Thursday, April 29, 2010

China Threatens U.S. Superiority in Satire

The Daily Show featured a very funny segment on Wham-O's decision to move production from China back to the United States.

Here's the clip:
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wham-O Moves to America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party


I was amazed at the performance of a Chinese spokesperson, Li Daxi of the "Chinese Association of Business", who appeared a) in on the joke and b) completely comfortable setting up and trading punchlines with the Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi.

I felt a twinge of fear as well.

As the PRC's economic, diplomatic, and military clout has risen, we could still take comfort in the fact that America had the best humor system in the world, and official China had as yet proved itself unable to take--or make--a joke.

If that advantage had been lost--if indeed the Chinese had even mastered deadpan satire and mordant syntax, as the Wham-O clip implied--the Sinopocalypse was definitely at hand.

I was greatly reassured, however, when I Googled Li Daxi's biography:

Daxi Li was born in Puning, Guangdong of China. He graduated from South China Normal University in 1975, and received MS from Zhongshan University in Guangzhou, China in 1980. He received his Ph.D. in high energy physics from CUNY in 1985, and continued his research in McGill University, CCNY and NYIT as a Research Associate and an Assistant Professor from 1985 to 1991. His works in physics include dynamic symmetry breaking, quark mass difference, Superstring compactification, and Superstring models. ...Since 1992, his research interest has been in finance. He has 14 years of experience in investment banking and venture capital. He worked as a Senior Analyst and Assistant Vice President with major Wall Street investment banks Salomon Brothers Inc. and Lehman Brothers Inc. for over 10 years, and has been involved in many important IPO and VC investments...

Obviously, this guy is an outlier whose sense of humor was honed on Superstring compaction, VC pitches, and the Lehman collapse during thirty years in North America. We don't have to worry about the PRC marching an army of comics out of its clone farms to take over our comedy clubs and cable-TV satirical news shows ...yet.

In other news, the Communist Party Nepal (Maoist) is putting 500,000 cadres into Khatmandu in what might be the final stage in their push to topple Nepal's divided and impotent government and seize state power. India and the United States are not happy. Maybe something will turn up in the Western media about that.

Also, because of press o' business, I am only now getting around to posting notices on four articles I wrote for Asia Times:


China sees US as hedge for Taiwan, Tibet


I make the point that behind China's insistence on U.S. reaffirmation of the one-China policy in return for support on Iran sanctions is Beijing's awareness that it is facing a new generation and a new paradigm of resistance in its dealings with Tibet and Taiwan.

Say hello to Marjah...or "Little America"


This article draws on what I have found to be the best book on contemporary Afghanistan, Joel Hafvenstein's memoir of his year in Helmand, Opium Season. Betcha didn't know Helmand as we know it is the creation of a massive American infrastructure project from the 1950s. As U.S. military forces slog through Marjah, Hafvenstein's book should be required reading for students of our Afghan adventure. My piece is pretty good, too.


China has a Congo copper headache

The West is pretty sensitive to the appearance of neo-colonialism--except in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The DRC and its young president are regarded as, and treated as, mere creations of the West as part of its effort to clean up the colossal mess it made in the Congo. Then China comes in and makes a gigantic copper deal with the DRC's nominal masters instead of the powers behind the throne and runs into a US/French/IMF buzz saw...

More than bribery: Wealth, power and Rio Tinto

This article links the Rio Tinto case to the Chinese government's efforts to take down a nettlesome and politically connected steel tycoon, Du Shuanghua.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Christian Fundamentalism--Made In China

It is, one would hazard, a little-known fact that a crisis in the overseas missionary endeavor in the 1930s, particularly in China, helped precipitate the split of the Anglophone Protestant movement into Modernist and Fundamentalist camps.

Fundamentalists--committed to a literal reading of the Bible as the inerrant word of God--and Modernists--employing the arsenal of critical scholarship developed in Germany to identify, explain, and justify the role of man in the Good Book's creation--had sparred for decades over doctrine, appointments, and sanctions for heretical or disobedient teachings.

Matters came to a head in the 1930s, when John D. Rockefeller Jr. funded an overseas study tour of distinguished Protestant academics to evaluate the state of the worldwide missionary effort which, in the key region of China, seemed to have stalled at a penetration of 400,000 or 0.1% of the population after 100 years of determined evangelism.

The scholars' report, Re-Thinking Missions: A Laymen's Inquiry after One Hundred Years, asserted that the traditional missionary approach--relying on dire warnings that the natives were headed straight to hell upon their demise unless they converted--was encountering growing resistance from a more sophisticated heathen audience increasingly drawn to nationalism, democracy, secularism, socialism, and Marxism as ideologies more relevant to their needs and aspirations.

The Modernists proposed to compete for hearts and minds overseas with a mushy syncretism that coexisted with the local religious and cultural values instead of trying to replace them. Pearl Buck, a missionary who declared it was not necessary to believe in the virgin birth or even the divinity of Christ to be a true Christian (it was only necessary to act in a Christian manner) typified the new dispensation.

In the resulting furor, Pearl Buck resigned, the Fundamentalists walked out, Modernism prevailed, and Fundamentalism became the virtually exclusive preserve of the U.S. Southern Baptists, who today occupy an outsized political space as the voice of militant Christian conservatives.

Unfortunately for the Modernist strategy, coexistence with the post-1949 Communist regime in China, let alone growing congregations, proved extremely difficult for the mainstream Protestant denominations.

Ironically, in recent years the CCP--which has acted for decades as the sole legitimate Chinese interlocutor with the foreign Protestant and Catholic religions-- has experienced its own problems executing its self-assigned role as the exclusive ideological and moral authority inside China.

Reliable data and statistics are of course non-existent, but it would appear that the Chinese Communist Party--like the old school Protestant missionaries before them--is having difficulty leading or guiding an increasingly informed, sophisticated, and skeptical Chinese popular opinion toward a potentially stabilizing post-Communist ideology based on authoritarianism and national unity.

State-promoted Confucianism--that reliable bulwark of social order and the status quo--may provide a viable alternative to liberal democracy. However, the government is going to have its hands full with groups that seek to draw their power from a higher authority than the common good.

Meanwhile, the doctrinal stepchild--Fundamentalism--has moved toward a central, independent role in Chinese Christianity.

Today, Chinese Christian observance--driven by indigenous Christian churches of a largely fundamentalist tinge-- is estimated to number anywhere from 50 to 100 million.

Christian optimism concerning the spiritual regeneration of China must be tempered by the awareness that Christianity will face a legion of domestic competitors in the spiritual marketplace. China is aboil with sects channeling and mashing up every extreme of Buddhist, Daoist, Confucian, and Christian religious experience.

If the precedents of South Korea and Mongolia are representative, it is unlikely that Christianity will every command more than a vocal minority inside China.

Furthermore, mainstreaming and leveraging Christian practice in Chinese politics and society is going to be be difficult. On the Protestant side of the fence, the PRC is home to a bewildering melange of Christian sects, many that tiptoe very close to, if not over, the line separating religion from cult.

At one end of the spectrum, the Three-Self (state-approved churches) and ecumenical evangelical operations carefully render unto Caesar in order to maintain their legal foothold in China--and provide the anxious Chinese government with a window into the unnerving world of Chinese Christian observance.

Franklin Graham, son of the (Lianyungang-born) evangelical Billy Graham and grandson of the famous Presbyterian medical missionary in Lianyungang, L. Nelson Bell*, preached to over 10,000 people in Baoding last October under the arrangement of the Chinese government.

At the other end, the burgeoning Chinese "house church" movement (congregations that decline to register with the authorities) spurns any government attempts to direct or control its highly decentralized activities.

Reportedly, many of the house churches trace their roots to Watchmen Nee, a devout and idiosyncratic Chinese preacher and martyr who died in PRC incarceration in 1972.

In contrast to this indigenous inspiration, it is asserted that over half of China's house churches have aligned with the charismatic Pentecostalism preached by Dennis Balcomb of Bakersfield, California on his trips to China beginning in the 1980s.

Chinese Pentecostalism offers much for the orthodox Protestant and Marxist to chew on.

In one instance, Balcomb reports that one of his evangelists successfully raised a child from the dead, apparently without seeing the need to correct the misapprehension of the villagers that "Jesus of Henan" had performed the office.

One of my co-workers went up to Saan Xi Province to preach the Gospel. The people in that area are very superstitious and they worship many idols. He went and preached to the people saying, 'Our God is a great God. He is the one who created the universe. He is able to cause the blind to see, the deaf to hear even the dead to raise again, but what can your God do for you?'

After he preached, a man ran to the hospital where a boy has just passed away. He told the boys parents, 'There is a Jesus from Henan came who said he can raise people from the dead.'

So the mother took her dead child to my co-worker saying, 'Jesus from Henan please raise my son from the dead.'

My co-worker was shocked when he saw the dead child for he had never raised anyone from the dead before. There was nothing he could do but just cry out to God. At first he was very worried in his heart that if nothing happened, all the people would say he's a liar and they would not believe in Jesus. So he started to pray, but after a while, nothing happened so he prayed again and still nothing happened. Then he prayed to God, 'Lord, I don't mind to loose face, but I really don't want this to cause the people mock your name and not believe in you. Please show forth your glory in this place.'

As he was praying that prayer, the mother of the child said, 'Look, my child is alive again!'

He saw the child stand up and he ran throughout the house. Due to this miracle, many people in that area burnt all their idols and believed in Jesus.

In another instance, Balcomb, with no apparent appreciation of the absurd, reports on the titanic struggle of one of his Chinese evangelicals to get a middle-aged woman to maintain an adequately respectful demeanour in the frequently raucous environment of a Pentecostalist meeting:

There was a 40 years old lady who was demon possessed who came into the meeting. She was scolding and screaming at us while I was preaching. She was disturbing the whole meeting so that I could not continue to preach. I then asked the whole congregation to kneel down and pray. As we were praying, she came to the front and continued scolding and laughing at us.

I then stood up and said, 'In the name of Jesus shut up!'

Not only she did not shut up, but she said the same thing to me, 'In the name of Jesus you shut up!'

I then said, 'In the name of Jesus kneel down!' but she said the same thing back to me.

Whatever I said she would repeat the same thing. I had never experienced that before. I didn't know what to do but cry out to God desperately.

I prayed to God, 'I don't want to be defeated by the power of the devil.' I decided that no matter how long it may take or how hard it was, I was going to continue to pray until the demon was cast out.

At that time I knew that I could not pray in the understanding for she would repeat every word I said. So I laid my hands on her and started to pray in tongues. As I continued to pray I discovered that she wasn't saying anything and she was softening down. As she became weaker, I became stronger in the Spirit. Then the lady tied her hands together and put her head down to the floor. She cried out, 'Please don't pray anymore!'

I continued to pray in tongues. After a while, she felt on the floor like a dead person. Then after a few minutes, she woke up and was back to normal. Because of this miracle, many people believed in the Lord in that village.

To place the extremes of current Chinese Christian religious practice in perspective, it is instructive and perhaps inspiring to look at a previous bout of what might be characterized as "irrational spiritual exuberance"--the bloody collision between foreign Christian faith and nativist Boxer belief--that occurred during China's chaotic transition from empire to republic in the early 20th century, as reflected in incidents from the life of Jonathan Goforth.

Dr. Goforth was one of the most famous Christian missionaries in China.

He was also an unwavering fundamentalist.

It is easy to understand why.

It is difficult to believe that Mr. Goforth would have borne the sacrifices and suffering he endured in China--or exposed his Chinese converts to mortal peril--for the sake of the Bible if he considered it simply a collection of recycled Mesopotamian myths, strange tales, extravagant genealogies, and Pharisaical special pleading shot through with occasional and ineffable divine inspiration.

The Goforths lost five of their eleven children to sickness and misadventure in China. The entire family was nearly wiped out during the Boxer rebellion as they evacuated their Henan mission.

Jonathan Goforth's wife, Rosalind, described the scene as their caravan of oxcarts was attacked by a mob outside Xindian, a village on the outskirts of Nanyang:

One blow from a two-handed sword struck [Goforth] on the neck with great force...but the wide blunt edge struck his neck leaving only a wide bruise...His left arm which was kept raised to protect his head, was slashed to the bone in several places. A terrible blow from behind struck the back of his head, denting in the skull so deeply, that, later, doctors said it was a miracle the skull was not cleft in two. This blow felled him to the ground...Struggling to his feet, he was struck down again by a club...he saw a horse coming down upon him at full gallop. Upon regaining consciousness, he found this horse had thrown his rider and fallen on smooth ground, close beside him, and kicking furiously, the animal had formed a barrier between him and his attackers till he was able to rise...

Thanks to a combination of inferior swordsmanship, equine misadventure, and a mad rush for plunder that Mrs. Goforth deemed miraculous, the Goforth party was able to escape the mob and stagger across the fields to a nearby village, where they unexpectedly found shelter.

Mrs. Goforth recounts the kindness of their rescuers in the unnamed village, and provides a coda that some might find ironic:

"Why were they so kind?" one man was asked. He replied, "We are Mohammedans. Our God is your God and we could not face him if we had joined in destroying you."

Dr. Goforth's search for answers in the wake of the Boxer catastrophe led him to embrace the Protestant revival movement as the only religiously viable alternative he saw to the recruitment of cynical "rice Christians" by the well-heeled Catholic church and the defensive, accommodating syncretism increasingly practiced by Protestant missionaries in China.

The revival movement--an emotional approach to Christian faith that relied on charismatic preaching and the dramatic public confession of sin-- had exploded in Wales and spread throughout the world,achieving one of its greatest successes in Korea in 1907.

Readers of this blog, if not the general public, know that as a result Pyongyang--now identified in the Western mind simply as Kim Jung Il's playground of Stalinist delusion--was known before World War II in evangelical circles as "the Jerusalem of the East".

Goforth investigated the lessons of Korea and applied them to Christian evangelism in Manchuria.

He achieved remarkable results, at least in the localities where his titanic energy and conviction could be brought directly to bear.

It is interesting to note that the Christian revival movement achieved signal success in Korea and Manchuria--two regions suffering the tremendous cultural and political dislocations of Japanese occupation. Manchuria, in addition, was dealing with the stress and disruption of an entirely new social order founded on the mass movement of millions of Han emigres into the Manchu homeland.

Today, evangelical Christianity has deep roots in South Korea, and has also achieved striking gains in Mongolia, which suffered a similar trauma, the virtual collapse of its economy and society in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Soviet aid in the 1990s.

Goforth, in his struggle against "the Modernist menace", labored to demonstrate that China was a fertile field for his brand of Fundamentalist evangelism.

Goforth composed a pamphlet describing his revival activities in China entitled "By My Spirit", as part of his ultimately unsuccessful attempt to convince a skeptical Protestant establishment of the religious truth and practical efficacy of his approach.

Nevertheless, he may have been on to something, as the rise of charismatic and revivalist observance inside China indicates.

Students of history, religion, popular movements, thought reform and self-criticism, the Cultural Revolution, Falun Gong, charismatic cults in general, and modern mainland Chinese Christianity in particular can profit from Goforth's descriptions of the intensity of the revival movement in China.

Goforth quotes the recollections of Dr. Walter Phillips, a self-styled skeptic, who attended the revival meetings in Jinzhou:

"The people knelt for prayer...The voices grew and gathered volume and blended into a great wave of united supplication that swelled till it was almost a roar, and died down again into an undertone of weeping. Now I understood why the floor was so wet - it was wet with pools of tears! The very air seemed electric -- I speak in all seriousness - and strange thrills coursed up and down one's body.

"Then above the sobbing, in strained, choking tones, a man began to make public confession. Words of mine will fail to describe the awe and terror and pity of these confessions. It was not so much the enormity of the sins disclosed, or the depths of iniquity sounded, that shocked one. . . . It was the agony of the penitent, his groans and cries, and voice shaken with sobs; it was the sight of men forced to their feet, and, in spite of their struggles, impelled, as it seemed, to lay bare their hearts...Never have I experienced anything more heart breaking, more nerve racking than the spectacle of those souls stripped naked before their fellows.

"So for hour after hour it went on, till the strain was almost more than the onlooker could bear. Now it was a big, strong farmer grovelling on the floor, smiting his head on the bare boards as he wailed unceasingly, 'Lord! Lord!' Now a shrinking woman in a voice scarce above a whisper, now a wee laddie from the school, with the tears streaking his piteous grimy little face, as he sobbed out: 'I cannot love my enemies. Last week I stole a farthing from my teacher. I am always fighting and cursing. I beseech the pastor, elders and deacons to pray for me.' And then again would swell that wonderful deep organ tone of united prayer. And ever as the prayer sank again the ear caught a dull undertone of quiet sobbing, of desperate entreaty from men and women, who, lost to their surroundings, were wrestling for peace."'

Goforth presided over these orgies of self-abasement--which evoke the extremes of self-criticism during the Communist era and included awkward and less edifying aspects such as casting out of devils and anonymous denunciations of "hindering" church elders--with a watchful humility.

One 1908 revival focused on an crisis that must have affected Goforth very strongly--the lasting hurt carried by a Chinese Christian community near Mukden (Shenyang) in the aftermath of the Boxer massacres.

Goforth relates the event in By My Spirit:

The Christian community in Shinminfu had been terribly persecuted during the Boxer uprising of 1900. Fifty-four had suffered martyrdom. The ones who were left prepared a list, containing 250 names in all (of those who had taken part in the massacre). Some day, it was hoped, the way would be opened for them to wreak on these full and complete revenge.

...one of the evangelists came and knelt down in front of the platform. .."I haven't confessed the worst sin of all," be cried brokenly. "I won't forgive. ...In the Boxer year a man came and murdered my father, and ever since then I've felt that it was my duty to avenge his death. ... I simply can't forgive that man. I must destroy him." ...

...as many as nine boys got up in that way and told how their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters had been murdered before their very eyes...But they all confessed that they were utterly miserable, and asked us to pray for them that they might have grace to forgive those who had wronged them.

...all the time the evangelist was kneeling there by the platform, weeping. At the conclusion of the meeting he finally rose to his feet and faced the congregation. His face was drawn and haggard. "My mind is made up," he cried. "I will never rest until I have killed the man who murdered my father."

I thought that that would be the last that I would see him. But when I entered the church next morning there he was standing by the platform [and proclaimed his change of heart. Addressing the nine boys who had lost family members to the Boxers, he stated]...

"I have bought these nine hymn books and I am going to present one to each of you, in the hope that every time you open it to praise God from its pages you will recall how that I, an evangelist, received from Him grace to forgive the murderer of my father."

Just then the list containing the names of those upon whom the Christians had planned to take revenge was brought up to the front and torn into bits and the fragments trampled under foot.

To some observers the inspiring element in these anecdotes from Goforth's life is perhaps a human impulse towards compassion that transcends theology and religious boundaries.

The transcendent struggle between the impulses toward revenge and foregiveness that Goforth witnessed contrasts markedly with Balcomb's vaunting of his disciple's ability to outshout and outwrestle a heckler in his church.

There is every reason to believe that, if and when the governments of China and North Korea liberalize religious observance, Protestant evangelism will claim significant numbers of adherents.

It would be nice if, when the post-Communist dispensation emerges, China obtains the spiritual harmony it needs, instead of the antagonism the government merits for its largely crude and unsuccessful attempts to control and exploit the beliefs of its people.

But, as Ross Macdonald wrote resignedly in The Long Goodbye, "I have a secret passion for mercy. But justice is what keeps happening to people."



* In the first version of this post, I misidentified Billy Graham as born in Lianyungang. Actually, his wife, nee Ruth Bell, was born in Lianyungang when her father, L. Nelson Bell served there as as surgical chief and administrative superintendent at Love and Mercy Hospital in Tsing-Ksiang-Pu, as Lianyungang was then known. Sorry for the error and thanks to reader SR for catching it and pointing it out to me.

Ruth Bell Graham attended high school at the Pyeng Yang Foreign School in Pyongyang--an alma mater few can claim--and hoped to become a Christian missionary in Tibet. She abandoned her dream when she met and married Billy Graham at Wheaton College in Illinois. Instead she kept the home fires burning for decades in North Carolina as he crisscrossed the world building his ministry.

Interestingly, she did not abandon her Presbyterian faith even though she was married to one of the world's most famous Baptists.

Bell Graham encouraged her husband's engagement with Asia and was able to return to Pyongyang in the 1990s at the invitation of Kim Il Sung. The Graham evangelical organization has tended to its relationship with North Korea. Franklin Graham has visited North Korea three times to deliver humanitarian aid, preaching on one occasion in 2008. For its part, Pyongyang has apparently attempted to use the Graham family as a communications channel in its so far unsuccessful attempts to negotiate directly with the United States.






The Gardener is never so near as when He is pruning

MLL:RIP 1921-2010

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

China-American Relations Reset...

...And China Matters Gets to Write a "Toldja So" Post

I'm not saying that the U.S. government China boffins reads China Matters. Hell, they don't. But that allows me to take enhanced pleasure in the realization that we do a pretty good job of tracking the U.S.-China relationship.

The big news is that, as of March 30, as extensively reported in the U.S. press, China has decided to join the exercise to torque Iran's gonads by drafting a new UN Security Council sanctions resolution.

For China watchers, the significant backstory was the Chinese government posting the quid pro quo on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:

To quote the key bits of the item, entitled US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg Reiterates the One China Policy:


In the small hours on March 30, Beijing time, US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg [the top China boffin in the Obama administration--ed.] held a media briefing at the Foreign Press Center in Washington D.C.

...

Steinberg stated that the United States adheres to the one China policy and maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan. This is a long-standing and firm policy pursued by Democratic and Republican administrations alike since President Nixon, President Carter and President Reagan. The centerpiece is the one China policy, which has not changed. The US side does not support independence for Taiwan and opposes unilateral attempts to change the status quo. The US side welcomes the continued improvement and development of cross-Straits relations. The US side hopes that the two sides of the Straits will resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue. The US side reiterated that it considers Tibet to be a part of China and does not support independence for Tibet. The US side supports continued dialogue between the central government of China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama.

On economic and trade issues, Steinberg stressed the need for all countries to do their part to avoid zero-sum solutions that in the end benefit no country and to assure sustainable global economic growth. The US side looks forward to the second round of the S&EDs in Beijing.

Steinberg also touched upon China-US cooperation on security and regional hotspot issues.


The MOFA reported posted one exchange in spokesperson Qin Gang's press conference under a special separate heading:



Q: According to reports, on March 30, Beijing time, when accepting the letter of credence from the newly-appointed Chinese Ambassador to the US Zhang Yesui, US President Obama said that "our two countries should build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship for the 21st century, and we will both take concrete actions to steadily build a partnership to address common challenges". On the same day, US Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg said at a press briefing that the US sought to develop positive, pragmatic and cooperative relations with China and adhered to the One China policy pursued by previous US administrations. He reiterated that the US recognized Tibet as a part of China and disapproved "Tibet Independence". How does China comment?

A: China appreciates the positive remarks on the China-US relations made by President Obama and Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg and values the US side's reiteration of its principled commitment on issues concerning Taiwan and Tibet.

Since the Obama administration took office, the China-US relations have witnessed positive development thanks to joint efforts of both sides. Not long ago, the China-US relations suffered undue disruption, which is in the interest of neither side. Both China and the US are countries of major influence around the world and a sound China-US relationship serves the fundamental interest of the two countries and their people and contributes to peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large.

etc etc. etc.

One might think, what's the big deal? Well, not if you read China Matters.

Setting the wayback machine to March 5, I wrote:

China’s playpen [according to the Obama administration] is supposed to be Greater China: the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

A pretty major chunk of the world, but still not an attractive option for China, which sees itself competing with Japan for regional supremacy in Asia and isolated and relegated to second citizen status in key resource regions such as the Middle East and Africa.

According to this theory, the Obama administration should give China a free hand in dealing with Taiwan and Tibet.

But, of course, the Obama administration isn’t doing that.

I’ll repeat the bolded excerpt from Qin’s statement here:

But in the past two months, on the Taiwan and Tibet-related issues, the US violated the principles enshrined in the three joint communiqués and China-US Joint Statement, seriously disrupted the development of China-US relations and caused difficulties for the bilateral cooperation in major fields.

What Beijing is saying is, You’re trying to stick me in the Greater China box…and now you’re f*cking with the box! Are you trying to say China’s only legitimate sphere of influence is the 25% of the PRC’s area that is occupied by Han Chinese?


Clearly, China was anxious for reassurance that U.S. policy would not condone concerted meddling, on human rights or democratic grounds, with China's fraught relations with the government on Taiwan (with the potential for Japanese mischief) and the Tibetan ethnic minority (with the potential for Indian mischief).

We probably think of these issues as symbolic, and useful mainly to play to the domestic bash-China lobby.

But it appears that China regards satisfactory respect for its freedom of action in these spheres as the minimum necessary acknowledgement of its role as a dominant regional power.

This reassurance is probably even more important to Beijing as Tokyo and New Delhi show a renewed tendency to slip the U.S. leash and pursue their own, potentially anti-PRC policies. If Japan or India starts something, China wants to know ahead of time that the United States won't pile on.

Steinberg's invocation of a non-zero-sum relationship also brought a contented smile to China Hand's lips.

Back on February 13, I wrote a post on China's Iran conundrum entitled, Rollback: Is the Obama Administration Going Zero Sum on China?

My point was: China felt that the Obama administration was engaged in a systematic rollback of Chinese influence around the globe, the Chinese felt it was zero-sum, and Beijing would not play ball on Iran unless it received strategic reassurance from the Obama administration and James Steinberg--reassurance it did not receive a couple weeks ago when Steinberg visited Beijing.

In response, China even rolled out Henry Kissinger to emphasize its desire that the traditional bases of U.S.-China relations be reaffirmed.

Based on the conspicuous play given to Steinberg's remarks and Qin's reply, the fat lady has definitely sung and Beijing believes a reset has finally taken place.

This news prompted the only possible response from Iran.

As the headline in People's Daily reports Iran's Top Nuclear Negotiator Heads to Beijing.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

China: Emboldened? Anxious? Or Invincible Zombie Masters?

Beijing Resurrects Henry Kissinger

Readers of this blog have been aware of a certain back and forth on the issue of China’s current geopolitical posture vis a vis the United States.

I’ve argued that China is anxious over the Obama administration’s rollback against Chinese economic and diplomatic penetration in the Middle East and Africa and the forthcoming high-stakes fracas over the RMB exchange rate, and is seeking “strategic reassurance” that U.S. pressure on China will stop short of measures that will endanger the core interests and survival of the CCP regime.

Specifically, China is looking for a U.S. reaffirmation that Taiwan and Tibet are the PRC’s internal matters.

That reassurance was not forthcoming during the visit of the Obama administration’s top two China hands, James Steinberg and Jeffrey Bader, to Beijing last week.

Instead, China’s position was re-spun in the foreign policy press as “China emboldened” i.e. China feeling its geopolitical and economic oats and trying to push for new U.S. concessions at the expense of the Taiwan government and the Dalai Lama.

And the beat goes on.

In a March 15 article titled “China slams U.S., defends money policy” the LA Times covered Wen Jiabao’s annual press conference at the National People’s Congress:

“In an annual news conference in which he took direct aim at the United States, Wen Jiaobao defended his country’s currency policy and said it was up to Washington to mend Sino-American relations.”

And

Wen rebuffed international criticism that China had become arrogant and was engaging in triumphalism—charges made after the Copenhagen climate-change summit talks ended without a binding agreement.

I cover the Copenhagen debacle here (with a link to my article on the subject at Asia Focus).

China could certainly be accused of engaging in self-interested obstructionism in the face of concerted Western efforts to push it toward a cap on total emissions, but the borderline racist accusation of “arrogant triumphalism” by uppity Orientals doesn’t really reflect the Copenhagen dynamic—or the initial anti-China spin (amoral, irresponsible money-grubbing saboteurs) that emerged from the confab.

I guess in the run-up to the RMB clash, the anti-China PR brief has been put in more determined and capable hands.

To a perhaps oblivious audience, Wen reiterated his concerns about the Taiwan, Tibet, and the U.S.-China relationship:

Wen said Washington had violated China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity…”These have seriously disrupted Sino-U.S. relations,” Wen said. “The responsibility does not lie with the Chinese side but with the United States.”

Those are pretty strong words for a head of state. I’m waiting for the Chinese press to trot out the “selling arms to Florida and encouraging the Texas independence movement” analogies to try to get the message across.

But China will have to find other ways to cut through the informational clutter.

Now, close your eyes and think of the one image that Beijing could produce to show that it was simply asking for a reaffirmation of the historic bases of U.S.-China engagement, and not sounding the battle cry for a new campaign of world conquest.

Ready? Here it is:

The embalmed corpse of Henry Kissinger, exhumed from the shag-carpeted Studio 54 annex to Chairman Mao’s tomb for a grip and grin with Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang this week in Beijing!


I suppose the “emboldened China” crowd could argue that Beijing is demonstrating its cutting edge zombie reanimation and control technology as a warning to foolish nations of the world that might otherwise dream of resisting its invincible brain-eating army.*

But I think it would be safer to guess that China is openly pining for the halcyon 1970s, when Nixon and Kissinger cut off the guerrillas in Tibet, withdrew national diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China, and saw “rising China” as a useful adjunct to their geostrategic plans.


*Wikipedia has an informative entry on Chinese zombies ( 僵尸 ):

A supposed source of the jiang shi stories came from the folk practice of "Traveling a Corpse over a Thousand Li " (千里行屍), where traveling companions or family members who could not afford wagons or had very little money would hire Taoist priests to transport corpses of their friends/family members who died far away from home over long distances by teaching them to hop on their own feet back to their hometown for proper burial. Taoist priests would transport the corpses only at night and would ring bells to notify other pedestrians of their presence because it was considered bad luck for a living person to set eyes upon a jiang shi. This practice (湘西趕屍) was popular in Xiangxi where many people left their hometown to work elsewhere. After they died, their corpses were transported back to their rural hometown using long bamboo rods, believing they would be homesick if buried somewhere unfamiliar. When the bamboo flexed up and down, the corpses appeared to be hopping in unison from a distance.

Kissinger image from People's Daily; Zombie Family movie poster from www.goldtxt.cn.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Who’s Bold? Who’s Ignoring Obama’s China Rollback Strategy?

Not China.

In the secret history of the Obama administration’s campaign to roll back Chinese inroads in Africa, Western shenanigans in the Democratic Republic of Congo will deserve a separate chapter.

The West blocked China’s massive $9 billion dollar ore-for-infrastructure project in order to protect its flagship project—Freeport McMoRan’s Tunke Fungurume copper mine--and show the DRC who was boss down in the heart o’ darkness (hint: it wasn’t the DRC government or the Chinese).

The Chinese project is going ahead, albeit on a reduced scale.

However, looking at the current balance of forces in the DRC, the project now looks as much as another point of Chinese exposure to Western leverage as it does a masterstroke in China’s African diplomacy.

I document the atrocities at Asia Times in my article: China has a Congo copper headache

When trends in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia are examined, I think the US-PRC dynamic is pretty clear.

The Obama administration is reasserting U.S. influence in resource-rich regions that China penetrated during the distracted and internationally unpopular Bush administration.

Now the U.S. is cannily framing and choosing fights that unite the U.S., the EU, and significant resource producers, and isolate China and force it to defend unpopular positions alone.

Cases in point: Copenhagen climate summit, non-proliferation, and Iran sanctions. Next up: RMB valuation.

By my reading, China is pretty much a one-trick pony in international affairs.

It offers economic partnership and cash.

What it doesn’t have is what the U.S. has: military reach, moral leadership, heft in the global financial markets (Beijing’s immense overexposure to U.S. government securities is, I think, becoming less of an advantage and more of a liability), or a large slate of loyal and effective allies that help it dominate the global discourse and exert a decisive influence over international organizations.

When President Obama recommitted the United States to multilateralism, the countries that had grudgingly sided with China during the Bush years quickly fell into line with the U.S.

China got stuck with the rather miserable roster of Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran and a political, economic, and human rights regime that provides a ready-made justification for criticism and containment by the liberal democracies of the West.

And the U.S. is quietly chipping away at Myanmar and Sudan.

The United States is also making good progress in pursuing the most destabilizing initiative (I’m not making a value judgment here, just a factual statement) of the next twenty years: encouragement of India’s rise from Afghanistan through to Myanmar as a rival and distraction to China.

The Chinese realize this and they are nervous.

As I wrote last week on the occasion of the Beijing visit of the top Obama China hands, James Steinberg and Jeffrey Bader:

China’s playpen [according the Obama playbook] is supposed to be Greater China: the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

A pretty major chunk of the world, but still not an attractive option for China, which sees itself competing with Japan for regional supremacy in Asia and isolated and relegated to second citizen status in key resource regions such as the Middle East and Africa.

According to this theory, the Obama administration should give China a free hand in dealing with Taiwan and Tibet.

But, of course, the Obama administration isn’t doing that.

I’ll repeat the bolded excerpt from Qin’s statement here:

But in the past two months, on the Taiwan and Tibet-related issues, the US violated the principles enshrined in the three joint communiqués and China-US Joint Statement, seriously disrupted the development of China-US relations and caused difficulties for the bilateral cooperation in major fields.

What Beijing is saying is, You’re trying to stick me in the Greater China box…and now you’re f*cking with the box! Are you trying to say China’s only legitimate sphere of influence is the 25% of the PRC’s area that is occupied by Han Chinese?

What Beijing wanted from Steinberg and Bader was an acknowledgment of a legitimate sphere of interest for China by the United States—including Taiwan and Tibet—in order to alleviate the PRC’s worries about President Obama’s geopolitical initiatives, initiatives that, by accident or design, are pushing China into a corner.

Pretty clear to me.

But it looks like I’m the only one who thinks so.

After Steinberg and Bader came back from Beijing, Foreign Policy Josh Robin posted a blog piece whose tone was one of headshaking disbelief at China’s Taiwan obsession:

Several China experts close to both sets of officials said that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and National Security Council Senior Director Jeffrey Bader went to China with the understanding that they would have substantive discussions on some key issues of U.S. interest, but the Chinese side used the opportunity to try to bargain for an end to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, something Beijing has wanted for decades and now feels bold enough to demand.

"It was all about Taiwan," said Bonnie Glaser, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), "The message that the Chinese are giving us is ‘We've had enough; we're fed up. We've been living with this issue of U.S. arms sales for too long and it's time to solve it.'" [emph. added]

For bonus points, we can also play the game, Who’s clueless? Beijing or Washington?

"There is a strong push from Beijing to get that core issue as their big ask and there's a desire to reopen discussions about what a plan to eliminate arms sales to Taiwan would look like," [Charles Freeman of CSIS] explained. "There is some sense that we can trade Iran for Taiwan, but that's a non-starter for the Obama administration. The Chinese don't seem to understand that."


China considers Taiwan part of China.

Nobody considers Iran to be part of the United States.

Which might mean that China’s call for non-interference on Taiwan might more legitimate than U.S. demands that everybody join in a united front dogpile on Iran.

And the Obama administration’s invocation of the stern god of political convenience to ignore Chinese concerns on Taiwan begs the question of why it’s not OK for China to simply declare that Iran sanctions is a “non-starter” for them.

The true significance of whether China feels it has a legitimate and significant beef on Taiwan issue brings up the talking point:

China: nervous or emboldened?

The Cable piece takes the “emboldened” China side, stating that China apparently “now feels bold enough to demand” changes in Taiwan policy.

And Willy Lam, the veteran China watcher who got his walking papers from the South China Morning Post because of his informed and critical views on the PRC, made the same point in Asia Times.

Say it ain’t so, Willy!

What is new is China's much-enhanced global clout in the wake of the world financial crisis, which is coupled with a marked decline in America's hard and soft power.

More importantly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is gunning for a paradigm shift in geopolitics, namely, new rules of the game whereby the fast-rising quasi-superpower will be playing a more forceful role. In particular, Beijing has served notice that it won't be shy about playing hardball to safeguard what it claims to be "core national interests".


However, the only “core national interest” Lam identifies are…Taiwan & Tibet, which the U.S. has already recognized as parts of China.

And the “hardball” tactics, he invokes are pretty tame measures: like withholding China’s OK for U.N. sanctions, complaining to Western countries over providing a welcoming haven for dissidents, and playing footsie with Pyongyang.

I think of “hardball” more along the lines of using missile defense systems in Eastern Europe as a bargaining chip, threatening sanctions that would cut off some of China’s oil imports, hey, maybe even selling arms to a renegade province and holding a White House meeting with the leader of a Tibetan dissident outfit.*

You get the picture.

Finally, Lam indirectly undercuts his point and supports mine by citing China’s fears of containment.

A likely factor behind the apparent softening of Beijing's diplomatic gambit could be fears of a backlash from countries that have been burnt by the fire-spitting dragon. General Yang Yi has warned of the danger of the emergence of an "anti-China coalition" in the West. "Some Western nations may adopt the formula of 'making individual moves to produce the effect of concerted action' - and join the 'contain China' camp one after the other," he said. Under this scenario, the well-known strategist added, "[anti-China] measures may come one after the other the rest of the year."

A late February commentary by the Beijing-run Hong Kong journal Bauhinia also drew attention to the possible worsening of the international climate this year. The monthly magazine noted that Western countries' dependence on China might lessen in the wake of the global economic recovery. "It is possible the West will put more pressure on China over issues such as Tibet, Xinjiang, human rights, the value of the yuan as well as trade protectionism," the commentary said. "Forces calling for the 'containment of China' may also rear their head."[emphasis added]


Note, by the way, all of the areas of concerns cited by Lam in the Bauhinia article are within China’s borders—not exactly the priorities of a self-confident, burgeoning superpower eager to make its mark on the world.

And notice that they are couched in terms of the West’s decreased reliance on China—may I say boldness?--not as a reflection of China’s indispensability and heightened assertiveness.

So I’m willing to remain the outlier vis a vis The Cable and Willy Lam.

I don’t think the Obama administration is unaware of the nature of China’s Taiwan and Tibet concerns—rooted in geopolitical anxiety, not boldness.

I also don’t think that it is unhappy that media commentary buys into the “emboldened China” line, making its job of rolling back China that much easier.


*The Obama administration’s arms sale to Taiwan and meeting with the Dalai Lama were rather nuanced and not particularly provocative. However, from Beijing’s perspective, I think they feel the U.S. already has its thumb firmly planted in China’s eye; grinding it a little less isn’t much of a concession.

Friday, March 05, 2010

What President Obama Has to Look Out for on China

Washington’s top China hands, James Steinberg and Jeffrey Rubin, just left Beijing.

Judging from the Chinese reaction, it doesn’t look like they were able to deliver the kind of “strategic reassurance” that might elicit an enthusiastic or supportive Chinese position on Iran sanctions.

Readers who have been following my analysis of China’s ambivalence about the Obama administration’s effort to reorganize the international security regime around the principle of non-proliferation (and U.S. leadership) will note that China did not commit to the attendance of Hu Jintao at the Jedi Council of nuclear state leaders that President Obama hopes to convene in April.

Here’s what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Qin Gang, said on March 4:

Q: Today, the US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and Jeffrey Bader, Senior Director for the National Security Council for Asian Affairs have concluded their short visit here. Has the visit eased the disrupted China-US relations? Will President Hu Jintao attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington this April? With what kind of efforts from the US, will President Hu attend the summit?

A: State Councilor Dai Bingguo, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai met with James Steinberg and Jeffrey Bader respectively during their visit here. Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya had talks with them. The two sides had an in-depth and candid exchange of views over China-US relations and other issues of mutual interest. The Chinese side noted that thanks to the joint efforts of both sides last year, China-US relations had a good beginning, which serves the interest of both sides.
But in the past two months, on the Taiwan and Tibet-related issues, the US violated the principles enshrined in the three joint communiqués and China-US Joint Statement, seriously disrupted the development of China-US relations and caused difficulties for the bilateral cooperation in major fields. It is but natural that China has made necessary response. It is imperative for the US to take the position of the Chinese side seriously, respect the core interests and major concerns of China, and display sincerity and take concrete actions so as to push China-US relations back to the track of healthy and stable development.

The two sides also exchanged views on other issues of mutual interest.

As for the Nuclear Security Summit, China has been making preparation to attend the summit. Now I have no further information to share with you.

Q: Some western countries have proposed new sanctions against Iran. Will you support the proposal?

A: China always supports the maintenance of international nuclear non-proliferation regime and holds that the Iranian nuclear issue shall be solved through dialogue and negotiation so as to safeguard peace and stability of the Middle East. This is in the interest of all parties concerned. We have been proactively participating in the international diplomatic efforts for the resolution of the issue in a responsible attitude. We will continue our mediation efforts and the constructive role for the proper resolution of the issue through dialogue and negotiations.
…

Q: How do you comment on the China-US relations after Steinberg's visit to China? On the Iranian nuclear issue, is China still ruling out sanctions against Iran?

A: I have already answered the first question on the future development of China-US relations. Our position is very clear on what needs to be done to bring China-US relations back to the track of healthy and table development.

As for the second question, China has all along supported a long-term, comprehensive and proper resolution of the issue through dialogue and negotiation by diplomatic means. We believe that currently there is still room for diplomatic efforts, and call on related parties to exert utmost efforts to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations.


Note the part I’ve bolded there.

When you look at the Obama administration’s geopolitical strategy, it looks a lot like achieving global stability (and preserving American leadership) by defining, respecting, and, when needed, enforcing reasonable and sustainable spheres of influence.

On the issues I follow, it’s clearest in the Middle East (tag team by the U.S., Europe, Russia, and Israel to contain Iran and reconcile the Arab countries to the continuation of the Palestine mess); Africa (U.S., Europe, and India only, thank you); and South Asia (India’s playground all the way from Afghanistan to Burma).

A lot of it involves pushback to Chinese economic and diplomatic penetration in the Middle East and Africa.

China’s playpen is supposed to be Greater China: the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

A pretty major chunk of the world, but still not an attractive option for China, which sees itself competing with Japan for regional supremacy in Asia and isolated and relegated to second citizen status in key resource regions such as the Middle East and Africa.

According to this theory, the Obama administration should give China a free hand in dealing with Taiwan and Tibet.

But, of course, the Obama administration isn’t doing that.

I’ll repeat the bolded excerpt from Qin’s statement here:

But in the past two months, on the Taiwan and Tibet-related issues, the US violated the principles enshrined in the three joint communiqués and China-US Joint Statement, seriously disrupted the development of China-US relations and caused difficulties for the bilateral cooperation in major fields.

What Beijing is saying is, You’re trying to stick me in the Greater China box…and now you’re f*cking with the box! Are you trying to say China’s only legitimate sphere of influence is the 25% of the PRC’s area that is occupied by Han Chinese?

It’s unclear that President Obama is willing or able to provide the kind of “strategic reassurance” that China is looking for. And the longer the United States pursues a geopolitical reset at China’s expense, the more difficult, unlikely, and costly that reassurance will become.

Google "confident" but still censoring

Thank you to Shane McGlaun’s blog at Daily Tech for this immortal piece of reporting, dated March 5.

Google Confident in Decision to Stop Censoring Search Results in China

I love the contrast between the bold, freedom-friendly title and the behind-covering subtitle:

Google has no firm date set for censorship to end

I'm confident I'm going to lose 20 pounds--but I haven't set a firm date yet.

Google's expression of tender regard for the fate of its 800 or so employees--as opposed to the future of Google’s brand equity and profits in a market of 1.6 billion people—as the reason for continuing the censorship of search results also softened China Hand’s lips, usually frozen in a cynical O, into a fond smile.

Per McGlaun:

PC Magazine reports that Google has no firm timeframe for eliminating the censorship of its search results in China. Google's Nicole Wong, VP, and general counsel for the search firm said that Google's big concern is its employees in China.

Wong said, "We have many employees in the ground, some of whom are very dear colleagues of mine and so we recognize both the seriousness and both the sensitivity of the decision we're making and we want to figure out a way to get to that end … in a way that's appropriate and responsible. It's a very human issue for us."

Google doesn't come out and say it, but the feeling is that the search firm fears its Chinese employees might be held accountable if the search engine stopped the government mandated censorship of search results.

Google was the only tech firm invited to testify before a Senate subcommittee this week who agreed to testify. Wong testified in front of the subcommittee saying, "We are firm in our decision that we will not censor our search results in China and we are working toward that end."


Wang’s remarks dovetail nicely with this January 18 headline from the Guardian:

Google investigates China Staff over cyber attack

And a report from TechCrunch on Jan. 14 that told us:

…the IM conversation that we were forwarded reveals that Google China workers no longer have access to company systems.

The fact that Google employees are seemingly unable to log onto internal systems could be a result of the internal security tests and scans, but Google has apparently also asked China employees to ‘relax at home’ for an unspecified time.

Somewhere, Google CEO Eric Schmidt is writhing.

Don't be evil, guys! At least not while everybody’s looking.