This week, we're looking at reports on the deadly conflict in Ukraine, and how media have been targeting China. Are they giving you the whole picture or reshuffling the pieces to fit their narrative?
Some media are suggesting China is cheering Russia's military operations in Ukraine, rooting for violence! Others are just plain overlooking China's diplomatic efforts and relationship with Ukraine.
In times like this, it can be hard to know what's real and what's not, but facts cannot be ignored. Here are some:
The military conflict broke out on Feb. 24 at 4 in the morning and has been going on for almost two weeks.
So far, Russia says it has taken control of several areas in Ukraine, including the key city of Kherson in the south. The capital, Kyiv, however, hasn't been taken but shelling have been reported nearby. Russia has also secured control over Europe's largest nuclear power plant. To the temporary relief of everyone, the International Atomic Energy Agency has not reported any leak of dangerous radiation…
The United Nations on March 8th said it had so far recorded 474 civilian deaths and 861 injuries as a result of the conflict.
The Russian Defense Ministry said in early March that 498 Russian troops have died in Ukraine and almost 1,600 more wounded. Ukraine contested that, claiming over 11,000 Russian soldiers have died in fighting.
On the other side, Russia claims 2,870 Ukrainian troops have been killed and more than 3,500 wounded. While Ukraine has been reticent to share its own military casualty numbers.
Over 2 million refugees have fled since the conflict began, according to the United Nations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said the humanitarian situation is mounting. The ICRC said this humanitarian situation has actually been unfolding in eastern Ukraine over the past 8 years, but now the situation has mounted into a humanitarian disaster across the country.
Let's take a look at this:
"We already had a significant team in Ukraine, 600 colleagues in different cities, but of course now with the mounting humanitarian needs, we definitely need to beef up and scale up our presence, our logistical supplies in the country in order to match the humanitarian disaster."
Immediately, Russia's actions have sparked probably the harshest and most wide-ranging sanctions from the West, touching on finance, foreign assets, energy, technology, trade, media, shipping, sports, scientific research, and the arts. You name it.
Even Russian cats haven't been spared. The Fédération Internationale Féline, an international cat federation with members in about 40 countries, is banning Russian cats from its competitions for the next three months.
Artists who refused to denounce Putin's actions in Ukraine have been isolated from some Western companies. Top Russian conductor Valery Gergiev, for example, was fired by Munich Philharmonic orchestra after he refused to denounce Putin.
Meanwhile, the United Nations and other international organizations have been busy calling for calm. A resolution by the UN General Assembly was passed sending a strong message to Russia. But opinions are mixed among members. I will expand on that a bit later.
Russia has not bent under the pressure, announcing counter measures instead, the latest being the listing of dozens of what it calls "unfriendly" countries and regions, including the United States, the entire EU, Japan, the ROK and China's Taiwan.
Negotiations on the other hand, have taken place three times between Russian and Ukraine. Although progress is slow and their positions far apart, the fact that they are sitting down is a good sign.
China's stance has been clear since the beginning.
When State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi talked with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on the phone on March 1, he said:
"China is deeply grieved to see the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and highly concerned about the damage done to civilians… China always advocated respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries… China calls on Ukraine and Russia to find a solution through negotiations and supports all constructive international efforts that are conducive to a political settlement."
He went on to stress that "the security of one country should not be achieved at the expense of the security of other countries." A consistent position from China all along.
On the UN General Assembly vote I mentioned, which deplores Russia's action in Ukraine "in the strongest terms", China abstained, on the grounds that it projects a "Cold War mentality based on bloc confrontation". Listen to this.
"Regrettably, the draft resolution submitted to this emergency special session for vote has not undergone full consultations within the whole membership. Nor does it take full consideration the history and complexity of the current crisis. It does not highlight the importance of the principle of indivisible security, or the urgency of promoting political settlement and stepping up diplomatic efforts."
34 other members, including India, Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Mozambique, and Algeria and others also abstained. Together with the five countries which voted against, they account for more than half of the world's population.
But what has the media been saying about it all, especially China's role? When you read the headlines out there, things get a little muddled.
In a US TV channel's headline on the UN resolution, they said that the "UN voted to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine".
But if you read the final text, it actually reads the UN "deplores, in the strongest terms, the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine."
There is a distinction in meaning. Condemn means to declare something to be reprehensible, wrong, or even evil, while to deplore means to express grief for or regret strongly – a less severe term.
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it does matter. Had the resolution called to "condemn" Russia’s action, I believe, the number of "yes" votes would have been much less.
Words matter, so does accuracy.
Had the news outlet mixed these words knowingly, it would be a prime example of playing with words… To put the record straight, the majority of UN members did NOT vote to "condemn Russia's invasion".
Another spectacle is the different treatment of China and India on the exact same issue. Both abstained from the UN vote, and in both countries, there are voices that both support and oppose the war, like everywhere else really. However, the media have taken a starkly different tone for the two countries.
Both close partners to Russia, China is suggested, even suspected of being an "accomplice", and Chinese citizens singled out for "cheering for invasion".
India, on the other hand, is only "trying to stay above the fray". The vocal support expressed by MANY Indian netizens were only part of the "pro-Putin voices online".
Compare the headlines from this same US newspaper: For India: "World Rebukes Russia, India Tries to Stay Above the Fray".
For China? "Why the Chinese Internet Is Cheering Russia's Invasion".
China is apparently getting the "more-favored nation treatment" by the same newspaper. I thought US media is unbiased and independent. Huh… maybe the journalist here got so exhausted picking through billions of comments on Chinese social media that they decided to take a break.
As a matter of fact, there's been a fierce debate among Chinese about the war. And there are crazy comments on Chinese social media, just like everywhere else really. But does that justify publishing a headline that singles out the Chinese as cold-blooded war-mongers?
The same article does acknowledge, while not condemning Russia's action, the Chinese government has "not endorsed it either". But that's five minutes too late in shaping the readers' impressions.
Some may say, there are also some pro-Russia or pro-Putin comments in the US and the media have not shied away from reporting on those. Hum… these comments were from the political opponent of the Biden administration: the Republican Party, namely, led by Donald Trump! It's a different ball game. Basically whatever one opposes, the other supports, and vice versa. Merit of the subject itself? Sorry, what was the subject?
There's another important point missing from many of the articles. With all the talk about China and Russia's "limitless" friendship, people tend to forget that China and Ukraine are friendly too. What did the Ukrainian side think of China’s stance? If you rely on western news outlets or agencies, you won't get the answer easily. Here's why.
This news agency article points out there's a good relationship between the two sides. That's true.
The headline goes: "Ukraine asks China to make Russia stop war, says Ukrainian foreign ministry".
"In January," the article goes, "Chinese President Xi Jinping marked 30 years of ties with Ukraine, hailing the 'deepening political mutual trust' between them. Ukraine is a hub in the Belt and Road Initiative, a sprawling infrastructure and diplomatic undertaking that binds China closer with Europe." Also true.
The article goes on to report the latest phone conversation between the countries' two top diplomats, by quoting from the Ukrainian side, only.
"Ukraine's Foreign Minister… asked his Chinese counterpart… to use Beijing's ties with Moscow to stop Russia's military invasion of its neighbor."
Nothing wrong with that, but what do the Chinese say about the call? According to an English-language statement by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister called China's role "constructive".
Well, some may question whether the Chinese statement is accurate. Then they should also question whether the Ukrainian version is accurate too. Had the Chinese statement been inaccurate, the Ukrainian side would have raised the issue, right?
This news agency piece only channels from one side and missed an important piece of information from the other side. Was it laziness or was it a matter of different taste? I don't know. Clearly, the Ukrainian appreciation of China's constructive role in the issue does not sound so politically correct in the West at the moment.
Finally, I want to bring up the silencing of certain voices from one side of the conflict.
The EU banned some Russian news outlets, accusing them of spreading lies to justify Putin's war and to sow division in Europe.
When there are clearly different sides to the story, does it really serve the interest of Europeans to prevent them from hearing voices from the other side? If the West has been advocating freedom of expression and safeguarding the other's right to disagree, how do you draw the line and where? Who should decide?
And, by the way, let's not forget, these media organizations, these institutions, have claimed they are the textbook examples of professional journalism.
Anyway, there are efforts to tamper with information that certain media do not like to see or don't want to be seen. It's a bit like playing the game of Tetris where players fill empty spaces by moving differently shaped pieces around. But to manipulate the pieces to reach that goal is a step too far.
I hope the game of Tetris won't be sanctioned anytime soon!