The perturbing case of the missing link...

Now here’s a thing. This article humped into the ol’ probligo’s scanners a short while back, a propos of nothing very much at all. I think it was from following sub-links. Anyhoos, I picked up the address and saved as it is an interesting topic and has some useful potential.



I dropped off the net and then tried to find it again a short while later. Nothing! Search Granny Herald with their own engine. Nothing! Hmmm… something not quite right here! Search again “Nat china cash”; most recent result is 2007. “Nat china donation”; zip! “China national donation”; latest is dated April 2011 about ANZAC poppies in the South Island. Even “Chinese cash nat” (three words from the headline) only picks up an article of 8 December concerning Chinese involvement in forestry CNIF.



Very strange indeed!!

On the disappearance of...

... the (often difficult to understand and appreciate) Chinese commentors.

They might be peddling unwanted wares. That was not difficult to detect. They might have been incomprehensible.

The question is, WHERE HAVE THEY GONE?

Is this a policy being imposed by Google, on their own behalf? Or at the persistent request of their clientele?

Or is the result of their acquiescence to pressure from the Chinese authorities who desire that their community be sheltered from the excesses of Capitalism; or whatever the current bugbear might be.

A loud BOOOOOO!! from the probligo if the latter is the case.

On television -

On Tuesday night, Maori Television here showed a documentary on Uighur leader Rebiya Khadeer, much to the consternation and distaste of the Chinese government. In the interests of "balance" Mtv followed the documentary with a Chinese government "press release" on the Xinjiang riots in July this year.

As a result, there has been considerable criticism of Mtv for showing "blatant Chinese government propaganda". That it certainly was, and in the ol probligo's mind that is exactly a very good reason why it should be shown. After showing some 15 minutes of street scene cctv of people beating up on others, breaking windows, and setting a couple of fires, police escorting some 25 "prisoners", and all of that without commentary, the film concluded that the riots had been orchestrated by the World Uighur Congress and Khadeer was the only individual named.

What many seem to miss is that showing this kind of government crap is so important simply because it is part of learning differences between factual (and there was fact in the CPR film; people were rioting) and the distribution of political cant based upon broken and missing logical conclusion. That the riots were Uighurs taking out their frustration on the Han is also factual. That is little different to the government here saying that Ngai Tuhoe live in the Urewera.

As I have posted to a couple or three fora -

"I also commend MaoriTV for showing the China Government film after the Uighur doco. NOT because I have any support or affiliation for the Chinese government; quite the opposite.

By showing the “press release” (about the most polite and desriptive appelation I can find) anyone watching it should be able to see through the propaganda to the underlying truths. If they can not, then that shows the importance of broadcasting this and similar propaganda releases.

Why? Simply so that we all can learn to recognise government propaganda when it appears on our screens. Whether it is government sponsored “analysis” of riots in China, or police action against Te Urewera in this country, we the general public must be able to recognise what we are being told for what it is."

Just because CPR says that the rioting was "orchestrated by the WUC" does not make it so, any more than the NZ government saying that there was a "terrorist training camp" at Ruatoria makes that so. I believe it is a technique that was sometimes termed "drawing a long bow".

While on the subject of television viewing, Brian Edwards (a broadcaster and man of many letters for whom I hold considerable regard) published a "Brickbats and Bouquets" list earlier in the week. One of his top bouquets was in praise of a locally produced soap "Outrageous Fortune". I have tried to watch this hour of agony a couple of times and given up on it. Totally. I expressed this opinion in support of another commenter who thought he might be the only person who does not like this particular "entertainment". BE took some exception to my opine that he would also enjoy Coro St. and Shortie St. and accused me of being somewhat "elitist".

Ah, the good old kiwi tall poppy syndrome again.

Babes in the international economic wood...

Back in November I put together a few thoughts that came out of the weekend papers while I was toasting the toes in the balmy and relaxed atmosphere of the Hokianga.

One of the lines of thought in that echoed comment that I have left with a number of people over the past year or so, to the effect that the economic power and influence of the US will as a result of the present "global correction" wane and be replaced by the likes of China and India.

So, the WSJ features the damage control reaction to Wen Jiabao's rather blunt scepticism of the worth of US bonds.

The Obama administration rejected China's concerns that its vast holdings of U.S. assets might be unsafe, in an unusual diplomatic exchange that underscored the global importance and the potential fragility of the Sino-U.S. economic relationship.

In a coordinated response to blunt comments from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, White House officials said Friday that Mr. Obama intends to return the country to fiscal prudence once the crisis passes.

"There's no safer investment in the world than in the United States," said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs.

That view was reiterated by the president's chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, who defended record U.S. deficit spending as a salve to the nation's economic woes. "If you don't prime the pump and you allow the processes of decay and decline and de-leveraging to continue, it's much more costly to do it later," he said.

Which is what the US (under the new administration) has been doing.

But the meat is here -

In late January, Mr. Wen squarely blamed the U.S.-led financial system for the world's deepening economic slump. Chinese leaders have felt bruised by some badly performing U.S. investments they thought were safe, including holdings in mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Morgan Stanley and the collapsed Reserve Primary Fund, the money-market fund that "broke the buck" in September as a result of the Lehman collapse. China, which for years was the largest foreign investor in bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has trimmed back its holdings of that debt.

The premier's comments were unusually pointed and raised the possibility that Beijing's appetite for U.S. debt could wane. In the worst-case scenario, a significant new aversion to U.S. investments could drive down the dollar and drive up interest rates, worsening the U.S. recession. Mr. Wen indicated China wouldn't be rash in making changes to its $1.946 trillion stockpile of foreign reserves. While China is looking out for its own interests, it will "at the same time also take international financial stability into consideration, because the two are inter-related," he said.

The Obama administration has been working to ease tensions with Beijing after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, during his confirmation process, accused Beijing of manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage over U.S. companies. Since then, Obama officials have been at pains to praise China's purchase of Treasurys and its efforts to stimulate domestic economic growth.

As one might expect, there is a fair bit of politiking going on in the background. Read the whole thing. What is certain is that a man in Wen's position does not say anything without reason.

Trying to move Sudan...

From Chinaview

CAIRO, July 20 (Xinhua) -- A senior Sudanese official said here his country is seeking for legal defenses to refute International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor's call to arrest Sudanese president over alleged war crimes, the Egyptian state MENA news agency reported on Sunday.

Sudan is consulting Arab legal experts in this regard, Sudanese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Salman al-Wasilla said at a seminar in Cairo.
...
Sudan, which is not a member of the ICC, has rejected the ICC allegations, dismissing them as "null and false" and maintaining the ICC has no jurisdiction over Sudan.

Now that latter para should ring a very loud bell with a wide range of people, not least those from the US, because Sudan is not alone in adopting this approach.

As for criticising Sudan for going this way, people should realise that the US (a good number of your citizens) does seem to have this peculiar penchant for choosing quite strange comparatives to support untenable positions. Most recent example I can point to from the probligo's universe would be Dave Justus use of Nigeria as the example of support for GWB from a democratic country that in his opinion should represent the rest of Africa - well, sub-Saharan Africa at least - if not global support for GWB.

So, here y'go. Why should Sudan not refute the ICC's jurisdiction over their President when there are other, far more powerful, instances where the same approach has been taken.

Personally, I read articles like this with a quiet tear in the eye. Not because Sudan is Sudan, or that the principle of sovereignty is wrong. It is because in the world of real politics there is no equity, no "justice", without the might of arms.

In the instance of Sudan, there is no difference (as I see it) between China's support for the present regime there and the US's involvement in Iraq. I still do not believe that there is any fundamental difference in the political rationales used to justify their involvement (by either of China and the US). I still do not believe that there is any real difference in the outcomes - if Iraq is quietening down it may well be because the Sunnis are leaving for Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi... take a visit to riverbend.blogspot to see the story of just one person.

Most importantly, both China and the US are equally at odds with my personal beliefs. But then I have no say in the actions of either nation; and let's face it neither would be interested if they even knew of the probligo's existence.

There lies the crux of the problem in Sudan. The people affected can be ignored simply because "they do not exist". Oh, there are several million displaced persons; how sad, never mind. There are thousands been murdered; again, how sad, how cruel, how ... undemocratic. "I" can blame the Chinese; "I" can blame the UN; "I" can blame the probligo even. It makes no difference. "I" don't know any of "them" as people and hence their pain and suffering can be easily set aside.

The China syndrome...

In cruising around the various "news" berths that I check on a regular basis I dropped in on the mates at aldaily.

Among the more recent offerings is this from Slavoj Zizek, a quite interesting essay on the history and future of the "China Capitalism". He presents an interesting view of the history of China's economy, rationalising the command economy with the Europe of the early Industrial Revolution, the birth of the economics of Marx and Engels, and the rationale behind the Cultural Revolution.

Modern-day China is not an oriental-despotic distortion of capitalism, but rather the repetition of capitalism’s development in Europe itself. In the early modern era, most European states were far from democratic. And if they were democratic (as was the case of the Netherlands during the 17th century), it was only a democracy of the propertied liberal elite, not of the workers. Conditions for capitalism were created and sustained by a brutal state dictatorship, very much like today’s China. The state legalized violent expropriations of the common people, which turned them proletarian. The state then disciplined them, teaching them to conform to their new ancilliary role.

The features we identify today with liberal democracy and freedom (trade unions, universal vote, freedom of the press, etc.) are far from natural fruits of capitalism. The lower classes won them by waging long, difficult struggles throughout the 19th century. Recall the list of demands that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made in the conclusion of The Communist Manifesto. With the exception of the abolition of private property, most of them—such as a progressive income tax, free public education and abolishing child labor—are today widely accepted in “bourgeois” democracies, and all were gained as the result of popular struggles.

I might add to that the final stages of that popular revolution, one often overlooked, and not (to my knowledge) one promoted by the MArx/Engels collective. It was a revolution that first started to fruit in New Zealand, although the flowers had bloomed in Britain long before. That revolution was, of course, the emancipation of women; the granting of full participatory rights to a good half of the population that had previously been ignored.

However, it is the Chinese economy that has centre stage here.

It was primarily this statement that pricked my fancy -

Those who see this [the revival of the Marxist ideal] as a threat to capitalist liberalization totally miss the point.

As do most, if not all of those who have commented (one at considerable length) poking the borax at Zizek for "getting it all totally wrong".

As Zizek concludes -

That is what is so unsettling about today’s China: Its authoritarian capitalism may not be merely a remainder of our past but a portent of our future.

He is not alone. Businessweek has similar thoughts -

Without question, China's business class has come a long way since the Deng era. Although the hybrid firms were a big break from socialism, authorities were more willing to shower favors like cheap loans and land on companies in which the state had a stake. That largesse often prevented companies from becoming truly competitive--and fed enormous waste.

Government-owned companies that all but monopolized business a decade ago make up only 47% of the economy today. Meanwhile, the private sector--not counting farms and the operations of foreign investors--accounts for as much as 40%, according to the China Economic Quarterly, an independent journal. In Shanghai, the number of private enterprises exceeds 111,000, according to the Shanghai Private Enterprise Assn.

If those numbers are accurate, then the private sector is making enormous strides--especially since government companies still monopolize such key industries as banking, telecom services, and wholesaling. One factor boosting these numbers is that many companies have ceased to disguise their truly private nature. Until recently, many ''foreign joint ventures'' were controlled by domestic entrepreneurs through Hong Kong shells. Other entrepreneurs felt they had to register their companies as collectives just so local clients would do business with them. ''Now I have thrown away my 'red cap,''' says Zhou Fusheng, founder of $1.2 million signmaker Shanghai Dasheng Industry & Trade Co., who termed his company a ''collective'' in its early years. ''I'm not afraid to be a private businessman anymore.'' Also, a wave of privatizations by cash-hungry provincial and municipal governments has placed thousands of factories and service companies in private hands.

BEST HOPE. The implications for China, where the claim that the state is the core of the economy remains embedded in Communist Party dogma, are earthshaking. Not only does raw capitalism raise new questions about the legitimacy of the party's monopoly--it also underscores the desperation the leadership now faces over the economy. Simply put, President Jiang Zemin, Premier Zhu Rongji, and others recognize that the private sector offers the best hope as an engine of growth. As state firms shed workers and shut plants, new businesses are urgently needed to generate millions of new jobs.

and later -

In many advanced economies, social tensions find some release in democratic elections that allow the aggrieved to oust unpopular or corrupt leaders. China has so far steadfastly avoided that approach. It is instead struggling to find other ways to keep its vast bureaucracy and increasingly unruly businesses in line.

Few people think these trends pose an imminent threat to the Communist Party's hold on power. ... More immediately, there are economic costs that result from the disjunctures, and these could imperil the continued progress of China's economic reforms.

Concluding that -

China's leaders in the past three decades have engineered one of the most remarkable economic transformations in human history. And yet today the country faces tests borne of that progress that are in some ways trickier than those it has already overcome. A nation that started out railing against capitalism now embodies many of its most extreme elements. Like other industrializing economies, it must find ways to guide national ambitions, so they don't ultimately undercut the national interest.

The strength of the China economic miracle lies with the strength of its leadership. Is that something unique?

Hardly -

PRESIDENT George W. Bush has rolled out multiple measures aimed at preventing borrowers with sub-prime adjustable-rate mortgages from entering foreclosure, but he also blasted Congress for not doing more to help.

"There is no perfect solution," he said. "The home owners deserve our help. The steps I've outlined today are a sensible response to a serious challenge."
...
Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush said a rise in foreclosures would have a "negative" impact on the economy.

"Yet one reason for confidence is that the downturn in housing comes against the backdrop of solid fundamentals in other areas, including low inflation, a healthy job market, record-high exports," he said. But with close to 2 million sub-prime ARMs scheduled to reset higher by the end of 2009, Mr Bush said initiatives were needed to address such a broad potential problem.
...
Other legislative initiatives included expanding the ability of state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to help borrowers refinance.

And he called on the Senate to pass legislation to reform oversight of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

He said legislation passed earlier this year by the House to reform supervision of the companies was a "good start".

"These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of home owners, and it is vital that they operate safely and operate soundly," Mr Bush said.

... and so on.

The connection? Well I obviously do not believe that Bush has power of directive over the remainder of the US government. That is simply not so. But there is a strong political voice, and one which is entirely capable of turning to a majority opposition and saying -

"Well, we suggested the solution, you ignored it, so the responsibility is yours. Not that you care..."

The place of China in the world...

A Sydney Morning Herald John Gray op-ed that caught the eye this morning draws a bead upon a matter that I have prated on about in various comments left in odd corners of the blogiverse (usually in response to extremely uppitty Americans ;D )

A decade ago policymakers and opinion formers were supremely confident that globalisation meant the spread of Western institutions and values throughout the world. Political leaders and international institutions looked forward to a time when "democratic capitalism" would be accepted everywhere.

This confidence was not based on any rational assessment of facts. The mania surrounding globalisation was the latest incarnation of the Enlightenment faith that the advance of science and technology would create a universal civilisation, and predictably it was not long before it gave way to anxiety and foreboding. Islamist terrorism and the emergence of Russia as an authoritarian great power, together with American troubles in Iraq, have shattered the certainties of the 1990s. Yet the faith they expressed has not been destroyed. If anything, it is more fervent than before. For many people the Enlightenment has become a magic amulet clutched to the heart as a talisman against fear. In its most influential forms the Enlightenment has always been an ersatz religion - think of Marxism, for example - and in response to the shocks of the past years it has undergone a fundamentalist revival in much the same way that other faiths have done.

The other end of that particular observation is - of course - the sight of some very strange bed-fellows at anti-globalisation demonstrations. It also gives rise to fervour of the religious right singing the same hymnal as the corporate capitalist.

But enough already because Gray makes some important points in here which are expressed far better than I could ever have assembled...

Will Hutton in The Writing on the Wall: China and the West in the 21st Century asks: "Is the baton of global leadership going to pass from Anglo-Saxon hands, which held so many values in common, to Chinese hands? If so, the implications could not be more profound. The world would have to accommodate a wholly different civilisation and values; the character of global institutions, our culture and the primacy of our English language would be challenged.

"If the next century is going to be Chinese, it will only be because China embraces the economic and political pluralism of the West in general, and our Enlightenment institutions in particular, modified … for the Chinese experience." The caveat is worth noting. There is nothing about accepting China on equal terms with the West; rather, "our" Enlightenment inheritance must be modified to ensure that China becomes Western.

Regular visitors will be aware of my apposition of Dave Justus with the "consoling illusion" and I respectfully submit this quote from Hutton as another instance; another case in point.

If China tries harder it can achieve what Hutton sees as the supreme prize - it can become like us. Instead China has renounced Maoism without becoming like us, and its astonishing record of economic growth over the past quarter of a century is a result of that. The largest economic expansion in history has occurred without any of the institutions many would argue to be universally necessary - such as the rule of law and property rights. Can China's economic success be maintained without the freedoms supposedly integral to the "knowledge economy"?

Now there is the opening here for the argument that, in fact, China is starting to follow the Capitalist model. I agree, that does seem to be so. But at the same time there are very important differences that must be borne in mind.

The first is the obvious role of the State, and the implementation of their command economy. That that is still an imperative is beyond question - one need look no further than the Three Gorges Hydro scheme for immediate confirmation. It is not just in that macro decision to proceed, the State is in full control at the micro level as well with the "distribution" of labour from the cities now under the Three Gorges Lake being moved to other industrial areas.

The second is the current development of the all-important "middle class"; the consumers of national production. This is perhaps the strongest prop for the "China is Changing" supporters. To have such a "middle class" is (to them at least) a strong signal that China is change "to western ways".

And that is where Gray's conclusion comes in...

Behind the stale debates about human rights and cultural relativism looms the fact that Western power is in decline. No longer backed up by invincible military might or unchallengeable economic primacy, Western institutions are now only one way of realising universal human values. Having rejected Maoism and retaining Marxism only in name, China has set out on a path of development that owes few of its ruling ideas to the West. The outcome is uncertain, but in the end what Hutton and others like him fear most is not that the Chinese experiment will fail. It is that China will succeed.