Read on Twitter
the more I read this recent People's Daily article from former deputy minister of foreign affairs Fu Ying 傅莹 the more I feel it is a suggestion (read: veiled criticism) at the current external messaging from Beijing http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2020-04/02/nw.D110000renmrb_20200402_1-09.htm
It's traditionally difficult to digest Party speak because Chinese politics do not allow open dissent, even (especially) for its ruling elites
If you want to criticize, you gotta mix them with standard Party speak and present your criticism as 建议 suggestions
If you want to criticize, you gotta mix them with standard Party speak and present your criticism as 建议 suggestions
In this particular article, there are numerous repeats of traditional standard talk, like it or not, is a must, the key is to separate them from what Mrs. Fu MIGHT (since I'm not her, I can only read to the best of my abilities) really want to say:
一是话语的内容和质量。话语要有影响力，需要以高质量的内容作为支撑。To be influential, words need to be supported by high-quality content - this is a veiled jab at the current messaging's quality, meaning what so far has been said is of low quality
成功的话语需要以丰富的事实和实践为依托，空泛的概念和宣示不足以打动人，也难以提升话语权 Empty concept and propaganda can't move/touch others, and can't improve the influence of messaging - a veiled jab at the current empty concept and propaganda
只有赢得受众的认同，形成正向反馈，话语影响力才会逐渐增强。Only by winning the recognition of the audience and resulting in positive feedback will the effect of messaging - a veiled jab at current discourse causing only negative feedback, not positive feedback or real recognition
仅仅靠官方、外交传播不足以通达所有场合，需要更多人到国际上参与表达。Official/diplomatic communication not sufficient, and more people are needed to participate in international messaging - a veiled call for enabling more Chinese people to speak internationally
与过去相比，现在国际社会更为关注中国在各种问题上的政策主张和应对之举，希望看到来自中国的第一手信息和深度解读。而国际舆论场中源自中国的第一手信息还比较有限the international community now pays more attention to China's policy propositions and countermeasures on various issues...
hoping to see first-hand information and in-depth interpretation from China. However, the first-hand information from the international public opinion field originated from China is still relatively limited - a veiled call for more and diverse info and voices from within China
我们要立足于中国深厚的历史文化积淀，秉承谦虚、包容精神，坚持交流、学习、开放，通过通俗易懂、接地气的叙事风格和表达方式，既透彻解读在中国发生的事情，也客观评判中国以外发生的事情，在与国际话语的交互传导中形成具有中国特色的话语风格。We must build on China ’s profound historical
and cultural heritage, uphold the spirit of HUMILITY and TOLERANCE; adhere to (the methods of) communication, learning, and openness, through easy-to-understand and Main Street-based narrative styles and expressions - a veiled jab at the Wolf Warriors that we've seen nowadays
我们需要发出强有力的正面主张，让世界明白中国的发展终归是为了广大中国人民过上好日子，也是为了让世界更公正、更美好。We need to issue a strong positive proposition to let the world understand that China ’s development is ultimately for the Chinese people to live a good life
, but also to make the world fairer and better - a veiled explanation that China's messaging and development is ultimately to improve the livelihood of the Chinese people, NOT fighting WITH or FOR hegemony (USA, that is)
我们的故事很多是讲给外国民众听的，因此故事中也可以有普通人的喜怒哀乐。Many of our stories are told to foreign public, so there can also be ordinary people's 喜怒哀乐 PLEASURE, ANGER, GRIEF, HAPPINESS - to understand this, you gotta be aware that traditionally
China's external messaging has always been 正能量 positive energy, or to put it bluntly, all GOOD no bad. Fu is trying to say external messaging should also involve bad things, including ANGER and GRIEF, which is, IN FACT, a stark divergence from status quo/standard practice
要鼓励各行各业和各个社会群体广泛参与到对外传播中去。积极构建大外宣格局，充分发挥不同主体的作用，形成官方和民间相结合、中央和地方相结合、外宣部门和实际工作部门相结合、机构和个人相结合的全方位、多元化、立体式对外传播体系。在深化专业和战略层面对外传播的同时，也需要扩大人文和公众层面
She basically said China should encourage all works of life to engage in external messaging, another nod at diversity, or a veiled criticism at the status quo/standard practice that external messaging has been monopolized by a few departments/people
This thread is in part provoked this tweet, which I think, forgive my bluntness and with all due respect to a former China correspondent, totally missed the mark https://twitter.com/dktatlow/status/1246476042379935751
I don't wish to persuade you with a thread from an anonymous account - it's totally reasonable for people to question this with deep suspicions.
As I said earlier
, the endeavor to digest Party speak is very very difficult, even for most experienced China Hands
As I said earlier
, the endeavor to digest Party speak is very very difficult, even for most experienced China Hands
In addition, because Party speak, ESPECIALLY those aimed at proposing sth new/offering suggestions/criticizing the standard practice, has to toe the traditional Party lines carefully to stay politically correct (within Chinese system) and protect the author
this kind of article/speech/analysis/editorial/commentary and even Party/Govt document must INHERENTLY include doublespeak.
Add the language barrier and official cliches from within the system, it's extraordinarily difficult - like deciphering some kind of codes
Add the language barrier and official cliches from within the system, it's extraordinarily difficult - like deciphering some kind of codes
Plus, I'm fully aware that it's not the fault of foreigners if they don't get the signals; messaging itself should not have been so difficult if not for China's own political system and realities; the burden of deciphering is in fact imposed by China on the readers.
As much as I want to showcase this thread as a textbook decipher of an fmr senior official's article, I totally understand and even expect many simply don't buy what I wrote.
You could easily argue that I only arbitrarily highlighted the "suggestion"/veiled criticism part while
You could easily argue that I only arbitrarily highlighted the "suggestion"/veiled criticism part while
burying the more traditional Party speak (which literally takes more space than the suggestions);
you could reasonably ask: so it's 50-50 toeing Party lines and suggesting something only MARGINALLY progressive, how can I honestly tell which part is her real intention?
you could reasonably ask: so it's 50-50 toeing Party lines and suggesting something only MARGINALLY progressive, how can I honestly tell which part is her real intention?
Well, I have no good answer to that. That's the hand we've been dealt with.
