Posted on 04/03/2007 1:33:33 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Henry K is like a lot of career GOP has beens. A nation of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
Nevertheless, better Kissinger than Wolfowitz or Pearle. We need realism, not the a-sclowns who have turned the GOP into Wilsonians.
Been to China twice in the last two years. I will say they are all nice people except in Beijing. That place is f’d up. Very very tense. Very old school mixed in with high-rises and free market. Filthy also.
The rest of China such as Shanghai or the villages are more like a western area.
I did find some nationalism among the Chinese, but much more toward the Japanese. Some drunk Shanghinese kid in Shanghai started flipping out one night about WW2 and the Japs. I saw it several times.
The govt could exploit things easily with nationalism especially with resentful farmer’s making 25 cents/day or the factory worker’s making a $1/day. I’ve been to those factories. Alot of pissed off people living on nothing. Getting 10 million of them together by tripling their wage to $3/day is where the Chinese leadership might go.
The Chinese people generally love the west and want what we have right now, not tomorrow. That’s the problem and the govt is blocking it. Its the old school military to watch for...very old school. Most of the old commies seem to like becoming billionaires vs fighting a war. Nevertheless old school is there.
Our US military is right about one thing. The commies are about losing centralized control (problem with free societies) so they need an excuse to clampdown...war is one good distraction and solution.
...... Most of the old commies seem to like becoming billionaires vs fighting a war......
Your excellant description confirms much of what I have gleaned from mostly second or third hand sources.
I did have one first hand experience where the old line customs inspection officer was causing endless problems with the inport documentation for machinery an American company was shipping to itsself in China. Some brilliant engineer suggested that the old man come to Tennessee to see the procedures being followed for himself.
He came, via San Francisco, and the problems evaporated.
He was as nice a person as you would ever want to have business dealings with. Antimated and polite and attentive to the business at hand.
It is my feeling that the process of entering the modern world is irreversable but the place has not been precisely established.
The govt could exploit things easily with nationalism especially with resentful farmer’s making 25 cents/day or the factory worker’s making a $1/day. I’ve been to those factories. Alot of pissed off people living on nothing. Getting 10 million of them together by tripling their wage to $3/day is where the Chinese leadership might go.
I think we already have a taste of the game plan from their fellow socialists in our MSM. They will blame the West for their poverty!
Check this story out from yesterday, and while there well may be some substance to the accusations, keep in mind who is primarily actually doing and effectuating the repressions... [sorry couldn't find a link yet]
In Fear Of Chinese Democracy
WP, 04/04/2007
Author: Harold Meyerson
Listen to the apostles of free trade, and you'll learn that once consumer choice comes to authoritarian regimes, democracy is sure to ffollow. Call it the Starbucks rule: Situate enough Starbucks around Shanghai, and the Communist Party's control will crumble like dunked biscotti.
As a theory of revolution, the Starbucks rule leaves a lot to be desired.
Shanghai is swimming in Starbucks, yet, as James Mann notes in "The China Fantasy," his new book on the non-democratization of China, the regime soldiers on. Conversely, the American farmers who made our revolution didn't have much in the way of consumer choice, yet they managed to free themselves from the British. In New England, however, they did have town meetings, which may be a surer guide to the coming of democratic change. It's a growing civil society -- a sphere where people can deliberate and decide on more than their coffee -- that more characteristically sounds the death knell of dictatorships.
Which is why the conduct of America's corporate titans in China is so disquieting. There, since March of last year, the government has been considering a labor law that promises a smidgen of increase in workers' rights. And since March of last year, the American businesses so mightily invested in China have mightily fought it.
Beyond the Starbucks of Shanghai, the China of workers and peasants is a sea of unrest, roiled by thousands of strikes and protests that the regime routinely represses. Cognizant that they need to do something to quell the causes of unrest, some of China's rulers have entertained modest changes to the country's labor law. The legislation wouldn't allow workers to form independent trade unions or grant them the right to strike -- this is, after all, a communist regime. It would, however, require employers to provide employees, either individually or collectively, with written contracts. It would allow employees to change jobs within their industries or get jobs in related industries in other regions; employers have hitherto been able to thwart this by invoking statutes on proprietary information. It would also require that companies bargain with worker representatives over health and safety conditions.
It's not as if Chinese unions would use these laws to run roughshod over employers. Chinese unions are not, strictly speaking, unions at all. They remain controlled by the Communist Party. Their locals can be and frequently are headed by plant managers, whether the workers want them or not. And yet, these changes proved too radical for America's leading corporations.
As documented by Global Labor Strategies, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization headed by longtime labor activists, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the U.S.-China Business Council embarked on a major campaign to kill these tepid reforms. Last April, one month after the legislation was first floated, the chamber sent a 42-page document to the Chinese government on behalf of its 1,300 members -- including General Electric, Microsoft, Dell, Ford and dozens of other household brand names -- objecting to these minimal increases in worker power. In its public comments on the proposed law, GE declared that it strongly preferred "consultation" with workers to "securing worker representative approval" on a range of its labor practices.
Based on a second draft of the law, completed in December, it looks like American businesses have substantially prevailed. Key provisions were weakened; if an employer elects not to issue written contracts, workers are guaranteed only the wages of similar employees -- with the employer apparently free to define who, exactly, is similar. Business is relieved: Facing "increased pressure to allow the establishment of unions in companies," Andreas Lauff, a Hong Kong-based corporate attorney, wrote in the Jan. 30 Financial Times, "comments from the business community appear to have had an impact." The new draft "scaled back protections for employees and sharply curtailed the role of unions." Phew!
Admittedly, a few nettlesome issues remain. First, about one-fourth of the global labor force is in China. Opposing steps toward the formation of unions there suppresses the wages of so many workers that its effect is felt worldwide. Second, since authoritarian China remains an adversary of the United States and a backer of some genuinely dangerous authoritarian regimes, blocking even the most modest steps toward the development of a civil society and democratic rights there poses a threat to U.S. security interests. Third, since the Bush administration champions the spread of democracy globally, why hasn't it taken America's leading corporations to task for retarding democracy's growth in China? And fourth, since preserving our national security should require executives at companies such as GE to answer for their conduct, where's the House Un-American Activities Committee now that we really need it?
Good article Paul. Thanks.
I don’t think anybody understands just how backwards the place is outside of the big hotel areas. Its easy to parade around town being anti-American if they whip the crowd up because they are safe. The Chinese citizens are quietly reminded of Tianammen Squares so don’t rebel.
We only heard of the 800 killed at Tianammen. I hired the hotel guide in Beijing to show me the sites for the day. She was a student and was remarkably open. Apparently 3,000 to 10,000 people disappeared during the Tianammen Square assault in a matter of 1 or 2 days never to be seen again. Goverment forces took them out at night. They are just talking about it now.
In regards to the 4 points below true also. However the western factories are so far advanced and have standards compared to Chinese owned factories. Example is US owned factories will demand ventilators for a painter of lacquer on furniture and also an exhaust system. Chinese factories will give them an employee a paper mask or a rag for his mouth and plug in a fan. Many throat and lung cancers are present with young men dying in their 20’s from this. I know this to be true because I have many friends that own factories in China and have nothing to do with these Chinese factories...even for component parts, excess inventory, etc.
So its not all the money, but health and safety conditions and real life which your article states. I think the factories open up travel and truth begins to spread around the central controlled government media. Unfortunately that’s not overnight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.