Thursday, January 31, 2008

China to begin probe after food poisoning in Japan

By China Watcher

The Western news agency, Reuters, never failed to amaze me at the speed of reporting anything which has negative connotations from China. This morning, I picked up the news that the suspected frozen dumplings in packages imported from China have caused food poisoning to 10 persons, with one 5-year old child seriously ill in Japan.

Japan Tobacco Inc (JTI), the importer, initiated a recall of this product and other related food products manufactured by the same factory as a precaution and apologized to the Japanese public over this incident. The Japanese broadcasters were very active by informing viewers not to consume the product.

The dumplings dish is very popular item during the winter season and among children. It was not known whether the dumplings were contaminated with pesticides in China or in Japan. The Japanese authority has notified the Chinese Embassy of the situation. It will be helpful to Japan’s Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry to test every package of JT dumplings to ascertain the extent of the packages that are contaminated.

We were told that the Chinese side has begun probing on the matter.

Let us not jump to any conclusion and wait for the outcome of the investigation.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Who the hell is Prince Charles?

By China Watcher

It was reported in the Telegraph, a British Daily, on 29 January 2008 that the Prince of Wales had made his stance clear that he will not be attending the Olympics Games in Beijing this summer. He gave no reason for his decision, and neither did he say whether he had received a formal invitation.

The decision was prompted by the Free Tibet Campaign which has been conducting a worldwide campaign to persuade prominent political and celebrities figures not to attend the Olympics in protest of Chinese policies.

The Prince may not have said that many words to fully back the Free Tibet cause but the spokesman from the non government organization tried very hard to use this publicity to support his intrusive agenda to hit China on its human rights records.

Personally, I think the Chinese ambassador in London, Fu Ying, should not place so much effort in attempting to bridge the relationship between the Prince and the Chinese government. The Prince of Wales was the one who spoke out so rudely about the Chinese leaders by referring to them as “appalling old waxworks” in some leak diaries to the press during the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. This is so unbecoming of the future King of England. He also show disrespect to the Chinese government by meeting openly with the Dalai Lama and in 2002 he received certain religious outcasts from Tibet when the British government official stand is that Tibet is an inalienable part of China.

The Prince vocal dislike and hostility towards China, a potential economic and political world’s superpower, had raised concern among the British elites and the present Brown’s administration. The main reason why he attended the recent Chinese festival in Chinatown, London and the slight change in his tone was the increased pressure from the British government and businessmen that his stubborn attitude may affect the development of a strong economic partnership with China at a time when the French was cementing US billions of business deals with the Chinese.

The staging of the Olympics is a way to demonstrate to the world that the Chinese people, after 150 years of humiliation under Western powers and the economic failures 50 years ago, have now overcome the political and social impediments to take its rightful place in the world stage – a position held 500 years ago during the later part of the Ming Dynasty.

Using a political platform with the many China related issues to attack China over the staging of this prestigious and major sports event will be a futile effort and it will fail miserably. Sports and politics should never be allowed to mix as it defeat the principles of gamesmanship and respect as promoted by the Olympics.

Two of the world’s most influential figures, the US President and the UK Prime Minister had accepted the invitation to grace the opening ceremony at the Beijing Games, expected to be the best ever held and the most memorable in the entire annals of the Olympics. I believe there will be more VIPs and celebrities who will choose to ignore the call to boycott the Olympics in Beijing.

By having one less celebrity at the Olympics will not in anyway dent this wonderful sporting event. In fact, the party will proceed with much lavishness and joy – at least with one less reluctant guest. Celebrating the historical occasion, a wide-eyed innocent bystander among the Chinese crowd in the Stadium would then shout "Who the hell is Prince Charles? Who is he......

Monday, January 28, 2008

Update on the Korean Badminton Open 2008

The final badminton results have confirmed that the Women Singles in the Chinese camp is in trouble. A former Chinese player, Zhou Mi, representing Hong Kong caused an upset by defeating the Chinese representative, Lu Lan. Zhang Ning, as usual, appeared weary and tired in the court where youth is one factor going against this player who at one time is the most consistent Chinese player. The Chinese have to implement certain workout plan for the seniors and juniors to avoid an Olympic’s failure, which is only 6 months away. Maybe the Chinese can learn a bit from the Danish veterans who are currently enjoying a brief revival.

In the Men singles, Lin Dan lost narrowly to Lee Hyun Il from South Korea and what is more concern here is his inability to finish at the crucial stage - the one point that is needed to win the title. Perhaps the vociferous Korean crowd and the line judges’ controversial calls were the main factors affecting the match. Lin Dan is still the world’s number one and to strengthen his game, he should improve on his net play and reduce the many unforced errors. Furthermore, he should be more patient as it does help to calm the nerves to score that most important point during match point situation and, more particularly in a 21-point system where every point matters.

The mixed doubles is a touch and go affair and the Chinese should not feel threatened – Zhengbo and Gao Ling has yet to play - although the other competitors have also improved their fighting spirit in this event. Chinese men doubles depended much on Cai Yun and Fu Haifeng and presently, there is no second or third pairs who could provide the winning support if they are off-form in the tough international badminton circuit.

The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order by Parag Khanna

Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it’s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It’s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn’t happen — and almost as if history itself doesn’t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.

It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.

Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

The Geopolitical Marketplace

At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.

The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an “East-West” struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle.

In Europe’s capital, Brussels, technocrats, strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a German member of the European Parliament, calls it “European patriotism.” The Europeans play both sides, and if they do it well, they profit handsomely. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the self-described “friend of America,” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army; the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well, binding it closer to the E.U. even if it never becomes a member. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya, Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year, with others waiting in line and begging to join?

Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe from Venus, but in reality, Europe is more like Mercury — carrying a big wallet. The E.U.’s market is the world’s largest, European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance. And if America and China fight, the world’s money will be safely invested in European banks. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro, claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the European project. Yet today, Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in “worthless” dollars. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. It doesn’t help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. With London taking over (again) as the world’s financial capital for stock listing, it’s no surprise that China’s new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York. Meanwhile, America’s share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. Gisele Bündchen demands to be paid in euros, while Jay-Z drowns in 500 euro notes in a recent video. American soft power seems on the wane even at home.

And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn’t educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region’s answer to America’s Apec.

The East Asian Community is but one example of how China is also too busy restoring its place as the world’s “Middle Kingdom” to be distracted by the Middle Eastern disturbances that so preoccupy the United States. In America’s own hemisphere, from Canada to Cuba to Chávez’s Venezuela, China is cutting massive resource and investment deals. Across the globe, it is deploying tens of thousands of its own engineers, aid workers, dam-builders and covert military personnel. In Africa, China is not only securing energy supplies; it is also making major strategic investments in the financial sector. The whole world is abetting China’s spectacular rise as evidenced by the ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product — and China is exporting weapons at a rate reminiscent of the Soviet Union during the cold war, pinning America down while filling whatever power vacuums it can find. Every country in the world currently considered a rogue state by the U.S. now enjoys a diplomatic, economic or strategic lifeline from China, Iran being the most prominent example.

Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia’s rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America’s economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle — of which China sits at the center — has surpassed trade across the Pacific.

At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America’s grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country — friend of America’s or not — wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries — the so-called Stans — China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the “NATO of the East.”

The Big Three are the ultimate “Frenemies.” Twenty-first-century geopolitics will resemble nothing more than Orwell’s 1984, but instead of three world powers (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia), we have three hemispheric pan-regions, longitudinal zones dominated by America, Europe and China. As the early 20th-century European scholars of geopolitics realized, because a vertically organized region contains all climatic zones year-round, each pan-region can be self-sufficient and build a power base from which to intrude in others’ terrain. But in a globalized and shrinking world, no geography is sacrosanct. So in various ways, both overtly and under the radar, China and Europe will meddle in America’s backyard, America and China will compete for African resources in Europe’s southern periphery and America and Europe will seek to profit from the rapid economic growth of countries within China’s growing sphere of influence. Globalization is the weapon of choice. The main battlefield is what I call “the second world.”

The Swing States

There are plenty of statistics that will still tell the story of America’s global dominance: our military spending, our share of the global economy and the like. But there are statistics, and there are trends. To really understand how quickly American power is in decline around the world, I’ve spent the past two years traveling in some 40 countries in the five most strategic regions of the planet — the countries of the second world. They are not in the first-world core of the global economy, nor in its third-world periphery. Lying alongside and between the Big Three, second-world countries are the swing states that will determine which of the superpowers has the upper hand for the next generation of geopolitics. From Venezuela to Vietnam and Morocco to Malaysia, the new reality of global affairs is that there is not one way to win allies and influence countries but three: America’s coalition (as in “coalition of the willing”), Europe’s consensus and China’s consultative styles. The geopolitical marketplace will decide which will lead the 21st century.

The key second-world countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia are more than just “emerging markets.” If you include China, they hold a majority of the world’s foreign-exchange reserves and savings, and their spending power is making them the global economy’s most important new consumer markets and thus engines of global growth — not replacing the United States but not dependent on it either. I.P.O.’s from the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) alone accounted for 39 percent of the volume raised globally in 2007, just one indicator of second-world countries’ rising importance in corporate finance — even after you subtract China. When Tata of India is vying to buy Jaguar, you know the landscape of power has changed. Second-world countries are also fast becoming hubs for oil and timber, manufacturing and services, airlines and infrastructure — all this in a geopolitical marketplace that puts their loyalty up for grabs to any of the Big Three, and increasingly to all of them at the same time. Second-world states won’t be subdued: in the age of network power, they won’t settle for being mere export markets. Rather, they are the places where the Big Three must invest heavily and to which they must relocate productive assets to maintain influence.

While traveling through the second world, I learned to see countries not as unified wholes but rather as having multiple, often disconnected, parts, some of which were on a path to rise into the first world while other, often larger, parts might remain in the third. I wondered whether globalization would accelerate these nations’ becoming ever more fragmented, or if governments would step up to establish central control. Each second-world country appeared to have a fissured personality under pressures from both internal forces and neighbors. I realized that to make sense of the second world, it was necessary to assess each country from the inside out.

Second-world countries are distinguished from the third world by their potential: the likelihood that they will capitalize on a valuable commodity, a charismatic leader or a generous patron. Each and every second-world country matters in its own right, for its economic, strategic or diplomatic weight, and its decision to tilt toward the United States, the E.U. or China has a strong influence on what others in its region decide to do. Will an American nuclear deal with India push Pakistan even deeper into military dependence on China? Will the next set of Arab monarchs lean East or West? The second world will shape the world’s balance of power as much as the superpowers themselves will.

In exploring just a small sample of the second world, we should start perhaps with the hardest case: Russia. Apparently stabilized and resurgent under the Kremlin-Gazprom oligarchy, why is Russia not a superpower but rather the ultimate second-world swing state? For all its muscle flexing, Russia is also disappearing. Its population decline is a staggering half million citizens per year or more, meaning it will be not much larger than Turkey by 2025 or so — spread across a land so vast that it no longer even makes sense as a country. Travel across Russia today, and you’ll find, as during Soviet times, city after city of crumbling, heatless apartment blocks and neglected elderly citizens whose value to the state diminishes with distance from Moscow. The forced Siberian migrations of the Soviet era are being voluntarily reversed as children move west to more tolerable and modern climes. Filling the vacuum they have left behind are hundreds of thousands of Chinese, literally gobbling up, plundering, outright buying and more or less annexing Russia’s Far East for its timber and other natural resources. Already during the cold war it was joked that there were “no disturbances on the Sino-Finnish border,” a prophecy that seems ever closer to fulfillment.

Russia lost its western satellites almost two decades ago, and Europe, while appearing to be bullied by Russia’s oil-dependent diplomacy, is staging a long-term buyout of Russia, whose economy remains roughly the size of France’s. The more Europe gets its gas from North Africa and oil from Azerbaijan, the less it will rely on Russia, all the while holding the lever of being by far Russia’s largest investor. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provides the kinds of loans that help build an alternative, less corrupt private sector from below, while London and Berlin welcome Russia’s billionaires, allowing the likes of Boris Berezovsky to openly campaign against Putin. The E.U. and U.S. also finance and train a pugnacious second-world block of Baltic and Balkan nations, whose activists agitate from Belarus to Uzbekistan. Privately, some E.U. officials say that annexing Russia is perfectly doable; it’s just a matter of time. In the coming decades, far from restoring its Soviet-era might, Russia will have to decide whether it wishes to exist peacefully as an asset to Europe or the alternative — becoming a petro-vassal of China.

Turkey, too, is a totemic second-world prize advancing through crucial moments of geopolitical truth. During the cold war, NATO was the principal vehicle for relations with Turkey, the West’s listening post on the southwestern Soviet border. But with Turkey’s bending over backward to avoid outright E.U. rejection, its refusal in 2003 to let the U.S. use Turkish territory as a staging point for invading Iraq marked a turning point — away from the U.S. “America always says it lobbies the E.U. on our behalf,” a Turkish strategic analyst in Ankara told me, “but all that does is make the E.U. more stringent. We don’t need that kind of help anymore.”

To be sure, Turkish pride contains elements of an aggressive neo-Ottomanism that is in tension with some E.U. standards, but this could ultimately serve as Europe’s weapon to project stability into Syria, Iraq and Iran — all of which Europe effectively borders through Turkey itself. Roads are the pathways to power, as I learned driving across Turkey in a beat-up Volkswagen a couple of summers ago. Turkey’s master engineers have been boring tunnels, erecting bridges and flattening roads across the country’s massive eastern realm, allowing it to assert itself over the Arab and Persian worlds both militarily and economically as Turkish merchants look as much East as West. Already joint Euro-Turkish projects have led to the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, with a matching rail line and highway planned to buttress European influence all the way to Turkey’s fraternal friend Azerbaijan on the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

It takes only one glance at Istanbul’s shimmering skyline to realize that even if Turkey never becomes an actual E.U. member, it is becoming ever more Europeanized. Turkey receives more than $20 billion in foreign investment and more than 20 million tourists every year, the vast majority of both from E.U. countries. Ninety percent of the Turkish diaspora lives in Western Europe and sends home another $1 billion per year in remittances and investments. This remitted capital is spreading growth and development eastward in the form of new construction ventures, kilim factories and schools. With the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the E.U. a year ago, Turkey now physically borders the E.U. (beyond its narrow frontier with Greece), symbolizing how Turkey is becoming a part of the European superpower.

Western diplomats have a long historical familiarity, however dramatic and tumultuous, with Russia and Turkey. But what about the Stans: landlocked but resource-rich countries run by autocrats? Ever since these nations were flung into independence by the Soviet collapse, China has steadily replaced Russia as their new patron. Trade, oil pipelines and military exercises with China under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization make it the new organizing pole for the region, with the U.S. scrambling to maintain modest military bases in the region. (Currently it is forced to rely far too much on Afghanistan after being booted, at China’s and Russia’s behest, from the Karshi Khanabad base in Uzbekistan in 2005.) The challenge of getting ahead in the strategically located and energy-rich Stans is the challenge of a bidding contest in which values seem not to matter. While China buys more Kazakh oil and America bids for defense contracts, Europe offers sustained investment and holds off from giving President Nursultan Nazarbayev the high-status recognition he craves. Kazakhstan considers itself a “strategic partner” of just about everyone, but tell that to the Big Three, who bribe government officials to cancel the others’ contracts and spy on one another through contract workers — all in the name of preventing the others from gaining mastery over the fabled heartland of Eurasian power.

Just one example of the lengths to which foreigners will go to stay on good terms with Nazarbayev is the current negotiation between a consortium of Western energy giants, including ENI and Exxon, and Kazakhstan’s state-run oil company over the development of the Caspian’s massive Kashagan oil field. At present, the consortium is coughing up at least $4 billion as well as a large hand-over of shares to compensate for delayed exploration and production — and Kazakhstan isn’t satisfied yet. The lesson from Kazakhstan, and its equally strategic but far less predictable neighbor Uzbekistan, is how fickle the second world can be, its alignments changing on a whim and causing headaches and ripple effects in all directions. To be distracted elsewhere or to lack sufficient personnel on the ground can make the difference between winning and losing a major round of the new great game.

The Big Three dynamic is not just some distant contest by which America ensures its ability to dictate affairs on the other side of the globe. Globalization has brought the geopolitical marketplace straight to America’s backyard, rapidly eroding the two-centuries-old Monroe Doctrine in the process. In truth, America called the shots in Latin America only when its southern neighbors lacked any vision of their own. Now they have at least two non-American challengers: China and Chávez. It was Simón Bolívar who fought ferociously for South America’s independence from Spanish rule, and today it is the newly renamed Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that has inspired an entire continent to bootstrap its way into the global balance of power on its own terms. Hugo Chávez, the country’s clownish colonel, may last for decades to come or may die by the gun, but either way, he has called America’s bluff and won, changing the rules of North-South relations in the Western hemisphere. He has emboldened and bankrolled leftist leaders across the continent, helped Argentina and others pay back and boot out the I.M.F. and sponsored a continentwide bartering scheme of oil, cattle, wheat and civil servants, reminding even those who despise him that they can stand up to the great Northern power. Chávez stands not only on the ladder of high oil prices. He relies on tacit support from Europe and hardheaded intrusion from China, the former still the country’s largest investor and the latter feverishly repairing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil rigs while building its own refineries.

But Chávez’s challenge to the United States is, in inspiration, ideological, whereas the second-world shift is really structural. Even with Chávez still in power, it is Brazil that is reappearing as South America’s natural leader. Alongside India and South Africa, Brazil has led the charge in global trade negotiations, sticking it to the U.S. on its steel tariffs and to Europe on its agricultural subsidies. Geographically, Brazil is nearly as close to Europe as to America and is as keen to build cars and airplanes for Europe as it is to export soy to the U.S. Furthermore, Brazil, although a loyal American ally in the cold war, wasted little time before declaring a “strategic alliance” with China. Their economies are remarkably complementary, with Brazil shipping iron ore, timber, zinc, beef, milk and soybeans to China and China investing in Brazil’s hydroelectric dams, steel mills and shoe factories. Both China and Brazil’s ambitions may soon alter the very geography of their relations, with Brazil leading an effort to construct a Trans-Oceanic Highway from the Amazon through Peru to the Pacific Coast, facilitating access for Chinese shipping tankers. Latin America has mostly been a geopolitical afterthought over the centuries, but in the 21st century, all resources will be competed for, and none are too far away.

The Middle East — spanning from Morocco to Iran — lies between the hubs of influence of the Big Three and has the largest number of second-world swing states. No doubt the thaw with Libya, brokered by America and Britain after Muammar el-Qaddafi declared he would abandon his country’s nuclear pursuits in 2003, was partly motivated by growing demand for energy from a close Mediterranean neighbor. But Qaddafi is not selling out. He and his advisers have astutely parceled out production sharing agreements to a balanced assortment of American, European, Chinese and other Asian oil giants. Mindful of the history of Western oil companies’ exploitation of Arabia, he — like Chávez in Venezuela and Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan — has also cleverly ratcheted up the pressure on foreigners to share more revenue with the regime by tweaking contracts, rounding numbers liberally and threatening expropriation. What I find in virtually every Arab country is not such nationalism, however, but rather a new Arabism aimed at spreading oil wealth within the Arab world rather than depositing it in the United States as in past oil booms. And as Egypt, Syria and other Arab states receive greater investment from the Persian Gulf and start spending more on their own, they, too, become increasingly important second-world players who can thwart the U.S.

Saudi Arabia, for quite some years to come still the planet’s leading oil producer, is a second-world prize on par with Russia and equally up for grabs. For the past several decades, America’s share of the foreign direct investment into the kingdom decisively shaped the country’s foreign policy, but today the monarchy is far wiser, luring Europe and Asia to bring their investment shares toward a third each. Saudi Arabia has engaged Europe in an evolving Persian Gulf free-trade area, while it has invested close to $1 billion in Chinese oil refineries. Make no mistake: America was never all powerful only because of its military dominance; strategic leverage must have an economic basis. A major common denominator among key second-world countries is the need for each of the Big Three to put its money where its mouth is.

For all its historical antagonism with Saudi Arabia, Iran is playing the same swing-state game. Its diplomacy has not only managed to create discord among the U.S. and E.U. on sanctions; it has also courted China, nurturing a relationship that goes back to the Silk Road. Today Iran represents the final square in China’s hopscotch maneuvering to reach the Persian Gulf overland without relying on the narrow Straits of Malacca. Already China has signed a multibillion-dollar contract for natural gas from Iran’s immense North Pars field, another one for construction of oil terminals on the Caspian Sea and yet another to extend the Tehran metro — and it has boosted shipment of ballistic-missile technology and air-defense radars to Iran. Several years of negotiation culminated in December with Sinopec sealing a deal to develop the Yadavaran oil field, with more investments from China (and others) sure to follow. The longer International Atomic Energy Agency negotiations drag on, the more likely it becomes that Iran will indeed be able to stay afloat without Western investment because of backing from China and from its second-world friends — without giving any ground to the West.

Interestingly, it is precisely Muslim oil-producing states — Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, (mostly Muslim) Kazakhstan, Malaysia — that seem the best at spreading their alignments across some combination of the Big Three simultaneously: getting what they want while fending off encroachment from others. America may seek Muslim allies for its image and the “war on terror,” but these same countries seem also to be part of what Samuel Huntington called the “Confucian-Islamic connection.” What is more, China is pulling off the most difficult of superpower feats: simultaneously maintaining positive ties with the world’s crucial pairs of regional rivals: Venezuela and Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan. At this stage, Western diplomats have only mustered the wherewithal to quietly denounce Chinese aid policies and value-neutral alliances, but they are far from being able to do much of anything about them.

This applies most profoundly in China’s own backyard, Southeast Asia. Some of the most dynamic countries in the region Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are playing the superpower suitor game with admirable savvy. Chinese migrants have long pulled the strings in the region’s economies even while governments sealed defense agreements with the U.S. Today, Malaysia and Thailand still perform joint military exercises with America but also buy weapons from, and have defense treaties with, China, including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation by which Asian nations have pledged nonaggression against one another. (Indonesia, a crucial American ally during the cold war, has also been forming defense ties with China.) As one senior Malaysian diplomat put it to me, without a hint of jest, “Creating a community is easy among the yellow and the brown but not the white.” Tellingly, it is Vietnam, because of its violent histories with the U.S. and China, which is most eager to accept American defense contracts (and a new Intel microchip plant) to maintain its strategic balance. Vietnam, like most of the second world, doesn’t want to fall into any one superpower’s sphere of influence.

The Anti-Imperial Belt

The new multicolor map of influence — a Venn diagram of overlapping American, Chinese and European influence — is a very fuzzy read. No more “They’re with us” or “He’s our S.O.B.” Mubarak, Musharraf, Malaysia’s Mahathir and a host of other second-world leaders have set a new standard for manipulative prowess: all tell the U.S. they are its friend while busily courting all sides.

What is more, many second-world countries are confident enough to form anti-imperial belts of their own, building trade, technology and diplomatic axes across the (second) world from Brazil to Libya to Iran to Russia. Indeed, Russia has stealthily moved into position to construct Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor, putting it firmly in the Chinese camp on the Iran issue, while also offering nuclear reactors to Libya and arms to Venezuela and Indonesia. Second-world countries also increasingly use sovereign-wealth funds (often financed by oil) worth trillions of dollars to throw their weight around, even bullying first-world corporations and markets. The United Arab Emirates (particularly as represented by their capital, Abu Dhabi), Saudi Arabia and Russia are rapidly climbing the ranks of foreign-exchange holders and are hardly holding back in trying to buy up large shares of Western banks (which have suddenly become bargains) and oil companies. Singapore’s sovereign-wealth fund has taken a similar path. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia plans an international investment fund that will dwarf Abu Dhabi’s. From Switzerland to Citigroup, a reaction is forming to limit the shares such nontransparent sovereign-wealth funds can control, showing just how quickly the second world is rising in the global power game.

To understand the second world, you have to start to think like a second-world country. What I have seen in these and dozens of other countries is that globalization is not synonymous with Americanization; in fact, nothing has brought about the erosion of American primacy faster than globalization. While European nations redistribute wealth to secure or maintain first-world living standards, on the battlefield of globalization second-world countries’ state-backed firms either outhustle or snap up American companies, leaving their workers to fend for themselves. The second world’s first priority is not to become America but to succeed by any means necessary.

The Non-American World

Karl Marx and Max Weber both chastised Far Eastern cultures for being despotic, agrarian and feudal, lacking the ingredients for organizational success. Oswald Spengler saw it differently, arguing that mankind both lives and thinks in unique cultural systems, with Western ideals neither transferable nor relevant. Today the Asian landscape still features ancient civilizations but also by far the most people and, by certain measures, the most money of any region in the world. With or without America, Asia is shaping the world’s destiny — and exposing the flaws of the grand narrative of Western civilization in the process.

The rise of China in the East and of the European Union within the West has fundamentally altered a globe that recently appeared to have only an American gravity — pro or anti. As Europe’s and China’s spirits rise with every move into new domains of influence, America’s spirit is weakened. The E.U. may uphold the principles of the United Nations that America once dominated, but how much longer will it do so as its own social standards rise far above this lowest common denominator? And why should China or other Asian countries become “responsible stakeholders,” in former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick’s words, in an American-led international order when they had no seat at the table when the rules were drafted? Even as America stumbles back toward multilateralism, others are walking away from the American game and playing by their own rules.

The self-deluding universalism of the American imperium — that the world inherently needs a single leader and that American liberal ideology must be accepted as the basis of global order — has paradoxically resulted in America quickly becoming an ever-lonelier superpower. Just as there is a geopolitical marketplace, there is a marketplace of models of success for the second world to emulate, not least the Chinese model of economic growth without political liberalization (itself an affront to Western modernization theory). As the historian Arnold Toynbee observed half a century ago, Western imperialism united the globe, but it did not assure that the West would dominate forever — materially or morally. Despite the “mirage of immortality” that afflicts global empires, the only reliable rule of history is its cycles of imperial rise and decline, and as Toynbee also pithily noted, the only direction to go from the apogee of power is down.

The web of globalization now has three spiders. What makes America unique in this seemingly value-free contest is not its liberal democratic ideals — which Europe may now represent better than America does — but rather its geography. America is isolated, while Europe and China occupy two ends of the great Eurasian landmass that is the perennial center of gravity of geopolitics. When America dominated NATO and led a rigid Pacific alliance system with Japan, South Korea, Australia and Thailand, it successfully managed the Herculean task of running the world from one side of it. Now its very presence in Eurasia is tenuous; it has been shunned by the E.U. and Turkey, is unwelcome in much of the Middle East and has lost much of East Asia’s confidence. “Accidental empire” or not, America must quickly accept and adjust to this reality. Maintaining America’s empire can only get costlier in both blood and treasure. It isn’t worth it, and history promises the effort will fail. It already has.

Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It’s very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace the U.S. as the world’s sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.

I believe that a complex, multicultural landscape filled with transnational challenges from terrorism to global warming is completely unmanageable by a single authority, whether the United States or the United Nations. Globalization resists centralization of almost any kind. Instead, what we see gradually happening in climate-change negotiations (as in Bali in December) — and need to see more of in the areas of preventing nuclear proliferation and rebuilding failed states — is a far greater sense of a division of labor among the Big Three, a concrete burden-sharing among them by which they are judged not by their rhetoric but the responsibilities they fulfill. The arbitrarily composed Security Council is not the place to hash out such a division of labor. Neither are any of the other multilateral bodies bogged down with weighted voting and cacophonously irrelevant voices. The big issues are for the Big Three to sort out among themselves.

Less Can Be More

So let’s play strategy czar. You are a 21st-century Kissinger. Your task is to guide the next American president (and the one after that) from the demise of American hegemony into a world of much more diffuse governance. What do you advise, concretely, to mitigate the effects of the past decade’s policies — those that inspired defiance rather than cooperation — and to set in motion a virtuous circle of policies that lead to global equilibrium rather than a balance of power against the U.S.?

First, channel your inner J.F.K. You are president, not emperor. You are commander in chief and also diplomat in chief. Your grand strategy is a global strategy, yet you must never use the phrase “American national interest.” (It is assumed.) Instead talk about “global interests” and how closely aligned American policies are with those interests. No more “us” versus “them,” only “we.” That means no more talk of advancing “American values” either. What is worth having is universal first and American second. This applies to “democracy” as well, where timing its implementation is as important as the principle itself. Right now, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the hero of the second world — including its democracies — is Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

We have learned the hard way that what others want for themselves trumps what we want for them — always. Neither America nor the world needs more competing ideologies, and moralizing exhortations are only useful if they point toward goals that are actually attainable. This new attitude must be more than an act: to obey this modest, hands-off principle is what would actually make America the exceptional empire it purports to be. It would also be something every other empire in history has failed to do.

Second, Pentagonize the State Department. Adm. William J. Fallon, head of Central Command (Centcom), not Robert Gates, is the man really in charge of the U.S. military’s primary operations. Diplomacy, too, requires the equivalent of geographic commands — with top-notch assistant secretaries of state to manage relations in each key region without worrying about getting on the daily agenda of the secretary of state for menial approvals. Then we’ll be ready to coordinate within distant areas. In some regions, our ambassadors to neighboring countries meet only once or twice a year; they need to be having weekly secure video-conferences. Regional institutions are thriving in the second world — think Mercosur (the South American common market), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf. We need high-level ambassadors at those organizations too. Taken together, this allows us to move beyond, for example, the current Millennium Challenge Account — which amounts to one-track aid packages to individual countries already going in the right direction — toward encouraging the kind of regional cooperation that can work in curbing both terrorism and poverty. Only if you think regionally can a success story have a demonstration effect. This approach will be crucial to the future of the Pentagon’s new African command. (Until last year, African relations were managed largely by European command, or Eucom, in Germany.) Suspicions of America are running high in Africa, and a country-by-country strategy would make those suspicions worse. Finally, to achieve strategic civilian-military harmonization, we have to first get the maps straight. The State Department puts the Stans in the South and Central Asia bureau, while the Pentagon puts them within the Middle-East-focused Centcom. The Chinese divide up the world the Pentagon’s way; so, too, should our own State Department.

Third, deploy the marchmen. Europe is boosting its common diplomatic corps, while China is deploying retired civil servants, prison laborers and Chinese teachers — all are what the historian Arnold Toynbee called marchmen, the foot-soldiers of empire spreading values and winning loyalty. There are currently more musicians in U.S. military marching bands than there are Foreign Service officers, a fact not helped by Congress’s decision to effectively freeze growth in diplomatic postings. In this context, Condoleezza Rice’s “transformational diplomacy” is a myth: we don’t have enough diplomats for core assignments, let alone solo hardship missions. We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas — with corporate sponsorship.

That’s right. In true American fashion, we must build a diplomatic-industrial complex. Europe and China all but personify business-government collusion, so let State raise money from Wall Street as it puts together regional aid and investment packages. American foreign policy must be substantially more than what the U.S. government directs. After all, the E.U. is already the world’s largest aid donor, and China is rising in the aid arena as well. Plus, each has a larger population than the U.S., meaning deeper benches of recruits, and are not political targets in the present political atmosphere the way Americans abroad are. The secret weapon must be the American citizenry itself. American foundations and charities, not least the Gates and Ford Foundations, dwarf European counterparts in their humanitarian giving; if such private groups independently send more and more American volunteers armed with cash, good will and local knowledge to perform “diplomacy of the deed,” then the public diplomacy will take care of itself.

Fourth, make the global economy work for us. By resurrecting European economies, the Marshall Plan was a down payment on even greater returns in terms of purchasing American goods. For now, however, as the dollar falls, our manufacturing base declines and Americans lose control of assets to wealthier foreign funds, our scientific education, broadband access, health-care, safety and a host of other standards are all slipping down the global rankings. Given our deficits and political gridlock, the only solution is to channel global, particularly Asian, liquidity into our own public infrastructure, creating jobs and technology platforms that can keep American innovation ahead of the pack. Globalization apologizes to no one; we must stay on top of it or become its victim.

Fifth, convene a G-3 of the Big Three. But don’t set the agenda; suggest it. These are the key issues among which to make compromises and trade-offs: climate change, energy security, weapons proliferation and rogue states. Offer more Western clean technology to China in exchange for fewer weapons and lifelines for the Sudanese tyrants and the Burmese junta. And make a joint effort with the Europeans to offer massive, irresistible packages to the people of Iran, Uzbekistan and Venezuela — incentives for eventual regime change rather than fruitless sanctions. A Western change of tone could make China sweat. Superpowers have to learn to behave, too.

Taken together, all these moves could renew American competitiveness in the geopolitical marketplace — and maybe even prove our exceptionalism. We need pragmatic incremental steps like the above to deliver tangible gains to people beyond our shores, repair our reputation, maintain harmony among the Big Three, keep the second world stable and neutral and protect our common planet. Let’s hope whoever is sworn in as the next American president understands this.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Sino-German relations back on stable mode but it will not be as rosy as before

Recently, the secret meeting between German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi has moved the bilateral relations to a stable mode rather than the tumultuous 5-month period following the official meeting between the current German Chancellor and the Dalai Lama in Berlin.

The September’s meeting with the religious figure, revered especially by the Western governments and also in particular the Western media, by the German Chancellor has resulted in the immediate fallout in relations by the cancellations of various high level meetings with China.

Underlying the close economic tie-ups, the Chinese, being practical, have however not created any unreasonable hindrance to the business to business engagements and the trade flow between the two countries. In 2007, German exports to China amounted to US$40.3 billion, making Germany China's biggest EU trading partner. Direct German investment amounted to US$20 billion.

The Dalai Lama is a dissident figure from Tibet with separatist intent. Tibet is a province now under the administration of China as an autonomous region and is largely recognized as part of the People Republic of China by the more than 150 nations under the UN banner. The Western media and certain Hollywood celebrities choose to highlight the perceived predicament of the Tibetan people, which mostly are inaccurate and as such, such views and opinions are largely ignored by the majority of the Han Chinese and the overseas Chinese as well. I wondered how the string of countries-type awards and honors to the Dalai Lama will do to the Tibetan so-called plight when even the Nobel Peace Prize cannot change the position of the Chinese government.

The affirmation by the German Foreign Ministry that Berlin supported the one-China Policy that stipulates Taiwan and Tibet as part of China will go a long way to move the relations to a more stable plane but there are still significant disagreements between China’s viewpoints with that of the present German Chancellor stubborn stance on human rights and the support given to dissidents.

The need to promote good and friendly ties between the two countries were largely due to the added pressure from the German’s business community and the political importance of having China’s support to resolve the outstanding Iran’s nuclear program coupled with China’s active participation in meeting the global environmental challenges. France and United Kingdom current aggressive business partnerships with Beijing, stressing less on western standards human rights compliance, could probably prompted the German Administration to follow the same direction. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two bodies critical of China, are not at all pleased.

Mutual trust and respect in any country diplomacy are built over a reasonable timeframe with good working relationship. With the present German’s Chancellor inability to view the beneficial win-win perspective on a grander scale, it will just take another of such unexpected and wishful meeting with dissidents to put the relations back on the rock.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Two out of five titles in the Malaysian Badminton Open 2008, China needs to buck up

The recently concluded first Super Series Badminton in Kuala Lumpur indicated that the other countries are closing the gap with China in terms of the standard of play, strategies and physical endurance especially on the players’ mental strength.

In as many badminton circuits over the world, the Chinese would most likely take 3 or maybe 4 titles, out of 5. But in certain specific tournaments toward the last stages of 2007 and in the Malaysian Open, the Chinese just fell short of the expected outcome. Though China is without its number 1 in the men singles – Lin Dan and women singles – Xie Xingfang, the results nevertheless proved that the other countries are closing the gap.

The exports of Chinese coaches to other countries and the studies undertaken by foreign coaches using video motion replay to analyze Chinese player’s weaknesses have been the main factors contributing to this sudden improvement in the standards of other players from around the world.

What is worrying to the Chinese must be the lack of promising young men’s players after Lin Dan and Bao Chunlai. Chen Yu should vary his strokes and learned from Lin Dan in order to make him a complete player, whose game will not be so predictable. Chen Jin and Gong Weiji, two players graduated from its base of young trainees, are inconsistent and cannot be relied upon in major tournaments. One persistent weakness among Chinese players was the inability to hold on to losing more points at the crucial moment to opposing players and this may prove crucial in a-21 point system where every point counts. What happened to the Chinese world’s youth champion, Chen Long and his other colleagues?

There is also no promising men doubles over the last 2-3 years other than Fu Haifeng and Cai Yun who can match the Malaysians, Koreans, Indonesian or the Danish veterans. Perhaps, the Chinese Badminton Association (CBA) need to re-look into the possibility of hiring reputable Indonesian doubles coaches who may be able to inject some new ideas and techniques into its perceived aggressive game play.

In the women singles, Xie Xingfang, as usual, will be depended to hit gold or score a crucial point in major tournament like the Olympics and the World Championship with the fading Zhang Ning who will most likely retire after the Beijing Olympics. The inconsistent Zhu Lin, Lu Lan and Jiang Yanjiao will be left to carry Chinese hopes into the future. Unless the Chinese women players can strengthen its inconsistent play and built more aggressive attacks into its game, we will be see more of other little Wong Mew Choos’ and Tine Rasmussens’ threatening its once dominant women’s position.

The women doubles and mixed doubles are two titles of which the Chinese can lay claim to being on top of the other countries except for some rare competition from the mixed doubles players from Indonesia and Thailand.

Losing in the Malaysian Open can act like an eye-opener to correct the many obvious mistakes in the preparation of the players and the detail planning towards major tournament like the Olympics and All England.

It is with fervent hope that the CBA will act fast by not falling further into complacency by undertaking various results oriented programs to strategize its game using proven techniques and cutting down the many unforced errors in its players game to ward off the real threat to its objective of securing a memorable feat in the coming Beijing Olympics, which is only 8 months away.

Now for the next immediate challenge, the Korean Badminton Open.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Taiwan parliamentary elections results signal a return to practicality and sensibility

The opposition Kuomintang (KMT) landslide victory in the parliamentary elections on 12 January 2008 in many ways demonstrated the wishes of the majority of the Taiwanese people to return to a pragmatic political policy of sensibility after years of tension with China. Of course, the poor performance of the island’s economy with a relatively high unemployment rate had played a part in the defeat of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

The outcome can also be interpreted as an outright rejection of the ruling administration controversial policies of moving Taiwan towards a path of independence and changing or altering historical values and symbols that have the slightest resemblance or connections to the Mainland.

The official Central Election Commission announced that the KMT has won 81 seats as against the DPP’s 27 seats and the balance of 5 seats to minor parties and independents, making up the 113-seat Legislative Yuan. Voter turnout was almost 60% of the 17 million eligible votes where for the first time the Chamber seats were reduced by half to improve the quality of the candidates and to reduce corruptions among elected assemblymen.

Though China has not reacted officially to the elections results but they have silently applauded the KMT’s victory which meant that the independence cause is temporarily shelved at least until the next parliamentary elections. There is a strong likelihood now that the Presidential poll would also move in favor of the opposition candidate, Ma Ying-jeou on 22 March 2008.

While the Chinese government has refused to speak to the ruling President because of his independence stand and his outright provocative political platform, there is a possibility they may negotiate with a new President from KMT. In recent years, Beijing has invited the honorary KMT’s Chairman and senior KMT officials to visit the mainland. It was widely believed that the Chinese leaders have privately assured visiting Taiwanese scholars and business leaders that ties would improve if the KMT are back in power. KMT did not reject the concept of reunification based on the 1992 “One China” principle and this small agreement may be what it takes to bring the two historical “nemesis” to the negotiation table.

Even the US, the volunteered protector of Taiwan, has criticized the current Taiwan’s President, Chen Shui Bian, for trying to change the status quo by needlessly and carelessly raising tensions across the Taiwan Strait, which brings no benefit to the Taiwanese people.

With its growing economic clout and political influence, China has cleverly nudged the US to use its political influence and pressure on Taiwan to discourage any independence initiatives whether perceived or real.

Over the past decade, China had successfully undergone a rapid transformation and modernization of its military force with the main objective to prevent Taiwan from breaking away from the motherland, bearing in mind that the US will come to Taiwan’s assistance. China’s military has studied and adopted high-tech war strategies with the sole objective of deterring the US from any involvement in the event of a Taiwan’s conflict. Recent Chinese military literature indicates that the Chinese’s military with its sophisticated weapons and enhanced technical training is supremely confident that they can take on Taiwan with or without the US’s military assistance. First, the near absence of strong rhetoric and verbal threats from Beijing whenever there are provocations coming from the island and second, the lack of display of China’s military might whenever there is an election across the Taiwan Straits have prompted us to support this underlying notion.

We believe the next President from the KMT would be a pragmatic and sensible person who will choose to avoid confrontation and work towards closer economic ties. With the KMT in power, Taiwan will most likely begin to have direct trade and air links to China. Presently, what would be just a 90-minute trip between Taipei and Shanghai will take up to nearly seven-hour through a third locality, usually via Hong Kong. In the past, Taiwan's businessmen have lobbied for direct flights that logically promote traveling convenience and save time and costs.

Closer economic ties with China will help spur economic growth on the island by opening lucrative investments and creating more jobs, a key concern of the majority of voters over the weekend poll. The economy of China and Taiwan are now intertwined with the Taiwanese being one of the largest investors with an estimated US$600 billion to date. An estimated 1 million or 4.3% of the island population are either working or staying on the mainland. According to official statistic from China, China was able to absorb nearly 40% of the island’s total exports from January to November 2007.

Chen’s controversial politics has brought nothing but misery to the Taiwan people and it is very likely that if he steps down as the President in March this year, he may be prosecuted for alleged corruptions during his tenure as the Taiwan’s leader since 2000.

On the diplomatic front, Taiwan has continued to lose its international presence with only 24 small and poor nations on its list. Ultimately, we foresee that the remaining nations with relations with Taiwan will want to live in a realistic international order where they could reap the economic benefits and assistance by having linkages to China. China, being an important investor and a big consumer market, would be able to sway these nations to its side in the years to come.

Last week, there were diplomatic rumblings that there may be a diplomatic switch by Malawi, a poor Southern African nation, to Beijing by next week. Even the principled and hypocritical US has discarded its so-called one time ally diplomatically and recognized China in 1979 following the historical US President trip’s to China in 1974. Realistically speaking, Taiwan is losing the diplomatic battlefront to Beijing but the pro-independence Taiwanese forces with the sympathetic support of the Western media and the US continued to challenge this foregone fact.

Though the Taipei’s government tried to tune its foreign policy to suit the ever changing diplomatic conditions, it will remain a futile effort in the end. The only workable solution is to negotiate with the Chinese authorities for an acceptable political settlement and perhaps, as one analyst suggested the establishment of a loose China Federation under which Taiwan will be self governing body until the political systems of both entities can be aligned. We are sure that there will be a middle path or a compromise acceptable to all parties in the not too distant future. Most important there must not be any interference from any nosy Western institutions which will only complicate the situations.

We will get to see a complete and clearer picture of the Taiwanese political situation. Meanwhile, lets’ wait and see what will happen on March 22 and beyond.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Western media ploy to destroy China’s toy exports has the opposite effect

Over the past 2-3 years, the Western media concerted schemes, sometimes with a devious hidden agenda, to report whatever negative consequences from the usage of Chinese products ranging from perceived banned substances in toothpaste, seafood and other processed food to children's toys.

Manufactured products from China are known for its low price and obviously, the product quality cannot be comparable in every aspect with another expensive substitute, many times higher, than the products from developed countries or a nation which has many preceding years of established manufacturing practices. For me, it is better to judge China as a developing country, which has only been in the international manufacturing business since 1991, when it goes full scale into an export oriented led growth in its economic direction.

The silver lining from the international outcry over the perceived unsafe and poor quality of Chinese goods has led to the implementation of strict manufacturing practices and higher standard of monitoring of production goods in China. Given time, I am sure that the export of poor quality goods from China will be a thing of the past.

Chinese basic and essential goods for the masses have the effect of helping even developed country like the US to manage its inflation level especially the countless food items. Poor people who cannot afford to buy motorbikes, television and DVD players are now enjoying a lifestyle and upgraded living where they could only dream of during the heydays of pricey consumer electronics, transportation equipments and communication peripherals.

Last year, America’s Mattel Inc recalled more than 21 million Chinese-made toys internationally. The Barbie patented dolls with related accessories and other toy cars were withdrawn from the markets because of the fear of lead paint and loose small parts which may pose a danger to young children. Even the manufacturer designed detachable magnets are not spare in the worldwide recall. Other US headquartered toy manufacturers which have its manufacturing outlets in China also followed the recall trend. Tires importers of Chinese brands also complained about the non compliance of certain safety standards. Anything which is imported from another country that do not meet the standard of safety and quality of the importing country are supposed to be checked at the entrance point of the country. Why passed the blame to the producing country solely?

Later, Mattel apologized for the incident to the Chinese government, which was also internationally reported by the Western media. My immediate question was to what extent these negative ramifications would have on the demand of Chinese toys throughout the world.

A latest report from a Chinese Daily stated that exports of Chinese toys increased by 20.1% in the first 10 months from January to October as compared to the corresponding period in 2006. China shipped $7.1 billion worth of toys abroad and a large portion of the orders were for the Thanksgiving and Christmas season at the end of the year 2007. Even exports to the United States, rose 13.3% in the first 10 months of 2007 from a year earlier. China is the world's top toy exporter, selling 22 billion toys overseas in 2006, or 60% of the globe's total.

In view of the reasons given above, China will continue to be a top producer of many more products in the years ahead and the Western media will need to come up with a more believable strategy if it intent to dent the world’s factory in China.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Universal Suffrage Decision for Hong Kong lies with the Beijing’s government

In a media conference held on Saturday 29 December 2007, the Hong Kong Chief Executive made a historical announcement that the Special Administrative Region (SAR) had entered a new phase in its political development with a set timetable to elect a leader by 2017 and the legislators by 2020. Presently, only half of the 60 legislative seats are elected.

The decision comes with mixed reactions from the Hong Kong Community. The majority of the Hong Kong residents who are more concerned with the continued stability of the economy, employment and prosperity of the former colony, accepted it as a step towards full democracy.

However, there were sparks of outcry from the Democrat Party which championed for an early date for universal suffrage, that is, in 2012. Protest numbering hundreds or more people were held to denounce the decision. Foreign western media, as usual, interviewed the protesters and its supporters from the Democrat Party and reported the grievances in its news channel, with 80% of the content focusing on these objections. Why? Obviously, the western media has its own agenda of trying to influence the Hong Kong Community to force the issue on the Beijing government. Do you think this is possible?

The hundreds who protested said they were cheated of the right to vote and claimed that they represent the wishes of the Hong Kong people. Do they truly represent the Hong Kong majority? Once more, I like to ask the Hong Kong Democrats, why are you clamoring for universal suffrage when throughout 100 years of colonial rule under the British there was not even a whisper to such effect in the ears of the former colonial masters? Perhaps, if Hong Kong is still under the British Overseas Territories Administration, there will be no such request.

British’s Foreign Secretary voiced his disappointment in a news media over the decision. In the years leading to the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, what did the British government do to ensure that the Hong Kong people can self-determine within a timeframe? There is nothing in the terms of the handover on the timetable for universal suffrage. And the British government responsibility and sincerity towards the Hong Kong people is questionable in that no British citizenship was offered as an option to the average Hong Kong residents before the handover. So what right do they have now to criticize the decision of the Chinese government?

The US spokesman is also equally skeptical of the timetable for full democracy by implying that there could be a delay as the decision to change the electoral process still depended on the National People Congress in Beijing even after a consensus is secured on the Hong Kong side.

The decision for universal suffrage as stated in the Basic Law lies with the central government in Beijing. The decision was clearly made in the interest of the Hong Kong majority in consultation with the Chief Executive and also, the Beijing’s Authority concerns over the spillover effects on the demand for greater political freedom in the hinterlands, where the level of political maturity and economic progress is still not yet on par with Hong Kong.

What is important over here is that the Hong Kong divisive parties (including the appointed 30 legislators) must agree to a compromise to vote for a constitutional change on the electoral process in the next 10 years, to make such a political dream come true.

Ultimately, it is the Hong Kong people and not from any western governments or media who will need to decide the format of election and since they have already waited for 10 years, what is wrong in waiting for another 10 years for the move towards universal suffrage?

Personally, I am still of the opinion that the ruling government in Beijing is watching the political development in Hong Kong carefully and draws whatever learning experiences, which may yet see Hong Kong as a stimulus that transforms the political process throughout the whole of China towards a more liberal and democratic society, although I have to admit it will be at a much slower and gradual pace.