Contributed by Cathy Zhu
Two wikileaked conversations from 2007 have brought China’s fifth generation leadership back under the spotlight. Xi Jinping, has been considered “heir” to Hu Jintao ever since his appointment to vice chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (October 18, 2010). Li Keqiang, China’s current Executive Vice-Premier, is speculated as Premier Wen’s likely successor. Recent Wikileaked cables include two conversations these two leaders respectively had with US Ambassador Clark J. Randt back in 2007, when both of them were provincial party secretaries. Recent press commentary suggest that these conversations were surprisingly revealing to the international community.
Li Keqiang was formerly party secretary of Liaoning Province, one of China’s poorer regions. Candidly admitting that China’s GDP figures were “man-made” or “for reference only”, he claimed to use electricity consumption, volume of rail cargo, and amount of loans disbursed as indicators of Liaoning’s economic health. Demystifying the party slogan “harmonious society”, he translated the term into policy as creating jobs for Liaoning residents. He admitted that corruption was the gravest concern of most Liaoning residents. Besides increasing transparency and supervision, Li added prison tours as part of public official education--taking incumbent bureaucrats to visit former corrupt party officials in prison. (Wikileak accessible here.)
As party secretary of one of China’s richer provinces, Xi Jinping faced different concerns. With a relatively low income gap and the one of highest GDP per capita’s among China’s provinces, Zhejiang’s residents were more worried about how to invest their savings in context of China’s undeveloped financial sector. Among healthcare, education, and housing, work styles of party officials was apparently a concern of Zhejiang residents, but not something that people would “take to the streets” for. The Guardian highlights the paragraph in which Xi discusses his preference for Hollywood WWII movies, saying that clearly demarcate between good and evil, unlike certain recent Chinese movies that “neglect the values they should promote”. (Wikileak cable accessible here.)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The North Korea Debacle
Contributed by Ian Chan
It seems like a never-ending nightmare for diplomats and military officials on both sides of the pacific: North Korea conducting some military action unilaterally and then threatening to respond to any acts of self-defense, the U.S. escalating exercises with South Korea, and China calling for "all sides to show restrain". But following the the recent shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, a South Korean military base that caused the death of several civilians and soldiers, there seems to be some change in this dynamic.
Following the shelling, South Korea responded in force and sent out fighter jets to patrol the area, the U.S. sent in the USS George Washington, a aircraft carrier that is a potent symbol of power in the Yellow Sea, and China has called for emergency consultations by inviting a North Korean official to Beijing. However, under all that diplomatic language there seems to be more. As the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks to international newspapers show, there seems to be a gradual shift in China's view of the North Korean regime and its unwavering support for its neighbors. This shift in view, according to the cables, go all the way to the top, and reveal a distancing that has never been seen before.
The leaks show that officials increasingly recognize that the alliance is not bringing any benefits to the Chinese, that the North's nuclear activity is a threat to the world, that the North is like a "spoiled child", that China can handle at least 300,000 refugees from a possible regime collapse, and that Beijing would be alright with a unified peninsula under the government in Seoul. These views, coupled with China's push for a renewal of the six-party talks and emergency consultations, seem to signal a change in stance.
But wait a second, experts in the region and historians have also noted that often even private remarks made by Chinese officials to foreign diplomats maybe more complex than they seem and that a significant shift in China's policy is unlikely, especially under an outgoing leadership. With the foreign policy stances of the possible successor to Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping, unknown to the world, there seems to be a small chance that there will be any official change until 2012. Moreover, China does not like to cave to pressure, in particular American, and the presence of a fully operational and supplied aircraft carrier carrying military exercises so close to its coast must be unsettling for a fledgling nation that feels it is being trapped and boxed in by the U.S. Furthermore, the 60th anniversary of the Korean War will remind the Chinese of their heroic sacrifices for their communist comrades during the conflict and will no doubt be used as a nationalistic rallying cry by the regime in Beijing to shore up domestic support.
Therefore, given these two contrasting views, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the region remains as volatile as ever, and its players are complex and unpredictable. Kim Jong-il, North Korea's ailing leader, is rumored to be posturing to secure a smooth transition for his third son, Kin Jong-un, which has added to the instability in the regime. The South, under the right-wing government of Lee Myung-bak, has stepped up its defense and hard-line tone. The U.S. and China, in the meantime, will likely continue their proxy jabs and disagree on process and substance. Regime change may be coming, but no one knows how that would happen, and that should be worrying to the international community.
Sources: The Guardian, The Washington Post
It seems like a never-ending nightmare for diplomats and military officials on both sides of the pacific: North Korea conducting some military action unilaterally and then threatening to respond to any acts of self-defense, the U.S. escalating exercises with South Korea, and China calling for "all sides to show restrain". But following the the recent shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, a South Korean military base that caused the death of several civilians and soldiers, there seems to be some change in this dynamic.
Following the shelling, South Korea responded in force and sent out fighter jets to patrol the area, the U.S. sent in the USS George Washington, a aircraft carrier that is a potent symbol of power in the Yellow Sea, and China has called for emergency consultations by inviting a North Korean official to Beijing. However, under all that diplomatic language there seems to be more. As the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks to international newspapers show, there seems to be a gradual shift in China's view of the North Korean regime and its unwavering support for its neighbors. This shift in view, according to the cables, go all the way to the top, and reveal a distancing that has never been seen before.
The leaks show that officials increasingly recognize that the alliance is not bringing any benefits to the Chinese, that the North's nuclear activity is a threat to the world, that the North is like a "spoiled child", that China can handle at least 300,000 refugees from a possible regime collapse, and that Beijing would be alright with a unified peninsula under the government in Seoul. These views, coupled with China's push for a renewal of the six-party talks and emergency consultations, seem to signal a change in stance.
But wait a second, experts in the region and historians have also noted that often even private remarks made by Chinese officials to foreign diplomats maybe more complex than they seem and that a significant shift in China's policy is unlikely, especially under an outgoing leadership. With the foreign policy stances of the possible successor to Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping, unknown to the world, there seems to be a small chance that there will be any official change until 2012. Moreover, China does not like to cave to pressure, in particular American, and the presence of a fully operational and supplied aircraft carrier carrying military exercises so close to its coast must be unsettling for a fledgling nation that feels it is being trapped and boxed in by the U.S. Furthermore, the 60th anniversary of the Korean War will remind the Chinese of their heroic sacrifices for their communist comrades during the conflict and will no doubt be used as a nationalistic rallying cry by the regime in Beijing to shore up domestic support.
Therefore, given these two contrasting views, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the region remains as volatile as ever, and its players are complex and unpredictable. Kim Jong-il, North Korea's ailing leader, is rumored to be posturing to secure a smooth transition for his third son, Kin Jong-un, which has added to the instability in the regime. The South, under the right-wing government of Lee Myung-bak, has stepped up its defense and hard-line tone. The U.S. and China, in the meantime, will likely continue their proxy jabs and disagree on process and substance. Regime change may be coming, but no one knows how that would happen, and that should be worrying to the international community.
Sources: The Guardian, The Washington Post
Chinese capitalists vs African workers
Contributed by Ying Jiang
A recent New York Times report on a shooting incident at a Chinese-owned Zambian coal mine, Collum Coal, reveals a glimpse of Western impression of Chinese dealings with some of the African governments. In this incident, mine workers who are dissatisfied with wages and erratic work schedules demonstrated their anger by crowding a closed mine shaft, resulting in gun shots from supervisors in (apparently) self-defensive actions. Aside from wage issues, work place safety is also a prime concern.
While the mine-owners denied any wrong of their own, it has become a more common sentiment among Zambians that foreign companies such as Collum Coal exploit and abuse, rather than help and develop, their host country, often protected by a corrupt government. In this case, the words of the Zambian president Rupiah Banda, in an attempt to state that it's unfair to single out the Chinese (foreign companies), sounded absolutely ridiculous. On the other hand, the Times tries to balance its report by incorporating a somewhat humane, West-acceptable response from the Chinese Embassy.
It is ironic that China, a nation which sometimes still wallow in a self-image of the exploited and plundered for its early 20th century encounters with Western powers, has to role-play the exploiter towards countries down the ladder of development. Does this say anything about the evolution of capitalism?
Source: NYtimes
A recent New York Times report on a shooting incident at a Chinese-owned Zambian coal mine, Collum Coal, reveals a glimpse of Western impression of Chinese dealings with some of the African governments. In this incident, mine workers who are dissatisfied with wages and erratic work schedules demonstrated their anger by crowding a closed mine shaft, resulting in gun shots from supervisors in (apparently) self-defensive actions. Aside from wage issues, work place safety is also a prime concern.
While the mine-owners denied any wrong of their own, it has become a more common sentiment among Zambians that foreign companies such as Collum Coal exploit and abuse, rather than help and develop, their host country, often protected by a corrupt government. In this case, the words of the Zambian president Rupiah Banda, in an attempt to state that it's unfair to single out the Chinese (foreign companies), sounded absolutely ridiculous. On the other hand, the Times tries to balance its report by incorporating a somewhat humane, West-acceptable response from the Chinese Embassy.
It is ironic that China, a nation which sometimes still wallow in a self-image of the exploited and plundered for its early 20th century encounters with Western powers, has to role-play the exploiter towards countries down the ladder of development. Does this say anything about the evolution of capitalism?
Source: NYtimes
Friday, November 19, 2010
Qihan Li: Tech Watch
Starting from this week’s column, I will introduce up and coming or already popular but somewhat unknown websites and companies from China and America with similar backgrounds or business models to you, the readers, so that you will have a better grasp of the latest trends. For this week, I will introduce the flash-deal websites that sell products at discounted prices for a short period of time. Companies with such business models like Livingsocial and Vipshop have exploded in both China and America over the past few years and both companies represent a larger trend in their respective nations.
Livingsocial.com
There have been serious rumors around the web that Amazon will invest 100 million dollars in LivingSocial to expand their share of the special-deals and coupons market. LivingSocial primarily focuses on discounted experiences for bars, salons, and various forms of entertainment in the local area, and the discounts range from 50-80%. You have probably seen its applications like Visual Bookshelf on Facebook. Due to the economies of scale, it has rapidly expanded to nearly 90 markets and it directly works with local businesses. They get a share of the businesses’ revenues, and the discounts indirectly advertise the business. Despite fierce competition from large websites like Groupon as well as another 180 smaller websites, LivingSocial has been projected to rapidly expand in America.
Vipshop.com
In China, one-deal-a-day websites are generally not as popular as websites that combine the traditional e-commerce model with limited time and huge discounts. One example is Vipshop, which recently raised 20 million dollars from venture capital firms DCM and Sequoia. Vipshop sells middle-tier brand-name clothes and accessories to cities in China and directly works with both international and domestic retailers to increase the discounts. What separates it apart from competitors may be its wide variety of products and its secured and trustworthy retail chain. Chinese customers always have to worry about fake products, but Vipshop generally eliminates such concerns with its 7-day return policy and the guarantee of China United Insurance. Vipshop has set its eyes on the growing middle-class to increase its sales and offers valuable opportunities to foreign brands to enter the Chinese market. However, with the flash-sale market rapidly expanding, Vipshop has to continue to innovate to stay at the forefront.
Sources: Sina, Venturebeat, Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
U.S., China, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Contributed by Ian Chan
President Obama's trip to Asia following the recent midterm elections highlighted the likelihood that the remaining two years of Obama's current term of office may be dominated by foreign policy as he wrestles domestically with a divided Congress. Many have labeled Obama the so-called "Pacific" President, with his Indonesian upbringing and birth in Hawaii, but the label also extends beyond the biography of the President. The label signals an emphasis in U.S. policy toward Asia and away from its traditional focus in Europe and more recently in the Middle East. Sure, European nations will still remain allies and the enormous stake the U.S. has in the Middle East has not diminished, but Obama and his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have signalled clearly their intention to heavily engage emerging Asian nations as their economic and geopolitical power rises in the 21st century.
The emphasis on Asia has much to do with the "rise of the rest", as Fareed Zakaria put it in his book "The Post-American World", the U.S. not only should want to, but needs to change its attitude toward emerging markets and their national governments as the post-WWII Washington consensus has slowly disintegrated. In particular, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will play a vital role in the ways the U.S. can seek to further its interests in the region without directly clashing with China. ASEAN is mainly an economic forum that facilitates trade and dialogue between member countries, and as a bloc it often negotiates with bigger economies such as China, Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. If the U.S. chooses to be more engaged and pull ASEAN closer, it can act as a powerful check against a rising China that would no doubt seek to dominate the region. It is in ASEAN's interest to maintain their non-aligned status and play the powers off each other in order to get the best deal.
This strategy by ASEAN is reminiscent of the world before 1989. Then, countries such as India were famous in their non-alignment to either the Soviet Union or the United States, despite heavy lobbying, and in turn India was able to reap benefits from both blocs. This mindset is in play in a country no other than Obama's childhood home, Indonesia. A few days before Obama's visit, a high-level Chinese delegation concluded a massive deal with the Indonesian government to invest in badly needed infrastructure. The timing of the package, and the substance of it, clearly shows that while Indonesia is clearly not a Chinese ally or puppet, it sees the benefit of Chinese economic assistance and the void that creates for the U.S. Obama's response was not to match the Chinese package, but to strengthen ties with the Indonesian people by recalling childhood memories, interacting with local culture, and using Indonesian phrases in his speeches. His charm and warmness; however, may not be enough to pull ASEAN countries firmly into the American fold in the new multilateral world. Will this new kind of diplomacy kick off a new Cold War? At this moment, there is no clear sign that the world is turning back to a biploar world, but rather increasingly a multi-polar world where different countries all have an opinion and seek to compromise on all issues. The G-20 is a powerful example of this new way of doing business, and it seems that President Obama, given his character and policy preferences, is well suited for this new world order.
Sources: New York Times, "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria
President Obama's trip to Asia following the recent midterm elections highlighted the likelihood that the remaining two years of Obama's current term of office may be dominated by foreign policy as he wrestles domestically with a divided Congress. Many have labeled Obama the so-called "Pacific" President, with his Indonesian upbringing and birth in Hawaii, but the label also extends beyond the biography of the President. The label signals an emphasis in U.S. policy toward Asia and away from its traditional focus in Europe and more recently in the Middle East. Sure, European nations will still remain allies and the enormous stake the U.S. has in the Middle East has not diminished, but Obama and his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have signalled clearly their intention to heavily engage emerging Asian nations as their economic and geopolitical power rises in the 21st century.
The emphasis on Asia has much to do with the "rise of the rest", as Fareed Zakaria put it in his book "The Post-American World", the U.S. not only should want to, but needs to change its attitude toward emerging markets and their national governments as the post-WWII Washington consensus has slowly disintegrated. In particular, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will play a vital role in the ways the U.S. can seek to further its interests in the region without directly clashing with China. ASEAN is mainly an economic forum that facilitates trade and dialogue between member countries, and as a bloc it often negotiates with bigger economies such as China, Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. If the U.S. chooses to be more engaged and pull ASEAN closer, it can act as a powerful check against a rising China that would no doubt seek to dominate the region. It is in ASEAN's interest to maintain their non-aligned status and play the powers off each other in order to get the best deal.
This strategy by ASEAN is reminiscent of the world before 1989. Then, countries such as India were famous in their non-alignment to either the Soviet Union or the United States, despite heavy lobbying, and in turn India was able to reap benefits from both blocs. This mindset is in play in a country no other than Obama's childhood home, Indonesia. A few days before Obama's visit, a high-level Chinese delegation concluded a massive deal with the Indonesian government to invest in badly needed infrastructure. The timing of the package, and the substance of it, clearly shows that while Indonesia is clearly not a Chinese ally or puppet, it sees the benefit of Chinese economic assistance and the void that creates for the U.S. Obama's response was not to match the Chinese package, but to strengthen ties with the Indonesian people by recalling childhood memories, interacting with local culture, and using Indonesian phrases in his speeches. His charm and warmness; however, may not be enough to pull ASEAN countries firmly into the American fold in the new multilateral world. Will this new kind of diplomacy kick off a new Cold War? At this moment, there is no clear sign that the world is turning back to a biploar world, but rather increasingly a multi-polar world where different countries all have an opinion and seek to compromise on all issues. The G-20 is a powerful example of this new way of doing business, and it seems that President Obama, given his character and policy preferences, is well suited for this new world order.
Sources: New York Times, "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria
Will Gap (the fashion brand) succeed in China?
Contributed by Ying Jiang
According to current opinions the answer seems to be no. The reasons come down to the culture and psychology of Chinese fashion consumers: that they are (1) brand and (2) fashion conscious. Therefore foreign luxury brands or middle-range brands who marketted their products as being high-end in China do well (think LV and Haagen Dazs respectively). Lower price-tiered brands, both foreign and local (think H&M and Metersbonwe respectively), that have successfully projected a forward fashion image, also win consumers. Gap, with a moderately known name but non-too-edgy design with relatively expensive prices, is predicted to have a questionable future in China.
Sources: Chinalawblog, Forbes
According to current opinions the answer seems to be no. The reasons come down to the culture and psychology of Chinese fashion consumers: that they are (1) brand and (2) fashion conscious. Therefore foreign luxury brands or middle-range brands who marketted their products as being high-end in China do well (think LV and Haagen Dazs respectively). Lower price-tiered brands, both foreign and local (think H&M and Metersbonwe respectively), that have successfully projected a forward fashion image, also win consumers. Gap, with a moderately known name but non-too-edgy design with relatively expensive prices, is predicted to have a questionable future in China.
Sources: Chinalawblog, Forbes
Monday, November 8, 2010
Obama's Endorsement of India for the UN Security Council & China
Contributed by Belinda Tang
Obama's recent endorsement of India may be based, at least publicly, in arguments about the growing importance of India in the global arena, but is also clear that the decision has large implications on China, as well, and is at least partly based in trying to send some sort of message to China. China has already expressed many recent doubts about the growing power of other Asian nations and how the US government plans on treating them.
Further, China has always had particularly contentious relations with India because of previous border and power disputes, so this move will be viewed particularly badly by the Chinese government. Combined with the recent endorsement of Japan, too, to join the Security Council, it is not unlikely that Chinese officials view these recommendations and endorsements as a power play against the Chinese government. China obviously views it as important to keep a higher balance of power compared to its other Asian counterparts, and these actions are a hazard towards that goal.
Personally, I understand the need for Obama to make decisions in the best interests of the United States, and if he views the decision to endorse India as one that will help the US, then so be it. I believe there are certainly going to be repercussions with how China will react to this, however, and Obama should have weighed the consequences of his action more carefully before handing such a strong endorsement. At the point where many experts were saying they were very surprised with the endorsement, one should consider the importance of it, in the first place, and whether it was worth sacrificing some element of Chinese-American relations for.
Obama's recent endorsement of India may be based, at least publicly, in arguments about the growing importance of India in the global arena, but is also clear that the decision has large implications on China, as well, and is at least partly based in trying to send some sort of message to China. China has already expressed many recent doubts about the growing power of other Asian nations and how the US government plans on treating them.
Further, China has always had particularly contentious relations with India because of previous border and power disputes, so this move will be viewed particularly badly by the Chinese government. Combined with the recent endorsement of Japan, too, to join the Security Council, it is not unlikely that Chinese officials view these recommendations and endorsements as a power play against the Chinese government. China obviously views it as important to keep a higher balance of power compared to its other Asian counterparts, and these actions are a hazard towards that goal.
Personally, I understand the need for Obama to make decisions in the best interests of the United States, and if he views the decision to endorse India as one that will help the US, then so be it. I believe there are certainly going to be repercussions with how China will react to this, however, and Obama should have weighed the consequences of his action more carefully before handing such a strong endorsement. At the point where many experts were saying they were very surprised with the endorsement, one should consider the importance of it, in the first place, and whether it was worth sacrificing some element of Chinese-American relations for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)