Friday, October 17, 2003
Dear Economist, the Sun has set. Really.
Earlier this month, I had made a post on why I love the Economist. Among the reasons I mentioned was great covers. Well, I guess it's time for me to eat some crow. The current issue has a most obnoxious cover and analysis of China's spaceflight. For those too lazy to look it says "Congratulations China -- So, no need for anymore aid then?" The leader goes on to call it a publicity stunt and calls on Japan to stop lending to China since that money is being used to subsidise its space program.
I agree it is a publicity stunt. But, I suppose the Economist is going to argue that the Gagarin and Shephard flights were not publicity stunts. Lets face it, the entire early part of the U.S. space program was based on a series of publicity stunts meant to prove it was winning the Cold War. Nothing wrong with publicity stunts, especially when it works.
As for the aid part, Sanjay explains the hypocrisy best when he says "Why should lenders bother how I spend the money, as long as I don't default and pay interest? The Economist doesn't make any noise when other lenders (like India) use lenders' money to buy weapons, say from the UK." Spot on. No protests from the Economist about how the Egyptians, the Saudis or the Israelis spend their "aid" money either. For that matter, I dont remember the Economist protesting too violently when "aid" money kept Mobutu's govt in power for 32 years in Zaire. Oh, but that was for the greater cause of winning the cold war, wasn't it?
I can't help but get the feeling that there is a sense of bitterness (about lost glory) every time the Economist chooses to be condescending. Reminds me of all the criticism Nehru etc faced while making those huge investments in the IIT's and the science and technology sector in India. It's that investment that's partly responsible for the giant sucking sound from the east, Dear Economist. Get used to it. And yes, do enjoy the last rays of that setting sun.
I agree it is a publicity stunt. But, I suppose the Economist is going to argue that the Gagarin and Shephard flights were not publicity stunts. Lets face it, the entire early part of the U.S. space program was based on a series of publicity stunts meant to prove it was winning the Cold War. Nothing wrong with publicity stunts, especially when it works.
As for the aid part, Sanjay explains the hypocrisy best when he says "Why should lenders bother how I spend the money, as long as I don't default and pay interest? The Economist doesn't make any noise when other lenders (like India) use lenders' money to buy weapons, say from the UK." Spot on. No protests from the Economist about how the Egyptians, the Saudis or the Israelis spend their "aid" money either. For that matter, I dont remember the Economist protesting too violently when "aid" money kept Mobutu's govt in power for 32 years in Zaire. Oh, but that was for the greater cause of winning the cold war, wasn't it?
I can't help but get the feeling that there is a sense of bitterness (about lost glory) every time the Economist chooses to be condescending. Reminds me of all the criticism Nehru etc faced while making those huge investments in the IIT's and the science and technology sector in India. It's that investment that's partly responsible for the giant sucking sound from the east, Dear Economist. Get used to it. And yes, do enjoy the last rays of that setting sun.
