The Chinese taikonauts are whirling around space.  I soon will also be up in the ether, on a plane bound for Japan. I’m taking the next week off, which coincides with the Oct. 1 national holiday week in China. So no blog postings until I get back Oct. 4. See you then.

The Dear Leader may or may not be on his sick bed, the nuclear talks are on the rocks, so what does North Korea do? It holds its major autumn air exercise.

Only, instead of impressing the outside world, it only makes some analysts snicker.

Read the latest blurb in NightWatch, a free daily intel wrapup available here:

Several press sources, among them the South Korean service Yonhap, described a recent North Korean air exercise along the western coast as “massive”.  The Yonhap article cited 170 sorties per day as its measure of a “massive” exercise.

With about 700 fighters in the North Korean inventory, most of which are pre-Vietnam War era designs, a few days of 170 sorties per day signifies the pilots are getting in their mandatory minimum of ten hours a year of flight time. This is the period of the year in which pilots are required to make up for any shortage of flight hours, prior to the onset of the Winter Training Cycle on or about 1 December.

The exercise undoubtedly had other tactical objectives, but autumn exercises are almost always the last chance for pilots to get in their required flight hours. Mind, ten hours a year is normal for most North Korean pilots and marginal for almost all other air forces. The North is 100% dependent on imports of aviation fuel and thus restricts flying time to save hard currency.

Readers should understand that 170 sorties a day for an air force with 700 fighters is embarrassingly few.  A full force surge of all combat aircraft would be 700 sorties per day. That would come close to “massive,” and give every pilot at least one sortie that day, presuming the North still has one pilot for every aircraft which is not confirmed.  The North might in fact have more aircraft than pilots.

The North Korean air force is estimated regularly to have flown almost ten times that many sorties in annual exercises twenty years ago, when the air frames were newer; Gross Domestic Product was increasing; and imported fuel supplies matched demand.  The force no longer is capable of those numbers. That is the actual significance of today’s report. A flight day that features 170 combat sorties means that the air force now can only surge about 25 percent of its aircraft in a single effort.  In other words, the air force has lost 75 percent of its capabilities since 1988.  The wonder is that the MiG-21 Fishbeds still fly at all.

Well, maybe North Korea’s air force isn’t much good anymore but the Hermit Kingdom still appears to have a couple of Fat Boys stored in a granite shaft somewhere. Only question is: can they fit on a Taepodong rocket warhead?

A well-known TV host in Shanghai, Liu Yiwei, has written a rather plaintive essay asking why China’s inspectors for products like infant formula don’t do their jobs as rigorously as the nation’s film censors.

Tainted infant formula in China, as you may have recently read, has sickened 53,000 infants in recent weeks, caused four deaths, and triggered the virtual collapse of the nation’s dairy industry. State media are showing images of Premier Wen Jiabao apologizing profusely for the safety lapse, saying it won’t happen again.

Here’s what Liu wrote in Shanghai’s News Morning, according to a translation picked up from the always information China Digital Times:

“I’m sure the scandal would not have happened if government officials inspected baby formula as strictly as they inspect films.

Not a single film in China has been given an “inspection-free” status. Film directors are treated equally regardless of whether they are internationally renowned or if they’re just starting their career. Even films from top-notch directors are trimmed, revised, or pulled from distribution completely if there are any problems.

Censoring a film starts with inspecting its script. The government prohibits any changes to be made to the original script and inspects each step of the film’s production. Do officials do similar things with dairy products? Do they check our milk supply? A film would be revised again and again until it satisfies the censors. As for milk powder, there is an inspection-free policy which allows unqualified products to be sold directly to consumers. By contrast, there is a strict film recall system. Take the film “Apple” as an example, it was pulled from all movie theaters across the country as soon as officials detected something wrong with it, and subsequently the company that produced the film had its license revoked. However, the dairy product company Sanlu still holds a production license even after the damage it’s caused.

Also, the impact of unqualified films is limited. The total ticket office revenue for all films in China was about 4.5 billion RMB in 2007. A film couldn’t have a large negative impact on society even if it had some problems. It wouldn’t hurt people in the audience or take their lives. Why can’t officials inspect baby formula as strictly as they censor films?

Now back to Premier Wen. Here’s what he said over the weekend, according to a South China Morning Post article:

"As the head of the government, I feel extremely guilty ... I sincerely apologise to all of you," Mr Wen said while addressing dozens of Beijing residents in a community centre, in footage shown by CCTV.

"What we are doing now is to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again, and we are not only talking about milk. We will never let the same situation repeat with any kind of food product," he said.

It is a very different attitude on safety of consumer goods to that demonstrated during last year’s global scare about Chinese products. Back then, the head of the Chinese watchdog agency, Li Changjiang, said much of the blame for worries about Chinese products were because foreign businessmen and journalists were bent on sabotaging China’s economy.

"Some foreign media, especially those based in the United States, have wantonly reported on so called unsafe Chinese products," Li said last year. "They are turning white to black."

At another point, Li blamed foreign companies for toy recalls that he said were a plot of hurt China.

"Demonizing Chinese products, or talking of the Chinese product threat, I think, is simply a new form of trade protectionism," he said.

Li lost his job Monday.

Now, my question is this: How can Premier Wen pledge in all sincerity that there will be no future problems on food safety if the government still censors information when food problems arise? Hardly any Chinese know that the current milk formula scandal blew up because New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark blew the whistle publicly.

Many questions still need to be answered before the Chinese public feels reassured that government officials will genuinely put the safety of people utmost, even above the potential embarrassment they may suffer when their efforts fall short. Seems to me that vigorous consumer protection organizations, and a domestic media able to point out shortcomings freely, would go a long way toward rebuilding confidence.

Less than a month from now, we will find out if China will maintain its attitude of greater openness with the foreign media. My bet is that it won’t.

At the beginning of the year, China relaxed its rules on the foreign media to fulfill pledges for greater freedoms in the period around the Olympic Games. The measures lapse on Oct. 17.

If the old rules come back into play, this is what it means:

• Reporters will be required again to seek advance permission from the Foreign Ministry for any trip outside of their base, such as Beijing.
• And reporters will no longer be free to interview anyone who agrees to an interview request. Rather, interviews must be vetted by authorities.

The old rules provide the means to tighten the choke leash at any time. If any nasty stories about tainted food products might arise, for example, authorities can keep us journalists from traveling to the factories or hospitals where the problems are severe.

The Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which has 432 members from 29 countries, issued a statement this week calling on China to keep the greater freedoms that it allowed during the Olympic period.

"The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China urges the government to build an Olympic legacy by enshrining the pledge of openness in new rules for foreign correspondents.

"In keeping with China's efforts to become a more open society, we urge the government to recognize in the new regulations for foreign correspondents that the free flow of information is crucial to the proper functioning of the globalized world."

But at a Foreign Ministry briefing this Tuesday, spokeswoman Jiang Yu offered no hint whatsoever that the relaxed rules would continue in their present form.

She was asked, “Any chance these measures may be extended?”

Her answer, according to a transcript on the Foreign Ministry website, was: “I understand your interest in this issue. The Regulation expires on Oct. 17. I would like to stress that China will carry on the opening-up spirit, welcome foreign journalists as always, and protect their legitimate rights and interests in China according to law, including their right to report. We also hope you will abide by Chinese laws and regulations and cover China in an objective and fair manner.”

I spoke to a veteran diplomatic China-watcher last night who agreed that the signs are not promising. We may soon be slipping backward toward the greater restrictions.

It is a clever system. Under the old way of doing things, we journalists could not do our jobs and follow the law. We could not ask for, and obtain, permission for every interview that is needed to write our stories. So we were in constant violation of the law, which is designed so that our “right to report” is to regurgitate what is told to us by the heavily controlled state-run media. If we stray, and we must or we’d lose our jobs, we can be reprimanded at any moment.

And I’m sure it will be for our own good. After all, authorities know that covering China in an “objective and fair manner” means covering it just like Xinhua or the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling party.

I’ve just got off an Air China flight from Nanjing to Beijing. It was a smooth flight. The only inconveniences were the usual fellow passengers occasionally clearing their throats noisily and spitting into the motion sickness bags.

Getting off the flight involved a scrum of elbows as passengers in the back of the flight tried to beat the ones in front out of the door.

All in all, a smooth experience _ and it got me to thinking.

Here is what you don’t see in China: You don’t see enraged passengers reaching across airline counters and shaking fingers at quivering airline employees. You don’t see people drinking way too much on flights and making scenes. In other words, you don’t see behavior that goes beyond boorish to the realms of freakish and even dangerous.

In China, I never look around and hope there’s an air marshal nearby.

I got an email from a reader in Massachusetts recently voicing surprise at the lack of road rage in China. It’s true. There’s plenty of muttering among drivers, and an occasional shout. But I never see drivers, pedestrians or cyclists really lose it. Just about everywhere else outside of Asia, I’ve seen that.

I was once in a taxi in Honduras. A bus cut off the cab during a traffic jam. Traffic drew to a halt. The taxi driver reached under his seat, pulled out a crowbar, walked in front of the bus, then smashed both its headlights while proffering a flurry of insults. I was astonished and feared I might be caught in a crowbar-flinging version of World War III.

So here’s an excerpt from the email from reader Thomas Gorton:

I have been to China three times in the past 2 1/2 years and fell in love with the country and her people. I went there for an almost blind date and ended up marrying that date. My wife is now legally here in the States. As for a suggestion for a future story, here it is: on my first trip to Nanning in Guangxi province, and subsequent trips, I spent a lot of time in taxi cabs. Traffic was fairly well controlled but not like here in America. People cutting in and out and frequently cutting across oncoming lanes. Narrow side streets were often blocked by parked motor bikes etc. No one ever got upset or impatient that I witnessed. No one! Road rage, so prevalent here, seemed to be totally non-existent there. Is that true throughout China? Must be I figure.

So that's my suggestion. A column on the lack of road rage and why. It was refreshing to see, but then China is too.

Hopefully I'll read it soon.

You just did.

I’m celebrating, of sorts. For the first time in maybe a year, this blog and others on the typepad.com host can now be seen within China. They are no longer blocked.

Why did the blocking suddenly end? I have no idea. Someone just flicked a switch. One could go nuts trying to figure such things out. Of only one thing am I certain: The ban wasn’t targeted at my blog. I’m just a bystander in all this. There must have been an aggregate of questionable blogs in the censors’ eyes that caused the blocking.

And how long will this Prague Spring last? I’m totally uncertain. It could be a few hours, maybe longer.

On an unrelated matter, check out this website in Canada on six Chinese-made car clones that are knockoffs of famous Western models. Scroll down a bit to see the side-by-side photos. Hat tip to the always interesting danwei.org for pointing the way to this site.

Heading into election season, it’s worth looking at how both major candidates look at U.S. China relations and the future of China.

This is a rather lengthy post with two parts. The first part is a Reuters synopsis of a report from the Asia Foundation about the policies, in very broad strokes, of John McCain and Barack Obama toward Asia. I’ve edited down sections on Pakistan and India but left in anything pertinent to China. This information is gleaned largely from speeches, campaign websites and party platforms.

The second part includes essays written by McCain and Obama (or top aides) for the American Chamber of Commerce in China’s monthly magazine. These essays, released this morning, have a lot of boilerplate in them. I was going to edit down but decided just to boldface the key policy points that differentiate the candidates.

One can spot as many similarities as differences. McCain says he would be less adversarial with China than Obama. For his part, Obama suggests that he will push China harder to liberalize its currency and on domestic human rights issues here. Both say they will press China to lean on such allies as Burma, Iran and Sudan.

One side note to all this, while much of the world is mesmerized by the U.S. election, hoping for a significant shift in U.S. policies, China remains wary of a post-Bush era with evident nostalgia for the presidencies both of George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and George W. Bush (2001-2009). Father and son are seen as FOC (friends of China), reliable for their pro-business push and willingness to cut China slack on many issues. There’s some trepidation in China about what lies ahead.

Here’s the Asia Foundation summary:

    OBAMA
    * U.S. ALLIANCES - Vows to maintain strong U.S. military and strengthen ties with Japan, South Korea and Australia and work to build a framework that goes beyond bilateral agreements and builds on arrangements like the six-nation North Korea nuclear talks. Seeks regional framework to confront shared transnational threats such as terrorism and avian flu.
    * CHINA - Sees opportunities and challenges for the United States and its allies in emergence of China.  Vows to boost military-to-military dialogue, work to boost cooperation on shared security, energy and environment objectives. Says will not demonize China but will press China to live up to international human rights standards and stop its support for repressive regimes in Iran, Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
    * TAIWAN - Recognizes One China Policy but says U.S. policy is also based on Taiwan Relations Act, which requires helping the island defend itself in the event that China moves to alter the status quo or violates the principle that all issues regarding the island's future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan.
    * TRADE - Vows to oppose trade agreements that undermine U.S. economic security and fight to open up foreign markets to support American jobs. Intends to use diplomacy and trade laws to stop Chinese manipulation of its currency and intellectual property piracy. Will press the World Trade Organization to stop distorting government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports. 
    * SECURITY - Supports strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to bring international sanctions on countries like North Korea and Iran that break nonproliferation
rules.

    MCCAIN
    * U.S. ALLIANCES - Values long-standing ties and shared values with Australia and sees alliance with Japan as cornerstone of regional peace and prosperity. Wants Japan to forge a leadership role in regional and global affairs and respects South Korea for vigilance against North Korea.
    * CHINA - Seeks nuclear dialogue with Beijing to boost transparency and cooperation, bring China in to line with the policies of other recognized nuclear weapon states. Hopes for political and religious liberalization to match China's economic freedoms and believes integration into the global economy requires China to adopt a flexible exchange rate.
    * TAIWAN - Policy based on Taiwan Relations Act.
    * SECURITY - Says larger, more capable U.S. military needed to cope with terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia. Sees missile defense as critical protection against ballistic missiles from North Korea and Iran and to hedge against potential threats from possible competitors like Russia and China.

Here are the candidates’ essays

MCCAIN ON SINO-U.S. RELATIONS

The resurgence of Asia is one of the epochal events of our time. It is a renaissance that is not only transforming the face of this vast region, but throwing open new opportunities for billions of people on both sides of the Pacific—Americans and Asians alike—to build a safer, more prosperous and freer world.

Seizing these opportunities, however, will require strong American leadership and an unequivocal American commitment to Asia, whose fate is increasingly inseparable from our own. It requires internationalism rather than isolationism, and global trade rather than national protectionism. When our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region think of the future, they should expect more — not less — attention, investment and cooperation from the highest levels of the US government.

A central challenge will be getting America’s relationship with China right. China’s double-digit growth rates have brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, energized the economies of its neighbors and produced manifold new economic opportunities. The US shares common interests with China that can form the basis of a strong partnership on issues of global concern, including climate change, trade and proliferation. But some of China’s economic practices, combined with its rapid military modernization, lack of political freedom and close relations with regimes like Sudan and Burma, tend to undermine the very international system on which its rise depends. The next American president must build on the areas of overlapping interest to forge a more durable US-China relationship. 

It must be a priority of the next American president to expand America’s economic relationships in Asia. Unfortunately, in what has become an all-too-predictable pattern, some American politicians — including the Democratic candidate for president — are preying on the fears stoked by Asia’s dynamism; rather than encouraging American innovation and entrepreneurship, they instead propose throwing up protectionist walls that will leave us all worse off. The United States has never won respect or created jobs by retreating from free trade, and we cannot start doing so now. 

We also must recognize, however, that while open trade with Asia is in America’s interest, globalization will not automatically benefit every American. That’s why we must remain committed to education, retraining and help for displaced workers, regardless of whether their job went away because of trade, technological innovation, or shifts in consumer spending patterns. For Americans who have lost a job, we need to expand opportunities for further education and training that can open new doors. We need to modernize our unemployment insurance system to reflect the reality of the 21st century economy: jobs that go away no longer come back when business rebounds. We need to help displaced workers make ends meet between jobs and move people quickly on to the next opportunity. 

China has obligations as well. Its commitment to open markets must include enforcement of international trade rules, protecting intellectual property, lowering manufacturing tariffs and fulfillment of its commitment to move to a market-determined currency. The next administration should be clear about where China needs to make progress, hold it to its commitments through enforcement at the World Trade Organization and enforce US trade and product safety laws. Doing so will help steer the process of China’s economic integration with the world to ensure that it is a fair, two-way street. And the US should continually expand opportunities as China develops, moving into retail ventures, environmental protection, health, education, financial and other services.

Beyond our economic relationship, the US shares other common interests with China that can form the basis of a strong partnership on issues of global concern.  In addressing the problem of climate change, for instance, Chinese cooperation will be essential. If we are going to establish meaningful environmental protocols, they must include the two nations—China and India—that have the potential to pollute the air faster, and in greater annual volume, than any nation ever in history.

The United States should continue to negotiate in good faith with China and other nations to enact the standards and controls that are in the interest of every nation—whatever their stage of economic development. America can take the lead in offering these developing nations low-carbon technologies that we will all need. Given the environmental challenges so evident in China today, pressing on with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one's interest.

China’s growing power and influence endow it with the obligation to behave as a responsible stakeholder in global politics. China could bolster its claim that it is "peacefully rising" by being more transparent about its significant military buildup and by working with the world to isolate pariah states. In addition, how a nation treats its citizens is a legitimate subject of international concern in today’s world. China has signed numerous international agreements that make its domestic behavior more than just a matter of national sovereignty. To be a responsible stakeholder in the modern international system, a government must also be responsible at home, in protecting the rights of its people.   

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests and I hope to see our relationship evolve in a manner that benefits both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. Our ties must be rooted in a broader regional and international order that provides the indispensible bedrock for the shared prosperity and stability we all desire. America itself must be a stakeholder in that system, and we must take seriously our responsibilities to contribute to it. It is in this spirit that America’s relations with China, and with the countries that comprise the region surrounding it, should proceed.

OBAMA ON SINO-U.S. RELATIONS

In the coming years, the United States and China face challenges that require fresh thinking and a change from the US policy approach of the past eight years. How the US and China meet these challenges, and the extent to which we can find common ground, will be important both for our own countries and for others in Asia and beyond.

China has achieved extraordinary, sustained growth over the past three decades. Hundreds of millions of people in China live better now than most thought possible even two decades ago. 

But as China’s leaders acknowledge, China must make some basic adjustments if it is to continue sustained, shared economic growth. China must develop practices that are more environmentally sustainable and less energy intensive, that boost domestic consumption as an engine of growth, that enhance the social safety net, and that encourage indigenous technology innovation. Otherwise, the country’s future performance may fall well short of its potential.

The United States has the world’s largest and strongest economy, but we, too, must make serious adjustments in order to be competitive in the 21st century. We must end the fiscal irresponsibility of recent years that has led to record high deficits and a record low national savings rate. We must invest in infrastructure, education, health care, science and technology. And we must break our addiction to oil and launch a historic effort to transform our economy by investing in renewable technologies, energy efficiency and the next generation of clean vehicles. These initiatives will help lay the foundation for broad based, bottom-up economic growth that benefits all Americans and helps strengthen US-China relations as well. 

We know that America and China can accomplish much when we recognize our common interests. US and Chinese cooperation in the Six Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue over the past few years makes clear that we can work together constructively, bilaterally and with others, to reduce tensions on even extraordinarily sensitive issues.

More broadly, the United States supports and benefits from security and stability in Asia. We need to address the principal causes of regional tension. As I made clear in my congratulatory letter to Ma Ying-jeou on his inauguration, we support steps to build trust across the Taiwan Strait and improvements in relations between Beijing and Taipei, now more possible with good will by both sides than at any time since the mid-1990s.  Reduction of tensions between China and Japan is in the interests of those two countries, and of the United States. We seek the type of stability and well-being on the Korean peninsula that can only be brought about by the complete elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and normalization of relations between North Korea and all the participants in the Six Party Talks. And finally, and critically, we need a strong foundation for a long-term positive and constructive relationship with an emerging China.

I firmly believe that an active, sophisticated and nimble US diplomatic, economic and security presence in the region is critical to achieving these and related goals. Our alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand are the foundation of the US security presence in the region and contribute greatly to regional stability, threatening to no one. Along with the forward deployment of our military forces in the Western Pacific, they are a necessary but not sufficient basis for a sound strategy to strengthen regional security and stability. An Obama Administration will look for opportunities to work with China and others in the region to foster an environment where regional stability and prosperity flourish. 

Asia’s economic and security landscape is changing, and this requires special attention to understanding unfolding developments in the region. But America’s interests in the vitality and stability of the region are enduring.

With this in mind, I want to address some of the key issues that directly involve our two countries.

Trade and investment undergirds prosperity, and the US and China have one of the largest and most important bilateral economic relationships in the world. Our two nations are the first and third largest trading nations, and China has in recent years been America’s most rapidly growing major export market. 

I know that America and the world can benefit from trade with China, but only if China agrees to play by the rules and act as a positive force for balanced world growth. I want China’s economy to continue to grow, its domestic demand to expand and its vitality to contribute to regional and global prosperity. But China’s current growth is unbalanced, and in recent years domestic consumption has actually gone down as a percentage of GDP. To increase internal demand Beijing will have to improve substantially its social safety net and upgrade its financial services sector to bring its consumption in line with international norms.

Central to any rebalancing of our economic relationship with China must be change in its currency practices. Because it pegs its currency at an artificially low rate, China is running massive current account surpluses. This is not good for American firms and workers, not good for the world, and ultimately likely to produce inflation problems in China itself.

As President, I will use all the diplomatic avenues available to seek a change in China’s currency practices. I will also undertake more sustained and serious efforts to combat intellectual property piracy in China, and to address regulations that discriminate against foreign investments in major sectors and other unfair trading practices. And I will work with the Chinese government to establish a better system for both countries to monitor products produced for export and act when dangerous products are identified.

As President, I will take a vigorous, pragmatic approach to addressing these issues, utilizing our domestic trade remedy laws as well as the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism wherever appropriate. High-level dialogue among economic leaders in both countries is also important to achieving real progress. My approach to our economic relationship is positive and forward-looking: to remove obstructions to gaining the benefits of trade and thus to enable faster, and healthier, growth in both economies. 

Climate change is a truly common challenge and a long-term problem that must be addressed now. The United States has done too little on the issue, and I will work with the Congress and the private sector to change that. 

The United States and China have heavy, if different, responsibilities to meet this vital challenge. For too long, however, each has pointed a finger at the other’s attitudes as an excuse for not itself doing more. That must stop. 

The climate change challenge demands that the United States and China develop much higher levels of cooperation without delay. We are currently the world’s two largest consumers of oil and the two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. As the world’s richest developed economy and largest and most dynamic developing country, our cooperation to reduce the threat of climate change can produce models, practices and technologies that will provide impetus to global efforts, including those to reach agreement on a post-Kyoto climate regime.

America and China have developed a mature, wide-ranging relationship over the past 30-plus years. Yet we still have to do serious work if we are to create the level of mutual trust necessary for long-term cooperation in a rapidly changing region. Each country has deep concerns about the long-term intentions of the other, and those concerns will not disappear of their own accord.

Cooperation on the key, enduring global challenges, such as climate change, can deepen understanding and enhance confidence.  We also need to deepen high-level dialogues on a sustained basis on economic, security and global political issues. Our militaries should increase not only the quantity of their contacts but the quality of their engagement. 

In the modern world, non-traditional security threats are looming increasingly large. These include the challenges of terrorism, proliferation, failed states, infectious diseases, humanitarian disasters and piracy on the high seas. The United States and China have developed some cooperation in each of these areas, but in some we continue to have real differences, about which we must be candid.  In particular, I look to China to work with us to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, to halt the genocide in Darfur and to help reverse the slide into anarchy in Zimbabwe. 

Greater progress in protecting the human rights of all its people and moving toward democracy and rule of law will better enable China to achieve its full potential as a nation, domestically and internationally. China’s own people will expect, indeed demand, this. Such change will not weaken China, as its leaders may fear, but will provide a firmer basis for long-term stability and prosperity. China cannot stand indefinitely apart from the global trend toward democratic government, rule of law and full exercise of human rights. Protection of the unique cultural and religious traditions of the Tibetan people is an integral part of such an agenda. 

Since the 1970s, America’s policy of engaging China has produced major benefits for both sides and for Asia overall. The US-China relationship has had its share of challenges, and new ones will inevitably emerge. Especially in a world of common security, where events in any corner of the globe can affect the entire planet, the world more than ever requires that every major country not only pursue its narrow interests but also accept its responsibility to pursue urgently needed solutions to these broader problems. My administration will seek to revitalize America and lead it to realize its full potential for constructive engagement in Asia and in the global arena. 

A man self-immolated a few hours ago on the Bund, the famous riverside promenade, right in the heart of Shanghai. The state Xinhua news agency is reporting the news in detail, and other media are picking it up.

But censors are blocking all comment on the motives of the man on every website. Was he an activist of the Falun Gong banned movement? Was he a Tibetan Buddhist? How about a disgruntled property rights activist?

Whatever the cause, there is a story there, and the government may not want the motive to come out. But at least it’s a step in the right direction to allow Xinhua to report the news. Here’s the agency's latest story:

Man burns himself to death in Shanghai 

2008-09-11 16:23:55
     SHANGHAI, Sept. 11 (Xinhua) -- A man, whose identity remains unknown, died after setting himself ablaze in Shanghai's historic riverside Bund area at around 11 a.m. on Thursday, local police and witnesses said.

    The man reportedly poured gas over himself to spark the blaze on a square named after Chen Yi, a late marshal of the Chinese People's Liberation Army beside the Huangpu River.

    "I didn't see how it started, but suddenly spotted a flame that was moving about near Chen Yi's statue," said a witness on condition of anonymity. "It was a horrible scene."

    Fire fighters were sent in immediately and the blaze was put out in about 5 minutes, he said. "An electric bike was also burned-- I guess it belonged to that man."

    The square was packed with people when the self-immolation occurred, but nobody realized what was going on until it was too late. No one at the site saw what the man looked like or how old he was.

    When Xinhua reporters arrived at the site in the early afternoon, the corpse had been removed by police and the ground washed, but the air still smelt of gasoline.

    Shanghai police said they were investigating the identity of the man and the cause of the suicide.

    The Bund is a big draw for tourists as well as Shanghai residents.

I’ve just returned from a short trip to parts of Sichuan province that were jolted by a cataclysmic earthquake back in May.

One of the first things that one sees in driving around the area north of Chengdu are the vast compounds of temporary housing.

I’ve been in plenty of post-disaster situations before, ranging from hurricane-hit areas of the Caribbean to quake disaster zones in South America and post-tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka. I must say China is doing better than all of them.

The temporary housing areas are a thing of beauty: neat rows of sturdy white and red housing, well-organized with raised walkways and functioning drainage.

These aren’t small either. One camp we visited held 40,000 people.

Of the two housing sites we visited, all of the housing had raised concrete foundations with watertight seals along the lower walls. It’s wet down in Sichuan now but the camps had minimal mud. Each housing unit has a covered porch area and several windows. Communal latrines service rows of housing.

The photo above shows a school at one temporary housing compound near Hanwang. All the  buildings (housing and school) are the same basic structure, with public lighting. 

There’s lots of mumbling among quake victims about when they’ll move back into permanent homes. But I dare say that for some of them, the temporary housing is the best housing they’ve ever lived in.

It certainly looked better than some of the shacks along rice paddies that we visited near Mianzhu and close to Shifang. In one place, I had to relieve myself so I went into the latrine. Halfway through my business, I heard the deep snorts of the pigs on the other side of the drainage canal running from the latrine. It gave me a start. Uggh. Chinese pigs feast on human waste in many parts of rural China, and it’s why I try to stay away from pork. I always see pigs near outhouses wherever I go in rural China.

Pass the tofu, please.

To listen to the huffing and puffing coming out of North Korea lately, one would think a major crisis is in the offing again.

The country pledged over the weekend to mobilize all of its war potential to "mercilessly" fight any U.S. military attack, and it is carrying out on a recent threat to reassemble its Yongbyon nuclear facility, where it gets reprocessed nuclear fuel for its bombs.

But less may be there than meets the eye. All this could be a sign that this year’s harvest is particularly bad. Or it could just be typical bargaining by North Korea to rehash old issues that were already settled in earlier negotiations. Bluster and threat are the limited tools in North Korea’s negotiating toolbox.

Here are some interesting snippets from an intelligence report I get, written largely by retired U.S. intel people.

… the North’s provocative actions might be a reaction to worsening economic conditions, primarily food and energy shortages, for which it might now require foreign aid beyond that already agreed.

The effect of the North’s actions is to open a new round of talks, regardless of whether it rebuilds the reactor or tests weapons and missiles. In short, the price of North Korean cooperation has risen. That almost always means the North’s economic managers underestimated the country’s problems or unforeseen complications have arisen.

On another day, the report suggested that North Korea sees an opening to squeeze more out of the other nations in the six-party talks, which include the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S.

The settled analytical lore is that the North’s experience in dealing with the US, South Korea and Japan leads its leaders to judge they obtain more concessions from belligerence and bluster than from cooperation and from forcing the US and its allies to negotiate over the same terms over and over. While they experiment with cooperation from time to time, they always fall back on the tactics that have always produced the most benefits over the past 55 years. The Six Party Talks are reinforcing the settled lore.

The report noted that the two steps forward, one step backward process probably just took a step backward.

If the US chooses to stay engaged, Ambassador (Christopher) Hill or someone else must now re-negotiate for the dismantlement conditions that the US worked five years to achieve. That would be the significance of increased activity at Yongbyon, if confirmed. In short, the price of North Korean cooperation went up again.