wonderingstar

To get some perspective on national priorities, here's BBC news from 10 years ago:
*****Quote******
"7 March 1998

China to Boost Infrastructure Spending

There's been a warning from the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, that the effects of the Asian financial crisis will hit the country later this year.

China has remained largely unscathed by the crisis, but President Jiang -- speaking to parliamentary deputies -- said its looming impact on the national economy could not be underestimated.

China is committed to radical economic reform in the state sector, which will lead to millions of job losses, and President Jiang again warned that redundant workers must be cared for.

Meanwhile, the Central Bank governor Dai Xianglong has said China plans to spend one trillion dollars over the next three years on infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy.

The money is to be invested in building roads and ports, bridges and power plants."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/62954.stm
****End Quote****

China's economy has grown enormously since 1998. Not without creating new problems like pollution, mind you, but the growing economy puts the Chinese in a position to address them. China spends only about one-tenth of what the U.S. spends on military purposes.

We need some of those same priorities over here.

In my view, this is one reason why the neo-cons like to demonize China so much -- Americans might catch on to how successful public spending on your own people's needs can be. posted 06/23/2008 at 17:15:09

Jared, THANK YOU - this is the most important decision facing our nation. Our $700 billion - $1 trillion annual spending on non-productive military purposes (when our government only collects $2.6 trillion in revenues) is an insane misallocation of resources for a peaceful democratic republic and saddles our children with the insecurity of debt burden tomorrow for today's false sense of security.

We should be reordering our priorities, and spending money more effectively on job-creating infrastructure that enhances productivity and our quality of life.

Our national security is vital, but it is not the end-all and be-all. How many families would spend over a third of their annual income on a home security system every year, while neglecting plumbing, transportation, health, education and food needs?

We need to hold our politicians' feet to the fire on this: people need to understand that right now, our worst enemies are ourselves and our collective failure as a nation over the past decade to pay attention to our own problems, and in particular our aging and crumbling infrastructure. posted 06/23/2008 at 16:44:37

Dr Campbell

Thank you for your post, and sharing the results of your research. I particularly noted this statement:

"More than 100,000 of us die each year by taking drugs prescribed to us. Add to that the deaths due to doctors' errors and the medical system itself becomes the third leading cause of death."

It reminded me of Ivan Illich's Medical Nemesis which I read in the 1980's. Illich introduced the topic of "Iatrogenesis", or physician-caused disease, and "medicalization", the process by which health or behavior conditions come to be defined and treated as medical issues.

http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Nemesis-Ivan-Illich/dp/0394712455
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-iatrogenesis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization

We now see this scourge of medicalization advancing, not abating, in the years since Illich wrote his book.

Turn on any TV and see a slew of commercials defining new forms of illnesses for which one should take a commercial drug.

Thank you for looking beyond conventional medicine to seek to restore real health. posted 07/01/2008 at 12:54:38

Rebecca - thanks for this very interesting report.

Conventional wisdom says that innovation only occurs with strong intellectual property right protection. The opposing view is that IP rights protections confer monopoly profit rights to the owners that stifle innovation. See "Creation Myths" http://www.reason.com/news/show/28703.html

China is often criticized for lack of IP rights protection. Yet this report shows that there is a lot of innovation there.

Assuming your report is true, this would suggest that either (a) China does have sufficient IP rights protection since there is innovation or (b) conventional wisdom is wrong.

The "passion" you observe in the innovators seems to cut against conventional wisdom. In an idealized socialist society (like in a idealized Christian society), people are encouraged to do things for the good of others whether or not you get monopoly profit. Your description of Chen's dream "to make people's surfing live (online) better and better all the time" illustrates this ideal. Innovators will do their thing whether or not they are given monopoly profit incentive.

On the other hand, China has already put in place laws on IP rights, but enforcement is generally weak but improving. Is the current IP rights regime "just right" for promoting innovation? It would be interesting to hear a future report on this.

Thanks again. posted 06/16/2008 at 17:38:27

This article has some relevant perspectives on China's push towards alternative energy, esp. windfarms:

"GREEN FINANCE - Sun setting on foreign investors' green dream"
http://www.asiamoney.com/default.asp?Page=7&PUBID=185&ISS=24613&SID=703366&SM=ALL&SearchStr=china%20alternative%20energy

An interesting quote:
***********
"For China, the development of wind power projects has been especially pronounced. A report co-authored in 2006 by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and Greenpeace found that the country had built 61 wind farms, from Guangdong to Mongolia, which when connected to the electricity grid can collectively produce more than four gigawatts of energy. But foreign investors are not getting a look in...."

"The reason is simple. China persists in tendering its new wind projects and awarding them to bidders that offer the lowest delivery price per megawatt of energy. But as HSBC energy banker Jonathan Drew explains, the government also demands that local power companies source more of their power from renewable sources. Meeting these quotas is more important for the local firms than making money on the investments, so they have been bidding at levels that more commercially-orientated international corporates can't match."
********

In other words, the Chinese government requires local utilities to source more renewable energy even if it's not profitable.

In this case, the government appears to be placing environmental policies ahead of utilities' profits.

(post to be continued) posted 06/14/2008 at 02:42:20

(comment re: "Green Finance" continued)

Given the Chinese government policy which effectively subsidizes alternative energy production at the expense of utility profitability, if I were a shareholder in the Chinese utility and looking only at investment return, I'd say this is a bad policy.

In the U.S., the utility would complain to its congressmen and congresswomen and hire lobbyists and PR firms and fund think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute to produce research on why freeing the utility sector from excessive government regulation would promote innovation and more alternative energy usage, not less.

In China, the utilities are not permitted to put profits ahead of the public interest, as defined by the government, which needs to deliver the goods (rising living standards) or they might get kicked out of power. What a terrible government they have.

Americans think we have a better system. The Chinese think they have a better system. Time will tell which one works better.

In the meantime, let's try to be rational and work together with the Chinese on this. We only have one world and hopefully we'll be living together on it for a very long time. posted 06/14/2008 at 02:25:45

My B.S. radar lit up like a Christmas (er, holiday) tree when I read:

1. Wolf and Smith are Republicans.

Should we take on faith what they say and the spin they are putting on it?

2. Wolf and Smith talk about just a handful of incidents since 2006, while the Pentagon is "scanned or attacked by outsiders more than 300 million times each day".

We have no statistics on how often Congressional or other U.S. governmental sites are "scanned or attacked" or where they come from.

According to this article, the countries responsible for the most "intrusions" are the 2 Koreas and the U.S.

http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry2391.html

According to this article, "the United States generates more malicious computer activity than any other country in the world" and "about a third of all the computer attacks recorded world wide originated within the United States, while China generates about 10%."

http://attrition.org/errata/statistics/stats-44.html

There are over 200 million internet users in China.

The hackers in this case could just have easily been students or teen hackers - we don't know.

Much of what Wolf and Smith are saying here is mere speculation about the motives and consequences of these attacks.

But of course, many people will read this and assume that Wolf and Smith's allegations are true.

Let's be careful before jumping to conclusions.

Crying Wolf? posted 06/12/2008 at 10:31:48

ibsteve2u, you wrote

"Free trade" unaccompanied by fair and balanced labor and environmental laws gives them each the only tool that could possibly achieve that goal. Had such laws accompanied Clinton's trade treaties, the Chinese people would have been instantly promoted into a democratic and fair society that insisted on the right to choose their leaders - exactly what China doesn't want."

I think the issue is a little more complex than that. China has spent several years drafting its new labor law which includes significantly higher protections for workers (including a public comment period which drew over 200,000 comments). However, the new law is criticized for driving away business investment (without which there would be few new jobs). Who is right? This all remains to be seen.

This linked article (including the comments) gives you a bit more of the story:

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3824 posted 06/11/2008 at 12:11:01

Blutus - why is it that any discussion about global politics in American always winds up leading to using the military? Yes, spend more of my tax dollars on pointless saber rattling. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032608b.html.

Why don't we send the Pacific Fleet home so our Navy men and women can spend some time with their families, and maybe help do some repairs to our crumbling neighborhoods? Protect their families and friends homes from foreclosure? Where are your priorities? posted 04/01/2008 at 19:01:34

Rule of Law, I don't know why you say my views are "bogus". Take a look at this:

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html

"The purpose of the program at this stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, .....

3. Background and Objectives....

....The [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] will stay in direct touch with Dharmsala and will conduct political correspondence with Tibetan refugee groups [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] to create an increased Tibetan national political consciousness among these refugees."

We spent $1.7 million a year in the 1960's to do this. What a waste of money!

Why did we have to create a "Tibetan national political consciousness?"

During the 1960's when our cities were burning from race riots, could the money have been better spent ? Foreign humanitarian aide, okay, but foreign political propaganda?

Am I being a China propagandist to say that I would rather our government use the money to address American problems at home?
Is it any wonder that the Chinese are suspicious of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile movement?

You could say this was all cold war thinking, that we aren't doing it today anymore, but aren't we doing the same thing by supporting Tibetan independence? Are we citizens just believing our own government's propaganda? That's the question I'm trying to answer.... posted 04/08/2008 at 00:39:14

Cynara, the other perspective I'm coming from is that at the end of the day, we only belong to one race - the human race.

We celebrate our diversity of religions and cultures, but we don't do this justice by separatism and segregation, for the most part. The solution for racial and ethnic conflict in the U.S. and other places is through integration. Yes, it can be done in clumsy ways that may create more anger and discontent - like busing. It can be prevented in many ways, like gerrymandering. But at the end of the day, the best hope is that people just try to get along, and our leaders have the wisdom to give us social solutions that reduce unnecessary conflict. I hate listening to FoxNews and O'Reilly. I see the same solution to China and Tibetan ethnic conflict. There are a huge diversity of language and culture and dialects in China. In case you did not know, even among Han Chinese there is a huge diversity of history and dialect and culture. And we do Chinese Tibetan relations an injustice if we go down the route of separatism and segregation (which some people want). posted 04/07/2008 at 23:57:50

Cynara, we're clearly operating on a different set of assumptions about Tibetans. I'm basing my views partly on this: "How Repressive Is the Chinese Government in Tibet?" http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=2732.

"It is true, he said, that there have been significant inroads of Chinese culture into Tibet since the forcible takeover in 1959, but there has been an even greater influx of Western culture. "By not defining cultural genocide the Tibetan exiles can label any changes from 1959 as cultural genocide, although many of these changes could be expected to have occurred without the issue of cultural genocide arising.""

"On claimed declines in Tibetan population, [Barry Sautman] cited articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000. "What I think these articles show is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. ....There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."
There are some countervailing comments there by other scholars, I'll let you cite them. You gotta take what the exiles say with a big grain of salt because they have their own agenda. posted 04/07/2008 at 23:47:49

Regarding Teng Biao, Hu Jia and Chen Guangcheng, in my view, foreigners can help China by using the same arguments that these activists themselves use - Chinese society needs to follow and enforce Chinese law.

In my view, it would hurt the efforts of these activists if foreigners use their "insider" critiques of the Chinese government as a basis for "China-bashing" and advocating breakdown of relations. These would be moving backward, not forward. So advocating boycotts of any kind (whether economic or sporting or cultural or political) would tend to worsen the civil rights environment in China.

There is also the danger of "human rights imperialism". Google this term and decide for yourself.

In the U.S., there is the danger that demonizing China on human rights will lead to a breakdown in relations, and a rise of jingoism. It's happened before.

Personally I believe in building strong economic, cultural, educational, charitable, and yes, sporting ties, to create stronger civil institutions in China as the best way to promote civil rights there. For example, the Strategic Economic Dialogue is very important for both Americans and Chinese (http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/us-china/) and should be supported. For these reasons the Olympics should be supported fully.

I believe Teng Biao, Hu Jia and Chen Guangcheng. I don't believe all the exaggerations, half-truths and propaganda from the Tibetan exiles. I don't agree with calling for boycotting the Olympics or interfering with the torch relay. posted 04/07/2008 at 20:31:49

Rule of Law, the activities of Teng Biao, Hu Jia and Chen Guangcheng are admirable. Teng Biao and Chen Guangcheng are both civil rights lawyers who are reforming the system from within, using legal means, to promote the Rule of Law in China. They aim to institutionalize civil rights in China by basing their activities on Chinese law. They challenge the system to put the muscle behind the skeletal legal framework which China has built in the last 30 years of reform.

They have allies within the Chinese government who are seeking to create a strong civil rights system.

Most foreigners often do not understand the central vs local government conflict. The U.S.1960's Civil Rights Movement involved (mostly) abusive local government, with the feds being asked to extend Constitutional rights to the States. The Chinese central government is generally better than the often inept and corrupt local government. But the problems are too many and will take the central government decades to manage. Think Tammany Hall, Chicago Daly Machine and New Orleans police, multiplied by 1,000 - how to solve them all at one time? Not sure popular voting will do it.

These reformist activities should be supported by the international community to the extent that it promotes positive change in China. Foreigners need to be very sensitive that well-meaning "help" doesn't set back the civil rights movement by strengthening the hand of hardliners. posted 04/07/2008 at 20:15:57

marko77, to be fair, it is deplorable that traditional Tibetan culture loses out. But isn't this an issue generally of globalization, modernity, and rising incomes, and technological change?

So Western tourists who go to Dharamsala to imbibe the mysteries of Tibetan Buddhism have no impact at all on traditional Tibetan culture?
The Tibetan exiles who have learned English and become activists, wearing blue jeans, like rock music and using mobile phones - this is not evidence of "destroying" traditional Tibetan culture? I'm sure there was a whole lot of that in the traditional theocratic feudal society of pre-1959 Tibet. Why is this not considered "cultural genocide?" Western culture is sweeping the globe, and China as well. Is this not also cultural genocide? Would you say no to Starbucks in Tibet? How about a 5-star hotel?

We worry about the dying out of all kinds of traditional cultures in the U.S. Mississippi Delta Blues is an important cultural tradition, but preserving it shouldn't be an argument to stop economic development efforts in the deep South. The issue is appropriate sensitivity which is appropriate to discuss.

The reality is that culture evolves in the face of changes in technology. Your view is positively Luddite. No, actually, its racist and elitist: Get me away from the "tacky Chinese tourists". Ewww! What if I wrote "tacky white American tourists" should stay out of New Orleans? posted 04/06/2008 at 20:26:07

Rule of Law, regarding your point of "only source" and "closed society", I agree with your premise, but would counter that it does not apply to China today.

The reality is that China is far more open about information than most Americans think, and far less open than it should be.

I point you to this excellent article by James Fallows: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall and interview, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/fallows-china-censorship.

"I think most Americans would be amazed by the difference between their standard image of the Chinese "regime" and what day-to-day life here is like. Most Americans think this is an all-powerful central government; most of the time, it looks like a relatively weak, remote titular leadership trying to tell the equivalent of warlords (provincial governors) what they should do. Most Americans think China is a thoroughgoing dictatorship that can squash its critics or tell them to shut up.

In fact, most studies of Chinese government suggest that it needs to maintain a kind of "legitimacy," even without elections, both by keeping living standards up for most of its people and by not oppressing people any more than it thinks it needs to." posted 04/06/2008 at 02:53:40

2B.

"The deplorable human rights situation in Tibet added weight to this conclusion. But in recent years, as a result of speaking with many Chinese, both in China and overseas, and reading a wide variety of publications by Chinese authors (both inside and outside the PRC), my inescapable conclusion is that they do sincerely believe the party line. This is true of most overseas Chinese, as well as residents of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. Their commitment to its veracity is as strong as that of the Tibetans to their own paradigm, and any problemization of it is generally viewed as dangerous, the crumbling edge of a slippery slope that leads to the destruction of the certainties that sustain the Chinese worldview and the Chinese state.

The certainty with which most Chinese accept their "regime of truth" with regard to Tibet should give pause even to the most passionate Tibet activist. Chinese people commonly assert that they have a valid perspective that has largely been ignored by a world that is either ignorant of the facts or deliberately misrepresents Chinese actions in Tibet. They claims that trying to present their case to pro-Tibet foreigners is like arguing with a brick wall -- exactly the experience their opponents have with them. In this situation, it seems likely that both sides will continue to argue at cross-purposes, and it is difficult to imagine a resolution in light of the incommensurability of their respective premises and sources of evidence." posted 04/05/2008 at 13:30:27

Rule of Law, Sorry, part 2 of my 3-part post did not upload for some reason, rendering my entire post somewhat incomprehensible, so your incredulity is understandable.

The 250-word comment limit is a real pain! Here again is Part 2 (now split into 2A and 2B) of the 3-part (now 4-part) post.

2A. ESWN has summarized some of Powers' conclusions and quoted a few paragraphs in this thought-provoking essay called "History Textbooks in China" -see http://zonaeuropa.com/20041209_1.htm. This gives an interesting perspective on the long-standing intractability of the China-Tibet historical debates.

From Powers' book, as quoted by ESWN:

"When I [i.e., John Powers] first began this study, my background in Tibetan studies mostly consisted of philosophical and doctrinal studies with refugee Tibetan lamas. During my tenure in graduate school and in subsequent research trips to South Asia, I lived in Tibetan communities and developed friendships with a number of Tibetans. In this situation, my exposure to Tibetan history was heavily conditioned by their perspective, and I implicitly assumed that the authors of Chinese versions of Tibetan history particularly those related to the takeover of Tibet in the 1950s, must be aware that they were lying, distorting, and fabricating and that the Tibetan case for independence was so compelling that anyone with even the slightest exposure to the facts would reach that conclusion." posted 04/05/2008 at 13:27:11

3. (cont'd)

From John Powers' book:

"One striking aspect of the competing narratives is their incommensurability. There is no real debate between proponents of the Chinese paradigm and those who accept the Tibetan exile version of Tibetan history.....Much of the discourse resembles a political rally in which competing factions yell slogans at each other from behind barriers that physically separate them....Their competing models resemble the situation Alasdair MacIntyre has described in his characterization of contemporary discourses on morality:

The rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds. Hence it seems that underlying our own position there must be some non-rational decision to adopt that position. Corresponding to the interminability of public arguments there is at least the appearance of a disquieting private arbitrariness. It is a small wonder if we become defensive and therefore shrill." posted 04/03/2008 at 18:45:09

Rule of Law, you seem like an intelligent, well-meaning sort, who has gotten a little exasperated with all the responses from left and right field your posts have generated, and as a result have fallen back on disbelief that the responses you are getting are authentic.

Regarding your statement of "historic documents that prove beyond any doubt", I'm afraid your assertion doesn't cut it. I'm not going to try to argue the other side to "prove" that point. I will just refer you to the following:

John Power's "History As Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China" (http://www.amazon.com/History-As-Propaganda-Tibetan-Republic/dp/0195174267) is a scholarly work (Oxford University Press 2004) that examines the historical arguments by the different sides. I haven't read it, and apparently few people have, as there are no customer reviews at Amazon.com.

(cont'd in next post) posted 04/03/2008 at 18:35:06

So if the majority of people in the Southern States wanted to secede from the Union, they should have the freedom to do so? posted 04/02/2008 at 20:17:28

Rule of Law wrote "Tell me you really didn't use the word, Negroes--twice? Even in Beijing (is that what you're calling it this year?) they must know better than that."

Yes I used the word "Negroes" within a direct quote taken from the Moorish Nation website. Quoting something does not mean agreeing with the usage. posted 04/02/2008 at 20:14:26

cynara, you are partly correct - my point is that our MSM cannot be trusted because they mostly act as stenographers as Stephen Colbert said. "You say it, we write it down" (that may not be the exact quote but that's how I remember it).

I mention Iraq because our media was complicit in promoting the case for war, which has been disastrous for our country - politically, economically, morally (and even worse for Iraqis).

Events like the Jessica Lynch story and the statue of Saddam being pulled own were later reported to be staged. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm.

PR Firms are hired to stage these events and shape our opinions.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war

This piece says what I'm trying to get at. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/17/media.davidkelly.

I used to believe our press, and then give it the benefit of the doubt. Now I question everything.

Regarding the Chinese government news control - we all know it's presented with a propaganda purpose - but at least its obvious. Further, it would be incorrect to say it is 100% false, particularly if one can verify (or at least triangulate) where the truth is elsewhere.

I don't know the answer either. But I'm searchin' for it. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:50:31

cynara wrote "all people have the right to self determination, here, in Iraq, and China."

If you want to support the right of self determination, then please support the Moorish Nation, who are "uniting and nationalizing over 40 million indigenous people of North America under the Moroccan Banner. The Nation of Moorish-Americans calls all free Negroes of the African race to reclaim their nationality. Free Negroes of the African race are not technically "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.thenationofmoorish-americans.org/bey.htm

From this perspective, people like Obama are propagandists for the U.S. government who want to keep the rest of the minority population enslaved under an unjust system.

Why do most Americans of good will prefer to support someone like Obama calling for racial harmony and reconciliation? Don't you think Chinese are entitled to racial harmony and integration rather than separatism and segregation?

Why don't you support the Moorish Nation's aims? It's closer to home. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:21:14

Yes, DougMontreal, anything critical of the China-bashing is called PRC propaganda, even if it is true, just like voices against the Iraq war were labeled as Saddam's propaganda.

Meanwhile, Iraqi exiles like Chalabi were lionized in the media as "the George Washington of Iraq" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2DA1F3AF936A25751C0A9629C8B63.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.... posted 04/01/2008 at 20:06:08

Rule of Law, thanks. I appreciate the open-mindedness in your response. This opinion piece has more research, with links.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/03/tibet-uprising.html.

Note that Brendan O'Neill also came out strongly against the Iraq War back in 2003. This doesn't mean he's right now, but the guy has big cojones and good instincts in cutting through the media fog. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:33:14

Rule of Law, I can't agree with you more about Bush, Harvard, and our ("It's just a Goddamned piece of paper") Constitution. Surprised the Christian Right did not go after him for that remark, it was reportedly said in a room full of GOP'ers (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml). Then again, with the kind of leadership we've had in the last 7 years, perhaps our Constitution is damned. posted 03/31/2008 at 10:22:53

Rule of Law, "More sophisticated" meaning more worldly, having had exposure to a diverse set of people and experiences that would make them better prepared for leadership. Arouet called China a "gerontocracy" which suggests being out of touch due to old age.

These guys' bios suggest they are pretty savvy: See http://a-louie.com/content/view/44/2/ and http://a-louie.com/content/view/46/2/. Keep in mind that in Taiwan's history, an appointed leader of similar background, Lee Teng-hui, who had a Ph.D. in economics, took pivotal steps towards democratization in the 1990's. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Teng-hui. This makes it important to pay attention to what these people do (and supporting the positive steps they do make) instead of having knee-jerk anti-Chinese-government reactions. posted 03/31/2008 at 10:11:45

Arouet, please stay on top of what is happening in China. It may have been a gerontocracy 20 years ago, but these days, the new leadership is younger and more sophisticated: "The main outcome of the 17th Party Congress is that it selected two younger leaders and these leaders will succeed Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao in 5 years....54 year old Party Secretary of Shanghai Xi Jinping and 52 year old Liaoning Party Secretary Li Keqiang. Both of them belong to the so-called 5th generation; both of them went to the countryside during the Cultural Revolution and worked there as farmers for many years. Both of them studied law and both of them hold Ph.D. degrees." See http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2007/1022li.aspx. How old is McCain? posted 03/30/2008 at 16:14:05

Brendan O"Neill at Spiked says it all:
Using Tibet to settle scores with China
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4880 posted 03/30/2008 at 15:56:09

Before the economic reforms started in 1978, China had a centrally-planned economy where there was nothing to buy. All basic necessities were rationed. Anyone going into private business was arrested and sent to reeducation camp. It was truly a bleak totalitarian region. Fast forward, 30 years later, people like Tom Doctoroff have helped to contribute to constructing a competitive market economy, where consumers now have a high degree of choice over what products to buy, and there is now a need for companies to do advertising. (Perhaps you can be cynical and say it's substituting one form of propaganda (government) for another (multinationals) but that's another story.) When reforms began, there was no private economy - zilch. Today, about 70% of China's economy is in the private sector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China). That means, more mom and pop noodle shops and Starbucks. Why are you comparing Tom's livelihood with the "average Chinese"? What are you, some kind of communist? Besides, the Chinese government is watching out for the average worker, to the multinationals' chagrin: (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin and http://www.consultcareer.com/newsdetails.aspx?adv_id=33 on China's new employment law, which is on par with laws in France and Germany). posted 03/30/2008 at 15:42:39

Maybe they have a negative view of us because we are now spending so much more of our country's resources on the military than any other country. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures and http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941. Our national priorities are misplaced and need to be refocused on rebuilding our infrastructure and education. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:12:38

Mary, I appreciated your post because of your obvious sincerity. The world needs more idealistic people like you.

However, your post could have been better-informed about China today.

You wrote, "bringing about change in China sounds like something you have to be seventeen years old to believe. Personally I gave up on China after Tiananmen Square."

You know, Tiananmen was almost 20 years ago. An economist has observed that as much change happens in 1 year in China as happens 4 years in America. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=aVGMdPlSsRvE.

Most Chinese I talk to would say, life in China can be difficult, the government needs to improve, and China has a long way to go on the road to development, but life is immeasurably better today than 20 years ago. Like it or not, the changes were brought about by the present government which has focused on reforms, decentralization, marketization and intra-party democracy. This reality is woefully missing in your posting.

As a cure, try ESWN, which translates Chinese blogs and media:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200803c.brief.htm#011.

To be blissfully ignorant just could be playing into the hands of these folks: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442, and that would be truly ironic. posted 03/27/2008 at 11:55:39

What would I tell a recent college graduate? Go abroad and work overseas. Teaching English is one of the easiest jobs to find for native English speakers. If one is business-minded, pick a rapidly growing emerging market country (like China or Vietnam) where you can meet local entrepreneurs and business executives who want to learn English. One could parley a teaching job into a job with a local company where you can learn something about business from the ground up. Asia is full of successful North Americans who went there in their 20's and became wildly successful, like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Zeman. Australians prize their "gap year" experience. Young Americans would do well to emulate this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_year#Gap_year_among_American_students. Who knows, you might wind up being a VJ for MTV, or even a soap opera star: http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring06/032859.htm. Get out and broaden your mind and experiences. Check out this Gap Year site for ideas: http://www.gapyear.com/plan_your_trip/. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:52:38

Thank you for posting this important article. But the picture above shows Nepalese police instead of Chinese police, which is confusing. It would be like illustrating an article about U.S. race riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States) with a picture of Mexican police - how exactly would that advance our understanding? Oh, I forgot....Asians all look alike. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:26:28

Heath, this is probably the most important blog post I've seen on Huff Post in the last week, but I'm afraid it's not as sexy as some other posts so I only see a handful of comments. Are we really spending $1 trillion out of 2008 revenues of $2.6 trillion on military? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008). Something is very screwed up about our national priorities. I vote for the candidate who will spend the biggest portion of our military budget on rebuilding our crumbling bridges and infrastructure. Let's get some of those Blackwater guys behind a backhoe and build something we can all use instead of guarding the haves from the have-nots. posted 03/24/2008 at 02:00:59

How McCarthyite all this red-baiting sounds. More signs the neocons are leading us towards a new Cold War with China. Think of all the military contracts to be generated if we can push out the Chinese and turn Tibet into another Afghanistan....that whole Olympic boycott in 1980 worked like a charm. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:56:57

kirksong, no offense, but how about taking a visit to China and seeing how true what you say is. Chinese have huge amount of freedom these days "to speak their mind, practice religion openly and move about freely." This is 2008, not 1975. (for example, see The Promotion of the Bible in Contemporary China and Evangelization http://www.hsstudyc.org.hk/en/tripod_en/en_tripod_144_03.html) What you say sounds as ridiculous as saying that Blacks in America do not have the freedom to speak their mind, practice their religion openly and move about freely. This might have been true in 1955 (see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,861607,00.html) but for the most part it's no longer true today. It would not be siding with Chinese propagandists to admit some reality into your views of China - your comments would have much more credibility if they did not sound so uninformed. If you do not read Chinese, Roland Soong's well-regarded EastSouthWestNorth (ESWN) blog provides a translation of various Chinese language media and blogs. Here's his posting about Chinese bloggers on the Tibetan riots: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200803c.brief.htm#008. This is not to say that China does not have a long way to go, but it been steadily going in the right direction.

posted 03/24/2008 at 12:46:52

Hopalongpoppyseed wrote, "If not casting the first stone means failing to call out evil, then count me out of such a milk-toast Christian hermeneutic." You misinterpret. When you remove the plank from your own eye, you are better able to see the speck in your neighbor's eye. If you take care of the evil in your own house, you will be in a better position to help your neighbor take care of the evil in your neighbor's house. posted 03/24/2008 at 02:31:06

heretical_eggs is correct that the Tibet situation is nothing like Taiwan. In Taiwan there are at least two groups, one which believes in political reunification with China (but on Taiwan's terms) and the other which would like independence. The genesis of the first group are exiles from the 1949 Communist revolution and the second are the locals that were living in Taiwan before the exiles arrived. The first group brutally crushed the second (who had been living under Japanese rule for 50 years) when they first arrived, and established a military dictatorship while they planned military counter-attacks to retake the Mainland. The U.S. supported this first group with military aid and sales from the 1950's to the present day. Martial law prevented the emergence of political opposition. One of the Taiwan presidents Chiang Ching-guo (who was Soviet-educated and a hated enforcer against the second group) lifted martial law in 1987 and is now seen as a hero to many today). Meanwhile an export-oriented economy from the 70's onward created an island of entrepreneurs. The second group suffered under the rule of the first group, but also prospered, and their children became well-educated and eventually, pretty well-off. Taiwanese (from both groups) are some of the wealthiest people in Asia. China has presented both problem and opportunity for Taiwan. The political separation meant that Taiwan avoided the excesses of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but since China has opened up, Taiwan has also lost some of its economic oomph. These days, there are many Taiwanese living in the Mainland - 500,000 Taiwanese (out of a population of 20+ million) live in the Shanghai region alone. The presence of Taiwanese workers and Taiwanese investment is welcomed on the Mainland. The economies of both countries are heavily linked, and getting closer by the day. The younger generation increasingly wants to put the political baggage of the earlier generation behind them and get on with life. This means ending the political discord with China. posted 03/22/2008 at 22:14:24

I used to be supportive of autonomy for the Tibetans, heard the Dalai Lama speak, shook hands with him and got a blessing from him (this was back in the 80's before he became a rock star), taken part in a 'Free Tibet' rally (even got a good glimpse of Richard Gere rallying the crowd!) and generally had a high opinion of Tibetans as a kind of people who deserve the special attention and protection of the world. However, in recent days as I do more research, I have begun to question that view, as I'm afraid I've been sold a phony bag of goods through a slick and manipulative marketing campaign (remember the lead up to the Iraq war folks?), funded by U.S. tax dollars. Admittedly, this will be hard for some to stomach, but this is the age of manufactured consent, the neocons have the money, power and purpose, and there is a need to question stories that are Too Good To Be True. See Tibet Uprising and U.S. Government Grants (http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/03/tibet-uprising.html), Tibet - A Reality Check (http://www.flonnet.com/fl1718/17180040.htm) and Friendly Feudalism - The Tibet Myth (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html). Unless you prefer to take the blue pill...and believe whatever you want to believe. posted 03/22/2008 at 21:45:42

springsm, what is this with the "Tibetans were peaceful loving people?" I know it's hard to give up idealized portraits of these "good people", but unfortunately the reality is different from the myth.

Here are some real quotes from CIA-trained Tibetan guerilla Norbu Dorje: "People have seen now what the Chinese are doing in Tibet and I think what people are seeing will increase our support. Those who love peace should support us," he said.

Dorje is from Kham, a province in Eastern Tibet long known for its fierce locals who -- because of the remote, mountainous terrain and lawlessness -- developed a fearsome reputation as horsemen, fighters and bandits.

For hundreds of years, Khampas were bodyguards to generations of reincarnations of the Dalai Lama, a tradition that continued until the Tibetan spiritual leader's flight into exile in India in 1959.

In dramatic footage by Canadian TV shown on Wednesday, over 1,000 Tibetans, some on horseback, charged into a remote Chinese town in Gansu, attacking a government building, clashing with soldiers, and hoisting their national flag. It was not immediately clear where the attack took place or when.

The footage showing Khampas in traditional dress on horseback staging the protest was an emotional moment for Dorje who has not seen his home province in half a century.

"When I saw them (Khampa protesters) rip down the Chinese flag and put up the Tibetan flag, I was very very proud," Dorje said."

See "Former Tibet guerrilla says peaceful protest only option" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080321/wl_sthasia_afp/chinaunresttibet_080321045706&printer=1).

So let's think about this a minute: Mr Dorje, a CIA-trained guerilla, who comes from a TIbetan region with a fearsome reputation as bandits and fighters, and these guys were guards for the Dalai Lamas, and this one gets off watching a bunch of horseback tribesman ripping off a flag. Sounds like he has a lot more in common with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun! (Please note, I mean no insult to any Mongols or Huns reading this blog - I'm just referring to the stereotypical image of these two characters in Hollywood portrayals). If the Dalai Lamas were so peace loving, why did they need these fearsome tribesman as guards? Didn't their people love them, or was this the only way to maintain order in a theocratic feudal system - with violent force?

I'm starting to think Americans are incapable of having anything but Manichaean-paranoid views of the world, so that all conflicts have to be reduced to good guys (the "peaceful loving Tibetans") and bad guys (the "oppressive Chinese"). Any shades of grey views are rejected. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaean_paranoia). Also see this: "First Cut: Aussie captures Tibet riots on camera" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhjCX4KIz4Q)

posted 03/22/2008 at 12:41:17

"arries" talks about "media censorship" in Tibet and suggests that Tibet is a "pacifist nation". This illustrates our bizarro world where people outside the U.S. can read some stories that you can't read (or are hard to find) inside the U.S. Is this because of U.S. media censorship or media bias? Whatever the root causes, it means that U.S. residents do not get the full story and remain terribly uninformed compared to people outside the U.S. For example, this article appeared in the Daily Telegraph Australia: "Chinese beaten mercilessly - tourists" (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23400691-5001028,00.html) "RAMPAGING Tibetan youths stoned and beat Chinese people in the Tibetan capital and set ablaze stores but now calm has returned after a military clampdown, say tourists emerging from the Himalayan region.

"It was an explosion of anger against the Chinese and Muslims by the Tibetans,'' 19-year-old Canadian John Kenwood said, describing an orgy of violence that swept the ancient city of Lhasa.

Mr Kenwood and other tourists, who arrived by plane in Nepal's capital Kathmandu yesterday, witnessed the unrest, which reached a climax on Friday when they said Han Chinese as well as Muslims were targeted.

They described scenes in which mobs relentlessly beat and kicked ethnic Han Chinese, whose influx into the region has been blamed by Tibetans for altering its unique culture and way of life.

Mr Kenwood said he saw four or five Tibetan men on Friday "mercilessly'' stoning and kicking a Chinese motorcyclist.

"Eventually they got him on the ground, they were hitting him on the head with stones until he lost consciousness.

"I believe that young man was killed,'' Mr Kenwood said, but added he could not be sure.

He said he saw no Tibetan deaths."

There are other similar articles here: "Tourists tell of Tibetans' violence" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23401794-25837,00.html. You would think this is big news, but
I did a Google search and found no U.S. news media that carried this story, which contain direct quotes by witnesses. Can anyone on this blog? Instead, we seem to get lots of stories reported by Iraqi Exiles er I mean Tibetan Exiles (biased?) of mass killings of Tibetans, but offering no independent confirmation, so I really have trouble believing them. It really makes me seriously wonder why the U.S. news media seems to act like a megaphone for one point of view. We saw this lemming-like / uncritical behavior leading up to the Iraq War. We seem to see it in the coverage of Tibet, now, where the U.S. media uncritically accepts the "peaceful nonviolent" image of the Tibetans and Dalai Lama. Maybe a reporter should ask the Dalai Lama if he wants a pillow, like SNL's Obama debate skit! posted 03/22/2008 at 11:51:29

Springsm, Sorry to burst your bubble (mine was burst just a week ago, but I think I'm now the better for it) but the Tibetans are far from "very kind, loving, gentle and passionately Tibetan Budhist people." They have a long history of violence and cruelty deeply embedded in their culture and religion. Google Michael Parenti Friendly Feudalism - The Tibet Myth and read for yourself. The more recent manifestation is the US CIA-backed Tibetan contras - google "CIA Secret War in Tibet" going back to the 1950's. This has been hidden from us taxpayers for decades. The Tibetans are starting to look more like the Taliban to me, sadly. And like the Taliban, once we help the Tibetans become militant, this will "blowback" in our faces. See "Chinese beaten mercilessly" at this australian paper (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23400691-5005961,00.html)

posted 03/21/2008 at 15:29:37