Sun Vs Tiger

[Walsingham]

Article from Stratfor.com

 

Summary

 

Japan will commit more than $42 million to a project to improve and redesign parts of the Zambian capital of Lusaka and to improve and maintain roads in and between the towns of Livingstone, Ndola and Kitwe, Japanese Ambassador to Zambia Masaaki Miya****a said June 25. The announcement follows a declaration by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling Liberal Democratic Party that Japan's Africa budget will be tripled over the next five years. The announcements send a clear sign that Japan is ready to become a big player in Africa, challenging Chinese economic power and political influence on the continent.

 

Analysis

 

Japan will commit more than $42 million to a project to improve and redesign parts of the Zambian capital of Lusaka and to improve and maintain roads in and between the towns of Livingstone, Ndola and Kitwe, Japanese Ambassador to Zambia Masaaki Miya****a said June 25. The announcement follows a statement by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that his ruling Liberal Democratic Party will triple its budget for African affairs over the next five years.

 

The announcements show the heightened Japanese interest in the continent, which is part of an accelerating international trend as countries around the world realize the potential Africa holds for direct investment and mineral concessions, among other things.

 

In Zambia and a few other African states, however, Tokyo will have to compete directly with Beijing. China's companies and development money already pervade the country to such an extent that the Chinese hold serious political clout in Lusaka -- influence that is rapidly becoming more controversial as accusations increase of Chinese "neo-imperialism" and interference in African affairs.

 

The relationship between Zambia and China goes back some 30 years, and although Zambia is not China's foremost African trading partner, the Chinese enjoy an unprecedented level of access to the Zambian government. China also enjoys highly favorable regulatory conditions, including a Chinese special economic zone created in February in the copper-mining town of Chambishi, in which Chinese companies can do business without export or value-added taxes.

 

The Chinese presence in Zambia has been controversial, however, with accusations that Chinese companies are exploiting Zambian workers with low pay and subjecting them to inadequate safety standards. (Such standards are blamed for a 2005 explosion at a Chinese-run copper mine that killed more than 50 local workers.) China also is accused of increasing unemployment in Zambia's Copper Belt by bringing in Chinese employees to work in the mines in some cases. Complaints also have been widespread that Beijing is undercutting the Zambian textile industry by selling Chinese government-subsidized textiles in Zambia.

 

Since the first quarter of 2006, Chinese trade with Zambia increased 99.4 percent -- a sign that the Chinese are digging in their heels in Southern Africa to counter increasing interest in the region by the United States and India, and increasingly, Japan. While Japan's sudden interest in Zambia might seem odd, it actually represents a rational countermove to increasing Chinese influence in the region.

 

China has been successful in Africa in part because it offers huge loans without many of the conditions Western countries attach to their loan packages, including various stipulations about human rights and democratization that many developing countries find unpalatable. It has pursued this model in Angola, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to name a few. Japan is now providing an alternative that it hopes will be more attractive to the local population and opposition groups now that China has come under heavy criticism for its alleged neo-imperialism.

 

By offering to build the same schools, roads, buildings and hospitals as China is, and by offering to do it faster and to better standards, Japan is providing Zambia with an alternative to the apparent Chinese model of heavy-handed business practices and an unhealthy disregard for safety standards and workers

[Guard Dog]

Have you ever stood beside a murky lake and saw strange ripples and waves in what would otherwise be still water? It gives you the feeling there is something going on below the surface that you just can't see? Maybe something sinister? I get that feeling a lot these days when we talk about China and the far east.

 

But kudos to the Japanese for laying the groundwork that may weaken the position of a rival. That is just good business.

[Xard]

Go go Nippon!

[metadigital]

Competition is good.

 

Excelent article, Walsh.

[Walsingham]

Ya gotta love Stratfor.com. Better than every one of our papers combined.

[Pop]

Have you ever stood beside a murky lake and saw strange ripples and waves in what would otherwise be still water? It gives you the feeling there is something going on below the surface that you just can't see? Maybe something sinister? I get that feeling a lot these days when we talk about China and the far east.

 

But kudos to the Japanese for laying the groundwork that may weaken the position of a rival. That is just good business.

No ****? I get that same feeling anytime the US announces anything to do with South America. And China's got its fingers in a lot of pies in Sudan.

 

What's that ambassador's name, uncensored? ****? ****? ****?

[Musopticon?]

Miyashita

[metadigital]

Gesundheit!

[Musopticon?]

Pardon me.

[Walsingham]

I get quite tooth-grindingly annoyed by my compatriots who will gleefully engage in a bit of Yank-bashing over climate control and arms dealing, but mention China in the same context and you can almost hear the crickets. The only thing such fluff-balls think important is that China deals in dog and cat fur.

[Azarkon]

I don't know, the BBC posts (or used to post?) quite a bit of anti-China articles. At least that's how I remembered it when I was discussing Chinese geopolitical strategy on another board and having a plethora of such made-for-public-outrage-writing thrown at me

 

At any case, foreign investment is a necessity for Japan given how scarce their island is of vital industrial resources; bumping heads with China is just a bonus, at least among Japan's resurgent nationalists. Of course, the real unspoken faction here is the ambiguous "West," which, regardless of whether China or Japan succeeds, will have been shown that its policy of demand-based diplomacy is the real lame duck. I find it just a tad ironic, as such, that the "West" would rejoice at a Japanese victory in Africa, given that the tactics Japan has adopted exhibits the same qualities that they first criticized in China: aid with no strings attached. Indeed, one would think that if the West considers such a move beneficial to its interests, it should modify its own strategy towards Africa...

 

But that's not what's happening. Instead, we cheer on Japan because it's anti-China. How lame.

[Walsingham]

2 questions:

 

1. What is demand based diplomacy? Is it like just in time fruit cake?

 

2. If you read the article you will see reference to the Japanese tactic of profit through damn fine management. Africa can use being exploited by ruthless bastards who will do anything to ensure a healthy happy productive workforce.

[Azarkon]

1. What is demand based diplomacy? Is it like just in time fruit cake?

 

In terms of fruit cakes, you can think of it as being offered a fruit cake and told that if you eat the fruit cake, you had better change your mind about politics. Oh, and you had better stop bullying your neighbors, too

Edited June 27, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

I see... and my point 2?

[Azarkon]

You didn't pose it as a question ... But, the assessment is sound; however, the Japanese are just as capable as the Chinese of "neo colonialism" - and African intelligentsia are quite adamant about applying the term to anything that benefits the host country more than their own. Rotten history, you see.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Azarkon

[Guard Dog]

I get quite tooth-grindingly annoyed by my compatriots who will gleefully engage in a bit of Yank-bashing over climate control and arms dealing, but mention China in the same context and you can almost hear the crickets. The only thing such fluff-balls think important is that China deals in dog and cat fur.

 

Heh, and you wonder why Americans like me (and so many others you might be surprised) argue for a return to the Monroe Doctrine, the awarding of MFN status to only Western Hemisphere nations, and elimination of ALL foreign aid to any nation west of Hawaii and east of Brazil. If the rest of the world is so infatuated with China, they can go to them next time humanitarian aid is needed.

 

 

Seriously though, to read the posts on this board, I am often surprised at how much hatred and vitriol is directed at the US. And how little is directed at China, Iran, North Korea, and others who are actively working to either expand their influence at other people's expense or are outright prepping for a war. China emits more greenhouse gas than the US, has a far, far worse record on human rights, actively censors and suppresses it's people, and practices an extremely ruthless form of business "imperialism" in international affairs. As this article points out. China makes no effort to mitigate environmental damage in ANY industrial endeavors, does not know the meaning of the term "Quality Control" and severely restricts the personal freedoms and information available to it's citizens. In short, liberals (like those here) should hate China with a passion because it is the antithesis of everything they stand for. But as you pointed out Wals, they do not.

 

Why?

[Azarkon]

There's plenty of vitriol directed at China by liberals, but my impression is that people on this board, in particular, are less concerned about foreign affairs than they are about domestic issues. Still, your question is somewhat valid with respect to the US at large, and I pose five answers:

 

1. There's the assumption that China is getting better. In some respects this is true - compared to the hardcore Communist days, China today is, at worst, mellow. It isn't actively antagonizing other countries (even the popular anti-Japanese sentiments have become restrained), the status quo is being preserved (ie with respect to Taiwan), and people's freedoms and livelihoods are gradually improving. Given such a progressive trend it's difficult for people to zero in on China when they could be zeroing in on much worse targets, like North Korea and the Middle-East. This accounts for the moderate viewpoint.

 

2. There's the understanding that China is a developing country. Here, I should stress a point that I often see missed in the classic divide between liberals and conservatives: that's not all there is to a person's political viewpoint! Liberals aren't only liberals and conservatives aren't only conservatives - they also hold other views towards other issues beyond that which can be clearly defined by liberal and/or conservative ideology. The right to self-determination is one of these issues and it's hard to classify as liberal vs. conservative - there are people from both camps who subscribe to it, just as there are people from both camps who subscribe to interventionism (for different reasons, but nonetheless). Viewed from the context of self-determination, China's modernization efforts aren't exactly out of line. After all, it's not a developed country, and where poverty reigns so do problems with human rights, environmental exploitation, quality control, wealth distribution, etc. I mean, you can criticize China for having a bad environmental record, but it just doesn't have the same force when the comeback is "look, we have strict environmental laws, but we can't enforce them because you can't expect starving villagers to care much about the environment, sorry." The same is true for numerous other issues, and so they're often just dropped.

 

3. A lack of information. Media focus has largely shifted away from China and since the media determines, largely, what the average person knows and what the average person worries about, China has fallen out of scope and out of mind. Part of this is standard operation - China hasn't changed much since it was in the spotlight prior to 9/11, and while certain sticky issues have persisted (ie trade imbalances and Chinese mercantilism), they're just not as sensational as the War in Iraq. The media thrives on sensational stories about terrorists killing a busload of children, or a US politician being unveiled as a pederast. It doesn't thrive on the lack of new information coming out of China, particularly since the Chinese government is very good at controlling the flow of information to foreign journalists.

 

4. The US benefits from trade with China. With #3, I indicated the lack of sensationalism associated with China, but that's not all there is to media ignorance. You see, the media is always interested in what the government is interested in, because naturally anything that the government is interested in is of relevance to the people it represents. The problem, however, is that the US government isn't interested in turning the spotlight on China - because it's cognizant of how much it has invested in China and how much it could lose if a chill develops between the Chinese government and the US government. It's the same problem with, say, Saudi Arabia (which also engages in alot of human rights abuses but is ignored because it's a key ally of the US) - except that the relationship with China is more mercurial and could change depending on who comes into power. The Bush administration is very pro-China (even though it started off anti-China) because it needs China to support its adventures in the Middle-East. The Democrats are less likely to be so, and we might see a shift in focus if they take power.

 

5. Finally, like I said in the beginning, people simply care less about other countries unless they're directly affected by the going-ons in those countries. What China does is largely irrelevant to the average US liberal - so long as the flow of cheap goods continue unabated and China doesn't invade anybody that US liberals like. It takes an active lobby - like the Tibet and Taiwan lobbies - to push real Chinese issues through, and even then so long as the US government prefers the status quo, little is likely to come out of it. That's just the way it is, and I have no doubt that if you go over to a Chinese forum, or a Taiwanese forum, or a Japanese forum, you'll find very different concerns and priorities than what you find here. There will still be the obvious liberal vs. conservative divides, but what each side worries about is very different.

[Guard Dog]

Good answer!

[Atreides]

I really enjoy(ed?) the focus on substandard imports from China. The melanin in wheat gluten, wacky toothpaste and other fun stuff!

[Walsingham]

There's plenty of vitriol directed at China by liberals, but my impression is that people on this board, in particular, are less concerned about foreign affairs than they are about domestic issues.

The whole thing smacks of juvenile teenagerism to me. "My parents are teh worst peopel in teh world!"

 

Anyway, on to your points, which are excellent, but can stand a little criticism.

 

1. There's the assumption that China is getting better.

This is perfectly fair. Certainly given the prevailing sentiment which even I would sympathise with, that the US is getting worse.

 

2. There's the understanding that China is a developing country.

An excuse which they over-use. I don't reject the plea, but it is used for everything, rather than the cases where it is warranted. I would also point out in a rather aggrieved way, that if you visited the gorbals in Glasgow, or Southern Italy you might wonder if the West is really all developed. When are you no longer allowed to play that card?

 

3. A lack of information.

Very very true. Combined with a total lack of analytical skill to make anything of the scant information we do get.

 

4. The US benefits from trade with China.

We ALL benefit from trade with China in the pure big business sense. All the same I do listen with interest whenever I hear someone attacking this assumption. Do people besides international mega-corporations really benefit?

 

5. Finally, like I said in the beginning, people simply care less about other countries unless they're directly affected by the going-ons in those countries.

 

This is, IMO , pure perception. Ignoring the moral blinkers for a moment, China is THE arms dealer your blood-crazed dingbat goes to first. They supply EVERYONE on the liberal hate list, and they do so without the slightest pretense at reforming influence. Nor, so far as I'm aware, do they have Russia's excuse of needing the hard currency.

[Guard Dog]

This is perfectly fair. Certainly given the prevailing sentiment which even I would sympathise with, that the US is getting worse.

 

How do you figure? Not trying to spark a debate, I'm genuinely curious. In the US, more so than other countries, because of the make up of our government, all things political are cyclical.

[Walsingham]

This is perfectly fair. Certainly given the prevailing sentiment which even I would sympathise with, that the US is getting worse.

 

How do you figure? Not trying to spark a debate, I'm genuinely curious. In the US, more so than other countries, because of the make up of our government, all things political are cyclical.

 

You're right to cal me on it. I don't know the figures but my impression is that you've been in a recession. Both economically, and in terms of things like the spraead of wealtha nd education. I'd be very happy if I was wrong!

[Guard Dog]

You're right to cal me on it. I don't know the figures but my impression is that you've been in a recession. Both economically, and in terms of things like the spraead of wealtha nd education. I'd be very happy if I was wrong!

Interest rates are low, unemployment has never been better, stocks are up (the DJIA hit a record high just 3 weeks ago), bankruptcies are at a 5 year low. Things are pretty good here. Not perfect by any means, The real estate market is in trouble and high gas prices drive up consumer costs on everything.

 

But here is why you get the impression we are in trouble. The BBC gets it's news leads from the big news outlets here in the US. Networks such a CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC & AP. We joke about it but there is some truth to this, there is a real and subtle bias towards the left in these news outlets. And they are mildly antagonistic and quietly hostile to the current administration. So bad news stories tend to reported on heavily and often presented outside of their proper context (NBC is especially bad about this). This is a subtle attempt to influence how people feel about the current administration. The problem is it also breeds a quiet sense of pessimisim which often becomes self fulfilling. For example, if you really think things are going bad, sooner or later they really will.

 

I realize making this claim will put a lot of boardies back up, so here is a few examples.

 

1)During the Clinton years, the dotcom stocks collapsed and took the stock market with it and led to a mini-recession between 1998-2001. All of the warning signs were there two years ahead of time but unless you read the Wall Street Journal, or watched Fox News or other similar outlets you never saw it. They loved Clinton and tended to over report good economic news and underreport or ignore bad news.

 

2)In the 2000 election on Dan Rathers coverage he conveyed his bias in his reporting. Remeber that weeks before the election he made a keynote speech on the media at a Democrat fundraiser. And he attended the 2000 Democratric convention but not as a reporter. During his election coverage in 2000 when speaking of Gore his voice was light and he would smile. When speaking of Bush his face was tern and his voice lowered. For example, he would say in a light voice "This just in, Maryland has gone to Gore," then his expression and tone would become darker and more ominous "and South Carolina has fallen to Bush".

 

When you state the media is biased people get worked up and either agree emphaticaly or disagree with equal passion. But it is true and it is very subtle. If you find that phenomenon interesting I'd reccomend the book Bias by Benard Goldberg.

 

Another reason you would get the impression we are regressing is many people claim we are losing our civil rights to Bush through the Patriot Act. I'm sure you have seen THAT tossed about in threads. Then someone like me would ask 'Ok, what civil rights do you think have been violated?" And of course there is no answer because the answer is none.

 

Anyway, did not mean to wander OT here but I did want to address your question. There is a general impression things are not going well in the US right now but it is a feeling, not a fact. and it has more to do with a general dislike for the current political administration than any real problem with the US economy or social order.

[Azarkon]

The whole thing smacks of juvenile teenagerism to me. "My parents are teh worst peopel in teh world!"

 

Well, there's also the practical side to it: if a thread was made about countries outside of the US, Europe, and Israel/Iraq/Iran (the three I's), how many people here will really care enough to respond in an informed manner, and how many people will really be informed? When the "liberals" on this board, so to speak, criticize the US they're reasonably sure of their audience and their own knowledge, but if we were to shift focus to China that wouldn't be so true. Yes, we can rage against China all day long, but unless there were a few informed Chinese posters, or at least Chinese scholars, to answer our criticisms, it'd be a pretty one-sided debate and might just consist (as this thread did for a while) of us Westerners patting each other on the back going, "you tell'em!" Not exactly a stimulating debate, and it gets boring fast.

 

An excuse which they over-use. I don't reject the plea, but it is used for everything, rather than the cases where it is warranted. I would also point out in a rather aggrieved way, that if you visited the gorbals in Glasgow, or Southern Italy you might wonder if the West is really all developed. When are you no longer allowed to play that card?

 

Well, if you have the card, you're going to play it as long as you could - that's just good politics. As for when we should stop listening to it, I cannot say - it largely depends on the person. Some people have already stopped giving China a pass, while others will continue to do so until China overtakes the US on the international stage; most fall somewhere in-between, and in this case it does depend on the particulars of the excuse. For example, if it were an issue with sweat shops and labor abuse, I'd stop excusing China when the country can actually afford to employ all of its citizens in better work. As it is, though, that's not very true - companies go to China for the cheap labor, they expect cheap labor, and the large body of unemployed bread earners don't have alot of choice. Cutthroat local competition ensures that if you're not willing to work unreasonable hours, someone else will, while cutthroat global competition ensures that if China enacts extensive labor laws, companies will move their production elsewhere and development will grind to a halt. In this particular subject looking at China through our own standards is not at all helpful, because labor welfare is tied to the level of development, and that's why the excuse works. On the other hand, an issue like coerced organ donation from prisoners is less capable of being excused - sure, there's a demand for it in China, but there's a demand for it everywhere, and it's more of a moral question than an economic one.

 

Do people besides international mega-corporations really benefit?

 

It's arguable, but with respect to the current government, it doesn't matter - the Republicans look out for big business, if you'll recall. The Democrats, as I said, might bring change in this matter and the US's relationship with China could take a nose-dive if they win.

 

This is, IMO , pure perception. Ignoring the moral blinkers for a moment, China is THE arms dealer your blood-crazed dingbat goes to first. They supply EVERYONE on the liberal hate list, and they do so without the slightest pretense at reforming influence. Nor, so far as I'm aware, do they have Russia's excuse of needing the hard currency.

 

I'm not sure "need" is the right word, but China definitely can't "afford" to lose their weapons markets, given that they can't sell to anyone else. It's all supply and demand, really - the US (and Europe, for that matter) has the superior technology that everyone wants, and so it can pick and choose who to sell to. China gets the leftovers, and that means countries that, for whatever reason, the US and Europe don't want to sell to. It's either sell to them, which China is currently doing, or not have an arms trade at all, which liberals would of course prefer. On this matter, though, I think you're giving the liberals too little credit - there is plenty of vitriol from the left on China's arms trade and I'm sure more than a few people are aware of the liberal attack w.r.t. Sudan. It's caused enough of a stir, in fact, that China has had to revisit its hands-off approach (though what'll come from that is anyone's guess). But, it is pure perception - people don't talk about China and Sudan much on these boards because it's not what they're most interested in and while they'll be quick to condemn China should a debate emerge, it's not going to emerge simply because it's there.

 

Perception, or more specifically point of view, is everything in politics.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

OK, some interesting points. Just a couple of rebuttals to keep things moving.

 

1. Azarkon, your point about being informed is fair, but if I've understood it correctly it doesn't address the fact that starting debates can LEAD TO people becoming interested and then becoming informed.

 

2. I agree that China has to either sell to deviants and crackpots or not sell. But my impression is that they don't need the foriegn currency. We should be trying to stop them, especially given that they're arming our fething enemies. I don't know how to check this impression, but am open to suggestions.

 

3. GD, we're straying off topic a little but your government now exercises the capacity to detain (not arrest, which has legal associations) anyone it damn well chooses without serving any kind of warrant, and then imprison them without trial by their peers. Moreover it exercises broad surveillance without warrant. Now, we can debate the whys and wherefores and you know very well which side I'm on, but you can't deny that civil liberties are being abrogated.

 

The only reason point three is appropriate to this discussion is that we can get full fired up about the US with a snap of the fingers, while letting the Chinese question drift.