The year 2010 was an important turning point in Japan's timeline. It was the year that saw the small island nation toppled over from its second-largest economy status by its giant neighbor, the People's Republic of China. Japan still continues to be the third-largest in purchasing power. It is also the world's fourth-largest exporter and fifth-largest importer. And yet, this country has in the last year faced hit after hit on the global scene.
Politically, Japan's state of instability has worsened, with three prime ministers in four years and, despite the change of guard from LDP to DPJ last year, the new party in power is itself working with its second PM, Naoto Kan, who has suffered an early setback in the Japanese house of Councillor's Election in 2010.
Political problems notwithstanding, Japan still struggles to jolt an economy out of three decades of stagnation and rejuvenate it. Japan's flagship company, Toyota, had to suffer embarrassment when it was forced to recall more than 10 million vehicles leading to snowballing share values of auto firms. Despite government stimulus, unemployment and underemployment are at an all-time high.
Public debt is mostly held by local investors, but is 200 percent of the annual GDP—one of the highest in the industrialized world. This is standing proof, not only to Japan's high savings rate, which is good, but also to its demographic dividend, which tilts heavily in favor of the non-working, old aged who depend on social security and place a burden on the economy. Japan also has the maximum number of suicides of people under 30. This coupled with a very low total fertility rate of 1.3 has led to a decline in the population of the country despite their average life expectancy.
Japan, as noted by analysts, is suffering from a Galapagosization syndrome, whereby its advanced technology, in the field of mobile communications and most notably robotics, has evolved much faster than the rest of the world. This has led to advancements being incompatible for use elsewhere, as is especially in the case of Japanese mobile phones.
"Japan's cellphones are like the endemic species that Darwin encountered on the Galápagos Islands—fantastically evolved and divergent from their mainland cousins," explains Takeshi Natsuno, who teaches at Tokyo's Keio University. This phenomenon might have benefited Japan in the Meiji Restoration era, but in a globalized world, it stands out as a stark contrast, not necessarily on the positive side.
In addition to the technological isolation, Japan also faces a similar isolation in terms of its population. Like other developed countries, the Japanese are having fewer children and having them later in life. By 2025, the government projects that Japan will have one retiree for every two working-age Japanese. This greying trend, coupled with the country's low birth rate, mandates large-scale immigration to keep the economy and the jobs running.
Japan seems to be caught up in a web of xenophobia that is aggravating the problem. While other aging countries have resorted to large-scale immigration to resolve their demographic crises, it remains almost impossible for a non-native worker to obtain citizenship, despite the fact that the cities abound with guest workers and foreign residents.
Japanese workers are also reluctant to catch up to the wave of innovation and change that is rocking the world. They refuse to go abroad, even if for a while, to feel the pulse of the market, which Japan so badly depends on. The Wall Street Journal reported, "The Galapagosization of Japan continues. … A shocking two-thirds of the country's white-collar workers said they didn't want to work abroad … ever."
This has presented a bleak prospect to the Generation Y of Japan, who feel caught between giants such as the United States and emerging China. And stiff competition is comgin from South Korea in what used to be Japan's core competence, high-end electronics, posing a big threat to their future prospects and careers. They feel that their choices have narrowed. Millions have given up the goal of lifetime employment at a major corporation and become "freeters," flitting among temporary jobs with few, if any, benefits. This, along with the aging population that will need state support to survive, does not in any way seem similar to the Japan of the 1980s, flush with cash and poised to dominate the world.
The conservative shell of the mind has been a tough nut to crack, but recent attempts indicate a slew of reforms waiting around the corner. Prime Minister Naoto Kan proposes opening up the economy by bringing down tariff barriers and making the country more attractive to investors. His cabinet cut the corporate tax rate to 35 percent and is weighing the option of joining a U.S.-led free-trade zone, namely the Trans-Pacific partnership, which would bring down tariffs on commodities ranging from food to electronics.
But a mere reduction of tariffs would be meaningless without innovation in the economy. Japan's competence in the field of hybrid vehicles and industrial robots is sure to come in handy if it manages to make its technology compatible with the rest of the world, especially the United States. China's reverse engineering capabilities won't take more than a decade to catch up to the technical advancement Japan has taken decades to achieve.
Japan also needs to shed its dependence on manufacturing and move in to "sunshine sectors" such as green energy, software engineering and healthcare for its elderly. But it remains to be seen if a weak tottering government will take steps bold enough to lift the country of its misery. Japan seems destined to follow had-been powers like Britain and France if it doesn't change tracks soon. On the other hand, if Japan does manage to muddle through and handle the decline well, it can reinvent itself as a soft power on the world stage. But that is a big "if," considering the competition that Japan today faces.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Isolation or Engagement- Terrorism and American Muslims
The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center dealt a blow to the sanctuary enjoyed by the United States through its geographical isolation. It also changed the American perspective with regards to Islamist terrorism, which occupied a pride of place in the global agenda from being a mere internal issue faced by countries that bordered Pakistan and Afghanistan. The decade that followed gave birth to the Global War on Terror and also inadvertently led to an increase in the number of terror-related incidents occurring on American soil.
The U.S. government reported 46 incidents of domestic radicalization and recruitment between 2001 and 2009, and that does not include half a dozen other incidents that might have happened away from government eyes. The efficiency of U.S. Homeland Security has been called into question numerous times by several bombing attempts and shootouts. The number and sophistication of the attacks have increased over the years, as it is evident from the Congressional report that states that there were an average of six attacks per year, and 13 in 2009. Only 25 percent of the identified plots were traced back to links with major organizations such as al Qaeda, but an analysis paper from the Bipartisan Policy Center points out that an increasing number of radicals are playing high-level operational roles in al Qaeda and allied groups.
The most popular and publicized of them have occurred in the last year: the Fort Hood shooting that shook the morale of moderate Muslims living in the United States, the failed attack of the Christmas-day bomber and most recently the Times square bomb. The last two were thwarted, not due to any specific pre-eminence on the part of the authorities, but rather due to technical incompetence in planning, design and execution of the plot. It is wishful thinking to believe that the terrorists, whether home-grown or foreign, would remain restricted to dirty bombs forever.
While the heavily funded War on Terror aims to deal with terrorism from abroad, the United States knows it cannot launch a similar campaign to weed out domestic terrorism, which is not merely financially but also ideologically funded by organized networks. Several U.S. educated members are among the higher ranks of al Qaeda, and their campaigns over the Internet have been instrumental in recruiting American Muslims.
A notable example in this case is the American-educated Anwar Al Awlaki (euphemized as the bin Laden of the Internet), who has been rallying support among disillusioned Muslims in the United States through his blog, a Facebook page and numerous YouTube videos. He is reported to be targeting educated American Muslims due to his command over English and ability to empathize with causes such as that of Palestine.
Al Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. His sermons were also attended by accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. U.S. intelligence intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki in the months prior to the Fort Hood shooting, including one in which Hasan wrote, "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]." In March 2010, Al Awlaki said in a videotape that jihad against America was binding upon every able Muslim. His fluency with English has led to him being considered more dangerous than Zawahiri or bin Laden himself, with whom he is often compared, as he does not need subtitles on his videos to indoctrinate young people in the West.
Ironically, U.S. involvement in the War of Terror has provided enough fodder to the jihadi front to campaign against American hegemony among the Muslims in America. Videos of bin Laden and Al Awlaki and their continued escape from U.S. forces have given them a cult status and a huge fan following. It is this mass appeal that the United States will find hard to destroy in the long run. The deep seated perceptions and attitudes among the Muslim and non-Muslim communities about each other have helped fuel a small but growing number of Americans more susceptible to extremist ideology.
U.S. counterterrorism agencies have woken up to the harsh reality of dealing with radical Islamists closer to home than ever before. However, steps to counter this threat are vague and far from being well defined. It is evident that the real threat is not the amateur homemade explosives and random shootings, but the ideology that gives birth to such radicalization. The government must, therefore, deal with the ideological prejudices among and against Muslims. The government must bring itself closer to the Muslim communities instead of trying to curb their civil liberties, as has been the case especially in airline security checks that sow more discord among the community against the United States. American Muslims cannot be treated as the enemies. They, in fact, have a vested interest in the fight against terrorism, as it would help restore the tarnished image of their community.
Thus, a nationwide, coordinated, community partnership framework is the real solution to the issue of domestic terrorism. The local leaders of the Muslim community must be brought to the table to talk with law enforcement, especially counter terrorism officials. Meetings should be conducted on a regular basis with all stakeholders and decision makers both from the government and the Muslim community.
The next logical step is to use this partnership to gather intelligence on future terror plots, extremist campaigning in mosques, community centers and other such gatherings. This would remove the need for law enforcement to be present in areas that would hurt Muslim religious sentiments. The communities are best suited to report unusual occurrences and radical propaganda, and they need to be educated in reporting it quickly. The law enforcement officials, on the other hand, need to be educated in Islamic customs, providing them religious and linguistic insight into the intelligence they receive and how best to deal with it without arousing violent reactions from within the community. A clear understanding of Islam is therefore indispensable to law enforcement in its fight against terror.
It is obvious that a mere drain of trillions of tax dollars into the bottomless pits of Afghanistan is not sufficient to combat the terror threat that America faces today. A multi-pronged counterterrorism strategy focussing both on terrorist bases abroad as well as involving the Muslim community in the United States to work in coordination with the counterterrorism agencies is the key. The United States will remain safe from radical Islamist terrorism only by implementing a strategy based on intelligence (as opposed to knee-jerk reactions) and coordinated law enforcement conducted in a pro-active and sustainable partnership with the American Muslim community.
The U.S. government reported 46 incidents of domestic radicalization and recruitment between 2001 and 2009, and that does not include half a dozen other incidents that might have happened away from government eyes. The efficiency of U.S. Homeland Security has been called into question numerous times by several bombing attempts and shootouts. The number and sophistication of the attacks have increased over the years, as it is evident from the Congressional report that states that there were an average of six attacks per year, and 13 in 2009. Only 25 percent of the identified plots were traced back to links with major organizations such as al Qaeda, but an analysis paper from the Bipartisan Policy Center points out that an increasing number of radicals are playing high-level operational roles in al Qaeda and allied groups.
The most popular and publicized of them have occurred in the last year: the Fort Hood shooting that shook the morale of moderate Muslims living in the United States, the failed attack of the Christmas-day bomber and most recently the Times square bomb. The last two were thwarted, not due to any specific pre-eminence on the part of the authorities, but rather due to technical incompetence in planning, design and execution of the plot. It is wishful thinking to believe that the terrorists, whether home-grown or foreign, would remain restricted to dirty bombs forever.
While the heavily funded War on Terror aims to deal with terrorism from abroad, the United States knows it cannot launch a similar campaign to weed out domestic terrorism, which is not merely financially but also ideologically funded by organized networks. Several U.S. educated members are among the higher ranks of al Qaeda, and their campaigns over the Internet have been instrumental in recruiting American Muslims.
A notable example in this case is the American-educated Anwar Al Awlaki (euphemized as the bin Laden of the Internet), who has been rallying support among disillusioned Muslims in the United States through his blog, a Facebook page and numerous YouTube videos. He is reported to be targeting educated American Muslims due to his command over English and ability to empathize with causes such as that of Palestine.
Al Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. His sermons were also attended by accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. U.S. intelligence intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki in the months prior to the Fort Hood shooting, including one in which Hasan wrote, "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]." In March 2010, Al Awlaki said in a videotape that jihad against America was binding upon every able Muslim. His fluency with English has led to him being considered more dangerous than Zawahiri or bin Laden himself, with whom he is often compared, as he does not need subtitles on his videos to indoctrinate young people in the West.
Ironically, U.S. involvement in the War of Terror has provided enough fodder to the jihadi front to campaign against American hegemony among the Muslims in America. Videos of bin Laden and Al Awlaki and their continued escape from U.S. forces have given them a cult status and a huge fan following. It is this mass appeal that the United States will find hard to destroy in the long run. The deep seated perceptions and attitudes among the Muslim and non-Muslim communities about each other have helped fuel a small but growing number of Americans more susceptible to extremist ideology.
U.S. counterterrorism agencies have woken up to the harsh reality of dealing with radical Islamists closer to home than ever before. However, steps to counter this threat are vague and far from being well defined. It is evident that the real threat is not the amateur homemade explosives and random shootings, but the ideology that gives birth to such radicalization. The government must, therefore, deal with the ideological prejudices among and against Muslims. The government must bring itself closer to the Muslim communities instead of trying to curb their civil liberties, as has been the case especially in airline security checks that sow more discord among the community against the United States. American Muslims cannot be treated as the enemies. They, in fact, have a vested interest in the fight against terrorism, as it would help restore the tarnished image of their community.
Thus, a nationwide, coordinated, community partnership framework is the real solution to the issue of domestic terrorism. The local leaders of the Muslim community must be brought to the table to talk with law enforcement, especially counter terrorism officials. Meetings should be conducted on a regular basis with all stakeholders and decision makers both from the government and the Muslim community.
The next logical step is to use this partnership to gather intelligence on future terror plots, extremist campaigning in mosques, community centers and other such gatherings. This would remove the need for law enforcement to be present in areas that would hurt Muslim religious sentiments. The communities are best suited to report unusual occurrences and radical propaganda, and they need to be educated in reporting it quickly. The law enforcement officials, on the other hand, need to be educated in Islamic customs, providing them religious and linguistic insight into the intelligence they receive and how best to deal with it without arousing violent reactions from within the community. A clear understanding of Islam is therefore indispensable to law enforcement in its fight against terror.
It is obvious that a mere drain of trillions of tax dollars into the bottomless pits of Afghanistan is not sufficient to combat the terror threat that America faces today. A multi-pronged counterterrorism strategy focussing both on terrorist bases abroad as well as involving the Muslim community in the United States to work in coordination with the counterterrorism agencies is the key. The United States will remain safe from radical Islamist terrorism only by implementing a strategy based on intelligence (as opposed to knee-jerk reactions) and coordinated law enforcement conducted in a pro-active and sustainable partnership with the American Muslim community.
Russia joins WTO- Win-Win for all
By signing an MoU on economic issues with the European Union, Russia has moved all the more closer to joining the WTO. Despite the usual norm of 5-7 years required for a country’s accession into WTO, in Russia’s case the negotiations have lasted for over 17 years and it appears that Russia would join the WTO in 2011.
Presently, Russia happens to be the largest economy outside the WTO and the seventh largest in the world. Russia applied for membership in the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in 1993 but the negotiations remained half-hearted until Putin took the reins in 2000. The three years that followed saw energetic attempts to bring Russia inside the WTO. There were several factors behind Russia’s inching towards the WTO.
The most important of them was the intellectual maturity in Russia regarding the benefits of joining the WTO among the internationally oriented Russian economists and politicians after they witnessed the importance given to China after it joined the WTO. Secondly, there have been structural changes in the composition of Russian exports. The share of raw materials such as oil and natural gas has come down (In percentage terms) as compared to that of intermediary goods such as metals and chemicals. As a result, Russian steel industry has been consolidated with four of the biggest companies having a share of 80% in the total steel exports. But these firms face import quota restrictions from the EU which would no longer exist after Russia becomes a member of WTO. The chemical exports face dumping penalties in EU. Lobbying by these newly affluent groups is the main factor behind Russia’s increased efforts to join WTO. At this juncture, it would be wise to look into the benefits for both Russia and the rest of the world out of Russia’s entry into the WTO.
Russia is already a market economy and so WTO membership does not signify sweeping systemic changes as was the case with China. In spite of this, Russian entry into WTO would, as mentioned earlier, lead to increased demand for exports of metals and chemicals, thus expanding these sectors. At the same time, manufacturers would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. This would dramatically improve quality and efficiency in these sectors. Russia has maintained its stand on having a huge gap between the price of oil and natural gas in its domestic market and for exports. Though there is an agreement on increasing the domestic prices in the long run to match the marginal costs of Gazprom, there is no immediate commitment to do so thus not radicalizing the Russian public against this move. Surprisingly, the most significant effect (about 72 percent of the total medium-term welfare gains) will come not from improved market access but from Russia's own domestic liberalization of barriers to FDI in the business services sector (transportation, financial, and telecommunications). Russian total WTO-way trade in manufactures could double from $187 billion (in 2005) to $352 billion (based on the Rose Gravity Model calculations). In addition to this, Russia will benefit from the security that comes from trading with other members on the basis of an established legal framework, and on the market access commitments of the existing members of WTO. Russia will also be able to use the WTO's binding dispute settlement mechanism to resolve any disputes that might arise out of its engagement with WTO. Thus, despite concerns from the agricultural and domestic manufacturing sectors such as food processing and light industries which would face a stiff competition from imports if the economy is opened up, it is a fact that Russia stands to gain as a whole and Russian GDP is expected to expand by more than 3% by 2014.
As the European Union is by far Russia's biggest trade partner accounting for more than a third of all Russian imports and exports of goods, the European Union stands to gain greatly from Russia's accession to the WTO. In the first half of this decade, the West was understandably paranoid about the weaknesses in the Russian legal system due to its lack of transparency. But Putin’s efforts bore fruit as a new tax and customs code were introduced and other state laws were brought to conformity with WTO regulations in 2003. Eventually, Russia underwent a paradigm shift in its trade relations as the US followed by the EU declared Russia a market economy, a distinction even existing WTO member China is yet to achieve. As of now, Western complaints about Russia are few as Russia is already a free economy with average tariffs of a mere 11%. The West stands to gain considerably from this engagement as opening up of the booming Russian services sector combined with the supremacy of the West in this area would reap them huge harvests. The weak sectors in Russia such as food processing and light industries would serve as a huge market for US imports into Russia. This also stands to foster better relations between the erstwhile Cold War enemies. The US however, would need to amend the Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 to reap the benefits of opening up of the Russian market.
Moreover, this is probably the best opportunity the West might get in assuming a role in defining the functioning of renationalized Russian enterprises such as Gazprom, Rosneft and Transneft, which dominate the energy sector. On the diplomatic front, the West can use this as a leveraging option to mediate and resolve the Russian embargo on Georgia and Moldova. Most importantly, it will enable the West to demand enforcement should Russia renege on its commitments to WTO. Being a part of WTO will also coax Russia to improve law and order thus limiting corruption which is good for both Russia and the world.
As stated by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Russia’s accession to the WTO “is a paramount step forward and a step the world is closely watching.” It is a big win-win for both Russia as a trillion dollar economy that is literally next door to the vibrant economies of the EU and the WTO, which controls around 93% of the global trade.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20101211115333zzzz.nb/topstory.html
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/3666.cfm
http://www.einnews.com/search.php?keywords=jeysundhar&makesearch=yes
Presently, Russia happens to be the largest economy outside the WTO and the seventh largest in the world. Russia applied for membership in the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in 1993 but the negotiations remained half-hearted until Putin took the reins in 2000. The three years that followed saw energetic attempts to bring Russia inside the WTO. There were several factors behind Russia’s inching towards the WTO.
The most important of them was the intellectual maturity in Russia regarding the benefits of joining the WTO among the internationally oriented Russian economists and politicians after they witnessed the importance given to China after it joined the WTO. Secondly, there have been structural changes in the composition of Russian exports. The share of raw materials such as oil and natural gas has come down (In percentage terms) as compared to that of intermediary goods such as metals and chemicals. As a result, Russian steel industry has been consolidated with four of the biggest companies having a share of 80% in the total steel exports. But these firms face import quota restrictions from the EU which would no longer exist after Russia becomes a member of WTO. The chemical exports face dumping penalties in EU. Lobbying by these newly affluent groups is the main factor behind Russia’s increased efforts to join WTO. At this juncture, it would be wise to look into the benefits for both Russia and the rest of the world out of Russia’s entry into the WTO.
Russia is already a market economy and so WTO membership does not signify sweeping systemic changes as was the case with China. In spite of this, Russian entry into WTO would, as mentioned earlier, lead to increased demand for exports of metals and chemicals, thus expanding these sectors. At the same time, manufacturers would have to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. This would dramatically improve quality and efficiency in these sectors. Russia has maintained its stand on having a huge gap between the price of oil and natural gas in its domestic market and for exports. Though there is an agreement on increasing the domestic prices in the long run to match the marginal costs of Gazprom, there is no immediate commitment to do so thus not radicalizing the Russian public against this move. Surprisingly, the most significant effect (about 72 percent of the total medium-term welfare gains) will come not from improved market access but from Russia's own domestic liberalization of barriers to FDI in the business services sector (transportation, financial, and telecommunications). Russian total WTO-way trade in manufactures could double from $187 billion (in 2005) to $352 billion (based on the Rose Gravity Model calculations). In addition to this, Russia will benefit from the security that comes from trading with other members on the basis of an established legal framework, and on the market access commitments of the existing members of WTO. Russia will also be able to use the WTO's binding dispute settlement mechanism to resolve any disputes that might arise out of its engagement with WTO. Thus, despite concerns from the agricultural and domestic manufacturing sectors such as food processing and light industries which would face a stiff competition from imports if the economy is opened up, it is a fact that Russia stands to gain as a whole and Russian GDP is expected to expand by more than 3% by 2014.
As the European Union is by far Russia's biggest trade partner accounting for more than a third of all Russian imports and exports of goods, the European Union stands to gain greatly from Russia's accession to the WTO. In the first half of this decade, the West was understandably paranoid about the weaknesses in the Russian legal system due to its lack of transparency. But Putin’s efforts bore fruit as a new tax and customs code were introduced and other state laws were brought to conformity with WTO regulations in 2003. Eventually, Russia underwent a paradigm shift in its trade relations as the US followed by the EU declared Russia a market economy, a distinction even existing WTO member China is yet to achieve. As of now, Western complaints about Russia are few as Russia is already a free economy with average tariffs of a mere 11%. The West stands to gain considerably from this engagement as opening up of the booming Russian services sector combined with the supremacy of the West in this area would reap them huge harvests. The weak sectors in Russia such as food processing and light industries would serve as a huge market for US imports into Russia. This also stands to foster better relations between the erstwhile Cold War enemies. The US however, would need to amend the Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 to reap the benefits of opening up of the Russian market.
Moreover, this is probably the best opportunity the West might get in assuming a role in defining the functioning of renationalized Russian enterprises such as Gazprom, Rosneft and Transneft, which dominate the energy sector. On the diplomatic front, the West can use this as a leveraging option to mediate and resolve the Russian embargo on Georgia and Moldova. Most importantly, it will enable the West to demand enforcement should Russia renege on its commitments to WTO. Being a part of WTO will also coax Russia to improve law and order thus limiting corruption which is good for both Russia and the world.
As stated by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Russia’s accession to the WTO “is a paramount step forward and a step the world is closely watching.” It is a big win-win for both Russia as a trillion dollar economy that is literally next door to the vibrant economies of the EU and the WTO, which controls around 93% of the global trade.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20101211115333zzzz.nb/topstory.html
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/3666.cfm
http://www.einnews.com/search.php?keywords=jeysundhar&makesearch=yes
Stop Appeasing China Now
The last decade has borne witness to the decline of the West coupled with the rise of the Asian giants, China and India. The concept of carrot and stick, once expertly used by the United States has now found an able wielder in China. Chinese hard power, especially, has become a game changer for meeting the future resource demands of the country through buying and bullying dictatorships in Africa. The Middle Kingdom, with its coffers enriched by a booming trade, is capable of and willing to muscle its way through, in order to ensure that its demands are met.
In the last few years and especially since the Beijing Olympics, China’s diplomatic and military assertiveness have been amply aided by its powerful economic muscle. This new-found confidence, not to mention that China was always vocal in voicing its demands, has its roots in the success of China’s pressure tactics during the Beijing Olympics. While various countries protested against choosing China as the venue keeping in mind China’s role in the Darfur conflict, support to the Myanmar’s Junta, and most important of all, the oppression of Tibetan activists, countries like France were planning a boycott of the Games. China blatantly threatened these boycotters with economic consequences and one by one, they gave in. Despite reports of restrictions placed on journalists, civil unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang, IOC President Jacques Rogge claimed that the Games had been truly exceptional.
The success of these pressure tactics has convinced China of their effectiveness, and this has been reflected in several of China’s moves. The aggressive show put up during the 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of the PRC was a feast to the Chinese PLA and a concealed threat to the West. It dealt a death blow to the “peaceful rise of China” rhetoric often stated by Chinese leadership in global forums. China also used it economic clout to resolve the border dispute with Russia with the latter ceding a small amount of territory. This paved the way for the completion of the ESPO oil pipeline supplying 15 million tonnes of oil per year for 20 years in exchange for a loan to Russian companies. China’s arm twisting was also visible in an effort made by the European countries to lift the arms embargo but was thwarted by the United States. The United States has, though, been unable to prevent the smuggling of technology from Pakistan to China.
Now that we talk about the US, it is worth mentioning that around 60% of China’s $2.5 trillion forex reserves are held in US government and institutional bonds. Never has the US owed so much money to any one single country. This is playing a definite role in shaping US’ China policy. This policy has seen greater shift under Obama who is trying to reconcile with China on several issues. Despite repeated mention of the issue of deliberate undervaluing of the Remnimbi and human right violations in Tibet, the US has restrained itself from lodging a formal complaint in WTO and top diplomats rarely, if ever, mention the Tibet issue while visiting China. The US stance in recent times has been one of non-intervention in China’s internal matters.
Japan’s case has been no different. Traditionally upfront and steady in its China policy, Japan had to bow down and give way in the recent spat over the arrest of a Chinese captain for trespassing into its waters. This has, in a twisted way, legitimized Chinese territorial claims in the East China Sea. Japan faced the classical Case 22 whereby it had to either swallow its national pride or risk losing the lifeline of its hybrid automobile industry. Japan, as in the case of all other countries that had conflicts with China, chose the former. China’s efforts in blocking the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony to express its objection to the prize awarded to Liu Xiaobao went in vain. Eventually, China has mounted a diplomatic campaign to prevent countries from attending the ceremony. As a result, countries such as Russia, Cuba, Iraq, Kazakhstan have decided not to be represented at the ceremony.
These successes have boosted China’s aspirations and ambitions and it has effectively started believing more in the stick than in the carrot. In fact, China wants the whole world to feed it with carrots while it uses the stick on all of them. And till now, the powers-that-be have complied. But there is an increasing consensus among analysts that this dangerous trend needs to stop. The Cold war saw a similar posturing by the US to exercise its will in the Third World, toppling independent governments, installing puppet democracies, utter disregard to human rights if there were economic and strategic interests involved et al. A sense of strategic déjà vu has been felt in international circles and the world, wearied by economic slowdowns and recessions certainly is not ready for conflict on a scale as large as the wars in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The success of China’s pressure tactics, if allowed to continue, will snowball into even more unpalatable behaviour from China and will set a dangerous precedent in the way countries resolve disputes. It is high time that the Chinese impression regarding its economic muscle being a panacea for its problems is negated. Now, who bells the cat? And how do we go about it?
The world powers, including the US and EU, can make a start by showing full presence at the Oslo Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremony and thwarting China’s attempts to torpedo the event. The international community needs to reject the Chinese pressure, whatever be the immediate consequences, keeping in mind their long term national security in mind. The world also needs to show China that the factory needs the market as much as the market needs the factory or perhaps even more. This would place an effective check on China’s ambitions and aggressive measures. China’s neighbour and the other Asian giant, India needs to send a clear message to China by canvassing support for the Tibetan cause as well as for freeing Liu Xiaobao before the awards ceremony. India has already taken the first step in this regard when it did not stop the Dalai Lama from visiting Arunachal Pradesh despite repeated denouncements from China. The recent announcement by India that it would be attending the ceremony is a harbinger of times to come. Those countries that have, as of now, indicated against attending the ceremony should take India’s lead in the issue It is therefore important and imperative to send a message across to China that it cannot use its bullying tactics any longer.
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/3663.cfm
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=9255
http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/10849
http://newsblaze.com/story/20101210044622zzzz.nb/topstory.html
http://www.modernghana.com/news/307956/1/stop-appeasing-china-now.html
http://news1.ghananation.com/vivvo_general/59929-stop-appeasing-china-now.html
http://www.einnews.com/search.php?keywords=jeysundhar&makesearch=yes
In the last few years and especially since the Beijing Olympics, China’s diplomatic and military assertiveness have been amply aided by its powerful economic muscle. This new-found confidence, not to mention that China was always vocal in voicing its demands, has its roots in the success of China’s pressure tactics during the Beijing Olympics. While various countries protested against choosing China as the venue keeping in mind China’s role in the Darfur conflict, support to the Myanmar’s Junta, and most important of all, the oppression of Tibetan activists, countries like France were planning a boycott of the Games. China blatantly threatened these boycotters with economic consequences and one by one, they gave in. Despite reports of restrictions placed on journalists, civil unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang, IOC President Jacques Rogge claimed that the Games had been truly exceptional.
The success of these pressure tactics has convinced China of their effectiveness, and this has been reflected in several of China’s moves. The aggressive show put up during the 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of the PRC was a feast to the Chinese PLA and a concealed threat to the West. It dealt a death blow to the “peaceful rise of China” rhetoric often stated by Chinese leadership in global forums. China also used it economic clout to resolve the border dispute with Russia with the latter ceding a small amount of territory. This paved the way for the completion of the ESPO oil pipeline supplying 15 million tonnes of oil per year for 20 years in exchange for a loan to Russian companies. China’s arm twisting was also visible in an effort made by the European countries to lift the arms embargo but was thwarted by the United States. The United States has, though, been unable to prevent the smuggling of technology from Pakistan to China.
Now that we talk about the US, it is worth mentioning that around 60% of China’s $2.5 trillion forex reserves are held in US government and institutional bonds. Never has the US owed so much money to any one single country. This is playing a definite role in shaping US’ China policy. This policy has seen greater shift under Obama who is trying to reconcile with China on several issues. Despite repeated mention of the issue of deliberate undervaluing of the Remnimbi and human right violations in Tibet, the US has restrained itself from lodging a formal complaint in WTO and top diplomats rarely, if ever, mention the Tibet issue while visiting China. The US stance in recent times has been one of non-intervention in China’s internal matters.
Japan’s case has been no different. Traditionally upfront and steady in its China policy, Japan had to bow down and give way in the recent spat over the arrest of a Chinese captain for trespassing into its waters. This has, in a twisted way, legitimized Chinese territorial claims in the East China Sea. Japan faced the classical Case 22 whereby it had to either swallow its national pride or risk losing the lifeline of its hybrid automobile industry. Japan, as in the case of all other countries that had conflicts with China, chose the former. China’s efforts in blocking the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony to express its objection to the prize awarded to Liu Xiaobao went in vain. Eventually, China has mounted a diplomatic campaign to prevent countries from attending the ceremony. As a result, countries such as Russia, Cuba, Iraq, Kazakhstan have decided not to be represented at the ceremony.
These successes have boosted China’s aspirations and ambitions and it has effectively started believing more in the stick than in the carrot. In fact, China wants the whole world to feed it with carrots while it uses the stick on all of them. And till now, the powers-that-be have complied. But there is an increasing consensus among analysts that this dangerous trend needs to stop. The Cold war saw a similar posturing by the US to exercise its will in the Third World, toppling independent governments, installing puppet democracies, utter disregard to human rights if there were economic and strategic interests involved et al. A sense of strategic déjà vu has been felt in international circles and the world, wearied by economic slowdowns and recessions certainly is not ready for conflict on a scale as large as the wars in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The success of China’s pressure tactics, if allowed to continue, will snowball into even more unpalatable behaviour from China and will set a dangerous precedent in the way countries resolve disputes. It is high time that the Chinese impression regarding its economic muscle being a panacea for its problems is negated. Now, who bells the cat? And how do we go about it?
The world powers, including the US and EU, can make a start by showing full presence at the Oslo Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremony and thwarting China’s attempts to torpedo the event. The international community needs to reject the Chinese pressure, whatever be the immediate consequences, keeping in mind their long term national security in mind. The world also needs to show China that the factory needs the market as much as the market needs the factory or perhaps even more. This would place an effective check on China’s ambitions and aggressive measures. China’s neighbour and the other Asian giant, India needs to send a clear message to China by canvassing support for the Tibetan cause as well as for freeing Liu Xiaobao before the awards ceremony. India has already taken the first step in this regard when it did not stop the Dalai Lama from visiting Arunachal Pradesh despite repeated denouncements from China. The recent announcement by India that it would be attending the ceremony is a harbinger of times to come. Those countries that have, as of now, indicated against attending the ceremony should take India’s lead in the issue It is therefore important and imperative to send a message across to China that it cannot use its bullying tactics any longer.
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/3663.cfm
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=9255
http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/10849
http://newsblaze.com/story/20101210044622zzzz.nb/topstory.html
http://www.modernghana.com/news/307956/1/stop-appeasing-china-now.html
http://news1.ghananation.com/vivvo_general/59929-stop-appeasing-china-now.html
http://www.einnews.com/search.php?keywords=jeysundhar&makesearch=yes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)