fear of a red planet

"The Persian Paradox"

2012-01-27T11:09:00.000-08:00

Currently in Helsinki on business, about which more anon, but in the meantime I cannot recommend enough this interview with Wang Fengbo, a former editor at Deutsche Welle, over at JR's Place. Money Quote:

Q - Let’s suppose the Welle takes this approach: advocating human rights, becoming very explicit about human rights violations in China at times, and maybe this, too, would offend many Chinese listeners. This would – if my guesswork is correct – still spell rather reduced traffic on the Welle’s Chinese website. But you can’t make traffic the only criterion, can you? Isn’t there a risk of losing your own way as a broadcaster, if you keep toning down your message until the audience is satisfied?

A - I really love this question! For this is the question we, the former online colleagues, have discussed a thousand times! We are usually already one step closer to an answer if we have raised the question. The problem of the Chinese department since the later months of 2008 has been that you risk your “political correctness” if you dare to ask which appoach serves the goal of DW better.

Furthermore I think we shall distinguish advocacy journalism from advocacy of human rights. To say that I am not a fan of advocacy journalism is not to say I am against advocating human rights. That is a big difference. This is rather a question of the path to goal, not the goal itself.

I don’t doubt that DW has a mission to advocate human rights, comparable to the so-called value-oriented foreign policy of the federal government of Germany. But does it necessarily mean that you must do this by not caring about your website traffic anymore? If you have zero traffic, how could you then promote your great values?

. . . . .

This is something I call the “Persian-paradox”, in some joking way. I was told by a colleague about how the Persian language department of DW has responded to such kinds of questions. [...] During the protest wave around 2009 in Iran, they firstly achieved a relatively high record of visits, but this should have made them feel uneasy. And days later the Persian website of DW was blocked in Iran and they should have felt a great release by telling around in House of DW the good news: “we are also blocked!”

I cannot tell if the story is true. But I do believe, be it just a fiction, it can best illustrate the dilemma or paradox of DW. I guess the logic behind this should be: If you are not blocked yet, you are not sufficiently politically correct. The compulsory logical conclusion out of this state of mind is a clear one: The DW [outlets] can [only be proved] morally good enough by zero traffic from their target-countries. Isn’t this a new form of cold-war mindset? Shall DW be satisfied with the role as a monologue-talker?"

(emphasis added)

Of course when even people like Shaun Rein find that their works are refused distribution in China you can ask if it is all that easy to judge what will get you blocked or not, but it is worth asking what the point of broadcasting things that will be blocked is when you are trying to reach the Chinese public.

Tomorrow's Taiwan Weather Forecast: Rainy with chance of attempted assasination

2012-01-13T09:47:00.001-08:00

Who's going to win tomorrow's Taiwanese election? I genuinely don't know - the latest polls had Ma either a few percentage points ahead or one behind depending on who you ask.

Who should win it? I'm definitely not anti-Ma, in fact, in as much as a non-citizen, non-resident should have an opinion on this, I supported Ma Yingjiu against Hsieh in the last election - whatever his failings, he remains a smart guy, and a moderate leader. All the same, Tsai Yingwen also has some very good qualities - she's also a moderate, and also smart.

Who would I pick, then? For me it would be Tsai - it would mark a return to the mainstream for the DPP that would prevent a lurch towards extremism (or being unrealistically idealistic, if you want to put it that way). Also very important is that should she win, she would be the first woman in the Chinese-speaking world to become a legitimate, de jure leader of her country since Wu Zetian.

The one thing we don't want to see is another repeat of the failed assassination shenanigans that marred the 2004 and 2008 elections - but even if they don't recur, it seems almost inevitable that the losers will accuse the winners of rigging the results.

[Picture: Wu Zetian, the last de jure female leader in the Chinese-speaking world. Via Wiki.]

What the Taiwanderful poll tells you about the state of the Taiwanese blogosphere

2012-01-02T05:30:00.000-08:00

In short: bad. The top two blogs (Free Taiwan and Letters from Taiwan) represent the polarised extreme of either side of Taiwan's political debate.

On the pro-pan blue side, Free Taiwan seems to specialise in accusing the DPP's Tsai Yingwen of being a traitor. Here's a sample:

"Tsai Ing-wen has proven many times that she is a traitor to the Republic of China – turns out she also betrays those of her supporters, who one day want to establish a so called “republic of taiwan” . What Tsai Ing-wen and her extremist clique of supporters have in mind is selling Taiwan to the United States of America."

And what was the catalyst for this rant? It was the appearance of a US flag amongst the crowd at a DPP rally.

On the pro-pan-green side we have the marginally more sane Letters From Taiwan, who carries on the time-honoured tradition of interpreting boiler-plate statements by KMT officials as signalling a program of surrender to the mainland authorities:

"Ma is sending a coded message that 100 years from now, ROC citizens will thank ‘you’ (read: ‘mainlanders’ and ROC loyalists) for having the wisdom and courage to push for a unified China once again under ROC, read KMT, patronage. Taiwan and Taiwanese will thank their lucky stars that they chose a President who had the courage to push for the only solution to facing an aggressive authoritarian neighbour - surrender."

What exactly was it that Ma said? Here's the offending paragraph:

“We are confident that when the next generation speaks of the marvel of Asia’s and mainland China’s rise, it will certainly also feel pride in the rise of Taiwan and the rise of the ROC. A century from now when ROC citizens think back on us, it will be wonderful if they can say: ‘How lucky that Taiwan had you.”

I guess the high degree of polarisation in the Taiwanese blogosphere can be excused by the highly polarised nature of Taiwanese politics itself, however, one does expect foreign observers to have a degree of detachment from local politics which is not actually apparent in Taiwan at the moment. Perhaps this explodes the myth that expat observers are likely to be more neutral or objective than their local counterparts. Whatever the cause, I think I can be forgiven for longing for more adult behaviour than what passes for political debate in the Taiwanese blogosphere at the moment.

Gordon Chang: The pundit who cried wolf

2011-12-31T08:50:00.000-08:00

I first read of Gordon G. Chang back in my Taiwan days when various editorialists in the Taipei Times used to trumpet his claim that the government of the People's Republic of China was facing inevitable collapse due to an imminent financial crisis which would be caused by non-performing loans lent out by state-owned banks. After arriving in Nanjing in 2003, I very quickly decided that Chang and others were exaggerating the degree of opposition to the government in mainland China, and that the financial crisis predicted by Chang was unlikely due not least to the financial strength of the government.

However, Chang is now back with fresh predictions of impending doom within the next year:

"Since late September, economic indicators -- electricity consumption, industrial orders, export growth, car sales, property prices, you name it -- are pointing toward either a flatlining or contracting economy. Money started to leave the country in October, and Beijing's foreign reserves have been shrinking since September.

As a result, we will witness either a crash or, more probably, a Japanese-style multi-decade decline."

I agree that all the indicators look bad at the moment, but the fundamentals that have kept the Chinese economy chugging forward - most notably a cheap, well-educated workforce - are still there. Even the relatively pessimistic forecasts show an average per capita GDP growth rate of 5% year-on-year by 2016 - something that is far from a disaster.

More to the point though, Chang's prediction of collapse of the Chinese government within the next year has several conceptual problems that need examining:

Firstly, if China is due for a "a Japanese-style multi-decade decline", then this does not at all mean that a massive crash of the kind that would shake the government will occur next year.
Secondly, countries with communist political systems such as mainland China's have weathered very harsh economic crises without the government falling. Cuba and North Korea in the wake of the collapse of the USSR are stark examples of this, but we also see examples in Central Europe - Poland during the 1970's being one.
Thirdly, even if serious unrest does occur, the Chinese state has overcome such movements in the past and would stand every chance of doing so again. In 1989 there was essentially no limit to the willingness of the Chinese leadership to use force to suppress opposition, even if great bloodshed resulted, and there is every reason to believe that the leaders due to take power next year are of the same temperament.

Put simply, whilst I do think pessimists like Chang may have a point and that at some point their predictions may come true (hence the title) I don't think it will be any time soon, at least not in the next year.

Anyway, now for a G&T and a mince pie to ring in the new year!

[Picture: A photo of only the second public statue of Mao Ze Dong I have seen in seven years on-and-off of travelling in China. Taken during my trip to Chengdu in June, about which more later]

Shaun Rein: "Shame on CNN . . I have no idea if Chen’s being wronged or not"

2011-12-21T07:46:00.000-08:00

This latest piece by ultra-apologist Shaun Rein on Christian Bale getting roughed up on-camera really does take the cake:

"CNN’s China team, in a complete failure of journalistic integrity, decided last week to become the news rather than just report it. The actor Christian Bale called CNN to follow him as he drove for eight hours to confront police to try to see Chen Guangcheng, a blind legal activist being held in his home in the eastern Chinese village of Linyi. Bale was in China to promote his movie about the Rape of Nanking by Japanese troops in 1937.

CNN did Bale one better. It became complicit in Bale’s activism by actually planning the trip and driving him to Linyi. CNN reporter Steven Jiang then translated for Bale as he argued with Chinese police officers and refused to comply with their directives to leave.

. . . .

Bale and CNN’s publicity stunt indicts an entire political system without delving deeper into the reality of Chen’s detention and the interplay between the central and local governments. I have no idea about Chen’s detention, and if he is being wronged or not, but if there are issues with his case, I am not convinced that calling the entire political class “disgusting,” as Bale does, can help."

Let's leave aside Rein's plugging elsewhere in the article of his yet-to-be-published book which (at least judging by the title) has nothing to do with the issues discussed in the piece. Let's also leave aside the fact that the "police men" in the video never identified themselves as such, and delivered their "directives to leave" with their fists.

Instead, let's simply focus on what Rein's saying here. Basically, Rein feels quite qualified to pass judgement on what exactly the journalistic standards are that CNN should obey. He also feels perfectly qualified to say whether a camera team that follows an activist is "complicit in [their] activism". However, on the question of whether it is correct to keep an innocent man and his family under house arrest without charge or acknowledgement of arrest, and to beat up those attempting to see him, he suddenly does not feel qualified to pass judgement.

That's right, a man who feels free to comment on everything from the levels of 'real' poverty in China, to who should win the Nobel Peace Prize (answer: Deng Xiaoping, no, really), to whether or not Chelsea Clinton's wedding affected her mothers diplomatic activities, suddenly finds himself unable to say whether an innocent blind man should be imprisoned without charge.

Is this informed commentary? Is this even the attitude of a responsible adult? Or is it instead transparent, self-interested, and cynical shilling for the PRC government - the government that Rein has elsewhere boasted of his connections with, and which is keeping a blind man and his family under house arrest without justification?

I'm not saying that Rein should necessarily have to write about Chen Guangcheng. I'm also not saying that CNN's tactics did not have a certain element of theatre in them - although in my opinion this was justified given the circumstances, since the best way of showing that everyone who tries to see Chen Guangcheng is attacked is to do it yourself.

What I am criticising here is the thinly disguised attempt by Rein to use his Forbes column as a platform to attack Bale and CNN whilst claiming total ignorance of the circumstances surrounding their actions - circumstances which even casual observers of China are already quite aware of. Both the piece itself and Rein's apparent motives for writing it are utterly discreditable, and he should disown them.

Beijing

2011-12-20T08:39:00.000-08:00

Since I'm now on holiday back in (not very) sunny old Blighty, I thought I'd take the time to describe some of my travels from earlier this year. First off is the visit I made to Beijing as part of a business trip in June.

I'd last visited the city when my parents came to visit China in 2005 when, to say the least, my impressions of the city had been somewhat mixed. Whilst I had enjoyed my visit to the museums and the Forbidden City - which was then still in a slight state of disrepair but also a wonderful oasis of quiet in the city - I had found the pollution and politicised atmosphere of the city a bit oppressive compared to, say, Shanghai.

Fast-forwarding six years to the post-Olympics age the city had changed in some ways but not in others. The politicised atmosphere of the capital is still there, the pollution is seemingly worse (at least to my totally untrained eyes), but the new construction in the city has led to obvious benefits in terms of improved transportation, if not always in terms of aesthetics.

However, once business was concluded, my experience of the city this time was rather more laid back. Without the rush to take in all the sights, I was first able to spend an enjoyable lunch with a fellow former Nanjingtonian, and then an evening enjoying the peaceful vibe down at edge of lake Houhai - very touristy for sure, but as a tourist I could hardly complain.

After that, as well as after several misadventures with taxi drivers who did not seem to know the first thing about their city's layout, I met up with some friends at Nearby The Tree, a Beijing expat bar, and whiled away the hours until quite late shooting pool and drinking Belgian beers with the owner. I got on to my flight back to Poland over a stunningly beautiful Siberia the next day hung-over but contented.

So has my experience sold me on Beijing? I'm afraid I'm still something of a sceptic - the pollution is still a bit of a problem for me, but I can see myself being converted.

[Picture: The Beijing skyline as seen from my hotel window]

Vaclav Havel on the tears in Pyongyang

2011-12-20T08:12:00.000-08:00

Right on the money:

“The manager of a fruit and vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

……

That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper ‘decoration’ in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life ‘in harmony with society’, as they say.

……

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan, ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient’, he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.”

Watching the pictures of North Koreans crying over the death of Kim Il-Sung on the BBC here in the UK where I'm back for my Christmas holiday, I, and everyone in the room with me, could not prevent ourselves from laughing at the obvious fakeness of it all. It is impossible to believe that any of those crying are doing so genuinely, instead the tears communicate a distinct message: ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient’.

[Picture: Vaclav Havel (5th October 1936 - 18th December 2011), photo by Henryk Prykiel, via Wikicommons]

Interview

2011-11-25T09:37:00.000-08:00

See here.

The 21st of November, 2001.

2011-11-21T10:28:00.000-08:00

[This is one of those personal posts, so if that's not your bag, just watch the video below, it's got balloons and stuff in it]

Ten years ago today I took the first long-distance flight of my life. Having never left the UK except on brief holidays, I was setting out to spend a year (or more, but not much more) in Taiwan. My goal was to learn Chinese, I wasn't really sure what I was going to do with it, but I thought that knowing another language, and spending time in a totally different place, would make me a wholly more rounded person and be great fun to boot.

The plane was almost empty, perhaps the effect of the events of two months before, or more likely because it was the overnight flight, but I didn't get much sleep on the way. Peering out of the window high over Sichuan, I caught my very first glimpse of the red soil of China through a gap in the clouds.

Catching my connection in Hong Kong the next day, I then saw the green terraced hills of Taiwan appear all of a sudden beneath the right (starboard?) wing of the plane, and before I knew it I was stepping off the plane into what was then still called Chiang Kai Shek International Airport.

Since it was mostly spent in places thousands of miles away, with friends and acquaintances it is hard to imagine ever being reunited again - some of whom are now unfortunately beyond all reach, in towns and cities which fast-paced development has rendered quite different, many of the events of the intervening ten years now seem like they happened to someone else.

It is now a little hard to believe that I really once went to an aboriginal wedding with my good friend The Writing Baron and others, got merrily sloshed, and then all bundled off for a swim in a mountain lake. The night we staggered back from Kenny's after celebrating new year's eve there just in time to hear Big Ben ring in the new year eight time zones away now seems equally improbable. The deserted Nanjing city-centre during the SARS crisis, and the sudden rush of striking workers onto the street in Longhua, Shenzhen, both seem like things I might have once seen in a film rather than with my own eyes. Did I really cram myself into subway cars in Tokyo and Osaka in which it was literally impossible to move every morning for months on end? Was that really me at that Sakura party in the park next to Osaka castle? Or at that beach party on the Inland Sea? And what exactly am I now doing in Poland?

Ten years ago today I became an expat, and even though I spent roughly three years of the intervening time in the UK, I never really stopped being one. Despite the occasional periodic cycle of funk, I've enjoyed my years on (and off) the road. At some point I know I'm going to have to stop, but for the moment, the decision I made ten years ago still looks like a good one.

Another mind-bendingly bad policy on immigration

2011-11-16T11:40:00.000-08:00

I don't have much to say about this proposed policy that would prevent British citizens bringing foreign-born spouses or children into the UK on family visas unless they are making over the median wage. Just that, for anyone familiar with people who have become married whilst overseas, and who then move home to find work, you're basically telling them that they cannot live with their spouses and children permanently in their own home country until they earn more than 50% of the British population.

These policies are usually suggested on the Goldilocks principle - a horribly excessive policy is suggested in order to get people to accept a less strict policy. Therefore it seems likely that if any such policy is implemented, it will set the bar somewhat lower.

However, even such a "just right" version of this policy would be a failure because the British government can no longer restrict immigration from mainland Europe. Such a policy would, anyway, only prevent people entering the country legally, without having any effect on illegal immigration.

Hidden Harmonies' Raventhorn: Let's have a Cultural Revolution

2011-11-08T23:14:00.000-08:00

Here's Raventhorn on why the Cultural Revolution really wasn't all that bad:

[T]otally agree that CR created a “can do” mentality. Chiefly, CR was a literal “reset” on the Chinese socio-economic paradigm, and any good “reset” requires almost a complete shut down of the system, to get everyone back to the starting line, to get rid of all the negative baggages [sic] (and some of the good), so that people can rediscover and decide what are good and bad.

Hard “resets” (from revolutions) I think are necessary.

. . . .

If you are [r]ich and you deserve to be because you are smart and you work hard, then you can start all over again and get to the same place. (But I don’t think the [r]ich today are willing to do that).

A CR every now and then, answers that type of questions [sic]. (If some of the CR’s excessive abuses can be avoided, I would recommend it every 50 years or 2 generations)."

Since China's last Cultural Revolution started roughly 45 years ago, I guess Raventhorn thinks it's just about due one today.

Really, people criticise me for giving publicity to what goes on at Hidden Harmonies, but I believe the true insanity of many US-based Chinese nationalists deserves to be exposed. The idea that some people have that there is some equality in an argument between people who criticise corruption and advocate democracy, and those who blithely talk about burning whole cities, is a totally false one.

China Property Prices Fall

2011-11-08T12:38:00.000-08:00

I don't have much commentary to add to this, except that it's big news.

If all the caveats added in the video about the lower level of leveraging are correct, then the doom-and-gloom predictions as to what might happen if house prices stop rising are unlikely to become true. My experience is that some borrowers at least have been able to get around rules requiring higher deposits through connections, and that rules may have been bent or broken. If this is so in a significant number of cases then we may be in for a rough ride - but it may not be so. It would certainly be good news for a lot of first-time-buyers if house prices were to fall.

Why Beijing may be the best friend Hong Kong democrats have right now

2011-11-08T03:17:00.000-08:00

Amid the gloom-and-doom of yesterday's rout of Hong Kong's pan-democrats in the district council elections, and their grey prospects for next year's LegCo (Legislative Council) elections, Big Lychee sees a (thin) silver lining for the pan-dems:

"Back in the mid-90s, pro-democrats swept the board in elections for directly elected Legco seats, thanks to the first-past-the-post voting system. In order to give the less popular pro-Beijing DAB a better chance, the post-handover regime established a complex proportional representation system, which gives seats to losers as well as winners. The whole idea was to benefit parties too unpopular to get 50% of the vote. Ironic or what?"

Big Lychee thinks the pan-dems were let down by their obsession with full suffrage - an issue on which Beijing is not likely to ever bend for very obvious reasons - and their ceaseless in-fighting. He would like them to concentrate on Hong Kong's growing economic inequality.

Me, I'm not so sure. It's hard to see what unites well-off, compromise oriented ex-lawyers like Albert Ho with Trotskyites like Leung Kwok-hung other than demands for full suffrage. It is also hard to believe that the more establishment (or ex-establishment) members of the pan-dem camp would be very convincing as crusaders for equality.

That said, just as in Taiwan with the independence/unification issue, the very fact that suffrage is unacheivable makes it essentially a non-issue. Concentrating on suffrage at the expense of other matters leaves Hong Kong's pan-dems open to accusations of either ignoring or working against the interests of the average Hong-Konger - this has especially been the case in the right-of-abode dispute.

Note to Jimmy Wales: there has already been a Chinese Spring

2011-11-05T13:57:00.000-07:00

From a talk recently given by the Wikipedia founder:

"There will be a Chinese spring exactly like like the Arab spring. It isn't a question of if, it is a question of when. I don't know if the Chinese people are going to overthrow this oppression this year or next year or ten years from now I only know that they will...... I hope the government there will realise what they have been doing is no longer sustainable and they will proceed now rather than later to open up access to information and will allow genuine democracy."

"There's a whole generation of bloggers, wikipedians and people on twitter people using social networks in China. They are there and they are becoming stronger, they will provide leadership when it's needed, there's no stopping them.The moment is right for them to demand their human rights"

Sure, no situation should be described as permanent, "this too will pass" and all that, but really, doesn't Jimmy Wales follow the news? First and most obviously, a media-savy revolution with youthful leaders and history on its side already happened in 1989. The results weren't pretty.

The overwhelming response to the almost non-existent "Jasmine Revolution" from earlier this year shows exactly what any such movement would face in the future, as does the crack-down on dissidents which has been ongoing since Charter 08 was launched. The Chinese Communist Party has shown no sign of weakening its resolve in dealing with disent, on the internet or elsewhere. This is still the party which would do what even Erich Honneker didn't dare do - smash demonstrations using military force.

From the US Embassy, Damascus

2011-10-13T03:17:00.000-07:00

On their Facebook page:

A Note from Facebook moderator Leslie Ordeman

We recently put up an article about the Occupy Wall Street protests in the USA -- there is lots of news about it on Syrian television stations.

For sure there is a lot of unhappiness in America about the economic situation. Unemployment is relatively high - nine percent. Housing prices keep falling, hurting more families. There is much debate between the two main American political parties about how to fix the U.S. economy.

We don't know exactly what will happen next. What we do know is:

* the US will have national elections in November 2012 that are not under the control of the American intelligence establishment but rather an independent election authority not controlled by the President or Congress;

* the Occupy Wall Street organizers will be entirely free to run as election candidates or to organize to support candidates;

* Occupy Wall Street groups will not be allowed to destroy public or private property, but they can organize more protests in other cities and they can say whatever they want about the U.S. government without being arrested or shot;

* the police will not shoot thousands of protesters;

* some Occupy Wall Street organizers have been arrested for disturbing public order (blocking traffic) but they won't be tortured, and no family will receive the body of a protester bearing torture marks.

* the international media and NGOs are watching and reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests without interference from the government;

* the Occupy Wall Street organizers will be free to talk to any American or foreigner who wants to talk to them without fear of arrest;

* the U.S. government may complain that some countries' currency policies are hurting the U.S. economy, but the US government will not tell the world that there is a vague foreign conspiracy for which it lacks any specifics or evidence but that it says is encouraging the Occupy Wall Street or other protest movements.

Something to think about…

Speaking as someone of a relatively conservative political out-look, I am rarely sympathetic to public protests, especially when they appear to be directed to changing policies already decided on through a democratic process. This said, I find myself sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement. So far, rather than be directed against specific government policy, they appear to directed against issues that policy has failed to address. The parallel is, to my way of thinking, to the UK Uncut protests against corporations failing to pay their UK taxes (something the majority of us might not have heard of otherwise), rather than to last year's tuition fee demonstrations in London.

The grown up way in which these demonstrations have been handled so far, the lack of violence and the spreading of vague lies about a foreign plot - these are things countries other than Syria could also learn from.

Crossing The Nine-Dotted Line

2011-09-30T23:32:00.000-07:00

The logic of editorials in the Global Times is often easily attacked. Take this latest excrescence - an article entitled "Time to teach those around South China Sea a lesson" from an anonymous author writing under the pen-name "Long Tao":

No South China Sea issue existed before the 1970s. The problems only occurred after North and South Vietnam were reunified in 1976 and China’s Nansha and Xisha Islands then became the new country’s target.

Unfortunately, though hammered by China in the 1974 Xisha Island Battle and later the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979, Vietnam’s insults in the South China Sea remained unpunished today. It encouraged nearby countries to try their hands in the “disputed” area and attracted the attention of the US so that a regional conflict gradually turned international.

Right. Apparently there was no problem until Vietnamese reunification in 1976 (or 1975?), even though a battle was fought other the Paracel Islands between South Vietnamese defenders and an attacking Chinese force in 1974.

What exactly Vietnam's activities were that caused other countries to "try their hands" in the area is something of a mystery. Whilst Vietnam was behind the call for co-operation with the Philippines and Malaysia in asserting their claims in the late 80's, the claims were in play long before that.

Philippine claims in the area stem from 1956, although they were not asserted until 1978 in response to the growing tensions. Similarly, Malaysian claims over its continental shelf, which extends into the South China seas and encompasses several islands there were defined in 1966 , although it was not until 1979 that a map specifically claiming the islands was produced.

However, the illogic of this article takes second place to the sheer irresponsibility of what it suggests:

"We shouldn’t waste the opportunity to launch some tiny-scale battles that could deter provocateurs from going further.
By the way, I think it’s necessary to figure out who is really afraid of being involved in military activities. There are more than 1,000 oil and gas wells plus four airports and numerous other facilities in the area but none of them is built by China.

Everything will be burned to the ground should a military conflict break out. Who’ll suffer most when Western oil giants withdraw?"

And this from someone who is, according to the Global Times, "a strategic analyst of China Energy Fund Committee". Just what exactly he think the positive consequences of launching battles with the Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Malaysians, whose "provocation" appears to be attempts to exploit the resources of the areas they claim, is quite unclear. Judging by the preceding paragraphs he thinks it will unwind a tense military situation, although this is such a moronic viewpoint as to beggar belief.

Suppose the PLA does engage in "tiny-scale battles" in the area, or even goes all-out and enforces PRC sovereignty over the entire area defined by the "Nine-Dotted Line" - what happens then? The answer is that the countries in the China's littoral area would inevitably grow closer and strengthen their co-operation with Japan and India to defend themselves against the PRC's growing might.

Japan at least, and probably India also, would be willing to lend such support out of fear that their own disputed borders with China would be next to receive the "tiny-scale battle" treatment. That would be good news for the Taiwanese, but definitely bad news for Beijing.

Cynical minds will be inclined to think that, as with past tiffs with Japan, France, and the United States, this is an engineered attempt to rally people to the flag following what has not been a great year for the Chinese government in terms of public relations. Bearing in mind that General Galtieri's disastrous attack on the Falkland Islands was similarly motivated, let's hope that nothing more comes of it than a few bellicose editorials.

[Picture: China's "Nine-Dotted Line" claim in the South China sea]

Check out my post over at CLB

2011-09-02T07:23:00.000-07:00

Under my real name this time, you can see it here.

Gaddafi: Who loves ya babe?

2011-08-29T09:03:00.000-07:00

Just read this silly article over on CNN and had to throw in my tuppence worth. This section in particular got my goat:

"A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry now says the country “respects the choice of the Libyan people” and wants “to play a positive role in rebuilding Libya”.

The translation? Beijing thinks Moammar Gadhafi is about to be booted out and it’s switching allegiance to the folks that may eventually run the country.

Looking at this move through the prism of an oil-sprinkled lens, Beijing’s motivation comes into focus a bit more. China is the world’s second largest consumer of oil after the U.S. And Libya, at peak production, was pumping out a total of 1.5 million barrels a day. And 11% of that went where? You guessed it - China.

Since the conflict in Libya started in mid-February, that oil production has all but dried up. With the potential dawn of a new peace, it stands to reason that China wants to be best positioned with Libya’s leaders, whoever they turn out to be. Ah China, you fair-weathered - albeit very logical - friend."

Yes, 11% of Libya's oil went to China, but the vast majority of the rest of the remaining 89% went to Europe and the US. Before the 17th of February uprising it was EU states and the US who were seeking a closer relationship with the Gaddafi government, and oil firms like Total and Shell that were winning contracts in Libya whilst Chinese oil deals were being blocked. As Juan Cole points out:

"Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol."

Basically, whilst the big oil firms had nothing to gain from Gaddafi's downfall, China's leaders had no interest in his continued rule. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Chinese were no friends of Gaddafi's, whilst it was the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, and the US who enjoyed an unseemly relationship with such a brutal dictator, one which thankfully ended as soon as he opened fire on his own people with heavy weapons.

To say that the PRC was a 'fair-weather friend' of Gaddafi's government is nonsense. In truth Gaddafi had no friends, only various leaders in the US and Europe who were willing to overlook the nature of his government and mouth platitudes so long as it was convenient to do so.

No country's leaders had any great reason to love Gaddafi, but if anyone was close to him, it was the leaders of the countries of North America and Europe, not China.

[Video: Gratuitous Savalas]

Global Times: Gaddafi lost because he lost the support of the people

2011-08-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

As has been discussed elsewhere, Gaddafi never had very close relations with the Chinese government. China's leaders have not been long in repaying Gaddafi's uncooperative attitude. As soon as was reasonably practical, Chinese representatives met with those of the Rebel government. As soon as it was obvious that the Gaddafi government was finished, the flag was changed at the Libyan embassy in Beijing - something the Beijing government cannot directly control, but could certainly allow Gaddafi's remaining supporters to prevent if they so wished. All-in-all, the Chinese government's policies during this period have been very reasonable.

The same can also be said of this editorial in today's Global Times:

"Gaddafi's fate has told the world two things. First, never underestimate the power of the people. The Libyan civil war resulted from Gaddafi losing the support of his people, particularly those in the east. The spread of the Arab Spring and the help of Western governments were unlikely to have a deep impact without the support of the people.

The second lesson to learn from Gaddafi's demise is that a weak country cannot easily control its own fate. It cannot escape the will of the major powers.

If Gaddafi had woken up to public demands earlier and pushed reforms through before the West decided to remove him, he might have avoided a civil war and taken Libya down a different path. Now, Libya's future lies in the hands of the West."

Yes, the idea that Libya's future "lies in the hands of the West" does ignore the potential for democratic government in Libya taking it in quite a different direction to which the 'west' (by which what is presumably meant is the US, France, and Britain) wants to go. However, the US and the EU are the only real place where Libya's new government can expect help, and as such it is not too wrong to put it this way.

More to the point, GT is quite correct that, had Gaddafi had greater military might at his command, he might still have crushed the rebels even in the teeth of protest from the Arab, African, and NATO countries. This lesson is not and will not be lost on the present leaders of Syria and Iran. Whilst, barring mutiny, the PLA is always likely to have the strength to deter intervention in any CCP crack-down against internal opposition, the leadership is likely to be confirmed in their efforts to keep the military happy through higher spending in the wake of the Arab spring.

They are also correct to say that where Gaddafi really lost was when he lost the support of the population - something which might have happened as long ago as the mid 1970's. The CCP presently, by-and-large, has the support of the majority of the Chinese people. However, in view of the looming economic and financial crises in the world at the moment, keeping that support seems likely only to become a greater problem in the future.

Outed

2011-08-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

As someone who blogged anonymously so that I could work to expose dirty secrets of certain individuals, only to then have one of those individuals, years later, engage in a campaign of threats of violence after finally putting two and two together, I have great sympathy with Paul Campos, outed author of the "Inside The Law School Scam".

By all accounts, US law schools essentially ask for hundreds of thousands of US dollars in fees without giving their graduates a fair shot at getting a job capable of supporting those fees after graduation. The result is many US law graduates saddled with debt they cannot repay. Whether this is a scam or not is up for debate, but it would appear that Campos's detractors are pulling no punches:

"ScamProf is the failed academic who has done almost no scholarly work in the last decade, teaches the same courses and seminars year in and year out, and spends his time trying to attract public attention, sometimes under his own name, this time anonymously. These are important facts about ScamProf, since he is indeed scamming his students and his state, and his initial posts were tantamount to a confession that he's not doing his job. His colleagues, in any case, now know who he is, and are quite understandably angry, since the reckless genearlizations [sic] are naturally read as commentary on them."

It is not hard to see some of the over-reaction coming from Campos's (overwhelmingly
law-school based) critics as being the result of guilty consciences. Campos seems much more popular amongst law students and practising lawyers. Here's a sample:

"Campos is a hero. If the ABA wasn’t so corrupt and would make common sense determinations like NOT accrediting new law schools, there would be no scam. Most law professors are out of touch and have never had any practical legal experience. The ABA is such a disgrace and is responsible for this debacle of the oversupply of lawyers."

Another:

"Over my 44 year career I have counseled many students . . . Until recently I was able to tell them that if they did well in law school they stood a reasonable chance of being able to accomplish their goals one way or another. But at least in this century, and for a bit of the last, I have been increasingly hard put to be enthusiastic about their admirable goals. In the last five years I have become downright pessimistic about them. I know many other lawyers, and a few law professors, who are similarly pessimistic."

Not having studied law in the US, I feel that except for the element of being outed, this isn't my argument. All I would say is that Campos would probably have been better off staying anonymous- half of the interest in his blogging was based on the feeling of getting the inside scoop - but now he is bound to be painted as unrepresentative. Moreover, because he outed himself rather than waiting to be outed, he is open to accusations of self-aggrandisement.

Gaddafi-dämmerung

2011-08-21T22:04:00.000-07:00

Not much commentary to add to this except that, in Syria and Libya, we are being shown side-by-side examples of both the costs of intervention and of non-intervention.

Yes, the crowds celebrating the entrance of the rebels into Tripoli do not tell the whole story. This seeming victory has been bought at the cost of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, as well as much in the way of money and diplomatic capital, nor will it be secure until a democratic government is installed in Tripoli. However, the cost of non-intervention would have been to stand by watching as, month after month, thousands were killed and disappeared into jail cells for torture.

[Picture: Former dictator of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, at the African Union summit in 2009, via Wikicommons]

One Europe

2011-08-16T14:44:00.000-07:00

There really isn't any other interpretation. Having, along with many other British Euro-sceptics, predicted this for years, it is somewhat gratifying to see this confirmed, although this is surely much sooner than any but the most die-hard of Euro-sceptics predicted. From the Guardian:

"France and Germany have set out plans to create the first "true European economic government" headed by a single appointed leader, as part of major moves to synchronise tax and spending to save the failing eurozone.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and German chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced the dramatic proposals after a two-hour mini-summit. They also called for the imposition of tighter restrictions on member country's deficits and announced a synchronising of the tax policies of their own two countries. Sarkozy has also secured the support of Merkel for a Tobin tax – a financial tax on all international transactions – to raise funds to ease the crisis engulfing the European economy.

. . . .

The European Council president, Herman van Rompuy, will be asked to head the new economic government, and will set and enforce a deadline for all 17 eurozone members to reduce their deficits, putting pressure on countries such as Greece and Portugal to shore up public spending."

Let's be clear on this though - this isn't the victorious take-over that many Euro-sceptics (and some Euro-enthusiasts) predicted.

Instead it is a final stab at rescuing the project of a single European currency - a project which Euro-sceptics couldn't be accomplished without some kind of unified economic management beyond committees and well-meaning agreements. The mistake of Euro-sceptics back in the nineties was to think that the proponents of a single European currency were being disingenuous when they said that the independence of member states would be maintained. Instead, the advocates of the Euro were being honest - with disastrous consequences when the unworkable formula of a single currency without unified economic governance started to unravel.

It is, however, a sign of the all encompassing crisis in world affairs at the moment that this news is not being more widely carried. Whilst the BBC are carrying on the front page, the Guardian and the Times aren't.

[Picture: Frau Merkel chats with Monsieur Sarkozy, Munich, 2009. By Sebastian Zwez, via Wikipedia]

Chris Gelken Tips His Hand

2011-08-15T01:59:00.000-07:00

I'm very late in seeing this article, but I guess it's no great surprise to see former CCTV 9 and (Iranian state-owned) Press TV anchor, and present CEO and "Ridealist" Chris Gelken carrying on like a member of the anti-immigration far-right on returning to the UK after 23 years away. Take it away Chris:

"The England I visited wasn't the England I left 23-years before. I was hearing and seeing things I never thought I would see.

What began, I am sure with the best of intentions, has gone badly wrong. Reverse discrimination, unparalleled and unrestricted immigration, a real fear among some officials of offending certain "minorities" (I hate that word) that has reached the point where some people are being excluded or discriminated against simply on the basis of being Anglo-Saxon.. or some other "ethnic" variety.

I met with British Asians and have recently communicated with Asian groups who are terrified of Afro-Caribbean organized crime and gangs in Britain's inner cities, I have spoken with British Afro-Caribbean's who are seeing their future stolen by mass immigration from new members of the European Union.

I personally lost my temper with a barman who responded to my question, "Excuse me mate, what is the pie of the day?" with a barely comprehensible "Pie.. er, er, er, is like a, how you say, hard bread with a, er, er, er, filling inside."

Something has broken in Britain, and I am trying to understand it."

It seems that the mere presence of people of foreign descent in the country is enough to render it, in Chris Gelken's eye, 'broken'. This is the face of the kind of "progressive" "journalist" who would work for the propaganda machines of multiple dictatorships.

[UPDATE] - Chris Gelken denies that he wrote the above-quoted section. However, the editor of The Latest insists that this is not the case. Read the comments below and make up your own mind.

Dalian Protests Scrubbed From (Digital) Existence

2011-08-14T08:59:00.000-07:00

Fresh from David Bandurski's excellent China Media Project, a striking example of exactly why even talking about "whether it would be right" to stop people communicating via social messaging is playing with fire:

"Posts began appearing earlier today on Chinese social media sites, most notably Sina Microblog (Weibo), saying that a mass demonstration was happening in the northern city of Dalian to oppose a chemical plant that has been placed near residential areas. Posts were quickly controlled, however, and now all related material is being scrubbed from the internet. . ."

So what was this demonstration about? Here's the BBC:

"Authorities in the north-eastern Chinese city of Dalian have ordered the closure of a chemical plant after a mass protest over pollution.

Scuffles had broken out on Sunday between police and thousands of protesters calling for it to be moved.

Officials ordered the plant's closure "immediately" and pledged to relocate it, state news agency Xinhua said.

Last week a storm broke the dyke around the plant, sparking fears the paraxylene (PX) it makes could spill.

PX is used in fabric manufacture and can be highly toxic.

About 12,000 residents took part in the protest, some of them moving across the city chanting slogans and waving banners."

The scale of these protests can be assessed from the pictures coming out via Weibo like the one above - and at the very least involved several thousand people.

Of course, it should be remembered that these marches pose no direct threat to the government, and are instead aimed pretty squarely at Fujia PX. However, at least some in power will be concerned by the ease with which many thousands of people were able to mobilise using social media to take part in what was a peaceful, but unauthorised demonstration.

I am still not convinced, though, that this is the kind of came changer that some, Custer at China Geeks for example, make it out to be. When it comes right down to it, if communication over Weibo does start to cause problems, the government can and will simply pull the plug on it.

[Picture: Thousands march to demand the closing down of the Fujia PX chemical plant in the city of Dalian in Eastern China. By Weibo user Zhaodongling, via CMP]

Seven Of The Best

2011-08-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

JB, my old China from my Taiwan days, author of The Writing Baron, has nominated me to do seven links for Tripbase's My Seven Links project.

Before I begin, though, I guess I should say a few words about why exactly (other than sheer inertia) it is that I've kept this blog going. When I started it back in 2007 my main purpose was to use it as a way of keeping in both Chinese affairs whilst keeping up with Chinese. Since then, however, I have also found it a great way in which to crystallise my own thoughts by writing them down, whilst subjecting them to the criticism of those outside my immediate family and social group. It serves, I think, as record of my very much unfinished journey away from easy answers (toppling the CCP etc.) towards better solutions.

Anyway, enough with my pomposity, on with the links -

1. My Most Beautiful Post

Since the main themes of this blog have been totalitarianism, propaganda, strife, and political unrest, I don't think there has been much in the way of beauty in any of the things I have written. That said, I'd go for "The Taiwanese Green Union" - that poem described perfectly everything that's great about Taiwan in simple, moving details.

I guess I'll have to try harder not to be so gloomy in future.

2. My Most Popular Post

Believe me, I wish it wasn't, but whilst there are other posts that have been up much less time and have got almost as many hits, my original post exposing Chris Devonshire-Ellis's less than entirely truthful description of his qualifications and experience ("Chris Devonshire-Ellis is NOT a lawyer") is my most popular post both in terms of comments and visitors. Even now this post still gets a good number of hits per day, and the reasons why are obvious. Pretty much everyone else who had tried to discuss this topic up to that point had been scared off by CDE's bogus threats against the jobs and livelihood of the poster, so there are few other sources where people can get this information.

I still occasionally get threatening emails from this most unsavoury man asking me to take this post down - sorry Chris, it's staying.

3. My Most Controversial Post

Definitely in terms of disagreement against the post, and disagreement amongst the posters, my post comparing certain features of Japanese and Chinese culture ("Japan and China - a culture clash waiting to happen") was the most controversial. The thing is, though, it wasn't meant to be. Indeed, in terms of actual criticism of the situation in Japan I have written other posts which went much further, but the fact that Japan's popular Searchina website, as well as other websites, guaranteed that some people would see who were not in total agreement with it.

4. My Most Helpful Post

It's not often you get to explain to people how things are in what is a highly secretive and not well understood organisation, but I'm glad I was able to do so in my post describing my experiences during my time at Foxconn ("Trouble In Foxconn's Forbidden City"). Even now I get asked a lot of questions about my time there, many of them along the lines of how I could have worked for such a company - this post is about as good an answer as I can muster.

5. The Post Whose Success Most Surprised Me

I could say my post on cat-fighting Thai air-hostesses, but thinking about it, that's not all that surprising. Instead, I'll go with this post on China's somewhat uneasy relations with Gaddafi's Libya, which got a lot of traffic from people wanting to find out more about this complex issue at a time when there were less posts on this than there are now.

6. The Post Which I felt Didn't Get The Attention It Deserved

This post on Cuba following China's path - essentially I was trying to do the same thing I had done with China and Libya, but the reading public just didn't want to know. A pity, since, once I had had a look at the stats it seemed that the general meme of Cuba as a failing economy compared to China was not the entire picture - for starters, Cuba is richer in per-capita terms than China by about 50%. Ah well, can't win 'em all.

7. The Post That I am Most Proud Of

That would have to be this 2009 post on the situation in Xinjiang which I wrote whilst I was covering for Matt Steinglass on his old blog whilst he was on holiday. It's not that I think there's anything particularly fantastic about this post, but it, and a few of the other pieces I wrote back then, were quoted on Andrew Sullivan's blog. Since Sully was and is something of a role-model to myself and many other bloggers, this was a bit of a proud moment for me.

And now my five nominees:

1. Just Recently, big supporter of this blog, and a fellow ex-expat China-watcher.

2. Qing-era historian Jeremiah Jenne of Jottings From The Granite Studio. At least when he gets back from his summer holidays (bloody academics!).

3. Former Nanjinger and nowadays poetry/arts writer David Horton, of Union Herald.

4. Wukailong and Steve of Pacific Rim Shots. I know it's a bit early, but since there's two of you I'm sure you can come up with something. If I have any complaint about your blog, it's that you're both far, far too nice and reasonable!

5. And, in a vain effort to prevent this list turning into a total sausage-fest, I'd like to nominate travel-writer and Hong-Konger Joyce Lau of Joyceyland.

Obviously no pressure on any of you, it's all voluntary, but I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

David Cameron isn't going to censor Twitter

2011-08-12T15:42:00.000-07:00

. . . not least because there is a whole grab-bag of national and European human rights legislation which would prevent such an incredibly counter-productive move, not to mention the centuries of British tradition of respect for free speech which would be set at nought by it. However, this statement is simply propaganda gold-dust for every corrupt, repressive, and dictatorial regime in the world:

" . . we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."

Here's Xinhua crowing:

"We may wonder why western leaders, on the one hand, tend to indiscriminately accuse other nations of monitoring, but on the other take for granted their steps to monitor and control the Internet.

They are not interested in learning what content those nations are monitoring, let alone their varied national conditions or their different development stages.

Laying undue emphasis on Internet freedom, the western leaders become prejudiced against those "other than us," stand ready to put them in the dock and attempt to stir up their internal conflicts."

Meanwhile, the police, who the majority of British people rightly credit for developing - somewhat tardily - the tactics necessary to quell the riots, are showing us exactly why it would be both wrong and counter-productive to block social networking sites in such circumstances. From the Greater Manchester Police's Twitter feed:

And this man is far from the only looter caught via social media. The police have been posting tweet after tweet throughout the day about arrests carried out based on information obtained by the public through photos on Flickr, through bragging on Twitter feeds and Facebook, and through other web-available sources such as Craigslist and eBay. Unlike mobile phone calls, communication by text, even through encrypted networks, leaves an electronic paper trail which police can later use as evidence. No snooping or espionage is needed to do this - all of this information was either posted openly on the internet, or was provided by members of the public with access to it.

It is hard to believe that the majority of this information would have been entrusted with the police if it had firstly not been possible to upload it, and secondly, the police were seen as being in the position of censoring the media. I no more credit David Cameron's suggestion that censorship or restriction of access might be considered, than I do his various other tough-man poses regarding the use of water cannon (dismissed by the police as unsuitable) and plastic bullets (always issued in riot conditions, but only for use in the most extreme conditions).

[Picture: Social networking of a different kind - notes posted on the smashed windows of a shop in Clapham Junction as 300 volunteer "Riot Wombles" worked to clear up the mess left behind by the looters. Picture taken by Tom Goold, a former colleague of mine in Japan, on his way back from work on Wednesday evening.]

"I don't believe in society"

2011-08-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

. . . why is "Because I can" a sufficient motivation?

I guess you could restate "Not believing in society" in such numerous ways with enough leeway in the interpretation that it could be seen as in some way fundamental to the answer. I don't believe in society, I don't believe in consequences, I don't believe I can succeed, I don't believe in authority, I don't believe I will ever afford these trainers, I don't believe you will ever help me, I don't believe I can be stopped - all of these are a part of saying "I don't believe in society". Without that belief, society does not function effectively.

Lacking the belief in these things, simply being able to riot becomes motivation enough . . .

My brother, over Facebook today.

PS - I'd appreciate if y'all would leave a comment or three over at my bro's place when he finally posts the piece he's doing on the riots. The above is his sentiment, and I think it's a good one.

[Picture: A burnt-out car on Clarence road, Hackney, London, uploaded by Flickr user StolenGolem, via Wikipedia]

The Rioters

2011-08-09T06:56:00.000-07:00

From a Sydenham youth worker:

"When we saw my boyfriend’s bike being stolen by two hooded monsters, we ran out to get in back. I saw the youth in their faces, and shouted ‘stop I’m a youth worker!’ After some reasoning he gave the bike back. My boyfriend walked back to re-chain to our friend’s bike, but I remained. I couldn’t just let them go without asking why? He told me ‘what man, I gave the bike back?’. I replied, ‘I don’t care about the bike. It’s just a bike. I care about you. What about you? What are you good at?’ He looked at me, his smaller friend silent the whole time. ‘What are you good at!’ I yelled. ‘Nothing’. Tears pricked my eyes. Familiar tears. The ones I leave the classroom sometimes to have in the toilet. ‘Don’t say that. Don’t say nothing.’ He had no words for me. ‘You’re better than this. You’re better than being a thief.’ He was silent. What he didn’t do was run away or get angry. He didn’t pull out whatever it was he cut the bike lock with and he didn’t jab it in me. He simply looked at me, without any answers."

In the short term, the present strategy of flooding the streets of London with 16,000 police officers, enforcing the law throughout the city, and avoiding the use of any of the heavy-handed methods moronically being suggested by certain people within the media seems the best way forward. In the long term, policing in London needs to change to better avoid the antagonism that is well known to anyone living in London's poorer areas, and whilst I don't believe that more spending can be the answer, some solution must be found for the violent and crime-ridden lives of Britain's urban youth.

[Picture: Riot police in Walworth Road, Elephant and Castle, London, taken by Flickr user hozinja, via Wikipedia]

London's Burning

2011-08-08T22:46:00.000-07:00

There are times when the expat may be given to feel that he or she no longer understands his or her country of birth. This is certainly how I've felt watching the news of the riots in London (and, now, other cities) over the past few days, although none of the people I know in London seem to understand them either.

My confusion on this is not for lack of knowledge of potential causes. The police reports about the shooting that sparked these riots seem very dubious and certainly worth investigating. Anyone who has seen the way in which certain members of the Metropolitan Police are given to harassing young men walking through certain areas in the city of London in the hope of getting an easy arrest will understand the extreme anger towards the police among youth in the city. Whilst I think it's rather early to be blaming the policies of the present government for this, the closure of youth clubs in many areas of the city cannot have helped.

However, the violence, which now seems to be growing to a scale larger than those of the riots of the early 80's, if not the same intensity, appears not,now at least, to be aimed either at the police or the government. Instead, it appears to consist merely of opportunistic arson and looting. The victims appear to be those living in the same neighbourhoods as the rioters. Whilst the initial riot was sparked by anger in the black community over a police shooting, the rioters now appear not to be of any particular background other than poor and disaffected.

[Video: A woman remonstrates with local youths in Hackney, via my good friend The Writing Baron]

Global Times readers respond to the bombing and shootings in Norway

2011-07-23T08:39:00.001-07:00

"唯恐中国不乱的国家！这人牛！应该颁发诺贝尔奖！"
"A country which is afraid of China's chaos [i.e., accuses China of being chaotic]! This person [the gunman] is excellent! Must give him a Nobel Prize!"

"滥发和平奖的恶果！"
"the result of spamming people with peace prizes!"

"相关部门应该好好反省一下"
"The relevant government departments should reflect deeply [apparently a reference to the Norwegian government's responsibility]"

“诺奖”颁错人，受天谴！"
"Awarded the Nobel Prize to the wrong person and received heaven's punishment!"

"强烈谴责一切形式的恐怖主义！
同时也强烈呼吁挪威人民和当局不要判安德斯死刑！！
否则就是侵犯人权！！！"
"I strongly condemn all terrorism! At the same time, I call on the Norwegian government and people not to execute Anders [the man accused of being the gunman]!! Otherwise they will violate human rights!!!"

"北约是制造这场恐怖袭击事件的真正元凶！"
"NATO is the real culprit of this terrorist attack!"

"以美国为首的西方世界应该深刻反省啦！"
"The US-led western world should reflect deeply on this!"

"哈哈烤鸽子肉哈哈"
"Ha Ha!, Roast dove meat! Ha Ha!"

"有本事就把奥巴马处理掉,哪才是疯狗!"
"They were able to give it [i.e., the Nobel Prize] to Obama. They really are mad dogs!"

"西方国家应该反省自己。自高自大的人不会注意自己的鼻涕流下来了"
"Western countries should reflect on their actions. Arrogant people cannot see their own snot hanging out."

And that was just the first ten comments I saw on the Huanqiu website when I opened it that weren't smilies.

Yes, it's the easiest trick in the book. When something terrible happens in a democratic country, just translate the comments about it on the Global Times (a government-owned newspaper famous for its ultra-nationalism), and hey-presto you have an instant post on government-encouraged cyber-nationalism in China, because the comments there will always be overwhelmingly devoted to gloating. Is it fair to do this? I don't know, but the comments by themselves are bad enough and worth translating for that reason.

True, the comments on Huanqiu are not representative of the entire Chinese internet (although if you look at Sina Weibo at the moment you will see more than a few similar comments) and, as certain People's Daily columnists have reminded us, the Chinese internet is not representative of the nation as a whole. However, what matters is that, whilst controls on discussing sensitive subjects like Tibet, Tiananmen, or Taiwan are very strict, discussion which goes in a direction which the government approves of (i.e., hatred of the country where the panel which awards the Nobel prize is hosted) is given free rein.

[UPDATE: as an example of what kind of discussion IS censored, see this excellent post on the high-speed railway accident at China Geeks]

Jiang Zemin Is Dead

2011-07-06T04:20:00.000-07:00

And if the News of the World phone-hacking story weren't enough, Hong Kong news is reporting that Jiang Zemin has died of illness, something unreported up to now. Here's a screen grab:

Here's a link to the above picture.

Although there have been false announcments that Jiang Zemin has died before, this one has the look of truth. Jiang has cut a rather pathetic figure in recent years, with his Shanghai-based coterie losing out in the contest with the Hu/Wen and their supporters, and his previously lauded leadership becoming the object of veiled criticism from many angles, but this still does come as a little bit of a shock.

As for the effect this will have on the upcoming change in leadership, my answer is: none. Jiang was already fairly marginalised and had little influence on the outcome.

I'll post more thoughts latter if and when this is properly confirmed.

[EDIT: Question - Assuming that this news is confirmed, has release of this news been delayed so as not to cast a pall over the CCP's 90th anniversary celebrations, at which Jiang was a notable no-show?]

[UPDATE: Xinhua has released an official denial. Whilst I was originally inclined to believe the initial ATV report, I now don't know what to believe. Jiang is most likely gravely ill at the very least, but besides that, nothing is known.

For anyone wondering when the last time Jiang was seen in public was, the Guardian has the answer: October 2009 at the PRC's 60th anniversary parade, and then again last year in Sichuan closely followed by medical professionals.]

A Flock Of Vampires

2011-07-05T13:27:00.000-07:00

The tabloid newspapers in my home country are infamous for their daring, and often morally dubious reportage. Each time scandals about journalistic malpractice among the tabloids has occurred, this has brought calls for tighter controls. My instinct is always to dismiss these calls, not least because such controls will not only prevent the reporting of tittle-tattle, but also of important matters the reporting of which is in the public interest.

When the News of The World phone-hacking scandal first broke, I don't think too many people were too surprised. People are used to hearing of tabloid journalists bending the rules and even breaking the law in order to get a scoop. Even when it became known that people working for the News of the World (a News International publication) had at one point or another had been tapping the phones of most of the British cultural and political establishment, including the Prime Minister, this did not really register with the majority of readers.

However, the latest revelation that people working for the News of the World not only hacked into the voice mail account of Milly Dowler, a school girl who had gone missing, so they could record the distressed messages left by the girl's friends and family, but also deleted the messages of distress from the girl's friends and family which had filled the voice mail in-box so that more could be recorded to be used in their reporting. The girl's family were thus falsely given hope that she might still be alive, hope that was cruelly dashed when she was discovered to have been raped and murdered by a serial killer.

It is hard, after reading this, to view the staff of the News of the World involved in this affair as anything more than a criminal gang at best, and at worst as a ghoulish flock of vampires feasting on the woes of the vulnerable. Perhaps equally shocking is the failure of the authorities to have secured, other than the conviction of the private investigator who carried out the phone-taps, more than the conviction of the Royal correspondent whose too-accurate stories on Prince William helped unravel this conspiracy in the first place. This despite police reportedly being aware of being bugged at the time of the investigation into Milly Dowler's disappearance in 2002. This also despite News of the World journalists including details of Milly Dowler's voice-mail that could only have been obtained through hacking in their reporting on the case.

Equally as hard to credit is the denials of any knowledge of the phone-tapping coming from the News of the World's editorial team at the time, which in 2002 was headed by Rebekah Brooks, who went on to head up The Sun. At the very least, a chief editor who not only doesn't know that her staff are engaged in a phone-hacking campaign that must - judging by the sheer volume of taps required - have cost at least a six-figure sum to set up, or that hacked information is being included in the reporting carried in their paper, has shown very poor leadership indeed.

Back in 2002 I was living in Taiwan and marvelling over the Chu Mei-feng sex VCD scandal, where Scoop, a weekly magazine, published a illicitly filmed video showing Chu Meifeng, a minor official, having sex with a married man in a VCD carried, on their front cover. One thing I was sure of then - that kind of thing could only happen in Taiwan. Little did I know that at the same time a newspaper in the UK was doing something at least as bad, if not far worse.

"There are no independent candidates"

2011-06-09T21:42:00.000-07:00

Since 1978 the CCP has been toying with so-called "village elections", an experiment in a highly limited form of grassroots democracy in the people's republic. During this time, small numbers of independent candidates have been elected to various positions, like Wang Liang, who was elected to the grassroots legislature in Shenzhen.

Earlier this year it was announced that this was also going to be rolled out to include direct elections to the local People's Congress's across the country, and as a result many candidates put themselves forward for election. The most prominent story was that of Liu Ping, whose candidature was touted as an alternative to direct petitioning of the government.

I personally speculated that this might be the emergence of movement on the mainland similar to the Dangwai movement of independent candidates during the martial law period in Taiwan, whose members included Shi Mingde and Annette Lu (pictured above second and third from the right). This movement played an important part in the transition to democracy on the island.

However, it seems that the CCP have also read their history books. From today's Taipei Times:

"China told citizens yesterday not to run for local legislatures as independents, tightening reins on activists who have sought to challenge the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on grassroots government.

The warning, which came from an unnamed official of the party-controlled National People’s Congress (NPC), was in response to a small but spreading online campaign by dozens who hope to fight for seats on local legislatures with no endorsement from the party.

It was another sign that party leaders want tight political controls as they ready for a succession next year from President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to his presumed heir, Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平).

“There are no so-called ‘independent candidates,’ and there is no legal basis for ‘independent candidates,’” said the NPC official as quoted in the People’s Daily, the party’s main newspaper."

So all those years in which independent candidates were being elected, this was in fact illegal? This would at least be the natural conclusion to be drawn from the statements of the unidentified member of the NPC, China's highest state body and legislature, quoted in the People's Daily, a newspaper which refers to itself as "the party's mouthpiece".

I am given to agreeing that this is a sign of the influence of the new generation of leadership. It does not bode well for the future.

[Picture: The Kaohsiung Eight under arrest. Picture via Wikipedia]

Whilst Britain temporarily abandon's fixed wing carriers, the PRC finally acknowledges that it is building one

2011-06-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

It is hard to remember the days when doubts surrounded what the eventual fate of the ex-Soviet aircraft Varyag would be. Back in early 2005, the extent of what any of the nerds who love to speculate on such things (in which I include myself) knew was that it had been bought, moved to Dalian, and that the promised casino/tourist attraction had not yet materialised. Over the intervening years it has steadily become more and more apparent that it was being made ready for service with the PLAN, although this was never officially confirmed.

Now, the Chinese government has finally admitted what we were all 99.99% sure of anyway - that it is being made ready as an aircraft carrier, and will enter service some time in the near future. Whilst those who previously characterised aircraft carriers as exclusively the tool of 'imperialist' and 'hegemonic' nations (trans: America and anyone else we don't like) may be mollified by the announcement that it would "definitely not sail to other countries' territorial waters", others may be concerned at the growing might that this carrier represents.

However, the simple fact is that if people are worried about this, they shouldn't be, at least not in the short term. Even if, as is expected, this ship is launched either late this year or next year, it will be a few years until it will be ready for active service, and probably more until the battle group required to escort it and sustain it is ready. Even then, its combat power is likely to be less than that of the major aircraft carriers to be found elsewhere in the world, such as France's Charles De Gaulle.

Beyond even this, even if the potential of this carrier were equal to that of the much bigger carriers owned by the US Navy, the US Navy has far more of them in the Pacific region than the PLAN is likely to have any time in the next ten years. As US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said:

"The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered. In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship. The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to pur allies or friends. Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined."

All the same, as a Brit, it is hard not to draw the contrast between the state of the PLAN and that of the Royal Navy. This announcement comes just as the Royal Navy enters an interlude between the old Invincible class going out of service and the new, substantially more powerful Queen Elizabeth-class coming into service.

[Picture: The ex-Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is towed into Dalian harbour in 2005. Via Wikicommons]

China drops Gaddafi

2011-06-08T13:18:00.000-07:00

The CCP government never had much reason to be fond of him, they did not oppose Resolution 1973 authorising the use of force against the Gaddafi regime, and they voted for Resolution 1970 referring his government to the International Criminal Court. All the same, it is a little surprising that the PRC should agree to meet with the representatives of Libya's "rebellious provinces" before they have properly taken control of the entire country.

This is especially true in view of the PRC's intransigence elsewhere. China refused to recognise India's peaceful and consensual 1975 absorption of Sikkim until 2003, even insisting that Chinese maps should portray the country as still being independent years after it was voted out of existence by its own people.

Here's how Xinhua described the meeting:

""Chinese ambassador to Qatar Zhang Zhiliang has recently met with Chairman of the Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) Jalil and the two sides exchanged views on the Libyan situation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said when responding to a question from the press.

"China's position on the Libyan situation is clear, that is, we expect the Libyan crisis can be solved through political means and believe that Libya's future should be decided by its own people," Hong said."

Could this future now include the National Transitional Council taking power in some form? The answer, at least in the view of the Chinese government, would appear to be yes, and it is taking steps in this direction. It would also appear that meeting with the leader of an internal rebellion is not quite the crime PRC leaders make it out to be, at least when other countries are concerned.

China, Pakistan, and reverse engineering the stealth helicopter

2011-05-08T02:34:00.000-07:00

An interesting fact that has emerged from last week's mission to kill Osama Bin Laden is that the US reportedly used a 'stealthed' version of its Blackhawk helicopter to avoid detection whilst carrying out the operation. This, of course, became known only as a result of one of the helicopters being destroyed during the raid, and fragments of it and the special coating used to baffle radar detection are now in Pakistani hands.

Of course, it may well be that Pakistan simply hands these fragments back to the US, but given past Chinese efforts to reverse engineer US stealth technology, of which I heard evidence first hand, it also seems very possible that some of this material will end up going to China. However, logically speaking, for reverse engineering to have been taking place in 2003, samples of earlier examples of this technology must already be in Chinese hands - perhaps as a result of the shooting down of an F-117 during the Kosovo campaign. It therefore seems that at worst this will give access to newer versions of the same technology.

[Picture: The canopy, ejector seat, helmet, and survival gear recovered from the crash-site of F-117A AF ser. no. 82-0806 "Something Wicked", shot down over Yugoslavia on the 27th of March 1999, on display in the Museum of Aviation, Belgrade. Via Wikicommons]

Osama Bin Laden - consumerism junkie

2011-05-05T22:47:00.000-07:00

This post over at my brother's place is all kinds of awesome. Money quote:

"A martyr must live a life consistent with at least his own beliefs. OBL wasn't consistent at all.

With one side of his mouth he damned the imperialist, capitalist devil infidels of the west; with the other he chugged Pepsi and Coke and chowed down on Chunky Kit-Kats ("truly a confection fit for Allah himself" he might have mumbled to himself, wiping the biscuit crumbs from his lap and washing it down with some Diet Coke: "Nothing like the real thing". He smiles to himself and leans back, before returning to his Playstation 2). "

I had even thought about it until this had been pointed out, but in its own way, this seems to reveal be the same kind of blazing hypocrisy as was seen in the 9/11 hijackers after it became known that they spent their few days on this Earth getting drunk and partying with strippers. Again and again, zealots turn out to be the very thing they attack.

[Picture: A can of Stars and Stripes Cola. Via Wikicommons]

No tears for Bin Laden . . . . .

2011-05-02T01:13:00.000-07:00

. . . . but you have to ask, beyond the obvious meting out of rough but deserved justice to a man responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people, does this matter as much as it might have in '02, when we were still afraid of another attack like that carried out on the World Trade Centre? Given that little has been seen of him in recent years, is he really still a prominent figure in Al-Qaeda, or has he been little more than a figurehead for some years now?

Captured alive he might have given some evidence to debunk some of the conspiracy theories which have been widely disseminated since almost immediately after the 11th of September, 2001. However, since every one of these theories that I am aware of has already been thoroughly debunked, this matters less than it might. Indeed, it seems inevitable now that conspiracy theorists will fix on the details of this operation as yet more 'proof' that the 2001 attacks were an inside job.

It also might have been nice to put him on trial. However, since it is now the policy of the US government to try terrorist suspects captured in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere before secret military tribunals, much of the impact that might have come from a Nuremburg-like trial would have been dissipated. In fact it would have probably served only to highlight the violations of the human rights at the hands of the US government of those held in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

According to the information that has come out about the taking of hostages by Bin Laden's men during the operation, it does appear that the operation was supposed to capture him alive. However, it is unlikely that any of the people involved in planning the operation will be too sorry that he died as a result of it.

Foxconn, again.

2011-05-01T13:01:00.001-07:00

According to a report in Saturday's Guardian, two - somewhat oddly named - NGOs, the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, and Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour, have released a study of the working conditions at Foxconn's factories in Shenzhen and Chengdu. Foxconn, where I used to work, has long been accused of poor treatment of its workers.

Amongst the other disclosures in the report:

"■ Excessive overtime is routine, despite a legal limit of 36 hours a month. One payslip, seen by the Observer, indicated that the worker had performed 98 hours of overtime in a month.

■ Workers attempting to meet the huge demand for the first iPad were sometimes pressured to take only one day off in 13.

■ In some factories badly performing workers are required to be publicly humiliated in front of colleagues.

■ Crowded workers' dormitories can sleep up to 24 and are subject to strict rules. One worker told the NGO investigators that he was forced to sign a "confession letter" after illicitly using a hairdryer. In the letter he wrote: "It is my fault. I will never blow my hair inside my room. I have done something wrong. I will never do it again."

■ In the wake of a spate of suicides at Foxconn factories last summer, workers were asked to sign a statement promising not to kill themselves and pledging to "treasure their lives"."

My take on this report is that a lot of this is nothing new. The biggest item is the news that overtime limits are still being exceeded, something that Foxconn has pledged to prevent. However, when managers claim that the overtime is voluntary, they are, at least in my experience, speaking the truth.

Likewise, taking only one day off in thirteen to meet a short-term goal is nothing new either. During my time at Foxconn, which admittedly was in the patenting department, I also worked similar periods of time without a day off.

The humiliation of poorly performing workers is not a great surprise, since this kind of punishment by public loss of face is a not uncommon feature of Chinese culture, as well as that of many other East Asian countries, particularly Japan. However, I rarely saw it in my own corner of the company, and it was never taken to the extreme. The same with the self-criticism letter.

In fact, the thing which strikes me most about this report is the degree to which it shows an improvement over those of previous years. The report may pooh-pooh basic pay of 1,350 yuan a month in Chengdu, but it is significantly better that the 800-1,000 paid to people working as waiters, hairdressers etc. 24 people to a room may be considered cramped, but it is significantly better than the 100 to a room reported in 2006. You may even consider that university students in China often sleep 8 to a room and that this is the case for most of the workers I knew at Foxconn. The anti-suicide pledge is strange, but it is hard to see how it is objectionable, nor should even 14 suicides in a year be that surprising in a factory employing more than 500,000 people.

At the very least, there seems little in this report about Foxconn itself to justify the well-intended but somewhat odd editorial in Sunday's Observer, in which Lucy Siegle segues from conditions in Cambodian sweat shops (no doubt appalling) to the suicide of a South Korean man (nothing to do with 'the developing world'). Oddness aside, her central point is this:

" . . . this is a battle for human decency and that if the price of a product is to condemn fellow humans to grab a few hours sleep cheek by jowl in a concrete dormitory for a pittance, that is surely too high a price."

This is fine, but in the specific case of Foxconn, the report which she says "lays bare" conditions at electronic manufacturers in general, no one is 'condemned' to work there. Most Foxconn workers arrive from far poorer condition in the countryside, where earnings of 500 yuan a month are common. They exchange the dead-end lives in the countryside for far better earnings, and accommodation in the main no worse than that in which most Chinese university students live. By Chinese standards, there wages are not "a pittance", nor are their living conditions terrible.

For most of them, Foxconn offers the opportunity to gain new skills which many of them then market to other companies, especially Huawei. I support all constructive efforts to improve conditions for workers in developing countries, particularly those in which no democratic system which might give the workers a forum in which to voice their grievances exists. However, boycotting the products they manufacture will simply impoverish them, and truly "condemn" them to living in poor conditions on "a pittance".

Friends like these . . .

2011-04-27T10:40:00.000-07:00

Today marked the death of someone for whom your first reaction on hearing of their demise is not pity, or regret, but surprise that they had lived so long. Madame Ngô Đình Nhu, born Trần Lệ Xuân, outlived by a long span the South Vietnamese Republic which, before her husband's assassination, she both lorded over and was a symbol of. She was a singularly unlikeable person. From the Guardian obituary:

"She accumulated vast wealth and power, but was reviled for her puritanical social campaigns and her callous dismissal of Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death to protest against the brutal rule of Diem and her husband Ngo Dinh Nhu. "I would clap hands at seeing another monk barbecue show, for one cannot be responsible for the madness of others," she wrote in a letter to the New York Times. The world was stunned by photographs of monks sitting shrouded in flames; Madame Nhu simply offered to bring along some mustard for the next self-immolation. She later accused monks of lacking patriotism for setting themselves alight with imported petrol."

With the exception of the Chiang Kai Shek-era KMT, it is hard to find an example of such a dubious ally for the US to embrace, yet both the Eisenhower and the Kennedy administration committed themselves to the continued rule of Diem and his consort. Diem, who rose to power following an absurdly rigged referendum on the establishment of a republic, was initially widely praised for his stand against the communism that had seized power in the north of the country. LBJ even called him "the Churchill of Asia".

In truth, however, the corrupt and venal nature of Diem and his family shocked even the people of Vietnam, who, having lived under the rule of the colonial French and the puppet-emperor Bao Dai, were no strangers to corruption. Far from being able to show results in his battle with the Viet Cong, Diem steadily lost control of country to the insurgents. Insurgents who, according to the reports of US Army observer (and compulsive philanderer) John Paul Vann, were largely being armed by desertions and the capturing of weapons from government troops.

In the end, due both to the continued reversals suffered by Diem's forces on the battlefield, and to the increasing unpopularity of Diem and his wife both in Vietnam and in the US, the Kennedy administration turned against Diem, and connived with the South Vietnamese military to remove him from power. The reign of Diem ended in early November, 1963, with his assassination at the hands of his own people, just days before Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets did the same to the Kennedy administration. Having so utterly broken the always-fragile South Vietnam, it was never possible to put it back together again. 50,000 dead US soldiers and more than a million dead Vietnamese were the eventual result of this rupture.

The comparison with today's situation in Afghanistan is obvious. Kabul's Karzai regime is corrupt, and kept in power by NATO bombs and stuffed ballots. Less obvious, perhaps, is the way in which there seem even fewer alternatives to Karzai than there were to Diem, and the result of trying to impose regime change is as likely to result in disaster. The true lesson of Diem and his wife is that, once you become committed to a side of a conflict, trying to exchange that party for someone conforming more closely to your own publicly-professed ideals is likely to merely exchange a corrupt client for an ineffectual puppet. The best that can be hoped is that, once some level of stability is acheived, as it was following the KMT withdrawal to Taiwan, and now appears to be being acheived in Iraq, that reforms may be engendered from within with the help of gentle pressure from without.

Either that, or leave them to their well-deserved fate.

[Picture: Madame Nhu speaks to then-US Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, 12th of May, 1961. Via Wikicommons]

Hat-tip to my good friend The Writing Baron for sharing Madame Nhu's obituary

Compare and contrast

2011-04-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

Here's Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei excusing Ai Weiwei's imprisonment for what has now been almost three weeks without charge:

And here's US State Department spokesman Mark Toner excusing the refusal of US authorities to grant private, unmonitored access to the UN Special Rapporteur to Bradley Manning, currently in prison awaiting trial on charges including "aiding the enemy":

This is not to draw any kind of general equivalence between the wrong-doings of their respective governments. However, if the United States is going to say that it has "nothing to hide" and then refuse to grant unmonitored access to people who in any other country would be called political prisoners, then the differences between it and China are not as big as you would otherwise think.

Tell us how you really feel

2011-04-21T03:41:00.000-07:00

This comment in a thread on the 1860 burning of the Summer Palace from Jxie, US resident and regular blogger at Hidden Harmonies, tells you everything you need to know about the tone of the discussion on that blog nowadays:

". . . I am OK with the looted art pieces being displaced in some foreign museums or auctioned off, but I am also perfectly OK with on a future day Chinese burning down London and Paris."

It would be easy to dismiss this kind of extremism as mere posing. The fact is, though, that some among the Chinese nationalists genuinely feel this way.

China And The New Cuba

2011-04-17T04:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, just days after their celebration of the 50th anniversary of their victory over a CIA-backed amphibious invasion at the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Communist party held their first congress since 1997. At the congress, Raul Castro, brother of Fidel Castro who commanded the communist forces at the Bay of Pigs and ruled Cuba for 49 years until stepping down in 2008, announced a series of far-reaching political and economic reforms.

Anyone who knows the Chinese political system that has been in place since Deng Xiaoping's time will find the reforms very familiar. Most particularly, the limiting of the paramount leadership - both the president and the head of the Communist Party - to a maximum of two five-year terms announced by Castro, is the one reform which has ensued that China has not fallen into the kind of crypto-monarchical system that has afflicted North Korea. In the case of China this ten-year limit is not law but merely a matter of custom, but Raul Castro intends to go a step further and enshrine it in the Cuban constitution.

In other areas, though, Castro is not going as far as the Chinese, with ownership of property being limited to a single plot, and business ownership being limited to SMEs. Whilst Cuba enjoys a nominal per capita GDP significantly higher than China, and has seen reasonably high growth in recent years (see graph above, or here) it is uncertain whether these reforms, which still very much place the emphasis on the "state" part of the "state capitalism" formula, will be enough to ensure continued growth.

It is worth noting that Cuban nominal GDP per capita is roughly comparable to that of some other non-communist countries in the region. At at estimated* value of 5,200 US Dollars, Cuban GDP per capita in 2010 was roughly the same as that of the Dominican Republic, and higher than that of Jamaica (4,800 US Dollars). However, Cuban economic performance begins appears poor next to those countries in the region that have successfully developed tourism and resource-extraction industries, like Trinidad and Tobago (17,300 US Dollars) and the Bahamas (24,300 US Dollars).

That Castro should in some ways imitate the Chinese is not surprising. The Chinese have been the most successful at combining the Leninist political system with market reform, and, more importantly no doubt from the point of view of Castro and his comrades, have been very successful so far in "revolution proofing" their regime. This said, Cuba is not China, and the histories of its regional neighbours suggest that rather than Chinese-style state capitalism, a greater focus on tourism might pay off, but this would require a more liberal society than seems possible under the communists, and would require the lifting of at least some elements of the US embargo.

*All estimates taken from the CIA World Factbook nominal GDP figures for 2010.

[Picture: Raul Castro with Che Guevara, Cuba, 1958. Via Wikicommons]

The one where FOARP goes all Meeja

2011-04-15T23:35:00.001-07:00

Now that I've finally managed to get my TV connection up and running here in Wrocław, Poland, I've been spending my mornings before going to work sipping my tea in front of BBC World. The advantage of watching the BBC in the UK is that, due to what the BBC insists on calling "the unique way in which [they] are funded" (i.e., a yearly tax on every television-watching household in the country) the only adverts it includes are for its own programming.

Not so overseas, where the BBC includes commercial advertising. For some reason this advertising comes almost entirely from the business/tourism ministries of countries which are seeking to boost their images, so I thought I'd do a round up of some of the most "remarkable", assessed according to my totally arbitrary scoring system:

"Remarkable Indonesia"

Minuses:

Simple rule of thumb: if you're in a country that needs to advertise how "politically stable" it is, keep your passport handy and don't go too far from the airport. A flak jacket might also be a sensible investment. (-30)
"Take a look at us now"? This ad is waaaaaaay too defensive. If you think people used to think of your country as a 3rd world toilet, it's best not to reference this in your advertising. (-30)
The first twenty seconds of the ad looks like an advert for herbal shampoo (-10)
Really, the best thing you could say about your country was that it's "Remarkable"? You do know that this isn't even necessarily positive don't you? (-5)
The grammar/logic nazi in me finds something objectionable about the sentence: "an emerging global powerhouse in Asia". I can't put my finger on what it is, but I'll mark you down anyway (-5)

Pluses:

Errmmm . . . I guess it's got some nice looking scenery in it (+20)

Score: -60
Verdict: Remarkably Bad.

"Azerbaijan - A Land of Magic Colours"

Minuses:

Some parts of your country remind me of levels from Battlefield 2 (-5)

Pluses:

Some parts of your country remind me of levels from Battlefield 2 (+20)
"Land Of Magic Colours"? Sounds like you can totally score drugs there (+20)
The whole magic carpet motif is awesome (+20)

Score: +55
Verdict: Civil war? Rigged elections? Who cares about that stuff?

"Taiwan - The Heart of Asia"

Minuses:

Inexplicably wastes time on the previous slogan "touch your heart" (-5)
I'm not so sure about an advert for a real place which is entirely animated (-10)

Pluses:

Blissfully short (+20)
Distinct and quirky, just like the real place (+35)

Score: +40
Verdict: About as good as can be expected from a place which cannot even display its flag at a children's sporting event without getting attacked.

"Ukraine - all about U"

Minuses:

Annoying use of "U" to represent "you". This is on the level of companies which switch the "s" at the end of words for a "z" in a lame attempt to look cool (-10)
"Remember those nuclear-tipped rockets which you guys in the west spent most of the 80's scared stiff about? Well, we built them" (-10)
Not exactly sure what message this ad is trying to put across, but then maybe I'm not the target audience (-10)

Pluses:

Rockets! Cool! (+20)
Gratuitous hot chick, not sure what that has to do with anything, but hey (+40)

Score: +30
Verdict: Whatever good effect this ad may have had was cancelled out by the report from Chernobyl after the break . . .

Overall winner: Azerbaijan

Final note: All these countries have public-image issues which they are trying to overcome. The problem with at least some of them is that they try to engage the issues head-on rather than ignoring them and concentrating on the cool stuff. At it's heart, good advertising is not too different from good propaganda. It cannot succeed by simply telling you that the ideas that it wishes to counter are wrong, but must instead give you something believable in place of that idea. You don't need to work in the meeja to understand this.

The Global Times: Astroturfing Operation [Updated]

2011-04-13T22:16:00.001-07:00

Remember the Global Times journalist whose tweets announced, in what is beginning to look like a "Hundred Flowers" campaign-style bait-and-switch, that the Global Times had decided that everything other than the private lives of the leadership could be reported on? His Twitter name was Wen Tommy, but his real name is Wen Tao, and he was fired soon after making those tweets.

He reportedly has not been seen since the day that Ai Weiwei disappeared, and we can therefore only assume that, being a friend and assistant of Ai Weiwei, was arrested at the same time as him. His ex-colleagues reaction? According to the sources of Richard Burger, a former editor at the Global Times, their response has been to launch an internet astroturfing campaign justifying the arrest of Ai and others:

"Nine days ago, Hu Xijin, the editor in chief of The Global Times, assembled all of the Chinese staff into the paper’s large conference room and shut the door. As is nearly always the case with such meetings, the expats, known as “foreign experts,” were not permitted inside.

Hu had a direct and simple order for his ~~shock troops~~ staff: They were to go to their desks and seek out any Chinese comment threads, any discussions on Chinese BBS’s and portals and blogs — any discussion on the Internet at all — about the detention of Ai Weiwei and counter them with the party line, as expressed so clearly and ominously in a recent Global Times editorial, namely that Ai Weiwei is a self-appointed maverick who deserves to be detained, and who is being used by hostile Western powers to embarrass, hurt and destabilize China. This was not a request, it was a direct order. It was compulsory."

Richard Burger's piece is excellent and I advise you to go and read it if you haven't already. I particularly agree with this passage:

"Go out and do your thing, Global Times 50-centers. While a lot of people will be fooled, enough will see through the propaganda. I admire the young aspiring journalists I worked with there two years ago. If any of you are reading this (which is not very likely), I urge you to think for yourselves, and understand that while journalists have several roles, astroturfing message boards isn’t one of them."
(my emphasis)

There's a difference between running a newspaper and a propaganda operation. During its short existence the Global Times has winked at both, containing humorous satire which we could not be sure was understood by the editorial team, and direct parroting of the party line. It is now clear, though, on which side the Global Times's bread is buttered.

[Edit] Two more things before I go:

- It's worth bearing in mind that Ai, described by the Global Times as a "Maverick" who "will pay a price for his special choice", was reportedly offered CPPCC membership just days before his disappearance. If true, the sheer cynicism of this is just astounding.

- I'd like to say a few words to any of the foreign staff of China Daily, Global Times, China Radio International, CCTV 9, 21st Century, Shanghai Daily and other media outlets owned by the CCP or over which it exercises ultimate editorial control who may be reading this -

Yes, I get that what you guys may be working on may have nothing to do with politics. You may be working solely on sports, society, or arts pieces. I also get that your prescence within the place you are working may, in your view, have a beneficial effect, or at least be value-neutral. I also understand that a lot of you see your work as a temporary gig that will help kick-start your career in media, which I think everyone knows is a difficult business to get into.

But consider this - by working for these outlets you are lending them an air of credibility which they may not deserve. Even the humorous pieces which the people at Global Times occasionally get through are a double-edged sword, since they allow the editors to act as if they're in on the joke even if they weren't. Whatever beneficial things you do should be weighed against this potential harm.

Of course, it may be that, like Chris Gelken, formerly of CCTV 9 and latter at CRI, you actually largely agree with the editorial line uniformly applied across these publications by the censors. Or it may be that, like Edwin Maher, you subscribe to the morally bankrupt proposition that by propagating propaganda you are not in some way responsible for its dissemination. If, however, this does not apply to you, it would be unfortunate if people were to simply decide that it does on the basis that no-one could work for these organisations without holding such views.

The Undoing Of 1979

2011-04-12T10:52:00.000-07:00

"Street heats
the urgency of now . . ."

It's now more than 32 years since China launched its program of "Reform and Opening", and in three days it will have been 22 years since the death of Hu Yaobang, which lead eventually to the Tiananmen uprising. Both of these events stand as sign posts in recent Chinese history although at the time the true significance of these events would have been very unclear. One of them marked the beginning of economic liberalisation. The other the suspension of real hope for political liberalisation, and the transformation of China into its present form.

At the risk of making a hostage to fortune, I'm going to hazard a guess at saying that this year marks another such inflection point in Chinese affairs. The events this year so far in China auger the final abandonment of political change, and the beginning of the end of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its present part-dynamo, part-dinosaur form.

Why do I say this? In the career of every prize fighter there comes a point when the crowd, which a moment ago was roaring approval, draws a little breath as a jab sails through thin air and misses it mark, and a doubt is planted in the mind of all those watching that can only grow as time does its work. The CCP as it stands today has, I believe, reached this point with its latest crackdown.

Whilst they were simply imprisoning nobodies, quixotic individuals who even China politics geeks like myself could hardly remember the names of, none of these arrests rocked the boat, even if they did involve Nobel laureates. The arrest of Ai Weiwei, though, is a different matter. In contrast to Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei is well known, both as an artist and as an eccentric.

The economic crimes excuse that is being pushed right now will not convince many - even if it were true, the questions would then be asked: Why Ai? Why now? A line of thought which leads to some familiar questions: Who? Whom?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which for years has walked a tight-rope between along the line between inflicting so much repression on people that they rebel and so little that they become unafraid of the party, now shows signs of over-balancing itself. People who it had managed to silence, like Zhao Lianhai, have now redoubled their criticism, perhaps seeing that they have little to lose in doing so since they stand to be next in line after Ai.

This crackdown risks exposing the CCP leadership as never having genuinely supported reform, at least not in the past ten years. Without the carrot of reform, the CCP has only the crude stick of oppression and the bitter offerings of nationalism with which to coral the populace. This will convince some, but not all.

It is easy to see where the impetus for this crack-down is coming from. We may be more than a year away from the beginning of Xi Jinping's reign, but it is hard not to see the same crude artlessness in these arrests that Xi has betrayed in many of his public pronouncements.

I hope I'm wrong, but I cannot rid myself of the idea that Xi's rule is going to be disastrous for both the CCP and China. It is hard not to think that we are seeing the end of the balancing act that the CCP has so successfully conducted these past 32 years, and the beginning of an unashamed totalitarianism which few in the CCP ranks want, even if their new leader apparently does. The relatively subtle touch introduced by Deng in 1979 risks being undone, if not the economic reforms of that year and later.

[Picture: Deng Xiaoping with President Carter during a visit to the United States, 31 January, 1979. Via Wikipedia]

Where Are The Reformists?

2011-04-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

Part of the great treasure-trove of document disclosed by Wikileaks last December was this report of discussion between a political officer at the US Embassy in Beijing and an undisclosed contact, in which the leadership is described as, venal, corrupt, and lacking any kind of reform wing:

xxxxx asserted to PolOff [Political Officer] March 12 that the Party should be viewed primarily as a collection of interest groups. There was no "reform wing," xxxxx claimed.xxxxx made the same argument in several discussions with PolOff over the past year, asserting that China's top leadership had carved up China's economic "pie," creating an ossified system in which "vested interests" drove decision-making and impeded reform as leaders maneuvered to ensure that those interests were not threatened. It was "well known," xxxxx stated, that former
Premier Li Peng and his family controlled all electric power interests; PBSC [Politburo Standing Committee] member and security czar Zhou Yongkang and associates controlled the oil interests; the late former top leader Chen Yun's family controlled most of the PRC's banking sector; PBSC member and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin was the main interest behind major Beijing real estate developments; Hu Jintao's son-in-law ran Sina.com; and Wen Jiabao's wife controlled China's precious gems sector.

.....

xxxxx, separately described leadership alignments at the top of the CCP as shaped largely by one's "princeling" [i.e., descendant of the first generation of communist leaders] or "shopkeeper" [i.e., bureaucrat who came up through the ranks] lineage"

Granted, this is a leaked precis of a discussion with an unidentified Chinese source written by a US diplomat with no reason to be sympathetic to the Chinese government. However, the recent wave of arrests of Chinese dissidents, including Ai Weiwei, does lend this interpretation some credence. Morevoer, it is somewhat in keeping with the history of other Chinese dictatorships, particularly that of the communist party's immediate predecessors, the Nationalists, whose farming off of state concerns to family connections and essential running of the state as a family business was notorious.

Rather than the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) top leadership being divided between reformists and hardliners, as people like, for example, Nick Young have argued, instead it is dominated by people whose main interest is to secure their piece of the PRC pie - some of whom have the advantage of family history. These people will attempt to silence anyone who, like Liu Xiaobo, threatens this by advocating reform which might result in them losing their share of the big PRC carve-up.

This theory leads to an interesting conclusion: Rather than criticism from overseas making it harder for reformers to do their work, instead it helps to highlight the venality of the leadership, and silencing criticism would simply cut off the last source of assistance that those trapped in the present crack-down have.

[Note: Thanks to "Slim" whose comment lead me to the Wikileaks document in question and whose analysis this piece owes much to]

"Ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong": George Monbiot Blasts The Anti-Nuclear Movement

2011-04-05T03:35:00.000-07:00

I haven't looked much at the issue of the safety of nuclear power since university, when I wrote a paper on nuclear safety which stated that the exact accident which caused the current crisis at Fukushima was virtually impossible - a somewhat embarassing mistake I'm sure you'll agree. However, whilst researching that paper I did read through quite a bit of literature written by anti-nuclear power lobbyists.

My impression of most of it was that it was scare-mongering (one leaflet even warned of an "nuclear secret police"), that it was unscientific (little in way of real, reliable statistics were ever mentioned) and that it failed to distinguish between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, often eliding from one into the other. I remember one anti-nuclear campaigner making the claim of a proposed nuclear power station in East Anglia that it threatened to "lay waste" to the entirety of East Anglia (an area of 16,000 square kilometres - much larger than even the "zone of alienation" around the badly-designed Chernobyl plant).

It is therefore with some pleasure that I read arch-green George Monbiot's brilliant piece excoriating the unscientific approach of the anti-nuclear lobby in today's Guardian. I heartily advise you to go and read it.

The only thing I would add to what George Monbiot says in his piece is this: the central crux of much of the conjecture about the possibly side-effects of radiation exposure is the unknown effect of extreme low-level radiation.

When you read studies of the estimated increase in incidents of cancer or other diseases caused by radiation release, much of this will be based on the idea that the effect of radiation is linear. That is to say, that extremely low amounts of radiation cause illness in proportion to greater amounts of radiation the side-effects of which are known. However, this is not known, and there are biological mechanisms which might easily repair small amounts of damage caused by low-level radiation but not the much larger amounts of damage caused by high radiation.

Moreover, as Monbiot points out, ascribing illnesses which have no known link to radiation to nuclear accidents is unacceptable. Especially as increased rates of these illnesses were not seen even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, in deciding the acceptability of nuclear power, it is necessary to compare the loss of life that might be caused by the adoption of alternate sources of power. Whilst renewable sources seem likely to cause the least health problems, no power grid can rely entirely on solar, wave, and wind power, at least without a proper means of storing energy for those times when there is no sun, wind, or waves. In the absence of hydroelectric power, this leaves either fossil fuels, or nuclear energy. Fossil fuels have known costs in terms of climate change, pollution, and deaths caused during extraction. Nuclear energy also has a known cost, perhaps low relative to that of fossil fuels, but this should not be artificially inflated.

[Picture: A comparison of a Light Water Reactor (LWR) and the RMBK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosti kanalniy - "High Power Channel-type Reactor") used at Chernobyl. The description reads "The critical differences in the RBMK reactor compared to a LWR (Light Water Reactor) that directly contributed to the Chernobyl disaster. 1. The flamable graphite moderator in the reactor core that burned in the fire, 2. The positive void coefficient in the water that made possible the power peak that blew the reactor vessel, 3. The control rods were very slow, they took 18-20 seconds to be inserted into the reactor. Moreover they had graphite tips that actually intensified the fission chain reaction in the beginning of the insertion. 4. No containment building at all". Via Wikicommons.]

The Disappeared

2011-04-04T22:23:00.000-07:00

It seems that there is no let-up in the crackdown on Chinese dissidents, one which both preceded the flash-in-the-pan Chinese "Jasmine Revolution", and is continuing after it has fizzled. The latest victim: internationally renowned artist Ai Weiwei, whose sunflower seed display I went to see in London last year, and whose defiance towards the Chinese dictatorship has become steadily more forthright in recent years.

It seems that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has taken Ai up on the offer he made two years ago when the state security services called him over for a little chat:

"Here’s a few words: Don’t come again to find me, I will not cooperate. If you must come, then bring your instrument of punishment."

This list compiled by Custer over at the Chinageeks website tells the sorry tale of those human rights activists known to have been arrested or detained so far. The only thing I can add to what has been said by others is:

1) Given the past track-record of the CCP in this regard, do not expect an end to this crackdown any time soon. It would be natural for people to assume this is connected to next year's scheduled hand-over of power from the Hu/Wen team to the likely Xi/Li partnership. This ignores the natural logic that such things take on - once a justification, however lame, has been found for imprisioning someone, no-one is going to admit that they have made a mistake.

2) This is the real face of the CCP. Some in the China commentariat have spent years telling us that change is just around the corner with the rise of a new generation of foreign-educated leadership, and that anyway the dictatorial powers of imprisonment without trial, censorship, etc. were merely a vestigial remnant of the past which would gradually wither away. The truth is that the CCP had no intention of giving up these powers - it's existence relies on them, and there is no sign that the CCP wishes to dismiss itself from power, foreign educated or not.

3) Many have also spoken of a moderate faction within the CCP. At the moment, the best that can be said is that if this moderate faction exists, evidence of its influence is somewhat lacking.

4) Some have gotten rather depressed about this, even abandoning all hope of improvement in the situation in China, and expats among them have started talking about leaving the country*. Personally I think this is overblown. China, whilst certainly richer, is still much the same country it was when I first arrived there in 2003. If your presence in a place is predicated on it turning into something radically different, this is a somewhat foolish position to have.

[Picture: "Remembering" an installation by Ai Wei Wei displayed at his "So Sorry" exhibition at Haus der Kunst, Munich, January 2010. The display is made up entirely of school rucksacks, which spell out "Seven years, she lived happily on this Earth", a quote from the mother of a child killed when her poorly-constructed school collapsed during the Sichuan Earthquake. Via Wikicommons.]

*Jg is not actually planning on leaving the country. He's just pissed off.

Death of a Peace-Maker

2011-04-03T04:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's bombing in Omagh, County Tyrone, likely by republican dead-enders, killed Ronan Kerr, a catholic police officer. That the republicans should apparently target someone who has been described as "a peacemaker" shows yet again that the worst enemies of extremism are those within the group that they claim to represent who take a less extreme path.

After the last such attack was roundly condemned by all sides of the dispute in Northern Ireland, a friend of mine said over a few beers in a London pub that this meant that the terrorists were finished. I was not, and cannot be so optimistic.

The guns and bombs that flowed into Northern Ireland during the troubles have not all been handed over, and can be refreshed at a moments notice. The history of Northern Ireland has seen long lulls in terrorists activity in the past, particularly during the 50's. Splinter groups can also blossom into fully-fledged movements of their own. Indeed, the organisation that we called the "IRA" in the 80's was in fact only the "Provisional IRA" - a splinter group of the organisation which called a ceasefire in 1972. The only real hope of lasting peace is in the kind of reconciliation between Northern Irish Catholics and protestants that Ronan Kerr represented.

[Picture: The "peace wall" separating protestant and Catholic communities along Bombay Street, Belfast, taken from the Catholic side. Via Wikicommons.]

Where Mao is Mickey Mouse

2011-04-02T03:24:00.000-07:00

Just saw the best explanation I've ever read as to why people won't turn on the Chinese Communist Party just because they have (limited) access to uncensored reportage on, and criticism of, the Chinese government via the internet:

"Think of it this way. You’re a kid. You’ve wanted to go to Disney World your entire life. Grew up watching the cartoons, the movies. Had the shirt. Had the hat. One day, your parents finally take you. And the next thing you know, you’re inside the park, next in line for Space Mountain, and some guy comes up to you. Hey kid, Mickey Mouse is one bad dude, he says. How about you get out of line (pun intended), kick Mickey in the shin, and burn his house down?"

I honestly can't remember whether I thought access to criticism on the internet would ever automatically spell doom for the Chinese government before I arrived in China in early 2003. I don't think I did, but if I had, a few month there certainly gave me the impression that this was not the case.

This said, it has helped in the toppling of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictatorships, neither of which were so much worse than the CCP for us to automatically dismiss the idea that a similar thing could happen in China.

[Picture: A sculpture by Frank Kozik entitled "Bird is the Word". From Neatorama.]

"Not a friend of the Chinese people"

2011-03-31T22:46:00.000-07:00

This is the reasoning, apparently, behind barring Tilman Spengler, German sinologist, and the man who gave the speech at the awarding of the Hermann Kesten award for "outstanding efforts in support of persecuted writers according to the principles of the Charter of International PEN" to Liu Xiaobo. All this, of course, links back to a discussion we were having a few weeks back about the impact of Chinese government policy on academic freedom.

Whilst I still think the accusations of espionage and propaganda against the Confucius institutes is overblown, this is a definite indication the Chinese policy is moving to punish academics for pronouncements made outside the country. It appears that in the future not only out-and-out political enemies of the CCP, but also their serious critics in the world of academia are to be refused entry to the country in an effort to discourage such criticism.

Finally, we have this entirely disreputable and unworthy comment from "China expert" Shaun Rein on this subject:

"My guess more bloggers/ academics who froth [at the] mouth about China will be denied visas going forward."

(My emphasis)

Mr. Rein then went on to characterise anyone who found this comment objectionable as an "idiot/troll". Sigh.

As other commenters have already pointed out, if any other world power were to adopt a similar position virtually no serious foreign scholars would be allowed entry.

[Edit: Fixed links to individual tweets - for anyone wondering how to link to a tweet, just click on the "x hours/days ago" tag under the tweet and it will take you the tweet's URL]

How to trash you country's rep world-wide . . .

2011-03-28T23:19:00.000-07:00

. . . by having your country's police and immigration officials be rude and insulting to foreigners coming to visit it.

I've had my own run-ins with police who were just "trying to help foreigners" (AKA pointlessly wasting their time) when I was in Malaysia a couple of years back. I also had my parents nearly get barred from entry into the US because they had forgotten to take down my sister's address when coming to visit her (she was waiting in the arrivals lounge).

Still and all, last night when I was speaking to a friend of mine in the US whose Korean girlfriend recently flew in to visit him who had an experience which shocked even me. Here's what the immigration officials at LAX said to this nice young woman from a respectable, influential Korean family before allowing her into the country:

"Who's your pimp?"

My friend put in a complaint, but the complaint went nowhere, and he was told that he was "lucky they even let her in the country". Yes, he was lucky that they let his girlfriend, someone with no prior convictions and no prior engagement in illegal activity, a talented young lady who works as a designer, into the country because they suspected her of being a prostitute based seemingly only on her ethnicity.

Seriously, is this what America is about nowadays? Being pointlessly rude, insulting, sexist, racially stereotypical and demeaning to foreigners visiting the country?

A Smoking Ban?

2011-03-26T15:23:00.000-07:00

I find this BBC report of a ban on smoking in most public places in China to be brought in on the 1st of May a bit hard to credit.

Anyone familiar with China will also be familiar with the all-encompassing pall of cigarette smoke that surrounds most restaurants and bars, particularly late at night. School campuses (see picture above) and hospitals are the one possible exception to this.

On top of this, smoking plays a role in social interaction which means it will be more difficult to introduce such a ban that it was in New York, or in the UK. It is a common gesture among men at least to offer cigarettes as a sign of friendship, and for a man to turn down such an offer is likely to cause a very mild degree of offence. Whilst I do not generally like offering up a saying as an indication of how an entire culture works, the popular Chinese saying "烟酒不分家" (my trans.: "neither alcohol nor tobacco divide a home" - although there are other interpretations) says a lot.

Will the Chinese really abandon smoking in pubs and clubs after the 1st of May this year? My guess is that this law will be enforced to about the same degree that Chinese laws on DVD piracy and prostitution are enforced - that is, not a lot.

[Picture: A pack of double-happiness cigarettes, apparently from Taiwan. Via Wikicommons.]

Chris Devonshire Ellis: a two-bit thug

2011-03-26T03:15:00.000-07:00

Chris Devonshire-Ellis's campaign of emailed threats continues. In the latest email, after accusing me of attempting to hack his email account (I haven't) he had this lovely little message for me:

"Be careful when walking to work in Wroclaw we don't want any accidents do we. I'm watching you. So are my friends."

It amazes me that this man wasn't exposed for his fabrications and thuggish threats such as the one above much sooner.

Japan's "Liquidators"

2011-03-23T15:57:00.000-07:00

Back in my student days there was general agreement that no-one could match the researchers from the former Soviet Union for their fearless approach to radiation risks. Whilst we wondered whether this wasn't just down to the stereotype of the vodka-guzzling "Crazy Ivan", we also knew that these were people from the same scientific and engineering community which had exhibited bravery of the highest and most commendable kind in the face of near-certain death during the Chernobyl disaster.

There are two instances of bravery amongst the "Liquidators" who rescued much of Europe from life-threatening irradiation which stand out the most. The first is the planting of a radiation sensor on top of the damaged reactor by Nicolai Melnik, for which he was named a Hero of the Soviet Union, and lived into a comfortable comfortable retirement in Spain despite having suffered ill-health. The second, and perhaps the greatest act of bravery I have ever heard of, is that of Alexei Ananenko, Valeri Bezpalov, and Boris Baranov, who reportedly donned diving suits and swam to their deaths through the highly radioactive pool of water that formed beneath the blazing core of Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 in order to release the water and thus avoid a thermal explosion far worse than that which had already occured.

When the situation at Fukushima began my thoughts, and those of many others, turned to the incredible risks that were being run by those fighting to prevent catastrophe at Fukushima. They are Japan's answer to Chernobyl's "Liquidators".

We must not go overboard, though. Despite the ridiculous messages issued by the British government as well as others urging their citizens to flee the Japanese capital, some 200 Kilometres from Fukushima, so far at most only three of the workers is reported to have suffered any harmful radiation exposure as a result of this disaster. According to the IAEA, no injuries have been caused by radiation. This is in contrast to the almost certainly fatal doses inflicted on nearly all of those who initially responded to the Chernobyl disaster. Fukushima is bad, but it is not yet that bad, and hopefully never will be.

Those working to save their country and its people from deadly contamination at Fukushima are deserving of high praise, and should receive all the support and gratitude that Japan and the world can offer once this crisis has finally been safely averted. This is the best way of rewarding their bravery.

[Picture: The central detail of the Soviet medal given to the Chernobyl Liquidators. Via Wikipedia.]

It's A Big Machine

2011-03-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

The Tokyo City Philharmonic Orchestra (東京シティ・フィルハーモニック管弦楽団) under Taijiro Iimori (飯守泰次郎):

Yes, I know, Holst, which I'm sure marks me out as popular music-loving philistine, but one can't help but be impressed by the excellent and, for once, extremely visible precision of the orchestra in this piece. It is like watching a complicated military drill, or an aerobatic display team being put through its paces.

For those of more studied taste, here's the same orchestra under a different conductor playing a sparkling rendition of the 3rd movement of Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 3 in C major.

A mind-numbingly stupid move

2011-03-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

I don't have much to say about the recent announcement that the UK is going to slash visas for students from outside the EEC other than to say that it is utterly stupid. Britain owes a great deal of its remaining influence in the world to its status as a centre for culture and education. Both benefit greatly form the influx of foreign students.

David Cameron's has pointed out on more than one occasion that Britain exports more to the Republic of Ireland than it does to the BRIC countries, and that this represents a missed opportunity for British business. Just how does he ever expect to tackle this if he is turning away hundreds of thousands of prospective customers from those very same BRIC countries with this idiotic policy?

Even the poor excuse of reducing immigration does not appear to be valid in this case, since the immigration that people truly object to is illegal immigration. Indeed, it is easy to see how this policy will increase illegal immigration by barring the legal kind.

The Third World War

2011-03-21T08:10:00.001-07:00

Now, for only the third time during its 65-year history, the UN Security Council, the body notionally responsible for world security, has authorised direct military attack in support of one of its resolutions. However, this is quite different to the previous UN-authorised conflicts.

In Korea in 1950, the resolution authorising the deployment of forces under the UN banner was only possible because of the absence of the Soviet delegation, and was, at least initially, designed for the specific purpose of evicting the North Korean invaders from the south. In the case of Kuwait in 1990-1, the resolution was also clearly limited to actions necessary for liberating Kuwait.

In the present resolution, it is impossible to see any such clear limitations, or purpose to the resolution. The various parts of the Anglo-Franco-American alliance do not even seem to be clear as to who will be leading the coalition, what its objectives are, or even what the resolution authorising their action actually authorises. The Americans are talking only of a no-fly zone, whilst the first act of the French was to carry out strikes against tank columns. Whilst the only thing that is explicitly barred by the resolution is an occupation of Libya, even this does not seem to explicitly prevent an invasion of the country.

Moreover, once the present coalition has done what it can to protect the rebel-held cities of Benghazi, Misrata, etc., what happens then? Most obviously, now that we are in we should do what we can to help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi and resolve the situation - yet no-one has come forth to say this or even imply it. Regime change is the logical conclusion of the previous resolution referring the Gaddafi government to the International Criminal Court, yet this is not recognised.

This is, of course, not only the third UN-authorised military action, but also the third military action by the Western Powers in a majority Muslim country in the last ten years. If this conflict is resolved quickly, if Gaddafi is overthrown quickly and the Libyans left to solve their own problems, then we may at least be assured that another quagmire like Afghanistan will have been avoided. Unfortunately this is far from certain.

[Picture: A Tomahawk missile is launched from the USS Stetham, 2004. Via Wikicommons]

My Stalker: Chris Devonshire Ellis

2011-03-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

Back when Chris Devonshire Ellis resigned, I said that so long as I heard no more of CDE harassing and threatening bloggers who pointed out that he did not have any of the qualifications he claimed to have, that would be the last I would write about him. Even when it turned out that he hadn't properly resigned, I made it clear that I wasn't going to write any more posts on the guy. When the weird campaign of spreading my identity all over the internet started, I still tried to keep an open mind as to the identity of my pursuer despite my stalker's familiar writing style.

Until today, when I received this email in my work email in-box:

"Dear Mr. Grundy;

Just to remind you that according to Charles, our Private Investigator, you have a 5pm deadline to keep today as regards removal of offensive and defamatory material from your website.

I suggest you do, and if so, we'll say no more about this issue between you and I. You've had your fun, now it's time for you to move on and stop this constant bothering and sullying of my name.

Yours sincerely;

Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Principal

Dezan Shira & Associates

Beijing"

Who was this "Charles" of whom CDE spoke? Well, on Sunday I received this bizarre, rambling, and threatening email from the address "charlespi@hotmail.co.uk":

"Mr. Grundy

My name is Charles & I am a private investigator. You know me as 'anonymous' on your blog. I act as a go between on behalf on a group of four individuals. They have engaged me to establish your identity and to make contact with you. This concerns various comments and statements you have made on your blog & on those of others. I have now made you aware that I can track you down & also your colleagues family & friends. I also have records of your addresses in Brighton & Lansing full details of your movements throughout Asia & the people you met with professionally. I can stretch this further & add in contacts within the UK & immigration worldwide for your immigration & passport details. I can now find you & keep track of where you are. The question is what happens next. You are instructed to immediately delete from your website all references to the people you have harrassed online within the next 48 hours. Lets not have you getting smart asking who or what. Use your sense. I have a list of your comments & I will be watching. Take everything down & delete it. This means a deadline of close of business 5pm GMT on Tuesday 15 March. You are asked to do the same for references of the websites of Wang Jiangshuo & Rhondo Zeb. It is your problem if these sites are not under your control. If you comply with this request & abstain from making any further references to any of the individuals concerned no further action will be taken against you. If not then actions will be taken & this will involve your employers & other means that will not be to your amusement at my disposal. I have contacts in many places & Wroclow is a text away. There are no negotiations. It is better for you that it is not necessary to meet with any of my friends. That would not be a good idea. Do not piss me off or them off & we can bid goodbye & let all your bad behaviour be history.
Charles"

(my emphasis)

A quick check shows that there is no registered UK private investigator by the name of "Charles Pi", nor can any record be found of one in another country. None of the three UK private investigator's called Charles on the ABI registry know who Devonshire Ellis is or have had any contact with him. The most obvious explanation is therefore the simplest - "Charles Pi" is an alias.

CDE doesn't bother to identify what on this blog he considers "offensive and defamatory". Once again, the reason for this simple - nothing here is "defamatory", if it were he could have had the relevant material taken down years ago. Instead, CDE is trying to take down bona fide commentary on this blog through a campaign of thinly veiled threats against my friends, family, and job such as those highlighted above. He admits as much in his email.

I have not "defamed" him. Instead it is his own words that condemn him, now as before. Moreover, it is now Wednesday evening and the sky is yet to fall in, despite the 5 PM Tuesday deadline.

It seems that CDE is not merely in another time zone, but on a different planet all together.

Fukushima and the future of nuclear power

2011-03-15T16:29:00.000-07:00

Back in university I wrote an essay on safety and nuclear power. Basically my analysis was that a water-cooled reactor could never melt-down under conceivable circumstances, that 3-Mile Island only suffered partial meltdown because of a series of avoidable accidents, and that an accident that knocked out both the primary and back-up cooling systems would probably also destroy the reactor and was therefore not worth worrying about.

I also wrote that Chernobyl exploded because it was basically a bomb - the graphite blazed out of control after the initial melt-down, no-one would build another reactor like that in the future. The conclusion was that another major nuclear accident like Chernobyl was almost impossible.

Yes, I know Fukushima hasn't gone into full meltdown yet, and the reactor vessels are, as far as we know, still in tact. However, the circumstances I described as being inconceivable have occurred - an accident bad enough to knock out the cooling systems, but not so bad as to destroy the reactor. Moreover, if explosions can tear reactor containment buildings apart in the way they did at Fukushima, the reactor itself can also be destroyed, and the fuel spread over a large area in just the same way the Chernobyl explosion did. It didn't happen, or at least it hasn't yet, but it could have.

I'm a long-term supporter of nuclear fission power, but I also think that this accident should at the very least give the supporters of nuclear fission food for thought. There are reactor types at the experimental stage, such as inert gas-cooled reactors which should not be vulnerable to the chenical explosions that tore apart Chernobyl and the Fukushima reactor buildings. This won't eliminate the low risks associated with spent nuclear fuel though.

On the other hand, the German government's de-activation of seven of the seventeen nuclear reactors in Germany is a ridiculous over-reaction.

[Picture: A satellite picture of the explosion at the Unit 3 containment building at the Fukushima I plant. Picture made available by DigitalGlobe under a CC-by-ND-NC 2.0 license.]

My Name Is Gilman Grundy

2011-03-11T06:09:00.000-08:00

Hi there. For a long time I've been blogging using a handle (FOARP), but because someone's gone and revealed my identity, from now on, whilst I'm going to keep using the handle because I guess it's what people are most familiar with, you'll also be able to know exactly who I am.

A few things about me that some may find interesting:

- Whilst I think "fluent" is one of the most abused languages in the English language, my Chinese is at what they call "business-level", which means I can take part in meetings, give presentations, translate documents etc. in Chinese without embarassing myself too much.

- I work in IP, a career that has taken me from China to London to Japan to Poland, and which I greatly enjoy.

- I'm a big fan of Liverpool F.C.

- I once came second in a television song competition watched by millions, despite my blatant attempts at vote-rigging.

- I'm very interested in the connection between IP and competition law, something that no person who I have ever met was actually interested in.

You can read an interview with me here.

[Picture: Me giving a talk on the European Commission's decision in the Microsoft case at the EIPIN conference in Gerzensee, Switzerland, 2008]

Japan Earthquake

2011-03-11T03:24:00.000-08:00

Probably just like most of you I have spent this morning doing little work and gaping, open mouthed, at the video feeds coming from Japan. It is a well-worn cliche that Japan is a politico-socially stable society in a geologically unstable area, but nothing brings home the sheer power and force of this earthquake like the footage of houses, ships, trucks, and towns being lifted and smashed by the force of the tsunami generated by the quake. It is simultaneously deathly horrifying and shockingly astounding. Living in Taiwan and Japan I adopted a blasé attitude to earthquakes, but it will be hard for me to be so cold-blooded ever again.

For the moment, I merely thank god (or whoever) that everyone I know in Japan and Taiwan (which the tsunami also hit) is safe and well. The dead are only just being counted, but it is hard not to believe that they will greatly exceed the 6,434 people killed in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, although modern construction should ensure that the toll will not approach the 100,000 killed in 1923 Great Kanto quake.

[Picture: An earthquake-damaged refinery blazes out of control in Ichihara, Chiba Prefecture. Picture taken by Danny Choo and made available on a CC-by-SA license, 11th of March 2011]

Global Times on Charlie Sheen: Pure, concentrated awesomeness

2011-03-09T06:53:00.000-08:00

Global Times (no, really, Global Times) runs with an awesome piece criticising Charlie Sheens recent drug/ego/craziness-inspired going-off-the-rails gonzoism for its lack of filial piety. Yes, at first I was a bit dubious, the opener almost could be a bona fide GT agit-prop editorial, but the more you read into the piece, the more awesome it becomes. The name of the editorialist is also a bit of a giveaway. Go there now and read it before it goes the way of Ask Alessandro.

[Picture: Not the editorialist being mobbed by crazed fans. Via Wikicommons]

China's defence spending up by 12.7%

2011-03-06T05:19:00.000-08:00

When the Chinese government announced last year that defence spending might rise by only around 8% I was among those cautiously optimistic that this might signal a slacking-off of the break-neck speed with which the PRC has been improving its military capabilities. However, it seems I was being a tad over-optimistic. This report from the Guardian does a good job of covering all the angles.

Now, as the Guardian report points out, despite the fact that the US (which outspends the rest of the world combined on defence) is reducing its budget, there are a few justifications for this increase. The first, and most obvious, is that China's defence spending, though high compared to many of its neighbours, is still low in comparison to overall GDP at around 1.5% of nominal GDP, and that as China's economy is growing quickly high increases in military spending should be expected. The second is that even though the US is cutting spending, regional rival India is planning an 11.6% defence spending hike.

Still, in the long term these increases, which have out-stripped GDP growth, will give the Chinese military a decisive advantage over all of its neighbours, or any likely combination of them. Whilst official yearly Chinese spending is now around 91.1 billion US dollars, 2009 military spending in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan totalled roughly 84 billion USD. In fact this year's declared increase in Chinese military spending is equivalent to the entirety of the Taiwanese military budget. Only the commitment of the United States to the defence of Japan South Korea, and Taiwan would give them an edge.

[Picture: Smoke comes from the funnel of the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, now said to be re-named Shi Lang, which is under renovation in Dalian Harbour. Sources suggest it may begin sea trials with the People's Liberation Army Navy as early as the end of this year. Picture via Defensetech]

The West does not exist

2011-03-06T03:54:00.000-08:00

Since Hidden Harmonies decided to do a somewhat bizarre piece on what they believe "the West" to be, including this delightfully weird passage comparing media in general to criminals who must be kept under lock and key:

"So, what is the “Western media?” For one, they pride themselves on being a “free press.” We all know “free” criminals commit crimes, so most of us are immuned to their self-professed higher moral ground. But, the Western public largely buys into that. The Western media also share a peculiar trait of crusading for these ideologies: “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights.”"

I thought I'd put in my tuppence worth on this as well.

As a geopolitical entity, "the West" has existed and been written about since at least the start of the medieval age times, when the Great Schism divided Orthodox Eastern Europe from Catholic western Europe. However, what does it mean in modern terms?

Firstly and most obviously, it means Western Europe, Australasia, and North America. Western Europe because it is the original home of Western Christianity, and North America and Australasia because they were colonised by countries in Western Europe. However, what of Latin America, the very name of which requires it to be an off-shoot of Western Europe? At least according to the statements of two modern-day Latin American leaders, they do not consider their countries to be part of the same grouping.

Things get even more murky when one looks at the countries which are also regularly lumped in with "the West" in commentary on the internet. Perhaps the ESWN blog is not the best source on what exactly "the West" is, but a recent post in which "境外媒体" (roughly "external media") appears to have been translated as "Western media" despite, as Richard Burger pointed out, many of reports being from organisations based in Asia, is about par for the course.

Even the dreaded "Western" media seems a bit hazy on what "the West" actually is. When it comes to "Westernisation", you often see things being cited as evidence of "Westernisation" which should rightly be referred to as "modernisation" (i.e., mobile phones, the internet, mass-produced clothing) since they carry little or no intrinsic cultural meaning and are merely indicative of technological progress.

Finally, many of the things people use to identify "the West" are no longer true or exclusively true of many countries which are traditionally identified with it. Whilst "Christian" values are often said to be a hallmark of "the West", in many countries non-believers form the largest grouping. "Democracy" is often said to be intrinsically western, yet many countries with cultures highly dissimilar to that found in Europe and America (Taiwan, Japan, India) are democratic.

My solution to this is the easiest one: The West no longer exists. Whilst we can be relatively certain what phrases like "the Western Powers" refer to (i.e., France, Germany, the US, and the UK), "the West" itself is too vague a concept to be useful.

Civil War

2011-03-06T03:25:00.000-08:00

So it seems that the civil war that many feared might occur in Libya has come to pass. Civil war is often the dirtiest kind of war, not that there is any clean kind, with both sides refusing to recognise even the right of the other to exist, and, especially at the start, both sides finding it difficult to distinguish friend from foe. It seems likely that tens of thousands of Libyans, many of them innocent civilians, will die in such a conflict, nor is it even certain that the side which was born out of a pro-democracy revolution will be the victor, since war is the theatre of the unpredictable.

A few things that should be said though. It would be unjust if the world were to inflict a false "temporary" division on Libya similar to that in the Ivory Coast. There is no equivalence between the two sides - the Gaddafi regime must go, and elections must be held to decide the future of the country.

There has been a lot of talk about establishing a no-fly zone, but since this requires a wave of airstrikes to be unleashed against Gaddafi before such a zone can be put into place, establishing such a zone is indistinguishable from intervention. If we must intervene, let it be by providing weapons and training to the one side that promises democratic rule in the country before Gaddafi, with his control of the airforce and much of the expertise of the army, overwhelms them.

In the short term Gaddafi has the advantage of control of the airforce, mercenaries, and greater organisation. However, if the opposition can hold on, and an effective blockade can be imposed on the Gaddafi regime, the advantage should switch to the opposition as foreign support increases the effectiveness of their forces.

Finally, the democratic countries of the world, particularly those in Europe, bear a responsibility towards the people of Libyan, firstly for our coddling of the Gaddafi regime, and secondly for the encouragement given to the various Arab uprisings. We must not cut and run from this duty.

[Picture: "Revolution and war are inseparable!" - An anarchist poster from the Spanish Civil War, via Wikicommons]

The Confucius Institutes: Not spy command centres

2011-03-02T12:56:00.000-08:00

It's weird to even have this debate, but it seems we must. In an article redolent of the "den of spies" rhetoric thrown against the US embassy in Tehran under the Shah, Michael Turton, using a report from Fa Lun Gong-founded Epoch Times as his evidence, characterises the Confucius Institutes thus:

"Confucius Institutes have two, and only two, functions: one is propaganda, and the other is intelligence on the academic community. Watch out for the one in your neighborhood; its presence is entirely inimical to the development of robust critical views of China, academic freedom, and democratic politics."

This might have been defensible had the Epoch Times report contained anything solid linking the Confucius institutes to either of these activities. Instead, there is little in the report to support such claims. To support the assertion that Confucius institutes serve to propagate propaganda, the only direct link in the article is the presence of a group of pro-Beijing demonstrators "wearing T-shirts with labels identifying them as being from Montreal's Confucius Institute". Backing up the idea that Confucius institutes facilitate the gathering of intelligence, at most the article mentions a speech in which the head of the Canadian security service lumped the Confucius Institutes in with other instruments of Chinese policy, and a 2007 warning from an academic that Confucius Institutes might restrict freedom of speech at universities (with no follow-up).

The section that opens the article describes a Xinhua report about a Canada-based Confucius Institute instructor engaging in criticism of Canadian reporting from China in 2008. However, this activity seems to have consisted mainly of showing students a map showing Tibet as being inside China (like almost every map in the world) and reads like a CCP propaganda piece that may well be exaggerated or manufactured. At any rate, it shows nothing conclusive about the Confucius Institutes, certainly no evidence of the Confucius Institutes engaging in intelligence gathering or direct propaganda. Michael Turton's European friends may have reported rumours of intelligence gathering, but once again, no solid examples were cited.

Otherwise the sources cited in the Epoch Times article largely agree with the majority view on the Confucius institutes: that they are an exercise in soft power, not direct propaganda, and none of the experts quoted referenced the gathering of intelligence as a purpose of the Confucius Institutes.

[Picture: A Confucius Institute instructor (just kidding). Photo by Alan Light, 1980.]

Then and Now

2011-03-01T13:20:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Sunday's unanimous resolution referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court, an act which, given that the ICC prosecutor is guaranteed to bring war crimes charges against the Gaddafi regime, is tantamount to a call for regime change from every member of the UN security council, it's instructive to compare what was said about Libya last year with what is being said now:

China

Then -

"During the meeting, Wu said China and Libyan share a long tradition of friendship. Since they established diplomatic links in 1978, bilateral relations have seen smooth development.

Wu said the two countries respect and treat each other as equals as they continued to deepen mutual trust. He said China and Libya are complementary in economy and their cooperation has produced win-win results.

Wu said the two countries share broad consensus and cooperate with each other on major regional and international issues such as human rights, reform of the United Nations, climate change and the international financial crisis."

Now -

""It is imperative now to stop the violence and avoid further casualties," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters.

"We hope the international community will play a constructive part in restoring stability in Libya as soon as possible.""

The USA

Then -

"In the last 18 months, the United States and Libya have made great strides regarding military cooperation. The two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding on future defense cooperation, and finalized an agreement that sets the stage for a new security cooperation relationship."

Now -

"Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is "delusional" and "unfit to lead", the US ambassador to the UN has said.

Susan Rice was speaking after the embattled Colonel Gaddafi was interviewed by the BBC and others."

The UK

Then (this one from 2003) -

"This courageous decision by Colonel Gaddafi is an historical one. I applaud it,"

(Blair on the Gaddafi's announcement that he was going to scrap all weapons of mass destruction under his control)

Now -

[Andrew Marr (BBC)]: Are you clear that Gaddafi had weapons of mass destruction and then destroyed them?

[William Hague (UK Foreign Secretary)]: I think it was clear that he was developing various programmes and working on various programmes. There, there certainly was a programme of mustard gas creation and creating stocks of that.

AM: [....] was there a verifiable destruction at any point of these stocks?

WH: Some of those stocks do appear to exist although we’re not sure what condition they are in

Yes, time makes fools of us all, but it appears to have worked mighty quick on the relations of various countries with Libya.

An unlikely guardian of human rights.

2011-02-28T09:12:00.000-08:00

Yesterday at the UN a unanimous resolution was passed by the UN security council condemning violence, including the use of heavy weapons such as tanks, against demonstrators, and referring Colonel Gaddafi and his government to the International Criminal Court for investigation for war crimes under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. The chief prosecutor of the ICC had this to say about charges that may be brought as a result of this resolution:

"If people were on the square and they were attacked by soldiers, tanks or aeroplanes, in a widespread and systematic way, it's a crime against humanity."

That such a measure could be passed by a UN security council of which both China and Russia are permanent members, when both of these countries have seen the use of heavy weapons to suppress uprisings in their own countries within the last quarter century, is somewhat surprising. Whilst neither Medvedev or Putin took part in the shelling of the Russian parliament in 1993, the Chinese government still contains several people who were involved in the incidents in Beijing in 1989, most notably Wen Jiabao.

Even more surprising is that the members of the council should vote unanimously to refer Gaddafi to the ICC when three of the permanent UN security council members (China, the United States, and Russia) do not even recognise the jurisdiction of that court. For all three of these countries, recognition of the ICC's jurisdiction when the treaty establishing it originally came into force (i.e., the 1st of July, 2002) would have meant prominent figures in the military and the government would have been put on trial for war crimes committed during the intervening years. Particularly convenient, of course, was the United States signing of the treaty and then subsequent withdrawal from it before ratification during the Bush administration.

In the specific case of China, there is a long history of abstaining from voting in such resolutions. In the case of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, China abstained both from the original votes sanctioning Libya for involvement in the bombing, and a subsequent vote sanctioning Libya for failure to comply with the first two resolutions. Whilst China did vote to impose sanctions on Milosevic's Yugoslavia in the wake of the atrocities committed during the Bosnian war, and also voted to establish a war crimes court for the former Yugoslavia, it abstained from voting in many of the subsequent resolutions on the Bosnian and Kosovo issues.

On the resolution on establishing a court for war crimes committed during the ethnic strife in Rwanda, the Chinese also abstained, ostensibly because they believed the Rwandan genocide to be strictly an internal matter. A similar approach was taken to the war in Darfur, with China joining the US (which abstained out of opposition to the jurisdiction of the ICC) in abstaining from a vote referring the violence there to the ICC.

Does this, then, signal a switch away from Beijing's previous position that the violent repression of one group by another within the borders of a country is an internal matter for that country? It seems much more likely that this is an example of score-settling by China for the numerous slights that the Gaddafi regime has inflicted on them in recent years, as well as, perhaps, some concern as to what could possibly have happened to the 30,000 Chinese citizens living and working in Libya at the outbreak of the revolt had they been caught in the cross-fire.

Even if this is a mere act of score settling, though, it will act as a definite precedent for any future crisis in which a dictatorship wishes to suppress revolt by unleashing military firepower upon its own people. A precedent which China has explicitly supported.

[Picture: A screen-grab from a BBC report from Tiananmen square on the night of the massacre, showing an APC driving across the square under attack from demonstrators hurling stones. The APC was later destroyed. You can see the entire report here.]

Jasmine tea at a Shanghai Starbucks

2011-02-27T01:57:00.001-08:00

Those who had been quick to dismiss the possibility of a Chinese version of the Jasmine revolutions may have been given food for thought by today's events. Whilst reportedly the Harbin demo was a no-show and at least one reporter was beaten at the Beijing demo, the protest (if that is the right word for an event at which no-one seems to have said much) in Shanghai seems to have been well attended.

Whilst many of the people in the above picture may simply have been there out of interest to see what happened (kan-ing the renao as someone I know used to put it), it cannot now be said that such gatherings are impossible, or that no-one would be interested in such a gathering. It also appears highly unlikely that these protest are being organised as a provocation, despite my earlier suspicions to the contrary.

However, a small demonstration like this is a million miles from the kind of mass-movements which have rocked autocratic regimes in the Middle East, but it is a start.

[Picture: People gather outside the Starbucks near the Raffles City Mall in Central Shanghai, 27th of February, picture via @Singaporeano AKA Kenneth Tan]

Eamonn Fingleton's "quiz": Just how wrong can an article get?

2011-02-26T14:14:00.000-08:00

I originally wasn't going to write anything about Eamonn Fingleton's somewhat daring "quiz" on East Asian topics because I have done too many of these Fiskings in recent months, but then I caught a friend of mine approvingly reposting it on Facebook and felt I had to say my piece. Quite simply, the man appears to know very little and is not afraid of advertising the fact. Let's start with this passage:

"Question 1: Can you name an atrocity that happened in East Asia in the 1930s that, on a one-day, one-decision basis, probably ranks as the worst atrocity in history?

Answer: It was an event that happened in China -- but, no, it was not the Nanking massacre. Rather it was the Huang He (Yellow River) flooding of 1938 . . . What is beyond question is that even many China specialists at U.S. universities have never heard of the Huang He massacre."

Let's get this straight, the flooding of the Huang He caused by the demolition of the river dams in 1938 was not a massacre, that is to say, it was not the intentional unjustifiable killing of a large number of innocent people. The Huang He flood was, arguably, justifiable as an act of scorched-earth policy designed to defeat the Japanese invaders, and its object was not the deaths of innocents, but the defeat of the Japanese invasion. Whilst it may have been wrong, and may even have back-fired resulting in the loss of innocent life along with the deaths of invading Japanese troops, it was not a "massacre". If an atrocity was committed, it was the Japanese invasion which necessitated the flooding.

Even more ridiculous is Fingleton's assertion that "China experts" (and I presume he means people with at least some background in Chinese history here) at US universities have never heard of the demolition of the Huang He dams. I personally read about them first in my childhood encyclopaedia and I cannot believe that anyone who studied modern Chinese history even superficially would not have heard of this event.

"Question 2: In what nation did the campaign for justice for the so-called comfort women (the sex slaves used by the Japanese imperial forces in the 1930s and first half of the 1940s) begin?

Answer: No, it was not South Korea; rather it was the Netherlands."

That the Netherlands should be the first country to seek compensation for the so-called "comfort women" is not surprising - the Netherlands was an independent and reasonably peaceful country in 1945. But more to the point, just who is it that is under the misimpression that South Korea was where such a campaign might start? Not anyone I know, and that's for sure.

"As for the comfort women issue, this came to be widely discussed in the English-speaking media only as recently as the early 1990s."

The existence of "comfort women" has also been known for a lot longer than since the 90's. As a simple matter of fact, the famous Australian author Neville Shute wrote about the rape of female prisoners in A Town Like Alice. J.G. Ballard also wrote about this in Empire Of The Sun. Perhaps the translated euphemism "comfort women" has only relatively recently been used for women who suffered this atrocious crime, but the fact that wide-scale abduction and continuous rape was conducted by the Japanese army during its rampage across Asia is something known to any reasonably well-read person.

His point about US politicians having "a lack of understanding of East Asia" may have some truth in it, but he then discredits himself by writing how had his own opinion on the Iraq war been listened to, things might have been different. Is he really claiming to be an expert on Iraq? Or is he saying that his understanding of Japan gives him an insight into how Iraq works? At any rate, it cannot be the latter because he himself says that "the only thing Iraq and Japan have in common is they are not the United States".

But it gets worse: just why is Fingleton emphasising the terrible nature of the Huang He floods and specifically pointing out that they killed more people than the Nanjing Massacre - something that was an intentional act of mass murder? Just why is he giving the treaties signed with the Mao and Park regimes denying further compensation equal weight to the crimes themselves? All of this reads a lot like the kind of apologia for Japanese war crimes familiar to anyone who has lived in Japan.

[Picture: Japanese soldiers stuck in the mud during the Huang He "massacre"]

[Update: You can see Fingleton's website here. As expected, his posts seem to consist mainly of cheer-leading pieces for the Japanese economy and government that are a bit off considering Japan's GDP growth over the past 20 years.]

From the annals of hyperbolae: "Taiwan also needs a Jasmine Revolution"

2011-02-26T07:29:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I last read the Taipei Times. Though I was once a regular reader, since leaving Taiwan I've more and more found its editorial line on Taiwan politics to be increasingly bizarre in its criticism of the KMT, and this has been particularly so since Ma Yingjiu's victory in the 2008 elections.

Now don't get me wrong, Ma has been deserving of criticism from his time as Mayor of Taipei onwards, but the accusations thrown against him and his government from the pages of the Taipei Times have been excessive to say the least. The Taipei Times and its Chinese-language cousin, the Liberty Times, have even gone as far as suggesting that Ma "might even secretly sign a capitulation agreement with Beijing".

However, the latest editorial, comparing Taiwan, a democratic society since at least 1996, and one in which both the KMT and the DPP have won and lost power via elections, to the dictatorships of the Arab world, truly takes the cake. In an editorial written by Chang Yeh-shen, vice chairman of the Northern Taiwan Society, entitled "Taiwan also needs a Jasmine Revolution", Chang opens with a bleak portrait of the Taiwanese economic situation:

Prices have skyrocketed, putting pressure on the public, while the unemployment rate has seen a sharp increase. With a government that only cares about big conglomerates, Taiwanese live in hardship with no hope in sight, and the lower class passes their poverty on to the next generation.

There's only one problem with this description: it's total baloney. Unemployment has not "seen a sharp increase", in fact unemployment in Taiwan is now lower than it was at the time of the 2004 election, and Taiwan actually experienced deflation last year [Edit: Some doubts about the Indexmundi figures, see comments]. The picture Chang draws of Taiwan somehow suffering crisis-level poverty is rubbish, plain and simple.

Chang then goes on to accuse the Ma government of failing to defend Taiwan, with government officials being accused of allying "themselves with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) against Taiwan". One wonders which government official Chang could possible be talking about, since Ma's government did (after years of KMT-led blocking) finally succeed in passing an all-important arms-procurement bill directed specifically against an attack across the strait.

It seems that in Chang's world no level of engagement with the Mainland can be allowed, with even the recent moves to allow mainland students to study in Taiwan being condemned as ". . . threatening to limit Taiwanese students’ educational and job opportunities". Even the visits of Mainland officials to Taiwan are described, in a mind-blowing exaggeration, as allowing "Chinese colonial rule in Taiwan".

Let me be clear on this: Mainland students visiting Taiwan cause little or no harm, will bring money into the Taiwanese economy, will create jobs in Taiwan, and may just allow some Mainland students to see that they have been lied to about Taiwan by the government-controlled media on the Mainland. Visits by PRC officials to Taiwan, far from being a harbinger of colonialism, are 100% necessary if relations between the two sides of the straits are ever to be normalised. Whilst the Taiwanese should certainly be careful to ensure that no compromises are made that might threaten Taiwan's democratic institutions and self-determination, there is no solid evidence that any such compromise has been made or is even being considered.

Having got this far, you might wonder if any further hyperbolae were even possible, but the kicker is in the last paragraph:

"Taiwan’s situation today is not much better than that of the Arabic countries in the throes of the Jasmine Revolution. We must use our votes to oust Ma to save Taiwan and rebuild the country, perhaps through a “lily revolution.”"

Let's keep this simple: Taiwan is a democratic society with levels of freedom of speech, judicial independence, and economic development and equality comparable to any country in either Western Europe or North America. As an example, in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, Taiwan has a higher per-capita income than 15 of the 50 US states and 15 of the 27 EU member-states. To compare the situation in Taiwan to that of even the richest of the Middle-Eastern countries which have experienced unrest in the last month is an immense distortion. You wonder what possibly could have been going through the minds of the editors at the Taipei Times when they okayed this piece.

China's rocky relations with Libya

2011-02-24T12:10:00.000-08:00

Whilst the rift between Libya and the United States during the 80's is well-known, the story of Libya's somewhat spotty relations with the People's Republic is little known in China, Europe, or America. However, even a bit of research turns up a treasure-trove of Libyan actions in recent years which will have left the Chinese with little in the way of sympathy for Gaddafi's government.

You want support for Taiwan? You've got it:

"Earlier, in 2006, the two countries squabbled over Libya's relations with Taiwan. The deterioration began in January when Sayf al-Islam Qadhafi—chairman of the Libyan Qadhafi Foundation—met President Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan, acting as an envoy of his father, Mu'ammar Qadhafi. Libya, which had maintained diplomatic relations with Taiwan from 1959 to 1978, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1971 but delayed the establishment of diplomatic relations until 1978. Qadhafi invited Chen Shui-bian for an official "state visit" to Libya and said that his father was resolved to develop relations between the two countries, with Libya serving as Taiwan's gateway to Africa. "He hoped that the two nations sign a memorandum on establishing mutual representative offices before his departure" [1]. Adding insult to injury, this invitation came on January 19, precisely when PRC Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing was meeting Qadhafi (the father) in Libya. An online Libyan newspaper reported recently that Sayf al-Islam Qadhafi was officially and practically appointed as successor to his father (Libya al-Yaum [Libya Today], October 15).

To be sure, a few months later, in May 2006, Libya allowed Chen Shui-bian to make a stopover in Tripoli, and used the opportunity to negotiate the issue of representative offices in the two countries, despite Beijing's protests and "strong opposition." A PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "We demand that Libya live up to its commitment and immediately cease all official exchanges with Taiwan in whatever forms so as to maintain the overall China-Libya relations…This is a serious violation of Libya's long-term commitment to the one-China policy and will exert a negative impact on China-Libya relations" (Xinhua News Agency, May 11, 2006)."

You want blocking of Chinese businesses seeking to enter the Libyan market? You've got it:

"Libya will exercise its right to buy the assets of [Libyan oilfield operating] Verenex Energy Inc., blocking a roughly US$400 million deal that China had sought with the Canadian oil producer, said the country’s top oil official.

Libya will match the amount that China National Petroleum Corp. had agreed to pay for Verenex, Shokri Ghanem, head of Libya’s National Oil Co., said on the sidelines of an energy conference.. Libya wants to buy the company out of "commercial interest" as it tries to boost its oil-pumping capacity, said Mr. Ghanem."

In the same interview in which Musa Kusa attacked the Chinese government for alleged "imperialism" in Africa, Musa Kusa also accused China of bypassing the African Union in its dealings with African nations, an organisation which Colonel Gaddafi has made his own pet project:

"is an insult to the African Union. […] Is it reasonable for China—as a single country—to preside over an entire continent? This is an injustice. […] China's unwillingness to accept the presence of African Union commissioners means that they do not want the African Union, or African Unity, but rather China wants to cooperate with Africa as separate nations, rather than as a union."

It seems that if Gaddafi's government is somewhat lacking allies at the moment, it has no-one to blame but itself.

What Gaddaffi failed to learn from the CCP

2011-02-24T10:51:00.000-08:00

Whilst I'm still concerned that the result of the Libyan revolt may yet be a prolonged civil war on the Spanish model, that fear has retreated. The reason is simple:

The thing that made the Spanish civil war particularly long and brutal was that, far from one side being a reactionary movement against an Ancien Régime, both sides, in their own way, unleashed revolution on the areas they controlled before attempting to seize the rest of the country from the other.

Gaddaffi, however, showed himself in his last speech to be incapable of this. Despite specifically citing Tiananmen as his model, Gaddafi has seemingly forgotten the rest of the story: the Tiananmen demonstrators were crushed by force, but the populace have been turned against the demonstrators and anyone else advocating human rights in China through the simple device of labelling them traitors in the pay of the western powers. A similar strategy has been successfully used in Russia.

Instead of doing this, and perhaps mobilizing anti-western and nationalistic sentiment to his support, Gaddaffi made a speech which seemed directed at gaining support form the western powers themselves by blaming Osama Bin Laden for the uprising. To say the least, leaders in Europe and America are unlikely to be swayed by such rhetoric.

Probably much more blood will be shed before this is all over, but unless Gaddafi has some as yet unknown trick up his sleeve (WMDs?) it looks like he is finished.

On a side note, it should not be forgotten that Libya has been through a frosty patch in its relations with Beijing in recent years following an interview in which Mussa Kussa, Libyan foreign minister and pro-Gaddafi hardliner, said that:

"When we look at the reality on the ground we find that there is something akin to a Chinese invasion of the African continent. This is something that brings to mind the effects that colonialism had on the African continent [in the past]. […] Therefore we advise our Chinese friends not to follow in this direction i.e. [sic] bringing thousands of Chinese workers to Africa under the pretext of employment, for at the same time Africa is suffering from unemployment." He went on saying that China's programs of training and employing thousands of Africans is welcomed "but this welcome does not mean [accepting] the Chinese coming to settle in Africa."

Whilst by all reports this has not stopped thousands of Chinese workers going to Libya to work in the same oil companies that employs tens of thousands of other foreigners, the Chinese government will certainly not have forgotten this snub.

[Picture: The young Colonel Gaddafi meets the father of Arab nationalism, President Gamal Abdal Nasser of Egypt, 1969]

China: Not too rich for a "Jasmine Revolution"

2011-02-23T15:05:00.000-08:00

A lot of people have linking to this excellent article on the Granite Studio blog on the relatively small chances of there being a revolution in China similar to those which have rocked the Arab world in recent weeks. I would certainly advise anyone who's been following this subject to go there and give it a read, but I would also like to highlight one of the reasons given for dismissing the chances of a revolution in China:

"Over the last twenty years, rapid economic growth has raised the standard of living to an unprecedentedly high level. Most families enjoy a life style that previous generations couldn’t have even imagined. For example, my mom could only afford a small piece of sugar for lunch during the Great Famine in 1960, but her daughter traveled in three continents before she turned 25. Few urban Chinese seem eager to trade their chance at prosperity for dreams of revolution."

Whilst it is certainly true that China has seen high economic growth in the past 20 years, and that many have benefitted from this, this is also true to a significant extent in all of the countries which have seen insurrections over the last month:

The above graph has two problems, though. One is unavoidable - the high per-capita GDP of Bahrain makes the Chinese GDP look small and smooths out the rapid growth that country has seen. The other is a bit more troublesome - it only extends to 2008 during the period when economic growth was strong in all of these countries, but all the other countries, except China, experienced some kind of economic slow-down in 2009.

Still, is China "too rich" to experience a revolution, as some have said, and as some might interpret the Granite Studio post as implying? Most definitely not - China is only marginally richer than Tunisia, was poorer than Egypt until 2002-2003, and has about a third and a fifth of Libya and Bahrain's per capita GDP respectively. Nor is there any evidence that China is a more equal country than it's Arab counterparts, with the latest Gini indices being much higher for China than those of Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia.

Instead, I think the point that Ya Jun was trying to make was that it is the promise of future prosperity, rather than the actual state of development in China today (impressive though this is in comparison to previous poverty) that keeps people relatively loyal to the Chinese Communist Party. As with all delayed gratification, once denied the backlash can be intense.

[Edit: A commenter over at The Peking Duck managed to say all of this so much more succinctly in the thread discussing Ya Jun's post, see their comment here]

People's Daily Editor Li Hong Mei: "Chinese netizens are under educated and under paid"

2011-02-23T14:40:00.000-08:00

In the latest of a long line of pronunciamentos from the pages of the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party which fails to do anything but shoot the Chinese people straight in the foot, Li Hongmei has released this bizarre editorial pooh-poohing the power of the internet:

"As of 2010, the Internet coverage rate in China has reached 34.3%, with approximately 457 million netizens, and more than 63 million micro-blogging users. Meanwhile a survey conducted nationwide also sheds light on a noteworthy phenomenon, that is, among the Chinese netizens, 76.7% of them have no higher learning background, and 83% get the monthly income under 2,000 yuan (US$305).

This indicates that the absolute number of Chinese netizens is gigantic, but if compared with China's large population of 1.3 billion, it is still a limited proportion. Also in light of the reality that the majority of the Chinese netizens are under educated and under paid, how much they can represent the Chinese "public opinions" must be highly dubious."

Strangely enough, I don't recall this kind of circumspection about the representative nature of internet commentary when anti-CNN.com was running its campaign accusing the foreign media of 'bias' back in 2008, which the state media just couldn't seem to get enough of. So what has sparked this change in attitudes? Perhaps this section sheds some light on that:

"Just give another thought to the case of Egypt, the Western media again never hesitate to cash in on the idea that the Egyptian uprising was Internet Revolution, and it was Twitter and Facebook that helped spur on international coverage of the events unfolding, which ultimately led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarak. However, the West pays no heed to the true feeling of the ordinary Egyptians who actually have no access to computers, and pushed to streets by the few elites with some idea of reform enlightened by the Western-style democracy, and motivated to follow suit by the slogans and symbols which sound all alien to their knowledge.

Most of the Egyptians, in actuality, have no idea about what it should be like after Mubarak, nor can they imagine any change to be ushered in their banal life by ousting him."

Obviously Li Hongmei doesn't like the idea of an internet-driven revolution because it's not inclusive enough. Perhaps one arranged by a small clique of mainly foreign-educated and funded insurrectionists is more her sort of thing. Still n' all, something just ain't quite right about the idea of "Egyptians who actually have no access to computers" being "pushed to the streets" by internet commentary.

What Gaddafi learned from the CCP

2011-02-23T14:27:00.000-08:00

Saw this on the Big Lychee and couldn't believe it:

In Gaddaffi's own words:

“When Tiananmen Square happened, tanks were sent in to deal with them. It’s not a joke. Do whatever it takes to stay united… People in front of tanks were crushed. The unity of China is more important than those people in Tiananmen Square.”

Strangely the Chinese government does not seem to be pleased by Gaddaffi's explicit copying of their own 1989 play-book, and has joined the rest of the UN Security Council in issuing a statement condemning the use of force against protesters:

"The members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the situation in Libya. They condemned the violence and use of force against civilians, deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians. They called for an immediate end to the violence and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population, including through national dialogue."

Whatever happened to imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

Libya: a civil war?

2011-02-22T12:58:00.000-08:00

This report from the BBC has the eastern part of Libya, the part that was known until not so long ago as Cyrenaica in under the control of those who wish to topple Gaddafi. The forces opposing the Gaddafi regime appear to be well armed and have the support of a good part of Libya's diplomatic corps, yet a substantial part of the military has also sided with Gaddafi, and is reportedly also supported by mercenaries.

Let's be clear on this: Libya now stands close to where Spain stood in July 1936 - either one side will throw in the towel, or, as seems increasingly likely, one faction will have to destroy the other in an open civil war. If this happens, I think there should be no doubt as to which side should have the support of the democracies of the world. However, hopefully this will not be necessary.

[Picture: The Ruins of Guernica, 1937, one of the 80,000 plus photos provided by the German Bundesarchiv to Wikipedia on a CC-BY-SA license]

China Law Blog on Rein's latest.

2011-02-21T11:10:00.000-08:00

Don't miss Dan Harris' masterful take-down of (super CCP-apologist) Shaun Rein's latest.

Dan, a man who, unlike me, usually does his best to avoid blog-on-blog disputes, is quite right to point out that not all those who criticise China's monetary policy do so out of anger and hatred. He is also quite right to point out that no serious China observer puts down China's success entirely to "stealing American jobs and intellectual property" and that Rein's criticism is therefore something of an Aunt Sally. Dan is also correct in saying that a rising Yuan would lead to some job creation in some areas, although of course there may also be a commensurate cost in jobs as well.

I could go on, but you'd be better off getting it from the horse's mouth.

An Arab Tiananmen

2011-02-21T10:50:00.000-08:00

In more sense than one. The same level of demonstrations, the same fissure in the regime, the same partial defection of the military. Perhaps thousands are dead already, but democracy may yet be the winner.

The only thing that democratic countries can do at the moment is make it clear that there will be no return to the easy days when Gaddafi shmoozed about with European leaders like Blair, Brown, Sarkozy, and Berlusconi. A Tiananmen massacre should be punished with Tiananmen sanctions, at the very least.

One other point the fact that this uprising now threatens to topple one of the Arab worlds most extreme regimes shows that all this talk of the Arab uprising being a Islamist terror-supporting fifth-column is pure nonsense.

Calls for a Chinese "Jasmine revolution": Performance art, prank, or provocation?

2011-02-19T10:14:00.000-08:00

Hat-tip to Catherine Yeung of Under the Jacaranda Tree for pointing out this report of calls for demonstrations echoing Tunisia's Jasmine revolution in China tomorrow (my time) which have been spreading through the internet via twitter and other microblogging sites. Nobody knows who posted these messages. One of the main websites on which they were posted (US-based pro-democracy website Boxun.com) now claims to be under a DoS attack. Whilst the English-language section of the site is still accessible, the Chinese-language section cannot be accessed. Chinese micro-blogging sites also appear to be blocking searches for the term "Jasmine" as can be seen above.

Why is this all happening now? Whilst some have suggested some kind of prank or performance art piece is being performed, I have the horrid - but unsubstantiated - suspicion that this is an attempt by the Chinese authorities to bring its opponents out into the open. Recent weeks have seen a rash of arrests and beatings of pro-democracy and human rights campaigners like Chen Guangcheng, but nothing in the way of wide-spread unrest or anything that could serve as a catalyst for protest, so it is hard to believe (but not impossible) that any of the known anti-government elements in mainland China could be calling for protests in this way.

[Picture: A screen-grab of a search I performed for the term "Jasmine" (茉莉) on the Sina Weibo micro-blogging site a few minutes before posting, the caption says "Due to the relevant laws and regulations, we cannot show the search results"]

A "land-locked" island?

2011-02-19T08:14:00.000-08:00

Is Taiwan a culturally "land-locked" island? Hsia Li Ming, a professor at NTTU's Institute of Regional and Policy development thinks so. Whilst there will be many whose views on this will be largely decided by whether they are for or against independence for Taiwan*, I think he has a point even if, leaving the independence issue to one side, you view it only from the point of view of culture and geography.

Taiwan's population largely lives in the west of the country, facing the mainland**, with the beautiful Pacific-facing east coast only sparsely populated. Taiwan's mountainous terrain (the mountains of central Taiwan are Asia's second tallest next to the Himalayas) means that you don't have to go far from the sea for it to seem as if it were hundreds of miles away.

In my home country, the UK, everything - road, rail, ancient fortifications, canals, the orientation of streets and houses - seems directed towards the seas. The sea-front is the heart of a seaside town, and people living further inland do not hesitate to head off to the beach on a public holiday (presuming it is sunny).

In Taiwan, on the other hand, the impact of the sea is not felt in the designs of even the large ports like Gaoxiong. Hsia's description of (beautiful) Taidong as being a city which is geographically next to the sea but unconnected to it matches my own impression of the place.

Outside of Kending, the Penghu islands and a couple of other locations, the beaches rarely draw crowds, and a large percentage of people cannot even swim. Whilst Taiwan is a relatively small island compared to the UK, its people have a more distrusting attitude towards the ocean than people in the UK, and you will rarely meet anyone who has been to sea.

Given the centrality of the Pacific Ocean to Taiwan's economy and history, I think Hsia is correct that Taiwanese should develop a better understanding of and familiarity with the sea around it. Though some particularly mainland-oriented observers may disagree, Taiwan is a Pacific society, and it should start to act like one.

*One thing I rarely ever see discussed on pro-independence forums is the actual importance of independence for Taiwan per se rather than the mere avoidance of conquest by a mainland currently dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. Perhaps the necessity for a more ocean-oriented culture might be an example of this?

**Nowadays my independence-oriented Taiwan friends rag on me for using this word to refer to the territory currently controlled by the CCP. Guys, when I lived in Taiwan, this is what everyone - pro-independence or not - called it, but now you want to change things up? This seems like a form of political correctness to me. At any rate, it's also useful for distinguishing Hong Kong and Macao from the territory controlled by the CCP before 1997, so I'm not going to stop using it.

[Video: Green Island Serenade by US-born pianist and singer Vienna Teng, a traditional song sung on Taiwan and a favourite of mine when I first started to learn Chinese because of its simplicity]

A half-dozen revolutions

2011-02-19T07:38:00.000-08:00

Observers in Europe and America have been surprised, confused, confounded, and elated by recent events in the Arab world. The eventual result of these simultaneous uprisings in six or more countries across the Arab world from US/UK ally Bahrain to former international outcast and US adversary Libya cannot be forseen and may well be a mixed bag. However, you can't help but be impressed that neither significant economic growth, the liberal dispersion of oil money, nor the dubious "honour" of having your leaders readily rubbing shoulders with the Euro-American elite has been enough to distract people in the Arab world from the basic fact that they have been denied a significant say in their country's governance.

Other people have discussed whether a repeat of these spontaneous uprisings may at some point be seen in China and the other dictatorships of the East-Asian landmass. I think this is unlikely in most cases because the main examples have either arranged a regular turnover in the leadership (China, Vietnam, Laos), have recently shown how willing they are to use violence to suppress an uprising (Burma, China), or have all-encompassing control of the minds of the populace (North Korea). Cambodia, with its long governance by Hun Sen, and its high degree of corruption, appears more vulnerable to the kind of frustration which overthrew Egyptian and Tunisian regimes, but I do not know enough about the political situation there to say more than this.

[Pictured: A graph of recent uprisings in the Arab world taken from Wiki, brown shows countries which have experienced a revolution, red indicates a change in government, orange shows major protests]

[Edit: For a more informed view of Cambodian affairs, check out Steve Dickinson's latest piece on the country.]

Quick links

2011-01-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

- A woman has been jailed by Chinese authorities for re-tweeting an ironic comment lampooning anti-Japanese sentiment in China.

- A Chinese businessman resident in the UK puts in an offer for HMS Ark Royal.

- Wong Kar Wai, my favourite director (except, maybe, for Mel Brooks) is making a new film.

- A pair of Giant Pandas arrive in London.

The HSBC 2050 report and Poland

2011-01-07T11:58:00.000-08:00

Dr. Marcin Piatkowski, a senior economist at the World Bank's Warsaw office, expresses similar doubts about predictions that assume unchanging population growth/shrinkage in relation to Poland, where I'm currently working:

"The main reason why Poland is projected not to do too well in the future is the expected demographic decline. The model assumes that the fertility rate in Poland will remain low at 1.3 and that there will be no immigration. Both assumptions are incorrect.

First, the fertility rate in Poland is already increasing, exceeding 1.4 in 2009, up from 1.3 in 2003. What is more important, pressed by the society and rising future pension costs, the Polish government will have no choice, but to enhance its pro-family policy

....

Second, Poland is set to become a big recipient of immigrants, reversing the 300 year old trend. This is because with rising income Poland will become more and more attractive. When Poland's GDP per capita rises above 70% of the EU average, similarly to Spain in the mid-1990s and the Czech Republic recently . . ."

This would seem to be a general concern about these predictions - that population growth is actually hard to predict, and any forecasts done on the assumption that growth rates will remain stable or only change linearly are bound to be inaccurate. Something worth considering, for example, is that the UK's recent increases in birth rate have come at the expense of Eastern European states, where large numbers of young people emigrated to the UK after the accession of these states to the EU. Now that these states are becoming relatively richer, it seems unlikely that such migration patterns will continue.

PwC 2050 forecast: Bad news for the UK

2011-01-07T01:17:00.000-08:00

As yet another counterpoint to the rosy predictions of HSBC, financial services giant PwC has issued its own economic forecasts for the middle of this century. Put simply, things don't look good for the UK or the rest of the Atlantic countries - and the reason for this is a failure to exploit the potential of developing world as an export market:

"The latest forecasts from the International Monetary Fund suggest that China will grow by 10.5% this year, India by 9.7%, Brazil by 7.5% and Russia by 4.0% – yet the four economies combined account for 7% of UK exports, the same as for crisis-ridden Ireland.

Moreover, the PwC report predicts that the shift in economic power from west to east will accelerate, with growth rates in the UK and other developed economies lagging far behind those of the leading developing nations. It says the UK will grow by 2.3% a year between now and 2050, compared with 5.9% a year in China and 8.1% a year in India.

"Rapid growth in consumer markets in the major emerging economies, associated with a fast-growing middle class, will provide great new opportunities for western companies that can establish themselves in these markets," Hawksworth says. "If the UK is not to be playing in the slow lane of history for the next 40 years, then it needs to find a way to break into these fast-growing emerging markets on a much larger scale than achieved so far."

Every time I visit the UK I see this in the patenting world in spades - the idea that having an office in Hong Kong somehow automatically gives access to the Mainland Chinese market is all too prevalent, and companies are too willing to lay back on trade from clients in the US and Japan leaving the field to their mainly German competitors. Given that the legal services industry in one in which the UK has, along with financial services, traditionally excelled, this is particularly depressing.

What can UK firms do to overcome this? First and foremost, more skilled workers from outside the EU should be allowed to work for UK firms - the current government's policy of reducing skilled immigration is totally counter-productive in this regard. Put simply, what UK firms have to offer that clients in the developing world need most is know-how, and the best way of marketing this is for people to go to the UK, work there, and see this for themselves.

Beyond this, a greater familiarity with the emerging markets amongst UK professionals would help a great deal - even well-educated UK professionals still have rather out-dated views of these markets and what may be accomplished in them.

HSBC and world of 2050

2011-01-05T06:38:00.000-08:00

The start of the year is the traditional time for publishing forecasts, but this one from HSBC seems particularly note-worthy, if only for the degree to which it is at variance with other forecasts. Essentially the report, which is based on the theoretical work of Harvard professor Robert Barro, foresees a US/China-led super-boom despite the doom and gloom currently seen in most corners of the globe except India and China:

"In a sweeping report entitled "The World in 2050", the bank said China would snatch the top slot as expected, but only narrowly. China at $24.6 trillion (constant 2000 dollars) and the US at $22.3 trillion will together tower over the global economy in bipolar condominium - or simply the G2 - with India at $8.2 trillion far behind in third slot, and parts of Europe slithering into oblivion. "

Robert Barro, who in 2005 predicted a 20-30% appreciation in the value of the Yuan against the dollar which is indeed what eventually happened
, has a not-too-bad record for accurate predictions. In the HSBC report, demographics are seen as key to long term economic health:

"America's high fertility rate (2.1) will allow it too keep adding manpower long after China's workforce has begun to contract in 2020s and as even India starts to age in the 2040s.

. . . .

The low fertility of Korea (1.1), Singapore (1.2) Germany (1.3), Poland (1.3), Italy (1.4), Spain (1.4) and Russia (1.4), more or less dooms these countries to aging crises and population decline unless they open the floodgates to immigration.

Japan is already deep into this phase of atrophy, explaining why the country has had such trouble shaking off the effects of the Nikkei bust. Its total population began contracting outright since 2005. It shed a record 120,000 last year, and will shrink 37pc by 2050."

All the same, other forecasts published recently have taken a far more gloomy view of the future for the non-BRIC countries. The Economist's "World in 2011", for example, had Chinese GDP surpassing that of the US by 2027, and the combined GDPs of the BRIC countries surpassing those of the G7 by around 2033. The author of the Telegraph's report on HSBC's predictions, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, predicted misery all-round in this editorial:

"China and India are over-heating, faced with a 1970s choice between choking credit or the onset of stagflation. If they choose the latter to buy time, the politics of food will turn on them with a vengeance.

Vietnam will have to rescue its banking system, kicking off the Asian hard-landing of 2011-2012. The Aussie dollar will come back to earth.

Dylan Grice's rule of thumb at SocGen is that regions coming off a "good crisis" -- Japan in 1987, the US during East Asia’s 1998 blow-up, Chindia this time -- typically pop about two and half years later. The reason they have a good crisis when others bleed is because momentum from credit follies and/or hubris overpowers the external shock, but that contains the seeds of its own destruction.

Speaking of rules, the Atlanta Fed’s law is that every year of debt-based boom is roughly offset by equal years of debt-purge bust, which means a Lost Decade for the old world. I doubt the West will recover soon enough to pick up the growth baton before the East hits tires. We may then have a "sub-optimal equilbrium", that modern euphemism for a trade depression."

From my own amateur point of view, the HSBC report seems to err in assuming that demographic changes cannot occur rapidly. It seems unlikely, for example, that the relatively high birth-rates found in the UK and US will continue until 2050, particularly as they are driven by immigration which is itself fuelled by the difference in living standards between developing and developed nations which is sure to decrease with time. And this is even without pointing out the acknowledged limitations of the HSBC report, which assumes that problems in energy and food production are solved, and that a global environmental catastrophe is avoided.

China's stealth fighter - my former students at work?

2011-01-01T10:23:00.000-08:00

Several blurry photos have emerged showing what appears to be a Chinese stealth fighter, something which US defence experts had not expected to see this soon. Whilst these photos are of dubious provenance, I can't help but think of a conversation I had with one of my students at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics back in 2003 when I had just arrived in Mainland China for the first time.

Sitting down in a tea shop with some students I knew, I asked them about their research projects. One of them baldly replied that their research was in the field of reverse engineering stealth technology from the US-built F-117 and B2 stealth aircraft. Fearing that the student might be putting them self in trouble by telling me this, I changed the subject, so I never learned how the samples on which the reverse engineering was conducted were obtained. However, it's hard to believe they could have been obtained without some kind of espionage, although it is also possible that samples were bought from the Yugoslavs after they shot down a F-117 during the Kosovo conflict.

At any rate, it is strange to think that I may have shared a pot of tea with the people who developed China's newest wonder-weapon.

(Picture taken from TieXue.net)

"The Taiwanese green onion"

2010-12-23T15:14:00.000-08:00

Followed a link from artist and fellow former Nanjing resident David Horton's blog to the last edition of the E-mag Fascicle and was struck by this passage from a poem by Taiwanese writer Chen Li:

"... The teacher taught us music, the teacher taught us Chinese,
the teacher taught us to sing “Counter-attack, counter-attack, counter-attack the Chinese mainland,”
The teacher taught us arithmetic:

“If each national flag contains three colours,
how many colours then do three flags have?”
The class leader said there were nine, the vice-leader said three,
the green onion in my lunch box said one.
“Because,” it said,
“Whether in the soil, in the market, or in the scrambled eggs with dried radish,
I am the green onion,
the Taiwanese green onion.”

(translation by Chen Li's wife, Chang Fen-Ling)

If I had to explain what the Taiwanese identity was, in as much as I understand it, I would point to this poem. It contains all the linguistic and culinary influences on Taiwan which make it such a fascinating place to live - Japanese, Chinese, European - and which are fused in the poem in that way which is particularly Taiwanese.

This does not mean that I necessarily support or do not support Taiwanese independence per se, although certain people are given to hurling accusations of support for "splittism" even at the suggestion that a Taiwanese culture exists. I would also say that Taiwan-based observers often under-estimate the degree to which mainland provinces and regions have their own distinct culture (particularly Sichuan, Guangdong, and the North-East) when they use Taiwan's cultural differences to mainland China alone to justify independence. However, it is foolish to argue that a Taiwanese culture does not exist, and that it cannot be enjoyed for its own sake.

You can read the rest of the poem here.

Japan - the setting of the rising sun

2010-12-21T02:59:00.000-08:00

Last year's election of Yukio Hatoyama, leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), and head of Japan's first non-Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) government to have a genuine chance of ruling Japan in almost 60 years, caused many to express the hope that Japan might finally start to make progress after more than 20 years of economic stagnation. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a forlorn hope.

Rather than tackling the burgeoning public debt, Hatoyama declared a £630 billion government program funded in large part through borrowing designed to "save life". Rather than reducing unemployment, unemployment remained flat at around 5%. Rather than doing anything to resolve the dispute over US troops on Okinawa, Hatoyama dithered. Rather than doing much to improve relations with China and Korea, things are as bad as they ever have been. And, of course, rather than ending the leadership merry-go-round of Japanese politics which leaves even educated Japanese people unable to name the last three people to head their country's government, he resigned after only eight months over what would, in any other country, have been a minor matter.

However, I think even had he been successful in addressing all of these points the stagnation of the Japanese economy would have continued. This because the fundamental cause of Japan's two lost decades would remain - Japan's corporate structure. Put simply, Japan has the most risk-averse, inefficient, hierarchical, and misogynistic corporate culture that I have ever worked in. I say this speaking as someone who has ground-level experience of some pretty tough-to-work-in British firms as well as, of course, Foxconn.

The irony in this is that it is exactly the spirit of self-sacrifice engendered by this corporate culture which is credited for Japan's post-war economic miracle, when Japan grew by twenty times between 1965 and 1980, a rate of growth even faster than that of China after 1978. Having worked in this environment, though, it is clear to me that this was and is a two-edged sword. Yes, employees do sacrifice holidays which they are legally entitled to take merely because their managers do so also, but the result of this is an almost zombie-like approach to work in which work is completed at a snail-pace. Yes, employees do put in an extra-ordinary number of hours, working late into the night, but this leads to offices which are virtually empty until about 10-10.30 am, and employees who are kept in a state of near-exhaustion. Yes, workers are willing to forego weekends and public holidays, but the result is people with virtually no family life or personal life outside of their office, who must then compensate for this by engaging in office affairs, alcoholism, and many of the foibles that get such attention outside Japan. As Heang Chhor, head of McKinsey in Japan said when interviewed by the Economist for its recent special report on Japan:

“This is a country where the mindset is all about input. In Japan what is expected of you is always to try harder, to put in more hours. They don’t value output.”

The other aspects of Japanese corporate culture are hardly better. In the field of female equality in the work-place Japan has fallen behind even relatively less advanced neighbours like Taiwan and China. This is not a mere statistical anomaly, in the office I worked in, out of a company of more than 200 employees, the only female employee to rise above the level of secretary was essentially a glorified PA who owed her position to family connections to the boss. Something like half of the professional women I spoke to in Japan reported receiving what would in Europe and the United States at least be called sexual harassment from senior male colleagues.

Although Japan is a country with much respect for the aged, in the workplace, based on my limited experience, this does not seem to translate into better conditions for older workers. In the office I worked, old people with useful qualifications would be kept on so that they could sign off on work which required their specific qualification to complete, but these people would regularly be subject to loud-mouthed abuse from the management. I remember one 74 year-old man who, having made a minor error, was called a "fool" in front of the entire office and told to "hurry up and die" by a senior manager. The same manager also made it clear that, were it not for the old man's qualifications, he would have been fired long ago.

That Japanese companies are hierarchical in comparison to most Euro-American firms will surprise no-one, but the extremes to which this hierarchy is taken even in comparison to Taiwanese and Chinese firms certainly shocked me. Even relatively minor decisions were often referred to the highest level of management, with "CYA" being the general rule. Whilst I was working in an admittedly conservative industry, it was the degree to which this was taken which surprised me.

The virtual cult of personality which exists in some Japanese firms came as something of a surprise, once again, remember that I am comparing this to Foxconn, where quotations from Terry Guo were displayed all over the factory. In the company I worked in, a company song, written by the boss's wife, would be played at all meetings. These were called 'meetings' but were more similar to Maoist struggle sessions, in which the minor faults of certain employees would be outed and apologised for, and speeches would be made comparing the boss to national heroes and urging us to give "110%" for the company. Combined with risk-averse company policy, this served to crush whatever initiative existed within the firm. The net result, of course, was a loss-making firm becoming more and more reliant on more successful foreign clients.

From this perspective, it is clear that until the Japanese government intervenes to prevent undue pressure on workers to work excessive hours, until effective measures are taken to ensure equality for female employees, until abusive management is exposed and talent properly harnessed, Japan's "lost decade" will go on and on.

Japan and China - a culture clash waiting to happen

2010-12-21T02:10:00.000-08:00

Now that I've been back in the UK for a while, I feel I can finally start to reflect properly on my year living and working in Japan. Obviously, having first lived in mainland China and Taiwan, it is perhaps natural that I should compare Japanese culture to that of China. Whilst the two are, for obvious reasons, similar in many respects, and there is still much in the way of cultural cross-pollination, I think that even without the historical factors it is not surprising that the two cultures do not always get on.

Whilst Japanese seem, on average,to prefer the quiet seclusion of the shuttered rooms of the Izakaya, Chinese people seem to prefer the cheerful chaos of the Huo Guo. The intense privacy of the Japanese household, the fears that Japanese people often express about crime in their neighbourhoods despite the extremely low levels of crime found in Japan, the extreme sensitivity to danger, all show a culture in which fear of the outside or unusual are deeply ingrained and only ones closest associates and family are trusted. Next to Japan, China is a country of flamboyant risk-takers.

Japanese people are, in the main, formal and deferential to authority in the extreme - anyone who has stood in a Tokyo side-street and watched people waiting at a pedestrian crossing for the light to turn green when there is not a car in sight and the street itself is only a couple of yards across will know this. Chinese people, on the other hand, despite (or, perhaps, because of) coming from a culture dominated for centuries by centralised, authoritarian rulers, are much less deferential, much more willing to criticise authority - so long as such criticism will not reach the wrong ears.

You sense that, at least in comparison to Japanese society, the characterisation of Chinese culture as being essentially democratic may have some truth in it despite the misfortune that the Chinese have had in their dictatorial leaders. The flip-side to this is that the description seen on Chinese nationalist websites of Japan as an essentially feudal society may have a glimmer of truth in it despite the fact of Japan's democratic political system. On this basis, it is not surprising that Taiwanese democracy has delivered two changes of power in the last fourteen years, but that Japanese has only seen one real handover in almost 60 years - and that only last year and driven by a two-decade-long economic crisis.

Another excuse not to learn the language - or, why I am a luddite when it comes to electronic translation.

2010-12-18T06:46:00.000-08:00

Saw this wonderful new real-time translator on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

As much of a technical marvel as this undoubtedly is, I can't help but feel that technology is fast developing to the point where people can travel internationally without ever bothering to learn the language of the countries they visit.

I have already met more than one person whose way of getting by in foreign countries is to use electronic dictionaries for day-to-day communication without even bothering to learn the basic elements of the language of the country they live in. Some of these people had been in the same foreign country for as much as eight or more years without even learning the words for "good morning". Now such individuals will have even less reason to learn the language of the country they live in.

This is not mere snobbery of the "Check out how good my Chinese/French/German/Japanese/Polish is" that expats often engage in. When people visit any country they, and the societies they come from, are judged by the degree to which they are willing to integrate into the societies which they visit. This is true to a certain extent in Japan and China, and to a much greater extent in countries where people practically refuse to speak foreign languages on home soil like the US and the UK.

Electronic devices are useful for short trips, or the translation of a language which it is not reasonable to be expected to understand. Working in patenting I have often had to deal with foreign-language documents in an assortment of languages from Tagalog to Russian in relation to a single case. However, they are no replacement for learning the language of a country when you have committed to live there long-term - both in terms of the deeper understanding of the language that a thinking, feeling human being is capable of, and in terms of the cultural knowledge which is gained at the same time as learning the language.

Uh-oh - man killed in another clash involving Chinese fishermen.

2010-12-18T06:03:00.000-08:00

This doesn't look good - Chinese fishermen have clashed with the South Korean coastguard. The South Koreans claim to have been attacked after intervening to prevent "illegal fishing". There's no word as to the fishermen's version of events, but at least one died in the fighting and two are missing.

This cannot have come at a worse time - this year has already seen clashes between the Japanese coastguard and Chinese fishermen in disputed waters, and it's only a few weeks ago that South and (PRC-backed) North Korea were exchanging fire across this very sea.

The One Where I Fisk Shaun Rein

2010-12-16T02:36:00.000-08:00

Forbes not being a magazine I read much of, I first found out about Shaun Rein's Forbes column about a year or so ago via this post on (veteran Sinoblogger) Richard Burger's excellent Peking Duck blog. At that time Shaun's pieces were laden with pro-CCP rhetoric, factual inaccuracies ("real poverty in China is pretty much gone"), and shameless plugs for his marketing company.

Nowadays, thankfully, most of the plugs have gone, but the error-laden hackery continues, Shaun's latest piece being a prime example.

First Shaun sets the scene:

"Tension between China and the West has been inching up over the past year. There have been disputes over everything from Google's stand against censorship and protectionism to China's trade surplus, the valuation of the yuan and the problem of North Korea's thuggery. Bad relations do not help anyone, and they certainly don't solve any of the very real economic problems the world faces. We need to have the West and China working together. Otherwise we could collapse into another Cold War."

Here he introduces something you see throughout this piece: the lazy use of the words "the west" to basically refer to the United States - home of Google, critic of the valuation of the Yuan, and chief ally of South Korea. His characterisation of Google as standing against "censorship and protectionism" is an odd one though. Let's see what he previously said about Google's decision to exit the China market:

"Has Google really thought through the implications of its actions, beyond just giving up the world’s fastest growing digital advertising market and the welfare of its employees and legal representatives in China? Or is this the impulsive move of an arrogant and immature leadership team used to getting its way?

Looking beyond the implications of what is, in effect, a new mode of statecraft, we should ask whether Google isn’t using censorship and cyber terrorism as an excuse to get out of China because of business failings there. If Google were making more money in China, would it necessarily have taken this stand?"

What was, in Rein's view "impulsive and arrogant" and an "act of war" is now a stand for freedom of speech, but I guess time heals all. Or perhaps Rein found the severe criticism he received for his Google hit-piece just a little to hot to handle.

We then get on to Rein's central premise - that "the west" should "fix" relations with China by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Deng Xiaoping and Mohandas K. Gandhi:

"I have an idea that could help get Western-Chinese relations back on track, improve human rights in China and make the Chinese government and people less suspicious about Western intentions. Next year the Nobel Prize committee should confer a special one-time-only double posthumous Nobel Peace Prize, on both Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese paramount leader, and Mohandas Gandhi. Doing so would properly give due respect to Deng and Gandhi, both of whom helped billions of people, would right the wrong that Gandhi never won the Nobel and would rally Chinese support for continued reform."

This suffers from a definite problem - both Deng and Gandhi are dead, have been for a long time, and the Nobel Peace Prize can only be awarded posthumously. Shaun probably noticed this a bit too late and so put in the caveat that this would be "a special one-time-only double posthumous Nobel Peace Prize", but the problem still exists and is not properly recognised. However, even with this you are still left with a conceptual problem - "the west" does not award the Nobel Peace Prize, a small committee of Norwegians does. Rein seems to be following the line of Chinese government propaganda - that the Nobel Peace Prize is an instrument of "western" (i.e., US) foreign policy, rather than a prize selected by a few elderly Norwegians.

Put simply, the idea that giving the Nobel Prize, an award that the Chinese Communist Party and it's various organs, apologists, and paid-for shills have spent months now castigating, to Deng Xiaoping would "...rally Chinese support for continued reform." is simply laughable. Shaun's protests to the contrary aside, no meaningful political reform has been introduced for at least ten years, but this is not where his real error lies, for that you should look to the next paragraph:

"Many Westerners see Deng as someone who ushered in economic reforms and got companies like Coca-Cola, Nike and Motorola to invest in China, but he did far more that gets scant attention in the West. If the Tiananmen incident in 1989 hadn't happened, Deng probably would have won the Nobel and would be viewed in the West with the kind of respect and love Gandhi enjoys around the world. That's how much he is appreciated in China."

Let me break this one down for you:

1) Deng is known in "the west" for his definitely praise-worthy "Reform and Opening" policies.

2) Deng did more, but his other achievements get scant attention in "the west".

3) If the Tiananmen "incident" hadn't "happened" (translation from apologistese: if thousands of innocent pro-democracy demonstrators hadn't been shot to death on the streets of Beijing on Deng's orders) Deng would have won the Nobel prize and would be as popular as Gandhi.

The logical fallacies here are so stark, so obvious, and so numerous as to be almost mind-boggling:

- Deng's greatest achievement was reform and opening - if he did not win the prize for this, then nothing else he did would have won the prize.

- Why would awarding the prize to Deng make him as popular as Gandhi when Gandhi himself never won the prize? Surely it was Gandhi's actions that made him so revered, and if Deng is not a hero on a par with Gandhi it is because he did not do the great works for peace that Gandhi did? Why then would further debasing the prize (if this is still possible) by awarding it to Deng make Deng more popular?

- Given the people who have won the prize (Begin, Arafat, Kissinger, Le Duc Tho etc.) why is Rein so sure that it was the Tiananmen "incident" which stopped Deng from winning the prize? What about Deng's unsuccessful 1979 strafexpedition against Vietnam? What about his surely justified, but certainly violent crushing of the Gang of Four and their supporters?

- If Deng really had done other things which made him deserving of the prize and these were not recognised in the west in the eight or so years during which Deng ruled China before Tiananmen, then why does he think that they would have been recognised had Tiananmen not "happened"?

And just what were these things that Deng did, other than "Reform and Opening" that, in Rein's opinion, make him so deserving of the prize?

"Here are reasons why Deng deserves to win next year's Nobel Prize, despite what happened in 1989.

First, by the time Deng passed away in 1997, he had a total grip on power--not in the manic way of Mao Zedong, but rather from the respect he commanded because he had restored calm to the country."

So Deng should receive the prize because he wasn't Mao and "restored calm" through things like the Tiananmen "incident" and his suppression of the Gang of Four? Strict standards indeed.

"I remember walking the streets when he died and seeing shopkeepers put out small empty bottles in their windows in mourning (in Chinese, Deng's name sounds like" little bottle.") Instead of hoarding power for himself and his family, like the Kims in North Korea, Deng had the great foresight to push through policies to prevent the offspring of cadres of the highest-ranking from rising above a certain level in government. The offspring of the most influential members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo may be influential, but they have never made it onto that Standing Committee."

Oh, I get it, so Deng should also receive the award for not being Kim Il Sung. Of course, there is the alternate interpretation that the Crown Prince Party clique of apparatchik offspring lost out to the Shanghai Clique in the behind-the-scenes power struggle at the 1997 National Congress, but why let facts like that get in the way? Especially now that Xi Jinping, son of first-generation leadership member Xi Zhongxun, is so close to becoming president, with Deng Xiaoping's son Deng Pufang, vice chair of the CPPCC national committee, in tow.

"How many times have you seen anyone with such absolute power put into law that his children could not maintain a generational grip on power?"

Answer: never. I have searched the internet and read every bio of Deng Xiaoping I could find, but as far as I can see, he did not enact any such law. Maybe someone can correct me on this?

"Deng effectively created a healthy diffusion of power throughout the country. There may still be too much cronyism in China, but the situation is far better than if he had pushed his children into leadership positions. Today most offspring of government leaders go into business. Few grandchildren of the most powerful leaders from the late 1970s and '80s are in government service."

Strangely enough this "healthy diffusion of power" is not obvious to anybody outside the communist party, and, as pointed out above, the children of the first generation CCP leadership are staging a come-back.

"Deng's foresight also brought about China's first peaceful transitions of power in the past century, from himself to Jiang Zemin and on to Hu Jintao and most likely next to Xi Jinping. Such peaceful transfers of power were unthinkable not very long before, when President Liu Shaoqi was tortured and died in prison, or when Mao's heir apparent, Lin Biao, died in a mysterious plane crash."

Once again, Deng's main accomplishment in Rein's eyes appears to be "not being Mao", whose Red Guards murdered Liu Shaoqi and who was probably behind Lin Biao's death as well. Moreover, the 20th century did see a peaceful transition of power within the territories claimed by China's rulers - the democratisation of Taiwan after decades of KMT dictatorship, but perhaps Rein doesn't think this is worthy of recognition.

"Finally, Deng pushed for greater academic exchange and economic interdependence. In so doing he not only created a more stable and vibrant economy and way of life for ordinary Chinese ..."

This appears in the main to be just another way of referring to Deng's greatest achievement - the "Reform and Opening" policy.

"... but also diminished the threat of military disputes spiraling out of control ..."

Whilst Deng also deserves credit for his "Don't claim the leadership" policy of reducing China's assertiveness on the world stage, this is hardly Nobel-worthy stuff.

"... More than a million Chinese have studied in the West in the last three decades. When they come back to China they bring back positive feelings for America..."

Actually, according to the latest figures available (i.e., those from 1978 to the end of 2008) the total number of Chinese students who went to any country is about 1.2 million, of whom a large proportion went to 'non-western' countries like Japan, South Korea, and Russia, and fewer than 400,000 of whom returned to China. The total of students who studied in 'the west' is therefore probably less than 1 million, and the number of people currently living in the PRC who have studied in "the west" much less.

This, however, is a minor quibble. Much more objectionable is Rein's seeming inability, noted above, to distinguish between 'the west' and the United States. Or does he think that Chinese students studying in, say, Germany come back much the wiser about the US?

"... Perhaps surprising to many Americans, most of China's leadership actually likes the American way of life. They are often exasperated at the way China, and they personally, are portrayed in the West.

A couple of years ago I went fishing with a very senior official who the Western press liked to attack for being evil and a thug. He seemed pained by the criticism, because he liked America and didn't understand why reporters jumped to conclusions about him as he tried to do what was best for the Chinese people. Many of China's up-and-coming leaders were educated in the U.S., for instance, Zhu Min, former vice governor of the People's Bank of China, who studied at Princeton and Johns Hopkins."

Here we get to Rein's real motives for writing this piece: his livelihood relies on his cosy relationship with the CCP leadership. Never mind that the 'western' media should not care a fig if the CCP leadership likes the US or not when reporting on CCP wrong-doing (especially if they are not US-based) - the important thing is that Shaun's friends in the CCP dictatorship have had their feelings hurt. Shaun then gets CCP kudos for firing back in his Forbes column, his business prospers, and everybody wins - right?

"Deng kept China from turning inward like North Korea or Myanmar and got it instead to push outward, to learn from the rest of the world and to minimize tensions and misunderstandings. Not only did he thereby create a more peaceful world, he also eroded some of the apprehension within China about the motives of the West."

Once again, Deng's main achievement, in Rein's eyes, is not having been a dictator in the vein of Kim Il Sung or Mao although he could have been - laudable, but not Nobel-worthy.

2010 should have been a great year for China's relations with the West ...

2010 was different from any other year how? This isn't a reference to the Expo is it?

"... but it has instead been marked with tension and misunderstanding. The Nobel Prize committee should step up to help diffuse the situation by giving Deng and Gandhi the recognition they both deserve for doing so much for the Chinese and Indian people. That is something that Chinese would rally behind, and it would be a fitting tribute to two great leaders who did more for peace than anyone else in the last century."

It's odd that Shaun should end on this note. Here's a quick question that maybe he should ask his CCP chums next time they go on a fishing trip together: just why is it that we do not see nearly the kind of tension between India and its fellow democratic nations that we see between China and the free world? Where does this tension come from? Just why does he believe that it's necessary for "the west" (which in Rein's mind clearly means America) to extend an olive branch? What has "the west" got to apologise for? A group of Norwegians awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo?

Hu Jintao declared "World's Most Powerful Person"

2010-11-05T04:53:00.000-07:00

Hu Jintao has been declared "world's most powerful person" by Forbes Magazine. If Tory grandee Malcolm Rifkind had not already got there with this brilliant article on the premature nature of much of the hyperbolae over China's assent to world-power status (although this is undoubtedly what is gradually taking place), this award would have sparked an attempt by myself to cover the same ground. Happily, Malcolm Rifkind's piece is far better than anything I might produce. Money quote:

" . . . focusing on China’s overall GDP is deceptive. The day at which China’s overall goods and services eclipse those of the United States will see no sudden and remarkable realignment of the world order. The Allies’ victory in World War II, which created the bipolar world overseen by the US and USSR, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which elevated the United States to a position of unipolarity, aren’t suitable comparisons.

For all its progress, per capita GDP in China remains low. Last year, when spread across its gigantic population, China’s GDP amounted to just $6,600 per person compared with the $46,400 for the average American. Such figures highlight an important point—while China’s overall GDP is fast approaching that of the US, the level of disposable income in the country remains low. It will be decades before China is able to introduce the tax rates that would be necessary to fund a global presence akin to that adopted by the US military."

In reality, despite the dictatorial powers that Hu Jintao wields in comparison to Barack Obama, Obama remains the president of the world's largest national economy, commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military, and leader of a country which, despite the great loss of credibility inflicted by revelations of human rights abuses during the war against terror, retains a great cultural attraction to the rest of the world. It will take more even than the surpassing of the United States in nominal GDP terms (which is scheduled to take place sometime around 2030 according to current predictions) to turn China's leaders into more powerful men (and, like the US elite, they are overwhelmingly made up of men) than the freely elected president of the United States.

A Slew of Stories

2010-11-05T04:13:00.000-07:00

A lot going on in the news at the moment, but it's not too clear what all of it means:

The video of the collision between a Japanese coastguard vessel and a Chinese fishing boat has been leaked. Although the film on CNN does appear to show the fishing boat ramming the coastguard, without seeing the whole video (and I haven't been able to find it online) it is impossible to know what actually happened. Even more confusing is why this video has been leaked now, weeks after the Chinese captain was released.
Ai Wei Wei, whose display at the turbine hall of the Tate Modern Art Gallery I saw during a visit to London a couple of weeks ago, is under arrest, in an apparent effort to stop him attending a party. Why this would be done now is beyond me, except that it may be part of a crackdown on dissent and dissidents following the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo.
More evidence of a crackdown can be found in this story of an engineer from Guangzhou who is under arrest on charges of inciting subversion of state power. His crime? Handing out leaflets saying that people should be "proud" of Liu Xiaobo. How much more evidence is needed to counter the claims of crazed nationalists that Liu's imprisonment is justified by his foreign links, and not merely related to the content of his various works?

Match-making days for Taiwan officials?

2010-10-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

Because, apparently, Taiwan needs more bureaucrats.

A Tale Of Two Dissidents

2010-10-15T03:06:00.000-07:00

So the beat goes on. From one side we are assured that Liu Xiaobo is a traitor, an American agent (despite the fact that even the PRC authorities have not made this claim) based on allegations that he received support from organisations like PEN and the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy. From the other side we hear that awarding the Nobel Prize to him was counter-productive. As Nick Young, whose article making this claim in last week's Guardian I criticised, explained to me in an email:

Over the years I came to understand that, alongside the many tensions inherent in China's fast-forward change processes, state-society relations were on the whole adversely affected by the conceited self-righteousness of foreign China-bashers in general, and, in particular, of some internatioal human rights 'advocacy' organisations that busied themselves looking for disaffected Chinese citizens and turning them into prison fodder. That remains my view.

This, of course, from a man who was thrown out of China for writing on political issues.

The main position on both sides appears to be that foreign involvement with Chinese dissidents serves only to dirty them in the eyes of the Chinese public and put them in danger of government reprisals. The supposition appears to be that, had Liu Xiaobo not received support from foreign organisations, then he would perhaps have avoided prison. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and see what might have happened had he never been associated with foreign organisations.

Or can we? Liu Xiaobo is far from the only dissident held by the Chinese authorities on charges of 'subversion'. We have also the example of former Nanjing Normal University professor, Guo Quan. Unlike Liu Xiaobo, Guo Quan has publicly eschewed association with foreign human rights organisations, and his writings have struck a decidedly nationalistic tone.

Did this save Guo? Clearly not. In fact it is remarkable that, whilst Liu, who cultivated links overseas, is now the subject of high-profile international appeals for his release, Guo Quan remains virtually forgotten even in his own country. Even were there a domestic campaign for Guo's release this would be unlikely to achieve anything, since it would be nigh-on impossible for it to make head-way against government censorship.

Whilst I disagree with Nick Young's characterisation of people like Guo and Liu as merely disaffected individuals, we must admit that they exist in every society, and would exist with or without foreign assistance. The decision, then, is not whether they should be 'created' (in Nick Young's parlance "[turned] into prison fodder"), but whether to support people who will work to improve their society whatever foreign observers do.

Liu Xiaobo and the "Gunpowder Prize"

2010-10-09T07:25:00.000-07:00

Hello after a long, work induced, hiatus. Of course yesterday's news of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is still very much in my mind. Here's a few thoughts -

Beijing-based talking head and Baidu exec. Kaiser Kuo tweets:
I predict they wait slightly longer than Japan did with the trawler captain, then Beijing releases Liu for "medical reasons"

Me, I'm less hopeful. The previous cases in which someone has been released (such as Wan Yanhai) due to noise made in the outside world mainly involved activists who had been detained but not actually been charged. Given the high international profile of Liu's case, the severe nature of his sentence, and the threat to the CCP's rule represented by Charter '08, it seems unlikely that the Beijing government will wish to risk showing weakness in this case. Moreover, Liu is unlikely to take the option of going into exile, as he has previously eschewed doing so when previously detained.

Liu Xiaobo and Charter '08 will remain largely unknown inside China because government censorship (which now appears to extend even to text-messaging of Liu's name in pinyin) will prevent the people ever hearing about it. The only ones who will learn about it will consist mainly of the radicalised Fenqing who populate ultranationalist websites like Anti-CNN.com and tie xue. These people will undoubtedly be out in full force to condemn the perceived 'meddling' of western nations in Chinese affairs. Amongst those who are aware of the prize and wish to discuss it, in an effort to avoid automated censorship the Nobel prize (诺奖) has already been renamed the "gunpowder prize" (炸药奖), a reference to Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.

It seems the totalitarianism's useful idiots in the west are also out in force. In this execrable piece in today's Guardian, after paying lip-service to the idea that Liu's imprisonment might be a bad thing (but "not irrational"), Nick Young hails the "unsung heroes" of the CCP (because the CCP's achievements in China are 'unsung'?) whose quiet behind-the-scenes efforts may be jeopardised by the award. The fact that no meaningful results can be seen for such "incremental reform", despite years in which such reform might have gone forward does not appear to register with Mr. Young. The results he touts (the attendance of Chinese NGO's at the Tianjin climate talks) are, quite simply, paltry, and do not seem to have led to a fresh approach to this issue on the part of the CCP. The only part of this piece I can even partly agree with is this:

The Nobel award will embolden those in China who are most inclined to confrontational tactics

Whilst Nick Young appears to think this is a bad thing, I do not. Mr. Young apparently believes that the CCP will at some point gradually reform itself out of power. What we have seen, however, is that the CCP has learned the lessons of the fall of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe and is committed to never allowing a centre of power outside its control to form in China. The CCP will therefore never bring about meaningful political reform without open and undeniable pressure to do so. As long as the CCP and its "heroic" members control the dialogue, power will only remain in the hands of its corrupt leadership, only pressure of the kind which this prize will encourage can change this.