An august group of seasoned politicians sat around in a forum to express their observations of the dynamics in trade and investment of US enterprises in China:
The Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon
The Hon. Bob Holden, Former Governor of Missouri
James Fellows, The Atlantic
David Dollar, Brookings Senior Fellow
Reta Jo Lewis, German Marshall Fund
Amb. Nina Hachigian, Deputy Mayor, City of Los Angeles
and
Ryan Hass, China Center, Brookings Institution
The event was held at the Brookings, Washington, DC on Monday, July 29, 2019.
Discussants emphasized that changes between the relationship is currently underway, as China has rapidly become accepted as a bona fide international trading partner, despite its relatively recent meteoric rise. Through trade with China, nations the world over, and particularly the United States, have met their manufacturing needs through cooperative ventures.
Former Governor Bob Holden made several observations to the effect that for the United States, Chinese trade and its concomitant effect of investment in China, though only representing about 10% of what the US spends on its trading agreements with other nations, has been an important way to link with the Chinese people in an everyday setting despite our manifold cultural and political differences, I concluded from Governor Brown's impressions.
Nevertheless, change there is; and we really don't know the outcome of the present trade negotiations between our two countries at the moment of this meeting, several participants pointed out, perhaps in consternation over these year-long proceedings.
For Holden, the key to the significance of the talks lies in the fact that US companies have made relatively minor commitments long-range to developing China through investment. For it would seem that US companies are counting on some spiraling achievements in Artificial Intelligence and the deployment of robots to replace workers that will herald radically new approaches in industry, thereby lessening reliance on Chinese manpower in the not-to-distant future.
Nevertheless, several participants emphasized the non-competitive framework of working together for mutual benefit important for gaining mutual respect in the workplace and beyond among us two cultures. It could even contribute to the cause of world-wide peace by creating trust in all peoples of different backgrounds, someone exclaimed.
All-in-all trade between the two countries has been a person-to-person getting-to-know-one-another experience; and let us hope that relations between the two countries continue to build upon that good-will in the workplace--I thought to myself upon leaving the Auditorium.
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Cato Institute: Discussion on topic "What's Next in Venezuela?"
The discussion of the event was between Professor Pedro Urruchurtu, Universidad Central de Venezuela, and the moderator Juan Carlos Hildalgo, Policy Analyst at Cato on Friday, July 19, 2019 at Cato, Washington, DC. Questions from those in attendance followed the two repartee.
There is rivalry between two politicians who have declared themselves to be the real president of the country. Importantly, each has support from political blocks: the Organization of American States with its American dominance is for Juan Guaido, president of its National Assembly. He refuses to accept the re-election of Nicolas Maduro in May as valid, and has thus cause to believe himself the legitimate acting president. And, of course, Maduro, the May election winner, has backing from Russia and its Communist block.
The stalemate between them continues. Both Hildalgo and Urruchurtu see the dispute as a battle between capitalism and socialism, the latter in the presidency of Maduro.
But there is no question, as evinced in the question-and-answer period that there is a humanitarian crisis in the country. Maduro won't allow humanitarian aid to be brought in; and the panel participants had no avenue nor recourse to suggest whereby the crisis could be obviated, aside from the Red Cross short-term immediate relief packages. Because countries in the area (and the US, too) are unable to provide relief from the Venezuelan condition of starvation and death since Maduro won't allow outside aid, there is a mass emigrant exodus of from the country--that Urruchurtu concedes could reach levels of 7 million per year, if conditions in the country are not allowed to improve.
The Venezuelan military, with help from Russia, are standing by their President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came away with an impression.
I am of the opinion that the two factions dividing the country could join together to rule the country
After all, the country needs as much help to regain its posture as a viable state in South America as could be offered! Might the one faction--the socialist group--govern for two years and then the capitalist group as represented in the candidacy of Juan Guaido? Or might there be a split of offices in the national government between the two factions as in Iraq?
There is rivalry between two politicians who have declared themselves to be the real president of the country. Importantly, each has support from political blocks: the Organization of American States with its American dominance is for Juan Guaido, president of its National Assembly. He refuses to accept the re-election of Nicolas Maduro in May as valid, and has thus cause to believe himself the legitimate acting president. And, of course, Maduro, the May election winner, has backing from Russia and its Communist block.
The stalemate between them continues. Both Hildalgo and Urruchurtu see the dispute as a battle between capitalism and socialism, the latter in the presidency of Maduro.
But there is no question, as evinced in the question-and-answer period that there is a humanitarian crisis in the country. Maduro won't allow humanitarian aid to be brought in; and the panel participants had no avenue nor recourse to suggest whereby the crisis could be obviated, aside from the Red Cross short-term immediate relief packages. Because countries in the area (and the US, too) are unable to provide relief from the Venezuelan condition of starvation and death since Maduro won't allow outside aid, there is a mass emigrant exodus of from the country--that Urruchurtu concedes could reach levels of 7 million per year, if conditions in the country are not allowed to improve.
The Venezuelan military, with help from Russia, are standing by their President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came away with an impression.
I am of the opinion that the two factions dividing the country could join together to rule the country
After all, the country needs as much help to regain its posture as a viable state in South America as could be offered! Might the one faction--the socialist group--govern for two years and then the capitalist group as represented in the candidacy of Juan Guaido? Or might there be a split of offices in the national government between the two factions as in Iraq?
Brookings Institution:: Panel on Algeria's uprising: Protesters and the military
The discussion was held at the Brookings in Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 17, 2019--Introduction by Natan Sachs of Brookings, findings of a survey of 9,000 Algerian respondents, mostly protesters, conducted by Sharan Grewal, a Brookings visiting fellow; and discussants Alexis Arieff, Congressional Research Service, frm. Ambassador to Algeria, Robert Ford with Moderator: Tamara Cofman Wittes of Brookings.
As presented by Grewal, the survey showed the protesters, mostly students or protester-sympathizers, drawn from the military lower ranks, were in agreement: clean out the old regime, including the "2 Bs" still in power but leftovers, hold new elections and possibly, author a new constitution with significant institutional changes.
The military as a group did seem not all that far apart from the protesters as indicated by responses regarding policy, After all it was the military that sought ouster of the former president following his declaration for a fifth term in office. However, Grewal thought the military were unable to identify particular protesters with whom they might work to influence the street mob. Anyway, he suggested the two groups were not all that far apart.
From what was said, I surmised the military was in command and should do forthwith, if they are not already so proceeding, (1) issue a timetable for the return of the political arena, identifying those who will govern, and (2) call for a constitutional committee to make changes via a vote by the people.
As presented by Grewal, the survey showed the protesters, mostly students or protester-sympathizers, drawn from the military lower ranks, were in agreement: clean out the old regime, including the "2 Bs" still in power but leftovers, hold new elections and possibly, author a new constitution with significant institutional changes.
The military as a group did seem not all that far apart from the protesters as indicated by responses regarding policy, After all it was the military that sought ouster of the former president following his declaration for a fifth term in office. However, Grewal thought the military were unable to identify particular protesters with whom they might work to influence the street mob. Anyway, he suggested the two groups were not all that far apart.
From what was said, I surmised the military was in command and should do forthwith, if they are not already so proceeding, (1) issue a timetable for the return of the political arena, identifying those who will govern, and (2) call for a constitutional committee to make changes via a vote by the people.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Beijing slows technological change to a trickle in China
I have it on good authority that a recent psychological study found the Chinese are experiencing panic due to the rapid upgrading of virtually their whole way of life in the country of China.
The government may have responded by slowing further upheaval into the modern era temporarily while the people of China, used to their old ways, make the adjustment to mentally catch up. It's a pause that is meant to refresh and take a big breath!
-------------------------------------
I got verification of this psychological evaluation by watching on a movie about the Mekong River over PBS yesterday. For instance, an American was interviewing a Chinese husband and wife who ran a tea-producing farm. I could see from their interactions with one another that they could scarcely comprehend their good fortune. Trees on their farm, 800 years old, they continued to pluck the tea leaves off of. But now their leaves they knew so well were suddenly worth more than the modern house that as if by magic was ceded them! They pondered their new selves in amazement. Was it really they, the same ones, who lived in a modest hut (torn down) just last year?
The government may have responded by slowing further upheaval into the modern era temporarily while the people of China, used to their old ways, make the adjustment to mentally catch up. It's a pause that is meant to refresh and take a big breath!
-------------------------------------
I got verification of this psychological evaluation by watching on a movie about the Mekong River over PBS yesterday. For instance, an American was interviewing a Chinese husband and wife who ran a tea-producing farm. I could see from their interactions with one another that they could scarcely comprehend their good fortune. Trees on their farm, 800 years old, they continued to pluck the tea leaves off of. But now their leaves they knew so well were suddenly worth more than the modern house that as if by magic was ceded them! They pondered their new selves in amazement. Was it really they, the same ones, who lived in a modest hut (torn down) just last year?
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
What China and Russia are looking for in colonist countries
The Admiral in charge of the Navy's fleet in the South American waters appeared before a Senate armed services committee that was covered by C-SPAN and aired over TV the other night. I happened to have watched it. I think the Admiral expressed a point of view about the interests of China and Russia in developing an on-going relationship with countries in South America and for that matter, Africa, too that would seem hostile to our own interests in these self-same countries. In short, the Admiral seemed to be arguing that each of these countries must choose whether to side with either China or Russia. as if the interests of both of them are antithetical to our own interests in developing relationships with some South American country.
I take it to be prima facie obvious that China is interested in the countries it approaches to develop each's natural resources to be used in its own products and goods; and that Russia is interested in reestablishing its empire as it was under the Soviet Union-Russia, headquartered in Moscow.
China and Russia, both, would establish colonies in their host countries of their own citizenry, as each has done in the past of countries they have sought to control so as to achieve their homeland goals.
That is, China in order to secure a host nation's complicity to make available its own natural assets, will extend gifts and remunerations, i.e., whatever it takes to satisfy the host's reasonable demands.
And Russia, in order to utilize the host's capabilities and potentials, will seek to meet its demands list.
That some nation in South America enters into a long-term agreement with either China or Russia ought not be taken to preclude its willingness to engage in trade and cooperation with the United States as a trading partner and/or an ally. To assume that it does compromises the power of the US in accomplishing its own aims through a variety of dealings with potential partners and friendly governments. Put succinctly, the US is powerful enough to fashion relationships with any country, independently of that country's supposed commitments to work with some other countries in pursuit of their intentions and purposes.
I take it to be prima facie obvious that China is interested in the countries it approaches to develop each's natural resources to be used in its own products and goods; and that Russia is interested in reestablishing its empire as it was under the Soviet Union-Russia, headquartered in Moscow.
China and Russia, both, would establish colonies in their host countries of their own citizenry, as each has done in the past of countries they have sought to control so as to achieve their homeland goals.
That is, China in order to secure a host nation's complicity to make available its own natural assets, will extend gifts and remunerations, i.e., whatever it takes to satisfy the host's reasonable demands.
And Russia, in order to utilize the host's capabilities and potentials, will seek to meet its demands list.
That some nation in South America enters into a long-term agreement with either China or Russia ought not be taken to preclude its willingness to engage in trade and cooperation with the United States as a trading partner and/or an ally. To assume that it does compromises the power of the US in accomplishing its own aims through a variety of dealings with potential partners and friendly governments. Put succinctly, the US is powerful enough to fashion relationships with any country, independently of that country's supposed commitments to work with some other countries in pursuit of their intentions and purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)