The Drunk Diplomat

Well the G-8 meeting in Italy is wrapping up today. These big powerhouse meetings never seem to produce anything substantive… only pledges for this, money for that, help for Africa, etc. Understandably, most of the leaders come from democracies so they cannot just promise to do anything because they have to deal with domestic public opinion and their legislative branch. However, some of the most important players are not democracies. Are these states counter productive to the grander goals of the original G-7 group of industrialized democracies? Now it’s like the G-20 – a smorgasbord of aging democracies, quasi-capitalist autocratic one party states, and random states from underrepresented regions to give the group a more “global feel.” For instance, does South Africa and Egypt really represent Africa? Will South Africa’s presence in any way improve the conditions for citizens of Mozambique, Ghana, or Congo? I highly doubt it, South Africa is at the G-20 because it is currently the largest economy in Africa, a former British colony, and a young democracy that will fight for issues that will improve it’s national interests – not Sub-Saharan African interests.

Furthermore, how can the United States and the other European democracies be champions of human rights if they are constantly brokering deals with China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Constantly, like China already is, promoting economic growth over environmental sustainability, human rights, and freedom of speech. Three traditional pillars of the Democratic West’s critique of the various autocratic governments found in the East; including Russia, China, most of the Middle East, parts of Southeast Asia, etc. This “G-8″ (really a G-40) meeting was a prime example. Hu Jin Tao had to leave early to oversee the crackdown on Uighur Muslims in Xinjang province. The Uighur are denied religious freedom, freedom of speech, and I’m sure they are now being tortured and held against their will by the Chinese state for expressing they inalienable right of freedom of assembly.

There was not a peep to be heard from the supposed Free, Democratic, Liberal West. “We don’t want to embarrass China or critique China during a recession!” It may hurt our precious economy! Well I say that’s Bull Shit. Everyone knows exactly whats going on in Xinjang, government repression – old school style – cops in the streets bashing heads, the erroneous taking of prisoners, torturing the leaders, repression, violence, and media silence.

The G-20 has its place, but the G-7 (minus Russia) should not be dissolved. Even as the West is supposedly in decline (not really decline, bu the rise of the rest) it cannot stop putting pressure on other governments or lower its standards for fleeting economic gain. The Chinese go to Africa with no demands for human rights reforms or environmental reforms. 10 years later the Chinese have destroyed the local environment and impoverished the people by welcoming corruption. The US goes to Africa demanding human rights reforms and environmental protections – 20 years later the country is a functioning democracy ready to work on its own.

It’s to early to tell what the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will evolve into. The SCO was founded in 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan as a security organization to fight extremism in the region. However, I could envision a time when the SCO evolves into something similar to OPEC for natural gas, or the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for mutual economic development, or even a military organization to counter NATO. Maybe it will be a hybrid of all of these models.

The ECSC, founded in 1957, was the precursor of the European Union. The organization was created to unite the Western European powers against the Soviet Union and create common markets for Western Europe. There were visions of what the ECSC would evolve into, if it would evolve at all, but I doubt that many foresaw the breadth of integration the Maastricht Treaty would bring in 1992 to create the European Union, a short 35 years. Furthermore, the Schengen Agreement signed in 1985 provided the rights for Western European citizens free movement across borders without passports.

Could the Schengen Agreement be something of a precursor for the status of Eastern Russia and Siberia? Russia is in the midst of a massive demographic decline, especially in the East. With such vast sparsely populated areas, the general decline in population of the entire country, and the declining power of their conventional military – is it really a stretch to see Russia, China, and the Stans create some kind of free movement treaty in 30 years? There are three factors beyond Russia’s demographic and military decline that lead me to believe the SCO will provide the framework for some kind of freedom of movement to the Chinese in Siberia.

The first is the enormous amounts of pollution, garbage, and toxic waste the Chinese are producing and will produce at an ever accelerting pace the next 30 years. There are estimates that China, alone, will produce as much greenhouse gases that the entire world produces today by 2050. That’s a lot of smog and health problems. The climate change caused by China’s greenhouse gas emissions alone may force massive migrations to areas that have clean water and away from the polluted mess that China’s mainland may become.

The second is the emerging middle class in China. The demand for natural resources, land, food, and water may not be sustainable when China has a middle class parrellel in wealth to the US. Imagine 300 million (possibly more out of 1.5 billion) more people on the planet living like the average US consumer, in China alone. Their demands may eventually push the Chinese government to create some kind of access to the verdant lands in the North.

The third is that Chinese immigration to Russia is the fastest it’s been in recent history. Since the fall of the Soviet Union Chinese laborers and traders have been flooding into Siberia and the Far East. Also, an ultimatum the Chinese have issued to Russia in regards to it’s WTO bid is that it must allow Chinese laborers into Russia at some pace.

In my opinion something like a Schengen Treaty is really for the SCO is not that far fetched in the future. It’s difficult to keep 300 million Chinese crammed together in Northern China while there are millions of empty acres of land to the North. Russia may decide it cannot fight history any more and create some kind of agreement through the SCO so the Chinese can have access to their far East before they loose it completely.

The big story this week is Obama’s trip to the Middle East and his speech in Cairo to address the “Muslim and Arab World.” However, this story caught my eye in the NY Times today. Kevin Rudd (Labor), Australia’s Prime Minister, is fluent in Mandarin, served as an Ambassador in China, and has vowed to make Australia the West’s most “Eastern Fluent Country.” His idea is sound considering India and China prominence in the 21st century, however, fears are beginning to emerge in Australia that it will become a mining colony for China. From the article:

The government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, which generally favors the sales, has been savaged as naïvely cozy with China, a view some in his own military appear to share. Opposition politicians have flogged the specter of an Australian future more or less as a giant open-pit mine in which the locals toil, but Beijing takes the profits.

The poignant part of the article is how Chinese corporations are not really like corporations found in the West. Save General Motors as of Monday, there is has historically been minimal government involvement in Western corporations. The Chinese Communist party has extensive control Chinese corporations. The article claims that there is some autonomy between the Communist party and Private industry, but the same people that are the CEOs, COOs, etc. of China’s big corporations come from the Communist party and have extensive contacts in the Communist party.

This theme of countries becoming more wary of China’s emerging hegemonic power in the Asia-Pacific region will continue to emerge as an important story for the next quarter century. China is the world’s biggest creditor, before America became a global power it was the worlds biggest credit, before the United Kingdom came to power it was the world’s biggest creditor. I cannot foresee how this cycle will not continue with China. As China continues to invest in the U.S., Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, etc. their influence will continue to increase, and their influence within the government of smaller powers such as Australia, Vietnam, Singapore, Nigeria, etc. will be hard to ignore.

How long can China continue its so called peaceful rise to power as the world’s resources increasing face nationalism at home and scarcity globally.

Source:
Australia, Nourishing China’s Economic Engine, Questions Ties
Michael Wines
NY Times June 3, 2009

The big news today is that Kim Jong Ill has supposedly chosen his son Kim Jong un to be the next leader of North Korea. The kid, errr, Dear Leader, is only 26 years old. The question confronting us now is: will we let another generation of North Korean’s suffer torture, repression, brain washing, etc. under the new Dear Leader? The options still seem grim. Ideally the United States wants a unified Korean peninsula. With a unified Korean peninsula the threat of a war on the Korean peninsula is completely reduced, as well as, the threat of nuclear proliferation, and possible attacks on Japan and the West Coast of the United States. The United States would still have a foot print in the region for balance, but I hardly doubt the Korean’s would let us have 35,000 troops on the peninsula like we do now if there is a unified Korea.

The regime is fundamentally flawed like the old Soviet Union, so it seems that eventually it will implode, but what happens when it does is the big question. In my opinion, realism towards North Korea means 3 things.

1) A Preemptive military strike by the United States is out of the question.

2) Bargaining with South Korea and China to increase pressure on the regime, put helping with a future refugee crisis, monetary incentives, food aid, energy aid, humanitarian aid, etc. on the table – even a semi-Marshall Plan for the new unified peninsula may sound good. Assure the Chinese that the United States will not have a major military presence on their border if the North Korean regime crumbles. Assure the South Korean’s the United States will provide massive aid for the unification of the country and bringing equanimity between the North and South.

3) The United States cannot trust the North Korean’s to dismantle its nuclear program, it just will not happen. The Nuclear program is the “ace in the hole” for the North Koreans.

The United States must find a way to infiltrate North Korea and find a weak spot in the regime. Unfortunately, the best actions may be no action. The U.S. may have to view North Korea as a “castle siege” and continue to squeeze the country of food, energy, and technology aid. There are no good options in this scenario. Any preemptive military action, even if greatly successful, will result in the destruction of Seoul and possibly Tokyo. The U.S. cannot afford to be seen as a the instigator in any conflict with the North Korean’s especially if our allies will be taking the brunt of the damage from North Korea artillery and missiles.

The North has warned the United States about “illegally searching” it’s ships as a pretext for war. I would call their bluff on this one. As we cannot preemptively attack the North, they will not attack South Korea or Japan because we will flatten their country, and they know this. If the United States, in conjunction with our allies, believes that the North Koreans are proliferating nuclear material then we must take action to halt that proliferation. However, this action must be done tactfully and always in conjunction with South Korea and Japan. The United States cannot be viewed as taking unilateral action against North Korean vessels.

More to come…

Source:
N. Korean Leader’s Youngest Son Named Successor
Blaine Harden
June 2, 2009

Interesting piece by Sebastian Mallaby at the Council on Foreign Relations about China’s transformation from a relatively quiet player in the international finance game to a state that searching for ways to end the dollars global dominance. China is stuck in a quandary, if it starts to sell off its estimated 1.5 trillion dollars worth of U.S. Currency the currency will continue to loose value and the Chinese will loose money. However, if the country continues to purchase more dollars (as expected) the country becomes, oddly and ironically, more dependent on the whims of the United States Federal Reserve. The Chinese worry that Ben Bernanke is printing lots of money to inflate our way out of debt, but as a result the 1.5 trillion dollars China owns become less and less valuable. Mallaby argues that China is attempting to create a market for the yuan (Chinese currency) to eventually replace the global dominance of the dollar, but this is probably not possible while China manipulates it’s currency to keep it artificially low to help it’s exports. It’s a catch 22 for China, if it allows its currency to float, therefore appreciating, it’s export sector will be damaged due to increased overseas prices and potentially reducing job growth in it’s massive urban centers, potentially creating unrest. However, if China does not allow it’s currency to float the dollar is almost assured to be the standard global currency for years to come.

Source:
Beijing’s Would-Be Hundinis
Sebastian Mallaby
CFR, May 26 2009