I read recently that after 9/11 there was a call for workers to clean up the World Trade Center site. Not much money, about $10 per hour for very hard work.  But immigration status was not asked.  So most of the clean up work was done by undocumented immigrants.  They had little protection other than cheap masks.  Of course many of them ended up sick.  There are health programs for  people affected by 9/11.  But for undocumented workers it maybe difficult to to prove they were even in the country.  Some were paid off the book as the city tried to get things clean up as fast as possible.  Some of these workers are even afraid of deportation if  they come forward.

Now that Texas and Florida face clean up and rebuilding after the hurricanes, I wonder how much they are going to rely on undocumented immigrants?  When New Orleans had to be rebuilt, guess who came forward and did most of the work?  Now with the threat of deportation, will enough come forward this time?

LBOAYM pointed out an article on the China-India conflict recently.  I had mentioned a little about that on the last blog, pointing out that Modi had gone to China for the BRICS meeting days after India and China had resolved their dispute in Bhutan.  The relation of these two giants will probably be subject of a large blog in the future.  Today, I will just make some comments on this relationship.

The article that LBOAYM mentioned was in The Diplomat, which was founded in Australia and HQ in Japan now.  I think there is a bias against China in this article.  It is as if China is trying to take over all of Asia and India is the only country willing to stand up against it.  It talks of border conflicts frequently between the two countries.  I am no historian or politician and since I am Chinese American, perhaps I have my own bias.  But I see things differently than this article.

For one thing, compare to European countries who share borders, India and China have been relatively conflict free through history.  One reason is that their border is mostly the Himalayas.  Who wants to go over the highest mountain ranges in the world to attack the other side?  So the only "war" that the two side really fought was in 1962.  I think if you were to read about the history of that short war from a western perspective, you would believe that China was the lone aggressor.  From a Chinese point of view, and I am not supporting all of its version of events, that is far from the truth.  China was unhappy with India for helping the Dali Lama and the Tibetans.  At the same time, Mao and Khruschev were not getting along.  So the USSR was aligning itself with India.  So Mao was fearful that there is an U.S., USSR, India alliance at his border.  India, felt that it was being backed by super powers, put up outposts north of the McMahon Line which the the British had drawn up as the border between China and India.  Given this circumstance, Mao felt that he had to teach India a lesson.

China was able to do this because the U.S. and the Soviets were involved in the Cuban missile crisis.  So neither could pay attention to India.  Truth of the matter China knew it can't have a lasting victory in India.  Fighting a war in mountain conditions take a terrible toll.  There was no point in holding land that was really no use because nobody wants to live there.  So China offered peace to Nehru after a few round of victories.  But Nehru, under pressure at home, refused.  So China pushed further than it wanted to and then unilaterally declared cease fire and then withdrew.  So that was hardly China aggression to try to take over India. In fact, I think China did India a favor by exposing its weakness and dependency on foreign powers.  It prepared India for conflicts with Pakistan later.

As a communist country trying to assure itself as a super power, China is going to rub people the wrong way.  I don't think it is China's intention to conquer other countries.  It does want to be the super power of Asia, if not the world.  So it views everybody in the neighborhood as its little brother.  For a country like India, with a long proud civilization, that is hard to take.  It does not want to be anyone's little brother.  So there will be dispute between the two.  But I don't see war as that is something that will disastrous for both sides and the world.  I think there are only two international relationships that is more important in the world in the near future.  Those between the U.S. and China and between U.S. and Russia.  If China and India can cooperate with each other, it will bring prosperity to the whole world.

When Trump was complaining about North Korea, South Korea and China last week, I was at my in-laws house.  They were watching a soap opera on a Chinese station when it was interrupted by special reporting from Xiamen.  This was the location of the BRICS summit.  Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are the nations of BRICS.  This year, China invited five other countries to attend, among them were Mexico and Egypt.  The Chinese station showed the leaders of these countries, including Putin, arriving at the convention center.  When each got out of his car, he would walk a long red carpet, perhaps 50 yards or so by himself, to the door.  There were no high up officials to greet anyone of them.  They were greeted, finally, at the meeting room by Xi Jin Ping.  It reminds me of the ancient history where foreigners would come to the Middle Kingdom and walk quietly to kowtow to the Emperor.  This seems to me what Xi had in mind when he greeted the leaders this way.  And they all went along with it, including Putin.  Can you imagine Trump tell Putin to walk from the gate of the White House to the inside before greeting him?

There was no response to Trump's rants from any of the leaders there.  It is as if they don't care what he says anymore.  It is all about economic cooperation.  I don't think they are going to follow China in the future all the time.  But consider India was just in a border dispute with China the week before and Modi showed up to take the long walk, you get the idea that they all feel the need to deal with China.  Mexico is significant due to the border wall dispute with Trump.  Egypt gets lots of aid from the U.S. because it had made a peace deal with Israel.  So there is some strategy on Xi's part with those invites.  Along with the Belt and Road Initiative and heavy investment in Africa, China is increasing its soft power in the world.

So while all this is going on Trump is ranting not about our enemies but our allies such as South Korea and NATO.  While China is working on BARI and BRICS, Trumps is trying to get rid of NAFTA.  He is being outplayed in world politics by a dictator.

North Korea has tested a H bomb.  This is supposedly more powerful than before and can be carried on missiles.  So all the fire and fury talk did not work.  Trump is used to bully people with hyperbole.  But in Kim he has found a person who uses hyperbole greater than him.  Of course, Trump has more powerful weapons but no expert think that there is any good military options.

A lot of people think Kim is irrational.  But I think in this case, Kim is more rational than Trump.  If you believe that your enemy can destroy you in any war, then your only rational option is build up nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  Trump, on the other hand, is tweeting about South Korea appeasing the North and is unfair in trade with the U.S.  So his recent words are just making Kim want to move faster in nuclear weapons and making our allies worry that the U.S. is not reliable.

The truth is that nuclear weapons are not that difficult to achieve any more.  So countries like North Korea and Iran were going to get them no matter how we threaten them.  The Pandora's box had been opened.  So while the GOP were angry at Obama for making the deal with Iran, would they not want the same deal with North Korea right now?