Surprisingly, the Chinese government has released a white paper outlining its national defense strategy. From a quick perusal it's clear that China's priorities are Taiwan and a Chinese version of the "revolution in military affairs." Here is how China views its regional context:

Meanwhile, complicated security factors in the Asia-Pacific region are on the increase. The United States is realigning and reinforcing its military presence in this region by buttressing military alliances and accelerating deployment of missile defense systems. Japan is stepping up its constitutional overhaul, adjusting its military and security policies and developing the missile defense system for future deployment. It has also markedly increased military activities abroad. The foundation for the Six-Party Talks is not solid enough as uncertain factors linger in the settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The threat posed by terrorism, separatism and extremism is still grave. Such transnational crimes as smuggling, piracy, drug trafficking and money laundering are rampant. Many countries are confronted with the formidable task of eliminating poverty, achieving sustainable development and enhancing security in the area of public health.

The situation in the relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits is grim. The Taiwan authorities under Chen Shui-bian have recklessly challenged the status quo that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China, and markedly escalated the "Taiwan independence" activities designed to split China. Incessantly trumpeting their separatist claim of "one country on each side," they use referendum to engage in the separatist activities aimed at "Taiwan independence," incite hostility among the people on the island toward the mainland, and purchase large amounts of offensive weapons and equipment. They have not given up their attempt at "Taiwan independence" through the formulation of a so-called "new constitution for Taiwan." They are still waiting for the opportune moment to engineer a major "Taiwan independence" incident through the so-called "constitutional reform." The separatist activities of the "Taiwan independence" forces have increasingly become the biggest immediate threat to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as peace and stability on both sides of the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. The United States has on many occasions reaffirmed adherence to the one China policy, observance of the three joint communiqués and opposition to "Taiwan independence." However, it continues to increase, quantitatively and qualitatively, its arms sales to Taiwan, sending a wrong signal to the Taiwan authorities. The US action does not serve a stable situation across the Taiwan Straits.

China's national security environment in this pluralistic, diversified and interdependent world has on the whole improved, but new challenges keep cropping up. The vicious rise of the "Taiwan independence" forces, the technological gap resulting from RMA, the risks and challenges caused by the development of the trends toward economic globalization, and the prolonged existence of unipolarity vis-a-vis multipolarity - all these will have a major impact on China's security. Nevertheless, China is determined to safeguard its national sovereignty and security, no matter how the international situation may evolve, and what difficulties it may encounter, so as to join hands with the people around the world in advancing the lofty cause of peace and development for mankind.

A lot of talk about bilateral military exercises and regional security consultation and cooperation and so forth. Russia figures prominently as the number one strategic partner. BTW, did you know that China had people in Haiti?

In 2004, China has sent 59 policemen to East Timor, Liberia, Afghanistan, Kosovo of Serbia-Herzegovina and Haiti, and a 125-member organic police detachment to Haiti to serve with MINUSTAH at the request of the UN.

I think there's also some serious BS in there, notably with regard to China's commitment to non-proliferation, which has been dubious at best IMHO. Overall, I'd say the document reads like it is intended more as an internal plea for boosting defense spending and as PR for the international community rather than as the outline of some kind of grand strategy. China is very focused on economic development, and claims it "will never go for expansion, nor will it ever seek hegemony."

Swallowing Taiwan would not count as expansion, apparently:

Should the Taiwan authorities go so far as to make a reckless attempt that constitutes a major incident of "Taiwan independence," the Chinese people and armed forces will resolutely and thoroughly crush it at any cost.

Good thing Taiwan is rejecting the separatists. The status quo works just fine for now.

One other expansion note: does energy count? Throughout history, there have been conflicts between great powers over resources. How comfortable are we that the U.S. and China won't butt heads at some point? I'm not quite as sanguine as, say, Thomas Barnett on this point. But maybe that's because I'm in the middle of a book about imperialism. China is talking a good game about renewable energy and so forth, but meanwhile they're building relationships with old-fashioned energy producers in our sphere of influence.

But alll told, not too scary.

Jeffrey Lewis has a take here.

UPDATE: Holy Crap! I was vaguely aware that China was undergoing some domestic upheaval, but from this amazing Times article it sounds much more widespread than I had imagined.

Police statistics show the number of public protests reached nearly 60,000 in 2003, an increase of nearly 15 percent from 2002 and eight times the number a decade ago. Martial law and paramilitary troops are commonly needed to restore order when the police lose control. [...]

Last month, as many as 100,000 farmers in Sichuan Province, frustrated by months of fruitless appeals against a dam project that claimed their land, took matters into their own hands. They seized Hanyuan County government offices and barred work on the dam site for days. It took 10,000 paramilitary troops to quell the unrest. [...]

Also in November, in Wanrong County, Shanxi Province, in central China, two policemen were killed when enraged construction workers attacked a police station after a traffic dispute. Days later, in Guangdong Province, in the far south, riots erupted and a toll booth was burned down after a woman claimed she had been overcharged to use a bridge. In mid-December, a village filled with migrant workers in Guangdong erupted into a frenzy of violence after the police caught a 15-year-old migrant stealing a bicycle and beat him to death. Up to 50,000 migrants rioted there, Hong Kong newspapers reported.

Those are some serious numbers. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention? So I wonder if China will try to deflect that anger outwards, diffuse it by opening up political space, or simply try to squelch it in the usual way?

Self-described intellectual elitist Abiola Lapite is a math whiz who is up to speed on the shoddy arguments of white supremacist cranks like Steve Sailer. So up to speed in fact, that he just can't take it anymore. I was too lazy (and too innumerate, sadly) to do the legwork before, but to see how these arguments are best refuted, take a gander at this thread and the links that Abiola provides. As immigration rises over the next few decades (a good thing and a vital component of continued American economic growth), I expect the white supremacists to get louder and, unfortunately, more popular, so it's important to know their tricks. I feel like it may be happening already.

Now, I don't really care about the vagueries of the American Prospect's legal tiff with whoever they have a legal tiff with, but I do care that white supremacists are consigned to the fringes where they belong. So I recommend that my blogfriend Armed Liberal take note and do some reading before he gives Sailer a platform in the future.

Emily Gertz has a good post over at the essential Worldchanging.com that credits one of the world's most underappreciated plant species with saving lives. She found this article by G. Venkataramani in The Hindu:

CHENNAI, DEC. 27. "Tsunami is a rare phenomenon. Though we cannot prevent the occurrence of such natural calamities, we should certainly prepare ourselves to mitigate the impact of the natural fury on the population inhabiting the coastal ecosystems. Our anticipatory research work to preserve mangrove ecosystems as the first line of defence against devastating tidal waves on the eastern coastline has proved very relevant today.

The dense mangrove forests stood like a wall to save coastal communities living behind them," said M.S. Swaminathan, Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Chennai.

The mangroves in Pitchavaram and Muthupet region acted like a shield and bore the brunt of the tsunami.

The impact was mitigated and lives and property of the communities inhabiting the region were saved.

"When we started the foundation 14 years ago, we initiated the anticipatory research programme — a two-pronged strategy — to meet the eventualities of sea level rise due to global warming. One is to conserve and regenerate coastal mangroves along the eastern coast of the country, and the second is transfer of salt-tolerant genes from the mangroves to selected crops grown in the coastal regions.

It is now found that wherever the mangroves have been regenerated, especially in the Orissa coast, the damage due to tsunami is minimal," he said.

I hope my fellow bloggers will forgive Gertz's somewhat gratuitous slam of the World Bank, because she's right about the overall point: mangroves are not only a great place to find tarpon and bonefish, but they're also a key line of defense against natural disasters. But she's right to complain about the problem of shrimp farming, which has devastated mangrove swamps in the developing world (and that's one of the reasons that I, as a relatively ardent "free trader," am not altogether apposed to the shrimp tariffs the Bush administration recently slapped on Vietnam). Something nadezhda and I have discussed in the past (I'm not sure if it was here or on tacitus) is the weakness of current economic valuation methods, especially with regard to ecological services. That weakness makes it hard to compare mangroves vs. shrimp farming via cost/benefit analysis, although that hasn't stopped people from trying. It's not impossible to assign dollar figures to, say, the boon that mangroves naturally provide to fish stocks or the value of firewood to nearby villagers (relevant only for some kinds of mangroves), but it's definitely shaky. But how on earth do you put a value on "tsunami protection?" The inherent actuarial difficulty gives the shrimp farmers an unfair advantage.

Learn more about mangroves here.

UPDATE: If you don't want to save your mangroves or get frustrated with the difficulty of proper economic valuation, you could just build a giant wall.

I'm gratified to see that, based on this press conference, the U.S. is stepping up and demonstrating that it has at least a handle on the post-tsunami situation, and has assigned clear overall responsibilty on the diplomatic side to the highly capable Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman:

The job I was given today by the President was to lead a U.S. task force. And as the President said, we're trying to accomplish three things with this task force:

First, to work with the partners that the President talked about today -- Australia, Japan and India -- to see if we can form a core group to provide coordination and assistance to the terrible tragedy. I had the chance earlier this morning to speak to the three ambassadors here to begin the process of that coordination, and I also proposed that we have the first conference call of me and my counterparts in those three capitals tonight at 10 o'clock. And so, that is what we will do.

Second, to help to coordinate the interagency response here in Washington. The President, as you know, from watching him as he walked out, had a National Security Council meeting today and we have spent the morning helping to, I think, get the interagency organized. People, yesterday and the day before, were already doing a tremendous amount of work. We'd like to just make sure that that work can be facilitated and goes as easily as possible.

And then, third, to see what more can be done to get the international community to help with these relief efforts. And so, we've begun the process of trying to respond in this way, and we're going to take this now to a new level. And that is the job I have been given and the job I intend to carry out.

And on the military side:

As you can imagine, our commander of the Pacific Command, Admiral Tom Fargo, has been extremely busy and active over the last 72 hours, in contact with the various chiefs of mission in his region, as well as his military counterparts.

As a result of his discussions, he has opted to stand up Joint Task Force 536. The commander of that joint task force will be Lieutenant General "Rusty" Blackman, the commanding general of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force, located on Okinawa.

That headquarters is already in the process of deploying a forward command element, has moved to Utapao, Thailand. The Thais have been gracious enough to offer us use of Utapao throughout the disaster relief effort. That forward command element will be commanded by Brigadier General Ken Gluck, who is General Blackman's deputy up in Okinawa.

Three disaster relief assessment teams are either in place or are moving into place: the first arrived in Thailand this morning; a second will arrive this afternoon in Sri Lanka; and a third will arrive tomorrow in Indonesia. Their task, of course, will be to make immediate assessment as to the nature and the scope of the impact of the disaster.

We have committed, at this point, six C-130 aircraft for airlift support. They will be operating out of the air base at Utapao. We have committed nine P-3 aircraft, four of which will operate out of Utapao, the other five will operate out of Diego Garcia. As we speak, there are at least two P-3s in the air conducting that initial observation and reconnaissance of some of the damage sites to further the assessment.

The Lincoln Carrier Strike Group was in Hong Kong. It has been diverted now to the Gulf of Thailand. It has aircraft in the air doing a reconnaissance of the Malaka Straits to check for debris before it would transit. If it's clear, and early reports indicate that it might be, the five ships associated with that carrier strike group will take position off the island of Sumatra. It has embarked aboard 12 helicopters, which we find extremely valuable in these types of scenarios, that will be employed dependent upon the results of the assessment team.

The Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group was in Guam. It is foregoing port visits there and in Singapore to move rapidly to the Bay of Bengal. It's estimated to be on station sometime on or before 7 January. It has seven ships associated with the strike group. It carries 25 helicopters, which will be valuable to us, again, in disaster relief. There are four additional Cobras that will also be instrumental, we think, in reconnaissance efforts; 2,100 Marines, 1,400 sailors embarked aboard the Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group and 15th MEU.

The commander has also opted to move five of his pre-positioned ships out of the squadron located in Guam. These five ships have freshwater-producing capability. Each ship can produce 90,000 gallons of fresh water a day, and, of course, that will be extremely valuable as we have a number of requests already for freshwater supply.

There is a sixth ship that has a field hospital embarked aboard that can be phased ashore, again, depending upon the results of the assessment teams and the need.

Just before I stepped over, I discovered or was told that there are two additional ships out of the squadron located at Diego Garcia that Admiral Fargo is also ordering to action. They will embark as soon as possible and get underway, again, for assignment in the affected region. Those two ships also have a 90,000 gallon freshwater-production capability.

On the USAID side, according to Director Andrew Natsios:

We have stood up the Response Management Team, the RMT, which is the AID 24-hour/7-day-a-week disaster response center here in Washington. We did that on Sunday, Sunday morning. We deployed a DART team, a Disaster Assistance Response Team, of technical disaster relief specialists from AID. There are 44 people on the teams; 22 are now in site in the countries. They are doing assessments, working with local officials, nongovernmental organizations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and local officials.

I think there are going to be some questions later as to whether USAID is the entity best equipped to respond immediately to this sort of thing, but it sounds like Natsios is at least on top of it now. The NSC hasn't exactly bathed itself in glory, either, as is clear from Grossman's comments above. Grossman should have been designated in charge on Sunday. Moving on -- Natsios also noted the delicate situation in Aceh, Indonesia, which has been devastated by the tsunami:

Aceh is in the middle of an insurrection. It's been in a civil war for a long time now. And so, there are areas of Aceh that have not been accessible to anybody, including the national government of the -- Indonesia -- and they only today approved in Indonesia access by the international community to the area.

I think we have the sort of ceasefire in place, according to our friends in Indonesia, that will allow us access. But the deaths in Indonesia are much larger than anybody, including the Indonesian National Government realized, because some of these areas are insecure, or were insecure.

I think we should send retired CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni there. He knows the issues (Armitage appointed him as a special negotiator in the Aceh/Indonesia conflict) and has broad experience in urgent relief efforts in Kurdistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. I believe he also worked in some capacity with Grossman in Operation Provide Comfort, which was really the first example of this kind of complicated relief effort, although what's happening now is on another scale altogether.

UPDATE: Abu Aardvark notes that Sid Blumenthal is claiming that Grossman has already resigned. Hard to resolve that with him being charged with such a major relief effort, but I guess we'll see if he sticks around. It would be unfortunate if a guy of his integrity and competence were to leave.

No, not this kind.

What a sick joke.

Good for E.J. Dionne for taking the time to read and respond to emails, both nasty and nice. But did he really print them all out? How quaint.

Right now we're up to 50,000 dead, and the toll is inevitably going to go up as disease kicks in. While I strongly agree with Colin Powell that it's unfair to characterize the United States as "stingy," we do need to show that the world still needs us in a pinch, badly. Talking blandly about "assessments" and "surveys" won't do the trick. Bill Clinton gets it--he dropped a none-too-subtle hint on the Beeb that the Bush administration needs to ramp up its efforts to help victims of the recent devastating Sumatran Tsunami: "It is really important that somebody takes the lead in this." The UN can't do it; only the United States and, to be more specific, Pacific Command has the logistical acumen to pull off a major relief effort (in cooperation with the Indians and others in the region). This is not a major relief effort.

UPDATE: USAID throws in another $20 million. Good.

UPDATE2: John F. Harris and Robin Wright report on the criticism President Bush is getting for not demonstrating adequate sympathy for the tsunami victims. While the charge of "stinginess" is certainly unfair, I do believe that Bush should have gotten off his ass immediately and headed back to Washington to show not only his empathy for the victims but also to demonstrate leadership. I'd say the same thing about PM Singh if he were chilling out at a resort somewhere in northern India. Meanwhile, Nitin Pai, as well as many American bloggers on the right, are crying foul. As I hope I conveyed over at Nitin's place, this isn't about scoring political points or trying to cynically use a tragedy for nationalistic gain. It's just that America needs to lead, because only America has the capacity to do so. And, pace Mr. Pai, symbolism does matter. At the same time, it's an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that America is, fundamentally, a force for good in the world. There's nothing cynical, hypocritical, or inconsistent about that. And a note to Glenn: the extra $20 million that you're crowing about was thrown in precisely because the U.S. was getting slammed. Unfairly so? Perhaps. But if you want to claim the mantle of world leadership, it's tough times like this when you have to show why you deserve it.

Garance France-Rutka writes:

Josh Marshall's rhetorical contribution, that this is an effort to "phase out Social Security," strikes me as being on the right track. I happen to be partial to the "if it's confusing, it must be bad" argument, which honors the average, kind of out-of-it voter's inability to wrap their mind around actuarial tables and the distinctions between trust funds and general funds and how rates of productivity growth and GDP impact the program. Mike Tomasky's suggestion that this be addressed in simple, easy-to-understand television ads is also good, as is all of this back and forth.

I want to emphasize that last point again, because some of the least successful arguments during the general election also managed to become incredible popular on liberal Web sites, and I sincerely hope that people in the liberal blogosphere don't get caught up in similar rhetorical eddies during this debate. There is a very real danger of people in online communities arriving at an enthusiastic consensus about a position that they find pleasing but that doesn't actually help them accomplish anything. It'll be important to avoid that sort of satisfying yet ineffective message on Social Security privatization.

Yes, but how to know which incredibly popular arguments on liberal arguments will be the least successful? And looking backwards, how do you know which arguments were successful?

UPDATE: Incidentally, this discussion lays bare a problem Democrats (including myself) have: we are too ready to jump into tactical discussions and lists of specific programs before agreeing on what our core values are. And I think that tendency, once neutralized, will help inform the answers to my questions above.

I would urge David Brooks to keep his triumphalist optimism to himself until, you know, some actual concrete events have taken place. Peace efforts between the Israelis and the Palestinians have failed many, many times before. I think there is a great opportunity now, mostly as a result of Yassir Arafat's death (as opposed to anything specific that Bush has done). But I remain cautious.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias slams Brooks for a point that I was willing to ignore in service of my larger point: that Bobo is being dishonest in ignoring the fact that the bulk of criticism about the wall was about its location, not its existence. And indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court agreed that the route needed to change, albeit not to the degree demaned by the International Court of Justice. So did Brooks disagree with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision? If so, why?

I've been critical of Amir Taheri before, so it should be no surprise that I'm somewhat skeptical of this column. I don't want to take on his whole argument, which is actually fairly reasonable. I just want to point out that he's a little loose with his facts. Taheri writes:

Some pretend to be alarmed by the "excessive language" used by rival Iraqi politicians in campaign speeches. For example, Hazem Shaalan, Iraq's flamboyant defense minister, has attacked Hussein Shahrestani, the leader of one of the Shiite lists of candidates, as "the man from Tehran." Shahrestani's aides have retaliated by branding Shaalan "the American minister."

By most campaign standards, this is a rather mild polemical exchange. The American papers that pretend to be shocked by Iraqi verbal duels must have forgotten the recent U.S. campaign, which saw President Bush branded as "the Arabian candidate" and Sen. John Kerry portrayed as a coward masquerading as a hero.

But, as I noted earlier, Shaalan's attacks went far beyond that. He also said of the Shi'ite clerics:

• "They want to liquidate you. This black horde."
  
• "They shall not pass but over our dead bodies."
  
• They want to "bring back Saddam Hussein, but in a turban."
  
• "They are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics rule in Iraq."

That's a little more than a "mild polemical exchange," dontcha think? Now recently, I've taken it as an encouraging sign that to be branded as some kind of Persian cat's paw is bad news in Iraqi electoral politics. It suggests that it will be hard for the mullahs to turn Iraq into an Iranian fiefdom. But that's a different argument than the one he's making.

Perhaps I'm being overly picky here, but if Taheri distorts something so easily checked in order to make a point, what else is he twisting to suit his argument? I hereby advise all of my readers to view his columns with a jaundiced eye.