Posts filed under 'East Asia'

Protests Against Lee Myung-bak

The Associated Press reports:

In weeks of street rallies by angry critics of Lee, what had been seen as the former businessman’s strengths have instead been blasted as weaknesses. Nicknamed “The Bulldozer” for decisively pushing through projects as a Hyundai construction CEO and Seoul mayor, Lee has instead been labeled by protesters as a “dictator” who fails to heed public opinion and panders to American interests.

His December election win ended a decade of liberal rule and was seen as bringing more professionalism to the presidency, and also healing strained ties with the United States. But a string of Cabinet appointments in which nominees were forced to resign amid allegations of real estate speculation and other irregularities even before he took office in February made for a political honeymoon that went by with blinding speed even for South Korea, a country where rushing is a way of life.

Image From:

China Daily


Add comment Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Tibet and the CIA

This can be seen as a companion piece for my previous post on Tibet. Asia Times reports:

Respected columnist and former senior Indian Intelligence officer, B Raman, commented on March 21 that “on the basis of available evidence, it was possible to assess with a reasonable measure of conviction” that the initial uprising in Lhasa on March 14 “had been pre-planned and well orchestrated”.

The CIA established a secret military training camp for the Dalai Lama’s resistance fighters at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the US. The Tibetan guerrillas were trained and equipped by the CIA for guerrilla warfare and sabotage operations against the communist Chinese.

The US-trained guerrillas regularly carried out raids into Tibet, on occasions led by CIA-contract mercenaries and supported by CIA planes. The initial training program ended in December 1961, though the camp in Colorado appears to have remained open until at least 1966.

The CIA Tibetan Task Force created by Roger E McCarthy, alongside the Tibetan guerrilla army, continued the operation codenamed ST CIRCUS to harass the Chinese occupation forces for another 15 years until 1974, when officially sanctioned involvement ceased.

Only the deterioration in relations with India which coincided with improvements in those with Beijing brought most of the joint CIA-Indian operations to an end.

Though Washington had been scaling back support for the Tibetan guerrillas since 1968, it is thought that the end of official US backing for the resistance only came during meetings between president Richard Nixon and the Chinese communist leadership in Beijing in February 1972.

Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer has described the outrage many field agents felt when Washington finally pulled the plug, adding that a number even “[turned] for solace to the Tibetan prayers which they had learned during their years with the Dalai Lama”.

China is viewed by Washington as a major threat, both economic and military, not just in Asia, but in Africa and Latin America as well.

The CIA also views China as being “unhelpful” in the “war on terror”, with little or no cooperation being offered and nothing positive being done to stop the flow of arms and men from Muslim areas of western China to support Islamic extremist movements in Afghanistan and Central Asian states.

A very little interesting piece of history to read. However, as the article states, the program was shut down a while ago. Plus, most of the pandering about China being a “threat” is by the lobbyists of the military industrial complex which needs to sell big and expensive high tech weapons (not used for a war against small groups of Islamic extremists) used for large scale warfare. Not only that, this line of thinking (that Washington views Beijing as more of a threat than a fickle partner) does not explain the absolute silence of countries like Britain and the United States when it comes to the Tibetian situation.

Sure, there are some crocodile tears here and there and some carefully worded statements, but there is no real action by the West. Bush is going to the Olympics, Brown is slightly concerned but thinks a boycott as silly, and Sarkozy has mentioned the possibility of boycott but has made no further actions. The fact is the U.S. and China are too dependent on each other and are to big a trading partners for there to be any real possibility (or even inkling) of the U.S. wanting to overthrow the Chinese Capitalist Party.

Image From:
New York Times

[Hat Tip: UNITYblogNZ]


Add comment Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Shiraz Socialist on Tibet

Cross-posted from The Blog and the Bullet.

Jim writes:

Listen, you Stalinists!

You have been systematically spreading lies about the ’Free Tibet’ movement, and offering uncritical support to the vicious, red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist ruling class in Beijing. Of course, you are no strangers to the art of grovelling to, and lying for,  a thoroughly reactionary, anti-working class regime in the name of “socialism”: you adopted that posture towards the so-called “Soviet Union” for sixty years, until the workers of Russia and Eastern Europe (literally) tore down the edifice of Stalinist totalitarianism.


Add comment Saturday, April 19, 2008

Power of Symbols

As I was reading the Gurdian (U.K.) the other day about the recent Olympic torch protests in London I was struck by this picture that appeared in the article.

Looking at it one is almost shocked by the amount of force that is being used against these protesters.  Because all they are really doing is just holding symbols, they aren’t attacking anyone, they aren’t attacking those who hold the torch, nor are the (obviously) attacking the sovereignty of the nation of China; all they are trying to do is highlight the human rights abuses of China and the case of a free Tibet.

One is also struck by the utter contradictory nature of the British government in human rights abuses, as

In the case of Zimbabwe, it wants a boycott against its dictatorial leader — in fact if any sporting organisations dare visit the country, they can expect to face the full wrath of government.

However, in the case of China, where elections are arguably even less free than they are in Zimbabwe (at least in Zimbabwe they let an opposition stand, even if they refuse to let them win), the British is vehemently opposed to any boycott.

…China, of course, is an economic behemoth, Zimbabwe an economic basketcase.

Looking at the photo one is obviously drawn to the plight of the woman on the ground, surrounded by police officers (how many freakin’ bobbys do you need to take down one peaceful protester?) but if you look to the right of that scuffle I’d like to point out something more interesting.  You see a hand of a protester holding two miniature Tibetan flags, to the left of this you see a bobby rushing in to confiscate those flags.  You have this one cop freaking out about these two tiny flags, flags of a nation that is under occupation.  Its not that these flags are causing any harm, its not that these flags will somehow “Free Tibet!”, it’s not that these flags are causing physical damage to the Chinese government; the reality is, is that these flags are symbols of freedom from occupation, whether it be Palestine, Mindanao, or Tibet.  These flags are merely symbols, yet these symbols are so powerful the British government has sought the need to extinguish these symbols from the media because they are seen as such a threat to their relations with China that they must act.

This is the power of symbols in protest.


Add comment Monday, April 7, 2008

Crackdown in Tibet


Add comment Sunday, March 16, 2008

Obamamania Hits Japan!

obama-japan.jpegNo, I refuse to make a Gojira joke, sorry folks (well, I’m not really sorry).

I’m not a fan of the guy, but this is pretty funny and interesting.  I first saw it on AP Video on the Daily Yomiuri website (which still may be up at this time).

The Associated Press reports:

Barack Obama has never been to this port town on Japan’s snowy west coast, and residents only know him from news reports on his faraway campaign for the U.S. presidency.

No matter, Obama the town is nuts about Obama the man.

Obama’s name graces posters hung in the main hotel. Headbands and T-shirts with drawings of the candidate’s face will be available soon. Local confectioners are designing Japanese-style sweet bean cakes with Obama’s portrait on them.

Policy doesn’t seem to matter much either to this Obama, which is well-known in Japan for its lacquerware. Instead, the overriding issue is simple: Obama’s name.

“Obama gives good speeches and has a good voice, so I want him to do well. And, of course, we share the same name,” said Seiji Fujiwara, a hotel executive and leader of a local support group established earlier this month for the Illinois senator.

As fanciful as it may seem, leaders in Obama — which means “Little Beach” in Japanese — are serious about forging a relationship with the candidate…(Read More)

Image From:
Associated Press (United States)


1 comment Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Kaplan on Asia

Dr. Anonymous blogs about an article that Robert Kaplan wrote for the Times about Asian and its political future:

Robert Kaplan, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly, considers American imperialist concerns in Asia in the Times. The article is anything but pacific.

Here’s my favorite part:

Asia’s military-economic vigor is the product of united political, economic and military elites

Aside from the grossly sweeping nature of the statement, it may not even be very accurate, as far as grossly sweeping statements go. He wrote this in the weeks after: the Japanese prime minister resigned; Nepal’s Maoists quit the government; Pakistan is in the throws of yet another change of rule; Sri Lanka is in the middle of the civil war that does not end; Burma’s government is facing perhaps the most serious challenge to its rule since 1988, and India’s Left has threatened to pull the rug out from under the ruling coalition because of a proposed nuclear deal with the U.S.


1 comment Monday, October 8, 2007

China’s New Interest In Africa, Symbiotic or Parasitic?

By Rorik Strindberg

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

In the October 28 2006 issue of the Economist, there is an article titled, “China in Africa; Never to late to scramble.” The second halve is a direct reference to the scramble for Africa, which occurred after the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885. Although this is a direct reference to the “New Imperialism” or often known as “Empire for Empire’s sake,” Chinese ambitions in Africa seem to be in concert more with the imperial ambitions of the first wave of imperialism. The best example of the first wave of imperialism is Great Britain’s involvement in India, dating form the 17th century to the 20th century. Is this the path that the Chinese will fallow in Africa?

British involvement in Indian was initially simply economic. The English (1) desired to initially purchase Indian goods, silks, clothing, ect. The Mughal Empire, the Muslim rulers of India left in place after the fall of the Mongolian Empire, had allowed the British and others to trade in modern India. It is important to note that England initially simply did not have the power to “take over” the Mughal Empire. Treaties with the Dutch, after the Anglo-Dutch merger when William of Orange became the king of England, the English and the Dutch agreed to give the English control of the Indian Trade and the Dutch control of Indonesia. The next step towards English control of India was to get the French out of India, which was accomplished after the Seven Years War, or as we call it in America the French and Indian (Native American Indian) War. After an English victory, the French were expelled from India. The most important idea of English Imperialism in India is that it evolved slowly. Initially it would have been absurd to even think that the tiny nation like England could ever control the Mughal Empire. As the Mughal Empire began to crumble the British begin to assume more and more of the role of the government, to maintain the trade. After the Napoleonic wars from 1792-1815, when the British were excluded from trade with the European Continent, industrialization picked up speed. After this period the British needed markets to export their industrial products to, and places to get raw materials from. This fact greatly increased the rational and rate of imperialism.

A similar process occurred in Egypt with the British and in Mexico with the French. Both Egypt and Mexico had a history of reneging on debts. To solve this Egypt became a protectorate of Britain, where British forced the Egyptians to pay off their debts. In Mexico, the French imposed Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico for the same purposes.

Back to China and Africa. Although China has been involved in Africa since it begin to export Maoism to Africa in the 1950’s, recently China is more involved in Africa and will be increasingly in the future. Africa-China trade in 1995 was just 3 billion dollars, and now has multiplied by just under a factor of eleven to 32 billion dollars. China now accounts for 10% of African trade, although this figure is expected to double by 2010. China is primarily interested in Africa as markets to export surplus goods, and importing raw materials. China needs minerals, farm products, timber and oil. (2) Many African Nations are elated by the idea of trading with China, for Western traders, the IMF and Paris Club, are constantly pestering African Nations over, corruption, torture, democracy, and the lack of accountability. The Chinese simply are not concerned with such nuances that only get in the way of making money. For example, when Canadian and American Firms left Sudan because of domestic backlash of dealing with the greatest human rights of the 21st century, Chinese state-owned firms quickly replaced them. Now Sudan virtually has UN veto power through China to any action in the Darfur. China is also building armament factories in Sudan.

A little side note, it dose not matter how many lighters are held up at a rock concert, China and Sudan will not stop the killing. (3) The only way to stop the killing would be to have a whole lot of US Marines show up at President Omar al-Bashir’s front door. Who knows what kind of mess that would create?

Although China invests money in Africa, it really does little good. Most of the jobs that are created are for Chinese workers. This includes many of the railroads that the Chinese are building in Africa in turn for oil. Also, many of the cheaper Chinese products are displacing African businesses; there is a detailed description of in the article of a shop owner in Angola that can not do business any more because of Chinese competition. Also in Thomas Freidman’s The World is Flat, there is a detailed description of how cheaper Chinese plastic lanterns are replacing the ones previously made by Egyptians. One really has to wonder if this is a symbiotic relationship or a parasitic relationship.
In the defense of the Chinese, one also has to look at the money lent and aid by America and Europe to Africa. American Aid to Africa has to employ American not African Firms and most of the European Aid to Africa ends up back in the hands of the Europeans. This is in the forms of Swiss Bank Accounts and European luxury items. Although, most of the Western money at least has good intentions, like the World Bank’s plan for Chad. This is where World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz proposed to lend Chad money at a low interest rate, so that they could build an oil pipeline. The money was lent on the basis that a large percent of the oil money would be reinvested in the people of Chad. The President of Chad spent all of the money on the military.
There are other models for African nations to fallow. Botswana and South Africa posses a GDP per capita that are about the same as Russia and are higher then Mexico, Brazil, India and China. Botswana since 1966 has the one of the highest growth rates. Many attribute this to parliamentary government and fiscal discipline. One dose not have to sleep with the devil for profit.

In conclusion I will admit that I am a Sinophobe, and this should be taken into account when you read my articles. I find their state offensive, as one Chinese activist said; China represents the worst of Capitalism and Communism. Also, China executes more criminals per year then the rest of the world combined, and sell their body parts on the black market. This is what their government really dose. (4) This is neglecting numerous other human rights violation committed by the Chinese State, for the sake of time. One really has to wonder do the Africans really know what they are getting into with China. One can see how easily trade involves into outright colonialism. I wonder what will happen when African nations renege on their debts to China or the security situation in Africa prevents China from getting its oil. Can you say Imperialism?

Footnotes

1. I switch between England and Britain because the union of England and Scotland forms Great Britain and to refer to Britain before 1707 is incorrect.

2. Economist, 53

3. This is a program that I am highly critical of that always appears on Myspace.com

4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4921116.stm


Add comment Sunday, November 5, 2006


Reading Capital

Click here to read along.

Podcasts

RSS Jack's Twitter

Calendar

August 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Jack on del.icio.us

Links

Top Posts

Jack's Photos

DSC_0086

DSC_0082

DSC_0073

DSC_0061

DSC_0055

More Photos

Categories

Blog Stats