800 words on IOC Investment in Venezuela: Where the Oil Party Never Stops

2009 has brought great changes in geopolitics- the ascendance of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States has already brought such changes as an order to close the United States’ Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, and the Obama ascendancy has also brought the possibility of a thaw in recently strained relations in the Middle East. Against the backdrop of this topsy-turvy world, international oil companies are even going so far as to consider reconciliation with Venezuela.

Investing in Venezuela, which inherently entails cooperation with Hugo Chavez’ Venezuelan government would seem to be a dicey proposal at best for international oil companies. Recent examples of Mr. Chavez’ disdain for the property rights abound: only two years ago, Mr. Chavez sent international oil companies ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips packing when they disagreed with his policies. Chavez controls oil rents, the main source of revenues for the country , and has shown already that he isn’t afraid to play hardball with IOCs or with customers such as the United States.

However, it is readily apparent that the one-two combination slumping oil prices and global financial security have put Chavez on the ropes--- without the expertise and investment of international oil companies, Venezuela’s oil industry may have trouble continuing. "There is no international financing in sight for Venezuela," Heliodoro Quintero, Venezuela's former OPEC representative, told the Associated Press recently .

For this reason, dear investors, a reach for the phone to drop your shares in Total or Shell may be premature. As the price of oil goes, so too must the economic policy of Venezuela--- currently Venezuela counts 93% of its export revenues as coming from oil.
Crude oil 1-year future prices, which were almost $150 per barrel last year , have plummeted to around $55 as of this morning, a level at which Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude is less economically viable and development of new frontier oil fields may be uneconomical . Analysts predict that oil prices will stay close to this level for some time, meaning that there may yet be some mid-term play for investors holding shares in IOCs such as Royal Dutch Shell(NYSE: RDS) and Total (NYSE: TOT) who have reached out to Venezuela in its time of need.
A Reuters poll of 32 industry analysts said that oil was expected to average $55 per barrel in 2009 , well below the level that would allow certain types of unconventional oil to be economically feasible. Analysts indicated that decreased demand for oil accompanying the current worldwide economic slowdown was primarily to blame: "Prices will go down further as we hit a deeper economic recession over 2009”, analyst Davide Tabarelli of Italian energy consultancy Nomisma Energia told Reuters in an article dated yesterday. Furthermore, new production coming on-line in Iraq, as well as Angola and Brazil, may contribute to stable prices , as may large on-ship reserves, which are at the highest level in 25 years.

To be sure, oil prices will not stay low forever. "Recovery should start from the beginning of 2010”, said Mr. Tabarelli. The Reuters poll indicated that analysts expected an oil price rally in 2010 to around $72 a barrel, and to rise further in 2011 to $86 per barrel.

For its part, Venezuela and other OPEC member states have also given signs that they plan to cut production further if prices do not rebound. OPEC has already cut its production by 4.2 million barrels per day , but Venezuela’s oil minister and PDVSA President and CEO Rafael Ramirez indicated last week that Venezuela would be willing to participate in another production cut if necessary. Along the same lines, Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil also predicted recently that OPEC may agree to a further production cut in response to any further drop in prices, which Goldman Sachs analysts recently predicted could slide to as low as $30 per barrel in the first quarter of 2009.

One ray of hope that Chavez may not immediately resume his wicked ways when the oil prices climb once again is that Venezuela also requires investment in its refining capacity- Venezuela requires new upgraders to make its extra-heavy crude refineable — and PDVSA is looking for bidders to help build three of the facilities, which would not be completed until 2014 , which might give Chavez pause before he decides to nationalize oil company assets again.

With this thought in mind, it may be acceptable to proceed with caution. Shell knows full well the experience of being shut out of a developing market, having recently endured a messy loss of its Russian gas holdings , and oil companies require new projects to ensure steady revenues. The actions of President Chavez remain unpredictable, and his likely response to a rebound in oil prices down the road remains unclear. Therefore, although it’s safe to keep the stock in Total and Shell for the time being, don’t remove your broker’s number from the speed-dial list, because you may need it soon enough.

School Paper: Asymmetrical Warfare, Economics, and Old Tactics Revisited

Writing around the year 500 BCE, the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said:
“In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on
chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men. ”

Even at the time of Sun Tzu’s writing, during China’s Spring and Autumn period , economic concerns greatly influenced warfare. Furthermore, the idea of optimizing use of forces in the face of a stronger enemy existed even then:
“If [an enemy] is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If
he is in superior strength, evade him… Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected…if the campaign is protracted, the resources of
the State will not be equal to the strain. ”

Sun Tzu’s final statement regarding the resources of the state resonates quite strongly with recent American travails in both Vietnam and Iraq. Although the United States Army is often considered to be the best equipped and most modern army in the world, it has encountered problems in many recent engagements. A key example are the current operations in Iraq, where At least 4,226 American servicemen have died in Iraq as of Monday, 12 January 2009 according to a recent Associated Press report , of which a substantial majority actually died in post- combat operations. The United States armed forces’ experience in Iraq prompts a very pertinent question: “How is it that the United States is neither able to completely prevent fatalities nor to completely destroy insurgent resistance in Iraq?”
The conflict between the highly-armed coalition forces and the insurgency presents us with a classic case of asymmetrical warfare.
During most of the post-WWII decades of the 20th century, the United States focused military preparations mainly on its cold war nemesis, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a superpower, like the United States, and hence represented a symmetric threat. Although both sides of the conflict may or may not have chosen to employ similar tactics or technologies in the event of a hot conflict, they were similar in the amount of resources available to them and the sizes of their land masses. On the other hand, the United States differs greatly from Iraq in the amount of financial, technological, and military resources it possesses, in the size of its army, and in its level of access to satellite maps and information. In all conventional areas, the United States outclasses local forces in Iraq. The conflict between US forces and local insurgents is therefore, asymmetrical.
Asymmetrical warfare requires an extension of maneuver warfare to its logical conclusion: the weaker side must fight with minimum use of materiel and manpower, and only striking at an enemy’s weak points. Any waste of resources on the part of the weaker actor cannot be tolerated---in fact, attrition warfare is anathema to the weaker party in an asymmetrical conflict. Rather, the weaker party in an asymmetrical conflict uses advantages in terrain, information gathering, organizational structure and stealth as force multipliers. Distribution of such advantages may vary depending on whether the weaker actor attacks or defends; however, under the right set of circumstances, weaker actors are still able to survive when fighting against a stronger enemy, even one so large and powerful as the United States. According to a 1996 article, “leadership for the foreseeable future will proceed less from the military capacity to crush
any opponent and more from the ability quickly to reduce the ambiguity of violent situations, to respond flexibly, and to use force, where necessary, with precision and accuracy.” Although new weaponry technology has allowed for more precise use of force, for example by use of cruise missiles or targeted air strikes, such technology has not advanced to the point that it is able to completely locate and overcome troops mixing into a conquered civilian population. Thus, the choice becomes whether to annihilate a region’s populace indiscriminately and thereby risk loss of moral authority and other soft power, or to attempt surgical strikes. Before the advent of mass media, the first choice functioned adequately to prevent insurgencies, but presently, the second method has become more prevalent.
Unfortunately, advances in weapons and information technology have not always been able properly differentiate targets in order to prevent waste of materials and civilian casualties, nor can they overcome widespread support for insurgencies that arises from outside forces’ occasional use of heavy-handed tactics and lack of knowledge or respect regarding local languages and customs. Each day an insurgency survives, an invading large state wastes excessive amounts of resources to maintain its soldiers on the alert, whereas the insurgency forces often spend relatively little---the needs of varying actors varies greatly. In the case of symmetrical warfare, similarity of needs comprises a key factor in both the tactics employed and the goals held by actors. In the case of asymmetrical warfare, the weaker can utilize its low needs and simple defensive goals to great advantage. Examples abound: insurgent forces use devices such as shoulder-mounted RPGs and IEDs, as well as tactics such as abduction and bombings, to level force disparities with significant rates of efficacy. The new development of warfare is sometimes called 4th generational war- whereas the United States still operates a centrally-controlled 2nd generation army which focuses mainly on close fire coordination and material advantages. Oddly enough, although 4th generation forces use contemporary weapons systems, combination of these contemporary weapons systems with tactics such as those described by Sun Tzu over 2000 years ago has tilted the balance of asymmetrical warfare towards the smaller actor.

老文章： 连战，宋楚瑜 访问大陆

［２００５年６月份所写的］

2005年，台湾国民党和亲民党很多人物有了首次访问中国大陆，这些事情对台湾来说可能代表两岸关系的一个新的高点，或者能够说今年的事情对两岸关系的发展会有所帮助或者能够推进两岸谈判的进步。在国民党方面，来访问大陆的最重要人物是国民党主席连战先生。在亲民党方面，来了大陆的最重要人就是亲民党主席宋楚瑜先生。另外呢，现在在台执政的民进党没有代表人员访问大陆。

我自己亲自看了连战先生在北京大学的演讲的广播。我本来听了朋友对连战的意见- 大部分的人都说连战是个坏蛋， 或者说他谈腐败， 或者说他是大黑金，等等等。而且我也曾经听说过连战的话绝对不能相信。另外，上次台湾大选里连战没被选上时也闹得比较多， 所以说连战这个人物给我的感觉不是非常明亮，而是比较模糊。哪知我看连战在北大的发言既然感觉比较满意，又对连战多了一份尊敬的心。我事前的推想大概是连战会一上台就开始说一国两制，中国跟台湾统一等等的话。他讲的话比较有意思。他当初开始提到自由主义，讲了“自由主义这个思想在中国走的是一段坎坷的路，不是很顺利，也不是很成功”这句话以后，我感觉观众非常冷漠，自己又想了“会不会有人破口大声骂连战呢” （笔者承认那时可能有三成幸灾乐祸之意），但是他后来也巧妙地把话题转到了两岸的合作。他强调了“中国的未来”跟 “为了广大的人民找出路”又在发言中把“坚持和平”这个概念摆在一个很重要的一个位子。另外，连战也没有很清楚地讲到了曾经的国民党和共产党的冲突，在连战言中好像内战是抗日战争后的不用得上话来形容的一小阵子而已， 把内战讲诚这样的人可见是对演讲的技术比较有把握。而且，在连战的讲话中他也把蒋经国讲的比较好听, 说仿佛在70 年代台湾的经济改革后蒋经国主动地“开放了党禁、报禁”而没有提到美丽岛事件，党外运动，当时台湾的游行等事情。再说，虽然连战预备的演讲确实比较好，但是连战在接受北京大学老师和学生的提问里面没有表现的特别好。

连战回答了第一个问题的“我们想请您预计一下50年后的历史教科书上将会如何评价您这次北京之行”就讲了几句委婉的话，比如：“你不能加快、加速历史的脚步，历史的脚步方向往往不是真正以个人的主观意愿为转移”，而他没有很直接地回答了第一个问题。第二个问题是“作为一个重要政治力量的国民党，作为党主席的您能够为台湾人民早日圆他们的梦做些什么？”，这个问题连战好像连战回答得比第一个问题要彻底一些。在他回答里，连先生提出了提出了三点建议：认同国家，促进两岸和平，反对民粹主义，族群和平 和持续经济发展。第三个问问题的人就请了连战比较59年前的中国和现在的中国的不同点- 这个问题回答起来连战将的很多关于抗日战争的话，又几乎跳过了内战的四年的时间。下个问题就关于台湾的农业发展：因为现在台湾的工业化程度比较高，农业只代表台湾的总产量的一个非常小的一部分，但是因为台湾的农产技术水平比较“进步”的，只是台湾成本太高，如果台湾能够把技术拿到大陆来用，这样双方可以互补互利。第五个问题是关于台湾所谓的“去中国化”的教育，这个问题差点把连战问定了- 更具体地说，第五个问题就关于台湾的年级在20年代以下的台湾人对中国的认同感的低程度对未来两岸关系的影响。连先生就说台湾的“大家自己提出来自己的资源，找机会、找老师、找场所、找教材，能够及时地让我们的小朋友们、儿童以及青年人能够同样地接受应该接受到的华夏、中华文化的内涵”而这是事实。
在这点我该补充一些意见。按照我自己从台湾的朋友听来的话，台湾人非常重视教育，一般台湾人受的教育要比一般大陆的人或者一般大陆市民受教育程度可能还要高。另外台湾的教育在文科方面也比较强，古代的东西学的比较多，而这些文科的东西和古代历史和诗都原来是中国文化的梁根，到今天也是台湾教育的一个重要部分。这么说台湾人一直在受“中国教育”。 但是，受了中国教育不等于就是中国人，而我也能报道虽然我人是地年轻台湾人都很理解中国的书跟诗歌，他们未必因此就会说自己是中国人，而更多人会把自己定义为台湾人。这么说我认为连先生没有很有成功地回答了第五个问题。
虽然我不能说我认为连战是百分之百的成功，但我觉得他八成以上是成功，而且他给人的感觉就是连战这个人是一个文雅的政治家。
对宋楚瑜的评价有所不同。宋楚瑜因为在台湾是外省人，我想他支持一国两制和统一应该是理所当然的。宋楚瑜他本人也是大陆出生的，而且他祖籍在湖南，就说他来源跟来自福建的所谓福老人和来自广东省的客家人也没有什么挂钩。我看了宋楚瑜在南京的讲话，对他的评价可能没有不如对连战的评价。宋楚瑜在清华大学的演讲主要跟大陆经济有关，后来他也强调了和平统一。三民主义这个概念是国民党的理论，宋楚瑜没有提到。
国民党跟民进党两个主席在讲话里面经常提到了经济方面的发展，这种行为的一个潜在原因是因为泛蓝派在大陆的投资额比较多。

我的看法就是现在双方的唯一最好的选择就是维持现状。 随着时间潮流的过去中国经济会日益强壮，中国的势力越来越强，那么维持现状肯定对中国有利。在台湾方面呢，虽然时间的过去可能不嘉，但如果台湾宣布台独，台湾怎么奈何得了中国的攻击？那么这么说台湾就留下来维持现状这个选自比跟大陆统一好。而第三者的美国最主要管的是保持和平呢。

但另外呢，自己一直在想台独这件事。简单地说，跟我大概同年这一代的年轻的台湾人的台湾认同是比较强。连我的有外省背景的朋友都会说自己是台湾人，而我觉得随着时间这个台湾认同的潮流会越来越强，就说以后会支持台独得人会比现在还要多，那么让我很担心的问题就是如果台湾宣布台独，改国号为台湾国，那么中国会怎么做？美国又会怎么做？在中国方面，今年已经有了反分裂法，如果台湾政府真的宣布台湾独立，大陆会把经济发展舍在路边，全力地去攻打台湾，打到台湾投降为止？如果台湾人民不屈服呢？是否要炸台湾炸到鸡犬不留这个程度吗？然后美国方面又如何？如果台湾主动地宣布台独，虽然美国已经说了在这种情况下会保护台湾，美国真的会为了台湾而开始中美战争, 或者美国真的会袖手旁观民主的国家的灭亡吗？我想自己心里在这方面的忐忑可能比较多吧。

Hong Kong 2006 February

[Written 28 February 2006]

Five years have passed since the first time I came to HK. Back then, I had come straight from the torrid Shanghai summer- riding non-cooled buses, pushing and shoving my way through work and play on four hours sleep and four cups of coffee a day, speeding through life whether by taxi, airplane or bicycle. Hong Kong then was a ridiculous high-pictures of that time remind me that it was probably one of the happiest times of my life simply because I could walk the streets and live my life without getting stared at.

This time back to HK I have traveled and done far more than I had five years ago. While I may not be as ecstatic to visit Hong Kong this time, still my perspective has given me more ways to appreciate HK.

My first impression of coming back this time is that HK reminds me of Singapore in a lot of ways- the British colonial influence is there in both cases and both have heavy amounts of British colonials--- superficially as well there is a lot of similarity in the palm-lined streets and large harbors of both places; however, HK compares favorably in many ways, for example while they both have good service and advanced infrastructures, HK manages to have these conditions without feeling soulless, as Singapore is. The first time I visited HK I still hadn’t been to Singapore and hence had nothing to compare, and I wonder why there is the difference.

One thought I had was that the difference could be mainly due to critical ethnic masses- HK is and has been majority-Cantonese- with a speckling of Hakka, Shanghainese, and other random mainlanders as well as Filipinas, Indians and Indonesians whereas Singapore is more evenly split between mixed (mainly [Hoklo/hokkien?] and Cantonese) Chinese, Indians and Malays. HK may be a city with a bit of an identity crisis at times but Singapore is more of a city without any identity whatsoever.

Another difference is the level of growth- HK is lined with what are quite possibly 70s-vintage 30+ story skyscrapers along with buildings from the 90s. Singapore on the other hand feels more like a product of the 80s or later- somehow Singapore has a shiny corporate veneer on everything there no matter when it was built. One has to wonder what the real estate development rates in the two places were during those two time periods- I think a comparison of the two would be quite edifying---furthermore what are the occupancy rates these days I wonder. One would suppose that judging by the high prices of real estate in HK that the occupancy rates in HK are quite high- for that matter I wonder how HK compares to Shanghai in land area, amount of buildings, and occupancy rates.

Another thing that HK and Singapore have in common is that the people here are quite open to eating Japanese food. Food cultures in both places are quite well developed, HK has its cha can tings and Singapore has its hawker centers. I also am once again amazed with the fact that China produced both the Hokkien people who live in SE Asia and Singapore as well as the Cantonese in HK. The world is an interesting place for me today.

Visit to a Capsule Hotel

［Fall 2007］

On my last trip to Japan, I hadn’t booked anyplace to stay for the first night. I had been busy before arriving and basically thought “Well, I won’t die, and I can just wander around in Osaka until I find a capsule hotel to stay at.” My plane landed at Kansai International Airport around 8 PM, but by the time I had cleared customs and taken the train into town, it was already 10, and it was drizzling. “Well, this may not have been the most brilliant idea that I ever had.” I said to myself as I walked past the chicken skewer shops, sushi restaurants and bars west of the station. It was a Saturday night in downtown Osaka, and all I wanted to do was find a place to sleep. However, the rain made the city quieter, and while it was dark and wet, the air had not yet turned cold. After fifteen minutes walking in circles near the station, I decided to head north a bit towards Shinsaibashi, where I had formerly spent many a good night partying in the clubs. I didn’t know if I would be able to find a capsule hotel, but at least it would be good to be wandering in an area that I knew well. I crossed a bridge over a canal and passed into Shinsaibashi, looked west at the first intersection and saw a brightly-lit sign, which, being a bit out of it, I read slowly “ka-pu-se-ru”- well, finding it wasn’t so difficult after all.

Having never stayed in a capsule hotel before, I really wasn’t sure exactly what the check-in procedure entailed, but luckily there were some Japanese guys who had checked in directly in front of me, so I just copied what they had done and got through quite smoothly. The choices I got were simple I chose ‘upper’ rather than ‘lower’ capsule, meaning that I would have to climb up to get into bed, and everything else was standard. I left my shoes in a cabinet near the door and then strolled into the perfectly-designed world of the capsule hotel. I consciously took note of the fact that while I was in the capsule hotel, there was no need that I had that had not been taken into account. I walked in and realized I didn’t have a towel, and there were towels inside. I put on the shorts and shirt that the capsule hotel supplied, which were comfortable and loose fitting, and then went to boil myself in the baths located upstairs.

Having just come from China, where the water is full of heavy metal and leaves one covered with chemicals even after showering, the first shower taken outside of the country is always special. I could feel the water taking everything coated on my skin off, and used a pumice and soap until my skin became raw. Next, I sat in the hot bath until my heart began to pound and I became dizzy. To cool off, I walked onto the terrace and stood steaming as the rain misted down.

Only one person spoke to me during the entire time that I was in the capsule hotel. While I was in the bath, the guy sitting next to me asked how to get a six-pack. I told him that my method was practicing tai chi and also doing qigong, and drinking less beer. He just laughed.

The crowd at the hotel was mainly either younger guys or middle-aged salarymen who had come in after a night of drinking. Costing about 3000 yen per night and also containing a washing machine, I figured that there were probably people in the capsule hotel who actually lived there. “In many ways this beats the YMCA,” I thought. Apart from inconvenience of a lack of copious storage space, the price of a month of capsule hotel would cost the same as renting an apartment in downtown Osaka. The thought of an overcrowded future with everyone living in such capsules flashed into my mind briefly. “But then where would people go to do it,” I wondered, “love hotels I suppose, problem solved, “I thought.

The capsule itself gave me about 6 inches of spare room when I was stretched out at full-length. It contained a television and a radio, which were controlled by a panel set up on the wall. I turned on the radio at low volume to drown out the sound of the snoring coming from somewhere across the hall, and then adjusted the air vent in the capsule in order to give me enough fresh air to sleep. I cut the light and plunged into the oblivion of dark sleep. Sleeping in a capsule hotel is probably the closest experience I have had to sleeping inside of a closed coffin.

多纳 土温 －－－买得到法拉利，买不到一个蓝天

［初稿，０７年夏天］

现在夏天到了，天又热了。我在上海的公司的暑假来了，然后我就回美国去度假了。我离开上海之前的几天都是大晴天，有很好的阳光，所以我就用了手机排排上海高层建筑和蓝天的城景，然后我就觉得，‘哇，上海天气这么好，真是难得！’

由于我工作比较忙，美国又离中国比较远，我一般一年去一次美国，然后我近几年大概就是夏天定式回国，因为我比较喜欢夏天-可以不穿外套在外面走路！冬天回去就太冷了，如果我跑半地球回去而关在家里，我就觉得那样做比较没意思呢。之所以我两个星期以前刚去了一趟美国。

我老家在美国东岸，是靠大西洋的。因此，要回去的话就得坐半天以上的飞机。飞机到了目的地已经下午5点已经过了，我昏迷迷地拿了行李走出了机场了。我老爸特地早下班开车过来接我-感觉上我们隔了一年没见，他没变得多少，头发可能少了一点，肚子可能胖了一点而已吧。

我们家离机场有一点距离， 老爸便开车便跟我讲最近在家里发生的事情，我呢，就跟他讲工作方面的事儿， 然后因为天气好的关系我又把车子的窗户打开用了手机拍一些风景的照片。

我到了家以后已经累得很了，所以我就决定了早一点洗澡，然后早一点睡。洗澡的时候我就觉得虽然我很累，但是还是说我在家里洗澡皮肤很舒服。我本来没有发现原因，但是我后来回头想了，其实是因为龙头喷出来的水非常干净。这个说起来好像是非常朴素的事情，但是我真的感觉那边的水跟上海的水很两样。

过了两个星期，我又回到上海来了。到了我的公寓我就把手机里面的照片放到电脑上， 原来在上海拍的城景照也放了，美国的风景照也放了。然后照片一看了，我就发现照片不对了，上海的那些本来很喜欢的蓝天的照片，一跟美国的放在一起看，既然上海照片的天空显出了一个很意外的灰色，美国的照片里的天空反而蓝如海。空气的颜色又很两样， 我就想，这到底是怎么一回事呢。

过了几天， 我几个同学从国外来访问上海。我那时想得是，到上海不得不见上海的外滩，不过夏天闷热，所以我就等到下午晚一点带了他们去外滩散步。我们是从广东路往中山东路走（外滩就沿着中山东路）到了路口我们就看到了一个让我们停留一下的活动。

这个活动是法拉利的活动。漂亮的5部跑车排成了一列在马路边停着，玻璃窗黑中翻晒旁边的灯光。车子有红的有黄的，红色黄色的车子也好像发光似。大家都说这个活动不错，车子又帅，是世界上最好的，看来上海现在有卖这种车已经达到了某种国际性的水平。

不过我砖头往天一看外滩的风景，对面陆家嘴的大楼都是微微的蒙在灰黄的一块布的后面。看是看得到的，但是还是看不清。然后我又在想，现在可说中国的某一些人买得到法拉利，但是蓝天是买不到的。

我上个星期又看了媒体报道说中年总产量（GDP）要超过了德国，就是说中国已经是排全球第三的国家。按照经济每年经济发展过于10%的中国，这件事早晚的发现我想是理所当然。随着国家的发展，中国在数字方面也会超过日本，会超过美国。不过现在的数字不会反映出来生活水平的一切。这些经济数字指标的只不过是一个非常宏观的概念-而且数字也偏向于财宝，而不够重视大众享受到的红利。

我还记得上星期我去跟朋友吃晚饭的时候我们就在讨论这么一个问题。那位朋友是东北人，他说话很直爽，然后我们边喝酒边聊了，我就说美国的空气很干净, 然后他说了‘这应该不会是因为美国经济未开发了吧？’我就回答问题说，当然不是，美国经济的确是有开发，只不过现在美国的绿化政策与执行比较完整吧。理由就很简单：以前美国也有发生了多次自然的问题， 非法化学排放，石油船崩溃，矿场废水流到合理，等等， 而因为这些事情有了很多人丧了性命，然后有了这样的经验以后大家就开始对环保有比较牢靠的决心。 再说如果某些企想以通过非法排放废物省一笔钱，而排放了那些废物对老百姓的生活会带来坏处，这样子不太公平，这个我想不管中国美国百慕大岛哪里都是会一样的了解。

如果要打一个比喻的话，经济发展好比是挖一个金矿，环保规矩就是金矿里面必须要装的柱子，如果不装柱子，那么金可以更快地挖出来，不过柱子不装的话，时间久了以后，那么金矿的天井会掉下来了。

水跟空气表面上就是很普通的东西，其实是因为它们普通，而大家不能没有，所以他们才会对人人的生活那么重要，到头来如果是用大自然换来财宝的话， 有了财宝以后去哪里生活呢？

多纳 土温 －－－狂加班图个啥

（以上的照片是笔者在办公室熬夜时所拍的）

［初稿，０６年底］

今天是好的一天。我今天很标准地5：30下班了-离开位子的时候我跟坐在两边的同事道别了以后就回到家了。 近几个星期我在公司里边常常留得比较晚，不然而染在工作忙碌当中也渐渐想出来一些事情。

我来自美国。我15岁在高中中文系跟上海人的老师开始学中文。那时到现在，已经12年了，我好像没有停顿，一直在学。上个星期的6月8日正好是我第一次来中国十周年的纪念日了。我当时可没想到时间果然会飞得如此快。

我现在的公司是一家美国的律师事务所的中国办事处。大家都知道现在外商来华投资的数额不小，然后我们在帮那些公司在国内设立公司，同时也在帮国内公司在海外上市。 我们所里面有中国人，也有外国人，也有世界各地的华裔，可说环境比较多元化吧。我同事不管来自于何方，谁都很聪明，又很能干，又很卖力。 因为我们所 里边的人都会通中文跟英文双语言， 可以说我们所作国际性的业务占一定的优势，又可以说现在生意非常不错，忙也忙不过来。

我们所很正规，不管是谁在工， 谁都要钱劳动合同。 我们的劳动合同里边写得就是这样子：‘平常的工作时间是平日早上九点至下午五点半，另外按照客户的要求，可能要另外加班。’不过呢，最后的‘可能’， 这个词实际上应该写成‘经常’才对- 为了及时帮客户完成任务大家都经常加班。其实呢，说经常加班不如说天天加班。

我在美国的背景本来就是觉得工作是生活当中不可没有的事情。我父母都一直强调工作的重要性- 从我能够工作那时以来，我父母就不给零用钱，反而跟我说，如果我想买东西，我就得去打工把自己的零用钱赚回来。夏天学校放假我也不能呆在家里，还得找全职的工作，每年都是不同的工作，第一年再超市面包房作面包，第二年在工厂做清洁工作，第三年在巴士公司洗巴士车，然后最后一年在办公室里面开始做简单的白领工作。现在回想， 我认为做这些工作我想对我有三个好处：第一， 我会有工作的习惯，第二，因为我做过了各种不同的工作， 我会多认识不同的人而扩大自己对社会的了解， 然后第三，我会了解什么叫做工作而对它又一个价值感。

我现在想我就是因为对工作有价值感，所以一开始没有去想我们所里边的人这样子加班是对是错。 多吃一点苦头是能练出本事，卧薪尝胆几年就会得天下，我本来就这么想。

不过后来我看了我的同事，然后我开始有点想不通。 我简单举两个例子。
甲小姐是去年从某所大学毕业过来的。她人比较温柔，又聪明。因为忙碌，她基本上2个星期没有时间陪她从外地过来摆放的母亲。甲小姐每天工作基本上是晚上十点以后回去，回去了就讲几句话，洗个澡然后睡觉。后来她母亲回去了，结果甲小姐跟我说了，她母亲在城市哪里都没有去过，因为甲小姐周末也有工作。除了工作以外， 甲小姐因为做得比较累就在家里休息，不怎么出去的。

乙先生是从某个国内律师所传过来的。他的经验比较丰富，然后办事情也够有效率，在所里边很受用。乙先生挺幽默，工作时间长似乎一点也不在意，然后他最近已经开始有一点做不动的。问题就是他做事情太好，然后客户知道了就一直来找他，他同时接了许多活就承受不了，可说他太成功了。

然后我星期也接到了一个很大的活连续作了20个小时的工作- 早上九点进公司，第二天早上5点回家了， 好的在第二天是星期六，就不用上班了。这样我就睡了半天。然后我一起来什么都不想做，脑子里就想 ‘算了，多休息吧，反正星期一快来了’

我经常会听到我同事说，我们在国外的办公室肯定不是这样子。最起码有一点更合理和平衡。我们有说中国的办事处里头的都是工作狂。

我可能在公司里面的情况算比较好。一般的就一个星期45个小时，偶尔也能出去吃午饭，工作多的话也很少会超过60个小时。而且我一般周末基本上可以休息。我同事比较惨， 一个星期最起码可能要工作60个小时，如果周末不用进公司已经不错了。

自己也开始觉得，我跟我的同事这样做算是有意思吗？

然后我们为什么得这样加班，而美国办公室的同事不用？

因为工作环境的关系，我经常会翻看不少中国的法律和法规，另外也看一些新闻。 最近可能让我留心最多的新闻有两个：一个是新劳动法的公布，另外一个就是GDP增长。

我经常看到的媒体报道都会提到国家总产数。几乎每次出来了这么一个报道，仿佛新闻莫非是：今年国家经济增长过快，要实施稳定宏观经济的措施。然后我怎么想都想不通，好像现在经济状况非常好，我们怎么一直都是工作得非常累？

我开始觉得中国的经济就跟我同事甲先生一样- 现在经济太成功了。然后我们工作的人都是被潮流带起来了，工作放不下去了。或者是犹如一个乱转的发动机一样。

其实，如果实施措施的话，当然可以把公司赚的利润压低的，但是实际上这样做对我们员工都无所谓，我们还是一样地作。 我现在希望能够有严格地执行一个充分保护我们工作人的权利的劳动法。工作是生活的一部分，但是也不是生活的一切。

上班期间小作品－‘上海地铁七恶‘

［注：本文章写于２００６年，现在地铁情况好了很多很多＝）］

上班下班人流匆匆的是不可避免的, 不过还是说有些猪头确是比较受不了,本人因为天天乘地铁比较无聊就开始想想,后来列出来了某些类型.
上海地铁七恶:

1) “聋子”- 地铁里面不到五秒时间会播放一句 “请不要拥堵在车门”- 这个人反而站在门中不让后面的人下车, 也牢牢的动也不动, 走出来半步等人下来然后再上车也不会死人, 车子又不会开走的吧!

2) “马力浪费徒”- 这个人是一个很爱急进来急出去的人, 上车时他一定要做第一的上车的人而且有时候要推人抢位子, 列车走了两站好象又发现,’哎哟, 我已经到了, 然后从车子中间推出来. 坐下来时
间总共打不到5分钟, 真没头脑.

3) “文盲”- 这位朋友小时读书偷懒, 汉字没学好, 连地面上的 “下客区”也看不懂就站在上面. 我们都得鼓励小朋友好好读书, 不要象这种人. (本人有一次亲眼见过一位不但是站在下客区内而是蹲在那边同时边吐痰边挖鼻空的超人老乡, 吓了我都用手机把他拍下来!)

4) “色狼”- 这个人比较严重, 就说一句 “别性骚扰女生。骚扰女性是一种好没道德而可恶的行为”罢了。。。 如有人想对男生作出性骚扰,请把名字,手机号码与全体照发给笔者, 笔者另自行联络,谢谢.

5) “哲学家”- 这位乘客思高想深- “世间皆空幻” 装聋作哑地站着不理不睬后面有事实的人要走过. 小哲学家们请留意, 笔者非常支持你的伟大的想象, 你们是祖国的未来, 不过最好麻烦你到角落去想!

6) “插队汉”- 这位朋友活得很爽, 80年代他在全家人中买到保温瓶就是第一, 90年代买到彩电他也是第一, 现在过了2000年后乘地铁下车也不要落后! 前面的乘客都要下车, 这位朋友不管啦, “自我主义第一” 就往前冲着.

7) “瘦身狂”- 这个乐观主义者似乎在想 “我人长得好瘦, 列车里头满是人也没关系, 我站的下!” 明明已经再也站不下人，还笑嘻嘻地把自己身体钻进去, 也没想到, 再过两分钟还有列车到来, 不要浪费时间的心态我到是有几份佩服.

未曾能够发表的一篇文章（来自２００８年４月份）

［注：本文章没有经过编辑修改］

随着4月份的到来，上海天气终于逐步热了。经过了近历史最冷的冬天以后，春天的到来好像把整个上海带到另外一个世界一样- 花也开了，树叶也长出来了，天晴的晚上也可以在灿烂灯光下散步，早上起来有了温暖的阳光。因为天气好了，我最近不染而然沉醉于在公园里跑慢步。我想在公园跑步起码有两个优点：第一就是能够锻炼身体，免得上班时的疲劳，另外在公园跑呢，也可以欣赏城市的绿化。我最近发现了我楼下的邻居也在公园里面跑慢步，所以我们现在开始有习惯一起跑。这样子我们可以边跑边聊天，要不然在公园里天天跑圈子还可能会有点腻。

我楼下的邻居是附近中学的一位数学老师，由于他曾经当过兵，他体力比较好，跑也跑不累，跑步当中他也是若无其事地能够讲话。这位老师每天早上起来第一件事情就是看报。这样子他出来跑步已经有备下来很多话题，所以我早上新闻， 其实大概都是从我邻居听来的。
上个月以来我们讲了很多次关于最近在西藏发生的连续暴走事件。第一天，我们两个人在如何看待现在发生了的多次可惜的案件基本上非常一致- 我另据说，其实人人合作才可以有进步，我也同意了- 后来我回到家在网上查了不少相关新闻，然后看到了不少被烧黑的店铺和房子的照片。
再过了几个星期以后，有发生了一系列关于2008年奥运会火炬的事件。尤其是在伦敦和巴黎，支持西藏独立的人员不停的游行，也想把奥运的圣火消灭。我一听到这个新闻，心里有些过不去。我对我另据说，如果那些人想要游行就去游行罢了，不过某些人为何非把圣火灭掉不可？这么做好像比较过分吧。我另据也同意了。

既然我们意见都同意了而没有冲突。这到底是怎么一回事情？当然，我们两个人都是早上看报纸， 都是看网上新闻，晚上都看电视新闻。然后我也在公司里吃午饭的时候也读了不少的国际方面的报道，（主要的就是英国的BBC，美国纽约时报跟华盛顿邮报）也没有找到什么特别相反的内容， 只不过有地方说了[现在国际媒体到不了西藏，之所以现在不能说清楚到底在发生什么事情]。
而且我在这里向表示，其实整个世界大部分的人都希望奥运会能够成功的。以前每次举行奥运会有是会有人反对。2004 年雅典奥运也发生了游行，2000年悉尼奥运会也是。但是虽然有了这几次反抗游行， 前两次奥运还是取得了成功。等到下次中国举办世界杯，我们可以再去激动，不过这次奥运大家就可以低调地去参加，中国世界杯时再来激动吧. (笔者因为乐于足球才这么说，各位读者请原谅)

我们第三天早上在公园里跑步时讨论了国内外媒体的现象- 那时我突然想到了一个事情，就跟我领据说了：既然如此，我觉得这些国际的报道也应该在国内放。就拿我邻居作比方，他是一位老师，非常有文化，我相信如果他看到某些不正确的新闻，不管那新闻来自国内国外，肯定是能够辨别真假。

我想中国老百姓跟我另据很相似呢。 如果每位读者看到那些国际新闻，那肯定还不会去盲目地去相信，反而能够看出真实在哪里。在这一点我想补充一个观点：西方的媒体是比较多元化，能够提出来的观点比较宽松一些，我自己去看任何新闻都会加以小心，要观察新闻所报出来的内容是否真实。对于几天前CNN评论员对中国发表的意见我也可以去观察到他讲的话是否有道理吧？
国内的人凡是知道西藏地区是中国的一部分，从前如此，现在也如此，将来也如此， 那么不用怕一些不了解中国现在情况的人的说话。反正如果我们是正义方，那么我们应该不会给对方吓倒。这个就好比我和我另据跑步时的谈话一样，我们淡淡地，彻底地把自己所想的看法解释完了以后，我们从来不发生冲突。

我真希望今年北京奥运能够大大成功，同时也希望整个世界人人能够同步往前走。这么做可以视为一种请客人到家里来访问一样的行为。我还记得我小时候父母请我们亲属过来之前，肯定是要把整个家庭打扫得干干净净，让我们兄弟4人两天就不得休息，父母吹毛求疵地让我们把所有的事情都安排得妥妥当当。我们当时也觉得有点累，不过到我们迎客人的时候，还是觉得非常乐意能够一起过节。

我最后再补充一点：人类不是轻易而马上会去暴走，发生了这么严重的事情总是会有理由的。既然我们知道西藏发生了这么一次这么一个暴走事件，我们应该快一些去想的问题是-为什么-？作为美国人的我经常对9。11事件就是有如此一个看法。

700 words on Obama's energy policy

United States President-elect Barack Obama’s energy platform makes bold promises to transform the United States’ energy usage mix and represents a significant departure from previous US energy policy, differing significantly from the reference cases presented in the United States’ Energy Information Administration (the ‘EIA’)’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (the ‘Energy Outlook’ ). While implementation may not necessarily be smooth, the Obama platform would be a solid step in the right direction for the United States and its policies would accord with the recommendations made in the International Energy Agency’s 2008 World Energy Outlook (the ‘WEO’ ).

The Obama energy plan has several main objectives designed to increase the energy independence of the United States. The plan emphasizes efficient energy use in the transport sector- this is natural, as a majority of the gasoline used by the United States is used in vehicles: the plan therefore mandates higher fuel economy standards for vehicles, tax credits for purchase of efficient vehicles, and increasing use of hybrid automobiles. The plan has been supported by Chairwoman of the US Senate Committee of Environment and Public Works Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who recently announced her plan to introduce legislation in January which would invest US$15 billion per year for innovation in clean energy and establish a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions . The Obama plan also includes incentives for greater energy efficiency, which is often considered to be one of the ‘low hanging fruit’ in the area of energy use. Increased efficiency in heating and insulation would slow the growth of domestic energy use and also create jobs for workers involved in the implementation of efficiency measures. Finally, the Obama energy plan also would promote some use of domestic oil, coal and gas reserves, with a focus on keeping carbon emissions low in order to conform with the administration’s goal of decreasing national greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and would also consider the possibility of increased nuclear power use.

The EIA has projected several different scenarios for possible US domestic energy use to the year 2030. The reference case projection assumes that the United States’ energy mix will not change greatly and that current energy policy will remain roughly constant, with fossil fuels continuing to meet 80% of US energy use needs in 2030, down 5 percentage points from 85% in 2006. Nuclear and renewable fuels would grow to 20% of total energy needs from 15% in 2006, and the fossil fuels mix would also be adjusted, with more coal and less oil and natural gas. The energy mix in the reference case would therefore produce a 16% increase in national greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, which is an entirely different direction of growth for greenhouse gases compared to the Obama plan.

In the face of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction needs as well as current trends for policy change, I would not consider any of the reference cases presented in the Energy Outlook to be acceptable possibilities. As the WEO states, “current trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable”: clearly, changes to the status quo of energy use must be made. On the other hand, the Obama plan, while ambitious and broad in scope, represents only the first step in what must be an even more far-reaching effort to improve mankind’s climactic footprint on the Earth. Recently, NASA scientist James Hansen has stated that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced to at most 350 parts per million and unrestricted burning of coal stopped within the next decade, and former US Vice President Al Gore, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, has stated that the United States should eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels for energy production within 10 years. The Obama plan admirably and commendably addresses the superficial effects of overproduction of greenhouse gases; however, it does not address the root causes, which include auto-reliant infrastructure design, ignorance of externality costs and an overemphasis on consumption as a measure of standard of living. Furthermore, efforts must be made to include the entire developing world in efforts to mitigate climate change. Having spent the last five years living in the People’s Republic of China, I have seen firsthand the effects of coal burning power generation and poor emissions controls. At this point, the United States needs not only to reverse its path, but also to persuade China and India from following in its footsteps, and I feel that the Obama Plan will need to be revised before it can tackle these more ambitious goals.

School paper: WMDs - Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear

Humans often see it fit to describe groups of tools by their uses rather than their component parts. For example, boots, poles, bindings, goggles and skis are often described as ‘ski equipment’; gaskets, engine blocks, and oil filters could all be described as ‘automobile parts’, and microphones, sound control boards, and reel-to-reel recorders are all ‘music recording equipment’. Unsurprisingly, humans use similar methods of classification to describe various weapons systems. Infantry soldiers train to fight using ‘longarms’, ‘sidearms’, ‘melee weapons’, ‘improvised weapons’ and ‘hand-to-hand’ methods- together ‘weapons’. Furthermore, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are often called ‘weapons of mass destruction’; however, the classification of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons under the umbrella term of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ remains more of a strategic classification than an actual technical classification, as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons possess greatly varying properties.

Mere use of chemical, biological, or nuclear elements does not guarantee that a weaponry system will be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. To classify of a weapons system as a weapon of mass destruction requires the combination of a potent destructive force, such as a nuclear explosion, with a delivery system which will deliver that force to a large area or amount of people. For example, airplanes, missiles, and briefcase bombs can all deliver the force of a nuclear explosion to a city and hence can be called ‘weapons of mass destruction’; however, depleted uranium munitions, while mildly radioactive, are not classified as weapons of mass destruction, although they are both highly lethal when used in battle and possibly carcinogenic. Furthermore, chemicals such as mercury, while highly toxic, are not generally classified as weapons of mass destruction because they have not been combined with a delivery system capable of spreading them to large areas. Technically speaking, the underlying destructive technologies for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons differ; however, the effects and delivery systems used to project force with all three types of technology are usually theoretically quite similar, generally bombs or rockets. Furthermore, there seems to be an implicit requirement for direct consequences of the use of a device in order for it to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction- for example, a potent computer virus or Trojan virus capable of disrupting air traffic or airline avionics system could cause hundreds of thousands of passenger and bystander deaths, as well as huge economic losses in a single day, yet computer viruses are not generally classified as weapons of mass destruction, nor are gasoline-burning automobiles, carbon dioxide emissions from which are likely to be responsible for massive damages as well as loss of lives from intensified storms and flooding.

Containment and control issues of weapons of mass destruction are also a key issue. Naturally, a key property of a weapon of mass destruction is its potent fatality and potentially irresistible nature- however, containment and control of such weapons also poses a problem, as naturally, a golem turning on its creator is not the desired effect. Looking at differing types of weaponry, we can see differing characteristics: nuclear weapons are fairly inert unless activated, although they may emit radiation which can be harmful in larger doses. Chemical weapons, if properly stored, also remain inert, although they may leak- still, with proper containment procedures, chemicals may be adequately controlled. However, biological agents are by nature, alive and always active, and hence containment of such agents remains a key priority for those who seek to develop biological weapons. Finally, the ‘effectiveness’ and long-term destructive potential for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons differs greatly, with nuclear weapons being the most destructive and long-lasting, and chemical and biological weapons being relatively less fatal and enduring.

Economic issues also affect weapons of mass destruction. For example, the amount of resources invested in a biological weapon versus a chemical weapon, or nuclear weapon, will achieve varying results. Limited access to differing types of materials or resources such as nuclear fuel or biology labs will also affect research into differing types of weapons of mass destruction. From the point of view of a non-state actor looking to create a weapon of mass destruction (particularly critical in the current environment of fourth-generation warfare, in which smaller groups play a main role), such concerns are of crucial importance, as financial and other resources are quite limited for non-state actors. Planning and research also are a key factor which must be considered when a group chooses to research or acquire a weapon of mass destruction- for example, the design of the atomic bomb is already well-known, chemicals have fixed compositions which are also known, however biological weapons may require laboratory research or incubation in a laboratory before they may be used.

Regardless of differing fundamental characteristics of weapon systems, the current strategic classification of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ serves a useful purpose for the United States, as it allows isolation of various highly dangerous weapons systems and coordination of efforts to control such weapons systems. Currently, nations worldwide have signed treaties to control all three of the enumerated types of weapons of mass destruction. Such treaties allow countries to better minimize exposure risk to weapons of mass destruction and to impose an international order where use of such weapons is forbidden. Recently, there has been little mass usage of nuclear, chemical, or biological agents in warfare, and such restraint has a beneficial effect on worldwide health: without international efforts to control use of nuclear, biological, and chemical toxins, continuous cumulative wartime use of weapons of mass destruction might render sections of the world uninhabitable for tens if not hundreds of years.

School Paper: Infectious Diseases and Global Warming: If The Bugs Don’t Get You, the Heat Sure Will

I finished my undergraduate education in the winter of 2003. It was a very cold and snowy winter in Massachusetts, and I remember my drive home from Amherst to my house near Boston, which took five hours due to an intense blizzard. I was lucky, because I –only- skidded my car into two snowbanks, and avoided any serious accidents. I had handed in my graduation thesis and defended it successfully, and was about to enjoy my graduation present--- my parents had offered to buy me a car, but I felt that such a gift would exceed my need, so I made a counter-offer: I wanted a ticket to China. I had previously studied in Fudan University in Shanghai, China during the millennial school year, and greatly missed the energy of life in the bustling port city of 16 million people. Looking at my passport, I can see from the border stamp that I entered China on 29 March, 2003. My timing could scarcely have been better- I was just in time to catch the peak of the 2003 outbreak of SARS.

As I prepared for my trip in February, I noted news reports of a new disease that had spread across East Asia. The disease had originated in Guangdong province in Southeast China , and had spread to Hong Kong through a mainland Chinese doctor who stayed at the Metropole Hotel. The disease spread rapidly, but muzzling of media sources by face-conscious mainland Chinese government officials eventually led to near-hysteria: formerly jam-packed subways and buses emptied of commuters, buildings required body temperature checks on entry, the surgical face mask became an ubiquitous health accessory, and taxicabs boasted of being disinfected ‘multiple times daily’ for the safety of passengers.

The final death totals from SARS were not great, with only approximately 775 deaths , quite low in comparison with such causes of death as cancer or road traffic accidents, which killed 7.4 million people and 1.3 million people in 2004, respectively . However, the Asian Development Bank estimated that economic losses from disruption of trade and tourism by SARS would reach at least US$12.3 billion . Furthermore, the SARS epidemic led to problems for overseas Chinese in North America- such an outbreak represented a global problem. Had it not been contained in time, SARS could have caused significant casualties- in the past, for example, various influenza pandemics have killed up to 50 million people in a matter of years , an amount of deaths which might be expected to be produced by the outbreak of a major war. Anytime such an international health problem occurs, countries should work together to prevent its spread, as failure to check the spread of such diseases would lead to obviously catastrophic consequences.

On the other hand, the United States has certain domestic health problems which do not have strong prima facie global implications. For example, the United States spent a total of $75 billion on obesity-related medical costs in 2004 ; however, while obesity and heart disease are major heath issues in the United States, there is no chance that a business traveler on an international trip to Europe could spread his obesity or heart disease to the general population of a European country in the same manner in which he could spread SARS, or to a lesser extent AIDS.
Moving away from simple human-related issues the menace of a continuing trend of global warming currently threatens the continued existence of modern civilization as we know it, with probable results including a higher sea level, increasing desertification, and disruption of weather patterns and agricultural yields. The combined problems brought on by the projected climate change will greatly affect nearly everyone on Earth, an amount of people at least an order of magnitude higher than the usual amount of people who feel strong effects of an infectious disease. Furthermore, because issues of climate change are caused by and affect all nations worldwide, the framework for countering climate change will need to contain all nations. In comparison, an outbreak of a disease may be fought mainly by those countries who have been hit most severely by the disease- China, in the case of SARS. People often have difficulty prioritizing issues, and the problem of resource allocation of resources to such diverse projects as medical research, energy research, and military research is one that perennially occupies the United States Congress. Perhaps what the United States needs more than anything is to take stock of what is actually required for survival in the world today, followed by a reconsideration of national policies in light of the findings of such an investigation.

Ｓｃｈｏｏｌ Ｐａｐｅｒ： Information Technology and the Balance Between States and Private Actors

The development of information technology in the 20th century revolutionized the way in which data spreads around the world, causing both the level of speed and also the level of precision with which data can be sent anywhere to push forward the pace of human life on Earth and allow for stronger multinational business and trade. The increasing speed and quality of information flow has given benefits to both governmental actors and to non-governmental actors. Governmental actors have gained better data surveillance and storage methods, better analysis tools and swifter communications methods. Non-government actors have gained capabilities for faster and more diffused dissemination of information, faster communication times, and better copying of digital information, as well as the potential for greater amounts of information production. For as long as the full range of human thought processes cannot be mechanized by utilizable data processing technology, the current level of information technology grants nongovernmental organizations a long-term advantage over governments; however, this advantage will be tempered by the lag in implementation, as well as continually imperfect distribution of information.

Information technology benefits governments in a variety of ways. Digitization of citizens’ information allows governments to track, analyze, and communicate information regarding its citizens internally. Anyone who has been stopped while driving in the United States has experienced this, as a police officer will run a digital search on the license plate of the stopped car and the license number of the driver to see if there are any outstanding warrants or incidents pertaining to the car and driver. At a higher level, a signals intelligence system such as the ECHELON system jointly operated on behalf of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand can intercept and analyze transmitted data such as telephone calls, faxes, and e-mails. Benefits to such a system could include interceptions of possible terrorist communication . In the commercial realm, increasingly sophisticated systems that monitor purchasing patterns allow businesses to tailor advertising and marketing towards individual consumers, leading to theoretical increases in efficiency of sales. However, systems similar to the ECHELON system can also lead to a loss of privacy and freedom for citizens- for example, it is possible for a country such as the People’s Republic of China to scan its phone messages and tell when someone is speaking on a topic which may be considered subversive to the government, and to monitor and control the domestic internet to prevent the spread of information which it deems unacceptable. The downside of tracking of purchasing patterns also becomes apparent when an individual is flooded with unsolicited e-mail after purchasing a book about baseball for a friend on an online marketplace site such as amazon.com: within a week, one might receive several unsolicited and irrelevant mails advertising for items such as baseball memorabilia, baseball tickets, baseball equipment. While such advertising may be blocked through the use of email ‘spam’ filters, there is an opportunity cost involved with the use of such filters as potentially important mails could be blocked by the filters, and lost forever unless a user dedicates himself to regular review of his ‘junk’ email folder. In the long run, future technology may lead to a face-recognition system (such systems are already in place in certain airports , although they are not yet infallible) or retinal-scan techniques which may some day mature to be used in a way such as that depicted in director Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film ‘Minority Report’.

Keeping in the vein of fiction, some may fear that in the end, new advances in information technology hardware might allow governments to set up an information gathering and propaganda distribution network similar to the one used by the government of Oceania in George Orwell’s 1949 novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, in which perfected use of monitoring, propaganda, and economic production controls allows a totalitarian state to exert near-absolute control over its citizens. However, such an outlook neglects the issue of software. Currently, at some point, humans must still be involved in a discretionary role over the decisions made using data gathered by new information technology systems, leading to issues for when humans fail to synthesize information in a suitably prompt and succinct manner, the so called ‘analysis paralysis’, as well as other issues having to do with information overload. Furthermore, the advent of the personal computer and high speed internet has allowed individuals and non-governmental organizations to organize through channels such as mass e-mailing, video sharing sites, and social networking sites. The decentralized nature of the internet, which figured prominently in its original design, as well as and the rapid speed at which digitized information can be copied and modified, allows thought expressed online to be resilient in its survival, so that even as a government such as China moves to cut off an online site which expresses contrary opinions, users have copied and posted the opinions to several other sites, the users of which can then copy the information and continue its spread to more sites, thereby frustrating the efforts of governments to control information.

Naturally, information technology has not yet proved to be a magic bullet for democracy-seeking citizens of modern nation-states, a low signal-noise ratio in terms of political thought still plagues citizens, and the above-mentioned issues of paralysis of analysis and information overload affect all human beings, not just those who work for governments, and such limitations will continue to affect human beings until human intelligence can be fully automated. New information technology will push forward the current level of efficiency: a good example is current United States President-elect Barack Obama’s use of online video sharing sites to spread his speeches during the most recent presidential election. However, the world currently still depends significantly on traditional media, and Obama’s use of video in his victory represents the grasp of how to use a new communication, rather than a total paradigm shift of the United States’ political process. It remains to be seen as to whether the populace will be able to use the currently available tools to transform their relationship with modern nation-states.