What's good for Africa is good for...Africa

Obama goes to Ghana and gives a "tough love" speech, preaching - seriously, he was practically hectoring these poor people -- to Africans that they need to get their house in order, embrace good governance, democracy, human rights and free trade, and stop blaming the West and colonialism for all their problems.  Where was this guy in Cairo?  Why isn't this kind of talk considered patronizing meddling or hypocritical (because of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) when Obama does it in Africa, but would be if he were to say it to -- for example -- Iran or any other Middle Eastern country, Honduras, Russia or China, just to name a few who recently could have used a dose of "tough love" from Dr. O?  

I continue to be amused by the lack of critical response to this bipolar (multi-polar?) policy approach on the part of the liberal media.  Republicans are not being effective in taking advantage of his so-flexible-as-to-appear-unprincipled approach to foreign policy.  The WSJ has a good piece on this speech that should serve as a roadmap for not only pointing out his wildly divergent regional foreign policies, but linking them up to some of his worst domestic policy ideas.  

Sphere: Related Content

China's Cat & Mouse Game with Burma?

So... there is this odd piece in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine about how China is allegedly fed up with the wackadoodle Burmese junta and has been quietly reaching out to the Burmese opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.  After portraying China as the victim of crafty erstwhile allies who often take it for a ride, the author breathlessly claims that: 

Indeed, recent weeks have shown China to be stealthily exploring the possibility that jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi might govern Burma as a more reliable, and perhaps more pliable, neighbor than Burma's junta does.

Ok - let's examine this claim.  First, she says China is reaching out to ASSK because they think she will be more "reliable" and "pliable" an ally than the junta.  This belief of theirs seems to be predicated on an assumption that a competent democrat will be a better ally that incompetent autocrats.  Pretty speculative stuff.  While I certainly think competent democrats would do a better job of running Burma (hell, a monkey with a dartboard would do a better job that these lunatics), it would be quite shocking if the Chinese government now thinks that a Burmese democracy would be more stable than the status quo.  This would fly in the face of everything they have ever said and done, both with regard to Burma and in China.   Seems unlikely.  Moreover, anyone who has ever met ASSK, or even knows anything about her would never use the word "pliable" to describe her.  This is one tough chick who has made unimaginable sacrifices for the sake of democratic ideals, but hey - the Chinese think she will be willing throw all that aside to preside over a more accommodating client state for their benefit?  Again, unlikely.  

Second, China has been "stealthily exploring" this possibility "in recent weeks."  And how have they been doing this, according to the author?  Through these extremely secret maneuvers: allowing UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to travel to Burma; their support in the fall of 2007 (!) for the ridiculous Gambari mission after the regime crackdown on the Saffron Revolution; and their signing of an EU-ASEAN statement calling for the release of political prisoners.  Color me underwhelmed.  During this same period, China has had numerous state visits with the junta, maintained its economic and military support for the regime, and blocked serious efforts within the UN to go after the junta.  I just don't see it, based on the thin evidence the author provides.  

So maybe she knows something more?  Could be.  There have been claims over the years by various exiled Burmese democracy activists that they have maintained relationships with Chinese contacts who have alluded to their willingness to work with a Suu Kyi-led government.  I find this more compelling than the flimsy material in the FP piece, but I have always believed that these contacts were more likely part of an intelligence gathering operation by the Chinese than a sincere expression of interest in, let alone support for, the political aspirations of Burma's democrats.  

China has undoubtedly, at times, sought to soften its image as the patron saint of the world's worst dictatorships, especially when there was something else it wanted in play.  And yes, the epic bad governance of Burma creates headaches for Beijing.  But to leap to the conclusion that China is seriously reaching out to Burma's opposition, based on such shallow activities as support for a UN mission that serves as a useful fig leaf for the Chinese, especially when compared to the deep and serious ties that China maintains to the Burmese regime, seems like a lot of wishful thinking.

My real gripe, though, is with Foreign Policy magazine for publishing such a weakly argued, sensationalistic piece.  I suppose they could be forgiven if it had been submitted by someone who was famous for passing off gibberish as important information - say, for example Tom Friedman.  But I could not understand their allowance for such a lame piece from someone I had never heard of - one Wen Liao of Longford Advisors.  So I Googled Ms. Wen.

Here is a charming quote from another of her pieces, this time on how China's involvement in the war in Sri Lanka is really a good thing for all of us:

China’s newfound assertiveness, rather than creating fear, should be seen as establishing the necessary conditions for comprehensive negotiations about the very basis of peaceful coexistence and stability in Asia: respect for all sides’ vital interests. In recent years, such an approach ran counter to America’s foreign-policy predisposition of favouring universalist doctrines over a careful balancing of national interests. With the Obama administration embracing realism as its diplomatic lodestar, China may have found a willing interlocutor.

Huh?

And then there is this, from a piece Ms. Wen did last year on Tibet, which posits that China cracked down on monk-led protests because the US did not sufficiently reassure the ChiComs that Kosovo independence was a one-off event whose logic did not apply to them (especially since they were not engaged in ethnic cleansing - oh, nevermind...): 

The West has historically stressed two bright lines with respect to Taiwan: no independence and no use of force by China. But, in view of Kosovo’s independence against the will of Serbia and without UN sanction, these bright lines have become blurred in China’s eyes.

The world is risking much by injecting ambiguity into an issue that once seemed clear-cut. Thirty-five years ago, in a supreme act of modern statecraft, Zhou En-lai and Richard Nixon signed the Shanghai Communiqué, which set the following unambiguous standard: there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it. An unequivocal reaffirmation of that understanding, particularly by the United States in the light of its role as primary backer of Kosovo’s independence, is now needed if China is to be reassured that its unity will not be called into question.

---

Both China and the West must now avoid letting exaggerated fears create self-inflicted prophecies. Events in Tibet can only be properly viewed with the shadows cast by Kosovo and Taiwan in mind.

What the what?  

So, again, who is the mysterious Madame Wen and why do people publish this nonsense from her?  Other than the fact that she is part of Project Syndicate, and that her "consulting firm" Longford Advisors is registered in the Isle of Mann, a notorious tax haven, I could find nothing about her.  Seriously - no professional, academic or other background.  Very strange.  

Sphere: Related Content

Uighurstan Power Plays

The NYT has an excellent piece today on how the hardline policies in Xinjiang relate to the bigger picture political jockeying within China's leadership.  The profile of the notorious Wang Lequan, which also notes his relationship to his protege and equal in nastiness Zhang Qingli - the hardline party secretary in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, is some quality reportage of the kind that is often sorely lacking when it comes to China.  I hope that everyone in the Obama Administration reads this article, as it exposes a number of important currents in Chinese political thought about how to manage the restive minority nationalities.  To whit: 

- Whereas in most other countries, the fact that Xinjiang exploded into violence in the first place would normally be held against Wang and Zhang, their harsh response and their reputation for toughness (which arguably is a leading factor in the initial violence!) will probably result in their continued promotion up the ladder.

- Wang and his ilk are among a minority who believe that inter-ethnic conflict, rather than economic slowdown, has the most potential to upset the Communist Party's apple cart.  This viewpoint may be self-serving, given his position, and is definitely shaped by the fact that he has spent the past 15 years cracking-heads in Uighurland.  Unfortunately, having recognized inter-ethnic conflict as a problem, he has come to the conclusion that the way to resolve the problem is to be as harsh as possible on one hand while maximizing assimilationist policies on the other.

- Hu Jintao, who comes across on the international stage as Mr. Smooth - a polished, modern leader, is thoroughly linked up with this mentality of repression and chauvinism.  He is probably one of its strongest proponents in the system.  

And so it goes.  US and European policymakers continue to pretend that they are dealing with a modern, normal nation, while China continues to act like a 19th century colonial power.  And we are surprised when the mask slips and the true ugliness peeks out from behind the 21st century veneer.

Sphere: Related Content

Uncle Zhou in Uighurstan

Uh oh.  It looks like the regime is getting serious, now that Hu Jintao has apparently sent the thuggish Zhou Yongkang to Urumqi to "direct safety work" in the restive region.  (Original article in Chinese here.)  So what is Zhou up to?  Let's take a gander at a completely spontaneous moment, as dutifully chronicled those crack journalists over at Xinhua:

“Hai-er-ni-sha-han, a 66 year-old Uighur woman who had been struck in the head with a brick while riding on a public bus, is currently receiving medical treatment. Zhou Yong-kang visited her bedside, and leant over to carefully examine her wounds. He expressed his personal sympathies to her. Hai-er-ni-sha-han said that she has confident in the party and the government, believes that the malevolent goals of villains will not succeed, and that ‘our lives will be sure to improve.’ Zhou Yong-kang said to her: ‘You have indeed spoken well. What you said represents the common aspirations of the people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang.’”

Awwwww.  How sweet.  And who exactly is Uncle Zhou and why has he been thrust into this role of healing the ethnic divide?  Well - he just happens to have recently been promoted after serving a five year term as minister of "public security."  Before that, he was the party secretary in Sichuan province, where he launched a major crackdown on Tibetan "splittists" that was marked by the first execution of a Tibetan for a political crime in recent memory.  That crackdown apparently was key to his promotion to the national stage, since beating up on troublesome ethnics has long been a proven path to the top echelons of the Peoples Republic (see e.g. Hu Jintao).  

And who is China's propaganda machine trying to fool with this outpouring of concern from on high?  The domestic audience, of course.  Much as I love the early socialist prose style of this article, it is interesting how the Chinese people can readily believe this garbage when they generally take for granted that Xinhua is only giving them half the truth.  I blame a combination of latent Han chauvinism and, perversely (or not, since I am generally a conservative who opposes such things), the government's showy affirmative action program for minorities, which provides them a number of "advantages" (as long as they are willing to subsume themselves into the Chinese system).  This affirmative action program has convinced many Han that most minorities are either idiots who can't get by without a boost from the state, degenerates who get away with murder because of an official policy of leniency in criminal matters (although this official lenience certainly doesn't carry over to "political" matters), or lazy ingrates who should be thankful for the beneficence of the Chinese (read: Han) state.  

So much for harmonious society...

Sphere: Related Content

Burma and North Korea: the New Axis of Evil (and Crazy)

My friend Aung Zaw has a new piece talking about the increasingly warm relationship between the nutty military dictatorship in Rangoon and their equally deranged counterparts in Pyongyang.  I suppose it was only a matter of time before these two buried the hatchet and become BFFs.  Back in the day (1983, to be precise), when the North Korean government tried to assasinate some South Korean leaders in Rangoon, the Burmese regime of the day was pretty cheesed about it and broke off relations with the Hermit Kingdom.  However, now that both are decrepit Chinese client states run by a mafia of lunatics, it is only right that they link arms and dance off together in pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Thanks again ChiComs!  Couldn't have done it without your help. 

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-colonialism with Chinese characteristics

The NYT has an essay by an anthropologist who discusses the colonialist mindset of China's rulers (and, sadly, many Han Chinese) toward the Tibetans and Uighurs.  In describing how they see these minority groups, he says: 

For them, all minorities are fully — and only — Chinese citizens, and therefore must be loyal to the government and grateful for its largesse. There will never be much gratitude unless China’s leaders grant these groups real regional autonomy, guarantee freedom of religion, curb Han Chinese migration and stop their insulting rhetoric about underdeveloped minorities in need of help. But they won’t. So the unrest and discontent — at times exploding into the violence of the past few days — are bound to continue.

He also does a good job of explaining the difference between ethnic "nationalities" such as Tibetans and Uighurs, vice the 50+ other minority groups in China - i.e. Hui, Zhang, etc. - a distinction that is frequently obscured by both Chinese leaders and others in making comparisons to ethnic politics in other countries, as well as comparisons among ethnic groups within China.  

I am looking at a copy of Ross Terrill's "The New Chinese Empire", which has been waiting for me to read it for some time.  I think I'll start today...

Sphere: Related Content

I love the smell of democracy in the morning

Just read a great piece in the WSJ about the "dumbing down of democracy."  The author cites the example of Russian authorities (or should I say authoritarians) referring to their system as a "different kind of democracy" than what we have here in the good old US of A.  Well.  He could have just as easily used the Chinese example, where a government that is clearly authoritarian continues to play word games in asserting that they have a kind of democracy with Chinese characteristics (as if denial of basic civil and political rights were "characteristics" of a democratic system).  Surreal, yes.  Also dangerous, as the author points out: 

Letting genuine democratic aspirants in places like Iran and Honduras lose in front of a watching world will exact a price. The United States and the other John Locke democracies are in an active, long-term competition with fake democrats over whose politics governs the next century. And they will presume to choose which parties should run other counties.

There is the clear sense that anything the Bush administration did, the Obama sophisticates will not do. Does the fact that the Bushies pushed democracy mean it would be bad form to support even our own political system?

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg makes many of the same points about Obama's antipathy toward democracy promotion: 

Again and again, the administration has made it clear that spreading freedom is so much ideological foolishness. Before the inauguration, he told the Washington Post that he was concerned with “actually delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.” There’s merit to this view in principle, though Obama seems to be thinking about “economic justice” more than a free society. But in practice, when American presidents say they don’t care about democracy, tyrants rejoice.

Which makes a nice segue to my Xinjiang piece in the Asia WSJ, and the comical-if-they-weren't-so-scary comments that the angry Chinese netizens have made.  I have always maintained that most Chinese seem to be missing the gene for irony.  I realize this is a horrible stereotype, but damn if they don't prove it true at every opportunity.  Hence, I am slammed by a bunch of nasty-grams from defenders of the Beijing regime, who are able to vent their spleen at me by virtue of the fact that they can take advantage of -- wait for it -- freedom of expression.

Maybe someday these poor unironic ninnies will figure it out.  Until then, I am going to double up on virus protection and enjoy the fireworks.

Sphere: Related Content