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.
Monday, April 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)