(24)

This story in the Daily Telegraph today about Burmese officials allegedly pilfering foreign aid and selling it just reinforces any prejudice one might have about the efficacy of sending aid to a country governed by thugs. It is not obvious to me what, if anything, the major powers could or should do about this. Outright military intervention seems unlikely and given the stretched resources of western powers, unwise. However, given its rapid economic ascent, one might hope that India could exert some influence for good, which is preferable to that of China.

Right at this moment, though, the main emotion one might feel about Burma and its plight is one of dark despair.

(21)

I seldom recommend TV to anyone. But I caught this last night - or it caught me - and I think many readers, able through the wonders of the internet to see the whole thing lawfully, will be interested to do so.

It is the sort of serious programming that the BBC used to be famous for: a depiction and explanation using clips of films and still photographs taken by diplomats and other visitors, of the strange anachronistic religious-feudal state that existed in Tibet in the late 30s and the 40s, and how it came to be annexed by the People's Republic of China.

No-one seeing this will find it easy to make sense of the Chinese official claim that Tibet has 'been part of China for 800 years'. Welsh readers will note that Wales has been administratively part of England for 800 years, in a much clearer sense, but that does not mean they have to like it or feel English. Bordelais readers (who are old enough) will recall that they certainly were under the English crown 800 years ago, but that does not mean they still are. History is not monotonic. And neither Aberystwyth nor Aquitaine, language apart, has for centuries had institutions wholly alien to an Englishman; whereas Tibet was clearly fascinatingly weird to everyone else only 60 years ago.

(49)

There is a deeply revealing article in the Telegraph written by the Chinese Ambassador to Britain, Fu Ying, called 'Western media has demonised China'. It is fascinating because it reveals the same psychopathology on display that I wrote about on Samizdata when many Chinese people reacted badly to a 'disrespectful' image of Mao (debatably the most prolific mass murderer in human history) which was used in a Spanish car advertisement. The ambassador pains a picture of wounded feelings over the protests launched against Olympic torch carriers...

My daughter, who loves Western culture, must have used the word "why" dozens of times in our long online chat. Her frustration could be felt between the lines. Many who had romantic views about the West are very disappointed at the media's attempt to demonise China. We all know demonisation feeds a counter-reaction. I do pray from the bottom of my heart that the younger generation of Chinese will not be totally disillusioned about the West, which remains an important partner in our ongoing reform.

And to Fu Ying, the Chinese state and the Chinese people are simply the same thing (a profoundly fascist attitude I might add), so to her, protesting the Chinese government's policy of maintaining the colonial occupation of Tibet is the same as protesting against the Chinese people itself. She, and a great many other people alas, cannot truly conceive of the notion that hostility to the Chinese state because of its actions does not imply any insult to or hostility to Chinese people simply because they are Chinese, because to any non-collectivist, the Chinese state is a political construct, not some expression of the Chinese soul, or some such metaphysical drivel.

The western media are not demonising China because China's demons are generally home grown. The Chinese state has moved from full blown communism to a less mundanely repressive nationalistic fascism, but it is still a state which brooks no rival power centres of any sort, be they the Falan Gong, Dalai Lama or Roman Catholic Church let alone any real political movements. Moreover it demands, with considerable success, an atavistic loyalty based on ethnicity that Chinese people see themselves as extensions of the state. As a result Fu Ying's claims of widespread insult and incomprehension by Chinese people is almost certainly true enough, but the issue here is not 'us' understanding China, it is China understanding the rest of the world. Until a critical mass of Chinese people can think their way past mental collectivisation and realise they are not the Chinese state, the genuine modernisation the Ambassador craves will remain an illusion no matter how many skyscrapers they build.

(50)

Brendan O'Neill:

In much of the coverage of the torch relay, commentators have talked about the ‘supine’ British government and the ‘cowardly’ Bush administration which are failing to stand up against the brutes from the East, while cheering the French protesters and the Australian government for taking the Chinese on. As in the past, the driving force behind this outbreak of China-bashing is a perception that the West is in political and social decline, and the East might take its opportunity to snuff out ‘our’ civilisation once and for all. That 15 men in tracksuits could give rise to such an hysterical, out-of-control, fin-de-siècle, prejudicial debate reveals so very much more about contemporary Western fear and irrationalism than it does about Chinese wickedness.

Hmm. I think he has a decent point, even though his article does rather soft-play the whole Tibet issue. There has been something a bit, well, off-key about the venom directed against China, but then one should remember that for all its economic reforms, the grip of the Chinese Communist Party, an organisation responsible for some of the greatest mass murders in history (the Cultural Revolution, etc), does have rather a lot to live down. So for all that some of the demonstrations leave a sour taste, I think that most of those who object to what China is doing are on the side of the angels.

(6)

Some people I chat with in Indonesia on an almost daily basis have just told me that the Indonesian government have just blocked all access to YouTube, MySpace and Rapidshare. Apparently using proxy servers lets you get to a YouTube page but they cannot actual view the videos for some reason.

Does anyone out there have any technical suggestions to pass on to some freedom loving folks in Indonesia? If so, leave them in the comments here. Quite a few people there want to make a mockery of this blatant censorship, which is being done to pander to the most intolerant Islamist elements in that country.

(41)

To hell with constructive engagement. This is a state that imprisons, tortures and kills its political opponents. It is a state that pollutes public discourse with untruths, and that not only seeks to suppress truths, but that seeks to suppress the free exchange of thought between its citizens. It is a state that gives succour to the genocidal regime in Sudan, and has backed itself into the position of casting Buddhist monks as dangerous terrorists.

- Sam Leith, writing in the Telegraph why we should subject China to an Olympic boycott

(5)

Hackers in Indonesia have defaced a government website in protest over that increasingly authoritarian nation's plans to block internet access to porn (and what is the internet for if not porn?)... Sadly the site has now been repaired, but nice one, guys. Stick it to them!

And here is a nice list of proxy servers for our Indonesian readers (yes, we do have at least a couple).

(20)

"The Olympic Games are not the place for demonstrations." Aren't they? Actually, the Olympics seem an ideal place for demonstrations.

- Anne Applebaum, pointing out the obvious fact that the Olympic Games are highly political by their very nature. I am feeling a greater and greater sense that the Beijing Olympics are going to be highly memorable, quite possibly in the sense that a trainwreck is highly memorable. And I am not sure this is bad.

(11)

The crazy guys from VBS have 14 parts of strange-but-interesting video footage from that open air prison known as North Korea... check it out.

I do not think they are going to be invited back.

(74)

The rioting in Lhasa seems to be continuing and now it has been reported that some discontent is boiling over elsewhere in Chinese occupied Tibet. Of course if the official death toll says:

only that 10 "innocent civilians" had died, mostly in fires set by rioters, and that 12 police officers had been seriously wounded.

It is safe to say it is probably ten times that, at least on the side of the resistors. It seems that Chinese colonists have also been involved in attacking Tibetans, so this does appear to be far from over. Sadly I cannot see China having any serious trouble remaining in control given the sheer size of their security apparatus.

So, all you activists out there who have made a career out of excoriating Israel, do you have anything to say about this?

Update: I received the following e-mail from a person called Lee Ming:

Why not China defend itself from separatisms? What if parts of Britain want to be separatists? China has rule this since long ago!

Some Chinese claims assert they have ruled Tibet since the 13th century (the Peace Treaty between Tibet and Britain in 1904 is strangely forgotten):

1. Chinese rule was always debatable

2. The historical claim is largely irrelevant. Scotland has been part of the UK since 1707 and it was in a loose de union with England since 1603... yet if a majority in Scotland vote to become independent now, do you think UKGov will send in the riot cops and troops? No. Hell, if a majority in Wessex want to go their own way, I quite like the idea of that too. There is nothing sacred about nation states.

The fact a majority of Tibetans want to be independent of China rather than live under colonial occupation is all the justification needed.

(2)

At first I was going to put this up as a Samizdata quote of the day. It is a paragraph from a piece by Mark Leonard in the latest issue of Prospect, about Chinese think tanks. The Chinese intelligentsia have their left and right, it seems, just like us.

The new right was at the heart of China's economic reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. Zhang Weiying has a favourite allegory to explain these reforms. He tells a story about a village that relied on horses to conduct its chores. Over time, the village elders realised that the neighbouring village, which relied on zebras, was doing better. So after years of hailing the virtues of the horse, they decided to embrace the zebra. The only obstacle was converting the villagers who had been brainwashed over decades into worshipping the horse. The elders developed an ingenious plan. Every night, while the villagers slept, they painted black stripes on the white horses. When the villagers awoke the leaders reassured them that the animals were not really zebras, just the same old horses adorned with a few harmless stripes. After a long interval the village leaders began to replace the painted horses with real zebras. These prodigious animals transformed the village's fortunes, increasing productivity and creating wealth all around. Only many years later - long after all the horses had been replaced with zebras and the village had benefited from many years of prosperity - did the elders summon the citizenry to proclaim that their community was a village of zebras, and that zebras were good and horses bad.

Nice story. But the problem, from the quote-of-the-day point of view, is that Zhang Weiying surely has the story upside down and entirely wrong. They did not start by painting stripes on horses. They introduced real zebras, but painted over the stripes and declared them to be horses just as usual. No change was occurring. No upheaval. It was still socialism. Only after the amazing production gains duly materialised were the authorities in a position to wash away the camouflage, and admit that the new and improved "horses" had been zebras all along. But - extra twist - the zebra stripes are still painted over. They still insist that they are horses.

Horse with stripes painted on them are what you introduce when you are trying to get rid of zebras.

(16)

My life has been fairly busy for the last couple of months, and as a consequence, I have not managed to report on this blog the results of my "Anyone in Singapore want to meet up?" request, from December. This is a shame, because thanks have been order to a Samizdata reader and commenter whose response ensured that things turned out very well. However, better late than never.

What happened was that long time Samizdata commenter The Wobbly Guy offered to take me out for crab at Mellben seafood restaurant in Ang Mo Kio, which, as he put it, "is noted for its crab". Australians such as myself are also fond of crab, but we tend to eat it more simply than the Singaporeans. Australians tend to eat crab boiled with relatively few embelishments. Singaporeans tend to eat it with more spices and chilis. However, when we talk about past visits to one another's countries, people of both nationalities will tend to say things like "Mmmmmm. Great seafood".

As it happened though, on my last day in Singapore I made something close to a terrible mistake. Wandering along Geylang road at about 2pm I discovered that I was hungry, and I therefore walked into one of many street restaurants in that area that offer an "unlimited Steamboat buffet" for about $S15. (About £5 or US$10). The restaurant was full of local people having long lunches, and in such a restaurant (in which you cook meat, seafood, vegetables, and goodness knows what else in a bowl of boiling soup in the middle of your table) it is possible to have a very long lunch.

When I walked through the door, the very kind lady running the restaurant thoughtfully enquired as to just how spicy I like my soup, got me a large bottle of Tiger beer, gave me one of those "Go for it" expressions and gestured towards the buffet. I got myself a modest selection of seafood and meats, and sat down to cook and eat it. It was good. Repeat until fade.

On about my third trip to the buffet, the kind lady saw me tentatively placing a modest portion of crab on my plate, and decided it was time to put me to rights. She gave me one of those "You poor, pathetic westerner. You truly have no idea, do you?" looks, and proceeded to pile my plate high with crab for me. Chastened by this, I took the seafood back to my table and my soup, and got myself another bottle of beer. I was slowly getting there, but the guys at the next table clearly were not having any such problems.

Thus, after intending to have a quick lunch, I stumbled back out onto the street two and a half hours later after engorging vast amounts of food.

So thus, when The Wobbly Guy very kindly picked me up from my hotel after I had rushed off to the centre of town topick up the custom suits I had ordered a couple of days earlier, I was perhaps not ideally prepared. It wasn't quite as bad as attempting a six star day in Donostia, but it was perhaps heading that way.

Somewhat to my relief I had a further opportunity to digest my lunch before moving onto dinner, as the combination of a public holiday and a very popular restaurant meant that we had to queue. Several restaurants nearby lacked such queues - presumably they cater to the "people who are willing to eat less good food but are in a hurry" crowd. In addition, this gave us a chance both to chat and to watch another of these kind but formidable Singaporean restaurant women removing the alive and active crabs from the large styrofoam boxes marked "Singapore Airlines" in which the crabs had apparently just been flown in from Sri Lanka.

As she did this, she watched by some cute as a button children, some of who were probably determined to grow up to be kind but formidable Singaporean restaurant women themselves.

As we waited, The Wobbly Guy and I were able to compare our national culinary cultures. I am still not sure if either the "sand crabs" and "mud crabs" we get in Australia are the same species to those eaten in Singapore. Clearly more research is in order.

I did explain that the two culinary things in Australia that Singapore is known for are chili crab and "Singapore Noodles". The Wobbly Guy was slightly perplexed by the second of these dishes. Yellow Hokkien noodles known as "Singapore Noddles" are available in just every Chinese or Malaysian or Thai restaurant in Australia under this name, but nobody in Singapore has ever heard of them. In the midst of this, a butter crab was ordered and I took a peek at the kitchen. This was clearly a serious crab restaurant.

I really must try the chili crab next time.

The butter crab was a good choice, though. By the time we sat down I was just about able to eat again, and the crab was succulent, in a lovely soup, and delicately spiced. I did properly discover what "noted for its crab" meant. As we ate, The Wobbly Guy told me a few things about Singapore: about compulsory military service. (All adult males in Singapore are required to be reserve members of the armed forces. All members of the armed forces are required to be fighting fit. Hence, in Singapore it is an offence on pain of court-martial for an adult male to be unfit); about language (which dialects of Chinese are taught and spoken in Singapore, and how use of Chinese in Singapore compares with use of English); and such things as road pricing and properfy development. But good as the conversation was, it was overshadowed by the food, which was wonderful. Food in Singapore is just about invariably wonderful. But even by the standards of the country, this was good

After a while, I reached one of those states of holiday contentment that one gets too occasionally. It had been a good day. It was my last day in Singapore. The Wobbly Guy refused to let me pay for dinner, and then insisted on driving me to the airport for me to catch my flight to Sydney. The hospitality was most kind. Thanks JT. The chili crab is on me next time.

(23)

There is a very interesting story in parts of the media today. Large parts of the Middle East and (in particular) India are suffering a major internet outage. It seems that a storm in Alexandria in Egypt has led to ships going off course and their anchors damaging the SEA-ME-WE 4 and FLAG fiber optic cables connecting India with Europe and Asia, and capacity to India has thus been reduced. There are some older, lower capacity cables still in use, and there are cables to the US also, but these were the main connections to India. It seems at this point unclear whether the two cables were both ruptures near Alexandria, or whether one of the outages was off Marseilles. But in any event, two of the world's key cables were damaged within a few hours. This seems quite remarkable. The TWO main cables between Europe and India were both damaged within a matter of hours. It seems an extraordinary coincidence. It may or may not be an extraordinary coincidence, and we will find out.

However, as a science fiction fan and a reader of Wired Magazine, the mention of these two cables brings back a thought of one of the finest articles ever published in the magazine. In 1996, science fiction author Neal Stephenson (of Snow Crash fame) wrote a long and wonderful essay for Wired Magazine entitled "Mother Earth, Motherboard". This article was written as the 1990s telecoms boom was gearing up to great heights of enthusiasm, and in a period in which global telecoms at least appeared to be gaining new levels of competition. Stephenson wrote about travelling to a large number of locations around the world, watching the laying of an undersea fibre optic cable named FLAG (Fiberoptic Link Around the Globe), or more specifically the section of it connecting Europe and Asia. He discussed the technologies, and the politics, and the history of communications and other related matters that went with it, and the history of the places he saw along the way. In return for paying what must have been a very considerable expense claim, Wired Magazine got a spectacular piece of writing, but Stephenson clearly got more than they did, as many of the locations that were researched for this essay popped up again in considerable detail in his novel Cryptonomicon, and to a lesser extent in his Baroque Trilogy that followed. Many of them cropped up in sections of those novels set in various eras in the past, particularly in the second world war.

The list of places that Stephenson visited during the laying of FLAG has a very trading empire quality about it, and mostly a British trading empire quality about it: Alexandria, Port Said, Bombay, Penang, Hong Kong, Shanghai, places that contain, as Stephenson puts it, "British imperial-era hotels fraught with romance and history, sort of like the entire J. Peterman catalogue rolled into one building". The reason for the confluence with the British Empire makes perfect sense when you think about it: the strongest parts of the British Empire were outposts to defend Britain's control of trade routes, and so they are at key points on those trade routes. If you are laying an undersea cable, then you want to lay it along the shortest route that it can safely be placed. What is required is a mixture of minimum distance and political stability. The minimum distances for cables today are the same as the minimum distances for ships in the nineteenth century (and generally for ships today, also). Between Europe and Asia, there are two key bottlenecks through which you must travel, as the alternatives are either much longer or much less politically stable. Those two bottlenecks are of course through Egypt between the Mediterranean and the red sea, and through the Straits of Malacca between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Hence Alexandria and Penang. Of course, these places have been strategic since long before the British Empire, which is why a lighthouse and a library were built in Alexandria, but the British Empire is recent enough for its mood to linger.

As I said, Stephenson wrote the essay in the heyday of competitive cable-laying in 1996. Prior to the 1990s global telecommunications generally consisted of state owned or state favoured monopolies in virtually all countries. These companies worked together to build and own infrastructure, including undersea cables. Between Europe and Asia, a consortium named SEA-ME-WE (South East Asia - Middle East - Western Europe) had come into being as a federation of state owned and state favoured telecommunications companies. This was led by AT&T in the US, and Cable & Wireless of the UK - a curious creation that was never a major communications company in the UK but which was in many parts of the former empire. However, by the 1990s, at least competition was allowed in many markets. AT&T was split up into nine companies, and many other countries adopted a model that was initially created in Britain, in which various assets were brought together to create a single, reasonably large competitor to the incumbent. (In Britain, Cable & Wireless was given a licence to compete with BT, which it did under the brand name "Mercury", with rather mixed success for the company although with clearly positive effects for consumers).

This was an era in which fixed line phone companies were still believed to rule the world. More importantly, their banks believed this also, so capital was cheap. The companies had not yet figured out that mobile telephony would soon be everything as far as voice traffic was concerned, and the existence of the internet as a mainstream phenomenon was something they were only just noticing. They knew that there would be data services, but they thought that data services were something they could design and control.

So what we had was a group of new, highly capitalised fixed line phone companies who believed they needed to own their own infrastructure. These companies often had a legal right to build infrastructure in the same places as the incumbents - a concession made by governments to promote competition. And this is where FLAG came from. It was led by NYNEX, one of the "Baby Bells" (RBOCs) that had been spun off AT&T. It was a consortium of second telecommunications companies from various countries, that was building its own pipes to compete with the incumbents. In the US, the companies that had been spun off AT&T were very eager to expand abroad and to compete with one another and their former parent company. Plus, the same imperatives that led to the incumbents' cables tracing the routes between the grand hotels of the former British Empire meant that FLAG followed essentially the same route as SEA-ME-WE. In the real routing bottlenecks the two cables were built side by side, at times going through the same buildings and through the same tunnels. There is a good map that illuminates these details here.

Which is how what happened yesterday is possible. Apparently circumstances led to ships in Alexandria sailing in unusual locations yesterday. Anchors went down in usual places. And, apparently, both FLAG and SEA-ME-WE 4 were ruptured. One would hope that the redundancy due to the fact that there are two competing cable companies would have led to some protection against accident or sabotage, but it seems that the fact that the two cables are right next to one another simply meant that a change in shipping conditions can take out both together.

However, when we think about the consequences of this, we discover how the world has changed in the last decade. If you read Stephenson's article, you get the impression that FLAG was all about connecting the rich countries of Europe with the rich countries of Australasia and East Asia. India is mentioned a couple of times in the 40,000 words of the essay, but it is mentioned in passing, and it does not seem he visited. News stories today are all about the Middle East and particularly India losing their net access. China, Australia, Japan, and Korea are unaffected. This is not because these places do not communicate with Europe, but because there is plenty of capacity across the Pacific and across the Atlantic that there is no trouble rerouting their communications via the United States. FLAG and SEA-ME-WE have actually become the main means of communicating with India and the Middle East, places where a lot has happened economically in the last ten years.

The belief that secondary, competing fixed line phone companies were important to the future died sometime around 2001. If these companies had mobile subsidiaries, they discovered that the mobile subsidiaries were their main sources of profitability. Capital became expensive. The rates that could be charged at wholesale level for international voice services dropped to something close to zero. Ventures like FLAG did not make money for the sorts of services that their investors and builders had hoped. NYNEX is now part of Verizon, and AT&T is now part of Southwestern Bell Corporation (although, confusingly, the whole company took the AT&T name). Neither company is terribly interested in bold international ventures any more, and they instead spend their time concentrating on their US mobile networks and attempting to screw as much money out of their legacy customers as possible. Second, competing, fixed line telephone companies generally got into financial trouble and were sold to former incumbents from foreign countries or to mobile companies or both, which led to the owners of SEA-ME-WE gaining shares in FLAG as well. There is still healthy competition in some telecommunications markets (Britain is extremely competitive - I would say the US is less so), but not so much from the companies that were created by governments and regulators in the 1980s and 1990s.

And what happened to FLAG? Well, in 2000 there was an awful lot of undersea optical fibre capacity, that was not being used in the way the people had build it intended. Inevitably, it ended up carrying a great deal of internet traffic. This coincided with a huge rise in the tech sector in places like India and China. Partly because of this, it became cheap for India to provide certain kinds of services to Europe and the US, because the cost of communicating with India became negligible. FLAG itself ended up being bought by an Indian conglomerate, Reliance Industries. What goes around comes around.

(36)

There is a truly bizarre story on Reuters saying that the French car manufacturer Citroën has apologised for running an advertisement featuring a scowling Chairman Mao.

"As a Chinese, I felt greatly insulted when seeing this ad," a posting on web portal Tianya (www.tianya.com) said. "It is not only insulting Chairman Mao, but the whole Chinese nation." [...] "Chairman Mao is the symbol of China, and what Citroen did lacks basic respect to China," another posting said.

Astounding. The man who was probably the most prolific mass murderer in history, who murdered between 44.5 & 72 million mostly Chinese people and brought tyranny to almost one fifth of the world's population, is regarded by some people in 2008 as "the symbol of China"? That is truly surreal.

Well, I suppose he is in the same sense that Jack the Ripper is the 'symbol' of Whitechapel. Yet somehow I cannot see the residents of Whitechapel taking umbrage at an advertisement by Citroen featuring Jack the Ripper being portrayed with a less than congenial expression.

Just how many people does a tyrant have to order killed before he becomes absolute anathema in China? How many lives does he have to ruin to stop being 'the symbol of China'? What kind of moral derangement is required to take insult in this manner? Well people in China should indeed be insulted, but by the fact Citroën used the image of that vile psychopath to portray anything other than horror, death and misery. How dare someone trivialise suffering on such a colossal scale? How would people react if they had used Hitler instead? People would certainly protest but somehow I do not think all too many Germans would be saying "The Fuhrer is the symbol of Germany".

A Chinese person I know described the Mao era as 'The Long Nightmare'. It seems some people in China do not want to wake up.

(19)

Part of the problem with modern democratic states is they have far too much time to figure out new ways to regulate and control every aspect of life. They do this in order to pander to the sectional obsessions of this or that element of the electorate, and to satisfy the pathological control freak mindset that defines most people who are attracted into politics. Japan however find much less damaging and far more interesting ways to spend legislative time.

A debate over flying saucers has kept Japanese politicians occupied for much of this week, ensnaring top officials and drawing a promise from the defense minister to send out the army if Godzilla goes on a rampage. "There are debates over what makes UFOs fly, but it would be difficult to say it's an encroachment of air space," Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told a news conference Thursday. "If Godzilla were to show up, it would be a dispatch for disaster relief."

Oh how I wish the UK Parliament and US Congress would spend less time on implementing laws to abridge our liberties and more on how to prevent 170 foot tall radioactive fire breathing saurians from stomping on our cities and destroying our skolzandhospitalz.

Obviously the whole absurd 'Islamic terrorists' shtick was just a ruse to hide the terrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. After all, as so many people keep endlessly reminding us, Islam is a religion of peace, so huge Japanese monsters (no doubt under the influence of Haliburton mind control rays) are a far more plausible explanation if you think about it. Clearly this is something that should occupy legislative time from the moment our fine representatives go into session until the moment they go home at night. For pity's sake, honourable members, do it for the children.

(31)

With a little help from her friends, Japan has sent a loud and clear message to North Korea.

The interceptor fired by the JS Kongo knocked out the target warhead about 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean, said the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which carried out the test together with the Japanese and U.S. navies.

Tokyo has invested heavily in missile defense since North Korea test-fired a long-range missile over northern Japan in 1998. It has installed missile tracking technology on several navy ships and has plans to equip them with interceptors.

The SM-3 is certainly a good enough interceptor to handle the appropriately named North Korean 'Nodong' ICBM. I say that because they seem to be as likely to fail as to get where they are going.

(15)

Gary Rosen has been out in China, burning his boats, the ones that might ever take him back to China in the foreseeable future. Good for him. My thanks to the ever useful Arts & Letters Daily for the link.

I particularly liked the bit about how the Chinese regime censors the awkward stuff, and I offer no apology for quoting it at some length:

Someone asked (well, it was me again) how Mr. Liu could reconcile his presentation of China's peace-loving ways with Beijing's clear position that, if Taiwan were to declare independence, the mainland would invade - a threat made more credible by its arms build-up across the Taiwan Strait and its provocative military exercises in recent years. Mr. Liu did not like my use of the word "provocative." In the first place, he said, "You should phrase your questions with more respect." More to the point, he rejected the underlying premise: "China has a population of 1.3 billion people, including the 23 million people of Taiwan. It is not for them to decide their own status."

Which is about as excellent an exposition of the imperfect correspondence between the ideals of democracy and of liberty as you could ever hope to encounter, don't you think?

Rosen continues:

None of this was exactly surprising, since it adhered closely to long-standing Chinese policy. What was surprising, as we shook hands and prepared to leave, was Mr. Liu's insistence that his remarks were entirely off the record. This was news to us. All of our sessions, unless restricted in some way beforehand, were explicitly on the record, and we had been busily taking notes, with our tape recorders in plain sight. Liu Jieyi, in all his worldliness, was perfectly aware of what we were doing. Out of pique at my impertinence or perhaps because he did not like having lost his cool, he wanted the interview to go away.

This task fell to Mr. Huang, who called us together in the lobby once we were back at the hotel. "I need you to tell me that you won't report about this," he said. "It is best to respect the host; that is the international practice." Pressure had plainly been brought to bear on him, and several in the group, feeling that they had no particular use for Mr. Liu's words (and not wishing to jeopardize our sponsors or future trips), said they were unlikely to write about the session. Others, myself included, were less accommodating. One member of the group explained that she would find it hard to continue with the tour if the rules were continually changed after interviews. "We are not Chinese journalists," she told Mr. Huang, "and this smacks of censorship."

Knowing that I considered the material from the session valuable and might well use it, Mr. Huang pulled me aside several more times the next day to ask again that I "respect the host," adding that if I did, "I would get better interviews the next time." The threat in this, as reporters who cover China informed me, was that my future access might be limited; denying visas is a favorite tactic for punishing Western journalists who upset the authorities. But as I said to Mr. Huang, I was unsure that I would ever again report from China, and I could not relent on a key journalistic principle. Moreover, I felt obliged to tell him, his effort to suppress the story had become the story.

You seldom read reportage like that from China, or from any other efficiently administered despotism with a definite future, do you? And the reportage itself explains why. The exception that explains the rule, you might say.

(88)

You know the feeling. A market rises like a rocket; there is lots of gushing news items about how market X or Y is the hottest thing since the iPod; but there is a lot of muttering about the inevitable fall, the decline, or even the monster crackup. Well, it has sort of happened with the US credit market this year and the collapse of sub-prime mortgages (in plain English, the business of lending money to people who are often bad repayers).

I have this sort of queasy feeling now about China. Do not get me wrong: I am delighted that China is a poster child for how things improve if you ditch certain aspects of collectivism, but it is still a long, long way from what a free society could or should be. And some of the economic data that comes out of that vast country gives economists cause for concern.

(1)

Burma is a good example of 'gun control', i.e. a state of affairs where firearms are a legal monopoly of the government forces. One side has good intentions and the other side has loaded rifles, and the result (so far) has been the same as it was in 1988 - or even back in 1962 when the late General Ne Win first set up his socialist administration.

However, me being a cold hearted man whose mind starts to wander even when shown scenes of murder and other horror, the situation reminds me of the philosophy of David Hume. This mid 18th century Scottish philosopher claimed that government was not based on force - but rather that it was based on opinion. Hume did this to mock the claim that there was a great difference between the 'constitutional' government of Britain and the 'tyranny' of France - under the skin both sides are basically the same, was his point.

This was part of David Hume's love of attacking what his opponents (such as Thomas Reid) were to call "Common Sense". David Hume was involved in what are now called 'counter intuitive' positions. Hume claimed (at times) that there was no objective reality - that the physical universe was just sense impressions in the mind. This did not stop him also claiming (at times) that the mind did not exist, in the sense of a thinking being, that a thought did not mean a thinker - that there was no agent and thus no free willed being.

Whether David Hume actually believed any of this - or whether he was just saying to people "you do not have any strong arguments for your most basic beliefs - see how weak reason is"... is not the point here. The point is that many people. including many people who have never heard his name, have been influenced by the ideas of David Hume.

For example, Louis XVI of France did not actively resist his enemies, going so far as ordering others, such as the Swiss Guard, not to resist, because he had read David Hume's History of England - it was his favourite book. In his history Hume claimed that Charles the First did not get killed because he lost the Civil War (as a simple minded ordinary man might think) - but because he had fought back against his enemies at all. If he had not resisted his enemies, they would have seen no need to kill him (a clever counter intuitive position).

So Louis XVI did not resist. It is possible that he was given cause to doubt Hume's wisdom right before his enemies murdered him, and so many others, but we will never know the answer to that I suppose.

In Burma, as in so many other places, many people seem to have thought that opinion, namely the good intentions of the majority, were more important than firepower - they appear to be mistaken.

"You are showing lack of respect for the dead" - perhaps, but I am warning people not to stand against men with rifles when you are unarmed. Get the firepower, one way or another, and learn how to use it, then you may have a chance at liberty - you can not have it, or keep it, without firepower. And that remains true even if you win some soldiers over to your side with appeals to their reason.

(7)

Maybe I should point out this story to my lovely Japanese sister-in-law. I wonder how many ordinary British people, never mind women, do things like this to make money?

(31)

I was switching from television station to television station when I came upon a show (on "Sky 3") called Riverdance In China.

OK, I thought, a group of athletic Irish people dancing in China - I will see what the show is like.

And then an Irish women's voice said something close to the following:

"The Chinese Emperors tyrannically isolated the country from the outside world, but in the first years of the 20th century the Communists under Chairman Mao overthrow the Emperors and the lives of hundreds of millions of people gradually improved..."

Perhaps it got better after this, but I do not know because I turned it off.

Well once the Emperors of China may indeed have isolated China from the outside world, but that certainly was not true in the "early years of the 20th century", when one could, for example, buy Chinese railway bonds on all the major exchanges of the world.

The Chinese Communists did not overthrow the Emperors - the Chinese Communist Party did not even exist in 1911 when Sun Yat-Sen (and his protégé, Chiang Kai Shek) overthrew the Qing Dynasty.

And as for the life of the Chinese people gradually improving under the Communists, in reality tens of millions of them starved to death during the collectivist 'Great Leap Forward' and the rest of it. About 60 million people were murdered under Mao, so perhaps 'gradually improved' might not have been the most appropriate choice of words.

Also even the most statist Emperor never demanded that people make steel in their back yards (you can guess what this steel was like) or launched a campaign to exterminate birds in the demented hope that it would improve the harvest (surprise, surprise, there was a plague of insects).

Perhaps the show introduction was, unintentionally, amusing for people who have read books like Mao: The Untold Story, but remember - a lot of young people (and not so young people) get what knowledge of the world they have from sources like the introduction to this show, which is a great pity.

(1)

In China, the State does not muck about; in the wake of scandals about the safety of various Chinese products for export, the former head of the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration, Mr. Zheng Xiaoyu has been executed for taking bribes. Zheng Xiaoyu can count himself unlucky, given the maze of corruption that is a fact of life in China. But China is very sensitive about the safety of its products at the moment, and all the more so with the Beijing Olympics not far away.

And whoever Mr Zheng's successor is, he or she will no doubt face similar temptations and dangers. For regulation is nearly as ubiquitous as corruption in China:

Regulators said their ability to monitor food and drug purity would greatly increase by 2010, when they enhanced their ability to respond to accidents and establish a national product recall system.

The authorities said inspectors would start shifting posts more often to prevent corruption, and that they would inspect a wider range of goods more frequently to ferret out fakes.

But they acknowledged that they face challenges in eliminating unsafe products. China has about 200 million farms, many of them less than an acre in size. It has nearly 450,000 food processing companies, nearly 80 percent with 10 employees or fewer, said Lin Wei, a senior official at the General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

“This is our national condition,” Mr. Lin said. “It is our hope that by 2010 we can reduce the number of small food workshops by 50 percent and effectively curb law breaking and counterfeiting.”

Officials acknowledge that responsibility for food and drug safety involves as many as 17 government agencies, ranging from the Ministry of Health, which sets hygienic standards, to the Public Security Bureau, which has power to investigate criminal cases.

(13)

A very large box that I need to tick in my travel ambitions is Japan (a sister-in-law of mine is Japanese). Via the excellent website of Stephen Hicks, I came across this site showing some wonderful photos. It certainly encourages me to get on a flight to Tokyo as soon as I can plan and afford it.

The Japanese, judging by the sheer scale of lighting, clearly do not worry over-much about their 'carbon footprint', to use the current cant expression of our political classes. Excellent.

(12)

To have a free and prosperous country, it is important to have strong institutions underpinning things like contract and property rights. Yet all too often we forget the roll of social attitudes and world-view in creating wealth and its handmaiden, liberty.

There are two interesting articles in The Telegraph today (on the same page in the print version in fact) that shows that places like Russia and China may be vastly wealthier and freer than they were under the darkest days of Communism, but both those places have yet to develop either a culture that expects liberty, understands the implications of state money (they are hardly alone in that) or accepts the usefulness of profound outside influences.

The Chinese government is trying to lure foreign educated Chinese back to China, which suggests at least the people at the top are aware that there is value in the way the rest of the world does things..

Under the government's new incentives, returnees will be able to work wherever they like, regardless of which city they have a residence permit for, and will be offered higher pay, while their families will receive preferential treatment.

Which is interesting as that means most people still cannot live and work where they like, requiring internal passports and state residence permits. How can a place with such restrictions on a person's ability to sell their own labour ever hope to become affluent and truly dynamic? Can they not see the link between the ability of individuals to make fundamental choices and the effectiveness of markets?

Those graduates who return, expecting their foreign education and work experience to be a passport to a glittering future in the new China, frequently face discrimination rooted in a deep-seated distrust of those who have left the motherland for the West.

Which makes me wonder, do most Chinese people not realise how much more affluent the First World is than they are? I am guessing they do but this is trumped by the cultural imperative for Chinese-ness... the sort of mindless nationalism that is thankfully largely dead in much of the Western world. This suggests to me that regardless of how China's leaders tinker around, if Chinese culture is that obsessed with China-is-always-best attitudes, there are serious limits to their ability to grow into a prosperous and civil society.

Also in Russia, most of the institutions associated with advanced nations (courts, property rights, contract law etc.) are not known for their robustness or independence from politics. But also I wonder how much the culture in Russia allows people to imagine things any differently?

Russia's ageing but revered scientific geniuses are on a collision course with Vladimir Putin after the 1,200-member Academy of Sciences rejected Kremlin proposals to end its unique independence from state control [...] Now, however, its autonomy is threatened by a proposed new charter which would give the government control of its management, funding and multi-billion pound property holdings. Kremlin officials claim the institution needs dragging into the modern world to harness its members' brainpower for lucrative scientific patents and commerce. But critics fear it will fall victim to Mr Putin's appetite for control and his distrust of free-thinking institutions.

Which is interesting. But then...

The Academy receives £870 million in federal grants, owns about 400 affiliated institutes and employs around 200,000 people across Russia. Prof Valery Kozlov, 57, its vice-president, said: "This is simply an attempt to seize control of our finances and property."

I am sure Professor Kozlov is a very smart man, yet I wonder if it even crossed his mind that perhaps his Academy should respond to Putin's power grab by refusing to take any more state money. If they are a centre of excellence as claimed, surely there must be companies and institutions around the world which would love to fund them and allow them to be truly independent of the state.

Yet the notion that everything must happen top-down with the blessing of the state is probably so deeply ingrained that the reality of what is involved with making yourself independent does not track at all.

(11)

Or the same familiar foaming...

Perfect for a lunch break...

A tip - here is the same video but with better translated subtitles. Alas, the embedding has been disabled, which is rather stupid. Fits the spirit of the thing.

via Boing Boing

(21)

Tyler Cowen notes an unsavoury fact about the Chinese economic miracle:

...of the 3,220 Chinese citizens with a personal wealth of 100 million yuan ($13 million) or more, 2,932 are children of high-level cadres. Of the key positions in the five industrial sectors - finance, foreign trade, land development, large-scale engineering and securities - 85% to 90% are held by children of high-level cadres.

Cowen lifted the above quote from an interesting article that details how the regime in Beijing controls economic data coming out of the Middle Kingdom, which helps to prompt foreign investors to keep funding the great confidence trick that is the modern Chinese economy.

The family connections of China's super-rich and captains of industry must be considered alongside rosy economic statistics provided that expound China's development. These filial links between the commanding heights of China's supposedly private sector and its government betray the fact that China Inc. is the unholy alliance of a dictatorial regime and the application of corrupted 'free' market ideals. Such an arrangement will fail in due course, and will probably fail spectacularly since it has come this far.

(6)

The next time you read someone denounce the United States as a haven of unfettered capitalism, read this story and similar ones like it. It is a reminder that the cause of free trade has been on the back foot in the United States for some time.

Regardless of one's feelings about the dark side of China - its dreadful human rights record, for starters - to slap tariffs on the country's imports to buy a few votes from special interests in the US will come at a high price for future global economic growth and at a cost to US consumers of products like paper, steel or electronics. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations over 230 years ago. One might hope that his lessons would have sunk in by now.

(9)

When commenting on the recent Chinese stockmarket meltdown, Glenn Reynolds wondered if a prediction posted on Samizdata some time ago could be coming to pass. Whilst exposure for Samizdata on Instapundit is nice, I think Mr Reynolds is wrong if he perceives this stockmarket wobble to be a potential opening salvo of the economic holocaust presaged on these pages early last year. Far from heralding the collapse, it will delay the inevitable.

In spite of a widespread belief in China's embrace of free-market capitalism, enormous economic distortions characterise modern China's economy. For example, why is it that, relative to China's economic footprint, the Chinese stock market is rather pathetically stunted - especially in light of the vast savings pool the Chinese people have accumulated? As mentioned in the above article, the Chinese are great savers and they tend to deposit these savings into bank accounts because alternative investment opportunities are limited compared to those offered to a Western investor. Consider the following:

Why does the Chinese investor not sink his surplus funds into foreign commodities? Because he is restricted from doing so.

Why does he not invest in Chinese stocks? Because he (probably correctly) views the Chinese stock market as being distinctly ropey.

In light of these state-imposed distortive realities, what does one do with one's savings? One puts them in the bank, of course. Predictably, the banks are awash with deposits. Under these circumstances, the principles of fractional reserve banking have been taken to the extreme in China, allowing the central government to durably zombify huge segments of the otherwise bankrupt state-owned industrial sector by forcing the "big four" state-owned banks to continuously loan depositors' money to these failed state enterprises, in the full knowledge that these loans will never be repaid.

This fiscal expedience allows the central government to postpone the nasty (and potentially regime-threatening) hangover that inevitably follows a sustained attempt at central economic planning like that witnessed during the Mao era. Unfortunately, it cannot continue indefinitely. Firstly, it provides no market incentive - the only incentive that works - for the wayward state-owned enterprises to reform. If they do not reform into conventional free-market actors, they will always require such charity. Secondly, this charity can only continue if Chinese bank account holders continue to top up (or at the very least maintain) their balances.

Of course, the central government knows the above only too well. If China Inc. in its current incarnation is to survive, it is critically important that the Chinese do not withdraw too much of their savings from the state-owned banks to invest in other pursuits, as this will cause the banking system - and "socialism with Chinese characteristics" - to collapse. The central government probably engineered the recent stockmarket fluctuation to buttress the perception of insecurity that shrouds potential investment targets like Chinese stocks, and are no doubt well pleased with the message that was subsequently delivered to the average Chinese investor. This does not mean that the current Chinese economic model is now secure - it will unravel at some point in the future. However, that point has been postponed with a 'hair of the dog'-type solution, which will make the eventual hangover even more severe.

The central government has merely bought some time.

(8)

I am still in Mozambique, although I shall be getting on a plane to Johannesburg in a few hours, and then another to London right after that. My trip has been a very brief one. I came to Johannesburg for a friend's wedding, and (partly drivern my great love of things Portuguese) then spent a few days in Mozabique after that. It has been well worth it. (However, upon meeting some members of the South African branch of the Jennings family, I did have to turn down an invitation to visit them at their private game lodge as I had already booked the trip to Mozambique. That was a shame).

I have had a fascinating and enjoyable time, although I have only been able to look at a small area in the south of the country: Maputo, the Ilha da Inhaca, and Catembe. I now know that some day I really must see the Ilha da Mozambique.

Of course, what I would really like to do now is take another couple of weeks, and work my way up the entire length of Mozambique to Malawi and Tanzania. But of course, I do not have time, and in fact in theory I am going to work in London tomorrow. (Who am I kidding? What I would really like to do is take three months, and work my way all the way to Cairo).

So I don't think it will be long before I visit Africa again. I have lots more to write, but that can wait until I am back in London.

(7)

A law firm I use sends out a regular newsletter to their business clients. This arrived in my mailbox some time back. At first I just read it and thought 'interesting'. But reading it again, I think it may be of interest to some Samizdatistas.

Sections 1 and 2 seem reasonable enough. Section 3 is iffy. But, starting with section 4, some things definitely look like, if actually enforced, they will have a substantial effect on business in China and its overall economic trends. Things like this are what may provide concern for China's continued economic growth:

Company Rules

Current Law - With no guidance or requirements in the current law, employers often draft their own employee handbooks, manuals and work rules. Enforcement is very similar to that in the United States, with fairness and degree of conduct weighed.

Draft Law - Essentially, every employer policy, rule and procedure that governs its employees must be discussed and approved by the union or employee representative. Rules unilaterally imposed by the employer will be void. The term “employee representative” is new and remains undefined in the draft law. There are also unique challenges for employers posed by this new provision. This provision fails to recognize the fluid nature of employer policies and rules. As stated, every change must be approved by the trade union or employee representative, which will inevitably lead to delay in timely implementation. And, despite the trade union’s power to effect employee policies and rules, an employer is ultimately on the hook for what is implemented. Finally, it is worth noting that this provision does not contain any incentive for the trade unions and/or employee representative to negotiate with employers.

We have a lot of commenters and contributors who travel to China; presumably some of them have business there. I would be interested in knowing what they think of these proposed labor market reforms. Will China actually try to enforce all of these parts of the law, or is it just for show? And if they do enforce it, what will the repercussions be?

(22)

As I have recounted, on my way home to see family in Australia in December I stopped in South Korea for a few days. The trip was principally a city break: I had a look around Seoul. Seoul was in many ways very impressive, but it was also a city striking in its normality. It is a modern, technologically advanced city. The subway system works extremely well. There are McDonald's and Starbucks outlets everywhere (this is a rare market where a local McDonald's clone has apparently outdone the original. On the other hand, all Korea's coffee shops belong to Starbucks). Buildings are modern. People love their mobile phones. Certain Korean brands are perhaps more prominent than they would be in a more balanced economy and they seem to realise this though. Samsung and LG, for instance, seem to market many of their products under local brand names, leading to iconic and very familiar Korean products being present in Korea only under unfamiliar brand names. The city feels extremely safe, it is very clean, and it is about as low stress a place to visit as can be imagined.

The only hint that complete insanity begins less than 50km to the north is only a small one: the fact that uniformed soldiers are to be seen regularly on the streets. There is nothing threatening or remarkable about this. These are just ordinary 19 year old guys in the middle of their compulsory military service. You see them catching the subway, or having lunch in fast food restaurants. These are just young guys going about their lives, who happen to be wearing fatigues. There are many other cities where you will see the same thing. However, now that most developed countries have abandoned compulsory military service, these cities are fewer than they used to be, particularly in countries as advanced as South Korea.

But Korea has retained compulsory military service, and this is because the most heavily defended border in the world lies less than 50km north of Seoul. Of course, I had to go to see it. One can only go into the Demilitarized Zone by going on an organised tour. These are run by both the local USO and by local Korean tour companies. The guidebook recommended the USO tour as "the best tour" but the days on which it ran were not convenient with my schedule, so I booked myself on one of the locally run tours. This turned out to be just fine. However, perhaps because most English speakers go on the USO tour, English speakers were in a minority on this tour. Most of the people on the bus were Japanese. Only six of us were English speakers (myself, three Singaporeans, and an American engineer based in Seoul who was on the tour with his adult daughter who was visiting him for Christmas). There was also a Korean couple. This is apparently rare. Korean civilians are not normally allowed in the DMZ, and those that wish to go on the tour have to apply six months in advance, in which time a thorough background check is undertaken on them, apparently to make sure they are not the sorts of people who are likely to wish to defect to North Korea or otherwise allow the enemy to gain propaganda points (this seems like a deeply peculiar thing to do, but apparently once in a while someone is nutty enough to want to try it). In any event, their presence on the tour was apparently quite unusual, as the English speaking guide remarked upon their presence. And of course, there was no 'Korean speaking guide' (although the guides were both Korean and thus clearly spoke the language). The tour was conducted in Japanese and English, and the English and Japanese speaking guides took turns to speak.

When you drive north from Seoul, you realise what a huge metropolitan area the city is at the centre of. (It depends how you measure it, but there is a case for Seoul as the second largest city in the world, which is doubly impressive given that the population was reduced to a few hundred thousand during the Korean War). Urban areas and manufacturing centres are beside the road almost all the way to the border (the LG/Phillips LCD display factory is no more than 10km from the DMZ, so our flat screen television supply is one of the first things we shall lose upon the start of World War 3).

As we drove north the guides gave us various useful pieces of information, such as that we should not run off into the bushes "as there are many minefields", and that it was very important that we not taunt or gesture at any North Koreans, as if we did they would take our photographs and use them for propaganda purposes against the free world (also, our tour would likely be terminated immediately).

Then we crossed the river Imjin,and normality ceased.

This is not the start of the DMZ, but it is the start of what may be referred to as the 'Militarized Zone', which is a controlled area occupied by South Korean troops and their weapons. Our passports were checked as we entered this zone, and we were not permitted to take photographs as we went through it. The bridge across the river had barriers across it, compelling all traffic to take a zig-zag route across it, presumably designed to slow down any North Korean invasion. After driving across it there was another fenced border, and passports were checked again (this time by a soldier in a United Nations uniform, but still a Korean) before we entered a region technically under United Nations (in practice United States) command rather than South Korean command.

The tour was technically of the Joint Security Area (JSA), in the area of the former village of Panmunjom, which