China bashing is a full-time occupation, where there are always opportunities no matter what China does. So here, they are condemned for not sending the fleet out. What if they did? Remember that when the Chinese fleet showed upon in Hong Kong (a part of China) last year, New York Times and the US Congress denounced this as interference. So if the Chinese fleet showed up offshore from Aceh, what would the wackos from the American Enterprises Institute say? Definitive proof of imperial aspirations because this is a departure from historial non-interference? Time for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against against the Red Menace?

That doesn't wash. The Indonesians were no fans of either Australians nor Americans, yet they are happily accepting military and other help from both. In circumstances such as this I don't think anyone would consider it a Red Menace. It would be considered China doing the right thing, helping its neighbours and acting like the power it wants to be.

Are you seriously saying that China's inaction is excusable? China bashing is a full time job because often its actions (or inaction) open itself to criticism. America bashing is also a full time profession. No country is perfect. But China has fallen far short this time.

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out--to see if indeed China's contributions are very small. I may be completely mistaken, but I don't think China has ever had really comfortable relations with Indonesia.

That aside, what are the macroeconomic numbers like these days? What could China really afford per capita? I guess the US pledge would be something like $1.50 per capita, but that's really not a stretch for Americans. I think it would be wrong to expect that kind of scale from China where the average income per capita in US dollars is far, far lower.

I don't know much about the Chinese navy, but I do know it's pretty crummy. Maybe it's second after the US, but it's a very distant second.

Also, there are probably political reasons that Japan is spending so much money on this, and I don't just mean because they have a history in the region. Couldn't their pledge be seen as just an effort to knock China off its stride in the region--to make China lose face? They're still the ones who are rich, and China is the one just starting to get off the developmental aid.

I'm not sure if I've been clear and concise here, but I see little good in criticizing China for not doing enough. Geopolitically, I think it's obvious that they'd want to do more, but they probably just can't match the scale of the developed world.

What are your thoughts, Simon?

On balance, I think it is better for China not to send troops. In fact, India is already grumbing about US sending troops to its influence zone. US may be thinking it is doing a good thing. I am not sure whether locals will like it.

I disagree, Matt. As the article says, look at the contrast between India's reaction and China's. Even though India was hit they offered help to others and rejected aid, saying other countries needed it more. India is far less wealthy than China. Even if the Chinese navy isn't that great, some kind of effort needs to be made. Yes China has donated money despite its limited capacity to donate. But otherwise they've done nothing.

Sure Japan is spending money for political reasons. That should be an even greater incentive for China to act. China can help with airlifting, transport, setting up infrastructure. Sometimes grumbles about "spheres of influence" have to be set aside while the humanitarian disaster is sorted. No-one from Turkey seemed worried about Greek help during their earthquake, nor vice-versa. Sometimes help is simply that.

As I said in the post, that's where China has failed. In failing the altruism test, China has failed its ambitions. The historical and geopolitical reasons are irrelevant. China had a chance to act, to do some good and enhance its standing. By their inactions they've condemned themselves.

I find the comparison with India misleading, though it's obviously written by a very clever author.

I also don't clearly understand your point. India is less wealthy and sent ships (no money). China is richer and sent money (no ships). It doesn't make sense to draw an argument about not committing ships from the fact that they have more money.

China didn't have the "opportunity" to turn down aid "for the time-being" and it has sent support, just not the same kind.

Certainly India will send hard support to Sri Lanka. And if something happened like this in Taiwan, China would do the same. My point is that the respective pairs of countries have a shared sense of identity.

There's not enough detail here to come down so hard on China even if--as you say--it's warranted.

What are the ships that are "precisely needed" mentioned here? I know that China's navy doesn't have the proper ships to launch a ground invasion of Taiwan--those used for transport--so it's obviously not "that kind."

Also, how about some numbers?

Here we are criticizing people in the midst of a disaster. That's not so selfless, especially if one acknowleges that geopolotics are playing a role, is it?

Transport ships are precicely what are needed at the moment, as well as helicopters and other methods of transporting aid and providing relief. The India example is just to demonstrate that even poor countries that have been directly hit are doing more to help their neighbours than China.

My main point is this: China wants to be and be seen as a regional and global power. Sending some money is a good start. Sending military and logistical support would be even more useful in the short term. America, Australia, Singapore and others are doing that. China is noticably absent in this side of the relief effort. There's not even a token precence.

Geopolitics is a factor. It always is. Certainly Australian and American generosity and help isn't just out of humantiarian reasons but also for geopolitical ones. That's the chance that China is squandering.

I am criticising people in the midsts of this disaster...those that refuse to help how they can. They deserve criticism - if they get enough it might even spur them into action.

It's so "moving" to see so many people worrying about despotic China "bashing". They are the same who don't forgive anything when the subjects are United States or other western democracies. Not surprising after all. Funny world.

simon,

i didn't get your point.

if china doesn't want to give a hand, why she donated money? the tv here in shanghai just "bombed" people with such news report of what is happening in that area, and a lot of people, including those old and poor, donated some money, if you have time, read a post in my blog (http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/01/04/6871.aspx)

the reason why china didn't send ships is pretty self-evident to me - either china doesn't have that ability, or, china feels that sending navy ships just irritate countries like US, japan....

another reason is probably the news reports about the coverage and level of damage of this tradegy comes late, i am pretty quick in knowing international news, but my first reaction is - wow, 1000 people dead.

your logic has no base, china just want to show to the whole world that she is a responsible member of the international community, no reason for her not sending ships if she can without making others uncomfortable.

btw, some part of your post is merely an insult to many chinese people including my wife.

Simon, your point is perfectly clear. I think that only who doesn't want to understand, doesn't get it.

Best.

Enzo

simon,

so why is that china donated money but didn't send ships?

if china sent ships, will that help china meet the criteria of passing the tsunami test?

what is the criteria for other nations? who are the criteria makers?

bingfeng - it's called social norms. A ship full of chineese nationals who knew the local dialect would have been welcomed, I am certain. BTW, my wife is chinese too but not offended.

Enzo 1972,

RE: "It's so "moving" to see so many people worrying about despotic China "bashing". They are the same who don't forgive anything when the subjects are United States or other western democracies. Not surprising after all. Funny world."

It seems you are talking about me here. Could you maybe be more clear and point to an instance when I've failed to "forgive the United States or other western dmocracies?" All I am saying is that I think a little humility is in order. I wasn't happy when people criticized the US right away for not doing enough and it makes me unhappy when folks do the same thing to China. Let's just try to keep our eye on the ball.

as i know, the US donated very few money at first and GW didn't show up to say a few words to those victims and encourage americans to do something until very late. this is sharp contrast with some other nations including china. should i say that US FAILED THE TSUNAMI TEST?

i agree that many nations including china didn't do a perfect job, either for lack of experiences or lack of accurate information or for purely geopolitical reasons, i won't say any nation FAILED the test.

charity money is not a test, tax money is.

to be honest, i just smell a strong confrontational attitute towards china and chinese people in the articial above.

many chinese clearly know how the ethnic chinese are treated in indonesia, even though, they donated money to that country. my wife told me that "we shouldn't sit down doing nothing because people are dying", i am just very curious why somebody is trying to tell china what is the meaning of altruism.

This article is loopy. India is in no way an 'aid' nation, and the author completely misses India's true motives in sending ships to Sri Lanka: entirely political reasons regarding 'face'.

Many Indians here believe that by refusing international assistance, India effectively sealed the fates of hundreds, if not thousands, of its citizens in Tamil Nadu, just so it could look more important and self-sufficent to the world than it really is.

Aid has still not reached parts of Tamil Nadu in sufficient measure, so people here are angry that India is devoting its resources to Sri Lanka when there is still much suffering here.

My point is that China's Government could be doing far more than it has to date. Slowly it seems the Government is ramping up its aid, but it has been woefully slow and could still provide more logistical support. Any potential Taiwan invasion could go on hold for a few weeks while the PLA sends some planes and ships to help.

As to my perceived "insult", you need to remember one thing: the Chinese people and the Chinese Government are not the same thing. The Chinese people have been exceedingly generous and in some part that has put pressure on the CCP to follow with more and more aid. My attack is on the Chinese Government.

Roy: you have far better knowledge of India than I. I cannot accept or deny your assertion, but it would seem exceedingly calluous for a Government to refuse aid for the sake of face and political reasons. Perhaps that has happened in this case, but I have no prima facie evidence that's the case. Until such time as I see otherwise, it would seem that India's actions are noble rather than machiavellian.

Simon,

how much is enough and how much is not enough, this is rather a matter of subjectivity. Matt has given us his index to compare china's contribution with that of the US, however, i won't be convinced by his index and believe that the US didn't contribute enough. vice versa, if the US sent ships and china didn't, does it mean china didn't contributed enough? i won't say so either.

the assertion of "some country could do far more than it has done" could be applied to any country involved into the aid.

people and government are different, but the donation here was, to a great extent, initiated by the people and at a later time coordinated by the government. in the first few days, those old guys and women just called local media asking why there is no action to help the victims, and on the web some young people critized government for slow reaction and lack of coordination.

china is not experienced in this kind of international relief action, and no doubt there are many improvement opportunities there. but to say china FAILED the test, this is obviously unfair and, to many chinese, offensive.

so next time, perhaps you should just raise your hand and ask china: "could you send a few ships please", instead of pointing to china when she was busy sending the 4th batch of aid materials and her people saved their slender money to donate to indonesia.

regards,

i think many of you know a chinese saying - those who have money give money, those who have a hand give a hand (you qian chu qian, you li chu li)

to me, an old chinese man who donates 10 yuan is just as respectable as Bill Gates who donates 1 million us dollors

i believe this is the spirit of charity

Failed the Tsunami test? More bollocks from Washington Know-Nothings.

China doesn't have a blue water navy.
Its ships are based in the wrong ocean - Pacific, not Indian.
China has no tradition or experience of humanitarian interventions. Live Aid was only eight years after Mao and his Cultural Revolution died.
The Chinese have to tread very carefully in Indonesia and Malaysia because of longstanding and often viruent anti Chinese prejudice.

Stand by for more Chinese "failures" brought to you by the scriptwriters of success stories like Fallujah.

Matt Waters,
I wasn't talking about you.

Bye.

Enzo

Simon, I think you are in desperate need of a major reality adjustment. You criticize China's contribution, while lauding the achievements of the West. Well, how much of the money that these Western governments have promised will actually be given? For a clue, try reading this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/05/tsunami.aid.promises/index.html

And how much of that "aid" is really aid? How much of it will help and how much of it will harm? Try working your way through the links here: http://www.friendsoftheheroes.co.uk/page5/index.html#3

Bearing all this in mind, I read the other day a promise made by Wen Jiabao. He said that every last bit of the aid that China has promised will be given. The proof is in the pudding, and I'll be watching to see if he actually spoke the truth, but my guess is that China will follow through. Can the same be said of our governments?

And by the way, China was one of the first countries to respond to the tsunami victims' needs - and despite being a developing country, so far China has been one of the biggest *givers* - as opposed to *promisers*.

If you read that CNN link, you'll know that the earthquake victims of Bam know from experience just how useless those promises can be.

I agree, Cat, that it will be important to see if money actually follows the pledges made. With so much attention the likelihood is high Governments will follow through...China, Australia, America - all Governments.

It leads me to another point - China is a "developing country" that spends extraordinary amounts of moeny putting men into space for nationalist reasons alone. Let's not keep using that as an excuse.