Why China isn't capitalizing on the Tiananmen Square attack

Most suspects in the Tiananmen Square attack are Uighurs – an ethnic minority in tension with the Chinese state – but the government has not paraded that fact. 

Alexander F. Yuan/AP
A partially damaged stone bridge is surrounded by potted plants in front of Tiananmen Gate, where, on Monday, a sport utility vehicle crashed and caught fire, in Beijing, China, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013.

If a car plowed through a crowd of tourists outside the White House before exploding into flames, killing several people and injuring dozens, TV crews would be swarming the site within minutes, the web would be alive with comment, and the incident would be front page news in the next day’s papers.

That’s not the way things work in China.

When a car crashed on Tiananmen Square on Monday and burst into flames after careering nearly 500 yards along a sidewalk, killing five and injuring 38, the only reporters rushing to the scene were foreigners. Police promptly detained them and deleted the video and photos they had shot.

There was no mention of the incident on prime-time Chinese TV news; the next day’s papers ran short stories calling it a traffic accident; and censors busied themselves trying to limit online discussion of the event by deleting social media posts.

Those posts were already suggesting that the crash was deliberate. But the idea that a terrorist had managed to stage an attack right under the nose of Mao Zedong, whose portrait hangs over the entrance to the Forbidden City – the symbolic heart of the Chinese state – was clearly too embarrassing to admit.

Only two days later did the state run news agency Xinhua release a statement by the police calling what had been a simple traffic accident a “carefully planned, organized and premeditated” terrorist attack by Muslim jihadis. They published a list of suspects’ names, all of which seemed to belong to ethnic Uighurs from the far western Muslim province of Xinjiang.

That information still did not make it onto the nationally televised evening news yesterday. Newspapers – subject to strict censorship even when they are not owned by the government – had little to say on Thursday morning. And all you could find on social media were bland copies of official slogans, such as “terrorists are few…all ethnic groups get along well.”

The reason why could be found in a directive from the ruling Communist party’s Central Propaganda Department, which a journalist leaked to the China Digital Times website.

“The media must report the story in strict accordance with Xinhua News Agency wire copy,” the order read. “Downplay the story; do not speculate on it; do not put the story on the front page or a website’s homepage; do not use images.”

This seemed odd. The Chinese government has gone to great lengths to try to persuade the world that its opponents in Xinjiang, where people complain of religious and cultural repression, are all “terrorists.” Most independent outside observers have scoffed at such claims.

Here, Beijing appeared to have persuasive evidence of a terrorist attack on civilians carried out by Uighurs. And the authorities behaved almost as if they wanted to hush it up.

That, explains Gong Wenxiang, a veteran journalism professor at Peking University, is because even the prospects of making political capital from the attack are trumped by the highest values in the ruling Communist party’s worldview: stability and harmony.

In less than two weeks, the country’s top leadership will gather for a key meeting that might unleash dramatic, and controversial economic reforms. In the run-up to that conclave, says Mr. Gong, “you don’t want to send any signal of instability; the central government does not want to appear not in full control of the situation.”

At the same time, he adds, the government is keen to project the image of a unified country where all 56 ethnic minorities live in peace with the dominant Han – which any Tibetan or Uighur will tell you is hardly the case.

Though no group has claimed responsibility for Monday’s crash, officials are suggesting that the suicide driver was a pro-independence Uighur separatist.

“Separatism is the most horrible crime in the government’s eyes,” says Gong. “And now it appears at the most sensitive time in the most sensitive place. Of course they want to hold the news back as much as possible.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.