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
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS