Posts tagged china
Changes some people don’t want to see in Tibet
May 1st
So. Maybe I was just feeling lazy today but I have decided to re-post an article written by someone else. While I was doing some research to finish up my next installment on my point of view on China and its growing impact on America I came across a very well written article in the China Daily showcasing a Chinese point of view on Tibet. I haven’t edited anything. This I exactly as it ran in the newspaper in 2009. Enjoy. It’s interesting to read another’s point of view. Particularly someone who is in the region and understands the dynamics. Plus. He uses American research data.
Changes some people don’t want to see in Tibet
By He Rulong (China Daily 2009)
This is an era of change. Barack Obama launched a successful election campaign with change as its centerpiece to become the first black president of the US. The world is changing. People are changing, and so are countries across the globe.
China, too, is changing. But some Western politicians and media refuse to change their outlook. They still want to believe China is an oppressive and negative power, especially when it comes to the Tibet autonomous region.
Does that mean China should change its administrative method in Tibet? Or is it time for the Western politicians and media to change their way of thinking on Tibet?
Fifty years ago, the Tibet autonomous region rid itself of the shackles of serfdom and theocracy. Almost 95 percent of Tibet’s population was freed from the bondage of their feudal masters. The former serfs emerged from the shadows of local administrative officials, aristocrats and high-ranking lamas in monasteries to begin a life of equality and enlightenment. They began enjoying education, free movement and jobs. And their average life expectancy increased from 35.5 years in 1959 to 67 years at present.
On the economic front, Tibet’s GDP increased 65 times, with the annual growth rate being higher than the national average since 1994. The economic boom attracted huge investments in infrastructure, massive rise in farmers’ and herdsmen’s earnings, higher disposable incomes for urban dwellers, decent housing and a preliminary social safety net both in cities and rural areas. It was impossible to even dream of such achievements in what the West loves to call “the good old days”.
But these facts mean nothing to some Western countries and people. Instead, alleging that Tibet’s culture is under threat is still their favorite pastime. What they love to ignore is that China’s central government has been doing everything possible to preserve the Tibetan way of life.
According to the 2009 White Paper on the Situation in Tibet, Tibetan is the most important language in the region. Traditional Tibetan festivals such as the Tibetan New Year, Sour Milk Drinking Festival, Butter Lamp Festival, Bathing Festival, Ongkor (Bumper Harvest) Festival and the Damar Festival are still celebrated in the time-honored fashion. Heritage structures such as the Potala Palace, Jokhang Monastery and other monasteries and temples have been turned into preservation centers. Tibetan folk literature, drama and music are still being collected and collated. But these are not enough to make the West change its stance.
Another Western obsession is the so-called influx of non-Tibetans, especially ethnic Han people, into the region. Some Westerners even allege that the central government is encouraging non-Tibetans to settle in the region to turn the Tibetans into a minority. But facts speak otherwise.
First, the Tibetan population has seen a rapid growth in the past 50 years, and according to national census figures ethnic Tibetans account for more than 95 percent of the region’s population. The region’s birth rate has been above the national average since 1970 because of a lenient family planning policy. Eighty percent of Tibetan farmers and herdsmen are free to have as many children as they want. Only urban Tibetans have to follow a two-child family planning policy.
Second, some non-Tibetans have moved to the region because of its fast growth. Tibet offers huge opportunities to people to fulfill their economic dreams. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, described this as the pull factor of the economy. Despite all this, only a handful of non-Tibetans have moved to the region because of the harsh climate and low oxygen level.
Third, inter-racial integration has always been a feature of Chinese culture. So if some Western people today see the government’s hand in the assimilation of ethnic groups, tomorrow they could question the real intention of hundreds of thousands of Chinese who have migrated to the Americas, Europe and other parts of the world.
In his Even-handedness and the Politics of Human Rights, Prof Eric Heinze, of the University of London, says human rights can easily become a political football and that perceptions of a manipulated human rights discourse awaken when condemnation for abuses appear to be unfairly “selective”. Tibet is a good example of such selective reporting. The abolition of serfdom, Tibet’s economic success, the extensive rights enjoyed by the people, efforts to preserve Tibetan culture, favorable policies for Tibetans and other government policies implemented in the past 50 years rarely find mention in the Western media. Instead, they are preoccupied with the demand of a handful of Tibetans.
As human beings, we have the right to believe in whatever we want. But if we focus only on a tiny part of a big picture, we risk losing the chance to appreciate the whole truth. People who overlook the ambitions and aspirations of the majority of Tibetans should go through the 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Survey of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, which says China (including Tibet) has the best record of citizens’ satisfaction among the 24 countries surveyed. China’s record is far better than Germany, Britain, France and the US.
As long as the West sees Tibet through blinkers it will never be able to tell the truth from the lies. And China will continue taking steps to boost Tibet’s economy and ensure that Tibetans keep enjoying their rights, whether the West accept the truth and see the positive changes the region has gone through in the past five decades.
The author is a doctoral scholar with the Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, School of Law, China University of Political Science and Law.
(China Daily 04/11/2009)
The United States and China power balance
Mar 19th
This is a follow up to my “next conflict on the horizon.” And let me begin by stating I am not advocating a military buildup (although America does have to maintain a realm of competitiveness).
There is no larger threat to world peace than the growing imbalance between China and the United States.
Nothing. No larger threat. (just want to be sure everyone knows my point of view on this).
In the economic sense it is US, European Union and China (sure. You could throw in a couple of others but let’s call it the Big Three at the moment). In a military sense the EU drops out because they don’t have a combined military (and in fact I tend to believe a couple of the EU countries would love the opportunity to kick the other’s ass if given half a chance). So. It comes down to USA and China. C’mon. Let’s face it. Unless we have global pluralism or a “global country” (which we are not going to have) global peace, or alignment, will be dictated by balance.
And the balance is starting to get out of whack.
Economically it is way out of line:
The US has built up a massive trade deficit with China. The US argues that this is partly because China has kept its currency artificially weak, which makes its products cheaper overseas. I don’t buy the argument (although it could make up some of the deficit). China has a stranglehold on our economy. While some things may be complex this is black & white. Some things are just what they appear to be.
And the trade balance takes on even more perspective when you start factoring in population (which eventually translates into production and/or military capabilities).
POPULATION
China’s huge population gives the country’s economy a vast workforce from which to draw.
Thirty years ago, the “one child policy” was introduced in cities to limit the size of families, and this was reaffirmed recently when the population reached 1.3 billion.
One result of the recent economic boom has been a growing middle class, demanding a higher standard of living based on perceived Western standards.
Analysts predict this is likely to further stretch already limited food, water and other natural resources.
While the population is stretching important resources the good news is that it isn’t stretching geography (because if they were geographically bursting at the seams we would be in a world of hurt). But. 1.3 billion and growing is a really really big number. And envision if they eliminated the ‘one child policy.’ Yikes.
The Troubling Scenario
So. Beijing is building up its military forces. They have a very very large army with a whole bunch of missiles and stuff like that.
And combine that with a growth in popular nationalism (the belief that your country should maybe have more than it currently does … on any level you would like to ponder that).
Military. In recent years China has embarked on a rapid military build-up, acquiring the ability to project its power far beyond its borders. (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and you would do that because … well … gosh … because maybe you want something outside your borders? Nah. Couldn’t be.)
We need to assume one day very soon China will be in a position to challenge the US as the dominant power in Asia.
Now.
China’s leaders say their nation’s rise will be a peaceful one. So. How much do we believe China?
US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently called on China to reassure other nations about its intentions.
“Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s arrival as a prosperous and successful power, China must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of the security and well-being of others,” Mr. Steinberg said.
Well. That sure makes me feel a lot better about the situation if they reassure us (didn’t Hitler say something about not taking anything but what was theirs in the first place?).
Ok.
Now let’s think about military strength and this national populism thing.
One of Mr. Steinberg’s predecessors, Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs under President Bill Clinton, says the combination of China’s growing military and growing popular nationalism presents dangers. “It creates the risk, not a high probability, but a risk, that one day China’s leaders could feel that to look strong in the eyes of their public they have to make a threat to Japan or to Taiwan and that they will feel that they cannot back down from that threat without jeopardizing their own domestic support or even their own survival in power. So I think that is a very dangerous scenario.”
In the world of relative understatements I tend to believe “that is a very dangerous scenario” is about a 15 on the understatement Richter scale.
In addition, what was once a radical fringe in national populism is now shifting slightly more mainstream (and we know how these things work … with a little nudge it becomes very mainstream). If you are looking for an example of what I mean, let me use a couple of quotes from one of the leaders in China’s national populism ‘fringe’:
“I am not just targeting Japan but all those who threaten the interests of the Chinese people,” says Li Nan. “Maybe even the United States and some others, I would see them all as enemies.” And Li Nan offers a view of how a future crisis, such as one over energy supplies, might spur on nationalist sentiment in China. “In the future, energy supplies will become more and more scarce. Today each American consumes 10 times as much energy as each Chinese person. So every nation will have to think about their own survival. At that time, nationalism will be the mainstream.”
Ok. I admit. I had to take a minute and ponder when I read this. It is the kind of vision that should give some in America pause for thought.
Anyway. I will leave you with a last thought from our government:
The US National Intelligence Strategy this year described China as presenting a complex global challenge.
There you go. A complex issue but we are on top of it.
I am feeling good. (slight gasp).
The next big conflict on the horizon (and what it could mean to America)
Mar 4th
Because I read The Economist all the time the continuing conflict between China and the United States rattles around in my head (they keep writing about it in varying degrees of concern to lack of concern).
But I start thinking about it again as we (the US) continue to live up to our agreement with Taiwan with regard to arms support. Our last ‘act of support’ included 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and communications equipment for Taiwan’s F-16 fleet. Oh. But it does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan’s military had been seeking.
All of this kinda pissed off China (who would love add Taiwan to their geographical portfolio despite what they say publicly).
Do I think we will go to war? Nope (I hope).
This little $6.4 billion arms deal for Taiwan will hardly alter the balance of power.
But China has been very clear with regard to wanting the deal stopped. In fact, Beijing publicly warned the US not to go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan.
But. This new growing conflict has some striking similarities to something we have seen in the past.
It does remind me of the good ole USSR – USA cold war (where we teetered on the brink of some significant conflict on occasion). In fact, the similarities are numerous. And just a little scary.
| Country | Population | Army (counting reserves) |
| Old Soviet Union | about 300 million | approx. 3 million |
| China | about 1.3 billion | approx. 3 million |
| USA | about 305 million | approx. 2.5 million |
| Taiwan | about 22 million* | approx. 2.1 million |
*all crammed in 36.1 square km of geography
It may not appear easy to understand why China is apparently prepared to confront the United States at this time on the two issues at hand:
- Arms for Taiwan
- Obama’s plans to meet with exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
Shit. USA has been selling armaments to Taiwan for 61 years since the communists drove Chiang Kai-shek from the mainland onto the island then known as Formosa. And even though lately it seems at least China and Taiwan have “warmed up” enough to talk, China still claims Taiwan as its territory though they have been ruled separately since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist army was defeated by Mao Zedong’s Communist forces. On top of this little issue, the Americans are also trying to find some sort of settlement between the Tibetan exiles and Beijing, which seized control of Tibet in 1950.
So. Here’s the deal. (and let me put the Tibet issue off to the side cause the monks in the Himalayas don’t have a lot of missiles at their disposal). On one side you have China, with the world’s largest regular army and have more than 900 missiles along its southeastern coast aimed at Taiwan. The Taiwanese military with about 300,000 regular army and 1.8 million in reserve is waiting on the island. Ok. Look. I am no expert but that seems like a whole bunch of people with a lot of guns staring at each other. Do I believe anyone is going to be hasty? No.
But. Once the first domino falls it sure is difficult to stop the rest from tumbling.
So. This may be the understatement of the week as I read some articles: “The Taiwan issue is the most important and sensitive one in relations between the two countries <USA/China>,” Dai Bingguo, China’s highest ranking official responsible for foreign relations said.
I am pointing all this out not only because it kinda makes me a little nervous but also because I think the good ole USofA could benefit from the rumblings that are occurring.
Conflict. Or the threat of conflict creates a varying level of responses.
One big response is it gives focus.
When you don’t know your enemy, or maybe better said, there are a variety of objectives to select from, actions and the plans become unfocused (that would appear to be our current situation).
Am I suggesting war is good? Nope.
Am I suggesting we as a country could benefit from rising tension with a country that has more people and a larger army? Yes.
For awhile I believe our country has floundered. Our direction has been unfocused. It’s not that we are doing bad things, but in our scattered attempts to better ourselves the truly effective actions just haven’t been achieved. Sure. Small steps are good.
But this is like talking about capitalism.
The best companies are the ones that recognize and battle their competition. That’s why monopolies often struggle. Without competition it is easy to ignore any sense of urgency and permit yourself (and your organization) to stray from focused improvement.
Countries are the same (aren’t we just a big business organization anyway?). For some time we haven’t had focus. Al Qaeda is so nebulous it is difficult to know where to focus your effort to improve success. When Soviet Union was our focus we – the organization as a whole – prospered. If we ever doubted direction we only had to see the red flag with the hammer and sickle to regain focus. Education. Manufacturing. Aerospace. Medicine. All prospered through innovation and progress. There was increased urgency and focus.
I guess you could argue it is responsive focus rather than proactive focus (which you always hope you generate all by your lonesome). But. If you think of America as a fragmented organization, finding a balance between “responding to perceived threats” and “proactively putting yourself ahead of possible threats” is actually the best action direction. Somewhere in the gap between the two is the focus point.
And the key word in this entire discussion? Threat.
So. If China provides that focal point for America then maybe all this tension is good.
Oh. And last thought. I also believe if we as a country get focused on some of the right things, that will enhance our ability to avoid letting tension evolve into conflict. A focused America is pretty daunting (see Cold War and Soviet Union as a prime example).
