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

Lessons for Occupy Wall Street - Remembering America's Tiananmen - Kent Campus massacre

OK, perhaps the London riots and looting by sympathisers of a rogue killed in an unclear scuffle with the police and opportunists who exploited the mayhem may not be suitable comparison with shooting at unarmed innocent students by the police and military.

So American, British or European students who do not read history or show disinterest in world affairs and prefer to rely on hearsay and biased news reports, think again and consider carefully before you plan to embark on a campaign that could disrupt the government for a prolonged period of time.

My sympathies and concerns go to the current worldwide Occupy Wall Street that if they persist, tragedy may befall them.

That the Jasmine Revolution would not happen in democratic and well endowed democratic countries is a myth. The fact is that democracy supports participatory decision-making, which has so far been muted due to apathy and indifference, and the predominance of corporate power.  The people have awakened. Capitalist and incestuous collaboration of politicians, military and corporations need to be questioned if not challenged by the people, for the people.

What really happened?

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm/history-world.org/

http:/kent_state_shootings.htm

QUOTE :

On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close.



WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?


WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?


In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.



That was in Ohio, an obscure state in the Midwest, not the centre of power and wealth. The best advice anyone could give to both sides : be flexible and willing to compromise. Avoid confrontation and hardline bargaining that would get nowhere but disastrous consequences. Because we know that it is not beyond the police and military to in America to fire at innocent and unarmed citizens engaging in peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins and protests.  Anything could be justified even in the land of liberty, if the authorities are forced by circumstances. Tiananmen could happen anywhere, and it did.

Tiger Mum Amy Chua not representative of Chinese parenting - moderation the best policy

The controversial book has thrown up more uproar. The is no one single Asian / Chinese mothering style.

I suspect Amy Chua with all her impressive qualifications is really a "banana" mother who tried to resist the overly relax parenting style and strived to summon some of the good old traditional parenting style.

 She came with her parents at a young age to America and thus is considered a westerner in all her ways but she values the cultural traits and values that her parents had inculcated in her. I believe she is married to a Jew as she had threatened her youngest daughter with no Hanukkah if she did not put in all her efforts.

Seriously! Do you actually believe it was hell all the way? Amy Chua must have exaggerated and spiced up her stories and presented them tongue-in-cheek.. I can't believe any Chinese parents living in western countries would do all those horrible and evil things to their kids they love. Child abuse? The jury is out there.

Arguments for

The average kids are alot tougher than you think. They should be trained to be tenacious and able to take hard knocks in life. Kids are kids. If you let them be, they will choose to have the easy way. Do they know what is good for their future? Children given too much freedom don't know what they want to do. Parents need to identify the children's strengths, encourage and nurture them to bring out the best and push them to realise the full potential. The hard fact is there is no gain without any pain.

All these talk about self esteem is ridiculous. This make belief self esteem that democratic parents give to young children too much freedom. Don't western horse breeders break the animals before they could be trained and do useful work? Do you know what sort of military training commandos and marines go through before they can considered the best fighting force? Don't make our kids "si-sis".  Most children who have endured strict discipline masters in school and at home actually turned out be quite grateful when they realise the benefits from hindsight.

Kids growing up in western societies have a lot, in fact, way too much freedom ...not only of choices in studies, free time and ample cash to spend. If not properly guarded and given a structured life, they will slack and eventually lose out to kids from families who know how to guide their young ones. Statistics have already indicated the poor performances of American and European kids as compared to kids from Asian countries like China, Korea, India and Singapore. Economic competitiveness is sufficiently important to merit our attention for the long term viability of any country, the government and citizens included.

I have personally known of some parents who have raised successful kids who are either forgetful or in denial. They tried to hid the fact that they had been strict enforcers of draconian rules on curfews, long hours of studies, music lessons, exam coaching, and no boyfriends or girlfriends. I challenge those who claim that totally non-Asian parenting produced high rate of success to come clean with how they deprived or provided for their children during their growing up years.

If you build up children's ego with undeserving praises, it will turn them into spoilt brats and delay the problems. When the time comes and they find study or job opportunities lacking, they will grow up and learn about life the hard way, a rude shock that shatters their big ego.


Consider this likelihood that being lenient may not be helpful, it's just hiding and postponing the harsh realities from your beloved kids.

How to land your kid in therapy : Why obsession with our kids’ happiness may be dooming them to unhappy adulthoods --  A therapist and mother reports  (by Lori Gottlieb)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/8555/

Arguments against

On the other hand, not every child could take the rigour and stringent regime. It could make or break different personalities. The difficulty is finding out the unique characteristics of your kid to get the right balance of prescriptions. There is not one certain fool proof way in parenting, arguably, the most challenging process in one's life time.

Solution?

There's no simple answer to parenting. I think the author was deliberately overstating her case to make a point. In the end, there's no single answer I guess. Every child is different and needs an approach tailored for him/her. But a couple of common sense principles probably hold no matter what - set clear and firm parameters. Within those parameters, give kids the leeway to explore and discover. The tough part is figuring out the parameters."

Chinese parents themselves have taken issue with the book. There are disagreements with her methods among the Chinese community, not just in areas where Chinese assimilated with western and indigenous cultures, but in East Asia where Confucianism has strong influence on family relations.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110112/tiger-mothers-chua-110112/

Parents would give up anything for their children and do not love them any less regardless of their cultural backgrounds.  The results of many "western" style parenting are cut both ways, just like the Tiger mum method. Children growing up in relaxed environment learn through trial and error, a mix bag of good experiences, hard knocks that go into lessons in life. To be sure, not everyone is academically inclined, musically talented, or motivated to make it to the roll of honors. But hey, I think they have a happier childhood, more interesting personalities and social skills. Success depends on networking and good fortune as well.

The main setback is making up for lost time. If most of us have an average lifespan of 70 years, each individual should come across opportunities to make up for lost time or errors in our upbringing. Parents too have chances to make amends. It is just a matter of working harder in later life to catch up. Again, the outcomes vary.

Finally, not every child is the same. Some improve and thrive under pressure. But there are a minority who will break down under stress. Parents must be sensitve to their children's needs and not push over the limits. What is the ideal balance? There is no magical formula. We have to try and find out what suits us and our children best. There is no one size fits all formula. Parents must be perceptive to know what parenting style suits each child. Some children may not understand and think that parents show favouritism. 

Chinese and Jewish parents have very much in common. A broad stroke judgemental casting the good and bad of East versus West and which is better is too simplistic.There is no easy solution and a challenge to find the right balance. You reap what you sow. Let us see who has the last laugh. You don't know till you reach old age.