Caroline Wilson, the British Ambassador to China, recently posted an article via WeChat that the British media is independent and free from government interference, while the Chinese Communist Party suppresses freedom of the press, suppresses speech, and the media’s surname is Party, and has been attacked by the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece and Fifty Cents. According to analysis, the British Ambassador’s article hit a sore spot with the Chinese Communist Party.
Reuters reported on March 9 that the head of the European Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry summoned the British Ambassador to China, Wu Ruolan, and accused her, as the highest-ranking representative of the British diplomatic service in China, of “deliberately confusing news defamation with news monitoring” by issuing an article through an official platform to complain about individual foreign media outlets under sanctions. This practice is seriously inconsistent with the status of diplomats and the functions of diplomatic institutions,” she said, and raised “solemn representations” against her.
The Chinese Communist Party is now a War Wolf diplomacy, in addition to the United States and Russia have scruples, treatment of European countries, feel that now the strength than they are super strong, more and more do not put them in the eyes, “dare to call it (the Chinese Communist Party), the war wolf certainly not polite, will have to go to tear, sanctions.”
In October 2020, Wu Ruolan became the British Ambassador to China. She studied Chinese at China’s Northern Normal University and is very passionate about Chinese Culture and active in social media. Ambassador Wu Ruolan has attracted a large Chinese fan base by documenting what she sees and experiences in China in her video blog, and she often interacts with her online friends.
On March 2, Wu Ruolan published an op-ed in Chinese on the British Embassy’s WeChat website, “Does the Foreign Media Hate China? in which she said that criticism of the Chinese Communist government by foreign news media does not mean that the journalists in question dislike China, but rather that they are acting in good faith in their role of monitoring the government and ensuring that people have access to accurate information.
The article states that the foreign press acts independently in China and monitors the behavior of both its own and the Chinese government. In the UK, the media is known as the “fourth estate,” where journalists on any topic can interview political figures and ask tough questions, as well as do investigative reporting, expose wrongdoing and speak out for the underprivileged.
She also said that some Chinese media “can also uphold the principle of ‘public scrutiny’ and provide critical reporting,” and that many Chinese journalists and businesses support “more space for media freedom. “. But what distinguishes Chinese media from foreign media is that “Chinese media can only report critically under the conditions allowed by the government” and that “media sponsored by the party and the government must be called the party”. The article ends with the motto of Le Figaro, “If criticism is not free, praise is meaningless.”
Wu’s article was quickly banned by the Communist Party, and on March 3, she tweeted, “It’s like someone doesn’t want my article to be shared.” The screenshot shows that the article she published on her WeChat public number has been banned from being re-tweeted by the platform.
Wu Ruolan’s articles have also been attacked by the Global Times, a Communist Party mouthpiece, and a large number of 50 cents, accusing her of hypocrisy. According to the Global Times, “What the Chinese people resent is not the criticism of the Western media, but their double standards.” It said, “Wu Ruolan only mentions China’s expulsion of Western journalists, but not the U.S. expulsion of Chinese journalists, which has consequences but no antecedents.”
Wu Ruolan tweeted that she stood by her position in the article, pointing out that the Chinese ambassador to Britain was free to publish more than 170 articles in the British mainstream media.
According to Hua Po, Wu Ruolan is defending the idea of freedom of speech by sticking to her position, “She also stated the fact that the Chinese ambassador in Britain can publish articles in the British media as he pleases, while the British ambassador in China cannot publish articles in the Chinese media, so of course she has to stick to it.”
Hua Po said that the Chinese Communist Party has been known to double-standardize foreign media for decades in its dealings with the West. “It goes without saying how Chinese media are treated in Western countries and how Western media reporters are treated in China.”
Now the CCP also takes a two-handed response to international criticism, Hua Po said, taking the rules of international practice and saying Chinese characteristics, “It says it is in line with international standards when it accepts something from a foreign country, and it is Chinese when it rejects it. It uses the freedom of speech of the democratic system of that country when it publishes articles in other countries and cannot restrict my public opinion, but in China, it public opinion is strictly controlled, so, how it is all it says.”
In her article, Wu Ruolan also mentioned that the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in China released its annual report on media freedom on Monday (8), showing that China saw the largest expulsion of foreign media in 30 years in 2020.
Hua Po said that the comments in Wu Ruolan’s article actually hit the Chinese Communist Party where it hurts, “Her article points directly at China’s political system, mainly the issue of freedom of speech, which has always been strictly controlled in China. Although she is the British ambassador to China, she is in the same situation as the Chinese in China, and the machine blocks sensitive words as soon as they come out, so her article will definitely be blocked.”
“This is the reason why the authorities immediately organized a public opinion counter-attack, which is called Chinese characteristics.” Hua Po said.
Recent Comments