Links » Cream » Foxconn Closes Plant After Worker Brawl
Links » Cream » Foxconn Closes Plant After Worker Brawl |
- Foxconn Closes Plant After Worker Brawl
- 18th Party Congress Timing Still A Mystery
- Is Containment an Obsolete Strategy?
- Photo: The pool table maker’s wife, Shangqiu, Henan, by Mark Hobbs
- Chinese Patrol Ships Arrive in Diaoyu Waters
- Myanmar President Says China Friendship Won’t Change
- Made in US, But Sold in China
Foxconn Closes Plant After Worker Brawl Posted: 24 Sep 2012 12:26 AM PDT Foxconn closed its plant in the city of Taiyuan in northern China's Shaanxi province on Monday after a brawl involving 2,000 workers broke out in a dormitory late on Sunday night, according to Reuters:
Taiwan-based Foxconn is the world's largest contract maker of electronic goods and has come under fire along with Apple for the labor conditions at its China factories, though a report released last month found that conditions were improving. The New York Times reported that unconfirmed photographs and video emerged on social media showing riot police and smashed windows at what is believed to be Foxconn's Taiyuan plant:
See also "Meet China's Factory Workers" from CDT. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
18th Party Congress Timing Still A Mystery Posted: 23 Sep 2012 11:12 PM PDT With the CCP's 18th Party Congress and the unveiling of China's next generation of leaders just weeks away, The Telegraph's Malcolm Moore reports that the delegates who are expected to attend have yet to receive a precise date:
Analysts have speculated that the delay in confirming the timing for the congress, the details of which are typically finalized during the August gathering of top leaders at the seaside resort of Beidaihe, indicates factional jockeying at the top of the Party. A resolution of the case against disgraced former Chongqing party boss Bo Xilai has also held up any progress on the congress. The Party's silence over the timing of the congress is deafening, according to The South China Morning Post:
Even with the date unknown, Jamestown Foundation fellow Willy Lam has made his prediction of who will secure seats on the revamped Politburo Standing Committee:
Whoever does take over the reins of China's top ruling bodies, they will face a number of social, economic and foreign policy challenges, and the Brookings Institution hosted a discussion last week to analyze the major issues. See also previous CDT coverage of the incoming generation of CCP leaders. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
Is Containment an Obsolete Strategy? Posted: 23 Sep 2012 09:00 PM PDT
Here is Martel's thesis:
Martel begins with the origins of the policy, including appropriate references to George Kennan and the Cold War. Having slogged my way through an international relations degree, I always look to Kennan, who was stationed in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow at the start of the Cold War, as an almost legendary figure who helped to shape the post-war world. Kennan's most significant influence can be traced back to the famous "Long Telegram" he wrote in 1946 (an internal government document) and a 1947 article, written under the pseudonym "X," in Foreign Affairs. The X article is the one cited as the seminal articulation of containment against the Soviet Union. As Martel explains, containment as described by Kennan and implemented by the U.S. in the decades that followed the X article was multifaceted:
Containment was an ideological struggle between Communism and capitalism. It was a political struggle between two different camps and their satellite states. It was a military struggle between two nuclear-armed superpowers. The policy of containment was successful during the Cold War (a "hot war" was prevented) because, according to Martel: "the Soviet Union was an ideologically extreme, economically backward, and politically isolated state." By the 1990s, the USSR ceased to exist, and containment no longer made any sense. In his article, Martel discusses Iran, Russia and China, but let's just focus on the latter. Why is Containment 2.0 not a useful strategy for the U.S. to employ in responding to China's rise? Martel brings up two main points: politics and economics. I agree with him on both fronts. The original containment strategy pitted Communism against Capitalism, something missing from today's geopolitical struggles:
I agree. While China watchers often spend far too much time debating the "China model" or "authoritarian capitalism," often using Cold War rhetoric, China is simply not comparable to the old Soviet Union (or the Mao-era PRC) in terms of political ideology. Mobilizing nations against China on a purely ideological basis is almost laughable in 2012. Martel sums up his point quite nicely: "The West's geopolitical adversaries do not inspire awe or fear." Angst, concern, worry — perhaps. Fear and awe? I don't think so. When I think about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, images of Winston Smith in Room 101 or Rubashov in a cold, dank basement dungeon come to mind. That was the stuff of literal nightmares. What are the comparable images of modern China? Someone working overtime in a Foxconn factory? The precision drumming during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic games? A street vendor selling a fake Gucci bag? Not exactly terrifying. On the economic front, Martel argues that globalization and free markets do not allow for a viable containment strategy. Certainly global containment is difficult, if not impossible, these days. All one has to do is consider the difficulty of imposing economic sanctions on "rogue" states and realize that any attempt to minimize major players on the world stage would be pure fantasy. With China of course, even limited trade actions would be fraught with danger. Think about what could happen if certain members of the U.S. Congress had their way and all exports from China were suddenly subjected to a tariff of 25%. The damage to the economies of China, the U.S. (and many other countries) would be significant. Now imagine any attempt to turn back the clock and use trade as part of an overall containment strategy. It's simply unquestionable given economic interdependence and current patterns of international trade and global production. Martel sums up his argument thusly:
Based on politics and economics, I completely agree with Martel. However, I think he makes a mistake in deliberately avoiding the military angle. Martel might argue that during the Cold War, the military buildup on both sides was merely a tool in an ideological battle. Similarly, he might say that with the U.S. and China today, the absence of significant differences in ideology and the reality of economic interdependence obviates the need for a military struggle. I agree, but that doesn't mean that defense-based containment won't happen anyway. This is the one area where I find Martel's argument lacking. The U.S. "pivot" to Asia is all about the military. Just because the U.S. and China are economic partners and are not engaged in a political struggle does not mean that significant friction is impossible when it comes to territorial expansion and competition for natural resources. The Cold War may be over, but some of its language, such as "spheres of influences" have been making quite a comeback in the past few years. Could the U.S. use a containment strategy simply to limit the expansion of China in terms of territory and military capability? I think not only is this possible, but this is exactly what the "pivot" is all about. Has the U.S. convinced its allies in the Asia-Pacific region to increase ties to America because of ideology? Not at all. As China's military has grown and its foreign policy become more aggressive, the U.S. has found no shortage of friends here. During U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's recent trip to Asia, I suspect that the words "missiles" and "aircraft carriers" came up a lot more often than "socialism" or even "authoritarianism." For the record, I do not support containment, or the "pivot," or whatever else one wishes to call a policy that seeks to limit the rise of China. That should not be the goal of the U.S., which should focus its attention on ways to work with an ascendant China. As I've written many times, containment is an expression of a "zero-sum" mentality, the belief that as China rises, the U.S. must by definition decline. I reject that assumption. Moreover, I also believe that many of the supporters of a military build-up with China as its focus are connected in some way with the U.S. defense industry. Containing China's military will be quite profitable for some companies, and their influence on the American government is uncomfortably significant. However, just because I dislike containment, I must admit that a narrow policy consisting of a set of defense-based alliances might be with us for a number of years. A non-ideological containment strategy may not be as robust as its Cold War counterpart, but it is not yet obsolete. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
Photo: The pool table maker’s wife, Shangqiu, Henan, by Mark Hobbs Posted: 23 Sep 2012 09:29 PM PDT The pool table maker's wife, Shangqiu, Henan © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
Chinese Patrol Ships Arrive in Diaoyu Waters Posted: 23 Sep 2012 09:06 PM PDT Two Chinese surveillance ships entered waters near the disputed Diaoyu Islands this morning, according to the Japanese Coast Guard, in what Chinese state media has called a "rights defense" patrol. From Reuters:
Tensions between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, known in Japan as the Senkaku Islands, spiked earlier this month when Japan's central government agreed to purchase three of the islets from their private Japanese owners. A string of anti-Japanese demonstrations ensued across China, even turning violent as angry protesters targeted Japanese-owned businesses and products. In one incident, a mob beat a Chinese man so badly for driving a Japanese car that he is now paralyzed. From The Wall Street Journal:
The incident has evoked reflection among Chinese netizens and was the top story on Sina Weibo on Friday, according to the Wall Street Journal report. On the Japanese side, hundreds of people rallied peacefully against China in downtown Tokyo on Saturday, and the government has continued to urge the Chinese government to keep its citizens safe. The Japan Skating Federation then warned on Sunday that its skaters would pull out of next month's Cup of China in Shanghai in the absence of safety guarantees. Meanwhile, Chinese state media has continued to convey the government's hard stance on the crisis, with the People's Daily urging Japan on Sunday to "repent" for its infringement on China's territorial sovereignty. Also on Sunday, China postponed events scheduled for later this week to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two sides. From The China Daily:
What gives? With neither side indicating any willingness to negotiate a resolution of the dispute, and with Taiwan also laying claim to the islets, Mark McDonald of the International Herald Tribune takes a stab at a settlement proposal:
© Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
Myanmar President Says China Friendship Won’t Change Posted: 23 Sep 2012 10:14 AM PDT CDT previously reported Myanmar's parliament would reassess the country's relationship with China. But as Myanmar transitions to democracy, President Thein Sein told Chinese Vice President, Xi Jinping, Myanmar's friendship with China would not change. From Reuters:
China has worried about its relationship with Myanmar due to a halt in the controversial dam project in the Irrawaddy River, and Chinese media has had mixed reactions over the ending of censorship in Myanmar. The Asian Correspondent reports China has persuaded Myanmar to maintain the status quo:
According to CRIEnglish, Xi is urging Myanmar to ensure smooth implementation of projects between the two countries:
© Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
Posted: 23 Sep 2012 10:05 AM PDT As analysts claim "Made in China" products actually profit American producers, the New York Times reports a manufacturing shift now has certain products made in the United States but sold in China. This shift comes amid a slowdown of manufacturing in China due to the decrease in demand from the US and the European Union:
Aside from custom-made water faucets, US manufacturers are producing other high-end products to meet Chinese demand, from Jing Daily:
Despite the slowdown in manufacturing and increase in imports, the Financial Times reports the appeal of China as a manufacturing base has not yet disappeared:
© Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
You are subscribed to email updates from Update » Links » China 优文 Cream To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |
Comments