I’m back! And so is America in Asia.

It’s been a while since my last post and quite a bit has happened since then.

Gaddafi is gone, Europe is scrambling for credit lines, and US was downgraded. However, what spurred the greatest interest for me within the political sphere is the recent APEC meeting, where the US with its stronger than usual stance announces its return to Asia with a bang.

From the Trans-Pacific partnership, with the obvious and deliberate exclusion of China, to the deployment of marines in Australia and America’s reengagement with a host of Asian countries, sparked a series of commentaries on the “Chinese threat” and repercussions of America’s recent actions.

Obama declared that “The US is a Pacific power and we are here to stay” says much about its intentions but also its lack of confidence lost during the last decade spent on its misadventures in the Middle East. (Imperial overstretch anyone?)  And now, reengaging Asia both economically and politically will no doubt bring a whole new dimension into play especially for Asian countries whom have forgotten the US as China became their largest trading partner.

For the past decade, China was able to cultivate relationships and climb the economic rankings as US were busy finding Saddam and Osama. When it was all over, China became the second largest economy in the world, their first aircraft carrier and stealth fighter on their way and more significant in symbol than substance was EU asking China for money. America has realized this and through its formidable soft power, reengaged Asia in one quick strike, banding all East Asian countries to isolate China. Now, whether this will last or what the repercussions are, has yet to be seen. But what is certain is that China is now on the back foot again as the US army got another foothold in the Asia Pacific region, this time out of its missile range in Darwin.  

On a side note, Australia is now officially a colony of the US, joining the ranks of Japan and Korea.

Chinese government in a train wreck – Pun (and anger) intended.

The train crash was a tragedy, but what followed was a much greater tragedy. The response and handling by the government was disastrous to say the least. From not doing a complete search and rescue operation to an apparent attempt to cover the magnitude of the disaster up (reports of bodies falling out of carriages as its being taken off the viaduct) has sparked outrage in China. With news now being censored by the Propaganda Department, the “real” news coming out are mostly from blogs and witnesses, where most reflected the anger in the public sphere.  

The actions of the government are perplexing to say the least. Dealing with so many disasters in the past like the SARS outbreak and tainted milk scandal, we would have thought the government has learnt a thing or two about being open and upfront to its people. However, with the recent tragedy, the government seems to have backtracked on its actions on opening up to the public and holding itself accountable to the problem.

This phenomenon could be the result of a couple of deciding factors in my opinion; political infighting and the political sensitivity of the entire high-speed railway project. 

Top leadership like Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao has called for “an all out effort to rescue and save the injured”, while at ground zero, trains are being moved, and lines reopened within 36 hours even before a real rescue effort has been mounted. This shows the contrast between the priorities between the two “governments” as they pursue different agenda. While the central government is trying to do the right thing (kind of) to save people, the local government is trying to contain the fallout of the event to save their own jobs and deny responsibility.   

The second factor leading to the aftermath of the disaster was the very fact that the high speed trains was suppose to be a status symbol for China’s rise to the top. However, albeit all the boasting on the record breaking speeds and “indigenous” designs, this was overshadowed by this very disaster. Just several months before, China was even on the verge of exporting this business to overseas market. And now, as I read on Bloomberg, Chinese train suppliers may have “Zero’ Chance” in train exports.

And now for some ranting:

What is the point of breaking speed records and building up the largest rail network in 5 years if you can’t offer a safe transportation system that the masses can rely upon?! Now that this event has happened, people’s faith in the high speed rail network and government’s sincerity to address numerous problems has crash and burn.  However, having said that, hopefully this event will serve as a painful lesson for the cost of fast growth over quality and hubris of Chinese manufacturers, government and last but not least, its people.

Bloomberg article

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/china-has-zero-chance-on-high-speed-train-exports-after-crash-kills-39.html

Aftermath of the accident:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/china.train.accident.outrage/index.html

Implications to Sino-Japanese Relations after the Earthquake

Firstly, apologies for the long absence, I have been rather busy lately and could not muster the will to blog. This post is an article I came across in the papers which I would like to share with you all. It’s an interesting theory on how the earthquake will affect Sino-Japanese Relations. There are two camps to this theory; the opportunity theory and the crisis theory. Let’s begin with the “Opportunity Theory”. 

This camp believes that with the massive destruction to the Japanese economy, Japan will require large amount of steel and other building materials to rebuild, giving China the opportunity to provide the surge in demand for its goods. With food produce being affected by radiation, confidence in Japanese food will decline along with its quality on to the lines with Chinese goods. As a result, this will give China the “level-playing” field that it has been dreaming of.  In addition, international bankers will leave Tokyo for Shanghai and Hong Kong due to radiation fears, the two cities will thus replace Tokyo as the financial centres in Asia.

In the diplomatic arena, Japan will be occupied with reconstruction leaving China to do what it wants in the East China Sea. Through massive and proactive assistance to Japan, China will no doubt increase its reputation within the Japanese public while further pushing for Japanese corporations to move their operations to China. With the combination of assisting Japan with its reconstruction and increasing its reputation amongst its neighbours and the prospect of making the Chinese Yuan the East Asian currency, East Asia can be united but with China as the head rather than the historically assumed Japan. 

The “Crisis Camp” on the other hand, feels that it will push Japan further into America’s arms reflecting the post war construction period. Any opportunities mentioned above will only benefit those of the United States and its allies. This camp also believes nationalism will fuel the withdrawal of funds from China to rebuild its own country thus slowing down economic co-operations between the two nations. 

With the US helping Japan to rebuild, the US will have unrivalled access to the Seas along China’s coast thus obstructing any efforts for sovereignty claims in the East China Sea by China. With nuclear power under debate, Japan will further push for its own claims in the disputed areas in hope of developing its oil and gas fields.  

Regardless of how it will all turn out, when Japanese scholars were asked what they feel about these two theories, their response was: “we have more important things to worry about now”.

Referring article: http://specials.mingpao.com/cfm/News.cfm?SpecialsID=242&Page=1&News=7deeab838655002bdffc203da603002bf7ec1b3b5f42003bf7d50a1f48a20037

Realism vs Liberalism?

“Historically, the birth of new economic superpowers has caused great global instability”

This quote by a BBC economics editor had given me food for thought and a reminiscent to a piece that I’ve

done on why the 19^th century liberal international order was not sustainable. Before World War One, the international political economy of the Western World was a time of rapid economic development and liberalization where free trade was the at the heart of the British Empire.  However, this liberal order came to a sudden halt with the onset of World War One. One of the reasons for this was the rise of Germany as a major rival to the main powers of Europe and United States both economically and politically. In my essay, I argued it was the flaws of the Concert of Europe (equivalent to the UN today), the gold standard and irony of free trade.  With Germany absorbing the free flow of advanced skills and products from England, it was able to catch up and compete with the hegemonic status of England.  

Coming to back to present time, we see similarities in today’s economic order. With its economic reforms, China started playing along with the world on free trade and thus absorbing the skills and goods needed for it to compete. As we have seen, the catch up of China is phenomenal and has recently overtaken Japan as the second largest economy.  With the arrival of its new strength both economically and politically, will it repeat history and cause much instability as we have seen in the 19^th century?  Of course, there are many theories that China’s growth is overhyped as it was with Japan in the seventies. 

Nonetheless, my question is will China’s rise create conflict as the balance of power has been altered? Or will liberalism prevail and the world sees a win-win situation for the consumer when two economic superpowers compete. 

Was Karl Right?

A popular theme surrounding the social-political sphere in Hong Kong at present is the so called “hatred of the rich” or 仇富 in Chinese. Recently, Hong Kong society has realised the monopoly powers of real estate developers. Accumulating mass profit from the property sector, it has turned to other industries for further profiting. Today, these developers control everything from supermarkets to transport to telecommunications. Therefore, the house you live in, the internet and phone you use, the food you buy at supermarket to the transport you take to work, are all owned by real estate developers. The working class has even joked at the fact that they all work for them as every bit of their lives revolves around consuming goods and services produced and hence generating revenues for them. 

This strikes me of the similarity to Marx’s theory on class struggles and the evolution of the political economy. The phenomenon in Hong Kong has led to an increase of hatred against the rich (i.e. Bourgeois) and resembles the exploitation of the working class (i.e. the proletariats) whom are the real producers of wealth. As capitalism evolves, the rich will get richer and poor get poorer to which at the point the monopolist controls all means of production. With Hong Kong being the most capitalist economy in the world, it will be at the forefront of any political economic development and this phenomenon seems to coincide with Marx’s theory on class struggle and the evolution of capitalism. 

IPE Must Read

China and Europe: Bear gifts for friends  

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1f40f8-201c-11e0-a6fb-00144feab49a.html#axzz1BBAjI3JG

Would just like to share a very interesting and insightful article from the FT. Everything from panda diplomacy to  political infighting and economics all wrapped in one piece (IPE must read). The undertone of the analysis gives a good insight on the new leadership of China and highlights the infighting within the party itself.

Hopefully, a new post will be up soon as I'm quite busy recently, apologies readers..

And finally, as usual, just for laughs..

US-Sino Currency Rap Battle

For your viewing pleasure.. from Obama and Hu Jintao