2006-05-31

Historical perspective on peaceful development - "Losing out on epic, peace and development, big time"


Right click for background music
---
I picked up an issue of Ming Pao Monthly on a Cathay Pacific flight a few weeks ago.
  • Skip this bullet if you do not want to read my ranting. MPM is not something I usually read, as I consider it a bit triteful. It is usually full of old-style "cultural" essays, it feels like going back to the Ming Dynasty - a coincidence to how the magazine is named. In addition, it features a column by Cathay Pacific CEO Philip Chen, dedicated to promoting the monopoly of his company. Not that I do not like Cathay, I think it provides the top notch service and would like Cathay to take overall all airlines in the world. But I am also extreme wary of monopoly, and in particular, why one would use a column in a 'serious' magazine for propaganda.
The feature topic of this month (May) is about China's peaceful development. As an example of the unfortunate outdatedness of the editor, it still sticks to the long abandoned phrase of "peaceful rise" and a lot of the comments and essays inside mostly directed criticism to this something that China's leader has trashed and replaced with 'development' more than a year ago.

Despite that, there is a good one, featuring an interview with He Fang, an aide to party secertary prior to Mao, Zhang Wentian, in the old time; and a diplomat in the 1950s. He provided some great insights to the doctrine of "peaceful development". The title is a bit long, "Losing out on epic, peace and development, big time - a dialogue with He Fang on time and world affairs by reporter Zhao Cheng" 在時代、和平與發展上吃大虧 ──與何方關於時代和世界事務問題的對話 (趙誠). The article is reproduced in this site (and below). I would try to recap the key points here. It retrospects the evolution of the academic concept of "peaceful development" in his historical perspective.
  • It is difficult to translate the word "epic" (時代) that He and Zhao refers to. It literally it means time, epic or era, with the connotation of the background, atmosphere and trend during the particular era. This is how they started, the international environment from 1950-2000.
  • Apparently, the concept of peaceful development is initially for internal digestion, rather than for PR purpose. Chinese ideologues (and to a certain extent some strategists) were still debating on whether a major war is inevitable throughout the period. This is how the concept of peaceful development come in, it argue for the case that the world is no longer at war and we need to focus on development, and to trust and help building a peaceful environment. It sounds a bit pervert that people in Beijing still thinks there would be war with the "imperialists". But if you understand the background of why the world's most capitalistic economy was called "socialism with Chinese chacteristics" you would probably understand why the Chinese leader needed to go throught that debate in 1990s.
  • Historically, CCP always believed that there would be inevitable clash (and hence war) with Western imperialists. (imperialists = capitalists = OECD for these ideologues). This is a corollary of Marxist/Leninist theory (He mentioned the debate between Lenin and Karl Kautsky, where Kautsky argued there could be a case that Communists and Imperialists can co-exisst together without going to war), and held on by USSR in Stalin's era. When Krushev came to power he started to question this and began to prepare for detente. Disagreement on such belief is among the many reasons that led to the Sino-Soviet split.
  • Even in early 1980s, many in Beijing still believed that clash with imperialism (US and USSR) is inevitable. The best they can do is to defer it for 10-20 years. Such belief is still taken by a minority of scholars in China even of today.
  • When the world has been busily engaged in development, capturing the post-WWII period of peace. China was busy preparing itself for war, isolating itself (and, warring within itself). As a result of this misjudgment, PR China lost out big time for its first 30 years.
  • Deng was the first to question the inevitability school of thought. He fundamentally changed the view on war and peace, and based on this, argued we do not necessarily have to play US against USSR. (i.e. we could be at peace with both of them at the same time, and perhaps till the distant future as well). In addition, he proposed that the new game in the world is "peace" and "development".
  • In the interview He Fang discussed about: Westernization, humanism, colonialism and why decolonization is a natural result of the economic evolution in imperialism, evolution of how the world view war vs peace after WWII. He examined, from CCP's perspective, why it should (and had) believed that we now live in a world environment of peace and development (in order words, Barnett's Core)
  • Regarding history and Japan. HF's view is that we should look forward and be rational. We can remember history while seeking for friendship at the same time. He quoted his personaly experiences in his visits in Japan in the 1980s to show that Japanese people has mostly been friendly to China
It sounds quite trivial to many of us, that competition in modern world is about development and war is a lose-lose situation. However, it is another level of thinking for the paranoids, especially if they have been under threat for most of their lives, and a few generations before they were born. With this perspective in mind, perhaps we can understand why Chinese leaders also need to convince its own bureacrats (and academics) that China is now in the Core. And the new rules is peace and new objective is development, for everybody in the core of the world.

---
About the embedded song:
- for the original Korean version here, download here)
- for introduction to the movie FLower Girl (1972) see here and here.
The Flower Girl, with its beautiful lyric, became extremely popular in China and was adapted into a Chinese version. That is also some historical persepctive.

---
赵诚 :何方先生访谈——关于时代和世界事务问题的对话

何方先生访谈——关于时代和世界事务问题的对话
      赵诚 
2005年10月29日
Click read more to continue

何方先生今年83岁,是1938年投奔延安参加中共队伍的老革命,曾长期在前中共总书记张闻天身边工作。建国后出任过中国驻苏使馆研究室主任,外交部办公厅副主任。1959年庐山会议后,被打成外交部张闻天反党集团主要成员,遭到批斗迫害。“文革”后恢复工作,曾先后任中国社科院日本研究所所长,国务院国际问题研究中心副总干事,当过两届全国政协委员,长期研究国际问题。1999年离休后,在继续关注国际问题的同时,重点转向中共党史研究,写了一部《党史笔记——从遵义会议到延安整风》,在理论和史实上都有重大突破,引起学界重视。2005年10月底笔者在北京顺义他的寓所,就时代问题和世界事务对何方先生进行了访谈。下面是这次访谈的内容。
赵:何老,您的新著《党史笔记——从遵义会议到延安整风》在香港出版,引起学界和思想界的重视。据我所知,一些“三八式”老干部,对您的这本书非常认同。祝贺您的这一成就。
我知道您是国际问题和日本问题专家,也是研究关于时代理论的重要学者。你关于和平与发展时代的论述,在国内有着广泛影响。今天我想就时代问题请您谈一谈。
何方:时代问题确实是一个大问题。不过咱们这里说的时代,是个政治术语,指的是对一个较长时期国际形势和世界事务发展变化的根本判断,只有依据这个判断才能决定总的方针政策。所以从前不光是咱们中国,可以说原来所有的社会主义国家和整个国际共运,都把时代问题看成政治理论的第一课。直到“文革”后,国家教委组织人马编写大学教科书,其中政治经济学编写大纲要求的第一章还是《我们所处的时代》。据参与主编的复旦大学洪文达教授当时告诉我,由于对时代问题旧的说法显然不行了,党中央又没提出新的说法,他们不敢随便做主,所以就避开没谈。但是,不谈并不等于问题不存在。实际上不但存在,还必须解决。不然的话,你根据什么决定一个长时期的政策或叫做战略呢?这就是为什么上世纪八十年代拨乱反正时期,时代问题一时变成热门话题,引起很大争论的原因。
赵:能不能请你谈一下当时的情况和争论的内容?
何:可以。不过说来话长,只能简单介绍一下。
二战后,虽然也有冷战和一些局部战争,但是就全局来说,是个和平的国际环境。许多国家,特别是西方大国的社会经济技术文化,以人类有史以来空前的速度在发展,国际化也进入了一个新阶段。但是咱们还坚持列宁《帝国主义论》和毛泽东《新民主主义论》的提法,认为仍然处在帝国主义和无产阶级革命的时代,也就是战争与革命时代,党的九大更进而定为“帝国主义走向全面崩溃,社会主义走向全世界胜利的时代”。根据这种判断确定的政策就自然不会以经济建设为重点,而只能对内以阶级斗争为纲,对外支援世界革命和准备打仗了。这就使咱们在世界大发展中失掉一个重要机会,落后甚至倒退了差不多30年,最后闹到崩溃的边缘。你看这个时代问题大不大?
十一届三中全会后,决定以经济建设为工作中心。但又认为由于帝国主义存在战争不可避免,只能争取推迟10到20年。因此搞建设心里总不踏实。当时李一氓和一些学者曾提出战争可以避免的看法和建议,但《帝国主义论》和《新民主义论》的长期影响还是很难动摇。又过了几年,邓小平才正式提出两大变化,一是对战争与和平的看法,改变了战争不可避免的判断;二是根据这个判断改变了外交上的“一条线”(中心是联美反苏)战略。同时他还提出了和平与发展是世界两大主题的论断。
但是直到这时,学术界的主流和大专院校的教学,仍然坚持《帝国主义论》
的分析和结论,认为现在仍然是帝国主义与无产阶级革命的时代,或者叫做由资本主义向社会主义过渡的时代。在一次学术讨论会上,我第一次提出,世界早已进入和平与发展时代,我们一直按战争与革命时代的判断决定政策,是吃了《帝国主义论》的大亏(我由于说话随便,冒了一句说成“上了《帝国主义论》的当”)。实际上《帝国主义论》的许多观点在当时就很不确切,例如忽视资本主义的自我调节能力,认为它已垂死(正在死亡)、世界革命很快就要胜利了;另外一些论断也早已过时,如帝国主义发展不平衡规律必然导致战争,以及几个“特征”。我的发言当时就遭到围攻,但是会外的反应却又不同了,有反对的,但也有不少赞成的。现代国际关系研究所秘书长周纪荣同志叫我到一个学会上就这个问题作了一次报告,然后整理成文在内部发表出来。这一下影响可就大了,不少单位要我去作报告,例如中央党校啦,军事科学院啦,还有国防大学校长后任军委副主席的张震和政委曾任党中央副主席的李德生也联名写信,指定我去报告时代问题。一个时期,报刊上讲和平与发展时代的文章也多起来了。
这自然就产生了一个怎样看《帝国主义论》的问题,并且传播开了一种过时论的说法。结果引起一位领导同志的关注,在1989年政治风波后发表了一篇《帝国主义本性没有改变》的谈话,批判这种过时论。紧接着有关的权威机关也开会对我提的和平与发展时代进行批判。会开到第四次,有的与会者提出,和平与发展是邓小平同志说的,他虽然没有说时代,但党的十三大已明确说成时代特征,因此在这个问题上进行公开批判恐怕不大妥当。于是会议也就不了了之。其实,闹到现在,究竟应当怎样看待《帝国主义论》,恐怕还是有很大争论的。
赵:据我了解,《帝国主义论》是列宁和考茨基争论时提出来的一套理论。现在就他俩的争论看来,考茨基的一些观点倒是经得起推敲和历史考验。考茨基讲帝国主义并不一定必然导致战争,不同国家的垄断资本可以实现国际间的融合,资本主义国家可以和平共处,在这种情况下,世界也可以和平发展。而且他的帝国主义定义也和列宁不一样,他认为帝国主义就是工业文明向传统的农业文明地区不断扩张。与列宁认为的帝国主义是垂死的腐朽的和必然导致战争并不一样。而二战以后资本主义发展的情况,证明考茨基的理论还是有道理的。。
何:还有一点,考茨基认为帝国主义是一项政策,而列宁则认为是资本主义发展的一个新阶段。这个区别很大。例如根据列宁的理论,瑞士、瑞典等虽然不一定对外扩张侵略,但也是帝国主义,因为他们也发展到了垄断阶段。按考茨基的主张,这些国家没有执行帝国主义政策,所以不能算帝国主义。
现在看来,对以前国际共产主义运动中许多争论都需要重新思考,不但是列宁同考茨基的争论,也包括列宁跟普列汉诺夫的争论、列宁跟罗莎•卢森堡的争论。而且根据我长年反思后的认识,在社会主义革命和无产阶级专政等问题上,考茨基、卢森堡、普列哈诺夫对列宁的批评还真是说到了点子上。就是伯思施坦的修正主义,也应进行新的研究,而不能再一棍子打死了。
赵:伯恩施坦的《前提与任务》那本书我是读过的。伯恩施坦讲的马克思主义中的杂质问题即布朗基主义(通过政治密谋夺取政权,通过政权改造社会),在列宁那儿被更加放大。他的说法是有道理的。从列宁建立的无产阶级专政最终演变成斯大林主义,有其内在的原因。
何:马克思主义原本就有一些空想成分和误区,列宁更是大为发展。近年所传普列哈诺夫的遗嘱,很有意思。不过这些大理论问题,我虽然兴趣还有,但已垂垂老矣,无力染指了。我只想在有生之年总结或者说是反思一点自己稍微熟悉的事情,比方像外交问题。因为早在建国初我就跟张闻天进了外交部,干了十年外交,还陆续研究了几十年的国际问题和对外关系,在这方面总有些话想说,不知还有没有时间。
拿建国后的三大外交原则来说,就是人们常说的“一边倒”、“打扫干净房子再请客”和“另起炉灶”,现在看来就必须重新进行研究,得出新的认识。
先说“一边倒”吧。那天有个当过大使的同志给我打电话说,现在看来“一边倒”在外交上有点问题,把我们限制在了苏联阵营这个小天地,和世界的主要部分隔离了,实在吃亏不小。我说,“一边倒”不单是外交问题,更重要的还是“走俄国人的路”,就是完全照搬苏联,实行全盘苏化。那时苏化到什么程度?连中小学教育、大专院校调整、教学内容如米丘林的生物学等,都要全部搬来,更不用说经济、政治等大的方面了。就算外交吧,说我们从建国起就实行的是独立自主的外交政策,单这个“一边倒”,就证明不尽符合事实了。
其次是所谓“打扫干净房子再请客”,后来发展到“关起门来,自力更生地建设社会主义”。今天回头看,这是带有必然性的。因为原来的“打扫干净”,就是不要外国资本和外国人才的意思。这在二战后国际化和全球化飞速发展的时代,只能把国家引到落后的道路上。
赵:您的国际化是一个什么概念?
何:我的看法是,所谓国际化是指各国之间日益密切的联系,结合成一个整体。“化”是一个过程。按马克思在《共产党宣言》上说,资本主义的发展开通了国际化的道路,可见是早已有之。只是到二战后,国际化出现迅猛发展,进入了一个新阶段。上世纪八十年代,开始盛行全球化的说法,国际化逐渐很少人提了。其实,这两个名词也常被混用,李慎之就把全球化的起点算到哥伦布发现新大陆。但从学术研究来说,还是应该分清两者的区别。我所理解的全球化,除国际化的高度发展外,还有各种超国家的国际行为主体如跨国公司、共同体及其他国际组织,起着越来越大的作用,国家疆界和主权的意义反而在迅速下降。
总而言之,无论是国际化也好,全球化也好,都说明,国际社会已连成一体,任何国家的发展都不能离开这个体系,谁关起门来誰就落后。在这种形势下,提出并且实行打扫干净的方针就是搞闭关锁国,而闭关锁国肯定要落后。这个道理,现在是不用多说,谁都会明白的了。还应该补充一点,就是邓小平说过的,对外开放主要是对西方特别是对美国的开放。因为我们需要的资金、技术、人才、市场等主要都在那里。把它打扫得越干净,就越对我们国家的发展不利。
三是所谓“另起炉灶”。这也是违背国际惯例,违背国际关系准则,违背时代发展和国际化进入新阶段的现实,自行脱离国际社会整体,把自己孤立起来,还让出了二战中争取到的世界四强之一的地位,直到现在还没有恢复过来。当年我们唱的一个歌子中就有这样的歌词:“中苏英美四大强国,四大强国大联合……”当时法国还不够格,无论开罗宣言还是波茨坦公告,都没他的份。但一另起炉灶,就等于自行放弃原来的国际地位,许多重要国际组织的发起国、创始国的资格也不要了,至今还被排斥在七强八强之外,在很长时期连印度都不如。外交上是讲继承的,不止国际组织,对外关系也这样。由于另起炉灶,使我们在建国后二十年,不但和主要西方国家,而且和大多数发展中都没有建交。
造成我们建国后国际孤立和发展落后的原因自然很多,但上述三原则确实起了重要的作用,是我们自己犯了时代性的错误。
赵:这根子是不是也可以说是在对所处时代的判断上出了问题?
何:正是这样。因为二战后,世界已进入和平与发展时代,但我们还要搞世界革命,要准备打仗,哪能不落后呢?毛主席不但坚持要搞世界革命,而且在斯大林死后还要领导世界革命,认为世界革命的中心已经转移到了中国。后来为什么中苏关系破裂?就是因为赫鲁晓夫不认这个帐,还像过去那样要中国向苏联“一边倒”,跟着他走,而且提出“三和两全”,要和帝国主义讲妥协,不搞世界革命了。这怎么行呢?所以我们就要反修防修。
赵:看来,对和平与发展问题的认识还是影响到各方面的。
何:如果更深一层看,还应该承认,和平与发展不但是现阶段一个相当长时期的世界主题和时代特征,而且进而可以说和平与发展是人类社会的根本问题。
先说和平。让人类社会保持和平,几乎是人类诞生以来就有的追求和理想。因为人类社会一直存在战争和斗争,总是在相互残杀。从古代冷兵器的大刀长矛到现在的核弹导弹,都是为了杀人。毛主席一次和尼赫鲁谈话,为了说明他的原子弹是纸老虎的理论,就说原子弹不如关云长的大刀。中国从秦汉到宋元,人口一直徘徊在五千万到七千万这么个数目,明朝以后人口才有大的增加,。那一两千年人口为什么就不大增长,都跑道到哪儿去了?先是关云长的大刀杀过去,大刀之后,就是瘟疫、饥荒。
赵:是,您说得对。古人说:“大兵之后,必有凶年”。
何方:二是发展。这也是人类社会始终面临的重大问题和需要解决的任务,否则到现在我们还处在原始社会。发展固然与和平密切相关,但 又不完全是一回事。一个国家,可以不打或少打仗,但也可能长期停滞和落后。这与经济基础和政治制度等上层建筑都有很大关系。过去那种把马克思关于社会发展五阶段论硬往中国头上套是不大合适的。先不说中国有没有经过西方那种奴隶社会和封建社会,单是说中国自己可以进入资本主义,就既不合乎历史实际,也不合乎马克思有关亚细亚生产方式和殖民主义双重性的论述。似乎没有“西学东渐”,不吸取西方文明,我们也可自己关起门来自力更生地实现现代化。事实上,历史发展证明,如果中国社会一直和完全与外界隔绝,那么将会总是封建专制下改朝换代的循环和基本上自给自足的农业社会长期延续,而进不了资本主义,也不可能发明各种机器,实现机械化,更不用说电气化、信息化了。
我们当年在延安时,开荒种地和纺线织布,用的大概还是两千年前的工具和方法。当时我们就琢磨,这个纺线车为什么老是那样,不能改进一下呢?它的轴承必须用一个枣树的枝叉,因为它耐磨一些。就这样一直延续了上千年。所以发展并不是想当然的,以为所有国家都能齐头并进向前发展。实际上有些国家和地方就是不怎么发展,或者发展得很慢。而且发展的道路并不一定相同。例如现在许多学者认为,中国如果按传统方式发展,永远也到不了资本主义,实现不了现代化。
赵:对,顾准就是这样的看法。
何:是的,他说得对。过去为了生搬马克思的社会发展五阶段论,就说中国在明朝已有资本主义萌芽。有人还以《红楼梦》为证,说明当时有了商品经济,还有从俄罗斯来的商品,发展起了对外贸易。如果光从这一点看,那就可以说春秋战国时就有资本主义萌芽了,那时已有了产品或商品的交换,而外贸的丝绸之路汉唐就开通了。但是上下两千年,中国社会差不多总是这样。如果没有西方文明,没有洋人用大炮打开国门,我们现在还可能停在传统社会里走不出来。
在今天,一个国家的发展,必须跟上时代。用生产力发展为标志的说法,现在已经进入知识时代、信息时代。你要想不落后,就必须紧跟上去。如果你还实行封闭或半封闭政策,不能对信息开放,堵住人们对信息的获取,那就是违背时代精神,发展就走不到世界的前面,而只能落在人家的后面。用封和堵的办法,当然行得通,但从长远看终究是会导致落后的。
关于时代的看法,无论向前看,还是向后来,都极重要。向后看,我们吃了大亏,白白耽误三十年。这三十年现在看实际影响当以百年计。因为这三十年差距不是缩小,而是迅速拉大,紧赶慢赶也得上百年才能达到中等发达国家的水平。例如中国改革开放以来快速发展了二十五年,但是在世界经济中所占份额还没恢复到建国初期的1955年。毛主席五十年前就提出“超英”口号,认为有个三五年就行了,但是直到现在还没有赶上。就是这两年赶上了,也没什么了不得,因为人家不到六千万人,咱们可是十三亿呀!按人平均,中国还排在全世界百位以后。往前看,我们现在是跟着跑,不是走捷径,是防守,不是超前。比方刚才说的信息时代,它的一个很大特点就是自由传播,所以发展迅速。如果你只是想办法加以限制,那就不但浪费了力量,也阻碍了发展。历史证明,不允许自由竞争,不但社会经济的发展受影响,科学文化同样会跟着倒霉。这也是前两天余秋雨悼念巴金时说的,“现在我们是处在无大师的时代了”的重要原因。
赵:问题是巴金活着也起不了大师级的人物的作用了。
何:所以我说,新中国没有培养出大师级的人物来,原有的大师也拿不出大师级的作品。巴金、曹禺、茅盾后来就没拿出大师级的作品。
赵:就是说封和堵的办法与时代的发展不相符。
何:就是这个问题。
赵:关于时代是和平与发展为主题,你能再说说吗?
何:邓小平和党的十三大提出和平与发展是时代主题和时代特征,实际上是推翻了毛主席对时代的论断,要实事求是得多了。而且在我看来,发展应是整个社会的发展,包括经济政治科技文教的全面发展。咱们有些人现在对时代的理解还是有点偏。对和平,有时表现摇摆,还是要准备打仗的样子。对发展,只重视经济而忽视政治和文化,也就是不完全赞成社会的全面发展。
赵:我是不是可以这样理解,邓小平认可和平与发展是时代主题,就是整个这个时代是和平与发展的时代。和平与发展的时代是全世界向“开放社会”这个文明形式发展的时代?
我这样理解,您看是不是有偏差。相对于复古的和封闭停滞的社会,现代西方社会是“开放社会”(借用波普的话),这个社会人权有基本保障,政治是民主的,人民参与国家的政治生活和重大政治决定,经济是市场的加社会保障和福利的,消除了完全的两级分化,社会的公共权力系统调节收入的二次分配,也保证基本的社会公正。这样的社会促使文明强劲发展,带着全世界往前跑。二战以后,就是“开放社会”在强劲发展,把世界带入一个大市场中来,因为世界主要国家包括现在的俄罗斯都纳入到这个强劲文明体系中来,现在世界上没有其它力量能与这支主流文明力量相匹敌,也难以挑起世界大战,所以世界进入了和平与发展的时代。
何:实际上咱们中国也脱离不了这个体系。最近在一次学术讨论会上,我就放炮说,是不是不要简单地提反对西化。泛泛地反对西化,实际上就是反对纳入国际体系,也是反对科学与民主,反对现代化。因为一切现代文明产生的东西差不多都是从西方来的,现在的衣食住行,大多出自西方的发明。你反对西化,不用这些,家用电器就没有了,高楼大厦也不用住了。不西化,那就一切按中国的老办法。我们外出,或者像孔夫子,一车两马周游天下;或者坐个小船,“杨柳岸晓风残月”。这样,我们这个研讨会都很难开成了,因为飞机、轮船、火车、汽车都是从西洋引进的。政治上也是。我们不说自由、平等、博爱这些,单是我们整天讲的社会主义民主、社会主义法制等等,有哪一件不是来源于西化?更不用说作为指导思想的马克思主义了。我们现在宣传的以人为本,也是来自西方的民主学说。有人说这是国粹,来源于《尚书》上的“民惟邦本,本固邦宁”和《孟子》上讲的“民为贵,社稷次之,君为轻”。这就完全错了。中国传统上的民本思想,是在君君臣臣这些三纲五常的前提下的,是要让统治者警惕,防止叫水覆了舟;我们今天的以人为本是要破除君臣父子那一套,主张人人平等的。两者怎么能相提并论呢?难道还要继承和坚持封建专制的道统?现代文明都是这样,电灯、电话、电视、电脑,哪一件不是西方来的?就以服装来说,二十多年前,胡耀邦提倡服装革命,用西装代替中山装,遭到了陈云的严厉批评,说难道送煤球的也得穿西装?可是过了十多年,商店已经买不到中山装了。可见,各方面都在西化,而且应该西化。
人们会说,这是对反对西化的曲解,他们反的只是西方敌对势力颠覆共产党领导的政权。如果这样,那你说反对外来颠覆就是了,是否可以不提“反对西化”这种容易导致自我孤立、与世隔绝的口号呢?因此,中国不是应当反对西化,而是应该提倡和促进西化。因为西化是时代潮流、大势所趋。你要是不信,可以去做点实际调查,口头笔头反对西化最力的一些人,往往是物质享受上最讲究西化的人。如果有条件,他们还会设法把子女送到西方去。另外一个现象是不用调查的,就是只要看原来各社会主义国家和亚非拉发展中国家的人总是向西方国家跑(移民),却很少有相反的流动。对前者,用各种办法就是禁止不了;而后者只限于极少数有献身精神和前往淘金(去剥削)的人。所以反对西化的宣传就很难不被了解为脱离现实了。
还有一点值得说一说,就是二战后出现了一个世界范围的民族民主革命高潮,把殖民主义体系给冲垮了,列宁讲的帝国主义五大特征之一的殖民地被瓜分完毕也不存在了。英法等西方宗主国一开始还舍不得丢掉殖民地,后来不是自愿就是被迫地让殖民地独立了。进入和平与发展时代,殖民地在西方资本主义的发展中已失去它原有的意义。
赵:二战以后,国际社会的主流政治理念是反殖民主义的。
何:这种理念能占主流,是因为资本主义世界的发展已经到了可以不要抢夺殖民地的时候,垄断资本可以更多地用经济手段进行对外扩张了。
这个不仅仅是你说的理念问题,从根子上来说,还是历史的发展已经使殖民主义体系存在不下去了,除殖民地人民的觉醒外,更重要的是争夺殖民地已不牵扯到资本主义发展的根本利益了,也就是说资本主义的发展已经不像以前那样依赖对殖民地的直接统治,可以容许它们独立了。这在以前就不可想象。如果十九世纪,英国就让印度和其他殖民地独立了,只剩下现在本土那么一点,那就没有大英帝国了,整个世界历史都得重写。所以从根本上说,殖民主义的瓦解,不仅是由于殖民地人民的觉醒和奋斗,也是由于殖民地对资本主义的发展丧失了昔日的意义,有时甚至成了宗主国的包袱。过去我们只强调殖民地人民的斗争,就不够全面。光说殖民地人民的斗争,难道十九世纪就不斗?一开始就斗了,中国从1840年就斗了。但为什么胜利不了?就是因为那时世界资本主义的发展对外必须依赖殖民地,掠夺殖民地是资本主义原始积累和早期发展的外部必须条件。
赵:那您说殖民体系的崩溃与美国的反对传统殖民主义的政治理念有无一定的关系?
何:有关系,但不可估计过分。美国产生这个理念主要是因为:一则它地大物博,回旋余地大,特别是可以向周遍如墨西哥扩张,二则它起身晚,殖民地已接近瓜分完毕,要去争夺,就得和另外的宗主国打仗,这个理念有点说风凉话的味道。要不然,为什么它19世纪末还从西班牙手里抢去了菲律宾,直到二战也不让独立呢?所有的观念和认识都超越不了各自的那个历史阶段。到二战后,美国不但让菲律宾独立了,连波多黎各分离出去都可以允许,只是波多黎各全民投票的结果主张独立的不占多数。所以它的那个理念并没有什么了不起。
二战后有许多观念都有了很大的变化。比方说在外国的驻军。现在美军驻在日本和德国,已经不完全是美国人的单方面要求,也变成了日本和德国的要求了。美国有时还动不动发脾气,说他们要撤离了。德国人就吓一大跳,要求别忙着撤。为什么冷战结束,苏联已经完了,德国人还不愿意让撤,原因之一是就业问题。那里的人开个小买部,各种服务业有钱赚,驻德美军在那里呆着,帮德国人消费,也不错嘛。美国人在那里有基地,对他们别的方面也得照顾。所以这是互相需要。你想韩国,卢武铉选举前闹着要让美国人走,当选后还是让美国人留下。这除了防北朝鲜之外,也有个经济利益问题。所以你提的那个问题,我看太强调理念了也不行,关键是时代的发展和转换。一些国家不但欢迎外国驻军,更多的国家还欢迎外国人和他们的资本也来关照和驻下,甚至多多益善。如果现在再打扫干净房子,把洋人赶走,关起门来搞发展,那咱们的社会经济就会立即瘫痪。所以对这个问题的认识,应该再放大一些。现在这方面有些观念还转变不过来。
赵:我看您的书中说,张闻天是新中国国际问题研究的开拓者,这说明他确有世界眼光。
何:是这样。毛主席是先让他去联合国当代表,去不成才去的苏联。一个现任政治局委员做驻外大使和回来当副部长,这在过去和现在一切社会主义国家都是空前绝后的,实际上就是让他少管事。但张闻天终究是张闻天,他不大计较名位(并不是完全不计较),能上能下。事实证明,他不愧当过中央总书记,还真有水平。他回到外交部后,除大抓外交业务建设外,还从全局和长远出发,立即着手创建外交学院、世界知识出版社和国际关系研究所,这些都是中国以前历史上所没有过的新事物。他说的要放眼世界,也就是要面对国际化了。他不是仅仅从外交部副部长的角度看问题,而是从全国和长远着眼。但1959年后,他的一切都被抹杀了,直到现在也还没有完全翻过来。
赵:何老,您能不能结合和平与发展的时代特征,对我们和美国这个唯一的超级大国的关系谈一点您的看法?
何:我们不应该和它对着干,应该和他搞好关系,这是我们国家的根本利益所在。除台湾问题外,中美之间并无根本利害冲突,而台湾问题我们也主张和平统一,慢慢来。所以中美关系完全可以稳定下来,不断发展。同时也不存在什么“美国亡我之心不死”的问题。说它搞颠覆,那也看怎么理解。如果指搞自由民主,那他在他的盟友和后院如埃及、沙特阿拉伯和拉美等到处都在搞,对中国当然不会例外。如果指颠覆政权,他连金正日都保证不推翻,为什么一定要推翻你呢?要说美国人是搞和平演变的,倒确实是事实,但和平演变既不流血又不打仗,有什么可怕的?咱们也完全可以和平演变它嘛。其实,当年苏联的垮台,并不是被和平演变掉的,更不是被武力打掉的,而是在和平竞赛中输掉的。因为它经济上没搞上去,政治上搞专制恐怖,当权者完全脱离时代、脱离群众,所以不用人家推翻就自己“聋子放炮仗——散了”。我们应该接受苏联解体的教训,首先是把自己的事情办好,不可舍本逐末,或者把内因归于外因。我们不是要搞社会主义民主吗?而且比西方民主更优越,更受人民欢迎,那就和它来个民主竞赛吧,有什么可怕的?
赵:能否介绍一下您今年参加年终形势研讨会发言的要点呢?
何:想谈四个问题,其中一个就是西化问题。这在前面已谈过了。你说反对外来力量推翻你的政权可以,但不能泛泛地反对西化。反对西化就会妨碍我们“拿来”(鲁迅的用语)科学与民主。还有人说,西化会影响我们维护和发扬中华民族自己的文化。其实根本没这回事。日本明治维新以后福泽谕吉提出“脱亚入欧论”,主张全盘西化,但到现在也没化得了。一种文化的存在,不是你说化就化,主要还在于有没有人民性和先进性,先进的文化总会扬弃和同化比较落后的文化。例如南北朝时北魏从大同搬到洛阳,很快就被汉文化给化掉了。满洲人进关,也被汉化了。你一定要保持落后,怎么可能保持下去呢?西方也是这样,古代蛮族日耳曼人入侵罗马帝国,但结果不是它化掉人家,而是人家把它给化掉了,因为基督教文明比它先进。好的东西你想化也化不了。希腊的神话、雕塑谁能化得了呢?所以笼统地提反对西化是没有道理的。
其次是谈国家关系的基础,我认为只能是国家的战略利益。也就是邓小平说的,维护本国的战略利益,也照顾别国的战略利益。提出以历史问题为国家关系的基础,是既不实际也不合适的。因为要算历史帐,是任何国家和它的邻国以及大国之间的关系都搞不好的。中国和所有邻国及西方列强都有历史问题,要取得共识恐怕永远都不可能,那是不是就一直对抗下去?所以历史问题既不应忘记,也不应强调过分,而应理性地认识和着重从中汲取教训。要避免用历史问题挑起狭隘的民族主义情绪,加深国家民族间的对立。当前在中日关系上就存在着这个问题。
把中日关系的基础放在历史问题的认同上,恐怕很难行得通。把算历史帐摆在首位,就使两国关系不断恶性循环,那合乎我国的战略利益吗?而且不光日本,其他国家也是一样。例如俄罗斯占了我们一百五十万平公里的土地,但它就是不承认,连列宁、斯大林都不承认,那两国关系就不能搞好了?各国都有这个问题,如果算老帐也都搞不好关系。德国和波兰不行。德国和法国、捷克、斯洛伐克也不行。俄罗斯与波罗的海三国爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛在历史问题上永远也达不成共识。
上世纪80年代,中日关系是不错的。邓小平和胡耀邦等领导人,都以向前看的姿态处理对日关系,两国人民也都喊着中日人民世世代代友好的口号,双方基本上消除了相互仇视的情绪,文化交流、经济交流都很好。直到九十年代后,中日关系才开始逐渐变坏了。对我来说,80年代中日关系友好的情景还历历在目。那时,我是日本研究所所长,常去日本,亲身感受到了日本人的“中国热”,对我们真是友好热情,从南到北,到处领着转,宴请游览、送礼留念。日本一些高级文化人、著名学者,乃至学界领袖人物如有泽广巳,对我也很友好,以至成了忘年交。日本许多内阁大臣和首相都是有泽的学生,他领着我去见过首相和一些大臣。那些人见他显得毕恭毕敬。日本人尊师礼貌比咱们强。他跟他们说,以后你们公开的资料都要寄给何方先生一份。有些单位如企划厅,直到现在还在寄。当然这不是我有什么了不起,主要是当时有中日友好的背景。
第三个问题是我不赞成“和平崛起“的提法。道理也在前面讲过。首先,我们落后了三十年,现在还没恢复到建国初期水平,谈不上什么崛起。大谈“崛起”,不但属于自吹自擂,而且会带来不少负面影响,对内起麻痹群众的作用,影响人们追赶发达国家的劲头;对外是吓唬人,为“中国威胁论”帮忙。你强调和平的崛起也不行,人家还是怕,甚至认为是此地无银的宣传。因此,我建议今后宣传上千万别再鼓吹什么崛起了。为什么谈不上崛起呢?就拿周边的国家来说,日本在1955年经济实现了全面恢复,已经超过战前水平,但占世界比重只有2.5%左右。六十和七十年代真的崛起了,1980年所占比重已超过10%。可我们的比重却从1955年的4.9%,降到1980年的2.5%,去年也才达到4.4%。再看四小龙。起飞前,韩国落后于我们,新加坡、香港不如战前的上海,台湾的人均收入也只是大陆的两倍多。可现在四小龙的人均产值都超过我们约在十倍以上。如果我们这点本钱也算崛起,那人家算什么呢?
与此相关的第四个意见是,联系对中国经济发展不能估计过高,在对外经济关系问题上也要注意避免重蹈张闻天批评的打肿脸充胖子的毛病。那时是支援亚非拉按照我们模式搞革命,现在则是帮助不发达国家脱贫和跟一些国家搞好关系。这个问题这里就顺便提一下。还有两点可以谈谈。
一是为什么在我们这里总是一些问题重复发生、一些错误一再重犯?这就和中国历史上的兴衰循环一样,明知“殷鉴不远”,可就是不能汲取教训。要解决这个老大难问题,看来一个重要办法就是开放言路,对存在的问题和犯过的错误进行认真的、群众性的讨论和总结。二是对外经济关系特别是对外大额财政支出,要不要经过立法机关的审批和使广大纳税人知情,也是应该研究和解决的问题。
我想发言内容的就是这些,只是主要涉及和平与发展时代的发展问题。邓小平说,和平与发展两大问题的重点是发展,这是非常正确的。因为世界大战打不起来,这在相当时期都会是定局,是客观存在的国际大背景。在这种情况下,每个国家和民族都应抓紧发展,把发展看成是兴衰存亡的大问题。而且这里所谈发展,还不能只限于经济的发展,而是整个社会的全面发展。现在人们谈的防止“拉美化”,就有这个意思。也就是说在发展经济的同时,必须重视社会公正和政治民主化,否则社会不会走向成熟和稳定,甚至可能出大乱子。又如文教不发展,导致文化落后、道德下降,那经济发展也很难长久持续。现在的艾滋病,就更多地流行在文化落后的国家和地区,弄不好,有些民族或部落很可能在今后的历史中消失。所以必须加大教育投入和重视人民素质的提高。
总之,我们现在的一切工作都与和平与发展这两大世界主题或时代特征紧密相关,只有正确认识和把握好这两大根本问题,才能跟上时代,避免犯时代性错误。这就是为什么我强调研究和学习时代问题的原因。


Categories:

2006-05-30

Light viewing: Star of the week: Chen Shui Bian

0) Did Ah Bian did naything wrong?

p.s. Bian said he exceeded the power that the consitution entitled him?

1) Chen's courtship with Laura Bush in Costa Rica (watch carefully his hands)


2) Chen's family meeting: introduction by wanderingtotamshui, source xuite/fish7031 (need to understand Chinese).

(This is originally from Quanmin Damengguo, Taiwan's version of SNL)

3) Chen taking the Dude's polygraph (?) - again, pay attention to his hands(also better if you undestand what he said in Chinese)

4) A pretty well made propaganda: What do we really want?

Categories:

2006-05-28

Strategy: Openness isn’t a concession by America, it’s a strategic weapon

In relation to the strategy to fight terrorism post. The title line says all.
(by Ignatius via Barnett)
  • America's best strategy is to play to its strengths -- which are the open exchange of ideas...
This is strategy.

p.s. even the dictators in China knows this. Openness reflects confidence and you have nothing to hide. Peaceful Development is credible and an easy case to sell simply before it makes sense for China itself.

---
Unrelated (but convenient): Below is a cross word puzzle hint for a political leader, 5 letters. (Hint: the name of the person does not appear on the picture)

Categories:

2006-05-27

Viva democracy! Congratulations 'President' Lu?

Chen Shui Bian may have to go. This does not have anything to do with Chen Shui-bian's infamous son-in-law Chao. I believe that, given the benefit of doubt, as long as CSB is not aware of Chao's crime, he should not be held responsible for his son-in-law's corruption. We can blame him for incompetence, of not being able to curb the crimes. We cannot force him to resign. MYJ deserves special praise for correctly being sober about this issue. Although "the first time a member of the family of a [Taiwanese](ROC) president has been detained on suspicion of breaking the law." also signifies a milestone in democracy. This is democracy. Would you imagine Tze-ven Soong, who had embezzled from the state an amount comparable to a year of China's GDP be in jail?

This is about CSB's wife and the Sogo gift certificate scandal. Now there is concrete evidence that the certificates the 'first lady' used matches the serial numbers of the missing certificates that were involved in alleged corruption.

CSB promised he would resign if there is such evidence.
Now please go, and congratulate Annette Lu's as the 'president'.

DPP should dump CSB if he refuses to honor his promise. This is not about Blue vs Green. This is also not about your worry or discrimination against Annette Lu. This is about the ideals that DPP claim to (and used to) represent, a clean government.

This does not mean defeat in Taiwan's democracy reform. Instead, this is another milestone for the achievement of democracy (and media freedom) by the people in Taiwan, in the same way that Watergate is a triumph of democracy for the US. For the first time in history, a leader has to step down due to popular pressure in a Chinese government.

p.s.
1) For those who think I am blue-baised. I wholeheartedly wished CSB win when he ran for Taipei Mayor in 1995, and half-hearted in 2000 when he ran for the president. I am also skeptical of the bullet-gate accusation in 2004.
2) I still do not believe CSB himself is involved in all these scandals in person. Just put myself in his shoes, even if I discount my IQ to his level, no one will be that stupid. But now doubt is cast.
3) The reason I believe Ah Bian needs to step down is solely based on his public support and promise regarding the Sogo Certificate. Had he tackled the crisis the same what he did toward Chao. He does not have to step down.
4) Regardless of the accuracy of this AD report, shall we expect Apple Daily bashing from the indiscriminate green this time like they did to TVBS last year?
Categories:

2006-05-26

What if the gap consumes the core?

Joseph Wang believes there may be tremendous lack of imagination for us to not visualizing the scenario of gap consuming the core in the Barnett theory. The wisdom of asking this question is not about preparing us for the worst case scenario, but about how we anticipate the challenges and discover a pragmatic solution to prevent it from happening. He started with this
  • "The one thing that bin-Laden understands that unfortunately most people don't is the central nature of the economic front on the war on terror. Put simply, if we get to 2100, and most of the world is living in decent middle class conditions, then bin-Laden will lose. If we get to 2100, and most of the world isn't living in decent middle class condition, then bin-Laden or someone like him will win. This will be the case no matter what actions are taken in the short term."
Will Texas degenerate into Lagos one day, as depicted in science fiction? Is this so hard to imagine?
  • Read history books on the fall of Roman Empire and the Han Empire circa 150-350AD
  • Rent an old James Bond movie, compare Rio de Janeiro today with Rio in 1960s
  • Go visit (read about it if you cannot afford the time to go) the Angkor Wat
  • More recently, the collapse of SE Asian economy is 1997/98 if these countries were left alone to fall (i.e. if it is the OECD countries like in 1929)
In other words, in analogy to the language of physics, it is much cheaper to increase the entropy of a system than to decrease it. In layman's terms, it is much easier to shuffle a deck of card than to arrange them 1 to 52. It is much cheaper to pollute than to clean, to waste than to recycle, to fall the WTC than to build it.

It follows that if we are following the same approach of the disruptors (terrorists), we may not win even if we have a much larger set of resources to command and brains to use. This is an assymetric war. Therefore, one needs to step back and think in bigger pictures, and approach the problem from a different dimension. I am therefore also pretty pessimistic about Dubya's tic-for-tac ans passive tactics interwined with multiple distraction driven by various selfish interest groups.

Barnett's approach offers us one grand framework using the concept of core and gap. It is not the only framework. But great minds think alike, there must be anaology or correspondence if there is another sensible framework. In mathematics, if you can solve a problem in two different ways, it is very likely that you could find a "mapping" of the logically steps of these two solutions. Unfortunately, real world problem involves much more variables than problems in physics and mathematics.

We are not certain that Barnett's approach will solve the problem once and for all. But one thing certain is that it is a better approach than the non-solution US adopted today. But one principle will be common in any solution we find in the future, in Joseph's words
  • "Remove the economic stresses and the petri dish disappears, and the agents of Satan are revealed for who they are."
It requires political and economic measures, military measure at best should be supplementary.

---
The alternative Blueprint for action


Categories:

The Chopstick case, tariff, and currency

Trade balance has been a hot topic in the US, especially among the protectionists. Some blamed the RMB currency peg, others blame WTO and call for tariff. In one extreme we have the now obsolete Schumer-Graham Act, asking for a 27.5% tariff to 'equate' the effect of an allegedly mis-pegged Yuan.

The interventionists believe they are the gods, who are more powerful than the market. Perhaps they want to make themselves more powerful than the market, like Stalin and Mao once were able to do so. What they have missed is that every merchandise has its own cost structure and every factory in each country has its own competitive advantage. Imposing indiscriminate tariff or 'manipulating' currency does disservice to the consumers and discourages efficiency in the suppliers.

With fair and transparent macro-environment, each product will find its own price based on supply and demand, just like raindrops find their way to the puddles on the ground. To tilt the ground is a task not only difficult, but also impossible to accomplish.

Here is a good example of how the price of chopsticks (waribashi) find its own 'equilibrium point'.
  • "In a move that has cheered environmentalists but worried restaurant owners, China has slapped a 5 percent tax on the chopsticks over concerns of deforestation. (The tax could be think of a better reflection in of the cost, i.e. environmental cost, see elaboration in the comments)
  • Chinese chopstick exporters have responded to the tax increase and a rise in other costs by slapping a 30 percent hike on chopstick prices with a planned additional 20 percent increase pending.
  • A pair of waribashi that used to cost a little over 1 yen less than 1 cent now goes for 1.5 to 1.7 yen. The rising costs of raw wood and transportation because of higher oil prices have also contributed to the rise, industry officials said.
  • To minimize the impact, Japanese importers now buy more bamboo chopsticks and are considering new suppliers, including Vietnam, Indonesia and Russia, said Fukuoka.
  • An Osaka-based restaurant chain operator, Marche Corp., switched to reusable plastic chopsticks in February at its 760 outlets after testing various materials over six months, said company spokesman Michihiro Ajioka.
  • A pair of plastic chopsticks costs about $1.17 and can be reused some 130 times a cost-per-use that matches a pair of waribashi, Ajioka said.
This is a lesson for both the trade bureaucrats and the environmentalists. It shows how one can achieve the objectives without getting all the bureacratic inefficiency, while benefiting human beings overall in the long run.

Prices will adjust by themselves, as no factory can sell at a lost in the long run. What you need to do is to deal with the price levers, instead of relying on the lazy solution of tariff or currency. If Senator Schumer is a little less lazy, he could try not to manipulate currency in his own way. Instead, he could work on much more effective measures to achieve his objectives, such as pulling the environmental or labor policy lever in the factories. He will win support from everybody, including workers and people inside China.
Categories:

2006-05-25

Visitor geographic profile in past 7 weeks

Why chose these 7 weeks (from Apr 6 to May 23)? I started google analytics in the second week of April.
---
Country % visit % pageview
US
40.1% 38.8%
Hong Kong 10.1% 9.9%
UKm 6.1% 5.7%
Canada 6.0% 8.8%
Australia 5.3% 4.6%
Singapore 5.2% 4.6%
Japan 3.7% 3.6%
Taiwan 3.7% 4.2%
Malaysia 1.8% 1.5%
Germany 1.7% 2.9%
Netherlands 1.3% 1.2%
India 1.3% 1.0%
Korea 1.2% 1.5%
New Zealand 1.1% 0.8%
France 1.0% 1.1%
Sweden 0.7% 0.6%
Italy 0.7% 0.5%
China 0.6% 0.4%

---
China ranked low because of the Great Fire Wall (Also because I chose to write this in English. I write better in Chinese but it is just too hard to type Chinese in an English Window PC). I suppose quite some of the US originated traffic may represent proxy view from China. (Some in China may be viewing my mirror site but I suspect the popularity of it)
  • An estimate of mainland China visitors can be done by comparing language system of the operating system. Because virtually only users inside China use simplified Chinese OS.
  • Simplified Chinese/Traditional Chinese(HK&TW)=64%. so Mainland originated visits is around (10.1+3.7)x64%=8.8%. This will be the lower bound as quite some visitors (esp ex-pats) use English OS in China
  • If I use Japan as a reference, simplified Chinese/Japanese=164%. So lower bound of mainland visits is 1.64x3.7%=6.1%. Using Korea as reference on gets 7.0%. I guess this gives us some flavor of China originated traffic.
Returning visitors = 23.33% (anyoneone who have visited at least twice since Apr 6 is defined as a returning visitors)

Total number of countries/domains: 90 (see the list below for how this is defined. e.g., Guam, Macau, Taiwan, "satellite ISP", "not set")

Other countries in order:
  • Thailand
    Philippines
    Brazil
    Belgium
    Switzerland
    Spain
    Russian Federation
    Macau
    Austria
    Turkey
    Indonesia
    Denmark
    Ukraine
    Egypt
    United Arab Emirates
    Poland
    South Africa
    Chile
    Israel
    Greece
    Satellite Provider !
    Portugal
    Norway
    Mexico
    Finland
    Romania
    (not set) - yes this is how it is defined
    Saudi Arabia
    Ireland
    Mongolia
    Czech Republic
    Hungary
    Peru
    Estonia

Countries with 3 visits:
  • Ghana
    Iran
    Solomon Is
    Argentina
    Venezuela

Countries with 2 visits:
  • Jordan
    Malta
    Bangladesh
    Lebanon
    Qatar
    Vietnam
    Latvia
    Croatia
    Slovakia
    Yugoslavia

Countries with 1 visit:
  • Guam
    Afghanistan
    Ethiopia
    Macedonia
    Puerto Rico
    Sri Lanka
    Myanmar
    Oman
    Syrian Arabia Republic
    Uruguay
    Kenya
    Europe
    Cayman Islands
    Liechtenstein
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Colombia
    Tunisia
    Sudan
    Nigeria
    Iceland
    Brunei Darussalam
    Lithuania
    Morocco


Finally the map overlay of the last 500 visits (google does not show more than 500) is here

Categories:

China's trade "surplus"

via Asiapundit
  • Standard Chartered economist Stephen Green, one of the best China hands at any investment bank, offers a rather frightening essay in Businessweek suggesting that the majority of China’s 2005 trade surplus was, essentially, hot money.:

    The export of fake goods out of China is commonplace whether you are talking about designer bags, blockbuster movie DVDs, or “Mont Blanc” pens. Many European and U.S. holidaymakers take these knock-offs home with them — some of them knowing they’re counterfeit; others are unaware. Underground Chinese firms spirit such goods out of the mainland on a much larger scale.

    Now we may we have identified another fake: the supposedly gargantuan global trade surplus China enjoys with the rest of the world. Much of China’s trade surplus in 2005 was not trade at all, we think, but rather capital inflows (perhaps as much as $67 billion) disguised as trade. If so, this has major implications for China’s trade policies, the yuan, and the way the U.S. deals with China.

  • Stephen Green also talk about other factors such as transfer price (booking more profit in lower tax jurisdiction such as HK) which distorted the trade figures. One major area he did not discuss is the tax incentive China has given to FDI manufacturing facilities. i.e these factories will typically receive 2 years of tax-exemption and another 3 years of half tax (i.e. 16.5%), counting from the first year of cumulative breakeven. So for factories in Year 1 and 2 it makes more sense to book the profit in China than in HK. In year 3-5 there is no real difference. Now that RMB is expected to appreciate, even MNC are trying to book the profit inside China and keep them as RMB in year 1-5 ! And a lot of the factories are in year -2 to 5.
Do read the Businessweek article (may require free registration), Stephen Green actually did the maths and quantified his reasoning. Green, Jen, Roach, why all these good economists tend to call themselves Stephen?

There are actually more explanation, even to the pre-2000 numbers. Remember the VAT rebate for export? In China, the factory receives a rebate of the 17% VAT (i.e. the value added portion, = revenue - raw material cost) if the goods is exported, but not so if sold domestically. The factory owners would then ‘export’ the goods and smuggle them back for domestic consumption.

This policy is being phased out now, but it serves as one example for how one should look at China's trade numbers (or any number). It is not that the statistics are rigged, rather the businessmen are cunningly greedy and officials corruptedly co-operative. Here is how it works,
  • A factory (buyer) needs a container of copper wire (or cotton thread). It intends to purchase it from a domestic factory (supplier).
  • The two factories then make an arrangement that the copper is to be exported to HK. (Yes, HKSAR of PRC is considered a "foreign" destination under WTO or PRC custom)
  • Upon arrival at the port (e.g. Shantou, Shenzhen, Xiamen, etc). The export certificate is issued. The supplier gets the 17% rebate using the certificate, and then rebate the discount to the buyer.
  • How does the buyer get the goods?
  • case 1: the container never really leaves the port, instead, it was leaves the fence and was sent directly to the buyer. The customer officers was bribed.
  • case 2: the ship make a detour back to the port (or another port), the 20 ton container was over-filled to 30 tons (30 full tons in the export certificate for rebate), but the custom officer only record 10 ton when it is imported. Saving in tax? as much as 17% -(1/3) x import tariff, which is often less than 10% for these goods (though theoretically there is saving as long as tariff is small than 50% if Value-added = full value in the case of commodity) for this scheme to work.
  • Result, China records a trade surplus to HK. US thought it had a trade deficit. But who the hell in US would import copper wire from China?

Categories:

2006-05-24

Hostile offensive from the right

It has been 60 years since WWII ended in Asia. Not many people in China, especially the younger generation, remember or care about the old wound, if not for continuous provocation from the right wing in Japan. In fact, Japanese products, both merchandise and cultural (sushi, TV drama), have gain wide acceptance in China before 2003. It could have been a great era between the two great people in East Asia, if not for the hostile maneuvers.

Now the right wing Sankei Sinbum is trying to stir up the pool again (bad translation in English)
  • The 10th envoy of SDF to Iraq chartered an airplane from HK based Cathay Pacific Airways to go to Iraq
  • The flight was cancelled 2 days prior to scheduled departure date
  • Sankei blames pressure from PRC on Cathay Pacific
  • JSDF ended up chartered a Qatar Airline and disguised themselves as civilians
It is a possible explanation. Though it is also possible that Cathay Pacific did this itself, as we all know it is trying very hard to gain rights to fly into the mainland.

What Sankei failed to report and ask is
  • Why did Japan choose Cathay Pacific, instead of Japan's own air carriers, such as JAL or ANA?
  • Why they tried to board the Cathay flight on uniform, while the Qatar flight in disguise?
The Chinese media offered an explanation
  • JAL, ANA refuse to carry the soldiers, because many Japanese (and those in the airline trade unions) do not support the invasion of Iraq or Japan's involvement. (Many Japanese people are peace loving, or do not want to get themselves into any trouble)
  • In addition JAL, ANA do not want to become target of terrorist retaliation. It is very likely that Cathay decided to forgo this business for that particular reason (or "pressured" by insurance company?)
  • In the previous 9 envoys, the JSDF have used government flights (the "Airforce One" equivalent) or civil airlines in Japan, because JSDF's own plane does not have the range of the 747. It is a mystery why they chose Cathay this time, another mystery why the US does not offer help in this case.
  • It was reported that Cathay's explanation is that it was declined passage into the airspace of a few countries. The use of airspace by civil airlines has very specific restrictions, e.g. armed personnel, custom officers are not included in the air freedom negotiation. Therefore, Cathay needs special application for such chartered flights.
  • In fact, the final solution on Qatar Airline is also cheating on the Airline, and the countries where that the plane passes their airspace. Because an army carrying guns on plane has used the airspace, violating the agreement Qatar Airline signed with the respective countries
The event could have a very easy solution. Charter an American airline, or get help from US navy. There is no need spray salt on the wounds of the Sino-Japanese relationship. Can't we just get along and make money, or love?
Categories:

2006-05-23

Light viewing: Al Gore the president

If only Al Gore caught that train into its Sliding Door before Dubya...




Categories:

2006-05-22

DPRK Karaoke "Defend the People's Motherland"

If the American imperialistic paper tiger dares attack our motherland......
right click here to download

Hat tip Asiapundit/Boing Boing, complete with English subtitiles.

These gems are like endangered animals. We may not be able to see them next year, or tomorrow.

Some interesting similarity in Hanja pronounciations, very similar to Chinese, esp Minnan/Chaozhou.
InminKun=Renminjun: people's army
Yong Kam=Yong Gang: Brave
Inmine Joguk=Renminde Zuguo: People's motherland

---
See discussion here and download another song in mp3, "Our answer to american agressors will be crushing". And this site has all the great revolutionary songs from various countries/languages in mp3 for download.

Finally (via KFA) this great video clip from Arirang Festival 2002. Enjoy the dancing peninsula at 7:40.

Categories:

2006-05-06

Short comment in Chinese (on some Chinese essays)


点击进入.看清楚,那眼镜下的确有眼.(此图偷自连岳的第八大洲)

(Warning: Below is in Chinese and should be interesting to people in HK only)
鹿马蜃楼论

香江财子,名阿瞒之胜,又名中国之杰.才高八斗,学富五车.

初,财子获果报以千金致,意气风发,一时无两. 愈时,果报渐知本益难以相当,乃广开版面,务使财子日行数文,以馈其本.自是政治经济商业文化娱乐地理旅游,无一不晓,虽博而不精,俨然杂家之首矣.

财子不胜所负,甚忧文质每下.乃迭进奇文,以掩黔穷. 惜其不擅逻辑,幸尚能精借题发挥,极尽谩骂之事.与京师太学前太师"西木示"者,堪称果报两绝. 有文为证.现试举一二.
  1. 中梵之权争,诚利益权力之角逐耳.财子喜无限上纲,扯之甚远,乃至南海之所罗门岛. 财子曰,"此岛之乱,源由北京".财子非赵高再世乎?曲直鹿马,登峰造极,虽赵高亦必自叹不如也.
  2. 继而妄论经济,谓梵庭地仅数亩,人渺百十,乌有商业,非觊觎中华之市场者也.实欲教化其愚味之国民.其知其一而不知其二也.中国信众,不下千万.若从梵庭之法,十一税缴,人贡一万,则年贡不下千亿矣.非台海彼岸可比也.
异史士曰,"果报财子,忠于主义,身体力行,其志可嘉. 然以赵高之术,拒李斯之政,不亦捨本逐末,何以自异于暴君小人乎?正人君子不屑为之也."
Categories:

2006-05-04

Japanese Air-Defence Identification Zone (Map)

Japan is making a big fuss about Chinese planes entering its "Air defence Indentification Zone". Meanwhile, China retorts that Japanese planes crossed into the disputed areas.

So what really is happening? Before we form our judgment based on Japanese press and pro-Japan blog reports, let's understand where the Identification Zones are.


Above is the map for the ADIZ, looks quite normal, isn't it? The deep blue area is Japanese Airspace, which is 12 nautical miles from its shoreline. The light blue area is the "Air Defence Identification Zone", it is defined by Japan's SDF alone. There is no international law governing such definition. After all, anyone has the right to define how oneself should be "alerted".
  • e.g. US has the total right to alert itself into Red sign if bin Laden flips his body in a cave in Afghanistan. This is strictly the internal affair of the US.
But there is something unusual. Japan re-defined and expanded its "ID Zone" just a few years ago. The map does not exactly overlap its claimed EEZ


This is the overlay of EEZ claimed by Japan (disputed by China) and Japan's Air-defence ID Zone. The dotted lines represents the EEZ claimed by Japan (for a full map see here). The Red line is the ID Zone.
  • The line starts from from Japan/Korea boundary (the line on the map above should start right south of Teuju Island) along 125E longitude to 30N latitude
  • Then it turns SW toward 25N120E, until it reaches 122.4E, the line turns south again from there
The ID Zone encloses a large portion of China's undisputed EEZ, to as far as 130km (not nautical mile) from China's coastline.

Now one cannot help but ask the question, why does the ID Zone extend over to the China EEZ (the portion undisputed by Japan). Sure Japan has the right to alert its own fighters in any way they want, they are free to do so even if a China plane takes off at Urumqi. But misleading the press that this is an invasion of Japanese Air Space? Why? They think we are all idiots?

Special thanks to woshizhongguoren at FYJS
Categories:

2006-05-03

How to get from Taipei to Montevideo

Oops. It is Asuncion, not Montevideo. I got the wrong "turtle" ("Guay"). Thanks to Roland's for his correction in the comment below.

I keep the same old WRONG title, because,
1) Blogger will change the permalink/etc if I change the title. This is a punishment for my careless mistake, a major mistake for someone who claim to be a map lover, so everyone knows that i made such a silly mistake.
2) I am no less guilty than CSB and Taiwan media, as Lin Cho-Shui correctly pointed out (do a search on 過境 on yahoo news Taiwan, less than 10% mention the name of destinaion country. most just said "2 conutries in C&S America". I know that should not be my excuse), in neglecting CSB's designated mission in this trip.

(As David noted in the comment below, ASU is 78 miles from the anti-pole of TPE, which makes the additional mileage in detours less dramatic than that of MVD. You can replace ASU with MVD in the "paths box" of the great circle links, you will see the difference in mileages are much bigger.)

---
(Warning: this is really a map/geography post, not a political post. The author takes Ah Bian "Astray Diplomacy 迷航外交" as an excuse to blog on geography.)


The shortest route from Taipei to Montevido(Uraguay) Asuncion Paraguay is to fly over South Africa (12367 miles). However, the longest a commerical flight (Boeing 747) can fly is around 8000 miles (e.g. the direct (polar) flights from HKG to JFK(NYC) on Cathay Pacific, 8072 miles).

Therefore, a fueling station is needed. CSB wanted to refuel at NYC, SFO or LAX. But these paths do not make much sense, said DPP legislator Lin Cho-Shui. Lin contends that the purpose of the trip is to visit Montevideo, not big cities in USA.
  • 林濁水表示,就算是高層出訪過境美國一百次,每次美方都多提供一點點接待規格,臺灣與美國的關係也沒有正常化...他痛批,政府的心態是把過境當成外交的主軸,爭取到一點表面的規格就洋洋得意,完全是荒唐,不要把國家資源浪費在沒意義的過境爭取上。
  • "the government has made transit the core axis of diplomacy, and flatters itself when it receives every insignificant gesture [from USA]. This is totally ridiculous. Do not waste resources on meaningless transit diplomacy....even if Taiwan received elevated treatment every time for 100 times, there is no impact on the normalization of Taiwan-US relationship."
Chiang III said JNB (South Africa) is a better refuel station. I usually do not believe in politicians, esp someone from the Chiang family. So I did some research on the economics of the paths. Here is what I got
  • TPE-JNB-ASU: 12368 (miles)
  • TPE-JFK-ASU: 12459
  • TPE-ANC-ASU: 12485
  • TPE-SFO-ASU: 12502
  • TPE-LAX-ASU: 12503
So Lin is correct. JFK is not the best path, nor is SFO/LAX. Chiang III is actually totally right (my apologies). JNB is the best alternative, only 1 mile off the ideal path.

P.S. US also suggested the best path for Taipei-San Jose(Costa Rica), CSB obliged. CSB also chose ANC over HNL as transit point to ASU, due to better path and logistics.
  • TPE-SJO (great circle): 9478
  • TPE-ANC-SJO: 9496
  • TPE-SFO-SJO: 9508
  • TPE-HNL-SJO: 10001
  • TPE-JFK-SJO: 10012
Unrelated post (but more interesting): Jujuflop on DPP's Karl Rove, who is repsonsible for almost every single victory of DPP and CSB, and doing it again.

Update:
Latest rumour: CSB is making a 'protest transit' at Tripoli or Beirut.
TPE-BEY-ASU=12381; TPE-BEY-ASU=12385
Better choices than ANC.

New update (May 4):
Ooops it is Abu Dhabi! Lebanon rejected the request.
A small problem: TPE-AUH-ASU=4139+8234=12373 miles, although an overall shorter distance, it is not a mid-point refuel. i.e. the second segment AUH-ASU is 8234 miles, 747 can handle this with no problem, but for safety, it might need a "forced" re-fuel if encounters headwind. Let's pray for the wind.

New update (May 5):
According to the "Foreign Minister" Huang, the Aquafresh plane will have to refuel at Dominican Republic again. Pretty big detour this time.
New mileage: TPE-AUH-SDQ-ASU=4139+7671+3111=14911, what a mileage run! Is CSB trying to earn more miles for his children? Given the recent controversial of family member tag-along to AUH.
(update):
Of course, there is a latest twist. Because the ground temperature in AUH is too high, 47 degrees Celsius. The plane could not refuel fully (avoid high pressure in gas tank). The plane could not even reach Santo Domingo, it stopped at Amsterdam. TPE-AUH-AMS-ASU=13891.

Refueling stop for the return trip is another game to play. "Guerilla diplomacy", some say. Perhaps not Anchorage.
Categories: