In a time of crisis, more oversight and “putting the people first” needed

Wall Street banks are finally paying the price for years of speculation, and yet who is really suffering? The people's whose money was invested and those who lost their homes. My analysis of how the financial crisis fits in to the current crisis in China, which has all of us scared of eating anything with milk and infants in the hospital with kidney stones. Also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

While both China and the world welcomed the opening of the Olympics with great anticipation and ceremony, the Paralympics are closing with much of the world in crisis mode. With Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy, the US government bailing out AIG, and the stock market taking its largest fall since 9/11, the US financial crisis appears to only be worsening, with the long term and global effects still not fully known. With its stock market also reeling, China is concurrently facing issues of worker and consumer safety. An accident at a mine operating illegally in Shanxi caused a mudslide that killed more than two hundred and led to the resignation of the provincial governor, for lack of oversight (coincidentally, the former governor, Meng Xuenong, had been fired from his position as mayor of Beijing in 2003 for his failure to report the SARS crisis).

Of course, the most devastating and wide-reaching crisis affecting China comes from the dairy industry. In mid-September, the Sanlu Group announced that it was recalling 700 tons of its infant formula after it was discovered to be contaminated with melamine, which was causing kidney stones in infants. At the time of the recall, one child had already died, and Sanlu originally blamed the problem on the mislabeling of other products under the company's name. However, the crisis quickly expanded as more and more cases of sick infants came to light. It turns out the root of the problem lay at private milk collection centers, where melamine was added so the milk could appear to have more protein and thus pass inspection. Furthermore, the crisis quickly escalated from a problem for Sanlu to a systemic national problem in the dairy industry, as formula produced by 22 out of 109 dairy companies failed to pass inspection. Big names were on the list of 22, including Yili and Mengniu. The Ministry of Agriculture initiated special inspections of fresh milk as well as cow feed, as public distrust of all dairy products increases. At the time of this writing, 3 infants have died and more than 6000 have been affected.

Heads have started to roll, as people from milk collection stations responsible for the problem have been detained, as has a company chairwoman. The most tragic part of this incident is the cover-up that took place, which likely allowed hundreds more infants to be affected. According to a Caijing report, the vice governor of Hebei claimed that Shijiazhuang city officials knew of the problem on August 2 but failed to report it to higher officials as the law requires, and city officials have thus been fired for their negligence. There is much speculation that officials' reason for not reporting the problem lies with pressure to not cause trouble during the Olympics. Now the government is trying to resolve the issue by providing medical care for those affected. Still the brunt of the responsibility falls with Sanlu, as the company allegedly knew of the problem five months earlier, preventing the story from breaking by "trying behind-the-scenes remedies such as private compensation for victims, customer refunds, and a local media advertising campaign promoting the quality of its products."

Anger is palpable as parents desperately worry about their babies' health and the general populace doesn't know if it can trust any products made in China. The country faced a similar problem last summer, as exports ranging from toothpaste to dog food and toys were found to be contaminated. While this time it is predominantly a national rather than international issue, it proves that the quality control system remains horribly broken.

Seemingly very different, the dairy crisis is actually related to the US financial crisis and the mining accident in Shanxi in two ways: first, they all reflect a lack of oversight. The US government has failed to institute any effective oversight of many of Wall Street's activities, while in Shanxi "no one dared to blow the whistle on the mine owner because he was so rich that he could settle everything with money." Oversight obviously would have prevented the disastrous affects of contaminated baby formula. Secondly, such lack of supervision allowed elites to act in selfish ways that eventually caused great harm to the common people. While the mortgage companies, banks, and insurance companies are beginning to pay the price for their actions, it is the common people who have lost their homes and suffered due to the economic downturn who are the real losers. Similarly, the hundreds of mudslide deaths could have been avoided if the owner's money did not make him immune to regulation. Finally, the cover-up of the discovery of tainted baby formula caused unforgivable misery for the families of babies who have died or fallen ill. While the government claims to "put the people first," ineffective oversight, especially at the local level, makes officials and regulators seem more like those on Wall Street who put their own interests first. In the end, it is the common people who suffer.

Yang Jia: Criminal or hero?

In China, if you weren't talking about the Olympics this summer, you were probably talking about this case. Article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

On September 1, Yang Jia was sentenced to death by the No. 2 division of the Shanghai Municipal People's Court. His crime, killing six policemen and injuring a number of others in Shanghai's Zhabei District public security bureau, would not have attracted much sympathy by the judicial system nor the court of public opinion in any country. Yet in this year's summer of discontent in China, Yang Jia became somewhat of a people's hero. While it is unlikely that he will receive much sympathy from the China's supreme court when his case comes up for review, Chinese netizens have been surprisingly supportive of Mr. Yang. Immediately after the Weng'an incident, the overwhelming response to Yang's case demonstrated the large amount of dissatisfaction that people have with local lawmakers and law enforcement.

Supporters have questioned how a "nice guy" from Beijing who enjoys traveling and photography could end up as a cold-blooded killer. As more of the story came out, the public found out that Yang was held by the police last year on suspicion that he had stolen the bike he rented while on vacation in Shanghai. While a portion of the transcript reflecting acrimony on both sides was made public, police held him in custody for six hours even though he had proof that he had legally rented the bicycle. Allegations of abuse during his time in custody arose, as afterwards Yang Jia had unsuccessfully sued the police for 10,000 RMB for mental anguish suffered.

Furthermore, the conduct of the trial elicited questioning of its fairness. The trial was closed to the public; neither family members nor the media were allowed to witness the proceedings. Doubts about the appropriateness of Yang's lawyer, Xie Youming, arose, especially from the suspect's father who tried to have his own lawyer represent his son. Mr. Xie worked as a legal consultant for the Zhabei District government, so he would have had the same supervisor as the police officers who were killed, presenting what some argue is a conflict of interest. Additionally, Yang's lawyer dismissed the possibility of the insanity plea, as he himself found Yang in perfectly sound mental health and also asserted that he deserved the death penalty (note: all Chinese articles raising such doubts have been censored).

While some commentators sympathize with the slain policemen, arguing that Yang deserves his punishment, others have focused on the unfairness of the trial. Still, a large number seem to empathize with Yang Jia on a more emotional level, labeling him an "upholder of justice and righteousness"(义士). In a CCTV television report, investigative reporter Bai Yansong provided some possible explanations why the general public has been so sympathetic to Yang Jia. One such reason is that people see the police as a large, evil organization and thus see Mr. Yang's attacks as righteous and justified. Even if the individual police officers who died did not deserve such a fate, their lives can be ignored if Yang Jia's actions were in pursuit of a larger goal. Such an explanation begins to grasp the rampant distrust of local authority. As one commenter on our Chinese website wrote, "Yang Jia did what we all would like to but don't dare do, therefore, in a society where the rule of law is not evident, black and white are blurred, justice is not extended, there is no order, and violence is used indiscriminately, we have lost hope in the law. We hate the powers that be, naturally hope for a righteous hero, and sympathize with Yang Jia." Sympathetic reactions to Yang Jia's case not only seem to defy what many people in Western countries see as the obvious response to the killing of police officers but also suggest that more cases like Yang Jia's could appear in the future if law enforcement and the justice system do not reform for the better.

Other netizens have proffered that Yang Jia committed murder because he was born and raised in Beijing. More specifically, if the Shanghai police brought a migrant worker from the countryside into custody on suspicion of stealing a bike and treated him roughly, he would just be thankful to emerge alive. Accustomed to prejudice and bullying and convinced that there is no justice, someone from the countryside would not try to seek compensation through the justice system, seeing such actions as laughable because of their obvious inefficacy. Only someone brought up in Beijing, aware of his rights, would attempt to seek justice through the system and then turn violently against the system if it fails him.

Yet, we should hope that all citizens can reach the level of legal consciousness that Yang possessed and not maintain the expectation of injustice. It was not his understanding of his rights that led him to commit the crime but his sense that those rights had been violated and nothing had been done to correct for this wrong. While there are people who would act rashly under any system, a fairer and more just legal system could limit cases like Yang Jia's. As noted by his lawyer, his great understanding of the law is exactly the reason why the Shanghai justice system should have made the trial more transparent and open to the public. There is no doubt that Yang Jia committed the crime and most Chinese citizens would agree that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who murdered so many police officers. Therefore, it is not the verdict that is in question, it is the process. By holding a fair and transparent trial, the justice system could have said to both Yang Jia and his sympathizers: while the system failed you once, it has not failed you again. Instead, the questionable choice of a defense attorney and closed door proceedings only confirmed the inequity and injustice inherent in the system, which Yang already understood.

As the CCTV reporter Bai Yansong pointed out, people's lives are important; he asks how the people can expect the government to put the people first and fully respect human life if the people hold up Yang Jia (a killer) as an upholder of justice and righteousness. Police officers died, and their lives should be respected, but that does not mean that people cannot understand Yang Jia's motivations. The huge number of mass incidents in China that come about because of local injustices demonstrates that many Chinese have similar grievances. In fact, a true respect for human life would call on Yang Jia's sympathizers to work to reform the system so that it does run by the motto of putting the people and human lives first, thereby reducing incidents of injustice that can lead to violent consequences.

Reforming the state sport system – a first step

One idea for beginning to reform China's sports system, which I instincitvely am very much against, but I also realized it is the only way for a developing country to win gold. (Though it could certainly be a bit more forgiving of its athletes). Article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

No one doubts the great success that the Chinese team had at the Beijing Olympic games, winning 51 gold medals – significantly more than the second place American team – and 100 total medals. Such a performance has led to a debate about the state of sports in the country, which has generally seen itself as not competitive with developed countries in athletics, as well as the sports system. Ding Gang argues that the country's Olympic success as well as his observations of everyday athletic activities in China versus other countries demonstrates that China is a great country in sports.

However, one must ask by what standards a country's greatness in sports should be measured. One commentator on the Chinese China Elections and Governance website wrote in response to Ding's article, "the mark of a great country in sports is that its people decide on their own accord to make sports a part of their lives," calling into question the very state-run system that brought China its 51 gold medals. While there are obviously still many staunch defenders of the system, others have not used Olympic victory as an excuse for complacency and are calling for reform. The West has always leveled strong criticism at state-managed sports systems, and a Los Angeles Times article detailed some of the hardships endured by Chinese athletes en route to gold, but international Chinese sports stars such as Yao Ming have also critiqued its demanding nature. Yet, one of the most convincing reasons for reform may be the huge cost of gold medals, which could be as high as between 60 and 700 million RMB per medal. A Caijing editorial argues that the system's inefficiency and its inability to promote physical education for ordinary citizens indicate that it is time to change and move towards a market based system, even if it means sacrificing some gold medals along the way.

While the downsides for individuals caught in the system are difficult to argue with – children taken away from their parents at young ages for vigorous training and unsuccessful athletes doomed to difficult lives by their lack of other skills – there is likely no other way for a developing country to win gold medals in any significant quantities. Few Chinese families can afford the expensive training needed to perform well in sports such as gymnastics, diving, or equestrian. Additionally, most children focus almost exclusively on academics, leaving little time for athletic development as an extracurricular. The state system solves both of these problems by putting children with athletic potential into sports schools and paying their expenses. It is unlikely that this situation will change anytime soon and prompt drastic commercialization of athletics.

Still, there is a way forward that would both help to further foster widespread appreciation of the benefits of athletic activity and could eventually help to change the system towards a more market based one as Caijing suggests. China could use the American system as a model for reform for popular team sports such as basketball, soccer, and volleyball. There are many problems with the American sports system (one could argue that it takes commercialization too far), but it does provide a broad basis for developing athletes, especially in these spectator, team sports. In most areas of the US, there are sports leagues for soccer, basketball, baseball, or whatever sport happens to be popular in that region (this could include badminton and table tennis in China) for kids as young as five years old, in which anyone can participate. Children have practice once or twice per week and games against other teams on the weekend and are coached by parents or other volunteers. In middle school, teams representing their schools compete against each other and star players can go on to play on more specialized teams that have better coaches and require larger time commitments.

While certainly difficult to organize at a national level, China could begin in cities where it would be relatively easy to put together teams from different elementary schools or neighborhoods to compete against each other. Undoubtedly, Chinese students would relish a chance to practice and compete regularly in sports. Of course, schools would have to support this initiative and encourage students to spend time engaging in such extracurricular activities instead of focusing 100% of their energies on academic achievement. Furthermore, China could maintain high schools that focus on sports (but also teach academics) and use middle school leagues, once developed, as a feeder system.

Adopting this part of the American sports system would only begin to change athletics in China, and the state-run system would have to be maintained if the country wanted to continue to be a contender in the events it usually excels in (though it could make the system less physically and mentally demanding on its athletes). Still, this reform would certainly succeed in promoting broader engagement in athletic activities, and, you never know, it could develop China's first gold medal or World Cup winning soccer team from athletes that the rigid state system overlooked.

Olympic security: an evaluation

Written mostly on a bus. Seriously. For a further, broader evaluation of China's Olympic performance (which I mostly agree with), read this. My article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

After what seemed like an eternity of anticipation, the 2008 Beijing Olympics finally began with an eye-catching opening ceremony that showcased China's large population and Zhang Yimou's cinematography skills. While issues such as pollution, censorship, and human rights had dominated the media leading up to the event, once the games began, much of the news coverage shifted focus to the athletes and the race to win the most gold medals.

However, one issue of heated controversy leading up to the games was the drastic security measures taken by Beijing in preparation for the Games. The Chinese government cited real threats as the rationale for such measures, while the Western media dismissed such assertions, labeling the measures as draconian and even said they resembled techniques used during the Mao era. Was the high level of security justified? Or did the Chinese authorities overreact? It is obvious that China has a much broader definition of "security threat" than Western countries, and regulations – such as not allowing banners into Olympic arenas – appear to explicitly target potential political protesters. Still, events both before and after the opening ceremony have demonstrated that risks of both real and imagined security threats exist and must be dealt with. Critics may not like China's strict regulations on protesting (one must have a permit to protest, even in specific protest zones), but despite many challenges, Beijing has proven rather adept at handling security challenges and making sure they do not disrupt the Games.

Olympic Protests

Chief among the imagined security threats was Joey Cheek, a gold-medal-winning-speed skater who also helped to start the group Team Darfur, which advocates on behalf of victims of genocide. China revoked his visa, leading not only to further criticism of the host country's human rights situation and its involvement in Sudan but also commentary on the absurdity of the measures taken by Beijing to ensure a protest-free Olympics. Similarly, local dissidents have been put under house arrest to guarantee that they do not disrupt the games.

While Beijing has not granted permits for protests in the designated zones, protesters have managed to get around stepped up security. Protests have included the hanging of "Free Tibet" banners on lampposts near the national stadium and one staged by Students for a Free Tibet members who managed to bypass the especially stringent measures in Tiananmen Square. The Chinese government is deporting foreign protesters, as they are in violation of domestic law but has generally shown restraint in dealing with incidents, even paying for dinner and flights home for some. Local protests have been kept under control by the monitoring of dissidents, though a small group of Qianmen homeowners did manage to march near Tiananmen. So far, Beijing has handled the small protests to its Olympics rather well, making sure that they do not disrupt the Games or incur excessive attention and criticism from the West.

Olympic Violence

Beijing has long claimed that the largest threat to security during the Games comes from Islamic separatist groups from Xinjiang, which have been responsible for bus bombings in the past and with whom the Chinese government has long been fighting. The West doesn't doubt the reality of the threat from such groups – the US even has the East Turkestan Islamic Movement on its list of terrorist organizations – but because of little transparency on the Chinese side, many suspect that fighting terrorism remains an excuse for abusing the human rights of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. The first proof of the possibility of terrorist attacks occurred on July 21 in Kunming, when two bus bombs killed two and injured many others. Although Beijing asserts that the attacks were not engineered by terrorist organizations, they certainly made clear that security, especially during the Olympics, remains a concern in China.

Since then, Islamic separatist groups have proven their intention to disrupt the Games, though they have so far launched their attacks only in Xinjiang, not in Beijing. The first particularly jarring attack occurred on August 4, when militants attacked and killed 16 border police in Kashgar, Xinjiang. This incident was followed up by a series of bomb attacks, also in Xinjiang, and a third attack killed 3 security officers near Kashgar. These attacks certainly represent an increase in violence in China's westernmost province or at least an increase in reporting of violent attacks.

Then on August 10, a man from Hangzhou stabbed American Todd Bachman to death, the father-in-law of the US men's volleyball coach, and also injured his wife and their Chinese tour guide while they were visiting the drum tower. The attacker then killed himself by jumping off the tower. Especially since violent attacks on foreigners are a rare occurrence, this one garnered much international media attention, but it appeared to be an isolated incident carried out by a man who "acted out of despair." Furthermore, American tourists in Beijing still view the city as safe, demonstrating the freak nature of the stabbing and that people have acknowledged it would have been nearly impossible to prevent.

Now that the Olympics have started, events have proven that Beijing was correct to worry about security, although it is impossible to tell whether Chinese measures were too paranoid or appropriate to deal with such threats. In terms of political protests, Beijing probably did not need to be so concerned. The city has dealt with such disturbances well, calling into question pre-Olympic moves such as curtailing visas and even revoking Joey Cheek's, which only served to attract more criticism from abroad. Still, attacks in Xinjiang and on American tourists have demonstrated that security risks are real, though they may come in forms not anticipated by the authorities. On the whole, Beijing has certainly demonstrated to the world that they have what it takes – both in security and otherwise – to host a successful Olympics.

China and Africa, China and the World

From a looong time ago. Also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

China's rise and the role it will play on the international stage have been topics of discussion for years, yet no one knows for sure how China will influence the international system. Events this past week in Africa provided a few clues about the complexities of China's relationship with the world.

Critical Vote

China demonstrated its growing power on the world's stage by, along with Russia, vetoing the UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe. The sanctions would have imposed an embargo on arms sales as well as freezing the assets of and imposing a travel ban on top officials. The US argument for sanctions derives from Zimbabwe's March elections, which were won by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai over long-ruling dictator Robert Mugabe. But because Tsvangirai only won a plurality, not a majority, of votes according to the official count, a run-off was scheduled, which the opposition leader eventually dropped out of due to Mugabe's brutal and violent tactics to suppress the opposition vote. The hope was that sanctions would drive Mugabe to further negotiations with the opposition and end his campaign of intimidation.

On the other side, China and Russia argued – along with South Africa and two other countries that voted against the resolution – that sanctions would hinder the mediation process that was already beginning to take place. Furthermore, Zimbabwe's situation still qualifies as a domestic problem – not a threat to international security – so it is not proper for the UN to step in. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is a major tenet of Chinese foreign policy. Yet, it is doubtful that China held the critical vote on this resolution, as both British and American diplomats asserted that Russia, who seemed to suddenly change position on the issue, was key. China, on the contrary, rarely uses its veto, usually only exercising it on resolutions that involve Taiwan or military force and is especially wary of being the lone veto.

China and Africa

Yet despite this rather understandable position by China, given the position of Russia and Zimbabwe's neighboring countries, China's influence in Zimbabwe remains a point of contention. Accused of being the financiers of Mugabe's corrupt regime, the PRC has a long history of cooperation with Robert Mugabe, as China provided financial support and military training to his Zanu rebels in the 1970s. And with Mugabe in power, the two countries have continued their cooperation to this day, as China has mineral and energy resource deals with Zimbabwe and also continues to be Mugabe's major supplier of weapons. The latter led to problems earlier this year when in April a Chinese ship carrying arms for Zimbabwe docked in Durban, South Africa, and the dock workers, backed by their union, refused to unload the cargo. The shipment came a few weeks after the election, and the arms were suspected to be used against those who voted for the opposition. Other African nations also refused to unload the ship, and it is unclear whether or not the arms ever made it to Zimbabwe. The backlash, especially from neighboring African countries, calls into question the Chinese policy of non-interference, as arming a government that violently oppresses a significant portion of its population is not clear nut non-interference. Furthermore, instability in Zimbabwe has the potential to greatly affect the neighboring countries that opposed the arms sale.

The arms shipment scandal is just one incident in a wider debate about China's influence in Africa. The Chinese government argues that its trade with and investment in Africa genuinely benefits the people, helping these countries build their infrastructure and develop. In their testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on African Affairs, two high ranking State Department officials – including renowned expert on Chinese foreign policy, Thomas Christensen – generally agreed, saying that Chinese involvement on the continent is a "potentially positive force for economic development." Chinese activities should not be seen as trying to lessen US influence, as there are many opportunities for cooperation, which is already beginning to occur.

Still, there are some concerns; many of China's African partners complain that the Chinese tend to not use local workers or raw materials, instead bringing their own. Investments in infrastructure and other forms of aid are seen as primarily fueled by a thirst for Africa's mineral and oil wealth. The West also opposes the PRC's policy of aid with "no strings attached," as it impedes Western efforts to use aid to encourage good governance and democracy. But as China argues, sovereignty is also an important international value. It remains to be seen how strictly Beijing will adhere to its policy of non-interference in the future and how it will affect the international system as well as Western efforts to encourage universal values.

In addition to Zimbabwe, China's dealings with Sudan have also been a cause for concern. The China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) is the primary player in Sudan, and Western NGOs and individuals have accused China of essentially underwriting the genocide in Darfur with its oil trade and arms sales to Sudan, calling for an Olympic boycott because of this issue. A recent BBC report accused Beijing of violating an arms embargo on Darfur, which the Chinese government denied. While China has not used its leverage over Khartoum to the extent that the West would like, it has, in the past two years, taken an active role in the Darfur crisis, led by its envoy Liu Guijin, helping to convince Sudan to accept an international peacekeeping force, contributing to the peacekeeping force, and providing humanitarian aid. At the same time, Beijing just expressed "great concern," over the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide. Still, the question is, how much can we blame China, especially when Western governments have clearly not made Darfur a priority?

China's dealings with Africa provide a snapshot of the complexities of China's evolving relationship with the world at large. Beijing's approach of quiet diplomacy – as evident in Darfur as well as in the North Korean nuclear crisis – and its investment and trade in Africa provide a definite benefit to both the recipient countries and the international system as a whole. Yet, as China begins to become a larger and larger player, it will be more and more difficult to strictly adhere to a policy of non-interference, especially as the line between domestic and international issues becomes increasingly blurred due to globalization. While the West certainly has little moral authority to question China's intentions on the continent, African concerns about Chinese projects and arms sales should resonate in Beijing. China will have to further contemplate how to advance its own interests while also fostering a positive image in the world. At the same time, if the G8 hopes to remain relevant, it will have to adapt, including China as a member and as a respected player in the international system.

Welcome Back...to Reality

I've now been back in Beijing for almost a month. True to form, the day I landed in Beijing, the air looked something like this. (ok, not that bad). Thankfully it rained the next day, and I have to say, the air, even for the Paralympics has been pretty good, with a few beautiful "great" days thrown in. But that all changed on Saturday. The 奥运期 (Olympic period) is now officially over. Factories are up and running, all cars are on the road, I have to work til 6, and you can buy knives at Carrefour (seriously, they weren't selling knives during the Olympics...). Olympic Beijing was wonderful while it lasted (even if it played a part in me spending the Olympics at home), but now its back to the real Beijing.

A short personal update: since being back, I've started teaching, but this time at a new school in a much nicer location. I have also returned to work and seen a Paralympic event (wheelchair tennis - very fun to watch). And I have plans to visit the seaside city of Qingdao during the October 1 - National Day - vacation. (Yes, the same Qingdao - or Tsingdao - where they make the beer).

I'm now also going to post the backlog of articles I've written since July. Comments are very much welcome.

It Takes a School, Not Missiles

Op-ed from probably my favorite NYTimes columnist. Here.

By Nicholas Kristof

Since 9/11, Westerners have tried two approaches to fight terrorism in Pakistan, President Bush’s and Greg Mortenson’s.

Mr. Bush has focused on military force and provided more than $10 billion — an extraordinary sum in the foreign-aid world — to the highly unpopular government of President Pervez Musharraf. This approach has failed: the backlash has radicalized Pakistan’s tribal areas so that they now nurture terrorists in ways that they never did before 9/11.

Mr. Mortenson, a frumpy, genial man from Montana, takes a diametrically opposite approach, and he has spent less than one-ten-thousandth as much as the Bush administration. He builds schools in isolated parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, working closely with Muslim clerics and even praying with them at times.

The only thing that Mr. Mortenson blows up are boulders that fall onto remote roads and block access to his schools.

Mr. Mortenson has become a legend in the region, his picture sometimes dangling like a talisman from rearview mirrors, and his work has struck a chord in America as well. His superb book about his schools, “Three Cups of Tea,” came out in 2006 and initially wasn’t reviewed by most major newspapers. Yet propelled by word of mouth, the book became a publishing sensation: it has spent the last 74 weeks on the paperback best-seller list, regularly in the No. 1 spot.

Now Mr. Mortenson is fending off several dozen film offers. “My concern is that a movie might endanger the well-being of our students,” he explains.

Mr. Mortenson found his calling in 1993 after he failed in an attempt to climb K2, a Himalayan peak, and stumbled weakly into a poor Muslim village. The peasants nursed him back to health, and he promised to repay them by building the village a school.

Scrounging the money was a nightmare — his 580 fund-raising letters to prominent people generated one check, from Tom Brokaw — and Mr. Mortenson ended up selling his beloved climbing equipment and car. But when the school was built, he kept going. Now his aid group, the Central Asia Institute, has 74 schools in operation. His focus is educating girls.

To get a school, villagers must provide the land and the labor to assure a local “buy-in,” and so far the Taliban have not bothered his schools. One anti-American mob rampaged through Baharak, Afghanistan, attacking aid groups — but stopped at the school that local people had just built with Mr. Mortenson. “This is our school,” the mob leaders decided, and they left it intact.

Mr. Mortenson has had setbacks, including being kidnapped for eight days in Pakistan’s wild Waziristan region. It would be naïve to think that a few dozen schools will turn the tide in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Still, he notes that the Taliban recruits the poor and illiterate, and he also argues that when women are educated they are more likely to restrain their sons. Five of his teachers are former Taliban, and he says it was their mothers who persuaded them to leave the Taliban; that is one reason he is passionate about educating girls.

So I have this fantasy: Suppose that the United States focused less on blowing things up in Pakistan’s tribal areas and more on working through local aid groups to build schools, simultaneously cutting tariffs on Pakistani and Afghan manufactured exports. There would be no immediate payback, but a better-educated and more economically vibrant Pakistan would probably be more resistant to extremism.

“Schools are a much more effective bang for the buck than missiles or chasing some Taliban around the country,” says Mr. Mortenson, who is an Army veteran.

Each Tomahawk missile that the United States fires in Afghanistan costs at least $500,000. That’s enough for local aid groups to build more than 20 schools, and in the long run those schools probably do more to destroy the Taliban.

The Pentagon, which has a much better appreciation for the limits of military power than the Bush administration as a whole, placed large orders for “Three Cups of Tea” and invited Mr. Mortenson to speak.

“I am convinced that the long-term solution to terrorism in general, and Afghanistan specifically, is education,” Lt. Col. Christopher Kolenda, who works on the Afghan front lines, said in an e-mail in which he raved about Mr. Mortenson’s work. “The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with books. ... The thirst for education here is palpable.”

Military force is essential in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban. But over time, in Pakistan and Afghanistan alike, the best tonic against militant fundamentalism will be education and economic opportunity.

So a lone Montanan staying at the cheapest guest houses has done more to advance U.S. interests in the region than the entire military and foreign policy apparatus of the Bush administration.

‘The Endless Pursuit of Unnecessary Things’

A blog post from a long time ago on the NYTimes' Dot Earth blog. Should at least give people cause for thought. Here.

By Andrew Revkin

Amid the flow of Super Tuesdays, Superbowl surprises, news about faltering energy projects and rising solar cities, I’ve been collecting threads that relate to a central theme of Dot Earth: the implications of humanity’s growing numbers and resource thirst.

Here are a few from the last few days:

- A radio commentary quoting one of the less-familiar dictums of Adam Smith, who is best known for championing economic growth, but in this case was warning about too much of a good thing.

- The hypnotically unnerving documentary “Manufactured Landscapes,” which glaringly displays the increasingly human-shaped face of Earth.

- A sociology paper proposing that the best way to lessen consumption for its own sake is to reduce how much people work. (Is there a win-win here, or am I missing something?)

- A paper in the journal Science on sustainability showing that, by one measure, afflictions related to affluence take away as many years of life as do ills associated with poverty.

These papers and observations all circle around the two questions at the heart of the sustainability puzzle that will largely determine the quality of human lives and the environment in which they are lived: How many? How much?

How many people will inhabit Earth in the next few generations?

How much stuff – energy, land, water, marine life – will they consume?

A few examples: The overlay of rising demand and lagging supply of oil or comparable liquid fuel will shape everything from economics to international conflict. The amount of coal extracted and burned (along with the oil) will influence climate for centuries to come. The extent of land used to grow fuel, food, or fiber will determine the costs of those necessities and also the fate of the world’s last untrammeled ecosystems.

Back to the related nuggets above.

I was listening to the public-radio program Marketplace and heard a guest commentary by Charles Handy, an expert on business management who founded the London Business School and is in residence at the Drucker School of Business of Claremont (Calif.) Graduate University.

He was musing on the ideas of two departed pillars of economics, Adam Smith and Peter Drucker, in relation to limits to growth.

An excerpt:

…I wonder how [Peter Drucker] would have reacted to some of the things that bother me. For instance, how would he respond to what I call “Adam Smith’s Great Conundrum?”

Adam Smith, the father of economics, 250 years ago, said: “An investment is by all right-minded people to be commended, because it brings comforts and necessities to the citizenry. But, if continued indefinitely, it will lead to the endless pursuit of unnecessary things.”

Now that I am living for a while in California, I am staggered by the amount of “unnecessary things” that I see in the malls that dot the suburbs. America is no different from anywhere else, of course — just more so.

The conundrum is this: All that stuff creates jobs — making it, promoting it, selling it. It’s literally the stuff of growth. What I’d love to ask Peter Drucker is: How do you grow an economy without the jobs and taxes that these unnecessary things produce?

Drucker saw business as the agent of progress. Its main responsibility, he said, was to come up with new ideas and take them to market. But not just any new ideas, please — only those that bring genuine benefits to the customers, and do not muck up the environment.

The market, unfortunately, does not differentiate between good and bad. If the people want junk, the market will provide. So we have to fall back on the conscience of our business leaders.

Then there was “Manufactured Landscapes,” a film examining how human demands for resources and products are transforming the physical world, and the environment experienced on a daily basis by humans caught up in the rush of urbanized, mechanized, work-centered life. It does so over the shoulder of the Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky, who has made chronicling the face of the Anthropocene epoch his life’s work of late.

I saw a snippet of it when writing a post on the “urban age” last week, but finally had a chance to watch the DVD. It is an unforgettable experience, something like a mash-up of “Apocalypse Now” and “Modern Times.”

It is a sobering view, particularly the scenes in sprawling Chinese factory cities churning out the (unnecessary?) things that prosperous people seem to need in ever-rising amounts. Watch the hands of a young woman as she speeds through the 20 or so manipulations necessary to make an electronic device whose purpose she only can guess at. She makes 400 a day. Then watch as the camera pans cavernous halls full of similar workers, then cuts outdoors to the cordons of thousands of workers heading to yellow dormitories.

How many factories? How much stuff?

Then came “Sustainable Consumption and Worktime Reduction,” a paper by Juliet Schor, a sociologist at Boston College, that I stumbled on while surfing a 2005 special issue of the journal Industrial Ecology on the global impacts of cities. The entire issue is enlightening.

She chronicles how industrialized economies have generally translated productivity gains in the workplace into making more stuff (and money to buy stuff) instead of making less work (reducing work hours).

A world heading toward 9 billion, however, following that path of ever more work and money to buy ever more stuff, cannot be sustained, Professor Schor concludes:

Achieving a sustainable and equitable global solution is clearly incompatible with a worldwide replication of U.S. lifestyles or even the somewhat less damaging ecological impacts of the lifestyles of other industrialized countries. In such a situation, inhabitants of the global North can and should opt for a new economic and social vision based on quality of life, rather than quantity of stuff, with reduced work time and ecological sustainability at its core. Such a vision has the potential to create broad-based pressure for an alternative to the current system of ecologically destructive, inequitable consumer-driven growth. Indeed, the future of the planet increasingly depends on it.

This paper echoed ideas I explored in 2005, when writing on Bhutan’s experiment with “gross national happiness” as a substitute for the more familiar gross national product.

Finally, there was “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being,” a paper in Science by John P. Holdren, the Harvard expert on energy, environment, development and lots of other things.

The paper is a sprawling portrait of a world poised between a livable path toward 9 billion and one wracked by disruption and suffering, along with a menu for limiting losses as we head into crunch time these next few decades. But one chart really grabbed my attention. By Dr. Holdren’s analysis, when you measure human tolls in years of life lost (e.g., a child cut down by disease loses decades; a grandmother dying of a stroke at 80 loses a few years.), the major afflictions of poverty and affluence do us in at roughly equal rates.

Childhood and maternal malnutrition, he estimates, erased 200 million life years in the year 2000. High blood pressure, cholesterol, obesity, and lack of physical activity erased 150 million life years. (There’s a long list of other causes, from war to tobacco.)

So at each end of the development ladder – from not enough to too much – we get into trouble.

So are we now locked into the “endless pursuit of unnecessary things?” In thinking about this warning from Adam Smith, I can’t help but feel bad for Thomas Malthus, who has taken all the heat from free-market champions of eternal growth over the years.

Maybe it was Adam Smith who was the first Malthusian prophet of doom.

edit to the last post

I realize that #5 and #9 (along with a long list of other things) are really just two parts of what could be called the "harmonization" of Beijing for the Olympics. No dirty restaurants, no spitting, and no unwanted people. As a Chinese article on the China Elections website says, "2008年的北京并不是真正的北京，而是为了开一个“平安与和谐”的奥运而被重新梳妆和打扮出来的有点扭扭捏捏、装腔作势的北京."

Basically: "The 2008 Beijing, is not the real Beijing, but instead is a Beijing that, in order to put on a 'safe and harmonious' Olympics, is being newly dressed up and putting on airs."

I'll be happy to return when Beijing is back to normal.

能否归回家？ Going home

So as most of you probably know, I'm heading back to the US in August. Yes, I know this means I'm missing the Olympics, but tickets for events are either impossible to get, too expensive, or for events I don't want to see anyway. That and thanks to Olympic security regulations, I need to process my next visa in the US. So to comfort myself for missing the Olympics (which I have always wanted to see live...really, I asked my parents if we could go to Atlanta in 1996), I made a top 10 list (in no particular order) of why I'm glad to be going back:

1. pollution

My biggest complaint, hands down, about Beijing is the air quality. Click the link to see what i'm talking about, though it has gotten much, much better this summer, thanks to temporary measures such as shutting down factories and curbing traffic.

2. subway security checks

They are checking bags at every subway stop (kind of....they sometimes force you to go through the back check, sometimes they don't), but it is causing nightmares (I had a blogpost with a picture of a crazy long line outside one of the stops but he took the picture down...sorry). It will only get worse when the Games actually come.

3. crowds

With 1.3 billion people (all of whom, I swear, live in Beijing), there are always crowds in China, but thanks to the restrictions that limit private cars, more people are taking public transportation. Thankfully this doesn't seem to have greatly affected my daily bus route. But still, the crowds are there.

4. 老外 foreigners

The city will be filled with foreigners who don't speak Chinese. No offense if you're one of them, but I'll be glad to miss the chaos.

5. no street food or cheap, dirty restaurants

Why can't the lady who sells fruit near the office sell me my mangoes in peace? I understand that most foreigners are used to higher levels of sanitary conditions, but I like the cheap food!

6. American television coverage of the Olympics

So the one channel on TV that I watch with any regularity is the sports channel and lets just say they play a lot of Olympic re-runs. Obviously CCTV is not an unbiased organization and all sports channels cheer for their own country, but you could at least give the other team credit (a 好球 here and there when deserved) for their achievements. This does seem to be improving – I watched an international volleyball tournament live recently and the announcers did say “nice shot,” etc for the other team.

7. shopping in peace

Please just let me look at what you have in your store/stall and decide what I want to buy. You bothering me is only going to make me less likely to buy from you.

8. bbq

Ever since the 4^th of July I've been craving bbq. I can't wait!

9. kicking out of migrant workers

Sure, migrant workers are more likely to stare at me, but they're also the ones that built all the Olympic facilities, and from a pure human rights perspective, they should be allowed to stay in Beijing.

10. China's inevitable 小题大做

People have all sorts of theories about what will go down come August 8. Mine is that small groups or individuals will, probably more than once, try to engage in public protest, and I'm pretty sure Beijing will overreact. I really hope such overreaction doesn't happen, but I'm not optimistic.

And obviously it will be great to see everyone. I realized that in the course of a little over a month, I will be in every city that I think of as “home;” this also includes every place, excluding one, where I've lived at least 3 months of my life. (LA, Pennsylvania, bay area...i will also probably be going to Boston and NYC for a day or two...let me know if you'll be in these places!)

PS. I have a few things I've wanted to post...both other people's articles and my own. I will do that ASAP.