SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (27080)12/30/2007 7:38:11 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217942
 
you misunderstood me, as always

china is afraid of india nuking beijing due to tibetan invasion of india as advocated by maurice, and so tibetans must be stopped from invading india

should maurice wish to be invaded by tibetans, maurice can leave door unlocked, and hang up welcome sign



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (27080)12/30/2007 8:23:05 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 217942
 
China raise cuts the bullshit. "you can’t stop a country’s development because of some corruption. That doesn’t help. You cannot refuse to eat because you might choke."

This is the end of the contracts only to buy good nehavior the trade amrk of the post WW II period.

China: New dam builder for the World
Sunday 30 December 2007 04:10. Printer-Friendly version Comments...

By Shai Oster

December 28, 2007 — Home to almost half of the world’s 45,000 biggest dams, China has embarked on a push to export its hydropower know-how to developing countries — even as it contends with environmental damage and social upheaval at home from the massive Three Gorges Dam.

Merowe damMany other countries and international organizations have begun to shy away from dam building. But Chinese companies and banks are now involved in billions of dollars worth of deals to construct at least 47 major dams in 27 countries, including Sudan and Myanmar, nations criticized for human-rights abuses and poor environmental track records.

Just this week, Gezhouba Co., one of China’s biggest engineering firms, said it won a $1.5 billion contract to build a hydroelectric dam in Pakistan. Earlier this year, the company announced it would build a $1.5 billion dam in Nigeria. China’s leading dam builder, Sinohydro Corp. Ltd. last month won a bid to build a dam in Laos whose cost is estimated at $2 billion.

For China, the projects are a highly visible and permanent part of its effort to increase aid to Africa and Asia, helping to build infrastructure in exchange for access to resources such as oil and copper. In many of the countries where China is building dams, local governments and parts of the population welcome hydropower as a clean, renewable source of otherwise-scarce energy.

African and Asian delegations visiting China are taken each year to see the Three Gorges Dam as a model project even though it has been dogged by problems ranging from spiraling costs and unrest caused by forced relocation of more than a million citizens to rapid land erosion and increased pollution. Criticism of the dam — which is the largest in the world by many measures — has become so persistent that the Chinese government has recently begun to acknowledge the issues. But environmentalists and human-rights activists fret that China will repeat many of the same mistakes it has made with dams at home as it leads a dam revival abroad.

"China is promoting dams around the world based on an analysis which doesn’t recognize the true cost of these projects," said Peter Bosshard, policy director at International Rivers, an environmental advocacy group based in Berkeley, California.

Within China, the government has started to rethink big dams, paying more attention to the environment and marshaling popular support by enforcing requirements like impact assessments and public hearings.

And even hydropower advocates outside China are anxious, worrying that any problems in China’s high-profile foreign building campaign could cast a shadow over the entire industry. "I am personally concerned because I believe each project is the best ambassador for the industry," says Alessandro Palmieri, the chief dam expert at the World Bank. "These projects can go seriously bad," he warns. He worries about the risks of projects running into environmental problems or sparking social unrest.

In some cases, they already have. At the $2 billion Merowe Dam along the Nile Valley in Sudan, financed in part by the Export-Import Bank of China, several villagers protesting forced resettlement were killed by local police in April last year. The United Nations has complained about other human-rights abuses and suppression of anti-dam activism there. Other proposed dams in Africa could threaten national parks in Ghana and Zambia, putting parts of them underwater and altering the ecosystem, environmentalists say. The China Three Gorges Project Corp., the quasi-state company that managed the construction of the immense Chinese dam, is considering forming a partnership with Western power companies that are weighing plans for a dam in the politically unstable Democratic Republic of Congo that would yield twice as much power as the Three Gorges Dam.

China is equally active in neighboring Southeast Asia, where some 21 Chinese companies are involved in 52 hydropower projects, according to research issued this year at the China-ASEAN Power Cooperation & Development Forum.

Environmentalists say dams have already damaged the Mekong River’s headwaters within China’s borders. They want to stop China building any more downstream. Activists are targeting China’s building of dams in Myanmar, which they say is hurting local communities through forced relocations while supporting an authoritarian regime. In Laos, one of the poorest countries in the world, Sinohydro, which built the Three Gorges Dam, is constructing two dams to export electricity to neighboring China and Thailand.

A broader backlash against China’s growing dominance in Southeast Asian and African business and trade has grown along with opposition to its dam-building spree. "China is using its political power to convince lower Mekong countries to accept projects and investment," says Premrudee Daoroung, a Thai activist with Towards Ecological Recovery & Regional Alliance, which is campaigning against dams along the Mekong River. "In many cases the local people are starting to talk against the Chinese."

China and other hydropower advocates such as the International Commission on Large Dams, a trade group, say building big dams can raise living standards in the poorest parts of the world. Africa has only developed about 8% of its hydropower potential, according to the commission.

"We don’t want to be misunderstood," Li Ruogu, head of the Export-Import Bank of China, said in an interview. "We want people to understand we are not hurting the environment. We are helping nations to develop."

China’s push comes as large dams have largely fallen out of favor in the West in recent years — but only after western countries ended a decades-long dam-building binge. Dams were a big part of nation building, industrialization and poverty-alleviation plans, from the U.S.’s Hoover Dam, built during the Great Depression, to Europe’s biggest dam, the Alqueva in Portugal, proposed in 1957 and finished in 2002. Europe and North America, two of the world’s richest regions, have already exploited around 70% of their hydropower potential, according to the International Commission on Large Dams.

Dams fell out of favor as their environmental consequences became clearer. One case is China’s Three Gorges Dam. Construction of the dam was approved in 1992 despite strong opposition, eventually creating a 400-mile-long reservoir and forcing some 1.4 million people to resettle. Supporters claimed the dam’s benefits — preventing devastating floods downstream and generating clean power — outweighed any negatives. Critics said several smaller dams could have prevented floods better and left a smaller footprint. In the end, the mammoth dam had an oversized impact on world opinion. Reports of corruption and mismanagement and worsening environmental fallout there helped galvanize the international movement against hydropower.

During the 1990s, under pressure from environmentalists, the number of new dams under construction world-wide fell to just over 2,000, from a peak of 5,400 in the 1970s. The World Bank, which spearheaded dams as cornerstones of raising nations out of poverty, stopped nearly all its funding for big dams. In 2000, an influential group called the World Commission on Dams issued a scathing report calling into question the benefits of hydropower. That report marked the nadir for the industry.

But other factors have brought hydropower back into vogue, such as rising oil prices and concern about the impact on global warming from burning fossil fuels like coal. In 2005, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank started to lend again to develop dams when they funded the Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos as part of plan to raise income by exporting electricity. In some cases, hydropower is growing as a backup power supply for wind and solar power.

Meanwhile, China, largely through its state-run Export-Import Bank of China, has moved even more aggressively, experts say. "In the last four or five years, China has become the most important financier of large dams around the world," says Mr. Bosshard of International Rivers, the environmental group.

His agency and other groups are targeting the Export-Import Bank because they believe it shoulders the greatest responsibility because it lends to Chinese construction companies building dams. They want China to adopt international standards for social responsibility and transparency, which is part of a broader debate about China’s aid to the developing world. China has been attacked for its no-strings approach to aid, which some say allows human-rights abuses and corruption to flourish.

Chinese officials say their aid policy is evolving along with the country’s deepening involvement abroad. Recently, Mr. Li, of the Export-Import Bank, invited Mr. Bosshard for a meeting after reading his group’s criticism of his bank online. The bank has publicized its lending guidelines, and is considering joining with the World Bank in projects in Africa.

"It’s not right to say we don’t care about the environment and social responsibility," said Mr. Li, a Princeton-trained economist who has worked at China’s central bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. But, he says, "you can’t stop a country’s development because of some corruption. That doesn’t help. You cannot refuse to eat because you might choke."

(Wall Street Journal)



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (27080)12/30/2007 8:23:06 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217942
 
Our challenge is to restore faith in the power of global liberty

ELMAT: It does look that there's no more possibilities to hide behind the scared cow democracy. This is the end of the coat of paint of morality on exploring the ignorant masses.

Leader
Sunday December 30, 2007
The Observer

Al-Qaeda and George W Bush agree on at least one thing: Benazir Bhutto was vital to Pakistan's transition from military to civilian rule. That is why the US laboured behind the scenes to orchestrate a deal between Ms Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's generalissimo President. And that is why Ms Bhutto was assassinated last week.
Claiming responsibility for the murder, an al-Qaeda commander said the organisation had liquidated 'Washington's most precious asset'. That statement has not been authenticated, but even if just an opportunistic boast, it reveals a simple truth about a complex affair: the West has a clear interest in seeing democracy spread; al-Qaeda has a clear interest in seeing it thwarted.

But advancing democracy is a long-term goal for US foreign policy in south Asia. The short-term goal is crushing jihadi terrorism. Sometimes the two collide. Mr Musharraf was until recently seen in Washington as an indispensable ally against terrorists, so his reluctance to surrender authoritarian powers was indulged. But military rule marginalised political moderates and made the state more brittle, more vulnerable to terrorism

The pattern is the same in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Uzbekistan. In pursuit of the 'war on terror', the US has gambled on regimes that are hostile to the spread of liberal values.

The Bush administration's main motivation in this has been realpolitik. But it is underpinned by an ideological conviction - that the benefits of liberal democracy are self-evident and that no credible alternative exists. This innate optimism led the US to take a dangerously cavalier approach to foreign intervention, assuming its influence is, by definition, benign.

The belief that democracy is the best form of government is unarguably true. But confidence that liberal values are spreading with unstoppable momentum around the world could prove dangerously misplaced, as a number of trends in recent years show. They are set to accelerate in 2008.

1. The rise of authoritarian capitalism.

Russia and China have growing leverage over global affairs. They have introduced market forces selectively, generating wealth but keeping the power that flows from it firmly under state control. They are challenging the view that increased wealth leads societies inevitably to demand political pluralism.

Russia's energy resources give it massive economic influence over its former Soviet satellites and, increasingly, over the European Union. China is rivalling the West as a source of foreign capital in Africa, where it attaches no liberalising conditions to its investments. The benefits of Western-style globalisation might have looked lopsided in the developing world, to say the least. But globalisation on Chinese terms is no recipe for political freedom.

2. The rise of illiberal democracy.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a demagogue and a despot. He is also the popularly elected President of Iran. Hamas is a terrorist organisation with an electoral mandate in Palestine. Even if Vladimir Putin did not rig elections, his nationalistic authoritarianism would win the backing of a majority of Russians. The West has no strategy for coping with situations where democratic structures favour forces hostile to democracy; when the 'right' system yields the 'wrong' result. That is a big problem as Islamist movements increasingly seek power through the ballot box.

3. The rise of economic nationalism in the US.

A recent poll found that only 28 per cent of Americans think globalisation has been good for the US. That is extraordinary given that, around the world, many people think globalisation is a US conspiracy. Candidates from across the political spectrum vying to be the country's next President are pandering to this constituency. Pledges to protect US jobs and to fence the country off from outside influence, whether immigration or foreign competition, will be common currency in next year's election campaign. America is drifting into isolation.

4. The prospect of a serious recession in Britain and America.

Some correction after the long post-Cold War boom is inevitable. If the downturn is severe, it will further raise the appeal of protectionism. The idea of free world trade looked much more attractive when the West had no serious competitors. When the US and the UK find themselves reliant on China and India to keep the motor of world growth running, global economic interdependency will start to look less appealing.

5. The emergence of homegrown terrorism.

Jihadi rhetoric has appeal beyond slums and refugee camps in the Middle East. It seduces the children of immigrants, native to affluent Western societies. That realisation has led governments, particularly Britain's, to implement draconian security measures. Individual liberties, which used to be absolute, have become relative. Their value is measured against the demands of collective security. The principles that we proselytise abroad are being eroded at home.

British politics more generally is in danger of drifting into narrow parochialism. Tony Blair's final years in office were dominated by international affairs, by the war in Iraq in particular. Mr Brown's instinctive response, sensing public distaste for foreign adventures, is to focus on domestic matters. He, like the US presidential candidates, flirts with the populist language of economic protection. His most memorable slogan in 2007 was a pledge to guarantee 'British jobs for British workers'. He has failed to make a coherent case for adoption of the EU reform treaty, surrendering the initiative on Europe to the rejectionists. He appears to see diplomacy as a distraction from the business of government.

But the dichotomy between national and international affairs is false, as is the idea that British interests can be addressed in isolation. Every political issue now has a global component. Public service reform, crime and education have become entangled in arguments about mass migration and the pressure it puts on state resources or on 'national cohesion'. National security depends on international stability. And, of course, there is the economy, stupid.

Democracy is still the world's favourite political system. In 1900, there was not a single government chosen by universal suffrage. Now the majority are. But the West is slipping into complacency. After the end of the Cold War, the prevailing winds of globalisation filled Western sails. It was assumed that the spread of liberal economics, democracy and wealth worldwide were one and the same thing and that they were irresistible. Now we are faced with recession, insecurity, xenophobic populism, Russia and China resurgent, Islamist militancy adept at subverting democratic processes, fatigue with global intervention - forces that could make 2008 the year when liberal democracy retrenched. That would be a disaster, especially for Britain.

We have one of the most liberal and globally exposed economies in the world. We depend on the international trade and finance system to export services and attract investment to create jobs.

A return to protectionism, US isolation and monopolisation of the world's natural resources by authoritarian states would leave Britain out in the cold.

The challenge for Western leaders in the new year is to salvage the idea of globalisation as a force for good. How easy that is depends, as ever, on events in the US. But Britain cannot afford to wait and see what kind of President emerges to replace George W Bush. Gordon Brown must use his influence abroad and his power at home to make Britain a beacon of liberal democracy.

There is no longer any distinction between foreign and domestic policy, only enlightened globalism and parochial nationalism. Mr Brown must choose his path.