Responding to Chinese poem on the world's perception of China

Below is a poem that was written anonymously and has been circulated widely on the internet. It's ironic that a poem which closes with demands for understanding and cooperation to make the world a better place is proceeded by a couple dozen lines of vague accusations as to how "you" (the US? France? Japan? the World?) view and/or treat China in a negative, unfair manner. It just goes to prove that the lack of understanding goes both ways.

I don't deny that China has gotten a lot of unjust criticism lately. Many experts have made valid, measured analyses of certain events and developments in China (Tibet, class division, etc.) that merit considerable attention, both in and outside of China. These same analyses have been used by people who know very little about China, and here I'm not claiming to be an expert, to serve as a means of blaming them for most of the ills in the world today.

This isn't productive. Somewhere in the thick of it all, the idea that we're all in this together is lost.

On the other hand, the ostensible nationalism that's apparently even got the Chinese government itself worried about the flames it's fanned is quite worrisome. Many people have presented the poem below as a valid call for understanding from the Chinese, but I can't help but see it as emblematic of a certain, perhaps large, group's belief that criticism of anything Chinese is an insult to all of China (case in point the absurd, though vehement, criticism of Jack Cafferty for his "racist" remarks). This sort of knee-jerk reaction not only overshadows the valid concerns being raised over China, highlighting the more fantastic admonitions, but it also weakens the Chinese defense of themselves.

I copied the poem as it appears at The China Desk, where there is also another edited version. My comments are in bold.


What Do You Want From Us?
Original Version by Anonymous

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
Sick? It had, in the US at least, to do with G-O-L-D. Things like that are almost always economic. Which is why every generation has it's perceived threat (and they always seem more dangerous when you put "the" in front of them: the Italians, the Irish, the Japanese, the Latinos, the communists, the Muslims, the Osmonds, the abolitionists, etc.), and it's something we have to deal with in every country.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
You are also, as you noted, called the next superpower. Let's not forget that.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
And you used them. That's the sad thing about drugs. Ever heard of Afghanistan?
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
The easiest person to blame is never yourself. To be honest, though, most of the criticism I've heard is of the companies that ship the jobs off, not of the people to whom they go.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
You've done your fair share of marching. (Still not finished) All countries have done a little too much dabbling outside of their borders.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
How long does it count as broken? You going to pick up Korea and Vietnam, too? Heck, if Tibet is a part of China, isn't Mongolia, most of Russia, Iraq, the Ukraine? Where does it stop?
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
"We" obviously "hated" you less than that other communist country.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
By that reasoning, I'm afraid of snakes because they have scales, and I like computers because they're made of plastic. That's obviously not the case. Your transition to capitalism isn't in and of itself the cause of current disputes.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
You are. We all are. All six billion of us. Everyone else's problem is that you want to say that it's not fair that the West had its chance to destroy and, now that its your time, no one will let you. There's only one environment to destroy, and it's almost there. Sorry. Life's not fair.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
Sure, if that were the only way to limit numbers. There are plenty more options than the one you implemented, and, now, where are the wives for those twenty million men?
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
No. People said you ate dogs, which, as all my Chinese friends told me, is spot on.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
I've never heard anyone blame China for lending cash. I have however heard people express anxiety over the fact that China holds so much US' currency. There's a difference. Most Americans see it as irresponsible and blame their government.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
Again, you are number one. That's not a baseless claim. It is reality. I know most western countries did it in the past, but that doesn't make it okay now. Sorry. On the bright side, there's a lot of money in renewable energy, which China is actually starting to use more and more. Hope it goes well for you. I really do.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
Again, we blame everyone. Everyone who doesn't ride his bike everywhere (that he made out of spare parts from an older bike), grow his own food, compost waste, use solar energy, only buy biodegradable packaging, and so on. Which is to say, almost everyone. You are not being blamed. You -- no, we are being warned.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you give weapons to the Sudanese government in return for oil, it's called supporting genocide. When you sail a ship full of weapons to some of the most corrupt places in the world, it's called exploitation. You're country isn't the only to have done it, but the government seems to have remarkably few qualms about its effects.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
Yep, and you might have heard how badly that went for us. I wouldn't advise you to do the same.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
I'm pretty sure a lot of you were demanding rule of law as well. Isn't that normal, in chaos, to want order?
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
That's a mouthful. What's confusing there is the fact that upholding the law in China often means violating what many around the world believe are inherent human rights. For instance, in China, it's illegal to view certain things on the internet, so when you are caught doing so, you are punished. Therefore, the punishment is for a crime by Chinese law, but, elsewhere in the world, that crime is actually a basic right of the citizenry.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
The thing here is that there are a lot of people who aren't silent, until they're silenced. It's your personal choice to be silent, but your right to speak freely should not be abrogated should you desire to do so.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Some are. They're the ones who make the news. It's the same everywhere.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
I don't at all actually. (Phew! Glad we got that cleared up!)
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
Oh. Should have read the whole thing through.
We don't hate you either
Good. That's a start.
...But, do you understand us?
Understand you? Yes and no. It doesn't have everything to do to do with being Chinese, though. There are plenty of Americans, French, and Taiwanese that I don't understand either. It's safe to say I have a lot to learn about everyone.
Of course we do, you said,
No, I didn't. Not exactly. I said, "Yes and no." (see above)
...We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
And you have XinHua, CCTV, and the People's Daily.
What do you really want from us?
That would take forever...
Think hard first, then answer... Because you only get so many chances.
Oh, no, really. I've actually thought about it quite a bit. It's just that that question is so vague. I mean, I think the world asks a lot of China, just as it asks a lot of other countries. Believe it or not, most Americans feel like the entire world looks to them to fix things. Your question, though, implies that the world is only asking these things of China.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
Amen!
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
對阿!
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
Indeed. But it's crowded, so we need to work together to get some of this stuff worked out.

Picking through The China Desk's claims on Tibet and California

Recently, an article entitled "China's Claims to Tibet Have Greater Validity than US Claims to California"at The China Desk caught my attention. I have admittedly little knowledge of the historical links between China and Tibet compared to other issues I usually study, and I was intrigued by Bevin Chu's idea that California might serve as a parallel not only to better understand what is happening in China and Tibet but also to re-evaluate my own perspectives on the US' claims to the Southwest. Concerning the latter, I'm always interested in the double standards different nations impose when dealing with other countries, like, for instance, when the US supports the secession of one region, though it fought dearly against the secession of southern states during the Civil War.

In the end, though, I found Chu's arguments, and those made in the article he referenced, to be very misleading on most counts. The very fact that he seems to give no credence whatsoever to countervailing arguments is worrisome. I have an inherent hesitation from accepting beliefs that are presented from a position of such self-assured infallibility as Mr. Chu often seems to write.

The reason I decided, this time, to read the article was because of my own misgivings over the recent revelations that Western press outlets have taken liberties in editing photos and videos when reporting on Tibet. I've been very troubled by this, so I decided I needed to get a better understanding of the situation.

After doing so, however, I find China's claims over Tibet are just as tenuous and rooted in historical approximation as many of China's other claims, including Taiwan, of course.

Chu's general premise: If Americans want to dispute the justice of Chinese rule over Tibet, then they should also, to avoid imposing double standards, take a look at their own control of California.

But the United States annexed California in 1848, a mere 160 years ago. If the passage of 160 years must be accepted because "Too much time has passed. What's done is done," then Tibet, which became part of China 737 years ago, is even more "irrevocably a part of China."

If "You can't turn the clock back" because "Too much time has passed, and what's done is done," then why are these Hollywood stars attempting to turn the clock back for the Tibetan region of China, but not for the California region of the US?

In fact, China's vastly more compelling claim to Tibet doesn't end there. As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

Chu's Claims

Claim #1:

Many Dalai Lama acolytes don't even know that the honorific title "Dalai," as in "Dalai Lama," is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet's lamaist theocracy by the Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet's theocrats by Hans during China's Ming dynasty, and Manchus during China's Qing dynasty.

That's right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.

It seems here that Chu is saying that because the term "Dalai Lama" actually comes from the Mongolians who were, at the time in control of China, then the authority also conferred upon the man named the Dalai Lama derives from China. Does that mean that the American president's authority should be traced to the origin of the word president itself, being derived from the French président or, further back, Italy, as it was the seat of Roman power and the origin of the Latin præsidentum?

The term "Dalai Lama" comes from the Mongol prince Altan-Khan's translation of the 3rd Dalai Lama's name: Sonam Gyatso. Gyatso means "Ocean" in Tibetan, and Lama is the Tibetan word indicating a priest of high rank. All the Mongol prince did was translate Gyatso into the Mongolian word for "ocean," which is dalai.

The only way Chu could make the argument that the "Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China" is if he could prove that it was the Emperor of China who chose each successive Dalai Lama, which is not the case. The succession of the Dalai Lama is dictated by consultation of the Nechung Oracle. Therefore, the authority of the Dalai Lama is derived from the people who believe in the oracles' ability to sense into which body the phowa has chosen to channel the Dalai Lamas "mindstream."

Of course, the PRC would say that, traditionally, China permitted the selection of each Dalai Lama, and by way of it's permission displayed its authority over the process. In order to prove that, though, Chu would need to present an instance, before the PRC or ROC, when a selection was made by the oracle but the Chinese refused the selection. Such an event would have to predate the ROC and PRC because otherwise it would not show a traditional precedent. The PRC's desire, for instance, to weigh in on religion is well publicized, and Tibetans are certainly not exempt. In the nineties, the PRC tried to designate their own Panchen Lama (2nd after the Dalai Lama), despite the Dalai Lama having named another to the position. The boy named by the Dalai Lama is now the world's youngest political prisoner. Ironically, it appears that Panchen Lama is a wholly Tibetan term, unlike Dalai Lama, yet it's the only position that evidences a precedent of Chinese involvement in its selection.

Moreover, the PRC has announced that it will have the final word on reincarnation:

Whenever the next succession takes place there will be three extra complications. The first is that in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.

Claim #2

As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

I'm certainly not going to defend 19th-century American beliefs in Manifest Destiny, and indeed in the very PBS article that Chu cited there is a quote from Ulysses S. Grant expressing his belief that the war was

one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Yet, unjust as it may have been, the Mexicans fired first, and there is an official treaty in which Mexico ceded what is now the American Southwest to the US government with no wiggle room. To my knowledge, the same doesn't exist with Tibet, while a tradition of Tibetan de facto independence and even, arguably, Tibetan superiority does.

Of course, I know treaties aren't the only manner by which countries go about procuring territorial bounty, and that tradition, such as would be the case for Tibet, is another way countries lay claim to their soil. However, it's funny that, as Chu readily states, it was through Mongol collaboration, during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, that Tibet became a part of the "Chinese" (then, Mongol) Empire.

Thus, it seems that the existence of, at present, an independent Mongolia would be the best evidence countering Mr. Chu's claims that Tibet is an inseparable part of China. Moreover, China's vague, distant authority in Tibet over the centuries, to my knowledge, isn't terribly different from the tributary kingdoms China once ruled over in Korea and Vietnam. I doubt many would take kindly to the idea that China still has claims over these independent countries as well.


Claim #3

From article linked in Chu's post:

For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum.

To put it simply, the author gives no evidence.

Claim #4

From article:

Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.

That seems about right. If they are not citizens of the United States, then he still represents them. I live in Taiwan, but Chen Shui Bian is not my president.

Doesn't the United States reserve the right to interfere in the internal politics of a nation if it concerns US, its people, or its interests? For better or for worse, I'm pretty sure that's the way it goes.

Claim #4

From article:

Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?

In November, I'll be voting for the next United States president by absentee ballot from Taiwan. Is that so alarming?

Moreover, if that Mexican legislator was foolish enough to present himself before the US Congress and claim himself, by virtue of his votes, the elected congressman from a certain district, it would suffice to simply point to the Constitution and alert the politician to these lines:

• Article 1, Section 2
  

  No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

• Article 1, Section 3
  

  No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That should clear up any misconceptions. If need by, I'm sure they can procure a cope of the document in Spanish.

Claim #5

From article:

Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico.

Who did the poll? I'm assuming it's the Zogby Poll written about here.

Most of those that emigrated from Mexico became naturalized US citizens and have become productive citizens. Unfortunately, some embittered intellectuals (on both sides of the border) have advocated that most of the southwest US belongs to Mexico. As a result they also believe that there should be no border control between Mexico and the US. Their rantings have convinced many that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control.

Remember, the poll says nothing of Mexican Americans, only Mexicans. The article is where the connection to intellectuals on both sides of the border who believe that the lands belong to Mexico. The people polled have no voting power in the US and join the ranks of people around the world who espouse beliefs that just don't match up with reality.

Moreover, I assume that if one were to do a poll among Mexican-Americans and recent Mexican immigrants in America, seeing as they fled their country, the results would be considerably different. Even if they believed the US unjustly acquired its Southwestern territories, they probably wouldn't be advocating its return.

Also, let's not forget that, in 2004,

Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before U.S. troops invaded the country 13 months ago.

''The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program'', said Steven Kull, director of the Program'' on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.

''The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November'', he added.

The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.

Yeah, opinions can change, when the facts become more apparent.

Claim #6

From article:

Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.

This paragraph in the article cited by Chu really seems to undermine his original argument. It certainly seems that one could easily defend the position that Tibet fits all four of those conditions.

I'm no expert on Tibet. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever really sat down to take a look at China's claims to the region. I thank Mr. Chu for giving me the opportunity. I look forward to any comments or corrections those reading this may offer.

Gotcha! They're triggers for a nuclear weapon! Now, give 'em back

Imagine yourself in the shoes of the lowly Taiwanese military warehouse manager who opens a dusty box of helicopter batteries imported from the US, only to find that, I'll be darned, they accidentally shipped fuses for nuclear warheads:

The U.S. military mistakenly shipped four fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006 and never caught the error, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, acknowledging an incident likely to rile China.

The military was supposed to ship helicopter batteries to Taiwan, but instead sent fuses used as part of the trigger mechanism on Minuteman missiles. Taiwan returned the parts to U.S. custody last week.

No nuclear material was shipped to Taiwan, Pentagon officials said.

The problem went unnoticed until Taiwan realized it did not have the helicopter batteries it ordered and reported the issue to the United States, U.S. officials said.

Oops.

If there's anything the US could have done to anger China, it's probably accidentally shipping classified nuclear technology to Taiwan. Ostensibly, though, I'd say it's a testament to the Taiwanese government's character that they alerted the US and sent the fuses back. There are investigations, though, into whether or not the Taiwanese tampered with the fuses in order to reverse-engineer them.

Note to self: put GPS on my next satellite.

There's been a lot of questioning lately regarding just why it was necessary to intercept the USA 193 spy satellite. The first reason given was the hydrazine (jet fuel) onboard. However, NPR's Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman was asked how dangerous it actually was, saying

"Well, [it's] not very dangerous. They said you would have to stand over it and breathe it for quite some time to really have a problem with it."

That sounds like it deserves a redneck joke

Dwayne: Susie May, were's dat' husband'a yours?
Susie May: Oh! Donny done found hisself a big ole' tank'a sumpin' call hy-drow-zeen,. Says it smayulls reeeeal good. He lawcked hisself in tha' bathroom all afta'noon jussa' smellin' his hy-drow-zeen.
Dwayne: Goodness me, Susie May! Don't y'all know dat' sniffin' hy-drow-zeen can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, an' throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, and coma?
Susia May: Naw. Day-um. [Sighs and turns her head, yelling into trailer] ]Donny! 'less you want pulmonary edema, you bess queet sniffin' dat' sweet tank you foun' in tha' creek!

Back at NPR, Tom Bowman went on to say, "The health concern was pretty minimal." Bowman also differentiated the US' recent interception from China's destruction of a weather satellite over a year ago. The Chinese satellite was much higher than the USA 193, for example. Bowman supposes that the reasons for the US' move was to make sure the spy technology on board wouldn't get into the hands of folks we don't trust, as he suggested in another NPR story about the mission:

Government officials say they are concerned that the fuel tank could land in a populated area, rupture and turn into a toxic gas. The fuel is hydrazine — which in gas form would be similar to chlorine and could damage skin and lungs. Some experts doubt this rationale, however. John Pike with globalsecurity.org believes American officials worry that pieces of this spy satellite (which takes pictures) could fall into the hands of the Chinese or Russians, who could learn more about how the United States builds these satellites.

In an article yesterday about why the missile interception would be a bad idea, space and research analyst Jeffrey Mason said [emphasis mine]

Of course there is the possibility that the planned justification for shooting down the spy satellite--to destroy the hydrazine fuel and protect the populace below--is a cover for the actual rationale for launching the mission: to ensure that no resulting debris from the billion dollar satellite can be recovered and studied by other nations. Surely a military that prides itself on its development of a global strike capability ought to be able to effectively track and monitor this debris while publicly announcing that our government considers recovery of any de-orbited material as an act of espionage (combined with a promise of monetary reward for any government or individual that returns the material to the closest American embassy within 24 hours of its retrieval).

There's something interesting here. If the US did decide to shoot the satellite down because of the sophisticated spy technology onboard, doesn't that beg a very simple question: if it's so sophisticated, can they not track the satellite? In the highly unlikely event that the satellite touches down on land, wouldn't we be able to go snatch it up? If it plunges into the ocean, can't we track it and scoop it out?

Alas, despite those saying the interception wasn't necessary, the satellite was intercepted by the first-ever ship based missile to carry out such a mission.

More missile mess....

I have a new favorite blog to add to my list: Arms Control Wonk. I've been reading it for the last couple of weeks, and, thus far, I haven't been let down. I've linked to it several times when writing about China, Russia, and the US' quibbles over the militarization of space.

Well, yesterday, posted on the site was an extensive plea to the US not to break apart the USA 193 satellite that has lost control and is currently plummeting back to earth. The article holds as suspect certain claims used to argue for shooting the satellite down and positing that "worst case scenarios" were misleading in that they don't seem to take into account the possibility that "they are wrong about the debris estimates or how much debris would reenter with a successful intercept."

There's also the issue of hydrazine (jet fuel). I heard a guy from NASA yesterday on CNN explaining that if anyone is to see a brown or blue gas* in the air, make sure not to breath it. (Phew!) The stuff is apparently not very delicate:

May cause toxic effects if inhaled or ingested/swallowed. Contact with substance may cause severe burns to skin and eyes. Fire will produce irritating, corrosive and/or toxic gases. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation. Runoff from fire control or dilution water may cause pollution. (DOT, 2000)

What isn't being said when they talk about the hydrazine risk is that, apparently, there is very little of it on the satellite.

The political implications of a missile interception aren't too pleasing either:

I don’t know how to express the political risk. Not knowing the risk, however, is different from it being “zero” — which is how the Bush Administration, at best, seems to count it. At worst, some members seem to assign a positive value to conducting an ASAT test.

The Chinese will use this to excuse their January 2007 test and, perhaps, future ones. The Russians seem interested in playing along, too. I’d like to be able to argue that they’re wrong; That this is different.

I have argued, in the past, that we have a strong interest in constraining the development of debris-creating anti-satellite weapons. Sadly, our intercept will make that outcome harder to achieve, not easier.

Given the extremely small risk to people on the ground, as well as the three people in orbit, these risks — though difficult to quantify — almost certainly should dominate the discussion.

But what loser is going to go to bat for confidence building measures in outer space when there is a giant tank of hydrazine bearing down on a Cub Scout Jamboree and one really awesome, heroic chance to blow it out of the sky? Hell, I bet the thing explodes into fireworks with red, white and blue stars and streamers like over the Mall on the Fourth of July.

Let’s face it, supporting the shot is the “safe” thing to do. After all, the debris risk will probably work out ok, while we’ll never know if the satellite would have hit a populated area. The cost, in terms of space security, is so difficult to identify, that one can simply explain it away with facile counterfactuals. “Oh, the Russian’s were just looking for an excuse, they would have done it anyway.”

Indeed, China has already said it is working on "preventive measures," which could mean anything. Of course, none of this is going to stop them from shooting the satellite down.

*If you follow the link, you'll see that hydrazine is listed as a "colorless" gas. However, I specifically remember the fellow from NASA saying that it was blue or brown.

Japan's worry over recent spying cases in the US

I've heard and read a lot of people suggesting over the last several months that Japan believes a Chinese attack on Taiwan would only be practice for a subsequent attack on Japan. However, I didn't know what level of cooperation existed between Taiwan, Japan, and the US on repelling an attack from China, and it appears that Japan would have rather kept it that way. The information divulged by the spies, meanwhile, may have given the Chinese an idea just how involved Japan may have been:

''Interoperability'' between Taiwan, the United States and possibly Japan, whereby their armed forces communicate and coordinate with one another via their respective C4ISR systems, would be key to their beating China in any cross-Taiwan Strait conflict, says Wendell Minnick, Defense News' Asia bureau chief.

Japan's C4ISR -- also U.S.-made -- ''is very similar to Taiwan's,'' while both are undergoing upgrades, says Andrei Chang, a military expert and founder of Kanwa Defense Review.

''Once Taiwan is hooked up with U.S. forces via Po Sheng, its linking with Japan's C4ISR would be the next logical step,'' Lin says. ''If Japan were to participate [in a Taiwan Strait war], a compromised Taiwanese C4ISR would affect Japan.''

If Bergersen had leaked codes for Po Sheng, for example, China could use those to plant viruses in the system, monitor and manipulate it, and otherwise wreak havoc on efforts by Washington, Tokyo and Taipei to coordinate a war against Beijing, he adds.

Space balls of fire....

NOTE: Like most everything in international politics, there is more nuance than is immediately evident. Polybius has some important input, so make sure to take a look at the comments section.

When this actually becomes news in the future, don't say I never warned you.

China and Russia recently got together and whipped up a treaty calling for a ban on the militarization of space. This is a while after I asked if the US' refusal to support such bans actually encourages countries like the above to pursue a space weapons program.

Well, now, Russia is saying the US' proposed method of dealing with its decrepit, uncontrollable spy satellite -- namely, to blow it up with a missile (does that sound familiar?) -- is a weapons test in clunky satellite's clothing

Russia's Defense Ministry said Saturday that U.S. military plans to shoot down a damaged spy satellite carrying toxic fuel could be a veiled test of U.S. missiles' capability to down enemy satellites.

The Ministry accused the U.S. military of failing to provide "enough arguments" to back its plan to smash the satellite next week with a missile so other countries could assess possible dangers.

...and, it seems as though it will be a test of sorts

The Lockheed-Martin satellite is carrying 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a toxic fuel used to power thrusters that steer the satellite while in orbit. If the tank remains intact as the satellite falls to Earth — about half its weight is expected to survive reentry — it could rupture and kill anyone nearby, U.S. officials say. But the satellite's projected landing area is 70% water, and there are other factors that undoubtedly influenced the decision to shoot down the satellite. The firing will allow the U.S. to test its fledgling anti-missile system, as well as signaling to other nations Washington's ability to down satellites 23 years after it conducted its last such test of that capability. One more bonus of blowing the thing up in space: it eliminates any danger of the top-secret technologies on board falling into the wrong hands should the satellite land in Iran, North Korea, or China.

Arms Control Wonk isn't very comfortable with all of this:

I have to say that I am very, very uneasy about this decision — our missile defense tests have been heavily scripted to minimize debris creation and modeling of debris creation isn’t an exact science.

The burden of proof really should be on these guys to demonstrate that the risks to the ISS and other objects in space are minimal.

General Carwright, to his credit, provided enough technical information to model the intercept. David Wright is working on that right now — for those of you who can’t wait, the important numbers are:

1. The intercept will occur at 240 kilometers (130 nautical miles)
2. The mass of the satellite is 2,300 kg (5,000 pounds)
3. The mass of the interceptor is 20 kg. (From CBO)
4. The closing velocity will be 9.8 km/s (22,000 mph), suggesting a virtually head-on collision.

Other pertinent observations. At 240 km, the satellite should be traveling 7.8 km/s; the SM-3 has a burnout velocity of 3 km/s.

I am very worried about the debris creation — particularly the debris that the light-weight interceptor will kick into higher orbits when it hits the massive (bus-sized) satellite. Thnk, as Geoff Forden suggested, of a ping pong ball hitting a superball.

Seven days, seven shootings.

I wrote a while back

I'm not necessarily against one's right to own a gun (my family alone has three). Rather, I'm fed up with what I see every day. I've lived long enough now outside of the US to have lost that feeling that gun violence is just something that happens. When I see news of school shootings and university massacres -- or just watch CSI -- I'm watching with the knowledge that this kind of thing just doesn't happen in other developed countries. The last time I went home, people were noticeably more worried about the growing violence in our normally quiet neighborhood. This reached a climax when my teacher was murdered in the middle of the night in his car in front of multi-million dollar, historic houses that overlook the Ashley River.

I'm not against one's right to own a firearm, but I'm sick and tired of people acting like there shouldn't be much stricter controls on who is allowed to have them. For instance, certain things just don't make since -- as Robin Williams said -- "Why the hell does the NRA allow licensed hunters to have armor piercing bullets? Is there one big deer out there saying 'I'm ready for yo' ass!'"

I'm only writing this now because the news just mentioned another school shooting in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University. That makes six school shootings in the news just this week, along with one at the city hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. This doesn't happen in other industrialized countries.

Feb. 7:

A gunman opened fire at an Ohio school early Thursday wounding a teacher before fleeing the school, which was locked down, police said.

"It is a domestic (case)," Jackie Ramey, assistant to Portsmouth, Ohio's police chief, told AFP, adding police were pursuing the assailant who after fleeing the school was involved in a second shooting.

Feb. 8:

A woman shot and killed two female students and then herself in classroom at Louisiana Technical College, a vocational school in Baton Rouge, the Associated Press reports. Around 20 students were in the second-floor room during the shooting, which occurred about 8:30 a.m. Friday.

Feb. 12:

A feud between two high school students that began off campus culminated at a gym class Monday when one student shot the other twice, then handed the gun to a coach, saying, "It's over now," authorities said.

The victim, a 19-year-old senior, was in critical condition at a hospital, authorities said. The suspected shooter, 17-year-old sophomore Corneilous Cheers, was charged with attempted first-degree murder, reckless endangerment and carrying a gun on school property, said police spokeswoman Monique Martin.

Feb. 13:

A student at an Oxnard junior high school shot another classmate Tuesday in front of two dozen other students who were settling into their first-period English class, police said.

Feb. 14:

DeKalb County police and school officials are meeting today as part of a new anti-violence task force for the community around McNair High School, where two teenagers were shot in the last week in separate incidents near campus.

I don't think guns should be illegal. I agree with Mark (and George Orwell) about why guns are and should be legal.

Gun rights aren't about hunting. They're about the balance of power between the state and the individual. George Orwell wrote a great essay about how some weapons (such as muskets) were inherently libertarian, whereas others (such as tanks and aircraft carriers) are inherently authoritarian.

Agree with it as I do, I still think something needs to change.

The US may surpass Europe in alt-energy and tech investment

When I lived in Europe, I often lamented the seeming disdain many Americans had for any talk of the environment. Back home, concerns about oil, global warming, and pollution were, to many people, laughable. In my experience, just asking people to turn off the lights or TV when they're not in the room to "save energy" would get you a smirky "Ok, treehugger."

I was amazed in Europe at the little things. Almost all of the apartment buildings I've ever been in from Italy to Sweden to Ireland had timed switches or motion-detectors for the lights in the corridors, and most grocery stores made you pay for bags if you didn't bring your own. Making all of this and more possible was a popular consciousness that something needed to be done to make sure we can sustain good living conditions in the places we live.

The thing that really got me, and still annoys me, is the fact that the debate in Europe and the United States has always been framed around the apocalyptic threat of melting glaciers and spreading deserts. It seems to me that the most effective means of combating global warming is to stop using global warming as the impetus, instead of looking at cold, hard self-interest. Don't talk about saving the ice caps by changing your lightbulbs and buying a hybrid vehicle; focus on the money you'll save if you make that change. Don't talk about the possibility of desertification if your car's burping out CO2; emphasize the undeniable science behind pollution and our bodies and our babies. Hammer in the idea that cleaner air and water means healthier people and lower insurance premiums.

I was amazed at how readily these ideas were accepted in Europe, but I always held out hope. I believed the idea would catch on in the United States, and the response would be considerably different when it did. I said that Europeans, in my opinion, looked more to the government to address problems they have, calling on the government to create standards that would force companies to adapt to a new market, which I don't think is wrong, but it's not enough. On the other hand, I believed Americans would look to businesses to innovate and capitalize off of people's desire for change, and the government would follow suit.

I don't think either of these approaches is inherently good or bad, but I do believe that the latter creates the possibility of a faster change, and it seems that it may be taking place:

Europe laid the groundwork for many of these technologies thanks to government policies supporting investment and still has a strong scientific presence. But “the financial engine has swung back heavily over the past couple of years” to the US, said John Balbach, a partner at Cleantech.

The US push reflects a stampede by venture capitalists centred on both San Francisco and Boston, who are seeking to apply an approach to building up new technology industries that was honed in the PC and internet businesses.

Of course, there are fears of a coming bubble:

However, the rush of venture capital money is already prompting warnings of a coming bubble in the US, particularly in the field of solar energy. Nearly $1bn was poured into alternative energy ventures in California alone last year, according to Cleantech, as investors raced to harness technologies from the chip industry to try to find the next breakthroughs in photovoltaic cells.

“There are lots of methods, but none of them [has] been proven,” warned Ray Rothrock, a partner at venture capital firm Venrock.

Does the US encourage China's space militarization?

A couple of days ago, I came across a very interesting, three-part article in WIRED Magazine online called "How China Loses the Coming Space War." The purpose of the piece is to show that, even in the event of a worst-case scenario attack on US satellites, American capabilities in space would be, at worst, temporarily reduced -- not a "space Pearl Harbor," as Sec. Rumsfeld once warned.

The article is packed with interesting tidbits, like how NORAD can track objects as small as 10 cm across -- for example, many images have been published, , like the one above from STK-generated images courtesy of CSSI (www.centerforspace.com), of the debris from China's anti-satellite missile test. I also was completely unaware of the fact that "amateurs around the world track most, if not all, of the classified US military satellites from their backyards, posting their positions on the internet."

Next thing you know, people'll be telling me that hundreds of people listen to numbers stations, trying to decipher the codes therein.

Oh.....they already do?

I'll be damned.

Anyhow, the WIRED article reminded of the only political science work by Noam Chomsky I've read -- I've read many of his other, less controversial works on linguistics. Before I go any further, let me mention that I'm completely aware of the dichotomous effect Chomsky's writings have on people -- anathema to many on the right, apotheosized by many on the (far) left. I personally don't like Chomsky's less-than-scholarly tendency to come to conclusions for his readers, rather than presenting the basis for his arguments, for which there is ample. I think, for example, calling people within the United States government "terrorists" is detrimental to his presentation simply because it doesn't work to advance his argument with the very people he needs to convince. Contrarily, it makes it very easy to discredit anything he says.

In order to encourage more research into the subject --aside from just reading Chomsky's words -- I've linked to as many of the documents he used as I could find. All links and emphasis within the citations below are my own.

This being said, in Hegemony or Survival, he speaks at length about the United States' stances regarding the militarization of space. Since last year's news of the Chinese testing an anti-satellite missile, this has been one of the most prominent debates regarding China's militarization -- along with its possible forays into the realm of cyber-warfare. What's interesting is that it seems as though, in the late 90s, China and Russia pushed for stricter controls on the militarization of space at the UN. These resolutions were passed unanimously, with abstentions from the US and Israel, which essentially counts as a sort of soft veto.

As noted, in mid-October it was learned that during an earlier episode of playing with fire, the world was brought ominously close to nuclear war. Ten days later, on October 23, the UN Disarmament Committee adopted two crucial resolutions. The first called for stronger measures to prevent the militarization of space and thereby to "avert a grave danger for international peace and security." The second reaffirmed the 1925 Geneva Protocol "prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare." Both passed unanimously, with two abstentions: the US and Israel. US abstention amounts to a veto: typically, a double veto, banning the events from reporting and history. In the mainstream media, there was no mention of these failed attempts by the rest of the world to prevent serious threats to survival.

From the UN press release:

Turning to the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/57/L.30), the representative of the Russian Federation said that the conquest of outer space had been one of the most important historical achievements of mankind. The importance of space technology for development was truly limitless, yet already there were plans in existence to place weapons in orbit. That might become a reality without the necessary political will to stop the weaponization of outer space and refrain from turning that sphere into a new area of military rivalry and conflict. Existing norms of international space law had not fully covered its weaponization.

He recalled that in Geneva, Russia and China had submitted a joint proposal that could form the basis for an international legal agreement. Russia had previously proposed that, even before agreement was reached, a moratorium should be introduced on not emplacing weapons or related systems in outer space. Earlier this month, his Minister for Foreign Affairs had stated that the country was ready to embark on new measures of openness and confidence in outer space. Today, he called on all interested countries to join in that broad measure of confidence. Hopefully, adoption of the present text would give new impetus to substantive discussions on military and space themes at the Disarmament Conference.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/57/L.30) by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States)

Now, I don't know the reason for these abstentions. To give the United States the benefit of the doubt, it may have been that it saw the resolution in some way other than that it directly opposed her hegemony in space.

This doesn't seem likely, though, with a newly elected Executive whose belief it was that world peace depended on their interpretation of Straussian philosophy -- a doctrine that often leads to an elite that believes in secrecy to protect, according to Dr. Shadia Drury, "the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many." These neoconservative politicians and their advisers, thus, being the superiors, are charged to protect the world and to placate everyone else with "noble lies."

This doesn't sit well with many Americans, nor does it calm many leaders in other countries. Therefore, when the United States abstains from voting for a resolution that would ban the use of outer space for military purposes, other countries are going to assume that they must begin a program to counteract whatever the United States must be planning to do.

China was particularly alarmed, Steinbruner and Lewis write, by a 1998 long-range planning document of the US Space Command outlining a new concept of global engagement," including "space-based strike capabilities" that would allow the US to attack any country and to "deny similar capability to any other countries," another Clinton-era precursor to the National Security Strategy of September 2002. The UN Conference on Disarmament has been deadlocked since 1998 by China's insistence on maintaining the use of space for peaceful means and Washington's refusal to agree, alienating many allies and creating conditions for confrontation.

It would seem from Chomsky's citations that assumptions concerning a burgeoning American "star wars" program wouldn't be too far off base:

China is well aware that it is a target of the radical nationalists designing policy in Washington, and presumably the prime intended recipient of the message in the National Security Strategy that no potential challenge to US hegemony will be tolerated. Chinese authorities are also surely aware that the US maintains the right of first use of nuclear weapons. And they know as well as US military analysts that "flights by U.S. EP-3 planes near China," such as the one shot down in early 2001, engendering a mini-crisis, "are not just for passive surveillance; the aircraft also collect information used to develop nuclear war plans."

China's interpretation of BMD is shared by US strategic analysts, in virtually the same words: BMD "is not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action," a Rand Corporation study observed. Others agree. BMD "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad," Andrew Bacevich writes in the conservative National Interest: "by insulating the homeland from reprisal—albeit in a limited way—missile defense will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United States to 'shape' the environment elsewhere." He cites approvingly the conclusion of Lawrence Kaplan in the liberal New Republic that "missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance." In Kaplan's own words, missile defense is "not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it." BMD will provide the US with "absolute freedom in using or threatening to use force in international relations" (China's complaint, which Kaplan quotes approvingly). It will "cement U.S. hegemony and make Americans 'masters of the world.'"

This is certainly not a "blame America" post, and I do not consider myself an expert on any of these issues. However, it's maddening how easy the United States makes it, especially through its predominance in the UN, for other countries to pursue programs that obviously do not encourage a more peaceful future. It has not been proven that protection through over-militarization is more effective than leadership by example, which is to say that there is no reason to think that America is safer by having the most powerful military in the world -- in spite of the way its percieved by the outside world -- than it would be if it led by example, rallying the world behind it to support less military buildup.

I'm also not arguing that other countries are working on weaponizing space because of the US' lack of support for the resolution. There is no proof that China, for instance, wouldn't be working on its own "Star Wars" program had the US agreed to the UN resolution. I simply think it makes it considerably easier when you can point to the most powerful country in the world and say, "They're doing it. Why can't we?"

Ron Paul is a RACIST!

Not exactly...

There's been controversy lately about some newsletters that were published under Ron Paul's name in the 90s that spew some sort of racist drivel. Ron Paul has flat out denied the accusations, though, that he is a racist. He has accepted responsibility for not paying close enough attention to the newsletters that were published under his name.

This reminds me too of this video I saw a while back in which Paul cites the unfairness of drug laws and the death penalty when it comes to class and race:

How does China fit into the war on terror? *

[Please see note in footer]

In May of this year, James Mann stated in an article for the Washington Post, “The Iraq war isn’t over, but one thing’s clear: China won.” The principal being that as the US struggles to polish its mottled status and sway around the globe, China’s stepping into the spotlight. As each month passes, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that’s not true.

Hell, the Middle Kingdom might be winning the War on Terror, too.

There is little good news for the US coming out of the Middle East. In 2002, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, criticized Western media outlets for hastily declaring “the Taliban’s complete military and political collapse” — one of the War on Terror’s most decisive victories at the time — noting, for example, that there was no account of “more than forty thousand soldiers the Taliban still had under arms when Kandahar fell.” Today, as news of an ever-strengthening Taliban continue to flow out of the black hole where Afghanistan ends and Pakistan begins — a place more aptly known as “Talibanistan” — Scheuer’s assessment seems to have been justified.

Not to mention that opium production, and most recently that of marijuana, has skyrocketed in the years since 9-11. According to the UN, Afghanistan’s production of illicit opium accounted for 92 percent of the world total in 2005, up from 70 percent in 2000. This is even worse when you consider how easy it is for troops to get a hit.

In Iraq, there is perhaps even less to be hopeful about. Aside from ongoing violence and no end in sight, a recent report puts the cost of the war in Iraq — including “hidden costs” like interest on loans, misplaced funds, and healthcare for wounded soldiers — at $1.6 trillion, or $20,900 for a family of four. Of course, many find these numbers suspect, their being the product of Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. Other estimates, though, have ranged from the American Enterprise Institute’s nearly $500 billion — which, with the National Priorities Project pegging the current price tag at $470 billion and counting, seems low — to well over $2 trillion. If I'm not mistaken, the initial estimated cost was $50 billion dollars.

In spite of all of this, on the other side of the world, China is quietly winning its battles in the War on Terror. Indeed, it isn’t actually “fighting” a war on terror, so much as it is profiting from being far removed from the ideological and political histories that are trying to end one another.

Most people are well aware of the crucial role China plays in globalized production lines — for better and for worse (mostly the former). Many are also conscious of China’s current push to modernize and restructure its military. It was noted recently in the New York Times that China’s “production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s” — a fact that has many military analysts believing that “it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode [the US’s] qualitative one.”

However, many people seem to be in the dark when it comes to the role China plays in the War on Terror. Well, I am too, I guess. As long as I’ve been studying conflict around the world, I’ve been finding that China pops up nearly everywhere. So, I decided to delve into it a little more.

Take Sudan, a country with a history of supporting different terrorist organizations — most notably harboring Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996. While most of the world has condemned Sudan’s roving militias as genocide — one of the first among those being President Bush — China has vetoed UN