福建土楼, Hakka Roundhouses

At one time, these structures viewed from satellite appeared to be threatening missile silos, at least to some wary American officials. In 2008, UNESCO designated these uniquely Hakka construction as World Heritage buildings. Though generically known as Hakka Roundhouses, not all are round but can come in oval and rectangular shapes as well as in all sizes and configurations. The generic Chinese terminology is tulou (土楼) meaning earthen buildings and is more accurate. Increasingly these buildings are considered as ecologically sound architectural gems and are drawing the attention of professional architects around the world.


Figure １Bird's eye view of a round and square tulou

Though varied in size and shape, the tulous share certain common characteristics. The walls are made of rammed earth reinforced with bamboo strips, up to 2 meters thick at the base and gradually tapered as the wall rises to the roof, 3 to 4 stories high. Small windows begin on the third floor where inhabitants live. Most roundhouses have only one entrance, a thick solid wooden door heavily reinforced and protected by a water dousing system in the event of siege by fire.

Most of the community activity takes place in the central courtyard. Facing the entrance would be the altar to pay homage to goddess Guanyin (观音) and in the center of large tulous, there would be a community meeting hall. There would be at least one well in the courtyard and in many cases two on the east west axis, though never aligned for fengshui (风水) reasons. Abutting the sides of the meeting hall are pig pens and chicken coops, most of them no longer in use, as well as public bath facilities.


Figure ２5-storied Yuchanglou from 1308 AD

Many families can live in one building, usually all related with the same surname. Every family occupies a slice of the roundhouse, from first floor to the top. Ground level is for cooking and eating. Second floor is usually for storage and to do the daily chores and the upper floors for sleeping. Obviously all social activities take place in the central courtyard.Figure ３Mahjong with kibitzers in the courtyard

The basic advantages of the Hakka buildings are low cost of construction and maintenance, the last one built in 1962 cost around $30,000, and long lasting for centuries. The buildings have proven to be earthquake proof, cool in the summer and warm in the winter.Figure ４Qiaofulou, built in 1962 for RMB 90,000

The Hakka people are Han Chinese and not a distinct ethnic minority. Through successive waves of migration from the north to south starting from the days of turmoil and strife during the Western Jin dynasty in fourth century AD, they came to remote regions of Fujian and Guangdong provinces. Hakka is derived from Cantonese for kejiaren (客家人) or guest people. Feeling like unwelcomed guests wherever they go, they devised the easy-to-defend roundhouses for their communities. Known for their diligence and hard work, many important historic personages are Hakka including Sun Yat-sen (孙中山), the father of modern China.

I first learned about the tulous from Professor Bill Brown, teaching at the Business School of Xiamen University and writes humor laden tour books on the side. Bill and his wife, Sue, have raised their two young kids into adulthood while teaching in Xiamen and developing a personal fascination for the roundhouses. I believe the Browns are prototypical of exemplary American ‘hakkas’ living in China.

It’s possible to see the Nanjing (南靖) tulous on a day trip from Xiamen, but that would be missing a lot. There are said to be 20,000 tulous in Fujian. One should at least stay overnight and see the many tulous in Yongding (永定) as well as Nanjing. The Yongding tulous are older and more varied. According to the tour guide at Yongding, the tulous of Nanjing were built by folks that migrated from Yongding.

Better go sooner than later. Along the way, we can see massive investment underway for modern hotels and entertainment centers and “disneyfication” of the scenic countryside is a real concern. The following are some of the photos taken during our visit.

The most photographed cluster is undoubtedly the Tianluokeng (田螺坑) village, nicknamed “four dishes and a soup.” The road to Nanjing leads right up to scenic view. After the obligatory photo stop, we then walked downhill to see and enter each of the buildings.Figure ５The 4 dishes, 1 soup cluster at Nanjing

This is a representative view of the upper structure of a roundhouse. Note the upper floor is cantilevered over the lower and the use of many bamboo baskets.Figure ６Upper floor of a tulou at Tianluokeng

Despite beams that were “off spec” causing as much as a 15 degree tilt from vertical, the building has withstood rain, wind and earthquakes for over 700 years.Figure ７Yuchanglou, mother of all tulous

The highlight of our visit was the opportunity to stay overnight at one of the tulous, Zhenfulou (振福楼) in the outskirts of Yongding. It was built during the turn of the 20th century; the third generation owner, Mr. Su and his family live in a two storied structure next to the tulou. We were their guests for the night. Figure ８Zhenfulou, now a museum on Hakka tulous

The grandfather made his money from tobacco, still grown in the region and built this tulou. The inside courtyard of this roundhouse is particularly elaborate, no doubt a reflection of his wealth and a more modern times. Figure ９The altar and meeting hall inside Zhenfulou

The first two floors of Zhenfulou has been converted into a museum on tulous and the Hakka culture. The area surrounding the building is being beautified and will become a future tourist destination as the heart of the Zhenfulou Scenic District.Figure １０The stream by the Zhenfulou

Figure １１Four generations of the Su family

The next morning we headed for the Hongkeng (洪坑村) village and tulou group. Right away, we can see that this cluster is all set to exploit the commercial potential of the recent World Heritage designation. There was a young lady waiting to guide us, and parking for our car was free since we were returning to have lunch at the hotel built at the entrance to the village.

The first major structure to greet us was Zhenchenglou (振成楼) and its prominently displayed World Heritage logo. A contemporary of Zhenfulou, this building has some advanced designs. Figure １２Zhenchenglou, Hongkeng village, Yongding

The owner, a Mr. Lin, had designed brick walls on the inside to mark off sections of the building and to act as fire breaks in case the wooden structure should catch on fire.Figure １３Inside view of Zhenchenglou

Another advanced design involved the way smoke was led away from the ground floor kitchen to the roof top via channels built inside the wall. Figure １４Kitchen smoke duct leading into the wall

Fuyulou (福裕楼 ) is also part of the Hongkeng cluster. This square shaped building is divided into three sections where, in a break with tradition, the youngest brother occupied the middle section while the two older brothers had the two sides.Figure １５Inside view of a square tulou

Kuijulou(奎聚楼) built in 1834 is a multileveled building more like a palace; in somewhat of a stretch, the guide said like the Potala Palace in Lhasa. Figure １６Kuijulou, Hongkeng village, Yongding

After lunch, we went to the nearby Gaobei (高北) cluster of tulous that included Chengqilou(承启楼), the “king” of tulous, with four concentric circles of buildings, four stories in the outer ring and a total of 400 rooms. Figure １７Inside view of the huge Chengqilou

In the same cluster is a very old Wuyunlou(五云楼) that looks shaky even to long time residents of tulou. Most have vacated and now only three elderly citizens have remained. We were told that they love having the run of the place.Figure １８Inside view of Wuyunlou, Yongding

A diagrammatic map of Fujian Tulou showed that there are more than 43 sites for tourists to visit, 8 of these are World Heritage sites and another dozen are designated as national treasures. So far availability of various Hakka roundhouse tours is not widely known to foreign tourists and that’s the best time to visit.

Are we losing China? Is China losing us?

The Committee of 100 just concluded their annual conference, held in San Francisco. Some significant speeches and gestures took place at this event that I will comment on in a later blog.

In the meantime, you can get one observer's point of view by going on the Andrew Ross' column in the SF Chronicle. Ross moderated one of the panel discussion and stayed to listen to other presentations dealing with US-China relations.

He also hosted and compiled brief commentaries from six disparate contributors, including Susan Shirk, who delivered the keynote speech to kick off the conference and three members of the Committee of 100. The title of this blog is the title Ross used to invite the responses in his compilation.

Famen Temple, where Buddhism meets Las Vegas

Famen Temple （法门寺） is the closest thing in China to Egypt’s discovery of King Tut's tomb. While not nearly as ancient as King Tut, the Tang dynasty treasures sealed in a vault under the pagoda at Famen also escaped the rapacious attention of tomb robbers and lain forgotten for over a thousand years. When the archeologists found the contents to tally perfectly with an inventory list, in a stone tablet found alongside, they concluded that the underground vault had not been disturbed.

The temple had a decidedly ragged history. It was the favorite place for early Tang emperors to go and pray to Buddha for bountiful harvest and a reign at peace. It then fell in disfavor during periodic anti-Buddhism movements. By Ming and Qing dynasty, being remotely located far away from any urban center, it was largely a forgotten place. At some point, lightening struck the pagoda and knocked off half of the tower.

It was not wholly forgotten, however. An old man in the nearby village, fearful of the invading Japanese troops that might break into the underground vault under the pagoda, had set himself on fire at the entrance. The resulting bad karma discouraged anyone that might have been curious.

In the 1980’s the rest of the pagoda toppled and the local authorities decided to investigate and make a determination as to whether the complex was worthy of the cost of restoration. They were thunderstruck by what they found in the sealed underground vault. They found ornaments, scepter, and vessels of silver and gold of exquisite craftsmanship, the best available during the height of Tang dynasty. These were personal tributes from Wu Zetian （武则天）, the only woman emperor and arguably one of the most powerful in China’s history.

The first time I visited Famensi it was around 1995 not long after Famensi reopened as a tourist attraction. It was a long drive and took nearly a half day to get there. I remember the priceless items on display and wanted to see them again. This time, it only took one and a half hours on expressway from center of Xian in the direction of Baoji.

On approaching Famen Temple, we noticed a massive, newly built complex of gray granite and faux gold facade. From the distance, we could see a giant golden, diamond-shaped edifice at the far end of the complex. As we approached, we could see that the diamond was formed by two somewhat abstract cupping hands joined at the wrists and fingertips. Nestled in the hands was a golden temple—a giant replica of one of objects found in the base of the original pagoda.

It turned out that this new complex was the new entrance to the Famen Temple. Visitors to the temple now walk through the new building. The enormous front façade contained three main entrances whose purpose seemed to be to make the visitor feel tiny. As we walked through the lobby, we could see as yet not completed areas for future shops. We then came upon a courtyard with two huge reflecting pools complete with plastic water lily pads with sun bleached but never wilting flowers. A row of stone lions stood on the side of one pool facing a row of stone elephants on the far edge of the opposite pool.

Walking in the middle walkway between the two pools—that felt more like a causeway, we entered an airy hallway, open to the sky. On the left of the hallway, we passed a restaurant zone. On the right facing the restaurants was a hotel for overnight guests. Opened since the 2009 Olympics, we could not tell if all the facilities were ready for business.



At the end of the courtyard, we came upon a long promenade leading to the new temple crowned by the aforementioned diamond. On the two sides of the promenade were huge golden statues of various major Buddha figures. In between the statues were golden pillars with Buddhist scripture in prominent black. For those not wishing to walk the length of the promenade, rides on electric cart were available for an extra fee.

At the end of the promenade, after a flight of stairs, the visitor would enter a new temple to be greeted by four heavenly guardians and the smiling Happy Buddha, all in gold color, and then enter the main hall, in a layout that followed the traditional layout of Buddhist temples but bigger and grander. On display in front of golden stature of Sakyamuni was the holiest relic in Buddhist religion, namely the original finger bone of Prince Gautama, found among the treasures under the pagoda.

The rest of the treasures were on display at the original grounds of the Famen Temple, to the right of the new complex. The museum built to house the objects was in neo-Tang dynasty style, far less flamboyant and blended well with the newly restored pagoda and temple. The main museum building in three floors were inspired by the same golden temple resting inside the diamond on top of the new edifice. The unique items of the Famensi were now properly displayed in a building of its own.

I am certain that there will be many visitors whose object is to see the original imperial gifts from Emperor Wu and could do without the ornate granite and gold and the implied ostentation. On the other hand, it will take a long time to forget Famen Temple again.

Senators find China Bashing easier than Policy Making

Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer (Reuters called odd couple) are at it again. They are sponsoring a bill in Congress demanding that China adjust the exchange rate of their currency, Renminbi (RMB), to the dollar because, they claim, the “artificially” low rate is costing America jobs.

This time their arguments are bolstered by commentaries written by no less than Paul Krugman, Nobel winning economist, accusing China of mercantilist practices. Krugman as a columnist for the New York Times certainly has the soapbox to preach his version of global economics.

Fortunately, other equally credentialed, if not as well known, professional economists have stepped up to offer persuasive contrarian views exposing flaws in Krugman’s reasoning.

I found three conclusions particularly noteworthy in Stanford Professor Ron McKinnon’s rebuttal to Krugman. First, he points out that trade imbalance has nothing to do with currency exchange rates. A sudden increase in the RMB value to the dollar may actually increase and not lessen the trade imbalance.

McKinnon argues that fixing the exchange rate of 6.83 RMB to a dollar was essential to stabilizing China’s economy against the global economic downdraft caused by Wall Street. With a stable yuan, China was able to stimulate its economy replacing fallen export with huge boost in domestic consumption, which in turn meant increasing imports from China’s neighboring countries and thus stimulating those economies.

China has contributed to a fast worldwide recovery which would not have been possible without a stable yuan. McKinnon presents data to show that it is America’s “ultra-loose monetary policy” instituted since the 2008 crisis that is guilty of manipulation.

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has come out in support of China’s control of the exchange rate. According to UNCTAD, China has done more than any other emerging economy to stimulate domestic demand in order to mitigate the crisis and urges China not to cave in to the western pressure.

Dr. David Caploe, Chief Political Economist of online EconomyWatch largely echo McKinnon’s analysis but in more quotable sound bites. He points out that the US has run overall balance of payment deficit since 1959 and overall trade deficit since 1971 seemingly without doing any harm to the American standard of living. “Put bluntly,” Caploe says, “Both the US and the rest of the world have benefited greatly from a global political economy that is fundamentally unbalanced.”

Graham and Schumer haven’t said how and what jobs would return to America if China were to bow to pressure and make a substantial and sudden adjustment in the exchange rate.

In fact it has been obvious to all of us that the jobs that went to China by way of Mexico, Taiwan or Korea left the US long ago and would never come back. Nor would we wish for those low paying jobs to come back because it would mean a collapse in the American economy as it currently exists and return to a third world standard of living.

However, bashing China has always been easier than proposing a carefully thought out roadmap that would create well paying jobs and protect the current standard of living. In fact the challenge of a real plan seems to be beyond even the capability of a Nobel Laureate like Krugman.

Caploe says, “If the US is going to somehow manage to find a way out of the mess it’s in, it should stop blaming China, and admit the fault lies in ourselves.” He goes on to say, “But of course, that’s a lot harder than shifting the onus onto one of the few countries in the world that has a political leadership that actually knows what it’s doing when it comes to economic policy.” Ouch.

A more plausible argument for a stronger yuan is that it would make American exports more attractive but this argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either. China is already buying virtually all the lower-valued export such as agricultural products that America is selling. For higher-valued products, such as high tech equipment where the US has a comparative advantage, price has not been the issue. China has been willing to buy more than the US government is willing to sell under Washington’s anachronistic export control regulations.

Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes magazine, reminds us, "We started in the 1970s to put pressure on Japan to change the value of the yen. The dollar today has fallen 75 percent against the yen, and we still have a trade deficit."

Maybe our problem is that we don't have leaders that can offer real solutions.
================================================
A shorter version appeared in the March 25 issue of the San Jose Mercury News.

In doing no Evil is Google doing any Good?

Google’s very public dispute with China has everyone confused. First Google accused China of hacking into their servers but wait Google did not necessarily mean China but that hackers were from China. In fact hacking was identified as coming from servers belonging to a couple of schools in Shanghai, but wait may be not, may be some clever hacker, who could be from anywhere, has disguised their origin by commandeering those servers.

Google then announced that they are going to stop censoring the contents flowing through their servers in China and would no longer obey China’s laws related to the control of information being access by China’s netizens. Testimony before Congress seems to indicate that Google will definitely get out of China. Well, maybe not said CEO Eric Schmidt because he was confident of a positive outcome from quiet negotiation with Beijing--negotiations that Beijing has denied taking place.

Bill Gates couldn’t understand what the fuss was all about. If a company is going to operate in China, the company is expected to obey Chinese laws. That’s the way it has been for Microsoft. If you don’t wish to obey the local laws, then yes, you better get out.

Somehow the issue seems more complicated from Google’s point of view. Whether at Google’s request or not, the US government seems ready to come to Google’s aid, by threatening to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) accusing China of protectionism. Since China’s laws on cyberspace apply to all Internet enterprises and not just against Google or just foreign companies, it is a head scratcher as to how the U.S. can make such a complaint stick.

It’s possible, I suppose, for the US to insist on China opening the Internet to the same degree that the US is open so that Google can be more successful instead of being merely a distant second in market share in China. But that would be based on a rather dubious premise that having to filter the content puts Google at a disadvantage.

Finally Kai-fu Lee, former head of Google China, spoke up and shed some light to this matter. Lee was lured away from Microsoft in 2005 to right the floundering Google ship in China. By most accounts, he was going a good job as Google was slowly gaining on Baidu, the market leader in search in China. He unexpectedly resigned in September last year.

While attending the Abu Dhabi Media Summit last week Lee was asked about China’s Internet industry. While he would not comment directly on Google in China, he said, “For an American company to succeed in China, it needs to do the following: first, you have to have an empowered local team; second, you need to humbly listen to the local user; third, you need to move fast to give users what they want; and fourth you need to have a longer-term outlook and not be too greedy in wanting to make money on day one.”

Google isn’t the only one to stumble in China. Facebook, eBay, Amazon and Yahoo all did not achieve dominant market share in China comparable to their success in the US. I suspect that all suffered from the same drawback. Namely, their not understanding the local market and not trusting their China team to seize the moment and make decisions without having to go through the corporate bureaucracy back home.

Lee was too diplomatic to ever admit that the frustration of lacking local empowerment was what caused him to seek greener pastures. But he certainly does understand the China market and potential. He has established Innovation Works to harness the energy of entrepreneurs inside China and nurture them into next generation Google’s.

Lee’s incubated start-ups will be participating in a home market of 350 million web surfers and Internet users and 680 million mobile phone users, both largest in the world and growing at double digit rates. In another 7 to 8 years, Lee expects the by then 800 million mobile phone users to access the Internet with their smart phones and that’s the market he wants to play in.

Surely CEO Schmidt has to be agonizing over the dilemma: can Google afford to dither and watch the world’s most dynamic market zip by?
=========================================
After Google announced their move to Hongkong, I sent an updated commentary based on this blog to New America Media.

Google has just revealed that many countries have asked Google to remove contents. Of the countries that have asked Google to censor the contents, the United States came in 4th in frequency of requests.

Joseph Nye Swung and Missed

Many of you probably have heard of Professor Joseph Nye, now of Harvard and former U.S. assistant secretary of defense. I remember him as the very persuasive advocate of the effectiveness of the exercise of soft power in international relations. He stressed that properly applied soft power in the form of nuanced diplomacy can be far more effective than in-your-face display of raw military might.

It is therefore most disappointing that in his latest analysis of Sino-U.S. relations, which he called a "turn for the worse," that he completely missed the mark. Nye blamed China for failing to toe the U.S. line of imposing sanction on Iran. He did mention President Obama's meeting with Dalai Lama and agreeing to sell arms to Taiwan as sources of friction in the bilateral relations but he seemed to believe that with ample prior precedents, China should be accepting and not get hot and bothered.

Nye also mentioned that "many American congressmen" complain about American jobs being destroyed by China's maintenance of an artificially low yuan, but he failed to point out the ludicrous premise such complaint is based. Instead he accuse Beijing of making a serious miscalculation because the U.S. is not in decline but still ranks as the second most competitive economy in the world, after Switzerland.

I am not sure how World Economic Forum, an organization based in the West, gage economic strength, but I am not as sanguine as Nye about America's future. I fear that America is about to become a failed state.

Take the health care standoff. I do not find members of Congress talk about what's in national interest. I find members working diligently to make sure the other side do not score any popularity points.

Thanks to a protective coddling of Wall Street, we experienced a great economic meltdown and have incurred trillions in national debt. Our only prospect of getting out of debt is prayer and a pig in the poke, hope for the best some hazy years down in the future. No one has the political courage to say we need to cut spending and (gasp) raise taxes. Obviously a major cut in spending is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but we don't seem to know how to do that either.

Our collective aversion to paying taxes plus our preference for guns over books has led directly to a drive to bottom for our public education system, pioneered by California condemned to mediocrity with the enactment of Proposition 13. We are successful in not leaving "any child behind," instead just entire generations behind.

President Obama has said that we will pull out of the economic doldrums through an economy built on innovation. But where will future innovations come from, if we don't want immigrants, won't encourage foreign students to stay and depend on lousy schools to crank out poorly prepared graduates? On top of all that, we have a significant fraction of Americans that seriously believe the study of science is anti-Christ tantamount to devil worship.

Not to worry, some will say, because we have the strongest democracy in the world. Is that so? Thanks to the American invention known as gerrymandering (a manipulation of voting districts to favor a particular political party), members of state and national legislatures once elected are virtually guaranteed lifetime employment. To further enhance their job security, they raise money. The more the better. Once a politician wins an election, he or she immediately raises more campaign contributions because the politician knows full well that vulnerability is inversely proportional to the size of the campaign bank account.

America hasn’t been a democracy based on one person, one vote for decades. We used to go door to door campaigning for our candidates. No more, now we organize neighborhood gatherings for the purpose of collecting political contributions. America has become a democracy based on money. With rare exception, the one that raises the most money, wins. Guess what, most money come from special interest. Every politician rails against special interest—but, by the way, contributions gratefully accepted. Special interests love to make contributions because contributions get access and influence. Consequently, our politicians are not beholden to the voters, just the special interests.

Politicians are safe in their seats so long as they do not rock the boat. Thus they take the easy way out. Rather than exercise leadership and statesmanship and telling the American people of the hard tasks that lie ahead, they just blame China, for everything conceivable.

China in the meantime is building a network of high speed rail that will crisscross the country based on its own technology, i.e., not stolen from Los Alamos. They are proposing to build three trans-continental high speed rail systems: Two to Western Europe by way of Russia and central Asia and one south to Singapore.

China has the wealth to invest in infrastructure based on latest technology and they are sharing with their neighbors. The high speed rail will inevitably bring China closer to the community of nations that will share in the economic benefits. There may even come a day when bilateral relations with America will pale in importance compared to relations with rest of the world.

Nye reminded the readers that Deng Xiaoping would have “led China to the cooperative relations with the U.S. that marked the early of part of last year.” Alas, Nye did not seem to realize that it has been America that has changed from early last year and not China.

Obama needs another playbook for China

Recent geopolitical activity suggests that President Obama is playing his China cards in a traditional way set by his predecessors, but we need to ask whether those cards are still valid.

President Obama came into office last year facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. He knew he had to take swift and drastic actions and he did. He also knew he had to change the international image of the United States to a more humble and gentle one, and in concert with Secretary of State Clinton, he was largely successful.

In particular he dispensed with the usual antagonistic confrontations that his predecessor administrations indulged at the beginning of their relations with China. Instead he stressed the importance of collaboration between Beijing and Washington in solving the many challenges facing both nations.

Secretary Clinton’s first trip abroad after taking office was to China and she said all the right things. Secretaries Chu and Locke visited China more than once in the first year, partly because of the importance of their portfolios (energy and commerce) to the bilateral relations and partly because their ethnic Chinese background is regarded as useful for building goodwill. Defense Secretary Gates made overtures for military exchanges that China accepted and the relations between the Pentagon and the People’s Liberation Army began to warm.

Of course, as we would expect between the debtor and the creditor holding most of the notes payable, Treasury Secretary Geithner has devoted more face and phone time with Chinese officials than any other cabinet officer. He had to work hard to assure his counterparts in Beijing that the United States would control the deficit and protect the value of the dollar so that China would have reasons not only to hold onto the trillions of IOUs but would continue to buy Treasury notes and bills in the future.

For some reason the dynamics between the two countries changed after Obama came back from his trip to China in November. Since then the collegiality has been replaced by increasingly strident exchange of words, threats and counter threats. Obama’s administration has demanded that China revalue their Renminbi and open their market. Obama has announced the intent to sell arms to Taiwan and to meet Dalai Lama. It’s almost as if Obama had planned to build up a cache of goodwill with China in order to spend it in the second year.

Piling on is Pentagon’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review where they discussed potential military threats from China. Despite the protestations to the contrary, the U.S. military continue to look at China through cold war lens. They are obsessed with the "lack of transparency and the nature of China's military development and decision-making processes." They are fixated on the need to understand China’s military capability and intentions and to be able to measure against America’s own.

China on the other hand is unlikely to oblige. According to the Art of War, the classic tome on strategy written by Sun Zi, the weaker power will always cloak in deception and ambiguity and hide one’s vulnerabilities. The U.S. may have nothing but altruistic intentions in wishing to know China’s strength and plans, but it is not in China’s self-interest to make it easy for the U.S. to sleep at nights—certainly not when the U.S. comes across with so much hostility.

No one outside of Obama’s team can really know what prompted the White House to change. One obvious explanation is that with domestic political setbacks such as the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senatorial seat as well as other potential losses looming, Obama felt the need to strengthen his ties to his core constituency, a key part of his support being well established China bashers.

If so, it would be disappointing because Obama should have the intelligence to see and the courage to tell the people of the United States that blaming the valuation of the Renminbi will not bring jobs back home—low paying jobs that nobody wanted for decades. Furthermore, since the financial crisis the bilateral relationship has undergone a fundamental change. China no longer sees itself as the 95 pound weakling that needs to absorb a periodic pummeling just to tag along and hang around with the big bully.

Having seen how China weathered the financial storm relatively unscathed, the people of China now believe that they have a system that works better than the West and they expected to be treated with the respect of a peer and not dismissed as a junior flunky. Right or wrong, this is increasingly their attitude. Given that, China’s leaders could hardly be seen to back down before hard nose demands from Washington.

Unilateral actions such as arms sales to Taiwan and meeting the Dalai Lama are particularly sensitive issues because China views those acts as direct interference into their internal affairs. In the past, Beijing might protest for a while and then let it fade away. This may no longer be possible because the Chinese now have heightened expectations consistent with their new self image. Their announced intention to impose sanctions on companies that participates in arms sales to Taiwan reflect the desire to back up rhetoric with real punishing consequences.

Similarly the confrontation over the valuation of the yuan could lead to mutually assured destruction of both economies with devastating global impact. Since a strengthening of the Renminbi is equivalent to a devaluation of the dollars in China’s possession, if backed to a corner, they may decide to walk away from supporting the dollar rather than be seen to acquiesce and do something against their own interest. Most recently, Vice Premier Wang Qishan rather ominously told Geithner not to bother making another trip to Beijing to explain the same tired U.S. position.

I hope cooler heads in Washington prevail before we get too close to the brink. As one columnist in Wall Street Journal recently asked, “How many enemies do we need?”

An edited version was posted on New America Media.

Arms sales adds complexity to the U.S.-China-Taiwan Triangle

President Obama’s announcement to sell $6.4 billion of arms to Taiwan seems to have caught China by surprise. Some in Washington see Beijing’s reaction as a normal response when the U.S. raises the tension in the U.S.-China-Taiwan triangle while others are not so sure.

One thing is clear, however. Obama does not have the luxury of starting a confrontation with China. Many argued that coming into office facing the tsunami of a financial crisis, Obama needed China’s support of the dollar by continuing to buy and holding on to treasury notes. A soft, non-confrontational approach was the only way.

Thus Obama’s decision to sell arms to Taiwan can be read in at least two different ways. One is that Obama has established great rapport with the leaders of Beijing as a result of his November trip to China and arms sales was among the many subjects discussed, and that Obama’s announcement and Beijing’s response are orchestrated. In fact, some academicians inside China have been quoted as saying that Beijing’s official protest is for domestic consumption.

The other interpretation is that Obama’s trip to China was a failure as he did not come back with specific agreements that could be counted as wins. Obama, therefore, has decided to send the message that he, too, can play hardball. By offering only Black Hawk helicopters and Patriot missiles, but withholding advanced fighters and submarines, he is seen as saving a heavier punch for the future, in case he needs to ratchet up the tension by another notch.

This view, while fitting with the inclination of more hawkish analysts in Washington, seems to fly in face of what Obama has demonstrated from the oval office, namely, an intelligent leader who makes thoughtful and rational decisions. Furthermore, he continues to need China’s cooperation not only in the international arena such as Iran and North Korea but also to keep holding onto to the dollar. A confrontation with China does not seem to be in our national interest.

Official spokespersons from Washington justify the arms sales as a U.S. obligation “to ensure Taiwan’s self-defense capability.” This claim is a bit of an exaggeration. Compared to Taiwan, China has more than eight times the military personnel, five times more fighter aircrafts and 15 times more submarines, not to mention the thousands of missiles pointing at Taiwan. A few squadrons of helicopters are not going to tip the scale. (See a PLA analyst commenting on Taiwan's military.)

Obama’s announcement, coming on the heels of Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou’s highly publicized diplomatic swing through Central America, including two transit stops in San Francisco and Los Angeles -- a privilege never accorded his predecessor -- is a win for Ma and probably intended for Taiwan’s internal consumption.

So the third interpretation of the arms sales and the following brouhaha can be read as staged for the benefit of the domestic audiences of all three countries in the trilateral relations. Ma’s political opposition has been attacking him for being soft on the mainland and leaving Taiwan defenseless. He can now claim to hold a stronger hand while he continues to engage Beijing on economic cooperation. Of course, Taiwan politics being what it is, the opposition is now complaining that the United State’s offer sets the price for the arms as much as 40% above market value.

Both Obama and Ma (in China they are referred to as two horses, “ma” being the word for horse) are hurting in their home approval ratings. While China’s President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao are not subject to popularity polls, strong approval at home is important to their ability to govern as well. Beijing’s pledged to retaliate against companies involved in the arms sale, no doubt, will make them popular at the home front.

It was only one administration ago that the White House spoke of containment of China. A significant part of the Washington establishment continues to regard China as an adversary. Selling arms to Taiwan may be politically necessary in response to domestic pressures, but such an announcement and possible future meetings with the Dalai Lama are not going to win China over as a partner in solving international crises.

Eventually, Obama will have to make up his mind whether to treat China as a friend or as a non-aligned third party, if not an outright adversary. A positive trip to China followed by offsetting moves on controversial issues such as arms sales to Taiwan will not accomplish the goal of gaining China as a valuable ally. And given the arrays of problems he is facing, Obama needs all the help he can get.

The above published by New America Media.

Banana Republics and the U.S.

It would be overly harsh to say that the Central American countries are failed states. Based on two weeks touring through Belize, El Salvador, Honduras and mostly Guatemala, it may be too presumptuous to make any definitive conclusions but one cannot avoid the impression that these countries do not function very well.

Everywhere our tourist bus went in Guatemala, the national tourist police in massive black 4-wheel drive vehicles shadowed us. Although these visibly armed escorts were at the invitation of our tour guide, the need for their presence in order to reassure the tourists was, in itself, not too comforting.

We were taken to see schools in the hills. Despite entitlement of free public education to everyone up to 8th grade, we learned that the funds allocated to the school were dissipated along the way by leakage to greedy pockets of officials and very little reach the intended destination.

On the shore of Lake Atitlan, we saw a beautiful estate with its own heliport. On the outskirts of Guatemala City we saw districts of tin shacks and mud hovels. If there was any doubt, the diminutive, clearly undernourished Mayan women hawking their handicraft on the streets confirmed the existence of a great unequal distribution of wealth.

All the countries on our itinerary seemed to share a common characteristic, namely, a small wealthy ruling class of European stock and a vast general population of underclass consisted varying shades of darker skin tones. The ruling class has not shown any inclination to advance the economy of their nation by improving the lives and therefore productivity of their people.

Rather, the ruling class seemed to depend on suppressing the potential of their general population as their way of staying on top, politically and economically. Inevitably, this means the need to control the populace via the military resorting to customary tools of brutality. Inevitably the people rebelled with bloody consequences.

The governments promptly informed Washington that the ensuing civil war was actually counterinsurgency against leftist guerillas trained by the Cubans. Reflexively, Washington sent arms and local conflicts become massive conflagrations. People, many in the professional class with critical skills, emigrated out of their home country and another banana republic was born.

While these destructive internal conflicts have been resolved a decade or so ago, the surviving governments have not found their way to a more effective and perhaps enlightened rule. Most of the poor continued to be trapped in their cycle of poverty and seemingly no prospects for a better life.

One can argue that the America is becoming more like a banana republic than these Central American states becoming more like free and open societies that the United States once was. In America, power is now concentrated in the rich who can make big campaign contributions. The governments, local, state and federal, are doing increasing less for schools and students in the ghettoes are condemned to a future without hope.

Of course, the main reason for touring Central America was to learn about the ancient Mayan civilization. We learned that Mayan were very hierarchal with clear separation of classes and professions. One guide even suggested that the Mayan royalty practiced close kin marriages in order to breed giants as a distinction between royal class and the (figuratively) lowly commoners—and most Mayans were quite short, well under 5 feet in stature.

I suspect the use of complicated hieroglyphic form of writing was also consistent with a culture that prized privileges and exclusivity. The complexity was a way of keeping the ability to read from being widespread and limited to the handful in the learned class. Whether its astronomy or calendar or religious ceremony, the Mayans seemed to thrive on enveloping everything in mystery and secrecy.

Perhaps the very restriction of knowledge to only a handful of people in each generation ultimately led to the extinction of the culture when some miscalculation or accident snuffed out heirs to carry on the traditions.

Obama's Visit to China

U.S. president Barack Obama has begun his one week, four-country visit to Asia. That about half of that time will be spent in China is a measure of the importance of this bilateral relationship.

From the outset of his office, Obama dispensed with the customary China-bashing and immediately declared the need for a strong bilateral relation with China in order to tackle the many problems that confront the world, not least the economic downturn, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and counterterrorism.

The actions of his administration followed his rhetoric. His two Chinese American cabinet secretaries, Steven Chu (Energy) and Gary Locke (Commerce), were among the first high ranking officials to visit Beijing and began the dialogue on collaboration. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s first trip after taking office was to China, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also made an official visit and Treasury Secretary Tom Geithner has been to China more than once.

Obama’s actions have brought results. China’s premier Wen Jiabao went to North Korea and came back to report that Pyongyang was ready to re-enter the six party talks, subject to the U.S. being willing to conduct direct bilateral discussions. In response the White House has announced the intention to send special envoy Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang. This is a refreshing change from the unilateral approach of the previous Bush administration.

Recently Xu Caihou, vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission visited the U.S. hosted by Secretary Gates. As part of his 11-day visit, Xu was taken to sensitive military sites including the Strategic Command Headquarter in a show of desire for closer cooperation. The result was seven points of consensus that will serve as a blueprint for closer military cooperation and exchanges.

Beijing has been making a fuss over recent remarks by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg relating to “strategic reassurance” between the parties as part of the road to closer partnership. China views this development as an elevation of the importance of the relationship. Zhou Wenzhong, China’s ambassador to Washington remarked that he has witnessed the bilateral tie evolving from one of frequent tensions to one of extensive cooperation.

In light of the warming bilateral relations, what can we expect out of Obama’s meetings with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao in Beijing? They certainly have a lot to talk about. China would love to hear Obama declare unequivocally that Taiwan and Tibet are part of China. Obama probably would ask for more assurances on arms control and non-proliferation and more military transparency and cooperation.

While both sides profess to be against protectionism, China would want Obama’s assurance that he would not yield to the domestic protectionist pressures despite his declarations to the contrary. Obama would like China to strengthen the value of the Renminbi against the dollar. China might ask about the granting market economy status which China has received from over 90 countries; the status lessens trade disputes.

The most likely agreement to come out of Beijing, I believe, is some kind of declaration on climate change that would allow both nations to attend the December climate summit in Copenhagen with some appearance of a united front.

Most specific agreements take many working level bilateral meetings to hammer out the details. Unless these meetings have already been taking place, more specific announcements are unlikely to come from Obama’s visit. The most would be agreement on a working framework that would allow negotiations to proceed. Indeed, declaration for a framework for closer cooperation was the result of an April meeting between Obama and Hu Jintao which led to the subsequent series of positive developments.

The young people in Shanghai are excited by Obama’s plan to begin his China visit with an open town hall Q&A with them in the audience. Obama has been accorded rock star appeal among the youth of China “because he embodies the personality and character of a leader to whom young people feel they can relate to as opposed to some stern-faced Chinese officials they have learned to dread”—a quote from one of the Chinese commentators.

Bill Clinton made his greatest impact on China when he visited China after his presidency. On national TV, he put his arms around a young man afflicted with AIDS. This image changed China’s attitude about AIDS victims and Wen Jiabao was later seen shaking hands with AIDS patients.

Perhaps the greatest legacy from Obama’s visit is to turn the stern faces of Chinese officials into friendlier demeanors. The Chinese people would remember Obama for a long time if that change is to come about.

See edited version of this commentary in New America Media.

The Uyghurs and China

Mr. Kasim Tuman, Council Member, Uyghur Association of America was one of the speakers at a seminar on "Ethnicity and Identity in Xinjiang" held at Stanford. My wife and I have been to Xinjiang, in particular to Kashgar where Mr. Tuman came from, and naturally we were interested in what he had to say.

I was struck by some of Mr. Tuman's statements. Since the forum did not offer an opportunity for a real dialogue and discussion, I thought I would offer some counterpoints and observations in response to what I heard.

Tuman said: The Uyghurs are not interested in mixing with the Chinese for fear of losing their cultural identity. They fear being assimilated by the Chinese culture.

My response would have been: Cultures are not static but dynamic and are subject to influences and stimulus especially from other neighboring cultures. Cultures that do not evolve and remain static become endangered and face extinction with time. The Xianbeis, one of many forefathers of the Uyghurs, used to rule northern China, known in Chinese history as the Northern Wei dynasty. They admired the Han Chinese culture so much that they adopted Chinese customs, language and many social and political practices. Indeed the Xianbeis did get assimilated and their own culture became lost to history. But I do not see anything unnatural about this outcome. If people no longer accept or willing to adopt certain cultural values and practices, that culture will fade away.

Cultures can also disappear on the point of the sword. Genghis Khan so thoroughly decimated the Tangut kingdom (Xixia in Chinese), another contributor to the Uyghur gene pool, that there is no trace of the Tangut culture remain. The meaning of their writing is lost as is their historical records. The propagation of Islam was also accomplished by military conquest as the religion spread from the Middle East westward to Spain and eastward to the Indonesian archipelago imposing the Islamic religion on the local people and replacing the previous ways of worship.

But use of force has not been how the Chinese culture has proliferated. Non-Chinese people adopted certain aspects of the Chinese culture that they found more appealing than their own. One can see evidence of the influence of Chinese culture in South Asia, Southeast Asia as well as Korea and Japan. These people were not forced to adopt Chinese manners and practices; they willingly did so.

In an attempt to distinguish the Chinese culture from the Uyghur, Mr. Tuman said that it is very much in the Chinese culture for the young people to study hard and strive to attend the best school and best university and to work hard and make a lot of money. This is not part of the Uyghur culture, he said, as the Uyghurs like to take life as it comes. He used a map from Wikipedia as a platform for his talk. I noticed from the same Wiki article, one of the characteristics attributed ancestors of Uyghurs was "they showed greed without restraint, for they often made their living by looting." Perhaps given that heritage, it is understandable why Mr. Tuman made that distinction between the Uyghur and the Chinese culture.

The map from Wikipedia showed a Uyghur Khaganate that at one moment in history spread from western part of today's Manchuria westward to nearly the Caspian Sea. Mr. Tuman seemed to imply that the Uyghur people has had a long continuous history since as early as 4th century AD. But a close reading of the Wiki article would reveal that there was no such continuity but the Uyghur state, when it existed at all, ebb and flowed with time. With mostly nomads as ancesters, it is understandable that continuity would have been difficult and any sort of ethnic purity and identity even more improbable.

On the one hand, Mr. Tumen assured the audience that the Uyghur culture is quite distinct and unique and no way related to the Chinese culture. On the other, he said that he has learned the value of cultural diversity since he came to the United States nine years ago. I believe China also recognized the value of diversity. Beijing government's policy is to allow the fifty plus ethnic minorities to teach their own language alongside putonghua in their schools and to enjoy certain levels of local autonomy in maintaining their daily lives and traditions. Of course, if the minority wish to succeed in a Chinese dominated economy, that person must also learn Chinese and understand how to operate in a Chinese society. This is no different from an ethnic minority living in America. That person can no more succeed in the U.S. if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate in English.

Mr. Tumen seemed to believe that in a democracy like the U.S., the Uyghur culture can thrive. Apparently he has not been in America long enough to understand what happened to the many different forms of native American cultures that have been obliterated by actual acts of genocide.

Mr. Tumen also stated that there are 20 million Uyghurs living outside China, implying that they were originally from China. This implication is most misleading. Uyghurs are not just native to the Xinjiang Automomous Region but also in nearby Central Asian countries. If there is a Uyghur diaspora of 20 million, somebody needs to clarify as to what portion have their roots in China and what portion from outside of China.

When we visited Xinjiang, we learned a little about the colorful Uyghur dress, beautifully crafted music instruments to accompany the Uyghur music and dance, Uyghur food and how Uyghur kids are raised. We were not there long enough to detect any racial tension or alienation. After visiting many parts of China with autonomous regions belonging to various enthinic minorities, we did get the impression that the Chinese government is trying hard to be a nation for all ethnicities. Go to here for further discussion of ethnic minorities in China.

Looming tension between India and China

Recent developments on the borders between China and India hint at rising tension between the two giants. Most reports and commentaries portray China as the aggressor and India as the aggrieved state defending its national interest. These developments will bear close monitoring in the months to come.

Most frequently, the cause of the border disputes is traced back to the border conflict fought between China and India in 1962, invariably portraying China as the aggressor. Foster Stockwell has kindly reminded us that a contrary assessment was provided by John Fairbank in 1971. Fairbank was an OSS operative during WWII and a highly respected professor of East Asian studies at Harvard University after the war. Excerpt of Professor Fairbank's commentary as provided by Stockwell is quoted below for the record.

How Aggressive is China?/ by John K. Fairbank, /The New York Review/, April 22, 1971 (pg. 6)

The border war was triggered when the Indians sent 2,500 troops, in summer uniforms and with only the equipment they could carry, across high passes north of the McMahon Line, with orders to assault Chinese bunkers that were heavily reinforced on the mountain ridges farther north. This truly suicidal project was denounced by some of the professional officers, who resigned on the spot, but was ordered by the political generals now in command. Supplying a post at 15,500 feet, for example, required a five-day climb by porters from the air strip, and on a ten-day round trip the porters could carry almost no payloads beyond what they needed for their own survival. Among 2,500 troops beyond the McMahon Line only two or three hundred had winter clothing and tents, and none had axes or digging tools, to say nothing of heavy guns and adequate ammunition. As ordered, they mounted a small attack, and the Chinese reacted and drove it back on October 10.

The Chinese reaction against the announced Indian buildup for an attack north of the McMahon Line initially produced in New Delhi not only the excitement of warfare but even euphoria. Chou En-lai’s proposal that everybody stop where they were and negotiate was again denounced as aggressive. Nehru said that China’s proposal “would mean mere existence at the mercy of an aggressive, arrogant and expansionist neighbor.” He began to accept American and British military aid as well as Russian. As Maxwell remarks, “It was almost forgotten that the Indian army had been about to take offensive action; ignored, that the government had refused to meet the Chinese for talks.” Meanwhile, after their initial reaction, the Chinese paused and built roads to supply their advanced positions, while the Indian forces were kept widely distributed in defenseless, small contingents, still in the belief that the Chinese would never dare to attack.

All this was resolved on November 17 when the Chinese did attack again and in three days overran or routed all the ill-supplied Indian forces in the field, east and west. Many brave Indian troops died at their posts and were found frozen there months later. India’s political generals behaved like headless chickens. The Indian defeat was complete. On November 21, l962, China announced a unilateral cease-fire and a withdrawal in the west by stages to positions twenty kilometers behind their lines of control and in the east to the north of the McMahon Line, so that they would hold essentially what they had been proposing for three years past.

But the Indian government, while accepting the cease-fire in fact, objected to the proposal publicly. Its forward policy was finished and two or three thousand Indian troops had been lost; but “no negotiations” was still the Indian policy “The border war, almost universally reported as an unprovoked Chinese invasion of India, had only confirmed the general impression that Peking pursued a reckless, chauvinistic and belligerent foreign policy.” China had won the match but India the verdict.

Inevitably Tibet will figure prominently in any conflict between China and India. Go to here for a comprehensive review of the issues on Tibet.

Now Obama has the Peace Prize Expectations to Live Up to

No doubt President Barrack Obama woke up with the biggest surprise of his life when he found out that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, he understood that the award was not for what he has done but for the vision of world peace he has been promoting.
 

The award could not be based on actual accomplishments since he was nominated in February, within days of his coming into office. He only had time to express his intentions that his administration will embark on a collaborative diplomacy in international relations; he could not have done much yet.
 

Apparently it was enough for the Peace Prize committee. They simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to repudiate the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and peace by shock and awe. By giving the prize to Obama, the message to the American people is clear: the neoconservative idea of hegemony over the world as the last superpower standing is no way to world peace.
 

Now comes the hard part. By the end of his term, Obama will have to show that he can deliver results commensurate with winning the Peace Prize. To be the world leader for peace, Obama will have to resolve a host of challenges facing him. It may not be obvious but China could be a big help to Obama in carrying out a world peace initiative.
 

North Korea is the first that comes to mind. After branding North Korea as part of axis of evil and antagonizing the hermit kingdom to no end, Obama's predecessor defaulted and left the relationship for China to bail out.
 

China's premier Wen Jiabao just made a high profile visit to Pyongyang. He returned to Beijing with the news that North Korea will agree to return to the six party talks provided a bilateral meeting with the United States takes place first. Bush never showed the inclination to give any slack to the North Koreans. It will be up to Obama to take a more flexible approach and break the deadlock.
 

China and the U.S. share a common interest in preventing a nuclear Iran but China will not agree to economic sanctions or even more extreme action, such as embargo, because China depends on Iran for oil. Since sanctions rarely work especially when many of the European allies will also not support such sanctions, Obama will be better served by quietly conferring with China for a viable non-confrontational approach to Iran that both can buy-in.
 

Al Qaeda has just declared jihad on China. This puts China and the U.S. in the same boat in desiring to suppress terrorism. Pakistan is strategically positioned to either help defeat the Taliban or allow the Taliban to thrive and once again overrun Afghanistan. Here too China enjoys a long relationship with Pakistan, and not nearly as ambivalent as Pakistan's love-hate relationship with the U.S. For the U.S. and China to work together would surely be more productive than the impasse currently facing the U.S.
 

The recent global financial crisis amply demonstrated that the economic interests of China and the U.S. are tightly bound. One cannot win at the expense of the other. Instead, officials from both sides are meeting frequently and have acknowledged their common interest and desire to solve challenges of global warming and willingness to cooperate on energy and environmental concerns.
 

Enlisting China to work on world peace is a logical extension of the current bi-lateral relationship. China is unlikely to be of much help on the Israeli-Palestinian question and extricating the Americans out of Iraq, but by taking on China as a full and equal partner, Obama will have a valuable ally to shoulder some of the other burden. He would increase his chance of reporting to the Peace Prize committee that the award is deserved.
========================================
An edited version is published by New America Media.
A partial translation of the New America Media version was published in the Chinese World Journal, （世界日报）

Is China the next superpower?

    China has just concluded a national celebration widely seen live on TV and for days afterwards on CCTV website. The scope and grandeur of the parade down the Avenue of Eternal Peace (Chang An Jie) left on-site spectators breathless, most foreign observers impressed and the people of China excited and proud.
 

    The message seems to be that China has arrived as a nation to be reckoned with. Indeed since the successful rendering of the Olympics in August 2008, there has been a stream of increasingly positive commentaries in the West suggesting that China has arrived.
 

    Some pundits in the West have gone so far as to suggest that China will soon eclipse the U.S. and become the sole hegemonic nation standing. Have these sentiments perhaps exceeded reality?
 

    Certainly plaudits are coming from many directions.
 

    China seems to have survived the global economic downturn in far better shape than anyone else. While all the major economies followed the American lead and suffered a drop in GDP, China merely grew less rapidly than before.
 

    When American consumers were abruptly confronted with their looming debt and stopped buying, China's economy with its export driven dependency was expected to suffer terrible withdrawal. But China's economy turned out to be more resilient than the West anticipated.
 

    China not only managed to stay out of the economic recession but very skillfully used the economic stimulus package to ward off economic decline. It seemed every dollar for the stimulus actually did just that and not for the purpose of bailing out sick banks and resuscitating auto industry on life support.
 

    As China grew its economy at breakneck speed, China has surpassed the U.S. as the largest emitter of green house gases. Now it appears that China has also seized the leadership from the U.S. in efforts to rectify the environmental damage and set the country on to the path of going green.
 

    International relations observers have reported on China's increase in use of soft power and broadening its influence in the international arena, especially in Africa and Latin America. Not only China seems to be acting as a "responsible stakeholder," but exercising effective leadership with much of the third world nations.
 

    After eight years of demanding American unilateralism, the world welcomes China's diplomacy as a much needed breath of fresh air.
 

    A longtime China watcher recently observed that unless the U.S. gets it act together, it will become increasingly obvious that democratic capitalism cannot compete with today's China.
 

    So does this mean that China is ready to take over the world leadership from the U.S.? Many in China's blogosphere seem quite ready to accept this idea. I think it is quite premature. China's GDP is merely one-third of the U.S. and per capita GDP less than one-tenth. Furthermore, China's military might is technologically at least one generation or more behind the U.S.
 

    China also has yet to develop that aura of a superpower that the U.S. once carried with aplomb. It is something that I would call the dafang-ness of a great power. After WWII, the U.S. had this dafang attribute. America was generous to its friends and former foes, confidently led by example rather than by hectoring and built a political and economic system that others admire and aspired to.
 

    Since September 11, America basically rejected its former set of values and degenerated into unilateralism internationally and pettiness domestically. While the new administration led by Obama is trying to regain the prestige U.S. used to enjoy, whether he will be able to bring about the change remains to be seen.
 

    China on the other hand has yet to assume the swagger and confidence of a superpower that win reflexive trust from the international community. Some of the resistance can be attributed to China's detractors living outside of China. Their noisy and visible protests, such as the globe circling Dalai Lama, can exert influence that China has to overcome.
 

    More importantly China's leadership has not reached the level of self-confidence that they can institute a policy of transparency and openness. Beijing has been moving in that direction but they are not there yet. The world needs to see how policies are made and decisions formulated. The world needs to understand actions or inactions that China undertakes.
 

    The day China can absorb criticisms, fairly rendered or not, with equanimity and welcomes the critic to visit China for further discourse is when China becomes the next superpower.
====================================
An edited version was published by New America Media.

Chen Shui Bian's latest gambit

Certainly we can hardly accuse convicted felon and Taiwan's former president, Chen Shui-bian, for lack of imagination. His latest gambit for getting out of jail is to sue the United States and as part of the lawsuit, he has generously offered to come to Washington to testify on his own behalf--presumably at his own expense.

One can no doubt read about the basis of his suit in a number of places. SCMP is but one of them.

As one analysis from Taiwan pointed out the obvious,

What President Chen wants is to create a smokescreen under which he can get out of Tucheng, where he has been held since December 30 last year.

In another story,

Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party, said: "The DPP demands that the ex-president is swiftly released so that he is able to defend himself freely."

I met Ms. Tsai in 2001 as a member of the Committee of 100 delegation. At the time, she was a member of Chen's cabinet in charge of the cross straits relations. Chen was still in his "four no's and one don't have" mode and his true colors about Taiwan and China were still well hidden from view.

Educated in the U.S. and U.K., Tsai came across as a highly intelligent woman, all the more puzzling to us then as to why she was so thickheaded over any interest in warming the relations with the mainland, which ostensibly was her portfolio.

In retrospect, of course, it was obvious that she was following her boss' orders. But today she is the head of DPP and Chen has been drummed out of the party upon his conviction. Tsai has ample justification to distant herself and her party from Chen and thus disavow any connection to the corrupt practices of Chen's regime.

Why Tsai would continue to come to Chen's defense is open to speculation. A PhD recipient from London School of Economics, she surely has to appreciate the economic basket case that Taiwan became because of Chen's malfeasance. Surely it could not be admiration as cause of her continued loyalty.

Is it her desire not to offend the small group of Chen's adherents who continue to protest his innocence? Is it, heavens forbid, some linkage from Chen's hidden millions and to possible future financing of DPP activities? Perhaps time will tell us.

Chen desperately wanted to be out of jail. In order to help his own defense, he claimed. But while in jail, he had done all he can to impede his own attorney preparation of his defense. Realizing that he had no legitimate defense, it seemed his gambit then was to be as theatrically ludicrous as possible. Filing a lawsuit against the United States is his latest attempt along these lines.

In the meantime, prosecution is continuing to press new charges on Chen. This circus is not going to fold its big tent for years to come.

The never ending story of Taiwan's Chen Shui Bian

Taiwan’s first opposition leader to be elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has just become the first to be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for graft, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering and perjury.

His wife, Wu Shu-chen was also sentenced to jail for the rest of her life on similar charges. According to the prosecution, she knew more about money laundering than most drug cartels. Under her management, illicit funds were routinely moved up to 20 times to disguise the origin.

Many observers of Taiwan are surprised that Chen has come so far in this debacle. Most expected Chen and his family to have long flown the coop for safe havens where millions in cache are waiting for him.

Shih Ming-teh can only express sorrow over the outcome that has befallen his friend and former comrade-in-arms. Shih was one time leader of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) who spent 25 years in jail under the Kuomingtang regime. He was one of Chen’s early supporters when Chen first ran for presidency in 2000.

In 2006, Shih launched a massive protest against Chen’s blatant misconduct. Over 200,000 people in Taipei held a candle light vigil outside of the presidential palace demanding that Chen resign from office. Instead, Chen withstood the public’s withering voice of disapproval and stayed in office until the end of his term in 2008.

After the court’s decision of life imprisonment was handed down on September 11, Shih publicly expressed regret that Chen did not step down when he had the chance. Had he resigned under public pressure, Chen could have quietly left Taiwan and all the sordid details would not need to see the light of day and thus save Taiwan from having to contend with the embarrassing blot in its young venture into democracy.

Perhaps it was hubris that caused Chen and his first family not to take their ill gotten gains and run. He probably did not expect to be held in detention once he was arrested—ironically, on the grounds of flight risk—so that leaving Taiwan under the cover of darkness was no longer an option.

Instead Chen devoted his time in jail to making a mockery of Taiwan’s judiciary system. He went on periodic but highly publicized hunger strikes. He wrote books proclaiming his innocence. He and his wife selectively came up with reasons not to appear in court to disrupt proceedings whenever possible. He found fault with his attorneys and lambasted the judges.

Chen disowned any knowledge of the irregular financial dealings but accepted responsibility for not keeping track of what his family did.

Most incredulous of all, Chen proclaimed that he was railroaded by the long arms of Beijing complicit with the KMT as a pay-back for his pro independence stance while in office. He provided no evidence to support his contention. Instead his faithful long-time assistant gave chapter and verse on how he and the first family arm twisted Taiwan’s scions for millions and squeezed nickels and dimes out of every falsified expense receipt.

When Lee Teng-hui, the first native born Taiwanese to become president, came to the end of his term of office, he engineered a split among the KMT which enabled Chen to win his first term with less than 40% of the votes cast. Chen then won a squeaker of re-election with the help of a miraculous assassination attempt on election eve. The home made bullet grazed his stomach but more importantly netted enough sympathy votes to put him over the top.

By the second term, it was obvious to Lee that Chen was more interested in adding to his personal wealth than in governance of Taiwan. Although both men shared the same desire of separating Taiwan from China, Lee publicly criticized the “son of Taiwan” as the “shame of Taiwan.”

The sentence of life imprisonment is, of course, not the end of the story on Chen and the former first family. His case will be contested in successive courts of justice until it reaches Taiwan's highest court. A drawn out process could take the next 5 years and Chen’s misdeeds will be on display repeatedly before the people of Taiwan. Like fermented tofu, the salacious details are likely to ripen with further investigation and as more are willing to come forward to testify.

Chen began his presidency pledging clean government. Instead, everything was for sale--including another star for generals desiring a promotion. As his case, including new charges still pending, winds through Taiwan’s judiciary system, Taiwan will be reminded of his misconduct and his family’s involvement for years to come.

DPP, Chen’s old party, is in a quandary. A small but vocal group continues to insist on Chen’s innocence, convictions notwithstanding. Their defense of Chen is to attack the legitimacy of Taiwan’s rule of law and cast suspicion by accusing the current government of collusion with the mainland. Unable to unite in face of these noisy demonstrations, DPP is in disarray. The challenge for the people of Taiwan is to keep the disarray contained and not spread and infect the entire island.
=======================================
Read a polished version in New America Media.

Who is an Ethnic Chinese Anyway?

As David Henry Hwang tells it in his latest award winning play, Yellow Face, Hollywood has for years, up to today, freely portrayed Asians with Caucasian actors abetted by yellow make-up and perhaps artificially slanted eyes with or without buck teeth.

Some of the most accomplished actors and actresses had been cast in Asian roles as if such credits in their repertoire further burnish their credentials. Luminaries that underwent the Heath Ledger/Joker transformation of their days included Loretta Young, Katharine Hepburn, Rex Harrison, Marlon Brando, Alec Guinness, Linda Hunt and Leonard Nimoy.

The reverse has yet to happen in Hollywood, i.e., using an Asian actor to play a white character, whether in earnest or in caricature. Hwang’s point seems to be that in a Hollywood where all Asians look alike and any white can play the role, getting an Asian to play an Asian character is already a win against industry practice.

The one time I saw a quid pro quo, i.e., Asians portraying Caucasians, was a production of Mozart’s Figaro in Beijing. The Chinese actors and actresses did not disguise their blond wigs and big false noses. They also did not use pasty white make-up. Most productions in China, however, seem to be able find white actors to play white roles.

It used to be, ironically, that in China only the Han Chinese were considered “real” Chinese. All the other ethnic groups were generically lumped as fan, meaning that these people were less cultured perhaps even barbarians. In their own condescending way, the Chinese used to consider all foreigners as barbarians. When Lord McCartney, King George’s emissary, kneel before Emperor Qianlong instead of the customary kowtow, it was considered a magnanimous gesture by Qianlong.

Indeed there was some basis to justify such chauvinism. Throughout the centuries, China has often been invaded by nomadic tribes along its northern border, sometimes even totally occupied by non-Han nationalities. The Yuan dynasty founded by Mongols (13th century AD) and Qing dynasty by Manchus (17th century AD) were two examples in China’s relatively recent history.

Inevitably, the invaders took on Chinese customs, ceremony, beliefs and values. They inter-married with the local population and in a matter of few generations would lose their original ethnic identity and became Chinese.

In the 4th to 6th centuries AD, northern China was dominated by Xianbei people. One tribe even founded the northern Wei dynasty with its seat at Datong and ruled for nearly 200 years. Today there is plenty of physical evidence of their existence but there is nobody known as Xianbei anymore. The Xianbeis along with many other ethnic groups that came to China were assimilated and absorbed.

In addition to marauders that came to plunder, people from Persia, Central Asia, Middle East and beyond came to China to trade. Still others in neighboring countries such Korea, Japan, Vietnam and other parts of Asia came to study. Along with the historic ebb and flow of imperial China’s boundaries with Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia and ethnic Miaos and Tibetans, it would be hard to conceive of a Chinese gene pool undisturbed by periodic infusions.

Today’s China has identified 56 separate ethnic groups living inside China with Han Chinese make up nearly 92%. The Beijing government has shed the historical biases and considers all of them equally as Chinese. Some policies are even tilted in favor of non-Han Chinese such as permission to have more than one child and assistance in access to education.

It doesn’t make any sense to me to make a distinction between Hans and other people of China. Unless the ethnic minorities are dressed in their colorful traditional native costumes, it would be a challenge, for the most part, to tell a Han apart from a non Han Chinese. Intuitively I believe there are as much genetic variation among the Hans as there are between the Hans and other ethnic minorities in China.

The Chinese civilization has been a long and enduring one. Its richness attracts many ethnic groups and nationalities. Its cultural values are so strong that China has repeatedly assimilated its invaders and conquerors. I believe this is a hidden strength not widely recognized. Namely, China has been able to continuously renew its vitality by absorbing the inflow of new people and new blood.

In this respect, China and America are very much alike. America has been a land of opportunity that has attracted many from all over the world and thus allows the American society to retain its vigor and continue its spirit of innovation.

Hwang’s play, it seems to me, is another expression celebrating the diversity in America.
=============================================
Yellow Face is currently being presented by TheatreWorks of Silicon Valley at the Mountain View Performing Arts Center through September 20. See an edited version of this preview in New America Media.

Tibet as a tourist destination

A group of us has just returned from an 11-day trip to China's Qinghai and Tibet. This is the fifth and last in the series for my blog from this trip.

Now that Lhasa can be reached by plane or by train and highways run across Tibet to the borders with Nepal and India, Tibet is significantly more accessible than ever before. There is real prospect of Tibet becoming a popular destination for the mainstream tourists around the world.

And why not?
Tibet offers spectacular natural scenery with breath taking views of mountains, glaciers, lakes and canyons. Tibet also has its share of world heritage sites, a long history and culture that intrigues most people in the West and attractive indigenous arts and crafts almost unique to Tibet.

However, as Tibet becomes a more common tourist destination, surely those that fantasize about finding Shangri-la in Tibet will object. Similarly those that come to the Tibetan plateaus in search of their personal spiritual high may get upset at finding more concrete than straw and mud, more electrical lights than yak butter lamps, more cars than donkey carts, and more tourists than believers.

In reality, Tibet is sparsely populated. There are plenty of hidden valleys waiting to be “discovered” as someone’s personal Shangri-la and lonely mountain tops for those desiring a spiritual encounter of a special kind. Driving along the highways, I noticed signs to other monasteries that we and, I suspect, most run of the mill touring groups did not visit. Perhaps those more remote holy places would offer the spiritual experience of more substance to those seeking such solace.

Furthermore, Tibet has a long ways to go before it is overrun with international travelers. Let’s start with the train system that runs on the roof of the world. Other than the ability to provide oxygen on demand, the equipment is disappointingly ordinary, not commensurate with the technological breakthrough of the railroad. Lacking are glass-domed observation cars where first class passengers can lounge, have a drink or meal and enjoy the vistas. There is nothing to suggest that this is a special ride.

The service on the train is somewhat more slovenly than regular trains that run at lower altitudes. The dining car is under capacity relative to demand and not particularly high on hygiene standards. Worst of all, the demand for soft sleeping berths exceeds supply. The shortage of soft berths can be easily rectified by adding more cars with sleeping compartments along with a computer system that would assure selling every berth along the route.

The Ministry of Railway has yet to introduce such a reservation system but has continued to rely on the archaic allocation of sleeping berths at the station of origination. For example, in order to ensure that our group of 20 would be able to board the same train departing from Xining, our travel service had to buy the tickets from Beijing, where the train originated. This meant that 5 sleeping compartments were unoccupied for the 24 hours from Beijing to Xining, accompanied only by the travel service representative who went to Beijing to buy the tickets and bring them back to Xining for us.

The other alternative was for the travel service to buy the tickets in the black market, but there would be no assurance of buying the full block to ensure that our group stays together. Since none of the 5 trains that go to Lhasa via Xining originate from Xining, it meant the necessity of buying tickets for phantom legs or dealing with huang niu, scalpers who are thriving as illegal intermediaries.

While Beijing made great strides to raise the standard of public toilets just prior to the 2008 Olympics, the improvements have not found Tibet. Except for certain hotel facilities, most public toilets are primitive and smelly. The toilets at the monasteries are particularly bad; they smell, well, to high heaven. Smelly toilets will deter many from coming to Tibet.

Lastly, Tibet is not fully prepared for tourists. In cities such as Lhasa and Xigaze, there should be tourist information centers to provide maps and suggestions of tourist related activity. We did not see any such offices. We saw plenty of soldiers and policemen guarding key intersections and major edifices. Clearly, at this point in Tibet’s development, security considerations trump tourism.

Tibet is also not everybody’s cup of tea from a physical point of view. A visit to Tibet means spending most of the time at altitudes from 12,000 to 16,000 ft. There is no way to predict who will feel severe discomfort at such heights but those who have experienced elevation sickness at lower altitudes definitely should not go to Tibet.
Colorful apartments above the nunnery shop in old Lhasa.

Debating monk at the Sera Monastery in Lhasa


White yaks grazing when not working as photo stops

The receding Kharola Glacier due to global warming

The People of Tibet

A group of us has just returned from an 11-day trip to China's Qinghai and Tibet. This is the fourth in the series for my blog on what I learned from this trip.

Before I went to Tibet, my stereotypical image of Tibetans was that they were sun-baked brown with leathery and wrinkled skin that made them look much older than their actual age. Now, having been to Tibet, I come to realize that Tibetans can have a complexion as fine and fair as any other ethnic Asians. This was particularly true of young Tibetans living in the cities and made a practice of avoiding the sun.
A charming roadside vendor with gold teeth

While it is not possible to develop a deep understanding of the Tibetan psyche in a short visit, I can offer some of the vignettes of our encounters with the people in Tibet that suggest a kind of innocence that is second nature to the Tibetans.

While leading a bus load of American tourists to the next attraction, our Tibetan tour guide was asked the question, “Where would you like to go as your first trip abroad?” His quick reply was Nepal and India because being a devout Buddhist, he would like to visit places where the religion originated--just quick candor and no hesitation not even some tactful passing reference about America.

At the lookout for the Yamdrok Lake, a Tibetan woman selling trinkets and souvenirs walked up to my daughter saying to her, “You are beautiful. I want to give you a necklace because I want to be your friend.” The Tibetan woman did not want anything in return and did not ask my daughter to buy anything from her. She settled for seeing a digital photo taken of the two of them. Everybody in our group agreed that it was a real positive experience.

At a roadside stop, my sister and a seller of souvenirs started negotiations for a bunch of Tibetan necklaces. The negotiations were interrupted by lunch being served and my sister paid the agreed price for nine of them, but she really wanted ten. Later as lunch was winding down, the Tibetan woman vendor came back and gave my sister one more necklace as a gesture of goodwill.

We stopped at a village by the highway to take pictures of typical Tibetan homes. These homes consisted of a courtyard, full of their domesticated animals, next to the first floor, used as the barn for those animals and the second floor, brightly trimmed in green and orange, as their own living quarters. The dogs in the village did not like us and barked unceasingly but the villagers smiled, beckoned to us and invited us to step in for a closer look.

Of course, I am not suggesting that the Tibetan people are naïve and being taken advantage of by the rapacious tourists. Far from it. The Tibetan vendors at Barkhor district and roadside stands were skilled negotiators and quite capable of getting their price while at the same time letting the tourist feel that she has gotten the best possible deal.

At the lookout for Yamdrok Lake, young Tibetan men were aggressively pushing tourists away from the stone tablet marker with the name of the lake and the elevation. This was the kind of location where tourists love to take a souvenir photo. Here they weren’t allowed to unless they agreed to pay the young men 5 RMB for a photo fee. Since the stone tablet look official and not apparently privately owned, the young men’s bullying tactics dampened the appeal of that scenic stop.

Will increasing contact with outside visitors from all over the world alter the gentle nature of the Tibetan personality? I suspect most likely not. I believe the Tibetan personality is deeply rooted in their devotion to Buddhism and that is unlikely to change much in the foreseeable future.

Worshippers visiting Tashilunpo in Xigaze