I just came back from Asia where eyewitnesses gave a different view of the matter than that of the West. First of all, the violence was initiated by the thugs in Lhasa. Secondly, the violence got out of hand because the riot police did not respond right away but melted away for the first 24 to 48 hours. Thirdly, since Dalai Lama is publicly opposed to violence, this suggests that he is not in control of his younger followers. From Beijing's point of view, having a dialogue with Dalai Lama may not contribute to a peaceful resolution because of their perception that he lacks sway over his followers.
This summary was what I gathered from the reports written in Chinese and found in Hong Kong such as the weekly, Yazhou Zhoukan, and in part confirmed by the International Herald Tribune.
I personally believe a dialogue between Dalai Lama and Beijing would be useful but feared such a dialogue will fall far short of expectations of the West. America's view of the world, particularly of Asia, fits the derisive Chinese proverb of the frog in the bottom of well, i.e., very limited vision of the real world.
What the thugs did in Lhasa would not have been tolerated had the actions taken place in Los Angelese, Detroit or New York. But because it took place in Tibet, the American sense of right and wrong has once again been turned on its head.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Career Challenges and Opportunities in the Coming China Century
Keynote speech at International Career Fair, San Francisco, February 29, 2008
China has been the fastest growing economy in the 5000 year memory of human history. By quadrupling every 14 years, that’s almost 20 fold since reform began in 1978, China has left most of professional economists breathless in trying to keep up, much less explain why China has been so successful.
China is now a global economic force and has impact on the economic development in all corners of the world. It is a great trading nation, just next to the U.S. in scale and is most likely the third largest economy in the world already, having surpassed Germany sometime last year. In terms of purchasing parity, China has been the second largest economy for a number of years. Purchasing parity, another economic term, is why it is possible to take a salary cut and still thrive in China. A dollar or euro just goes much further there.
China is also fast becoming a major source of foreign direct investment in other parts of the world. Their exercise of multi-lateral and multi-faceted diplomacy, commonly called soft power, has been particularly notable in the 3rd world such as Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in Asia.
Of course, there are always nay Sayers that predict the imminent demise of China or the pop of the bubble, etc. One of these so-called pundits even wrote a book about the coming collapse of China. Since that book was published, China has doubled its GDP and now sits on top of nearly $1.5 trillion of hard currency reserve. If you wish, you can devote your energy criticizing China for human rights problems, official corruption and flimsy banking system, and to varying degrees you’d be right. But it would be hard to make a living at it.
But if you are interested in developing your career where the action is--and will be for a long time to come--China is the arena you should be looking into.
It has been thirty years when I first joined Chase Manhattan Bank and later Bear Stearns to advise American companies on doing business in China. In the early days, we used to try to make business appointments first thing in the morning from our hotel rooms and we’d get a busy signal even before we finish dialing--a most disconcerting experience. Today, China has roughly 500 million cellular phones and equal or more land lines. In some cities, completely wired in glass fibers, one can even order and get a phone installed the same day—not possible in countries with copper wire legacy systems such as America.
In those early days, there were just a handful of us doing this kind of work and one can hardly describe it as a career. Today, with China’s prominent place in the age of globalization, cross border business consulting, which was what I was doing, is a popular career choice and in demand, but it is not the only game in town. Let me simply enumerate some of the careers that have opened up with the emergence of China.
First of all, China has become a magnet for all sorts of professions seeking new and developing opportunities.
Jim Rogers, famous for starting the first mega private equity fund with George Soros, has written several books about China and is putting his money where his mouth is. He is cashing out of America and investing in China. He is also taking his family to live in China—well, not quite, but is moving to Singapore to get closer to where action is.
Dick Kramlich, senior partner of New Enterprise Associates, a major venture capital firm in the Bay Area, has some success investing in China and is so impressed with the potential that he too is moving to China. He will actually live in Shanghai to get even closer to where it is all happening.
One of Kramlich’s investment was Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation in Shanghai. SMIC was the first semiconductor foundry to be established inside China, wholly foreign owned with capital from the West and a management team headed by a Taiwanese executive. During the early period of this company, one out of three employees were returnees from the West, many from Silicon Valley. These returnees gladly took a 75% pay cut to get on the ground floor with stock options and subsidized housing and enjoyed the generally much lower cost of living.
Returnees with middle management experience have been able to land senior positions in China. Scientists and professors with their own lab in the U.S. have gone back to become head of research institutes and department heads. China has shown a hunger for talented individuals with valuable experience gained from the West.
But as I mentioned in the examples of Jim Rogers and Dick Kramlich, you don’t have to be ethnic Chinese or even Chinese speaking to find opportunities in China. Let me tell you the story of a French chef in Shanghai.
He was originally the master chef in San Francisco. The owner, a Chinese American, sent him along with the maitre ‘D and a manager to open a new fusion restaurant in the Xintiandi district of Shanghai. Any of you that have been to Shanghai would know that Xintiandi is the high profile, upscale place to be seen.
I had dinner there shortly after the restaurant opened and I asked the three of them how they liked living and working in Shanghai, none of whom speak any Chinese. Their enthusiastically responded that Shanghai is their future, San Francisco is passé. They expect to build their fame and fortune in China’s and for that matter, world’s most cosmopolitan city.
A few weeks later I had a networking breakfast meeting with an investment banker who had just relocated to Shanghai to begin a new career doing deals in China. He was also a non-Chinese speaking white American but he too was really excited about the prospect of working in China.
I told him that he reminded me of this restaurant in Xintiandi and the three founders there. He said, “Yes, yes, I know all about that place, I’ve eaten there many times.” I said, “Well, you know what I mean about your common background and putting a stake on the ground in Shanghai.”
He said, “You know, George, that restaurant is going to fail!” I was surprised since the restaurant had just newly opened. “What do you mean?” I said. The investment banker, with greatest authority declared, “Can’t you see, the fengshui of that place is terrible.” Sure enough, the next time I saw him, he confirmed that the restaurant had indeed gone belly up.
So, as you can see, sometimes a laowai knows more about Chinese customs than even an ethnic Chinese.
Of course, as China is increasingly integrated into the globalization trend, career opportunities are not all in China. Chinese businesses and companies are going to come to the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere to establish their presence for a host of usual reasons. Initially, local Bay Area travel service that caters to Chinese visitors was the first to profit. They know where Chinese visitors like to stay and eat and where to go to buy real Prada and Coach handbags. Investment bankers, lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, consultants, site selection experts, real estate agents are next to line up and offer their services.
Those that are agile and can see the opportunities will be successful. Let me mention one example. Up to now, though the situation in China is constantly changing, privately held companies have difficulty getting financing at home. A popular route has been a so-called PIPE linked to RTO transaction to get a back door listing on NASDAQ. PIPE means private investment into a public equity achieved by reverse takeover (the RTO part) of a shell company. By this transaction, the company ensures raising some capital as part of the exercise. Companies learned through disappointment that simply backing into a shell company without PIPE does not guarantee raising capital because of a lack of investor interest in pink sheet listings.
Once listed the company then worked hard to drum up investor interest, raise secondary rounds and eventually graduate on to the main NASDAQ board. There are private equity and hedge funds that find investing in promising Chinese companies via this route very lucrative.
There are law firms and boutique investment banks that specialize in this kind of financing. What I find particularly interesting is the public relations firm that helps the RTO entity gain traction with the investors. I found one firm that concentrates of serving Chinese companies. The PR firm formed an office in Hong Kong and regularly conducted seminars inside China on the IPO process on the U.S. stock market. The firm accompanies their Chinese client on their road shows and participation in investment conferences and they coach their clients on how to present themselves to investors in the best light.
So, what will it take to participate and establish a career based in China related businesses? There are the usual requirements that would qualify you and there is one specific “watch out” that you have to be sensitive to.
First, the basic attributes to succeed in any cross culture, bi-lingual career is the ability to form empathy with anyone that looks different, talks and thinks differently. If you see yourself as a hard nosed, successful entrepreneur or a fast track, go-getter executive and know everything about international business and you act on your self image, then you are likely to fail. Whatever your self image, you need to show respect and you need to know how to listen. You need to understand where your counterpart is coming from. To do this you need to spend time understanding Chinese culture and how they think, and you need to keep up with recent developments in China so that you know their priorities.
You need to be able to communicate. Knowing how to speak Chinese helps but for those of you in the audience that already know how to speak Chinese, may I remind you that speaking the language is not the same as communicating—the difference is between talking to each other or talking at or past each other.
Now some bad news. Any of you that decide on a career involving China, especially in Silicon Valley, needs to know that you run some risk of going to jail. No, not the Chinese jail, but the American jail. You should be aware that deep seated racial bias still exists with the U.S. government and the FBI. I am not joking. Please do not take this lightly.
Some of you may remember the spy case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee of Los Alamos Lab. He did not even do any work with China. He was merely ethnic Chinese. At the time the right wing Republican Party was accusing the Clinton Administration of being soft on China and allowing precious missile technology to be stolen and sent to China. The Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, promptly offered Dr. Lee as the scapegoat and Attorney General Janet Reno looked the other way. The outcome was a farce in which the presiding judge actually apologized to Dr. Lee for government misconduct.
This is no isolated case. There were Chinese American victims of racial profiling before Lee and continues to this day. Some of you may recall the famous double agent (or was it triple agent?) case involving Katrina Leung and her FBI handler, J.J. Smith. Until they were caught in bed together, the FBI LA office had no clue as to how information seemed to be leaking from their office. Their natural reaction was to suspect two of their top ranked agents who happened to be ethnic Chinese and women to boot, Anita Chiang and Denise Woo. They had distinguished careers up to then but suddenly they became the in-house Mata Hari’s. Their careers were abruptly terminated by FBI’s long standing practice of racial profiling and never got compensation by the government for wrongful termination. Later when JJ Smith was apprehended, he got three months probation.
More recently, there was a Bill Chen who was accused to selling shaker tables to a Chinese missile operation which he vigorously denied. Originally his Silicon Valley employer defended him but then the U.S. government told the company that if they expect to do any more business with the government, they need to fire Chen. A few months ago, the government dropped all charges but a disillusioned Chen said that his career is ruined and he is taking his family back to China.
I spoke to a biotech scientist who came to the government’s attention because he was holding a nice job and felt secured enough to buy a house. He needed help with the down payment so his parents and brother wired him $20,000 from China. The Homeland Security folks apparently concluded that something fishy was going on and turned his life upside down. At the time, China was well on its way to holding a trillion dollars of foreign reserve but our government agents can’t seem to believe private individuals from China has $20,000 to send and therefore something nefarious was going on.
I could go on and on. Go to my website, www.georgekoo.com, and pick the heading “Racial Profiling in America” and read more.
Those of you working in technology sector or in Silicon Valley have to be extra careful. The FBI special agent in charge of Silicon Valley has in public interviews proclaimed that the valley is crawling with spies sent from China. That means you and you and you (in the audience) are all potential spies. The agent’s name is Pryzbyla but no one has accused him of being an undercover spy for some Eastern European country.
If you go to China frequently, if you speak Chinese or if you work for a high tech company (and you don’t have to be all of the above, any one of those can put you under surveillance), you need to know about dual use and export license. Dual use applies to technology products and know-how that have civilian use but can also be used in military applications. Such items require export license which is obtained by applying to the Department of Commerce. Of course, export license is required for a lot of products made in Silicon Valley. Typical of bureaucracy, the range of products subject to license seems to only expand, but that’s another story. Go to my blog and you can see why I think the idea of dual use has hampered the competitiveness of American export.
My takeaway to you today is that you need to know the regulations governing export from the U.S., not just products but information as well. Sending your own technical publications to China could get you in hot water as it did in the case of Chi Mak, another miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, just looking at the increased interest in learning Chinese in K-12, you can see that everybody sees the importance of China in the coming century.
This is the best of times to pursue a cross border, cross cultural career and I wish all of you every success.
China has been the fastest growing economy in the 5000 year memory of human history. By quadrupling every 14 years, that’s almost 20 fold since reform began in 1978, China has left most of professional economists breathless in trying to keep up, much less explain why China has been so successful.
China is now a global economic force and has impact on the economic development in all corners of the world. It is a great trading nation, just next to the U.S. in scale and is most likely the third largest economy in the world already, having surpassed Germany sometime last year. In terms of purchasing parity, China has been the second largest economy for a number of years. Purchasing parity, another economic term, is why it is possible to take a salary cut and still thrive in China. A dollar or euro just goes much further there.
China is also fast becoming a major source of foreign direct investment in other parts of the world. Their exercise of multi-lateral and multi-faceted diplomacy, commonly called soft power, has been particularly notable in the 3rd world such as Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in Asia.
Of course, there are always nay Sayers that predict the imminent demise of China or the pop of the bubble, etc. One of these so-called pundits even wrote a book about the coming collapse of China. Since that book was published, China has doubled its GDP and now sits on top of nearly $1.5 trillion of hard currency reserve. If you wish, you can devote your energy criticizing China for human rights problems, official corruption and flimsy banking system, and to varying degrees you’d be right. But it would be hard to make a living at it.
But if you are interested in developing your career where the action is--and will be for a long time to come--China is the arena you should be looking into.
It has been thirty years when I first joined Chase Manhattan Bank and later Bear Stearns to advise American companies on doing business in China. In the early days, we used to try to make business appointments first thing in the morning from our hotel rooms and we’d get a busy signal even before we finish dialing--a most disconcerting experience. Today, China has roughly 500 million cellular phones and equal or more land lines. In some cities, completely wired in glass fibers, one can even order and get a phone installed the same day—not possible in countries with copper wire legacy systems such as America.
In those early days, there were just a handful of us doing this kind of work and one can hardly describe it as a career. Today, with China’s prominent place in the age of globalization, cross border business consulting, which was what I was doing, is a popular career choice and in demand, but it is not the only game in town. Let me simply enumerate some of the careers that have opened up with the emergence of China.
First of all, China has become a magnet for all sorts of professions seeking new and developing opportunities.
Jim Rogers, famous for starting the first mega private equity fund with George Soros, has written several books about China and is putting his money where his mouth is. He is cashing out of America and investing in China. He is also taking his family to live in China—well, not quite, but is moving to Singapore to get closer to where action is.
Dick Kramlich, senior partner of New Enterprise Associates, a major venture capital firm in the Bay Area, has some success investing in China and is so impressed with the potential that he too is moving to China. He will actually live in Shanghai to get even closer to where it is all happening.
One of Kramlich’s investment was Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation in Shanghai. SMIC was the first semiconductor foundry to be established inside China, wholly foreign owned with capital from the West and a management team headed by a Taiwanese executive. During the early period of this company, one out of three employees were returnees from the West, many from Silicon Valley. These returnees gladly took a 75% pay cut to get on the ground floor with stock options and subsidized housing and enjoyed the generally much lower cost of living.
Returnees with middle management experience have been able to land senior positions in China. Scientists and professors with their own lab in the U.S. have gone back to become head of research institutes and department heads. China has shown a hunger for talented individuals with valuable experience gained from the West.
But as I mentioned in the examples of Jim Rogers and Dick Kramlich, you don’t have to be ethnic Chinese or even Chinese speaking to find opportunities in China. Let me tell you the story of a French chef in Shanghai.
He was originally the master chef in San Francisco. The owner, a Chinese American, sent him along with the maitre ‘D and a manager to open a new fusion restaurant in the Xintiandi district of Shanghai. Any of you that have been to Shanghai would know that Xintiandi is the high profile, upscale place to be seen.
I had dinner there shortly after the restaurant opened and I asked the three of them how they liked living and working in Shanghai, none of whom speak any Chinese. Their enthusiastically responded that Shanghai is their future, San Francisco is passé. They expect to build their fame and fortune in China’s and for that matter, world’s most cosmopolitan city.
A few weeks later I had a networking breakfast meeting with an investment banker who had just relocated to Shanghai to begin a new career doing deals in China. He was also a non-Chinese speaking white American but he too was really excited about the prospect of working in China.
I told him that he reminded me of this restaurant in Xintiandi and the three founders there. He said, “Yes, yes, I know all about that place, I’ve eaten there many times.” I said, “Well, you know what I mean about your common background and putting a stake on the ground in Shanghai.”
He said, “You know, George, that restaurant is going to fail!” I was surprised since the restaurant had just newly opened. “What do you mean?” I said. The investment banker, with greatest authority declared, “Can’t you see, the fengshui of that place is terrible.” Sure enough, the next time I saw him, he confirmed that the restaurant had indeed gone belly up.
So, as you can see, sometimes a laowai knows more about Chinese customs than even an ethnic Chinese.
Of course, as China is increasingly integrated into the globalization trend, career opportunities are not all in China. Chinese businesses and companies are going to come to the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere to establish their presence for a host of usual reasons. Initially, local Bay Area travel service that caters to Chinese visitors was the first to profit. They know where Chinese visitors like to stay and eat and where to go to buy real Prada and Coach handbags. Investment bankers, lawyers, accountants, tax advisors, consultants, site selection experts, real estate agents are next to line up and offer their services.
Those that are agile and can see the opportunities will be successful. Let me mention one example. Up to now, though the situation in China is constantly changing, privately held companies have difficulty getting financing at home. A popular route has been a so-called PIPE linked to RTO transaction to get a back door listing on NASDAQ. PIPE means private investment into a public equity achieved by reverse takeover (the RTO part) of a shell company. By this transaction, the company ensures raising some capital as part of the exercise. Companies learned through disappointment that simply backing into a shell company without PIPE does not guarantee raising capital because of a lack of investor interest in pink sheet listings.
Once listed the company then worked hard to drum up investor interest, raise secondary rounds and eventually graduate on to the main NASDAQ board. There are private equity and hedge funds that find investing in promising Chinese companies via this route very lucrative.
There are law firms and boutique investment banks that specialize in this kind of financing. What I find particularly interesting is the public relations firm that helps the RTO entity gain traction with the investors. I found one firm that concentrates of serving Chinese companies. The PR firm formed an office in Hong Kong and regularly conducted seminars inside China on the IPO process on the U.S. stock market. The firm accompanies their Chinese client on their road shows and participation in investment conferences and they coach their clients on how to present themselves to investors in the best light.
So, what will it take to participate and establish a career based in China related businesses? There are the usual requirements that would qualify you and there is one specific “watch out” that you have to be sensitive to.
First, the basic attributes to succeed in any cross culture, bi-lingual career is the ability to form empathy with anyone that looks different, talks and thinks differently. If you see yourself as a hard nosed, successful entrepreneur or a fast track, go-getter executive and know everything about international business and you act on your self image, then you are likely to fail. Whatever your self image, you need to show respect and you need to know how to listen. You need to understand where your counterpart is coming from. To do this you need to spend time understanding Chinese culture and how they think, and you need to keep up with recent developments in China so that you know their priorities.
You need to be able to communicate. Knowing how to speak Chinese helps but for those of you in the audience that already know how to speak Chinese, may I remind you that speaking the language is not the same as communicating—the difference is between talking to each other or talking at or past each other.
Now some bad news. Any of you that decide on a career involving China, especially in Silicon Valley, needs to know that you run some risk of going to jail. No, not the Chinese jail, but the American jail. You should be aware that deep seated racial bias still exists with the U.S. government and the FBI. I am not joking. Please do not take this lightly.
Some of you may remember the spy case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee of Los Alamos Lab. He did not even do any work with China. He was merely ethnic Chinese. At the time the right wing Republican Party was accusing the Clinton Administration of being soft on China and allowing precious missile technology to be stolen and sent to China. The Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, promptly offered Dr. Lee as the scapegoat and Attorney General Janet Reno looked the other way. The outcome was a farce in which the presiding judge actually apologized to Dr. Lee for government misconduct.
This is no isolated case. There were Chinese American victims of racial profiling before Lee and continues to this day. Some of you may recall the famous double agent (or was it triple agent?) case involving Katrina Leung and her FBI handler, J.J. Smith. Until they were caught in bed together, the FBI LA office had no clue as to how information seemed to be leaking from their office. Their natural reaction was to suspect two of their top ranked agents who happened to be ethnic Chinese and women to boot, Anita Chiang and Denise Woo. They had distinguished careers up to then but suddenly they became the in-house Mata Hari’s. Their careers were abruptly terminated by FBI’s long standing practice of racial profiling and never got compensation by the government for wrongful termination. Later when JJ Smith was apprehended, he got three months probation.
More recently, there was a Bill Chen who was accused to selling shaker tables to a Chinese missile operation which he vigorously denied. Originally his Silicon Valley employer defended him but then the U.S. government told the company that if they expect to do any more business with the government, they need to fire Chen. A few months ago, the government dropped all charges but a disillusioned Chen said that his career is ruined and he is taking his family back to China.
I spoke to a biotech scientist who came to the government’s attention because he was holding a nice job and felt secured enough to buy a house. He needed help with the down payment so his parents and brother wired him $20,000 from China. The Homeland Security folks apparently concluded that something fishy was going on and turned his life upside down. At the time, China was well on its way to holding a trillion dollars of foreign reserve but our government agents can’t seem to believe private individuals from China has $20,000 to send and therefore something nefarious was going on.
I could go on and on. Go to my website, www.georgekoo.com, and pick the heading “Racial Profiling in America” and read more.
Those of you working in technology sector or in Silicon Valley have to be extra careful. The FBI special agent in charge of Silicon Valley has in public interviews proclaimed that the valley is crawling with spies sent from China. That means you and you and you (in the audience) are all potential spies. The agent’s name is Pryzbyla but no one has accused him of being an undercover spy for some Eastern European country.
If you go to China frequently, if you speak Chinese or if you work for a high tech company (and you don’t have to be all of the above, any one of those can put you under surveillance), you need to know about dual use and export license. Dual use applies to technology products and know-how that have civilian use but can also be used in military applications. Such items require export license which is obtained by applying to the Department of Commerce. Of course, export license is required for a lot of products made in Silicon Valley. Typical of bureaucracy, the range of products subject to license seems to only expand, but that’s another story. Go to my blog and you can see why I think the idea of dual use has hampered the competitiveness of American export.
My takeaway to you today is that you need to know the regulations governing export from the U.S., not just products but information as well. Sending your own technical publications to China could get you in hot water as it did in the case of Chi Mak, another miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, just looking at the increased interest in learning Chinese in K-12, you can see that everybody sees the importance of China in the coming century.
This is the best of times to pursue a cross border, cross cultural career and I wish all of you every success.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
China and Darfur in Sudan
After Steven Spielberg’s announced withdrawal as advisor to the Beijing Olympics ceremony, the attention was on China’s involvement, or lack thereof, in Sudan. Below is a response from Professor Ling-chi Wang, retired from University of California, Berkeley:
Reports on the Spielberg decision gave the impression that what little China had done with Darfur was the result of Spielberg’s pressure. This is definitely not true.
It is true that China, unlike the U.S., is opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries, but if necessary, it prefers doing it through the UN.
In fall 2006, long before Spielberg agreed to consider joining the Zhang Yimou team in Beijing, Wang Guangya, UN ambassador, helped secure Sudanese government acceptance of the Kofi Annan’s UN-AU peace-keeping plan.
President Hu Jintao also spoke directly with President Omar al-Bashir in Beijing in November and again in Khartoum in early 2007.
China had also planned to send Zhai Jun, Assistant Foreign Minister, to Sudan before the campaign against the “Genocide” Olympics began in April last year. Zhai toured the refugee camps and within a week Sudan agreed to the deployment of UN troops, including a Chinese component.
Later, Liu Guijin, a special envoy, was appointed as a special envoy for African affairs. In July, China voted for deployment of a 20,000 UN-AU force for Darfur and an end to aerial bombings by government forces.
See reaction from China.
Reports on the Spielberg decision gave the impression that what little China had done with Darfur was the result of Spielberg’s pressure. This is definitely not true.
It is true that China, unlike the U.S., is opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries, but if necessary, it prefers doing it through the UN.
In fall 2006, long before Spielberg agreed to consider joining the Zhang Yimou team in Beijing, Wang Guangya, UN ambassador, helped secure Sudanese government acceptance of the Kofi Annan’s UN-AU peace-keeping plan.
President Hu Jintao also spoke directly with President Omar al-Bashir in Beijing in November and again in Khartoum in early 2007.
China had also planned to send Zhai Jun, Assistant Foreign Minister, to Sudan before the campaign against the “Genocide” Olympics began in April last year. Zhai toured the refugee camps and within a week Sudan agreed to the deployment of UN troops, including a Chinese component.
Later, Liu Guijin, a special envoy, was appointed as a special envoy for African affairs. In July, China voted for deployment of a 20,000 UN-AU force for Darfur and an end to aerial bombings by government forces.
See reaction from China.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Might as Well Cancel the Olympics, Spielberg is not Coming
A slightly different version can be found on New America Media
Hollywood’s bigger-than-life celebrities enjoy a privileged bully pulpit and they never shrink from using it to advance their pet causes.
Such is the case with Steven Spielberg and his high profile withdrawal as artistic advisor to China’s 2008 Olympics. Ostensibly, Spielberg is protesting that China is not doing enough to stop the human suffering at Darfur.
It’s hard to know the extent China will be devastated by Spielberg’s non-participation--if at all.
Too bad, Spielberg took the typical unilateral American approach, i.e., the Bush doctrine of my way or the highway. Had he genuinely been interested in exerting an influence on China, he would have signed the contract that sat on his desk for months.
He could have seized the opportunity of regular Beijing visits to exchange points of view and express his concerns about Sudan. With growing rapport, the Chinese officials might have explained to him of their long standing foreign policy of non-interference and the nature of quiet initiatives they may have undertaken with the Sudanese government.
The Chinese officials might also explain to Spielberg the limits to what China can do to influence matters in Sudan, and that Beijing subscribes to working within the confines of the United Nations. Crimes against humanity, whether in Sudan, Iraq or by the Al Qaeda, are issues no one nation can correct--except possibly the U.S.
Not every government behaves like Washington and believes that it has a divine mandate to rectify wrongs around the world. In a less diplomatic moment, the officials might even point out to Spielberg that American involvement in Iraq has not exactly lessened human sufferings.
The Olympics is the most celebrated sporting event around the world. It’s regrettable that Spielberg decided to use the spotlight intended for Olympics on Sudan.
Some Americans may celebrate Spielberg’s astute grandstanding on behalf of a worthy cause. Perhaps he did not go far enough. China is America’s most important trading partner and holder of more than $1 trillion in dollar reserves. Arguably, China should have more influence with the U.S. than with Sudan.
Why not ask China to intercede with Washington to demand the cessation of waterboarding for interrogation, indefinite incarceration of prisoners from around the world, and random killing of civilians in Iraq?
Rest of the world is just going to scratch their collective heads trying to understand the connection between international athletic competition and killings in Darfur. But then unlike America, others are not so ready to blame everything that is wrong in the world on China.
Perhaps China will continue to be awe struck by Spielberg’s artistry and overlook his insult. However, his lack of sincerity in dealing with the Chinese Olympic Committee will surely tarnish his image as an international icon.
Some speculated that Spielberg was not being insincere but just caved-in to Mia Farrow’s pressure. She has been looking to launch a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in the name of stopping genocide.
Using the same logic, we would wonder if Spielberg will lead a boycott of FIFA World Cup, the one sporting event dear to Europeans, on the grounds that the EU is not doing enough to get the U.S. to stop committing human rights abuses. Certainly a strong case can be made that the Europeans have more influence on Washington than China has on Sudan.
The EU president, Milan Zver, by the way, did say in response to Spielberg’s withdrawal that sports is too important to be used as a political instrument.
Ultimately, from the opening to the closing ceremony in Beijing this August, will anyone notice that Steven Spielberg is missing in action?
------------------------
See also accusation of Spielberg as chauvinist in humanitarian drag.
Comment below by bobby fletcher points to early U.S. involvment.
Hollywood’s bigger-than-life celebrities enjoy a privileged bully pulpit and they never shrink from using it to advance their pet causes.
Such is the case with Steven Spielberg and his high profile withdrawal as artistic advisor to China’s 2008 Olympics. Ostensibly, Spielberg is protesting that China is not doing enough to stop the human suffering at Darfur.
It’s hard to know the extent China will be devastated by Spielberg’s non-participation--if at all.
Too bad, Spielberg took the typical unilateral American approach, i.e., the Bush doctrine of my way or the highway. Had he genuinely been interested in exerting an influence on China, he would have signed the contract that sat on his desk for months.
He could have seized the opportunity of regular Beijing visits to exchange points of view and express his concerns about Sudan. With growing rapport, the Chinese officials might have explained to him of their long standing foreign policy of non-interference and the nature of quiet initiatives they may have undertaken with the Sudanese government.
The Chinese officials might also explain to Spielberg the limits to what China can do to influence matters in Sudan, and that Beijing subscribes to working within the confines of the United Nations. Crimes against humanity, whether in Sudan, Iraq or by the Al Qaeda, are issues no one nation can correct--except possibly the U.S.
Not every government behaves like Washington and believes that it has a divine mandate to rectify wrongs around the world. In a less diplomatic moment, the officials might even point out to Spielberg that American involvement in Iraq has not exactly lessened human sufferings.
The Olympics is the most celebrated sporting event around the world. It’s regrettable that Spielberg decided to use the spotlight intended for Olympics on Sudan.
Some Americans may celebrate Spielberg’s astute grandstanding on behalf of a worthy cause. Perhaps he did not go far enough. China is America’s most important trading partner and holder of more than $1 trillion in dollar reserves. Arguably, China should have more influence with the U.S. than with Sudan.
Why not ask China to intercede with Washington to demand the cessation of waterboarding for interrogation, indefinite incarceration of prisoners from around the world, and random killing of civilians in Iraq?
Rest of the world is just going to scratch their collective heads trying to understand the connection between international athletic competition and killings in Darfur. But then unlike America, others are not so ready to blame everything that is wrong in the world on China.
Perhaps China will continue to be awe struck by Spielberg’s artistry and overlook his insult. However, his lack of sincerity in dealing with the Chinese Olympic Committee will surely tarnish his image as an international icon.
Some speculated that Spielberg was not being insincere but just caved-in to Mia Farrow’s pressure. She has been looking to launch a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in the name of stopping genocide.
Using the same logic, we would wonder if Spielberg will lead a boycott of FIFA World Cup, the one sporting event dear to Europeans, on the grounds that the EU is not doing enough to get the U.S. to stop committing human rights abuses. Certainly a strong case can be made that the Europeans have more influence on Washington than China has on Sudan.
The EU president, Milan Zver, by the way, did say in response to Spielberg’s withdrawal that sports is too important to be used as a political instrument.
Ultimately, from the opening to the closing ceremony in Beijing this August, will anyone notice that Steven Spielberg is missing in action?
------------------------
See also accusation of Spielberg as chauvinist in humanitarian drag.
Comment below by bobby fletcher points to early U.S. involvment.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Do Chinese Americans still face a glass ceiling today?
The answer is yes and no. See here for a more detailed discussion.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Asian Shoppers Not Welcome at Hollister
The sales staff at the Hollister store located in the Westfield Valley Fair Mall in San Jose has been known to be rude to Asian shoppers.
According to a recent report in the World Journal, an ethnic newspaper, the store manager said to a Chinese couple that "We don't sell to people like you."
A team of local Chinese American activists could not believe this could be happening in Silicon Valley and went to the store to investigate. They overheard another salesman refusing to accept an Asian woman's check for merchandise she picked out. He gave "brand protection" as the reason for no sale.
Hollister stores are wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch. The parent firm earned national notoriety a few years back for offering racist tee shirts depicting stereotypic images of Asians, before withdrawing them from sale in face of a storm of public opinion.
The Hollister website features buffed images of young male and female, black and white models called "dudes" and "bettys". Apparently Asians are not regarded as dudes and bettys, so why would any Asian want to shop there?
According to a recent report in the World Journal, an ethnic newspaper, the store manager said to a Chinese couple that "We don't sell to people like you."
A team of local Chinese American activists could not believe this could be happening in Silicon Valley and went to the store to investigate. They overheard another salesman refusing to accept an Asian woman's check for merchandise she picked out. He gave "brand protection" as the reason for no sale.
Hollister stores are wholly owned subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch. The parent firm earned national notoriety a few years back for offering racist tee shirts depicting stereotypic images of Asians, before withdrawing them from sale in face of a storm of public opinion.
The Hollister website features buffed images of young male and female, black and white models called "dudes" and "bettys". Apparently Asians are not regarded as dudes and bettys, so why would any Asian want to shop there?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Nanking, a Documentary Changing World Perception
Ted Leonsis’ documentary film, Nanking, was not among the recently announced list of nominees for Academy awards, but he and the film had already won appreciative reception from millions around the world. At least 20 million in China have already seen this film. In the U.S. favorable reception from first limited release has now encouraged more general release across the country.
He did this by presenting the history of the Japanese occupation of Nanking (now called Nanjing) in a particularly persuasive way on especially shocking crime against humanity that has been largely unknown outside of Asia.
Leonsis happened to read the obituary of Iris Chang and became curious about her best seller, “The Rape of Nanking.” The book led to his decision to tell the story on the silver screen.
In December 1937, Japanese Imperial forces laid siege and then occupied Nanking, at the time the capital of the Chinese republic. According to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal conducted at the end of WWII, over the next six weeks of occupation, the troops slaughtered 200,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war and raped around 20,000 females from babies to elderly.
The film tells the story of atrocities from the eyes of a handful of Americans and Europeans that elected to stay in Nanking. They organized a safety zone to protect civilians fortunate enough to have reached them.
The film employed professional actors to narrate excerpts from the diaries and letters they left behind. These eyewitness accounts were intermixed with tearful interviews of actual Chinese survivors recalling the horror and pain along with detached recollections of elderly Japanese men that were once soldiers occupying Nanking.
Spliced between these oral histories were actual movies and stills taken by the organizers of the safety zone, a zone subsequently credited with saving some 250,000 lives. Fortunately, the priceless materials were smuggled out of China undetected by the Japanese soldiers.
Depiction of the more hideous acts of beheading, live burial and gang rape relied more on verbal descriptions than visual images, a barrage of which would have nauseated the audience. The overall effect proved to be such a moving experience that only a storefront mannequin could have remained dry eyed.
The widely acclaimed documentary has won many awards and received 4 star accolades from every major reviewer.
Most importantly, the film takes the Nanjing massacre debate out of the bilateral tug of war between the Chinese and the Japanese. Leonsis personally financed and initiated this project to tell this historical event from the third party’s vantage point.
The matter of fact treatment of the subject coming from white non-combatants will render the film hard for anyone to repudiate.
The documentary film was released in December 2007, just in time to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s siege and occupation of Nanking. The renovated Nanjing Massacre Museum also reopened in the same month.
Museum officials at the reopening ceremony indicated that their goal is to raise the world awareness of the museum so as to be on par with Auschwitz, Hiroshima and other world heritage memorials reminding humankind of the brutal consequences of war.
The Nanjing Massacre Museum is built on one of the killing grounds used by the Japanese Imperial troops. Visitors can see open trenches exposing random stacks of human remains.
Multi-colored leis of paper-folded cranes have been left by visiting Japanese school children as tokens of regret and respect. The accumulated leis showed that some schools make regular sojourns to this site. One can conclude that not all the people of Japan are blind to history.
Some still living members of the imperial troops have publicly expressed remorse and guilt over their conduct in Nanjing. To do so took great courage as they immediately became targets of hate mail and death threats from Japan’s right wing extremists.
One Japanese filmmaker claiming that the Nanking Massacre never happened is planning to introduce his rebuttal on screen. It will be interesting to see what “truths” he will unearth.
Japan’s Consul General from Shanghai has already visited the reopened museum. He complained to Chinese officials that the exhibits were overwhelmingly one sided and he expressed concerns that the exhibits will inflame emotions and disrupt peaceful development of relations between the peoples of the two countries.
By all indications, the current government of Japan has foresworn its military, aggressor past and is a government of peaceful intentions. Unfortunately, the government is also hobbled by its inability to openly seek reconciliation with the world.
The Nanking documentary will make it that much harder to ignore the past but perhaps will convince the Tokyo government to finally face history squarely.
Only by knowing the lessons of history, can humankind avoid repeating the error.
He did this by presenting the history of the Japanese occupation of Nanking (now called Nanjing) in a particularly persuasive way on especially shocking crime against humanity that has been largely unknown outside of Asia.
Leonsis happened to read the obituary of Iris Chang and became curious about her best seller, “The Rape of Nanking.” The book led to his decision to tell the story on the silver screen.
In December 1937, Japanese Imperial forces laid siege and then occupied Nanking, at the time the capital of the Chinese republic. According to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal conducted at the end of WWII, over the next six weeks of occupation, the troops slaughtered 200,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war and raped around 20,000 females from babies to elderly.
The film tells the story of atrocities from the eyes of a handful of Americans and Europeans that elected to stay in Nanking. They organized a safety zone to protect civilians fortunate enough to have reached them.
The film employed professional actors to narrate excerpts from the diaries and letters they left behind. These eyewitness accounts were intermixed with tearful interviews of actual Chinese survivors recalling the horror and pain along with detached recollections of elderly Japanese men that were once soldiers occupying Nanking.
Spliced between these oral histories were actual movies and stills taken by the organizers of the safety zone, a zone subsequently credited with saving some 250,000 lives. Fortunately, the priceless materials were smuggled out of China undetected by the Japanese soldiers.
Depiction of the more hideous acts of beheading, live burial and gang rape relied more on verbal descriptions than visual images, a barrage of which would have nauseated the audience. The overall effect proved to be such a moving experience that only a storefront mannequin could have remained dry eyed.
The widely acclaimed documentary has won many awards and received 4 star accolades from every major reviewer.
Most importantly, the film takes the Nanjing massacre debate out of the bilateral tug of war between the Chinese and the Japanese. Leonsis personally financed and initiated this project to tell this historical event from the third party’s vantage point.
The matter of fact treatment of the subject coming from white non-combatants will render the film hard for anyone to repudiate.
The documentary film was released in December 2007, just in time to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s siege and occupation of Nanking. The renovated Nanjing Massacre Museum also reopened in the same month.
Museum officials at the reopening ceremony indicated that their goal is to raise the world awareness of the museum so as to be on par with Auschwitz, Hiroshima and other world heritage memorials reminding humankind of the brutal consequences of war.
The Nanjing Massacre Museum is built on one of the killing grounds used by the Japanese Imperial troops. Visitors can see open trenches exposing random stacks of human remains.
Multi-colored leis of paper-folded cranes have been left by visiting Japanese school children as tokens of regret and respect. The accumulated leis showed that some schools make regular sojourns to this site. One can conclude that not all the people of Japan are blind to history.
Some still living members of the imperial troops have publicly expressed remorse and guilt over their conduct in Nanjing. To do so took great courage as they immediately became targets of hate mail and death threats from Japan’s right wing extremists.
One Japanese filmmaker claiming that the Nanking Massacre never happened is planning to introduce his rebuttal on screen. It will be interesting to see what “truths” he will unearth.
Japan’s Consul General from Shanghai has already visited the reopened museum. He complained to Chinese officials that the exhibits were overwhelmingly one sided and he expressed concerns that the exhibits will inflame emotions and disrupt peaceful development of relations between the peoples of the two countries.
By all indications, the current government of Japan has foresworn its military, aggressor past and is a government of peaceful intentions. Unfortunately, the government is also hobbled by its inability to openly seek reconciliation with the world.
The Nanking documentary will make it that much harder to ignore the past but perhaps will convince the Tokyo government to finally face history squarely.
Only by knowing the lessons of history, can humankind avoid repeating the error.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Chen Shui-bian’s Next Move
Now that Chen Shui-bian’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lost Taiwan’s parliament election big time, what will be his next move? First to atone for the overwhelming defeat, he resigned his position as chairman of his political party.
Next, Taiwan is afloat with the rumor that he plans to fly to the Spratly Islands （南沙，Nansha meaning southern sand in Chinese）ostensibly to honor the military personnel based there for their vigilance—presumably against the attack of killer whales.
Typical of actions related to Chen, his office denied knowing anything about his plans to visit the troops, albeit boosting the morale of the military was something he was said to do regularly. Then the next day, they deny Chen having any plan to fly to Itu Aba Islet (太平屿, Tai Ping Islet) even though a runway is nearing completion on this fortified islet. (See how he points east while attacking west in earlier post, ">click here
“What is Chen’s next ao bu (奥步, Taiwanese for trickery move),” people of Taiwan are wondering? Given some of the more outlandish antics that have taken place in the past, I would like to venture a prediction.
Just before the March presidential election, Chen will fly toward Nansha and the plane will mysteriously disappear from the radar screen. This could create a great turmoil and confusion among the Taiwan electorate and cause one of two possible outcomes.
In the confusion, the DPP candidate Frank Hsieh scores a surprising upset victory by means too difficult to speculate, perhaps abetted by a hanging chad or two. At which point, Chen just as mysteriously reappears in triumph and regains the admiration of his hard core supporters even if at the askance of the rest of the population.
On the other hand, if Ma Ying-jeou still wins as he is heavily favored to do so before any shenanigans, then Chen pops up in Los Angeles with his new hukou (residence permit) in hand.
As predictions about Taiwan go, my version is relatively tame. There are even speculations floating around Taiwan on whether Chen is desperate enough to resort to assassination.
No, not aimed at Ma, because that would be too obvious. The more diabolical speculation is for Chen to have Hsieh taken out. After all, it is well known that the two do not get along. In a massively confused aftermath, Chen cancels the election and declares martial law and stays in power.
Too farfetched? Stranger things have happened that pass for politics in Taiwan.
Next, Taiwan is afloat with the rumor that he plans to fly to the Spratly Islands （南沙，Nansha meaning southern sand in Chinese）ostensibly to honor the military personnel based there for their vigilance—presumably against the attack of killer whales.
Typical of actions related to Chen, his office denied knowing anything about his plans to visit the troops, albeit boosting the morale of the military was something he was said to do regularly. Then the next day, they deny Chen having any plan to fly to Itu Aba Islet (太平屿, Tai Ping Islet) even though a runway is nearing completion on this fortified islet. (See how he points east while attacking west in earlier post, ">click here
“What is Chen’s next ao bu (奥步, Taiwanese for trickery move),” people of Taiwan are wondering? Given some of the more outlandish antics that have taken place in the past, I would like to venture a prediction.
Just before the March presidential election, Chen will fly toward Nansha and the plane will mysteriously disappear from the radar screen. This could create a great turmoil and confusion among the Taiwan electorate and cause one of two possible outcomes.
In the confusion, the DPP candidate Frank Hsieh scores a surprising upset victory by means too difficult to speculate, perhaps abetted by a hanging chad or two. At which point, Chen just as mysteriously reappears in triumph and regains the admiration of his hard core supporters even if at the askance of the rest of the population.
On the other hand, if Ma Ying-jeou still wins as he is heavily favored to do so before any shenanigans, then Chen pops up in Los Angeles with his new hukou (residence permit) in hand.
As predictions about Taiwan go, my version is relatively tame. There are even speculations floating around Taiwan on whether Chen is desperate enough to resort to assassination.
No, not aimed at Ma, because that would be too obvious. The more diabolical speculation is for Chen to have Hsieh taken out. After all, it is well known that the two do not get along. In a massively confused aftermath, Chen cancels the election and declares martial law and stays in power.
Too farfetched? Stranger things have happened that pass for politics in Taiwan.
Monday, January 21, 2008
America needs more Anson Burlingames
Anson Burlingame has a unique place in history. First he was an envoy from the U.S. to China. Then he became an envoy for China to America.
Periodic tension between Washington and Beijing suggests that we need more leaders like Anson Burlingame. He was a politician and Congressman from Massachusetts, whom President Abraham Lincoln appointed as his envoy to China in 1861. Burlingame was an excellent orator with a strong sense of right from wrong which showed in his highly visible anti-slavery stance.
Upon his arrival in China, he undertook side trips to various cities to get a better understanding of the country and although not a trained diplomat, he quickly became a leader of the diplomatic community in Beijing. He was outspoken in defense of the sovereignty of China and criticized foreign interference in China’s internal affairs. He became a trusted advisor to the Manchu imperial court and was befriended by Prince Kung, the power behind the throne.
He was interested in helping China modernize. To that end, he introduced an American geologist and also mining technology to help China develop her coal deposits. He was also in regular contact with another American then living in China, Frederick Townsend Ward. A soldier of fortune, Ward organized troops from Shanghai to fight the Tai Ping rebels. Ward’s battlefield successes led to his eventual appointment as a Chinese general by the imperial court. It was likely that Burlingame played an intermediary role. (click here)
When Burlingame was ready to return to the U.S., Prince Kung asked him to accept the appointment as High Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary representing the imperial court, in other words, to become an ambassador on behalf of China. He accepted and led a delegation from China to Washington D.C. where the historic Burlingame Treaty was signed on July 28, 1868. The gist of the treaty was to commit the U.S. to noninterference of China’s affairs and accord China the same peer stature and obligations as the western powers.
Burlingame then led the Chinese delegation to Europe where he was warmly received. He began treaty negotiations with Britain, France, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Russia. Tragically, he contracted pneumonia in St. Petersburg and died on February 23, 1870, after being ill for four days. He was not yet 50. Apparently, none of his other negotiations culminated in formal treaties except the one with the U.S. Ever since then, China has received a more even-handed and sometimes sympathetic treatment from the U.S. than from other western powers. Undoubtedly, this is a legacy of Burlingame’s unique role in history.
From knowing nothing about China to becoming a diplomat working on behalf China may seem remarkable, but China has this effect on many Americans that spend time in the country. While living in China, they come to appreciate Chinese culture, values and the daily lives of the people. Some come to love their experience and memories in China.
Henry Kissinger as Nixon’s secret envoy to China took a number of clandestine trips to Beijing to pave the way for Nixon’s historic meeting with Mao. In between meetings with Mao and Zhou Enlai, he was said to have spent many solitary hours visiting the Forbidden City, the former imperial palace. Since then, he has been a moderating influence on the U.S. side of the bilateral relations.
George H. Bush served as the minister in charge of the liaison office in Beijing before the normalization of diplomatic relations. After becoming President, his administration was marked by a lack of confrontation with Beijing.
Leonard Woodcock, appointed by Jimmy Carter, became the first ambassador to Beijing where mutual diplomatic recognition and normalization took place in January 1979. Subsequently, even in failing health, Woodcock was a vigorous advocate of China joining the WTO. Despite being the former leader of United Auto Workers, his position on China has been far more enlightened than his colleagues in organized labor.
As a matter of fact, virtually all of the ambassadors to China since Woodcock have become reasoned voices in favor of positive engagements and collaboration with China. There may be two possible exceptions. Winston Lord, who left Beijing just before the Tiananmen disturbance, saw that his vision to be the pivotal influence in turning China into a western style democracy was not to be. Now his acerbic comments about China seem to reflect his disenchantment.
James Lilley, Lord’s successor in Beijing, has also been less than empathetic with Beijing. In his case, his outlook may have been hardened by prior years of service in the CIA and a stint as Washington’s representative in Taiwan before rotating to Beijing. Probably, it did not help matters that he was the sitting ambassador having to deal with the fallout of the Tiananmen incident.
(While Donald Rumsfeld was still Secretary of Defense, Lilley spoke at a Pacific Council event in San Francisco. He overheard my conversation with a fellow attendee and was outraged when I described the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration as a bunch of “neoconpoops.” He was certainly clear where he stood on the Middle East conflict.)
Even a brief visit to China can open eyes if not the mind. Senator Chuck Schumer comes to mind. He had been a leading proponent of levying a 27.5% duty on goods made in China to penalize China for alleged currency manipulation. After a quick visit to Beijing, he actually toned down his rhetoric for a while, although the China effect wore off and he has rejoined the demonizing China camp.
Today, China can engage the world on her own and no longer needs a Burlingame to exercise diplomacy on their behalf. However, hostility rooted in ignorance and not understanding China still persists in Washington. In the interest of the public good, we should offer an annual “Burlingame” prize to the person who has contributed the most to promote mutual understanding between America and China.
Periodic tension between Washington and Beijing suggests that we need more leaders like Anson Burlingame. He was a politician and Congressman from Massachusetts, whom President Abraham Lincoln appointed as his envoy to China in 1861. Burlingame was an excellent orator with a strong sense of right from wrong which showed in his highly visible anti-slavery stance.
Upon his arrival in China, he undertook side trips to various cities to get a better understanding of the country and although not a trained diplomat, he quickly became a leader of the diplomatic community in Beijing. He was outspoken in defense of the sovereignty of China and criticized foreign interference in China’s internal affairs. He became a trusted advisor to the Manchu imperial court and was befriended by Prince Kung, the power behind the throne.
He was interested in helping China modernize. To that end, he introduced an American geologist and also mining technology to help China develop her coal deposits. He was also in regular contact with another American then living in China, Frederick Townsend Ward. A soldier of fortune, Ward organized troops from Shanghai to fight the Tai Ping rebels. Ward’s battlefield successes led to his eventual appointment as a Chinese general by the imperial court. It was likely that Burlingame played an intermediary role. (click here)
When Burlingame was ready to return to the U.S., Prince Kung asked him to accept the appointment as High Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary representing the imperial court, in other words, to become an ambassador on behalf of China. He accepted and led a delegation from China to Washington D.C. where the historic Burlingame Treaty was signed on July 28, 1868. The gist of the treaty was to commit the U.S. to noninterference of China’s affairs and accord China the same peer stature and obligations as the western powers.
Burlingame then led the Chinese delegation to Europe where he was warmly received. He began treaty negotiations with Britain, France, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Russia. Tragically, he contracted pneumonia in St. Petersburg and died on February 23, 1870, after being ill for four days. He was not yet 50. Apparently, none of his other negotiations culminated in formal treaties except the one with the U.S. Ever since then, China has received a more even-handed and sometimes sympathetic treatment from the U.S. than from other western powers. Undoubtedly, this is a legacy of Burlingame’s unique role in history.
From knowing nothing about China to becoming a diplomat working on behalf China may seem remarkable, but China has this effect on many Americans that spend time in the country. While living in China, they come to appreciate Chinese culture, values and the daily lives of the people. Some come to love their experience and memories in China.
Henry Kissinger as Nixon’s secret envoy to China took a number of clandestine trips to Beijing to pave the way for Nixon’s historic meeting with Mao. In between meetings with Mao and Zhou Enlai, he was said to have spent many solitary hours visiting the Forbidden City, the former imperial palace. Since then, he has been a moderating influence on the U.S. side of the bilateral relations.
George H. Bush served as the minister in charge of the liaison office in Beijing before the normalization of diplomatic relations. After becoming President, his administration was marked by a lack of confrontation with Beijing.
Leonard Woodcock, appointed by Jimmy Carter, became the first ambassador to Beijing where mutual diplomatic recognition and normalization took place in January 1979. Subsequently, even in failing health, Woodcock was a vigorous advocate of China joining the WTO. Despite being the former leader of United Auto Workers, his position on China has been far more enlightened than his colleagues in organized labor.
As a matter of fact, virtually all of the ambassadors to China since Woodcock have become reasoned voices in favor of positive engagements and collaboration with China. There may be two possible exceptions. Winston Lord, who left Beijing just before the Tiananmen disturbance, saw that his vision to be the pivotal influence in turning China into a western style democracy was not to be. Now his acerbic comments about China seem to reflect his disenchantment.
James Lilley, Lord’s successor in Beijing, has also been less than empathetic with Beijing. In his case, his outlook may have been hardened by prior years of service in the CIA and a stint as Washington’s representative in Taiwan before rotating to Beijing. Probably, it did not help matters that he was the sitting ambassador having to deal with the fallout of the Tiananmen incident.
(While Donald Rumsfeld was still Secretary of Defense, Lilley spoke at a Pacific Council event in San Francisco. He overheard my conversation with a fellow attendee and was outraged when I described the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration as a bunch of “neoconpoops.” He was certainly clear where he stood on the Middle East conflict.)
Even a brief visit to China can open eyes if not the mind. Senator Chuck Schumer comes to mind. He had been a leading proponent of levying a 27.5% duty on goods made in China to penalize China for alleged currency manipulation. After a quick visit to Beijing, he actually toned down his rhetoric for a while, although the China effect wore off and he has rejoined the demonizing China camp.
Today, China can engage the world on her own and no longer needs a Burlingame to exercise diplomacy on their behalf. However, hostility rooted in ignorance and not understanding China still persists in Washington. In the interest of the public good, we should offer an annual “Burlingame” prize to the person who has contributed the most to promote mutual understanding between America and China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
