Liu Xiaobo - well chosen Nobel peace prize recipent
I hear that a Chinese “dissident” named Liu Xiaobo has won the Nobel peace prize and that the Chinese government are once again throwing tantrums. It seems that they have convinced 18 other countries not to attend the prize giving ceremony.
The great thing about tyrants is that they are stupid. They are so stupid that they are completely unaware of how their aggressive behaviour exposes them as illegitimate tyrants. For example China is reported to have sent letters to every embassy in Oslo threatening “consequences” if their representative attended the prize giving ceremony.
Further, it is possible to judge a regime by it’s friends. The 18 countries which agreed to boycott the ceremony are: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Not all of these countries are corrupt dictatorships but if were one were putting together a list of corrupt dictatorships it would not be a bad starting point.
It is very fashionable in the world today to condemn the United States for it’s failings and it is true that the Invasion of Iraq and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo bay have not done America’s image any good. But does anyone seriously think that the Chinese would behave better in the same situation? This is the same regime which rolled tanks over unarmed civilian protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and now blocks any searches to the Tiananmen Square protests. Just as it screens all Internet access for it’s citizens.
The United States is an imperfect democracy. China is a dictatorship.
The Chinese government could have reacted in a low key way and argued that it was working it’s way toward more open government but instead the Chinese authorities exposed themselves and their agenda.
Chinese government’s reaction underlines the aggressive nature of the people who comprise the government of China. They have got to where they are by bullying and intimidation and so this is their natural response to criticism.
They complain that the prize is an insult to the Chinese people but the Chinese government do not represent the Chinese people and they do not speak for the Chinese people. They have no mandate to power and they maintain their grip on power in the same way that tyrants have always maintained their grip on power: by bullying, intimidation and violence.
The Chinese government reaction to this award demonstrates a definite need for the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage democracy and freedom within all countries.
The award shows that the recipient was well chosen.
I am informed by The Economist that the Disney company are opening schools in China! As if that were not bizarre enough a photograph in the Guardian suggests that they are also running the Russian military. What this could possibly mean I have no idea.
I saw a cartoon in The Independent yesterday which implied that The Tory/Lib Dem coalition are using scare tactics to introduce spending cuts. I’ve also heard the Labour cabinet condemning all the cuts but giving no guide as to how the deficit (and the debt) which New Labour ran up should be brought under control. For those not steeped in financial jargon the debt is how much we owe and the deficit is the shortfall in our annual spending. So by running a deficit we increase the national debt. The talk by the new coalition government so far has concentrated on getting the deficit under control but bare in mind that Gordon Brown ran a deficit even during the boom years as the UK was spending more than the government gained in taxes!
Depressingly but, perhaps predictably, all we hear from everyone who has been asked to make cuts is justification for why their particular budget should not be cut. There was an education official on the radio recently “explaining” that the national debt is not like a credit card and that we can simply roll over the debt. Easy! We’re in debt, no problem, borrow more. It is this daft logic that has lead to the UK national debt of nearly 70% of GDP in 2009.
During the 18th and 19th centuries the United Kingdom became wealthy through empire and the industrial revolution and used that wealth to provide comfy lives for the British elite. Note that the majority of the British people had lives worse than many of those in India or elsewhere in the Empire mainly because of the cold British climate and the appalling working conditions during the industrial revolution. The British elite, however, did very well.
During the two world wars the European powers smashed each other to bits and America and the USSR stepped in as world leaders. The U.S. had ensured that the UK paid for aid during the war but the Marshall Plan got the UK and Western Europe back on their feat. The UK then hung on to it’s place in the world for a while. Our industry and trained workforce gave us “comparative advantage” compared to “developing countries” and so the UK and other European countries remained fairly wealthy and fairly secure. Sure Japan, Taiwan and others developed their own industry but most of the world remained pre-industrial.
Post World War 2 a Labour government came to power and, dazzled by the apparent success of Socialism in the USSR, started looking after the working class. For the first time ordinary people gained access to clean water, health care and pensions.
We developed a world view roughly as follows: The West leads the world, developing technology and operating industry, the far east copies the West and and performs some production and the “third world” supplies the raw materials but remains poor and dependent on aid.
But the UK was complacent., we became convinced that all our wealth was a natural state of affairs and that it could all be paid for by creative accounting. While we were naval gazing the Soviet Union collapsed, open markets became the vogue, China joined the World Trade Organisation and the rest of the world adopted capitalism and found that they were pretty good at it. Not only were they good at it they were unencumbered by a mature democracy or legislation to protect workers.
Global leadership, industry and power is now shifting from the democratic Western nations to nations who are either dictatorships or corrupt token democracies. As a quick preamble to my next bit of ranting I should explain, for the uninitiated, that the a common measure of a countries wealth is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a measure of the total value of goods and services produced by a country. Because countries vary in populations another common measure is to divide GDP by the population and derive a figure known as GDP per capita. This gives a measure of how much each person, on average, produces.
Time for some figures.
UK GDP is sixth in the world, just above Brazil at 8 and India at 11 and below China at 3.
National debt is at 68% of GDP, higher than Ghana at 67.5% or Uganda at 19.3%
The UK’s budget deficit (how much more we spend than we earn) is at 14.2% of GDP, above Sierra Leone at 12.35% and Vietnam at 9.3%
And yet
The UK’s defence budget is 2.5% of GDP, that’s more than above China at 2% and Germany at 1.3%.
The UK’s Education spending is the same as South Africa and Mexico at 5.3% of GDP. That’s above Bhutan at 5.2% but below Fiji at 5.6% and Bolivia at 6.3% and Yemen at 9.5%!
It’s also worth considering that other countries do not have debt, they have surplus! They have saved money and built up substantial wealth in Sovereign Wealth Funds. For example:
United Arab Emirates 627 $Billion
Norway 443 $Billion
China 288.8 $Billion
The UK still has some cards up it sleeve. In 2008 we were the sixth biggest manufacturer after Italy but Russia was at 7 and Brazil at 8.
In recent history the UK has relied on North Sea oil to top up our income. I cannot find any figures on what percentage of our GDP is made up from Oil and Gas but I recall reading that the tax take on Oil and Gas was the largest contributor to the British exchequer followed by Finance. I believe that was before the financial crisis.
All this is not to say that the United Kingdom is doomed, just that the world is changing and we can’t rely on the UK remaining wealthy by default. British policies today dictate the future of this country and if we continue to run up a debt our nation will decline. It not rocket science. There are younger and fitter countries in the world.
Just today I heard a British politician talking about maintaining British leadership. Our political elite have not yet caught up with the 21st century. Why should Brazil, Taiwan or China be interested in being lead by a mid size debtor nation on the other side of the world?
No nation or empire lasts for ever. Nations and Empires rise and fall. The British Empire has fallen and one day the UK will fall and I suggest that, if we are not careful, people will look back and see that the obvious start was the 21st century due to complacency, vested interests and the inability of a people to make tough decisions..
We are no longer one of the few great industrialised powers in a world populated by uneducated and illiterate farmers. The UK is now just one of many educated and industrialised countries. It is true that we have a more mature system of law and democracy but undemocratic and corrupt governments around the world see this as an encumbrance and not as something to emulate.
We are in massive debt, the oil money is running out. New Labour’s policies of spend and hope have failed. I support the current government’s prescription of large scale cuts but this should be supplemented by informed strategic planning.
We should also reconsider our commitment to allowing foreign entities to buy British assets and industry. Sovereign Wealth Funds referred to above often buy industry and assets from the developed world and this is acceptable if everyone plays by the same rules. However some of the largest of these funds are owned by nations who play by very few rules. Specifically we should be wary of allowing SWFs of single party dictatorships or corrupt regimes owning large stakes in the UK.
Globalisation is all very well while the foreign money is pouring in and funding industry and jobs but once these foreign owners have their feet under the table they often find that it is more efficient to centralise production and transfer the industry abroad. This would be fair enough were it possible for British companies to buy up industry in China, Germany or Japan in the same way but other countries are not as open as the UK.
Last Sunday night there was a TV program enthusing about one industry in the UK which remains cutting edge and world leading. This was British Aerospace and it’s production of Rolls Royce Trent aircraft engines in Derby.
The company was very impressive. What is less impressive are rumours that in order to gain access to the larger and more lucrative U.S. military business British Aerospace is trying to morph into a United States company. Once this is achieved how long will it be able to justify dispersing it’s business over two continents?
How many need to die to save the face of Wen Jinbao?
The British media is reporting that China has gone ahead with the execution of Kmal Shaikh, a 53 year old father-of-three from London who was convicted of drug smuggling in China. His family have claimed that he was mentally ill and requested a medical examination. The examination was refused by the Chinese and Mr. Shaikh was executed by lethal injection.
The British government had made representation to the Chinese but I suspect that there was some fall out from the recent Copenhagen summit where the authoritarian Chinese leadership “lost face”. The Chinese regime has a reputation for throwing tantrums whenever anyone tries to interfere in it’s “internal affairs” and this time was no exception. As far as the Chinese were concerned Mr. Shaikh had to die for China to save face.
So, the British government is now angry, but one has to ask why? Why did anyone believe that a regime that maintains it’s grip on power at the point of a gun would worry about killing one man? Why does the West kowtow to China?
The answer we are given, by our supposedly informed elite, is that we need to “engage” with China and this will bring reform. Engagement usually boils down to allowing western companies to employ Chinese workers in order to lower costs.
This engagement is taken as an article of faith but I wonder if anyone can site an example where it has worked. I know of no instance where an authoritarian regime has liberalised because outside influences have traded with it and thereby increased that regime’s power. In fact, if assisting a regime to grow richer and more powerful is a recipe for improved human rights, liberalisation and greater democracy then surely this tactic should be tried with Iran.
Our elite are of course TALKING BOLLOCKS! Supporting authoritarian regimes makes them stronger and entrenches their totalitarian instincts. The key to this is that our elites are not interested in greater democracy, they are interested in greater profits.
Our leaders frequently use the terms democracy and capitalism interchangeably but they are not the same. Since the second world war western countries have, in general, been both capitalist and democratic but prior to the war democracy was not so prevalent.
In the UK, prior to 1832 only male landowners could vote. This gradually changed until it included most males by 1918 but women did not get complete voting rights until 1928. So the UK’s claims to be an ancient democracy is complete poppy cock! The UK was, and remains, a capitalist country while democracy is a recent add-on brought about by two world wars and the rise of an alternative to capitalism in the Soviet Union.
During the Cold War, with the threat (and implied alternative), of the Soviet Union, western countries became more liberal. Pensions, health care and workers rights blossomed. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the inferred failure of socialism, these hard won gains are being eroded. In the UK, one hears constantly of companies closing pension schemes along with exhortations that we must “compete” with China. By “compete” our elite mean that we must accept lower standards in the work place and lower wages.
Our leaders claim that “engagement” with an authoritarian regime will raise their standard of democracy and human rights but the truth is that the Chinese regime has no interest or need to improve human rights and rather than their standards rising we are being forced to lower ours.
We are told that we must compete or we will lose out, but hold on, the implication of this is that if China did not exist we would suffer some terrible fate as we would not be able to take advantage of their cheap labour. This is bollocks! The west went from strength to strength when the Soviet Union and China were both outside the World Trade Organisation. We may choose to trade with China but we do not “need” China.
It is true that the west has benefitted from all sorts of cheap goods from China. One only has to go onto ebay to wonder that it’s possible to buy a USB flash memory radio transmitter for £ 4.61 (yes , I did this!!). This is amazing value but do I need it? No. Would I sacrifice democracy, human rights and our children’s future for the ability to treat all goods as throw away items? NO! Do I want a world where goods are cheap but freedom is limited to an elite? NO!
The truth is that elites are always greedy – socialist or capitalist. Our leaders want engagement to increase profits but at the cost of democracy, civil rights and human rights. The protection from powerful elites is democracy. China is not a democracy and has shown no interest in democratizing.
We should be extremely cautious about becoming reliant on China for any key product or service. We should also be more robust when dealing with the Chinese. As a start there should be major repercussions from the Chinese leaders reckless behaviour at Copenhagen and execution of Kmal Shaikh.
Which do we value more, democracy and human rights or a Chinese USB stick?
There is an interesting article in todays’s Independent blaming China for the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit. The article quotes a source who was supposedly in the room when the heads of state were drafting the document who says:
“If China had not been in that room you would have had a deal which would have had everyone popping champagne corks…..”
“The Chinese were happy as they’d win either way. If the process collapsed they’d win because they don’t have to do anything and they know the rich countries will get the blame.
“If the deal doesn’t collapse because everyone is so desperate to accommodate them that they water it down to something completely meaningless, they get their way again. Either way they win. I think all the other world leaders knew that by that stage and were just furious that they couldn’t do anything about it.”
Why am I not surprised?
Protestors? - pah!
China was admitted to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2001 after the United States dropped it’s veto. Since that time trade with China has grown very quickly and the Chinese economy has grown massively. The generally accepted view is that China is now OK as it has accepted capitalism. This is wrong. The regime in power in China today is not substantially different from the regime which drove tanks over unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square just two years before being admitted to the WTO.
The West too often confuses democracy with capitalism, they are not the same. It is possible to have a democratic government that is socialist. It is certainly possible to have a capitalist government which is non-democratic and China is the proof of this.
Both China and the West have gained from the flow of trade but we should consider that, having now allowed so much industry to move to China, we have become reliant on an authoritarian regime which cares for nothing but perpetuating it’s own existence. We should also keep this in mind when businessmen and political leaders talk of the necessity of allowing the free flow of trade to countries where there is “competitive advantage”. This competitive advantage is, very often, the absence of political rights, civil rights and the rule of law.
China may have legitimate reasons for not being able to commit to the climate change targets discussed in Copenhagen but it’s impossible to tell. The Chinese regime is not elected and therefore illegitimate and cannot be said to represent the views of the Chinese people. When one deals with regimes such as China one must accept that their word is worth nothing.
During the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union to limit Nuclear Forces Ronald Regan frequently used the phrase “Trust, but verify”. United States president, Barack Obama, seemed to understand this when, during a speech at Copenhagen he appeared to upset the Chinese by implying that verification was key to any agreement. The fact that this was mentioned caused the Chinese representatives to throw a hissy fit and refuse to attend various meetings.
Send in the tanks!
And that’s another thing, China too often uses tantrums as a negotiating tactic. We are told by Chinese watchers that this anger is related to the difference in culture. Perhaps it is. Perhaps the Chinese fly off the handle so often because they are not used to having to justify themselves.
I wonder how the Chinese regime would have responded to the demonstrators in Copenhagen? Rather than explaining their position perhaps they would simply have sent in the tanks.
The following extraordinary letter appeared in The Economist this week:
“SIR – You seem to support various accusations made by exiled Tibetans (“Torch song trilogy”, April 12th). You could also explore opinions that are more in line with the majority of the Chinese people. Tibet has been a protectorate of China (and later under formal Chinese jurisdiction) since the Qing Dynasty 300 years ago. It will always remain a formal part of China. The Chinese people should migrate to Tibet in massive numbers. Then maybe 20 years from now we can hold a formal free referendum in Tibet to decide its fate and satisfy the international standard for democracy.
Lawrence Ren
Guangzhou, China”
Guangzhou
Let us deconstruct his letter:
“You seem to support various accusations made by exiled Tibetans (“Torch song trilogy”, April 12th).”
OK, an accusation, fair enough.
“You could also explore opinions that are more in line with the majority of the Chinese people.”
The majority opinion of The Chinese are irrelevant for two reasons:
Firstly, nobody likes their neighbours dictating what they do. The opinions of myself or Mr. Ren have no bearing on how the people of Tibetan run their affairs.
Secondly, as a true patriot Mr. Ren must be a “communist” and should therefore know that supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Since the Chinese communist party have no mandate they are an illegitimate government and maintain their hold on power in China and Tibet by force. To assit in maintaining their grip on power the Chinese Communist party controls the flow of information to all it’s citizens. The Chinese people therefore have no way of knowing the true state of affairs.
This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Mr. Ren’s letter offers no original opinion and merely parrots the propaganda force fed to all Chinese citizens.
“Tibet has been a protectorate of China (and later under formal Chinese jurisdiction) since the Qing Dynasty 300 years ago.”
Possibly, I’m no expert but I don’t see China doing much “protecting” of Tibet. Is Mr. Ren suggesting that if land was once held by one power it should always be? Would he support the return of Hong Kong to The British Empire.
“It will always remain a formal part of China.”
This is purely an opinion. A similar opinion might be: “The Chinese people will always be ruled by a corrupt and repressive elite” or “Mr. Ren will never be able to think for himself”. Let’s hope that none of these opinions are true.
“The Chinese people should migrate to Tibet in massive numbers. Then maybe 20 years from now we can hold a formal free referendum in Tibet to decide its fate and satisfy the international standard for democracy”
It is this last statement that is so telling as it shows either a complete ignorance of freedom and democracy or a ruthless and selfish wish to impose the ways of one community upon another.
I believe that Mr. Ren’s letter shows him to be ……….
What I find idiotic about the Chinese is that they trot out bare faced lies and seem surprised that nobody believes them.For example a story in the Daily Telegraph reported that when the Chinese allowed Western journalists into Tibet again recently some monks protested to the press.
The monks shouted “Tibet is not free! Tibet is not free!” and another said that he wanted The Dalai Lama to return to Tibet”
The response from the Chinese was “They always tell lies to foreign reporters” and the official went on to say: “I would like to stress that, including the monks, the people of various ethnic groups in Tibet are resolutely safeguarding the national unity and oppose separatist activities.”
This truly is TALKING BOLLOCKS!
The Tibetans claim they want to be free of China and the Chinese claim that everyone on Tibet wants to be part of China. Who are we to believe, the people themselves or some pen pushing bureaucrat who is part of the oppressive establishment which the Tibetans are complaining about?
The Chinese seem flabbergasted that anyone would not believe their bullshit. I guess what this shows is the oppressive totalitarianism of the Chinese regime.If they really believed that the people in Tibet “oppose separatist activities” then why not have an election. That way they could legitimise their rule and silence their critics.
Photography
