May 20, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for China

“You can catch more flies with honey”

July 14, 2001 By Leave a Comment

“You Can Catch More Flies with Honey”
By Mel Copen July 14, 2001
© Mel Copen, July, 2001

As a child, whenever I used to get angry or demanding in my grandmother’s presence, she would invariably comment “You can catch more flies with honey.” Initially, I’m not sure I understood why one would want to catch flies in the first place. But over the years, that aphorism has become more meaningful, has kept me out of trouble and has actually resulted in my bagging a lot more “flies” than I might otherwise have been able to do.

Last week, after much controversy, the International Olympic Committee announced that the 2008 Summer Olympics would be held in Beijing. Human rights activists are outraged and Tibetan refugees are calling for a boycott. As an effective countervailing force, foreign commercial interests see the Olympics as a wonderful vehicle to expand their interests in China.

The modern Olympics have come a long way from the pure, austere, simple, amateur sports meet that was envisioned when the first one was held in Athens in 1896. The games are no longer amateur, with any pretense of them having been so removed officially in 1986. They are far from austere, with billions of dollars being spent on host facilities and infrastructure and corporations commercializing every aspect that is “commercializable” and some that shouldn’t be. They are no longer simple, with lavish opening and closing ceremonies being transmitted by television around the entire world and ticket prices that require mortgaging one’s home and children. They are not “pure,” with the financial impact to communities that host them and to the business that sponsor them being so great that bribery and corruption have entered the selection process. More and more subjective events have been introduced, with judges often influenced by national interests. And they have become more than a sports meet, serving as a major forum for nations and individuals to make political statements. The table below covers some of the key events that have occurred in the politicizing and commercialism of the Olympics. As is apparent, politics has been a part of the Olympics almost since their inception, although commercialism is a much more recent addition.

There are those who contend that China should have been “punished” for its human rights violations – by denying its dream to host the Olympics. Clearly, the nation has a long way to go to meet ideal standards. We do too, although in relative terms we may be light years ahead of where China is today. But despite our own shortcomings, I believe we have a responsibility to exert our influence to help other countries improve their record. But here I come back to my Grandmother’s advice. What is the best way to do it?

Threats by one nation to another rarely bring about the change desired. More often they harden public opinion on both sides, sometimes deterring people from doing what they would have otherwise done and know to be right.

Positive incentives are usually more effective than that negative. Withholding the Olympics from China would have only created greater animosity and driven a larger wedge between China and the other nations of the world at a time when the need to build good relationships with this growing giant become more important to all of us with each passing year. One fifth of the world’s population resides in China, and although it is still a poor country, on a per capita basis, it is going through an enormous change process. And it is that change process that we must examine to give us perspective.

Our nation has had hundreds of years to experiment with democracy and wrestle with human rights issues. [ital.] It takes centuries of effort to reach the stage we have achieved, and yet we still have a way to go. [end ital.] Maturation is usually a long, slow and sometimes frustrating process. The Soviet Union provides an interesting example. Although the political scene may have changed overnight, the accompanying behavior did not – could not. Maturity takes time. And so today we see Russia riddled with crime and, in many respects, worse off than it was. But that will correct itself – with time.

Unlike Russia, China is still under the rule of a strong communist regime, despite the fact that many aspects of the philosophy do not work. But the Chinese (and the government) are very pragmatic and change is occurring, but perhaps not as quickly as some might like to see. Not too many decades ago, to install communism, millions were slaughtered. When I first visited China in the 70′s, the Cultural Revolution held sway. From that perspective, China has come a long way in a few decades, particular given the fact that traditions which did not place high priority on individual human rights go back thousands (not hundreds) of years. The issue is how to accelerate the change process.

I don’t think the answer lies in threats, or the withholding of the Olympics. To the contrary, having the Olympics will increase the contact between China and the rest of the world – both through the events and through related commercial activity. This is likely to have substantial positive impact on increasing the pace of change. But the high visibility that China will now have through 2008, may do even more, as it takes steps to create and project an image that will gain the respect among nations that she so desperately seeks.

It is possible that China will divert resources from other human needs to make the spectacle of the Olympics as “spectacular” as it can. China faces massive challenges relating to its population growth, poverty, income disparities and the construction of a nation-wide infrastructure. Traditionally, it has taken a long-term view of progress, and it has always been willing to trade off individual rights for what it has seen as the “long term good.” But it takes time to make the transitions required. I believe that the award of the Olympics will hasten, not retard that process, transforming the way the government and the people see both the rest if the world and their relationship to each other. What is needed now is patience and understanding on the part of other nations. Building bridges with China is important to our future and theirs and the Olympics should provide a magnificent vehicle to assist in that process.

OLYMPIC HISTORY – Significant Political & Commercial Events
YEAR Political Event Commercial & Related Events
1896 – Athens, Greece Start of Modern Olympics
1908 – London, England Ireland boycotts due to Britain’s refusal to grant Irish Independence First opening ceremony
1920 – Antwerp, Belgium Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Turkey & Hungary, although not banned, are not invited (and again in 1924). USSR decides not to attend and does not return until 1952.
1924 – Paris, France See above Winter sports are added and held separately a few month earlier
1928 – Amsterdam, the Netherlands Introduction of the Olympic Flame
1936 -Berlin, Germany The site was designated in 1931, before Hitler’s rise to power. Was used to promote Nazi ideology. US almost boycotts but decides to attend. First use of Television
1940 – Tokyo, Japan A major boycott is planned. As a result of this and war preparations, Tokyo cancels.
1948 – London, England Germany and Japan excluded
1952 – Helsinki, Finland USSR rejoins after being gone since 1912 – sets up its own, isolated, athletes village
1956 – Melbourne, Australia Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland boycott because of USSR’s invasion of Hungary Egypt, Iraq & Lebanon boycott due to Israel’s invasion of Egypt Closing ceremonies are introduced
1960 – Squaw Valley, USA (Winter) A committee headed by Walt Disney organizes the first lavish opening ceremonies
1964 – Tokyo, Japan South Africa banned because of its policy of apartheid
1972 – Munich 11 Israeli athletes murdered
1976 – Montreal, Canada 26 African countries boycott because New Zealand was not banned after its rugby team toured South Africa.
Taiwan excluded due to Canada’s refusal to recognize it as the Republic of China
1980 – Moscow US + 61 others boycott due to the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan
1984 – Los Angeles, USA USSR, East Germany, Cuba + 14 others boycott in retaliation for 1980 Corporate sponsors invited – 43 companies licensed to sell Olympic products
1988 – Seoul, Korea N. Korea + 2 other boycott because N. Korea is not designated as a co-host The rule requiring amateur status is dropped (in 1986)
1992 – Barcelona, Spain S Africa is re-invited, after the nation bans apartheid
1994 – Lillehammer, Norway Timing of winter Olympics changed to a cycle alternating every 2 years with the summer games
1996 – Atlanta Severe criticism for the degree of commercialism

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,

The China situation – the art of nurturing diplomatic catastrophes

April 7, 2001 By Leave a Comment

The China Situation – the Art of Nurturing Diplomatic Catastrophes
By Mel Copen April 7, 2001
© Mel Copen, April, 2001

We won’t apologize! They won’t release our people and airplane until we do! A situation where one party yells “you will” and the other counters, a bit louder with “no I won’t” reflects positively on neither and seems more appropriate for a kindergarten altercation than a dispute between the leadership of two world powers.

The positive aspects – the dispute is currently being fought with words, no one has yet threatened retaliatory action and the crew of the airplane seems to be well cared for. The negative – a life has been lost, an important relationship between two countries (more importantly, two peoples) is being torn apart and two very different cultures seem to be engaged in a zero-sum game where each interprets the rules somewhat differently.

It has not surprised me, but I still have been appalled by statements of some of our “statespeople” indicating that, under no circumstances should we apologize. Like the Chinese hard-liners (particularly those in the military), they have generated sufficient political and public pressure to become a major consideration in the way the President and his aides are dealing with the situation. The facts are still not clear, at least to the general public, but what if we are wrong? Under those circumstances, would an apology not be appropriate? A refusal, no matter what, is, to me, essentially a sad repudiation of an old American value that says you take responsibility for your acts.

The right of the spy-plane to snoop on the Chinese is not in denial. As long as we have tension and mistrust in the world, dangerous spy games will be a part of the international scene. From the few facts that have been released, it would appear that the Chinese pilot was flying very close and under our plane when the pilot of the Aries II made a sharp turn, bringing his wing down and into contact. The key question is: where were the planes when the collision took place? If they were in international airspace, clearly the Chinese pilot and those giving him his orders must bear a large part of the blame for the accident, even if it was our plane that hit theirs. However, they were over Chinese territory, a substantial burden shifts to us.

What are the facts? At one time, maintaining secrecy around international incidents may have been appropriate, but that policy is becoming archaic. Mass media disseminate stories often even before official channels are aware of them. When the media doesn’t have all the information, it “fills in the gaps.” And today the Internet offers an incredible tool for anyone to instantaneously spread messages around the globe, good or bad, true or untrue. The withholding of information by government officials creates distrust and can be highly counterproductive. I, for one, cannot believe that more information is not available – radio transmissions from the Aries Surveillance plane, data collected from eavesdropping on the Chinese pilots and general monitoring of internal Chinese communications and perhaps even satellite photos of what took place.

We need to break with the tradition of withholding information. The official explanation is often that secrecy is required so that your adversary does not receive information on either the data you have or how you collected it. More likely it comes down to a question of using information to maintain power, based either on a failure to trust the judgement of the people being led or a concern that disclosure will give them enough information to truly judge the decisions of their leaders.

During the cold war, exercises were run for our top military staff where they first devised purely defensive strategies to counter possible Soviet threats and then analyzed them from the Soviet point of view. Somehow the strategies never looked quite as “defensive” from the latter perspective. What about this incident? What if a Chinese spy plane was spotted off the coast of California – outside or inside of our territorial area? What if a collision had occurred and, loaded with all its spying equipment, the Chinese aircraft landed at a secure military airfield in Nevada? How would our perspective change?

If, before taking action, we had all the facts and could view them through the other person’s eyes, finding mutually acceptable solutions to problems might come a lot easier. But that’s not the way the world works. The data is not always clear, it is very difficult to put oneself in another’s shoes (particularly if two very different cultures are involved) and often there are political and economic forces actively working against speedy resolution.

We cannot mandate the behavior of the Chinese. But, clearly more could be done by our leaders in being open and showing a willingness to consider all alternatives, including, if the facts so warrant, an open apology. An apology does not imply intent. Apologies are also appropriate when accidents occur, particularly if either party has contributed to the occurance or to its severity.

Apologies in the Chinese culture mean something different, perhaps more important, than they do to us. Here, an apology is a way of saying I am sorry for something I did. It is a way of taking responsibility for ones own actions and attempting to put things right again and on an equal footing – at least it used to be. In China, apologies are acts of contrition, where the person or group making the apology shows humility before another. The importance of this process is evident from the emphasis that was placed on apologies during the Mao period as part of the process to “rehabilitate” those who had strayed from Maoist philosophies. Concepts of preserving or saving face carry a stronger significance in China than here. China is almost desperately trying to shake off the image of foreign domination which influenced it for more than a century prior to the end of World War II. Consequently, if the Chinese people perceive that we are wrong, it is logical that they feel the lack of an apology to demonstrate arrogance in the old tradition of foreign domination. The solution is either to show, with the facts, that the situation is different from their perception, or if the facts show otherwise, to apologize.

Until now the real problem has not been between the China and the US or the Chinese and the Americans. “China” does not make decisions, any more than does the “US.” Decisions are made by a small number of people in leadership positions who interact on behalf of their nations. People within these groups don’t always see eye to eye, compounding the problem. For example, one can easily conceive of a scenario where the base commander on Hainan Island made a decision long before the politicians in Beijing got involved, putting them in an awkward position vis a vis their own military. The rhetoric of leaders on both sides, combined with dramatizations of the incident by a less-than-informed media, provides sparks to create people-to-people problems quickly.

The formula for resolving the deadlock should be simple. First, if they are not already known, the facts need to be ascertained – ideally through a joint US/China effort. If our plane was in Chinese territory, an apology is appropriate. If it was not, then perhaps a joint expression of sorrow and regret could serve as a start to rebuilding relationships and perhaps there will be some meaning to the death of the Chinese pilot. The longer-range issue is the need for greater openness between government officials and the public. What the Chinese do is their business, but certainly this is an area where our own leadership can start on a new course. That would be a wonderful way for President Bush to put a new stamp not only on US Chinese relationships, but to start mending deteriorating relationships between the people and the government right here at home.

——

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: , ,

The free trade controversy

May 17, 2000 By Leave a Comment

The Free Trade Controversy
By Mel Copen May 17, 2000
© Mel Copen, May, 2000

Controversy over “free trade” constantly seems to cycle through our consciousness – often disappearing from view only to reappear like a comet streaking through the sky, flaring brightly for a moment and then dropping back into obscurity. The debates over China’s trade status and the recent demonstrations relating to the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund seem, once again, to have ignited interest in the subject.

At one level, the issue is clear. Opponents to free trade are concerned about exporting jobs. In the short run, they are right. Free trade regions like NAFTA provide greater mobility for capital, people and goods. Without having to worry about barriers at the borders, manufacturers are free to move where labor is cheap, and clearly there is a tendency for some types of products to follow this course. In the past, it was low-technology, high-labor content products – textiles being a notable example. As educational levels have improved, there has been a shift up the technological spectrum, and today the list is more likely to include sophisticated goods, such as electronic equipment. Jobs do move, and whole industries become obsolete as production shifts from one nation to another. That is a fact! But is this bad, even for those who lose their jobs as a result?

In the short run, it is obviously not good. However, a longer perspective yields quite different results. The US is one of the most open economies in the world. And by a large margin it is the largest and strongest. We have exported hundreds of thousands of jobs, and yet unemployment is at such a low rate that, if it were not for substantial immigration, both legal and otherwise, the economy would not be able to fill all the positions it needs to sustain its momentum. Why? There is a linkage here.

We have exported manufacturing jobs. But these have been more than replaced as we have moved into a service economy, which today employs more than 80% of us. To a great extent, the country is being driven by its intellectual capabilities. New products and services are being created all the time and fueling not only our own, but much of the world’s economy. And information technology will accelerate that process.

US society contains a mechanism that helps us achieve these results – one that is often overlooked and assumed to be just part of life (not so in other parts of the world). It’s “job mobility.” Most things in nature need to renew themselves. Lightening burns down an old forest to provide room and sunlight for new, more vigorous growth. Biologically, we constantly renew parts of our body for the same purposes. Similarly, on an economic basis, it is important to have continuous renewal, replacing old and less-efficient industries with new, vibrant ones. This creates new jobs and better living conditions. Cars replace horses, jets replace piston-engines and more effective medicines are discovered as new technology and new ideas constantly replace the products and thoughts of the past. The issue should be not how to hold onto the past, but how to facilitate the process.

Sometimes, what is distressful to an individual is vital for the wellbeing of the entire system. The economic renewal process, when it eliminates a job, creates that kind of distress for the individual. However, Japan provides a good illustration of what can happen without that process. With her rigid employment situation and, until recently, her inability to support entrepreneurs, the economy has gone into stagnation. She is fighting to break out of this pattern. In the US, by contrast, as jobs phase out, for whatever reason, new ones are created and there is a constant flow. The new positions may require different skills and be in different locations – but we are a society where re-education is accepted and mobility is high. But we need to do more.

Chile provides an excellent example of an economic change that was stimulated by free trade. Prior to the 1980’s it was another struggling South American country, with all the economic ills common to less developed nations. Then the government decided to open the borders and allow a freer flow of trade. The initial effect was chaotic. Companies that had been able to produce poor quality goods at high cost, protected by trade barriers, found they now had to compete against world standards. Some had to close, creating substantial unemployment. But others responded to the challenge of competition, and learned how to compete effectively. The net result was a resurgent and vibrant economy that provided more jobs, at a more challenging level than ever before, and provided a much higher living standard for all. The transition period was painful. But once it was over, the “patient” was much better for it.

The China controversy introduces an additional factor, aside from the job argument. Many in the US are concerned over China’s positions on human rights and on Taiwan. Both issues generate substantial emotion around the world. Some people feel that China should “earn” the right to trade concessions by modifying its positions – i.e. use the trade issue to coerce the behavior that we might like to see. They tend to forget what China was like before US-China relationships became normalized, starting in 70’s. The change that has taken place, largely due to joint economic activity with the west, has been phenomenal. In what was once the most staunch of communist nations, the private sector now controls more than half the economy. Putting Hong Kong aside, since it is now an integral part of China, IMF data shows the US as China’s primary trading partner, and the largest single investor. [In 1997, we exported almost $13 billion, imported more than $62 billion and contracted to invest almost $5 billion.] Given the enormous size of the country, the impact on the overall infrastructure and standard of living is still small, but the psychological impact has been incalculable. This is probably the most important point. [Ital.] Time and again it has been demonstrated that involvement is the best way to influence results. As people in controlled economies have been exposed to free enterprise concepts, despite the best efforts of their governments to the contrary, they embrace the concepts and we move towards convergence.[end Ital.] Much of the positive change that has taken place in China over the intervening years has been a result of this contact. The change that has occurred may not yet be far enough to satisfy everyone, but the trend is in the right direction. Isolation will only stop that progress. A good friend who has spent many years in China as a top level US diplomat characterizes both China’s progress and the US-China relationship as a roller-coaster, with many ups and downs, but a clear trend that constantly proceeds upward. And recently, a leading Chinese academic explained that “Political disturbances in China tend to result in the deterioration of relationships with foreign countries. Reform, on the other hand, translates into improvement of China’s foreign relations.” There is a chicken-and-egg-pattern here. As the internal situation improves, China becomes much more receptive and cooperative externally. And conversely, as external contact increases, in the long run, China’s internal situation improves.

The political and economic benefits of a sustained position on free trade can be seen clearly if we take a long-range view. Some patience is required. However, and possibly most critically, [Ital.] instead of fighting to maintain the status quo, we need to spend more energy (and resources) on facilitating the processes and helping displaced workers move into new positions – by increasing emphasis and support to training and relocation (of both people and companies). [end Ital.] Then, hopefully, we can put this controversy to bed once and for all and obtain more universal support to something that makes sense to everyone.
—————–

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: , ,

Political change lags economic progress

February 12, 2000 By Leave a Comment

Political Change Lags Economic Progress
By Mel Copen from Bangkok, Thailand February 12, 2000

The winds of economic change still blow strongly across much of Asia. They are no longer the gale forces of a few years ago, and directions have shifted, but there is a resurgence of dynamic activity throughout much of the region.

Lessons have been learned about overly optimistic investment and the need for more flexible management styles. The errors of the past will take years to undo. Cities like Shanghai and Bangkok, for example, which saw enormous amounts of new commercial development now have vacancy rates in the 60-70% range. Even with strong growth, it will take years to absorb the excess capacity and restore the construction industry to health. But it will happen! To compete in global markets, companies have learned that they must develop management styles more akin to those of the west than to more traditional, inward-looking approaches that were successful in the past in local environments. E-commerce is starting to have an explosive impact. Businesses and employees are seeking new ways of dealing with change in the surrounding economic world.

But one sector seems to lag behind all the others. It is only a slight exaggeration to say: “it’s politics as usual.” Although there may be recognition at the top political levels that change is necessary – even inevitable – inertia continues to maintain many features of the political landscape that have proven to be archaic. This can be seen most readily in the unwillingness of many of the governments in the region to take the necessary steps to reform key elements of the infrastructure that are necessary to assure stable and healthy recoveries. Tough measures that cause temporary hardship, even when essential, do not give rise to immediate popularity. It is like the doctor who does not want to give the patient the medicine that will cure the disease because the patient will react so negatively to its bad taste. So, for instance, bank reform lags badly in countries like Japan (which is still in recession) and even in Korea which is starting to show signs of a strong resurgence – and banks continue to carry enormous amount of non-performing loans on their books at inflated values.

Throughout the region, you can see changes being introduced by the business community, despite the unwillingness of many of the political regimes to face the fundamental underlying issues. They are moving ahead despite the political inertia and reform is being driven by economic necessity and from economic organizations rather than as a result of political leadership.

Political posturing among nations provides a more subtle and perhaps more significant illustration of the inertia in the political system. The economic forces are transforming the behavior and thought processes of businesses and people towards convergence, cooperation and understanding. But the bastions of politics seem tied to the past.

Last week, I picked up a copy of the leading English-language newspaper in Seoul, Korea. Half the articles on the first two pages focused on North Korea. One dealt with North Korea’s prominence on a list of countries that the U.S. considers major threats to world peace – although somewhat encouraging discussions are currently taking place. Another, by contrast, quoted South Korea’s First Lady urging US lawmakers to think in terms of peace and reconciliation and extending love and forgiveness to the North. However, North Korea’s continuous verbal threats against the South, the U.S. and nearby countries, coupled with its nuclear delivery capabilities and, at times, seemingly political irrational behavior, maintain an unstable situation. Despite wishes to the contrary, South Korea is forced to maintain a substantial military organization, bolstered by the US, in an attempt to counter threats from one of the largest standing armies in the world. Frequent incidents keep tension high.

Many South Koreans have relatives in the North. Many came from the North, leaving family and friends behind. There is little animosity, despite recent developments, and a strong desire for reunification. A few who have had contact with relatives in the North feel that similar sentiments exist among the North Korean population. But, for whatever political purposes, North Korea has isolated itself from the rest of the world. Many residents in the South have been unable to contact relatives in the North for many years and do not even know if aunts, uncles and grandparents are still alive. Needless to say, this makes it hard to build on people-to-people relationships.

There is an interesting economic consideration in the matter of reunification. Most of the South Koreans with whom I talked strongly desired reunification – but not now. Not until the food situation is solved. North Korea is a starving nation. (Despite the coldness in relationships, the US provides between 500,000 and 600,000 tons of foodstuffs to the North.) The South worries that the process of reunification, if the gap between the North and the South is not narrowed, will wreck havoc on the South Korean economy and living standard. Estimates of the cost of reunification, all of which would have to be borne by South Korea (aided, hopefully, by other concerned nations) are as much as ten times that for German reunification. Yet North Korea does not lack the critical necessities to feed itself. The problem seems to be political – i.e. the way agriculture and the country are managed. What motivates the current “government” to continue on a path that has proven to be so disastrous is beyond comprehension!

There is an interesting parallel in China. Here we have another staunchly communist government. China still has many problems to address, but unlike North Korea, since the 1980’s, China has been a much more open society. As a result, economic activity has become an incredible driving force for progress across the board. The private sector is now the largest sector of the economy. Relationships on the business and personal levels with people from all parts of the world are positive and continuously growing. Despite current economic setbacks, the skyline of Shanghai, for example, is dominated by magnificently designed high-rise buildings, many financed from abroad (including Taiwan – in fact, there is an enormous amount of investment by and trade with Taiwan). Clearly, economic driving forces have brought convergence between China and the rest of the world on a business-to-business and a people-to-people basis. But the statements of politicians on both sides of the Pacific give rise to fears of an impending war over Taiwan that could engulf the world.

My theme is simple. Politics and politicians are here to stay. But we need to build better understanding and a way for people to communicate more directly with each other. The solution probably lies with television and the Internet. Economic forces are bringing us closer together, even through competition, if only we let those economic forces work. A few weeks ago I listened to Senator Jessie Helms addressing the United Nations. And even though I agree with some (not all) of the positions he takes, I couldn’t help marveling at the arrogance of the threats he made against the organization “on behalf of the American People.” I’m not sure who created such an exalted spokesperson position.

Leadership is critical. We have to invest that leadership in a small number of individuals. The questions, however, are: a) “how do we assure that selected leaders truly consider the desires of those who endow them with leadership? and; b) how do we assure that the economic considerations which drive the world are not subordinated to the political whims and rhetoric of a few? Opening the channels of communication may be the best answer.

—————–

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: , , ,