A Chicago Encounter With China: the "Golden Temple"

A little over twenty years ago, I started a newsletter called Chicago China Newslink. One of the topics I wrote about was a Chinese-themed pavilion that had been sponsored by a local industrialist and included in the 1933 Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago. Below are four articles about the "Golden Temple of Jehol." They are slightly edited from the original. In a subsequent blog post I will provide some reflections and updates on the topic.

"The Golden Temple of Jehol"
Century of Progress Exposition commemorative print

The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of
Chicagoans Chase Elusive "Golden Temple of Jehol"
(originally published July, 1998, in Chicago China Newslink) 

What do you do with a temple that has been scrupulously copied from an original in North China, erected at world's fairs in Chicago and New York, then dismantled and shuffled between a series of warehouses in the U.S., and ended up languishing in storage in Sweden?

Rebuild it in Chicago! At least that's what Chicago architect Charles Gregersen says the current holders of the temple hope to do.

Gregersen is a specialist in restoring and conserving historic buildings, and he has traced in minute detail the journey of the "Golden Temple of Jehol," which was originally commissioned for the Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago in 1933.

"The temple is currently in the possession of a foundation in Sweden, disassembled and in storage. It was rescued from oblivion years ago by the Swedish foundation and its head, Max Woeler, and they had hoped to erect it as a museum," says Gregersen. "But those hopes seem to be fading." According to Gregersen, Max Woeler believes the foundation's best hopes of fulfilling the terms of its trust now lie in making the temple available to be rebuilt in some other location, such as Chicago.

The ideal location for the temple is somewhere on the Museum Campus, the site of the 1933 exposition, says Gregersen. "In fact, there is a triangle of land just east of the Field Museum that would be perfect," he says, continuing, "Don't forget -- this is the only remaining building of all those originally commissioned specially for the Century of Progress. Nothing could be more appropriate than restoring it to its original location."

With the renaissance under way in Chicago-based China activity, that plan seems all the more appropriate.

Little by little, the story of the temple is becoming known in business and cultural circles in Chicago. "Our committee has had the opportunity to learn a little bit about it, and it certainly is a fascinating story," says William Spence, a partner at Freeborn and Peters. Spence is the co-chairman of the committee of Chicagoans who are helping to build strong links between Chicago and the Chinese cities of Shanghai and Shenyang.

"Now, all that is needed is the money," says Gregersen. He cites estimates of $3 million for the cost of constructing a foundation for the 5,000 square foot temple and restoring its former condition.

And what of the original temple -- the one in China? It was reported to have fallen into disrepair, but Gregersen believes restoration is under way. The temple is ensconced in the central courtyard of the largest of a group of structures in the 18th century imperial summer retreat at Chengde (about 90 miles northeast of central Beijing), also known as Jehol.

"The Golden Pavilion of Jehol of which the Bendix Lama Temple of Chicago
is an absolutely faithful replica made in Peking by Chinese workers."
(Source: The Chinese Lama Temple Potala of Jehol exhibition booklet)

Recalled to Life
... and recalled to Chicago? How conservators on three continents are saving a piece of China's past
(originally published September, 1998, in Chicago China Newslink) 

The first time Swedish architect Max Woeler saw the original structure on which the "Golden Temple of Jehol" was based, in 1988, he was overwhelmed by a mixture of delight and melancholy.

Delight was inevitable for someone who had, like Woeler, spent the previous five years in a dogged effort to conserve what remained of the replica -- the pieces of the full-size re-creation of the original structure, which were in storage at the time in Stockholm. "It was the first time I had been to China, and I was filled with anticipation. There was a whole group of us, and we spent three weeks in China altogether, but the most exciting part, our real goal, was seeing the original pavilion, set within the high-walled enclosure perched in the ills of the old imperial summer resort area of Chengde [Jehol]."

At the same time, reaching that goal was bittersweet. According to Woeler, "The whole place was in a state of disrepair. The pavilion itself was dilapidated, rather run-down. None of the precious artifacts remained inside it. The area had been occupied by Japanese troops prior to WWII, and before that the warlords had sold off artifacts to buy weapons. But mainly, the problem was just the passage of time -- as if nothing had been repaired since the days of the emperors."

What Woeler saw in that moment seemed to confirm the prediction made by another Swede, nearly 60 years earlier. Sven Hedin, a famous explorer and the man who oversaw the production of the pavilion replica that later stood in Chicago, wrote in 1930, "In ten or twenty years [the original] will be nothing but a mass of ruins. When [it] has rotted away, the Western World will be able to rejoice that a faithful copy of it has been preserved." Hedin felt the structure [in Jehol] was "the most sumptuous, not only in Chengde, but in the whole of China." The replica was as sumptuous as the original. In fact, Hedin thought the replica had one advantage over the original: writing in 1930, he had commented that the surrounding walls were placed so close to the original pavilion that there was no way for a spectator to step back and get a full view of it. The replica, in contrast, was ideally situated. "In its new position in the land across the sea, this masterpiece of Chinese architecture will come into its own. There, it will be possible to see it standing alone against a background of leafy trees, and there the sinking sun will make the red colonnades glow like real gold."

Both the original and the replica were neglected for many years, but, by the late 1980s, people had begun to recognize the importance of preserving such treasures, and architect Max Woeler found that the goals of his Chinese hosts closely paralleled his own. "They were setting about to refurbish the original, just as I was trying to recondition the replica. We made a plan to work together -- to exchange technical expertise."

The refurbishing of the various structures in the Chengde complex was an enormous effort. Prof. James Hevia confirmed this after a 1991 visit to the original. He wrote: "At that time, the Potala was undergoing massive reconstruction. The center of the structure, where the Golden Pavilion stood, was completely closed off, while other portions were only partly accessible. It was clear, however, that the restoration staff had to rebuild parts of the structure from scratch." (from a pre-publication version of New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde)

The Golden Pavilion is 70 feet wide and 70 feet deep, and 60 feet high. (The replica and the original are identical in size.) Major repairs included replacing an elevated gallery in the walls surrounding it. The elevated gallery allows a closer view of some of the best parts of the pavilion, on the upper levels, but the gallery had been burnt down long before, probably prior to the wartime era.

But the intricate details, carved and painted on hundreds of wood panels, were as challenging as the expansive structural work. For the painting alone, there was a team of 70 craftsmen. At that time, there were no artisans left who knew these specialized crafts. Now, little by little, young people are learning these special skills again.

The Chengde restorations were completed in 1991. On a return visit, Hevia confirmed that a lot had changed: much of the restoration was complete, the entire site had been placed on the UNESCO world cultural heritage list, and "[its] new status as a global as well as national treasure seemed to be epitomized in part by the large crowds of domestic and foreign tourists, including large numbers of overseas Chinese . . . . [The] streets were bustling."

As for architect Woeler, since first becoming involved with the pavilion in 1983, he had spent one entire year tracking it down to a warehouse in Ohio, and then procured it for restoration, planning to put it up in a park in Stockholm.

Woeler set up a foundation to handle the massive project. First, the pieces of the pavilion replica had to be shipped to Sweden -- overall, it took nine forty-foot truckloads! Then preparations had to be made to refurbish key components, especially the beautifully painted surfaces and gold-plated copper roof tiles. In addition, a site was selected in a Stockholm park, and designs were drawn up to allow the structure to function as an exhibition hall, so that it could have a functional use, as well as serving as a symbol of growing ties with China and as an important cultural artifact.

All that was needed to situate the structure in Sweden was the final agreement on the land. Unfortunately, obstacles emerged, and bit by bit grew insurmountable. Woeler and his foundation were unable to bring the project to completion.

But Woeler hasn't given up. "It will really be like a phoenix, rising from the ashes," says Woeler, " -- when it finally gets built, that is!" Now his hopes have turned from Sweden back to the land that originally hosted the structure. "I think the pavilion should be brought back to America -- preferably Chicago!" he says.

A committee of interested Chicagoans has been formed to determine whether funds can be raised to bring the Golden Pavilion replica back to Chicago and erect it here.

Title page, The Chinese Lama Temple Potala of Jehol exhibition booklet,
with portrait of donor Vincent Bendix.

The Idea's the Thing
What inspired Vincent Bendix to create one of the century's great monuments to Chinese art and locate it in Chicago?
(originally published November, 1998, in Chicago China Newslink) 

Source note: Invaluable assistance for this article was provided by
Charles Gregersen, historic preservation architect
University of Illinois at Chicago: The University Library, Century of Progress Records
Mr. Pete Leatherwood, Director of Communications, retired, AlliedSignal/Bendix
Northern Indiana Center for History
King of Stop and Go by Menefee R. Clements
Family of Donald Boothby, Bendix architect

Vincent Bendix was a man who liked to make things. Even more, he was a man who liked to DO things, and do them in a BIG way. And if the things he made and the things he did caught people's attention, and captured their imagination, well, that was all right with him, too.

Bendix has been called "The King of Stop and Go," after two of his inventions which had an enormous impact on the auto industry: the Bendix brake and the automatic starter. Those two products were just the most important in a long list of products that he invented and/or commercialized, products ranging from carburetors, hydraulic steering, and u-joints, to aircraft wheels, brakes, and struts.

Bendix once said, "Business is only a collection of ideas, and you must keep getting a new idea." Bendix seemed to have an endless supply of ideas -- one former Bendix employee said Bendix "had more ideas than he had money to implement them" -- and those ideas went beyond just mechanics. It was Bendix who, in 1928, bought the Potter Palmer Mansion, together with a block of Chicago Gold Coast property, and planned to erect a $25 million dollar hotel there. It was Bendix who created the annual Bendix Transcontinental Air Race, which culminated with Gatsbyesque parties at his South Bend, Indiana estate. It was Bendix who bought a rather ordinary West Palm Beach mansion and turned it into an Italianate palace -- with the help, of course, of imported Italian palace builders.

But, more than anything else, history is likely to remember that it was Bendix who conceived and executed the erection of a magnificent Chinese structure on Chicago's lakeshore in conjunction with the 1933 Century of Progress Exposition -- one which was visited by over two million visitors. One of those visitors was Joe DeFilipps, today a Nebraska travel agent who in 1833 was an 8-year-old student at Washington Irving School on Chicago's West Side. "What I remember most of all was just how beautiful it was -- and how big!!" says DeFilipps. "When you're eight years old, a five story building looks like a twenty story building. And of course, I remember the golden roof."

Perhaps Bendix wasn't the only one who could have come up with the original idea. After all, in the 1920s, everyone was reading the headlines about China and the great archaeological discoveries made there by the Swedish explorer, Sven Hedin. It was natural to think about bringing those discoveries before the public.

Still, it was Bendix who, as a leader of the Swedish-American community (one who had, in fact, been recognized for his public service by the King of Sweden), was in a position to meet Hedin and learn about Hedin's ideas in person.

In the same way, the 1933 Century of Progress Exposition inspired scores of structures of a kind never seen before from contributors in Chicago and all over the United States, and from around the world, not just from Bendix. There were industrial exhibitions, concept pavilions like "The Future of Transport," pavilions of foreign nations, and more. The Century of Progress was as much about commerce as it was about entertainment and education. In large part, it was an explicit testament to the decade of economic development, especially in the automobile industry, that had made Bendix, himself, a rich man. By 1927, his plant was producing 26,000 brakes daily, and those brakes were used to outfit cars from Autocar, Willys, Hudson (& Essex), Marmon, Packard, Studebaker, to Lord's Lincoln and GMC's Oldsmobile. Not surprisingly, the most prominent pavilions at the Century of Progress belonged to Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, together with exhibits by Goodyear, Firestone, and Sinclair, and the spectacular "Wings of a Century Pageant of Transportation" pavilion.

What was intriguing about the project Bendix conceived was that, although it was certainly intended as a publicity vehicle for him and his companies, it was a profoundly subtle and indirect publicity vehicle. While the auto and utility companies were using their exhibition pavilions as little more than glorified car and appliance showrooms, and the national pavilions held obvious benefits, both diplomatic as well as for trade and tourism promotion, Bendix's pavilion was intent on addressing some "better angels" of his public's nature. Bendix was flamboyant and loved publicity, but he also "preferred the soft sell over the hard sell," as one of his former employees put it.

Another important consideration in all this, beyond the Chinese theme and the idea of doing something big for the Century of Progress, was the money. Bendix wasn't the only one with automobile money in those days. Nor was he the only one funneling all that money into Gold Coast property development. However, some people's money started to dry up as the Roaring '20s gave way to the Depression '30s. The son of Bendix's architect, Donald Boothby, recalls his father saying, "To an architect, Bendix was a godsend -- it meant having a job at a time when jobs were very hard to come by." The senior Boothby, busily employed in implementing Bendix's architectural visions, was doing well enough to buy a new $3,900 Packard in the early '30s, and thought of his employer as a kind of Midwestern Medici.

Of course, even a Medici has to have influence as well as wealth, and, in the late 1920s, wealth didn't confer much influence until after it had been transformed through devotion to civic responsibility. In 1929, Harvey Warren Zorbaugh wrote in The Gold Coast and the Slum: A Sociological Study of Chicago's Near North Side: "The means by which members of the Four Hundred become the arbiters of the social world, get into the top dozen, are many and varied. One accomplishes it by managing a world's fair and taking a prominent part in notable civic movements ... One is frowned upon, a little, in more conservative circles if one does not take a part in the larger civic and social movements of the day."

Bendix seemed a step ahead of others in this respect, as well: his administrative partner in the Golden Pavilion venture was none other than Daniel Burnham (Jr.), son of the Daniel Burnham of "make no little plans" fame, and himself secretary of the entire Century of Progress project. Likewise, Bendix was living in the mansion whose renown stemmed from being the former home of the Impressionist art collection that eventually formed the core of the Art Institute's holdings; he filled it with a new collection, one consisting of precious artifacts from China, and rechristened it "The Bendix Gallery."

Bendix's imprint on this project was unmistakable: only Bendix could have done something which was at once so quixotic and at the same time so grounded in the nuts-and-bolts realities of manufacturing and construction.

In the first place, there was the procurement of the components of a pavilion in distant China. In hindsight, it is easy to say that Bendix's money was well-spent, considering the spectacular Chinese structure it bought. The man Bendix relied upon, Sven Hedin, was a generally-recognized authority and inspired great confidence. Still, in 1929, entrusting a third party to embark for warlord-run and bandit-infested North China with $125,000, knowing that you would hear nothing from him for months, took nerve.

Second, a superstructure needed to be supplied. Hedin copied and brought back reproductions of most of the intricate woodwork of the original temple. That left the structural elements -- foundation, supporting columns, and roof -- to be fabricated in the U.S.

Ah yes! That roof . . . .  The builders needed a way to re-create the gold-foil-coated roof for which the structure was so well-known. For a manufacturer like Bendix, the solution was obvious: he put his South Bend plant to work stamping out 25,000 copper roof tiles and plating them with 23-carat gold.

Finally, more than anything else, there was the management of the thousand-and-one details that go into any production of this kind. I like to imagine Bendix, in his offices on the 38th floor of the Bankers Building in the Loop (on the southwest corner of Madison and Clarke, just west of The Rookery), where he could look out to where workmen were laying the foundations of the Century of Progress pavilions. What were his days like? (The interior painting - can we get it done on time? What material will we use to pave the outside? How will admission work? How about postcard sales? Incense sales? How do we get the lighting just right?) I try to remind myself that, for someone like Bendix -- someone who had established his first manufacturing company in 1907, and had been churning through business ideas continuously ever since -- the day-to-day travails of an undertaking such as the pavilion were probably more refreshment than anything else.

Ironically, the greatest challenge for Bendix was to figure out what to do with the structure after the Century of Progress Exposition was over. Like every other exhibitor, he had agreed to abide by the Century of Progress Ordinance, guaranteeing that he would remove his structure, so that the lakeshore site could be returned in its natural condition to the South Park Commissioners. After much negotiation and request for extensions (some granted, some not), Bendix's organization in March, 1938, disassembled the structure and put it into storage. The Golden Pavilion had been created with the kind of care that goes into great and enduring buildings, and Bendix and others wanted to see it re-erected permanently. It was resurrected briefly for the 1939 World's Fair in New York, after which Bendix gave it to Oberlin College as part of a Center for Oriental Studies it was to build. It then went into deep hibernation. It passed to a series of trustees, principally other universities with interests in Asian Studies, but none could ever match Bendix's ingenuity at getting the structure erected for public display.

Bendix went on to other things. His Bendix Brake Company has had a glorious history in South Bend, Indiana; it is now Bosch Braking Systems (div. Robert Bosch Corporation). Other companies he founded included Bendix Aviation Corp. and Bendix Helicopters. According to one former employee, Bendix helped finance Amelia Earhart's ill-fated flight, was a part-owner of the original Washington Nationals (forerunners of the Senators), and helped build the original stadium at Notre Dame. Vincent Bendix died in 1945, with yet another grand project on the drawing board: "a popular type helicopter four-passenger sedan . . . to be ready for mass production after the war . . . . " Chicago skies are not yet full of family helicopters, but, with luck, they will once again soon be graced by the silhouette of Vincent Bendix's finest idea.

An imagined rendering of the Macartney mission.
(See description from Royal Museums Greenwich)

Noble Witness
Did the Golden Pavilion loom over the seminal event in Sino-Western relations?
(originally published April, 1999, in Chicago China Newslink) 

The Summer Palace of the Qing Emperors at Jehol was the site of perhaps the most important diplomatic encounter in China's history of engagement with the West. In 1793, Lord George Macartney traveled to China bearing messages from King George III to the Emperor of China. The Emperor's reply to those proposals contained what has become perhaps the most pithy statement of China's attitude toward the outside world: "We have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need of your country's manufactures." His reply went on to veto proposals for trading stations, warehouse locations, anchorages, and other aids to international intercourse. And so nearly two centuries of mutual misunderstanding was set in motion.

This encounter, along with its aftermath, is a staple of every history of China's interaction with the West. An often overlooked fact about this famous event, however, is that it took place not in Beijing but in the Imperial Summer Palace at Jehol -- the site of the original Golden Pavilion. This is not exceptional. Qing Dynasty emperors -- like any number of modern chief executives, who have discovered that, if they can rule from anywhere, why not rule from someplace they enjoy being? -- spent a very substantial portion of the year at the Jehol complex.

Sven Hedin devoted a chapter of his book, Jehol: City of Emperors, to the Macartney mission. He focused in particular on the not inconsiderable question of whether Macartney would kowtow to the Emperor, or if the Emperor would instead tolerate some lesser evidence of respect. The Chinese side had the foresight to be gracious and accept kneeling on one knee, probably reasoning that, as the ones who would make a record of the proceedings for posterity, they would have ample opportunity to spin the event. (Hedin wrote, "Court gossip asserted afterwards that the noble Lord had been so overcome in tghe presence of the mighty ruler that his legs gave way and he fell upon all fours. If he had refused to kowtow of his own accord, the presence of the Emperor obliged him to do so.")

The central business of the meeting was the transmission of a letter from the King of England to the Emperor of China, requesting a number of accommodations for the purposes of trade, as well as the presentation of a large quantity of official gifts.

[One of those gifts was described as "A clock resembling an astronomical instrument by which one can easily explain and reconcile the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens. It is useful in the study of astronomy and geography."  Was this instrument useful for navigation? Was it possibly related to the breakthrough marine chronometer (described in Dava Sobel's 1995 book, Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time)? It would be ironic if this was one of the "ingenious articles" which the Emperor later said he "did not highly value."]

Macartney's visit had to compete for attention with visits by other ambassadors, such as those of Burma and Mongolia, and it was wedged in-between numerous other court functions, as well. "On the Emperor's birthday, September 17th, the Ambassador received an invitation to a review at which Captain Parish estimated 12,000 officers and 80,000 troops were present." One wonders if this display of power made Macartney feel any trepidation for himself -- did he have second thoughts about his principled refusal to follow the court ritual of the kowtow? -- or for the future of the interactions between his own, very powerful, country and the one he was visiting.

Hedin observed that "it is interesting to compare the manner in which Qianlong received the King's envoy with the deference and obsequiousness with which, thirteen years earlier, he had received the Tashi Lama. For him the King of England was merely one vassal among hundreds, whereas the Tashi Lama had power over all the Lamaist lands which were under the rule of the Middle Kingdom. In the opinion of the Emperor, Tibet was of far greater importance than Great Britain." What might the role of the Golden Pavilion in the 1780 visit by the Tashi Lama have been?

#Nuclearban: How Will China Play Its Hand?

From the moment the global nuclear ban treaty initiative first
got under way, it was clear that China's role would be pivotal.

I wrote yesterday to begin a conversation about possible ways that the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons may come to dominate the global discourse in the months ahead.

An extremely important question is how China will engage with this new development. People frequently assume that China is a country trying to catch up with and surpass the United States, and so China's behavior in the world must necessarily be a near version of how the US behaves. However, a growing school of thought has begun to notice that the best way to understand what China might do is to ask, "What could China do that in one fell swoop would put them three steps ahead of the US?"

China declined to participate in the negotiations on the nuclear ban treaty. Observing that decision, I began to realize that China's involvement in the process could at the right moment carry enormous weight, and would certainly be calculated to maximize the benefit to China. (See "China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement.")

It's important to remember that China played an important role in defining a post-World War II world in which the countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa need not be dominated by the US, Europe, and Russia (then the Soviet Union) -- despite the threat posed by the latter countries' nuclear weapons. Yes, China has nuclear weapons. But a quick review of the size of China's nuclear force suggests that, unlike the US and Russia, China does not believe that strength comes from having nuclear weapons. So where does China seek strength?

I propose a thought experiment: Imagine that China deems the advent of a global treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons (with 50 or more signatory nations), together with the resulting impact on the global security discourse, to offer an advantageous moment to make a bold move. Imagine, further, that China declares its intention to accede to the nuclear ban treaty, together with a definitive timeline -- say 5 years -- for dismantling its nuclear arsenal. What might be some of the possible outcomes of such a move?

First, in the general sense of "global leadership," it would be a stunning complement to the role now being accorded to China in the global effort to address global warming (particularly in light of US abandonment of the Paris Accord).

Second, in the realm of "optionality," it would give China enormous control over its ability to tell its story to the world over the coming five (or however many) years. China would have obtained the option to volunteer progress reports in the years ahead on its work toward fulfilling its unprecedented promise.

Third, it could have particular benefit for China's relations with other countries that support the nuclear ban. For instance:

* China's relations with other countries bordering the South China Sea are vitally important. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia were among the sponsors of the nuclear ban treaty initiative when it was first put forward in October, 2017, and have been strong supporters throughout the process.

* Supporting the nuclear ban would be a way of building bridges with the countries of Latin America -- including original ban sponsors (and Pacific neighbors) Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile. In fact, Latin America has a 50-year history of working toward a global nuclear ban.

* And, of course, it has long been apparent that China is busily building relations with countries throughout Africa. Nearly every country in Africa is a supporter of the nuclear ban.

Fourth, there is the potential for shaking loose other "holdouts":

* Australia has opposed the ban, but is a vital trade partner with China. And 75% of the public in Australia support the ban.

* China has been moving progressively toward playing the principal role in negotiating some kind of grand bargain to denuclearize/demilitarize the Korean peninsula.

Finally, in the long run, there will be a solution to the countries that refuse to come to the table: India and Pakistan, the US and Russia. While it may be difficult today to imagine that it will be China that will one day play the "honest broker" and host such talks . . . it is not difficult to imagine people saying "this wouldn't have been possible without China."


Of course, everything outlined above is hypothetical. But I believe it illustrates an important point: the impending nuclear ban treaty carries enormous potential consequences for many countries -- China being just one example -- and the more people delve into the risks, opportunities, and possibilities involved, the more global excitement there will be about the treaty.


Please share this post . . . . 

#Nuclearban Game-Changer: South Korea?

South Korea's new leader: Moon Jae-in
(Image: NY Daily News)

What if South Korea participated in the negotiations at the UN on a global nuclear weapons ban?

Up until yesterday, that seemed unlikely. Based on information provided by the ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), "South Korea voted against the UN resolution to begin negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. It claims that US nuclear weapons are essential for its security and has refused to declare that nuclear weapons should never be used again under any circumstances."

However, South Korea elected a new president two days ago, and he has said that his country should no longer sit on the sidelines while the US and China control the efforts to deal with a nuclear North Korea. Moon Jae-in favors a "Sunshine Policy" to achieve peaceful reconciliation with North Korea. (See "South Korea’s New President, Moon Jae-in, Promises New Approach to North") Not incidentally, Moon is willing to challenge the US on military systems like THAAD.

It is noteworthy that . . .

* the US actively protested against the nuclear weapons ban negotiations, and has urged/pressured its allies to do the same (See USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.) )

* China abstained from the vote on the negotiations, sent a representative to the preparatory meeting, but then announced it would sit the negotiations out. (See China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement)

* North Korea voted in favor of the negotiations, but then said it would not participate in the negotiations if the US is not doing so. (See North Korea and #NuclearBan)

* Japan gave strong indications that it would participate, but ultimately declined to participate, saying it would be inconsistent with its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. (See NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully))

Negotiations on a global nuclear ban resume in New York at the United Nations on June 15. Participation by South Korea could be a game-changer.



RELATED: Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror and The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror


Please share this post . . . .

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement

#nuclearban
 . . . before our luck runs out!
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

China's leader Mao Zedong recognized that one of the paramount issues of our time would be the reversal of dominance by a few powerful states holding arsenals of nuclear weapons. Mao more-or-less single-handedly developed and articulated a doctrine to counter that of deterrence and superpower dominance. He recognized that nuclear arsenals could inflict enormous injury (like real tigers) but would ultimately prove to be unsustainable as sources of national power ("paper tigers"). (See "Great Powers and Atomic Bombs are 'Paper Tigers'" by Ralph L. Powell)

To a very real degree, the fact that negotiations on a global nuclear weapons ban are going forward next week at the UN stems from Mao's vision. Historically, China has been an important leader in the "third world" / non-aligned movement. Moreover, China's continued limitations on its own nuclear arsenal suggest that it stands on the side of countries trying to figure out how to undo the arms race that the US and Russia have perpetrated, rather than participate in it. Certainly, in its history the People's Republic of China has faced the threat of a nuclear attack by the US at numerous points. (See "Nuclear Signaling and China’s Perception about Nuclear Threat: How China Handled Nuclear Threats in the Cold War" by Tong Zhao)

So when I read the reports yesterday that China will not attend the weapons ban negotiations, my initial reaction was disappointment. I believe that the nuclear weapons ban effort demonstrates the ability of the vast majority of the world's countries to insist that the handful of most powerful countries stop threatening them. For the reasons described above, it seemed to me that China needed to be at the table.

China: the US is a "paper tiger"

Once I settled down, however, it occurred to me: maybe the important question is, What affects China's decision? After all, China is bound to act in its own best interest. Moreover, it may have some analysis of what will work best that is not immediately obvious.

Yes, based on history, we can be confident China wants a nuclear ban . . . . I wondered: Is it possible that China can get what it wants without participating in the negotiations? (Yes: a nuclear ban treaty seems likely to be negotiated with or without China's participation.)

I wondered further: Is there some way in which it is actually to China's advantage to view the negotiations from afar, rather than being at the table? (Yes: they can make an up-or-down decision whether to accede to the treaty, without being compelled to voice objections during the negotiations themselves. They can retain the flexibility to join the negotiations later. They can continue to urge other states to participate.)

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the best option for China right now may be to participate by not participating. (Does that sound like Daoist philosophy? Well . . . . ) China is in the peculiar position of being a very important state, and a state that possesses nuclear weapons, but also a state with a tiny nuclear arsenal compared to the US and Russia. China makes the most of its significant but limited influence -- perhaps -- by hovering in the wings . . . .

"Nuclear Civil Defense Measures" (China, 1970)
The text at top is a warning from Mao about
a nuclear war of aggression against China:
"From now on we must be prepared for this!"
(Source: Chinese Propaganda Posters, Taschen)

What might the "silver lining" be? Remembering that things aren't always what they seem . . . that a "negative" may turn out to be a "neutral" . . . and that a "neutral" may turn out to be a "positive" . . . .

If China did participate in the negotiations, it would be compelled to voice the perspective of a "nuclear weapons state." For instance, China would have to insist that the proceedings "go slow" and "be practical." (You know the principle: speak now or forever hold your peace.) By forgoing the privilege of advancing those arguments, China makes it likely that the treaty that is constructed will have as few "outs" as possible for the nuclear weapons states.

In other words, to accomplish something in its long-term (and vital) interest, China may be forfeiting some near-term (but ultimately unimportant) interest.

(By the way: considering all aspects of a development is a highly-valued outlook in China, embodied in the expression "Old Sai loses a horse.")

The more I think about it, the more I wonder: was the US expecting China to do its dirty work for it? Did the US think that it could, itself, boycott the negotiations, while still relying on China to be at the table and advance all kinds of "nuclear weapons state" perspectives?  If so, there will be some disappointed people in Washington, DC.

I wonder what the conversation between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will be on this subject when they meet in April.


My conclusion: Don't count China out. China DOES have a role in the nuclear ban movement!


MORE:

#Nuclearban: How Will China Play Its Hand?
Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???


Please share this post . . . .

"Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation"

The doctrine of deterrence -- and the preferential comfort it affords a few nuclear weapons states -- will not survive the 2017 Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations . . . .

The biggest global event of 2017 will be the negotiations on a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations
United Nations, New York
27-31 March 2017
15 June - 7 July 2017
(For more information: ICAN)

I have just read a very provocative analysis of what the nuclear weapons ban treaty is all about. It asserts, in part:

"The ban treaty, then, is
an instrument to disrupt the comfort
of those who still believe that deterrence logic
(or mutual assured destruction)
provides a security rationale for nuclear weapons."

(emphasis added)

(See "The ban treaty: An interim step, but politically profound" by Joelien Pretorius in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.)

This was a revelation to me, taken in concert with my current re-reading of Mohammed ElBaradei's The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times."That's right!" I thought. "'Deterrence' is only the chosen logical paradigm for those who already control a massive advantage AND have a way of maintaining that advantage. They -- the nuclear weapons powers - have managed to attach a taboo to proliferation, but not to deterrence. It's bogus."

"Deterrence" is the back-door concept by which nuclear weapons states, having undertaken a treaty obligation to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise by others to not acquire them, over and over and over again make excuses for doing so. "And yet . . . to achieve deterrence . . . maintain strategic balance . . . and keep in mind global security . . . . "

It slowly began to dawn on me that, because I live in the US, and have been inculcated with more than 50 years of pro-deterrence propaganda, at some deep level I have bought into the deterrence argument. Logically, of course, I have rejected it; but that's not the same thing as the visceral disdain for the idea that is felt by every person living in a non-nuclear weapons state.

If you think about it, it is only one set of parties for whom deterrence is okay, and for whom proliferation doesn't make any sense at all. Those without nuclear weapons don't have the luxury of being comfortable with it.

In fact: is it possible that those without nuclear weapons -- and facing the nuclear weapons monopoly of the "haves" -- may see proliferation as a preferable option?

In fact: if you really believe in deterrence, don't you believe in deterrence for everybody? Don't you achieve perfect deterrence when you achieve total proliferation?

Before you say "of course not," please consider: proliferation can never be more taboo than deterrence.

In 2017, the nations of the world will make that clear.


Related posts

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

(See Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???)



How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons? How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States)) 





The Age of Deception deserves close reading by anyone who wants to understand why a nuclear ban will be negotiated in 2017.

(See HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: ElBaradei's "Age of Deception")

Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???

Of particular interest when the UN vote was taken - the actions of USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea ... and Japan.

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)

"What do you notice . . . ?"

If I were lucky enough to be a high school or college teacher, I would seize the opportunity to invite my students to investigate a real life moment in global politics.

Last Thursday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to proceed with negotiations in 2017on global nuclear disarmament - a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

ROLL CALL: votes on "taking forward multilateral
nuclear disarmament negotiations"

The assignment is simple: Pick a country ... guess how you might expect them to vote, giving reasons for your answer ... then look at how they really voted.  Next, try to think about additional reasons that might explain their actual vote. Final step: go online and see what others are saying about why the country voted the way they did.

This will prove to be a very illuminating exercise for anyone -- young or old -- who thinks they know which countries are working for the peace and safety of the world.

More information at on Common Dreams: "US Votes 'No' As UN Adopts Landmark Resolution Calling to Ban Nuclear Weapons"


For instance, see . . . 

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries

Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World

SCIENCE MARCHES: Are All These Countries In the Dark About Nuclear Weapons?

VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror

Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons

A Peace-building Commonwealth Wants to Ban Nuclear Weapons
and The Road to the Commonwealth Games Passes Through #Nuclearban Territory

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully)

NOWRUZ: New Day for a World Without Nuclear Weapons

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement

USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.)

North Korea and #NuclearBan

(Most of) The Mideast Wants a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World

Where Will Europe Stand on #Nuclearban?


Additional resources

"Standing With the Nonwhite World to Ban Nuclear Weapons" by Vincent J. Intondi: "It is no surprise that this current attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons is being led by many nonwhite nations. In 1955, ten years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, twenty-nine nations of Asia and Africa gathered in Bandung, Indonesia . . . "

"Nuclear weapons and the dialectic of universalism: the UN convenes to ban the bomb" by Kjølv Egeland: "[T]he nuclear ban-treaty movement marks the first time an instrument of international humanitarian law is forced into existence against a kicking and screaming European core. The civilising mission of normative stigmatisation has been taken up by those formerly on the receiving end."

 . . . and links to more helpful explanations on the "Full voting result on UN resolution L.41" page on the ICAN website.


More related posts

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))


Hibakusha is a word that has traditionally been used to refer to people affected by the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagaski.  It is now being broadened to recognize the many additional victims of acute affects of nuclear radiation (including fallout from tests and radioactivity from mining and processing). In fact, we are all subject to the impact and threat of nuclear radiation spread indiscriminately by nations and corporations.

(See HIROSHIMA: What does it mean to say, "We are ALL 'hibakusha'?")






"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."

(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)

South China Sea: Get Serious, Lose the Hypocrisy

Yes, there are important issues in the South China Sea. But US people must begin by refusing to buy into US government hypocrisy on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Chigua (China name) / Mabini (Philippine name) on January 24, 2015.
(It is also known as "Johnson South Reef.")

Buried in the article in The New York Times this past week about the South China Sea conflict -- a conflict the US and others want to see judged under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) -- is this sentence:

The United States signed the United Nations treaty but never ratified it.

In other words, the US government and the US mainstream media see fit to tell the US reading public all the ways that China should be behaving differently in light of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) even though that is a body of law that the US is not a party to.

(Sort of the same way the US government and the US mainstream media tsk-tsk China for creating military installations on a few sandbars in the area when the US is itself re-instituting its extensive system of bases throughout the nearby Philippines, not to mention its network of bases throughout the area of the Asia-Pacific bordering China.)

The US has adopted the role of "enforcer" by traversing the waters involved with its navy. It seeks to remind China constantly of the US interpretation of China's rights (and the limits on those rights) under UNCLOS -- i.e. under that treaty that the US is not, itself, a party to.

The issues in the South China Sea are extremely important. US people need to use that situation as an invitation to get interested in the larger context of how the US behaves in that region and in the world.


Related posts

In much of the 20th century, conflict and war centered on oil resources and the Middle East. Will the 21st century see conflict and war center on fisheries, particularly in the Pacific?

(See Pacific Fisheries' Futile Conflict: How about sharing?)












As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)







My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.

(See 21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement)

Pacific Fisheries' Futile Conflict: How about sharing?

In much of the 20th century, conflict and war centered on oil resources and the Middle East. Will the 21st century see conflict and war center on fisheries, particularly in the Pacific?

The UN International Day for Peace 2016 has been tied to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Life Below Water is goal #14. With Barack Obama visiting Asia, and the G7 meeting in Japan, it's a good time to see how Life Below Water ties to issues of war and peace.

I was intrigued by an op-ed by outgoing Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou in the Wall Street Journal.  It was a closely argued piece on the appropriate way to observe (and adjudicate) economic rights in the Pacific. (See "Taiwan's Stake in the Western Pacific") This was Ma's swan song -- it appeared on the eve of his retirement from the presidency, and the (historic) swearing in of the Taiwan's new (woman) president.

I know that these ocean rights are important. But really? Why ask people to consider a point-by-point analysis of the respective merits of Taiping Island and Okinotori Reef claims by Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan?

I've lived in Taiwan. I knew there were a lot of fish in Taiwan.
I just never stopped to think about where the fish came from.

It made me stop and think: Ma felt this was the most important topic to talk about as he walked out the door. In effect, Ma was saying: Hey! Pay attention to these fishing rights! They will be the most important thing of all to us in the years to come!

(N.B.: not "the Mainland"!)

Consider: "Oceans serve as the world’s largest source of protein, with more than 3 billion people depending on the oceans as their primary source of protein." (See Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources) Won't that percentage grow steadily as more and more people turn away from beef, pork, and other land-based and farmed sources of animal protein?

So this is causing me to think differently about a topic I've written about before: the growing tensions in the South China Sea. In a previous post, I emphasized oil and gas rights there, and wrote: "[A]ren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?" (See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)

Now I'm waking up.

"It's the fish, stupid." 

It's not just a question of one country or another being entitled. It's a question of how we are going to share this . . . and how we're going to make sure we don't mess it up.

Red indicates extreme over-fishing. (Source: Trashpatch.org interactive map)

A good place to start is to examine UNCLOS -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It "defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources."  It is the authority that nations are referring to in dealing with the current conflicts in the South China Sea, for instance.

The US has refused to ratify UNCLOS and so stands outside of it. Perhaps it's time for the world to tell the US that to come to the table and participate in the conversation about the future of life below water as an equal partner with the other nations of the world. And to leave their warships at home.


Related posts

It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)












What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)







My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.

(See 21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement)

21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement

As a "peace" enclave within California's concentrated military/defense economy, Berkeley and the East Bay have a role to play in the discussion about China.

BERKELEY: Looking west -- the bay, San Francisco . . . and beyond.

As I set out to understand California's entanglement in the military-industrial complex, I started where I live: Berkeley.

Reading a letter to the editor from our representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, a few days ago reminded me that the 13th district is kind of unusual: "As the National Defense Authorization Act comes up for a vote, I will once again co-lead a bipartisan amendment to audit the Pentagon." (Read more on Barbara Lee's position on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).)

Yup, this is different than the town I just came from. Chicago's star corporate citizen is mega military contractor Boeing.

Of course, Berkeley was ground zero for the antiwar movement during the '60s. But what's its relevance today?


A bridge to China

As a long-time student of China and the Chinese language, I am enchanted to find myself in a city whose university attracts lots of the very smartest students from China and other parts of Asia. (See "Berkeley - International Student Enrollment - Fall 2015") Many other Berkeley students who are US citizens claim Asian ethnicity. (See "Berkeley - Enrollment Data")

If California, and especially the Bay Area, is the historic link between the US and China, Berkeley is a particularly vital US-China hub right now.

We all say things like "youth are our future" . . . . What would happen if we encouraged a serious discussion between the diverse people in the Berkeley community (and from other communities) about the future of peace and security in the Pacific region?

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF:
Does this make ANY sense?

The discussion we need to have

I wrote recently about the growing tensions in the South China Sea.

As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

I think a good way to re-direct the conversation would be to get a large number of young people who know and care about the situation in the region to get together and talk. It should include people from the various countries and territories concerned. It should be directed at the future we're all trying to build together. It should place a strong premium on listening. It should be open-ended.


Some possible starting points

The good thing about a university town is that it has many of the ingredients necessary to conduct forums.

Now this I understand . . . !
(Image: Android Authority)

Here are a few available in Berkeley that might assist the type of discussion I am suggesting:

* Student associations, including Chinese Students Association, Taiwanese American Student Association,
Hong Kong Student Association, . . . .

* University departments, including International Relations and  Institute of East Asian Studies

* Citizen groups, including United Nations Association - East Bay

* Relevant University affiliates, such as Office of International Relations and International House - UC Berkeley

My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.


Related Posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)

"Although we know the end from the very beginning," says Walker, "the story is no less compelling to watch." A man, gloriously alone (except for his own reflection) on an ice-covered lake; the soothing pastel colors of the distant sky; and what seems surely to be a circle he is digging around himself with a pick-axe. A perfect parable for our headlong rush toward climate crisis?

(See How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese?)

SOLAR PANELS: A Force for Peace in Africa?

Will the people in Africa who are starved for electricity get it via solar panels supplied from China? What impact might this have on violent conflict?

Sustainable Development Goal 9:
Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure

The UN International Day for Peace 2016 has been tied to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. I was interested to see that an event titled World Economic Forum Africa 2016 is happening in Rwanda in the next several days. It made me curious to see what the Davos people might have to say about development (and, by extension, about peace) in Africa.

There's a big emphasis on digital and education at WEF Africa 2016. More information, more communication, more opportunity -- it's hard to argue with that as a good in general, and an essential lever in eliminating conflict in particular. Notably, WEF Africa 2016 is sponsored by a the Gates Foundation, numerous tech giants (Google, Microsoft, CISCO, Huawei, SAP), as well as the assortment of banks, consulting companies, and other corporate giants you would expect.

I'm a little curious, however, about where the power is going to come from to bring about the digital revolution in Africa.  A report on the WEF Africa 2016 website ("Africa’s digital revolution: a look at the technologies, trends and people driving it") provides this graphic:

AFRICA: Share of population without access to electricity
(Image: International Energy Agency)

Forget about electricity to power digital devices. How is it possible to talk seriously about a stable society and reversing the forces that bring about civil conflict when over 75% of a population has no access to electricity? According to the graphic, that means 60 million people in Congo, and 70 million people in Ethiopia.  In Nigeria, where somewhere between 25% and 50% of the people have access to electricity, there are still 93 million people without it.

There is a session on infrastructure at WEF Africa 2016, and I intend to watch it. I hope that it will not feature suggestions that nuclear energy is what Africa needs. (Stay tuned.)

What WEF Africa 2016 should be advocating is a massive solar energy program for Africa.

SolarGIS solar irradiation map, showing areas of highest exposure in Africa.

Trade, aid, lending, and investment between Africa and China have been growing rapidly. China is a massive supplier of solar panels. A project called Akon Lighting Africa (ALA) initiative aims to bring solar power to 600 million people in Africa -- with the help, it should be noted, of a $1 billion credit line from a Chinese solar system provider.

To get deeper into some of the underlying issues, check out this 2009 study on "China in the African Solar Energy Sector" based on the experience in Kenya.

Of course, solar power in Africa would have winners and losers. The winners would include companies in China supplying solar panels. Of course, Chinese companies could be counted on to start producing solar panels in Africa before long, so Africans would also be winners. Of course, thousands -- perhaps millions -- of local people in Africa would find employment installing and maintaining solar systems. And everyone in Africa would win from the absence of pollution.

Of course, there would be losers, too. Giant corporations like GE-Hitachi -- did I mention GE and Hitachi are sponsors of WEF Africa 2016? -- and Western engineering companies and banks will lose out if they do not get contracts to build nuclear plants in Africa.

I wonder if, when Peace Day 2016 rolls around in September, we'll be celebrating the continued progress of peaceful solar in Africa, or worrying about the creep of nuclear power across Africa?



Related posts

It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)












There's no question in my mind that Climate Action (Sustainable Development Goals #13) goes hand in hand with antiwar activity.

(See Peace Day 2016: 3 Ways Climate Action is Vital)













The U.S. could take a lesson from the "command economy" in China about government setting a bold new direction in using alternative energy.

(See #chinaEARTHusa -- Solar Panels at the Crux)








The enormous irony is that now one country -- India -- is responding to its past subjugation by the Western imperial program with this hugely self-damaging program, and another country that has struggled with its relationship to the Western imperial program -- Japan -- is doing everything it can to aid and abet.

(See INDIA: Lured into playing the "Great Power" Nuclear Game)