United Defeat Roma--Again!

Roma still no match--even for a 'subprime' United.

To prepare for the coming match with Arsenal, Fergie rested five playes featured in the first leg while Roma welcomed its centre-back Juan. But a second-tier United is more than enough to take United through to the semi-finals.

After the 2-0 loss at home, Roma has every reason to come out and fully attack so as to keep alive the dim hope of pulling off a victory and even going to the next stage. Surpriselingly, unlike some of the pre-match predictions, it is Roma who were on the defensive, as if guarding the fruit of the first leg. In fact, United could well bury the match in the first 25 minutes but for the splendid saves from Doni, arguably the best player in a less-than-impressive Roma team. As people began to ponder how many goals United might score--how many chances they might miss--a twist made United fans standing on their feet: Mancini, the Brazilian winger, won Roma a penalty, though out of outrageous dive! After De Rossi thundered the ball over the ball, I knew the match was over for Roma. When Teves finally got the opening, the rest is to focus on Barca.

To Roma's credit, they put up a spirited fight throughout the match. However, a Roma without Totti is a team without soul. Indeed, most of Roma's chances came from set-pieces and the opponent's defensive lapses. After being eliminated in the quarter-finals for the second year running, Spaletti will have to ponder on strengthening his team. The exit of Roma also means a semifinal without a top Italian club and three semi spots occupied by English clubs yet again.

For United, the change of half a squad has little effect on their consistency. Young Pique and the long-term absentee Silvestre paired reasonably well with Ferdinand and Brown in the back, although Roma did come up with several decent chances on its right flank. And interesting to note, Fergie has put three of United's most tireless and tenacious players in the front, with Hargreaves doing exceptionally well. When the team was in defence, he played his familiar role as a defensive midfield; and when in attacking, he almost became a winger: indeed, the goal was created by his beautiful cross from the right. But the problem of wasting chances is still haunting United, with Teves and Parker especially profligate in this match. I can't help but compare this match with the one against Lyon: tons of chances and good control of the match with somewhat nervous fans and even the players themselves. If this cannot properly be solved, with Vidic injured, Pique not fully tested an d Silvestre still a little rusty, prospects about winning the match against the Gunners aren't so bright. The good news is that United at least did not have to depend on Ronald's another personal brilliance; and the skipper Gary Neville's return may well boost morale on and off the pitch.

Anyway, United procceded to the semi-finals of the Championship League again. Now, their major task is this Sunday's clash with Arsenal, which could be a possible Premier League Champion decider.

"If you want war, so be it!"

"If you want war, so be it!" is a line from Jinyong's The Legend of the Condor Heroes, one of the most recognized Chinese Wuxia novels, when Genghis Khan prepares his ascending Mongolia for a war with the arrogant Khwarezm Empire. Genghis Khan easily crashed his enemy and went on to conquered the entire Central Asia. The rest is all history.

If anything, this line aptly captures the boiling sentiment currently engulfing China. Feeling embarrassed and humiliated in the Olympic torch relay by the West, the Chinese are venting their anger through the media and on the internet. The once subdued nationalism looks poised to burst at any minute. Some urltranationalists even call for a settlement with "those shameless saboteurs". Genghis Khan's messengers' beards were shaved--one of the deepest insult to them--before he decleared war on Khwarezm Empire; in China's case, she lost her face. While Mongolia was on its path to become one of the greatest empires at that time, the whole world is now talking about China's rise. The only difference: Mongolia had already had the intent to go to war, while China did not and still do not have it. But times change. Even if a major clash between major powers is beyond thinking today, a major incident such as the currently unfolding one may well prove to be a major cause to a major conflict tommorow. In fact, it will not be long before the secret antipathy between China and the West since the late Qing Dynasty develops into open antagonism.

As always, instead of helping defuse an already tense and fragile situation in Tibet, the media on both sides seems determined to fan the flame of the fire until--it caught themselves. What should have been a plain "cry wolf" story turned out to be all the more special. Normally, when something big happens in China, Chinese media will blame anyone other than the government, and its western counterpart will provide concrete evidence to point otherwise, and the public on both sides will tend to believe the latter. In time, after this pattern repeats itself for a number of times, Chinese media became a liar. Only this time around, when the Tibeten riots erupted, they switched their roles. Feeling fooled by the western media, the Chinese vociferouly questioned their credibility. However, blatant errors and falsafications in their reports are nothing to their mistake of equating "China" with "the Chinese government" and "its ruling Communist party". When the western media asked their leaders to boycott the Olympic Games hosted by "China" because of "China's" human records, and when they compared "China's" Olympic Games with Hitler's 1936 Games, proclaiming "China", not unlike Hitler, just wants to stage a pure showoff, it is those who have a connection with "China" that are insulted. Honestly, few would believe in the conspiracy theory that the western media are doing it intentionally, since it is an established tradition to identify the nation with its government. Well, on some occasions, one has to observe the subtlety these different terms can convey.

Olympic Games is a case in point, especially in China. Under most circustances, the public are indifferent to, say, whether you write "China" or "the Chinese government" in your reports, as the news has little bearing on their life or on their perception of themselves. But it's different now. After much fanfare and relentless propoganda, the majority of the Chinese people have come to identify themselves with the Games. So when the western media are questioning the suitability and qualification for China to host the game, they are in effect calling into doubt the ability of the Chinese, at least as perceived. Not only the national and personal pride, even the identity is at stake. At a time when nationalism is on the rise and is tightly controlled by the government, attacking the western media and bashing the West serve as a perfect venue. The media appear not to learn the lesson, or rather, choose to ingore it by reporting in a much unglamourous and often accusatory way. Well, to a certain extent, we have ourselves to blame, since the media are only catering to our needs. As readers and audience, what do we want to read and watch? A high-profile murder, a sex scandal, a riot, a tsunami...anything but mundane. Anything that is dramatic will attract our attention. A well-orchesrated prostest against the torch relay; a boycott of the opening ceremony by some bigwigs; and even a disruption to the game itself will be enough to catch eyeball. A welcome line-up for the torch; patriotic students waving the national flags; and great Chinese enthusiasm for the Games. Why not feature them in the news? No, not because they are not real, but because they are so natural even to the Chinese. To borrow a journalism jargon, they are not newsworthy.

In truth, the above analysis may be only the simptoms, masking the real cause--the established powers' refusal to accept China into their club. Some say it's the unease caused by China's rise, as in a classic security dilemma case. Possibly. But more reasonably, it lies in the fact that China and the roughly-defined West are fundamentally incompatible, in the way of living, in the way of thinking, in the way of running their nations, in the perception of the world, and in nearly everything. The Olympic Games only highlighted these incompatibilies by the West's rejection of everything "China", unwittingly and unconcoiusly (maybe too ingrained in their consciousness to be manifest).As in the case of Japan in the late 1980s, the USA and the Western Europe were not alarmed by Japan's being stronger, but by the fact that they are of different kinds. The same holds true for China, only that Japan's power is no match for today's China: they are also different in kinds. While being constantly humiliated in the early years by his future enemies certainly strengthened Genghis Khan's determination and brutality, I see no reason why such a heavy slap in the face will not plant a similiar seed for China's coming clash with those democratic bullies.