In the latest episode of Global Pulse, host Erin Coker asks whether China's 60th anniversary festivities were a display of power for the world or just for Chinese citizens. Watch the episode and leave your comments below!

Media worldwide covered China's celebration of 60 years of communist rule, acknowledging China's rise over the past six decades, while also pointing out its spotty human rights record and the barring of its own citizens from attending the festivities.

Such general wariness of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) celebration may be indicative of a greater global anxiety concerning China's new place on the world stage. In marrying the tenets of communism with explosive economic growth, the country has, perhaps, come to embody the worst of communism and capitalism -- reckless urbanization within the rigid framework of a repressive authoritarian system. The result? A growing power whose rapid industrial expansion and repression of personal freedoms is both a detriment to its people and a possible threat to western interests.

Some experts question the durability of the so-called "authoritarian capitalism" model. "The more open and competitive an economy becomes, the greater the pressure to liberalize political institutions and democratize civil society," notes Tim Dunne in a Guardian editorial. "China wants the former while resisting the latter."

For state-run Chinese media however, capitalism remains an opposing ideology that is distinct from both the country's government and its burgeoning economy. A recent opinion piece in the state-run People's Daily extols socialism as the country’s historical choice, while an article on the CCTV website attributes China's private sector expansion to the country's larger socialist market economy.

In Yasheng Huang's 2008 book, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, the MIT professor points to reforms of governance, not market reforms, as crucial for China’s brand of capitalism to thrive. "Many of the endemic problems in the Chinese economy today—massive pollution, corruption, inefficient capital deployment, land grabs, and so forth—cannot be tackled without…reforms of Chinese political governance," a Reuters article notes in an analysis of Huang's book.
 
In the end, whether seen as a pure success story, a threat to the west, or the worst of two economic systems, China's continuing rise assures that it will not be ignored.

Countries all over the world continue the push to explore the final frontier: space.  In the post-Cold War era, India, China and Japan have entered the race. Why go to space? Are there not enough expensive problems on Earth? National pride and security seem to be the obvious reasons, and the lure of untapped mineral resources.

In an article on NPR’s website, Roger Launius, the senior curator in Space History at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. says, "The moon was just another place for the Cold War to play out... We really went to the moon because of the geo-political rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union -- a competition on a broad front between two superpowers over control of the world."

Now that the Cold War has ended, the need to travel and explore space has grown more complex. The space race is no longer confined to the Moon; it includes establishing space stations, satellites for telecommunications and exploring planets, asteroids and meteors as well. Increasingly, the role of exploring space is driven by a need to augment knowledge about the physical universe in order to support the Earth. India, a developing country that has shown significant advancement in space technology, has been launching satellites that have been playing a supporting role in agriculture, water resources, urban development, mineral prospecting, environment, forestry, drought and flood forecasting, ocean resources and disaster management, according to an article on CNN’s website. India's space program founder, Vikram Sarbhai, said 60 years ago, "We are convinced that if we are to play a meaningful role nationally, and in the community of nations, we must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to the real problems of man and society."

On the economical side of things, there are many mineral rich regions on the Moon and possibly other planets that could supplement the Earth's energy needs, therefore leading to a large economic boost for countries that hold rights to these resources. An article on Wikipedia says, "The Moon is thought to be rich in Helium-3, which could one day be used in nuclear fusion power plants to fuel future energy demands in Asia, which harbors over 60 percent of the world's population and is among its fastest-growing economies." As a result, China has been focused on sending its taikonauts to the Moon. Another article on NPR's website reported Ouyang Ziyuan, the lead scientist with China's Lunar Exploration Program, saying that the aim of China's space program is clear: to advance the country's economic and scientific development. Ouyang says, "We could meet the whole world's energy needs with a hundred tons of helium-3 a year. That means we could supply the Earth with enough energy for 10,000 years."  This is a significant finding, in view of the world's current energy crisis, such as the dwindling oil supplies and increasing climate overload.

Considering the reasons above, the quest for newer resources of energy outside our planet might be a justifiable expense. The International Space Station is a good example of cooperation between nations. Here, space travelers from many different countries work together in cooperation, while governments on Earth continue their rivalries and wars. As Carl Sagan, an American astronomer and popular science writer said, "A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet. One of the great revelations of the age of space exploration is the image of the earth finite and lonely, somehow vulnerable, bearing the entire human species through the oceans of space and time."

A week has passed since the disputed Iranian elections, and reliable information from Iran has been more and more difficult to come by. One relatively well-publicized event though took place Tuesday, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flew to Russia to participate in his first foreign policy trip as Iran's newly re-elected president. The reason: a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a political alliance between Russia, China, and several former Soviet states, with a few nearby nations like Iran maintaining "observer" status.

While nations like the U.S., Germany, and France expressed concern that only massive vote fraud led to Ahmadinejad's re-election, a far warmer reception lay in wait at the SCO. "The Iranian elections are the internal affair of the Iranian people," declared Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov. Ahmadinejad spoke briefly, criticizing the U.S. and the "international capitalist order" while ignoring the rising protests back home.

Ahmadinejad's SCO speech was brief, but its symbolism important. Russia and China's warm reception for a "stable" yet undemocratic Iran speaks to a larger push to organize developing nations in alliances that exclude nations like the U.S. Shortly after Ahmadinejad's return to Iran, the SCO played host to a summit of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), which represent the most influential of developing economies. According to a Goldman Sachs report, by 2050 the BRIC nations could surpass the current leading economies, with smaller developing nations like Iran rivaling Canada and Italy in total output.

In the streets of Tehran today, there is still hope that a promised vote recount will yield a fair result. But friends of electoral justice in Iran would do well to take note of the indifference of many global players to the outcome in light of other economic and political ends.

In a season of a high-profile Supreme Court nomination, economic stimulus, and early health care negotiations, why are we hearing so little about the Obama administration's environmental and energy policy?

The answer may lie in Obama's use of terms like "clean coal," "carbon capture and storage," and "cap and trade" that imply more a gesture of environmentalism rather than a full-scale energy revolution. In recent weeks, Obama has deferred to House Democrats to craft a climate change bill that creates the first carbon emissions trading system loosely modeled on EU energy policy. The plan though, in giving away 85% of carbon trade permits to industry for free, sets far more modest goals than the EU system for reducing carbon emissions.

Obama has been even more quiet about a $2.4 billion rollout this month of "clean coal" investments designed to reduce the environmental impact of coal-powered energy. Environmentalists like Al Gore mock the very idea of clean coal power, but similar programs are being implemented in the EU and China as economic stimulus measures.

Even as energy policy takes a back-seat to other administration priorities, there is still pressure to move quickly on new programs. Obama has promised to raise substantial revenue from carbon emissions trading to help pay for expenses like universal health care. Also, there is hope that Obama will sign on to global energy standards this December in Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which previous U.S. administrations never implemented.

Watch the Global Pulse episode on "clean coal" policy here.

China sees two major challenges to its economic growth: rising unemployment and a deep investment in the U.S. dollar. Beijing's answer: spend and invest, and wheel and deal. In the process, China is crafting a recovery strategy that's spreading its interests around the world.

Sources: CCTV, China; Al Jazeera English, Qatar; Russia Today, Russia; BBC, U.K.; Press TV, Iran; Todo Noticias, Argentina

China's economy is slowing as it is the world over. One cause is the dramatic recent drop in U.S. consumption of Chinese imports. But nearly every day now, we are reading of deals struck by China that promise to turn the economic tide in Beijing's favor.

In Latin America and Vietnam, Chinese firms have signed deals to expand natural resource production. The New York Times reports that deals made in recent weeks in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil include terms designed to decrease demand for the U.S. dollar. From Vietnam, TIME interviews locals fearful that China's plans to mine bauxite will result in devastating environmental and job losses.

China's military is also assuming a more aggressive stance. The state navy hints that it may soon develop an aircraft carrier and expand its global missions along the lines of recent anti-piracy sorties in the Gulf of Aden.

The Economist though predicts China could chart a more peaceful route to recovery. This scenario would include long-term investment in domestic priorities such as public transit and health care. Chinese officials are reportedly "fascinated" by European models of welfare and public health, and could cooperate with the EU on future projects.

Can China achieve economic recovery in a manner that is peaceful and sustainable? Or should we remain skeptical of a world shaped by Chinese priorities?