As the school year begins and classes are underway, thoughts of our summers seem to be the only thing still on our minds. While many of us traveled, interned, or simply relaxed under the sun, I’d like to share an alternative summer plan that not only helps others, but enriches our own lives: volunteering abroad.
I had the opportunity to participate in a volunteer program and it was truly a fascinating experience. Volunteering links traveling to somewhere new and exciting with philanthropy, equaling an unforgettable and rewarding alternative travel plan. But before adventuring off into a unique destination, make sure you find the right host organization. After much research, I encountered Reto Juvenil Internacional, a non-profit organization geared towards young people like us looking for an adventure and also looking to give back.
Reto Juvenil Internacional is an organization that is dedicated to improving and empowering rural communities all over Central America and Mexico while encouraging personal growth. The goal of the organization is to motivate young people to give their time and energy to help others while engaging in a cross-cultural exchange in a rural, little traveled area of Central America. The program that I participated in lasted for 1 week, and I volunteered in one of the poorest sectors of Costa Rica. I had the chance to work with a women’s organization composed of 9 women and their local community to learn and understand how they are using their land and natural resources to be self sufficient and to prosper. I was able to work in the fields, share their customs and culture, learn about their entrepreneurial initiatives and assist Reto Juvenil with a needs diagnostic of the community.
This organization is an excellent option for students. It is affordable, all inclusive and most importantly students receive a meaningful project where they really get to work on improving the community they visit while interacting with the locals. The projects range from environmental conservation, leadership workshops, building of schools and houses, teaching English, and other interesting topics that cater to different volunteer strengths.
Whether you choose to teach, build or simply help in any way you can, truly consider the prospect of traveling to volunteer outside the U.S. Volunteering abroad is not only a noble pursuit but a fun one! It has opened my eyes to a way of life different from my own, one that I would have never experienced in travels as a tourist.
If you would like more information on how to volunteer with Reto Juvenil Internacional, visit their website at http://www.retojuvenilcr.org/centralamerica-volunteer/
by Liz Alarcon
Friday, August 27, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Pro-Cantonese Protests in China
On Sunday, July 25th, more than a thousand Pro-Cantonese protesters gathered in Guangzhou. Despite being denied the permission to demonstrate, the event had in turn sparked two more parallel marches in Hong Kong and Guangzhou in the following week, bringing a local language policy issue to the attention of the Cantonese speaking masses worldwide. [1]
Language policy is a country's discouragement or favoring the use of a particular language. [2] The protests came about as a reaction to a recent proposal by local politicians in Guangzhou who were pushing to replace some of the Cantonese prime time shows with Mandarin programs on Guangzhou TV. Although Su Zhijia, deputy party secretary of Guangzhou, announces that “the city government has never had such a plan to abandon or weaken Cantonese,” [3] protesters felt the need to protect their language and its culture that was being eroded in China.
Cantonese is the second most widely spoken dialect in China and the native tongue of many in Guangzhou, but Mandarin is the fastest growing language in the world, and the national language of China. The move for more Mandarin on TV seemed at first glance to be an effort to accommodate visitors and athletes who do not understand Cantonese for the upcoming Asian Games being held in November. Yet, with the history of the government's efforts to bring China under one language, protesters feared a hidden political agenda.
The language conflict has historically been part of the political struggle in China. National political power is concentrated in the north, where the capital Beijing is located. Cantonese, however, was nearly adopted as the country's official language in 1912 when the Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen, “Father of the Nation”. The Nationalist movement's leader was from Guangdong, a prosperous southern province made rich by its status as the only region open to trade with the West at the time. “Historically, Cantonese speakers from the south have been revolutionaries.” says Chip Tsoi, a current affairs commentator and radio show host of Hong Kong's RTHK.
Mandarin became China's national language after the communist revolution and is the country's most widely spoken dialect. “Speak Putonghua, write standard Chinese, use civilized language, be a civilized person.” [4] In Guangzhou's schools, students are taught that mastering Mandarin is important for competing for jobs and university slots. In fact, they were discouraged and penalized for speaking Cantonese at school and at home. Protesters in Guangzhou fear that the proposal to change the language of the television media is a more severe attack on Cantonese, by isolating older generations who did not ever learn Mandarin and hindering the younger generation from learning it.
Cantonese is widely spoken in Hong Kong, Guangdong Province (whose capital, Guangzhou, was once known by the name Canton), and its neighboring areas in southern China.[5] While Guangzhou and Hong Kong are two of southern China's most prosperous cities, they are separated by political boundaries. Guangzhou is part of the stricter mainland China where the official language in Mandarin, while Hong Kong, along with Macau, are the two special administrative regions, and home to the world leading international financial centers.
After hearing news of the protest, 200 Pro-Cantonese activists marched in protest for their fellow Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou, since it is freer to protest in Hong Kong than it is in mainland China. Their fears of Cantonese being eroded in their fellow city are not unfounded. Already fewer than half of the 12 million people in Guangzhou speak Cantonese.
The decline of Cantonese is also evident in America. Generations of Cantonese-speaking immigrants from southern China built America's first Chinatowns but have been swept aside by the new wave of Mandarin speakers and Chinese-American parents who press their children to learn Mandarin for its advantages as China's influence grows in the world stage.[6]
The protests were not in vain. Guangzhou TV stated that it refuses to change its current set-up of a mix of Cantonese and Mandarin programs. These demonstrations have brought to light the plight of Cantonese and questions of China's government's plan for the language.
[1] M., J. “The medium is the message.” 27th July, 2010. The Economist. 22 August 2010.
[2] Spolsky, Bernard. “Language Policy.” 2004. Cambridge University Press. 22 August 2010.
[3] Ng, Carmen. “Cross Border Protests Aim to Save Cantonese.” 2 August, 2010. The Washington Post. 22 August 2010.
[4] Kuo, Lily. “In China, protests underscore a rift over dialects.” 8 august, 2010. The La Times. 22 August 2010.
[5] Wong, Edward. “Move to Limit Cantonese on Chinese TV is Assailed.” 26th July, 2010. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.
[6] Semple, Kirk. “In Chinatown, sound of the Future is Mandarin.” 21 October, 2009. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.
Language policy is a country's discouragement or favoring the use of a particular language. [2] The protests came about as a reaction to a recent proposal by local politicians in Guangzhou who were pushing to replace some of the Cantonese prime time shows with Mandarin programs on Guangzhou TV. Although Su Zhijia, deputy party secretary of Guangzhou, announces that “the city government has never had such a plan to abandon or weaken Cantonese,” [3] protesters felt the need to protect their language and its culture that was being eroded in China.
Cantonese is the second most widely spoken dialect in China and the native tongue of many in Guangzhou, but Mandarin is the fastest growing language in the world, and the national language of China. The move for more Mandarin on TV seemed at first glance to be an effort to accommodate visitors and athletes who do not understand Cantonese for the upcoming Asian Games being held in November. Yet, with the history of the government's efforts to bring China under one language, protesters feared a hidden political agenda.
The language conflict has historically been part of the political struggle in China. National political power is concentrated in the north, where the capital Beijing is located. Cantonese, however, was nearly adopted as the country's official language in 1912 when the Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen, “Father of the Nation”. The Nationalist movement's leader was from Guangdong, a prosperous southern province made rich by its status as the only region open to trade with the West at the time. “Historically, Cantonese speakers from the south have been revolutionaries.” says Chip Tsoi, a current affairs commentator and radio show host of Hong Kong's RTHK.
Mandarin became China's national language after the communist revolution and is the country's most widely spoken dialect. “Speak Putonghua, write standard Chinese, use civilized language, be a civilized person.” [4] In Guangzhou's schools, students are taught that mastering Mandarin is important for competing for jobs and university slots. In fact, they were discouraged and penalized for speaking Cantonese at school and at home. Protesters in Guangzhou fear that the proposal to change the language of the television media is a more severe attack on Cantonese, by isolating older generations who did not ever learn Mandarin and hindering the younger generation from learning it.
Cantonese is widely spoken in Hong Kong, Guangdong Province (whose capital, Guangzhou, was once known by the name Canton), and its neighboring areas in southern China.[5] While Guangzhou and Hong Kong are two of southern China's most prosperous cities, they are separated by political boundaries. Guangzhou is part of the stricter mainland China where the official language in Mandarin, while Hong Kong, along with Macau, are the two special administrative regions, and home to the world leading international financial centers.
After hearing news of the protest, 200 Pro-Cantonese activists marched in protest for their fellow Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou, since it is freer to protest in Hong Kong than it is in mainland China. Their fears of Cantonese being eroded in their fellow city are not unfounded. Already fewer than half of the 12 million people in Guangzhou speak Cantonese.
The decline of Cantonese is also evident in America. Generations of Cantonese-speaking immigrants from southern China built America's first Chinatowns but have been swept aside by the new wave of Mandarin speakers and Chinese-American parents who press their children to learn Mandarin for its advantages as China's influence grows in the world stage.[6]
The protests were not in vain. Guangzhou TV stated that it refuses to change its current set-up of a mix of Cantonese and Mandarin programs. These demonstrations have brought to light the plight of Cantonese and questions of China's government's plan for the language.
[1] M., J. “The medium is the message.” 27th July, 2010. The Economist. 22 August 2010.
[2] Spolsky, Bernard. “Language Policy.” 2004. Cambridge University Press. 22 August 2010.
[3] Ng, Carmen. “Cross Border Protests Aim to Save Cantonese.” 2 August, 2010. The Washington Post. 22 August 2010.
[4] Kuo, Lily. “In China, protests underscore a rift over dialects.” 8 august, 2010. The La Times. 22 August 2010.
[5] Wong, Edward. “Move to Limit Cantonese on Chinese TV is Assailed.” 26th July, 2010. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.
[6] Semple, Kirk. “In Chinatown, sound of the Future is Mandarin.” 21 October, 2009. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
America's Commitment in Afghanistan
Now that combat troops are leaving Iraq, the Obama administration is looking forward to the first troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. July 2011 will see the first withdrawals, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates maintains that initial troop reductions will only be part of a lengthy transition process.[1] President Obama understands that the process will be lengthy, but if he truly believes that “America's vital interests” are at stake in Afghanistan, he must be willing to make a long-term, substantial commitment to military operations in that country.[2] The current strategy being implemented by the American military and the multiple causes of instability in Afghanistan necessitate combat operations that could continue for years.
In an effort to attain stability in Afghanistan, the military is using population-centric counterinsurgency, a strategy that “is essentially defensive and seeks to deprive the adversary of control of the population”.[3] This type of counterinsurgency “provides human security to the population, where they live, 24 hours a day”.[4] Because the Taliban draws its freedom of action from the people of Afghanistan, it is necessary to sever the connection between the insurgent group and its population base. This entails defensive military operations as well as economic and political reforms that lead to less corrupt, more responsive governance. Successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan will “break the connection between the insurgents and the population…and thereby ‘hardwire’ the enemy out of the environment”.[5]
Providing virtually omnipresent security in Afghanistan, a geographically harsh country of nearly thirty million people, will require a significant number of soldiers and a long-term commitment. Although population-centric counterinsurgency is a defensive strategy, it will likely lead to increased violence as the Taliban attempts to restore its connection to the population. For this reason, the American presence in Afghanistan cannot be allowed to wane until the Taliban has been marginalized and the people are secure. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan cannot succeed due to an abbreviated timetable.
It should be noted that the problems in Afghanistan go far beyond the Taliban. “The activity of globally focused terrorist organizations such as al Qa’ida, interference by neighbors, institutional weakness, a rapidly expanding narcotics trade, a weak economy, and a lack of confidence…in their government,” all contribute to extreme instability.[6] If America plans to maintain a significant presence in Afghanistan until the Afghan government can provide security and justice, then July 2011 will come and go without any significant troop withdrawals. To achieve the elusive goal of stability in Afghanistan, President Obama will need to authorize a prolonged troop commitment and a continuing partnership with the Afghan government. A half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan’s security will not allow for any strategic gains. At the same time, President Obama and America's military leaders must remember that, "It's not in our interest for the Middle East to be destabilized as part of a historic, century-long war with Islamic fundamentalism."[7]
[1] Oliphant, James. “Gates says withdrawal from Afghanistan to be limited at first.” 1 August 2010. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/sc-dc-gates-afghanistan-20100801,0,6441885.story
[2] CNN Wire Staff. “Afghan war remains 'absolutely essential,' Obama says.” 28 March 2010. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/28/obama.afghanistan/index.html
[3] Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1994. p. 660
[4] Kilcullen, David. The Accidental Guerrilla. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2009. p. 266
[5] Kilcullen, David. Counterinsurgency. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. p. 10
[6] Kilcullen. The Accidental Guerrilla. p. 46
[7] Brzezinski, Zbigniew, et. al. America and the World. New York: Basic Books, 2008. p.60
In an effort to attain stability in Afghanistan, the military is using population-centric counterinsurgency, a strategy that “is essentially defensive and seeks to deprive the adversary of control of the population”.[3] This type of counterinsurgency “provides human security to the population, where they live, 24 hours a day”.[4] Because the Taliban draws its freedom of action from the people of Afghanistan, it is necessary to sever the connection between the insurgent group and its population base. This entails defensive military operations as well as economic and political reforms that lead to less corrupt, more responsive governance. Successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan will “break the connection between the insurgents and the population…and thereby ‘hardwire’ the enemy out of the environment”.[5]
Providing virtually omnipresent security in Afghanistan, a geographically harsh country of nearly thirty million people, will require a significant number of soldiers and a long-term commitment. Although population-centric counterinsurgency is a defensive strategy, it will likely lead to increased violence as the Taliban attempts to restore its connection to the population. For this reason, the American presence in Afghanistan cannot be allowed to wane until the Taliban has been marginalized and the people are secure. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan cannot succeed due to an abbreviated timetable.
It should be noted that the problems in Afghanistan go far beyond the Taliban. “The activity of globally focused terrorist organizations such as al Qa’ida, interference by neighbors, institutional weakness, a rapidly expanding narcotics trade, a weak economy, and a lack of confidence…in their government,” all contribute to extreme instability.[6] If America plans to maintain a significant presence in Afghanistan until the Afghan government can provide security and justice, then July 2011 will come and go without any significant troop withdrawals. To achieve the elusive goal of stability in Afghanistan, President Obama will need to authorize a prolonged troop commitment and a continuing partnership with the Afghan government. A half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan’s security will not allow for any strategic gains. At the same time, President Obama and America's military leaders must remember that, "It's not in our interest for the Middle East to be destabilized as part of a historic, century-long war with Islamic fundamentalism."[7]
[1] Oliphant, James. “Gates says withdrawal from Afghanistan to be limited at first.” 1 August 2010. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/sc-dc-gates-afghanistan-20100801,0,6441885.story
[2] CNN Wire Staff. “Afghan war remains 'absolutely essential,' Obama says.” 28 March 2010. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/28/obama.afghanistan/index.html
[3] Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1994. p. 660
[4] Kilcullen, David. The Accidental Guerrilla. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2009. p. 266
[5] Kilcullen, David. Counterinsurgency. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. p. 10
[6] Kilcullen. The Accidental Guerrilla. p. 46
[7] Brzezinski, Zbigniew, et. al. America and the World. New York: Basic Books, 2008. p.60
Surplus of Encouragement
Due to decades-long political and economic troubles, Cuba experiences shortage of just about everything but policemen and political slogans painted on brick walls and giant billboards found in every corner of the Island. During my recent trip to Cuba this summer, I couldn’t travel far before I was bound to feigned messages of the Cuban Communist Party which still actively uses political slogans to ensure the perpetuity of revolutionary ideas. The absence of advertisements was a great relief, but after a few hours of driving from the Cuban capital to the famous Varadero resort abundance of political slogans was already irritating.
I have never seen so much political propaganda in one place. The fact that I found myself in a dictatorship explained it all, but I was still wondering why so much. Why would a regime that has been in power for more than half a century need so much propaganda? May be that’s the reason why it has been afloat for so long, I thought. According to the New York-based Institute for Propaganda Analysis, political slogans are used to emotionally engage people and rouse their support. They are mechanisms of encouragement that use attractive and at the same time vague words like “freedom” or “honor” to attract people’s approval and acclaim. Indeed, Cuban political slogans, such as “We Shall Overcome,” “We Need a Complete Turnaround to Land,” “Everything Here is For the People,” “Till Victory Forever,” give Cubans a feeling that it is all about them – all about the people. Displays of Che Guevara and other national heroes endorse patriotic messages and appeal to Cubans’ emotions instead of logic. Award-winning Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez wrote in her recent blog: “After so many repetitions, seeing it painted on billboards, hearing it from the podium, I've come to wonder if perhaps we have overcome, if what we have today could be called “victory.” Although now Cubans are less moved by political slogans and ignore them for the most part, slogan’s ability to influence people’s minds is evident.
Slogans are part of propaganda which has always been and will be used in politics as a way of winning people’s hearts and minds. For quite a long time Fidel Castro has been successful in obtaining people’s support and compliance for his policies partly thanks to promising political slogans. One of the most famous slogans “Patria o Muerte. Venceremos” (“Fatherland or Death. We Shall Overcome”) has engraved itself in minds and hearts of all Cubans, as well as visitors. It has even been adopted by Bolivian President Evo Morales, who for the first time used the chant “Patria o Muerte. Venceremos” (“Fatherland or Death. We Shall Overcome”) during the March ceremony known as the “Day of the Sea” which remembers the 1879-84 war against Chile.
When in Cuba, no matter whether you are in the capital or in the most abandoned rural village far in Oriente, you’ll be exposed to various billboards with political slogans. For tourists they are just another attraction of La Isla de la Libertad along with mojitos and old American cars. But for the government they are an important vessel through which they influence the population. Cubans say they don’t view these propaganda tools as important anymore, but their abundance doesn’t stay unnoticed. They are a constant reminder for the population of Castro, Che, Revolution, and unwillingness to any change.
I have never seen so much political propaganda in one place. The fact that I found myself in a dictatorship explained it all, but I was still wondering why so much. Why would a regime that has been in power for more than half a century need so much propaganda? May be that’s the reason why it has been afloat for so long, I thought. According to the New York-based Institute for Propaganda Analysis, political slogans are used to emotionally engage people and rouse their support. They are mechanisms of encouragement that use attractive and at the same time vague words like “freedom” or “honor” to attract people’s approval and acclaim. Indeed, Cuban political slogans, such as “We Shall Overcome,” “We Need a Complete Turnaround to Land,” “Everything Here is For the People,” “Till Victory Forever,” give Cubans a feeling that it is all about them – all about the people. Displays of Che Guevara and other national heroes endorse patriotic messages and appeal to Cubans’ emotions instead of logic. Award-winning Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez wrote in her recent blog: “After so many repetitions, seeing it painted on billboards, hearing it from the podium, I've come to wonder if perhaps we have overcome, if what we have today could be called “victory.” Although now Cubans are less moved by political slogans and ignore them for the most part, slogan’s ability to influence people’s minds is evident.
Slogans are part of propaganda which has always been and will be used in politics as a way of winning people’s hearts and minds. For quite a long time Fidel Castro has been successful in obtaining people’s support and compliance for his policies partly thanks to promising political slogans. One of the most famous slogans “Patria o Muerte. Venceremos” (“Fatherland or Death. We Shall Overcome”) has engraved itself in minds and hearts of all Cubans, as well as visitors. It has even been adopted by Bolivian President Evo Morales, who for the first time used the chant “Patria o Muerte. Venceremos” (“Fatherland or Death. We Shall Overcome”) during the March ceremony known as the “Day of the Sea” which remembers the 1879-84 war against Chile.
When in Cuba, no matter whether you are in the capital or in the most abandoned rural village far in Oriente, you’ll be exposed to various billboards with political slogans. For tourists they are just another attraction of La Isla de la Libertad along with mojitos and old American cars. But for the government they are an important vessel through which they influence the population. Cubans say they don’t view these propaganda tools as important anymore, but their abundance doesn’t stay unnoticed. They are a constant reminder for the population of Castro, Che, Revolution, and unwillingness to any change.
“Bolivian army adopts Cuba's revolutionary slogan.” BBC News. March 24, 2010. Aug. 18, 2010
Kelly, Terri L. “Symbols, Snipery and Spectacles as Tools of Propaganda.” Aug. 17, 2010
Sanchez, Yoani. “Fatherland or Death: Anniversary of a Slogan.” Huffington Post. June 9, 2010. Aug. 17, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Building the World with Chinese Characteristics
Since 1979, economic and social forces on the Chinese mainland have slowly come to realize the folly of the violent “Cultural Revolution” that Mao Zedong inspired across the country for two decades that purged the country of any independent thinkers, scholars, capitalists, or dissidents from the Communist Party. In only 30 years, China has transformed itself from being a minute player in the international arena to becoming the world’s second largest economy and a very important global stabilizer when the international financial crisis hit in the late 2000s.[1] Deng Xiaoping, a paramount leader in the Chinese Communist Party, advocated throughout the 1970s to open up certain aspects of the Chinese economy and to establish Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in select areas of the country that would allow foreign investment and entrepreneurs to establish private businesses without the direct oversight of the state. Today, Deng Xiaoping Theory (and particularly “Building Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”[1984]) is recognized as the foundation of reform in China: the political rock upon which all subsequent political theories have been built.
Deng Xiaoping Theory created a “socialist market economy” to which subsequent leaders and economists such as current President of China and General Secretary of the Communist Party Hu Jintao have been able to modify and add their own version of a socialist market. President Hu has advanced his “Scientific Perspective of Development” in order to tackle the problems of sustainable development, the rising income disparity, and environmental disintegration so that the “Harmonious Society,” the ideals of which are based in the founding of the People’s Republic of China, may be able to flourish. In fact, “over the 30-year period ending 2007, China grew more than 8% a year and has accelerated to about 10% growth over the last five years despite recessions in the wealthy nations with which it trades.[2]”
The result of the last 30 years of economic reform has been astonishing, particularly the urbanization of the previously agrarian workforce. “In a report last year, the consulting firm McKinsey estimated that an additional 350 million people — more than the population of the United States — would move to the cities by 2015. More than 220 cities will have more than one million people. (By comparison, Europe has 35 such cities now).”[3] Such staggering development has caused many problems in development such as the sustainability of energy consumption and environmental degradation, which Chinese authorities must address if such a high rate of growth is expected to continue.
The jumpstart to the Chinese economy over the past 30 years has also created a highly visible social consequence which the international community must recognize if they wish to assimilate China into the global economy with ease. China, unlike most other states, is not only a country but also a civilization. It is one of the most ancient and powerful societies with roots going back over 5,000 years. The Chinese were leaders and innovators in science and technology when Europe was still a backward region of the world, until they suffered a terrible humiliation at the hands of western imperialists at in the mid-19th century. With the start of the Opium Wars with the British and the continuation with special “spheres of influence” by western nations and the outright invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese in the early 20th century during which the Rape of Nanking and other brutal atrocities occurred, the Chinese have long been subjugated to foreign control and domination. The Chinese people have seen their economic explosion as a way to regain confidence and honor in themselves as a society, and it has also served as a reminder that it cannot happen again in a new era of global integration and technology. The Olympics were viewed by many Chinese as a restoration of the great civilizations which had ruled for millennia, except now in a more global and modern capacity.
The Chinese are ready to emerge again as the great civilization they once were. With the modernization and mobilization of 1.3 billion people into the global workforce, the US economy will have its work cut out for it in order to retain supremacy. China is not only developing economically and socially but intellectually as well. “In Asia alone, the number of English-users has topped 350 million—roughly the combined populations of the United States, Britain and Canada. There are more Chinese children studying English—about 100 million—than there are Britons.”[4] Chinese students are realizing their potential to engage the world and come out on top. China is still a developing country; Who knows what the world will look like when China has a fully developed economy with workers who can consume the products they make instead of just exporting them to the rest of the world? If the past 30 years are an indication of the next 30 years, then the citizens of the world, especially the west, better be ready to engage the Chinese as partners in the formation of a new global era.
[1] Barboza, David. “China Passes Japan as Second Largest Economy.” New York Times. 15 Aug 2010
[2] Davis, Bob. “Economic Growth Hard to Maintain.” Wall Street Journal. 17 Jul 2010
[3] Wassener, Betina. “Taking the High Road, With 1,200 Aboard.” The New York Times. 17 Aug 2010.
[4] Power, Carla. “Not the Queen’s English.” Newsweek International. 7 March 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)