Borowitz slays me

Here's the headline from the satirical, political lampooning, take-the-Mickey-out-of-politicos, Borowitz Report....

U.S. Orders Diplomats to Stop Telling Truth Until Further Notice

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In the first major policy fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures, the State Department has ordered all U.S. diplomats to “cease and desist telling the truth until further notice.”

“We are working overtime to try to make sure that leaks like these don’t happen again,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters.  “But until we’ve got the leaks plugged, it’s incumbent on all our diplomats to put on their lying caps.”

Secretary Clinton noted that since many US diplomats are major political donors with long careers in the business world, “this shouldn’t be a reach for them.”

But for those career diplomats who came up through the Foreign Service, the State Department will be holding a series of “truth avoidance seminars,” led by executives of Goldman Sachs.

Additionally, Secretary Clinton said, the State Department would install on all diplomats’ computers new software called CandorShield™, which automatically translates truthful language into a less embarrassing truth-free version.

For example, she explained, the software would translate the phrase “two-faced weasels” into “trusted Pakistani allies” and would delete all references to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as “Monsieur Shorty Pants.”

Elsewhere, Interpol issued this statement about its pursuit of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: “We will find Julian Assange, and then we will hire him.”

Asia Alone

Taking an ASEAN-centric perspective of the world is necessary and relevant. This is particularly so for the people who live in Southeast Asia.

It is in this sense that I find Simon Tay's book, Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide From America, compelling.

.
At the risk of an unfair summation, Tay's core proposition is that whilst both the United States and China perform their delicate dance at many levels, both nations need to take cognizance of the virtuous leveraging effect that ASEAN can play as a middleman of sorts.

One analogy of Tay's thesis is that ASEAN is the hub while China is a spoke.

The other analogy that strikes me, being Malaysian (of course) is the idiom Gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati di tengah-tengah.

In other words, Tay is mindful that ASEAN is a stakeholder in the tense jostling between the U.S. and China. More than that, Tay is voicing an ASEAN perspective and makes a case that ASEAN has a pivotal role to play as a positive interface between the U.S. and China.

I dare say that ASEAN has hitherto engaged and, understands the nuances of both the U.S. and China at every level - cultural, political, social and, most certainly, economic.

That said, there are a few observations that may be relevant.

(I will continue in a bit. Got some things to do first. *sigh*)

Everyone knows Samuel Huntington's thesis about the clash of civilizations.

Some may recall Martin Jacques's scenario of "when China rules the world".

For us, in ASEAN, our biggest fear is not so much hegemonic projections by either the U.S. or China.

No, I submit that our biggest fear must be that of becoming irrelevant in a multi-polar or, worse still, bi-polar world.

The fear is not so much political irrelevance so much as economic irrelevance.

We risk becoming economically irrelevant if the U.S. and China enters into economic amity. Thankfully, that "IF" is a big and unlikely one given the significant relationship gaps between the two giant nations.

In this regard, it is not only ASEAN that is thankful, so would be the Europeans and South Americans.

That said, many are aware that the U.S. is the "yang" force aggressor in the China-U.S. relationship. It is the same story between the U.S. and just about any other nation.

At 200+ years of age, the U.S. is a relatively young country. Wealthy (still) and misguidedly dogmatic and doctrinal. What annoys everyone is that the U.S. wants us all to photocopy and imbibe the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Their world view has vestiges of sanctimony. They freely admit their faults but doggedly maintain that in an imperfect world, their model of values comes closest to the ideal.

This value system finds some degree of expression in the heroic ability of John Wayne to discharge a single shot from a Colt 45 and bring down half a dozen Native American Indians, the ability of one Bruce Willis to turn the tide against a well-armed group of terrorists, the courage and recklessness of one Clint Eastwood to defy convention and rules to bring down the bad guys with his trusty Magnum gun (with the classic phrase, "Make my day").

.

As the rest of the world are entreated with this message, we are also treated to the wonders of Cola drinks, popcorn and jeans.

Many believe that this form of pop culture carries an ideological thread that is exported globally to widespread acclaim.

What exasperates the U.S. is that after the visual and audio imagery ends, the rest of us walk away from the cinemas back into our dictatorships and corrupt practises!!!

Of course, I have been simplistic in painting the foregoing. But, I believe there is a grain of truth in it.

How else do we explain the general support of the U.S. populace toward the Invasion of Iraq and the War in Afghanistan?

How else can we explain why even Obama, who is definitely more enlightened than Bush Jr. continue to subscribe the the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Simon Tay's proposition is, if I may say, a reminder that being a little cluster of nation states, ASEAN should see the abrasive U.S. worldview as an opportunity for the little guys to use themselves as bridges between the U.S. and larger countries like China and, even india and, possibly even the Middle East.

This would be a strategic coup and an astute mode of tactical leveraging.

.

And, what would be the dividend for ASEAN's offer of being a bridge?

Okay, world peace and regional peace is *yawn* the obvious public line.

The real intent should be to gain economic benefits.

That would make the endeavour worth the effort.

Pax Sinica

Martin Jacques had the worst experience anyone could have had. He had to undergo the terrible experience of the death of his Indian-Malaysian wife, Harinder Veriah, in a Hong Kong hospital. He claimed that the tragedy arose from a deep Chinese prejudice against anyone with a dark skin.

The Harinder Veriah Trust that was created after her untimely passing has also benefitted young Malaysian lawyers who successfully apply for a short work experience stint in a law firm in the City of London.

In spite of personal tragedy and the bitterness of the perceived racism, Jacques has just published a seminal book that contains real gems of insight into the matter of Pax Sinica. The book is aptly titled, When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World.

.

I will let Michael Rank's review in the Guardian take you on an excursus of Jacques's book. As ever, I have emphasised in bold what I believe to be pertinent tracts of the review:

Jacques claims that "In an important sense, China does not aspire to run the world because it already believes itself to be the centre of the world, this being its natural role and position", and discusses sensitively and in depth what it means to be the "middle kingdom". He also argues that China is essentially a "civilisation state" rather than a western-style nation state. "The term civilisation normally suggests a rather distant and indirect influence and an inert and passive presence," he notes. "In China's case, however, it is not only history that lives but civilisation itself: the notion of a living civilisation provides the primary identity and context by which the Chinese think of their country and define themselves."

One of the fundamental features of Chinese politics is the overriding emphasis placed on the country's unity, Jacques claims. This occasionally leads to contradictions which he does not entirely resolve, for he also stresses China's diversity, going so far as to claim that "China's provinces are far more differentiated than Europe's nation-states, even when eastern Europe and the Balkans are included". The question of unity and diversity leads to a stimulating comparison of China and India, a far more pluralistic - and democratic - nation, and Jacques notes how the enormous cultural differences between the world's two most populous countries have resulted in "an underlying lack of understanding and empathy".

The book is based on a well-informed and subtle analysis of Chinese history and culture, and as the title implies, Jacques is convinced that it is not a matter of whether China will dominate the world over the next few decades, but how. He is careful to avoid over-confidence in his predictions, however, and notes that "China's present behaviour can only be regarded as a partial indicator, simply because its power and influence remain limited compared with what they are likely to be in the future". But he is surely right to say that American confidence that "the Chinese are inevitably becoming more like us" is misplaced and is based on a view of globalisation that is seriously flawed.

Jacques is likely to raise eyebrows in some quarters by playing down China's military potential; he sees China's arms buildup as being aimed largely at blocking any possible Taiwanese moves towards independence rather than at achieving world domination, and he claims that its own technological level remains relatively low. In the face of US and EU bans on selling weapons to Beijing, its only potential foreign supplier is Russia, Jacques says, and Moscow is hardly eager to see a militarily powerful China.

But it is China's fast-growing economic power which has the world transfixed right now, and Jacques is confident that this will grow further. In the long term he expects China "to operate both within and outside the existing international system, seeking to transform that system while at the same time, in effect, sponsoring a new China-centric international system which will exist alongside the present system and probably slowly begin to usurp it".

In perhaps his most provocative remarks, Jacques praises China's communist leaders for their "remarkable perspicacity ... never allowing themselves to be distracted by short-term considerations". He appears to defend the party's failure to move towards democracy, stating that China has devoted itself to economic growth, having concluded that it cannot afford to be diverted by what it "rightly deemed to be non-essential ends".

Jacques observes, as commentators such as Jonathan Fenby have also noted, how the party has confounded western assumptions that the consumer boom over the last 20 years, the internet and the flood of Chinese travelling abroad on business or for pleasure would inevitably result in moves towards western-style democracy. He is not perturbed by this and is indeed sympathetic to the "not misplaced view that any move towards democracy is likely to embroil the country in considerable chaos and turmoil".

It is on race, not unexpectedly, that Jacques is most critical of China. He says "racialised ways of thought ... have been on the rise in both popular culture and official circles", and he expects this to continue, with China's "sense of superiority resting on a combination of cultural and racial hubris".

Some flaws are inevitable in such a lengthy and wide-ranging book. Jacques's discussion of Japanese culture is cliché-laden (the Japanese are "exquisitely polite", "You will never seen any litter anywhere" and the country is virtually crime-free) and it is surprising that his discussion of China's historical scientific and technological achievements makes no mention of Joseph Needham's towering contributions to the field. There are also occasional factual mistakes: Japan annexed north-east, not north-west China in 1931, and Shanghainese is not a dialect of Mandarin. In addition, the author occasionally cites dubious statistics: for example, I find it impossible to believe that 100 million Chinese tourists will visit Africa annually in the near future.

Despite such foibles, this is an extremely impressive book, full of bold but credible predictions. Only time will tell how Jacques's prophecies pan out, but I suspect his book will long be remembered for its foresight and insight.

Paul Samuelson: No one knows when recovery will happen

Just as the previous post attempted to highlight the perils and pitfalls of economic components, this one pushes a similar proposition, with one major exception. This time I can point you in the direction of a respected economist.

By now, everyone who is interested would know that China has been manufacturing everything that the U.S. and the rest of the world needs. For this effort, China has made a lot of money. This surplus is so huge that no bank can manage it. So, China put its "savings" into U.S. Treasury Bills, which are basically IOUs issued by a sovereign nation. Over the past many decades, U.S. Treasury Bills have been regarded as the best sovereign IOU anyone can get...until now?

There are many voices on this matter. The ones in the mainstream will tell us that economic recovery is just around the corner; that the U.S. economic malaise has bottomed out.

Worst of all, is the current faddish use of a horrible gardening metaphor, that green shoots are sprouting. I really can't stand that expression. It means nothing. It's nebulous and, therefore, entitles the maker of the statement to slip through any number of excuses when the forecast is found wanting...Oh! I meant the green shoots that are sprouting in the other economic sector, not this one. I think it's major BS!

The people who know are precise. The people who don't know just waffle. The usage of the expression green shoots is a reminder of the great Peter Seller's 1979 movie, Being There in that a simple-minded guy is feted for discussing gardening which was mistaken to be great pearls of economic and political insight. Needless to say that movie was political satire and great social commentary.

And, here we are. Paul Samuelson is concerned about the risk that China, which holds many American IOUs, will start balking at the myth that U.S. economic recovery is around the corner. That is when China may start selling down its American IOUs, an event that will trigger off a serious economic situation. Okay, enough build-up. Read Samuelson directly here. Or, read what I have extracted below. And, for the uninitiated, this is who Samuelson is, a mainstream economist, an economics textbook writer, no less, as anyone who has pretensions to have read economics should know.

China is the new important factor.

Up until now, China has been willing to hold her recycled resources in the form of lowest-yield U.S. Treasury bills. That's still good news. But almost certainly it cannot and will not last.

Some day -- maybe even soon -- China will turn pessimistic on the U.S. dollar.

That means lethal troubles for the future U.S. economy.

When a disorderly run against the dollar occurs, I believe a truly global financial panic is to be feared. China, Japan and Korea now hold dollars not because they think dollars will stay safe.

Why then? They do this primarily because that is a way that can prolong their export-led growth.

I am not alone in this paranoid future balance-of-payment fear.

Warren Buffett, for one, has turned protectionist. Alas, protectionism may well soon become more maligned.

President Obama struggles to support free trade. But as a canny centrist president, he will be very pressed to compromise.

And he will be under new chronic pressures. His experts should right now be making plans for America to become subordinate to China where world economic leadership is concerned.

The Obama team is a good one.

But will they act prudently to adjust to America's becoming the secondary global society?

In the chess game of geopolitics between now and 2050, much stormy weather will take place. Now is the time to prepare for what the future will likely be.

______________________

I should tip my hat to Mankiw's blog for having alerted me to Samuelson's views.

Mumbai to Obama

I have been rather reticent about discussing geo-politics in this blog. But, in the wake of the nightmare in Mumbai, I will reveal some thoughts that I had hitherto preferred to keep to myself. Here are some questions to consider:

What can we interpret from the Mumbai bombings?

Is it a coincidence that it takes place just as Obama is transitioning into the US Presidency?

Why would terrorists want to push Obama into a position where he may have to order stronger military action in the Indian sub-continent?

Why Mumbai?

Is it a pure terrorist action or, may there be a furtive hand of an Eisenhower-type allusion of a military-industrial complex that seeks to tie Obama's hand in continuing an aggressive military posture against Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran and, some active engagement with the politics of Pakistan and India?

Is it a show of frustration and, a reaction to Obama having confirmed that Defence Secretary Robert Gates will be retained in the Obama Administration in what the New York Times has noted as a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party.

In many respects, Obama has made the right moves like coming out almost daily with his take on the US economic turmoil and a strong albeit very insider-like crew of financial managers.

But, in other respects, Obama has been surprisingly status quo ante with his decision to re-nominate Gates as the Defence Secretary and proposing Hillary Clinton as State Secretary.

Is Obama a Manchurian Candidate for the military-industrial-financial-one-world-order-complex?