Friday, July 04, 2008

Gong Fu Xiong Mao

I went to see Kung Fu Panda last night.  Great stuff, go see it if you haven’t already.

One bit of useless trivia:  the Kung Fu master, played by Dustin Hoffman, is named “Shi Fu.” This, in Chinese, means skilled worker, and is a respectful way to refer to taxi drivers, tradesmen, and other working-class types.  Of course, in Chinese the word “shi” is pronounced like a cross between “shuh” and “shurr,” whereas in the movie they pronounced it “shee.”

If they wanted to be technical, they would have named him “Lao Shi.” This is the word for “teacher.” The word lao means old, wise, or experienced.  Shi means teacher or master.  So “Lao Shi” would be a wise master.

Oh, and the title to this post is how you say “Kung Fu Panda” in Chinese.  Gong Fu is self explanatory, and xiong mao means “bear cat.”

Face Time

He’s done a lot of bad shit while in office, but I completely support President Bush over his China policies.

President Bush will attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing, the White House said Thursday, quashing any talk of a presidential boycott over China’s violent crackdown on Buddhist monks.

The White House had been reluctant to confirm Bush’s plans for the opening event, although there was no doubt he would attend the Olympic Games. While other world leaders have talked of boycotting the Aug. 8 opening ceremonies, Bush’s aides have signaled for weeks he was unlikely to do so.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush will travel in August to South Korea, Thailand and China and will attend the opening ceremonies of the games with first lady Laura Bush. The specific dates of travel were not released.

And here’s the important part.

In China, Bush will meet with President Hu Jintao. A key focus will be the six-country effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons capability. Then the president and the first lady will attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, Perino said.

That’s the clincher.  If we want to get something from the Chinese we can’t very well ask them to do so after we’ve shown them such a loss of face on the world stage.

Critics of China have said if Bush were to avoid the opening ceremony, it would send a powerful signal of international anger over China’s violent response to demonstrating Buddhist monks in Tibet in March.

No it wouldn’t.  In a country with a free press, where people are subject to a group of divergent opinions, it may have a powerful impact.  In China, where the government controls the media, it will be spun as “Barbarian foreigners refuse to show China the respect it deserves.”

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Guessing Game

Okay, let’s have a little fun.  This is for those readers who are not literate in Chinese.  See if you can guess what these two sentences mean.  They’re a very famous line from a movie.

Note that the two sentences are exactly the same except for one character.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Not Too Shǎ Bī, huh?

One of my greatest finds so far:  ProfaneChinese.com.  Every filthy disgusting thing you could ever want to know about Mandarin Chinese.  Let us now take a moment and contemplate the word bī, pronounced like “bee” but in a high, flat tone.

This week, our Chinese swear word is bī, which means vagina (vulva, specifically). However, it does not have the clinical feeling that the word ‘vagina’ has in English. In fact, bī is one of the rudest swear words in Chinese, and can get you into big trouble. But it can also be good vulgar fun. Let’s see how.

It gets pretty raunchy from this point on, so if you’re at work, or the kiddies are around, or you’re so repressed that you find these words offending, then don’t click below.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Loss of Face

My benevolent communist overlords have, for some reason, blocked access to Facebook.  Your guess is as good as mine.

Pirates of the Communism

Some coworkers and I went to a new DVD shop tonight after work.  With the Olympics so close many of the DVD shops in town have either gone out of business or temporarily gone legit, actually stocking the shelves with legal Chinese DVDs.  Once the games are over they’ll all go back to selling the bootlegs, but government is making sure that tourists aren’t stopped going back to their home countries with armloads of DVDs.  The store we went to tonight is in the back of a dress shop, you walk through the shop and go into a little room in the back, full of DVDs. 

I got 19 individual DVDs, as well as some boxed sets:  A collection of every Cohen Brothers film; Season 4 of Boston Legal; and Seasons 1-3 of Battlestar Gallactica. 

Assuming an average cost of $15 the individual discs would cost me $285.  According to Amazon.com the Battlestar sets would cost me $123.  Boston Legal is $42, and it’s only available on pre-order.  A rough estimate, based on various individual prices on Amazon, puts the Cohen Brothers set at about $300.  Total for all purchases:  $450.  Add in sales tax of 8% and we have a grand total of $486.  Click below to see what I paid.

Monday, June 30, 2008

The Last Hero

Wow.  There’s nothing more I can add to this story.  Just read it.

You Mei You Yingwen Caidan?

One of the great things about Chinese restaurants is the creative way in which they name dishes.  You’ll find menu items called things like “Feast of One Hundred Happinesses” or “The Dog’s Leftovers.” Unlike menus in the west, Chinese menus almost never include a description of what is in the dish, just the Chinese characters and (occasionally) an English translation.  This is all well and good if you are Chinese and know what these dishes are made from, but if you’re an ignorant barbarian lao wei like me you’re screwed.  With the Olympics just over a month away the government, in their quest to strip everything unique and interesting out of the city before the fat assed tourists arrive for the games, has released a list of suggested translations for these types of dishes.  Here’s a few of the funnier ones.

清蒸童子鸡: Steamed Spring Chicken. This is the dish annoyingily oft referred to as steamed “chicken without a sexual life.” A translator with grace who was trying to keep it literal would probably use “virgin chicken” (more as in the sense of not having reached adulthood). “Chicken without a sexual life” is as deliberately awkward a translation as going up to a bartender and ordering a drink “margarita without a sexual life.”

This was one of the first weird menu items I saw here.  I just about wet myself laughing.

蚂蚁上树: Sautéed Vermicelli with Spicy Minced Pork. Literally it is “ants climb up a tree,” a metaphorical name. Before people snicker, stop and think about “pigs in a blanket.”

One of the restaurants near my office has “ants climbing up a tree” on the menu, it’s actually quite good.  Just imagine noodles with little bits of pork on them, it looks just like ants on a tree.

口水鸡: “Steamed Chicken with Chili Sauce.” Literally, “saliva chicken,” or more colloquially “chicken which causes you to salivate.”

One of the other restaurants near my office has this on the menu, only they call it “Sichuan Slobber Chicken.” If you look at the characters in the beginning of this name, the first is kǒu and means “mouth.” The second, shuǐ, means “water.” When you put them together in a sentence they mean “saliva.” The last character, jī, means “chicken.” What’s interesting about that is that the English term “mouth-watering” would be both a more literal and descriptively accurate substitution—Mouth-Watering Chicken. 

Click the link and check out the list, there’s some really funny stuff in there.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Ask the Professor

Yale University professor Jonathan Spence, a leading scholar of China, discusses the future of China.

The West’s consensus view is that so long as the economy keeps hauling millions of people out of poverty, the Communist Party can survive in power.

Its challenges are enormous. Twenty million people enter the job market each year and need to be found work.

A recent increase in local-level protests suggests millions more feel left behind by growth so far, and resentful. There is simmering popular anger about official corruption and environmental damage.

Yet the biggest challenge will be political.

Can China’s authoritarian leaders, who have risen to the pinnacle of a one-party state, be prevailed upon to accept competing visions of how the country should be governed, and even share power?

And can they do so before the tensions being stoked by such unprecedented social and economic upheaval become overwhelming?

Prof Spence does not ignore the risks, but sees more grounds for optimism.

He points to the ballooning number of university graduates, the emergence of grassroots civil groups, and the vast improvement in the education levels of top leaders as evidence that change will have to come.

“The whole idea of representation is being explored. Remember China had a hard time with representative government, which fell apart under the warlord era [in 1915].

“China is backtracking into the past, looking for ways of making changes. We could wish they changed much faster, but we should be glad they are changing at the speed they are,” he says.

Happy people don’t revolt.  The government has to keep the people happy, with continued prosperity and security.  I also thought this observation was interesting.

Mr Spence hints that while British traders were there first, it is now only the US which realises China’s future potential.

“In the UK, one gets the sense that people think it’s just another country,” he says.

This is fascinating considering that many European nations, including the UK, are going to boycott the opening ceremonies.  Bush has said he will attend, and I’ve written that I think this is an exceptionally good idea.  Ignore China at your peril.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Greasy Palms

I want to clarify one point, too, that I made in this post, where I welcomed the return of bribery once the Olympics are finished.

This is predicated on the lack of a functioning court system.  It’s like the difference between a free market and a black market.  In a free market you have a means of conflict resolution—the legal system.  If Microsoft and Google have a dispute over something, one party takes the other to court, it doesn’t send a hit squad over to kill the board of directors of its rival.  Even in a world political sense there are organizations like the World Trade Organization.  If one country thinks another has imposed unfair trade restrictions it doesn’t have to invade, it files a grievance with the WTO. 

In China there is a court system, and you can sue someone, but it’s not like anything we have in the western world.  The entire system of western justice is predicated on the concept of a dispassionate judicial system, willing to mete out decisions fairly, with a proper system of appeals to redress grievances.  There’s nothing really like that here. 

It’s like in a black market.  Think of the drug trade.  If the bloods and the crips have a dispute over who is going to sell crack in a particular neighborhood they can’t take each other to court, because selling drugs is illegal, and thus the drug trade is a black market.  Violence is the only option, so they shoot each other.  The same goes with the mafia, or with kiddie porn, or with any other illegal activity.  There are no legal means of conflict resolution.

In a black market you have two options, you either use violence or you bribe.  Here in China there is no dispassionate system of conflict resolution via the courts.  Thus if you have a problem you are left with the same two means of conflict resolution, violence or bribery.  Because of the authoritarian nature of life in China, violence isn’t an option, unless you are willing to subject yourself to swift retribution by the state.  Thus all you are left with is bribery.

So, if the choices are a thoroughly politicized court system, where rulings are based less on law than on party whims, I say, “Bring back the bribery!” At least people will be able to get visas again.

A Little Historical Context

Think back to your American history class in high school.  Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, said that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism.

Consider the last sentence:  “Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism.” We’ll be referring back to it later.

Next, think of the Spanish American War.

The Spanish-American War was a military conflict between Spain and the United States that began in April 1898. Hostilities halted in August of that year, and the Treaty of Paris was signed in December.

The war began after the American demand for Spain’s peacefully resolving the Cuban fight for independence was rejected, though strong expansionist sentiment in the United States may have motivated the government to target Spain’s remaining overseas territories: Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and the Caroline Islands.

Riots in Havana by pro-Spanish “Voluntarios” gave the United States a reason to send in the warship USS Maine to indicate high national interest. Tension among the American people was raised because of the explosion of the USS Maine, and “yellow journalism” that accused Spain of extensive atrocities, agitating American public opinion. The war ended after decisive naval victories for the United States in the Philippines and Cuba.

Only 109 days after the outbreak of war, the Treaty of Paris, which ended the conflict, gave the United States ownership of the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam.

Think of how strategically important these islands were during WWII.  Even completely insignificant islands like Midway and Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima became prized strategic and geopolitical assets for both the Allies and the Japanese as refueling stations and bases from which attacks could be launched.  Think of how many lives were lost in the battles over these areas, on both sides.  While Midway and Iwo Jima might have been otherwise worthless territory, they were geopolitically and strategically priceless, and any amount of blood spilled to control them would be worth the cost.

Now, consider the actions of Turkey during WWII.

Throughout the World War II Turkey was neutral just until towards the end of the war when the Allied forces advanced in Germany then Turkey supported the Allied forces economically and politically. However, Turkey did not participate in any military activities throughout the war. They did support other countries with military supplies.

Turkey, as you may know, is a member of NATO and has been since its creation.  Consider Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

In other words, an attack on any member of a NATO country will be considered an attack on all the members, who can and will use retaliatory force.  Clearly this was directed at the USSR—if you attack any member state then you have to deal with the other members, namely the US and UK and other major military powers.  However, why Turkey?  It did nothing during WWII to really earn a place at the table.  If it looked like Nazi Germany was going to win they would likely have allied themselves with the Germans.  So why did we pay such great deference to Turkey?  Simple geopolitics.

Consider the world during the time of the Cold War.  Here is a map of the region that comprised the Soviet Union.  Look down in the bottom left corner, where the USSR borders the Middle East.  This is where, on a modern map, you will find the country of Georgia, which was previously a satellite state of the USSR.  Bordering Georgia are two countries, Turkey and Iran.

What is immediately to the south of Turkey and Iran?  Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and a whole shitload of oil.

Turkey is in NATO for one reason and one reason alone—to act as a buffer zone between the USSR and the oil.  If Turkey had not been made a member of NATO the Soviets could have invaded it, then rolled the tanks right down into the Middle East and captured the oil supplies there.  Thus Turkey was given consideration far and above what it had really earned as a nation simply because of geopolitical concerns.  Not only did the west want to prevent the USSR from getting at Middle Eastern oil, we wanted to make sure that we had unfettered access to the supplies, which necessitated our cozying up to the House of Saud and other deplorable regimes.

What about Iran?  The Shah was in power from 1941 onwards.  However, there was an oil-based threat from Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

In the early 1950s, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence agencies. In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy, and to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry, which was controlled by the British. From the start he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. However, during these events, the Americans supported the British, and, fearing that the Communists with the help of the Soviets were poised to overthrow the government, they decided to remove Mossadegh.

After a CIA-backed coup in 1953 Mossagdeh was assassinated.  Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even admitted it in 2000.

“In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

Of course, in typical Clintonian fashion, she blames Iranian “resent” on this incident, when the reality is, of course, vastly more complicated.  Nonetheless, in the Shah we had an ally an an anti-communist.  At the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution the US was fulfilling an order for a class of destroyers based on the Spruance class hull design.  (I was a sailor on a Spruance class destroyer, the USS Hayler, DD-997.) After the revolution the US Navy assumed these ships and they became the Kidd class.  However, considering their original destination, sailors still refer to them as “Ayatollah Class” destroyers.

The Kidd class destroyers were decommissioned in the 1990s.  In a sign of the geopolitical circle of life, they were sold to Taiwan in 2001.  What goes around comes around.

How does all this come together?  The Monroe Doctrine established the principle that we would, in essence, establish a buffer zone in which we would not allow any outside interference from other nations.  During the Cold War we expanded this to prevent Central and South America from communist influence.  Remember when Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada?  It was based on this doctrine.

On March 13, 1979 the New Jewel Movement under Maurice Bishop launched a revolution against the government of Eric Gairy to establish a people’s provisional [i.e. communist] government. The new government suspended the constitution and began to rule by decree. All other political parties were banned and no elections were ever held. Internationally, the government quickly aligned itself with Cuba and other communist governments. Under Bishop, Grenada began a military build-up.

The government also began constructing an international airport with the help of Canada, Mexico and other nations. In March 1983 U.S. President Ronald Reagan called this runway evidence of “Soviet-Cuban militarization” and a potential threat to the United States.  Pointing to the 9,000-foot (2,700 m) runway and the oil storage tanks, he asserted that these were unnecessary for commercial flights, and could only mean that the airport was to become a Cuban-Soviet airbase.

In other words, the tiny nation could have been used as a refueling station for Soviet bombers should WWIII ever commence.  We declared certain areas off limits to enemy influence, and were willing to use force to keep it that way.  With Turkey, by including them in NATO we expanded our sphere of influence to the very border of the USSR, guaranteeing that the Soviets would not have access to the oil that their economy so desperately needed.

Everyone with me so far?  Good.

I bring this up because last night I was having a discussion with my friend about this very subject, geopolitical spheres of influence and such.  Then the subject of Tibet came up, and I remembered this article that I blogged on the other day.  Consider:

At the same time that Mao was fighting the civil war, he was also laying the groundwork for taking control of the buffer regions. Interestingly, his first moves were designed to block Soviet interests in these regions. Mao moved to consolidate Chinese communist control over Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, effectively leveraging the Soviets out. Xinjiang had been under the control of a regional war lord, Yang Zengxin. Shortly after the end of the civil war, Mao moved to force him out and take over Xinjiang. Finally, in 1950 Mao moved against Tibet, which he secured in 1951.

The rapid-fire consolidation of the buffer regions gave Mao what all Chinese emperors sought, a China secure from invasion. Controlling Tibet meant that India could not move across the Himalayas and establish a secure base of operations on the Tibetan Plateau. There could be skirmishes in the Himalayas, but no one could push a multi-divisional force across those mountains and keep it supplied. So long as Tibet was in Chinese hands, the Indians could live on the other side of the moon. Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria buffered China from the Soviet Union. Mao was more of a geopolitician than an ideologue. He did not trust the Soviets. With the buffer states in hand, they would not invade China. The distances, the poor transportation and the lack of resources meant that any Soviet invasion would run into massive logistical problems well before it reached Han China’s populated regions, and become bogged down—just as the Japanese had.

We in the west love to drive around with our FREE TIBET bumper stickers on our gas guzzling vehicles, when the fact is that China is merely doing exactly the same thing, from a geopolitical standpoint at least, that we did with Turkey and Grenada.  A Tibet under Chinese control gives China a buffer zone between the PRC and India, a democratic state with strong ties to the US.  Imagine, from a Chinese perspective, a free Tibet. It would be a total disaster, opening up China to possible invasion should a war ever break out over, say, Taiwan.  If the Chinese were to withdraw from the region, aid and attention from all over the world would pour into it.  So would troops from the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and many other nations under the auspices of UN peacekeeping.  Even if Tibet never became a democracy per se it would be like opening the door to your house when there’s a murderer in your front yard.  In the event of rising hostilities, the US could have a whole division parked inside India within a matter of a few weeks, right on the border, and then China goes from fighting a one front war to a two front war.  If you add in the possibility of an invasion or blockade of China’s eastern coast and they immediately place their army in an almost unwinnable situation.

In short, from a geopolitical standpoint, the Chinese would have to be fucking insane to ever withdraw from Tibet.  And, from that same geopolitical standpoint, they’re doing nothing substantially different than what the United States has done for the past 150 years or so.

Now, you can certainly argue with China’s techniques, that’s open to fair criticism.  (And I’m hardly drawing some kind of equal parallel between communism and representative republican democracy.) But, if criticizing China’s methods is fair game, then so is the history of the US cozying up to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, and other areas.  None of the aforementioned areas had (or have) what you’d call stellar human rights records, either, but we didn’t press the issue because of the geopolitical significance that these areas represented.  For China, Tibet is very much their Turkey or Philippines, a buffer through which they can guarantee their own security.

Remember the sentence from the beginning of the post:  “Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism.” Think of the word “communism” as “political ideology antithetical to its beliefs.” What you have is a justification for intervention in a foreign nation to stop the spread of a political ideology antithetical to America’s beliefs.  In Tibet, China is doing more or less exactly the same thing.

Consider, too, what happened to the USSR once the magic of “democracy” was introduced.  Rather than solving all their problems and ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity the country splintered.  Look at all those former Soviet Republics—many of them are now members of NATO, and many others are what are referred to as “allied partners.” Thus, from a geopolitical standpoint, the buffer zone of Russia has been substantially weakened.  Not only that, but their economy went completely into the shitter, and the rule of the mob began as former government elements began operating in the underworld, creating the rise of the Russian Mafia.  The people, seeing that democracy was not the magical panacea that they had always been told, have turned back to strong, authoritarian leaders like Putin.  Stalin is the most admired of all the former heads of state.  They may have been poor but they were secure, and they were once a mighty nation.  Now they are still more or less poor, their status on the world stage has been emasculated, and because of the loss of the buffer zones and the expansion of NATO that prior status will likely never be regained.

China is in almost exactly the same boat that the USSR once was.  It, however, still has its buffer zones.  Unlike the USSR, China had a leader with foresight in Deng Xiaoping, who saw the need for foreign engagement in order to strengthen China.  (Upon assuming power Deng purged all of Mao’s old loyalists and installed his own, which set China down the path that it is on today.) If China were to democratize, its fate would likely be almost identical to that of the USSR.  Unlike the Russians, China has an economy which is exploding, a booming middle class (at least in the cities), and stands on the verge of taking the place that the USSR once held.

Why, from a geopolitical standpoint, would the Chinese people want to bite the hand that is currently feeding them so well?  ("Well," of course, being a comparative term to what their lives were like, say, 20 years ago.) You can perhaps view it as a billion and a half people with a collective case of Stockholm Syndrome, but it can’t be denied that just a couple of decades ago things were really, really bad, and now things are an order of magnitude better.

Just a little food for thought.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The China I Know

There is a must-read article on China in The New Republic.  This part echoes points I have made here many times before.

At home, if the government cannot have Western approval, it can make stone soup out of disapproval by playing the criticisms as an attack on the pride of the nation. This official attitude was well expressed in a book that Chen Guangcheng’s persecutor, Li Qun, published in 2004, well before the Olympic controversies had reached high pitch. During his studies at New Haven University in 2000, Li Qun did an internship in the office of Mayor John DeStefano Jr., and after his return he published a book unforgettably titled I Was a Mayor’s Assistant in America. He described his studies in America as a “political test” that confirmed his confidence in the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics. “Most Americans,” Li wrote, “are friendly to China, although they do not understand it very well. But a small group of politicians strike the banners of democracy and human rights to critique us constantly by their own standards, distort things, and interfere with our domestic affairs. Their real purpose is not to protect the so-called human rights but to use this pretext to influence and limit China’s healthy economic growth and to prevent China’s wealth and power from threatening their world hegemony.”

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of Li’s sentiments, clichéd though they are, or the degree to which they represent the views of many Chinese inside China and out. Coming to the United States and seeing how things work here does not necessarily shake the faith of Chinese officials, or students, in their country’s way of doing things. Quite remarkably, and in general for the better, tens of thousands of Chinese students have returned home from the West to play their willing roles in academia, the media, business, and other sectors, accepting subordination to the ruling party and its national project.

Past commenters have mentioned the number of Chinese who have immigrated to America.  In response I’ve pointed out how many of these Chinese have chosen to repatriate themselves and move back here.  This article explains why. 

We in the west have this idea that “democracy = freedom.” This shows just how wrong we are in assuming that this definition is universally accepted.

T-Shirts of Sherwood Forest

Saw a great t-shirt on a girl as I was walking in to work today.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Wo De Ming Zi Shi “Patsy”

Well, someone had to take the blame.

Twelve officials have been fired by the Chinese government for their handling of the earthquake that struck the country last month.

They were sacked for dereliction of duty and misuse of relief supplies following the Sichuan quake on 12 May.

The anti-corruption department received 1,178 complaints explosing “misuse of tents, food and other relief supplies”, said Supervision Minister Ma Wen.

A further 31 officials were reprimanded by the department.

“Some [complaints] revealed the slow reaction and poor ability of a few cadres,” Ms Ma added.

A few cadres.  Not an endemic problem with centralized government, but with a few bad apples.  My favorite bit comes at the end.

The central leadership has warned that their party’s own survival depends on its ability to curb corruption.

Uh, no.  Corruption is a way of life here.  Without corruption nothing would get done.  Corruption is efficient.  Rather than dicking around with some massive bureaucracy somewhere you grease a few palms and BINGO! your problem is solved.  No, the long term stability of the party depends on their ability to keep the people happy, to keep the wages rising and the quality of life along with it, to provide Playsyations and XBoxes and iPods and fake designer clothing.  This is what the people want, and as long as the government can maintain that way of life they’ve got no real troubles.  It seems to me that bribery isn’t inconsistent with reform, only because this is the way that things have been done for so long it’s the only way people know how to get anything done.  If you want something you ask around if anyone “knows a guy.” Ultimately someone will, and you’ll be introduced to him in a near ceremonial manner.  “I present this new client to you.  Please give me face by giving him a good deal.” That’s how it works.  If someone gets a kickback for the business they bring in all the better.

Weeding corruption out of Chinese government is as futile as trying to pick the seeds out of a really bad bag of marijuana.  After the stems and seeds are gone there’s nothing of substance left, and you think “I paid 200 yuan for this crap?” That will be the experience of a corruption-free China.  It will be a nightmare for both the people and the government.

Better to return to a sustained, monitored, and manageable level of corruption, which will provide the people with the only real means they’ve ever known by which they can obtain the things they need.  Separating corruption in China is like trying to get drinking banned in Las Vegas, the city just won’t work without it.

I say bring on the corruption.  Once you learn whose palms to grease your life becomes infinitely better, and far preferable to the 10 hour waiting lines that the non-bribery suckers have to put up with.  (My company hired someone to stand in line for me all day. Then, as it came close to my turn, they sent a text message to one of the girls in the office who said, “Quickly, we must go to the PSB (Public Security Bureau).” I didn’t have to wait for anything, it was awesome, we walked in, found our line holder, and were in and out in 10 minutes.

Bribery is the cement that binds society together.  Without it people will be slaves to the state even more than they are now, and slaves to the state are not a happy populace.  The next few years, starting with the period after the games, are going to define China’s future.  Let’s hope they do it the right way. 

Update: Just had another thought.  At least Hu Jintao didn’t call in his disaster relief guy and say, “You’re doing a heckuva job, Zhang Zhang.”

Clash of Civilizations

Here’s Petey the Policeman, from another restaurant.

In case you can’t make it out the English text says PLEASE BEHAVE IN A CIVILISED MANNER.  Somehow I think the word “please” doesn’t really mean much.

(And that’s not a typo, it’s the way those pinko commie Brits spell “civilized.")