Archive for the ‘All Those Other Places’ Category
Chinese Geography
Frank Jacobs at New York Times has a great blog post about the long-dispute border area where China, North Korea, and Russia meet.
As I was reading the account of how the current border where the three countries meet came to be, I was reminded several historical features of China’s geopolitical that compare unfavorably with the United States comparatively boring position on the glob. With the constant chatter of China’s ascendancy as a great power, it may reassure the U.S. that China’s geographic position match with China’s stated medium-term military and security interests. China has repeatedly avowed that they are concerned only with power in their East Asian neighborhood, and are not interested in global power projection. Besides matching China’s current military capability, their geography shows why China probably does not covertly seek to project power outside of their Asian neighborhood.
First, the dispute between Russia and China over the border point where they meet with North Korea was only resolved in 1992. Likewise, on the opposite side of China, India and Pakistan has a long-standing border dispute. All of the border disputes along China’s periphery force China to focus their resources, both diplomatic and military, on securing their claims along their periphery.
Moreover, over the course of history, China has had a series of invasions from its neighbors across its borders. To name just one: the Mongol invasion that ended in 1278 is probably the most infamous, although the invaders were quickly sinicized, leading to the Yuan Dynasty that lasted a century.
Finally, China in the 21st century is sandwiched between two other great powers: India and Russia, to the south and north. Two other nuclear powers lie to the east and west: Japan and Pakistan. The shift of capital from the West to the East is fueled by many fast-growing industrial states. The power shift follows the capital, because of the large number of already powerful states. China, in the center of East Asia, benefits enormously from its economic ties to states across the region. That this same geographic position that bolsters its commercial interests comes with the price of increased security concerns is predictable yet also potentially troublesome. China borders four nuclear states with a fifth across the Sea of Japan.
This history contrasts sharply with the superior security geographic position the United States occupies. The United States borders two countries in contrast to the fourteen that border China. Likewise, neither has ever been a political rival or had aspirations to great power status. Neither country can change its geographic position, so these characteristics are structural, and something to keep in the back of your head when discussing U.S.-Sino power relations.
Another World Food Crisis?
The United Nations’ food agency issued an alert on Tuesday warning that a severe drought was threatening the wheat crop in China, the world’s largest wheat producer, and resulting in shortages of drinking water for people and livestock.
China has been essentially self-sufficient in grain for decades, for national security reasons. Any move by China to import large quantities of food in response to the drought could drive international prices even higher than the record levels recently reached.
My biggest concern is that such droughts could trigger another world food crisis. Of course, you can’t evaluate how likely that scenario is, because there’s no mention of the food crisis of ’07 and ’08. People in the U.S. are more or less completely oblivious that for most of the developing the world, economic catastrophe started before the ’08 financial crisis. The ’07-’08 food crisis is one of the biggest unreported stories of our times. That’s not going to change anytime soon with our current media.
I’ve been meaning to write more on the new START treaty and what its significance is in of itself, and, more broadly, what Republican opposition means for U.S. international relations. This article on Libyan nuclear disarmament shows that U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation is really the only game in town, if you want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists:
In November 2009, six years after the government of Libya first agreed to disarm its nuclear weapons program, Libyan nuclear workers wheeled the last of their country’s highly enriched uranium out in front of the Tajoura nuclear facility, just east of Tripoli. U.S. and Russian officials overseeing Libya’s disarmament began preparations to ship this final batch of weapons-grade nuclear material to Russia, where it would be treated and destroyed.
The plan was to load the uranium onto a massive Russian cargo plane, one of the few in the world specially equipped to fly nuclear materials. On November 20, the day before the plane was to leave for a nuclear facility in Russia, Libyan officials unexpectedly halted the shipment. Without explanation, they declared that the uranium would not be permitted to leave Libya. They left the seven five-ton casks out in the open and under light guard, vulnerable to theft by the al-Qaeda factions that still operate in the region or by any rogue government that learned of their presence.
For one month and one day, U.S. and Russian diplomats negotiated with Libya for the uranium to be released and flown out of the country. At the same time, engineers from both countries worked to secure the nuclear material from theft or leakage, two serious dangers that became more likely the longer the casks sat exposed. On December 21, Libya finally allowed a Russian plane to remove the casks, ending Libya’s nuclear weapons program and with it the low-grade game of nuclear blackmail they had been playing.
The month-long crisis, never revealed by the Obama administration or reported in the press, is recorded in U.S. State Department documents obtained by The Atlantic. Those documents tell the story of frantic diplomatic maneuvering as U.S. and Russian officials pushed Libyan leaders to honor their disarmament pledge. A person with access to the cables provided them to The Atlantic in order to publicize the dangers of loose nuclear materials under the control of unpredictable regimes in unstable countries.
The fact that Republicans seem to be willing to risk loose nukes due to lack of U.S. oversight and cooperation with Russia is astounding. It also shows how casual their disregard to U.S. national security interests is when their political interests differ from national ones.
Cable News in the Developing World
I found the coverage of the Chilean mining disaster disconcerting, but could not really put a finger on why. I found it vaguely wrong to swoop in and do a media blitzkrieg on the successful resolution of the collapse, when so many greater systemic tragedies occur all the time in Latin America, and elsewhere, in the developing world. I had no good way of explaining this notion any better. Maura R. O’Connor, however, articulates this line of thinking much better and uses the ongoing disaster in Haiti as an example:
CNN’s twenty-four-hour coverage of the aftermath of Haiti’s earthquake, which took an estimated 300,000 lives, doubled the network’s viewership. This coverage undoubtedly played a role in the America public’s response to the tragedy—one out of two Americans donated money to aid organizations. But little reporting has been done since then that asks how exactly that money is being spent, holds aid organizations accountable to their promises, or investigates the American government’s development and economic policies in the country. These policies, argues sociologist Alex Dupuy, have kept Haiti frozen in a destructive cycle of aid-dependence and exploitation for decades, stripping Haiti of its self-determination. “For the level of tragedy, no one’s really being very honest,” said Michael Fairbanks, a development expert, of the American and international community’s rhetoric about Haiti since the earthquake. “[Haitians] are constantly put into the position of adolescence and being infantilized so they can prey on the charity from the rest of the hemisphere.”
The longer American news outlets ignore these critical and complex issues, the easier it will become to view their occasional jaunts to Haiti with cynicism: it’s an convenient place to get B-roll of tragedy and disaster. Their coverage increases viewership, but without a moral component of responsibility towards Haitians themselves over the long-term, such coverage is basically exploitative. And over time, superficial reporting on Haiti’s problems—which plays a role in soliciting charitable donations from Americans-will arguably make the media culpable in the very system of aid-dependence and misguided development policies that help keep Haiti poor.
Paris v. New York
A french blog devoted to visual comparisons:
The Numbers Keep On Spinning
Real time statistics on the world. Some fun, some serious.
Map of the Day
Andrew Sullivan has the quick-hit summary. Matthew Yglesias puts it in the context of abstract global capitalism:
Presumably “I should be allowed to murder this Bangladeshi man and steal his money for profit” is not a free market position. Presumably “I should be allowed to steal this Bangladeshi man’s land and sell it for profit” is not a free market position. Nor is “I should be allowed to have my cattle eat this Bangladeshi man’s grass and then sell it for profit” a free market position. I don’t think “I should be allowed to cut costs by dumping the toxic waste byproducts from my family on this Bangladeshi man’s agricultural land” makes a ton of sense as a free market position.
The Beauty of Sebastião Salgado’s Photographs
These photographs by Brazilian photographer, Sebastião Salgado, look beautiful. Coming to a museum near you…
Leave a Comment
