Chase China

The WASHINGTON POST was less acerbic. The appointment of envoys to negotiate chronic border disputes signaled a new phase, it conceded, while pointing out the lack of substantial trade between the two. The joint statement in Beijing pledged to increase trade to reach 10 billion by 2005. That sum is paltry, observed the POST, compared to China8217;s trade in 2002 with Japan at 101.91 billion, the US at 97.18 billion and Europe at 86.76 billion.

In Britain, the FINANCIAL TIMES served up this cautious image: India and China, often described as ships passing in the night, seem at least to have reached the point of using their foghorns. It went on to suggest that Monday8217;s joint declaration may even provide a model for India and Pakistan: You can normalise relations in trade and other areas before you have resolved territorial disputes.

But the ECONOMIST was the one with the most on India and China. Going behind the hectic handpumping in Beijing, its cover story explored larger questions. Why is the average Chinese nearly twice as well-off as his Indian neighbour? Why the huge differences in airports and business centres, adult literacy, infant mortality rates? What explains the 8216;8216;yawning gap8217;8217; between the two Asian powers?

Democracy didn8217;t do it, the magazine was absolutely certain. Instead, the culprits are: Rampant corruption, a constricted rule of law, a creaking judicial system, the caste system, irresponsible government, continuous electioneering, permanent state of near-war with Pakistan. The ECONOMIST8217;s verdict: India lags behind China not because it is a democracy but because it8217;s not a very good one. But even so, it advised, Indians should learn that they have less to fear from their giant neighbour than they think. In their feverish awe of the Chinese model, they may be exaggerating their own handicaps.

Speaking of awe, in THE STRAITS TIMES, columnist Sunanda K. Datta-Ray announced the inauguration of a new political slogan: 8216;8216;Chase China8217;8217;. It is coined, said Datta-Ray, by George Fernandes. India8217;s defence minister now believes that only a grassroots campaign by his Samata Party can persuade public opinion to take an unbiased view of China as a role model.

Full of words

They described it as a 8216;8216;tightly conditioned8217;8217; package. In the US media, everyone spelt out the dos and don8217;ts that went with the 3 billion handout by the US to Pakistan. They underlined, as well, the Bush8217;s administration8217;s simultaneous denial of F-16s to that country at the endearingly tie-less summit between Bush and Musharraf at Camp David.

8216;8216;Funding tied to terrorism, non-proliferation goals, Bush tells Musharraf8217;8217; declared the WASHINGTON POST. Its report explained that in an annual review, America would also be monitoring Pakistan8217;s steps towards democracy. While the General and the president appeared at ease with each other at Camp David, Bush8217;s aides are concerned about Musharraf8217;s control over his country8217;s nuclear infrastructure, reported the NYT.

Throughout his American jaunt, the allegation of nuclear trade between North Korea and Pakistan tailed Musharraf. It was the one question on which Pakistan8217;s president was tightlipped. 8216;8216;It is a totally closed chapter. It8217;s behind us8217;8217; he said. On everything else, he was characteristically full of words. Literally so.

And sometimes reassuringly so. In an interview, on whether there will be war with India this year, his reply: 8216;8216;8230;impossible. Two hundred per cent, there won8217;t be war. There will be no war. And I will say there won8217;t be any war, I don8217;t see any war in the near future, foreseeable future8230; I don8217;t foresee war at all.8217;8217;

8216;Racial aesthetics8217;

The dust hasn8217;t quite settled on Monday8217;s ruling by the American Supreme Court. On Monday, the court preserved affirmative action in university admissions by a one-vote margin. The court8217;s endorsement was resounding but qualified. Even as it upheld the University of Michigan8217;s consideration of race for admission to its law school, it invalidated the same university8217;s race-based points system for admission to its undergraduate college, dubbing it a 8216;8216;nonindividualised, mechanical one8217;8217;. Incidentally, the Bush administration had asked the court to invalidate both Michigan programmes. And briefs filed by large US corporations and former military officials urged the court to uphold them.

The verdict has not calmed the squalling. What is the correct balance between the goal of campus diversity and the principle of equal treatment under the law? What is the constitutionally acceptable way of using race? Opponents of affirmative action gleefully seized upon the dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, the court8217;s only black member and a beneficiary cum longtime opponent of affirmative action. Thomas dismissed the University of Michigan8217;s policy as 8216;8216;racial aesthetics8217;8217;. He scorned affirmative action as 8216;8216;a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti8217;8217;.

And someone had to tie it up with the War on Terror. In the WASHINGTON POST, columnist Jim Hoagland wrote that the Supreme Court8217;s rulings 8212; and the acceptance by US institutions, politicians and citizens of their binding validity even as they debate them 8212; should provide a useful contrast to the American rogue superpower image so rampant in the world post 9/11. Critics must ask: Can a nation that emphasises the importance of fairness, openness and legality at home long sustain brutal power politics and armed force as its chief instruments of foreign policy abroad? 8216;8216;Could the United States, or any other great power, really be John Locke at home and Thomas Hobbes abroad for very long?8217;8217;

Watch out, Iran

A WASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS poll came up with this sobering finding this week: Most Americans would support the US taking military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By 56 per cent to 38 per cent, the people endorsed the use of the military against Iran.