by Alex Evans | Dec 19, 2007 | East Asia and Pacific, Global system
This was the arresting discovery made last year by Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute. How could he tell?
I know Santa Claus is Chinese because each Christmas morning after all the gifts are unwrapped and things settle down I systematically go through the presents to see where they are made. The results are almost always the same: roughly 70 percent are from China. After some research, it seems that my one-family survey is representative of the country as a whole.Let’s start with toys. Some 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States—from Barbie dolls to video games—are made in China. Talking toys that speak English learned the language from Chinese workers. Electronic goods—from Apple’s iPod to Microsoft’s Xbox—are made in China. Clothing—from the latest cashmere sweaters to gym suits—is also likely to have a “Made in China” label.
The Christmas tree itself may come from China. While real Christmas trees are grown in every state in the United States and are marketed locally, many families now gather around artificial Christmas trees. Eight out of every 10 artificial Christmas trees sold in the United States are made in China. Last year Americans spent over $130 million on plastic Christmas trees from China.
This year Americans will spend over $1 billion on Christmas ornaments from China. And in perhaps the greatest irony of all, even nativity scenes are made in China. Last year Americans spent more than $39 million buying nativity scenes shipped in from the East.
As you may already have guessed, Lester doesn’t feel exactly festive about this state of affairs:
It’s not the fact that our Christmas is made in China, but rather the mindset that has led to it that is most disturbing. We want to consume no matter what. We want to spend now and let our children pay. It is this same mindset that introduces tax cuts while waging a costly war. Economic sacrifice is no longer part of our vocabulary. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt banned the sale of private cars in order to mobilize the manufacturing capacity and engineering skills of the U.S. automobile industry to build tanks and planes. In contrast, after 9/11, President Bush urged us to go shopping.In the United States we are so intent on consuming that personal savings have virtually disappeared. We have an average of five credit cards for every man, woman, and child. Of the 145 million cardholders, only 55 million clear their accounts each month. The other 90 million cannot seem to catch up and are paying steep interest rates on their remaining balance. Millions of people are so deeply in debt that they may remain indebted for life.
The official national debt, the product of years of fiscal deficits, now totals $8.5 trillion—some $64,000 per taxpayer. (See data.) By the end of the Bush administration in 2008, this figure is projected to reach a staggering $9.4 trillion. We are digging a fiscal black hole and sinking deeper and deeper into it.
Each month the Treasury covers the fiscal deficit by auctioning off securities. The two leading international buyers of U.S. Treasury securities are Japan and China. In this role, China is now also becoming our banker. This developing country, where income levels are one sixth those of the United States, is financing the excesses of an affluent industrial society. What’s wrong with this picture?
Um… does the answer involve the words “crunch” and “solvency”?
by David Steven | Nov 14, 2007 | Influence and networks, UK
The attacks on Malloch Brown continue – this time in the Evening Standard’s diary (not online):
The suggestion is that Gordon Brown did not want Malloch-Brown to represent him at the UN summit, where senior statesmen included President Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, and so he was called back to England on the pretext that he had to [speak on Darfur at the Labour Party conference]. But Malloch-Brown made no appearance [there] either. As soon as he got to England, he turned tail and went back to the States, but he had already missed the summit.
Could this be a cunning ploy by Brown to keep his gaffe-prone new minister out of the way?
The answer, I would guess, is probably not. But rhetorical questions like these are a good way of keeping the pressure up…
by Alex Evans | Nov 11, 2007 | Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa, UK
An unnamed senior State Dept official has been briefing the Sunday Telegraph about Condi’s frustration with Gordon Brown, it seems:
Allies of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East.
The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime …
A senior State Department official with close ties to Ms Rice said: “It would be helpful if he took a tougher line in public. We’ve got to convince Iran that the West will not tolerate them developing nuclear weapons. At the moment, I don’t think Iran takes the threat seriously. We need Iran, and the rest of the world, to realise that this is not just a bunch of crazy Americans on the one side and flaky Europeans on the other – that we are united on this one.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardner is quoted as saying that “Britain is clearly losing influence in Washington after Tony Blair. Brown is the invisible man in terms of his profile here. It should be of concern in London that France is muscling in on traditional British territory.” Steven Benen’s take on Talking Points Memo: “No one misses Tony Blair like George W. Bush. It’s kind of sad, really.”
by Alex Evans | Nov 10, 2007 | Influence and networks, UK
This week’s Spectator leads with a full scale assault on FCO minister and former UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown (also picked up in brief by the Telegraph and the Times). The article dredges up various old canards that aren’t exactly news – Malloch Brown’s friendship with George Soros, the UN oil for food scandal, Malloch Brown’s controversial interview with the Telegraph over the summer – but its chief revelation is that since becoming a Minister, Malloch Brown has been living in a grace and favour flat in Admiralty Arch.
Malloch Brown, astonishingly, has secured one of the three government flats in Admiralty House, where John Prescott used to live. In so doing, this newcomer has leapfrogged 20 full members of the Cabinet who notionally enjoy seniority over him … The Treasury’s National Assets Register values the Admiralty House accommodation at £7.76 million and as worth more than the flats above No. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It is, indeed, fit for a Lord, and one with tastes which are the opposite of frugal. A parliamentary answer earlier this autumn revealed that ‘the floor area of the ministerial residences in Admiralty House is 859 square metres.’ In 2006–07 the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office paid the Cabinet Office no less than £173,000 for John Prescott’s living in one of the flats there.
Er… is that it? For one thing, the charge that Malloch Brown has “leapfrogged 20 full members of the Cabinet” wilts somewhat given that the article admits that “the other two flats in the building are empty, and another government grace-and-favour residence in South Eaton Place, SW1, is being sold off”. Not exactly a queue stretching around the block, then. Besides, is it so unusual for a large organisation to provide relocation assistance to a senior executive joining from overseas? And if not, then what on earth would the cost case be for expending taxpayers’ money on renting an apartment when three apartments that the Government already owns are vacant?
Of course, whether you’re a defender or a detractor of Malloch Brown’s, the flat is no more than a tactical football. The real story here is the resurrection of the unilateralist right’s long-standing vendetta against Malloch Brown, and its migration to this side of the Atlantic. One of the authors of the piece, Claudia Rosett, has long enjoyed attacking not only Malloch Brown but indeed anything to do with the UN, as her blog confirms. Not one, not two, but all of the posts on it are attacks on the United Nations; so this December’s UN climate summit, for instance, becomes in Rosett’s view a “UN climate-crowd pajama party on Bali” at which cocktails begin at 3pm.
What is surprising about the article is to see that the other author of the piece is James Forsyth, the Spectator’s engaging and thoughtful web editor. Forsyth is on the right, to be sure – he’s a climate change sceptic, for instance – but his arguments are usually well thought-through, capable of understanding the opposite view, and generally a very long way from Rosett’s obsessive fulminations. His most recent blog post on the Spectator site, for example – which discusses Deroy Murdock’s defence of waterboarding in the National Review, which David discussed here on GlobalDashboard earlier this week – argues that
Some on the right are so determined to always take the toughest position possible on any war on terror question that they sound like a Stephen Colbert parody of themselves.
Swap “the United Nations and multilateralism” for “any war on terror question” and Forsyth might as well be talking about Rosett. So why the joint article? For what it’s worth, my guess is that Forsyth was simply told to write it with Rosett by Matthew d’Ancona, the Spectator’s editor, who’s been after Malloch Brown’s scalp from the start; way back on the 29th June, before Malloch Brown’s interview with the Telegraph had been published, d’Ancona was already calling it a “dreadful appointment”.
What this is really about, one suspects, is Malloch Brown’s opposition to the war in Iraq and his criticism of the Bush Administration. Fair enough. But shall we all stop pretending that this is about a flat, then?
by David Steven | Nov 9, 2007 | North America
Over at the National Review, the magazine’s editor, Andy McCarthy, wonders whether “those posturing over waterboarding [are] serious enough to be trusted with safeguarding the nation.”
One of his columnists, Deroy Murdock, goes further, chastising George Bush for not using waterboarding enough.
This is all the more reason for President Bush to reinstate waterboarding, proudly and publicly, so America can get the information we need to prevent Muslim-fanatic mass murder and win the Global War on Terror.
Appropriately enough, waterboarding is not used on American citizens suspected of tax evasion, sexual harassment, or bank robbery. Waterboarding is used on foreign Islamic-extremist terrorists, captured abroad, who would love nothing more than to blast innocent men, women, and children into small, bloody pieces. Some of them already have done so.
Pressed by one of his colleagues, Murdock clarifies his position:
[T]he whole point of my piece is that I AM complaining that we do NOT waterboard enough. Yes, we need to waterboard more. At the moment, waterbaording appears to have been banned by both the CIA and the Pentagon. As I say pretty directly in my piece, Bush should reinstate waterboarding publicly and proudly, and I called him deluded for thinking he would gain anything by going along with the Left and ditching waterboarding.
“I hope this clears up any confusion you might have had,” Deroy concludes.
