Unreported World comes from one of the most hostile places on earth - the Sonora desert in Northern Mexico. Hot, waterless and full of rattlesnakes, it's crossed every day by thousands of migrants desperate to reach the USA - many of whom die a lonely death trying to fulfill their dream of a better life.
Reporter Aidan Hartley and producer Julie Noon begin their journey at the San Miguel Gate crossing. There, they meet Marta, a young woman who will pay people smugglers known as coyotes $3000 to get her across the border. She tells Hartley that she owes the coyotes the money which she will pay off once she gets a job, putting her into a form of bonded labour.
Travelling deeper into the desert, the team comes across a monument to the more than 2950 people, including children, who have died in this part of the desert. They are just some of the estimated million people who try to cross the border every year.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Source: Channel 4
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Jeremy Scahill - Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
Author Jeremy Scahill speaks in Chicago at "Socialism 2007: Socialism for the 21st Century" In his landmark book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" Scahill details the Bush administration's accelerated program to privatize the US military through the use of a 'shadow army' of mercenaries in Iraq and else where, most notably New Orleans after the devastation of hurricane Katrina. Filmed by Paul Hubbard June 16, 2007 www.haymarketbooks.org
You can purchase his book, "Blackwater" for only 5$ by clicking here buy the book
Enjoy, this eye opening speech:
Mr. Scahill was has appeared on Friday on "The Real Time". (check youtube).
You can purchase his book, "Blackwater" for only 5$ by clicking here buy the book
Enjoy, this eye opening speech:
Mr. Scahill was has appeared on Friday on "The Real Time". (check youtube).
Saturday, August 15, 2009
FP:How America Is Funding Corruption in Pakistan
BY AZEEM IBRAHIM
"When [Musharraf] looks me in the eye and says, ... 'there won't be a Taliban and won't be al Qaeda,' I believe him, you know?" So said George W. Bush of then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in September 2006. The U.S. president's trust had been forged in a deal made five years earlier: Pakistan would train, equip, and deploy its Army and intelligence service in counterterrorism operations, and Washington promised to reimburse its partner with billions of dollars in weapons, supplies, and cold hard cash. The plan was simple enough, and since 2001, the United States has lived up to its pledge, pouring as much as $12 billion in overt aid and another $10 billion in covert aid to Pakistan.
But today, as the Obama administration re-examines the deal, there is devastating evidence that the billions spent in Pakistan have yielded little in return. For the last eight years, U.S. taxpayers' money has funded hardly any bona fide counterterrorism successes, but quite a bit of corruption in the Pakistani Army and intelligence services. The money has enriched individuals at the expense of the proper functioning of the country's institutions. It has provided habitual kleptocrats with further incentives to skim off the top. Despite the U.S. goal of encouraging democratization, assistance to Pakistan has actually weakened the country's civilian government. And perhaps worst of all, it has hindered Pakistan's ability to fight terrorists.
Read the rest of the article @FP America is Funding Corruption in Pakistan
Also, don't forget to read: Country Briefs: Pakistan
"When [Musharraf] looks me in the eye and says, ... 'there won't be a Taliban and won't be al Qaeda,' I believe him, you know?" So said George W. Bush of then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in September 2006. The U.S. president's trust had been forged in a deal made five years earlier: Pakistan would train, equip, and deploy its Army and intelligence service in counterterrorism operations, and Washington promised to reimburse its partner with billions of dollars in weapons, supplies, and cold hard cash. The plan was simple enough, and since 2001, the United States has lived up to its pledge, pouring as much as $12 billion in overt aid and another $10 billion in covert aid to Pakistan.
But today, as the Obama administration re-examines the deal, there is devastating evidence that the billions spent in Pakistan have yielded little in return. For the last eight years, U.S. taxpayers' money has funded hardly any bona fide counterterrorism successes, but quite a bit of corruption in the Pakistani Army and intelligence services. The money has enriched individuals at the expense of the proper functioning of the country's institutions. It has provided habitual kleptocrats with further incentives to skim off the top. Despite the U.S. goal of encouraging democratization, assistance to Pakistan has actually weakened the country's civilian government. And perhaps worst of all, it has hindered Pakistan's ability to fight terrorists.
Read the rest of the article @FP America is Funding Corruption in Pakistan
Also, don't forget to read: Country Briefs: Pakistan
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Typhoon Morakot hit southern Taiwan
john0928 from Taiwan, has posted several breathtaking clips, where you could see the power of this typhoon.
Hotel building collapse ! Typhoon Morakot hit southern Taiwan badly !
Typhoon Morakot record rains in south Taiwan, over 2800mm in just 3days !
Broken Bridge ! Typhoon Morakot cause sever damage in southern Taiwan
Hotel building collapse ! Typhoon Morakot hit southern Taiwan badly !
Typhoon Morakot record rains in south Taiwan, over 2800mm in just 3days !
Broken Bridge ! Typhoon Morakot cause sever damage in southern Taiwan
Sunday, August 9, 2009
BBC: China in DR Congo aid deal
It's a scene that - with just a few changes - you might have found in the central African bush in the late 19th Century.
Alongside, a deferential African bearing a long pole. The two are barely able to communicate with one another.
You're reminded, irresistibly, of images of Victorian era explorers such as David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley, hacking their way across the continent.
But this foreigner comes from a country that suffered from colonial exploitation itself.
Biggest deal
He's Chinese, an engineer, and his assistant's pole is not for beating down the vegetation. It's a global positioning tool, taking satellite readings to plot the exact course of a road that's about to be built.
The pair belong to an advance team of surveyors deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo by a massive state-owned firm based in Beijing, the China Railway Engineering Corporation, or CREC.
DR Congo Timeline
And the new road they're planning will be the first fruit of the biggest single deal China's ever done in Africa, worth $9bn.
Due to be signed in Beijing in the next few days, it gives DR Congo $6bn of desperately needed infrastructure - about 2,400 miles of road, 2,000 miles of railway, 32 hospitals, 145 health centres and two universities.
Watch the documentary:
China in DR Congo aid deal
read the rest of the article: China in DR Congo
source: BBC
Alongside, a deferential African bearing a long pole. The two are barely able to communicate with one another.
You're reminded, irresistibly, of images of Victorian era explorers such as David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley, hacking their way across the continent.
But this foreigner comes from a country that suffered from colonial exploitation itself.
Biggest deal
He's Chinese, an engineer, and his assistant's pole is not for beating down the vegetation. It's a global positioning tool, taking satellite readings to plot the exact course of a road that's about to be built.
The pair belong to an advance team of surveyors deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo by a massive state-owned firm based in Beijing, the China Railway Engineering Corporation, or CREC.
DR Congo Timeline
And the new road they're planning will be the first fruit of the biggest single deal China's ever done in Africa, worth $9bn.
Due to be signed in Beijing in the next few days, it gives DR Congo $6bn of desperately needed infrastructure - about 2,400 miles of road, 2,000 miles of railway, 32 hospitals, 145 health centres and two universities.
Watch the documentary:
China in DR Congo aid deal
read the rest of the article: China in DR Congo
source: BBC
Thursday, August 6, 2009
FP: Think Again: Asia's Rise
BY MINXIN PEI (Minxin Pei is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.)
"Power Is Shifting from West to East."
Not really. Dine on a steady diet of books like The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East or When China Rules the World, and it's easy to think that the future belongs to Asia. As one prominent herald of the region's rise put it, "We are entering a new era of world history: the end of Western domination and the arrival of the Asian century."
Sustained, rapid economic growth since World War ii has undeniably boosted the region's economic output and military capabilities. But it's a gross exaggeration to say that Asia will emerge as the world's predominant power player. At most, Asia's rise will lead to the arrival of a multi-polar world, not another unipolar one.
Asia is nowhere near closing its economic and military gap with the West. The region produces roughly 30 percent of global economic output, but because of its huge population, its per capita gdp is only $5,800, compared with $48,000 in the United States. Asian countries are furiously upgrading their militaries, but their combined military spending in 2008 was still only a third that of the United States. Even at current torrid rates of growth, it will take the average Asian 77 years to reach the income of the average American. The Chinese need 47 years. For Indians, the figure is 123 years. And Asia's combined military budget won't equal that of the United States for 72 years.
In any case, it is meaningless to talk about Asia as a single entity of power, now or in the future. Far more likely is that the fast ascent of one regional player will be greeted with alarm by its closest neighbors. Asian history is replete with examples of competition for power and even military conflict among its big players. China and Japan have fought repeatedly over Korea; the Soviet Union teamed up with India and Vietnam to check China, while China supported Pakistan to counterbalance India. Already, China's recent rise has pushed Japan and India closer together. If Asia is becoming the world's center of geopolitical gravity, it's a murky middle indeed.
Those who think Asia's gains in hard power will inevitably lead to its geopolitical dominance might also want to look at another crucial ingredient of clout: ideas. Pax Americana was made possible not only by the overwhelming economic and military might of the United States but also by a set of visionary ideas: free trade, Wilsonian liberalism, and multilateral institutions. Although Asia today may have the world's most dynamic economies, it does not seem to play an equally inspiring role as a thought leader. The big idea animating Asians now is empowerment; Asians rightly feel proud that they are making a new industrial revolution. But self-confidence is not an ideology, and the much-touted Asian model of development does not seem to be an exportable product.
Read the rest of the article Think Again: Asia's Rise
"Power Is Shifting from West to East."
Not really. Dine on a steady diet of books like The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East or When China Rules the World, and it's easy to think that the future belongs to Asia. As one prominent herald of the region's rise put it, "We are entering a new era of world history: the end of Western domination and the arrival of the Asian century."
Sustained, rapid economic growth since World War ii has undeniably boosted the region's economic output and military capabilities. But it's a gross exaggeration to say that Asia will emerge as the world's predominant power player. At most, Asia's rise will lead to the arrival of a multi-polar world, not another unipolar one.
Asia is nowhere near closing its economic and military gap with the West. The region produces roughly 30 percent of global economic output, but because of its huge population, its per capita gdp is only $5,800, compared with $48,000 in the United States. Asian countries are furiously upgrading their militaries, but their combined military spending in 2008 was still only a third that of the United States. Even at current torrid rates of growth, it will take the average Asian 77 years to reach the income of the average American. The Chinese need 47 years. For Indians, the figure is 123 years. And Asia's combined military budget won't equal that of the United States for 72 years.
In any case, it is meaningless to talk about Asia as a single entity of power, now or in the future. Far more likely is that the fast ascent of one regional player will be greeted with alarm by its closest neighbors. Asian history is replete with examples of competition for power and even military conflict among its big players. China and Japan have fought repeatedly over Korea; the Soviet Union teamed up with India and Vietnam to check China, while China supported Pakistan to counterbalance India. Already, China's recent rise has pushed Japan and India closer together. If Asia is becoming the world's center of geopolitical gravity, it's a murky middle indeed.
Those who think Asia's gains in hard power will inevitably lead to its geopolitical dominance might also want to look at another crucial ingredient of clout: ideas. Pax Americana was made possible not only by the overwhelming economic and military might of the United States but also by a set of visionary ideas: free trade, Wilsonian liberalism, and multilateral institutions. Although Asia today may have the world's most dynamic economies, it does not seem to play an equally inspiring role as a thought leader. The big idea animating Asians now is empowerment; Asians rightly feel proud that they are making a new industrial revolution. But self-confidence is not an ideology, and the much-touted Asian model of development does not seem to be an exportable product.
Read the rest of the article Think Again: Asia's Rise
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Undermining Democracy - 21st century Authoritarians
Pivotal authoritarian regimes have adapted and modernized their repressive methods and are undermining democracy in updated, sophisticated, and well funded ways. The result is a disruptive and serious new challenge to the emergence of an international system based on the rule of law, human rights, and open expression. Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia convened experts for a series of workshops over the course of 2008 and 2009 to analyze the ways in which five influential countries — China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Venezuela—are impeding democratic development both within and beyond their borders. These countries were selected because of their fundamental geopolitical importance. They are integrated into broader economic, political and security networks and exert influence on international policy at the regional and global levels.
Full report (94 pg) is available for free Undermining Democracy
Full report (94 pg) is available for free Undermining Democracy
Monday, August 3, 2009
Health Care Globally
It's time US should follow other nations and save trillion of dollars on health care spending. National Coalition on Health Care reported that , "Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)." On the other hand, the UK spends only 8.3 of the GPA on their Health Care, that's half of US pays!!!.
PBS has released great documentary "Sick around the World" (link below), where you could watch how does health care system looks like around the world (in other democratic nations).
Read first:
Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do it
Understand the graphs:
Graphs: U.S. Health Stats Compared to Other Countries
The Documentary, "Sick Around the World"
Great Britain: A Leader in Preventive Medicine
Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers
Germany: A Popular, Largely Market-Based System
Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others
Switzerland: Its Former System Resembled Ours
Universal Health Care is possible ...
Source: PBS
FP: Guide to Graduate Education
I'm back, starting today I'll post fresh updates on daily basis.
Foreign Policy, has published cool guide to Graduate Education (masters in IS,IR, etc), it's 33 pages long and it's absolutely FREE.
Enjoy:
FP: Guide to Graduate Education
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Truck bomb kills more than 60 in northern Iraq
by By KIM GAMEL, AP
BAGHDAD (AP) — A truck bomb exploded as worshippers left a Shiite mosque in northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 63 people and wounding nearly 200 in the deadliest bombing in nearly two months.
The blast near Kirkuk — a city rife with ethnic tensions — came hours after the prime minister insisted U.S. troops will leave Iraqi cities by the end of this month "no matter what happens," but acknowledged more violence was likely.
The Americans already have begun withdrawing combat troops from inner-city outposts in Baghdad, Mosul and other urban areas ahead of the June 30 deadline. But continued assassinations and high-profile explosions have heightened concerns that Iraqi forces are not ready to take over their own security.
Worshippers were leaving the mosque in Taza, 10 miles (20 kilometers) south of Kirkuk, following noon prayers when the truck exploded, demolishing the mosque and several mud-brick houses across the street, according to police and witnesses.
Rescue teams searched for hours to find people buried under the rubble while women begged police to let them near the site so they could search for loved ones. The U.S. military said it was providing generator lights and water at the site.
Ambulances rushed victims to the overwhelmed hospital in Kirkuk and some victims had to be taken to hospitals in nearby cities. Three babies cried as they were placed on a single hospital bed to be treated.
Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir of the Kirkuk police force said late Saturday that the discovery of bodies beneath the debris had pushed the death toll to 63, while 170 were wounded. They were still looking through the rubble.
Witnesses said the truck was parked across the street from the mosque and they assumed the driver was praying, although Kirkuk's police chief, Maj. Gen. Jamal Tahir, said investigators were looking into the possibility it was a suicide bombing.
"The truck was parked near our house; therefore most of the victims were found beneath the debris of the houses, mostly women and children," said Ehsan Mushir Shukur, whose sister was seriously wounded and taken to the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.
He said his wife also was wounded while his sister's young son and daughter were killed.
Yellman Zain-Abideen, who was wounded by shrapnel in his hand and face, cried for his missing son who had been leaving the mosque with him when the blast occurred.
The 43-year-old father of four blamed local authorities for not providing sufficient security in the mainly Turkomen area, which is surrounded by Sunni villages.
"There should have been guards around the mosque, we are living in an area surrounded by enemies," he said.
AP Television News footage later showed men using pickaxes and shovels to dig dozens of graves in the cemetery behind the mosque to bury the victims.
Nobody claimed responsibility for the attack, but it bore the hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq or other Sunni insurgents who remain active in northern Iraq despite security gains.
Tensions have risen in the oil-rich area as Kurds seek to incorporate Kirkuk into their semiautonomous region despite opposition from Arabs, Turkomen and other rival ethnic groups.
Officials also have warned that insurgents are likely to stage more attacks in the wake of the withdrawal deadline to try to undermine confidence in the government's ability to protect its people.
Saturday's explosion was the deadliest since April 24 when back-to-back suicide women bombers killed 71 people outside a Shiite shrine in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis to maintain support for government forces, calling the first phase of the U.S. withdrawal plans a "great victory."
"Don't worry if some security breach occurs here or there," he said in an address earlier Saturday to members of the ethnic Turkomen community in Baghdad. "They are trying to destabilize the situation, but we will confront them."
The U.S.-Iraqi security pact requires the Americans to pull back combat troops from cities by the end of this month as a first step toward a full withdrawal by 2012. The deal includes a provision for the Iraqi government to ask for U.S. help if violence surges.
U.S. troops, meanwhile, continued preparing for the withdrawal.
On Saturday, American commanders turned over control of a key base on the edge of Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City. The sprawling slum was a militia stronghold that saw fierce clashes until a cease-fire following a U.S.-backed government crackdown.
The Iraqis also reopened Zaytoun Street, which had been part of the walled-off Green Zone that houses the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government headquarters. The Iraqis have begun removing some of the protective blast walls around the Green Zone — part of a campaign to restore a sense of normalcy as violence has waned.
Source: Truck bomb kills more than 60 in northern Iraq
BAGHDAD (AP) — A truck bomb exploded as worshippers left a Shiite mosque in northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 63 people and wounding nearly 200 in the deadliest bombing in nearly two months.
The blast near Kirkuk — a city rife with ethnic tensions — came hours after the prime minister insisted U.S. troops will leave Iraqi cities by the end of this month "no matter what happens," but acknowledged more violence was likely.
The Americans already have begun withdrawing combat troops from inner-city outposts in Baghdad, Mosul and other urban areas ahead of the June 30 deadline. But continued assassinations and high-profile explosions have heightened concerns that Iraqi forces are not ready to take over their own security.
Worshippers were leaving the mosque in Taza, 10 miles (20 kilometers) south of Kirkuk, following noon prayers when the truck exploded, demolishing the mosque and several mud-brick houses across the street, according to police and witnesses.
Rescue teams searched for hours to find people buried under the rubble while women begged police to let them near the site so they could search for loved ones. The U.S. military said it was providing generator lights and water at the site.
Ambulances rushed victims to the overwhelmed hospital in Kirkuk and some victims had to be taken to hospitals in nearby cities. Three babies cried as they were placed on a single hospital bed to be treated.
Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir of the Kirkuk police force said late Saturday that the discovery of bodies beneath the debris had pushed the death toll to 63, while 170 were wounded. They were still looking through the rubble.
Witnesses said the truck was parked across the street from the mosque and they assumed the driver was praying, although Kirkuk's police chief, Maj. Gen. Jamal Tahir, said investigators were looking into the possibility it was a suicide bombing.
"The truck was parked near our house; therefore most of the victims were found beneath the debris of the houses, mostly women and children," said Ehsan Mushir Shukur, whose sister was seriously wounded and taken to the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.
He said his wife also was wounded while his sister's young son and daughter were killed.
Yellman Zain-Abideen, who was wounded by shrapnel in his hand and face, cried for his missing son who had been leaving the mosque with him when the blast occurred.
The 43-year-old father of four blamed local authorities for not providing sufficient security in the mainly Turkomen area, which is surrounded by Sunni villages.
"There should have been guards around the mosque, we are living in an area surrounded by enemies," he said.
AP Television News footage later showed men using pickaxes and shovels to dig dozens of graves in the cemetery behind the mosque to bury the victims.
Nobody claimed responsibility for the attack, but it bore the hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq or other Sunni insurgents who remain active in northern Iraq despite security gains.
Tensions have risen in the oil-rich area as Kurds seek to incorporate Kirkuk into their semiautonomous region despite opposition from Arabs, Turkomen and other rival ethnic groups.
Officials also have warned that insurgents are likely to stage more attacks in the wake of the withdrawal deadline to try to undermine confidence in the government's ability to protect its people.
Saturday's explosion was the deadliest since April 24 when back-to-back suicide women bombers killed 71 people outside a Shiite shrine in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis to maintain support for government forces, calling the first phase of the U.S. withdrawal plans a "great victory."
"Don't worry if some security breach occurs here or there," he said in an address earlier Saturday to members of the ethnic Turkomen community in Baghdad. "They are trying to destabilize the situation, but we will confront them."
The U.S.-Iraqi security pact requires the Americans to pull back combat troops from cities by the end of this month as a first step toward a full withdrawal by 2012. The deal includes a provision for the Iraqi government to ask for U.S. help if violence surges.
U.S. troops, meanwhile, continued preparing for the withdrawal.
On Saturday, American commanders turned over control of a key base on the edge of Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City. The sprawling slum was a militia stronghold that saw fierce clashes until a cease-fire following a U.S.-backed government crackdown.
The Iraqis also reopened Zaytoun Street, which had been part of the walled-off Green Zone that houses the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government headquarters. The Iraqis have begun removing some of the protective blast walls around the Green Zone — part of a campaign to restore a sense of normalcy as violence has waned.
Source: Truck bomb kills more than 60 in northern Iraq
Monday, June 15, 2009
Crackdown after victory points to fix in the voting for Ahmadinejad
“I voted for Ahmadinejad in 2005, but I’ve switched to Mousavi this time because I think he’ll improve the economy. Under President Ahmadinejad inflation has shot up,” Aboldazl Zamani, 45, a bazaari (shopkeeper), said as he voted last Friday at a mosque in Shoosh, a poor area of south Tehran that is an Ahmadinejad stronghold. “My family and relatives have also switched to Mousavi,” he added.
A few votes switched to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate presidential contender, are neither here nor there, of course, but the point is this: in eight hours spent touring polling stations in and around Tehran The Times found a number of Iranians who had deserted Mr Ahmadinejad since 2005, but not one who had switched to him.
Had the election committee announced that Mr Ahmadinejad had won with, say, 51 per cent of the vote, few independent observers could have said with certainty that the election was rigged — Mr Ahmadinejad undoubtedly has millions of devoted followers. But the idea that he won with 63 per cent ran contrary to every manifestation of the public mood before polling day, defied electoral logic, and was simply incredible.
There were those huge Mousavi rallies, and all-night street parties pulsating with the passion and excitement of people who knew the tide was flowing strongly their way. By contrast, Mr Ahmadinejad’s rallies felt more scripted, less spontaneous, with supporters bussed in.
There was the massive turnout of 85 per cent on election day. Low votes favour hardliners such as Mr Ahmadinejad, while high turnouts favour reformers. There is the dire state of Iran’s economy, with rampant unemployment and 25 per cent inflation — unlikely conditions for an incumbent to win by a landslide.
The dirty tricks in the campaign, such as the sudden power cuts that sabotaged opposition rallies, lent credence to allegations of dirty tricks on polling day — shortages of ballot papers in Mousavi strongholds, the declaration of some results before ballot boxes had even been opened.
Of the last dozen (admittedly unreliable) opinion polls, seven put Mr Mousavi ahead. On election eve Mousavi aides confidently told The Times that their man would win between 55 and 60 per cent. The declared results improbably suggest Mr Ahmadinejad won more than half the vote in Tehran, a Mousavi stronghold, and 57 per cent in Tabriz, capital of Mr Mousavi’s native Azerbaijan region.
Mr Ahmadinejad had men in key positions to rig the vote and enforce the result. Sadeq Mahsouli, the Interior Minister, and Kamran Daneshjoo, the election commission chief, are his cronies and appointees.
Perhaps the most damning evidence that the vote was rigged was the sheer speed, scale and efficiency of the subsequent crackdown. The results had scarcely been declared before security forces flooded on to the streets, websites were blocked and mobile telephone and text-messaging services taken down to prevent the opposition mobilising. It had to have been planned in advance.
Source: Times Online.
Crackdown after victory points to fix in the voting for Ahmadinejad
A few votes switched to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate presidential contender, are neither here nor there, of course, but the point is this: in eight hours spent touring polling stations in and around Tehran The Times found a number of Iranians who had deserted Mr Ahmadinejad since 2005, but not one who had switched to him.
Had the election committee announced that Mr Ahmadinejad had won with, say, 51 per cent of the vote, few independent observers could have said with certainty that the election was rigged — Mr Ahmadinejad undoubtedly has millions of devoted followers. But the idea that he won with 63 per cent ran contrary to every manifestation of the public mood before polling day, defied electoral logic, and was simply incredible.
There were those huge Mousavi rallies, and all-night street parties pulsating with the passion and excitement of people who knew the tide was flowing strongly their way. By contrast, Mr Ahmadinejad’s rallies felt more scripted, less spontaneous, with supporters bussed in.
There was the massive turnout of 85 per cent on election day. Low votes favour hardliners such as Mr Ahmadinejad, while high turnouts favour reformers. There is the dire state of Iran’s economy, with rampant unemployment and 25 per cent inflation — unlikely conditions for an incumbent to win by a landslide.
The dirty tricks in the campaign, such as the sudden power cuts that sabotaged opposition rallies, lent credence to allegations of dirty tricks on polling day — shortages of ballot papers in Mousavi strongholds, the declaration of some results before ballot boxes had even been opened.
Of the last dozen (admittedly unreliable) opinion polls, seven put Mr Mousavi ahead. On election eve Mousavi aides confidently told The Times that their man would win between 55 and 60 per cent. The declared results improbably suggest Mr Ahmadinejad won more than half the vote in Tehran, a Mousavi stronghold, and 57 per cent in Tabriz, capital of Mr Mousavi’s native Azerbaijan region.
Mr Ahmadinejad had men in key positions to rig the vote and enforce the result. Sadeq Mahsouli, the Interior Minister, and Kamran Daneshjoo, the election commission chief, are his cronies and appointees.
Perhaps the most damning evidence that the vote was rigged was the sheer speed, scale and efficiency of the subsequent crackdown. The results had scarcely been declared before security forces flooded on to the streets, websites were blocked and mobile telephone and text-messaging services taken down to prevent the opposition mobilising. It had to have been planned in advance.
Source: Times Online.
Crackdown after victory points to fix in the voting for Ahmadinejad
Friday, June 12, 2009
China’s $1.5 Trillion Bet: Understanding China’s External Portfolio
China is now by far the United States’ largest creditor. Its treasury portfolio recently surpassed that of Japan’s, and it has long held more agency (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) bonds than any other country. Never before has a nation as poor as China provided so much financing to a country as rich as the United States. In this Center for Geoeconomic Studies Working Paper, Brad W. Setser and Arpana Pandey estimate the true scale of China’s U.S. portfolio and examine how the pace of growth and composition of China’s portfolio have evolved over time.
Link to the full article (pdf) (26 pages): China’s $1.5 Trillion Bet: Understanding China’s External Portfolio
Link to the full article (pdf) (26 pages): China’s $1.5 Trillion Bet: Understanding China’s External Portfolio
How Beijing kept its grip on power
By Minxin Pei, FT.
It is hard to miss the self-congratulatory mood in Beijing’s corridors of power these days. The Chinese Communist party was practically written off after its army crushed the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square on June 4 1989. At home, it faced a shocked and resentful population. Internationally, it was isolated. The fall of communism in the former Soviet bloc further demoralised its members. A sense of impending doom permeated Beijing.
Twenty years later, things could hardly be more different. China is riding high as a new economic and geopolitical giant. The party’s rule has never felt more secure.
Chinese leaders appear to believe that they have discovered the magic formula for political survival: a one-party regime that embraces capitalism and globalisation. Abroad, the party’s success raises fears that it has established a viable new model for autocratic rule.
As the world commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen tragedy, it is time to reflect on how the party has held on to power against seemingly impossible odds and whether the strategy it has pursued since Tiananmen will continue to sustain its political monopoly.
Clearly, the most important explanation for the party’s apparent resilience is its ability to deliver consistently high growth. However, largely through trial and error, the party has also developed a complementary and quite sophisticated political strategy to strengthen its power base.
A lesson taken from the Tiananmen debacle by the party’s leaders is that elite unity is critical to its survival. The political necessity of launching China’s economic reforms in the late 1970s required the party to form a grand alliance of liberals, technocrats and conservatives. But the liberals and the conservatives constantly clashed during the 1980s, over both the speed and direction of reform.
Disunity at the top sent out mixed signals to Chinese society and, during Tiananmen, paralysed the decision-making process. After Tiananmen, the party purged liberals from its top echelon and formed a technocratic/conservative coalition that has unleashed capitalism but suppressed democracy.
An additional lesson learnt from the party’s near-death experience in Tiananmen was that it must co-opt social elites to expand its base. The pro-democracy movement was led and organised by China’s intelligentsia and college students. The most effective strategy for preventing another Tiananmen, the party apparently reasoned, was to win over elite elements from Chinese society, thus depriving potential opposition of leadership and organisational capacity.
So in the post-Tiananmen era, the party courted the intelligentsia, professionals and entrepreneurs, showering them with perks and political status. The strategy has been so successful that today’s party consists mostly of well-educated bureaucrats, professionals and intellectuals.
Of course, when it comes to those daring to challenge its rule, the party is ruthless. But even in applying its repressive instruments it has learnt how to use them more efficiently. It targets a relatively small group of dissidents but no longer interferes with ordinary people’s private lives. In today’s China, open dissent is stifled but personal freedom flourishes.
On the surface, the collapse of the Soviet Union reduced China’s strategic value to the west. But after overcoming its initial shock, the party adroitly exploited the situation by using the turmoil in the former Soviet bloc to instil in the Chinese public the fear that any political change would bring national calamity. Rising Chinese nationalism, stoked by official propaganda, allowed the party to burnish its image as the defender of China’s national honour.
The wave of globalisation that followed the cold war offered another golden opportunity. Capitalising on the lure of the Chinese market, the party befriended the western business community. In turn, western businessmen found a natural partner in the Chinese Communist party, its name notwithstanding.
With any self-respecting multinational rushing into the Middle Kingdom, those who refused to recognise the new reality risked being outcompeted. In China, they also found undreamt-of freedom in doing business: no demanding labour unions or strict environmental standards. Wittingly or otherwise, western business has become the most powerful advocate for engagement with China. Its endorsement, along with the pragmatic policy pursued by western governments, has lent a legitimising gloss to the party’s rule.
Ironically, this political strategy has worked so well that the party is now paying a price for its success. With the technocratic/conservative alliance at the top and the coalition of bureaucrats, professionals, intelligentsia and private businessmen in the middle, the party has evolved into a self-serving elite. Conspicuously, it has no base among the masses.
There is already a backlash against the party’s post-Tiananmen pro-elite policies, which have resulted in inadequate social services, rising inequality and growing tensions between the state and society. Externally, the alliance with western business is also fraying, as China’s bureaucratic capitalism – anchored by state-owned monopolies and mercantilist trade policies – begins to alienate the party’s (genuinely) capitalist friends.
So when the Chinese Communist party toasts its post-Tiananmen success, it should be under no illusion that the good times are here to stay.
Source: How Beijing kept its grip on power
It is hard to miss the self-congratulatory mood in Beijing’s corridors of power these days. The Chinese Communist party was practically written off after its army crushed the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square on June 4 1989. At home, it faced a shocked and resentful population. Internationally, it was isolated. The fall of communism in the former Soviet bloc further demoralised its members. A sense of impending doom permeated Beijing.
Twenty years later, things could hardly be more different. China is riding high as a new economic and geopolitical giant. The party’s rule has never felt more secure.
Chinese leaders appear to believe that they have discovered the magic formula for political survival: a one-party regime that embraces capitalism and globalisation. Abroad, the party’s success raises fears that it has established a viable new model for autocratic rule.
As the world commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen tragedy, it is time to reflect on how the party has held on to power against seemingly impossible odds and whether the strategy it has pursued since Tiananmen will continue to sustain its political monopoly.
Clearly, the most important explanation for the party’s apparent resilience is its ability to deliver consistently high growth. However, largely through trial and error, the party has also developed a complementary and quite sophisticated political strategy to strengthen its power base.
A lesson taken from the Tiananmen debacle by the party’s leaders is that elite unity is critical to its survival. The political necessity of launching China’s economic reforms in the late 1970s required the party to form a grand alliance of liberals, technocrats and conservatives. But the liberals and the conservatives constantly clashed during the 1980s, over both the speed and direction of reform.
Disunity at the top sent out mixed signals to Chinese society and, during Tiananmen, paralysed the decision-making process. After Tiananmen, the party purged liberals from its top echelon and formed a technocratic/conservative coalition that has unleashed capitalism but suppressed democracy.
An additional lesson learnt from the party’s near-death experience in Tiananmen was that it must co-opt social elites to expand its base. The pro-democracy movement was led and organised by China’s intelligentsia and college students. The most effective strategy for preventing another Tiananmen, the party apparently reasoned, was to win over elite elements from Chinese society, thus depriving potential opposition of leadership and organisational capacity.
So in the post-Tiananmen era, the party courted the intelligentsia, professionals and entrepreneurs, showering them with perks and political status. The strategy has been so successful that today’s party consists mostly of well-educated bureaucrats, professionals and intellectuals.
Of course, when it comes to those daring to challenge its rule, the party is ruthless. But even in applying its repressive instruments it has learnt how to use them more efficiently. It targets a relatively small group of dissidents but no longer interferes with ordinary people’s private lives. In today’s China, open dissent is stifled but personal freedom flourishes.
On the surface, the collapse of the Soviet Union reduced China’s strategic value to the west. But after overcoming its initial shock, the party adroitly exploited the situation by using the turmoil in the former Soviet bloc to instil in the Chinese public the fear that any political change would bring national calamity. Rising Chinese nationalism, stoked by official propaganda, allowed the party to burnish its image as the defender of China’s national honour.
The wave of globalisation that followed the cold war offered another golden opportunity. Capitalising on the lure of the Chinese market, the party befriended the western business community. In turn, western businessmen found a natural partner in the Chinese Communist party, its name notwithstanding.
With any self-respecting multinational rushing into the Middle Kingdom, those who refused to recognise the new reality risked being outcompeted. In China, they also found undreamt-of freedom in doing business: no demanding labour unions or strict environmental standards. Wittingly or otherwise, western business has become the most powerful advocate for engagement with China. Its endorsement, along with the pragmatic policy pursued by western governments, has lent a legitimising gloss to the party’s rule.
Ironically, this political strategy has worked so well that the party is now paying a price for its success. With the technocratic/conservative alliance at the top and the coalition of bureaucrats, professionals, intelligentsia and private businessmen in the middle, the party has evolved into a self-serving elite. Conspicuously, it has no base among the masses.
There is already a backlash against the party’s post-Tiananmen pro-elite policies, which have resulted in inadequate social services, rising inequality and growing tensions between the state and society. Externally, the alliance with western business is also fraying, as China’s bureaucratic capitalism – anchored by state-owned monopolies and mercantilist trade policies – begins to alienate the party’s (genuinely) capitalist friends.
So when the Chinese Communist party toasts its post-Tiananmen success, it should be under no illusion that the good times are here to stay.
Source: How Beijing kept its grip on power
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Country Brief: Cambodia
Here is the brief analysis of Cambodia. Enjoy.
Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979)
1.7 million people lost their lives within 4 years. That is 21% of the country's population
Group responsible for mass murders: Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot
Pol Pot has been in power until 1997, died a year later in 1998. (not charged for genocide!)
30 years later (February 2009):
“Now, five leaders of the Khmer Rouge will face charges in a tribunal backed by the United Nations. The first, Kaing Guek Eav — known better by his nom de guerre, Duch — ran the Tuol Sleng prison camp in Phnom Penh, where out of 17,000 Cambodians who were imprisoned, fewer than 20 survived. Pol Pot's second-in-command, Nuon Chea, will also face charges, as well as the Khmer Rouge's former foreign minister and head of state. “ Time
Form of Government: Authoritarian (based on what I've read), however some say Cambodia has constitutional monarchy
Prime Minister (has executive power): Hun Sen (in power since 1998)
Ruling Party – Cambodian People's Party (since 1970's)
Per Capita Income (Average Annual Income) - $590
Government controls mass media (radio,tv)
freedom of speech is limited. People may end up in jail or be killed for expressing their opinions about the government.
Possible revenues from oil: ~ $1.7 billion per year.
The UN Development Programme’s resident representative Douglas Gardner said that at least 700 million barrels of crude oil are also estimated to lie off the country’s coast.
Population - ~ 14 million
80% of the population lives in rural villages
Life expectancy: 59 for males, 62 for females.
One Third of the population lives under $1 dollar a day.
preventable diseases such as typhoid, malnutrition, malaria, dengue kills 1 in 7 children before the age of five.
Literacy rate: 74% (s one in four Cambodians cannot read )
Shocking Facts:
- 16% of the population has toilets. The Rest 12 million does not.
- gov't offcials steal between $300 million to $500 million a year (where state annual budget is ~ $1 billion)
half of the budget comes from foreign donors.
Teacher's salary: ~ $40 a month. (student pay teachers on daily basis, before entering the class. You need answers for the final exams, don't worry in Cambodia teachers will sell you the answers.
Sources
Brinkley, J (2009).Cambodia's Curse. Foreign Affairs. 88, 111-122.
Joel Brinkley, former Foreign Affairs Correspondent for the New York Times, is Professor of JOurnalism at Standford University.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6929407.stm
http://www.livemint.com/2007/02/23180933/Cambodia-likely-to-see-oil-rev.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1879785,00.html
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/
China Press Freedom
Recent unrest in Tibet has once again raised questions about media freedom in China. The gulf between Western perceptions of this developing superpower and China's desire to control the message now seems bigger than ever.
101 East - China Press Freedom - Pt 1
101 East - China Press Freedom - Pt 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish
101 East - China Press Freedom - Pt 1
101 East - China Press Freedom - Pt 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish
Monday, June 8, 2009
Woodrow Wilson's Heir
By Robert Kagan, The Washington Post
President Obama likes to see himself as a pragmatist, but in foreign policy he is proving to be a supreme idealist of the Woodrow Wilson variety.
Like Wilson's, Obama's foreign policy increasingly seems to rest on the assumption that nations will act on the basis of what they perceive to be the goodwill, good intentions or moral purity of other nations, in particular the United States. If other nations have refused to cooperate with us, it is because they perceive the United States as aggressive or evil. Obama's job is to change that perception. From the outreach to Iran and to Muslims, to the call for eliminating all nuclear weapons, to the desire for a "reset" in relations with Russia, the central point of Obama's diplomacy is that America is, suddenly, different. It has changed. It is better. It is time, therefore, for other nations to cooperate.
But how has America changed? Obama's policies toward Iran, the Middle East, Russia, North Korea, China, Latin America, Afghanistan and even Iraq have at most shifted only at the margins -- as many in those countries repeatedly complain. So what, for instance, is the source of the "new beginning" in U.S.-Muslim relations that Obama called for in Cairo?
The answer, it seems, is Obama himself. In the speech, The Post reports, "Obama made his own biography the starting point for a new U.S. relationship with Islam." Or as the New York Times put it, while "the president offered few details on how to solve problems around the globe," his basic argument "boiled down to this: Barack Hussein Obama was standing on the podium in this Muslim capital as the American president."
ad_icon
Critics complain that Obama's speeches are too self-referential. If so, this is not a mark of vanity. It is a strategy. Obama believes that his story is a powerful foreign policy tool, that drawing attention to what makes him different, not only from George W. Bush but from all past American presidents, will persuade the world to take a fresh look at America and its policies and make new diplomatic settlements possible.
In Cairo, he emphasized his Muslim heritage to show Muslims around the world that he empathizes with them as no previous American president possibly could. His apologies for America's past behavior also highlight his uniqueness. He is not the first president to apologize. Wilson apologized to the peoples of the Western Hemisphere for the interventionist policies of his Republican predecessors (only to outdo them with his own interventions). Bill Clinton apologized to Africans for America's history of slavery. But Clinton accepted responsibility for America's sins as if they were his own.
Obama, on the other hand, does distance himself from America's past sins. His response to Daniel Ortega's long recitation of U.S. misdeeds in Latin America was to point out that he personally had nothing to do with them -- "I was three months old." When he admits American sins in relations with Iran, he wants Iran's revolutionary leaders to distinguish between America, which they hate, and America's new president, whom they can like and with whom they can do business.
Can this work even without fundamental change in the conduct and parameters of U.S. foreign policy? Obama obviously hopes so. Take the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Obama calls for a freeze on settlements, but the question for many Arabs and Palestinians is what he will do to force Israel to comply with his demands. Will he cut off aid? The answer is almost certainly no. But Obama must believe that the expression of his good intentions is enough.
Or take Obama's declared desire to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Of course he admits that he cannot make this happen. But he believes that by agreeing with American critics that the present American-dominated order is unjust, he can buy the international goodwill necessary to end Iran's and North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
Finally, Guantanamo. Who knows when Obama will be able to close it, what he will be able to put in its place or whether, ultimately, he will be able to strike a fundamentally different balance between American security and the legal rights of detainees than was struck by Bush or by previous presidents in times of perceived national security threats? It probably won't be all that different. But Obama hopes that by displaying earnestness to change American practices, he can build an image of greater moral authority and that this in turn will produce diplomatic results that have hitherto eluded us.
It is conceivable that this theory may prove correct. Certainly, it will soon be tested. But let us not call it realism. The last president who sincerely pursued this approach was Woodrow Wilson. He, too, believed that the display of evident goodwill and desire for peace, uncorrupted by the base motives of national interest or ambition, gave him the special moral authority to sway other nations. And Wilson was as beloved around the globe as Obama is today, possibly more beloved, at least for a moment. Millions took to the streets in the great cities of Europe when he crossed the Atlantic in 1918. His gifts to persuade, however, proved ephemeral, and the results of his efforts were, from his own perspective, an utter failure. Not only the nations of Europe but his own United States proved more self-interested and less amenable to moral appeals. We will see whether Barack Obama, the most Wilsonian president in a century, fares better.
Source: Woodrow Wilson's Heir
President Obama likes to see himself as a pragmatist, but in foreign policy he is proving to be a supreme idealist of the Woodrow Wilson variety.
Like Wilson's, Obama's foreign policy increasingly seems to rest on the assumption that nations will act on the basis of what they perceive to be the goodwill, good intentions or moral purity of other nations, in particular the United States. If other nations have refused to cooperate with us, it is because they perceive the United States as aggressive or evil. Obama's job is to change that perception. From the outreach to Iran and to Muslims, to the call for eliminating all nuclear weapons, to the desire for a "reset" in relations with Russia, the central point of Obama's diplomacy is that America is, suddenly, different. It has changed. It is better. It is time, therefore, for other nations to cooperate.
But how has America changed? Obama's policies toward Iran, the Middle East, Russia, North Korea, China, Latin America, Afghanistan and even Iraq have at most shifted only at the margins -- as many in those countries repeatedly complain. So what, for instance, is the source of the "new beginning" in U.S.-Muslim relations that Obama called for in Cairo?
The answer, it seems, is Obama himself. In the speech, The Post reports, "Obama made his own biography the starting point for a new U.S. relationship with Islam." Or as the New York Times put it, while "the president offered few details on how to solve problems around the globe," his basic argument "boiled down to this: Barack Hussein Obama was standing on the podium in this Muslim capital as the American president."
ad_icon
Critics complain that Obama's speeches are too self-referential. If so, this is not a mark of vanity. It is a strategy. Obama believes that his story is a powerful foreign policy tool, that drawing attention to what makes him different, not only from George W. Bush but from all past American presidents, will persuade the world to take a fresh look at America and its policies and make new diplomatic settlements possible.
In Cairo, he emphasized his Muslim heritage to show Muslims around the world that he empathizes with them as no previous American president possibly could. His apologies for America's past behavior also highlight his uniqueness. He is not the first president to apologize. Wilson apologized to the peoples of the Western Hemisphere for the interventionist policies of his Republican predecessors (only to outdo them with his own interventions). Bill Clinton apologized to Africans for America's history of slavery. But Clinton accepted responsibility for America's sins as if they were his own.
Obama, on the other hand, does distance himself from America's past sins. His response to Daniel Ortega's long recitation of U.S. misdeeds in Latin America was to point out that he personally had nothing to do with them -- "I was three months old." When he admits American sins in relations with Iran, he wants Iran's revolutionary leaders to distinguish between America, which they hate, and America's new president, whom they can like and with whom they can do business.
Can this work even without fundamental change in the conduct and parameters of U.S. foreign policy? Obama obviously hopes so. Take the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Obama calls for a freeze on settlements, but the question for many Arabs and Palestinians is what he will do to force Israel to comply with his demands. Will he cut off aid? The answer is almost certainly no. But Obama must believe that the expression of his good intentions is enough.
Or take Obama's declared desire to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Of course he admits that he cannot make this happen. But he believes that by agreeing with American critics that the present American-dominated order is unjust, he can buy the international goodwill necessary to end Iran's and North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
Finally, Guantanamo. Who knows when Obama will be able to close it, what he will be able to put in its place or whether, ultimately, he will be able to strike a fundamentally different balance between American security and the legal rights of detainees than was struck by Bush or by previous presidents in times of perceived national security threats? It probably won't be all that different. But Obama hopes that by displaying earnestness to change American practices, he can build an image of greater moral authority and that this in turn will produce diplomatic results that have hitherto eluded us.
It is conceivable that this theory may prove correct. Certainly, it will soon be tested. But let us not call it realism. The last president who sincerely pursued this approach was Woodrow Wilson. He, too, believed that the display of evident goodwill and desire for peace, uncorrupted by the base motives of national interest or ambition, gave him the special moral authority to sway other nations. And Wilson was as beloved around the globe as Obama is today, possibly more beloved, at least for a moment. Millions took to the streets in the great cities of Europe when he crossed the Atlantic in 1918. His gifts to persuade, however, proved ephemeral, and the results of his efforts were, from his own perspective, an utter failure. Not only the nations of Europe but his own United States proved more self-interested and less amenable to moral appeals. We will see whether Barack Obama, the most Wilsonian president in a century, fares better.
Source: Woodrow Wilson's Heir
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Restless China
As the global economic crisis worsens and Chinese exports shrivel, thousands of factories are closing and already 20 million Chinese workers have lost their jobs. Is the global financial downturn creating potential political and social unrest in China?
101East - Restless China - 26 March 09 - Part 1
101East - Restless China - 26 March 09 - Part 2
Source:
AlJazeeraEnglish
101East - Restless China - 26 March 09 - Part 1
101East - Restless China - 26 March 09 - Part 2
Source:
AlJazeeraEnglish
Thursday, June 4, 2009
TankMan - Tiananmen Square Protests
Tank Man, or the Unknown Rebel, is the nickname of an anonymous man who became internationally famous when he was videotaped and photographed during the Tiananmen Square protests on 5 June 1989. Several photographs were taken of the man, who stood in front of a column of Chinese Type 59 tanks, preventing their advance. The most widely reproduced version of the photograph was taken by Jeff Widener (Associated Press), from the sixth floor of the Beijing Hotel, about half a mile (800 m) away, through a 400 mm lens.
Another version was taken by photographer Stuart Franklin of Magnum Photos. His photograph has a wider field of view than Widener's picture, showing more tanks in front of the man. Franklin subsequently won a World Press Award for the photograph. It was featured in LIFE magazine's "100 Photos that Changed the World" in 2003. Variations of the image were also recorded by CNN and BBC film crews, on videotape, and were transmitted across the world.
The still and motion photography of the man standing alone before a line of tanks reached international audiences practically overnight. It headlined hundreds of major newspapers and news magazines and was the lead story on countless news broadcasts around the world. In April 1998, the United States magazine TIME included the "Unknown Rebel" in its 100 most influential people of the 20th century.
The incident took place just a minute away from Tiananmen on Chang'an Avenue, which leads into the Forbidden City, Beijing, on June 5, 1989, the day after the Chinese government began cracking down violently on the protests. The man stood alone in the middle of the road as the tanks approached. He held two bags, one in each hand. As the tanks came to a stop, he appeared to be trying to wave them away. In response, the front tank attempted to drive around the man, but the man repeatedly stepped into the path of the tank in a show of nonviolent action. By looking at these two photographs and using the painted road lines as a reference, it is evident that the tank has moved forward. After blocking the tanks, the man climbed up onto the top of the lead tank and had a conversation with the driver. Reports of what he said to the driver vary, including "Why are you here? My city is in chaos because of you"; "Go back, turn around, and stop killing my people"; and "Go away." Video footage shows that anxious onlookers then pulled the man away and absorbed him into the crowd and the tanks continued on their way.
Little is publicly known of the man's identity. Shortly after the incident, British tabloid the Sunday Express named him as Wang Weilin, a 19-year-old student; however, the veracity of this claim is dubious. Numerous rumours have sprung up as to the man's identity and current whereabouts, but none are backed by hard evidence.
There are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the demonstration. In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn — former deputy special assistant to President of the United States Richard Nixon — reported that he was executed 14 days later; other sources say he was killed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that the man is still alive and is hiding in mainland China.
An eyewitness account of the event published in October 2005 by Charlie Cole, a contract photographer for Newsweek magazine at the time, states that the man was arrested on the spot by the Public Security Bureau.
The People's Republic of China government made few statements about the incident or the person involved. In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang replied "I think never killed."
A June 2006 article in the Hong Kong Apple Daily stated that the man is now residing in Taiwan.
- Wikipedia Extract
Another version was taken by photographer Stuart Franklin of Magnum Photos. His photograph has a wider field of view than Widener's picture, showing more tanks in front of the man. Franklin subsequently won a World Press Award for the photograph. It was featured in LIFE magazine's "100 Photos that Changed the World" in 2003. Variations of the image were also recorded by CNN and BBC film crews, on videotape, and were transmitted across the world.
The still and motion photography of the man standing alone before a line of tanks reached international audiences practically overnight. It headlined hundreds of major newspapers and news magazines and was the lead story on countless news broadcasts around the world. In April 1998, the United States magazine TIME included the "Unknown Rebel" in its 100 most influential people of the 20th century.
The incident took place just a minute away from Tiananmen on Chang'an Avenue, which leads into the Forbidden City, Beijing, on June 5, 1989, the day after the Chinese government began cracking down violently on the protests. The man stood alone in the middle of the road as the tanks approached. He held two bags, one in each hand. As the tanks came to a stop, he appeared to be trying to wave them away. In response, the front tank attempted to drive around the man, but the man repeatedly stepped into the path of the tank in a show of nonviolent action. By looking at these two photographs and using the painted road lines as a reference, it is evident that the tank has moved forward. After blocking the tanks, the man climbed up onto the top of the lead tank and had a conversation with the driver. Reports of what he said to the driver vary, including "Why are you here? My city is in chaos because of you"; "Go back, turn around, and stop killing my people"; and "Go away." Video footage shows that anxious onlookers then pulled the man away and absorbed him into the crowd and the tanks continued on their way.
Little is publicly known of the man's identity. Shortly after the incident, British tabloid the Sunday Express named him as Wang Weilin, a 19-year-old student; however, the veracity of this claim is dubious. Numerous rumours have sprung up as to the man's identity and current whereabouts, but none are backed by hard evidence.
There are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the demonstration. In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn — former deputy special assistant to President of the United States Richard Nixon — reported that he was executed 14 days later; other sources say he was killed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that the man is still alive and is hiding in mainland China.
An eyewitness account of the event published in October 2005 by Charlie Cole, a contract photographer for Newsweek magazine at the time, states that the man was arrested on the spot by the Public Security Bureau.
The People's Republic of China government made few statements about the incident or the person involved. In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang replied "I think never killed."
A June 2006 article in the Hong Kong Apple Daily stated that the man is now residing in Taiwan.
- Wikipedia Extract
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Assessing the fallout from Tiananmen
By Don Murray
The bloody scars of the past have been airbrushed out of the photo and those who try to draw attention to that cleansing of the historical record have been hustled away.
Consider the case of Liu Xiaobo, one of the leaders of the Tiananmen protests in 1989. I met him a year ago, just after the 19th anniversary of the crackdown.
Liu hadn't been available in the run-up to the day. Chinese security police had locked him in his apartment and cut him off from the rest of the world. When they did eventually let him out, they drove him to his meetings.
Some obvious symbolism as cannons fire a salute in Tiananmen Square on June 3, 2009, the day before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown in 1989. Security was heavy in the square and authorities blocked certain social networking websites. (Elizabeth Dalziel/Associated Press)Some obvious symbolism as cannons fire a salute in Tiananmen Square on June 3, 2009, the day before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown in 1989. Security was heavy in the square and authorities blocked certain social networking websites. (Elizabeth Dalziel/Associated Press)
Liu was sardonic about his treatment.
As a result of his role at Tiananmen, he had been tried for counter-revolutionary activity and jailed three times.
Still, he said, last summer as the Beijing Olympics beckoned, things were improving.
"When I was arrested in 1996, they ransacked my apartment and left a mess. When I was arrested a decade later they came with white gloves, and when they left, they put things back."
That was then
There will be no interviews with Liu this year, however. In December 2008, he led a group of intellectuals in drawing up and publishing Charter 08, a petition calling for respect for human rights, representative government, an independent judiciary and a federal system for China.
The petition was an updated, condensed call for democracy that was last heard loudly in public in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
An unidentified Chinese man stands in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square in June 1989, where hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed. (Jeff Widener/Associated Press)
It's an iconic image. A lone figure confronting a column of menacing tanks in Tiannamen Square in 1989. It seemed to symbolize the overwhelming odds faced by China's short lived pro-democracy movement. Though it happened just 20 years ago, the event seems like ancient history to most Chinese, observes the CBC's Michel Cormier (video runs: 4:01).
Right after the publication of Charter 08, Liu was promptly arrested and taken away. His wife has seen him just once since then. The authorities won't say where he's being held.
Charter 08 was consciously modelled on Charter 77, the Czech call for freedom and human rights drawn up by playwright and dissident Vaclav Havel in 1977 when the Communists ruled Eastern Europe.
Click here to read more Assessing the fallout from Tiananmen
The bloody scars of the past have been airbrushed out of the photo and those who try to draw attention to that cleansing of the historical record have been hustled away.
Consider the case of Liu Xiaobo, one of the leaders of the Tiananmen protests in 1989. I met him a year ago, just after the 19th anniversary of the crackdown.
Liu hadn't been available in the run-up to the day. Chinese security police had locked him in his apartment and cut him off from the rest of the world. When they did eventually let him out, they drove him to his meetings.
Some obvious symbolism as cannons fire a salute in Tiananmen Square on June 3, 2009, the day before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown in 1989. Security was heavy in the square and authorities blocked certain social networking websites. (Elizabeth Dalziel/Associated Press)Some obvious symbolism as cannons fire a salute in Tiananmen Square on June 3, 2009, the day before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown in 1989. Security was heavy in the square and authorities blocked certain social networking websites. (Elizabeth Dalziel/Associated Press)
Liu was sardonic about his treatment.
As a result of his role at Tiananmen, he had been tried for counter-revolutionary activity and jailed three times.
Still, he said, last summer as the Beijing Olympics beckoned, things were improving.
"When I was arrested in 1996, they ransacked my apartment and left a mess. When I was arrested a decade later they came with white gloves, and when they left, they put things back."
That was then
There will be no interviews with Liu this year, however. In December 2008, he led a group of intellectuals in drawing up and publishing Charter 08, a petition calling for respect for human rights, representative government, an independent judiciary and a federal system for China.
The petition was an updated, condensed call for democracy that was last heard loudly in public in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
An unidentified Chinese man stands in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square in June 1989, where hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed. (Jeff Widener/Associated Press)
It's an iconic image. A lone figure confronting a column of menacing tanks in Tiannamen Square in 1989. It seemed to symbolize the overwhelming odds faced by China's short lived pro-democracy movement. Though it happened just 20 years ago, the event seems like ancient history to most Chinese, observes the CBC's Michel Cormier (video runs: 4:01).
Right after the publication of Charter 08, Liu was promptly arrested and taken away. His wife has seen him just once since then. The authorities won't say where he's being held.
Charter 08 was consciously modelled on Charter 77, the Czech call for freedom and human rights drawn up by playwright and dissident Vaclav Havel in 1977 when the Communists ruled Eastern Europe.
Click here to read more Assessing the fallout from Tiananmen
The Tank Man
On June 5, 1989, one day after Chinese troops expelled thousands of demonstrators from Tiananmen Square, a solitary, unarmed protester stood his ground before a column of tanks advancing down the Avenue of Eternal Peace. Captured by Western photographers, this extraordinary confrontation became an icon of the fight for freedom around the world. Filmmaker Antony Thomas investigates the identity, fate, and significance of the tank man.
Click here to buy FRONTLINE: The Tank Man DVD
Click here to buy FRONTLINE: The Tank Man DVD
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Darfur Makes Sudan's Omar al-Bashir Barack Obama's Biggest African Foe
By William J. Dobson
Presidents don't get to choose their first foreign policy crisis. It usually chooses them. For President Clinton, it was the killing of 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu. For President Bush, it came when a U.S. EP-3 military plane collided with a Chinese fighter pilot, forcing the American crew to land on the Chinese island of Hainan. Many think that President Obama's first crisis came last month in the unlikely form of Somali pirates. (Actually, pirates have been patrolling those waters longer than there have been American presidents and they will likely be there hundreds of years from now.)
While Obama may have handled the high seas showdown, his most dangerous foe in Africa isn't a rag-tag group of teenagers with AK-47s and speedboats. No, that adversary is Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, the world's first sitting president with a warrant for his arrest.
Darfur, the war-torn western region of Sudan, is being pushed perilously close to the edge by the Sudanese government. The biggest test for Obama's foreign policy in Africa will not be pirates; it will be Bashir.
The emerging crisis is of Khartoum's making. In March, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bashir immediately lashed out, expelling 13 foreign aid groups—groups such as Oxfam, Save the Children, and Doctors without Borders—from the country. These relief organizations were providing clean water, food, and medical attention to roughly 1.5 million people. Now, two months since Bashir's cruel directive, Darfur is again near the brink: water reserves have been depleted, food is in short supply, and medical care is desperately needed. The United Nations has scrambled to make up the shortfall before the rainy season begins. The hardest hit are Darfur's women and children, who make up more than 60 percent of the 2.7 million people driven from their homes.
Click here to read the full article
Presidents don't get to choose their first foreign policy crisis. It usually chooses them. For President Clinton, it was the killing of 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu. For President Bush, it came when a U.S. EP-3 military plane collided with a Chinese fighter pilot, forcing the American crew to land on the Chinese island of Hainan. Many think that President Obama's first crisis came last month in the unlikely form of Somali pirates. (Actually, pirates have been patrolling those waters longer than there have been American presidents and they will likely be there hundreds of years from now.)
While Obama may have handled the high seas showdown, his most dangerous foe in Africa isn't a rag-tag group of teenagers with AK-47s and speedboats. No, that adversary is Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, the world's first sitting president with a warrant for his arrest.
Darfur, the war-torn western region of Sudan, is being pushed perilously close to the edge by the Sudanese government. The biggest test for Obama's foreign policy in Africa will not be pirates; it will be Bashir.
The emerging crisis is of Khartoum's making. In March, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bashir immediately lashed out, expelling 13 foreign aid groups—groups such as Oxfam, Save the Children, and Doctors without Borders—from the country. These relief organizations were providing clean water, food, and medical attention to roughly 1.5 million people. Now, two months since Bashir's cruel directive, Darfur is again near the brink: water reserves have been depleted, food is in short supply, and medical care is desperately needed. The United Nations has scrambled to make up the shortfall before the rainy season begins. The hardest hit are Darfur's women and children, who make up more than 60 percent of the 2.7 million people driven from their homes.
Click here to read the full article
Monday, June 1, 2009
China and the Olympics
China is pulling out all stops as its capital takes to the world stage as host of the 2008 Olympic games. Since winning the bid seven years ago, Beijing has undergone a construction boom, making this Olympics the world's most expensive games ever, at a cost of $43 billion. This week on 101 East we ask, what does hosting the 2008 Olympics mean for China and its people?
101 East - China and the Olympics - Part 1
101 East - China and the Olympics - 7 Part 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish
101 East - China and the Olympics - Part 1
101 East - China and the Olympics - 7 Part 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore.
By William J. Dobson, The Washington Post.
What to do with the Guantanamo detainees? Uncertainty resurfaced last week, as the Obama administration backed away from earlier statements on U.S. anti-terrorism policies. The president reversed a decision to release photographs of alleged detainee abuse. Then he decided to keep the military commissions for trying terrorist suspects. The White House is now reportedly considering plans to detain some suspects on U.S. soil indefinitely, without trial.
As the administration struggles over the fate of the 241 remaining detainees in its charge, it may want to look to an old Asian ally for a hand.
Meet Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim, one of Singapore's most respected Islamic scholars. His business card describes him as "Assistant Registrar of Muslim Marriages." But Kassim is engaged in a more important enterprise. He is part of his country's innovative program to fend off the threat of Islamic extremism. "We are not scared of [the terrorists]," says Kassim, an older gentleman with a face framed by a neatly trimmed white beard. "We know that history repeats itself, but these problems do not need to be passed on."
ad_icon
Kassim, along with nearly 40 other Islamic scholars, is part of a select group of religious leaders called the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), which is trying to rehabilitate -- or, as its members say, "deprogram" -- Singapore's terrorist detainees. In 2001, Singapore's authorities had no idea that they had a terrorist problem. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the government was tipped off that a cell of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian militant group with links to al-Qaeda, was planning attacks across the city-state. In raids in late 2001 and 2002, more than 30 members of the terrorist outfit were arrested; more arrests followed. So, while the United States was filling its detention center at Guantanamo with foreign fighters, Singapore began to house its own population of Muslim extremists in its jails.
Singapore's strict law-and-order government, which famously enforced a ban on chewing gum, may seem an unlikely candidate for believing terrorists could be reformed. But Singapore -- often referred to as "the little red dot" in Southeast Asia's Islamic sea -- is in a precarious position, and its government felt compelled to take action that would not only disrupt the terrorist group's operations, but also counter its ideological appeal. "We are what we are out of necessity," says Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo. "[Islamic extremism] is a long-term problem, and it's not going to go away in our lifetime. The only way you can combat it is to have an immune system."
Singaporean officials said they decided to use Islamic clerics because they were convinced that only religious leaders could "de-program" the detainees. "Once you have taken an oath of God, it will take another man of God to undo it," a senior security official told me.
After meeting several detainees and studying Jemaah Islamiyah's religious ideology, the Islamic scholars were disturbed to see how their faith had been distorted to recruit terrorist foot soldiers. During more than a thousand weekly hour-long sessions, the scholars worked to build personal relationships with the detainees. Some counselors said the process of de-radicalizing an extremist was similar to the one-on-one relationship that often exists between a terrorist recruiter and recruit.
The main battles were over the Koran. Islamic radicals, especially members of Jemaah Islamiyah, many of whom are born-again Muslims who adopted their extreme faith late in life, often quote from it to justify their actions. That was where a scholar's grasp of Islam came in, and it wasn't always a pleasant exchange. "They believe they have the right to kill. This is what they believe from years of indoctrination," says Ustaz Feisal Hassan, one of the counselors.
As with the rehabilitation of any criminal, there's always the possibility of backsliding. Two graduates of Saudi Arabia's rehabilitation program have reportedly taken leadership positions within al-Qaeda in Yemen. For this reason, the RRG also counsels the detainee's family to ensure that wrong lessons are not passed on to the next generation and to help wives, sons and daughters assimilate into the mainstream. Many families receive financial support from the government, and detainees have jobs waiting for them when they are released.
Sidney Jones, a longtime advocate for human rights in Southeast Asia now at the International Crisis Group, calls this aspect of the Singapore program a "stroke of genius."
"In some places, like Poso [in Indonesia], I have heard it is the wives who urge their husbands not to work with the police and to keep their resolve," says Jones. And unlike in many other countries with terrorist rehabilitation programs, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the detainees in Singapore are required to continue their counseling after their release.
Today, 40 former terrorists, or roughly two-thirds of the detainees Singapore has arrested since 2001, have been rehabilitated and released. None appear to have returned to their violent past. For Singaporean authorities, the best dividend may be the trust they have gained from the city-state's own Muslim citizens. "Singapore is the one place in the world I know where relations between the government and the Muslim community are better after 9/11," says Alami Musa, the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore
Of course, the biggest question is how we can ever know if a radical is truly rehabilitated. A detainee in Singapore is not released until his case officer, a psychologist and the religious counselor signs off. Even then the decision goes to the prime minister's cabinet to give its approval. Political accountability rests at the top.
Members of the RRG have traveled to Iraq to brief U.S. military officers on their methods. At a meeting in Singapore earlier this year, Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone Jr., who used to run the U.S. military's detention system in Iraq, said that 15 percent of Iraqi militants would typically return to the fight once released. Since the U.S. military introduced its own rehabilitation program, inspired in part by Singapore's example, that figure has dropped to 1 to 2 percent.
As the Obama administration contemplates what to do with the detainees who remain in Guantanamo, perhaps they should consider talking with Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim. I have his business card.
Source: Washington Post
link to the article: The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore.
What to do with the Guantanamo detainees? Uncertainty resurfaced last week, as the Obama administration backed away from earlier statements on U.S. anti-terrorism policies. The president reversed a decision to release photographs of alleged detainee abuse. Then he decided to keep the military commissions for trying terrorist suspects. The White House is now reportedly considering plans to detain some suspects on U.S. soil indefinitely, without trial.
As the administration struggles over the fate of the 241 remaining detainees in its charge, it may want to look to an old Asian ally for a hand.
Meet Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim, one of Singapore's most respected Islamic scholars. His business card describes him as "Assistant Registrar of Muslim Marriages." But Kassim is engaged in a more important enterprise. He is part of his country's innovative program to fend off the threat of Islamic extremism. "We are not scared of [the terrorists]," says Kassim, an older gentleman with a face framed by a neatly trimmed white beard. "We know that history repeats itself, but these problems do not need to be passed on."
ad_icon
Kassim, along with nearly 40 other Islamic scholars, is part of a select group of religious leaders called the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), which is trying to rehabilitate -- or, as its members say, "deprogram" -- Singapore's terrorist detainees. In 2001, Singapore's authorities had no idea that they had a terrorist problem. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the government was tipped off that a cell of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian militant group with links to al-Qaeda, was planning attacks across the city-state. In raids in late 2001 and 2002, more than 30 members of the terrorist outfit were arrested; more arrests followed. So, while the United States was filling its detention center at Guantanamo with foreign fighters, Singapore began to house its own population of Muslim extremists in its jails.
Singapore's strict law-and-order government, which famously enforced a ban on chewing gum, may seem an unlikely candidate for believing terrorists could be reformed. But Singapore -- often referred to as "the little red dot" in Southeast Asia's Islamic sea -- is in a precarious position, and its government felt compelled to take action that would not only disrupt the terrorist group's operations, but also counter its ideological appeal. "We are what we are out of necessity," says Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo. "[Islamic extremism] is a long-term problem, and it's not going to go away in our lifetime. The only way you can combat it is to have an immune system."
Singaporean officials said they decided to use Islamic clerics because they were convinced that only religious leaders could "de-program" the detainees. "Once you have taken an oath of God, it will take another man of God to undo it," a senior security official told me.
After meeting several detainees and studying Jemaah Islamiyah's religious ideology, the Islamic scholars were disturbed to see how their faith had been distorted to recruit terrorist foot soldiers. During more than a thousand weekly hour-long sessions, the scholars worked to build personal relationships with the detainees. Some counselors said the process of de-radicalizing an extremist was similar to the one-on-one relationship that often exists between a terrorist recruiter and recruit.
The main battles were over the Koran. Islamic radicals, especially members of Jemaah Islamiyah, many of whom are born-again Muslims who adopted their extreme faith late in life, often quote from it to justify their actions. That was where a scholar's grasp of Islam came in, and it wasn't always a pleasant exchange. "They believe they have the right to kill. This is what they believe from years of indoctrination," says Ustaz Feisal Hassan, one of the counselors.
As with the rehabilitation of any criminal, there's always the possibility of backsliding. Two graduates of Saudi Arabia's rehabilitation program have reportedly taken leadership positions within al-Qaeda in Yemen. For this reason, the RRG also counsels the detainee's family to ensure that wrong lessons are not passed on to the next generation and to help wives, sons and daughters assimilate into the mainstream. Many families receive financial support from the government, and detainees have jobs waiting for them when they are released.
Sidney Jones, a longtime advocate for human rights in Southeast Asia now at the International Crisis Group, calls this aspect of the Singapore program a "stroke of genius."
"In some places, like Poso [in Indonesia], I have heard it is the wives who urge their husbands not to work with the police and to keep their resolve," says Jones. And unlike in many other countries with terrorist rehabilitation programs, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the detainees in Singapore are required to continue their counseling after their release.
Today, 40 former terrorists, or roughly two-thirds of the detainees Singapore has arrested since 2001, have been rehabilitated and released. None appear to have returned to their violent past. For Singaporean authorities, the best dividend may be the trust they have gained from the city-state's own Muslim citizens. "Singapore is the one place in the world I know where relations between the government and the Muslim community are better after 9/11," says Alami Musa, the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore
Of course, the biggest question is how we can ever know if a radical is truly rehabilitated. A detainee in Singapore is not released until his case officer, a psychologist and the religious counselor signs off. Even then the decision goes to the prime minister's cabinet to give its approval. Political accountability rests at the top.
Members of the RRG have traveled to Iraq to brief U.S. military officers on their methods. At a meeting in Singapore earlier this year, Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone Jr., who used to run the U.S. military's detention system in Iraq, said that 15 percent of Iraqi militants would typically return to the fight once released. Since the U.S. military introduced its own rehabilitation program, inspired in part by Singapore's example, that figure has dropped to 1 to 2 percent.
As the Obama administration contemplates what to do with the detainees who remain in Guantanamo, perhaps they should consider talking with Ustaz Ibrahim Kassim. I have his business card.
Source: Washington Post
link to the article: The Best Guide for Gitmo? Look to Singapore.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Swine Flu Update May 29, 2009.
In case you didn't know what is a swine flu.
"Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza virus that regularly causes outbreaks of influenza in pigs. Swine flu viruses cause high levels of illness and low death rates in pigs. Swine influenza viruses may circulate among swine throughout the year, but most outbreaks occur during the late fall and winter months similar to outbreaks in humans. The classical swine flu virus (an influenza type A H1N1 virus) was first isolated from a pig in 1930.
Novel influenza A (H1N1) is a new flu virus of swine origin that was first detected in April, 2009. The virus is infecting people and is spreading from person-to-person, sparking a growing outbreak of illness in the United States. An increasing number of cases are being reported internationally as well." CDC
53 countries have officially reported 15,510 cases of influenza A(H1N1) infection, including 99 deaths.
WHO Swine Flu Update May 29, 2009
U.S. Human Cases of H1N1 Flu Infection, as of May 29, 2009
"Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza virus that regularly causes outbreaks of influenza in pigs. Swine flu viruses cause high levels of illness and low death rates in pigs. Swine influenza viruses may circulate among swine throughout the year, but most outbreaks occur during the late fall and winter months similar to outbreaks in humans. The classical swine flu virus (an influenza type A H1N1 virus) was first isolated from a pig in 1930.
Novel influenza A (H1N1) is a new flu virus of swine origin that was first detected in April, 2009. The virus is infecting people and is spreading from person-to-person, sparking a growing outbreak of illness in the United States. An increasing number of cases are being reported internationally as well." CDC
53 countries have officially reported 15,510 cases of influenza A(H1N1) infection, including 99 deaths.
WHO Swine Flu Update May 29, 2009
U.S. Human Cases of H1N1 Flu Infection, as of May 29, 2009
The Great Firewall Of China
China has the most sophisticated censorship and internet surveillance in the world. But despite this autocratic control some guerrilla bloggers are still managing to get their message through.
"The Government always wants to try to act as the cat to control people's access to information but I think the mouse is running faster." This is the voice of Isaac Mao, he was one of China's earliest bloggers, and has learnt how to work the system. "The Chinese government's goal is not to control one hundred percent of what people are doing one hundred percent of the time," if they are too authoritarian, they will be faced with civil unrest. As CNN correspondent Rebecca MacKinnon points out, "to remain in power they want to prevent certain uses of the internet that might lead to overthrow." Journalists like Zhang Shihe work the gaps in the censorship to broadcast their message, " I rely on my instinct. Am I telling the truth or lies? Am I trying to help improve the situation? I know if I can control this, I'll be fine." He regularly films and comments on rural working conditions, and has as yet avoided jail. But his story is not typical. With about 30 known journalists and 50 internet users known to be behind bars, the Committee to Protect Journalists has branded China "the world's leading jailer of journalists."
Watch:
The Great Firewall Of China
Produced by ABC Australia
Distributed by Journeyman Pictures
"The Government always wants to try to act as the cat to control people's access to information but I think the mouse is running faster." This is the voice of Isaac Mao, he was one of China's earliest bloggers, and has learnt how to work the system. "The Chinese government's goal is not to control one hundred percent of what people are doing one hundred percent of the time," if they are too authoritarian, they will be faced with civil unrest. As CNN correspondent Rebecca MacKinnon points out, "to remain in power they want to prevent certain uses of the internet that might lead to overthrow." Journalists like Zhang Shihe work the gaps in the censorship to broadcast their message, " I rely on my instinct. Am I telling the truth or lies? Am I trying to help improve the situation? I know if I can control this, I'll be fine." He regularly films and comments on rural working conditions, and has as yet avoided jail. But his story is not typical. With about 30 known journalists and 50 internet users known to be behind bars, the Committee to Protect Journalists has branded China "the world's leading jailer of journalists."
Watch:
The Great Firewall Of China
Produced by ABC Australia
Distributed by Journeyman Pictures
What to Do About North Korea
By Dan Blumenthal and Robert Kagan, Washington Post.
The North Korean launch of its Taeopodong-2 missile and its second nuclear test have laid bare the paucity of President Obama's policy options. They have exposed the futility of the six-party talks and, in particular, the much-hyped myth of China's value as a partner on strategic matters. The Obama administration claims that it wants to break with the policies of its predecessor. This is one area where it ought to.
After decades of diplomacy and "probing" Pyongyang's intentions, one thing is clear: Kim Jong Il and his cronies want nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. What will dissuade them? Isolation and more punitive sanctions would make sense if China and Russia would go along. But they haven't, and they won't.
We would support military action against North Korean missiles and missile sites, if we had prepared ourselves over the past few years to protect our allies against possible North Korean retaliation. Former defense secretary William J. Perry and current defense undersecretary Ashton B. Carter recommended this course of action in The Post a few years ago. But the supposedly bellicose Bush administration didn't take such action, and the odds of this administration doing so are even smaller.
For several years, this lack of attractive options has driven many to look to the Chinese for help. Advocates of warm engagement with the Chinese have been the most enthusiastic promoters of this approach, less, we suspect, out of concern for solving the North Korea problem than to prove the worth of close cooperation with Beijing. North Korea, they have tirelessly claimed, is one of those common strategic interests that the United States and Beijing allegedly share.
This proposition has been discredited. Sure, in theory China could pressure Kim to give up his weapons -- it has the power and influence. But the fact is, China doesn't want to. Beijing is content to live with a nuclear and anti-Western North Korea. While China fears a collapsed North that would flood its struggling Northeast with refugees, it also fears a unified, democratic, prosperous Korea allied with the United States. China wants a puppet state in North Korea, which is why, far from joining in sanctions, it steadily increases its economic investment there.
Given these realities, the United States probably has little choice but to wait out Kim until the emergence of a leader who can make the strategic decision to abandon the nuclear weapons program. In the meantime, Washington should embark on a three-pronged approach. First, it should enhance its deterrent to protect itself, South Korea and Japan. That means, above all, bolstering American and allied missile defenses and deterrent capabilities. Unfortunately, it is precisely American missile defense capabilities that the Obama administration is now cutting -- despite the growing missile threat from North Korea and Iran. Second, it should strengthen multilateral efforts to stem North Korean proliferation, including more active efforts at interdiction and freezing bank accounts used to fund proliferation. Third, it should give up on the six-party talks. If it ever proves useful to talk to Pyongyang -- a big "if" -- let's do so directly.
The ultimate American aim should be to help bring about a unified Korean Peninsula and not cede influence over the two Koreas to Beijing. The current diplomatic arrangements have permitted China to set the political agenda while quietly increasing its leverage over the North. But Washington doesn't need to go through Beijing to get to Pyongyang. Direct negotiations between the United States and North Korea, in close consultation with Japan and South Korea, are better than working through a middleman who has no desire or interest in closing the deal. Both Japan and South Korea would welcome greater U.S. engagement with the North. Seoul wants reassurance that it will not shoulder the burden of unification by itself. Japan wants U.S. protection and a guarantee that Washington will have some presence on the peninsula for the long term.
If we decide to talk again, American diplomacy should expand beyond nuclear talks to begin preparing for the outcome it wants: a democratic, unified and eventually nonnuclear Korea. As Korea expert Andrei Lankov has suggested, America's new approach could include the opening of cultural, educational and economic exchanges with the North. Western experts should be encouraged to teach at North Korean universities; North Koreans should be allowed to study in the West; and the United States, Japan and South Korea should undertake cooperative economic projects in the North. The United States should also open more radio and television broadcasts from South Korea and the West. In short, Washington's diplomacy with North Korea should focus on measures that raise North Koreans' standard of living and exposure to the West. This would keep our focus on long-term strategic objectives. And who knows? Maybe a new American approach to North Korea will provide an added benefit: If China sees its prominence diminished in North Korean diplomacy, maybe it will finally have some reason to act more forcefully in disarming Kim.
source:
Washington Post
The North Korean launch of its Taeopodong-2 missile and its second nuclear test have laid bare the paucity of President Obama's policy options. They have exposed the futility of the six-party talks and, in particular, the much-hyped myth of China's value as a partner on strategic matters. The Obama administration claims that it wants to break with the policies of its predecessor. This is one area where it ought to.
After decades of diplomacy and "probing" Pyongyang's intentions, one thing is clear: Kim Jong Il and his cronies want nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. What will dissuade them? Isolation and more punitive sanctions would make sense if China and Russia would go along. But they haven't, and they won't.
We would support military action against North Korean missiles and missile sites, if we had prepared ourselves over the past few years to protect our allies against possible North Korean retaliation. Former defense secretary William J. Perry and current defense undersecretary Ashton B. Carter recommended this course of action in The Post a few years ago. But the supposedly bellicose Bush administration didn't take such action, and the odds of this administration doing so are even smaller.
For several years, this lack of attractive options has driven many to look to the Chinese for help. Advocates of warm engagement with the Chinese have been the most enthusiastic promoters of this approach, less, we suspect, out of concern for solving the North Korea problem than to prove the worth of close cooperation with Beijing. North Korea, they have tirelessly claimed, is one of those common strategic interests that the United States and Beijing allegedly share.
This proposition has been discredited. Sure, in theory China could pressure Kim to give up his weapons -- it has the power and influence. But the fact is, China doesn't want to. Beijing is content to live with a nuclear and anti-Western North Korea. While China fears a collapsed North that would flood its struggling Northeast with refugees, it also fears a unified, democratic, prosperous Korea allied with the United States. China wants a puppet state in North Korea, which is why, far from joining in sanctions, it steadily increases its economic investment there.
Given these realities, the United States probably has little choice but to wait out Kim until the emergence of a leader who can make the strategic decision to abandon the nuclear weapons program. In the meantime, Washington should embark on a three-pronged approach. First, it should enhance its deterrent to protect itself, South Korea and Japan. That means, above all, bolstering American and allied missile defenses and deterrent capabilities. Unfortunately, it is precisely American missile defense capabilities that the Obama administration is now cutting -- despite the growing missile threat from North Korea and Iran. Second, it should strengthen multilateral efforts to stem North Korean proliferation, including more active efforts at interdiction and freezing bank accounts used to fund proliferation. Third, it should give up on the six-party talks. If it ever proves useful to talk to Pyongyang -- a big "if" -- let's do so directly.
The ultimate American aim should be to help bring about a unified Korean Peninsula and not cede influence over the two Koreas to Beijing. The current diplomatic arrangements have permitted China to set the political agenda while quietly increasing its leverage over the North. But Washington doesn't need to go through Beijing to get to Pyongyang. Direct negotiations between the United States and North Korea, in close consultation with Japan and South Korea, are better than working through a middleman who has no desire or interest in closing the deal. Both Japan and South Korea would welcome greater U.S. engagement with the North. Seoul wants reassurance that it will not shoulder the burden of unification by itself. Japan wants U.S. protection and a guarantee that Washington will have some presence on the peninsula for the long term.
If we decide to talk again, American diplomacy should expand beyond nuclear talks to begin preparing for the outcome it wants: a democratic, unified and eventually nonnuclear Korea. As Korea expert Andrei Lankov has suggested, America's new approach could include the opening of cultural, educational and economic exchanges with the North. Western experts should be encouraged to teach at North Korean universities; North Koreans should be allowed to study in the West; and the United States, Japan and South Korea should undertake cooperative economic projects in the North. The United States should also open more radio and television broadcasts from South Korea and the West. In short, Washington's diplomacy with North Korea should focus on measures that raise North Koreans' standard of living and exposure to the West. This would keep our focus on long-term strategic objectives. And who knows? Maybe a new American approach to North Korea will provide an added benefit: If China sees its prominence diminished in North Korean diplomacy, maybe it will finally have some reason to act more forcefully in disarming Kim.
source:
Washington Post
Friday, May 29, 2009
China's Challenges
In 25 years China has been taken from poverty to modernity, the Olympics and the brink of superpower status. But their have been costs - galloping inflation, the world's worst pollution and a social fabric that is showing the stain. This episode of 101 East asks what the future holds for China after the games.
101 East - China's challenges Part 1
101 East - China's challenges Part 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish.
101 East - China's challenges Part 1
101 East - China's challenges Part 2
Source: AlJazeeraEnglish.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
China's Modern Authoritarianism
By PERRY LINK and JOSHUA KURLANTZICK From today's Wall Street Journal Asia.
In the wake of the 1989 crackdown on prodemocracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party seemed morally bankrupt. Average Chinese complained bitterly about graft and special privileges reserved for the Party's elite, and few believed the Party's sloganeering about socialism when officials practiced ruthless capitalism. The army, too, had lost face: The Tiananmen killings showed that the "people's army" could open fire on the people themselves. The urban economy seemed locked within an inefficient and corrupt iron framework of the old work-unit system. No one either inside or outside China saw the country's authoritarian system as a model to follow.
Twenty years later, the Chinese Communist Party has built a new popularity by delivering staggering economic growth and cultivating a revived -- and potentially dangerous -- Han Chinese nationalism. China's material successes, as seen in its gleaming city skylines and piles of foreign currency holdings, suggest the government's top priority is economic growth. The increasing socioeconomic diversity in Chinese society suggests that the regime seeks liberalization and might one day throw open its political system.
These are dangerous misconceptions. The Party's top priority remains what it has always been: the maintenance of absolute political power. Economic growth has not sparked democratic change, as one-party rule persists. Through a sophisticated adaptation of its system -- including leveraging the market to maintain political control -- China's Communist Party has modernized its authoritarianism to fit the times.
The Party has utilized a sophisticated strategy to maintain control of its populace. While growing the economy, it has kept the majority of wealth in the hands of an elite class of business leaders, many of whom have willingly accepted authoritarian rule in exchange for getting rich. Far from forming a middle class that might challenge authority, these groups now have reason to join their rulers in repressing "instability" among the people. Meanwhile, the Party has also deliberately stoked and shaped Chinese nationalism, and many inside China now feel pride in the government's model of authoritarian development, especially as the model of liberal capitalism staggers in the wake of the global financial crisis.
Despite its tailored suits and suave diplomats, the Party also maintains a key tool in inducing popular obedience that dates to Mao's era, a technique called "thoughtwork." This ideological enforcement today operates more subtly than in the past, but it is still highly effective. It is covert -- accomplished, for example, through confidential telephone calls to newspaper editors, rather than in banner newspaper headlines. And it is targeted: Whereas Mao Zedong-era campaigns aimed to transform society and even human nature, thoughtwork today focuses on political issues that are vital to the Party's rule, and lets the rest go.
The effects of thoughtwork are far reaching. The Party's activities include outright censorship, but much of the rest of thoughtwork entails the active cultivation of views that the government favors among the media, businesspeople and other opinion leaders in Chinese society. This assertive side of thoughtwork has become especially important in recent years. Many Chinese still harbor complaints about the government's management of the economy, the environment and the country's political system. Particularly in rural areas, it is easy to find people furious at corruption, land grabs, worker exploitation, the wealth gap and thuggish repression.
But thoughtwork counters these complaints in two ways. First, the Party encourages the belief that the central leadership remains pure and all of the problems are due to corrupt or uninformed local officials. Second, the Party simply distracts its citizens. Demands for clean air, for instance, are answered with 52 Olympic gold medals and massive propaganda about the Games. Displaced homeowners are encouraged to worry about the Dalai Lama "splitting the motherland."
The Party's adaptive methods of disruption and distraction have helped maintain control during a period of rapid change, suggesting a durable domestic model of authoritarian governance. Even more worryingly, the government is translating its success at home into success abroad, where the "China model" of authoritarian capitalism is gaining currency. Governments from Syria to Vietnam have sung its praises.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Authoritarian elites seek formulas for maintaining their power while also growing their economies. In poor developing countries, average citizens are vulnerable to this propaganda, which China spreads by extending aid and investment with no human rights strings, running training programs in China for foreign officials and students, opening cultural centers such as Confucius Institutes within foreign universities, and offering diplomatic cover to repressive regimes at the United Nations and elsewhere.
China has extended its hand of friendship to many different types of nations, from harsh regimes -- including those of Sudan, Burma, Uzbekistan, North Korea and Zimbabwe -- whose leaders are seeking only financial assistance and protection at the U.N. and other international bodies, to a diverse group of developing countries across Asia, Latin America and Africa that seek economic, political and cultural ties to China. The scale of this effort is difficult to calculate. For example, China trains at least 1,000 Central Asian judicial and police officials annually, most of whom could be classified as working in antidemocratic enterprises. Over the long term, Beijing plans to step up its training programs for African officials. The scope of China's broader aid programs is similarly difficult to quantify, but the World Bank estimates that China is now the largest lender to African nations.
The China model, although a definite threat to democratic values, is no juggernaut. Its appeal abroad will depend in large part on how the Chinese economy weathers the global downturn, and how any stumbles it might encounter are perceived in the developing world. Back at home, the Party is more frightened of its own citizenry than most outside observers realize. Chinese citizens are increasingly aware of their constitutional rights; a phenomenon that does not fit well with authoritarianism. The Party may win the affection of foreign elites, but still faces dissent at home from local nongovernmental organizations, civil society and elements of the media.
Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, China's leadership has modernized the country's economy but also its authoritarianism. And because the system's flaws are as glaring as its resilience, its challenge to democracy is a crisis in the original sense of the word -- the course of events could turn either way.
Joshua Kurlantzick is the author of "Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World". You can purchase the book for only 8.30 (shipping included) @ half.com
Charm Offensive
In the wake of the 1989 crackdown on prodemocracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party seemed morally bankrupt. Average Chinese complained bitterly about graft and special privileges reserved for the Party's elite, and few believed the Party's sloganeering about socialism when officials practiced ruthless capitalism. The army, too, had lost face: The Tiananmen killings showed that the "people's army" could open fire on the people themselves. The urban economy seemed locked within an inefficient and corrupt iron framework of the old work-unit system. No one either inside or outside China saw the country's authoritarian system as a model to follow.
Twenty years later, the Chinese Communist Party has built a new popularity by delivering staggering economic growth and cultivating a revived -- and potentially dangerous -- Han Chinese nationalism. China's material successes, as seen in its gleaming city skylines and piles of foreign currency holdings, suggest the government's top priority is economic growth. The increasing socioeconomic diversity in Chinese society suggests that the regime seeks liberalization and might one day throw open its political system.
These are dangerous misconceptions. The Party's top priority remains what it has always been: the maintenance of absolute political power. Economic growth has not sparked democratic change, as one-party rule persists. Through a sophisticated adaptation of its system -- including leveraging the market to maintain political control -- China's Communist Party has modernized its authoritarianism to fit the times.
The Party has utilized a sophisticated strategy to maintain control of its populace. While growing the economy, it has kept the majority of wealth in the hands of an elite class of business leaders, many of whom have willingly accepted authoritarian rule in exchange for getting rich. Far from forming a middle class that might challenge authority, these groups now have reason to join their rulers in repressing "instability" among the people. Meanwhile, the Party has also deliberately stoked and shaped Chinese nationalism, and many inside China now feel pride in the government's model of authoritarian development, especially as the model of liberal capitalism staggers in the wake of the global financial crisis.
Despite its tailored suits and suave diplomats, the Party also maintains a key tool in inducing popular obedience that dates to Mao's era, a technique called "thoughtwork." This ideological enforcement today operates more subtly than in the past, but it is still highly effective. It is covert -- accomplished, for example, through confidential telephone calls to newspaper editors, rather than in banner newspaper headlines. And it is targeted: Whereas Mao Zedong-era campaigns aimed to transform society and even human nature, thoughtwork today focuses on political issues that are vital to the Party's rule, and lets the rest go.
The effects of thoughtwork are far reaching. The Party's activities include outright censorship, but much of the rest of thoughtwork entails the active cultivation of views that the government favors among the media, businesspeople and other opinion leaders in Chinese society. This assertive side of thoughtwork has become especially important in recent years. Many Chinese still harbor complaints about the government's management of the economy, the environment and the country's political system. Particularly in rural areas, it is easy to find people furious at corruption, land grabs, worker exploitation, the wealth gap and thuggish repression.
But thoughtwork counters these complaints in two ways. First, the Party encourages the belief that the central leadership remains pure and all of the problems are due to corrupt or uninformed local officials. Second, the Party simply distracts its citizens. Demands for clean air, for instance, are answered with 52 Olympic gold medals and massive propaganda about the Games. Displaced homeowners are encouraged to worry about the Dalai Lama "splitting the motherland."
The Party's adaptive methods of disruption and distraction have helped maintain control during a period of rapid change, suggesting a durable domestic model of authoritarian governance. Even more worryingly, the government is translating its success at home into success abroad, where the "China model" of authoritarian capitalism is gaining currency. Governments from Syria to Vietnam have sung its praises.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Authoritarian elites seek formulas for maintaining their power while also growing their economies. In poor developing countries, average citizens are vulnerable to this propaganda, which China spreads by extending aid and investment with no human rights strings, running training programs in China for foreign officials and students, opening cultural centers such as Confucius Institutes within foreign universities, and offering diplomatic cover to repressive regimes at the United Nations and elsewhere.
China has extended its hand of friendship to many different types of nations, from harsh regimes -- including those of Sudan, Burma, Uzbekistan, North Korea and Zimbabwe -- whose leaders are seeking only financial assistance and protection at the U.N. and other international bodies, to a diverse group of developing countries across Asia, Latin America and Africa that seek economic, political and cultural ties to China. The scale of this effort is difficult to calculate. For example, China trains at least 1,000 Central Asian judicial and police officials annually, most of whom could be classified as working in antidemocratic enterprises. Over the long term, Beijing plans to step up its training programs for African officials. The scope of China's broader aid programs is similarly difficult to quantify, but the World Bank estimates that China is now the largest lender to African nations.
The China model, although a definite threat to democratic values, is no juggernaut. Its appeal abroad will depend in large part on how the Chinese economy weathers the global downturn, and how any stumbles it might encounter are perceived in the developing world. Back at home, the Party is more frightened of its own citizenry than most outside observers realize. Chinese citizens are increasingly aware of their constitutional rights; a phenomenon that does not fit well with authoritarianism. The Party may win the affection of foreign elites, but still faces dissent at home from local nongovernmental organizations, civil society and elements of the media.
Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, China's leadership has modernized the country's economy but also its authoritarianism. And because the system's flaws are as glaring as its resilience, its challenge to democracy is a crisis in the original sense of the word -- the course of events could turn either way.
Joshua Kurlantzick is the author of "Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World". You can purchase the book for only 8.30 (shipping included) @ half.com
Charm Offensive
India Rising: The New Empire
India has one of the world’s fastest growing economies with growing pains to match. There are 53 billionaires in the country, but 300 million people are living on less than a dollar a day. CNBC’s Erin Burnett profiles the growing pains of one of the world’s fastest growing economies. Find out where there’s money to be made and meet a roster of Indian billionaires, CEO’s, a Nobel Prize winner and even a cricket team.
Source: CNBC Originals
Source: CNBC Originals
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Made In China: The People's Republic of Profit
* China is only slightly smaller than the U.S. in terms of land, but the population of people in China is four times are large.
* China is the fourth largest country in the world after Russia, Canada and the U.S.
* The life expectancy in the U.S. is 78 years. The life expectancy in China is 73 years.
* One demographic consequence of the “one child” policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world.
* Literacy is higher in the U.S. than in China by 10%.
* The age structure of people in China between 15 and 64 is 12% higher than in the U.S.
* Annual inflows of foreign direct investment rose to $75 billion in 2007.
* By the end of 2007, more than 5,000 Chinese enterprises had established direct investments in 172 countries and regions around the world
* China has an industrial production growth rate of 13.4% while the U.S. has a rate of 0.5%.
* China’s main exporting partner is the U.S. carrying out 22% of all exports.
* There are 228.1 million more cell phones in use in China than in the U.S.
CNBC Originals:
China's capitalist revolution has produced a thriving new business class that includes over 400,000 millionaires - entrepreneurs and innovators - who are helping to make the country a global economic powerhouse. Melissa Lee reports.
Source:
CNBC
* China is the fourth largest country in the world after Russia, Canada and the U.S.
* The life expectancy in the U.S. is 78 years. The life expectancy in China is 73 years.
* One demographic consequence of the “one child” policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world.
* Literacy is higher in the U.S. than in China by 10%.
* The age structure of people in China between 15 and 64 is 12% higher than in the U.S.
* Annual inflows of foreign direct investment rose to $75 billion in 2007.
* By the end of 2007, more than 5,000 Chinese enterprises had established direct investments in 172 countries and regions around the world
* China has an industrial production growth rate of 13.4% while the U.S. has a rate of 0.5%.
* China’s main exporting partner is the U.S. carrying out 22% of all exports.
* There are 228.1 million more cell phones in use in China than in the U.S.
CNBC Originals:
China's capitalist revolution has produced a thriving new business class that includes over 400,000 millionaires - entrepreneurs and innovators - who are helping to make the country a global economic powerhouse. Melissa Lee reports.
Source:
CNBC
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
China: Pollution
China's cities for years are leading in one unpopular category: Pollution. One city, Lifen (Shanxi Province) according to many sources is one of the most polluted city not only in China, but in the world. !
“This soot-blackened city (Linfen) in China's inland Shanxi province makes Dickensian London look as pristine as a nature park. Shanxi is the heart of China's coal belt, and the hills around Linfen are dotted with mines, legal and illegal, and the air is filled with burning coal. Don't bother hanging your laundry — it'll turn black before it dries. China's State Environmental Protection Agency says that Linfen has the worst air in the country. “ Time
Shocking Facts:
Only 1% of China’s 560 million urban dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union, and nearly 500 million lack access to safe drinking water.
US population is ~310 mln (so imagine the entire country without acess to safe drinking water)
World Bank recently examined 20 of the most severely polluted cities in the world. Sixteen of these cities are located in China !, and Linfen City (watch video below), in Shanxi Province, was cited as the world's most polluted city.
Potentially Affected People: 3,000,000.
Residents of Linfen are claiming that they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings.
The rate of birth defects in this region is six times higher than the national average.
China has promised to clear up its air and water, but in this province, industry comes before a cleaner environment.!!!
Did you ever wonder what one of China's most polluted city looks like? Well wonder no more.
Sources:
More on China and other countries @
http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/files/FileUpload/files/AR2008.pdf
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-6-10/42510.html
http://www.greencross.ch/en/knowledge/most-polluted-places//2007/linfen-china/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8012852.stm
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDATASTA/64199955-1178226923002/21322619/LGDB2007.pdf
About VBS:
VBS is an online broadcast network. We stream original content, free of charge and 24 hours a day. We carry a mix of domestic and international news, pop and underground culture coverage, and the best music in the world. People have used words like eclectic, smart, funny, shocking, and revolutionary to describe VBS, but we kind of just snapped our fingers in their faces and went, “Whatever. Tell us something we don’t know.”
With Academy Award-nominated director Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) as our creative director, original content from a veritable United Nations of contributors, and bureaus in 20 countries, VBS has hit the planet in a manner not unlike a massive global plague. Streaming on VBS’s signature “in-room” widescreen and remote, content will be available all the time, on-demand.
Basically, VBS will exploit every utopian vision the internet has thus far failed to live up to. Thanks for watching.
website: http://www.vbs.tv
Monday, May 25, 2009
North Korean nuclear test
From the Guardian
The regime "successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense," the country's official Korean Central News Agency said.
Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons รข€” comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hours later, the regime test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. U.N. Security Council resolutions bar North Korea engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity.
North Korean nuclear Test, RTT News
The second nuclear test by North Korea has evoked widespread concern and protests from the international community, cutting across political lines. These included protests from the governments of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, Japan and South Korea.
Don't forget to read:
Preparing for sudden change in North Korea
Don't forget to watch "Welcome to North Korea":
Welcome to North Korea is a grotesquely surreal look at the all-too-real conditions in modern-day North Korea. Dutch filmmaker Peter Tetteroo and his associate Raymond Feddema spent a week in and around the North Korean capital of Pyongyang -- ample time to produce this outstanding film. Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs; from www.archive.org.
The regime "successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense," the country's official Korean Central News Agency said.
Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons รข€” comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hours later, the regime test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. U.N. Security Council resolutions bar North Korea engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity.
North Korean nuclear Test, RTT News
The second nuclear test by North Korea has evoked widespread concern and protests from the international community, cutting across political lines. These included protests from the governments of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, Japan and South Korea.
Don't forget to read:
Preparing for sudden change in North Korea
Don't forget to watch "Welcome to North Korea":
Welcome to North Korea is a grotesquely surreal look at the all-too-real conditions in modern-day North Korea. Dutch filmmaker Peter Tetteroo and his associate Raymond Feddema spent a week in and around the North Korean capital of Pyongyang -- ample time to produce this outstanding film. Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs; from www.archive.org.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
US military spending vs. The World
Above graph shows USA military spending vs. 4 biggest powers (in billion of dollars)
I compered US military spending in 2008 with the four biggest powers ( in the line, but have in mind that US spends more than 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending. The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
Source:The Center for Arms Control and Non-Profileration
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/
For more details on military spending (, please visit: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute @
http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Hong Kong: Special Administrative Region
It's the fourth installment of country briefs. Today it's Hong Kong (SAR).
Hong Kong
Is in the South East Coast of China. HK has a deep water harbor.
1,104 square kilometers (about 426 square miles)
Population: ~ 7 mln. (97% are Cantonese). Offcial language is Cantonese.
Density: 6,339 people per square kilometer. !
Brief History
Great Britain gained Hong Kong as a result of 1842 Treaty of Nanjing. Therefore, HK has been colony of Great Britain for 155 years !! (1842 – 1997)
colony of Great Britain until 1997. Gov't in Great Britain had laissare faire policy toward economy of HK
In 1984 the gov't of Great Britain and PRC (People Rep. Of China) reached an agreement (called joint Declaration), that Hong Kong will be turn over to Chinese control on July 1, 1997.colony of Great Britain until 1997.
Economy
Income per capita is simliar to standard of living in the advances economies. ~ $32.000
Hong Kong is known as special administrative region of China (PRC).
Head of the Gov't: Chief Executive (appointed by PRC).
world's fourth largest banking and financial center
Currency: Hong Kong Dollar
Unemployment Rate: 5% (171,900 unemployed)
Monday, May 18, 2009
U.S Department of State: Internship Program
Are you majoring in international studies, or political science (read below for more majors)? Your graduation is approaching, and you still don't have any experience in your field of study. Why not applying for an internship, at one of the most prestigious federal organization, U.S. Department of State? Now, having Depert. Of State on your resume under internships looks awesome!. I was lucky enough to attend one of the seminars, where state dept. official was giving details about an internship @ Dept. of State.
So lets start.
1.visit the website: http://careers.state.gov/ then click on “Student Programs”.
Who can apply?
a) A U.S citizen
b) a student (junior,senior, or graduate student). Junior will have completed all sophomore credits,
c)good academic standing
Salary and benefits
the majority of all internships are unpaid
limited number of paid internships are available to student who can demonstrate financial need.
If you wish to apply for paid position, you must include in your application your SAR (Student Aid Report), and EFC (Expected Family Contribution). Visit, http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/efc.phtml for more details about SAR and EFC.
Students are paid for maximum of 10 consecutive 40-hours week (GS-4 step 5 level, may change)
Selection Process
All applications are submitted online through the USAJobs website. USAJobs is The Federal government's official job list website.link: www.usajobs.gov
About half of the internships are in Washington, D.C. A limited number of intern positions are available at Dept. offices in other large cities.
Other Student Employment Programs
Cooperative Education Program
Student Temporary Temporary Employment Program
Student Disability Program
Summer Clerical Program
Fascell Fellowship Program
Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship
Presidential Management Fellows Program
Source: U.S. Department of State
more @ careers.state.gov
Group of 8 (G8) - Unemployment rate
In the chart you can see the most powerful nations in the world (also known group of 8), and their unemployment rates (%) in 2009.
In case you don't like my chart, here is the text:
G8 - Unemployment rates
Canada – 8% (highest in seven years) (~ 620000 unemployed as of February)
France – 8.8% (~ 3.5 mln unemployed)
Germany – 8.3% (3.585 million unemployed)
Italy - 7,1 % (1.8 mln unemployed)
Japan – 4.8 % (3.35 mln unemployed)
United Kingdom - 4.5% (~1.5 mln unemployed as of March)
United States - 8.9% (13.7 mln people unemployed (latest report)!), the higest in 26 years.
Russia 8.5% mln , (2.2 people unemployed)
Sources:
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/01/japanese-unemployment-hits-seven-year-high/
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm
http://www.france24.com/en/20090320-french-economy-expected-shrink-first-quarter-insee-unemployment-recession
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2009-04/13776683-instant-view-4-german-april-adj-jobless-rises-for-6th-month-020.htm
http://www.italica.sm/shownews.php?newsid=0000000455
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10046.html
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Third World / Global South
Couple words about the Global South.
These countries are also called underdeveloped countries. The global South is where most people live. Today several countries in Africa (Ghana, Somalia, Niger, Congo, Liberia, Zambia) would be called Third World as well as states in Asia (Afghanistan) and Latin America. Freedom and equality is often limited. Also, economic and political power is in the hands of a very few. State is unable to guarantee economic and political stability. Poverty and authoritarian rule are the norm. Democracy does not exist. Individual freed is limited. Clientelism,rent-seeking, and corruption occur in the struggle for state jobs and revenue. Sovereignty is compromised by external actors (other states, international organizations).
States are unable to perform basic tasks expected by the public such as; providing education and health care, creating infrastructure. It’s difficult to establish a democracy. It’s caused by lack of capacity because of absence of a professional bureaucracy to run the government. State is packed with officials that only supports those in power, and want to rip off resources from state for personal gain. Therefore, there is lack of growth. Poorer countries can’t compete with the advanced industrialized democracies. As a result, state decides on import substitution, import become restrict making foreign products more expensive. One local firms had developed to compete at home and abroad trade barriers were lifted off. Import substitution resulted in industries reliant on the state for economic support and unable to compete in the international market. State had to borrow in order to build and subsidize their industries. In many third world countries informal economy which is not taxed by the state. It is dominated by small enterprises (street vendors), informal economy contribute up to 60% of a country’s GDP. However, it does not generate tax revenues that could be spent on infrastructure or social welfare. These workers are not subjected to labor laws. Globalization increase gap between the North and the South. Disease such as malaria cured in the West long time ago, is still killing millions of Africans each year. West still extract natural resources from African nations. Third world states were left with legacies of colonialism (ex. Basic economic infrastructures) made wealth accumulation difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
