This post is a trial run by Dave

Or at least that’s what I’d like to see when the New York Times describes Dick Cheney’s visit to Topeka, Kansas as being “like a rock star coming to town”. And that’s just in the words of the mother of a 6 year old Cheneyphile. Yes, the New York Times’ Mark Leibovich has injected some humor into the Grey Old Lady. Can it possibly be inadvertant humor that he uses the term “Cheneyphiles” and describes 6 year olds looking at pictures of old men on the Internet, all while Foleygate is still burning? After all, Leibovich also writes:

There were no audible requests for Mr. Cheney to crowd-surf, shed his tie or perform ‘Free Bird.’

Yes, he’s definitely trying to be funny. I think when you’re discussing Topeka, all you really can do is laugh at them. Or cry. I’ll take laugh.

And then there was this quote:

‘It’s just such a big thrill to see and hear this man,’ says Marvin Smith, a farmer and former teacher.

Mr. Smith says most people he knows feel the same way, ‘except for a few of those peacemakers.’ He means protesters, a smattering of whom are picketing down the street.

Did that guy just use the word “peacemaker” as… a put-down? By “peacemaker”, does he mean people like David Lane, arrested in Denver, Colorado for telling the vice president to his face, on the street “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible”? Or by “peacemaker”, does he mean Jesus-like? If so, shouldn’t he be outside?

Lengthy article on China’s “new Left” movement and one of its main proponents, Wang Hui, editor of the journal Dushu. I’m not going to try and summarize this long piece, but Wang deals with the contradictions in a China that has embraced turbocapitalism and yet still calls itself a socialist country:

More than four million Chinese participated in the 87,000 protests recorded in 2005, and these statistics may not fully convey the rage and discontent of Chinese living with one of the world’s highest income inequalities and deteriorating health and education systems, as well as the arbitrary fees and taxes imposed by local party officials. Much of this, Wang said, could be laid at the feet of the “right-wing radicals” or neoliberal economists who cite Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (advocates of unregulated markets who inspired Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 80’s) and who argue for China’s integration into the global economy without taking into account the social price of mass privatization. And it is they, Wang added, who have held favor with the ruling elite and have dominated the state-run media.

Wang challenges the Western notion that free markets will automatically bring democracy:

For Wang, democracy is not just a simple matter of expanding political freedom for the middle class or creating legal and constitutional rights for a minority already substantially empowered by market reforms. Democracy in China, he said, has to be based upon the active consent and mobilization of the majority of its population, and be able to ensure social and economic justice for them.

According to this piece, “New Left” ideas are increasingly reflected in the rhetoric of the Central Government. It will be interesting to see if their ideas on democracy and social justice are reflected as well.

Lots of food for thought here. Read the whole piece and let me know what you think.

Thanks to the TPD reader who alerted me to this piece – afraid I don’t remember who it was!

UPDATE Reader Brendan refers us to this excellent post from J. at the Granite Studio on Wang Hui – J. makes the point that, for all of Wang Hui’s merits, “he still views the CCP as a force for change.” Writes J.:

Far from being a bulwark of socialism, the CCP actually fosters a climate where legal protections and social programs can be placed on the books at the center and effectively gutted of all meaning by the time they trickle down the party bureaucracy to the local areas. It’s the nature of a one-party system that punishes dissent.

Be sure to check out that discussion as well.

The New York Times reports on a proposed new law that would dramatically increase the power of China’s labor unions – at least on paper:

China is planning to adopt a new law that seeks to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers’ rights by giving labor unions real power for the first time since it introduced market forces in the 1980’s.

The move, which underscores the government’s growing concern about the widening income gap and threats of social unrest, is setting off a battle with American and other foreign corporations that have lobbied against it by hinting that they may build fewer factories here…

…It would apply to all companies in China, but its emphasis is on foreign-owned companies and the suppliers to those companies…

…But it is not clear how effectively such a new labor law would be carried out through this vast land because local officials have tended to ignore directives from the central government or seek ways around them.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. China’s only legal union is controlled by the state – but still, giving an organization of workers the ability to negotiate contracts and working conditions brings with it the possibility of empowerment outside of strict CCP control. The article also notes:

In a surprisingly democratic move, China asked for public comment on the draft law last spring and received more than 190,000 responses, mostly from labor activists. The American Chamber of Commerce sent in a lengthy response with objections to the proposals. The European Chamber of Commerce also responded.

The law would impose heavy fines on companies that do not comply. And the state-controlled union – the only legal union in China – would gain greater power through new collective-bargaining rights or pursuing worker grievances and establishing work rules. One provision in the proposed law reads, “Labor unions or employee representatives have the right, following bargaining conducted on an equal basis, to execute with employers collective contracts on such matters as labor compensation, working hours, rest, leave, work safety and hygiene, insurance, benefits, etc.”

He really said this:

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays, who is in a tough re-election fight, said Friday the Abu Ghraib prison abuses were more about pornography than torture…

…”Now I’ve seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture,” Shays said at a debate Wednesday.

“It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked,” added Shays. “And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn’t torture.”

Oh, and whose fault is it? Why, the liberals, of course! James Wolcott brings us this excerpt from Dinesh D’Souza’s upcoming book, “The Enemy At Home”:

“Although I do not believe that Abu Ghraib reflects America’s predatory intentions toward the Muslim world, I can see why Muslims would see it this way. In one crucial respect, however, the Muslim critics of Abu Ghraib were wrong. Contrary to their assertions, Abu Ghraib did not reflect the shared values of America, it reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America [my italics]. Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America… This was bohemianism, West Virginia-style.”

Wolcott elaborates:

The theme of The Enemy at Home, as in so many conservative tracts, is that whatever goes wrong, liberals and liberalism are always the ones at fault. Conservatives may make mistakes, but their mistakes (such as Bush’s on WMDs and the welcome we would get in Iraq) are well-intentioned and rooted in idealism, not in the moral rot where liberalism pitches its tent. Indeed, when conservatives–heroes in error, to use Ahmed Chalabi’s memorable phrase–go astray, it’s often because they’re following liberals’ lousy example. “In trying to defend the indefensible [at Abu Ghraib], conservatives became cheap apologists for liberal debauchery.” To my knowledge, liberals haven’t been blamed yet for the recent slaughter-execution of Amish schoolgirls, but I suppose it’s only a matter of time before they hang that one on us too.

Words fail me. Thankfully they don’t fail Wolcott.

Dave has returned from Macau…

I woke up and Jay-Z has been banned from doing a show
in Shanghai, says the BBC, due to “vulgar” lyrics. CCP bein’ supa ugly. They just addicted to the game, but they can’t knock the hustle.

The irony that “Big Pimpin'” is not allowed in a country with an estimated 20 million prostitutes (economist Yang Fan), well, I was just in Zhuhai and Macau, and all I can say is “Jigga what? Jigga who?”

Meanwhile in Taiwan, Cecilia Cheung and Chow Yun-Fat are gonna be feelin’it. At least someone knows what girls like. Streets is watchin’ Hu. Can I get a…

Bonus: Check out the illegal but downloadable Grey Album, Jay-Z’s a capella album set to beats from the Beatles White album. None less than Robert Christgau has given it the holy blessing of “phat”.

No time to post, but as mentioned in comments, China Digital Times has an update.

Raj’s second post of the day!

Chinese authorities to witnesses of Tibetan murder – “Shut up!”

Yes, you remember Sha Zukang telling the US to “shut up”. China is obviously making a habit of this, by now threatening witnesses to the shooting of Tibetan refugees by Chinese soldiers.

Chinese diplomats in the Nepalese capital of Kathmandu are tracking down and trying to silence hundreds of Western climbers and Sherpas who witnessed the killing of Tibetan refugees on the Nangpa La mountain pass last week.

What I think is equally disgusting is the silence from many climbers. Maybe they would have reacted differently if a foreign climber had been shot. Then they’d be scared. But, hey, who cares if some Tibetan dies so long as they can keep climbing?

An American climber, who asked not to be identified, told of his revulsion at the failure of other climbers to speak out. “Did it make anyone turn away and go home? Not one,” he said. “People are climbing right in front of you to escape persecution while you are trying to climb a mountain. It’s insane.”

Of course a few courageous climbers have come forward with evidence, such as Steve Lawes, a British policeman who witnessed the event.

The shooting happened at around 10.30am on 30 September. Mr Laws said: “A group of between 20 and 30 people on foot [was] heading towards the Nangpa La Pass. Then those of us at advance base camp heard two shots, which may have been warning shots. The group started to cross the glacier and there were more shots. We were probably about 300 yards away from the Chinese who were shooting. This time it definitely wasn’t warning shots: the soldiers were putting their rifles to their shoulders, taking aim, and firing towards the group. One person fell, got up, but then fell again. We had a telescope with us but the soldiers took this. Later they used it to look at the dead body.”

It’s important that these murders not fly under the radar. They happened and the attempts to cover them up make them even more heinous. But, hey, we expect that from the Chinese authorities now. Maybe their long-term goal is that people will get so used to hearing about this sort of thing they don’t take any notice, and thus they can escape criticism. Well I think we shouldn’t let them get away with it.

It’s Raj here again! There was a great report on the World Service that I wanted to share with you. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Rupert Wingfield Hayes has been in China for eight years. The following article is an excellent piece on modern China and why it is a horrible mistake to only focus on the big shiny buildings in Shanghai and numbers of cars on Beijing’s streets.

China’s new wealth and old failings

“Why are you so down on China?” is a refrain I have got used to hearing.

How many times have we heard that, or even “YOU JUST CHINA-BASHER! YOU RACIST AND HATE CHINA, YOU JUST ENVIOUS OF OUR GLORIOUS REVOLUTION, FOREIGN-DEVIL!!! LONG LIVE FRIENDLY CCP!!!!!!”

Or words to that effect…. 😉

Twenty five years ago the Chinese Communist Party decided to scrap Marxist economics and pursue a capitalist free-market economy. But, at the same time, it refused and continues to refuse, any form of political liberalisation. The result is what we see today – astonishing growth, combined with astonishing greed, where wealth means power, and without power you are nothing.

Indeed. And this is why in some respects modern China is worse than what followed before. At least before you only had to worry about the Party. Now you also have to worry about rich businessman that have officials in their pockets and can do whatever the hell they like. Also you have, according to the World Bank, increasing corruption (not less as CCP-apologists would have us believe).

Comparison of World Bank’s records on the governance of China over the last decade

So we can see that most things have got worse, especially corruption, government effectiveness and “voice and accountability”. Even regulation quality is barely up, with rule of law on the way down again. These are statistics that people rarely bother to view (or know exist), yet they reflect the reports that Rupert has been making in recent years. Things look nice on the outside, but the core is still rotten – maybe decaying even further.

Many who come to the Games will, no doubt, be bowled over by the vibrancy and modernity of China. They may even tell you it was not what they expected, not what they had seen on TV. To them I would say, remember Mr and Mrs Nie and the tens of millions of ordinary Chinese who to this day are denied the basic freedoms of speech, of a fair trial, and to equal treatment before the law. My friends at the foreign ministry will, no doubt, think that I am once again up to my bad old ways, and that after eight years I still don’t really understand China.

To be honest I think Rupert understands China better than those officials do – or at least better than they are willing to admit. After all denial is better than admitting you are the problem. It’s always easier to blame foreigners….

You can also listen to the full report by clicking here.

At least for now. China Digital Times has the details and links.

I don’t have a lot of time to post but want to at least provide a space to discuss North Korea’s apparent successful application to the nuclear club. China is in a real bind:

A North Korean nuclear test has long been a nightmare scenario for China.

Beijing is one of the North’s few remaining allies, and a major supplier of energy and financial aid to the secretive regime in Pyongyang.

China wants stability on the Korean peninsula; the last thing it wanted was an international crisis right on its doorstep.

It has condemned the claimed test on Monday, saying it resolutely opposes North Korea’s actions, and that the test has damaged relations between the two countries.

That anger is also mixed with embarrassment, because Beijing repeatedly urged the North Koreans to abandon their plans for a test.

The fact that the North went ahead regardless appears to be an indication that there are limits to the influence that China’s leaders have in Pyongyang.

But the situation is more complex than that. China fears that if it uses what leverage it does have, by stopping aid to North Korea, the regime in Pyongyang might collapse.

That could send a flood of refugees over the border into China – something that Beijing wants to avoid at all costs.

So China is reluctant to use the powers it has, worrying about the possible consequences of pulling the plug on Pyongyang.

But a nuclear North Korea carries with it the potential of a regional nuclear arms race – and how would China regard, say, a nuclear Japan? Might a flood of North Korean refugees be preferable?