BEIJING: It's only five months into the year and it has been a pretty difficult one already for the Chinese. Massive snowstorms caused havoc earlier this year, then there was the turmoil in Tibet and the aftermath following the Olympic torch relay around the world, lately this EV71 virus that has killed over 30 and sickened thousands -- and now this major earthquake. The updated news on the massive 7.8 earthquake yesterday in Sichuan near the city of Chengdu is that close to 10,000 have died in an area populated by ethnic Han Chinese, Chinese Tibetans and Hui Muslim Chinese. The number of deaths will likely surge throughout the day and heavy rains are starting to make rescue efforts difficult. Premier Wen Jiabao's words just a little while ago don't sound very promising.
Here in Beijing at about 2:30pm yesterday I suddenly felt sick, like a bad case of food poisoning, and wondered if it was something I'd eaten for lunch. My wife messaged me that she thought it was an earthquake, and growing up in Taiwan she's had a lot of experience with them. That's when I noticed all my coworkers looking around at each other trying to figure out what was going on. People started saying an earthquake had hit so we filed out of the building and stood outside for several minutes before coming back in. When I found out the quake was in Sichuan I knew it must have been pretty bad. Beijing is pretty far away for us to have felt that much of it.
Through the afternoon I followed the data on the USGS website. Some interesting maps over here and according to their tally, there have been 25 aftershocks after the main earthquake, the latest being only a couple of hours ago and registering 4.8. That's not big, but I worry that even these small ones could bring down buildings already damaged by the main quake. With heavy rains starting to hit the area, the threat of landslides will certainly be a problem.
Some coincidences? I'm not superstitious but some of my Chinese friends are. One sent me this photo of frogs massing on Sunday in Jiangsu province, a day before the quake. I later found out that there is an old Chinese earthquake device called the "dragon jar" which has frogs on the sides that catch a ball in their mouths which corresponds to the direction the earthquake came from. As for numbers, which mean a lot in China ... usually the number 8 is a lucky number, but not yesterday. According to the Chinese calendar it was the 8th day of the 4th month of the year and 88 days before the Olympics. Add in that it was Buddha's birthday and you have a perfect storm of superstition going on.
Thankfully the Three Gorges Dam is safe. The rescue effort is ongoing and will likely take a while. Offers for assistance from the rest of the world are coming in.
So the reason I meant to write this in the first place was to point you to a few places where you can donate and also follow what's going on in Sichuan. If you want to help, there's information on how to do so at China Crossroads and Shanghaiist.
The latter also has a good timeline of coverage from yesterday starting after the quake until early in the morning. Also check in at Global Voices, which has translations of bits of news from the area.
Early on, much of the news was coming across not through major media but via YouTube and Twitter. See coverage of this here, here and here.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, I advise the Chinese to develop their government. Have you noticed they reactively call out the troops for everything, even to repair dams? I would like to see them put out a fire.
A lot of these comments are making me sick! I'm in China right now too, and may I remind you ideologues that it is populated by human beings that are less a reflection of their government than we Americans are of ours. Calling this China's problem and calling China a wealthy country is an ignorant typical comment coming from people who never leave the comfort of their own country. Many of the people here are desperately poor, and even the middle class is a far cry from ours.
As human beings we should always reach out to help others in need no matter where they are from.
Remember that the victims of Katrina also live in a "rich" country that is loathed by much of the world for its government, which was elected by its citizens.
China has jobs and the newest most modern factories. U.S. jobs and factories are gone. (Thanks to our CONgress) China has new roads, new bridges and a growing society. U.S infrastructure, on the other hand, is crumbling. Chinese are eating more meat and their standard of living is going up. People in U.S are starving, have no health care and are living in tents . China is improving and growing, and leaving the U.S. behind. So I'm Just sayin'....maybe China should send some aid over here?
There is no need to send any help to the Chinese, until they stop beating and torturing monks in Tibet.
The Burmese case is different. The generals there have also been imprisoning and torturing monks, but the general population has not been supporting that (unlike the Chinese public, which seems wholeheartedly behind the suppression of Tibet and its monks). The Burmese people deserve and badly need our help.
I gotta agree with others. China isn't a poor country by any means, They are downright wealthy. THAT they have chosen to spend most of their wealth on weapons is nothing to be looked away from but by the same token they should be all set up to handle these emergencies.
We have enough problems of our own and China isn't the poor underdeveloped country it once was and you can thank China for helping to push the price of gas to 4 bucks a gallon too.
Let them take care of their own unless they need specialty teams for search and rescue, but they don't need our money AT ALL. And they don't need our food and blankets.
How can we blame this on Bush and Cheyne?
Not very difficult.....: By not pushing for a revaluation of RENMINBI, thus abetting China's accumulation of TRADE SURPLUS dollars, the PRC will easily move into the market for building materials, esp. lumber, steel, and cement, and drive already rising prices for those commodities EVEN HIGHER!!!
BUSH, CHENEY, and Clinton before have all acquiested in China's seizure of manufacturing capacity thus abetting that country's dominance in global markets.....
And that caused the quake! I Knew it!!!!
I perhaps understand Michael"s enthusiasm in calling for readers of the Huffington Post to donate help to those stricken by the earthquake. When you are living in China, it is all too easy to get caught up in the zeitgeist, and part of that is a dependency culture (perhaps unwittingly fostered by our very own development agencies). Burma, however, is free of that record of development, and, as noted in other posts here, perhaps more deserving of the aid. Aid has a political function too, however, and resources coming from, say, India or the U.S. would perhaps constructively raise a few eyebrows in the current Chinese groundswell of xenophobia over the Olympics. Aid to Burma need not come with force; that may be a false dichotomy. Some of the ways of accommodating the government may be distasteful, but the situation suggests accommodation could be reached (and having the Burmese Military Government befriended by non-Chinese foreigners upsets China"s notions of suzerainty, in itself a good thing).
In Sri Lanka it is commonly believed that much of the aid offered following the Tsunami went amiss, and this was with the encouragement of all of the oversight on offer. Whatever corruption the Burmese government has in mind, it will probably end up being on par with those nations whose leadership had a chance to see the aid workers coming. Christian mercy, as well as common sense, dictates that the aid be given without strings; if nothing else, as witness.
These incidents are none of our business and we ought to let Myanmar and China handle the fallout themselves. China has more than enough money and resources to take care of its own people. Why should we help prop up an economic enemy? Let them deal with their own mess. How many Chinese rescuers were here after Katrina.
Actually China did offer assistance to America after Katrina. We no longer live in a secular society. Todays world is a global society where the problems of everyone on the planet affect us all. If we go to war over intangible issues but refuse to assist the underpriveledged when the necessity arises then we are percieved as nothing more than global bullies by the rest of the world who we must co-exist with. Demographics change as do governments. What we do today will directly affect our kids and their future as well as the kids and futures of these places. We are always at our best as Americans when we reach out to help others in time of need.
a. Secular means non-religious in nature.
b. We need to stop acting as if we can solve the world's problems. Let the UN deal with
this issue. Our constant intervention makes us appear to be a bully (see Somalia).
c. China is the greatest threat to our way of life. Their authoritarian government seeks to undermine our economic stability at every turn. We need to see them as the threat they are and to deal with them as we dealt with the Soviets.
There is no justification under the UN charter for intervening to topple the Burmese military regime. That task would rightly be opposed by other powers in the region and must one day be performed by the Burmese themselves. But aid drops over the Irrawaddy delta are nothing to do with that case. The outside world has waited a week, and protested to no effect.
Either way some enforced intervention must surely be planned. The British aid minister, Douglas Alexander, said last week it would be "incendiary". He did not explain why a "dump-and-run" of emergency supplies in the delta would be incendiary - compared, for instance, to his antics in Afghanistan.
The option of sending in relief supplies by air may well face logistical objections. Ships and heavy-lift equipment must be in position, with air cover to ensure the safety of the operation from possible retaliation by the Burmese. There must be some sense of order on the ground to ensure that drops are other than random, though at some point a starving and dying population would presumably welcome any help rather than none.
It may be the case that diplomatic pressure on the regime might soon force it to reverse its negligence - though at present this is unlikely. Indeed the west's policy of merely hurling abuse at it looks counter-productive. A regime that turns away the Red Cross, will not take calls from the UN or even listen to its friendly super-power China seems immune to pressure.
Yet where today are the brave rattlers of sabres against the Iraqis, the Afghans and the Iranians? The American ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, says he is "outraged by the slowness of the response" of the Burmese authorities. His outrage will bring scant comfort to those dying in the delta.
On Friday the British and French foreign ministers, David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, announced that "we look to the regime" to lift restrictions on aid distribution. Nobody "looked to" Milosevic to stop slaughtering Kosovans or the rebels to stop the killing in Sierra Leone. We intervened.
The Foreign Office remarked last week that there was "no excuse" for delay and then thought of one. The British chairman of the UN security council, John Sawyer, claimed that the 2006 resolution referred only to "acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity rather than government responses to natural disasters." But in 2001 there was no evidence that the Taliban were committing such acts, yet Britain intervened. And what is happening in Burma if not an "intentional denial of humanitarian assistance."
He cannot hold to the thesis that Burma is not ripe for "liberal intervention" because the loss of life is the result of a natural disaster rather than political or military oppression. What is this fine distinction between a massacre and what the military are now inflicting on the Burmese people? A corpse is a corpse.
This catastrophe is not past but ongoing. A western world adept at intervening elsewhere on a humanitarian pretext is suddenly inert. Why? I suspect the reason is that it has too much intervention on its plate already. The Burmese must die because we are too busy pretending to save Afghans and Iraqis. To such cynicism has liberal intervention sunk. "
In Burma, the airlifting of supplies from offshore vessels to stricken areas would indeed be an offence against the sovereignty of Burma. But the intervention would not constitute an attack on a government or occupy its territory. Indeed it would be occasioned strictly because of the lack of government in a particular territory. It would be to save the lives of people abandoned to their deaths by their rulers.
These interventions were not ideological, whether "liberal" or "neo-con". They were to save lives from being lost by the thousand. They were covered by international law (possibly not Kosovo) because the UN charter's respect for territorial integrity also stipulates that it "shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures" to avert a humanitarian crisis.
This was reinforced when the Security Council in 2005 and 2006 imposed a responsibility on the international community to protect people whose governments failed to do so. It castigated in particular the "intentional denial of humanitarian assistance". Such an extension of the concept of military intervention was advocated by Tony Blair in his Chicago speech of 1998, when it was dismissed by the Americans (pre-9/11) as irresponsible. Today it is widely regarded as legitimate, even by those opposed to much of the belligerent militancy that ensued under Blair and George Bush.
It is hard to think of a more glaring application of the humanitarian principle than today's Burma. In none of the above interventions was anything like the same number of lives at risk as the 2m now threatened in the Irrawaddy delta. This is eight times the 230,000 reckoned to have died in the 2004 tsunami.
"...it involved the 900 children trapped in a school, ... whose fates were unknown. As a father of four children"
I totally agree with you that it made my heart stumble. But at the same time I just can't stop to feel even more resentment against both the Myanmar (Burmese) Junta as well as towards the Chinese Communist party who rejected the call from the world to help put pressure on said Burmese Junta.
or if I can quote a snippet from HuffPost contributor Hanna Ingber Win's article:
"Cyclone Nargis wiped out entire villages along the Irrawaddy delta and left Rangoon in shambles, but the ruling junta has prevented relief efforts from barely making a dent in the recovery process."
We are talking about 40 something children in the valley where the cyclone hit who are still without water and shelter. HOW come the UN, the USA and them Brits that have been so macho for interventions now are acting like little chickens scared of some sort of ghostly Fox? Because the fox is none other then the nowadays so economically mighty China.
China will moblize their arm forces to help her people just like the national guards here. Like India they have reserves and emergency funds to face disasters such as this which is not new to them. I believe they are capable of handling the situation themselves otherwise they will request for international assistance. I believe they will appreciate the help offered, still my condolence to all people affected by the recent onslaught of natural fury in the US, China and Burma.
Suffering surpass all religions, race and political boubdaries.
May they all have a speedy recovery.
If you are looking for a way to donate to Burma, this organization, the Buddhist Relief Mission, has a novel approach: Send it with the pilgrims who come to Bodhgaya. On their return, they take the money directly to those in need, without bothering the government and without being bothered by the government. You can learn more about them at: http://www.brelief.org/
When I first heard reports of the earthquake today, it involved the 900 children trapped in a school, ... whose fates were unknown. As a father of four children, ... only two of whom survive to this day, ... my thoughts were not of armies, nor politics, nor anyhting but prayers that those children, and their parents, and as many as may be spared, ... may find one another at the end of this dark day.
The earthquake could as easily have stricken my hometown in Pennsylvania, or any other town where my beloved live today. And so it did, ... for we are all family. Perhaps we will learn, ... soon, that this is the way of the Earth.
I do not know any better way to say this then quoting yet another great columnist, Simon Jenkins who writes for the London Sunday Times:
"Hundreds of thousands of people are thus condemned to death by one thing alone, the viciousness of a dictatorship more concerned with its pride and xenophobia than with the wellbeing of its citizens. Like Soviet regimes of old, the Burmese government would rather pretend that disasters have not occurred than admit it cannot handle them. When the cyclone tore off the roof of Rangoon's Insein jail, crammed with 10,000 prisoners, and part of it caught fire, the guards opened fire and killed 36. An aid worker told the BBC, "They are murdering their own people."
I have opposed many of the macho military interventions conducted by the west over the past decade. Their justifications have been obscure, their motives mixed and their morality situational, especially those aimed at "regime change". Those in Afghanistan and Iraq had the additional defect of built-in failure.
On the other hand the west did intervene to try to stop humanitarian catastrophes in Bosnia from 1992, Somalia in 1993, Kosovo in 1998 and Sierra Leone in 2000. The failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 and more recently in Sudan's Darfur province was generally attributed not to timidity but to the logistical difficulty of deploying power in the African interior.
It may be the case that diplomatic pressure on the regime might soon force it to reverse its negligence - though at present this is unlikely. Indeed the west's policy of merely hurling abuse at it looks counter-productive. A regime that turns away the Red Cross, will not take calls from the UN or even listen to its friendly super-power China seems immune to pressure.
There is no justification under the UN charter for intervening to topple the Burmese military regime. That task would rightly be opposed by other powers in the region and must one day be performed by the Burmese themselves. But aid drops over the Irrawaddy delta are nothing to do with that case. The outside world has waited a week, and protested to no effect.
Either way some enforced intervention must surely be planned. The British aid minister, Douglas Alexander, said last week it would be "incendiary". He did not explain why a "dump-and-run" of emergency supplies in the delta would be incendiary - compared, for instance, to his antics in Afghanistan.
He cannot hold to the thesis that Burma is not ripe for "liberal intervention" because the loss of life is the result of a natural disaster rather than political or military oppression. What is this fine distinction between a massacre and what the military are now inflicting on the Burmese people? A corpse is a corpse.
This catastrophe is not past but ongoing. A western world adept at intervening elsewhere on a humanitarian pretext is suddenly inert. Why? I suspect the reason is that it has too much intervention on its plate already. The Burmese must die because we are too busy pretending to save Afghans and Iraqis. To such cynicism has liberal intervention sunk. "
There's nothing we can do better or cheaper than China can, when it comes to disaster relief inside china; they're more than capable of engaging with this under their own resources.
There actually is something you might be able to do better they they can right now, and that is to pray for them.
Thanks for posting. The Chinese people are in my thoughts and prayers.
At time like this if you cannot or would not offer money, the least you can do is to offer condolences to the poor people of China and Burma. If you have nothing to offer the least you can do is to shut up. Bad karma will come to you for being nasty.
I'm sure the United States could offer China a few million in disaster aid ... of course, we would have to borrow the money from them first.
Donate? China is fast becoming the richest country in the world and we should donate money to them? Where were the Chinese after Katrina? Sorry I have a problem donating to a country that has the largest army in the world, they can put it to use helping out the victims of this earthquake instead of cracking heads in Tibet. I think the people of Burma need the money a hell of alot more than the Chinese, just look at the pictures coming out of both countries and tell me who needs it more.
"Where were the Chinese after Katrina?"
http://english.people.com.cn/200509/04/eng20050904_206391.html
The Chinese government has decided to offer disaster relief up to 5 million US dollars along with emergency supplies to the people in the the United States victimized by Hurricane Katrina, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in Beijing Saturday.
The Chinese government will also send rescue workers to help in medical treatment and epidemic prevention in the disaster-stricken areas, if needed, said spokesman Qin Gang. .
On Aug. 31, Chinese President Hu Jintao a telegram to US President George W. Bush, expressing sympathy and condolences to President Bush, the US government and people for their suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina, on behalf of the Chinese government and people.
Right you are Sco.. China has 6 males for every 5 females. This means 10 million males will not find a wife. Where do you think these 10 million young men will go? (Jeapordy music playing... dum dum dum dum.... dum da dum) In the ARMY! Correct. (Next question for $100 dollars) Does anyone know that the largest part of the rifle ammo used in Iraq.. is made in CHINA? Correct. Reminton Arms sub contracts the bulk of their ammo contracts to CHINA. So i... Now follow me here... it's getting good..if CHINA decides the U.S. has been a bad little country and they cut off our ammo, what do you think will happen? You gotta hand it to the Rocket Scientists in our CONgress and Senate. FIrst we give China our latest super-computer technology, and then we help China build the most modern factories and give them all our manufacturing secrets. So when ten million little guys with red helmets come marching in here.... Quick... act surprised ...!
Exactly, I don't mean to be harsh, but China has the money and ability to help themselves. The US is broke anyway, time to take care of our own, we can't keep giving everyone money. Don't throw bad karma vibes at me, I feel sorry for the victims of this earthquake, I just don't think it is up to the US to offer financial assistance to China. Just go shopping in the US today, that will raise some funds for them.
Going shopping would just increase the US's debt to china. Debt from a country which, by your own admission, is broke. Now, you can't eat debt. You can't drink it. You can't sleep in it. It doesn't have antibiotic properties. How, then, is it going to help the victims of the earthquake?
If you were owed a vast and ever-increasing sum by an impoverished debtor, one who in all probability will never pay off his debts; and if you were working all hours just to supply that debtor with goods so that his debt can increase, and billing for your services (not that the bills are ever likely to be paid) using a currency that's falling into a black hole, would you consider yourself to be rich? How would any of that help when it comes to coping with disaster?
This isn't the time to be mean-spirited. But let me point out that you have some of your facts wrong. China is far from the richest country in the world - there is extensive poverty here in China. And yes, China did send money to help with Katrina - it was helpful but it was mostly to show concern. Yes, they shouldn't be in control of Tibet and they should spend less on their military and more on poverty eradication - but when people are suffering it isn't the time to be uncharitable.
Posted May 12, 2008 | 07:44 PM (EST)