As the race for the World Bank Presidency hots up, it occurred to me to drop a couple of lines of my thoughts on the issue. Three candidates emerged for the post:
Jim Yong Kim (United States)
An anthropologist and physician, Dr. Kim emigrated to the U.S. from South Korea with his family when he was 5, settling in Iowa. Dr. Kim, 52, co-founded Partners in Health, a non-profit agency that works in poorer countries, and ran the World Health Organization’s HIV-AIDS program. One of his WHO initiatives successfully treated three million AIDS patients in 2005.
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (Nigeria)
A renowned performer on the international economic scene, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, 57, studied at Harvard University and MIT. Currently Nigeria's minister of finance (a post she held previuosly) and coordinating minister of the economy, she worked many years as an economist at the World Bank, most recently as a managing director.
Jose Antonio Ocampo (Colombia)
A respected development expert, Mr Campo, 59, lectures at Columbia University in New York. He was previously Colombia’s finance minister. He also held senior positions at the United Nations.
Mr. Ocampo withdrew from the race yesterday, Friday 13 April 2012, having failed to win the support of his home government, which reportedly was concentrating its efforts on winning a different international post.
That leaves us with two finalists: the Nigerian, Okonjo-Iweala and the American, Kim.
The American nominee fails on two counts:
a) he's a health expert - whilst health is important to development (development being the purported aim of the World Bank), it is only a by-product, a symptom if you like. Economics is the central aim of the Bank and so an economic expert is required. Further, the complex state of global economics today means that economic policies are what is required at this moment.
b) he's an American. In a world where the forcefully-imposed American economic world order has finally begun its long-overdue descent and several others rising in it's place such as China, Brazil & Africa (note that Africa's economy is larger than even India's despite the latter being larger in size), oppressive organisations like the World Bank and the IMF need to adjust & modernise to maintain relevance or face the alternative: extinction!
That leaves us with Okonjo-Iweala. According to the selection guidelines, which were updated in 2011, the ideal candidate should have run a big organisation and possess extensive diplomatic and multilateral experience. Here, Okonjo-Iweala comes out on top. She has extensive multilateral and diplomatic experience having spent over 20years at the World Bank (most recently as a Managing Director) dealing with economic matters for many south American, Asian, African and Middle-Eastern countries. She has also been finance minister in Nigeria (the 3rd fastest growing economy in the world, after Mongolia and China) twice. As a result, she has a well developed network of academic, political and economic relationships across the world which should aid her in dealing with the challenges an institution like the the World Bank. As a World Bank Managing Director, she led the recent negotiation of the $49bn funding package for the International Development Association (IDA) for the poorest countries around the world. Her credentials for the job are, therefore, outstanding.
Barack Obama's decision to nominate Kim, a non-caucasian person, was predictable and callous. It betrays Obama's subsisting fears and continuing insecurities of being an African in charge of a caucasian-controlled country like the USA. Something that he betrays all too readily in the context of issues pertaining to Israel and Palestine. However, nominating a health expert, as opposed to an economic expert, is disrespectful to the world that the World Bank supposedly serves. If this is the political manner in which the institution will continue to be run going forward, then emerging economies should reconsider their continuing patronage of the institution and consider the possibility of creating an alternative.
Finally, it is time for the World Bank to respond to the major shift in the global economic power (in terms of resources, trade, investment and growth) from the west to the emerging economies of Africa, Asia and South America. The International Monetary Fund must also make this important shift the next time around. The shift is important because the reality facing these two outdated and oppressive institutions is that they must stay relevant (by adapting to the world around them) or die!
- Olu Omoyele
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
NAIJA: between progress and chaos
The uneasy and illogical conglomeration that is Nigeria is again, as it has been many times in the past, on the brink of "something big" or as a Lagosian streetsmart person might say, a "big something"! The question is of course whether what is impending is a big growth spurt fuelled by rapid industrialisation or a big fallout perpetuated in corruption and ignorance and from which a multifaceted and complex war might ensue.
The recent furore surrounding the question of oil subsidy removal or retention has been latched onto by many bloggers & commentators as proof that we, the Nigerians, are standing up for ourselves. That we will no longer tolerate poor leadership. This was of course not the case! People took to the streets because cost of living suddenly shot up significantly as a direct result of the oil subsidy removal. People had to pay a lot more for goods and services which they objected to of course and they blamed the political leadership for it. We did not take to the streets because we suddenly acquired a certain daringness or political savviness. We are a collection of soulful, yet misguided peoples with a penchant for celebration, hyperbole, jealousy, hero-worshipping and acceptance of mediocrity and we are being led, with our consent, by greedy fools.
Some go even further by warning President Jonathan to be cognisant of the recent events in Libya as a lesson and an example of what the people can unleash on his government. It is clear that some of us are suffering from the erroneous impression that popular uprising had anything to do with Gaddafi's assassination.
Please let me merely warn that it is the Nigerians, not Jonathan, who should be most fearful of the fallout that would emanate from an uncoordinated, disparate series of uprisings corrupt in it's very construction & philosophy!
Of course, as I have written previously, Jonathan, like Yar'adua before him, Buhari and the likes, is wholly unsuitable for the office that he currently holds, since he has neither the emotional intelligence nor the courage required for the role. However, since the very counter-productive nature of politics in Nigeria (one characterised mainly by US dollars and gangsterism) only managed to produce a bunch of idiots as the top candidates, the best outcome given the circumstances was a Jonathan victory; and it just so happens that that was what the majority of the people thought at the time.
Nigeria's predicaments must be understood against the backdrop of a complex history, a small but still powerful northern leadership clan intent on making the country ungovernable for Jonathan on account of his ethnicity; growing tensions about a seemingly-faceless but apparently politically-motivated series of bombings; continuing ineptitude in governance; rising socio-economic inequalities; a growing population of exhausted, disenfranchised, hopeless, and unfeeling youth; manipulative power-mad and money-hungry religious cabals and a largely illiterate population forced to operate in the information age.
Yours,
The recent furore surrounding the question of oil subsidy removal or retention has been latched onto by many bloggers & commentators as proof that we, the Nigerians, are standing up for ourselves. That we will no longer tolerate poor leadership. This was of course not the case! People took to the streets because cost of living suddenly shot up significantly as a direct result of the oil subsidy removal. People had to pay a lot more for goods and services which they objected to of course and they blamed the political leadership for it. We did not take to the streets because we suddenly acquired a certain daringness or political savviness. We are a collection of soulful, yet misguided peoples with a penchant for celebration, hyperbole, jealousy, hero-worshipping and acceptance of mediocrity and we are being led, with our consent, by greedy fools.
Some go even further by warning President Jonathan to be cognisant of the recent events in Libya as a lesson and an example of what the people can unleash on his government. It is clear that some of us are suffering from the erroneous impression that popular uprising had anything to do with Gaddafi's assassination.
Please let me merely warn that it is the Nigerians, not Jonathan, who should be most fearful of the fallout that would emanate from an uncoordinated, disparate series of uprisings corrupt in it's very construction & philosophy!
Of course, as I have written previously, Jonathan, like Yar'adua before him, Buhari and the likes, is wholly unsuitable for the office that he currently holds, since he has neither the emotional intelligence nor the courage required for the role. However, since the very counter-productive nature of politics in Nigeria (one characterised mainly by US dollars and gangsterism) only managed to produce a bunch of idiots as the top candidates, the best outcome given the circumstances was a Jonathan victory; and it just so happens that that was what the majority of the people thought at the time.
Nigeria's predicaments must be understood against the backdrop of a complex history, a small but still powerful northern leadership clan intent on making the country ungovernable for Jonathan on account of his ethnicity; growing tensions about a seemingly-faceless but apparently politically-motivated series of bombings; continuing ineptitude in governance; rising socio-economic inequalities; a growing population of exhausted, disenfranchised, hopeless, and unfeeling youth; manipulative power-mad and money-hungry religious cabals and a largely illiterate population forced to operate in the information age.
Yours,
Poem: WANTS
WANTS
I want to be all that I can be
To live freely but always on my own terms
The epitome of quiet but lively contentment
Free of ills and insecurities
I want to reach for the highest heights always
Never fearful, nor afraid of my possibilities
To be loved by the world is unimportant
But to be remembered surely is a thing of beauty
The minutes are rushing past like a flowing river
The days are hurriedly melting into weeks
Months morphing into decades
Increasing fear of stagnation amid the rush
I am, of course, but a weary soul
Alternating between irreconcilable firmaments
A mind filled with dreams of glory
Yet littered with lacerations of past pain
I long to become all that I can be
A man with only one limitation
Only one inhibition or bar to greatness
That is, the limits of my imagination
- Olu Omoyele
I want to be all that I can be
To live freely but always on my own terms
The epitome of quiet but lively contentment
Free of ills and insecurities
I want to reach for the highest heights always
Never fearful, nor afraid of my possibilities
To be loved by the world is unimportant
But to be remembered surely is a thing of beauty
The minutes are rushing past like a flowing river
The days are hurriedly melting into weeks
Months morphing into decades
Increasing fear of stagnation amid the rush
I am, of course, but a weary soul
Alternating between irreconcilable firmaments
A mind filled with dreams of glory
Yet littered with lacerations of past pain
I long to become all that I can be
A man with only one limitation
Only one inhibition or bar to greatness
That is, the limits of my imagination
- Olu Omoyele
Friday, April 22, 2011
Post-election violence in Nigeria - what nonsense!
The violence that erupted in parts of Northern Nigeria following Dr Goodluck Jonathan's presidential election victory was truly nonsensical and unbecoming, especially after the election had been adjudged as credible by all independent-minded observers.
The notion that "it must be Buhari or nothing" betrays one of the underlying problems of Nigeria - that individuals and personalities matter and institutions don't. Jonathan should have demonstrated his grip over the affairs of the country, in particular over the safety of the populace, by clamping down effectively on the rioters, not joining the meek responses of the various public figures who have been pleading with the rioters to stop or that Buhari should please call the goons to order. What nonsense! If there was a riot in an area of the South, there would have been an heavy-handed clampdown instantaneously. But in the North, we must tread carefully so as not to upset the sensitivities of the powers that be. Upset them please I say. Otherwise, we are merely saving a much bigger upset for another day - one that none of us is going to find funny if it occurs.
Of course, Jonathan, like Buhari and Ribadu, is wholly unsuitable (having neither the emotional intelligence nor the courage required for the role) for the office that he currently holds. However, since the very counter-productive nature of politics in Nigeria (one characterised mainly by gangsterism) only managed to produce a bunch of idiots as the top candidates, the best outcome given the circumstances was a Jonathan victory; and it just so happens that that was what the majority of the people thought.
So anyone who doesn't like this can go and hug a live transformer!
In any case, Buhari, (like Babangida, Obasanjo, Gowon etc) should be serving a life prison sentence for treason and subjugation of the Nigerian Constitution, not contesting for the most important job in the land.
Yours,
The notion that "it must be Buhari or nothing" betrays one of the underlying problems of Nigeria - that individuals and personalities matter and institutions don't. Jonathan should have demonstrated his grip over the affairs of the country, in particular over the safety of the populace, by clamping down effectively on the rioters, not joining the meek responses of the various public figures who have been pleading with the rioters to stop or that Buhari should please call the goons to order. What nonsense! If there was a riot in an area of the South, there would have been an heavy-handed clampdown instantaneously. But in the North, we must tread carefully so as not to upset the sensitivities of the powers that be. Upset them please I say. Otherwise, we are merely saving a much bigger upset for another day - one that none of us is going to find funny if it occurs.
Of course, Jonathan, like Buhari and Ribadu, is wholly unsuitable (having neither the emotional intelligence nor the courage required for the role) for the office that he currently holds. However, since the very counter-productive nature of politics in Nigeria (one characterised mainly by gangsterism) only managed to produce a bunch of idiots as the top candidates, the best outcome given the circumstances was a Jonathan victory; and it just so happens that that was what the majority of the people thought.
So anyone who doesn't like this can go and hug a live transformer!
In any case, Buhari, (like Babangida, Obasanjo, Gowon etc) should be serving a life prison sentence for treason and subjugation of the Nigerian Constitution, not contesting for the most important job in the land.
Yours,
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Naija - We need a Plan
On 28 July, 2010, the commissioning of a bridge in Ota resulted in a fracas between the Ogun State Governor (Daniels), the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Bankole) and the Minister of Works (Daggash). These are our "leaders", charged with the running of Nigeria Plc - our own particular breed of leaders I should say. This is only the latest in a series of humiliating incidents that the media have been good enough to share with us. Who can forget the fights that broke out in the House of Reps when some tried to move a motion to proble corruption.
So, what to do about this crop of gangsters that pretend to be our government? Well, replace them of course. But how?
Many are understandably wary of the political system due to its immense corruption and perhaps, more importantly, the corruptibility of the system in respect of even well-intentioned people who choose to participate. Whereas, others insist that we must participate in it to be able to change it. But how? With a plan.
To arrive at the type of nation we so desire in our lifetimes (as opposed to some indeterminate time in the distant future where as you know, all things move in a cycle anyway), I'm of the view that there MUST be a plan, it must be credible, there must be a small core no of people to make it happen & act as guardians of the plan. The idea that "good" people should all join rotten political parties and effect slow, incremental changes is not credible. It requires too many good people to behave unselfishly over a long period of time & to do so in an uncoordinated fashion - basically, it relies on the coming together of an unrealistic set of variables for it to be successful. People are conditioned to be super-selfish & to basically not give a shit about anything or anyone else. And those that may be willing to do something are effectively discouraged when they see the "no good deed goes unpunished" syndrome that permeates our public life (examples: suspension from the House of Reps because u want to see theft & corruption probed, see what happened to Ribadu, Akunyili, Soludo & Okonjo-Iweala) etc. We (me, you & others) need to come together as a small group of people & let us be the ones to come up with a 10yr plan to make this revolution happen. The revolution must be sharp & fast & must involve a big bang. People are naturally followers when they see leadership of any sort - whether good or bad leadership, people follow - so I know once we make a big bang, ppl will fall in line & help to actualise the (yes, you got it) PLAN.
If you're interested in establishing something, hit me up.
Yours,
So, what to do about this crop of gangsters that pretend to be our government? Well, replace them of course. But how?
Many are understandably wary of the political system due to its immense corruption and perhaps, more importantly, the corruptibility of the system in respect of even well-intentioned people who choose to participate. Whereas, others insist that we must participate in it to be able to change it. But how? With a plan.
To arrive at the type of nation we so desire in our lifetimes (as opposed to some indeterminate time in the distant future where as you know, all things move in a cycle anyway), I'm of the view that there MUST be a plan, it must be credible, there must be a small core no of people to make it happen & act as guardians of the plan. The idea that "good" people should all join rotten political parties and effect slow, incremental changes is not credible. It requires too many good people to behave unselfishly over a long period of time & to do so in an uncoordinated fashion - basically, it relies on the coming together of an unrealistic set of variables for it to be successful. People are conditioned to be super-selfish & to basically not give a shit about anything or anyone else. And those that may be willing to do something are effectively discouraged when they see the "no good deed goes unpunished" syndrome that permeates our public life (examples: suspension from the House of Reps because u want to see theft & corruption probed, see what happened to Ribadu, Akunyili, Soludo & Okonjo-Iweala) etc. We (me, you & others) need to come together as a small group of people & let us be the ones to come up with a 10yr plan to make this revolution happen. The revolution must be sharp & fast & must involve a big bang. People are naturally followers when they see leadership of any sort - whether good or bad leadership, people follow - so I know once we make a big bang, ppl will fall in line & help to actualise the (yes, you got it) PLAN.
If you're interested in establishing something, hit me up.
Yours,
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
BBC Documentaries on Lagos/Nigeria
(I have my friend Parakeet to thank for inspiring me to bother to write down my feelings about this...)
The BBC seems to be taking an unlikely interest in Nigeria lately. It has aired two programmes recently titled: "Welcome to Lagos" and "The New Kings of Nigeria". Both were seemingly uninformed, dishonest, misleading and condescending re both titling and content.
The problem with the BBC, CNN, Sky News, UK, the Western world generally is what Chimamanda Adichie referred to as the "single story" which, to my mind, translates into the arrogant and willful reduction of a complex set of events into a single (and often incorrect) notion. Welcome to Lagos was obviously an errorneous and grandiose title for a scripted look at a remote aspect of Lagos life. In fact, a look at the traffic jams in Lagos would have been more representative. There was a scene in this nonsensical programme where the narrator talks about the chronic electricity issues but unfortunately for him the lights were on, so he just faded the picture and switched to the following day!
Similarly, the New Kings of Nigeria was grossly misleading. I wanted to watch the programme because i thought it was going to be about the new, emerging middle class of entrepreneurs, self-made young people and professionals making it happen in Lagos against all the odds but instead got an idiotic portrayal of an insignificant Nigerian.
I don't actually mind the characters/people shown on both programmes...one can identify or empathize with most of them...its the BBC i have an issue with. You won't find the BBC doing programmes on Soyinka, Gani, Emeagwali or Fashola or even on the atrocities of Shell & Western pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria and other African countries nor on the part that the British establishment continues to play in the intentional underdevelopment of Nigeria and other places on earth! Neither will you find programmes on the ongoing Eko Atlantic City project (see video here) on the BBC!!!
Anyway, the BBC is a state-owned and state-controlled TV channel so can't expect too much from it. We have to tell our own stories and choose/work to improve our collective situation.
Yours,
The BBC seems to be taking an unlikely interest in Nigeria lately. It has aired two programmes recently titled: "Welcome to Lagos" and "The New Kings of Nigeria". Both were seemingly uninformed, dishonest, misleading and condescending re both titling and content.
The problem with the BBC, CNN, Sky News, UK, the Western world generally is what Chimamanda Adichie referred to as the "single story" which, to my mind, translates into the arrogant and willful reduction of a complex set of events into a single (and often incorrect) notion. Welcome to Lagos was obviously an errorneous and grandiose title for a scripted look at a remote aspect of Lagos life. In fact, a look at the traffic jams in Lagos would have been more representative. There was a scene in this nonsensical programme where the narrator talks about the chronic electricity issues but unfortunately for him the lights were on, so he just faded the picture and switched to the following day!
Similarly, the New Kings of Nigeria was grossly misleading. I wanted to watch the programme because i thought it was going to be about the new, emerging middle class of entrepreneurs, self-made young people and professionals making it happen in Lagos against all the odds but instead got an idiotic portrayal of an insignificant Nigerian.
I don't actually mind the characters/people shown on both programmes...one can identify or empathize with most of them...its the BBC i have an issue with. You won't find the BBC doing programmes on Soyinka, Gani, Emeagwali or Fashola or even on the atrocities of Shell & Western pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria and other African countries nor on the part that the British establishment continues to play in the intentional underdevelopment of Nigeria and other places on earth! Neither will you find programmes on the ongoing Eko Atlantic City project (see video here) on the BBC!!!
Anyway, the BBC is a state-owned and state-controlled TV channel so can't expect too much from it. We have to tell our own stories and choose/work to improve our collective situation.
Yours,
Sunday, May 2, 2010
3 Decades of LIFE
As I approached my thirtieth birthday, I must admit to have suffered from some anxiety and a degree of trepidation. You know how the story goes i'm sure...i hadn't achieved all that i dreamt of achieving by this age...and so on...hints of failure here and there...yet, hints of success too.
But now i realise that all things are relative and that one must look at where one has come from and where one finds oneself and compare...as opposed to simply thinking in absolutes. But surely, also, one mustn't cease aspiring. Greatness, as is the case with Fortune, favours the brave after all!
Hopes and dreams are useful of course as they continue to drive me forward and hopefully upwards. Plans are even more important as they are a little more grounded in reality i suppose.
So, as I have with Death, I have now also come to terms with ageing and this is the plan...live daily as though it might be my last / remain instinctive / less planning and more doing / grab the oppotunities as they manifest / be fearless / maintain physical and mental sharpness / stay young mentally and physically / live wildly and widely and daringly / let go of the fear of failure / enjoy more of the simple things in life / respect all; fear none / live it up alwayz!
So, today, I celebrate 30 years of existence. Having not planned to do anything initially, I will now go out 2nite and have F U N! Abacus Bar in London is where it's at. So, come join me!!
i am
Yours,
Nemz
But now i realise that all things are relative and that one must look at where one has come from and where one finds oneself and compare...as opposed to simply thinking in absolutes. But surely, also, one mustn't cease aspiring. Greatness, as is the case with Fortune, favours the brave after all!
Hopes and dreams are useful of course as they continue to drive me forward and hopefully upwards. Plans are even more important as they are a little more grounded in reality i suppose.
So, as I have with Death, I have now also come to terms with ageing and this is the plan...live daily as though it might be my last / remain instinctive / less planning and more doing / grab the oppotunities as they manifest / be fearless / maintain physical and mental sharpness / stay young mentally and physically / live wildly and widely and daringly / let go of the fear of failure / enjoy more of the simple things in life / respect all; fear none / live it up alwayz!
So, today, I celebrate 30 years of existence. Having not planned to do anything initially, I will now go out 2nite and have F U N! Abacus Bar in London is where it's at. So, come join me!!
i am
Yours,
Nemz
Friday, March 12, 2010
My comments on the FT article "Why America and China will clash"
Folks,
On 19 January 2010, I read a piece in the FT titled "Why America and China will clash". I was moved into responding by the nonsensical logic spluttered out by the author, Gideon Rachman, on his FT blog.
The article is pasted below, followed by my response on the FT blog!
WHY AMERICA AND CHINA WILL CLASH
Gideon Rachman
Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.
The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.
If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: “In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation.” A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: “Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side.”
The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America’s most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: “China’s going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it.” Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton’s favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, “the price would be dismal economic failure”.
So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to “dismal economic failure”. On the contrary, China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.
Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country’s market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.
The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians – particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation. The president’s recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China – complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China’s rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a “currency manipulator”.
Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.
Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.
A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.
MY RESPONSE
The rise of China is not predicated on Western theories of economic growth neither is it dependent on acceptance by the US.
Rachman states:
"Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition."
Well, I beg to differ, and on two fronts. First, the US is not, and has never been, the sponsor of Chinese rise to economic prominence. The US trades with China because it is in its own interest to do so and China, love her or hate her, is nothing short of an unavoidable and colossal force of nature. It is China who sponsors the lavishness and false impressions about the true state of the American economy by essentially funding it. Yes, China funds much of America's excesses via its vast holdings of US Treasury Bills.
Second, the impression that the US welcomes the rise of a giant Asian economy in the form of China is misleading. The US doesn't "welcome" it. In fact, the US is theatened by it; afterall, China is one of the very few countries in the world that doesn't jump at the beck and call of Washignton - a country so powerful and so self-assured that it gives the US sleepness nights, what with the States' desire to remain the sole superpower in the world for all of time. As opposed to welcoming China's elevation, the US merely acknowledges the factual state of affairs. To deny China's place in global economics would make any professor look foolish. The US, and the whole world in fact, must come to terms with China's position.
On a separate note, countries other than the US, particularly developing nations, should welcome the emergence of a rival power to that of the US given the enormous, monopolistic oppression that the US has visited on many developing nations over the years with the aid of its economic might. What the world needs right now is not a world polarised into US and China arms (like the USSR and USA) but a series of regional powers, preferably with differing ideologies and a powerful and credible international organisation (unlike the UN) to stand in the middle to balance competing goals and interests. India, Brazil, Iran, Russia and Nigeria are all countries with the potential to step up to the plate. Whether and how they in fact do so, only time will tell.
- Olu Omoyele
On 19 January 2010, I read a piece in the FT titled "Why America and China will clash". I was moved into responding by the nonsensical logic spluttered out by the author, Gideon Rachman, on his FT blog.
The article is pasted below, followed by my response on the FT blog!
WHY AMERICA AND CHINA WILL CLASH
Gideon Rachman
Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.
The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted – even welcomed – China’s emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.
If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: “In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation.” A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: “Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side.”
The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America’s most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: “China’s going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it.” Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton’s favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, “the price would be dismal economic failure”.
So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to “dismal economic failure”. On the contrary, China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.
Google’s decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country’s market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.
The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians – particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America’s approach to China for a generation. The president’s recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China – complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China’s rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a “currency manipulator”.
Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google’s decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.
Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.
A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.
MY RESPONSE
The rise of China is not predicated on Western theories of economic growth neither is it dependent on acceptance by the US.
Rachman states:
"Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition."
Well, I beg to differ, and on two fronts. First, the US is not, and has never been, the sponsor of Chinese rise to economic prominence. The US trades with China because it is in its own interest to do so and China, love her or hate her, is nothing short of an unavoidable and colossal force of nature. It is China who sponsors the lavishness and false impressions about the true state of the American economy by essentially funding it. Yes, China funds much of America's excesses via its vast holdings of US Treasury Bills.
Second, the impression that the US welcomes the rise of a giant Asian economy in the form of China is misleading. The US doesn't "welcome" it. In fact, the US is theatened by it; afterall, China is one of the very few countries in the world that doesn't jump at the beck and call of Washignton - a country so powerful and so self-assured that it gives the US sleepness nights, what with the States' desire to remain the sole superpower in the world for all of time. As opposed to welcoming China's elevation, the US merely acknowledges the factual state of affairs. To deny China's place in global economics would make any professor look foolish. The US, and the whole world in fact, must come to terms with China's position.
On a separate note, countries other than the US, particularly developing nations, should welcome the emergence of a rival power to that of the US given the enormous, monopolistic oppression that the US has visited on many developing nations over the years with the aid of its economic might. What the world needs right now is not a world polarised into US and China arms (like the USSR and USA) but a series of regional powers, preferably with differing ideologies and a powerful and credible international organisation (unlike the UN) to stand in the middle to balance competing goals and interests. India, Brazil, Iran, Russia and Nigeria are all countries with the potential to step up to the plate. Whether and how they in fact do so, only time will tell.
- Olu Omoyele
Lucky Me
I have travelled across
many seas and many
time zones and I have
seen many peoples and
many cultures but before
I go to bed at night, I
think how lucky I am to
have come from Africa
- Copyright © Olumide Omoyele 2010
many seas and many
time zones and I have
seen many peoples and
many cultures but before
I go to bed at night, I
think how lucky I am to
have come from Africa
- Copyright © Olumide Omoyele 2010
Pellets, Unborn
Do I hear
the screams
of an unborn child?
Is that you whistling?
Gushing past under the
guise of wistful wind?
Are you
ashamed of us?
Of the life we keep
ready for you?
Are those your tears that
sprinkle from the skies, and
then vanish suddenly as
though it never had an
intention to rain?
Are you satirising us?
Have we become
just a parody of
faceless stumps?
Do we not pay you
due attention? Is that why
you let down a shower of
frozen water?
Pellets to resemble our bullets?
Do you plan a
much bigger invasion?
Were those merely
but warning shots?
- Copyright © Olumide Omoyele 2010
the screams
of an unborn child?
Is that you whistling?
Gushing past under the
guise of wistful wind?
Are you
ashamed of us?
Of the life we keep
ready for you?
Are those your tears that
sprinkle from the skies, and
then vanish suddenly as
though it never had an
intention to rain?
Are you satirising us?
Have we become
just a parody of
faceless stumps?
Do we not pay you
due attention? Is that why
you let down a shower of
frozen water?
Pellets to resemble our bullets?
Do you plan a
much bigger invasion?
Were those merely
but warning shots?
- Copyright © Olumide Omoyele 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)