Monday, November 28, 2005

Money for nothing

As if losing access to water for several days, and being confronted with the challenges of having Benzene pollute their homes, people in Heilongjiang province in China (China's northernmost province, bordering Russia and North Korea) also face some of the worst mine-safety conditions in the world.

In case regular readers thought I was being tounge-in-cheek this weekend when I mentiond mine collapse as a problem confronted by average Chinese people, the AP has a good (and short) piece about the most recent of China's mine collapses, like many of them, this was in Heilongjiang.

The piece makes a very precise statement, phrased delicately about two competing forces in China's drive to improve mine safety:

"Efforts to shut down dangerous mines have been complicated by the country's
soaring demands for power to drive its booming economy."

I guess reform is hard when the only two sources of power are A. the Party, and B. relationships. It's probably harder when the profits to be made keep going up, while the costs stay the same. The workers are just poor peasants, after all.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Walk the line

UPDATE, 5:04 pm: This is a great article from the BBC outlining the Harbin-Jilin battle over river contamination, and calls for a more robust government role in regulating the system

Or maybe the tight-rope.

I start this post with "I've been everywhere" playing on my computer, but I'm not thinking of Johnny Cash. I'm thinking of the good ol' CCP. The iron fist of order standing between 1.3 billion Chinese and Turmoil. At least that's how it might view itself. And the trials and tribulations of some 4 million or so people that have so far been disrupted by the benzene spill floating from Jilin north on the Songhua to Harbin, and from there to Russia. (map)

The problem that is being reported today in the Washington Post is the growing sense of public unhappiness over the way the situation was covered/uncovered and how people were lied to. According to the Post, the CCP has banned all newspapers from reporting anything but what is published by Xinhua (the U.S. equivalent would be if the government required all news sources to use Scott McClellan's press briefings as their only source).
There is conflicting news though. Fr. Brian's blog points us to a piece in Chinadaily.com.cn that is remarkably direct in its criticism of the way the situation was handled.

The fact that there is criticism in websites hosted on Chinese servers is surprizing in itself. What is more surprizing is that there are apologies being made by the Jilin provincial government, the Jilin city government, and the companies that operated the plant that blew up.

It seems that the government in China's Northeast is walking a fine line between allowing enough criticism and truth to be uncovered to allow people to vent their fears and frustrations, and yet not allowing so much that people will be emboldened to do something "rash" like start calling for reforms or calling out party/government leaders by name for their contributions to the disaster or the cover up.

My guess is that the only thing working in the government's favor right now is the fact that a long Manchurian winter is just settling in, and the idea of "taking to the streets" in a Parisian way isn't on anyone's mind right now. My bigger fear is that this will quiet down in a week or two, but people will remember it, and if something else goes wrong during warmer months in the next year or two, it will boil over stronger than if people had blown up now.

Authorities near Chongqing might not be as lucky. There were reports a couple days ago about another chemical plant that exploded in Southwest China. It cold there in the winter too, but not as cold as Jilin or Harbin. Let's hope there isn't any chaos coming from that disaster.

I just keep hoping that one of these days, maybe after the 500th mine collapse of the year, or maybe after the 3rd chemical plant explosion in a month that there will start to be structural changes in the way the Chinese operate the regulatory side of the local governments. Clearly what they're doing now is succeeding only at making officials rich and workers dead. Not really a populist notion there.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Ice and Erhus

This was supposed to be posted yesterday morning right after I got to work, but something got crossed in my emailing it in. So, 30 hours late, here it is:

In the public interest and community news section of the blog today, Wednesday in DC is great.
Why? I broke a frozen puddle at the bus stop this morning. This means winter has finally arrived, and real people are allowed back outside without fear of heat stroke. It was such a nice morning that a co-worker I met crossing the street on the way in said, "I hate the cold but there's something in the air today. It's electric." It's going to be a good day (and we have been "released" at 3 pm, so it'll be a short day).
Also, walking past the subway this morning the normal saxophonist had been replaced. Apparently by a pre-Holiday special musician. He was playing erhu! I mean, what? In DC? That's WAY out of character. But it did make me feel like I was back in a Jilin Karaoke restaurant, so it just added to the greatness that is first-frozen-day of the year.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Live from the land of Pitt

This is going to be short because of two things:
1. I'm in Pittsburgh hanging out with friends of mine, and
2. One of them just woke up and I should be a bit more social.

But for starters, I've been in Pittsburgh this weekend, checking out my friends' diggs and seeing what life has brought him and his new wife. To be honest, I was expecting post-apocolyptic run-down steel town: something like a cross between Akira and a Soviet-era housing project.

Instead it's been a fun town with a bunch of disparate views, images, and areas. I'm staying with them in a residential neighborhood a short drive from the U. Pitt/Carnegie-Mellon part of town. There's also a revitalized waterfront area; a warehousey-strip-nightlife area; a mis-named Shady Side that's sort of like Grand Ave. in St. Paull; a commercial (and nothing else) downtown; and the rest of the city I didn't see.

The area that struck me most so far was the converted waterfront. It's where a bunch of steel mills used to be, but has now been converted into a phenomenally generic anytown-USA zone for franchises and chains. I'm not saying it's bad: it's green, new, clean, and well put together, but of the 50 or so shops/cafes/restaurants I saw in the area, about 49 of them were unique to nowhere.

I only bring up the waterfront because it (apparently) was an area so quitesentially Pittsburghian (Yinzer, in the local dialect), and has now become so quintessentially not that it seems to me worth commenting on.

By and large though, in my 35 hours in town so far I find Pittsburgh to be a pretty decent town, and one with the potential to become much more dynamic and vibrant rapidly and dramatically if it can find its niche.

I'll write more later. (sorry, no pics as I forgot my camera)

Thursday, November 17, 2005

China's Rise

I've been trying to muster the mental energy to write a piece about U.S.-China relations in the next decade, but haven't gotten there yet. 
 
Since I know you're all clicking refresh at a mouse-destroying pace to get the news with my spin, here's a direct reprint of a piece that was forwarded to me about China's rise.  I haven't finished it yet (actually been doing work recently) but the author is certainly raising interesting points about world power, regardless of how one views his conclusions.
 


Print this page

John Mearsheimer: The rise of China will not be peaceful at all

18nov05

THE question at hand is simple and profound: will China rise peacefully? My answer is no.

If China continues its impressive economic growth over the next few decades, the US and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most of China's neighbours, to include India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia and Vietnam, will join with the US to contain China's power.

To predict the future in Asia, one needs a theory that explains how rising powers are likely to act and how other states will react to them.

My theory of international politics says that the mightiest states attempt to establish hegemony in their own region while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region. The ultimate goal of every great power is to maximise its share of world power and eventually dominate the system.

The international system has several defining characteristics. The main actors are states that operate in anarchy which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. All great powers have some offensive military capability, which means that they can hurt each other. Finally, no state can know the future intentions of other states with certainty. The best way to survive in such a system is to be as powerful as possible, relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it.

The great powers do not merely strive to be the strongest great power, although that is a welcome outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon, the only great power in the system. But it is almost impossible for any state to achieve global hegemony in the modern world, because it is too hard to project and sustain power around the globe. Even the US is a regional but not a global hegemon. The best that a state can hope for is to dominate its own back yard.

States that gain regional hegemony have a further aim: to prevent other geographical areas from being dominated by other great powers. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peer competitors. Instead, they want to keep other regions divided among several great powers so that these states will compete with each other. In 1991, shortly after the Cold War ended, the first Bush administration boldly stated that the US was now the most powerful state in the world and planned to remain so. That same message appeared in the famous National Security Strategy issued by the second Bush administration in September 2002. This document's stance on pre-emptive war generated harsh criticism, but hardly a word of protest greeted the assertion that the US should check rising powers and maintain its commanding position in the global balance of power.

China - whether it remains authoritarian or becomes democratic - is likely to try to dominate Asia the way the US dominates the Western hemisphere.

Specifically, China will seek to maximise the power gap between itself and its neighbours, especially Japan and Russia. China will want to make sure that it is so powerful that no state in Asia has the wherewithal to threaten it. It is unlikely that China will pursue military superiority so that it can go on a rampage and conquer other Asian countries, although that is always possible.

Instead, it is more likely that it will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to neighbouring countries, much the way the US makes it clear to other states in the Americas that it is the boss. Gaining regional hegemony, I might add, is probably the only way that China will get Taiwan back.

An increasingly powerful China is also likely to try to push the US out of Asia, much the way the US pushed the European great powers out of the Western hemisphere. We should expect China to come up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, as Japan did in the 1930s.

These policy goals make good strategic sense for China. Beijing should want a militarily weak Japan and Russia as its neighbours, just as the US prefers a militarily weak Canada and Mexico on its borders.

What state in its right mind would want other powerful states located in its region? All Chinese surely remember what happened in the 20th century when Japan was powerful and China was weak. In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi.

Furthermore, why would a powerful China accept US military forces operating in its back yard? American policy-makers, after all, go ballistic when other great powers send military forces into the Western hemisphere. Those foreign forces are invariably seen as a potential threat to American security. The same logic should apply to China.

Why would China feel safe with US forces deployed on its doorstep? Following the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, would not China's security be better served by pushing the American military out of Asia?

Why should we expect the Chinese to act any differently than the US did? Are they more principled than the Americans are? More ethical? Less nationalistic? Less concerned about their survival? They are none of these things, of course, which is why China is likely to imitate the US and attempt to become a regional hegemon.

It is clear from the historical record how American policy-makers will react if China attempts to dominate Asia. The US does not tolerate peer competitors. As it demonstrated in the 20th century, it is determined to remain the world's only regional hegemon. Therefore, the US can be expected to go to great lengths to contain China and ultimately weaken it to the point where it is no longer capable of ruling the roost in Asia. In essence, the US is likely to behave towards China much the way it behaved towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

China's neighbours are certain to fear its rise as well, and they too will do whatever they can to prevent it from achieving regional hegemony.

Indeed, there is already substantial evidence that countries such as India, Japan, and Russia, as well as smaller powers such as Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam, are worried about China's ascendancy and are looking for ways to contain it. In the end, they will join an American-led balancing coalition to check China's rise, much the way Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and even China, joined forces with the US to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Finally, given Taiwan's strategic importance for controlling the sea lanes in East Asia, it is hard to imagine the US, as well as Japan, allowing China to control that large island. In fact, Taiwan is likely to be an important player in the anti-China balancing coalition, which is sure to infuriate China and fuel the security competition between Beijing and Washington.

The picture I have painted of what is likely to happen if China continues its rise is not a pretty one. I actually find it categorically depressing and wish that I could tell a more optimistic story about the future.

But the fact is that international politics is a nasty and dangerous business and no amount of goodwill can ameliorate the intense security competition that sets in when an aspiring hegemon appears in Eurasia.

That is the tragedy of great power politics.

John Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (W.W. Norton, 2001).

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Wisdom from unexpected sources

Sunzi said it,

"...[k]now your enemy"
And amazingly enough, none other than George Will is pointing out potential opportunities for Democrats in 2008. He's also pointing out cleavages in the American political system that don't necessarily fall along party lines. He doesn't quite say it, but it's left for inferrance that the cleavages are there for whichever candidates are capable of exploiting them.

He uses Russ Fiengold's classical North-central progressivism as an example of how the label "progressive" is not stictly a D or an R label in the 21st century--much like it was not a D or an R label in the 20th when laid upon Robert LaFollette Sr. at the end of the 19th century. I would go further than Will to say the values espoused by Fiengold: fiscal responsibility, government spending to fill in where markets fail (minimum wage, retirement benefits, etc), a foreign policy that creates a better world, and a government that works to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity they work hard to earn.

Who knows, we might have an election in 2008 that will bring real issues to the fore. At least a guy can hope, right?

Explosion rocks Jilin

In a break from the sarcasm and sardonic posts of late, here is real news.

Jilin City, where I lived in China, pretty much has one primary industry left. Chemical production facilities. It's trying to branch out into other things like manufactoring, semi-conductors, and even fruit juice. But the one big employer in the city is the chemical industry.

It just got rocked Sunday. Major explosions apparently hit a workshop/facility in the north of the city. So far, no fatalities reported, though there have been reports of 30 injured. 10,000 additional people have been evacuated because of fears of further explosions, or (more significantly) polution and smoke being released from the factory. Apparently the one that suffered the explosion produces benzene.

It happened about 6 or 7 miles north (I'm just guessing, as all distance measurements in China seem to be time-based, not geography based) of where I lived. You can mostly see it in this map...my university was the icon on the south edge of the map, partially obscured by the copyright.

Apparenly, none of the people I know in town were around the facility at the time it exploded, so I'm hopeful it stays that way, but I'm guessing more news will trickle my way in the next few days.

Isolation, exclusion, and consequences

For decades, possibly centuries, the French have been vigilantly guarding the essence of "Frenchness."

One result of this pattern of behavior has been the difficulty immigrants--especially North African immigrants--have had integrating into French society. It's not easy for most immigrants to integrate into a new culture and society.

Even in the U.S., with our history of successive groups of immigrants, each new wave has faced serious challenges to becoming accepted members of their local communities. Look no further than the Hmong, Somali, or Latino arrivals in Minnesota for the challenges they are facing--some even 25 years after they've arrived.

For the French, the challenges with immigration are greater, because of the enormous value placed on the "traditional" in France. Unlike the United States, it's nearly impossible for most people not born to French citizens to become citizens. This means they can't vote or become complete participants in the local civic life. It also means that the issues and interests one has are going to be ignored by the local political leadership.

Now, where can we find examples of people who have been dispossessed by local political leadership? Where they have isseues to be addressed, no recourse to address abuses or shortcomings? There are a few places coming to mind, but none of them are as well known around the world as the Palestinians.

And remarkably, the dispossessed in France are behaving much like the dispossessed in Palestine.

Let's see if the French come up with a better solution to their uprising than we've seen used in Palestine. I'm not confident we will.

Innovators or insidious masterminds?

This was an intriguing article about Google today in the Washington Post. The company as a whole, and how it has the drive, and creativity to remake the way the world operates. Everything from remaking the business model, to creating a free wireless-enabled world, to returning to the era of "railroad towns."

Seems like plenty of room for good, but just as much for "oops" if not right-out bad.

A taste of the neighborhood

With all due respect to Cupcake, I have the priviledge of living near what is possibly the greatest bakery in the country.

Heller's


It's been a bakery since 1921, and apparently recently went through an ownership change. I don't know who had it before, but the people that own it now are an El Salvadoran family who lives down the road.

It also happens to serve slices of chocolate cake that even I can't finish in one sitting.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Easternization and its Discontents

Yesterday marked the end to a long week. It was Veterans' Day, a day when we remember the sacrifices and commitment so many have made and are making to preserve the American way of life at home and abroad.

I marked this with a solemn day at the office. The best part was the first 4 hours were thoroughly unproductive. So then I followed a very medieval practice and went to be bled. One of the Fellows in my program regularly gives blood at a Red Cross station, and he recruited me. It's astounding how much more clearly I thought with a pint of blood missing from my body.

The fun part of the day came at 7:30 when I decided to go home. I figured it was late enough in the evening that there wouldn't be crowds on the bus, and that I'd have a short trip home.

Wrong.

The bus (which is scheduled to come every 10 mintutes) arrived after a gap of 35 minutes. I was at the first stop, and the bus was completely full by the time I made my way onto it. The rest of the ride (2 miles) was similar to getting on the Subway at Shinjuku station in Tokyo during rush hour. You've seen the pictures. For those of you from the Middle Kingdom, think of getting on a bus to a major tourist destination on National Day, or a train near Spring Festival time. Except for a lack of luggage it was exactly the same.

There are lots of things the U.S. can learn from its neighbors in Asia. But for the love of all that is good, please let it not be the packing of people in public transit vehicles!

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Teething

Based on excerpts of an editorial in an upcoming issue of "The Nation", in Howard Kurtz's column today, it looks like someone on the left is growing a set of teeth.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like the same kind of black-and-white thinking that got us into the mess in the first place.

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, and there is good reason to think they are right. But we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of prolonging the war will be worse.
It shouldn't be a question of prolonging the war, or setting a timeline. It should be about setting realistic standards and "mile posts" that, as they are achieved, the U.S. can begin the process of extracting itself.

This isn't a hard concept, so why is it so hard for either our Republican Administration or our Democratic Leadership to articulate it? As far as popularity, what does Bush have to lose? And while it might not be in keeping with the preferred bitch-and-moan opposition the Democrats have taken the past 5 years, they might find that by taking a leadership role on an issue they might actually start to gain voters, instead of simply waiting for Republican defection.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

VINDICATION

As one of the housemates said tonight, "The only Democrats that are sad tonight are the one's thinking about running for President not named Mark Warner."

With Democrats winning in Governors Races in New Jersey and Virginia, and HUGE sweeps by RT Rybak and Chris Coleman (both won by about 2:1) there are a lot of happy Democrats around the country.

But Democrats in Minneapolis's 2nd Ward aren't as happy tonight. In the ward that contains the University of Minnesota and approximately 25,000 18-22 year olds, the self-proclaimed party of young people chose a candidate who's idea of reaching out to young people was to create one intern position for each semester. That's right, bringing young people into the political process, 3 interns a year.

In contrast, the person she beat out for the endorsement (whose campaign I worked on) was a 26 year old that was articulate, dynamic, engaging, hopefull, and had a comprehensive vision for the city. All of which were qualities the "winner" lacked--or at least couldn't convey.

I have to admit that I'm happy she lost. Not because she beat the candidate I was working with, but because of what her victory represented. It was a triumph of the insipid over the innovative. It was a victory of the middling over the exceptional. Worst of all it was a victory of "It's-my-turn politics" over meritocracy.

I realize it was a small election of smaller potatos in the grand scheme of things--even in the scheme of off-year elections in Minnesota. But I hope that the Minnesota DFL takes notice of what happens when it facilitates or encourages people to run for office when they convey an image as frumpy as the issues they promote.

Anger or despair?

A quick piece, and then I need to be productive.

This piece in the Post today, about China's efforts to combat AIDS and the obstacles to that fight inherent in the present Chinese system is enough to make you wonder what can be done.

It's about how China's official policy is trying to stem the spread of AIDS, and trying to treat those who are afflicted. But, as the article states,

Doctors at local hospitals responsible for dispensing free pharmaceuticals are exploiting those in need, padding bills with unneeded drugs and dubious services, according to medical experts, government officials and patients.
In a country that, for 5,000 years has never known the rule of law, and only operated under the dual systems of "who you know" and "the mountains are high and the emporer is far away" it's hard to see how sufficient structures will be developed to counter this type of corruption. I mean, they're DOCTORS.

I'm not saying all, most, or even many doctors are behaving this way. But I know how businesses and many other organizations are frequently run in China, and it's not the kind of knowledge that brings hope.

Here's a toast: May China's development and integration with the world overcome the cultural inertia it has towards methods that marginalize the disposessed, and exploits the vulnerable.

Fool me once...

As a President once said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."

Now the same President that brought us Michael Brown and Harriet Miers is asking us, in essense, "Trust me." He doesn't use those exact words. In fact, it sounded more like:

"And so, you bet, we'll aggressively pursue them, but we'll do so under the law."

just in case someone didn't understand where he was going with that, he added,

"We do not torture."
Call me crazy, but anyone (President or janitor) who sends his staff to ethics training over the weekend, and then supports his Vice President's plan to create an a la carte torture ban two days later, needs a reality check. And it's not like the world outside the Whitehouse has no reason to believe there has been torture.

I'm not even talking about the silly things the Whitehouse KNOWS we know.
Like Abu Ghraib. (WARNING: these are graphic; potentially not work-safe.)

No, actually I was talking about things like the Gonzalez memo where our current Attorney General outlined how torture might be OK because the Geneva Convention doesn't really apply to what the U.S. is doing. Because a memo is a lot less cut-and-dried about torture than, say, pictures. Pictures depicting people in states that the U.S. court system would describe as "cruel and unusual."

Then there's the Red Cross. You know who I'm talking about. That bunch of commie-pinkos formerly headed by NRSC Chairwoman, wife of former Presidential Candidate Bob Dole, and North Carolina's junior Republican Senator, Elizabeth Dole. The one's who go around collecting blood donations, and setting up aid stations in disaster areas.

Yeah, that bunch of bleeding hearts (backed by the EU's Stalinist regime) is saying that it suspects the U.S. to have secret prisons in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Thailand.

So really, why not trust him? Because clearly we're not torturing anyone.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Live Debate

For those of you who missed it last night, the debate on West Wing was a fantastic piece of television, and a fantastic piece of political theater.

Just to get the obligatories out of the way: Yes, I understand it was scripted. Yes, I understand it's entertainment.

That said, I thought it was more informative, instructive, and presidential, than any of the debates we've seen our glorious, hand-picked candidates soundbite their way through in the past 3 or 4 elections. I only hope that every high school civics class in the country uses that 1 hour of TV to show kids what debating, politics, and differing views of America are all about.

Speaking of high school, when I was that age I'd sit down to watch Questions with the Prime Minister when it was on. (And, yes, I recognize what that says about me.) But what a concept. A nationally televised, script-free dialogue between the head of the executive branch and his colleagues in the legislature.

Now imagine that in the US today. Yes, crying is allowed.

Sure, a week or two of Bush playing president to the cameras in the Senate might be entertaining, but beyond that, he'd be exposed for the uncurious, insufficiently informed, and dolorously unaware of the way the world is as compared to how he thinks it might be.

Almost none of the Democratic candidates in the last election would fare much better. We've created a political system that eschews substance in favor of what consitutes style. And even that is stretching it.

As though it was hard to tell from what I write here, I'm a bit of a romantic (when it comes to politics only) so I'm going to start the campaign right here, right now.

Questions with the President
A 30 to 45 minute weekly prime-time exchange between the President and the Senate. Democrats and Republicans are allowed to alternate questions, and who asks them is up to them. No topic is out-of-bounds. Live broadcast to PBS and C-Span.

Like every press conference, the flacks and pundits will spin it afterwards, but for a change, lets let the American people watch their political leaders engage in a dialogue about the issues of the day. It'd be a remarkable day for civic education in this country.

China 2.0

It appears China has learned some lessons on the need for directness since the last potential epidemic saw tens of thousands of foreigners, including this one, evacuate the country in mere weeks.

I was actually ready to write an piece lauding the vast improvements in China's disclosures--which have been considerable. However, it seems like old habits die hard.

There was an AP piece in the Washington Post Express (sort of an ultra-distilled version of the paper, for reading on the bus/metro on the way to work) about China's bird flu response:
China Probing Whether 3 Villagers Died from Bird Flu

China said Sunday it had asked for outside help to test three possible cases of bird lu in people, while scintists and government represetnatievs prepared for a strategy session in Geneva amid fears of a possible worldwide flu pandemic among humans. China said it asked the World Health Organization to help determine whether the virus caused he deaths of three people in a village in Hunan province.
The headline in the People's Daily struck a different chord, however.
China Reports 3 Pneumonia Cases of Unknown Causes
China's Ministry of Health Sunday gave a briefing on three pneumonia cases of unknown causes in Xiangtan County, central China's Hunan Province, where an H5N1 bird flu epidemic broke out recently.
They walked right up to the edge of saying they believe them to be bird flu, but couldn't quite get that out. Maybe some day soon it wont be impossible to admit that *gasp* Chinese people suffer from the same physical frailties as the rest of the world, but as Bob said, "baby steps."

Lord Cheneymort?

And the silly liberals were afraid of giving the power of the vice presidency to this guy? What a bunch of pansies!

From the Washington Post

"Over the past year, Vice President Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects, according to defense, state, intelligence and congressional officials."

More specifically, have you ever seen these two in the same place?


Sunday, November 06, 2005

A Lesson in French Etiquite

There is an amazing divergence of stories growing out of the violence and rioting in France.

One's view of this story is likely to be radically different, depending on who writes your news.
LeMonde (France's version of the NYTimes) is reporting pretty much the facts in it's lead paragraph; that Chirac has called a meeting of a French "Internal" Security Council to discuss ways to deal with riots that have lasted for 10 days.

El Pais (Spain's NYT/WSJ) lead headline reads something like, "The virulence of the riots in France grows in spite of government warnings."

El Mundo (Spain) reports it somewhat differently, "Chirac intervenes in the crisis and holds an urgent meeting to attack the rioters"

The BBC had one of the most "matter of fact" articles, and one of the least informative.

Back in the States, our two major national papers have differing takes.

The NYTimes (yes, I caved for this) "Unrest Spreads to Central Paris and Outskirts of More Cities" Intriguinglingly, it wasn't until the sixth paragraph that the article made clear, "Most of the unrest remained confined to immigrant neighborhoods surrounding Paris..."

The Washington Post had a remarkable piece (remarkable than for no other reason, how bad it's international coverage tends to be) starting to shed light for most of us, on why the rioting is occuring. The story pained in this article is that it's about recognition for a group cut off from main-stream access to political representation and economic participation.

I doubt this was intentional, but China's People's Daily published a story that takes the opposite perspective from the Washington Post's, and gives only the French Government's take on the story. In the story, rioters are described as organized gangs, and seeking "organized violence."

It's interesting to see how different papers present the same scenario. At least I think so.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

You Learn Something New Every Day

One of the roommates was nice enough to go out and buy a Washington Post this morning, so I could look through it for sales at clothing stores. Apparently, however, people who read the Saturday Washington Post are very well-dressed, but in need of home furnshings and new cars.

At least that's what the ads made it look like. No men's clothing adds. Lots of furniture, BMW, and other car ads. I'm used to being 'not catered to' by the ad industry--as my annual net income is less than what some of them pay for suits--but its still distressing to have NO sales going on when I'm actually motivated enough to go and give them money for making me look nice.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Next word

SatanAmericanization.

It means "Re-creating one of America's greatest follies after first dubbing America "The Great Satan." And it has to be capitalized like that. I made it up, I make the rules.

I thought it up after reading this piece in the Post this morning about how it looks like Iran is shaking up its foreign policy establishment to reflect the more *ahem* conservative views of its newly elected president. Granted, almost every president--of companies or countries--have a way of putting people they trust in key places. But I'm worried that Iran's move is a little bit closer to what happened during the 50s under McCarthysim and HUAC.

Ignoring for a moment the civil rights and first-amendment rights these politico-religious crusades trampled, there is a more fundamental issue at stake, and one that transfers more easily to the Iranian system where there isn't the same level of protection for activities like speech.

When McCarthy, and his open-minded brethren launched into "de-communisting" America, they did some substantial, long-term damage to the American Foreign Policy Community. Nearly everyone with experience in Asia was canned. Why did MacArthur over-reach in Korea? Why didn't any top-level decision makers at State or Defense have a better sense of Ho Chi Minh's nationalist movement? Why did it take almost 15 years after the beginning of the Sino-Soviet Schism for American leadership to recognize there were cleavages needing to be capitalized?

Answer: Because all of the people who should have been advising decision-makers in the early and mid-50s were being pushed out. The people filling in behind them, those who should have been mid- and senior-level by the mid-60s were pushed out a few years later by McCarthy and his way of thinking. It left an ENORMOUS experience and knowledge vaccuum in offices that analyzed intelligence and set policy for some of the most important regions of American Foreign Policy.

What does this have to do with Iran today? I'm hoping nothing, but fear much. The announcement that 40 of Iran's most senior diplomats are being pulled out, likely because they aren't sufficiently ideological for the new president, sends shivers down my spine for Iran's relations with the West over the next 20 years. It's also unlikely to be just the Ambassadors who leave; it will be their staffers, and the junior people in the embassies who have come to respect and admire their superiors. Especially if those who replace the outgoing amabassadors are harsh, hard to work for, or generally disagreeable.

Look at it this way: you work for the foreign ministry (and any country could be substituted here, it's a very similar cut of cloth around the world). You're pretty good at your job, and you know it. How do you know it? Because you're working in Washington, London, Paris, or Tokyo. Places where the FM isn't likely to send wet-behind the ear types, nor people who are just coat-tail riders. In addition to Farsi, English, and French, you've probably got two or three more languages at your disposal. Having been in the job for at least 5 or 6 years, you've had a chance to build up contacts all over the world, in government, business, you name it.

Now you have the option to work for an ideological boss who may be harsh, may curtail the way you interact with others in your host country, may cut you out of significant work you'd been doing, all sorts of maybes. Do you put up with being jerked around for 4 or 6 or 8 years, hoping the next election will bring someone who understands foreign policy back to your presidency, or do you jump ship? Work for a multinational, start your own business, anything like that where you can make a lot more money and have a lot less headaches?

Let me tell you, FM types aren't usually going to sit around waiting for something better to come along. They tend to be the most well-educated, well connected, often elitist group on the planet. 80% of them aren't going to be willing to be jerked around when there are significantly better opportunities around.

And this is what I fear for Iran. That it will lose an unbelievable number of very experienced, talented, and savvy personnel. This will lead to a decrease in understanding between Iran and the West--something already in short supply--and will lead both sides to make considerable miscalculations about things that can afford no error. Things like, I don't know...nuclear weapons?

Let's hope Iran doesn't go down McCarthy road. I'm just worried it's running out of side-streets before it hits the expressway.

I dub today Word Creation Day

The first word created today is

TRABAJACIDE


Yes. It's a new word. It means "The desire to take a coworker out back and, probably, 'cide them."

And no, I feel no guilt about inventing new words. Especially words that meld together latin, childrens-latin (Spanish), and the American vernacular. Any more suggestions on new words?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

More on China's Hukou

A link to this report on the hukou by the Congressional Executive Commission on China landed in my inbox earlier today.

Basically it goes over the same info I wrote about earlier today. What I'm interested in are it's conclusions:

Rural-urban migration, continuing discrimination against rural hukou holders in the provision of public services, and recent reforms that liberalize restrictions for the wealthy and educated are helping create an excluded migrant underclass. The hukou division between haves and have-nots, previously a rural-urban divide, has been exported to China’s cities.56

China’s hukou policies are not the sole cause of the difficulties confronting China’s migrants, but the hukou system exacerbates existing problems. First, by limiting labor mobility, hukou policies contribute to growing income disparity between China’s urban and rural areas.57 Second, official policies reinforce prevailing negative social attitudes toward poor migrants. Third, they have led to the emergence of officially sanctioned discrimination against migrants in urban areas. The hukou divide reinforces the gap between urban haves and migrant have-nots, imposing a hereditary legal barrier on top of a yawning economic divide. This barrier risks hardening into a permanent societal division within China’s urban areas, threatening both migrant welfare and political stability.
These are good statements from a commission that has to be sensative to the political realities and consequences of it's statements. I mean, let's be honest. I write for my blog. I'm not worried about the Chinese government taking me serious.

This, then, is interesting:
The socioeconomic benefits linked with hukou registration help China’s government assure the loyalty of China’s urban population and maintain a firm grip on society. Hukou restrictions have helped support the economic growth of China’s urban (but not rural) areas by slowing the influx of migrant labor into cities.
If I didn't write that earlier today, I was at least thinking it. Too bad I didn't get a job with them earlier this summer--I could have gotten paid for this.

Enough self-absorbtion. Basically, the point of this is just to say there are a lot of China-watchers who are cognizent of the problems facing China's development. We can only hope that the Chinese have at least as good a concept of what is happening in their country, and what is likely to happen, in the near future. I guess, only time will tell. Anyone have any thoughts?

Treating the symptoms

or, "Follow the Brazillian model" they've got things right.

For decades now, China has had a system in place to regulate where people were allowed to live. It was somewhat more free than South Africa's pass laws, but not exactly the type of freedom of movement people in the U.S. have become accustomed to over the past 500 years. The way it works is that each household recieves a document called the hukou (Hoo-koh) which grants them rights to live and work in a certain area. Within that area, you have access to certain things: housing, work, health care, education for your children. (Much of this system has eroded or been legislated away already, but education remains a key component.)

The BBC reports that the People's Daily is reporting 11 Chinese provinces are considering doing away with the household registration system (hukou). In a country where an estimated 100 million agricultural workers are actually resident in cities as day-laborers and migrants, this is a significant step. It means that poor migrant workers will be able to take their families with them when the leave rural China for urban China and jobs that pay money.

Good for China, embracing democracy, yadda yadda.

The government is missing the point. Hukou reform will make life better for millions of individual families, but I expect it will do nothing to help improve China's economy, or more fundamentally, the social concerns that having as much as 10% of its population in migrant status are causing in China.

China has a rural population (usually called "countryside," "agricultural," or "peasant" in Chinese media) of between 800 and 900 million people. From informal straw polls taken amongst taxi drivers, business owners, college students, hair dressers, and video store clerks, I'm guessing about 90% of rural dwellers in China are itching to get to a city. Any city. Just get them out of the countryside.

This might sound strange in a country where even people who work in downtown settings are trying to live as far out into the country as possible, but put it in a Chinese context. Living in the countryside means you farm. Period. Farms aren't John Deere operations. They are hip-waiter and back-power operations. Who wants to do that kind of work? No one. So, they want to move to cities. And the younger they are, the more likely they are to not only want to move, but actually move.

I'm nervous that over the next 10 or 15 years, China will start to reap the long-term harvest of its development plan, and it will be the absolut worst consequences a Chinese could think of: Turmoil.

Why will turmoil result from economic growth, expanded educational opportunities, and China entering the world market?

Because there are virtually no opportunities in rural China. The infrastructure isn't there; the rule of law is less robust there than in cities; there is little government focus on the needs of rural China; like in the U.S. rural schools recieve less funding, and have a harder time attracting teachers than those in or near major urban centers.

So what are rural Chinese doing? Moving to cities.

What is the consequence? Cities are becoming over-crowded, schools can't expand fast enough to take in the surplus. We talk about overcrowding in U.S. schools. In China, classrooms that are designed for 50 children (not a typo) are holding 70 and 80 children (also not a typo). Rising urban crime rates are being blamed on migrants from rural China who are easily identifiable because of what would, in the U.S., constitute semi-homeless appearance.

Cutting to the chase

If China really wants to control the way in which it's population moves, and how fast its cities expand, it has to change to equation. For a country where economists have had such success in planning growth, they seem to have missed a couple entry-level grad school courses.

To keep people in rural China, there has to be economic incentive for them. Here are some ideas: start expanding elementary and secondary education funding for rural areas. Expand the reach of quality roads and frequent train-service. Encourage foreign investment in places besides Shanghai's Pudong, and Guangdong province. Create circumstances that will allow companies to put facilities in Jiaohe, Yanji, or Taishan.

Making a comparison with the U.S.; even if most people in the world only know New York, LA, and Harvard, it doesn't mean there aren't great companies and schools in almost every state in the country. If China truly wants to develop, it's going to have to figure that out, or it will start to look like Brazil.

Langauge and its discontents

The other day a friend and I were discussing the various ways language can be used, misused, abused, and simply misunderstood. We were discussing the days before dictionaries when spelling was haphazard, and functionality of words beat out standardized forms for them.

This is a reprint of a BBC article about a tunnel fire in South Korea. But the differences between the way this is written and how it would be written in the U.S. is enough to make you wonder how long "English" is going to be a universal language. I mean if the Brits and Ameircans can't even decide on words for "Truck" or spelling for "tire" how are we going to get the Japanese, the Uzbeks, and the Rwandans to conform to "English"?


S Korea missiles in tunnel fire
A civilian lorry carrying missile parts has been caught up in a fire inside a South Korean tunnel.

The lorry was in a four-vehicle convoy travelling through the road tunnel between the southern cities of Taegu and Masan, an Air Force spokesman said.

Reports say a tyre on one of the lorries caught fire after it braked.

Scores of cars were trapped in the tunnel by the fire, but witnesses said they thought everyone had escaped.

"All of the motorists escaped the tunnel, leaving their cars behind," Kim Tae-soo told South Korea's YTN.

The air force spokesman said the convoy was heading to a nearby air base carrying Nike missile warheads and boosters.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

On the 124th day

After 124 days in the District, I'm finally doing what I came here to do. Sort of. Like almost everything with me, there's a catch.

I finally took a job doing something I think I'll find interesting, and will help me see avenues for a longer-term career. I'll be working on a project with a boss who, after several interactions, seems great, and who comes with a superb recommendation from one of my profs.

So what's the catch?

I'm having to eat the words I said as I left my favorite University Ave. Consulting firm, "I'm not working for free again." Well, this time I am. And it's a 3-month commitment.

Here's why I'm willing to work for free.

  1. I'm going to be working on things I find not only important, but interesting.
  2. I'll be at an organization that has a good reputation, and where I know several people already working there--and who all speak highly of it.
  3. Often when people get access to free labor they don't really utlize the skills people bring to the table--I'm confident that wont be the case here.
  4. The boss seems to be very easy to work with.
  5. It seems less "treading waterish" to say I'm interning than to say I'm temping. Makes me feel like I'm doing something with my time.
  6. If frisbee was still happening, I'd be about 2 miles closer to the tuesday fields. Too bad last week was the last game for the year (dratted daylight savings time, and early sunsets!)
Mostly I mention this because it might severely cut into my daylight blogging hours if I have to be reasonably or more productive at each of 2 jobs.