Let’s call it the Wilsonian myth. It’s one of the most pervasive myths in American foreign policy circles today. It is the fundamental assumption upon which both liberals and conservatives base their calls for democracy and human rights. And, unfortunately, it is completely wrong. What is it? I think the editorial in today’s New York Times on China’s most recent human rights abuses sums the myth up pretty well:

“China must ensure a transparent investigation of the violence and respect the rights of anyone who has been arrested. It must work toward political solutions that give Uighurs, Tibetans and other minority groups more autonomy over their lives. Beijing’s rulers will never achieve the stability they covet until they deal with the root causes of these problems.”

Continue reading »

 

I’m normally a big fan of John Stewart, and I also generally have a lot of respect for Ted Koppel. But I was bothered by something that the two of them said yesterday during Koppel’s appearance on The Daily Show. Koppel was promoting a Discovery Channel special that has yet to air on capitalism in China, and the subject quickly turned to America’s debt, about one quarter of which is owned by the Chinese. Stewart then asked Koppel if he thought that China was about to “pull the rug out” of the American economy. Koppel basically responded that “they rely too much on selling products to the American consumer to want to do that”–certainly a true response. But no one mentioned the larger point about the developing Chinese-American relationship, contained in an old adage: if you borrow $10,000, the bank owns you, if you borrow $10 million, you own the bank.
Continue reading »

 

I love the Olympic Games. I love seeing great athletes compete in obscure sports. I love the chance to watch Bob Costas every day. I love that the competitors compete not for money, but for the chance to bring attention to their sports and pride to their countries. And I love those moments when people from around the world forget their country loyalties for a few minutes and stand together to cheer greatness. My favorite Olympic moment? It’s not even close: Eric Moussambani, the swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who took two minutes to swim 100 meters in 2000, and was given a standing ovation by the Australian audience. That day a man from a country no one’s ever heard of became a hero all over the world. That’s the heart and soul of the Olympic Games right there: no matter your country, your religion, your national or ethnic allegiance, your language, or your ideology, we can all come together and compete on a level playing field, congratulate the winners, and celebrate the opportunity just to be there.
Continue reading »

 

Hey Silence, how about an analysis of what’s going on in Japan right now with Abe’s party losing the elections…

 

President Bush is struggling to find an acceptable compromise position on global warming. For years, he has said that the time wasn’t right to act on global warming. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol, dismissed setting benchmarks for carbon dioxide emissions, and repeatedly claimed that the issue needed further study. Lately, he’s been trying to moderate that stance somewhat, due to pressures from either Tony Blair, the Supreme Court, the new Democratic Congress, or some combination thereof. So, while he continues to reject the Kyoto Protocol, and has dismissed outright the recent ambitious German proposal, he has started to show some signs of progress. He has taken preliminary steps towards increasing regulations on automobile manufacturers, and just today he has proposed a new round of international talks, which must include China and India. The stipulation that China and India be included is important for two reasons. First, it addresses the common conservative complaint with the Kyoto Protocol, that it failed to hold those two polluters to the same standard that it holds the United States, thereby creating a competitive imbalance. Second, it reduces the probability that these talks will be successful to almost nothing.

China and India have long held that it would be unfair to hold them to the same standard as Europe and the United States. After all, they are still incredibly poor countries, measured per capita, who are struggling to modernize and industrialize any way they possibly can. They claim that they cannot afford to even potentially stifle new industries by holding them to strict environmental restrictions. Furthermore, they note that the United States and the European powers had no such restrictions when we were developing economically back in the eighteen hundreds; in fact, we all notoriously stripped our countries of countless environmental resources in our quest for wealth. China and India claim that it is completely unfair to hold them to that standard. The counter argument is that we didn’t know any better at the time, whereas the newly developing states do. Furthermore, American and European workers are already at a competitive disadvantage to Chinese and Indian workers when it comes to the drastic wage differentials; forcing us to conform to significantly more restrictive environmental policies will only exacerbate the problem.

Continue reading »

© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha