Dalai Dilemma

Posted on April 14, 2010 by Courtney Weatherby

Photo by Pete Souza

The author of the article contemplates America’s relations with the Dalai Lama, with respect to China

Since the Dalai Lama’s exile from Tibet, it has become a tradition that the Dalai Lama meets with the American president—and this has not changed. However, as China’s power has grown, it has begun to stand up to the United States on issues that the Communist Party views as key. The relationship between the United States and the Dalai Lama is one of these issues. For China, the visit between the President and the Dalai Lama is more than respect for a leader of one of the major religions—it is an insult.

The relationship between China and Tibet has always been tense, and as the Dalai Lama’s international popularity continues to rise, the situation has grown worse. China’s long time history of relations with Tibet led to their invasion on the claim that Tibet is part of China—and this stance is one that they aggressively seek for the other countries to recognize. This has been a particular problem for Chinese internal politics because of the immense nationalism fostered by the Communist Party, which is continuously offended by Western actions towards Taiwan, remembrance of the events of Tiananmen Square, and common perspectives on Tibet. Throughout modern history, Chinese sovereignty has been trampled by the West, as was seen in the Opium War with Great Britain, the presence of spheres of influence, and the Boxer and Taiping Rebellions that had to be put down with European troops.

So what to most Americans seems like a formality and gesture of respect to a major religious leader seems to many Chinese like a slap in the face to their sovereignty. “The behaviour [sic] of the US… seriously interferes in China’s internal politics and seriously hurts the national feelings of the Chinese people” [1]. When paired with events like the recent announcement of arms sales to Taiwan [2], it’s easy to see how Sino-American relations have recently taken a downturn.

This can also be seen in the Chinese government’s efforts to show the world how important Tibet is to them: the Panchen Lama is the an important figure in the Geluk School of Tibetan Buddhism, second only to the Dalai Lama himself. When the Dalai Lama identified the next Panchen Lama, the Chinese government claimed it was another boy and is suspected by many to be responsible for the original Panchen Lama’s disappearance. Now the Chinese government’s choice has been given a position in a major Chinese political organization [3] in an attempt to set him up as an alternative to the Dalai Lama, despite the beliefs of many Tibetans that he is not the true reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. This has been a long-time problem with the United States’ because of the Dalai Lama’s popularity and the American emphasis on freedom of religion.

Such disagreements make it ever more clear that China and the United States simply do not see eye-to-eye on any major international goals. China emphasizes sovereignty; the United States emphasizes human rights. China emphasizes a stable society; America the freedom of the internet. And, most importantly, two of America’s major goals—the rebalancing of trade and sanctions on Iran—are largely ignored by China [4]. One of the few major goals that the United States and China agree upon is the restoration of a stable economy—but what makes the Chinese economy stable is not what makes the US economy stable, which simply leads to more divergence.

In light of such issues, the question arises as to whether or not the United States government should continue to meet with the Dalai Lama. Meeting with the Dalai Lama has now become an honored tradition in the United States, but it serves as more than a simple ceremony: it is a way for a figure who has become increasingly popular in the United States to meet with the head of government. More importantly, it is a reminder to the Chinese government of how important freedom of religion is to Americans—the policies that the Chinese Communist Party holds towards religious groups is considered over-controlling by many Americans, and some even take it as far as calling it a human-rights infringement, citing events in Tibet as an example. The White House did what it could to tone down the visit and avoid offending China out of respect, but in the end the question comes down to whether or not the United States should completely change its policies on this important issue to appease China’s sensitivities. Is respect enough, or should policies be completely dependent on the opinions of another country’s government? Judging by the actions of the Obama Administration, it appears that the answer is no.

Works Cited

[1] “China ‘hurt’ by Dalai Lama visit.” BBC News. 19 February 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8524724.stm

[2] “China Blames U.S. for Strained Relations.” New York Times. NYTimes.com. 7 March 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/world/asia/08china.html

[3] “China raises profile of Dalai Lama rival ‘Panchen Lama’.” BBC News. 1 March 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8542369.stm

[4] “Differences in Priorities Drive U.S. Rift with China—An Analysis.” New York Times. NYTimes.com. 19 February 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20china.html

Original Appearances of External Visuals and Media

Cover image is an Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Dalai Dilemma

How to Keep Iran Out of the Nuclear Game

Posted on March 30, 2010 by John Bolan

Visual by "rypoc"

This column argues that the traditional method of sanctioning Iran will not prevent their nuclear program from growing.

A common disciplinary measure against ‘rogue’ nations or, more specifically, nations that operate counter to international orthodoxy, is the placement of sanctions.  One such nation, Iran, is exemplary of such a measure.  Regardless of whether or not Iran is a rogue nation having many sanctions placed against it, do these sanctions really work or do they only feed the flame of resentment and hostility against the participatory nations?  Given the events (or lack thereof) of recent months on the part of Iran, the answer suggests that sanctions do more harm than intended – to the dismay of those favoring the coalition of the willing.

Writing for the New York Times on March 12, 2010, David E. Sanger suggests that sanctions against Iran might not be the best thing: “Those who advocate sanctions acknowledge that three rounds enacted by the United Nations Security Council failed to change Iran’s behavior” [1]; it appears that the left acknowledges the futility of international unanimity.  As an organization lacking in authoritative executive power, the UN can do little more than express its discontent over individual nations’ or people’s actions; it is then no wonder that over the course of his presidency to date, Obama has broken several of his promises [2].  Moreover, as Michael Singh points out in his blog entitled “Incremental Sanctions Make a Nuclear Iran More Likely”, the predictability of sanctions in their scope and timing allow Iran to prepare for them in advance [3].  In placing sanctions (typically economic) against Iran, the aim is to weaken the resolve of the government there.  However, the general citizenry is also negatively affected as well.  Needless to say that broad economic sanctions unnecessarily harm more people than needed.

If sanctions prove ineffective in checking Iran’s ambitions for acquiring nuclear capabilities, what can be done?  Solutions may include but are not limited to orchestrating mutually beneficial interstate relations in the Middle East region.  This can then lead to a Middle East coalition posed against Iran, which may do well to become a kind of coalition of Middle Eastern states to stand against rogue nations such as Iran.  Other solutions may do well to include encouraging (not waiting for) other nations to take initiative in halting their relations with Iran that would bring them closer to acquiring the bomb.  Such actions may include re-evaluating business contracts, ceasing investments in Iranian oil, ending the sale of conventional arms (Russia) and other such measures.

However the U.S. chooses to engage Iran in the coming months, it cannot afford to vacillate in its direction; the longer the wait, the more severe the consequence; the Iran government is a dog whose bite may very well be worse than its bark.

Works Cited

Lindsay, James M., and Ray Takeyh. “After Iran Gets the Bomb. (Cover story).” 33-49. Foreign Affairs, 2010. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.

[2] “Promise Broken Rulings on the Obameter.” The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises. PolitiFact.com, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

[1] Sanger, David E. “So Let’s Say Iran Gets the Bomb…” New York Times. N.p., 12

Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/weekinreview/14sanger.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[3] Singh, Michael. “Incremental Sanctions Make a Nuclear Iran More Likely.”  Shadow Government. Foreign Policy, 28 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.  http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/2199

Original Appearances of External Visuals and Media

Cover Image by rypoc

Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

On-Screen Interview with Chris Brown on Alternative Energy

Posted on February 15, 2010 by mp081695
The Lexington Universal Circuit interviews Chris Brown, a China energy consultant with Guymard Consulting, on the domestic and international future of alternative energy.  More specifically, Mr. Brown delves into the obstacles that obstruct the global shift away from oil and other fossil fuels.  A great deal of discussion is focused on the positions China and the United States of America’s have on this issue.  Special thanks to the Bernard L. Schwartz Communication Institute for hosting the interview.

Click here for the interview.

Please visit Chris Brown’s:

blog at http://chinasolarenergy.blogspot.com/,

and twitter feed at http://twitter.com/chrisrbrown.

Posted in Economics and Finance, Politics and Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On-Screen Interview with Chris Brown on Alternative Energy

The Severity of Iran’s Nuclear Program: Rubbish or Real?

Posted on February 8, 2010 by Ryan Wiley

Photo by Hamed Saber

Photo by Hamed Saber

This column explores the origin of Iran’s nuclear program and the impetuous events that diminished the relationship between Iran and the United States.

Mounting unpredictability of nuclear threats to the United States of America and the international community are inciting global unrest.  As the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereafter referred to as Iran) continues to demonstrate defiance in its nuclear advancements, the international community is struggling to sanction the efforts from the radical state.  A collaborative effort is necessary to thwart Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Although Iran insists that its nuclear program is a peaceful one, Western governments are intensely skeptical.  This essay will seek to explore Iran’s nuclear program by succinctly reflecting on the origin of its nuclear program and the successive events as an effort to understand the current deliberations and determine how severe of a threat Iran really is.

Iran’s nuclear program established its roots in the 1950s—a turbulent decade for the country.  Dispute over oil operations amassed when Britain expressed ardent dissatisfaction with Iran due to opposing views about who should profit and how the profits should be distributed regarding oil production.  Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s first democratically elected Prime Minister, believed that the country had the right to garner profits from its oil reserves and subsequently nationalized the industry [1].  Britain adamantly opposed this resolution and claimed that Mossadegh was violating the legal rights of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.  An impressive effort was made by the British government to persuade oil consuming nations to boycott Iranian oil.  Consequently, Iran’s inability to sell its primary export forced the country into a dire financial crisis [2].

Fearful that the Soviet Union would impose a takeover of a vulnerable Iran, the United States agreed to coalesce with Britain to intervene.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s mobilized the CIA to take preventative action to avoid such a takeover.  This monumental strategy was the CIAs “first covert operation against a foreign government” [3].  The measure undermined the Mossadegh regime by pressuring his dénouement and replaced him with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—a dictator largely dependent on U.S. aid.  Following President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program in 1957, the United States and Iran signed “a civil nuclear co-operation agreement” [4].  Iran promptly began research and developments of nuclear facilities for energy generation with Western support.  Strangely enough, the United States and Iran sustained a working relationship through the 1960s.

Cordial exchanges of nuclear and research materials were traded between the allies.  As relationships strengthen, the two countries depended on each other for critical resources.  The United States supplied nuclear materials including enriched uranium, plutonium, and eventually a water-moderated research reactor to bolster Iran’s research efforts [5].  Early in 1961, the Joints Chief of Staff was confident that the United States’ relationship with Iran was close enough that it suggested to store nuclear weapons there.  In 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; however, as the 1960s proceeded into the 1970s, motivation began to accelerate.  The Shah of Iran became feverishly ambitious about his country’s nuclear development, vowing to construct up to twenty nuclear plants throughout the country—a plan that received support and backing from the United States.  Peaceful negotiations and trade continued between the countries despite the remarks in 1974 when Iran boldly stated that they were pursuing nuclear weapons and that development may come “sooner than one would think” [6].  Trade continued between the United States and Iran.  Although the quasi-threat did not have profound impact on the relationship between the countries, it was certainly a pivotal moment that should have sparked concern.  Iran’s nuclear development prevailed until 1979 when the Islamic revolution ended their nuclear program.

The advancements in Iran’s nuclear program between the fall of the Mossadegh regime and the Islamic revolution were exceptional.  Strong diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran served as Iran’s impetus to move forward with nuclear development.  These advancements would not have materialized without cooperation and assistance from the United States.  Iran sought American universities, engineers, and scientists to bolster its nuclear program.  In this regard, the United States was overwhelmingly generous.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology was among the universities chosen (as well as Harvard University and Columbia University) by Iranian government to specially train nuclear engineers [7].  Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s consideration to this matter sparked debate throughout the campus as students protested the program fearful that Iran had a nuclear proliferation agenda.  If political concern was heartfelt by students, it was the academic integrity of the institution and the prestige of its degrees that troubled some of its faculty.  Rising concern about Iran’s nuclear objective seemed to diffuse the M.I.T. community and the nation when Professor Kent Hansen argued that it was advantageous for the institution to adopt this program as a medium to gain exposure in foreign countries [8].  He believed that world could benefit from American education asserting that international students will return to their countries and become powerful public figures.  Providing fair opportunity to these international students in the United States would reap benefits in the future when they reflect on their education.

American generosity did not culminate with special training for atom scientists in its universities.  The New York Times ran several advertisements in 1976 for the Iran Nuclear Energy Company soliciting employment opportunities for nuclear engineers and specialists.  According to one ad, “all positions offered attractive salaries, excellent fringe benefits and working conditions” and were available immediately for qualified persons [9].  Ostensibly, the United States was willing to offer any resources necessary to help Iran grow its nuclear program.  The motivation behind such fervent support is obscure.

United States relations with Iran slipped into rapid decay when Iran’s stability was undermined by the radical Islamic revolution in 1979.  Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini headed the revolution on a conservative Muslim platform demanding extradition of the Shah of Iran.  His supporters raided the United States Embassy in Tehran alleging that it was a “den of spies” [10].  In total, the radicals seized sixty-three staff members and released them incrementally over a period of 444 days.  The incident attracted widespread attention in the United States inciting outrage among American citizens. Almost immediately “Washington sever[ed] diplomatic ties and impose[d] sanctions against Iran” [11].

Prior to the revolution in 1979, the United States did not expressly state concern about Iran as a potential threat.  Leveraging its superpower status to aid Iran was markedly significant for Iran’s nuclear program, but equally critical for the United States.  High level involvement in the Iranian nuclear operations from the United States and international agencies sufficiently insured to restrain Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction.  However, during this time the Shah was allegedly “purchasing billions of dollars worth of weapons, many of which can be equipped with nuclear arms…[and] spoke about expanding Iran’s sphere of influence” [12].  Despite these allegations, the United States was in the unique role as the world’s most powerful nation and did not view Iran as a colossal threat, especially given their strong diplomatic relationship at the time.

Unfortunately, this sentiment was not perpetual. Moving forward two decades it is acutely understood that the circumstances have been dramatically reoriented.  Today, Iran is believed to pose a serious threat to the United States and other nations around the world.  The two decades that span the lapse between 1979 and 2003 were fraught with provocation from the Iranian regime, but the issues did not develop into substantial concern (with the exception of the Iran-Contra Scandal, and the USS Vincennes that shot down an Iranian passenger plane).  The catalyst believed to have reshaped the debate with Iran was George Bush’s State and of Union address in 2002 when he declared the nuclear interests of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil” [13].  Iran was appalled by this assertion and responded by accusing the comment as “arrogant” [14].  Opponents contend that these remarks reset the agenda for Iran against the United States.

A report published in June of 2003, summarizing the March 2003 inspection, by the Director General Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency attracted concern about Iran’s nuclear energy practices.  A litany of obligatory neglect and failure of “declaration of facilities where the material was stored and processed” prompted unease throughout the international community [15].  Failure to report nuclear waste is notable because this material can be reprocessed into plutonium which is can further be converted into fissile material eligible for nuclear explosives.  In the report, the Director General states:

Although the quantities of nuclear material involved have not been large, and the

material would need further processing before being suitable for use as the fissile

material component of a nuclear explosive device, the number of failures by Iran to

report the material, facilities and activities in question in a timely manner as it is

obliged to do pursuant to its Safeguards Agreement is a matter of concern. While these

failures are in the process of being rectified by Iran, the process of verifying the

correctness and completeness of the Iranian declarations is still ongoing [16].

The profundity of Iran’s neglect is evident.  Given the empirical laws of science that state nuclear waste can be reprocessed into potentially harmful plutonium, it is a substantial motive to question intent.

When the International Atomic Energy Agency was inspecting the Iranian nuclear energy operations in March of 2003, they revealed discomforting findings.  Director General El Baradei discovered that Iran was “constructing a facility to enrich uranium—a key component of advanced nuclear weapons” [17].  Hundreds of functioning centrifuges in the “extremely advanced” plant were capable of producing enriched uranium, and parts for a thousand more were “ready to be assembled” [18].  Iran’s behavior was antagonizing and childish especially when they purported to “activate a uranium conversion facility” which would be a direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which they are a signatory [19].  Using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as protection from allegations that they are pursuing other nuclear interests does not persuade the international community.  For eighteen years Iran successfully hid an entire uranium enrichment program from the International Atomic Energy Agency, “a fact that alone could justify the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council” [20].  More importantly, Iran’s ability to keep a facility of that magnitude clandestine for such an extensive period of time is frightening and thought provoking.

Iran contends that its enrichment facilities are for quantified purposes in energy generation only.  Enriched uranium and plutonium are also conducive to fueling “nuclear reactors for electricity”—a widely accepted phenomenon [21].  The contention arises when Iran refuses to grant inspectors access to their facilities.  Western governments are inclined to assume the worst when these instances occur.  Kayhan Barzegar believes that “time is of the essence” and that the approach to the Iran dilemma needs timely reconsideration to eradicate doubt and reluctance from the Iranians to cooperate.  A viable approach to “curbing nuclear proliferation and preventing growing instability in the region” begins when the West ceases to doubt the legitimacy of Iran’s incumbent government [22].  Doubting the regime creates animosity and stymies any efforts to move forward diplomatically.

Pressure from the international community is frustrating Iran.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responds to these pressures with impatience and controversial remarks—inciting further contention from the outside.   In September 2009 the International Atomic Energy Agency together with Britain, United States, and France disclosed a uranium enrichment facility in Iran.  Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the IAEA, expressly stated that this finding was indicative that Iran “not even for a second will stop its nuclear activities” [23].  President Ahmadinejad also claimed during this moment that Iran had more nuclear facilities that were undisclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency.  International officials make stringent efforts to locate these facilities by being acute when interviewing Iranian officials and reading documents, but Iran is tacit.  If these locations are disclosed, International Atomic Energy Officials are restricted from visiting the sites without Iranian permission [24].

Iran’s refusal to cooperate with the European Union about its nuclear program is agitating EU leaders.  The threat of new sanctions looms while the EU prepares to make advances at undermining Iran’s nuclear defiance.  Some EU leaders are skeptical whether the United Nations will support the sanctions, but others like France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy believe that support from the United Nations is imminent.  Regardless, the EU plans to move forward with their sanctions if the United Nations denies [25].  Popular consensus among EU leaders and the United States is that Iran’s covert behavior is potentially perilous.  They believe that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to disguise the development of nuclear weapons.  This sentiment is serious and Iran’s ability to build weapons of mass destruction compromises international security.

Disdain for the United States and Israel emboldens the attention to Iran’s nuclear program.  A lack of foresight through the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s when the United States supported Iran’s nuclear development was imprudent.  Today, discomfort about Iran’s next move is constantly looming over the international community.  Strong convictions from the Iranian regime and its growing regional influence are almost counterproductive to Iran’s perceived intentions.  On one hand, Iran’s dissatisfaction with the West and other international players may persuade the country to retaliate in a destructive way.  On the other hand, Iran has garnered support from neighboring countries; mostly as a result of the Iraq war.  However, if Iran seeks to maintain these relations they must be compliant with International Atomic Energy Agency’s bylaws for nuclear programs.  If Iran fails to comply, it risks losing this support.

This paradox illuminates an important idea.  The threat is not necessarily about whether or not Iran will take destructive action (although we should not dismiss the possibility); they would face grave ramifications if they did.  Moreover, the threat is underscored by Iran’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and the uncertainty of their intentions.  The confrontational nature of the regime is resented by many and this resentment restricts constructive diplomatic negotiations.  If political bloodshed continues between Iran and the rest of the world, Iran may unload punitive arms out of pure frustration.  As Barzegar explains, an effort to expend dissent must materialize quickly because a diplomatic relationship with Iran is possible.

Works Cited

[10] “444 Days: America Reacts .” PBS: American Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/sfeature/sf_hostage.html

[21] [22] Barzegar, Kayhan. “The paradox of Iran’s nuclear consensus.” World Policy Journal 26.3 (Fall 2009) 21(10). Global Issues In Context. Gale. CUNY Trial. 14 Dec. 2009 http://find.galegroup.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC

[13] [17] [18] [19] Calabresi, Massimo. “Iran’s Nuclear Threat.” Time. N.p., 8 Mar. 2003. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C430649%2C00.htm

[1] [2] [3] De Luce, Dan. “The spectre of Operation Ajax: Britain and the US

crushed Iran’s first democratic government. They didn’t learn from that mistake.” The Gaurdian. N.p., 20 Aug. 2003. Web. 19 Jan. 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/20/foreignpolicy.iran

[25] “EU Leaders Urge Action Against Iran.” Wall Street Journal. N.p., 11 Dec. 2009. Web.15 Dec. 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126054030900287191.html

[15] [16] Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran,

by Director General. International Atomic Energy Agency. N.p., 19 June 2003.

Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf

[20] “Iran Further Escalates the Nuclear Controversy.” Foreign Policy Association. N.p., 20 Aug. 2005. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2584/newsletter_info_sub_list.htm?sectio=Iran%20Further%20Escalates%20the%20Nuclear%20Controversy

[4] [5] [6] Jahanpour, Farhang, Ph.D. “Chronology of Iran’s Nuclear Programme, 1957-2007.” Oxford Research Group: Building Bridges for Global Security. N.p., 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/oxford_research_group_chronology_irans

nuclear_programme_1957_2007

[14] “Key Events in Iran Since 1921.” PBS. N.p., 17 June 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/timeline.h

ml

[23] [24] Lauria, Joe. “IAEA to Seek Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Sites.” Wall Street Journal. N.p., 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125427165940751275.html

“Perception of Iran’s Goals.” Global Issues in Context Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, Global Issues In Context. Gale. CUNY Trial. 13 Dec. 2009
http://find.galegroup.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC

[7] [8] [9] [12] Safdari, Cyrus. “Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran’s Nuclear program.” Iran Affairs: Iranian Foreign Policy and International Affairs. N.p., 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html

[11] “US-Iran Relations Since 1979: Timeline.” Gaurdian.co.uk. N.p., 14 Dec. 2009.

Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/16/iran.usa2

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

Cover Image by Hamed Saber


[10] "444 Days: America Reacts ." PBS: American Experience. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/sfeature/sf_hostage.html
Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Scott Brown is America’s New Superman

Posted on January 22, 2010 by mp081695
Photo by "Dexta32084"

Photo by "Dexta32084"

This column comments on Scott Brown’s recent Congressional Senate seat victory.

In a shocking victory, Republican Scott Brown was fortunately the candidate to replace the Democratic 46 year veteran, Teddy Kennedy, for the Massachusetts Congressional Senate seat.  Given that Brown’s opponent was Martha Coakley, a Democrat who held the prestigious position of Massachusetts Attorney General, he really should have lost.  Though some might disagree, Coakley was probably better suited for the Senate seat because of her laudable background.  However, this particular election was not just a regular Senatorial election, but rather the election that decided the fate of the monstrous healthcare bill in Congress.

First, Scott Brown really only ran on one platform: to shut down the year long discussion on healthcare legislation.  According to the Senator’s website, Brown writes, “I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance.”  Now with 41 Republicans in the Senate, Americans have finally been blessed with the dues ex machina they needed all along, and that is the Senate’s automatic filibuster.  It is clear that the will of the American people is for the government to stop messing with the free-market state of healthcare in the U.S.  The Democrats in Congress now face a serious dilemma.  As William Golston, Senior Fellow of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution writes, “…Democrats have only bad choices. If they proceed with health reform, they will be accused of arrogantly disregarding the will of the people. If they abandon the effort, they will be viewed as weak and feckless. In my judgment, they should proceed, but it is not hard to construct a reasonable argument to the contrary.”

Should the Democrats proceed with legislation or drop a year’s worth of debate on how to completely destroy America’s current healthcare system?  There is one shady path the Democrats can now take to still pass their appalling legislation, which is budget reconciliation.  On True/Slant, Rick Ungar explains the process of reconciliation, but also states how pointless it is for the Donkeys to employ this method.

Ungar writes, “Reconciliation is a procedure that requires only 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to block a filibuster. But it is a process designed to apply only to matters that affect the federal budget – not substantive social policy that does not speak to the budget. The idea behind the reconciliation process is to allow the Senate to more quietly pass unpopular tax and cost cutting measures that both sides of the aisle might believe are necessary, but would not care to speak to in public for political reasons.

The problem is that reconciliation is not designed to push through matters of social legislation not directly connected to the federal budget or the effort to increase or decrease the same. It is up to the Senate parliamentarian to rule on whether a policy change is anything more than ‘incidental’ to the budget cutting effort. If he rules that a provision is beyond incidental, then that provision must be subjected to the typical filibuster rules.”

Finally, the stars are signaling that the healthcare debate Congress has been wasting America’s time on is finally coming to a close.  Though it should go without saying, there should never have been a debate on this issue to begin with.  It was funny to watch President Barack Obama pour so much political capital into this science project of his, but especially so because he constantly changed his stance on how to reform healthcare. Pavan Vangipuram from the Reasoned Review explains by writing, “As a candidate  Mr. Obama campaigned explicitly for a non-profit publicly owned health care provider (the so-called “public option”) and against an individual mandate, which would legally require all Americans to patronize our bloodthirsty private insurers. His opponent, Ms. Clinton, took the reverse position and so did Mr. McCain. Our vast pharmaceutical and insurance industry, unsurprisingly, supported the Clinton-McCain plan. Soon after election Mr. Obama reversed his position and embraced Clinton and McCain’s vision of “reform”, though he did so by degrees. Up until August he was still nominally for a public option. But we have known since then that Mr. Obama did not really favor a public option, from the moment he uttered those infamous words…The health insurance plan now on the table strongly resembles what Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have preferred, and, it would seem, what Mr. Obama wanted all along.”

When it comes right down to the reality of the situation, most Americans already have health insurance.  They should not have their liberty stifled by being forced to take care of the relatively minute and inconspicuous part of the country, which does not.  Speaking of this minority, Marie Antoinette’s rumored words come to mind: “Let them eat cake”

Works Cited

Mann, Thomas E., William A. Galston, and Alan Berube. “Around the Halls: Scott Brown’s Special Election Victory and the Congressional Agenda.” Web log post. Up Front Blog. Brookings Institution, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Jan. 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0120_halls_senate.aspx

Ungar, Rick. “There goes health care’s ‘Plan B’.” Web log post. True/Slant. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Jan. 2010. http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/21/there-goes-health-care’s-‘plan-b’/

Vangipuram, Pavan. “What Brown Means.” Web log post. The Reasoned Review. Pavan Vangipuram, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Jan. 2010.http://pavanvan.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/what-brown-means/

Scott Brown: United States Senate. Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee. Web. 21 Jan. 2010. http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

Cover image from Wikimedia Commons, by Dexta32084

Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Political Language

Posted on January 18, 2010 by Salvatore Chiarelli
Sir Francis Bacon, from the book "Masters of Achievement"

Sir Francis Bacon, from the book "Masters of Achievement"

This column explores inaccurate language used in politics.

George Orwell once wrote that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought”[1].i Sixty years later, political prose is as insidious as ever, with 80% of Americans kept politically illiterate mostly due to the propaganda of Fox News and the disinterest stemming from our thoroughly inept leaders [2].  For a civil society to prosper, its citizenry must master political language in order to have meaningful debate with clearly understood words.  Instead, the trend of our century has been the devolution of the English language.  With this comes an inability to properly understand the world around us.  As Kong-zi (Confucius) once said, “If names are not correct and do not match realities, language has no object.  If language has no object, action becomes impossible — and therefore all human affairs disintegrate” [3].

Instead of continuing this meandering tirade, it is best to point out a few minor instances of inaccuracies in political language.  The first is the lack of distinction between a government and its people.  In the years following the US invasion of Iraq, anti-American sentiment rose to new heights, with its descent occurring only recently.  Surprisingly, Europeans hold the same misunderstanding of Americans, as Americans have about foreigners.  Chiefly, Europeans make the simple mistake of assuming the policies of a democratic government is aligned with the general opinion of its people(!)  However similar to American views, Americans take it a step further into absurdity by assuming the same of countries ruled by authoritarian regime.  Last year, after months of Republican demonization of Iran, they were blind-sided by the pro-democracy, modern, progressive, college student uprising following the discontent over their elections.  What’s this? The Iranian people (Gasp!) are not as anti-American as their elected leader.  Why was this so difficult to accept, even though Americans had no issue with distancing themselves from former President G. W. Bush?

Another area of inaccuracy in political language is the lack of distinction between country and state.  Aside from the egregious practice of personifying countries as Sarah Palin is so fond of doing, it is unsettling when countries and states are used interchangeably. “America” is the name of a country, and ” the United States of America” is the name of a state. A country is a geographical expression, whereas a state is the sovereign governance within a definite boundary.

Iran is another example.  The name of the country is “Iran.”  The name of the state is the “Islamic Republic of Iran.”  The people of Iran are known as “Persian.”  They are known as “Iranian” if specifically being referred to as citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

What is the difference between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC)?  The PRC was established in 1949, currently has control over mainland China, and is commonly and clumsily referred to as “China.”  The ROC is older; it was established in 1911, lost control of the mainland in 1949, and is now commonly referred to as “Taiwan.”  Both claim to be the legitimate governments of mainland China.

As philosopher Sir Francis Bacon once noted, “words are the footsteps of reason.”  The use of accurate words provide much needed clarity in political discourse and will allow people to have meaningful discussions and perhaps meaningful action.

Notes

i. As Gaetano Mosca, a 20th century Sicilian political scientist, wrote in Elementi di scienza politica (The Ruling Class), all civil societies, including those in democratic countries, are dominated by a political class. Especially in democratic countries, the political class is composed of individuals who are well educated and understand the political system. The 20-80 rule is commonly observed in politics and sociology. In this case, 20% of the population is politically active.

Works Cited

Duemer, Joseph. A Few Thoughts on Political Language. Sharp Sand. 19 Jan. 2009.
http://www.sharpsand.net/2009/01/19/a-few-thoughts-on-political-language/

Falcoff, Mark. The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited. National Review Online. 04 Dec. 2009.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjVhMmZmMmRjNjJiZmQ1ZTJkNmIwMzFkZTg5MDUxNTU=&w=MA==

Gladstein, Jed. The Point of the Dagger. American Thinker. 05 Sept. 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_point_of_the_dagger.html

[3] Kong-zi (Confucius). The Analects (translated by James Legge).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Analects

[1] [2] Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. Horizon. April 1946.
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm

Solanki, Shane. Political Language. Last Mango In Paris. 23 Aug. 2007.
http://lastmangoinparis.net/2007/08/23/political-language/

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

Cover Image from “Masters of Achievement“

Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Kinda Late to Help Haiti

Posted on January 14, 2010 by mp081695
Photo by UN Photo/Logan Abassi UNDP Global

Photo by UN Photo/Logan Abassi UNDP Global

This column asserts that the earthquake in Haiti is the least of the country’s problems.

As everyone now knows, on January 12th Haiti had been struck by a devastating earthquake that killed thousands of people.  According to the United States Agency for International Development, the estimated death toll is 100,000, and nearly 3 million people have been affected.  Clearly, this is a terrible tragedy.

So, what was the U.S. response to this catastrophe?  Surprisingly, America had a better response time to supporting Haiti than it did its own city of New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Within a day, the U.S. sent over American soldiers, firefighters, paramedics, and humanitarian workers.  In fact, President Barack Obama promised Haiti $100 million in hard earned taxpayer dollars, and has stated that much more aid is on the way.

However, one has to stop and think about whether or not this sudden love for Haiti will pull them out of their economic instability.  The world has a short attention span. Thus, when the media ceases to broadcast the turmoil Haiti is facing from the earthquake, which will probably be in two weeks or so, it will be as if the earthquake had never happened.  It will have become a footnote in history.  The dead will have become nothing more than shadows and dust in the eyes of the citizens of the world.

Haiti’s greatest problem was not the earthquake, rather its abysmal economy.  International monetary aid to support Haiti might help them recover from the earthquake, but what then?  In a 2009 International Monetary Fund paper, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report, Haiti was described as “facing a host of political, economic, and social challenges such as the steady decline in national production, weak human capital, degradation of its territorial space, low levels of public security, underperforming institutions, and a limited supply of public goods and services.”  The paper also states that according to “1990 statistics, 56.8 percent of Haitians in the country as a whole were living on less than US$1 per day…” and that by 2005 “the percentage of the population living in extreme poverty increased by two percentage points to 56 percent…”  Another interesting piece of information from the paper was that “in 2000, the proportion of the population living on less than US$2 per day (PPP) stood at 65 percent. In 2005, the proportion of the Haitian population living on less than US$2 per day surged to 76 percent…” It is clear that this Caribbean country is a bit beyond repair.

In a few lines, Donald J. Bordeaux, a distinguished economist and author of the blog, Café Hayek, truly captures how Haiti has dug its own grave:

“Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people.  But the quake that hit California’s Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0.  It killed only 63 people.

This difference is due chiefly to Americans’ greater wealth.  With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment.  In contrast, burdened by one of the world’s least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures.  Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.

These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.”

Works Cited

Romero, Simon, and Marc Lacey. “Fierce Quake Devastates Haitian Capital.” New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/americas/13haiti.html

United States. United States Agency for International Development. U.S. FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. HAITI – Earthquake. 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/haiti/eq/documents/01.13.10-USAID-DCHAHaitiEarthquakeFactSheet01.pdf

Silva, Mark. “Obama: $100 million in U.S. aid for Haiti.” Web log post. The Swamp. Chicago Tribune, 14 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2010.  http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/obama_100_million_in_us_aid_fo.html

Haiti: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report. Rep. no. 09/290. International Monetary Fund, 14 Sept. 2009. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=23283.0

Bordeaux, Donald J. “A Tale of Two Quakes.” Web log post. Cafe Hayek. Donald J. Bordeaux, 14 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-quakes.html

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

Cover image by UN Photo/Logan Abassi UNDP Global, from Flickr

Posted in Economics and Finance | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

I Love the Game Google is Playing

Posted on January 13, 2010 by mp081695
Photo by "rustybrick"

Photo by "rustybrick"

This column is provides an alternative speculation as to why Google might be leaving China.

The New York Times reported that Google plans to shut down all operations in China due to assaults from hackers, as well as, China’s attempts to limit free speech online [1].  Although this makes Google sound heroic, it hardly sounds like the truth in its totality.  Google is a multinational corporation that has to cater to shareholders, so financial straits are most likely the real reason for the anticipated departure.

Google has been cooperating with the Chinese government’s demands for internet censorship for years.  In fact, Phillip Lenssen’s blog, blogoscoped, provides some shocking screenshots of how the censorship materializes itself on Google’s China based search engine [2].  After viewing Lenssen’s blog post, it is clear that search engine censorship is probably the least important reason why Google is planning to leave China.  With over 1.3 billion people to capitalize off of, there is no reason why human rights trump the prospect of profit.

The real reason why Google is leaving China is most likely because it has failed to effectively capture China’s search engine market.  Baidu, which is China’s leading internet search engine, has 77% of the market share, according to Jennifer Li, who is the company’s chief financial officer [3].  Google may be king in the United States, but it is just a pauper in China. An article on Digital East Asia, by Doug Herman, sheds light on why Google may have lost to Baidu.  Some of them seem like silly reasons, but after much thought, appear tangible.  For instance, the word “Baidu” is an actual Chinese word that is associated with achieving one’s dreams.  On the other hand, the word “Google” is just gibberish to the Chinese.  Another major reason why Baidu beat out Google was because it was able to better personalize the search experience with the average Chinese user. Given that Baidu was built at home, they were able to overcome the language barrier that Google originally stumbled over.  Also, Baidu apparently recognized that the Chinese love to illegally download music.  Herman writes that one “of the leading uses of Baidu and other Chinese search engines is music search. The music files that Baidu points to in its results are overwhelmingly unlicensed but the company has never felt obligated to observe international copyright laws. Google on the other hand has always made an effort to comply with copyright laws and therefore has ceded a tremendous amount of search traffic to its less law-abiding competitors” Most importantly, Baidu is a local champion, so it probably enjoys first-class treatment from the Chinese government.  That pretty much kills any prospect of Google getting back on the horse.  The dragon has knocked Google down, and it will probably not get back up.

Even though Google is leaving the world’s largest market of internet users, it is still making a clever exit.  Imagine a worker who hates his job because his boss is the world’s biggest jerk, but stays because he needs the money.  One day the worker receives a massive pay cut, and the worker is steamed about it.  So, the worker decides that the new salary is not enough to keep him from dealing with the aggravation the boss gives him every day of his life.   Thus, the worker quits.  However, the worker doesn’t just quit.  He quits and goes to the boss’ wife and tells the boss’ wife that the boss is cheating on her with the secretary.  The worker also goes to the boss’ competitors and divulges all company secrets.  Lastly, the worker goes to the media and reports that his former boss evades taxes and embezzles company funds.  Obviously, this “worker” is Google, and the “boss” is China.  China has been messing with Google for years.  Now Google is paying China back in its own coin, and making the dragon appear to be a demon.

Works Cited

[4] Herman, Doug. “Can Google Beat Baidu In China? Why It Remains #2 and How It’s Trying To Become The Leader.” Web log post. Digital East Asia. 28 Sept. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2010. http://www.digitaleastasia.com/2009/09/28/can-google-beat-baidu-in-china-why-it-remains-2-and-how-its-trying-to-become-the-leader/

[1] Jacobs, Andrew. “Google, Citing Attack, Threatens to Exit China.” New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 13 Jan. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html

[2] Lenssen, Phillip. “Sites Google Agreed to Censor in China.” Web log post. Blogoscoped. 26 Jan. 2006. Web. 13 Jan. 2010. http://blogoscoped.com/censored/

[3] Mehta, Stephanie N. “Google v. Baidu: Which company will win China?” Web log post. Fortuna Brainstrom Tech. Time Warner, 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2010. http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/28/google-v-baidu-which-company-will-win-china/

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

Cover Image by “rustybrick,” from Flickr

Posted in Economics and Finance | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Misconceptions: A Vital Component of Historical US-China Relations

Posted on January 13, 2010 by Courtney Weatherby
American and Chinese Flags

Photo from FutureAtlas

This column comments on potential misconceptions between the United States and China.

Misunderstandings between individuals are some of the greatest sources of conflict that can enter a relationship. Friendships have ended because one person thought that the other meant something else; marriages have broken because of misconceptions about the other partner’s intentions or actions. This holds true not only for individual relationships, but relationships between different cultures and nations as well. Such things become clearer when one views relationships between nations already in conflict, such as the United States and China. To examine this relationship, we must look at a misconception that arose as a result of legitimate worry and anger, concerning American imperialism.

The idea that the US is still an imperialistic power tainted the Chinese perspective of American actions during the mid- to late twentieth century, despite the fact that American expansionism ended decades before. Just as important, American fear of Soviet communism during the mid-twentieth century resulted in the refusal to accept a Communist China as a sovereign state, viewing the People’s Republic of China as a pawn of the Soviet Union and thereby refusing to work with them. Avoiding these two misconceptions and focusing on cultural similarities and understanding, as has become a focus in more recent years, has improved relations between the two nations immensely.

The Chinese perception of America as an imperialist power dates back to its involvement in Chinese affairs starting with the Opium War in the early nineteenth century. Despite not participating in the war, the US reaped the benefits when the English won, gaining access to ports, extraterritoriality, and most-favored nation status [1]. At the time, the Chinese considered foreigners as barbarians, whose cultures were less developed than the Chinese—there was a great deal of contempt in their view. For a long time, Americans were considered as better than the English, but as time went on, these perceptions began to change. The U.S. government did not exercise its authority over those Americans in China, and so Americans began to develop a bad reputation in the port cities. More importantly, however, the US sided with the British on political issues, demanding that the Chinese allow them to revise treaties early and give them greater freedoms [2]. The American policies seemed just as bad as those of the other European powers. In many ways—they just stood by and silently endorsed the idea that the Chinese only responded to violence.

There were high points in the relationship—a new era appeared to be on the horizon when a Chinese delegation went to America under the leadership of Anson Burlingame. The resulting treaty included America’s promise not to interfere in China’s internal affairs [3], which stood out against the European powers’ continued focus on influencing China. However, this too was later challenged because of John Hayes’ “Open Door” policy: rather than trying to hold true to the spirit of the treaty and support Chinese independence and territoriality, the US legitimized the claims of other imperialist powers in China. “The United States had not challenged the existence of spheres of influence… Hay at no time consulted with the Chinese government, at no time sought any expression of Chinese needs” [4]. Such policies continued tension among US-Chinese relations.

Such tensions were only exacerbated by American actions towards immigrants, which made clear the differences between the two powers. The Burlingame treaty changed immigration rules, sparking an increase in Chinese immigration to the United States, but their treatment was less than ideal due to American racism. “[The Chinese immigrants] wanted to close shop and return to China…staying here, they would be unhappy and fear for their lives” [5]. When Chinese ambassadors were sent to try and fix policies concerning Chinese immigrants, their efforts were largely in vain.

These views of American imperialism came back to haunt diplomacy between the two nations once Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists took over the country. Mao’s feelings are expressed clearly in an article he wrote: “Acheson [the American Secretary of State] is telling a bare-faced lie when he describes aggression as “friendship”” [6]. Mao had a valid point in the fact that the America’s policies hurt China, mentioning such things as the indemnity for the Boxer Rebellion, missionary work in China, abuse of extraterritoriality, and aid given to Chiang Kai-shek for his wars against the Communists. And while these are issues, the motives attributed by the Chinese are not necessarily the complete truth.

There were also many individuals who wanted to keep Chinese interests in mind, and Mao misunderstood American fear of Communism for the desire to control China.  The US made the choices that would be in its own best interests, but this is the regular policy for countries. The choices did not favor Chinese Communism, but oftentimes this was not out of hatred for the Communists, but because favoring the Communists seemed to go against American interests.  The misunderstanding is that American motives for getting involved in Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese affairs were made out of the desire for control rather than the fear of instability and national security. American support for Chiang Kai-shek, South Korea, and South Vietnam was given not because they hated the individualists or the goals of the Communist party, but because they believed that a democracy was a better form of government. True, there were many Americans who wanted a regime change, but Acheson and many others involved in foreign relations focused on stability as being more important than ideology.

However, this belief of American imperialism is brought to an extreme in concurrent Communist articles, often verging on propaganda to keep support for the Party and its aims: “[America] is the place where reaction, darkness, cruelty, decadence, corruption, debauchery, the oppression of people by people, cannibalism, and all the evils in the whole world today are produced…” [7].  Other articles held that capitalists are truly in control of everything in America and that their goal was to oppress and control people for the purposes of making war and bullying nations in other areas of the world [8]. Such viewpoints show that the Communists did not understand American culture, allowing their view of the US as an imperialist nation to distort their ideas and reactions towards it.

This can be seen in the reactions of China to the United States’ involvement in Korea in 1950. The Communists didn’t understand the deep-rooted American fear of Communism, and their predisposition towards viewing the US as an imperialist power meant that any militaristic action on their part would be viewed as such, despite the fact that other motivations were behind it. “From the view of CCP leaders, the United States threatened both the revolution and the security of the newly founded nation” [9]. This perspective brought the hatred of American imperialism to the front when the Korean War broke out. The Communist government supported this viewpoint, even going so far as to call the Korean War “Resist America, Support Korea” [10]. Thus the Chinese misconception about imperialism being America’s major motive, rather than American desire for a stable and united Korea, for intervening in Asia led them to view America as a threat to their national security.

It is extremely important to remember that America too had many deep misconceptions about the Chinese, specifically about the Communist party. Since the Open-Door policy and the advent of anti-imperialism in the United States, policy had tended towards supporting a strong China, one that was able to stand against the influence of Russia and Japan. However, once Mao’s Communist Party took power, “people and their leaders were blinded by fear of Communism and forgot the sound geopolitical, economic, and ethical basis of their historic desire for China’s well-being. Having always assumed that China would be friendly, Americans were further bewildered by the hostility of Mao’s China” [11]. America’s greatest experience with Communist state was with Russia, and Russian Communism was extremely expansionist and seemed to threaten American security and world stability. Taking this into account, Americans felt that they had every right to be fearful of a Communist China. The American reaction was one of fear— the long-held sympathy for China turned, almost overnight, to mistrust and hostility towards China now that a Communist regime was in charge.

These views become clear when looking at US policies towards the Korean War. At this point, the US had already broken off diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, and although there were indirect methods of communication, there was no real push for re-establishing relations with the Communists. This lack of willingness to directly work with the Communists resulted in skewed perspectives on what was going on in the area and how Communist China would react. Americans were under the misconception that China was a pawn of the Soviet Union and believed that “China would intervene only at the behest of Moscow” [12]. Due to the political climate with the USSR at the time, the US believed that there would be no such pressure because it could lead to general warfare, something that Soviets and Americans alike wanted to avoid. In addition, there was the belief that China was focused on domestic issues. This was true, but the invasion of North Korea would become a security concern for the Chinese due to their fear of American imperialism.

Such misunderstandings of one another’s cultures have harmed US-China relations. If the United States and People’s Republic of China had not been so ignorant of one another, the fear would not have come to the violent crescendo that it escalated to. Diplomatic relations probably would have been maintained and, as with any two powers, there would have been rocky points. But tension would have lessened after the two countries accepted one another: “Without the Korean War… the United States and China might have established a normal, though perhaps not really a friendly relationship” [13]. History would have played out very differently if the United States and China had been able to come to some sort of agreement over mutual interests, if not mutual ideologies, and worked together.

It is extremely important for the current administrations to seek better understandings of one another’s viewpoints. President Obama and Premier Hu Jintao cannot look at international relations as merely a political thing—the agreements or arguments between the United States and China can have far reaching consequences, ranging from small-scale trade disputes to nuclear warfare. The decisions made by these two governments have the potential to affect the entire world, and that is a grave responsibility. Looking at history, the best path here seems clear: do not allow ideologies to get in the way of partnership or hinder communication. In the past, the refusal to compromise and seek to understand one another has only led to hatred and violence. In order to prevent the continuation of such policies, the US and Chinese administrations must learn to look past their differences and work past their misunderstandings.

Notes

i. Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempt from the jurisdiction of local law.

Works Cited

[5][6][7][8] Arkush, David R., and Leo O. Lee, eds. A Land Without Ghosts: Chinese Impressions of America from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present. Los Angeles, California: University of California, 1993.

[1][2][3][4][11] Cohen, Warren I. America’s Response to China: A History of Sino-American Relations. 4th ed. New York: Columbia UP, 2000.

[9][10][12][13] Swaine, Michael D., and Zhang Tuosheng, eds. Managing Sino-American Crises: Case Studies and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006.

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

1. Cover image from FutureAtlas.com

Posted in Politics and Society | Tagged , | Comments Off on Misconceptions: A Vital Component of Historical US-China Relations

China Plays Dominoes Well

Posted on January 6, 2010 by John Bolan

Photo by Adam Cohn

Photo by Adam Cohn

This column is a commentary on China’s recent natural gas pipeline deal with Turkmenistan.  The author asserts that this landmark deal is actually a very serious example of how China is drawing potential allies away from the Western world.

I.    Introduction

History is marked by a series of conflicts – kinetic and potential; Chinese activities in Central Asia are exemplary of this.  On December 14, 2009, Turkmenistan began its exportation of 40 billion cubic meters (bcm hereafter) of natural gas to the Chinese Xinjiang Province, with contributions of 10 bcm from both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan over 30 years.  Historically, Turkmenistan has exported gas through Russia en route to China yet this particular deal conveniently bypasses Russia.  To complicate matters more, the European Union shares an interest in this region vis-à-vis their Nabucco gas line planned to run through southern Europe into Turkey.  Needless to say that while much commotion is made over oil and gas bonanzas in the Middle East these days, nations like Turkmenistan and other central Asian countries have untapped oil and gas reserves and naturally stand as open targets as both potential trading partners and secondary allies for nations such as China, whose intentions are altogether unknown.  As such, the benevolent guise of trade very easily becomes the hook by which nations such as China are able to rally seemingly insignificant states to their side.  In essence, while the powerful nations of today are playing hard politics in the Middle East, China is playing soft politics in Central Asia as a precursor to the domino effect in that region with Turkmenistan as the battlefield for trading rights.

II.  Brief History

As a nation formerly under Soviet rule, Turkmenistan unwillingly became the reciprocator of Russia’s attempts at showing the world, specifically the former Soviet states, that it still retained influence over its satellite states.  As such, Turkmenistan somewhat grew into the role of exporting gas exclusively to Russia (Turkmenistan sought many possible avenues of escaping trade with Russia through various methods but to no avail).  Relations between the two were not as cordial as the Soviet authorities may have hoped for; constant disagreements over pricing became hallmarks of Turkmenistan-Russian trade deals.  In 1993, Russia exported 11 bcm of Turkmenistan natural gas to Europe.  Russia failed to pay for the Turkmen gas for two months (worth about $185 million) “and then informed Turkmenistan it would transport Turkmen gas only to the former Soviet republics and not to Europe” [1].   This only added insult to injury by virtue of the $1.5 billion due to be paid to Turkmenistan for natural gas exported to Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.  In January 2007, Newsweek reported that Russia bought Turkmen gas for $100 per thousand cubic meters only to resell the same gas with a markup of $230 [2].  Between 1993 and 2007, then-President Saparmurat Niyazov made few independent moves and concessions to the Russian government making useless headway in relations with Russia favoring Turkmenistan.

III.  Present Day

With a history like this with an export partner like Russia, why would any self-respecting, sovereign nation continue to trade in this manner?  It is because of this abusive trade relationship that Turkmenistan was forced to seek trading partners elsewhere.  In its early days as a Communist state, China began to befriend certain other developing states like Iran primarily as a front against Western influence in the Central Asian and Middle Eastern regions.  By extension, China began trading relations with other such countries as Turkmenistan; it is at this point of conjunction that both countries found their trading relationship to be mutually beneficial.  In January 2008, China agreed to annually export 40 bcm of natural gas for a period of 30 years [3], paying Turkmenistan $195 per thousand cubic meters [4]; this is a considerable increase from the $100 per thousand cubic meters that Russia decided to pay Turkmenistan back in 1993.  Clearly Turkmenistan gains here.  An additional gain for Turkmenistan falls into the category of ‘perception’ in that Turkmenistan may very meaningfully perceive that China is dependent on them for natural gas (a half-truth as there are other sources of natural gas just as plentiful as those found in Turkmenistan) and is thus yielding power to Turkmenistan in the game of politics however short this political power play may persist [5].

IV.     China’s Gains

China’s gain here is one of a strategic nature, as alluded to above.  Due to the fact that China does not have the refinement capabilities that other developed nations have [6], it cannot immediately utilize this natural gas towards its thriving economy.  The alternative then comes to increasing current reserves.  Reasons for this include wartime scenarios, hegemony and/or political leverage.  In the event of a war, likely enemies of China will include the United States, several European countries, Israel and potentially other Asian and Middle Eastern countries.  Thus it is likely that sanctions may be placed on China in an effort to sway the war in one direction or another.  If this does happen, China is wise in preparing for such a scenario.  China may also be looking towards hegemony in the region.  At present, China is arguably the hegemon in Asia yet no single country, however powerful within its continent, can stand against a host of other countries unless it controls a common thread linking them all together.  This thread happens to be a dependence on oil and natural gas.  As mentioned before, China pales in comparison to the refining capabilities of other nations but if it controls (or has a more secure hold on) the supply of oil and natural gas, it becomes more of a power player against its likely enemies; this is the third possible reason for China gathering natural gas from Turkmenistan.

V. The Problem

Graph 1 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

Chart 1 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

Graph 2 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

Chart 2 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

The potential for undesirable future are clearly depicted above.  In 2008, 50% of Turkmenistan’s export base was grounded in its natural gas.  In 2007, the UN reported that its gross supply of natural gas amounted to 68.6 bcm [7].  More recent estimates put Turkmenistan gas production levels near or at 70 bcm [8].  Thus, as Graph 2 shows, it is troubling to hear that close to 75% of all Turkmenistan’s produced gas will go right to China, a country that does not currently possess adequate refining capabilities but for any number of reasons, is amassing this gas.

VI. Solutions

There are certain things that can be done by both Eastern and Western countries to hedge out (to a greater degree than exists to day) Chinese influence in the region.  One such solution involves the EU and its pipeline running through Southern Europe into Turkey.  At present, there are plans to build a pipeline in the aforementioned region of Europe into Turkey via an energy company known as “Nabucco”.  The first stage of this 3,300km pipeline is scheduled for completion in 2013 [9].

Image 1 (Click to Enlarge): from Wikimedia Commons

Image 1 (Click to Enlarge): from Wikimedia Commons

This stands as a strong solution to counter Chinese influence because earlier this year, the EU signed an agreement with Turkmenistan in which the Nabucco pipeline would receive gas from Turkmenistan through Turkey [10].  Although the amount the EU will receive will not compare to the amount that is exported to China, contracts can always be negotiated mid-term (as Russia aptly showed the world in its dealing with Turkmen gas).  The EU now has an open window to influence Turkmenistan in buying its gas and by extension having a hand in contributing to its economic growth.  Though this by itself is bound to decay, unless supplementary action is taken on the part of the EU and other nations as well.  These actions are the second set of solutions.

Just as Turkmenistan and the other Central Asian countries that are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS hereafter) are considered developing countries, there is a need to develop the infrastructure and environment where a government, an economy and society can develop holistically.  If either the Western countries or Eastern countries (or a combination of both) can have a hand in developing the infrastructural makeup of what makes Turkmenistan unique in its region of the world, this will (more likely than not) indebt Turkmenistan to the good-Samaritan countries involved.  Not only will Turkmenistan have improved as a country (i.e. social and economic development) but it will be in a better position to ally itself with nations that have deep concern over its security and sovereignty as an understandably vulnerable country in that region of the world [11].

This Turkmenistan-China gas pipeline agreement benefits both China and Turkmenistan in terms that both are willing to accept (for the time being, at least).  Although, Turkmen political leaders cannot expect that China views it the same way it views a world power (ex. Great Britain).  Herein lies the problem because Turkmenistan has the potential to become such a world power, but lacks the capabilities, infrastructure and overall development.  China, taking advantage of this handicap, swoops in and pays Turkmenistan a handsome price for their natural gas while hidden behind a guise of mutual need and free-market trade is the possibility of colonization, oppression and control.  Iran is just beyond Turkmenistan; if Turkmenistan falls in favor with China, Iran and China have more room to collaborate against the West (early Chinese-Iran cooperation to act against Western influence in the region – see above).

Graph 3 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

Graph 1 (Click to Enlarge): Created by John Bolan

It is because this threat exists that the West and some Eastern countries (ex. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan) cannot allow China to influence countries through their pockets and thereby pull them into their camp – China is creating a new kind of domino effect in this way.  Although Turkmen imports of Chinese goods have increased over the years, the percentage of Chinese imports (as compared to the entirety of its other imports) is decreasing over this same period of time (see Graph 3).  This is the opportunity that other countries must take advantage of [13] and not let Turkmenistan fall prey to Chinese antics.

A third solution involves gradual movement away from and establishing an independence from international institutions such as the UN (specifically).  Time and time again, the UN has shown itself to exist merely as a politically correct body of sovereign (but feeble) nations too weak to act in its own interest, bowing before the hard-line politics of rebellious political and non-political figures.  Whether it be a Nikita Khrushchev, Hamas or allowing a conniving, inhumane man like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to humiliate the Jews in his recent speech in the UN, the United Nations appears to lack a backbone in standing up for what is true, good and just in the world; Pluralism will only yield a higher cost in paving the many entry roads that lead nowhere.  It is because of this that the CIS and other states cannot depend on the UN to protect its sovereignty or security – nor should the UN take such a role in the world.  Inroads such as the Nabucco pipeline and the track record of American democracy [12] that nations like the CIS can depend on countries to help itself become greater than it is today and protect those gains from future malefactors.

Other viable solutions include some form of culture exchange (as the New York Philharmonic demonstrated on February 26, 2008 [14]) and creating incentives for American civil engineers to construct infrastructure akin to those found in today’s developed nations insofar as communication and transportation exist to such a degree where a substantial portion of Turkmenistan’s economy is not based on natural gas.

VII.  Conclusion

Ultimately, every nation has the duty to act in its own self-interest by virtue of a fact that it is a nation – not a tool in the hand or name of global cooperation.  Although where this self-interest borders (or potentially borders or may lead to) infringing on the rights of others in the name of one’s self-interest, action must be taken to put this to a halt.  Offshore security measures such as the current U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are well intentioned but while the U.S. and NATO forces are tethered to their efforts in the Middle East, nations that have little involvement with operations in that region are casting their eyes on other jewels like Turkmenistan gas and the geographically and politically strategic benefits that come with entering into mutually benefiting trade relations with said country.  Sooner, rather than later, the fervor caused by present activity in the Middle East will cease and other threats and sources of concern will take its place.  At present, one such source of concern is flowering and threatens to stand as the problem in the near future if steps are not taken to quench it.  The world has already seen one malefactor claim victory in the game of dominoes – history cannot afford to repeat itself.

Works Cited

[6] Andrews-Speed, Philip, and Sergei Vinogradov. “China’s Involvement in Central Asian Petroleum: Convergent or Divergent Interests?” Asian Survey 40.2 (2000): 391-392. JSTOR. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021138

AriRusila. “EU’s Big Choice – Nabucco or South Stream?” Blogactiv.eu. N.p., 15 May 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/eu’s-big-choice-–-nabucco-or-south-stream/

[9] Charter, David. “Nabucco pipeline will ease Europe’s dependence on Russian oil.” Times Online 6 Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5459196.ece

[8] “China President Opens Turkmenistan Gas Pipeline.” BBC News. N.p., 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411204.stm

“China Wins Struggle for Pipelinestan.” Arab News Blog. N.p., 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://www.arabnewsblog.net/2009/12/15/china-wins-struggle-for-pipelinestan/

The Dais. “China-Turkmenistan Pipeline Opens.” Nhsmun2010. N.p., 23 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://nhsmun2010sc.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/china-turkmenistan-pipeline-opens/

De Leon, Philip H. “China Secures Gas Supply from Turkmenistan.” Trading Metro. N.p., 23 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://www.tradingmetro.com/oilprice/2009/12/china-secures-gas-supply-from-turkmenistan/

[3] FSU Oil and Gas Monitor 532 (2009). Print.

Frost, Patrick. “Afghanistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan: NATO Summit.” Central Asia: The World Affairs Blog Network. N.p., 2 Apr. 2008. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/04/02/afghanistan-turkmenistan-uzbekistan-nato-summit/

[1] Hancock, Katherine J. “Escaping Russia, Looking to China: Turkmenistan Pins Hopes on China’s Thirst for Natural Gas.” China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly 4.3 (2006): 67-87. Google Scholar. Web. 21 Dec.2009. http://kms2.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/RESSpecNet/31693/ichaptersection_singledocument/F5FF9269-E941-4E0C-856D-27349798D068/en/7_Escaping_Russia_Looking_China.pdf

HK. “Turkmenistan Gas Is Now Flowing to China Overland.” Wonders of Pakistan. N.p., 16 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/turkmenistan-gas-is-now-flowing-to-china-overland/

[11] Krauthammer, Charles. “The Unipolar Moment Revisited.” National Interest (Winter 2002): n. pag. Print.

[12] Krauthammer, Charles. “The Unipolar Moment Revisited.” National Interest 70 (Winter 2002): 5-17. Web. 5 Jan. 2010. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/krauthammer.pdf

Natural Gas in China, People’s Republic of in 2006 . International Energy Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://www.iea.org/stats/gasdata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=CN

Natural Gas in Turkmenistan in 2006 . International Energy Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://www.iea.org/stats/gasdata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=TM

The New European. “Russia: If We Can’t Own the Pipeline, We’ll Control the Faucet.” Transatlantic Politics. N.p., 2 June 2007. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://www.transatlanticpolitics.com/2007/06/02/russia-if-we-cant-own-the-pipeline-well-control-the-faucet/

[14] “The New York Philharmonic Live from North Korea.” Great Performances. PBS, 26 Feb. 2008. Web. 5 Jan. 2010. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/the-new-york-philharmonic-live-from-north-korea/introduction/157/

[2] Owen Matthews.  “No More Mr. Nice Guy; Vladimir Putin slaps down hapless Belarus. But eventually the hard-fisted Russian president will find that the name of this game is blowback :[International Edition Edition]. ” Newsweek22 Jan. 2007: Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web.  22 Dec. 2009.

Petersen, Alexandros. “Azerbaijan’s Gas Going East?” EU Observer. N.p., 10 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://blogs.euobserver.com/petersen/2009/12/10/azerbaijans-gas-going-east/

[4] Pomfret, Richard. “Turkmenistan’s Foreign Policy.” China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly 6.4 (2008): 19-34. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/cefq/08/rp08turkmenistan.pdf

[10] Rettman, Andrew. “China Beats EU in Race for Turkmen Gas.” Euobserver.com. N.p., 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://euobserver.com/24/29158

Snuffysmith. “China Just Broke Russia’s Monopoly on Central-Asian Natural Gas.” Now Public. N.p., 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/china-just-broke-russias-monopoly-central-asian-natural-gas

“Trade by Region.” International Trade Statistics 2006. 74-75. World Trade Organization. N.p., 2006. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2006_e/its2006_e.pdf

“Turkmen-China Gas Pipeline Nearly Operational; China’s President to Attend
Inauguration.” Guardian Press. N.p., 10 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010.  http://guardianspress.com/2009/12/turkmen-china-gas-pipeline-nearly-operational-chinas-president-to-attend-inauguration/

“Turkmen Gas Pipeline to China Opens.” All Vocies. N.p., 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://www.allvoices.com/news/4804324-china-turkmenistan-pipeline-opens-fed

[13] “Turkmenistan Indicates Interest in EU Nabucco Gas Pipeline.” The Agonist. N.p., 11 July 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. http://agonist.org/20090711/turkmenistan_indicates_interest_in_eu_nabucco_gas_pipeline

[7] “Turkmenistan Natural Gas (including LNG).” UN Data. United Nations, n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=EDATA&f=cmID:NG

U.S. Department of State. Background Note: Turkmenistan. U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2009. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35884.htm

[5] Van Evra, Stephen. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War.” The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. Ed. Robert J. Art and Kenneth N. Waltz. 5th ed. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. 46-69. Rpt. in The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.

Van Ryan, Jane. “China Buys Oil and Gas; America Dithers.” Web log post. Energy Tomorrow. American Petroleum Institute, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. 7 Jan. 2010. http://blog.energytomorrow.org/2009/12/china-buys-oil-and-gas-america-dithers.html

Original Appearances of Data Visuals and Media

1. Cover image by Adam Cohn, from Flickr

2. Nabucco Pipeline map from “Wiki Media”

Posted in Economics and Finance, Politics and Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China Plays Dominoes Well