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.

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?

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.]

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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."

 

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. 

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.

 

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.