| U.S.-China Tensions: What Must Kerry Do? Posted: 15 Feb 2013 11:38 PM PST In the latest installment of China File's Conversations series, Elizabeth Economy, Andrew J. Nathan and Orville Schell respond to Nina Hachigian's recommendations to new U.S. secretary of state John Kerry. In a recent essay at the Center for American Progress, Hachigian looked beyond immediate issues such as the Diaoyu Islands dispute, cyber security and North Korean nuclear testing to a broader question in Sino-U.S. relations: The United States and China have no shared vision for what their future bilateral relationship could or should look like. They have not articulated a clear understanding of how they could continue to co-exist in peace a decade or two down the road, and they need to develop a shared, tangible idea for the future of the relationship. Hachigian suggests further integrating China into the international "web of laws, norms, and institutions", which it currently suspects has been spun by the West to trip it up. This approach is encapsulated in a proposed draft of Kerry's first speech in China. From the responses at China File: Elizabeth Economy: I think Nina is right to identify a lack of shared vision as a serious challenge in the U.S.-China relationship. Unfortunately, I don't think that at this point in time it is possible to have such a shared vision–beyond what we have always had, namely a stated commitment to peace and stability in the Asia Pacific and to free and open markets. I am fairly sure, for example, that part of our vision for the relationship includes a vastly reformed China (economically and politically)–probably in ways that the Chinese leadership is not interested in reforming, or at least not interested in reforming at the pace we would like. […] Andrew J. Nathan: […] To be sure, it is hard for any observer — even us, much less policy makers in Beijing — to figure out what American strategy really is. I sometimes even wonder whether it's possible for a country with two parties that alternate in power, three branches of government, fifteen fairly independent executive departments, and 535 entrepreneurial legislators, to have a coherent strategy. […] Either way, the Chinese need to know where the U.S. really stands. It's understandable that they will test the U.S. in rhetoric and in action to find out where Washington's bottom line lies. We American observers will find out the answer along with China. Orville Schell: […] Even though Party General Secretary Xi Jinping, China's next president, has said that he would like to see U.S.-China relations have a fresh start, it is unlikely that there will be a major "re-set" any time soon. Both Beijing and Washington seem far too root-bound by their own issues and inner- and inter-party politics to step out boldly into any kind of new mutual foreign policy framework. Hachigian argues that the "default prediction" in the absence of a shared vision for the future is "inevitable violent conflict." At The New York Times this week, on the other hand, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that "I do not believe that wars for global domination are a serious prospect in what is now the Post-Hegemonic Age." Admittedly, the historical record is dismal. Since the onset of global politics 200 years ago, four long wars (including the Cold War) were fought over the domination of Europe, each of which could have resulted in global hegemony by a sole superpower. Yet several developments over recent years have changed the equation. Nuclear weapons make hegemonic wars too destructive, and thus victory meaningless. One-sided national economic triumphs cannot be achieved in the increasingly interwoven global economy without precipitating calamitous consequences for everyone. Further, the populations of the world have awakened politically and are not so easily subdued, even by the most powerful. Last but not least, neither the United States nor China is driven by hostile ideologies. Moreover, despite our very different political systems, both our societies are, in different ways, open. That, too, offsets pressure from within each respective society toward animus and hostility. More than 100,000 Chinese are students at American universities, and thousands of young Americans study and work in China or participate in special study or travel programs. Unlike in the former Soviet Union, millions of Chinese regularly travel abroad. And millions of young Chinese are in daily touch with the world through the Internet. All this contrasts greatly with the societal self-isolation of the 19th- and 20th-century contestants for global power, which intensified grievances, escalated hostility and made it easier to demonize the one another. Brzezinski's prescription of "vital and robust" institutionalized cooperation, though, is similar to Hachigian's. Contemplating the less arguable inevitability of "foolish, impetuous, or incompetent leaders in one capital or the other, or maybe even both", Stephen M. Walt suggested what aspects of this cooperation might look like. From Foreign Policy last month: The bottom line is that Washington and Beijing have an obvious interest in taking steps now that might make their relationship easier to manage in the future. In particular, establishing rules of the road for naval activity (similar to the earlier Incidents at Sea agreement) might reduce the danger of an unintended clash on the high seas. Reaching an understanding on the use of unmanned drones or cyberattacks would help too. Military-to-military contacts and other forms of elite exchange would be a good idea as well, so that elites in both societies know the people with whom they are dealing personally and are less likely to misread or misinterpret what they may do while in official positions. None of these steps makes rivalry disappear, but together they could help keep it from boiling over. And that just might be the greatest contribution that these two states could make to international peace and security over the next 25 years. Efforts to establish an institutional "web" are likely to provoke some suspicion in China. An op-ed in the overseas edition of People's Daily last July articulated a bleaker view of developing relations between the two powers: Over the next 5-10 years, the difference in Sino-US power will make a great leap towards transformation from a difference in quantity to a difference in quality. Authoritative international organizations have already roughly estimated that the Chinese economy will overtake the US in total size by around 2020 or so. During this period, China's military strength and sci-tech capacities will also continue to rise. The US strategic community is currently debating three basic questions with respect to China's rise: How to respond to the challenging resource, energy, and economic demands of a great power with 1.3 to 1.5 billion people? How to respond to the challenges posed by the political system, development model, and cultural values of a socialist great power? And how to respond to the military security challenges of a great power that has not yet settled all of its issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity? During this period, the US is likely to use non-military methods to envelop China or seek to perturb its rise, to win strategic gains, to bring about a revival of national power, and to ensure its hegemonic status. [… T]hrough an approach premised on strengthening alliance relationships, upgrading cooperative partnerships, and by splitting apart China's ties to North Korea, Pakistan, and Myanmar while seeking to rebuild Russo-American relations, and other steps, they will seek to put China in a passive position in its foreign affairs, complicate China's external environment, and constrict the strategic space for China's rise; and through the development of dialogues and commonly-accepted definitions of what the Americans call the 'global commons' of sea, air, space and cyber, they will seek to substantially weaken China's ability to compete with or strategically challenge the United States. The article achieved online notoriety for its suggestion that the U.S. would use groups such as rights lawyers and dissidents to undermine China's political system. See also coverage of Kerry's comments on China at his Senate confirmation hearing last month, via CDT.
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Andrew Nathan, China's rise, Cold War, Elizabeth Economy, global economy, international norms, international order, international relations, john kerry, nuclear weapons, Orville Schell, State Department, students abroad, U.S. relations, United States, war, Xi Jinping
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| China’s Internet ‘Wall’ Hits Foreign & Domestic Business Posted: 15 Feb 2013 09:44 PM PST As online regulation tightens, Paul Mozur and Carlos Tejada report on its growing toll on foreign businesses in China. From The Wall Street Journal: Fredrik Bergman ran into a problem when a client in Sweden tried to transfer files to his firm's headquarters here: Each time, the firm lost its Web connection for an hour or so. After several weeks of multiple outages a day, he says, the firm solved the puzzle: the files were named for the Swedish town of Falun, where the client was working. Mr. Bergman says his firm thinks the name triggered the filters China's online censors use to block discussion of Falun Gong, a religious group long banned in China. […] The American Chamber of Commerce in China said last year that nearly three-quarters of about 300 businesses it surveyed said unstable Internet access impedes their efficiency. About 40% said China's censorship efforts have a negative business impact. […] "The real question is whether the next administration is going to continue to roll back Internet availability to foreign firms," [Shaun] Rein said. He said companies are unlikely to pull out of China in any case, but they likely will think twice about moves like shifting their regional headquarters to Beijing from places like Singapore and Hong Kong. "They will still invest in China," he said. "It just depends on what scale." Though one China-based entrepreneur tells Mozur and Tejada that homegrown web companies have benefited from shelter against international competition, the overall cost of Internet controls on Chinese firms is likely to be even higher. From Andy Yee at openDemocracy: This censorship regime is hurting China's competitiveness in the internet age. Very often, it is commercial firms that bear the collateral damages. Online portals are frustrated about the energy and time wasted on outsourced censorship tasks from the propaganda department. Chinese web giant Tencent has to work hard to deal with censorship concerns connected with its globally popular chat app WeChat among international users, who are accustomed to sharing information freely. Chinese telecom giants Huawei and ZTE, flagged by the US Congress as security threats on flimsy evidence, are victims of China's perceived opacity. And investor uncertainty about censorship and over-regulation mean that market performance of Chinese internet companies will never achieve their potential. More importantly, to the extent that web technologies become essential platforms for learning, collaboration and innovation, China runs serious risks of underachieving its information technology ambitions. Chinese talents are robbed of learning possibilities simply because many foreign websites and tools are blocked. According to a UNESCO report, some open educational resources are out of reach for students and educators in China because they are filtered by the Great Firewall.
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: business, education, Falun Gong, foreign businesses, huawei, Internet blocking, Internet censorship, Internet crackdown, Internet regulation, online censorship, online education, tencent, ZTE
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| Inside China’s Genome Factory Posted: 15 Feb 2013 03:29 PM PST At MIT Technology Review, Christina Larson profiles the world's most prolific DNA sequencer, BGI-Shenzhen, which has unravelled the genomes of the rice plant and the giant panda, contributed to the international Human Genome Project, and isolated Tibetans' genetic adaptation to life at high altitudes. The budding "bio-Google" is now collaborating with Danish, American and British research into obesity, autism and intelligence, and with the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia on medical DNA analysis. BGI-Shenzhen, once known as the Beijing Genomics Institute, has burst from relative obscurity to become the world's most prolific sequencer of human, plant, and animal DNA. In 2010, with the aid of a $1.58 billion line of credit from China Development Bank, BGI purchased 128 state-of-the-art DNA sequencing machines for about $500,000 apiece. It now owns 156 sequencers from several manufacturers and accounts for some 10 to 20 percent of all DNA data produced globally. So far, it claims to have completely sequenced some 50,000 human genomes—far more than any other group. BGI's sheer size has already put Chinese gene research on the map. Those same economies of scale could also become an advantage as comprehensive gene readouts become part of everyday medicine. The cost of DNA sequencing is falling fast. In a few years, it's likely that millions of people will want to know what their genes predict about their health. BGI might be the one to tell them. […] Wang [Jian, BGI's president and cofounder], the Everest climber, is still frequently asked to explain BGI's strategy and its intentions. He says to think of a wandering migrant worker—looking for opportunity and occasionally irritating the authorities. That is what BGI is like. But its only core mission is to do work that will be socially useful, he says: its strategy is to "do good."
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: DNA data bank, genes, giant panda, rice, science, scientific advancement, Shenzhen
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| Banned Weibos: Protesting DPRK Nukes and More Posted: 15 Feb 2013 02:57 PM PST CDT editors have collected the following posts that have been banned from Sina Weibo as of February 14 2013.
Lanzimujin: When I went back home, I met my husband's nephew, a sophomore in high school. He hates school, but he loves history and geography. I chatted with him for a bit. He's quite a cute boy. He said he was brainwashed in elementary school to despise the U.S. and Japan and love Mao [Zedong]. In 2nd grade of middle school, he turned against his brainwashing. He said it would be much better if Xi [Jinping] was Chiang Ching-guo. He even calls himself a rightist. He knows about LXB [Liu Xiaobo]. He said his mother talks all day about the greatness of a certain party. He says his grandmother is an iron GF, and his cousin is a 50-Cent Party member who works for free. He's quite an angsty young person. 蓝紫木槿： 回老家，先生的侄子高二，厌学，但酷爱历史和地理。和他聊了一会，很可爱的一个小男孩。他说在小学时被洗脑，痛恨美日，无比热爱毛。初二时，反洗脑了。他 说习要是蒋经国就好了。还说自己是右派。他知道LXB。他说他妈妈整天就是某党好，说他外婆是铁板GF，说他堂姐是自费五毛。一个正苦恼着的少年。 Hainan-LiChao: The people of Harbin protesting the North Korean nuclear explosion… 海南-李超： 哈尔滨人民抗议朝鲜核爆…… 
Banner: (center, large text) Protest Against the North Korean Nuclear Explosion; Protect Our Home, People, Land, Water, Air, and Food ZhangHuazhiV: If I can neither speak out nor sing, then discipline me as you will!
张华志V： 假使讲说话也不可，高歌也是过错，随便你处分我！
 Image text: (center) Massacre: The CCP's "Greatness, Glory, Righteousness" fell from the hearts of the people.
BeijingChaoyangShibaliGuoguijun: Today we went to the Millennium Monument to call for the public disclosure of the assets of government officials 北京朝阳十八里店郭桂军： 今天去了世纪坛要求官员财产公示 Banner: (top) The Citizens Call For Public Disclosure of the Assets of Officials. (bottom) To sign: Send your "name + address + profession" to caichangongshi@gmail.com or send a text message to 15810050900 铮然02： 删贴 也阻挡不了民众的觉醒 保卫地球人类 是地球人的责任 Xuxin: Happy Lunar New Year to Big Xi [Xi Jinping]. By the way: When will the assets of government officials be made public? 徐昕： 向习大大拜年。顺便问下：官员财产何时公开？#让红包飞# http://t.cn/zYGDzWV Tianjiliub: Thank you to the fans and volunteers for Bo [Xilai]. We have been together for 330 days! I've published over 26,000 weibos. Yesterday, Sina deleted [my account] TianjiliuA, and today, I'm back. Comrades, our iron will is forged with blood! Fight to the end! Fight to the death! 天际流b： 感谢粉丝们，挺薄的志愿者们，三百三十天，我们在一起！我发出了二万六千多篇微播，昨天，新浪删除了天际流A，今天我又回归了，同志们，我们用热血铸就我们钢铁般的意志！挺到底！誓死如归！
© Little Bluegill for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Internet control, weibo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| Photo: The Flower Man, by Vern Fong Posted: 15 Feb 2013 02:32 PM PST |
| MOC Claims China Not World’s Top Trading Nation Posted: 15 Feb 2013 02:14 PM PST China's Ministry of Commerce is contesting recent media reports that China surpassed the U.S. as the world's biggest trading nation in terms of volume last year. China Daily reports: Recent data from the world's two largest economies show that Chinese trade in goods and services reached $3.87 trillion in 2012, according to the General Administration of Customs, while the value of US exports and imports was $3.82 trillion, according to the US Commerce Department. The ministry said, however, that China's combined export and import volume from last year is below that of theUS when the same method of measurement is used. A ministry official, who wasn't identified, said on Wednesday the Commerce Department released two sets of figures for US trade last year: $3.82 trillion based on the country's international balance of payments, and $3.882trillion based on a measurement similar to that used by the World Trade Organization. Only the smaller number was compared with China's volume. The official said the WTO's annual trade report, which will be released within a month, will show a continued 1-2 ranking of the US and China.
At South China Morning Post, Tom Holland provides further details, explaining why reports that China is now the world's biggest trading economy are wrong: The most obvious way they are wrong is because China's import and export numbers are heavily distorted by domestic companies fiddling their taxes. Under mainland regulations, exporters of electronic gadgets and other widgetry can claim a value-added tax rebate worth 17 per cent of the goods' value. What's more, under the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, no tariffs are charged on goods imported into the mainland from Hong Kong, provided the importer claims a relatively small component of value was added in the city. As a result, mainland companies ship huge quantities of goods to Hong Kong, where their value is marked up by around 20 per cent before they are re-imported back into the mainland.[...]
A brief from The Economist looks at the numbers contested above, noting that even if they are accurate, the U.S. remains the global leader if services are included in the count: [...]New figures show that America's imports and exports of goods amounted to $3.82 trillion in 2012, compared with China's $3.87 trillion (see chart). These figures count only trade in objects (ingenious or mundane). If services are added, America retains its lead for the moment. Tax dodges may also inflate China's numbers, but its trade networks are spreading.[...]
Another recent piece on the topic from South China Morning Post notes that the Ministry of Commerce is also condemning recent U.S. sanctions on Chinese military firms for disrupting international trade norms: Meanwhile, Beijing said the US was disrupting international trade by slapping sanctions on Chinese firms. [...]In a separate report, Xinhua said Shen Danyang, a Ministry of Commerce spokesman, accused the US of disrupting the "normal order of international trade" and harming Chinese companies' interest by imposing sanctions under its non-proliferation laws. China urged the US to correct its "erroneous practice", Xinhua said.
© josh rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: exports, foreign trade, imports, Ministry of Commerce, trade, US-China relations
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| Government Reform: Super-Size Me Posted: 15 Feb 2013 01:09 PM PST The Economist reports on government efforts to increase efficiency by merging China's multitude of bureaucratic bodies into larger ministries, and concerns that these moves could prove unproductive: [...]The government believes that fewer and bigger ministries will boost bureaucratic efficiency. It could also, officials say, help the country change in more fundamental ways. [...]In recent weeks speculation has been growing that a new round of ministry mergers will soon unfold. The 370-odd members of the Communist Party's central committee are expected to meet later this month to finalise arrangements for the annual session of the National People's Congress, China's legislature, which begins on March 5th. Further steps to create what officials call a "big-ministry system" are likely to be discussed.[...] Bigger ministries, it is argued, should mean smaller government. [...]Some worry that creating bigger ministries with more responsibilities could backfire. Instead of making government more efficient, it could create even more powerful bureaucratic interest groups that could thwart efforts to make government nimbler and more responsive to public needs. In recent months discussion has burgeoned online in China about the possibility of creating a new commission to oversee economic and political reforms and ensure that ministries co-operate in carrying them out. The lack of co-operation has been evident recently in behind-the-scenes feuding over a blueprint for reducing the wealth gap. It was eventually published on February 5th, with a telling lack of detail. Officials say that the "big-ministry system" is not just about redefining bureaucratic boundaries, but is an important part of more thoroughgoing political reform. Alongside small government, they sometimes stress a need for "big society", with much greater non-governmental involvement in the provision of basic services.[...]
Wen Jiabao's 2008 announcement of the plan to fuse government agencies into "super-ministries" also met with skepticism.
© josh rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: ministries reorganization, political reform, super-ministries
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall
 |
| If Marx Had Weibo Posted: 15 Feb 2013 12:00 PM PST |
Comments