As recorded history goes, South Africa is a young country, and that's because the original people, the San (also called Khoisan), had no written language and left only rock art. For centuries, they were protected by an east-west, coast to coast belt of deadly swamp full of malaria bearing mosquitoes, Tse Tse flies and poisonous water that isolated South Africa from the rest of the continent. The eventual southern migration of the Bantus from Central Africa pushed the hunter-gatherer Sans to less desirable land.
The Portuguese were the first white men to land in the Cape Town area on their way to India. Their swords and lances were no match against the greater number of Sans' wooden spears augmented with herds of charging cattle. The heavy casualty suffered at Table Bay (in today’s Cape Town) convinced the Portuguese to keep sailing around the horn of Africa and establish their bases elsewhere.
By the time the Dutch arrived about 150 years later, they had guns and the strength to push their way in. They came to settle and farm and were known as Boers (Dutch for farmers). Together with slaves from other parts of Africa and Far East along with Khoisan and protestant immigrants from France and Germany, they made up the Colored and Afrikaner populations of the Cape Town area of South Africa.
About another 150 years go by (until just before 1800) before the British captured Cape Town to protect the trade route and keep the strategic area out of the French hands. The Boers that did not care for British rule moved out of the Cape Colony toward the interior and came into contact with various tribes of the Bantus that had settled in areas north of the colony.
The fiercest of these was Shaka, king of the Zulus. Ironically he was able to make a technological breakthrough in war craft using iron from the Europeans to devise a short thrusting spear, suitable for repeated thrusts against the enemy and not just one heave and hope for the best. For a brief time, he even held the firearm equipped British soldiers to a standoff.
With the discovery of diamonds (1868) and gold (1886), all hell broke loose. The British had to get their hands on all that wealth from the ground. Some of the biggest diamonds from South Africa literally found their way to the crown jewel collection of the British throne. The British proceeded to fight the Zulus and the Boers to achieve hegemony over South Africa which they eventually accomplished. The different states were consolidated into the Union of South Africa, sometime in the early 20th century.
Seeds of apartheid were already sown by this time as segregation was widely practiced in the urban areas. The de facto practices were steadily formalized into laws and regulations by the white ruling class culminating into official policy of apartheid formed shortly after WWII.
There were two black heroes that wrestled Africa from the white ruling class. One was Robert Mugabe who won control of Rhodesia and turn it into Zimbabwe in 1980 and the other was Nelson Mandela who came to power in South Africa in 1994. Mandela has since stepped out of the limelight and bask in accolades showered on him as a senior statesman. Mugabe, alas, does not know when to retire and has earned worldwide scorn or even worse epithets.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Diversity of South Africa
With the repudiation of apartheid, release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the election of African National Congress (ANC) into power in 1994, South Africa became a democracy governed by the wishes of the majority. The world applauded the selection of Mandela as the first head of the new nation. The successful hosting of the 2010 World Cup seemed to suggest that South Africa is on the way to joining the ranks of fast growing nations such as the BRICs, (Brazil, Russia, India and China).
We spent nearly two and half weeks travelling around South Africa and came away impressed with the tourist potential of this country with its diversity in flora and fauna and in its spectacular scenery. South Africa is also diverse in its people but instead of being a plus, the diversity of people seems to work against the nation than being an advantage. While South Africa has been held up as the standard for other African nations to aspire to, I see troubling signs ahead.
The most obvious is corruption at the top. While still a poor second to the king of Swaziland, who is on to his 14th or 15th wife, President Zuma has announced his intention for take on his fifth, or is it sixth, wife. As our township guide, an ethnic Xhosa, said to us, “As the leader of this nation, he is setting a terrible example for the people.” (Zuma is a Zulu.)
Then there is the leader of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, who is merely scary. He struggled through more than the required years to complete eight grades of schooling. He is a fiery orator and self proclaimed admirer of Robert Mugabe and he has been advocating nationalization of the mines. Because as much as 20% or more of South Africa’s black youth have no gainful employment, Malema’s rabble rousing rhetoric finds a receptive audience among the restless youth. Zuma was one time leader of the Youth League and thus Malema could be regarded as a potential future leader of this nation. Needless to say, for a Mugabe-like leader to turn South Africa into another Zimbabwe would be a prospect of enormously frightening proportions.
Some of the policies since the ANC came into power seem to have been taken from Mugabe’s book of governance. For example, we were told that admission to the medical school is strongly biased in favor of the blacks. The minimum entrance test score needed to qualify for admission for the blacks is around 70, but 82 for the colored people and 92 for the whites. One can only shudder at the future of South Africa--where world’s first ever heart transplant was performed--staffed by mediocre doctors that are poorly trained and poorly qualified.
The whites in South Africa are decreasing in absolute numbers and in relative percentage. Some of the whites left South Africa just before the end of apartheid fearing for the uncertainty of the transition. Others have left since the end of apartheid because they now face fewer opportunities under economic policies that are tilted in favor of the black majority. The whites that leave tend to be professionals and thus causing a brain drain. The end of apartheid seems to have been replaced by reverse apartheid.
Corruption by government officials is probably not avoidable but there are two general kinds of corruption. When a government only knows how to line their pockets and does little or next to nothing to develop their domestic economy, those countries are inherently unstable and face occasional uprisings of Egyptian proportions or trudges along in a zombie state where the rich stay very rich and the poor have no hope of a future, not unlike many of the banana republic’s in Latin America.
The South African economy is growing but not fast enough to be considered as a rising economy in the league of BRICs. Furthermore, the rate of growth has been slowing to around 3% per year—not enough to create the number of new jobs necessary to employ a growing population of young blacks and illegal immigrants. Most blacks still live in townships where the school system has been degrading from bad to worse. Most of the young people are not trained for productive work and thus suffers from high unemployment, as high as 30% in places. With so much idle youth, high crime rate is a persistent problem. Without the safety network of state sponsored pension that comes from regular employment, the people in the townships procreate more kids as a form of security in retirement. Thus a downward spiral is formed.
When Mandela first came into power, he declared that no one should live in the dismal hovels found in shanty towns. So far the government has built enough housing for 5 million people, a tiny fraction of the number needed in order to get rid of the shanty towns.
South Africa has a nice highway system. Most of the roads were built during the apartheid rule. For the 2010 world cup, the government built a number of new soccer stadiums. Many have been underutilized since the world cup. The one in Cape Town located in prime real estate has been sitting unused. The local government is said to be considering tearing the new stadium down to save on the annual maintenance cost. Of course, new public works projects create opportunities for graft, which is the biggest driver to spending taxpayers’ money.
Despite its troubles, South Africa is better off than rest of Africa and thus is a magnet for illegal immigrants. The continuous inflow of immigrants adds to the burden of having to provide them with basic services.
South Africa recognizes 11 official languages, English and Afrikaan being two of these. The other nine are languages of the black native tribes dominated by Zulu and Xhosa. Ironically by insisting on each ethnic tribe being allowed to teach in their respective language, it is encouraging de facto segregation and separateness.
Ultimately, the economic well-being of the people of South Africa depends on having good government. By becoming a democracy ruled by the majority does not guarantee good government. Whether South Africa will continue to be the beacon for the continent will depend on the current and next generation of leaders.
Overturning apartheid was South Africa's greatest day in history. Now the leaders will have to deliver for not just the black majority but everyone and put the nation on the path to greatness. The nation may be at a tipping point either leading to economic growth and stability or to disaster. Only time will tell.
=============================================
We were on a tour of South Africa organized by Overseas Adventure Travel. This tour company emphasize discovery and learning as part of the travel experience and made sure that we had a chance to interact with blacks (which represent the majority) as well as the colored segments of the population. We automatically interacted with the whites because our guides were white and so were most of the managers of hotels and restaurants.
Among the dozen travelers in our group, we had two retired professional African American women who were particularly interested in and sensitive to the racial issues of South Africa. They led pointed discussions with our white tour director. Their presence added zest to our discussion, even if we may hold varying views.
A racist could attribute what ails South Africa or even the continent of Africa to race, blaming the supposed inferiority of the black race. The counter to the racist point of view is to argue that educated black leaders such as a Mandela can be as capable and effective as any leader. The crux of the matter is whether black leaders care enough about the population they lead to bring everybody up, to make sure they all get quality education, and to create economic opportunities for all. To the extent they fail to do so, they are reinforcing the biases of racism.
I will write about South Africa as a tourist destination in a future blog.
We spent nearly two and half weeks travelling around South Africa and came away impressed with the tourist potential of this country with its diversity in flora and fauna and in its spectacular scenery. South Africa is also diverse in its people but instead of being a plus, the diversity of people seems to work against the nation than being an advantage. While South Africa has been held up as the standard for other African nations to aspire to, I see troubling signs ahead.
The most obvious is corruption at the top. While still a poor second to the king of Swaziland, who is on to his 14th or 15th wife, President Zuma has announced his intention for take on his fifth, or is it sixth, wife. As our township guide, an ethnic Xhosa, said to us, “As the leader of this nation, he is setting a terrible example for the people.” (Zuma is a Zulu.)
Then there is the leader of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, who is merely scary. He struggled through more than the required years to complete eight grades of schooling. He is a fiery orator and self proclaimed admirer of Robert Mugabe and he has been advocating nationalization of the mines. Because as much as 20% or more of South Africa’s black youth have no gainful employment, Malema’s rabble rousing rhetoric finds a receptive audience among the restless youth. Zuma was one time leader of the Youth League and thus Malema could be regarded as a potential future leader of this nation. Needless to say, for a Mugabe-like leader to turn South Africa into another Zimbabwe would be a prospect of enormously frightening proportions.
Some of the policies since the ANC came into power seem to have been taken from Mugabe’s book of governance. For example, we were told that admission to the medical school is strongly biased in favor of the blacks. The minimum entrance test score needed to qualify for admission for the blacks is around 70, but 82 for the colored people and 92 for the whites. One can only shudder at the future of South Africa--where world’s first ever heart transplant was performed--staffed by mediocre doctors that are poorly trained and poorly qualified.
The whites in South Africa are decreasing in absolute numbers and in relative percentage. Some of the whites left South Africa just before the end of apartheid fearing for the uncertainty of the transition. Others have left since the end of apartheid because they now face fewer opportunities under economic policies that are tilted in favor of the black majority. The whites that leave tend to be professionals and thus causing a brain drain. The end of apartheid seems to have been replaced by reverse apartheid.
Corruption by government officials is probably not avoidable but there are two general kinds of corruption. When a government only knows how to line their pockets and does little or next to nothing to develop their domestic economy, those countries are inherently unstable and face occasional uprisings of Egyptian proportions or trudges along in a zombie state where the rich stay very rich and the poor have no hope of a future, not unlike many of the banana republic’s in Latin America.
The South African economy is growing but not fast enough to be considered as a rising economy in the league of BRICs. Furthermore, the rate of growth has been slowing to around 3% per year—not enough to create the number of new jobs necessary to employ a growing population of young blacks and illegal immigrants. Most blacks still live in townships where the school system has been degrading from bad to worse. Most of the young people are not trained for productive work and thus suffers from high unemployment, as high as 30% in places. With so much idle youth, high crime rate is a persistent problem. Without the safety network of state sponsored pension that comes from regular employment, the people in the townships procreate more kids as a form of security in retirement. Thus a downward spiral is formed.
When Mandela first came into power, he declared that no one should live in the dismal hovels found in shanty towns. So far the government has built enough housing for 5 million people, a tiny fraction of the number needed in order to get rid of the shanty towns.
South Africa has a nice highway system. Most of the roads were built during the apartheid rule. For the 2010 world cup, the government built a number of new soccer stadiums. Many have been underutilized since the world cup. The one in Cape Town located in prime real estate has been sitting unused. The local government is said to be considering tearing the new stadium down to save on the annual maintenance cost. Of course, new public works projects create opportunities for graft, which is the biggest driver to spending taxpayers’ money.
Despite its troubles, South Africa is better off than rest of Africa and thus is a magnet for illegal immigrants. The continuous inflow of immigrants adds to the burden of having to provide them with basic services.
South Africa recognizes 11 official languages, English and Afrikaan being two of these. The other nine are languages of the black native tribes dominated by Zulu and Xhosa. Ironically by insisting on each ethnic tribe being allowed to teach in their respective language, it is encouraging de facto segregation and separateness.
Ultimately, the economic well-being of the people of South Africa depends on having good government. By becoming a democracy ruled by the majority does not guarantee good government. Whether South Africa will continue to be the beacon for the continent will depend on the current and next generation of leaders.
Overturning apartheid was South Africa's greatest day in history. Now the leaders will have to deliver for not just the black majority but everyone and put the nation on the path to greatness. The nation may be at a tipping point either leading to economic growth and stability or to disaster. Only time will tell.
=============================================
We were on a tour of South Africa organized by Overseas Adventure Travel. This tour company emphasize discovery and learning as part of the travel experience and made sure that we had a chance to interact with blacks (which represent the majority) as well as the colored segments of the population. We automatically interacted with the whites because our guides were white and so were most of the managers of hotels and restaurants.
Among the dozen travelers in our group, we had two retired professional African American women who were particularly interested in and sensitive to the racial issues of South Africa. They led pointed discussions with our white tour director. Their presence added zest to our discussion, even if we may hold varying views.
A racist could attribute what ails South Africa or even the continent of Africa to race, blaming the supposed inferiority of the black race. The counter to the racist point of view is to argue that educated black leaders such as a Mandela can be as capable and effective as any leader. The crux of the matter is whether black leaders care enough about the population they lead to bring everybody up, to make sure they all get quality education, and to create economic opportunities for all. To the extent they fail to do so, they are reinforcing the biases of racism.
I will write about South Africa as a tourist destination in a future blog.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Some People Can't Wait to see the Jasmine Revolution Invade China
One of the first to see the revolt of Tunisia as the beginning of the dominoes that will topple China was Gordon Chang. He suggested that after Tunisia and then Egypt it could be China. He made this bold prognostication on January 30, weeks before Mubarak took the actual tumble.
Mr. Chang, known to boldly sally forth where no real experts would, is famous for his book on the coming collapse of China, which was published in 2001. That China has only more than doubled their economic output and become the second largest economy in the world since the publication of his book does not cramp his style in the least. He continues to hammer on the collapse theme as if constant repetition will eventually make him credible.
Others in the western media are even more "proactive" than Mr. Chang. They are reporting mass unrest and movements of Jasmine proportions in China with sleigh of hand, cut and paste photos. Old photos of mass protest in China against Japan and other equally deceptive file photos became handy tools to illustrate how revolution in China is alleged to look.
The media in the West can get away with such shenanigans in disinformation because they presume that the audience in the west can't tell the difference between a Hong Kong cop, or a Taiwan mass protest or some patriotic movement in China and a disturbance they purport to be reporting. In such cases, photos do lie.
Anyone with a smidgen of understanding about China would realize there is no analogy between what has happened in North Africa to what might happen in China. Yes, there is vast unequal distribution of income in China and yes, corruption and injustice is a major problem. But that is about as far as it goes before the parallel diverges.
The standard of living of the Chinese people has never been better. A great majority of people are satisfied with their lives and the way things are run. Most important, the central government of China far from ignoring the plights of their people actually care and spend a great deal of energy to look after the general population. The leaders of Beijing are sensitive to public opinion and there is no mass feeling of disenfranchisement.
Beware of pundits and their wishful thinking and those desperate enough to fit the facts to their flawed vision.
Mr. Chang, known to boldly sally forth where no real experts would, is famous for his book on the coming collapse of China, which was published in 2001. That China has only more than doubled their economic output and become the second largest economy in the world since the publication of his book does not cramp his style in the least. He continues to hammer on the collapse theme as if constant repetition will eventually make him credible.
Others in the western media are even more "proactive" than Mr. Chang. They are reporting mass unrest and movements of Jasmine proportions in China with sleigh of hand, cut and paste photos. Old photos of mass protest in China against Japan and other equally deceptive file photos became handy tools to illustrate how revolution in China is alleged to look.
The media in the West can get away with such shenanigans in disinformation because they presume that the audience in the west can't tell the difference between a Hong Kong cop, or a Taiwan mass protest or some patriotic movement in China and a disturbance they purport to be reporting. In such cases, photos do lie.
Anyone with a smidgen of understanding about China would realize there is no analogy between what has happened in North Africa to what might happen in China. Yes, there is vast unequal distribution of income in China and yes, corruption and injustice is a major problem. But that is about as far as it goes before the parallel diverges.
The standard of living of the Chinese people has never been better. A great majority of people are satisfied with their lives and the way things are run. Most important, the central government of China far from ignoring the plights of their people actually care and spend a great deal of energy to look after the general population. The leaders of Beijing are sensitive to public opinion and there is no mass feeling of disenfranchisement.
Beware of pundits and their wishful thinking and those desperate enough to fit the facts to their flawed vision.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Ma Ying-jeou Says “Nihao Dalu”
Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou celebrated the Year of the Rabbit by instructing all government officials to henceforth stop referring the other side of the straits as “China.” He reasoned that to call the other side China was to imply that Taiwan was not part of China, in violation of the 1992 One-China Consensus subscribed by both sides.
Instead, Ma suggested duian (对岸) meaning the shore across the way or dalu (大陆) meaning the mainland when referring to the big neighbor across the straits—akin to the US continent as the mainland to the Hawaiians.
Ma was elected president in 2008 on the pledge of closer economic cooperation with the mainland and reversing his independent minded predecessor’s tension filled approach of “one China and one Taiwan.”
Ma’s popularity initially tumbled as his economic policy did not bring about the immediate miraculous economic recovery that the impatient people of Taiwan expected. Instead Taiwan in 2009 was as much a victim of the global financial meltdown as most other countries.
However, Ma upon taking office began cross strait talks in earnest culminating in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Even as details of ECFA were being hammered out, direct flights began and economic cooperation flourished.
The payoff became evident in 2010 when Taiwan’s economy grew by nearly 11%, strongest gain since 1986. Export increased by nearly 35%, over two-fifths of which headed to the mainland. Private sector investments in Taiwan increased by nearly one third, an unprecedented show of confidence in Taiwan not seen for more than 40 years.
Tourism from the mainland to Taiwan, not possible under Chen Shui-bian, Ma’s predecessor, has grown to over 100,000 visitors per month and contributed $3 billion to Taiwan’s economy since Ma opened Taiwan to mainland tourists. In less than two years, mainland Chinese visitors have already become the largest source of tourists visiting Taiwan. In addition to tour groups, Ma’s administration is now exploring a way to allow individual tourists in order to tap into even greater tourism spending from across the straits.
By proclaiming appropriate cross-strait terminology, Ma is betting his political future on the presumption that closer economic cooperation with the mainland will continue to pay off. There are plenty of indications that this will be a safe bet.
Despite the fast growing rate of inbound tourists to Taiwan, the frequency of person visits from Taiwan to the mainland, for business and tourism, is still 4-5 times greater than in the other direction. China sends 57.4 million tourists out of China last year and is expected to overtake the US as the largest source of outbound tourists by 2015. Right now Taiwan is only attracting 2 out of every 100 tourists from the mainland and thus has plenty of upside yet to be realized.
Taiwan companies have invested well over $100 billion on the mainland. Mainland companies have only been recently allowed by the Taipei government to invest in Taiwan. This is timely because only in recent 3-4 years are Chinese companies encouraged by Beijing to make outbound investments. The amount invested in Taiwan to date, around $137 million is not even one percent of total outbound investments. The potential of direct investment from the mainland into Taiwan is huge and can only further stimulate Taiwan’s economy.
Ironically when China first opened to the west after 1972, foreign visitors were admonished not to use the term dalu or mainland but China or People Republic of China in order not to suggest separateness between Taiwan and the mainland. Now the use of the term seems to suggest closer cooperation between the two sides.
No one seems to care as to how long the two sides will remain separate or if they will actually reunite. In the meantime, Ma is betting that continued economic improvements in Taiwan will win the peoples’ confidence in him, enough to ensure his reelection.
A version of this piece appeared in the New America Media.
Instead, Ma suggested duian (对岸) meaning the shore across the way or dalu (大陆) meaning the mainland when referring to the big neighbor across the straits—akin to the US continent as the mainland to the Hawaiians.
Ma was elected president in 2008 on the pledge of closer economic cooperation with the mainland and reversing his independent minded predecessor’s tension filled approach of “one China and one Taiwan.”
Ma’s popularity initially tumbled as his economic policy did not bring about the immediate miraculous economic recovery that the impatient people of Taiwan expected. Instead Taiwan in 2009 was as much a victim of the global financial meltdown as most other countries.
However, Ma upon taking office began cross strait talks in earnest culminating in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Even as details of ECFA were being hammered out, direct flights began and economic cooperation flourished.
The payoff became evident in 2010 when Taiwan’s economy grew by nearly 11%, strongest gain since 1986. Export increased by nearly 35%, over two-fifths of which headed to the mainland. Private sector investments in Taiwan increased by nearly one third, an unprecedented show of confidence in Taiwan not seen for more than 40 years.
Tourism from the mainland to Taiwan, not possible under Chen Shui-bian, Ma’s predecessor, has grown to over 100,000 visitors per month and contributed $3 billion to Taiwan’s economy since Ma opened Taiwan to mainland tourists. In less than two years, mainland Chinese visitors have already become the largest source of tourists visiting Taiwan. In addition to tour groups, Ma’s administration is now exploring a way to allow individual tourists in order to tap into even greater tourism spending from across the straits.
By proclaiming appropriate cross-strait terminology, Ma is betting his political future on the presumption that closer economic cooperation with the mainland will continue to pay off. There are plenty of indications that this will be a safe bet.
Despite the fast growing rate of inbound tourists to Taiwan, the frequency of person visits from Taiwan to the mainland, for business and tourism, is still 4-5 times greater than in the other direction. China sends 57.4 million tourists out of China last year and is expected to overtake the US as the largest source of outbound tourists by 2015. Right now Taiwan is only attracting 2 out of every 100 tourists from the mainland and thus has plenty of upside yet to be realized.
Taiwan companies have invested well over $100 billion on the mainland. Mainland companies have only been recently allowed by the Taipei government to invest in Taiwan. This is timely because only in recent 3-4 years are Chinese companies encouraged by Beijing to make outbound investments. The amount invested in Taiwan to date, around $137 million is not even one percent of total outbound investments. The potential of direct investment from the mainland into Taiwan is huge and can only further stimulate Taiwan’s economy.
Ironically when China first opened to the west after 1972, foreign visitors were admonished not to use the term dalu or mainland but China or People Republic of China in order not to suggest separateness between Taiwan and the mainland. Now the use of the term seems to suggest closer cooperation between the two sides.
No one seems to care as to how long the two sides will remain separate or if they will actually reunite. In the meantime, Ma is betting that continued economic improvements in Taiwan will win the peoples’ confidence in him, enough to ensure his reelection.
A version of this piece appeared in the New America Media.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Building Mutual Trust between US and China has a long way to go
China’s President Hu Jintao has concluded his state visit and returned to Beijing. By most accounts, his visit was considered a virtually unqualified success—for him and for his host, President Barrack Obama—in a rare win-win in the bilateral relations.
The mainstream media considered the visit a win for Obama and his team for successfully presenting all their concerns to Hu: Secretary of State Clinton on North Korea, Treasury Secretary Geithner on the value of the RMB and Commerce Secretary Locke on protection of intellectual property and level procurement policy inside China. Obama in his joint press conference with Hu mentioned his concern on human rights. All the potentially confrontational issues were delivered diplomatically and in easy to digest doses.
Hu’s visit to Congress the day after the state dinner was the most problematic, but the Congressional leaders despite threatening to confront the leader of China had their meetings with Hu behind closed doors. Afterwards they could claim before the press to have raised their concerns with Hu and expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
Hu also won because he got the high profile treatment and honor accorded to him as the head of a major nation and there were no unpleasant surprises or glitches, except for a minor one when everyone expected simultaneous translation at the joint conference and there were none.
The usual China bashing howlers and screechers were kept on the fringe and did not steal the limelight as they might have wished. The confusion at the White House press conference did present Russ Limbaugh the opportunity to make a complete ass of himself on national radio. He broke out with a 20 second verbal burst that sounded like a savage recently descended from the trees. Limbaugh’s infantile braying alleged to imitate Hu’s remarks offended many and did nothing but tarnished his own image.
So is this a new beginning for the US China bilateral relations? I don’t think so. Some fundamental differences between the two sides have not been resolved and until they are, it will be pretty much business as before. The $45 billion of potential export business that Hu’s advance team brought to the US certainly made the whole visit go down more smoothly but does not represent a permanent cure.
How to deal with Taiwan represents by far the most challenging issue facing both sides. In Obama’s remarks at the press conference, he referred to the Taiwan Relations Act, but in the joint statement about the US commitment to one China policy, there were no reference to TRA. Thus, China could claim to have made progress on this issue while the US can claim that nothing has affected the status quo. In fact, until the US renounces selling arms to Taiwan and stops referring to TRA as though it were an international treaty—in fact it was only a Congressional act—progress in the bilateral relations will be sluggish.
The differences are not just on substantive issues but also on style. Both sides need to devote more effort to understand how as well as what messages are being conveyed by the other side.
For example, the media made a fuss about Hu’s public admission that China has more work to be done to improve human rights. In fact, there was nothing remarkable about Hu’s admission. Most officials inside China from local to national level will freely admit that there are plenty to improve about human rights in China.
The media however did not pick up that Hu also said, “The two sides should respect each other’s value systems, beliefs and development models.” In other words, Hu was saying we know we have a human rights problem—so do you America—and we will deal with our problem our way and not according to your standards.
Hu’s speeches were full of references of China looking to be a cooperative partner with the US. He meant a partner in the full sense of the word and not a subordinated party to the US as the big brother. He was looking for mutual respect as well as mutual benefit. Obama’s team of officials seemed to have accorded that sense of mutual respect on this visit.
How Obama was regarded and treated following his visit to Beijing in November 2009 has also been subject to erroneous interpretations by the mainstream media. Because westerner's perspective was based on win-lose confrontation, they thought Obama was too soft and concessionary throughout his visit and did not win China’s respect. They credit the success of this visit to Obama being harder and more assertive. I disagree.
I believe while in Beijing, Obama positively impressed Beijing that he was an American president that China could work with as a collaborative partner. Shortly after his return, however, he announced arms sales to Taiwan which shocked Beijing and they felt betrayed. Obama was oblivious to how Beijing might react. He felt that the US had always sold arms to Taiwan and nothing has changed. China thought that if Obama had considered China a collaborative partner, then he would have taken China’s feelings into consideration and not made a unilateral announcement on a matter most sensitive to Beijing.
This incident did the most damage to the budding feeling of mutual trust that Obama had built while in Beijing. He could have avoided the set back, I believe, if while in Beijing he had privately confided to Hu that because of politics, he would have to sell some arms to Taiwan upon his return and not catch Beijing by surprise.
Mutual trust, much deeper than it exists today, will be required if the US truly wants China’s help in resolving the North Korea crisis, one of the most nettlesome foreign policy issues facing the US. As recent wiki leaks revealed, some Chinese officials have expressed the view that letting the North Korean regime collapse would save Beijing a lot of grief. China has good relations with South Korea and certainly can work with that government as a neighbor once the Korean peninsula is unified.
However, China could not possibly entertain the thought of having American troops stationed on the border of a unified Korea and China. For China to seriously contemplate letting North Korea implode, the US need to assure China that the US would not take advantage of such a collapse and put troops in the north. We would be looking at a lot of mutual trust that does not exist now.
In the past, the US practice of strategic ambiguity meant making conflicting statements and taking inconsistent positions to keep China guessing. Obviously, this did not build trust and did not alter China’s perception of US as unreliable.
To build mutual trust, both sides need to modify their style of communication as well revising their priorities offering selected concessions. The Americans need to improve their ability to receive and digest nuanced signals from China. The Chinese need to be able to communicate in a more direct and straightforward manner so as not be misunderstood.
The day when both parties can feel that there is mutual rapport is when Secretary Gates could say to President Hu upon landing in Beijing, “Gosh, Mr. President I see that I am way off on China’s stealth plane development schedule. If China has been as transparent as I had suggested in the past, I wouldn’t be so embarrassed,” followed by a jocular chuckle shared between friends.
An edited version appeared in New America Media.
The mainstream media considered the visit a win for Obama and his team for successfully presenting all their concerns to Hu: Secretary of State Clinton on North Korea, Treasury Secretary Geithner on the value of the RMB and Commerce Secretary Locke on protection of intellectual property and level procurement policy inside China. Obama in his joint press conference with Hu mentioned his concern on human rights. All the potentially confrontational issues were delivered diplomatically and in easy to digest doses.
Hu’s visit to Congress the day after the state dinner was the most problematic, but the Congressional leaders despite threatening to confront the leader of China had their meetings with Hu behind closed doors. Afterwards they could claim before the press to have raised their concerns with Hu and expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
Hu also won because he got the high profile treatment and honor accorded to him as the head of a major nation and there were no unpleasant surprises or glitches, except for a minor one when everyone expected simultaneous translation at the joint conference and there were none.
The usual China bashing howlers and screechers were kept on the fringe and did not steal the limelight as they might have wished. The confusion at the White House press conference did present Russ Limbaugh the opportunity to make a complete ass of himself on national radio. He broke out with a 20 second verbal burst that sounded like a savage recently descended from the trees. Limbaugh’s infantile braying alleged to imitate Hu’s remarks offended many and did nothing but tarnished his own image.
So is this a new beginning for the US China bilateral relations? I don’t think so. Some fundamental differences between the two sides have not been resolved and until they are, it will be pretty much business as before. The $45 billion of potential export business that Hu’s advance team brought to the US certainly made the whole visit go down more smoothly but does not represent a permanent cure.
How to deal with Taiwan represents by far the most challenging issue facing both sides. In Obama’s remarks at the press conference, he referred to the Taiwan Relations Act, but in the joint statement about the US commitment to one China policy, there were no reference to TRA. Thus, China could claim to have made progress on this issue while the US can claim that nothing has affected the status quo. In fact, until the US renounces selling arms to Taiwan and stops referring to TRA as though it were an international treaty—in fact it was only a Congressional act—progress in the bilateral relations will be sluggish.
The differences are not just on substantive issues but also on style. Both sides need to devote more effort to understand how as well as what messages are being conveyed by the other side.
For example, the media made a fuss about Hu’s public admission that China has more work to be done to improve human rights. In fact, there was nothing remarkable about Hu’s admission. Most officials inside China from local to national level will freely admit that there are plenty to improve about human rights in China.
The media however did not pick up that Hu also said, “The two sides should respect each other’s value systems, beliefs and development models.” In other words, Hu was saying we know we have a human rights problem—so do you America—and we will deal with our problem our way and not according to your standards.
Hu’s speeches were full of references of China looking to be a cooperative partner with the US. He meant a partner in the full sense of the word and not a subordinated party to the US as the big brother. He was looking for mutual respect as well as mutual benefit. Obama’s team of officials seemed to have accorded that sense of mutual respect on this visit.
How Obama was regarded and treated following his visit to Beijing in November 2009 has also been subject to erroneous interpretations by the mainstream media. Because westerner's perspective was based on win-lose confrontation, they thought Obama was too soft and concessionary throughout his visit and did not win China’s respect. They credit the success of this visit to Obama being harder and more assertive. I disagree.
I believe while in Beijing, Obama positively impressed Beijing that he was an American president that China could work with as a collaborative partner. Shortly after his return, however, he announced arms sales to Taiwan which shocked Beijing and they felt betrayed. Obama was oblivious to how Beijing might react. He felt that the US had always sold arms to Taiwan and nothing has changed. China thought that if Obama had considered China a collaborative partner, then he would have taken China’s feelings into consideration and not made a unilateral announcement on a matter most sensitive to Beijing.
This incident did the most damage to the budding feeling of mutual trust that Obama had built while in Beijing. He could have avoided the set back, I believe, if while in Beijing he had privately confided to Hu that because of politics, he would have to sell some arms to Taiwan upon his return and not catch Beijing by surprise.
Mutual trust, much deeper than it exists today, will be required if the US truly wants China’s help in resolving the North Korea crisis, one of the most nettlesome foreign policy issues facing the US. As recent wiki leaks revealed, some Chinese officials have expressed the view that letting the North Korean regime collapse would save Beijing a lot of grief. China has good relations with South Korea and certainly can work with that government as a neighbor once the Korean peninsula is unified.
However, China could not possibly entertain the thought of having American troops stationed on the border of a unified Korea and China. For China to seriously contemplate letting North Korea implode, the US need to assure China that the US would not take advantage of such a collapse and put troops in the north. We would be looking at a lot of mutual trust that does not exist now.
In the past, the US practice of strategic ambiguity meant making conflicting statements and taking inconsistent positions to keep China guessing. Obviously, this did not build trust and did not alter China’s perception of US as unreliable.
To build mutual trust, both sides need to modify their style of communication as well revising their priorities offering selected concessions. The Americans need to improve their ability to receive and digest nuanced signals from China. The Chinese need to be able to communicate in a more direct and straightforward manner so as not be misunderstood.
The day when both parties can feel that there is mutual rapport is when Secretary Gates could say to President Hu upon landing in Beijing, “Gosh, Mr. President I see that I am way off on China’s stealth plane development schedule. If China has been as transparent as I had suggested in the past, I wouldn’t be so embarrassed,” followed by a jocular chuckle shared between friends.
An edited version appeared in New America Media.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Russ Limbaugh, a New All-Time Bottom for America
On national radio program he hosts, Mr. Limbaugh devoted some 20 seconds on nonsensical gibberish that he represented as China's President Hu's comments at the joint White House press conference. His performance lack originality but remind the listeners of many other bigots trying to make fun of the Chinese language. Limbaugh was obviously attempting to demean the Chinese leader and the Chinese language but I don't think he demean anyone more effectively than himself. Just take a listen and you can decide for yourself if he deserves to be considered a national opinion leader. Do you really see an uneducated buffoon like Mr. Limbaugh to be an icon for America? Whatever your political leaning doesn't really matter; wouldn't you be embarassed to be identified as a fellow American of Limbaugh--nay, as a fellow human being?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Diplomatic breakthroughs not likely on Hu's forthcoming visit
If you are expecting diplomatic breakthroughs in the US China bilateral relations associated with China’s President Hu Jintao’s state visit next week, you are likely in for a disappointment.
Up to now both sides are talking past each other and not to each other. It has been a classic case of cultural mismatch and miscommunications--a case of American frontal declarations versus China’s nuanced ambiguous parries. Each side talks but no one appears to be listening to the other.
Officials of Obama’s Administration have been urging China to be transparent and to be more revealing of their intentions. At the same time they have offered China no incentive to go along.
China has been saying you Americans have stealth planes and aircraft carriers and China does not have them yet. America has a nuclear arsenal many times larger. America’s military technology is years ahead and China’s only strategy is to hide behind a cloud of ambiguity. Keeping America guessing is more important to China than to ensure that America can sleep well at night.
Recently, it has been revealed that China will commission its first carrier this summer and has been testing missiles capable of hitting a moving target thousands of miles away, in other words a “carrier killer.” The US DOD is naturally upset. Up to now, the waters of the Pacific up to China’s shore have been American navy’s own backyard, uncontested by any other power.
In advance of Secretary Robert Gates visit to China, Pentagon presented a laundry list of topics he wished to discuss. When he got to Beijing, China welcomed him with the first test flight of their version of the stealth fighter. When he asked about the timing, President Hu assured him that it was purely coincidental. Sure it was, just like years ago when a Chinese submarine came up to surface within hailing distance of Kitty Hawk, the American carrier patrolling the Pacific.
Before Gates left Washington for Beijing he had said that he hope to convince China to abandon development of advanced weapon systems that would threaten American superiority and furthermore he did not expect the Chinese stealth plane to be operational before 2020. Maybe China begs to differ?
On the one hand, Gates would like to begin high level dialogue between the military counterparts of both sides. On the other, Gates did nothing to assure China that the US holds no hostile intentions towards China—especially not after he then stopped in Japan and urged Japan to place orders for America’s advance fighters in order to keep pace with China’s stealth fighters, ones that he thought wouldn’t be operational for another decade.
In Beijing, Gates wanted to talk about nuclear non-proliferation, missile defense, cyber security, space cooperation, united position on North Korea and Iran, to name a few. His host and counterpart, General Liang’s reply was simply no more arms sales to Taiwan.
What General Liang meant was that China considers Taiwan as part of China and American sales of arms to Taiwan is in violation of China’s sovereignty. If the US is willing to recognize China’s strategic interest and not hide behind Taiwan Relations Act, a unilateral act of America’s making, and then everything else can be on the table.
Shortly after Secretary Gates returned, Treasury Secretary Geithner listed economic and commercial issues that need to be resolved when President Hu come visiting. In exchange for concessions from China, Geithner offered a curious incentive, namely the ability for China to buy more high technology products from the US. Basically Geithner was saying, “Give us what we want and we’ll let you buy more from us.” It’s not clear whether Geithner was talking for the benefit of the Chinese advance team or to cater to expectations of the home audience.
The greatest disconnect seems to be the US insistence of being the only remaining super power with all the privileges pertaining thereof, namely play by American rules. China is saying while we have no desire to be a competing power, we want to be treated with respect and as a peer.
The American doctrine of trust us, we have nothing but good intentions may play well elsewhere but not with China. China does not see American actions consistent with stated intentions, only veiled threats if China does not comply.
I was in Beijing last month as part of a delegation from The Committee of 100, meeting with leaders of Beijing. At the briefing held with American officials at the new US Embassy, I asked if we have an official or unofficial policy of containment of China. The startled official burst out laughing and said, “Absolutely not.”
Later in the afternoon, we went to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I had the opportunity to pop the same question, namely does China believe the US is trying to contain China. Our host, a Vice Minister, replied, “No, we don’t believe so and even if the US wanted to, we don’t think it could be done.”
At least America’s frontline diplomats working in China see and understand that we are dealing with a China with a new attitude and confidence. It behooves Washington to adjust as well.
China will have its blue water navy and space warfare capability because China can afford to develop them. By having counter punching capability, China may actually be more willing to examine America’s stated altruistic intentions.
If America continues on business as usual basis, it will use China’s every advance in military technology as provocation and justification for increased defense spending. For every dollar China spends on military, America will have to spend 5 to 10 to maintain its overwhelming edge. America will be using the Reagan strategy deployed effectively against the former Soviet Union on itself. America will end up with a national budget for defense and nothing else, which is what led to the implosion of USSR.
Or, Washington can begin to face reality and see our own limitations. America’s already mighty military does not have to get mightier. China is not buying America’s idea of strategic ambiguity consisting of conflicting messages. China’s stated desire is to be a partner with the US and America needs to figure out what concessions—and not just feel good declarations--to give to make friends with China.
Washington needs to convert the mindset of regarding China as a rival into a potential ally. This is not going to happen by the time of Hu’s visit.
Also posted on New America Media.
Up to now both sides are talking past each other and not to each other. It has been a classic case of cultural mismatch and miscommunications--a case of American frontal declarations versus China’s nuanced ambiguous parries. Each side talks but no one appears to be listening to the other.
Officials of Obama’s Administration have been urging China to be transparent and to be more revealing of their intentions. At the same time they have offered China no incentive to go along.
China has been saying you Americans have stealth planes and aircraft carriers and China does not have them yet. America has a nuclear arsenal many times larger. America’s military technology is years ahead and China’s only strategy is to hide behind a cloud of ambiguity. Keeping America guessing is more important to China than to ensure that America can sleep well at night.
Recently, it has been revealed that China will commission its first carrier this summer and has been testing missiles capable of hitting a moving target thousands of miles away, in other words a “carrier killer.” The US DOD is naturally upset. Up to now, the waters of the Pacific up to China’s shore have been American navy’s own backyard, uncontested by any other power.
In advance of Secretary Robert Gates visit to China, Pentagon presented a laundry list of topics he wished to discuss. When he got to Beijing, China welcomed him with the first test flight of their version of the stealth fighter. When he asked about the timing, President Hu assured him that it was purely coincidental. Sure it was, just like years ago when a Chinese submarine came up to surface within hailing distance of Kitty Hawk, the American carrier patrolling the Pacific.
Before Gates left Washington for Beijing he had said that he hope to convince China to abandon development of advanced weapon systems that would threaten American superiority and furthermore he did not expect the Chinese stealth plane to be operational before 2020. Maybe China begs to differ?
On the one hand, Gates would like to begin high level dialogue between the military counterparts of both sides. On the other, Gates did nothing to assure China that the US holds no hostile intentions towards China—especially not after he then stopped in Japan and urged Japan to place orders for America’s advance fighters in order to keep pace with China’s stealth fighters, ones that he thought wouldn’t be operational for another decade.
In Beijing, Gates wanted to talk about nuclear non-proliferation, missile defense, cyber security, space cooperation, united position on North Korea and Iran, to name a few. His host and counterpart, General Liang’s reply was simply no more arms sales to Taiwan.
What General Liang meant was that China considers Taiwan as part of China and American sales of arms to Taiwan is in violation of China’s sovereignty. If the US is willing to recognize China’s strategic interest and not hide behind Taiwan Relations Act, a unilateral act of America’s making, and then everything else can be on the table.
Shortly after Secretary Gates returned, Treasury Secretary Geithner listed economic and commercial issues that need to be resolved when President Hu come visiting. In exchange for concessions from China, Geithner offered a curious incentive, namely the ability for China to buy more high technology products from the US. Basically Geithner was saying, “Give us what we want and we’ll let you buy more from us.” It’s not clear whether Geithner was talking for the benefit of the Chinese advance team or to cater to expectations of the home audience.
The greatest disconnect seems to be the US insistence of being the only remaining super power with all the privileges pertaining thereof, namely play by American rules. China is saying while we have no desire to be a competing power, we want to be treated with respect and as a peer.
The American doctrine of trust us, we have nothing but good intentions may play well elsewhere but not with China. China does not see American actions consistent with stated intentions, only veiled threats if China does not comply.
I was in Beijing last month as part of a delegation from The Committee of 100, meeting with leaders of Beijing. At the briefing held with American officials at the new US Embassy, I asked if we have an official or unofficial policy of containment of China. The startled official burst out laughing and said, “Absolutely not.”
Later in the afternoon, we went to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I had the opportunity to pop the same question, namely does China believe the US is trying to contain China. Our host, a Vice Minister, replied, “No, we don’t believe so and even if the US wanted to, we don’t think it could be done.”
At least America’s frontline diplomats working in China see and understand that we are dealing with a China with a new attitude and confidence. It behooves Washington to adjust as well.
China will have its blue water navy and space warfare capability because China can afford to develop them. By having counter punching capability, China may actually be more willing to examine America’s stated altruistic intentions.
If America continues on business as usual basis, it will use China’s every advance in military technology as provocation and justification for increased defense spending. For every dollar China spends on military, America will have to spend 5 to 10 to maintain its overwhelming edge. America will be using the Reagan strategy deployed effectively against the former Soviet Union on itself. America will end up with a national budget for defense and nothing else, which is what led to the implosion of USSR.
Or, Washington can begin to face reality and see our own limitations. America’s already mighty military does not have to get mightier. China is not buying America’s idea of strategic ambiguity consisting of conflicting messages. China’s stated desire is to be a partner with the US and America needs to figure out what concessions—and not just feel good declarations--to give to make friends with China.
Washington needs to convert the mindset of regarding China as a rival into a potential ally. This is not going to happen by the time of Hu’s visit.
Also posted on New America Media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
