Mischaracterization of Tom from Mining Indaba

ARTICLE: Mergers to increase in 2010, By Brendan Ryan, miningmx.com, 04 Feb 2010

Here's the part about Tom:

He described a earlier presentation to the conference by Enterra Solutions MD Thomas Barnett on growing Chinese influence in Africa as, "a simplified picture from a United States perspective. I don't agree with Barnett's scenario of China taking over the world."

Tom says:

If that's all he took from my presentation, then "simplified" is a good term for his thinking.

Point to take away: he felt threatened enough by my impact with the audience that needed to cite it as a marker from which to distance himself.

People familiar with my work know I don't say anything close to China "taking over the world." I simply say that Asians are the natural networkers for globalization going forward. You can deal with reality or you can run from it.

But I am thrilled to hear about my MD. Now I can write scripts for myself!

[Sean here: Tom makes a weak joke here, based on his recent medical issues and lifelong jealously over his younger brother's MD-PhD; MD here stands for managing director]

More crudely put (and I've said this in Beijing every chance I've received), all this talk about China taking over anything is complete nonsense. At the end of the day, the guy with the biggest gun wins, and when similar guns are fielded, the guy who's more comfortable taking serious chances wins.

China is nowhere near having a gun similar to our own, and as for willingness to use, we're talking boys-to-men in comparison. China can't take chances in foreign policy, much less national security (i.e., war) because if the Party screws up, it has no capacity to swap out bad leadership for good, something we call "throwing the bums out." The GOP wastes a lot of blood and treasure and we throw them out. If the Dems are perceived as doing the same, we'll throw them out soon enough. Meanwhile, the American system continues.

If the CCP screws up anything, who gets thrown out? Because nobody in Beijing can answer that question, expect the Chinese to remain all talk and no serious action so long as the Party rules.

So no, China won't be taking over anything, despite the current hype. Envelopes stuffed with cash just won't get it done.

Chinese man marrying a Vietnamese broad abroad

POST: Chinese Man Spends 35K For 'Obedient' Vietnamese Wife, by Fauna, ChinaSMACK, January 31, 2010

Right out of "Great Powers": the Chinese men simply go abroad to marry a broad.

OMG! Men are actually willing to do that?

Damn! Another "inevitable" war (this time scheduled by doofus demographers) canceled.

As for the price, remember to divide the number by seven to get the dollar amount, so you're only talking $5k, or about a year and a half of average income. About what American males are told by jewelry companies that they should be paying for an engagement ring--meaning fairly normal.

Plus, as reader Wayne Yin points out:

Because of many years of war, Vietnam's male-to-female ratio is 3:5 and there are many girls willing to marry abroad to other countries...

so in vietnam's case, it's a win-win.
and anthropologically speaking, rather than favoring sons, in vietnam it may be more fortunate to have daughters you can marry out to foreigners...

Acting tough towards China gets us nothing

NEWS ANALYSIS: U.S. Arms for Taiwan Send Beijing a Message, By HELENE COOPER, New York Times, January 31, 2010

Ah well, if this is all designed to make Obama and his team seem tough, then it's okay!

But here's the problem: there's little-to-no good reason to expect that China will respond to such signaling by giving us what we wanted any more than the "softer" approach did.

We no longer live in a world where we get to boss around rising China, no matter our vector.

Yes, Obama will seem "tough," but his term will remain unstained by serious accomplishments.

Two to tango, just one to seem "tough."

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

Sulu sea is maritime frontier needing integration

ARTICLE: U.S. and China Face Off in the Sulu Sea: The Role of the International Contact Group for Mindanao (.doc file), By Ishak Mastura, January 27, 2010

Not bad article for information. The "face off" bit is a bit much: this is really about economic competition and mutual desire to extend control collectively over poorly governed maritime space.

The "soft underbelly" baloney is goofy. There is no "softness" here and the "underbelly" notion is simply a reflection of north-south orientation. Countries are not human bodies.

But academics--just like journalists--always want to jack things up a bit, proving the need for the piece. Businessmen don't use "face off" terminology, but the military instinctively employs such macho-BS terms.

Simply put, there is a maritime frontier that needs integration. Everybody who's big and operating in the region seeks to do that. When they bump into each other and act tough, it's almost exclusively about perceived economic purview, and whenever gov/mil types bump into that reality, they man-up unnecessarily. In reality, the resulting business clime is always about splitting the difference OVER some zero-sum competition.

Don't underestimate India

OP-ED: Avoiding Another Great Game, By ASHOK K. MEHTA, Wall Street Journal, JANUARY 11, 2010

As visions of ongoing and potential improvement go, this one is most comforting to read. Underestimating India is a bad habit that I am sometimes guilty of.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul)

Modernity changes societies more than they change it

ARTICLE: Survey: Half of China's moms-to-be have C-sections, AP, 1/12/2010

Seems to dovetail with my oft-made observation that modernity changes a society more than a society customizes it in return, meaning "blank-ian values," no matter what which one seems most intimidating right now, ultimately never lives up to its hype as "unchanging."

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

Happy winter from Indiana

Think we'd praise China selling weapons to Cuba?

ARTICLE: Selling Weapons to Taiwan Was the Right Decision, By Michael S. Chase, World Politics Review, 03 Feb 2010

Some truly weak logic after a lot of regurgitating-of-events filler up top. We are told this is all about enhancing the cross-straits dialogue, which is rich indeed.

This is some seriously Cro-Magnon thinking.

Funny how the same logic doesn't work when the French sell a warship to Russia. Is that not another case of a Western power pretending to bolster the weaker side while peddling its arms and just getting everybody more nervous?

This logic would have us accepting similar sales by China to its socialist "brother" Cuba so as to enhance the Castro regime confidence in any rapprochement with the U.S.

Consider how that act would be received in Washington and you put your finger down firmly on the core of this piece.

A little good news on the economy

ARTICLE: Economy soars 5.7 percent, fastest in 6 years, By Lucia Mutikani, Reuters, Jan 29, 2010

Some good news, despite the continuing high unemployment.

Obama needs to navigate more

OP-ED: Obama's Halfway House, By ROGER COHEN, New York Times, February 1, 2010

Cohen still a bit whiny (it isn't decline when others catch up as a result of your decades-long grand strategy to encourage the same) and more wise: Obama is letting currents carry him.

No navigation if you don't paddle.

(Thanks: Frommer2750)

Easy to claim God's will

QUOTATION OF THE DAY: "God wanted us to come here to help children, we are convinced of that."

LAURA SILSBY, one of 10 Americans who are in a Haitian jail, accused of trafficking children.

As soon as I hear, "God wanted us to do this ..." I spot someone who cannot bear the responsibility of their actions.

And I instinctively distrust that person.

The I-was-just-following-orders defense is never a good one.

The end of rule by emergency

NEWS ANALYSIS: Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power, By DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times, February 1, 2010

The essence of my lean-years-following-fat-years logic in "Great Powers": we are necessarily in an extended period of realignment.

The freak-out artists will cry "decline," but then again, any course unsettles them.

While I could readily support the logic of applying plenty of stimulus/rescue during the crisis, the return of deficit/debt political dynamics was preordained years ago.

The promise of the Obama administration was the curtailment of rule--and budgeting--by "emergency."

Bush never really embraced the so-called new normal. Obama never really had a choice--even if he might sometimes forget that.

Red (Chinese) Dawn

ARTICLE: US paranoia seen in new Red Dawn, By Benjamin A Shobert, Asia Times, Jan 8, 2010

Looks to be a rather clever remake that will certainly create all manner of heated debate and wounded feelings.

Me, I find the essential premise as hilarious as the first one. The Russians couldn't run their own country and couldn't handle Afghanistan, but somehow would subdue the entirety of the U.S.

The only way this scenario would fly is if the U.S. basically gave up running itself and fell into anarchy, and even then I don't think the Chinese would touch us.

But hey, it's a free world for movie makers.

Sure, China's economy will crash ... sometime

ARTICLE: Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China, By DAVID BARBOZA, New York Times, January 7, 2010

Without a doubt, he is eventually correct (do you expect the pre-eminent short-seller to say anything else?). China has to have crashes if it's going to have bulls--just like everybody else.

Question, as always, is timing, nature of spillover once it happens, and what sort of response it elicits.

Thing to remember: once China embraces markets, it joins the usual cycles--and we're talking a beast (the government) without a lot of historical experience in response. In general, we fret that Beijing possesses too few of the fiscal and monetary tools that an advanced economy usually has, even as we're often impressed by the commands it can shove through its system rather quickly.

Still, hanging a bunch of "corrupt" execs doesn't always get you the stabilization you're looking for--as viscerally enjoyable as it may seem.

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

Globally-connected are cross-pollinating humanity

ARTICLE: Stitching the World Together, By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS, New York Times, January 5, 2010

A very nice antidote to the usual hyperbole about Davos Man or Rothkopf's book about the super-elite.

Sort of the SESers of globalization (i.e., the senior stay-behind bureaucrats who keep the government running).

Well done piece.

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

China reversing brain-drain

ARTICLE: Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home,By SHARON LaFRANIERE, New York Times, January 6, 2010

A characteristic I broached in Blueprint that marks a state's ascension into the ranks of the Core economies: the best & brightest start coming home.

The necessity of rebalancing

POST: Krugman, protectionism, and the RMB, By James Fallows, 02 Jan 2010

Fallows' take on Krugman's piece mirrors my own: the rebalancing dynamic cannot be blown off without serious repercussions. Comparing the Chinese vulnerability on this to that of America's in the 1930s is quite interesting (Fallows cites an academic).

(Thanks: Stuart Abrams)

Gates smacks down F-35 chief

ARTICLE: Defense secretary Gates fires general in charge of Joint Strike Fighter program, By Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, February 2, 2010

Wow! It's been a very long time since a SECDEF came down so hard on a cost-overrun program like that.

Expecting al Qaeda to attack

ARTICLE: Senators Warned of Terror Attack on U.S. by July, By MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, February 2, 2010

While it will, by some, be interpreted as an ass-covering statement ("See! We warned you."), it's also a fairly unremarkable prediction that any intel chief could have made, rolling-fashion, for most of the past eight-plus years.

I mean, shouldn't we always expect AQ to be on the verge of an attempted major attack sometime over the next half-year?

Look at it this way: if you cannot imagine the inverse statement ("I remain highly convinced that al-Qaeda is neither willing or able to mount a major attack on U.S. soil at any time over the next six months."), then such statements are nearly useless--as far as the public is concerned.

As for the professionals, I expect them--as usual--to go about their necessary business without such public signaling.

The end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

ARTICLE: Top Defense Officials Seek to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', By ELISABETH BUMILLER, New York Times, February 2, 2010

Too many allied militaries manage this for us to remain opposed.

But better it come from The Building.