I write in response to Lee Long-hwa's letters regarding the CNOOC bid for Unocal and China's "LCD economics" (Letters, July 23 and July 25, page 8).
These letters have been written from an extreme pro-US, anti-Chinese point of view. The truth is rarely pure and certainly never simple, and in international affairs all countries act primarily out of economic self-interest.
Yes, Chinese workers are exploited, paid appalling wages and have few rights in comparison to developed countries, but this needs to be placed in the context of how the global economy works.
Many countries, including Taiwan, have been through a similar process of mass production for Western markets that involved low wages, limited rights and less-than-desirable working conditions. The quality of Taiwanese products was the butt of many jokes around the world, but without this I doubt Taiwan would have achieved the economic miracle it so impressively and deservedly has.
Indeed, why are so many countries forced to do this to make enough money to achieve even a fraction of the quality of life most of us in the West take for granted?
The irony of Lee's comments that the comfort of those in Beijing and Shanghai is built on the torment of the millions of China's working poor is monumental.
The "fundamentally improving living conditions in the developed world" themselves are enjoyed at the expense of billions living in poverty around the world.
While Lee complains that China is not playing fair, and many US factory workers will lose their jobs, has he ever thought of the West's current control and manipulation of global trade, itself established through decades of exploitation using deplorable methods such as slavery, that has kept places like Africa in crushing poverty?
When exporting to rich countries, poor countries pay tariffs four times higher than those paid by producers in other rich countries.
Conversely, the US government pays its farmers US$1 billion a year to over-produce rice and dump the surplus at rock-bottom prices in poor countries. This isn't just about a few jobs in Texas; it's millions of people's lives that are at stake.
Despite the visible effects and almost unanimous agreement among the scientific community that global warming is now a reality and poses arguably the single biggest threat to the world, US President George W. Bush refused to sign up to the Kyoto protocol on the basis that it would be bad for the US economy -- which is responsible for 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Lee lambasts the French for not standing up against Beijing, but the US has just signed a pact with China on an "alternative" to Kyoto which lets them set their goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions individually -- with no enforcement mechanism.
This legitimizes the Chinese government as a trusted partner in issues of such importance, a sacrifice the US is manifestly prepared to make to counter growing criticism on global warming by having the world's most populous nation on its side, but without it actually committing to anything.
There are two sides to every story. But more importantly, if this world desperately needs a united global voice as Lee calls for, it is not for the sake of perpetuating living standards in developed countries such as the US, but for eradicating mass poverty and tackling global warming.
We are all responsible for the consumer choices we make and for the epidemic of blissful ignorance in the West over the stranglehold that our politicians have over the poor to keep us comparatively rich. Buy a Hummer SUV, melt another ice cap.
Enjoy the quality of life you deserve from your honest, hard work while thousands in Niger starve tonight. Think about it.
Philip Wallbridge
United Kingdom
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic