China is not a model

The Economist has another typical article that degenerates into treating China with words like "ooh" and "aah". First the article lists economic and political similarities between the US and the EU and then starts drawing comparisons to China, implying that the Chinese government (or any authoritarian regime) could cope with financial crises more effectively than "dysfunctional" democracies. Maybe, but let's not start treating China as some kind of a model until comparisons between the West and China become valid. Despite the fact that the Chinese GDP soon catches up with that of the US, their current GDP per capita is less than one tenth of that of the US. The time to start drawing comparisons is when the Communist party has made it possible for the Chinese to enjoy Western levels of prosperity. With their current political and economic system there's no chance of that happening.

There's one good point there though: "Every year China continues to grow, the case that countries need to be democracies in order to become wealthy and developed becomes more tenuous."

Of course, this is nothing new. During the Cold War many 3rd world countries adopted the Soviet system as an economic model. What failed them was not any lack of democracy but the centrally-planned economic system that China has now somewhat abandoned. Even in the West many countries were economically liberal before they were politically liberal. It was the wealth brought on by Capitalism that made people in the West demand more political liberties. This is also what makes the Chinese leadership so nervous.

It is Capitalism that brings stability in the first place because materially well-off people have a lot to lose if they resort to petty factionalism. (No wonder then that Communist revolutions took place exactly where Marx least expected them.) This is why democratic countries that have been made prosperous by Capitalism are stable while attempts to introduce democracy prior to Capitalism tend to result in failures.

Suomen ja Israelin asekaupat

Vasemmistolaiset idealistit (Tuomioja, Hautala, Hassi, Kaurismäki jne.) ovat allekirjoittaneet vetoomuksen, jossa "Suomea vaaditan lopettamaan asekaupat Israelin kanssa". Tällainen sinisilmäinen "vaikuttaminen" perustunee oletukseen, että Lähi-idän ongelmat loppuvat, kunhan Israel laskee aseensa, aivan kuin Lähi-idän konfliktin historia olisi täynnä instansseja, joissa Israelin rauhaneleet oltaisiin palkittu jollakin muulla kuin Israelin siviileihin kohdistuvalla väkivallalla.

Erkki Tuomioja sanoo allekirjoittaneensa asekauppaa vastustavan vetoomuksen siksi, ettei Israelia enää voi eikä pidä kohdella asekaupoissa normaalina kumppanina.

"Ei niin kauan kuin se jatkaa siirtokuntien laajentamista ja laitonta miehitystään palestiinalaisalueilla eikä osoita uskottavia merkkejä aidosta pyrkimyksestä kestävään rauhansopimukseen."

Onpa yksipuolista. Viittaukset palestiinalaisalueiden miehityksen laillisuuteen ovat typeriä, YK:n päätökset kun ovat perinteisesti sotineet Israelin valideja turvallisuusintressejä vastaan. Jos Tuomioja haluaisi edistää miehityksen lakkauttamista, hänen tulisi vedota palestiinalaisiin, Israel kun miehittää palestiinalaisalueita vain siksi, että sen on pakko.

Suomi tietenkin myös hyötyy Israelin kanssa käytävistä asekaupoista, kuten nimimerkki "Moskovan arkistonhoitaja" Helsingin Sanomien uutisartikkelin kommenttiosiossa kertoo:

Suomi on samantyyppisessä asetelmassa kun Israel. Pieni demokraattinen valtio selkä merta vasten totalitaristisen ja äärimmäisen väkivaltaisen historian omaavassa väestöllisesti monikymmenkertaisessa ja maantieteellisesti sitäkin suuremmassa ja historiassa hyvin epävakaaksi osoittautuneessa ympäristössä.
Suomessa on Israelista paitsi sotilaallisesti myös teknis-taloudellisesti opittavaa, onhan Israel korkean teknologian johtavia maita kun siellä on yhdistynyt miljoonan orjuudesta exodukseen paenneen entisen neuvostoinsinöörin osaaminen amerikkalaisen kapitalismin maaperään tuottaen erinomaisia tiedon ja taidon jaffahedelmiä.

The Economist and its leftward spiral

The Economist warns of the dangers of Big Government. Funny, because I vaguely remember the Economist advocating not only Barack Obama's election but also the fiscal stimulus, the bank rescue package and the health care reform. This is the trend the news magazine has had for at least the past four years that I have been a subscriber. First they advocate interventionist policies and then, especially if those policies backfire, they argue that we should be cautious of such policies. Usually they leave cunning openings for themselves, allowing them to take credit however things turn out. I guess they really want to make it seem like they're sticking to their stated principles while in fact advocating policies that betray those principles.