Partly due to the Beijing Olympics and Zakaria’s new book (The Post-America World, which I haven’t read yet), there’s been a resurgance of hubbub about American hegemony and whether a multipolar world will emerge in the near future.

Since there are so many things that we can talk about when it comes to this, and as I don’t exactly have a lot of excess time right now, I’ll just be excerpting from his book (well, actually articles of excerpts of his book).

From Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria writes:

Look around. The world’s tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn’t make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world’s ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories.

These factoids reflect a seismic shift in power and attitudes. It is one that I sense when I travel around the world. In America, we are still debating the nature and extent of anti-Americanism. One side says that the problem is real and worrying and that we must woo the world back. The other says this is the inevitable price of power and that many of these countries are envious—and vaguely French—so we can safely ignore their griping. But while we argue over why they hate us, “they” have moved on, and are now far more interested in other, more dynamic parts of the globe. The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism.

In a section titlted ‘the End of Pax Americana’, he write that:

At the military and political level, we still live in a unipolar world. But along every other dimension—industrial, financial, social, cultural—the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance. In terms of war and peace, economics and business, ideas and art, this will produce a landscape that is quite different from the one we have lived in until now—one defined and directed from many places and by many peoples.

The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Possibly the most accurate point that’s been made here is the US’s military dominance–with its expenditures almost equivalent to the rest of the world added together. Meanwhile, China’s military budget is a mere 1/8 (the actual figure is lower) of the US’s. I mean, China can’t even build itself an aircraft carrier because they don’t have the quality steel needed for the take-off/landing strip. As for political dominance, virtually all of the IGO’s today are under American management. For potential rising powers (China, India, Rusisa…), they will have to enter a game who’s rules are set by America and its friends.

But the phenomena of anti-Americanism is something that threatens American hegemony. The idea of a ‘Pax-Americana’ is just a joke. In order to make such a profoud statement, you would have to ignore the many proxy wars that have sprung up under America’s watch. Not to mention the countless regimes (most of which were democratic) that America has overthrown to protect its interests–which often ended up with a senile dictator butchering his people. When you have a world that’s increasingly interconnected and when technology allows for even the faintest voice to be heard, there’s no wonder that these people, who were once oppressed by American puppet regimes, are now heard. Underneath that peace, there’s blood–lots and lots of blood.

In another of his articles in the May/June issue of Foreign Afairs, he writes that:

The emerging international system is likely to be quite different from those that have preceded it. A hundred years ago, there was a multipolar order run by a collection of European governments, with constantly shifting alliances, rivalries, miscalculations, and wars. Then came the duopoly of the Cold War, more stable in some ways, but with the superpowers reacting and overreacting to each other’s every move. Since 1991, we have lived under a U.S. imperium, a unique, unipolar world in which the open global economy has expanded and accelerated. This expansion is driving the next change in the nature of the international order. At the politico-military level, we remain in a single-superpower world. But polarity is not a binary phenomenon. The world will not stay unipolar for decades and then suddenly, one afternoon, become multipolar. On every dimension other than military power — industrial, financial, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from U.S. dominance. That does not mean we are entering an anti-American world. But we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.

There are many specific policies and programs one could advocate to make the United States’ economy and society more competitive. But beyond all these what is also needed is a broader change in strategy and attitude. The United States must come to recognize that it faces a choice — it can stabilize the emerging world order by bringing in the new rising nations, ceding some of its own power and perquisites, and accepting a world with a diversity of voices and viewpoints. Or it can watch as the rise of the rest produces greater nationalism, diffusion, and disintegration, which will slowly tear apart the world order that the United States has built over the last 60 years. The case for the former is obvious. The world is changing, but it is going the United States’ way. The rest that are rising are embracing markets, democratic government (of some form or another), and greater openness and transparency. It might be a world in which the United States takes up less space, but it is one in which American ideas and ideals are overwhelmingly dominant. The United States has a window of opportunity to shape and master the changing global landscape, but only if it first recognizes that the post-American world is a reality — and embraces and celebrates that fact.

What America has to realize is that the rise of the rest does not neccessarily mean the decline of the West. The book talks about the possibly policies that America can adopt to stay intact. Well, the most concrete step for America to remain relevant in a post-American system is to recognize its mistakes and to make ammends. Acknowledge to the world that they were wrong in overthrowing the democratic regimes of Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, Iran, Chile, Grenada, Honduras… and so on. They must realize that the national soverignty and the will of the people in these countries trumps American interests. They must realize that those who oppose the Washington Consensus are not terrorists. Only when they recognize the rights of these people, will the future governments of these people remain favorable to the US.
The US must also stop all (or withold on condition) aid to oppressive regimes. Israel, the largest recipient of US military aid recieved around $2.46 billion in 2007 and bought around $2.76 billion worth of munitions from the US in 2005.

Well, perhaps the reason why there’s so much talk on the rise of the rest is because China has just made the largest PRC flag ever. The flag measures 88.88m in height and 59.25m in width. Now that’s big. If there’s ever been a challenge to America, this is it.
I mean… size does matter.

When a television channel/news broadcaster has the Olympic logo in their logo, how can you expect them to be objective and unbiased in their reporting?

I actually don’t know TVB’s policy on using this logo, because they alternate from using this and their plain logo. It seems as if they only use this late at night, although I’ve seen it in the morning a few times. Right now, as I’m writing this, TVB’s using their plain logo. This screenshot is from an online version of last night’s program, so the quality isn’t that good.

If you think that’s scary, you should check out TVB’s mascot, TVBuddy, flying in and out of the Olympic rings:

As I’ve written before, the majority of HK’s media has taken a dangerous swing to the pro-Beijing and uber-nationalist side ever since the Olympic relay race started.

It’s one thing to air the Olympic when August comes, but this is way overboard.

I haven’t actually used my blogroll before, but I’m deciding to give it a try–in the spirit of fostering a more interconnected blogosphere (I can’t tell you how much I hate that word).

Anyone interested in reciprocal linking can contact me (check the contact page).

Some of FP’s Top 100 Intellectuals list include: candidate must be alive, still active in their respective fields, holds influence over a debate beyond their country’s borders and must have some sort of distinctive accomplishment.

Of course there are intellectuals (ie. Chomsky, Huntington, Dawkins) that have a guarenteed spot on the list. But the underdogs (ie. Stephen Colbert) don’t always get their name on their list.

In fact, FP published an open letter to Colbert on Passport explaining their decision to exclude him:

Dear Dr. Colbert,

We must regretfully inform you that, after careful consideration and intense deliberation, we have not included you on the Foreign Policy/Prospect list of the world’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals in our May/June issue.

Although your high public profile and loyal following make you a strong candidate for this honor, we have concluded that the lack of empirical evidence and logical coherence in your arguments disqualifies you for consideration as an “intellectual.” While all of us here greatly enjoy your work, we simply did not feel that it contained sufficient analytical rigor to place you in the company of such luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, or the pope.

This was not an easy decision to make. It has provoked intense bitterness and division among our staff…

But the letter goes on to tell him that there is another way to get on the list. In spite of the editorial staff choosing the top 100, FP readers get to choose the top 5 public intellectuals from a list on the website. What the good news is that there is an option for a write in.

So here’s what you’ve got to do. Go on there and select your top 5 + Colbert. And hopefully, he’ll get in and we’ll all get a good laugh when the issue gets published.

CLICK HERE

If you were wondering, here’s my list:

Amartya Sen
Michael Walzer
Muhammad Yunus
Shirin Ebadi
Umberto Eco
Write In: STEPHEN COLBERT!

We hear it all the time: the Olympics ain’t about politics. But in spite of this, it always has been and it always will be.

I could rant on and on about how the two have been excessively entangeld and intertwined throughout history–the list is long that Wikipedia even has an article on it. But in the interests of the viability of WordPress’s servers, I’ll only mention a significant few. Probably the most cited example of the Olympics being used as nationalistic propaganda dates back to the 1936 Olympics held by Nazi Germany; South African apartheid led to their exclusion from the Olympics; the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic in retaliation for their involvement in Afghanistan; and the 1984 LA Olympics that followed that. Hell, even China boycotted the Olympics before. In the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the PRC boycotted the games due to the IOC’s attempt to admit the ROC as an independent country (the ROC in return boycotted for the IOC’s admittance of the PRC to the games). So, who are they to talk?

But as I said, the protests ain’t about politics. Its about a promise.

In order to secure their bid for hosting the games, China had to make a bunch of flowery promises to the IOC and other countries. One of the bigger (and more important) promise that they made to the rest of the world (and to their own citizens) was that they would improve their human rights.

This is evidenced by the speech that the Mayor of Beijing, Liu Qi, gave to the IOC back in 2001:

I want to say that the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games will have the following special features:

– They will help promote our economic and social progress and will also benefit the further development of our human rights cause…

Ladies and Gentleman, I am very confident that Beijing will organize an excellent Games in 2008 and the Games in Beijing will leave a unique legacy to China and to sport. Let us all share this unique legacy together.

Thank you very much.

And of course, this promise was substantiated by other prominant officials, the Foreign Ministry, and China’s Olympic Committee.

But human rights in China is far from improving. If anything, China has undergone regression and deproved. Instead of opening up and allowing for freer speech, it has cracked down on dissidents such as Hu Jia and locked them up to prevent them from dissenting. Instead of allowing for religious freedom, the Public Security Bureau issued out handbooks for policemen containing English phrases on “How to Stop Illegal News Coverage”. The book also teaches the policemen the English needed to tell a journalist, who’s interviewing people about Falun Gong, that he or she is arrested.
Below is an excerpt of the practical dialogue that the handbook includes:

P(oliceman): Excuse me, sir. Stop, please.
F(oreign journalist): Why?
P: Are you gathering news here?
F: Yes.
P: About what?
F: About Falun Gong.
P: Show me your press card and your reporter’s permit.
F: Here you are.
P: What news are you permitted to cover?
F: The Olympic Games.
P: Falun Gong has nothing to do with the Games…. You should only cover the Games.
F: But I’m interested in Falun Gong.
P: It’s beyond the limit of your coverage and illegal. As a foreign reporter in China you should obey China law and do nothing against your status.
F: Oh, I see. May I go now?
P: No. Come with us.
F: What for?
P: To clear up this matter.

China also executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Amnesty estimates that the state kills around 7500 people per year. Instead of that number going down though, the number of crimes in which execution is permitted has in fact gone up. If we use this figure:
(7500 executions/365 leap year days) x 17 days of gaming = 350 executions during the Olympics

So the next time you hear Jiang Yu say that crackpot troublemakers are confused that Olympics ain’t about politics. You can tell her that they aren’t making a fuss over politics–they’re making a fuss over a promise that China didn’t keep.

I didn’t go to the protests. Nor did I wear an orange shirt. All I had on were my orange boxers–which weren’t all that visible.

I’m regretting how I’ve spent (or wasted) my day. Wait, ‘guilt’ is a better suited word for the current emotional turmoil in which I am experiencing.

Probably one of the more predictable outcomes of today’s torch relay was the confrontation of pro-Beijing and pro-Tibet/human rights protestors. BBC ran the headline of “Torch cheered through Hong Kong“, which is to a certain extent true. But there were still sizeable pro-Tibet and human rights protests. The Guardian has a really good video of Christina Chan, a student protestor, being hauled away in a police vehical for her own “safety”, after her Tibetan flag was pulled down by the police to help calm the mob. Insults and profanities were hurled at her, as the crowd swarmed around her and the police escorts.

As this account of the day’s events puts it:

One angry pro-China mob yelled, “Do you think this is Paris?” to a small group of pro-democracy supporters as they peacefully demonstrated near the start of the torch route. It was a reference to the French leg of the relay that was disrupted by protests…

Another group of seven pro-democracy activists were overwhelmed by torch supporters, who drowned out the activists’ slogans with insults like “running dog,” “traitor” and “get out!”

The activists, holding a banner that said, “Return power to the people,” were surrounded by 80 police and eventually ducked into a police vehicle for protection.

Many torch supporters were apparently from mainland China because they chanted slogans and hurled insults in Mandarin, not the local Cantonese dialect.

Intolerance much? I would expect that these patriotic crowds would be decent enough as to allow other people to express their opinions without resorting to all sorts of unconsecrated language. Labels such as “traitor” and “running dog” are reminiscent of the good ol’ Cultural Revolution days.

But, as I mentioned in my previous post, there is a cause for concern over the patriotic and nationalist tidal wave that have engulfed Hong Kong. My conservative estimate is that somewhere between 90-95% of the people in Hong Kong fall in the pro-Beijing category in this respect. I passed by the big TV screen outside Times Square today and there were A LOT of people standing there, watching the live stream of the torch relay. All of them seemed to be mesmerized by the burning flames.

What intrigues me are the accounts of torch supporters using Mandarin to hurl insults at the pro-Tibet/human rights protestors. This observation comes from the many articles I’ve read upon returning from dinner and the first hand accounts of demonstrators.

Here’s a picture that I found on a FB group. The red flags obviously are sported by the pro-Beijing supporters and the orange red torches are the ‘human rights torches’ carried by the Alliance members.

If anything, today was evidence to the prevailing sentiments of patriotism and nationalism that has seized the city. But what else did these things bring along with them? Intolerance, bigotry and blind allegiance to the establishment?

PS. If you haven’t noticed, the Color Orange has my unequivocal support I think I’ll post a picture of those boxers once I’ve got them washed.

PSS. Just another note. If you’re speculating as to why 3000 HK police managed to secure the torch (compared to Tokyo’s 5000), it’s because they’ve had a lot of practice with their crowd and riot control skills during WTO and Queen’s Pier..

I really thought I couldn’t get any more depressed nowdays, but I have. I’ve hit a new low in this chronic stupor of mine’s: for it is a sad day for liberty and freedom in Hong Kong.

The NYT reports that seven (the actual figure is higher) pro-Tibetan activists have just been deported in preparation for the torch relay on Friday (today, actually, since I’m writing this at like one in the morning).

The deported activists included three pro-Tibet protesters who were kicked out of the territory as they arrived at the airport Tuesday. A fourth activist — an organizer for an independent Chinese writers’ group that calls for freedom of expression in China — also was turned away on Tuesday. Three Danish activists were deported over the weekend.

Hong Kong officials have said repeatedly they won’t discuss individual cases.

One of the deported pro-Tibet activists, Kate Woznow, said Tuesday that immigration officials questioned her about her trip but gave no reason for turning her away.

”I really thought that Hong Kong authorities were different from Beijing,” she told The Associated Press in a phone call from her plane before it was set to takeoff for New York.

Disturbing.

It is bad enough that mere tourists (because they’ll be doing some sightseeing and shopping during their stay) and peaceful protestors are being booted out for no legitimate reason. But the fact that Immigration doesn’t comment on “individual cases” means that Tsang won’t even have to comment on it.

It is worth mentioning, at the risk of running on a tangent, that not only is the freedom of movement a fundamental human right, this freedom is also codified into the Basic Law (Article 31) and other related laws–which means that the government’s actions may be contested in court. Being quite the ignoramus when it comes to legal proceedings and the law, I have no authority to make the judgement as to whether the government’s actions are illegal. Although I am more inclined to say that they are.

From the day that HK was made the “equine capital”, it was apparent that Beijing would take a major role in helping the HKG prepare for the equestrian events. The recent debacle with the torch runner selection and Tsang Hin-chi only showed that Beijing is acting more than just a mentor in the preparation process, but the main architect and designer of it–as it clearly was involved in the selection of the relay runners. Local politicians and government officials, clamoring to suck up to Beijing and show off their patriotism in hopes of career advancements, obediently follow the wills of their political masters.

The deportation of these activists is yet another example of the HKG’s subservience to Beijing.

Obviously this sets a dangerous precedence for HK. Now that our leaders are accustomed to obeying what Beijing dictates them to do, our “high autonomy” will suffer yet another hard blow.

But perhaps what is the most disturbing about this whole Olympics thing is that it has swung HK dangerously to the pro-Beijing side. The incessant invocation of uber-hypersensitive-nationalism by pro-Beijing politicians may have contributed to that. The media (some of them at least), which seemed to counteract this propaganda at first, has in recent months succumbed to this pervasive sense of over-zealous patriotism. Now editorials and news clip read like Ministry of Information press releases. Even pro-Dem politicians have had to watch what they say, for fear of sparking up a “love country” (愛國）debate that they would loose. Reversing this trend would be tantamount to walking on water.

This public acceptance of Beijing’s bull will no doubt hinder any future seemingly anti-Beijing (in other words: anti-CCP) efforts.

While there is no doubt that the restriction of free speech and this nationalist trend will damage HK’s somewhat free society, in the words of Lee Cheuk-yan: “It really hurts the image of Hong Kong as an international city when we start restricting freedom of access.” When we put it like that, the pro-Business/pro-Beijing folks seem like a bunch of crooks and liars.

I didn’t want to relaunch this thing until June, but my itch for blogging has got the better of me once again.

This time, I am resolving to only post original and quality content. I won’t update as frequently as before, probably only 2-3 times a week.

I’ve changed some stuff (obviously: the name of the blog), but I still have to rewrite the ‘about’ page and clean up my buttons.

Enjoy.

P.S. Happy May Day!