Monday, August 11, 2008

Three for today

Some informative articles out there on East and North-east Asia this week. First up is a long look at Russia's foreign policy, oil and gas wealth, the pipeline network, and Russia's moves in the Far East and especially involving North Korea:

The most significant issue involving Russia in Northeast Asia is its abundant oil fields and natural gas reserves. The Asian Financial crisis of 1997-1998 that devalued the Russian rouble and the dramatic rise in the price of crude oil and natural gas in the early 2000s has given Russia newfound economic muscle. [5] The state-controlled Gazprom is the third largest corporation in the world in terms of market capitalisation and it will grow even stronger, many experts predict, as the industry is swiftly re-nationalised. “Russia’s economy is about oil,” explains Natalia Orlova, chief economist at Moscow-based Alfa-Bank. [6] In 2006, oil and gas were estimated to account for 65 percent of Russia’s exports and 60 percent of federal tax receipts, making it the world’s largest gas exporter and second-largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia. In 2007, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves swelled to $476.4 billion USD, more than in the entire Euro zone.

Also up is an article on how Japan's rice holdings can save the world from the current rice crisis:

The simplest mechanism to stop the crisis has the U.S. authorize Japan to sell its surplus rice stocks directly to the world market at a price that covers its acquisition and storage costs – probably below $600 per ton, to whichever importer wants to buy. Once this happened, the Philippines was at the front of the line, and quickly arranged to buy 300,000 tons of the Japanese stocks. But other countries have urgent import needs as well, and no additional supplies have been forthcoming. It is important to realize that this additional rice does not “solve” the world’s rice problem—rice at $600 per ton is still a major burden for the poor – but it has the potential to prick the speculative rice price bubble. Indeed, immediately after the announcement of the Japan-Philippines deal, world rice prices fell by $200 a ton over a week.
Finally, the International Affairs Forum has its latest China Briefing out, full of articles and interviews on China's internal and external affairs, including The Beautiful Island. It's by turns informative.....

Nearly all of Beijing’s centuries-old cityscape has been bulldozed in recent years, despite legal protections and the brave resistance of residents and the nascent Chinese preservation movement. Redevelopment in Shanghai has been equally catastrophic, forcing the relocation of tens of thousands of families. China’s cities are also rapidly sprawling across the landscape, churning precious farmland into highway-laced landscapes of superblock housing estates and gated single-family subdivisions. As early as 1995, the built-up area of Shanghai (including the city proper and its inner suburbs) covered nine times the land area it did just a decade
earlier—jumping from 90 to 790 square miles.

....provoking...

IA Forum: How would you describe Sino-U.S. relations under the Bush Administration?

Scott Kennedy: I think they’re generally cooperative and constructive, particularly since late summer 2001. The relationship got off to a bad start with the EP3 [spy plane] incident. When the problems with that were identified, in the summer of 2001 the Bush Administration realized that a confrontational relationship with China was not in the U.S.’s best interest and so they started to change. That sentiment was magnified with 9/11, and so the problems we had with China were put on the back burner and the much larger problems the U.S. faced took center stage. Gradually, over time, the two sides developed a pretty good working relationship. Right now U.S. policy toward China under the Bush administration has to be one of its most obvious successes, which I think distinguishes it from U.S. foreign policy generally during this period.

....prescient....

China displaced the United States to become the largest trading partner of India during 2007-08. During the same twelve month period, the Sino-Indian border—the longest disputed boundary in the world (2,520 miles)—witnessed nearly a hundred incidents of incursions and tense stand-offs. These co-evolving economic and security trajectories are a microcosm of a complex chess game being played out between Asia’s second and third largest economies that will have an increasingly significant impact on not just their dyadic relationship but also on the wider Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

.... and just plain silly...

Unlike organic nations that are formed naturally over time, the Chinese nation is a product of the Chinese people’s experience of being abused and humiliated by outside groups. Their shared suffering at the hands of common enemies transformed Chinese from being “a tray of loose sand” into a nation. In effect, Chinese nationalism from its very beginning has been reactive and xenophobic.

An engaging compilation of information and opinions. Kudos to the IA forum for putting it all together.

And from the world of Way Cool: this Asian photography exhibition 1840s -1940s in Australia has a some amazing and moving photos. To see them, click on THEMES at the top of the home page.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

---Unlike organic nations---

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

--the Chinese nation is a product of the Chinese people’s experience of being abused and humiliated by outside groups.--

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. More like Chian Kaichek and other chinese nationalists humilated them back into "happy chinesiness" by 30 years long citizen war until they run over to more friendly communists and then were "united" by soviets and their partisan army.

---Their shared suffering at the hands of common enemies transformed Chinese from being “a tray of loose sand” into a nation.--

i hope that looser of weaboo historican saw the map wich Parts of China acsepted by own free will to be a Part of chinese nation(republic) back in 1911-29.(spoiler; Beijing was not a part of it)

--In effect, Chinese nationalism from its very beginning has been reactive and xenophobic. --

just a question. does nationalism exist without being reactive and xenophobic?

Anonymous said...

Oh I think there is something to that "tray of loose sand" analogy... Just so you bear in mind it formed a nation in 221 BCE, a nation that encompassed the same core area that China today has.

Of course Taiwan was no part of that.

Michael Turton said...

Anon, I knew a lot of people would get a kick out of that one. God, I hate it when political propaganda gets uptaken into the academic sphere.

Michael

Anonymous said...

--Just so you bear in mind it formed a nation in 221 BCE--

Wich nation was it exsactly? since when is a declaration of insane emperor to be a "world ruler" became the point for forming a nation? (and aside that Chins Empire wanished just 3 years after of Yellow Emperors dead)

But anyway. Chinese nation was declarated first 1911.

-- God, I hate it when political propaganda gets uptaken into the academic sphere.--

well. my biggest problem is that noone other academics even try to protest or to make things right. There is no competion inside of chinese history wissdom tower.

Tommy said...

"There is no competion inside of chinese history wissdom tower."

The problem is the Chinese government, which gets political capital by emphasising nationalism -- with much success I might add. Don't expect any revision of modern Chinese history books to reflect the reality of the situation while almost all of China actually believes that "China" has existed for 5,000 years.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the Chinese government, which gets political capital by emphasising nationalism -- with much success I might add.

Well thats a truth. But our scientists (wich btw have sometimes more knowledge about chinese history than their chinese colleagues) do nothing against. I mean who should we belive when our own independent sources are siting relax and saying nothing when chinese goverment is going to lie and fake history?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"--Just so you bear in mind it formed a nation in 221 BCE--

Wich nation was it exsactly? since when is a declaration of insane emperor to be a "world ruler" became the point for forming a nation? (and aside that Chins Empire wanished just 3 years after of Yellow Emperors dead)"

This isn't the place for a full history lesson, so I won't try to give you one. But I could :) .

Briefly: The First Emperor of Qin was far from insane, as his success alone proves. And the fact is he established real control through a bureaucratic system of government, which covered the area that remains the core of China, and he did it in 221 BCE. It was commonly referred to just as "the realm," but since the bureaucratic structure of the 26 jun 郡 ('commanderies') delineated its actual boundaries, there can be no serious debate about its existence.

The rest of your message is utter nonsense. The Yellow Emperor is a completely mythological figure. The First Emperor of Qin lived and ruled as emperor until 210 BCE (i.e., not your "three years" after unification). He was succeeded by the Second Emperor of Qin (named Huhai 胡亥, reg. 209-7 BCE). He in turn was succeeded by one Ziying 子嬰, who is commonly referred to just as a king, since the empire had broken down at the time and he was head only of the Qin house.

After the fall of the Qin dynasty, the Han dynasty came along (founded 206 BCE, took actual control 202 BCE). They took over the Qin system, just had another family in charge (the Liu clan). And so on.

But anyway. If you have any more questions, I recommend you look at a history of the Qin dynasty. Qian Mu 錢穆 has a good, if traditional, consideration in his _Qin Han shi_ 秦漢史.

Of course, Taiwan was no part of the original China.

Anonymous said...

PS. Typo alert, apologies: 36 _jun_ (not 26).

Anonymous said...

--The First Emperor of Qin was far from insane, as his success alone proves.--

You still failed to answer on my Questions.

Wich nation was it exsactly? since when is a declaration of insane emperor to be a "world ruler" became the point for forming a nation?

--Of course, Taiwan was no part of the original China.--

WHAHAHAHA...

Taiwan is still not a Part of China. Neither geograficaly nor politicaly.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
" -The First Emperor of Qin was far from insane, as his success alone proves.--

You still failed to answer on my Questions.

Wich nation was it exsactly? since when is a declaration of insane emperor to be a "world ruler" became the point for forming a nation?"

As I said when I answered your questions last time: The nation in question was the Qin realm, the territory under the control of the Qin. (This later became the area ruled by the Han dynasty, and later still others.)

At the time, this nation was referred to simply as "the realm" (天下). In Qin times, its scope was delineated by the extent of the bureaucratic system of governance as represented by the 36 commanderies.

This nation was an area of actual central control marked by things like: a single system of law, a centrally organized bureaucracy, centralized taxation, etc. -- NOT just the declaration of the emperor.

Like I said, read a history book if you need basic facts.

Anonymous also said:
"--Of course, Taiwan was no part of the original China.--

WHAHAHAHA...

Taiwan is still not a Part of China. Neither geograficaly nor politicaly."

Of course. That is and was my point. Taiwan is no part of China, and was no part of the original China.

Anonymous said...

--As I said when I answered your questions last time: The nation in question was the Qin realm, the territory under the control of the Qin. --

So you are saing that Qin were not chinese nation?

I say that Qin Empire was never a nation it was only conquered territory of different kingdoms wich were forced to follow a feodal ruler. State means not a same like Nation. And feodal state is/was never a nation. Burocratic system means nothing about.

Aside that Qin Kingdom(the core of Din Empire) people were never Chinese. noone of them knowed what chinese are and why they are. They fought for Qin and they saw themselfes only as Qin. A same is with Ham Empire.

my tip for you stop to bend historical facts into sinocentric political idiology. Or Europeans will Start to see chinese Capital as own land where they ruled some time in last days of Qing Empire.

--At the time, this nation was referred to simply as "the realm" (天下). In Qin times, its scope was delineated by the extent of the bureaucratic system of governance as represented by the 36 commanderies. --

Nope. In Qin times it was a tribe or ethnic group and not a nation.
Aside that Nation needs a national movement for became a nation.

--Of course. That is and was my point. Taiwan is no part of China, and was no part of the original China.--

I see you have trouble with English.

I said Taiwan STILL IS not a Part of China.

So i said that Beijing has never declarated himself as a part of Chinese nation. Beijing was still pro manchurian and pro manchurian emperor.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous:
There are two things going on here.

1) We both agree: Taiwan is not part of China. "Still" is not necessary; add it if you like; I think the statement is stronger without it. In this respect, there is no need for the conflict you are trying to create. (Btw, I am a native speaker of English, and you are obviously not, so you can skip the comments about my "trouble with English.")

2) The Oxford English Dictionary -- the definitive dictionary of English -- defines "nation" as, inter alia, "a political state." Repeat: "A political state."

Or perhaps you prefer the American Heritage Dictionary? It says, "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country."

Since the Qin had all of the core area of China, a large territory and a large population, and were a single, independent government, it meets that definition of "nation." Q.E.D.

If you want to use some non-standard sense of the word, by all means do so. But don't attack others who are using it in a standard sense.

I have no sino-centric ideology. You started an argument with me by criticizing a simple point I was making: China has its own long history, having first been formed more than 2000 years ago (not 5000).

Taiwan is and was no part of that. You don't have to convince me -- you have to convince Ma Yingjiu and the rest of the Chicom running dogs.

Cultural links do not mandate political allegiance.

The arguments for Taiwanese independence are strong enough without misrepresenting history.