Sunday, May 29, 2011
RISING CHINA (WHAT DOES A RAPIDLY RISING CHINA HAVE TO OFFER THE WORLD-PEACE OR INSTABILITY?)
In the second quarter of 2010, China became the second largest economy in the world . It’s GDP by nominal value was $1.337 trillion bigger than that of Japan whose GDP by nominal value was $1.288 trillion. Japan had up until the second quarter of 2010 been the second largest economy. It was a time that the Chinese knew will come since It is only five years since China’s economy was half the size of Japan’s, a day which only highlighted a change which has been going on in the world for over four decades, a change brought about by a new force, which has taken the world by shock- “A RISING CHINA”. China has seen a rapid growth in all aspects of it’s nationhood which the world has never seen before. It is a rapid growth that has spanned for over three decades. China has a new found power that is fast making it a superpower. It’s rapid economic growth has also enabled it to grow it’s military capabilities as well it’s foreign influence rapidly. But what does China want to achieve with this new found power and what does it mean for the rest of the world. Before the advent of China, the direction and implementation of global policy was charted by one nation-The United States of America. The US still has the most powerful foreign policy and is still largely responsible for the direction of global policy but experts say China’s rise will challenge this dominance. Some experts even go as predicting that China could undermine and even overthrow the US as the world’s foreign policy power house. The US is seeing a gradual decline in it’s global influence although efforts by the Obama administration to stop this decline and rebuild the US’s influence appear to be paying off as he has succeeded in rebuilding and creating new alliances. The recent gradual decline in US influence made possible by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has left the door open for China to step in and step up efforts to build it’s global influence and so far the Chinese appear to be doing so. But the manner in which it has been doing so has left many to wonder what exactly it’s motives and objectives are and to say that it’s foreign policy could create further global instability. While the US foreign policy has not been perfect, Experts agree that it has left the world in a much better shape and is responsible for global prosperity and the emergence of new powers. New powers such as China which is now really beginning to flex it’s muscles.
China has developed a foreign policy which is primarily based on soft power-the power to persuade and win hearts and mind. This soft power approach is primarily targeted at foreign governments in attempts to win over them and influence them. China foreign policy unlike that of the US has not been devoted to advancing any higher international ideological interests such as world communism or world democracy since the Cold War; that is, ideology appears to be secondary to advancing its national interest. China officially states it "unswervingly pursues an independent foreign policy of peace. The fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, create a favorable international environment for China's reform and opening up and modernization construction, maintain world peace and propel common development." But this has not been the case for Chinese foreign policy. China’s soft power strategy is based on using it’s deep pockets to get what it wants. The “unrestricted” nature of Beijing’s overseas loans and investments is attractive to foreign governments wanting swifter, more efficient, larger finances for their development problems than western lenders will offer. Most of these are undemocratic and authoritarian governments who due to the West’s stand on democracy and human rights cannot work with the West. In the aspect of maintaining world peace which China states as part of it’s foreign policy, many experts believe that China has failed as it’s policies of working with undemocratic or authoritarian governments most of whom undermine the rights of their people and threaten global stability as seriously disturbing and one that could lead to instability in the regions where these nations are found. It’s policy of national interest first means that it does not care if it deals with authoritarian or undemocratic governments as long as it’s national interests are met. While Chinese loans to these governments do come with some strings attached but not the kind that more established Western nations attach. China hasn't demonstrated much concern with reducing graft, increasing transparency, or improving conditions for private-sector firms; instead, it requires recipient countries, to varying degrees, to buy and hire from China. China has a very large and diverse National interest, from it’s hunger for more access to the world’s energy and mineral resources, it’s claims on territories and vital sea lanes around China, to it’s stance on Taiwan being part of China.
China’s foreign policy strength is fast growing but there is a lack of taking on international responsibilities in it’s foreign policy. This lack of international responsibilities experts say is as a result of a fear by China that taking on international responsibilities would entrap China and that would interfere with it’s development and rise as a Global power. China therefore places strongly it’s national interest ahead of all other things resulting in growing tensions with an ever growing list of countries. This is made worse by what many analyst have called a struggle between the military, civilian government and state owned companies to control China’s foreign policy. This new competition between the military, state-owned companies and across ministries to influence China’s foreign policy is as a result of an explosion of special interest has caused unease between China and it’s neighbors as well as within China itself. Tensions previously unnoticed by the outside world between the Peoples Liberation Army and civilian side of the government are becoming more visible. The island dispute is the latest instance of bodies other than the party's central leadership driving China's engagement with the outside world. The military is seen as the principal driving force for China’s claims of the seas around the country. This interference of China’s foreign policy has not gone well in the region as it has raised tensions and forced it’s neighbors as well the US which has a lot of allies in the region to counter China’s influence something which experts fear would lead to more tension and possibly confrontation.
As China continues it’s very rapid growth so will it’s global influence grow rapidly. But whether or not it will have any positive impact globally is left to be seen. So far China’s foreign policy has been fueled by special interest and without any attempt to meet globally challenges. While other nations like the US also consider their national interest in their foreign policy they also tackle global issues and try to and do implement policies of which the world has benefited a lot. This is not the case with China as it’s foreign policy is now clearly seen to be benefiting only one side-China. But for China to continue to grow rapidly it will have to begin to consider the world in it’s Foreign Policy.
China has developed a foreign policy which is primarily based on soft power-the power to persuade and win hearts and mind. This soft power approach is primarily targeted at foreign governments in attempts to win over them and influence them. China foreign policy unlike that of the US has not been devoted to advancing any higher international ideological interests such as world communism or world democracy since the Cold War; that is, ideology appears to be secondary to advancing its national interest. China officially states it "unswervingly pursues an independent foreign policy of peace. The fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, create a favorable international environment for China's reform and opening up and modernization construction, maintain world peace and propel common development." But this has not been the case for Chinese foreign policy. China’s soft power strategy is based on using it’s deep pockets to get what it wants. The “unrestricted” nature of Beijing’s overseas loans and investments is attractive to foreign governments wanting swifter, more efficient, larger finances for their development problems than western lenders will offer. Most of these are undemocratic and authoritarian governments who due to the West’s stand on democracy and human rights cannot work with the West. In the aspect of maintaining world peace which China states as part of it’s foreign policy, many experts believe that China has failed as it’s policies of working with undemocratic or authoritarian governments most of whom undermine the rights of their people and threaten global stability as seriously disturbing and one that could lead to instability in the regions where these nations are found. It’s policy of national interest first means that it does not care if it deals with authoritarian or undemocratic governments as long as it’s national interests are met. While Chinese loans to these governments do come with some strings attached but not the kind that more established Western nations attach. China hasn't demonstrated much concern with reducing graft, increasing transparency, or improving conditions for private-sector firms; instead, it requires recipient countries, to varying degrees, to buy and hire from China. China has a very large and diverse National interest, from it’s hunger for more access to the world’s energy and mineral resources, it’s claims on territories and vital sea lanes around China, to it’s stance on Taiwan being part of China.
China’s foreign policy strength is fast growing but there is a lack of taking on international responsibilities in it’s foreign policy. This lack of international responsibilities experts say is as a result of a fear by China that taking on international responsibilities would entrap China and that would interfere with it’s development and rise as a Global power. China therefore places strongly it’s national interest ahead of all other things resulting in growing tensions with an ever growing list of countries. This is made worse by what many analyst have called a struggle between the military, civilian government and state owned companies to control China’s foreign policy. This new competition between the military, state-owned companies and across ministries to influence China’s foreign policy is as a result of an explosion of special interest has caused unease between China and it’s neighbors as well as within China itself. Tensions previously unnoticed by the outside world between the Peoples Liberation Army and civilian side of the government are becoming more visible. The island dispute is the latest instance of bodies other than the party's central leadership driving China's engagement with the outside world. The military is seen as the principal driving force for China’s claims of the seas around the country. This interference of China’s foreign policy has not gone well in the region as it has raised tensions and forced it’s neighbors as well the US which has a lot of allies in the region to counter China’s influence something which experts fear would lead to more tension and possibly confrontation.
As China continues it’s very rapid growth so will it’s global influence grow rapidly. But whether or not it will have any positive impact globally is left to be seen. So far China’s foreign policy has been fueled by special interest and without any attempt to meet globally challenges. While other nations like the US also consider their national interest in their foreign policy they also tackle global issues and try to and do implement policies of which the world has benefited a lot. This is not the case with China as it’s foreign policy is now clearly seen to be benefiting only one side-China. But for China to continue to grow rapidly it will have to begin to consider the world in it’s Foreign Policy.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
IS WIKILEAKS PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF PRESS FREEDOM?
The year 2010 saw Wikileaks making headlines as it’s actions won it both praise and criticism. WikiLeaks is an international new media non-profit organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and news leaks. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press. But it was until 2o10 that it gained international recognition. First came the posting of a video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians and journalists were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder in April 2010. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review. In October 2010, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organizations. Perhaps in it’s most controversial and bold move yet, in November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing U.S. State department diplomatic cables. The release of these new cables from the US State department has sparked outrage from the US and has seen Wikileaks now become the target and focus of many governments. WikiLeaks and its members have seen continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organizations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden photography” and this has gotten worse since the release of the US Diplomatic cables. Even private organizations and companies have also been cutting off Wikileaks. It’s director Julian Assange has felt the pressure the most and has an extradition request against him approved. The US diplomatic cables are classified documents of detailed correspondence between the U.S. State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world. The contents of the cables describe international affairs from 300 embassies dated from 1966–2010, containing diplomatic analysis of world leaders, an assessment of host countries, and a discussion about international and domestic issues. They take an unaltered look and describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions. While the extent of the Damage done by the cable leaks is yet to be seen, reaction to the US cable leaks has been split along two lines. Western governments have led the criticism and a wide range of efforts to undermine Wiki leaks which is paying off while News outlets, Human right organizations and left leaning Nations have praised Wikileaks and it’s director Assange.
The support for Wikileaks and the lack of crticism by several influential media organizations has raised fears that Western governments which might now begin to curtail media freedom more than ever and that this could be done in the shadows. The Diplomatic cable leak has once again spurned the debate on Press freedom. Experts argue that these leaks which gives access to information that is suppose to be secret would force the US and other western governments to begin to take black actions in order to protect their secrets. This kind of leak would not be tolerated by Russia or China who would do anything to prevent such a leak. Since 9/11, press freedom in the West has come under attack as governments argue that national security is more important than transparency. The Diplomatic cable leaks by Wikileaks only gives more credibility to this claim. In countries that have enshrined the right to free speech in their constitutions, it has until now been taken for granted that disclosures of confidential government information must be measured by the yardstick of the law. The Wikileaks saga has seen talks about limiting Press freedom for National security reasons arise again in western nations. While Julian Assange claims to have done good in publishing the diplomatic cables by claiming that it will help keep the US government in line, these so-called "legitimate and newsworthy" government secrets which entail publications of secrets that may harm national security and have substantial "value as a step to truth", it’s effects and blowback has not been fully seen. Western Governments might be forced to refrain from taking action against organizations like Wikileaks in public because of their nations Ideals and Values but what is to stop them from doing so in secret.
The support for Wikileaks and the lack of crticism by several influential media organizations has raised fears that Western governments which might now begin to curtail media freedom more than ever and that this could be done in the shadows. The Diplomatic cable leak has once again spurned the debate on Press freedom. Experts argue that these leaks which gives access to information that is suppose to be secret would force the US and other western governments to begin to take black actions in order to protect their secrets. This kind of leak would not be tolerated by Russia or China who would do anything to prevent such a leak. Since 9/11, press freedom in the West has come under attack as governments argue that national security is more important than transparency. The Diplomatic cable leaks by Wikileaks only gives more credibility to this claim. In countries that have enshrined the right to free speech in their constitutions, it has until now been taken for granted that disclosures of confidential government information must be measured by the yardstick of the law. The Wikileaks saga has seen talks about limiting Press freedom for National security reasons arise again in western nations. While Julian Assange claims to have done good in publishing the diplomatic cables by claiming that it will help keep the US government in line, these so-called "legitimate and newsworthy" government secrets which entail publications of secrets that may harm national security and have substantial "value as a step to truth", it’s effects and blowback has not been fully seen. Western Governments might be forced to refrain from taking action against organizations like Wikileaks in public because of their nations Ideals and Values but what is to stop them from doing so in secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
