Democracy can’t Buy People

I have no strong doubts that America will “only” be the second or third largest economy within two to four decades. In the meantime, while the trends will be suggesting that, many people elsewhere in the world, including Westerners who are focused on economic power alone, will start placing their political bets on China, too. In the views of many, a society where human rights only rank second or third and where democracy is deemed an unnecessary luxury will appear to be more efficient than a democratic model. Many will easily forget or push aside all evidence that democracy may be an essential human right, or an important practise to avoid untenable living conditions of the “ordinary people”, and therefore, in the end, a stablilizing rather than a destabilizing factor in the life of a country. Many people won’t see either that even under an undemocratic – i. e. inefficient – form of government, peoples’ livelihoods can still hardly drop in China. Quite naturally, the only likely direction is upwards anyway, at least for some time to come, as long as most Chinese citizens are living close to the bottom of their individual potentials.

Radio Canada International QSL, 1988

I got this feeling when I looked at the German press online yesterday. An article by Niall Ferguson, first published by Britain’s Financial Times (now only accessible for registered readers) on December 27, has since been published in German by the weekly Stern, the weekly Der Spiegel, the daily Die Welt, and probably a number of regional newspapers, too.

Niall Ferguson’s article doesn’t look wrong to me, but it can encourage short-sighted views of the future when it comes to the benefits that political concepts, rather than civilizations, can offer, or the drawbacks they can cause. The main factors which play a role in Ferguson’s article are money (American current account accounts, public expenditure and revenue) and military power (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even if democracy never becomes something most Chinese people would appreciate and fight for – and among many of them, national power may be viewed as a sufficient substitute for leading a full life individually -, China won’t be an attractive model for most other nations. A country or empire may be powerful – but it won’t be attractive elsewhere unless the citizens can live their lives to their full potentials.

That said, Taiwan before all other countries will be in a difficult position, unless a majority of its people actually like the idea of being “re-united” with China. Their window of opportunity to have their sovereignty internationally recognized – if the opportunity still exists at all -, has begun to shrink. Will the Taiwanese test their opportunities and risk to codify their sovereignty internationally? And how far will the rest of the world – most crucially America – be willing to support and help to defend them?

For those of us who live in democratic countries, China’s growing weight poses questions which would have seemed unimportant only a few years ago. It is unlikely that the average Chinese citizen will enjoy our standards of living in the foreseeable future. And besides, it is unlikely that our standards of living will remain as high as they are. We will need to save more, and to spend less – not only in America. There are ecological reasons for that, and economical reasons. Rises in productivity can’t be endless, as long as we are confined to this planet. Democracy stabilizes society when its promises are sustainable. But democracy may stop doing so if the promises made by its political class – in order to secure their election or reelection – become unsustainable. This question about sustainability has always been an issue, but it must become a central issue in our societies. Democracy isn’t here because Westerners were better people than the Chinese. And the matter of sustainability isn’t at all lofty. While China’s social insurance programs are facing huge challenges, they are only promising comparatively small benefits to the Chinese people. Our welfare systems are much less challenged than theirs, but the promises of our welfare systems to their clientele have become a great burden for every regular employee. If democracy shall stay, we must ask ourselves who we want to be, rather than what we want to own. Democracy can’t buy people. Democracy is either wanted, or it will go away.

Freedom is not a matter of where we live, and it is no matter of nationality or race. But it is, of course, a question about who governs us, which economic and political system we have, and into which direction we want to develop. As China is a totalitarian country, led by a “Communist” party which wants to stay in power (no matter if that will require Communist, Socialist or Confucian colors), its growing influence will require us to be vigorous competitors in terms of political concepts, and to some extent, in terms of power.

It doesn’t really matter how powerful the West’s position will be in the future. But there need to be democratic societies which are able to defend themselves, and which can convince the global public that people only live full rights in the light of human rights.

Once China is a country with a p0litical class that works to heal, rather than to cultivate the mortifications of its people, it can – and maybe should – lead the world. Otherwise, it shouldn’t get into that position.

____________

Related:
How to Corrupt an Open Society, Aug. 29, 2009
The American Era isn’t over, October 30, 2008

Excerpts from Hermit’s Memoirs: “My first Chinese American Pizza”

Bremen – As we all know, China was subjected to a century-and-a-half of humiliation and cruelty at the hands of the Western imperialist forces. There are many small stories of Chinese individual fates which add up to the big historical picture, and Hermit, a well-known Taoist scientist and expert on Western imperialism and its everlasting snaky schemes, has some stories to share, concerning the more recent history. The following are excerpts from his memoirs (to be published in 2010), and in the following episode, he remembers his years of hardship as a student in Northern Germany, probably somewhere around 1990.

click here for the BIG picture

Unce Upon a Time in Bremen-Hemelingen: Hermit's Chinese American Pizza

Once upon a time in Bremen-Hemelingen, when I was a student of natural sciences in Germany, I opened a pizza parlor with some compatriot classmates. We called our pizza the Chinese American Pizza, but those stupid German passer-bys only looked at our big billboard and laughed in a silly way. When our market research team asked them why they were laughing, they said that American Pizza was just American Pizza, and that it was as simple as that.

We made the earnest representation to them that pizza was Italian before it was American, and that the Americans only stole it, and that it was silly to say that American pizza was hotter than Italian pizza or the original Chinese Pizza (invented in 2749 before 1949). It was only because of America’s so-called soft power that they, the Germans, found American pizza cooler than Italian or Chinese American pizza. But despite our patience and endurance, our representations didn’t really sink in. *)

So after a while, we started selling noodle soup and fried rice instead, which worked much better. For the time being, we had to live with that typically German bias. Their limits on our products were also typical examples for their slave mentality which became rampant after the Americans had won the war against them. As there are also some racist restrictions on Chinese students who want to run a business in Germany, we used a Germany-born Chinese dummy, and it worked alright.

But once the soft power of our motherland has grown to its due strength, we will come back to Bremen-Hemelingen and open a Chinese American Pizza parlor there.

Or a Chinese American Italian Pizza Parlor. Or a Chinese Italian Pizza Parlor, because America won’t count anymore. Or a Chinese Pizza Parlor. It will depend on our market research.

____________

*) The background behind their narrow-mindedness was of course obvious. If they had admitted that American Pizza is really Chinese American Pizza, they would have had to admit that Taipei is really Chinese Taipei, too! Germans are very logical people, but they are particularly “logical” (in a perverted way) when they are trying to maintain their anti-Chinese bias!

____________

Hermit’s Memoirs (Working Title: A Patriotic Student Travels the World) will be published by the Central Government Document Publishing House late next year. In accordance with the CCP’s Historical Resolution, the publishing will be done in accordance with The Historical Resolution, they won’t be published overseas, and these excerpts will appear exclusively on JR’s Beautiful Blog.

____________

Related:
Hermit’s Childhood and the Beautiful Stone, July 27, 2009

Mark Lynas: “How China wrecked the Copenhagen Deal”

Mark Lynas, correspondent with the Guardian, gives his account on the defining hours of the Copenhagen Accord on December 18th. According to his report, China only agreed to the Accord on the condition that the OECD countries would not commit to any binding target, not even unilaterally. If true, the rift wasn’t really between developed and developing countries - while India at times backed China’s positions, the Maldives certainly didn’t, and “Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position”. If true, this was apparently a point where the Four-Non-Negotiables coaliton dissociate, but that didn’t keep the Chinese delegation from seeing their policy through.

Lynas was attached to one of the delegations in the room.

Hat tip to The View from Taiwan’s Daily Links.

____________

Related:

Two Reactions to Mark Lynas’ Account, The Atlantic, Dec 23, 2009
“Developed Countries’ Copenhagen Positions Inconsistent…”, Dec 23, 2009

Hu Jia: Two Years in Prison

Hu Jia (胡佳) will have served two years of his prison sentence on December 27. When his wife Zeng Jinyan (曾金燕) told a Vietnamese friend some time ago that Hu would probably be released on June 26, 2011, her friend sincerely congratulated her. Her enthusiasm sort of grabbed Zeng, and encouraged her to be patient, Zeng wrote on her blog on Tuesday.

She also writes that neither Hu nor she have illusions about Hu’s health (hepathitis HB5), which hadn’t shown much improvement, and that what she hopes for is that Hu feels peace of mind.

Zeng Jinyan visited Hu Jia in prison yesterday, with Baobao (宝宝, her and Hu’s daughter).

____________

Related:
Posts tagged Hu Jia
Hu Jia, China’s Enemy Within, The Independent, April 4, 2008

Becoming Yourself Again

mask off

Somewhere, I read this year that teaching minors in a comprehensive school is as demanding as an air traffic controller’s job. I can’t judge that, because I’ve never been an air traffic controller, and I don’t remember if the author of the article was himself a teacher or an air traffic controller, but it’s true that permanent readiness of mind is an essential. Given that a lot of parents are very opinionated and very defensive when it comes to their childrens’ ratings and discipline, and given that politics has highly empasized parents volition (Elternwille) in recent years, a teacher needs to be both tough and diplomatic. As students’ performance levels are generally going down rather than up, many parents fear for their childrens’ future, and at the same time, not just a few of them seem to think of good ratings as some kind of human right, with or without their childrens’ own endeavors. Teachers can be easy lightning arresters. Parents’ volition applies in every classroom situation, too – can I sell my decisions, statements and conduct if they lead to conflicts with parents?

Sometimes, after having performed one hour after another, I’m sitting down in a pub, just on my own, have a coffee and a cigarette, try to relax and to become myself again.

Anyway, the christmas holidays are here now.

It’s nice to take that chronically optimistic educationalist mask off for a while. I’ve been teaching for more than five years now, and I’m usually enjoying it – but I do still know what stage-fright is.

____________

Related:
What it takes to learn and to teach, Febr 3, 2009

Copenhagen Summit: Make it, or Fuck it Up, but Stop Bitching

The UN Climate summit in Copenhagen isn’t over yet, and it’s too early to call it a failure. Then again, it’s probably also too late to turn it into a real success. That may have to wait until next year – and why not. Even no deal at all would still be better than a lousy one. Not only the poorest and the developing countries can walk out. So can the OECD countries, and in certain situations, our negotiators should. In the end, we in the so-called developed world, won’t be those to be first and worst affected if climate change should lead to a dramatic increase in natural disasters. Never join negotiations without the preparedness to walk out again. That much for the basics of negotiations. But before walking out, one has to do ones best to contribute to a success. And above all, we – negotiators or spectators – shouldn’t bitch around.

Next to the “poor countries”, there is a block of developing countries which have come a long way during the recent years or decades: Brazil, China, and India. South Africa joined their climate faction. During a preparatory meeting in Beijing on November 28, the four governments agreed on The Four Non-Negotiables.

Refusing even to discuss legally binding emission cuts or (unsupported?) international measurement isn’t a promising approach. But then, if international measurement and arbitration is wanted, who should carry it out? I haven’t heard OECD countries spelling out their suggestions yet – and I don’t believe that international arbitration will necessarily be accurate either. The UN Human Rights Council is no encouraging sample for such arbitration anyway.

Anyway, The Atlantic has words of praise for the American delegation:

At a press conference on Wednesday, I asked China’s chief climate negotiator Su Wei if it were possible for China and the United States to reach an accommodation on the verification issue. He responded with a long—a very long—answer. He started by accusing developed nations of trying to “evade their historic responsibilities with various excuses [and] the fundamental excuse is that [China and other emerging developing countries] have not taken steps to address climate change.” Su, however, contended that China’s energy efficiency efforts “have broken their lies.” He declared that China “always followed a principle of openness and transparency.” And then he asserted: “I don’t see the necessity of others to worry about the sincerity of China’s efforts to address climate change.” In other words, get lost.

In other words: bad China!

On the other hand, there is a force for good, of course. Also from The Atlantic:

Then came Hillary. On Thursday morning, moments after the African nations complained that the negotiations were going nowhere, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in a crowded press briefing room at the summit and announced that the United States would contribute to a $100 billion international fund starting in 2020—as long as “all major nations” commit their emissions reductions to a binding agreement and submit those reductions to transparent verification. And by “all major nations,” she meant China.

Cool. The U.S. Defense Department’s base budget for 2009 alone was at US-$ 515.4 billion this year. And, mind you, Hillary Clinton’s pledge didn’t stem from funding the U.S. would contribute on its own: America would only contribute to the amount.

In my books, the Obama administration has taken a constructive approach. I don’t expect it to play Papa Christmas in Copenhagen. But I’m not exactly in awe of the U.S. negotiating line yet either. And when looking at the constraints on the American federal government – not from the global community, but from home -, it doesn’t make America look better either. It only explains why even a pretty good-willed U.S. administration can’t do better than it is doing.

But that doesn’t really disturb or anger me. Lobbying – from either side – is tough business, and to make the right arguments win takes time. What pisses me off is some of the coverage here in Europe, in the United States, or by a number of Westerners around the globe who are singling China out as the usual suspect when something is going wrong. I’m not panda-hugger. That’s exactly why I find it disturbing when some mainstream media (and blogs)  from the West become as predictable in their findings and comments as the China Global Times or other CCP mouthpieces – only from the opposite direction.

Take this piece from the Christian Science Monitor (quoted by Stuart on his blog  Found in China here):

The world will hardly know if global warming is being curbed if the largest emitter of carbon – China – isn’t releasing accurate data about its pollution.
That’s why it was correct for the United States to insist Thursday at the climate-change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, that Beijing must be transparent about any claims of success in reducing greenhouse gases.
Without outside verification of carbon cuts in big polluting nations such as China and India, the US Senate is unlikely to pass a tough bill that would force Americans to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
And any international pact that sets hard targets for emissions reduction will mean nothing if there are suspicions of cheating or if some countries don’t pull their own weight.
The problem in China is that the ruling Communist Party has a long history of issuing false or at least unreliable data about its economy – as do many one-party regimes driven by ideology and that are often rife with corruption. Lower-level officials often cook official reports – or “add water,” as the Chinese say – to meet quotas set by Beijing or to protect their turf.

Stupid me! It’s China’s dictatorship! And I thought it was lobbyism which kept the U.S. Senate from moving!

I have no clear-cut opinion as to how far we should wait for China or India to commit themselves before becoming more dedicated ourselves. And I don’t need to. After all, I’m only a spectator. I can form my opinion once the stuff is completed either way, and in substance, I can understand misgivings like the ones voiced by the Christian Science Monitor. But my opinion is clear on one matter: it’s too early to single China out as a saboteur. And it is too early to act like if our countries, the OECD members, were saints in this matter.

But that’s how a number of op-eds, comments, and posts, are coming across. If I were a Chinese national, I would find the case they are making about as attractive as a post-religious sunday school, which is to say, as uncool as athlete’s foot.  If we want to make a case, we should stop preaching. Dogmas are the opposites good points. Yes, China or India may add water to meet quotas set by Beijing or to protect their turf. China or India may also simply refuse to commit themselves to any goals if we insist on whatever kind of international control. And in that case we will have to think about the best strategies that would remain: continuing to negotiate closer to their terms, or walking out ourselves.

The latter doesn’t necessarily look like the worst choice to me – it would open the door for other choices: going it alone – developing technologies to do our share in carbon dioxide reduction and becoming global market leaders in that technology, for example. It will be badly needed very soon.

We may, in such a case, have to rethink not only our individual ways of life (that’s inevitable anyway), but also where we should buy from. It would make no sense to have our daily needs produced where they cause the most carbon dioxide. In many ways, the ball will simply be in our court, not in China’s or India’s.

Many of our countries can also use controlled immigration – OECD countries, as a rule, are greying societies. Many people around the globe will need a new home if the United Nations work for climate control fails, and it’s OK to be choosy in choosing the right migrants, if we should be in that position.

And if our governments then  succeed in convincing the world that China and India could have done much better than they have (or will have), so much the better. As far as that’s concerned, Mrs Clinton has shown great – and perfectly legitimate – skills in Copenhagen already.

For one, she wasn’t bitching.

____________

Related:

Climate Change Control: Who should Foot the Bill, December 15, 2009

Climate Change Control: Who should Foot the Bill?

The worst thing that can happen to the Copenhagen summit would be a blame game, based on different ideological concepts. I thought I wouldn’t start a discussion about it yet, but I joined one on another blog. So if you want to know JR’s temporary unconsolidated findings and those of others on who should or might foot which share of the bill for climate change control, you might take a look at the commenter thread there.

____________

Related
China and one of its biggest threats team up for Copenhagen, Dec 12, 2009

London: A Flurry of “Justice”

The British government will reportedly advise retailers and importers to distinguish on labels whether imported goods from the West Bank were made by settlements or by Palestinians. It looks like a good decision. After all, there should be no settlements in the West Bank. And the measure doesn’t hit an Israeli government that is reeling between attempts of moderation and domestic pressures like the one led by Kadima until March this year.

I know quite a number of people here in Germany who would like to see the same move here, and if they have any misgivings at all, it will be merely for historic reasons.

But many of the people on my mind who might like the planned British import labels and see them as a good example for Germany will at the same time oppose sanctions against Iran. Besides, the timing of the move makes me wonder. Shortly ago, a super-tax on bankers’ bonuses was announced. And on or before June 3 next year, prime minister Gordon Brown and his Labor Party will have to face general elections. Why the sudden flurry of “justice”?

If Gordon Brown is just acting as the messenger boy for the American government as the Telegraph suggests, that would be good news.

But even if so, we in Europe should remember a few things:

In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. Then prime minister Ariel Sharon saw the withdrawal through, despite immense pressure against it from within his own country. The Gaza Strip is now controlled by Hamas.

In 2000, Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The move didn’t add to Israel’s security.

I’m not fundamentally opposed to labelling products from the West Bank. But before doing so, we should be sure about who it will serve, and who it will hurt. It won’t necessarily be the proverbial ordinary Palestinian farmer who has been denied access to his own land so far who will suddenly see his rights enforced.

Oversimplification within the Middle East has done a lot to fuel its conflicts. Oversimplification from our side of the Mediterranean won’t do anything to defuse them.

Looking at the sudden activity in itself, a lot would speak in its favor. But in the context of some other trends, it stinks.