Today I was watching the Celtics playing the Cavaliers in the NBA playoffs. After watching the first half I expected to, you know, see the second half. Instead, CCTV 5 cut to the Olympic torch being run through the provinces. There was commentary! There were FUWA! There was boredom!

Imagine watching a marathon that last 100 days but wasn’t actually a race. That’s the Olympic torch relay.

Now I’ll give you that if you’re in Anhui, it might be exciting to see a stick with fire at the end run past your house, but it is not exactly must see television. In fact, the only must see television on the Olympic Torch Relay was when jack-asses were throwing themselves at the torch bearers as thousands of police beat them back. People like that stuff. Blind nationalists fighting back morons.

Now THAT’S a sport! Too bad China never covered that stuff live!

Share This

Just today, Senator Clinton has sent a letter to Senator Obama comparing the DNC’s decision not to count Michigan and Florida, which was announced long before the Democrats in both states decided to move up their election dates in violation of Party rules, was akin to the 2000 Florida recount? Really? Then why did she say in January about the Michigan election, “it did not make any difference whether my name was on the ballot, you see, it’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”

Here’s the thing: even if you count Michigan, where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, and Florida, she still can’t win without changing more rules. So why is she writing letters like the one below at a time when the Party should be coming together? (Stephanopoulos argues she might be angling for VP, but given the things she has said about Obama during the campaign, having her on the ticket would make Republicans’ lives far too easy.) She has certainly earned the right to stay in the race through all of the voting, but has she earned the right to try to tear her Party down? Here’s party of the letter:

One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan…

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted [my italics, not hers]…In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

I sincerely feel for Senator Clinton. Even though I don’t like many of her tactics, like advocating the gas tax holiday, which she knows neither has a chance of passing Congress, nor doing any good even if it did, or comparing Obama’s campaign to that of Jesse Jackson’s just after the South Carolina primary, I know that most of the public work she has done has been good. She is on the right side of most issues, and she is, in fact, doing what she thinks is best for the country, as misguided as that is.

Giving up something that you have worked toward your whole life is incredibly hard, and at times painful. It is why athletes stick around long after they have lost their skills. The fact that she believes she is the better candidate only compounds the difficulty. On the other hand, don’t all candidates believe they are the best? That’s why the run after all.

But the thing is that it’s not just that she is trying to count Florida and Michigan when she agreed not to. And it’s not just that even counting those two states she would still be behind. And it’s not just the fact that whereas in Florida hundreds of thousands of people voted for Senator Obama, in Michigan zero did. It’s that she only wants these votes to count so that she can further change the rules of the primary when the 30-member rules committee meets later this month. And that she is publicly calling for super delegates to overturn the will of the voters because that’s in the rules, but can’t accept the decision on the Michigan and Florida primaries even though those are in the rules.

It is at this time, toward the end of a grueling campaign with the finish line in sight, that Senator Obama’s campaign needs to be the most gracious toward a ferocious opponent who likely would have had a similar policy agenda to Senator Obama. And I hope that Team Obama is able to keep its mouth shut in the coming days and weeks and let her leave on her own terms. But Hillary Clinton sure is making it hard to be a gracious winner.

Share This

The odd storyline that has emerged in recent weeks and months is both confusing and cynical. With President Hu in Japan as the first Chinese head of state to visit in ten years, suddenly relationships are better than ever. Yesterday CCTV was flooded with documentaries about Japan, and nary a mention of Nanjing or WWII, the two staples of any Chinese story involving Japan.

But perhaps the most telling signs, as they always tends to be, were on the country’s editorial pages. The English language version of China Daily had the headline “Seeds of Friendship,” and gushed:

The two countries have walked a long way to put their relations back in good shape. Along with more contacts between their top leaders, the two countries are working hard on building stronger links among their young people.

Less burdened by history, young generations find it easier to communicate and understand each other. Communication between young people can have a huge impact on bilateral relations.

The words of 《北京日报》mimicked China Daily (and Hu Jintao) nearly verbatim, discussing the parallels between the warming weather and the blossoming Sino-Japan relationship:

在这个春意盎然的季节,国家主席胡锦涛带着中国人民对日本人民的友好情谊,开始了对日本的暖春之旅

So what changed so dramatically in China’s relationship with Japan? I hate to be cynical, but as Forest Whitaker said in “The Crying Game,” it’s in my nature.

It feels more than a little convenient that a time when there is so much outrage across the world about specific Chinese policies, and the Western media is absolutely clobbering the country on a hodgepodge of legitimate and semi-legitimate issues, that suddenly the great pariah Japan has emerged as a budding lover in the lush, grassy fields of a beautiful spring morning.

What better symbol for China moving away from it’s historical image as a poor, confrontational country than to embrace its bitter rival?

Of course all of this requires a certain amount of creative memory. For example, it was only a few years ago that crowds of angry youths tried to turn over the Japanese buses during the the Asia Cup, or that the government actively encouraged “spontaneous” anti-Japanese protests. Are these young people the same as those who make up the Chinese half of the “young generations [who] find it easier to communicate and understand each other” equation? Or has three years created a generational shift?

It is a good storyline and good PR, but how seriously should we take this? Isn’t this a little like having your ex-girlfriend who stalked you for three years, calling you up at 3AM to remind you how badly you treated her suddenly wanting to meet up for coffee the day after she dumps her boyfriend?

So as China adds itself to the list of countries that love to identify the French as hated villains, Japan becomes a friend with a relationship as warm as a midsummer evening.

Share This

“Foreigners don’t understand China,” said torch bearer Fu Shenfeng before the relay started. “They still think we’re stuck in the past. They still think we’re poor. This is our chance to show them the real China.”

And herein lies the disconnect. The Western world does not see China as poor, or economics as the main issue in the debate. Yet inside China there are still heavy residual effects from the past.

In China there was a popular slogan that Mao Zedong used as a tool to encourage strong work ethic during the Great Leap Forward:

超英赶美

Literally it means “surpass England, overtake America.” He was referring to steel production, and it turned out to be a poor target area for Chinese economic growth. People melted pots and pans, and there was starvation as a result of misallotcated resources. The scars from failed experiments like this run deep, and the slogans still echo in the psyches of many.

China has long had a chip on its shoulder when it comes to the economy. The slogan was not “live long and prosper.” Instead, it specifically targeted countries as competitors by which to measure success. It was not only that China was a poor country, but also that the outside world saw it as such.

Many Chinese still seem their country through the same lens as they did a few decades ago. Or at least they see the world through the same paradigm. But the West doesn’t see China through the same lens as it did in the 1960s, 70s, or even 80s. The stories coming out of China tend to be focuses more on how people are becoming rich, rather than how the country is poor. In fact, the fear in the US isn’t that China is too poor, it’s that it owns American debt.

And perhaps the West misunderstands the importance of the emergence of wealth to many Chinese. For Chinese people in their 30s and 40s (and certainly anyone older than that), wealth is new, and potentially fleeting. While China is hardly universally rich, the West seems to have come to grips with the country’s emergence faster than its own populace has. Americans think of China as an emerging economic and military power. They hardly need the Olympics to come to that conclusion (after all, no one thinks of Greece as the world’s great modern economy).

It is almost as if Americans have already accepted Chinese wealth and is asking, “now what?” Meanwhile, many Chinese are still insecure with a wealth that is very recent. They are looking to their remarkable economic accomplishments and want more praise, but are disappointed to see that the endpoint that had always been the focus has now moved. No longer is a robust economy, good education and innovation enough. Now people focus on international soft power, the environment, human rights and freedom of speech.

This provides a non-sequitur for many in China. If the lives of the overwhelming majority could improve so dramatically without a focus on democracy, why should that be the overarching consideration now?

And so this partially explains how we’ve ended up here, with China looking for the world’s love, only to find that it can never earn the affection it so desires. Mr. Fu is right that most foreigners don’t understand China. However, it is not because they think the country is poor, but rather because they don’t understand the struggle that required for it to get rich.

Today China’s steel production is greater than England’s, decades after Mao gave up on that dream. Yet while China may have surpassed England, it shot past so quickly, the two people’s were never able to see eye-to-eye.

Share This

You know those flags that have become the ire of most Chinese citizens advocating the breaking off of one of China’s biggest provinces? Many were made in China, unbeknownst to factory owners and workers. If the flag weren’t banned maybe they would have recognized it. From the BBC:

The factory in Guangdong had been completing overseas orders for the flag of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Workers said they thought they were just making colourful flags and did not realise their meaning…

The factory owner reportedly told police the emblems had been ordered from outside China, and he did not know that they stood for an independent Tibet.

Workers who had grown suspicious checked the meaning of the flag by going online.

Thousands of flags had already been packed for shipping.

Only in China.

[update: just discovered ImageThief got to this story first]

Share This

At a time when most of the world is moving toward small, fuel-efficient cars, China is loading up on huge Buicks and SUVs. Aside from the paucity of people under 70 buying Buicks in America, this sounds exactly like the mentality of people in the US (at least before four dollars-a-gallon gasoline). The attitude is I can afford a huge car, so I should have one.

Similarly, the US has long been criticized with propping up bad governments in the pursuit of natural resources and other monetary considerations. See pre-1979 Iran, current Saudi Arabia and during the Cold War, South Africa. So quickly the Chinese have learned! Ignoring North Korea, where there is a stronger argument from China’s perspective for promoting stability, look at places like Sudan and more recently Zimbabwe for examples of China taking the most arrogant aspects of American diplomacy as their own.

Just like America before it, China seems to think that power automatically confers moral authority. In reality, the opposite is true: as power grows, it takes greater restraint to take the correct moral actions. When a person or country is weak, it is easy to make the correct “moral” decision because others are imposing consequences. For example, South Africa ultimately gave up its Apartheid system, but only when it was in a position of weakness. When you go into an electronics store you don’t steal a television, partially because there will be repercussions.

Moral questions become more difficult as power becomes greater. If South Africa had been a superpower they surely never would have given up their racist political system. If someone gives you a television that is stolen, but you know that nobody will find out, it becomes more difficult to take the moral high ground and turn it down.

China has moved from a poor, isolated country and is nearing the realm of international superpower. Yet it seems to be following the bad example that America has set. It appears to be content muddling along in self-interest policies. Selling weapons to a government in Zimbabwe that has lost an election but is determined to keep power through brutal force? It is no moral problem because not selling them would be “meddling in the internal affairs” of another. Never mind  that arming a leader that was just voted out is meddling in internal affairs. With its new found power, China, much like America, does not need to burden itself with such moral dilemmas.

Yet there is a fundamental logical difference between American arrogance and Chinese arrogance when it comes to foreign policy (although arguably there is no moral distance). In most instances, but not all, America’s arrogant foreign policies are grounded in ethical ideology. For example, as stupid and wrongheaded as the decision to go to war in Iraq was, in theory it based on the idea of making the Middle East safer, removing a war criminal and spreading democracy. Granted it was one of the dumbest decisions in modern foreign policy history, but it was theoretical taken in the interest of the Iraqi people. The Vietnam war had a similar, though also stupid rationale.

In contrast, there is virtually no moral argument for arming Zimbabwe or the Sudanese governments. These are two vile leaderships engaging in brutality against their own peoples, and genocide in the latter case. With regard to Sudan, the impetus seems to be money and resources–things for which the US also has an affinity.

Regardless of the impetuses for the arrogant Chinese foreign policies, they reek of what Beijing has long criticized America for: arrogance. It is much more difficult to suppress arrogance once you have power. China is beginning to learn this.

Share This

I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today….

You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side…

I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation’s great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation’s great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain…

My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign…

My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before…

…a necessary part of the healing process for our Party is for those who supported Senator Obama early to have the grace and good sense to broaden the tent and welcome newcomers into the fold.

Read the whole article here.

Share This

Mr. Fukuyama is astute, if hardly groundbreaking, in his assertions that many of the most local leaders are the most ruthless, and also that the central government is generally too weak to control their outrageous behavior. Whereas many in the West think of China as having a Stalinist top-down leadership structure, the truth, of course, is that while Beijing may (or may not) orchestrate major crackdowns in places like Tibet, they are often unaware or not powerful enough to control small local governments in, say, Hunan. Fukuyama writes:

The vast majority of abuses against the rights of ordinary Chinese citizens — peasants who have their land taken away without just compensation, workers forced to labor under sweatshop conditions or villagers poisoned by illegal dumping of pollutants — occur at a level far below that of the government in Beijing.

China’s peculiar road toward modernization after 1978 was powered by “township and village enterprises” — local government bodies given the freedom to establish businesses and enter into the emerging market economy. These entities were enormously successful, and many have become extraordinarily rich and powerful…

The central government, by all accounts, would like to crack down on these local government bodies but is unable to do so. It both lacks the capacity to do this and depends on local governments and the private sector to produce jobs and revenue.

The argument is sound, and ironically few Chinese would be likely to defend local government officials in China I suspect (although please feel free to prove me wrong). Yet Fukuyama gets weighed down in making analogies to Europe of old:

The 19th century British legal scholar Sir Henry Sumner Maine, in his book “Early Law and Custom,” pointed to this very fact in a fine essay titled “France and England.” He notes that the single most widespread complaint written in the cahiers produced on the eve of the French Revolution were complaints by peasants over encroachments of their property rights by seigneurial courts. According to Maine, judicial power in France was decentralized and under the control of the local aristocracy.

Seems like a better example would have been China, two hundred (or five hundred) years ago. China has always been highly decentralized in its power, owing greatly to its enormousness. Yet at a more fundamental level, placing the blame on local officials absolves the central government of much of its responsibility. While it’s true that Beijing does not want rogue local officials terrorizing Chinese citizens, it also has shown little desire to step into disputes unless absolutely forced. In other words, it wants things to be better, it just has little interest in facilitating certain types of change.

Fukuyama seems to miss a fundamental point in his essay, in which the main point seems to be that the ills of Chinese governance come from the powerlessness of Beijing rather than its strength, because “state weakness can hurt the cause of liberty.” He implies that were it not for the central government’s weakness, it would likely be cracking down on local shenanigans. But that is highly unlikely, at least on a wide scale.

On the one hand, the Chinese central leadership seems to have little interest in promoting “liberty.” Such interference in local affairs would immediately connect the country’s top leadership with local conditions. Why would it want that? Isn’t it better to be able to blame local problems on local corruption than taken responsibility at the top?

On the other hand, Beijing is also promoting some of the policies that encourages disregard for the environment and certain types of human rights. Namely, the overwhelming importance of local economic growth over all other considerations. By making “economic development” the singular measure for governmental success, there is an inherent incentive not to protect the environment or workers’ rights. It is in the interest of everyone in power to develop at any cost. And frequently those costs can be tremendous.

In the end Fukuyama’s argument is not really about analyzing what is really going on in China today, but rather telling a broader historical narrative: decentralized governments are more dangerous than centralized power. The problem is that he has correctly identified China as partially fitting into that storyline, but failed to fully address the modern day realities. History does not repeat itself, as Mr. Fukuyama seems to believe (now that we’re no longer at the end of history), instead history’s reflections can be seen in current events. But these reflections are less like those in mirror, clear and precise, and more like those in a lake being distorted by the rippling waters.

Share This

When lone protesters demanded that China stop repatriating North Korean refugees, they were quickly surrounded by jeering Chinese. Near the park, Chinese students surrounded and beat a small group of protesters, news reports said.

In another scuffle, at the city center where the five-hour torch run ended, Chinese surrounded several Tibetans and South Korean supporters who unfurled pro-Tibet banners, and kicked and punched them, witnesses said.

The largest scuffle erupted shortly after the first torch-bearer left the Olympic Park, surrounded by dozens of police officers on foot or on bicycles and hundreds more in buses and trailed by a water cannon, ambulances and helicopters circling overhead.

If Chinese are looking for an unadulterated outpouring of love, they will soon get it. The torch goes to Pyongyang next. Hopefully that’s not the kind of positive reinforcement Chinese are looking for, but it’ll be interesting to see the coverage of the North Korean stop (no protests!!).

Update: Here are more articles to look over and help you make your own decisions: BBC, Chicago Tribune, Chosunilbo and ESPN. Incidentally, Renmin Ribao ran a (short) article on the torch run in North Korea…but not South Korea.

Share This

Earlier this week I had to bike down the PSB to pick up some paper work, and I left my bike out front. When I was finished I had to go to work, and since I was in a rush (and in a suit) I decided to leave my bike next to the others in front of the police station. My apartment is only a few blocks away, and I figured that it had to be pretty much the safest place around. Plus my bike is a POS. (That stands for p—- o- shit.)

Anyway, I didn’t make it back until two days later, and guess what. My bike was gone. I went inside and asked them, thinking perhaps they had moved it somewhere else. They looked around for about 20 minutes and then decided it was gone. Gone? Well, stolen probably.

They said I must have left it a really long time. When I told them it had only been about 48 hours they looked a little sheepish.

Now I have to admit, the local PSB is actually really nice. Every time I go in there I think about what a great television show it would make. Not an American show, mind you, but maybe a British one. You know, like The Thin Blue Line. The police usually seem fairly unbusy, and they all have an friendly playful way about them. I know it’s not exactly the image of “goons and thugs” this police state has in the West, but what do you want me to tell you? Whenever I go there they kill me with kindness.

Anyway, I don’t really want to rip on them too much, because they are really friendly authoritarians, but it just seems odd to me that the only place I’ve ever had a bike stolen in Beijing was essentially in the police station. (In Chengdu I had several stolen, including once on campus, directly outside of the room where I was teaching. But I digress.)

So the moral of this story is…well there’s no moral. But seriously, WTF?

Share This