THE WORLD THESE DAYS. (1) South China Sea. Before Beijing's dragon woke up and realigned pawns et al in geopolitics' chessboard with its mighty economic wok, Washington ruled South China Sea. After 1898's Treaty of Paris or upon defeat of Spanish Armada by America's fleet, the US gained the Philippines and Guam (and Puerto Rico). Then, two years following end of World War II and defeat of Japan's Imperial Army in the region, the US fortified its military investments in the islands (1947) by way of Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base in the Philippines, plus of course military might stacked up in Guam and Japan. Manila and Tokyo thus evolved into Uncle Sam's most obedient allies out in Asia's Pacific shoulders. Then after Korean War (1953), the US earned love from the South. Then the entirety of Vietnam after the war (1975). In those years though, Khaleesi's Beijing dragons were still asleep. But South China Sea was all about America. Let economic summits firm things up. Washington's foreign policy in the East was anchored on "modified protectionism" for a reason.
(2). CHINA starts to wake up. Year 1989. Tiananmen Square raged. No more of Maoist legacy. Deng Xiao Ping was pressured to modify or redress Beijing's (economic) open door policy, which meant, eradicating the last of Mao's remnants: The Gang of Four. Deng started talking with Washington. In 1993, Bill Clinton launched his “constructive engagement” with China. Talks talks talks. Then in 2000, boom! Clinton signed the U.S.-China Relations Act, granting Beijing permanent normal trade relations with the US and paving the way for China to join the World Trade Organization in 2001. Between 1980 and 2004, U.S.-China trade rises from $5 billion to $231 billion. US exports to US was rockin'! In 2006, China surpasses Mexico as the United States’ second-biggest trade partner, after Canada. Yet when George W. Bush took over, China lowered tariff/taxes (to lure West's 1 Percent), eased environmental standards etc. In no time, as Clinton's liberals hug trees in Yosemite and lobbyists blocked oil drillings in Oklahoma etcetera, US corporate giants moved East. Guangdong, Henan, Guangzhou, Hubei, Jiangsu, Zhejiang etcetera. China's manufacturing kingdom emerges.
(3). WHILE all these were happening (late-80s to 1990s leading to China WTO in 2001), major upheavals were taking place in the region. The Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos (known Washington benefactor) was ousted. Then in 1992, the Philippine Senate kicked out Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base out of the islands after talks fell in re renegotiation of a treaty signed in 1947. Around that time, the Asian (economic) tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) batted for regional cooperation and codependency versus ages-long reliance with the US and the West. In no time, the Tiger Cubs (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) followed suit. A threatened West countered and so the currency crash of the `90s, a suspected George Soros machination, stalled the region's march to regional progress. But when China got in WTO in 2001, things changed.
(4). BEFORE China's membership was approved (2001), the US was already exporting to China which saw trade surplus soared. So Clinton's liberalization brainchild by way of China for the benefit of US economy seemed feasible. Economic growth was around 4 percent annually, and record job creation was high (22.7 million) in his time. But not for long (refer to Item #2.) Fast forward, as China rules the money game by way of its manufacturing clout, it set its sights on South China Sea as it mended relations with Taiwan, and other countries in the region like Vietnam and Indonesia. When Russia pulled out of North Korea, Beijing got in. China's leadership knew they could use Pyongyang as political leverage as Beijing sits with the West, especially with Washington. Then China showered investments all over the region, and stalled animosities among countries (especially Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam) fighting for spot in South China Sea by handing each and everyone money. Japan also stakes some claim in this very important geography but Japan doesn't need moolah with the same urgency that the Philippines and Vietnam do. Besides, Japan is a pacifist nation, in fact Tokyo gives more aid (especially during calamities) to Manila than Washington or Beijing forward their own help.
(5). SOUTH Korea and Singapore got richer, Indonesia finally tapped its oil, Vietnam and the Philippines marched to NIChood from 3rd world status. Etc etcetera. But the US needs to regain hold of the region somehow. It still has military installations in the region (South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and 5 more satellites in the Philippines) and of course trade investments. George W and Obama didn't do much to fix the situation since both presidents actually pushed more exodus of US companies to the region by bailing out banks and bigwigs rendered shot by the Chinese onslaught. Question: What's the deal with South China Sea? Big deal! The sea carries tremendous strategic importance; one-third of the world's shipping passes through it carrying over $3 trillion in trade each year. Other things like oil and gas reserves are believed to lie beneath its seabed.
(6). LET's jump to Taiwan. Taiwan is the headquarters of Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer. Taiwanese-owned but six of its largest plants are located in China, plus scattered all over the globe (Brazil, India, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic). A $10 billion flat screen TV Foxconn manufacturing plant is up Wisconsin. The US/Taiwan deal vows 13,000 high paying jobs, the largest corporate attraction deal in U.S. history, in terms of pure number of jobs. Some Foxconn's more prominent clients: Acer, Amazon, Apple Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., Cisco, Dell, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Huawei, InFocus, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio, and Xiaomi. Shipment route: South China Sea. Who rules South China Sea these days? China. Not the US anymore.
Among other reasons, why was the North Korea/US handshake a must? While NK doesn't have the capability to actually physically rattle the US, it can shake Asia, and yes South China Sea. And America/Europe/global interests from trade to military to people/expats, Pyongyang can do something bad. Enter China. Beijing holds NK by the neck, it's only source of aid following pull-out of Russia in 2006, as Kremlin supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 condemning North Korea's nuclear test/s.
(7). OTHER US bottlenecks in the East. Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyii used to be the model of democracy out there, Nobel Peace Prize, and all. Till she turned her back on Washington. Remember, opium production in Myanmar has historically been a major contributor to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Myanmar is the world's second largest producer of opium after Afghanistan, producing some 25 percent of the world's opium, and forms part of the Golden Triangle. Opium poppy is pharma gold.
Meantime, the Philippines' populist Rodrigo Duterte is a rabid anti-Washington foreign policy dude. Given. And he's got reasons. Although around the time of power transition from ex prez Benigno Aquino Jr to him, Manila offered Washington eight more (military) bases where it can build facilities to store equipment and supplies under a new security deal, amid rising tension with China over the South China Sea that time. But it's either talks with Obama didn't result to any rewriting of the deal, deemed one-sided by the 1991 Senate, or Beijing took over as Duterte sat, and henceforth, took Asean leadership. As I previously noted, the East (Tigers or Tiger Cubs) weren't really cool with overdependence with the West starting the 1990s. Meanwhile, investments from Seoul, Taipei, and Beijing poured in. And don't forget, Mahathir Mohamad, one of Tiger Cubs' masterminds, is back in power. I mean, China dangled a $134 billion investment to Kuala Lumpur as Mahathir sat, so what do you think?
"FREE State of Jones" (2016), written and directed by Gary Ross, stars Matthew McConaughey. Inspired by the life of Newton Knight and his armed revolt against the Confederacy in Jones County, Mississippi, throughout the American Civil War. I read about Newton Knight in college. Since then, I've always been fascinated and intrigued by his story. Problem is, after several readings and interviews with professors and historians, I get mixed opinions or contrary historical account/s of his exploits or "heroism." It seems Americans are divided over his motives and actions. Such controversy has been fueled by widespread opposition among white people to Knight's alliances with slaves during the war, and his postwar marriage to a freed slave. Meantime, his allies or believers developed a small mixed-race community in southeastern Mississippi at a time when inter-racial marriage was considered illegal, except for a period during Reconstruction. After the war, Knight joined the Republican Party and served in Mississippi's Reconstruction government as a deputy US Marshal.
Fact: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) who authored the Emancipation Proclamation as a presidential proclamation and executive order in 1863 drew support from the antislavery portion of the Whig Party, and combining Free Soil, Liberty, and antislavery Democratic Party members, the new Republican Party formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery. Hence, it is expected that Knight was a Republican.
Anyhow, I saw "Free State of Jones" as a voracious student of history more than a film enthusiast. Yet it helps that you read some Newton Knight backgrounder first before you settle down on the couch for this 2 hours and 20 minutes $50 million-budgeted saga. We can't lose with McConaughey as a thespian non pareil, plus there's the always reliable Mahershala Ali (as freed slave Moses), so by virtue of sheer lead acting, this mini epic is not really a boring exercise. Yet I find some of the dialogues kinda dull speeches. Many so I won't mention. I wanted to dig in some flaws in Newt's character but the movie wasn't into that. He was a hero, period. Like you, I wanted to know where the fiction starts and truth ends, and vice versa. But maybe I am over-intellectualizing. As I said, this movie is not a boring thing. More importantly, it makes me dig deeper into the evolution of America's politics. You should as well. Something to think about.
"FIFTY Shades Darker." I don't know what words to fit in a 300-word "review." But I will. While I cook dinner. There will be a "Fifty Shades Freed," by the way. OMG. I don't know what angle or position in bed or non-bed they'd explore next. Nothing new to me. I am 57 years old with dozens of broken valentines not to know, dig? To save yourself the torment of dialogues and soap, cut through the chase and go to pornhub. Or better be, read Anais Nin's "Delta of Venus" or Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." There's also "The Other Side of Midnight" by Sidney Sheldon, a high school reading shenanigan, that is much better that this E. L. James ersatz. Or try A. N. Roquelaure's (a.k.a. Ann Rice) books. And I mean, read. READ. Don't watch. Reading kickass erotica fires up the imagination and then boom! You know what I mean?
"THE Founder" (2016, via Netflix), directed by John Lee Hancock, stars Michael Keaton. The story of businessman Ray Kroc, and his (re)creation of the McDonald's fast food chain after a cunning "takeover" or buyout of the original San Bernardino, California barbecue store from founders Richard and Maurice McDonald. Dick and Mo McDo built their store in 1940 and 8 years later, reorganized their business as a hamburger stand, using production line principles. Kroc joined the company as a franchise agent in 1955 and subsequently purchased the chain from the brothers, then moved its headquarters in Illinois, Ray's home state. Today, McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain, serving approximately 68 million customers daily in 120 countries across approximately 36,900 outlets.
According to a BBC report published in 2012, McDonald's is the world's second largest private employer (behind Walmart with 1.9 million employees), 1.5 million of whom work for franchises. But of course both giants are widely criticized for alleged wrongdoings in the line of environment, health, and labor. That's not the subject of this post though. The movie's kick is the value of toil. In Croc's words, "Persistence." He didn't inherit the store or franchise compared with the Waltons. He worked his ass off. Studied the plan, reworked it, traveled, faced investors, got turned down and then got up again. Such is the industry wisdom of the olden days when entrepreneurs actually hit the road and talked with people, face to face.
The movie is an obligatory bio narrative, nothing big deal. It's Keaton's ferocious grip of the character and hyper insistence that kept the film interesting. And I always love movies that talk about the past.
"ARRIVAL" (2016), directed by Denis Villeneuve, based on the 1998 short story "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang. Stars Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker. The main intrigue (for me, at least) is Chiang's exploration of language and determinism. Determinism is a doctrine that says all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. It also implies that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. The subject of Determinism is a multi-pronged intellectual provocation hence it was a favorite topic in vacant hour jousts in my college years.
Chiang (and the movie, of course) navigated that theme via linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Adams), who narrates the story, from the day her daughter is conceived. Addressed to her daughter, the story alternates between recounting the past: the coming of the aliens and the deciphering their language; and remembering the future: what will happen to her unborn daughter as she grows up, and her untimely death.
It's a pretty esoteric treatise but Villeneuve's deft handling of the material makes the storytelling accessible even subtly suspenseful. At first, it had the ruminative makings of a Terrence Malick bore but the movie kept me focused and wanting more.
"THE Great Wall" (2016), directed by Zhang Yimou. I knew what's in store for me in this movie yet I still watched it. Just wanted to know how Mr Zhang squandered his huge talent with this $150 million-budgeted CGI ersatz. Who is Zhang and why I dig this dude? He's the director of non-Hollywood classics "Red Sorghum" (1987), "Ju Dou" (1990), "Raise the Red Lantern" (1991), and "To Live" (1994).
The lead writer for "The Great Wall" is no joke as well. He is Tony Gilroy, nominated for Academy Awards for his direction and script for "Michael Clayton." He also wrote the screenplays for the first four films of the Bourne series, all great. But don't let this top notch tandem bullshit you. This movie isn't about the Song Dynasty or how two marauding white men showed up looking for "black powder," which could have been a swell plotline, right? Nope! This movie is all about Chinese warriors outfitted like Power Rangers battling antsy monsters who think like slick blow hustlers in Detroit. The white hunk who led the battle royale? Of course that'd be Matt Damon, a kickass archer warrior from Massachusetts. If you like that kinda cinema, go ahead, enjoy. Good for you. For me? At least it was fine while I do other house chores like wash dishes with my hands.
SOME of the movies above are available on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.
