#everything i say in full knowledge i would like to abolish the control had over kids in society yeah?

[istherewifiinhell]

always curious to me the 'testing doesnt help' thing. i suppose i have to remember theres a difference between structures of standardized testing and the act of just. practicing recall? which i would call 'quizing' myself. but then again i am the route memorization outlier... so...

[mrsjadecurtiss]

Another ask, if you have the inclination: I've just been rereading Reek III with all that entails, and Theon thinks about 'the son is just the shadow of the father' re Roose and Ramsay. Do you believe that Roose can actually be as bad or worse than Ramsay at this point? He's got to be worse than average and his morals very lacking, but it's hard to imagine us being made to abhor him more than Ramsay in the remaining books. Is it just Theon's terrified paranoia, or do you think it can pay off somehow? 🤔 Or am I misinterpreting that line do you think?

Do you believe that Roose can actually be as bad or worse than Ramsay at this point? He's got to be worse than average and his morals very lacking [...].

This is a trap, he is playing with you, the son is just the shadow of the father. Lord Ramsay played with his hopes all the time. - Reek III, aDwD

This is no man to jape with. You had only to look at Bolton to know that he had more cruelty in his pinky toe than all the Freys combined. - Reek III, aDwD

I believe quotes like these refer to the effect of the cruelty they enact, rather than the specific crimes.

Ramsay is vile and cruel, enacting heinous violence upon people like a slasher movie villain. We do not have any evidence that Roose personally inflicts the same degree of crass violence upon people, as even in his presumably candid retelling of the miller's wife story, while a horrifying and inexcusable crime, he does not reach the extreme level of violence Ramsay inflicts upon smallfolk on the regular with his hunts and torturings.

"Roose Bolton's cold and cunning, aye, but a man can deal with Roose. We've all known worse. But this bastard son of his … they say he's mad and cruel, a monster." - Davos III, aDwD

The point, i believe, is not who produces the worst feats of violence, but rather another facette of grrms criticism of feudalism:

Would Ramsay even have a chance to do these heinous crimes if his father, who knows about everything, had an ounce of morality in him?

[Roose:] "All you have I gave you. You would do well to remember that, bastard." - Reek III, aDwD

Everything Ramsay has, his high position, the freedom to do all the crimes he wants, the protection from law that would have otherwise sent him to the wall in no time, he has because of his father's selfishness. Roose could have stopped these crimes from happening, he could have given Ramsay the appropriate punishment, instead he keeps Ramsay around because he feels like it...

Roose is at the top of his society, answering to barely anyone except his overlord and his king; so much power is at his fingertips, and yet he uses it for selfish reasons, commits crimes, allows crimes to happen in full knowledge, and everything is handled as it benefits him instead of abiding to morality or law. Every crime Ramsay does is Roose' responsibility as feudal lord and thus his crime.

"When soldiers lack discipline, the fault lies with their lord commander," his father said. - Tyrion VIII, aGoT

Roose is called the leech lord, and indeed he is a leech upon society, bleeding his people dry to his own benefit while not lifting a finger himself. While he is not a literal vampire, obviously parts of his character are a play on vampire myths, and the aristocratic bloodsucking vampire is frequently used as a metaphor for critique of the ruling class (i hear Fever Dream by grrm plays with this, though i have not read it). He might not commit a Texas Chainsaw Massacre in person, but that doesn't make him any less morally bankrupt and despicable, and he still has the same blood on his hands.

There is a tendency where Roose tries to lighten his crimes in conversation - here are three examples showing different facettes:

"The arrogance of it! They do not expect the north to believe their lies, not truly, but they think we must pretend to believe or die. Roose Bolton lies about his part in the Red Wedding, and his bastard lies about the fall of Winterfell." - Davos IV, aDwD

[Roose:] "Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?" - Reek III, aDwD

[Roose:] "The maesters will tell you that King Jaehaerys abolished the lord's right to the first night to appease his shrewish queen, but where the old gods rule, old customs linger. The Umbers keep the first night too, deny it as they may. Certain of the mountain clans as well, and on Skagos … well, only heart trees ever see half of what they do on Skagos." - Reek III, aDwD

1. Denial of involvement - Roose frequently either escapes blame completely (for example for Duskendale), puts blame on someone else (like blaming Ramsay's bastard blood for Winterfell), or lies about his crimes to evade blame.

2. Selectively invoking law - using the kinslaying law, he pretends his hands are tied when it comes to Ramsay, even though he could for example also send him to the wall as punishment. He frequently breaks laws as he pleases and also took part in breaking sacred contracts such as guest right (red wedding), so him invoking law in this instance is likely a tool to absolve himself of blame during the conversation.

3. Comparing himself to others to lessen his own acts, after failing to escape blame - by bringing the Umbers etc into the conversation, he tries to make himself look less bad; "look, everyone's doing it, and the skagosi are probably even worse than me!"

As opposed to Ramsay, he is aware of how the severity of the crimes he is doing would be received by others. He likes to present himself as a rational and civilized man, and thus has an interest to downplay his criminal actions, even if he does not see anything wrong with them as he did them for his own benefit.

"No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise?" - Reek III, aDwD

"That annoyed me, so I gave her the mill and had the brother's tongue cut out, to make certain he did not go running to Winterfell with tales that might disturb Lord Rickard." - Reek III, aDwD

As the Mormonts were bannermen to the Starks, [Jorah's] crime had dishonored the north. Ned had made the long journey west to Bear Island, only to find when he arrived that Jorah had taken ship beyond the reach of Ice and the king's justice. - Eddard II, aGoT

The foolish Ramsay tries to pride himself in his crimes; Roose however knows of the importance of optics. He is aware that he frequently breaks the law, and tries his best to keep his reputation intact as to not attract unwanted attention; especially with an overlord like Ned Stark, who would not handwave any crime and would make sure justice is served.

From what we can observe, in my opinion the difference between Roose and Ramsay is that Roose doesn't see anything wrong with comitting violence as long as the result is of a benefit for him, while Ramsay additionally also commits violence because he merely finds enjoyment in inflicting it, violence for violence's sake. This is why Roose is able to control himself and always gives Ramsay the advice to be restrained, but Ramsay is unable and unwilling to do so and his acts are much more extreme. Roose is likely starting to realize this difference by aDwD.

Is it just Theon's terrified paranoia [...]?

I do also believe Theon's statement is fueled by paranoia, if you look at the entire context:

"I mean you no harm, you know. I owe you much and more." - "You do?" Some part of him was screaming, This is a trap, he is playing with you, the son is just the shadow of the father. Lord Ramsay played with his hopes all the time. "What … what do you owe me, m'lord?" - "The north. The Starks were done and doomed the night that you took Winterfell." He waved a pale hand, dismissive. "All this is only squabbling over spoils." - Reek III, aDwD

Roose is not necessarily tricking Theon here since it appears to be a correct statement; And he does have an interest to be on friendly terms with Theon (offering him fresh clothes for example) because he wants to make use of his position as heir to the iron islands, a goal he expressed as early as a Storm of Swords.

"Flaying Theon will not bring my brothers back," Robb said. "I want his head, not his skin." - "He is Balon Greyjoy's only living son," Lord Bolton said softly, as if they had forgotten, "and now rightful King of the Iron Islands. A captive king has great value as a hostage." - Catelyn VI, aCoK

"Serve us in this, and when Stannis is defeated we will discuss how best to restore you to your father's seat," his lordship had said in that soft voice of his, a voice made for lies and whispers. Theon never believed a word of it. - The Prince of Winterfell, aDwD

Note that here Theon does not believe him either, any trust he has shattered by Ramsay as well as Roose' unlikable personality. Still it seems likely Roose was really somewhat trying to be nice with Theon, because as he tries to teach Ramsay there's value in it:

"Power tastes best when sweetened by courtesy. You had best learn that if you ever hope to rule." - Reek III, aDwD

Do you think it can pay off somehow?

This is speculation, but i believe Roose' story is likely headed in the opposite direction - A Storm of Swords featured his greatest villainous feat, the Red Wedding, a showcase of cruelty and treacherousness. I do not think it will be followed up by an act of even greater cruelty; instead i think he will finally reap what he has sown.

Roose Bolton said nothing at all. But Theon Greyjoy saw a look in his pale eyes that he had never seen before — an uneasiness, even a hint of fear.

That night the new stable collapsed beneath the weight of the snow that had buried it. - a Ghost in Winterfell, aDwD

I believe the line about the stable is meant as a metaphor for his regime collapsing, as it is put directly after the line where he realizes the situation is growing dire for him.

It all seemed so familiar, like a mummer show that he had seen before. Only the mummers had changed. Roose Bolton was playing the part that Theon had played the last time round, and the dead men were playing the parts of Aggar, Gynir Rednose, and Gelmarr the Grim. - a Ghost in Winterfell, aDwD

Roose is likely going to continue the parallel with Theon as his arc goes steadily downwards. He is a foil to Ned; where Ned died but his legacy lives on, Roose will likely live to see his legacy crumble.

There is of course a possibility that he, when cornered, starts expressing more cruelty as a last-ditch effort. We saw the stable used as a metaphor for his rule in Winterfell; but there is another interesting detail about the reconstruction of the burned Winterfell:

Serve well, Lord Bolton told them, and he would be merciful. Stone and timber were plentiful with the wolfswood so close at hand. Stout new gates had gone up first, to replace those that had been burned. Then the collapsed roof of the Great Hall had been cleared away and a new one raised hurriedly in its stead. When the work was done, Lord Bolton hanged the workers. True to his word, he showed them mercy and did not flay a one. - the Prince of Winterfell, aDwD

Aegon the Conqueror had commanded [the Red Keep] built. His son Maegor the Cruel had seen it completed. Afterward he had taken the heads of every stonemason, woodworker, and builder who had labored on it. Only the blood of the dragon would ever know the secrets of the fortress the Dragonlords had built, he vowed. - Catelyn IV, aGoT

This is a crack theory, but perhaps Roose has something up his sleeve when it comes to the newly constructed roof of the Great Hall (a location that features extremely prominently through all of Theon's aDwD Winterfell chapters). Maybe he could make it crash intentionally to bury his treacherous allies or something like that...

I doubt however that he will do Ramsay-style extreme violence, i can't really see a reason and it doesn't appear to be his style. He seems more about cunning than flashy displays.

As always these are not PoV characters, so as long as we don't have a view inside their heads we can never say anything with 100% certainty.

[davantagedenuit]

Black Thoughts

So, sometimes, I think thoughts and I will put them here in case they are entertaining, or may rouse thoughts in others, or happen to be cool, or kittens.

So, also, I watched Black Sails. (And Hannibal is still the flaming spear in my heart, please don’t you all worry.) I read meta about the historical setting and the characters’ deep thoughts and deep feels, and the GAYtude. And, in response to all this greatness, I decided I would have some arid narratology-centric thoughts. (They turn out to be cool, though.)

So. Question: Who is the narrator in Black Sails?

Ah. Not as easy as it seems, right?

I have two answers.

Answer 1: A part of me thinks this whole thing is in fact the story of Eleanor Guthrie trying to narrate the hypothetical story in which she is the only protagonist. (For simplicity and future reference: the narrator is someone who (1) produces the tale, while not necessarily being a character in it, (2) controls or influences, in some way, the events in them, (3) knows more than the characters of the story.) Eleanor wants this. She would like to have a say and the mechanics and the OCCASION to tell the tale. She would like to control SOME EVENTS about her life, SOME OF THE TIME. She also desperately, soul-eatingly would like to know more than the main protagonists of the Pirate Show AND she would like to know more than herself, possibly to tell herself, on at least SOME occasions, ‘This dude will screw you. All these dudes have always screwed you.’ But, she says it herself, there are “Too many fucking men on this island.”

Answer 2: If we want to focus on the Pirate Show rather than on the peripherical storylines, we need to go season by season. (And season 4 is special, because season 4 is war, and some characters think they are narrators, are self-aware narrators, and blood and slicing ensues.)

Season 1: Hal Gates. Yes. Take a moment to think about it. He is Flint’s Friend (the only one for a while that Flint calls by his first name, Silver does not get that, but Silver is special (aka he’s the friend who’s aware of the Friends of Flint Curse - but still WANTS the friendship)), he knows about some (all?) of Flint’s past, he does (preemptive - Billy’s FACE when Gates asks him to restrain Flint) damage control with the Richard Guthrie meeting at the very beginning, he removes his trust in Flint (because he knows more than Flint about what’s coming), he dies. - In short, Silver may have memorized one page of the book, Gates has read it, knows it by heart, made it a best-seller. (Did anyone, at any point, ship Flint/Gates? No, because Gates is, eh, not as aesthetically pleasant as someone else? But I go astray.)

Season 2: Miranda Barlow-Hamilton. This is subtle, and beautiful, and perfect, and by 2x02 I knew where it was going, but the Kiss Reveal was still fantastic in 2x05. Season 2 starts off with us thinking that Mrs. Barlow IS Flint’s origin story. It turns out that she is not (Thomas Hamilton is), but she is the narrator of it. This was, admittedly, foreshadowed by 1x04′s AWKWARDEST casually not-that-sexual sex scene (and for a moment, I swear, when I watched it, I thought I was watching some independent 80′s European film, and not Shiny New TV), later mirrored with Anne and Jack. She knows more than Flint about, well, so much everything, it’s a wonder he seems to know anything. She knows about what happened with Thomas, she knows about his feelings BETTER THAN HE DOES (because he’s all busy feeeeeeeling them), she knows about Abigail Ashe, she comes up with the Magic Peaceful Solution/Final Plotpoint that will turn to be her Tragic Violent Death. The Magic Peaceful Solution becomes the Tragic Violent Death when she realizes someone knew things that she didn’t know. (At which point ABIGAIL ASHE becomes ‘Acting Miranda’ because she writes all the good things in her journal.) -- During the first half of the season, she even seems to direct the flashbacks, casting them onto the viewer from her little house inland (aka heart of heart of Flint) like the witch she is supposed to be.

Then we get the Great Split of seasons 1-2 v. seasons 3-4. Flint loses his loves. Silver loses his leg. Given that Black Sails asks the ever-lasting Reform or Revolution question, seasons 1 and 2 are clear candidates for the reform-minded solution. (Recall Flint, in season one, walking in Eleanor’s office saying he would settle for “a friendly British governor and some universal pardons shenanigans”.) (Also flashforward to Mr Oglethorpe being described as the reform-minded man.) Seasons 3 and 4 are the revolution. Tempest, torture at maroon island, all for the cause and nothing but the cause, ”Madi, would I be enough for you?”, Long John Silver’s propaganda, culminating with the Berringer Terreur. (Another one of my crazy ideas is to try and fit Black Sails in the historiographic/quasi-mythical frame of the French Revolution. One more argument for this: the French revolution abolished the monarchy in favor of a (short-lived) constitutional democracy, which was followed by the Terror, then returned to an Emperor. Similarly, the seasons 3 and 4 are about Kings and Queens coexisting with some (short-lived) democratic pirate alliances.)

Which gives us:

Season 3: John Silver. YES. So. He is on his way to becoming Flint’s Friend, but not there yet. He still focuses on Speaking For the Men, with the downside being that speaking is now the only thing he can do. He is, and somewhat remains in season 4, the Official Oracle of what’s going on in Flint’s head. Season 3 is the story of him trying to get BETTER at his narrative. Early season 3 has him revealing to Flint how much more than him he knows (about the Urca gold) in order to assert his power as narrator. But he still knows, he realizes, relatively little about Flint himself and, unlike the other narrators, he does not already possess that knowledge but he WANTS IT. To acquire that knowledge and become full-blown narrator, he will have to, well, become so close to his character that they will become indistinguishable IN THE WOODS AT NIGHT AROUND A BOTTLE OF RUM AND A CACHE OF GEMS. He organizes the events, he produces the tale. But the tale has changed - it is not a story about a series of events any longer (Chronicles of a Revolution), but a story about a character (Tragic Idealist Biopic). At the point where it becomes obvious that this is not the story of the Pirate revolution of Nassau, but the story of Captain Flint (in the woods, with the rum and the cache), Silver stops being the narrator. He (PSEUDO) dies at the end of the season and his fate is left unknown. And, in the land of narratologic explosion that is season 4, he becomes the CHARACTER OF THE NARRATOR IN-STORY (aka Long). Come on. This is magnificient.

Season 4: Yep. Yep. My first thoughts about season 4 were that it was all over the place, that the writers were stuck trying to tie together the twelve millions storylines they had going, that everyone was changing side because The Plot demanded it. My later thoughts were that it became an artful study in fragmentation. The storylines that seemed peripherical at first became central (the Max/Anne/Jack trio fills in for the Miranda/Flint/Thomas trio, commerce (and reform) fills in for idealism). The cause exploded. The Island of Pirates has no leader and is locally managed by some, picking the pieces. So there are many narrator candidates. It can’t be Silver: he’s become the character of the narrator in-story (written in exactly this way by Billy Bones who KNOWS what Flint may not explicitly know - that the narrator is more powerful than the main protagonist, indeed that he is the only one with ANY POWER over the story). It can’t be Billy: he does have some knowledge, but it’s local and brief, and with Silver as a character of narrator, he’s got competition. (Billy is probably the postmodern salty writer who thinks he’s smart as all hell writing the writer in his own story. And turns out he’s not that smart.)

I wanted it to be Eleanor, but she’s at her most powerless, and cruelly self-aware. I wanted it to be Madi, and I think she IS the narrator of the Series of Events that hopefully leads to a revolution (but have at that point already begun to fail). But, concerning Flint’s story, the only one with the modicum of distance required to have both power over the events, more knowledge than the characters (through Weirdly Prophetic Insight) and who is not involved in the tale enough so that he’s able to tell it - is Israel Hands, CHRONICLER OF ALL-HAS-GONE-TO-HELL. He correctly identifies Silver as Long John Silver after his quasi-death. (Silver’s quasi-death, in the transformative narrative, being the threshold after which he is Long John Silver.) He sits right between him and Flint, and, big happy bear of a meta-narrative device that he is, keeps reminding Silver that the narrator is not the character, that John isn’t Long and vice versa. (He also reminds reminds Silver that Silver isn’t Flint, and Silver has a problem with that more than he has a problem not being Long.) As a bonus, he can tell the story properly because he doesn’t like the story much. (The story being Flint.) (He’s probably the grumpy editor being snarky at repetitive plotting. ‘He’s turned you around again’.)

Conclusion things: (1) Flint is not a narrator in this story. He’s a character, who has a dim awareness that his tale will be told by others, and who, at some point, chooses purposefully to surround himself with people who will tell it. (I think Flint didn’t choose Silver as a friend, he chose him as a narrator for his Glorious Fight (ALL THE ANCIENT GREEK HISTORIES WHERE GREAT KINGS HAVE SECRETARIES WITH THEM ON THE BATTLEFIELD SO THEIR TRIUMPHS CAN BE TOLD FOREVER). Silver, because he wanted accurate documentation, became very close to the main protagonist of the tale. And Flint was, once more, possibly the first time since Thomas, SURPRISED BY FRIENDSHIP/LOVE he hadn’t seen coming. Conversely, Silver paints such a feared character that he realizes, he’ll be the only one liking him. Recall the woods/rum/cache nightly conversation, and Silver being like ‘To be feared is ok, but to be feared and liked is cooler (so everyone will fear you, Captain, via my tale, while I will like you’) and Flint being like ‘*the trademark wolfish grin of death* Sounds awesome’.) -- This strengthens my idea of the Flint/Eleanor parallel. Eleanor is trying to tell her story. Flint is trying, subtle difference, but also subtle similitude, to have his story told.

(2) If Flint is a character whose origin story is Thomas, Silver is NARRATING to Madi that he IN-STORY returned the character to his origin story (the “anterior state of being” - there is a WHOLE another post for the creeping use of abstract vocabulary in this show - I think these occurrences are meta-narrative remarks, but well).

(3) The narrator is always more powerful than the character. Flint knows that (eventually). Which is why seeking out Silver as a narrator is really his first, but not last move as Deathwish Flint.

(4) I started watching Black Sails like ‘oh, a ‘historically accurate’ show with 18th century pirates who have bleached-white teeth and well-toned abs and incorrect period swearing, and, oh look, an explicit lesbian sex scene waving wildly at an intended male audience’ and I finished like ‘GAY HAPPY ENDING IN THE LAND OF NARRATOLOGIC WONDERS’ and ‘YES, JAMES, WE SHOULD ILLUMINATE OUR DARKNESSES’, and ‘ALL THE THINGS WE WRITE IN BOOKS AND THE CAPTAIN LIKES HIS BOOKS’.

(5) Re: feelings about the ending and the thwarting of revolutions. This ending is a happy ending, by all means, for Flint and Thomas and for Silver and Madi, but it’s not a good ending (unless you are, like Mr Oglethorpe, reform-minded).

[araeph]

Defiance, Part 3

[Part 1 | Part 2]

Summary: Katara never thought she’d take shelter from the Water Tribe in the Fire Nation. Zuko never thought he’d build a life with someone he is only supposed to be seeing for fun. And neither one knows just how close their countries are to self-destruction. 

 [For Zutara month, Day 3, “A New Year”]

“So they’re finally sending someone.”

A low chortle was heard around the council table, and Zuko did his best to control his temper. One half-hearted nighttime chase in pursuit of a smuggler hadn’t yielded what he’d hoped for. He was certain that one of the men debating policy with him today was selling arms—for some unknown purpose—to the Earth Kingdom. But instead of nabbing a go-between who might possibly turn in his associates, or even a payload of blasting jelly, what had he discovered? Circus animals. Rare Earth Kingdom circus animals, who were beating their forelimbs against their cages and making such a racket Zuko didn’t know how the operation had been kept quiet in the first place. It turned out Zuko had mistaken his target for a twin brother who was also in the smuggling business, and who had all but certainly been informed by now of the masked figure who was dogging him. It had not been a good hunt.

And now, he had to suffer through hours of councilmen attempting to alter the treaty with the Water Tribes before its ambassador had even set foot in the Caldera.

Be like Uncle, he told himself, schooling his face into its best neutral expression. (An expression he’d never been very good at, according to Azula.) Persuade them to be reasonable. He’s letting you run this meeting; show him that you’re up to it.

“We will not be lowering the pay ceiling for reparations,” he stated with finality. “The Water Tribe will interpret that as going back on our bargain.”

“Maybe we should go back on it,” insisted General Shinu, an old holdover from his father’s reign that even Iroh hadn’t managed to oust from his position of power. Zuko stalled the mutter of agreement with a shake of his head, but the general continued. “It’s been twelve years to the day, and what have we received in return for scattering our gold across the North Pole? They fortify their barriers and give us nothing.”

“The idea behind reparations,” Zuko reminded them through gritted teeth, “is not to receive anything. It is to do right by the people we have wronged and show them we are an honorable nation.”

“We do not need their approval to show off our honor!” Shinu proclaimed. “Every country in the world knows the progress we have made, the inventions we have created, the social improvements that other societies could only dream about. Tell me, Prince Zuko. Has the Northern Tribe abolished child marriage? Has it opened the ranks of its warriors to women? Does it allow for inventors and artisans to rise up the ladder of success? Or does it keep everyone down who doesn’t fit its own archaic mode of living?”

Zuko pounced. “I’m glad you are so concerned with modernizing the Four Nations, General Shinu. Perhaps we could begin right here with our own. What do you say to revisiting the idea of allowing qualified commoners into the war chamber? I think we would benefit from some fresh blood—the blood of the living, instead of the blood of the dead.”

Several of the councilors’ faces puckered as if they had eaten an unripe pomegranate.

“If not,” Zuko continued, constraining a sigh of relief at having regained control of the room, “we will present the treaty as planned, and discuss only the revisions that the Water Tribe might be willing to accept.”

“Prince Zuko,” Governor Xiao interjected. He was a moderate voice at most meetings, and Zuko wasn’t sure yet which side he’d take in this debate. “Why do you think they waited so long to make contact? And shouldn’t there be more of an exchange between our nations than there has been?”

Zuko glanced around the table. “I think they are waiting for us to make the first move,” he said. “And that is what we will do. I am not opposed to reestablishing the pre-Sozin trade routes, now that we have been at peace for several years. But we can’t wait for them to hint at allowing ships into their port or our lifting the Gates of Azulon. We will show them, by the suggestions we make, the course we are setting for our countries. The rest is up to them.”

With a nod, the Fire Prince adjourned the meeting. Uncle, deliberately sitting at the far end of the table, gave him a slight nod of approval. He had done well, and his father would never have acknowledged success even if Zuko had lived up to his standards.

So why did that sign of approval only make his mood worse?

***

The men were all away at the meeting hall again, preparing for Pakku’s voyage the next day. It was just a matter of logistics now, Katara knew: which warriors would have the prestigious duty of speeding their ships westward. According to Sokka’s calculations, ships powered by waterbending and sail still outpaced the weighty, beaked Fire Nation warships that ran on coal and steam. However, the the larger the ship, the closer the sailing times became; lighter craft were still the domain of the waterbenders. She’d asked him then, why they shouldn’t combine both steel and bending, and he’d said, “Exactly! But Dad and the others won’t hear of metal ships in our harbor ever again.”

She’d comforted him, as she always had, with freshly stewed sea prunes and a small ice sculpture of a tiger seal to decorate his new home. Katara worried about Sokka, sometimes. It wasn’t the pressure of being the chief’s son, so much as it was his eccentric way of thinking in the face of a growing sense of conformity in their culture. The northerners disdained any innovation based on Fire Nation ships, saying the Water Tribe might as well hoist the colors of the Southern Raiders if that were the case. (A rare fight had broken out in response to the name of the same naval force that had killed Katara’s mother.) Chief Hakoda personally prided himself on raising a son full to the brim with “Water Tribe genius,” but Katara could tell by the way Sokka sometimes lingered on the edges of the group of young warriors that the Southern Water Tribe was slowly closing its ranks to outside ideas.

A shiver ran down Katara’s spine, and even in the subzero weather, she knew where it had come from. Her hand reached inside her parka to pat the scroll with Hahn’s message on it, one she had read and reread.

She clenched her jaw and held her head high. He was a consummate politician, her supposed husband-to-be. Everything he said or implied about her lack of options was correct. If she wanted to be the perfect self-sacrificing role model to her people, she would have to go along with a marriage that would slowly suffocate, if not bury her, giving all of her energy, talent, and children to the Northern Water Tribe.

But she wasn’t going down without a fight. After all, there was plenty of time before a marriage took place to make him regret his decision.

“Whoa, hey!”

A colony of four-finned penguins, one of the few to remain inside the village limits once the northerners had helped expand it, squawked happily as they shuffled by her. Completely unafraid, they raced along—as fast as penguins could race—in pursuit of the scraps once the hunters had finished gutting their catch from the day. Katara knew better than to try to cut them off and be mobbed by a gaggle of angry food-seeking penguins, so she resigned herself to waiting for them to pass.

“Even the birds don’t take me seriously,” she muttered under her breath.

Eventually the stream of black-and-white waddlers slowed to a trickle and Katara was able to make her way across to see her brother.

As a wedding gift, Chief Arnook had commissioned the best ice architects to construct a house for the newlyweds. No longer an igloo in the southern style, the house resembled the multi-chambered pavilions of the bride’s home city, with clear panes of ice set firmly in the rounded windows and steps leading up to the doorway. The door, carved blue stone, was a nod to the lack of waterbenders in the household to open a snow portal (though Arnook kept voicing his hopes about Sokka’s children, much to the latter’s irritation).

Katara ran up the steps, but stopped on the verge of knocking. A deep sadness washed over her, knowing not only that this might be good-bye for a long time, but that she couldn’t even tell him. He would never let her go off on her own.

The door opened while she was still hesitating, revealing Yue in her nightclothes, her long hair flowing down past her waist and her cheeks flushed.

“Sorry!” said Katara. “I—I didn’t realize it was so late, I just thought I’d stop by.”

Yue laughed. “It’s not that late, Katara, don’t worry. Sokka’s just very—well—”

“My sweet moon goddess, where are you?” called Sokka’s voice from the house. “I’m wearing the boots you made, just like you wanted!”

Yue gave out a mortified gasp and tried to block the doorway, Katara wisely turning around just before Sokka had shuffled into the room, then shrieked at seeing the door open.

“KATARA!” he said, his voice climbing higher with every syllable. “You can’t just barge in here anymore, I’m a married man!”

Katara couldn’t help snickering. “Sorry, oh manliest of brothers. I hope those new boots hold up under the strain!”

“Okay, that’s it.” She heard the sound of Sokka hopping about on one foot, obviously trying to get out of his boots and into his clothes before she could tease him further. “The next time I get an idea about the aquifer, I’m not going to even call you over for a conference. How do you like THAT?”

“Sure you won’t.” He could never resist calling her in to admire the latest drafts of his idea, which admittedly looked more like beginner bone whittling than engineer sketches, but were based on a much more solid knowledge of physics than she possessed. “Can I turn around now?”

A put-upon sigh answered her.

“Sokka,” Yue chided gently. “Katara, please do come in.”

She’s so good for him, Katara realized with a flash of envy. She knows how to ground him without making him feel like he doesn’t measure up. And he knows how to get her to bend the rules a little without compromising the principles she was raised with. For all of the spats and differences in customs that the North and South possessed, her brother and his wife were the best of both worlds, and a symbol to the tribes that unity without assimilation was truly possible. She hoped they could lean on each other when they found out she was gone.

Her brother rubbed his head sheepishly before giving her a quick hug. “Sorry. You know I don’t mean to throw you out in the cold, or anything. You’re always welcome.”

Katara smirked. “You mean, almost always.” Before he could retort, she added, “Look, I know it’s not the most convenient time. I just thought … well, I thought I’d ask you a bit about the Fire Nation. You know, since we might be reestablishing relations and all that.”

“Yeah.” Sokka shifted his weight from one foot to the other. “To be honest, I still don’t know how to feel about it, and I don’t think Dad does, either. I mean, we know what happened to Mom was an isolated incident, and that the raids stopped after. But—well, you know. It doesn’t feel that way, not to us. And what’s worse is how unpredictable they are.” He spread his hands. “One minute they leave us alone, the next they go into full Sozin the Conqueror mode, and the next they’re saying, ‘Oh whoops, sorry, here have some compensation for being attacked and have a nice day’! I mean, even if we believe that Firelord Iroh wants peace, what’s to say he’ll still be on the throne in five years? In ten? What’s going to keep the Fire Nation from going right back to where we were when the treaty was signed? Let me tell you, there were plenty of soldiers willing to just go along with Ozai’s plan, and they’re not all out for retirement.”

“I know.” Katara paused for a moment and gathered her courage. “And if the treaty does succeed, then what? Am I going to stop being courted by the northerners and married off to the Fire Nation instead?”

“I know, right? No wants to take that chance!”

“Yeah.” Katara looked at her brother meaningfully. “I’ll bet the northerners would hate the thought of a Water Tribe woman joining with a Fire Nation man.”

Sokka rolled his eyes. “They see all Water Tribe women, even in the South, as ‘theirs,’ so that’s a safe bet.”

“And imagine if it wasn’t even a marriage.” Yue’s eyes narrowed at her sister-in-law, not quite as oblivious as Katara’s brother. “They’d completely lose their minds, wouldn’t they? I bet that’s why they’re not taking any women with Master Pakku. They’re afraid someone will try forbidden fruit in the Fire Nation.”

“Katara!” Sokka yelped. “Where do you even get ideas like this?”

“Sokka, you really have no idea what women talk about when they’re alone, do you?” At his scandalized look, “I thought not. Well anyway, it’s been great chatting with you!”

Sokka held up a hand. “Wait, wait, Katara. What is this about? You’re not acting like yourself. Is something going on?”’

Unable to confide in him, even now, Katara swallowed and decided to air her other grievance. “They should let me go with them. As ambassador of the South. But they won’t.”

“Yeah.” Their eyes met. “Yeah, I know. Listen, once Pakku makes contact with His Great and Terrible Firelordyness, maybe they’ll let you tag along. I’ll speak to Dad; maybe he can speed up those old curmudgeons.”

“We can only hope.” Katara resisted the urge to hug him again, knowing if she did, she might not be able to let go. “Thanks for being there, Sokka. You and Dad and Yue. It means a lot.” She made a shooing motion with her hands. “You can go back to bed now. I’m going to visit Gran-Gran.”

Her brother gave her a last searching look before turning around and jogging back to the room he shared with his wife. Yue’s eyes followed her husband down the hallway, but she stayed where she was.

“Katara,” she began. But Katara shook her head and made a sharp swish with her hands just below the nearest ice window. The snow curled away into water, and what remained was the shape of a circle enclosing an ocean wave.

The same symbol that was carved on her mother’s necklace at her throat.

Without a word, Katara slipped out into the night. She didn’t have much time.

[Part 4]

[rolandfontana]

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism?

Robert Walsh, sometime Seattle resident and long-time friend of our law firm (we worked on a number of China deals together and we — Dan and Steve — met up with him on our last trip to Myanmar), has spent the last four years in Myanmar, where he operates a vibrant business consultancy. Robert is fluent in Chinese and Korean and, amazingly enough, Burmese (multiple dialects), having learned Burmese while working in the U.S. Embassy in Yangon many years ago.

We have written a number of Myanmar-focused blog posts for China Law Blog over the years and if you want the full flavor of what has been going  on there, I urge you to go back and read those as well. In 2013, it was Myanmar Foreign Investment. Difficult And Expensive, But Opportunities Are There. In 2014, it was Myanmar: Open For Business? In those posts, we talked about how Myanmar is a difficult place in which to do business and many of companies going there are bigger companies looking to get in now and make money later. In 2017, in A Report from Myanmar from an old China Hand we talked about how much had changed, due in large measure to the relaxation of sanctions. Last year, in Doing Business in Burma/Myanmar: An On the Ground Report, Robert wrote how optimism in and about Myanmar is waning as things just keep getting worse there.

Yesterday, Robert emailed us an article from the Irrawaddy (for more on this newspaper and its interesting history go here) about “China’s ambassador to Burma going up to Kachin State to throw his weight around.” In response to that, we asked him to provide us an on the ground report of China’s activities in Myanmar. The below is Robert’s report:

Over the past five years I’ve had front row seats to watch how Chinese companies in Burma operate, as SOEs, as SMEs and as outright outlaws.  The latter predominate.

The Chinese SOEs were initially focused on getting a beachhead at Kyaukhpyu on the Rakhine coast NW of Rangoon. Between 2012-2014 a pipeline running from the coast across Burma to Yunnan was built. There were on again/off again plans for a railroad paralleling the pipeline, but nobody could figure out what good it would be for anybody local.

I’ve previously described other Chinese mega-projects in Myanmar, but the only place where anything is happening is a bizarro 5000-acre resort-industrial zone-Las Vegas in the Jungle sort of thing on the Thai border across the river from Mae Seot being done by Jilin Yatai Group. For background on this project go here. I am baffled how the Chinese are doing a very large project by working directly with an ethnic armed organization, on Burmese soil, and without much in the way of compliance with Burmese foreign investment laws and procedures. I am even more baffled with how Yatai’s operation is being done in an area where the local armed groups haven’t exactly hammered everything out with the government yet.

Other Chinese SOE projects like the Myitsone dam and other hydropower projects are stalled, largely due to pushback from locals in the intended project areas. The Myitsone dam project has gotten nationwide pushback because it would affect the entire watershed of the country and China does not have a great track record on either domestic or overseas hydropower projects, especially when it comes to having environmental impact studies done that are deliberately superficial. As of this writing we know of six such projects that are going nowhere. For a really great story on a really botched Chinese dam, check out It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam. China Still Gets Paid.

The major feature of all of these Chinese projects in Myanmar is that Chinese SOEs think engagement with locals is not needed and so long as the right people in the Union government are paid enough under the table any and all objections should cease. The Chinese are not alone in this approach, as many international NGOs also take the same approach, pouring out largesse in Naypyidaw, while leaving crumbs to filter down to project areas. Up in Putao, people are fighting against WCS, WWF and other conservation NGOs because they have paid off people in the forestry department in Naypyidaw to expand the national parks in a way that drives people off the land. For an example of this, see Over 200 villagers march to demand the abolishment of Hkakhaburazi National Park.

For Chinese SMEs and outlaws looking to do something here, compliance with local law is the last thing on their minds.  Their collective mode of operations are as follows:

Acquire the land via local straw buyers.

Acquire the land with payoffs to the military, especially where a hapless local is occupying land that the military or affiliated cronies can easily seize. In many cases in Kachin and Shan State this occurs even more quickly if local farmers have been forced out due to conflict. A family can return home from months in a refugee camp to find their land under bananas or rubber plantings.

Import of seeds, cuttings, and/or seedlings without following agriculture rules on phytosanitary safety. This is a big deal because it is being done on such a massive scale.

Use illegal agrochemicals, some of which have been banned in China for decades. This has led to massive contamination of ground water.

Divert local water sources to Chinese plantations, basically robbing locals with longstanding arrangements. Bananas are awfully thirsty.

Develop industrial/agricultural/mining operations in areas outside direct government control, such as those controlled by various ethnic armed organizations. This allows the Chinese outfit to do whatever it wants, especially with gold, silver, and antimony mining. Entire riverbeds get messed up this way.

Operate in areas that have REALLY been out of government control for decades, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) areas in NE Shan State. These areas run by a notorious drug-trafficking army have been pretty much annexed by China. RMB is the preferred currency, Chinese banks and mobile systems are used, and there are few if any border controls. It’s my understanding that the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department is responsible for maintaining the relationship with UWSA, which could be a vestige of past relations when the UWSA was still the Burmese Communist Party. Christians and missionaries are repressed in these annexed areas.

In general, the Chinese approach is basically “how much will it cost me in bribes until I’ve squeezed all the juice out of this lemon?”

As local opposition to Chinese activity in Burma heats up, several features of Burmese political and commercial culture will act as countervailing factors:

The Burmese do not intend for any foreign entity from any country to make any money here via foreign investment (FDI) — nothing personal against Chinese. This is just how things have been set up under the foreign investment laws and this is local practice. Burmese generally view FDI as an extension of some sort of foreign government donor program and they bitch mightily when the flow of FDI slows, as it has for the past couple of years.

To the best of my knowledge the Burmese government still has no procedure for issuing debt guarantees for foreign debt. This makes it impossible for China to ensnare Myanmar with a debt load that facilitates de facto annexation of property, as has been done elsewhere (See the New York Times article on Ecuador above). What grates on the Chinese about the Myitsone dam project is that cancelled or not, China will not recover any of the costs already put into that project, as the Burmese government never made any commitments to pay if things went South. And China has almost  zero leverage. Burma will be one place where the give and take over the Belt & Road initiative is likely to be all give — by China.

As far as infrastructure development, the Chinese have done virtually nothing here that the Burmese people need, want, or sought. Everything  currently under discussion would directly benefit China, be it a highway, railroad, or hydropower dam and pretty much all the Burmese know this. So China is in no position to be able to accuse the Burmese for being “ungrateful,” as they like to do with Tibetans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Ecuadorians, or whoever is their ingrate of the week.

Taiwanese companies are also here and they have a decidedly better reputation for compliance and how they handle local matters. In many cases, these are Sino-Burmese repats. There still might be a Taiwanese government  high school running up in Lashio and I used to know people who graduated from it. The Taiwanese businesspeople I know and work with here are studiously make certain to distinguish themselves from the Mainlanders.

Sooner rather than later I expect to see a nationwide backlash against China — such as occurred in the 1960’s — and it . will likely be ugly indeed. See The backlash against China is growing: warnings against ‘a new version of colonialism’ stood out for their boldness, they reflect a broader pushback against China’s mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices. Heads on pikes and businesses reduced to smoking rubble are not outside contemplation. All it will take to light the match is for the Chinese ambassador to say something stupid like he did the other day in Kachin State.

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[methodsimaginariumuniverse-blog]

First Thoughts: Take Back The Economy

An accessible guide to demystifying the economy and creating a more just and sustainable world

Take Back the Economy dismantles the idea that the economy is separate from us and best comprehended by experts, demonstrating that the economy is the outcome of the decisions and efforts we make every day. Full of exercises and inspiring examples from around the world, it shows how people can implement small-scale changes in their own lives to create ethical economies.

“Take Back the Economy is the single most farsighted and practical work enlightening us on the path to a steady transition toward a genuine postcapitalist world. It is based on the presupposition that reorienting the economy means much more than the control of production—it means reinventing ourselves, our communities, and our world in profound ways. Out of this act of ‘reframing’ there emerges a novel understanding of work, enterprise, market, property, even finance. In this wonderful new work in the tradition of Gibson-Graham, students, activists, movements, and communities will find a toolkit for ethical and effective action any time, any place.”

— Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sitting at the table in our dining room, somewhat eagerly awaiting my laptops screen to load I fiddle with the loose strand of my jumper. There is exactly one week left of break left before Semester Two infiltrates into my life, taking a hold of my attentions and, hopefully, deplete most of my sources of energy, stress allotments and time entirely for the next twelve or so weeks. The notification that our first assignments for the upcoming semester has been made available for us ‘ding’s’ resoundedly at the login - I think, for a fleeting moment about whoever it is that invested the time into Microsoft Teams, and how I want to give them a warm hug for making my University career a little easier. Having expected this, I followed the familiar online route to my destination and brace myself for what was in store. 

At first everything is alarmingly effortless. “Set up a blog,” I read, “using a platform of your choice.” Oh- this is too easy. I go through the motions of the ‘Journalling’ directions; answering the questions and engaging my brain to think back beyond the last month back to Semester One, steadfastly avoiding what is written underneath. However, the time will come, and it does, the letters for the second heading under ‘Essential’ spell: “Reading.”

I almost groan out loud, my mind flashing back to last semester and trudging through industry reports. I look, forlornly, at my copy of ‘Fahrenheit 451′ sitting on the other side of table. Begging to be opened and subsequently finished as soon as is possible. But. I have a mission. A mission under the heading ‘pre-work’

Please dont be boring, my mind repeats, as if on a mantra, please please don’t be boring.

I could not have been more wrong. 

See, the thing is that I quite enjoy reading. By the time I had finished Year 6 in my school back in the UK I had comprehensively read every book in our schools library, at least once, and had already begun to tackle some more complex reads such as what became one of my all-time favourites, Miguel de Cervantes ‘Don Quixote’. Despite moving countries and schools several times I can’t pinpoint a time in this period of my life I was not reading. There was a down period majority of people call ‘high school’. Here I had set out with the best intentions, mis-lead by depictions of high school in television and literature (cheers, Disney) as to what it would actually entail; particularly through the last four years. And my love for reading temporarily abandoned me. Returning only after I began a self-inflicted regime I call ‘book of the week’ and stubbornness to not let this passion dwindle to embers and die. Conceivably it is also the reason why I keep reverting back to my tattered copies of Fahrenheit 451 and The Book Thief, perhaps masochistically, where I shed real tears upon my debut readings at the thought of burning books.

To this day I read many books of all sorts; published and un-published alike. Most recently I have been expanding beyond fiction and novella into guide books and other ‘business’ or otherwise orientated ‘help’ books. For example, ‘The Barefoot Investor’. As a result, this is right up my alley. 

I don’t particularly enjoy reading off a laptop. I’d much prefer the ambiance of paper and a cup of tea (the Tumblr aesthetic is beginning to take hold) but I have to, at least for now. Maybe I’ll order a copy as I already know this will be inextricably connected to this subjects learning. 

Initially I snort, scrolling via my mousepad. “This page has been left intentionally blank”. Right. Thank you for letting me know. Four times over. But anyway, onto my notes for Chapter One:

To start with, I particularly enjoy the analogy of gardens as societal systems, and the illustrations. I’ve not thought of economy like that before, but then again this is my inauguration to economics either way.

One sentence that stood out to me immediately connected back to this course in saying; 

“[our ‘friends’ who work in Biology or Chemistry] understand that knowledge advances through keeping a record of steps and missteps that occur in the course of their experiments. As we experiment with taking back the economy, we should make an effort to record our journey.”

I do not like to profligate knowledge. And so this has inspired me to be meticulous with the journalling in this subject. I felt that I did an above average job of book-keeping for our Lab 1 course last semester, but one can always improve, and always learn. 

I’m not the finest at money, so I googled the Phillips Machine to gain a deeper insight: The first video I watched wasn’t all the clear to me, leading me onto the following MONIAC Demonstration which turned out to be much clearer. 

As I continue to read this it constantly reminds me of Beautiful Questioning from semester one in that the book refers to reframing perspectives - how our economy is not exclusively maintained by mega-corps and economic experts, and that we - a little garden, can ‘take back the economy’ by our own means. Through what I have just learnt about the Uniform Project and the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) Change to our economy through society and social disruptions are happening now. I salute those women.

Furthermore, the recap of how slavery’s abolishment began by reframing the perspective of these men and women as people instead of non-sentient creatures reminds me of how, less than 100 years ago women had just won the right to vote. 

How in 1967 when Kathrine Switzer raced in the Boston Marathon it was believed that the safest distance a woman could run was 2 miles. 

How just 40 years ago people of non-heterosexual orientations were dying unaided from AIDs, and still are.

How in 2001, Germany was the first country to legalise gay “life partnerships” and adoption, bought on by social rebellion to overarching and (I continue to believe were and could still be) archaic systems. 

‘Taking back’ the economy and regulating it to prosper for all does not seem that far-fetched. And I am so excited, and wholly optimistic for this course.

To conclude, I have ordered a physical copy to be here by the time class starts.

IT-B out *peace sign*

[ruminativerabbi]

The Art of the Deal

President Trump has come under particularly harsh fire lately for appearing not to know some basic facts relating to American history, at least some of which—that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, that Frederick Douglass lived in the nineteenth century, or that Andrew Jackson died more than fifteen years before the Civil War began—are generally considered to be more or less common knowledge. But it is also true that at least some of the above gaffes, all of which the White House tried to spin in a less embarrassing way once they were out there burrowing their way through the blogosphere and the online and print media, appear to be legitimately interpretable as mere slips of the tongue rather than proof positive that the President is unfamiliar with even the basic details of our nation’s history.

But one of the President’s recent remarks—his offhand comment the other day in an interview with Selina Zito on Sirius XM that the Civil War could have been avoided had someone of sufficient persuasive force fully trained in the art of the deal, perhaps someone like himself, been available to broker a compromise between the federal government and the states threatening to secede—struck me not only as not entirely wrong, but as something our nation would do well to take seriously and to ponder thoughtfully and maturely. (Just for the record, the notion that the President feels that he personally could have averted the Civil War is not something I came to on my own: in an interview with Jon Meacham, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian and author of American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, President Trump apparently said openly that he believed that he personally could have “done a deal” to prevent the War Between the States from breaking out. To hear Jon Meacham report on that incident, just that click here, and listen carefully about 3.5 minutes into the clip.)

But the topic I wish to broach today is not whether the President’s sense of his own abilities as a negotiator is or isn’t grandiose, nor do I want to return to the topic of the degree to which Donald Trump is legitimately to be seen as a latter-day Andrew Jackson, whom he specifically mentioned in the Selina Zito interview as someone (someone other than himself, apparently) who could have prevented America’s bloodiest war if he had been in office at the time instead of the series of hapless losers who occupied the White House in the decade before Fort Sumter: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, Jr. (I wrote about the similarities between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump more than a year ago in the context of then-candidate Trump’s promise to make American great again. Click here to revisit those comments.) Instead, I’d like to focus on the question that lurks behind the President’s comments about the Civil War. Is war ever truly inevitable? Are all wars the result of failed efforts to prevent them? Does every war begin because no sufficiently skilled negotiator rose up before the actual commencement of hostilities to broker the kind of deal capable of bringing the sides to a non-violent solution to their dispute?

We can start with the President’s example, the Civil War, which was preceded by many attempts to find a compromise with which both sides could live. There was the Missouri Compromise of 1820, proposed by Henry Clay and supported by ex-President Thomas Jefferson, that attempted to preserve a permanent balance between slave-states and free-states. There was the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which attempted to mollify the southern states, particularly South Carolina, in the wake of the so-called Nullification Crisis of the mid-1830s. There was the Compromise of 1850, which attempted to deal with the slave/free status of new territories won in the Mexican War of 1846-1848, and which effectively, in the opinion of most historians, did delay the outbreak of hostilities by a full decade. (Just for the record, the single most odious piece of legislation ever passed by our American Congress, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, was part of that package. So compromise does not invariably lead the parties to it down a noble path.) And then there was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, engineered by Stephen A. Douglas, which effectively repealed the Compromise of 1820 by allowing the residents of both Kansas and Nebraska, then territories on their way to becoming states, to vote on whether to allow or forbid slavery within their borders. Those are the best-known examples, but there were also scores of other efforts to avert a war. As every eleventh grader knows, none of these efforts succeeded in the long run. And because no lasting compromise was reached, somewhere between 750,000 and a million Americans died…including more than 50,000 civilians on both sides and more than 80,000 slaves. So the question can be framed even more sharply: if the leaders on both sides had been able somehow to imagine the extent of the coming carnage, would they then have become able to find enough common ground to prevent the conflict?

It feels natural to insist that they could have. The North could have made its peace with the southern states’ right to secede—wasn’t the United States itself founded by people who insisted on their own right to secede from Britain? The South could have made its peace with there being legitimate limits to the rights of individual states in a union of united states. Everybody, had they only been able to see the mountains of cadavers on the ground at Gettysburg or Chickamauga in their magic crystal balls, would surely have understood the necessity of coming to terms without going to war!

But could they really have? When we are talking about territorial disputes relating to borders or property or money, it feels ridiculous to say that compromise is not always be an option. But once we begin to talk about institutions like slavery—an institution that treated human beings like chattel and which subjected people to brutality and violence that even beasts of burden are generally spared—when talking about something like that, is it rational to suppose that compromise could have been achieved? In the end, either slavery was going to be tolerated—perhaps restricted to certain areas or forced to function with limits imposed upon it, but nevertheless allowed to exist—or it wasn’t. When viewed that way, it feels strange to imagine that compromise could ever have been possible: what sort of grey area could possibly exist between legal and illegal?

Ben Winters’ novel, Underground Airlines, which I read last year, imagines a compromise averting the Civil War, but it is not a very realistic one. In the author’s fantasy, Lincoln is assassinated before even taking office and in the context of a traumatized nation in deep mourning a compromise is reached that allows slavery to endure in six states only. Georgia eventually gives up slavery in exchange for some hugely profitable government contracts and the two Carolinas merge into one state, thus yielding four states, the so-called Hard Four, in which slavery has endured into the twenty-first century. And so the book opens with a federal agent, himself a former slave, trying illegally to use his influence to gain his wife’s freedom and almost succeeding. But the book’s premise just does not ring true because, in the end, no one truly committed to the abolition of slavery could ever be party to a “compromise” that does not abolish slavery. When moral issues are involved, there is always a bottom line…and the existence of such a line precludes the possibility of compromise in its regard: like all lines, everything else in the universe has to be on one of its sides or the other!

Applying this idea to other contexts is both frustrating and slightly intoxicating. World War I, fought over issues that even today resist easy description and which yielded to the combatant nations only devastation and death, could surely have been averted by agile, clever diplomats. But could World War II have been averted? The world never tires of mocking the leaders of France, Italy, and Britain for their effort to avert war with Germany through a compromise with Hitler that did not actually involve any of the above-mentioned nations losing any of their own territory or ceding any of their own citizens’ rights. (I’m not sure that it is even legitimate to reference an agreement as a compromise if it doesn’t require the any of the parties to it to give up anything at all. At Munich, the Germans got what they wanted and the others gave up nothing at all except other people’s territory.) Nor was the failure of the Munich Agreement of 1938 end-result-neutral: it also gave the Germans almost a full extra year to prepare for war, which time made victory, at least in the initial German effort to overwhelm nations to the east and west, far more likely.

Could Israel’s endless war with its Arab neighbors have been averted by compromise? That too is a question worth asking…and particularly in the wake of Yom Ha-atzma∙ut, which this week celebrated the sixty-ninth anniversary of Israeli independence. Here too, it’s a matter of what you mean by compromise. The Partition Plan itself was a compromise, of course: the lands under British control east of the Jordan were excluded, and the remaining territory of Mandatory Palestine was to be divided into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab. The yishuv accepted the compromise, but the Arabs did not…and so went to war with the fledgling State of Israel shortly after independence was proclaimed on May 14, 1948. So, yes, compromise could have averted the ensuing bloodshed, but there would have had to be two sides willing to compromise, not just one.  From the Arab point of view, no compromise was deemed possible if it led to the permanent establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. And so the answer here too has to be no: once the Arabs rejected a compromise the United Nations itself had formally endorsed, there was no real possibility of averting conflict without the Jewish side giving up their right to exist as an independent people in their own land.

So the President was both right and wrong in his comments about the Civil War. The chances that Andrew Jackson, had he been president in 1860, could have averted the war feel very slim. (The fact that Jackson, like four of his six predecessors in the White House, was himself a slaveowner hardly makes it feel likely that he would have brokered a deal that involved the abolition of slavery.) Nor does it seem particularly likely that even a deal-maker like President Trump himself could have negotiated such a deal successfully: in the end, either the states were going to be more powerful than the union that bound them to each other or it wasn’t…and slavery was going to endure somehow and somewhere, or it wasn’t. Once moral issues are in play—issues that by their nature resist compromise, like slavery or genocide—compromise becomes indistinguishable from acquiescence. And the inverse is also true: acquiescence to evil can never be rebranded as fair-minded compromise, not can the principled decision to look away from intolerable horror ever be justified with reference to how much better it would be if people just set their issues aside and choose to live in peace by ignoring evil.

[type2diabetestreatments-blog]

Reflecting on Presidents' Day 2017, Diabetes-Style

New Post has been published on http://type2diabetestreatment.net/diabetes-mellitus/reflecting-on-presidents-day-2017-diabetes-style/

Reflecting on Presidents' Day 2017, Diabetes-Style

Happy Presidents' Day, America.

It's time once again to mark the annual holiday established in 1885 that's meant to honor all who've held that office, past and present. And 2017 is certainly an interesting one, no?

The first month of our 45th President Donald J. Trump's term in the White House has been unlike anything we've seen before. The news coverage alone can be a stressful experience, not to mention all the social media chatter, and honestly, many are experiencing fatigue when it comes to anything related to politics and this presidency.

Meanwhile, some sarcastic folks are even calling to abolish this holiday.

And as you're reading this here at the 'Mine, you may be wondering: What does Presidents' Day have to do with diabetes, enough to warrant a full post?

Hey, if you look hard enough, there's a connection between diabetes and everything, right? Some of it's actually serious stuff, but we're also hoping to offer a little levity to offset the "heavy" state of affairs in our country at the moment.

Presidents With Diabetes?

OK, first off we wondered: Have any past presidents been pancreatically-challenged?

We haven't been able to find any evidence, but you can't rule it out completely. When Googling, this post on Illnesses in the White House came up, as did this one on presidential diseases. We also found speculation that Warren G. Harding might have been a PWD back in the 1920s, but there doesn't appear to be substantiation of that (and since it was right at the dawn of insulin discovery, the chances are likely it would not have been T1D, as people weren't surviving it so much back then).

Unlike the current British Prime Minister Theresa May who very publicly has talked about her own type 1 diabetes, it doesn't seem like there's anyone on the US presidential roster who's openly been a part of our D-Community -- though some have not been shy about admitting they had everything from thyroid disease to Chrohns Disease.

The concellation prize: Even if there haven't been any PWD Presidents, at least they've kept up the tradition of signing presidential proclamations recognizing diabetes, dating back to President Jimmy Carter's recognition of National Diabetes Week in October during the late '70s and the first proclamation by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 marking November as Diabetes Awareness Month. Here's hoping that tradition continues!

Speaking of diabetes-related policies...

The First 100 Days

Have you heard the Legend of the President's First 100 Days? It was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 who first coined the term that's become a benchmark to determine how successful and effective a president will be. These early days are often seen as a time of new energy, when the freshly-inaugurated leader can take action and set the stage for policy.

Trump's first months have been a dizzying time so far... Regarding diabetes-related policy, here's just a sampling:

Drug Prices: President Trump met with Pharma execs in late January to talk medication prices and healthcare costs, and depending on the headlines you read it went one of two ways: He pushed for Pharma to lower drug prices and produce more in the US, or he took a Pharma-friendly stance on less regulation that would allow for the status quo (or even higher prices) on medications.

New Health Boss: The Senate confirmed President Trump's pick of Tom Price to lead the Health and Human Services (HHS) division, which includes CMS along with the Food and Drug Administration. Among other things, Price has echoed the Trump Administration's desire to see the FDA speed up the drug review process and has also been pretty vocal on issues related to healthcare.

Immigration Debate: Obviously one of the biggest issues is that Executive Order he signed relating to travel restrictions on those entering the US from a handful of foreign countries that are classified as dangerous. Clearly, there was confusion in rolling that policy out so quickly and it's been challenged and struck down in federal courts across the country. This has impacted our Diabetes Community through cases of doctors/researchers on the way here to practice and do research, but were barred and sent back to their home countries -- including one en route to Harvard for autoimmune disease research. The American Medical Association and the Endocrine Society asked the Trump Administration to clarify the immigration order, contending it interfered with medical professionals and students from practicing, researching, or learning here in the States. There's also been concern about how this would effect global attendance at certain diabetes events, such as the Advanced Technologies and Treatments in Diabetes (ATTD) conference held this past week in Paris, France. But from what we've been told, ATTD saw more attending from the US than last year -- meaning the travel "ban" hasn't interfered too much yet. TBD how this evolves in the coming months, especially with so many internationals coming here for the big American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in June.

Medicare and Medicaid: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has vowed to put the breaks on its controversial competitive-bidding process by 2019, which is good news for our D-Community. We're hoping to see that end completely, and hoping to see a national coverage decision by CMS on covering continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) for those on Medicare... but that's all TBD given the conservative fiscal policies the Trump Administration is taking so far.

Education Chief: Another of the President's Cabinet picks was Betsy DeVos, who many in the country protested for the position of Education Secretary but managed to get in -- by a historical, first-ever tie-breaking vote by VP Mike Pence, since the Senate had an even 50-50 split. While her policy views and experience were (are) controversial, many in our D-Community took particular note of her lack of knowledge on Section 504 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which protects children with disabilities and diabetes in schools. Whether this leads to anything big or not remains, like so mcu else: To Be Determined.

Whoa... mind-spinning isn't it (!), and that's just a small taste of everything the new president is touching right now.

Luckily, our Diabetes Community has a way to keep tabs on all of this, by following the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition, or DPAC for short. This non-profit led by our friends, fellow type 1 rockstar advocate Christel Aprigliano and T2 PWD and D-Dad Bennet Dunlap.

In fact, they've even made a fun "diabetes-policy game" about these First 100 Days, challenging us to basically create our own individual advocacy plans to raise our voice on whatever particular issues we might be passionate about. The setup says it all: "We have a new Congress and a new Administration. There are many reports speculating about what they will do in their first 100 days. I am asking myself, what else can I do in the first 100 days for people with diabetes? To be effective, I’m going to need a plan."

The D-Community is invited to take part in this advocacy effort, in whatever ways make the most sense, and to share some of that First 100 Days activity on DPAC's Facebook page -- where you can also find a whole bunch of other regular updates on policy and presidential action relating to healthcare, so make sure to check it out if you haven't!

Healthcare Reform (Oh My!)

Our healthcare system needs some work! But we have to recognize that healthcare reform and the future of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is a huge issue on which our country's sharply divided.

We appreciated that in his final days in the White House, President Obama (the architect of the ACA who achieved something no modern president had in getting this healthcare reform package passed) took time to discuss the state of affairs relating to healthcare. You can see a video of the hour-long Vox discussion here, and props to one of our own in the DOC (Laura over at @KidsFear99) who happened to get on the guest list to attend! She says it was an honor to be there, and that while insulin pricing and affordability weren't specifically brought up, you can also check out the five-minute segment starting at the 32-minute mark where healthcare costs were generally discussed.

President Trump has been less clear on his policy plans for healthcare, but recently has taken the first steps to roll back the ACA and move this forward with a Republican-controlled Congress. Aso late last week, the GOP unveiled outlines for its plan on healthcare changes. We've heard this includes a new bill that could continue to help prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage, or from paying higher amounts than those without a health condition. All of this fuels our D-Community's concerns and passions, and everyone seems to have differing opinions based on what you read and whom you talk to.

Presidential Politics & Blood Sugars

Honestly, the more I read the newspapers and tune in to the never-ending cycle of 24 hour news coverage, the more overwhelmed I get.

I don't happen to agree with much that President Trump is saying or doing, and his personality and style are very unnerving to me. Then again, that's how Congress has been to me for many years... so this isn't entirely a new phenom. And yes, my sugars tend to go up when I focus too much on these topics, particularly on Sunday mornings when I am glued to the news shows and my morning newspaper.

It's common knowledge that stress affects blood sugars. Our weekend Q&A Ask D'Mine pointed this out in a column titled Trumping the Blood Sugar:

"Stress triggers the body’s flight-or-fight system, pumping sugar into the blood for extra energy. Low-grade, chronic stress can lead to near-continuous release of sugar into your blood stream. If you are running universally high, you may need to raise your basal insulin for, say, four years or so."

Personally, my blood sugars have jumped as much as 200 points, dancing into the high 300s at times for no apparent reason... well OK, maybe I was sometimes yelling at a certain White House leader on TV. I wonder if this is how PWDs felt back in the 70s when living through the crazy Nixon Era, yet didn't have modern tech like glucometers or CGMs to help...

Since I'm unconnected to my pump these days in favor of multiple daily doses, I manage by puffing some Afrezza inhaled insulin and have even bumped up my Tresiba basal insulin a few units leading into Sunday, just to be safe.

PWDs at the White House

In the end, especially on President's Day, it comes down to respecting the Office of the Presidency and that special house on Pennsylvania Avenue, which has been around since nearly the beginning and hosted every president since John Adams in 1800.

We're proud to report that at least a few diabetes advocates have managed to meet past presidents and get insider-access to the White House in recent years -- including D-peep Laura mentioned above who was in the same room with President Obama just this past January.

Most impressively, our friend Howard Look, the diabetes dad who founded the open-source D-data nonprofit Tidepool, was part of President Obama's Precision Medicine panel in July 2015, and was honored as one of a select few "Champions of Change" who are making a difference in transforming the way we improve health and treat disease. We loved hearing Howard's experience of shaking hands with Obama, and particularly how the two were kibitzing behind the scenes about the shared experience of being a dad.

Another good friend Anna McCollister-Slipp, a huge mover-and-shaker in the world of diabetes advocacy and policy, has also had her share of White House visits. In fact, Anna says she's been to more meetings at the White House and Executive Office Building than she can count, including five formal presidential events where four of the past presidents also attended -- George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Anna tells us she actually had the chance to meet Clinton at a White House press corps party on the South Lawn in the 90s, but turned it down.

"Instead, I chose to get in line for the paragliding 'ride,' which let you take an attached parachute/balloon for a spin over the South Lawn, Ellipse, Treasury, and more," she said. "I knew that was a once in a lifetime chance!! Totally cool!"

Ha! Great story, Anna! Not sure if we'd have made the same choice, but can't say we wouldn't have, either... 🙂

All Hail, Kid President!

Just to be sure we end on a happy note -- how can you not recognize one of the greatest presidential parodies of all time, The Kid President?

Come on, you remember this handsome little tyke in a black suit who's our self-appointed president and makes fun videos to help shape kids' views of the world? Here's his backstory, btw.

We've been longtime fans, especially since his Diabetes v. Diabetes video that tackled a very important policy issue: how to pronounce diabetes! 🙂

If that doesn't bring smiles, we don't know what will... of course, Kid President also pointed out how "adults are so mean" and everyone should take a chill-pill and relax. We totally agree, and think everyone in the US (ourselves included) should follow that advice on this particular Presidents' Day.

To all who are reading today, we echo the sage advice from Kid President: "Keep Dancing, America."

Disclaimer: Content created by the Diabetes Mine team. For more details click here.

Disclaimer

This content is created for Diabetes Mine, a consumer health blog focused on the diabetes community. The content is not medically reviewed and doesn't adhere to Healthline's editorial guidelines. For more information about Healthline's partnership with Diabetes Mine, please click here.

Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Type 2 Diabetes Diet Diabetes Destroyer Reviews Original Article

[pb16486-blog]

Wanna smarter kid? There’s a pill for that

We are where we are because of the choices we’ve been making over the years. We pick the right partners, we have the right babies. We eat the right things, we build the right houses, we use the right tools. We work on communication and getting better at everything. The dilemma we’re facing at this moment in our species history, however, counts as damn tricky.

We’re smart enough to invent a pill that makes us smarter, to make better choices. You take one of those and – boom – you can suddenly work all day and night with no trace of tiredness. You take one, and suddenly you remember nearly everything you’ve learned with not much effort. There are different pills that do different things to our cognition – to our thinking, reasoning, understanding, deciding, learning and remembering. The variety is enthralling.

And not only variety but also the power of it. We have had caffeine before, that kept us awake all night, but it’s not enough, its power devaluated. We need something stronger to keep us going. If Evolution works by making the right choices, and if these choices aim for better adaptation – wouldn’t it be right to allow everybody benefit from what those marvellous pills have to offer? If we found a solution to become better versions of ourselves, shouldn’t we go for it, for survival reasons? We invented it, we’ve earned it.

Logically, that settles the issue right, but there seem to be certain side effects to that reasoning. As every action has its consequences, taking a pill to make ourselves super-humans, does too. The society we’re aiming is the proof of our limitless creativity. Creativity, which could also be of use when tackling how to deal with what we’ve invented. Let’s be creative and try to explore potential advantages, dangers, and solutions to our brave new, enhanced reality.

Good ol’ days and pursuit of happiness

Some say: Why would we enhance memory if all we want is to forget? Forgetting is a great value that plays an important role in our everyday life. Without forgetting, we would suffer from the cognitive overload – flooded with information, sinking in confusion. Not to mention the damage that could potentially do to our social interactions – we would remember every insult, every gossip, every bad look. We would probably live in the era of severe mental conditions, in the schizophrenic reality of too many stimuli. However, we would still enhance the memory – simply because we can. And science is exploration. So if there’s a potential to discover something new – about memory or about forgetting – we should take advantage of this opportunity.

I see progress as one of the greatest values in pursuing life satisfaction (happiness?), food for the mouth bored with stagnation. I heard this opinion the other day, that not making cognition enhancing drugs easily available to everybody equals living in the past. In a way that’s true, because developing new medical solutions sounds like a hell of a progress to me. But on the other hand, associating the future with the departure from (universal?) moral values by constant capitalistic pressure for thoughtless competition, is not the future I want to live in. I’d choose the past. Okay, but let’s see first if we could do anything to make the future friendlier.

I am not a moralist, not even remotely. For me, morality is a concept created by those in control, in order to keep people at bay, perhaps by injecting them with fear of punishment in case of morals being broken. I certainly do not think of morality as the last instance, the way to reach the Truth of right or wrong. However, I see it as a necessary tool, an easy point of reference for those overwhelmed with abstract thought, those who can’t be bothered, or those who simply need clear directions and guidance. Fair enough if we admit, the majority. Cognitive enhancers seem to shake the morality at its very foundation.

In the past (and sometimes still present), one of the values that mattered was the effort. The effort was considered a trait of a virtuous person who works hard to achieve the goal. You have a field, the crops won’t yield themselves, it’s only with your very own hands you’ll get the fruits of it. The more you put, the more you get. As a bonus, you’ll get the respect of others, you’re a virtuous man.

Okay, nice. Today, it’s different. Today you’re cool when you don’t work and have money. You’re considered smart when you know how to handle the situation without dirtying your hands. You’re admired, influential, attractive and bright. Hard work and effort are no longer a virtue, they’re losers’ traits. Why would you work your ass off, if you can get the same results with the minimum of time and effort? Only for the sake of out of fashion axiology? Take a pill.

We don’t need equality, we need pursuit of equality

Some people debate whether or not it’s fair to let students take enhancers. Imagine yourself a specialist in the field. Now imagine a person who is also a specialist in the same field. You have very similar genetics and perform as successfully most of the time. At some point, you both face the opportunity to be employed by a prestigious company that requires excellent knowledge on the novel topic. There’s plenty to know, but you both don’t know very much yet. The company informed you about the entry exam the day before. You start from the same point. And now, your rival takes a pill that lets him stay calm and focused all night, and then remember everything the next day. You don’t take a pill and rely only on your default mental capacity. Is that fair?

It’s clearly not, but who cares? Inequality exists anyway, at every level and in every aspect of our society. How is that fair that my genetic traits are less efficient than yours? How is that fair that my parents were both alcoholics and never cared about my education while your education was your parents’ first priority? Some people get high on the hierarchy ladder, some aren’t, and that’s often not fair. Great, we seem to have a solution, right? Let’s equal the chances and we’re all going to have the same good grades, we’ll all get university degrees and all we equally smart. The thing is, we don’t need this to have a well-functioning society. We have a society where everybody has a certain role to fulfil. We have a variety of different professions and people with different sets of values. And perhaps, the constant struggle to make things right is what makes life meaningful.

But we’re drawn to easy solutions. And advancing medicine gives us tempting ideas how to proceed quickly and radically. Equilibrium is a movie where a vision of the future costs you goosebumps and leaves you disturbed. It shows a society of equal men and women, and kids who take pills to get rid of emotion. Maximum efficiency, minimum distraction. Full concentration. What matters is the outcome, and every hurdle shall be readily eliminated. What’s so appealing in the grey, dull, concrete landscape, you ask? The movie gives a hint it could potentially have to do with – control. It’s an extreme prognosis of what might happen if we uncritically went for the candy-land tempting promise of free choice.

I don’t think it’d turn out like in Equilibrium. It would be more like in Limitless. There wouldn’t be a mass of grey people obeying one smart man. We will rather see the world with everybody on the pill. Because of the pressure of everybody else taking them, suddenly there’ll be no other option: to keep up with the rest, we’ll be indirectly forced to take it. Universities entry requirements will go up, we will have to transform the whole schooling system as the previous grading scale will no longer apply. Any point of reference to assess one’s competences will become useless and relative. Not to mention crimes and exploitation of those less smart – less artificially enhanced. I mean, we always give too much credit to people’s good intentions.

On the other hand, there will surely be people who oppose. Modern hippies, human rights activists, probably conservatists, those with strong ideological positions, and people with depression (depressed people are those most realistic, the see the shit of life clearly, not clouded by any marketing distractions). Imagine that society – those drugs will potentially create the whole more inequality than what we already have. We’re told: with these drugs we fight it. But it’s missing the point that people aren’t perfect. ‘The rich get richer’ rule applies. We may have a great tool to enhance our whole species. But – as history teaches us – we rarely do. Blinded by power, we’re no material for altruism. We shall open our eyes and don’t get ourselves pushed into the mere utopian vision, built purely on our fears and insecurities.

Is prohibition the solution? And why not.

Okay, we agree cognitive enhancers are great for progress but we’re probably on the edge of humanity considering their side effects. Side effects concerning our moral condition as well as health implications. In truth, we have currently no idea what the long-term effects of taking these drugs can be on health. Some studies show that they enable plasticity (new synaptic connections to be born), others that they may be physically damaging the brain. However, as there not seem to be a way back from what has already been invented anyway, we shall find a smart way to use it instead of abolishing everything all together. Don’t we all know the rule that the more you forbid, the more it backfires? We live in the society of free, smart people who have the right to choose for themselves. Or are we?...

Is informing the solution? And why not.

We do have the right to live our lives whichever way we please, and so, yet again, it all comes to individual differences. At the end, it’ll be down to everyone’s personal choice whether to use the enhancers and boost their intelligence of not. You don’t need a prescription to get it, the black market is doing fine, as far as I… as a friend of a friend told me. Yeah yeah, let’s trust people can make their own informed choices, but we’re talking adults – how would the situation look like from younger students’ perspective? Would a 15-year-old be trusted in terms of self-awareness what’s the best for them in a long run? Do we take into account teenagers’ impulsivity and lack of experience? Can we be sure they know what ‘being smart’ really means and why it matters? Do we know it at all?

In this uncontrollable situation, instead of permanent and lazy petrification, some suggest: if they are to use the drugs anyway, give people information, so they know how to use them wisely. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Such interventions very often prove not to work at all, as the empirical evidence shows. Timothy Wilson points out, it may be due to different ways in which individuals perceive the information. Two different people, shown the same silly video, will interpret it in a possibly different way, just because they had different experiences which make them focus on different things. Rose can see a junky who talks how drugs destroyed his life as an enough reason not to never take them herself, but Brian will see a hero who has overcome the life obstacles with big pride, which will make him follow his steps to achieve the same level satisfaction.

What we need to teach our kids, instead of just flooding them with blunt information, is critical thinking. We should strive for the society of strong-minded people who can make their own choices. They’ll be making mistakes, sure, they’ll be as cognitively biased as everyone, they’ll be rationalising their decisions and lying to themselves, but with increased criticality, they’d be more aware of that. We should raise a society of people who are able to seek for information if they need it, who know how to ask the right questions. They may be taking pills to enhance their brains, but they would have a wide understanding of what the meaning of balanced life is and why it matters. Because it does matter how we live. We should fight for the value and quality, and not to get caught by catchy slogans of ‘better faster stronger’.

Of course, we can look at this topic from many different perspectives. Mine has clearly had to do with the futuristic vision of the society and predicting the consequences. The conclusions seem vaguely similar to the historical view. Historians say – we’ve been there before guys, take a look at communism, we’ve already tried our utopia, we’ve tried to make everybody equal. But there’s also evolutionary psychology saying the opposite – we should go for the pills, that’s what Mother Nature equipped us in and we shall follow it, like the next natural step for the progress of our species.

And finally – there are big pharma companies. Are we even seriously considering giving up values and basic, common ways of living for money? Where are we going with all this. We ought to think twice. Obviously controlling and setting new laws, rules and regulations will do no good. Perhaps teaching our kids criticality could indeed enhance the ability to see clearly and holistically, decide better – to make their own choices, hopefully, smarter than ours. In the society like this, we won’t need no thought control…

[rolandfontana]

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism?

Robert Walsh, sometime Seattle resident and long-time friend of our law firm (we worked on a number of China deals together and we — Dan and Steve — met up with him on our last trip to Myanmar), has spent the last four years in Myanmar, where he operates a vibrant business consultancy. Robert is fluent in Chinese and Korean and, amazingly enough, Burmese (multiple dialects), having learned Burmese while working in the U.S. Embassy in Yangon many years ago.

We have written a number of Myanmar-focused blog posts for China Law Blog over the years and if you want the full flavor of what has been going  on there, I urge you to go back and read those as well. In 2013, it was Myanmar Foreign Investment. Difficult And Expensive, But Opportunities Are There. In 2014, it was Myanmar: Open For Business? In those posts, we talked about how Myanmar is a difficult place in which to do business and many of companies going there are bigger companies looking to get in now and make money later. In 2017, in A Report from Myanmar from an old China Hand we talked about how much had changed, due in large measure to the relaxation of sanctions. Last year, in Doing Business in Burma/Myanmar: An On the Ground Report, Robert wrote how optimism in and about Myanmar is waning as things just keep getting worse there.

Yesterday, Robert emailed us an article from the Irrawaddy (for more on this newspaper and its interesting history go here) about “China’s ambassador to Burma going up to Kachin State to throw his weight around.” In response to that, we asked him to provide us an on the ground report of China’s activities in Myanmar. The below is Robert’s report:

Over the past five years I’ve had front row seats to watch how Chinese companies in Burma operate, as SOEs, as SMEs and as outright outlaws.  The latter predominate.

The Chinese SOEs were initially focused on getting a beachhead at Kyaukhpyu on the Rakhine coast NW of Rangoon. Between 2012-2014 a pipeline running from the coast across Burma to Yunnan was built. There were on again/off again plans for a railroad paralleling the pipeline, but nobody could figure out what good it would be for anybody local.

I’ve previously described other Chinese mega-projects in Myanmar, but the only place where anything is happening is a bizarro 5000-acre resort-industrial zone-Las Vegas in the Jungle sort of thing on the Thai border across the river from Mae Seot being done by Jilin Yatai Group. For background on this project go here. I am baffled how the Chinese are doing a very large project by working directly with an ethnic armed organization, on Burmese soil, and without much in the way of compliance with Burmese foreign investment laws and procedures. I am even more baffled with how Yatai’s operation is being done in an area where the local armed groups haven’t exactly hammered everything out with the government yet.

Other Chinese SOE projects like the Myitsone dam and other hydropower projects are stalled, largely due to pushback from locals in the intended project areas. The Myitsone dam project has gotten nationwide pushback because it would affect the entire watershed of the country and China does not have a great track record on either domestic or overseas hydropower projects, especially when it comes to having environmental impact studies done that are deliberately superficial. As of this writing we know of six such projects that are going nowhere. For a really great story on a really botched Chinese dam, check out It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam. China Still Gets Paid.

The major feature of all of these Chinese projects in Myanmar is that Chinese SOEs think engagement with locals is not needed and so long as the right people in the Union government are paid enough under the table any and all objections should cease. The Chinese are not alone in this approach, as many international NGOs also take the same approach, pouring out largesse in Naypyidaw, while leaving crumbs to filter down to project areas. Up in Putao, people are fighting against WCS, WWF and other conservation NGOs because they have paid off people in the forestry department in Naypyidaw to expand the national parks in a way that drives people off the land. For an example of this, see Over 200 villagers march to demand the abolishment of Hkakhaburazi National Park.

For Chinese SMEs and outlaws looking to do something here, compliance with local law is the last thing on their minds.  Their collective mode of operations are as follows:

Acquire the land via local straw buyers.

Acquire the land with payoffs to the military, especially where a hapless local is occupying land that the military or affiliated cronies can easily seize. In many cases in Kachin and Shan State this occurs even more quickly if local farmers have been forced out due to conflict. A family can return home from months in a refugee camp to find their land under bananas or rubber plantings.

Import of seeds, cuttings, and/or seedlings without following agriculture rules on phytosanitary safety. This is a big deal because it is being done on such a massive scale.

Use illegal agrochemicals, some of which have been banned in China for decades. This has led to massive contamination of ground water.

Divert local water sources to Chinese plantations, basically robbing locals with longstanding arrangements. Bananas are awfully thirsty.

Develop industrial/agricultural/mining operations in areas outside direct government control, such as those controlled by various ethnic armed organizations. This allows the Chinese outfit to do whatever it wants, especially with gold, silver, and antimony mining. Entire riverbeds get messed up this way.

Operate in areas that have REALLY been out of government control for decades, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) areas in NE Shan State. These areas run by a notorious drug-trafficking army have been pretty much annexed by China. RMB is the preferred currency, Chinese banks and mobile systems are used, and there are few if any border controls. It’s my understanding that the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department is responsible for maintaining the relationship with UWSA, which could be a vestige of past relations when the UWSA was still the Burmese Communist Party. Christians and missionaries are repressed in these annexed areas.

In general, the Chinese approach is basically “how much will it cost me in bribes until I’ve squeezed all the juice out of this lemon?”

As local opposition to Chinese activity in Burma heats up, several features of Burmese political and commercial culture will act as countervailing factors:

The Burmese do not intend for any foreign entity from any country to make any money here via foreign investment (FDI) — nothing personal against Chinese. This is just how things have been set up under the foreign investment laws and this is local practice. Burmese generally view FDI as an extension of some sort of foreign government donor program and they bitch mightily when the flow of FDI slows, as it has for the past couple of years.

To the best of my knowledge the Burmese government still has no procedure for issuing debt guarantees for foreign debt. This makes it impossible for China to ensnare Myanmar with a debt load that facilitates de facto annexation of property, as has been done elsewhere (See the New York Times article on Ecuador above). What grates on the Chinese about the Myitsone dam project is that cancelled or not, China will not recover any of the costs already put into that project, as the Burmese government never made any commitments to pay if things went South. And China has almost  zero leverage. Burma will be one place where the give and take over the Belt & Road initiative is likely to be all give — by China.

As far as infrastructure development, the Chinese have done virtually nothing here that the Burmese people need, want, or sought. Everything  currently under discussion would directly benefit China, be it a highway, railroad, or hydropower dam and pretty much all the Burmese know this. So China is in no position to be able to accuse the Burmese for being “ungrateful,” as they like to do with Tibetans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Ecuadorians, or whoever is their ingrate of the week.

Taiwanese companies are also here and they have a decidedly better reputation for compliance and how they handle local matters. In many cases, these are Sino-Burmese repats. There still might be a Taiwanese government  high school running up in Lashio and I used to know people who graduated from it. The Taiwanese businesspeople I know and work with here are studiously make certain to distinguish themselves from the Mainlanders.

Sooner rather than later I expect to see a nationwide backlash against China — such as occurred in the 1960’s — and it . will likely be ugly indeed. See The backlash against China is growing: warnings against ‘a new version of colonialism’ stood out for their boldness, they reflect a broader pushback against China’s mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices. Heads on pikes and businesses reduced to smoking rubble are not outside contemplation. All it will take to light the match is for the Chinese ambassador to say something stupid like he did the other day in Kachin State.

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[rolandfontana]

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism?

Robert Walsh, sometime Seattle resident and long-time friend of our law firm (we worked on a number of China deals together and we — Dan and Steve — met up with him on our last trip to Myanmar), has spent the last four years in Myanmar, where he operates a vibrant business consultancy. Robert is fluent in Chinese and Korean and, amazingly enough, Burmese (multiple dialects), having learned Burmese while working in the U.S. Embassy in Yangon many years ago.

We have written a number of Myanmar-focused blog posts for China Law Blog over the years and if you want the full flavor of what has been going  on there, I urge you to go back and read those as well. In 2013, it was Myanmar Foreign Investment. Difficult And Expensive, But Opportunities Are There. In 2014, it was Myanmar: Open For Business? In those posts, we talked about how Myanmar is a difficult place in which to do business and many of companies going there are bigger companies looking to get in now and make money later. In 2017, in A Report from Myanmar from an old China Hand we talked about how much had changed, due in large measure to the relaxation of sanctions. Last year, in Doing Business in Burma/Myanmar: An On the Ground Report, Robert wrote how optimism in and about Myanmar is waning as things just keep getting worse there.

Yesterday, Robert emailed us an article from the Irrawaddy (for more on this newspaper and its interesting history go here) about “China’s ambassador to Burma going up to Kachin State to throw his weight around.” In response to that, we asked him to provide us an on the ground report of China’s activities in Myanmar. The below is Robert’s report:

Over the past five years I’ve had front row seats to watch how Chinese companies in Burma operate, as SOEs, as SMEs and as outright outlaws.  The latter predominate.

The Chinese SOEs were initially focused on getting a beachhead at Kyaukhpyu on the Rakhine coast NW of Rangoon. Between 2012-2014 a pipeline running from the coast across Burma to Yunnan was built. There were on again/off again plans for a railroad paralleling the pipeline, but nobody could figure out what good it would be for anybody local.

I’ve previously described other Chinese mega-projects in Myanmar, but the only place where anything is happening is a bizarro 5000-acre resort-industrial zone-Las Vegas in the Jungle sort of thing on the Thai border across the river from Mae Seot being done by Jilin Yatai Group. For background on this project go here. I am baffled how the Chinese are doing a very large project by working directly with an ethnic armed organization, on Burmese soil, and without much in the way of compliance with Burmese foreign investment laws and procedures. I am even more baffled with how Yatai’s operation is being done in an area where the local armed groups haven’t exactly hammered everything out with the government yet.

Other Chinese SOE projects like the Myitsone dam and other hydropower projects are stalled, largely due to pushback from locals in the intended project areas. The Myitsone dam project has gotten nationwide pushback because it would affect the entire watershed of the country and China does not have a great track record on either domestic or overseas hydropower projects, especially when it comes to having environmental impact studies done that are deliberately superficial. As of this writing we know of six such projects that are going nowhere. For a really great story on a really botched Chinese dam, check out It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam. China Still Gets Paid.

The major feature of all of these Chinese projects in Myanmar is that Chinese SOEs think engagement with locals is not needed and so long as the right people in the Union government are paid enough under the table any and all objections should cease. The Chinese are not alone in this approach, as many international NGOs also take the same approach, pouring out largesse in Naypyidaw, while leaving crumbs to filter down to project areas. Up in Putao, people are fighting against WCS, WWF and other conservation NGOs because they have paid off people in the forestry department in Naypyidaw to expand the national parks in a way that drives people off the land. For an example of this, see Over 200 villagers march to demand the abolishment of Hkakhaburazi National Park.

For Chinese SMEs and outlaws looking to do something here, compliance with local law is the last thing on their minds.  Their collective mode of operations are as follows:

Acquire the land via local straw buyers.

Acquire the land with payoffs to the military, especially where a hapless local is occupying land that the military or affiliated cronies can easily seize. In many cases in Kachin and Shan State this occurs even more quickly if local farmers have been forced out due to conflict. A family can return home from months in a refugee camp to find their land under bananas or rubber plantings.

Import of seeds, cuttings, and/or seedlings without following agriculture rules on phytosanitary safety. This is a big deal because it is being done on such a massive scale.

Use illegal agrochemicals, some of which have been banned in China for decades. This has led to massive contamination of ground water.

Divert local water sources to Chinese plantations, basically robbing locals with longstanding arrangements. Bananas are awfully thirsty.

Develop industrial/agricultural/mining operations in areas outside direct government control, such as those controlled by various ethnic armed organizations. This allows the Chinese outfit to do whatever it wants, especially with gold, silver, and antimony mining. Entire riverbeds get messed up this way.

Operate in areas that have REALLY been out of government control for decades, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) areas in NE Shan State. These areas run by a notorious drug-trafficking army have been pretty much annexed by China. RMB is the preferred currency, Chinese banks and mobile systems are used, and there are few if any border controls. It’s my understanding that the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department is responsible for maintaining the relationship with UWSA, which could be a vestige of past relations when the UWSA was still the Burmese Communist Party. Christians and missionaries are repressed in these annexed areas.

In general, the Chinese approach is basically “how much will it cost me in bribes until I’ve squeezed all the juice out of this lemon?”

As local opposition to Chinese activity in Burma heats up, several features of Burmese political and commercial culture will act as countervailing factors:

The Burmese do not intend for any foreign entity from any country to make any money here via foreign investment (FDI) — nothing personal against Chinese. This is just how things have been set up under the foreign investment laws and this is local practice. Burmese generally view FDI as an extension of some sort of foreign government donor program and they bitch mightily when the flow of FDI slows, as it has for the past couple of years.

To the best of my knowledge the Burmese government still has no procedure for issuing debt guarantees for foreign debt. This makes it impossible for China to ensnare Myanmar with a debt load that facilitates de facto annexation of property, as has been done elsewhere (See the New York Times article on Ecuador above). What grates on the Chinese about the Myitsone dam project is that cancelled or not, China will not recover any of the costs already put into that project, as the Burmese government never made any commitments to pay if things went South. And China has almost  zero leverage. Burma will be one place where the give and take over the Belt & Road initiative is likely to be all give — by China.

As far as infrastructure development, the Chinese have done virtually nothing here that the Burmese people need, want, or sought. Everything  currently under discussion would directly benefit China, be it a highway, railroad, or hydropower dam and pretty much all the Burmese know this. So China is in no position to be able to accuse the Burmese for being “ungrateful,” as they like to do with Tibetans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Ecuadorians, or whoever is their ingrate of the week.

Taiwanese companies are also here and they have a decidedly better reputation for compliance and how they handle local matters. In many cases, these are Sino-Burmese repats. There still might be a Taiwanese government  high school running up in Lashio and I used to know people who graduated from it. The Taiwanese businesspeople I know and work with here are studiously make certain to distinguish themselves from the Mainlanders.

Sooner rather than later I expect to see a nationwide backlash against China — such as occurred in the 1960’s — and it . will likely be ugly indeed. See The backlash against China is growing: warnings against ‘a new version of colonialism’ stood out for their boldness, they reflect a broader pushback against China’s mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices. Heads on pikes and businesses reduced to smoking rubble are not outside contemplation. All it will take to light the match is for the Chinese ambassador to say something stupid like he did the other day in Kachin State.

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[rolandfontana]

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism?

Robert Walsh, sometime Seattle resident and long-time friend of our law firm (we worked on a number of China deals together and we — Dan and Steve — met up with him on our last trip to Myanmar), has spent the last four years in Myanmar, where he operates a vibrant business consultancy. Robert is fluent in Chinese and Korean and, amazingly enough, Burmese (multiple dialects), having learned Burmese while working in the U.S. Embassy in Yangon many years ago.

We have written a number of Myanmar-focused blog posts for China Law Blog over the years and if you want the full flavor of what has been going  on there, I urge you to go back and read those as well. In 2013, it was Myanmar Foreign Investment. Difficult And Expensive, But Opportunities Are There. In 2014, it was Myanmar: Open For Business? In those posts, we talked about how Myanmar is a difficult place in which to do business and many of companies going there are bigger companies looking to get in now and make money later. In 2017, in A Report from Myanmar from an old China Hand we talked about how much had changed, due in large measure to the relaxation of sanctions. Last year, in Doing Business in Burma/Myanmar: An On the Ground Report, Robert wrote how optimism in and about Myanmar is waning as things just keep getting worse there.

Yesterday, Robert emailed us an article from the Irrawaddy (for more on this newspaper and its interesting history go here) about “China’s ambassador to Burma going up to Kachin State to throw his weight around.” In response to that, we asked him to provide us an on the ground report of China’s activities in Myanmar. The below is Robert’s report:

Over the past five years I’ve had front row seats to watch how Chinese companies in Burma operate, as SOEs, as SMEs and as outright outlaws.  The latter predominate.

The Chinese SOEs were initially focused on getting a beachhead at Kyaukhpyu on the Rakhine coast NW of Rangoon. Between 2012-2014 a pipeline running from the coast across Burma to Yunnan was built. There were on again/off again plans for a railroad paralleling the pipeline, but nobody could figure out what good it would be for anybody local.

I’ve previously described other Chinese mega-projects in Myanmar, but the only place where anything is happening is a bizarro 5000-acre resort-industrial zone-Las Vegas in the Jungle sort of thing on the Thai border across the river from Mae Seot being done by Jilin Yatai Group. For background on this project go here. I am baffled how the Chinese are doing a very large project by working directly with an ethnic armed organization, on Burmese soil, and without much in the way of compliance with Burmese foreign investment laws and procedures. I am even more baffled with how Yatai’s operation is being done in an area where the local armed groups haven’t exactly hammered everything out with the government yet.

Other Chinese SOE projects like the Myitsone dam and other hydropower projects are stalled, largely due to pushback from locals in the intended project areas. The Myitsone dam project has gotten nationwide pushback because it would affect the entire watershed of the country and China does not have a great track record on either domestic or overseas hydropower projects, especially when it comes to having environmental impact studies done that are deliberately superficial. As of this writing we know of six such projects that are going nowhere. For a really great story on a really botched Chinese dam, check out It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam. China Still Gets Paid.

The major feature of all of these Chinese projects in Myanmar is that Chinese SOEs think engagement with locals is not needed and so long as the right people in the Union government are paid enough under the table any and all objections should cease. The Chinese are not alone in this approach, as many international NGOs also take the same approach, pouring out largesse in Naypyidaw, while leaving crumbs to filter down to project areas. Up in Putao, people are fighting against WCS, WWF and other conservation NGOs because they have paid off people in the forestry department in Naypyidaw to expand the national parks in a way that drives people off the land. For an example of this, see Over 200 villagers march to demand the abolishment of Hkakhaburazi National Park.

For Chinese SMEs and outlaws looking to do something here, compliance with local law is the last thing on their minds.  Their collective mode of operations are as follows:

Acquire the land via local straw buyers.

Acquire the land with payoffs to the military, especially where a hapless local is occupying land that the military or affiliated cronies can easily seize. In many cases in Kachin and Shan State this occurs even more quickly if local farmers have been forced out due to conflict. A family can return home from months in a refugee camp to find their land under bananas or rubber plantings.

Import of seeds, cuttings, and/or seedlings without following agriculture rules on phytosanitary safety. This is a big deal because it is being done on such a massive scale.

Use illegal agrochemicals, some of which have been banned in China for decades. This has led to massive contamination of ground water.

Divert local water sources to Chinese plantations, basically robbing locals with longstanding arrangements. Bananas are awfully thirsty.

Develop industrial/agricultural/mining operations in areas outside direct government control, such as those controlled by various ethnic armed organizations. This allows the Chinese outfit to do whatever it wants, especially with gold, silver, and antimony mining. Entire riverbeds get messed up this way.

Operate in areas that have REALLY been out of government control for decades, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) areas in NE Shan State. These areas run by a notorious drug-trafficking army have been pretty much annexed by China. RMB is the preferred currency, Chinese banks and mobile systems are used, and there are few if any border controls. It’s my understanding that the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department is responsible for maintaining the relationship with UWSA, which could be a vestige of past relations when the UWSA was still the Burmese Communist Party. Christians and missionaries are repressed in these annexed areas.

In general, the Chinese approach is basically “how much will it cost me in bribes until I’ve squeezed all the juice out of this lemon?”

As local opposition to Chinese activity in Burma heats up, several features of Burmese political and commercial culture will act as countervailing factors:

The Burmese do not intend for any foreign entity from any country to make any money here via foreign investment (FDI) — nothing personal against Chinese. This is just how things have been set up under the foreign investment laws and this is local practice. Burmese generally view FDI as an extension of some sort of foreign government donor program and they bitch mightily when the flow of FDI slows, as it has for the past couple of years.

To the best of my knowledge the Burmese government still has no procedure for issuing debt guarantees for foreign debt. This makes it impossible for China to ensnare Myanmar with a debt load that facilitates de facto annexation of property, as has been done elsewhere (See the New York Times article on Ecuador above). What grates on the Chinese about the Myitsone dam project is that cancelled or not, China will not recover any of the costs already put into that project, as the Burmese government never made any commitments to pay if things went South. And China has almost  zero leverage. Burma will be one place where the give and take over the Belt & Road initiative is likely to be all give — by China.

As far as infrastructure development, the Chinese have done virtually nothing here that the Burmese people need, want, or sought. Everything  currently under discussion would directly benefit China, be it a highway, railroad, or hydropower dam and pretty much all the Burmese know this. So China is in no position to be able to accuse the Burmese for being “ungrateful,” as they like to do with Tibetans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Ecuadorians, or whoever is their ingrate of the week.

Taiwanese companies are also here and they have a decidedly better reputation for compliance and how they handle local matters. In many cases, these are Sino-Burmese repats. There still might be a Taiwanese government  high school running up in Lashio and I used to know people who graduated from it. The Taiwanese businesspeople I know and work with here are studiously make certain to distinguish themselves from the Mainlanders.

Sooner rather than later I expect to see a nationwide backlash against China — such as occurred in the 1960’s — and it . will likely be ugly indeed. See The backlash against China is growing: warnings against ‘a new version of colonialism’ stood out for their boldness, they reflect a broader pushback against China’s mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices. Heads on pikes and businesses reduced to smoking rubble are not outside contemplation. All it will take to light the match is for the Chinese ambassador to say something stupid like he did the other day in Kachin State.

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[rolandfontana]

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism?

Robert Walsh, sometime Seattle resident and long-time friend of our law firm (we worked on a number of China deals together and we — Dan and Steve — met up with him on our last trip to Myanmar), has spent the last four years in Myanmar, where he operates a vibrant business consultancy. Robert is fluent in Chinese and Korean and, amazingly enough, Burmese (multiple dialects), having learned Burmese while working in the U.S. Embassy in Yangon many years ago.

We have written a number of Myanmar-focused blog posts for China Law Blog over the years and if you want the full flavor of what has been going  on there, I urge you to go back and read those as well. In 2013, it was Myanmar Foreign Investment. Difficult And Expensive, But Opportunities Are There. In 2014, it was Myanmar: Open For Business? In those posts, we talked about how Myanmar is a difficult place in which to do business and many of companies going there are bigger companies looking to get in now and make money later. In 2017, in A Report from Myanmar from an old China Hand we talked about how much had changed, due in large measure to the relaxation of sanctions. Last year, in Doing Business in Burma/Myanmar: An On the Ground Report, Robert wrote how optimism in and about Myanmar is waning as things just keep getting worse there.

Yesterday, Robert emailed us an article from the Irrawaddy (for more on this newspaper and its interesting history go here) about “China’s ambassador to Burma going up to Kachin State to throw his weight around.” In response to that, we asked him to provide us an on the ground report of China’s activities in Myanmar. The below is Robert’s report:

Over the past five years I’ve had front row seats to watch how Chinese companies in Burma operate, as SOEs, as SMEs and as outright outlaws.  The latter predominate.

The Chinese SOEs were initially focused on getting a beachhead at Kyaukhpyu on the Rakhine coast NW of Rangoon. Between 2012-2014 a pipeline running from the coast across Burma to Yunnan was built. There were on again/off again plans for a railroad paralleling the pipeline, but nobody could figure out what good it would be for anybody local.

I’ve previously described other Chinese mega-projects in Myanmar, but the only place where anything is happening is a bizarro 5000-acre resort-industrial zone-Las Vegas in the Jungle sort of thing on the Thai border across the river from Mae Seot being done by Jilin Yatai Group. For background on this project go here. I am baffled how the Chinese are doing a very large project by working directly with an ethnic armed organization, on Burmese soil, and without much in the way of compliance with Burmese foreign investment laws and procedures. I am even more baffled with how Yatai’s operation is being done in an area where the local armed groups haven’t exactly hammered everything out with the government yet.

Other Chinese SOE projects like the Myitsone dam and other hydropower projects are stalled, largely due to pushback from locals in the intended project areas. The Myitsone dam project has gotten nationwide pushback because it would affect the entire watershed of the country and China does not have a great track record on either domestic or overseas hydropower projects, especially when it comes to having environmental impact studies done that are deliberately superficial. As of this writing we know of six such projects that are going nowhere. For a really great story on a really botched Chinese dam, check out It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam. China Still Gets Paid.

The major feature of all of these Chinese projects in Myanmar is that Chinese SOEs think engagement with locals is not needed and so long as the right people in the Union government are paid enough under the table any and all objections should cease. The Chinese are not alone in this approach, as many international NGOs also take the same approach, pouring out largesse in Naypyidaw, while leaving crumbs to filter down to project areas. Up in Putao, people are fighting against WCS, WWF and other conservation NGOs because they have paid off people in the forestry department in Naypyidaw to expand the national parks in a way that drives people off the land. For an example of this, see Over 200 villagers march to demand the abolishment of Hkakhaburazi National Park.

For Chinese SMEs and outlaws looking to do something here, compliance with local law is the last thing on their minds.  Their collective mode of operations are as follows:

Acquire the land via local straw buyers.

Acquire the land with payoffs to the military, especially where a hapless local is occupying land that the military or affiliated cronies can easily seize. In many cases in Kachin and Shan State this occurs even more quickly if local farmers have been forced out due to conflict. A family can return home from months in a refugee camp to find their land under bananas or rubber plantings.

Import of seeds, cuttings, and/or seedlings without following agriculture rules on phytosanitary safety. This is a big deal because it is being done on such a massive scale.

Use illegal agrochemicals, some of which have been banned in China for decades. This has led to massive contamination of ground water.

Divert local water sources to Chinese plantations, basically robbing locals with longstanding arrangements. Bananas are awfully thirsty.

Develop industrial/agricultural/mining operations in areas outside direct government control, such as those controlled by various ethnic armed organizations. This allows the Chinese outfit to do whatever it wants, especially with gold, silver, and antimony mining. Entire riverbeds get messed up this way.

Operate in areas that have REALLY been out of government control for decades, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) areas in NE Shan State. These areas run by a notorious drug-trafficking army have been pretty much annexed by China. RMB is the preferred currency, Chinese banks and mobile systems are used, and there are few if any border controls. It’s my understanding that the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department is responsible for maintaining the relationship with UWSA, which could be a vestige of past relations when the UWSA was still the Burmese Communist Party. Christians and missionaries are repressed in these annexed areas.

In general, the Chinese approach is basically “how much will it cost me in bribes until I’ve squeezed all the juice out of this lemon?”

As local opposition to Chinese activity in Burma heats up, several features of Burmese political and commercial culture will act as countervailing factors:

The Burmese do not intend for any foreign entity from any country to make any money here via foreign investment (FDI) — nothing personal against Chinese. This is just how things have been set up under the foreign investment laws and this is local practice. Burmese generally view FDI as an extension of some sort of foreign government donor program and they bitch mightily when the flow of FDI slows, as it has for the past couple of years.

To the best of my knowledge the Burmese government still has no procedure for issuing debt guarantees for foreign debt. This makes it impossible for China to ensnare Myanmar with a debt load that facilitates de facto annexation of property, as has been done elsewhere (See the New York Times article on Ecuador above). What grates on the Chinese about the Myitsone dam project is that cancelled or not, China will not recover any of the costs already put into that project, as the Burmese government never made any commitments to pay if things went South. And China has almost  zero leverage. Burma will be one place where the give and take over the Belt & Road initiative is likely to be all give — by China.

As far as infrastructure development, the Chinese have done virtually nothing here that the Burmese people need, want, or sought. Everything  currently under discussion would directly benefit China, be it a highway, railroad, or hydropower dam and pretty much all the Burmese know this. So China is in no position to be able to accuse the Burmese for being “ungrateful,” as they like to do with Tibetans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Ecuadorians, or whoever is their ingrate of the week.

Taiwanese companies are also here and they have a decidedly better reputation for compliance and how they handle local matters. In many cases, these are Sino-Burmese repats. There still might be a Taiwanese government  high school running up in Lashio and I used to know people who graduated from it. The Taiwanese businesspeople I know and work with here are studiously make certain to distinguish themselves from the Mainlanders.

Sooner rather than later I expect to see a nationwide backlash against China — such as occurred in the 1960’s — and it . will likely be ugly indeed. See The backlash against China is growing: warnings against ‘a new version of colonialism’ stood out for their boldness, they reflect a broader pushback against China’s mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices. Heads on pikes and businesses reduced to smoking rubble are not outside contemplation. All it will take to light the match is for the Chinese ambassador to say something stupid like he did the other day in Kachin State.

China in Myanmar: The New Colonialism? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/