China's "bargaining power" on East China Sea gas field: Very Strong

I am not talking about UN Sea Law of Continental Shelf (350km as long as seabed is less than 2500m deep, this applies to "seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas", not EEZ on surface), nor the fact that the gasfields are on China's side even according to the median line proposed by Japan. I am talking purely from a commercial (cost) perspective. It is virtually infeasible for Japan to pump gas back to Kyushu or Okinawa.

Here is why

1. The only economical way to transport gas is using pipeline, because gas is too bulky. For a distance of about 180km, the cost for LNG (liquefied and then use tanker) is 5 times higher (see graph below), and it is extremely impractical and dangerous to liquefy the gas using high pressure on a drilling platform.

2. Now look at this cross-section map, left side is China, the island on the right is Japan. the deepest point in the Okinawa Trough is 2940m under sea. The slope on Japan's side is also a lot steeper (Source: China claims A,B,C under UN Law). From Chunxiao to Zhejiang coast the depth is mostly less than 100m. (Note, the shape is more pronounced near the Diaoyu Islands.)

3. There is more bad news for Japan, The World's Deepest Undersea Gas Pipeline so far completed is only 2100m undersea (built by Italian below Black Sea). The engineering challenge for a North Sea pipeline (Ormen Lange to Britain) with undersea hill of 60 m high is considered as "enormous" (See note*). Unless there is technology breakthrough or take a huge detour up north via the south of Korea (also impractical as it passes China's EEZ), there is no way Japan can get that gas home.

This probably explains why Japan was unable to (or passive) exploiting the gas field all these time, apart form the reason that the field is on China's side or the disputed area.
Is this fair? Well, I think this is a result of the 'continental shelf' argument. Scientifically, you can say that all these fossils come from organisms flushed down from the continent or sea organisms live on the nutrients flushed down from the continent. But I better leave this to the legal experts.
Now, what about strategies?

• China: keep drilling at maximum speed, meanwhile negotiate slowly with Japan. If there is really "siphoning" effect, the longer the wait, the more China will be able to "siphon" the whole pool. Time is on your side. But make a deal if it is reasonable, don't under-estimate Japanese engineers.
• Meanwhile, try to engage the engineering firms who built the pipelines in North Sea, Black Sea and Canada into the game, to sign exclusive contract with them (for East China Sea and South China Sea) so that they won't be helping the competiting companies in these areas
• Japan: seek a co-development deal, in which China and Japan will form a JV to explore and extract the gas field, even if that means substantially smaller share for Japan. Also be flexible about the disputed area, if needed, exchange seabed exploration for fishing right in the disputed area. Because, it is impractical for Japan to drill without using China's shore to land deliver the gas.

Note (*): For those interested in undersea pipeline laying check out Ormen's construction chronology and a presentation.

1. A huge cutter and an undersea tench machine is used to open a 2 m deep and 10 m wide trench
2. Pipes are then layed and fixed on the trench

Map: Settled border with Vietnam

I mentioned that the China and Vietname have settle the border dispute in land and Tonkin Bay in an earlier post. Here are the maps

Border at Tonkin Bay (source: FYJS)

• Brown line: 1887 China-France treaty divided Tonkin Bay by latitude E108^o03'18"
• Red line: New border (approximate) based on medium line
• Blue line: Shared economic zone, to be co-patrolled
• The disputed Bailongwei (Bechlongvi 白龙尾) Island is claimed by China and is now ceded to Vietnam. (It was reported that the 2000 residents on the islands are Chinese. But Zhou En-lai "loaned" this island to Vietnam during the Vietnam war to build it as a base to fight American bomber)

The land border does not have visible changes. A few mountain were ceded to Vietnam and perhaps some shifts of a few hundred meters here and there. The border is largely defined by natural landscape (river, watershed, etc), or has been well defined in the China-France Treaty. The disputed area is 227 sq km, China got 113 sq km and Vietnam 114 sq km, 50% to each side, fair deal.

Current claims on South China Sea by all different countries are shown in the map below (grey area = gas/oil field). China's claim on South China Sea is based on its claim on the coral islands Sisha (Paracel, controlled by China, disputed by Vietnam), Dongsha (Pratas, undisputed, controlled by ROC), Zhongsha (Macclesfield, claimed by China and Philippines, unoccupied but controlled by Philippines), and Nansha (Spratly).

Spratly, the most contested islands group, was inhabited by Chinese fishermen and has been controlled by ROC navy before the 1949 revolution. Current control of the Spratly is shown in the map below

• Taiwan still controls the largest islands on Spratly, Taiping (Itu Aba), there is a base there because there are Chinese fisherman and natural fresh water supply (well). The area is 0.45 sq. km, about the same size as Vatican City, aerial picture as shown above.
• China: 7 islands/reefs
• Vietnam: 29 islands/reefs
• Philippines: 8 islands/reefs
• Malaysia: 5 islands/reefs
• Brunei and Indonesia joined the claim but do not control any reef or island

South China Sea Claim Map (The best source of information is hosted at community.middlebury.edu/~scs/index.html, with the list of the Spratly Reefs)

Spratly Magnified

Schelling on North Korea

I talked about Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling's game theory in an earlier post. Today's WSJ has an interview with Professor Schelling. He offered his great insight on how to deal with North Korea, and also Iran's nuclear problem .

These are very simple and straightforward analyses, total cost vs total benefits. Professor Schelling said,

• "Iran and North Korea will think of [the nukes] as deterrant weapons...We really ought to give NK some kind of non-aggression assurance...We should volunteer it, on the grounds that the primary motivation for NK to get a nuclear weapon is to make sure the US can never attack." - Qadaffi was scared, there is no reason these two accused as the "axis of evil" is not
• "US would have a good sense and the cleverness and the ability to enter the black market and engage is what we used to call preclusive purchase...if NK thinks it can sell a nuclear weapon for $1bn, we ought to be in there offering $5bn" - Schelling quoted the outbidding of natural resources in WWII, I would add the successful control of balck market in ex-USSR states, and that it is cheaper to buy out North Korea today than tomorrow
• He also believes and argued convincingly that bargaining with NK and Iran will not lead to moral hazard, because "it is not a good game to get into" [unless you are labelled an axies of evil?]. I should add that Bush's complacency toward India and Pakistan served as encouragement for NK and Iran.
• The whole interview provides more insights and discussions, a temporary link is here. It is on Nov 7 WSJ, page A2.

Unfortunately solving the nuke problems are only the second priority for the Bush regime. Their first priority is to turn them into Iraq, and they need the nukes as an excuse. Otherwise, why was common sense never been able to prevail?

Map: India's ethno-linguistic map

Curzon was surprised to find a "little" 'buffer' state Nepal with 6 major ethnic groups. Nepal is actually not that small. It has 27.7M people (higher than Taiwan's 23M), 147 sq. km in area (4x Taiwan). Wiki names 12 major groups, with the total being 103 including caste groups. There are 90 languages/dialects.

Nepal's demographic, is actually very similar that of India's. Both being Hindu, its caste system problem also 'helped' to establish more genetic walls after thousands of years of segregation.

Look at India's map here, according wiki

• India has 19 languages each spoken by over 10M people
• "The official figure of 'mother tongues' spoken in India is 1,683, of which an estimated 850 are in daily use. The SIL Ethnologue lists 387 living languages for India."

Nepal's population is about 1/40 of India's. its number of language about 1/19. The scaling makes sense.

Taiwan's 25 friends, who is next?

ESWN reviewed Chen Shui Bian's bribery diplomacy. Meizhongtai asked who is the next to go in the phone book of Taiwan's Foreign Minster. I think I can try to answer MZT's question.

This is an overview of Taiwan 25 friends (plus the 26th, Senegal)
Source: Mike Dowling using CIA's databook 2001 (so PPP was used), wiki

Nation	Population	Area/sq m	GDP/PPP($bn)
Belize	272,945	8,867	$1.28
Burkina Faso	13,574,820	105,869	$14.55
Chad	9,538,544	495,752	$10.67
Costa Rica	3,956,507	19,730	$35.34
Dominican Rep	8,833,634	18,815	$52.71
El Salvador	6,587,541	8,124	$30.99
Gambia, The	1,546,848	4,363	$2.56
Guatemala	14,280,596	42,042	$56.50
Haiti	7,656,166	10,714	$12.30
Holy See(Vatican)	921	0.17	$0.02
Honduras	6,823,568	43,278	$17.55
Kiribati	100,798	313	$0.08
Malawi	11,906,855	45,745	$6.85
Marshall Islands	57,738	70	$0.12
Nauru	12,809	8	$0.06
Nicaragua	5,359,759	49,998	$11.60
Palau	20,016	177	$0.17
Panama	3,000,463	30,193	$18.78
Paraguay	6,191,368	157,056	$28.17
St Kitts & Nevis	38,836	65	$0.34
St Vincent & G	117,193	150	$0.34
Sao Tome & P	181,565	386	$0.21
Senegal	10,852,147	75,749	$17.09
Solomon Is.	523,617	10,985	$0.80
Swaziland	1,169,241	6,704	$5.70
Tuvalu	11,468	10	$0.01
Total	112,615,963	1,135,163	$325
World	6,379,157,361	196,939,757	$51,480.00
TW26 / world	1.77%	0.58%	0.63%

• GDP/cap of the 26 is $2884 (in PPP), about 35% of world average ($8070), 1/6 of Taiwan's in $17255 in that year (2001)
• Literacy 63%, vs world average 77%
• Life expectancy 58, vs world average 64

Now subtract Senegal, the stats change

• Pop, area, GDP shares drop to 1.60%, 0.54%, 0.60%
• GDP/cap improves to $3024
• Literacy goes up to 65%
• Life expectancy stays at 58

Senegal was presumably lured away by a better offer from mainland China, which is not entirely a result of more generous bribery.

• Because a larger nation will have more economic interests in stake (that is why Taiwan cannot bribe India or Nigeria away). The mainland can offer more economic activities and the aid is less costly (comparatively) because some of activities in the form of aids may lead to profitable business.
• The other reason that bribery diplomacy works for the microstates is because a few million dollars represent a large sum compared with their GDP (PPP is not a good measure in this case, but I am lazy).

Sengal is among the largest of the 26 and not really a micro-state. Some micro-states are so shameless that they switched side as soon as there is a better price.

Therefore, I predict the next to go (other than the well anticipated Holy See) will be those with large population and/or GDP, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Chad and less likely, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica or Paraguay. Losing the latter two away will hit all stats, but losing the African 3 will improve the 'quality stats' such like GDP/cap, literacy and life expectancy.

But there is one important indicator, where they are all equal, which is the UN General Assembly vote. The UNGA was repsonsible for replacing ROC with PRC in 1971. Taiwan's friends have about 12% vote, way higher than any other indicators above. ZHJ commented in my previous post that it is not fair for Taiwan to get a Ukraine-under-USSR-style UN seat. I think it is unfair that these "shameless states" (*) get 12% of UNGA votes.

On a separate note, for those anti-Bush Californians who wanted an independent CA, how about splitting into 5 states and get 8 more seats in the Senate, or 30 states and 58 more seats. CA population is 32x RI's, and 68x WY's.

Note (*). Not all of them have been bribable, Paraguay, Panama, Dominican Rep and Haita's were loyal friends to ROC since 1950s.

How to "pin" Taiwan? (& Taoist wisdom in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)

Taoist Wisdom

"Hold your fist tight, you grasp nothing inside. Open your hand, you will have the sky on you palm." (把手握紧，里面什么也没有，把手放开，你将拥有一切)

- Li Mu-bai to Yu Shu-lien in the movie Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (*), quoting from his teacher Jiang-nan-he (江南鹤).

I think this line bears strong connection to the Taoist view of philosophy (Li Mubai is a Taoist), and probably the Buddhist view as well. One of the concepts in Taoism is to "use tenderness to defeat the hard and strong" (以柔克刚), which has later become the core concept for a branch of Kung Fu called Tai Chi Chuan (太极拳), as you might have seen in the exercise between Beatrice Kiddo and Pai-mei in Kill Bill 2. An analogy is "to wear away rock with water", though I think a better metaphor will be "to dissolve a crystal with water".

• "What is in the end to be shrunk must first be stretched. Whatever is to be weakened must begin by being made strong. What is to be overthrown must begin by being set up. He who would be a taker must begin as a giver. This is called “dimming” one's light. It is thus that the soft overcomes the hard. And the weak, the strong.“It is best to leave the fish down in his pool; Best to leave the State's sharpest weapons where none can see them.” - Dao De Jing, Lao Zi, Chapter 36
• "将欲歙之，必固张之;将欲弱之，必固强之;将俗废之，必固兴之;将欲夺之，必固与之。是谓徵明。柔弱胜刚强。鱼不可脱于渊，国之利器不可以示人." - 《老子》第三十六章
• "Nothing under heaven is softer or more yielding than water; but when it attacks things hard and resistant there is not one of them that can prevail. For they can find no way of altering it.That the yielding conquers the resistant and the soft conquers the hard is a fact known by all men, yet utilized by none."- Dao De Jing, Lao Zi, Chapter 78
• "天下莫柔弱于水，而攻坚强者莫之能胜，以其无以易之。弱之胜强，柔之胜刚，天下莫不知，莫能行" - 《老子》第七十八章

Taoism emphasizes comparative strength (and unconvention thinking), as demonstrated in the circular superiority of the Five Elements (Hang), where water quels fire, fire melts metal, metal chops plant, plant holds mud, mud stops water (水克火，火克金，金克木，木克土，土克水). This is consistent with Sun Zi's general view of tactics and strategy.

Chess Game

Curzon provided a great analogy for the Taiwan situation, using the concept of a pinned chess piece. While I do not fully agree with how he applied it, our difference is not fundamental.

In my view, in order to be "pinned" you have to have the choice to act and not to act, and the default ('pinned' situation) is the situation you are currently at (not to act). Because US' unconditional defense for Taiwan is not the position it has put itself at, from 1979 to today, it cannot consider itself to be pinned.

Instead, Taiwan has the choice of moving to either direction. But there are many ways to pin Taiwan into the status quo. The Anti-secession Law (ASL), as discussed in the prequel of this post, is a perfect example for the bishop in the chessboard, pinning Taiwan's knight form moving toward independence. Any side-stepping of the knight automatically trigger the destruction of its king.

For the US, it can insert a piece in the path between the bishop and king. But it has to ready itself for considerable sacrifice, as Thomas Barnett correctly pointed out. However, US has another option. It can send out a "pawn" as in the illustration, so that it is more difficult for the bishop to take the knight (Taiwan will also have to move the king to d7 to guard its knight). This is, in fact, today's situation, except that it is left with some ambiguity.

The only problem/risk today, is the ambiguity of the ASL and TRA, which were created to give China and US more flexibility. Such ambiguity contributes to destabilizing the pinned situation, by allowing for free interpretation of the 'knight', as I discussed before.

---

Great move from CCP. But is this the best move? Not neccessarily, because in reality the chessboard is not static. China, Taiwan and US are all undergoing tremendous change. In particular, in Taiwan, DPP's support has increased from below 20% 15 years to over 40% today. Time is not on the side of pan-blue (or CCP), as those who are emotionally tied to the mainland are quickly replaced by younger generation who are not. The only favorable development to CCP is the Taiwanese businessmen who had spent time in the mainland, but these experiences may not neccessarily lead to the support of re-unification.

Many observers outside Taiwan, including those in the mainland, failed to understand the fundamental reasons for the separatism trend(see note **). Strategist and politicians in Beijing have been equally ignorant, after failing to think through the rationale and ramification for unification vs division(***), they further adopted a hard-line approach to alienate their "compatriots". Such misunderstanding leads to a childish game of diplomatic bribery to micro-states and became a vicious circle, among other fiascos.

Therefore, ASL is only a ad hoc solution, provided pinning Taiwan is the objective and that this situation is sustainable. Then what should be the objective?

The objectives

Let's first examine the often discussed rationales or myths for unification

1. Unification good, division bad (myth: see note*** below)
2. Division and hostility among different parts of China will provide opportunity to foreign (hostile) powers to divide and conquer China, and even leverage one faction to fight against another, or for Taiwan to harm the interest of China
3. A divided China is weak, because each part can be defeated and conquered separately
4. "Taiwanese compatriots are our brothers and sisters sharing our blood" (see poster to the right and caption), there should be cooperation, communication, and intimate friendship.
5. Taiwan has been part of China historically (at least according to what PRC inherits from the two preceding governments: ROC between 1945-1949, and most years of Qing Dynasty prior to 1895), losing Taiwan means humiliation (like the Qing) and damage to the legitimacy and reputation of the current PRC government

In summary, the ultimate goal is to prevent sustained war, align the interests together (also hug our compatriot - see poster on the right), hence acting as a bigger entity with larger scale (in terms of market and also soft and hard power), while saving face and defending honor during the process.

What has CCP achieved today? Other than some partial economic integration, CCP has managed to push Taiwan further away and defeated objectives 2 and 3 totally. With the current spat, it is very unlikely that Taiwanese people will side with the mainland in a conflict with Japan. In fact, today we even have certain Taiwanese who support the ultra-right militarist faction in Japan.

There is a better way to "pin" Taiwan

The best way to pin Taiwan is, counter-intuitively, to encourage Taiwan to hold a referendum, and do it when the friendly KMT led by Ma Ying-jeou comes to power in 2008. The package should contain incentive for choosing the 'desirable results'

• A frozen period of [30] years where no further referendum regarding unification/independence should be held
• Options will be (A) Unification under conferation; vs (B) Independence, and (C) status quo. indecisive result (less than 50% turnout or less than 67% for any option) will be interpreted as (C) -- PLA will remove its missiles and even promise peace in return
• Under the unification option (A),
• Taiwan will be supported for a UN seat, like Ukraine under USSR.
• Taiwan will have full autonomy like Deng Xiaoping has promised, including maintaining its army, currency, and democracy
• Establish a Senate system for the federation, where Taiwan (also HK, Macau) will be represented.
• The Federation will support Taiwan to defend disputed areas in Spratly and Diaoyu.
• The most delicate issue is diplomatic right of Taiwan, which both sides have been persistent. But it is not impossible to work out a compromise, where Taiwan yields partial right to the federation
• Others minor issues already widely discusses in the last 20 years (will be linked to later when I find them)
• Option (C) after the referendum could include mainland's support for Taiwan to in Diaoyu and South China Sea as well

The concept of federation is not new. What is new is the timing of the referendum. From mainland's perspective, further waiting is only going to further severe the tie. While a vote today presents extremly low risk for a support for (B).

The objective of such a referendum is to force both sides to recongize a stalemate (option C: which is the most likely case), and hence to guarantee the status quo for another [30] years. The difference between a status quo after a referendum and the status quo of today is important

• risk of 'independence declaration" will be greatly reduced (analogy: Quebec referendum)
• the possibility of failing objectives 2&3, as it already is today, will be greatly reduced and most likely reversed
• the hostility between the strait will end and closer economic and cultural ties will flourish. Taiwanese people's vote will drift toward (A) in the next 30 years as a result
• less waste on arms race for both sides
• less squandering of money in luring micro-states in diplomacy

The upside/bonus is, objectives 1-5 will all be achieved if (A) is chosen.

President Hu Jintao, if you hold your fist tight, you grasp nothing inside; open your hand, you will have the sky on you palm. DPP asks for a referendum, give them the referendum. There is nothing to lose. Treat our Taiwanese compatriots like how we treat our brothers and sisters, you will win their hearts.

The downside of obstructing such a referendum is, you will continue to lose votes to (B). If, when China changes to a democracy, or if there are other unexpected event in the world or in China, Taiwan will grab the opportunity to hold its own referendum. The vote then would be much less favorable as a result of the prolonged hostility. You will lose you sister and she will become your enemy. This will make you "One Sinner in A Thousand Years" (千古罪人).

---

Notes

(*) About the movie

• I have never been a fan of martial art movies. I think Jet Li is good, but Jackie Chan is very shallow. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is just a better quality Kung Fu flick solely a result of bigger budget and a more serious director. I prefer Zhang Yimou, Wong Kar-wai, and - yes - Stephen Chow is great.
• One evidence to support my view on CTHD is the movie's unprofessional English translation, which is as lame as those you could rent in Chinatown in the 1980s. "there is nothing we can hold on to in this world. Only by letting go can we truly possess what is real." Do you think such translation serves justice to the metaphor in the quote above?

(**) Factors that drive Taiwan toward separatism

• Total disappointment of being ruled by mainland official, based on the performance of KMT and CCP from 1945-1978. Especially deep contrast of Chen Yi/CKS regime in 1945 vs the milder Japanese colonist governor
• Wary of mainland chauvanism and oppression, exploitation
• Further alienation due to diplomatic war, which led to extreme inconvience for Taiwanese travelling and doing business abroad, and hurts pride
• Taiwanese identity, while most spoken about, is a very new concept and not popular 20 years ago

(***) Unification is not the objective. It is only a means to reach peace and proposerity.

• Throughout the history of China there have been numerous periods of division interlacing unification. As Luo Guanzhong's started his classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms, "The trends of the world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. (话说天下大势，分久必合，合久必分)" According Luo, such trends are not to be stopped by human intervention and not neccessarily harmful.
• Historical cycle (Unified [division]): Xia/Shang, [spring-autumn, warring states], Qin/Han [3 Kingdoms, Jin/16 states, North/South], Sui/Tang, [5+10, Song/Liao/Jin], Yuan/Ming/Qing, [Warlord, ROC/PRC]
• 夏一统，商周继之，春秋战国乱之；秦一统，两汉继之，三国魏晋南北朝乱之；隋一统，大唐继之，五代十国宋辽金乱之；元一统，明清继之，民国乱之
• The common myth in China is: Division leads to war, that is not good. The most often hailed merit of Qin Shi Huangdi (秦始皇帝) is that his unification of China stopped the thousand year war of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (Spring-autumn and Warring States). Qin Shi Huangdi launched a 12 year campaign and ended the the 500 year war. The situation today is different, there is no 500 year war, and to launch a war to unify a country is defeating the purpose to eliminate war.

Pretty girls are more fertile!

So now we can explain how evolution helped us to define 'beauty', and this is [many of the criteria are] universal. From Spiegel

• "... Now a new study could shed some light on this phenomenon. Researchers at St Andrews University in Scotland measured the oestrogen levels of 56 female students and found that "female facial appearance holds detectable clues, to reproductive health, that are considered attractive in other people." In other words the women with the prettier faces -- those who had bigger eyes and lips, and a smaller jaw -- were also more fertile. However, there's only one problem -- the signals only really work without makeup, never mind cosmetic surgery. So what's the average bloke to do? He's out there on a Saturday night trying his best to propagate the species, but his whole radar is being put severely out of whack by all that mascara, lip gloss, botox and collagen, allowing those less fertile ladies to jump the queue in the search for Mr Right. "
• Who is more attractive? (click picture to see the answer)

Sorry, how do I justify blogging this?

1. Evolution is great science, with application to every branch of study in this world, including business strategy and economics
2. This discovery supports evolutionary selection as a 'cause' to our definition of 'beauty', hence also that such definition transcend cultures
3. Try to make it to Boing Boing?

Update: New Scientists

Map: No more border dispute between China and Central Asian ex-USSR countries

(via Wenxuecity and Feiyang Junshi)

According to newly published map in China, the border between Xinjiang AR and the Central Asian Stans have been quietly changed, reflecting results of recent negotiation to settle borders.

This is part of China's effort to "peaceful development", i.e., to make sure China can steer away from the distraction of border dispute or conflict and focus on economic development.

If the negotiation with India goes well as expected, China would be able settle all land border disputes with its neighbors. This would serve to prove that China has no intention of aggression, today or in the future, and dispel the myth of "China threat". Because if China plans to be aggressive, it would rather save some of the disputed areas as future excuses. It would also be silly to settle them in such haste because as we see below, in almost every case, China conceded most the territories it has claimed.

FYJS's site has some anecdotes about how China dealt with the disputes in thw 1960s and 1980s. Most of the disputed terriroties were under Soviet control. Soviet Army were a lot strong than China's. China did not want to escalate the conflicts.

However, the disputed areas were grazing zone for the nomads who lives on Chinese side (nomads migrates to where the grass is greener over the seasons), which is one of the main evidence for China's claim. When USSR and China were friendly in the 1950s, the nomads can cross the border to graze with no problem. But the Soviet started to harrass the nomads since the 1960s, even though there was an agreement to allow them there in particular seasons.

So every year, China needs to encourage the nomads to drive their herds to the Soviet controlled side, to keep the territory claim valid. Many were discouraged by the Soviet harrassment and would prefer not to go for such trouble. So sometimes China send some soldiers to disguise as nomad, to help them with the jobs, and to survey the landscape. These were high danger jobs so each trip was taken with a lot of sweat. FYJS's site has some memoirs of the trips made by these soldiers/officers.

Fig. Border with Kakhzastan. (left 2002 map, right 2005 map)

Red circle: border change

Click figures to enlarge




Fig. Border with Kirghistan

• This is the largest disputed area. It concerns mainly how to divide the Wuzhongtushi river source area: 2844 sq. km
• The lower (green, topographic) map is an enlargement of the area
• Red dots the new negotiated boundary, yellow dots the disputed area
• China claimed the boundary should be the Wuzhongtushi watershed, Russia claimed Tianshan South as the watershed

China obtained about 30% of the disputed area as a result of negotiation, Kirghistan 70%



Border with Tajikstan (left 2002 map, right 2005 map)

---
A related note: China and Vietnam settled the dispute on land border, border marks will be erected by 2008. Sea border in Tonkin Bay is also settled and the area will be patrol jointly by the 2 navies. Remaining dispute on South Sea Islands (Paracels and Spratly) will be set aside, the area will be jointly developed.

Tamiflu, Star Anise(八角), Licorice(甘草), and SARS

Facts:

1. Tamiflu, a not-so-effective drug to treat virus infection, is now the front line drug to treat H5N1 bird flu. It was also used by the FDA to treat SARS back in 2003.
2. Tamiflu has very similar chemcial structure to shikimic acid, which is abundant in the Chinese spice star anise (八角, picture on the right), in its natural form. Tamiflu is manufactured through a 10 step chemical process from shikimic acid.
3. On a separate note, in July 2003, German scientists have shown that glycyrrhizin, the chemical that provides the sweetening flavor for Licorice, kills SARS virus in the test-tubes

Now, there is an interesting piece of fact: Star anise, is said to possess a "pungent, licorice-like flavor", according to Patent Baristas. I have eaten both, but I never noticed the connection. Star anise is widely used in beef soup and lamb stews in China. Licorice can be chewed like mint. Guangxi produces 80% of the world's star anise (rest from Yunnan, Vietnam neighborhood). Licorice grows in NE China and Inner Mongolia AR. (The root is usually used, sliced dried root in the figure, lower photo is the plant on top)

Perhaps we do have a chemical to fight bird flu, which can even serve as a wide-spectrum anti-viral drug, including AIDS (HIV). It is not Tamiflu, but could it be somewhere in the connection between licorice and star anise?

Now rush out to buy licorice tablet. It costs about RMB5 per bottle in Chinese Pharmacies and you can taste it like Polo mint candy. I had had a few when I boarded planes during the SARS terror era.

Update: WSJ reports on star anise as well. For temporary archive see here.

Strategy to fight virus (H5N1 avian / bird flu): buy time to immunize our population

Sun Zi said,

• "It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.
• If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
• Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force" - Sun Zi Chapter 3 Attack by strategem
• "故用兵之法，十则围之，五则攻之，倍则分之，敌则能战之，少则能逃之，不若则能避之。故小敌之坚，大敌之擒也。" - 孙子兵法.谋攻.三

Lesson in military strategy: If you have 100 soldiers, and you send 1 out each time to take over a castle guarded by 10 soldiers, you will fail.

Lesson in marketing strategy: If you have 1M in marketing budget, and you spend 10k each day on different street or buy one ad spot each at random time, you cannot build a brand. You need to concentrate the exposure in a short period of time focusing on your target customers.

Such insights can be applied to our fighting against bird flu, and contagious diseases in general.

A) The debate on treating the birds

There has been a blame (via TPD) and defense game about who is responsible for the strains of virus which developed resistance to the anti-viral drug amantadine in SE Asia.

• Some researcher in US speculated that the application of amantadine in chicken farms in China led to the development of drug resistance
• "Experts there reported last month that bird flu strains in East Asia, particularly in China, had become more resistant to amantadine during recent years. They also said the mutations in China did not appear to be random, adding they could be the result of treating chickens with the drug to prevent bird flu." -Washington Post
• Jia Youling of China's Agriculture Ministry said it is unfair to blame China for the resistance of the virus strains. (fig=vaccine shot in china; note amantadine is given orally, mixed in its food, and daily)
• 'The Chinese government has denied that it urged farmers to use amantadine to suppress bird flu outbreaks. But Jia said some Chinese poultry farmers have used the drug in the past on the advice of the Merck Veterinary Manual, a leading guide for the veterinary profession around the world. The manual's online edition lists amantadine under the prevention and treatment section of its entry on influenza. It says the drug "reduces the severity of influenza in some avian species, but amantadine-resistant virus frequently emerges." '
• "Jia said "only very limited samples" of the bird flu virus tested in China last year and none of the samples tested this year had mutated and become resistant to amantadine. By contrast, he said, the vast majority of bird flu virus samples tested in Southeast Asia had become resistant." -WaPo
• He also said the economical cost of using amantadine is more expensive than that of vaccine in China, because vaccine is cheap and one shot is good for 6 months.

Personally I think the blame game is childish and does not help our war on H5N1. The blame/avoid-blame mentality had served to amplify the crisis of SARS in 2003, when some international media blamed China for the new virus species and the idiot Zhang Wenkang spent more time drawing the 'analogy' of US and Africa as the source of AIDS (HIV) than telling the Chinese people of the truth.

Suppressing truth is a crime (as in SARS) as it reduces our vigilance and helps the virus to spread. However, suppressing the outbreak in farm fowls may not be. In fact, buying time by suppressing and delaying the outbreak is perhaps one of our best defense against virus. Let me explain this below.

B) Technical Backgrounds

Before going into the strategy to fight a virus, some background knowledge on virus and on H5N1

• Virus is as different from bacteria as plant vs animal. Virus is basically a set of nucleic acid, RNA or DNA, but not both. Virus does not even have cell membrane. All other organisms (bacteria, plant, animal) have cell membrane and both types of nucleic acids.
• H5N1 is a newly discovered (1997) strain of bird flu. Other flu virus are classified as HaNb, where a/b are numbers. Most of the flu outbreaks in human history are believed to be related to (or started from) birds.
• Human beings have had great success against bacteria infection (e.g., cholera, TB) since the discovery of penicillin. But we still do not know how to treat virus effectively. That is why SARS, AIDS are so difficult to treat
• There are not many anti-viral drugs at our disposal today, so far we only have 3 plausible drugs to treat flu, Roche's Tamiflu (aka oseltamivir), and its relative Relenza, aka zanamivir); and the older drug amantadine and its relative.
• Most people (and bird) heal from virus infection (including flu) without medical treatment, due to our own immunological response (our body can produce antibodies that target the specific invader ourselves). A strong body, less stress, lot of rest helps. The reason I said drugs like Tamiflu are not very effective is because there are perhaps as many (or more) people who heal without using Tamiflu than those who used. (But even if the effecacy is 20%, it is still worth trying. That is why many hospitals are using it)
• Abuse in anti-biotic leads to resistance in bacteria. But it does not affect the treatment of virus..
• Just like insecticide resistance does not change the effect of herbicide
• However, abuse of anti-viral will affect the efficacy of that specifc antiviral drug or even other drugs in the same family
• One important fact is that once we are able to generate antibody to a specific strain of virus ourselves, we are immune for live. If we surived H5N1 or survived a SARS infection, we would never be infected by the same strain of virsu again. Then why do we catch flu more than once? because each time it is a new strain of virus. Each year the flu vaccine is different from that in the previous year.

C) Strategy to fight the virus

Understanding the last point above is important in our discussions below. There are 2 obvious strategies to fight H5N1.

1. Build a physical line of defense, fight back each infection, quarantine patients, kill every bird
2. Suppress major outbreak, quarantine patients, buy time and hope for more people would become immune in the meantime (I will elaborate on this later).

Option 1 is basically what we have done when we fought SARS. If SARS is, as alleged, passed from civet cats, which are very shy animals, once we have eradicated the virus in our environment and promise not to pat (or catch) civet cats again, we are pretty safe.

However, option 1 does not work for bird flu. Because, as you can see in the chart on the right, our fowls may contact with migrating birds, and migrating birds fly all over the earth. They are a lot more mobile than civet cats. There is no way we can cut our contact with these birds, nor should/could we kill all these birds.

So we are actually left with option 2, and minimize human death. Considering the fact that it had been a full 8 years since we first saw H5N1 in 1997, we have been extremely successful. We have bought a lot of time and many people in SE Asia and South China may already be immune to this virus. This is because, for every human infection of H5N1, there must have been thousands who might have contact with the virus and end up healthy, because the amount of virus is small or the human being is strong and able to generate antibody to fight the virus.

In fact, many of us may already be immune to H5N1 (and even SARS) at this moment. When more and more of us become immune, it will be very difficult for virus to spread between human beings (so far all cases observed have been bird to human), because when the virus jumps to the next person, he might already be immune and the chain of infection will stop there. (Analogy: firebreak in the forest) Some suspect this mechansim is also responsible for our winning the war against SARS (many in South China might already be SARS immune).

• Contact with a weak virus, while you are healthy and strong, is how Dr Jenner discovered the vaccination against small pox. The girl pictured at the top of this post is probably immune from H5N1. (However, do not go out to kiss birds now, since you are not sure if you are strong enough, or if the virus in not lethal)
• In other words, buying time is effectively the creation of a natural process to immunize our population, and equip ourselves in am arms race against the virus. The analogy of a 10 soldier guard against a 100 soldier attacker applies, except that after each battle the winner gets stronger.

Therefore, buying time is very important in our war against virus. Effective suppression and treatment of chicken is one of the measure we can adopt to buy time. In fact, instead of killing birds en masse (HK in 1997), we may want to simply isolate these chicken and see how many of them survive the pandemic. It is certainly a more human way to treat these animals, and it is also scientifically justified.

D) Implications to ourselves

• No need to panic, but be vigilant
• Avoid contact with birds, contact with human are still safe so far (until a mutated strain appears, it has not for the past 8 years)
• Exercise to maintain fitness, avoid stress, sleep well and rest well
• The buy-time strategy also works at individual level: If you caught a cold or flu, the first day is extremely importantly. If you can cope with it well, you got youself enough time for your own immune system to figure out the weakness of the virus and develop weapon (antibody) agaisnt them, before they could multiply exponentially.

p.s. After reading the backgroun material above, you would know why Roche's allegation that Taiwan's applying its own version of Tamiflu will generate resistant virus strain is full of bullshit. Because, resistance is only generated when the treatment fails and the virus survive and pass on its genes. If Taiwanese doctors are following the proper procedures, the risk (of resistance) will be no different from those in Europe or US.