Thomas Crampton has a good post and video on how policy leaders believe China would vote for Obama. Why:

China would vote for Obama in part because he is from a minority ethnic group, said Shen Dingli of Shanghai’s Fudan University.

Of course rightly notes the irony:

Somewhat ironic to poll people living in countries with varying levels of electoral and dictatorial governments about how they feel about the US elections. Wonder how Myanmar would vote? Imagine Vietnam is pro-McCain. Anyone know?

His post reminds me of something I forgot to mention when I went to the Asia Foundation’s talk back in February on the role of governance. One of the many hopes for the world, and even those who live under dictatorships, is for America to right itself after this administration and once again show why America is often seen as the best hope for humanity and for the rights of anyone.

All the panelists agreed how the current administration has reduced our standing in the world to the lowest ever with such vitriol dislike, but that, with just the election of Barack Obama, America would make up half of the harm it has done. The semi-joke being Africa is happy and with a middle name of ‘Hussein’ Middle Easterners are then impressed as well seeing how America really does stand up to its unique and moral values every so often.

Ran across an excerpt on NPR.org on the book “The New Asian Hemisphere” by Kishore Mahbubani that goes into how Asia has been rising economically in turns starting with Japan, then the Asian Tigers, and now China and India which has been dramatically reducing the number of people living in poverty.

Yet, Mahbubani notes that with the rise of Asia, the West is becoming more and more worried of instability and outside threats exactly from the West’s push for other nations to reach Western levels of modernity. Why the fear? Mahbubani believes that:

[The West] is keenly aware that if this trend continues, a great day of reckoning must come. As the spirit of democratization gathers strength and more and more human beings take charge of their own destinies, they will increasingly question the undemocratic world order they live in.

That undemocratic world? The post-World War II structure of the United Nations and the UN Security Council. We have already seen a restructure before and attempts to expand the Security Council in recent years, but to little success.

McCain’s idea of a union of democracies is more enticing to me personally than trying to restructure a post-World War II international order that so far refuses to adjust to new power statuses. Seeing nations that have violated human rights on the Human Rights Council even after the UN tried to adjust to today’s world a sad reality of how stuck in the past the UN is.

That said, a union of democracies does creates more problems by excluding other nations and removes a rather stable international system that has helped to dampen wars from spreading. More than likely, a new international system will not come about until either one of the two (non-disastrous) situations happen: a world filled completely with democracies (with a push for a single democratic union possibly like the EU) or space colonization (where people are no longer concerned about national identity due to the huge distances of space).

In any case, this will be a book worthwhile to buy and read for me.

现在你们都听过很多美国媒体对中国不好；说，写，表现不好。有的中国人断言抗议，有的别人支持一个中国的省。

请你们记得国语不是我的本机语言，所以先问我奇怪的句子，然后你可以客气地回答。

---

我是谁？如果你看我的博客，你已经知道我是美国人（犹太人），跟上海女孩结婚，三次去中国，五年学习汉字，住在旧金山/硅谷。

我懂美国媒体对中国不好；我知道那个媒体用错的照片，知道那个媒体没有人去中国的省看看怎么样，知道那个媒体不了解中国历史。

我是谁？我的中文名字是邓守信。我觉得邓小平了解中国肯定开放。

1980以后，中国快地发展，发展很多中国人的生活。中国经济发展，买很多美国政治的钱。我看过厦门，上海，北京，广州发展，看过上海健康很多摩天楼，给中国人能买现代的东西，有一个现代的生活。我明白，支持中国政治经济的政策。

我是谁？每天我听中国音乐，常中国歌（不好的）。

2003 我先去中国时候，（我不是普通的外国人－－他们不喜欢跟中国人去玩玩，他们不喜欢跟中国人了解中国）我自己去看看上海，自己去英角跟中国人用说国语聊天 （记得我的中国水平不高）。当然我不了解万事，不过会问为什么做这个，然后回答为什么美国打伊拉克（我不选择了布设！）。非典来时候，我不回来美国，事实 上我呆在上海继续学习中文，上班。为什么？我爱中国，我爱上海，我爱中国人，我爱中国文化。

我是谁？我毕业高中学校时候，已经知道我想学习中国历史，古代文化，语言，人民，音乐，现代文化。

我去北京时候，每个学习的成为经验。我去紫禁城，看到活的历史。我去长城，感觉我有满足感。

那，真的我是谁？可能一个中国通？大概你老外的朋友。

你 们都应该发现中国进入世界贸易组织，使全球化的世界。中国政治做什么，全的世界会看到。你们不可以说’我们家的事要你管’了！每个动作有一个反对的动作。 因为中国有很多的美国钱，如果中国改变人民币的价值，美国就影响。如果美国政治给美国农夫钱所以他们可以卖米，中国就不可以便宜地卖米。欢迎到全球化来。

我是谁？我学士是国际关系，博士是太平洋的国际关系。

如果不可以说’我们家的事要你管’了，怎么办？学习国际历史，学习美国历史，学习别的国家做什么。一个美国人抱怨中国的知识产权？告诉他美国投英国的知识产权所以可以发展。一个美国人抱怨中国的林木？告诉他1800时候，美国砍倒很多林木。你别骂人，你讲为什么他们不对。

我是谁？我是独立的人，而且发现没有人，没有政治是完成式。

爱中国，不爱国家主义。你对一个人一点不好，而且对一个人很多好，那个人只记得你对他不好。这个情况和政治一样（比如说美国和伊拉克）。英文是世界的语言，很多美国人会看英文，所以中国媒体翻译，学习国际外交，然后外交地写报告。很多中国媒体写，翻译太悲惨的，所以老外会继续觉得中国政府不是好的政府。

记得把，我是谁？我学习中国（可能不好），已经爱中国，支持中国。你自己问，怎么使确信别的外国人吗？

“Stay out of Chinese internal affairs!” is the quickest way to losing the argument in today’s world. Simply put, globalization makes domestic affairs further entwined with every other nation around the globe.

Every once in awhile I will run across a comment on the web or will be told in person that one (me, Americans, etc.) should stay out of China’s internal affairs. By stating this line one has already put oneself on the defensive and with any knowledgeable person schooled in international affairs this will equate to quickly losing the argument. As to why this line of debate will lose often:

• Defensive Arguments: By staying on the defensive, one rarely get the chance to turn the argument around while the attacker continues to point-by-point explain why it matters to care about what happens in China. In fact, by playing defensive, one brings out further criticisms and problems about China and China only rather than dealing ever trying to win the argument.
• International Affairs Majors: Those who lean towards International Economics / Neo-Liberalism will quickly delve into the effects of globalization on the world today. What one country does internally can easily affect the outcome of another country’s economy. When the US continues to subsidize its agriculture industry to help keep agricultural jobs within the US, poorer nations where agriculture is their main export can no longer compete in the world market causing job loses and economic instability in that country. Japanese textbooks that wash over what happened in Nanjing during World War Ii creates diplomatic uproars between the Japanese and Chinese governments due to historical sensitivities.

So, what is the right way to go about dealing with someone who is complaining about what is going on within China? Know international history well and what country the person is coming from. If the person (let’s say an American) is complaining about how horrible things are in a certain Chinese province, start doing comparisons with how Americans treated Native Americans.

Complaints about intellectual property rights? How else do you think the industrial revolution started within the United States except from a man who literally memorized how to make a British-patented device leading to American modernization.

Complaints over Chinese Yuan value to the American dollar? Agree with them but then say that China will first have to reclaim all the debt that the US currently owes China–about $4 trillion dollars worth.

Complaints about the environment? The US chopped down such a wide swath of forests that makes Brazil’s use of the Amazon rain forest look small in comparison.

In conclusion, when a new problem arises out of China (or any other native country), learn the international history associated to the topic and prepare to note their hypocrisy in not dealing with their own internal affairs in the right way first. Tell them they say one thing, but have done something else entirely.

The Lost Laowai does a superb job explaining (along with good comments) on the difference in the Western and Chinese viewpoints, medias, and perceptions on the recent events in China.

I ran across a blog called “Journalism by Other Means” talking about The New Hegemony, a response via the New York Times article. I strongly suggest reading the full 8-page article (I know, that’s a lot of clicks and time) called Waving Good-bye to Hegemony. Part of the article definitely goes into my previous post on the Rise of Chinese Style Democracy, but I wanted to note some areas of disagreement on a wonderful article that makes me happy to see some journalists really caring about the US/international affairs contrary to this past 8 years (all after the jump…) (more…)

It has been awhile since I have thought about this theoretical construct and really blogged about international affairs theory in general, but after reading Mr. Google Sucks’s post on Select2008 (it is a site that algorithmically determines who you should vote for based on how you answer ‘yes/no’ questions in a very nice web 2.0 layout–read: SEO-unfriendly), I thought it would interesting to provide my views about Strategic Choice.

(more…)