Archive for September, 2011

Thursday, September 29, 2011

European Debt Crisis: How Germany can “Lead”

If in the future, Germany were asked to guarantee amounts beyond the current 211 billion Euros for the EFSF,  nothing would happen without the Bundestag’s (lower house of German parliament) approval, federal finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble told the Bundestag today. The members of parliament endorsed Germany’s current contribution to the EFSF, with most of the votes both from the governing coalition parties, and the opposition.

Many anglo-saxonian papers, such as the Economist, have told Germany’s government to “lead”, to restore creditors’ and investors’ trust in the Euro. The truth is that Germany can’t simply “lead” Europe. Our country is trusted to a surprising and encouraging degree, given the past century’s history, but the two world wars aren’t forgotten. Many comments, especially from Greek commenters on this thread on a Die Welt blog, may serve as indicators.

But what can the German government do?

Even if the governments of Greece, Italy, and Spain did everything it takes to restore trust in their Euroland share, politicians there could hardly resist to point out that it was “Germany” (as if there were no other European  states taking positions similar to Germany’s) which “imposed” the hardships. But without such commitment from the countries in crisis, contributions to the EFSF will not only be meaningless, but will become Finland’s, Germany’s, or the Netherlands’ burden, and wreck their public finances, too. Besides, Greece, Italy, and Spain will not only need to restore their financial status, but they will also need to rebuild their economies, i. e. their competitiveness. That, in fact, is a prerequisite for sound public finances.

It is obvious that not only the “southerners”, but Germans, too, will need to prepare for tougher times. Germany hasn’t yet balanced its own budget (let alone its pension systems). That’s an immediate task, and be it only to put  certain amounts of the saved money aside –  for a transfer union (because the countries in crisis won’t be able to rebuild their economies all alone), and to put aside further amounts should the countries in crisis – and many of their creditors – go bust.

To believe that there will be a European watchdog that will make sure that the southern states will live up to their commitments (if there should be commitments at all) is an illusion. Germany, along with other contributing countries, should provide funding for a transfer union for a limited period, just as the Taiwanese state provided its fledgling industries with a limited period of protectionism, decades ago. After a given period, the funding should stop – mercilessly – just as Taiwan removed protective barriers around its industries after a given period. Meantime, the southern countries should take the steps they – not a European agency or a contributing European country – believe to be useful.

If they succeed or not: time would be bought, the contributing countries could prepare for a time after a break-up of Euroland (if the Eurozone should prove to be unsustainable), so could the creditors, and noone could seriously accuse the contributing countries (especially Germany, the whipping kid of many southerners’ choice) of accroaching a hegemonic role over other sovereign states.

For many reasons, we should see ourselves in the same boat as Greece, Italy, or Spain. As long as our trade with the three, and many other trade-deficit countries didn’t appear to pose obvious problems, people here in Germany didn’t ask too many questions, either. If we want to be true Europeans, we can be just that, and leave it to our fellow Europeans if they want to be “EU-Europeans”, too, and do their share of the work.

These steps wouldn’t only help to restore trust within the financial markets. They would also provide some peace of mind among those EU member states which aren’t yet members of the Eurozone. They could stay on the sidelines and wait if the day to join will ever come.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The 14th Dalai Lama’s Reincarnation Statement

Should I stay or shoud I go?

Should I stay or should I go?

The Dalai Lama‘s detailed statement on reincarnation (published on September 24) can be found on the Dalai Lama’s website in English, and a Chinese version is available on Woeser‘s blog.



FM Spokesman: “Blasphemy”, Sep 26, 2011


Monday, September 26, 2011

Foreign Ministry Spokesman: China Protects Reincarnation Process against “Blasphemy”

Press conference at the foreign ministry in Beijing on Monday, with spokesman Hong Lei (洪磊) answering an unnamed correspondent’s question about the Dalai Lama‘s plans to re-evaluate the reincarnation concept in fourteen years.

[Main Link: Foreign Ministry website, via Enorth, Tianjin]

Q: There have recently been some new statements concerning the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation. What’s the Chinese side’s response?


A: The 14th Dalai Lama’s actions are driven by hidden political motives, reckless distortions and denial of history, they are a huge damage to the normal order of Tibetan Buddhist transfer, and a blasphemy against the system of transfer of responsibilities from one Dalai Lama to another.

The Living-Buddha reincarnation is a unique Tibetan-Buddhist form of passing on the responsibilities, China exercises freedom of religion, and this, of course, includes protection of this transfer of responsibilities within Tibetan Buddhism. The title of Dalai Lama is conferred by the central government, and is otherwise not legal. The 14th Dalai Lama was also authorized and and established by what was then the Republic of China government. The reincarnation of a Dalai Lama has an intact ceremonial course and historical customs, and there has never been a previous Dalai Lama who established [how to determine] the next one. Moreover, the state promulgated the “Regulations on Religious Affairs”, and “Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism Management Practices”. The handling of any Living Buddha’s reincarnation, including the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation, must follow the ceremonial course, historical customs, and state laws.


活佛转世是藏传佛教特有的传承方式,中国实行宗教信仰自由政策,当然也包括尊重和保护藏传佛教这一传承方式。达赖喇嘛的称号是中央政府册封的,否则就不具 备合法性,十四世达赖喇嘛也是经当时民国政府批准认定的。达赖喇嘛转世有一套完整的宗教仪轨和历史定制,从来没有上一世达赖认定下一世达赖的作法。同时, 国家颁布了《宗教事务条例》和《藏传佛教活佛转世管理办法》,任何活佛的转世,包括达赖喇嘛的转世,都应当遵循宗教仪轨、历史定制和国家法律、法规去办。



» Science in Action, December 26, 2010


Sunday, September 25, 2011

A Trip to Beijing: There and Back Again

There are rules.

There are rules.

Beijing is the place every good Chinese citizen longs for. Every good patriot (and that would be more than one billion people outside the capital), wants to stand at on Tian An Men Square, at least once in his or her life, and attend the flag-raising ceremony.

But there’s more to Beijing. With luck, a traveller may be in for an impressive demonstration of what’s going on behind the scenes.

The BBC:

A Chinese tourist was badly beaten up after being mistaken for a petitioner who wanted to lobby the authorities in Beijing, state media report.

Zhao Zhipei and three others were dragged from a hotel and bundled into a van before being dumped in their home province of Henan.

Mr Zhao was later found unconscious on a road in Luoyang city [that was back in Henan Province]. The case caused anger on China’s social media sites.

Six local officials have been punished for the beating, state media said.

According to Hangzhou Web (杭州网), five others were beaten up along with Zhao Zhipei (赵志斐), by unidentified persons (不明身份人士), who reportedly were a security company’s employees.

Police in Luoyang told Beijing News that “perhaps the wrong person was caught”.

MyLaowai, aka The Mother Teresa of the Blogosphere, would hardly agree. After (reportedly) being unfair to some fellow travellers on a plane, he defended his conduct this way:

Well, you’d be right. But this is the Chinese Way. It’s the basis upon which their entire society is structured. I merely played their own game, though of course, as a Laowai, I played it better than they did.

Hopefully, Zhao made it to the flag-raising ceremony on Tian-An-Men Square before re-epiphinating in his home province. His trip reportedly ended on the second day of his stay in Beijing, before the crack of dawn.



» Gang then, Dynasty now, May 12, 2010
» One of BeiDa’s Humorous Professors, April 11, 2009


Saturday, September 24, 2011

Russian Political Scientist: “So-Called Orange-Forces’ Attempts will Fizzle Out”

Radio Moscow QSL, 1980s

Radio Moscow QSL, 1980s

Stimme Russlands (Voice of Russia, in German), September 24, 2011, 16:00 GMT, 12,010 kHz. Translation:

You are listening to the news from the Voice of Russia, read by Vera Grant.1)

Moscow. Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who wants to run for another term as president in 2012, can be re-elected afterwards, according to political scientist Vyacheslav Nikonov. In 2024, Dmitry Medvedev could come to the fore again. “It seems that we are witnessing a long-term solution of the situation in Russia. We now know the setup of Russian power until 2036, the political scientist added. Nikonov found the platform presented by the Kremlin party exquisitely practical. “There were mentions of ambitious goals which are in fact not quite that ambitious, such as becoming one of the world’s five largest economies. I believe Russia will be up to that if it develops with seven per cent growth. I believe that we can become the fifth-largest global economy and the biggest in Europe by 2020”, Nikonov said. The upcoming presidential elections weren’t to produce notable surprises, except that there could be new faces among the candidates, such as Mikhail Prokhorov2). Also, there could be attempts of unconstitutional activities by so-called orange powers. These however would fizzle out, according to the political scientist.

Some of the more judgmental wording within Vyacheslav Nikonov’s comments was put into quotation marks by RIA Novosti news agency, which originally authored the report. The quotation marks provide the written report with an air of impartiality which wasn’t noticeable as the news was read out on the air. The news agency’s report was apparently used as the only source for the Voice of Russia’s German department’s newscast concerning the election arrangement (a slight error of omission RIA Novosti’s report included was also faithfully read out).

Vyacheslav Nikonov‘s given name is also frequently spelled Vjatsheslav Nikonov.

He is a grandson of Vyacheslav Molotov, Stalin’s minister of foreign affairs. According to a paper by Victor Yasmann for the Jamestown Foundation in 1995, Nikonov was a Komsomol activist during the (late) Soviet era, and was also politically active after the USSR’s collapse.  He is president of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, and the foundation’s website features a detailed bio.



1) The original, in German:

soundtrack »

Sie hören Nachrichten von der Stimme Russlands, am Mikrofon begrüßt Sie Vera Grant. Moskau. Der russische Premier Vladimir Putin, der 2012 für eine weitere Amtszeit als Präsident kandidieren will, kann laut dem Politologen Wjatscheslaw Nikonow danach wiedergewählt werden. Im Jahr 2024 könnte dann erneut Dmitri Medwedjew das Ruder übernehmen. “Allem Anschein nach sind wir Zeugen einer langfristigen Lösung der politischen Situation in Russland geworden.  Jetzt kennen wir die Konfiguration der russischen Macht für einen recht langen Zeitraum. Es ist offensichtlich, dass Putin in dieser Situation die Möglichkeit bekommt, für die nächsten zwölf Jahre in Russland die Staatsführung zu übernehmen – falls im Land nichts Außergewöhnliches geschieht”, sagte Nikonow am Samstag zu den am Parteitag von Geeintes Russland anwesenden Journalisten. “Ich schließe nicht aus, dass ihn danach Medwedew ablöst. Das bedeutet, dass wir möglicherweise bereits die russische Machtkonfiguration bis zum Jahr 2036 kennen”, fügte der Politologe hinzu. Das von Putin auf dem Parteitag vorgestellte Programm der Kreml-Partei nannte Nikonow “ausnehmend praktisch”. “Es wurden ehrgeizige Pläne genannt, die in Wirklichkeit gar nicht so ehrgeizig sind – etwa der Einzug in die fünf größten Wirtschaften der Welt. Ich denke, Russland ist dem gewachsen, wenn es sich mit dem von Putin genannten Tempo von sieben Prozent entwickelt. Ich denke, wir können bis 2020 die fünftgrößte Wirtschaft der Welt und die größte in Europa werden”, so Nikonow. Die bevorstehenden Präsidentenwahlen werden dem Experten zufolge keine nennenswerten Überraschungen bringen – außer, dass unter den Kandidaten möglicherweise neue Gesichter zu sehen [sic] werden, wie etwa Michail Prochorow.
Außerdem könne es zu Versuchen unkonstitutioneller Handlungen von Seiten sogenannter oranger Kräfte kommen. Diese werden laut dem Politologen jedoch im Sand verlaufen.

2) Mikhail Prokhorov bio at Wikipedia »



» No “Quadriga” for Nobody, July 18, 2011


Saturday, September 24, 2011

Still “Missing”: Gao Zhisheng

Geng He (耿和), wife of Chinese dissident Gao Zhisheng (高智晟), attended the Global Summit against Discrimination and Persecution , referred to as an international NGO summit (国际非政府组织峰会) by the BBC’s Chinese website, in New York on Thursday. Gao had repeatedly been detained and released in the past, before he was apparently abducted by the Chinese state once again, in April 2010. Also in April 2010, shortly before what appears to be his most recent, and still lasting abduction, he had publicly announced that he would give up his work as an activist, for the chance of rejoining his wife and two children who are in exile in America.

[Main Link:]

Geng appealed to the international community to address the Chinese authorities, to let Gao get into contact with his family. According to reports quoted by the BBC’s Chinese website, her husband had been incommunicado (音信皆无)  after a brief contact with AP reporters this year.*) Enquiries his family people had tried through all kinds of channels to learn about his whereabouts had failed.

Geng thanked the international community for help provided to Gao Zhisheng and expressed her hope that international support for her to find her missing husband would continue. She also hoped that China’s leaders, at a time the United Nations General Assembly gathered in New York, would hear her appeal of natural and human feelings.

The Global summit or NGO conference signed a human rights dissidents manifesto, and passed a resolution calling for the expulsion of China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia from the UN Human Rights Commission, reports the BBC.

The conference reportedly partners with the Human Rights Foundation, and could be considered a human-rights-oriented response to UN-sponsored Durban Conference, which had its first assembly in the South African city of the same name, in 2009 – a UN-sponsored event which my old classmate and friend,  Tai De, back then, described as follows:

The ‘Ndrangheta is asking for a rule that would ban “derogatory remarks” on the mafia. Besides, the UN Racism Conference starts looking like my mom’s kitchen garden – only bigger and messier.



*) The brief contact with the AP reporter or reporters (与美联社记者短暂见面) appears to have been a short interlude, as Gao appears to have been incommunicado before, and after that contact.



» Gao Zhisheng alive, March 28, 2010
» Family makes daring Escape, Telegraph, March 13, 2009
» Gao Zhisheng, Wikipedia


Friday, September 23, 2011

German Blog Review: Is Religion above Democracy?

Asking about the costs a papal visit would cause has been a leitmotif during Pope Benedict XVI‘s visit to Spain in August, and has remained one during his visit to Germany now. What is true is that such a visit does cause costs. But then, every state visit does.

Benedict XVI spoke to the Bundestag on Thursday. There has been an argument about that, too. The Bundestag was being abused by the Vatican and those who had invited the Pope to speak there, writes Almabu, a German blogger, and

protestants, atheists, muslims, and others – who are Germany’s majority, will experience this with astonishment (Protestanten, Atheisten, Moslems und Andere – die zusammen die Mehrheit in Deutschland bilden – werden es mit Befremden erleben…).

I’m a protestant, and an unbelieving one at that – a christian only by denomination. The influence of both the catholic, and the protestant churches, goes to far in my view, given that Germany defines itself as a secular state. The state collects a church tax on the churches’ behalf. Professors of theology can’t teach at German universities without permission from either of the two official churches.  Hans Küng and Uta Ranke-Heinemann were banned from teaching catholic theology – not by their universities, or by a court decision, but by the Vatican.

But that doesn’t seem to be the current protesters’ main concern. Child abuse in religious – and especially catholic – organizations are a topic. Papal opposition to “gay marriage” is, too. So is the Pope’s conservative attitude towards “unity among christians”, or ecumenism. But then, catholicism and protestantism are two  different concepts after all.

Maybe I’d be opposed to the Pope’s visit if I were a believing christian, and especially if I were catholic. Maybe. I know catholics who are struggling to make their voices heard within their church, and who argue that the catholic church needed to become more democratic, or at least more presbyterian (if that’s the accurate nomenclature).

So, talk may be cheap. I’m not catholic. But I’m a citizen of this republic, and I see no problem with the Pope speaking to the Bundestag. He spoke to Parliament as a fellow German, but above all, he stated his concept of the foundations of a free state of law (die Grundlagen des freiheitlichen Rechtsstaats). He may be dead-wrong, but he has earned himself the position to speak, through a long life of ardent and productive research and thought. As long as he doesn’t exceed the constitutional limits, why should his speech to the Bundestag be a problem? He wasn’t legislating – he was presenting his views.

Would he like to legislate, instead of elected lawmakers? Who can tell? I can’t. What I can tell is that I’m sometimes listening when the Pope speaks – for my information, not for guidance. I do believe that he is a man of great knowledge, even if not necessarily a man of wisdom. He’s dogmatic. Dogmatism may limit, but doesn’t seem to bar thought – much of what theologians write is actually very carefully thought.

The Pope, in his speech to the Bundestag, was aware that he wasn’t talking to a merely christian parliament. “How do we recognize what is right?”, he asked (rhetorically), and answered his own question:

In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed body of law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God.


For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: “When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves … they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness …” (Rom 2:14f.).

But while most of the matters that need to be regulated by law, the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion, it was evident that for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, the majority principle is not enough: everyone in a position of responsibility must personally seek out the criteria to be followed when framing laws.

Natural law, which helped to understand what is right or wrong, is no specifically catholic concept, according to the Pope.

But probably, there had been attempts to incorporate natural law into Christianity. It would be surprising if the Pope didn’t think of natural law as something within catholic teachings – the latter of which would supersede all other teachings, in his view.

Maybe it’s that suspicion (it’s certainly a suspicion I do feel myself) which drives oppostion against the papal visit to Germany in general, and his opportunity to speak to our elected representatives in particular.

But it makes no difference, as long as the law prevails. Besides, there would only be few people in this country, given our history, who would doubt that under certain circumstances, the state and its law must be opposed, not supported.

If or when such a situation would arise will be judged differently by different people. The Pope‘s criteria may not be my criteria. But when reading what he said as a cardinal, in 1996, about relativism, it seems to strike a chord here:

A system of freedom ought to be essentially a system of positions that are connected with one another because they are relative as well as being dependent on historical situations open to new developments. Therefore, a liberal society would be a relativist society: Only with that condition could it continue to be free and open to the future.

In the area of politics, this concept is considerably right. There is no one correct political opinion. What is relative—the building up of liberally ordained coexistence between people—cannot be something absolute. Thinking in this way was precisely the error of Marxism and the political theologies.

However, with total relativism, everything in the political area cannot be achieved either. There are injustices that will never turn into just things (such as, for example, killing an innocent person, denying an individual or groups the right to their dignity or to life corresponding to that dignity) while, on the other hand, there are just things that can never be unjust.

Indeed, writes Alan Posener, a British-German blogger,

democracy is, if you like, the “dictatorship of relativism”. Those who stand up for democracy advocates that every opinion may be voiced, and that all kinds of [political] parties strive for state power. No hate speech is allowed, no calls for violence, but basically, everything else is permitted. What is not permitted is to put an end to this relativism, the abolition of the rules of democratic practice. A party with the declared goal to bar other parties’ access to power or to ban free expression of opinion must not stand for election, not even if – and especially not if – they have a majority behind them. What democrats do not want is a dictatorship of truth – no matter if that is a minority’s or a majority’s truth.

But that’s what Benedict wants.*)

Is it? Posener quotes several very unpleasant – if quoted correctly – lines from the Pope, spoken in 2004, when the Pope was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I’m not sure, however, if Ratzinger, in 2004, really said that the West needed to ask itself if “European secularization wasn’t an exception which needed correction” (“ob die „europäische Säkularisierung ein Sonderweg sei, der einer Korrektur bedürfe” – that’s how Posener quotes him). According to Massimo Rosati, in Ritual and the Sacred, 2009, it was actually Jürgen Habermas, in a debate with the Pope, who

reminded us how, seen from Tehran, secularization in Europe, if compared with other socio-cultural contexts, appears an exception in need of correction.

Ratzinger however

had emphasized, on the one hand, how secularized Europe cannot reasonably think of herself as a model for other countries, how her particularistic self-representation cannot aspire to being an exemplary value, and, on the other hand, how this self-representation is not truly authentic even with reference to European history and culture [footnotes omitted].

Thomas Assheuer, a correspondent of German weekly Die Zeit, who listened to Habermas’ and Ratzinger’s debate in 2004, couldn’t tell if Ratzinger had claimed, for religion, the role of an usher which would supersede democracy, or one as a corrective. The Pope is trying to influence the public – the German public, the Italian public, the global public. But so is every Confucius Institute. The issue is if either of them wants to impose dictatorship upon Germany. (If either the Confucius Institutes, or the religious organizations, should play a role in our educational system, would be a different question.)

If the Pope is indeed as dangerous as he is portrayed to be by many of his opponents, blogposts like Posener’s (and many other critics) won’t cut. For sure, this is a country where the Pope’s views can be read, quoted from, and be challenged.

But before he can be challenged (or even quoted, for that matter), he must be read. Closely.



*) Tatsächlich ist die Demokratie, wenn man so will, die Diktatur des Relativismus. Wer für die Demokratie eintritt, setzt sich dafür ein, dass jede Meinung geäußert werden darf und dass sich alle möglichen Parteien um die Macht im Staat streiten. Man darf keine Hassreden schwingen und nicht zu Gewalt aufrufen, aber sonst ist so ziemlich alles erlaubt. Was nicht erlaubt ist, das ist die Beendigung dieses Relativismus, die Aufhebung der Spielregeln der Demokratie. Eine Partei, die das erklärte Ziel hat, den anderen Parteien den Zugang zur Macht zu verbieten oder die freie Meinungsäußerung zu unterbinden, darf nicht kandidieren, selbst wenn – ja gerade wenn – die Mehrheit hinter ihr steht. Was Demokraten nicht wollen, ist die Diktatur der Wahrheit. Egal ob das die Wahrheit einer Minderheit oder die einer Mehrheit ist.

Die will aber Benedikt.



» The Art of Happiness, December 9, 2008


Friday, September 23, 2011

Chinese Press Review on Taiwan Arms Sales: “Some African Media”

Euronews TV had reported that the U.S. decision to sell arms to Taiwan at a time of severe global economic turmoil would harm (or destroy) the atmosphere between the world’s largest economies, and lead to panic or negative effects on the markets (欧洲新闻电视台网站的报道说,美国在全球经济处于剧烈动荡时期作出售台武器决定,将破坏世界两个最大经济体之间的气氛,对敏感的市场带来恐慌或负面影响), according to an international press review by People’s Daily (人民网) on Friday (today GMT).

Snowwhite: the Queen's Mirror

Mirror, mirror on the wall / Who is the most beautiful of all? (click picture above to find out)

It’s in fact old news. Euronews TV published the report “quoted” by People’s Daily on September 16, one week before it made it into the CCP’s organ.

In fact, the “Euronews” report – actually a Reuters report republished by Euronews TV –  quotes  experts, rather than taking up a stance of its own.

The deal could sour the mood between the world’s two biggest economies at a jittery time for global markets, even if China confines its response to angry words and largely symbolic recriminations, said several experts.

“China will oppose in principle any decision to sell weapons to Taiwan, but how China expresses its opposition and how strongly will depend on the substance of the decision,” said Wu Xinbo, deputy director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

Wu Xinbo is the only expert named (remotely, if at all) by Euronews TV in the context of global markets.

“International press reviews” in the Chinese press usually come with no links to the originals, even if the originals are online. Links would probably make no sense, because the original articles usually differ from the way they are presented in Chinese (when the topic is sensitive), and such reviews appear to be written for a readership which is uninformed and/or speaks little English (or other foreign languages).

Frequently, Chinese press reviews about sensitive issues include some pro-Beijing Hong Kong news articles, as the place of origin might help to add some credibility. The Chinese “international press review” that tops JR’s collection from this genre in that regard so far would probably be one by China News Service (中国新闻网), China’s second-largest state-owned news agency after Xinhua, and that one, too, was about Taiwan. China News Service, too, quoted a Hong Kong source – the Hong Kong China News Agency (HKCNA, 中通社), which is, in turn, a branch office of China News Service itself.

To be fair, Euronews TV only got one line in People’s Daily’s international press review of today. Other news corporations quoted in the arms-sales context are Russian newsagency TASS, a Thai newspaper the name of which is translated as  敏锐 清晰 深入 (something like keen, clear, and in-depth), a Mexican newsagency, Cuba’s Prensa Latina, Al-Quds (a paper from Saudi Arabia), Al-Jazeera‘s English channel, and “some African media” (有非洲媒体).



Quote: Makuwerere Bwititi, January 15, 2010


%d bloggers like this: