As China modernizes, Marx becomes irrelevant

Interesting article over at the LA Times on how Marxism and socialism are becoming irrelevant to most Chinese students. The point of the story, as China becomes more capitalistic and modern, Marx's appeal fades almost to the point of irrelevancy. Not entirely surprising, but given the many arguments put forth by China-hawks, something worth remembering.

The story makes some interesting observations, such as the disconnect between Marxist thought and everything going on in China right now, from the construction of high-rise buildings to "shopping malls, movie theaters, luxury apartment buildings, fast-food restaurants, hotels, factories — the whole capitalist panorama."

In fact, Chinese officials are already looking for ways in which to place less emphasis on Marx and Mao (required teaching under Chinese law) and to focus on more traditional lessons, such as respect and honesty.

Another interesting observation regards just how little Marx, or Marxist thought are actually discussed in China, even by Chinese officials and scholars. For most, Marxist theory does not seem to provide any viable path for China's future. Even so, however, according to the article, most Chinese will still not publicly renounce it. This, however, seems to have more to do with the opportunities for advancement that belonging to the Communist party provides, than with any belief in the ideology.

To boot, there is telling story of how one student, "Zhao Fan, who uses the English name Nathan" though defending the teaching of Marxism, himself wanted to "go into marketing, ideally for one of China's largest corporations, get an MBA from a foreign university and go into management."

The story also has examples of how China is trying to reform its education system with what are essentially pilot programs, teaching environmentalism in place of Marxist ideology.

For me, the most telling part of the article was this: when asked about Chinese students, an education official named Zhou replied, "'They don't believe in God or communism,' he said. 'They're practical. They only worship the money.'"

Read More...

Snippet only...

AFRICOM struggles to find a home

In February of this year, President Bush announced the creation of Africa Command (AFRICOM). Since then, it seems the administration has been having a bit of difficulty finding a country willing to host it.

According to the WAPO,

"[a] U.S. delegation seeking a home for a new military command in Africa got a chilly reception during a tour of the northern half of the continent this month, running into opposition even in countries that enjoy friendly relations with the Pentagon"

including, Algeria, Libya and Morocco. In fact, the question of hosting Africa Command seems to present a political liability for each government. For example, the article cites the example of Morocco where after an opposition party publicly stated that the government had already agreed to host AFRICOM, the government issued a stern denial calling it "baseless information."

The article also notes how each government's response is a reflection of the public's opposition to American policies in the Muslim world.

People on the street assume their governments have already had too many dealings with the U.S. in the war on terror at the expense of the rule of law.

Many may say that this is an unfair characterization of American relations with these countries, however given recent reports that the US moved its secret prisons from Europe to North Africa, the various moves by these governments to either squelch dissent or limit the rights of their populations to fight the al Qaeda threat, it is understandable. In short, we are associated with the policies of the governments in the region, because these policies are seen as being part of our War on Terror.

Even though the US insists that "the main mission for the command would be to stabilize weak or poor countries by training local security forces and doling out humanitarian aid," many North Africans don't appear to be buying. As I argued in my post on the President's announcement, that was one of the main questions/problems facing AFRICOM; how would it be perceived by Africans themselves? The perception, however is not unanimous. In a guest column on June 25, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf argued that AFRICOM was not a bad thing, but could be a great thing for Africa. In this column she argued that

AFRICOM should be seen for what it is: recognition of the growing importance of Africa to U.S. national security interests, as well as recognition that long-term African security lies in empowering African partners to develop a healthy security environment through embracing good governance, building security capacity, and developing good civil-military relations.

The Africom charter specifies that the new command will focus on conflict prevention, rather than intervention. It will work with African states and regional organizations, such as the African Union and Ecowas, in coordination with other donor countries, to improve security capabilities and promote military professionalization and accountable governance.

If AFRICOM aims to use its "soft power" mandate to develop a stable environment in which civil society can flourish and the quality of life for Africans can be improved, African nations should work with AFRICOM to achieve their own development and security goals. Through these means, the potential of AFRICOM can far exceed its initially limited scope of engagement. To achieve the greatest possible results in development, security, and governance, this must be the model for donor assistance in the future: helping governments that are willing to help themselves.

Liberians can only hope that the United States will use AFRICOM to raise standards for engagement and help change "the way of doing business" in Africa. AFRICOM is undeniably about the projection of American interests—but this does not mean that it is to the exclusion of African ones.

This, however, is a minority view. Many Africans, particularly following our support for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia are wary of what Africa Command will mean for Africa. Sirleaf acknowledges as much in her column, even while pointing to the positive aspects of the command. In his piece on Africa Command, Tom Barnett noted how even some of our military officers realized how badly Somalia had damaged the positive presence that the CJTF-Horn of Africa had worked so hard to establish. He quotes Captain Bob Wright as stating that

[t]he whole affair was a nightmare...trashing years of patient effort by hundreds of officers to present a new and different face of the U.S. military.

Even more than that, however, it is also clear that given the rise of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, many of the governments in the region would also be wary of having AFRICOM based on their soil. The reason, because regardless of the benefits it would provide them, it would also upon establishment make them a high level target for AQ. Morocco has already been hit a few times, so has Algeria and both are less than enthusiastic about the prospect of hosting AFRICOM. This even as the Pentagon has signaled that it may "'network' the command from several sites in Africa, rather than have a single headquarters," maybe as a means of spreading the pain.

In his piece in Esquire, Barnett cited one of Djibouti's reasons for hosting the CJTF-HOA as a means of balancing and curtailing the involvement of its neighbors. It can be argued that given its recent past, Sirleaf is giving us a hint that Liberia is willing to host AFRICOM for similar reasons. It will be interesting to see how this develops, and which countries eventually end up competing to host either a unitary command, or parts of a new "networked" command.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Monkey see, monkey do. Chavez has a channel, Ahmedinejad now has one too

Following Hugo Chavez, President Mahmud Ahmedinejad launches a 24-hour English-speaking Iranian channel, the aim which is to counter "the West's influence in covering news." The name of the channel is Press TV. It's website is up and running with RSS feeds, video streaming and radio services and mobile access (currently radio does not seem to work). I don't know if it is by design, but the website has an oddly familiar feel to it, sort of like a stripped down version of the BBC.

There is a larger question that emerges from all this. Both Iran, and Venezuela have launched English language channels, both using the same reasoning. Does this portend the rise of real "media wars"? That is, sensing a coming conflict with Washington, either over nuclear inspections, or in Chavez's case his fear that the US is "out to get him," can these channels be a means for them to influence the manner in which events are interpreted and perceived? Or are these countries right, are global news services primarily geared to and influenced by the West? It's an interesting question. I mean, on the one hand, yes, most global news channels/services are for the most part, Western based and oriented. The most important of these are of course, the BBC and CNN. In many instances, when watched from abroad (and this is one of the criticisms used by Chavez) people watching them in Latin America, for example, are likely to be more familiar with what is going on in DC, or Hollywood than in their own neighborhoods.

Chavez sought out funding and aid in establishing his channel, Telesur, from other Southern Cone countries, giving it some legitimacy, while Ahmedinejad established it on his own. Even so, the issues they bring up are legitimate, even if in this case they are not really addressing them. The question, given the rise of these services providing a non-Western viewpoint, is how can we promote them without at the same time allowing the most radical forces in these regions from hijacking them? That is, given the amount of support Telesur has received in South America, it is clear that Chavez has latched on to a winning issue. However, his aims are not those of Latin America, he wants the channel to push his own agenda, while the are just tired of hearing only what they perceive to be the "gringo" viewpoint. Aiding the creation of alternate media in Latin America that could provide a regional voice/viewpoint is one way we can counter Chavez and others like him. In addition, such media can play a positive role in their own regions by looking inward and tackling stories that national press/tv would not be able to touch. This would prevent, or at least make it harder, for any government to censor or curtail media freedoms within their own countries. A sort of al-jazeera effect, which although not the most pro-western of media in the Middle East, does share the distinction of having been banned from many Middle East countries due to its resistance to squelch criticism of the regimes in the region.

Just to clarify, I don't think that Press TV is a crowning achievement for freedom of the press in Iran or the Middle East, but I argue that we ought to recognize that the Western media's monopoly on information is going to erode over time. As such, we ought to begin thinking about how to promote alternate channels (native to each region) that will not fall prey to the whims of one government or movement. In other words, use the rise of alternatives to Western media as a means of integrating a positive feature into every region that requires it. After all, that is the driving force behind connectivity, making information available to as many people as possible, across boundaries and territorial demarcations; it is also one of the best forms of soft-power.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Blowback: PKK Introduces Use of IEDs Against Turkish Targets

Blowback from Iraq is already being felt in the region. Not only are insurgent tactics being exported to the Afghan battlefield by al Qaeda and adopted by the Taliban, but now, as Frank Hyland from the Jamestown Foundation reports, they are being used by the PKK in Turkey. What's more, as the report notes, the likelihood is very high that the parts for these IEDs originate within Iraq. In fact,

[b]asing and operating within Iraq also allows the PKK to train and deploy its members against Turkey from the sanctuary of a contiguous sovereign state, thereby at least slowing the military response, as is happening in this latest operation (Agence-France Presse, June 12). Iraq, of course, is also a crossroads and meeting place among trained members of al-Qaeda, as well as former members of the Saddam Hussein regime, who may be willing to impart knowledge of IED manufacturing on the PKK.

The reasons for the use, and success of IEDs is simple, "they are great equalizers." They allow the far smaller and weaker PKK to inflict considerable pain on the much larger, better trained and equipped Turkish military.

The use of these weapons is already taking a heavy toll on the Turkish military. Today it was reported that two more members of Turkey's security forces were killed in separate mine attacks blamed on the PKK. According to Hyland, though the latest, they are far from being the only such attacks. So far this month at least 14 members of Turkey's security forces have been killed, while 33 were killed in May. This even as the total number of attacks using IEDs has climbed to 30 in the last 6 months.

As seen from the above, this makes Turkey's recent raid into northern Iraq all the more understandable. Political pressure in Turkey continues to rise for an even larger invasion of northern Iraq to deal with the PKK threat. So far, Turkish leaders have resisted such a move, but seem to be preparing the ground for such an eventuality. Already there are reports that Turkey is seeking UN support for its right to self-defense, which would give it some latitude for military action in Iraq. In addition, Turkey has leased an Israeli UAV to aid it in combating the PKK. This even as Turkey's bid to join the EU has stalled, partly due to France's intervention, but also because its ongoing dispute with Cyprus and no doubt impacted by the crisis over the PKK.

Things are not looking good for us in the region. The PKK is continuing to cause trouble in Turkey, destabilizing one of Barnett's Seam states (not Gap, but not yet Core) undermining our own long-term objectives. Yet, there is little we can do, since currently, the Kurds are the only group in Iraq who actually want us there. That said, as pressure builds on Turkey to act, the US will have to act forcefully against the PKK or face a destabilized northern Iraq (in addition to the rest of the country) as Kurds will not take a Turkish invasion lightly. This is not news of course, as it has been reported elsewhere many times before. What is newsworthy here, are the tactics being imported from Iraq, of which the IEDs is the most prevalent. According to a recent reuters article, just this past weekend a PKK militant hijacked an oil tanker truck and blew it (and himself) up at a Turkish security post. Though the security guards escaped before the suicide bomber struck, the message is clear; this tactic is also making its way to Turkey.

It is clear from this, that in the post Iraq occupation world, these tactics are here to stay. Just as suicide bombings were pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, and later adopted by Palestinian suicice bombers, followed by al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents, so too will IED's live on long after the conflict or even groups that pioneered them have disappeared.

On a different note, the stalled process to allow Turkey to join the EU is not likely to help in moderating Turkey's response to the PKK. Quite the contrary, if Turkey begins to see that process as a wasted effort (something that is increasingly the case) then it will also cease taking European (or even American) reaction into account, particularly with an issue as emotional and explosive as the Kurdish question. That does not bode well for the future, for Turkey, or for us because in the long run, bringing Turkey into the EU was as much about rewarding a long-time NATO ally, as it was about providing the Muslim world with an example of how a Muslim population could move from the Gap to the Core.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Around the web (revised and updated)

As I mentioned in my last post due to some heavy workload and other matters, posting will be light till at least July. As such, I thought that I could at least scour the web (or my blogroll) for the most informative and interesting posts out there. Below is a list of these, each with a short summary for your convenience. Enjoy.

• Real Player video of Tom Barnett's C-SPAN interview discussing his new article in Esquire. The name of the article is The Americans Have Landed which looks at the Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. The interview itself is roughly 50 minutes long and Barnett addresses questions from callers to C-SPAN. As the blogger at Porkopolis bills it, it's Must See TV. As a final note, when loading the video scroll forward to the 1:11:00 mark which is when Tom makes his appearance.
  


• An update on the “third front”
  Continuing with the Africa theme, this next post comes from Ethan Zuckerman at My Heart's in Accra. It's an update on the state of our efforts on the Horn of Africa, or what Ethan aptly calls the third front in the long war. He also cites Barnett's article above recommending it for the context it provides to understanding the US's relationship with sub-Saharan Africa. Ethan focuses in part on the contradiction between the two strategies as outlined by Barnett, and which are currently being pursued in Africa;

  pound the crap out of any Al-Qaeda-connected forces in Somalia, and build long-term, trusting relationships with the people of the countries where they have bases, notably Djibouti and northern Kenya.

  
  Finally, Ethan also notes that it is interesting to see Barnett "confront the challenge of implementing his vision for military transformation."


• A planned result ?
  Badger at Missing Links has an interesting take on a recent interview given by Mohammed Dahlan (head of Fatah's security forces) who said in it that "Hamas "fell into a trap" laid by Israel." Badger ties this comment by Dahlan, to a recent post by Charles Levinson, at ConflictBlotter.com who reports from the region, that based on interviews with Fatah fighters it is clear that Fatah never fought and essentially handed over Gaza to Hamas. He theorizes that this whole thing may have been part of a larger strategy to isolate Hamas further (the trap), while allowing Fatah and Abbas to retain and gain legitimacy and support within the Arab world and beyond.
  
  Update
  
  I just came across this story in the Jerusalem Post that has the same claim but provides further context. According to the report, Hamas officials are saying that on the eve of major clashes, Abbas contacted Mashaal in Syria to let him know that Fatah would be surrendering the Gaza Strip to Hamas. Hamas is also saying that they were surprised by the victory, they claim, they were not seeking. Hamas, according to this story only sought to fight against a small element within the Fatah security forces that was causing them problems, and did not seek to eliminate Fatah from the Gaza Strip. In a Hamas official's own words, "[t]here was a conspiracy to create a crisis for Hamas," the official also denies that Hamas will seek to create a separate entity and government in the Gaza Strip (Islamic or otherwise), and stresses that they are seeking some sort of reconciliation with Fatah and a return to a unity government in the near future.


• 'Black Swans' Necessitate Resilience-Centric Strategy
  Art Hutchinson has a post citing a debate going on at mi2g on how black swan events drive organizations to "a resilient rather than an anticipatory strategic stance." The first article on the page points to the example of Cantor Fitzgerald post 9/11 and how despite loosing most of its workforce and US headquarters was able to resume market trading less than a week after the attack. Incidentally, Barnett recounts the story of how this was possible in The Pentagon's New Map. The article also talks about the main lessons to be derived from Cantor's tragedy, mainly, effective preparation and organizing corporate systems into heterarchies (decentralized) instead of hierarchies (centralized) which allowed the company to continue functioning despite its losses.


• Israel v. the US
  From Prof. Weinberg we get this post on the different approaches on dealing with the threat of terrorism. He goes from their differing perceptions of the civil liberties v. security debate to their different approaches to combating terrorism within their own soil. For example, he points to the fact that unlike the US, Israel does not have a national strategy or policy for combating terrorism which allows them more flexibility in addressing the threat. He also discusses our differing approaches to processing detainees, where Israel is more relaxed in allowing detainees (unlawful combatants) access to its court system than the US. This is not to say that Israel's approach is completely without fault, as we have seen, sometimes their more aggressive approach actually creates more problems for it than it solves. All in all a very interesting and a thought provoking post.


• "Asian Regionalism: Threat to the WTO-Based Trading System or Paper Tiger?" Mark Thoma at Economist View cites an article by Richard Pomfret at VoxEU on Regional Trade Agreements and how China has been using them to further its regional leadership aspirations, something he argues is not necessarily a bad thing, but can help further the WTO system.
  


• Why I wear the ridah
  This article is a bit more controversial from a Western point of view, particularly given the ongoing debates in Europe over Muslim women's use of the hijab. Aziz links to an article by an 18-year old Bohra woman in the UK named Tasneem bhen Yahya who argues that for some Muslim women, the veil is actually liberating. She argues in part that "It forces people to focus on the person, rather than the clothes they are wearing." She also speaks about the misperception in Western societies of what the veil represents, mainly an object of oppression of the Muslim woman. She argues that while in some instances, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and others where it is forced upon women, it can be an object of oppression, for women living in Britain, it reflects their faith, and liberates them from the focus on external appearances. In short, for her, it's her choice to wear it so to choose to do so is a liberating action. She also discusses the debate and how it affects her life and that of other Muslims in integrating into British society. It's an interesting read, one may not agree with her, but at least it provides a pretty good counterargument to the side of the debate we are all familiar with.


• IMF Report: “The Syrian economy did remarkably well in 2006″
  We get this from Joshua Landis' blog where he cites a recent IMF report on Syria's economic growth. According to the article, while government ministries remain inefficient, there is a consumer and building boom in Syria. Egyptian and Lebanese financial firms are setting up shop because due to high demand "Syrian economists are overstretched and cannot fulfill the demand for financial expertise." The post notes "Everyone is preparing for the stock market and companies are getting educated about going public."
  
  All in all a very interesting read, as it provides us with additional insight into what is going on in the region, something we sometimes miss by focusing solely on the threat of the Syrian-Iranian alliance. It sure looks like Syria is opening itself up to the global economy, that can only be a good thing.


• Black Holes Renamed 'Super High Gravity Locations'
  Finally, for a little light-hearted humor we get this from the Daily Redundancy, The Standard of Excellence in Pseudojournalism This story parodies the excesses of Political Correctness. The killer quote, referring to the need to rename the term, black hole, "the unimaginable destructive power of these super high gravity locations was giving the word 'black' a negative connotation throughout the universe."

Read More...

Snippet only...

Personal observations on Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Torture and the War on Terror

I just finished reading Seymour Hersh's new piece in The New Yorker, and I’m still trying to digest it. To say the least, it is disturbing and raises a lot of questions about not only Abu Ghraib but the system we are still using to process detainees, not so much in Iraq anymore but in the larger war on terror.

According to Hersh, Gen. Taguba, the two-star general who was tasked with investigating the torture at Abu Ghraib, has been forced to retire from the army. Though no reason was officially given, he was just told in January 2006 that he should retire by January 2007, Gen. Taguba suspects this had to do with his role as the lead investigator of torture at Abu Ghraib. Hersh's piece makes clear that following his report, Gen. Taguba was ostracized by both the military and civilian leadership in the Pentagon. People who had once been close friends became distant and cold. A promising career was halted and Gen. Taguba, who had been scheduled to rotate to the Third Army’s headquarters at Fort McPherson, Georgia in June 2004, following his report on torture at Abu Ghraib was instead reassigned to work in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. By most accounts, this was a lateral assignment, something later confirmed to Gen. Taguba by a retired four-star general who told him that he had been transferred there so he could “be watched.” Even more alarming, is a conversation between Gen. Taguba and Gen. Abizaid (head of Centcom) a few weeks after the report came out, where Gen. Abizaid reportedly told Gen. Taguba that “You and your report will be investigated,” meaning that Gen. Taguba was now the problem and not the torture at Abu Ghraib.

When I first heard of Gen. Taguba and how well he performed in his role investigating torture at Abu Ghraib, I remember thinking that he deserved a promotion. Having uncovered heinous torture at the prison, he did not seek to hide it, but rather confronted it head on and recommended punishment for those responsible. As a proud American, that is what I want to see in the leadership of our country, people who did not shy away from the ugly truth, from our own failings by trying to minimize them but rather confronted them and addressed them to ensure that they would never happen again. To me, Gen. Taguba represented that type of leadership. That is why I find this story so troubling. This is particularly true given what has transpired since then, when one of the main problems we have found in our leadership has been their inability to face the harsh reality on the ground, and their penchant for painting rosy pictures of events. That was one of the main criticisms leveled even at the President until very recently when he finally began admitting that things h