The mudslide at the China-Nepal border, yet the narratives from both sides feel like two separate disasters.
🇨🇳 Official Chinese account:
"Caused by a mudslide on the Nepal side."
Ministry of Natural Resources: Glacier collapse in Nepal → flows toward the Jilong Port →
时政
(
twitter.com
)
The mudslide at the China-Nepal border, yet the narratives from both sides feel like two separate disasters.
🇨🇳 Official Chinese account:
"Caused by a mudslide on the Nepal side."
Ministry of Natural Resources: Glacier collapse in Nepal → flows toward the Jilong Port → then back toward Nepal.
🇳🇵 Nepal / International sources:
More often referred to as "China-Nepal border, Podokoshi, Rasuwa Gadhi."
Some satellite analyses point the source to the high-altitude area on the Tibet side; USGS's explanation of the "4.4 magnitude earthquake" also differs from the "earthquake first, then collapse" narrative.
Nepalese side once stated: At 8:37, tremors from the Tibet direction, followed by a flash flood about 3 minutes later.
The most intriguing part is:
Chinese reports repeatedly emphasize "Nepal side"; Nepal and international sources, however, more frequently use "China-Nepal border," with assessments pointing to a source from the Tibet direction.
One side is drawing boundaries around the disaster, while the other is describing its location and process.
So the question arises:
If there's still controversy over the disaster's source and formation mechanism, why is China's official "Nepal side" narrative so unified?
Is this a geological conclusion, or narrative leading the way?
点击图片查看原图
