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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of