Economy and Policy Reform in China

From 1943 - 1976, Mao Zedong was the chairman of the Chinese Politburo's Standing Committee, the top position in the CCP. Mao held the power in the government, but ruled in a highly personalistic and arbitrary style. Many of his policies were too idealistic and not so helpful. In 1982, after his death in 1976, the title of chairman was abolished, and the party leaders since then (Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao) have governed more as part of a collective leadership with members on the Standing Committee and the Politburo. This change in the distribution and handle on power (from "revolutionary" to "technocratic") has lead to economic reforms and changes in policy making.

Traditionally, people are appointed to government positions by leaders. This means appointment tends to be based on connections and bias, rather than an actual level of qualification. However, in recent years since 2001, there have been moves towards the "professionalizing" of the bureaucracy: making official positions subject to competition through civil service exams, instead of traditional appointment. Not only have civil service exams been implemented, but also a limit on how long officials can serve in the government - something that is unusual for a communist government. The change in appointment of government officials will lead to a change in policy - different ideas and concepts can be brought to government, rather than the same views of those officials party leaders would appoint themselves. Another major change that has affected policy making is the decentralization of government administration and the transfer of power in economic power to provincial and local authorities. And though the centralized power of the CCP still has considerable power over local affairs, this transfer of power allows local authorities to have more control over their own economic issues, which affects the policy making of these local authorities to be more focused on economic affairs. This, essentially, allows these authorities more freedom, to some degree.

Sanctioning Iran

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/01/201011813576958385.html

On Saturday, the five members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - including Germany, met in New York to discuss the impending issue of Iran's current nuclear activity. Though Iran maintains that their nuclear activity is merely for civil service purposes, the secrecy of their activity raises some concern with the UN Security Council. The Council has planned on a dual track policy involving pressure and and engagement to resolve the matter. However, Iran has been less than cooperative with the intervention of the Security Council. Iran has been ignoring the UN and their offered solutions, and the Security Council is running out of ideas on ways to deal with the state. The UN has considered sanctions, but they are not 100% sure how effective the sanctions would be. The foreboding activity of Tehran still lingers after the long meeting in New York.

This is the second article I have read about Iran's nuclear activity. The first article, which revealed Iran's secret activities, suggested that Iran is an unstable state facing the many pressure of globalization -- pressures it is not ready to deal with. The secret nuclear activity demonstrates Iran's inability to properly handle globalization and lack of stability as a democracy. Though Iran has the rudiments of democracy in place, it seems to be slowly cracking under the pressure of what being a democracy really means. In this article, we see that Iran is ignoring the Security Council and their ideas and deals. This act shows that Iran is uncooperative and is pushing away globalization. A true democracy does not push away globalization. A true democracy tries to cooperate well with other nations and does not act as if everyone is "out to get them." Thus, Iran cannot be considered a stable, democratic state. The nuclear issue in Iran is only one of many current events that reveals the state's instability.

Who benefitted from Russia’s transformation to a market economy and why?

A few cleverly creative men, all with some connection to Boris Yeltsin, took advantage of the economic chaos of 1991 that made others suffer. These men soon became the powerful and influential oligarchs of Russia. During the disorderly transition from a command economy to a market economy, these oligarchs knew exactly how to step into the economy and emerge successfully. These oligarchs were skilled business men during the time of the economic changeover, and they used their power as businessmen to manipulate the frenzied companies and people around them to make their millions. All of the oligarchs inserted themselves into the industries - oil, timber, and coal - and now have a monopolized control over them. Many had power with the bank. But their skill in business was not the only tactic these men used to earn millions and gain power. The oligarchs established a strong relationship with Yeltsin, the man in power the time of the changeover, as well as the rest of the political elite. These political connections can guarantee the them their power. So, while the rest of Russia was hit hard by the rapid and clumsy change to a market economy, these oligarchs used all the resources they had to manipulate the situation and climb to the top.

Iran Holds Pro-government Rallies

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091230104542881809.html (from al jazeera)

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Iran for pro-government rallies.

Protestors fill the squares of Qom, Tehran, Shiraz, and Arak. These demonstrations were not only designed by the state to show the strength of the government, but also to rally against the Iran’s political opposition, which had previously held a series of it’s own protests against the state. Protesters shouted slogans berating to the two opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi (picture right) and Mehdi Karroubi. There were many different reports of where the two leaders of the opposition were during these rallies. While a senior aide to the leaders said they were in Tehran, there were many other rumors. One report said the men had fled to north Iran after learning about the population’s demand for their punishment. Another source claimed they were in custody for protection, while another said the Revolutionary Guards had picked up the men for protection. The Iranian government blames much of the social unrest on the foreign influences of Britain and the United States. Iranian analyst Karim Sadjadpour says that for the West, the situation with Iran is a delicate one. He explains that while the US and European countries should encourage democratic change in Iran, they should be weary of the internal Iranian drama. They could “walk into a trap of tainting the independence of the opposition movement.”

According to Freedom House, Iran is not free. And thought it practices democracy, it is an Authoritarian regime. Iran is a democracy in the way that it has adopted the rudiments of democracy, but Iran is not consolidated, it does not practice these rudiments to their full potential. Iran struggles for stability, and the opposition rallies against the current government are proof of instability. The fact that the state had to organize it’s own, pro-government rallies to combat opposition suggests an unstable state, a state laden with crisis. Instead of trying to take control with a more hands on, democratic approach, the government quickly organized rallies of it’s own. Though organized, rallies are still chaotic, and show that the government does not necessarily know how to handle political and civil disturbances within the state.

The EU and Devolution

The EU

The Labour Party believes that involvement in the EU is crucial for success. More involvement would lead to economic stability and easier adaptation to globalization. The Labour Party also believes involvement in the EU will help Britain become a strong world leader. Involvement in the EU will strengthen the ties between Britain and other European nations needed to make Britain stronger in this time of economic turmoil and globalization. Heavier British participation in the EU would benefit the entire world. As a world leader, Britain would be able to tackle pressing issues such as immigration and climate change, and money would go to important causes such as relief from world-wide diseases and the war in Iraq. Involvement in the EU would also help boost Britain's economy. Many people's job depend on interconnected trade of the world. The EU is a powerful unit in economic policy-making, and if Britain becomes a leader in the policy-making, their economy would be revived to an equal or better state than before. While the Labour Party sees the EU as an advantage, the Conservative Party believes the EU is deleterious to Britain. To the Conservative Party, the EU means giving up control. The Conservatives fear a change in how government is run and how policy is made. The Conservatives believe participation in the EU does not let Britain be the strong world power it could be and does not give the British people their political voice.

The Labour Party and Devolution

The Labour Party believes that the voice of the people is crucial for a strong state. However, in order for the people's voice to be heard, they must control over their own lives, they must be empowered. Devolution will give the people this empowerment. Devolution breaks down the government and give back power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This makes the government more accessible to the people. Along with devolution, direct elections for city mayors are also introduced. Labour believes that devolution has been a successful key in strengthen the British government. Devolution exemplifies important British qualities such as communities, tolerance, and self-improvement. The Conservative Party is more unstable on the issue of devolution. In 1997, they opposed the devolution of Wales and Scotland, but supported that of Northern Ireland. The devolution of Scotland has made David Cameron fear the separation and independence of Scotland. He wishes to keep the two countries together as one. However, the Conservatives now do not want to reverse any of these reforms of devolution. The Conservative Party believes in decentralization, or the transfer of power from the central government to the people and institutions. They believe this idea is effective because it gives the people more direct control and gives them a stronger voice in the government.

The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on December 13, 2007 by the European Union member states. The treaty consists of a number of amendments to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding.

Implications of British History

Britain's extensive history can help us understand where Britain sits today in the world. Kesselman asks, "Is Britain a world power or just a middle-of-the-pack country in Western Europe?" This question, as we can see from complex British history, is not an easy one. There appear to be arguments for both sides of the spectrum.

Britain's role in the Industrial Revolution supports it's stance as a world power. In the mid-18th century, Britain experienced a rapid expansion of manufacturing production, as well as technological innovation. Because of this shift from dependency on agriculture to production and markets, there was heavy pressure for democratization. Britain transformed and became the dominant power of the international order. This history suggests that Britain is a strong world power, just as the history of the British Empire does. Because Britain was engaging in overseas commerce, there grew a dependency on foreign markets, which in turn, fueled rapid British expansion across the globe. By 1870, British trade represent 1/4 of the total trade in the world, and the British Empire under Queen Victoria encompassed 1/4 of the world's population.

Britain, also, was the first nation to develop a securely functioning parliamentary democracy, which is still successfully in tact today. Britain had great influence over the democratization of the rest of the world because of it's extensive global empire. The idea (that we all know and love) that democracy rests on the supreme authority of the legislature is based upon fundamental British politics. How this legislature is embodied in the government is entirely up to the state, but the British parliament has been incredibly successful in the ruling of the UK. This leadership and innovation of democracy suggests that Britain is a top tier, functioning world power.

The decolonization of Britain's empire, however, defined the changing relationship to the world of states. During the twentieth century, Britain was no longer a "1st tier" power. The formal British Empire began to shrink during the interwar period of 1919 - 1939 as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gained independence. Colonies in Asia, Middle East, and Africa pushed for independence during and after WWII. This empire dissolved in the 20 years after 1947, when India and Pakistan gained their formal independence. The dissolve of this powerful empire essentially refuted any claim Britain had on being a world power and top player in world politics.

To further support the claim that Britain is just 2nd tier, is the fact that Britain is second fiddle to the United States in their special relationship. In those desperate times after September 11, Tony Blair was quick to jump to the aid of the US, to support them in a war, which many of Britain's European neighbors did not support. Ties with the US created tension between ties with German and France as well as with the Middle East, and Britain faced high security risks by participating in the war. This weakness supports the idea that maybe Britain really has fallen behind many of it's European neighbors.

Though the strong British Empire of the 18th century challenges the isolationist ideas of Britain, there is historical evidence to suggest reasons why British government struggle with dealing with the EU. Britain is an island, and is surround by water, which, for years, cut the state off from it's European neighbors. Not only did this give them a sense of security, but it also provided a sense of individuality, an idea that "we can do it ourselves." Though Britain's heavy involvement in international trade of the 18th century might suggest otherwise, Britain was isolated from it's neighbors long before this trade emerged, giving time for ideas of isolation to become heavily ingrained in the state.

Many instances today support traditional British isolationist mindset. Britain has a very aloof relationship with the rest of Europe, allowing it to fall behind fast-paced European changes. While the rest of Europe agreed upon one currency, the Euro, Britain remained separate from this decision, keeping with the pound. There is, as well, a rift over the war in Iraq. While Britain has thrust itself into supporting the US, neighbors of the UK, such as Germany and France, are strongly opposed to the war. These isolationist tendency lean towards the conclusion that Britain is no longer the world power it once was.

Political Economic Systems

Unsurprisingly, I mostly agree with liberalism as the best form of an economic system. I believe people should be able to spend and earn money freely, without many restrictions. I believe people should be responsible for their own economic behavior and well-being, and the government should not interfere too much with this freedom. However, I do believe there should be a good balance between how much freedom the people have and how many restrictions the government sets. Finding this balance may be tricky, but if found, it will lead to, in my opinion, a very successful, economically strong nation. Acting freely with money (earning or spending) will lead to competition, which leads to innovation, which produces capitalism, or the system of production that is based on private ownership and free markets. Capitalism, in my opinion, with that right balance, is the key to a healthy economy. Taxation is an area where I'm conflicted. Liberalism states that taxation should be kept to a minimum, but I feel that things are never as simple as that. Now, I don't think people should be taxed everywhere, right and left, but certain taxes are important and helpful. This is an area, again, that needs a careful balance in order to produce success.

I agree that, as the book said, the government should act like a "watchman," overlooking the activities of the economy, making sure they don't get out of hand, but not interfering unless absolutely necessary.