Getting to Know T.E. Lawrence “of Arabia” (1888-1935)

The book Selected Letters of T.E. Lawrence, discussed here, is more revealing of his character than is his most famous work, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

He also wrote and published The Mint during his subsequent service as an ordinary airman in the newly-formed British Air Force (1918). TEL preferred to be known upon entering the military service, first as “A/c (aircraftman) Ross,” then, finally, T.E. Shaw. (He had been in the diplomatic service, not the military,  during his Arabian days).

He lived like a monk in many respects. He abstained from sex, engaged in self-flagellation (he had at least one male friend flagellate him, during a limited period), deprived himself of all comforts except for recorded classical music and endless reading, drove himself in his work beyond the capabilities of most men, denied his own talents to others, engaged constantly in self-deprecation and tended toward depression, often contemplating death.

After his Arabian days, which lasted around two years, he continued government service as an aide to Winston Churchill. As Secretary of State for the Colonies (1921-1922) Churchill played a large role in determining the fate of the territories that had been detached from the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The photograph to the left shows him during the Cairo Conference (1921), walking with T. E. Lawrence. The conference was concerend with establishing the government, ethnic composition, and political boundaries of Iraq and other portions of the Middle East. ([Source].

Left to right: Winston Churchill, Gertrude Bell and T.E. Lawrence in Egypt, after World War I. Bell and Lawrence helped to create the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan and define the outline of the modern state of Iraq.

Before entering any government service, TEL was an accomplished archaeologist, specializing in ancient crusader castles in the Middle East. He had a wide-ranging knowledge of artifacts and history, grounded originally in his education at Oxford University. He retained throughout his life the friendship and admiration of many of his classmates and fellow scholars, and inspired others to his friendship including many powerful and otherwise famous figures such as: George Bernard Shaw (no relation) and, especially, his wife Charlotte Shaw; Lady Astor, Ezra Pound, Noël Coward, Sir Edward Elgar, E. M. Forster, Robert Graves, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Hardy (his correspondence was only with Florence Hardy), E.T. Leeds, Eric Kennington, King Hussein of the Hejaz, Sir Hugh Trenchard, Lord George Lloyd, and Gertrude Bell.

His origins were difficult. He was one of five boys born to his unmarried parents. His parents were lovers and his father left his wife to live with his new family. His parents never married and, through this and other circumstances, TEL’s family name was always uncertain—hence his changing his last name at least twice, and finally, legally, to Shaw.

Lawrence’s mother, Sarah Junner Lawrence seemed to TEL as controlling and unpleasant to be with, but he was conscientious, in his many letters to her, in buttressing her seemingly low self-confidence as she worked in China as a missionary for many years. The above link will show the origins and makeup of the Lawrence family.

After his Arabian and Foreign Office service he joined the Air Force as a common airman, wanting to be as anonymous as possible and wanting to be in touch with “real work.” He was bounced from the Air Force because of the unavoidable publicity forever following him, so he then joined the Army which he hated. He finally was reinstated in the Air Force where he designed and tested “flying boats,” creating a whole new tool of warfare.

Above is a portrait of “Colonel T.E. Lawrence,” 1919, by Augustus John. “Colonel” was a working rank granted to him while working as a diplomatic and intelligence officer, despite his not being in the military. And, it gave him status with the Arab leaders he was working with in the British effort to defeat the Ottoman Turks.

All through his military service he wrote and received many letters to and from notables of all kinds, and ordinary servicemen he had befriended over the years. He occasionally socialized with Lady Astor, the G.B. Shaws and other luminaries, always dressed as a common soldier or airman.

As his many years in the air force drew toward a close, and as he contemplated doing very little afterward, he felt more and more oppressed by the volume of letters he received, feeling a moral obligation to answer them—and answer them he did with great depth, humor and insight. But this conscientiousness took an enormous toll on him, about which he constantly complained. As he was leaving the military service he sent out postcards to all his correspondents that he would not be writing much any more.

After mustering out of the Air force in his mid-forties, feeling quite old and used up, “as a leaf fallen from a tree,” he retired to an unplumbed cottage he had purchased years before, and occasionally rode his motorcycle, when he could afford the petrol expense. He was an avid MC rider through his service days. Here he is with George Brough, the manufacturer of his bike.

He died following a crash on his motorcycle while avoiding hitting two bicyclists on the country road he was speeding down.

It took a massacre…

…to fully reveal that which the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan repeatedly told his government, to no avail, and at the cost of his job.

Craig John Murray was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002-2004. While serving in that nations’ capital, Tashkent, he accused the administration of Uzbekistan President Islom Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov of human rights abuses. Murray repeatedly complained to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office that intelligence linking the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to al-Qaeda, suspected of being gained through torture, was unreliable, immoral, and illegal. He described this as “selling our souls for dross”. Murray was subsequently removed from his ambassadorial post on October 14, 2004. [Source]

Craig Murray has chronicled his saga in the book Murder in Samarkand, which I have recently read and which has prompted this article.

Murray’s main point is that the USA, from 11 September 2001, was so intent on fighting “the war on terror” that its government tolerated the kind of official behavior in Uzbekistan which it declaimed against under Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—that is, repression, torture and atrocities on its own people. Further, the then government of the United Kingdom fully supported the USA position and was complicit in consciously ignoring violations of human rights, under the United Nations Charter including, especially, the use of torture to gain “intelligence.”

The British government has denied this, to date.

REPORT OF THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, February 2003—Mission to Uzbekistan: Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. [Please click on the report's title, above, to access it in MS Word and PDF format)].

Karshi-Khanabad is an airbase in south-eastern Uzbekistan. Between 2001 and 2005 the United States Air Force used the base, also known as K2 and “Stronghold Freedom”, for support missions against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. [Source]

The USA ended its official relationship with Uzbekistan in late 2005 when it “closed its air base in Uzbekistan that was used for Afghanistan operations, a shutdown ordered by Uzbek President Islam Karimov after the United States joined calls for an international inquiry into the authoritarian leader’s handling of the Andijan uprising.” [Source]

The Andijan massacre occurred when Uzbek Interior Ministry and National Security Service troops fired into a crowd of protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan on 13 May 2005. Estimates of those killed on 13 May range from between 187, the official count of the government, and 5,000 people, with most outside reports estimating several hundred dead. A defector from Uzbekistan’s secret service alleged that 1,500 were killed.

Calls from Western governments for an international investigation prompted a major shift in Uzbek foreign policy favoring closer relations with Asian nations. The Uzbek government ordered the closing of the United States air base in Karshi-Khanabad and improved ties with the People’s Republic of China, India, and Russia, all of which supported the regime’s response in Andijan. [Source]

The unrest in the Ferghana Region has a lot to do with its minority Tajik population which were then (possibly still are) repressed and labeled, at various times, as Islamic extremists. Some observers claim that the repression drove some Tajiks toward extreme Islamism. But there is no doubt that at least a small fraction of Tajik-Uzbeks belong to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

The region’s ethnic politics are complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union purposefully changed the borders of the “Soviet Republics” of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as you can see from this tortuous border around the Ferghana Valley.

[Source of Map. Please click on the image for clearer detail.]

For a variety of reasons the designers of the Soviet “national delimitation” in Central Asia discriminated against the Tajiks, having deprived the newly formed republic of Tajikistan of the two most important centers of Tajik urban culture, Bukhara and Samarkand, as well as regions of Fergana, Surhandarya and Khwrazm which were awarded to Uzbekistan. The majority of population in Uzbekistan are Tajiks. In the words of William Beeman, professor of anthropology at Brown University: “The Tajik situation in some ways resembles that of post-colonial Africa. Tajiks have been given an impossible piece of territory with disparate population and have been forced to make a nation out of it.”

The majority of Tajiks live outside border of what is known as Tajikistan today.The largest number of Tajiks are living in Uzbekistan, where the majority of Tajiks are forced to be registered as Uzbeks (the Tajiks on the official Uzbeki data, make about 4% of the population of this republic), but the real number of Tajiks living in Uzbekistan believed to be over 50 percent (11-14 millions) of the population.“ [Source]

I offer, in closing, these observations and sources regarding the Republic of Uzbekistan:

[Image Source]

…(N)on-governmental human rights watchdogs, such as IHF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as United States Department of State and Council of the European Union define Uzbekistan as “an authoritarian state with limited civil rights” and express profound concern about “wide-scale violation of virtually all basic human rights.” According to the reports, the most widespread violations are torture, arbitrary arrests, and various restrictions of freedoms: of religion, of speech and press, of free association and assembly. The reports maintain that the violations are most often committed against members of religious organizations, independent journalists, human rights activists and political activists, including members of the banned opposition parties. In 2005, Uzbekistan was included into Freedom House’s “The Worst of the Worst: The World’s Most Repressive Societies. [Source].

Press Service of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan

Governmental Portal of the Republic of Uzbekistan

President Visits Ferghana Region

Dictator of the Month, December 2006

US slams Uzbek election as unfree, unfair and laughable [January 12, 2000]

The Dismal Record of African Leadership…

…and the Past Role of European Countries

Who am I to say this, and how dare I say it?

I am merely responding to the announcement made by the prize committee of The Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership that no prize will be awarded this year. Here is the press release. The main web page of the parent organization describes the nature and origin of the prize:

The Ibrahim Prize recognises and celebrates excellence in African leadership. The prize is awarded to a democratically elected former African Executive Head of State or Government who has served their term in office within the limits set by the country’s constitution and has left office in the last three years.

The Ibrahim Prize consists of US$5million over 10 years and US$200,000 annually for life thereafter. It is the largest annually awarded prize in the world. The Foundation will consider granting a further $200,000 per year, for 10 years, towards public interest activities and good causes espoused by the winner.

In October 2006, Dr. Ibrahim launched the Mo Ibrahim Foundation to support good governance and great leadership in Africa. In 2007, Dr. Ibrahim stepped down as Chairman of Celtel International to concentrate on this initiative.

Founded in 1998, Celtel International has brought the benefits of mobile communications to millions of people across the African continent. The company operates in 15 African countries, covering more than a third of the continent’s population, and has invested more than US$750 million in Africa. In 2005, Celtel International was sold to MTC Kuwait for $3.4 billion.

Before I tell you of the past winners of this prize, I want to draw a picture for you of the grievous state of governance and leadership throughout the continent of Africa by calling attention to a few historical and present facts and factors.

Facts on Africa

There are 53 internationally recognized countries in the continent of Africa, including the six island states of: Cape Verde, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Seychelles.

Of these 53 states, 52 are former colonies of, or protectorates of, or were occupied by, one or more of several states in Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The only country not so colonized or dominated, Liberia, was settled by freed slaves from the USA, its territory having been expropriated in 1822 from the many local tribes who had not formed a nation state.

[Image Source. Please click on the image for greater clarity]

The total population of the 53 countries in 2008 was over 929 million.

Seven of the 53 countries contain over 51% of the continent’s population: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan and Tanzania.

Only six of the countries have annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person greater than the world average of US $10,400. (GDP is a proxy for standard of living, rather than a direct measure of it): Equatorial Guinea, Seychelles, Libya, Gabon, Botswana, Mauritius.

To get a notion of the relative poverty of living even at the world average GDP per person per year of US $10,400, here are the figures (in US Dollars) of the top 20 countries and the European Union, which has 27 countries in its membership:

[Please click on the image for greater clarity]

Fifty-two of the world’s 192 countries have a GDP/person below $2,300 per year. Thirty-six of these countries are in Africa. Think of it: on average, the 689 million people in these 36 African countries subsist at a level approximately 7%, and less, of that enjoyed by the average person in a European Union country. The savagely-led country of Zimbabwe is at $200 per person per year. Zimbabwe’s dictator, President Robert Gabriel Karigamombe Mugabe, has been in power for almost 30 years, ever since the predecessor country, Rhodesia, was overthrown.

As mentioned above, every one of Africa’s countries, except Liberia, has been, at one time or another and in varying degrees, a vassal state of one or more European countries. It is well known that, with some exceptions, these states, while under foreign domination, were stripped of natural resources and essentially plundered. The stripping of natural resources continues in most of these countries today, with relatively few examples where a diversified economy under true democratic rule obtains.

Of the six countries currently at a GDP level above the world average, most are still extracting minerals from the soil as the major part of their economy: oil, diamonds, manganese, timber.

It is well known that the world’s major economies have poured money and aid into Africa, to no lasting effect, again with a few exceptions. This, in my view, shows the futility of sending money and goods into countries to help people who are ruled by despots and thieves.

Dr. Mo Ibrahim has the better idea, in my view. As can be seen above and under the links provided, his foundation will reward with significant money and recognition those African leaders who turn away from pillage and one-man rule, toward democracy that is not merely in name only; and, toward raising the standard of living for the people through good husbandry of resources and in diversifying the economy.

The prize has been awarded since 2007. Here are the awardees (text and photos taken directly from the foundation’s website):

Joaquim Alberto Chissano, 2007—Mozambique

In 1992, President Chissano helped to end Mozambique’s 16-year civil war and reconcile a divided nation, working tirelessly to negotiate piece with the RENAMO (Resistência Nacional Moçambicana) rebel group. To cement the reconciliation President Chissano offered 15,000 places in Mozambique’s 30,000-strong army to former opposition RENAMO soldiers.

President Chissano implemented a deliberate shift from Marxist-Leninist ideology to multiparty democracy and a mixed economy. He successfully negotiated a reduction in Mozambique’s debt repayments and oversaw reforms that have led to sustained economic growth. During his time in office, Mozambique began the journey of reconstruction and development, with improvements in healthcare, increased access to education and greater empowerment of women.

Between 2003 and 2004, President Chissano served as Chair of the African Union. During his presidency he was a powerful advocate for Africa on the international stage, particularly in promoting the debt relief agenda.

Festus Gontebanye Mogae, 2008—Botswana

At his inauguration ceremony in 1998, President Mogae vowed to address poverty and unemployment. His time in office was characterised by programmes to develop education and health infrastructure, and to privatise parts of the economy, notably the airlines and telecommunications industry.

Under President Mogae’s stewardship of the economy and careful management of the country’s mineral resources, Botswana experienced the steady economic growth that has characterised its post-independence history. Having been one of the poorest African countries at the time of independence, President Mogae consolidated Botswana’s place as one of the most prosperous countries on the continent.

After decades of enforcing strict anti-corruption measures, Botswana is regularly ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in Africa. Describing the principles that guided his time in office in his final State of the Nation address, President Mogae said that “prudent, transparent and honest use of national resources for your benefit has been my guiding principle and code of conduct”.

Following the Botswana Democratic Party’s victory in the October 2004 General Election, President Mogae was sworn in for a second term in November 2004. He again promised to fight poverty and unemployment, and pledged to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS in Botswana by 2016.

In April 2008, in accordance with Botswana’s constitution, President Mogae stepped down as President, having served two terms in government. He was succeeded by Seretse Khama Ian Khama.

—

Addendum

In the face of massive aid in money and goods perennially provided African people by other countries and NGOs through the governments of their respective countries, small and direct-to-the-people efforts pay off at least equally well. In the above photo showing orphans in Kenya, you will see Jacinta Njoroge Lahti, a native of Kenya and a resident of Sweden, who founded the depicted orphanage and school. She is a member of the Rotary Club of Stockholm International, which club continues to be a major supporter of the school.

Note on figures used in this article

All figures were derived from The CIA World FactBook

Should the USA Emulate Sweden in Financing and Managing Medical Care?

The quick answer is “no.”

My reasoning is that Sweden and the USA are so different, despite both having roots in European culture and values, that what works in Sweden will not work in the USA.

First, please let us agree that we are not discussing “health care” or “healthcare.” These are marketing abstractions having no basis in reality. We are discussing how to pay for medical and hospital care and how to assure that a basic acceptable level is available to all.

Here are some positive reasons to look at Sweden as an example for the USA:

The infant death rate in Sweden is among the lowest four in the world, the others being Iceland, Singapore and Japan. The USA is 33rd. [Source]

The average life expectancy at birth in Sweden is among the highest 10 in the world, and the USA is 50th. (I will argue, however, this disparity has less to do with medical care than with the quality of public health programs in each country). [Source]

Using the chart below to interpolate, the average American pays around 70% more for “healthcare” than does the average Swede.

[Please click on the image for clearer detail]

Here come the “howevers,” however…

Sweden is much smaller in size and population
The country is shaped similarly to California, but 10% larger. The San Francisco Metropolitan area has 7.4 million people; all of Sweden has less than 9.1 million. The total of the USA’s is estimated at 307.2 million. [Source]

Sweden has comparatively low military expenditures
The Swedes gave up warfare and being a world power 200 years ago after dominating northern Europe for the previous 200 years. Estimated figures for year 2005 show that the USA spent around 4.1% of its Gross Domestic Product on military expenditures while Sweden spent 1.5% of GDP. [Source]

Sweden has unique social traditions absent in the USA
I refer, here, mainly to the tradition of lagom. There is no equivalent in English, but it is often explained to English speakers as “not too much and not too little.” [Source] Having lived all but the last seven years in the USA, I confidently opine that there may be parts of the USA population that adhere to this spirit of moderation, but the most visible part of the culture seems to be saying (until the recent economic downturn, perhaps) “too much is not enough.”

Jante Law: There is another set of traditions, still prevalent in the Nordic (North) countries, named, in Swedish jantelagen. These are essentially unwritten laws that are strong social levelers.
 
The above may be sufficient to support my point, but it is at least interesting to note, in addition:
 
 

 
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with an attractive royal family who represent the country well.
 
Sweden is, within its constitution, a parliamentary democracy with a single legislature (Riksdag or Parliament). As a transplanted American I have found one aspect of the political system very odd and frustrating: one votes for the party, not the person (there are around 8 parties, and the government rules through a coalition of parties). So, when I feel I have a complaint, observation or suggestion to make to my elected representative at the national level, I cannot identify one.

Population Centers: In year 2005, the five largest urban areas, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Uppsala, and Västerås, all in the southern third of the country, contained around 2.3 million people, or 25% of the county’s population. The rest of the country is comprised of cities, towns and villages of less than 100,000 people each, most of them concentrated in the southern third of the country.

[Image source]

The personal habits of Swedes are different from those in the USA. As anecdotal evidence of this, whenever I visit my family in California and Alaska, I am surprised at the great number of people who are of an unhealthy size. One rarely sees an obese person in Sweden. On the other hand, I am constantly amazed at the number of young women in Stockholm, at least, who smoke cigarettes. And, I am informed that many young men are addicted to snus, powdered tobacco in small pouches placed in the mouth.

In testing the comments in this article against the opinion of my friend, the Hairy Swede, he points at the movement towards privatization of service here in Sweden, as well as there being long waits for certain elective services. (There is a “single payer,” the government, but you can pay privately from your own pocket).

My retort to the perceived long waits, which I have heard about from other Swedes, is that additional taxes from the people could solve this, if effectively and efficiently used. After all, they spend ‘only’ around 9.2% of the country’s GDP on “healthcare,” and have a long way to go to catch up with the USA at around 15.5%.
 

 
So, just because the Swedish way promotes better health at lower cost for its people as compared with the USA, at least according to the few measures I use here, this doesn’t mean a Swedish approach would work similarly for the people in the USA, given population and cultural differences.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Skål! (a wish for good fortune and good health).

Back in the USSR

Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee, it’s good to be back home
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone
I’m back in the USSR
You don’t know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR
(Lyrics by John Lennon & Paul McCartney)
© SONY BEATLES LTD; SONY/ATV TUNES LLC

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) dissolved 25 December 1991, almost 18 years ago. There were 15 “republics” in the union. What, now, are the names of these countries? How are they doing?

I asked myself these questions as I prepared to write an article on Uzbekistan, a former republic of the USSR.

As for how the fifteen, individually, are “doing,” the answer has to be, in part: “compared to what?” I chose to compare a few demographic statistics with The World as the reference point. As I have so often in these pages, I went to the The World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA.

I chose seven demographic measures:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita

Life expectancy at birth for females

Life expectancy at birth for males

Net migration per 1000 population (number of immigrants minus number of emigrants)

Infant mortality (usually within 30 days of birth) per 1000 live births

Fertility rate (number of births per year, per the number of all women)

The live birth rate per thousand population, minus the death rate per 1000

I arrayed these seven measures by country and compared each characteristic to that of the world, whether more, or less, favorable.

[Please click on the image for clearer detail]

For the specific data in each country and the world, click here

I then gave a score to each country by subtracting the number of negative results, compared to world averages or ratios, from the number of positive results (a positive number shows a positive comparison to the world, and the converse for negative number):

Countries Scoring “+3″: Belarus, Kyrgyzstan

Countries Scoring “+1″: Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Uzbekistan

Countries Scoring “-1″: Turkmenistan

Countries Scoring “-3″: Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Ukraine

So what makes Belarus and Kyrgyzstan so special—at least with respect to world averages and ratios? (One must keep in mind that probably none of the readers of this article would care to live in an area where these demographics are at or near World averages and ratios; and, that the data aggregation agency, in this case the CIA, is at the mercy of the quality of data collection and reporting in each country).

Belarus
Despite low fertility and high overall death rate, Belarus has high GDP per capita, low infant mortality, high life expectancy at birth for both females and males, and more people are entering the country than leaving it. So, the overall population is growing. It does seem counter-intuitive for the population to be growing despite low fertility and high death rate, but perhaps there is still some in-migration of ethnic Belarusians from the other former republics who were dispersed during the Soviet era.

“Since 1996, Belarus has been negotiating with Russia to unify into a single state called the Union of Russia and Belarus.” [Source]

In looking at the nature of Belarus’s government before and since the dissolution of the USSR (see under the “Belarus” link, above), there is much room to doubt the accuracy of information coming from, essentially, a totalitarian state in existence for 70 years.

Kyrgyzstan
More people leave Kyrgyzstan than enter it, as residents, and GDP per capita is low, but all the life and health data are high. “Kyrgyzstan has undergone a pronounced change in its ethnic composition since independence [1991]. The percentage of ethnic Kyrgyz increased from around 50% in 1979 to nearly 70% in 2007, while the percentage of European ethnic groups (Russians, Ukrainians and Germans) as well as Tatars dropped from 35% to about 10%. The Kyrgyz have historically been semi-nomadic herders, living in round tents called yurts and tending sheep, horses and yaks. This nomadic tradition continues to function seasonally as herding families return to the high mountain pasture in the summer.” [Source]

Nine countries are scored “+1.” Rather than list and discuss them individually, I will present what they have in common.

Statue of Lenin, founder of the USSR, in Tiraspol, Moldova [Source]

The life expectancy at birth for females is higher than The World average.

Other than for Kazakhstan and Russia, the life expectancy at birth for males is higher than the world average. Russia is lowest at 59.3 years, compared to the world average at 64.5 years. It is remarkable that the life of expectancy at birth for females in Russia is 73.2 years, almost a 14 years more than for males.

All, except Russia, have more people leaving than entering the country as residents. Note, again, that there has been a general migration of expatriates toward their countries of origin after the dissolution of the USSR.

The infant death rate for all 15 countries is lower than the world average. The three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are lowest in this measure, by far (a good thing), between 6.5 and 8.8 deaths per thousand births. The world average is 40.9. Armenia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are highest, at 20.2, 23.4 and 25.7 infant deaths per thousand births, respectively.

The fertility rate of all 15 countries is well under the World average of 2.6 children per woman. A country needs around 2.1 live births per woman in order to maintain the country’s population at a given level.

Except for Uzbekistan, the difference between the birth rate and the death rate (BR minus DR) is lower than the world average of 11.8 per thousand population (not good). Russia is lowest at a difference of (negative) 5.0 per thousand people.

Turkmenistan (“-1″)
The only three positive factors for this country are life expectancy for males and females, and the birth rate minus the death rate. “The former Communist Party, now known as the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, has been the only one effectively permitted to operate. Political gatherings are illegal unless government sanctioned. Turkmenistan is among the twenty countries in the world with the highest perceived level of corruption …” [Source]

Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Ukraine at “-3” score
The GDP per capita of all three countries is below the World average of $10,400, with Tajikistan by far the lowest at $1,800. Life expectancy for males born today is less than the World average, for all three. Except for Ukraine (at 8.9) the infant death rate is above the world average of 40.9 deaths per thousand live births. The fertility rate for Azerbaijan and Tajikistan is well above the World average, but Ukraine is among the lowest countries at 1.3 births per woman. Similarly, the birth rate far exceeds the death rate in Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, but Ukraine is the lowest of all fifteen countries in this measure at (negative) 6.2; that is, the there are 6.2 more people dying than being born, per thousand population, in the current year.

1 Armenia 2 Azerbaijan 3 Belarus 4 Estonia 5 Georgia 6 Kazakhstan 7 Kyrgyzstan 8 Latvia

9 Lithuania 10 Moldova 11 Russia 12 Tajikistan 13 Turkmenistan 14 Ukraine 15 Uzbekistan

There is hard living almost everywhere in the former USSR. Look at the averages of these seven measures for the 27 countries of the European Union vs. those of Russia, the largest country, by far, of the former SSRs, and the most dominant, politically and economically:

European Union GDP per capita: $33,700 Life expectancy, female: 82.0 Life expectancy, male: 75.5 Net migration: 1.5 Infant death rate: 5.7 Fertility rate: 1.5 Birth rate minus death rate: -0.4

Russia GDP per capita: $16,100 Life expectancy, female: 73.2 Life expectancy, male: 59.3 Net migration: 0.3 Infant death rate: 10.6 Fertility rate: 1.4 Birth rate minus death rate: -5.0

I have been to two countries of the former USSR: Estonia and Latvia. Despite the obvious enthusiasm of the people for their freedom from totalitarianism, and the resultant social and economic progress, the ravages of the Soviet rule are still quite apparent.

With all respect to the poetry of Messrs. Lennon and McCartney, let’s not go back to the USSR.

Political Correctness and the “Cult of Personality”

Image Source [Please click on the image]

The phrase “politically correct,” or “PC,” didn’t begin in the 1960s in the USA. It was first publicly used by a British Ministry of Information official during the First World War. It later appeared in Mao Zedung’s “Little Red Book” in the early 1960s and was adopted, originally tongue-in-cheek, by the radical left in the USA. In Marxist–Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, “correct” was the common term denoting the “appropriate party line” and the ideologically “correct line.” [Source]

What brings me to discuss this today is my current reading of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer Ward:

Solzhenitsyn’s novels are autobiographical, presenting a vivid account of a man maintaining his freedom against the vicious repressions of an authoritarian regime. Clearly a novelist in the 19th-century tradition, he is often considered Russia’s greatest 20th-century novelist.

His difficulties with the authorities began on Feb. 8, 1945, when he was arrested for having written critical remarks about Joseph Stalin in a letter to a friend that was intercepted by the censors. Sentenced without a trial to 8 years of hard labor, he remained until 1953 in a number of labor camps, one of which was a research institute where he worked as a mathematician. In 1952 he contracted cancer of the skin, and was treated in a hospital in Tashkent (the setting for Cancer Ward). Pronounced cured, he completed his sentence a year later and, although still in exile, was able to teach mathematics and to begin writing. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 “for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature.” [Source]

There are many reviews of Cancer Ward on the Internet, so it would be superfluous to offer my own review here, except to talk about one of the characters who exemplified the totalitarian state that was the USSR:

Bureaucracy and the nature of power in Stalin’s state is represented by Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov, a “personnel officer.” The corrupt power of Stalin’s regime is shown through his dual desires to be a “worker” but also achieve a “special pension.” At the end, Rusanov’s wife drops rubbish from her car window, symbolising the carelessness with which the regime treated the country. [Source]

I pause here to give some background for the ensuing comments on political correctness. It is important to know the period in which the action of Cancer Ward takes place. Here are the leaders of the USSR, in date order:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 26 Oct 1917 – 21 Jan 1924
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, 3 Apr 1922 – 5 Mar 1953
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, 7 Sep 1953 – 14 Oct 1964
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, 14 Oct 1964 – 10 Nov 1982
Yuriy Vladimirovich Andropov, 12 Nov 1982 – 9 Feb 1984
Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, 13 Feb 1984 – 10 Mar 1985
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, 11 Mar 1985 – 24 Aug 1991

Please note the hiatus of top leadership between March and September, 1953. After Stalin died there was a political struggle among several pretenders to Stalin’s throne. Stalin held the top post in several functions and, after his death, there was a dispersion of these duties to several people so no one could claim to be Stalin’s sole heir, until Khrushchev finally gained the support necessary.

Khrushchev began a gradual change in the legacy of Stalin and, suddenly, in a 1956 speech “On the Personality Cult and its Consequences” to the closed session of the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, he denounced Stalin’s dictatorial rule and cult of personality. He also attacked the crimes committed by Stalin’s closest associates.

This speech destroyed the legitimacy of Khrushchev’s remaining Stalinist rivals, solidifying his domestic power. He began to ease many restrictions, and freed millions of political prisoners from the “Gulag”–penal labor camps spread across the Soviet Union. (Read Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago).

This “thaw” in the political, cultural and economic life of the Soviet Union included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies, helping living standards to rise and promoting a higher level of economic growth. Censorship was also relaxed. Some subtle criticism of Soviet society was tolerated, and artists were allowed to produce some works that didn’t have government-approved political content–but there were still limits an artist or writer could not go beyond without reprisal.

The novel Cancer Ward is set in a hospital in Soviet Uzbekistan in 1955, before and during the period when the changes to Stalin’s policies and apparatus were culminating. One of the patients in the cancer ward was Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov, as mentioned above. While in the hospital he learns from a newspaper, and from his visiting wife and daughter, that the Soviet regime is changing: prisoners are being released from the Gulag, having been officially “rehabilitated.”

One of these prisoners, Rusanov fears, is a man, a former friend and compatriot, whom he falsely denounced to achieve some advantage in the factory where they both worked. Here are some excerpts to show the disorientation and fear the new rules of political correctness engendered in him:

Now times had changed, things were bewildering, unhealthy, the finest civic actions of earlier days were now shameful. Would he now have to fear for his own skin?

[Rusanov mentally reviewing the past] The nature of Rusanov’s work had been…that of personnel records administrator. It was a job that went by different names…but the substance of it was always the same. Only ignoramuses and uninformed outsiders were unaware what subtle, meticulous work it was, what talent it required. It was a form of poetry not yet mastered by the poets themselves. As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each containing a number of questions. A man’s answer to a question on one form becomes a little thread, permanently connecting him to the local centre of personnel records administration. There are thus hundreds of little threads radiating from from every man, millions of threads in all…They are not visible, they are not material, but every man is constantly aware of their existence. The point is that a so-called completely clean record was almost unattainable, an ideal, like absolute truth. Something negative or suspicious can always be noted down against any man alive. Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find out what it is.

…The poetic side of [Rusanov's] work lay in holding a man in the hollow of [his] hand without even starting to pile on the pressure. (Emphasis added)

[Later, Rusanov talking with his daughter, Alla, a well-placed writer who has recently visited Moscow and who is visiting him in the hospital] ‘Listen,’ her father said quietly, do you remember. I asked you to find something out? That strange expression–you come across it sometimes in speeches or articles–”the cult of personality”–are those words an illusion to…?’ [He means Stalin]

‘I’m afraid they are, Father…I’m afraid they are. At the Writers’ Congress, for example, the phrase was used several times. And the trouble is, nobody explains what it means, though everyone puts on a face as if they understand.’

‘But it’s pure blasphemy! How dare they, eh?’

[Alla] ‘…Generally speaking, you have to be flexible, you have to be responsive to the demand of the times. This may annoy you Father, but whether we like it or not we have to attune ourselves to each new period as it comes! I saw a lot in Moscow. I spent quite a lot of time in literary circles–do you imagine it’s easy for writers to readjust their attitudes over the last two years? Ve-ry complicated! But what an experienced crowd they are! What tact! You can learn a lot from them!’

Well, this is enough, I hope, to elicit your interest in the book, and to provide some food for thought about the potential power of government to shape our lives.

Will Rusanov be cured of his neck tumor? Will his old “friend,” released from the Gulag, visit him? Will Oleg (the main character) find love and happiness with one of the two hospital workers he is romancing? Will Oleg be returned to the Gulag after he is cured (if he is cured)?

Don’t ask me… read the book!

Addendum: If you have an interest in the current debate regarding how to finance and array medical care in the USA, you should certainly read at least Part Two, Chapter 9, “The Old Doctor” in this book. Take your time with it; it is poetically written (and, apparently, faithfully translated)

Civil Society Must Succeed Where Governments Have Failed

The headline for today’s column is an idea I took away from a peace conference, held two days ago in Stockholm, a paraphrase of what I heard from journalist and academic, Dr. Carmen Sammut, from Malta.

The conference and its workshops, press conferences and reception lasted the whole day and evening of September 21, “an auspicious day,” but I was able to attend only the morning session, which was sufficient for the purposes of this weekly blog article.

Anna Lindh, inspiration for The Anna Lindh Foundation, a co-sponsor of the conference

Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), alliances and voluntary organizations had a role to play in this gathering of journalists, diplomats, academics and others under the heading Restore Trust, Build Bridges.

The label “auspicious” was given this gathering by one of the speakers due to the convergence around the date, September 21, of these of these events and traditions:

The autumnal equinox

The International Day of Peace has been established by the United Nations for this date

The celebration of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year)

The end of Ramadan, in the Muslim faith

The Feast Day of Saint Matthew

In that the conflict most referenced during the morning’s session was that centering in Jerusalem, a holy city for the three faiths referenced above, the observation was apt. At least one other conflict was referenced, the one centered in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Another important point was made: those who are directly affected in local conflicts, and who support peaceful settlement, are more numerous than those who seek combat to resolve disputes. Their voices are poorly heard, however, under the noise and visual presentations of “mayhem” that capture the attention of the various news media. The three speakers representing the press told us of efforts by The Euro-Mediterranean Media Task Force to promote a proper balance between the immediate facts on the ground in a local area, and the larger picture including those who are relatively quiet (or inadequately reported on), the oft-referenced “grass roots.” Evidence of such grass roots peace efforts is found in the Blue and White Peace movement in Israel, promoting a two-state solution. A similar movement of Jews in the USA was cited, as well.

The keynote speaker in the morning session was André Azoulay, President of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue Between Cultures. Among many observations based in his extensive and high-level experience in both Arab and Jewish cultures, he cited the hopeful note and presence of the new U.S. President, Barack Obama, and the latter’s presentation at Egypt’s Cairo University, June 4, 2009. Mr. Azoulay dwelt a bit on Mr. Obama’s use of quotations from the Quran and his opening remarks in Arabic, showing “respect” and “humility” to his hosts, considering it “a major historical point”. This positive impression was buttressed by the later remarks of communications consultant, journalist and columnist Ramzi E. Khoury, a Jordanian by birth.

So, I have cited three major points from just the morning portion of a full-day and evening conference. I consider my time well-spent if I can come away with just one new idea or insight from a full day’s meeting.

China’s “New Cultural Revolution”

This was the title given to a presentation I attended, September 10, at the regular meeting of my Rotary club, the only English speaking Rotary club in Stockholm.

Dr. Tony Fang was the presenter. He is Associate Professor of International Business at Stockholm University, born in China and a resident of Sweden for many years.

To put the title and the substance of Dr. Fang’s presentation into perspective, one needs to review the first “cultural revolution” in China:

“The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”, or simply Cultural Revolution, was a period of social and political upheaval in the People’s Republic of China between 1966 and 1976, resulting in nation-wide chaos and economic disarray.

It was launched by Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China, on May 16, 1966, who alleged that “liberal bourgeois” elements were permeating the party and society at large, and wanted to restore Capitalism. He insisted that these elements be removed through post-revolutionary class struggle by mobilizing the thoughts and actions of China’s youth, who formed Red Guards groups around the country. The movement subsequently spread into the military, urban workers, and the party leadership itself. Although Mao himself officially declared the Cultural Revolution to have ended in 1969, today it is widely believed that the power struggles and political instability between 1969 and the arrest of the Gang of Four as well as the death of Mao in 1976 were also part of the Revolution.

After Mao’s death, the forces within Communist Party of China that were antagonistic to the Cultural Revolution gained prominence. The political, economic, and educational reforms associated with the Cultural Revolution were terminated. The Cultural Revolution has been treated officially as a negative phenomenon ever since. The people involved in instituting the policies of the Cultural Revolution were persecuted. In its official historical judgement of the Cultural Revolution in 1981, the Party assigned chief responsibility to Mao Zedong, but also laid significant blame on Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. [Source]

During the 33 years since Chairman Mao’s death in 1976, Chinese leaders started their country on a bumpy road toward embracing many of the values in the West that Mao reviled and forbade. Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) was the key person in this transformation:

Inheriting a country wrought with social and institutional woes left over from the Cultural Revolution and other mass political movements of the Mao era, Deng became the core of the “second generation” of Chinese leadership. He is called “the architect” of a new brand of socialist thinking, having developed Socialism with Chinese characteristics and led Chinese economic reform through a synthesis of theories that became known as the “socialist market economy”. Deng opened China to foreign investment, the global market, and limited private competition. He is generally credited with advancing China into becoming one of the fastest growing economies in the world and vastly raising the standard of living. [Source]

Dr. Fang offered these eight points toward understanding the China of today, as compared with, just a short while ago, the China that most of us may remember:

1. Changing symbols, heroes and rituals: Mao is no longer the national hero, now perceived more as an honored ancestor or quasi-religious icon (my interpretation). The term “comrade” has changed to mean partners in a homosexual relationship. Television programs hold competitions similar to “Idol” to elevate winners to cultural icons. Dr. Fang quotes Deng Xiaoping as saying “to become rich is glorious.”
2. Professionalism There is developing, among major enterprises, a strong service orientation.
3. Respect for knowledge
4. Self-expression
5. Direct and assertive communication
6. Individualism/individualization
7. Technology-driven
8. Emerging online civil society

Dr. Fang points out that in emulating many of the perceived values of the West, Chinese have not yet developed the inherent sense of social boundaries. As a result, certain “Western” behaviors in Chinese are perceived as excessive or out-of-bounds by Westerners. Dr. Fang asserts that there is a learning curve in this realm and that time and experience will bring the necessary corrections and definitions of proper boundaries.

I often go to the CIA World Factbook to get the most recently available information for any country in the world. Here are a few current demographics for China:

Population 1,338,612,968
Age structure 0-14 years: 19.8%, 15-64 years: 72.1%, 65 years and over: 8.1%
Median age 34.1 years
Population growth rate 0.655%
Urbanization urban population: 43% of total population
Rate of urbanization 2.7% annual rate of change
Sex ratio total population: 1.06 males/female
Life expectancy at birth total population: 73.47 years
Total fertility rate 1.79 children born/woman
Ethnic groups Han Chinese 91.5%; Zhuang, Manchu, Hui, Miao, Uyghur, Tujia, Yi, Mongol, Tibetan, Buyi, Dong, Yao, Korean and other, 8.5%
Religions Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%; Muslim 1%-2%. Note: [China is] officially atheist.
Languages Standard Chinese or Mandarin (based on the Beijing dialect), Yue (Cantonese), Wu (Shanghainese), Minbei (Fuzhou), Minnan (Hokkien-Taiwanese), Xiang, Gan, Hakka dialects, minority languages
Literacy (age 15 and over can read and write): total population: 90.9%

Please click on the map to enlarge it

In ending his presentation, Dr. Fang characterized modern China as “embracing paradox, dynamics and change.” This is buttressed by the statement of Robert Poole, vice president, China Operations, at the US-China Business Council in Beijing: “Change is a constant companion to those of us in the China business environment, as the results of 30 years of reform unfold and a dynamic economy emerges.” The China Business Review, March-April, 2009.

An Angel and Sailboats in Stockholm

Early Evening, 22 June 2009

Ho hum, it’s just another beautiful Summer day in Stockholm. The sun will be over the horizon for 18 hours and 38 minutes today, during which the events described below have already occurred.

I was invited by Mr. Sigitas Brazinskas, Commercial Attaché of the Lithuanian Embassy in Stockholm, to attend an event celebrating the gift of an angel to the City of Stockholm.

The Angel by Lithuanian artist Vaidas Ramoska, and Mr. Sigitas Brazinskas, Commercial Attaché of the Lithuanian Embassy in Stockholm

[Please click on any image to get a larger and more detailed view]

The gift of this work of art by the City of Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, to Sweden’s capital city is part of program marking the designation of Vilnius as a “European Capital of Culture, 2009″ by the European Union. I reported on this in my article of 18 March.

Sculptor Vaidas Ramoska

This angel is an…invitation to each citizen of Europe to visit Vilnius in 2009 when Lithuania will mark the millennium of its name and when Vilnius will become the European Capital of Culture…This symbol of kindness has already been installed in Warsaw, Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Dublin, and cities in Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg, Peru and the United Arab Republics. More angels are to be installed in Moscow, Riga, Tallinn and Ljubljana. Sculptor Vaidas Ramoška creates a special sculpture of an angel adapted for each city. Source

The ceremony conducted by officials of both countries was friendly and warm, eliciting lots of smiles from all in attendance. Those addressing (in English) the small crowd of people at the Liljevalchs art museum in Stockholm were, in order:

[left to Right] Lena From of Liljevalchs Konsthall (art museum); His Excellency Mr. Remigius Motuzas, Ambassador of the Republic of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Sweden; Mr. Paulius E. Kovas, Captain of Lithuania’s Millenium Odyssey; Mr. Gintautas Babravičius, Vice-Mayor of Vilnius; Mrs. Py Börjeson, Vice President of the Stockholm City Council. Mrs. Börjeson is holding a replica of the Angel given to her by Mr. Babravičius.

Here are pictured some of the audience as they listened during part of the ceremony:

Your faithful correspondent is somewhat left of the middle of the group as we stand before the angel in its new location at Liljevalchs Konsthall.

The ceremony ended at around noon, and I decided to return home via the Djurgårdsfärjan (ferry) from Djurgården at Grönalund to Gamla Stan (Old Town).

As the ferry pulled away from the dock, I saw several large ocean-going sailboats and suddenly remembered these were the days of the “Volvo Ocean Race” in Stockholm. I could see the Ericsson boat clearly and took several pictures of it and nearby boats because my wife Eva works for Ericsson.

If you are interested in seeing a few more pictures, go to this link.

I’m finishing this article at 9 PM and the sun is still up. I think I’ll take a walk along the lake before bedtime.

God natt.

Looking at China’s Foreign and Security Policies

Many international organizations have located their headquarters in Stockholm. One of these is SIPRI, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Last Friday SIPRI sponsored a half-day presentation by scholars from China, Finland and the USA entitled China and Global Security: an expert seminar on current and future directions in Chinese foreign and security policy. The chairman of the seminar was Ambassador Börje Ljunggren of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Coordinator of the Stockholm China Forum and former ambassador to China.

The expert panelists were:

Professor Jin Canrong, Associate Dean, School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, Beijing.

Professor Robert S. Ross, Professor of Political Science at Boston College, Associate, John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, Harvard University, and Senior Advisor, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor Jia Qingguo. Associate Dean, School of International Relations, Beijing University.

Linda Jakobson, Senior Researcher, Programme on China and Global Security, SIPRI

Several things motivated me to attend this public seminar: I have been acquainted with SIPRI through its former director having addressed my (English speaking) Rotary Club in Stockholm; in that I don’t communicate well in Swedish, I take opportunities to attend interesting forums offered in English; and, I thought the seminar might offer something I could include in this journal, which it has. It was held in the modern and airy Stockholm World Trade Center.

What follows is an overview and summary from written notes. A few statements and facts stood out for me:

According to Professor Jin Canrong, China’s way is to “exert power in a humble way.” For readers who may harrumph at this notion, it was instructive for me to hear from these experts that China is not monolithic in all things, the big exception being that its national politics reside within a single party. The phrase was interesting to me in that it resembles words attributed to the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius. This view, as stated, is not shared by others on the panel (I was told this privately).

With respect to industrial development, China stands approximately where the USA stood in the 1920s.

The total workforce of China is greater than the total population of Europe. [I was not sure I heard correctly, so I looked at data on the Internet to verify this. I find that China has 965 million people in the age group 15-64 years. The population of the 27 EU countries is 492 million. There are 18 other countries in Europe, including Russia which stands in Asia as well. I think a rough calculation on the back of an envelope would verify that the claim under review is probably close enough for government work. If you want to know my sources, contact me].

There is a rise in nationalistic feeling in China, a pride, which in extreme expressions could work against China’s official desire for harmonious relationships with other countries. A quick reference was also made to the dominant Han portion of the population needing to recognize the value and merit of the scores of minority populations in China.

China has long had a policy, often iterated at the United Nations, of non-interference in the affairs of another country. [I thought this sounded very like the "prime directive" of the fictional Star Trek television series and movies]. With regard especially to China’s extensive investments and interests in Africa, however, it was felt by some that this policy may have to be modified in special circumstances.

There seemed to be general agreement among the presenters that there will always be a tension within and without China, given its great size, between the need for peaceful relations with other countries and the need for China to feel secure within its borders. The more China pursues security through investment in military preparedness, however, the more nervous other countries will be, thus working against peaceful relations. Security needs are in the realms of borders including coasts, airspace and better technology.

A theme that floated through the discussion, especially the extensive Q&A sessions, is that USA and China have mutual interests in cooperating, but China cannot allow itself to feel or be seen as being unduly influenced by the USA.

The Taiwan issue seems to have been addressed by the USA in recent years to China’s satisfaction, if not to Taiwan’s, thus decreasing tensions between the USA and China over this long-standing point of conflict.

USA President Obama was given good marks for a new and potentially more constructive posture toward China, but it was recognized that it’s too early to see if this posture will result in tangible progress from China’s point of view and the point of view of scholars who look for win/win outcomes for both countries.

Much was said about past, current and potentially future relations with China’s nearest neighbors, especially North Korea, South Korea and Japan. In that the issues are delicate and complicated I will not try to characterize them here, but refer you the SIPRI’s China and Global Security Programme website for developments and references.

Special note was made of the recent first collaborative effort between elements of China’s navy and other navies in pursuing pirates off the eastern coast of Africa. This was a very big and popular news item in China for several days.

Toward the end of the seminar one questioner wondered about the lack of reference to China’s largest neighbor, Russia. Jia Qingguo thought the two countries had resolved, to mutual satisfaction, a variety of ancient and recent disagreements and tensions very well. Ms. Jakobson said we need to be realistic in any assessment of Russia, and that she considered the relationship between China and Russia a “marriage of convenience.” I made the inference that Russia would change the relationship when it felt in its interests to do so.

Last in this summary review of the seminar I offer the insight that despite China being a Communist country and, therefore, presumed to have a ’socialist’ economy, a rapidly diminishing proportion of the workforce works in the public sector [*see footnote]. It is a capitalist country, according one of the Chinese scholars present. It has a large and growing middle class. Currently, 49 million Chinese travel abroad as compared with 18 million Japanese. These facts buttress the assertion by one of the speakers that a new state/society relationship is developing in which society is gaining in strength with respect to the state.
——————-
Footnote

*According to a study by Li Chengshui, chief of the State Statistics Bureau (SSB) in 1981-84, that was made public on October 12, [in 2006] the public sector employed only 32% of China’s industrial and service workers, and accounted for 37% of the country’s GDP. This represents a huge change from just over a decade ago. In 1995 the public sector accounted for 78% of GDP. According to Li, between 1995 and 2005 the number of private enterprises rose from 660,000 to 4.3 million, the number of workers they employed increased from 8.2 million to 47.1 million. Their capital base rose during this period 26-fold, from 226.2 billion yuan (US$30 billion) to 6133.1 billion yuan ($829.5 billion). In a speech delivered at the Beijing University on May 19 [2007], Li pointed out that the “private sector economy signifies the formation of a new capitalist class”.