|
China
Various portraits mixed form photos of yesterday’s visit of Hu Jintao to the U.S.
(bigger pic)
Update (Apr 22, 2006, 11:40 AM)
Hu’s visit to the U.S. was an embaressment, but not for China. The question is not about "ass-kissing China", but about decency. Wearing sunglasses, like Cheney did during Hu Jintao’s speech is an insult nearly anywhere in the world, though somehow, most Americans don´t get this.
Not giving Hu the honor of a full fledged state visit, as his two predesessors enjoyed, is without common reason. He didn´t get dinner, just lunch. The Chinese flag was not raised like foreign flags usually get raised when foreign chief of states, bloody dictators or elected leaders, visit the White House.
The Falung Gong journalist/heckler was known by the Secret Service to have heckled before. She wasn´t there by accident.
(BTW: Now even the left and the press is protesting that her ‘free speech rights’ are not honored while a foreign guest speaks. Falung Gong is a cult lead by a megalomanic homophobe that endangered the Chinese state. Would a German neonazi journalist have the right to heckle Merkel when she visits the White House?)
But let us point to the real problem. The U.S. owns the state of China about $200 billion plus in bonds. Maybe the same sum is owned to Chinese banks and private citizen in from of bonds an mortgage backed securities. The U.S. advises China to revalue the Renimbi and to consume less oil – neither will happen. To try to embarrass Hu into concessions like the U.S. did, immediately backfired. The way she looks, Rice did get that.
Indeed the combination of these advises is idiotic. A higher valued Renimbi would result in cheaper oil for Chinese consumers and thereby for higher oil consumption. But the real bad advise is the trick the U.S. pulled off against the Japanese and now tries to do on the Chinese.
In the 1980’s the U.S. pressed Japan to let go of currency controls of the Yen – they did so. The Yen did rise sharply and the Japanese suddenly felt very rich. An asset and property bubble followed and when that bubble, like all bubbles, inevitably deflated Japan felt into stagnation and only now is about to climb out of that state.
Did that help the U.S.? In shortterm it did. The U.S. had do work less to pay back their Japanes owned bonds. But look at GM and Toyota now and see the longterm foolishness. The Japan did lose a lot of money and opportunity through that misguided revaluation. Why would China repeat that mistake?
As of China bashing my advice to the U.S. is easy. If you don´t like China to sell to the U.S. just stop buying. As an alternative introduce trade barriers and reap the consequences.
The problem is not China, the problem is overconsumption by the U.S. on the state and personal private level. Unless that stops, China will be the winner.
I have to admit, something must have touched a very tender nerve here, because I have NEVER seen such racism, ignorance, and xenophobia here at Moon, and by some of my favorite posters to boot.
Thank you, Bernard, for your thoughtful addendum, which, as usual, is expressed far clearer that I ever could. And thank you, DM, for your steady voice of reason.
It is illustrative of the reactionary nature of this thread that no one besides Bernhard noticed the manufactured nature of the precipitating media event, nor did anyone else attempt to engage my, or Michael Klare’s, arguments on substantive grounds.
It is essential to the training of, and incumbent upon, anyone who hopes to confront power, to be aware of the machinations of power. By ignoring these machinations, and reacting to the manufactured event of Chinese vilification (regardless of the merits, which I will address below), one shows oneself to be no better than the sleepwatchers of Fox News who approach me daily where I shop, and on the street, to rail jingoistically against the recalcitrant Iranians, a nation they know nothing about, cannot pick out on a map, and truthfully, did not even know existed, until the current media blitzkrieg.
Two cavils:
b states “The problem is not China, the problem is overconsumption by the U.S. on the state and personal private level.” This may be true macroeconomically, but this type of language is generally employed by the elite in order to foist off blame for a negative situation upon the captive consuming public. They understand nothing about economics, are encouraged by all in power to shop, in order to strengthen our economy, and are generally apolitical. Sure, they should not shop at Walmart, they should be more aware of the long-term implications of their purchases, and they shouldn’t buy so much instantly expendable junk. But the poor of America, who live without benefits, on minimum wage with no healthcare, and certainly no wellness care, have seen so much of their economic power eroded that they are now caught up in an endless death spiral to the bottom, buying cheaper and cheaper crap, in order to eke out a survival. It is cheaper eating and buying junk in the short run (you can live on one slice of pizza/day, or a large bag of potato chips, but you can’t fill your belly on $2.00 worth of carrots and parsley.), and the long-term consequences of this death spiral affect us all. Overconsumption of foreign, as well as domestic, goods is by and large a problem of state planning and policy, driven by the business interests which favor the additional profits to be squeezed out of consumption, as oppossed to conservation. The European Social Democracies have attempted to address these problems by what is termed by Lester Brown and WorldWatch as “Tax-shifting,” in other words, using the tax code to encourage conservation and more ecologically benign activities while deterring more destructive, and consumptive activities through taxing. (I.E. lowering the income tax, but increasingthe tax on gas and autos.) This only works as a result of a whole web of progressive changes, such as encouraging the development of mass transport. There is also the danger of the tax system losing its progressivity. In any event, business interests have “succeeded” so far in the US in forestalling these inevitable changes. And it is on this level that national consumption choices are made. To imply otherwise is duplistic and patronizingly moralistic.
Secondly, b states above ” Nixon’s policy of trade and engagement with China was intended to cleave the weak Sino-Russian alliance and isolate the Soviet Union. That was accomplished at the cost of undermining long-term US economic stability, while also fueling China’s frenetic industrial growth.
Nixon was in China when? 1968? The Chinese economy boom started in the early 1990’s after the USSR did break down and Deng Xiao Ping allowed for a market economy. This wasn´t a Nixon sellout”
b is certainly correct in most of his facts, and incorrect in his conclusions. Employing trade policy, combined with the US’s virtually bottomless markets, in order to assert control over other countries, began in earnest after WWII, when the US was flooded with Japanese crap similar to the Chinese innundation today. For those too young to remember, the phrase “Made in Japan” was a huge joke on late night TV, and code name for crap, in the 1950’s. That changed as the Japanese industrialized, improved quality, and moved up the export ladder in the mid-to-late ’60’s.
There is no disagreement whatsoever among scholars, from the right to Chomsky, that Nixon’s policy of trade and engagement with China was intended to fracture the weak Sino-Russian alliance and isolate the Soviet Union. It is true that, as b states, the Chinese economic boom started in earnest, in the early ’90’s, but the law of unintended consequences does not state that the consequence will be immeadiate. Nixon’s visit occured in 1972. It took a number of years to build trust in small joint ventures. By the 1980’s, the jackals were working in China to set up the legal and banking systems necessary for the trade boom. My own step sister, and her husband, were both Wall Street lawyers specializing in International Law at the time, and I was treated to breathless disquisitions about the “revolution” they were helping to bring about, over the Thanksgiving turkey and the Passover latke. The work of them and their cohorts, combined with the periodic display of US military might, and the upcoming negotiations over Hong Kong, were certainly highly contributory factors, if not dispositive elements, to China’s initial decision to tentatively open its markets. Certainly, it was a complex situation with many factors. Another was the mass starvation under Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” which convinced many that China would have to export manufactured goods in order to feed itself.
Finally, let me speak briefly about China, its purported behavior, and what our response should be. China is certainly a totalitarian state with a high degree of central control. But it is not monolithic, or dissent free, by any means. And there is just as much range of opinion within their one party system as within our two; though significantly less than Europe, and even Israel’s, multiparty systems.
Every charge that jdp brought against China [kills people for fun, harvest citizens organs, torture, sensorship, unsafe workplaces, (miners are just fodder for them because there is so many people, why have safety?)] could be applied to the US, though to a lesser degree. I think that the greatest charge that can be brought against China is its under-covered war against its displaced indigenous and peasant populations, as it seeks to grow economically in a manner which all too closely mimics ecologically terminal Western policies.
So, what are we to do? The liberal nostrum of trade sanctions is moribund. Business interests are too strong, we are too interconnected with their supply chains, and it would, at best, only result in a counter-propaganda campaign, and more Washington lobbyists, rather than substantive change.
A better, more moral, and less judgmental approach would be to take reponsibility for our own ecologically suicidal behavior, and change it. And to take responsibility for our jingoistic, expansionistic, and threatening policy of full-spectrum dominance, and military containment. Such a policy would threaten any nation — especially a great nation such as China, who had seen itself reduced to colonial status until less than 60 years ago — and force it to act in a paranoid manner, and to react to short-term crises, rather than plan for long-term survival. By changing our behavior, and no longer threatening their long term survival, we accomplish two things: One, we give them space to make changes on their own. Two, we live up to the myth of America, and become a moral example to the world, rather than a deranged destroyer. From that vantage, we could criticize them. But to argue over how many organs they steal and sell, when we are busy threatening the entire world with nuclear “shock-and-awe,” and killing innocents at perhaps the rate of 100,000 per year, or more, is cynically sanctimonious, and will be seen as so by the world.
It is as if the murderous Mafia don was lecturing his personal call-girl about her licentious sexual behavior.
Posted by: Malooga | Apr 23 2006 2:47 utc | 19
Calling jdp a racist is a red herring. Jdp, I interpret, simply seems to believe that China’s Gvmt. is horrible, both to its own ‘people’ and the outside world. It is a kind of rival, threat or even enemy to the US, which is unfair as the US, as its Gvmt., its general organisation, is vastly morally superior, or jess ‘better.’
That is nationalism, not racism.
I may have interpreted jdp incorrectly, if so I apologise, but the point I was trying to make is general and not tied to one person’s opinions. Racism trivialises the issues at stake.
Malooga wrote:
In any event, any analysis of worldwide strategic balance of power must also take into account two additional factors. First, the worldwide trend towards greater centralization of power in state hands and the increasingly totalitarian measures used to deprive their populations of a voice and assert that control. …
State hands are pretty much corporate hands today. In the US, a loose, sprawling, shifting alliance between corporations, the military-industrial complex, foreign lobbies (globalisationoblige) Wall street (to be brief), etc. have turned the Gvmt. into a rubber-stamping organism that takes it’s time.
The positions it takes are hesitantly and slowly elaborated in a sort of side box (in a systemic diagram) where all kinds of opinions and positions are finally formalised. It is hampered, as well, by its perpetual trawling for ‘innocent’ votes, so has to spend time pandering to loony fringes (in the US, social issues related to religion) and setting up fake crusades (‘war on drugs’). That is called Democracy. Cheney, ‘Halliburton chief’ is VP; Junior is a figurehead. I need not go about all that.
China’s organisation is different. Its political leaders run the economy, to some large degree, and are not dependent on others to do it. (Kommie!) The part that escapes them is controlled by Mafia like groups, in hand with clever entrepreneurs, and circuits of corruption, in part: I mention that because it represents a grey area… The circuits touch and collaborate, and together maintain a weird kind of personal control .. more could be said.
The official one-party system leaves them free to dispense with all the hoopla involved in projecting a ‘democratic’ image with its absurd two football teams who both earn their bread, mansions, and hoped for helicopters, by pretending to compete.
Which system is better? And better for what, for whom, in function of what aims?
Life expectancy, pp py:
US (F/M) about 80/75; China about 75/70
Dollars spent pp py: 2003
US: 5,711; China: 61.
How does one measure ‘human rights’?
Posted by: Noisette | Apr 23 2006 15:59 utc | 24
I, too, apologise if I indirectly called jdp a rascist. I know him from this blog to be a person of deep integrity and commitment to his community. I was criticizing the sentiments being expressed, not the people expressing them.
The positions it takes are hesitantly and slowly elaborated in a sort of side box (in a systemic diagram) where all kinds of opinions and positions are finally formalised. It is hampered, as well, by its perpetual trawling for ‘innocent’ votes, so has to spend time pandering to loony fringes (in the US, social issues related to religion) and setting up fake crusades (‘war on drugs’). That is called Democracy.
I love your formulation, Noisette.
Still, even one party states need to manufacture their own type of consent. The Soviet Union was a (meagre) social welfare state despite its brutality and control. China, too, is faced with pandering, to some extent, to various geographic, industrial, cultural, and class interests, in order to ease the task of governing. Surely, China is a brutal and autocratic state. But to state that, is not to state that everyone there is suffering, or has a miserable life. Clearly, China’s policies are aimed at developing a middle class, built upon the suffering backs of the poor and dispossed. As in the US, vast chasms of wealth and privilege are developing.
Which system is better? Comparing linear outcomes for China and the US is deceptive. China was a peasant society a mere 50 years ago, while the US was the leader of the world. Since that time, lifespans in the US have regressed compared to world potential, while China has gained 20 or more years of lifespan in a generation. The same goes for all health and welfare metrics.
It must also be acknowledged that the US provides for a mere 22% of the population as China, yet uses 5-6 times as many resources, and has virtually the same land area.
Comparing levels of happiness is even more difficult, and problemmatic. I was happy following my own alternative version of the American Dream for many years, but now that quest seems shallow and pointless. The more conservative and ignorant my neighbors are of the effects of imperialism and environmental degradation, the happier they are. The cop saving up for his new speedboat is happier than the biologist studying cancer rates, or the ecologist studying species extinction. This is the function of a “healthy” propaganda system: To truly make ignorance bliss. I believe that “Brave New World” has more to say to this than “1984.”
China is a “developing” society. That is part of the propaganda system — the myth of progress. To the extent that the middle class of China is removed from the violent and toxic effects of their consumption, and the labor conditions it depends upon; to the extent that they are brainwashed into ignorance through popular culture, as the middle class of the other industrialized countries are; to that very extent, they are happy.
In any event, developing a taxonomy of the particular sanctioned characterizations, or identities, that characterize the fetishization of the bourgeoisie is beyond the scope of this post. (It would be nice to develop this concept in another post.) Marx spoke about “commodity fetishism,” but he never commented upon “identity fetishism.”
Getting back on track, so that I can get off-line:
Both nations are taking increasingly defiant unsustainable paths. Neither culture will survive the coming energy and ecological crunch intact. Both are death cultures, or more accurately, cults. So the question of which is better, boils down to a kind of Agatha Christie line, “Which would you prefer, death by poison, or asphyxiation?”
I personally prefer poison, especially if it tastes good ;+(
Posted by: Malooga | Apr 23 2006 19:26 utc | 26
|
