Scared, Americans race to be like China

To no informed observer's surprise, Obama is now said to be reconsidering his decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City.

In a marked turn-around since the Bush era, Republicans now favor military commissions for all terror suspects.  And it's small wonder that Republicans find increasing public support for this position.  Neither the Obama Administration nor Congressional Democrats have bothered to passionately defend the use of civilian courts.  Quite the opposite.  Whatever the issue, the Obama Administration prides itself on dishing up "compromises" that look like Republicanism Lite.   As a consequence, the only political leaders in America who argue on behalf of values are Republicans.  Gradually, the public sours on the Democrats suspecting that the party and its leaders have no strong convictions.  

One passage in a NY Times article on the anticipated Obama flip-flop is particularly troubling:

On Thursday, Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, unveiled legislation that would require the government to put all “enemy belligerents” — including terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, without an exception for United States citizens — in military custody for interrogation. 

What other countries have laws like this?   North Korea, certainly. Probably China and Myanmar.  Maybe Iran.

Maybe the solution is to return the Republicans to power so that the Democrats will once again find the courage resist -- rather than enable -- the wholesale abrogation of civil rights in the name of "national security".

Obama's "Derailment of the Union" speech

UPDATED

In his State of the Union speech Obama said, "There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."  But there are reasons!

You just had to listen to Obama's own answer to this conundrum last night.  Obama talked some more about the $8 billion out of last year's stimulus of $787 billion that was being allocated for high-speed rail.   As it happens, I blogged about this $8 billion back in April 2009:

Look at it this way: the stimulus package approached $800 billion. Not even 1% of this spending will go into such a smart and environmentally-friendly transportation initiative!  As usual, Obama's thinking is more or less on the right track, but he continues to think small and move too slow. These times call for a for bolder approach. 

Obama's still talking about the $8 billion!  Meanwhile, Transportation Guru reports that across the big pond:

 As of March 31, China has committed $259 billion to building its high-speed rail network project, and plans to spend nearly a half trillion dollars more in the next three years, boosting the total investment to $730 billion by 2012.

Moreover, it was disingenuous for Obama to have claimed that even $8 billion has been allocated for high-speed rail.   HufPost reports "In the U.S., only the projects in California and Florida are planned to reach maximum speeds of 150 mph or more, what most transportation experts consider high-speed rail." (The money is to be divided-up among dozens of rail initiatives.)  Quoting a congressman, the article noted "Midwest lines awarded grants will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were "'selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service."

No reason?

UPDATE:  Spain plans to spend $100 billion over the next 10 years on high speed rail (PBS h/t Tobias)

Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet Freedom

In the wake of Google's blow up with China, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today delivered probably the most significant statement on the importance of defending Internet freedom ever made by an American leader. You can watch whole speech on video or read the full text of the speech.  Clinton said:

But amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns and nuclear energy can power a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al Qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.

In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir - who is thankfully no longer in prison - is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and welfare of much of the world's population.. . . .

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. At the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the trouble of his day.

Years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation - guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

As technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the "inherent rights and dignity of every individual." And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century... 

Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

Hillary Clinton goes on to propose the US government sponsor new technologies to allow global citizens to fight back against censorship.

The prepared text of U.S. of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech, delivered at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., is available here.  WaPo's Schonfeld summarizes what Clinton said in regards to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms.  James Fallows provides further commentary.

Are they just grumpy, or about to collapse?

James Fallows, having recently returned from China after a long stay, has blogged a particularly interesting post concerning Google's decision to pull out of China.

Continued . . . .

Google blasts China over human rights, freedom of speech

For years the West has presumed to sell technology and related services to China, yet largely overlooked the impact of these resources on Chinese human rights.   Not anymore.  Google's shocking and courageous  revelations has put "freedom of speech" front and center of the US-China relationship.

In the wake of a massive cyber attack originating in China, Google has announced that it will stop censoring the Chinese version of its search engine. Consequently, Google may be forced to pull out of China.   The NY Times reports:  "Google said that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human right activists, but that the attack also targeted 20 other large companies in the finance, technology, media and chemical sectors."

This is a serious development, one that promises to have consequences that go far beyond Google and its operations in China.   

If Google decides to leave China, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Apple, and other US tech companies will face immense pressure to follow suit.  If this happens, why should Western governments make it easy for Chinese technology firms to have access to the West?  

David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer of Google, blogs about the incident.  Drummond writes that in mid-December Google experienced a

highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. . . .

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

. . .  People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

This is surely the most important statement anyone has made about human rights and free speech in a very long time. Google is to be congratulated for having done the right thing.

The 10 creepiest events of 2009

I don't know about you, but I thought 2009 was an especially creepy year.

It had been a creepy decade alright.    But our expectations had been raised to an extent that it seemed to have ended on an especially creepy note.   There was Obama, golfing though a terrorist incident.  It reminded people of how George W. Bush had responded to Hurricane Katrina.  Yet by 2005, few informed people had come to expect much in the way of leadership from President Bush.   By the time Obama had spoken out about Crotch-bomber, it was already evident that his "bold plan" was to ensure the country emulated the very kinds of security theater measures that had been hallmarks of the Bush era.  

The following list obviously excludes many disturbing events that happened in places like Burma, Iran, or Zimbabwe in 2009.    But "creepiness" is an attribute I associate with people, leaders, countries, and institutions that we have reason to expect to uphold certain standards.  There should be an element of astonishment about the behavior of the  actor.     Anyway, here it is:

Jotman's Top 10 Creepy Events of 2009

1. Obama's decision to bail out failing banks with taxpayer money without according taxpayers temporary ownership of the banks; lack of effective new regulations concerning CDS.
   
2. Time Magazine's decision to name as "Person of the Year" an economist who had failed to anticipate the housing bubble. It's but the latest example of how media companies help to legitimate a defective system that serves Wall Street at the expense of the public.
   
3. Obama's recklessly small and brazenly uncreative stimulus package.
   
4. The day it became clear that US health care reform would enrich pharmaceutical companies and bolster the fortunes of the insurance industry at taxpayer's expense. 
5. Obama's declaration of support for extra-constitutional "preventative detention" powers (for himself).
6. When Democrats began excusing Obama for advancing the very same policies they vehemently condemned when George Bush was president.
7. When the same Republicans who had cheered Bush as he expanded the US deficit began claiming that a deep recession is a fine time for reducing government spending.
8. China's decision to execute a mentally ill Englishman in the face of protests of the British government and various NGOs.
9.  Thailand's recent deportation of over 2,000 Hmong refugees to Laos and reports that the Thai Navy tortured Rohingya refugees before towing them out to sea where it abandoned them.
10. Discovering that the Bush Administration oversight of the EPA left Americans not only breathing toxic air but drinking poisonous water. 

After a year like that, what could possibly creep us out in 2010?    Just about nothing.  That's the bright side of the situation in which we have dug ourselves.

What countries appeared most/least corrupt in 2009?

 Scanning the list from best to worst, here's what strikes me about the rankings of countries in Transparency International's corruption perceptions index for 2009:*

• The top ten least corrupt are the Nordic countries, plus New Zealand (#1), Canada, and Australia.  (Netherlands isn't exactly Nordic, but it comes in at #6.  Singapore (#3) is perceived as the least corrupt country in all of Asia.
  
• The US (home to Delaware) and UK (protector of Jersey) just barely make the top twenty.
• Three Gulf states are perceived as less corrupt than Israel (#32)
• The big countries of Eastern Europe  -- Hungary, Czech, Poland (#46-52) -- are believed to be more corrupt than any country in East Asia outside of China.
• Turkey (#61) and Italy (#63)are perceived as being almost equally corrupt, but Turkey (still considered unfit to join the EU) ranks higher than both Italy and dismally-ranking Greece which is tied with Romania at #71.
• China (#79) and India (#84) rank similarly on corruption.    India is tied with Thailand.
• In South America, Chile is #25 (ahead of Spain) but neighboring Argentina is #105.  (As we saw with the English speaking world, the "colonials" seem to be outranking the "mother countries" on this survey).
• Egypt has the same perceived level of corruption as Indonesia (#111), but the "land of baksheesh" is perceived as being less corrupt than Lebanon (#130) and Syria (#126) and even Vietnam (#120).
• Pakistan and Philippines are tied at #139.
• Zimbabwe is tied with Russia at #146.
  
• Laos and Cambodia are tied at #158.
• America is trying to win wars in two of the five most corrupt countries in the world.  (Iraq and Afghanistan's rank prior to America's invasions could not have been any lower.)

___
* ASEAN countries names are in bold. At Jot ASEAN I posted a short list that includes only Southeast Asian countries.

Obama in Beijing: Republican or Mandarin?

I watched enough of Obama's press conference in Beijing to recoil in horror.  President Obama gave the appearance of having arrived in Beijing with no real strategy, no particularly ambitious goals of his own, no particularly inspiring agenda relating to the environment.*   As for the economy, this AP report confirms what I thought I heard on TV (but sincerely hoped I had misheard). 

BEIJING — President Barack Obama says he's worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession.  That's when the economy begins to recover briefly from a recession only to be dragged back under.

Further spending will increase the deficit somewhat, but would that really cause the recession to worsen?    If stimulus creates new jobs (or spares existing jobs), there will be more taxpayers.  As one economist has put it: more taxpayers means more people paying down the debt.   The article continues:

Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that his administration is weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to begin hiring again.

Is Obama talking to a Fox News reporter or channeling Fox News?   The problem with proposing "tax breaks" is that your business only pays taxes if it makes a profit.   Struggling small businesses are not helped by tax cuts during a recession.   They need access to capital: banks willing to loan them money.   AP continues:

But he added that it's important to recognize that if the nation keeps adding to deficit spending through tax cuts or more stimulus spending, at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy and that could "lead to a double-dip recession."

Who are these "people" of such shaky "confidence"?   Might he be referring to investors?   The Chinese?  I am reminded of what Krugman recently wrote in a NY Times op/ed:

Unfortunately, the Chinese don’t seem to get it: rather than face up to the need to change their currency policy, they’ve taken to lecturing the United States, telling us to raise interest rates and curb fiscal deficits — that is, to make our unemployment problem even worse. 

And I’m not sure the Obama administration gets it, either.

It seems Obama wasn't only telling Fox News viewers what they want to hear, he was also agreeing to do what the Chinese have been telling the Americans to do.  Evidently, Beijing doesn't  care how many more Americans lose their jobs any more than Wall Street.  China just wanted the equivalent of a very deep bow.  And they got it.
_____
* Fallows has a made list of various joint initiatives relating to the environment.   He says it remains to be seen "which ones are serious, which ones are for show."

Myanmar-China pipeline

The WSJ reports that China will soon begin construction on the Shwe Project -- a pipeline that will carry natural gas from Kumming to the new port of Kyaukphyu in Myanmar via Mandalay. The purpose is to carry natural gas from the rich gas fields off Myanmar's coast.    One interesting fact:  The junta will obtain $1 billion a year in revenue for thirty years from the pipeline.  This new source of revenue is likely to further diminish the effect of Western sanctions on the regime.

All this raises an important question:  In the future, where will the junta be able to put its money?

Is it any wonder China's Uighurs are unhappy?

Kuerbanjiang Saimaiti, a twenty-something Uighur photographer, blogged:

. . . I found an internet cafe near the hotel and went up to the service counter.

“I need to use the internet. How much is the deposit, please?”
“Ten yuan,” the clerk said straight away without looking up. “I need to see your ID card.”
I got out my ID and said, “Here you are.”
“Sorry, your ethnic group can’t use the internet.”
“Why not?”
“State regulations.”

There was nothing I could do but laugh about it and leave. I went to another internet cafe and the reply was the same….

Translated by Black and White Cat  (h/t GV).   Xiao Qiang of CDT -- who also translated the post -- explains that the line "Sorry, you're ethnic group can't use the Internet," has been the talk of the Chinese blogosphere in recent days.

Related posts:

• Map of minority population regions of China
• China: new rules restrict practice of Islam 
• Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang in solidarity with Tibetans
  

How Obama is not regulating derivatives

In a recent blog post I quoted from a Bloomberg report:

The Obama administration sent Congress proposed legislation last month that would require the most active contracts in the $592 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market to be backed by clearinghouses and traded either on an exchange or on regulated systems.

Then I commented:

They waited until August -- one whole year -- to introduce legislation that would regulate, not prevent the trading of CDS, and not all kinds of CDS at that!

According to Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the kinds of CDS to be regulated is of paramount concern. Reich blogs:

. . . . the draft has gaping loopholes that will let most financial firms escape — such as one that exempts corporations that deal in financial derivatives from any requirements for capital, business conduct, record-keeping, and reporting if they use derivatives for the purpose of “risk management,” which is the very thing they all claim they’re doing. Neither the draft bill, nor the Committee, nor anyone on the Hill having anything to do with financial regulation, is raising what I consider to be the two key reforms necessary for avoiding another financial meltdown — resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial from investment banking, and applying antitrust laws to the remaining five biggest Wall Street banks so none is “too big to fail.”

Of course, banks have gotten bigger not smaller since the financial crisis broke, using taxpayer funds to buy-out smaller competitors.   And it was the largest, most irresponsible banks that the US taxpayer helped, not smaller, more cautious regional banks.

Matt Taibbi writing in RS explains the relevance of Glass-Steagall:

In 1999, Gramm co-sponsored a bill that repealed key aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act, smoothing the way for the creation of financial megafirms like Citigroup. The move did away with the built-in protections afforded by smaller banks. In the old days, a local banker knew the people whose loans were on his balance sheet: He wasn't going to give a million-dollar mortgage to a homeless meth addict, since he would have to keep that loan on his books. But a giant merged bank might write that loan and then sell it off to some fool in China, and who cared?

In Bangkok US talks "green eggs and ham"

Guardian reports:

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seeking a new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyoto could be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hit back stating that the protocol, the world's only legally binding commitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".

Oxfam's representative at the talks claims this tactic marks 'a detour" from the "road map" agreed to at the Bali Climate Change Talks.

According to the Guardian report, the US negotiator is boasting about an "80 billion green economic stimulus package."  That kind of talk sounds really disingenuous -- it's spin to my ears.  I thought the point of the talks was to discuss actual targets and actual achievements, not boast about domestic spending programs which may or may not produce the intended results.   Personally, I think taxes are the only way to ensure the market is behind green policies, not green pork (Green eggs and ham?).

Meanwhile, on Capital Hill the Democrats have already given away 85% of pollution permits in the propsed US cap and trade bill to the country's biggest polluters.   

Continued here.

Muslim population of the world

One in four of us is a Muslim according to a recent Pew Study.

The study notes that "previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion."  The Pew study pegs the number at 1.57 billion (23 percent of the total global population of 6.8 billion). There are 2.25 billion Christians.  Some facts about the world's Muslim population might surprise you: 

• India has more Muslims than any country except for Indonesia and Pakistan..
• China has more Muslims than Malaysia (or Syria).
• Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon.
• And Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya put together.
• 15% of all Muslims live in sub-Saharan Africa and another 15% live in Southeast Asia. 
  

This is also good to know:

Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.

In four countries - Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq - Shia Muslims make up a majority of the total population.

Graphic: Pew designed an impressive interactive map -- see here.  A "weighted" map is here.

Bangkok climate talks: China notes lack of progress

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

Continued here.

Dalai Lama, Obama will not meet

American liberals and conservatives often find common cause when it comes to humanitarian foreign policy questions.   Is Obama determined to unite the country in opposition to his administration over these kinds of issues?  

Last week I blogged Burmese dissidents' fears that the Obama Administration was preparing to cozy up with Burma's dictators.    This week begins with a White House announcement that is sure to anger Tibetan exiles, friends of Tibet, and other critics of the Chinese government's record on human rights.   WaPo reports:

In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

The U.S. decision to postpone the meeting appears to be part of a strategy to improve ties with China that also includes soft-pedaling criticism of China's human rights and financial policies as well as backing efforts to elevate China's position in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. Obama administration officials have termed the new policy "strategic reassurance," which entails the U.S. government taking steps to convince China that it is not out to contain the emerging Asian power.

Same old story: sensible intentions, inept execution.   I agreed with the spirit behind the recent White House moves on Burma, but I thought the execution was extremely sloppy.  The Deputy Secretary of State came out in agreement with this assessment.   Similarly, I think it's good that Obama wants to improve relations with China, but I believe this must not be done in such a way as to give the appearance that the US has compromised its principles, or kow-towed.

This was another political miscalculation on the part of Obama. The president is bound to pay a political price for it.  A narrative is beginning to develop that Obama is unprincipled, and only interested in appeasing powerful people, be they bankers, insurance company executives, or the Chinese. 

US sanctions and Burma's environment

Do sanctions against Burma work?  Do they somehow benefits Burma over the long-term?

This question was discussed at a recent US Senate hearing on US-Burma relations.   For an overview of the hearing see, "Burma is not Vietnam." See also "Burmese slam Senate hearings" and "US Senate AWOL on Burma."

The overriding question, Sen. Webb said, is whether the current approach has brought the results we seek. Webb referred to sanctions as "tensions."

Dept. Sec. of State Kurt Campbell said that "Any easing of sanctions now would send the wrong signal to those working" to help Burma.  He said that sanctions will "only be lifted if Burmese take meaningful action."

Senator Webb read from a letter from Kent M. Wiedemann, US Chargé d'Affaires ad interim for Burma (Oct 1996-May 1999).     Wiedemann explained that he had frequently met with Aung San Suu Kyi, and that Suu Kyi had seen sanctions as "tactical tools."  On the other hand, US based groups saw sanctions as "weapons" to force regime change.   In his view, sanctions had proved harmful and counterproductive.

Sen. Webb characterizes the current approach as "unsuccessful." and cited a subsequent increase in investment into Burma by China and North Korea.  

There was heated exchange between Sen. Webb and Prof. Williams, a legal scholar who opposed lifting sanctions.  Williams had spoke at some length about atrocities that have been committed by the regime.

Webb asked Williams if he had favored lifting sanctions against Vietnam in 1991.

"Yes" replied Williams.

Webb said, "Vietnam in 1991 was in worse condition than Burma in 2009."

In a  statement entered into the records,  monk leader Ashin Candobhasacara  (right) quoted with approval Sec. of State Clinton's remark, that "We will maintain our existing sanctions until we see concrete progress towards reform.  But, we will be willing to discuss the easing of sanctions in response to significant actions on the part of Burma's generals that address the core human rights and democracy issues that are prohibiting Burma's progress."

Candobhasacara noted, "Sanctions help preserve the natural resources of Burma for future generations.  At present, the Burmese regime is simply looting the coutnry and attempting to sell the resources to the highest bidder.  The Burmese regime is not simply corrupt and skimming profits off the top of international business deals -- it is literally looting the country and keeping all the profits for itself. By placing sanctions on Burma, our country's natural resources are more likely to remain in the hands of the people so that a true representative government and market-based economy can put them to good use."

I think  the environmental argument is very compelling.

However, it may be difficult to show that the pillaging of Burma's resources -- were US sanctions to be lifted -- will be appreciably worse than in other least developed countries (Laos, Cambodia, etc.).     Furthermore, such "pillaging" seems bound to happen regardless in Burma.  That's because Chinese investments in the country continue to expand.   At least in theory, US-owned businesses can be forced to apply US environmental standards to their operations.  This could impact the overall national  standards.  Likewise, in the labor market, in order to retain top Burmese talent, Chinese and local businesses owners may be forced to raise their standards, lest they lose them to US competitors.

China calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi

As recently as August, China called on the West to "respect" the new detention of the Burmese opposition leader.

But today in Geneva, "China and other allies of the military government in Burma joined an international call for the release of jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi."  This development came in response to a Burma court verdict Friday that "rejected Suu Kyi's latest appeal for freedom." (Star h/t KMK). It coincides with moves by the US to improve its relations with Burma.

Shockingly, at this critical juncture, US senators charged with tracking developments in Burma are AWOL -- as my investigation here shows.

Burma is not Vietnam

Live-blogging Senator Jim Webb's hearing on US-Burma relations

"Burma is not Vietnam" read the neon yellow t-shirts worn by dozens of  activists.   

What was the slogan supposed to mean?

"It refers to the lifting of sanctions against Burma," he said, explaining that he didn't think the arguments for lifting sanctions against Vietnam in the early '90s applied to Burma today.  It was a dig at Senator Jim Webb, chairman of today's meeting.   I recalled what Sen.Webb wrote in a NYT op-ed back in August:

As someone who has worked hard to build a bridge between Hanoi and America’s strongly anticommunist Vietnamese community, I believe the greatest factor in creating a more open society inside Vietnam was the removal of America’s trade embargo in 1994. 

"A lot of people you see wearing yellow shirts helped get Webb elected" the activist continued.

The back of the room was packed with people sporting the neon yellow t-shirts.

At least Sen. Webb showed up for the meeting.   That is more than could be said for his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on Burma. In the photos you can see only one seat is occupied.  A veteran of senate hearings, a woman from Human Rights Watch, expressed her surprise to me about this.

How can the US senate be expected to make informed votes if members do not show up to meetings about places like Burma?

I have blogged about Burma since 2006, and if I have learned one thing, it's that its problems are not simple. They are overwhelming.

Prof. David Williams of Indiana University testified that the military commits mass atrocities against its people.  It has displaced half a million.

But it was not always this way, explained Prof. David Steinberg. "In the 1940s people in Bangkok stomped to Rangoon to go shopping."  He added, "Back then, anyone you shared a beer with in old Rangoon would have sworn that Burma, not Thailand or even South Korea, would be the success story."

"One man rule has meant there has been no dissent."  The government had not been making informed decisions.  "Arbitrary rule, based on ignorance, leads to disaster" added Steinberg.

Yet, despite its many horrors, Burma is not North Korea. Thant Myint-U pointed to religious tolerance and hundreds of NGOs as bright spots.  It was also noted that unlike Laos and China, Burma permits an opposition party.

Looking to the future, Prof. Thant Myint-U worried the new generation of leaders coming up through the ranks of the military -- not having had broad experiences -- will have a narrow outlook on affairs.   How to open their minds?

More to come.
___
 Top photo shows two of several dozen activists who turned out for the filled-to-capacity  meeting room.  Middle two photos shows many empty senator-seats. Note, also, the Buddhist monks.   Bottom photo shows the only senator who bothered to show up.   
*****Update:  I decided to investigate why so many senators didn't attend.  My findings are posted here.

Burma tortures American citizen as US meetings with Myanmar begin

The titles of these Jotman blog posts give you a gist of the story.

08.27 -  "Jim Webb calls for US to lift sanctions against Burma"

08.28 -  "Clinton, Webb move to improve US-Burma relations"

09.24 -  "Is an American citizen now a political prisoner in Burma?"

09.24 -  " Burma: How many political prisoners remain in prison?"

09.26 (2007 uprising anniversary) -  "Three heroes, one day in Rangoon."

09.27 (2007 uprising anniversary) - "2 years ago today in Rangoon"

09.29 - "US to meet with Burma"

09.29 - "US citizen tortured in Burma"

What was the Obama Administration thinking?  Why did the US remain headstrong in its determination to initiate meetings with Burma, given that it knew -- full well -- that Kyaw Zaw Lwin (also known as Nyi Nyi Aung), an American citizen, was being tortured in a jail cell in Rangoon?   Why start the talks? 

Timing doesn't get much worse than this.

Monday, U.S.Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said, "Let's be clear, the president's decision to approach countries with an open hand and open up a dialogue with them is a powerful tool, at least in the initial state of opening up contacts...."  (my translation from the press conference video).  The remark struck me when I heard it, watching a CSPAN video of the press conference.   Immediately I went about transcribing the comment.  I then put the quote at the top of this blog post.    The Assistant Secretary seemed to be saying that the policy of engagement with Burma was happening at the initiative of the White House; and that this approach was integral to the president's approach to foreign policy (something we have known since the campaign).

The decision to open up talks with Burma had probably not been made mainly on the basis of the State Department's own analysis of the situation and its recommendations.  It looks to me like a case -- of course it happened all too frequently in the past -- where a "one size fits all" policy directive is forced on the State Department.   Yet another situation in which the opinions of regional experts are overlooked.  (Arguably, just about every major foreign policy disaster since the Second World War can  be traced back to an obstinate mindset.)

Unless Nyi Nyi Aung is released within a few days of the start of talks in New York between Assistant Secretary Campbell and U Thaung, Myanmar's minister of science,  this episode could prove a disgrace for the Obama Administration.  

We have every reason to suspect that Obama's overall philosophy of initiating engagement, not local contingencies seem to have driven US policy towards Burma. Realization that the Obama Administration opened negotiations with a rougue state while an American was still being tortured could compromise support for Obama's preferred approach to foreign policy.   This would be a tragedy in my opinion, because even a sound and principled approach is bound to fail if the timing is wrong.
 
My sense is that Campbell probably knows the timing is bad -- really bad.   But the State Department has been forced to engage.  Perhaps the Obama Administration finds it expedient to move quickly with regards to Burma on account of some other strategy objective, perhaps concerning North Korea, China, or Iran.

In any case, I thought Campbell made it quite clear that a presidential directive was behind the overture to Burma.  I thought it significant that Campbell did not credit his own boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the decision to open up talks with Burma.   I would not want to be given credit for initiating these talks --  not at this time.

Whatever is going on here, Campbell will surely have some more explaining to do tomorrow.   I'll try to keep  you informed of developments as they happen.

UPDATE
Some further thoughts about this case: American citizen tortured by Burma, and his government is speechless

Will Obama lead on climate change?

To get beyond yesterday's problems, the United States must take the lead by solving tomorrow's.

The Pittsburgh G20 ended last week, and the Bangkok Climate conference has just begun. The make-or-break Copenhagen summit is only two months away. A climate policy expert looks at how much progress has been made, and finds American leadership falling short of what's necessary at this critical juncture (Media Release, Sept. 28):

Oxfam International Senior Climate Policy Adviser Antonio Hill said recent announcements by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the EU on climate financing, and Japan and China’s stronger language last week on emissions reductions and finance, would put extra pressure on the US to step up and signal its intentions on its role in a global deal.

“Despite good intentions and warm words over the past six months, the US didn’t deliver real leadership last week at the UN Climate Summit and G20.  Either the US lifts its game, or the next two weeks in Bangkok could go down as just a holding pattern before a fatal nosedive in Copenhagen,” he said.

He said while many key countries, including China, India, Japan, African Union, the Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States, had shown they were ready to enter the final, more detailed phase of negotiations, intransigence on the part of rich countries like the US, Canada and Australia was proving an obstacle to progress.

Key sticking points remain the emissions reductions developed countries are willing to deliver – current commitments are around 15 per cent instead of the science-based 40 per cent reductions on 1990 levels by 2020 - and the amount of financing they will put on the table for developing countries to both adapt to the impacts of climate change and develop on a low carbon pathway.

The two-week negotiations, held in South-East Asia, one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change, is the penultimate negotiation session before Copenhagen in December, when a fair and safe global climate change treaty must be secured.

Mr Hill said that whilst last week’s summits in the US were forums for world leaders to signal their intentions, the UN negotiating process continuing in Bangkok was the only place where countries could forge an agreement to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“It’s crunch time,” Mr Hill said. “What is needed for a breakthrough is a clear commitment from developed countries – responsible for three-quarters of the carbon in the atmosphere - to commit to substantial finance, additional to existing aid levels, to developing countries.”

Hill echoes what I heard  Jorma Ollila, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, acknowledge in Helsinki three months ago:  the developed world bears responsibility for having damaged the earth's atmosphere, and Washington must take the lead.

Health care, the war in Afghanistan, and climate change:  these three big issues confront the Obama presidency simultaneously.   Who does not believe that the success or failure of Obama's entire presidency rides with how competently the president handles one or another of these matters?

But which decision will be the most significant? Of the three issues, two are largely yesterday's fights, only one concerns the challenge of the future.   Moreover, on two issues -- the same two -- the cost of waiting for a second chance is manageable.  Other countries have solved the problem of providing universal health care, and the US will have other opportunities to solve it.   The rest of the world has "given up" on the cause of bringing freedom to Afghanistan, but supposing Obama hesitates to defy his generals and sends in more troops, Congress can still bring them home at any time.  For the rest of the world, Afghanistan is yesterday's war; universal health care, a social policy worked out generations ago.  There will be second chances.

But if the American economy -- and by extension, the world -- is not set on a path towards sustainable growth, then wars and health care costs are bound to spiral out of control.  Furthermore, the cost of setting the world on a sustainable path with respect to climate change increases with every lost decade.  And on this issue, alone, there is a "point of no return."   Therefore, hands down, if the Obama Administration must get just one issue dealt with properly in 2009, it's energy and the environment.  To get beyond yesterday's problems, the United States must take the lead by solving tomorrow's.
 ____
Photo by Jotman shows the US Congress.