A commenter in the Haidian thread below leaves a link to a most interesting article in the Economist on why China’s “peaceful rise” hasn’t managed to dampen the angst of its neighbors, or anybody else for that matter. It points out the many concrete successes China has achieved over the past ten years in foreign relations, settling many issues (like its conflicts with India) peacefully and with a great deal of tact. (Which is why I constantly heap praise on Hu for his foreign policy prowess.)
But alas, for all of this goodwill and diplomacy, China’s true friends are few and far between. Almost like America in the Age of Bush.
[I]f you scour the region for China’s firm friends it is hard to find them. Even Russia, where China’s president, Hu Jintao, was this week pressing the flesh, is a fair-weather friend – or rather sees China as a foul-weather insurance policy. India and Japan, China’s other big regional counterparts, both view it with suspicion at best and, at worst, paranoia. That leaves as China’s chums a scanty list of Neanderthal dictatorships such as Myanmar and North Korea. And even their friendship does not amount to much. Far from being a loyal client, Myanmar plays China off against India and its fellow members of ASEAN. And China’s relationship, famously ‘as close as lips and teeth’, with North Korea spawned a mouth ulcer last October when North Korea let off a nuclear weapon. North Korea’s cruel but cunning despot, Kim Jong Il, exploits China’s fear that, if his vile regime collapses, China might have a strong, American-allied democratic Korea on its border.
Why are China’s neighbours not always susceptible to its charms? Of course, any rapidly emerging big power is unsettling. Like America, China can still display a penchant for unilateralism that undermines all its careful diplomacy. As it overtakes America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, its cavalier disregard of the global environment will become an ever-bigger issue in its foreign relations. More traditional fears also unsettle China’s neighbours. This month China’s annual budget called for another big increase (of nearly 18%) in military spending. Most analysts believe the published budget is understated – in which case, why trumpet such a big number? And why, without warning, blow up a satellite in space, as a Chinese missile did in January?
A perception therefore persists that China’s goodwill extends only so far as its interests are not affected. In its dispute with India, for example, it is the status quo power: it is happy with the present arrangements, so what has it to lose by talking for ever? In one crucial respect, however, it is far from a status quo power: its historically dubious and morally untenable claim on Taiwan. This is one big reason, other than merely acting the big-power part, for the military build-up, and could one day bring war with the real superpower.
A much better Taiwan policy is available to China. The ‘one country, two systems’formula promised to Hong Kong in 1997, which mirrored that offered to the Dalai Lama’s Tibet in 1951, was aimed in large measure at the more important goal to China of coaxing Taiwan back into the ‘motherland’. But China has sabotaged its own strategy. Like the long history of repression in Tibet, the farcical ‘re-election’ on March 25th of Hong Kong” British-trained, Chinese-adopted chief executive, Donald Tsang, by a committee dominated by China’s placemen shows how little China cares to lend substance to its promises of autonomy and democracy – even though Mr Tsang would probably have won a real election anyway.
Giving Hong Kongers the freedoms they have demanded, and talking to the Dalai Lama about the future of his homeland, would do more to impress China’s neighbours than a decade’s worth of state visits and free-trade agreements. Yet China will not yield on either front, sternly warning critics against infringing on its internal affairs.
This is one of those article where you want to quote every line and then debate it. So be sure to read it all. And then ask yourself why China’s leaders won’t get some of the more obvious points, like those in the final two paragraphs. No, I take that back – don’t ask yourself. Because you’ll only get a headache. It’s like asking yourself why Bush refuses to see that Karl Rove is bad for the country and bad for himself. It seems so obvious from our vantage point, and one can only wonder why it’s not obvious from theirs.
On a personal note, work reached the point of insanity this week, and I’ve been in the office all weekend. It will get better soon – there will be some new help in a week or so, and then in May I’ll be joined by a former colleague from Taiwan who will help lift a huge load off my shoulders. But until then, posts from me will continue to be rare, squeezed in whenever i can find a moment to myself, usually on the weekend. And when I do post, the writing will be on the slender side. For now.
1
By cat
I think the article is quite absurd. Much of its word space may be valid, basically saying:
1) China is very big and becoming ever more powerful – economically and militarily;
2) It may be peaceful now, but will it always be?
3) China’s neighbors have mixed feelings about this.
Nothing very controversial there. But then the Economist gets down to the main “cause” and “solution.” It tells us that China’s biggest mistakes are in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet. The most attention in the article is paid to Hong Kong. All China has to do is to immediately allow the direct election of Hong Kong’s chief executive and all Legco seats instead of using functional constituencies. Under the Basic Law, it has to do this one day anyway, but it should do it now.
I agree that the people of Hong Kong are perfectly capable of choosing their own leaders and they should be allowed to do that in the next election. But this will have virtually no effect on “freedom”. People in Hong Kong are already free to do pretty much everything we normally associate with freedom in the West and there is no serious threat to that. Tens of thousands of people commemorate June 4th each year and demand a reversal of the official verdict on the Spring 1989 movement. Falun Gong is free to campaign. People are free to back the Dalai Lama. You don’t get much more sensitive than these three things.
Does anyone seriously believe that changing the election/selection process in Hong Kong will have the slightest effect on whether Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka see China as a friend or a potential threat?
I’m not arguing against direct elections and universal suffrage in Hong Kong. I’m not arguing against Tibetans’ right to self determination or autonomy.
But take a look back at that list of countries above. Did the people of Thailand elect the military coup leaders? Has India shown the slightest willingness to allow ever allow self determination for the people of Kashmir? Is Indonesia a model of tolerance in Aceh? Do Singapore and Malaysia have a free press? Look at each of those countries and find one of them that does not share at least some, if not most, of the problems the Economist regularly attributes to China.
I mentioned the Basic Law. Apart from direct elections, there’s another thing that still has not been implemented in Hong Kong – Article 23. Hong Kong is required by its own constitution to enact a security law. The government tried to do that in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of people protested (this protest is now dishonestly claimed by many to be a call for direct elections) and the law was shelved. How many examples can you think of in the democratic world where one protest persuaded the government to cancel a major piece of legislation it had invested so much in?
April 1, 2007 @ 10:33 pm | Comment
2
By fatbrick
Economist is right about only one thing:
“Internal reform would not change everything: a big, rising nation frightens smaller neighbours whatever its political system—ask those in America’s backyard. ”
April 1, 2007 @ 11:57 pm | Comment
3
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
cat – James Tien’s “resignation” from ExCo was the act that caused the legislation to be withdrawn. The vote of no confidence from the financial community on the legislation and what it does to free reporting was crucial. The Article 23 Legislation would have dried up the markets that have been China’s largest source of Foreign Direct Investment for 25 years running.
And why wouldn’t you be nervous about a system that is quite willing to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because the egg might not have been appropriately leftist and deferential to the CCP? (see also the current scandals over Education and the attempts to dismantle RTHK)
As long as the CCP keeps pushing that deference to them is the most important order of business in Hong Kong, then there is no reason for any other country to trust the CCP.
April 2, 2007 @ 8:01 am | Comment
4
By OtherLisa
Plus, actions do count. Sure, the strongest country in the neighborhood is always going to make its neighbors a little uneasy. But look at the US’ reputation under Clinton and under Bush. You can’t tell me there’s no difference in international standing.
April 2, 2007 @ 9:40 am | Comment
5
By feedmeister
At the same time, there is an article in Newsweek that illustrates Beijing’s friends.
Anyway, the world is a cruel place. There are no permanent friends only permanent interests. (as far as nations and business are concerned)
April 2, 2007 @ 12:16 pm | Comment
6
By fatbrick
My point here is very simple. If you are rich and strong, you are much easier to make friends. Who wouldn’t want the money you spread and the army you send to fight for them?
So why doesn’t China have many friends as Economist claimed now? China is not strong and rich enough. Look at per capita income. China is still very poor.
April 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm | Comment
7
By Kevin S.
@fatbrick: I disagree with you that one can claim that China is poor based on per capita income. Yes, there are many people in China who are poor, and China’s per capita income reflects that, but China as a country has done quite a few things recently that show that, as a country, it is now pretty well off: manned orbit, Three Gorges Dam, world’s highest altitude railroad and brand new massive sparkling business districts in cities all along the East coast, to name a few.
April 2, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Comment
8
By nanheyangrouchuan
Most of Asia already spent 1-2,000 years in deference to Beijing, now that they have the US, India and Russia as leverage, they can feel confident not to have to re-learn kowtowing.
The biggest afront to China’s rise was its own ambassador to India who claimed the Indian state bordering Tibet as “south Tibet and therefore Chinese”. That ambassador still has their job and no denial was issued by Beijing. Then there is Beijing’s Kogoryu claim. Old habits die hard and China is having a hard time restraining its excitement the prospect of ruling Asia once again.
Comparing to the US, Bush’s bluster and the neo-con swagger all disappeared in November. The world can watch the far right in US politics scramble and dive for cover while paying armies of lawyers to keep them out of jail or impeachment.
The US gov’t can be big a*holes, but change is just an election away and everyone knows it.
April 2, 2007 @ 1:11 pm | Comment
9
By richard
Kevin, I’m not sure if you meant your comment to be at all humorous, but let’s look at what you said:
China as a country has done quite a few things recently that show that, as a country, it is now pretty well off: manned orbit, Three Gorges Dam, world’s highest altitude railroad and brand new massive sparkling business districts in cities all along the East coast, to name a few.
Looking at all of those things, can an argument be made that they symbolize the wastefulness and deficiencies of the government as much as they do proof of its wealth? Shanghai’s Jetson’s skyline, the mag-lev train, the space flight, the world’s largest ferris wheel – they say to me that the government is willing to spend huge amounts of money to dazzle the world, even if the ultimate return on investment is poor, if not negative. We’ll see how a lot of those sparkling buildings look 20 years from now, and how much damage the Three Gorges dam wreaked on the environment. These things impress from a distance, but upon closer scrutiny they raise many questions of judgment and maturity. (A confident, mature leadership doesn’t need to constantly impress the world with window dressing.)
April 2, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Comment
10
By fatbrick
kevin, you are right, but I believe per capita income or actual income of average household is much more important than a few projects (Those projects of cuz are necessary, just no need to exaggerate them).
A few weeks ago, in a popular chinese website, people compared Chinese per capita imcome with other countries. It turned out that many countries, which I considered as poor than China before, actually have much higher per capita income than China. I just think there is long way to go. If only you become stronger, people are willing to make friends with you.
April 2, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Comment
11
By Kevin S.
@Richard: I wasn’t aiming for humor or satire, though that’s not to say I don’t agree with you that the examples I listed raise questions of judgment and maturity. I think any reasonable person would raise such questions, particularly concerning the manned space flight as I cannot see how anyone could make a reasonable argument of how that has any tangible benefits to Chinese people, especially in light of China’s per capita income. One place the increasingly wealthy Chinese government could spend more money though is on education in general and rural education in particular. Fortunately, better funding for rural education was allocated at the congressional meetings this year.
April 2, 2007 @ 1:55 pm | Comment
12
By fatbrick
richard, some of the government’s projests are stupid and waste of money. However, I would say some projects you just mentioned are quite necessary, i.e. the space flight and Three Gorges dam. If Kevin is serious, I believe his point actually common in many Chinese. I guess our history plays an important role here.
April 2, 2007 @ 1:59 pm | Comment
13
By fatbrick
“I think any reasonable person would raise such questions, particularly concerning the manned space flight as I cannot see how anyone could make a reasonable argument of how that has any tangible benefits to Chinese people, especially in light of China’s per capita income. ”
Well, manned space flight is actually the best project among those mentinoed by richard IMO. It helps to improve the Chinese technology in various areas.
April 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm | Comment
14
By Kevin S.
@fatbrick: I agree that manned space flight can help to improve Chinese technology in various areas, but ask yourself honestly which is better for Chinese people and the Chinese economy both in the short and long term, money spent towards manned space flight or the same amount of money spent towards education?
April 2, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Comment
15
By z
Like the US of the past, China is a country with big ambition today. With a few billion dollars investment (tiny amount when compared with that by NASA), its manned space program is extremely successful and needed. Although its people are still poor, the country is rich enough to have money for projects like that; it doesn’t have to sacrifice education.
April 2, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Comment
16
By Kevin S.
@z: You are right, China does not have to sacrifice education for manned space flight, but it could sacrifice manned space flight for education. Which would yield a greater return for the greatest number of Chinese people?
April 2, 2007 @ 3:33 pm | Comment
17
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
How is the manned space flight needed? How does it help China’s technology? So you’ve copied a feat performed by the Russians and the US 40 years ago? Nobody in the tech field doubts China’s ability to copy other people’s technology.
Basically it was cheap grandstanding for “national pride”. And if you can take pride in copying what someone else did 40 years ago, you’ve got mighty low targets.
April 2, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Comment
18
By OtherLisa
And, ugh, the Three Gorges Dam – isn’t that supposed to silt up the Yangze by the time it hits Shanghai in a few years, to devastating effect?
I have a soft spot in my heart for space programs – I think they can spark innovation in other areas, and besides, to boldly go, and all that.
April 2, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Comment
19
By Si
@z
chinese spending on education is at 3% of gdp, which is half of what the un recommends as a minimum. it is therefore impossible to argue that money is not being sacrificed for military and space development. indeed i believe that the lack of education will be telling in 5-10 years time, when china will lack the middle managers to take the economy forward. 4 million graduates this year, 2 million jobs. ho hum
April 2, 2007 @ 5:11 pm | Comment
20
By Si
@other lisa
i think the quote is telling – to boldly go where no man has gone before. the point being that the us and russia has already gone there, and 40 years ago. unless of course you want to give the han nationalist argument that foreigners are simply monkeys, and therefore the chinese were the first men is space ;p
apologies for the double post
April 2, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Comment
21
By Kevin S.
@Si: That argument assumes that UN recommendations are the standard by which the Chinese government and the Chinese people measure themselves.
April 2, 2007 @ 5:45 pm | Comment
22
By Kevin S.
@Si: That argument assumes that UN recommendations are the standard by which the Chinese government and the Chinese people measure themselves. Personally, I think that seems to be a reasonable standard to measure by.
April 2, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Comment
23
By Si
sure, but i fail to see how China spending less that what is recommended is going to help them catch up. i agree with you though. i feel that international sets of standards from neutral bodies such as the UN are helpful. one of the great myths about china is that they give a damn about education. the people themselves might give an arm and a leg for their children, but not the government, which is more concerned with the easy part of development, infrastructure construction, rather than the hard part, implementation of modern institutions.
April 2, 2007 @ 7:44 pm | Comment
24
By feedmeister
Chinese space program isn’t about any cheap national pride. The space industry generates a lot of spinoff technologies and industries. Among some things that we take for granted that are spinoffs from space research are better structural analysis techniques, food packaging, art preservation methods, fire resistant materials and many others.
The same can be said about the defense industry and the aircraft manufacturing industry. All this are hoped to spinoff more industries that would support the coming workforce or to advance the chinese economy to a higher level thus ensuring a sustainable growth. China cannot stay as a manufacturer of low-tech goods forever.
Russia and US can’t donate their space experiences. i.e. Chinese ground control crews have to start somewhere to gain their experience. If the first step has to be taken 40 years later, it still has to be done. You can’t learn to run before you learn walking first. So you guys are expecting China to discover the secret of hyper space travel the first time she goes to space? Get real even with the criticisms.
Getting more students without providing more jobs is just as socially-irresponsible a government could do.
April 2, 2007 @ 10:04 pm | Comment
25
By Si
@feedmeister
i think your comments are either disingeneous or somewhat naive. korea and japan did not need a space program with a military aspect (blowing up satellites) to incorporate high technology into their economies. i fail to see how china cannot get hold of non-military tech such as food packaging and fire resistant material without going into space.
my assertion is that china’s aims in space are military, and they have no business there, given the parlous state of their education and environment.
April 2, 2007 @ 10:39 pm | Comment
26
By ecodelta
With all its possible technology spin off, I think the main reason for the chinese space program is prestige ( second reason, military)
Given the superpower aspirations of China it was a quite foreseeable step. Sooner or later they would be going to attempt it.
All in all, it is not a small feat, even if they replicated 40 years old technology. But they have to start from somewhere. It will be interesting to see what innovations they may come up with.
Now, if they succeed in reaching the moon, and irk the american, we could have again an interesting space race…. I always considered that NASA made a big mistake not leting the Rusians got there first 😉
April 2, 2007 @ 10:59 pm | Comment
27
By sepa
Wanting to look cool definitely plays a role in all these space programs. You see alot of folks who don’t kids or do outdoors and drive a big Suburban instead of a Prius communting 100 miles per day.
It’d be nice that we have a international project to explore the space. That way all resources of mankind can be utilized more efficiently. Probably a wishful thinking. Anyway, books for pupils should be
the high priority in countries like China and India.
April 2, 2007 @ 11:55 pm | Comment
28
By Shanghai Slim
I think it’s a mistake to see this as a “zero sum game’ in which the budgetary choice is EITHER education OR a space program. There is no reason why both could not be funded.
If China’s leaders really wanted to reach the UN education targets, they could pay for the program easily by levying a 5% tax on the public funds China’s leaders spend on their “er nai” (mistresses).
Make that 7% and you can probably throw in a manned moon mission. 🙂
April 3, 2007 @ 12:14 am | Comment
29
By fatbrick
“korea and japan did not need a space program with a military aspect (blowing up satellites) to incorporate high technology into their economies. ”
I think China here is trying to follow U.S.’s example. Remember China cannot buy those technology from U.S.? China has to start somewhere. Some related industries in China are far behind. The space and big plane programs are good projects to push R&D in those areas.
Kevin, education is definitely the priority here. However, space program should not be sacrificed for that. Money should come from cutting corruption, wasting and overstaffed government agency.
April 3, 2007 @ 12:20 am | Comment
30
By JXie
In the past 10+ years or so I have met numerous people from countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Thailand, South Africa, Brazil, etc. in various occasions in my travel outside of the US or China. Even sometimes casual conversations had the chances to develop to the point they asked me where I was from.
After they knew that I was from China, they all show great admiration of what a great China is — not only that China is an ancient civilization, but also what China IS today.
China is friendless? I beg to differ. Honestly I think the Economist’s article is all crap.
April 3, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Comment
31
By Sonagi
fatbrick wrote:
“I think China here is trying to follow U.S.’s example. Remember China cannot buy those technology from U.S.? China has to start somewhere. Some related industries in China are far behind. The space and big plane programs are good projects to push R&D in those areas.”
And what kind of technology would that be? China is already acquiring tech transfer through joint ventures with firms from Korea, Japan, North America, and Europe.
April 3, 2007 @ 7:33 am | Comment
32
By Jing
The Economist’s article isn’t all crap, but it is incredibly myopic. The myopia of middle-brow western intelligentsia who is blind to anything beyond his comfort zone. Essentially the Economist is writing from and to the the Anglophones.
That some nations are ambivalent to China’s role is because China represents an unknown factor with the increasing capability and possible intent to upset the present geo-political and economic status quo. That is why there is hand wringing among the established nations (i.e. sanctimonious developed ones). No amount of Hong Kong referendums or Tibetan rights will change this, though naturally being incompetent journalists, the Economist comes to this insipid conclusion anyways.
April 3, 2007 @ 7:43 am | Comment
33
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
one of the great myths about china is that they give a damn about education. the people themselves might give an arm and a leg for their children, but not the government, which is more concerned with the easy part of development, infrastructure construction, rather than the hard part, implementation of modern institutions.
Posted by: Si at April 2, 2007 07:44 PM
The avoidance of modern institutions in favour of easy infrastructure construction and property speculation is something they learned from Li Ka-shing and the Hong Kong tycoons.
As for mainland education and the CCP’s priorities… I get to blogwhore 😉 Chinese illiteracy rates climbing. Up 33 million from 5 years ago.
April 3, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Comment
34
By Sonagi
Jxie wrote:
“After they knew that I was from China, they all show great admiration of what a great China is — not only that China is an ancient civilization, but also what China IS today.
China is friendless? I beg to differ. Honestly I think the Economist’s article is all crap.
“
Take such flattery with a grain of salt. Whenever I told Chinese I was American, I almost always heard kind words of praise. Even in Korea, which is more openly anti-American, Koreans almost never made unkind remarks about the US directly to me. On the other hand, while traveling in southeast Asia, I often heard negative remarks about Koreans from locals after I informed them that I lived in Korea. I suspect those same locals made only polite comments to Korean tourists and kept their negative opinions to themselves for the sake of courtesy.
I wouldn’t call China “friendless”at all, however. There are people around the world who regard China favorably. My very own elementary students in the US are keenly interested and ask many questions about China.
April 3, 2007 @ 10:02 am | Comment
35
By fatbrick
For one, it improves aerospace manufacturing technologies. It also helps material science, computer, electronic engineering, and military technologies (of cuz) etc.
The program itself is also a good public investment in human capital and R&D. As a public ad, it could help exports of industrial products, especially for high-end products. Although China still cannot compete with developed countries in many areas, the space program would let others recoganize that Chinese can also manufacture some advanced stuff. For example, it is helpful for Chinese machinery manufacturer to get in markets in Africa and Latin America, or even developed countries.
April 3, 2007 @ 10:50 am | Comment
36
By fatbrick
“As for mainland education and the CCP’s priorities… I get to blogwhore 😉 Chinese illiteracy rates climbing. Up 33 million from 5 years ago.”
Interesting article, I would like to see another independent resouce to confirm it, besides HKR.
April 3, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Comment
37
By JXie
Sonagi,
That was a fair point. My personal experience seems to corroborate with some of the findings though:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=825
Once I was in Italy buying flowers for my female companion. The flower stands’ owners were Bangladeshis. Only one of them could speak English. After he found out I was from China, he told the others. They all raised their thumbs at me. Get this: they gave me twice the flowers. Verbal flatter is one thing… maybe they are fans of Jackie Chan?
April 3, 2007 @ 11:19 am | Comment
38
By JXie
Fatbrick & Tom,
The illiterate rate blur was first covered by China Daily on 4/1, and subsequently picked up by news outlets such as CNN and the likes of Tom’s blog. Since the topic is dear to my heart, allow me to give you my 2 cents.
First, it’s virtually impossible to have an increasing illiterate rate in China as of now. For those who each year enter the bucket (>=15 yo) counted for the rate, they are close to 99% literate; and for those who each year exit the bucket (death), they are far less literate.
The key here is there are actually 2 sets of data collected with different methods and in different years. The first set is the census data. It was last collected in 2000 (and published in 2001). The basic method, as far as I know, is simply the surveyors asking the surveyees whether they are literate. The illiterate rate in 2000 by such method came out as 6.72%.
The other set of data is maintained by MOE and published by the NBS each year, it’s call illiterate and semi-illiterate rate. Again based on my understanding, it’s collected through sampling of actual tests on read/write skills. The latest illiterate rate that I know of, is 10.32% in 2004.
The two sets of data, as you can see, are not comparable.
April 3, 2007 @ 12:56 pm | Comment
39
By t_co
thx jxie
i would agree with the idea that china can afford to spend more on space and education; given the massive amount of corruption that goes on, greater enforcement would do that. however, since greater enforcement would violate the CCP’s current social contract, the trick would be to construct a new social contract built around nationalistic democracy that holds officials accountable but at the same time prevents any softening of China’s foreign policy stance. The way to do that would be to tie a lot of those unemployed graduates to some patriotic, government-sponsored programs like development of central asia or africa or the space program. That is a far better method of maintaining national unity than keeping local officials happy on barrels of lard.
April 3, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Comment
40
By xueleifung
JXie,
I’m confused. China Daily figure is 116 million, from Ministry of Education. And if 10.32% figure is correct, that should give us 130 million illeterate population in 2004. How can that be a 30 million increase?
Please help me here.
April 3, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Comment
41
By feedmeister
Si,
Why bring in the satellite killer program into the discussion? It is only one aspect of the chinese space program. Major resources are channeled to projects like building rovers and manned flights to the moon and maybe beyond. There is no need for Japan and Korea to invest in projectile systems that can knock out satellites. However Japan do have spy satellites up there. Is this not the military aspect? Japan’s space program began in 1955. I’m sure they have priorities like in education and rebuilding after WWII. So according to your logic they too have no business starting a space endeavor? Space does not belong to the US alone.
The issue here is about independent development of technology that is essential to securing autonomy in space activities that in turn will offer spinoffs to other fields. Technology transfers are not an ideal platform for maximum diffusion of technology between states. I should remind you that US re-export controls on US-origin technology is one of the many problems of not maximizing technology transfers. There are also constraints in licensing agreements.
April 3, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Comment
42
By ferins
“As it overtakes America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, its cavalier disregard of the global environment will become an ever-bigger issue in its foreign relations.”
lol. for a country that’s the international manufacturing dumpster with the largest population in the world, it’s perfectly appropriate.. especially since they’re ranked around 160th in terms of per capita emissions.
that statement is utterly ridiculous, the rest aren’t so bad but are still distorted. any article that mentions all-out war with the United States is insane.
April 3, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Comment
43
By Si
@jxie – as a brit i would also agree that space is not for the us alone. however i fail to see how it is for developing countries. i don’t object to spy satellites – that is part of the deal. what is not necessary is putting people on the moon or in orbit, when you still have a major poverty/education problem.
@tom – i don’t understand the reference to hk. they had rule of law and institutions from the get go. i’d be careful of any figures coming from the ccp, especially literacy ones. in a country the size of china, with local officials having a vested interest in lying, there is always going to be variations in the figures. anyway how do you define literacy exactly? when you think about it, it is extremely difficult……
April 3, 2007 @ 5:27 pm | Comment
44
By Si
@jxie – as a brit i would also agree that space is not for the us alone. however i fail to see how it is for developing countries. i don’t object to spy satellites – that is part of the deal. what is not necessary is putting people on the moon or in orbit, when you still have a major poverty/education problem.
@tom – i don’t understand the reference to hk. they had rule of law and institutions from the get go. i’d be careful of any figures coming from the ccp, especially literacy ones. in a country the size of china, with local officials having a vested interest in lying, there is always going to be variations in the figures. anyway how do you define literacy exactly? when you think about it, it is extremely difficult……
April 3, 2007 @ 5:27 pm | Comment
45
By Michael Turton
any article that mentions all-out war with the United States is insane.
Yeah, that would be kind of like some power invading three middle eastern and Asian muslim nations all at the same time! I mean, who would ever do anything so insane and stupid!
Michael
April 3, 2007 @ 7:21 pm | Comment
46
By JXie
Xueleifung, don’t forget the bucket only includes those who are at least 15 years.
April 3, 2007 @ 8:42 pm | Comment
47
By ferins
“Yeah, that would be kind of like some power invading three middle eastern and Asian muslim nations all at the same time! I mean, who would ever do anything so insane and stupid!”
it might be completely evil but none of those nations are capable of really fighting back, unlike china.
April 4, 2007 @ 1:12 am | Comment