The New US Sputnik Moment

On the eve of Obama's State of the Union address, there are reports that he will center his speech on the theme of our generation's Sputnik moment.  

"Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon," Obama will say, according to excerpts released by the White House. "The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs."

The contemporary Sputnik moment that exists right now is the competition with China. 

When international tests revealed that students in Shanghai ranked first in math and science in December, it stunned educators. Amy Chua then jumped on this sentiment with a provocative op-ed in the WSJ titled Why Asian Mothers are Superior to promote her new book, it created a fierce national debate that brought out the "USA! USA!" chanting American defenders/Chinese critics, here, here and here.

Although there could be debate on the validity of this the best way to teach children and the actual competitiveness of US education, the underlying theme is clear. While US kids are playing video games and out having fun, Chinese kids have private tutors and Sunday classes. While the US is cutting education budgets all over the country, China is increasing its own. No debate will change the fact that Chinese Confucian culture puts greater emphasis on education. Below is a great clip of Nicholas Kristof discussing this issue.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thomas Friedman actually first started the Sputnik discussion in an op-ed in late 2009 addressing China's huge investment in green energy with governmental support.

without declaring it, China is embarking on a new, parallel path of clean power deployment and innovation. It is the Sputnik of our day. We ignore it at our peril.

This sentiment has prodded both the Secretary of Energy and Commerce to refer to the Sputnik challenge in renewable energy, investment in infrastructure and high tech computing in recent speeches. 

While the US is bogged down with its fake repeal of "Obamacare", partisan bickering, tax cuts for the rich and bureaucratic hoops, China is strongly supporting the future renewable energy sector. Hopefully Obama can utilize the unifying sentiments from the Tuscon shooting and focuses it on the country's future. Who knows if the Republicans will listen. 

US Press Makes Hu Jintao Sweat Over Human Rights Question. Really??

I have been eagerly watching the coverage of the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, and his state visit to the US for the past 2 days. It has been made a big deal by media in both countries and occurs at an interesting point in China/US relations as China is now the 2nd largest economy in the world, surpassing Japan.

I read all the articles I could find online from Foreign Policy, Time and other sources to give me a sense of public discourse on the subject. Not only did I find more ideas for future blog posts, it gave me a feel for how the US viewed this visit and what the media wanted to accomplish.

The thing that most stood out before President Hu's arrival was the inclusion of a media press conference held with Obama. Multiple media sources stated that this was a concession the Chinese had to make in order to "get the State dinner." It would also be a symbol for human rights and free press to see the red China president take questions from a free media.

As the official "day of pomp and ceremony" arrived, I waited for the highly anticipated joint press conference. After brief opening statements from both leaders, 2 US and 2 Chinese reporters would be called to ask questions.

When the 1st US reporter began to ask his question, I knew it would be on the issue of human rights. It fit perfectly with the "finally, we can put him on the spot" mindset established in the US media. After the reporter asked his long question to Obama, he asked Hu:

How do you justify China's record, and do you think that's any of the business of the American people?

In reality, this was a softball question. It fits perfectly with (what I believe) the established Chinese answer:

A major part of human rights is providing citizens with food, shelter, jobs, healthcare, ect. and China has done that by lifting 500 million people out of poverty in the past (whatever) years. And no, its not any of your business because we believe in non-interference wrt other countries' internal affairs.

However, as I anticipated this answer when Obama first finished his, there was only silence. Hu Jintao didnt answer the question?! Instead he stood their with a confused look while the US media waited for his answer. After a brief silence, he went on to take a question from the next Chinese reporter. 

I personally never thought he tried to dodge it. The question was too easy. Instead, I thought that he probably didnt hear it. After the first question was raised in English, Obama answered in a long monologue. Only after that was there a translation of the question and Obama's answer. The translator also SUCKED! Not only did he constantly stumble on his Chinese through out the press conference, he translated many things wrong and omitted a lot of content.

However, if Hu didnt answer the question, I knew there would be a problem.  The major news in the media following would focus on it and say, "we put him on the spot and he just dodged it", "thats what an commie does" and "thats why the US system is so much better", ect. That would be terrible for China's rep.

Thankfully, the 2nd American reporter addressed the initial human rights question. After explaining he didnt hear it initially, President Hu gave his answer.

Thank god he answered it or all hell would've broke loose or will it anyways?

Today, while reading coverage of the visit online, I stumbled on Dana Milbank's op-ed piece on the Washington Post. The response and description of the press conference from the day before was exactly what I had anticipated.

Something about human rights just doesn't translate for Chinese President Hu Jintao.

President Obama granted him the full state-dinner treatment that President George W. Bush denied him five years ago - but in return, Hu had to put up with a news conference, which he had refused to do when Obama visited China. For a repressive ruler, facing a free press is about as pleasant a prospect as attending the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony.

After the leaders' standard opening statements full of the blah-blah about bilateral cooperation, the Associated Press's Ben Feller rose and asked a gutsy, forceful question.

Obama answered. The translator translated. All eyes turned to Hu - who said nothing.

Instead, he looked to a woman from China Central Television - the state-run network that answers to the Communist Party's propaganda department - who tossed him a softball about "friendship and mutual understanding."

But the next questioner, Bloomberg's Hans Nichols, gave Hu a lesson in press freedoms (by addressing the first not-answered question). 

In Beijing, that impertinence would get a reporter jailed. But Hu wasn't in Beijing. During the translation of Nichols's question, Hu held a palm up and smiled, as if he couldn't see what all the fuss was about. "Because of the technical translation and interpretation problem, I did not hear the question about the human rights," he explained - falsely, as it turns out.

It was a good moment for the American press. Feller and Nichols put the Chinese leader on the spot in a way that Obama, constrained by protocol, could not have done. On Wednesday afternoon, Obama and the press corps were justifiably on the same side, displaying the rights of free people.

Hu, however, ignored that question in favor of the gentler one from his employee at Chinese television. As luck would have it, Hu was perfectly prepared for the question, and, in his reply, looked down to read statistics from his notes.

Reporters glanced at each other, puzzled over Hu's ignoring of Feller's question. During the interminable translation into Mandarin of Hu's answer to the Chinese reporter's question, Obama flashed a grin at Gibbs.

Hu, his forehead shining, had another plant waiting in the crowd, a reporter from the state-run Xinhua news agency. But before Hu could get that lifeline tossed his way, the microphone went to the American side, where Nichols demanded an answer to the human-rights question. This time, Hu couldn't claim it was lost in translation.

"China is a developing country with a huge population and also a developing country in a crucial stage of reform," he explained. "In this context, China still faces many challenges in economic and social development, and a lot still needs to be done in China in terms of human rights."

No wonder Hu doesn't like questions: He might have to give an honest answer.

Of course it was a good moment for the US press. You posed a hard hitting question and made the President of China squirm. You made him sweat and succumb to the demands of the righteously free media. USA! USA! USA!

China Takes Action. US Hangs Out

For the past few days since Barack Obama was elected President, I've been trying my best to keep up with the news about his presidential transition and the economy. Although it has only been a few days since the historic election, there has already been a lot of politics and fighting between the various interest groups in the US.

The main issue currently in the US is the economy. As GM is almost going bankrupt and more people hit the unemployment lines everyday, the country has sought a change from the current status quo and is looking to Obama as the savior. It seems that most people want him to start doing things right away and try to pursue his policy direction he laid out during his campaign.

Obama has announced his desire for middle class tax relief, help in healthcare and unemployment insurance for the poor as well as investments in infulstructure and public work projects all over the country to stimulate the economy. The issue right now is that:

1. He's still not the president. He only becomes president in January.
2. Even though he has a "mandate" from the election, he has to get past the lame-duck congress and lame duck president bush to see any of his proposals become law before he's sworn in.
3. Even when he is officially president, he will still have to play the politics game back and forth with congress to get anything done. As we've seen the $150 billion in amendments and pork addes on to the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, there will definitely more of the same to any new stimulous package.

So in the midst of an economic crisis for the ages, the US government cant act because of procedural issues and infighting.

On the flip side, look at China. Just before I went to bed last night, CNN reported that China, in all its "red, commie" glory, has announced a $586 Billion spending plan for the next to years to bolster its economy in this downturn. Without too much debate or infighting, China has acted urgently to combat this crisis.

And surprise surpise, the investment is for "infrastructure and social welfare" projects/programs. I guess this is what Obama was thinking about doing in his plan. Now lets see how long it takes the US to do the same exact thing as China.

Shenzhen Gov't Make Arrests After Deadly Fires

In the past few days, the Shenzhen government has taken action and arrested more than 2o people in association with recent unexpected fires in the SEZ.

The first action, 13 people were arrested for the fatal fire that killed party-goers at a Longgang night club a week ago. As China Daily reports, Investors, club workers and founders were all taken into custody for their involvment and neglegence in the event.

As of 12 am on Friday, family members of 31 victims of the fire had signed compensation agreements with the local government, according to the Longgang district authorities.

The Longgang district government is paying kin of those who died 250,000 yuan.

The property of Wu Wang Club has been frozen and the lawsuit over the fire is expected to take a while. Family members of the victims can file a suit and claim for compensation from the frozen club property. The club will pay back the government after the court ruling, said Huang Wei, spokesman for the Longgang district government.

Some 43 people injured in the fire are still in hospital. Four of them are on life support. Medical experts assigned by the Ministry of Health said the injury to their nervous system as a result of suffocation is most likely beyond recovery.

Despite a citywide drive to preempt such incidents following the nightclub fire, a fire broke out at an old factory of a Taiwan-funded company in Shajing of Shenzhen's Bao'an district around 4 am on Friday. It was put out in five hours. There were no casualties.

On the following day, Xinghua reported the arrest of officials allegedly involved a factory fire that happened back in February in Shenzhen.

Nine people including four government officials have been arrested in connection with a fatal factory fire that claimed 15 lives in Shenzhen, south China's Guangdong Province, in February.

The four officials, identified as Huang Hanguang, Zeng Hongbo, Lin Guozhong and Yi Rao, were from the city's fire fighting bureau and environment protection bureau. They were arrested on charges of neglecting their duties and misconduct, said the press office of the Shenzhen government on Sunday.

As I have seen personally in the past few days, hopefully this kind of attention will bring greater awareness for fire safety in the city.

NY Times is Beginning to Like China

During the entire Olympics period, the NY Times has many more "objective" articles regarding China. Recently however, they've taken it to another level - basically suggesting that the US should learn from China. Previously it was the interesting pros of having an authoritarian government and the benefits of being a communal society. Now its the inward focus and own-nation building.

In today's NY Times op-ed article A Biblical Seven Years by Thomas Friedman, China's emergence in its 7-year preparation for the Olympics is compared to the US and the 7 years since 9/11 and translated into an election contest between Obama and McCain.

Without even getting into the article itself, it is quite amazing the amount of "good press" China has gotten in the past few weeks because of the Olympics. It seems that the success of these Games have given China a better platform to showcase its achievements. Even though the human rights and Tibet issue is always raised in any general article, at least it is moved down further near the end of the article.

Here's the complete NY Times text:

After attending the spectacular closing ceremony at the Beijing Olympics and feeling the vibrations from hundreds of Chinese drummers pulsating in my own chest, I was tempted to conclude two things: “Holy mackerel, the energy coming out of this country is unrivaled.” And, two: “We are so cooked. Start teaching your kids Mandarin.”

However, I’ve learned over the years not to over-interpret any two-week event. Olympics don’t change history. They are mere snapshots — a country posing in its Sunday bests for all the world too see. But, as snapshots go, the one China presented through the Olympics was enormously powerful — and it’s one that Americans need to reflect upon this election season.

China did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work.

Seven years ... Seven years ... Oh, that’s right. China was awarded these Olympic Games on July 13, 2001 — just two months before 9/11.

As I sat in my seat at the Bird’s Nest, watching thousands of Chinese dancers, drummers, singers and acrobats on stilts perform their magic at the closing ceremony, I couldn’t help but reflect on how China and America have spent the last seven years: China has been preparing for the Olympics; we’ve been preparing for Al Qaeda. They’ve been building better stadiums, subways, airports, roads and parks. And we’ve been building better metal detectors, armored Humvees and pilotless drones.

The difference is starting to show. Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 220-mile-per-hour magnetic levitation train, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of steel wheels and tracks, to get to town in a blink.

Then ask yourself: Who is living in the third world country?

Yes, if you drive an hour out of Beijing, you meet the vast dirt-poor third world of China. But here’s what’s new: The rich parts of China, the modern parts of Beijing or Shanghai or Dalian, are now more state of the art than rich America. The buildings are architecturally more interesting, the wireless networks more sophisticated, the roads and trains more efficient and nicer. And, I repeat, they did not get all this by discovering oil. They got it by digging inside themselves.

I realize the differences: We were attacked on 9/11; they were not. We have real enemies; theirs are small and mostly domestic. We had to respond to 9/11 at least by eliminating the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan and investing in tighter homeland security. They could avoid foreign entanglements. Trying to build democracy in Iraq, though, which I supported, was a war of choice and is unlikely to ever produce anything equal to its huge price tag.

But the first rule of holes is that when you’re in one, stop digging. When you see how much modern infrastructure has been built in China since 2001, under the banner of the Olympics, and you see how much infrastructure has been postponed in America since 2001, under the banner of the war on terrorism, it’s clear that the next seven years need to be devoted to nation-building in America.

We need to finish our business in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, which is why it is a travesty that the Iraqi Parliament has gone on vacation while 130,000 U.S. troops are standing guard. We can no longer afford to postpone our nation-building while Iraqis squabble over whether to do theirs.

A lot of people are now advising Barack Obama to get dirty with John McCain. Sure, fight fire with fire. That’s necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Obama got this far because many voters projected onto him that he could be the leader of an American renewal. They know we need nation-building at home now — not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Georgia, but in America. Obama cannot lose that theme.

He cannot let Republicans make this election about who is tough enough to stand up to Russia or bin Laden. It has to be about who is strong enough, focused enough, creative enough and unifying enough to get Americans to rebuild America. The next president can have all the foreign affairs experience in the world, but it will be useless, utterly useless, if we, as a country, are weak.

Obama is more right than he knows when he proclaims that this is “our” moment, this is “our” time. But it is our time to get back to work on the only home we have, our time for nation-building in America. I never want to tell my girls — and I’m sure Obama feels the same about his — that they have to go to China to see the future.

Harmony and the Dream: The Difference Between East and West

In the 2nd semester of my sophomore year of college, I was honored to take a class with professor Jeffrey Friedman entitled Liberalism, Communitarianism and the Good. POLS V3027 was a political science class focused on theory and the development of political beliefs based on various factors, cultures and influences.

Not only did the class have an interesting focus, but it was taught extremely well. I can say that my life has been visibly changed since taking his class. These were some of the comments that students made after taking his class on CULPA.

Professor Friedman is the best teacher I've had. He is brilliant (you may think you've had brilliant professors before but this experience will make you re-evaluate that), intellectually rigorous (what do you say about a teacher who is able to tie all the tangents together), challenging (you WON'T find anyone who thinks like him and he expects you to think for yourself as well) and compassionate (really listens to students and seems to care). I have also never taken a class with such devastating intellectual and political implications.

He made people feel self-conscious about the quality of their comments in class. But, I will be forever grateful that I took this class because I got over my fear of public speaking and it really opened my mind and challenged me to think constantly during the class. He comes off as opinionated, but I think that's just because he knows he's right :). He really took the discussion to places I have never before nor since traveled to in any other class here. Always challenging us NOT to assume things, not to be lazy in thinking liberal ideology is always right, to read critically - to have our "bullshit detector" always on.

He's simply mind-blowing, funny, and the smartest person I've ever met (and that's genius level, because I like to think I'm pretty smart myself!). His democracy class was the best class I've taken at BC-- the readings on public ignorance and human fallibility were so compelling that I can no longer read the NY Times in the same complacent way I used to. Really, he should write a book and change the world.

After his class, it has been has almost been impossible to find worthy reading material on the NY Times ... until now.

Going through all of the NY Times daily emails that I had forgotten about during the Olympics, I found an amazing article entitled Harmony and the Dream written by op-ed columnist, David Brooks. It describes the basic difference between individualistic and collective societies (exactly like my liberalism and communitarian class) under the auspice of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing where the idea of friends living in harmony was a central theme during the Games.

The world can be divided in many ways — rich and poor, democratic and authoritarian — but one of the most striking is the divide between the societies with an individualist mentality and the ones with a collectivist mentality.

This is a divide that goes deeper than economics into the way people perceive the world. If you show an American an image of a fish tank, the American will usually describe the biggest fish in the tank and what it is doing. If you ask a Chinese person to describe a fish tank, the Chinese will usually describe the context in which the fish swim.

These sorts of experiments have been done over and over again, and the results reveal the same underlying pattern. Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts.

This concept translates further than just the Olympics. It is embodied in politics, business, society and even personal friendships. It is the small, yet overarching difference between the East and West. And I believe it is the key for mutual understanding between the different worlds.

David Brooks should continue this train of thought and help Americans and the western world examine and reexamine its view of China. There is much more to be written and seen.

Here is the full text of the article:

The world can be divided in many ways — rich and poor, democratic and authoritarian — but one of the most striking is the divide between the societies with an individualist mentality and the ones with a collectivist mentality.

This is a divide that goes deeper than economics into the way people perceive the world. If you show an American an image of a fish tank, the American will usually describe the biggest fish in the tank and what it is doing. If you ask a Chinese person to describe a fish tank, the Chinese will usually describe the context in which the fish swim.

These sorts of experiments have been done over and over again, and the results reveal the same underlying pattern. Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts.

When the psychologist Richard Nisbett showed Americans individual pictures of a chicken, a cow and hay and asked the subjects to pick out the two that go together, the Americans would usually pick out the chicken and the cow. They’re both animals. Most Asian people, on the other hand, would pick out the cow and the hay, since cows depend on hay. Americans are more likely to see categories. Asians are more likely to see relationships.

You can create a global continuum with the most individualistic societies — like the United States or Britain — on one end, and the most collectivist societies — like China or Japan — on the other.

The individualistic countries tend to put rights and privacy first. People in these societies tend to overvalue their own skills and overestimate their own importance to any group effort. People in collective societies tend to value harmony and duty. They tend to underestimate their own skills and are more self-effacing when describing their contributions to group efforts.

Researchers argue about why certain cultures have become more individualistic than others. Some say that Western cultures draw their values from ancient Greece, with its emphasis on individual heroism, while other cultures draw on more on tribal philosophies. Recently, some scientists have theorized that it all goes back to microbes. Collectivist societies tend to pop up in parts of the world, especially around the equator, with plenty of disease-causing microbes. In such an environment, you’d want to shun outsiders, who might bring strange diseases, and enforce a certain conformity over eating rituals and social behavior.

Either way, individualistic societies have tended to do better economically. We in the West have a narrative that involves the development of individual reason and conscience during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and then the subsequent flourishing of capitalism. According to this narrative, societies get more individualistic as they develop.

But what happens if collectivist societies snap out of their economic stagnation? What happens if collectivist societies, especially those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West? A new sort of global conversation develops.

The opening ceremony in Beijing was a statement in that conversation. It was part of China’s assertion that development doesn’t come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones.

The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth.

If Asia’s success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it’s unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge.

For one thing, there are relatively few individualistic societies on earth. For another, the essence of a lot of the latest scientific research is that the Western idea of individual choice is an illusion and the Chinese are right to put first emphasis on social contexts.

Scientists have delighted to show that so-called rational choice is shaped by a whole range of subconscious influences, like emotional contagions and priming effects (people who think of a professor before taking a test do better than people who think of a criminal). Meanwhile, human brains turn out to be extremely permeable (they naturally mimic the neural firings of people around them). Relationships are the key to happiness. People who live in the densest social networks tend to flourish, while people who live with few social bonds are much more prone to depression and suicide.

The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream.

It’s certainly a useful ideology for aspiring autocrats.

Barak Obama's Brother is in Shenzhen

In the past few days, it has been exposed that the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Barak Obama, has a half brother living in Shenzhen, China. That’s cool. A lot of foreign media sources have picked up the story.

Friends say he has a long-term Chinese girlfriend in her 20s from Henan, a poor landlocked province that sends millions of migrants to the coastal cities.

He lives in Nanshan, a brash new district of high-rises and streets teeming after dark with young migrants eating spicy street food and cramming into bars, karaoke joints and massage parlors.

“He is big, strong and full of energy, speaks good Chinese and is a really easygoing guy,” said a Chinese friend, “He always wears a hat over his shaven head. I believe he has several consultancy jobs.”

Chinese officials said there are unanswered questions about his internet-based company, Worldnexus Ltd. It has provided corporate communications and website design to Chinese firms seeking customers in English-speaking markets, of which the United States is the biggest.

It seems like Ndesandjo is experiencing the typical American – or Westerner – in Shenzhen life.

• He lives in Nanshan, where most expats live – and where I’ve recently moved.
• He has a younger Chinese girlfriend. No surprise there.
• The girlfriend is from Henan – everyone it seems is from Henan.
• He speaks Chinese and is really easy going.
• He has his own company that does some international import/export – all westerners work in import/export and/or teaching English. EVERYONE!
• The company isn’t officially registered in Shenzhen – yea, not many foreign businesses are registered in Shenzhen. Most are registered in Hong Kong.

I would be interested in meeting Mr. Ndesandjo to get his prospective on Shenzhen, living in China and that the best bars in Nanshan are.

Shenzhen Democracy

For the past 30 years, Shenzhen has been the big Chinese experiment on capitalism. This Special Economic Zone started from a fishing village to become the most modern Chinese city. Not only is the economy in the forfront, but the rule of law, transportation and civil systems are among the best in China. There has even been talk about a Shenzhen - Hong Kong mega city in its future plans while the development of Shenzhen's airport has been mentioned in Kanye West's blog.

This big experiment seems to be ready to expand to politics as well. Reported in the Pakistan Observer, Shenzhen's steps Toward Democracy describes the future development of an“intraparty democracy.”

The Shenzhen local government published a draft of a document titled “Shenzhen Future Reforms” on its Web site for the public to comment upon . The draft summarizes tentative plans for political, administrative, economic and cultural reforms in Shenzhen and describes 19 key tasks, including the holding of mayoral elections in Shenzhen when “conditions allow.” Members of the regional National People’s Congress will be allowed to run directly in these elections.

By conducting China’s “intraparty democracy” experiment in Shenzhen, Chinese President Hu Jintao is paying homage to the legacy of Deng Xiaoping and signaling that if the test proves successful, intraparty democracy will spread to the rest of China.

The document is a result of the National People’s Congress in March, when “intraparty democracy” the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) version of “rule by consensus” was put in place as one of the key planks of Chinese President Hu Jintao”s legacy. The groundwork for the Shenzhen experiment originally was laid in March when Wang Yang, secretary of the CPC’s Guangdong Provincial Committee, visited Shenzhen and officially announced that the city would “set an example for the nation.” Such initiatives have been tried at the village level before but never in as large or as prominent a city as Shenzhen.

Long a showcase for new ideas from the center, Shenzhen was one of the original sites of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s groundbreaking economic, political and social reform programs and was home to China’s first special economic zone. By formally launching China’s intraparty democracy experiment in Shenzhen, Hu is paying direct homage to Deng’s legacy and signaling that if this test proves successful, intraparty democracy will spread to the rest of China. The province of Guangdong has never built the political power base that Shanghai has, so this latest spotlight on Shenzhen does not signal an impending central government “crackdown” on disobedient local officials.

Beijing wants to build some sense of accountability in the prevailing system and emphasize that the party and government are owned by the people.

I have been recently been considering leaving Shenzhen, but I might just have to stay a little bit longer to see these things happen firsthand, undercover.

China & Morality

One of the most interesting things about living in China is the underlying sense of morality.... or the lack there of.

From my time living here, I really believe that anything and everything can happen. Although the vast majority have a decent sense of what's right and wrong, a lot of people clearly don't have it.

Business ethics? Who cares.

Insider Trading? Common place.

Cheating for self gain? Standard.

One recent event that shows the turbulent and frequent questionable nature of what is real/fake and right/wrong occurred in journalism.

The west often accuses Chinese journalism as censored, government approved and basically propaganda. Although everyone and their grandmom knows that there is a natural sensitivity for the government on certain issues (like falonggong, protests) on the national scale, journalism on the local level is more open than I had previously thought. There are definitely news reports, on the radio, in TV and print describing corruption, crimes, and other unsavory events. Although there is a vail lifted over the average Chinese person, it's not as thick as everyone thinks.

Well, about a month ago, a Beijing journalist described a very interesting story about food vendors putting cardboard and other undesirable materials into food. This scary story caused a stir in local and national headlines and was quickly picked up by CNN international sources.

The whole country was in outrage. Police and health inspectors started checking everywhere. Foreign press lamented and criticized China, ect. ect.

And all the while, the story was fake...

As CNN reported through Reuters:

Beijing police have detained a television reporter for allegedly fabricating an investigative story about steamed buns stuffed with cardboard at a time when China's food safety is under intense international scrutiny.

Beijing authorities said investigations had found that an employee surnamed Zi had fabricated the report to garner "higher audience ratings", the China Daily said on Thursday.

"Zi had provided all the cardboard and asked the vendor to soak it. It's all cheating," the paper quoted a government notice as saying.

After I read the original report, I spent a while thinking about the stuff I put into my body every morning before going to work. I also thought about the other crap that could be in the foods out there. I was almost freaking out.

So while I, and many other people were freaking out (like me), while the whole country was in outrage investing food processes, standards and regulations, and while the international community criticized the Chinese government and its standards as another example of inept corruption of the "communist regime," the story turned out to be fake.

So, creating this panic and international incident was just a chance to get higher ratings, and a future promotion. Wow.

This is China.

The reporter has since been tried and sentenced to 1 year in jail and a fine. Good times.

Before leaving this topic, there is another issue that is involved here. I would not be surprised if the story was true and the reporter was telling the truth. Instead, the culprit could be the authorities who are trying to damage control. Different agencies could have ordered that the reporter be the scape goat so that the government could deny these accusations with more footing to foreign trade partners... what if...

Ultimately, no one knows what the hell is going on. It doesn't matter if you believe one side, or the other. They are all playing with the same, cheating deck of cards.

Future China/US Trade War?

There has been an abundant amount of coverage on the possible US sanctions towards Chinese goods if China doesn’t appreciate the yuan at a faster pace than it is doing currently. Paulson: China must implement reforms describes current US Treasury Secretary’s view of what’s going on.

Paulson said there is agreement in principle between the U.S. and China on the need for greater yuan flexibility. The discussion is about "the pace" of change.

"They're moving, but they're not moving, in my judgment, quickly enough," he said. "China is by far the largest" economy that doesn't have a market-determined currency, but enjoys the benefits of the global economy."

In a 4/21/07 Bloomberg.com article entitled Paulson Says China Must Yield `Tangible Results' on Yuan, Trade, Paulson described the possible consequences and repercussions if China doesn't act quickly.

"The American people are concerned, Congress is concerned and there's a lot of protectionist sentiment'' toward China, Paulson said in an interview on the ``Charlie Rose'' show on PBS television following his speech in New York." The more tangible reforms we see, the easier it is for me to deal with Congress.''

"There will be some, I believe, unattractive bills that are voted on in Congress,'' Paulson acknowledged. "I think the Chinese are very well aware of this -- I think they should be aware of it.''

Other parts of the Bush Administration have also taken action by imposing import duties on Chinese glossy paper and by filing 2 complaints to the WTO for copyright infringement and piracy.

The feeling of uncertainty in Chinese and US relations changed 2 days later in another Bloomberg piece by Matthew Benjamin. In his story, called Paulson May Be Unable to Get China, U.S. Off Collision Course, Benjamin painted a grim picture if reforms in the Chinese currency doesn't happen soon.

Without steps to allow a significant increase in the yuan, which most economists consider unlikely, Paulson may not be able to continue holding off moves in Congress to punish China.

"After years of talk and bluster, protectionism no longer seems like an empty threat,'' says Stephen Roach, chief global economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. "Trade sanctions against China are now all but inevitable.''

These increasingly real threats come with the backing of Congressional democrats who maintain that they would achieve “strong and effective legislation is likely to pass with a veto-proof margin.”

Although it might seem that the appreciation of the yuan is all but unavoidable, Benjamin also shows the hidden side of the currency struggle, relating both US and Chinese workers and businesses.

When China allowed a small rise in the value of its currency in 2005, Hangzhou food-company executive Wang Yuzhou saw his profits squeezed. Any further move threatens the livelihoods of his 1,000 workers and the 5,000 rural households that supply his plants, he says.

John Walker says China's currency policies have already cost 100 jobs at his Lewisburg, Tennessee, die-casting company. He wants the U.S. Congress to do "whatever it takes'' to force an increase in an undervalued yuan that he contends gives an unfair advantage to Chinese competitors.

Citizens on both side of the Pacific Ocean have money, family and livelihoods at stake. It is often easy for Americans (me included) to jump into the US perspective (of John Walker) while being ignorant of Wang Yuzhou’s plea.

But what can China do other than to appease the US on their currency appreciation wishes? The answer lies in a recent 4/18/07 NY Times article. China Leans Less on U.S. Trade describes the readjustment of China’s global trade strategy.

At booth after booth at China’s main trade fair (Canton Fair) this week, the refrain from Chinese business executives is the same: the American market is not as crucial as it used to be.

Instead, Chinese producers of everything from socket wrenches to sport utility vehicles say, their fastest growth these days lies in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South America and elsewhere in Asia — in other words, practically anywhere other than the United States.

So it is throughout China. With ample support from the Beijing government — including a flurry of trade missions to Africa and assistance with trade fairs in Germany, Australia or someplace in between — Chinese companies are poised to expand into the markets of many of the world’s rapidly growing economies.

By placing the focus on new markets for the abundant amount of Chinese goods (produced in cities like Shenzhen), Chinese businesses are beginning to hedge their profit margins and risk.

The government and companies across China increasingly see a danger in becoming too dependent on a single market (USA). So they are stepping up efforts to sell to other countries, particularly those outside the industrial world.

This change in direction is a small but important step for China. Maybe in the future, they will not need to be so dependent on American politics and their tariffs.

On the other side: what would happen to the US if cheap Chinese goods start decreasing?

Chinese Revenge on New US Trade Barriers?

Last summer was the first time I visited Shenzhen. I came here to visit my cousin, Annie, and her family. On the last few days of my week-long stay, Annie and I decided to go on a excursion through Hong Kong. We woke up early morning Friday and headed over through the Luo Hu customs. We got into HK without any problems and had an awesome day. This included a ferry ride across Victoria harbor, a tram ride onto the peak, drinks at Lan Kwai Fong and dim sum. All in all, it was an awesome, first visit of Hong Kong.

One thing I managed to (ignorantly) overlook was the Visa issue. I had always gotten double or multiple entry tourist visas when I came to China. However, for some reason, this time I had a single entry. In my ignorance, I didn't think twice about crossing the border because “hey, Hong Kong is now apart of China. Why would I need a visa to go from China to China?” Well, this ended up haunting me. When we arrived at the Luo Hu border, I was unable to get back into China. I ended up stuck in no-man’s land (kinda like Tom Hanks in the movie Terminal. With my US Passport, I could go back to Hong Kong but not into China. What made it even worse was that Annie had already crossed onto the China side, and couldn't come back to the HK side because she didn't have another HK entry with her Chinese identification.

Realizing my predicament, I went back to the HK side and located the border visa center. I was told my a lot of Chinese and HK customs officials that Americans were able to obtain temporary visas there. That was OK with me because I had a flight to Shanghai a day later, and a return flight to NYC 3 days after that. When I got to the visa company, however, I was told I couldn't obtain the visa I so desperately needed. They had just changed the rules a few months back for Americans: Only select travel agencies in Hong Kong could apply for the Chinese visa for Americans. They also took more than half a day to obtain (the quickest way). And since it was a Friday night, I would have to wait until Monday until I could get mine.

Fortunately, I was able to contact friends and family in HK to help me find a hotel for the weekend. However, I wasn't able to avoid paying penalties on my flights back to the US or the hassle to my extended family. It was definitely the longest weekend ever.

Finally on Monday, we were able to get my visa. While waiting for it at the China Travel Service, we asked the branch manager (who we knew) about the current laws for Chinese visas for Americans. The manager explained the laws had only changed in the past couple of years. Americans were treated like citizens of every other country for the longest time. They could obtain visas quickly and freely. They only changed after Americans changed their laws. It seems that the attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent acts of legislation (ie. Patriot Acts), including immigration ones made it incredibly hard for Chinese citizens to travel to the US. All visas were difficult to obtain, with drawn out processes and paperwork.

This was China’s way of responding. “We’re going to make it more difficult for your citizens to do what they want in our country as well.”

I recently applied for a 1 year business visa through my company. I only got a 6-month visa because the regulation for this only changed a few weeks ago. I guess China’s just trying to fuck with US citizens as much as possible…as retribution, or even revenge for American acts.

Last week, I read a NY Times entitled U.S. Toughens its Position on China Trade, regarding the recent US action of taking China to court in the WTO. It seems that the US Congress is not happy with the growing trade deficit with China. This means democrats in Congress are going to take action. However, no one will know what’s going to happen next…and the Chinese response:

What China will do next is an open question in the administration. The answer may not be clear until Mr. Paulson’s economic meeting with the Chinese in May.

But many Chinese experts warn that the latest steps by the administration will not help persuade China to change its reliance on a low-valued currency and other restrictions on imports and investment. The power and influence of Communist Party leaders tied to the export sector is too great, they say.

“If the U.S. takes more actions against China, it will harm Paulson’s dialogue with China and future trade meetings,” said Chen Jianan, a professor of economics at Fudan University in Shanghai. But he said the most recent actions could compel both sides to negotiate.

In my understanding of China, there is great possibility that China will retaliate in some stealth way just to screw with the Americans. I would argue that there will not be incredibly large action since there’s too much at risk, but there will be small ones. Just look at what China did to Wal-Mart and unions. Wal-Mart agreed to establish unions in China (that it doesn't have anywhere in the world) since the traditional Chinese union is powerless in collective bargaining. Then after this is established, China changes the law regarding the power of unions, totally screwing over Wal-Mart.

That’s the Chinese way.

Ultimately, we’ll see what happens. The NY Times already has a prediction:

All sides agree that the latest American actions portend a period of rough weather in United States-Chinese relations.

Blogspot is back up! Is the Chinese gov't just Fucking with us.

Just a couple of days ago, I discovered that blogspot was not blocked anymore by the Chinese government (Xanga is still blocked). This means I can read more and write more without having to play around with the various proxies people have suggested.

This latest 2-week shutdown has been talked about everyone in the China blogging world. It has annoyed the hell out of not only people writing blogs in China (just ask the 1-year English teachers anywhere) but also the people reading blogs in China.

Why is this happening? Why did the Chinese government shut down blogspot for 2 weeks and then turn it back on? What the hell? As a good friend of mine said: The Chinese government is really pissing me off! I feel like that’s the sentiment of a lot of people.

Many people in the western media would answer these questions by talking about the crackdown of Chinese officials on blogging in general. Although China is seen to be a increasingly open society, the government still wants to keep control, and this is one way to do it. “Just look at how they are hampering the right to Freedom of Speech!!”

This argument would explain why some individual blogs or individual messages are filtered through the system. However, it wouldn't explain why they turn it off and on, back and forth.

Here are some of the other reasons I can think of (I’m assuming that there is a governmental office that is in charge of this):

• There is a constant change of leadership in the office. Since its not too great of a job to head this department, leaders are filtered in and out. It’s almost like Easy Company in the 7^th episode of Band of Brothers. After a few weeks to a few months, the new head of the department is done paying his due, and gets reassigned to somewhere else.
• There is a constant change of policy. I’m sure that people in this department have seen the interesting and valuable facets of blogging and the internet. I’m sure that many of them read specific blogs all the time, just as I read the Shanghaiist, Danwei and China Law Blog. This means there could be constant discourse and disagreement on white sites to block and which sites not to block. “Are we going to restrict access to the entire blogspot or will we target the specific ones we don't like?”
• This department realizes that their efforts are wasted due to proxies. Since there are ananomouse and scoobidoo out there, it is much more difficult for the department to have complete success blocking all of the sites. Although I have noticed that sometimes the proxies don't work, there are so many of them that any dedicated blogger will be able to access what he/she wants. The department knows that and doesn't want to bother anymore.
• They are just fucking with us. They have the power to control a lot of people’s enjoyment, entertainment and emotions by flipping on and off a switch. How fun would it to be just to fuck with people every once in a while when they’re bored. I think this is the best explination.

As a kid growing up in China (I was born here and moved to the US when I was 6), one of my favorite activities during the spring through fall, was to try and capture dragon-flies. My friends and I would buy or construct a big net and sweep through the grassy park, trying to catch as many as possible. After the thrill of catching them was over, we would fuck with them until they were dead. In the past 20 years, I wouldn't be surprised if the dragonfly in China was extinct.

When my grandfather was a little kid, he did something that was similar to my chasing of dragonflies. When he lived with my family in Columbus, Ohio, he revealed that he loved to go out at night and try to catch as many of those backyard flies (that look like a bee, but lights up instead of having the stinger) as he could. He would then put them in a jar and have them serve as a light. Since there were a lot of them flying around at night in Ohio, my grandfather and I had a great time catching them. The only thing is, they would die within a day. I have honestly never seen one of those flies in China. They probably got killed by all of the kids.

Here's the USA equivalent:

Ant City

Chinese people are sometimes very cruel. We like to fuck with insects, animals and other people without regard for anything. Just take the example of the bus driver who wouldn't let me off the bus in a traffic jam until I annoyed him to death, complaining. When Chinese people have authority, we like to use it…with disregard for others’ welfare. This nature is within the majority of the Chinese population, and I bet, within the department for internet censure as well.

Just wait for the next time blogspot is inaccessible. It will be caused by another bus-driver who doesn't want to open the door.

Senate Democrats take aim at China

In my January 19^th post on the Weaponizing of Space, I wrote briefly about what democrats would do with regard to China and the weaponizing of space. From my knowledge, no resolutions were passed denouncing the action by congress. However, that doesn't mean China is off of their radar. Here’s what I wrote on 1/19/07.

The democrats are pissed! I worked for Sherrod Brown in the 2004 election campaign in northeast Ohio to support John Kerry. Even though I know him personally and can say with all certainty that he is a great, honorable and capable American, the freshman Senator from Ohio is going to have a field day with this with support of the protectionist, pro-labor side of the Democratic Party. The democrats need to look strong to their constituents on national defense and this is the perfect forum for that. I wonder what bills or resolutions will be passed on this issue.

Only 3 days ago, I read an interesting Opinion piece from USNews.com discussing possible legislation that will be introduced into the Senate by Sherrod Brown and fellow democrats that will change the status quo. The protectionists are definitely out in force.

Here is an excerpt of the article:

Also this week, Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, along with Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said they were introducing legislation that would strip China of its permanent normal trade status with the United States, subjecting the trade relationship to an annual review by Congress. Brown said in a statement:

U.S. trade policy has failed workers and small businesses across our country. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing normal about allowing our trading partners to use slave labor to compete with our workers. There is nothing normal about manipulating currency to make exports cheaper. There is nothing normal about mouthing concern for intellectual property in the midst of rampant piracy. And if this is indeed normal, then I certainly don't want it to be permanent.

Who knows what will come of this. The last time something like this happened was in 2005 when NY Senator Chuck Schumer tried to introduce a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports. That was pushed aside due to talks between Sen. Schumer, and the current Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson. Hopefully someone will have the same influence this time.

In a Chinese perspective, it seems that these senators are kind of ignorant. They are looking past the other obvious problems with the US economy that includes spending billions and billions on the war in Iraq while simultaneously giving the richest in the US a tax break, deficit spending, and de-taxing and de-regulation of corporations which have been profiting handsomely from these policies. Instead, they point to one thing. The increasing trade deficit with China and the need for a quicker appreciation of the yuan. Here’s what the USNews.com article predicted (as a lot of economists says) what would happen if China followed through.

In the 1980s, just as with China today, many in the United States were pushing Japan to strengthen its currency. How did that work out for Japan? As Will Hutton, China expert and author of the book The Writing on the Wall: Why We Must Embrace China as a Partner or Face It as an Enemy, told me in an interview late last year:

The more than 50 percent rise in the yen in the late 1980s was the single most important cause of Japan's near 15 years of economic stagnation that followed; if the yuan went up by 40 percent suddenly against the dollar, it would have a similarly devastating impact on China. . . . Such a rapid appreciation of the yuan over a short period could be a tipping point for a wave of unrest, which could threaten the regime's stability. The party leadership sees the demand for fast yuan appreciation as an act of economic warfare. In these terms, you can see why.

And would troubles in China affect America? Here is the scenario that Hutton sees:

China's stagnation would trigger a global slowdown, maybe even recession. ... The World Bank estimates that if China's growth rate fell by just 2 percent, up to 60 percent of China's bank loans would become nonperforming–so threatening both China's and, via Hong Kong, Asia's financial system. The flow of saving to finance the U.S.'s deficit would dry up, probably forcing U.S. interest rates up–so worsening the economic slowdown.

A scary scenario, no doubt–and one both Democrats and Republicans should do their best to avoid.

I would agree.

Weaponizing Space

So it begins… (finally)

The weaponizing of space has officially started.

As reported by CNN:

“A Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.”

The satellite was complete destroyed into “hundreds of pieces of debris” was in low earth orbit.

“Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability.”

This development is very interesting in many different ways.

I have long said that weaponizing space will be the next great race. It is not only inevitable given that land, sea, and air are already weaponized, but it also is needed for future technological advancement, very similar to the atomic bomb and the iron clad. If the movie “Independence Day” actually happened, we should have stuff up there to shoot those bastards down.

• American unilateralism backfires again: By changing its space policy by claming “a right to ‘freedom of action in space’ and says it will ‘deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so’” the US has given China the unbelievable open door into legitimizing its space weapons development. I guess its just another thing that has come back and bite the Bush Administration in its ass at the expense of the American people.
• In the midst of the expanding global economic market in which China, Europe and the US are enjoying, there is still much tension and distrust in military matters and issues of national defense (offence). No matter how the economies are becoming more integrated and interdependent, nothing matters when national interest is at stake.
• China has sent a message…and has showed their big balls while doing so. While spending less than 1/20 of the US defense budget, with this 1 successful attack on a satellite, China has successfully struck worry and even maybe fear in the heart of the US Defense community. China doesn't need comparable satellites that cost billions of dollars… it just needs missiles that can shoot down the billion dollar satellites that are only millions of dollars. Cost savings at its best…not to mention it’s making the front page of many of the world’s papers.
• The democrats are pissed! I worked for Sherrold Brown in the 2004 election campaign in northeast Ohio to support John Kerry. Even though I know him personally and can say with all certainty that he is a great, honorable and capable American, the freshman Senator from Ohio is going to have a field day with this with support of the protectionist, pro-labor side of the Democratic Party. The democrats need to look strong to their constituents on national defense and this is the perfect forum for that. I wonder what bills or resolutions will be passed on this issue.
  

I can’t wait to see how this situation develops. There are a lot of things that could happen and change. However, my prediction is that other than lots of political posturing and media hype, as well as specials on the Chinese military capabilities on CNN, the economic relations for trade and investment will stay the same. Everything is too integrated to be hampered by a little missile. Just look at how the war between Hamas and Israel, earlier this year, affected the stock market. After the initial decline, the Dow went on steroids and reached an all time high. No missile is going to stop that.