Betrayers unite for personal profit - China's mining investment losses in Australia - switch to food

Nationalistic Australian citizens have voiced concern and opposition to selling more national assets to the Chinese despite the tremendous gains and spinoffs from foreign capital inflow. Aussies are not anti-foreigners as long as foreign ownership is exceeded by US (or a western nation) to offset undesirable influences from another state. 

In reality, Chinese state companies have been reformed since the 1980s and behave like private enterprises though the level of accountability is not well established ... not that all non-Chinese corporations are free from rigidity and unethical conduct. 

http://www.kpmg.com/CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/demystifying-chinese-investment-O-201207.pdf

In most transactions, the buyer and seller stand to gain or else there is no deal. Cash loaded and enthusiastic, China state owned enterprises have been lured and wooed by the opportunistic firms who are keen to sell.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/china-investment-elephant-is-well-and-truly-in-the-room/story-fn59niix-1226452825060

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/chinese-investment-no-threat-20120422-1xf64.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chinese_bids_welcomed_in_42_bn_Australian_asset_sale_999.html


Despite investment restrictions, the Chinese have quite successfully bought up many mine shares to feed its mills back home. From hindsight, this is a blotched plan rather than an achievement. It would not be an overstating Chinese losses in the millions if not billions for purchasing overrated companies, changing market conditions, poor performance and unforeseen results. The true picture is probably less rosy than that painted by the buyers and sellers or what is reported in the media. There are good reasons why officials and business managers want to portray it negatively to cover their folly or mistakes. 

Inevitably, the topic of corruption cannot be evaded. Mistakes cannot be attributed mainly to innocent miscalculation, lack of due diligence and market changes as a result of falling production. Surely the Chinese investors are smarter and the Australian sellers would play harder to get. We may never know how much kickbacks were involved. 

Credit must be given to the Chinese for quick thinking and adjustments. Now, Chinese investors have decided that the mining sector is jinx. It is high time that the government directs investors to diversify into other sectors rather than placing all the bets in fading minerals sector. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/chinese-investors-look-to-diversify-beyond-resources-sector/story-fnbdkrr9-1226443327176

Attention is now turned to the next most important resource - food - to feed its billions of people. More Chinese are investing in Australian farms recently. 

KPMG Australia’s China Practice, said that Chinese companies are showing an increasing appetite for investing in Australia’s food sector “from gate to plate” as they seek to meet rising food demand at home and capture more expertise from Australia’s companies and farmers.  

Banks, both domestic and Chinese, are also increasingly interested in financing the sector at a time when many miners and energy producers are struggling to secure financing for new projects in the face of falling commodity prices and concerns of a falloff in demand ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/dealjournalaustralia/2012/08/22/kpmg-sees-more-chinese-investors-buying-aussie-farms/?mod=google_news_blog

Another indication of change is China investing in mines (and others) elsewhere where the government and people may be less hostile to Chinese money.  

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/374441/20120816/china-gold-rush-africa-supply-barrick.htm

Nevertheless, merely containing the damage will not solve the fundamental problems that has wasted Chinese funds which could be better spent helping its poor and boosting domestic development and consumption. 

Attempts to monitor and penalise corrupt officials venturing overseas have been put in place but with limited success. Reports of arrests have been random and rare, for most have used their positions to amass personal wealth and enrich their cronies at the expense of the nation's benefit with little reprisals. 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/728010.shtml

Gu Kailai trial - delicate balance of politics, justice and the world stage

Just as closure of the case seemed definite, the file has been reopened on the back of international pressure and leadership succession.  Had it not been for the fall of Gu's husband Bo Xilai, the case may not have been prioritised and managed with great caution. From the little details that have leaked through (deliberately or inadvertently) the apparently tightly controlled court proceedings and media, readers can draw the conclusion that Neil Heywood murdered by poisoning, was not innocent victim but one who is savvy and manipulative. 

While some speculate that Gu is made the scapegoat to take Bo's fall, a number of China watchers (not experts) contradict themselves by saying that Bo was doomed. Why not use this as a convenient excuse to get rid of the clan and their underlings?  Yet, there are others who believe that Bo could make a comeback. This is unlikely unless he has superhuman power and connections in the next leadership. The high level of publicity may end with an anti-climax whimper with all the protagonists receding to the background, as with many before who had been disciplined, purged or punished for various degrees and types of offences against the party or the people. 

China is keen to project a positive image to ensure that the its domestic population and the world perceive that justice prevails in this emerging great power. After all, a judiciary was already well-established in ancient times as far back as the 10th Century, notwithstanding political upheavals and machinations in a huge country. The judges must demonstrate sensitivity, independence and pragmatism in this high profile and divisive case of a generation. 

China says Gu Kailai didn't contest murder charge

Though Gu faces possible execution, legal experts say she is likely to be given a commuted death sentence that translates into 10 to 15 years in prison, with her concern for her son's safety providing a mitigating circumstance.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1680370/China-says-Gu-Kailai-didnt-contest-murder-charge

As a high-flying international lawyer married to one of China's most promising and charismatic politicians and with a son at Harvard, Gu Kailai appeared to have it all. Now she is on trial for murder.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1680438/Gu-Kailai-High-flying-lawyer-turned-murder-accused

America's China Choices - sharing power balance in Asia

How many Americans ponder deeper into longer term strategic questions?  


             The China choice: why America should share power by Hugh White

The Chinese will continue to avoid unnecessary friction and minimise the risk of confrontation. But they will not relinquish their country’s claim to status as a great power – even if that leads to conflict. The implications of this for America are simple and very significant. If America tries to preserve the status quo and avoid fundamental change in the relationship, it will be choosing to accept China as a strategic rival.

Essentially, America has three options. It can resist China’s challenge and try to preserve the status quo in Asia. It can step back from its dominant role in Asia, leaving China to attempt to establish hegemony. Or it can remain in Asia on a new basis, allowing China a larger role but also maintaining a strong presence of its own. Most Americans assume that the first of these options is the only choice. Only a few take the second option seriously, although that could change. Most don’t even consider the third.

The need for a decision seems to have emerged very suddenly. China’s economic growth has been obvious, but not where it has been leading. 

In truth, any attempt by either Beijing or Washington to dominate will lead to sustained and bitter strategic rivalry, imposing huge economic costs and a real risk of catastrophic war. Neither side could win, and both would stand to lose a great deal – but it could easily happen. Strategic competition quickly builds its own momentum, escalating to the point where war can seem inescapable. War between the United States and China is already a clear and significant danger, one that will grow if rivalry increases. This is the most important issue at stake in America’s China choice. Asia’s alternative futures are not American or Chinese supremacy. They are escalating rivalry, or some form of great-power accommodation that constrains that rivalry. America’s real choice is not between dominating or withdrawing from Asia: it is between taking China on as a strategic rival, or working with it as a partner.

The third option carries many obvious risks, which would quickly rule it out of contention were it not for the greater risks that flow from the alternatives. Moreover, this option can only be realised if America and China are willing to compromise with each other. Neither side will find that easy. For China it will mean abandoning hopes to lead Asia and accepting a strong US presence there indefinitely. For America it will mean accepting that its unique leadership role is no longer feasible, and learning to work with China as a partner in a way that America has never done with another country before – and certainly not with one so different from it. But this is the kind of choice America must now consider.

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/extract-china-choice-why-america-should-share-power

China is a growing domestic market for local businesses and USA exporters with the right strategy and skills

US style stores in China will be a big strategic business mistake. China is not USA. It has a different historical experience and its rising middle class folks are not as wealthy, more frugal, evaluate essential and luxury expenses with a different set of criteria, and expect sellers to understand customer needs and offer good service.

As with past and future failures in transplanting wholesale western economic management, political systems, religious beliefs, culture and frameworks into totally different societies, Chinese and foreign sellers must be able to capture what Chinese consumers really need and willing to spend on. Marketing pitched at customers' priorities and preferences is the principle that works. Success comes to those who could adapt quickly with their offerings. 

Quote :

China is counting on rising domestic demand from this rapidly growing segment. So, too, are Western exporters, faced with anemic growth in Europe and North America.

But China's middle class isn't Charleston's. Western companies have misjudged Chinese shoppers' priorities and clumsily tried to export U.S.-style stores.

The potential buying power of China's middle class is vast. About 247 million Chinese, 18.2% of the population, qualify as middle class, meaning their households spend between $10 and $100 a day on average, according to Brookings Institution economist Homi Kharas.

If current patterns continue, the number will soar to 607 million by 2020, and spending by China's middle class will rival that of the U.S., after adjusting for inflation and purchasing power.

The trend has the potential to remake China. With export markets weakening in Europe and the U.S., economists say, Beijing needs to lift spending by its own middle class or risk that growth will slow sharply. Steady middle-class growth also could help China's trading partners, bolstering a market for computers, cars and trendy clothing, as well as for commodities such as copper, oil and cotton.

China already is the world's largest market for some middle-class emblems, including cars, personal computers and smartphones. And multinational companies show no signs of taking their feet off the gas.

Growing sophistication among some Chinese middle-class customers has led Five Star to upgrade in some cities. The Qingdao store has higher-priced electronics than older outlets—for example, cameras and high-definition video equipment for a first voyage overseas or a road trip across China.

With brighter lighting, additional seating and customer-assistance stations, the store in this port city of 8.4 million people also has more of the trappings of a stateside Best Buy.

Following its parent's lead, Five Star opened a small research department last year to conduct consumer surveys. When it learned that some customers considered the chain stodgy, Five Star developed a new icon: cartoon characters that appear to be drawn by Hollywood animators.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303444204577460693377819420.html?mod=e2tw&mod%3D=e2tw

Secret war chapter missing in the public version of Australia's defence white paper

Who wants to fight a war? 

Not surprising, there are some who may benefit from wars. 

That's what the hushed up section of the defence white paper issued during PM Kevin Rudd's leadership. This was revealed in  a new book, The Kingdom and the Quarry: China, Australia, Fear and Greed.  

The Australian military establishment, like that of the US and other countries, have an interest in lobbying for increase defence spending against a played up enemy. Force 2030 set out in the white paper was to acquire 12 big conventional submarines with missiles, revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters, air warfare destroyers and giant landing ships to prepare for possible war with Australia's main trade partner. 

Unfortunately, it is dangerous weapons, human lives and properties that warmongers are toying with. It seems much easier to create enemies than enhance friendly relations in the post-Cold War era. 

Consistent with the overall strategic policy is reliance on close friendship with US at whatever costs. However, the contagion of global economic woes and other economic priorities has put pressure on the Gillard government to cut defence spending. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/secret-war-with-china-uncovered/story-fn59nm2j-1226381002984

"  A new book, The Kingdom and the Quarry: China, Australia, Fear and Greed, reveals how Force 2030 set out in the white paper - to include 12 big conventional submarines with missiles, revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters, air warfare destroyers and giant landing ships - was being prepared for a possible war with Australia's main trading partner.

In the lead-up to the release of the paper in May 2009, The Australian reported extensively on the debate among Australia's security and intelligence agencies over whether China was likely to pose a threat as it increased investment in its armed forces.

The public version of the paper stopped short of declaring that war with China was what the authors feared. To avoid offending the Chinese, and to create a degree of deniability, discussion of possible future conflict relied on euphemisms such as a "major power adversary".

 Even the sanitised public version of the white paper was enough to upset the Chinese. They asked Mr Pezzullo to revise the description of the regional security environment and, in particular, the references to China's military modernisation.

The Beijing media said the white paper was a victory for the "hawks" in Australia's defence establishment and that was partly because Mr Rudd wanted to show himself to the electorate as tough on China, to show loyalty to the US and to give Australia an excuse to increase its forces."

Blind Activist Chen

Who is blind chinese activist Chen Guangchen?

Unlike peaceful civil rights advocates such as Martin Luther King, Chen's methods of protests are violent and destructive to public order and safety. 

On the more positive side, "People who know Chen say he is a Gandhi-esque figure and has a deep optimism that China will inevitably become a country ruled by law,” professor Susan L. Shirk, an expert on Chinese politics at the University of California in San Diego, told NBC News. “He is not a dissident, agitating for a change in government – he just wants China to enforce its own laws." 

There's much more than the mainstream media is willing to choose to portray Chen as a heroic champion of the poor and disabled. He is not a lone campaigner, but has many secret supporters and possibly foreign sponsors. How did Chen accomplish an incredible feat? One needs a well devised and orchestrated plan to escape house detention and make his way to the US embassy. 

Most of all Chen is against China's one-child policy. It is not difficult to associate with the fact that Chen has two children. Most Chinese who wish to have two or more children would move out of China and reside overseas. Without a successful and strict one-child policy, the world population would have more than two billion ethnic Chinese. That would sound scary to some people. 

Chen has tested the weakness of the security system and pushed the limits. China's provincial officials are rough in handling criminals and disobedient citizens. Police brutality (not unheard of in the US during the 1960s) is rampant in local jurisdictions. As a result the whole nation's name goes down with the misconduct of errant state and local officials. 

Chen does not have the credentials that would qualify as a skilled migrant to a western or developed country. He must acquire international fame (or notoriety) to get on board the ship. He has risen from obscurity to warrant getting the attention of the US Congressional Hearing.

Is Chen worth US risking ties with China. Washington has calibrated the act well by using Chen as a vehicle to embarrass China in front of the world, but at the same time playing the good guy, enough to avoid a diplomatic row, by reassuring its creditor and competitor that it meant well and treasured bilateral relations. The sensitive term of political asylum has been avoided so far. Nonetheless, US taking in Chen into embassy grounds is not in line with diplomatic decorum, international laws, amounting to an unfriendly act. 

The Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is critical of Hilary Clinton and Obama's handling of the Chen fiasco. MR reveals disrespect and ignorance of international law. He ought to reflect on sharing goodies with the poor and powerless of their own country and abide by the American constitution. before aggressively interfering in other country's affairs. 

Anyway, there is not much Chen could contribute by remaining in China. In his words, Chen hopes to seek medical treatment, rest and study in the US. NYU has offered Chen a place normally reserved for the high achievers. Hopefully, his aspirations are fulfilled and he learns more about the West (not just the idealist imsge he imagined from a distance). 

Assault and Robbery of Chinese international students on Sydney train - long term negative effects

We are made to believe that racists are a minority but do not know how many harbour similar anti-foreign feelings without exhibiting in public. 

Sadly, the passengers who are supposed to help or call for help did not but chose to egg the criminals on with more racist rant. Where are the night guards who were supposed to ensure the safety of lone passengers travelling at night?

The incident begs many more questions ...

Had they been Australian born ethnic Asians, would they be targeted for assaults?

To what extent has Kevin Rudd's past tough talk and belligerent posturing against a perceived rising unfriendly China spurred anti-Chinese sentiments?

Already suffering from drop in demand for resources as China seeks alternative sources in Brazil and after encountering walls from high pricing suppliers and investment barriers. Perhaps it is good news as weaker AUD would generally attract more tourists to make up for the sure decline in nueva riche Chinese travellers. 

It is easy to be cavalier with words when good times are rolling. But when the global economic environment looks unlikely to recover shortly, it is high time that Australians ensure that they do not squander any goodwill and profits, or risk losing heavily for a long time.


Quotes from Shanghai :

"They wanted money so we gave them money. But then a caucasian woman sitting opposite told the robbers she just broken up with her boyfriend who had taken her purse," the student wrote.

"She pointed to us and shouted to the robbers: 'Rob them, they are Chinese, they are rich'."
"There were no policemen in the train, but there were many other people and even train crews." He said no one had offered help. 

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-744879-1-1.html

India escalates tension and shows aggressive posture with intercontinental missile tests

India's military buildup is uncalled for. It is clear as day who is the hostile party. 


China, on the other hand, tries to play down the threat and calm fears.  However, we know that China is only putting up a confident front. The motivations of one's neighbour in showing its military capability and war readiness are of serious concerns. 


Why didn't India's aggressive posture draw the same criticisms and objections from western powers?   For instance, Iranian acquisition of nuclear capability pre-weapons manufacture and North Korea's failed attempt.


US has been providing both political and technological support (hedging its bets against Pakistan turning). However, we have learnt dearly that wars do not help to end wars. 


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/india-missile-idUSL3E8FJ1KZ20120419

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1196249/1/.html

Quote :

Beijing on Thursday downplayed India's successful launch of a missile capable of striking anywhere in China, saying the neighbouring giants were not rivals.

India earlier on Thursday test-fired its new Agni V missile, which boasts a 5,000-kilometre (3,100-mile) range and is capable of delivering a one-tonne nuclear warhead.

"China has taken note of reports of India's missile launch," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters when asked for comment on the launch.

"China and India are both big emerging countries, we are not rivals but cooperation partners."

Analysts have noted the Agni V extends India's missile reach over all of China, including military installations in the far northeast.


http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-743246-1-1.html

Quote : 


Only the permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, Russia, France, the United States and the United Kingdom - along with Israel, are believed to have such long distance missiles.

The launch will be closely monitored by India's nuclear-armed rivals China and Pakistan and by Western countries, but is unlikely to draw the kind of criticism aimed at North Korea after its own failed long-range rocket launch on Thursday.

India has a no-first-use policy and says its nuclear weapons and missiles are for defensive purposes only.

Australia taking China for granted

The world's greatest power (military and economic) as most see it at present has not missed any opportunity to show its contentions with its next arch rival China.  China has reached maturity in economic reforms and is looking ahead for more comprehensive governance. It has not dedicated sufficient time in addressing concerns of declared enemies and cold friends. This game willbenefit  neither China nor the West. 


Differences cannot be swept under the carpet. They must been talked about and resolved amicably. Concerns over Chinese acquisition of advanced technology has deprived the US of increasing export and close the chronic trade deficit problem. 
Similarly, Australia has also ruled out investments from Huawei on national security grounds. However, such issues have largely been ironed out or overlooked with such US investors. 


http://www.afr.com/p/technology/fortescue_chief_dragged_into_huawei_AF7FO9wwz63UedD664v2sO


On the other hand, America's good friend across the Pacific Ocean Australia has been ignoring China, given up business opportunities and learning, to its detriment, for the last 10 years and many years into the future.  Says Andrew Forrest who owns a notable mining conglomerate Fortescue Metals.  

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/local-business/australia-taking-china-for-granted-andrew-forrest/story-e6frg2s3-1226330681528

Mr Forrest says Australia is not engaging with China ``anywhere near enough'', citing a lack of senior ministerial representation at what Boao Forum for Asia meetings.

``I see other countries with their senior ministers and prime ministers out there selling their own countries and I look around and say where is my country,'' Mr Forrest told reporters after speaking at a business lunch in Sydney on Tuesday.

``Now people don't need our legal services, they can get them elsewhere.

``They don't need our investment banking services, they can get them elsewhere.

``They don't need our resources, our energy. They can get them elsewhere, so let's not take it for granted,'' Mr Forrest said.

Mr Forrest's comments follow those of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Dennis Richardson, who said last year that Australia's footprint in China was lagging behind comparable Western nations.

``If you go back 15 or 20 years, we were leading the pack in terms of representation. We've now fallen off the pack,'' Mr Richardson said in October.

Australia's Last Chance with Bob Carr? China Unfazed by Conservative Hypocratic Rudd Doctrine

Time is on China's side. China would not bet on the rise and fall of leaders in its neighbouring countries. Even during tough times of nation building and isolation, China was able to stand its own. With more economic clout, China could afford to play cool and focus on practical matters. Over time, China could prove to its neighbours and other powers that it does not harbour any ambitious and expansionist intentions which have long been associated with imperialism, the root of evil that has overstretched brought many great nations down. 


Bob Carr's appointment as Australia's new Foreign Minister may be a welcome change. Nevertheless, the precise nature and course of bilateral relations remain to be seen. 


The premature euphoria of Kevin Rudd's appointment has melted away quickly. The Mandarin speaking scholar who researched on the crossroads and challenges in Chinese history during the Tiananmen protests was neither a friend nor a diplomat when dealing with China. By now, most Chinese in the mainland and overseas in Southeast Asia and Australia realise that Rudd was no ally as claimed from the official White Paper statement to his public humiliation of China's domestic policies and a peek into his inner thoughts of pro-American grandstanding. 


How international partners play its game does not matter. China's priority is to sustain and share its wealth with the population. This may also mean increasing domestic consumption and contracting production and exports. These would inevitably raise cost of essential products and hurt the middle class and poorer people in developed countries. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/bob-carrs-chance-to-rally-china-interest/story-e6frg6ux-1226306548752

Quote :

The resignation of Kevin Rudd as foreign minister was a welcome development for Beijing. One clear impression based on a week of meetings in Beijing with Chinese officials and researchers as well as Australian China-based diplomats is that the "Rudd factor" has been an underlying tension in China-Australia ties for four years. With Rudd no longer in government, Chinese interlocutors were willing to elaborate on their dislike for the first Chinese-speaking Western leader.

Interestingly, it was not the 2009 Defence White paper nor the (in)famous Beijing University speech by Rudd in 2008 that appears to have caused the greatest irritation among Chinese foreign policy specialists. Rather, it was Rudd's uncomplimentary remark about Chinese ("rat f . . kers") at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in addition to his comments to Hillary Clinton about being prepared to use force against China, disclosed by WikiLeaks.

So the Darwin decision has put Australia on the radar screen of China's foreign policy establishment. Some might ask, for better or for worse, but in the words of one Australian official, it is better to be noticed for the wrong reasons than to be "just a hole in the ground". Australia struggles to get the attention of a rising power, which in its foreign policy thinking is absorbed by its relations with its neighbours and other major powers, especially the US. 


Herein lies a real and substantive opportunity for Foreign Minister Carr, an unknown entity to Beijing. Carr should seek a meeting with his Chinese counterpart as soon as possible. Australia needs more meaningful strategic engagement with China. Raising the level of regularly scheduled, recurring summit meetings to the deputy prime minister or foreign minister level would establish a high-level mechanism, which is not susceptible to the inevitable ups and downs in relationships.


It would also offer the possibility to deepen discussions between Canberra and Beijing from merely bilateral issues to broadly regional issues. It is in Australia's interests to be perceived by China not only as a trading partner, but also as an important and useful regional player, with which regional problems can jointly be addressed.

China's Rise : Indonesia reassures Australia over security concerns

The present Indonesian leadership is more enlightened than some of the former post-Suharto governments that are "nationalistic" and discriminatory towards its own population. Apart from recovery from chaotic state and economic doldrums, Indonesia appears to generated a sophisticated vision and strategy in a more complex international environment.

In this respect, Indonesia is far more advanced and open-minded than the Australian government in seizing opportunities without allowing prejudices to colour its foreign policies. Ignorance breeds fear and contempt for another who has miraculously survived and prospered. The US and Australia are constrained when it chooses to transplant their values, colonial past and experience from the Cold War to fit a different world order.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono hopes to steer an equal distance between China and US. He sees increase US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region at Australia's encouragement would only increase tensions.  The Indonesian leader obviously has a good understanding of Chinese intentions.

Indonesia now recognises that using force will not settle disputes and favours negotiations to settle conflicts and disputes in the region.  Nevertheless, in the longer term, Indonesia seeks to play a bigger role in Southeast Asia as Malaysia declines economically and exploits religion and racism for political ends.

Base on past history, culture, economics and pragmatism, the Chinese are careful not to stretch its resources, a stronger China will not take on the policeman role which US and NATO countries have been very enthusiastic. Chinese governments have always been contented to disseminate Chinese culture and language but are reluctant to commit or expand militarily beyond its territorial borders.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/lets-join-neighbour-to-ensure-ongoing-prosperity-20120315-1v80k.html?skin=text-only

While the Australian foreign affairs and trade department is non-chalant in its written declaration, actions speak louder than words as the government moves towards closer strategic partnership with the US.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/chinas_rise/summary.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilIfaXpRxbrIVQ0UO58sc2QkQw6Q?docId=CNG.bf557d272421957daefbee9ec684b820.201

Elections : Chinese direct democracy models have come a long way

It is a step forward for the Chinese government (with overlapping membership of Chinese Communist Party) to public promote direct elections in the country.

http://www.chinastudygroup.org/li-zhaoxing-china-direct-elections-are-there-difficulties.html

Indeed, the People's Congress has a strong foundation build from grassroots elections, unlike the less participatory and representative primaries of US presidential elections.

http://www.world-china.org/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3306

This may come as a surprise to many so-called China watchers who are no experts in the multi level and regional people's government. Way back in the 1980s, just out of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people have taken the initiative to experiment with democracy from the grassroots upwards. This was enshrined in the 1982 constitutional reform. Village committees have been thriving since then, though these are never captured or picked up in the mainstream western media. Contrary to the impression of an all-powerful central authority and top down directives, local governments (for better or for worse) could formulate suitable policies make independent decisions.

https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0103/horsley.html

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_cn

Mao Zedong's call for people's democracy had been tainted by his personal insecurity, attachment to theories and his henchmen's hunger for power. Ironically though, perhaps Chinese are experimenting participatory politics that suit local conditions to fulfil the aspirations of their "great leader" who liberated them from slavery and colonialisation.

China is even considering holding direct elections in Hong Kong in five years' time due to the close ties between the former British colony and mainland.

http://chinaelectionsblog.net/?p=15493

While China is improving, the West has been on decline with regard to "democracy". The developed world has evolved into a less democratic system, too entrenched in money politics.  Electorate are either disillusioned and apathetic to participate.  At the same time populist single issue politicians and parties in the likes conservative and intolerant Tea Party are exploiting the less educated working class to power.

Instead of vilifying China's democratic models, perhaps those who professed to be practising democracy should reflect, observe others, and look internally for reforms. Who would have expected protests to gather strength among free and contented citizens of democratic countries? Only in poor, deprived and authoritarian systems in the less developed world - but stay tuned, things are changing gradually but surely. For a huge diverse nation like China, economic and social stability should take precedence. Culturally, the self could be sacrificed for common good. A hundred years is not too long to wait.

Kevin Rudd is no China lover nor expert

Chinese among Kevin Rudd supporter who don't already know that he is biased towards Chinese and passionately and unquestionably pro-US may be relieved that he failed to gain the party support to replace  Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.  It is not a consolation that Gillard is no better. She is biased due to her ill-informed and apathy on foreign policy issues. 


China is unfazed by the bickering Down under.  Nevertheless, it has a longstanding and consistent policy of not taking sides in any country's affairs. This is a world of difference from certain developed nations that actively support and supplies material aid for rebels and lobbies in other government. 


A Chinese speaking Australian leader is no big deal these days especially if one is full of himself and does not aspire to learn and make improvements.  This has earned Rudd the reputation of being most tactless and undiplomatic diplomat not just within his own cabinet, party but overseas.  Many Australian academics and businessmen are critical of Rudd's limited understanding of the dynamics in Chinese politics and economy. 


QUOTE :  

Top Chinese researcher and ex-diplomat Jiang Yuechun said :

''Kevin Rudd has been broadly supportive of the US's return to Asia and various Japanese designs for the Pacific co-operations - we have had many clashes as a result of that. I think the return of Rudd will create more friction and warning points on regional and strategic issues,  ....   


the troubled state of relations between the two nations during Mr Rudd's stint as prime minister. ''We all know that when he was still in power, the clashes between two countries have increased noticeably 
 During Mr Rudd's time at The Lodge, the relationship between the two countries was rocked by a series of disputes over foreign investment, defence postures, human rights and the arrest of Australian citizens.
 
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-return-would-strain-china-links-says-scholar-20120226-1twiy.html

Syria Explained

Understanding the reasons behind Russia and China's UNSC veto against purposeful and engineered regime change are desperately lacking. 

Do the West and Arab despots really care about human rights in Syria? The dim prospects in Syria go beyond human rights in the short terms. 

Foremost, the concern should be the rise of Sunni and Zionist collaboration aimed at weakening Iran and Iraq, and the consequences on Shia and Christian minorities in authoritarian Arab states.   

Rather than picking on falsified and exaggerated massacres which even the Arab League was hard pressed to find evidence to support Western claims, look out for the sinister agenda.  The world is deceived yet again but many never seem to learn any lessons. 

We have only Russia and China who saw through the ruse to prevent the dominos falling and worse human rights disasters.  Ex-commis from the Cold War period continue to be demonized for not supporting colored revolutions in selective abhorrent countries. 

Independent minded leaders are clearly obstacles to neo-imperialism propagated since earlier British colonial and American expansionism post-WWII. The US and NATO are not reliable allies. Just look at the villain turned darling Gaddafi’s downfall.. Having seen developments of Islamists hijacking the revolution in Egypt and Libya, would Assad be stupid enough to accelerate the demise of his government and all that he has built for the country without a fight?  

National sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected, the very rules set up by the West, but are constantly altered to serve their interests. To be fair, the United Nations should not be an extension of US and NATO but look after all states and humanity. 

Warning: be careful who you depose

BY:       JOHN R. BRADLEY 

Fro     The Australian

          February 13, 2012 12:00AM

IS the Syrian regime hellbent on political suicide? There can be no doubt President Bashar al-Assad is determined to crush rebellion, but if he had really carried out a massacre in the city of Homs (as was reported by most of the Western media) it would have been an act of complete madness.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has been deploring the Russian and Chinese veto of a Western-backed UN resolution against Syria, but a look at the Russians' reservations reveals legitimate concerns.

The West seems keen to portray the uprising as a simple story of freedom fighters opposing tyranny, when the situation is much more complex. An awful repeat of the Libyan debacle is beginning to unfold: Western reporters embed themselves with self-declared former al-Qa'ida fighters and bands of tribal fanatics, but fail to report this so as not to undermine the "Arab Spring".

The result of this in Libya is plain to see. Once the Islamist militias had established their rule in Tripoli, they imposed sharia law on the once secular country and set about torturing their enemies in a way that would have put even Gaddafi to shame.

Now the same voices that helped the Islamists to take over Libya - and then feigned surprise when they introduced a new and even worse type of despotism - are calling for another armed revolution in Syria. It doesn't seem to matter to them that should their insurrection succeed, the new regime might cause untold suffering for the Syrian people, most of whom (it is not often reported) have not joined the uprising. Why would they? They have plenty of reason to fear that what would come after Assad could be far more repressive and potentially murderous.

The NATO-sponsored government in exile, the Syrian National Council, is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The ranks of the rebel Free Syrian Army have been swelled by radical Islamists from Iraq and Libya, who are being armed and funded by Qatar via Lebanon and Turkey.

The Emir of Qatar, darling of the West, has at least had the decency to make his intentions clear: he has declared he wants to overthrow the last secular Arab regime. He has installed proxies of the insane Wahhabi cult in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, and now aims to do the same in Syria.

The House of Saud cares nothing for ordinary Syrians - its interest in the conflict is simply strategic. Along with its undeclared ally, Israel, it would like to see a group of Sunni and Wahhabi despots, hostile to their common enemy, Iran, replace Assad, who has collaborated with Tehran.

But what of Syria's religious minorities, the moderate Alawites, the Christians and the Shi'ites? What of the women? What of the dwindling number of free-thinking intellectuals, or Syria's ordinary moderate Muslim "folks", in Obama parlance, who do not wish to live under a backward Wahhabi theocracy? They can suffer in silence, it seems. US and Israeli "security interests" must come first, and are best served by a pact with the devil.

Of course, the veto by Russia and China at the UN had nothing to do with concerns about human rights. For China, it was revenge for being duped by NATO after the UN approved a no-fly zone over Libya, supposedly strictly to protect civilians but which was used as an excuse for all-out war and subsequently to ensure China no longer had access to Libya's vast oil reserves.

Russia has extensive economic investments in Syria, whose main port is leased to the Russian navy; and it sells billions of dollars of arms to the Assad regime.

But we sell many billions more to Saudi Arabia, which is Britain's main trading partner. We installed the al-Saud dynasty back in the 1920s, and we'll continue to be silent, as we always have been, on that regime's repulsive human rights record.

What goes around certainly comes around in the Middle East, and it comes around with depressing regularity. The Arab Spring was never going to end the cycle.

John R. Bradley is the author of After the Arab Spring: How Islamists Hijacked the Middle East Revolts

The Spectator 

Excerpts : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/warning-be-careful-who-you-depose/story-e6frg6ux-1226269067692

China on the Defensive : Syria under Seige?

This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared this week in China Daily:

When China joined hands with Russia on Saturday to veto an Arab-European draft UN resolution backing an Arab League plan to promote a regime change in Syria, its stance was consistent with its approach to international issues.

The draft resolution that sought to realize a regime change in Syria did not adequately reflect the state of affairs in this Middle East country.

In putting the resolution to the vote, western powers hoped to further exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down, thus paving the way for the removal of a regime that is an obstacle to their policies in the Middle East.

By only exerting pressure on the Syrian government and explicitly trying to coerce its leader to step down, the resolution sends the message to armed groups and opponents of his regime that they have the support of the international community. This will undoubtedly make the Syrian situation even more complicated and make it impossible for all parties to reach a conciliatory agreement that is in the best interests of the country and its people.

We’ve seen what happened in Libya. With the armed intervention by some major western powers, the Libyan regime was overthrown. But instead of the democracy and freedom they were promised, Libyan people cannot even live in peace as the country is in the danger of falling into a sectarian civil war.

It is not a question of whether Assad should step down or not. It is whether the ever-worsening crisis in the country will be brought to an end in such a way that the country will not be plunged into a sectarian civil war and its people plunged into even greater misery.

China maintains that any attempt by the international community to help Syria solve its crisis must respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country.

A messy civil war in Syria will not be conducive to peace in the Middle East.

Russia’s stance that conditions should not be imposed on dialogue, and that any efforts should influence not just the government but also the armed groups is reasonable.

The draft resolution was presented too hastily and the international community should give the Russian diplomatic endeavour time to soften the positions of all the parties in Syria so that an agreement can be reached that is for the good of the country.

The Chinese government believes that, in line with the UN Charter, political consultations are the best way to help a nation solve any political crisis.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129705--china-explains-its-syria-veto-at-the-un

China Sided With Russia on Syria out of Defensiveness, Not Strength

Feb 8, 2012 1:28 PM EST

Tired of being pressured to follow rules set by the West, fearful that an Arab Spring could take root in its own soil, China’s controversial U.N. vote is all about subtext.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/08/china-sided-with-russia-on-syria-out-of-defensiveness-not-strength.html

Eurasia : China and Russia under siege with mixed and unintended results (Read : Engdahl and Walberg)

This is an old game, well orchestrated at various levels of influence, soft skills and hard military power to get what they want - anti-communism, energy resources, compliance and continued world domination by post-war victors.

Nevertheless, life is not as simple and the unexpected could spring up to unravel all the hard work. Unintended surprises that came out of Arab spring and the uncontrollable factors may challenge the . US withdrawal from Iraq is not enough to redeem past errors in strategic management and judgement in the name of pursuing high sounding democratic and humanistic goals.

QUOTE :

The ultimate goal of the US is to take the resources of Africa and Middle East under military control to block economic growth in China and Russia, thus taking the whole of Eurasia under control, author and historian William F. Engdahl reveals.

The crisis with the US economy and the dollar system, the conduct of the US foreign policy is all a part of breakdown of the entire superpower structure that was built up after the end of WWII, claims Engdahl.

“Nobody in Washington wants to admit, just as nobody in Britain a hundred years ago wanted to admit that the British Empire was in terminal decline,” claims the author, noting that “All of this is related to the attempt to keep this sole superpower not only intact, but to spread its influence over the rest of the planet.”

William F. Engdahl believes the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is a plan first announced by George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in 2003 and it was called “The Greater Middle East Project”. 

It was masterminded to take under control for the “democratization” of the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan down through Iran, Pakistan and the oil producing Persian Gulf area, across North Africa all the way to Morocco.

“The so-called Arab Spring had been planned, pre-organized and used by the instigators of the ‘spontaneous’ protests and Twitter revolts in Cairo and Tunisia and so forth,” insists the historian.

Engdahl exposes that the some of the leaders of the protests had been trained in Belgrade, Serbia, by activists of Canvas (the Center for Applied Non-Violent Actions and Strategies) and Otpor (a youth movement that played a significant role ousting the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic), organizations financed by the US State Department.

Engdahl names two reasons for the US State Department’s designs on the Islamic world.

The first reason is a vast wealth in the hands of the Arab world’s leaders, sovereign wealth funds and resources. The agenda – exactly as it was done with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 – is “the IMF privatization, ‘free market’ economy and so forth so that Western banks and financial agencies and corporations could come in and take the plunder.”

“The second agenda is militarize the oil sources in such places as Libya and the so-called Republic of South Sudan, that are directly strategic to China’s future economic growth,” points Engdahl.

“This is all about controlling Eurasia, something Zbignew Brzezinski talked about back in 1997 in his famous book The Great Chessgame, especially about controlling Russia and China and any potential cohesion of the Eurasian countries economically and politically,” he says.

And the results are already there – in Egypt and Tunisia the democracy has already brought weak economy, while Libya, the country with the highest living standards in all of Africa before the NATO bombings, today is in ruins.

The concern of the Western powers, especially the Pentagon, is the military control of the troubled region, not restoring normality, the historian evaluates. The NTC puppet government’s main concern is giving NATO prominent basing rights – something unheard of during the 42 years of Gaddafi rule.

“The AFRICOM [the Pentagon’s Africa command] is co-ordinating the scene,” William F. Engdahl says, mentioning that “interestingly enough [AFRICOM] was created just after 2006 China’s Africa diplomacy, when 40 heads of African nations were invited to Beijing and enormous deals were signed on oil exploration, building hospitals and infrastructure – anything the IMF did not do in Africa over the last 30 years.”

It is true that the US is acting against Chinese interests and national security but Beijing, that gets around $300 billion every year of trade income, simply has to invest this money somewhere and as there are no markets big enough to absorb such money – Beijing has to buy American treasuries – thus sponsoring the American wars that ironically are directed against Chinese interests.

“For the ‘Gods of Money’ of Wall Street, the only chance of survival and keeping dollar now is finding new areas of loot. The Arab Spring is directed at grabbing and privatizing the vast wealth of the Arab world,” Engdahl concludes.

But the future of the eurozone also looks grim because the Greek financial crisis was planted under the EU back in 2002 by none other than Goldman Sachs.The money trail shows, states Engdahl, that “the Greek crisis was programmed to be detonated at command by Wall Street and the US Treasury, as well as the Federal Reserve in order to defend the reserve currency – the US dollar.”

Engdahl warns that the US is building more and more bases around the world, like 17 new, mostly Air Force, bases in Afghanistan to be ready for the new war with China or probably Russia.

“Given the history more than the Cold War era, Russia can play a very stabilizing and constructive role as a counterforce to this highly dangerous strategy of The Greater Middle East project of NATO and the US,” Engdahl claims. “I would hope they do.”

http://rt.com/news/arab-engdahl-us-africa-273/

This is a good read to follow up on :

POSTMODERN IMPERIALISM
Geopolitics and the Great Games

 -   Eric Walberg

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/22/the-great-games/

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=344:eric-walbergs-qpostmodern-imperialism-geopolitics-and-the-great-gamesq-2011&catid=44:books-of-interest&Itemid=97

Previous post in this blog related to Arab Spring :

http://chinainformzen.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/better-pray-that-china-summer-will-pass.html

Good reason why General Liu is urging the leadership to rethink its flawed global investments.

http://chinainformzen.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/general-liu-yuan-says-read-zhang.html