China makes Reader's Digest censor book

The price of liberty is $30,000. [Link]

The notion that the formerly mighty American publisher Reader's Digestwould allow the Chinese Communist party to censor its novels would once have appeared so outrageous as to be unimaginable. In the globalised world, what was once unimaginable is becoming commonplace, however. The Australian novelist LA (Louisa) Larkin has learned the hard way that old certainties no longer apply as the globalisation of trade leads to the globalisation of authoritarian power.

The fate of her book is more than a lesson in modern cynicism. It is the most resonant example of collaboration between the old enemies of communism and capitalism I have encountered.

Larkin published Thirst in 2012. She set her thriller in an Antarctic research station, where mercenaries besiege a team of scientists.

Larkin was delighted when Reader's Digest said it would take her work for one of its anthologies of condensed novels. Thirst would reach a global audience and – who knows? – take off. Reader's Digest promised "to ensure that neither the purpose nor the opinion of the author is distorted or misrepresented", and all seemed well.

One of Larkin's characters trapped in the station is Wendy Woo, a Chinese-Australian. Woo fled to Australia because the Chinese authorities arrested her mother for being a member of the banned religious group Falun Gong. Larkin has her saying that she had not "learned until much later of the horrific torture her mother had endured because she refused to recant".

State oppression in China is not a major theme of a novel set in Antarctica. But Larkin needed to provide a back story for Woo and a link between her and the villains of her drama. In any case, she was a free author living in a free country and was free to express her abhorrence of torture and the denial of freedom of conscience. Or so she thought, until she discovered last week that she was not as free as she thought.

The cost of printing makes up the largest part of the price of book production. Publishers have outsourced manufacturing to China, like so many other industries have done. The printing firm noticed the heretical passages in Larkin's novel. All references to Falun Gong had to go, it said, as did all references to agents of the Chinese state engaging in torture.

They demanded censorship, even though the book was a Reader's Digest "worldwide English edition" for the Indian subcontinent, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore – not, you will note, for China.

Phil Patterson from Larkin's London agents, Marjacq Scripts, tried to explain the basics for a free society to Reader's Digest. To allow China to engage in "extraterritorial censorship" of an Australian novelist writing for an American publisher would set a "very dangerous precedent", he told its editors. Larkin told me she would have found it unconscionable to change her book to please a dictatorship.

When she made the same point to Reader's Digest, it replied that if it insisted on defending freedom of publication, it would have to move the printing from China to Hong Kong at a cost of US$30,000.

People ask: "What price liberty?" Reader's Digest has an answer that is precise to the last cent: the price of liberty is US$30,000. The publisher, from the home of Jefferson, Madison and the first amendment, decided last week to accept the ban and scrap the book.

Why does China's Moon Rover exhibit show a nuclear mushroom cloud over Europe?

This is worrying. [Link]

China has made a major diplomatic faux pas by illustrating its Moon Rover exhibit with a stock image of a nuclear mushroom cloud over Europe.

While it's probably just an embarrassing error, it's still an unsettling image given the Chinese government's recent statements concerning plans to build a missile base on the Moon.

On December 3, The Beijing Times reported that Chinese experts are discussing whether the People’s Liberation Army could establish a missile base on the Moon. Per the Taiwan-based, English-language site Want China Times:

An expert from the China National Space Administration's Lunar Exploration Programme Center told the [Beijing Times]that China plans to send its first astronaut to the moon by 2030. By 2050, the moon could become a base from which to send the country's manned spacecraft to explore deep space, the source said. [Want China Times]

Innocent enough, right? But the source added that the Moon could be transformed into a deadly weapon. Like the Death Star in Star Wars, the Moon could be used as a military battle station, bristling with ballistic missiles that could be launched against any military target on Earth.

Lest you think this is all science fiction, there has been a worrying trend toward a militarization of space. Officially, the Outer Space Treaty bars states from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes. China, the United States, and Russia are all party to this treaty.

Chinese Chutzpah

China wants Japan to stop scrambling fighters when they violate their airspace. [Link]

Perversely, China accused Japan today of escalating tension in the East China Sea by scrambling fighter jets every time Chinese aircraft or ships violate Japan’s territory. Japan announced yesterday that it had sent its own planes to intercept Chinese aircraft a record 306 times in the year ending March 31, double the number of times in the previous year.

“We believe the Japanese side should not be sending out more aircraft but…find a way to appropriately manage and resolve the problem through dialogue, talks and consultations,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said today. A defense paper that China released this week also accused Japan of “making trouble.”

China's Black Guards

The system to handle complaints from China's citizens is corrupt (go figure). [Link]

Over the past year, Wang was stationed near the Guangdong provincial government's Beijing bureau near the capital's western Third Ring Road. His job was to help Guangdong officials detain people who had come from the southern province to Beijing to file petitions and then escort them home. There were 20 or 30 others doing the same job he was working under the same supervisor, and there were more than four supervisors providing the service to officials from all over Guangdong stationed in Beijing.

He referred to his profession as "helping the government handle affairs." The more popular job title is "black guard," a unique profession that comes in tandem with China's petition system.

Chinese citizens can file petitions about their grievance with so-called letters and visits offices of various levels of government organs and courts, a mechanism set up in the 1950s. Under the current system, the number of petitions filed during an official's tenure is used as a yardstick for performance evaluation, prompting local governments to use every means possible to stop petitioners and shuffle them home. It has become an open secret that local governments hire "black guards" in the capital to stop petitioners from filing a grievance, thus reducing the number of petitions that are recorded.

To some extent, this is sanctioned by the central government. It is understood that officials from local governments limit the number of petitioners coming to the capital out of concern for social stability. Because local governments can afford to keep only so many employees in Beijing, their offices often resort to hiring people like Wang, to "persuade the petitioners to return home," sometimes by force. Thus, a strange industry has emerged in Beijing, surviving upon an institution bent on preserving stability at all costs.

Cracks beginning to show in China's Miracle

If you're riding the tiger you don't get to choose when to stop. [Link]

Yet several specters haunt China.

In order for these economic projections to come to fruition, China’s economic planners must navigate a set of structural and demographic challenges the scale of which has never been seen before. To continue economic growth, China’s economy will have to fundamentally shift away from its current orientation toward exports and grow based on its own consumption. Other structural challenges, from taxes and regulation to intellectual property and the rule of law, all must be reformed if China’s economic growth is to continue. China’s leaders will also have to manage an unprecedented level of urbanization, with an expected 400 million new urban residents (yes, that’s more than the entire U.S. population) by 2050. Just as daunting, China’s population is rapidly ageing, which will become a tremendous economic challenge given the effects of China’s One Child Policy and its Bachmann-beloved lack of a Social Security program.

Beyond economic and demographic challenges, China is roiling with discontent. As the Wall Street Journalrecently pointed out, 40 percent of Chinese are unhappy with their lives, 70 percent of farmers are dissatisfied, and 60 percent of China’s rich are emigrating or considering doing so. While each group has its own reasons – farmers resent abusive land seizures by local government officials, city dwellers are regularly victims of government abuse, and China’s wealthy would prefer to live where their children have better educational opportunities and their wealth is more secure – this translates to a roiling hotbed of popular discontent. Tens of millions of Chinese who have moved from the countryside to the cities in search of work receive little basic government support, such as medical care and education, because they are generally considered to be illegal immigrants by city officials.

Riots, often violent, are a daily occurrence. According to official statistics, there were 127,000 so-called “mass incidents” in 2010 alone – an average of over 340 per day.

There are certainly ways to address these problems. The United States gradually developed tools to manage the negative effects of its own Gilded Age, by eventually allowing the rise of labor unions, laws to protect investment, efforts to stamp out official corruption, and eventually implementation of welfare and social security programs. Yet in each case, implementing these tools in China would require a fundamental change in how business is done. Labor unions are (naturally) controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, the rule of law in China is unreliable at best, and official corruption is a persistent problem on a scale that would even make Jack Abramoff blanch.

Most fundamentally, China’s ability to manage future problems will be hampered by its political system. The United States was able to (very gradually) adjust to the problems it faced because its leaders were accountable to a voting public that demanded reform. China’s leaders, however, aren’t directly held accountable by their people. While Chinese politicians routinely (and often genuinely) cite popular opinion as a driver in their decision-making, tying one’s position and job to regular elections has the effect of sharpening one’s need to represent the interests of the public.

The implications of these phenomena for China, and for the world, are staggering. Unlike with the democratic world, the Chinese people don’t have the ability to vent their frustration with free and fair elections. This has the effect of putting a lid on a political pressure cooker, forcing people to express their discontent through riots and difficult-to-censor microblogging. If something goes wrong, this pressure could explode.

Domestic problems in China, either caused by political discontent or structural economic difficulties, would have disastrous effects on the economies reliant on China as a source for trade, which basically includes every country on the planet. Economies around the world would fall, and history has demonstrated that countries during these difficult times can be unpredictable, at best, on the world stage.

China’s current leaders are acutely aware of the problems their country faces, and are trying to adjust economic growth and introduce policies designed to account for the problems created by unchecked economic growth. They have set a goal for slower economic growth, have called for increased development and investment in China’s poorer provinces, are considering policies to respond to concerns voiced by farmers and migrant workers, and are attempting to crack down on corruption. Ironically, China’s nominal communist ideology somewhat prepares China’s leaders for these challenges – after all, who understands the political challenges posed by burgeoning economic inequality and a rising middle class better than a Marxist?

America’s Gilded Age began after the national trauma that was the Civil War and a remarkable period of Reconstruction that saw significant internal development and stabilization. China’s Gilded Age began after the national trauma that was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and occurred after a remarkable period of internal development and stabilization under Deng Xiaoping. The United States’ Gilded Age lasted for 16 years, ending with a financial panic in 1893 that turned into a depression, then a Progressive era that saw reform at home and adventurism abroad. It has been 22 years since 1989 signaled the end of Deng Xiaoping’s post-Mao Reconstruction and the beginning of Shanghai-style economic growth under the leadership of Jiang Zemin.

China'strain wreck

Low ridership, graft, and safety concerns. A trifecta of failure. [Link]

Word went forth that state-owned banks and local governments were to give Liu all the money, land and labor he required. When Chinese journalists found that Liu’s ministry was using cheap, low-quality concrete, creating a safety hazard, the Communist Party’s propaganda department quashed the reports, according to a January piece in the South China Morning Post.

Students and other humble citizens greeted the first fast trains with complaints about high ticket prices. They crowded aboard buses instead. According to a recent report in China Daily, the government was forced to deploy 70,000 extra buses during the Chinese New Year celebrations in February.

This month, I rode the bullet train from Beijing to Tianjin in half an hour — then returned by bus, which took two hours. Next to me on the decrepit, but packed, vehicle was a 17-year-old girl migrating to Beijing to search for work. She had never heard of the high-speed train, but when informed it cost $9, as opposed to $5.40 for the bus, expressed no regret at missing it. The bus driver assured me the girl was typical of his working-class clientele; to them, even a little money is more valuable than a lot of time. Small wonder that the Beijing-Tianjin line, built at a cost of $46 million per mile, is losing more than $100 million per year.