Where this will all lead is hard to say. It seems this dispute over the South China Sea keeps boiling up from time to time, but rarely is anything very dramatic is done about it. I would not be surprised if this issue fades away for a while...and then erupts again!

   Having said that, another phenomenon I have noticed living in the People's Republic is the sometimes strange juxtaposition of Western-style commercialism with Communist orthodoxy. On my first trip to Beijing, in 2000, I recall seeing a three billboards next to each other along a street. Two of the billboards featured political slogans; the one in the middle was a car advertisement!

   Just a few days ago, I noticed another striking example of how Marxism and the market have mixed in China. On the top of the dashboard in a taxi, there was a small sign, reading (as best as I can remember) in English: "Your satisfaction is our goal"--a rather mundane commercial slogan. However, next to these words was an image of Lei Feng. Lei Feng is a Communist icon, a soldier in the Chinese People's Liberation Army in the 1960s who was noted for his good deeds and dedication to the Party. He is famous for supposedly  having said that his goal was to be like a cog in the machine, a selfless servant of the State and the people. After his tragically early death, something of a Lei Feng cult developed. Even today, he is sometimes cited as an embodiment of the frequently-heard slogan "Serve the People," as an antidote to the contemporary materialism and individualism in China. Thus, I found it somewhat ironic that Lei Feng would be used, posthumously, as a sort of  spokesman for a commercial enterprise. However, I suspect many Chinese would see nothing unusual about this--most likely, in light of all the rapid changes that have occurred in Chinese society in their lifetimes, such a mixing of the old and the new is to be expected. Besides such incongruities are nearly everywhere. For example, despite his rather debatable contributions to the Chinese economy, Mao Zedong's image appears on all Chinese paper currency. Now think about that!

 

[A Note to Readers: This is my first post in a month and a half. I apologize for such incredibly light posting, but I do have an excuse in that I have been nearly inundated with student papers over the past several weeks. I hope to post more frequently in the coming days (though I can't promise!).    

   Given the lack of any clear evidence about the statue's fate, there has been, not surprisingly, considerable speculation about the reason for its removal. Some apparently believe that the real reason for the statue's disappearance was that it was an ideological eyesore--the statue nearly faced the famous portrait of the late Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong on the Gate of Heavenly Peace (Tianenmen) which leads into the former imperial palace, known to most Westerners as the Forbidden City. The theory presumably is that ardent Maoists thought the statue was an insult to the memory of the "Great Helmsman," Mao. However, at the time of my writing of this post, I have seen no evidence that either confirms or refutes that theory.

   Certainly, the controversy about the statue does demonstrate the ambiguous position of Confucius in modern Chinese society. For much of China's imperial period, the ideas of Confucius, especially his emphases on social harmony and on respect and obedience to one's superiors, were the offiicial state ideology. However, in the early years of the People's Republic, Confucius was villified as being the source of much of the "feudal" thinking that had kept China backwards for so many centuries. In more recent years, however, he has been ideologically rehabilitated. In an effort to reclaim aspects of traditional Chinese culture in order to inculcate a greater sense of national pride, the Communist Party has emphasized the idea that Confucius was not actually a reactionary, but a progressive thinker. Certainly, his ideas on the need for social harmony and respect for authority have not been unwelcomed in light of the breakdown in social order that occured during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), and whose effects have lingered for some time after. The Chinese government has even employed Confucius in its cultural diplomacy--the government-funded Chinese language and culture programs that have sprung up around the world have been dubbed "Confucius Institutes." After the controversary over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a critic of the Chinese government last year, a "Confucius Prize," awarded by the Chinese government, was established in response.

   Although I was on the edge of Tiananmen Square one afternoon last March, I can't say I have a clear memory of having seen the statue. Nonetheless, being familiar with the general area, I can say it certainly would have been a commanding sight.

   So what can be learned from this episode, other than that things in China are sometimes rather mysterious? I would suggest that it shows what happens when government officials don't follow a policy of transparency. In the absence of any clear facts, rumors start flying. If, in fact, the statue has simply been removed to another location, and this had always been planned, it seems to me that officials should have invited reporters (and/or the public) to see the statue in its new surroundings. Until something like that happens, those rumors will keep on flying...

 

(3) Bin Laden's death is unlikely to lessen the threat from Al Qaeda or like-minded groups, at least in the short term. In fact, terrorist action in retaliation for his death would not be unexpected. Moreover, as his importance to al Qaeda as a leader apparently was much less in recent years due to a decentralization of the terrorist organization's structure, his death will probably have a limited effect on al Qaeda's operations. On the other hand, his death is clearly a signal to al Qaeda's leaders and rank-and-file that they cannot assume that they will always be able to act with impunity.

 

(4) Despite the fact that I am not usually a big fan of President Barack Obama, I think he should be given credit for giving the order to carry out the operation that led to Bin Laden's death. Of course, most of the credit should be given to the brave men who actually carried out the operation. Nevertheless, I am tempted to say that this was perhaps the most praiseworthy action taken by Obama so far in his

 

(5) Here in China, while watching reports about Bin Laden's death on the government-controlled, English-language CCTV News channel, I coudn't help noticing that the anchor twice made reference to the positive implications of Bin Laden's death for President Obama's reelection bid. I suspect that this event will have at least a short term effect on Obama's popularity, but the election is about a year and a half away, so a lot can happen between now and then. Moreover, there is a historical precedent to consider: almost exactly twenty years ago, the United States (and its allies) had won a spectacular victory against Iraqi forces in the Persian Gulf War. Then President George H.W. Bush was riding high in the polls, with approval ratings in the 90s, if I recall correctly. Yet a year and a half later he lost to Bill Clinton, primarily due to concerns about the economy. I suspect that by November 2012, most voters are going to be more concerned about the state of the economy than the state of the "war on terror" (or "overseas contingency operations" as the Obama Administration calls it), and if the economy hasn't significantly improved by then, Obama could be in a lot of trouble, despite his current triumph. We shall see...

 

   A few days ago I took my daughter to the zoo here in Beijing. It was a holiday, the day before Qing Ming, a traditional Chinese holiday sometimes called "Tomb-Sweeping Day" in English. Naturally, as it was a holiday, there were a lot of people. Nevertheless, after waiting in line for a few minutes, I was able to buy a ticket for the two of us (my daughter is short enough that she actually doesn't have to pay--in China, children get free admission based on their height, not their age).

   While in the zoo, I noticed some rather typical Chinese behavior--a lot of people smoking and some spitting, babies and toddlers in split pants urinating on the ground, etc. (Chinese babies and toddlers often do not wear diapers). I also noticed some egregious rule-breaking. Despite a prohibition on feeding the animals, it was quite clear that some people had been doing so and I saw at least in one case a person in the very act (although, to be fair, she didn't look Chinese, but no one stopped her). There was also a large stone statue of a tiger on a massive stone pedestal. There was a sign prohibiting people from climbing onto the statue, and there was even a coil of barbed-wire around the base of the statue to discourage climbing. Nonetheless, people (including children) were climbing gingerly over the barbed-wire in order to have their picture taken next to the statue.

   Now many people in the U.S. or other Western countries have heard that China is an authoritarian country. There is, in fact, a long tradition of authoritarianism in Chinese history. Yet it is not uncommon to see people in China ignoring the rules. The classic example for me are the signs in the men's bathrooms prohibiting smoking. Such signs are almost always ignored. This may seem a paradox: why would a people in a country viewed by many outsiders as highly authoritarian be so noncholant about the rules? I think there are at least two reasons. First, historically in China, there has been the notion that laws and regulations are tools to be used by those in power to keep others under their control. This goes back at least to the so-called Legalist philosophers about two thousand years ago, who argued that for a country to flourish there had to be strict laws enforced by a system of severe punishment. Thus, laws have merely a pragmatic basis. There has not been the idea often prevalent in Western culture that laws should be, ideally, a reflection of some transcendent (even divine) law. Thus, breaking a law or rule in China is perceived as not being (that) morally reprehensible.  The only bad thing about breaking a rule is that it might have adverse consequences for you (and possibly your family). Second, often the rules in China seem rather arbitrary anyway (or perhaps inconsistently enforced), so, it would appear, that many Chinese have concluded that there is no point in obeying them.

       I remember many years ago reading a book written by foreign journalist who had lived in China in the early years after the country opened up to the outside world. He wrote something to the effect that China was an authoritarian society with an authority crisis. He attributed this to the lawlessness that occured during the so-called Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). I think he had a point, but I suspect the story is even more complicated than that.

   By the way, remember that line we waited in to buy our ticket? It wasn't quite a line like you would see in the U.S. It wasn't altogether straight, nor was it clear that everyone was accepting of the idea of waiting one's turn. In short, it was very Chinese...

   Is DOMA unconstitutional? Well, this would be a matter of debate. Perhaps more importantly, does the President have the authority not to defend duly enacted Federal laws that he believes are unconstitutional? I am not an expert in constitutional law, but it seems to me that there might be cases in which a president is justified in not defending (or enforcing) a law or a particular part of a law passed by Congress. I would say that, given that the presidential oath of office commits the president to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, the President has, first of all, the responsibility not to sign or even veto legislation that clearly violates the Constitution or (perhaps) a ruling by the Supreme Court defining what is constitutional or not. If his veto is overridden or it is obvious that the legislation will pass by a veto-proof majority, then I believe the president should refuse to defend or enforce the legislation (or at least, make clear that any compliance o his part with the law is voluntary, as has been the case with the so-called War Powers Act). However, in cases in which the legislation does not on its face violate the Constitution or a Supreme Court decision, I don't think it is appropriate for an administration to refuse to defend or enforce the law. In the case of DOMA, there clearly is nothing in the text of the Constitution that prohibits the enactment of such legislation. Some might argue that DOMA violates the "full faith and credit clause" but that is at least debatable. The "full faith and credit" clause requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of another state, but it is clear that a marriage license is not a "judicial proceeding" and it is not even clear if it would constitute a "public act" or a "record." Moreover, Congress is given authority in the same clause to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Futhermore, the Constitution contains no reference to a "right to marry" and, so far, the Supreme Court has failed to declare that such a "right" exists (whether they would be right to do so is another matter). Thus, there is no real legal justification in my view for the Obama Administration's decision.

   There might be, though, for the Obama Administration a good political reason for its decision. Having lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives and a number of governorships to the Republicans, President Obama's chances for re-election seem somewhat in doubt. Obama needs all the support he can get if he is to have any hope of winning in 2012. In the wake the last (Democratic-controlled) Congress' decision to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving openly in the military, what better way to convince homosexuals that all the more Obama and the Democrats have their best interests at heart? Moreover, DOMA is generally opposed by the liberal/progressive voters whose support Obama feels he needs to cultivate. Indeed, the President's apparent reluctance to push for significant cuts in the Federal budget, his support for DADT repeal, and this decision to no longer defend DOMA in the courts suggest that he is not really that serious in pursuing a "centrist" strategy for his re-election. Rather, it seems he is putting his hopes in his ideological base, the Left. Or perhaps he is hoping that he can gain support from the Left from these moves while those voters more in the political center will forget or be unaware of these seemingly ideologically-driven policy decisions. Only time will show whether this will prove to be a winning strategy.

   Of course, President Obama has said that his views on same-sex "marriage" are "evolving." The decision to abandon DOMA would seem to suggest a further "evolution" in his thinking, except for the fact that he had already been on record as opposing DOMA. Indeed, his opposition to DOMA and expressed opposition to California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman strongly suggests to me that his earlier professed opposition to same-sex "marriage" was never that strong in the first place or mainly intended for political consumption (to give himself a more "centrist" image), or even that, like some Catholic politicians on abortion, that he was "personally" opposed to it but didn't believe in "forcing his beliefs" on others. I don't think that at this point we should be surprised if he should suddenly announce his support for same-sex "marriage."  The problem he faces, though, is while there may be somewhat more public support for the idea than before, it is still a controversial position to take and one that could hurt him at least as much as help him. The fact that in every state in which same-sex "marriage" has been put on the ballot, it has lost, suggests that there is still considerable unease with the idea among many voters (and not necessarily just social/religious conservatives).  

   I have to confess that this is one sound of winter I could do without--I find it quite disgusting. However, it seems that most Chinese take it for granted. Indeed, I understand that traditionally Chinese people have believed that swallowing one's own spittle or flem is unhealthy; thus, it is better to spit it out. I do recall reading during the SARS epidemic in 2003 that some people gave up spitting in public for fear of spreading the disease, but apparently, once the crisis passed, many happily returned to their old habit.

   Furthermore, the spitters have a model in a famous Chinese leader. The late Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping, the de facto leader of China throughout 1980s and part of the 1990s, was noted for spitting loudly while meeting with foreign leaders. This habit was attributed to his many years of living in the countryside. However, to be fair, China's current leaders, like President Hu Jintao, seem generally not to be addicted to this habit, at least in public.

   I suppose as an American I shouldn't complain--after all, according to the Lonely Planet guide to China, British visitors to the U.S. during the 19th century complained about the same phenomenon. Nevertheless, as I sometimes see political slogans here urging people to act in a "civilized" (wenming) manner (such as when lining up for a bus--not that it seems to make much difference), discouraging this habit would seem to be one step towards fostering the image of a "civilzied" China.

     On the other hand, some aspects of health care in China do not seem so impressive. One scene I observed I thought was also quite telling about the state of medical care in China. When I was in the emergency room, another man came into the emergency room on his own, apparently experiencing some sort of medical emergency--though I never could quite determine what it was. As he was in the midst of being treated, a nurse came up and demanded that he pay her cash for his treatment. In the midst of his medical emergency, he was obligated to search for his wallet. My experience in China is that one is expected to pay up-front for the costs of medical care. My understanding is that some people have health insurance, but most do not. In the countryside, I believe there is some sort of government-run health insurance program, but I also understand their have been complaints that the benefits received are not that great. China used to have universal health care provided by the government in the old days before the current economic reforms. However, the quality of care was not that high (often provided by "barefoot doctors" with only basic medical training) and the politically influential were able to use their positions to receive much better care. Since the economic reforms of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the old system has been abandoned but there is no comprehensive system has been set up to take its place.

   In short, I would have to say to Rep. Lee that yes, in theory,  everyone has access to health care in China. However, the reality is that it often depends on one's ability to pay. Stories of families being wiped out financially by the costs of medical treatment are not uncommon. Thus, I wonder if she knew about the reality of health care in China whether she would so be quick to use China to prove how supposedly backward the U.S. is in comparison with other countries in terms of access to health care.

 

   For example, I recall one occasion in 2007 or 2008 during which, soon after entering the taxi and giving the driver my destination, the following conversation ensued (to the best of my memory):

 

         Cabbie: Where are you from?

         Me: The United States.

         Cabbie: Oh. I don't like your country's president [George W. Bush]. I am for peace.

 

Needless to say, I thought this was a rather strange way to open a conversation with a stranger, particularly a foreigner. I couldn't help imagining an identical situation involving a Chinese visitor to Washington, D.C.:

 

      Cabbie: Where are you from?

      Visitor: China.

      Cabbie: Oh. I don't like your country's president--he's a really bad guy.

 

   Nevertheless, this conversation was enlightening in a way as it revealed how official viewpoints in China trickle down to the laobaixing ("Old Hundred Surnames"--ordinary people). As far as I could tell, the Chinese media (which is ultimately under government influence) tended to portray the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in a negative light (one of my students told me the U.S. invaded Iraq to get control of its oil--a view, as I pointed out to her, some Americans shared). At least one reason for this negative portrayal, I believe, is that the Chinese government is, for historical and ideological reasons, very sensitive about the issue of national sovereignty. In its view, national sovereignty trumps just about anything else in international relations, and as a matter of principle, this is not only true in the case of China itself but also other countries. Thus, by invading Iraq, the U.S. was commiting the cardinal "sin" of violating another country's national sovereignty, no matter what justification was given for that action or how horrible Saddam Hussein was.

 

   On the other hand, from time to time I have heard some Beijing cabbies express ideas that seemed to depart from the official line.  For instance, on one occasion, after getting into a taxi on the campus of the university where I teach, the driver mentioned the fact that our university had been the alma mater of a rather well-known leader of the student protest movement in 1989 (who later escaped from China). His tone of voice did not seem to express approval or disapproval of this student leader's actions at the time; he seemed rather matter-of-fact about the topic. Still, I was rather surprised he would say anything about this, for it seems that the Chinese government would much rather that people forget about those tumultuous days. It would appear that not everyone has forgotten.

   On another (more recent) occasion, my daughter and I got into a taxi and it turned out that the driver recognized us--he had apparently driven us to church several weeks before. Recalling our previous meeting, he asked us whether we were going to a Catholic or Protestant church. Then he went on to, in effect, endorse the social value of religious belief, saying that religion caused people to act in a moral way. He went on to say further that it was a pity that (in his view) so few Chinese people believed in any religion. I also found this conversation striking, given that we were in a country ruled by a Communist party that propagates atheism and which for many years had portrayed religious belief in a negative light (although, to be fair, in recent years there seems to have been a somewhat more positive portrayal of religion, in terms of its social utility at least). It would seem that he had formed his own views on the subject and was not afraid to express them.   

 

   Thus, it would appear, sometimes even taking a taxi can given you a sense of the diversity of views in a country as large as China.

 

 

 

   So, what do I think about all of this? Living in China as an expatriate U.S. citizen, I feel a little removed from the passions of the debate in my home country. Yet, I would suggest that perhaps we can learn a lesson from the Washington/Paine episode (and some subsequent history). On the one hand, it is striking how even in the infant United States people felt free to express the feeliings about public figures. This was not necessarily the case in Europe at that time. Indeed, one could argue that freedom of political speech was one of the hallmarks of the new country. However, during the presidency of Washington's successor, John Adams, there was an attempt to limit free speech by prohibiting criticism of the President through passage of the Sedition Act. This action ended up backfiring spectacularly on the Federalist majority in Congress that pushed the legislation through, as it came to be seen by many as merely a means to punish and silence the Federalists' political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans (that sounds strange doesn't it--though maybe not to those who insist that there isn't that much difference between the modern-day Democrats and Republicans!). When the Democratic-Republicans under Thomas Jefferson took control of the presidency and Congress in the next election, the Sedition Act was repealed and no more successful efforts were made to limit political speech in the country. I would say that this was all to the good, for if people in a democracy cannot freely express what they think, then democracy itself is greatly diminished. Thus, I would hope that any efforts to limit "incivility" in speech by law or regulation (like the so-called Fairness Doctrine) would be firmly resisted.

   On the other hand, it is instructive to see what happen to Paine after he made his blast against Washington. Apparently, much of the public in his time felt Paine had gone too far, and he became essentially a political pariah after this event. Thus, while I believe there should be no legal limits on what people may say in political discourse about public figures, whether Sarah Pailin or Barack Obama, I would like to think that there would be cost to pay in terms of personal reputation for those who "cross the line" from legitimate criticism to outright slander. Unfortunately, these days this rarely seems the case--too often there are those who will condone or even defend such slander or even admire those who say such things as "speaking truth to power" or the like.

   I think part of the problem for the seeming uprise in the use of inflammatory political rhetoric is that some people are unable to distinguish between those who are genuinely bent on doing evil and those who may be advocating or doing something that we think is wrong but are nonetheless motivated by good intentions. For my part, though I don't approve of many of President Obama's policies, I refuse to write of him as if he were some sort of enemy of the good; rather, in light of any evidence to the contrary, I assume that he is well-intentioned even if wrongheaded in some of the policies he pursues. Therefore, I am appalled by those who say that Obama is trying to destroy the country, is a cryto-Communist (or Muslim), or other such nonsense. It is possible to disagree vigorously with someone without descending to demonization. I would like to hope that many on the Left would take the same attitude toward a controversial figure on the Right like Sarah Pailin (of whom I am not a hard-core fan, but I suspect that on a number of issues I would agree with her), but it remains to be seen whether this will prove to be the case. Certainly, recent events do not inspire great hope that the slanderous attacks on Governor Pailin are going to diminish any time soon...

     In fact, the whole month or so between January 1 and Chunjie always has a strange feeling for me--it's a new year, but somehow it's still not a new year. At the university where I teach, the fall semester actually ends after the middle of January, whereas in the U.S., many universities have already begun the spring semester by that point. A little unsettling!

   This should not be too surprising, as Christmas seems to be spreading almost worldwide. For example, despite the fact that it has even fewer Christians per capita than China (around one percent), Christmas is celebrated in Japan as a fairly significant holiday. This may be partially due to the fact that it occurs only a week before New Year's Day, which traditionally was the most important holiday in Japan, and partially due to commerical reasons. Whatever the reason, Christmas apparently has come to take on a certain importance for the Japanese. However, as I understand it, the Japanese have put their own spin on the holiday. For example, in Japan, one of the things that everyone is expected to do on Christmas is to eat something called a "Christmas cake." Moreover, a "tradition" has developed over the years (perhaps as a result of shrewd marketing) that one is supposed to eat out at a KFC fast-food restaurant on Christmas Eve (I still don't quite understand this!).

   Like in Japan, Christmas in China has its own uniquely Chinese characteristics. Several weeks ago during an Oral English class for freshmen at my university here in Beijing, I was fielding questions from my students about American Christmas customs. One student asked me why people gave apples to each other for Christmas. I had to reply that I had no idea as I had never heard of such a custom. During the class break, another student came up to me and explained the reason for "Christmas apples." In China, Christmas Eve is called Ping An Ye, which literally means "Silent Night." Obviously, this is reference to the famous Christmas carol. The Chinese word for "apple" is pingguo. Thus, there is a pun on the similarity in sound between the first part of the name for Christmas Eve and the first syllable in the word "apple." To give someone an apple for Christmas is, apparently a way of wishing him or her peace and prosperity. Of course, it's hard not to imagine this "tradition" had its start with fruit-sellers. Christmas Eve also seems to be a big night for people to go out, and the resultant traffic hardly makes it a "silent night"!

   However, unlike Japan (to the best of my knowledge), there seems to be at least some awareness of the original reason for celebrating Christmas here in China. My understanding is that attending a Christmas Eve service has become rather popular. In fact, I have read that many of the churches in Beijing are packed on Christmas Eve, to a certain extent by curious non-believers (of course, I am referring to those churches that are sponsored by the Chinese government). Indeed, a few days before Christmas, one of my students, hearing that I planned to attend a Christmas Eve service, asked somewhat shyly if she could accompany me. Unfortunately, I had to point out to her that the church we attend, as it operates only with the Chinese government's permission, is open solely to foreign citizens--anyone wishing to attend actually has to show his or her passport or other foreign ID at the door.

   Still, I find it interesting that Christmas is gaining more attention here in China. On the other hand, given that a large percentage of the Christmas tree lights and other Christmas decorations that one buys in the U.S. are now "made in China," perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that people here might begin wondering what the big deal was about Christmas!