The Chinese government has created a “White Terror” for the Beijing Olympics in vigorously suppressing political dissidents.
In an interview with international media last Friday, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was quoted as saying that “Hosting the Olympic games undoubtedly has boosted Beijing’s economy. But due to the fact that the economic aggregate of Beijing only accounts for a minimal portion of that of the entire nation, the contribution of hosting the Olympic games to the nation’s economic development should not be overestimated.”
Commenting on economic policy, Hu said that “maintaining steady and relatively fast economic development and preventing commodity prices from rising too sharply are the top priorities for macro-control.”
The Olympics are a huge political and economic event for all of China. But Hu has said the Games have nothing to do with politics and will only boost Beijing’s economy.
Why would he suddenly become so modest, trying to turn a national event into a local one?
Olympics-related stocks have been sizzling not only on the Chinese stock market but also in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Have they now been turned into shares gaining from a local event?
Hu’s remarks reflect the fact that hopes for an improved economy following the Olympics have been shattered. The Olympics will not only be a money-losing business, but China’s economy could suffer from them as well.
Expenditure on the Olympics is a state secret. It was estimated that the cost of building the stadiums would be US$37 billion, but the true figure has kept increasing. When Hu took office in 2003 some spending cuts were made, but it is almost certain now that the final cost will greatly exceed the original estimate, especially given the price of raw materials.
The government has cited a figure based on expert analysis that the Olympics are expected to bring in total revenue of US$70 billion. The question that follows is: How much will China have spent on nationwide anti-terrorism security measures, efforts to resolve air pollution, shutting down hundreds of factories and commercial losses from an expected 50 percent drop in foreign tourist arrivals, not to mention depressed business because of various local restrictions? Even stores in the Shanghai subway have closed for a month.
The problem is that there are signs of crisis in the economy. Not only have businesspeople from Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea started to leave, a survey on the competitiveness of manufacturing by US consultants Booz Allen Hamilton and the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai also indicates that about 20 percent of multinational enterprises have thought about withdrawing altogether.
Statistics also show that growth in China’s foreign trade surplus and foreign investment has decreased. Last month, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), Executive Vice Premier Li Keqiang (李克強) and Vice Premier Wang Qishan (王歧山) inspected five developed provinces focusing on foreign trade — only to realize that a large number of firms had closed down.
Later that month, the Chinese Central Economic Work Conference in Beijing changed the thrust of economic policy from “preventing the economy from overheating and overall inflation” to “maintaining steady and relatively fast economic development in the long run as well as keeping rising consumer prices within a bearable range based on economic and social development.”
In other words, the central bank is relaxing monetary policy because unemployment is more detrimental to economic stability than inflation. Nevertheless, the Chinese stock market continues to flounder.
Can the Taiwanese economy really rely on this “clay Buddha”?
Paul Lin is a political commentator.Translated by Ted Yang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers