Who cares about China?

[Something completely different]

I dont know if anyone here has noticed, and frankly it seems like no one is taking note of it. But communist China is changing it`s leadership.

President and leader of the communist party Hu Jintau and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao are stepping down. And the new Prime Minister will be Li Keqiang, and more importently the new President and head of the CKP will be Xi Jinping.

Xi Jinping is a statement by the party, in the past 20 years admidst the enormous groath of the Chinese economy - corruption amongs party members has grown and been a enormous embaressment for the CKP.

As the gouverneur of Fujian has earned the reputation of being a "clean" man who doesnt take any bribes and lives a simple life. He is also the sun of a early communist activist and hero of the party from the 1960s, aswell as he is married to a very popular Chinese entertainer.

Xi also spent time in the US on a trip to learn agricultural management. He also spent alot of time in Latin America promoting buisnes releations between China and the Latin American countries.

Now China`s economical groath has been slowing down recently, the demand for cheap production labor is going down. The recent groath of the Chinese economy has created a middle class which has needs and is starting to make demands of it`s goverment. Chinas economy depends almoust completly on the cheap production of products developed elsewhere.
On foreign affairs, China faces challenges in the pacific and on it`s boarders with Russia and India with unresolved border disputes, aswell as a race in Asia over political dominance with India, and disputes with traditional oponents such as Vietnam, Laos and of course Japan.
The wests main issue of course\should be (zynical) human rights issues, where China will probably have to create a more just and free sociaty.

So from my perpective, the new Chinese goverment will face the following challenges:

Creating jobs through creating new markets.
Reforming social programs to appease it`s public.
Crack down on corruption.
Resolveing it`s border disputes.
Bringing inovation to the Chinese economy to compete in future.
Wrestle over worldwide influence with India.
Compete with the US over it`s influence in the pacific region.

Xi has the reputation of being a "reformer" but my hopes arent that high.
Programs have included free internet forums in which one can adress public problems aswell as offices, and the chinese beaucracy and legal system has been made much more transparent.

But only because you can now jell at the policeman who ignores you, this doesnt improve a system. Aswell as plastering a torchure chamber with smiley stickers wont make the torchure chamber a "nicer" place.

On a sidenote, I recently found out that Alexis de Tocqueville`s book on politics and revolution "The old state and the revolution" is book wide spread amongst the chinese communist party and has been read and sited by members in the highest ranks such as Xi himself.
In this book Tocqueville writes:

"Revolutions do not occure when a sociaties situation is unjust, but when it`s leaders attempt to reform and the population sees it`s injustice and demands for more."

Considering the chinese publics demand for reforms and the reaction of their goverment recently - I guess this is the sentence which might explains why this book writen under the impression of the French revolution about the failed king Ludwig the 6th, is so pupular amongs leading figures of the CKP - paranoia that reform might lead to downfall.


edit:

Oh yes, I hope this is more of a "souther german catholic phenomenon", but please dont make any racist remarks about "Ching Chang Chinamen", aswell as to argue that communism is the result of "cultural and racial infiriority".

[Anomalocaris]

Why be excessively interested in the changes in top chinese leadership when no amount of external interest would allow observer to penetrate its opacity and make any meaningful statement about the impact of this change upon Chinese policy?

The key characteristics of chinese politicians, consciously cultivated by the CCP, is to be low key, sprout platitudes if cornered, and say absolutely nothing in public about your true public policy views. One face in the heirarchy is consciously made to be indistinguishable from another from policy perspective, so what if one such face is replaced by another?

Also, in China there is a long tradition which views attracting attention to one's true views as nothing less than death in politics. One should do, but never say. Anyone who doesn't heed this lesson, such as one Mr. Bo Xilei, in expelled from the party and will probably spend the rest of his life in house arrest. So why pay attention to anything the new leadership says?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oooh...oooh..I do, I do. I want to take a few weeks vacation there sometime in my life. So that place better be there when I get around to it......

[Something completely different]

Why be excessively interested in the changes in top chinese leadership when no amount of external interest would allow observer to penetrate its opacity and make any meaningful statement about the impact of this change upon Chinese policy?

The key characteristics of chinese politicians, consciously cultivated by the CCP, is to be low key, sprout platitudes if cornered, and say absolutely nothing in public about your true public policy views. One face in the heirarchy is consciously made to be indistinguishable from another from policy perspective, so what if one such face is replaced by another?

Also, in China there is a long tradition which views attracting attention to one's true views as nothing less than death in politics. One should do, but never say. Anyone who doesn't heed this lesson, such as one Mr. Bo Xilei, in expelled from the party and will probably spend the rest of his life in house arrest. So why pay attention to anything the new leadership says?

I hope I am getting this wrong due to lingual differences,

Are you saying that we shouldnt bother news from a country which has a intransparent totalitarian goverment, simply because "who will rule" is known from the start of the transition of power?

If yes, transitions of power, eaven in totalitarian states such as the PRC, have always ment that a amount of change would occure in this country.

Deng Xiaoping?

[Anomalocaris]

eaven in totalitarian states such as the PRC,

China is currently far from being a totalitarian state. It offers a good deal more economic freedom than many "democracies", and more political freedom than many right wing merely "authoritarian" states. It might be said to be a moderately and unevenly authoritarian state.

simply because "who will rule" is known from the start of the transition of power?

It has nothing to do with "who will rule" being known from start. It has to do with the fact that knowing who will rule in today's China doesn't tell you a great deal about its future policies. It is pointless to read the tea leafs if all tea leafs take great care to look the same to the observer.

transitions of power ..... have always ment that a amount of change would occure in this country.

Deng Xiaoping??

There has been a profound change in how the country is ruled. Before, the personality of who succeeds to the throne tells you a great deal about its future policy. Now, it doesn't.

Before Deng, China was effectively ruled by the personality of Mao, who used his own personality cult to further his own rule. Deng was also a personality, but he used the power of his personality to end the rule by personality. He instituted a system of rule of consensus driven technocratic committees, with clear structure of succession by mentoring and patronage of young and coming technocrates by the current committee members. This system has worked reasonably well with 2 generation of technocratic committees, and the members of the current third generation rose to power through mentoring by the previous two generations.

When a country is ruled by personality, who is in power and what his personality is offers great insight into its future policies. When a country is ruled by consensus bodies of technocrates, each generation of whom rose to power through the patronage of the previous generation, there is little insight to be gained by watching them perform on stage during the power transition.

Currently the highest echelon of CCP has a morbid horror of rule by personality, thanks to the horror of the Mao experience. Mr. Bo Xilei is purged precisely because his style reminded the central government to much of an aspiration to personality cult. So the rule of consensus driven technocratic committee is not likely to change any time soon.

[KichigaiNeko]

China is only of interest to the South Pacific region. Of course it won't mater a tinkers diddly squat to anyone in Europe who rely on china manufacturing for their basic consumer goods...why should you?

[Kousbroek]

China is only of interest to the South Pacific region. Of course it won't mater a tinkers diddly squat to anyone in Europe who rely on china manufacturing for their basic consumer goods...why should you?

Maybe because almost one third of our economy is in their hands already ...

[KichigaiNeko]

IF you are talking about USA then yes, more than one third. IF you are talking about Europe then yes one third.

Either way the world has moved it's manufacturing to china and along with that the majority of the world's financial obligations by way of investment and loans.

[Anomalocaris]

Europe isn't paying china attention because the Chinese refuse to provide large sums of money to bail out Greece and Italy without assurances of being paid back.

---

Actually, the total foreign trade of US is only 1/6 of American economy, so it's hard to see how china can be 1/3 of American economy.

I believe Britain continues to own more us government debt than either china or Japan, although I have to verify that.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, criticisms about the "how" aside... "what" China has managed to do is thoroughly impressive. I think that special consideration ought to be paid to how sharp a razor they've been able to balance atop of. On the one hand their development and economic prosperity positively depended on consumer nations...but on the other those nations ability to continue their function as consumer nations was directly affected - in a negative way- by their function as the producer. Bit like riding a wave until it positively collapses. But when do you cut and run, so to speak? Once you do..where do you go from there? I'd really love to see China become a sort of U.S. of the East (economically speaking...and I'm not talking about the current limp-dicked US). I suppose I like to think that there is at least an up and comer as an alternative to where I'm at now, should things go to shit.