Archive | Chinese Politics RSS feed for this section

Ageist Paranoia in Asia: China Edition

25 Apr

Ever-eager to rattle the anti-China saber, The Economist has a new article outlining  ”a deep flaw in China’s model”– demographic aging.

Of all the more challenging demographic issues China faces, the article goes so far as to call a shrinking population the country’s “Achilles’ heel.” (Hearing that, I wonder what Deng Xiaoping would think all these years later.)

If you’ve read my blog before, you know, specifically in relation to Taiwan and Japan, I find this entire ageist school of thought to be utterly useless.

For one, I believe a shrinking population to be a boon to the strain’s on the world’s resources. I also believe more intelligent uses of those resources and more cooperation among nations on issues like immigration and health care will eradicate the basis of these ageist doomsday predictions.

In specific regard to China, I find this article to be inaccurate and poorly researched.

Long have the naysayers decried China for its population policies. So The Economist’s latest call to do away with the one-child policy is far from surprising. Nevermind that the “Family Planning” policy has prevented the strain of an extra 400 million citizens in China since 1979, or that the policy now only pertains to around one-third of the population.

Over the years, we’ve heard plenty of the alleged nightmare scenarios: family planning as a human right, rises in abortions, an all-male youth, an angry/unemployed male youth, etc.

According to The Economist, the real problem is a shrinking work force and surging pool of pensioners that will “have profound financial and social consequences” and, in turn, spells “the end of China as the world’s factory.”

This is just absurd. It fails to take into account a huge number of “financial and social” realities.

Primarily, Chinese families do the one thing that American families have forgotten– save. While the average American is now in debt, the opposite is true of Chinese.

It is not only socially acceptable, but often preferred, for Chinese to live with their families until marriage– and even afterwards. Young adults live rent free. That money is put away, mostly going towards an apartment after marriage.

Some of these trends are changing. The CCP’s hopes for more domestic spending are encouraging less fiscal frugality at home. And some wealthier upper-middle class Chinese are bucking the traditional trends of living at home.

But, as costs may get squeezed, the Chinese are much more adept at caring for their elderly.

Beyond the realities of the Chinese family unit, to assume that the CCP will not dole out some of its vast foreign reserves to ease the strains of its very modest pension system seems shortsighted. After constantly decrying how paranoid Beijing is of losing its base support, I would imagine the politburo would be able to formulate a modest investment in pensions. Not to mention, solving any restructuring of the system would be relatively painless– especially in comparison to the political deadlock of American politics.

If anything, I would say the Chinese are far better prepared to deal with an aging and shrinking population than the US is prepared to deal with 30% population growth by 2050.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

CCP won’t free Tibet, self-immolations must stop

28 Mar

Tibetan prayer flags fly near the Yunnan border of Tibet.

Counting the latest, a middle-aged Tibetan farmer, there have now been 30 “Free Tibet” self-immolations since February 27th, according to reports. Desperation always reeks of tragedy, but this is unnecessarily tragic and almost assuredly counter-productive.

Self-immolations need to stop. The international “Free Tibet” community needs to take a stronger stance against these protests, rather than commiserating with the suicidal.

Unfortunately, the entire Free Tibet movement has evolved into something of a cookie-cutter cause. People look at this like Disney’s Pocahantas– some bucolic fantasy of an always-free and pure Tibet, with beautiful monks in their colorful garb dancing around in Himalayan prairies– everybody smiling and happy, until the bad guys showed up.

The Dalai Lama is like an international Winnie the Pooh, just peaceful and happy. Everybody loves him. And how could you not? I mean, who would ever want to fuck with Winnie the Pooh?

The truth is just a lot murkier than all this. Let’s be frank about a couple of things:

1. These self-immolating Tibetan Buddhists are religious zealots.

Most people who kill themselves in the name of religion get a pretty bad wrap, but Tibetan Buddhists get a lot of leniency on this one.

Setting aside the obvious comparison, let’s imagine for a second that these were fundamentalist Christians in the US. Imagine if a large enough number of these Christians started calling for more autonomy and the right to create a completely Christian state within the US– with the power to basically evict any non-Christian and eviscerate the Constitution in favor of the Bible  (Wait, what? That’s really happening?!). OK, granted that idea probably gives a lot of Americans a little tingly feeling downstairs. But for most reasonable people, this is just patently absurd.

But in the US, Christians are the majority. Tibetan Buddhists are not in China. In fact, most Chinese are passively spiritual. Living a life centered around religion is literally a foreign concept in China. But back to the US…

Imagine for a second that adherents to a certain branch of Christianity started burning themselves alive in the streets. What would the government reaction be? I’d bet on Waco II before a new awakening.

2. China is not going to “free” Tibet.

The idea of China freeing Tibet is like the US giving New Mexico, Arizona, southern California, and half of Texas back to Mexico– it’s just not going to happen. Too many vested interests, for too long.

I forget where I first read that comparison, but it’s completely on point. For better or worse, Tibet is stuck in a Beijing’s headlock for the foreseeable future.

(I’m reminded of Rambo IV where John asks the missionary, “You bringin’ any weapons?” Missionary responds, “Of course not!” To which John snorts, “Then you’re not changing anything.” It’s hard to win wars on moral righteousness these days.)

3. A free Tibet is not necessarily a better place.

This is the most contentious point, certainly. While most pro-Tibet/anti-China advocates would like to believe that Tibet would flourish without Beijing, the reality is much more frightening.

First off, to consider an entirely free Tibet– let’s say, hypothetically, China grows tired of the bad press and allows the province to secede– one would have to consider the ramifications. They’d be wise to ask Taiwan about what it’s like trying to navigate in international politics when you have Beijing on your ass. No investment, trade blockades, political stalemates, etc.

OK, so let’s not go that far. Best-case scenario, let’s say Beijing grants Tibet more autonomy politically. The Dalai Lama returns. Tibetan culture is revived. Tibetans are allowed to exercise religion in any way they so choose.

Well, that sounds great. But there are still some obstacles to overcome. What happens to the Han– mostly lower- and middle-class entrepreneurs who moved to Tibet in hopes of finding their own prosperity? How could the new Tibetan leadership work towards prosperity for everyone– if, assumingly, they would be against closer ties with inner China and more Han in Tibet?

And then there’s the biggest obstacles of all: getting the Chinese military out of Tibet. New Tibetan leadership would need to assure China that they could protect a massive land border with India (a must for Beijing) and its central Asian neighbors.

The only thing I know for sure is that the absolute worst way to go about getting the Chinese military out is to burn yourself in the street. All that’s going to lead to is more patrols on every corner, more conflict, and less willingness from Beijing to actually negotiate.

Tags: , , , , ,

China bound for reform or repeating history?

19 Mar

Was Bo Xilai an enforcer of justice on the corrupt or a corrupt enforcer of justice?

In reading up on some of the fallout from China’s NPC and CPPCC, I keep coming back to this one particular quote. Early in the Qin dynasty, the man perhaps most responsible for the creation of singular Chinese state, Lord Shang, wrote:

To club together and keep your mouth shut is to be good; to be alienated from and spy on each other is to be a scoundrel. If you glorify the good, errors will be hidden; if you put scoundrels in charge, crime will be punished. (Fairbank)

So then the question becomes, who is the scoundrel? Is it better to hide errors and be thought of as good? Is it better to empower the scoundrel if it means justice will be wrought?

Is Bo Xilai a scoundrel or was he just part of the club? Is the CCP a club, or a scoundrel in its own right? Is China better of with a scoundrel at the head? Is justice worth suffering at the hands of that scoundrel?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Putting the f*ing smackdown on China-bashers

14 Feb

(Part II of my reactions to Ho Pin’s NYT op-ed.)

China bashing is annoying to anyone who has lived there.

NOTE: I wrote about fifty ledes to this story. Most were a little over the top, which, in the end, I felt weakened my overall criticism of these knee-jerking jerks about to be de-pantsed in the lunchline. So, I just left it with a simple understatement. 

Ho Pin is a China basher. Thus, I find his article rather irritating for its lack of– er–  balance (reality?). But, I will give him this, he did a masterful job of following the formula for that perfect 10-part China-bashing bullshit cocktail.

Here are the ingredients (in Ho’s words):

1. “Even though China has used market reforms to transform itself into an economic powerhouse, the government lives in constant fear of unrest.”

2. “Wealth and opportunities have been snatched by a few politically connected individuals. Corruption is rampant, and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening.”

3. “Hu has resisted calls to reform China’s political system. Instead, he has reverted to the Mao-era policy of creating mammoth state-run enterprises and allocating billions of dollars to a security apparatus that routinely cracks down on dissent.”

4. “Economic growth has offered Mr. Hu a temporary reprieve.”

5. “The economy is showing signs of stalling, the real estate bubble could burst and the financial system is being undermined by unregulated and corrupt lending. Meanwhile, protests against corruption and social injustice are intensifying…”

6. Chinese Leader XYZ “should grasp the importance of free speech, and… work to regain the trust of intellectuals.”

7. “Without free elections, a free press and independent judges, the government can’t fulfill its promise to stamp out corruption and build a fair and just society.”

8. “Even though he will rule the world’s most populous nation and faces no official political opposition, he lacks the legitimacy accorded democratically elected officials.”

9. “The recent uprisings in the Arab world have made Chinese leaders keenly aware of their own vulnerability.”

10. “The trend is irreversible. As the insatiable greed of corrupt officials and unfair economic practices further exacerbate public anger and hatred, a large-scale crisis, set off by events like an economic meltdown or a protest by peasants or migrant workers, could occur.”

—–

Here’s the truth: You could regurgitate this same stale argument for any country in the world– particularly the United States.

Let’s debunk this thing one point at a time.

1. The Chinese government does not live in “constant fear.” Far from it. If one has been paying any attention, he’ll see Chinese leaders are walking around with their chests puffed out like proud little peacocks these days. Bullying neighbors at sea. Balking at UN resolutions. Dominating the global climate change agenda. And still chugging along at 8.5% economic growth. Are national level leaders afraid of peasants? Afraid of factory workers? Hardly. Do they tolerate people going against the line? No. Does that make them paranoid or just assholes? It is a mixture of both, much moreso the latter. To envision hu Jintao hearing of some farmer protest and cowering in a closet is way off base.

2. Yawn. A country whose wealthy elite are in bed with politicians?! You’d never see that happen in the US! Find me a country where this isn’t the case. Find me a superpower where the gap between rich and poor is shrinking. Might just a small part of this stem from the fact that an obscene percent of Chinese were in poverty 20 years ago and are no longer today?

3. Hu didn’t listen to a bunch of other people with their own interests– including,  for many call-makers, seeing a weaker China– to change the course of his country in the midst of a never-before-seen historical rise to dominance. Hmmm, wonder why. “Mammoth state-run enterprises,” I assume, refers to Hu investing heavily in state-run programs during the global economic crisis in 2008-2009. How did China make out during that whole ordeal? Oh yeah, basically unscathed. And, of course, it’s not like the US nationalized a bunch of failing industries by investing billions in bailouts.

4. The idea that the economy is the only thing holding China together dismisses a rather strong sense of cultural and national identity that one could argue was very viable even during the major humiliations of the 20th century.

5. Yawn. “Economy is fragile. Bottom could fall out at any minute. Number of protests rising.” There are more than a few countries willing to switch economic forecasts with China right now. Ask the PIGS. And, again, could one not say the same thing about the US?

6. Oh, wait, how could I forget! The oppressed Chinese “intellectuals!” The only smart people in China are pro-Washington and anti-Beijing! How could I have forgotten this? I mean, let’s stretch an unbelievably huge blanket over lawyers, professors, scientists, artists, and anyone with a higher education by just assuming they all hate the government that provided them the opportunity to reach a point that 20 years ago would have been considered a pipe dream for 99.99% of all Chinese. And let’s tilt the scales in the favor of the intellectuals at the expense of the silent majority, because paternalism of the developing world always works wonders.

7. “Stamp out corruption!” Let’s go to war with it! War on Corruption! War on Drugs! War on Terror! War on the Boogeyman! When are people going to realize that some things are always going to exist at a certain level. Corruption is one of them. Dare I say, it’s as old as mankind. Someone lies. Someone cheats. Is China not cracking down? Why don’t you ask the former mayor of Shanghai or the former director of Chongqing’s Justice Bureau? Oh, yeah, you can’t– because they’re dead. Maybe Ho would be better served studying failed corruption crackdowns by looking at the US energy industry, military contractors, and financial institutions.

8. What exactly constitutes political legitimacy? What if a democraticall elected body has a 10% approval-to-86% disapproval rating, like, oh, say the US Congress? Does that make their leadership legitimate? What does it say for a democracy where 86% of people don’t approve of their leaders? I wonder what that poll would look like if we were to ask the Chinese how they feel about the CCP.

9. Here’s another surprise for Ho, the Arab uprisings have next to no similarity to the situation in China right now. What led to the Arab Spring? Inept leadership, massive unemployment, lack of access to education, and a general feeling that there was no hope for a better future. Not the case in China. Not even close.

10. In the land of Couldashouldawoulda a lot of things could occur. Sure, there could be an economic slowdown in China. Sure, there could be more protests. In fact, I think both things will happen. I think they will happen in a lot of places. I think they are just as likely to happen in the US. I also think people like Ho Pin need to realize what a sinking Chinese ship will pull down with it. Point in case, Egypt.

—-

There are an astounding number of blowhards who yearn to wax poetic on the injustices of a monstrous China. I just want to know what utopia they live in and how I can get there.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Only in China” surpasses “Only in America”

14 Feb

The New York Times ran an op-ed on Xi Jinping, China’s assumed heir apparent to the CCP chair and presidential throne, last Sunday. Though deeply cynical of China as a whole, the writer describes why many Chinese view Xi as a strong “advocate of ordinary people’s interests.” That is if, of course, you consider this somehow relatively ordinary:

When Mr. Xi was 9, his father, Xi Zhongxun, who had fought in the Communist revolution, was purged from the party by Mao. The father was detained and imprisoned and spent 16 years in a labor camp, plunging the family into poverty. During the Cultural Revolution, a 15-year-old Mr. Xi was banished to a poverty-stricken village in northern China where, for seven years, he labored with peasants, eating corn chaff bread and sleeping in a flea-infested bed.

From flea-infested to leader of a world superpower. Now, that, my friends, is an “Only in China” story.

Used to be, growing up, one would hear the phrase “Only in America” like it was going out of style. Turns out, it was.

“Only in America” has lost most of its moxie. I mean, what was the last great OiA headliner? Obama, right. “Black elected president! Only in America!” Like no one had ever heard of the African continent before.

Not to take away from Barack’s humble upbringings, but he certainly didn’t suffer through the hardships of Xi Jinping’s family. Which also isn’t to say that many families have not, considering most Chinese families did suffer a similar fate in those dark years.

I guess, what I am getting at here, is that the motherland of opportunity has relocated. If I were going to ask you where the next dirt-poor peasant would rise to the cream of the crop, would you bet on it happening in America or China? That’s the question.

My money is on China. I think it’s safe to say most would agree. Part of that, undoubtedly, is due to the fact that China is still in its Rockefeller Revolution. But is that the only reason?

I’d like to say that the road to riches is a a little less rocky in China at the moment, but that just isn’t the case either. Poor, rural Chinese face just as rough, if not a rougher road to success than their peers in the US. A farmer’s child in China is born with literally next to nothing.

Hmm, it’s a tightrope argument here. One could fall of on either side and really offend someone/a billion people. So, I guess I’ll leave the questions to you…

What is that makes China feel like more is possible there than in the US? Is it solely the economy? Can an argument be made for cultural differences? How much of it comes down to parents and sacrifice for their children? What about ambition, determination, laziness, and entitlement, where would you chart them in a comparison?

All I know is this: Google “Only in America” and you get 2,120,000,000 hits. Google “Only in China” and you get 2,190,000,000.

That’s 70,000,o00 more reasons to think “Only in China” might be only the beginning.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers

%d bloggers like this: