Everyone BEWARE!!! There’s a new type of criminal on the prowl, the AIDS criminal! They brandish syringes while carrying out stickups and threaten to stab police if pursued; at least that’s what a Chinese state-owned weekly paper is warning ( The Economitst ). This is representative of a larger fear of the disease and a lack of education about it as well. While China currently has only approximately 650,000 citizens diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, this number is increasing at an annual rate of 11% ( UNAIDS ). With such rapid transmission, the issue needs to be dealt with head on.
A 2005 study by Horizon Research showed that over two-thirds of those surveyed believed AIDS could be contracted through even indirect contact, like using the same toilet or bath. This type of ignorance is fueling the country’s panic.
In order to calm the situation and fight the spread of the disease, the government must overhaul their entire approach. Currently, the policy, as confirmed by Hao Yang of the Ministry of Health, is to test all prisoners for HIV and segregate the positive testing inmates. A UN report in 2006 however, argued that fear of HIV/AIDS put HIV-positive prisoners at risk for, “increased risk of social isolation, violence, and human-rights abuses from both prisoners and prison staff” ( UNAIDS ). Therefore, this policy is serving only to further isolate HIV-positive people and further engrain false stereotypes. Instead, the government must take a more open approach with education at the forefront.
As prostitution and drug use is rapidly increasing in China, the situation is becoming dire. Immediate action must be taken.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
Political Deprivation Does Not Equal Democracy
I’d like to refer again to “Socialist Democracy,” as Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had used to describe China’s political system. He said, “This must include the right to democratic elections, democratic decision making, democratic administration and democratic supervision” ( New York Times ). I find it striking that every day in the news seems to appear an article reporting on an event that entirely contradicts the existence of such a system in China.
On April 29, an American-based Chinese activist was released after serving five years in a Beijing prison after being charged with illegally entering the country and spying for Taiwan. Dissident Yang Jianli initially fled China to the US, because of his involvement in the 1989 Tiananmen protests. Now he is waiting to see if Beijing will authorize him a passport so he can return to his family in Boston. He is however, waiting in silence. Upon being released from prison Yang is still required to remain a year in China without political rights, including speaking to the press ( Los Angeles Times ).
Being denied your political rights in such a way does in no way seem democratic and I have to argue that China lacks any such “Social Democracy” as Wen describes it.
On April 29, an American-based Chinese activist was released after serving five years in a Beijing prison after being charged with illegally entering the country and spying for Taiwan. Dissident Yang Jianli initially fled China to the US, because of his involvement in the 1989 Tiananmen protests. Now he is waiting to see if Beijing will authorize him a passport so he can return to his family in Boston. He is however, waiting in silence. Upon being released from prison Yang is still required to remain a year in China without political rights, including speaking to the press ( Los Angeles Times ).
Being denied your political rights in such a way does in no way seem democratic and I have to argue that China lacks any such “Social Democracy” as Wen describes it.
Domestic Torch Travel
One nation... two nations... one nation, two systems? This has been the long debate between China and Taiwan. Up until recently however, the topic has been somewhat pushed aside as both governments attempt to work on a more integrated economic level. The 2008 Olympics though, have resurfaced supressed sentiments and the conflict rages again. On April 26, Beijing announced the longest torch relay in Olympic history, lasting 130-days and covering 85,000 miles ( New York Times . This journey includes passing through Taiwan, which is designated as part of the domestic route. Within hours however, Taiwan rejected the plan, stating that the torch would have to enter from and go on to countries other than Mainland China, separating it from the domestic route. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the Olympic committee has established that the torch will enter from Vietnam and leave Taiwan for Hong Kong. Yet, Taiwan still rejects this proposal and has stated that if the Beijing government does not change the torch’s course, Taiwan will boycott the Olympics ( China Post ).
While this situation seems extremely problematic, it is only a glimpse of the difficulties that lay ahead. If the torch does pass through Taiwan, Hau Lung-bin, the mayor of Taipei, says that it will be carried, “past the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Park, which the government wants to rename the Democracy Memorial Park” ( China Post ). With Chiang Kai-shek being the head of Kuomintang party, and having lead the party in the Chinese Civil War against Mao Zedong and then fleeing to Taiwan and refusing to relinquish the island to communist forces, resulting in the situation of today, I’m sure the Beijing government will be thrilled. Events like this are bound to be numerous and how they will unfold will be an interesting process, which I am excited to witnes..
Friday, April 27, 2007
Myspace China
"Create a private community on MySpace and you can share photos, journals and interests with your growing network of mutual friends! Some people have 1,000s of people in their extended network!" ( Link ). This is how Myspace describes their service; doesn't it seem like something the Chinese would be aching to take part in? Especially with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao recently stating, "We must ensure the people are entitled to the right of democratic election, decision-making, management and oversight." ( Link ) This is an excellent means to ensure the dissemination of political thoughts and promote such democratic ideals. HA! Yeah right.
While Myspace has launched a text version of its new China service, it will be a Chinese-owned company with only backing from MySpace Inc. The company has decided to follow its predecessors like Yahoo, Ebay and Google, to ensure a smooth entrance into the Chinese market, without running into political obstacles and "heavy weather." ( Link )
This Chinese oversight will guarantee censorship, with strong legal repercussions if "subversive" material is propogated. "Subversive," however has been defined as any activity which “endangers state security” (Amnesty), and has resulted in the arrest of at least 260,000 individuals and their being held in ideological “reeducation” camps for indefinite periods of time (U.S. State Department . Hmmm, ideological reeducation camps, sounds very democratic.
If the West is ever to influence China's democratization, providing the state with more censorship opportunities is not the way to do it. US companies are instead ensuring the enduring repression of the Chinese people.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Selfish Environmental Policy
Following China's "indefinite" postponment of a climate change action plan on Monday, the international community has made bold criticisms. However, China is proving inflexible in its environmental decisions and refuses to seriously acknowledge it contribution to global warming, instead blaming it on the west. They cite statistics demonstrating their contribution of less than 8 per cent of the total emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use since 1850, while America is responsible for 29 per cent and Western Europe for 27 per cent. They also argue that while China will soon overtake the US as the top emitter of CO2 (this year according to the International Energy Agency), its comparative emissions for the average person are far below those of wealthy countries. UN figures show that the average US citizen is responsible for at least 20 metric tonnes of CO2 pollution each year, compared with China's 3.2 tonnes and the world average of 3.7. Beijing has also made the point that much of the growth in China's emissions is to produce goods exported to the West Link .
This defiant postion however, is irresponsible and reflects poorly on a nation that is struggling to create an improved international image. If China is to become the regional leader of Asia and a dominant international actor, they must revise their environmental policy, setting a better example for following nations.
China vs. India
Since India and China's economies exploded, an intense power struggle has ensued in the region. The two countries vie for political influence with surrounding countries, as well as in international treaties, conferences and negotiations. Here's an interesting video posted on The New York Times website by Nicholas D. Kristof http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=111c852f7c4c8dfef62dca3a791df9a4aa9ba49d, which thoroughly explains the competition.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Really Now?
Just after I made my last post, China went ahead and "indefinitely" postponed their climate change plan. Oh how typical, and yet still so frustrating. Richard McGregor just reported in the Financial Times that although, "China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, it remains opposed to accepting mandatory cuts in emissions, which it regards as interfering with the country’s right to develop." Just when does their right to develop impose on others' right to live? Doesn't it seem that they've already reached that level? China's development mandate is reaching its end and they need to be made aware of this.
Earth to China
China’s developing, so deal with it. To the 13 million people in China without enough drinking water this spring, deal with it. To the 400,000 people prematurely dying from respiratory diseases due to air pollution in China each year, deal with it. To the tens of thousands of environmental migrants on the move because of a Chinese desert advancing at 1.900 square miles per year, deal with it. This is the response the Chinese government has given to increasing environmental concern from its citizens and the world at large.
Although officials in Beijing recognize the disastrous effects they are having on climate change, and the ramifications of such changes, they have chosen to ignore them, at least for the present. As Qin Dahe a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said, "Development is the first urgent task. It's a firm principle and, moreover, we need good and fast development. Only then will we be able to step by step solve the problem" of climate change. This outlook however, is proving catastrophic and cannot continue.
As Elizabeth Economy reports in her article, “China vs. Earth” in The Nation, A recent study on climate change “predicts up to a 37 percent decline in China's wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century. Precipitation may decline by as much as 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions: the Huai, Liao and Hai. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers, which support the richest agricultural regions of the country and derive much of their water from Tibetan glaciers, will initially experience floods and then drought as the glaciers melt” (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/economy). With suggested outcomes like these, China cannot afford to sacrifice long term sustainability over short term growth. Instead, they must find development options that go hand in hand with creating a greener nation. This will prove profitable in the short term, especially with the growing international interest in foreign investment for green projects, and will ensure a sustainable future.
Forced Abortions in Rural China
"Keep the birth rate low to enhance the quality of the population," advocates a Billboard in rural China.
A report by NPR describes women being forced to have abortions by local government officials (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870#email). Although this is not necessarily a widespread and common practice, it demonstrates the frustrating bureaucratic situation in China. Top officials in Beijing constantly create new laws to "better" the population.
Keeping the birth rate low does in many ways have benefits to society (although it will soon result in a disastrous situation where the older generation can't be supported by their single child and the government's absent social security program can’t provide for them either), however these officials do not offer guidance to local officials on how to implement the laws. Instead, they only demand statistical data demonstrating a decrease in the birth rate. When such a reduction does not naturally occur, local officials become exasperated and turn to desperate measures to produce such data, like forced abortions. The problem here lies not with ethics, but with bureaucracy and the only solution is a drastic overhaul of the Chinese bureaucratic system.
Globalization
In this era of globalization, many people argue that the world is uniting under one global culture. Technology has made the spread of ideas and information instantaneous and there is therefore, no longer room for individual cultures. This argument however, ignores a critical aspect to culture and its development. Culture comes from history, which each state has experienced differently. The past has built traditions and ingrained beliefs into the people, so no matter how intertwined the world becomes through globalization, it’s differing pasts will continue to cause cultural divergences. Sino-US relations demonstrate this through the deep economic integration that has occurred in conjunction with continued cultural conflicts concerning human rights, the environment and leadership style.
Cultural differences between China and the United States are best exemplified by the student demonstrations of 1989, in Tiananmen Square. The government’s severe repression of the demonstrators shows a difference in leadership style. In the United States, such an act of despotism would be impossible due to the established legal and political system. In China however, the act was simple to carry out, requiring only one order from Deng Xiaoping, because of the communist dictatorship that prevailed.
China’s explanation for the use of force during the incident also demonstrates a cultural difference, that of the individual versus the community. In China the collective stands above all and any act upon the individual that serves the greater community is permissible. Therefore, the government declared that their actions against the individual students had been to preserve the stability of greater China and was therefore acceptable. In the United States on the other hand, the individual stands above all else, with individual rights at the forefront of all policies. Hence, any political act that could be seen as repression of the individual and a breach of their fundamental freedoms is considered intolerable.
The events following Tiananmen however, show that although these primary cultural differences exist, globalization prevents them from resulting in any serious clash. Some immediate economic consequences were implemented against China as a reprimand for the lack of humanitarian consciousness, yet China experienced no long-term effects. Initially the United States under Bill Clinton attempted to link human rights to China gaining Most Favored Nation Status, but it quickly became apparent that such a connection was impossible to enforce. The two economies are far too entangled and any such relationship would distress the United State’s economy just as much as it would the Chinese.
Therefore, in order for each country to protect its own national interest, it must work to maintain normal relations with the other. Although cultural differences do exist, the state’s national-interest is first and foremost and hence economic stability and a stable Sino-US relationship is essential and will continue to be so in the future.
Cultural differences between China and the United States are best exemplified by the student demonstrations of 1989, in Tiananmen Square. The government’s severe repression of the demonstrators shows a difference in leadership style. In the United States, such an act of despotism would be impossible due to the established legal and political system. In China however, the act was simple to carry out, requiring only one order from Deng Xiaoping, because of the communist dictatorship that prevailed.
China’s explanation for the use of force during the incident also demonstrates a cultural difference, that of the individual versus the community. In China the collective stands above all and any act upon the individual that serves the greater community is permissible. Therefore, the government declared that their actions against the individual students had been to preserve the stability of greater China and was therefore acceptable. In the United States on the other hand, the individual stands above all else, with individual rights at the forefront of all policies. Hence, any political act that could be seen as repression of the individual and a breach of their fundamental freedoms is considered intolerable.
The events following Tiananmen however, show that although these primary cultural differences exist, globalization prevents them from resulting in any serious clash. Some immediate economic consequences were implemented against China as a reprimand for the lack of humanitarian consciousness, yet China experienced no long-term effects. Initially the United States under Bill Clinton attempted to link human rights to China gaining Most Favored Nation Status, but it quickly became apparent that such a connection was impossible to enforce. The two economies are far too entangled and any such relationship would distress the United State’s economy just as much as it would the Chinese.
Therefore, in order for each country to protect its own national interest, it must work to maintain normal relations with the other. Although cultural differences do exist, the state’s national-interest is first and foremost and hence economic stability and a stable Sino-US relationship is essential and will continue to be so in the future.
高考文章
在中国每个学生得考一个大的考试。如果学生考的好，就去很好的大学校。但是考不好，就不能去大学校。我觉得这个系统不公平。如果你是一个很好的学生（每天你去上课，做作业，回答老师的问题，和学习很好），就该去很好的大学校。但是中国的系统不准许。那个系统准考的好的学生去大学。我觉得这个系统得更。
我觉得美国的系统比中国的系统好。在美国大学效看你全的 历表。他们看到学生的班级，领导权，运动的成绩，和考试的成绩。因为看很多的方面，就可以看如果学生是一个成套的人。在中国道学效不能看如果学生是好的人；只看学生考的好。考的好不显示是否好的学生，因为他们不知道是否学生是勤奋，好的领导人，还是好的演说者。中国考试的系统得显示是否学生能考的好。 这个系统也不是公到，因为如果学生有一个冲突（他们病了，有一个车祸，还是别的问题），就不能之后考。在美国每月一度有一个考试，所以如果有一个冲突，就下个月你可能考。我决的这个系统比较好，因为一直是冲突。
尽管我不喜欢中国考试的系统，我可以了解为什么中国用这个系统。中国的人口太大了，所以每个人不能去大学校（中国没有很多的大学校）。他们的用一个系统那排斥很多的人。于是我觉得中国考试的系统不公平，但是我了解别的系统不是适当，因为中国的人口太大了
我觉得美国的系统比中国的系统好。在美国大学效看你全的 历表。他们看到学生的班级，领导权，运动的成绩，和考试的成绩。因为看很多的方面，就可以看如果学生是一个成套的人。在中国道学效不能看如果学生是好的人；只看学生考的好。考的好不显示是否好的学生，因为他们不知道是否学生是勤奋，好的领导人，还是好的演说者。中国考试的系统得显示是否学生能考的好。 这个系统也不是公到，因为如果学生有一个冲突（他们病了，有一个车祸，还是别的问题），就不能之后考。在美国每月一度有一个考试，所以如果有一个冲突，就下个月你可能考。我决的这个系统比较好，因为一直是冲突。
尽管我不喜欢中国考试的系统，我可以了解为什么中国用这个系统。中国的人口太大了，所以每个人不能去大学校（中国没有很多的大学校）。他们的用一个系统那排斥很多的人。于是我觉得中国考试的系统不公平，但是我了解别的系统不是适当，因为中国的人口太大了
"Socialist Democracy"
One-party rule, it just rings of democracy. Well, at least according to China’s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao it does. In a speech to reporters, Mr. Wen said, “Socialist democracy in its most fundamental form is to let the people be the masters of their own home. This must include the right to democratic elections, democratic decision making, democratic administration and democratic supervision” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/asia/17china.html) Do any of the elements of that last sentence bring images of China to mind? No, because they don’t effectively exist in the country. Chinese leaders however, will ceaselessly vow that they have achieved a “socialist democracy,” which ensures such rights and freedoms as listed above to its citizens. Political dissenters disappearing, protesters being shot at and mass media censorship sure don’t sound like the definition of freedom though.
The effect of giving such an answer to reporters asking if China will democratize, is to make it a mute issue and is therefore very practical to Chinese leaders. So long as the West continues to pour money into China with the conviction that China will democratize, the Chinese will continue to convince us that is the path they are headed down, no matter how illogical that assertion actually is.
The effect of giving such an answer to reporters asking if China will democratize, is to make it a mute issue and is therefore very practical to Chinese leaders. So long as the West continues to pour money into China with the conviction that China will democratize, the Chinese will continue to convince us that is the path they are headed down, no matter how illogical that assertion actually is.
Earth Day Here We Come
Ooohh goody, it’s time to break out the shredded jeans, tie-dye t-shirts and Birkenstocks, because it’s Earth day baby! Get ready to plant a tree and wave the peace sign! Oh but don’t fret, come Saturday you can put your velour jumpsuit back on, hop in your SUV and feel free to toss your McDonald’s to-go bag out onto the side of the highway. That is of course, so long as you know that in a couple years you’ll have acid rain pouring down, hurricanes blowing the South to smithereens and high levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) inside you leading to feminization, low sperm count and hermaphroditism. As long as you’re ok with that future though, on Friday go ahead and enjoy the sense of nobleness planting a tree might bestow upon you for a day.
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to join you. Instead of having the light heart that will be floating inside your chest, mine will be heavy and distressed with the knowledge of what the future may look like as another Earth day comes and goes and no significant steps have been made in reducing our destructive impact on the environment. Studies have shown that humans’ effects on the environment are expected to exacerbate present drought risks, destroy coral reefs, degrade freshwater supplies, increase soil erosion, lead to further deforestation, and warm the Earth’s temperatures enough to significantly melt the snow and ice we are vitally dependent upon. Yet you are satisfied with your one tree planting for the year. That is impermissible.
Ignorance will not lead to solutions. Instead, a revolution throughout society must occur in order to ensure the continuation of life. At the individual, community and government levels drastic changes must be made, which will not be apparent on only a single day a year, but will be ingrained in society.
For the individual, even small commitments can lead to large improvements in environmental quality. According to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, for every gallon of gasoline saved, 20 lbs of CO2 are kept out of the atmosphere. If every household in the US replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, 90 million pounds of global warming pollution would be saved over the lifetime of the bulbs. Additionally if a person recycled only half of their newsprint, glass, plastic, metal, and cardboard, 2,400 lbs of CO2 would be saved in a year. These small changes are easily implemented and have vitally affects the environment.
At the community level, public transportation must become more accessible, public buildings should be required to use renewable energy and recycling programs must be implemented and promoted. It is at this level that the greatest changes in the public’s lifestyle can be influenced.
At the national level, the elected administration must take a more active and stringent approach. Between 2002 and 2012 the Bush administration expects greenhouse-gas emissions to increase by 11 percent. This will be a 0.6 percent decrease from the previous decade and therefore laudable by the Bush administration, which has committed to lessening “greenhouse gas intensity” (US Climate Action Report). Such a petty goal as 0.6 percent however, is hardly worth applause.
Carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years, therefore the incremental reduction of emissions that the Bush administration is advocating, “will not stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels,” as climate researcher Wallace Broecker of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory argues. “They only slow the increase.” This policy is similar to other policies of the administration and a general focus by the public on the present, ignoring the future.
Disregarding the impending effects of today’s actions however, neglects the duty we hold to future generations. Think of the feeling you have when you plant your tree on Earth day, your children and grandchildren should be able to enjoy that same experience. To ensure them that joy, steps must immediately be taken to secure the stability of the planet. I therefore ask you, on this Earth day, don’t just plant your tree and move on, but invoke a change in your lifestyle, promote a larger scale environmental consciousness in your community, and encourage policy makers to ensure a stable future through legal means. Security is dependent on change.
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to join you. Instead of having the light heart that will be floating inside your chest, mine will be heavy and distressed with the knowledge of what the future may look like as another Earth day comes and goes and no significant steps have been made in reducing our destructive impact on the environment. Studies have shown that humans’ effects on the environment are expected to exacerbate present drought risks, destroy coral reefs, degrade freshwater supplies, increase soil erosion, lead to further deforestation, and warm the Earth’s temperatures enough to significantly melt the snow and ice we are vitally dependent upon. Yet you are satisfied with your one tree planting for the year. That is impermissible.
Ignorance will not lead to solutions. Instead, a revolution throughout society must occur in order to ensure the continuation of life. At the individual, community and government levels drastic changes must be made, which will not be apparent on only a single day a year, but will be ingrained in society.
For the individual, even small commitments can lead to large improvements in environmental quality. According to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, for every gallon of gasoline saved, 20 lbs of CO2 are kept out of the atmosphere. If every household in the US replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, 90 million pounds of global warming pollution would be saved over the lifetime of the bulbs. Additionally if a person recycled only half of their newsprint, glass, plastic, metal, and cardboard, 2,400 lbs of CO2 would be saved in a year. These small changes are easily implemented and have vitally affects the environment.
At the community level, public transportation must become more accessible, public buildings should be required to use renewable energy and recycling programs must be implemented and promoted. It is at this level that the greatest changes in the public’s lifestyle can be influenced.
At the national level, the elected administration must take a more active and stringent approach. Between 2002 and 2012 the Bush administration expects greenhouse-gas emissions to increase by 11 percent. This will be a 0.6 percent decrease from the previous decade and therefore laudable by the Bush administration, which has committed to lessening “greenhouse gas intensity” (US Climate Action Report). Such a petty goal as 0.6 percent however, is hardly worth applause.
Carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years, therefore the incremental reduction of emissions that the Bush administration is advocating, “will not stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels,” as climate researcher Wallace Broecker of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory argues. “They only slow the increase.” This policy is similar to other policies of the administration and a general focus by the public on the present, ignoring the future.
Disregarding the impending effects of today’s actions however, neglects the duty we hold to future generations. Think of the feeling you have when you plant your tree on Earth day, your children and grandchildren should be able to enjoy that same experience. To ensure them that joy, steps must immediately be taken to secure the stability of the planet. I therefore ask you, on this Earth day, don’t just plant your tree and move on, but invoke a change in your lifestyle, promote a larger scale environmental consciousness in your community, and encourage policy makers to ensure a stable future through legal means. Security is dependent on change.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Excited Companies versus Hesitant Governments
Watch this report on MSNBC.com by Brian Williams http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=e9cf567d-20fb-44e3-a64c-403235bd1af3&p=Source_Nightly%20News&t=c24&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/&fg= . This demonstrates eager US companies like KFC, WalMart and Starbucks to get into the Chinese market, because they understand that the sheer number of consumers will undoubtedly result in unimaginably large profits. It also shows a quick clip of a representatative from the American Chamber of Commerce discussing the difficulties encountered when working with the Chinese Communist Party. However, the report overall demonstrates that multinational corporations will successfully enter the market anyways. An interesting aspect of this report is that it shows how western culture is infiltrating China. A Starbucks representative admits that China is a tea drinking nation, yet they will change that. This is exemplary of the negative affects globalization has on culture.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Modernization=Repression
China has long been cloaked in a veil of mysticism, perceived as a distant land full of enchantment. With its’ opening in the early 1970s westerners jumped at the chance to explore this long forbidden territory. China’s political and cultural characteristics captivated Americans, but while enthralled, the Cold War perceptions engrained in society made acceptance of the country’s situation impossible. Therefore, since the beginning of rapprochement, the U.S. has envisioned the democratization of China, which would make the relationship more ideologically sensible. This unrealistic dream has come to haunt Sino-US relations, as it has become so embedded in Americans perspective of China, it no longer seems only a fantasy, but instead a definite future. This misperception continues to grow as China modernizes and increasingly incorporates western aspects into Chinese society. However, China’s future democratization is a delusion. China manipulates western technology as well as American’s misperceptions in order to further their authoritarian regime .
Before rapprochement even began, Nixon told Time magazine in October 1970, "If there is anything I want to do before I die, it is to go to China" (“Richard M. Nixon”). This allurement immediately gave China the upper hand, for as soon as negotiations began, all discussions took place in Beijing. Kissinger was similarly awed by the region and especially by its leaders. After meeting Mao Tse-Tung in a meeting that lasted only one hour, he said Mao, “dominated the room by exuding in almost tangible form the overwhelming drive to prevail” (“Mao Tse-Tung”). Both Nixon and Kissinger’s allurement was immediately recognized by the Chinese, who chose to manipulate these sentiments in negotiations in order to gain nearly all their objectives, while the U.S. just nodded away, content enough to have merely been permitted into the country.
The results of these meetings are most apparent in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, which announced the opening of China and the two countries goal of normalizing relations. Entering these negotiations the U.S. still supported Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan, as well as their seat in the United Nation’s as representative of the whole of China. The final communiqué however stated that,
“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China... It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan” (U.S. Department of State).
This change in position demonstrates the U.S.’s willingness to abandon support of Taiwan and permit its absorption into Mainland China. This was further exemplified by the mainland’s takeover of the UN seat. Although Nixon resigned and it took until 1979 to fully normalize relations, throughout the entire process these same policy approaches were followed.
Throughout the normalization of relations, it became a common belief in the United States that a natural outcome of China’s opening would be its democratization. This conviction however, had no substantial factual basis, and instead was only an ideological dream. This misperception is similar to the stereotypical view Nixon and Kissinger first held in engaging with China, in that it seriously affected relations between the two countries. The climax of this notion came during the late 1980’s Chinese democracy movement and the June 4 Tiananmen massacre. A small and localized student population demanded democracy and staged a sit-in protest in Beijing’s city center. U.S. officials immediately jumped to the conclusion that this would be the fall of the communist government, which was fueled by CIA documents (faultily) reporting that the Chinese government had become divided at the very highest levels and was fissuring all the way down to the local levels (CIA). However, to anyone in China it was more than apparent that this was not the case.
Just preceding the Tiananmen massacre, Ambassador Lord stated in a cable from the embassy back to the U.S. that Chinese leaders, “currently place their premium on stability,” and they define stability as, “the suppression of dissent” (Lord). He added that, “They see the free expression of ideas as leading to instability rather than helping them find answers to complex questions” (Lord). This implies that the result of the demonstrations could only be suppression, which is exactly what happened. On June 4, 1989 the students were surrounded by the People’s Liberation Army and brutally murdered, the command to use such lethal force coming from the highest level of authority. This demonstrates the military control the government holds over the people and their insistence on maintaining it at all costs.
Following the massacre, U.S. intelligence continued to report that divisions within the government must exist and communism was destined to fall. In a CIA report titled “China’s Military: Fragile Unity in the Wake of Crisis,” the Chinese military leadership was characterized as, “deeply divided over the appropriateness of the internal crackdown of June 4, with many officers concerned about Using the military to quell civil unrest” (CIA Directorate of Intelligence). This intelligence report however, was entirely unfounded and instead of collapsing into a democratic revolution as U.S. officials fantasized, China and the Chinese Communist Party emerged from the event more unified than ever before. As Andrew Nathan suggests in the introduction to the book The Tiananmen Papers, “Bureaucratically, the Chinese system proved to be a strong one.” An immediate purge occurred of anyone in relation to the protests and in response there was a surge in top officials declaring their support of the military crackdown (“China: Back to Business”). This outcome, so unexpected to officials in the U.S., left them in a conflicted position of how to respond.
U.S. citizens expected an immediate response to the humanitarian atrocities committed , but underlying economic issues immediately became a decisive factor in the U.S.’s response. On June 29, 1989 the State Department issued a document entitled “Themes,” in which they outlined the Bush Administrations stance on the incident. It stated that the PRC was permitted to deal with its citizens in any manner seen fit, as that was an “internal affair,” which followed the agreement reached in the Shanghai Communiqué. However, the American people’s reaction was also an “internal affair” and their interests would also have to be addressed. While President Bush did initiate initial economic sanctions to satisfy Americans’ concerns, he still emphasized his desire to, “manage short-term events in a way that will best assure a healthy relationship over time" (“Themes”). In the end, the long-term economic relationship was deemed more important to the U.S. national interest than short term reprimands and therefore China felt no serious consequences for their inhumane actions. Instead, the U.S. granted China Most Favored Nation Status in 1991, shortly followed by their entrance into the WTO.
This history of Sino-U.S. relations demonstrates its unbalanced nature and the ability of the Chinese to manipulate the U.S.. This however, is not an issue that we have moved beyond, but instead still haunts U.S. foreign policy. The same misperceptions exist, especially regarding the expectation for China to democratize. As Yang Ma reports in The Economist, “When the U.S. Congress granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China in 2000, proponents of expanded trade predicted that China's ongoing economic opening would ultimately lead to political liberalization” (Ma). This was further fueled by the belief that the introduction of the Internet into China would lead to a newly informed population and their ability to mobilize. As President Bill Clinton said, "[B]y letting our high-tech companies in to bring the Internet and the information revolution to China, we will be unleashing forces that no totalitarian operation rooted in the last century's industrial society can control" (Clinton). Following this technological introduction however, China shocked the U.S. by imposing censor measures that had seemed inconceivable before. According to an Amnesty International report, “All communication on the Internet in China passes through government-controlled routers and the authorities are able to block access to many sites and to filter content and delete individual links or web pages if considered ‘dangerous.’ or ‘subversive’” (Amnesty International). This type of censorship makes the dissemination of political information nearly impossible, and therefore prevents the Internet from being used as at tool for democratization.
The Internet is only one form of China’s extreme censorship though. Their control extends to all levels of society, from information and news reported through newspapers, television, radio and the internet, to cameras monitoring people’s actions in all public places. The ironic aspect of this situation is that it is U.S. companies providing the technology that allows the Chinese government to conduct this monitoring. This exemplifies the discrepancy between how the American people believe China should be dealt with and how big business is negotiating with them (as was earlier implied with the granting of MFN status. to China and their entrance into the WTO).
Following the Tiananmen massacre the American people demanded China be seriously reprimanded, so in response sanctions were implemented prohibiting the export “of any crime control or detection instruments or equipment” to China. Representative Tom Lantos, who helped draft this law said, "We wanted to undermine the effectiveness of the police in rounding up, imprisoning, and torturing political dissidents, not only those involved in the Tiananmen Square movement, but for years to come.” This pacified the American public, yet large information technology companies decided to ignore these laws, knowing that America and China’s integrated economies would make the enforcement of these restrictions impossible.
With the knowledge of the U.S. government’s inability to impose any real regulations, IT companies continued to conduct trade with China and today sales are skyrocketing, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars a year and rapidly growing (Einhorn). In defense, these companies state that the systems will help the Chinese differentiate between real criminals and innocuous dissidents. John S. Chen, the chief executive of Sybase Inc, a U.S. based company that sells database programs to the Shanghai police said, "Anything that helps China to modernize will help China to improve its human rights situation," and, "The more accurate information the police have about an individual target, the more accurate and sensible they can be" (Einhorn). Unfortunately, China has cited, “Signing online petitions, calling for reform and an end to corruption, planning to set up a pro-democracy party, publishing ‘rumors about SARS’, communicating with groups abroad, opposing the persecution of the Falun Gong and calling for a review of the 1989 crackdown on the democracy protests,” as “subversive” activities, which “endanger state security” (Amnesty). This has resulted in the arrest of at least 260,000 individuals and their being held in ideological “reeducation” camps for indefinite periods of time, according to the U.S. State Department (Amnesty International).
China defends such actions declaring that they are necessary in maintaining stability, which they view as fundamental to their state security. This view seems very reasonable and similar to any state’s perspective on national security. It therefore also seems rational that U.S. companies would provide technology to support this, as they have, with Cisco exemplifying this by pledging its support to China’s goal of “increasing social stability” (Einhorn). However, it is necessary to recall how China defines “stability.” As Ambassador Lord noted, China defines “stability” as, “the suppression of dissent” (Lord). Therefore, there is no connection between U.S. companies supplying of technological systems and a move towards democracy in China. Instead, the more open and modern China becomes, the more repressive their society will be and the further they will move away from democracy.
In the end, the U.S. and China are capitalist countries with economics determining their relationship. In this system there is no room for moralist or humanitarian views, as they cannot be implemented in any form. Instead, the goal of profit dictates and eclipses all other objectives. Although U.S. businesses attempt to justify their support of China’s repressive practices, they ultimately recognize that if they don’t sell to the Chinese authorities, competitors in other countries will (Einhorn). In the search for profit therefore, these companies chose to simply ignore what their products are being used for. As Microsoft has stated, they are "focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world", but "cannot control the way it may ultimately be used” (Amnesty). This ability to “focus” and promote to the public only one aspect of the relationship permits U.S. companies and Americans in general to believe the fallacy that China’s modernization can lead to democracy.
This perception is further fueled by the Chinese themselves, who continue to delight U.S. fantasies by saying they are, “sympathetic to democratic impulses” (Khan). They keep Americans salivating for hints of democratization, yet continually offer excuses of how, “time is not right, or conditions are not suitable, or procedures are not yet finalized” (Khan). These procrastinations do not declare repulsion to democracy and therefore keep the U.S. waiting with baited breath, ready in the meantime to offer the Chinese most anything it wishes. Yet, this situation is only a continuation of the initial relationship established by Nixon and Kissinger with Mao and Chou En-lai. Through rapprochement, Tiananmen, the normalization of relations and ever increasing economic interdependence, China has incessantly held the upper hand by fueling Americans dream of an ideological revolution in the last great communist nation. This misperception however, will only lead to a continuation of the situation that has persisted, and in contrast to Americans’ expectations, the modernization of China will only serve to fortify its authoritarian system.
Work Cited
Amnesty International “People’s Republic of China Controls Tighten as Internet
Activism Grows.” Jan 28 2004. < http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/
ENGASA170012004>
“China: Back to Business, But Crackdown Continues.” Secretary of State's Morning
Summary for June 14, 1989. <
CIA Directorate of Intelligence, China’s Military: Fragile Unity in the Wake of Crisis
[Deleted], August 25, 1989, SECRET, 14 pp.
CIA Intelligence Assessment, “Perspectives on Growing Social Tension in China.” May
1989. 21 pp.
Clinton, Bill. “Remarks By the President at Democratic Leadership Council Retreat.” The
American Embassy in China. May 21, 2000. < http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/
press/release/2000/clinton521.html>
Einhorn, Bruce and Ben Elgin. “Helping Big Brother Go High Tech.” Business Week
Online. Sept 18 2006.
Khan, Joseph. “A Democratic China? Not So Fast, Beijing Leaders Say.” New York
Times: April 8, 2004.
Lord. “U.S. Embassy Beijing Cable, Farewell and Hail.” April 21, 1989. <
Ma, Ying. “Democracy’s Slow Boat to China.” Asian Wall Street Journal. Feb 15, 2006.
< http://www.aei.org/research/nri/publications/pubID.23898,projectID.22/
pub_detail.asp>
“Richard M. Nixon.” Public Broadcasting System. 1999.
US Department of State. “Joint Communique of the United States of America and the
People’s Republic of China.” Feb 1972. < http://usinfo.state.gov/
eap/Archive_Index/joint_communique_1972.html>
The Tiananmen Papers
State Department document entitled "Themes" (June 29, 1989)
Before rapprochement even began, Nixon told Time magazine in October 1970, "If there is anything I want to do before I die, it is to go to China" (“Richard M. Nixon”). This allurement immediately gave China the upper hand, for as soon as negotiations began, all discussions took place in Beijing. Kissinger was similarly awed by the region and especially by its leaders. After meeting Mao Tse-Tung in a meeting that lasted only one hour, he said Mao, “dominated the room by exuding in almost tangible form the overwhelming drive to prevail” (“Mao Tse-Tung”). Both Nixon and Kissinger’s allurement was immediately recognized by the Chinese, who chose to manipulate these sentiments in negotiations in order to gain nearly all their objectives, while the U.S. just nodded away, content enough to have merely been permitted into the country.
The results of these meetings are most apparent in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, which announced the opening of China and the two countries goal of normalizing relations. Entering these negotiations the U.S. still supported Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan, as well as their seat in the United Nation’s as representative of the whole of China. The final communiqué however stated that,
“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China... It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan” (U.S. Department of State).
This change in position demonstrates the U.S.’s willingness to abandon support of Taiwan and permit its absorption into Mainland China. This was further exemplified by the mainland’s takeover of the UN seat. Although Nixon resigned and it took until 1979 to fully normalize relations, throughout the entire process these same policy approaches were followed.
Throughout the normalization of relations, it became a common belief in the United States that a natural outcome of China’s opening would be its democratization. This conviction however, had no substantial factual basis, and instead was only an ideological dream. This misperception is similar to the stereotypical view Nixon and Kissinger first held in engaging with China, in that it seriously affected relations between the two countries. The climax of this notion came during the late 1980’s Chinese democracy movement and the June 4 Tiananmen massacre. A small and localized student population demanded democracy and staged a sit-in protest in Beijing’s city center. U.S. officials immediately jumped to the conclusion that this would be the fall of the communist government, which was fueled by CIA documents (faultily) reporting that the Chinese government had become divided at the very highest levels and was fissuring all the way down to the local levels (CIA). However, to anyone in China it was more than apparent that this was not the case.
Just preceding the Tiananmen massacre, Ambassador Lord stated in a cable from the embassy back to the U.S. that Chinese leaders, “currently place their premium on stability,” and they define stability as, “the suppression of dissent” (Lord). He added that, “They see the free expression of ideas as leading to instability rather than helping them find answers to complex questions” (Lord). This implies that the result of the demonstrations could only be suppression, which is exactly what happened. On June 4, 1989 the students were surrounded by the People’s Liberation Army and brutally murdered, the command to use such lethal force coming from the highest level of authority. This demonstrates the military control the government holds over the people and their insistence on maintaining it at all costs.
Following the massacre, U.S. intelligence continued to report that divisions within the government must exist and communism was destined to fall. In a CIA report titled “China’s Military: Fragile Unity in the Wake of Crisis,” the Chinese military leadership was characterized as, “deeply divided over the appropriateness of the internal crackdown of June 4, with many officers concerned about Using the military to quell civil unrest” (CIA Directorate of Intelligence). This intelligence report however, was entirely unfounded and instead of collapsing into a democratic revolution as U.S. officials fantasized, China and the Chinese Communist Party emerged from the event more unified than ever before. As Andrew Nathan suggests in the introduction to the book The Tiananmen Papers, “Bureaucratically, the Chinese system proved to be a strong one.” An immediate purge occurred of anyone in relation to the protests and in response there was a surge in top officials declaring their support of the military crackdown (“China: Back to Business”). This outcome, so unexpected to officials in the U.S., left them in a conflicted position of how to respond.
U.S. citizens expected an immediate response to the humanitarian atrocities committed , but underlying economic issues immediately became a decisive factor in the U.S.’s response. On June 29, 1989 the State Department issued a document entitled “Themes,” in which they outlined the Bush Administrations stance on the incident. It stated that the PRC was permitted to deal with its citizens in any manner seen fit, as that was an “internal affair,” which followed the agreement reached in the Shanghai Communiqué. However, the American people’s reaction was also an “internal affair” and their interests would also have to be addressed. While President Bush did initiate initial economic sanctions to satisfy Americans’ concerns, he still emphasized his desire to, “manage short-term events in a way that will best assure a healthy relationship over time" (“Themes”). In the end, the long-term economic relationship was deemed more important to the U.S. national interest than short term reprimands and therefore China felt no serious consequences for their inhumane actions. Instead, the U.S. granted China Most Favored Nation Status in 1991, shortly followed by their entrance into the WTO.
This history of Sino-U.S. relations demonstrates its unbalanced nature and the ability of the Chinese to manipulate the U.S.. This however, is not an issue that we have moved beyond, but instead still haunts U.S. foreign policy. The same misperceptions exist, especially regarding the expectation for China to democratize. As Yang Ma reports in The Economist, “When the U.S. Congress granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China in 2000, proponents of expanded trade predicted that China's ongoing economic opening would ultimately lead to political liberalization” (Ma). This was further fueled by the belief that the introduction of the Internet into China would lead to a newly informed population and their ability to mobilize. As President Bill Clinton said, "[B]y letting our high-tech companies in to bring the Internet and the information revolution to China, we will be unleashing forces that no totalitarian operation rooted in the last century's industrial society can control" (Clinton). Following this technological introduction however, China shocked the U.S. by imposing censor measures that had seemed inconceivable before. According to an Amnesty International report, “All communication on the Internet in China passes through government-controlled routers and the authorities are able to block access to many sites and to filter content and delete individual links or web pages if considered ‘dangerous.’ or ‘subversive’” (Amnesty International). This type of censorship makes the dissemination of political information nearly impossible, and therefore prevents the Internet from being used as at tool for democratization.
The Internet is only one form of China’s extreme censorship though. Their control extends to all levels of society, from information and news reported through newspapers, television, radio and the internet, to cameras monitoring people’s actions in all public places. The ironic aspect of this situation is that it is U.S. companies providing the technology that allows the Chinese government to conduct this monitoring. This exemplifies the discrepancy between how the American people believe China should be dealt with and how big business is negotiating with them (as was earlier implied with the granting of MFN status. to China and their entrance into the WTO).
Following the Tiananmen massacre the American people demanded China be seriously reprimanded, so in response sanctions were implemented prohibiting the export “of any crime control or detection instruments or equipment” to China. Representative Tom Lantos, who helped draft this law said, "We wanted to undermine the effectiveness of the police in rounding up, imprisoning, and torturing political dissidents, not only those involved in the Tiananmen Square movement, but for years to come.” This pacified the American public, yet large information technology companies decided to ignore these laws, knowing that America and China’s integrated economies would make the enforcement of these restrictions impossible.
With the knowledge of the U.S. government’s inability to impose any real regulations, IT companies continued to conduct trade with China and today sales are skyrocketing, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars a year and rapidly growing (Einhorn). In defense, these companies state that the systems will help the Chinese differentiate between real criminals and innocuous dissidents. John S. Chen, the chief executive of Sybase Inc, a U.S. based company that sells database programs to the Shanghai police said, "Anything that helps China to modernize will help China to improve its human rights situation," and, "The more accurate information the police have about an individual target, the more accurate and sensible they can be" (Einhorn). Unfortunately, China has cited, “Signing online petitions, calling for reform and an end to corruption, planning to set up a pro-democracy party, publishing ‘rumors about SARS’, communicating with groups abroad, opposing the persecution of the Falun Gong and calling for a review of the 1989 crackdown on the democracy protests,” as “subversive” activities, which “endanger state security” (Amnesty). This has resulted in the arrest of at least 260,000 individuals and their being held in ideological “reeducation” camps for indefinite periods of time, according to the U.S. State Department (Amnesty International).
China defends such actions declaring that they are necessary in maintaining stability, which they view as fundamental to their state security. This view seems very reasonable and similar to any state’s perspective on national security. It therefore also seems rational that U.S. companies would provide technology to support this, as they have, with Cisco exemplifying this by pledging its support to China’s goal of “increasing social stability” (Einhorn). However, it is necessary to recall how China defines “stability.” As Ambassador Lord noted, China defines “stability” as, “the suppression of dissent” (Lord). Therefore, there is no connection between U.S. companies supplying of technological systems and a move towards democracy in China. Instead, the more open and modern China becomes, the more repressive their society will be and the further they will move away from democracy.
In the end, the U.S. and China are capitalist countries with economics determining their relationship. In this system there is no room for moralist or humanitarian views, as they cannot be implemented in any form. Instead, the goal of profit dictates and eclipses all other objectives. Although U.S. businesses attempt to justify their support of China’s repressive practices, they ultimately recognize that if they don’t sell to the Chinese authorities, competitors in other countries will (Einhorn). In the search for profit therefore, these companies chose to simply ignore what their products are being used for. As Microsoft has stated, they are "focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world", but "cannot control the way it may ultimately be used” (Amnesty). This ability to “focus” and promote to the public only one aspect of the relationship permits U.S. companies and Americans in general to believe the fallacy that China’s modernization can lead to democracy.
This perception is further fueled by the Chinese themselves, who continue to delight U.S. fantasies by saying they are, “sympathetic to democratic impulses” (Khan). They keep Americans salivating for hints of democratization, yet continually offer excuses of how, “time is not right, or conditions are not suitable, or procedures are not yet finalized” (Khan). These procrastinations do not declare repulsion to democracy and therefore keep the U.S. waiting with baited breath, ready in the meantime to offer the Chinese most anything it wishes. Yet, this situation is only a continuation of the initial relationship established by Nixon and Kissinger with Mao and Chou En-lai. Through rapprochement, Tiananmen, the normalization of relations and ever increasing economic interdependence, China has incessantly held the upper hand by fueling Americans dream of an ideological revolution in the last great communist nation. This misperception however, will only lead to a continuation of the situation that has persisted, and in contrast to Americans’ expectations, the modernization of China will only serve to fortify its authoritarian system.
Work Cited
Amnesty International “People’s Republic of China Controls Tighten as Internet
Activism Grows.” Jan 28 2004. < http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/
ENGASA170012004>
“China: Back to Business, But Crackdown Continues.” Secretary of State's Morning
Summary for June 14, 1989. <
CIA Directorate of Intelligence, China’s Military: Fragile Unity in the Wake of Crisis
[Deleted], August 25, 1989, SECRET, 14 pp.
CIA Intelligence Assessment, “Perspectives on Growing Social Tension in China.” May
1989. 21 pp.
Clinton, Bill. “Remarks By the President at Democratic Leadership Council Retreat.” The
American Embassy in China. May 21, 2000. < http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/
press/release/2000/clinton521.html>
Einhorn, Bruce and Ben Elgin. “Helping Big Brother Go High Tech.” Business Week
Online. Sept 18 2006.
Khan, Joseph. “A Democratic China? Not So Fast, Beijing Leaders Say.” New York
Times: April 8, 2004.
Lord. “U.S. Embassy Beijing Cable, Farewell and Hail.” April 21, 1989. <
Ma, Ying. “Democracy’s Slow Boat to China.” Asian Wall Street Journal. Feb 15, 2006.
< http://www.aei.org/research/nri/publications/pubID.23898,projectID.22/
pub_detail.asp>
“Richard M. Nixon.” Public Broadcasting System. 1999.
US Department of State. “Joint Communique of the United States of America and the
People’s Republic of China.” Feb 1972. < http://usinfo.state.gov/
eap/Archive_Index/joint_communique_1972.html>
The Tiananmen Papers
State Department document entitled "Themes" (June 29, 1989)
Friday, January 26, 2007
China's View on Space Weapons
China has reported a very different story from that appearing in US newspapers. China announced that it does not want an arms race in space, but do need to increase military power "in step with its expanding economy to protect China's increasingly global interests," as they announced in last months defense white paper (see ). They also declared in this paper that, "China will not engage in any arms race or pose a military threat to any other country, (see ). Since China has come out so strongly opposed to such a development, it is interesting that US newspapers are filled with articles reporting on fears of a new space age (see ). This discrepency shows the embedded misunderstandings the US has of China and their military stratagies and goals in the international arena.
Implications of China's Missile Test
China's missile launch indicates a new threat to US national security. This test marks the initiation of a space weapons race between the two nations, which can only result in disaster for both involved. Weapons armed satellites will allow countries to attack from positions not easily defendable, with catastrophic results. This is especially applicable for China and their interest in fully integrating Taiwan with the mainland (see ). If both countries proceed on the track their heading on we will see another arms buildup very reminiscent of the Cold War (the results of which we are still very much contending with). This will only further threaten national security and therefore should be avoided at all costs.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Cold War #2
On 1/22/07 The New York Times reported that the Chinese have conducted a test in which they launched a missile to destroy a weather satellite. This military success is part of the Chinese greater military build up and is important because they now have the ability to destroy low-orbit spy satellites that the US and allies use to monitor the Chinese. The Chinese military build-up has been shrouded in secrecy, and is eerily reminiscent of the US and USSR buildups during the Cold War. Following this test the Chinese did not come forward with their development and when confronted by the US and allies, they refused to comment. The US seems not to know why China is developing this technology when the rest of the world has determined it is no longer important. This uncertainty of motives has led, as David Sanger comments in the article, that, "every case of muscle-flexing by competing powers [is] examined for evidence of a deeper agenda," which is exactly what happened during the Cold War and led to the huge weapons build-ups.
The mystery here is deepened by the US's deeply engrained misconceptions of China and its government system. At numerous points throughout the article, it is suggested that the military performed the test without the knowledge and permission of higher officials. This proposition is implausible. The government is run from the top down with the president, Hu Jinao and his cabinet members in total control. Every command comes directly from the top, especially regarding a military issue that would cause great international attention. China’s rapid growth (economic and political) and its leaders’ determination to continue on that path, makes them very aware of every decision made and how it will affect them in the international arena.
This article is filled with common stereotypes and misperceptions of China, demonstrating the general sentiments and beliefs of the more general US population. If the US continues to promote these feelings, uncertainty and even fear will become ingrained in relations with China and a regression back to Cold War politics will be imminent.
See article
Sanger, David E & Joseph Khan. "U.S. Tries to Interpret China’s Silence Over Test." The New York Times Online. 1/22/07.
The mystery here is deepened by the US's deeply engrained misconceptions of China and its government system. At numerous points throughout the article, it is suggested that the military performed the test without the knowledge and permission of higher officials. This proposition is implausible. The government is run from the top down with the president, Hu Jinao and his cabinet members in total control. Every command comes directly from the top, especially regarding a military issue that would cause great international attention. China’s rapid growth (economic and political) and its leaders’ determination to continue on that path, makes them very aware of every decision made and how it will affect them in the international arena.
This article is filled with common stereotypes and misperceptions of China, demonstrating the general sentiments and beliefs of the more general US population. If the US continues to promote these feelings, uncertainty and even fear will become ingrained in relations with China and a regression back to Cold War politics will be imminent.
See article
Sanger, David E & Joseph Khan. "U.S. Tries to Interpret China’s Silence Over Test." The New York Times Online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)