http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/29/content_7516590.htm
2008-01-29
Museum entrance fees
BEIJING, Jan. 29 -- It should not have taken so long. But finally it has
arrived. By 2009, except for some special historical buildings and ruins,
all public museums under the jurisdiction of the cultural authorities will
stop charging entrance fees.
No doubt this is very good news for overseas tourists, who might otherwise
be confused by the functions of our public museums.
For museum visitors in particular, the waiver will make their China
experience richer, yet a lot cheaper. If the decision-makers did not have
foreign guests in mind when they worked on the project, this is a huge
bonus. Free access to the variety of museums will facilitate outsider
appreciation of our peculiar history and culture.
Our curious guests deserve to know how much more this country has to offer -
much more than fancy delicacies and inexpensive silk.
The authorities have spent a lot in the past year on campaigns to promote
cultural understanding overseas. There were big-budget exhibitions and shows
of all kinds.
Offering free access to public museums, as we see it, is a cost-effective
supplement and a boost on the home front to those endeavors of promotion.
The foremost beneficiaries, however, are the average Chinese.
In the first place, we see an additional sign that public finance is truly
being re-oriented to upgrade public welfare. It is reassuring to see the tax
levied on us is being allocated in a more sensible manner. Our State coffers
are capable of providing more for public-interest undertakings. It is good
to see public museums getting their due share.
Museums are great venues to help nurture a basic sense of our culture and
history. This is essential for a shared sense of identity.
Entrance fees might not be the only cause of the generally low visitor flow
at our museums. But they suffice to prevent many from visiting.
The irony is while most charge for entrance, few public museums are living
on box-office revenues.
Instead, many continue to rely heavily on government subsidies. And they
keep crying for more.
There is no better remedy than the State assuming full financial
responsibility for such facilities.
Good to see the government is finally standing out.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Socialist Core Value System
Note: The Comments below are from Sidney Gluck and the three following papers contain Sidney's notations in thinking about all of this.
Left-Click your cursor on the three documents to enlarge them to be able to read them.
Comments on Resolution Promoting
“Socialist Core Value System”
November 16, 2006
The Hu Administration, in order to combat the negative human nature that has permeated much of the Eastern and Southern industrialized regions of China during the past twenty-eight years of operating under the Deng Xiaoping slogan, “To Get Rich is Glorious” has initiated an ideological campaign to lay the basis for “the moral foundation of social harmony to steer the country on a Socialist Road.” This concept was first publicized at the recent 6th Plenum of the 16th CP Central Committee. The objective at this stage is to combat the human nature of private acquisitiveness and emphasize a collective identity of human nature. This is the sharpening of the present stage in a far-sighted process of the growth of socialism. It is an active application of Marxism in this moment of history in China’s national development.
Attached is a resume including President Hu Jintao’s contribution of “The Eight Honors and Disgraces in the Socialist Core Value System”
Left-Click your cursor on the three documents to enlarge them to be able to read them.
Comments on Resolution Promoting
“Socialist Core Value System”
November 16, 2006
The Hu Administration, in order to combat the negative human nature that has permeated much of the Eastern and Southern industrialized regions of China during the past twenty-eight years of operating under the Deng Xiaoping slogan, “To Get Rich is Glorious” has initiated an ideological campaign to lay the basis for “the moral foundation of social harmony to steer the country on a Socialist Road.” This concept was first publicized at the recent 6th Plenum of the 16th CP Central Committee. The objective at this stage is to combat the human nature of private acquisitiveness and emphasize a collective identity of human nature. This is the sharpening of the present stage in a far-sighted process of the growth of socialism. It is an active application of Marxism in this moment of history in China’s national development.
Attached is a resume including President Hu Jintao’s contribution of “The Eight Honors and Disgraces in the Socialist Core Value System”
Thursday, November 29, 2007
MAO: A LIFE by Philip Short
This is being published in the interest of creating dialogue and discussion.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MAO (16 finis)
MAO: A LIFE by Philip Short, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2000. 782pp.
Reviewed by Thomas Riggins; BA (Anthropology & Archaeology), MA, MPhil, PhD (Philosophy) currently university lecturer in philosophy and ancient studies
Thomas Riggins has a blog: http://leninlives.blogspot.com/
EPILOG
Short's epilogue is a mixed bag. It was written around eight years ago in 1998 or 1999 so some his ideas about "capitalism" in China may be dated. But to the point.
About a month after Mao's death Hua Guofeng arranged to have the Gang of Four arrested and removed from power. Within two years Deng had been both rehabilitated and had ousted Hua from power.
Short says Mao was correct in his view of Deng Xiaoping. Deng "was a 'capitalist-roader all along -- and the moment he was in a position to do so, he began dismantling the socialist system Mao had built and putting a bourgeois dictatorship in its place. There was indeed a bourgeois class within the Communist Party and the country did indeed 'change its political colour.'
The problem with this assessment is that at the time of Mao's death and Deng's rise to power, there was no bourgeoisie in China capable of coming to power. Neither Deng nor any other CPC leaders or functionaries owned the means of production in China-- which were basically state owned or owned by communes. In terms of a Marxist understanding a bourgeois dictatorship in China would have been impossible. Even today, while a bourgeois class has come to exist in China, it is far from having control of the state apparatus.
Deng and the CPC embarked on a program to modernize China simply because the anarchy of he Cultural Revolution (and the general backwardness of the country) had left the economy in shambles. Socialism requires an advanced modern economy to have any chance of ultimate success. The CPC under Deng made a quite orthodox decision to open up China and use the market (ultimately controlled and directed by the state) to overcome feudal backwardness. This was a process initiated by Mao himself when he invited Nixon to visit.
In 1981 the CPC rendered a verdict on Mao's role. It was the same verdict he himself had rendered on Stalin-- i.e., he was 70% correct and 30% wrong in what he had done. Short spends a lot of time going over the question of how many people died as a result of Mao's policies. The numbers who died under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are compared.
These numbers are all contentious and ultimately meaningless and unverifiable. Great historical transformations are not the result of this or that individual. Revolutions and wars are like hurricanes and earthquakes. They break out as a result of forces and pressures that build up over time and are ultimately independent of the human will. Is Lincoln responsible for all the deaths of the Civil War? Is President Johnson, this one foolish individual, the cause of all the deaths from the Vietnam War?
Neither Stalin, Mao nor Hitler ever personally killed anyone.[It is actually obscene to compare Hitler with Mao or Stalin]. Would their policies have been possible without the mindset of the people who followed their leadership and shared their values: a mindset created by the previous history of Russia, China and Germany and the development of capitalism and imperialism. Is Adam Smith responsible for all the deaths due to the transformations brought about by the wars over markets and resources waged by the invisible hand?
These two sentences from Short point up the confusions. Mao's "rule brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in history." "The overwhelming majority of those whom Mao's policies killed were unintended casualties of famine." The fact they were unintended, Short says, "puts him in a different category from other twentieth-century tyrants."
Individual leaders must of course accept responsibility for their actions. But the contexts that they are forced to confront cannot be ignored. That is why when all is said and done, Short is correct to conclude that, "A final
verdict on Mao's place in the annals of his country's past is still a very long way off."
This view is the view of most of the Chinese themselves. It is echoed in the special issue of Beijing Review of October 5, 2006 on the 30th anniversary of Mao's death ["Mao Today: How does his legacy still influence China?"]
His legacy is really "in flux." One article tells us how "the little red book" is used by the new Chinese capitalists for inspiration! One was able to get market share from foreign capitalists "by adopting Mao's military tactic of 'using the countryside to encircle cities.'" It seems many Chinese companies urge their workers to study Mao for his "spirit of rebellion" and innovative thought. This information comes from a section entitled "Mao as business guru." If US corporations want to remain competitive, I suggest their CEO's start reading Mao at once!
Elsewhere the article says the poor read him because they want to regain the social benefits lost in recent years. A university professor is quoted: "Mao is still the most popular among the farmers, many of whom face growing hardship 'Through holding memorial activities for Mao, the farmers hope the gap between urban and rural areas will narrow.'" Mao as a god!
I will conclude with a quote from Gao Hua of Nanjing University: "Mao's phenomenon is the outcome of China in a transitional period, from an imperial country to a republic . At the turn of the new century, China is facing new challenges , which requires new thinking and new systems. So all the reflections on Mao should be future-oriented."
Thursday, November 29, 2007
EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MAO (16 finis)
MAO: A LIFE by Philip Short, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2000. 782pp.
Reviewed by Thomas Riggins; BA (Anthropology & Archaeology), MA, MPhil, PhD (Philosophy) currently university lecturer in philosophy and ancient studies
Thomas Riggins has a blog: http://leninlives.blogspot.com/
EPILOG
Short's epilogue is a mixed bag. It was written around eight years ago in 1998 or 1999 so some his ideas about "capitalism" in China may be dated. But to the point.
About a month after Mao's death Hua Guofeng arranged to have the Gang of Four arrested and removed from power. Within two years Deng had been both rehabilitated and had ousted Hua from power.
Short says Mao was correct in his view of Deng Xiaoping. Deng "was a 'capitalist-roader all along -- and the moment he was in a position to do so, he began dismantling the socialist system Mao had built and putting a bourgeois dictatorship in its place. There was indeed a bourgeois class within the Communist Party and the country did indeed 'change its political colour.'
The problem with this assessment is that at the time of Mao's death and Deng's rise to power, there was no bourgeoisie in China capable of coming to power. Neither Deng nor any other CPC leaders or functionaries owned the means of production in China-- which were basically state owned or owned by communes. In terms of a Marxist understanding a bourgeois dictatorship in China would have been impossible. Even today, while a bourgeois class has come to exist in China, it is far from having control of the state apparatus.
Deng and the CPC embarked on a program to modernize China simply because the anarchy of he Cultural Revolution (and the general backwardness of the country) had left the economy in shambles. Socialism requires an advanced modern economy to have any chance of ultimate success. The CPC under Deng made a quite orthodox decision to open up China and use the market (ultimately controlled and directed by the state) to overcome feudal backwardness. This was a process initiated by Mao himself when he invited Nixon to visit.
In 1981 the CPC rendered a verdict on Mao's role. It was the same verdict he himself had rendered on Stalin-- i.e., he was 70% correct and 30% wrong in what he had done. Short spends a lot of time going over the question of how many people died as a result of Mao's policies. The numbers who died under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are compared.
These numbers are all contentious and ultimately meaningless and unverifiable. Great historical transformations are not the result of this or that individual. Revolutions and wars are like hurricanes and earthquakes. They break out as a result of forces and pressures that build up over time and are ultimately independent of the human will. Is Lincoln responsible for all the deaths of the Civil War? Is President Johnson, this one foolish individual, the cause of all the deaths from the Vietnam War?
Neither Stalin, Mao nor Hitler ever personally killed anyone.[It is actually obscene to compare Hitler with Mao or Stalin]. Would their policies have been possible without the mindset of the people who followed their leadership and shared their values: a mindset created by the previous history of Russia, China and Germany and the development of capitalism and imperialism. Is Adam Smith responsible for all the deaths due to the transformations brought about by the wars over markets and resources waged by the invisible hand?
These two sentences from Short point up the confusions. Mao's "rule brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in history." "The overwhelming majority of those whom Mao's policies killed were unintended casualties of famine." The fact they were unintended, Short says, "puts him in a different category from other twentieth-century tyrants."
Individual leaders must of course accept responsibility for their actions. But the contexts that they are forced to confront cannot be ignored. That is why when all is said and done, Short is correct to conclude that, "A final
verdict on Mao's place in the annals of his country's past is still a very long way off."
This view is the view of most of the Chinese themselves. It is echoed in the special issue of Beijing Review of October 5, 2006 on the 30th anniversary of Mao's death ["Mao Today: How does his legacy still influence China?"]
His legacy is really "in flux." One article tells us how "the little red book" is used by the new Chinese capitalists for inspiration! One was able to get market share from foreign capitalists "by adopting Mao's military tactic of 'using the countryside to encircle cities.'" It seems many Chinese companies urge their workers to study Mao for his "spirit of rebellion" and innovative thought. This information comes from a section entitled "Mao as business guru." If US corporations want to remain competitive, I suggest their CEO's start reading Mao at once!
Elsewhere the article says the poor read him because they want to regain the social benefits lost in recent years. A university professor is quoted: "Mao is still the most popular among the farmers, many of whom face growing hardship 'Through holding memorial activities for Mao, the farmers hope the gap between urban and rural areas will narrow.'" Mao as a god!
I will conclude with a quote from Gao Hua of Nanjing University: "Mao's phenomenon is the outcome of China in a transitional period, from an imperial country to a republic . At the turn of the new century, China is facing new challenges , which requires new thinking and new systems. So all the reflections on Mao should be future-oriented."
Monday, September 10, 2007
Professor Marquit Lectures on Social Justice in China--- ignores social justice for U.S. Workers in his own back-yard
The Distinguished Professor, Erwin Marquit, to speak on Social Justice... here we have a learned professor who has refused to address the issue of social justice when it comes to the Ford Motor Company making the decision behind the closed doors of its corporate boardroom in Detroit, Michigan to close the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant which will throw two-thousand autoworkers out onto the streets… without a peep of protest from Professor Erwin Marquit; and, he is going to lecture about the quest for social justice in China by way of something called the "socialist market economy."
I would encourage a big turnout for this lecture.
Ask the Professor about the role of capitalist corporations in China and how they are trying to put China on the road to capitalism and counter-revolution.
Ask the Professor what he thinks of Ford Motor Company closing the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant while moving much of its U.S. operations to China.
Ask the Professor what he is doing to try to halt the closing of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant while Ford has opened manufacturing facilities in China.
Ask the Professor when was the last time he met with Ford workers to discuss the need for public ownership in relation saving the Ford Plant.
The distinguished Professor Marquit is one big hypocrite when it comes to social justice for working people in China or the United States.
There is no such thing as a “socialist market economy;” socialist economies can only be planned economies… part of the plan might include allowing capitalist corporations to operate in the country; however, Communists never allow these capitalists and their “market economic system” to take over, and dominate, the economy--- socialist economies can only be “planned economies” (there is no other kind of socialist economy)… “socialist market economy” is a code phrase for capitalism and counter revolution.
There can only be social justice for working people through a planned socialist economy. Look, it is not hard to figure out that Erwin Marquit has no concern for social justice for working people when he is opposed to taking any action--- legislative and/or mass action (we need a combination of both)--- right in the very city where he lives concerning the Ford Plant closing… what can such a professor who doesn’t even have any compassion for social justice for two thousand working people in his own community know about social justice for working people in China? This is such a basic and fundamental question it boggles one’s mind to think that anyone with even half a brain would pay any attention to a professor with such a perverted and distorted view of Marxism.
Show me anyone promoting a “socialist market economy” and I will show you a charlatan and a fraud… if that person purports to be a Marxist.
For years Professor Marquit has used his academic position to foster a perverted view of Marxism with the intent of confusing working people about what socialism is in the United States, Poland, East Germany--- and now in China.
I don't know of workers anywhere in the world who are dumb enough to believe they can attain social justice through any kind of "market economy."
I have spoken with many Chinese business people and they don't speak of "market socialism." They speak of "free market capitalism." Of course they are all for this... they are getting rich exploiting Chinese workers who are suffering.
Anyone can see that China's working peoples' present problems stem from capitalist corporations being allowed to operate without any controls and restrictions placed on them while dictating economic "reforms" in China. Producing goods and services using cheap, highly exploited labor where working people suffer the most disgraceful abuses at the hands of those extolling the virtues of the "socialist market economy" is the reality.
That a prominent and respected organization like the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom would give Professor Erwin Marquit a forum for his perverted and distorted Marxist views without him having to participate in a forum where his views could be challenged is a disgrace.
Professor Marquit parades around the world professing to be a Marxist proponent of the "socialist market economy" only when he has no opposition... he creates his own caricatures which he purports to be his opposition (coincidentally, all his caricatures resemble Joseph Stalin)... then he proceeds to demolish them; but, Marquit never has the intellectual honesty or courage to debate a living, breathing human being... much less a worker.
Certainly the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom must understand that Professor Marquit's views on the "socialist market economy" are highly controversial... why then, would Marquit be allowed to pontificate his fairy tales without any opposition like a Catholic Priest at Sunday Mass?
Certainly the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom must be aware of the Minnesota corporation Mattracks which has a small manufacturing facility in northern Minnesota opening up a plant in China five times the size of its Minnesota operation to make equipment for "crowd control"... all financed with Pentagon funding obtained by Minnesota's only "Blue Dog" Democrat, Collin Peterson. Just what kind of "crowd control equipment" might the Pentagon be interested in financing? But, to use the tax-dollars of the American people in order to allow this corporation's bottom line to grow fat just so Collin Peterson can get a bigger campaign contribution is a disgrace and an insult to Minnesota workers who will suffer the social injustices associated with poverty wages and unemployment... the direct result of the so-called, mis-named, "socialist market economy."
Capitalists and their cronies like Professor Marquit are always trying to give capitalism a different face by playing with words. But, to go so far as to call capitalism "socialism," as Professor Marquit does, is the epitome of deceit and dishonesty.
There are tremendous debates presently underway in China with Chinese working people dead set against any further attempts by capitalist corporations and their hoax of "market socialism." Chinese workers understand "market socialism" means counter-revolution, not the planned socialist economy they have struggled to create and improve.
It is unfair to allow the proponents of "market socialism" to pontificate their views without allowing alternative views to be expressed.
I have offered to debate this learned professor on this issue many times... his response has been to initiate a dirty, name-calling, slanderous campaign against me.
Professor Marquit should not be given a forum for his views before any organization until he is willing to have his views challenged in a real debate.
I would urge people to attend this lecture by Professor Marquit to challenge his quackery which makes a mockery of scientific socialism.
This is from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom's web site:
I would suggest Professor Marquit spend a little time talking to Ford workers in his own home town and make a trip up to Karlstad, Minnesota and talk to working people who are unemployed and employed at poverty wages there... what Professor Marquit will find is that "market socialism" is robbing U.S. workers of jobs while creating misery for Chinese workers who will be employed under prison-like conditions, forced to live like rats in a "dormitory" where they will be robbed of their earnings to pay exorbitant rents, and have to eat slop in the company cafeteria--- again, with the cost of meals deducted from their miserly, poverty-wage pay-checks--- all very reminiscent of the "company towns" on the Iron Range in the early 1900's.
Professor Marquit likes to indulge in grand utterances about "market socialism" which have little connection to real world realities... just like some Chinese officials who have abused their positions in the Communist Party and the Chinese government to evade any real discussion about social justice for working people.
In fact, Chinese workers, many of whom are members of the Communist Party of China, are beginning to wage a determined struggle to reclaim the socialist road and the adherence to a planned socialist economy in quest of the social justice they have struggled for; they have had it with the charlatans posing as Communists and government officials who pad their pockets with bribes from capitalist corporations along with American Professors be they from the American Enterprise Institute or the University of Minnesota. Professor Marquit has written these workers, and their struggles for social justice off as "Stalinist."
When it comes to real socialism, Professor Marquit has some very real problems of his own... all he can see is the ghost of Joseph Stalin every time he hears the words, "planned socialist economy;" and every time he hears the term "workers' power" he sees the ghost of Gus Hall.
The day Ford workers determine the future of their plants and what will be manufactured according to what society needs, and American tax-dollars are invested creating jobs for U.S. workers in northern Minnesota in communities like Karlstad as Chinese and American workers make the decisions to cooperate in joint ventures--- this will be the day working people can rejoice in having attained real social justice... and this day will only come when we create a planned socialist economy... just like the Chinese people set out to do when they overthrew the feudal lords and routed the imperialists.
Alan L. Maki
I would encourage a big turnout for this lecture.
Saturday, 9/15, 10 to noon, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom hosts U of M prof Erwin Marquit, talking about "The Quest for Social Justice in China's Socialist Market Economy," Van Cleve Community Center, 901 - 15th Ave SE, Mpls. www.wilpfmn.org
Ask the Professor about the role of capitalist corporations in China and how they are trying to put China on the road to capitalism and counter-revolution.
Ask the Professor what he thinks of Ford Motor Company closing the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant while moving much of its U.S. operations to China.
Ask the Professor what he is doing to try to halt the closing of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant while Ford has opened manufacturing facilities in China.
Ask the Professor when was the last time he met with Ford workers to discuss the need for public ownership in relation saving the Ford Plant.
The distinguished Professor Marquit is one big hypocrite when it comes to social justice for working people in China or the United States.
There is no such thing as a “socialist market economy;” socialist economies can only be planned economies… part of the plan might include allowing capitalist corporations to operate in the country; however, Communists never allow these capitalists and their “market economic system” to take over, and dominate, the economy--- socialist economies can only be “planned economies” (there is no other kind of socialist economy)… “socialist market economy” is a code phrase for capitalism and counter revolution.
There can only be social justice for working people through a planned socialist economy. Look, it is not hard to figure out that Erwin Marquit has no concern for social justice for working people when he is opposed to taking any action--- legislative and/or mass action (we need a combination of both)--- right in the very city where he lives concerning the Ford Plant closing… what can such a professor who doesn’t even have any compassion for social justice for two thousand working people in his own community know about social justice for working people in China? This is such a basic and fundamental question it boggles one’s mind to think that anyone with even half a brain would pay any attention to a professor with such a perverted and distorted view of Marxism.
Show me anyone promoting a “socialist market economy” and I will show you a charlatan and a fraud… if that person purports to be a Marxist.
For years Professor Marquit has used his academic position to foster a perverted view of Marxism with the intent of confusing working people about what socialism is in the United States, Poland, East Germany--- and now in China.
I don't know of workers anywhere in the world who are dumb enough to believe they can attain social justice through any kind of "market economy."
I have spoken with many Chinese business people and they don't speak of "market socialism." They speak of "free market capitalism." Of course they are all for this... they are getting rich exploiting Chinese workers who are suffering.
Anyone can see that China's working peoples' present problems stem from capitalist corporations being allowed to operate without any controls and restrictions placed on them while dictating economic "reforms" in China. Producing goods and services using cheap, highly exploited labor where working people suffer the most disgraceful abuses at the hands of those extolling the virtues of the "socialist market economy" is the reality.
That a prominent and respected organization like the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom would give Professor Erwin Marquit a forum for his perverted and distorted Marxist views without him having to participate in a forum where his views could be challenged is a disgrace.
Professor Marquit parades around the world professing to be a Marxist proponent of the "socialist market economy" only when he has no opposition... he creates his own caricatures which he purports to be his opposition (coincidentally, all his caricatures resemble Joseph Stalin)... then he proceeds to demolish them; but, Marquit never has the intellectual honesty or courage to debate a living, breathing human being... much less a worker.
Certainly the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom must understand that Professor Marquit's views on the "socialist market economy" are highly controversial... why then, would Marquit be allowed to pontificate his fairy tales without any opposition like a Catholic Priest at Sunday Mass?
Certainly the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom must be aware of the Minnesota corporation Mattracks which has a small manufacturing facility in northern Minnesota opening up a plant in China five times the size of its Minnesota operation to make equipment for "crowd control"... all financed with Pentagon funding obtained by Minnesota's only "Blue Dog" Democrat, Collin Peterson. Just what kind of "crowd control equipment" might the Pentagon be interested in financing? But, to use the tax-dollars of the American people in order to allow this corporation's bottom line to grow fat just so Collin Peterson can get a bigger campaign contribution is a disgrace and an insult to Minnesota workers who will suffer the social injustices associated with poverty wages and unemployment... the direct result of the so-called, mis-named, "socialist market economy."
Capitalists and their cronies like Professor Marquit are always trying to give capitalism a different face by playing with words. But, to go so far as to call capitalism "socialism," as Professor Marquit does, is the epitome of deceit and dishonesty.
There are tremendous debates presently underway in China with Chinese working people dead set against any further attempts by capitalist corporations and their hoax of "market socialism." Chinese workers understand "market socialism" means counter-revolution, not the planned socialist economy they have struggled to create and improve.
It is unfair to allow the proponents of "market socialism" to pontificate their views without allowing alternative views to be expressed.
I have offered to debate this learned professor on this issue many times... his response has been to initiate a dirty, name-calling, slanderous campaign against me.
Professor Marquit should not be given a forum for his views before any organization until he is willing to have his views challenged in a real debate.
I would urge people to attend this lecture by Professor Marquit to challenge his quackery which makes a mockery of scientific socialism.
This is from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom's web site:
Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, 10 am to noon.
“Coffee With”: The Quest for Social Justice in China’s Socialist Market Economy
Speaker: Erwin Marquit, professor emeritus, U of M, leader of study tours to China
and Vietnam
Van Cleve Community Ctr., 901 15th Ave. SE, Mpls
FREE EVERYONE WELCOME
FFI: 651-458-7090; www.wilpfmn.org
China’s mixed market economy has led to social problems such as pollution, hazardous working conditions, loss of free health care and education, and a growing income gap between rich and poor. However, besides cutting the number of people living below the poverty level, it has also raised the average standard of living, life expectancy, and educational levels. Drawing on recent extended visits to China, the speaker will address the question of whether the current Chinese policies of economic development will enhance or obstruct its quest for social justice.
I would suggest Professor Marquit spend a little time talking to Ford workers in his own home town and make a trip up to Karlstad, Minnesota and talk to working people who are unemployed and employed at poverty wages there... what Professor Marquit will find is that "market socialism" is robbing U.S. workers of jobs while creating misery for Chinese workers who will be employed under prison-like conditions, forced to live like rats in a "dormitory" where they will be robbed of their earnings to pay exorbitant rents, and have to eat slop in the company cafeteria--- again, with the cost of meals deducted from their miserly, poverty-wage pay-checks--- all very reminiscent of the "company towns" on the Iron Range in the early 1900's.
Professor Marquit likes to indulge in grand utterances about "market socialism" which have little connection to real world realities... just like some Chinese officials who have abused their positions in the Communist Party and the Chinese government to evade any real discussion about social justice for working people.
In fact, Chinese workers, many of whom are members of the Communist Party of China, are beginning to wage a determined struggle to reclaim the socialist road and the adherence to a planned socialist economy in quest of the social justice they have struggled for; they have had it with the charlatans posing as Communists and government officials who pad their pockets with bribes from capitalist corporations along with American Professors be they from the American Enterprise Institute or the University of Minnesota. Professor Marquit has written these workers, and their struggles for social justice off as "Stalinist."
When it comes to real socialism, Professor Marquit has some very real problems of his own... all he can see is the ghost of Joseph Stalin every time he hears the words, "planned socialist economy;" and every time he hears the term "workers' power" he sees the ghost of Gus Hall.
The day Ford workers determine the future of their plants and what will be manufactured according to what society needs, and American tax-dollars are invested creating jobs for U.S. workers in northern Minnesota in communities like Karlstad as Chinese and American workers make the decisions to cooperate in joint ventures--- this will be the day working people can rejoice in having attained real social justice... and this day will only come when we create a planned socialist economy... just like the Chinese people set out to do when they overthrew the feudal lords and routed the imperialists.
Alan L. Maki
Friday, July 20, 2007
Some Leeway for Wolfowitz, Who Gets a Good Word From Rice
The newsprint and electronic reporting has been replete with stories about Paul Wolfowitz none of which has brought to light the real controversy between Wolfowitz and some of the old hands in the world capitalist banking system. It was easy for someone to accuse the head of the World Bank of favoring a “girlfriend.” This is hardly a political event, nor did some events much more egregious in male/female relations result in any Senatorial presidential impeachment (you know what I’m referring to).
From that point on, it would appear that the European countries are angling to name the next head of the World Bank, a position which has been monopolized by the USA. Then it would appear that the European countries pressured the USA to make some compromise to effect a resignation and it looked as though that might happen until Condoleezza Rice, in a more sober and non-pernicious statement, questioned the reason members of the World Bank Board are so intent on Wolfowitz’s ouster. (Reference the attached New York Times article by Steven R. Weisman titled, “Some Leeway for Wolfowitz, Who Gets a Good Word from Rice” published online on May 10, 2007).
In truth, the real argument underneath all of this power play is Mr.Wolfowitz’s actions since 2005 in which he found reason to praise China as being the most effective in eliminating poverty. In this atmosphere, one recalls an incident during President Bush’s Latin American tour about a particular moment when Bush spoke in Columbia and Chavez, simultaneously, in Uruguay. Chavez asked Bush, “Why can’t you mention my name?” He goes on to ask, “Since you’ve been President for seven years, did you just learn of poverty in Latin America?”
The records show a progression of public statements by Mr. Wolfowitz highly praising the Chinese for their real accomplishments in poverty reduction. He was negotiating with the Chinese to establish a system of loans to help the strengthening of China’s economically backward west.
We list quotations from his public statements beginning in April 1, 2005 and continuing through October 14, 2005:
Furthermore, we quote him on poverty reduction in other areas of the world.
Through many trade and investment deals that China has established in Africa and Latin America, it has enabled these countries to advance their development and create a base for eliminating poverty in their countries.
There is undoubtedly a lengthy rebuttal of charges against Mr. Wolfowitz which will ultimately reveal that the case against him was on flimsy charges, hoping that they would succeed in removing him as the head of the World Bank (which is obviously friendly to the Chinese regime). It is becoming apparent that there are many shifts in the positions taken by officials in the Bush Administration and notably those officials that are in contact with world leaders, and particularly those in Eastern Asia and China, appear to have developed a higher sense of diplomacy while the Administration continues to waffle.
May 11, 2007
New York City
Sidney J. Gluck
Professor Emeritus at the
New School for Social Research
Co-President of the
US-China People’s Friendship Association, NY Chapter
Chairman of the
US-China Society of Friends
Host of Pacific Rim News Review
Manhattan News Network Channel 34
NEW YORK TIMES article
May 10, 2007
Some Leeway for Wolfowitz, Who Gets a Good Word From Rice
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, May 9 — Bowing to pressure from the Bush administration, the World Bank board agreed Wednesday to give Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank’s president, slightly more time to defend himself against charges of misconduct before the board decides his future.
In a development that might help Mr. Wolfowitz’s fight to remain as bank president, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has lobbied European foreign ministers in the last two weeks, expressing support for him.
“She has spoken with several European foreign ministers about her positive impressions of Paul and the job he’s doing at the World Bank,” Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said in an interview on Wednesday when asked whether Ms. Rice had become involved in supporting Mr. Wolfowitz.
Despite Ms. Rice’s efforts and the board’s decision to give Mr. Wolfowitz more time, bank officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said they saw no indication that the board was any less determined to oust him from the presidency.
Mr. Wolfowitz was given until Friday evening — two additional days — to make his case in writing to the board, and it was expected that he would appear before the board as early as Monday. The board is to vote on whether he deserves a reprimand, a vote of no confidence or outright removal.
But even those plans could change. Discussions continued Wednesday on whether to proceed with a vote next week. Many bank officials continue to hope that Mr. Wolfowitz will resign, making a vote unnecessary.
Last weekend, a special committee of the board concluded that Mr. Wolfowitz violated bank rules and the terms of his contract by directing that Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, be awarded a large pay and promotion package when she was transferred to the State Department in 2005.
There were also more reports on Wednesday of officials in Europe who favor Mr. Wolfowitz’s departure.
A senior German official, Karin Kortmann, told the German Parliament that Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German development minister, had told Mr. Wolfowitz last month “that his voluntary resignation was the best solution for the bank and its goals.”
But Ms. Kortmann, a state secretary in the development ministry, said the United States should be given “room to react” to the crisis before any divisive vote at the bank.
This was apparently a reference to Europeans’ hope that the United States would persuade Mr. Wolfowitz to step down, possibly in return for assurances that President Bush could nominate his successor.
It has been a tradition since the 1940s that the United States selects the World Bank president and the Europeans select the head of the International Monetary Fund.
The German comments echoed those on Tuesday by top officials in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Mr. Wolfowitz’s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, has said his client wants to present a lengthy rebuttal to the charge by current and former bank officials that he gave Ms. Riza the raise without informing or consulting them.
Mr. Bennett said the record showed that Mr. Wolfowitz gave her the pay and promotion package only after being told by top bank officials that he had to make the arrangements on his own.
Bank officials disagree, saying that while they told him to give her a raise in compensation for being moved to the State Department against her will, he should not have determined the amount by himself, especially since it involved an unusually large amount and promises of future promotions and raises.
The committee that found Mr. Wolfowitz guilty of breaking bank rules has not yet determined what punishment to recommend. Whatever the panel recommends, however, will be subject to a final determination by the 24 board members.
Another view from the International Trade Union Confederation...
INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC)
ITUC OnLine...
098/010607
Statement by World Bank Board on Selection of New Bank President a Step in the Right Direction
Brussels, 1 June 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC today described a statement issued earlier this week by the Board of the World Bank concerning the selection of a new Bank President as a positive step towards transparency and due process in determining who will lead the Bank following the resignation of previous President Paul Wolfowitz.
Traditionally, the choice of President has been made by the United States, while Europe has had the power to choose the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. The international trade union movement and other civil society organisations, along with many governments, have strongly criticised these arrangements as being contrary to the principles of transparency and good governance. "It is contrary to any basic notion of democracy that the leadership of these two institutions, whose mission is promoting development and tackling poverty, has always been decided without any involvement of developing countries", said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.
Importantly, the Board´s announcement notes that any national Executive Director of the Bank has the right to make a nomination to the position and that the World Bank's President must have "a commitment to and appreciation for multilateral cooperation, and political objectivity and independence".
"This statement by the World Bank Board goes some way to allay the legitimate criticism of what have been unacceptable procedures for deciding who will lead the two main global financial institutions," said Ryder. "We trust that the procedures in this case and in future will be open and transparent, and that commitment to tackling global poverty, to good governance and to social and economic development on the basis of international standards will be key criteria in deciding on the appointment of the next World Bank President", he added.
In setting a closing date for nominations of 15 June, and a period of 15 days after that in which to make a decision, the Board noted that it had been informed by the US that it intends to make a nomination. US President George Bush has put forward the name of investment banker Robert Zoellick, a former US Trade Representative, in a move which has been criticised as putting the Board under pressure to maintain the practice of the US having the exclusive right to decide who will fill the position.
Founded on 1 November 2006, the ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories and has 304 national affiliates. Website: www.ituc-csi.org
For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018.
From that point on, it would appear that the European countries are angling to name the next head of the World Bank, a position which has been monopolized by the USA. Then it would appear that the European countries pressured the USA to make some compromise to effect a resignation and it looked as though that might happen until Condoleezza Rice, in a more sober and non-pernicious statement, questioned the reason members of the World Bank Board are so intent on Wolfowitz’s ouster. (Reference the attached New York Times article by Steven R. Weisman titled, “Some Leeway for Wolfowitz, Who Gets a Good Word from Rice” published online on May 10, 2007).
In truth, the real argument underneath all of this power play is Mr.Wolfowitz’s actions since 2005 in which he found reason to praise China as being the most effective in eliminating poverty. In this atmosphere, one recalls an incident during President Bush’s Latin American tour about a particular moment when Bush spoke in Columbia and Chavez, simultaneously, in Uruguay. Chavez asked Bush, “Why can’t you mention my name?” He goes on to ask, “Since you’ve been President for seven years, did you just learn of poverty in Latin America?”
The records show a progression of public statements by Mr. Wolfowitz highly praising the Chinese for their real accomplishments in poverty reduction. He was negotiating with the Chinese to establish a system of loans to help the strengthening of China’s economically backward west.
We list quotations from his public statements beginning in April 1, 2005 and continuing through October 14, 2005:
“The goal of poverty reduction is as valid in China as it is elsewhere . . . I am prepared to listen and prepared to be an international civil servant.” (“World Bank to Work with China to Cut Poverty: Wolfowitz.” People’s Daily Online. April 1, 2005)
“There are nearly 200 million people living in extreme poverty in China in spite of enormous progress that has been made in the last 20 years . . . We’re in the process of moving from China as a major recipient of World Bank assistance to, at some point in the future, probably China will become a significant donor to the World Bank.” (“Wolfowitz: China Still Needs World Bank.” China Economic Net. October 10, 2005)
“China, as we all know, has been the fastest growing economy in Asia for the past 20 years and has lifted more than 400 million people above US$1 a day poverty levels in that time . . . And when we talk of China these days, we tend to think only of Shanghai and skyscrapers, of trade surpluses and rapid economic growth and above all, of amazing poverty reduction . . . I am looking forward to seeing firsthand how China has tackled poverty on such a massive scale. I think the world has a lot to learn from their experiences and I think the Bank can work with China to share those lessons . . . Today people who make cars in Germany or saris in India are equally challenged by China's rise. People who export iron ore from Australia or Europeans who buy cheaper clothing benefit from the effects of China's rapid growth and increased competitiveness. . . The country faces some important challenges, especially in the areas of environment, natural resources, and climate change, on the one hand, and with remaining poverty and growing inequality, on the other . . . These issues all affect the sustainability for growth. China needs more and better infrastructure to provide a framework for industry and to keep the cities operating efficiently. It needs to deal with an ageing population . . . It needs to continue moving - probably even more rapidly - towards a more effective legal system and a better investment climate." (“Wolfowitz – Viewing China from Both Sides.” WorldBank.Org. October 12, 2005
“It's stunning what they've done with very little to work with. The house we were just in is a fairly big house; the woman takes care of the house and the livestock - five sheep and a cow and a whole bio-gas cooking operation. And the husband's off earning money to make it all work . . . It's very impressive. I can't imagine doing it myself. You have to be somewhat in awe of what people who, you give them a little bit of a chance, will make a better life for themselves and their children. It's really quite amazing. We've seen it in other countries; we see it here in China, and it's inspiring . . . I've been in Shanghai, I've been in Beijing, Nanjing, and Guangzhou, all within the last 5 years. We talk -- correctly -- about how much China's accomplished. This is also a demonstration of how much more work there is to be done. I'm very proud that the Bank is participating in it . . . There's still a lot of poor people in the world, even here in successful countries like China.” (“WB President Impressed by China’s Poverty Reduction.” Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in India. October 14, 2005)
Furthermore, we quote him on poverty reduction in other areas of the world.
“The fact is that when it comes to poverty reduction, it is not a question of American foreign policy, or British foreign policy or South African foreign policy. It [poverty reduction] is a unifying goal and it is one that I believe in deeply. Each organization has to focus on its primary mission and its core competencies and the World Bank's are in the areas of poverty reduction." (“Wolfowitz Sets Africa Poverty Aim.” BBC News. April 1, 2005)
Through many trade and investment deals that China has established in Africa and Latin America, it has enabled these countries to advance their development and create a base for eliminating poverty in their countries.
There is undoubtedly a lengthy rebuttal of charges against Mr. Wolfowitz which will ultimately reveal that the case against him was on flimsy charges, hoping that they would succeed in removing him as the head of the World Bank (which is obviously friendly to the Chinese regime). It is becoming apparent that there are many shifts in the positions taken by officials in the Bush Administration and notably those officials that are in contact with world leaders, and particularly those in Eastern Asia and China, appear to have developed a higher sense of diplomacy while the Administration continues to waffle.
May 11, 2007
New York City
Sidney J. Gluck
Professor Emeritus at the
New School for Social Research
Co-President of the
US-China People’s Friendship Association, NY Chapter
Chairman of the
US-China Society of Friends
Host of Pacific Rim News Review
Manhattan News Network Channel 34
NEW YORK TIMES article
May 10, 2007
Some Leeway for Wolfowitz, Who Gets a Good Word From Rice
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, May 9 — Bowing to pressure from the Bush administration, the World Bank board agreed Wednesday to give Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank’s president, slightly more time to defend himself against charges of misconduct before the board decides his future.
In a development that might help Mr. Wolfowitz’s fight to remain as bank president, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has lobbied European foreign ministers in the last two weeks, expressing support for him.
“She has spoken with several European foreign ministers about her positive impressions of Paul and the job he’s doing at the World Bank,” Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said in an interview on Wednesday when asked whether Ms. Rice had become involved in supporting Mr. Wolfowitz.
Despite Ms. Rice’s efforts and the board’s decision to give Mr. Wolfowitz more time, bank officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said they saw no indication that the board was any less determined to oust him from the presidency.
Mr. Wolfowitz was given until Friday evening — two additional days — to make his case in writing to the board, and it was expected that he would appear before the board as early as Monday. The board is to vote on whether he deserves a reprimand, a vote of no confidence or outright removal.
But even those plans could change. Discussions continued Wednesday on whether to proceed with a vote next week. Many bank officials continue to hope that Mr. Wolfowitz will resign, making a vote unnecessary.
Last weekend, a special committee of the board concluded that Mr. Wolfowitz violated bank rules and the terms of his contract by directing that Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, be awarded a large pay and promotion package when she was transferred to the State Department in 2005.
There were also more reports on Wednesday of officials in Europe who favor Mr. Wolfowitz’s departure.
A senior German official, Karin Kortmann, told the German Parliament that Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German development minister, had told Mr. Wolfowitz last month “that his voluntary resignation was the best solution for the bank and its goals.”
But Ms. Kortmann, a state secretary in the development ministry, said the United States should be given “room to react” to the crisis before any divisive vote at the bank.
This was apparently a reference to Europeans’ hope that the United States would persuade Mr. Wolfowitz to step down, possibly in return for assurances that President Bush could nominate his successor.
It has been a tradition since the 1940s that the United States selects the World Bank president and the Europeans select the head of the International Monetary Fund.
The German comments echoed those on Tuesday by top officials in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Mr. Wolfowitz’s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, has said his client wants to present a lengthy rebuttal to the charge by current and former bank officials that he gave Ms. Riza the raise without informing or consulting them.
Mr. Bennett said the record showed that Mr. Wolfowitz gave her the pay and promotion package only after being told by top bank officials that he had to make the arrangements on his own.
Bank officials disagree, saying that while they told him to give her a raise in compensation for being moved to the State Department against her will, he should not have determined the amount by himself, especially since it involved an unusually large amount and promises of future promotions and raises.
The committee that found Mr. Wolfowitz guilty of breaking bank rules has not yet determined what punishment to recommend. Whatever the panel recommends, however, will be subject to a final determination by the 24 board members.
Another view from the International Trade Union Confederation...
INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC)
ITUC OnLine...
098/010607
Statement by World Bank Board on Selection of New Bank President a Step in the Right Direction
Brussels, 1 June 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC today described a statement issued earlier this week by the Board of the World Bank concerning the selection of a new Bank President as a positive step towards transparency and due process in determining who will lead the Bank following the resignation of previous President Paul Wolfowitz.
Traditionally, the choice of President has been made by the United States, while Europe has had the power to choose the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. The international trade union movement and other civil society organisations, along with many governments, have strongly criticised these arrangements as being contrary to the principles of transparency and good governance. "It is contrary to any basic notion of democracy that the leadership of these two institutions, whose mission is promoting development and tackling poverty, has always been decided without any involvement of developing countries", said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.
Importantly, the Board´s announcement notes that any national Executive Director of the Bank has the right to make a nomination to the position and that the World Bank's President must have "a commitment to and appreciation for multilateral cooperation, and political objectivity and independence".
"This statement by the World Bank Board goes some way to allay the legitimate criticism of what have been unacceptable procedures for deciding who will lead the two main global financial institutions," said Ryder. "We trust that the procedures in this case and in future will be open and transparent, and that commitment to tackling global poverty, to good governance and to social and economic development on the basis of international standards will be key criteria in deciding on the appointment of the next World Bank President", he added.
In setting a closing date for nominations of 15 June, and a period of 15 days after that in which to make a decision, the Board noted that it had been informed by the US that it intends to make a nomination. US President George Bush has put forward the name of investment banker Robert Zoellick, a former US Trade Representative, in a move which has been criticised as putting the Board under pressure to maintain the practice of the US having the exclusive right to decide who will fill the position.
Founded on 1 November 2006, the ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories and has 304 national affiliates. Website: www.ituc-csi.org
For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Reaction to Cheney’s Initiation of Anti-China War Mongering
Reaction to Cheney’s Initiation of Anti-China War Mongering
On February 16, 2007, Vice President Cheney, after visiting Pakistan, proclaimed that China’s increase in military budget was a threat to the world. This hot-air balloon was reflected in world renowned newspapers such as the International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. The reports noted remarks by high level political persons, some of whom are in the Bush Administration, cautioning against exaggeration.
As far back as August 18, 2006, Sha Zukang, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations told the British Broadcasting Corporation Radio (BBC) that US concerns about his country’s “burgeoning military might” were misguided. He goes on to say, “It’s better for the US to ‘shut-up’ . . . China’s military build-up is not threatening anyone.”
On March 5th, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was quoted as saying “I would say that our relationship with China is multifaceted and it’s a very important relationship for the US and I don’t believe we need to make China an enemy. If we manage the relationship - - the overall relationship with China properly, it’s going to benefit both of our countries for a long time to come.”
Of course, the Chinese responded that they were increasing the military budget by 18% from 2006-7. On March 6th, the PLA issued a report stating that “China’s defense expenditures in 2005 of $30.6 billion accounted for only 1.35% of the country’s GDP, while the United States and Britain spent 4.03% and 2.71% of their GDPs on defense.” Their intent is to increase the technical capability of their military forces and keep up with modernization. In fact, on March 2nd, China’s Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense issued a new policy, encouraging private companies to invest in the national defense industry.
In February, responding to the backlash against the destruction of its own space satellite, China had issued a white paper disclosing their space activities and proposing discussions with the USA to come to an understanding of militarization of outer space. One can hardly consider the obliteration of its own satellite by self- guided missile, a threat. Rather, it serves notice that the USA monopoly of outer space military advantages is over. Undoubtedly, the Russians have a similar capability. Nonetheless, the US has shunned invitations to have an international agreement on non-militarization of outer space. We are now awaiting a proper response from the USA.
One can suspect that Vice President Cheney was beginning a new set of presumptions, exaggerations and, if I may use the term, lies about China’s military prowess and intent. China has never been involved in any international military conflicts (with one short-lived incident in the 20th Century). This is par for the course for the Bush Administration. We know they directed the development of intelligence stories with regards to Iraq, where we never found any weapons of mass destruction. It was our invasion that created mass destruction in Iraq itself. We lost over 3,000 soldiers and have caused almost every Iraqi family to lose a member due to the conflict our invasion released.
As for the facts of militarization, we attach a table below which shows the world’s total military expenditure, as well as that of nine countries. This chart compares each country’s published military expenditure, population and the percentage of their population in the world’s total. The last column calculates the per capita military expenditure of each nation. The results are astounding. The United States is almost $1,800. China is approximately $35.
[Please note: This Chart is available towards the bottom of our blog in a larger, more readable format; just scroll down.]
We calculated and grouped the per capita military expenditure of India (which has the lowest per capita of roughly $19), with Russia (approximately $230) and China for a total of approximately $38. Note that these three countries are not dominated by American military structure and, in their independence, have joined together for development. Hence, we view them as a special group to compare to the US military position. Whichever way you look at it, the United States per capita expenditure is 46 times the combined per capita expenditure of India, Russia and China.
Where is the logic in assuming that a country with 1.3 billion people and 20% of the world’s population, spending only $35 per capita for its military establishment, is seeking domination anywhere in the world against existing interests of the USA with only 4.6% of the world’s population but an expenditure of 533 billion dollars for 2007 (or a per capita expenditure of $1,769).
Please, someone out there, give me the logic. If you can’t, then it doesn’t exist and we must conclude that Mr. Cheney and the forces in the Bush Administration, for which he is spokesman, are on the verge of concocting a new series of lies to destabilize peaceful relations. This is hardly the way to resolve real differences that have developed in our economic relations. There, again, please note that the negative trade balance of the US to China and the US indebtedness of over half a trillion dollars could be relieved if we were to sell them the heavy equipment and technology which they continue to tender as a major step in balancing our accounts. Furthermore, China is ready to invest in USA industries to produce commodities that they can import which would reduce the negative trade balance considerably. The solutions are there. The political economic policies of the USA are not defensive, but offensive in making it appear that China is an enemy and we should fear their military.
China’s foreign policy is to rise peacefully as an economic power. It has proven and intends to continue to make win-win trade and investment deals with all countries, particularly developing countries which will have an opportunity to improve their own states. Call a spade, a spade. Cheney is throwing up a balloon which lies in the hope that it diverts attention to the recalcitrants of the USA to work as equals with China, recognizing the inevitability of China’s future rise. The resolution of conflicting interests, from the Chinese point of view, is to be handled diplomatically without any allusions to the military.
Warfare in orbit is only news when China does it
The Real 'Masters of Space'
By Karl Grossman
(Appearing in April 2007 issue of Extra! The Magazine of FAIR--The Media Watch Group)
As a graphic proclaiming "Red Storm" flashed on the screen, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs intoned: "Communist China tonight refusing to explain its motives for conducting its first-ever anti-satellite missile test. That test, the latest in a series of dangerous new challenges by the Chinese military to this country’s interest."
He threw it to correspondent Christine Romans, who declared, "Defense experts see a pattern of behavior that highlights China’s strategy to exploit American weakness." Romans went to John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation, who, she reported, "says that American policymakers refuse to recognize China’s hostile intentions toward this country."
The segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight (1/24/07) didn’t mention anything about the U.S. military's space strategy of recent years (Extra!, 5-6/99). There’s not a word about a key 1998 U.S. strategy document, the U.S. Space Command’s Vision for 2020, which envisions space-based laser weapons zapping targets on Earth, and speaks of the U.S. military "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment" and "integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
Nor was mention made of the 2001 Rumsfeld Commission report, which declared, "In the coming period, the U.S. will conduct operations to, from, in and through space to support its national interests both on the earth and in space." The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, also urged that the U.S. president "have the option to deploy weapons in space."
Also left out was a new U.S. National Space Policy adopted by the White House last year that took a still more aggressive U.S. position on space warfare, announcing that the U.S. will "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain U.S. advantage."
Just as the continuing U.S. development of space military capabilities wasn’t reported, nor were the repeated efforts led by China, Russia and U.S. ally Canada to have the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the basic international agreement setting aside space for peaceful uses, broadened to include a ban on the deployment, testing or use of weapons in space--or the U.S. opposing this initiative, all but alone at the U.N., in vote after vote.
Instead of placing the story in context, explaining the precipitating factors, China’s successful destruction of one of its old satellites was simply labeled--in a banner across the screen--as "Communist China’s Rising Threat to the United States."
The New York Times (1/19/07) was only somewhat better. After the jump, its lead story ("Flexing Muscle, China Destroys Satellite in Test") did inform readers that China has "been trying to push a treaty to ban space weapons." No reference, however, was made to the U.S.'s lonely and sustained opposition to this.
And the quote on which the story is hung, in the fourth paragraph on Page 1, is Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer, declaring: "This is the first real escalation in the weaponization of space that we’ve seen in 20 years." Where exactly has McDowell been as the U.S. has ratcheted up its space warfare program over the past two decades?
The space industry trade newspaper, Space News (1/22/07), emphasized the folly of banning weapons in space in its front-page story about the test ("China’s ASAT Test Widely Criticized, U.S. Says No New Treaties Needed"). It filled six of the first eight paragraphs of the piece with long, virtually unbroken quotes from an anonymous "U.S. State Department official."
A key quote from the unnamed official: "Arms control is not a viable solution for space. For example, there is no agreement on how to define space weapons." How about "weapons in space"?
Aviation Week & Space Technology (1/17/07) revealed the January 12 Chinese test on its website in an article that omitted any mention of the U.S. space military program. But it did state, "China’s growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush administration last year formed the nation’s first new National Space Policy in 10 years."
In a subsequent full-page editorial, headlined "China’s ASAT Test: Irresponsible and Against International Norms," Aviation Week (1/29/07) declared that news of the test "that we broke on our website…should not come as a surprise. While the precise timing of the test may have startled most of the world…the People’s Liberation Army has been signaling its intent to master the space realm for more than a decade."
Aviation Week might have acknowledged that "Master of Space" is not a motto coined by the Chinese, but by the U.S. Air Force Space Command’s 50th Space Wing in 1992the words emblazoned to this day above the entrance of its headquarters in Colorado.
The publication made no explicit mention of China’s efforts to ban weapons in space and U.S. opposition to that, but it did remark that the general hand-wringing about "militarizing space" or an "arms race in space" that we have noticed in some quarters strikes us as downright silly.
First of all, space has been militarized practically from day one…. And even if the genie could be put back in the bottle, why should it be?... Today, the U.S. is understandably reluctant to invite the nations of the world to discuss restrictions on a technology in which it is preeminent. No armed forces enjoy the advantages of the orbital high ground more than those of the U.S.
"When I say last week’s coverage was bad, I mean textbook bad, without even token context," Brian Dominick wrote for the New Standard website (1/25/07). "The only background we’re offered--in some articles--took the form of acknowledgement that the U.S. has the capability to nix Chinese satellites. But even that came in a paraphrase attributed to an expert who appears to be some kind of U.S.-space-domination cheerleader."
Among the pieces he singled out was an Associated Press story (1/23/07) that spoke about the test by China "carried out under the auspices of its highly secretive, military-dominated space program." Dominick observed: "It’s hard to think of better terms to describe the U.S. space program other than by adding ‘profit-aware.’ But you’ll never see ‘secretive’ or ‘militarized’ as adjectives describing NASA--at least not in the AP."
Great detail need not be offered to provide context. For instance, the British journal New Scientist (1/27/07) simply noted:
The mainstream U.S. media coverage of the Chinese test--riddled with omissions and jingoism--is no surprise to Bruce Gagnon, who for 15 years has been coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org). He tells Extra!:
While China's ASAT test is troubling, it is also hypocritical of the U.S. to criticize them for doing something that our country has been doing since the 1980s. The Pentagon today is developing a host of ASAT weapons technologies that would give them the ability to knock out other countries’ satellites. Sadly, the American people don't know anything about this because the corporate-dominated media refuse to cover the story.
Every year, he notes, the Global Network presses the space militarization issue by holding a Keep Space for Peace Week. "We send information out to the mainstream media locally and nationally but they completely ignore our efforts," he says. "You'd think that the fact people are holding positive actions to educate the public about preventing a news arms race would be newsworthy." Last year, during the week of demonstrations and talks, the bellicose new National Space Policy was announced (DATE), and thus "all the more reason for a story about a global movement working to prevent the weaponization of space. But nothing was reported on it."
"Why do the mainstream media not report on a growing international movement to keep space for peace?" Gagnon asks.
Could it be that much of the media today is under the control of the very corporations who will benefit, directly or indirectly, from a new arms race in space? The Pentagon has long bragged that Star Wars will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet. In order to create the fear and acceptance of such a plan, the media must manage the news around this issue so that the American people remain compliant.
The move by the U.S. to turn the heavens into a war zone "has all the elements of a big story--money, power, domination, corruption," says Gagnon. "But the corporate-dominated media rarely go near it. The big money is keeping a lid on this story for a reason."
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at SUNY College at Old Westbury, is author of Weapons in Space (Seven Stories Press) and The Wrong Stuff (Common Courage Press) and host of the TV documentaries Star Wars Returns and Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens ( www.envirovideo.com).
On February 16, 2007, Vice President Cheney, after visiting Pakistan, proclaimed that China’s increase in military budget was a threat to the world. This hot-air balloon was reflected in world renowned newspapers such as the International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. The reports noted remarks by high level political persons, some of whom are in the Bush Administration, cautioning against exaggeration.
As far back as August 18, 2006, Sha Zukang, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations told the British Broadcasting Corporation Radio (BBC) that US concerns about his country’s “burgeoning military might” were misguided. He goes on to say, “It’s better for the US to ‘shut-up’ . . . China’s military build-up is not threatening anyone.”
On March 5th, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was quoted as saying “I would say that our relationship with China is multifaceted and it’s a very important relationship for the US and I don’t believe we need to make China an enemy. If we manage the relationship - - the overall relationship with China properly, it’s going to benefit both of our countries for a long time to come.”
Of course, the Chinese responded that they were increasing the military budget by 18% from 2006-7. On March 6th, the PLA issued a report stating that “China’s defense expenditures in 2005 of $30.6 billion accounted for only 1.35% of the country’s GDP, while the United States and Britain spent 4.03% and 2.71% of their GDPs on defense.” Their intent is to increase the technical capability of their military forces and keep up with modernization. In fact, on March 2nd, China’s Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense issued a new policy, encouraging private companies to invest in the national defense industry.
In February, responding to the backlash against the destruction of its own space satellite, China had issued a white paper disclosing their space activities and proposing discussions with the USA to come to an understanding of militarization of outer space. One can hardly consider the obliteration of its own satellite by self- guided missile, a threat. Rather, it serves notice that the USA monopoly of outer space military advantages is over. Undoubtedly, the Russians have a similar capability. Nonetheless, the US has shunned invitations to have an international agreement on non-militarization of outer space. We are now awaiting a proper response from the USA.
One can suspect that Vice President Cheney was beginning a new set of presumptions, exaggerations and, if I may use the term, lies about China’s military prowess and intent. China has never been involved in any international military conflicts (with one short-lived incident in the 20th Century). This is par for the course for the Bush Administration. We know they directed the development of intelligence stories with regards to Iraq, where we never found any weapons of mass destruction. It was our invasion that created mass destruction in Iraq itself. We lost over 3,000 soldiers and have caused almost every Iraqi family to lose a member due to the conflict our invasion released.
As for the facts of militarization, we attach a table below which shows the world’s total military expenditure, as well as that of nine countries. This chart compares each country’s published military expenditure, population and the percentage of their population in the world’s total. The last column calculates the per capita military expenditure of each nation. The results are astounding. The United States is almost $1,800. China is approximately $35.
[Please note: This Chart is available towards the bottom of our blog in a larger, more readable format; just scroll down.]
We calculated and grouped the per capita military expenditure of India (which has the lowest per capita of roughly $19), with Russia (approximately $230) and China for a total of approximately $38. Note that these three countries are not dominated by American military structure and, in their independence, have joined together for development. Hence, we view them as a special group to compare to the US military position. Whichever way you look at it, the United States per capita expenditure is 46 times the combined per capita expenditure of India, Russia and China.
Where is the logic in assuming that a country with 1.3 billion people and 20% of the world’s population, spending only $35 per capita for its military establishment, is seeking domination anywhere in the world against existing interests of the USA with only 4.6% of the world’s population but an expenditure of 533 billion dollars for 2007 (or a per capita expenditure of $1,769).
Please, someone out there, give me the logic. If you can’t, then it doesn’t exist and we must conclude that Mr. Cheney and the forces in the Bush Administration, for which he is spokesman, are on the verge of concocting a new series of lies to destabilize peaceful relations. This is hardly the way to resolve real differences that have developed in our economic relations. There, again, please note that the negative trade balance of the US to China and the US indebtedness of over half a trillion dollars could be relieved if we were to sell them the heavy equipment and technology which they continue to tender as a major step in balancing our accounts. Furthermore, China is ready to invest in USA industries to produce commodities that they can import which would reduce the negative trade balance considerably. The solutions are there. The political economic policies of the USA are not defensive, but offensive in making it appear that China is an enemy and we should fear their military.
China’s foreign policy is to rise peacefully as an economic power. It has proven and intends to continue to make win-win trade and investment deals with all countries, particularly developing countries which will have an opportunity to improve their own states. Call a spade, a spade. Cheney is throwing up a balloon which lies in the hope that it diverts attention to the recalcitrants of the USA to work as equals with China, recognizing the inevitability of China’s future rise. The resolution of conflicting interests, from the Chinese point of view, is to be handled diplomatically without any allusions to the military.
Warfare in orbit is only news when China does it
The Real 'Masters of Space'
By Karl Grossman
(Appearing in April 2007 issue of Extra! The Magazine of FAIR--The Media Watch Group)
As a graphic proclaiming "Red Storm" flashed on the screen, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs intoned: "Communist China tonight refusing to explain its motives for conducting its first-ever anti-satellite missile test. That test, the latest in a series of dangerous new challenges by the Chinese military to this country’s interest."
He threw it to correspondent Christine Romans, who declared, "Defense experts see a pattern of behavior that highlights China’s strategy to exploit American weakness." Romans went to John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation, who, she reported, "says that American policymakers refuse to recognize China’s hostile intentions toward this country."
The segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight (1/24/07) didn’t mention anything about the U.S. military's space strategy of recent years (Extra!, 5-6/99). There’s not a word about a key 1998 U.S. strategy document, the U.S. Space Command’s Vision for 2020, which envisions space-based laser weapons zapping targets on Earth, and speaks of the U.S. military "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment" and "integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
Nor was mention made of the 2001 Rumsfeld Commission report, which declared, "In the coming period, the U.S. will conduct operations to, from, in and through space to support its national interests both on the earth and in space." The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, also urged that the U.S. president "have the option to deploy weapons in space."
Also left out was a new U.S. National Space Policy adopted by the White House last year that took a still more aggressive U.S. position on space warfare, announcing that the U.S. will "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain U.S. advantage."
Just as the continuing U.S. development of space military capabilities wasn’t reported, nor were the repeated efforts led by China, Russia and U.S. ally Canada to have the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the basic international agreement setting aside space for peaceful uses, broadened to include a ban on the deployment, testing or use of weapons in space--or the U.S. opposing this initiative, all but alone at the U.N., in vote after vote.
Instead of placing the story in context, explaining the precipitating factors, China’s successful destruction of one of its old satellites was simply labeled--in a banner across the screen--as "Communist China’s Rising Threat to the United States."
The New York Times (1/19/07) was only somewhat better. After the jump, its lead story ("Flexing Muscle, China Destroys Satellite in Test") did inform readers that China has "been trying to push a treaty to ban space weapons." No reference, however, was made to the U.S.'s lonely and sustained opposition to this.
And the quote on which the story is hung, in the fourth paragraph on Page 1, is Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer, declaring: "This is the first real escalation in the weaponization of space that we’ve seen in 20 years." Where exactly has McDowell been as the U.S. has ratcheted up its space warfare program over the past two decades?
The space industry trade newspaper, Space News (1/22/07), emphasized the folly of banning weapons in space in its front-page story about the test ("China’s ASAT Test Widely Criticized, U.S. Says No New Treaties Needed"). It filled six of the first eight paragraphs of the piece with long, virtually unbroken quotes from an anonymous "U.S. State Department official."
A key quote from the unnamed official: "Arms control is not a viable solution for space. For example, there is no agreement on how to define space weapons." How about "weapons in space"?
Aviation Week & Space Technology (1/17/07) revealed the January 12 Chinese test on its website in an article that omitted any mention of the U.S. space military program. But it did state, "China’s growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush administration last year formed the nation’s first new National Space Policy in 10 years."
In a subsequent full-page editorial, headlined "China’s ASAT Test: Irresponsible and Against International Norms," Aviation Week (1/29/07) declared that news of the test "that we broke on our website…should not come as a surprise. While the precise timing of the test may have startled most of the world…the People’s Liberation Army has been signaling its intent to master the space realm for more than a decade."
Aviation Week might have acknowledged that "Master of Space" is not a motto coined by the Chinese, but by the U.S. Air Force Space Command’s 50th Space Wing in 1992the words emblazoned to this day above the entrance of its headquarters in Colorado.
The publication made no explicit mention of China’s efforts to ban weapons in space and U.S. opposition to that, but it did remark that the general hand-wringing about "militarizing space" or an "arms race in space" that we have noticed in some quarters strikes us as downright silly.
First of all, space has been militarized practically from day one…. And even if the genie could be put back in the bottle, why should it be?... Today, the U.S. is understandably reluctant to invite the nations of the world to discuss restrictions on a technology in which it is preeminent. No armed forces enjoy the advantages of the orbital high ground more than those of the U.S.
"When I say last week’s coverage was bad, I mean textbook bad, without even token context," Brian Dominick wrote for the New Standard website (1/25/07). "The only background we’re offered--in some articles--took the form of acknowledgement that the U.S. has the capability to nix Chinese satellites. But even that came in a paraphrase attributed to an expert who appears to be some kind of U.S.-space-domination cheerleader."
Among the pieces he singled out was an Associated Press story (1/23/07) that spoke about the test by China "carried out under the auspices of its highly secretive, military-dominated space program." Dominick observed: "It’s hard to think of better terms to describe the U.S. space program other than by adding ‘profit-aware.’ But you’ll never see ‘secretive’ or ‘militarized’ as adjectives describing NASA--at least not in the AP."
Great detail need not be offered to provide context. For instance, the British journal New Scientist (1/27/07) simply noted:
Despite protests from the Bush administration over China’s action, analysts point out that the U.S. has consistently refused to discuss a new UN treaty on the peaceful uses of outer space. Instead, it will this year spend at least $1 billion on anti-satellite weapons research.
The mainstream U.S. media coverage of the Chinese test--riddled with omissions and jingoism--is no surprise to Bruce Gagnon, who for 15 years has been coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org). He tells Extra!:
While China's ASAT test is troubling, it is also hypocritical of the U.S. to criticize them for doing something that our country has been doing since the 1980s. The Pentagon today is developing a host of ASAT weapons technologies that would give them the ability to knock out other countries’ satellites. Sadly, the American people don't know anything about this because the corporate-dominated media refuse to cover the story.
Every year, he notes, the Global Network presses the space militarization issue by holding a Keep Space for Peace Week. "We send information out to the mainstream media locally and nationally but they completely ignore our efforts," he says. "You'd think that the fact people are holding positive actions to educate the public about preventing a news arms race would be newsworthy." Last year, during the week of demonstrations and talks, the bellicose new National Space Policy was announced (DATE), and thus "all the more reason for a story about a global movement working to prevent the weaponization of space. But nothing was reported on it."
"Why do the mainstream media not report on a growing international movement to keep space for peace?" Gagnon asks.
Could it be that much of the media today is under the control of the very corporations who will benefit, directly or indirectly, from a new arms race in space? The Pentagon has long bragged that Star Wars will be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet. In order to create the fear and acceptance of such a plan, the media must manage the news around this issue so that the American people remain compliant.
The move by the U.S. to turn the heavens into a war zone "has all the elements of a big story--money, power, domination, corruption," says Gagnon. "But the corporate-dominated media rarely go near it. The big money is keeping a lid on this story for a reason."
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at SUNY College at Old Westbury, is author of Weapons in Space (Seven Stories Press) and The Wrong Stuff (Common Courage Press) and host of the TV documentaries Star Wars Returns and Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens ( www.envirovideo.com).
Sunday, March 25, 2007
China... the Trade Off in having capitalist partners
We would like to share an article from Beijing Review on the impact and problems that have developed with China’s Opening to the West as it expresses itself in trade and investment relations. Without a doubt, for historic reasons of low-cost production in colonial China which has achieved modernization in only part of its country where more than two-thirds remain undeveloped, China has nevertheless emerged as a viable competitor to major capitalist countries. At the same time, it is a valued customer for raw materials from many undeveloped and developing countries, giving them opportunity for independent growth. In fact, the US has raised sharp complaints in the WTO against what they claim is China’s subsidizing exports. Of course, the US will not own up to the fact that its subsidies to cotton growers has kept the price of US cotton low and resulted in 10,000 African farmers being put out of production.
The West, particularly the US Treasury, is pinning the solution on increasing the value of Chinese currency as though a change in the means of exchange would resolve what is essentially a production problem. No doubt, some adjustments can be made in tariffs, import, and export, arrived at in reasonable negotiations and the opening of trade and investment privileges. Of course, China is making efforts to increase consumption in its own country to absorb a larger share of the GDP and rely on production for export. This is a long term process and will depend upon the rapidity with which the Hu government creates the Socialist Welfare State they promise to be in place by 2020 for 90% of the population.
A more equitable share of wealth in China will go a long way to resolve the competitive inequalities that have arisen. However, in the interim, the trade imbalances can be alleviated if opportunities for China’s imports from countries with large disproportions would help both China in its economic growth and the complaining countries would have a higher level of exports to China. The result is a more workable balance; but this means that countries like the USA must relax its policy of refusing the sale of heavy and high tech equipment to China and the right to make legitimate investments in production intended for export to China. Unfortunately, US super-power politics is in the way of logical economic decision-making, though Bush has encouraged one major technology deal.
The kernel of solution of competitive realities is clearly noted in the last paragraph of the article “A Trade Off” by Zhou Jianxiong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Trade Off
Beijing Review vol. 50 no. 7
February 15, 2007
By ZHOU JIANXIONG
China's growing trade surplus has become a major concern for some of its major trade partners, such as the United States and the European Union. As the latest statistics from China's Customs Administration suggest, while the country's export growth rate fell 1.2 percentage points and that of imports rose 2.4 percentage points, the total surplus grew $75.59 billion last year to hit a record high of $177.47 billion. This proves to be a direct cause of friction between China and these trade partners. By the third quarter of last year, 70 cases of antidumping and countervailing investigations had been launched against China, making it the world's primary target of trade punitive measures. In addition, this trade surplus has brought about overheated investment in the wake of huge capital deposits building up in the banking sector, a phenomenon the Chinese central authorities have vigorously sought to control in recent years.
Many Chinese scholars and trade officials have attributed the trade surplus to the massive transfer of global manufacturing industries to China, which has boosted its export potentials, and led to an overcapacity that curbs demand for more imports. Others believe that a stronger global demand for Chinese processed goods may be the cause. This is substantiated by figures from the Ministry of Commerce showing that the trade surplus from processed products has been greater than that of general trade over the past six years. A higher savings ratio is also held accountable for the trade surplus, as it gives rise to an accelerating pace of investment as well as inadequate domestic consumption.
Whatever the causes, this trade surplus remains and is still rising, and given its status in the globalization process, cheap labor and other resources, and current stage of social development, China is likely to maintain an overall surplus in foreign trade over a relatively long-term period.
This, however, does not mean that the Chinese Government is taking an indifferent attitude toward the issue. On the contrary, various measures have been adopted recently to curb the rising surplus, including setting up a managed floating exchange rate system, lowering the rate of export rebate, and concluding of procurement contracts worth billions of dollars abroad. Chinese leaders have reiterated on many occasions that China has no intention of pursuing a huge trade surplus with any other countries, and the Minister of Commerce Bo Xilai has declared the reduction of trade surplus one of his top priorities for 2007. Conceivably, a series of new policy readjustments will be made to attain the goal in the foreseeable future, ranging from a more liberalized floating exchange rate system, replacing export incentives with new policies that encourage import and investment overseas, to optimizing the lineup of export commodities and taking fresh steps to stimulate domestic consumption.
Some Western observers have pinned their hopes on the appreciation of the Chinese yuan, assuming that a higher exchange rate of renminbi will be a miraculous cure to easing the trade surplus. This is only correct on paper, for China's trade surplus does not originate from an imbalance of international trade, but is a result of the changing setup of global manufacturing activities and international division of labor and market. Under such circumstances, China really needs outside help from some of its trade partners to cut its trade surplus, such as lifting restrictions on China's purchase of hi-tech products and clearing the barriers to Chinese business investment abroad.
The West, particularly the US Treasury, is pinning the solution on increasing the value of Chinese currency as though a change in the means of exchange would resolve what is essentially a production problem. No doubt, some adjustments can be made in tariffs, import, and export, arrived at in reasonable negotiations and the opening of trade and investment privileges. Of course, China is making efforts to increase consumption in its own country to absorb a larger share of the GDP and rely on production for export. This is a long term process and will depend upon the rapidity with which the Hu government creates the Socialist Welfare State they promise to be in place by 2020 for 90% of the population.
A more equitable share of wealth in China will go a long way to resolve the competitive inequalities that have arisen. However, in the interim, the trade imbalances can be alleviated if opportunities for China’s imports from countries with large disproportions would help both China in its economic growth and the complaining countries would have a higher level of exports to China. The result is a more workable balance; but this means that countries like the USA must relax its policy of refusing the sale of heavy and high tech equipment to China and the right to make legitimate investments in production intended for export to China. Unfortunately, US super-power politics is in the way of logical economic decision-making, though Bush has encouraged one major technology deal.
The kernel of solution of competitive realities is clearly noted in the last paragraph of the article “A Trade Off” by Zhou Jianxiong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Trade Off
Beijing Review vol. 50 no. 7
February 15, 2007
By ZHOU JIANXIONG
China's growing trade surplus has become a major concern for some of its major trade partners, such as the United States and the European Union. As the latest statistics from China's Customs Administration suggest, while the country's export growth rate fell 1.2 percentage points and that of imports rose 2.4 percentage points, the total surplus grew $75.59 billion last year to hit a record high of $177.47 billion. This proves to be a direct cause of friction between China and these trade partners. By the third quarter of last year, 70 cases of antidumping and countervailing investigations had been launched against China, making it the world's primary target of trade punitive measures. In addition, this trade surplus has brought about overheated investment in the wake of huge capital deposits building up in the banking sector, a phenomenon the Chinese central authorities have vigorously sought to control in recent years.
Many Chinese scholars and trade officials have attributed the trade surplus to the massive transfer of global manufacturing industries to China, which has boosted its export potentials, and led to an overcapacity that curbs demand for more imports. Others believe that a stronger global demand for Chinese processed goods may be the cause. This is substantiated by figures from the Ministry of Commerce showing that the trade surplus from processed products has been greater than that of general trade over the past six years. A higher savings ratio is also held accountable for the trade surplus, as it gives rise to an accelerating pace of investment as well as inadequate domestic consumption.
Whatever the causes, this trade surplus remains and is still rising, and given its status in the globalization process, cheap labor and other resources, and current stage of social development, China is likely to maintain an overall surplus in foreign trade over a relatively long-term period.
This, however, does not mean that the Chinese Government is taking an indifferent attitude toward the issue. On the contrary, various measures have been adopted recently to curb the rising surplus, including setting up a managed floating exchange rate system, lowering the rate of export rebate, and concluding of procurement contracts worth billions of dollars abroad. Chinese leaders have reiterated on many occasions that China has no intention of pursuing a huge trade surplus with any other countries, and the Minister of Commerce Bo Xilai has declared the reduction of trade surplus one of his top priorities for 2007. Conceivably, a series of new policy readjustments will be made to attain the goal in the foreseeable future, ranging from a more liberalized floating exchange rate system, replacing export incentives with new policies that encourage import and investment overseas, to optimizing the lineup of export commodities and taking fresh steps to stimulate domestic consumption.
Some Western observers have pinned their hopes on the appreciation of the Chinese yuan, assuming that a higher exchange rate of renminbi will be a miraculous cure to easing the trade surplus. This is only correct on paper, for China's trade surplus does not originate from an imbalance of international trade, but is a result of the changing setup of global manufacturing activities and international division of labor and market. Under such circumstances, China really needs outside help from some of its trade partners to cut its trade surplus, such as lifting restrictions on China's purchase of hi-tech products and clearing the barriers to Chinese business investment abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
