Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Overheard in Washington

OK, so it wasn't overheard so much as received in an email, but it's both true and funny. I've played ultimate frisbee the past year-plus on a team. One of the players was quoted in a story in the Washington Post today on a fairly complicated, though significant, issue. My girlfriend, who also plays on the team, writes:

"What a classic Washingtonian moment. Reading the Post, and the expert quoted is on my freaking ultimate Frisbee team."
Who says DC isn't a small town?

Monday, December 11, 2006

What I've Learned

At the risk of angering the publishers at the Washington Post, I'm reprinting, in its entirety (with a link to the site) Kofi Annan's Op-Ed that was published in today's post. The timing, with a new Congress preparing to start, couldn't be more appropriate. Hopefully someone will listen.

What I've Learned

By Kofi A. Annan
Monday, December 11, 2006; A19

Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student fresh from Africa, I had much to learn -- starting with the fact that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is 15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned during 10 years as secretary general of the United Nations that I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century.

First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively -- by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.

Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.

That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a country's own citizens are more likely to invest when their basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly treated under the law. Policies that genuinely favor development are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard. States need to play by the rules toward each other, as well. No community suffers from too much rule of law; many suffer from too little -- and the international community is among them.

My fourth lesson, therefore, is that governments must be accountable for their actions, in the international as well as the domestic arena. Every state owes some account to other states on which its actions have a decisive impact. As things stand, poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign aid. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people.

That gives the people and institutions of powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests. And today they need to take into account also what we call "non-state actors." States can no longer -- if they ever could -- confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, they need help from the myriad types of association in which people come together voluntarily, to profit or to think about, and change, the world.

How can states hold each other to account? Only through multilateral institutions. So my final lesson is that those institutions must be organized in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.

Developing countries should have a stronger voice in international financial institutions, whose decisions can mean life or death for their people. New permanent or long-term members should be added to the U.N. Security Council, whose current membership reflects the reality of 1945, not of today.

No less important, all the Security Council's members must accept the responsibility that comes with their privilege. The council is not a stage for acting out national interests. It is the management committee of our fledgling global security system.

More than ever, Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system. Experience has shown, time and again, that the system works poorly when the United States remains aloof but it functions much better when there is farsighted U.S. leadership.

That gives American leaders of today and tomorrow a great responsibility. The American people must see that they live up to it.

The writer, secretary general of the United Nations, will leave office Dec. 31. This article is based on an address he will give today at the Truman Presidential Museum & Library in Independence, Mo.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Incomes, Inequality, and the World Bank

The Post has a story about a World Bank report that came out recently, describing the broad-spectrum failings of poverty alleviation programs.  In short, according to the report, 60% of countries receiving poverty-alleviation loans from the Bank have remained stagnant, or actually lost ground in the "war on poverty".
 
My favorite, exerpted quote, though is this:
"For a sustained reduction in poverty over a period of time, it really pays to worry about both growth and distribution," said Vinod Thomas, director-general of the Independent Evaluation Group. "It has been a mistaken notion that you can grow first and worry about the distribution later."
As China-watchers (and Chinese themselves) can speak on, one of the main concerns for the CCP right now is growing income inequality (and the social unrest that is coming along with it).
 
There are two big challenges that I see on this right now.  First, finding a plan for any given country that will allow it to effectively redistribute wealth/income while not creating a 'welfare state'; and Second, how to convince those who are accumulating the wealth and earning the income that it's actually a good idea for them to surrender some of that wealth.
 
My guess is that the first person who figures out a highly effective way to do this is going to earn a Nobel Prize.
 
 

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Anxiety Kingdom

There is a story in today's Post that, in microcosm, describes China's growing economic problem: Unemployable college graduates. Not because they lack the skills to get decent jobs (the jobs their parents assume college will open the doors for them to get), but because China's economic and regulatory environment make it too hard for the business to start to provide an opportunity to the young people with energy and creativity.

Like so many things, there's a catch. China can't afford to simply free up the restraints on their economic and business sytems. Why? Because it will tear apart the economy from too much economic growth. It's currently caught between a rock and a hard place, both of it's own making: it needs as many college graduates as possible to provide upward mobility for a population enormously in need of hope; but at the same time it has to slow (to a modest 8 or 9%)the economic growth so that the economy doesn't destabilize the whole country.

I'm a bit worried that we're going to have more of this kind of news before we hear less.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Global warming and economics

Global Warming To Cost Up To 20% of Global GDP

In college and in grad school, I had ongoing debates with my roommates and friends about the need to quantify, in dollar terms, the costs of global warming, if we wanted the businesses and governments around the world to start taking it seriously. If there isn't a dollar value attached to it, it doesn't affect their bottom line, and they don't have to worry about it.

Sir Nicholas Stern has just done this, in a 700 page report he prepared under a commission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in the UK. In his report he presents the costs of global warming at between 5-20% of annual global GDP over the next century plus. If this were an average loss to everyone on the planet, it would mean the average american would earn 8,000 less a year, just because of global warming.

It's a long report, the executive summary is even 27 pages. The middle of the summary is pretty interesting. I'd suggest starting to read at page 10 or so.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Bitter Partisanship

If you thought bitter partisanship was constrained to the Western Hemisphere (where outside the U.S., Mexico is also bitterly--and evenly--divided) there is news from Eastern Europe showing how we are not alone in our "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. At least we haven't resorted to tear gas, rubber bullets, or fire hoses yet, as is happening in Budapest now.
Today is the 50th anniversary of their 1956 uprising against the Soviet Union. So maybe, in a bittersweet sense, it is fitting.

Monday, October 16, 2006

North Korean Situation

News From the Frontier
This is a good story from the Monterey Herald about the situation in one spot along the Chinese-North Korean border. It does a good job of giving a glimmer of what is and what could happen, depending on how the situation unfolds.
Take a look, here.

From the Security Council
The AP also has a good recap of the Security Council resolution, including additional restrictions imposed by individual countries: U.S., Japan, and potentially Australia.

The Security Council voted Saturday to impose the following sanctions on North Korea, in response to its claim that it has conducted a nuclear test:
_ an embargo on major weapons hardware such as tanks, warships, combat aircraft and missiles.
_ the freezing of the assets of people or businesses connected to weapons programs.
_ a travel ban for anyone involved in weapons program.
_ a ban on the sale of luxury goods to North Korea.
_ a ban on the importing of materials that could be used in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles.
_ a call for inspections of all cargo leaving and arriving in North Korea to prevent any illegal trafficking in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles.
In addition to the U.N. resolution, the United States maintains its own sanctions on North Korea, including:
_ a ban on U.S. defense exports and sales to the country.
_ a ban on U.S. aid, including a halt in food deliveries through the World Food Program, though not all food assistance has been banned.
_ several financial restrictions that oppose support for North Korea from international financial institutions and restrict business with banks that the U.S. alleges have helped the regime counterfeit and launder money.
_ strict limits on the amount of trade between the two countries.
Japan has imposed the following additional measures and is considering several more:
_ a ban on the entry of North Korean ships to its ports.
_ a trade embargo.
_ a continued ban on the Mangyongbong-92 ferry's entry into Japanese waters. Japan has restricted the movement of the ferry, which once served a major conduit for trade, since July when North Korea test-fired seven missiles into the waters between the two countries.
Australia is considering the following additional sanctions:
_ a ban on the entry of North Korean ships to its ports.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Shot heard 'round the world

Thanks to everyone who has called, written, or text messaged to let me know that, about 24 hours ago, North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon. For those who don't know me, I've spent the last year and a half procrastinating finishing a master's paper on North Korea. I'm just about finished (presented oral arguments a couple of weeks ago) and have been held up from making final corrections as life has intervened a bit.

While it is quite likely that Kim Jong Il, the "Dear Leader" of the DPRK is misguided, I think it very unlikely that he and his advisors have abandoned reason. Quite the contrary. It seems more likely that the North Korean leadership is playing a game of Chinese-style self-interested real politik. Here's why:

1. South Korea's President Roh has based his foreign policy on improving relations with North Korea. He is most likely to go for reconcilliation rather than conflict.
2. Japan has a new Prime Minister--quite publically a 'hawk' when it comes to North Korea--so North Korea doesn't lose anything by incurring his wrath. Especially since Japan still doesn't have offensive military capabilities.
3. The U.S. is too bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq to mount a serious, sustained military action against the DPRK. Further, with the U.S. still holding war-time command authority on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean forces (though fairly capable themselves) are effectively held to defensive actions without a more robust U.S. presence to use as an offensive force.
4. This may be the most significant, though the least certain: North Korea has wagered that China's drive for internal stability and economic growth (especially presently, during the once every 5-year plenary session of the National People's Congress) will outweigh China's desire to put resources into maintaining the previous status quo along it's periphery.

This last piece, though a gamble by North Korea, if correct, could allow North Korea to dramatically shift the terms of battle in their favor. And whether intentional or not, they would be using precisely the same tactic the West did against the USSR during the Cold War. The U.S. knew the Red Army was signficantly larger than our own forces, and would be able to reach deeply into Western Europe before we could mount a serious resistance or counter attack. So the U.S. used our forward stationed troops as "trip wires". If the Soviets began a major assault on Western Europe, word would quickly get back to Washington, and we'd fire nuclear weapons against the Soviets. (It's not ironic the concept for the ultimate shape of this conflict was "MAD".)

At present, though, it seems to be a general consensus that the North Koreans are unable to mount nuclear weapons on a missile for delivery at any distance (with accuracy). Their last (and first) long range missile test blew up just above the launch pad. This means that the only conceivable targets (in a traditional, nuclear combat scenario) are South Korea, or China. We can fairly well rule out China, if for no other reason, that the Chinese, if attacked, would have no mercy--and the North Koreans know this. This leaves South Korea as the main target.

The impact of using this type of weapon against Seoul, or another major population center in South Korea would be devastating. Likely, tens of millions of people would die within a few days or weeks. South Korea would be devestated--not just physically, but psychologically and emotionally as well. Remember, it is a very (geographically) small country. The resulting retaliation South Korea--and it's newfound allies around the world--would wreak upon North Korea preclude this option as well unless as a completely desperate act.

So if you were Kim Jong Il and had these nuclear weapons, and wanted to get something, what would you do? My guess is that he will try to blackmail China, S. Korea, Japan, and the U.S. into either buying the weapons, or more likely, leave open the idea that the material might somehow be sold to other parties interested in acuiring nuclear material.

But this still leaves the question--which I have yet to come up with a plausible answer for--of what is it that North Korea is seeking in it's game of real politik? If you have ideas, please send them my way.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

A uniquely American crisis

The U.S. is facing a crisis. It has to do with Iraq, but our involvement in Iraq is only a symptom of the broader problem. This thought is still forming, and remains a bit rough around the edges, but I want to through it out because it's been so long since my last post.

The U.S. military has become so effective, so powerful, so efficient at it's job: defeating identified enemies, that it has far outpaced not only our enemies and adversaries ability to fight back, but it has outpaced even our own ability to prepare for the aftermath.

What am I talking about? The men and women in our armed forces can, on very short notice, be nearly anywhere in the world, engaging in successful operations against nearly any traditional enemy we could face. The problem this creates--and where the crisis comes in--is that the rest of our government is not, and I believe should not be, in a position to deal with the consequences of such rapid victories.

Put in a concrete situation, the U.S. force in Iraq was 1. enormously effective at eliminating the Iraqi threat; and 2. Woefully prepared to handle the post-conflict element of operations in Iraq. Recent publications from George Packer's "Assassin's Gate" and Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" suggest that much of this has been caused by the administration's unwillingness to face the realities caused by America's actions.

If true, this attitude would clearly be a major contributing factor to the problem. It, alone, is not sufficient, however. Planning an attack, or a campaign, against a target or a country is a complex undertaking. It requires an understanding of the force being faced, it's strengths and weaknesses, the terrain, and myriad other items. But it is fairly transferrable from one place to another: tanks are always tanks; guns are always guns. Achieving victory, then, is something that takes a great deal of effort--but is something that our military is eminently well suited to do.

Achieving peace, prosperity, and ultimately political success, is something our military has not trained for, and is not presently equipped to do. Unfortunately, neither are any of our other federal departments or agencies. Creating a stable, productive, and peaceful country where there was a despotic autocracy requires a very differents set of skills and knowledge--and a country (or even provincial-level) expertise that our soldiers do not have the luxury to afford. On V-E and V-J day in world war two, the U.S. Generals in charge had spent the entirety of those wars facing the adversaries. They had at their disposal staffs with extensive knowledge of the countries and cultures in play--not just the relevant military information, but extensive information about history, culture, society, and in-country networks that existed or were believed to exist. And they had several years of working with these people to develop a clear sense of what would be needed not only to win the war, but, to use a cliche, "to win the peace."

Since World War II, our military has in both real and relative terms become a force unrivaled. Our experience in Vietnam gave us the "Powell Doctrine" of using "overwhelming force" to defeat an enemy. These two together, have left the U.S. in a position where our political leadership, and our military commanders no longer have the time to gain sufficient knowledge about a place, or establish networks of people who have this information, to create and put in place (much less execute) a plan that will allow the U.S. to succeed after the military operation has been successful.

This is not just a problem, it is a crisis. Unless we can bring our ability to win peace in line with our ability to fight wars, the United States will have more situations like Iraq in our future, not less. We will identify threats to our safety. We will neutralize them. And, perversely, we will be less secure after the threat is gone then we were when the threat was there.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Peacekeeping? Not a recipe for success

The concept of peacekeeping troops seems to have gained great ascendancy, and suffered appropriate ignominy in the short span of my life.  It came about as a response to the collapse of Somalia into what, euphemistically, was called a civil war but in reality was a number of uber-thugs and warlords fighting for control of territory in a country where the government had been stripped of all practical power.  Peacekeeping as an idea suffered a setback in the U.S. when American troops were captured and their bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after they had been killed.

 

In spite of this, the practice was attempted again only a few years later in the Balkans as a response to the “ethnic cleansing” going on as another state dissolved into chaos; this time Yugoslavia.  UN peacekeepers became synonymous with incompetence as the rules of engagement they operated under frequently stopped them from using the weapons they possessed even in self-defense.  Most notably, a squadron was captured by a local militia/army unit using captured UN uniforms.

 

Some would have us believe that right now the world is spinning into chaos.  North Korea is rattling it’s worn and rusty saber; the U.S. military is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan attempting to perpetrate a democracy on local populations that seem unwilling or incapable of standing up on their own.  Perhaps most significantly in many the minds of many Americans, Israel is once again at war with its neighbors.

 

This last piece is the one I’d like to talk about, as regards peacekeepers, though the ideas can be applied to the other situations as well.

 

In today’s Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson writes from the safety of not needing to make decisions that,

“Real border security is going to require the kind of force that didn't exist as World War I loomed. With the Lebanese army no match for Hezbollah, a genuine international army such as that proposed by Kofi Annan and Tony Blair (and bigger and more assertive than the Boy Scout troops that the United Nations periodically deploys) is needed to restore the peace.”

 

Regardless of how much “bigger” or how much more “assertive” a force in the Middle East would be than it’s predecessor Peacekeeping cousins, it would be doomed to fail without a couple of simple preconditions:

  1. That the countries contributing troops be prepared to lose a large number of young men (and women, depending on the country) in uniform;
  2. That the countries be willing to put these troops on the ground in a region that has been suffering violence regularly for the past 40 years;
  3. That the countries be willing to engage the Israeli Defense Force, Hamas, and Hezbollah equally for likely violations of the terms of truce that the peacekeeping force would itself have to establish—with or without consent from the hostile parties
  4. That the contributing countries would be willing (and their troops able) to enforce marshal law over large, urban populations, where underground paramilitary activity (Hamas and Hezbollah) have become accustomed to operating in this capacity for decades.
  5. Certainly not least significant, that the countries contributing troops to this exercise would have to be willing to see images on Al Jazeera, the BBC and CNN of their troops firing missiles into schools and hospitals, killing women and children, because terrorists/insurgents would use these facilities for refuge, or because the troops mistakenly thought so.

 

All of these would happen because this would not be a peacekeeping mission, but a peace-forcing or peace-creating one.  It would involve inserting an additional hostile force between two (actually 3) forces already engaged in combat.  It would happen because war is ugly, destructive, ends lives, and makes the lives of those involved the worse for its experience.

 

My opinion: good luck getting a “peacekeeping” force that is either effective designed to succeed through a single government on Earth, much less through the recalcitrant UN Security Council.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Hiattus or the Hiccups?

It's been a while since my last post, and a while longer since I'd posted before that. I wanted to write something to address why, as I've been getting a few questions about "what happened?"

I've been easing into a new job over the past months. It's a job that has much more substance, and takes a fair amount more time, than what I've been doing previously. It's also a job that allows me to engage in issues of international relations much more than other jobs I could have.

If there is a reason I haven't been writing much lately, then, it is actually two-fold.

First, the job has me working quite a bit. The opportunity to take a 20 minute (or hour-long) break in the middle of the day to put my thoughts into writing isn't often available.

Second, and possibly more significantly, I'm reacting to what goes on in the world differently than I'm used to reacting. I've been in DC for just over a year now. I get innundated with the political vituperation that counts as discourse in our country. And if anyone needed incentive to be turned off to the political process our governmental policies are subject to, that is a big one. A bigger one, though, is working where I work. Because so many of the people who work around me eschew that system and push for policies and actions that might actually make a difference, though there may not be a vote to be gained (or lost) by following through.

A person would be exceptionally fortunate to work around people who were as smart, as dedicated to their work, and less egocentric than those with whom I have the priviledge of working near. Whether its in the air, or something I've picked up on, I find it hard to sit on the outside and simply "lob bombs" at the present system without finding something that would be a viable and improved alternative.

I've also become aware that one of the best ways to kill an alternative to the present system is to bring it to the light of day before there is a constituency for it within the existing system. (This is true of any large, complex bureaucracy.) Any change or alteration will find opposition from those with interests in keeping a system the same.

Those are the two big reasons I haven't been writing much lately. Because I haven't had a lot of time to put thoughts into writing, and when I have had thoughts I want to put into writing, I've been apprehensive about doing so.

I'm going to try to keep up with a post or two a week for the next while, as I start my new job, but not sure how well I'm going to be able to keep it up.

Just to be clear though: I am still alive--Barrister. I'm still having fun. And I'm enjoying life inside the beltway. Please keep sending me thoughts and articles though. It's good to see what Real America is writing and thinking about, because the beltway is kind of like a cloister: it spends a lot of time on internal issues and politicing, and sometimes forgets to address the issues that are actually significant beyond its own walls.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Education and Defense in the U.S.

OK thinkers, I've got a thought mulling, and I need some help with it, when you're brain has free time. This gets a bit long.

Defense Department vs. National Education levels.

Posit: The government is in the business of providing public goods. Why? Because public goods are those that the market wont supply, or wont supply at an efficient level because of disincentives.

Ergo, National defense: someone providing it gives it to everyone. BUT it's really expensive, and if one can't isolate the benefits, there is no market incentive to provide it. Hence, the federal government takes defense responsibilities from the states, and doesn't allow private military forces to operate within the U.S.

As a government we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense every year. Dozens of major companies, and thousands of small ones, compete for major contracts to design new equipment, deliver it, set up logistics, analyze this or that, and basically make a ton of money doing this. They use that money to recruit and pay some of the brightest minds in our country, and keep them engaged in the "business of defense" of our country.

Basically, (and without judgment), the defense industry in this country is the government pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy in order to get companies to provide us with a public good.

Education: education is also a public good. The more educated an individual is, the more capable s/he is to contribute more to his/her society. In intellectual, artistic, economic, and social ways. Well educated people tend to be healthier, have higher paying (and more economically productive) jobs, raise children who are more successful in school and help diversify their local economic base, mitigating the impact of single-sector market swings.

We leave education as a "state-level" public good, with most states devolving the lion's share of educational authority to county, city, or school-district levels. In part because these levels of government are smaller, in part because they are closer to the electorate, and in part because nearly all of them are constitutionally (state-level constitution) barred from running a deficit, have much less money to dole out to those interested in providing a public good than does the federal government.

This general lack of money (as well as the general conception that if one wants a good school, then one should pay the costs of a private education), has led U.S. schools to mediocre performance when compared globally, and is preparing generations of America's children to fail in an ever-changing national and global situation.

With that caveat that I'm not trying to expand government, and if there is a way to improve education with local-level funding, I'm all for it, I want to ask a question:

Why can't we, as a country, do for education what we did for defense?

National defense started as a bunch of guys pulling their muskets of the mantel and assembling in the town square. It has evolved into an enormously complex industry of professional soldiers, statesmen, executives, and lobbyists. It is not necessarily market-efficient, but it is the most effective military force the world has ever known. The thing about military spending is that it is just that: spending. There is minimal investment when it comes to military--and the little actual investment that occurs does so in the form of training received by soldiers and officers. Spending on education can be either spending or investing. And the returns can be enormous. The returns on teaching young children can be 11:1. Not 11%, but 11 times investment.

Why are we, as a society, unwilling to make that kind of investment in our children, but we are in national defense? Is there a compromise that can be reached? A new approach to government and education?

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Those sneaky Capitalists...in North Korea

A quick little piece to prove that I'm still around.  Life's been busy, and I haven't seen a lot I've felt like commenting on lately, sorry.
 
But here's a tidbit for you all:
 
Unbeknownst to the world (and likely, even themselves) the DPRK (N. Korea) has become capitalist.  I don't really have much to go on in asserting this.  Only one teeny-weeny little web page.  North Korea's Official webpage--according to the BBC.
 
And it's hosted on a .com server.  Not .org, .net, or even .dprk.  Yup, it's a .com.
 
 
Have fun. Unfortunately, the "buy a souvenir" links don't work. I guess FedEx hasn't opened a Pyongyang branch yet.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Wonk Paradise

I have found it, and it is amazing.  What is most surprising (or maybe not) is that it is run by the Federal Reserve.  If you’re looking for some amazing numbers, give this a look.

A Glimmer of Sunlight

This CBS story suggests a glimmer of sunlight in North Korea-Western relations.  The Associated Press’s TV wing opened a North Korea bureau on Monday.  This is pretty big news.  Actually, it’s huge news.  North Korea—long viewed as the most secretive country in the world, has just allowed a major media outlet to set up a permanent presence in its capital.  I can’t think of a more meaningful step for them to take outside of actually being serious at the six-party negotiations.  Let’s hope there is more of the same on the horizon.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

A China Strategy

As a result of where I live, D.C., I've been hearing a lot recently about the U.S.'s China Strategy. Or more specfically, the U.S.'s lack of a China strategy. It's something I harp on from time to time, and usually offer nothing productive on.

Today, I'd like to take a stab at providing a more constructive version of a U.S. China Strategy. President Bush has said that democratization is a goal of the U.S. in the world right now. I think that is admirable, but I don't think it's realistic to believe the U.S. can (or should) impose/instil/implant democracies around the world. What I think is legitimate for the U.S. to do, and is consistent with the message of President Bush's strategy, if not the content specifically, is to work with other countries to make the world one in which all people have the opportunity to pursue their own course. For some this will lead to democracy; for others not. Singapore is a good example of a country that has so far chosen very little in the way of democratic reform, and yet one in which the people are generally supportive of the government.

When the United States begin to state explicitly that we expect other countries should adopt democractic positions, and that we will act to see that they do, we are terrifying to legitimate state actors around the world. Numerous countries behave in ways that, to an exclusively American perspective, are not democratic--(China, Nigeria, Egypt, Venezuela, Kenya, to name a few)--but for the most part, we have found ways to engage each of these actors in a constructive way.

The more countries we engage with constructively, the more we tie the world together, and the more difficult we make conflict. The less conflict, the more development, the more safety, and the more opportunity for people around the world. We can engage economically (trade, investment), we can engage culturally (artist and performer exchanges), we can engage through education (study abroad and foreign exchange programs for young people and scholars). Each of these makes significant contribution to the real ties that bring countries, people, and cultures together. Having embassies and joint press conferences are not the activities that bring countries together--they are only symbols of a togetherness already knit.

This week marked the final steps in the building of the physical wall that is the Three Gorges Dam in China. Any time a government invests in a project, it is an indication of the government's priorities. The Three Gorges Dam, as one of the largest public-construction projects of the past 100 years, is a big indicator of China's priorities: energy, water, control of the environment. When one couples this 16 year project with China's upsurge in diplomacy and contract-acquisition in international energy and commodity markets, it becomes clear that China views its economic growth as a paramount issue, and that steady, secure sources of energy and resources to facilitate this growth are fundamental to China's government.

Many in the U.S. see this as a form of Chinese expansionism. They're right. China is far more cognicent of the economic concept of the growth-limitting factor: growth is limitted by whatever factor is the most scarce. It is a country that has almost 25% of the world's population and only 6% of the world's arable land. The U.S.? Almost the inverse. We have something like 6% of the world's population and about 20% of the arable land. China knows what it is to be stuck between a rock and hard place. And they aren't willing to be crushed without giving it a fighting chance.

Those in the U.S. that see China as a strategic competitor, or a strategic threat are making a reasonable and logical assessment of where China is and where it wants to go. But I believe they are also locked into a zero-sum view of profits, the world, and resource availability. Even if the U.S. and China were fighting over the last available barrel of oil in the world, it could become a shooting war, or it could become an opportunity to bring the countries closer together.

China is a country, like the U.S., with numerous vast and deep problems. In fact the two countries share many of the same problems: We are countries addicted to resources we do not control, and whose prices are skyrocketing. We are countries experiencing major crises of confidence in our political leadership. We are countries with significant public-debt problems threatening to bring down decades of carefully crafted economic growth. We are countries with major economic and educational opportunitiy variance between distinct regions.

All of these issues should make it easier for China and the U.S.'s leadership to understand each other more effectively. This frequently doesn't happen, however, because there are major cultural differeneces between the U.S. and China that continue to get in the way with how things are done. These differences provide the basis for the opportunity to turn the last barrel in the world into a cooperative endeavor instead of a shooting war.

One of America's great advantages is the ability to absorb things. Ideas. Concepts. Peoples. Customs. There is a reason that it's hard to get a good hot dog in Germany. The German's might have turned sausage-eating into a national cuisine, but Americans have turned Bratwurst and Kielbasa into an Oscar Meyer Wiener. We've taken small plaza cafes and turned them into a worldwide octopus: Starbucks. We've stolen words: C note; hors de'vours; long time no see; gringo; and made them American. This is something Chinese have not yet become adept at--nor has any of our European counterparts.

So what? Is this pertinent? Yes. Because it is this adaptability, and the creativity that is part of it, that can allow the U.S. and the Chinese to cooperate and grow closer together, even as the competition for resources becomes more intense. Seem crazy? Just crazy enough to work.

Without significant shocks to the economic system, the world's apetite for energy and resources is going to continue to grow over the next 10-15 years. Without significant changes in technology and resource utilization, this means the cost for resources and energy will go through the roof, and only the very wealthy will be able to grow at the pace they need to satisfy internal political conditions.

No one will be wealthy enough for that to work. So, if the U.S. wants to start cultivating China as a colleague instead of a competitor, it needs to start harnessing the ingenuity and sophistication inherent in a people who can memorize decades of baseball statistics, and who know enough about mechanics and engineering to design car-performance modifications on the back of a budweiser label. If we put these skills into using resources smarter, and getting more with less, we'd reduce our own demand for resources and energy, and at the same time, we could sell this technology to China who would love to have it, in order to reduce their own dependence on international commodities.

So why don't we start working together?

Saturday, May 13, 2006

One nation, under Lock and Key

One Nation, under Lock and Key, Indevisible with chain-links and barriers to protect us all.

Read the Rahhhsian soliloquoy first, because this is follow-up to that.

President Bush will be addressing the country on Monday to lay out his plan to stem the tide of illegal immigration. And it looks as though he will be taking a page out of Nikita Kruschev's playbook, and inverting the great rhetoric (and reality) of his political forebearer, Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbechav, tear down this wall," and his actual forebearer, George H. W. Bush, who was president when the wall actually came down.

Instead of "tearing down this wall," President Bush, it is expected, will use a prime-time statement on Monday to help establish a human wall comprised of the National Guard on the Southern border in order to help keep out all the illegals.

I've written about this topic before, and I'm not a big fan of illegal immigration. But there are economic realities at play here that creating a wall (human, corrugated metal, or simply recreateting the Berlin Wall) will not alleviate. If a 12 foot tall concrete wall with barbed wire and gun-toting guard yelling scary things in German at those getting too close to the Berlin wall didn't stop 5,000 East Germans from fleeing into West Germany (also illegal immigration), is it really concievable that simply having a lot of American patrol the border is going to stop illegals from entering this country? (Remember, unlike Berlin, we have a coastline too...and how likely is it that the California and Texas beach-communities will welcome National Guard sitting in the middle of their volleyball court?)

Immigration to this country from many parts South is that there are greater economic opportunities here than there are at home. If the U.S. isn't doing anything to address those, we're going to be faced with continued immigration regardless of how high of a wall we build.

There is another significant component to the immigration debate, and it is just as significant to the Republican hopes of holding the House/Senate this fall, and the Presidency in 2008: small business owners. One of the great benefits of tons of illegal immigration into this country is that it helps keep wages down--especially for low-skilled jobs. We have cleaning crews, painting crews, window washers, car mechanics, and lawn mowers who are working under the table. And if you can get away with paying someone $5-6 bucks an hour without benefits and without paying taxes, or you have to pay someone $12-15 an hour, plus you have to pay social security and other taxes on top of that, which do you think helps you bottom line more?

Even though aggregate economic numbers are still growing very well, much of it is being driven by higher productivity and longer hours from the people already in the system. Interest rates are creeping up (in my opinion, teetering on the edge of going up at a faster pace), most individuals in this country have debt-levels that preclude them from taking on more debt (to, say, start a business) and are at the mercy of rising interest rates. If, all of the sudden, the supply of cheap labor is cut off to this country, small businesses will be faced with declining profits and the spectre of bankruptcy. Just what any incumbant wants when running head-long into a major election: an economy that is in the tubes, a foreign policy that has left us without allies or victory, and action on issues that lead to more problems than solutions.

They feel our pain, but aren't afraid

Cue Patriotic theme, vaguely reminiscent of TV News theme.

Enter, stage right (far right), Prime Minister Ivanovichicov. Walks downstage to podium. Backdrop of flags, flag-waving, weapon wielding true-believers in the foreground.

"Friends. Countryman. Rahhhsians."

"Today we embark on a dangerous and difficult undertaking. We have to secure the Motherland from dangerous adversaries. We face a new threat to our security. To our Prosperity. To our very way of life."

But I'm will not try to scare you. I will not try to play on your fears. You should not be afraid.

This new threat is dangerous. It is scary. It is worse than the terrorists in Chechnya. It is more terrifying than the possibility of Ukraine diversifying its energy suppliers. It has me up at night worried sick.

But we have nothing to fear. There is no cause for alarm.

This new threat, this dangerous foe we are facing. He is invading us every hour of every day. He comes with the most dangerous and un-Rahhhsian attitude of all. His weapons? A job application, and a willingness to do backbreaking labor for very low wages. The danger? He is willing to work longer and harder and for less than we Rahhhsians. And this is not acceptable!"

[Cheers from true-believers; rifle shots fired into the air]

These are the people who are trying to weaken Mother Rahhhsia. Trying to erode our way of life. Trying to take away our Vodka, and steal our caviar. If they want to work harder than we do; if they want to work for less money than we do, fine. But they should do it in their own countries so we can simply outsource the work. There has been to much of this "insourcing" of cheap, hard working, unregulated labor. That strikes at the very heart of the problem. We are Rahhhsians. Everything must be regulated!

[Louder cheers from true-believers; more rifle shots into the air]

And we will not be afraid.

Beginning today, the great and loving government of Mother Rahhhsia will provide every man, woman, or child who is willing to walk the border with a Rahhhsian-made Kalishnikov, 30 rounds, and a letter granting permission to use it, so long as the bullet lands across our border. It is time we send a clear and unmistakable message to these pesky Finns, troublesome Latvians, and derisive North Koreans, that they are no longer welcome to just saunter in here and steal jobs that, without their presence, would drive up our costs and erode our profits. That is simply un-Rahhhsian. And we aren't going to take it any more.

[Loudest cheering yet, attempts to fire rifles into the air; rifles clicking because they are out of ammo.]

[Prime Minister Ivanichicov, exit stage right.]

Friday, May 12, 2006

Those who do not learn from History

The saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  That is why I find the history of China since 1949 such a fascinating topic.  As would happen to any continent-sized country with a huge population, China is awash in contradictions.  Not only that, but it seems that many in China are losing the ability to distinguish reality from hype.  There is a sobering piece today in the Times (UK) about the woman who is credited with creating the spark that started the cultural revolution 40 years ago this month.
"With the gap between China’s rich and poor growing steadily wider, and anger rising among tens of millions of impoverished peasants, they [the Chinese government] are acutely aware of the danger of another extremist movement. Thus they have ordered a complete news blackout on the anniversary next Tuesday."
In spite of over 5,000 years of history from which to draw lessons (which happens liberally), the Chinese seem to cling obstinately to certain ways of doing things--like attempting to control information and a population--which can lead to nothing but the chaos trying to be averted.
 

Thursday, May 11, 2006

First Call for the Crusades! First Call!

Iranian President Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to Bush earlier this week that has been getting more than a little attention--it's not often that letters between heads of state who do not have diplomatic relations with one another become public.
 
I'd like to point out two of the last paragraphs:
"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity.  Today these two concepts have failed.  Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.
 
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point--that is the Almighty God.  Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems.  My question for you is: 'Do you not want to join them?'"
President Ahmadinejad, I don't think you mean it this way, but it sounds like you are asking President Bush to jump on the band-wagon for the middle ages.  You are a teacher, and a student of history, so I'm sure you realize that these were times of staggeringly low life-expectancies; high infant-mortality rates; plagues and diseases swept from Portugal to China; the rule of law had not existed for over 1000 years, and instead we had autocratic rule of man.  Basically, it sounds as if you are asking the President of the country that has helped shape a world where there is greater access to opportunity for more people than in the history of the world to reject that structure, that opportunity, and revert to the system that gave us the Crusades.

Baidupedia

From the Financial Times:
"China’s leading web search company has launched an online, user-generated encyclopedia modelled on Wikipedia, the hugely popular co-operative reference website that is blocked by Beijing censors."
The new service, Baidupedia, is an local Chinese attempt to offer the same kind of service as internationally available products.
"The service, which Baidu launched last month, highlights both the sensitivities of operating in the Chinese internet market and the opportunities created for local companies by the government’s blocks on thousands of overseas websites."
I guess the above quote from the story is technically correct, but fundamentally flawed.  China, by restricting the flow of, and access to, information, is doing the same thing to it's people (and companies) that tariffs did for U.S. automobiles.  Tariffs allowed Detroit to live and prosper, as long as there was no competition.  But as soon as there was competition, the "big 3" got slammed by higher quality, lower cost products from anywhere else.
 
For China, restricting the flow of information to its people allows them to thrive in a purely domestic-based market.  But when they have to face competition from people with access to an entire world's worth of information--rather than a tightly rationed and homogenized version of reality--they will have a hard time succeeding.
 

Just enough room for disaster

There is a story from "Open Source" which is apparently a radio show, from...somewhere... which describes the changes hitting China as the "floating population" of migrant labor from rural areas moves around the country in search of jobs.  Increasingly though, this population is not just rural farmers being displaced by urban sprawl or newer farming techniques.  It's also increasingly comprised of college-educated people who can't find jobs in China's surging economy.  Because it takes more surging than China has been able to pull off to find jobs for the 6 million college graduates every year.
 
The Chinese are consistently worried about "turmoil" which, when it comes down to it today, means uncontrolled, unregulated, or unexpected change.  The things described in the story sound exactly like uncontrolled, unregulated, and unexpected change.  I just hope things don't spin too far out of control.

A Constitution in America

There have been rumors of this floating around DC for at least 5 months now, but the story on the cover of today's Post reduces rumor to mere news.
 
There is a bill being proposed in Congress to give DC the vote.
 
It would give DC's delegate a real seat in the House--with the ability to vote and everything.  The "trade-off" is that Utah would get an additional representative as well.  Don't worry all you out there afraid of consolidating districts, it would ADD both of these seats.
 
While it is about time that the District finally have the right to participate in events as fundamental to our democracy as...I don't know...VOTE, I think this is a cop-out measure.   Here is my counterproposal.
 
Give residents of DC the ability to vote in a primary.  The primary will have zero people on the ballot. Only states.  When the ballots are counted from the primary, whichever state earns the most votes in the DC primary will be the state DC residents vote in for the general election.  Just state-wide officials and higher.  No local level races.  And nothing for the House.  2 Senators, Governor, State AG, president.
 
This would give people in DC the opportunity to vote in states where they have an especially keen interest: might I suggest Mississippi, Alabama, and Alaska.  It would help shake up the power-structures in Washington, and allow the rest of the country a chance to get in on the game.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Emerging from the depths

but just for a moment.  It's a helter-skelter week, and it's still a month until the summer swelter.
 
This was one that I just couldn't let pass though.
 
First, picking a fight with the Latin prelature: as most adults who grew up in Catholic schools attest, probably not a good idea.
 
But now, claiming that people seeking asylum in ALBANIA are not really refugees.  Sure, they were in Guantanamo.  Sure, they probably have dubious past experiences.  Really though.  They just CHOSE to be dropped off in Albania.  The North Korea of Europe.  That grand bastion of almost nothing. And they wanted to go there.
 
I'm sure there must be redeeming qualities about Albania.  But I'm also fairly certain that almost no one has ever actually applied to be a refugee in Albania if they weren't already Albanian.  The Chinese?  Definitely not Albanian. 
 
Score another one for the Chinese in the, our foreign policy isn't making much sense this month, column.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Lassoed

There is an interesting piece in the BBC today outlining the growing fear that China is contravening the Monroe Doctrine, and infiltrating the Western Hemisphere.
 
The concern out of Washington is that China is using its growing economic power, and its bland "profits first" international policy to woo South American populists already pre-disposed to dislike the U.S. (or at least our policies towards Latin America).  From Congressman Dan Burton,
"We're concerned about the leftist countries that are dealing with China," says Congressman Dan Burton, the Republican chairman of the sub-committee on the Western Hemisphere. "It's extremely important that we don't let a potential enemy of the US become a dominant force in this part of the world."
It seems that after 5 years of "look 'em in the eye" diplomacy--where we tell countries if we're afraid of them, and by how much; where we tell countries what we will do to them if they don't comply; where we make large demands of our adversaries, and larger demands on our friends--we might consider trying something different.  The policies we are currently pursuing leave us tied up in our own lasso, and our counterparts free to exploit our entanglement.  It might be time to try something like Judo diplomacy, or Aikido diplomacy: let China do whatever it wants, but use its initiatives to achieve our aims.  This is what China is doing to the U.S.; and our poor rope-work keeps making it easy for them. 
 
Congress wants us to crack down on Chinese initiatives in Latin America (the whole world, really, but I'll stay on topic).  The President needs Chinese support with our national security on: Iran, North Korea, and sorting through the Japan-Korea-Russia triangle of island disputes.  But most importantly for President Bush, we need China's economy strong, and currency weak (that's right, I said strong and weak, not weak and strong) so that China's trade surplus (not deficit) remains high enough that China has to continue to buy our debt.  Without that, interest rates will not creep up.  They will shoot up.  Inflation will rise.  Over-mortgaged homebuyers will be foreclosed on, the  housing bubble will burst, corporate expansion will disappear, unemployment will rise, and the party in power will be out on its ear faster than Jimmy Carter can say "malaise."
 
Basically, I'm saying the same thing I say at least once a week: without a significant change in how the U.S. runs our own fiscal house, we aren't going to be in a position to ask anything of China--economically, politically, or militarily.  Sorry, the last hegemon has come crawling to the bookie, and the bookie's price is high.

David vs. Goliath, rnd 2.

The Financial Times brings us the next installment of the Hu vs. the Pontiff.  This round the Pope lands the first punch.
Pope Benedict said on Thursday China’s appointment of two Catholic bishops without his blessing was a “grave violation of religious freedom” as a standoff with Beijing over control of church posts escalated.
This is the kind of subtlety one should expect from the head of a bureaucracy who uses an official language over 2000 years old, and that hasn't been used in public for about 400 of those years.  The Holy Father has drawn the Vatican's line in the sand: religious freedom means the religion choosing leadership as it deems appropriate.  I'm guessing Hu's counterpunch will be something to the effect of, "religious freedom means self determination within national groups."  The lines will be drawn.
 
As established yesterday, the Chinese and Holy See are both old, proud, patient institutions.  I do find it interesting that Beijing waited to start this type of scuffle until after Pope John Paul II was out of the picture, and long enough into Benedict's tenure that it doesn't look like opportunism--exploiting a newly appointed leader.  My guess, though, is that Beijing has had this particular maneuver in the wings for a while, and decided that now was a good time to spring it. 
 
With no major changes since last post, I'm not going to put my money on a clear or likely winner.  But I'm starting to lean towards the Vatican.  Can Beijing really afford to come out of this tiff looking the bad guy?  They are already mean to the Dalai Lama.  And who can be mean to the Dalai Lama?  Do they really want the only other universally recognized religious figure able to claim slight at Beijing's doing?  And one other thing, if the nicknames, "God's Doberman," and "Panzer Cardinal," are any indication the current Pope may be less likely to look kindly on slights and insults than his counterpart in Tibetan Buddhism.
 

Thursday, May 04, 2006

David and Goliath

A battle has been joined.  The Vatican and China are squaring off in what could be an epic duel.  The cause: China's "patriotic association" Catholic Church ordained 2 bishops recently.  The problem: the Pope did not approve these particular bishops.  The result?  According to Cannon Law (the Catholic Church's legal structure) a Bishop who is consecrated without Vatican approval is excommunicated (disconnected from the Church) as well as the Bishop who consecrated him.
 
The number of Catholics in the world?  About 1 billion.  The number of Chinese? Slightly more than a billion.  Sounds like we have an even fight.
 
To me, the funny thing is, the Vatican and the Chinese government should understand each other exceptionally well.  Both are really old, bureaucratic organizations (organizational age, not individual age--though both are old that way as well).  Both are steeped in history, tradition, pride, and the unwavering belief in their own rightness.  And both know that to back an opponent into a corner is to stir up trouble.
 
The current situation seems to have caused them both to push each other into a corner.  China, a country asserting protection of religious freedom for its citizens has just attempted to install two state-appointed religious leaders.  The Vatican smacked it down.  Not just a little bit, or quietly.  The Vatican did it in a way that embarrassed the Chinese.  And there are few things more detrimental to international relations than embarrassing your counterpart.
 
The Chinese response to being embarrassed:
"The criticism toward the Chinese side by the Vatican is groundless," that statement said. "We hope the Vatican can respect the will of Chinese church and the vast numbers of priests as well as its church members so as to create good atmosphere for the improvement of Sino-Vatican ties."
I'm not one to side blindly with the Vatican (or anyone, really, besides the Gopher Hockey team), but who does this spokesman think he's talking about?  "We hope the Vatican can respect the will of the Chinese Church"??  The whole point of the Vatican is that it does quite the opposite: it sets up a structure and a hierarchy for Catholic churches everywhere.  If it was in the business of respecting the will of a local church it wouldn't call itself Catholic.  It would be Protestant. 
 
What is my resolution to this situation?  I'm not entirely sure, but I think its just a bizarre turn of events for two behemoth bureaucracies to blunder into each other this way.  Especially after almost 30 years of a very carefully choreographed dance helped them keep a "good atmosphere."
 

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Free Speech?

One of my favorite dork-sites, OpenCRS has a report from CRS--Congress's analytical and investigatory arm, outlining the issues and efforts to allow churches greater freedom to participate in political campaigns and elections.
 
I'm all for free speech, but I don't like the idea of loosening the restrictions separating tax-exempt organizations from participating directly in elections. 

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Game On!

and in the end, you're left with a Snow Crash*.
That's right ladies and gentlemen, video games are now cash-cows. Not just for the companies that sell them, but for people that play them too. And not just the people who win South Korean Game Shows.
No, this is about a new cash card that will allow people to withdraw money made, in-game, from real cash machines. I feel like there is something wrong with this situation and that basic economics are going to propel us back into the dark ages as a result of earning our money in video games, but I can't quite figure out why.
Tad Williams' Otherland offers another version of what can happen when real-world and virtual reality get fuzzy-lined boundaries. I'm pretty sure neither of these world-visions quite measure up to Gene Rodenberry's view of the future.
*Title borrowed from Wayne and Garth.

Recanting

As an uninformed, peripheral observer to the political process and currents that brought Evo Morales to the Presidency in Bolivia, I was cautiously optimistic about his chances about improving Bolivia's lot in the world.  He's a leftist.  He's a populist.  But I didn't think he was nuts.
 
Until today.
 
In case you missed it, Bolivia just seized it's oilfields.  In the grand tradition of loose-screw leaders everywhere, Morales has decided to improve Bolivia by convincing every investor on the planet that they should place Bolivia below North Korea on their rank-order-list.  The Post writes,
"The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources," Morales said during a televised speech from a gas field near the country's southern border. "The looting by foreign companies has ended."
I'm not saying that there isn't more than a little bit of historical impetus for Morales's choice of words or actions.  What I'm saying is that the past 50 years have proven nothing if not: a poor country cutting off its connections to the outside world (and frequently those are in the form of foreign investors) is the fastest way for it to make it's people poorer, hungrier, and sicker.  If you think I sound like an ultraconservative who just wants to exploit the poor, indigenes people of Bolivia without respect to their culture, just take a quick peak at how seizing foreign assets and expelling people from the country worked for India 40 years ago, or China 50 years ago.  Or go to North Korea with a truckload of food and see whether or not you are greeted with indifference. 
 
That is where policies of the ultra-left get the people.  Maybe not the most responsible way for a leader to redress past ills.
 

Monday, May 01, 2006

China vs. the U.S: Who can be less Green?

Orville Schell, noted China scholar and Dean of UC Berkeley's Journalism School, has recently published an op-ed about one of the greatest not-on-the-agenda items between China and the U.S.  He apparently wrote it in advance of President Hu's visit last week, but I've just seen it this morning.
 
In it he describes the biggest challenge not as Taiwan.  Not trade or the economy.  Not the 80 submarines China people claim China is building.  No, he said the biggest challenge facing Sino-U.S. relations is...wait for it... Global Warming. 
 
Global Warming.
 
As in, "Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Monica, brought to you by Global Warming."  As in, "Wars in Somalia over access to fresh water, brought to you by Global Warming."  As in, "You might call that rapture, but I call it a man-made population-thinning storm-surge, brought to you by Global Warming." 

That Global Warming.
 
I just wanted to bring it to light here, because it's not too often that China-watchers delve into topics as far from their topic as Global Warming.  So it must be a big deal.

Friday, April 28, 2006

The problem with secrecy

This is a story from MSNBC, via Chinadigitaltimes, about Wang Wenyi, the reporter arrested for heckling President Hu in D.C. during his visit.
 
Wang claims she had to do what she did because of China's involvement in harvesting organs from live Falun Gong members.  China "vehemently denies" the allegations.  The U.S. can't confirm that this is actually happening. 
 
A lesson the U.S. learned long ago (with occasional lapses through our history) has been that the best way for a government to remain credible to both its allies and its adversaries is to be open.  China has taken a different path since the Revolution: releasing information about employment, the economy, jobless rates, government policies, and certain changes in laws can all be violations of State Secrets (the Chinese equivalent of leaking Valerie Plame's name). 
 
The problem with that kind of secrecy is that when seemingly crazy allegations are made, there's just enough doubt about the government that people, while disbelieving, don't think it's completely crazy.  Which deteriorates confidence in the government, and leads to bigger problems.  If the Chinese are really worried about the Falun Gong as a political movement, it is this type of discrediting of the government the CCP should be most concerned with.

Dazed and Confused

Washington, DC--In amazing news today, Charles Krauthammer wrote something I agree with.  At least on the basic premise: the oil-price surge is based on supply and demand. 
 
He sites as evidence the fact that 10 years ago, President Clinton ordered an investigation into gasoline prices remarkably similar to the one President Bush has just ordered.  And it found approximately nothing.  The first investigation was conducted by an administration whose Vice President was not still receiving income from Halliburton, and where many of the political appointees did not come direct from the energy sector.  In any case, I'm guessing that the current investigation will lead to the same conclusions (regardless of the veracity of same).
 
What boggles the mind, however, is the fact that no Democrat has come out and offered this as a fantastic reason to funnel money into fuel-conservation efforts, attempts to develop (or, heaven forbid, incentivize) development of alternative fuels, or even something as basic as a "turn your lights off" campaign--the likes of which I remember from early in my childhood.  Remember, "If you leave a room, turn off the lights."  A walk down any street in an office-building-rich section of a downtown anywhere in the country will remind us just how rarely lights are actually being turned off these days.
 
So, once again, let me thank the Democrats for looking an opportunity to show leadership and affect change squarely in the face, to only turn sheepishly away with tail between legs.  And D's think they're going to win over the American public during the midterms?  Keep dreaming.

Crisis, Conflict, or Ephemera?

You Decide.
 
The International Crisis Group has put out a good synopsis of the state of affairs in NE Asia.  (Their pieces are nearly always good.) 
 
It focuses on the rise of Nationalism in Japan, Korea, and China; and the impact it is having on their relations in the region.  The flashpoint for the most recent cacophony of saber-rattling stems from territorial disputes between Japan and S. Korea over a bunch of uninhabited rocks.  There are a lot of these disputes in the Greater East Asia Region. 
  • Dokdo/Takeshima--the present problem;
  • Senkaku/Diayu--between China and Japan over rocks between Okinawa and the mainland;
  • Kuriles/Northern Territories--one of the last WWII holdovers, between Japan and Russia;
  • The "everyone wants a piece islands" Spratley Islands;
  • Probably several more I don't know about.
No one seems to be paying much attention to the increasingly boisterous posturing and rhetoric coming out of Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo (as regard each other).  It might not make much difference over the next 5-15 years, as the current generations of leadership continue to be constrained by half-a-century of what constitutes gentility.  But when people my age start rising to power, I worry that economic considerations will start taking a back seat to the crescendoing drum-beat of nationalism, and that Asia is heading for some nasty conflicts.  This is where a strong (and deft) U.S. hand could help mitigate concerns, and negotiate settlements.
 
My proposal: Give all disputed territories and the surrounding exclusive economic zones as the sole purview of the Dalai Lama.  China might not like it, but at least it would give the poor guy some territory to call his own.
 

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Violence begets....what?

Oh yes.  This.  As if Israel's treatment of Palestinians (and vice versa) over the past 40 years wasn't lesson enough, we've got another case study in how not to resolve ethnic-politico-economic tensions.

Political Crises and the Consequences of Economic Growth

An experienced person whose judgment I respect recently offered the following as major concerns/crises facing the administration:
  • a wavering domestic political consensus to stay the course in Iraq;
  • the controversy over Rumsfeld's tenure;
  • Hamas' election;
  • Iran;
  • Russia's potential backslide toward regional strong-man status;
  • Stalemate on North Korea;
  • Oil price instability leading to domestic political foment;
  • Domestic immigration debate.
I don't disagree with any of these, but find it striking that the last two are, essentially, economic issues.  And the first two are, more or less, reflections of a President's popularity in the polity.  When people start questioning a President's decision making, it is because there is instability or uncertainty in their own lives and they are seeking reasons for it.  When issues like oil-price or immigration start mustering political force in the country, it is because the economy is slipping and people have little confidence in near-term economic expansion. 
 
But we've had a booming economy for 15 years now, so what's happening?
 
My guess is that the average person is feeling the crunch of the new (and newly competitive) global economy far more acutely than the executives and boards of the companies they work for.  Small business owners--accountants, IT consultants, machinists--are having to compete with Bangalore and Beijing in ways they've never had to.  So even though overall economic growth is high and productivity is rising, real wage rates (when accounting for inflation and reduction in benefits like health care) are declining. 
 
Apparently the old adage is true: people vote with their pocketbooks.  Regardless of what the broad economic numbers suggest, it appears that globalizations unequal distribution of benefits are starting to pinch at average American's bottom-lines.