Encircle China foreign policy? Hilary Clinton capitalises on opening Burma, a likely scenario of balancing act

US has seized on the opportunity of perceived loosening grip by the Burma's repressive regime to satisfy its pent up urge to engage the closed nation it has politically ostracised for too long.

http://www.globalpost.com/photo/5682866/burma-myanmar-clinton-military-hunta-economy-china-us-28-20111129

Aung San Suu Kyi who has been a darling of the West is treading carefully. She seem to have come around to accepting that stable transition to democracy must incorporate elements of the current military junta, the bureaucracy, intellectuals and diaspora. No one should be sidelined or left out in a "regime change" or else all hell breaks loose.

An "independent" Myanmar (Burma) does not logically lead to alienation of China from its foreign relations equation. A more balanced policy will reassure future Burmese government that it could play one party against another to extract the most economic benefits without jeopardising its security and national interests.

Some commentators speculate that China is fearful that Burma is looking West.  The US has denied this : engagement is not about China.  The unease is understandable. Not surprisingly, the US has been meddling in regional affairs by making inroads to Third World countries whenever the opportunity beckons.
A stable and neutral Burma will be beneficial not only to China but the rest of Southeast Asia.

Quote :

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping welcomed Hlaing to Beijing with a reminder that the two countries’ friendship had “endured the test of time through sudden international changes.”

Burma appears in the midst of such a change now, as the new nominally civilian government that took over the reins from the military last March releases political prisoners, reaches out to ethnic minorities to end years of violence, and tests a political opening in talks with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

China has been a lifeline for Burma, ruled by military dictatorships since 1962 and especially isolated since most nations slapped sanctions on the government after it cracked down brutally on a pro-democracy uprising in 1988.

Now “we want to have a regular relationship” with the United States, the powerful speaker of the Burmese parliament and former member of the military junta Shwe Mann told reporters on Friday.

The government’s foreign policy would be based on “peaceful coexistence with all nations,” Mr. Mann said, insisting that “there is no reason to have worse relations between Myanmar and China when Myanmar and US relations get better.” Myanmar is the government’s official name for Burma.

Such a policy would mark a return to Burma’s traditional neutrality, an understandable approach given the country’s sensitive geographical location, squeezed between Asia’s two giants, India and China, and flanked by Thailand, a strong US ally.

Since international sanctions isolated the country, Burmese governments have had little option but to depend on China for trade, weaponry, and diplomatic support in the United Nations. Chinese businesses, private and state owned, have poured $12.3 billion into Burma, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese have settled in Burma.

There had been signs even before the military stood down that nationalist generals were unhappy with this state of affairs. Now the new government, dominated by former senior military men who have swapped their uniforms for suits, has stepped away from China in symbolic ways.

Most notable was the decision last September to suspend a $3.6 billion Chinese dam construction project in northern Burma that had sparked considerable local opposition. Of the hydropower due to be generated by the Myitsone dam, 90 percent was to be sent to China.

Though the new Burmese authorities appear keen to re-orient the country’s foreign policy, few observers expect them to cast off ties with their powerful and influential leader. Rather, they will walk a tightrope between Washington and Beijing.

“It would be insane to think that Burma needs to choose one over the other,” prominent Burmese historian Thant Myint-U recently told The Irawaddy, an independent online newspaper published by Burmese exiles. “Burma is the last country that can afford to have bad relations with either the US or China.” 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/1129/What-will-happen-to-China-as-Burma-Myanmar-gets-closer-with-Vietnam-US

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/myanmar-engagement-not-china-u-says-071758521.html

Washington may be handicapped by its detachment and hence lack of understanding of Burma's motivations. Foremost, Burma's suspicions of foreigners in view of its long policy of isolation following independence from British colonial rule which has raked much of its natural resources. It also has a poor track record of calculated relationship and unreliability, not hesitating to cut and run when things do not turn out as well as they had hoped for. For US to replace China as Burma's main sponsor and trade partner would take more than just smiles and handshakes from Hilary Clinton.

Acupuncture actually works - placebo, fake and real, more studies needed for ancient medical therapy

The jury is still out.  Eastern medicine and therapies differ from the approach taken by modern medicine.  


So far clinical studies have limited by numbers of subjects and types of illness. 


There are few double blind tests undertaken to rule out or measure the extent of placebo and medical efficacy. 


Few researches bother to track the longer term effects of "placebo" and the progress of patients with chronic diseases.


Not enough studies have been done. Sceptics should learn about acupuncture before jumping to conclusions yet.


Decoding Ancient Therapy


Acupuncture has long baffled medical experts and no wonder: It holds that an invisible life force called qi (pronounced chee) travels up and down the body in 14 meridians. Illness and pain are due to blockages and imbalances in qi. Inserting thin needles into the body at precise points can unblock the meridians, practitioners believe, and treat everything from arthritis and asthma to anxiety, acne and infertility.

As fanciful as that seems, acupuncture does have real effects on the human body, which scientists are documenting using high-tech tools. Neuroimaging studies show that it seems to calm areas of the brain that register pain and activate those involved in rest and recuperation. Doppler ultrasound shows that acupuncture increases blood flow in treated areas. Thermal imaging shows that it can make inflammation subside.

Scientists are also finding parallels between the ancient concepts and modern anatomy. Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves. "If people have a heart attack, the pain will radiate up across the chest and down the left arm. That's where the heart meridian goes," says Peter Dorsher, a specialist in pain management and rehabilitation at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. "Gallbladder pain will radiate to the right upper shoulder, just where the gallbladder meridian goes."

Many medical experts remain deeply skeptical about acupuncture, of course, and studies of its effectiveness have been mixed. "Something measurable is happening when you stick a needle into a patient—that doesn't impress me at all," says Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter in England and co-author of the book, "Trick or Treatment." Acupuncture "clearly has a very strong placebo effect. Whether it does anything else, the jury is still out."

Even so, the use of acupuncture continues to spread—often alongside conventional medicine. U.S. Navy, Air Force and Army doctors are using acupuncture to treat musculoskeletal problems, pain and stress in stateside hospitals and combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Delegations from Acupuncturists Without Borders are holding communal ear-needling sessions to reduce stress among earthquake victims in Haiti. Major medical centers—from M.D. Anderson in Houston to Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York—use acupuncture to counteract the side effects of chemotherapy.

In a 2007 survey, 3.2 million Americans had undergone acupuncture in the past year—up from 2.1 million in 2001, according to the government's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

The most common uses are for chronic pain conditions like arthritis, lower back pain and headaches, as well as fatigue, anxiety and digestive problems, often when conventional medicine fails. At about $50 per session, it's relatively inexpensive and covered by some insurers.

It is also generally safe. About 10% of patients experience some bleeding at the needle sites, although in very rare cases, fatalities have occurred due to infections or injury to vital organs, mostly due to inexperienced practitioners.

Most states require that acupuncturists be licensed, and the Food and Drug Administration requires that needles be new and sterile.

Diagnoses are complicated. An acupuncturist will examine a patient's tongue and take three different pulses on each wrist, as well as asking questions about digestion, sleep and other habits, before determining which meridians may be blocked and where to place the needles. The 14 meridians are thought to be based on the rivers of China, and the 365 points may represent the days of the year. "Invaders" such as wind, cold, heat, dampness, dryness factor into illness, so can five phases known as fire, earth, metal, water and wood.

"It's not like there's a Merck Manual for acupuncture," says Joseph M. Helms, who has trained some 4,000 physicians in acupuncture at his institute in Berkeley, Calif. "Every case is evaluated on an individual basis, based on the presentation of the patient and the knowledge of the acupuncturist."

Dr. Helms notes that Western doctors also examine a patient's tongue for signs of illness. As for qi, he says, while the word doesn't exist in Western medicine, there are similar concepts. "We'll say, 'A 27-year-old female appears moribund; she doesn't respond to stimuli. Or an 85-year old woman is exhibiting a vacant stare.' We're talking about the same energy and vitality, we're just not making it a unique category that we quantify."

Studies in the early 1980s found that acupuncture works in part by stimulating the release of endorphins, the body's natural feel-good chemicals, much like vigorous exercise does. Now, a growing body of research suggests that it may have several mechanisms of action. Those include stimulating blood flow and tissue repair at the needle sites and sending nerve signals to the brain that regulate the perception of pain and reboot the autonomic nervous system, which governs unconscious functions such as heart beat, respiration and digestion, according to Alejandro Elorriaga, director of the medical acupuncture program at McMaster University in Ontario, which teaches a contemporary version to physicians. 

"You can think Western, you can think Eastern. As long as your needle goes to the nerve, you will get some effect," Dr. Elorriaga says.

What's more, an odd phenomenon occurs when acupuncture needles are inserted into the body and rotated: Connective tissue wraps around them like spaghetti around a fork, according to ultrasound studies at the University of Vermont. Helene Langevin, research associate professor of neurology, says this action stretches cells in the connective tissue much like massage and yoga do, and may act like acupuncture meridians to send signals throughout the body. "That's what we're hoping to study next," she says.

Meanwhile, neuroimaging studies at the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have shown that acupuncture affects a network of systems in the brain, including decreasing activity in the limbic system, the emotional part of the brain, and activating it in the parts of the brain that typically light up when the brain is at rest.

Other studies at the Martinos Center have shown that patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, a painful compression of nerves in the wrist, have heightened activity in parts of the brain that regulate sensation and fear, but after acupuncture, their brain patterns more closely resemble those of healthy subjects. Brain scans of patients with fibromyalgia show that both acupuncture and sham acupuncture (using real needles on random points in the body) cause the release of endorphins. But real acupuncture also increased the number of receptors for pain-reducing neurotransmitters, bringing patients even more relief.

The fact that many patients get some relief and register some brain changes from fake acupuncture has caused controversy in designing clinical trials. Some critics say that proves that what patients think of as benefit from acupuncture is mainly the placebo effect. Acupuncture proponents counter that placebos that too closely mimic the treatment experience may have a real benefit.

"I don't see any disconnect between how acupuncture works and how a placebo works," says radiologist Vitaly Napadow at the Martinos center. "The body knows how to heal itself. That's what a placebo does, too."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137872667749264.html

More readings :

http://www.healthandgoodness.com/article/acupuncture-placebo-effect.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8168134/Acupunctures-effect-isnt-just-psychological.html

Global Times' popularity - social outlet, propaganda or conscience of the people - frank and outspoken Hu Xijin demolishes myth of simplistic China - meaning of democracy, human rights, sovereignty

Hu Xijin is the editor-in-chief of Global Times, often regarded as one of the "mouthpieces" of the Chinese government (aka communist party in western press). 


China is a huge multicultural country with wide economic and social disparities which need to be addressed efficiently. It is easy to point fingers especially coming from those who do not know Chinese history and local conditions well. China is more complex than outsider's simplistic viewpoint.  Development takes time - this is nothing compared to the thousands of years of Chinese history. It pays to be patient is the wise message to hot heads. 


This is a frank interview with Hu Xijin. No political rhetoric, just plain words from the heart of a Chinese. 

Quote :


Hu: I respect the voices on weibo, but I don’t think the voices on weibo represent the whole of China. Weibo only gathers people of the same mind. These people are active but they are not the mainstream. If the majority of Chinese society thought I was wrong, then I would think carefully if I should change. The Global Times is doing better and better, and its influence is getting bigger and bigger. People are still buying it even at 1.2 yuan. The circulation is huge. It means people are reading our newspaper, they agree with our position. Most people are still on my side. 

We have been touching sensitive topics in recent years, which laid the groundwork for our prompt comment on the Ai Weiwei case.

There are diverse public opinions in China. Some people try to label everything and everyone. This is not healthy. I think GT has been trying to take an impartial position on sensitive issues. But I have to admit, it’s difficult. Take Ai’s case for example. 

We wrote four editorials about Ai in a row. Maybe not every word was accurate, but the overall message was not wrong. If you have to pick a particular sentence and ask me what it means, then it’s like punishing people for their words. We can’t take things out of context. Any article would be problematic if taken out of context. 

We wrote those editorials out of China’s interest. The articles reflect our overall understanding of the world. I don’t think we should single out the government. The Chinese government is part of China. Under most circumstances, the interest of the government is the same as the interest of the people and the nation. I don’t believe the US government cares more about the well being of the Chinese people than the Chinese government does. I don’t believe that.


 It’s a simple way of putting things. The key is to understand the word “rise.” The authorities do not like this word; they prefer “development.” The foreign media like to say “China rise” and many Chinese people followed suit and grew used to it. It’s a reality for China. There are good things, such as rapid economic development, but there are weaknesses and problems too, such as the income gap. And we haven’t completely solved the theoretical questions; such as how do we connect the superiority of socialism with economic development and the fruits of a market economy. These haven’t yet been solved. The rise of China is complicated.


The China consensus is not mature, neither is the China model. At least we haven’t figured it out ourselves.
But we do walk on a different path than the West. 


We shouldn’t be obsessed with the question of whether this path is unique to China or not. That’s meaningless. No society develops completely isolated from the rest of the world. It’s impossible. In this age of globalization, we most definitely have been influenced by the West. We can’t develop without the West. Our opening up, to a large extent, has been toward the US. All kinds of Western thoughts and good things have had a positive impact on us. China can’t develop in isolation. No doubt about it. 

Yet China can’t simply copy the US or the UK. That can’t be done. China takes all the good things from different countries, puts them together, remixes them in China, and moves on from there. That’s a fact. And that’s the way it should be. What’s the population of most Western countries, tens of millions? That’s just a small province or a city in China. China is a huge truck, and the West is a go-cart. If you put someone who’s used to driving a go-cart behind the wheels of a big truck, they will feel completely different. 


 I agree that there are common universal values; human rights, freedom and democracy. Call them universal values and I agree. But the West has made these words political. The meaning of those words have gone far beyond their original concept. The situation changes when the West uses them as diplomatic tools to pressure China. In fact most Chinese people have the same understanding about whether we should have democracy and freedom. It’s just that we don’t have a consensus on how to get there. 

China is moving forward. You’d be a fool to deny it. But we can’t equate democracy with votes, one person one vote. That’s too narrow an understanding of democracy, and that’s a path designed by the West. Chinese people aren’t that stupid. We should call a spade a spade, and continue to promote democracy. 

I think human rights and sovereignty are consistent. Separating the two is the Western discourse. How can human rights in China be separated from sovereignty? Hasn’t China suffered enough throughout history over issues of sovereignty? How many people were killed by foreigners? In the past, when sovereignty was weak, the country had little say in the world. Today every country is competing to develop. The stronger their sovereignty, the bigger say the country will have. This is directly connected to human rights. Why do we set them up against each other? That’s Western discourse and Chinese intellectuals who believe it are either not thinking for themselves and following the West, or doing so deliberately out of personal interest. 


China’s national strength is still weak when compared to the West, so stressing no interference in the country’s domestic affairs is in line with China’s national interest. It’s also against China’s interest to intrude on other country’s domestic affairs.

There is only one China, there is nothing wrong with loving the country and doing one’s best to help push it forward. A friend of mine told me another story. One of his friends was rich and wanted to go to the US, so my friend said, “You will always be Chinese even in America, and you will always rely on China. If China gets better your status will rise, if not, you will be more miserable, as you won’t be accepted in that society.


The country may not be perfect but why belittle it?

This is how I feel. The US doesn’t need us to defend its interest as other people do. China has finally grabbed the chance to develop and is very likely to succeed. There are people saying online that China is messy, I agree and I have said so in an editorial. Sometimes we don’t know whether to love or hate the country seeing all the problems, but once I see hope and the progress that’s been made, I choose to love it and protect it.


Full report of the interview with Hu Xijin :
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/663853/China-is-complicated.aspx

The fact is that majority of people do not want to rock the boat does not mean that they are ignorant or have been subdued or brainwashed. 


Self-righteous humanists, please give more respect and credit to the intelligence of Chinese people. 

Thanksgiving - repaying gratitude with revenge? What Tibet rebels could teach native Americans about autonomy and freedom

Stories of two huge landmass : North America and China.

Pilgrims who could not adapt to the harsh winter conditions were helped by native American Indians. Thanksgiving was a gesture of gratitude. However, pilgrims decided to stay on in the land of milk and honey, and European migrants flocked to America to seize, plunder, steal from Native Indians and did not spare killing those who stood in their way.

Tibet was ruled by theocratic monastery and majority who were serfs suffered inhuman treatment.  Local feudalist lama-abbot controlled government was concerned that post-war revolutionary fervour will spread to disgruntled serfs.  There were indications of planned uprisings and internal dissension.

Following negotiations, Dalai Lama invited the People's Liberation Army to get the house in order. His Holiness was seen taking photos with Mao and attendance of plenary sessions of the national assembly during happier times.

Census showed that the population of Tibetan Autonomous increased due to stability, decline in starvation and better medical facilities, amenities and general living conditions. The slaves were freed, liberated and enjoyed equality with former serf owners.

However, Dalai Lama's inner circle and revisionists discontent with the erosion of their powers conspired to revolt against Beijing and regain power with the help of Uncle Sam. Thanks to the help of CIA, the Dalai Lama ended up in exile and could not return to his homeland which has since changed by leaps and bounds, materially and spiritually.

http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.secret.war.TIGHT.htm

http://www.reality-choice.org/134/how-cia-helped-dalai-lama-to-end-up-in-exile

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm

http://ciaintibet.com/about_project.php

The whole of China, not only Tibet and inner provinces suffered from the devastation of failed economic management and the political "cultural" revolution. Tibet was not singled out. However, for the last two decades, economic growth and policies to develop remote areas has brought about improvements and uplifting of conditions for growing numbers of people. Better communication links, infrastructure, health facilities, However, superstition and accessibility remain major obstacles to reach out to every family living in the Tibetan region.

On the other side of the globe, native American Indians live in poverty and could not get out of the rut.  But in a democracy, the government does not want to interfere in the lives of its people who should enjoy all the freedom they want. The capitalist Darwinian system does not require intervention . American presidents are more interested in garnering national support to fund democratisation of other countries. In a system where majority rules (tyranny?), the aspirations of remnant native Americans are ignored.

More than two centuries on, why don't Indians learn from dissident Tibetan Buddhist monks to exercise freedom and agitate for more help by burning themselves to have their voices heard?  Some say native Indians have pride and honour or perhaps are they are not very politicised and assertive.

Does the Dalai Lama have in mind some sort of native reserves for Tibetans?  If Americans can't redress inequalities within their own country, how could they hope to champion human rights for Tibetans unless there is a prize at the end of the tunnel.

Guo Mingyi - the modern Lei Feng, a model for Chinese people

This is a model selfless Chinese. It is very rare in today's materialistic world. Most people are too busy chasing after material wealth and neglect social and spiritual development.

More people should follow his example and come forth to serve the community. Don't give excuses, procrastinate or wait till you are rich.  There is never enough wealth for some to amass and  they don't know where is the limit.

Guo Mingyi is just an ordinary worker. But he has done many charitable, commendable and admirable deeds from whatever he could offer - blood donation and money for the needy. A humble quiet achiever is worth much more than self-serving and short-sighted arrogant individuals who only talk about great ideas but fail to achieve any common good. 

http://www.chinahumanrights.org/Messages/Focus/056/7/t20110719_770323.htm

Tibetan Monks' Suicide Mission - marginal sect's interpretation of Buddhism and politics

Monks from Kriti monastery have burnt themselves to send a message to Beijing.  They are said to be close and sympathetic to the exiled Dalai Lama and the controversial anti-government Kriti Rinpoche.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geqMJgfzWImzR1kzZ-sA7cPamEQg?docId=CNG.85d6efd89b39fb7853a1eb4f76261036.431


Self immolation is unheard of in Tibet until recently. It is also discouraged in Buddhist teachings.

It is assumed that His Highness condones such behaviour. Tibetan monks are willing suicide burners to pressure Beijing.

It is a reminder of inferno monks during the Vietnam War which caught media attention. But it was the cost of the war that led to the withdrawal, not protests.

Majority of Tibetans are now enjoying a higher standard of living, modern universal multilingual education and  temples receive huge amounts of funding from the government as well as other ethnic followers of Tibetan Buddhism. The cultural genocide charges levelled against Beijing by the Dalai Lama could not be proven or substantiated. Instead, exiled Tibetans have lost much of their cultural heritage compared to their cousins living in mainland China.

The Dalai Lama has been accused of human rights abuses, nepotism and hypocrisy by the Western Dorje Shugden. But victims endured discrimination and harassment and had not resorted to burning themselves to seek attention.

http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/files/tibetan_situation.pdf

China's Humanist Approach to Long-term Victory

How China Can Defeat America


by Yan Xuetong

Quotes :

The key to international influence was political power, and the central attribute of political power was morally informed leadership. Rulers who acted in accordance with moral norms whenever possible tended to win the race for leadership over the long term.


According to the ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi, there were three types of leadership: humane authority, hegemony and tyranny. Humane authority won the hearts and minds of the people at home and abroad. Tyranny — based on military force — inevitably created enemies. Hegemonic powers lay in between: they did not cheat the people at home or cheat allies abroad. But they were frequently indifferent to moral concerns and often used violence against non-allies. The philosophers generally agreed that humane authority would win in any competition with hegemony or tyranny.

Unfortunately, such views are not so influential in this age of economic determinism, even if governments often pay lip service to them. The Chinese government claims that the political leadership of the Communist Party is the basis of China’s economic miracle, but it often acts as though competition with the United States will be played out on the economic field alone. And in America, politicians regularly attribute progress, but never failure, to their own leadership.

Both governments must understand that political leadership, rather than throwing money at problems, will determine who wins the race for global supremacy.

How, then, can China win people’s hearts across the world? According to ancient Chinese philosophers, it must start at home. Humane authority begins by creating a desirable model at home that inspires people abroad.

This means China must shift its priorities away from economic development to establishing a harmonious society free of today’s huge gaps between rich and poor. It needs to replace money worship with traditional morality and weed out political corruption in favor of social justice and fairness.

In other countries, China must display humane authority in order to compete with the United States, which remains the world’s pre-eminent hegemonic power. Military strength underpins hegemony and helps to explain why the United States has so many allies. President Obama has made strategic mistakes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, but his actions also demonstrate that Washington is capable of leading three foreign wars simultaneously. By contrast, China’s army has not been involved in any war since 1984, with Vietnam, and very few of its high-ranking officers, let alone its soldiers, have any battlefield experience.

America enjoys much better relations with the rest of the world than China in terms of both quantity and quality. America has more than 50 formal military allies, while China has none. North Korea and Pakistan are only quasi-allies of China. The former established a formal alliance with China in 1961, but there have been no joint military maneuvers and no arms sales for decades. China and Pakistan have substantial military cooperation, but they have no formal military alliance binding them together.

To shape a friendly international environment for its rise, Beijing needs to develop more high-quality diplomatic and military relationships than Washington. No leading power is able to have friendly relations with every country in the world, thus the core of competition between China and the United States will be to see who has more high-quality friends. And in order to achieve that goal, China has to provide higher-quality moral leadership than the United States.

China must also recognize that it is a rising power and assume the responsibilities that come with that status. For example, when it comes to providing protection for weaker powers, as the United States has done in Europe and the Persian Gulf, China needs to create additional regional security arrangements with surrounding countries according to the model of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — a regional forum that includes China, Russia and several central Asian countries.

And politically, China should draw on its tradition of meritocracy. Top government officials should be chosen according to their virtue and wisdom, and not simply technical and administrative ability. China should also open up and choose officials from across the world who meet its standards, so as to improve its governance.

The Tang dynasty — which lasted from the 7th century to the 10th and was perhaps China’s most glorious period — employed a great number of foreigners as high-ranking officials. China should do the same today and compete with America to attract talented immigrants.

OVER the next decade, China’s new leaders will be drawn from a generation that experienced the hardships of the Cultural Revolution. They are resolute and will most likely value political principles more than material benefits. These leaders must play a larger role on the world stage and offer more security protection and economic support to less powerful countries.

This will mean competing with the United States politically, economically and technologically. Such competition may cause diplomatic tensions, but there is little danger of military clashes.

That’s because future Chinese-American competition will differ from that between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war. Neither China nor America needs proxy wars to protect its strategic interests or to gain access to natural resources and technology.

China’s quest to enhance its world leadership status and America’s effort to maintain its present position is a zero-sum game. It is the battle for people’s hearts and minds that will determine who eventually prevails. And, as China’s ancient philosophers predicted, the country that displays more humane authority will win.

Full article : 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/opinion/how-china-can-defeat-america.html?_r=1

Why Chinese are called "Tang Ren" - the integration of multicultural and cosmopolitan China of four thousand years

Wonder why Chinatowns all over the world are called "tang ren jie" -- Chinese people's street but
not zhongguoren cheng (middle country people town)?

The word Tang 唐 (ph : pinyin: táng, Cantonese: tong)   refers to the Tang Dynasty  (618 - 907)  which was the zenith of Chinese history.

The administration flourished under a well established meritocracy-based public service, enlightened Emperors ( including a female - Empress Wu Zetian) and large-scale assimilation of Chinese peoples regardless of ethnicities.

There were well documented archives, poetry and anecdotal references to mixed bloodlines which Hans carried from their ancestors intermarriage with Hu, Tibetan, Caucasian and many "Others".  Foreign physical features such as high nose, blue eyes, bushy brows, sideburns, beard, large ears, fair skin complexion were noted among senior bureaucrats and military leaders of the time. The erosion of pure Han ethnicity which began in earlier dynasties during wars and migration, was accelerated during the Tang dynasty. The Han today is an integrated culture rather than a race or ethnicity.

It was said that members of the Tang royal family, which continued to practise diplomatic marriages, had high nose bridge.

A well known general An Lushan was a Turk who later revolted against the Emperor.

Emperor Gaozong built the first mosque after meeting Prophet Mohamed's envoy.

The famous poet Li Bai who was described as having exotic physical features was possibly of Central Asian ancestry.

Read more in :

Ethnic identity in Tang China

 By Marc Samuel Abramson

Chinese history has been interrupted with variations of protectionist and seclusionist policies such warding off hostile "barbarian" invaders by building the Great Wall of China. Intrusions  and infighting among warring states were were common at times when China was devoid of a central authority.

The greatness and glory of Tang was its ability to utilise the best talents possible. Power did not come through military conquests and coercion of its people. Sincization was voluntary and sought after by the minorities.

http://www.chinavoc.com

China has come a long way. I believe and truly that Chinese leaders people will learn from history and continue to uphold the virtues and values of Tang.

Update on con artist Ai Wei Wei, how about social conscience of the US -

Majority of Chinese people don't care or recognise western Chinese hero Ai Wei Wei who f* his motherland with no end of trouble by knowingly and defiantly breaking the laws. Ai earns his living by creating anarchy and upheavals.  


Perhaps the Chinese government need not pay too much attention to Ai Wei Wei. They don't deserve it. 


Ai Wei Wei's latest publicity stunt is unimpressive. Considering the  mainland and overseas Chinese population, tens of thousands of claimed online supporters and donors are a drop of water in the ocean. Despite the outcry, people get on with their daily lives.  


What a company name Beijing Fake Cultural Development Ltd!!!
Did any investigative journalist try to find out if this is a money-laundering set up that has evaded huge taxes? Social causes are noble. But politicised fund raising coming from one who has not been truthful and clean with his past claims should not be encouraged. 


No, any Chinese dissident's words must be trusted as the gospel truth. 


As expected, search engine results display quotes of Ai Wei Wei and his supporters. 


Ai Wei Wei was even thinking of keeping the donations instead of paying the back taxes and fines for fear that he won't be able to recover them from the authorities!  If you are a legal and tax expert, please explain the reasons given which do not make sense at all whether one pays it directly or not if they imagine the government to be despicable and deplorable.


Disorderly behaviour in public would be sufficient grounds to remove someone from harming himself and others, even in democratic FBI protected America.  This deranged hobo would be nothing without the backing of other dissidents and western financiers behind them. Foreign instigation should not be dismissed as it is a game that has been practised to the highest level. 


Politics aside.  Seriously, I am not an artist but I do appreciate good art. Anyone with an eye for art, please tell me honestly whether the works of self-centred Ai Wei Wei qualifies him as a great "artist". His negative "activism" has probably earned more than he deserves.  


The free wheeling western media (mainstream and tabloid alike) has chosen to sensationalise anti-Chinese heroes than getting their facts right. 


http://www.bearcanada.com/china/aiaiai.html


Would we show the same level of support for freedom of speech and compassion to Julian Assange of Wikileak fame and conscience representation?  


What about the Wall Street protestors? Does China or other authoritarian states play up or give moral and financial support to disrupt  capitalist / democratic governments? 


Some things have not changed, since my previous post on Ai Wei Wei.


http://chinainformzen.blogspot.com/2011/04/anxiety-about-ai-weiwei-who-is-he.html

US takes issue with China's Intellectual Property forgot its lax approach to Japan and Taiwan allies in the 70s - the Truth about IP

Obama gets impatient with China over Intellectual Property rights enforcement, another key issue of contention after the currency manipulation charges. 


Some facts to note and reflect on before jumping to conclusions : 


- Developed countries own most of the IP and therefore have most to gain by insisting on strict regime implementation globally so its MNCs can profiteer.  


- Developing countries are naturally and unfairly disadvantaged by "RULES" set by economically advanced countries. This is translated into higher production costs and a form of disguised protectionism imposed on the poor before they are able to catch up.


- Consumers benefit from lower cost alternatives. Think universal education for poorer folks in developing countries and the chronically ill. They don't mind paying less for no frills and do not care about branded goods and medicines. 



- Paradox : the stricter the rules, the room for infringement increases discourage compliance and drive more potential violators underground instead of paying for costly rights usage and penalties.


-  Excessive IP protection stifles creativity even in the US and western countries.  Why must the originator always be the "winner that takes all"?  A way for monopolies to get around anti-trust laws?  


- US has restrictions on exporting high technology on strategic grounds. Ironically, US trade balance will be fixed in no time if bans are lifted.  


- TRIPS / WTO Doha Round actually endorses legitimate rights to fair competition by trade partners. It would help if they cooperate than fight head-on. US does not have a good track record of observing WTO regulations but likes to cherry pick what is advantageous and self serving. 



- Capacity building and judicial enforcement (not just institutions) takes time for countries that have been set back by colonialism and internal strife. 


- The previous wave of newly industrialised Asian economies, notably US allies Japan and Taiwan, were allowed imitation during its initial economic development stage. Does the US have short memory or inclined on applying double standards? 


- China is a large nation that is hard to detect creative wizards and businessmen bypassing monitors, regulators and police.  It is also not a priority for developing nations preoccupied with economic growth and income disparity social issues. 


-  Weaker and smaller US trade partners have submit to TRIPS-plus schemes imposed by the US to gain market access through the backdoor.  Talk about economic bullying. 


- Are US pharmaceutical companies paying patent and knowledge rights for TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) and piracy of South American and Indian herbal medicine and exotic plants? 


Rest assured, China pays important attention to IP as it is inevitable for  modern economies.  In the coming years, China, India and Brazil will institute stricter IP laws to protect their home inventions, some notable works of creativity and R&D are in the manufacturing pipeline. 


It pays to be patient. But who will have the last laugh? 


http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Protecting_intellectual_property_in_China_1643

Rhetoric and Double Talk : Obama says US does not fear China - Action speaks louder than words, reassurance does not help to assuage excluded and irritated China's fear of reigniting Cold War

The logical thing for the US Administration and any government in dire economic straits is to cut budget, withdraw troops, turn ammunitions into economic capital, and focus on getting the economy out of the doldrums. But no, Obama has not lived up to expectations. He is desperate to prove to his political opponents and some American voters that he is hawkish and means business (in the military sense). Start a fire in your competitor's backyard and pretend that you mean no harm and act surprised that neighbours are alarmed. American Presidents have not learned from lessons in history when they have no qualms about bringing on the Cold War! 


Dictating terms and playing patron to another developing country is not new in US policy. Unfortunately, US has not been exemplary in its observance of international rules and norms, nor paying its fair dues.

Quote :

... the United States would deploy 2,500 Marines in Australia to shore up alliances in Asia, but the move prompted a sharp response in Beijing, which accused Mr. Obama of escalating military tensions in the region.

The agreement with Australia amounts to the first long-term expansion of the American military’s presence in the Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War. It comes despite budget cuts facing the Pentagon and an increasingly worried reaction from Chinese leaders, who have argued that the United States is seeking to encircleChina militarily and economically.

“It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region,” Liu Weimin, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in response to the announcement by Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia.

Some analysts in China and elsewhere say they fear the moves could backfire, rsiking a Cold War-style standoff with China.

The United States will not build new bases on the continent, but will use Australian facilities instead. Mr. Obama said that Marines will rotate through for joint training and exercises with Australians, and the American Air Force will have increased access to airfields in the nation’s Northern Territory.

Analysts say that Chinese leaders have been caught off guard by what they view as an American campaign to stir up discontent in the region. China may have miscalculated in recent years by restating longstanding territorial claims that would give it broad sway over development rights in the South China Sea, they say. But they argue that Beijing has not sought to project military power far beyond its shores, and has repeatedly proposed to resolve territorial disputes through negotiations.

The United States portrays itself as responding to a new Chinese assertiveness in the region that has alarmed core American allies. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote a recent article in Foreign Policy laying out an expansive case for American involvement in Asia, and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta characterized China’s military development as lacking transparency and criticized its assertiveness in the regional waters.

Mr. Obama reached out to China even as he announced the new troop deployment. “The notion that we fear China is mistaken; the notion that we are looking to exclude China is mistaken,” he said.

The president said that China would be welcomed into the new trade pact if Beijing was willing to meet the free-trade standards for membership. But such standards would require China to let its currency rise in value, to better protect foreign producers’ intellectual property rights and to limit or end subsidies to state-owned companies, all of which would require a major overhaul of China’s economic development strategy. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/world/asia/obama-and-gillard-expand-us-australia-military-ties.html

Encirclement of China - boost democratic India's nuclear capability with Australian uranium heightens risks and tensions

It does not stop at granting US "presence" ("bases"?) in Darwin.

To please its US ally, PM Julia Gillard risks bringing the world closer to a nuclear war and her political standing within her own Labour Party, Greens and anti-nuclear lobby.

More hawkish displays - the world will not be safer with gunho policeman patrols in peaceful neighbourhood of hungry folks trying to make a decent living.

Quote : 


PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's push to sell uranium to India has triggered a fight with her party's Left, attracted disquiet from Pakistan and infuriated Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, who was not consulted about the change.

But union official and Right powerbroker Joe de Bruyn, who raised objections to Indian uranium sales when the policy change was first proposed by Mr Ferguson, signalled he would support the PM's line. He said safeguards would be important, and he was sure they would be part of the policy change.

Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes called for the party in Western Australia and Queensland to ''overturn

their ideologically based and decades-old ban on uranium mining''. But Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said she would not be lifting the ban.

Jia Qingguo, associate dean of Peking University's Centre for International Relations, said Australia resuming uranium exports to India and establishing a US military presence in Darwin was part of an Obama administration strategy to balance perceived threats from China.

''There is a high probability that the Indians are not going to use the uranium for nuclear energy,'' he said.

''This is going to be counter-productive. When you encourage nuclear proliferation to your friendly countries it is very difficult to rein in nuclear proliferation to countries you don't like,'' said Professor Jia.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-uranium-backlash-20111115-1nhdh.html#ixzz1dvD3F8C2
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-uranium-backlash-20111115-1nhdh.html

From blunt capitalist-imperialist US President Obama : Play by the Rules even if we break them - teaching an ancient peaceful civilisation restraint defies common sense

Obama is under immense pressure as his precarious standing becomes more obvious as the presidential re-election nears. His belligerent attitude and proactive alignment with Asia Pacific ally Australia defies rationality. Despite rhetoric for change, Obama has succumbed to neo-Cons to put on an aggressive cowboy front to stir up peaceful waters in the region. While China has thousands of years of diplomacy and peaceful coexistence even at the zenith of the Tang and Ming dynasties, post-war US has seen more invasions in distant lands, resulting in painful casualties and fatalities on all sides (not to mention mammoth economic losses),  within half a century. More than any other imperialistic and hegemonistic nations had chalked up in history. 


As long as US continues its ranting on China's currency manipulation instead of reflecting on and redressing weaknesses in domestic economic fundamentals, it is not getting out of the rut. There are lots of hard work to be done to curb its credit manipulation, raise fiscal standards, improve productivity and bring about more equitable distribution of wealth. Carbon trading and taxes are not on the US government's agenda either, preferring to put the blame and burden on Third World countries trying to pick up from lost years of development to eradicate poverty by sacrificing their health and environment taking on the role as factories of the world. 

Quote :

Obama's tough-minded and bluntly worded message to China was that rising power brings with it rising responsibilities. China has an obligation not only to follow the rules, but, in Obama's words, to help underwrite them.

Obama's comments were in answer to a question about trade. But his bluntness with China reflects a deep disappointment in Washington with China's performance over a wide range of economic, security and global governance issues.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not designed to exclude China, Obama says, but if a country wants to join it has to open up its economy. This is shrewd diplomacy by Obama. The TPP is open to any nation that meets the criteria. Because China won't meet the criteria, the emphasis of the discussion is not on the US beating up on Beijing, but Beijing's refusal to liberalise.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/blunt-diplomacy-a-shrewd-move/story-e6frgd0x-1226197235738?from=promo-strip-na

BofA Divests China Construction Bank Stake to Boost Capital, Not Declining Confidence in China

Bank of America's latest move to further divest its shares in the Chinese bank is more to lock in investment gains and take profits than a signal of loss confidence and an impending hard landing in the Chinese economy.


Where else can and should investors take their capital to if not China, India and smaller Asian economies?
Certainly not USA and Europe?


Quote :

Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan, 52, is selling assets to replenish Bank of America's capital and meet regulatory requirements for risk buffers after faulty mortgages led to about $40 billion of expenses. The lender joins Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in paring stakes in China's two biggest banks by tapping the stocks' biggest one-month rally in four years.

“We view this announcement positively for CCB as it removes a significant overhang from its shares,” Mike Werner, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in Hong Kong, wrote in a research report. “This is especially true as the market was aware that BofA was seeking to improve its struggling capital adequacy ratios.”

http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LUNJLL6K50XS01-6V6EUMOEAT4U2F1PGK5CVJJIL5

US-Australia strategic and economic alliance vis-a-vis China : shifting goalposts in world trade and arms race

US and Australia's message to China : Do what you're told but don't follow what we do.
Obama has brought American imperialism to a higher level, expanding across the Pacific despite its economic woes. 
The blame game is on : currency manipulation pretext is an old trick used by politicians disregarding innocent poor and middle class enjoying cheap Chinese goods.  
US trade deficit could easily be resolved by exporting more high technology to China, if they are serious to match words with deeds.  Can Americans trust the Chinese and Iranians the way like you trust the Israelis to take ownership of strategic know-how? 
Why would Australia want to have a part of this conspiracy?


QUOTE :

Barack Obama's visit to Australia carries an invitation. It's an invitation to take America's side in its rivalry with China.

In one vital way, Australia has already chosen. Julia Gillard has intensified the strategic and military alliance with the US emphatically, and more deeply than the Australian public has yet grasped.

In another way, Australia is only partially and gingerly taking America's side. The US President comes to Australia fresh from his latest argument with the Chinese over trade and currency. His visit to Canberra will carry an implicit invitation, and perhaps even an explicit one in closed-door talks, to take America's side more fully here, too. It's an invitation Australia should politely, but firmly, refuse.

The strategic and military deals are already made. Gillard has presided over two major decisions in recent months.

Australia and the US have written a new clause into the ANZUS treaty giving cyber attacks the same weight as bombing raids and invasions. That revision to the treaty, a world first, happened in September. And Australia and the US have agreed to give the US a significant new military presence in northern Australia, the details to be announced during Obama's visit next week.

As the Herald revealed last week, Obama and Gillard will announce that the US will begin rotating marines through an Australian base in Darwin, in a permanent new military presence.

Australians, generally speaking, like Americans and favour the alliance. The alliance has had majority public support since it was signed 60 years ago, even during the darkest days of the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq.

But two new polls suggest the public has little appetite for intensifying it. The Herald-Nielsen poll reported in today's paper asked whether respondents thought the US-Australia alliance relationship was too close, not close enough, or about right. The answer is that 71 per cent of adults think it's about right; 24 per cent say it is too close; a scant 3 per cent say it is not close enough.

Another survey by Essential Media presented Australians with a list of nine countries and asked the same question. The country that topped the list as the one Australians would like to draw closer to was China at 35 per cent. The US was eighth at 18 per cent.

So why is the Gillard government clutching Uncle Sam ever tighter to the national breast? The reason is straightforward. China's recent conduct has disturbed all the capitals of the Asia-Pacific. It has revived maritime territorial claims it had earlier left dormant.

But the US trade and currency agenda with China is another matter altogether. The wise and far-sighted US policy for the past couple of decades was to work hard to bring China into the global rules-based system. Rather than having a rising giant outside the system breaking the rules, Washington wanted China in the system, playing by the rules.

It worked. China signed up to, among other things, the World Trade Organisation. But now the Obama administration is seeking to shift the ground rules, moving the goalposts.

A bizarre contrast presented itself in Hawaii at the APEC gathering at the weekend - the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, argued world trade agreements should be based on the global WTO system, while the US president recruited other countries, including Australia, for his little regional trade sub-group, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The WTO's latest round of negotiations is moribund and the US should be reviving it. Instead, it is rounding up the TPP countries that take all of 6 per cent of US exports. It's insignificant as a trade bloc.

It's a posse to get China, which is not a member. "It's all about China," says an American trade expert, Bruce Stokes, of the German Marshall Fund in Washington. "The White House is hoping that if this thing gets big enough, China will one day want to join. The hidden agenda is that they will only admit it if China accepts a high standard of policing for its state-owned enterprises."

Australia signed up to the TPP in the Bush years; it's a done deal. But Canberra should not sign up to the next US agenda item, which is to threaten China over its managed currency, accusing China of currency manipulation to win unfair export advantage.

The global rules-based system in no way bans countries from pegging or managing exchange rates. Indeed, the US was the centrepiece of the global fixed exchange rate system until the early 1970s.

And the US has not stopped manipulating its currency; it's just got subtler. One of the aims of the US Federal Reserve in flooding the world with $US1.8 trillion in US dollars in the past three years is to devalue the currency. It's devaluation by hyperliquidity.

Beijing has allowed the renminbi to appreciate by 30 per cent in recent years against the US dollar. This has solved none of America's problems. The US campaign against China's currency policy is misguided. Australia has remained aloof so far and should remain so, even under the hypnotic power of the high-beam smile of a US president in person.

In strategic and military matters and trade and currency matters alike, the world has a deep interest in keeping China in the global rules-based system. If the Americans occasionally lose sight of this in the economic realm, Australia should not abet its lapses. We are an ally, not an accomplice.

Peter Hartcher is Sydney Morning Herald international editor.

Extracted from :

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/no-reason-to-get-even-closer-to-uncle-sam-20111114-1nfgn.html