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

No Global Governance as “Old Pain” lingers

“One World” – instead of “first, second, and third world” – used to be an unalienable piece of vocabulary in every do-gooder’s wordpool, at least from Western countries. German weekly Die Zeit, not really a bunch of treehuggers, but a paper usually giving responsible opinion and unhurried advice, is re-assessing the one-world concept in an online article. Yes, in London and Pittsburgh, the governments of the world did write new rules for the financial markets. In Geneva, they held another round of  negotiations about a new trade system. They will be back in Davos again soon, to perambulate all the global problems in their totality. They tried to save global climate in Copenhagen. But they are forgetting the financial crisis, the further we seem to leave it behind us. The more remote the memory, the smaller chances are to write global rules that would be globally effective.

And they failed in Copenhagen – “Every country has its own dirty taboo”. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerhard Schröder liked the idea of global governance, writes Die Zeit. In the end, they hoped, negotiated agreements and international organizations – NGO’s and corporations included – would lead to some kind of substitute for a desirable, but still unachievable global government. Liberals and left-leaning people in general seemed to support the concept.

But global emergency management has proved to be the maximum of what global governance could achieve together. There is no common concept of tomorrow’s world, writes Die Zeit. Both Europeans and Asians had gained a new self-confidence vis-à-vis America. Europe’s economic and social systems had shown a remarkable resistance against the effects of the economic crisis, and India and China put economic development before climate protection. “In India, you can’t see the climate problem eye-to-eye with Europe or the USA”, the paper quotes Shyam Saran, an advisor to India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh. On a global scale, Europe’s concept of political integration appears to be a  rather singular one.

Europe should get prepared for a world with a patchwork of powers which go it alone, like China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, and clusters of global governance like ASEAN or the EU, Die Zeit quotes a study by the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation.

Die Zeit lists liberals and left-leaning people who actually start to like the idea of such a world – and of nationalists who had always been skeptical of any kind of global governance anyway.

The article’s author actually confuses China’s party and state chairman Hu Jintao with the country’s chief councillor Wen Jiabao. And in other ways, the author also still seems to underestimate the distance between East (arguably excluding several countries such as India, Vietnam, and possibly Japan and South Korea) on the one hand, and Western countries on the other. There isn’t really much reason to believe that a common view of the world will emerge any time soon. Jonathan Spence, in a Reith Lecture in Liverpool, broadcast by the BBC on June 10th 2009 June 10th 2008,  suggested that the issue of the Opium Wars

is now no longer a real one in any important sense and to harp on it now is not something the Chinese have to do. It’s something they can do if they wish to keep an old pain alive.

You can be pretty sure that China’s government does want to keep the old pain alive. “To remember the bitter past to cherish the happy present tense” is a tradition that either came into being or was revived by the CCP during the Chinese Communists’ early days in power – and it is still an efficient way to keep the Chinese public sufficiently afraid or distrustful of foreigners to disapprove of “foreign concepts”. Even otherwise highly open-minded Chinese people often cling to these “open accounts from history”.

At hindsight, at the end of the 20th century or at the end of the 21rst century’s first decade, one may probably say that it was naive to believe that world governance could be an option. You can’t do business with a totalitarian regime, unless you are ready to do business at its terms.

The Zeit article, as flawed as I believe it to be in one or another detail, caught me by surprise. I’m left-leaning myself, and until today, I have felt that my re-orientation towards regional solutions, rather than global ones, was something not too many others of my political color would share. But there seems to be a general trend towards regional action. Elinor Ostrom, an American economist, argues that people may actually commit to the common, rather than the individual use of resources, so long as they succeed in organizing the use and maintenance of such resources. A single system of rules for rather large international fishing zones was likely to fail, she suggests. Polycentric solutions – or regional ones – might work. Experimenting with different ideas in different places could amount to a competition of different ideas., which would either convince bystanders, or leave them unenthused.

And even steps deemed small by its actual practitioners might convince visitors from overseas.

____________

Related:
Mark Lynas: “How China wrecked the Copenhagen Deal”, December 24, 2009

2010: More Martyrs, more Permanent Residents

China’s laws and regulations can often be confusing, writes China Daily. There are several small changes to laws regulating security guards. If one dies on duty, they will be honored with the official title of martyr, usually reserved for those the government says have died for justice. Second, security guards are banned from performing body searches or using violence.

A regulation that may change more peoples’ lives and status is Guangdong’s Provincial Service Management Regulation on Migrant Population (广东省流动人口服务管理条例), which comes into effect all over the province on January 1, after it had been tested in Shenzhen for a year. Tens of millions may bid their current transitional status in Guangdong goodbye and become permanent residents, writes Southern Metropolis Daily (南方都市报). The kind act (善举) doesn’t yet amount to a household registration reform (户籍改革), but is a step into the ideal direction, believes the paper, as it indicated the provincial government’s changing concept.

51 years ago, New China stipulated the policy that citizens who temporarily live in a city outside their regular city or district for more than three days had to carry out temporary residence registration. In 1985, given a strong current of work migration into Guangdong in the wake of the reform policies, the public security office (公安部) issued the Interim Provisions on the Management of Temporary Urban Residency (关于城镇暂住人口管理的暂行规定). The status of migrant workers was that of temporary residence. They weren’t included in the province’s GDP statistics, and they had no entitlement to governmental services. Outsiders also criticized the temporary residence permit (暂住证) as a money machine (敛财的工具) for some departments, as some cities charged several hundred Yuan RMB per temporary residence permit, and another Defense of Law and Order fee of 158 Yuan RMB was charged in Guangzhou in 2001.

The Southern Metropolis Daily suggests that the case of Sun Zhigang (孫志剛) in 2003 helped to speed up the reform of temporary residence in Guangdong. The Southern Metropolis Daily doesn’t go into details, and doesn’t mention its own role in investigating Sun Zhigang’s case (which apparently led to massive revenge by the local authorities against its editors Cheng Yizhong and Yu Huafeng).

During the new regulations’ test period in Shenzhen, Professor Zheng Xinzhen (郑梓桢), head of the Guangdong Provincial Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Sociology and Demographic Studies, said that permanent residence was a rational reform, but only a beginning, and its bonus could be applied more broadly.

Southern Metropolis Daily also addresses the question if Guangdong Province has the financial resources to live up to the new regulation’s promises. The article believes that as the first ground for the reform policies, with the highest incomes in China, Guangdong should be able to afford education to the migrants children, and make them a force in building the province. Besides, without proper education, the new generation after the initial migrants could become destabilizing factors.

____________

Related:
Household Registration System – a Personal Opinion, September 11, 2009

Obituary: Akmal Shaikh, 1956 – 2009

Not every Briton or European will be appalled that Akmal Shaikh was sentenced to death, and executed on Tuesday. “They get away with every excuse” is frequently the tenor uttered by fellow citizens (or a big tabloid) here in Germany when extenuating circumstances lead to an extenuated verdict in our courts. Obviously, you better won’t smuggle drugs anywhere, and if you absolutely have to do it, you’d better not try in China or Singapore.

In Mr Shaikh’s case, a mental disorder – bipolar disorder or manic depression – could have been an extenuating factor. It apparently didn’t count in his trial in Xinjiang, or in China’s Supreme People’s Court’s review of the verdict. The BBC quotes Xinhua as saying that the supreme court hadn’t been provided with any documentation proving that Akmal Shaikh had a mental disorder. If this was really the wording, it should have been the prosecutors’ job to prove that he hadn’t.

In his reaction to Mr Shaikh’s execution, British prime minister Gordon Brown, stated that he was particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken. The China Global Times‘ take of  Mr Shaikh’s mental state in an article of December 24 was that

arguably, Shaikh has a mental disorder. But, China has its own definition of mental illness, and by that he is deemed to be mentally sound.

The fact that Shaikh is the first European to be executed in China in 50 years is sensational enough to stir up public emotion. But viewed in context, the uniform application of sentencing standards for both the Chinese and foreigners underscores the progress of China’s legal system, which is steadily building the principle of rule of law.

If politics plays a role in public emotion elsewhere, it certainly does in the Global Time’s coverage.

For the Chinese side, the case is sensitive because it brings back the black memory of the Opium War started by the British more than a century ago that dragged the country through a lengthy nightmarish period.

The critical limit where the death penalty may apply for drug smugglers or producers is at 50 grams of heroin or 1 kg of opium, China Daily wrote two years ago. It may lead to the death penalty, but the catalog starts with 15-years jail sentences.

It looks pretty bold to say that Akmal Shaikh’s execution were an indication for  progress in China’s legal system.

____________

Related:
Expressing myself, November 20, 2009

Related/Update:
“End of Laissez-Faire”, Junjie’s China Blog, Dec 30, 2009

A Glimpse at China’s Social Security Programs

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee reviewed the State Council’s Report on the Promotion of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, measures for creating employment, and rural social insurance today, reports China National Radio (CNR). According to a report given by Li Yizhong (李毅中), minister of Industry and Information Technology, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that finished products and service value accounted for 60 per cent of China’s GDP, and for almost 80 per cent of jobs in cities and townships. The NPC Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee’s vice chairman Sun Wensheng (孙文盛) explained on the same meeting that generally, the level of social security in rural areas remained low, and some were merely in their experimental phase. The agricultural affairs committee suggested that appropriate adjustments to the arrangement of social insurance testing work and its acceleraton should be made, that a stable funding mechanism for rural social security should be established, and that in accordance with city and countryside overall planning, systems of  rural social security systems should be strengthened, and that this policy which benefitted the countryside should be effectively implemented.

According to China Radio International (CRI English), the State Council report says that 320 counties, or 11.6 percent of the country’s total, had been or would be approved to try a new rural social pension insurance system, which would benefit more than 15 million rural residents.

Social security in rural China usually means that the government will subsidize individuals’ insurance premiums. According to an article by Katie Lewis in the Canadian Medical Association Journal of June this year, such subsidies will amount to some 15 Yuan RMB per person, per year. This would provide 90% of China’s population with some sort of health insurance. But that will hardly put low-income families (by Chinese standards) into the position of buying social insurance. Despite central insurance programs, China seems to be a patchwork of different local  approaches and solutions to the problem. Depending on individual incomes and the treatment that is needed, social security is still looking unaffordable for many.

850 billion yuan will be allocated for medical and healthcare reforms over the next three years, according to a Brookings commentary of April this year. This would amount to some 283 billion Yuan for 2009, if equally allocated over the budgets of three years including 2009. This would be  4.28 per cent of China’s projected 6.623 trillion total national revenue of 2009, or 3.74 per cent of its 7.6 trillion budget (including a 950 billion deficit) as projected in March this year.

CRI: Developed Countries’ Copenhagen Positions Inconsistent with Previous Agreements

The Copenhagen Accord is not the end, and the whole world should take responsibilities on a long road to come, writes Chen Tian (陈天), a commenter with China Radio International (CRI). Although all countries acknowledged the existence of climate change and the urgency of reacting to it, the duties of burden-sharing had remained an unbridged gap between developed and developing countries. In that sense, Copenhagen should be seen as a starting point. Chen points out that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had called on the developed countries to take the lead, while developing countries should follow in taking appropriate action (“我呼吁出席本次会议的所有发达国家领导人率先采取行动，这样的话，其他国家也将随之采取相应的行动”).

China had, as the world’s largest developing country and emerging economy, made practical contributions, he writes. China’s state and party chairman Hu Jintao (胡锦涛), during the UN Climate Summit, had said that China took responsibility to its own people and the people of the world to make concrete efforts. Chen quotes the chairman: “China has defined a national climate program and has clearly stated that it would reduce energy consumption and emissions per GDP unit, and that it would increase forest cover, and the share of renewable energy, as binding national targets. In the future, China will, step by step, include measures against climate change into its economic and social development plans, and continue to take effective measures.” On November 26, China’s government had also declared that by 2020 the national carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP than in 2005 dropped 40% to 45%. These efforts had earned international acclaim, writes Chen -  Danish prime minister Lars Rasmussen had expressed his admiration.

Chen on the other hand expresses disappointment that the developed countries had been lacking sincerity in reducing emissions, even though they were mainly responsible for climate change:

America announced ahead of Copenhagen that until 2020, it would reduce greenhouse emissions by 17 per cent, compared with 2005, compared with 1990s, this would only be a reduction of four per cent. Although Japan had announced a reduction by 25 per cent, it demanded that all major emitting countries should take part in the reduction, which was clearly not in line with The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and with the Kyoto Protocol, which had established common, but differentiated, responsibilities^*), and even the European Union, which was most active in the negotiations, only committed to a 20 per cent or 30 per cent reduction target – while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that developed countries would need to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 per cent, based on 1990 as a reference year to avoid a devastating global impact.

Chen ends his article by quoting some words of encouragement, from a statement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after the conclusion of the Copenhagen Summit. In short: a success, and a beginning.

____________

*) The paragraph about differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities can be found on the UNFCCC’s website, within the Framework Convention’s prelude:

Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible  cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate  international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated   responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions, [...]

____________

Related:
Copenhagen Summit: Make it, or Fuck it Up, but Stop Bitching, December 18, 2009
“International Law Traded in for Big-Power politics”, Earth Institute, Dec 22, 2009

Mr Premier, are you ready?

climate: maybe it doesn't matter after all

U.S. president Barack Obama ran into a Chinese Wall of resistance and and delaying tactics, writes Austria’s online service OE24. The president had to get into China’s chief state councillor’s conference room after Wen Jiabao was reportedly overdue for a meeting, calling (in an ice-cold voice): “Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?”

Plus “It’s up to you”, according to OE24. According to Germany’s biggest tabloid Bild he sort of joined Wen and India’s, South Africa’s and Brazil’s heads of government or state after Wen had stood him up at an appointment earlier, and only sent a lower-ranking official to talk with the American president.

Many Chinese observers may like the show – if this is really how it went. But Obama apparently returned to Washington pretty much at ease: He had shown good will, without committing himself. And the electorate at home is much more interested in health reform and the economy, than in global warming, writes Der Spiegel. Many Americans don’t believe in a link between global warming and carbon-dioxide emissions anyway.

Pretty much the same as in China, probably.

Net Nanny: Internet needs Rule

Comrades and Underlings,

Net Nanny: An absolute NO on China Daily

when children approach their parents, or when the tributaries of the world approach their Middle Kingdom Emperor (or his viceroy overseas), they should ketou, or at least they should keep their hands clasped.

By no means should they spread their hands or fingers – this looks very vulgar. And if such things really happen, at least they shouldn’t be shown on the internet, because it only helps to spread the vulgar behavior. Photos showing barbarian manners like the one underneath my complimentary close should be completely out.

We must think of the internet as a transportation net, also in terms of manners. We need regulations to rule  it.

Thank you for your attention.
Net Nanny

a vulgar breach of protocol

____________

Related:

“Real Action”, China Daily, Dec 19, 2009