Panda huggers and dragon slayers

In U.S. policymaking circles, there are two terms used as shorthand to describe the views of analysts of Chinese contemporary affairs.

On one side are the panda huggers. As a national symbol of China, pandas represent the cute and cuddly side of the Middle Kingdom. Panda huggers are those who want to embrace China, pulling it closer to the orbit of the West with greater trade and engagement. Panda huggers view the sophistication of many Chinese senior officials, believing that vast differences in core political beliefs can be set aside for cooperation, trade and engagement that mutually benefits both sides.

Dragon slayers, on the other hand, are deeply distrustful of China’s long-term intentions. They generally focus on China’s military build-up, and say its opacity is cause for alarm. Every new spy case uncovered in the United States – and there are many – causes them to lose sleep. They wonder what the message is when, as in mid-2005, Chinese PLA Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu tells Western journalists that China is prepared to lose every city east of Xian in a nuclear tit-for-tat exchange with the United States that would be triggered by U.S. intervention in any war between the mainland and Taiwan.

I bring this up because after years living in China, I see how simplistic these terms are. The Bush administration Cabinet has people that could be considered panda huggers and others who could be considered dragon slayers. The terms tend to pigeon hole rather than shed light.

Moreover, pandas are not all that gentle, and dragons may not be all that bad.

And that brings me to the painful tale of Li Suhua. Ms. Li, a native of Henan province, moved to the beautiful city of Suzhou and went to the city zoo on June 22. At her side were her husband and her child.

According to a story on the People’s Net website (only available in Chinese), Ms. Li and her family went to the panda pavilion, which was under construction. They could view the pandas from there. But seeing an employees’ door open, and wanting to get closer to a panda, and even pet one, they went inside.   

That was mistake number one.

Inside the employee area was Susu, a 25-year-old panda. By panda standards, 25 is old. The natural lifespan of a panda is 30 years. What happened next is not totally clear. But when Ms. Li emerged from the zoo, she was missing part of her right thumb. Susu bit it off.

That’s Ms. Li in her recovery bed, recovering from her tangle with a panda.

Maybe she was never a panda hugger to begin with. Maybe she was trying to give the panda the finger.

Comments

[Shijieren]

I can't believe you guys are freaking out over this post. I guess Tim was just amusing himself. God knows he's entitled to do that - and not always have "something to say". I know that I found this truly funny because given the Panda hugger vs Dragon slayer build-up, I was expecting something intensely political. And then came the twist in the tale....

[Junhui]

Are we bragging about warheads? What does this say about the "intent" of Western nuclear countries?

[WC]

AB: China has a population of 1.3 billions, while the combined population of the West's three nuclear countries is about 410 millions. Yet the three countries have more than 11,600 warheads but China has only 200 or 300 warheads. A population of less than 410 millions, less than one third of the chinese population, but has more than 38 times of
warheads than the chinese. What is difference between "50% increase of warheads in less in two years" or 100% increase in 1 year? All percentages are based on such an extremely small number that there should not be any discussions of "Major increase of expenditures for their nuclear deterrent" or "discern Chines Intent toward the US or other countries".

[A B]

The facts are as follows:

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/1w035m8u644p864u/fulltext.pdf

The best public estimate by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists / Natural Resource Defense Council is for 200 warheads as of 2006.

If China has 300 or more today, it implies they have massively increased their stockpiles which lends credence to a major increase in expenditures for their nuclear deterrent.

100 additional warheads (or a 50% increase in less than 2 years) makes a lot of difference trying to discern Chinese intent toward the United States and other countries.

[WC]

AB:I don't know if it is a fact but it was on the western mass media, estimated by the west nuclear "intelligent" dragon killers experts. Should I go to the chinese nuclear missile bases and count them one by one? Or did you go there and count them and certified by Price WaterHouse Cooper?
It is irrelevant and trivial to the discussion of Tim's article. Here is a bag of beans, I think you would do a very good job.
If China has more 300 arheads, would the panda huggers become dragon killers and go do a "Iraq" on the "red evil empire"? Or if China has less than 300 warheads, then all the dragon killers would become panda huggers, and China would return over 1.8 trillion US dollars(not all China's foreign reserves are from US if you want to count beans), and the US would invite their nuclear scientists to Los Alamo and Livermore Nation Lab and have bean- counting parties? Go figure. It might happen but counting beans is more a sure thing. I don't know. You tell me.

[A B]

@WC:

"panda has 300 or more nuclear warhead teeth"

Please provide a factual basis for claiming that China has 300 or more nuclear warheads.

The best estimate that is generally accepted is about 200 or fewer, with about 80 operationally deployed.

Furthermore, there are no tactical weapons, nor are the warheads deployed atop missiles "ready to launch" but stored separately away from launchers.

Quite frankly, the "fact" you present is suitable for the Water Closet, WC.

[the tank man]

I'm wondering which category Tim belongs to, panda hugger or dragon slayer??

[WC]

Hi Tim: I would like to clarify your arcticle for you if you don't mind. Please correct me if I made a mistake. The following in my clarification/ interpretation of what your trying to say:
For the panda huggers, don't forget that the panda has 300 or more nuclear warhead teeth, getting too close and you get hurt, but most Western "intelligence ( sorry, did I mis-spell intelligent?" nuclear arm experts and dragon killers said that the evil, undemocratic, 21st centry threathening "Hitler" regime might have a secretive arsenal of 30,000 nuclear warheads. Ms. Lin's real identity might be a reincarnated eagle with 11 thousand peaceful, world-saving dummy warhead teeth. Who knows? you tell me. Tim, is that what you try to say?

[chandra]

good for goverment china....

http://hyxan.co.cc

[Daniel]

May be Tim was trying to say to those panda huggers that behind the fuzzy fur, big round eyes is the real bear beneath?

[headstones]

Handcarved headstones are no doubt the best choice available, all in various types of stone the hand carving adds a certain personal element to the memorial/monument. Personally stonework created using only machines doesnt have the same level of creativlty in my opinion.

[wz]

Folks, it's perfectly ok to have a lame post once in a while. If you write blogs you would do the same thing.

[wz]

Folks, it's perfectly ok to have a lame post once in a while. If you write blogs you would do the same thing.

[Dan]

Tim, I have read this post twice and, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am still completely lost as to what you were trying to say.

[Netizen]

Panda huggers or dragons slayers, that's just an excuse for a post on the incautious zoo goer got her finger bitten off. There is more lesson in that than the first three quarters of the post.

[A B]

Beijing has the same problem with Eagle Kissers.

[Stan]

Go back on your medication Tim.I Nominate this for the worst blog entry of 2008. Anyone second the motion?