BARON LAUDERMILK - 19 September 2011

China’s Premier Wen Jiabao said on September 14, 2011, at the World Economic Forum in Dalian, China, that the Chinese government remains able to purchase European debt, but advises the European governments to drastically cut deficits, liberalize markets, and implement a multitude of financial measures to alleviate the crisis and reestablish credibility and trust in the euro.

Mr. Wen’s advice to the European governments was necessary and even needed. For more than a year the European Union (EU) has experienced a grave debt crisis, which its leaders appear unwilling to solve. Mr. Wen’s concerns that the European markets revitalize suggest that even China, the world’s most rapidly developing economy and increasingly the leader in global economic growth, is unable to avoid the crisis that began in Greece in 2010.

The Euro Zone’s economic crisis is partly caused by Greece’s massive debt and rising deficits. Mr. Wen’s words of advice to the European governments on how to become economically stable are correct. According to many Western economists and The Economist, austerity and massive cuts are the key to solving the crisis. These radical measures would include privatizing companies, delaying retirement, liberalizing professions and services, and reducing the bloated bureaucracy.

Europe’s unwillingness to quickly resolve its problems is beginning to affect the Chinese economy. The European Union is China’s largest export market. The EU’s current economic crisis is negatively impacting China’s export trade, the reminbi (rmb), and Chinese ability to import goods. China’s exports to a few EU countries have dropped in the last few months. In March and April, imports from China into Spain fell drastically, and in May imports from China to Portugal fell by 11.6%.

The EU’s economic crisis is affecting Chinese business not only with the severely economically devastated EU nations, but also with wealthier and more stable EU countries. Imports by Denmark, France, and the Netherlands have dropped sharply. Even more importantly is that imports by Germany, the Euro Zone’s main economic engine, have also severely decreased.

Nor is the rmb safe from Europe’s economic problems. China’s state administration of foreign exchange pointed out that the rmb’s incremental appreciation will be affected by the European debt crisis. The weaker euro is forcing the Chinese rmb to strengthen, which is reducing Chinese profits in almost all industries.

Young people on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, which has over 70 million members, have expressed their resentment towards Mr.Wen’s willingness to help bail out the Euro Zone. One user posted “The Chinese government should use their reserves to build schools and healthcare in China, let the Europeans take care of themselves.”

The question becomes, should China be purchasing European debt knowing that Greece and other European nations could be insolvent. Mr. Barry J. Naughton, a professor of Chinese economy who teaches at the University of California, said that the Chinese are purposely being vague about their intentions until they can find more lucrative opportunities in Europe.

“The real question is whether it should buy more now for political reasons (or because it thinks it will end up a good deal). It seems to me that the best policy from China’s standpoint is to express vague willingness and support but not really do anything major until there are further opportunities or proposals from the Europeans”, said Professor Naughton in an email to World News Report.

Li Daokui, a member of the monetary policy committee of China’s central bank, said at the World Economic Forum in Dalian, China, on September 14, 2011,“I don’t think any country can be saved by China in today’s world. Countries can only save themselves by pushing through reforms.”

But Mr. Wen did not just offer the Europeans a golden nugget. During his speech in Dalian, Mr. Wen made an unprecedented move for China. He offered to help the Europeans under the condition that they renounce the last obstacle against cheap Chinese products.

Mr. Wen encouraged the EU to change China’s current classification from a “nonmarket economy” to a “market economy.”

This means that the European Union will not be able to impose tariffs on Chinese goods. By keeping China classified as a nonmarket economy, The EU can compare Chinese products’ prices with other low-cost countries. In other words, if China’s products prices appear too low, which could be caused by a variety of reasons, the EU can impose tariffs.

Regardless of whether or not the European Union decides to reclassify China’s market status, the fact is that Europe’s current situation desperately needs international loans. One of the best contenders for this deal right now is China because to the access to resources and willingness to offer assistance.

China giving Europe a helping hand will not only help stabilize Europe’s economic crisis, but it will also give China more influence in the region and the world. Carol H. Shiue, a professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder agrees.

“Even though there is a risk of default, by buying up European debt and becoming Europe's creditor, China can trade some of its considerable foreign earnings for political influence in Europe. Imagine China imposing financial conditions on Europe--that certainly expands China's global importance to an entirely new level” said Professor Shiue.

BARON LAUDERMILK - 13 September 2011

Three years after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, the Chinese government implemented a widely controversial policy to halt its rapid population growth, the one-child policy. This policy limits the number of children the majority of Chinese (specifically Hans) families can  have. The Chinese government has claimed the law has prevented 400 million births, about equal to of the combined populations of the United States and Canada. Beijing has stated that despite the international and internal criticism that the law has endured, the reduction in the nation’s population growth has brought many socioeconomic benefits to its people.

The communist leaders have suggested that the lower fertility rate, which has fallen drastically since the 1980s, has contributed to an increased savings rate for the average Chinese household. Their logic is that since millions of urban households only have one child, they will utilize fewer resources, and in turn save more money and  time, and invest their extra resources in education, health care, and business. The government gas made the bold claim that the one-child policy is directly connected to China’s unrivaled economic growth. According to the government, the reduction in the demand for  resources, and the lower unemployment rate, have made maintaining a steady labor force more practical and manageable.

The one-child policy has directly and dramatically contributed to the reduction of China’s fertility rate. We can see this in the government’s many initiatives. Since the introduction  of the one-child policy, thousands of abortion clinics have emerged in almost every major city. Access to birth control and other protections has become  more prevalent. Because many of these measures have affected only city dwellers, the Chinese government created mobile abortion clinics to travel around the countryside to promote abortions and sterilizations.

The Chinese government has also used the media to encourage urban dwellers and rural peoples to only have one child. In the 1980s and early 90s, posters could be seen with slogans such as, “China Needs Family Planning, and “Have Fewer Children Live Better Lives”. The government even gave rewards to people who supported and encouraged others to have one child. Parents who had one child would get a “one-child glory certificate,” which entitled them to certain economic benefits. The law also offers extended maternity leave, which includes other benefits for couples that delay childbirth.

The one-child policy has also affected China’s reduction in its fertility rate by using coercion and punishments to discourage couples from having multiple children. Couples can be fined thousands of dollars for having supernumerary children without obtaining a permit. The typical fine is sometimes five times that of an average Chinese family’s salary. If fines are not paid, homes and land may be confiscated.

The Chinese government has also violated women’s bodies by using coercive tactics to keep the fertility rate low. There are many reports claimed that forced abortions and sterilizations are common throughout rural and urban China. There are even reports of babies being aborted in their third trimester, and even immediately after birth. In the mid 2000s  claims were made of authorities randomly raiding rural areas looking for unregistered children and forcing woman to have abortions if they already had a child. Reports of pregnant woman being thrown jail and told to have abortions are also prevalent.

Many scholars and human rights activists have argued that the one-child policy has not correlated as directly China’s lower fertility rate as the Chinese government claims it has. They have a point. Rapid economic growth, the rise of the population’s education, and women’s access to education and employment would inevitably have reduced the fertility rate. We can see this by looking at other nations, including developed Asian nations, which have lower fertility rates. But it is difficult to argue that the one-child policy has not reduced the fertility in China. The fact that the Chinese government has for so many years used a wide range of tactics to prevent and discourage couples from having more than one child has definitely had an effect on the fertility rate.

I suggest that the Chinese government’s  persistence in preventing couples from having a second child has caused a sense of fear, internal pressure, and even anxiety that is now ubiquitous throughout Chinese society. The social pressures and coercive tactics used by the Chinese government has used on its citizens to prevent families from having multiple children, are causing profound problems throughout rural China, and even amongst the lower and middle classes in Chinese cities.

This pressure the Chinese government constantly places on the people, compounded with the are major penalties for having multiple children, has caused unprecedented social problems.

                                                Too Many Men and Not Enough Women

According to the most recent census data, there are 120 men for every 100 women in China.  In other words, there are too many men and not enough women. At no time in history has there been such a dramatic shortage of women in a society. The closest humanity has come to China’s present situation was is after World War I in Germany, Russia, Britain and France.

Some people have  argued that because of a certain part of Chinese culture that prizes the birth of boys over girls, couples historically have taken steps to ensure that their first child is a boy. This may have had a small effect on the disproportionate gender ratio, but to make the gender gap so wide is unlikely. It is my opinion, along with those with many others, that the one-child policy is possibly the main contributor to China’s gender imbalance. The repercussions in China’s society are deep.

China’s gender imbalance has made it very difficult for men to find wives. Some men in China have become so desperate to find a wife, that they have resorted to human trafficking. Chen Shiqu, head of the Chinese government agency that is attempting to reduce human trafficking, has said that the great demand for women in China is “fueling the culprits.” Many of these women are coming from Yunnan, Guangdong, and even from countries outside China, including Vietnam, Burma and Laos. The one-child policy is partially contributing to the female human trafficking in southern China and neighboring nations.

The more fortunate bachelor’s are resorting to newspaper ads and other legal but odd methods to attract wives. Some of these advertisements have highlighted that their home has a “good bathroom.” Even some Chinese men who have careers, a home, and a car, are having difficulty finding  wives. Sometimes their mothers go to parks while their sons are at work to help them find a wife. Less fortunate men have resorted to purchasing female prostitutes (there is a rise in prostitution in all major cities in China), by deceiving women by offering phony job offers.

The lack of women in China has also caused a major rise in crime. An associate professor of economics at Columbia University, Lena Edlund, has found that “a one percent increase in the ratio of males to females equates to an increase in violent and property crime of as much as six percent, suggesting that male sex ratios may account for 28 to 38 percent of the rise in crime.”

                                                Time to Rethink the One-Child Policy

The one-child policy was an attempt to reduce China’s fertility rate the people behind it had good intentions. They saw that China’s rapidly growing population was rapidly growing, and it did appear that hundreds of millions of people would consume China’s resources, and possibly cause social, economic and political instabilities. But now China’s population is more or less under control. For the most part, China’s population is growing at a steady rate, and the one-child policy has prevented 400 million births. But some of the methods employed to prevent these births were morally reprehensible. Chinese society will have a difficult time dealing with the extreme gender imbalance, and its many repercussions in the next few decades. It is time that China rethink, revise or abolish its one-child policy.

27 AUGUST 2011 - ALLISON HIGHT - A look back at how the dangers of nuclear power emerged and changed Japanese society in the aftermath of the earthquake -
                  In the weeks and months following Japan’s March 11th earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster, government officials greatly downplayed the scope of the calamity.  While the life-or-death battles at the plants themselves received wide news coverage, the subtler spread of nuclear material was mostly kept out of the public view: ironic, considering that it was the public being affected.

                  Only now, nearly six months after the first tremors were felt, are the people finally becoming privy to the information that they should have had all along.  While the government claims that the information was not released because of its original inconclusiveness, experts disagree, saying that in the hands of the right people, pertinent data could have at the least altered evacuation patterns and water usage, saving countless people from being exposed unnecessarily to high levels of radiation.  Precautions can now be taken, of course, but the damage has been done.

                  The withheld information, weak excuses, and seriousness of the health risks have caused the Japanese to perform an act of extreme unconventionality in their society: speaking out loudly against the government.  Usually trusting and respectful in their relationships with authority, the desperateness and confusion of the situation has had citizens calling for Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s resignation for several months now, as most of the blame for misinformation has been directed at the imprudent actions of he and his officers.  While attempting for a time for regain his public image by calling for the end of Japan’s dependence on nuclear power, Kan has finally bowed to the people’s request and plans to leave office within the week.

                  While Kan’s departure will ease the ferocity of most of the attacks against the government, the question remains as to what his leaving will mean for the future of nuclear material in Japan.  While Kan certainly made numerous mistakes in dealing with the national disaster, public dissent acted as a catalyst for him to make the first moves to phasing out nuclear power, a shift loudly applauded by many long-time opponents of the energy source who until this time have gone unsupported.  As many of the frontrunners to replace Kan as Minister are showing a pro-nuclear stance, this change in government leadership could push the anti-nuclear movement back to square one.

                  Of course, government elites are no longer the only ones who have a say in this debate.  Far removed from the previous general apathy with which Japanese citizens treated the presence of nuclear power in their country, the public is becoming more informed about its potential effects and, as a result, taking a decidedly negative stance on the issue.

                  However, it is just as possible that once a new Minister takes office, in typical Japanese style, the people will revert to their former state of trust in the government, confident that a new regime will bring the honestly and change for which they hope.  Most likely, the future attitude of the citizens will depend upon the new Minister’s first few actions: if he or she confronts the state of the nation with a free spread of information and distinct efforts to isolate the people from the nuclear effects, Japan may once again return to normal.  If instead he or she continues in the same vein as Kan, however, with presentation of ambiguity and false assurances, the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement may have enough ammo to keep the people riled against a future dependent on nuclear power—only time will tell.

BARON LAUDERMILK - 15 AUGUST 2011 - BEIJING

Microblogging has contributed to toppling oppressive regimes across the world. Governments from all regions of the planet are beginning to recognize that Microblogs’ tweets are swift, spontaneous, and are increasingly difficult for governments to regulate and monitor. Microblogs have been utilized to rally people from different parts of a country to form a coherent group; they can express strong opinions in an instant that would be quickly erased on other heavily, monitored websites; and most importantly, they can critically critique public officials in a brief and concise manner.

The Chinese government recognized the Microblogging’s power a long time ago. On June 24th 2009, right before the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, links were being posted revealing information about the Tiananmen Square massacre which brought about enlightenment to Chinese bloggers, who never knew exactly what happened that day. A campaign began to form on Twitter by rapid back-to-back tweets encouraging Chinese people to wear the color white on June 24, in the middle of Tiananmen Square, to indicate to the government that they still mourn for the students who were killed that day. Within just a few days, Twitter was blocked in China.

The leaders in the Communist Party were never clear about why Twitter was censored. The most people were told was that the government leaders have already decided that there is no need to lament over this non-event. In June, 2009, the Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Qing Gang, told a news conference, “The Party and the government long ago reached a conclusion about the political incident that took place at the end of the 1980s and related issues.”

But people have speculated that the Chinese government has seen how Microblogging has assisted people in rebelling against other authoritarian governments, and that they will do anything it takes to ensure that other governments mistakes are not repeated in China. But The Chinese government has had their own problems aided partly by Microblogging. Prior to the ban of Twitter and Facebook, Iran and Western China had their own social unrest which were fueled and organized by exchanges of Twitter, Weibo, and other social networking sites.

The 2009 protest in Xinjiang, a province in Western China dominated by Muslim ethnic minorities, caused the Chinese state to aggressively block and censure news on Microblogs and other social-networking sites. Following in the footsteps of the Iranian protest, the Uyghurs rioted because of an ethnic clash that happened in May 2009. During the height of the protest, more than 10,000 people were on the streets making their voices heard. 260 vehicles were destroyed, and according to Dolkun Isa, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, 600 people were killed.

During the protest, a high volume of tweets about the protest were being posted. These tweets consisted of police shooting students, and why the government would not clearly discuss the event in the news. Students were outraged yet confused about the protest. Twitter was blocked, following a number of websites and even mobile phone services. The authorities said they were securing order across Xinjiang and would arrest and punish anyone who disrupted its task. It is my sense, amongst others, that the people of Xinjiang lacked ability to use Twitter to publicize the government oppression rattled and tested the Party’s ability to govern.

These two events demonstrated to the Chinese government that Microblogging can pose a direct threat to the Chinese government’s agenda. The Chinese government blocked Twitter because it was too difficult to control. But there are now other Microblogging sites in China that can pose the same kind of threats, if not larger and more powerful, than Twitter.

Despite the fact that Twitter is now a thing of the past in China, Microblogging is still thriving through other Chinese Micoblogging websites. Sina Weibo is now China’s largest Microblogging site. It has been said to be a hybrid of Twitter and Facebook, and it maintains more than 140 million users. More than 5,000 companies and 2,400 media organizations in China use Weibo. Weibo has dominated the Microblogging industry. Baidu just recently retreated from the social networking business to allow Weibo to run the industry.

Internet users are able to blog so quickly on Weibo that local and government officials do not have enough time to react. Weibo is constantly struggling with simultaneously pleasing government officials and netizens. Michael Clendenin, managing director of tech consultant of RedTech Advisors said, "The trick for Sina will always be keeping the platform lively enough and genuine enough so that it remains relevant, while also keeping it tame enough to satisfy any government concerns”.

Bloggers on Weibo are becoming more active, and striving to force government officials to be accountable for their actions via Microblogging. Within hours of the train crash near Wenzhou on June 23, 2011, some people demanded a public investigation of the accident that would include the reasons behind the crash, which was accountable for the incident, and the correct number of causalities. Within five days, Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minster of China, who is known as the human rights advocator in the Communist Party, bowed in front of people and promised that there would be a clean investigation into the crash.

Although it is a well known fact that organized protests are quickly quelled throughout China, Weibo users are still using it to organize and protest against private businesses that will negatively affect their lives. On August 14, 2011, people in Dalian, a city in Northeast China, used Weibo to help coordinate a mass demonstration against the placing of a factory next to a residential area. Postings on Weibo were swiftly “harmonized” and any news related to the subject was eliminated. But it is my guess that Weibo played a key role in formulating this protest. Users were able to get their important messages read by the masses before they disappeared.

It appears that the Chinese government has not figured out what to do with Weibo. The government still sticks to its status quo of maintaining social harmony by editing postings which threaten its definition of stability, as we have seen with the Jasmine revolution that almost happened in Beijing in March 2011.

However, we are also seeing government officials embracing Microblogging. A piece written in the People’s Daily, a mouthpiece of the Communist Party, are changing the way government officials interact with bloggers. The author, Tang Weihong (唐维红) noted that government officials at all levels use Weibo. Many of these officials are attempting to be transparent by using their real names. More than 3,000 government agencies have accounts, and also about 3,000 Party members have opened Microblogs since the end of March.

Weibo could possibly become another propaganda tool for the Communist Party. President Hu Jintao recently said that the “virtual world” is his next battleground, and the Party, has begun to talk about how to win and even control the country’s bloggers. He called for new ways to “guide online public opinion” and to begin more communication between government officials and the public.

Although there may be a small trend towards the Chinese government embracing Microblogging, censorship is still heavily prevalent. As we have seen from the past, the government has an agenda that it will protect regardless if it feels compelled to silence opinions online. Perhaps the near future may bring about change. But the 2012 government transition does not appear to bring about any new ideas or manage the country much differently than the current administration.  

Chinese bloggers are continuing to use Weibo and other Microblogging websites to fight government corruption and expose the truth. Weibo is now possibly becoming the best venue to get honest opinions from normal Chinese citizens, celebrities, political activist, and even certain government officials. As long as Weibo is not blocked, it may be the only way to get authentic news and to see unedited opinions from the masses. Just find it before it is gone.

BARON LAUDERMILK - 30 JULY 2011 - BEIJING

Although Tibet is internationally recognized as one of China’s autonomous regions, there is still an overwhelming amount of discussion about the critical issues involving Tibet and mainland China. People are still asking, “Historically, was Tibet recognized as an independent nation from China? Do the Tibetan people think they are Chinese?” “Has the Chinese central government forced the Tibetans to be a part of mainland China, and why?” Obviously these questions have been elaborated on for many years in the books of Tibetan scholars such as Eric Teichman, Sir Charles Bell, and George N. Patterson. I shall only briefly elaborate on these issues, and then discuss the possibilities of Tibet’s independence.

                                                                    Brief History of Tibet’s Sovereignty Status

Since Tibet emerged as its own nation in the seventh century under the emperor Srong-tsen Gampo, Tibet has been primarily an independent state despite being under the Manchu’s rule (1271-1368, 1644-1911), and when the Chinese Communist Party declared Tibet a part of China in 1959. For hundreds of years, Tibet was not considered a part of China. Interestingly, virtually since the time Tibet became an organized state, it has been in constant war with the Chinese state. There are many times in history where Tibet was a powerful nation conquering many parts of Western China.

The history of Tibetan and Chinese relations clearly indicates that for the majority of history between the two nations, China has viewed Tibet as an equal. In the ninth century, Tibet and China had much contact with each other, and a peace treaty was established between the two countries stating equality between them. It was not until the thirteenth century that Tibet, under Genghis Khan, became a vassal. Tibet’s vassal state status did not last long. In the seventeenth century, the fifth Dalai Lama visited Peking at the invitation of the new Qing, Manchu emperor. According to Tibetan records regarding the event, the Dalia Lama was regarded as an independent sovereign.

Up until 1959, the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama have each demanded their own right to govern Tibet by pointing to specific historical events to argue their claims. The Dalai Lama points to the time right after the Opium War and the Taiping Rebellion to claim sovereignty over Tibet. After the Opium War and the Taiping Rebellion, Chinese influence rapidly weakened. When an inter-tribal battle erupted in Tibet, a Tibetan army crushed it and retook power.

The Chinese have argued that after the death of the Sixth Dalai Lama, Tibet became a part of China. Sometime after the death of the sixth Dalai Lama, the Chinese emperor dispatched troops to Tibet defeating remaining Mongols and installed the Seventh Dalai Lama of their choice. The Chinese emperor considered Tibet a part of China due to its successful conquest of the region.

Of course, as most of us already know, legally, Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China. It has been since the 1959 Tibetan’s Uprising. The Chinese government is aware because of the historical tensions between the Tibetans and the Han Chinese, the Chinese government sinicizied the Tibetan region in order to control Tibetans’ desires of independence.

The Chinese government has sent waves of Han Chinese into Tibet to build the economy, and more importantly, to culturally and politically assimilate the region. On the one hand, the Chinese have argued that this has brought unprecedented economic growth to the region that could not have been accomplished without their assistance. On the other hand, many Tibetans have argued that the Chinese have implemented their new military, economic and political power to incrementally erode and weaken Tibet’s culture. They point towards the fact that the Chinese government has sent thousands of Han Chinese to live and work in Tibet. Today, the Hans control the highest levels of Tibet’s government, and heavily controls their economy.

It is my sense that the Chinese government is doing everything it possibly can to ensure that it maintains control of its conquered lands. If a rational person simply looks at a Tibetan person, one could not possibly argue that he or she looks like a Han Chinese.

                                                                            Is Tibet’s Independence a possibility?

The chances of Tibet becoming an independent nation are thin to none. Some scholars have argued that Tibet’s riots against the Hans in the last fifty years, particularly the ones in 2008, and in 1959, demonstrates a clear possibility that the Tibetans could overcome the Chinese rule. But the Chinese have consistently skillfully suppressed all of them in a matter of days. The Tibetans rebellions have been unorganized and relatively week, especially compared to the Chinese military.

Besides using military force, the Chinese government has implemented controversial policies with the apparent goal of geographically and socially dispersing the Tibetans. Since the Chinese 1990s, the Chinese government has sent waves of Han Chinese migrants to live and work in Tibet. Tibetans have called this cultural genocide, but the Chinese government has argued that the Hans have brought in unprecedented economic wealth. Han Chinese can rarely be seen in villages, but in the larger cities, especially the capital, they are controlling the economic, social and political spheres.

The lack of support from foreign nations, and the Chinese hardliners stance to maintain Tibet’s “stability,” will almost certainly maintain the status quo. After the U.S. President Barack Obama had his yearly meeting with the Dalai Lama, Obama said in a speech that he recognizes that Tibet is a part of China. Obama recognizes the Tibet’s unique cultural aspects, but does not see the region as a sovereign state. There appears to be no hope in the U.S supporting Tibet’s independence, which used to be a strong supporter of some of Tibet’s causes.

Xi Jinping, the man who will probably be China’s next President, publically supported the status quo and the fact that the Chinese Communist Party has brought Tibet from the dark to the light. China’s two main online mouthpieces, the China Daily and Xinhua, have indirectly supported the Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and its Communist Party’s plans to maintain unity and harmony.

The last main hope for Tibet’s sovereignty was the Dalai Lama. His mere presence has kept the exiled Tibetans and the Tibetans in Tibet unified. But the Dalai Lama, who just stepped down from his position, has lost his radical views of sovereignty for Tibet to mere “one-country, two-system” model outlined in the 17-point agreement. The only hope for Tibet’s independence lays only one place, in them.

BARON LAUDERMILK - 21 JULY 2011 - BEIJING

The Chinese government recently released its nation’s second national Human Rights Action Plan, a lengthy document guaranteeing protections for civil rights. The Action Plan has publically claimed that over the past two years the Chinese government has successfully completed “all targets and tasks set by the National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010).”

Indeed, it appears that the Chinese government has decided to truly protect its peoples’ rights. As we most of us know, China has a history of violating its people’s rights, especially regarding freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to worship. The Action Plan has received much support through formal Chinese institutions and media outlets. China Daily and Xinhua, two Chinese state owned media companies, have touted the success that has resulted from the Action Plan.

Just about everywhere outside of China, and in fact even people in certain parts of China, have depicted the Action Plan as propaganda and completely ineffective. International human rights groups and local human right activists have already refuted the action’s plan “success.”

The Human Rights Watch in a recent review of the Action plan was highly critical of the success documented in the action plan. “The government has systematically continued to violate many of the most basic rights and the document address,” said in the Human Rights Watch review of the action plan. Chinese activist are on the same page. Teng Biao, a Chinese human rights lawyer and teacher remarked, “There has been no improvement in the Chinese human rights situation over the past two years. On the country, things have been going backwards.”

Though the Chinese media has celebrated the success of the two year Action Plan, rights protecting religious practice have been violated, farmers and even urbanites have had their land illegally grabbed, and most gravely, the right to a fair trial has been nonexistent.

Tibetan Monks and Protestants in China have consistently had their civil rights violated between 2009 and 2010. In June, 2009, the Office of Religious Affairs sent its officials and a local police force to Amdo Jaqung monetary in Qinghai to expel one of its leaders, Lobsang Tsultrim for “persuading the monks to be faithful to the Dalai Lama rather than the Peoples’ Republic of China.”

On April 21, 2011, unrest amongst Tibetan Monks emerged when Chinese local authorities sealed off a deeply respected Tibetan monastery in Sichuan province, Kirk monetary, after a young monk set himself on fire to protest against the government’s oppressive policies towards religious, Tibetan monks.

Over the last two years, Protestants have also seen the government treat them in unfair ways, and have been arbitrary detained. Protestants in China have also faced repression by the Chinese state. On April 24,2011, Chinese police arrested hundreds of congregants from the Shouwang Evangelical Church, one of the largest house churches in the capital, when they attempted to hold Easter services in a public square. Earlier during the same month, the local government authorities demanded the church to be shut down. The authorities also stifled the church’s attempts to lease or buy space for services in other areas. Some church members said that they were confined to their homes by agents to keep them from joining Easter services.

In late April 2011, a 28 year old member of the Shouwang church, who identified herself as Waters, told a CNN correspondent that she feels that if she practices Christianity she will be harassed by the authorities. “Personally I don't know how long I can last because the pressure is pretty intense, because they try to harass your family, your workplace and your landlord. They want to control you.”

There has been countless land grabs throughout China’s urban and rural areas with very little compensation to the residents. Protests broke out in Guangdong, southern China, in mid June 2011, after a local government boss was accused of stealing compensation payments from the people. Around 12 people were arrested. Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy, a Hong Kong-based information center, said that villagers suffering from high inflation hoped for an increase in payments from business in the industry park, but the local factory owner had been embezzled by the former head, who is now a local Communist Party Secretary. The Ministry of Land and resources have recently released a list on Thursday of 73 officials from 31 cities and counties who have been punished for illegal use of land. Although land grabs are decreasing, they are still rampant and appear arbitrary. The rights of those people are not enforced in the courts and are rarely recognized and documented.

The Chinese government has also arrested dozens of lawyers and civil activist without giving them a trial. Lu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei, and other high profile Chinese activist, and artist, have been arrested detained without the prospect of a trial. In fact, many civil rights lawyers and activist have disappeared without a sight. Forced confessions are also still a problem that was not discussed in the Action Plan.

The Action Plan appears to be propaganda that is designed make international organizations and the West believe that they are working towards implementing and protecting civil rights. I personally feel that the Action Plan may have positive intentions, but the results are relatively feeble. Instead, the Action Plan appears to just be a public relations exercise. Sophie Richardson, the Asia advocacy director of the Human Rights Watch, correctly noted “that the (the action plan) is more of a public relations exercise than a meaningful tool for protecting and promoting human rights.”

The fact that the Chinese government is picking and choosing which civil rights it wants to protect and not protect demonstrates that it has a hidden motive. In the light of the Jasmine Revolution that recently occurred in the Middle East, the Chinese Communist Party certainly is nervous of having a domino effect tumble into their land. Any threat to the Communist Party’s authority is immediately suppressed and dispersed. Many people, including me, applaud some of the writings in the Chinese constitution, and the action plan, that are designed to protect civil rights. But right now, it’s all bark, and no bite.

BARON LAUDERMILK - 11 JULY 2011 - BEIJING

The vast amounts of literature about the possibilities of China’s one party state transitioning to a democratic government can fill a small living room from the floor to the ceiling. Politicians are still are debating whether or not democratic revolution in China is inevitable. But a question that is just as important but frequently overlooked is the question of whether or not the Chinese people are prepared to operate and maintain a transparent, thriving, democratic government.

The dominant Communist Party’s most influential leaders have publically discussed the Chinese peoples’ desire to govern themselves. On September 23, 2010, Wen Jiabao, China’s Premier, told CNN “The peoples’ wishes for, and needs for, democracy and freedom are irresistible.” But even this bold statement, which is dangerous even coming from a Party member, has been blown off as just talk.

For a long time now, experts on Chinese politics have been saying that Wen Jiabao’s remarks about democracy do not actually mean that the Party will just hand over power to the masses, but rather that political reform will come when the people are ready for it.

This attitude that the Party has toward its lower classes can be seen from the beginning of the Chinese civilization until the present. Up until the 1950s, the Chinese state read and spoke a language not understood by the average worker, and made decisions for the merchants, farmers and scholars without much of their input. Since the birth of the Chinese civilization, the state has always been an authoritarian one.

Then the question becomes: When is a society ready for a democracy? I would argue that the most successful democracies that have peaceful elections, with low levels of corruption, have many economic and societal similarities with China, but are not completely the same.

Until China develops a stable middle class and a functioning rule of law, China will not be ready to establish and maintain a successful democracy. In fact, if one of these criteria is missing, a democracy in China could possibly bear a negative outcome for the Chinese people.

The middle class in China is rapidly growing. Last year China took the number two spot of the largest GDP in the world, right behind the United States. The Chinese economy has been growing between 7-10% a year for almost the past thirty years. And just recently, China became the world’s largest manufacturing nation in the world.

The past few times I was in Beijing, the capital of China, the first thing I always noticed was the fact that there were fewer bikes on the streets than the last time I came. In 2009, Chinese people bought 7 million cars, and in 2010, more than 8 million were sold. From my own perspective, I could easily see bikes and motor-pads almost completely replaced by automobiles within fifteen years. Clearly, a middle class in China is rising, and at an unprecedented rate.

Of course, it is easy to see Prada bags, 2011 Audis, and flashy new skyscrapers when you are in the heart of China’s capital. But if you step outside of the big city, you can find millions of struggling families.

In reality, China’s emerging middle class is still fragile, fickle and its future is uncertain. Even in 2011, the urbanized population is just under 50%. Every year China experiences thousands of protests by people who are demanding higher wages, improved working conditions, and better health benefits. The Chinese government is now attempting to appease the upcoming middle class by providing more government jobs, by utilizing green energy, by building cheaper housing for migrant workers and city dwellers, and by keeping food prices cheap and inflation low. Until the middle class becomes economically stable, a democracy in China would be unstable.

Many studies have demonstrated that having a strong rule of law is closely correlated with having a transparent democracy (there are contradictions to this theory). Currently, the rule of law in China is capricious and still works in favor of the Communist Party’s interests rather than for justice, human rights, and equality. Under Chinese law, people are not judged the same, particularly if someone challenges the authority of the Party.

Although the Chinese constitution claims to protect the rights of its people, it has frequently violated them. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (1982) states in Article 36 that religion in China is protected by the state and that the government may not discriminate against religious practices. However, the Party has frequently bypassed or ignored this article in the constitution and has quelled Tibetan protest, oppressed the religious Uyghurs in Western China, and has silenced many underground Christian churches. The Party typically claims that these groups were undermining its quest to “build a harmonious socialist society.”  It is difficult to imagine a functioning substantive and procedural democracy when a group or party is able to control how justice is implemented across the state.

I do recognize that since China’s entrance into the world economy in the 1970s, China has made great strides in establishing a functioning economy, building a middle class, and more or less, beginning to protect certain human rights. But this is not enough to maintain a functioning democracy.

As one can see in India, Venezuela and Japan, without a middle class, one party can dominate politics and prevent other parties from fairly competing for key offices. If China did happen to slide into the status of a democratic nation, it would be a shame if it happened too early. Until the people are able to feed and work for themselves, and fairly fight for basic human rights in the courts, a democracy in China is a pipe dream.

This essay considers the flaws of standard World Bank SAPs and then examines the particular cases of Ethiopia's SAP and Cambodia's LMAP. The essay concludes by advocating change in the design of SAPs and an increased level of SAP transparency and third party investigation.

For the moment, please follow this link to access the essay. The World Report hard drive has been temporarily compromised (no financial or personal data is at risk)  and until such time as these matters are fixed, this essay will not be available under this blog. Our apologies, and thank you!
- World Report