In this thorough investigation, Chai Jing answers almost any questions about China’s struggle with industrial pollution.  The sheer amount of fascinating points raised by Jing could be enough material for a paper, or potentially a book for that matter.  She discusses the personal threat smog is to her infant daughter; whom she attempts to protect from a lifetime of lung disease by carefully monitoring air quality reports and limiting her time outside.  Jing goes into depth about the danger pollution presents, which I found surprising, fascinating and above all terrifying.  The very real threat of lung cancer is part of daily life of those who live in very urban areas with heavy vehicle traffic or steel-producing towns that burn billions of tons of coal.  It’s astonishing that lung cancer rates have risen over 400% since the Mao Zedong took power.  I had previously figured that smog inhalation would result in a bad cough or shortness of breath in old age, rather than the reality of entire households (especially in rural areas) being cleared out by lung cancer.  One of the more significant points Jing brought to light was the economic obstacles to environmental reform.  In short, blue-collar workers of China rely on steel mills and power plants for employment and China’s developing status makes enforcing regulations difficult (or simply unimportant).  For example, Jing joined inspectors at a vehicle checkpoint in the Yanqing district of Beijing, at which officials inspected for emission control devices.  Most trucks were sold as being in compliance with an emissions standard, yet most lacked control devices completely or were far above the allowed limit.  This goes to show the negligence for environmental policy and maximization of profits that characterizes Chinese industrialism.  Ironically, after hearing about the filters and masks to protect against poor air quality, one of the truck drivers was smoking a cigarette.  I’ll admit at this point I opened my room’s windows and took a deep breath of American mountain air and couldn’t be more appreciative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/asia/chinas-tensions-with-dalai-lama-spill-into-the-afterlife.html?ref=world&_r=1

Worried that the Dalai Lama will chose not to reincarnate, the Chinese government has decided that he must be born again.  This precaution is in order to ensure the next Dalai Lama also is subjected to Chinese policy in Tibet via spiritual lineage.  Currently tensions between Beijing and Tibet are very high, and the CCP is determined to maintain firm control over Tibetan-Buddhism.  I’ve learned a lot about measures the CCP takes to control the public, but insisting that the Dalai Lama does not have the personal choice to choose reincarnation is on its own special level of subjugation.  Simply ridiculous.

Photo cred: EPA/ALEX HOFFORD

Putting myself into the shoes of a citizen in today’s China, keeping my government accountable would be much more difficult to than it would in the United States. Overall accountability would be possible, as we saw with the Hong Kong protests of late last year, yet the biggest obstacle to get around would be government censorship.  One of the most effective ways to draw the spotlight of the public to a wrongdoing of the government is to use the media.  Media outlets allow controversial events that deserve the people’s attention and awareness to be circulated and made public, often drawing criticism to the government and pressuring change.  This tactic is used frequently in the United States to hold the government accountable, however in China this is a different story entirely.  Media censorship in China is very cleverly managed and implemented, allowing privately owned and run outlets to exist as long as they abide by Communist party regulations.  Politically sensitive topics are carefully ignored and strict guidelines keep newspapers and news channels away from stories that might cause instability.  An appeal to the media to expose some wrongdoing by the government would go nowhere, or potentially land you in jail.

So what other options would the people of China have?

Other methods to hold the government accountable potentially include voting power and protests. Voting power can be ruled out fairly easily as an option because of the hand-picked candidates  whose “love of China” makes it unlikely that reforming government would be on their agenda.  That leaves protest as the most feasible and effective way to hold the People’s Republic of China’s government accountable.  The most significant issue with this is organization. Along with the censorship and control of the media, the Chinese government’s censorship of the internet would make organization and communication of protests difficult.  Chinese censors specifically target internet communication that promotes collective action and public gatherings in order to control and curtail collective action.  The recent Hong Kong protests were possible because it was started by students at the University of Hong Kong.  Students provide an insular, politically volatile population that is easily organized through word of mouth and gossip while not having to worry about jobs or families.  Therefore the highest likelihood of collective action holding the government accountable lies with student bodies, which is interesting because it was mostly students who attacked and sometimes killed their professors during the Cultural Revolution in a Maoist frenzy.  This goes to show that when it comes to political movement, university students are among the most impressionable and easily mobilized to action.

Mao’s Bloody Revolution

    This BBC documentary, hosted by Philip Short, provides a very straightforward view of the conflict between the Chinese Nationalists and the rising Communist party led by Mao Zedong.  I was familiar with the general aspects of this period of Chinese history, however this documentary shed key insight into the specifics of Mao’s life and rise to power.  The tight grip communism held over the Chinese people was jaw dropping to see in action.  Groups would go out into the streets and kill massive amounts of mosquitoes, sparrows and other pests simply because Mao told them to.  The efforts of these apparently brainwashed people were so effective that famine resulted from uncontested insect populations following sparrow extermination. Volunteer iron production, persecution of the educated and the destruction of once revered religious icons all also resulted from the fanatical devotion to communism.  Today Chinese society would rather overlook the injustices of the Cultural Revolution led by Mao.  This fanatical mob mentality that led to the destruction of centuries-old Buddhist icons or historical texts is an unpleasant memory today’s more progressive China.

Why does this matter?

Although China’s government doesn’t resemble a communist cult anymore, repression and censorship are present issues in China’s society today.  Instead of sweeping history under the rug (Tienanmen Square also relevant) the government needs to acknowledge the past and build off of it.  Honesty is the best policy, and China could use a healthy dose of transparency.

After being a U.S. citizen since birth, it would make sense to assume that I have had ample experience in observing how to hold the government accountable, however the reality is that this is not the case.  For almost all of my life, I have been educated and raised in government-run public schools in northern Virginia, one of the best-funded areas in the country.  This gives me a limited view of state government, given that the majority of state government-run institutions in the United States don’t have the same funding for infrastructure as Fairfax County, especially in rural areas.  Although I was fortunate to have quality public schooling, it wouldn’t be far off to assume that most individuals growing up do not have effective ways to hold any level of government accountable around the country. If we disagree with how money is spent in public schools how could challenge it?  Boycotting or staging protests are not realistic or effective options to a 15 year old high schooler, and appeals to major media outlets in all likelihood are a long shot.   Regardless of my opinions of public school, I had essentially no way of holding the government accountable until age 18 when I gained the right to vote, which does not guarantee much political efficacy.

To nobody’s surprise, the fact of the matter is that holding the government accountable is a job for adults.  Young adults can help in various ways, but the vision, money and political clout typically is left to the older and more experienced.  The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s are a perfect example of this.  The Little Rock Nine were all young adults fighting against Arkansas’ segregated school system, however no political traction was gained until media coverage led to the NAACP’s involvement: an organization with vision, money and political clout.  Individuals such as Thurgood Marshall or Martin Luther King Jr. had the education and leadership skills to confront the U.S. government and create change, and the Nine rely on them.  Protests staged by college students or disgruntled teenagers almost never gain headway unless an influential organization or media group intervenes; otherwise  the result is an embarrassing repeat of the Occupy Wall Street movement or Ferguson riots, which led to no major government reform.