The website Visual Economics pulls together data from a couple of sources and at least provides a visual perspective by region which is more helpful than pure number estimates:

Of course, the reality is that China’s military spending is growing, but a lot of data gets thrown around about stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, and cyber warfare that doesn’t speak to an over-arching issue: when China’s economy is the same size of the US (see a good CS Monitor article) they will be able to match our budget despite a still much smaller per capita GDP figure).

Combined with what will be 3 to 5 trillion dollars in reserves, China will have, dare I say, quite a war chest.  So to my mind, the question to ask is not whether China will continue to modernize their military -they will and should.  The question for us to track in the news is insight into their strategic goals, and the key issue for our security is a lack of transparency.

Instead of worrying about China’s investment into its military might, we should worry more about how it plans to use it.

In an article in yesterday’s New York Times, potential testing of a new stealth fighter by the Chinese Military was featured over the Defense Secretary Gates’ visit to Beijing.  Later editions of the article changed the lead to highlight the visit first, but the bulk of the article was about the stealth fighter.

The overall story of Beijing’s military modernization program is certainly important, but I think more print should have been spilled on the high level exchanges – without which the risk of conflict increases.   There will always be more modern weapons in Beijing’s arsenal (and don’t forget we inspire this because our own weapons are so frequently on display).  The point is what is Beijing’s intentions, aspirations, strategies; this is what military exchange is all about.

On one point, the article did a good job of highlighting how ham-fisted the PRC continues to be over discussing it’s modernization efforts.  Transparency breeds trust and if Beijing wants us to believe in a peaceful rise, then we could use some more open dialogue.

From a reader and podcast listener in the United States:

“My overarching thought is that I would like to start seeing a bit more focus on the actual impacts of China in Africa (CiA), rather than Western perceptions of China in Africa. Reading your coverage of CiA, I get the impression that you are most interested in exposing western hypocrisy and misconceptions about CiA, rather than the actual effects of CiA. To me, this risks falling into what I see as a fairly well established narrative in much of academia and certain media outlets where it is considered correct to bash the former colonial powers while giving present-day African governments (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404300.html for an example), and potentially neo-colonial powers such as China, little attention.

ERIC OLANDER: You are absolutely right that among the central motivations of the China in Africa (CiA) content was to highlight the hypocrisies of the West regarding the Chinese presence in Africa.  However, I cannot agree with you more that if that is done to an extreme, it will absolutely fall in to the stereotypical trap that has ensnared so many other observers of this issue.   The hypocrisies of the West is but one part of this multifaceted story.  Subsequent to receiving your feedback, we have modified the podcast to be far more issue and country specific rather than rely on broader, over-arching issues that are much easier to generalize.

In other words, a focus on Western hypocrisy/misdeeds in Africa is nothing new, and, in my mind, is sometimes so overplayed that people/governments/institutions who should receive more scrutiny do not by virtue of the fact that they are not one of the former colonial powers.

ERIC OLANDER: On the one hand, I think you are correct in saying that blaming the old colonial powers for incompetence and greed is an old story.  However, I will take issue with you on the point of attacking the aid industry.  With few exceptions there is very little critical review of the international aid industry.  Sites like Aid Watch are among only a handful of organizations that provide any kind oversight to this multi-billion dollar industry.  The fact that the Chinese are now operating in the same environments, often to much greater effect, than the traditional aid providers is worthy of examination.

Secondly, you mentioned in your podcast with Charlie Pistorius (which was very interesting and professionally done) that you are not, or do not wish to be perceived as a China apologist, but then the substance of the podcast belied the statement. For instance, I noted that:

• You mentioned the possible negative effects of China in Africa – environmental impacts, corruption – but then didn’t really address these.
• Instead, you spent much of the podcast focusing on European and American hypocrisy regarding China. Even though you mentioned that there is hypocrisy on all sides of this issue, neither of you provided any examples of Chinese or African hypocrisy.

ERIC OLANDER: All fair points indeed.  As a reporter who has aggressively covered China for over 20 years, I do not characterize myself as an apologist.  However, in that particular interview, I do see your point that I did not properly articulate the shortcomings of Chinese or African policies.

Lastly, I found the statement you made about Westerners wanting ‘their Africans to be poor, needy, etc.’ to be particularly galling. This is a gross stereotype that doesn’t add any value to the conversation. I have actually heard this sentiment expressed fairly often—by many educated Westerners and Africans (I like to avoid the increasingly hackneyed term “elites”)—and believe that it falls into the category of thinking that can be roughly described as: “it’s okay to making sweeping, generalizations about these people and what they think because their ancestors and governing structures were historical oppressors.” One, this statement can be easily falsified—I present many of my acquaintances and myself as evidence. Two, would you consider saying something like: “The Chinese like their Africans pliant, corruptible, and ruled by strong men, so they can keep siphoning off their resources and make heaps of cash from them, whilst dumping surplus people who might otherwise cause problems for the communist party”? I believe your grasp of these issues is very nuanced, so I found this statement somewhat surprising.

ERIC OLANDER: The statement that Westerners prefer ‘their Africans to be poor, needy, etc.’ is rooted in the deeply held, popular perceptions of Africans as nothing more than victims in the eyes of the West.  There are very powerful, long-established “embedded narratives” that shape the news coverage and popular media surrounding Africa and Africans.   These narratives subsequently frame the image of the place and its people as nothing more than mere caricatures.  From Bob Geldof to Bono to news coverage of the current story-du-jour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the perception of Africans generally falls in to one of four buckets: 1) Poor (Time magazine cover of Ethiopian baby); 2) Fighting (kids fighting Liberia, Somalia, et al); 3) Safari (the predominant image of the continent) and 4) singing (from Paul Simon to Shakira).   It is very difficult to challenge these simplistic notions of complex cultures and societies.  I have worked in over a dozen newsrooms around the world and the level of sophistication about Africa among journalists, editors and producers is embarrassing.  Moreover, journalists on the ground in Johannesburg, Kinshasa and elsewhere complain bitterly that they every time they pitch a story that falls outside of the embedded narrative, their editors in New York/London/Paris either show no interest or reject the idea.

Clearly, people such as you, me and others who have a more textured experience with the region and its people are more sophisticated when it comes to separating the reality from the stereotypes.  However, I contend that the culture at large (in much of the rest of the world) still regards Africa and Africans within the confines of their limited worldview — and like it that way.  Challening stereotypes is a very difficult undertaking and thus, as I said, Westerners prefer their image of Africans to be poor, needy and dependent rather than the reality that you and I both know is so very different.

From a reader and podcast listener in Scandinavia:

“I’d be wary of saying that the topic you’re talking about is commonly misunderstood or not understood.   There are many people out there doing good work on China issues and the sweeping statement “they just don’t get it” might become a turn-off eventually.”

ERIC OLANDER: I agree that dismissing an idea with the sweeping statement “they just don’t get it” could potentially alienate more sophisticated listeners and readers.  I will definitely pay more attention to being very specific in the future.  However, it is worth noting (as mentioned above) that in many cases, I am trying to attack particular stereotypes that are widely held in certain societies on a particular issue.  In the United States, for example, where  knowledge about China among the general public is minimal at best, there are a number of times where it is appropriate to challenge the prevailing societal view with “they just don’t get it.”  That said, it should be done sparingly and with precision.

“One of the reasons why I loved your media podcast was because it was so on point while at the same time discussing the new and important media trends in China. The podcast on the Middle East was also really interesting, but it veered a bit off point at times. There’s so much fascinating Sino-Middle East stuff to talk about without having to turn the conversation into a talk about Islamic terrorism, if you know what I mean.”

ERIC OLANDER: I am glad to hear that you found the podcast on China’s new challenges in the Middle East to be useful. Unfortunately, it appears that one of the central messages I was trying to convey was lost somewhere in the discussion.   I do believe that Islamic terrorism is a relevant topic when discussing China’s increasingly complex interests in the region.  China now has active oil interests in several countries that have well-established Islamic terror networks including Iran, Sudan and Algeria among others.  On several occasions, al Qaeda has pronounced China to be an “enemy of Islam” and threaten to attack Beijing’s interests around the world.   Al Qaeda is responding to China’s growing presence in Islamic countries as well as on behalf of Islamic separatists in Western China.  The issue of terrorism, in my opinion, is therefore germane to the broader discussion of China’s Mideast foreign policy.  I regret that this was not successfully communicated.

No wreaths laid or candlelight vigels held.  This was just the Chinese government implementing policy on a company that has agreed that it couldn’t adhere to them.

Google is not leaving China and China surely isn’t leaving Google.  But the US media finally has enough perspective (or learning) to consider it relatively unremarkable.

This is probably the biggest disappointment out of the whole issue.  I’d certainly like to see unfettered internet access in China, but I’d really like to see less knee-jerk reporting by American media professionals.

Sadly, this isn’t an issue that only pertains to news on China.  I fear our news cycle is starting to  illicit rapid and uninformed actions on many fronts.  Something our Chinese friends are probably more aware of than ourselves.

First we talk about a shifting in tone regarding China coverage – is this really the same media that was so negative on China in the first half of the year?  Not that we agreed with all the hullabaloo in the first half, but with currency debate subsiding, google.cn re-registered and a trade agreement with Taiwan, US media appears at a loss on how to sensationalize normalcy.

CTP Podcast – A Casual Rant on Media

Second, we had to return to a conversation about China’s efforts on creating a media outlet that presents an independent and impartial view of the world’s events from a Chinese perspective.  Eric is doing some work with France 24, and sees some lessons to be learned from contrasts in state media ownership – something he’ll blog on later.

Outside of liberal elites along America’s coasts and certain slivers of the blogosphere, there is so little concern about this issue that it is hard to overstate.  Yes, there are surveys out there that say xx% of consumers would avoid purchasing a product made by sweat shop labor, however that same person then turns to Wal Mart or Target to buy those very products.   Those surveys should not be trusted to reflect popular opinion, as it is far more effective to study consumers’ actions rather than their intentions.

Wal-Mart is the largest company in the world and became so by lowering BOTH production and operating costs.   Those same coastal elites in the “No Sweat” movement rarely, if ever, shop at Wal-Mart.  If they did  and talked with consumers, they would discover that price is everything.   For better or worse, Wal-Mart’s shoppers are as passionate about the brand as Apple’s customers about their favorite company.

There is no regard for how the prices are so low, just that they are affordable.  No amount of sweat shop awareness campaigns will substantively change this.

Corporate Social Responsibility is a sham. There, I said it.  You don’t hear that kind of bluntness very often, so it’s time someone just put it out there.  CSR was the feel-good trend of the early 2000s when companies promoted the idea that they could “do well by doing good.”  For most companies, though, CSR is an extension of the companies marketing and public relations efforts, disconnected from bottom-line decision making.  Talk with most CSR representatives in Asia about the difficulties of their job and you will hear a consistent response as to how they struggle to build allies with the home office who focuses exclusively on the bottom line.  The CSR team’s purpose is to be there when instances like what happened at Foxconn occur and the CEO can point to the “ongoing efforts the company makes to ensure worker health and safety.”   The real truth though comes when you meet with Chinese manufacturers and hear their stories about dealing with the likes of Target, Wal Mart and McDonalds among others.  First, the foreign company’s buyers are relentless in their drive to lower costs, squeezing the manufacturer on price.  The battles over just a few pennies per item can be brutal.   Since brands cannot raise prices with consumers back home, one of their main sources of profit comes from lower production costs and that means pressuring manufacturers.  What’s amusing though, is that once the deal is signed, the brands then send in their CSR teams to the factory to ensure they are compliant with the company’s labor practices.  These two objectives are entirely contradictory.

It is impossible to force manufacturers to lower their wholesale prices to the point where they barely make a profit and then require that same manufacturer to comply with labor standards that require significant operational costs.  So when a decision is to be made as to which side prevails: buyers or CSR, the CSR team loses. They always do.

The most revealing evidence that these issues are, well, non-issues comes from Nike.  The world’s largest shoemaker is inaccurately labelled as “enemy number one” by many labor rights activists who confuse the Nike of the 2000s with the Nike of the 1980s and 1990s.  Twenty and thirty years ago, Nike was brazen in its public disregard of the labor rights campaigners.  Chairman and founder Phil Knight was so unapologetically callous about his disregard for the plight of the people who worked the assembly lines for his products that it is credited with lighting the spark for the entire “No Sweat” movement.    Activists on colleges across the United States lobbied their school’s sports teams and they did an incredible job raising awareness about the company’s dismal human rights record.  The campaign generated a lot of headlines, received a lot of attention and did absolutely NOTHING to Nike’s bottom line.  In 2004 meeting in Hong Kong, I asked the head of Nike’s CSR program in Asia what impact the controversy had on Nike’s sales and her answer stunned me.  Nike’s sals grew remarkably in that period, she explained, and the labor issue was never considered to be a financial issue for the company.  Here’s why: the young consumers who spent $100 on a pair of Nike shoes were not the same people who advocated a boycott of the company’s for its Chinese/Malaysian and Indonesian labor compliance policies.

The “No Sweat” advocates were never Nike consumers in the first place so their hostility did not carry over to the company’s bottom line. Fundamentally, the same is true with Apple.

Given the passion that Apple’s consumers have for its products, a consumer’s decision not to purchase that iPhone, iPad or MacBook is likely to be very complex and not based on any single factor.  I contend that if someone avoids purchasing an iPhone because of the Foxconn suicides, s/he was unlikely to purchase that phone anyway for lots of other unrelated reasons.

Finally, the decision to single out any one product or brand for labor rights violations while ignorantly consuming countless other products made under the same or even worse conditions is the height of indulgent hypocrisy.  Simply put, it is impossible to live in the developed world and avoid products made under less-than-ideal labor conditions.  To criticize Apple without acknowledging the clothes we wear, food we eat and products we use are ALL made under the same conditions is just blind ignorance.  No doubt some will retort that it is possible to avoid this contradiction by growing your own food and endlessly researching product sourcing.  While it may be possible, that level of effort is isolated to a fringe margin of the global consumer economy.

- Consider that the Red Shirts represent Thailand’s rural peasant population who have grown increasingly frustrated with political corruption and the government’s emphasis on urban development over agrarian reform.

- Notice how the various factions in this turmoil are largely divided between elite urbanites (the so-called “Yellow Shirts”) and poorer peasants (“Red Shirts”).

- The gap between the rich and poor in China is far more pronounced than it is in Thailand.   The measurement of such inequality is known as the “Gini Coefficient” and in China the figure is 46.9 whereas in Thailand it’s just 42.    The higher the Gini Coefficient, according to many experts, the greater the likelihood of social unrest.

The Hu-Wen administration speaks frequently on the need to rebalance the society and narrow the coastal-interior wealth gap.   Yet, even as China’s leaders pour more money into the countryside, their efforts may pale in comparison to the levels of frustration born from the real estate crisis that could become a critical flash point.  With land and housing prices now out of reach for a disturbingly large percentage of the population, the frustration of the masses can quickly morph into widespread anger against the urban elite who have benefitted from the property boom.

China’s wealth gap is now larger than at any time since the Communist Party came to power in 1949.  If the government wants to avoid the same kind of calamity that is currently taking place in Bangkok, it must do more to address official corruption, continue to reduce the peasant tax burden, and eliminate the perception that there are “Two Chinas: — one for the rich and one for everyone else.   The crisis in Thailand should be an unmistakable warning to China’s leaders that time is running out and the consequences of inaction could be severe.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal blog “China Real Time Report” posted a similar article today on Chinese perceptions of the unrest in Thailand.

When will Western journalists finally wake up to the reality that the European and American adventures in Africa have been a failure — be it as colonizers or in an aid & development context?  This supposition that somehow the Chinese are going to be worse than the West is objectionable on so many levels and clearly highlights the potent paternalism regarding Africa that remains in force among too many in the Western press corps.  The list of past and present Western sins in Africa is far too long, bloody and painful to give Americans and Europeans the benefit of the doubt in this debate.  While Beijing deserves careful scrutiny of its activities in Africa, it is also entitled to fair, impartial questioning from the media.

In the end, French reaches the same, stereotypical conclusion that most Western writers come to with their China in Africastories, that Beijing is merely following the same path of colonial exploitation as Europeans and Americans did duringtheir imperial adventures.  In fact, French’s last paragraph of the article concludes that the relationship between Africa and China will mirror Africa’s previous ties to other empires through the extraction of raw materials and the re-importation to Africa of finished products.  This is where French is either mis-informed or doesn’t fully understand the scope of China’s engagement in the region.

So while you read the article yourself, I propose the following additional points to consider:

• The Chinese engagement with Africa cannot simply be defined on an economic level, the arrival of hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of poor Chinese immigrants who are moving in to neighborhoods across the continent will have a profound impact.  In less than five years, there are now more Chinese immigrants in Africa than France had at the height of its colonial power on the continent.  These immigrants are not just the workers who labor on the infrastructure and mining projects, but also economic migrants who are establishing small businesses and contributing to an emerging civil society in ways that billions of dollars of wasted Western economic development assistance could never achieve.

• At one point in the article, French mentions “when the Chinese leave” which is another key difference between the Chinese presence in Africa and former Western colonial powers.  Simply put, the Chinese are NOT leaving.  This is not like the French, Germans or British who left when it was no longer economically viable to sustain their expensive colonies.  Just as there are now a million ethnic Chinese living in Southern California who have no intention of returning to Asia, the Chinese emigres are building a permanent presence in Africa.

• French, like the overwhelming majority of his journalistic colleagues, concludes skeptically that China will ultimately fail to build any sustainable economic engagement with Africa.  In the end, they contend, it comes down to merely pulling out as much oil, gold, bauxite and other natural resources from the earth.  The reason I challenge French on this point is that he goes to the same guy that every other journalist contacts to get “the other side of the story.”  Zambian opposition leader Michael Sata is the most outspoken critic of the Chinese in Africa, particularly in his own country.  The fact that almost every article on the subject features a quote from Sata is either evidence of journalistic laziness (a real possibility) or the fact that it may be difficult to find articulate critics of the Chinese.  It’s disappointing that French and other writers do not venture off the main roads, past the big construction sites and away from the academic and political elites to get the layman’s perspective on the Chinese in their countries.  When I did this during my time in Kinshasa, I found far more nuanced and textured answers than what was provided to me by so-called “experts.”  French fails to deliver that important perspective strongly enough.

• French offers a cynical view on the value of low-cost Chinese imports to Africa.  Just as Wal-Mart did in the United States where it recognized there was a viable market among the working poor that most other companies ignored, China is opening new markets for its products at the lowest rung of the economic ladder in developing countries across South Asia, South America and Africa.  Liberal elites in the coastal U.S. cities turn their noses up at Wal Mart with the same dismissive attitude they display for China’s arrival in the Southern Hemisphere.  The fact remains in places like the DRC where people have extremely limited disposal income, the ability to purchase headphones, toys, food products and electronics is nothing short of revolutionary.  These are all products we take for granted in developed societies and things that critics hope developing societies will avoid so as to prevent the corruption their “traditional” cultures.  The overwhelming cultural arrogance of that perspective is a separate issue, while the Chinese offering this critical service deserve praise.  The Chinese are operating in markets with such limited margins where Western and Japanese companies simply cannot compete with their significantly higher cost structures.  Contrary to popular journalistic perception, the Chinese behavior in these markets is nothing like their colonial predecessors and deserve separate analysis.

Listen to the full interview here.

Here is a summary and critique of the issues addressed in the interview:

CHINA’S “MOTIVE” IN AFRICA?

Evans opens the interview by asking Liu about “China’s motive” in Africa.  There’s nothing actually wrong with the question, there’s just an arrogance to it through the use of the word “motive.”  It’s comparable to how the BBC, CNN and other international news organizations selectively use the word “regime” to define a government.  Somehow,  Beijing is a “regime” and Washington is a “government.”  The word “regime,” as does “motive,” has a distinctly negative connotation that is rarely applied to Western governments.  I have never heard a comparable question of what “America’s motive” is anywhere in the world.   It should go without saying that China’s “motive” in Africa is multifaceted driven by a blend of economic, political, humanitarian and military interests — no different than Washington, London or Paris’ “motives” in the region.

Importantly, Liu does highlight a key difference between the Chinese perspective on Africa and that in the West.  For most government and populations in the U.S. and Europe, Africa is regarded as a basket case of war, disease, famine and decades of failed development policies.  In contrast, Liu highlights, the Chinese see Africa as opportunity.  Beyond the obvious extractive industries, the Chinese are engaging the continent as an export market that the West long ago abandoned.   Furthermore, China’s development policies in Africa are proving to be far more effective than those of bloated, expensive and ineffective Western aid agencies.  Liu rightly points that China’s effectiveness is leading to enhanced political ties in the region at the expense of the former colonial and international powers.

SANCTIONS

Following the international community’s successful sanctions campaign against South Africa’s former apartheid government in the late 80s and early 90s, a pipe dream still exists within the UN, US and the EU that sanctions are an effective tool at isolating despotic governments.   Yet after two decades of evidence to the contrary where Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe and many others have defied international sanctions policies, the presumption that sanctions actually work persists.   It was refreshing then to hear Ambassador Liu challenge this conventional wisdom by clearly stating that China does not support sanctions measures because mass populations suffer disproportionately compared to the elites.  Liu was responding to Evans’ question about China’s unwillingness to join the West to coordinate a sanctions policy against Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.   China, as mentioned earlier in this post, should be scrutinized for its military sales to Zimbabwe but not on the issue of supporting yet another failed sanctions policy.

THE DALAI LAMA QUESTION

One has to wonder what the Western media would do without the Dalai Lama.  He is such a convenient package for journalists who are either too lazy or too uninformed to know better that a question about the DL offers very little insight on Chinese policy.  Ambassador Liu stuck to the party line with his response that the DL is a separatist political figure who seeks to divide China.    Now, I understand what Evans was trying to achieve with the question by implying that if an African country invited the Dalai Lama to visit it would no doubt complicate relations with Beijing.  The reason why it is such an objectionable question in the context of Chinese foreign policy in Africa there are so many  more pressing and relevant issues that need to be addressed with someone at Ambassador Liu’s level.

WHAT STEVE EVANS SHOULD HAVE ASKED AMBASSADOR LIU:

1) Describe China’s military presence in Africa specifically the PLA base in the DRC’s Katanga province.  Is the purpose of the base to be part of a multilateral peacekeeping operation or its own deployment to protect Chinese interests in the eastern DRC?  Should we expect to see a larger presence of Chinese military and armed private contractors on the continent?

2) The industrial deforestation tools the Chinese are using for logging in Mozambique, Congo and Zimbabwe among other areas is raising serious concerns that the Chinese are hollowing out Africa’s forests at rate that is unsustainable.  Is China monitoring this trend and what specific protections, if any, are in place to prevent this from occuring?

3) With hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants coming to Africa each year, what is the feedback he is receiving from host governments on the presence of this large, new population?  In places like Namibia and Zambia, there is growing discontent by political leaders over the presence of an increasingly large Chinese population.  How is he responding to these challenges?

FINALLY…

The Western media’s blatant double standard for how it treats different governments is the most annoying aspect of this whole affair.  Compare, for example, this CNN feature that goes behind the scenes on how their reporter & camerawoman interact with the U.S. military in Afghanistan.  The CNN crew is embedded with Alpha Company and as such eats, sleeps and seemingly enjoys each other’s company.  ITN and the BBC did comparable puff stories embedded with British troops in both the Iraqi and Afghan theater of operations.  This chuminess with the militaries extends to their political leaders as well when journalists like Steve Evans rarely use that same cynical approach in interviews as they so often do with Chinese leaders.

It’s really too bad as we would all benefit from less fluff coverage of Western governments and more balanced coverage of China.