absolutely alex’s adventures & times

It was the biggest cop-out ever.

The city of San Francisco, the sole US stop for the global Olympic torch relay, decided to chicken out rather than face the protesters.

Reuters photo

The city claimed that in the interest of public safety, it had to pull a bait and switch on both pro- and anti-China protesters who had lined the Embarcadero route that the torch relay was expected to go through. After delaying the start of the event, the route was changed at the last minute. The closing ceremony was also canceled, with the torch hurriedly leaving the city through the airport like a thief.

“We assessed the situation and felt that we could not secure the torch and protect the protesters and supporters to the degree that we wished,” San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom told the media. “As a consequence we engaged in subsequent contingency planning that we felt would keep people safe.”

Some people might argue that Newsom faced a damned if you do, damned if you don’t dilemma. But the option he took was the least satisfying.

If it was seriously that much of a problem, why not just scrap the whole thing and save public funds instead of taking the easy way out and playing hide-and-seek?

Since they decided to let the show go on, Newsom and the city’s police should have been brave enough and prepared to allow the dissent and protest that would have greeted the torch relay as it passed through the original route. Don’t they have confidence in their police forces’ ability to keep the peace?

This is San Francisco we are talking about here, not downtown Beijing. Free speech and dissent are part of the constitutional rights of this country, and San Francisco has always been known as a bastion of democracy in speech and action, so why the need for trickery and secrecy? If France and Britain could allow it, why not San Francisco?

Moreover, there were people and tourists who genuinely wanted to see the torch run. They were waiting all day and left disappointed. The torch relay was meant as a public event. What good is it if hardly anybody saw it?

What Newsom did was lame. It was the worst compromise and provided the Chinese government with the public relations, faux protest-free torch relay photo-op they would gladly use to show its poor folks back home who don’t know better. Newsom should not have dragged San Francisco into being an accomplice for propaganda.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

On the one hand, watching the world relay of the Olympic flame turn from a “Journey of Harmony” celebration into a debacle is rather satisfying, knowing that the protesters are using this golden opportunity to highlight and take the China government to task for its human rights abuses against its own minorities and its policies of supporting dictators in its thirst for raw materials.

But on the other, it is totally unfair to and unfortunate for the athletes who have spent the last four years sacrificing everything else by training hard and waiting for their moment of glory at the Games, only to have the once-in-a-lifetime event marred and their efforts overshadowed by politics rather than sports. With the life of an elite athlete being so short, it is a tough proposition to ask them to forgo the chance to compete.

Some are worrying that things might get even worse when the torch relay continues on its journey to more countries.

London and Paris both said they were prepared for any unrest but were overwhelmed, perhaps even stormed by surprise, at the level of chaos and opposition they encountered.

San Francisco is next and while the city is braced for trouble, being the hotbed of liberalism that it is, San Francisco is likely to witness protests on the scale similar to the preceding cities, if not larger.

Activists there had already made a headline-grabbing statement around the world even before the Olympic torch reached American soil, by hoisting Tibetan flags and huge banners proclaiming “One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 08″ and “Free Tibet” on the iconic Golden Gate Bridge.

Tove Paule, who heads the Norwegian Olympic Committee, suggests that the torch relay be halted.

“Should violent demonstrations occur in all the places the torch relay is visiting,” she said, “it is not a positive thing. It’s a shame, because the athletic achievements we will see will disappear in the politics.”

But Beijing is adamant that there will be no changes to the torch relay.

“No force can stop the torch relay of the Beijing Games,” said Beijing Olympic organizing committee spokesman Sun Weide.

Perhaps China should rethink its stand.

Undeniably, it wants to win in this battle of wills and to stop the worldwide relay of the flame will be seen as a defeat. There is also the little problem of how the hardline Chinese government is going to explain to people at home that their moment of glory has been snuffed out, when it has blacked out the scenes of melee in Paris and London on Chinese television.

But it cannot fail to see that the whole public relations exercise has descended into a fiasco. Security forces in the cities that the torch will pass through have to put up ridiculous amounts of forces and come up with ever more draconian measures to quell the protesters. What good is it to keep persisting with the relay if it would only serve as occasions for protesters to stand off against the police?

The sad thing is, the protests will not make a difference to the hardened mindsets of the Chinese government. It is only going to treat them as an insult to its opportunity to showcase China to the world and will instead use them to turn its people even more against the West. Unfortunately, many of the Chinese population, indoctrinated with the government’s line and swollen with ultra-nationalistic pride, will buy it.

Many say sports and politics should not mix. But a sports event with as global an audience as the Olympic Games inevitably carries political undertones. Countries vie to hold the Games for their individual prestige and pride. That is political.

China may claim that it is merely a sporting event but it wants to use it to fulfill political ends such as a chance to demonstrate China’s progress and economic prosperity to the world, and for internal propaganda. Whomever said that sports and the Olympics are only about the athletes and their achievements is lying, or deluded.

Just feel sorry for the athletes unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire.

(photos by AP and AFP)

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

After harping on relentlessly about the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, being behind the recent unrest in Tibet, the Chinese government has finally presented some evidence in an attempt to back its words.

But it has only reinforced the world’s opinion of the brutality and Leninist tactics of the Chinese regime. Nor would it not help China regain credibility or quell the calls for it to settle the Tibet question peacefully.

The Chinese claim to have a written confession by a Tibetan Buddhist monk which described the role he played in the recent riots, as directed by the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders in exile.

“For the sake of protecting myself, (the Dalai Lama clique) asked me not to participate in the demonstrations in person, just in charge of stirring people up,” according to the monk’s confession.

The Chinese did not name the confessing monk. Nor did it describe how it obtained the so-called confession. Which only serves to increase the skepticism of its authenticity and raise more questions about China’s intention.

At this point, it does not look like China cares about world opinion, despite its hopes of using the upcoming Beijing Olympic Games this summer to showcase its progress and stability. Even as European heads of government such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Czech Republic’s president Vaclav Klaus indicate their boycott of the Olympics by their no-show in August, China is refusing to soften its line. It continues to heap unfounded accusations on the Dalai Lama, blaming the Nobel Peace Prize winner for using the Olympics as a political tool to undermine Beijing.

These actions by the Chinese government are instead playing to its local population, attempting to jack up Chinese nationalism by presenting a China under fire by the ungrateful Tibetans, whom China has done so much for in terms of economic and social development, and the international media for its bias against the Chinese.

What China’s population do not know — since they face limited access to information due to censorship and internet restrictions, while being fed the government’s official line — is the repression of the Tibetan identity and religion and the forced “re-education” of ordinary Tibetans. The Chinese people have unwittingly been manipulated into being the government’s tool, as they react passionately and angrily to both the perceived “ingrate” Tibetans and the “unfair” foreign media which had been highlighting China’s brutal suppression of the unrest.

Its woes are clear indications of the Chinese failure to understand the Tibetan psyche, that the comforts of materialism do not motivate them to recognize the legitimacy of Chinese rule, which was imposed on them in the 1950s. So while China has poured billions into infrastructure projects in the Tibetan region, building roads, trains and provided services to the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, the Tibetans remained unmoved and continued to harbor grievances against Chinese rule.

Some analysts had hypothesized that the Chinese foot-dragging in entering into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama is calculated. The move is viewed as the Chinese government biding its time, waiting for the 72-year old Dalai Lama to pass on so that they could install a malleable replacement.

But on this, the Chinese are likely to have again miscalculated. Many experts believe that the reverence with which the Dalai Lama is held by the Tibetan people is the only reason why violence on a larger scale, or of the guerrilla variety, had not erupted. The Dalai Lama’s call for a non-violent, peaceful way in dealing with Beijing had kept younger and more impatient Tibetans from attempting more radical measures. His death, far from solving problems as China had hoped, might be the release that could result in a surge in violence against the Chinese regime.

It would be wiser for Beijing to open honest dialogue with the Dalai Lama and work out a more satisfactory solution to the issue. But the Chinese government, having painted itself into a corner with its condemnation of the Dalai Lama and its stirring up of the nationalist fervor of its people, seem incapable of pulling back from the brink and working out a solution to this unfortunate state of affairs.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Maybe it is true after all — women leaders can be tougher and ballsier than men.

Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel has decided to do away with the bobbing and weaving and cut to the chase — she will not be in Beijing for the opening ceremony for this summer’s Olympics, making her the first world leader to take such a bold stand. Her action is believed to be a response to the violent suppression of Tibetan protests by the Chinese authorities, although her office has been careful to disassociate her decision from the issue.

Unlike her French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, there is none of the humming and hawing from the German leader. Sarkozy, after much pressure from the French population to take a strong stand against Beijing, would only say his attendance in Beijing in August is conditional on China’s behavior in its crackdown over Tibet.

Other European leaders have also decided to boycott the Beijing Olympics. They include Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister and President Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic.

Perhaps having grown up under the communist system in the former East Germany, Merkel has a stronger sense for standing on the side of human rights. She had previously infuriated the Chinese leadership by meeting the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, in Berlin in September last year.

In retaliation, China had canceled a meeting between the German Justice Minister and Chinese officials. This time, the repercussions from Beijing are likely to be even tougher, given how badly China wants the Beijing Olympics to be its coming party and a showcase of its progress to the world.

China’s headache will not end here. The European Union has a foreign ministers’ meeting in Slovenia on Saturday and the Tibet issue will be part of the agenda. According to reports, some European leaders want a concerted EU response to the matter, although many are reluctant to resort to boycotting the Olympics, preferring talks rather than tying sports to politics.

The European country caught in an awkward position in this episode is the UK. Its prime minister Gordon Brown had promised to be at Beijing. But his hands are rather tied, given his role as the leader of the country that will be hosting the Olympics next, in 2012. If the EU decides to take a harder stand, the UK would be stuck in a dilemma.

At the end of the day, the European leaders do have to tread carefully on this very delicate issue. The main thing here is the welfare of the Tibetans. While it is necessary they send Beijing a firm signal, they cannot afford to overdo things and cause China to come down even harder on the Tibetans in response. That would make things more tragic than it already is.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Tibetan Buddhist monks today defied the draconian tactics of the Chinese government by staging a daring and fervent protest of heart-breaking proportions.

They burst onto a tightly-orchestrated news briefing held by the Chinese authorities in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, for a select group of foreign journalists, which Beijing had hoped would beam images of a Tibet now pacified, while telling the story of Tibetan “aggression” in the past week of anti-Chinese uprising by ethnic Tibetans there.

It was poignant to see the young monks, in their crimson robes, valiantly risking their necks by speaking to foreign journalists about the conditions they had had to endure. In front of the world’s cameras, they exhorted reporters not to be taken in by the official line from Beijing, which accuses the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, of being behind the unrest.

The monks’ shouts of “Tibet is not free!” exposed the sorry fact that they had been detained in the monastery for over two weeks, after being accused of fomenting more turmoil and destruction. In the melee after the monks stormed the news conference, they were seen being led off by the Chinese security forces, but their fate is unknown, although the authorities had said they would not be “punished”.

China now has eggs on its face a second time, even though it had taken much precaution to ensure that only positive publicity in the country’s run-up to the summer Olympics in Beijing is broadcasted or printed. The lighting of the Olympic torch ceremony earlier this week in Greece was another occasion for Tibetan activists to shine a light on their cause, ruining the photo-op and satisfaction of the Chinese government.

The incidents are a testament to the bravery and impressibility of the human spirit. Violence, censorship and force are not enough to put the determined and passionate people of Tibet and their supporters down.

While pro-Tibet activists are doing their bit all across the world, the world’s government had been shamefully quiet or restrained on China’s crackdown on the Tibetans in China. Only France had created a bit of stir, with its president Nicolas Sarkozy threatening to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics as a response to Chinese brutality.

Other countries had issued toothless statements, while the US had only urged for dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama. Despite the clear violation of human rights by Beijing, President George W. Bush is still expected to attend the Olympics’ opening ceremony. This, even after the Tibetan government-in-exile said about 140 people have been killed in a crackdown on protesters by the Chinese. The US response is another reprehensible example of trade and economic considerations trumping the hollow calls for human rights protection.

“I think this is time the Chinese government and Chinese officials, I think, must accept the reality. I think that’s important. Now in any case we are (in the) 21st century, pretending or lies cannot work,” the Dalai Lama told reporters in New Delhi, referring to attempts to start talks with China over the Tibet issue.

While the Chinese government stuck to its mule-like insistence against communicating with the Dalai Lama, one cannot watch the following video and not weep for the monks and the people of Tibet for what they have to go through.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The Chinese authorities had better sit up and take notice.

The glory that they had hoped to obtain from hosting this summer’s Olympic Games in their capital Beijing, might end up being an embarrassment instead.

Athletes had been quietly grumbling about the city’s notoriously bad air quality, thinking up ways to protect their health and their lungs even as they worry about the impact of competing there.

AP photo

But an Olympic gold medalist had plucked up the courage to come right out and name the city’s polluted air as a reason for not competing in his pet event. Ethiopia’s world-record holder in the marathon, Haile Gebrselassie, caused lots of consternation in Beijing by citing the air pollution as he told the world’s media that he would not be defending his title for the upcoming Olympics. He would instead compete in a shorter race, the 10,000 meter.

His female counterpart and world record holder, Britain’s Paula Radcliffe, has not committed to competing in Beijing either, similarly pointing to the Beijing air quality as a factor.

Other marque names that would probably be no-shows include the tennis world’s number one female player, Justine Henin, who suffers from asthma and is worried that playing in Beijing might aggravate her condition.

The decision by these top-notch athletes to skip the Beijing Olympics might influence more of those sitting on the fence to follow in their footsteps. That would be a disturbing prospect for the image-conscious Chinese.

Other athletes who have decided to compete in Beijing this August are trying various strategies to ensure they are not affected by the city’s noxious air. These include staying away from the city until the latest possible date and wearing a mask when they are there. But that is a potentially delicate prospect for the Chinese, as images of athletes swathed in face masks being transmitted around the world are sure to make bad PR.

They had been working hard to clean things up before the city goes on show, such as closing factories near the Games’ sites, banning cars from the road during the Games, and even engaging sophisticated technology to induce rains to clear the air.

But there are signs that the Chinese authorities had not been entirely honest in their zeal to show the world how much improvement had been made.

A recent US study found that Beijing’s claims that its air had improved was only possible because it had tinkered with the areas from which it collected readings of air quality. According to the study, Beijing had stopped taking into account readings of areas that were more polluted, instead including readings from less polluted sites. Tellingly, the Chinese authorities did not deny the findings, but still insisted that there had been advancements made.

Much as they want to ensure the Games would be a success, Beijing cannot play its usual cloak and dagger games and hope to sweep the truth under the carpet. These athletes it is hosting are not helpless nor compliant like its citizens. They would have no qualms about dropping out of the competition or even show up with masks. That would be a lot more mortifying to the Chinese.

Unlike how it denied the SARS virus’ existence rather than containing it, sadly leading to many more deaths than unnecessary, the Chinese government has to work a lot harder to clean up the air in Beijing, or come clean, before it faces its worst nightmare of the Games becoming a fiasco this summer.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

What does a government do about something as delicate, and personal, as population?

Should it even be involved in the first place?

For China, the world’s most populous country with 1.3 billion people, it is a matter of top priority. It would have had an even larger population, had it not imposed its strict one-child policy.

But it is now rethinking that.

It is a tough, migraine-inducing proposition. How should the policy be changed to balance the needs of the country against the desire of many couples to have two children, rather than just one? And in what manner should it introduce changes, so that it would not lead to a sudden spike in population and the problems that accompany it?

The authorities know that it cannot continue without at least some tweaks to the current policy.

Keep the policy and the country could soon end up with the demographic problem seen in many of today’s developed countries — too few young people supporting a much larger elderly population by bearing the burden of paying for social services through higher taxes, the classic “inverted triangle” population graph.

Continue with it longer and China’s male-female ratio would be even more lop-sided than it already is. No thanks to a pervasive paternalistic and sexist mindset, Chinese families prize boys as the preferred sex needed to continue the family name, so female foetuses are disproportionately aborted, or baby girls abandoned.

A 2000 census demonstrated how unnatural China’s birth rate is. 117 baby boys were born for every 100 girls, a reversal of statistics in countries with more normal trends. As of 2004, China also has 16 million more men than women below the age of 30.

But after thirty years of the one-child policy, the ironic side-effect is the shortage of women to marry the many men in the country, a potentially explosive and destabilizing social problem. It is not uncommon to hear stories of women being kidnapped by criminal gangs as the demand for brides increases. That repugnant practice will not end soon, as some studies have projected that China might have up to 40 million bachelors by 2020.

The Chinese government has also had an ugly history of forcing women to abort their pregnancies and imposing sterilization on both sexes in the 1970s and 80s, to meet population projections satisfactory to the authorities.

These problems are the key considerations behind the Chinese government’s potential change of heart about the one-child policy.

But should it loosen the policy, it could also be faced with a different set of problems.

The policy, introduced in 1978, was originally motivated by the country’s economic weakness, with the intention of dividing up the then meager economic pie less by having fewer people to parcel it out to.

Chinese authorities have justified the one-child policy, estimating that it prevented the birth of about 400 million people and ultimately contributed to the country’s economic growth as it eased the strains and demands of a bigger population.

While China is in a much stronger position economically today, how it handles the population issue will determine if it will keep its economic engine running or risk having too many people who might be unable to find jobs.

With its low-birth rate for decades, China is finding itself already running short on labor as its economy powers ahead and companies continue to invest and build more factories.

Infrastructure-wise, China shows it has not caught up with its economic developments and needs, as seen in its large-scale transportation problems earlier this month. As millions tried to head home for the Chinese new year holidays, they found themselves stranded as roads, rails and air links broke down, due to the perfect storm of unusually cold weather and increased demand for transportation. If a few hundred million more people were added to the equation, would China have the capacity to handle them?

So while there is no question that China needs to deal with this pressing issue sooner rather than later, it has to balance the tough demands of introducing a gradual change to its one-child policy that would boost the birth rate modestly, but will not jeopardize future growth or make life worse for those already in existence.

It’s time China grew up and loosened up on Tibet and the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese are again screaming and crying like bratty toddlers at the latest prospects of the Dalai Lama receiving a Congressional Gold Medal in the US on Wednesday, for his years of struggle against the Chinese.

For all its ambitions to be a global player, the Chinese do not display much finesses and still have a long way to go in the international diplomatic arena, if they want to be taken seriously as more than just an economic superpower.

China proved its immaturity at condemning the Dalai Lama’s pending receipt of the award in Washington DC, which would also involve a meeting with the US President George W. Bush.

Kudos to Congress and Bush for sticking to their guns to go ahead with the ceremony, even though they are downplaying it and trying to keep it a low-key ceremony.

Tibet was robbed by the Chinese and the issue is no way an “internal” affair, as China likes to claim.

It had reacted petulantly recently, by reneging on its participation with other partners in talks about Iran’s nuclear issue, merely offering a flimsy excuse for its withdrawal from the talks as a “technical” issue.

China also recently snubbed Germany by pulling out of a human rights dialogue, after its chancellor Angela Merkel held talks with the Dalai Lama.

Amidst all these actions, it is hard for China to truly be regarded as a top-tier international player. Its economic sway may be what’s getting it to the table with the big boys but if it persists in its childish and irrational behavior, it would be hard for it to take on the type of leadership role in Asia as it hopes to do, let alone in the world. Countries would always be wary of a power that mercurial.

China’s behavior would only add to the fervor and dedication supporters of the Dalai Lama and freeing Tibet already have. In this episode, China’s hysterics and tantrums end up making it look like a petty player. It has also failed to comprehend that making so much noise would only play up the importance of the whole thing, and give the impression that they do really have something to hide or fear, while bringing to the fore the human rights abuses that they have been carrying out on Tibet and its people.

The Dalai Lama’s behavior and demeanor, in contrast, will only endear him to more and win more admirers. Asked in Washington about the Chinese government’s protest at his award and meeting with Bush, the Dalai Lama displayed his formidable diplomatic skills by laughing it off and telling reporters that “That always happens.”

Power, as Mao had said, comes from the barrel of a gun.

His classic teaching to the Chinese Communist Party has sadly proved true once again in recent days in Myanmar, where the unflinching willingness of the Burmese military junta to use force to quell protests, have stifled the moral authority wielded by the country’s revered monks.

The groundswell of dissatisfaction and despair triggered by the rise in fuel prices was the latest in a series of protests by the repressed Burmese people to make political change happen in their country, after the most notable failed attempt in 1988. But they have all been ruthlessly quashed by the Burmese junta, which was quick to use its guns and fists to ensure they remained in power.

Though countries like the US have issued heavy sanctions against the Burmese regime, the US has simply lost the moral authority and the clout to enact change in Myanmar or help bring about democracy there, no thanks to its missteps in Afganistan and Iraq.

No power survives without economic backing and the Burmese junta is able to keep its coffer filled up, thanks to the complicity of neighbors who have no qualms about trading with it.

In this, Myanmar’s rich resources of oil, gas, minerals and timber that could have been the origin of the furniture in your home, have been both a blessing and a curse.

Myanmar’s trading partners in Asia are willing to turn a blind eye to its repressive regime and pay lip service to the idea of enacting change in Myanmar, as long the lucrative trade they have going is not affected.

In this, three parties stand as the guiltiest.

China, which is Myanmar’s third largest export market and its biggest importer, has always been reluctant to meddle in the affairs of its most odious neighbors, in the hope of not having to suffer similar consequences. China has invested too much in Myanmar to allow it to fail and have lucrative contracts voided by a less friendly government that might take the generals’ places. China’s interests there include hydropower and gas-and-oil projects. Its military has also found a friendly neighbour in Myanmar’s junta, which gives China access to the Bay of Bengal, according to The Economist.

Analysts have pointed out that Thailand’s acquiescence with Myanmar’s junta come from a slightly different angle. Thailand has kept mum about its neighbor’s troubles, but the historical baggage between both countries, which have been foes and fought bloody wars for centuries, has perhaps given Thailand an unfortunate sense of schadenfreude. That and the fear of refugees from Myanmar flooding in through its borders and the supply of cheap gas piped in from Myanmar being disrupted, are more reasons for Thailand’s inertia.

The regional group, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), is equally culpable in the mess. It admitted Myanmar into its grouping a decade ago, promising to use persuasion to soften the junta. Ten years on, little has been achieved by the grouping. Instead its member countries, such as Singapore, are supplying the Burmese generals with the weapons and guns that are used on the protesters and monks.

The United Nations itself, hamstrung by Security Council member China’s reluctance to put too much pressure on Myanmar, could only come up with a feeble resolution to “strongly deplore” the recent incidents there.

The divided reaction of the world to the misery of the Burmese people could only mean that much more blood will have to be shed by its desperate people, before change can truly happen.

Would the venerable Swiss army knife have the same kind of allure it normally invokes if it was made in China?

The quintessential Swiss product, the highly-revered, multi-use, handy-multi-tool-in one Swiss army knives, could risk being stamped with a made-in-China sticker that has similarly befallen millions of other products.

And it’s no thanks to this little inconvenience call globalization.

Being a member of the World Trade Organization, the Swiss Army, which contracts the manufacture of the knives, may be subject to WTO rules that calls for the tender of the order to be open to manufacturers worldwide, the Guardian reports.

You can imagine the fits and frothing at the mouth that piece of news has brought on in many usually-phlegmatic Swiss.

Beyond the nationalistic issues, the question is — will the Chinese-produced Swiss knives be up to scratch?

This is a serious issue that could affect the standing the Swiss knives had enjoyed internationally for centuries. The handy knives aren’t just used by armies. It is an essential tool from campers, fishing enthusiasts and outdoor types, to surgeons, doctors and astronauts. It has even been called “life-saving”.

Everyone has come to associate the knives with certain qualities — convenience, versatility, efficacy and above all, reliability.

With the deluge of reports hitting consumers virtually weekly about the shoddy standards of made-in-China goods, there is no doubt that the Swiss are distressed that their beloved invention could face the embarrassing specter of recall, lawsuits and nightmarish PR of being sub-par, should it be outsourced to Chinese manufacturers.

Victorinox, the hitherto default producer of the knives, had said it is confident of beating out other bidders. It had better make sure it does so if it doesn’t want the good old Swiss knife’s reputation to be subject to the unkindest cut — of being just another China-produced good that loses its sharp edge.