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.

 

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.

Now that's a stretch

Far be it from me to criticize other countries, or their leaders, especially in a place where I know very little, but this one isn't getting through my five-hole.

 

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is making statements covered in the Washington Post threatening consequences to U.S. interests around the world, if the U.S. attacks Iran:

"The Iranian nation and its officials are peace-seekers and the Islamic republic would not invade anybody," the television quoted Khamenei as saying.

I'm sorry.  Did he just say, "the Iranian nation and its officials are peace-seekers"?

 

The same man whose country funds Hezbollah?  The country whose President said, " As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."? 

 

Yeah.  Peaceful.  Mmm hmm.

Weeping at what we Sow

President Bush, recognizing limited public support for his positions, is taking a new political approach: go after the low hanging fruit.

 

Stories in the Star Tribune has a story about the President seeking to calm American fears about rising gas prices.  The Washington Post describes the President's efforts to alleviate American's at-the-pump costs this way:

President Bush, faced with rising public discontent over high fuel prices, today directed his administration to help investigate possible price gouging and ordered a temporary halt to deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

According to the Star Tribune:

Bush is under pressure to do something about gas prices that have reached nearly $3 a gallon. In a new CNN poll, 69 percent of respondents said gasoline price increases had caused them personal hardship. Other polls suggest that voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue, and President Bush gets low marks for handling gas prices.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to reality.  Americans are becoming aware of the costs (literally) of excess dependence on a commodity with a limited supply.  For some reason the political talking heads, and the media pundits find American's response to rising gas prices completely normal and dare-I-say, logical.

 

I realize that each of us, and every country by extension, is a walking contradiction.  Apparently I'm sufficiently naive to be surprised at the depths, however.  Consider it this way:

America is the capitalist, driving force of the world economy.  It's the leader of the Free World.  We are the "Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave" as a bumper sticker explained to me yesterday.

 

But really, all we want is the safety and security of government intervention in markets; the stability of price-caps; and surety of whatever an American version of the Iron Rice Bowl would be.   Because otherwise, how could we possibly be A. surprised, or B. Alarmed, that oil prices are going through the roof.  It's not like it wasn't expected.  We've always known that Oil isn't renewable.  And we've known since at least the 1950s that supply would start to decrease at some point.  The only thing that might have caught us slightly off-guard is the present-day situation of surging demand driven by developing economies adaptation of our own petroleum reliant methods of economic development. (China and India creating automobile economies.)

 

Do I think there is price gauging and collusion going on?  Most likely.  Otherwise, wholesale prices (price per barrel) wouldn't hit $70 in the same quarter as industry posts unbelievably large profits ($10 billion).  But I don't think the gauging or collusion matter.  Because the market is willing to bear the costs.  There is grumbling, but not outrage. There is complaining, not campaigning. 

 

Americans are convinced (against evidence, empirical proof, and realistic considerations of the world) that bigger is better, and by-golly, we're going to pay for it.  So thank you, Mr. President, for taking our concerns so deeply to heart, but really, we're fine.  And prices will keep going up.

 

---

1 Billion Miles/Gallon

 

In other news, we've found a way to get 1 billion miles to a gallon.  Now all we need to do is miniaturize black holes (about 10,000 light years across) to get them to fit under the hood.  Engineers: you've now got a mission.  Let's get cracking!

The Senate, by Blogspot

I'm not sure, but I think Blogspot just got the contract for the Senate homepage.  Don't believe me?  Check it out.