Xi's team to lead a 21st Century China They want for their grandchildren a prosperous, democratic, strong, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful life

The Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee from left, Han Zheng, 63, the Communist Party Secretary of Shanghai; Wang Huning, 62, Director of the Central Policy Research Office; Li Zhanshu, 67, Director of the General Office of the Communist Party of China; President Xi Jinping, 64, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China ; Premier Li Keqiang, 62, Premier of the People's Republic of China; Wang Yang, 62, Vice Premier of the People's Republic of China; and Zhao Leji, 60, Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

For the first time at the end of a National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), all seven Standing Committee members of the Political Bureau were born after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

All were born and raised in the People's Republic of China. That means that none of them were WWII veterans and none were part of the Revolution. Instead, all were impacted as children from 1958 to 1962 by Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward and as teens by Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution from 1966 until 1976.

The Great Leap Forward was intended through the use of persuasion and force to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization but instead caused economic regression, the Great Chinese Famine, and tens of millions of deaths. Welcome to childhood.

The goal of the Cultural Revolution was to preserve 'true' Communist ideology in the country by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, and to re-impose Maoist thought as the dominant ideology within the Party. Millions of people were persecuted in the violent struggles that ensued across the country, and suffered a wide range of abuses including public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, hard labor, sustained harassment, seizure of property and sometimes execution. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced, most notably the transfer of urban youth to rural regions during the Down to the Countryside Movement. Historical relics and artifacts were destroyed. Cultural and religious sites were ransacked.

To understand the meaning of this history to these seven men, one only need to look at the experience of President Xi Jinping.

After the founding of the Communist state in 1949, Xi's father held a series of posts, including propaganda chief, vice-premier, and vice-chairman of the National People's Congress. Xi was born June 15, 1953. Based on normal expectations, Xi's future looked bright.

But when Xi was age 10, his father was purged from the Party and sent to work in a factory in Luoyang, Henan. In May 1966, Xi's "high school years" were cut short by the Cultural Revolution, when all secondary classes were halted for students to criticise and fight their teachers. Xi was age 15 when his father was jailed in 1968.

In 1969, lacking the protection of his father, Xi was sent to work in Yanchuan County, Shaanxi, in Mao Zedong's Down to the Countryside Movement. After a few months, unable to stand rural life, he ran away to Beijing. He was arrested during a crackdown on deserters from the countryside and sent to a work camp to dig ditches.

In 1981, the Party declared that the Cultural Revolution was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the Party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic" Welcome to adolescence.

Read the Wikipedia entry on Xi for more details (and the Wikipedia entry on Peng Liyuan his folksinger wife who until 2007 was more well-known). Also, in 2007 when it became evident that Xi was being groomed to assume the duties of his current job, an article appeared in The Guardian which helps provide some perspective from a British point of view: Most corrupt officials are from poor families but Chinese royals have a spirit that is not dominated by money.

The following graphic indicates the Party organization.

The seven-member Political Bureau Standing Committee is the center of political power in China. While certainly this year the generational factor is important, it is also important to know that five of the seven are new to the Standing Committee.

It is also true that none are in their fifties, a fact troubling to some American pundits. In more recent times being in that 50's age group would have indicated a Standing Committee member was being prepared to replace President Xi five years from now in 2022.

Of course, in 2022 only one of the Standing Committee members will be as old as Donald Trump was when he became U.S. President this year. In fact, in 2022 President Xi will be 69, two years younger than Trump is right now!

For more about these seven men, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post offers this: China's Leadership Reshuffle: Profiles.

More troubling to many is that none of these guys are women. In fact, at the next level down, in the 25 member Political Bureau (aka Politburo), the number of from two women members to one after the 19th National Congress.

Of the delegates to the Party Congress, only 24.1% were women. When comparing ruling parties, that is about the same ratio as the delegates to the 2016 Republican Party National Convention. (The 2016 National Convention of the losing Democratic Party had about 60% women.)

China's two most senior female politicians a month ago were vice premier Liu Yandong, 71, a scion of a political dynasty -- her father was a close ally of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin -- and Sun Chunlan, a rising Party chief.

In this week's leadership reshuffle, Liu retired from the Politburo, leaving Sun as the only female member. Sun Chunlan, 67, is head of the party’s United Front Work Department, the agency that serves as the Party's interface with individuals and organizations that are not Party members that have social, commercial, or academic influence, or who represent important interest groups, both inside and outside China.

Another woman politician better known to the West, Fu Ying, 64, an ethnic Mongol born in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China, is not a member of the Politburo, although she has held Ambassador posts to Australia and the Philippines and currently holds the position of vice foreign minister after a long career in the Chinese diplomatic service. In 2010 the Financial Times offered an extensive article Lunch with the FT: Madam Fu Ying which included this giving us an insight into her formative years:

    Fu Ying was born in 1953 in Hohhot, the capital of Inner Mongolia, an “autonomous region” of China. Her parents were bilingual, speaking Mandarin and Mongolian. Her father wrote poetry. She can, she tells me, still remember the day that a tall, ethnically Chinese man arrived at the family home to take her father away. It was 1967 and the height of the Cultural Revolution, the bloody chaos unleashed by Mao to purge the party and consolidate power.
    “The [tall] man looked into my eyes and said, ‘Democracy is great. Do you know what is democracy?’ I shook my head; I didn’t know. And he said, ‘That’s the change of history. You will be swept away by the change of history.’” (Democracy, during the Cultural Revolution, was equivalent to anarchy. No wonder, I muse to myself, it does not carry the same positive connotations in China as in the west.)
    A tear appears in Madam Fu’s eye. She recounts how school was shut down and she was taken away, aged 17, to a remote town in the mountains, Wulashan, five hours distant by train. There she worked in the fields – “very, very physical, really stressful and extreme for a young girl” – before helping to build a new factory where she was employed as an announcer, broadcasting information to her co-workers about the weather and the like through a loudspeaker.
    But then, in 1973, she had her first break. The Cultural Revolution was in its last throes and previously frowned-upon practices such as examinations to test pupil ability were revived. Fu Ying excelled, having squirrelled away first Russian and then French classics from a library in Wulashan. She also excelled in English, having picked up the basics on Chinese radio. She gained a place to study for four years at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
    After the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, China started to open to the rest of the world. Suddenly, interpreters were in heavy demand. Madam Fu joined the elite translation department of the diplomatic service.

It is clear that the generation now leading China had a less than enchanting experience with Mao's brand of authoritarianism under the name communism. On the other hand, for these and most Chinese people, China has a 7,000 year history, most of which has been as a moderately successful single autocratic state under an emperor. [To learn more about China, its history and culture, watch the six episode Story of China at PBS.org.]

While most of us who live in the Progressive Pacific states have some awareness of China, it is important to understand how the current Chinese leadership generation sees the world. Among others, Fu Ying has been tasked with assisting us. In 2016 in Foreign Affairs her article How China Sees Russia she provides clear insight into information we should understand:

    ...China has no interest in a formal alliance with Russia, nor in forming an anti-U.S. or anti-Western bloc of any kind. Rather, Beijing hopes that China and Russia can maintain their relationship in a way that will provide a safe environment for the two big neighbors to achieve their development goals and to support each other through mutually beneficial cooperation, offering a model for how major countries can manage their differences and cooperate in ways that strengthen the international system.
    On several occasions between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century, China entered into an alliance with the Russian empire and its successor, the Soviet Union. But every time, the arrangement proved short-lived, as each amounted to nothing more than an expediency between countries of unequal strength. In the decades that followed, the two powerful communist-led countries muddled through, occasionally cooperating but often riven by rivalry and mistrust. In 1989, in the waning years of Soviet rule, they finally restored normalcy to their relations. They jointly declared that they would develop bilateral relations based on “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.” Two years later, the Soviet Union disintegrated, but Chinese-Russian relations carried on with the principle of “no alliance, no conflict, and no targeting any third country.”
    Soon thereafter, the newborn Russian Federation embraced the so-called Atlanticist approach. To win the trust and help of the West, Russia not only followed Western prescriptions for economic reform but also made concessions on major security issues, including reducing its stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons. However, things didn’t turn out the way the Russians had hoped, as the country’s economy tanked and its regional influence waned. In 1992, disappointed with what they saw as unfulfilled pledges of American and European assistance and irritated by talk of NATO’s eastward expansion, the Russians began to pay more attention to Asia. That year, China and Russia announced that each would regard the other as a “friendly country” and issued a joint political statement stipulating that “the freedom of people to choose their own development paths should be respected, while differences in social systems and ideologies should not hamper the normal progress of relations.”
    Ever since, Chinese-Russian relations have gradually improved and deepened. During the past 20 years or so, bilateral trade and investment have expanded on a massive scale. In 2011, China became Russia’s largest trading partner. In 2014 alone, China’s investment in Russia grew by 80 percent—and the trend toward more investment remains strong. To get a sense of the growth in economic ties, consider that in the early 1990s, annual bilateral trade between China and Russia amounted to around $5 billion; by 2014, it came close to $100 billion. That year, Beijing and Moscow signed a landmark agreement to construct a pipeline that, by 2018, will bring as much as 38 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to China every year. The two countries are also planning significant deals involving nuclear power generation, aerospace manufacturing, high-speed rail, and infrastructure development. Furthermore, they are cooperating on new multinational financial institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank BRICS, and the BRICS foreign exchange reserve pool.

In the middle of the 2008 financial crisis Xi said: "First, China doesn't export revolution; second, China doesn't export hunger and poverty; third, China doesn't come and cause you headaches. What more is there to be said?"

This past week Xi reaffirmed that Beijing will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion "no matter what stage of development it reaches" and that "China will never pursue development at the expense of others' interests and its development does not pose a threat to any other country."

In her 2010 article Fu Ying noted:

    In remarks during [his visit to the United States in 2009], Xi directly addressed the idea that China’s development presents a challenge to the United States’ global leadership. “The path China follows is one of peaceful development, and China does not pose a threat to other countries,” Xi said. Later, he added, “People should give up the old concepts of ‘you lose, I win,’ or zero-sum game, and establish a new concept of peaceful development and win-win cooperation. If China develops well, it will benefit the whole world and benefit the United States. If the United States develops well, it will also benefit the world and China.”

If one pays attention to what this new generation of Chinese leadership communicates, we can create a consistent set of China-centered goals that evolve from this 2008 statement:

In 2012 Xi's goal for 2020 was made clear:

And now, in 2017, Xi set forth for 2049 the goal of achieving "a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful."

We need to know and understand these people.

Xi Jinping's strategy for a 21st Century China With thoughtful characteristics a President tends his plan for 1.4 billion people for 2020, 2035, and 2049

The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was began last week, a once-every-five-years gathering.

Speaking for three hours and 23 minutes, China's President and Party General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered the opening report to the nearly 2,300 party delegates who represent China's

• 22 provinces; 
• five autonomous regions, each with a designated minority group; 
• four municipalities; 
• two Special Administrative Regions;
• plus the central financial system, state-run institutions, the military and the police.

The People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country, with a population of around 1.404 billion, and at 9.3 million square kilometres (3.6 million square miles), is the world's second-largest state by land area. For comparison, the United States of America has 23% of the population at 0.324 billion people, but at 9.1 million square kilometres (3.5 million square miles) is almost as big geographically.

As usual, the American press struggled with its coverage of the 19th National Congress (however limited it was, which means very limited). Of course many American "journalists" couldn't even tell you how the government works that is responsible for the contents of their own toilet after its flushed, much less explain how government really works in China. And many bring to the subject of China's government a nationalistic bias of their own heavily colored by mid-20th Century views on communism and socialism.

Yes, the Communist Party of China provides the leadership of the state. However, to understand government in China one must understand this explanation from Wikipedia:

Due to China's large population and area, the administrative divisions of China have consisted of several levels since ancient times. The constitution of China provides for three de jure levels of government. Currently, however, there are five practical (de facto) levels of local government: the provincial (province, autonomous region, municipality, and special administrative region), prefecture, county, township, and village.

Since the 17th century, provincial boundaries in China have remained largely static. Major changes since then have been the reorganization of provinces in the northeast after the establishment of the People's Republic of China and the formation of autonomous regions, based on Soviet ethnic policies. The provinces serve an important cultural role in China, as people tend to identify with their native province.

As with President Donald Trump, China's President Xi has no direct role overseeing local sewage systems. But unlike an American President, Xi is the General Secretary of the Communist Party in a de facto one-party state and holds ultimate, albeit indirect, authority over almost all government officials through the Communist Party.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that the governmental electoral system is pyramidal. Local People's Congresses are directly elected, and higher levels of People's Congresses up to the National People's Congress (NPC) are indirectly elected by the People's Congress of the level immediately below. The political system is decentralized, and provincial and sub-provincial leaders have a significant amount of autonomy.

The most recent post here in this blog - in May - was about President Xi, the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, and the California-China Business Summit during ChinaWeek.

The Belt and Road Forum was President Xi's opportunity to lay out a broad foreign policy with an emphasis on creating a 21st Century China that could replace the United States as the world's preeminent economic power - much like the United States replaced a floundering Europe in the 20th Century.

This past week's 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China sets the agenda for the future of China beginning with that all-important three-hour “work report” speech by Xi.

To provide insight into President Xi's zeal to assure a strong future for his country, it is important to remember that on February 11, 2009, while visiting Mexico, then Vice-President Xi spoke in front of a group of overseas Chinese noting that China's task was to keep "its 1.3 billion people from hunger."

And regarding the 2008 financial crisis affecting the Atlantic oriented world filled with complaints about Chinese foreign trade: "There are some bored foreigners, with full stomachs, who have nothing better to do than point fingers at us. First, China doesn't export revolution; second, China doesn't export hunger and poverty; third, China doesn't come and cause you headaches. What more is there to be said?"

This week President Xi Jinping reaffirmed that Beijing will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion "no matter what stage of development it reaches" and that "China will never pursue development at the expense of others' interests and its development does not pose a threat to any other country."

Since the 18th CPC Congress in 2012, in which Xi assumed his current position, China's "two centenary goals" were to

1. build a moderately prosperous society by 2020, one year before the Party's 100th anniversary in 2021, and 
2. develop China into a "fully modernized, socialist nation" by the 100th anniversary of the People's Republic of China in 2049.

To accomplish the goals, the "Four Comprehensives" came into being:

1. comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society (put forward at the November 2012 18th Party Congress),
2. comprehensively deepen reform (put forward at the November 2013 3rd Central Committee Plenum),
3. comprehensively and strictly govern the Party (put forward at the early October 2014 summary meeting of the Mass Line Campaign), and
4. comprehensively advance the rule of law (put forward during the late October 2014 4th Central Committee Plenum).

Additionally,  the "Five Development Concepts" from the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020) of innovation, coordination, green, openness and shared development were to be implemented.

This week Xi offered in his report a plan to "build on the foundation created by the moderately prosperous society" by implementing "a further 15 years of hard work to see that socialist modernization is basically realized" from 2020 to 2035, and then from 2035 to the middle of the 21st century "work hard for a further 15 years and develop China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful."

But Xi warned that it would be "no walk in the park. It will take more than drum beating and gong clanging to get there."

And thus in three hours and 23 minutes President Xi Jinping under the title Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era laid out his vision for the Chinese people. “The Chinese nation … has stood up, grown rich, and become strong – and it now embraces the brilliant prospects of rejuvenation … It will be an era that sees China moving closer to centre stage and making greater contributions to mankind.”

Fortunately, the Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People's Republic of China, a ministry-level institution subordinate to the Chinese central government, provided this post-speech summary infographic:

It would be interesting to compare the Chinese President's hopes for his country for the next 30 years, plus the plans for his country to be implemented over the next five years, to those of the U.S. President.

It would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. President's thinking is limited to 140 character tweets. It would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that the Trump Administration thinks in those deplorable American time frames described in the last post as "much of our business activity is controlled by a 5 to 10 week time frame and generally Americans struggle with a planning attention span of 5 to 10 days."

Even more troubling is the fact that key members of the Trump Administration are simply uninformed or misinformed about China.

Which brings us again to author and Forbes Contributor Wade Shepard. As noted in the previous post, Shepard is one of those rare American's who, in addition to being able to read and write well above a 6th grade level, is a China expert based upon his travels and study in China. In a post this past Thursday, Shepard wrote:

    On October 3rd, US Defense Secretary James Mattis proclaimed at a congressional hearing, "In a globalized world, there are many belts and many roads, and no one nation should put itself into a position of dictating 'One Belt, One Road.'"
     While the defense secretary was ultimately correct -- there are many different countries who are driving trans-Eurasian integration and China’s international infrastructural, economic, and political engagements do often overlap with other initiatives -- the style, scope, financial backing, strategy, and underlaying purpose behind China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) puts it in a category all its own, and should not be underestimated. We have perhaps never seen a program of geo-economic positioning quite like this before, and skeptically framing it in with known practices or established models is a mistake that political analysts, government officials, and even investors have been making -- even as they are encircled by the very initiative they write off or deny.
     If you’re looking for an official, correct map of where China’s Belt and Road actually goes, good luck. If you’re looking for an official explanation of what it really is, a list of approved projects, the amount of actual funding, where this funding is really coming from, what entities have the authority to engage projects under its name (and what entities don't), or even a run down of what countries are officially a part of it, you’ve just jumped down into a very deep hole of misinformation, no information, and all out propaganda.
     This is an initiative for which there are no publicly-stated KPI [Key Performance Indicator], no overarching institutionalization, no formal membership protocols, no founding charters, and a timeline for development that is not measured in mere years, but decades.

In a post the previous week The Real Reason Behind What's Driving China's Ambitions For A New Silk Road Shepard which describes a natural gas pipeline constructed at a cost of cost $7.5 billion under a 2007 contract negotiated by Xi's predecessor President Hu Jintao which this month will begin shipping natural gas to China.

    ...China’s appetite for this energy source is growing at an impressive clip, and is expected to rise 8.1% annually until 2030, which is far above the 2.1% global annual growth rate.
    If we looked at the entire BRI in terms of China increasing, bolstering, and securing their energy supply lines alone — without any of the rhetoric about global prosperity and “win-win” partnerships — it would still make sense. The economic powerhouse that is China requires energy to run, and this is something the country has not been able to handle on its own since at least 1993.
    Diversifying the sources of foreign oil and gas has been of tantamount importance to Beijing for well over a decade. In 2006, the Brookings Institute pointed this out in no uncertain terms:

    "The Chinese government recognizes that the diversification of China’s oil suppliers and import routes can enhance the security of the country’s oil supply. In terms of oil suppliers, China has sought not only to expand the number of countries and regions from which it imports oil but also to limit its dependence on the Persian Gulf, which in 2005 provided China with almost half of its crude oil imports… In terms of import routes, China wants to reduce its dependence on the sea lines of communication through which almost 90% of the country’s crude oil imports travel because of their vulnerability to disruption on the high seas by various modern navies."

    At this time, the focus of this diversification was mainly on the array of new China-bound oil and gas pipelines that were being dug across Russia and Central Asia. What could not be foreseen then was the attempt to create no less than three multimodal transport corridors that China would spearhead under the premise of the BRI to enable energy shipments from the Middle East and to enter the country while bypassing the heavily US Navy-fortified Straight of Malacca. These three prospective corridors extend overland from the ports of Bandar Abbas in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, and Kyauk Pyu in Myanmar up to China, enabling energy shipments to go partway by sea and then the rest of the way by pipeline or potentially even rail.

It is obvious that Xi sincerely hopes for a moderately prosperous China by 2020, a fully modernized China by 2035, and a prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful China by 2049. It is also obvious that he is proud of what China is achieving in the 21st Century.

Orville Schell, head of the Asia Society’s Center on US-China Relations and a veteran China expert who has been studying Chinese politics since the late 1950s, noted that Xi's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a viable counter-model to the presumption of western liberal democracy and capitalism. In a sense, what Xi is setting up here is not only a clash of civilization and values, but one of political and economic systems."

Xi could comfortably note how China had "taken a driving seat in international cooperation to respond to climate change." He added: "Only by observing the laws of nature can mankind avoid costly blunders in its exploitation. Any harm we inflict on nature will eventually return to haunt us. This is a reality we have to face!"

Xi could also note: “No one political system should be regarded as the only choice and we should not just mechanically copy the political systems of other countries. The political system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a great creation.”

He could say this because he and those in his administration know that with the election of Donald Trump the United States has...

• a Republican President who by a large margin lost the popular vote (for the second time since the year 2000);
• a Senate in which 60 of the 100 Senators with 60% of the vote in the Senate represent less than 25% of the population, while 18 of the 100 Senators with only 18% of the vote in the Senate represent the majority of Americans, and despite the fact that more votes were cast for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates in the last three Senate elections, Republicans control the Senate;
• a House of Representatives in which Democratic candidates received a nationwide plurality but the Republican candidates won a majority of the House seats; and
• a nationwide justice system that randomly injures, kills, or imprisons large numbers of non-white American citizens without a trial, creating the highest incarceration rate in the world with about 22 percent of the world's prisoners in a nation that has about 4.4 percent of the world's population.

...leaving Americans with no ability at all to respond to Xi's "political system" challenge by claiming their government is a democracy - assuming democracy in any sense means majority rule based on the popular vote.

China is facing challenges which if covered by balanced reporting in the U.S. would seem familiar to Americans. Today, nearing the end of the 19th Congress, the Minister of Education Chen Baosheng, Minister of Civil Affairs Huang Shuxian, Minister of Human Resources and Social Security Yin Weimin, Minister of Housing and Urban-Rural Development Wang Menghui, and Minister of National Health and Family Planning Commission Li Bin held a joint news briefing.

Minister of Human Resources and Social Security Yin Weimin noted that despite the 3.95% registered unemployment rate in China's urban areas at the end of September "raising the capacity to employ workers overall still faces large pressures."

"We need to create 15 million jobs per year," Yin said, singling out China’s more than 8 million new university graduates that enter the job market each year as one group in need of additional employment.

Yin also said the low unemployment rate in the face of an overall slowdown in the economy was largely due to the new internet economy and entrepreneurship, adding that the ministry would actively support startups to help them “thrive”.

He reported "We've helped 8.8 million people in strained circumstances find jobs," adding that the total number of rural migrant workers increased from 263 million in 2012 to 282 million in 2016.

At the two-hour briefing held partly to address what President Xi called China’s “principle contradiction” between the country’s unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing need for a better life, the ministers outlined some of what they consider to be the biggest achievements of the last five years. Among those achievements is the expansion of basic medical insurance to cover 1.3 billion people and educational opportunities for 90 percent of disabled children.

With 230 million people over the age of 60, making up nearly 1/5 of the population, the challenges grow. Minister Huang Shuxian said they are making progress in providing better facilities for those senior citizens noting “28,000 elderly care homes with nearly seven million beds have been registered across the country. Elderly care service facilities are available in all urban communities and in over half of China’s rural communities.”

Minister Chen Baosheng noted the continuing unbalance of educational resources between urban and rural areas, and even among different districts of individual cities. “The basic focus of our policies is to provide benefits to rural areas, to poor performing schools, to less privileged areas, and to people with economic difficulties,” Chen Baosheng said laying out goals for 2020: an 85 percent gross enrollment rate in three-year kindergarten, and 90 percent in high-schools.

While this was a press briefing, not a new conference, the following CGTN America coverage on YouTube provides a video context though it does have to be pointed out that CGTN is the collection of international language news channels run by the China's government-owned broadcaster China Central Television:

In terms of the goals of China's government, this week provided a good opportunity to learn so long as one recognizes in this context that "short-term" means five years while the year 2049 looms on the Chinese culture's visible horizon.

The year 2049 looms on the California culture's visible horizon also. We might want to give some thought to how China's goals might impact us as we cope with economic and environmental issues.

To learn more about China, its history and culture, watch the six episode Story of China at PBS.org.

This is why the Democratic Party will never recover

 Today I read a really interesting story about the guy who in a paper he posted to LinkedIn back in 2013 recommended that Amazon should buy Whole Foods - Ex-Amazon Exec Explains What Bezos Could Do With Whole Foods -- and Other Deals That Might Happen.

But within the same list of recommended stories was this one which reflects why the Democrats will never recover Amazon’s deal with Whole Foods should be scrutinized by Congress, lawmaker says. If facts matter to you (and urban liberal Democrats are almost as bad as Republicans about alternate facts), the Amazon-Whole Foods deal represents a minor transition only and we can have no idea what the impact will be until it evolves for several years - but initially it affects exactly the people who are killing the Party - those who initially embraced Whole Foods in its growth years.

This clown, Rep. David Cillicine (D-R.I.), a typical Northeastern Democrat, is from Rhode Island's 1st Congressional District 

• with three Whole Foods stores, 
• that is 79.3% white, 
• with a college graduation rate of 31.6%, and 
• with about 19.7% of the population on Medicaid.

It's in stark contrast to California's 21st Congressional District represented by David Valadao (R–CA), 

• with no Whole Foods store even close to the District, 
• that is 19.3% white, 
• with a college graduation rate of 8.9%, and 
• with about 56% of the population on Medicaid.

Here's the story Trump America will understand - A new industry is beginning to thrive in rural America, with Amazon leading the way.

And where exactly were the Democrats in an election year when Walmart acquired Jet.com in August 2016? Not representing the people who depend on Walmart for food and clothing by studying if such mergers impact the way the rural and suburban working class live. Nope, urban Democratic members of the House of Representatives are worried about Whole Foods customers- their people.

Really, Democrats are worried about Amazon buying Whole Foods. Really?? That's what's important and deserves the focus of any Democratic energy??? Why again have I been a registered Democrat all these years????

Gray Whales threatened, again! Wind and wave electrical generation structures planned for Pacific Gray Whale migration route

An Eastern Pacific Gray Whale keeps a wary eye on humans.

If you see worry on this face, it may be because of two green blood-red "alternative" energy proposals.

The first is outlined in this 2016 story...

...which apparently could happen according to Floating Wind Plan Could Finally Crack California’s Offshore Market published today.


Then on December 31, 2016, this image appeared US Doubles Down On Wave Energy, $40 Mil For New Test Bed...

Click on image to see a larger version!

...followed up this month with 12 Million Says Ocean Power Can Compete In The Big Leagues With Wind, Solar.


Ten years ago my article Limited Time Only - Act Now To Own Your Piece Of The Ocean Off The Mendocino Coast appeared in The Great Western Pacific Coastal Post. The following year I started this blog with the post FERC Ponders Allowing Public Input, Environmental Review of Proposal for Electrical Generators in Whale Route.  In early 2012 I posted Obama's Administration & the wave energy technocrats: What whales? and The Cloud versus the Gray Whale.

In that last post I wrote:

It was hard to accept the truth that a significant effort is being put into an "attack-by-dismissal" effort with regard to the Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale. Apparently accurate information needs to be more broadly disseminated. This lengthy post is an attempt to do that....

Much to my surprise I've lived 10 more years since 2007. Also much to my surprise the new generation of "green" energy engineers are continuing the threat to the gray whale. Why???

There is really more than enough information in those four pieces to inform people that the waters of the Pacific Coast of North America is not a suitable place to place electrical generating facilities and related cables. The reason is obvious...

 To begin with, the Pacific States - California, Oregon, and Washington - can produce more than enough power for their own use from wind and solar.

In fact, as the LA Times told us this month in California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it:

    On 14 days during March, Arizona utilities got a gift from California: free solar power.
    Well, actually better than free. California produced so much solar power on those days that it paid Arizona to take excess electricity its residents weren’t using to avoid overloading its own power lines.
    It happened on eight days in January and nine in February as well. All told, those transactions helped save Arizona electricity customers millions of dollars this year, though grid operators declined to say exactly how much. And California also has paid other states to take power.
    The number of days that California dumped its unused solar electricity would have been even higher if the state hadn’t ordered some solar plants to reduce production...

Admittedly, the situation is complicated. But as I indicated in my February 2012 post The Cloud versus the Gray Whale, internet cloud facilities were being constructed in Quincy, Washington, because the Grant County Public Utilities District from Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams could generate adequate power at a relatively reasonable cost. Plus, the District owns 12.54% of the production from the Nine Canyon Wind Project is located in south-central Washington  which was constructed between 2002 and 2007 including 63 wind turbines with a maximum generating potential of 95.9 megawatts of electricity.

Click on image to see a larger version!

If these companies can find a way to get power in a location not threatening the whales, why do we need to even think about harming the whales.

The Eastern Pacific Gray Whale migration route is unusual. Most other American coastlines do not have this kind of habitat. It's difficult to understand why anyone thinks the solution to our problems related to power generated using fossil fuels is to cause harm to another sentient species.

We know that Gray Whales use low-frequency sounds and known regular sounds, visual cues, scents, and geomagnetic field information to navigate. Does anyone really believe that wind and wave energy production in the middle of their migration route isn't going to cause harm?

In the next 10 years we do not need to build or continue to research projects like this along the North American Pacific Coast. Just because some engineers and contractors can build something doesn't mean they should. And "alternative" in the term "alternative energy" should not mean let's knowingly cause harm to an "alternative" species other than humans.

Let's protect these residents with whom we share the Eastern Pacific Ocean:

U.S. political parties exist in name only... Undisciplined college-confused liberals versus the tool of focused Neoliberal money

Last weekend at the luxurious Broadmore Hotel in Colorado Springs, a group of Americans who care deeply about government policy in these United States¹ attended an annual retreat to review their strategy and plans for the future as they do every year.

Right away we know that these folks do not include the undisciplined college-confused liberals who loosely call themselves Democrats. We know this because Democrats, other than candidates and paid staff, have no detailed government policy or election plans they care that deeply about to have the necessary level of focus and commitment.

The folks at Colorado Springs enjoy winning in these United States political arenas as opposed to tilting at windmills and they know how as explained in The Washington Post:

    COLORADO SPRINGS—The wealthy donors who finance the Koch network are frustrated that national Republicans are not doing more to capitalize on having unified control of the federal government. But at their summer seminar here in the Rocky Mountains, which wrapped up last night, many were ecstatic—even giddy—about significant conservative gains that have been made this year in state capitals across the country.
    Republicans now control the governorship and legislature in 25 states, compared to only six states for Democrats. Last November, the GOP seized all the levers of lawmaking in four new states – Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire – making it much easier to pass far-reaching legislation.
    The network, led by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on low-profile races and building out grassroots operations in 36 states over the past decade.
    In 2017 alone, several of these states have reduced union power, scaled back regulations, cut taxes, blocked Medicaid expansion, promoted alternatives to public education, loosened criminal sentencing laws and eased requirements to get occupational licenses.
    Because President Trump is such an all-consuming story, most of these moves received scant national attention. But the 400 donors who descended on the Broadmoor resort over the past few days have been paying close attention and are keenly interested in the outcome of these state-level fights.
    “Even in the past six months we’ve seen a lot of success: We have two new right-to-work states, school choice wins in five states, and a dozen states have reduced spending or taxes,” Roger Pattison, director of member relations for the Koch network, said at a dinner on Saturday night. “I could go on and on.”
    “We’re coming off the most successful legislative session that this network has ever had, and it’s a result of your investments,” added Luke Hilgemann, chief executive of Americans for Prosperity, which is part of the constellation of Koch-funded groups.
    [Tim Phillips, the president of AFP,] revealed at a strategy session that the network’s next targets include Ohio, Minnesota and New Hampshire. “I know Washington tends to suck most of the oxygen out of the room … but the untold story is the dramatic policy advancements … at the state level,” he said. “At the state level, we’re seeing a once-in-a-generation renaissance.”

They are the folks who over the past 50 years were able to use the state Republican parties as a tool to elect politicians who will support policy in line with Neoliberal ideology, at least as it is being implemented in the United States. I explained in great detail in my post The critical civics lesson America & Trump needed - 21st Century Ideologies in America & the Government$ of the United States who these people are and what they believe is the proper role of government.

The point here is that they know the National Republican Party exists in name only. You need to keep in mind that you don't see any Tea Party folks in Trump T-shirts holding misspelled signs at the Colorado Springs Broadmore. Instead, what is referred to in some articles as "the Koch network" has been successful using the state Republican Parties.

Were you there this past weekend you might have seen Vice President Mike Pence, a long-time ally of the network, meeting with billionaire industrialist Charles Koch on Friday evening for 45 minutes. They were joined by Marc Short, who directed political efforts for the Koch network until last year and is now the White House’s legislative liaison.

You haven't heard much about Marc Short. Again, he is the White House’s legislative liaison - meaning that on behalf of the President he interacts with Congress - you know, where federal policy is made. And from 2012 to 2015 he served as President of Freedom Partners, a 501(c)(6) Koch Brothers political fund, to oversee the spending of money on behalf of various Republican politicians and conservative groups raised at donor summits.

If you think you know who the Koch brothers are, consider this article: Koch brothers partner with Deion 'Primetime' Sanders to fight poverty.

You need to know the Koch brothers aren't evil. They are just committed to the Neoliberal ideology. As ideologues they are more wealthy, knowledgeable, smarter, and committed than what we call progressive liberals. Ideologues aren't always good for America, but in my opinion they are better than uninformed, self-centered egotists like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and their populist supporters.

The Koch's shun tabloid-type publicity and hide from any suggestion that they hold public office. They hate populism as explained in one of several Washington Post articles written about a seminar in January in Indian Wells, California, one of several sponsored by the Koch network held each year,  Fear of authoritarianism pervades Koch network seminar, as billionaire donors grapple with Trump:

    “As recently as 1960, both the left and the right were united in general support for what was called the American creed. The American creed was the basics of individualism and freedom and opportunity,” Murray explained. “And what we discovered last year was that the proportion of the American electorate on the right that is still devoted to those American creedal principles is way smaller than I thought it was. I’m not talking about how many doctrinaire libertarians there are. I’m talking about the degree to which people buy into what we’ve always considered, ‘This is what America is all about.’”
    During a panel discussion later in the afternoon, billionaire industrialist Charles Koch – who has been convening these twice-annual seminars since 2003 – reiterated Murray’s point. “We have a tremendous danger because we can go the authoritarian route,” he said, “or we can move toward a free and open society.”
    Koch, who has become a household name over the past few years, was not referring specifically to Trump. But he and others at the three-day conference, which continues until tonight, have warned in stark terms that the “disenchantment” which allowed Trump to become president shows how fragile freedom is in this country. “There’s some that like Trump. There’s some that like Bernie Sanders. But they didn’t like the status quo,” Koch said. “The struggle between opportunity and humanity and control and stagnation is eternal. We can never rest.

They also know that ego problems keep getting in the way of approval of complex effective policy in American politics. The higher up on the elected-official food chain a "political ego" is the less likely any coherent policies will be forthcoming.

That is why this Neoliberal movement has avoided any focus on Presidential elections. Now they've run into that ego problem with Republicans in Congress. Their correct understanding of government in these United States has been confirmed - that over the long term only at the state level can you create through politics coherent policy. But it is frustrating for them, nonetheless, even though they do have plans.

Another article on that Indian Wells gathering in January was Koch network to spend $300 million to $400 million on politics, policy in 2018 cycle. The plan is typical:

    The Koch network plans to spend between $300 million to $400 million on policy and political campaigns during the 2018 election cycle. ...By comparison, the network spent about $250 million during the 2016 cycle on policy and political efforts.
    The funds will be spread across a constellation of groups, including Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Action Fund, along with Concerned Veterans for America, the Libre Initiative and Generation Opportunity, which now operate under the AFP banner.
    Leaders from the groups said that they plan to focus on building up the capabilities of their grass-roots organization, which has boots on the ground in 36 states, and that the precise amount will depend on opportunities.
    More than 550 donors are attending the seminar, the largest contingent ever. The network, which is led by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, has about 700 donors who give a minimum of $100,000 per year. About 200 of the donors gathered at a desert resort outside of Palm Springs this weekend are first-time attendees. The seminar has happened twice annually since 2003.
    In the last election cycle, the network put its political focus on backing a group of targeted Senate Republican candidates, declining to endorse a presidential candidate. That decision frustrated some donors, who urged Koch to back Donald Trump once he secured the GOP nomination. But the longtime libertarian patron refused, expressing dismay with Trump's comments about immigrants and Muslims.

Certainly, the Koch's organizational funding has created an effective fund raising and on-the-ground campaign system which some might describe as "parallel" to the Republican Party. But in truth they have supplanted the Party organization, meaning the traditional Republican Party is ineffectual except as directed by the Neoliberal organizations in each state.

Which brings me to the progressive liberals or whatever they want to call themselves. In my last post on American ideology, I explained that in the 21st Century government$ of United States we have a compass, not a spectrum, to represent the expressions of ideological perspectives as follows:

Where exactly do you put the folks who call themselves progressive liberals? They seem to be busily advocating federal control of human behavior which curiously makes them demanding Social Conservatives pushing their tribe's culture - they really do not want Cultural Individualism which would permit without punitive recourse through government politically incorrect behavior.

Nor do those led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want Economic Individualism. They advocate a variation of Economic Corporatism.

As the Chinese have discovered, you cannot have a large economy under socialism except through organizations that together represent economic corporatism. Economic corporatism generally involves varying levels of government bureaucracy, along with government and private ownership of property associated with economic production. All this mostly entails large corporate structures be they private companies or public institutions/agencies.

When pushed to populist extremes, economic corporatism results in a totalitarian state because all governments are corporations and the only corporations are government-controlled. It is irrelevant whether the system calls itself socialist or corporatist. The Chinese culture has moved south-easterly on that political compass far more than Americans understand and their 21st Century political system is not as oppressive to the typical non-political Chinese citizen as the American system is to the typical non-political black American citizen.

On the other side of the "north point" is anarchy. Neoliberals are just grades of belief south-westerly away from anarchy, being extreme advocates for economic and social individualism. As reflected in a much decried Supreme Court decision² , in their thinking privately owned "corporations" are just like people - individualistic, reflective of the corporation's group creativity which also reflects the personalities of the owners. Private corporations are "individuals" encompassed by the concept of individualism, not property like the dirt under a building. Like all persons, corporations can own dirt under a building.

Government corporations (institutions/agencies) have a facilitative place in the economic structure. Outside the role of defense and protection of the immediate public safety, regulatory behavior is considered part-and-parcel of totalitarianism. Government facilitative behavior includes creating currency and assuring interstate and international trade. It does not include restricting trade to the benefit of the less competitive.

Over the past two decades the Democrats have had no coherent ideological direction other than a clear preference to expand the use of federal power because of the political failures of the Party within the states. The truth is the ego-boost of holding office as a U.S. Senator or as President is really the only means of sharing amongst the undisciplined college-confused urban liberals a sense of importance - something Neoliberals gain from achieving implementation of a clearly defined desired public policy.

The current popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders reflects the failure of the Democratic Party and the general ignorance of the undisciplined college-confused liberals. Bernie's leadership skills are so great his own state does not offer that tuition-free college he used as a policy proposal in his Presidential primary run.

Lately he has been busily involved in California's universal health care proposal, getting a lot of publicity without mentioning the fact that in 2011 a bill to establish a publicly financed, single-payer system was approved requiring the Governor of Vermont to submit a detailed financial plan by 2013. Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin, a strong single-payer supporter, enthusiastically signed the bill.

In late 2014 the financial plan came in and Shumlin would not seek funding for it because it would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses.

If this sounds familiar to Californians, this is exactly the nature of the costs for such a program in California. The bill Bernie was blabbing about never got out of the Legislature. Bernie never helped California Democrats by mentioning the Vermont experience to the press. And his ineffectiveness doesn't stand in his way because it gets no publicity.

The fact is in the United States national political parties exist in name only. The state Republican Party organizations can be viewed simply as a tool to be used by the Neoliberals. Those Neoliberals have been so effective that the state Democratic Party organizations are floundering in a death spiral in a large majority of the states.

Here in Democratic California we are likely three general elections (seven years) away from Democratic voters and elected officials understanding the full impact of our nonpartisan blanket primary system.

Republicans have already gotten the message. In the 2016 U.S. Senate race, two Democrats vied for the seat after placing #1 and #2 in the primary.  The California Republican Party has the same impact on statewide races as the Libertarian and the Green Party - none.

It has been in that position since Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected Governor on October 7, 2003, in a special nonpartisan blanket recall election to replace then-Governor Gray Davis. Arnold could not have won in a Republican Primary, but won as a registered Republican voter. No Republican politician who could win in a statewide closed Republican Primary could win in a statewide General Election.

Now it doesn't matter. Absent some disarray like that surrounding the recall Democratic Governor Gray Davis, no one running of statewide office with the support of the California Republican Party can win. And that is an impact of our nonpartisan blanket primary elections.

Two months before Californians discovered they are really irrelevant in Presidential Elections, I posted:

    I'm a Californian. California is the first state to eliminate the partisan primary.
    Also here in California, Governor Jerry Brown is 78, Senator Diane Feinstein is 83, Senator Barbara Boxer is 75, and our most famous member of Congress Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is 76. The Chairman of the California Democratic Party former Congressman John Burton is 83.
    In California back in 2012, Millennials were 29% of the population, Gen-X'ers were 21.8% of the population, Baby Boomers were 23.4% of the population, and the Silent Generation was 9.4% of the population. All people who hold power in the Democratic Party are of the Silent Generation.
    That is embarrassing - we have a non-representative government - literally a gerontocracy meaning per Wikipedia "a form of oligarchical rule in which an entity is ruled by leaders who are significantly older than most of the adult population."
    "Coincidentally" recently in California we have done away with party primaries except for the President. That is because the strongest political movement in the state is the Independent Voter Project (IVP). Folks in other states should get to know this logo: .
    Slowly that half of the Millennials who do not consider themselves part of either community known as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will take control of who gets to be on the General Election ballots in California - the largest state in population with the largest number of electors in the Presidential Electoral College. At some time in the future the top two candidates for a statewide office will both not identify with a party.
    Which leads to the point of this post. The 21st Century internet could permit potential "no party" candidates to use social media and "crowdfunding" to create a community of Millennials and Gen-X'ers to succeed in a "top 2" primary system.

Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, who will be 85 next year at 2018 General Election time, is indicating she will run again.  Should she win, she will be 91 when the term ends. But how that all plays out in our nonpartisan blanket primary system will be interesting.

One possibility is that the Neoliberal political machine could disrupt the 2018 nonpartisan blanket primary for Feinstein's Senate seat, perhaps funding a run by a younger non-partisan candidate who could literally run on a platform challenging the power of the federal government now controlled by Republicans.

Such an effort might not succeed in 2018. The California Democratic Party still has access to money and people on the ground.

But Party Chairman John Burton retired this year and the process of replacing him has sown discord - about half of the active California Democrats are disgruntled that no real change has occurred. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer retired and the contest to replace her has left an open sore, particularly among Southern California Hispanic Democrats. Governor Jerry Brown is termed out and will retire at the end of 2018. That will reduce the gerontocracy members of the party leadership to House Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi who is under attack at the national level and Senator Diane Feinstein who is about as conservative as a California Democrat can get.

So to repeat myself, here in Democratic California we are likely three general elections (seven years) away from Democratic voters and elected officials understanding the full impact of our nonpartisan blanket primary system. The traditional party system will be meaningless, leaving California Democrats, like California Republicans, with little partisan power within the state or nationally.

What is not reported in the press is that Burton, Boxer, Brown, Pelosi, and Feinstein are essentially "Bay Area" white people while the vast majority of Californian's live south of the Tehachapi Mountains and are the majority of Californian's are not white.

California Democrats have hidden the meaning of the geographical split. The Bay Area generally is far more inclined to cultural liberalism.  Once the Southern California influence gains strength, Hollywood notwithstanding, at the national level the meaning of being a California Democrat will change. And it was California that gave Hillary Clinton here majority in the national popular vote when the California Democratic Party was controlled by a white gerontocracy.

Once those progressive liberals figure out that U.S. political parties exist in name only, the challenge will be for them to quit worrying about the Presidency and U.S. Senate seats, create two or more well-funded national organization and at least one well-funded organization in each state, and then campaign to elect hundreds and hundreds of state legislators and statewide office holders. After they become successful at that, they can then campaign to elect hundreds of members of Congress from the states.

In the meantime, progressive liberals can at least smile while watching large-ego Republican members of Congress who want to be reelected stand in the way of a Neoliberal goal to eliminate anything resembling a national health care program, which existing efforts as they predicted have distorted our economy.

---

¹The use of "these United States" is emphasized to assure an understanding shared by American Neoliberals that the country defined by the Constitution is based upon independent states ceding limited powers to a central government for the purposes of national defense, the protection of the immediate public safety, and facilitation of interstate and international commerce. There is a reluctant acknowledgment of the subsequent amendments beginning with the first 10 known as the Bill of Rights, an acknowledgment which points to the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition as an example of the foolishness and dangers of tyrannical populism at the level of the central government. This was reflected in the January 2017 Koch network seminar in Indian Wells where fear of Trump as President was evident.

²As Wikipedia explains regarding corporate personhood, beginning in 1818 the U.S. Supreme Court has been recognizing corporations as entities having individual rights granted in law to persons. The introductory paragraph explains: "Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans). For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. In 1886 it was clear that the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were people and that "their money was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment"—an Amendment that was made to protect African Americans' rights (Zinn 261). Another example is that in Nike v. Kasky, Nike asserted a free speech 'right to lie', while in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Hobby Lobby asserted a freedom of religion 'right' to exempt itself from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

Xi Jinping's 21st Century Silk Economic Belt and Road About California's future if China becomes the world's 21st Century economic center

At the beginning of this month, for two weeks an event took place for which I can find no news coverage in the United States - not even California news sources. Here is how the China Daily described it:

    An annual event dedicated to promoting business and cultural exchanges between China and California, ChinaWeek draws industry and government representatives from Guangdong, Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shanghai and Chongqing to expand and deepen bilateral trade and investment, said Peter Shiao, chairman of ChinaWeek and its organizer.
    California Governor Jerry Brown, as usual, was upbeat on the state's relationship with China during his keynote speech at Tuesday's California-China Business Summit, an important component of ChinaWeek.
    Brown anticipates closer and deeper collaborations within a wide spectrum of industries and fields between China and California, especially high tech, clean tech, real estate, agriculture, infrastructure and education. "Let's roll up our sleeves to have the work done," said the governor.
    China in the past 16 years has invested $16 billion in more than 370 businesses in California and accounted for 60 percent of international trade activities in the "gateway state", said Shiao, adding that China remains Los Angeles County's biggest trader partner.

Not one American news website story on this gathering can be found if you do a Google news search.

On the other hand, this past week's Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation was given some, albeit mostly dismissive, coverage by the American press, from both mainstream and alt right.

Click on images to see larger versions!

What may have been the most significant political speech of 2017 was a toast at a banquet at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. China's President Xi Jinping in calling for renewing the Silk Road spirit said:

    More than 2,000 years ago, our ancestors, driven by a desire for friendship, opened the overland and maritime Silk Roads and thus started a great era of exchanges among civilizations. Today, we gather here to renew the Silk Road spirit and discuss the Belt and Road development for international cooperation. This is both a continuation of our shared legacy and a right choice for the future.

He also noted that the Belt and Road Initiative embodies the aspiration for inter-civilization exchanges, the yearning for peace and stability, the pursuit of common development and the shared dream for a better life.

Silk Road? Belt and Road Initiative?? 2000 years??? Where is the all important "me" in that????

In considering such a span of human history, it is wise to keep in mind these words from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz:

Love means to learn to look at yourself
The way one looks at distant things
For you are only one thing among many.
And whoever sees that way heals his heart,
Without knowing it, from various ills—
A bird and a tree say to him: Friend.

Despite the fact that "selfies" and self-important tweets are all the rage among the consumers of the world, there is no "me" in considering 2000 years, even in or particularly in the World Wide Web. Individual fruit flies and individual humans are equally unimportant over time periods measured in centuries.

Yes there have been individual humans who made a significant continuing impact on humans in time spans measured in thousands of years. It would be fair to say that of the 100,000,000,000± billion folks who have ever lived and are not alive today, 100± individuals made a significant impact that reverberates through history to today. That's 1 out of every 1 billion.

So it's likely that, out of the 7 billion now alive, there are seven individuals out there who will be recognized as someone who still impacts significantly on human life 2,000 years from now.

And not that most of us don't contribute to the cumulative gross mess that is human history. But it is likely that when it comes to altering the course of that history in a meaningful way, this guy is probably one of the seven....

You probably recognize he is not Donald Trump nor any other American. Nor for that matter is he from any European culture. If you are among 95%+ of Americans, just from the picture below you will not be able to place a name...

...with the face of the man in the middle with is wife, China's President Xi Jinping.

On February 11, 2009, while visiting Mexico, then Vice-President Xi spoke in front of a group of overseas Chinese noting that China's task was to keep "its 1.3 billion people from hunger" and regarding the financial crisis affecting the Atlantic oriented world: "There are some bored foreigners, with full stomachs, who have nothing better to do than point fingers at us. First, China doesn't export revolution; second, China doesn't export hunger and poverty; third, China doesn't come and cause you headaches. What more is there to be said?"

That helps put a bit of perspective on his visit to Central Asia and Southeast Asia in September and October 2013, when as China's President he raised the initiative of jointly building the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road.

Additional perspective (for those who live in a country that is less than 400 years old) comes from China's history where writing began around 7000 BCE,  the first empire dynasty emerged around 2100 BCE, and the Shang Dynasty from the 17th to the 11th century BCE created oracle bone script which is a direct ancestor of modern Chinese characters. To make a long story short, around 220 BCE the state of Qin established the first unified Chinese state. Its King Zheng enacted legalist reforms throughout China, notably the forced standardization of Chinese characters, measurements, road widths (i.e., cart axles' length), and currency. His dynasty also conquered the Yue tribes in Guangxi, Guangdong, and Vietnam. The Han dynasty emerged to rule China between 206 BCE and CE 220, creating a cultural identity among its populace still remembered in the ethnonym of the Han Chinese. The Han expanded the empire's territory considerably, with military campaigns reaching Central Asia, Mongolia, South Korea, and Yunnan, and the recovery of Guangdong and northern Vietnam from Nanyue. Han involvement in Central Asia and Sogdia helped establish the land route of the Silk Road, replacing the earlier path over the Himalayas to India. Han China gradually became the largest economy of the ancient world. For more historical detail on the Silk Road click on this image:

Historical extent of Silk Route/Silk Road. Red is land route and the blue is the sea/water route.

Xi's Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road - also known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Belt and Road (abbreviated B&R), or One Belt, One Road (abbreviated OBOR) - is a broad international economic development strategy that focuses on connectivity and cooperation among countries.

The plan covers 65 nations, about 60 per cent of the world’s population and a third of global GDP. China has budgeted $40 billion for the project. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which began operations last year with $100 billion in capital, is also expected to fund Belt and Road projects.

The Belt and Road initiative is geographically structured along six corridors, and the maritime silk road:

• New Eurasian Land Bridge, running from Western China to Western Russia
• China–Mongolia–Russia Corridor, running from Northern China to Eastern Russia
• China–Central Asia–West Asia Corridor, running from Western China to Turkey
• China–Indochina Peninsula Corridor, running from Southern China to Singapore
• China–Pakistan Corridor, running from South-Western China to Pakistan
• Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Corridor, running from Southern China to India
• Maritime Silk Road, running from the Chinese Coast over Singapore and India to the Mediterranean.

The initiative calls for the integration of the region into a cohesive economic area through building infrastructure, increasing cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. Apart from this zone, which is largely analogous to the historical Silk Road, another area that is said to be included in the extension of this 'belt' is South Asia and Southeast Asia.

Many of the countries that are part of this belt are also members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). North, central and south belts are proposed. goes through Central Asia, Russia to Europe. The Central belt goes through Central Asia, West Asia to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. The South belt starts from China to Southeast Asia, South Asia, to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan. The Chinese One Belt strategy will integrate with Central Asia through Kazakhstan's Nurly Zhol infrastructure program. (Much of this information is from the Wikipedia entry which offers more.)

From a movement point of view the B&R historical ties looks something like this:

But in terms of world impact it could also be viewed this way...

...or this way:

Click on image to access links to each country.

Attending the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation this past week were the following representatives of non-member nations:

Heads of State:

• Argentina: President Mauricio Macri Chile: President Michelle Bachelet
• Fiji: Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama
• Greece: Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras
• Italy: Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni
• Kenya: President Uhuru Kenyatta
• Philippines: President Rodrigo Duterte
• Poland: Prime Minister Beata Szydło
• Spain: Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy
• Switzerland: President Doris Leuthard

Minister Level:

• Australia: Trade Minister Steve Ciobo
• Brazil: Secretary for Strategic Affairs Hussein Ali Kalout
• Finland:  Minister of Transport and Communications of Finland Anne Berner
• Germany: Minister of Economic Affairs Brigitte Zypries
• North Korea: Kim Yong-jae, Minister of External Economic Relations

Other:

• France: Jean-Pierre Raffarin, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Defense and Armed Forces in the French Senate
• Japan: LDP Secretary General Toshihiro Nikai
• South Korea: Ambassador to China Kim Jang-soo; Park Byeong-seug, National Assembly member for the Democratic Party
• United States: Matt Pottinger, National Security Council senior director for Asia (Who???)

There is a lot of recent history and current activity involved, not all of which has been successful as explained in Wade Shepard's I Spent Two Years On China's Belt And Road, And This Is What I Found. Shepard also provides a proper perspective:

    China takes a long-term view of these investments, and have show that they are willing to exercise the requisite patience. By long-term view, I mean 30, 40, 50 years down the line, not the 5 to 10 years that is roughly where the west’s nearsightedness kicks in.
    China has shown that it is both willing and able to weather the storms of domestic and international politics in order to get what they want in the end.

Shepard is one of those rare American's who, in addition to being able to read and write well above a 6th grade level, is a China expert based upon his travels and study in China. He is currently traveling the New Silk Road doing research for a new book. You can follow his writings through this feed.

Which brings us back to that 2000 year window. As Shepard commented about Americans, we are limited by "the 5 to 10 years that is roughly where the west’s nearsightedness kicks in." That is really generous as much of our business activity is controlled by a 5 to 10 week time frame and generally Americans struggle with a planning attention span of 5 to 10 days.

So it's probably ok that those selfies and tweets are on some electronic device and/or cloud that will certainly and inevitably disappear over the next hundred years. They don't matter, not even Donald Trumps tweets, nor all the self-important news reporters following them.

As explained in an Atlantic article while most post-election analysis cited economic anxiety as the main concern when people chose to vote for Donald Trump, a newer survey paints a different picture - it was cultural anxiety that drove white, working-class voters to Trump.  Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence and nearly half agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”

So, the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. Members of the alt-right and Trump tweet about it on their smart phones manufactured in Asia by Asians. But then again so do the members of what is now being called "the Alt-Left" led by Bernie Sanders which is working to take over the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, The Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday that Eleven Asia-Pacific nations agree to salvage Trans-Pacific Partnership:

    Eleven Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, agreed on Sunday to salvage a massive free trade deal that US President Donald Trump pulled out of days after taking office in January.
    Australia's Trade Minister Steve Ciobo pushed for the agreement at a meeting in Vietnam to "launch a process to assess options" to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership into force.
    New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay, who chaired the meeting, left open the possibility of the US rejoining the TPP despite Mr Trump saying he prefers bilateral free trade deals.
    Mr McClay said each country had to consider both economic values and the strategic importance of the agreement "but in the end there is a lot of unity among all of the countries and a great desire to work together to come up with an agreement."

As I explained almost one year ago Sanders and Trump to destroy Pacific Rim states of California, Oregon, and Washington by forcing the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Because the Alt-Left and -Right led American voters (I consider them both among "The Deplorables") wanted their grandchildren to have income and eat, before voting they examined major economic shifts, studying them as much as they possibly could, ignoring their own self-indulgent feelings of stress. So they knew the TPP was a plan to reduce the impact of China on the economies of the Pacific Rim nations and the World over the next 50-100 years - the lifespans of their children and grandchildren.

Except, of course, that isn't what they did because the ignoramuses leading them, Trump and Sanders, still don't know what's happening. As Bill Maher regularly notes, the American voters mostly are stupid, failing to vote their own self-interest mostly because they don't know what that is.

At this point we are facing what I call The Deplorables Map of the Future of World Economics because they at election time assured it (click on it for a larger version):

This economic China-centric world is the future. As the intent of the B&R is explained by The New York Times:

    [China's President] Xi is aiming to use China’s wealth and industrial know-how to create a new kind of globalization that will dispense with the rules of the aging Western dominated institutions. The goal is to refashion the global economic order, drawing countries and companies more tightly into China’s orbit.
    “President Xi believes this is a long-term plan that will involve the current and future generations to propel Chinese and global economic growth,” said Cao Wenlian, director general of the International Cooperation Center of the National Development and Reform Commission, a group dedicated to the initiative. “The plan is to lead the new globalization 2.0.”
    Mr. Xi is rolling out a more audacious version of the Marshall Plan, America’s postwar reconstruction effort. Back then, the United States extended vast amounts of aid to secure alliances in Europe. China is deploying hundreds of billions of dollars of state-backed loans in the hope of winning new friends around the world, this time without requiring military obligations.
    Mr. Xi’s plan stands in stark contrast to President Trump and his “America First” mantra. The Trump administration walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the American-led trade pact that was envisioned as a buttress against China’s growing influence.
    “Pursuing protectionism is just like locking oneself in a dark room,” Mr. Xi told business leaders at the World Economic Forum in January.

As of 2017, China (including Hong Kong) holds $1.324 trillion in U.S. debt derived from our deficit balance of trade. The average American can pretty much figure out where that came from by looking at the stuff around his or her house, cupboards, and closests (as well as staring at that phone in his or her hand). Much of it contains components, or is entirely, made in China. After all it is where the Trump family has their clothing lines made. So President Xi is pretty comfortable loaning a few billion here and there around the world.

But wait. Didn't I say that while the B&R includes about 60 per cent of the world’s population, it only includes a third of global GDP?  And my "Deplorables Map" above doesn't correctly reflect the World as it does not include Europe, particularly the European Union members. After all, the EU is the second largest economy in the world and the world's largest trading block. Of course, Brexit likely will change all that. However, what were talking about here is the area in the square...

...which geographically isn't perhaps the largest block. But nonetheless, it the following map initially would seem to indicate a meaningful portion of the World's economy...

...except... notice the round purple dots on all the countries that are members of China's Belt and Road Initiative and remember as mentioned above that the heads of state of Greece, Italy, Poland, and Spain, plus cabinet ministers from Finland and the United Kingdom attended the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation.

It might not be unreasonable to assume that China's economic policy influence in Europe would increase substantially in the next 50-100 years as the United States abandons its allies like it did in the Pacific Rim.

When contemplating Europe, we have to remember that it is the same distance between Berlin and Beijing as it is between Berlin and the State Capitol of Illinois, Springfield. Far more Chinese citizens live closer to Berlin than Americans. Denver is closer to Beijing than Berlin.

The problem is, our history is Atlantic-centered (except for California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska). That made sense when the sailing ship was the primary source of transportation between continents. But since the mid-20th Century aircraft altered the reality for everyone except Americans East of the Mississippi and Europeans who still live in the 18th Century.

I get it. Sure the Deplorables of the left and right and the Brexiters feel things have changed so much that they often feel like a stranger in their own countries. But it's long past the time that sailing ships were lobbing cannon balls while Francis Scott Key wrote those sterling versus in the defense of owning slaves. Get over it. There are new problems now. Americans are going to have to adjust or lose out completely by the beginning of the 22nd Century.

Back in January, California Governor Jerry Brown went to the Chinese consulate in San Francisco to speak at a Lunar New Year celebration to reaffirm what he called the state's "great interest" in working with China. As explained in the LA Times:

    "There will be a few side arguments in Washington," Brown said. "Don't worry. When it comes to California and China, we're on the right track, and we're going to stay there."
    California has collaborated closely on climate change with Chinese officials, who have studied the state's programs as they formulate their own. Brown said the state also has benefited from China's production of solar panels, helping to drive down the cost of renewable energy.
    "We are working together with China," he said. "Whatever little differences we have, or whatever big differences, the fact is, we have one world. We have one space we're all connected by."
    Brown's brief comments at the consulate weren't all rosy. Often preoccupied with existential threats , he told the audience that he wanted to make sure they "walk out of here with at least three things to worry about."
    First, he said, "you will suffer" if climate change isn't addressed. Second, nuclear bombs could "get used by somebody," which would be "very bad." Third, the global financial system "might collapse again."
    "That's a lot to worry about," Brown said.

Next month Brown will be in China to attend a climate change conference. Brown previously visited China in 2013 on a trade policy trip. He makes these trips because he knows that China and the U.S. have to take the lead on climate change. He also knows the most serious threat of nuclear war comes from North Korea. He understands that as was true in 2008 the potential collapse of the global financial system will result from U.S. economic policy, the impact of which China is trying to avert.

Finally, he understands that while California's economy ranks, depending on year, between #5-#8 in the world, it couldn't without strong foreign trade as represented by this data:

At the end of the 19th Century, bilateral trade relationships between countries dominated which led to the most murderous century in history. At the end of the 20th Century during which 100+ million people died in wars, multilateral trade relationships between countries became the norm to avoid conflict.

China's leadership understands this world reality and intends to take the leadership role which will be facilitated by the absence of U.S. influence. California's leadership understands this world reality and intends to continue its active role in order to protect the interests of its people, particularly necessary in the vacuum left by the U.S. government.

And if you don't think there is a potential threat, consider this article that appeared in Asian news sources but not American news sources in March 2017 Moscow and Beijing join forces to bypass US dollar in world money market and perhaps you'll begin to understand that isolating the U.S. as Trump touts bilateral trade negotiations could become a disaster for the grandchildren of The Deplorables.