Insight A15

INSIGHT A15 SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST

Asian woes at Iran’s oil pumps

A

s the US shapes up to confront Iran in the Middle East, it is trying to rally support in Asia for tougher sanctions against Tehran. Washington alleges that Iran has a covert programme to develop nuclear weapons, and that it backs anti-American violence in Iraq. Iran shows no sign of being ready to comply with a UN Security Council deadline – the end of this month – to suspend its sensitive nuclear work. Instead, Iranian officials have said that they will expand uranium enrichment activity. Although China and Russia voted for the Security Council resolution in December, they are wary of imposing tougher sanctions, arguing that it would provoke Iran and make a negotiated settlement less likely. The US is forging closer cooperation with Sunni Arab-led states, especially Saudi Arabia, as a counterweight to Iran’s Shiite theocracy. The rising tension in the Gulf troubles many Asian countries. Trade and investment between the two regions is booming. Trade

CROSSROADS

Michael Richardson between the Middle East and China alone could rise at least sixfold to US$500 billion by 2020, according to the McKinsey consulting firm. The bedrock of Asia’s interest in the Gulf is energy. It draws about three-quarters of its oil imports from the Middle East. Iran provides close to 15 per cent of Japan’s oil and is its third-largest supplier after Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite this dependence, Japan – under pressure from its US ally – last year backed away from a deal to invest US$2 billion in Iran’s Azadegan oil field. Other Asian countries planning to invest in Iranian energy projects are also feeling the heat from Washington, which has a law to penalise any foreign firm that invests more than US$40 million in oil or natural gas ventures in Iran. An influential member of the US Congress last week called for negotiations on a US-Malaysia freetrade agreement to be suspended unless Kuala Lumpur bars a Malaysian company from investing US$16 billion to develop gas fields in southern Iran. Malaysia is expected to repeat its refusal to veto the deal when the latest talks end today. India’s foreign minister visited Tehran this week for talks on a plan to spend as much as US$7.5 billion on a 2,570km pipeline to carry Iranian gas through Pakistan to energy-short India. US requests to New Delhi to steer clear of Iran while it continues to defy the UN have played a part in delaying any deal. China faces some particularly painful choices if tensions continue to increase between the US and its Saudi-led Gulf allies, on the one hand, and Iran on the other. Iran was China’s third-largest oil supplier last year, and Chinese state-owned companies have committed to huge investments in oil and gas projects there. Will Beijing risk its relations with the US and its international prestige as a responsible power by putting those energy interests ahead of its professed concern to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? And the question may become even more complicated for Beijing. Iranian and Saudi exports account for almost two-thirds of China’s Middle East oil imports. If relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia fray in a Gulf power struggle, Beijing may find that it has to choose between two petroleum giants – each of them vital to China’s energy security. Michael Richardson is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. This is a personal comment

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2007

DONALD TSANG’S CAMPAIGN DILEMMA Margaret Ng

You can run, but you can’t hide from democracy

I

am glad that I’m not running Donald Tsang Yam-kuen’s election campaign. Given his platform on universal suffrage, he faces an insuperable problem of inconsistency and dishonesty. The chief executive is under challenge from directly elected legislator Alan Leong Kah-kit, now unstoppable as a candidate in the race. So Mr Tsang has announced that he, too, will run a popular campaign – handing out handbills to passers-by in the streets, visiting housing estates and so on, as if the chief executive election were a direct election by universal suffrage. The glaring hole in the glamorous fabric of his campaign is that the general electorate is denied the right to vote. Mr Tsang’s platform does not come even near to a clear promise that he will fight for their enfranchisement by 2012, or even 2017 – or by any date. Against these hard facts, his campaign dress code, theme colour and slogan – which image experts identify as “efforts to reconnect with the public” – will only serve to highlight the gap between appearance and reality. Mr Leong can speak to the public, loud and clear, with hand on heart, saying: “I want you to see how absurd and unfair this system is. You have seen the platforms of both candidates. You should have the right to choose between them. Yet you are denied the right to do so unless you are one of the privileged 796. “This is wrong, and my commitment is to change the system so that this will be the last time ordinary men and women in Hong Kong are barred from electing their chief executive.” Mr Leong may have a tough job, given the inequality of the contest, but his position is not indefensible. Mr Tsang has to fight his own ambivalences and contradictory messages. Democracy comes last in his action plan, under the sub-heading: A Good Democratic

Environment. He promises to “seek to achieve a consensus within society on the model for universal suffrage, so that universal suffrage will become a reality as soon as possible”. “Consensus” is a much-manipulated word in the Hong Kong government. What matters here is what Mr Tsang means by it and how he tries to achieve it. He means a proposal that everybody will agree to, and he is waiting for someone to produce one for him. In a question and answer session recently, when legislator

Albert Ho Chun-yan criticised him for a lack of progress, Mr Tsang held out his hand, palm up, and demanded: “Where is the consensus model? You give me that first.” He considered it incumbent on the supporters of universal suffrage to provide a model that everyone will accept. He thinks he has done his job simply by appointing the Commission on Strategic Development. His action plan includes a promise to publish a green paper, in the middle of this year, to consult the public on the commission’s conclusion.

Yet he is not expecting a “consensus” there. This is all he undertakes to do. Is this what he means by “push forward democratic development with a pragmatic attitude and move towards universal suffrage” – one of his pledges. Mr Tsang is clearly anxious to be seen as someone close to the people, a modest man, the chap next door. I could understand that attitude in a governor sent here to rule over us by our colonial masters – they weren’t one of us. But why is Mr Tsang, a local boy, so worried? He pledges to “guide government officials to act proactively in listening to public opinion [and] raise [the] transparency of policy-making”. But why has he not done so in the past? In such matters as the demolition of the Star Ferry clock tower, the West Kowloon cultural development project – and many other examples, what attitude did he and his officials actually show? If he is now aware that this was not good enough, is he offering anything in his platform that will give the public reason to feel confident that his attitude will change? The one sure remedy is democracy. This is why universal suffrage is essential to good governance in Hong Kong. What would really make the government listen to the people is giving them the vote. The habits of a lifetime as a mandarin do not equip Mr Tsang well for leading a democratic government. His authoritarian mindset all too frequently gets the better of him. Only a change to universal suffrage would be potent enough to dislodge that mindset, but his platform contains nothing to assure us that such a change is on its way. Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee is a legislator representing the legal profession and a founding member of the Civic Party

COLD WAR THINKING Yu Maochun

Stop ignoring the China threat

P

resident Hu Jintao is currently touring Africa, seeking to secure dependable sources of natural resources and to promote China’s “peaceful rise”. Such tours are designed to give notice that the nation is emerging on the world stage, as well as to make it look respectable as a major world power. But the country’s quest for international respect is not well served by its embrace of rogue nations like Sudan, Venezuela and Myanmar, much less by its secretive military build-up and its recent adventure in outer space. Indeed, when the Chinese military fired a missile into space last month and shattered one of its own ageing satellites, it caused outrage from London to Tokyo and Washington. After several days of silence in the face of incontrovertible evidence of the launch, Beijing reluctantly admitted what it had done. But it claimed that the “test was not directed at any country and does not constitute a threat to any country”. Such denials are becoming unconvinc-

tator it wishes – and disturb the delicate military balance in space – is emblematic of something dangerous. Partly because of the patronising pampering afforded the Chinese by the developed world – and partly because of Beijing’s relentless, but successful, manipulation of world opinion – China has long been treated as exceptional when it comes to its international behaviour. As a result, in venues like the United Nations, the nation enjoys a degree of immunity from criticism for its egregious human rights abuses and massive military build-up. Likewise, its relations with authoritarian regimes, or even its responsibility for preserving the global environment, are rarely mentioned. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese leadership now acts as if the country actually is exceptional and can get away with polluting outer space without rebuke. The destruction of the Chinese satellite produced roughly 300,000 pieces of debris,

ing. In fact, this dangerous and irresponsible action is yet another key sign that China’s rise as a global power lacks any guarantee that it will be a peaceful nation once it grows strong. Lurking behind China’s ambition in space is the spirit of the cold war, which continues to permeate the inner circles of the military high command: their adversary is unmistakably the US. With the collapse of the Soviet communist regime, the US continues to enjoy a dominant role in space exploration for peaceful and scientific development. But, since the 1980s, the US has been ambivalent about the ultimate military and civilian utility of its space efforts. This ambivalence has now been greatly reduced because of China’s recent action, which could precipitate a race to militarise and weaponise outer space. Should this happen, China would share a large part of the blame. Its adventurism and blithe assumption that it can deal with any international dic-

causing severe pollution and endangering many other orbiting spacecraft. There is a danger, given China’s size, that this peculiar “Chinese exceptionalism” could turn into something truly alarming: a global norm. China is a poor model for the developing world, given its effort to make internet giants like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft kowtow to its domestic political controls – and its push in Africa and Latin America to create blocs of nations that pursue economic development while ignoring human rights and environmental conservation. In fact, to continue to give China “exceptional” treatment – given its behaviour today – will undermine its ability to become a nation capable of exercising responsible global leadership. Yu Maochun is a professor of East Asia and military history at the US Naval Academy. The views expressed here are his own. Copyright: Project Syndicate

CONSUMER SPENDING Christopher Johnson

Bolster, don’t bash, Japan’s economy

E

uropeans who seek measures against the weakness of the yen should broaden their view of chronic problems in Japan – to avoid punishing Japanese consumers and stalling economic growth in the region, which benefits from a weak yen. The currency has fallen 11 per cent against the euro in the past year. Finance ministers from Germany, France and Italy said last week that this decline would be discussed at a Group of Seven meeting between central bankers and finance ministers in Essen, Germany, at the weekend. But shoppers in Japan – where increased domestic consumer demand is needed to bolster export-led growth – have bigger worries. Despite rising corporate profits, the Japanese remain mired in stagnant wages, abnormally high living costs and anxiety about higher taxes, amid a declining birth rate and shrinking

workforce. Household spending dropped every month last year, while the Labour Ministry said wages – which shrivelled by 10 per cent between 1997 and 2005 – rose a mere 0.2 per cent. This situation is not in the best interests of Europe, China – or any country that needs Japanese buyers, visitors and investors. A downturn in Japan could dampen enthusiasm in the region and siphon money out of China’s booming – and fragile – markets. To avoid nipping Japan’s economic spring in the bud, finance officials should consider the context: while the yen might appear weak, history indicates that it could slide even further. Many analysts blame current abnormalities on the 1985 Plaza Accord. That was when major powers intervened in currency markets to slow Japan’s export juggernaut and open the nation to cheaper western imports. From 1986 to

1991, the yen doubled in value and living costs in Japan climbed to absurd levels. Despite years without inflation, many Japanese still feel they’re paying too much for what they get. Consumer apathy impedes the Bank of Japan from raising interest rates, which are well below the global norm. Economics and Fiscal Policy Minister Hiroko Ota and others have pressured bank officials to move slowly, or not at all, on tightening the money supply. “Japan is in an extremely crucial period of getting out of deflation, and consumption is weak,” said Ms Ota. “Low interest rates need correcting eventually, but what is important is the timing.” The bank’s interest rate rise last July has been blamed for contributing to a slowdown in the JulySeptember quarter. As it is, some investment funds are exploiting Japan’s low interest rates by borrowing cheaply in yen and investing in

higher-yielding assets such as US Treasury bills. Many blame this yen-carry trade for fuelling stock bubbles in Shanghai, Shenzhen and elsewhere that could burst if currencies go astray, as in 1997. China dreads a domino effect from currency interventions in Asia because it is already under Plaza Accord-type pressures to let the yuan rise. “China does not yet have the currency policy that we want it to have and that it needs,” US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said last week. American and Japanese officials are indicating they won’t alter their yen policy, and investors in China are sensitive to any wind of change. So G7 ministers would be better off focusing on how to sustain growth worldwide by getting Japanese consumers back into the game. Christopher Johnson is a Tokyo-based freelance writer

GLOBAL WARMING Robert Samuelson

The world’s dirty secret

Y

ou could be excused for thinking that we’ll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, to a 90 per cent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic leaders in the US Congress made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big American companies endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand. Don’t be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: we have no solution. About 80 per cent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) – the main sources of manmade greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which buttresses

political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming. Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to “do something” with scepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen to be reducing global warming when they’re not actually doing so. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of

carbon dioxide totalled 26 billion metric tonnes. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, they will grow to 40 billion tonnes by 2030, projects the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA). About three-quarters of the increase will come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. Poor countries won’t sacrifice economic growth – lowering poverty, fostering political stability – to placate the rich world’s fears about global warming. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 per cent of the population even has electricity. Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA calcu-

lated an alternative scenario that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use; for example, fuel economy for new US vehicles was assumed to increase 30 per cent by 2030. The result: by 2030, annual carbon emissions would rise 31 per cent instead of 55 per cent. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases anywhere from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises anywhere from 17cm to almost 60cm. What we really need is a more urgent programme of research and development focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. There’s no guar-

antee that socially acceptable and costcompetitive new technologies would result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I’ve argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports; but it would also check carbon dioxide emissions. It’s a debate we ought to have – but probably won’t. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That’s one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit. Robert Samuelson is a Washington Post columnist

Peter Kammerer

Where a journalist’s life is cheap

P

hilippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is proud of her nation’s democracy and always looking for ways to make it even better. It’s strange, then, that more journalists – the upholders of democratic systems – have been killed during her presidency than under any of her predecessors. The figures are oft quoted by media watchdogs, human rights groups and anyone with an axe to grind against Mrs Arroyo’s administration. But while there is no denying that the numbers are appalling, an important point to keep in mind is that apples and oranges should never be compared. In this case, statistics are being used to claim that journalists have it tougher in the Arroyo years than during those of dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists puts the number killed since Mrs Arroyo took office six years ago at 47, compared to 34 under Marcos, who stole democracy by declaring marshal law in 1972. An equal number, 34, died under Corazon Aquino, the leader who restored rights and freedoms to Filipinos in 1986 and governed for the next six years. Furthering the comparison, 19 died under Mrs Aquino’s successor, Fidel Ramos, and five during the three-year presidency of Joseph Estrada, who was succeeded by Mrs Arroyo. Other watchdog organisations, like the Centre for Media Freedom and Responsibility, in Manila, and the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, dispute the federation’s accounting methods and have substantially lower figures, although they chart similar trends. In its annual assessment of global journalistic freedoms released this month, the latter group reported that last year, the Philippines was the third most unsafe country for reporters. Six journalists were killed, compared to nine in Mexico and 40 in Iraq. A record total of 43 journalists have had libel actions filed against them during Mrs Arroyo’s tenure. They were all filed by her husband, Mike Arroyo, over reports accusing him of

“Six journalists were killed in the Philippines last year compared to nine in Mexico and 40 in Iraq” corruption. All but one of the news people involved have counter-sued. Then there are the persistent accusations from human rights groups that the leader is turning a blind eye to the deaths of journalists, labour activists, church people, lawyers and the like – more than 800 since she took office. An inquiry she ordered has implicated the military, which helped her to power, but few military people have had action taken against them. Each year there are also dozens of attempts on the lives of journalists: many are assaulted and scores receive threats. Most of the attacks take place outside the capital. Sheila Coronel, the director of the Stabile Centre for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University, put the situation down to a culture of impunity for business leaders and officials, and a lack of government control in provincial areas, where local bosses often have private armies. “They are usually entrenched in local office, sometimes over generations,” said Ms Coronel, until last September the head of the Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism. “There is very little opposition, if at all, to their control of local territories. That control often extends to illegal activities – and they do not like being challenged.” Throw in the wide availability of guns, and the mix is deadly for those whose job is to uncover corruption and keep officials in line. But I sense that it was considerably worse under Marcos. No journalist then was truly independent, as every media outlet was government controlled. There are also many more reporters now than then. And Marcos had such a tight grip on the country that, after his first few years in office, he no longer had to kill journalists to show them who was boss. Simply jailing them was enough to get the message out loud and clear. Being a self-avowed practitioner of democracy, Mrs Arroyo should have no difficulty changing public perceptions. All she has to do is follow the democratic principles of ensuring police and the courts do their job properly. Oh yes – and acknowledge that journalists carry out the key democratic role of keeping those in power in check. Peter Kammerer is the Post’s foreign editor. [email protected]