feel the same?
(to be continued)

(con't)
2. About the blue-white "thugs"
Have you ever sensed the undercurrent of racist sentiment in the current China bashing? Well, some Chinese and westerner have. This article(in English) answers most of your questions about the Chinese security service ("trampling underfoot French sovereignty" and thugs blah blah blah).
The most interesting part is rumours around the blue-men, referred as thugs in London.
For all I know, neither the IOC nor the Chinese authority have admitted that those blue-men are Chinese police. I cannot find any solid evidence to prove that they are actually Chinese police either. Apparently they didn't come to Paris as Chinese police in police uniforms, and they were not functioning as police either. So who in the first place tried the find the identity of those blue-men and why he wanted to?
Who do they work for and what do they protect? For the first question you may answer " the Chinese government". Yet the answer is false. They were "employed" by the Chinese branch of IOC. The so-called Chinese authority is NOT the Chinese government, but BOCOG(The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad). The employment is approved by the IOC, which is an international organization. Will you call people who work for IOC "the Chinese police"? Now you may laugh out saying "who are you trying to fool? we all know that the Chinese government is behind BOCOG" Exactly, but what's the matter here? Those blue-men were hired not as police, not to appear as police, not to "function" as police. So I really cannot understand the obsession with whether they are police or not. What they were protecting in Paris is the flame, which is NOT possession of the Chinese government or China. The flame belongs to all human beings in the world. So did they protect the wrong thing? And how the hell does protecting the world's flame has anything to do with whether the protectors are Chinese police or not?
Let's assume those blue-men were Chinese police. Then they were fired. Then they were employed by the IOC as protectors. Then they came to Paris to protect the flame. If so would French still feel that these men were "trampling underfoot French sovereignty"? If so would you feel better?

The French cameraman, knowing his rights, would only accept to get removed by anyone else but a French policeman. He believes the Chinese will not bother asking the French police to remove him, as he believes this would be absolutely outrageous - as he broke no rule, he's got the needed clearance, and that under any circumstances, the French policemen are not supposed to take orders from the Chinese.

You clearly noticed that it was not the Chinese who removed the French cameramen, it was the French policemen who removed the French cameramen. That means, the Chinese DID NOT exercise the right which was not given to him. It was the French policemen who exercised his right (given by the French law) to remove him. So how was the French sovereignty "trampled underfoot"? The police of course were not supposed to take orders from the Chinese, unless the Chinese is NOT ONLY a Chinese. So who was he? I don't know. You(and many others) don't know either. Let me give you some of my imaginations:
1) He is a French Chinese officer in the police department.
2) He is a Chinese in the BOCOG.
3) He is a Chinese in the IOC.
4) He is a "Chinese" Chinese working for the Chinese government.
5) He is a Chinese student in France.
Which one will you pick? Which one will the guy pick, the guy who made you feel " the French sovereignty was trampled underfoot" and wonder who those blue-men are?
(to be con't)

(con't)
3. The Carrefour boycott and demonstration
First of all I have to say that I was totally AGAINST boycotting Carrefour or any Made-in-France from the VERY beginning and I made every effort to persuade people NOT boycotting Carrefour. There were many many people who held the same opinion and did the same as I did. The debate whether to boycott Carrefour actually was the hottest topic on all Chinese media( TV, newspapers, internet). I think the two sides had similar number of supporters. Even CCTV the mouthpiece of the Chinese government presented the two different voices and "suggested" not to boycott Carrfour(which incurred disparagement to CCTV). This is BEFORE the French leadership "knelt in front of their Chinese masters". Did you know this? I don't think so. The debate didn't stop until the French government sent its three envoys, who were welcomed by the Chinese government and many Chinese people, taking this as a good gesture to improve the hurt relation between the two countries, not as kowtowing to the Chinese government.
Secondly, Chinese people boycotted Carrefour not because China "lost face" in France, but because Carrefour's biggest shareholder(LVMH Bernard Arnault) allegedly supported the "Free Tibet" campaign. This is clearly stated in the original boycott message circulating via cell phone and internet. Therefore attributing the boycott to the Chinese sentimentalism is kinda joking.
The whole "boycott Carrefour" thing is more interesting than you currently know. I know some westerners think that the Chinese government has a PR problem with the Tibet issue. Ironically, the PR inefficiency also contributed to the boycott, only this time it was Carrefour and the French government's PR problem. I cannot give you the whole picture now. For a rough sense, you can read [url=http://luchan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B4B321552DC8CF71!12548.entry]this(in Chinese)[/url] and this. You can also do some research on Carrefour's stupid sales promotions(which is a real disaster and mistake and ignorant of basic local knowledge) and French embassy Hervé LADSOUS's interview(which happened to be a bad time and killed Carrefour's last hope, and which can be found arrogant by Chinese people).
There was once a chance that Carrefour and LVMH's clarification that they have nothing to do with Dalai Lama can be accepted by the Chinese netizens. Yet Hervé LADSOUS said the wrong words at the wrong time(although I agreed with him), so Carrefour's clarification was completely ignored until the state-run media put it into people's sight after the French envoys' arrival.
There have been rumours that Chinese government actually "supported" the boycott. This is totally irresponsible. At the beginning, when the boycott call first appeared on the internet, the Chinese government didn't pay attention to it. Soon the situation got worse, more and more people knew this(power of modern technology). And the demonstration broke out in some second-tier cities. Then it was not possible to put it down. At first, the demonstration also can be taken as a pressure against the French government(that's why politics is dirty). Beijing needs France's support for the Olympics, that's a chance to impose pressure on the French government, so that Sarkozy could change his mind and stop playing games with Beijing. That's why the first one or two demonstration happened. But the nationalism has already got burnt. It's impossible to put it down soon. So there were around 12 cities involved finally before Beijing eventually cooled down the nationalism. Yet none of these demonstrations focused on what happened in Paris. This pic

demonstrated the real reasons. It was far more than "losing face".
Every time I see a westerner come up with the idea "losing face" I just can't help laughing out. "Face" is not like what you thought. "Face" is not as important to Chinese now as it used to be. That's far more than "face".
Another western thing annoying me is that westerners tend to think of themselves individually, while tend to think of Chinese collectively. When they see some Chinese, they immediately go to a vague image of Chinese people, yet it is only a ghost which never exists. Chinese people, like others in this world, should be viewed individually. They don't the SAME thing. They are not ROBERTS. They have their thoughts and emotions. They take different actions. They move in different directions.
Those who actually demonstrated against Carrefour amounted to less than 500,000 as I guess. Those who tried to stop others shopping in Carrefour amounted to less than 1,000 as I guess. There are nearly 1.4 billion people in China. Most of them are silent. So the generalization of Chinese or my Chinese friends is totally meaningless here. Most of (including some who went to demonstrate against Carrefour) won't give a damn about how the outside think of them, or how the outside "should think of the Chinese". Just like most of French don't care what's going on in China at all. There are crazy people in every country. Given the assumption that the proportion is the same, is 500,000 a large number compared with France's number? They are just similar to people in Paris who shouted "Free Tibet" aloud. Most of them don't really care what's going on, nor they know what's actually going on(in Tibet or in France). They might not locate Tibet or France on the map. They might not know whether Tibetans were treated that bad or whether the French government should be responsible for the attack on Jin Jing. The only difference between them, is that one group fighting for "universal value" like human rights and freedom, while the other group fighting for "national stability" or even "face"(laugh out when I type "face"). There are some more thoughts [url=http://kaiyin2008.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!23232804947D3738!1054.entry]here(in Chinese)[/url].
Unless both the west and the east can view each other individually not collectively, abandon all kinds of stereotypes and try to develop a comprehensive understanding of each other, the current misunderstanding will go on and on.
(to be con't)

(con't)
4. Paris and the city government
If I have to find someone to blame and to punish(I hate to do so), I would choose "Le maire PS de Paris Bertrand Delanoë".
1) The city government's ineffectiveness. It "failed" to stop sending a wrong message.(or it wanted to in fact.) Some may argue that France is a democracy, people have the right to speak out, the freedom of speech is protected here blah blah blah...I totally agree. Those protesters have every right to protest, no matter they are Tibetans or French. But the miserable thing is the city government let the protesters' voice become its own voice, by failing(really?) to stop hanging out that Tibet flag.
2) Paris' honoring Dalai Lama. After French envoys' arrival and meeting with Chinese leadership, Paris announced that "she" honors Dalai Lama. Most Chinese don't give a damn on which city honors Dalai Lama(and Hu Jia-another topic). Paris did this only to slap the French government. When Sarkozy sent his envoy, and Chinese people's old friend Chirac sent Raffarin, perceived by French people as "the kneeling of our leaders in front of their Chinese masters", Bertrand Delanoë pushed to honor Dalai Lama. It didn't hurt Chinese or China at all. It only made another excuse for the Chinese government to bargain. Chirac made great efforts to establish a worm relation with China, which benefits both sides. Will the French government do nothing to see the relation hurt? I doubt that. It is not Chinese people who made your leaders "kowtow", however the pressure came from the inside. Don't shoot the wrong people please.
3) A big liar. I know freedom of speech is valued in the west(and in the east too, just not as much as in the west). But have you noticed who in the first place wanted to violate the freedom of speech? It was the city government. The torch relay required a lot of arrangements involving the local government and the BOCOG. There was a pre-arrangement that the police will take orders from BOTH sides.(That's why you see the policemen took the Chinese's order to remove the cameramen. That Chinese, for my guess, worked for BOCOG, which had the right to "order" the policemen, not because it has Chinese government backup, but because it's part of IOC. It's non-political, nor it "trampled underfoot the French sovereignty". All cities agree the same, even in Canberra where Kevin Rubb didn't agree to let the blue-men in). What's interesting for Paris is that the city government promised NOT to approve the pro-Tibet demonstration before the torch relay. In a way it can be taken as violation of freedom of speech and also a huge compromise, which was not the case in London. However, after the torch relay began, the Chinese side actually found that the city government approved the demonstration and there were more than 3000 pro-Tibet demonstrators. Yes the city government defended the freedom of speech, by turning itself into a liar. Is it ironic? I still cannot understand why it did this. If it need to approve the demonstration, then it should do it and make it clear in the first place. Yet it didn't. It made a promise then broke it. That leaves me a big question, is Bertrand Delanoë reliable? I don't know. But I don't want to answer it anyways.
5. Bad impression of French people
You have said that many protesters were actually not French, including the ones who attacked Jin Jing. That's true. But there are also many protesters(mostly youth) were French. And there were witness accounts reflective of French people's bad behaviour(not non-violent at all). There were also videos and pics showing that. I would say many Chinese who were in Paris then were seriously hurt not because there were demonstrations against China or there was the so-called media bias but because French people's hostility.
(to be con't)

(con't)
6.Sarkozy

they never said anything worse about China or Tibet that the German Chancellor or the British Premier didn't say first.

I don't want to talk about politics. I hate politics. And politics is dirty. NOTE: Below is only MY opinion, which can be totally wrong.
If Sarkozy wanted to follow the German Chancellor, Chirac would send his envoy sooner than we could see. The Germany-China relation has been seriously damaged since her meeting with Dalai Lama. Both Germany and China have paid for it. And I am sure Sarkozy doesn't want to see a similar damage to the France-China relation.
The British Premier, who is also gonna meet Dalai later on, has communicated with China about that, which was really appreciated by China. So the British Premier's absence was nothing at all, especially when he was not threatening.
But Sarkozy made a mistake I think. He can be absent in the opening ceremony of course. China doesn't expect world leaders to attend the ceremony so eagerly. But Sarkozy said he would consider to boycott Olympics if blah blah blah. That's the mistake. If he didn't want to come, then don't, just make up an excuse. But he gave China some pre-conditions, only if these pre-conditions are satisfied would he come. It's nothing but threatening. This is the last thing that China wanted to see. You may ask what's wrong about it, his requirements were right and good. Nothing wrong with it except the way it was presented.
In the west, if you care about somebody, then criticize him to let him know his drawbacks. But in the east, if you care about somebody, don't criticize him. The only way to convey a friendly message is implicit suggestion, not criticizing. Things like freedom of speech, religious freedom, human rights are also accepted by Chinese people, there is nothing wrong to improve these in Tibet(and in other parts of China). But the current message from the west in completely considered hostile not friendly. That's why you see Chinese people protested against the west even if the Chinese government didn't push it.
BTW: Now Brown decided to come to the opening ceremony and China offers talk with Dalai Lama. Don't take this as China's compromise. It's not. It serves to save the relation between China and France. It is a friendly reply to the French government's action. What would Sarkozy do? I don't know. But I bet he will come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am totally aware what I gave you is one-sided. But it's supposed to be one-sided because I suspect that side is the one which is often neglected in the west.
China is always misinterpreted in the west, as the west is always misinterpreted in China. That's why mutual understanding is so important. So I really appreciated you efforts and this great site.
Some suggestions:
Don't misunderstand Chinese people's voice because they are new in the stage.
Don't make your values theirs because they have a different value system.
Don't take a good number of Chinese as ALL Chinese because ALL French population is no more than that of a province in China, not a big one.
Don't pity them because you are not in a morally or intellectually higher position to.
Do try to listen to them because listening is the first step to understand.
Do try to put yourself into their shoes because they are so culturally and historically different.
Do find an acceptable way to convey your message because courtesy has a different definition in China.
Do view them individually because stereotypes are already dated and mostly wrong.

The west and the east are so different. But that's why communication between the two are so exciting. Thanks again for your effort. I really love France and so do many other Chinese people. They don't hate France or its people(the same way with every other country). I have tried to learn French but eventually gave up. But I still have to say:
Merci.
J'aime la France!

You clearly noticed that it was not the Chinese who removed the French cameramen, it was the French policemen who removed the French cameramen. That means, the Chinese DID NOT exercise the right which was not given to him. It was the French policemen who exercised his right (given by the French law) to remove him. So how was the French sovereignty "trampled underfoot"? The police of course were not supposed to take orders from the Chinese, unless the Chinese is NOT ONLY a Chinese.

Dear Netizen, please make the connections between the different parts of my article - as I told you we're angry after our authorities for allowing the Chinese to give orders on the relay, and have the French cops obey them. As I told you, in the first place, the Government and the Police shouldn't have left the authority to a foreign service, with a power that may affect French citizen on their own soil. Our sovereignty was trampled underfoot by our own authorities, and this is why we're angry after them - and technically, apart from people criticizing the government for its complete lack of respect towards its own citizen, there was nothing but angry people expressing themselves in the papers and over the internet. No-one started to throw rocks at the Chinese the day after, and actually it served pretty well to forge other Western governments opinion about how the Torch relay should proceed on their soil, like the Australian and the Japanese ones. We're angry about the handling of the situation by our authorities, because if Australia and Japan eventually refused the Chinese policemen presence and authority, so could "we" - but "we" didn't, and thus our politicians (seemingly kissing their Chinese counterparts' ass for pure awful business reasons as it seems) have failed to protect both the Torch AND their own citizen's rights properly.

But, again, if that was ever to happen on the Chinese soil, I seriously doubt the Chinese Government would be the one to be criticized, would they?

Le métèque - Admin wrote:

You clearly noticed that it was not the Chinese who removed the French cameramen, it was the French policemen who removed the French cameramen. That means, the Chinese DID NOT exercise the right which was not given to him. It was the French policemen who exercised his right (given by the French law) to remove him. So how was the French sovereignty "trampled underfoot"? The police of course were not supposed to take orders from the Chinese, unless the Chinese is NOT ONLY a Chinese.

Dear Netizen, please make the connections between the different parts of my article - as I told you we're angry after our authorities for allowing the Chinese to give orders on the relay, and have the French cops obey them. As I told you, in the first place, the Government and the Police shouldn't have left the authority to a foreign service, with a power that may affect French citizen on their own soil. Our sovereignty was trampled underfoot by our own authorities, and this is why we're angry after them - and technically, apart from people criticizing the government for its complete lack of respect towards its own citizen, there was nothing but angry people expressing themselves in the papers and over the internet. No-one started to throw rocks at the Chinese the day after, and actually it served pretty well to forge other Western governments opinion about how the Torch relay should proceed on their soil, like the Australian and the Japanese ones. We're angry about the handling of the situation by our authorities, because if Australia and Japan eventually refused the Chinese policemen presence and authority, so could "we" - but "we" didn't, and thus our politicians (seemingly kissing their Chinese counterparts' ass for pure awful business reasons as it seems) have failed to protect both the Torch AND their own citizen's rights properly.

But, again, if that was ever to happen on the Chinese soil, I seriously doubt the Chinese Government would be the one to be criticized, would they?

My friend, you only got french police and paris city council to complain. Why were those torch guards in paris? Because the torch replay organizer anticipated what's going to happen. And the reality proved the organizers were right. The situation would have been worse if there were no guards. If Australia and Japanese could guarante the torch relay not be interrupted badly, the organizer is happy to let the guards off their job as they did in Aus and Jap. In my opinion, they paris city council and paris police deliberately let the abti-china protester through. Call it conspiracy theory, but this is the fact: no anti-china protester was prosecuted!

I can't help laughing at your sovereignty story. If the media bus was actually rented by the torch relay organizer, they have every right to ask the french cameraman to leave the bus. It is not pretty or you can even say ugly, but they have the right to do so like it or not. The french are free to feel unhappy about it and I understand, but it has nothing to do with French sovereignty. If you rent an apartment in Beijing and you don't like the chinese guest you invited, you have the right to ask this chinese to leave. If he refuses, you have the right to call the police to remove him! It is called rule by law.

Why you guys are so persisted on the story of chinese policemen? These guys are indeed Chinese policemen (it was covered in chinese media long time ago), and were hired by torch relay oraganizer to protect the torch. However, they didn't come to France as policemen. They didn't function as police, what they did in paris did not exceed what a common citizen can do. Is it illegal for a common citizen (even a foreigner) to stop a protester from attacking the torch bearer? Absolutely not, even I am not an expert of french law. Therefore you don't need to be so sensational by insisting calling those guys chinese police.

Chinese government has been called "too soft" many times for kowtowing to Foreign pressure. It is not something new. You could go to chinese forum to see it. But I doubt many chinese would link what you described with sovereignty. I think most chinese would be satisfied because the chinese already humilate french on the street of beijing by showing support for the struggle of muslim youth against injustice in france and by letting anti-france protester interrupt the torch relay, so why not let french go crazy a little bit? You can't have everything, can't you?

By the way, did you see the code of conduct I posted. But I don't assume it will change any of your opinion.

Le métèque - Admin wrote:

You clearly noticed that it was not the Chinese who removed the French cameramen, it was the French policemen who removed the French cameramen. That means, the Chinese DID NOT exercise the right which was not given to him. It was the French policemen who exercised his right (given by the French law) to remove him. So how was the French sovereignty "trampled underfoot"? The police of course were not supposed to take orders from the Chinese, unless the Chinese is NOT ONLY a Chinese.

As I told you, in the first place, the Government and the Police shouldn't have left the authority to a foreign service, with a power that may affect French citizen on their own soil. Our sovereignty was trampled underfoot by our own authorities, and this is why we're angry after them

That's why I found French people's anger laughable. I can't help laughing out... Sovereignty, by definition, "is the exclusive right to complete political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other. "
"Our sovereignty was trampled underfoot by our own authorities, and this is why we're angry after them" So how could your own authority "trample underfoot" the French sovereignty when the authority itself IS part of the sovereignty?
That's why I felt sorry for your government. You blamed the wrong entity, like many Chinese.

Australia and Japan eventually refused the Chinese policemen presence and authority

Fact 1: No, they didn't eventually refused to let blue-men in. You can see blue-men during the torch relay in Australia and Japan.
Fact 2: As I have stated, those blue-men were not Chinese policemen.

No-one started to throw rocks at the Chinese the day after

There were only some shouting and glaring at Chinese after that. And some of your citizens have done something worse already. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAgOTXv8x5s

our politicians (seemingly kissing their Chinese counterparts' ass for pure awful business reasons as it seems) have failed to protect both the Torch AND their own citizen's rights properly.

I really feel sorry for your "central" government. They are so innocent. It was the city government that failed to protect the torch relay and their own citizens and hurt the relation between China and France. It was the "central" government that saved and improved the relation between China and France(also saved a lot of money and jobs). What kind of national pride French people have?
Firstly they blame the city government that it "left authority" to a foreign( which should be international as I have stated) service, taking it as "trampling underfoot the sovereign", although this is common practice in all kinds of international events.
Secondly they blame the politicians who tried to save a valuable but hurt relation because they "seemingly kissing their Chinese counterparts' ass for pure awful business reasons" while they actually just cleaned up the mess that a terrible city government left.

You were not listening anyways. No one is threatening France. Wake up my French friends!