Facing still more of the same - 10 years after 9/11

Tweet

Facing still more of the same

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

Ten years after 9/11, little has actually changed, least of all political attitudes.

UNTIL Sept 10, 2001, the world seemed a simpler place.
Image by Walt Jabsco via Flickr
Terrorism was a scourge that needed to be kept in check, if not eliminated while Afghanistan was a tribal wasteland in the boondocks and the legendary graveyard of foreign empires.

Iraq was an oil-rich autocracy and established US ally against Iran but with a tendency to slip into unilateral nationalist fervour, and the United States was a neo-conservative right-wing Republican bastion huffing and puffing for something to blow at.

The next day, two planes slammed into the two towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Neither bad coincidence nor pilot error was ever an issue.

Other aircraft had been hijacked the same day, but the twin crashes at the twin towers were more dramatic and dominated headlines, sound bites, political posturing and public imagination.

As the heart of lower Manhattan seemed to dissolve in a rising mound of smoke and dust, more than just debris was in the air. It was a time of change for the US and certain parts of the world.

Suddenly, the United States had the national tendency to slip into unilateralist fervour, Afghanistan and Iraq became targets that needed to be kept in check if not eliminated, and terrorism, oil-rich autocracies and Muslim states came to be profiled as one from many a Washington desk.

The neo-conservative right-wing bastion in the White House had found a couple of things to huff and puff at. Such was its enthusiasm that it forgot how Afghanistan remained very much a graveyard of foreign empires.

The result now, a full decade later, is described in Washington circles and elsewhere as the worst US policy overreaction of the century.



Within weeks, the George W. Bush administration blamed the attacks on Osama bin Laden and his followers, collectively called “al-Qaeda” as the Arabic translation of “the base,” the name the CIA originally gave Osama’s group and training camp. Nobody had claimed responsibility for the New York attacks, and al-Qaeda soon after denied any involvement.

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was then accused of sheltering al-Qaeda, so that made it fair game for elimination. In late 2001, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders were ousted and replaced by the Pashtun activist and CIA point man Hamid Karzai.

The Zionist neo-cons in Washington were on a roll, “regime change” was the name of the game, and they were about to aim that exuberance and momentum at another target. But for the purpose to hit home, some points still needed to be made at home.

So Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was to be the new Hitler, he trashed his country’s wealth on costly palaces, he killed many people (decades ago), and he endangered the world or at least Israel with many nasty ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons.

The problem was getting enough voters in the US and the general public in ally countries to go along with the idea. Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair then decided the latter reason was the most persuasive: that Saddam had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).

This was despite UN weapons inspectors having found no Iraqi WMDs, a recent major feature in Newsweek magazine coming round to the same conclusion, and the story about secret sourcing of radioactive material for a bomb discovered as fake. What mattered more instrumentally, however, was whether the UN Security Council could be massaged into endorsing a US invasion of Iraq.

It could, China’s abstention notwithstanding. As plans for an invasion of Iraq were being drafted, the US public also needed convincing.

So there was the ruse that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda was responsible for all the nasty things. Meanwhile Osama, having found that such issues could really rile the world’s sole superpower, “admitted” that he was responsible for the policy panic in Washington.

Thus Saddam was eliminated and replaced by a US ally, although the vast quantities of high-grade Iraqi oil seemed more elusive. But the violence and instability in Iraq also meant China could not access the oil either.

Still, the casualty rates in terms of human lives, economic cost and national destruction and degradation continue to mount. Ten years on and with the follies rather more exposed, senior US and British officials have queued to disown any responsibility for the continuing debacle.

Errors of judgment

Early this month, former head of British intelligence service MI5, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, gave a BBC lecture to enumerate the multiple errors of judgment across the Atlantic at the time. Critics replied that she should have said so then, since it is now too late.

Former British foreign minister Jack Straw pleaded innocence through ignorance, saying that the Blair government at the time had been misinformed by allies, including the US. As justice minister later, Straw refused to apologise personally to an Algerian pilot whose career was ruined after Straw wrongly accused him of training a Sept 11 hijacker.

Former US vice-president Dick Cheney also released a biography focusing on that period, typically accusing others who disagreed with him at the time. Former US secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Colin Powell swiftly blasted him for the effort.

Powell was followed by former US secretary of state and national security adviser Dr Condoleezza Rice, who also found Cheney small-minded and mistaken. Rice should be replying more fully in her own biography later this year, so her critics should in turn be prepared.

However, the whole point of being honest, truthful and accurate should be to acknowledge past mistakes and avoid new ones. With the military occupation of Afghanistan now set to extend beyond the promised deadline, and new occupations likely in Libya if not also Syria, avoiding mistakes is not going to be easy or even possible.

9/11 American Innocence: What Really Happened to Us?

Tweet


Frederick E. Allen, Forbes Staff

September 11 and American Innocence: What Really Happened to Us?

Evil expunged—but have we fully recovered? Image by swanksalot via Flickr

The other day at the Republican debate, Jon Huntsman said “I think we have had our innocence shattered” by what happened on September 11, 2001. On Morning Joe the journalist Tina Brown called the date “the last moment of American innocence,” and Mike Barnicle described it as “the end of our metaphorical summer as a country.”

Really? It seems as if every time disaster strikes our nation we hear that it’s the end of our innocence, but in truth there has never been an innocent time in the land of the Salem witch trials and the Boston Massacre and John Brown’s raid and our murderous Civil War and . . . well, the list goes on, right up through—not long before September 11—Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment of a president.

In fact, I’d say that if anything the opposite may be true, that a big price of September 11, beyond the lives lost, was that it may have given us a new birth of innocence, or perhaps of destructive pseudo-innocence.

17 images Gallery: 16 Ways 9/11 Changed The Way We Do Business 

Video: Forbes Staff: Working Through 9/11

Of course we were completely blameless in the hideous tragedy that befell us. We were entirely innocent in that sense of the word. When the planes struck that morning, the U.S. was, and knew it was, a beacon of freedom. We also were a prosperous land where unfettered innovativeness had by and large made every generation richer than the last. We had shown that we could achieve more than anyone else even while balancing our budgets and cutting our deficits. We felt freer, tougher, stronger, and more resilient than anybody. Then we were attacked by an enemy that was as purely evil as an enemy can be. We had done nothing to deserve the horror visited on us. We were plainly guiltless in an attack that was plainly evil. Only the most extreme, reflexive guilt-seekers could possibly find any American transgression that could begin to rationalize the attacks.



Knowing ourselves as a shining force for good and as blameless victims in what happened on September 11, maybe we let it all go to our heads a little bit. A kind of national naivete seems to have swept over us, an innocence about the consequences of our actions. President Bush told us that we were now at war, but also that we would have to make no personal sacrifices. He launched two foreign wars with no tax increases to pay for them. After the start of one of those wars went well, he appeared, in a burst of overconfidence, on an aircraft carrier under a giant banner reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED to announce that “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” Then as that battle continued, we even forgot that as a nation we had always held torture to be un-American and morally unjustifiable.

As our two new wars began to spin out of control we not only didn’t pay for them but also gave ourselves massive tax cuts and a big new unfunded Medicare entitlement at the same time. Too many of us kept buying bigger and bigger houses, and second homes, while borrowing all the money to do so, secure in our understanding that for Americans life keeps getting better and we all get richer. We cooked up reckless schemes to multiply the wealth from those homes. In other words, we appear to have forgotten, in the long shadow of September 11, that no big thing in life is easy or simple, and nothing comes without a price.

We finally began to see the price we were paying later in the decade, when the wars we had started refused to end, and the housing market crashed and bankrupted millions of Americans, and Wall Street imploded, and the economy went into its worst tailspin since the Great Depression. Finally our new age of innocence ended.

Or did it? In 2008 we rejected all our misdeeds of the previous years by voting for “hope” and “change” and giving ourselves a president who seemed to believe that any problem could be solved if everybody just agreed to be reasonable and get along. Then in 2010 we turned against that choice by electing a Congress dominated by people who seemed to believe that any problem could be solved by lowering taxes and shrinking government, period. If we had been naive through the decade of the 2000s, our naivete lived on, and it continued to get us into trouble.

If that all means that in some sense Osama Bin Laden provoked the U.S. into self-destructiveness, then in that sense he won the struggle he began on September 11. Yet the fact is that he has lost it. His poisonous cause has withered and died. The Arab world has turned definitively against him in the Arab Spring, as the rest of the world turned against him long before.

As for our own naivete, if that is what it was, maybe it is beginning to lift now, too. On September 8, 2011, that ineffectually conciliating president gave a speech presenting a raft of actions to address the ongoing jobs crisis—policies that had all won bipartisan support in the past—in which he repeatedly demanded that Congress “pass this jobs plan right away” and bluntly told the legislators to “stop the political circus.” And the leader of his opposition, the previously unyielding speaker of the House, actually said, “The proposals the president outlined tonight merit consideration.”

Might we finally be approaching the end of an age of innocence now?

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

The BRICS are coming

Image via Wikipedia

Tweet

WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

THE term BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) was first used in 2001 by economist Jim O'Neill (Goldman Sachs) to call attention to four rapidly rising large emerging economies considered able to play a significant role in global affairs, championing the interests of developing nations. Very much like what G-7 does for the developed world.

For years since, it was treated by investors and journalists as a shorthand for the big emerging markets. Adding South Africa to the group widens its focus to include more from outside fast-growing China and India.

The BRICs held its first summit in 2009 in Russia, discussing issues on international monetary reform, including the possibilities of a new dominant reserve regime to replace the US dollar-based system. This year, China played host and invited South Africa to join, formally naming the group BRICS. Together they exceeded three billion people, nearly 45% of the world, and about 25% of the world's 2011 gross domestic product (GDP) based on purchasing power parity.

China's total output is bigger than the other four put together. The economic clout of the BRICS is now growing as the developed world struggles to expand and pare debt. Indeed, they are starting to operate as a common bloc in the G-20, providing a counterpoint to the United States and Europe.

Building BRICS

But the group is vastly different. India, Brazil and South Africa are vibrant democracies in contrast to the more authoritarian Russia and China. They need to balance the interests of its members: three large commodity exporters and two huge commodity importers. For sure, they have to get used to obeying rules they played little part in shaping. China's economy, the world's second largest, is nearly three times the size of Brazil's, close on four times that of Russia and India, and 16 times that of South Africa.



They also differ on exchange rate policies. Brazil is vocal against China's tight management of the yuan's value, keeping its exports relatively cheap. China is becoming prominent in BRICS' trade already it is Brazil and South Africa's largest source of imports. Be that as it may, the group shares strong macroeconomic fundamentals going into 2012.

China and India will grow 8.5%-9% this year; Russia and Brazil, 4%-4.5%; and South Africa, 3.5%. Their structural budget deficits are well contained, with low debt/GDP ratios, highest being in India (68%) and South Africa (65%).

China continues to have a current balance of payments surplus (5.7% of GDP), while all the others' deficits are each less than 5%. But they share a common problem inflation: 6.5% in China, 9% in India, 9% in Russia, 7% in Brazil and 6% in South Africa. Containing inflation remains a top priority of public policy. Still, they continue to struggle to deal with this threat.

The 2nd BRICS Summit held in April 2011 reaffirmed the group's determination to transit from global pax americana to a new order in the “development of humanity.” The BRICS' emphasis on co-operation in their call for reform of the US-dollar dominated international monetary system and for tighter supervision of commodity derivatives and markets, and capital flows show the group is seeking to refrain from too much assertiveness. Still the desire to shake off the old hegemony is there; it calls for a larger role in international fora.

It condemns “the inadequacies and deficiencies” of global finance and the “excessive volatility in commodity prices.” The Sanya declaration underscored their concerns about underlying factors that fuel inflation and currency volatility in many emerging economies, as well as their strong desire to shift away from reliance on the US dollar.

“We call for more attention to the risks of massive cross-border capital flows now faced by the emerging economiesExcessive volatility in commodity prices, particularly for food and energy.”

The BRICS took a new step towards cementing their global influence by: (i) calling for a broad-based reserve currency system “providing stability and certainty”, one that is more reliable and stable; (ii) welcoming discussion about the global role of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s in-house accounting unit but a global reserve asset, and on the SDR's basket of currencies (now comprising the US dollar, the euro, yen and pound sterling); (iii) establishing mutual credit lines denominated in their home currencies among the state development banks of the group. To start the ball rolling, China Development Bank will issue loans worth 10 billion denominated in yuan this year to other BRICS nations, mostly to fund oil and gas projects; and (iv) forging a common emerging market negotiating stance on issues from climate change to world trade, and to act as a credible counterweight to the West in settings like the G-20.

BRICS & Asia

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) expects Asia to grow 7.5% this year (against 9.2% in 2010) and 7% in 2012. “If anything distinguished the region from the rest of the world, it is its strong macro fundamentals.”

However, a dark cloud in the horizon is the slowdown in exports to its traditional markets in the United States, Europe and Japan. Against this is the region's potential for rapid expansion in intra-regional trade, amid signs of rising domestic demand in Asia.

True, manufacturing and services-related activities stalled across much of the world in August, raising fears of another global downturn. True also, factory and services output throughout Asia, including China and India, slackened in August, pointing to growing evidence that weaker demand in the United States and Europe is weighing on Asia's export-driven economies.

Moreover, investor confidence dropped to the lowest in two years in September in the eurozone and the United States, and consumer confidence, already fragile, weakened further. Unfortunately, the United States' anaemic growth and Europe's worsening debt crisis have prompted governments to deepen budget cuts, undermining consumer demand and clouded growth prospects with uncertainty.

Barring a full-blown double-dip in the United States and Europe, Asia will still suffer significant bruising from deepened dashed expectations, with most of the pain centred on highly exposed nations Taiwan and South Korea. No doubt, the BRICS economies are bound to face clear challenges in responding to the angst over weakened global conditions.

Missing BRICS

O'Neill has since suggested his original four BRICs be expanded to include Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea, to form the new “growth markets”. A fresh look is taken to measure exposure to equity markets beyond market capitalisation (GDP, corporate revenue growth and volatility of asset returns); any emerging market accounting for 1% or more of world GDP should be taken seriously. Mexico and South Korea each represented 1.6% of world GDP, Turkey, 1.2% and Indonesia, 1.1%.

Among them, I particularly favour Indonesia. Like Brazil, Indonesia's success is based on the commodities boom: gas and coal to China and India, and palm oil to the world. Investments are flowing in. With a population of 237 million (the world's largest Muslim nation), the country is in the midst of a consumer boom.

Indeed, it has the potential to become one of the world's biggest economies. But it has to get its act together. It will grow 6.2% this year (6.1% 2010) and hopefully 6.5% in 2012. South-East Asia's largest and fastest growing economy is firing on all cylinders. It is today rated a notch below investment grade and should be upgraded soon. It will become a credible 6th member of the BRICS.

What impresses is its growing middle class. World Bank puts private consumer spending at close to one-half of GDP. The middle class (disposable household income exceeding US$3,000 a year) numbered 1.6 million in 2004. Today, Japanese investment bank Nomura estimates it to be about 50 million, more than in India and larger than in any of its nine other Asean neighbours. By 2014-2015, Nomura thinks it could reach 150 million.

The country is growing so fast, especially in the urban areas, that inflation is a major political issue at 7.2% for 2011. But it's stable, bearing in mind the rupiah appreciated 5% this year. Affluent middle-class Indonesians are spending, mainly on motor cycles (eight million sold in 2010, dwarfing sales in the rest of South-East Asia), cars (750,000 in 2010) and smart phones.

Indonesia is reputed to be the world's No. 2 in Facebook members and world's No. 3 in Twitter users. But, Indonesia, to be frank, remains a difficult place to do business because of poor infrastructure (adding to production and distribution costs), and corruption (“non-transparent random regulations”). But there are signs things are changing for the better. It is still attractive to foreign investors: nowadays “if you are not here, you have to have a good reason.” Most new consumer desirables are still imported.

Wall of BRICS 

As a group, the BRICS are growing fast. China has surpassed Japan as the world's No. 2. India and Brazil are following fast behind. Catching-up is always much easier because the leader has already set the path and the pace. At some point, reliance on emerging nations as engines of growth begins to disappoint, as it becomes harder to sustain the pace. Growth will slow down (as did Europe, and Asian Tigers and Japan before them) or may even falter (as did Latin America in the 1990s).

There is a lesson from history. A recent study by three scholars Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley), Doughyun Park (ADB) and Kwanho Shin (Korea University) called the EPS study* attempted to draw potential warning signs by examining economies since 1957 whose GDP per capita (on a purchasing power parity or PPP basis) rose more than 3.5% a year for seven years, and then suffered a sharp slowdown when growth dipped precentage points or more.

The focus was on economies enjoying sustained catch-up growth. The common sense behind PPP is the same amount of money should purchase the same product in any two countries (hence, the term purchasing power parity). That is, the purchasing power of money, expressed in one currency, should change pari passu in different countries. If US$5 buys a cup of Starbucks coffee in New York and the actual cost of the same Starbucks coffee in KL is RM12, then the exchange rate should be US$1=RM2.40 according to PPP. But the actual exchange rate is close to RM3, or 20% cheaper. So, the use of PPP serves to neutralise any currency distortions.

What emerged was as follows: (i) growth slowdowns occurred when GDP per capita reached about US$16,740 per capita; and (ii) the average growth rate then falls from 5.6% per year to 2.3%. In the 1970s, growth rates in Western Europe and Japan cooled off at about the US$16,740 threshold, as did Singapore in early 1980s and South Korea and Taiwan in the late 1990s.

Thereafter, growth often continues and may even accelerate. Japan's boom lost momentum in early 1970s, then accelerated until it blew up in the 1990s. But, no one-size-fits-all depends on circumstances. When the United States passed its threshold, it kept on growing rapidly, consistent with its innovative prowess. Other risk factors matter, including openness to trade; lifting of consumption to beyond 60% of GDP; low and stable inflation; high ratio of workers to dependents. On the other hand, an under-valued exchange rate raises the risks of a slowdown.

* “When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidence and Implications for China.” NBER, March 2011.

The EPS study does draw interesting parallels. China is destined to reach the US$16,740 GDP per capita threshold by 2015, well ahead of India and Brazil. Will it then slacken? The risk factors for China include: an ageing population, low consumption and an under-valued currency. On these alone, the study suggests high odds (over 70%) of a definite slowdown by then! But China is unique. These risks can be managed by shifting development inland, leaving the maturing urban centres room to innovate.

China is already reforming to become a more consumption-based economy, while its currency is being managed to reflect market considerations. Prompt structural reforms help cushion the effects of any slowdown. Even so, a percentage point drop in growth to 6%-7% does not sound so scary. For China, it should not really be such a big deal.

● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching & promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my 

What Is the Chinese Dream?

Tweet

What Is the Chinese Dream? -- Part II 

Helen H. WangContributor

Helen Wang is a consultant, and the author of The Chinese Dream: The Rise of the World's Largest Middle Class and What It Means to You. Originally from China, Wang has lived in the U. S. for over twenty years. After finishing her masters degree at Stanford University, she joined a think tank in California, where she consulted for Fortune 500 companies including Apple Computer, Oracle, and Bank of America. Wang then became an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley Internet start-ups. In 2004, she returned to Stanford University as a Reuters Fellow, developing technology solutions for under-served communities. A sought-after speaker, Wang currently divides her time between consulting for companies doing business in China and helping non-profit organizations make a difference.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

A few months back, I wrote an article “What Is the Chinese Dream” here. In that article, I recounted an incident in which someone asked me: “tell me in one sentence or two, what is the Chinese dream?” I stuttered, and then said, “This is a simple question, but there are no simple answers.”

Since then, I have been thinking about this question, “what is the Chinese Dream?” I feel a little foolish that, having written a book titled The Chinese Dream, I still cannot articulate what the Chinese dream is.

When I speak to an American audience, I often say “the Chinese Dream is like the American Dream” (and this has even offended some of my Chinese compatriots). Yes, the Chinese middle class wants what Americans have – owning a big house, driving a luxurious car, and living a comfortable life.

But many would argue with me that that is not the essence of the American Dream.

Wikipedia defines the American Dream as “a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success.” American historian James Truslow Adam coined the term “the American Dream” as “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”

My version of the American Dream, which I hope many would agree with, is:  regardless of one’s background, with determination and hard work, one can achieve whatever one aspires to in life.

In order for such a dream to thrive, it needs a system that encourages entrepreneurship, creativity, and diversity. That system must also guarantee equal opportunities, freedom, and rule of law.



During my trip to China in June, I asked Chinese audiences what they thought the Chinese dream was. No one, not a single person, could answer the question. To put it bluntly, China doesn’t have the Chinese dream. Or, there is no “Chinese Dream” that defines China the same way that the American Dream defines America.

This is a serious problem for China. It is like a person without soul, a computer without an operating system, and a ship without a navigator.

In Beijing, a young woman challenged me: “Why do we need a dream?” she asked. True. The Chinese are pragmatic people. Good health, good fortune, and good family are all they need – fair enough.

In writing my book The Chinese Dream, I spoke to over one hundred people in China. They are from all walks of life – entrepreneurs, office workers, rural migrants, and so on.  About half of them said they didn’t have dreams, didn’t bother to dream, or there was no use to dream because dreams and reality are too far apart.

Without dreams, one will lose the source of inspiration and imagination. It is dreams that drive upward mobility, that allow us to see beyond our limitations and achieve what seems impossible.

When I left China 20 years ago, there was no Chinese dream. I had to leave my country and come to America in order to pursue my dreams of a better future. Today, many young people in China can start businesses and they have a lot more opportunities. But many of them still want to come to America. There is still no Chinese dream.

Recently, more and more Chinese middle class families have emigrated to the United States. They saved up enough cash, sent their children to American universities, and bought properties in the States and settled down here.

One might ask “why?” Today, China seems to have all the opportunities while the United States seems to have all the troubles. Yet, the promise of the American Dream is still attracting people from around the world.

What is the Chinese Dream? This question is not only important to China, but also to the rest of the world. Today, China is the second largest economy in the world, a major economic power. What does China stand for, what will China become? People around the world are watching and speculating.

I believe part of the reason that people in the West fear China is that they are not certain whether China will be a benign power or an evil power because they don’t know what the Chinese Dream is.

The United States as a superpower has done many wrong things and bad things in the world. But people around the world in general know what the U. S. stands for. Some people may disagree or resent U.S. foreign policies, but few people see the U. S. as an evil power.

It is time for China to define a new dream. The real Chinese dream has to come from the Chinese people – something that reflects the fundamental values of who they are and what they represent.  It will probably require some deep soul searching of an entire generation or even several generations of the Chinese people to identify the true Chinese dream.

Now my book The Chinese Dream is being published in China. It is my hope that it will not only serve as a bridge between China and the West, but also start an important conversation about the Chinese Dream.
What do you think? Please add your version of the Chinese Dream in the comments area.

 What Is the Chinese Dream? -- Part I

In an event in Silicon Valley, someone asked me: “In one sentence or two, would you tell me what is the Chinese dream?” (as he learned I wrote a book called The Chinese Dream).

A simple question, but no simple answers.

When I left China 20 years ago, there was no Chinese dream. I had to leave my country and come to America to pursue my dream of a better future. But today, many young people in China can start their own business and have a lot more opportunities. Even many of my American friends are going to China because of the tremendous opportunities presented there.

As a Chinese magazine editor told me bluntly, “The Chinese Dream is a copy of the American Dream.”

Many middle class Chinese are influenced by the American way of life. They are bombarded by many material temptations and proliferating choices. TV commercials, the Internet, and Hollywood movies give them a rosy picture of the American middle class.

One Chinese blog described it this way: “American middle class people live in a villa with a two-car garage in the suburbs. In front of the house, there is a green lawn. They have 2-3 children, and a dog. The husband goes out to work, and the wife stays at home taking care of the children. On weekends, they drive their SUVs to the countryside for barbecues and camping.”

That is the picture in most Chinese people’s minds of “the American Dream”— owning a big house, driving a nice car, and having a comfortable life. The Chinese middle class wants it all.

In my book The Chinese Dream, I discuss a wide variety of topics related to a rising Chinese middle class and explore the implications in economics, the environment, culture, and politics. For people who do not have time to read the book, here is a peek:

 he Chinese Dream is organized in two parts. Part One, “The Making of the Middle Class,” reviews the dramatic changes over the past fifteen years in China that gave birth to the new breed of Chinese middle class that is still emerging.
 
The Introduction, A Five-Thousand-Year Dream, provides an overview of the Chinese middle class and presents the main theme of the book—that the rise of a large Chinese middle class will be a complementary and balancing force in the global community and benefit the world as a whole.

Chapter 1, A Peculiar Private Sector, explores a topic that mystifies many people in the West: how capitalism and communism, two mutually exclusive systems, can exist side by side in China. Through profiles of a state-created bourgeoisie and a communist entrepreneur who wears Playboy shoes and invests in the capitalist stock market, among others, I show how China’s not-so-private sector operates. In reflecting on this complexity of Chinese society, I discuss the differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking and how they, although seemingly contradictory, can be complementary to each other.

Chapter 2, Collective Identity Crises, looks at the impact of globalization on the urban Chinese middle class, known as “white collars.” Among them are a recruiter who gave up her dream to be a reporter, a gay son of former Red Guards, a blogger who drinks Starbucks coffee and studies American business icons, young entrepreneurs who are becoming increasingly westernized, consuming as fast as the money pours in, and many more. Their stories are a microcosm of modern China, full of the contrast of past and present, the conflict of old and new, and collision of East and West.

Another major factor in the growth of the Chinese middle class is the country’s unprecedented urbanization. Chapter 3, The Greatest Migration, features rural migrants who pulled themselves up out of poverty, examines the reasons for this great migration, and discusses potential obstacles—such as China’s rigid household registration and educational systems—to the Chinese middle class’s ability to move up. In this chapter, I also debunk the myth of China’s manufacturing power and challenge people in the West to see beyond our own immediate interests and view China as an opportunity, rather than a threat.

Part Two, “Complexities and Challenges,” discusses the impact of the Chinese middle class on Chinese society, the United States and the rest of the world, how it will change the dynamics of the planet we live in, and why it can lead to a safer and stronger world.

Chapter 4, An New Economic Engine, explores the economic implications of a large Chinese middle class, both for China and for the world. A burgeoning middle class, calculated to reach 600 to 800 million within the next fifteen years, is jumping aboard the consumerism train and riding it for all it’s worth—a reality that may provide the answer to America’s economic woes. The chapter presents ways Western companies can capitalize on China’s enormous consumer market, and argues that the Chinese middle class will be an alternative growth engine for the global economy. As counterpoint to this argument, I deconstruct the myth of China as a superpower.

Although a large Chinese middle class offers significant benefits for the world economy, it will also pose serious challenges to the environment and global warming. Chapter 5, Environmental Megachallenge, showcases China‘s widespread pollution and looks at both the challenges and opportunities presented by this environmental crisis—problems that the U. S. can help solve. The chapter discusses both the bottom-up environmental movement in the West and the top-down governmental approach in China and presents a case for mutual learning and collaboration.
 
Twenty plus years after Tiananmen Square, will a growing Chinese middle class push for more democracy? In Chapter 6, Democracy or Not Democracy, That Is the Question, I review China’s troubled history of democratic pursuit and interview a former Tiananmen Square demonstrator, an editor for one of China’s outspoken magazines, and other intellectuals and entrepreneurs. The chapter discusses the relationship between the Chinese middle class and the government, and explores the possibility of a democratic China.

China is leapfrogging into the information age. Chapter 7 , Looking at the World Upside Down, tells the story of a Chinese Internet entrepreneur who started an e-commerce company that defeated eBay in China. This chapter documents why some companies fail while others thrive in the Chinese market, and illustrates important lessons that multinationals cannot afford to ignore when seeking to do business in China.

China is experiencing a surge in religious beliefs as the country continues to undergo rapid and profound changes. Chapter 8, Unquenchable Search for Meaning, recounts stories of people’s search for spirituality and their desire to find meaning in life: a jewelry store saleswoman wavering over believing in God, a public relations manager shopping from religion to religion, an entrepreneur who converted to Christianity but is still in doubt, and others. The chapter delves into the government’s attitude towards religion and the middle class’s quest for balance between material and spiritual enrichment.

The book’s Conclusion, From the Chinese Dream to One World One Dream, asserts that middle class Chinese and Westerners are connected by a common set of core values and share many of the same aspirations and dreams. By accepting our interdependence and seeking to learn from each other, we will all benefit. The Chinese middle class is an emerging global force that can serve as a catalyst for a more balanced world for all.

Interspersed throughout are my personal stories and life-changing experiences—my childhood in China, my arrival in the United States, and my visits back to China over the years.

If you have a better definition of the Chinese Dream, please let me know.
(Helen Wang is the author of The Chinese Dream: The Rise of the World’s Largest Middle Class and What It Means to You. Available on Amazon and http://TheChineseDreamBook.com)

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related post:

Making a Chinese dream come true

British Massacre - Batang Kali Victims win UK court scrutiny

Tweet

Kin of Batang Kali massacre victims win UK court scrutiny  

  

KUALA LUMPUR: Family members of 24 unarmed Malaysian ethnic Chinese workers, allegedly shot dead by British troops in a massacre more than six decades ago, won a significant court battle in Britain that will give hope that the incident will be formally investigated, their lawyers said Thursday.

The British High court ruled on Aug 31 in favour of the family members for a review of a decision by the British government to refuse to investigate the massacre, in which the unarmed rubber plantation workers in Batang Kali, a remote town in Selangor state, were killed after being accused as terrorists trying to escape during the Malayan Emergency.



The court granted the judicial review as it deemed the case "raises arguable issues of importance", reported China's news agency Xinhua.

The lawyers said a full hearing would begin in early 2012.

"After decades of seeking redress for the Batang Kali massacre victims, we can now, finally, see the light of justice at the end of the tunnel," said lawyer Quek Ngee Meng, representing a victim's family.

"We do not expect the British government to reverse its stance, but it should immediately and unconditionally release all documents relating to the massacre and the aborted attempt to investigate in the past so the court that hears this case, and the public, have a complete picture," he told reporters at a press conference attended by six surviving kin of the victims, lawmakers and dozens of activists and representatives of ethnic Chinese groups. - Bernama

Malaysian Batang Kali massacre kin wins UK court scrutiny

KUALA LUMPUR, September 8 (Xinhua) -- Family members of the 24 unarmed Malaysian ethnic Chinese workers allegedly shot dead by the British troops in a massacre more than six decades ago won a significant court battle in britain that would give hope the massacre would be formally investigated, their lawyers said on Thursday.

The British High court ruled on August 31 in favour of the family members for a review to a decision by the British government refusing to investigate the massacre, where the  unarmed rubber plantation workers in Batang Kali, a remote town in Malaysia's Selangor state were killed after being accused as terrorists trying to escape during the Malayan Emergency.

The court granted the judicial review as it deemed the case " raises arguable issues of importance." The lawyers said a full hearing would begin in Spring 2012.

It will examine whether the British Secretaries of State for Defense and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Secretaries of State) acted lawfully when they refused to hold a public inquiry into both the killings and their coverup, and to make any form of reparation to the victims' families.



"After decades of seeking redress for the Batang Kali massacre 's victims we can now, finally, see the light of justice at the end of the tunnel," lawyer representing the victim's family, Quek Ngee Meng said.

"We do not expect the British government to reverse its stance, but it should immediately and unconditionally release all documents relating to the massacre and the aborted attempt to investigate in the past so the court that hears this case, and the public, have a complete picture," he told reporters at a press conference attended by six surviving kin of the victims, lawmakers and dozens of activists and representatives of ethnic Chinese groups.

The 24 ethnic Chinese were shot dead by the British Scots Guards in 1948, when the then-Malaya was under British colonial rule.

They were accused of being sympathizers of the communists and said to be trying to escape during the Malayan Emergency -- a guerilla war fought between the Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan communist group.

The victims' lawyers said the British government refused to correct the records even as evidence suggested all 24 victims were innocent.

After numerous appeals to both the British and the Malaysian governments for a probe into the massacre were turned down, citing lack of evidence, family members of the victims took the case to the British court.

"For the first time after six decades, I feel a sense of closure," said Loh Ah Choy, whose uncle was killed before his eyes when he was nine.

"He was my only uncle and he deserves justice," the 70-year-old told Xinhua.

Relatives of Batang Kali massacre victims nearer to seeking justice

By MARTIN CARVALHO mart3@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: After almost 18 years of tough challenges and extreme obstacles, relatives of the Batang Kali massacre are finally making headway in seeking justice over the killing of 24 villagers by British soldiers in 1948.

MCA Public Complaints Bureau chairman Datuk Michael Chong said the United Kingdom Legal Service Commission had granted the families financial aid to pursue their case. An appeal for aid was rejected in November.

“I am very happy. We nearly gave up as cold water was poured on us several times over the years,” he told The Star here yesterday.

“Finally, families of the victims are able to see some light to help them seek justice.”

Chong, who played a crucial role in initiating the call for a judicial review in 1993 over the Malayan Emergency massacre, said the aid came as great relief to the families.

The four claimants, Wooi Kum Thai, Loh Ah Choi, Lim Kok and Chong Hyok Keyu, faced RM480,000 in legal fees (not including RM525,000 in future cost) when their request for legal aid was turned down.

However, the commission’s Special Cost Control Review Panel allowed their appeal on April 15 and with this, the four can proceed with their case at the British courts.

Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre coordinator Quek Ngee Meng said the panel granted the appeal as it was of the view that the claimants had a 50% to 60% chance of succeeding in their case, which is of wider public significance.

“They can now, with more certainty, resort to legal avenues to the fullest so that the truth behind the massacre can be uncovered and that the historical wrong corrected,” Quek said in a press statement issued here.

On Dec 12, 1948, in a military operation against the communist insurgents, a group of British soldiers allegedly shot dead the 24 villagers in a rubber estate near Batang Kali before setting their village on fire.

In March last year, families of the victims and several non-governmental organisations formed the action committee.

The committee submitted a petition to the British High Commission calling for an official apology, compensation for the victims’ families, and financial contribution towards the educational and cultural development of the Ulu Yam community.

Relate post:

British Massacre - Batang Kali Survivors and kin seek inquiry and damages  

Will There Be Any Jobs in the Future At All?

Tweet

Alex Knapp, Contributor

“You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” – Heraclitus

Douglas Rushkoff has an interesting piece at CNN.com asking whether the economy of the future will be set up in such a way that jobs as we know it make any sense at all.


The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with “career” be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?

Instead, we are attempting to use the logic of a scarce marketplace to negotiate things that are actually in abundance.

In considering what an economy has to look like, Rushkoff tries to imagine past capitalism and communism into a different way of looking at economics going forward – which sort of ends up looking like the economy of the United Federation of Planets, where everyone’s basic needs are provided for but you have to do creative work to obtain status and other things you might want.



Ultimately, I’m not convinced that Rushkoff’s solution works – it suffers a little too much from what I think of as “information class myopia”, in which writers about technology, who spend most of their days involved with gadgets and electronic media while creating intellectual property for a living confuse their own experiences with universal ones. These pieces rear their heads every now and again when people ask questions like, “Why do we need a post office? I always text!” while proclaiming ubiquitous, frequently used technologies like the phone and email dead simply because they don’t use them that often as texting, Twitter, etc. Rushkoff doesn’t usually suffer from this syndrome, but I think his concept in this column does.



That said, I think Douglas Rushkoff is a pretty brilliant guy, and while I may not agree with where he’s going in this column, I do think he’s absolutely right to think about the future of our economic systems. I think he’s absolutely right to point out that now might be a good time to completely reconsider what we value in terms of work, employment, and career, and that we need to figure out what the technological and social changes of the past few decades mean for those concepts.

It’s important to remember that the economic systems that we live with today won’t last forever. As technology changes and innovation continues, so too will the very nature of what the economy is will evolve. Paradigm shifts like the rise of the corporation in the late Middle Ages, paper money, free labor and central banking, among many others, all came about as a response to particular political, social and technological pressures, needs, and problems. And as times change and different technologies and social needs come to the fore, economic institutions and rules will change accordingly – sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Sometimes at the behest of government and sometimes whether government likes it or not.

It’s not far-fetched to imagine that the nature of employment and entrepreneurship may well be very different a century from now than it is today. Indeed, they may not even be recognizable a century from now. That’s because economic institutions and ideas aren’t natural laws – they’re practical tools that are always evolving.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Yahoo fires chief executive Carol Bartz

Tweet

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz has told staff in an email she was fired over the phone by the chairman of the board

Dominic Rushe in New York  

Carol Bartz has been fired as CEO of Yahoo. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Carol Bartz, Yahoo's chief executive, was fired late on Tuesday ending a rocky tenure in which she tried and failed to revitalise the online giant.

In a statement the company announced Bartz had been "removed" from her post and would be replaced by chief financial officer Timothy Morse "effective immediately" on an interim basis as the firm began the search for a new, permanent CEO.

In an e-mail sent to employees from her iPad and titled "Goodbye," Bartz wrote: "I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's chairman of the board." She wrote, "It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward."

The combative chief executive had been under pressure to turnaround Yahoo from the day she was appointed. Yahoo remains one of the biggest destinations on the internet but has lost gound with advertisers and audience to Google, Facebook and services like Twitter.



According to research firm eMarketer Facebook is set to overtake Yahoo this year to collect the biggest slice of online display advertising dollars in the US.

Bartz joined Yahoo in January 2009, replacing co-founder Jerry Yang who had returned to the helm of the company in an ill-fated bid to turn its fortunes around. When Bartz joined the firm its shares were trading for around $12. After news of her departure broke, the shares jumped more than 6% in after-hours trade to $13.72, from a close of $12.91 on the Nasdaq. In January 2000, near the end of the dot-com bubble, Yahoo's shares traded at more than $125 a piece.

Bartz had also fallen out of favour with Wall Street investors, unhappy with her turnaround strategy and her handling of the firm's strained relatonship with China's Alibaba Group, in which it holds a 40% stake.

In June Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock gave his public support to Bartz at the company's annual general meeting. "This board is very supportive of Carol and this management team," Bostock said in his opening remarks. "We are confident that Yahoo is headed in the right direction."

Bartz, had previously been chairman of software firm Autodesk. She arrived with a reputation as a tough talker and reinforced it early in her tenure by telling Michael Arrington, founder of the influential Techcrunch website to "f*** off" during a staged interview at an industry event.

Her management style came under fire after the company's apparent mishandling of its relationship with Alibaba. In May when it was revealed that Alibaba had handed Alipay - one of Alibaba's crown jewels - to a company controlled by Alibaba founder Jack Ma, apparently without Yahoo's knowledge. Alibaba said Yahoo was fully aware of the transaction and the two sides openly bickered about the deal.

Yahoo is conducting a strategic review of the company's options, including possible divestment of its Asian holdings. It cautioned that no decisions had yet been made.

Bostock said: "On behalf of the entire Board, I want to thank Carol for her service to Yahoo! during a critical time of transition in the Company's history, and against a very challenging macro-economic backdrop. I would also like to express the Board's appreciation to Tim and thank him for accepting this important role. We have great confidence in his abilities and in those of the other executives who have been named to the Executive Leadership Council."

The company also said its directors named five other senior Yahoo executives to an executive leadership council that is intended to help Morse, a former chief financial officer at Altera, a semiconductor makers, and at General Electric Plastics, manage the company.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Yahoo boss Carol Bartz is fired by US internet company

Carol Bartz was brought on board to change the fortunes of the search and internet company

 

Yahoo's chief executive Carol Bartz has been fired by the internet company after two-and-a-half years in the top job. 

The company said in a statement that Ms Bartz was removed by the board of directors, effective immediately.

Tim Morse, Yahoo's chief financial officer, will take over from Ms Bartz.

Yahoo has been struggling to increase its market share as it faces increased competition from rivals such as Google and Facebook.

Yahoo shares jumped more than 6% in after-hours trading after news of the firing broke, indicating they would trade higher when Wall Street opens for business on Wednesday. Yahoo's stock price was up at $13.72, an increase of 81 cents.

Mr Morse will serve as interim chief executive and the board of directors will look for a new CEO, the company said.

No turnaround

Ms Bartz was hired to run Yahoo in early 2009, taking over from co-founder Jerry Yang.

She made significant changes to the management team and cut jobs to save on costs. She also shifted the focus of the traditionally search-oriented firm towards more personalized content.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's chairman of the board”

Carol Bartz Former CEO, Yahoo

 

However, Larry Magid, a technology analyst at C-net, said the company has not seen enough of a turn-around under Ms Bartz's leadership.

"She hasn't done anything to change the company's fortunes, and they are still anxious to find a leader who can move them up," he said.

Critics also claim that Yahoo has failed to make significant strides in two of the most lucrative segments of the market; search and social networking.

"Facebook is way ahead, and now even Google is way ahead of Yahoo in social networking," C-net's Mr Magid added.

"In terms of the potential for long-term revenue it's just not there. They've got some great sites, great information resources, news, stocks, sports, but that's not what bringing in the money."

Phone firing

The news first broke on the Wall Street Journal's All Things D website, which quoted an email from Ms Bartz to Yahoo staff. The email has since been reported by other news agencies including Bloomberg and Reuters.

"I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's chairman of the board," Ms Bartz said in the email to staff.

"It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward."

As news of the sacking spread across the internet, Yahoo released its own press statement in which it confirmed it was undergoing a "leadership reorganisation" and that Ms Bartz would be leaving the company.

Roy Bostock, chairman of Yahoo's board, said in the statement: "On behalf of the entire board, I want to thank Carol for her service to Yahoo during a critical time of transition in the company's history, and against a very challenging macro-economic backdrop."

He added that he saw "enormous growth opportunities" for the firm.

Newscribe : get free news in real time