Yikes.

For the record, I am still pressing ahead with my efforts to learn Chinese.

Perhaps unsurprisingly with the NPC meeting this week, China graces the cover of the latest issue of The Economist. This last edition of the NPC was not without its drama. While there were no Taiwanese Legislative Yuan-style fisticuffs in the aisles, recent debate about a law protecting private property sparked some controversy:

Nearly 3,000 delegates to China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), have been enjoying their annual fortnight of wining, dining, snoozing and pressing the “yes” button. Living up to one’s name poses something of a problem for the Chinese Communist Party, which dictates the laws the NPC will pass, and whose name in Chinese literally means “the public-property party”.

To such a party it must be an ideological embarrassment that China has such a large and flourishing private sector, accounting for some two-thirds of GDP. So one law due to receive the NPC’s rubber stamp this month, giving individuals the same legal protection for their property as the state, has proved unusually contentious. It was to be passed a year ago, but was delayed after howls of protest from leftists, who see it as among the final of many sell-outs of the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, to which the party pretends fealty.

The party’s decision to enact the law in spite of that resistance is a great symbolic victory for economic reform and the rule of law. Clearer, enforceable property rights are essential if China’s fantastic 30-year boom is to continue and if the tensions it has generated are to be managed without widespread violence.

I think The Economist’s characterization of the opposition to the law is a bit simplistic. According to the IHT, opposition to the new law is being led by Gong Xiantian, a Marxist economist, whose petition against the new law has received over 3200 signatures, including those from retired military officers and senior officials. It is not just nostalgic old guard leftists with their Mao buttons and Zhou Enlai “underoos.” (Though there are certainly members of the party who see the new law as a “betrayal of socialist values.”) The “left” is a label, not a club. There are those in China’s so-called New Left (excuse me: “critical intellectuals”) who support the recent economic reforms as being good for the country overall. They just wish that policies would consider “social justice” as well as GDP growth: there can be winners in the new China, but there should also be support for the…non-winners.

Until now, it has fallen to Wen Jiabao to be the human face of reform and he’s done a good job but, as The Economist notes in a companion article, criticism from the left needs to be handled differently than that from the right.

Direct criticism of leaders is still virtually taboo in China. But the drafting of the property law has provided an outlet for critics of government policy to air their grievances. Mr Hu and Mr Wen do not appear to face concerted opposition among party officials. But a vocal body of intellectuals and retired officials has denounced the property law as a betrayal of the country’s socialist principles. It will, they say, protect the fortunes of corrupt officials and the ill-gotten gains of crooked businessmen. Further, it will hasten the demise of China’s remaining state-owned industries and the creation of a plutocracy.

And there is reason to believe that the complaints of excessive GDP-ism are being heard both for political as well as pragmatic reasons. Lawmakers (I mean: law stampers) did approve an 87% increase in health spending (from an admittedly low number) as well as increases for education and rural (re)construction. All of which should be applauded. (There was also an 18% jump in military spending, but anyway…)

There is no question that the reforms are benefiting a large number of people throughout China and the CCP can take credit for lifting millions out of poverty. But it can do even better. I think the debate over the private property bill was healthy and shows that while the CCP still tightly clings to power, it is not monolithic in its views. A discussion of development priorities needs to happen, preferably in the open rather than behind the walls of Zhongnanhai. The economic development of the cities and some areas is nothing short of amazing, but we should be careful lest we develop a case of (in the words of fellow blogger The 88’s) “She blinded me with Shanghai.” There are still problems yet to be resolved.

Our old friend CCT might remind me of my faith in “systems.” And to some extent we agree more than CCT might believe. Systems can’t fix everything and they also can break down, occasionally with terrible consequences. But I do think that the process matters. The United States has faced some horrific moments in its history and there is plenty in our past of which I am not especially proud. But I don’t think that any of those crises or problems would have been easier to overcome or less likely to happen under one-party authoritarian rule. Quite the opposite in fact. Is China different? Absolutely. Is it so different that lessons from other places have absolutely no application here? Of that I am less sure.

The Economist concludes:

Without an accountable executive branch, the necessary reform of the legal system is not going to happen. As the passage of the property law itself demonstrates, the party is showing itself somewhat more responsive to public opinion than it was in the past. But it still runs a government that does its best to silence most dissenting voices, strictly controls the press, and lavishes resources on the best cyber-censorship money can buy. Property rights are a start; but only contested politics and relatively open media can ensure that they are enforceable.

Hear, hear.

Just a quick note from Beijing that the Memorial Hall to Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square will be closed while Mao’s handlers do their periodic touch-up on the Chairman’s body. No word on what kind of work Mao is getting done (though hair implants seem a start) but Xinhua reports that the Great Helmsman will be back in his usual resting place for public viewing and plastic flower application in September.

Even when he disappears from public view, Mao can still cause a stir. At the Alahambra (California) City Hall, a public art display showing an image of the Chairman juxtaposed with George Washington has sparked controversy.

Based on a complaint that a picture of Mao had no place in a civic building, city staff removed the piece.

The artists were in turn offended by the city’s action, and responded by taking all 30 pieces down.

“It’s not a matter of interpretation,” said Los Angeles resident Kai Chen, 53, who lodged the complaint and has written a book about his family’s political persecution during the Cultural Revolution. “It’s moral perversion.”

The artist, Jeffrey Ma of Long Beach, CA disagrees.

[Ma] insists his Mao silk-screen print is apolitical and said that he was surprised it provoked the response it did.
Ma described the entire experience as “tiring.”

“What I wanted to say, I was unable to say it. What I wasn’t saying, people insisted I was.”

The print depicts Mao and George Washington superimposed on piggy banks. Ma chose the two figures because they are both found on currency bills, he said.

It was a reference to money and its importance in Chinese New Year celebrations as well as in Chinese and American society, Ma said.

“Everyone has a story” about hardship during Mao’s reign, Ma said, declining to discuss his own experiences as an artist during the Cultural Revolution. “Mao is a history topic. Leave it to historians to evaluate him.”

Images of the Chairman in art, both reverent and pop, have been around for a long time. Andy Warhol had his turn and a personal favorite of mine (Jeremiah) is the MoMao site by NYC-based artist Zhang Hongtu.

That said, the use of Mao’s image does raise some interesting questions. This is not a harmless historical figure with a cute, pudgy face. Nor is he a subject easily painted (pun intended) in black and white. He was a good commander during the anti-Japanese War and his revolution, at first, was seen by many as a respite from the chaos of the warlord period, the brutality of the Japanese troops, and the venality of the KMT.

But of course there is the other Mao: the one whose policies resulted in the deaths of millions. Needless to say, his legacy in the PRC remains…murky. Across China, one can find a wide range of opinions. There are those who worship him (literally), those who are nostalgic for the days of the iron rice bowl, those who look back at the dark days of the GPCR and shudder, and there are those who find him simply irrelevant as they speed down Chang’an Avenue in their new BMW on the way to a stockholder meeting. Ask around in Beijing and everybody seems to have a different answer.

The CCP came up with the rather neat figure of 70% correct and 30% incorrect. But how does one split a canvas 70/30? Does this mean it is okay to wear a silkscreened Mao t-shirt 70% of the time? Does it mean the next time I’m at Panjiayuan Market in Beijing, I should ask for a 30% discount on a Mao cigarette lighter that plays “Dong Fang Hong” when it lights? Can you de-fang a tyrant by turning him into kitsch or does that trivialize the horrors he perpetrated?

Wow, this new blog about the sucky dating situation for expat women in China seems to dovetail beautifully with one of this site’s most commented-on posts. This is not your ordinary blog – you have to see it. Even the blog’s name is, um, different.

Via Danwei.

Damn. My arch-rival beat me to the punch on a post I’ve been meaning to blog about for a long time – four years, to be precise. This is an absolute must-read and something I suspect many of you can relate to.

If only computers could convey fragrances (something I hear is not that far off)…. Beijing taxi “fragrances” are unique, and I’m often surprised at just how bad a single car can smell. They’ve gotten a bit better; I remember the days in the freezing winter of 2002, when I would open the window a fraction and press my face up so I could catch some outside air, no matter how painful the cold. I never could define exactly what it was that smelled so bad – bad breath, body odor, some local air freshener I didn’t appreciate. But it was intense. And it’s still an issue. (Stale garlic seems to be a key ingredient, along with tobacco.)

Please don’t say this indicates any bias against China; it doesn’t. It’s the equivalent to commenting on Beijing traffic or weather – a fact of life. Check out the Imagethief post and see how much of this criticism comes from Chinese citizens.

While I never experienced such foul aromas in taxis anywhere else, I did have an occasional problem in Taipei, where many taxis seem to use a flowery air-freshener with a sickly sweet, suffocating stench. It wasn’t dirty or filthy smelling, just nauseating. I did the crack-the-window thing over there quite a bit. I would love to know the source for this stench so I can recommend banning it.

Meanwhile, I am still loving Beijing. It will take a lot more than a smelly taxi ride to turn me off from this incredible city.

Two readers now tell me TPD is blocked, one in SE China, the other in mid-east China. On top of that Danwei reports Livejournal blogs are now banned. F*cking Chinese fire drill.

(Fine here in Beijing, by the way.)

And his site looks like a class act. Be sure to check out this post on one of my favorite topics.

There is a long piece in this week’s edition of Spiegel Online with the provocative title, “Does Communism work after all?” It is one of those articles with something for everybody. At times the authors seem almost in awe of China’s Gang of Nine, comparing Hu Jintao to a slick, corporate boss managing a massive business empire with his team of executives, while other sections go into detail about the nasty side effects of China’s economic miracle.

For starters, the article praises the CCP for the economic gains of many Chinese in the reform period:

The Chinese communists rescued about 300 million people from poverty — a number unprecedented in history — with their reforms. The signs of affluence are everywhere, and not just in Shanghai and Shenzhen, where luxury boutiques like Gucci, Louis Vuitton or Versace attract a growing middle class. The Chinese boom even extends into the country’s more backward interior, to places like Chengdu or Chongqing. The number of Chinese dollar millionaires is growing steadily, with 320,000 Chinese already worth an average of $5 million. The rich are among the Communist Party’s most loyal supporters because it protects their affluence. And the army of migrant workers moving from the countryside to construction sites in the cities is also unlikely to rise up against the Communist Party. As long as life improves by a fraction each year for every Chinese citizen, the Mandarins will continue to enjoy the mandate of heaven.

But this of course sets up a paradox. Given the undemocratic nature of the PRC, the question must be asked, in true academia-speak: “What gives?”

Is China, one of the most undemocratic nations on earth, setting an example for democratic countries on how to effectively solve problems? Do China’s successes fly in the face of every critic and skeptic who believes that Marxism-Leninism and capitalism are as incompatible as the devil and holy water?

Well, that would be a “No” and a “Yes.” I told you there would be something for everyone.

The article uses several examples–party officials, entrepreneurs, and workers–to show that while mistakes have been made, there have also been tremendous gains. Nevertheless, this is not a love-fest. The authors, Andreas Lorenz and Wieland Wagner, just two weeks ago published a rather scathing profile of China’s environmental mess. None of it particularly new to anyone who follows China (or who tries to breathe here), but it should demonstrate that Lorenz and Wagner aren’t simply panda-huggers either.

China is a big country, a future superpower. Its leaders, accountable only to themselves, don’t care for economic or environmental advice. They set their own path.

But each year, each month, almost every week, China experiences some sort of major environmental catastrophe. The mess spreads across the land, in its waterways and the air. And far too often, the rest of the world gets sprinkled with some of it too.

In the latest piece, the authors interpolate amazement at China’s dynamic rise with details of the troubling side effects of rapid economic growth in a system with limited accountability to its stakeholders. And there are problems with deep roots. The intimate relationship between party lackeys, business leaders, and government bureaucrats meant quick approval of multi-million dollar deals for foreign investors who came to China attracted by cheap labor, lax regulations, and the laughable enforcement of environmental protections. Chinese entrepreneurs were quick to take advantage of the same “perks” and officials looked the other way while Communism began to lose all meaning. The economy grew but at at a cost. The social safety net (the iron rice bowl) quickly became a relic of another age. The right to strike was abolished in 1982 with worker grievances referred to the party bosses, who then sent in the police (or worse) to suppress disgruntled workers. Corruption became endemic. An environmental crisis of monumental proportions now looms. And the benefits of the reform era have been distributed so haphazardly and unevenly that “the rising tide lifting all boats” is beginning to look alarmingly like a tidal wave. Many in China’s rural areas are feeling the water rising around them and they are unhappy about it. Yet the economy marches on. Perhaps Jim Mann is right after all.

It’s impossible to summarize the whole article. Some of it is a bit stale and many people might find themselves nodding along at the usual hurrahs (Gleaming cities! Millions have food!) and rasberries (Corruption bad! Pollution dirty!). But the article is worth the read in its entirety. I might particularly call attention to part four which discusses internal debates within the CCP and the government. The Chinese government is not a monolith and while there may be only one party with any power, the views within that party are perhaps more diverse than is generally assumed. Witness the dust-up last summer over private property protections when the CCP found itself under attack on its left flank from those who criticized the excessive focus on economic development at all costs and who feared the growing influence of foreign companies in China’s domestic economy.

It’s an interesting article. There are certainly some points that are genuine clunkers (including a return to the “closed China” myth on page two.) There are probably others. That said, there is much here for conversation and debate. Enjoy.
—————————–
Since the article is in sections, I’ve included the links to all five parts here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

This is a most unusual and extraordinary post. A former self-proclaimed “lizard” and “anti-idiotarian” in Europe confesses that what LGF and Michelle and the like hath wrought goes exactly counter to what America needed to achieve in the wake of 911. Considering that the writer was not that long ago a serious and strident advocate of the war in Iraq who aligned himself with the “warbloggers,” it’s nothing short of astonishing. It’s tone is somehow calm yet urgent, poignant and blisteringly logical. It reminds us of just how noble a thing it can be to be “for the war before we were against it.” In other words, changing your mind and reshaping your opinion can be a sign of maturity and wisdom, not cowardice and treason.

Anyone who argues for war plays with dangerous forces, so they must do it responsibly or not at all. Foolish wars have led countries to disaster. They have caused the deaths of millions. History and psychology tells us that war parties tend to be over-confident, paranoid and emotional. So the minimum you should expect from a responsible war supporter is that they are aware of this bias, and do their best to counterbalance it.

It’s not enough to believe that you are right. You have to be actively open-minded, you have to listen to your critics, and encourage devil’s advocates. You have to set up a robust information structure that makes it as difficult as possible for you to ignore reality. This is the only good way to prevent self-deception. It works. And we did not do it.

What we did was the opposite. At every level, from the lowliest blogger to the highest official, war supporters set up filters that protected them from facts they did not want to hear. We saw what we wanted to see, and if anyone saw differently, we called them left-wing moonbats who were rooting for the other side. We defined the entire mainstream media establishment as irrelevant, leaving more biased, less experienced “new” media as our primary source of facts. We ignored reasonable critics, and focused on the crazy ones, so that we could tell ourselves how incredibly smart we were.

Among the bloggers there was a sense that there were all these brilliant people, who knew so much about history, war and society, who had previously been without the tools to express themselves. Thanks to the wonders of amateur media, we could now finally exploit this huge reservoir of expert knowledge. And when you contrasted the lazy neutrality of the old media with the energy of the new, it certainly could seem that way. Here were people who regularly would write thousands of words about the historical context of Islamist terrorism, who could write brilliantly about freedom and democracy, who commented boldly on the long trends of history. How could such people be wrong?

But what we saw was not expert knowledge, but the well-written, arrogantly presented ideas of half-educated amateurs. This, too, went all the way from the bottom to the top. It often struck us how well the writing of the best of the bloggers measured up to that of pro-war pundits and intellectuals. We thought this showed how professional the amateurs were, when what it really told us was how amateurish the professionals were.

Retraction is never an easy thing to do and I give this writer very high marks for doing so with such fortitude and eloquence. Instead of an emotional mea culpa, it is a step by step walk-through of all the dreadful, tragic errors we made in the September 11th’s wake, and how the vitriolic call for vengeance clouded our better judgment and led us into the mouth of hell, where we find ourselves today.

Please check out the entire long essay. It’s a rare blog post that keeps me thinking about it throughout the day, This one definitely did, and then some.

It’s started again as everyone returns from their holiday, and I am back on the treadmill. The recent flurry of posts will have to come to a halt, or at least be reduced to a trickle, though I’ll do the best I can to update the site. Hopefully a guest blogger or two will help keep things kicking. It’s going to be an intense few weeks ahead; thanks for sticking around.