Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Nationalism Past and Present: the future of Sino-Japanese relations

The nationalist outcry to the detention of the Chinese boat captain in Japan after fishing off the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands and the subsequent ban on exports of rare earth materials demonstrates the willingness of China to defend its interests beyond its national borders and defend territories which it believe it has the right to govern[1]—something Japan and many other countries in Asian Pacific are increasingly concerned. For it has been almost a century and a half since the Middle Kingdom was the great imperial it once was.

For centuries, the Middle Kingdom created a vassal state system in East Asia, with leaders from Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and other nations paying tribute by performing the koutou to the Chinese emperor in exchange for aid and protection. However, by the mid-19th century the Manchu Qing dynasty was bankrupt both economically and politically. The Opium Wars in 1840-42 opened Chinese markets to British and other Western nations giving them large territories. Japan took a different route when Matthew Perry sailed into Tokyo Harbor in 1853 by emulating and eventually surpassing Western military tactics and strength. Gregory Moore notes that “Japan’s rise as a power coincided with China’s decline. In the first half of the twentieth century China became known as the ‘sick man of Asia”[2] while the militant ultranationalists in Japan became so proficient at war as to defeat China in 1895 and take control of Taiwan, Russia in 1905, Korea in 1910, China again to a devastating extent between 1931 and 1945, and eventually taking control of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and other Asian regions, and ultimately performing a daring surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1945.

This last move ended up being the Japanese downfall, for the United States would defeat Japan in August 1945, and with the advent of the Cold War, the US realized that it was geo-strategically important to keep Japan under the its security umbrella. Although Japan never remilitarized and sought economic development instead, the tensions between them and the mainland never abated. The war crimes committed against the Chinese people during the occupation included such atrocities as ‘comfort women’ (Chinese and Korean women who were forced into prostitution for the Japanese soldiers on the front line), chemical and biological warfare, and the “Rape of Nanking in which over 300,000 Chinese were murdered and an estimated 20,000-80,000 women were raped in the course of the invasion.”[3] While the Japanese claimed to have atoned for their sins by pursuing the democratic and liberal economic model of development, China does not see this as sufficient apology, especially when former Japanese Prime Minister Koizimi visited the Yasukuni Shrine which is a shinto shrine in Tokyo dedicated to the memories of those lost serving Japan. Normally it should be no issue because it is a place to honor the spirits of people such as Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia; however, the difference of Arlington and Yasukuni is that names of 14 Class-A war criminals including former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo are inscribed at the shrine.[4] Japanese textbooks that whitewash the criminal nature of the occupation are other examples of contentious issues, and China will increasingly assert itself economically and geo-politically in matters that could potentially cause the People’s Republic to lose face.

China’s usurpation of the second most productive economy in the world from Japan signifies much in the way that Sino-Japanese relations will be conducted in the upcoming future. No longer will China have ‘little brother’ status diplomatically or financially. In fact, China proved one of the most stabilizing factors in East Asia during the financial crisis of ’97-’98 and the global financial crisis of ’08. With respect to its recent success, there has been a proposition by Suisheng Zhao of a Beijing Consenus, in evident to contrast to the Washington Consensus, which first coined in 1989 and contained 10 ‘rules’ in a one size fits all package for economic development in Latin America.[5] The apparent failure of the Washington Consensus after the failure of the Argentine and Brazilian economies in the late 1990s made many look to China as a model of liberal economic development with a political party that could retain a firm grip on government, the courts, the army, the internal security apparatus, and the free flow of information.[6] The past few years have indeed been telling about China’s desire to become an important player in the international arena; the real question is how China will integrate and what it will do to change the rules of the global system in its favor.



[1] Amako, Satoshi. ‘ The Senkaku Islands Incident and Japan-China Relations.’ East Asia Forum. 25 Oct 2010.

[2] Moore, Gregory. ‘History, Nationalism and Face in Sino-Japanese Relations.’ Journal of Chinese Political Science. 4 June 2010. Page 285

[3] Ibid. 2010:285

[4] ibid 2010:293

[5] Suisheng, Zhao. ‘The China Model: can it replace the Western Model of modernization?’ Journal of Contemporary China. June 2010. Page 420

[6] Rowan, Callick. ‘How long can economic freedom and political repression coexist?’ The American, The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. Nov/Dec 2007.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Why Eight Tourists Should Not Have Died - Manila Bus Hostage Crisis

For nearly twelve long hours, the scenes of a standoff between a tour bus hijacker and policemen in Manila, Philippines, were played out on the news worldwide on Monday, August 23, 2010.

Glued to the live updates on the hostage crisis were the 20 tourists' family members back in Hong Kong, and the hijacker, Rolando Mendoza, a former decorated policeman for 30 years, who was dismissed on charges of robbery and extortion two years ago.

After ten hours of having failed at negotiating with Mendoza and his demands, the policemen attempted storming the bus. They failed the first time, and were pushed back by fired shots. Unable to read the situation inside the bus, they resorted to using tear gas to force him out. Another hour and a half later, they finally succeeded in charging inside when Mendoza was shot dead by a sniper after the tear gas had made him move near the bus's broken door.

Inside the bus, eight hostages were found dead, all from Hong Kong, along with the dead hijacker. Three hostages were also seriously injured with one still in a coma and a bystander was hit by a stray bullet. [1]

A mixture of outrage and mourning brought an estimated 80,000 protesters marching in Hong Kong on Sunday, August 29th. The hijacked bus was carrying a Hong Kong tour group in Manila. Protesters demanded an explanation for the disappointing police response and handling of the hostage crisis from the Filipino police force. "Many people in Hong Kong believe the lives of the tourists taken hostage were not properly valued." [2] The incident has brought on an onset of questions towards handling of crises involving international hostages and what kind of police response is appropriate. A team from the Hong Kong police is currently conducting a thorough investigation along with local police in the Philippines.

Philippine officials admitted to faults in mishandling the bus hostage situation. [3] A major criticism of the incident was the live broadcast of the standoff worldwide, when the situation called for media blackout. A bystander was shot in the leg, proving that they had let the public, and the media, too close. The extensive coverage allowed Mendoza to follow police activity, robbing the police the element of surprise. It has also allowed the world media to analyze the actions by the Philippine police force in this incident.

One such authority, Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst who has worked in counter-terrorism with the British Army and Scotland Yard, has pointed out major areas of faults [4]:

The police force failed, even at the last hour, to board the bus. One of the survivors questioned “Why was there no one to help us after so many hours?" [5] Her husband had been killed trying to stop the gunman.

The siege was unnecessarily prolonged by lacking of correct equipment, not using special forces trained for such a situation, but local police who visibly lacked the equipment and the tactical training. The longer it took to bring down the gunman, the more danger the police and the hostages were in. The police had let opportunities to disarm and to shoot the hijacker slip, such as when he let his guard down when they were negotiating and when he was by himself. There is investigation to see if the police were soft on Mendoza, who was a former decorated and respected officer, their former superior.

Under such circumstances, no one expected the police to fulfill promises. By not satisfying the hijacker's request, which were to simply reinstate his job and clear his name, the police force hindered negotiations. Instead, they tried bringing in Mendoza’s brother to negotiate, and ended up further stressing Mendoza.

To further worsen the situation, it has been discovered that three of the victims' coffins were mixed up. Filipino authority Philippine Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman claims that the mix up was only due to the rushed delivery of the coffins intending to return the victims to their families as quickly as possible. [6] Such a blunder only served to further strain Chinese-Filipino relations.

About 140,000 Hong Kong tourists visit the Philippines yearly and hundreds have canceled planned trips. [6] The story has already hurt Philippine tourism industry.

Concerns have also been raised about a possible backlash on the more than 100,000 Filipinos working in Hong Kong, mostly as domestic helpers. [7] There has been a history of abuse and discrimination against the undocumented workers. They must endure mean work conditions out of fear of being sent back home by their employers where they often face a heavy debt from the money they borrowed to get to Hong Kong.


________________________________________


[1] Conde, Carlos H. “Gunman and 8 Hostages Dead in Philippine Tour Bus Standoff.” 23 August 2010. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world/asia/24phils.html


[2] Drew, Kevin. “Anger Remains Over Killings of Chinese Hostages in Philippines.” 27 August 2010. The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/asia/28hong.html


[3] Conde, Carlos H. "Officials admit failings in Manila Hostage Standoff." 24 August 2010. The New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/world/asia/25phils.html


[4] “Ten things the Philippines bus siege police got wrong.” 24 August 2010. BBC World News.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11069616

[5] "Philipines president pledges Manila Bus Siege inquiry." 23 August 2010. BBC World. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11066656

[6] “Manila to probe Hong Kong hostage coffin ‘mix up.” 2 September 2010. BBC World News.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11161631


[7] Lee, Min. "Hong Kong Police Inspect Bus Hostage." 30 August 2010. CBS news.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/29/ap/asia/main6816420.shtml

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.

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.