Learning from Dogs

Putting on a face with deadly consequences!

I worked for 10 years at ISUGA, a school in Quimper, France dedicated to multi-cultural understanding and international co-operation in business. This was an extremely rich experience at a school where the majority of the foreign students were Chinese.

The campus at ISUGA, Quimper, France

It is also, incidentally, the place where I had to good fortune to meet Jon Lavin and Paul Handover, fellow authors on Learning from Dogs.

I like to think that I have always been sensitive to the cultural differences between different nationalities. Having lived abroad for long periods in both France and Germany, the idea of living in a sort of English enclave somewhere, jealously guarding such cultural practices as endless burgers and fish and chips, is totally anathema to me.

I am human first and English second and if I live in Germany, France or anywhere else I want to live like the natives as far as possible …

This also means making an effort to understand and accept their “culture”. Now this normally poses no problem, but with my Asian friends there is one aspect of their culture that I could not accept. And of course, if one DOES put one’s humanity first, then there is always the risk that the culture of one’s hosts – in some respect – may have to take second place. The “culture ” of Germany in the 1930s was fascist, and I certainly could not have lived with that.

No, what causes me problems with Asians (and particularly Chinese) is this question of “FACE”. One is supposed – and one learns this on “cultural-understanding” courses for businessmen (which of course I organised at my school!!) – to so arrange things that EVEN IF the Asian negotiating counterpart is a complete fool and/or makes the most idiotic errors one must ALWAYS find a way to avoid humiliating them in any way.

Well, “humiliating” is too strong a word in fact … one is supposed to arrange things that they never seem to be in an “inferior” position in any way.

My problem with this is that it is in fact the antithesis of everything this site stands for, which is integrity, truth and honesty. Now if a negotiating partner does in fact make some sort of mistake then to pretend otherwise just to preserve their “face” is dishonest, isn’t it?  And what are we in fact preserving? An IMAGE and not the reality.

Claudia S

It is, in fact, totally AGAINST the Human Spirit. We are all fallible. I know of no perfect men or women (though Claudia Schiffer comes close ). It is simply DISHONEST to deny this to preserve “FACE”.

The current British government could have done with learning this lesson. For YEARS there was never ANY acceptance that, yes – perhaps – they might have got some things wrong. Funnily enough, this is coming now in short bursts, but not enough to be convincing – shame!

“FACE” is of course a FACADE.  I no longer am interest in facades, but the truth. But the worse aspect of this Asian FACE thing is that it is so totally accepted by them (and by us, but that’s our fault) as being “normal” and acceptable. No, it is NOT acceptable.

The stimulus for this post came from the recent execution of a British drug-smuggler in China. Now it is quite clear from what has been revealed that this guy was A) not fully compos mentis and B) was set up as a mule by a handler. He was caught, tried, sentenced to death and executed by the Chinese. No, I have no sympathy for drug-smugglers, but Mr “Big” he was not.

What muddied the waters even more was that the British Prime Minister made a special plea for clemency, which might very well in normal cases have been granted. But these were not normal circumstances. Just before this incident the British had severely criticized the Chinese for their stance on Global Warming at the Copenhagen Conference. Now, ANY criticism of the CPP (Chinese Communist Party) is likely to be taken as a “loss of face”. One suspects – but there is no way to know – that the Chinese refusal to listen to Prime Minister Brown’s very strong plea for clemency was the CPP’s way of putting the British government in its place and restoring its “face”.

The point is, BEING WRONG is HUMAN. Pretending to be RIGHT all the time is NOT HUMAN. It is IMPOSSIBLE. We should accept this and learn humility. Sadly, the words “humility” and “Chinese Communist Party” are unlikely bedfellows.

By Chris Snuggs

[When Chris wrote this Post, he was unaware of one that I had written that was published on the 28th.  Interesting parallels! Ed.]

A sad story just becomes …. well, sadder.

Only the most discerning of news-followers will have picked up the fact that the British government has recently abandoned a long-held position on Tibet and now fully recognizes China’s direct rule over the country.

Map of Tibet

A recent article in the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, explains all this far better than I could, but what intrigues me is WHY this has been done now and WHAT concessions have been made by China.

In truth, the Chinese Communist Party is not renowned for making concessions, so one suspects that the Tibetans have simply been sold down the river to gain general political kudos with the Chinese government, even though the former have an extremely good case in their claim for autonomy within China (independence having been abandoned in the cause of realism). Of course, Britain, France, the US and other western states are the world champions of freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination, aren’t they? Well, perhaps not …..

As far as Learning from Dogs is concerned, the main question is that of integrity. Should we simply change our political policies for convenience? Labour government ministers and indeed even Chris Patten, former Conservative Governor of Hong Kong, have referred to the previous view on Tibetan independence as “a quaint eccentricity”. However, I very much doubt whether the Tibetans – who after all live there and form the majority (or at least DID until they were ethnically-swamped by the Han Chinese) – would consider as an eccentricity the overnight and unheralded abandonment of yet one more hope in their fight for justice.

If the previous position was right for nearly 100 years then why is it suddenly wrong? What happened? Were we wrong all that time and have suddenly seen the light? That couldn’t be for reasons of expediency, could it?

Tibetan girl

And what HAVE the British gained? Apparently, there was no attempt to gain anything, since “The Chinese were not pushing for this.” Well, if they weren’t, then why give it? As it happens, the rather pathetic Dalai Lama is engaged in yet more “negotiations” with the CPP. I can just imagine the smirks on the Chinese side. The Tibetans didn’t have many cards to start with; now their only  Ace has been well and truly trumped.

By Chris Snuggs

Transcripts from our bug in the Ministry of Misinformation, Whitehall, London

Good morning, Perkins ….

If you say so, Sir

Oh Dear …. I can tell there’s something wrong, Perkins … you’d better get it off your chest.

It’s this Tibet business, Sir, …

Tibet! Goodness me, Perkins! You do worry about such small things!

I wouldn’t exactly call Tibet, small, Sir.

But it’s thousands of miles away, Perkins, in a country of which we know little, and the British people even less.

Perhaps, but no man is an island and all that …

Perkins, we do have work to do, you know!

But nobody takes the Tibetans’ rights, seriously, Sir.

Well, it depends what you mean by “seriously”, Perkins.

But they are an occupied people! The Chinese Han are ethnically-swamping them! If the Americans did that to the Canadians, for example, there’d be all hell let loose …

Oh come, come, Perkins! You can’t compare Canadians to Tibetans! The latter are an underdeveloped, uncivilized race! The Chinese are bringing them into the modern world. They’re investing billions in the country.

Yes, to turn Tibet into a part of China, with Han culture …

But it is part of China, Perkins.

Only because the Chinese seized it by force. What right do they actually have to rule Tibet? Until they started moving millions of Chinese into the country there were practically no Chinese there at all. It was a thousand-year-old and totally different – and to the Chinese Han – alien culture.

What right, Perkins? Well, I’m sorry to disillusion you, but their bigger army gave them the right and after all, possession is nine-tenths of the law!

But they are so arrogant. And so-called democracies don’t say a word. India has even banned a march by a few hundred exiled Tibetans. The west continues to trade with and enrich China so that it can buy arms to oppress its minorities. It’s sickening, Sir.

Only if you have a conscience, Perkins. I’m sorry to see you are still afflicted by conscience.

I don’t think you are taking this seriously, Sir.

I am, Perkins; it’s just that nothing can be done.

You mean, nothing that doesn’t hurt us a bit, don’t you Sir?

Well, that goes without saying, Perkins! Do you really think the British consumer is going to accept to have to pay more for his DVD-recorder just to put a bit of pressure on China!!!

I’m sorry, Sir. It stinks. China supports North Korea, and they’ve just executed 15 people just for trying to flee the country. When North Koreans do get out of the hell of their regime, the Chinese often send them back. And yet we allow them to hold the Olympic Games! To set doves free in a gesture of peace! It is horrible, Sir.

Yes, Perkins. It’s called politics.

But it is preposterously hypocritical, Sir. Have you read “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?

Not recently, Perkins …

Well, what about this bit in Article 21?

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Well, what about it, Perkins?

Well, members of the UN are supposed to subscribe to that, aren’t they, Sir? But a majority don’t, do they? China certainly doesn’t, does it?

I’m not sure I can answer three questions at once, Perkins. But I’ll give it some thought over the weekend …….

And what are you doing over the weekend, Sir?

As it happens, Perkins, I’m playing golf with the Chinese Ambassador …..

By Chris Snuggs

“To say nothing, especially when speaking, is half the art of diplomacy.” Quote by Will Durant.

During his China visit Obama said that “the US accepted that Tibet was part of China, but went on to push for the early resumption of talks between China and the Dalai Lama.”

This is the usual fatuous “appeal” issued by Western worthies to the Chinese Communist Dictatorship to act honourably towards people it dislikes. As ever, it is a waste of breath, but a diplomatic ritual that has to be endured.

Obama knows it is pointless, the Chinese pretend to listen but also know it is pointless as nothing will change. We all know – or should – that it is pointless. Why then do they do it? You can’t call it self-delusion since nobody is deluded. Frankly, I am not sure what to call it.

Of course, the Chinese claim to Tibet varies from ludicrous through spurious to extremely questionable at best …..

… and Taiwan is a free and independent state, and more to the point democratic. It is a disgrace that free, democratic countries have never recognized it.

The truth (that’s what we want, isn’t it?) is that the CCP is a murderous and illegitimate dictatorship, never having submitted itself to a vote. This may of course be very wise on their part, but it isn’t honest, is it?

In the way of dictatorships, it is quite prepared to massacre its own citizens to protect its power, as happened in the seemingly long-forgotten Tiananmen Square. It is a pity that the free world seems compelled to overlook all this in grovelling to China. We have to deal with them, but issuing fatuous appeals, come on ….

I wonder what the parents of those killed by the CCP thought as doves of freedom were released over Beijing during the last Olympic Games?

By Chris Snuggs

[Footnote from the Editor. This is a hard-hitting Post about the reality of relations between the USA and China. It is a reminder of the truth about such relationships. Readers may want to view this to understand also the reality of trade with China. Some of the images are deeply disturbing.]