Links » Cream » A Very Confusing Op/Ed on the Intertubes, the Middle East and the Great Satan

---

• A Very Confusing Op/Ed on the Intertubes, the Middle East and the Great Satan
• Is Global Times Misunderstood?
• Weibo’s Limits and the Ballad of China’s Middle Class
• Photo: “Offend the great Han, we will kill you no matter how far,” by Christopher Cherry
• Chinese Investors Sue CFIUS Over Rejection of Wind Farm Acquisition
• Protests Mark Historical Anniversary
• Japanese Cars Banned from Hunan Road
• Diaoyu Islands Are Xinhua’s
• U.S. Files W.T.O. Case against China
• China Cuts Drug Prices
• China Car Makers Cut Corners to Success
• Sensitive Words: Trials, Looting and Liver Cancer
• The Daily Twit – 9/18/12: National Day of Humiliescalation
• Wang Accepts Charges as Trial Ends
• Hairless Apes Fighting Over Coconuts: the Islands Dispute Heats Up

A Very Confusing Op/Ed on the Intertubes, the Middle East and the Great Satan Posted: 19 Sep 2012 12:30 AM PDT China Daily ran an Op/Ed today by Russian-American author and journalist Andre Vltchek entitled "Should the Internet be Regulated?" I assume some editor is responsible for the headline, which makes no sense whatsoever since no one, to my knowledge, is arguing that the Internet should be completely unregulated. Additionally, the Op/Ed is about freedom of speech on the Internet, not regulation of all kinds, which could include anything from IT rules to foreign investment restrictions. With that out of the way, let's turn to the Op/Ed itself. Upon reading the column, my first reaction was utter confusion. There are parts of the Op/Ed that make sense, others that don't, but when you put it all together, you get a pulsing headache. Although Vltchek is obviously not a native English speaker, the language is not the problem here, but rather the underlying argument. After reading the first paragraph, I thought this was going to be a justification of Net censorship. This would explain why the column was being run in the China Daily: Could the Internet be totally free and should it be? The recent turmoil in the Arab world caused by a contentious video denigrating Prophet Muhammad shows the United States, which is busy promoting global Internet freedom, has paid a huge price with the lives of its diplomats. Fairly straightforward, although I'm not sure who is advocating for the Net to be "totally free." Classic straw man in the very first sentence, which doesn't bode well. Nevertheless, the U.S. touts freedom of speech online and look what happens, its own people get killed as a result. Some of you might be outraged and offended by this, but I would ask you to put that aside for the moment. The basic contention is fair game, even if it is written rather bluntly and perhaps in poor taste. Arguably, if the U.S. had strict content rules against denigrating Muhammad, some of the riots would not have occurred. The author is saying that unregulated speech can have negative consequences, and he throws in a couple more examples from India and Mexico to bolster his point. Again, that's all fine and what I expected after reading the lede. It's not exactly an earth-shattering revelation of an argument, but it's straightforward. About halfway through the Op/Ed, what I thought was the thesis is re-stated: The US-led West always promotes Internet freedom and refutes any regulation as censorship, but it should think twice if it calculates the heavy price that has been and has to be paid for "free Internet". Again with the straw man. Does the West really refute "any regulation as censorship"? Vltchek is being just a tad bit hyperbolic here for some reason, and it waters down his argument. So far, this seems like the usual justification for Net censorship. I'd call it a juvenile argument for several reasons, chief among them being the author's obvious failure to take into account the benefits of free speech, but at least it's written clearly. But for some inexplicable reason, the Op/Ed then goes off on a very odd tangent, criticizing the U.S. for its hypocrisy on the issue of Net regulation: Moreover, even if the Internet in the West appears to be free, with no obvious interference and no censored sites, isn't the structure of the main pages already manipulative, with selected press agencies and sources occupying clearly dominating positions? Now this is a criticism I actually support. The major channels of news on the Intertubes have become dominated by a handful of corporations, and while there is plenty of diversity online, most folks get their news from the big boys. Same problem with "traditional" news, such as newspapers, television and radio. On the other hand, that is not a free speech issue. Media concentration has more to do with U.S. antitrust law and lobbyists than online speech. While the end result might be fewer voices heard online, market manipulation by private enterprise is very different from government-imposed content restrictions. We're talking apples and oranges here. Moreover, the video that may have sparked some of the riots in the Middle East did not come from The New York Times or Fox News, but from a schmuck who posted it on YouTube which, although it is owned by Google, thrives because of user-generated content. I'm not sure if these two dots can be connected. Vltchek also references U.S. hypocrisy with respect to Wikileaks, which moves completely away from media concentration and back again to government content restrictions. Although I abhor what the U.S. government, and its lackeys, are currently doing to Julian Assange, I'm not sure what the point here is. At the outset, the author argues that unfettered speech can bring about violent incidents, like what's going in the Middle East, and yet now he's saying that U.S. attempts to control the dissemination of national secrets is somehow not acceptable. So which is it? Is the argument here really that: a) free speech as advocated by the U.S. is bad; and 2) U.S. stifling of free speech is also bad? I'm always happy to read a good piece on hypocrisy, but usually there's a point to the exercise other than gratuitous anti-Americanism. Instead of somehow tying Part I about the dangers of Internet freedom to Part II on media consolidation (if that is even possible), we get yet another weird tangent: The true intention of the US in promoting so-called global Internet freedom was actually to help people get around barriers in cyberspace and inform them with the kind of "bad news" about the rivals in the US eyes. I'm not exactly sure what this means, but it sounds a lot like an anti-U.S. conspiracy theory. The U.S. is promoting Net freedom so that it can, what, more effectively get dirt on other countries? Wikileaks aside, is Vltchek saying that the Net is devoid of American criticism? Does he ever read China Hearsay? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the only consistent thread here is that the U.S. sucks, no matter what it advocates or does. I criticize the U.S. all the time, but I sure hope I don't come across like this guy. Now, you might think that the author had so twisted his arguments around at this point that a concluding sentence would be all but impossible, but no, he gives it a shot: The conclusion is that there will never be a perfect system. Every country will have to develop its own system, based on its culture, social milieu and the degree of danger it's facing. In the meantime, it would be useful to realize that the West is hardly the one to be the vanguard of objectivity and free flow of information. Now he's coming down on the side of an ad hoc standard for each country, which sounds eminently reasonable. But even the U.S. government supports some restrictions on speech. So again, who is advocating for unfettered Net content? I think Vltchek has constructed a pretty weak straw man here. A more persuasive case could have been made for Net censorship by saying that some restrictions may be necessary and that the U.S. calls for liberalization go too far. I'm not sure why Vltchek did not opt for this more obvious approach, but perhaps the goal was simply to beat up on the U.S. To summarize this confusing Op/Ed: 1. Free speech is dangerous. 2. The U.S. advocates for free speech. 3. Bad things happen to the U.S. as a result. 4. The U.S. should be condemned for media consolidation. 5. The U.S. should be condemned for the Wikileaks affair. 6. The U.S. uses free information on the Intertubes to collect and disseminate dirt on its rivals. 7. But each country should decide for itself. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: Internet, internet censorship

Is Global Times Misunderstood? Posted: 18 Sep 2012 11:58 PM PDT A survey of articles in Global Times' International Forum editorial section, conducted by Allen Carlson and Jason Oaks at Cornell University's Government Department, suggests that the newspaper's reputation for hardline nationalism does not tell the whole truth: At first glance this reputation appears to be well deserved. In recent months the paper has published a number of combative editorials on the ongoing standoff with the Philippines regarding ownership of portions of the South China Sea and its territorial dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. In short, it appears to be at the epicenter of a growing wave of aggressive Chinese rhetoric. The actual content of the paper, however, does not live up to such a characterization. […] To be clear, since 2008 many of those who have written in the paper seemed to take pleasure in how the financial crisis negatively impacted the United States. In response, some also called on China to adopt a more assertive position within the international arena. However, many other contributors focused less on America's supposed decline, and more on critiquing China's own numerous shortcomings in responding to new economic realities. In addition, a number of authors continued to stress the importance of maintaining a stable relationship with America, and some even advocated the strengthening of multilateral cooperation to cope with the emerging problems within the global economic system. Indeed, especially nationalist interpretations of the worldwide economic meltdown were relatively rare and not especially confrontational. See also Christina Larson's Foreign Policy feature on "China's Fox News" and Global Times' response, via CDT. © Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: cornell, diaoyu islands, financial crisis, Global Times, Japan, nationalism, philippines, senkaku islands, South China Sea, state media, United States Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Weibo’s Limits and the Ballad of China’s Middle Class Posted: 18 Sep 2012 11:38 PM PDT Comments from China's microblogs have become a common element of news coverage as concise but colourful illustrations of the popular mood. At Asia Society's ChinaFile, however, Amy Qin points out that Weibo offers an incomplete reflection of Chinese society: The numbers show that the Internet user base is still dominated by younger, urban, highly-educated Chinese who reside in the more highly-developed eastern provinces. It is very likely that this characterization is applicable to the Weibo user base as well, which leads me to make the next simple point: Weibo-sourced reportage is useful insofar as it provides a glimpse into the conversation among a certain segment of the Chinese population. There are still millions of Chinese people who have yet to join this "national conversation." And yet these unheard voices are often those of the people most affected by the social and political issues netizens discuss. They are the rural citizens, ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. There is no question that the emergence of Weibo platforms and the Internet more generally has amplified the voices of the laobaixing—the ordinary people. But in order to know what the Chinese people are really talking about, it is not enough to just follow the viral videos and microblogs on Weibo. A Weibo post translated by The Atlantic's Yuxin Gao during Saturday's anti-Japanese protests summed up the problem: Weibo user: "Get onto Weibo you think China is not far from democracy. Go onto the streets you realize the Cultural Revolution is not over." — Helen Gao (@Yuxin_Gao) September 15, 2012 The Diaoyu protests may demonstrate the social divide that Qin warns about. Tea Leaf Nation noted on Saturday that Weibo users, though generally supporting China's claim to the disputed islands, "for the most part condemned the vandalism and the violence against Japanese nationals". At The Financial Times, Jamil Anderlini suggests that social class accounts for much of this online/offline divide: A superficial observation of the crowds of mostly young people that have turned out in Beijing and Chengdu over the last week left me with the impression that the majority of them were not the upwardly mobile young folk who make up the country's new middle classes. Those people, with their spending power, Japanese-made cars, Nikon cameras and possibly even a few years of education in the west were at home tweeting on their microblogs about what a loss of face it was for China to have citizens burning and looting in the name of patriotism. © Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: anti-Japan protests, diaoyu islands, microblogs, middle class, weibo Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Photo: “Offend the great Han, we will kill you no matter how far,” by Christopher Cherry Posted: 18 Sep 2012 11:24 PM PDT Anti-Japan protesters: "Offend the great Han, we will kill you no matter how far," © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Chinese Investors Sue CFIUS Over Rejection of Wind Farm Acquisition Posted: 18 Sep 2012 09:43 PM PDT On September 12, the Ralls Corporation, a Chinese-owned wind-farm developer, sued the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS" or the "Committee"), raising statutory and constitutional challenges to recent CFIUS orders that effectively require Ralls to unwind its acquisition of four wind-farm projects in Oregon. The suit is a rarity, and there have been no significant instances of judicial review of CFIUS decisions in the past. (Vinson & Elkins) Wow, this is big news (if you're into this sort of thing). When it comes to foreign investment, there is perhaps no hotter topic these days than Chinese outward direct investment. Yes, the number and size of these deals is still relatively small, but unlike other commercial areas, Chinese ODI is actually growing. These days, that's huge. And if one were to write a short list of issues effecting Chinese ODI to the U.S., one of the top destinations, it would be national security review. That's been on the agenda for almost a decade now, gaining the most prominence when CNOOC had to pull out of the deal to purchase UNOCAL. While only a few deals have been formally nixed by CFIUS, quite a few others have been quietly abandoned when the investors ascertained that the politics just weren't lining up the right way. In particular, when certain members of the U.S. Congress want to kill an M&A deal, it gets done. I've always wondered what would happen if some of these companies called the bluff of the U.S. government, saying essentially "You're going to torpedo my deal? OK, tough guy, I'm going to force CFIUS to not only formally reject the deal, but also justify it." No one has really tried to do this before, and the underlying statute here does exempt the president's actions from judicial review. But what about the decision of CFIUS itself? Maybe this lawsuit will shed some light on how all this works. That would be nice, although it's a longshot. For the record, the deal in question here involved two Chinese national investors and some small wind farm projects, but it sounds like the real money behind the deal comes from Sany, a ginormous machinery company headquartered in Changsha: According to Ralls, its primary business purpose is to develop wind energy products for which wind turbines manufactured by Sany could be used. The Ralls complaint alleges that in early 2012, Ralls bought four small Oregon companies whose assets consisted of wind-farm development rights, land rights to construct wind farms, power purchase agreements, and government permits. The projects — which collectively would produce a mere 40 megawatts of power — allegedly had received other federal regulatory approvals, such as a determination by the Federal Aviation Administration that the turbine towers presented no hazard to aviation. The U.S. Navy had initially requested that Ralls voluntarily re-locate one of the turbines, apparently due to proximity to certain restricted military airspace. The complaint contends that after Ralls complied with the request, the Navy recommended that Oregon issue the necessary state regulatory approvals. So why did CFIUS ultimately decide that not only should the deal be unwound, but that it would attach conditions on Ralls' ability to transfer assets to third parties, including equipment made by Sany? No one knows, or at least they're not saying so in public. Ralls is now suing CFIUS on several grounds, including a classic "regulatory taking" complaint: The suit raises a host of challenges, asserting that CFIUS exceeded its authority by (a) failing to give reasons for its actions; (b) prohibiting the transaction outright, rather than imposing conditions to mitigate national security risks; and (c) prohibiting Ralls from selling items produced by Sany even to U.S. buyers and the sale of the wind-farm projects without CFIUS approval, even to a U.S. buyer.  The suit also alleges that the order deprived Ralls of property without due process by prohibiting further construction, use of (or even access to) the property, and sale of assets on the property to which Ralls holds project development land rights. I've read the initial order handed down to Ralls, which is all of four pages and doesn't say squat. This is unfortunately how CFIUS works. They find a national security issue and then can kill the deal without explaining exactly why, with the decision normally not even subject to judicial review. There are shades here of China's prosecution of individuals under the auspices of the ill-defined law concerning "State Secrets." It's possible that CFIUS' problem here is with Sany and its equipment, or perhaps it's just the nationality of the investors – heck, maybe there is actually a reasonable argument here. Who knows? However, as these are wind-farm projects, I'm finding it very difficult coming up with a national security angle to this whole thing. And if there isn't one, then I naturally start thinking that a domestic U.S. company or industry is being somehow protected by this decision. Wouldn't be the first time. Do I know for sure this is protectionism? Not at all. The point is that this looks odd on its face, and it would be nice to have more information. It's possible, for example, that if Ralls knew what the hell the problem was, it could assist in suggesting a mitigation plan. It already voluntarily complied with the orders of the U.S. Navy. Can you imagine what would have happened if last month, MOFCOM, instead of issuing an approval, had announced that it was rejecting Wal-mart's acquisition of Yihaodian outright, with absolutely no justification whatsoever except for an oblique reference to "national security"? Heads would have exploded on Capitol Hill. The U.S. government complains about transparency in China and other nations all the time (for good reason), but it might be a good idea to back that up with a bit more transparency at home. I would really like to see this suit move forward, but it's unlikely. Although Ralls did file a federal case, the decision now rests with President Obama (it's rare that these cases go to the president), who now has until September 28 to uphold CFIUS' decision. If he does, the courts may not review it. If he does nothing, the deal would go ahead. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: CFIUS, foreign investment, overseas direct investment, Sany

Protests Mark Historical Anniversary Posted: 18 Sep 2012 06:59 PM PDT September 18, known as the "Day of National Humiliation," marks the anniversary of the "Mukden Incident" in 1931 which precipitated the Japanese invasion of northern China. With anti-Japanese sentiment in China already high from Japan's planned purchase of the disputed Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, protesters again took to the streets in force on Tuesday. But according to reports, authorities took stronger measures to prevent violence and looting than on previous days. From the New York Times: The protests were large and sometimes angry, but appeared much better controlled than those over the weekend, which included extensive rioting and vandalism. Many Japanese businesses closed for the day, and a strong police presence seemed to prevent damage. The Japanese companies that closed included the 7-Eleven convenience store chain, which is Japanese-owned in China. The company said it would reopen Wednesday. Several other large companies, including Mitsubishi and Canon, gave their employees the day off. Despite the calls for peaceful protests, scattered violence was reported. The Italian consul's car in Guangzhou was attacked, according to diplomatic sources who asked to remain anonymous. The same New York Times report describes the scene at the protest at the Japanese embassy in Beijing: As the day progressed, crowds threw rocks and water bottles at the well-guarded embassy compound. Some of the banners were crude, with sexual undertones that might have reflected the Japanese military's brutal wartime treatment of Chinese, including the systematic rape of Chinese women during its 14-year invasion and occupation of parts of the country. One banner showed a Chinese soldier castrating a Japanese soldier, while a popular image depicted Japan's national flag as a white sanitary napkin with a spot of blood in the middle. CNN reports that several Japanese manufacturers have temporarily closed operations in China during the protests: Rowdy demonstrations also took place near Japanese consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenyang, according to CNN affiliate I-Cable. The protests appeared to be much more orderly than those that took place in many cities over the weekend, some of which turned violent. But they spurred some of Japan's biggest manufacturers — Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Panasonic and Canon — to halt production at some of their plants in China. Panasonic reported Monday that it would stop work at three Chinese plants after two of them were damaged during Saturday's protests. China normally clamps down on public demonstrations, but has allowed the protests to go ahead. Protesters carried banners that read "Don't Forget the National Humiliation," according to photographs distributed by the state-run news agency Xinhua. In Hunan, Japanese cars were banned from the road to avoid any accidents or vandalism in case protesters targeted them for attack. Business Week looks at the market implications of the protests for Japanese car makers, and says it may prove to be a bigger disaster for them than last year's tsunami: As violent protests over control of islands claimed by both nations flare up, China's Passenger Car Association predicts Japanese brands will lose their lead over German nameplates in the country for the first time since 2005. "The repercussions for Japanese carmakers are very serious and will last for a long time," said Cui Dongshu, deputy secretary general of the Passenger Car Association. "There are plenty of choices. Why bother with Japanese brands if there are concerns of safety due to anti-Japan sentiment?" Consumers shunning Japanese models may turn to market leaders General Motors Co. (GM), which this year has sold 1.84 million cars in China under brands including Buick, Chevrolet and Cadillac, and Volkswagen AG (VOW), whose two joint ventures have sold a total of 1.49 million vehicles this year. The Japanese leader, Nissan, has sold some 485,000 vehicles in China so far this year. On his New Yorker blog, Evan Osnos writes about the protests in Beijing, and the role of the government in encouraging and also controlling them: Moving along the sidewalks with the protesters and onlookers and police, I was struck most of all by how hard the Chinese government was working to keep its people happy, to show them that it is doing what they want. Nationalism is a volatile force, and it would be easy for protests to expand into criticism of the state. Chinese authorities have no choice but to let their people blow off steam over Japan, but they are determined to keep them on message. While protesters' anger toward Japan was virulent and often violent on the streets around China, Chinese netizens took a more satirical view by mocking the official media's coverage of the issue. © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: anti-Japan protests, anti-japan protests 2012, history, nationalism, World War II Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Japanese Cars Banned from Hunan Road Posted: 18 Sep 2012 06:11 PM PDT With Hondas set alight and Toyotas smashed at recent anti-Japan protests, one city in Hunan Province is taking a bold step to protect vehicles from destruction. Ding Daoqin reports on Weibo: DiDaoqin: Cable from the Hunan Huaihua Municipal Party Committee: Japanese Cars Banned from Road September 17-19: The Huaihua Municipal Party Committee gives notice in the cable below that all brands of Japanese cars are barred from driving on the road from September 17 through 19. All units must park their cars in a safe location to guarantee protection! Those who do not take this warning seriously and who find themselves in an accident will have the party involved and the concerned leaders investigated for blame. 丁道勤：【湖南怀化市委发电：17日至19日禁止日系车辆上路行驶】湖南怀化市委办公室下发通知，9月17日至19日禁止日系车辆上路行驶，各单位要将车辆停放在安全的地方，确保车辆安全！不认真落实通知要求发生安全事故的，将追究当事人和有关领导的责任。 Via CDT Chinese. © Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: anti-japan demonstrations, anti-Japan protests, Hunan, sina weibo, weibo Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Diaoyu Islands Are Xinhua’s Posted: 18 Sep 2012 04:17 PM PDT Last week, writer Lang Yaoyuan wrote on his verified Sina Weibo account that not a single publication in Liaoning Province dared publish a citizen-produced "protect the islands" advertisement. The Liaoning Daily explained that it "must thoroughly adhere to Xianhua News Agency's manuscripts." Many netizens complained, "Even patriots have to be examined and approved." Others joked that "the facts prove the Diaoyu Islands belong to Xinhua." LangYaoyuan: Liaoning Papers Censor Ad: The Chinese government objected and the Chinese people protested after Japan brazenly announced its purchase of the Diaoyu Islands. Kowloon Harbor, a business on Shenyang's Middle Road, invested over 500,000 yuan in seven print media journals in the city to publicize that "the Diaoyu Islands belong to China!" Yet not a single Liaoning newspaper published the advertisement. The Liaoning Daily explained that it "must thoroughly adhere to Xianhua News Agency's manuscripts." If the people publicize the message to protect the islands, the government must examine and approve that message. Other Weibo users took Lang's complaint further: DiYa: The facts prove the Diaoyu Islands belong to Xinhua and to the Party. They have nothing to do with the rabble. 狄崖：事实证明，钓鱼岛是新华社的，是党的，跟屁民们没关系 GuilinDailyLaoNa: Even patriots have to be examined and approved… 桂林日报老那：爱国也需要审批…… tigerfishhome: P people should get out of the way and let Party members go first. At the critical moment, 80 million Party members will boldly move forward. 虎鱼生活家：P民退后，让党员先上。关键时间，8000万党员会挺身而出的。 insider_outsider: Whether that ad gets published or not, they still get off. Did you see that full-page spread in a Russian paper declaring "the Kuril Islands are Russia's?" They printed a photo of their president standing on one of the islands. Actually, my biggest question is, who in China owns the Diaoyu? It certainly isn't me, and it certainly isn't you. Maybe it's "the people." Seeing people who don't have any property rights get this worked up makes me think they're a little sick in the head. 局 中者_局外人：登与不登，意淫都在那里。你见过俄罗斯哪家报纸登一个整版"北方四岛是俄罗斯的！"？人家登的是自家总统直接上岛的照片。其实我最大的疑问 是钓鱼岛是中国谁的？反正肯定不是我的，也肯定不是你的，也许是"人民"的吧。对于自己没有任何产权的地产如此激动的人，我觉得他脑子是有毛病的。 anqieluodi: Idiots! Go publish your ad in the U.S. Go say the entire Asian continent has been China's since time immemorial. Find something cheap so you can print more copies, heh! Don't lose your pretty little face… 按切落地: 笨蛋！去美国登报啊。就说全亚洲自古都是中国领土。价格便宜量又足，嘿！还真对得起这张脸… Via CDT Chinese. Translation by Irene Hsiao. "Netizen Voices" is an original CDT series. If you would like to reuse this content, please follow the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 agreement. © Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: diaoyu islands, Japan, Kuril Islands, Liaoning, Netizen Voices, netizens, property rights, Russia, senkaku islands, Shenyang, sina weibo, weibo, Xinhua Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

U.S. Files W.T.O. Case against China Posted: 18 Sep 2012 03:54 PM PDT Amid the U.S. presidential campaign, the Obama administration has filed a W.T.O. case against China over automobile subsidies. From Keith Bradsher at The New York Times: The W.T.O. case accuses China of providing at least $1 billion worth of subsidies from 2009 to 2011 for exports of autos and auto parts. While China exports virtually no fully assembled cars to the United States, it has rapidly expanded exports to developing countries, and those exports compete to some extent with cars exported or designed in the United States. […] Auto parts employment in the United States has dropped by about one-half from 2001 to 2010, as imports from China grew nearly sevenfold over the same period, according to data provided by the senior official, who insisted on anonymity citing an administration policy banning on-the-record comments on a new policy before an official announcement is made. Auto parts manufacturers directly employ 54,200 people in Ohio, and when suppliers like steel makers are included, the auto industry accounts for 850,000 jobs in the state, or 12.4 percent of total employment there.   Mark Landler further discusses the delicacy of handling U.S.-China economic ties in an election year. From The New York Times: It is the latest in a string of trade actions against China taken by the Obama administration, and the second announced by the president on the eve of a campaign visit to Ohio, where the auto parts industry employs 52,400 people. In July – just before he flew to Toledo, home of a Jeep Wrangler factory – the White House filed a complaint against Beijing for levying $3.3 billion in duties on American automobiles. […] Mr. Romney fired back even before Mr. Obama spoke, accusing him of doing "too little, too late" to curb China's unfair trade practices. The latest trade case, Mr. Romney said, was little more than a campaign stunt, failing to compensate for his unwillingness to take other actions, like labeling China a currency manipulator. […] Bashing China is a tried-and-true campaign strategy for both parties, particularly in swing states like Ohio, where a heavy loss of manufacturing jobs has coincided with a surge of Chinese-made auto parts into the United States.   Meanwhile, China has also taken to the W.T.O to fire back. From Tom Miles and Michael Martina at Reuters: China filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization on Monday to challenge a new U.S. law on "countervailing duties", or tariffs intended to combat export-promoting subsidies. […]Commerce Ministry spokesman Shen Danyang said China hoped the United States could "correct its mistaken policy and appropriately resolve China's concerns". "China has, under various circumstances, repeatedly reiterated that it resolutely opposes the abuse of trade remedy regulations, opposes trade protectionism, and will staunchly exercise its WTO-member rights to protect the legal rights of its domestic industry," Shen said.   See also a previous W.T.O case against China under the Obama administration, via CDT. © Mengyu Dong for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: exports, protectionism, Sino-U.S. Relations, subsidies, trade, trade disputes, United States, WTO Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

China Cuts Drug Prices Posted: 18 Sep 2012 09:26 AM PDT The Chinese government has set new price regulations for pharmaceutical drugs. This new price cut comes amid the country's attempt to overhaul the health-care system. The Wall Street Journal reports: Retail-price cuts averaging 17% will take effect Oct. 8 for 95 oncology, immune-system and blood-related drugs and 200 formulations, the National Development and Reform Commission, China's main economic planning agency, said on its website Tuesday. The overhaul of the health-care system aims to make doctor visits and pharmaceuticals more accessible and affordable, expanding the national health-insurance system to cover more diseases and to apply price controls to more drugs in the future. Of every 100 deaths in China, 85 are now caused by chronic diseases, such as cancer, according to China's Ministry of Health. By comparison, the U.S. rate is 70 per 100, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the world-wide rate is 63 per 100, according to the World Health Organization. The government offers reimbursement of up to 50% for the 95 drugs on the list. This is only the most recent price cut in pharmaceutical drugs. According to Business Week, China has cut prices more than 20 times since 2000: The price cuts, effective October 8, comes as China seeks to rein in the rising cost of health care for its aging population. Policy makers are also expanding national health insurance coverage to include more major diseases, and adding to its list of essential drugs, for which prices are controlled by the government, Health Minister Chen Zhu said yesterday. "This latest move was in-line with past drug price cuts of about 18 and 19 percent, so the market would see this as quite reasonable," said Gideon Lo, an analyst with Nomura Holdings Inc. in Hong Kong. China has cut the price of drugs five times since 2009, and more than 20 times since 2000, Lo said in a telephone interview. "Companies that have products that are focused on these specific therapies could see an impact to their prices," Lo said. Companies that may be affected include Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. (600276), which focuses on oncology drugs, Hong Kong-based Lansen Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd. (503), which makes immune system drugs, and Hainan-based Sihuan Pharmaceutical Holdings Group Ltd. (460), which makes both oncology and blood system medicines. As the government continues to cut drug prices, there has been some concern over the impact on drug companies' profit margins, but drug companies with higher diversification in the pharmaceutical market will be less affected. From Reuters: "The NDRC has reduced the maximum retail prices, but in many cases these drugs will sell for less than the maximum price due to market forces, so it sounds a bit more scary for the manufacturer than it really is," Mann said. However, companies that may be impacted are oncology-focused Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co Ltd, and U.S.-listed 3SBio Inc which makes drugs for cancer, inflammation, kidney and infections diseases, Mann added. "Because most Chinese drug companies are fairly diversified, they will have some exposure, but it will be limited," he said. See also China's Battle for Drug Safety, via CDT. © Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: drug industry, drugs, health care, pharmaceuticals, public health Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

China Car Makers Cut Corners to Success Posted: 18 Sep 2012 09:19 AM PDT As the presence of cars in China grows, foreign automakers have tried to tap into the market's increasing demand. Despite the recent slump in auto sales as consumers wait for discounts, Chinese automakers are cutting corners to achieve success. From Reuters: Paring back on crash tests, skimping on frills, simplifying designs, using cheaper materials and, in a departure for the industry, outsourcing most of their design and engineering are having a profound effect on the cost bases of China's dozens of car makers. Some are now able to sell cheap and cheerful small cars for about 40,000 yuan ($6,350) – less than half the price of a plain vanilla Toyota. Models such as the Panda and the Great Wall Haval H3 are becoming popular not only in China but increasingly so in emerging markets, from Indonesia to Egypt and Ukraine. They are driving China's auto exports to record levels, even as growth in China's auto market slows down. Exports of Chinese-produced vehicles are forecast by China's auto association to hit one million vehicles this year from 849,500 vehicles last year. Some automotive analysts are predicting a 50 percent increase to 1.25 million vehicles. Chinese car makers tended to sift through a foreign vehicle to identify expensive, non-critical features and functions to skimp on or eliminate, such as a door that closes with a proper "thump," as well as power windows and passenger-airbags. The result was often dubious quality and durability. After a few years of use, bumpers and door handles would start falling off. China's safety protocol does not require a certain number of crash tests for domestically produced cars, which results in the lasting popularity of foreign cars among consumers. While Japanese car makers, such as Nissan, have experienced a dip in sales due to the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands and Anti-Japan Protests, other automakers have been reporting profits in the Chinese market. According to Yonhap News, Kia Motors, a South Korean automaker, ranks 7th in China's market: Kia Motors Corp., South Korea's second-largest automaker, ranked 7th in China's auto market with a market share of 3.1 percent, company officials said Tuesday. Kia Motors said it sold 289,817 vehicles in China during the January-August period, up 12.7 percent from 257,158 in the same period last year. Kia's larger affiliate, Hyundai Motor Co., was the No. 5 player in the Chinese car market by selling 511,960 vehicles with a share of 5.5 percent. Market analysts expect Kia Motors to continue to boost its presence in China. "Despite concerns about further slowdown in the Chinese auto industry, a visit to Kia's China operations renewed our confidence in its ability to gain market share," said James Yoon, an analyst at BNP Paribas. © Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: auto industry, auto sales, cars, foreign cars, south korea Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Sensitive Words: Trials, Looting and Liver Cancer Posted: 18 Sep 2012 08:49 AM PDT As of September 18, the following search terms are blocked on Sina Weibo (not including the "search for user" function): Anti-Japan Protests: •    beating, smashing and looting (打砸抢) •    Liangmaqiao (亮马桥): The location of the Japanese embassy in Beijing. •    thug (暴徒) •    school closure (封校): According to online sources, a number of schools have closed due to the escalation of protests. Other: •    Jiao Guobiao (焦国标): A Peking University instructor has been arrested for writing calls for political reform online [zh]. •    Wang + Chengdu (王+成都): Wang Lijun has accepted multiple charges in a "public" hearing that ended earlier today. •    liver cancer (肝癌): Among the many rumors surrounding Xi Jinping's disappearance earlier this month is that he has early stage liver cancer. There is no substantiating evidence for this. Note: All Chinese-language words are tested using simplified characters. The same terms in traditional characters occasionally return different results. CDT Chinese runs a project that crowd-sources filtered keywords on Sina Weibo search.  CDT independently tests the keywords before posting them, but some searches later become accessible again. We welcome readers to contribute to this project so that we can include the most up-to-date information. To add words, check out the form at the bottom of CDT Chinese's latest sensitive words post.   © Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: anti-japan demonstrations, anti-Japan protests, Beijing, Beijing University, blocked words, censorship, Chengdu, diaoyu islands, filtered words, Internet censorship, Japan, Peking University, senkaku islands, sensitive words, sina weibo, Wang Lijun, weibo, Xi Jinping Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

The Daily Twit – 9/18/12: National Day of Humiliescalation Posted: 18 Sep 2012 05:09 AM PDT Once again today, the news was almost completely dominated by the spat between Japan and China over some real estate out in the ocean. The added twist was that today was the anniversary of the 1931 Mukden Incident, which precipitated Japan's occupation of China, which lasted until the end of World War II. Put that together with the ongoing territorial dispute, and you've got the potential for some scary shit. However, as it turns out, the government kept a pretty good lid on this volatile situation. They didn't exactly discourage these protests, but from what I can tell, the property damage and violence has been kept to a minimum. No idea where this is going after today. For now, here's a fairly long list of mostly "naked" links for you. With a few exceptions, no descriptions are needed, as most of these reports overlap in their coverage of today's protests and the underlying dispute. Diplomat: For China and Japan: The Perfect Distraction? — a discussion of the political context in both China and Japan, raising a classic "wag the dog" scenario. NPR: China Ratchets Up The Rhetoric In Island Spat With Japan — audio report filed by Beijing correspondent Louisa Lim. Guardian: China-Japan row over disputed islands threatens to escalate Sydney Morning Herald: Storm intensifies as China threatens Japan with sanctions Economist: Rising tensions in the East China Sea - Avoiding escalation Foreign Policy: Dangerous Waters Reuters: Anti-Japan protests reignite across China on occupation anniversary MarketWatch: More Japanese firms suspend China operations — The chatter about these protests and what they mean for foreign invested companies in China is going to go on for months. Some multinationals will definitely be reassessing risk, and not just the Japanese firms. Financial Times: China/Japan row: business feels the heat Bloomberg: Protests to Hurt Japan Car Sales in China, Dealer Group Says Guardian: Japan and China: ghosts of the past Reuters: Chinese firms wave the flag to cash in on Japan tension — Eyebrows were raised today when China search giant Baidu went full nationalist, with a Diaoyu Islands doodle and a special mini-site with a game and other information. Next Web: Baidu explains its Diaoyu doodle: Planting a digital flag is better than throwing rocks — Baidu responded to questions with some pretty good spin, although I'm not sure how persuasive it will be, particularly to their business partners in Japan. Wall Street Journal: Net Neutrality? Baidu Plants its Flag on Disputed Islands. In other news: If it wasn't for the Japan protests, the press would have been all over the trial of Wang Lijun, former police chief who flirted with defecting to the U.S. and who, by accusing Gu Kailai of murder, brought about the downfall of Bo Xilai. His trial, which was closed to the public yesterday, finished up with an open hearing today. Guardian: China concludes trial of flamboyant police chief The Age: Police chief's dash for freedom triggered a landslide – Narrative of the facts behind Wang's overnight trip to the U.S. consulate and struggle with Bo Xilai by John Garnaut, whose reporting from Chongqing on this story has been superlative. Business Insider: The 12 Politicians Battling For Control Of China — Here's a user-friendly primer on China's top politicians, a good way for newbies to prep for the upcoming Party Congress. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags:

Wang Accepts Charges as Trial Ends Posted: 18 Sep 2012 02:52 AM PDT After a secret proceedings in the trial of former Chongqing police chief Wang Lijun started a day early on Monday, John Garnaut of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the trial of Bo Xilai's one-time right hand man in Chengdu ended around lunchtime on Tuesday: A court spokesman, Yang Yuquan, this afternoon said proceedings had been "public" but no independent journalists were permitted into court. The spokesman made no mention of Bo, who remains in detention under the Communist Party's internal discipline procedures, although it did praise Wang's cooperation in investigating the 'crimes of others'. … Wang accepted that he had taken 3.05 million yuan in bribes, in both property and cash, said the spokesman. He also accepted that he had "repeatedly" conducted illegal electronic surveillance activities against "many people… thereby severely damaging the socialist legal system and the legitimate rights of citizens". And the defection charge was "serious". Garnaut adds that Wang may avoid a death sentence after cooperating in the investigations of Bo and his wife, Gu Kailai, who last month was found guilty of murdering British businessman Neil Heywood. In a separate piece filed today, Garnaut recounts what we know about Wang's February dash to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, and ponders whether the trial will reveal any more details: Officially, "the facts of guilt are clear", says to the official Xinhua report of Wang's indictment. But the Communist Party has been having trouble getting people to endorse the official narrative ever since Wang's overnight stay with the Americans on February 6 was immediately trumpeted over the internet. "Wang was vice-provincial-level cadre and yet he couldn't trust the central discipline commission, the procurator or the top leaders," said a lawyer, Zhou Litai, who proudly displays a framed photo of himself with Wang in his office, next to a bust of Chairman Mao. "What a tragedy: Wang is a creation of the system but has no faith in it." China Daily has more on today's trial: According to the indictment of the Chengdu City People's Procuratorate, the defendant Wang Lijun, then-chief of Chongqing's Public Security Bureau, had neglected his duty of investigating and suppressing criminal acts and bent the law for personal gain. Prosecutors said Wang knew perfectly well that Bogu Kailai was under serious suspicion of intentional homicide, but he deliberately covered up for her so that Bogu Kailai would not be held legally responsible. The circumstances are especially serious. His behavior has violated Clause one of Article 399 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, prosecutors said. They added that Wang, as a state functionary who knew state secrets, left his post without authorization and defected to another country's consulate while he was performing his official duty. Read more about Wang Lijun, Bo Xilai, and Gu Kailai via CDT. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us Post tags: Bo Xilai, Chengdu, Chongqing, Chongqing corruption, corruption, death penalty, defection, Wang Lijun Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Hairless Apes Fighting Over Coconuts: the Islands Dispute Heats Up Posted: 18 Sep 2012 01:25 AM PDT I've been avoiding a substantive post on either the South China Sea dispute or the slap fight between China and Japan. Not really my area of expertise, and I'm not up on either the history or the relevant law. So I'll stay away from those details. On the other hand, there is the nationalism aspect to all this, which has culminated in the numerous protests all over the country against Japanese diplomatic missions and, to a lesser extent, commercial establishments. This has been going on for a few days now, but today we may have reached peak activity. Keep in mind that all this stems from a disagreement over a bunch of wet rocks in the ocean to which we can't even refer by a single name at risk of offending someone. If you're new to this topic, let that sink in. We're already at the point where diplomatic relations between China and Japan have been seriously affected, businesses have been hurt, some people have been physically assaulted, and even the stock market has taken a hit. All because of some "islands" that probably won't even be around much longer if climate change continues apace, ironically because of a lack of international consensus on solutions. Doesn't say a lot for us hairless apes, does it? As the British poet Ray Davies wrote: In man's evolution he has created the city and The motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance And I'd be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle. Indeed. What is nationalism, after all, but tribalism writ large? We human beings, despite leaving the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and congregating into political entities with millions of others, have found it quite difficult to shed our old monkey ways. Granted, I'm no fan of nationalism. I find it inexplicable that anyone would express "love" for a nation just because they were born/grew up/lived there. A simple twist of fate, certainly no reason to develop such a deep-seated emotional attachment. An intellectual preference for a certain form of government or legal system, maybe. An enjoyment of a specific climate, geography, language or cuisine, perhaps. But a "love" for a nation state? I don't get it, but that's what tribalism is all about I suppose. It doesn't have to make sense. We should probably separate nationalism from patriotism, though. I think history has shown that the former has been a whole lot of trouble. Ask Europe how the whole nation-state experiment is working out for it. Patriotism is slightly different, though. Actions stemming from patriotic sentiment may be good or bad. Soldiers defend their countries because of patriotism. Individuals devote their lives to public service to better the lives of their fellow citizens. Even some of those Olympic athletes we all enjoyed watching last month in London were motivated by patriotism. All well and good. At the same time, though, patriotism has given us things like war crimes, censorship and the utter stupidity of Freedom Fries. And now, because of a dispute over the ownership of these rocks, some folks are expressing their patriotism by burning Toyota automobiles. That's just swell. I do sympathize with the tribal instincts of individuals, which after all are hard-wired. Only a few generations ago, we were swinging from the trees in our little monkey social groups, and we have a long way to go before we can eradicate, through education, the anthropological baggage of tribalism and racism. But when it comes to the decisions of groups, that's another thing entirely. People have irrational thoughts and, on occasion, do stupid things. Nations, corporations and other artificial entities should be held to a higher standard. You'd think that with the collective wisdom of hundreds of millions of individuals, nation states would avoid things like unjustified wars, genocide, or fighting over small stones in large bodies of water. But alas, nations often cater to the lowest common denominator, often deliberately angering their rivals to score cheap political points at home. Why did Japan purchase some of these islands last week? Why did China establish an administrative office on a different set of islands (another dispute), deliberately signalling its incorporation of that territory? Hell, for that matter, why are Obama and Romney stuck in a China bashing contest? Monkey see, monkey do, particularly when all the other monkeys are susceptible to populist stump speeches. There are plenty of folks out there who derive pleasure from seeing their "team" win. Works the same way with sports and international relations. And even if you wouldn't normally consider yourself an ardent nationalist, that's where peer pressure comes in. The last piece of the puzzle is naked opportunism. When governments appeal to patriotic sentiment, or when politicians publicly profess their love of the nation, there's usually a reason for it, an ulterior motive. Otherwise, why for example would China and Japan waste so much time, energy and resources on some rocks and fish? Writing in The Diplomat about the motivation behind all this, Trefor Moss observes: These self-inflicted mind games can be explained in part by the manipulation of nationalism both by governments and the media. What their particular goals are is up for interpretation, but all you have to do is go out on the street here in Beijing and watch hundreds of folks shuffle along outside the Japanese Embassy to know that the mind games are working. And what are we to do with the actions of entities like Baidu, China's number one search engine? For whatever reason, Baidu, despite having operations in Japan, thought it was in their best interest to plant its flag firmly in the nationalist camp today. As was reported on the Shanghaiist blog: Absolutely a political message seen now on the homepage of local search giant, Baidu.com — an animated image of the Chinese flag standing on the disputed islands known as Diaoyu to China and Senkaku to Japan. The same picture was not observed on the homepage of Baidu's Japanese language service, Baidu.jp (well, duh) which the company formally launched in 2008. In addition, they've also set up a "Protect the Diaoyu Islands" mini-site, where more than 1.2 million people are said to have stuck their own virtual flag on the islands. Yup, whatever ambitions the company may have had to conquer the Japanese market, they just blew them to smithereens over the East China Sea. Far be it from me to criticize a business decision, but I'm not sure how this is going to help Baidu break free from the image of it as a limited, China-only company. When push comes to shove, you gotta stick with your troop. By the way, "troop" is the formal term for a group of monkeys. So where do I come down on this dispute? Which troop deserves to keep all those juicy coconuts? I guess at the end of the day, my opinion keeps shuttling between "wearily amused" and "annoyed" that this is even happening. The unfortunate part of all this, however, is that no matter which dominant male monkey ends up on top of the palm tree flinging his feces triumphantly, the rest of us down on the ground have to deal with the fallout. After the past few days of these uncomfortable displays of knee-jerk nationalism, perhaps Tokyo and Beijing will realize that this dispute needs to end. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us Post tags:

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