The Chinese government has reacted quite strongly to the recent announcement that the U.S. will sell a large number of weapon systems to Taiwan. It has suspended exchanges between the U.S.  military and the Chinese People's Liberation Army, and has threatened sanctions against the U.S. companies involved in the arms sale. Reportedly, it has even hinted that Beijing might not cooperate with Washington on global issues of interest to the U.S. Today, I noticed that on the government-run English language TV channel, China Central Television (CCTV) 9, an announcer said that this issue struck at "the core" of U.S.-China relations.

   Why the angry response? From Beijing's perspective Taiwan, which was returned to Chinese control by the Japanese after the Second World War and later became a haven for the Chinese Communists' rivals, the Chinese Nationalists (also known as the Kuomintang or KMT), is rightfully part of China, meaning the People's Republic of China (PRC). Thus, arms sales to Taiwan represent a violation of  China's sovereignty. For its part, while the U.S. government officially acknowledges the idea that Taiwan is part of China in some sense, it has maintained "unofficial" relations with the island and has insisted that any resolution of the conflict between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan should be peaceful in nature. Thus, periodic U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are intended to maintain a military balance between the two sides in order to discourage the use of force against Taiwan by the Chinese mainland.

   In the past, the PRC has expressed its opposition to such arms sales, but the vehemence with which it has done so this time seens quite beyond usual. Perhaps Beijing was surprised that the U.S. would go ahead with the sale, given that the Obama Administration (except in the area of trade), seems to have had a rather low-key approach to China. Indeed, the fact that the administration has apparently put off a decision whether to sell advanced F-16 jet fighters to Taiwan suggests that it is only willing to go so far in antagonizing Beijing. Despite this, the Chinese government seems to view the decision to sell any arms to Taiwan as a major affront, creating a crisis in U.S.-China relations.

   Ironically, this crisis has occurred at a time when relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan have been clearly improving. Ever since the 2008 election of Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT's candidate for Taiwan's "leader" or "president" (depending on which side of the Taiwan Straits you are), the two sides seemed to be coming closer. Unlike his predecessor, Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP), Ma has pursued a relatively conciliatory policy toward Beijing. As a result, regular flights between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan have become a reality and large numbers of mainlanders have visited Taiwan in the last year or so as tourists--something that would have been nearly unthinkable a few years ago. The two sides have even been talking about some sort of agreement to govern growing economic ties between them (although I believe those talks have now been suspended).

   It remains to be seen whether this were indeed develop into a major conflict between Beijing and Washington. However, I would argue that it is not in Beijing's favor to allow it to become so. Not only would such a crisis have adverse consequences for cooperation between the U.S. and Chinese governments, it could hurt China's reputation as a global player. Moreover, it could risk reversing at least some of the gains that have been made in relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. In fact, if it continues to react in the way it has so far, the PRC could strengthen sentiment in Taiwan against closer ties with the Chinese mainland, thus undermining its own efforts to achieve peaceful reunification. As it is, there are many in Taiwan who are not happy about Ma's more conciliatory approach, especially the DPP and its supporters. In fact, The Taipei Times reported recently that a DPP member of Taiwan's legislature stated that the reason the U.S. has not sold the F-16 fighters to Taiwan is that Washington is afraid they may eventually end up in the hands of the PRC! The unspoken idea behind this statement seems to be that Ma Ying-jeou is so "pro-China" that he will eventually sell out the people of Taiwan. I find this line of argument somewhat ridiculous--if Ma was so obseqious toward Beijing he wouldn't have welcomed the U.S. arms sale--but it does represent a mindset that Beijing could (even if inadvertently) contribute to if it isn't careful. 

   A few days ago, The Taipei Times (a Taiwan-based newspaper) carried a report indicating that a number of those attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland--an annual unofficial get-together for government and business leaders (and others)--expressed criticism of China's large trade surpluses and the Chinese government's alleged policy of keeping the value of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, artificially low so as to promote such surpluses (I'm not an economist, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand the connection, keeping the value of a country's currency low in comparison to other countries' currencies makes that country's exports cheaper, which in turn encourages others to buy them). A day or two later, I watched on report on China Central Television 9 (CCTV-9), the official English language channel, in which a senior Chinese official in Davos was defending his country. He argued that China is still only a developing country and that such criticism of its economic policies was consequently unfair.

   I have mixed feelings about the argument put forward by this official (and don't think he is the first to make such an argument). On the one hand, what he said is in many ways true. China still is a developing country. The glittering shopping malls and ubiquitous McDonald's and KFC fast-food restaurants in major cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou (Canton) may give foreigners the impression that China is approaching developed country status. However, many parts of China, especially the inland and rural areas, remain quite poor. Even in a large city like Beijing, one can see signs of poverty and underdevelopment, such as the use of large amounts of manpower for work that requires much less (or is even automated) in developed countries. China's GNP is quite large, but is less impressive if calculated on a per capita basis. 

   On the other hand (you knew that was coming, didn't you?), China is not just another developing country. It is not another Philippines or Mexico writ large. China is a major player in the global economy; it is both the recipient of large amounts of foreign investment and the holder of large amounts of U.S. government securities. Morever, it is developed enough to have a large nuclear arsenal and a manned space program and is one of a small number of countries that have hosted the Olympic Games (and an upcoming World Expo in Shanghai this year).

   In short, it seems to me that the Chinese government wants to have it both ways. At times, it takes great pride in China's status as a major power. At other times, it pleads that China should be treated gently because it is still quite poor. That latter argument might have more resonance if it were not putting so much money and effort into obtaining "luxuries" that only developed nations can afford (or maybe not!).

   Back in the days when I made a living reading (or perhaps it would be better to say, skimming) the transcripts of congressional hearings in order to write abstracts (summaries) of them (believe or not, that was essentially my job!), I can recall certain hearings on particular topics that were apparently of interest to the (then) Republican majority on the committee, but not its Democratic members. As a result, there would be one or more Democratic committee member who would, in his or her opening statement, complain that the Republicans were wasting their time having a hearing on this topic, instead of some other, obviously more important topic (often one that would have created some embarrasment for the Republicans!).  The argument seemed to be that the Republicans were pursuing their own partisan agenda, rather than the genuine interests of the American people as a whole.

   Now the Democrats are the majority in Congress. Given their past complaints, one might assume that they are completely (or at least mainly) focused on what is most important to the voters, not on what only interests their supporters. But is this true? I was interested to see the results of a recent Pew Trust poll of Americans on what they thought were the country's most pressing issues. Perhaps not surprisingly, the top two concerns were "jobs" and "the economy." "Terrorism" ranked number three.  So have these been the priorities of the current Democratic Congress?

   Well, with regard to "jobs" and "the economy," it must be acknowledged that both President Obama and the Democratic Congress seemed to recognize their importance by pursuing economic stimulus legislation early last year. However, once that was passed, Congress seemed to move on to other matters. As is well known, for the past year the Democratic majority in Congress has been struggling (and is still struggling!) to pass health care "reform" legislation. Yet, was this a priority for voters? The results of the Pew Trust poll, in which "health care" ranked eighth (as I recall), are quite consistent with other polling that shows that reforming  health care is not such a high priority for average Americans. Moreover, last year the House of Representatives passed (although the Senate has yet to consider) so-called cap-and-trade legislation designed to control the emission of "greenhouse gases" thought to contribute to global warming. Yet global warming appeared at the bottow of the list in the Pew Trust poll!

   In short, after complaining in the years of Republican dominance of Congress that the GOP was ignoring the concerns of most voters (whether fairly or not), the Democrats don't seem to be doing any better. Health care reform, particularly a version of health care "reform" under which the Government plays a much larger role in the health care sector, is certainly a priority for many of the liberals/progressives who form a major part of the base of the Democratic Party. Moreover, "cap-and-trade" is a priority for many in the environmentalist lobby, also a major voting bloc for the Democrats. However, as a number of polls seem to show--as well as the surprise victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race--these are apparently not the priorities of most Americans. Are the Democrats willing to admit this? Or are they willing to admit that their past criticisms of the Republicans were not altogether fair? We shall see.

   

   As an occasional viewer of the news (such as it is) on China Central Television 9 (CCTV-9), the government-controlled English language channel, I have been struck by the terminology used in stories about North and South Korea. Whenever North Korea is referred to, the announcers always refer to it by its official name--the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a name that almost always reminds me of Voltaire's quip that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire!) or its initials, the DPRK. However, South Korea is nearly always referred to, not by it official name, the Republic of Korea (ROK), but as simply "South Korea." 
   I have long wondered at this. I can only assume the reason for this disparate linguistic treatment of the two countries is that it is a relic of the days when the People's Republic of China (PRC) maintained diplomatic relations with North Korea only. Many years ago, the PRC and North Korea were quite close--the ideology of the two countries' ruling parties were very similar and Chinese "People's Volunteers" even served on the North Korean side during the Korean War. However, as China in the 1980s and 1990s moved away from Maoist ideology and embraced "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (in effect, a more-or-less market-oriented economy), while North Korea persisted in its cult of personality and Stalinist economic policies, the formerly warm ties between the two countries cooled. At the same time, the South Korean government saw the benefits of cultivating ties with the one-time ally of its rival North Korea and South Korean businessmen became interested in the vast Chinese market. As a result, by the early 1990s, after many years of hostility and a Chinese government policy of treating the South Korean government as illegitimate, the two countries established diplomatic relations (This required some diplomatic finesse on the part of the Chinese government, as its decision to, in effect, recognize the existence of "two Koreas" seemed to contradict its longstanding opposition to other countries' recognizing "two Chinas"--mainland China and Taiwan. In its defense of its decision to recognize Seoul, Beijing argued that the situation between the two Korean governments was "totally different" from the situation between the PRC and Taiwan, however convincingly.) 

   Since the establishment of PRC-ROK diplomatic relations, there has been a remarkable increase in the economic ties between the two countries. Moreover, large number of South Koreans have come to China for various purposes, including the study of Chinese, as I can personally attest --on the campus of the university where I teach, the language I seem to hear the most often after Mandarin Chinese is Korean! Soap operas from South Korea have become very popular in China, as have South Korean fashions.

   Nevertheless, it seems that some old habits die hard. Perhaps as a sop to China's one-time North Korean comrades, CCTV-9 continues to give North Korea "face" by using its official name, while not doing the same for its rival. I have sometimes wondered whether the ROK embassy in Beijing is aware of this situation and has lodged a protest. Certainly, I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who has noticed this phenomenon and thought it strange. Still, this practice is very much in line with other phenomena that can be observed during CCTV-9 news programming. For example, whenever talking about certain international events, a reference is always made to the "countries and regions" participating. So what are these "regions"? Presumably, they would include Hong Kong and Macau, which are "special administrative regions" of the PRC, but the phrase is also intended to cover Taiwan--to emphasize the idea that Taiwan is merely a region of China, not an independent political entity. However, even the CCTV-9 newscasters occasionally stumble--I recall watching CCTV-9 on one occasion when the news anchor read a story about Taiwan and then proceeded to introduce the next story by saying something like this: "Meanwhile, back in China..."! If anyone caught it, I suspect she got an earful about that!

   

    Well, I was wrong--in an earlier post I had expressed skepticism that Republican Scott Brown could win the special election for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. It seemed virtually impossible that the seat of Ted Kennedy, a liberal icon, could be taken by a Republican. I did suspect Brown might come close, but that was about it.

   I was wrong, but in this case I have to say that overall I'm glad that I was wrong. Now,  my understanding is that Scott Brown is NOT exactly a social/religious conservative like myself (among other things, he is "pro-choice," on the abortion issue, although he seems less doctrinaire about it than some). From my limited understanding, he is "conservative" primarily on fiscal and national security issues. In some ways he may turn out to be another example of a political species found primarily in New England--a liberal Republican. Nevertheless, I am happy to see that he will be the next senator from Massachusetts because it is clear that he will be an ally in efforts to stop passage of the generally ill-conceived health care "reform" legislation being pushed by President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership in Congress.

   Moreover, Brown's success in Massachusetts is the third major victory for the Republicans in the past three months--with his victory in Massachusetts and Christies' in the New Jersey governor's race and McDonnell's in the Virginia governor's race, the Republicans have had a pretty good run. After a disastrous 2008 for the Republicans and much fear that it could be years before they could be competitive again, it seems that the party is actually alive and well. That is not to say that everything is going to go the Republicans' way in the coming months or that the party doesn't face challenges, but overall the situation looks much more optimistic. Even though I still doubt the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives this November, it does seem much more possible, and a reduced Democratic majority in the Senate does seem rather likely.

   As for the Democrats, their response to Brown's victory has been rather interesting. On the one hand, some seem to be downplaying the significance of this upset. One of the most bizarre responses to me was that of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who is reported to have said that the reason Brown won was that people are angry about Republican obstructionism! Ah, so voters are angry at the Republicans; consequently, they are voting for them? Perhaps Hoyer meant that due to Republican obstructionism the Democrats haven't been able to do anything, and so they are angry. But even if that is what he meant, the problem the Democrats seem to be having has more to do with the divisions within their own ranks than the actions of the putatively dastardly Republicans. On the other hand, some Democrats seem to be panicking. If a Democrat can lose in Massachusetts, possibly the "bluest" of all "blue" states, is any Democrat really that safe?

   President Obama's response has also been interesting. He campaigned at the last minute for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley, but it was all for naught. At one point he seemed somewhat defiant about pressing on with health care "reform," then seemed to back down a little. Now, however, it is unclear what the White House really intends to do about what was intended to be the centerpiece of Obama's legislative program.

   Indeed, the Democrats overall seem uncertain about what to do next. It would appear that the idea of having the House pass the Senate version of "Obamacare" and then sending it to the President for his signature is dead--even House Speaker Pelosi has admitted she doesn't have the votes. The idea of trying to pass the legislation through the "reconciliation" process in the Senate, which would only require a simple majority of 51 votes instead of a "supermajority" of 60 votes, is being floated, but even that approach has its downsides. The one option that doesn't seem to be under consideration is the one that I would favor--starting from scratch and reaching out to the Republicans to try to find areas of agreement for health care reform. Under such an approach, President Obama and the Democrats wouldn't get sole credit for enacting health care reforms, but they would be more likely to gain public support for their efforts. Moreover, if what was enacted turned out to be unpopular, at least the Republicans would be forced to share some of the blame! However, the Democrats apparently are not yet ready to take the course that I suspect many voters would like them to take. Stay tuned... 

   Only about a week after the massive earthquake that struck Haiti, some sense of the enormity of the tragedy is emerging. By at least one estimate, some 100,000 people may have died in the earthquake, which would make it one of the deadliest in history (at least recent history). Many hospitals have collapsed and doctors, both local and foreign, are struggling to help wounded survivors. Many important buildings in the capital Port-au-Prince have collapsed or been severely damaged, including the city's Catholic cathedral and the presidential palace. International aid workers are rushing in to help, but reportedly many Haitians have yet to receive any assistance.

   In the earthquake, eight Chinese peacekeepers died and today (January 18), China Central Television (CCTV) showed the arrival of their remains at Beijing's Capital Airport, where a memorial ceremony was held. Meanwhile, a number of Chinese rescue workers are already in Haiti to assist in disaster relief. It also seems, based on my casual observations, that a good amount of coverage is being given to the disaster by Chinese media.

   However, what appears to have been left unsaid in Chinese media reports about Haiti (at least those on CCTV-9, the English language channel) is that China, despite participating in a UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti, has no diplomatic relations with the country. Haiti is in fact one of only 23 nations that maintains official ties with Taiwan, a fact that has irritated Beijing for some time. In fact, a number of years ago China's UN ambassador vetoed the renewal of authority for an earlier UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti to show his country's displeasure about this situation. Since then, however, Beijing has changed its tactics, agreeing to participate in the current UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (I believe it may be China's first UN peacekeeping mission, in fact) and even playing up that particiipation in the media.

   Meanwhile, rescue workers from Taiwan have also arrived in Haiti and have at this point helped rescue two people. More rescue workers are on the way and Taiwan has offered $5 million in aid to the stricken country. Its embassy in Port-au-Prince collapsed and its ambassador was injured, but its diplomats are apparently carrying on with the work in a temporary location.

   The question at this point is whether the two sides of the Taiwan Straits can avoid the temptation to play politics in the midst of this disaster. Already, it has been reported by The Taipei Times that Taiwan rejected a proposal by mainland China to collaborate on rescue work in Haiti. At the same time, the paper also is reporting that the PRC's Department of Consular Affairs has offered to help Taiwanese in Haiti, but Taipei has responded that its personnel in Haiti are quite able to carry out their duties.  It is hard not to believe that Beijing might be hoping that its response to this disaster may sway the Haitian government to its side, and that many in Taipei are well aware of this possibility and are prepared to fight such an attempt. In light of enormity of the suffering in Haiti at this time, it would seem highly inappropriate for the political rivalry between Beijing and Taipei to intrude, but it can't be guaranteed that it won't. Here's hoping, for the sake of the Haitian people, that it doesn't.

   When talking about global warming, one distinction that we must keep in mind is that "weather" is one thing, "climate" is something else. "Weather" is what is happening now or the next few days; "climate" is what is happening over a number of years or decades. At least, that is my understanding of a distinction some have made. Thus, recent cold spells in various parts of the world are merely "weather," with no implications for the the "reality" of global warming, according to the putative experts. Apparently, to suggest otherwise is to show one's ignorance.

   The problem with this nice little linguistic distinction is that it only holds in some cases. As some commentators have pointed out, it seems that some "weather" is connected to "climate." This occurs when the nature of the "weather" in question appears to support the global warming hypothesis. Thus, the heat waves that occurred in the U.S. and Europe a number of years ago are proof of global warming, as were the large-scale bush fires in Australia a year or so ago.  Yet, aren't all of these events merely examples of "weather," you might ask? Well, not in this case, apparently.

   The fact is that neither recent heat waves or cold spells are conclusive evidence for or against global warming, as global warming, if it is real, would be a long-term trend that could presumably be subject to oscillation. Even the fact that the average global temperature hasn't risen in a decade or so is not absolute proof that global warming is imaginary. However, it does suggest that at least some as-yet-unexplained phenomenon is counteracting the effects of global warming. It is a hoary cliche, but still true: only time will tell.

   Meanwhile, China Central Television reported today on continuing problems created by low temperatures and heavy snowfall in China's northeast. Here in Beijing the winter has been noticeably colder than in the previous three years of my residence here. Moreover, in recent days the United Kingdom has been suffering from some of the heaviest snowfall in quite a while. Nevertheless, keep in mind that this is all merely "weather"--it doesn't mean a thing (or does it)?

    Google, the owner of one of the most popular search engines on the Internet, has responded to apparent efforts by someone in China to hack into the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents by threatening to cease its operations in China if the Chinese government doesn't allow it to operate without censorship within the country. As others have noted, this is somewhat ironic given that a number of years ago Google agreed to restrictions on politically sensitive content when it entered the Chinese market. Now, however, the company has apparently decided it has had enough and is reported to be in negotiations with the Chinese government on this matter.
   So, who is going to blink first in this contest between the government of the world's most populous nation and one of the world's largest Internet companies? My suspicion is that in the end Google will either back down, perhaps agreeing to some sort of face-saving compromise, or carry out its threat. I find it hard to believe that the Chinese government will agree to Google's demand. Although from time to time Beijing has loosened Internet restrictions temporarily (as during the 2008 Olympics, if I remember correctly), it has never conceded its right to control what material on the Internet its citizens have access to. I can't see the government backing down on this issue. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, China already has its own very popular search engine service, Baidu, which would presumably benefit if Google pulled out of China. Thus, I will be very surprised if Google prevails in this struggle.

   Still, I will be sorry not to have access to Google as a current resident of China, as I have used it a lot for purely non-political purposes as a teacher, primarily to determine whether a student has plagiarized on a paper or not! Oh, well, perhaps I'll have to start using Yahoo...    

   I have not really commented on the debate over the so-called health care reform legislation currently before Congress. This may be in part due to the fact that living overseas, I haven't felt it will have any immediate, direct effect on myself or my family (we have international health insurance coverage from a U.S.-based firm)--but perhaps I will be proved wrong. Furthermore, it is perhaps not the easiest topic to understand. Nevertheless, it does seem that the next few weeks may prove to be "crunch time" for "ObamaCare." My understanding is that congressional Democrats hope to have the legislation passed by President Obama's "State of the Union" address in a few weeks. This leads to two obvious questions: why are the Democrats so eager to pass the legislation and will it in fact pass?

   With regard to the first question, it must be said first of all that the Democrats' apparent determination to see "ObamaCare" become law is striking, especially given the rather clear evidence from a number of polls that a majority of Americans are opposed to it. Furthermore, at least a few commentators opined after the Republican gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia last November that the Democrats would decide that it would be wiser to put health care "reform" on hold for a while given new political realities. Instead, they have pushed on and now seem to be at the brink of achieving a long-cherished dream of the American Left--the institution of some sort of government control of the health care system. Of course, this success so far has been achieved through some rather dubious political manuevering. So, given all the political risks, why are they still trying to make "ObamaCare" the law of the land? It seems to me that the Democrats are being driven, on the one hand, by a desire to accomplish something "historic," and, on the other hand, by a fear that the window of opportunity to pass health care "reform" is closing. It is swiftly becoming conventional wisdom that the mid-term congressional elections this November will result in significant gains for the Republicans, perhaps even a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives (although I'm not quite convinced that will happen). Even a pick-up of, say, twenty seats in the House and two or three seats in the Senate by the Republicans will make life much more difficult for the Democrats and likely put an end to their hopes of enacting the sort of changes in the health care system they would like to see. Thus, from their perspective they must pass "ObamaCare," regardless of the political consequences. Reportedly, they are even prepared, in the event of a Republican upset in the Massachusetts Senate special election (which I still think unlikely, though the race may prove pretty close), to allow appointed, lame-duck Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk to provide the crucial vote to pass the legislation before his successor is sworn in.

   The second and perhaps more important question is whether the White House and the Democratic leadership will get their win. As is well known, there are a number of differences between the Senate and House versions of the health care "reform" legislation that need to be resolved. Apparently Democrats are preparing to resolve the differences through informal negotiations rather than the usual process of holding a conference between the two houses of Congress (to prevent the Republicans from using procedural tactics to slow down the process), but it remains unclear whether the resulting product will be able to win the support of a majority in each house. Furthermore, the "hot-button" issue of abortion funding could yet sink the whole project, since pro-life Demoratic Representative Bart Stupak seems disinclined to accept the abortion-related provisions of the Senate version of the bill, while some "pro-choice" Democrats have made noises about opposing any bill that contains Stupak's amendment to the House-passed bill sponsored that prohibits funding of abortion. In short, passage of "ObamaCare" is not necessarily a sure thing. Nevertheless, I tend to think it may yet pass, because of the legislation's supposed "historic" import. Who wants to be accused of preventing "history" from being made? Thus, I would not be surprised if either the pro-life or "pro-choice" Democrats "blink" so as to allow "ObamaCare" to become law. Then, even if the Democrats lose big in November, once the new law is in place, it will be very difficult for Republicans to repeal it, and indeed impossible as long as a Democrat is in the White House.

   Needless to say, I don't believe this would be a good result for the country. No doubt there are serious problems with the U.S. health care system, but I fear that the proposed "reforms" are likely to make things worse rather than better. Furthermore, I tend to think that a wiser approach would be to try to enact a small number of reforms that have bi-partisan support and that are most likely to have a positive impact. However, President Obama and the Democratic leadership apparently decided to forgo such an approach. We shall see whether such a decision will prove to be the right prescription for the U.S. health care system or simply a political "poison pill" for the Democrats.

   Regarding the unsuccessful attempt by Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab to blow up an American airliner flying between Amsterdam and Detroit on Christmas Day, much has already been said and I doubt I could say much that would be particularly original. Therefore, I will leave the discussion of the legal, national security, and foreign policy ramifications of this case to others. However, I do want to make a few brief comments about President Barack Obama's response to this latest terrorist incident.
   First of all, I must say that I think some of the criticism of the president's handling of this matter has been unfair. I don't think it is wrong for him to have a chance to relax--despite the glamour of the job, the presidency does entail considerable stress and I think Obama needs some time to release that stress. Furthermore, given modern communications, many of the things he would normally do in a situation like this if he were at the White House can be done in Hawaii. Thus, I don't think it was necessary for him to return to Washington, D.C. However, I would like to think that if the attack had been successful the president would have returned immediately to D.C.

   Nevertheless, though I believe some of the criticism to be unfair, I do think it is totally appropriate to question why it took Obama several days to address the nation about this incident. Given the emotional impact of an event like this, it would have seemed that the president would have realized that citizens needed some immediate reassurance from him that the government was trying its best to deal with the aftermath of this incident and that he took such an incident seriously. By waiting several days to respond, he inevitably gave the impression that this matter was not important enough to interrupt his vacation for. My understanding is that the White House's original view was that had Obama responded immediately to the abortive terrorist attack he would have risked giving terrorists a propaganda victory. Nevertheless, given how close this attack came to succeeding, I think the greater risk was to seem not too concerned about it. The perceptions of the public may not always be accurate, but it is essentially a cliche in politics that perception is reality. George W. Bush discovered this in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. By seeming not to respond to the disaster with the required level of seriousness or empathy, Bush ended up doing considerable damage to his public image.

   Moreover, this is not the first time Obama has seemed slow to respond with a seemingly appropriate level of concern to a terrorist incident. Even after receiving word of the massacre at Fort Hood, Obama, attending a meeting of tribal leaders, went ahead with his prepared remarks and did not bring up the attack until some two minutes into his talk. In addition, he seemed anxious afterwards to discourage any "rush to judgment" that the Fort Hood attack had been motivated by the killer's Islamic beliefs. This apparent reluctance by the Obama Administration to "call a spade a spade" with regard to the terrorists' motivations and the tendency to view the terrorist threat as more a matter of law enforcement of than national security has the effect of creating the impression, whether fair or unfair, that the Administration doesn't view terrorism so seriously, that political correctness is more importance.

   Finally, a few months, President Obama gave himself a "B+" for his performance as president so far. With regard to the presidential leadership he has exhibited toward the terrorist threat up to this point, I suspect many would say that he has earned a somewhat lower grade. Of course, he still has the chance to bring his grade up, so to speak, but not for much longer.

    

   Happy New Year from Beijing! It's hard to believe the tumultuous year 2009 has come to an end. Now we must await what the coming year will bring. It seems likely that it will be at least as dramatic.
   New Year's Day in China is a little unusual. On the one hand, unlike Christmas, it is an official holiday. Thus, many people get the day off as schools and offices are closed. On the other hand, since traditionally the new year in China did not begin until New Year's Day under the lunar calendar, sometime in the latter part of January or the first few weeks of February, for many Chinese January 1 does not seem to be the "real" beginning of a new year. However, since the early twentieth century China has officially used the Western (solar) calendar and the former Lunar New Year has been redesignated Chunjie--the "Spring Festival" (which is February 14 this year). Still, most of the celebrating seems to be reserved for the traditional date. Here in Beijing one of the marks of "official" New Year's Day are the Viennese-style New Year's concerts that appear in local concert halls. Otherwise, it seems to be a fairly quiet day--the fireworks (literally) coming in a few weeks time--something which I have mixed feelings about!  

   One thing that I have long wondered about with regard to the continuing international debate over anthropogenic global warming (AGW)--the idea that increasing levels of so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from human activity are causing the earth's temperature to rise--is that for a long time, despite being one of the biggest emitters of "greenhouse gases," the People's Republic of China has seemed to receive minimal criticism from the environmentalist community. Instead, it was the United States, especially during the administration of the allegedly benighted George W. Bush, that came under the most criticism from environmentalists for its alleged unwillingness to "do the right thing" by agreeing to deep reductions in its greenhouse gases (although a fair observer would have to acknowledge that there was widespread opposition within the U.S. to such a policy and that Bush did undertake some efforts to address climate change). Even after China surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of "greenhouse gases" a year or so ago, the environmentalists' ire still seemed fixed on the U.S. To the extent China received any notice of its policies on AGW, it tended to get positive comments about its role as a leader in the use of "green" technology. Just before the Cophenhagen conference on AGW, the Chinese government seemed to get a positive response in at least some media for its announced intention to reduce its "carbon intensity"--the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GNP--over the coming years. There seemed to be a great reluctance to say anything negative about the Chinese government's stance on AGW.
   Now, however, things seem to have changed. During the Copenhagen conference, the Chinese government continued to push its notion of "differentiated responsibilities" between developed countries and developing countries with regard to AGW. According to the Chinese government, developed countries should be expected to cut their "greenhouse gas" emissions according to strict targets, while providing large-scale economic aid to developing countries to alleviate the effects of AGW on those countries. For their part, developing countries like China should make efforts to reduce the amount of "greenhouse gases" they are producing, but with no mandatory targets. Furthermore, when President Obama insisted that some sort of independent monitoring be set up to make sure countries were really meeting their goals to reduce emissions, the Chinese delegation took offense and walked out. Later talks between U.S. and Chinese representatives produced no real change in the Chinese government's stance.

   Actually, all of this should have come as no surprise. The Chinese government is never going to agree to anything that could endanger China's economic growth. As belief in Communist ideology has faded in China, the government has pursued a strategy of seeking popular support through its efforts to promote vigorous economic growth--thus leading to rising standards of living. Moreover, it has sought to boost its legitimacy through an emphasis on nationalism, which includes a strong sense of national sovereignty. From the Chinese government's perspective, agreeing to mandatory reductions in "greenhouse gas" emissions would threaten the country's economic growth, and agreeing to some sort of international monitoring of its emissions reduction efforts would violate its sovereignty. Thus, these policies being urged upon China by developed nations are politically unacceptable. While the Chinese government in recent years has attempted to portray itself as a responsible actor on the global stage, there are some matters on which it will not budge, no matter how much criticism it may receive from Western countries. Among these are anything that is perceived as threatening the government's grip on power.  

   However, since the Copenhagen conference, China has started to suffer the sort of criticism the U.S. used to face about its policies on AGW, even being accused of having prevented conclusion of a substantial global agreement on preventing AGW. This may be a rather unaccustomed situation for the Chinese government and it probably feels somewhat on the defensive. Nevertheless, criticism from environmentalists (or even government officials) in Western countries is unlikely to change its stance. The Chinese government has shown its willingness to defy "world opinion" (however that is defined) before, and it is likely to continue to do so.

   Of course, how one feels about this ultimately depends on one's beliefs about AGW. If the catastrophic scenarios being put forward by environmentalists about AGW turn out to be true, then the Chinese government may indeed be face a lot of blame and anger in the future. On the other hand, if it turns out that AGW is a myth or at least that its effects have been greatly exaggerated, then the Chinese government will see itself having been justified in its position. As an earlier post of mine makes clear, I fall more towards the latter view than the former, but all that can be said for now is--stay tuned.

   What is it about the Obama White House and the late Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong? First, we had White House communications director Anita Dunn citing Mao as one of her heros during a speech to students; now it is reported that an ornament on one of the White House Christmas trees displays the image of the late Chairman. To be fair, this was apparently the handiwork of the New York artist given the responsibility for decorating this year's Christmas trees at the White House; nevertheless, it seems a peculiar coincidence. Certainly, given the allegations that the Obama Administration is filled with members of the far Left, one would think that someone would have been more careful about this. It seems particularly ironic given that the current Chinese leadership has just provided evidence that they are "worthy" successors of Mao in dealing with political nonconformists.
   Furthermore, it seems rather odd to feature Mao Zedong on a Christmas decoration. After all, Mao was a staunch atheist. Still, a number of weeks ago, if I recall correctly, the White House social secretary mentioned in a talk that the Obama White House was considering having a "non-religious" Christmas (an idea which apparently the White House backed down on quickly). Perhaps having a portrait of Mao on a Christmas ornament was intended as part of this "non-religious" Christmas. What better way to create a sense of an "inclusive" Christmas than by honoring a famous atheist? On the other hand, in light of the fact that the vast majority of Christmas decorations in the U.S. are now produced in China, perhaps this was just an oblique sort of tribute to that reality. Presumably the choice of this motif was made before the Copenhagen global climate conference...

   I have not seen any reports about the fate of this unique Christmas ornament. Is it staying or going? If it is to be removed (if it hasn't been already), I have a suggestion. As it is my understanding that Ms. Dunn will soon be leaving the White House, perhaps it could be given to her as a going-away present. What better gift than a such a unique tribute to her hero?

   If anyone has actually been reading my blog, you will have noticed that I haven't posted anything new for nearly two weeks. Due to a rather large number of student papers I had to correct, I had to pass on blogging for a while. Now that my workload has lessened a little, I hope I will be able to resume blogging with a little more frequency.

   In the meantime, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Christmas in Beijing is a little odd as, of course, it is not an official holiday, so in many ways there are few signs of the holiday--businesses are open, students still attend school, etc. However, Christmas in some form seems to be catching on in urban China, at least--it's hard not to notice the many Christmas trees in stores and restaurants and the proliferation of paper cut-outs of Santa in many windows. More and more Chinese seem to be aware of Shendanjie (the "Holy Birth Festival"), although I suspect few really are aware of its original purpose as the commemoration of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I always make a point of talking about Christmas with my students and find that they are usually rather interested in it. Many of them even know how to sing "Silent Night!" (although "Jingle Bells" seems to be the most familiar Christmas song to most Chinese). In fact, the Chinese name for Christmas Eve is Pinganye--"Silent Night"!

   Last night I took my daughter to a Christmas Eve service at our church, which was nice. Due to Chinese government regulations, only foreign passport holders are allowed to attend this church (i.e., Chinese citizens are prohibited from attending), which I suppose is a relection of how far China has to go in the area of religious freedom despite improvements in recent years. Today we will have a Christmas party with friends. I've been doing my best to make Christmas something special for our daughter, and just like kids in American she does  seem to get quite excited about Christmas gifts. Nevertheless, I was happy to see that during the Christmas Eve service she was actually able to sing some of the Christmas carols (at least some of the lyrics), so I am hoping she has some sense of the real meaning of Christmas, as we say. So again, Merry Christmas to you and may your holiday be joyous!