Israeli attack on UN Observers and a role reversal in Chinese media

Bringing the UN observer home – image from Xinhua

Chinese media reaction to Israel’s recent attack on a UN observation post has been surprisingly tame. This is especially clear when comparing the coverage of the incident in the China Daily – the Mainland’s usually docile English language broadsheet – to coverage in the rest of the Chinese language press.

Historically, the Chinese language press has responded to perceived assaults on China’s national interests far more aggressively than has the China Daily. For example, following both the 1999 U.S. bombing of China’s Embassy to Yugoslavia and the 2001 spy plane incident, most Chinese media lambasted the U.S. for weeks while the China Daily moved on after a few days of pro-forma condemnation.

Last week the historical pattern was reversed. On Thursday – the first day of reporting following the incident – the China Daily published not only a front page article on the attack but also an editorial entitled “Israel has gone too far”. This compares with virtual editorial silence on the Chinese language side since the attacks. One exception was The Beijing News which published an editorial titled “Du Zhaoyus of the world: Use your life to realize your innate potential.”

There were also differences on the question of whether or not the attacks were intentional. In a front-page headline on Friday the China Daily proclaimed, “Israel was repeatedly warned before the attack.” The ensuing article focused on claims made by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that Israel had purposefully attacked the observers.

Chinese language papers were more circumspect as they approached this controversy. While many did tackle the issue, most either gave both sides of the debate or argued that Israel did not purposefully attack the observers. The Xinhua report carried in the Beijing Daily “Israel denies premeditation” repeated Annan’s accusation but also included an interview between the reporter and an Israeli official. Similarly, a news analysis piece in the World News Journal headlined “Did Israel make a premeditated surprise attack?” concluded that it was unlikely given that it was not in Israel’s interest to do so.

This role reversal represents a significant departure from past media strategies. In 1999 the then little known Hu Jintao apparently chose to divide his media messages in such away that would stir up Chinese nationalists while simultaneously softening the message to the outside world. For a host of reasons, which probably include the limited success of the old method, current strategy seems designed to do just the opposite.

UPDATE: There is more about this subject by Jonathan Ansfield at Spot-On: Arab, Jew and Chinese.