Silicon Hutong

Tiers for China - What about America

Window Seat, Starbucks Pacific Place

Star Wars Battlefront vs. Star Wars Lego

1409 hrs.

Tom Limongello tossed a thoughtful Twitter query at Kaiser Kuo a few minutes ago - what would we consider a fourth-tier city in the US. 

I've spent the last few minutes staring at a list of the US Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and thinking about differences between China and the US (the things that make a first tier city different from a fourth tier city in the US are far more subtle than those differences in China), I look at the list and roughly figure the following:

• First Tier - Top 25 cities 
• Second Tier - 26-50
• Third Tier - 51-100
• Fourth Tier - 100-150
• Fifth Tier - 150-380
• Sixth Tier - 380 and below

Take a look at the list. My breaks are partly arbitrary, but you can see real differences - objective and subjective - between those tiers.

Thoughts?

U.S. protests China's Regional Diplomacy: Hello, teakettle? This is pot. You're black.

In the Hutong

Marveling at the amazing weather

1024 hrs.

In somewhat less confrontational way than hid predecessor might have, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates chided China for creating a regional political alliance - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - and excluding the United States from its ranks. He told those assembled at an Asian security conference:

"It can only succeed if we treat the region as a single entity. There is little room for a separate 'East Asian' order."

We here in the Hutong are largely sympathetic to Mr. Gates' point. At the same time, we wonder how the folks in Washington might feel if Beijing were to suggest that there is little room for a separate Pan-American order, i.e., the Organization of American States, in which the US is a participant and China amere observer), or indeed, a separate North Atlantic order (NATO, where China doesn't have a seat at any table.)

Whatever the merits of Gates' argument, he needs to understand that in the context of America's own diplomacy, his words sound more than a tad disingenuous to many people in Beijing.

Wisdom before Passion: David Mamet on American Politics

The Silicon Hutong Suite, Singapore
Contemplating a hotel without room service
1822 hrs.

If you are getting caught up in the frenzy of the US elections and all of the triumphalism around Eliot Spitzer's spectacular self-destruction, you might share my despair at the partisan grease pit back into which American politics are sliding.

David Mamet offers some salve in his article "Why I am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'" in The Village Voice. Mamet makes a reasoned and subtle appeal for a more even-headed approach to the world.

I could probably write a similar article "Why I Am No Longer a 'Cold-Hearted Conservative'," but I'd rather read my own political evolution into Mamet's writing.

A Tale of Two Actresses

In the Hutong
In search of a pain reliever
2027 hrs.

Whatever you may think about the relative merits of entertainers leaping from the screen and onto the world stage, we were treated this week to a profound contrast in the styles and approaches of two young actresses.

Exhibit A is Marion Cotillard, the 32-year-old French actress who won the Academy Award for Best Actress a little over a week ago for her apparently inspired performance as Edith Piaf (yes, I too am a philistine and had to Google it) in La Vie en Rose. In an interview from a year ago broadcast on a French website, she proclaimed that the 9/11 attacks were a hoax manufactured by the US government for political ends, and that the twin towers were demolished because they were obsolete.

Without supporting or debating the veracity of Ms. Cotillard's claims, suffice to say that we here in the Hutong appreciate a good conspiracy theory in the same way we appreciate good science fiction - great stuff with which to tickle the frontal lobes, maybe even ask a few hard questions. But as most bloggers learn fairly quickly, when one takes a public stand that is in direct opposition to popular perception, one had best be very, very sure of one's facts and be prepared to support one's stand through effort and action. Sadly, Ms. Cotillard goes no further than voicing an opinion that begs for support.

Exhibit B is Angelina Jolie, also 32, also an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for 1999's Girl, Interrupted) who in her capacity as goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees decided that rather than snuggle up to the armchair activist crowd, she'd hop on a plane and head for Iraq and see what was going on. From her Thursday op/ed in the Washington Post:

"My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis."

She continues:

"As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part fo the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible."

Her conclusions are hardly those of an expert, and her focus is exclusively on the issue of the 2.5 million Iraqi refugees for whom she seeks repatriation. More than one pundit has questioned her qualifications to speak on behalf of all of the troops deployed in Iraq. Nonetheless, they are startling because they come from an unexpected source, and because of the inevitable reverberations they will send through celebrity salons on both coasts - not least the circles in which she and husband Brad Pitt circulate.

(For the record, I don't feel qualified to make a call on Iraq either way, so I won't.)

Again, leave aside your own opinions on the specific matters at hand. To me what is germane is the difference in approach. Two young women, each given the opportunity because of fame earned on the screen to voice their opinions on larger matters to their audiences, chose to make use of their bully pulpits in incredibly different ways. One chose to make the kind of flippant, uninformed remark more appropriate to a conversation with close friends. The other chose to take the time and risk to journey to someplace she could learn more, then share her thoughts and findings - whatever they're worth - with others.

Regardless of what you may think about Ms. Jolie, her motivations, the appropriateness of her remarks, or her qualifications to even make them, you must applaud her quest to learn a little something of the subject before volunteering so public an opinion.

A wise old sergeant once told me: "Wolf, opinions are like a**holes: everyone's got one, and they all stink."

The only way I would dare to correct that is to say that the more informed your opinion, the less it stinks. That is the lesson I will take from Ms. Cotillard and Ms. Jolie.

Who Got Your Vision?

East Third Ring Road
Dreaming of coffee
0859 hrs.

The one upside to Beijing traffic is that it gives you an opportunity to have some interesting conversations.

This morning's topic: America and China.

The guy that I was talking to had an interesting theory. He believes that what defines a civilization is the source of its vision.

"In America," he said, after a long talk about the current presidential race there, "your businessmen have dreams and great vision and operate accordingly. But your leaders are preoccupied with the present, grabbing votes, staying popular.

"In China, it is different," he went on. "Our government leaders are the ones with the great dreams and vision, and our businessmen are preoccupied with the present, grabbing as much money as they can now, and to hell with the future."

Like all searing generalizations, this one is suspect. But it deserves some contemplation. What I liked best is what he said next.

"Now, a nation where both the government leaders and the businessmen are people of vision...THAT is a truly great country."

Innovation: Ferment not Foment

In the Hutong
It's quiet...too quiet
1252 hrs.

In a post entitled "R&D in China" that is old but by no means dated, Enterra Solutions' Steve Angelis (annotating Geoff Dwyer's excellent roundup piece on innovation in China) takes us on a walk through what stands between China and Hu Jintao's goal of "independent innovation."

In so doing, he hones in on what is probably the single most critical - and difficult - challenge: China lacks an academic establishment capable of fostering and driving world-class research.

Both authors note that simply focusing on the research end of the educational process won't work. From kindergarten through graduate school, emphasis has to shift from neo-Confucian rote learning and theory to "problem solving" and "working as a team." Not to mention, of course, rewarding true excellence rather than obsequiousness, and teaching and rewarding academic integrity.

Unfortunately, the suggestion that in order to encourage innovation there must be a complete free flow of ideas is a non-starter. That kind of rhetoric scares the hell out of China's leaders - the minute you suggest educational reform and "free flow of ideas" in the same sentence, you are immediately tuned out. Innovation is nice, they feel, but not at the expense of stability. Return to square one.

Western thinkers are polarizing the issue, and we are doing so for our own selfish reasons. What nobody has suggested is that if free flows of information were allowed - but with some very clear areas where open discussion (i.e., politics, pornography, etc) was restricted - China could build an innovation-fertile culture. There might be, in other words, a middle ground between the Soviet Confucianism that seems to dictate China's current academic philosophy and the "anything goes" approach popular in U.S. and European universities over the last four decades.

That kind of thinking is repugnant to Westerners. The idea of encouraging a wider - but still limited - flow of ideas and information in China smacks most of us like Chamberlain selling out Czechoslovakia.

The result, however, is a nation that is economically vibrant and academically stagnant, a place where you find the great minds of the nation not in its universities, but in the arrival halls of its international airports, returning from abroad with educations and experience they should have received at home.

Perhaps you are not comforted by the thought of an innovative China: there are plenty of people out there who are secretly happy with China doing the grunt work while others hang on to the intellectual property, and would be quite pleased to see things stay that way.

But we must recognize that our own all-or-nothing political orthodoxy about the flow of information and ideas does nothing to help China find a safe way into its future. If we genuinely want to see the Chinese people - and not just a privileged few - continue to prosper with a reasonable expectation of improving lifestyles, we need to find approaches that will bring Chinese education into the 21st century in a way that invigorates the system without rending the very fabric of Chinese society.

Cross-post: Nations of Outlaws

"A Nation of Outlaws: A century ago, that wasn't China -- it was us" by Stephen Mihm, The Boston Globe, August 26, 2007 

I have been occasionally branded a "sinopoligist" for my attempts to put some of China's more niggling problems into historical context.

When people preach self-righteously about corruption in China, for example, I like to note that Teddy Roosevelt spent much of the late 19th century trying to clean up the New York City Police Department and was largely successful at the time. Not that long ago, indeed, especially when you remember that three-quarters of a century later the NYPD was still grappling with persistent corruption throughout its ranks.

But I have never seen or heard a more eloquent or better documented delivery of this argument than the one Professor Stephen Mihm delivers in his Boston Globe article earlier this week. In the moderate tones and evenhanded prose of a professional historian, Dr. Mihm sets aside the passionate polemics of the debate on China and simply tries to put the country's "bad actor" image into an historical context.

A century ago, he documents, the United States was the world's "bad actor," and he recounts America's transgressions in detail: literary piracy that denied Charles Dickens with royalties on US sales of his books; a food industry that laced milk with plaster powder, flavored beer with a strychnine compound, and cured pickles in copper sulphate; and counterfeiting of luxury apparel, fine liquors, medicines, and even currency.

Mihm's point is simple: such behavior, manifest in England in the 18th Century, America in the 19th, and now China in the 21st, is a natural outgrowth of capitalism in its adolescence rather than the result of some sort of fundamental flaw in the national character.

Mihm refuses to allow this parallel to morph into an excuse for China's bad behavior. On the contrary, Mihm suggests, it is a clear indicator that China can and should, and must - become an honest actor on the world stage. It will not do so on its own, he reminds us. China will need to be continuously and appropriately pressed, and business - not politics - is the best lever.

A good read, and I'm ordering Mihm's new book, A Nation of Counterfeiters.

Cross-post: Extremism in America

Thomas P.M.Barnett, Ph.D., "When did the Daily Kos turn from bully pulpit to just plain bully,"Thomas P.M. Barnettt Weblog, February 21, 2007, 18:13 local

Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald, "The Woman in the Middle: Moderate Democrat Is New Target of Liberal Bloggers, " The Washington Post, 21 February 2007, p.A1

One of the leading grand strategists of the day - and a lifelong Democrat - is as disgusted as I am by the kind of character assassination in US politics used by the extremists of both parties.

Read Barnett's post and the WaPo article that got it going.

While this particularly skewers the far left, the far right are no less blameless. What is worse, the lunatic fringe vocal extremes of both parties look determined to hijack their respective primaries in 2008. Why else would McCain, an avoded centrist, be pandering to the Republican Party's evangelical/neocon/big-business right, and Barack Obama be doing same with the Democratic atheist/hyperliberal/anti-business left?

What we need more of is loud voices from the strong center, people who spoke not just for the deepest of blue and the most crimson of red, but the vast, purplish middle, and people to represent us. I'd love to see a race between two opposing viewpoints of how to improve life for the average Janes and Joes, not just the loudmouthed special interests on both sides.

The only thing we have to fear in 2007 is the specter of extremism that haunts both parties, and that threatens to throw us into an election fought by two extremists.

ATTENTION ALL MODERATES: Get out there and register to vote! The strong middle is all that stands between America and more infantile politics that will get nothing done.

And remember - it's not just about nominating someone "electable." It's about nominating someone who will have the chops to actually develop and drive an agenda with the support of a majority of our elected solons on Capitol Hill.

Originally Posted 25 February 2007

Cross-post: Oh, gee, are you guys MAD?

My takeaway from the outrage coming out of the Holy See around China's appointment of two new bishops is simple: welcome to the table, gentlemen.

A common Chinese negotiating tactic when complex discussions reach an intense stage is some form of demonstration of how little they need you (whether that's true or not). China clearly intends this as an attempt to demonstrate to the Vatican who has the power in this arrangement.

The reflexive reaction on the part of many western negotiators would be anger. "Bad faith," we would call this, a demonstration that the other side isn't really serious.

In reality, it's something quite different, possibly an effort to hide a weak position. The challenge for the Vatican - and anyone in this position - is to step back, re-assess what the move is saying about the Chinese negotiating position, and then to consider your alternatives.

Which I hope they do - all indicators suggest that not only has progress been made, but that both parties have already planned what some of the next steps are.

Originally posted 7 May 2006