The European Union and the Chinese Communist Party - twin brothers by different mothers?

With the economic crisis going into full swing, voices of gloom and doom are being raised around the world. Two organisations in particular have been slated for trouble - the EU and the CCP. According to Chinese dissident Minxin Pei, China's elite could soon be at each other's throats:

Rising social discontent may not be enough to force the party out of power, but it might be sufficient to tempt some members of the elite to exploit the situation to their own political advantage. Such political entrepreneurs could use populist appeals to weaken their rivals and, in the process, open up divisions within the party's seemingly unified upper ranks.

At the same time, on the other side of the globe, the EU is beset with increasing protectionism and outright racism. From this brave American reporter who dared to step into the ghetto that is Shepherd's Bush we learn this:

Anger against foreigners in Shepherd's Bush, my slightly seedy neighbourhood of West London, is not hard to find. A late-night visit to a convenience store or a kebab shop often presents the spectacle of angry natives -- usually drunk and probably unemployed -- cursing at the lack of fellow countrymen working in the neighbourhood. Their language is crude, but their analysis is hard to dispute: the store on my corner has Poles behind the cash registers and Pakistanis sweeping the floors.

As convincing as these tales of woe are, I beg to differ, and I think the arguments for saying that the EU is here to stay are very similar to those which show us why the CCP is not going anywhere soon. However, before I go any further I would like to say that, in comparing the two, I am in no way implying that that wonderful organisation brought about to unite, enrich, and harmonise a people previously separated by conflict is in anyway similar to the other undemocratic and byzantine institution*. No, but the reasons why they're both going to outlast that Kindle 2 you may be reading this on are similar. Let's turn to Wan Runnan's now famous six reasons "Why The Chinese Communists Are Not Doomed To Finish Yet":

"1. From the lessons of the former Soviet Russia and eastern Europe, the Communist Party is more firm and clear about suppressing the opposition;

At first glance the EU has no lessons to learn from the Soviet Union (indeed, they could teach them a thing or two), so you would think this one can be skipped over. However, a brief review of recent history shows how unwilling EU officials have been to concede any of their jurisdiction to other bodies. The history of the European Patent Litigation Agreement being a case in point.

2. After forming alliances, the Communist Party has established a relatively stable international environment;

The EU is one of the essential guarantors of peace within Europe, not only this, but the EU now allows collective bargaining through a single representative on the world stage at organisation like the WTO. More than this, although stresses were brought about through the siding of 'New Europe' with the USA in the war on terror, this devide is now largely healed, not least because of the perceived failure of that war.

3. The continuous economic development has provided adequate resources for improving their ability to govern;

EU membership has brought growth to southern and central European countries. No economic miracles have taken place, but the fact that the EU regulates the single market, which millions of jobs now rely on, is another reason why we have not seen the end of it.

4. Under the pretext of "we won't argue," the Communist Party has actually totally abandoned their former ideology;

Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding it, even a casual reading of the Lisbon treaty shows it to be, as Sussex University's very own Prof. Malcolm Ross describes it, "The most Eurosceptic treaty ever". The requirement for liaison with national parliaments, the reservation of powers to the member states, is a world away from the talk of the sharing of sovereignty over an ever-widening array of areas that was heard during the negotiations surrounding the European Constitution. The only conclusion can be that radical European unionism is no longer the driving force behind the EU.

5. The Communist Party has become a political party that represents wealthy people and the social elite. This newly created middle class is the foundation of stability in Chinese society today;

In two months time I, like millions of other European law and politics students, will walk into an exam hall and do battle with words like subsidiarity, horizontal direct effect, direct applicability, negative harmonisation, proportionality, indistinct discriminatory measures and a myriad other such vague and ill-defined concepts. Not only that, but I'm writing a dissertation on the interaction between European competition law and the abusive use of IP rights. Presuming I survive this ordeal, I will have joined the ranks of those with an interest in seeing that the current structure of the EU is not done away with. Whatever my private view of the EU, my economic interest will most likely lie with its continued existence.

Add to this the farmers, migrant workers, holiday-makers, shippers, hauliers, trademark and design agent whose businesses rely in part or in whole upon the EU, and you have an ever-widening group of people likely to support it.

6. The confirmation of their model for power succession has eliminated the concerns about their ability to maintain government.

The EU also has regular succession, with the added advantage that so few ordinary people either know or care who is in charge that there is little chance of public outcry sweeping an EU official from power.

In conclusion, whilst protectionism in Europe will raise challenges, these problems are no greater than those raised in the Factortame case. Whilst the bottom may have fallen out of the EU's driving ideology, it is already too late for its disappearance to mean the end of the EU. With every community trademark registered, with every EU decision against a national government, with every person who makes use of the four freedoms, the EU reaffirms its right to exist. Just as with the Chinese communist party, despite the widespread and powerfully convincing criticism which is levelled against it, there is no other force which can step into the vacuum and perform the same purpose even half as well.

*Which is which? Answers on a postcard to 'Wish I Knew' 999 Acacia Avenue

I'm shorting Alkbonds, are you with me?

Just had this emailed to me by a friend:

this is plain explanation of the credit crunch. This is a clear explanation in a layman's terms.

Linda is the proprietor of a bar in Cork . In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around and as a result increasing numbers of customers flood into Linda's bar.

Taking advantage of her customers' freedom from immediate payment constraints, Linda increases her prices for wine and beer, the most-consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Linda's borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items.

One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager (subsequently of course fired due to his negativity) of the bank decides that slowly the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Linda's bar.

However they cannot pay back the debts. Linda cannot fulfil her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %.

The suppliers of Linda's bar, having granted her generous payment due dates and having invested in the securities are faced with a new situation. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock consultation by leaders from the governing political parties (and vested interests).

The funds required for this purpose are obtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.

Now I understand!

The death of capital punishment . . .

. . .a long way off in mainland China, but getting closer in Taiwan. I spoke to Saul Lehrfreund after a talk he gave at Sussex last night on working for commonwealth prisoners on death row. Here's the low-down:

1) Mainland China has been opening up to human rights lawyers at least a bit in the past few years, allowing him to give talks in Beijing Normal and Renmin Universities. This might not seem like much, but when you remember how human rights activists in other fields have been treated, it is quite surprising to find a foreign human rights lawyer being allowed to speak to Chinese academics.

2) No executions have occured in Taiwan since 2005, nor does it seem likely that any will occur under the present government. This still leaves 31 people on death row as of October last year, but there is only so long that people can be held on death row before it becomes possible for their death sentence to be challenged as unusually cruel. Whilst the US has allowed people to spend as long as 33 years on death row without this becoming "cruel and unsual" under the US constitution, it is quite possible for other courts to rule differently, as indeed the Privy Council did with Carribean prisoners held on death row for more than 5 years.

Obviously the both sides of the Taiwan strait follow the civil law tradition, so French, German, and other mainland European lawyers are perhaps better placed to aid the campaign to end the death penalty - especially once it becomes possible to directly aid lawyers representing prisoners on death row, but it is encouraging to see British lawyers lending a hand as well.

A view from the recession . . .

"Basically, everything we’ve dreamed of and been promised by our advisers/professors is no longer available."

A final year law school student on Andrew Sullivan's blog who can't find a job. Tell me about it.

Internet scammers - is there no escaping them?

The FOARP is currently hunting around for employment for after he graduates in June (that's right, the FOARP now thinks of himself in the third person), and of course online searching is as good a way as any. One website seemed somehow to have exactly the kind of work I was looking for - but unfortunately it was a fee-paying site. "No problem" thought I, "Harrison Barnes has to put food on the table the same way everyone else does". But then I did a little searching, and behind reams and reams of articles apparently written by the same person, I found this article. A little more searching turned up a few more such articles. I have no way of verifying what they say, but it rings true given the clear self-promotion and obvious search engine optimalisation without any positive 3rd party reviewing. The effect is somewhat similar to visiting a country in which everyone praises the Dear Leader and his Glorious Regime - the instant you hear it you know to expect torture chambers and gulags.

Thoughts? Firstly, websites on which people report apparent rip-offs are an important resource (but watch out for ones hi-jacked by scammers). And second? Don't believe a damned thing you read on the internet.

NEWS FLASH: Chris Devonshire Ellis resigns!

It's official, less than a week after publishing an allegedly fake interview with the Chairman of the Chinese Banking and Regulatory Commission, CDE is history. Take home message? Same as the one Mrs Albion taught me in primary school - lies are bound to catch up with you sooner or later, best not to tell big ones!

Chris Devonshire Ellis really was a relic of the nineties. Yes, there was a time when foreigners could show up in China with zero qualifications, pose as experts, and be believed by people who had zero knowledge of the country. Foreign experts are still favoured by many over locals due to cultural/social issues (and possibly closet racism), and foreign experts are still necessary due to the added insight and expertise they bring, but fake experts can no longer expect to prosper for long. If you lie, and try to maintain those lies in an environment like the internet, eventually you're going to get burned.

Ma Yingjiu interview - check it out

I have to admit that lately I have not been following Taiwanese affairs as closely as I used to, but on a recent perusal through the Taipei Times I came across this extremely interesting interview with Taiwanese President Ma Yingjiu, money quote:

Taipei Times: Do you think Taiwan is a normal country?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): The Taiwanese people elect their own president and legislature and govern themselves. Do you think that is normal or not normal?

You see, to my mind a lot of the doom and gloom about Ma Yingjiu being ready to sell Taiwan out to the mainland has never made much sense. Even on the cynical interpretation of Ma's actions - why would he plot to give away the powers which he enjoys as president?

Why Afghanistan is not Taiwan . .

. . . and no, it's not because Afghanistan doesn't have much in the way of 'Betel-Nut Beauties'. I left a comment on a thread on David Rothkopf's blog on America's worst enemies explaining why the KMT's China was, in my opinion, the worst friend America ever had. A commenter then asked why Taiwan under the KMT had managed to succeed where mainland China had failed, I gave my best shot at an answer - which another commenter called J Thomas then compared to Afghanistan as it is today in a way that was totally on the money:

1) Unlike mainland China, the Japanese, although ruthless in beating down opposition to colonial rule, had built an efficient civil service,

Efficient civil service.

2) decent infrastructure

Decent infrastructure.

3) and education,

Education.

4) and the beginnings of a strong national industry.

National industry.

5) Throw in the much greater ease of managing an island without having to juggle regional warlords who only obeyed central government when it suited them,

No regional warlords.

6) as well as substantial US/Japanese aid post-war,

Substantial US aid.

7) and you have the tiger economy that still largely exists on Taiwan.

So, what does Afghanistan have going for it?

(my comments in italics)

I believe this is called "self-pwnage" : Chris Devonshire-Ellis interview with CBRC Chairman "pure fabrication"

Long-time readers of this blog will know that I have had my run-ins with a certain Mr. Christopher Devonshire-Ellis. Not only has he demonstrably lied about his qualifications but he also used the Mumbai terrorist attacks as a prop for corporate publicity and has threatened bloggers who link to these articles with having their websites/businesses shut down by his government 'friends'. Bloggers he has threatened include Ryan of Lost Laowai, Dan Harris at China Law Blog, and Chinese blogger Wang Jian Shuo.

Now, I personally always half suspected that Chris wasn't nearly so well-connected with the Chinese government as his website made him out to be. Imagine my surprise therefore, when I read this interview with Liu Mingkang, Chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission written by Chris Devonshire-Ellis, which included this tidbit:

Devonshire-Ellis
You know I’m going to ask this, and I suspect I know the answer you’re going to give – will there be any movement in the RMB position this year?

Liu
You always ask me this question! We have studied the RMB position at length, and remember it is tied not just to the U.S. dollar but to a basket of currencies specifically to give it balance. We are satisfied it has reached its correct valuation. Politicians, especially from the United States always seem to argue our position, whichever way it goes. But it is in the global markets benefit for us to maintain a balanced currency and to manage it in a responsible manner. This year, as we face a decline in exports and unemployment in China rises, the RMB may weaken. But longer term, our economy is growing and it is inevitable our currency will gain in strength. We have explained our position at great length recently to the G7 and they understand where we’re coming from. In fact we have taken great steps to ensure we are providing our own economy with stimulating domestic demand, and to maintain at least some growth in a global market that elsewhere is shrinking, or has moved into negative territory. A stable and globally balanced RMB is what is needed to manage the current situation, and that is what we have achieved.

Why was I surprised? Well firstly, as I said, I hadn't actually believed that Chris was as well-connected as all that, and secondly, because for a Chinese official to say that the RMB "may weaken" would actually be quite big news. Indeed, it was widely reported.

Unfortunately for Chris, the CBRC deny that Liu made such a statement, in fact they deny that the interview even took place:

The website CHINA-BRIEFING published an article on Feb 18, 2009 with CBRC Chairman’s photo and opinions. The CBRC hereby makes the statement that no CBRC officials have been interviewed by this media or by the author of this article. This news is a pure fabrication.

(my emphasis)

Chris has said that the report was due to "an error in transcript and translation" it is hard to see how a translation error could result in an interview a page long in which Chris has a friendly back-and-forth with a Chinese official at his own offices. Furthermore, why does Chris, who claims to be fluent in Mandarin, need translation?

[Update]

Chris has taken the interview down, but Chris, baby, it's far too late for that - not now that this fraud has been reported far and wide. Now where was that 'case file' that you were threatening to 'action'?

[Update #2]

China Law Blog thinks anyone who lost money on this may have cause of action against the person who fabricated the report - check it out here.

[Update #3]

Following on twitter, CDE has taken down all of his ministerial 'interviews' going right back to 2007 - were they 'fabrication' also?

Let's all learn Yingzi!

Totally dope idea from Zompist: what would English look like if it was written in Chinese-style characters?

(H/T Paper Republic)

The more things change . . . .

"We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be."

“We had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.”

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, protesting threats made by the Obama government that they would cease intelligence sharing should the court make public evidence of the use of torture to extract information, in today's ruling on the case of Binyam Mohammed.

[Update]

Yes, the Obama administration most definitely did reiterate the original threat:

The threat has sparked an angry reaction in London after Lord Justice John Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones told the court lawyers for Mr Miliband had made clear the threat represented too great a risk to national security to be ignored.

The court was also told that Mr Mohamed's lawyers had tested the new administration of President Barack Obama and that the warning stood.

British newspapers highlighted the hypocrisy of the statement, particularly as it emerged just 24 hours after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made much of the "special relationship" between the two countries.

[Update #2]

Andrew Sullivan's comment on this is also pertinent:

[The US government's warnings are] . . a threat to hurt the security of a very close ally unless the British government intervenes into a court process to suppress evidence of US torture. In a critical test of the Obama administration, the demand that such evidence be suppressed was reiterated. (I don't know by whom. Panetta isn't in place yet. Brennan? Clinton?) And that's how illegal torture spreads throughout a legal and military system to undermine alliances as well as the rule of law. The poison of Cheney is still in the system. And it will be for a long time.

Hype(r)power

One of the things which left me quite surprised when I first encountered it in China was the level of esteem existing in some quarters for George W. Bush. Whilst there is a certain part of the Chinese population which is very much in awe of the United States, the people who gave Bush a grudging admiration were often not otherwise inclined to praise that much about America. I remember one person, a rather straight-laced university student, said that he was a fan of Bush because "He is a strong leader, he is not afraid of war".

It is therefore not surprising to see this recent article by co-author of best-selling nationalist screed, China Can Say No, Wang Xiaodong, expressing great doubts about the prospects of Barack Obama. In his essay, entitled "Unfortunately, History
Might Show Obama
Inferior to Bush Jr." (English translation available here), Wang Xiaodong describes how he believes that Obama is over-reaching himself, and will unleash a racist backlash amongst the white population of the United States. Naturally when his economic schemes fail Obama will be forced to invade other countries to seize their wealth, Wang Xiaodong's proof for this? Read on:

One of my friends, who has an American boss, left words on my blog: “One time, my American boss talked about America’s financial deficit and the big American bonds. I told him that there are a lot of natural resources in Alaska, and the U.S. can mortgage it for paying the debts. The boss said without any thought that the U.S. has such a big military force that they can be sent overseas to grasp money back if the bad time comes. It is unnecessary to sell the property.” It seems that this American was outspoken, telling his first thought is to use military forces to get money when an economic crisis happens. I feel that it is a typical point of view among American people, just people like reporters, professors and politicians will not tell it in this frank way.

Of course, the fact that it might be some idiot expat shooting his mouth off doesn't seem to have crossed Wang Xiaodong's mind. It would be foolish to dismiss this opinion, as Wang is a popular author in China, not dissimilar to certain American authors - Mark Stein comes to mind. Here's what one of the commenters said:

Last year, in July/August, I went to Bangkok with my family. At the Democracy Memorial I felt a sudden swell of emotion, I pulled out my note book and wrote "Wang Xiaodong is a prophet"

Of course plenty of people are critical of his position, and no one should imagine that these are the views of the majority, but they are the heart and soul of the Chinese nationalist (small 'n') movement.

It was twenty years ago today . . .

Whilst reading this article by Andrew Anthony explaining how the Salman Rushdie affair helped create the current British Muslim identity (as opposed to Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Egyptian, Persian and so on), I was struck by this passage:

Muslims in all their myriad variety and differences have morphed, or been corralled, into a unitary socio-economic-cultural block. To take vocal exception to one aspect of Islam or one particular leader or sect is, almost by definition, to be an opponent of all Muslims. . . [Inayat Bunglawala, spokesperson for the Jamaat-i-Islami-influenced Muslim Council of Britain] was, in his own words, "elated" when Khomeini delivered the fatwa. "It was a very welcome reminder that British Muslims did not have to regard themselves just as a small, vulnerable minority; they were part of a truly global and powerful movement." . . . "It was a seminal moment in British Muslim history," he told me. "It brought Muslims together. Before that they had been identified as ethnic communities but The Satanic Verses brought them together and helped develop a British Muslim identity, which I'm sure infuriates Salman Rushdie."

The desire to be part of a 'powerful movement' rather than a small minority amongst millions is hardly limited to British Islamists, but the way in which an over-reaction to an 'insult' can forge a new identity, even when the leaders of that movement later recognise that the response was an over-reaction, is surprising.

Reality calling Daniel Drezhner . . . .

I'm no fan of the Chinese Communist Party, but I also try to avoid speculation about its impending demise, as wishful thinking is too likely to creep in. Check out this quote from a recent post by Daniel Drezhner for a classic example of said:

So, it would appear that the Chinese government and the Charter 08 dissidents do agree on one thing: a dialogue between the two sides is not going to happen. Absent that option, will there be a mass social movement. Could it topple the communist government? . . . is 2009 the year that China's government collapses? Or is it just another year in which there will be a crackdown of a mass uprising? Because those may be the only two options.

This argument only makes sense in the same way the average Robin Williams film makes me laugh: not very much. The original Charter 77 came out when the economic decline of the communist nations of Eastern Europe was already very much in effect, and the reaction of the Czech government was harsh - but even then the Czech Communist party (supported by the Soviets) remained in firm control for another 11-12 years. Charter 08 has come out at a time when the Chinese growth in GDP looks to be slowing, but is still likely to be greater than 8% this year. The CCP has responded to it by arresting a few of the drafters and otherwise ignoring it completely. No doubt if it does start to receive attention, they will do their best to distract people with the kind of antics we saw directed against France this year. A mass movement is equally far off. There is no reason to believe anything other than that China is a long way from being rid of the communists.

I could go on, but exiled dissident Wan Runnan did a much better job of explaining why the CCP is not likely to disappear any time soon in his 2006 article "Why The Chinese Communists Are Not Doomed To Finish Yet". Here's his summing up (trans. by ESWN):

1. From the lessons of the former Soviet Russia and eastern Europe, the Communist Party is more firm and clear about suppressing the opposition;

2. After forming alliances, the Communist Party has established a relatively stable international environment;

3. The continuous economic development has provided adequate resources for improving their ability to govern;

4. Under the pretext of "we won't argue," the Communist Party has actually totally abandoned their former ideology;

5. The Communist Party has become a political party that represents wealthy people and the social elite. This newly created middle class is the foundation of stability in Chinese society today;

6. The confirmation of their model for power succession has eliminated the concerns about their ability to maintain government.

It is said that the existence of something includes two aspects: the existence of the spirit and the existence of the body. Then, in terms of spirit, the Communist Party no longer exists. It is finished because it has killed itself. In terms of body, it is still there but without a soul. They can now speak of "being based on people" and "eight honors and eight shames", but most of these spiritual resources can be readily found in the governing philosophy of various Chinese rulers in history. In the predictable future, I do not see any likelihood for a sudden collapse of the Chinese Communists.

The CCP isn't going away any time soon, because it no longer believes in communism, because it has co-opted the leading elements of society, because it has muzzled all potential sources of opposition, and because its policies have allowed economic growth on a scale never before seen.