Thursday, November 26, 2009

Disney’s song and dance about a black princess croaks

A film review from the "L.A. Weekly", that I heartily agree with.
Boycott this film.

Frog of the South-



By Scott Foundas
Published on November 24, 2009 at 7:02pm



Six decades after unleashing persistent NAACP bugaboo Song of the South (1946), and two after firmly suppressing it, that peculiar cultural institution known as the Walt Disney Company has made a symbolic reparation by creating its first African-American princess — and plunking her down in the middle of Jim Crow–era Louisiana! A patronizing fantasia of plantation life in post–Civil War Georgia, Song could at least be understood — if hardly excused — as a product of its time (18 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act). But is Disney’s latest, The Princess and the Frog, the Obama-era fairy tale that anyone other than the “birther” crowd has been waiting for?



Just when exactly Princess is supposed to be taking place is never made explicit, save for a brief prologue set in the fall of 1912 (identified by a fleetingly glimpsed newspaper headline announcing the election of segregationist President Woodrow Wilson). It’s there that we first meet Tiana, the daughter of a New Orleans seamstress (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) and laborer father (Terrence Howard), as she plays at the very big house of her very white, very blonde, and very rich BFF, Charlotte. The movie then flashes forward to the Jazz Age ’20s — but is it before or after the Mississippi River flood of 1927 that burst Louisiana’s infamous levees and stranded hundreds of thousands of blacks in refugee camps? Now an enterprising young woman, Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) works double shifts as a waitress, trying to scrape together enough cash to make good on her late father’s dream of opening a swank restaurant. Whatever the year, we are firmly in the grips of “separate but equal” — a reality the movie, like last year’s Benjamin Button, barely even acknowledges.



Like many a storybook maiden before her, Tiana wishes upon a star for a handsome prince to ferry her off to some magic kingdom — or at least help her to make a down payment. He then seems to appear in the form of the visiting Prince Naveen of Maldonia (Bruno Campos), a mocha-skinned dreamboat of indeterminate ethnicity (convenient, given the antimiscegenation laws on the books at the time) who, alas, has his sights set on Charlotte. Before he can say “I do,” however, Naveen finds himself transformed into the titular amphibian by a back-alley voodoo priest (Keith David). And when he subsequently convinces Tiana to kiss him as a way of reversing the spell, instead she turns all ribbity, too.




They say it ain’t easy bein’ green, but it’s certainly a hell of a lot easier than being black. So writer-directors Ron Clements and John Musker (whose 1992 Aladdin proffered a sinister, ear-cutting Middle East) send newly anthropomorphic Tiana and Naveen hopping off into the bayou rather than continuing to dodge ol’ Jim Crow on the streets of the Big Easy. There, Princess’ rampant ahistoricism gives way to a veritable Mardi Gras parade of risible stereotypes: an Acadian firefly with the most exaggerated Cajun dialect this side of celebrity chef Justin Wilson, I gua-ran-tee; a 197-year-old voodoo priestess named Mama Odie; and, lest no Deep South caricature remain unturned, a trio of toothless hillbillies.



Much ballyhooed as Disney’s return to its tradition of 2-D “cel” animation after a five-year hiatus — and being given a grand send-off here in L.A. with a two-week exclusive engagement in a state-of-the-art cinema on the Disney studio lot­ — The Princess and the Frog is pleasantly if unmemorably drawn, with an amiable original song score by Randy Newman that runs the gamut from infectious ragtime to gutbucket zydeco. But the movie as a whole never approaches the wit, cleverness and storytelling brio of the studio’s early-1990s animation renaissance (Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King) or pretty much anything by Pixar, which makes it all too easy to follow Mama Odie’s own advice and “dig a little deeper.”


This hasn’t been a banner season for black characters in American movies, from the women lusting after ideals of white beauty in Chris Rock’s documentary Good Hair (FYI, Tiana also sports a chemically “relaxed” ’do) to the high school football phenom showered with Sandra Bullock’s charity in The Blind Side. Indeed, it says something when, excepting Nelson Mandela in Clint Eastwood’s forthcoming Invictus, the closest thing to an assertive, self-confident role model onscreen right now is the obese, illiterate, abused and HIV-positive “Precious” Jones, who eventually stops fantasizing that someday her prince might come and gets down to the business of getting her GED. But for all its superficial innocuousness — “It’s only a kids’ movie!,” you may already have exclaimed before reading this far — The Princess and the Frog is the most insidious of the lot, precisely because it comes packaged as an all-ages entertainment bearing the imprimatur of the very company that has branded the imaginations of several generations of the world’s children.





Not that Disney is entirely at fault: The P.C. watchdogs who scrutinized this movie since it was first announced, and who reportedly succeeded at convincing studio bigwigs to change the title (originally The Frog Princess), the name of the protagonist (originally Maddy, feared to sound too much like “Mammy”), and her profession (originally a maid), seem to have entirely missed the forest for the trees — namely, that Disney’s first black “princess” lives in a world where the ceiling on black ambition is firmly set at the service industries, and Tiana and her neighbors seem downright zip-a-dee-doo-dah happy about that. “Rich people, poor people, they all got dreams/And dreams do come true in New Orleans,” goes one lyric from the film’s boisterous opening number, a far cry from Newman’s own “Louisiana 1927” — the unofficial anthem of Hurricane Katrina — with its prescient lament: “They’re tryin’ to wash us away.”



THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG Directed by RON CLEMENTS and JOHN MUSKER Written by CLEMENTS, MUSKER and ROB EDWARDS, from a story by CLEMENTS, MUSKER, GREG ERB and JASON OREMLAND Produced by PETER DEL VECHO Walt Disney Pictures Walt Disney Studios Main Theatre

Disney Studios and The Phenomena of The Black Princess

Well Disney's film "The Princess and the Frog" has hit the screens. The film has been the subject of much discussion for a few years. Below I share a response I sent to an email I received back in 2006 from a mother that wanted to arouse the Black community to confront Disney Studios about the absence of a Black Princess. This was long before the public had knowledge that Disney intended such a portrayal.

Personally, I hope the public, will boycott the film, for the limiting and stereotypical images that it presents in this day and age. It really illustrates the absence of creative genius in terms of possible story content over at Disney.

It doesn't matter the special effects wonders or how cute the cartoon characters are...if the words coming out of their mouths, and the songs they're singing, and the actions they're involved in are imprinting an ideal that we as people have moved beyond...we need to boycott it and clearly express our displeasure. We also need to dissuade our friends, co-workers and anyone that will listen, to NOT spend their money to see the film, or on any of it's merchandising.
Kentke~



"I thought I was the only one who noticed there were no BLACK princesses. Everybody thinks that when they (Disney) ALLOWED Brandy to play Cinderella, the slate was cleaned.

NOT.
Alison."

Interesting thought

Subject "How come there's no Princess here that lookslike me?"

Dear Disney Company,

In December 2005, I made my first visit to DisneyWorld with my family. The experience was breathtaking.Throughout our journey, the adults were astonished byhow the themes were brought to life. The children were fascinated and engaged particularly by the Princess', Minnie's House, the fake snow that fell at night, the parade, meeting the characters and asking questions as well as taking pictures with the characters.

Above all, the girls were intrigued by the Princess' minishows. However, my daughter had a question. She said,"How come there's no Princess here like me?" I asked,"What do you mean?" She replied, "You know, a Princess like "That's So Raven or Penny Proud".

I responded by saying, "Unfortunately, Disney has not created fairytales for children like you. In other words,there are no Princess' of African American descent."

As the evening came to an end, I began to ponder on her question. I thought to myself...well, why aren't there any African American Princesses in such a place where the motto is "We Make All Dreams Come True". I decided to email your company to ask why.

A few weeks later, I received a surprising call. The woman I spoketo reassured me that my question and concern was taken seriously and would be looked into further. During this conversation, I asked why there aren't any African American Princesses. The woman stated because there aren't any African American fairytales. She said, "Well we have Pocahontas who represents Native America, Mulan who represents the Chinese, Jasmine who represents the descendants of the Middle East and the African Americans have Lion King out of Africa".


That reply left me with the thought that she just compared African Americans to wild animals. After that statement, I just laughed and respectfully ended the conversation. One thing I realized was that I can't blame her for her response.

Disney has not created an African American fairytale. As an educator/parent, we all know that through life experiences what we can touch, see, feel, taste, and hear leaves a lasting impression. Disney, you hold the power to make life experiences become a reality to a melting pot world, which includes African Americans. Disney's motto is "We Make All Dreams Come True".

Well Disney, my child and other children like her have a dream and through their Disney experience, they are depending on you to make it come true.

Thank you,
K. Y. H. and others

Please press forward and circulate to everyone in your address book.When we reach 1000 names, return to K. H., of CLT, NC

The "Alison" above was the 114th name when it reached my box.
This was my response.

June 1, 2006
Food for Thought~


Y'all forgive me if I have offended anyone....I was gonna send this to Oreatha for editing, deleting or approval, but ...oh well....here it comes~


I appreciate the questions that your visit to Disney's playlands elicited. However, I will try to keep my response simple and short, and ask you to please never think I am lacking in compassion for your concerns and feelings.

The greater question for me is, 'Why would you expect Disney to create a character that presented a positive image of the African American life experience?



Please do some research, see if you can find a good film library and review some of the first Disney cartoons and characters. I am sure you will realize that just like your good ol' U. S. Constitution, the founders of the Disney corporation held a tainted view of African descended people. In cartoons, just as in the Constitution, the value of our lives was not going to be regarded in the same way as the rest of the race deemed human.


Quite naturally, thinking from such ignorance, their images, and characterizations would only depict Black characters to be laughed at (through speech, voice tones and physical movement), regarded as slow thinking, lazy and criminal, or as clowns and buffoons (the jive-talking crows in Disney's DUMBO).

In other words, knowing the circumstances of the beginning, and the early history, accepting that for what it is, as being REAL about those phenomena, can help one to frame an undeluded understanding. There's nothing in Disney's beginning that says they would portray a beautiful sweet lovely African American princess in what they offer in the marketplace.

Now those are just my thoughts on the Disney Corporation's beginning. However, if you've kept up with their latest shenanigans well documented in the financial and entertainment publications in the last 15 years, then you know that the Disney Corporation of today is truly a hell hole at it's top. The treachery, the scheming, all speak of a value system at work that if buying consumers cared about integrity through and through.....well Disneyland would be shunned.

But we know how life is. People do not really think deeply, so of course, they don't look deeply into what really is at work, in the situations and circumstances that we deal with. All that to say, that humans are extremely influenced by the 'appearance of things', yet phenomena in Life is always much more than what it simply looks like. And here is a key to Disney's success....they play on the appearance, the pristine cleanliness of their parks, the painted smiles on the characters, -----the dazzling GLAMOUR of a princess in pink standing before a beautiful castle that is actually a hollow facade.

My question to you at this point is....Is that what we want our children to buy into? A dream of a life as a 'princess or prince' in the context of the minds of Disney creators, America's value system, or European history as in the King Arthur/Camelot myths? Let me qualify here, European history as we knew it before films like Braveheart, hit the screen that for the first time, allowed us to really see the type of people (murderous, afflicted with vile diseases, wicked, ugly beings), these 'held on high pedestal' kings and queens of England and Europe truly were.

Can we free our minds from wanting something, just because it's been glamorously portrayed and promoted to us as being desirable.....but that in truth is really a questionable way to "be in the world". Before we start yelling, "Hey....we don't have that! We should have one too," can we give ourselves permission to QUESTION...DO WE REALLY WANT, DESIRE, OR NEED that? Especially today. Come on my Beloveds....I think we can do better.

In any case, sharing the story of princesses of African descent is primarily our responsibility as parents, blood and extended family members. Researching and teaching truth is also a function of our role as educators. Disney's role is not to educate or even to enlighten it's audiences. It is simply a creative business. Whether through animation, marketing of their copy-written, patented and licensed characters, and or designing theme parks, Disney is about using creative genius to bring greater financial wealth to it's owners. It's not about morals....for all we know, the folks that have run this business have never even considered the issues that trouble you.

In closing perhaps instead of sending 1000 names to Disney to ask them to do something they will probably laugh at, let us have some fun. Let's do some research, let's tap into our creative genius and see what we come up with. Let's accumulate the names and stories of 1000 'princesses and princes' that we want our children to know about. They can be real histories, and fantasies that teach lessons or just tickle the funny bone. The bottom line is why spend the energy trying to force someone to see your vision?!?! Let's just bring our vision into manifestation. Who knows, the stories may be so interesting, fun and valuable, that they may become a Saturday cartoon show, or a series of books. Today we have the ability to use our creative genius to also design a theme park, that children all over the world would beg and bug their parents to visit. I've had an idea for a retreat site with an area set aside to enable those desiring, to have a virtual experience of certain periods in our history. I invite anyone interested in discussing it, to contact me.

Well meaning, and useful in the past, I question accumulating 1000 names to send to a corporate head. It's an old paradigm. To make an impact, we must come up with new, fresh, and cutting edge solutions and means to create the world that we'd like to see. Our activities, our movement has nothing to do with anybody else. We don't need to change Disney. We need to change ourselves. We are endowed with the autonomous authority to make our world. Even if it starts out small as a weekend theme park that we pull together with artists, writers, producers, musicians, set designers, sound and light designers, story tellers, actors/actresses, engineers, magicians and performers. It could be the final day of the one of our major conferences (IE: Essence, or the National Black Lawyers, AKA, Delta, Black Educators, Black Civil Servants Union, whatever.)

A phenomenal day where everyone pools their talents to give the children our vision of who and what they are today, who we have been and what we've done here and globally thruout history. Imagine rides and exhibits that demonstrate that we use these moments of Beingness not arguing, debating, angry or sad, but GRATEFUL and fulfilled, because the Grace that enables us to capture Divine ideals and dreams and quickly manifest them in reality insures that all the 'giggly ones'* face no blocks in realizing their potential.


Sincerely,

Kentke

Kentke is the formal name of Candace (pronounced "Kendahsi"). The name is actually an ancient title from the Merotic civilization, which was located in today's nation of Sudan. The title means Your Majesty, Your Highness, or Ruling Queen, which is the title given to a lineage of women that ruled from 340 BC to 340 AD. The women were legislators, priestesses, and warriors.
Our Kentke is a writer/producer/actress/educator.

*'giggly ones' = children, because if they are allowed to be children, laughing is one of the ways they spend most of their time ....

PS. Here's a few links.
The first to a site that asked a question about Blacks in recent Disney movies. I don't consider this authoritative, but just gives you an idea of what the masses think.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006030506797

This link I would definately consider authoratative. Read it all, it's definately deals with our discussion.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_popular_culture.htm
And to be fair...here's a link to Disney's online educational site, to let you see what they do to offer educators support for classroom and historical curriculum.http://dep.disney.go.com/educational/lessons?id=202

Below are the Product Notes for the Disney film DUMBO. I showed the short film Dumbo to a primary age audience not too long ago. I swore that the voice of the 'jive-talking' crow, giving advice to Dumbo was that of Rochester, of Jack Benny fame. He wasn't listed, but here's some info on that film, where the Crow character was undoubtably supposed to be Black. Interesting too, that though the Crows were supposed to be humorous, as also seen in the Little Rascals films, the Black character was the one with the wisdom, that ultimately saves the day!

Product Notes
Deceptively simple, beautiful, moving, and hilarious, DUMBO is often overlooked when considering Disney's greatest films because perhaps of its lack of extravagance, its brief running time, and its simple story. Baby elephant Jumbo Jr. is delivered by the stork to his elephant mom with much fanfare but soon receives a cold shoulder from the snobby female pachyderms and the rest of the circus due to his oversize ears. When his mother goes on a rampage in order to protect him from some snickering rubes, she winds up locked away. Dumbo is left without a friend in the world until the street-smart Timothy Mouse decides to become his manager and a telephone line full of delightful jive-talking crows convince him he can fly. Highlights include Dumbo accidentally getting drunk and experiencing the surreal musical sequence "Pink Elephants on Parade" and a soundtrack packed with such priceless songs as the Oscar-winning "Baby Mine" and the crow's soulful number, "When I see an Elephant Fly." There's nary an imperfect moment to be found in this raucous, tender, sublime film, which has been delighting audiences for generations.


Theatrical release: October 23, 1941.Rereleased in 1949, 1959, 1972, and 1976.DUMBO is the fourth full-length animated feature from Walt Disney Pictures.Shot in three-strip Technicolor.

The film won the 1947 Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Animation Design.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Happy Thanksgiving & Happy Birthday to Me!


I, Dear Ones, had the auspicious honor of entering this world on Thanksgiving Day.



Ofcourse my birthday doesn't always fall on Thanksgiving (yesterday was my birthdate), but I have come to really appreciate that I have a constant reminder of the best way to walk this Earth.....full of Thanks and Giving my Best.


I also want to say, how thankful I am for this outlet. Is it obvious how very much, I enjoy producing this blog? I'm very grateful for this vehicle to share my love, concerns, frustrations and passions. I appreciate all of your indulgence, as my need to be creative and express myself finds great fulfillment through this medium.


In light of that, I share the story below full of Thanks to you who take the time to visit and read my blog. And I truly appreciate, the Giving nature, of those of you that take the time to send me a comment sharing your thoughts about what is offered here.


I love you all~
Kentke


The Parrot


A young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity. John tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to 'clean up' the bird's vocabulary.

Finally, John was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even more rude. John, in desperation, threw up his hand, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer. For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute.



Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer. The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arms and said "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."


John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird spoke-up, very softly, "May I ask what the turkey did?"


HAPPY THANKSGIVING





No animals were hurt in the production of this page.
The story was not written by Kentke.
The art work, and photos are from the Internet.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Friendly Foxes in Lucas Valley, Marin County, CA

Please click on the link below.

Enjoy the slide show featuring
the nature in our backyards.


http://www.marinij.com/readerphotos/ci_13618954
Phylliss Mart, photographer

Thursday, November 19, 2009

More from the Politics of the World - Russia and The Saga of that Nation's Now Imprisoned Once Richest Man


Mikhail Khodorkovsky
Currently serving an eight year prison sentence, in March 2009 a Moscow court began hearing a new case bringing serious charges of embezzlement and fraud against jailed ex-oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev.
This week it appears that I'm doing my part to make sure that we're all keeping an eye on what's happening across the globe. Obama's trip to China focused me on that nation yesterday, and today, that other major world power, that we've had friction with thruout the past came to my attention. Sweet Mother Russia.
'Sweet?' You may ask? And I know where you're coming from. But despite what we've seen and heard about the policies, politics and people from this nation, I prefer to 'name it' according to how I want to see it, as opposed to how it looks. Afterall, looks are deceiving, and I recall from my reading as a youth, that this term of endearment is not something that I'm fabricating, but the way in which Russia was once regarded by her people.
Today, she's creating a new visual and sensory impression of who Russia is. However with the new, there's still alot of the old trappings hanging on that grip us in our hearts, because they resurrect images and tales of horror from her past incarnations.
Under the names of Russia and the Soviet Union, leaders there mastered repression and torture. Great works of literature have chronicled their ability to impose an existence harsher than the reputation of her winters upon the people. Human rights, equality, soverignty and basic freedoms are still major issues of contention in the land.This article gives good insight into some of the dynamics that are at work in this ongoing process.
Let me say that I have no particular interest in Khodorkovsky. No more than my usual attention to the evidence of injustice by the use of power and politics to usurp and deny an individual their rights. This article is long, but I find Khodorkovsky's woes an interesting and revealing tale about the state of Russian politics, and the vestiges of the State that still exist controlling human activities in commerce, industry and culture. Democracy, free enterprise, an open society, harmony within and out of the borders? I don't know. See what you get out of your reading. It will definately feed your understanding.

If you're like me, (and forgive me, but I usually assume that you are), then you are also one in pursuit of self-realized knowledge that emerges from understanding. I really enjoy think type of pursuit, and prefer it to one that is based solely on the accumulation of facts and figures. There is just so much that is missing which can be critically and tragically misunderstood, when information is presented (and accepted) outside of it's context.

Moya lyubov ne znayet granits. Poka~
There's no borders for my love. Bye for now~
Kentke

Who Fears a Free Mikhail Khodorkovsky?

With Vladimir Putin in 2002
The Khodorkovsky case marked a turning point for Russia, the divide between the turbulent Yeltsin years and the stricter rule of the Putin era.




November 22, 2009

By ANDREW MEIER
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once his country’s richest man, has resided in “gulag lite,” as he calls the Russian penal system under Vladimir Putin, for six years. Since the spring, on most working days he is roused at 6:45 in the morning, surrounded by guards and packed into an armored van for the drive to court. For two hours each way, the man who once supplied 2 percent of the world’s oil crouches in a steel cage measuring 47 by 31 by 20 inches. Convicted of tax evasion and fraud in 2005, Khodorkovsky now faces a fresh set of charges that add up to the supposed theft of $30 billion. In the dark of the van, Khodorkovsky tries to prepare for his trial, replaying in his mind his night reading, the daily stack of documents from his lawyers. But Russia’s most famous prisoner worries too about what would happen if a car slammed into the van. (Collisions are routine in Moscow’s clotted avenues.) “Your chances of making it out alive,” he wrote me one day this summer, “at any speed, are next to none.”
Mikhail Khodorkovsky arriving at his trial in Moscow with his ever-present entourage of prison guards.
James Hill for The New York Times,2009


Khodorkovsky (pronounced ko-door-KOFF-skee) has spent more than 2,200 days behind bars. He cannot receive reporters. Yet the ban has brought a revival of a dissident tradition dating back to Ivan Grozny and Prince Andrey Kurbsky in the 16th century: the epistolary exchange. For several months this year, from July until October, Khodorkovsky and I were able to conduct a series of exchanges — as he has done with other correspondents, both foreign and native — filtered through the hands of lawyers (who transcribe his oral replies) and avoiding the eyes of prison officials. In court, he has maintained that he fails to understand the case against him. The new indictment runs 3,487 pages but boils down to a single accusation: that the former C.E.O. of the Yukos oil firm and his deputy, Platon Lebedev, were part of an “organized criminal group” that stole 350 million tons of oil from their company between 1998 to 2003. The tonnage exceeds Yukos’s production during the period in question. If convicted, Khodorkovsky, whose first sentence ends in 2011, could face an additional 22 years in jail.

In the decade since Putin’s rise, Russians have grown inured to celebrity criminal cases. The murders of politicians, journalists and human rights activists; apartment-house blocks bombed to ruins; the carnage of the hostage sieges in Moscow and Beslan — the acts of horror and terror have numbed the populace. The exception is the delo Khodorkovskogo — the Khodorkovsky case. No other affair has lingered as long in the minds of so many. The case marked a turning point for Russia, the divide between the turbulent Yeltsin years and the stricter rule of the Putin era. And today, in its second iteration unfolding in Moscow, much more than the fate of an oligarch hangs in the balance.
From the start of his presidency on New Year’s Day 2000, Putin was on a roll. But it was the takedown of Khodorkovsky in 2003 that upped the ante. Under Yeltsin, the chieftains of Russia’s vast financial-investment groups held sway over the vital industries (oil, metals, banking and media) and, to a large degree, held the government hostage. That changed on a frigid October night, when masked agents of the Federal Security Service boarded a plane on a Siberian tarmac and enacted one of the most famous perp walks in Russian history, an oligarch returned to the capital at gunpoint.

Khodorkovsky’s arrest stunned Russian nationalists and Western hedge-fund managers alike. Putin had forced the oligarchs to toe a new party line: profits could be blessed, but only if politics stayed off-limits. “The Yukos case marked the start, in 2003, of gosudarstvennoe reiderstvo” — “state raiding” — Khodorkovsky told me in a Russian-language reply last month. For edification, he explained ‘‘reiderstvo,” a word borrowed from Wall Street that has entered the language of Pushkin: “That is, the seizure of others’ property with the aid of state institutions (first and foremost, the organs of law enforcement).” The attacks, he argued from jail, spelled “a disaster for Russian business.” Under Putin, the state blithely acquired a string of Russia’s fattest companies — first and foremost, Khodorkovsky’s own. Despite assurances that the Kremlin would never nationalize Yukos, the state oil company Rosneft, led by Igor Sechin, a Putin confidant and former intelligence officer, soon took over Yukos’s most prodigious fields and refineries.

For Putin, the reclamation project proved a boon. Russia’s titans locked arms in a docile chorus and rushed to finance Kremlin projects. For years, as long as the price of Urals crude soared, Putin could forget about an unruly oligarch in a Siberian prison. He could even decamp from the Kremlin, usher in a handpicked successor (Dmitri Medvedev), move to the prime minister’s office and remain the power behind the throne. But the second Khodorkovsky trial has come at an inopportune time. For a decade, Putinism rested on an unsound social contract, a sacrifice of liberties for stability. Now, however, the global downturn has hit. Russia’s economy is projected to contract by 8 percent in 2009, and the number of Russians below the poverty line has grown to 17 percent. At the same time, the Putin-Medvedev diarchy — diarkhiya, pundits term it — is showing its seams, and the campaign against Khodorkovsky, a cornerstone of Putin’s rule, threatens to open fissures.
In Moscow, the circle of those who question the hard line has widened beyond marginalized liberals — to oligarchs, politicians, even journalists, who once marched in lock step with the Kremlin. Their voices are unlikely to spur a groundswell of support for Khodorkovsky, much less an organized political opposition. But they do pose a discomfiting question, one that has hung over the Kremlin since the legal campaign began: Who fears a free Khodorkovsky?

THE ANSWER MAY lie in the history. At 46, Mikhail Khodorkovsky has lived several lives. As a boy, he never wanted to be a cosmonaut or a general or a soccer star. He dreamed of becoming a factory boss. That his dream came true, in such stunning fashion, leads you to wonder whether his meteoric rise was a matter of genius, luck, ruthlessness or connections. To be sure, timing, intelligence and muscle all played a part. But the son of engineers had no running start.

Boris Khodorkovsky and his wife, Marina, gave decades to Moscow’s Kalibr plant, maker of high-precision instruments. Yet by 23, their son was an ascendant graduate of one of the U.S.S.R.’s most prestigious chemistry institutes, a state loyalist who had served as the deputy chairman of the institute’s Komsomol, the Communist Youth League. As he sought to take advantage of the improbable opportunities that arose under Mikhail Gorbachev, Khodorkovsky’s Komsomol tenure, a rarity for a Jew in Moscow, would open state doors. By 26, even before the fall of the Soviet Union, he had made his first fortune — importing PCs and selling them at a sixfold profit. Soon he had founded a bank, Menatep, one of the first private brands in Soviet finance.
In 1991, as he reminded me, Khodorkovsky left his wife at home with a rifle and stood inside the besieged White House, seat of the Russian government, as Yeltsin climbed atop a tank and sped the Soviet collapse. In 1995, at 32, Khodorkovsky, leading the savviest team in Moscow, had amassed enough money and contacts to take over Yukos, a state-owned petroleum behemoth, for a $309 million down payment. The following year, he helped stave off the Communists’ revanche and re-elect Yeltsin. By 40, Khodorkovsky reigned among the oligarchs, with a portfolio that had spread from banking to agriculture to oil. As Russia entered the new century, and Yukos rose as its most prodigious oil company, its C.E.O. became a multibillionaire.

Moscow would soon grow famous for operatic oligarchs and Byzantine intrigues, but Khodorkovsky never got caught in a compromising position — never snared at an Alpine resort, a Moscow casino or on a Riviera yacht. Girls, power, even the money, seemed to hold no magic. Where others basked in pomp, he was shy and painfully soft-spoken; you never heard his squeaky voice, a semitone deeper than Mike Tyson’s, at dacha parties for the foreign press, let alone on television. He divorced young but stayed on good terms with his first wife. Inna, his second, he met at the institute. Khodorkovsky was never flashy — he wore jeans and turtlenecks; the family vacationed in Finland — but he radiated the unlikely allure of a muscular technocrat. And yet, even at the top, he seemed adrift, unsure of his role in society. Unlike older Jewish oligarchs, men like Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky, who were often animated by old scores to settle, Khodorkovsky did not seem to consider himself an outsider. Lacking a public persona, he came to personify, by default, the revenge of the Soviet geek.

By 2000, Putin had entered the Kremlin. But Khodorkovsky — his net worth reportedly $2.5 billion — tried on a new role. He’d changed, he told colleagues. If in the past, Yukos and Menatep had exploited tax havens, stringing a daisy chain of shell companies across the offshore zones of Europe, Khodorkovsky now became an advocate for corporate governance. The first signs of an evolution had come under Yeltsin. In 1998, Russia suffered a crash — the state devalued the ruble, defaulted on $40 billion in bonds and cut its umbilical cord to the capital markets. Banks collapsed, the stock market tanked and the oligarchs turned desperate. Khodorkovsky, or so he told colleagues at the time, saw the need to reform. Companies that believed in transparency and shareholders’ rights, he now preached, did not fear lean times; they attracted foreign investment, and they grew. Skeptics abounded. It was, at the least, a timely conversion.

Even as Putin sought to curb the oligarchs, Khodorkovsky expanded his influence by new means. He brought in American firms like McKinsey and Schlumberger, experts in making the most of oil and profits. He also sought an insurance policy. Nearly a decade ago, he hired APCO, the Washington lobbying firm that employs former ambassadors and Congressmen. But in Putin’s second year in power, Khodorkovsky opened another front, setting up a foundation to support nonprofits and human rights groups. In the months before his arrest, he courted the administration of George W. Bush and power brokers like James Baker. His foundation recruited Henry Kissinger and Lord Rothschild for its board. He financed policy groups in D.C. and human rights activists at home, and to the joy of Laura Bush, he gave a million dollars to the Library of Congress. He joined the Carlyle Group’s Energy Advisory board, serving alongside Baker, and met — on separate occasions — with the elder Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In Houston, Khodorkovsky dangled a 40 percent chunk of Yukos before the oilmen — the sale would have fetched billions and, possibly, ensured protection from the state. But in 2003, in a brazen affront, Khodorkovsky started to finance opposition political parties. Then that fall, he completed a megamerger, the union of Yukos and Sibneft, another Russian major, to create the world’s fourth-largest oil company. His rise was nearly complete. But all the while, as he told me in one exchange, he’d seen the warning signs. “I knew they’d arrest me,” he wrote. “I even spoke about it.”

In October 2003, Khodorkovsky boarded a jet in Moscow a near-wanted man. After a summer of saying goodbyes to friends and family abroad, he embarked on a farewell tour. It would be a second act in his new role, an audition in the hinterland. He went on the stump, lecturing on a newfound vocation: “Democracy.” To his surprise, the gamble proved a success — eight regions, dozens of appearances, mostly young people at every stop. He was even given the stage at a military college. Next up was a human rights forum in a Siberian city nearby. But before his plane could take off, the dark vans had formed a circle on the tarmac.

“WHO FEARS A FREE Khodorkovsky?” asked Marina Filippovna Khodorkovskaya, the defendant’s 75-year-old mother. “Forgive me if I’m blunt, but it’s Putin, and all those around him who stole Yukos.” Marina Filippovna comes to court as often as possible. A sturdy former engineer, she has never shied from speaking her mind. Asked by the BBC what she would do if she met Putin, Marina Filippovna replied without pause, “I would kill him.” “It’s not for me to say what led to all this,” she told me, as we stood together one morning, awaiting the arrival of her son, in the dilapidated Khamovnichesky District Court in central Moscow. She raised both hands to conjure the years of turmoil. “I only know this case is about politics and money. But which is more important, only those on high” — again she gestured, this time to the ceiling — “know the truth.”

The answer is unlikely to emerge in Judge Viktor Danilkin’s courtroom, a humble affair on the third floor of a squat building perched above the Moscow River. Each time I went to court, over the course of two weeks earlier this year, I sat a few feet from the defendant. It was a scene to boggle Kafka’s imagination.

Khodorkovsky would spend hours, pink highlighter in one hand, yellow Post-its in another, meticulously winnowing down a stack of papers balanced on his crossed legs. He sat on a bench, locked inside a narrow rectangle of steel and bulletproof glass, along with his former deputy Lebedev. “The aquarium,” the guards have nicknamed the new model of the Soviet-era defendants’ cage. The wall of glass alone, Khodorkovsky later said in a missive, weighs a ton and a half. Court officials asked the defense team, a roster as long and distinguished as any in the annals of Russian jurisprudence, to move their desks away from the cage. “They feared the floorboards would buckle,” Khodorkovsky explained.

The trial is open, but only three or four reporters (all local) show up regularly. One morning, Marina and her husband, Boris, sat in the front row. On another day, Garry Kasparov, the chess grandmaster turned opposition leader, anchored a row in back, his bodyguard nearby. Outside the courthouse, a car blasted Russian techno, and atop the steep riverbank nearby, lovers mingled on benches and a stray drunk slumbered. The audience, rarely more than two dozen, was dominated by a female crew of Khodorkovsky supporters — the most devoted was a schoolteacher on a daily vigil. One day the supporters passed out yellow and green scarves, the Yukos colors. Nearly everyone, including the journalists, tied them around their necks.

The trial, now in its ninth month, has been distinguished by a Stakhanovite act of labor: the reading, without pause for water or bathroom breaks, of the evidence — 188 volumes of documents collected from the defense or in wiretaps and raids on Yukos, Menatep and affiliated offices. Like the prosecutors’ uniforms and the absence of a stenographer, the recitation is a Soviet holdover. The defense team, five lawyers that day, half-hidden behind an array of vases filled with roses, have the documents scanned, summonable on laptops. Valery Lakhtin, the reedy prosecutor, not only has trouble carrying the volumes (each several fingers thick); at times he seems in danger of drowning in all the oil and high finance. When he stumbles, confusing tons and barrels, dollars and rubles, the judge gently intervenes.


The courtroom contains two worlds. Behind the glass, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev grimace, giggle and kibitz. The two men, ghostly pale from years in prison, are the most animated people in the room. The lawyers, prosecutors and audience regulars sit still, silent actors for the most part in a burlesque. Nearly everyone tunes out the prosecutor’s droning. The guards fend off sleep, a courtroom artist sketches the roses and most heads turn to reading material.

I sat beside a security officer in plain clothes, a higher-up. For hours, he studied his cellphone, clicking through a novel. The reporters double-tasked between laptops — in a first, courtroom blogging is allowed — and books. One read Chuck Palahniuk. Two girls in their 20s read the Gospels. A man in back listened to an iPod. A teenager nearby did Sudoku. “It all seems pleasant,” Khodorkovsky’s chief Russian lawyer in the West, Karinna Moskalenko, had warned. Moskalenko, Russia’s most prominent human rights lawyer, has been on the legal team since shortly after the arrest. “The judge is polite; the clerk is attentive. My client can speak his mind, and we are treated kindly. But that’s all it is — a show, a farce.”

“Ours,” as his lawyers call Khodorkovsky, does not waste his days in court. He sifts through the papers and at times slowly stands, taps a microphone in the aquarium and pulls the brake on the prosecutor. He does not speak often, but when he does, it is with puckish brevity. Even after so long behind bars, Khodorkovsky remains the chief executive, amused by his surroundings, tolerant of the inconvenience and utterly undeterred.

Prison has changed him, to be sure. His hair is buzzed to a gray stubble, and his eyes are lined with red, but the rimless glasses, more befitting a Scandinavian scientist, remain. He is a man, even after years of a prison diet, of considerable bulk, but the unlikely softness of his features stands out, the tapered fingers and thin lips that can form a sudden, inscrutable smile. His confinement, it occurs to me as I watch him day after day, amounts to a third act in a singular evolution. Some may have doubted the authenticity of Khodorkovsky’s conversion to corporate governance or Jeffersonian democracy. But in court, it is not hard to see how his supporters believe that in prison he has gained what he lacked as an oligarch: an aura of moral fortitude.

Khodorkovsky insists his compatriots are watching. “The Yukos case,” he writes, “is known to every Russian entrepreneur, every judge and prosecutor, as well as the majority of the state’s officials and policemen.” He adds: “Thanks to its widespread publicity, the case will set the standard for investigation, court proceedings and respect for human rights on the part of the bureaucracy. It demonstrates what the state can and can’t do in order to meet its goals.”

The treatment, even by Russian standards, has been harsh. Khodorkovsky has spent 39 days in solitary, and 26 on hunger strikes. His health deteriorated. Moskalenko sought the advice of a London toxicologist — delivering his fingernail clippings from the camp in Siberia where he was being held — fearful her client had been poisoned. He did have his nose slashed — by a cellmate who claimed self-defense in a homosexual approach. (Khodorkovsky’s lawyers had long feared a jailhouse attack, but dismissed the incident. “Pathetic provocation,” one termed it.)

Khodorkovsky has earned time in solitary for an array of offenses: accepting two lemons from his wife, sipping tea in an improper site, leaving his workstation (his camp job was to sew shirts and gloves), possessing state decrees on prison regulations and failing to walk with his hands behind his back outside his cell. He has spent more than two years in fetid Moscow remand jails. He now shares a cell with between 3 and 8 prisoners; for nearly two years after his arrest, he shared, with as many as 15 others, a cell equipped with iron bunks, a single table and a 33-inch partition to shield a common toilet.

From the beginning, however, an issue has hampered the defense: Khodorkovsky is no classic dissident like Sakharov. As Khodorkovsky built Yukos, the oligarchic standards of the 1990s were maintained: the state bureaucracy and offshore zones were exploited. And in the tumult, as Putin noted recently, there was blood. In 1998, on Khodorkovsky’s birthday, Vladimir Petukhov, the mayor of Nefteyugansk, a Siberian town fed on Yukos oil, who had complained about Yukos’s failure to pay its debts to the town and its workers, was shot dead. Then there was the 2002 disappearance of Sergei Gorin, onetime manager of the Tambov branch of Menatep, and his wife, Olga. To date, their bodies have not been found, but a Moscow court has convicted one of Khodorkovsky’s closest former partners, Leonid Nevzlin, now living in Israel, of ordering their murder. Khodorkovsky, Nevzlin and their lawyers deny any involvement in the crimes.

Khodorkovsky’s arrest divided the human rights community. Many can’t quite embrace an oligarch as a prisoner of conscience. He is a titan who fell from favor, some say, not a dissident physicist or a novelist arrested for a subversive manuscript. Whatever his sins, though, Khodorkovsky was not jailed for breaking the law. His courting of the Bush White House and pursuit of oil partners at home and abroad infuriated the Kremlin. But his gravest error was to challenge Putin. The reason behind his imprisonment, Khodorkovsky claims, “is well known and widely discussed. It was my constant support of opposition parties and the Kremlin’s desire to deprive them of an independent source of financing. As for the more base reason, it was the desire to seize someone else’s efficient company.”

His motives may have been mercenary, but Khodorkovsky in his cell has come to embody the fiat of the state, its arbitrary and boundless power. To date, the authorities have brought charges against 43 former Yukos employees and associates, conducted more than 100 raids (including one on the orphanage run by Khodorkovsky’s parents) and jailed a string of defense lawyers. Two suffered particularly ugly ordeals. Vasily Aleksanyan, a 38-year-old Russian with a Harvard law degree, remained behind bars for more than two years, although ill with AIDS and cancer. Svetlana Bakhmina, a Yukos lawyer with two small children, was jailed for four and a half years. Last year she gave birth to a daughter in a prison hospital and was released in April only after an international outcry.

DELIVERANCE, Khodorkovsky and his legal team believe, might lie in the West. In the aftermath of Khodorkovsky’s arrest, President Bush fell silent, and many old friends ran for cover, but in 2005, Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored, with John McCain and Joe Biden, Senate Resolution 322. The move was symbolic but caught the attention of many in Moscow, declaring that “it is the sense of the Senate that the criminal-justice system in Russia has not accorded” Khodorkovsky and Lebedev “fair, transparent and impartial treatment.” After Obama’s inauguration, as the new president pledged to hit the “reset button” on U.S.-Russia relations, the oligarch’s lawyers and lobbyists waited nervously. In July, on the eve of his first Moscow summit, President Obama offered a surprise.

“It does seem odd to me,” Obama told Novaya Gazeta, the last genuine newspaper in Russia, “that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now, years after these two individuals have been in prison and as they become eligible for parole.” The president cushioned it — “I would just affirm my support for President Medvedev’s courageous initiative to strengthen the rule of law in Russia.” But to Russian ears, Obama’s statement resounded like a slap in Putin’s face.

With or without the White House, Khodor­kovsky’s counterassault continues apace. At present, cases relating to his arrest and the takeover of Yukos have been heard, or will be soon, in a half-dozen European venues. Khodorkovsky looks forward, above all, to the battle at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The court is expected to hear the first of three cases Moskalenko has filed on his behalf, concerning his arrest and pretrial detention. The Kremlin faces another challenge in Strasbourg: a case brought by the American “management in exile” of Yukos, a claim said to be as high as $100 billion.

Still, Khodorkovsky has few illusions about the West. “Without a doubt,” he said of former supporters abroad, “they were only doing what they considered useful for their own country.”
“I’VE NEVER BEEN a corrupt state official, nor an autocrat,” Khodorkovsky wrote to me. He was subtly nodding to the duo often accused in Moscow, at times in public forums, of standing behind the Yukos case: Putin and Sechin, the Rosneft chairman who now controls Yukos’s assets. Khodorkovsky has, however, been careful to praise Putin’s heir. “I respect Dmitri Medvedev as the legitimate president of Russia,” he told the newspaper Sobesednik in March. “However, his political views are not fully clear to me. Yukos he certainly didn’t rob — and he has nothing to fear from me or Platon Lebedev. ”

If Medvedev has no reason to fear Khodor­kovsky, he could be the man to free him, or so holds a new school of thought. Among the last of Moscow’s incorrigible liberals, it has become fashionable to speak of the trial as an “opportunity”: a chance for Medvedev to rid himself of an inherited albatross and prove he is his own man. Early in his tenure, Medvedev swore to combat Russia’s “legal nihilism” — a euphemism for judicial corruption. The new president is also tech-savvy — he sports an iPhone and a video blog. If Yeltsin lived in a bubble and Putin was tethered to a self-serving intelligence network, Medvedev can Web-surf and see how the world sees Russia. The “new cold war,” the murders of human rights activists, investigative reporters and liberal politicians, and the rumors of arms shipments to Iran — he knows the news is bad. So great is the hope that Medvedev is a liberal waiting for his moment, and the lack of faith in a just trial, that Russian commentators have raised the unlikely idea of a pardon.

In July, Medvedev laid out the terms. “The procedure has to be carried out in accordance with our country’s rules,” the president told Italian reporters. “In other words, a person must appeal to the president, plead guilty to having committed a crime and seek the appropriate resolution.

So at this point,” he added coyly, “there’s nothing to discuss.” The half-denials, coming in rapid succession, have only fueled the speculation. Back in 2002 and 2003, as the battle turned to war and executives became prisoners, Khodorkovsky counted Medvedev, who became Putin’s chief of staff days after his arrest, on his side. That perception, however wishful, may explain his willingness to suspend disbelief and, as he told me, “support Medvedev’s efforts” by not defending himself in overtly political terms in court.

His lawyer Moskalenko, however, does not await an awakening. “Even if Medvedev signed a pardon,” she says, “I have strong doubts this piece of paper would get beyond the walls of the Kremlin.” Experience underlies the statement. Medvedev is said to have signed such a pardon last year, for the then-pregnant Bakhmina. It never reached her lawyers. As for the prisoner himself? “No one, except two people in the country, know how long I’ve got until my release — or if it will ever come.”

He once had a choice, the lawyers say with reluctance. Not long after the arrest, a deal was on Putin’s desk: exile or jail. In time, many would flee, from Khodorkovsky’s closest partners to accountants whose faces he would not know. They live in restless exile, in England, Greece, Israel, Spain and the United States. Khodor­kovsky holds no enmity for those who fled — “Why breed hostages?” he says. But for him, the door was not open. “I’d rather be a political prisoner,” he told Moskalenko, “than a political refugee.”

The trial continues, now with a parade of witnesses. Khodorkovsky, who once boasted that his empire had adopted “paperless technology,” has reading material to outlast the year. But he looks, more and more, to that distant horizon. He’d like to return to the energy sector, he says. Not oil this time, but “solar,” a subject from his institute days. He could also lend a hand, he says, in raising Russia from the recession. After all, he has proved himself to be a “good crisis manager.”

One morning in June, a day before the defendant’s 46th birthday, a pair from Washington remained in court at the end of the day’s session. Margery Kraus, head of APCO, the D.C. lobbying firm, clasped her hands overhead. A victory salute. Eugene Lawson, former head of the U.S.-Russia Business Council, a group that aimed to unite mistrustful C.E.O.’s in a mutually enriching embrace, repeated the gesture. With his silvery hair and dark pinstripes, Lawson looked every bit the patrician guest from the West. In 2007, Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship. Last year, Lawson was named to APCO’s international advisory council. He faced the glass, raised a hand, fingers flat, to cut through the air at an angle — an airplane zooming into flight. We’re heading home, the American hands said, but we stand behind you.

The courtroom guards closed ranks, unlocked the cage and handcuffed Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, each to a guard. On the stairwell outside, the crowd, mostly women, young and old, called out — they wished him well on his birthday. The man who many still believe remains a billionaire wore slippers, thin trousers, a suede coat and a sleeveless shirt buttoned to the top — all well-worn. We came within inches of each other. In one hand he carried a string bag, filled with his notes and a plastic bottle nearly empty of water. He passed by in silence, lips pursed in a half-grin, up the stairs, and in a moment, amid the thud of boots on cement, the world’s most problematic political prisoner was gone.


Andrew Meier, who last wrote for the magazine about the Russian writer Edward Limonov, is writing a book about Robert M. Morgenthau and his family.
Your bonus for reading the entire article!!!

Have some fun with these Russian phrases and their English translations. Surprise your Russian friends....or use them to make a new friend!
http://www.dating-world.net/Russian%20phrases.htm

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Obama, China and the U.S. - 2009

President Obama toured the historic Forbidden City in Beijing on Tuesday during a break from meetings with Chinese leaders.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

I share three articles below covering the visit to China. The first and last articles are from the New York Times. The middle piece is from the blog of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. I have long respected his views. (Sorry about the links, but I don't advise clicking on them. I have no idea where they will take you.)

For some reason, I feel that the vist with the Chinese has been a wake-up call to Pres. Obama. For me, he has a somewhat 'Pollyannish' quality to his world view. I am glad he is in the position, but I hold a much more jaded understanding of America's nature, history and policies. For some reason, I sense his naive expectations and impressions of the U.S. and her role in the world will return to these shores with new fodder for that contemplative mind that he displays.

Hearing the Chinese "No", is important for his development. He's had to accept it from the Israeli government. It will be interesting to watch to see what his Life's response to these realities will be. And as I ponder this, I realize that hearing these "No's" are also important for the American people. As we begin to awaken to the delusions of grandeur under which we've existed for most of our lives, and realize, that others have the right to say NO to our wishes, it poses a critical juncture for the maturing of the American polity.

It means that we get to set new examples of new ways of Being in the world. Today, we're forced to forego our usual tactics, of using the might of our force, because we ain't got it no more! Surely we can not use the threat of trade or economics as before. Nor can our military, or intelligence agencies bring the terror which they once could.

So we all get to do some soul searching, and deep thinking about what the equalizing factors of the moment mean to us, as an individual, as human beings, as a nation, and as an element of Life upon the planet.

In many ways it's very liberating. To know that you can't be the same old way, means you have the freedom to grow, and expand beyond that, into a new and hopefully more wholesome part of the harmony that's possible.

Yea...maybe that's it....We can all stop striving to 'corner the market'. We can forgo the religion of seeking profit. We can forget about being mindless consumers, and start exploring what an interesting natural world we are blessed to be a part of.
We could each get in touch with our own unique abilities and creative gifts. We can make things~ things that are functional, that are beautiful, that are funny and fun ~ and we can give them where needed! We can keep circulating gifts of food, and necessities of life.

And we can slow down. So that we can admire and enjoy what we have already received.

China’s Role as Lender Alters Obama’s Visit



November 15, 2009
By HELENE COOPER, MICHAEL WINES and DAVID E. SANGER


When President Obama visits China for the first time on Sunday, he will, in many ways, be assuming the role of profligate spender coming to pay his respects to his banker.
That stark fact — China is the largest foreign lender to the United States — has changed the core of the relationship between the United States and the only country with a reasonable chance of challenging its status as the world’s sole superpower.
The result: unlike his immediate predecessors, who publicly pushed and prodded China to follow the Western model and become more open politically and economically, Mr. Obama will be spending less time exhorting Beijing and more time reassuring it.
In a July meeting, Chinese officials asked their American counterparts detailed questions about the health care legislation making its way through Congress. The president’s budget director, Peter R. Orszag, answered most of their questions. But the Chinese were not particularly interested in the public option or universal care for all Americans.
“They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the deficit,” one participant in the conversation recalled. Chinese officials expect that they will help finance whatever Congress and the White House settle on, mostly through buying Treasury debt, and like any banker, they wanted evidence that the United States had a plan to pay them back.
It is a long way from the days when President George W. Bush hectored China about currency manipulation, or when President Bill Clinton exhorted the Chinese to improve human rights.
Mr. Obama has struck a mollifying note with China. He pointedly singled out the emerging dynamic at play between the United States and China during a wide-ranging speech in Tokyo on Saturday that was meant to outline a new American relationship with Asia.
“The United States does not seek to contain China,” Mr. Obama said. “On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.”
He alluded to human rights but did not get specific. “We will not agree on every issue,” he said, “and the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear — and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people.”
White House officials have been working for months to make sure that Mr. Obama’s three-day visit to Shanghai and Beijing conveys a conciliatory image. For instance, in June, the White House told the Dalai Lama that while Mr. Obama would meet him at some point, he would not do so in October, when the Tibetan spiritual leader visited Washington, because it was too close to Mr. Obama’s visit to China.
Greeting the Dalai Lama, whom China condemns as a separatist, weeks before Mr. Obama’s first presidential trip to the country could alienate Beijing, administration officials said. Every president since George H. W. Bush in 1991 has met the Dalai Lama when he visited Washington, usually in private encounters at the White House, although in 2007 George W. Bush became the first president to welcome him publicly, bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal on him at the Capitol. Mr. Obama met the Dalai Lama as a senator.
Similarly, while he was campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Obama several times accused China of manipulating its currency, an allegation that the current Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, repeated during his confirmation hearings. But in April, the Treasury Department retreated from that criticism, issuing a report that said China was not manipulating its currency to increase its exports.
While American officials said privately that they remained frustrated that China’s currency policies lowered the cost of Chinese goods and made American products more expensive in foreign markets, they said that they were relieved that China was fighting the global recession with an enormous fiscal stimulus program to spur domestic growth, and added that now was not the time to antagonize Beijing.
China is not viewed as a trouble spot for the United States. But this administration, like its predecessor, has had difficulty grappling with a rising power that seems eager to avoid direct clashes with the United States but affects its interests in many areas, including currency policy, nuclear proliferation, climate change and military spending.
In that regard, two members of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy team said that the United States’ interactions with the Chinese had been far too narrow in past years, focusing on counterterrorism and North Korea. Too little was done, they said, to address China’s energy and environmental policies, or its expansion of influence in Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa, where China has invested heavily and used billions of dollars in aid to advance its political influence.
One hint of the Obama administration’s new approach came in a speech this fall by James B. Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, who has deep roots in China policy. He argued that China needed to adopt a policy of “strategic reassurance” to the rest of the world, a phrase that appeared intended to be the successor to the framework of the Bush era, when China was urged to embrace a role as a “responsible stakeholder.”
“Strategic reassurance rests on a core, if tacit, bargain,” Mr. Steinberg said. “Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s ‘arrival,’ ” he argued, the Chinese “must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of security and well-being of others.”
The Chinese reaction has been mixed, at best. The official China Daily newspaper ran a column just before Mr. Obama’s arrival suggesting that the United States needed to provide some assurance of its own — to “respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” code words for entirely backing away from the issues of how China deals with Taiwan and Tibet.
In the United States, the phrase “strategic reassurance” has been attacked by conservative commentators, who argue that any reassurance that the United States provides to China would be an acknowledgment of a decline in American power.
In an op-ed article in The Washington Post, the analysts Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal argued that the policy had echoes of Europe “ceding the Western Hemisphere to American hegemony” a century ago. “Lingering behind this concept is an assumption of America’s inevitable decline,” they wrote. White House officials shot back, insisting that it is China that needs to do the reassurance, not the United States.
In China, Mr. Obama will meet with local political leaders and will host an American-style town hall meeting with students in Shanghai. He will then spend two days in Beijing meeting with President Hu Jintao.
It seems unlikely that Mr. Obama will get the same celebrity-type reception in Beijing that he received in Cairo, Ghana, Paris and London. China seems mostly immune to the Obama fever that swept other parts of the world, and the Chinese are growing more confident that their country has the wherewithal to compete with the United States on the world stage, analysts say.
“Obama is still a positive guy, and all over the world most people think he’s more energetic, more sincere, than Bush, more a reformist,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor and an expert on United States-China relations at People’s University in Beijing. “But in China, Obama’s popularity is less than in Europe, than Japan or Southeast Asia.” In China, he said, “there is no worship of Obama.”
For instance, during the Bush and Clinton years, China might release a few political dissidents on the eve of a visit by the president as a good-will gesture. This time, American officials say, they do not expect any similar gestures, although they say that Mr. Obama will raise human rights issues privately with Mr. Hu.
“This time China will agree to have a human rights dialogue with the U.S. on some cases,” Mr. Shi said, but “the arguments have changed compared to the past. Now we say, ‘We are a different country, we have our own system, our own culture.’ ”

Helene Cooper reported from Singapore, Michael Wines from Beijing, and David E. Sanger from Washington.


Robert Reich's Blog~
Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism."


Tuesday, November 17, 2009


Obama, China, and Wishful Thinking About American Jobs

President Obama says he wants to "rebalance" the economic relationship between China and the U.S. as part of his plan to restart the American jobs machine. "We cannot go back," he said in September, "to an era where the Chinese . . . just are selling everything to us, we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt or home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them." He hopes that hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers will make up for the inability of American consumers to return to debt-binge spending.

This is wishful thinking. True, the Chinese market is huge and growing fast. By 2009, China was second only to the U.S. in computer sales, with a larger proportion of first-time buyers. It already had more cell-phone users. And excluding SUVs, last year Chinese consumers bought as many cars as Americans (as recently as 2006, Americans bought twice as many).
Even as the U.S. government was bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, the two firms' sales in China were soaring; GM's sales there are almost 50% higher this year than last. Proctor & Gamble is so well-established in China that many Chinese think its products (such as green-tea-flavored Crest toothpaste) are Chinese brands. If the Chinese economy continues to grow at or near its current rate and the benefits of that growth trickle down to 1.3 billion Chinese consumers, the country would become the largest shopping bazaar in the history of the world. They'll be driving over a billion cars and will be the world's biggest purchasers of household electronics, clothing, appliances and almost everything else produced on the planet.

So this will mean millions of American export jobs, right? No.

In fact China is heading in the opposite direction of "rebalancing." Its productive capacity keeps soaring, but Chinese consumers are taking home a shrinking proportion of the total economy. Last year, personal consumption in China amounted to only 35% of the Chinese economy; 10 years ago consumption was almost 50%. Capital investment, by contrast, rose to 44% from 35% over the decade.
China's capital spending is on the way to exceeding that of the U.S., but its consumer spending is barely a sixth as large. Chinese companies are plowing their rising profits back into more productive capacity—additional factories, more equipment, new technologies. China's massive $600 billion stimulus package has been directed at further enlarging China's productive capacity rather than consumption. So where will this productive capacity go if not to Chinese consumers? Net exports to other nations, especially the U.S. and Europe.
Many explanations have been offered for the parsimony of Chinese consumers. Social safety-nets are still inadequate, so Chinese families have to cover the costs of health care, education and retirement. Young Chinese men outnumber young Chinese women by a wide margin, so households with sons have to accumulate and save enough assets to compete in the marriage market. Chinese society is aging quickly because the government has kept a tight lid on population growth for three decades, with the result that households are supporting lots of elderly dependents.
But the larger explanation for Chinese frugality is that the nation is oriented to production, not consumption. China wants to become the world's preeminent producer nation. It also wants to take the lead in the production of advanced technologies. The U.S. would like to retain the lead, but our economy is oriented to consumption rather than production.
Deep down inside the cerebral cortex of our national consciousness we assume that the basic purpose of an economy is to provide more opportunities to consume. We grudgingly support government efforts to rebuild our infrastructure. We want our companies to invest in new equipment and technologies but also want them to pay generous dividends. We approve of government investments in basic research and development, but mainly for the purpose of making the nation more secure through advanced military technologies. (We regard spillovers to the private sector as incidental.)



China's industrial and technological policy is unapologetically direct. It especially wants America's know-how, and the best way to capture knowhow is to get it firsthand. So China continues to condition many sales by U.S. and foreign companies on production in China—often in joint ventures with Chinese companies.
American firms are now helping China build a "smart" infrastructure, tackle pollution with clean technologies, develop a new generation of photovoltaics and wind turbines, find new applications for nanotechologies, and build commercial jets and jet engines. GM recently announced it was planning to make a new subcompact in China designed and developed primarily by the Pan-Asia Technical Automotive Center, a joint venture between GM and SAIC Motor in Shanghai. General Electric is producing wind turbine components in China. Earlier this month, Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar announced it will be moving its solar panel production to China.



The Chinese government also wants to create more jobs in China, and it will continue to rely on exports. Each year, tens of millions of poor Chinese pour into large cities from the countryside in pursuit of better-paying work. If they don't find it, China risks riots and other upheaval. Massive disorder is one of the greatest risks facing China's governing elite. That elite would much rather create export jobs, even at the cost of subsidizing foreign buyers, than allow the yuan to rise and thereby risk job shortages at home.
To this extent, China's export policy is really a social policy, designed to maintain order. Despite the Obama administration's entreaties, China will continue to peg the yuan to the dollar—when the dollar drops, selling yuan in the foreign-exchange market and adding to its pile of foreign assets in order to maintain the yuan's fixed relation to the dollar. This is costly to China, of course, but for the purposes of industrial and social policy, China figures the cost is worth it.


The dirty little secret on both sides of the Pacific is that both America and China are capable of producing far more than their own consumers are capable of buying. In the U.S., the root of the problem is a growing share of total income going to the richest Americans, leaving the middle class with relatively less purchasing power unless they go deep into debt. Inequality is also widening in China, but the problem there is a declining share of the fruits of economic growth going to average Chinese and an increasing share going to capital investment.

Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.



U.S. President Barack Obama, left, listens to Chinese President Hu Jintao, as they attend a state dinner reception at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009. Standing behind them are their translators.



China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit


November 18, 2009

By HELENE COOPER
BEIJING — In six hours of meetings, at two dinners and during a stilted 30-minute news conference in which President Hu Jintao did not allow questions, President Obama was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the United States.
On topics like Iran (Mr. Hu did not publicly discuss the possibility of sanctions), China’s currency (he made no nod toward changing its value) and human rights (a joint statement bluntly acknowledged that the two countries “have differences”), China held firm against most American demands.
With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said.
“China effectively stage-managed President Obama’s public appearances, got him to make statements endorsing Chinese positions of political importance to them and effectively squelched discussions of contentious issues such as human rights and China’s currency policy,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a China specialist at Cornell University. “In a masterstroke, they shifted the public discussion from the global risks posed by Chinese currency policy to the dangers of loose monetary policy and protectionist tendencies in the U.S.”
White House officials maintained they got what they came for — the beginning of a needed give-and-take with a surging economic giant. With a civilization as ancient as China’s, they argued, it would be counterproductive — and reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s style — for Mr. Obama to confront Beijing with loud chest-beating that might alienate the Chinese. Mr. Obama, the officials insisted, had made his points during private meetings and one-on-one sessions.
“I do not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the president on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two-and-a-half-day trip to China,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. “We understand there’s a lot of work to do and that we’ll continue to work hard at making more progress.”
Several China experts noted that Mr. Obama was not leaving Beijing empty-handed. The two countries put out a five-point joint statement pledging to work together on a variety of issues. The statement calls for regular exchanges between Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu, and asks that each side pay more attention to the strategic concerns of the other. The statement also pledges that they will work as partners on economic issues, Iran and climate change.
But despite a conciliatory tone that began weeks ago when Mr. Obama declined to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, before visiting China to avoid offending China’s leaders, it remains unclear whether Mr. Obama made progress on the most pressing policy matters on the American agenda in China or elsewhere in Asia.
The president has had to fend off criticism from American conservatives that he appeared to soften the American stance on the positioning of troops on the Japanese island of Okinawa, and for bowing to Japan’s emperor.
At a regional conference in Singapore, Mr. Obama announced a setback on another top foreign policy priority, climate change, acknowledging that comprehensive agreement to fight global warming was no longer within reach this year.
Past American presidents have usually insisted in advance on some concrete achievements from their trips overseas. President Bush received vigorous endorsements of his top foreign policy priority, the global war on terrorism, during his visits to Beijing, and President Bill Clinton guided China toward joining the World Trade Organization after prolonged negotiations. When either of those presidents visited the country, China often made a modest concession on human rights as well.
This time, Mr. Hu declined to follow the lead of President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia, who, after months of massaging by the Obama administration, now says that he is open to tougher sanctions against Iran if negotiations fail to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The administration needs China’s support if tougher sanctions are to be approved by the United Nations Security Council. But during the joint appearance in Beijing on Tuesday, Mr. Hu made no mention of sanctions.
Rather, he said, it was “very important” to “appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear regime through dialogue and negotiations.” And then, as if to drive home that point, Mr. Hu added, “During the talks, I underlined to President Obama that given our differences in national conditions, it is only normal that our two sides may disagree on some issues.”
White House officials acknowledged that they did not get what they wanted from Mr. Hu on Iran but said that Mr. Obama’s method would yield more in the long term. “We’re not looking for them to lead or change course, we’re looking for them to not be obstructionist,” one administration official said.
In a meeting in Beijing with a senior Chinese official on Wednesday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton again pressed China on Iran. She told the official, Dai Bingguo, that even if China had not decided what sanctions on Iran it would accept, “you need to send a signal,” said a senior American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity so he could describe the exchange.
Mr. Obama did not appear to move the Chinese on currency issues, either. China has come under heavy pressure, not only from the United States but also from Europe and several Asian countries, to revise its policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, pegged at an artificially low value against the dollar to help promote its exports. Some economists say China must take that step to prevent the return of large trade and financial imbalances that may have contributed to the recent financial crisis.
Mr. Obama on Tuesday could only cite China’s “past statements” in support of shifting toward market-oriented exchange rates, implying that he had not extracted a fresh commitment from Beijing to move in that direction soon.
There are many reasons the White House may have heeded China’s clear desire for a visit free of the polemics that often accompany meetings between leaders of the two countries. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is rooted in recasting the United States as a thoughtful listener to friends and rivals alike. “No we haven’t made China a democracy in three days — maybe if we pounded our chest a lot that would work,” Mr. Gibbs said in an e-mail message on Tuesday night. “But it hasn’t in the last 16 years.”
Kenneth Lieberthal, a Brookings Institution scholar who oversaw China issues in President Clinton’s White House, agreed. “The United States actually has enormous influence on popular thinking in China, but it is primarily by example,” he said. “If you go to the next step and say, ‘You guys ought to be like us,’ you lose the impact of who you are.”
The National Security Council’s spokesman, Michael A. Hammer, added, “What we did come to do is speak bluntly about the issues which are important to us, not in an unnecessarily offensive manner, but rather in the Obama style of showing respect.”
Mr. Obama, even as he projected a softer image, did nudge the Chinese on some delicate issues.
On Tuesday, standing next to Mr. Hu, Mr. Obama brought up Tibet, where Beijing-backed authorities have clamped down on religious freedom. “While we recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve any concerns and differences that the two sides may have,” he said.






Reporting was contributed by Sharon LaFraniere, Edward Wong, Michael Wines and Mark Landler.

Labels

Absence of citizen online privacy protection by U S government (1) achievements of women (1) Africa human rights (1) africa political violence (1) African Muslims want peace (1) African politics (1) African refugee assisting homeland (1) African violence and corruption (1) African-American art (1) agriculture biotechnology industry (1) alQaida in Africa (1) American economic system (1) American education (1) American labor movement (2) American prison system (1) American racism (1) animals (1) Animals and humans (3) anti-American Middle Eastern cyber hijackers (1) apartheid 20 years gone (1) Arnold (1) Art by artists of African descent both continental (1) Atlanta (1) Avatar (1) Barack Obama (2) BeeSweet Lemonade (1) beneficial presence in the world (1) Bill Clinton (1) biogenetics (1) birthday (1) Black male role models (1) Black men unjustly incarcerated (1) Black people worldwide (1) busting American myths (1) buyer beware (1) Caribbean Literature Book Club 2010 reading list (1) champions (1) change for america world (1) charity (1) charter schools (2) China (1) classy artists (1) Congo (1) Consumer Rights (1) consumerism (1) Cornel West (1) Cosmos (1) coups in Africa (1) creativity built from our culture (1) credit game (1) Crenshaw community (1) cyberspace brought into wars (1) Dark Matter (1) David Bowie (1) Dedan Gills (1) delusions of the American masse (1) democracy in the world (1) destroying myths that no longer serve the good (1) Dialogue in America (1) diaspora (1) Disgust; Being our true selves (1) distribution of wealth (1) donating (1) earthworms (1) ecologically smart cars; green lifestyle (1) ecology (1) economic meltdown (1) economics (1) Edge intellectuals (1) Education in America (1) Egypt (1) elevating consciousness of American people (1) endangered Mountain Gorillas (1) European internet privacy (1) Excellent athletes (1) expanding consciousness (1) fear and greed of white people (1) female corporate/ multinational CEOs (1) first blog of the year (1) freedom of the press (1) French and Mali troops roust al-Qaida Islamist invaders (1) G-20 (1) gardeners (1) giving (1) global immigration issues; Israel (1) golf (1) Good works in Africa by her children in the diaspora (1) gospel music (1) Gratitude (1) Groups doing great work (1) Haitian Earthquake relief effort (2) helping others globally (1) History of issue of race in America (1) Homophobia (1) Human omniaction (1) ignorance (1) imperialism (1) indigenious people (1) influencing purchasing trends with priming (1) Iraqi drones compromised (1) Islam (1) Islamic extremests in African; Timbuktu (2) jokes (1) Kenya bloggers (1) latest scientific discoveries (1) law (1) Los Angeles life; architecture; African-Americans in Los Angeles (2) lost world cultures (1) Love (1) Malcolm X Civil Rights Leader (1) Mali (3) Mali 2013 (1) manipulating the food of the world (1) manuscripts of Africa's past (1) men of integrity (1) men standing strong (1) Mikhail Khodorkovsky (1) military power in Afrcia (1) military power in Africa (1) Monsanto (1) MTV (1) Mugabe (2) my travels (1) Natalie Cole (1) National Parks (1) Native Americans (1) Nature at It's Best File (3) Nelson Mandela (1) Neuromelanin (1) New Yorker Magazine (1) Nigerian terrorist (1) Nobel Peace Prize winners (1) Obama as a balm (1) Obama diplomacy (1) Obama foreign diplomacy (1) Obama in Europe (1) Obama nobel prize winner (1) Obama policies regarding average citizens (1) Obama's ability to control and steer his administration (1) Octavvia E. Butler (1) order (1) organic (1) outstanding Black authors (1) Pan-African authors (1) personal fulfillment (1) Pharonic sacred science (1) photography - wildlife (1) Plant sentience (1) policies that endanger animal welfare (2) politics (1) positive life lessons (1) post-neocolonialism in Africa (1) poverty field studies in India (1) prejudice (1) priming (1) professionals (1) public protest of economic policies (1) race (1) race and housing (2) race in America (1) Racism in Hollywood (1) religious bigotry (1) right wing christians (1) right-wing fundamentalism (1) Russia (1) Russian politics (1) Sarah Palin's politics (1) Science - intelligent creative bacteria (1) scientific ignorance perpetuated in 2012 (1) sibling rivalry (1) Snoop Dogg (2) soil science (1) Somalia (1) South Africa labor problems (1) South side Chicago (1) Spring poetry (1) Stanford University (1) successful women (1) Sudan (2) technology (1) tennis (2) Thanksgiving Day (1) The Bigs/multinational corporations (1) the failure of No Child Left Behind (1) the wealthy (1) things that make you go 'hhmmm' (1) Tiger Woods (1) Timbuktu libraries (1) time (1) Toni Morrison (1) true meaning of dogsledding. (1) Tuskegee Airmen (1) Twitter hijacked (1) U S History (1) vegan (1) vegetarianism (1) Virunga Park (1) ways to help Africa (1) weak results re: campaign promises (1) wealth in America (1) wholesome food sources (2) wildlife and their habitats (1) Williams sisters (2) Wimbledon (1) wolves (1) women leaders (1) world economy (1) writing (1) Xmas 2009 (1) yahoo (1) young Black entrepreneurs (1) Zimbabwe election (1)