A look back on China and the Olympics

August was China's great coming-out party
As summer ended, China was put in the global limelight. It had been chosen to host the 2008 Summer Olympics years ago, but this was it's time to shine. Expectations were built up; some dashed (political), some realized (Olympic).

Here are three political thoughts on the PRC that I jotted down as I enjoyed the splendor of the Olympic games:
The future
Perhaps even in 30 years China may drift away from one-party rule. China's economic change is moving at a rapid rate, prompting political change (moving much more slowly). China has been opening up over the past few decades, and one imagines this process will accelerate. On the flip side I cannot see the full transition to a multiparty state happening in less than 25 years.

Freedom
Since when were the opinions of people protesting for basic freedom irrelevant? The Tiananmen Square massacre gave us a chance to observe the total wrath of the Communist Party in China. Since when were the rights of any person outside of the central party in China respected? In a nation where tens of thousands are employed to control what information one can access on the Internet, freedom is obviously something in short supply.

Actions abroad
The Chinese government brought the criticism it has received lately for its foreign policy upon itself. In subverting the rights of its people, causing cultural genocide in Tibet and other areas, degrading the environment to a remarkable extent, and supporting genocidal regimes such as the one in Sudan, and propping up the Burmese junta, the PRC presents itself as one of the most negative actors in the world.

Here come the Olympics!

Featuring China's blatant disregard for the basic rights of man!

Just one more day until the '08 games begin.

More natural disaster

China's southwestern Sichuan province was hit by a major earthquake today...

One of the worst earthquakes in decades struck central China on Monday, killing nearly 9,000 people, trapping about 900 students under the rubble of their school and causing a toxic chemical leak, state media reported.

The 7.8-magnitude earthquake devastated a hilly region of small cities and towns. The official Xinhua News Agency said 8,533 people died in Sichuan province and more than 200 others were killed in three other provinces and the mega-city of Chongqing.

The death toll is likely to break 10,000.

The Chinese government has actually done a fairly good job responding to the post-earthquake humanitarian needs of its people. Conveniently trembles from the quake were felt in Beijing, so the government could not even attempt to mask the damage this earthquake has brought (a 1976 earthquake killed hundreds of thousands; the government attempted to cover it up).

Public discontent with China, and what to do about it

According to a Zogby poll,

70% Believe IOC Was Wrong to Award Olympic Games to China

and

48% believe U.S. political officials should not attend the opening ceremony due to China's poor human rights record

Feelings are even stronger in Europe, with the EU Parliament voting in favor of restrictions on attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing this summer due not only to China's overall human rights record but to its treatment of demonstrators in Tibet (FREE TIBET!). World leaders such as Britain's Gordon Brown and France's Sarkozy are refusing to attend the opening ceremony, and President Bush has been pressured to do so as well.

However not all are sure that a boycott would be a good thing.

71% believe any boycott of the Olympic Games in China by the U.S. would be hypocritical because the U.S. imports so many products from China and retains relatively close diplomatic ties with China that the U.S. has essentially endorsed China’s human rights record.

I'd say a total boycott of the Olympics would not be a good idea, but national leaders sitting out on the opening ceremony is a strong and righteous move, even if it is ineffective. Some say that we should not be mixing politics with sport, but China brought this upon itself with its atrocious conduct. Having visited China, I've witnessed firsthand the restrictions on fundamental liberties people face there, and the dire effects of the 'communist' government's policies. While nations should not isolate China outright, they should take a strong stand against tyranny and the mistreatment of citizens.

China crushes dissent in Tibet

Basically the rest of the world told China to respect human rights in response to the Tibet crackdown.

China and Sudan: bedfellows in evil?

In another piece of bad news coming from the Sudan region...

The Sudanese military is said to have renewed its aerial bombing campaign in the west of the Darfur region.
The joint United Nations African Union mission in Sudan, Unamid, said it had received reports of aerial bombings in the Jebel Moun area of the region.

A Unamid spokesman said there was grave concern for the safety of thousands of civilians in the area.

The reports came as China's envoy for Darfur, Liu Guijin, began a five-day visit to the country to push for peace.

China has come under increasing pressure to use its influence with Sudan to end the fighting.

Mr Liu will travel to Darfur on Tuesday, the fifth anniversary of the start of the conflict which has left 200,000 people dead and 2.5m homeless.

This visit comes after it was revealed that China sold more weapons — both light and heavy arms — to Sudan.

One can see China's influence within Sudan as the up-and-coming superpower tries its best to gain political support in the whole of Africa — in a way filling the void there — as well as taking advantage of the continent's energy resources. While China is helping development there, it is also overlooking major human rights abuses, and, in some cases, encouraging them.

Bejing's relationship with Khartoum, as well as its human rights abuses at home, has led such heavyweights as Stephen Spielberg to denounce China and call for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Try as it may to play down human rights fears, but there are supporters of human rights just as stubborn as the abusers — i.e. the Chinese government — themselves.

It's time to get serous with China about its support of the genocidal Sudanese regime. However, powers such as the US should not isolate the emerging giant in its race for economic supremacy or they will find themselves in a tough spot once China has the upper hand.

The other side of China

While my China trip was great — the people friendly, the culture vibrant, the food amazing (I've lost weight since being home), and the sights breath-taking — there were three major things that bothered me. My three Ps: poverty, politics (i.e. lack of political freedom), and pollution. None of those are unique to China; of course all three are present in many other nations around the world. But if I had to pick three negatives about that amazing country of 1.3 billion, it would be those.



The above is a picture of a large slum right near a portion of the Great Wall in Qinhuangdao. Bordering the sprawl was what looked like a huge factory, seen in the upper-left of the image.


Beauty and poverty, side by side; one, something China is eager to show off, the other is something that, under this government, goes unspoken.

Even in major cities like Beijing it was not uncommon to see a modern, expensive building right next to a shack. This is an adjustment I had to make from my American viewpoint that poverty and luxury are often walled off from each other — sometimes literally.

More China posts coming soon. Sorry for the delay!

Is education a measure for world power?

Considering post-industrial economic might is so influential in our globalized world, education is more important now than ever before (see this post). China, already a rising industrial power, is looking to become the next world leader in services that require an educated workforce — as are many other emerging and developed nations.

What defines a global "superpower"? In the past, it was the size of national armies or possession of nuclear weapons.

But now there is a more important (and peaceful) benchmark: the size and prestige of university systems.

And, while the US is still the global higher education "superpower", China will soon be knocking it off top spot if current trends continue.
...
China is now the largest higher education system in the world: it awards more university degrees than the US and India combined.

Hopefully as China's population becomes educated they will make a further push towards democracy. Under free conditions, education will surely flourish even more as more people are given the opportunity to study and the system becomes less corrupt and restricted, hopefully with available aid from the government.

I'm back!

Visiting China was a very eye-opening experience, but it's good to be back home. I'll post more about what I found China's culture and politics to be like soon; 16 hour plane rides don't exactly aid the blog post brainstorming and writing process. As much as I loved China, I am glad to now be back in a country where I can speak my mind — for the most part — and access whatever news websites I want to (i.e. the US).

Greetings from China!

So it turns out I am able to access the web... (see post)

I arrived in China late last night. I am currently in Qinghuandao and the time here is 3:37 PM. While the culture differences are for the most part dramatic, many things are the same; I think a lot of people have misconseptions about this vast nation. Wherever one goes in the cities, one observes growth and development.

Hopefully I will be able to post more politically-relevant content later, although I don't know when I will be able to use the computer next. Search engines and news websites are hard to fully access due to government censorship; it's a wonder Blogger works!

Anyway, that's enough for now.

Oh, and Musharraf has worsened his dictatorial hold on Pakistan.

Two week hiatus!

My trip to China
Today, Friday, I leave for my two week long trip to the People's Republic of China. I cannot assure any posts until the 16th of November. I don't know whether I will have the time or the internet access to blog while I am in China. (Check back a couple times during the later part of the trip and I may have some posts up courtesy of Beijing's internet cafes.)

My visit comes as the country is experiencing extreme economic growth, but also continuing practices that lead to environmental degradation and the violation of human rights and political freedoms. In addition China will be hosting the Olympics next summer.

At first I will be in the coastal city of Qinhuangdao; then ancient capital Xi'an to see the Terracotta Army and climb a mountain; then current capital Beijing to do and see a number of things. I'll post some of my experiences — including photos and analysis of the country's change and what I observed — after the trip.

Zai jian (再见) for now!

Burma's march for freedom continues

Following a dawn-till-dusk curfew yesterday, Burmese protesters braved bullets, tear gas, and police force as they continued their push for democracy today. 10,000 people — many of them monks — demonstrated that they aren't going to stop what looks to be the largest uprising in nearly two decades (see previous post).

As the international community gets more and more concerned and unsure, China, one of Burma's only allies, remains silent. America is urging China to talk some sense into the illegitimate, despotic government of Burma, also known as Myanmar. The UN is leading the campaign for talks on the issue, and has already sent an envoy to Burma — although it is not known whether he will be allowed into the nation.

Why are we so unsure about what will happen next in Burma? The military junta rules the country in secrecy; few know its workings and even fewer know its plans. These protests could result in positive change — but what will probably come out of them is either a brutal crackdown like the one in 1988 where thousands were killed, or a less extreme but still hostile response from the government. I doubt they would move to the negotiating table.

As far as international pressure goes, Russia and China are still insisting the events in Burma are internal matters. Interesting how two nations who intervene and meddle so much in other nation's affairs — mostly for their profit and often resulting in disastrous consequences — would be against using diplomatic force against the regime in Burma. I can understand the impulse some have against intervention, I often share those views, but not only would upholding human rights diplomatically not be a rash measure that disrespects national sovereignty; in today's globalized and interdependent world — where one collapsed state in one far region of the globe can affect the affairs of a nation a hemisphere away — nations need to insure that their neighbors don't collapse... for their own good! That is why we finally saw China move forward with North Korea. If they were too extreme in their punishment of their 'friend', there could be collapse; but if they let the regime go mad with nukes and provoke some of the world's largest powers, instability could also be imminent.

Self-interest aside, it is important to at least acknowledge the human rights struggle in Burma. China and Russia, two veto-welding members of the UN Security Council, are wreaking of hypocrisy, as we have also seen on the Iran issue and a medley of other geopolitical matters. The need for stability, but also human rights and political legitimacy, should be rallying cries for those who call for change in Burma, and the need for states like China to push for change. Perhaps if Russia and China were more democratic and free, their people could force their governments to not be so stubborn. Alas, the freedom of one nation's people can so easily affect the freedom of another's.

New Cold War spy scare

We already know that Russia's assertion of power — with its new, nuclear-strength megabomb; in the Middle East; the energy trade; the Arctic; and international relations in general — has been clumped into the notion of a 'new' Cold War. China has also been accused of hacking US government computers, in addition to its vast economic growth, heightened interest in what's going on in the world, and military claims (e.g. military expansion, anti-satellite missile launch). Who knew the two could be working in concert against American interest, employing espionage as much as they can? Well they are, says US National Intelligence director Michael McConnell.

Russia and China are spying on US facilities at close to Cold War levels, the head of US intelligence has warned.
...
US agencies are battling traditional state foes as well as terror groups, Mr McConnell told a congressional hearing.

Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails without a warrant.

"Foreign intelligence information concerning the plans, activities and intentions of foreign powers and their agents is critical to protect the nation and preserve our security," Mr McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee.

The Protect America Act allows the government to eavesdrop on foreign communications, even if the recipient is a person living in the US.

These powers are due to expire in January unless Congress extends them.

The White House wants them made permanent.

I agree that the maintenance of national intelligence is essential. But the fact that McConnell says the civil liberties-invading wiretapping program is essential to maintaining national security shows the priorities of America's national security services are mixed up. Never mind that the majority of cargo entering the US by sea isn't checked or scanned at all, of course that would be a superfluous and unnecessary security precaution [sarcasm]! They already have Eschelon and FISA; there is little need for additional spy powers, especially if they're complaining about other nations' spying and there are more constitutional, down to earth, and effective policies waiting to be implemented!

The White House has gone beyond using the omnipresent terrorist enemy to get what it wants, it's invoking Cold War-era scare tactics now! 'They're spying on us, so we better spy on ourselves, and them, and everyone. No need for a warrant either...'

So not only are the terrorists of the world out to get America, but in addition to its usual enemies, two world powers are snooping like crazy. Some excuse for the even more scary spy program, the NSA wiretapping scheme legalized (sadly) by Congress earlier this year by a piece of legislation with the propaganda-esque name of the Protect America Act. (It better protect something, because it sure doesn't protect the Constitution!)

It's as if the Bush administration wants another excuse, namely a national security threat or new 'war', to expand its already over-extended powers.

How China and America match up

Many are crying wolf with the rise of China in the political and economic spheres. And now it's making its military better. Not to worry: China is not even close to matching the world's current superpower, America, in military or monetary means. Listed below are some starkly-contrasting differences between China and the United States.

But first, here are some telling charts and graphics from a recent assessment of American power by The Economist.




Key military differences between China and the US
China

Less people to answer to (at home) for mistakes

More people to answer to (internationally) for mistakes

Up-and-coming global power, still emerging

Non-democratic, authoritarian, "communist" — but economically liberalized to an extent — state

Fast-growing military; seeks military, political, and economic roles in region and world

Known for posturing, e.g. surprisingly testing anti-satellite missile

Looks out for its (economic) interests

2.3 million active armed forces

Some lay doubts to its ability to become number one

Over 1/20th of world GDP and about 1/5th of its population.

United States

Peaceful state with a generally positive reputation, historically

Established world superpower, de facto

Democratic, representative republic

Government's democratic structure makes for a more cautious political policy

Higher military spending

Entangled in Iraq (especially), and Afghanistan, with troops elsewhere abroad

Because of stretched military, doesn't have capacity to fight another war of choice at this time

Web of alliances

Total of 1.5 million troops in the most advanced, high-tech, and strongest military ever to exist

Dismayed with military modernization and economic growth of China

Over 1/4th of world GDP and less than 1/20th of its population

Plenty of soft enemies and thorns on its power hold in the international community

He's tough on genocide, in theory

Bush has imposed more sanctions on Sudan. They probably won't help seeing as China is the only one — (a): China gets a lot of oil from Sudan, and (b): because of that it finances some business initiatives there, like it does with other African countries — who can really use economic leverage to steer the Sudanese government in the right direction, and refuses to do so mostly because of the economic repercussions. At least the US government is taking notice of the genocide.

Who knows if the sanctions are going to really accomplish their goals of pressuring Sudan's government, but at least someone of influence is caring about the genocide in Darfur. Who would've thought it would be the same guy who doesn't seem to care about innocent Iraqi civilians dying. Too bad also that America has used up so much of its diplomatic power — and tarnished the global perception of its policies — on pointless and unpopular excursions to the point where its influence on Khartoum and Beijing is diluted, that and George Bush is always less action, more rhetoric.

technorati tags: darfur+genocide, sudan, politics, bush, united+states, china, sanctions

Don't just blame the superpower

It's really easy to blame the United States — and just the United States — for a number of things. It's a perfect target. The world's sole superpower, the US makes foreign policy mistakes frequently. Of course it is also easy to blame the big guy: the most powerful, most senior, most vulnerable for criticism, etc. On the subject of greenhouse gas emissions, however, it might be a bit harder to put the whole of climate change blame on the US. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated that China could very soon overtake the US as the leading greenhouse gas emitter. Greenhouse gases play a role in global climate change.

The IEA says China will give our more CO2 than the US by 2010. Of course China is developing, less wealthy and more unable to enforce or create environmental standards, and just harder to blame than America. Even staunch free trade activists say that wealth leads to environmental enlightenment (and wealth comes from the exchange of goods, i.e. trade). China is no doubt being reckless in its massive industrial endeavors, but it does acknowledge climate change. But like the Sudan issue (generally), there is more rhetoric than action.

A big issue is the use of coal powered power plants. America also uses coal as a primary power source; coal is one of the dirtiest sources of power. Both economic giants must act now more than ever — especially the developed, wealthy US — to reduce coal dependence and enforce, not just promote, clean environmental policies. At the risk of sounding like a Green: we only have one planet, let's treat it wisely or future humans will pay the price. China and the United States are both huge countries with plenty of wind power potential, plenty of sun, and plenty of coastline and rivers for water-powered energy. I'd say its more cost effective to dish out some money for solar panels and wind turbines than to destroy your planet, thus destroying any economy. Why not pay the relatively small price now so we don't have to pay it later — when it will have a cost in currencies other than dollars, euros, yuans or yen.

When one considers all the factors, America has more of a responsibility to take action on its environmental policies, but China could save itself plenty of money (not to mention other things) if it acted sooner rather than later. At the risk of sounding like Al Gore: it's time for governments to act, now, on global warming. How does it hurt to not destroy our only habitat as much anyways?

I'll be covering alternative energy more soon, as well as free trade.

Cheney's attacks: Pakistan, China, and beyond

US Vice President Dick Cheney, recently wrapping up a three-day excursion to Australia, has sparked plenty of global controversy. First of all, he finally roughed up Pakestan a bit, which he visited following his rhetoric-spewing sessions with right-wing Aussie PM John Howard in the land down under. (Howard was the man who said if Barak Obama won the 2008 election for US president, it would be a 'victory for al-Qaeda'.) Australians are angry about Iraq, among other things, including the United States' illegal detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks. As a result, there were plenty of protests for the man charged with war crimes in Belgium, i.e. Cheney, during his stay in Australia. Why aren't Americans angry about the detention of US citizens, namely Jose Padilla?

On the Pakistan topic, Cheney said, or we think he said, it needed to do more in combating terrorism and, namely, the Taliban, which the government looks to be supporting. I hate to admit it, but, like with Russia, I agree with Cheney, or at least the comments coming from anonymous officials saying they speak Cheney's position and that he was tough with Pakistan's leader during the short visit.

NYT:

A particular source of concern is Mr. Musharraf’s peace accord with the tribal leaders, a deal giving them greater sovereignty that he has assured Mr. Bush would not diminish Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists. Mr. Bush noted in September that Mr. Musharraf had looked him “in the eye” and said, “There won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda.” Now, American officials contend those groups have gained ground.

One problem is the secretive nature of the visit and the lack of reporting thanks to the media-hating — unless the media is really supportive (e.g. post-9/11, pre-Iraq war) — White House. He attacks even his allies; whether democracy-supporting political foes at home or despotic US-friendly regimes abroad, Cheney seems to be lashing out at everyone — or so it seems.

Maybe Cheney's views aren't being represented by the mysterious mouthpiece(s). If that be the case I retract my agreeing with him to a small degree on the Pakistan issue. He was either pushed to pressure Pakistan, genuinely wanted to pressure Pakistan, or didn't actually pressure Pakistan — there are conflicting reports and views. His Russia comments, while somewhat true, were also cavalier for an executive of the world's most powerful state to say and only made foreign relations worse. Both Pakistan and Russia need to respect the will of the people, as well as not inflame terrorists or — in Russia's case — seemingly only help Iran with its nuclear program while claiming otherwise the whole time.

Pakistan is a dictatorship, plain and simple; and effectively so is Russia, or it is becoming one that is. Pakistan has been a long-time American ally in the 'war on terror', though it may only be an ally by name. The US gives hundreds of millions of aid to the Musharraf regime. Like with much aid, who knows where it goes.

During his Australia visit, Cheney warned China once again of its growing military. China is an up-and-coming world power, what does he expect? Throughout history military might has been key to the assumption of a state's power. When the United States embraced its industrial development, a military expansion followed. What peoples of a country do not want is a constant wartime economic and military attitude, one the US seems to adapted especially under President Bush. During wartime, parts of an economy grow, but so does the deficit. Generally peacetime economies try to defeat deficit, not enlarge it.

Cheney's comments on China focused strongly on its recent test of an anti-satellite missile and expansion of its army. He hinted at his belief that China's massive military expansion is not peaceful. His controversial comments have resulted in Beijing calling Washington a 'nosy neighbor'. (Wow, that's gotta hurt — leaning something you already knew about yourself.)

We know Cheney has directly attacked verbally Russia and China, but the Pakistan stance remains washy. In the past Cheney has been one for hypocrisies: strongly condemning one country for being undemocratic yet supporting another that is just as undemocratic or worse. That pretty much sums up this administration's policies toward its 'favorites' in the global realm, though Cheney is a but more pro-[what he calls] democracy than some in the White House. He will strike at about whoever he wants, and will not hold back. Not much has changed since the Cold War, methinks, and the 'war on terror' is just as vague as to the menace, and worse in the fact it can't be considered a war by any standards.

We know Cheney has openly attacked Russia and China for being undemocratic and a bully and for escalating militarily, respectively, but his stance on Pakistan remains washy. Putin of Russia has struck back and now China has called the US 'nosy'. Which state will be next, and for what reasons?

Update: I forgot to mention the attempt on Cheney's life when he visited Afghanistan following Pakistan.

technorati tags: dick+cheney, cheney, pakistan, china, foreign+policy, united+states, international+relations, news, in+the+news, china+military, pakistan+terrorism+democracy, russia

Chinese stocks tank, causing global chain reaction

BBC News

AP (via Forbes):

Stocks had their worst day of trading since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Tuesday, briefly hurtling the Dow Jones industrials down more than 500 points on a worldwide tide of concern that the U.S. and Chinese economies are stumbling and that share prices have become overinflated.

The steepness of the market's drop, as well as its global breadth, signaled a possible correction after a long period of stable and steadily rising stock markets, which had not been shaken by such a volatile day of trading in several years.

A 9 percent slide in Chinese stocks, which came a day after investors sent Shanghai's benchmark index to a record high close, set the tone for U.S. trading. The Dow began the day falling sharply, and the decline accelerated throughout the course of the session before stocks took a huge plunge in late afternoon as computer-driven sell programs kicked in.

The Dow fell 546.02, or 4.3 percent, to 12,086.06 before recovering some ground in the last hour of trading to close down 416.02, or 3.29 percent, at 12,216.24, according to preliminary calculations. Because the worst of the plunge took place after 2:30 p.m., the New York Stock Exchange's trading limits, designed to halt such precipitous moves, were not activated.

It was inevitable, in some way or another, not only because markets have their ups and downs, but also on account of the record highs the Dow Jones and other stock exchanges have reached recently. Only last year did Japan's Nikkei stock exchange nearly collapsed from massive trading, buying and selling.

Some questions I have (to consider):

Is this a mere technical glitch from the 'computer-driven' trading?

Is it an indicator of weakness of markets in Europe and China?

How will this incident affect the year to come?

Did Chinese stocks fall because of a natural up-down pattern, or was it a sign?

Did stock regulations help prevent an even worse episode?

Should we let the market be free and fluctuate on its own?

Is this a one-time kind of event, or will we be seeing more extreme falls or rises?

Is the US and its market too dependent on China (after all, China's markets triggered the chain reaction)?

Does this tie into dynamic globalization?

Ultimately: Was this a mere 'correction' in the inflated stock prices or an indicator of the global economy?

technorati tags: dow+jones, nyse, china, united+states, economics, global+economy, news, stock+market, stock+exchange

Crouching tiger, not-so-hidden dragon

China’s economy grew by a massive 10.7% in 2006, defying many expectations as well as frightinging some and making some update their clocks counting down to either China's being crowned as a superpower or the collapsing of China's economy and/or government. Who knows about 2007…

China’s economical boom has surprised many, on multiple counts. Too much focus is put on India 'catching up', how a democracy should eventually crush an autocracy. There is, of course, a dark side often not seen in the pages of the Wall Street Journal: the extreme poverty and lack of development in these two massive Asian countries. The statistics say yes, the theories say yes, but India has yet to show China who’s boss. China is, of course, more developed. A benefit to pseudo-communism? Probably not, but India needs to make a lot of their urban areas more acceptable to businesses.

So will China reign supreme? It is loony to think any global superpower (empire) — including the United States, I might add — can be a superpower forever. The United Kingdom has been a great power or higher for many hundreds of years; the Roman Empire, which had power on an enormous scale, lasted hundreds of years more, but still eventually crumbled. Technology, it is said, is key to power, as is society. I think three people who have written some interesting things on the topic are Niall Fergruson, historian, Joseph Nye, Jr., a political theorist, and Ian Bremmer, a political analyst. Fergruson specializes in empires; Nye in power in general; Bremmer has a ‘J curve’ theory (see image below) that’s intriguing.

A graph of Ian Bremmer's J curve. Credit: Bremmer's Eurasia Group.

Maybe, in this modern day when it seems impossible for any superpower to fully extend itself, let alone become a full-blown hyperpower or empire, it is best not to think of China as the next superpower. The next great power — if it is not already — yes, but ‘superpower’ might require too much speculation about China’s future. They have energy needs, and do not use their needs very efficiently. If North Korea sloppily collapses that may be a huge problem for China not because of communism — which neither state really practices — but because of the human problems; things like refugees. China itself also may face the problem of stability. China has defied Bremmer’s ‘J curve’ by finding a way across the curve (from closed to open), albeit slowly, without falling to the bottom into instability. Anyway that is a taste of China and its rise to prominence on the political and economical global scale. It goes without saying China will remain a major topic as we enter 2007; they will be hosting the Olympics in 2008 so it will be interesting to see how that affects the country’s openness.

I think the Chinese leadership is doing a surprisingly satisfactory job at managing their bulging economy, but they need to really work on the human rights (never forget: the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre). Until then, the best thing to do is wait and, as responsible human beings, do our best to help those in China without collapsing their society. If China can continue to walk the open-to-closed J curve tightrope, and manage to stay high on the stability axis, things could work out fine.


Song stuck in my head right now: Thom Yorke’s “Harrowdown Hill”. It has both a profound sound and meaning. Read more about the song’s interesting background in this Wikipedia article.

technorati tags: china, india, economics, j+curve, politics, international+relations, power, nye, fergerson, bremmer, superpower, global+power, news, in+the+news, politics, analysis

In the news: from China to Hillary

China launches satellite missile (Time, CFR, The Times)
Just remember the space defense program President Bush put into effect (BBC News) last year, the controversial reincarnation of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative 'Star Wars' (BBC News) space weapons program. Who knows where this is going to lead; Iran still has the international security's attention (security wise), but will China steal the limelight? Iran's president is not doing so hot politically, FYI. On the China issue, I have a feeling an interesting yet short-lived international relations battle will ensue but nothing too serious.
US attorney general defies (Think Progress) existing laws and constitutional precedent. Alberto Gonzales: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution." More analysis at Balkinization. See even more relating to the AG in this Slate article on this issue.
Democratic senator from New York announces her run for the US presidential elections in 2008. Hillary Clinton is so far ahead in polls for Democratic presidential candidates, but that is no guarantee (NYT) she will win.
Now that the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has gotten back $100 million of his country's tax dollars from Israel, more peace talks (BBC News) are under way between Syria, Israel, and Palestine — including between Hamas and Fatah, two leading Palestinian political groups (different talks, obviously). But don't get your hopes up, remember a while back? However, this is an interesting Haaretz story on Israel-Syria peace talks; will Syria get their Golan Heights land back? Let's hope.

technorati tags: hillary+clinton, 2008+election, politics, news, in+the+news, gonzales, alberto+gonzales, habeas+corpus, current, abbas, palestine, israel, syria, china, space+missile, china+missile, presidential, iran