Recently I have noticed that several posts in major newspapers (Chinese, German, Japanese, UK, US) have comments written by people with VERY-American or British or German etc. names. At least their accounts look as if they were natives of these countries. Usually these comment-writers pose as man around 40 or 50, who are confident, obviously well informed and in-the-know. They bash what reliable news agencies and independent writers say, and push very forcefully a narrative heavily leaning towards Russia and/or China. In these narratives the US and the EU are always the bad guys, who treat poor Russia and China badly, and are unfair, and start wars everywhere (or finance the wars and make a good buck on them). According to these narratives all these wars started were totally unnecessary and self-serving, and Russia and China are peaceful giants, who would never do the same.
Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.
Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.
Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.
At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.
In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Sunday, 2 October 2016
Ogura Kazuo's 'Japan's Asian Diplomacy
As part of my self-education I'm reading a good deal on Japan, China, and East-Asia in general. The last book that I got in my hand was Ogura Kazuo's Japan's Asian Diplomacy. The author served as Japan's ambassador to Vietnam, France, and Korea.
It quickly becomes obvious from the book that Ogura has plenty of insight into the main ideological and political currents shaping the broader agenda of foreign policy making in Japan, China, and Korea. He offers a historical, ideological, and political overview of Japan's relations with its neighbours going back to the early middle ages, and shows that in most cases the Japanese policies and stances were heavily influenced by internal political interests and leadership contests. In many places in the book he is openly critical about such short sighted diplomacy, and makes an effort to show that in many cases taking a too hard line in domestic politics forced the leadership into a position where to save face it was almost necessary to act aggressively on the international place - to live up to the expectations raised in the public, so to say.
The author was not afraid to point out some harmful and aggressive long standing tendencies of Japanese policies - such as treating the affairs of Korea almost as an internal issue requiring constant intervention - and the lack of long term vision in the building up of relations with China.
The book also offers a very interesting perspective on how the Tokugawa shogunate's closed-door policy served to prepare Japan to see itself ideologically and politically among the Western, colonizing, powers very soon after the Meiji period. This amounted to a significant shift from the earlier Japano- or Sino-centric world views dominating political thinking. It also explains in part why Japan acted quickly and with no sympathy towards other Asian nations.
The book discusses several other issues, and it is a very interesting and thought-provoking reading. I don't have an in depth knowledge of either Japanese history or politics yet, but I'm happy that I took down this volume from the library shelf, and at the moment it seems that it will definitely contribute to my understanding of the Japanese perspectives on diplomacy in Asia.
It quickly becomes obvious from the book that Ogura has plenty of insight into the main ideological and political currents shaping the broader agenda of foreign policy making in Japan, China, and Korea. He offers a historical, ideological, and political overview of Japan's relations with its neighbours going back to the early middle ages, and shows that in most cases the Japanese policies and stances were heavily influenced by internal political interests and leadership contests. In many places in the book he is openly critical about such short sighted diplomacy, and makes an effort to show that in many cases taking a too hard line in domestic politics forced the leadership into a position where to save face it was almost necessary to act aggressively on the international place - to live up to the expectations raised in the public, so to say.
The author was not afraid to point out some harmful and aggressive long standing tendencies of Japanese policies - such as treating the affairs of Korea almost as an internal issue requiring constant intervention - and the lack of long term vision in the building up of relations with China.
The book also offers a very interesting perspective on how the Tokugawa shogunate's closed-door policy served to prepare Japan to see itself ideologically and politically among the Western, colonizing, powers very soon after the Meiji period. This amounted to a significant shift from the earlier Japano- or Sino-centric world views dominating political thinking. It also explains in part why Japan acted quickly and with no sympathy towards other Asian nations.
The book discusses several other issues, and it is a very interesting and thought-provoking reading. I don't have an in depth knowledge of either Japanese history or politics yet, but I'm happy that I took down this volume from the library shelf, and at the moment it seems that it will definitely contribute to my understanding of the Japanese perspectives on diplomacy in Asia.
Saturday, 1 October 2016
On relationships and sexual urges
- Instincts! – said he with a satisfied smile, basking in
the warm light of the belief that he offered a brilliant one word response,
which, not wholly by incident, also happened to justify his behavior towards
his wife, and women in general.
- Well, but two questions throw some doubt on this: first,
just because something is an instinct, ‘natural’ so to say, is it good, is it
something we should act on? I think obviously not. After all we don’t want a
society in which people bash in each others’ skull when there is competition
for resources, or where man habitually rape woman they want to be with despites
that both of these behavior were widespread and prevalent in early humans.
Second, we have many different capacities that we can use to live different
kinds of lives. Relationships are not only about sex, although sex is an
integral part of most grown-up committed partnerships, and there might be very
valuable and meaningful relationships that would be seriously harmed and
affected by someone following their hedonistic sexual urges. In such cases
surely the fact that we – by nature – have some capacities which enable us to
have full, enriching experiences shows that i) an urge’s being natural does not
count either in favour or against acting on it, and that ii) acting on it might
go against a very human type of relationship, the committed relationship. I don’t
mean by ii) that only humans have committed relationships. But only humans have
the type of committed relationship involving the exercises of long term
planning, joint social and ethical values, participation in socially
constructed institutions of significance for local communities, and so on.
Proper grownup relationships have all these dimensions and are from no perspective
– natural or non-natural – second-rate. And they are surely not to be relegated
or scrapped in favour of acting on ‘instincts’. Humans have their instincts
under control all the time. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be expected
to do so in relationships.
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Notes on a forward looking liberalism
There are many complaints and enemies of a conservative liberal political world view. Trump, Putin, Duterte, Xi Jinping, Nigel Farage, and Viktor Orban can all be mentioned as belonging on this list.
What can be seen straight away is that three types of people are on this list:
1. Politicians who are invested in business and military affairs, and want to challenge the dominance of Western countries. Especially in the case of China and Russia it is obvious that they perceive the dominance of the US and the EU not only an issue of economic and military competition, but also an ideological threat that might undermine their authoritarian rule.
2. Minor politicians who are trying to ride the waves and make some short term political (and probably monetary) profit from aligning with radicals and subversives who are disillusioned with the ruling parties. Farage in the UK and Orban in Hungary are typical examples of this. While Orban's government channels all EU funds directed at the development of Hungarian agriculture, business, and infrastructure into their own businesses and family properties, he is a devoted fan and ally of Putin. (Farage and Orban are obviously not interested in democracy. When they talk about national self-determination they are talking about the ability of local politicians and businessmen running the place. That's why both of them are afraid of the EU.)
3. Public figures who are nuts (like Trump), and people who see an obstacle in democratic processes to their own power (like Peter Thiel).
What should true liberals, who are conservative in the sense of sticking to the core ideas of liberalism (with a social stint) say? Well, what we need is a positive and forceful narrative. That is what liberalism is lacking at the moment. So much has been achieved in the last 60 years in Europe and the US: wealth, improvements in legal transparency, freedom of press, rights for everyone. The problem is that we don't have a good, politically charged story to move us forward.
Most of the mainstream liberal stories at the moment are extremely individualistic, and focus on improving the lived experiences of individuals in difficult positions in society (minorities, woman, homosexuals, and so on). This is perfectly fine, but it is also perfectly silent on how to relate to governments and corporations that are not afraid to use corrupting means and military threat to get their way, and which are or are becoming extremely powerful.
The key thing we need to keep in mind is that liberalism (a socially sensitive version keeping equality and individual freedom in focus) has to stand up for its values. One cannot support religious freedom, the freedom and equality of woman at the same time as recognizing the right to practice a religion that bans the freedom and equality of woman on the personal level. These are issues of core values and democratic, liberal societies need to step up and be on their guard not to get overwhelmed by nationalist right wing crazies, apostles of capitalism without boundaries, or authoritarian pumpkins like Trump or Putin.
Liberalist societies have plenty to defend. What we need is not nationalism reloaded, but a union of all those communities that are committed to freedom, electing our own leaders without corporate and military interference, to expressing our views and opinions freely, and to stick to the truth that countries which don't treat people right are wrong in their ways and need to change. This should apply to any country, no matter how mighty or economically powerful they are, be that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.
Recognizing that there is something to lose, and there is something we need to defend is one of the key steps to relaunch a constructive liberalism that can also foster income equality, transparency, and equality among citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, and so on.
What can be seen straight away is that three types of people are on this list:
1. Politicians who are invested in business and military affairs, and want to challenge the dominance of Western countries. Especially in the case of China and Russia it is obvious that they perceive the dominance of the US and the EU not only an issue of economic and military competition, but also an ideological threat that might undermine their authoritarian rule.
2. Minor politicians who are trying to ride the waves and make some short term political (and probably monetary) profit from aligning with radicals and subversives who are disillusioned with the ruling parties. Farage in the UK and Orban in Hungary are typical examples of this. While Orban's government channels all EU funds directed at the development of Hungarian agriculture, business, and infrastructure into their own businesses and family properties, he is a devoted fan and ally of Putin. (Farage and Orban are obviously not interested in democracy. When they talk about national self-determination they are talking about the ability of local politicians and businessmen running the place. That's why both of them are afraid of the EU.)
3. Public figures who are nuts (like Trump), and people who see an obstacle in democratic processes to their own power (like Peter Thiel).
What should true liberals, who are conservative in the sense of sticking to the core ideas of liberalism (with a social stint) say? Well, what we need is a positive and forceful narrative. That is what liberalism is lacking at the moment. So much has been achieved in the last 60 years in Europe and the US: wealth, improvements in legal transparency, freedom of press, rights for everyone. The problem is that we don't have a good, politically charged story to move us forward.
Most of the mainstream liberal stories at the moment are extremely individualistic, and focus on improving the lived experiences of individuals in difficult positions in society (minorities, woman, homosexuals, and so on). This is perfectly fine, but it is also perfectly silent on how to relate to governments and corporations that are not afraid to use corrupting means and military threat to get their way, and which are or are becoming extremely powerful.
The key thing we need to keep in mind is that liberalism (a socially sensitive version keeping equality and individual freedom in focus) has to stand up for its values. One cannot support religious freedom, the freedom and equality of woman at the same time as recognizing the right to practice a religion that bans the freedom and equality of woman on the personal level. These are issues of core values and democratic, liberal societies need to step up and be on their guard not to get overwhelmed by nationalist right wing crazies, apostles of capitalism without boundaries, or authoritarian pumpkins like Trump or Putin.
Liberalist societies have plenty to defend. What we need is not nationalism reloaded, but a union of all those communities that are committed to freedom, electing our own leaders without corporate and military interference, to expressing our views and opinions freely, and to stick to the truth that countries which don't treat people right are wrong in their ways and need to change. This should apply to any country, no matter how mighty or economically powerful they are, be that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.
Recognizing that there is something to lose, and there is something we need to defend is one of the key steps to relaunch a constructive liberalism that can also foster income equality, transparency, and equality among citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, and so on.
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
In the North-Eastern tip of Japan
The Shiretoko Mountain range
Recently we made it to Hokkaido. We rented a car in Abashiri, and from there drove to the Shiretoko Peninsula. It was a proper trip in the wilderness: bears, deer, and foxes were at large in the forests, and in the sea seals and dolphins were swimming free. Hokkaido is one of those rare gems where more awaits you than what you would expect. Although we were on the move continuously for five days it was more relaxing than anything I did in the last years in a town or city.
Shen Congwen's 'Border Town'
Shen Congwen's book Border Town is hard to pin down as a foreign reader who is mostly comfortable with Western literature. The book itself seems to echo some trends in 18th century European continental literature which idealized and depicted peasants patronizingly as 'simple folks who have a good heart'. Congwen's book is similar in that it ignores all social, political, economic or military dimensions of the story told.
Still, this seems to be a conscious and deliberate decision of the author, and done so that the main focus remains strictly on a simple and straightforward story of growing up, losing the ones we love, and experiencing longing and romantic love for the first time.
The book is excellent on this psychological level. It doesn't dive deep into the personal, consciously experienced thoughts and emotions of the characters, but it does highlight some of their main worries and thoughts, and gives the reader a good sense of how they feel and think by talking about their behaviour.
Cuicui and her grandpa offer a touching and sad pair, but one that is not heartbreaking: we all have to go through similar things in our lives, as we are all more or less powerless in the face of loss, passion, growing up. Cuicui is confused about the changes in herself, her grandfathers' behaviour towards her, and her feelings. And her grandfather despairs over how to secure the future happiness of his beloved and treasured granddaughter.
The grandpa departs during a very symbolic storm followed by a flood. The elements cannot be stopped, just as the old man's life cannot be extended forever. Nature has no respect and patience for the personal troubles of the pair. At the end of the novel Cuicui stands alone in life, and her supportive and caring community tries to nudge her towards growing up. Unable to move on quickly after her grandfather's loss she stays put, and with the assistance of an old friend of her grandfather's she continues to live in the same way as before. The fact that life cannot be easily controlled seems only to strengthen her attachment to what she holds dear - the way of life and place that she loved.
Still, this seems to be a conscious and deliberate decision of the author, and done so that the main focus remains strictly on a simple and straightforward story of growing up, losing the ones we love, and experiencing longing and romantic love for the first time.
The book is excellent on this psychological level. It doesn't dive deep into the personal, consciously experienced thoughts and emotions of the characters, but it does highlight some of their main worries and thoughts, and gives the reader a good sense of how they feel and think by talking about their behaviour.
Cuicui and her grandpa offer a touching and sad pair, but one that is not heartbreaking: we all have to go through similar things in our lives, as we are all more or less powerless in the face of loss, passion, growing up. Cuicui is confused about the changes in herself, her grandfathers' behaviour towards her, and her feelings. And her grandfather despairs over how to secure the future happiness of his beloved and treasured granddaughter.
The grandpa departs during a very symbolic storm followed by a flood. The elements cannot be stopped, just as the old man's life cannot be extended forever. Nature has no respect and patience for the personal troubles of the pair. At the end of the novel Cuicui stands alone in life, and her supportive and caring community tries to nudge her towards growing up. Unable to move on quickly after her grandfather's loss she stays put, and with the assistance of an old friend of her grandfather's she continues to live in the same way as before. The fact that life cannot be easily controlled seems only to strengthen her attachment to what she holds dear - the way of life and place that she loved.
Donations for Macmillan Cancer Support
It's that time of the year again: I'm running the Oxford Half Marathon. This year I'm collecting donations for Macmillan Cancer Support.
See my donation page here: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/Istvan-Zoltan-Zardai
If you happen to have a spare coin please donate. Every donation is appreciated!
Macmillan are doing a lot of good work for people with cancer, and they are also supporting their families through what is undoubtedly some of the hardest periods of their lives.
It is a service that can make a huge difference to anyone's life. As nowadays there is a very high percentage (above 45% percent for most of us) that one gets cancer, this is vital. It is these sort of community solutions to problems that we need to foster and maintain. The government can't do everything and we need to get together as a large community of people caring for each other.
See my donation page here: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/Istvan-Zoltan-Zardai
If you happen to have a spare coin please donate. Every donation is appreciated!
Macmillan are doing a lot of good work for people with cancer, and they are also supporting their families through what is undoubtedly some of the hardest periods of their lives.
It is a service that can make a huge difference to anyone's life. As nowadays there is a very high percentage (above 45% percent for most of us) that one gets cancer, this is vital. It is these sort of community solutions to problems that we need to foster and maintain. The government can't do everything and we need to get together as a large community of people caring for each other.
New tutoring website
My new website advertising my tutorial, mentoring, and consulting services is up and running.
Check it out here!
Check it out here!
Friday, 16 September 2016
Why low salaries, low taxes on the rich, and sitting on one's money isn't good for the economy
Inequality is bad for the economy. When masses of people don’t have money they can’t spend it on goods and services, and therefore there is no consumption. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families is harmful for everyone in society. No matter how rich someone is, they can only buy so many cars, and dine at so many luxury restaurants. Their spending will be minuscule compared to the spending of thousands, or millions of people. Companies and businesses can't grow, competition just gets fiercer the way things are now, which will lead to even more companies failing. If we want more growth and more social justice, as well as political stability, we need to have higher taxes on the rich and the biggest corporations, and raise wages. Simple as that.
Tuesday, 9 August 2016
The Chinese government's concerted PR and military strategy
The Chinese media, war, and economic machine is working because many talented people work in a concerted and devoted manner. This seems to be something that Japan and the US understand but Europe - and especially the UK voting for Brexit - fails to grasp.
China is now not only the second biggest economy of the world but also has one of the most powerful armys and it is not afraid to rely on it to put pressure on business partners and neighbours, as well as countries far from its waters.
The country's highest leadership also understands how important good PR work is and is not shy when having to spend on journalists, internet commenters, academics, diplomats, and even foreign specialists to defend its interests and emphasize a narrative which shows China in a good light.
The true face of the country's current leadership is easy to decipher: it is a hawkish, aggressive band, bent on gaining more power and territory. The current military and party leadership of China won't be a good friend of the UK just because they offer them a decent reciprocal trade pact. In fact, what the UK largely fails to admit is that is has historically played the largest role in the plundering of China during the second half of the 19th century and this isn't forgotten by the Chinese. If the British Empire hadn't forced concessions in several ports and wouldn't have highlighted the weakness of the imperial system in China, the demise of that system could have been slower and more peaceful. Also, other states like the Russian, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Germans and the Japanese - who all held concessions and were present with their military - would have had a much harder time in China. Not to mention that the Japanese incursions in the 1920s and 1930s would have likely been impossible.
You can read a great description of government sanctioned tabloid activity, covering the Global Times, here in the Quartz. It shows that the Chinese government keeps the public opinion in China under close control. People are forced to think what the government wants them to think because they don't have free access to impartial information, nor to any criticism of the system.
What I write is also confirmed by the Chinese government's insistence after Brexit to have an even larger access to sensitive technology and energy sectors in the UK. A good example is the Chinese ambassadors address over the Hinkley Point nuclear development. Such smaller and medium sized countries like the UK on its own will be more easily influenced and bought by China in the future. That is one of the reasons why the Brexit decision was disastrous. The UK is already home to many shadowy Russian operations. Now it might become the dwelling of characters who want to strike in the middle of Europe, but were repelled so far by the EU's common foreign policies.
Another example of how even Chinese academics - who are no doubt intelligent and very capable professional researchers - can be recruited by the government and military leadership is a paper by Dr. Xue Li and Xu Yanzhuo in the Diplomat. They warm up the misty-cloudy suggestion designed to deceive that China has been misunderstood, it is a peaceful growing giant, following Buddhist and Taoist teachings when making decisions. This is as false as it can be, as has been evidenced by China's behavior in Tibet, in north-west China, and when cracking down on thousands of protests and demonstrations. It is also obvious that this is false, when we take a look at the way Chinese diplomacy handles the South-China issue, and how the military is now trying to raise the pressure in the East-China sea.
Update in 2018 August: Now that Xi is on the top until his death China has sadly returned to a capitalist-emperor system. Trump and Putin are dreaming of the same, Erdogan has achieved the same, and Orban is dreaming of it. If the country's economy keeps growing as it is now, there won't be any stopping the military-diplomatic bulldozer.
China is now not only the second biggest economy of the world but also has one of the most powerful armys and it is not afraid to rely on it to put pressure on business partners and neighbours, as well as countries far from its waters.
The country's highest leadership also understands how important good PR work is and is not shy when having to spend on journalists, internet commenters, academics, diplomats, and even foreign specialists to defend its interests and emphasize a narrative which shows China in a good light.
The true face of the country's current leadership is easy to decipher: it is a hawkish, aggressive band, bent on gaining more power and territory. The current military and party leadership of China won't be a good friend of the UK just because they offer them a decent reciprocal trade pact. In fact, what the UK largely fails to admit is that is has historically played the largest role in the plundering of China during the second half of the 19th century and this isn't forgotten by the Chinese. If the British Empire hadn't forced concessions in several ports and wouldn't have highlighted the weakness of the imperial system in China, the demise of that system could have been slower and more peaceful. Also, other states like the Russian, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Germans and the Japanese - who all held concessions and were present with their military - would have had a much harder time in China. Not to mention that the Japanese incursions in the 1920s and 1930s would have likely been impossible.
You can read a great description of government sanctioned tabloid activity, covering the Global Times, here in the Quartz. It shows that the Chinese government keeps the public opinion in China under close control. People are forced to think what the government wants them to think because they don't have free access to impartial information, nor to any criticism of the system.
What I write is also confirmed by the Chinese government's insistence after Brexit to have an even larger access to sensitive technology and energy sectors in the UK. A good example is the Chinese ambassadors address over the Hinkley Point nuclear development. Such smaller and medium sized countries like the UK on its own will be more easily influenced and bought by China in the future. That is one of the reasons why the Brexit decision was disastrous. The UK is already home to many shadowy Russian operations. Now it might become the dwelling of characters who want to strike in the middle of Europe, but were repelled so far by the EU's common foreign policies.
Another example of how even Chinese academics - who are no doubt intelligent and very capable professional researchers - can be recruited by the government and military leadership is a paper by Dr. Xue Li and Xu Yanzhuo in the Diplomat. They warm up the misty-cloudy suggestion designed to deceive that China has been misunderstood, it is a peaceful growing giant, following Buddhist and Taoist teachings when making decisions. This is as false as it can be, as has been evidenced by China's behavior in Tibet, in north-west China, and when cracking down on thousands of protests and demonstrations. It is also obvious that this is false, when we take a look at the way Chinese diplomacy handles the South-China issue, and how the military is now trying to raise the pressure in the East-China sea.
Update in 2018 August: Now that Xi is on the top until his death China has sadly returned to a capitalist-emperor system. Trump and Putin are dreaming of the same, Erdogan has achieved the same, and Orban is dreaming of it. If the country's economy keeps growing as it is now, there won't be any stopping the military-diplomatic bulldozer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)