Border surveillance neg cartels k

MPX – Chinese dedev

Chinese-born, high-skilled workers are returning to China—only a more inclusive immigration system can solve

“Several years ago, the answer would have been simple. Of course, I’d prefer to stay in the US maybe long enough to enjoy some immigration benefits. But now China offers equally competitive opportunities for overseas returnees, which many will consider and accept,” said Li, 28, who has been studying in the US for more than six years.

In 2008, the government launched the Thousand Talents Program to improve China’s capacity for innovation in the next five to 10 years. It hopes to boost the recruitment of talented people who are willing to return to China for top salaries.

A follow-up initiative, the Thousand Young Talents Program, was set up last year to recruit about 2,000 jobseekers from abroad over the next five years to work in the natural sciences and engineering.

Under the National Medium- and Long-term Talent Development Plan (2010-20) released in June, the government will adopt favorable policies in taxation, insurance, housing, children and spouse settlement, career development, research projects, and government awards for high-caliber overseas Chinese who are willing to work in China.

Li is encouraged by the programs. “More Chinese students and young professionals around me are considering returning to China. The program is a good start and it shows the government has recognized the role these overseas returnees can play.

“There is not much difference between China and the US in terms of employment opportunities now,” he said. “That’s where it makes the choice difficult.”

More Chinese students have returned home in recent years – 134,800 from the US last year, a 25 percent increase from 2009, according to the Chinese Ministry of Education. While many returned because of the difficulty in obtaining a non-immigrant work visa, it is thought that the better employment prospects in China also played a role.

Shaun Rein, managing director at China Market Research in Shanghai, said most of the people his firm hired in the past two years had gone abroad for business school and returned to China.

Keeping the foreigners

The United States, meanwhile, is trying to keep the foreigners. Speaking in El Paso, Texas, in May, President Barack Obama said an overhaul of US immigration laws is needed to secure highly skilled and high-tech foreign talent.

“So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India,” he said. “We want those companies and jobs to take root here.”

In May, the Obama administration extended the Optional Practical Training program to allow students graduating from programs in several dozen additional disciplines, including soil microbiology, pharmaceuticals and medical informatics, to be able to find a job or work up to 29 months (instead of 12) after graduation. The move was intended to address the shortages of scientists and technology experts in some high-tech sectors.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said recently, at a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington, that “the one thing” that can spur job growth is to encourage more legal immigration to the US.

He said the changes should include allowing foreign graduates from US universities to obtain green cards (permanent residency), ending caps on visas for highly skilled workers, and setting green card limits based on the country’s economic needs, not an immigrant’s family ties. About 15 percent of all green cards go to employees and their dependents, while the rest go largely to immigrants, families and relatives, Bloomberg said.

Last year more than 70,000 Chinese applicants obtained permanent residency in the US, placing second behind Mexican applicants, according to the US Department of Homeland Security.

“That American dream cannot survive if we keep telling the dreamers to go elsewhere,” Bloomberg said. “It’s what I call national suicide – and that’s not hyperbole.”

Immigration limits

Groups that favor tighter immigration restrictions think the US already has a system that allows 8 million foreign workers to hold jobs when nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed in a slow-growing economy. Republicans, in general, support a tighter immigration policy to preserve more jobs for Americans.

A recent Gallup survey showed that Americans continue to show a slight preference for lower immigration levels over maintaining current levels, while a much smaller percentage favors increased immigration.

Li does not agree, saying immigrants have contributed so much to the United States, historically an immigration country. “It makes sense to make the immigration policies more friendly to foreign workers. The thing is, how can (the US) attract more Chinese students to stay when more opportunities are rising at home?”

Li changed his major from biomedical engineering to marketing, a field he said is much more open in China because of a large number of domestic companies’ branding needs. Meanwhile, many US companies are cutting back on marketing and advertising budgets and on personnel to save costs.

What companies want

The reality in China now is that talented people, especially those who have a foreign education, are in high demand at both Chinese and foreign multinational companies.

New Corporate Executive Board research indicates that many Chinese are increasingly interested in working for domestic rather than Western companies because of China’s economic growth and compelling career opportunities.

“Our Western multinational clients are increasingly concerned about their ability to attract and retain highly skilled Chinese talent,” said Conrad Schmidt, executive director of the board’s Corporate Leadership Council.

Rein, from China Market Research, said the majority of the Fortune 500 companies his firm interviewed said their biggest obstacle to growth in China was recruiting and retaining talent. Rein, who is bullish on China’s economy for the next decade, is concerned about the weak talent pool in the country.

“The university system here does not train people to think analytically enough for a global business world,” he said. “Many students realize this so they travel to the US, UK and Australia to study.

“Fifteen years ago, many Chinese who studied abroad stayed abroad because the opportunities in China were limited. However, many are now starting to return to China because this is where the great growth is and job opportunities abound.”

Attracting overseas Chinese scholars back to China is key to their economy

China has begun to recognize that having financial resources is not enough: human resources must be prioritized in today’s knowledge economy. Therefore, methods for attracting human capital to China can have a profound impact on the country’s economic, political and social transformation.

Chinese growth makes war US-China war inevitable within five years

Keck 14 – citing John Mearsheimer, professor of IR

(Zachary, US-China Rivalry More Dangerous Than Cold War?, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/us-china-rivalry-more-dangerous-than-cold-war/)

The prominent realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer says there is a greater possibility of the U.S. and China going to war in the future than there was of a Soviet-NATO general war during the Cold War.¶ Mearsheimer made the comments at a lunch hosted by the Center for the National Interest in Washington, DC on Monday. The lunch was held to discuss Mearsheimer’s recent article in The National Interest on U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. However, much of the conversation during the Q&A session focused on U.S. policy towards Asia amid China’s rise, a topic that Mearsheimer addresses in greater length in the updated edition of his classic treatise, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which is due out this April.¶ In contrast to the Middle East, which he characterizes as posing little threat to the United States, Mearsheimer said that the U.S. will face a tremendous challenge in Asia should China continue to rise economically. The University of Chicago professor said that in such a scenario it is inevitable that the U.S. and China will engage in an intense strategic competition, much like the Soviet-American rivalry during the Cold War.¶ While stressing that he didn’t believe a shooting war between the U.S. and China is inevitable, Mearsheimer said that he believes a U.S.-China Cold War will be much less stable than the previous American-Soviet one. His reasoning was based on geography and its interaction with nuclear weapons.¶ Specifically, the center of gravity of the U.S.-Soviet competition was the central European landmass. This created a rather stable situation as, according to Mearsheimer, anyone that war gamed a NATO-Warsaw conflict over Central Europe understood that it would quickly turn nuclear. This gave both sides a powerful incentive to avoid a general conflict in Central Europe as a nuclear war would make it very likely that both the U.S. and Soviet Union would be “vaporized.”¶ The U.S.-China strategic rivalry lacks this singular center of gravity. Instead, Mearsheimer identified four potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and China might find themselves at war: the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas. Besides featuring more hotspots than the U.S.-Soviet conflict, Mearsheimer implied that he felt that decision-makers in Beijing and Washington might be more confident that they could engage in a shooting war over one of these areas without it escalating to the nuclear threshold.¶ For instance, he singled out the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, of which he said there was a very real possibility that Japan and China could find themselves in a shooting war sometime in the next five years. Should a shooting war break out between China and Japan in the East China Sea, Mearsheimer said he believes the U.S. will have two options: first, to act as an umpire in trying to separate the two sides and return to the status quo ante; second, to enter the conflict on the side of Japan.¶ Mearsheimer said that he thinks it’s more likely the U.S. would opt for the second option because a failure to do so would weaken U.S. credibility in the eyes of its Asian allies. In particular, he believes that America trying to act as a mediator would badly undermine Japanese and South Korean policymakers’ faith in America’s extended deterrence. Since the U.S. does not want Japan or South Korea to build their own nuclear weapons, Washington would be hesitant to not come out decisively on the side of the Japanese in any war between Tokyo and Beijing.¶ Mearsheimer did add that the U.S. is in the early stages of dealing with a rising China, and the full threat would not materialize for at least another ten years. He also stressed that his arguments assumed that China will be able to maintain rapid economic growth. Were China’s growth rates to streamline or even turn negative, then the U.S. would remain the preponderant power in the world and actually see its relative power grow through 2050.¶ In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that China’s economy falters or collapses, as this would eliminate a potentially immense security threat for the United States and its allies. Indeed, Mearsheimer said he was flabbergasted by Americans and people in allied states who profess wanting to see China continue to grow economically. He reminded the audience that at the peak of its power the Soviet Union possessed a much smaller GDP than the United States. Given that China has a population size over four times larger than America’s, should it reach a GDP per capita that is comparable to Taiwan or Hong Kong today, it will be a greater potential threat to the United States than anything America has previously dealt with.

Leads to nuclear winter

Wittner 11 - Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany, Wittner is the author of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of over 250 published articles and book reviews. From 1984 to 1987, he edited Peace & Change, a journal of peace research.,

(Lawrence S, “Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?,” www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Cross-strait war leads to extinction

Ching 2k - senior journalist at The Straits Times and author of two books on Taiwan

(Ching Cheong, “No One Gains in War Over Taiwan”, June 25, Lexis Nexis)

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 1.1 Mb.

Share with your friends: