Peace, My Soul

英国报纸捕风捉影 Telegraph's groundlessness

2012-01-15T10:39:00.011-05:00

(English version of this post is below the Chinese.)

英国在线报纸Telegraph最近讨论将会担任下一个中国共产党国家主席的习近平（他现在是国家副主席）在北京1月4日第二十次全国高校党建工作会议的演讲，主要是关于高校教师思想教育问题的演讲。Telegraph把习近平的说话用来争论中共由于担心大学生的抗议倾向与十八大的顺利召开，所以正在尽量控制大学学生的思想。但是Telegraph像很多非中国的媒体一样，早已决定了想讲述关于中国政治的什么故事，闭门造车，后来才去找官方的说法或其他数据来填满文章的提纲。

我先不说更多，让你看新华社的文章与习近平原有的说法（警告：要心理准备，官方的演讲往往比较罗嗦，博士买驴）：

第二十次全国高校党建工作会议在京召开

新华社北京1月4日电（记者周英峰）中共中央组织部、中共中央宣传部、中共教育部党组4日在北京召开第二十次全国高等学校党的建设工作会议。中共中央政治局常委、中央书记处书记、国家副主席习近平在会前会见会议代表并讲话。他强调，高校是教育培养青年人才的重要园地，也是用社会主义核心价值体系武装青年的重要思想阵地。高校党的建设要紧紧围绕培养中国特色社会主义事业合格建设者和可靠接班人这个根本任务，为建设能够培养高质量大学生的社会主义大学提供坚强的思想、政治和组织保证。　　

习近平指出，教师是人类灵魂的工程师，是青年学生成长的引路人和指导者。他们的思想政治素质和道德情操，对青年学生具有很强的影响力和感染力，在思想传播方面起着十分重要的作用。这就要求我们的高校教师以高度的社会责任感坚持教书育人、为人师表，以良好的思想道德品质给大学生以潜移默化的影响。青年教师作为高校教学的重要力量，与学生沟通互动多，对学生影响很大。要把加强青年教师队伍思想政治建设作为高校党的建设一个重大问题来抓，深入细致地做好青年教师的思想引导工作，加大在青年教师中发展党员的工作力度，优化高校党员队伍结构。　　

习近平强调，今年我们党将召开十八大，这是全党全国各族人民政治生活中的一件大事。高校党建工作要突出迎接党的十八大胜利召开和学习宣传贯彻党的十八大精神这项重要任务，更好地发挥高校党委的领导核心作用、各级党组织的战斗堡垒作用和广大党员的先锋模范作用。要深入开展高校创先争优活动，推动高校党组织和广大党员在全面落实党的教育方针、坚持内涵式发展、全面提高办学质量、加强自身建设的实践中创先争优，并使创先争优活动常态化。要以更加扎实有力的措施维护高校的和谐稳定，加强日常管理，为党的十八大胜利召开营造良好氛围。

可以看出，习近平确实主张了教师要加强学生和教师的社会主义思想教育。Telegraph说习近平这个说法是体现出中共学生政治思想的控制。更具体一些，Telepgraph把这个演讲叫做“orders for thought control”，或思想控制的命令。在英文里，这个词组有很清楚的含义，即它与有些西方国家对共产主义与极权主义的恐怕有密切的关系。冷战的时候，西方对苏联、中国与各个符合共产主义思想的国家产生了恐怕。当时，西方流行文化（特别是书本，像是《Brave New World》、《1984》或Ayn Rand的书）把共产主义与极度中央计划制度（像苏联或中国）结合起来。因此，冷战以来，很多西方人经常把共产主义与极权主义连接起来。那么，当Telegraph写出“思想控制”时，他们是故意让读者感到极权主义的可怕，并把这个感觉与中国连接起来。

中国的教育制度若是真正拥有极权主义制度的特征，Telegraph这个文化提及便是合适的，可是，中国的教育制度不处于极权主义的状态。中国大学生的媒体消费十分国际化，天天通过电影、音乐、电视剧与新闻学习美国与欧洲的文化。他们肯定知道“社会主义核心价值”不是唯一的政治思想。我经常与中国同学讨论美国与中国政治话题，他们会主动提到中国一党执政的缺点以及中国政治权利的缺乏，即人民不能选择其领导。中国大学生了解其他的政治制度，而且他们不愿意反对中国的制度是他们自己的选择，而不是共产党对学生有效思想控制的结果。

而且，习近平所做的演讲的对象全都是党员，他当然会提倡中共招募新党员的工作。在美国，共和党与民主党一直在校区里为新党员竞争。在一党执政的制度之下，中共没有竞争对手，所以他们的宣传能力无可匹敌，他们想学生听到什么主意，学生就会听见，但他们不一定会顺从这个想法，反而往往嘲笑这个想法。这样的情况毫无称作“思想控制”。而习近平这个演讲仅仅是党内的消息宣传与领导。这个才不是Telegraph所宣扬的“洗脑”。

Telegraph的编辑早已知道他们会发表关于中共思想控制的文章，只有这样Telegraph才可以支持他们想描述的情况，即不自由的中国。但这个发表过程本末倒置。应该先研究，再描述情形。基本上，这就是不负责的新闻。

England’s online newspaper, the Telegraph, recently discussed a speech made in Beijing at The 20^th National Higher Education Party Building Working Conference on January 4 by Xi Jinpin, who will be the next chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). (Currently, he is the CCP’s vice chairman.) The speech primarily discussed the issue of the ideological thinking of educators in higher education. The Telegraph used Xi Jinpin’s speech to argue that the CCP, due to its fear of university students’ tendency to protest and the 18^th Plenary Session convening smoothly, is trying its hardest to control university students’ thinking.

But like many non-Chinese media outlets, the Telegraph decided the type of story that they wanted to tell about Chinese politics early on – creating a story without considering the actual situation – and only afterwards looking for official statements or other data that could fill in their outline. Before we say anything else about it, take a look at my translation of the Xinhua article and Xi Jinpin’s original words below (warning: you should prepare yourself; government officials’ speeches are often long-winded and often fail to grasp critical issues):

The 12^th National Higher Education Party Building Working Conference Convenes in BeijingAuthor: Zhou Yingfeng

Xinhua News Agency, January 4 (Beijing). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Organizing Department, the CCP Central Ministry of Propaganda, and the CCP Ministry of Education Communist Party Organization convened the 12^th National Higher Education Party Building Working Conference in Beijing on January 4. Member of the CCP Central Political Bureau Standing Committee, Secretary of the Secretariat of the CCP Central Committee, and National Vice Chairman Xi Jinping met conference representatives and gave a talk.

Xi emphasized that institutions of higher education are a garden where talented young people are taught and cultivated. It is also a significant ideology battlefield where the core value system of socialism is used to arm young people. Party building in higher education needs to closely revolve around cultivating qualified builders of and reliable successors in the undertaking of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In order to foster the socialism of high quality college students, universities should strengthen ideology, political and organizational guarantees.

Xi pointed out that educators are the engineers of humanity’s soul as well as guides of young college students’ maturation. The caliber of educators’ political ideology and their ethical integrity has great influence over college students; this strongly affects ideological dissemination. This demands that our educators in higher education have a strong sense of social responsibility in imparting knowledge, standing as models of virtue, and using good moral character to subtly influence university students.

Young educators are a major force in higher education. They often interact and communicate with students and have a large influence over students. Strengthening the political ideology among the ranks of young educators is a major issue in higher education party organization. We need to thoroughly and deeply complete the work of guiding young educators’ ideology, strengthen the development of party members among young educators, and optimize the construction of the party ranks in higher education.

Xi Jinping emphasized that this year, our party will convene the 18^th Plenary Session. This is a major political event for the entire party, every ethnicity, and the entire country. In order for the higher education party organization to prominently welcome the party’s successful convening of the 18^th Plenary Session as well as study, propagate, and implement the plenary session’s spirit, it should better develop the core leadership role of the higher education Communist Party committee, the combat fortress role of every level of the party organization, and the vanguard role of the party’s expansive membership. In order to deepen the development of higher education’s grassroots party building and strive for excellence in CCP member activity, we should promote higher ed party organizations and the vast party membership to strive for excellence in the practice of comprehensive, workable party educational principles, persistent internal development, comprehensively raising the quality of school operation, strengthening self-cultivation. Moreover, we should normalize grassroots party building and the strive for excellence in CCP member activity. [Editor’s note: I’ve seen two Chinese explanations of 创先争优; one roughly explained it as “excellence” while the other described it as connoting a bunch of information. So this explain the variance in my translation of this phrase above.] In creating sturdier and more powerful measures that can uphold the harmony and stability of higher education, we need to strengthen daily management. In order to convene a successful 18^th Plenary Session, we need to create a good atmosphere.

We can see that Xi Jinping was, in fact, promoting educators strengthening of students’ and teachers’ socialist thinking. Telegraph says Xi Jinpin’s words embody the CCP’s control over students’ political thinking. More specifically, Telegraph called this speech “orders for thought control”. This phrase has very clear connotations – i.e., it has a close link with the fear some Western countries have of communism and totalitarianism. During the Cold War, the West produced a fear of the Soviet Union, China, and every country that was in line with communist thinking. At the time, Western popular culture – especially Brave New World, 1984, and the works of Ayn Rand – combined totalitarianism with systems of central planning, like those in the USSR or China. Because of this, ever since the Cold War, many Westerners regularly associate communism and totalitarianism. Thus, when the Telegraph writes “thought control”, they are intentionally leading the reader to sense the fear of totalitarianism and, moreover, link this fear with China.

If China’s education system really was totalitarian, Telegraph’s cultural reference would be appropriate. But China’s education system is not in a state of totalitarianism. China’s college students are very much internationalized, everyday studying American and European culture via movies, music, TV shows, and news. These students absolutely know that “the core value system of socialism” is not the only type of political ideology. I regularly discuss American and Chinese politics with my Chinese classmates, and they themselves bring up the shortcomings of China’s one-party system as well as the lack of political rights in China – i.e., the people can’t choose their leader. Chinese university students understand other political systems. Their unwillingness to oppose the Chinese system is their own choice; it is not the result of the CCP’s effective thought control of students.

Moreover, the targets of Xi Jinpin’s speech were all party members; of course he will promote the CCP’s work to recruit new members. In America, the Republican and Democratic parties are consistently competing for new party members. Under a one-party system, the CCP does not have a competitor, so their dissemination ability is unmatched by others. Whatever idea they wish the students to listen to, the students will hear it, but they won’t necessarily follow it. Instead, the students often ridicule the idea. This sort of situation can hardly be called “thought control”. Rather, Xi Jinpin’s speech is simply message dissemination and leadership within the party. This is the "brainwashing" that the Telegraph was screaming about.

The Telegraph’s editors knew early on that they would publish an article about the CCP’s thought control. Only in this way can the Telegraph support the situation that they’d like to describe: an unfree China. But this publishing process has its sequence all mixed up. It should be research first, followed by a description of the circumstance. Fundamentally, this is irresponsible journalism.

中国学生需要的不是恐怖而是鼓励 Chinese students need encouragement, not fear

2011-11-17T20:43:00.001-05:00

(The English version is below the Chinese version.)

最近，在《外交学者》杂志上，姜Xueqin（不知中文名）写篇关于中国学生融入美国大学生活困境的文章。他认为这个社会问题基于中国与美国文化之间的基本差别，即“文明冲突”。他这个观点不仅是错的，而且他没提出对这个问题的任何解决办法。

姜先生争论由于中国的崛起正在挑战美国享有世界霸权的地位，因此美国大学生受到威胁并排斥中国学生。可是，姜先生的逻辑犯了一个经常又关键的逻辑谬论，即正比关系等于因果关系。而且，他把宏观层面上的事情与微观层面上的现象搞混。实际上，中国正挑战着美国的地位，中国学生的确是难以参与没大学生的生活，但是这两个现象同时出现不一定意味着两个之间有因果关系。

这个“霸主忧虑情结”恰恰不存在在大多数美国学生的心里。当你问美国学生他们怎么看中国的崛起挑战美国的地位的时候，除了主修国际关系的学生之外，多数学生会觉得很糊涂，因为多数学生不考虑这个话题。他们即使想过这个问题，他们也不一定将这个问题与中国学生连接起来。当人们要跟一个人成为朋友，其母国的世界地位很少是一个影响因素。

中国学生困难真正的缘由更为微妙。2010年与2011年，我在俄亥俄州立大学设计与领导一个谋求促进中国与美国学生互动的项目。俄州大有两千多中国学生，比多数其他美国大学还要多，所以中国学生融入大学生活的困境确实是俄州大相对严重的问题。通过与中国学生的讨论小组（以汉语为主）以及促进中美学生互动的活动，我为俄州大撰了一个解释导致中美学生分割主要因素的报告。

这些因素可以分为三个吸收过程。

一、最重要的是语言吸收。正是像美国“高等教育编年史”的报告与姜先生都提到的，中国学生平均英语水平是初步的问题，因为他们的英语环境不地道也缺少动机，所有中国人进入美国大学之前他们的英文水平不够高，尤其是其说话能力。但进入美国大学一年之后，通过经常与美国人在课堂内外的交流，中国学生的英语水平会进步很大。而达到更高的听力与说话程度之后，最大的障碍变化为了解美国年轻人的口语。

二、学术吸收。在美国大学课堂里的教育方式与中国高中甚至中国大学课堂里的教育方式很不一样。在美国，教育准则以讨论为主，写作功课要求学生从无到有地创造一个研究问题，而在中国的很多教室里，老师讲课，然后给学生们很具体的作文题目。当中国学生来到美国的时候，他们仍然习惯中国式教育，学生们需要用较多时间来适应美国式教育，因此他们往往在图书馆学习，并不在其他学生接触的地方。完成一年大学之后，这些学生已经习惯了美国教育方式，但他们失去在宿舍里交美国朋友的时机。而且，他们习惯于跟中国学生一起学习与交往。

三、文化吸收。这个不是姜先生所讲的“文明冲突”概念，而文化方面上的问题更为细微。中国高中学生的时间都在备考，尤其是高考。他们在学校外与朋友们交往的时间很少，不大参与运动小队，没有派对，而美国高中学生的生活很不一样，是半学习半交往。中国学生发现美国同学在闲暇时间中喜欢跳舞与派对，中国学生觉得不好习惯。再一个文化方面上的问题是，美国学生期望在社会交往当中，人要主动去加入圈子。在美国存在一种个人主义的文化，人不想与其他人交流，其他人恰恰会让他排斥自己。虽然中国人可能会觉得主动地进入两个人的讨论是有点不好意思，但美国人认为这样的行为平淡无奇。

文化吸收是像其他的吸收过程问题一样，即经验可以克服这些问题。我们这么解决这些问题呢？辨认社会问题只是缓和该问题的第一步。下面是几个办法。

鼓励中国人进入美国高中。要加快大学生语言、学术与文化吸收，便让他们在上大学之前先去美国。上过与没上过美国高中的中国大学生在社会吸收方面上存在很大的差异。在高中里课程没有大学强烈，但教学法差不多。在学校外中国学生会习惯于美国学生的社会交往方式，而且中国学生的英语水平当然会火箭式提高。

促进中国学生参加学生社团。中国学生大部分的时候在学习，不考虑参加社团，有的学生不知道这些社团存在。大学要将有关学生社团的信息更加积极地推广于中国学生人口，最容易的办法也许是与中国学生社团合作来宣传这个消息。

更加细心挑选中国学生。姜先生本身也说明怎么选比较适合美国文学教育环境的中国学生，即让学生经过一个考验学生思想创新力与独立性的面试。不过，这个方式还有一个仍未解决的问题：中国学生可以是唯一应该经过申请表面试的学生吗？

改善英语项目。“高等教育编年史”的报告描述，特拉华州大学建立了一个学院，是帮助英语水平不够高的学生准备上大学课程。可以在任何大学安排这样的项目。项目的重点不仅应该是英文水平的提高，还是教书方式应该以讨论为主，像多数文科课程。

毕竟，中国学生的吸收水平并不像姜先生所讲的“滴答时间炸弹”。问题不在于许多批中国社会精英纷纷回中国，对美国有负面印象，然后当中国最有影响力的职位。姜先生每提高一个具有对美国悲观看法的中国学生，我可以提高一个在美国得到很多知识与交很多朋友的中国学生。我们都有例子。

只要我们认为中国与美国文化的冲突是不可避免的，它会形成。意识是自我实现的，特别在培养下一代的情况下。我们应当告诉学生，无论他们住在哪个洲上，不是“咱们的文化不相容于他们的文化”。而我们应当叫他们的是，如何了解与参加其他文化，这个才是同理心的体现，且同理心才是教育的奠基石。

（这个文章的一个版本先被发表于《外交学者》）

Recently, Jiang Xueqin wrote in the Diplomat of the struggles of Chinese students to assimilate into American universities’ student life. He attributes this social problem to the fundamental differences between Chinese and American culture – the “clash of civilizations”. Not only this this view flawed, but he offers little in the way of ideas to resolve the problem.

Jiang argues that rising China’s challenge to America’s status as the global hegemon is perceived as threatening to American students, who consequently reject Chinese students on college campuses. But Jiang’s line of reasoning commits a common (and critical) logical fallacy: correlation presumes causation. What’s more, he’s attributing macro-level characteristics to micro-level phenomena. China is, in fact, challenging America’s status, and many Chinese students are, in fact, struggling to fully participate in American college life. But just because the two are occurring simultaneously doesn’t necessitate their causal relationship.

This “hegemonic anxiety complex” simply doesn’t exist in the mind of the majority of American students. Unless they study international relations, most students would wear a confused expression when you ask them what they thought of China’s rising challenge to America’s hegemonic status. Most students don’t think about this. And even if they were aware of it, they wouldn’t necessarily connect it to individual Chinese students. When deciding whether or not to befriend someone, the international status of that person’s homeland is rarely a major factor.

The real reasons for Chinese students’ struggles are more nuanced. In 2010 and 2011, I developed and ran a program at The Ohio State University which sought to promote the interaction of Chinese and American undergraduate students. OSU has more than 2000 Chinese students, which is more than most US universities, so this lack of assimilation among Chinese students is not a small problem on campus. Via focus panels (conducted in Chinese) with students as well as running events that brought Chinese and American students together, I wrote a report for the university that discussed the main causal factors of the Chinese-American student divide.

We can divide these factors into three assimilation processes.

First and foremost is language assimilation. As the Chronicle of Higher Education report and Jiang both mentioned, Chinese students’ average level of English is an initial problem. Their English environment in China is rarely authentic or compelling enough to provide many Chinese with advanced English competency – especially conversational skills – before entering an American college. But within a year of regular interaction in and outside of classrooms with Americans, this begins to improve markedly. After attaining better listening and speaking, the more advanced problem becomes understanding young Americans’ colloquialisms.

A second problem is academic assimilation. Classrooms in American universities are operated much differently from those of Chinese high schools – and even Chinese universities. In America, discussion-based classes are the norm, and paper assignments often require a student to motivate themselves to start a research question from scratch. In many Chinese classrooms, the teacher lectures and then gives students a very specific subject on which to write. When Chinese students arrive in America, they are still accustomed to Chinese-style education. Critically, adapting to the American style forces them to spend a lot more time studying, often in the library or away from places where students socialize. After a year, these students have adapted to American education, but they’ve lost their best chance to make close American friends in the dorm. Additionally, they habituated to studying and sticking with Chinese students.

The last issue is cultural assimilation. I’m not talking about the “clash of civilizations” that Jiang discusses. The details are minuter than that. Chinese high schoolers spend almost all of their time studying for tests, particularly the gaokao, a college entrance exam. They don’t get a lot of time outside of school to socialize – few sports, no parties. But Americans’ high school experience is half academic and half social. When Chinese students find that some American college students spend their free time partying and dancing, it becomes difficult to get accustomed to.

A separate cultural issue is that American students expect people in social situations to actively work to enter the group. America has a culture of individualism, and if people don’t want to participate in a social gathering, others will simply let them exclude themselves from the group. Where Chinese might perceive it as “impolite” to throw themselves into a conversation, Americans see it as par for the course.

However, like the other issues above, these cultural gaps can be overcome with experience.

This brings us to how to fix these problems. Identifying a social problem is only a precursor to attempting to ameliorate it. Below are some ideas.

Encourage Chinese to attend high school in America. Language, academic, and cultural assimilation could all be hastened early on by sending more Chinese students to America before they attend college. There are noticeable differences in the social assimilation between Chinese college students who attended a year of high school in America and those that did not. In high schools, classes are not as intense as college, but the teaching style is still similar. Outside of class, Chinese students become accustomed to the way in which American students socialize. And of course, their English level will skyrocket throughout the process.

Promote Chinese student participation in student groups. Chinese students, who are spending much of their time studying, are hesitant to join students groups. Some don’t know about the groups. Universities need to more actively advertise student groups toward the Chinese student population. This could be done easily by working through Chinese student associations on campus.

More careful student selection. Jiang Xueqin himself details a more qualitative way to pick Chinese students that would blossom in the American liberal arts atmosphere: an application interview that tests students’ ability to think creatively and independently. Of course, a lingering problem with this method is discrimination. Could Chinese students be the only students subjected to application interviews?

English enhancement programs. As detailed in the Chronicle, the University of Delaware set up a language institute to give students with sub-par English skills a chance to prepare for typical college classes. These sorts of programs could be carried out at any university. The focus shouldn’t only be on English language competency; in addition, the style of teaching should be discussion-based, like most liberal arts classes.

In the end, the assimilation of Chinese students in American universities is not, as Jiang claims, a “ticking time bomb”. It is not primarily a story of waves of elites returning to China to serve in powerful positions with negative impressions of America. For every Chinese student Jiang knows with a pessimistic view of America, I know a Chinese student who has grown intellectually and emotionally in their American education and has made many American friends. Anecdotes abound.

The Chinese and American cultures only clash when we believe that it is inevitable. Consciousness is self-fulfilling; this goes double when educating the next generation. What we should be telling our students – no matter the continent on which they reside – is not “our culture is incompatible with theirs”. Rather, we should be teaching them how to understand and participate in other cultures. This is the embodiment of empathy, and empathy is the cornerstone of all education.

A version of this originally appeared in The Diplomat.

中国人的公民意识 The Citizen Consciousness of Chinese People

2011-08-13T12:29:00.004-04:00

(English translation is below the Chinese.)

几天前，一个朋友发邮件来着，她说她的老师（一个中国人）最近表示她认为中国社会不稳定以及有些中国人越来越缺少道德。我的朋友说她们想知道我对这个问题的看法（因为我正主修中国社会学）。下面是我的答复。（发表我这些想法是为了吸引别人的看法，那么请你在下面发评论。）

其实，你们这个问题碰巧是我前一个星期天天想到的话题。由于每天看到一个人随便扔垃圾、人们开车开得很危险（即不理行人的安全和权利）、流浪猫被抛弃了、人们在公共场所对陌生人的对待很冷淡，我认为这边的责任感相对弱。你们说中国缺少道德，我说中国缺少对社会的责任感或者公民意识；咱们的话题还是一样的。这样的态度虽也存在于美国，但我相信缺少公民意识美国人的比重更低一些。那么，这个问题在中国为什么比较严重？按照我这几天和其他中国朋友的交流以及我自己的思考，我认为这个问题的缘由至少有三个可能。下面是三个“理论”。（前两个是中国人所表达的想法，最后一个理论是我自己的假设。）

一、专制之说。中国是个一党执政的国家，60多年如此。什么社会工程、社会问题、经济问题等都要完全依赖政府的领导或者决定。几代的中国人已经熟悉这样的社会秩序了，并且其思维受到大大影响，甚至他们觉得有关公共领域的东西，无论是公共场所、公共问题、公共政策等，都要让政府来解决，而老百姓只是观众和追随者。这个思想不仅从一代人向下一代传下来，也体现在教育制度，即中国孩子在学校里主要学习怎么听好长辈或者是专家的意见或命令。结果是中国人常常对社会缺乏责任感。在其眼中，“公民”意识是个比较没有意思的概念，因为政治制度当中，他们并没有公民权，因此当人们在中国说“公民意识”，这个被认为是耳边风。

二、民主之说。这个理论与上一个有些关系。但与它不同，这个理论重视政府的视角，而不大看老百姓的角度。主要是中国政府家因为没有选举，不必考虑人们的需要。目前，经济发展是政府的优先，人民的公民意识的重要性离经济发展的很远，以至于政府担心政府若是促进公民意识的强化，人们也许反对一些公共政策，甚至怀疑一党执政的现状。

三、文化之说。近20年来，中国由农业国家到工业国家转变。这个变化非常快，以至于文化仍没适应社会新的情况与要求。这个理论主要有两个方面。一个是，在中国传统文化当中，人的责任感限于他的社会圈子，即家庭、亲戚与老乡。可在20年之内，在新的经济情形之下，好多农民移动到城市去打工，追求好的未来，支持其家庭。城市的人口密度增加特别快，而在这样的环境中，城市人需要对总体社会的责任感，否则他们每天在路上遇到别人时，他们就会不在乎他人的权利。这个意识（关心陌生人的权利）并不简单，它需要一个人较深度的思考；尊敬陌生人是为了陌生人尊敬自己，而且大家互相尊重能够导致社会和谐，也就是大家的共同利益被实现的状况。那么，“自己的行为”离“社会和谐”有点远，至少有三个思想上的步骤。这条思路应该有培养，可恐怕中国的教育制度在这个方上面仍然要改善。

第二个方面，因为经济发展的速度所造成的经济环境与就业市场，竞争很强。由此，人们不仅不熟悉在乎别人（第一个方面），他们更是重视自己的竞争力和未来，要不然吃不饱。对这角度而言，别人是障碍，正是妨碍自己实现工作或生活目标。在这样的情况下，公民意识或者是对社会的责任感都永远属于第二位。

A few days ago, a friend sent me an email in which she said her teacher, a Chinese, recently expressed that she thinks Chinese society is unstable and Chinese people are becoming less and less moral. My friend said that they both wanted to know my views toward this issue (because I’m currently studying Chinese sociology). Below is my response. (I’m sharing these thoughts in order to elicit others’ views, so please share yours at the bottom.)

Actually, this issue is coincidentally a topic that I’ve been pondering every day this week. Every day, I’ve seen people nonchalantly throw trash on the street, people drive cars wildly (ignoring pedestrians’ safety and rights), lots of abandoned stray cats, and people in public areas treat others very coldly; the sense of responsibility here is relatively weak. You both say Chinese people are lacking morality; I say that they lack a sense of responsibility for greater society or citizen consciousness. Either way, the topic is the same.

This sort of attitude also exists in America, but I believe that the proportion of Americans lacking citizen consciousness is comparatively less. Why is this problem relatively serious in China? Based on conversations with some Chinese friends in the past few days as well as my own reflection, I think that there are at least three possibilities to explain this problem. Below are the three “theories”. (The first two are expressed by Chinese people, and the final one is my own hypothesis.)

1) Authoritarian system hypothesis. China is a one-party political system, and it’s been like this for 60 years. Social projects, social problems, economic issues, etc. all completely rely on the government’s leadership or decisions. Several generations of Chinese people have already become used to this social order. Moreover, their way of thinking has been heavily influenced; so much so that they think anything related to the public realm -- whether it’s public venues, public problems, public policy, etc. – all need the government to resolve. Common people are simply observers or followers. This thinking is not only passed from one generation to the next, it is also embodied in the system – i.e., in school, Chinese children primarily learn how to listen to the opinions or orders of their elders or experts. The result is that Chinese people often lack a sense of responsibility for society. In their eyes, “citizen” consciousness is a relatively meaningless notion, because in the political system, they don’t have the rights of citizens. Thus, when someone says “citizen consciousness” in China, for many people, it goes in one ear and out the other.

2) Democracy hypothesis. This theory is related to the last. But this theory focuses on the viewpoint of the government rather than common people. The main argument is that politicians in China don’t have to think about the needs of the people because they don’t have to think about elections. Currently, economic development is the priority of the government. The citizen consciousness of the people is far less significant than economic development, to such an extent that the government worries that if they promote the strengthening of citizen consciousness, people might opposed some public policy – perhaps even doubt the current one-party system.

3) Cultural hypothesis. In the past 20 years, China has transformed from an agricultural nation into an industrialized one. This change has occurred really quickly, so much so that culture has not been able to adapt to the new societal circumstances and demands. There are primarily two parts to this theory. First, in traditional Chinese culture, a person’s sense of responsibility is limited to their social circle – i.e., family, relatives, and people from their village. But in the past 20 years, under new economic circumstances, a lot of farmers have migrated to the cities for work, pursuing a better future, supporting their family. Cities quickly became denser, and in this environment, people living in the city need to have a sense of responsibility for the greater society. Otherwise, when they run into people on the street every day, they will pay no attention to others’ rights. This sort of consciousness – caring about others’ rights – is not simple. It requires a person to think deeply: respecting strangers so that strangers respect me, and everybody mutually respecting one another can lead to a peaceful society – that is to say, a situation in which everyone’s common interests are realized. So “the self’s behavior” and “a peaceful society” are pretty far from one another; at the least, they have three steps that separate them. This train of thought must be cultivated, but in regards to this thinking, China’s education system still needs improvement.

Second, because of the economic environment and employment market created by fast economic development, competition is fierce. As a result, people aren’t only used to paying little attention to others – the first aspect – they focus more on their own competiveness and future, otherwise they might not be able survive. From this perspective, other people are obstacles. They are hindering one from realizing their work and life goals. Under these circumstances, citizen consciousness or a sense of responsibility for society will forever remain in second place.

How Robots are Theatening Democracy

2011-03-13T09:32:00.005-04:00

Robots will almost certainly become primary government tools in suppressing protests. This is a threat to your basic rights, and laws that protects these rights are desperately needed.

Here's a headline for you: "How the Terminator Could Play Peacekeeper." It is eye-catching and attractive. It also posits an interesting thesis: robots will begin taking a central role in "riot policing". In other words, due to advances in robot technology, robots will begin suppressing protesters around the world; they might soon be in a neighborhood near you!

InnovationNewsDaily editor, Jeremy Hsu, frames this new technology as a positive, interesting development that is slightly innocuous. The article frequently mentions that these robots would have "non-lethal" weapons, like water cannons, rubber bullets, tear gas, and other tools intended to pacify protesters. What's more, "Future robots with clever designs might even be used to influence the mood of demonstrators, calming them or making them fearful."

Fearful protesters? This is undoubtedly good for society!

Protesting is a Crucial Right

I am not going to continue to take cheap shots at an author who is mainly focused on the technology in this story rather than the implications. (He seems to have a lack of knowledge about why protests happen and why they are important.) However, the implications of riot policing robots are quite significant for society.

Why? Consider the following: as non-millionaire or non-billionaire citizen that does not hold a public office, you essentially have three ways to influence American politics. 1) Vote. 2) Lobby politicians. 3) Disrupt society.

Quick analysis of your options. (1) Is often only slightly consequential. You only have two choices in most cases, and after you make your choice, the politician often doesn't ask for your opinion. (2) is ineffective unless you organize into a large group. And if you organize, you must have both time and money in order to make any effect; after all, you're competing with the oil lobby!

Often, people are only left to number (3): disrupt society -- i.e., protesting. Disrupting society is the most democratic right that you have as a normal citizen. Without the ability to disrupt, politicians and other powerful players would have zero reason to care about the public until election time.

Regulation of Robotic Violence

Now back to robots. Taking the actual humans out of policing protests immediately makes the government endlessly more powerful. There is no bodily risk to police officers, so the state is investing less in suppressing protesters. Robots also feel no pain, so they can go into the "fray" with abandon.

These "non-lethal" weapons which robots deploy are already overkill in many cases -- rubber bullets are quite violent. But when weapons are deployed by an object that does not need to use them for protection, it becomes more inhuman.

To clarify: I am focusing on the suppression of peaceful protests here. Think civil rights movement of the 1960s or recent teacher protests in Minnesota. These disrupted society, but they were nonviolent.

If a movement becomes violent, then one might be able to argue that the circumstance is now a "war", of sorts, between the government and protesters. It's a more complex question, and I won't get into it right now.

However, one thing seems clear: robots policing peaceful social movement endangers the most basic right that a person has -- defending their interests and rights in society.

What is also certain is that robots will continue to development, and they will almost surely began policing protests. What is needed is not to fight the technological wave -- fighting such a wave inevitably fails. What is needed are new laws that specify how a robot can be used, with corresponding punishments for officials or law enforcement who use it incorrectly. Most researchers looking at or working on the future of robotics agree that this is something that is desperately missing from our political conversations in America and around the world. (This is detailed in books like "Wired for War".) We need to write law now that protects people from potential abuses from robots.

When Should You Retire?

2010-09-11T09:23:00.013-04:00

With this blog post, I am seemingly coming out of a short retirement, so it seems appropriate to start with a discussion of retirements.** As you may know, France has recently been witnessing (larger than usual) protests and strikes against a proposal by President Nicolas Sarkozy to raise the retirement age there from 60 to 62 years of age.

Now, if you're an American reading this, you may initially feel a sense of anger or even injustice at the fact that a million French are opposing this proposal; Americans already have to wait until 65 for retirement -- and it is likely to be raised to 67 in the near future. Indeed, Americans delay retirement longer than people in most developed countries (see last link for that data).

I won't spend time debating who deserves earlier retirements because the differences in national laws is part of a much larger difference between the social support systems of various governments. Besides, people can come to expect any retirement age, and when you try to take that away from them -- whether it be 60 or 65 -- they will often fight to prevent losing this benefit.

Rather, what is happening in France and other developed countries -- a reconsideration of retirement age -- is a sign of larger global systemic shifts. As the world "flattens", to borrow from Friedman, the median person in once-poor countries are rapidly closing the income, education, and health gaps with the median person in developed countries. This is putting pressure on retirement ages in developed countries for at least two reasons:

1. Since people in developing countries are still willing to work for lower wages, they are, naturally, attractive to employers globally. Similar skills for half the price.

2. As middle classes grow in developing countries, these masses and their disposable income becomes, unto itself, a target market for the world's businesses.

Both of these factors serve to take money away from the worker and, ultimately, the economies of developed countries. And if future growth rates in developed economies are depressed relative to the expectations of policy makers in years past -- when the original retirement age was passed -- then the slower economic growth rates won't be able to sustain current social support systems (because government tax revenue will be depressed). As this happens, governments can either raise tax rates or raise the retirement age.

This whole process was intensified by the recent global economic crisis as developed countries have tended to recover much more slowly than developing countries, thereby amplifying the factors mentioned above. With such pressure, governments in developed countries have to urgently make a choice to raise taxes or the retirement age. But during a period of slow or negative economic growth, raising taxes on most of the population could trigger even deeper recession. But raising the retirement age only saves money for the government; it is a more prudent choice.

Finally, one must consider life expectancy. When a retirement age is originally established, it was only a few years below the country's life expectancy. But based on World Bank data, this reality has changed markedly. Back in the 1960s, most developed countries had average life expectancies of, at, or around 70 y.o.a. Today, that number is around 80 y.o.a. Yet most retirement ages have remained the same or only increased by a year or two. This means that the government is supporting most people for another decade or more.

In times of robust healthy economic growth, this is a luxury that developed countries can afford, but now that the rest of the world is catching up, they want a better life for themselves and their families. This necessarily means that resources will be (proportionally) taken away from developed countries and competition for work will increase. So no matter what you personally believe is fair, the average Joe (or Jose, James, Jaeger, Jiro) is going to have to work later in his life than his father before him.

**Personal Note: It's now been over three months since I've found time to write on this space! The primary reason is because I've been writing Chinese essays elsewhere -- namely, essays for my Chinese MA which began in June and took up much of the last three months. For other information on the my exploits, see this blog.

China is Low on "Threat Priority" List

2010-05-28T20:47:00.007-04:00

In the past couple of weeks, two important documents have been released by NATO and the US government. Insofar as China is concerned, these strategic reports make it clear that the "China threat" is, in fact, not perceived as such a threat by those currently in power in the US and Europe.

First, NATO released a short piece called "NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement", which is supposed to be a major redefinition of NATO strategy for the coming decade. China is unequivocally viewed as having strong interests in a stable regional and global order. Some key quotes:

"Emerging global powers such as China, India and Brazil are asserting their rising influence in a peaceful manner."

"In the Asia-Pacific, the major powers, which include Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, India, and Australia, all view regional stability as in their interests and are generally supportive of international norms."

Moreover, the report goes on to say that working with China does not require a formal alliance or organization in which to have dialogue and cooperation -- the anti-piracy action is cited as an example.

A week later, the White House released its National Security Strategy (PDF). China is first mentioned as an increasingly influential actor in international politics with whom the US should be "building deeper and more effective partnerships". Indeed, in every context in which China is mentioned, the tone and verbiage stress cooperation and engagement, particularly in areas of mutual interest.

The report only goes on at length about China for a single paragraph, which is instructive:

"We will monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare accordingly to ensure that U.S. interests and allies, regionally and globally, are not negatively affected. More broadly, we will encourage China to make choices that contribute to peace, security, and prosperity as its influence rises. We are using our newly established Strategic and Economic Dialogue to address a broader range of issues, and improve communication between our militaries in order to reduce mistrust. We will encourage continued reduction in tension between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. We will not agree on every issue, and we will be candid on our human rights concerns and areas where we differ. But disagreements should not prevent cooperation on issues of mutual interest, because a pragmatic and effective relationship between the United States and China is essential to address the major challenges of the 21st century."

This doesn't sound like an American government that is particularly worried about China. It actually sounds very much like the Obama campaign's original position on China. The last line, in particular, makes clear that any disagreements should take a back seat to a positive relationship. So, despite the various issues of contention that have popped up in the past 16 months, the White House seems to have kept the "China threat" at a minimal level of anxiety. This suggests that actors within the US government who might paint the picture otherwise -- like some Pentagon officials or Congresspeople -- have not gained the upper hand in Administration deliberations.

Taken together, do these two reports mean that the next five to ten year will undoubtedly be free of conflict (armed or otherwise) between the US and China? Not necessarily. A flash point could arise over Taiwan or Korea or some other unforeseen issue. But what these two documents clearly suggest is that, at least in the West, there is very little desire to ramp up security dilemmas, real or otherwise, with China.

Instead, China's continuous rise is viewed as an opportunity for economic growth, like Obama's goal to double exports for 2014. And unless you're really aching for a quick way to waste money and political capital on a hegemonic conflict, this perception should be (at least somewhat) comforting.

A form of this was originally published on RealClearWorld.

Radio Free Asia and the May 4th Flash Mob

2010-05-10T05:45:00.008-04:00

Radio Free Asia (RFA) has hit a new low.

A few days ago, Kai Pan at china/divide discussed the less-than-accurate reporting by RFA on Twitter usage in

China

with regards to the visit of Kim Jong Il.

But even before that, on the anniversary of May 4th Movement — which was one of the factors contributing to the 1989 Tiananmen protests — RFA published this gem, leading with “Chinese netizens staged flash-mob style protests against online censorship …”

My research focus is currently on Chinese social movements, so such a lead-in piqued my interest. According to the article, a blogger named 北京老张 (Old Zhang of Beijing) called for the protest: “On May 4, let us write the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ on all major sites in China, such as douban.com, tieba.baidu.com, tianya.cn, talk.163.com, xiaonei.net, and renren.com.”

Subsequently, I did some searching of these sites (and Twitter) to see how large the movement had grown during the cycle of protest.

Dozens of par tic i pants? Scores? Hundreds, perhaps? No. As of 8 March, my searched turned up 14 people on Twitter (with 15 posts), six results on renren.com, and exactly one book result on douban.com. Does this even count as news? A neo-Nazi group in

America

has more than 20 people at their monthly Sun day brunch.

(I also searched for the “speech freedom” statement that the article claims evolved later. It only turned up four results on QQ.)

You might challenge me: “But per haps there was a large online movement that was quickly censored, so you just didn’t catch it in a search four days later.”

My answer would be: maybe, but that’s beside the point. Let’s suppose that there were dozens of people who initially acted on this call from Old Zhang. From a social movement perspective — i.e., social change perspective — the fact that they had been quickly removed and had almost zero apparent lasting effect in civil society is the sign of a poorly organized, poorly executed, and ineffective protest (as well as a sign of an effective censoring apparatus).

But we didn’t get any of these angles from the RFA article. Instead we are to sup pose that these “online out cries” were wide spread and loud. This is decidedly horrible journalism.

On other hand, maybe RFA wants to be considered the MSNBC or Fox News of East Asian media — i.e., openly biased and, thus, ignorable. But just like MSNBC and Fox, they influence a lot of views on

China

, especially on the American side of the divide.

And this doesn’t mean ignoring dis sent in

China

. Indeed, there is a wealth of legitimate protest — in various forms — on the Main land. Maybe RFA could do us all a ser vice and start covering this dissent with honest journalism.

This was originally published on china/divide.

NYC Bomber, Faisal Shahzad: Lone Wolves Are Also Bad Omens

2010-05-07T22:00:00.013-04:00

By Ashesh Prasann
The failed Times Square car bomb attempt which came to light this weekend is tough to analyze because the investigation is not yet complete and there is still uncertainty about the facts. Gen. Petraeus has recently ruled out Pakistani Taliban’s involvement, describing Faisal Shahzad, the individual arrested for attempting the attack, as a “lone wolf”.

At the same time, Pakistani officials have hinted that Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a group with a Kashmir centered agenda, might have been responsible for his training. Meanwhile, Pakistani Taliban has denied any role as well, after initial YouTube videos which seemed to suggest otherwise.

While it will take a while for the facts to emerge, let us assume that Shahzad did not belong to the rank and file of a terror group but simply acquired the training to make and detonate a bomb during a short stint in Pakistan (most likely scenario – check out Steve Coll’s post on how Pakistani terror groups treat US based volunteers as “freebies”). This is troubling in two respects:

It hints at possible radicalization of young Pakistani-Americans, a phenomenon previously seen in the UK (London Underground bombings being the most infamous attack by British-born Pakistanis trained in Pakistan), but not in the US. It is noteworthy that in early 2009, the CIA had advised President Obama that British Islamists were the biggest threat to the US. While one of the key reasons for radicalization of British-born Pakistanis was the UK’s involvement in Iraq, high joblessness and discrimination were other underlying factors as well. In comparison, the Pakistani-American community is more prosperous and socially integrated into the mainstream.
It emphasizes that while terrorist organizations mainly recruit from the poor and marginalized, their ability to attack the U.S. depends upon individuals who are often wealthy, educated and integrated in the West. Faisal Shahzad’s higher education was in Connecticut and his father was Air Vice-Marshal in the Pakistan Army. The underwear bomber studied in London and his father was the chairman of a Nigerian bank. This is significant because it indicates the limits to effectiveness of US aid to Pakistan, even if it successfully reduces poverty and promotes economic development in targeted regions of the country.

There are other things to look out for in the days to come. Pakistan’s arrests of Shahzad’s associates in Karachi is being touted as evidence of the ISI’s (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) increasing cooperation with the U.S., but such enthusiasm needs to be tempered given Pakistan’s spotty track record with keeping suspects under arrest.

The real bone of contention between the U.S. and Pakistan is the Pakistani Army’s refusal to undertake a large-scale offensive in North Waziristan, the home of the Haqqani network (which targets US forces in Afghanistan) and Pakistani Taliban. There is little to suggest that the failed Times Square bomb plot will change that.

Ashesh Prasann is a candidate for Masters in Public Policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School for Public Policy. He was Junior Fellow in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2008-2009) and infrequently blogs at asheshprasann.blogspot.com.

CORRECTION [2010-05-08 10:45]: " ... Shahzad did belong ... " was a mistake and now reads " ... Shahzad did not belong ... "

PLA Modernization ≠ US-China War

2010-04-30T02:41:00.012-04:00

If you’re familiar with international relations theory, then you know the school of thought called “realism”. As it pertains to China, in a nutshell, realists say that China and the US are headed for great conflict because history and the dynamics of international power say so.

Case in point is Stephen Walt, one of the most well-known modern realist scholars, who recently wrote on the inevitability of Sino-American rivalry on his blog at Foreign Policy. His brief argument comes down to two particular sentences:

On Saturday, the New York Times published an important story supporting the realist view. It described the rapid expansion of China’s naval capabilities (a classic manifestation of great power status), as well as the more ambitious new strategy that this growing capacity is designed to serve.

Conveniently, this bit pretty much sums up the realist argument for Sino-US conflict: capabilities.

Yet Walt and others often sidestep altogether the most prominent counter-arguments, like intentions or conflicts of interest (when it comes to war). Rather, Walt only points to evidence that may support his realist view. It’s a decidedly illogical way to argue: shout your side of the argument and ignore the larger picture.

For example, a constructivist could easily take Walt’s argument — which is that growing military capabilities equals conflict — and turn it on its head. India is also rapidly building military capabilities. Indeed, the US is selling them many of these arms. So, why aren’t the Chinese and Indians on a crash course? Similarly, the EU, collectively, has considerable military power (though they currently lack some coordination); why aren’t they a threat to the US?

The rather obvious answer is that capabilities are only half of the story. Intentions and limitations matter. Walt ignores this.

Feel free to argue this hefty issue in the comments below. But try not to be a Walt. That is, remember that this is a multi-variable issue. And if you argue that having a big military alone means an intention to use it in a great war, then you might want to reconsider hitting “reply”.

This was originally published on china/divide.

When Superpowers Fall

2010-04-14T04:59:00.007-04:00

History has demonstrated that power in the international system is rarely static. But, while empires are now falling at an increasingly rapid pace, today’s power transitions are more peaceful than they have been for much of the past few thousand years. These changes have seen two opposing trends strengthen simultaneously—one that gives the world’s preeminent power more security, the other making it more uncertain of its position at the top.

Writing recently in Foreign Affairs, Niall Ferguson examined the way in which empires have fallen in the past and how historians have come to understand these collapses after the fact. He contends that most historians have it all wrong—that while the decline of empires is usually described as a slow accumulation of weaknesses that eventually break the camel’s back, in reality, empires collapse precipitously.

At any given time, the society of the world’s preeminent power, he says, is a large, complex social system usually operating in an equilibrium that can be altered fundamentally by even a small shift in the system. ‘A very small trigger can set off a “phase transition” from a benign equilibrium to a crisis—a single grain of sand causes a whole pile to collapse …’

Such a view has clear implications for the United States. Indeed, Ferguson argues that given the fragility of US systemic power, a seemingly minor piece of market news can become America’s grain of sand, setting off a sequence of events that leaves the United States looking up at the next global power. Ultimately, he says that until the United States gets its fiscal house in order, it will be tempting its own precipitous decline.

But most of what Ferguson presents as evidence for this view is simply unconvincing. For example, he examines the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century. Yet while many historians point to the first seeds of decline being evident in the third century, Ferguson argues the Empire remained relatively stable until the ‘rapid’ decline began in 406 with Germanic invaders. And even here he goes on to describe a 60-year death throe—hardly precipitous.

The above is the beginning of my article published in The Diplomat. Read the rest here.

Shanghai's Future Concrete Graveyard

2010-04-12T20:30:00.008-04:00

As we read about the upcoming Shanghai Expo, we're constantly amazed by the seemingly unreal scale of construction. The city has spent US$45 billion to prepare for scores of pavilions to be spread out over 1,300 acres and welcome some 70 million visitors over six months. And many of the pavilions are massive works of architecture in and of themselves, costing some countries well over a hundred million dollars, like Japan's "Purple Silkworm", which has a price tag of US$133 million.

Many compare this massive investment to Beijing's preparations for the 2008 Summer Olympics. But what many fail to ask is, like Beijing's ghost stadiums today, what happens to all of these concrete mammoths when the Expo is over? Some will be reduced to whence they came, like the UK's pavilion, which will be distributed in pieces to UK and Chinese schools.

Others, though, are built permanently. The hope is that it will bring people to Shanghai for years to come, hoping to glance at the legacy of the the largest World Expo in history. But empty buildings will only retain their energy for so long, and the initial wonder will die off as Oct. 31 fades into the past.

One hopes that city officials in Shanghai, compared to their Beijing counterpart, have a better long-term transition plan for their two-square mile concrete graveyard.

This was first published on RealClearWorld.

Leaked Video of Americans Killing Iraqis

2010-04-08T01:25:00.016-04:00

On 5 April, Wikileaks, an organization that reveals once-confidental material, released a July 2007 video of American apache helicopters engaging Iraqis in Bahgdad, including two Reuters reporters and two children. None of the soldiers were prosecuted of wrong-doing.

The main plot of the video: the soldiers thought there were combatants with weapons among the group of people here, so they killed all of them, then proceeded to engage a van picking up dead the bodies -- the van had two children in the front seat.

(Warning: the video is below, but the combination of graphic footage and the soldiers' conduct will be unsettling to some, or perhaps most, who view it.)

What is troublesome here is not only that these helicopter units engaged people that seemed to have little more than cameras -- the journalists -- but also that the corresponding commentary by the soldiers can sometimes only be described as bloodthirsty. At one point, when a wounded journalist was dragging himself along the ground, the gunner could be heard saying (at 8:30) "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" when there was clearly no weapon in sight that he could use.

Later (at 9:15), a van comes to pick up bodies. One of the soldiers reports that the van "looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons." But with no evidence that weapons were on the scene, the soldier seems to be trying to build a case for engagement. Indeed, next, the shooter asks, "Can I shoot" before he begs, "Come on, let us shoot!" During none of this time is there any gunfire on the scene. Nonetheless, the soldiers receive permission to engage the the people who are picking up the wounded, leading to three more killings and the wounding of two children in the van's front seat.

Upon journalists' questioning, there were two basic answers from the military regarding an investigation. A lower-level investigation was made in 2007 and the soldiers were cleared of any wrong doing. But apparently Central Command has never seen the footage before and is now conducting their own investigation.

The Apache unit was in the area supporting a ground unit a few blocks away, and the ground unit had taken fire earlier. So one could make the case that the soldiers' suspicions were heightened and the "fog of war" led to an assumption that the cameras were weapons. Not being there, perhaps it is difficult for one to understand the nerves in such a situation. Yet some veteran combat troops have suggested that these were probably not newbie soldiers and should have been expected to have better judgment.

Beyond the initial shooting is the question of the unsettling conduct of the soldiers. They may be trained to kill effectively, but being an effective soldier and a discerning one are two different things. Is the US military training soldiers to kill without teaching them to discern between right and wrong? Moreover, that some soldiers are skewing the facts to fit their desire -- to shoot -- is a clear sign of misconduct.

In addition, officers who permitted the engagement should be held accountable for these deaths because there is scant evidence that any soldier on the scene was in danger from the Iraqis in the van.

Ivan Eland, a defense analyst who's close with the military, said the following to Al Jazeera:

I don't think anybody tried to purposely kill anybody here but I think in this type of warfare it's not like in a conventional battle, you're not really sure who is in the insurgency and who is not ...

Yet after watching the footage, any comments like these are hardly defensible.

Opinions aside, there is at least one certainty: Iraqis and others in the region will be watching any investigation -- Al Jeezera has been broadcasting the video throughout the region.

A War on “Westernization” in China

2010-04-03T06:33:00.014-04:00

A fair share of readers have taken international relations or global economics courses in college. And even more people reading this currently mow through a daily assortment of news and blog content. It would not be presumptive of me, then, to assume that you know the ubiquity with which the term “Westernization” is used in both academic and daily communication.
But the word “Westernization” is usually meaningless. Authors and laypeople alike need to quickly reduce the frequency with which they use this term.

(By the way, I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve used the word too much in the past; just call me a Reformed Semantic.)

There are four reasons I am declaring a war on the word “Westernization”.

This is the beginning of post published on a popular blog called china/divide. To read the rest, click here.

Chinese Censorship in Action

2010-03-26T02:05:00.010-04:00

We often read or hear about the oversight and restrictions imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on Internet content in China. But amidst the fallout from the recent Google announcement to forward its Chinese searches to Hong Kong, China Digital Times translated orders that were transmitted on March 23 directly from the CCP State Council to various news outlets and websites. (The State Council is basically the Chinese cabinet of ministers.)
Here's the translation:

All chief editors and managers:

Google has officially announced its withdrawal from the China market. This is a high-impact incident. It has triggered netizens’ discussions which are not limited to a commercial level. Therefore please pay strict attention to the following content requirements during this period:

A. News Section

1. Only use Central Government main media (website) content; do not use content from other sources
2. Reposting must not change title
3. News recommendations should refer to Central government main media websites
4. Do not produce relevant topic pages; do not set discussion sessions; do not conduct related investigative reporting;
5. Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must apply for permission ahead of time. This type of self-initiated program production is strictly forbidden.
6. Carefully manage the commentary posts under news items.

B. Forums, blogs and other interactive media sections:

1. It is not permitted to hold discussions or investigations on the Google topic
2. Interactive sections do not recommend this topic, do not place this topic and related comments at the top
3. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which attack the Party, State, government agencies, Internet policies with the excuse of this event.
4. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others have a different tune from government policy
5. On topics related to Google, carefully manage the information in exchanges, comments and other interactive sessions
6. Chief managers in different regions please assign specific manpower to monitor Google-related information; if there is information about mass incidents, please report it in a timely manner.

We ask the Monitoring and Control Group to immediately follow up monitoring and control actions along the above directions; once any problems are discovered, please communicate with respected sessions in a timely manner.

Addition guidelines:

- Do not participate in and report Google’s information/press releases
- Do not report about Google exerting pressure on our country via people or events
- Related reports need to put [our story/perspective/information] in the center, do not provide materials for Google to attack relavent policies of our country
- Use talking points about Google withdrawing from China published by relevant departments

This is not going to help the Chinese government's public image in the international media war over the Google spat.

This was originally published on RealClearWorld.

China Gets Ready to Invade America

2010-03-21T06:17:00.007-04:00

If you haven't heard yet, in November 2010, a remake of the film Red Dawn will hit theaters. In 1984, this film depicted the Soviet Union invading the U.S. This time, of course, it will be the Chinese.

I recently wrote a short piece on the ignorance imbued in a poke at Chinese history at the end of Alice in Wonderland, which was released a few weeks back. But this pales in comparison to the approaching epic compilation of substantive deficit that is Red Dawn.

You might respond: But you haven't even seen the movie yet.

True. But the premise -- a major Chinese invasion of the United States -- is so defunct of military and diplomatic reality that I really don't have to see the movie to know its factual failure.

Moreover, how does the director, Dan Bradley, and his crew feel about the potential damage this could do to civil society? A sea of American and Chinese people are already woefully ignorant about each other. Many Americans think that Chinese are brainwashed and repressed, while many Chinese think Americans are war-mongers. This movie plays squarely into this ignorance.

And although it is unlikely to set off any wars, given the sensitive balance of U.S.-China relations, this film will be, at least, unhelpful in the matter of public nationalism (or xenophobia) toward the other country.

This was originally published on RealClearWorld.

China's Democratic Reforms

2010-03-14T12:49:00.006-04:00

Today, the Associated Press reported on the wrap-up of China's National People's Congress. A largely rubber-stamp legislative body of 3,000 delegates, this year's Congress passed the Communist Party government's annual report with 97.5 percent approval.

Although not a central part of the story, the article goes on to state the following:

"Delegates, who include hundreds of army officers, themselves are carefully vetted by Communist Party officials and selected in a perfunctory election by lower-level committees."
[Emphasis added]

It's true that most of these delegates are predetermined in the high-level politics of China, yet the abundance of reporting out of the West on the "perfunctory" processes in Chinese politics understandably skews the perception of its audiences. As much as those in America or elsewhere buy into the common narrative that China is a near-totalitarian regime, it has been experimenting seriously with inner-party democratic reform in lower level elections for over 14 years.

According to one report (PDF) by Joseph Fewsmith in the China Leadership Monitor , in 2001-02, about 5,000 of 16,000 official positions were chosen through elections, some more democratic than others. In some places, there have even been direct, competitive elections for a position, called a “public recommendation, direct election” (公推直选).

And aside from the institutionalized democratic processes, like elections, there are all types of democratic negotiating in China via social movements -- a field which I research. For example, workers might protest over nonpayment in China's southern sunbelt region and, wanting not to risk larger instability, local governments appease their demands. Democracy is more than punching a ballot.

Is China a one-party state? Yes. Is it more repressive than most states in the West? Yes.

But these facts are beside the point. Westerners, and particularly Western media and newswires, have to start seeing some of the complexity in the gigantic world of Chinese politics. As much as it confuses our worldview, we might have to decide that China is not Big Brother.

This post also appeared on RealClearWorld.

(AP photo)

Who Else Might Be Mad at Alice? China

2010-03-12T20:02:00.007-05:00

What Does China Have to do with Alice in Wonderland?

Nothing, should be the obvious answer. Yet, somehow, the screenwriter for the new film adaptation of Alice, Linda Woolverton, figured out how to fit the Opium Wars into the plot with neither necessity nor justification.

(Spoiler alert: I'm not revealing much from the plot, but if you plan on seeing this movie, then you might want to bookmark this article for a later time.)

Tim Burton's new iteration of Alice is set in London during the Victorian Era, the apex of the British Empire, which lasted during the reign of Queen Victoria through much of the 19th century. In this movie, we watch Alice, 19 years old, struggle to take back control of her life from various characters in and outside of Wonderland. It is a coming of age story, and the ultimate result is that a fully empowered Alice returns to her life of Victorian nobility to pursue new plans for success.

After a long, colorful and exciting adventure, Woolverton and Burton decide to conclude the last scenes in the film with Alice unleashing her new power ... on China? A minute before the credits, Alice conspires with her father's old trading partner to ambitiously expand the company's business to new horizons, in China.

To the casual observer in the West, this might seem innocuous enough. However, to many Chinese - and people who might have studied Chinese or British history - this is a not-too-inconspicuous reference to the Opium Wars, one of the most embarrassing events in Chinese history (for the Chinese, that is).

A brief background: in its trade with Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Qing Dynasty would only take silver in exchange for the luxury goods - like tea and silk - that it was shipping in large quantities to European nobility. The result was a huge accumulation of silver reserves in China and frustrated governments in the West. (Sound familiar?)

To rectify the imbalance, the British began exporting opium from India to China throughout the 18th century, successfully reversing the silver flow. Fearing the societal damage caused by masses of drug addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited opium sales in 1729. Despite this, British traders illicitly continued to increase the flow of opium into the Middle Kingdom.

Thus began the foreign domination of China, in which the Qing Dynasty would fight and lose two wars to the superior British military, resulting in multiple "unequal treaties," in which Britain and other foreign powers would charge the Chinese hefty reparation payments for the wars, gain access to Chinese ports and enjoy extraterritorial rights for their expats in Chinese cities. Moreover, the Treaty of Nanjing ceded ownership of Hong Kong to the British Empire.

The height of foreign domination for the Chinese government and its people was in the latter half of the 19th century, which happens to be the middle of the Victorian Era of the British Empire. And this embarrassment has salience today. The Communist Party gained control of the Mainland in the 1940's, in part, because it was the party of resistance against foreign influence. Contemporary Chinese nationalism is rooted in the lessons and embarrassment from the Opium Wars.

Back to Alice. The reason the plot's conclusion is particularly noticeable is because the expansion for Alice's trade company is precisely the fruition of her struggle throughout the entire film - it's not even a footnote. If we use history as our guide, then we know that it probably means Alice would have her hands in on the opium trade. Not only is it troubling imagery for a female role model in a Disney movie, but it's also a celebration of the exploitation that China suffered for a century.

There was already some commotion in China over Avatar because of an alleged reference to conflict over land development, but that movie didn't even mention China by name. Given the much easier logical connection in Alice, you ought not be surprised to see more objections coming out of China.

This was a recently published op-ed.

The Earthquake Index

2010-03-04T18:16:00.006-05:00

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan -- Two months ago, Haiti lost over 200,000 people to a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. Last week, Chile saw about 800 casualties and extensive from an 8.8 rumble. As I drank my coffee this morning, my apartment in Kaohsiung City, along with the rest of Taiwan, was shaken by a 6.4 quake. As of now, there are 13 people injured as a result.

The earthquake's epicenter was in Kaohsiung County, so the city was particularly susceptible. Yet students stayed in school and most businesses operated in their normal fashion -- although President Ma Ying-jeou canceled his day's schedule to respond to the quake's damage.

Despite similar seismic conditions, Taiwan fared tremendously better than Haiti. (Sure, a 6.4 is six times less powerful than a 7.0, but how many times must you multiply 0 casualties to get 212,000?) In fact, Kaohsiung even has three times the population as Port-au-Prince.

The obvious factor in the disparate outcomes is economic development, where Taiwan has had a far greater capability to prepare for such quakes -- though the enforcement of building codes has been questioned by some. Even Chile, suffering such a strong seismic event, saw relatively few deaths in the context of Haiti. To the Chileans' credit, they have also invested extensively in preparedness. Yet it is also notable that inequality in Chile is about five times greater than in Taiwan, so there are more vulnerable people in Chile during a quake.

Earthquake deaths seem to be rough, natural indicators of equitable development -- or lack thereof. You can even look at a similar region over time: compare the deaths in undeveloped California during a 1906 quake of 7.8 and a 1992 quake of 7.3. The former, in San Francisco, took 3,000 lives, while the latter, near Los Angeles, killed exactly two people.

What doesn't change with development, though, is the instant feeling of uncertainty one experiences as Earth swings your apartment building around you.

This was originally published on RealClearWorld.

Young People Will Save U.S.-China Relations

2010-02-24T19:31:00.003-05:00

Here's my post from today's blog on RearClearWorld:

Recently, Gallup surveyed Americans on their views of other countries. Some of the results have been mentioned already on this [Compass] blog.

The results are particularly notable for the age-group breakdown.

A solid 62% majority of 18 to 34 year-old Americans had a favorable view of China at the beginning of February. Compare this to the general population: 42%. At the same time, in a 2007 survey (PDF) by the Committee of 100, 69% of Chinese 18 to 29 expressed a positive view of the U.S., where the general population was at 60%.

In general, younger people in both surveys are more likely than their older countrymen to throw love at other nations. But this doesn't make the results less significant. Rather, young people might be more internationally-oriented than previous generations.

More than their parents, young people in America have traveled to China, watched Chinese movies, and etched Chinese character tattoos on their arms -- whether or not they know the meaning. In China, youth have increasingly lived or studied in the U.S., learned English, and, as a result, watched a daily assortment of American TV shows and movies. This is all good for future U.S.-China cooperation.

Unless, of course, you're over the age of 34. In your case, those damn kids don't know anything.

China's Preparing for Oil Scarcity, But Is America?

2010-02-15T10:26:00.008-05:00

The economic recession is now out of its most acute phase, but the systemic damage and slow recovery will be felt for years in many Western countries, particularly the U.S. Conversely, China grew at about 8% last year and a top Chinese think tank has predicted10% growth in 2010. As China roars into its year of the Tiger, America will be dealing with high unemployment and low single-digit growth for half a decade or more.

If we were to deem 2010 as a starting point for evaluating future economic prospects, China obviously has a leg up over the U.S. from the get-go, in terms of growth potential.

But which country is better positioning itself for long-term growth? Two decades from now, the gears of national economies will be churning without the last century's most popular lubricant: oil. In a future of oil scarcity, will the U.S. or China be more prepared?

If you travel around China, palpable is the massive infrastructure investments being injected into every major city. Guangzhou, Xi'an, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Fuzhou, along with many other first- and second-tier Chinese cities, have plans to begin or expand subway and high-speed rail systems as quickly as possible. This is part of the government's $350 billion investment to build 20,000 kilometers of new rail in the next three years.

While the Chinese have now clearly passed Americans in auto sales, the PRC government is constructing a modern mass transit network because it knows that the future -- 20 years on -- includes severe oil scarcity. So it is providing the links for citizens and businesspeople to easily traverse China's vastness in the future, when most people won't be able to afford the expense of autos. (And the oil cost associated with a car is not only in the gas needed for daily driving; it also includes road materials, building the car, and road tolls. For much more on this, see $20 Per Gallon.) Moreover, the Chinese government is structuring incentives in its economy so that businesses and people choose more efficient and less petroleum-reliant modes of transport. For example, a vehicle emission tax is being formulated that will make all autos -- but especially the most energy intensive -- more expensive to own.

Across the Pacific, the U.S. is a different story. Its economy is now, like the Chinese, still dependent on oil, but the government is doing little right to prepare for the slow decline into crude oil scarcity. The people of California, if they can get beyond their budget crisis, have called for a high-speed railway that would link its most important commercial hubs, yet in the rest of the nation, the collective mindset and, thus, Congress's focus is far from the future of national transportation. Despite the warning signs of rapidly increasing gas prices, Americans haven't realized the salience of world-class public transport in a not-too-far-off future where cars and plane tickets are luxuries.

This evaluation of economic prospects is complicated, however, by the costs of international transport. Currently, global supply chains are dependent on cost-effective transport to every corner of the world -- made possible by cheap oil. Trading over long distances by air, sea, and land will all become less-sensible for businesses in the future; trade will necessarily become more local unless international transportation can find a viable non-oil alternative. So while the Chinese are building their infrastructure, the trade and export growth that fund these projects will be threatened. So the potential for China to capitalize on its current infrastructure investments will depend on a larger chunk of its annual growth being domestic rather than foreign consumption.

For the U.S., expensive oil and reduced international trade could be a huge boon to its low growth numbers. The necessity to produce goods closer to the point of consumption will both bring millions of jobs back to America and help reduce America's trade deficit and debt. But this benefit is contingent on the U.S. finding the resources and will to build a massive railway system on which to transport these goods. When automobile and air transportation becomes ridiculously expensive, at $10 or $14 per gallon, rail will be critical to keep products moving at low costs across America. Without an effective rail system, goods will simply be more expensive, thereby raising prices and damaging consumption.

And then there's the "why." Why does the U.S. have such a hard time investing in critical long-term infrastructure projects while the Chinese can quickly construct a massive national transportation network backed by piles of money? Surely, the political systems play no small part. A centralized one-party state has few barriers to ramping up national plans, for better or for worse, than a staunchly partisan democracy.

Ultimately, the "why" is less important than the "how" for America. Despite the apparent righteousness of scapegoating on a democratic system, without greater preparation, the U.S. economy could be left uncompetitive or worse in the approaching oil-starved world.

This was originally published on RearClearWorld.

Chinese Bombs and Chinese Aid

2010-01-18T09:50:00.014-05:00

The past week's headlines are significant for highlighting the two potential manifestations of China's growing global clout. First, China announced that it had successfully tested anti-missile technology. Four days later, after Haiti was devastated by a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, China announced that it would provide $4.4 million worth of aid to support the global effort.

China watchers, for at least a decade now, have been arguing over the path that China will ultimately traverse in international relations. Will it develop into a responsible member of the international community, or will it eventually decide to take on U.S. military dominance in hopes of controlling the international system?

The events of the last seven days suggest an ambiguous answer to that question.

On the one hand, the PRC sent significant aid -- the amount noted above plus another $1 million via the government-controlled Red Cross Society of China -- and personnel to assist one of only 23 countries that still recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. In the past, China established the pattern of not dealing with or assisting nations that recognized Taiwan. And if the Chinese tried to sign an agreement with one of these states, then it usually stipulated a breaking of diplomatic ties with Taipei. Therefore, China's quick response to Haiti's disaster without any strings attached, despite Haitian recognition of Taiwan, signifies a PRC that is more concerned with playing its part and building confidence with the international community.

On the other hand, on Jan. 11, China publicly announced the success of a missile test in which it shot down another missile in mid-flight while it was in space. This is something that, until now, only the U.S. has successfully achieved, making it a significant step in military development. Moreover, this is evidence that China's pumping increasingly more money into the military -- particularly its maritime, space, and electronic -- capabilities is paying off in quality, not just quantity. Certainly, if it were planning on a purely cooperative future, China wouldn't need such capabilities, defensive or not.

These two futures are not mutually exclusive, of course. Conceivably, the PRC could be showing the world that it wants to be constructive while simultaneously hedging its bets on a world that, largely, does not trust its military intentions. But how much does such a strategy reinforce doubts amongst some in the international community?

Yet, it is not a Catch-22. What China needs to do is to use -- and please excuse the cynicism -- crises, such as Haiti, as opportunities for much more significant confidence building. With all of its foreign reserves and new military wherewithal, China could be playing a much more significant role in international humanitarian efforts, particularly during disasters, in which politics can usually be evaded. Imagine if China were to have sent $50 million and 1,000 aid workers to a country with which it didn't even have diplomatic relations. This would have been a clear sign that China is here to play a positive role in the world.

As it uses its newfound power to make more significant contributions, the PRC doesn't necessarily have to stop developing defensive capabilities. (America certainly does both.) But without matching the growing might of its military arsenal with diplomatic and humanitarian might, to many around the world, China's intentions will remain in doubt.

This originally published today on the Compass blog at RealClearWorld.

(AFP Photo)

The Costs of Imperialism

2010-01-07T08:12:00.005-05:00

A friend recently sent me a presentation at TED by a doctor named Hans Rosling, who has already gained some fame at TED for his first talk, in which he made statistics more visually palatable and effective for learning. In the latest video, which you can view below, Rosling estimates that China and India will reach the per capita income level of Western countries by 2048. Seeing as growth models often change, this is open to debate.

However, it was in the course of the talk that one can gain some really interesting knowledge. For one thing, both China and India were imperialized -- in different ways -- during the first half of the 20th century. During periods in which both of these large nations were being controlled, directly or otherwise, by other nations, the health of the Chinese and Indian populations stagnated while the rest of the world increased. (Health was measured via life expectancy.) In addition, per capita income moved nowhere. Using Rosling's visualizations, China and India were two "bubbles" just sitting in the same spot for decades while the rest of the world moved to higher and healthier places.

When their respective imperial forces were ousted, however -- the British for the Indians; the Japanese, British, Americans, and end of the civil war for the Chinese -- the quality of life for both nations quickly increased.

A similar relationship can be found among many circumstances in which a population is being controlled by an "outside force" -- i.e., a government unelected by or foreign to their own people. The reason seems pretty straightforward: when a foreign country is controlling another, then it is usually imposing laws and moving resources in a way that benefits the foreign country rather than the native population.

Or is it straightforward? Currently, in Afghanistan, although Western forces want to leave a stable, prosperous nation to the Afghans, the health of the people has plummeted. According to the UN's Human Development Index -- which measures quality of life using life expectancy, education indicators, and GDP per capita -- since 2001, when the Taliban were pushed out of power by foreign forces, Afghanistan has dropped from 117th to 181st in the world, making it the second worst-off country on Earth.

This horrible news comes despite the money, lives, and attention given to Afghanistan by Western nations. And this is an instructive lesson about foreign occupation: imperialism isn't always malintentioned. Indeed, neo-imperialism is often damaging to the very people the occupiers hope to assist. (Even if the assistance is ultimately meant to serve the interests of the occupiers, as is the case in Afghanistan.)

The culprit is the foreign forces themselves. As long as there is any major resistance, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, there will be major armed conflict between the foreign and domestic forces. The insecurity associated with this, as well as the death and disease directly related to the fighting itself, will doom the greater society to stagnation as resources are poured into the security matters and developmental policies become too unsafe to effectively implement.

This should raise questions about the utility of occupation and nation-building. Despite any purported intended benefits for a nation's people, these engagements drag out conflicts that ultimately suffocate the people. More effective assistance, then, might look to keep the developmental aspects of a strategy -- like education, trade, investment, and medicine -- while removing the antagonists -- namely, the occupiers.

Taiwan Should Say 'No' To U.S. Arms

2009-12-11T12:34:00.009-05:00

Recently, RealClearWorld, the international sister site to RealClearPolitics, published my op-ed on the recent movement in the Obama Administration toward selling arms to Taiwan. Here's a link to the op-ed on RealClearWorld. But for convenience, I've included the full text below. As always, I would be glad to hear your thoughts.

December 11, 2009
By Kevin Slaten

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan - The U.S. might make a final decision for a new arms deal with Taiwan in the next two weeks. This weapons package should be put on hold, not because it's inconvenient for U.S.-China relations, but because it threatens the Taiwanese people. In fact, not one of these three countries has an interest in seeing this deal to fruition. And at best, the timing is terrible

On Dec. 9, the deputy assistant secretary of state for defense trade in the Obama Administration revealed that the U.S. is getting close to another major arms package to Taiwan, including Black Hawk helicopters, advanced Patriot missiles and diesel submarines. As expected, China responded a day later, unequivocally opposing the potential sale. President Obama's decision to notify Congress of the sale could come as early as the third week in December after Obama returns from Copenhagen.

This arms package should be frozen where it stands, namely in Congressional discussions and Pentagon war planners.

The common line of argument is that such a deal may damage the U.S.-China relationship, which is packed with important issue like climate change and trade. At the very least, it could halt the progress of Sino-U.S. military-to-military (mil-mil) exchanges.

In all likelihood, however, this arms deal would do little to affect negotiations on central economic and environmental issues. After past U.S.-Taiwan arms deals, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has not linked the security and economic realms. Despite U.S. arms deliveries to Taiwan from 2000-2007, trade between the U.S.-China grew 130% during the same period, from $116 billion to $386 billion.

But concerns over mil-mil exchanges may be more justified. In 2008, the Bush Administration approved an arms package to Taiwan, which resulted in the PRC suspending mil-mil talks. Given China's rapidly growing defense capabilities, the future of security in the Asian Pacific region depends on a more robust and less suspicious military relationship between the U.S. and China.

Despite this, the U.S.-Taiwan arms deal is much worse for the prospects of the Taiwanese people than that of their American or Chinese counterparts. Unlike the Sino-U.S. relationship, the Sino-Taiwanese relationship is not a conference of two equal powers, and Taiwan cannot afford to let its recent progress with the Mainland fall apart.

Right now, representatives of the PRC and Taiwan are negotiating an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which is a partial free trade agreement (FTA). This trade pact is essential to the continuing competitiveness of Taiwan in the East Asian economy because a free trade zone is fast emerging in region. The PRC has been in talks with Korea and Japan over a trilateral FTA and a China-ASEAN FTA comes into force on Jan. 1, 2010.

President Ma Ying-jeou hopes to sign the ECFA by spring of next year. If this trade deal were to fall through, the consequences for the Taiwanese people would be serious. According to the Council of Labor Affairs in Taiwan, the country's economy stands to lose 0.2% GDP and 47,000 jobs if the ECFA were not signed. And this is on top of the expected 2.5% contraction of Taiwan's economy in 2009, which is heavily reliant on exports. Even worse, none of these numbers can take into account the damage to Taiwan's GDP once business and investment start moving to ASEAN and China in 2010.

An arms package between the U.S. and Taiwan would jeopardize the ECFA. The PRC has a much smaller economic stake in the ECFA than Taiwan. China's GDP is growing at a brisk 8% clip, and the Chinese do not have the pressure of being left out of a looming East Asian free trade zone, namely because China is central to that zone. So although the Mainland might want to sign the ECFA, it loses little from making an example of the arms deal by putting the ECFA off until 2011. But the Taiwanese cannot afford any stalling.

The gains of this arms deal for Taiwan, however, are minimal. China has near 1,500 missiles pointed at Taiwan, around 70 submarines, and another 70 combat ships. The Chinese navy could overwhelm Taiwanese defenses. Yet Taiwan's deterrent against Chinese invasion has always been, and will remain, the economic disincentive for the PRC to invade as well as a strong American military presence in the Asian Pacific. The handful of missiles, helicopters and submarines included in this arms package will not change that.

Here in Taiwan, few people foresee a war with China. But economic stagnation is an everyday reality. Taiwanese, especially young people, are uncertain if they can get a job out of college.

Of course, the Obama and Ma Administrations do not want to be viewed as acquiescent to China by their respective critiques, so they might want this arms deal for domestic political appeal. But neither has much to lose from waiting until next year. Besides, the potential damage to Taiwan's economy could quickly override any gains of an arms package to President Ma's approval ratings.

So other than a small (and forgettable) political gain for Ma and Obama, these arms would increase no one's security.

Kevin Slaten was a junior fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Now, he lives in Taiwan on a Fulbright Grant. His opinions in no way reflect the views of the State Department or Foundation for Scholarly Exchange. He blogs at www.kevinslaten.blogspot.com.

Still Enemies

2009-11-11T04:17:00.011-05:00

A North Korean ship and South Korean ship faced off in a bit of armed violence yesterday (10 November). Now, this was far from the resumption of Korean War-like hostilities, but the spat is interesting for what it means: North and South Korea are still enemies.

The hostilities took place about 11 kilometers east of Daecheong Island, marked by the red 'X' in the upper-left corner of the image.

Some analysts point out that this is probably an attempt by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) to demand US attention just ahead of Obama's trip to East Asia, which begins this Thursday. Although this may be true, the very fact that the Koreas are able to exchange fire means something about the potential for Korean relations in the near- to mid-term future. Whether or not there is diplomatic positioning involved, if both sides are still willing to fire on one another, then they still staunchly view one another as enemies.

Although that may seem far from a revelation, the implications for Korean relations and stability in Northeast Asia are important. If North and South Korea cannot get past "enemies" to, at least, "suspicious neighbors", then a true Korean Peninsula peace is still a good distance down the road.

Moreover, if this true, then there are larger consequences for the region. First, China will still be able to control North Korea as a lever in gaining the attention of South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Second, the US and China will still have the Korean tension as a secondary issue of disagreement in the Sino-US relationship, given that the US seeks a denuclearized Korea while China may not necessarily find such an outcome in their favor right now. Third, until that peninsula is at peace, Japan will seriously consider a missile defense shield (via the US), and this is a tense issue in both the Sino-US and Sino-Japanese relationship.

One of these days, the Koreans will stop shooting at one another.

Buff Humans are Weird

2009-11-03T05:56:00.014-05:00

I was listening to some recent podcasts of Science Friday, a weekly program on National Public Radio, and came across a segment that discussed humans' innate propensity for long-running or endurance exercise. (Here's the audio and here's the transcript.) Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a biologist from Harvard, was the show's guest. Here is the key part of what he said:

"If you think about humans as sprinters, we're actually really pathetic. So Usain Bolt, the world's fastest sprinter, can run in -about nine and a half meters in a second, right. So he's pretty fast compared to the rest of us. But he can only do that for about 10 or 20 seconds, and then he'll run out of gas."

"A lion, if it was chasing Usain - and I hope that doesn't happen - a lion will run twice as fast as Usain, 20 meters a second, and can do it for four minutes. So as sprinters, we're just pathetic. We're always going to be lunch for the carnivores. But what we're astonishing at is really long-distance, endurance running. So there's really no other creature that's as good as us at running in very long distances at pretty good clips."

I don't debate what Dr. Lieberman is arguing at all. However, given the fact that modern humans have evolved for endurance activities (i.e. aerobic exercise), I'm interested in the implications for those humans who pursue the exact opposite: sprinting activities (i.e. anaerobic exercise).

(Full disclosure: my interest in this issue is, in part, engendered by my lifestyle. I've been an avid weightlifter for 12 years, currently weightlift 5 or 6 days in a week, and on the days that I don't weightlift, I usually go to the track and do sprints!)

The body of a person who predominantly does aerobic exercise, henceforth a "runner", is different from that of a person who usually does anaerobic exercise, a "sprinter". Runners have less muscle and, often, a stronger cardiovascular system (i.e. their pulse and blood pressure is better) than sprinters. If humans are better equipped to be runners, then it can be safely assumed that the traits of a runner are easier to obtain than the traits of a sprinter. In other words, it takes less time and energy to "look like" a runner than to "look like" a sprinter.

The implications are interesting to ponder. Since humans that "look like" sprinters are more rare, there at least are two possibilities sociologically: 1) having physical sprinter traits, like more muscle, raises one's status because the traits are rare or 2) having these sprinter traits damages one's status because the person is viewed as a deviant -- they are outside the normal body type.

General examples of both can be observed, depending on the social context. Muscular men certainly seem to benefit in status among Americans; how many women reading this have not ogled over beach pictures of Matthew Mcconaughey or Hugh Jackman? (Or for that matter, how many men reading this haven't done the same thing?) On the other hand, professional bodybuilders, like Jay Cutler, are often viewed as "freaks", which is code for "deviant from the norm".

Although you may disagree that any of the above men should be viewed as more admirable because of their bodies, you are likely to agree that these men are, at least, notable for their bodies. Contrast this with a talented person like Bill Gates, who is admirable for many things, but his body would probably not be one the things that you'd mention about him.

Of course, the status ascribed by a person's body type also does not exist in a vacuum. Our status depends on the group we are in at any a given moment as well as other social traits (like our education, income, power, or language).

It might seem all-too-obvious that a muscular body (for men or women) can be viewed as desirable. My question, though, is this: is muscularity sometimes desirable because it is rarer amongst humans? (Remember, our natural inclination is to have a runner's body.) Or is the status of muscularity like the status of wearing bell-bottom jeans in the 1970s -- a social trend that will just die off in due time like most other trends?

Perhaps it's a bit of both. But I'm done pondering it for now because I need to go to the gym to lift some weights.

International Law and the Double Standard

2009-10-11T05:48:00.007-04:00

A common criticism of international law -- both existing law and potential law -- is that states have their own interests and will only comply with or form new law when it aligns with those interests. Recently, Eric Posner argued this on Foreign Policy. Putting aside his weak contention that President Obama has been as equally loathsome of international law as President G.W. Bush, Posner's main theme is that countries' interests don't align enough to make international law worthwhile.

The problem with this argument is that it is being applied selectively to international law -- it's a double standard. In domestic politics, every individual citizen has their own interests. That is a given. In representative democracies, like the United States or most any other democratic country, congresspeople or parliamentarians have very distinct interests (that may or may not represent their constituents). But scholars and commentators don't disparage democracies because various people or politicians have interests. To have interests is derived directly from having needs, and to have needs means you're alive.

So, the argument that "unaligned interests makes cooperation hopeless" is absurd. If this were true, then we ought to all give up on any form of society or government.

The primary difference between international and national law is enforcement, not interests. While in the US, for example, an individual can be arrested and convicted for murder, there are no world police (technically speaking). And mechanisms like the United Nations Security Council or the International Criminal Court are hampered by a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms. (The ICC has been struggling recently to stay above water in this respect.)

But the lack of international enforcement is a choice and, perhaps, rather natural. International law is, historically, still in its nascency. The first attempt at truly global law didn't begin until the attempts at forming the League of Nations in 1916, so in this sense, international law hasn't even hit the century mark.

Compare this to the European Union. The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, was the initial attempt at Europe's first security-based international system of law. It was a full 344 years before the European Union -- states linked by domestically enforceable law -- was formed through the Treaty of Maastricht. And even now, there is no single EU military or police force. Each state's police force within the EU must, under law, uphold EU regulations.

The world is composed of many more individuals and states, so it seems predictable that the development of an international legal system should take so long.

Ironically, Posner makes a key observation in the development of effective international law: "International law is only as strong as the states with an interest in upholding it." Precisely. America's domestic system of law is upheld, at base, because the individuals and entities in that system consent to it. Americans each have an interest in social order, lest chaos abound. Likewise, international law makes the world more efficient, predictable, and (in the long run) safer.

Given so many disparate interests, we're unlikely to see a world government in our lifetimes. But today's arguments over international law may seem laughable in 2200 -- like arguments in 1733 over a religious-refugee-founded, world-dominating union of fifty states spanning the North American continent seem today.

Peace in the Taiwan Strait?

2009-10-05T08:43:00.005-04:00

Since President Ma took office in Taiwan last March, the relationship between China and Taiwan has improved rapidly. The two governments have concluded multiple agreements on trade, travel, and finance. And an impending Taiwan-China free trade agreement (FTA) -- called the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement -- could link the two entities irreversibly.

In fact, relations have warmed sufficiently, it seems, to merit some sort of punditry tipping point. Some are beginning to talk about the consequences of a Taiwan-China peace agreement for East Asia and the US. But one piece in particular, written by Philip Saunders and Scott Kastner, is notable for its clear-minded analysis on what a peace deal across the Strait might look like and, further, what it might do to affect other political calculations in the region.

In short, a true peace agreement -- in the sense of unification -- is far off. The Taiwanese political climate is not prepared for such a step. But, as Saunders and Kastner point out, "an interim peace agreement -- trading a Taiwanese commitment not to move toward independence for a Chinese commitment not to use force -- seems increasingly possible."

This is a confidence-building measure (CBM) proposal, and I would suggest reading the full article for the details. My general take is that it is not only an opportune time for such an agreement, but it is also a necessary agreement. First, any deep step toward unification is going to require baby steps that prepare both the Chinese and the Taiwanese for the idea of being more integrated economically and politically. Second, and more importantly, Taiwan needs this FTA with China. If Taiwan holds off much longer on economic integration with East Asia, then it will lose a significant amount of jobs and investment in the next decade as these travel to countries in the East Asian bloc, like Thailand or Vietnam.

There is only one argument the authors make with which I disagree. They rightly mention that for unification to ever be a real prospect, the divergent identities of Taiwanese and Chinese people need to be addressed. In other words, people on both sides need to get comfortable enough with one another to be able to see themselves as "one" national people. Here's what the article says:

"A peace agreement might help address this issue through the exchange of 'identity goods,' measures that allow one side the chance to influence the other side's perception of national identity. Expanded media, educational, and people-to-people exchanges could give Beijing a chance to persuade people on Taiwan about the benefits of unification, and allow Taiwan a chance to press for greater openness and political changes in China that would make unification more attractive."

I think the final phrase here is unrealistic. Without a drastic change in the domestic political climate of China, there is little to no chance that the Communist Party (CCP) would allow Taiwan or Taiwanese people to press for more political openness in China. At this point, it won't even allow its own people to flirt with such propositions, so why would the authors think that the CCP would permit the Taiwanese -- the people of its "rogue province" -- to press for a more liberal political system?

Putting this criticism aside, I think Saunders and Kastner have it right on expanding educational and people-to-people exchanges. As is usually the case, the potential for great change lies in the perspective of new generations. As young Taiwanese and Chinese come to know and accept each other, the "otherness" of their parents' generation will no longer make sense to them. It is these young people that will one day shake hands and say, "peace".

More Public Funding for Test Tube Food

2009-09-14T10:08:00.007-04:00

A few months back, I argued in the Foreign Policy website that public cash needs to be put behind in vitro meat. Recently, I read a piece in Seed magazine, in which the director of a nonprofit (called New Harvest) that supports in vitro meat was interviewed. In it, the director, Jason Matheny, explains the recent evolutions and details of the process of developing cultured meat as an alternative to livestock-derived meat.

The interview is interesting, but one thing Mateny said is particularly important: "The Oxford economic feasibility study I mentioned earlier suggests that, at an industrial scale, the cultured meat cost should be quite competitive with conventional meat, but we’re not there yet. It’s five to 10 years away, not two or three."

Later, he reiterates the "10 years off" line. This is significant because it means that investors won't take big risks on this technology right now since it probably won't be profitable for another decade. But in a year when the next climate deal is supposed to be struck at Copenhagen, this technology is too good to let it simmer below market signals. Given the amount of carbon that the livestock industry contributes to the climate, a massive revolution of in vitro meat could be a significant component of the new international climate pact. (As Mateny mentions, culture meat produces 80% less carbon than current livestock.) This is especially true because much of the future increases in carbon from livestock will come from countries who have yet to produce a lot of livestock carbon, like India or China. Through public investment, the structure should be put in place now for a large in vitro meat industry in developing countries -- it's easier to change the trajectory of an industry now than to try to change a large livestock industry in the future.

For countries like the US that already have a massive livestock industry, the political will be more difficult to find. Not only is the meat industry huge and influential, but there is so much concern over public investment right now (i.e. the economic stimulus and health care) that further climate measures might get overshadowed.

However, if China were to catapult ahead of the United States regarding in vitro meat technology and business, then it wouldn't be the first time in the past year that China had taken bolder steps than the US to do what needed to be done in terms of public investment. China already might be the future leader in electric cars, wind tech, solar tech, or just any "green tech", all of which are likely to be the cash cows of the next half-century.

Of course, that raises interesting questions about the trade-off between democracy and government efficacy. For another day...

The Limits of Gender

2009-08-22T08:52:00.007-04:00

Caster Semenya, an 18-year old runner from South Africa, recently took gold in the 800m race of the world championships in Germany. But her performance and medal are being disputed by some due to a debate over her gender, and the whole issue brings to light the problems with applying dichotomous gender categories in some cases.

Cleared of drug use, other athletes, sport commentators, and teams have challenged Semenya's running in a women's competition. Though the testing has yet to be done, it is possible that the running star could have a genetic mutation -- for example, a Y chromosome like men have -- which allows her to perform better despite having female genitals. Semenya could also have greater levels of testosterone due to a hyper-active adrenal gland, which could allow her to run faster.

This event brings two questions to light. First, how should biological gender (sex) be defined for athletic competitions? Second, what should be done about the Semenya's particular case?

As for sex, a line must be drawn somewhere. Either female genitalia or reproductive organs seems like a reasonable criteria. However, it is not acceptable to rule out any person with high naturally-occurring levels of testosterone, in the same way that we should not disqualify Michael Phelps for having abnormally short legs and a long torso, or Shaquille O'Neal for towering 7'1" above the ground and carrying large amounts of muscle mass. Indeed, most record-breakers or top-level athletes are born with abilities or traits which 99.9% of humans do not possess.

In fact, this concept could even be extended beyond athletics: the leading physicists are born able to understand extremely complex concepts and formulas, the best singers are born with the ability to hit otherwise-unthinkable notes, the most influential politicians were born to connect with people, etc.

So, it would be either misunderstanding or outright jealously that would drive officials to disqualify athletes for their inherent capabilities.

Second, Semenya's case: the answer is technically uncertain right now because, as mentioned, the testing must be done. However, I think we can assume that she has female genitalia, given how far she's made it without anyone pointing out this obvious problem for a woman athlete. So what could the testing reveal that would justify revoking her medal? It is difficult for me to imagine a strong case against letting Semenya celebrate her hard work and ability through a gold medal -- and probably more in the future.

In this case, we must embrace individuality, not punish it.

Missing the Point of the Public Option

2009-07-22T22:29:00.010-04:00

The following was written by guest author Sue Ann Orsini.

Tonight, President Obama gave a press conference to further discuss the health care reform initiative. (Transcript available here.) A question was asked regarding the public plan option, particularly on whether or not Obama would use his own Administration’s plan if his family members were sick, even if the plan didn’t offer all types of available treatment. The same question was posed by a doctor during ABC’s “Prescription for America” discussion held last Friday. And while the President fumbled his way through a mostly political response at both events, I wondered why he wouldn’t just say the truth – questions of this sort are meaningless and betray a deep lack of understanding about what a public option would mean.

Certainly, these questions illicit emotional responses, particularly fearful mob reactions to the word "socialism" that inevitably pops up when the public plan is discussed, and also anger over long-standing class-based complaints that the rich and powerful always get a better product. For me, asking whether or not Obama would use his public plan overlooks two very important issues. First, a public option may improve the health of the insurance markets by providing competition and regulation of the industry. And second, anyone who insinuates that the Administration’s public option will be the only option has obviously not read the text of any Congressional proposals.

The health insurance market is complex. It's not just composed of big name companies, like Blue Cross or Aetna, but a number of side-players, including Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), that actually have great influence on cost and sometimes commit outright fraud. Hardly any regulation governs these health care middlemen, and they are left relatively free to set prices. Such rampant manipulation hurts consumers and propagates an unhealthy market. Congress has been aware of this manipulation for years - the courts have, too. Major litigation occurred only a few years ago concerning pharmaceutical price-fixing. And just last Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to address issues of competition in health care insurance. The public option would attempt to regulate the health care market by providing an alternative to private plans (keyword here is alternative).

As for my second issue, I wonder how many people running around screaming "Socialism!" have actually read the part of the recently introduced House bill concerning the public option. Nowhere in that bill text does it say that we will have to choose the public plan. Nowhere does it suggest that you can't continue with the coverage you have right now. The argument that a public plan will take away your choice and drive us down the road to socialism is a lie propagated by people who fear change. And to those people I would ask this question: Do you truly have a free choice now as to what kind of doctor you can see? Do you truly have a choice as to which treatments you can seek without paying through the nose?

My recent journey into the health care system tells the story - I hurt my back, was constrained as to which doctors, specialists, chiropractors, etc., that I could see through my insurance plan. I was constantly on the phone with my insurance company making sure as to what they would cover. And then, when I transitioned into employer-based insurance, I had to prove to that I'd been covered before in order to waive the "pre-existing condition" clause (something which would be forbidden by the current bill). I may be able to get insurance through my employer now, but I have no choice as to which insurance company I use. Adding a public option into this mix isn't going to make my lack of choices any more or less pronounced. It may improve things.

In the end, much of the discussion over the public plan amounts to nothing more than fearmongering disguised as rhetoric. Fearmongering gets us nowhere and rhetoric can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Check out the latest bill for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Sue Ann Orsini is a law librarian that specializes in the legislative process. She works in Washington DC.

ALTERATION: on 23 July at 11:43 AM, the title of this post was changed.

White Man's Neutrality

2009-07-20T18:54:00.011-04:00

Last Thursday, Steven Colbert (on The Colbert Report) used his conservative pundit spoof, yet again, to express through humor what most news media either miss, skew, or don't say outrightly. In this case, he performed another in his regular segment called "The Word" -- a satire of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" -- in which Steven pontificated the claim that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's life experience is a scar on her record while all past (white) nominees' life experience was an asset to their qualifications as a judge. Using this ridiculous argument, Steven was pointing out the hypocrisy of those (in news media or politics) that focus on Sotomayor's pride in her life experience as a problem. Most delightfully, Colbert makes this argument using a comparison between the nomination and an ordeal over the color of Band-aids. I'll let you see for yourself the brilliant connection -- watch the clip below. (If the video does not show up, then click this link.)

This clip also had me thinking: pushing out material like this four nights every week, it must be exhausting to be a writer for The Colbert Report.

What Scares the Chinese Communist Party?

2009-07-14T20:45:00.013-04:00

The past couple of months have seen events heat up (and then cool down) over internet censoring system in China, called Green Dam Youth Escort. This program is purportedly meant to protect Chinese youth from pornography, though many are concerned that the program could be used to expand surveillance or censorship. In May, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) ordered that all computers sold in China have that software installed by 1 July. The ultimate result was a rare occurrence in national Chinese politics: on 30 June, the CCP retracted its directive. Actually, to be more accurate, they "postponed" the directive. In fact, a government official said that the CCP "will definitely carry on the directive on Green Dam. It's just a matter of time." But even if this does happen, it is questionable whether or not the directive will be enforced strictly.

Setting aside the distinct possibility that Green Dam will eventually be mandated on all Chinese computers, there is a more important question that bears on whether or not the directive is ever truly carried out: why did the CCP step back in the first place? In other words, what scares the CCP enough to so clearly reconsider their policy?

In short: the people of China.

The blowback against Green Dam came from both domestic (primarily netizens) and foreign (IT industry, governments, civil liberties groups) sources in China. But while some claim that pressure from the outside was important, I think that pleasing foreign audiences is only a bonus in the calculus of the CCP decision -- not the primary factor.

There are two particular reasons why Chinese citizens -- not foreign entities or foreign NGOs -- are most responsible. First, the reaction from Chinese internet users, who would be most affected by Green Dam, was powerful. This community of 300 million is a tremendous social force, particularly if a great number of them become unified behind an interest. And the CCP monitors internet chatter constantly, gauging reactions to certain policies. In the case of Green Dam, the CCP had overstepped a line. Chinese netizens saw it, at best, as a computer-wrecking software and, at worst, a threat to their rights. Most profoundly, an open letter was published by a group of anonymous Chinese netizens, in which they explicitly threaten the CCP:

"We hereby declare that we, the Anonymous Netizens, are going to launch our attack worldwide on your censorship system starting on July 1st, 2009."

The attack was never commenced. But the CCP also retracted its directive the day before the netizens' action was to take place. So it is hard to know for sure whether or not the letter was a bluff. In any case, the rejection of Green Dam by the Chinese public was clear. And as a one-party state, significant discontent of the people cannot be expressed through voting or organized lobbying. It can only be expressed through dissent. This is not a road down which the CCP wants to trek.

Second, in past events involving domestic civil liberties, foreign entities have had little to no leverage over the CCP. China and its government is now too large, powerful, and prosperous to be heavily influenced by other governments when it comes to domestic policy. The CCP knows full well that any threats of economic sanctioning are empty because most large nations are too intertwined with China's trade sector. And no amount of protest from the outside has ever changed CCP policy over, for example, forced citizen relocation for infrastructure projects and the Olympics, policy in Tibet, political prisoners, or policy in Xinjiang. (A caveat: governments or foreign entities that work to develop Chinese civil society can arguably have a long-term effect on grassroots pressure for change from within the country.)

Even foreign companies that were affected by the Green Dam directive do not have as much influence as some would like to think. Technology firms do business in China knowing very well that the government has myriad restrictions. But if and when the Green Dam directive is carried out, those companies will continue to do business in China for the same reason that they were there before the new rule: the Chinese tech market is huge. (And this is particularly attractive in a time when the world's previous champion of consumerism -- America -- is dealing with a deep recession.)

In addition to both of these reasons, Green Dam has been shown to be rather ineffectual, thus reducing the opportunity cost for the Chinese government.

The lesson here is that the CCP knows to whom it is primarily accountable. And those people are standing firmly within the borders of China. More accurately, many of them are probably sitting in front of their computers... blogging.

Beauty Amidst the Chaos

2009-06-22T21:59:00.007-04:00

As has been widely reported, Iran is in the throws of a large social movement. Some have called it the beginning of the end for the current regime. (Another similar opinion here.) I will reserve judgment for now. But as can be gained through print and video, dissent is flowing through Tehran. And faced with such a massive political movement, the regime is threatened.

The unfortunate truth is that these movements often entail violence -- both from protesters and (especially) from a threatened government. But while surveying the many many videos of the Iranian struggle, I came across something that, I think, is worth pointing out because it rare among the footage. In a particular video (below), a motorcycle-mounted agent of the government (could have been police or Basij militia) either fell off of his bike or was forced off by protesters. Afterward, he was presumably beaten (though it is not shown in the video) by some in the crowd.

Yet in this chaotic scene filled with fire, screaming, and violence, beauty emerges. The government agent, who looks to be suffering from a concussion, is pulled out of danger by a number of protesters. Then, most profoundly, they proceed to protect and care for him. This is such a heartening act of humanity. These people had the courage and kindness to almost immediately take in the same person who, moments ago, had been beating other protesters.

It begins at about 2:20 and continues until the end of the video (3:30). I look forward to your thoughts.

In defense of meat

2009-06-17T21:19:00.004-04:00

A different version of my last post (regarding the myth of eating meat) was published today on the Foreign Policy website. It can be found here.

Eating meat is bad for you and the world... kind of

2009-06-13T13:54:00.013-04:00

When reading a recent Foreign Policy article, I was reminded of the growing movement toward vegetarianism and away from meat or animal food products. I was also reminded of the nutritional falsehoods being touted in this campaign.

There are three essential lines of argument against eating meat, all of which are discussed in the linked article above.

First, meat is bad for a human's health. Second, the meat industry emits a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is contributing to climate change. Third, killing animals for food is immoral in and of itself.

I disagree with the third issue philosophically. (Although the manner in which many animals are farmed is horrid.) But animal rights is a much more murky issue and I'll leave it alone for now.

The second premise is accurate; the livestock sector accounts for 18% of GHG emissions. But saying just this misses some nuance within the meat industry. Beef and pork are not equal to poultry, some fish, and other sources of protein relative to GHG emissions. According to one study (page 6), poultry and milk are three times more energy efficient (in carbon emissions) than beef and six times more than pork. Herring is seventeen times more efficient than beef. And this does not even account for methane emissions, which are 25 times more potent as a GHG. With everything factored in, the beef industry emits 13 times more GHG than the chicken sector.

Lastly, the idea that meat is bad for your health is simply not true. Again, there is a huge difference between eating a diet with a lot of beef and pork and one with a lot of poultry and fish. The main difference here is saturated fat. Beef, pork, chicken, and fish all have relatively high amounts of cholesterol. But cholesterol, by itself, is not a threat to your health. It only becomes the bad stuff that clogs arteries when a person's diet is also high in saturated or trans fat. Most cuts of beef and pork are quite high in saturated fat. Chicken, however, are composed of leaner cuts.

Furthermore, to group fish in with either of these is absurd. Any fish that is high in fat is composed of very healthful Omega-3 fatty acids, specifically docosahexaenoic acid. Far from being damaging to health, a person is more likely to have a healthy cardiovascular system by eating fish, when compared to a diet without it.

The other nutritional component here is the utility of protein. The argument from a climate perspective is that more protein is not linked to better health. Again, a falsehood. Protein, as a building block in the body, may have diminishing returns, but when compared to the common alternatives for vegetarians, then the importance of protein becomes clear.

If someone is not eating protein as a source of calories, then they must be those calories from either carbohydrates or fat. Since carbohydrates are the cheapest to produce (e.g. grains, rice, sugars), this will be the most likely food choice. But these are also the foods that will raise blood sugar in high consumption. Therefore, these are the most likely to cause diabetes in people. Protein, on the other hand, has negligible effects on blood sugar. So a diet high in protein is less likely to raise blood sugar than one high in carbohydrates.

(Carbohydrates, of course, have an important role to play as well. Top among these are fiber and the many vitamins/minerals/antioxidants associated with carbohydrate foods. My point is simply that anything can be overdone.)

Rather than educating the public on the above nutritional differences, many in the climate movement generalize all meat together, using studies that also do not differentiate types of meat.

The upshot: beef and pork farming emits a lot of GHG. At the policy level, governments need to begin taxing or capping GHG emissions in order to reduce the most polluting meat sources. Furthermore, public money needs to be pumped into a solution that would make this whole issue null and void: in vitro meat. Until that happens, we all need to diversify our sources of protein, eating less of it from meat in our daily diet. Dairy, whey protein powder, soy, and poultry are some of the least energy intensive choices.

I am a strong supporter of policies and behavior that will halt climate change. That is why it bothers me when falsehoods are perpetuated by others with a common interest. Campaigns for change are a necessary part of human progress, but not if they are driven by dishonesty.

Made in the USA -- Owned in China?

2009-06-03T22:46:00.012-04:00

There are three recent and interesting cases of Chinese businesses buying into American brands. First, in order to receive public money, Morgan Stanley had to raise some private funding. As a result, China's sovereign wealth fund now has a 10% ownership stake in Morgan Stanley, America's sixth largest bank.

Second, two Chinese investors, Jianhua Huang and Adrian Cheng, are buying a 15% combined stake in the NBA's Cleveland Cavaliers. (Incidentally, this is my hometown team.) The move by Cleveland may have a lot more to do with globalizing the team's brand than budget problems. Cleveland hopes to entice the team's phenom, LeBron James, who could be fancying a new city after the Cavs were beat -- yet again -- in the late stages of the playoffs.

Lastly, a Chinese industrial company, Tengzhong, is expected to close a deal later this year on total ownership of Hummer. General Motors, Hummer's current owner, chose to sell off Hummer as part of its restructuring deal with the federal government.

These three bids are important for a few reasons:

1) They represent the larger economic trends underway in the US and China. During this deep and long recession, the US contracted by 6% in the first quarter of 2009 while China grew by the same amount. China has taken a hit in its export sector, but its large government stimulus and considerable investment has left many Chinese companies in strong positions. Meanwhile, the US market has made penny stocks out of heretofore dependable behemoths -- such as GM -- and these firms are cutting jobs or going belly-up. In some cases, then, Chinese companies are well-suited to buy up these quintessential American brands while the market price is dirt cheap and the US companies are desperate for cash. In short: China and its businesses are gaining from the economic destruction taking place in America.

2) Relatedly, such investment is ultimately good for the US economy. America's deflation is worsened by the lay-offs produced by businesses shutting down. Every Chinese firm that saves a US firm from liquidation helps to counter deflationary pressure. For example, Tengzhong's buy-out of Hummer will keep employed 3,000 factory workers as well as employees at 100 Hummer dealers.

3) These investments are signs of deepening globalization. As Chinese entities take more ownership in US entities selling in the American market, China's fate will necessarily be more connected to the fate of America. Even though the pattern, until recently, has been interconnection via cheap Chinese exports and incredible American consumption, this new direction should be expected to become more common. Furthermore, heightened interdependence will make official Sino-US relations more complicated. But at the same time, it may also assure that the relationship remains peaceful.

Of course, you may have a problem with the loss -- partial or total -- of big American brands to foreign entities. (A "quasi-American" Hummer just doesn't have the same patriotic appeal.) I would offer a couple responses. First, if it is any comfort, most components for your favorite American products have been coming from abroad for many years. Second, find a positive coping mechanism. Globalization is quite unlikely to go away, particularly during the most globalized recession in human history.

Obama eats his own words

2009-05-21T15:06:00.020-04:00

Want to know what a contradiction sounds like when it comes out of a highly intelligent, eloquent lawyer? Watch or read President Obama's speech today on Guantanamo Bay Prison and the detainees held there.

To be fair, Obama delivered a detailed, well-prepared response to many of the recent falsehoods being spewed about this topic. The transcript reads like a well-balanced discussion by a professor. And he ought to be commended for many of the steps he's taken to uphold his commitment to close Gitmo and deal with its prisoners in a legal manner -- which were major campaign promises. (Some of these steps include banning torture, sticking to the closure of the prison, and reviewing every case.)

But a detailed and thoughtful argument does not necessarily mean a logical one.

Obama says that each of the 240 remaining cases will fall into one of five categories:

1. Try them in federal court under criminal laws.

2. Cases that include "detainees who violate the laws of war and are, therefore, best tried through military commissions." But these commissions will be reformed to fall in line with the Constitution -- torture cannot be used as evidence, hearsay is more scrutinized, and greater rights for detainees to choose their counsel.

3. Those that are deemed innocent and will be released: "The courts have spoken. They have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo."

4. "The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer."

5. Those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." The next quote is critical:

"We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States... Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at Al Qaida training camps or commanded Taliban troops in battle or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat, I am not going release individuals who endanger the American people."

A minute later, the president says, "But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes." And at three other points in the remarks, Obama stresses the importance of avoiding "fear-mongering" (his words) when discussing national security.

These two sets of quotes are, of course, a stark contradiction. But wait, there's more! A third set of incongruities: Obama spoke frequently about the need to uphold the rule of law and the values of the United States. The most instructive quote: "I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as commander-in-chief. And as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever turn our back on its enduring principles for expedient's sake."

I will simplify these three premises to make the fallacy more clear (contradiction in bold):

1. Rule of law will be upheld.

2. Appeals to fear are illegitimate means to make important decisions.

3. Some detainees will not be subject to the rule of law because Anericans should be afraid of the extraordinary security threat that they pose.

(I am not the only one that spotted this contradiction.)

One particular thing bothers me about this contradiction. As stated before, Barack Obama is a genuinely intelligent person trained in the art of logic. Thus, there is a reasonable chance that he knows, with a clear head, that he is rhetorically lying. There is no rational way that he can simultaneously uphold numbers 1, 2, and 3 above. So unless he has made a mistake, Obama is insincere about at least one of them. This bothers me. It ought to bother you.

Leaving aside the extremely disappointing possibility that President Obama lied, there is the separate but (more) important problem of what to do about these detainees that continue to "pose a threat to the security of the United States."

The solution: try to rehabilitate them and then let them go.

First, the rehab step. Many of these prisoners are ideologically motivated and justify their violence through their religion. One way to change these motivations is to convince them to reinterpret their religion in a way that delegitimizes violence. It is performed by allowing religious scholars -- Islamic clerics in this case -- to argue with prisoners about doctrine. Rehab is a highly successful tool in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the US military in Iraq. (Here's a more detailed article on rehabilitation and its success.)

Second, whether or not rehab ultimately works, prisoners must be let go if they are not found guilty under the rule of law. This happens every day with people in the US prison system who have been trained with or have grown up within violent gangs, openly express hate toward other gangs or groups of people, or who could possibly kill Americans. Although they are effectively the same as Gitmo detainees, we would not claim that "they are at war with the United States."

True, compared to the average citizen, these prisoners are more likely to commit a crime. But these are the sacrifices that we make in a system of law. Furthermore, if exceptions can be made for them, then they can be made for you.

A Test for the Chinese Communist Party

2009-05-14T22:19:00.020-04:00

Recently, the memoir of China's top leader during the 1989 Tiananmen protests was published. But this isn't just any book.

Based on 30 hours of audio testimony by Zhao Ziyang, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman from 1987-1989, the book details Zhao's opposition to the repression of protestors. He also expresses strong support for the democratic goals of the Tiananmen movement: "In fact, it is the Western parliamentary democratic system that has demonstrated the most vitality. It seems that this system is currently the best one available." Further, he says, "If we don't move toward this goal, it will be impossible to resolve the abnormal conditions in China's market economy." (Full disclosure: I am waiting for the book to be shipped to me and have not read it. My evidence is based on reports of the publication.)

The English version of this book, Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang, is available in Hong Kong and will soon be sold in the US. The Chinese version will be released in China at the end of May. This is, of course, right before the 20th anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen Square protests. Thus, it is particularly inconvenient for a CCP that is already sensitive to any mention of this issue in the media or among Chinese civil society.

This will be a test for China's leadership. At the very least, Zhao's memoir is going to foment discussion and reevaluation about the reasons and legitimacy of the Chinese government's use of the army to quell dissent in Beijing two decades ago. At the most, the memoir will raise questions about the need for more political freedom in China today.

The CCP's response to this event can vary widely:

1) Suppression. At one extreme, the CCP could ban the sale of the book anywhere in China, tighten its internet surveillance on Tiananmen discussion, and ramp up its prosecution for mention of the subject. But since the book is coming directly from the former #1 man of the CCP, this option would seem particularly paranoid and contradictory. Such steps would also express a distrust in the Chinese people to handle Zhao's accounts. This could seriously risk marring the image -- and even the legitimacy -- of the CCP among its populace.

2) More of the same. The government could allow the book to be sold but continue its policy of prohibiting open conversation on the historical events. This seems the most likely option. Not only does it require the least amount of change in policy -- always an issue in a bureaucracy -- but it still hedges strongly against the Tiananmen issue becoming a larger social movement -- always a concern for the CCP in country frequently wrought by large protests in the past century. The CCP does not plan on significant political reform in the next five years -- the focus is economic and environmental. So this response to the book seems most in line with the Communist's plan. It wouldn't score any points with the international or domestic audiences, but it wouldn't lose any either. Least risk, least reward.

3) Opportunism. The government could allow the sale of the memoir and then allow further civil society discussion on what Zhao's testimony means for the historical account of the Tiananmen incident. Further, the CCP could release a statement responding to the new information, thereby framing the issue in the public before other prominent voices could do so. This approach holds more risk but significantly more reward. On the one hand, allowing the public to begin discussing Tiananmen more openly could provide an opportunity for democratic forces within society to readily gain support for contemporary democratic demands, possibly escalating into another movement. On the other hand, if the CCP frames the issue first as being a primarily historic one, then it can gain in two ways: a) it could prevent escalation by implicitly setting limits to the discussion and b) the CCP can continue to associate itself with Zhao, who is highly respected among the Chinese people. Finally, this option would also score big points with the international community. (However, one could argue that China has more international influence today than it has since the 19th century doesn't need the boost in international leverage right now.)

4) Pull out all the stops. Of course, the CCP could always use this as an opening to allow the sudden open conversation of democracy in current political reforms. Not only is this highly unlikely, but such a sudden transition and reversal of policy would be risky. This step could feasibly be taken in the next five years, but the first step ought to be sorting out the facts of history in a public conversation.

As stated earlier, #2 is the most likely reaction as it falls in line with the Communist Party's current plan. I would be elated to be wrong and see #3 come out of the the government -- the people deserve some honesty on this historical matter and should be able to discuss their past openly. But the CCP has few interests in allowing Tiananmen to be discussed now. There really aren't any compelling political reasons for the CCP to act. They don't need a mandate to govern as long as they deliver a more prosperous and green economy.

And let's all hope that we don't see #1. On the issue of Tiananmen, suppression of Zhao's book would, indeed, be a step back into history.

Cold Winters

2009-05-11T20:41:00.007-04:00

The EU recently signed an agreement with several countries to speed up the construction of the Nabucco gas pipe that will circumvent Ukraine and Russia. The goal is to both meet demand in the EU and reduce Russia's capabilities to cut off gas to shivering European countries in the dead of the Winter as it did this past season.

Although meeting demand is an obvious imperative, the strategic goal of deleveraging Russia would require much more than Nabucco. According to the article, the pipeline will supply -- at best -- 5% of Europe's needs. This is compared to Russia's 20% slice of the EU's gas supply pie. So even if all 5% displaced Russian gas, Russian will remain in a strong position.

Furthermore, Nabucco won't be complete until 2014. Any advantage it might provide Europe is far-off at this point.

Seeing as global warming isn't working quite fast enough to reduce the EU's Winter gas demand by 20% in the next five years, the European Union would be wise to alter its strategy toward Russia. Together with the US, the EU needs to take away Russia's legitimate excuses. Namely, the implicit containment strategy of NATO and a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Obama's move to link the missile shield to Iran is smart. But in accepting new NATO members, Russia ought to be brought back into negotiations over new members through the NATO-Russia Council. (The first meeting since the Georgian war commences next week.)

Until Russia ceases to feel threatened by the West, it will continue to assert its privileged position as Gas King... and Europeans will suffer more cold winters.

Clinton Slips on an Easy Question

2009-05-06T18:30:00.012-04:00

Last Friday, Secretary of State Clinton was asked if the State Department is taking a softer tone with Hugo Chavez (president of Venezuela). And if the US is doing this, then why?

And in her response (last question on this webpage), Clinton made a significant mistake:

"So we’re going to try some different approaches. No illusions about who we’re dealing with or what the issues are. But I think it’s worth a try, because what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked very well. And, in fact, if you look at the gains, particularly in Latin America, that Iran is making and China is making, it’s quite disturbing. I mean, they are building very strong economic and political connections with a lot of these leaders. I don’t think that’s in our interest."

This was absolutely unneeded. There is no reason to -- on the record -- explicitly associate America's more cooperative posture toward Latin America with countering the "disturbing gains" that another country is making in the region. Briefly, here are some primary reasons for excluding such language:

1. First, it can be debated whether or not more cooperation (i.e. more aid and economic assistance) between China and countries in L. America is necessarily a bad thing.

2. Even if it were, it goes unsaid. Anybody who cares to know about US foreign policy knows that America would engage more readily with the world in order to have a greater degree of influence. It's implicit. And what is also implicit is that if America has more influence, then other countries necessarily have a lesser ratio of influence.

3. Clinton herself -- as well as President Obama -- will openly agree that a healthy US relationship with China is and will continue to be one of the most important US foreign policy priorities. Publicly stating, then, that Chinese influence is "disturbing" is counter-productive. It both slaps China in the face and expresses a significant lack of trust of China. This is intensified when China is being compared to Iran, which is far more inflammatory in its rhetoric and deed than China.

Ironically, Clinton ends her remarks with this: "My bottom line is: What’s best for America? How do we try to influence behavior that is more in our interest than not? And that’s how we’re looking at it."

I would turn the question back on her. Apparently, her behavior and her bottom line are misaligned.

Let's hope the Chinese overlook this one...

Follow the Trail of Bullets

2009-04-28T21:19:00.004-04:00

A new report was recently released by SIPRI that details the flow of arms transfers around the world. So who, you may wonder, is fueling the conflicts of the world?

The answer would focus your attention on at least one country. This state is, far and away, the top exporter of arms to the conflict-ridden Middle East ($9.9 billion from 2006-2008). One out of every three weapons transferred from 2006-2008 -- this will be the period of reference in this post -- came from a factory in this country. Based on typical news reports and TV pundits, you may be forgiven if you point a finger at Russia or China. But alas, the primary global arms trader is the United States.

The US produces and exports more weapons to more countries than any other country. America exported over $37 billion in arms (30% of all arms). Russia is second, exporting $29 billion (23%). For some perspective, the next six top sellers are Western European states (arms producing is a costly business), including the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. How about the Chinese? They come in at 11th, selling $2.4 billion in arms, or about 2% of global arms exports. That leaves the People's Republic just above the arms sales of Sweden. (Ruminate over that for a few moments.)

So the US exports over 15 times more arms than China. For at least some people, this is not a revelation. But what is more interesting are some of the specifics of US firepower abroad.

By tracking the biggest recipients of US arms, it is like looking at a map and priority list of America's geostrategy. Please excuse the crudeness, but consider the following:

Exports: $2 billion to Australia, $2.5 billion to Japan, $1.1 billion to Taiwan, and $6.5 billion to South Korea. These three combined are 32% of all US arms sales.
Strategy: Hedge against China's rise.

Exports: $4.4 billion to Israel and $3.8 billion to the United Arab Emirates (and one may even consider the $2 billion to Egypt). Counting Eygpt, 27% of all exports.
Strategy: Hedge against Iranian influence.

Exports: $1.5 billion to Canada and $1.7 billion to the United Kingdom. 8% of total.
Strategy: Reassure long-time allies. These states are what Alex Wendt and the academic paradigm of constructivism would call America's "friends".

Exports: $2.9 billion to Poland. 7.8% of total.
Strategy: Hedge against Russian influence.

However, a potentially worrying figure is the $1.5 billion in US arms sold to Pakistan. It is not that anyone should be concerned about the weapons reaching militants in the Northwest provinces. Most of the weapons were not small arms and are unlikely to be stolen or transferred easily to unintended recipients. Rather, my concern is the effects of this tremendous arms transfer on Pakistan's unresolved rivalry with India. India only received 15% of the arms from America that Pakistan received. What does this portend for the balance of arms between them? Furthermore, is India party to these American decisions to shovel weaponry at its western neighbor? If not, then I worry about the consequences for the Indian-US relationship in the future. India is only going to get more prosperous and powerful in the coming decades, and the US should avoid both being on the wrong side of this trend and fomenting a South Asian conflict between India and Pakistan. (I would invite my colleague, Ashesh, to comment on the validity of these concerns.)

Of course, there are all sorts of other findings in this dataset. I'd suggest taking a gander at the linked summary above. If you want to know where the rhetoric meets mortality, then follow the trail of bullets.

An Obama Administration Misstep on Engagement

2009-04-19T08:23:00.008-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some positive news about two US moves to boost its international authority through diplomacy -- joining the United Nations Human Rights Council and having an initial high-level meeting with Iran.

But unfortunately, the consistency of engagement has faltered a bit. Recently, the Obama administration has pulled out of a large international conference on anti-racism, hosted by the United Nations. After some negotiations on the wording of the conference communique, the US left the negotiations due to disagreement over deeming 'defamation of religion' as racism as well as wording that tries to equate Zionism (i.e. Israeli claims to territory and treatment of Palestinians) with racism.

Although both of these definitions of racism are objectionable for many (including myself), obviously there are a considerable number of people that believe in the wording or else it would not be a debated issue. (The religion and Zionism issues are supported by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.) But as I said in the previous post, only by staying engaged in these processes of deliberation over definitions of international norms and law can the US maintain maximal influence over the outcomes. By leaving these negotiations in a huff, the US only manages to diminish its influence. This is the tact that the Bush administration followed regularly; hence the decline of US authority.

The irony in this recent move is that a few weeks ago, in its bid to join the UNHRC, the Obama administration was explicitly espousing the idea of negotiating with those people or governments with which it disagrees. A wise principle. But apparently, consistency in its principles is a problem for the new White House.

To be fair, all governments falter on upholding stated principles -- insofar as they claim to be following principles. But the degree to which a government falters is key. The Obama administration has pinned a large part of its foreign policy on reengaging with others (refer to Obama speeches during the presidential campaign, his address on Al-Arabiya television, or any recent remarks in Europe). So to begin wobbling in highly visible diplomatic venues on a paramount foreign policy principle seems neither pragmatic nor right.

The US should recommit to discussions on the anti-racism conference.

Frank Gaffney's "Freedom Rule"

2009-04-11T14:32:00.012-04:00

On Thursday evening, I attended a debate with my good friend and colleague, Ali Wyne, at the New America Foundation. The clash was between Steve Clemons, president of the Foundation, and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Strategy and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under Reagan. Essentially, the topic was the first 100 days of Obama's foreign policy.

I had never heard Clemons speak before, but in the short time there, he struck me as a pretty pragmatic observer of US foreign policy. Gaffney, on the other hand, was touted before the debate as a neoconservative -- boy, did he deliver! (Quick note: neoconservatism is a foreign policy paradigm that strongly espouses the use of intervention -- especially military intervention -- to serve US interests and to build a liberal world order. In other words, spreading free markets and democracy by the barrel of a gun.)

Gaffney characterized Obama's foreign policy up to this point as "submission". If you want an explanation, let Gaffney (try to) explain through his commentary in the Washington Times. But as far as I'm concerned, his views were ridiculous. He sounded out of his league debating with Clemons.

I rarely feel this strongly about most foreign policy commentators, including neoconservative thinkers. I respect Bob Kagan -- often associated with neoconservatism -- highly for his intellectuallism.

But Gaffney held such unrealistic perceptions of the world. His views were myopically focused on two things -- the war against Islam and the "freedom rule":

1. Gaffney repeatedly spoke on Thursday of the inevitability of the US war against Islam because Islam's ultimate goal is the downfall of the US. (Then he would contradict himself moments later by saying that "of course" not all Muslims were dangerous, but the religion of Islam is still the largest threat to the US.) The endgame is, in Gaffney's view, that we will eventually have to dominate those groups that practice Islam, like the Taliban. Communicating with such groups is futile.

2. He also said that Obama was submitting to despotic rulers and abusers of freedom by negotiating with illiberal regimes, like Iran. Gaffney said that it was a rule of thumb that the US should not negotiate with such regimes -- I dub this the "freedom rule". America should either communicate only with forces for freedom and democracy (e.g. dissidents) or overthrow their governments by force (Iraq-style).

Both of these views are related and absolutely unrealistic. The problem lies in two facts that Gaffney simply seemed to ignore every time it was posed to him during the debate:

Fact #1: America cannot fight a war with all illiberal regimes. It simply does not have the resources.

Fact #2: the US has economic, security, and principled interests with many of these same regimes.

Therefore, to refuse negotiation with these regimes is to deny reality. This is an obvious conclusion to most foreign policy thinkers, and the real debate lies in the details about when and how to negotiate. But Gaffney doesn't even get past this, it seems.

And this is to say nothing of some other blaring problems, like the accusation that Islam itself is a prominent foreign policy threat. Also, one runs into problems when trying to argue what constitutes "illiberal". Should the US be invading every country it deems even the slightest bit less free than itself?

After the debate, I asked Frank how -- given the freedom rule -- Obama should go about dealing with China. Should the US remove all diplomatic communication in the name of freedom and work only with China's civil society? Should we militarily overthrow China? His response was that China is a "special case". Which makes the freedom rule defunct. I told him so. Frank responded that "the rule has exceptions". (Duh!) Which is exactly why this "rule" is unrealistic.

The point here is simple: if you truly care about the well being of people that are oppressed elsewhere, then -- given the fact that the US cannot overthrow every regime in the world -- America's best hope is to engage with those regimes that restrict freedom. This will better position the US to support democratic movements. Further, as the country develops from trade with the world, its middle class will grow, and historically, this is when people demand for more political freedom.

Really, the freedom rule just dooms those desiring freedom to economic hardship and indefinite years of suppressed freedom.

(Also, this say nothing of what people elsewhere want the US to do. According to a Pew study completed in July 2008 [p.14], 86% of Chinese people are satisfied with the direction their country is going. That is compared to 23% in the US. Maybe Americans ought to look inward first.)

America's Right Diplomacy

2009-03-31T18:22:00.012-04:00

The Obama administration has made two important diplomatic moves today: a high-level meeting with Iran and a bid to join the United Nations' Human Rights Council.

In The Hague, Netherlands, a conference on the situation in Afghanistan was being convened. There, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke met with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh in a brief sideline meeting. Secretary Clinton claims that it was "unplanned". Whether or not this is true, it is a clear step in the right direction.

Since 1979, the US and Iran have been throwing barbs at one another without formal diplomatic relations. Although lower-level officials have met on numerous occasions in the past, this face-to-face meeting is the first public, high-level communication in three decades. Furthermore, that it occurred at this particular conference is a signal by both sides that there are important issues -- like the stability of Afghanistan -- in which Iran and America share a similar end-goal.

The other positive move by the Obama administration was its effort to get a seat on the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Created in 2006 to monitor and recommend action on human rights violation, the Bush administration boycotted the UNHRC because of its membership of countries with questionable human rights records (like China) as well as the Council's numerous criticisms of Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Of course, the Bush administration missed the point of an international body. The idea is to get as many countries as possible invested in the international system of norms -- especially a rising power like China. And if it was a prerequisite that every country must agree on the definition of a norm -- in this case, human rights -- before coming together to deliberate, then cooperation would be hopeless. (Try to apply that conditionality to any interpersonal relationship and you would be absent friends or a spouse!)

By joining the UNHRC, the US will have more influence over the future of human rights going forward. And it is my view that the UNHRC could use some fresh deliberation; last Thursday, the UNHRC passed a resolution aimed to curb criticism of religion. (Here's the text of the resolution.) Without more resistance to hastily passed measures, the UNHRC could become a voice for the restriction freedom of speech, which seems peculiarly devoid of a human's right.

In summary: both of these diplomatic actions by the US are important in their respective issue-areas, but they also signal an increased willingness by the US to work within cooperative frameworks to achieve its objectives. This is a necessary step to winning back international support.

What do you think of these recent events? And do you think that these steps are mitigated by other actions that the Obama administration has or has not taken?

Congress Attacks the Symptoms

2009-03-26T18:08:00.018-04:00

As of today, there are at least five bills making their way through the US House and Senate that address the violence in Mexico (see my last post). And four of those bills have been introduced since March 11. Congress is paying attention.

But are they solving the problem? Not really. It turns out that these bills are great politics but half-hearted policy. The bills look like quick, resolute action to solve a problem that is increasingly threatening Americans. But every bill accounts for only the symptoms of the root cause -- criminalized drugs in the US.

To clarify this point, let's do a quick review of the bills:

1. H. Res. 258: primarily a position statement. It says that the US government supports President Calderón's struggle against the cartels in Mexico, will continue to provide resources and training to Mexico and its security forces, is committed to securing the border, and is committed to fighting drug crime. It's mostly principle; not a lot of 'there' there. But to be fair, it is a resolution, which tend to be more symbolic.

2. HR 495: provides $15 million over two years to step up efforts to stop illegal firearm smuggling to Mexican gangs.

3. HR 1437: provides $10 million over 5 years to fund a "Southern Border Security Task Force" to protect border communities in the US from drug related violence as well as to fight drug smuggling.

4. HR 1448: provides $150 million annually for additional border security and firearm tracking.

5. S. Res. 72: identical Senate resolution to H. Res. 258.

Congress is scrambling to throw funds at "fighting" and "protecting"; these are great words for appeasing constituents. But the US has been fighting a "war on drugs" for years without successfully curtailing illicit drug use. At best, these bills will account for symptoms of a black market for drugs.

Less they look forward to years of increasing funds to sustain border task forces, the US people need to urge their Congressional representatives to legalize drugs -- beginning with marijuana.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending in the five bills above. Yet ironically, if drugs were decriminalized, then the net gain for the government in tax revenue would be billions of dollars annually.

The most effective action in Congress would contain measures to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Don't hold your breath.

I want to thank Sue Ann for sending me all of the great information on these Congressional bills.

When Reality Comes Knocking...

2009-03-20T19:15:00.016-04:00

Given the lack of coverage in America's broadcast news, you could be forgiven if you did not notice the escalating drug war in the US's southern neighbor, Mexico. In short, President Felipe Calderón has stepped up efforts to fight drug cartels that have become powerful enough to be considered the de facto leadership in some states and cities -- such as Sinaloa and Juarez, respectively. The organized, wealthy, and well-armed cartels have reacted with intense violence, killing more Mexicans last year than all American soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars combined. But fortunately -- if murder can ever can be considered "fortunate" -- most of the deaths are gang members, in the process of desperately struggling for territory. (Another good article on the situation.)

This is important for at least two reasons. First, the violence affects the lives of many Mexicans and threatens the society, in general. Second, killing, kidnapping, and increased migration (from desperate civilians in Mexico) is affecting the US.

The circumstance has become this dire for a few reasons -- two of which directly involve the US. First, for too long, these gangs had been left to their own devices or paid off police to leave them be. And continued failure by Mexico's presidents to reform the police has allowed cartels to grow roots in their respective territories. Second, many of the weapons the gangs are currently using to kill thousands come from 6,600 US gun dealers on the Mexican border who frequently sell weapons to middlemen, who then turn around and sell to the gangs.

Third, and most importantly, the bulk of Mexico's drug trade is still feeding the US black market for marijuana.

Given the contributing factors, the solution must be matching. President Calderón has made reversing the first factor -- competent security and governance -- the centerpiece of his term.

The second issue, guns, must be dealt with from the US side by much stricter regulation and tracking over gun sales. For example, new laws could require that gun purchasers prove their continued possession periodically -- maybe every few months.

But as I alluded to before, the third factor is central: the demand for illegal drugs. And the obvious solution -- legalization -- is the reason why the US discussion of Mexico's violence is either insincere or ignored altogether. Take George Will's recent column, for example. He goes on for 90% of the article about the problem of violence spilling over into Arizona, but when it comes to the reality of confronting the problem, he writes one sentence:

Whatever the merits of legalization -- and there are certain to be costs -- it will not happen in the foreseeable future, which is where Arizonans must live.

Shrugging it off sure is easy, huh?

I am not going to undertake a long argument for legalization here -- and I'd like to hear your opinions on it in the 'comments' section. (Besides, many have done a much more competent job than I could right now.) I will confine myself to the most relevant reason: drug cartels will figure out a way to get their products to the tens of millions of Americans who use them -- and will continue to do so -- as long as there are not legal channels. Put another way, the demand is a constant; the only malleable issue is who is supplying the drugs -- a gang or stores.

Americans can continue to deny or ignore the reality at America's door. But what happens when it bursts in anyways?

March 22 - Update: for a better idea of the massive and profitable industry of marijuana in the US, read this article. (The article is from Foreign Policy magazine, but the FP website is having problems right now.)

Barack W. Bush?

2009-03-14T14:56:00.010-04:00

Is the foreign policy of President Obama no different from that of George W. Bush? Bob Kagan wrote an article in the Post last week arguing just this.

Kagan, a foreign policy scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, claims that in the most urgent foreign policy challenges facing the US -- North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, democracy and human rights -- the new White House is essentially continuing the trajectory of America's last administration. Kagan says that the only difference is in the rhetoric, where Obama has declared a new type of foreign policy.

But Kagan is wrong for two broad reasons. First, in some ways, Obama policy really has departed from Bush. For example, Obama is undertaking a different strategy in Afghanistan. Where Bush would not negotiate with the Taliban, Obama's team has made it clear that the Taliban are not one monolithic group and should be treated as such -- some militants can be reconciled through negotiation.

The second reason Kagan is mistaken is that he discounts the change in style as an unimportant. (Of course, as one of the leading realists in the world, Kagan may be irreconcilable on this issue.) True, rhetoric is not the same thing as action. But authority is not only derived from what you do. It is derived, in large part, through consent. Trust matters.

To the rest of the world, Iraq and the "War on Terror" under Bush was tied to America's larger disregard for international law and the interests of people from other countries. Iraq was an illegal war, "Axis of Evil" was an arbitrary justification for aggression, the "War on Terror" became a codified war on Islam, Guantanamo Bay took away the basic rights of hundreds, and torture was kicking dirt on the Geneva Convention. In the eyes of others, the US had become a bellicose, unilateral superpower.

Even though Obama policy, on the ground, has not changed drastically from Bush, Obama's symbolic overtures have made a profound difference in regaining America's moral authority around the world. Let's be honest, Guantanamo Prison now only holds a couple hundred people, so the closing of that prison is not affecting large populations. But the gains in authority around the world are profound. The same can be said for ending the practice of torture and committing to a more cooperative approach in foreign policy. By submitting itself to a more consensual system of international rules, the US regains authority.

And this authority will matter in significant ways in the future. Two examples: 1) countries are more likely to follow international law if the most powerful countries in the world are doing so. At the very least, it takes away an excuse for not abiding by law -- think Iran or Russia. 2) Fewer individual people may feel compelled to formulate grand, violent plots against Americans as a form of vigilante justice for the law-breaking USA. In other words, rebuilding authority would mitigate one of the contributing factors to terrorism.

In discussing the importance of symbolism and consent with one of my colleagues, I used the example of a book. Imagine you have a favorite book. Scenario one: an acquaintance takes the book from you and, after you fret over where it went for a few days, tells you that they borrowed it. Scenario two: an acquaintance asks you if they can borrow the book before you graciously allow them to do so. In both cases, the exact same thing is happening in regards to the book (it goes into the possession of the acquaintance), thus the prior consent for borrowing the book is symbolic. But in the first scenario, you will surely be more irritated because you did not give consent. The consent is what gives the acquaintance the authority to possess the book.

Without consent, America's actions eroded its authority for most of the past eight years. Would the effect of Iraq War not have been profoundly different if it had been authorized by the United Nations? Obama is not leading a revolution in foreign policy. But if his change in approach leads to a world in which others don't feel threatened by American power, then that is a clear departure from the feelings invoked by Bushian foreign policy.

Note: my thesis at The Ohio State University was on the subject of US authority in international relations. You can read it here.

New Taxes on the Wealthy Unfair?

2009-03-01T12:03:00.016-05:00

Are higher taxes for the nations top 5% a clear example of governmental overreach?

Anyone who followed the presidential campaign could see this battle coming for months. President Obama recently announced his budget, which includes plans to expire the tax cut for Americans that make over $250,000 annually. As soon as it was announced, the debate began -- just on time -- about whether or not this is fair.

In a recent LA Times article, Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, said that under Obama's plan, the top 20% of taxpayers in the US will pay 90% of all taxes. I had a hard time finding information that verified this claim. But let's suppose that Riedl's numbers are accurate. Initially, this may sound like a crime. Yet a look at reality would tell you that such a tax burden is actually in line with the distribution of resources in America.

In 2001, the top 20% of the richest in America owned 91% of financial wealth and 84% of net worth. The top 10% also had about 85% of all investments (stocks, bonds, trust funds, etc.) and 71% of net worth. This book (see pp. 28-34) and this study (chapter 5) -- among many others -- find the same results. And all of this was before the Bush tax cuts had a chance to accelerate the rate of inequality.

In reality, then, the new taxes match the reality quite well. On principle, it is simply fair. But there are other concerns.

One complaint is that these taxes are simply meant to redistribute wealth and make everyone economically equal. But this is not even a possibility. Just because the wealthiest pay most of the taxes doesn't mean that it reduces their wealth. To the contrary, the richest Americans' wealth is increasing far faster than taxes can reduce their wealth. According to Congressional Budget Office data, from 1979-2004, the top 1% saw their annual income rise 176%. The top fifth gained a 69% rise in their income. The middle 3/5 saw a 20-30% increase, and the poorest 20% saw only a 6% increase in their income. Compared to the median income increase over the same time period (about 10%), the poorest fifth in the country are actually more poor than 30 years ago! (And the top 1% made out like gangbusters.)

So the wealthiest in America have nothing to worry about if they think that they'll be taxed out of prosperity. Their huge income advantage and almost total ownership of investments will prevent higher taxes from regressing their wealth.

Another complaint goes something like this: rich people work harder for their wealth and should not have to give any more of it back to society. This is essentially saying that 20% of people in the United States work four times harder than the other 80%. Please! I won't even dignify that with a response.

Then there is the pragmatic side of this whole issue. The bottom 80% of American wealth-owners, and especially the bottom 60%, are struggling. The bottom 90% of wealth-owners have 74% of the nation's debt. True, some blame can be relegated to irresponsbility of borrowers and lenders -- living beyond means and trying to make money off of predatory lending. But many people are in debt simply because they have to be. Very few Americans can attend a university, own a home (no matter what size), or start a business without significant debt.

And these debts were already a problem before the recession. Now they are breaking people's back.

The point here: the government needs revenue to provide the services, projects, and credits (for school, homes, and businesses) that the far majority of Americans require. That money must come from somewhere (other than borrowing abroad). Some of it will come from cuts in ineffective programs; some of it will come from taxing the wealthy. It's dollars and sense (pun intended).

Therefore, these tax measures are both principled and pragmatic. The wealthiest are going to be just fine.

Obama's Missing Piece

2009-02-25T20:54:00.011-05:00

As many of you well know, President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night. (Okay, it wasn't technically a "State of the Union Address", but for all intents and purposes, it acted as one.) As expected, his focus was planted solely where it should be: on repairing the sorry state of the domestic economy and attending to neglected domestic policies. But what was urgently missing from these remarks was enough attention to challenges outside of US borders, particularly a vision for the world.

To be clear: Obama's priorities seem to be in the right order. Yet the weight he gave each priority in his address to the nation was skewed too much toward domestic priorities. Put another way, prioritization is not the same as single-mindedness.

Before going on, though, it should be stated that his domestic policy seemed well-organized, smart, and focused on the right areas. Beside the immediate stimulus plan, Obama said that he would focus his energy on three areas: energy, health care, and education. He talked about instituting a carbon cap in the US market and making clean energy technology profitable. Although he shrugged off the specifics of a health care plan, Obama rightly stressed the importance of universal health care for competitive business and the significance of preventive health care. (A note: Obama has made a clear political commitment to obtaining universal health care within a year when he said health care reform "will not wait another year." If he fails, then this could drain a good bit of political capital.) In education, Obama declared that the high high school drop rate would be reigned in and that significant college tuition credits would be given to students in exchange for volunteering. These are all positive steps to take.

And attending to all three issues is imperative for the long-term health of the US economy. But so is a global system of free trade, a halting of climate change, and stable international relations. Of course, none of the the latter concerns can be attended alone.

Yet of Obama's 5,902 words spoken last night, 515 were in reference to foreign policy. That's 8%. In an hour-long speech, that is about 5 minutes.

I don't want to overplay the numbers; they are relatively arbitrary by themselves. But it gives you an idea of the lack of attention given to foreign policy.

More importantly is what the remarks lacked in substance. In three sentences, Obama said that he would soon be unveiling his policies for Iraq, Af-Pak, and the general struggle against terrorism. Then he paid respect to American troops and spent a couple sentences denouncing Guantanamo and torture.

For the moment, let's forget that he provided no specifics on the important issues above. Understandably, this was not the forum to discuss the nitty-gritty of securing the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. As promised, Obama will likely roll these details out in the coming weeks.

Then the president went on to make a valiant -- but failed -- effort at presenting a grand foreign policy. He stated that the US needs the world just as the world needs America -- a true statement. Obama declared that a "new era of engagement has begun" in which the US will negotiate with friends and foes alike, using "all elements of our national power" to tackle global problems in concert with other nations. This sounds very near to Joseph Nye's concept of smart power. (Clinton invoked the term explicitly in her confirmation hearing -- see page 4.) Obama even goes on to give the approaching G20 meeting in April as an example of how the US must engage with the world.

But neither engagement nor smart power is a grand strategy. They are tools in a foreign policy toolbox. They are means to an end. But what end?

Sure, we want a stable Afghanistan, a democratic Iraq, a stop to climate change, peace and development in Palestine, etc. Everyone can agree that they want the most pressing problems resolved. But it is not enough for any country, especially a global superpower, to leap from crisis to crisis, reacting to flashpoints as they present themselves. The US must have a vision. America must actively shape the world it wants to see five, ten, or twenty years from now.

And on a bureaucratic level, a lack of grand strategy is destructive. If the scores of policy planners in the State Department, Defense Department, and Commerce Department are not linked by a common overarching strategy from the White House, then the administration risks disparate and conflicting policies across issues and regions. Policy planners must have general guidelines from which to work.

Far be it from me to declare the grand vision for the United States, but there are various strategies that could be pursued by the US for, let's say, the year 2025. (Conveniently, I will pose them as rhetorical questions.) Should the US still be the unquestionable, sole superpower? Should a more robust system of international law regulate state behavior and begin to shape a more powerful world government? Should a multipolar system of 4 or 5 global powers be working together to provide international security? Should all failed states be nonexistent?

I have a thousand of them. It is easy (and quite fun for policy wonks) to come up alternative visions for the world. But this should not be an academic exercise. It is a governing necessity.

After last night's speech, we all know what the ideal US economy would look like under the Obama Administration: buildings powered by solar panels, booming clean energy companies without the burden of employee health care, and a population dominated by a highly educated workforce.

But based on last night's remarks, I defy you to tell me what the ideal international order would look like under the Obama Administration. You cannot. And that is the missing piece.

Getting the Priorities Straight

2009-02-22T16:04:00.007-05:00

State Secretary Hillary Clinton just finished her trip through East Asia, ending it with a few days in China.

In her meetings with Chinese officials, Clinton expressed a clear, unequivocal (and correct) message: climate change and economic agreements will be prioritized in US-China relations over human rights and Tibet. The latter set of issues is intrinsically important, but if America and the PRC do not find common ground on halting carbon emissions and economic spiraling, then political freedoms become overshadowed by risings seas, crop failure, natural disasters (in the long-term) and economic collapse (in the short-term). More simply put: how can you talk about someone's rights if you cannot assure their basic necessities?

By striking this note in its first contact with the Chinese, the Obama administration has signaled that it understands the formula above. This is a good first step. But China and the US now need to act very quickly to reach agreements on carbon limits, technology sharing, and green energy investment (for the climate) as well as an agreement to stem off any moves at protectionism (for the economy).

Then, once each country has specific carbon limits and stable economies, the US can shift more attention to the balance across the Taiwan Strait, the future of Tibet, and the rights of dissenters, media, and the religious in China.

Gandhi He is Not.

2009-02-20T19:32:00.006-05:00

This month, Martin Luther King III, leading a delegation of prominent civil rights leaders, retraced the Indian path that his father traveled in 1959. King Jr. went to India to learn methods of nonviolence from Mahatma Gandhi before taking these lessons back to America and leading one of the most successful nonviolent campaigns in history.

King III's trip was described recently in a Washington Post article. At the end, the article discusses the nonviolent struggles of Gandhi and King being continued by Barack Obama. Representative John Lewis (D-Ga), a leader during the civil rights movement, was quoted as saying, "Many years ago, Gandhi showed the world that nonviolence was one of those immutable principles in the struggle for justice. Today, everybody in the world feels, 'If Barack Obama can do it, so can I.' "

Barack may yet still prove to be an historic leader of social change. But Gandhi he is not.

These comparisons of the president to King and Gandhi, about which I have too often heard and read, need to stop.

You might wonder why I would take the time to make a fuss about this. And my reason is simple: Obama is not nonviolent. As admirable as Obama's rhetoric and many of his actions have been, the courage to lead a nonviolent campaign in the face of severe hate, blatant oppression, and death threats exists on another tier altogether.

It is incredible that the success of the Indian independence movement, American civil rights movement, and Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution was driven by the suffering and instinctual fear overcome by millions. These struggles were a refusal to meet cruelty with cruelty, hate with hate. At its core, nonviolence is the most honorable of strategies. It is both an appeal to your aggressor's humanity as well as an adamant conviction to keep your own.

President Obama has already allowed three Predator drone attacks in Pakistan since he took office, killing dozens of people. And he will continue to fight the war in Afghanistan with military force. Implicitly, then, Obama is supporting social change through violence -- obviously the opposite of nonviolence.

This is neither meant to be an indictment of Barack Obama nor a discussion of whether or not nonviolence is realistic on the international level. (Though it may be.) Indeed, as the political leader of the most powerful country in the world, you can be sure that Obama would have never been elected if he had declared on the campaign trail that the US would eschew all violence under his presidency (see: the campaign of Dennis Kucinich).

That said, stop comparing the nonviolence of Gandhi, King, and others to the political movement of Obama. I admire the president for many of his principles, but none of those is the refusal of violence as an instrument of change.

A Slippery Slope of Germ Warfare

2009-02-16T19:23:00.019-05:00

In a recent column in Slate, Christopher Hitchens argues that the international community now is legally justified in using force to arrest Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. There may be a case for the international community to prosecute Mugabe, but one of the reasons that Hitchens lists is a dangerous precedent in international law: unintentional germ warfare.

He argues that Mugabe's governing negligence has led to Zimbabwe's widespread cholera outbreak -- which has taken over 3,000 lives in less than three months -- that is threatening to drive many infected peoples into bordering countries like South Africa. Based on this, Hitchens claims that Mugabe leads an implicit aggressor state against his neighbors, and under the UN Charter, this is grounds for defensive action (i.e. international intervention to dethrone Mugabe).

But this is a legal slippery slope of black ice, if there ever was one. No matter how negligent -- and he is a terrible leader of his people -- Mugabe did not intend for the cholera to spread like a biological agent via desperate Zimbabwean citizens. Mugabe has no interest in attacking his neighbors.

So if the new precedent is 'unintentional germ warfare' as grounds for invasion, then the implications are frightening. China would be invaded biannually whenever it suffers from an outbreak of bird flu in its southern provinces. Any country could declare war on any other if it could prove that a sick person from a foreign nation had transferred a disease to their own citizens. The US -- with its widely traveled population -- would be invaded by Summer 2009. This is absurd.

It seems like Mr. Hitchens wanted to derive reasons for a conclusion from a pre-determined conclusion. In other words, "Mugabe is a horrible person and should be removed from power, so what evidence can I find to prove my desired outcome?" This is not how reason should work. The evidence should drive conclusions, not the other way around.

All this said, there still may be a case to intervene. The Responsibility to Protect -- an international agreement solidified during the 2005 World Summit -- surrenders a state's sovereignty to the international community if the state's government cannot or will not protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the horrible economic depression and disease that has continued unabated in Zimbabwe for eight years may be defined as a "crime against humanity". 34-year life expectancy and 200,000,000% inflation is not a societal order; it is a nightmare.

Of course, with the recent political compromise and subsequent swearing-in of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, it may now be an illegitimate time to invoke R2P. Nevertheless, with state failures like Zimbabwe, we must begin to debate a broader definition of "crime against humanity".

Correction (2 February, 2009): Zimbabwe has experienced 200,000,000% inflation, not 200,000%... as if the currency wasn't worthless enough.

China should play a greater role in “Af-Pak”

2009-02-11T23:23:00.009-05:00

Earlier this week, I described two approaches to solving America's foreign policy challenge in Afghanistan. One of those solutions involves, among other things, significantly more troops -- but not necessarily American troops.

On February 12, a newspaper in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post published my op-ed on this issue. You can see it as it appears in the paper here. Conveniently, the article is sandwiched right between Tom Friedman and David Ignatius (lower-left corner). Let's hope that draws a few eyes to my argument!

Editors at the Morning Post have a tendency to tweak opinion pieces without permission (or without thought to what they are cutting out). So below, you will find the full essay as I originally wrote it. (Importantly, it includes a more complete defense of my proposal.)

Original essay:

Next week, Secretary of State Clinton makes her first trip to Beijing. She must make a case for China – a regional stakeholder – to play a greater role in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Currently, the Obama Administration is undertaking a major review of the war in Afghanistan. The president has already indicated that the US will probably scale back its objective there from installing a democracy to stabilizing the country and ridding it of terrorist elements.

There are two major impediments to achieving stability in Afghanistan. The first is resources. Despite plans to send 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan, the total allied forces will not be able to cover the vast expanses of the country. Further manpower seems unlikely to materialize: Iraq is not going to simply go away and NATO is resisting deeper involvement.

The second challenge is Pakistan. The tribal regions of the country’s northwest has given space for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to plan attacks on allied forces in Afghanistan. These militants are hard to reach due to a lack of central rule from Islamabad as well as adamant Pashtun resistance against any foreign presence. For eight months, the US has tried to fight inaccessible militants with drone attacks, but this tactic has only served to exacerbate tensions with Pakistani politicians and anger local tribes.

China could assist in both “Af-Pak” challenges.

The People’s Republic has strategic energy and economic interests in maintaining stability in both nations. Pakistan and China share a free trade agreement and did over $6 billion in bilateral trade last year. The “All Weather” allies are aiming for $15 billion in the coming years.

Beijing also considers Pakistan critical to energy security. The Gwadar port – 400km from the Straight of Hormuz – along with a network of rail and roads through Pakistan assures the convenient transport of Middle Eastern oil and gas to China through Xinjiang Province.

In Afghanistan, China has deep interests in acquiring natural resources. In 2007, after President Karzai opened up his country to foreign investment of natural resources, China Metallurgical Group won the rights to develop the world’s largest undeveloped copper field in Anyak for $3.5 billion. China’s state-owned companies are also likely to pursue Afghanistan’s untapped oil, gas, and iron resources.

Beyond these motivations, the circumstance in Af-Pak is an opportunity for China to take another next step toward its stated goal of becoming a responsible regional power and major world player. Beijing can allay concerns in the international community over its growing influence if it shows – through action – that it is ready to contribute to stability in trouble areas in its own neighborhood.

China can help in two primary ways: aid and troops. In Pakistan, China has been providing military aid for decades. This funding should increase to support Pakistani forces in rooting out violent militants in FATA. (Of course, the funding will not do any good without a successful effort by Special Representative Richard Holbrooke to convince Pakistani troops to fight.) Developmental aid will also be needed to encourage tribes to reject Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

China can help tackle the most urgent problem in Afghanistan – a lack of manpower – by lending some of its 1.7 million ground forces to the mission. Not only will this bring the stability necessary for economic development, but Pakistan would be much more comfortable with a large build-up of Chinese troops in Afghanistan rather than US forces.

Here too, China must commit aid – not just business investment. Without sufficient infrastructure, Afghanistan will continue to see its resources extracted with minimal gain to its people, therefore remaining vulnerable to militants who might offer an alternative.

Some would doubt the ability of Chinese and US or NATO forces to work together, citing underdeveloped military relations. But this is a chance to boost military cooperation. There is no more convenient time for building trust than when both sides want the same outcome: a stable Afghanistan.

Another complaint might be that China, as a one-party state, does not share the values of NATO, which was founded around democracy, and the mission to leave a viable democracy in Afghanistan. Yet this is irrelevant for two reasons. First, as mentioned earlier, the Obama administration has become more focused on the objective of stability than democracy. Second, given that security is the paramount objective, the pragmatic choice would be to leave ideology at home and obtain the manpower necessary to achieve stability.

China could be a critical part to success in Af-Pak. And given so many common challenges, this could be the first of numerous problems that China and the US tackle together.

Kevin Slaten is a Junior Fellow in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

An Approaching Power Shift

2009-02-11T19:39:00.009-05:00

In January 2009, more autos were sold in China than the United States.

This is significant. It is yet another indication of the gradual power transition to which we all are witness.

Of course, China surpassed the US in car sales last month due, in part, to the grinding recession in America. Furthermore, China has an annual boost in sales during the Spring Festival at the end of January. So for 2009, expect to see the US with more sales altogether.

But this news is important not because of the auto numbers themself; rather, it is important because it means that China is within "striking distance" now. A decade ago, the same slowdown still would have left the US far ahead of other countries in auto sales. But today, after a decade of 10% annual growth, China will periodically begin to surpass the US in some raw economic measures.

Before long, the US will enter a neck-and-neck horse race with the Middle Kingdom. With 1.4 billion souls, China can not help but to enter this competition as it develops. Its consumer market will continue to grow. And as this happens, producers the world over will begin to tailor products and services toward China's growing middle class with an abundance of household savings.

This trend should not seem alarmist. Even with the US economy sputtering, China likely will not surpass the US in total GDP for 15-20 years. Furthermore, once it does happen, it does not necessarily portend negative consequences for Americans. There is plenty of room for both nations -- as well as the rest of the world -- to prosper.

But the effects should also be confronted realistically. Business competition will only get more fierce. With the Chinese market becoming more attractive by the day, the US will lose more business to that country than ever before. Quality of life in America will not increase as quickly as it has in the past as more capital goes elsewhere in the world. People will have to be more willing to move to find opportunities -- possibly even overseas.

However, the most urgent effect of the shift is neither risks to Americans nor benefits to Chinese. It is the risk to the human race. China's selling more cars than the US also signifies the risk to our climate. China cannot develop in the same way as the US has. It must be far less carbon-intensive. And a Chinese society heavily dependent auto transportation -- in its current gas-combustion form -- will magnify climate change severely.

Hopefully this issue tops all others on Secretary Clinton's packed agenda when she arrives in Beijing next week.

Solving Afghanistan

2009-02-08T09:40:00.005-05:00

The new Obama team in the White House has refocused on Afghanistan. Largely neglected -- especially in manpower -- for years under the previous administration, Afghanistan has witnessed a resurgence of the Taliban. And their funding derives from the a poppy trade that accounts for a bigger illicit GDP than Afghanistan's official GDP ($3 billion versus $2 billion), which continues to reveal the country's lack of development.

The goal of a more prosperous, peaceful Afghanistan first requires a stable security environment. There are two competing views on how to achieve this. One solution is to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Saturate the country with enough boots on the ground to suck the oxygen out of the room for militant flames. If security can be imposed for long enough in this way, then perhaps time can be bought for true and meaningful infrastructure and economic development. The troop numbers, though, cannot be found among US or NATO forces -- the political will or available manpower is hard to come by. So the solution here would be appealing to regional neighbors -- especially India and China -- for assistance. I will write more on this option in the coming week or two.

The alternative view is to give up the idea of a troop build-up and use small, covert operations to strike important strategic blows to militants. George Friedman, the head at an intelligence firm called Stratfor, espouses this view. Basically, Friedman says that -- given the trouble of hindered supply lines and obtaining troops for Afghanistan -- the US should use a combination of intelligence-gathering, special operations, and airstrikes to achieve the most pressing objective: security. Not only is this option politically easier to sell (because it is cheaper and no one has to read about a published list of CIA casualties), but this also allows the US to avoid the difficult task of convincing other countries to commit their people to the struggle.

It is debatable whether or not such a minimalist approach as Friedman's could achieve stability in a country about the size of Texas. Moreover, it seems that the Obama Administration is leaning toward increasing the troop commitment rather than reducing it. Nevertheless, an in-depth policy review is currently being conducted; now is the time to debate the options.

The Power of Stereotypes

2009-02-01T11:04:00.009-05:00

I recently listened to a podcast of the radio show Radiolab, in which the "Obama effect" was discussed. Before Obama was elected or inaugurated, a 20-question performance test was administered on black and white students, and blacks scored significantly lower than whites. The exam was administered two more times -- after the election and inauguration, respectively -- and the performance gap disappeared.

Why? Stereotypes about black intelligence.

There is a growing body of research on the effect of stereotypes on test-taking -- called the "stereotype threat". Blacks, when given an exam that tests their intelligence, consistently score lower than whites. But when told that the exam they are taking is simply practice, blacks score on par with whites.

The key is distraction. If given a test that explicitly measures their intelligence, blacks will become distracted by the those things that others says about their intelligence. Even if a black person is absolutely positive that the black intelligence stereotype is, in fact, myth, then that person is likely to be distracted during the test by the thoughts of the stereotype in their head. If a test is time sensitive -- like most SAT or GRE exams are -- then a couple minutes of accumulated distraction can make a significant difference in scores. Now, replicate a stereotype threat across many years of schooling and many tests; a student is likely to suffer.

Of course, this is not limited to black stereotypes. The same results have been found with women on math tests -- it is "common knowledge" that women are not as proficient in math as men -- and whites on exams when compared to Asians. In all cases, the gap disappeared when the stereotype was put to rest.

This lends new evidence to restraining oneself from the use of stereotypes. If the fact that these hasty generalizations are false does not dissuade you, then maybe the knowledge that the proliferation of the stereotype significantly and negatively altering the lives of others will convince you. As long as a stereotype is strong enough in society to enter the minds of the target group during critical moments -- be it an exam or an interview for a job -- the affected people will continue to suffer, individually and as a group.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe the rubbish we consider "common knowledge" about different groups of people, then that rubbish will find a way to, at least in part, be expressed at important moments.

So in using stereotypes, remember the power you wield. Ask yourself if you think the generalization is really true. Moreover, ask yourself if you want it to be true.

Matching Deed to Commitment

2009-01-27T13:40:00.006-05:00

In his first major interview last night, President Obama made an appeal to the Muslim world writ large to give his administration an opportunity to rebuild trust with America. He spoke -- eloquently as usually -- of the common "hopes and dreams" shared by people of all faiths. Obama hopes to use this thread to begin weaving a better relationship with the Islamic world through "respect and partnership". Here's a transcript of the interview.

The following excerpt was the key part of his comments:

"But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say... but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity."

Unfortunately, Obama may be eating his commitment early on. Last Friday, US military drones made another incursion into Pakistan near the Afghan border. Missiles were purportedly fired from the unmanned aircraft in two strikes at Al-Qaeda and militant targets in Waziristan, which is currently controlled by the Taliban. Together, the two strikes killed between 17-22 people, about half of which were civilians -- and three were children. These strikes are a continuation of a secret authorization by President Bush in July 2007 to fight militants in the loosely-controlled tribal regions of Pakistan.

This policy must be halted now. For the moment, put aside the fact that almost every one of the 30 strikes in the past 7 months has killed innocent people and children. From a pragmatic perspective, these air raids are undermining the US's goals. Although local civilians usually abhor the Taliban's rule and the violence of militants, every time a civilian is killed -- especially a child -- the Pakistani public is outraged. This tears down support for current and future US policies amongst the Pakistani and Islamic world, and it loses support for the already-struggling government of Pakistan. When these American incursions continue unabated by current politicians in Pakistan, then those politicians -- the people who are willing to cooperate with the US -- lose support.

In situations like this, people tend to look for security. Don't be surprised to see a more hardline, anti-US government take the reigns in Pakistan if the civilian deaths continue. And if this happens, the US mission to bring stability to Afghanistan becomes immeasurably more difficult (as if it wasn't already in bad shape). Moreover, a less stable Pakistan threatens to bring the entire South Asian region into conflict (recall the terror in Mumbai); the US can hardly manage to put that vase back together after it's broken.

These attacks into Pakistan erode Obama's (and America's) moral authority. Granted, the new president has done much in his first week to repeal the damage to American principles -- begun closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, halting wire-tapping, conforming CIA interrogation with law. Indeed, his interview yesterday was meant to began mending deep wounds to American soft power.

Obama wisely pointed out that he will be judged on his actions, not his words. He made an explicit commitment to listen and show respect to Muslims around the world. Yet as Pakistanis plead for innocent deaths to abate, Obama remains silent. Less he wants to discredit himself in the first 14 days of his presidency, Obama should halt the drone attacks in Pakistan immediately.

A Frigid, Momentous Day

2009-01-20T19:43:00.017-05:00

Amidst the deafening silence of two million people, listening to the 44th president's artful use of English, I lost track of my painfully numb toes and fingers. There is something beautiful in the grand masses of peaceful, positive human beings gathering about a common identity.

Maybe it is the scarcity of the occasion. Not only does one rarely see such numeric splendor with the eyes, but it is not often that one experiences an instant aura of history, like the one that fell upon the National Mall around noon today. Moreover, it may be only once in my lifetime that I will so tangibly feel the unity radiating from a complex, often-disagreeing people.

It is notable that the Secret Service reported zero "inaugural-related arrests" by law enforcement.

Yes, beautiful is accurate. (See the image below from the Associated Press. All other images are from my "ground level" perspective.)

If anyone is controlling the weather, then they made it inordinately difficult to enjoy the long travel and waiting times associated with getting into the Mall. With windchill, it was 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit.

I met my friends Ashesh and Stephanie in line to get into the ticketed "blue section" -- about 100-200 yards from the steps of the Capitol building -- around 9 AM. The lines were huge, unwieldy, and poorly managed by event staff. I will save you the frustrating details, but suffice it to say that the staff lacked a lot of coordination with the crowd during the entrance stage. At one point near the gate to get into the blue section, we were being picked up and carried by the crowd because of poor line management.

Anyway, we entered the standing area for our section around 11:30 AM, just as Diane Feinstein began speaking. Although staff was noticeably lacking outside the barriers, there was plenty of security to go around in the open Mall area. But if the cold and boredom got to me outside the gates, then they were quickly forgotten inside. The momentous view melted all discomfort (at least for the next half hour).

It is hard to describe the feeling one gets amongst a group of this size. Maybe some of my photos will help. (And the Google satellite images taken during the event give a sense of magnitude as well.)

After Obama's wonderful wordplay -- expressing both poetry and principle -- we waited for another 45 minutes in the Mall to let the crowd begin to stream out before making our exit. Image below: my roommate and good friend, Ashesh, poses in front of the milling crowd.

Once in the streets, though, my friends and I were again reminded of the intensity of the occasion. Every street for miles in any direction was packed with people. And all of them were heading in seemingly disparate directions. Surely many were headed to the Metro (the city's subway system), but others were figuring out how to burn time before their buses (which lined every street) departed the city. Many were also figuring out how to make their way to the parade, all the way on the northern side of the Mall.

With the cold setting in again and the singular focus of the millions dissipating, we three tried to find a corner with food, warmth, and a seat. It took us another hour of walking all about the South Capitol area, but eventually, we found a sufficient restaurant in L'Enfant Plaza. (And by "sufficient", I mean a food establishment obviously over capacity, running out of every food in their buffet.)

After warming up and filling up, Steph, Ashesh, and I decided to skip the incredibly long lines (hours of lines) at every Metro station and take the 2-3 mile walk all the way across and through the Mall to the Key Bridge, which leads back into Virginia. Along the way, we saw the media booths of MSNBC and ABC. We also witnessed the surreal amount of open space in the Mall that had been full to the brim a short time before. Before leaving the Mall grounds, Steph and I captured one more photo in front of the Washington Monument. Though we were tired of walking and standing, though the day was nippy, we were happy (evidently).

When I arrived back at my cozy apartment in Arlington (around 5:30 PM), I was floating in the excitement of the day. I lay back in my recliner and rested my feet, pondering the experience.

DC had been transformed, almost bursting from the strain of millions. Yet it was a pleasant overcrowding, and it was hard to find a person who complained. The dominant feeling was one of camaraderie and shared identity. We could finally celebrate an ethnically and politically historic moment, sharing hope and anticipation.

But that anticipation also breeds expectation. Needless to say, after the parades, pomp, and pageants, President Obama -- after months of waiting, it feels good to say that -- needs to be in top gear tomorrow morning.

For today, though, I am taking a rare moment to indulge in the gravity of a grand social movement. It felt good to be part of today's mass gathering. And I am fortunate. Fortunate for the marvelous view.

The "Obama Concert"

2009-01-18T18:52:00.009-05:00

One of the benefits of living in DC is the relative ease of attending historical (hopefully, eventually) events.

Today, my friends and I braved 30 degree weather and a crowd of hundreds of thousands to see some notable entertainers sing, dance, and speak. A few people had heard that there were around 1 million people packed into the western side of the Washington Mall, but it is hard to tell for sure. Suffice it to say that there were plenty of people, and when I retell the story in coming years, there will have been over a million. Here's the NYT overview of the event.

The process of getting into the Mall (lines, security, etc.) was really not all that bad. There were many entry points and things moved quickly. We began on the south side but quickly discovered that the view was better from the north. Once on the north side, my friend, Julia, and I tried to scout up ahead to determine how close our group could get to the stage. It was a bad idea. By the time we reached the front third of the Reflection Pool, it became so crowded that Julia and I were being pushed along in an unchosen direction by the crowd. So we turned and made our way back to the group.

Eventually, the whole clan settled on a spot about halfway down the Pool. The stage was pretty miniscule, but there were large screens and speakers everywhere. Essentially, we went for the experience of being with a large group of people united around a common cause. (Or at least, this is what one tells oneself during the third, frosty hour of standing in one spot with numb feet.)

My dad had mentioned -- wisely -- that it would probably be a hassle to go to the bathroom in such a crowd, yet porta-potties were also in broad attendance -- hundreds of them lined the outer rim of the Mall.

The entertainment was satisfying. I especially liked Mary J. Blige's rendition of "Lean on Me" and Garth Brooks audience revving version of "Shout". Perhaps I liked these the most because these songs increased the already high level of unity among the people in attendance. Jamie Foxx also did a superb impression of Obama; Saturday Night Live should offer him a contract for the next four years (with the opportunity for renewal after the first four).

But do not be fooled, whether or not Bono was performing at this concert, the people were here for a primary reason -- because so was Barack Obama. The crowd cheered loudly for Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground", but whenever the camera quickly panned to Obama -- usually smiling, clapping, or dancing in his seat -- the crowd noise would increase noticeably. And when Obama approached the podium to make a short speech at the end, you could have heard the ice crack on the frozen Reflection Pool. Enamoring still dominates when Obama talks.

So what was my final impression of this massive get-together? Good music, fun atmosphere. The speeches and music were centered around a common purpose -- the individual and collective ability to positively change the nation. Almost every speech -- from Denzel Washington, Jack Black, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson, and many others -- was focused on lessons drawn from other difficult moments in America's history and the constructive way in which Americans reacted.

It was an event of epic proportions. Yet oddly (or scarily) enough, this was a warm-up. The inauguration (to which I am fortunate enough to have a ticket in the front section) will dwarf this.

Let's hope that the coals of the social movement being stoked in the Washington Mall this week reach far and deeply beyond the borders of the capital.

Relativity Does Not Mean Inhumanity

2009-01-15T16:24:00.002-05:00

Nicholas Kristof made an interesting argument for more sweatshops in today's International Herald Tribune. Interesting... but flawed.

His argument was basically this: in America, we may despise the idea of working in a sweatshop, but a person who is desperately poor prefers a hot factory and long hours to starving in a slum. Given this, Kristof says that well-intentioned demands by the (soon to be) Obama Administration for stricter labor standards in free trade agreements (e.g. the US-Columbia free trade agreement) are really hindering development in struggling countries and depriving the poorest in the world of opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. If a company has to meet high standards in one country, then they'll simply go to the neighboring country that does not have the standards.

Fair enough. Opportunities for employment are relative depending on where you stand. Just as Nicholas admits that he would not want a job in a sweatshop, neither would I. But just because desperation would drive some in Cambodia to view a sweatshop as an "improvement", this does not mean that we --who consume cheap products -- must accept their working in quasi-slavery conditions. There is a grey area between ultra-strict labor standards -- like providing full health care, paying far above market price for labor, and short work days -- and no labor rights. Things are relative, but there is also a baseline that we must establish as human beings.

The International Labor Organization, which is sensitive to labor relativity everywhere, espouses four widely ratified fundamental human rights: the right to collective bargaining, freedom from forced labor, freedom from discrimination, and the restriction of child labor. This is the minimal amount that we could ask. In a sweatshop, workers are regularly deprived of these simple rights. Much of modern slavery finds its home in these hell holes.

The distinction here is between a "sweatshop" and a "labor-intensive factory". Both are places that few in the US or the developed world would want to work, but the latter recognizes the humanity of its workers, while the former does not. Just because we -- in the developed world -- were fortunate enough to born in the US, EU, or Japan, this does not mean that we should expect others with less luck to accept a "step up" from a garbage heap to a labor prison. This is a false choice.

Free trade is good for the whole, but it need not punish individuals.

Media Silence on a Protest

2009-01-12T11:55:00.009-05:00

The current flashpoint in Gaza has people galvanized on both sides of the debate, but there is disproportionate attention given to those who argue that Israel is perfectly justified in its continued military mission in Gaza.

Along with most rational observers, I agree that a nation has a right to defend itself. But this is more complex that a black-and-white case of defense. It is not just a question of rockets being launched into Israel. This whole crisis is deeply connected to the well-being of Palestinians (and thus their willingness to support Hamas). During the ceasefire period, Israel cut off most humantiarian aid to Gaza. Jimmy Carter recently wrote an op-ed that details some of this. And here is an interesting piece by an Israeli.

But the subject of this post isn't so much about the less publicized argument as it is about the fact that there are many in America who do know that this is more complex. Although they are speaking out, many media outlets do not want to give them attention.

A clear example of this is large protest -- up to 20,000 people -- that was held in DC this weekend. Even at the doorsteps of the Washington Post, the Post would not report the event. A co-worker, who was at the protest, has a brief story about it:

"I attended the march for Gaza on Saturday in D.C. and thought I'd share what I observed...

People gathered at Lafayette Square and heard from a whole range of speakers (some were rather politically incorrect, some were OK), these included Ralph Nader and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

After the speeches, the march went around D.C. - the march could not get near Obama's residence (and it later turned out he was at Ben's Chili Bowl - so were probably all reporters as that became the main event of the weekend - I'm being cynical). The march blocked K street for a short bit as it made its way around D.C. and stopped at two places . One of the places was the Washington's Post headquarters , which ended up not reporting the march at all in its Sunday paper.

This was a funny incident actually, I took pics of the protesters as they shouted "can you see us now?" and some of the staff were waving from inside the building while the police made sure no one entered - actually, the protestors did not even go on the pavement, just on the street - yet the Post did not report anything in its Sunday paper. You'd think maybe 10k people showing up outside your door to protest your coverage of something would get mentioned even if negatively. In any case, all reporting on the march is very minimal...

Number of people reported varied between 10K and 20k, I say about 15k is right, but have no way of telling. I also heard there are many videos on you tube too, but I haven't seen any yet.

Forget who you agree with on the conflict in Israel; this is terrible for our society. If there is a legitimate perspective that many people in the country hold, then it is the job of the press to report it.

If someone in America were to watch evening news programs, then they may be conivinced that America is unified on its support of every action that Israel takes. But just as in the case of Gaza itself, the reality is more complex.

Multiple Ways to Fear the Recovery Plan

2009-01-11T01:05:00.006-05:00

I recently read Paul Krugman's and David Brooks' most recent columns and was left feeling rather uncomfortable about Obama's approaching recovery package. (First, a quick note: Brooks has partially redeemed himself with this strong article after his previous abomination on the conflict in Gaza. Perhaps things just fall apart for David when he looks outside of the US border.)

Anyway, this week, Brooks gave compelling evidence to suggest why Obama may be overconfident in his ability to time and allocate the recovery spending correctly. He thinks Obama is taking on too much -- promising to forward every policy goal without focusing on any one thing. In addition, the bill is going to be ultra-complex in written form, which poses problems for getting it passed through a Congress of 435 seperate interests.

On the other hand, Krugman (and others like John Judis) reveals doubt over the recovery package for exactly the opposite reasons. "The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed." According to this analyst, Obama's $775 billion plan will not cover the projected $2.1 trillion loss in production. Even worse, only 60% of the plan is public spending; the rest is tax cuts, which isn't as likely to cover the gap in production. The result could be an underachieving plan that prevents a deeper economic crisis.

These two essays, taken together, present severe pessimism for this plan. One perspective thinks expectations are too high. The other predominant view says the bar is set too low. But even if the economic plan can get past obstacle #1 (it passes Congress without much delay and is implemented without mistakes), then the package faces the daunting reality that it may only be half the size it needed to be in order to save the US from a deeper recession.

The reality is that there is almost widespread consensus among economists (a rare moment in history) that a large spending plan is needed to fend off the next Depression. So as reasoned as Brooks' argument for political expectations is, an unprecedented spending bill is coming through the Congress. Brooks' concerns -- insofar as solutions to the problem go -- are irrelevant.

Therefore, only the "underperformance" concern remains, and the solution becomes clear. Obama must step up spending significantly. Double his plan's size or more -- $1.5-$2 trillion would be the in the ballpark. And if such big numbers make you nervous, just remember that the Great Depression was just a recession at first -- until FDR failed to spend enough.

Social Instability in the Middle Kingdom

2009-01-08T16:08:00.008-05:00

In China, labor unrest has reached levels unwitnessed in the past decade, and even state-run news publications are forecasting a very difficult 2009.

This is all much different than the early predictions last Autumn that China's economy was "decoupled" from the global crisis -- China was thought to escape relatively unscathed. Even I thought as much up until October, when the unemployment numbers really took a turn for the worse in the export hubs of the coastal cities. In December, the IMF and various economists predicted 5% growth for China's GDP in 2009.

An article written today by Chinese observer John Pomfret asks an important question, "Is the worsening economic climate in China going to have severe social consequences?" The stories of massive worker layoffs have piled up. In dire economic circumstances, there is always a possibility that a tipping point could be reached and the employment could overwhelm a government's ability to handle it.

But Pomfret tries to extend this issue further, arguing that China's stability is at risk because of its centralized political system:

"The prevailing narrative about China in the United States is that the Communist Party is secure in power and that while the economic downturn will cause trouble, the party will probably muddle through... [However,] China is not the United States and... its political system is inherently unstable."

Pomfret is claiming that the protests are really about Chinese people's dissatisfaction with their political system. He is wrong.

The unrest is comprised of thousands of people outside of their (shutdown) factories and places of employment demanding backpay or protesting their termination without fair warning. The same thing would happen in the US if employers began laying off workers without pay or warning. (In fact, this did happen on a smaller scale in Chicago in November.) The political system is irrelevant in the minds of these protestors. They have little or no money and do not know where they will go next -- wouldn't you feel wronged as well?

So is Chinese unrest about political freedoms? No. (It's the economy, stupid.)

However, this does not alter the reality that China's social stability may still be at risk. Not because it is a one-party state but because it has hundreds of millions of workers. Every labor problem that other nations (save India) must deal with during this global recession is magnified in China. The US has "massive layoffs" of 30,000 workers; China closed up to 60,000 factories in 2008 alone. The magnitude of unrest -- along with most everything else -- is far greater in China.

So what should the Communist Party (CCP) do? They've announced and began implementing a $586 billion stimulus package. Unfortunately, the labor unrest is rooted in something that cannot be fixed in the short-term with an injection of money: a massive export sector. To be sure, China's growth is primarily led by domestic spending, not exports. But between 20-30% of China's GDP is still coming from its export sector. That is a signficant portion of the economy still sensitive to the ebb and flow of the global markets. Hence, a global recession begets massive unemployment.

The real solution to avoiding labor unrest lies in a Chinese economy composed of workers unsusceptible to export shifts. In the long-term, the CCP is aiming toward an economy driven by more domestic consumption. Its next five-year plan is focused on tapping into the productive and consumptive powers of the 800 million poor, rural Chinese. They envision a gigantic middle class fueling the next century of China's economic rise.

But such a great transition in economic structure is a slow process (even in China's lightspeed terms) -- at least another decade. In the meantime, China is going to be susceptible to social unrest via its labor force. If only they can weather the current crisis...

How to Dehumanize

2009-01-06T15:20:00.011-05:00

David Brooks' recent essay on the conflict between Israel and Hamas left me a bit fuming. Brooks writes:

"This new game isn’t a war of attrition. It’s a struggle for confidence, a series of psychological exchanges designed to shift the balance of morale. The material destroyed in an episode can be replaced, but the psychological effects are more lasting. What is really important is how each episode ends, because the ending defines the meaning — who mastered events and who was mastered by them."

He has made out the violent exchanges between Israel and Hamas to be -- most importantly -- a "psychological game." He says the violence only destroys the "material" that "can be replaced" and which is not long-lasting. How can 150 innocent lives -- extinguished in this "game" -- be regarded so heartlessly? To talk about this conflict like nothing more than a chess game is to dehumanize those people that are being used as ivory pawns.

Even when he mentions that the "suffering of the innocents in Gaza magnifies" the psychological "reverberations," he is only mentioning the lives of these people in terms of their importance to the game. The suffering itself is irrelevant to him. As Brooks himself says to close the essay, "psychology matters most."

No, Mr. Brooks, these are real lives. His article is shameful.

The Price of Qualifications

2009-01-05T20:04:00.003-05:00

George Will's recent op-ed is a love-hate essay for me. On the one hand, Will convincingly points out that if not for a 1971 Supreme Court decision, then many more jobs would be available to high school graduates based on the merit of employee examinations. People *should* be hired on knowledge and ability to do the job. The illegality of these tests -- due to discrimination -- has also caused the "measure" for hiring to be a college degree, which in-and-of itself is rather arbitrary. Furthermore, this requirement has put better jobs out of reach for many, many people who cannot afford to shoulder college expenses (especially as tuition costs have risen).

On the other hand, although I see the logic in that argument -- and agree with it -- I have a hard time agreeing with one of the implications: "Motivating more people to get a college degree is bad." There has been an explosion in Americans attending college -- in part due to the necessity for obtaining a job. And this makes for a more informed, healthier -- college graduates live longer and are happier on average -- population.

A solution to reconcile this tension: make college affordable!

Kick Them While They're Down

2009-01-03T09:31:00.002-05:00

Paul Krugman's NYT essay argues that the Republican party has primarily been led by and founded on racism. That's a deeply serious accusation. Krugman needs more evidence to make such a claim. Certainly, racism has been more prevalent in the GOP. But Krugman is claiming that the conservative message of "anti-government" is really a proxy for anti-black. That's a stretch. And possibly a direct insult to the numerous black members of the Republican party.

Amazing Peace

2009-01-02T08:08:00.004-05:00

The poem below inspired the title of my blog, "Peace, My Soul". Although the poem was written, in part, in the Christmas spirit, its resonance is far more broad for me. And Angelou meant it to be larger than the holiday season.

It is a celebration of our common humanity. That shared humanness creates an imperative to treat others as such, driven by the spirit of peace. Angelou writes the poem to be inclusive of every person, regardless of their metaphysical convictions. Her poetry first sweetly persuades then powerfully demands us to look past marginal differences and summon the peace that resides in each of us.

The last three lines have special meaning for me, though. If there is ever a dogma that is close to infallible, then it is those lines. "Peace, My Brother./Peace, My Sister.": approach others wanting happiness for them; work to help them find peace. "Peace, My Soul.": before you can truly share peace, then you must first genuinely find it in yourself. This is important to me. When my tolerance is tried by hate, its actions, or its horrors, then I must remember that true peace will never follow down the road of hate. Peace, my soul.

"Amazing Peace"
By Maya Angelou

Thunder rumbles in the mountain passes
And lightning rattles the eaves of our houses.
Flood waters await us in our avenues.

Snow falls upon snow, falls upon snow to avalanche
Over unprotected villages.
The sky slips low and grey and threatening.

We question ourselves.
What have we done to so affront nature?
We worry God.
Are you there? Are you there really?
Does the covenant you made with us still hold?

Into this climate of fear and apprehension, Christmas enters,
Streaming lights of joy, ringing bells of hope
And singing carols of forgiveness high up in the bright air.
The world is encouraged to come away from rancor,
Come the way of friendship.

It is the Glad Season.
Thunder ebbs to silence and lightning sleeps quietly in the corner.
Flood waters recede into memory.
Snow becomes a yielding cushion to aid us
As we make our way to higher ground.

Hope is born again in the faces of children
It rides on the shoulders of our aged as they walk into their sunsets.
Hope spreads around the earth. Brightening all things,
Even hate which crouches breeding in dark corridors.

In our joy, we think we hear a whisper.
At first it is too soft. Then only half heard.
We listen carefully as it gathers strength.
We hear a sweetness.
The word is Peace.
It is loud now. It is louder.
Louder than the explosion of bombs.

We tremble at the sound. We are thrilled by its presence.
It is what we have hungered for.
Not just the absence of war. But, true Peace.
A harmony of spirit, a comfort of courtesies.
Security for our beloveds and their beloveds.

We clap hands and welcome the Peace of Christmas.
We beckon this good season to wait a while with us.
We, Baptist and Buddhist, Methodist and Muslim, say come.
Peace.
Come and fill us and our world with your majesty.
We, the Jew and the Jainist, the Catholic and the Confucian,
Implore you, to stay a while with us.
So we may learn by your shimmering light
How to look beyond complexion and see community.

It is Christmas time, a halting of hate time.

On this platform of peace, we can create a language
To translate ourselves to ourselves and to each other.

At this Holy Instant, we celebrate the Birth of Jesus Christ
Into the great religions of the world.
We jubilate the precious advent of trust.
We shout with glorious tongues at the coming of hope.
All the earth's tribes loosen their voices
To celebrate the promise of Peace.

We, Angels and Mortal's, Believers and Non-Believers,
Look heavenward and speak the word aloud.
Peace. We look at our world and speak the word aloud.
Peace. We look at each other, then into ourselves
And we say without shyness or apology or hesitation.

Peace, My Brother.
Peace, My Sister.
Peace, My Soul.