Laws with no teeth
SCMP - Saturday, March 20, 2004
SARA DAVIS
The National People's Congress closed its session this month by ratifying a constitutional amendment promising "to protect and safeguard human rights".
But consider these ironies: Article 35 of China's constitution already guarantees the rights to "freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration". But in practice, people who exercise these rights - even those who use them to advocate for a stronger constitution - are routinely censored or jailed.
They are, it turns out, even more likely to be silenced in the weeks leading up to the meeting of the NPC, the very body responsible for overseeing implementation of the constitution.
Amendments to the mainland's constitution mean little until the government passes legislation that establishes clear standards. In blunt terms, amendments are public relations for the current leaders. The committee that drew up the constitutional amendment acknowledged that a key purpose of such adjustments is to "mobilise [the] enthusiasm of the people".
So far, the government has shown little inclination to implement the basic rights that are already promised in the constitution, even as a domestic, internet-based movement is growing to push for stronger protections of those rights. Using bulletin boards on popular sites such as sina.com and sohu.com, tens of thousands of citizens have shared individual testimonies and expressed outrage about problems like police abuse, official corruption, housing rights and the lack of rule of law.
In some cases, senior scholars and legal experts have taken up these causes, writing letters to the government recommending reforms. A few of these e-uprisings have succeeded, finally giving some voice to China's masses on the workings of their government. The most significant case has been that of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker beaten to death in police custody last April while detained for failing to carry a temporary residence permit.
An explosion of anonymous internet protests followed, including an eloquent memorial page to Sun entitled, "Heaven does not require temporary residence permits". It carried images of flowers, flickering candles and outraged e-mails calling for justice and democracy.
A group of respected legal scholars took up Sun's case, writing an open letter to the government to abolish temporary residence permits. The government did so. The Sun case created a new model for 21st-century social justice movements in China. A subsequent internet movement, begun by anonymous bulletin board posts and taken up by legal experts, has succeeded in obtaining some legal reforms that may help to protect the rights of evicted tenants.
But China remains a land of arbitrariness, where a critic never quite knows what is permissible and what will lead to detention. The government continues to censor many internet pages that raise rights issues. It also jails advocates.
Liu Jincheng, a housing rights activist in Hangzhou, believed local regulations were in conflict with provisions in the constitution that protected his property. Mr Liu and his neighbours took the seemingly non-subversive step of painting the words "Protect the Constitution" on their clothes and then marched to the city government offices - where Mr Liu was promptly arrested for demonstrating.
Popular writer Du Daobin posted a series of internet essays criticising the mainland government's efforts to push an unpopular state subversion law on Hong Kong, arguing that the law would restrict the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed in China's constitution. After protests in Hong Kong, the government backed down on the law but jailed Du on, ironically, charges of state subversion. In February Wang Yi, a constitutional scholar, wrote an eloquent petition on behalf of Du, pointing out these ironies and calling for repeal of the state subversion clause in China's criminal law.
He argued that the state subversion law under which Du was jailed violates Article 35 of China's constitution, as well as international human rights law. Hundreds of legal experts, officials, and activists from around the country signed on. As the NPC approached, the central government announced expanded internet controls that effectively shut down political debate such as this.
Now the NPC has ratified an amendment promising to respect and safeguard human rights. The constitution already does that, but those in power have shown little inclination to respect and safeguard the constitution. The amendment is certainly a welcome step.
But what Chinese citizens such as Wang, Du, Liu and others need most is a national law that defines those rights in accordance with international standards, a reform of Chinese laws that violate human rights standards, and a national-level body that supervises enforcement of those principles.
Now that would truly be revolutionary.
Sara Davis is China researcher for Human Rights Watch.
SARA DAVIS
The National People's Congress closed its session this month by ratifying a constitutional amendment promising "to protect and safeguard human rights".
But consider these ironies: Article 35 of China's constitution already guarantees the rights to "freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration". But in practice, people who exercise these rights - even those who use them to advocate for a stronger constitution - are routinely censored or jailed.
They are, it turns out, even more likely to be silenced in the weeks leading up to the meeting of the NPC, the very body responsible for overseeing implementation of the constitution.
Amendments to the mainland's constitution mean little until the government passes legislation that establishes clear standards. In blunt terms, amendments are public relations for the current leaders. The committee that drew up the constitutional amendment acknowledged that a key purpose of such adjustments is to "mobilise [the] enthusiasm of the people".
So far, the government has shown little inclination to implement the basic rights that are already promised in the constitution, even as a domestic, internet-based movement is growing to push for stronger protections of those rights. Using bulletin boards on popular sites such as sina.com and sohu.com, tens of thousands of citizens have shared individual testimonies and expressed outrage about problems like police abuse, official corruption, housing rights and the lack of rule of law.
In some cases, senior scholars and legal experts have taken up these causes, writing letters to the government recommending reforms. A few of these e-uprisings have succeeded, finally giving some voice to China's masses on the workings of their government. The most significant case has been that of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker beaten to death in police custody last April while detained for failing to carry a temporary residence permit.
An explosion of anonymous internet protests followed, including an eloquent memorial page to Sun entitled, "Heaven does not require temporary residence permits". It carried images of flowers, flickering candles and outraged e-mails calling for justice and democracy.
A group of respected legal scholars took up Sun's case, writing an open letter to the government to abolish temporary residence permits. The government did so. The Sun case created a new model for 21st-century social justice movements in China. A subsequent internet movement, begun by anonymous bulletin board posts and taken up by legal experts, has succeeded in obtaining some legal reforms that may help to protect the rights of evicted tenants.
But China remains a land of arbitrariness, where a critic never quite knows what is permissible and what will lead to detention. The government continues to censor many internet pages that raise rights issues. It also jails advocates.
Liu Jincheng, a housing rights activist in Hangzhou, believed local regulations were in conflict with provisions in the constitution that protected his property. Mr Liu and his neighbours took the seemingly non-subversive step of painting the words "Protect the Constitution" on their clothes and then marched to the city government offices - where Mr Liu was promptly arrested for demonstrating.
Popular writer Du Daobin posted a series of internet essays criticising the mainland government's efforts to push an unpopular state subversion law on Hong Kong, arguing that the law would restrict the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed in China's constitution. After protests in Hong Kong, the government backed down on the law but jailed Du on, ironically, charges of state subversion. In February Wang Yi, a constitutional scholar, wrote an eloquent petition on behalf of Du, pointing out these ironies and calling for repeal of the state subversion clause in China's criminal law.
He argued that the state subversion law under which Du was jailed violates Article 35 of China's constitution, as well as international human rights law. Hundreds of legal experts, officials, and activists from around the country signed on. As the NPC approached, the central government announced expanded internet controls that effectively shut down political debate such as this.
Now the NPC has ratified an amendment promising to respect and safeguard human rights. The constitution already does that, but those in power have shown little inclination to respect and safeguard the constitution. The amendment is certainly a welcome step.
But what Chinese citizens such as Wang, Du, Liu and others need most is a national law that defines those rights in accordance with international standards, a reform of Chinese laws that violate human rights standards, and a national-level body that supervises enforcement of those principles.
Now that would truly be revolutionary.
Sara Davis is China researcher for Human Rights Watch.
No screening for foreign charities
SCMP - Saturday, March 20, 2004
JOSEPHINE MA in Beijing
Foreign charities opening offices on the mainland under a new ruling will not be screened, an official said yesterday.
Li Benggong, director of non-government organisation administration for the Ministry of Civil Affairs, said the ministry would not conduct background checks on overseas foundations that apply to open representative offices. But he said the agencies would have to comply with Chinese law and engage only in charitable activities.
"We don't care about who supports them, we only care about their charters," Mr Li said.
"We will assess [their applications] by their charters, not their background or what political parties are behind them.
"As long as they are engaging in charitable activities, it should not be a problem.
"However, they cannot promote the agenda of their political parties through their offices in China."
Hong Kong and Macau charities are included under the landmark regulation on charitable foundations, which take effect on June 1. The charities are not allowed to raise funds or accept donations on the mainland, but are free to spend money raised elsewhere.
Deng Guosheng, deputy director of the NGO research centre of Tsinghua University, said foreign charitable foundations already operated using business registrations.
"Most international charitable foundations have already entered China. But they could not register under the Ministry of Civil Affairs."
The advantage of registering with the ministry would be gaining legitimate status as well as enjoying tax breaks, Dr Deng said.
Ministry of Civil Affairs Vice-Minister Jiang Li said yesterday the authorities were mulling over preferential tax policies to charitable foundations.
Dr Deng said the regulation would have a profound impact on the country's civil society as it officially opened the door for private individuals and companies to set up charitable foundations.
"Most of the existing charitable foundations have strong connections with the government, except a very few foundations set up by celebrities. This regulation is a breakthrough because it allows private charitable foundations to operate in China," he said.
JOSEPHINE MA in Beijing
Foreign charities opening offices on the mainland under a new ruling will not be screened, an official said yesterday.
Li Benggong, director of non-government organisation administration for the Ministry of Civil Affairs, said the ministry would not conduct background checks on overseas foundations that apply to open representative offices. But he said the agencies would have to comply with Chinese law and engage only in charitable activities.
"We don't care about who supports them, we only care about their charters," Mr Li said.
"We will assess [their applications] by their charters, not their background or what political parties are behind them.
"As long as they are engaging in charitable activities, it should not be a problem.
"However, they cannot promote the agenda of their political parties through their offices in China."
Hong Kong and Macau charities are included under the landmark regulation on charitable foundations, which take effect on June 1. The charities are not allowed to raise funds or accept donations on the mainland, but are free to spend money raised elsewhere.
Deng Guosheng, deputy director of the NGO research centre of Tsinghua University, said foreign charitable foundations already operated using business registrations.
"Most international charitable foundations have already entered China. But they could not register under the Ministry of Civil Affairs."
The advantage of registering with the ministry would be gaining legitimate status as well as enjoying tax breaks, Dr Deng said.
Ministry of Civil Affairs Vice-Minister Jiang Li said yesterday the authorities were mulling over preferential tax policies to charitable foundations.
Dr Deng said the regulation would have a profound impact on the country's civil society as it officially opened the door for private individuals and companies to set up charitable foundations.
"Most of the existing charitable foundations have strong connections with the government, except a very few foundations set up by celebrities. This regulation is a breakthrough because it allows private charitable foundations to operate in China," he said.
'Li Peng Tiananmen book blocked'
SCMP - Saturday, March 20, 2004
STAFF REPORTER
The Communist Party has blocked publication of a book by former premier Li Peng examining the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, according to Hong Kong-based magazine Yazhou Zhoukan.
The 300,000-word manuscript, titled The Key Moment, reportedly details how leaders in the central government were divided over what to do about the protests.
Mr Li reportedly wrote that when 100,000 students gathered at Tiananmen Square on April 22, 1989, demanding the chance to deliver a petition to the then-premier in person, he did not mean to ignore the protesters, a move which enraged the crowd.
Mr Li wrote that he was at the Great Hall of the People, unaware that the students were told that he would meet them at 11.45am.
Mr Li has been widely criticised for his role in the bloody crackdown, with many people holding him personally responsible. By explaining how he was unaware of certain developments, Mr Li may be trying to redirect some of the blame and improve his public image.
Last autumn, Mr Li, 76, was believed to have sent the manuscript together with dozens of photos to the Politburo to obtain feedback, Yazhou Zhoukan reported.
Months later, despite repeated phone calls in which Mr Li expressed willingness to revise the memoir's contents, he was told that he could not publish the book. Yazhou Zhoukan sources who read the manuscript said the first half presents Mr Li's diary for a few months before and after June 4, 1989.
The behind-the-scenes rationale underlying policy decisions made during that time is revealed through Mr Li's recounting of conversations with other leaders.
If the Yazhou Zhoukan report is accurate, it will be the second time Mr Li has written about the Tiananmen incident. His first personal account of the crackdown was in his book published last year.
In United will paints magnificent tableau: Li Peng's diary on Three Gorges, Mr Li revealed that he was admitted to hospital after June 4, 1989.
The report comes at a time when there is debate over whether the party and government should re-evaluate what happened in 1989.
Retired PLA doctor Jiang Yanyong wrote a letter to National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates prior to their annual session earlier this month calling on the Communist Party to rehabilitate the student-led movement as a patriotic campaign. In response to a reporter's question about Dr Jiang's letter during the NPC, Premier Wen Jiabao, said unity and stability were of "overriding importance" to the country and the Communist Party.
STAFF REPORTER
The Communist Party has blocked publication of a book by former premier Li Peng examining the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, according to Hong Kong-based magazine Yazhou Zhoukan.
The 300,000-word manuscript, titled The Key Moment, reportedly details how leaders in the central government were divided over what to do about the protests.
Mr Li reportedly wrote that when 100,000 students gathered at Tiananmen Square on April 22, 1989, demanding the chance to deliver a petition to the then-premier in person, he did not mean to ignore the protesters, a move which enraged the crowd.
Mr Li wrote that he was at the Great Hall of the People, unaware that the students were told that he would meet them at 11.45am.
Mr Li has been widely criticised for his role in the bloody crackdown, with many people holding him personally responsible. By explaining how he was unaware of certain developments, Mr Li may be trying to redirect some of the blame and improve his public image.
Last autumn, Mr Li, 76, was believed to have sent the manuscript together with dozens of photos to the Politburo to obtain feedback, Yazhou Zhoukan reported.
Months later, despite repeated phone calls in which Mr Li expressed willingness to revise the memoir's contents, he was told that he could not publish the book. Yazhou Zhoukan sources who read the manuscript said the first half presents Mr Li's diary for a few months before and after June 4, 1989.
The behind-the-scenes rationale underlying policy decisions made during that time is revealed through Mr Li's recounting of conversations with other leaders.
If the Yazhou Zhoukan report is accurate, it will be the second time Mr Li has written about the Tiananmen incident. His first personal account of the crackdown was in his book published last year.
In United will paints magnificent tableau: Li Peng's diary on Three Gorges, Mr Li revealed that he was admitted to hospital after June 4, 1989.
The report comes at a time when there is debate over whether the party and government should re-evaluate what happened in 1989.
Retired PLA doctor Jiang Yanyong wrote a letter to National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates prior to their annual session earlier this month calling on the Communist Party to rehabilitate the student-led movement as a patriotic campaign. In response to a reporter's question about Dr Jiang's letter during the NPC, Premier Wen Jiabao, said unity and stability were of "overriding importance" to the country and the Communist Party.
Constitutional amendments are given the seal of approval
SCMP - Monday, March 15, 2004
NAILENE CHOU WIEST and JOSEPHINE MA in Beijing
The constitutional revision was approved by the National People's Congress yesterday, marking a milestone in respecting human rights and protecting private property.
As expected, delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of the revision. Of the 2,903 ballots cast, 2,863 were marked "yes".
The amendments - 14 items altogether - covered areas such as human rights, the Theory of the Three Represents by former president Jiang Zemin, protection of private property, the authority of the president and even the national anthem.
Wu Bangguo, NPC chairman, said the constitution provided the legal safeguard for building socialism with Chinese characteristics as it spelled out "people's basic rights and obligations".
"We should avail ourselves of the occasion of the constitutional amendment to publicise and study the constitution," he said.
Announcing a campaign to publicise and study the constitution, he said cadres and state workers must uphold the authority of the constitution and ensure its effective implementation.
Shen Chunyao, a member of the NPC Standing Committee, said a vigorous study campaign was needed to explain the various amendments.
For example, people might have questions on whether corporate shares, financial assets and intellectual property rights should be considered as a "means of production" to be protected under the amendment, he said.
Nan Cunhui, a delegate from Zhejiang province and chairman of the Zhengtai Group, backed the amendments, saying they showed understanding and support of the non-public economy in order to achieve sustainable development.
He expected to see a greater legislative effort on the protection of lawfully acquired property.
At a media conference after the conference closed, Premier Wen Jiabao said party leaders who had engineered the revision should set themselves up as an example in abiding by the constitution.
Earlier yesterday, delegates also voted on the Government Work Report by Mr Wen and twin reports by the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate.
About a fifth of the delegates voted against the court report as a gesture of disapproval.
As many as 586 of the 2,896 delegates voted against the report delivered by court president Xiao Yang; another 228, or 8 per cent, abstained.
The negative vote on the Supreme People's Court report was among the highest in recent years.
The Supreme People's Procuratorate fared slightly better this year with 494, or 17 per cent of the delegates, voting against the work report delivered by Procurator-General Jia Chunwang. Another 241, or 8 per cent abstained.
About 19 per cent of the delegates voted against Mr Jia's report last year.
Mr Wen's report - his first to the NPC - received overwhelming support with only seven negative votes and 15 abstentions.
Delegates said this year's votes indicated widespread discontent over the performance of the judiciary - especially a lack of impartiality of local courts.
Li Zhizhong of Xinjiang Normal University, said he abstained on the court and procuratorate reports because he was unhappy with the work of local judicial officials.
"Courts at the grassroots level have a distorted understanding about regulations issued from above. The quality of judges at the grassroots level should be improved so there are fewer rulings based on personal connection or prejudice."
NAILENE CHOU WIEST and JOSEPHINE MA in Beijing
The constitutional revision was approved by the National People's Congress yesterday, marking a milestone in respecting human rights and protecting private property.
As expected, delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of the revision. Of the 2,903 ballots cast, 2,863 were marked "yes".
The amendments - 14 items altogether - covered areas such as human rights, the Theory of the Three Represents by former president Jiang Zemin, protection of private property, the authority of the president and even the national anthem.
Wu Bangguo, NPC chairman, said the constitution provided the legal safeguard for building socialism with Chinese characteristics as it spelled out "people's basic rights and obligations".
"We should avail ourselves of the occasion of the constitutional amendment to publicise and study the constitution," he said.
Announcing a campaign to publicise and study the constitution, he said cadres and state workers must uphold the authority of the constitution and ensure its effective implementation.
Shen Chunyao, a member of the NPC Standing Committee, said a vigorous study campaign was needed to explain the various amendments.
For example, people might have questions on whether corporate shares, financial assets and intellectual property rights should be considered as a "means of production" to be protected under the amendment, he said.
Nan Cunhui, a delegate from Zhejiang province and chairman of the Zhengtai Group, backed the amendments, saying they showed understanding and support of the non-public economy in order to achieve sustainable development.
He expected to see a greater legislative effort on the protection of lawfully acquired property.
At a media conference after the conference closed, Premier Wen Jiabao said party leaders who had engineered the revision should set themselves up as an example in abiding by the constitution.
Earlier yesterday, delegates also voted on the Government Work Report by Mr Wen and twin reports by the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate.
About a fifth of the delegates voted against the court report as a gesture of disapproval.
As many as 586 of the 2,896 delegates voted against the report delivered by court president Xiao Yang; another 228, or 8 per cent, abstained.
The negative vote on the Supreme People's Court report was among the highest in recent years.
The Supreme People's Procuratorate fared slightly better this year with 494, or 17 per cent of the delegates, voting against the work report delivered by Procurator-General Jia Chunwang. Another 241, or 8 per cent abstained.
About 19 per cent of the delegates voted against Mr Jia's report last year.
Mr Wen's report - his first to the NPC - received overwhelming support with only seven negative votes and 15 abstentions.
Delegates said this year's votes indicated widespread discontent over the performance of the judiciary - especially a lack of impartiality of local courts.
Li Zhizhong of Xinjiang Normal University, said he abstained on the court and procuratorate reports because he was unhappy with the work of local judicial officials.
"Courts at the grassroots level have a distorted understanding about regulations issued from above. The quality of judges at the grassroots level should be improved so there are fewer rulings based on personal connection or prejudice."
2004: Choose Your Favorite Pro-War Candidate
by John Pilger
Antiwar.com
March 5, 2004
A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush. Watch this big lie grow as Kerry is crowned the Democratic candidate and the "anyone but Bush" movement becomes a liberal cause celebre.
While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.
One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."
What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.
Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it.
What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness its crude honesty, if you like in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.
Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats' warmongering manifesto. "The time has come," he writes, "to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism" along with a "tradition" that honors "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt . . . and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war." Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats' manifesto:
As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars . . . [Truman's policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty."
Mark the historical lies in that statement: the "victory" of the US with its brief intervention in the First World War; the airbrushing of the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the Second World War; the American elite's nonexistent "triumph" over internally triggered events that brought down the Soviet Union; and John F Kennedy's famous devotion to "liberty" that oversaw the deaths of some three million people in Indo-China.
"Perhaps the most repulsive section of [his] book," writes Mark Hand, editor of Press Action, the American media monitoring group, "is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam war and the antiwar movement." Self-promoted as a war hero, Kerry briefly joined the protest movement on his return from Vietnam. In this twin capacity, he writes: "I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the US military engagements of the 20th century."
"In this one passage," writes Hand, "Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the US military and its surrogates during the 20th century [and] suggests that concern about US war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary . . . Kerry and his colleagues in the 'progressive internationalist' movement are as gung-ho as their counterparts in the White House . . . Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?"
The "anyone but Bush" movement objects to the Coke-Pepsi analogy, and Ralph Nader is the current source of their ire. In Britain, seven years ago, similar derision was heaped upon those who pointed out the similarities between Tony Blair and his heroine Margaret Thatcher similarities which have since been proven. "It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the Guardian commentator Hywel Williams. "But the imperialism of the liberal may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature its conviction that it represents a superior form of life."
Like the Blairites, John Kerry and his fellow New Democrats come from a tradition of liberalism that has built and defended empires as "moral" enterprises. That the Democratic Party has left a longer trail of blood, theft and subjugation than the Republicans is heresy to the liberal crusaders, whose murderous history always requires, it seems, a noble mantle.
As the New Democrats' manifesto rightly points out, the Democrats' "tough-minded internationalism" began with Woodrow Wilson, a Christian megalomaniac who believed that America had been chosen by God "to show the way to the nations of this world, how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." In his wonderful new book, The Sorrows of Empire (Verso), Chalmers Johnson writes:
With Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual foundations of American imperialism were set in place. Theodore Roosevelt . . . had represented a European-driven, militaristic vision of imperialism backed by nothing more substantial than the notion that the manifest destiny of the United States was to govern racially inferior Latin Americans and east Asians. Wilson laid over that his own hyper-idealistic, sentimental and ahistorical idea [of American world dominance]. It was a political project no less ambitious and no less passionately held than the vision of world communism launched at almost the same time by the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution.
It was the Wilsonian Democratic administration of Harry Truman, following the Second World War, that created the militaristic "national security state" and the architecture of the cold war: the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council. As the only head of state to use atomic weapons, Truman authorized troops to intervene anywhere "to defend free enterprise." In 1945, his administration set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as agents of US economic imperialism. Later, using the "moral" language of Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy invaded Vietnam and unleashed the US Special Forces as death squads; they now operate on every continent.
Bush has been a beneficiary of this. His neoconservatives derive not from traditional Republican Party roots, but from the hawk's wings of the Democratic Party such as the trade union establishment, the AFL-CIO (known as the "AFL-CIA"), which received millions of dollars to subvert unions and political parties throughout the world, and the weapons industry, built and nurtured by the Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's leading fanatic, began his Washington political life working for Jackson. In 1972 an aberration, George McGovern, faced Richard Nixon as the Democrats' antiwar candidate. Virtually abandoned by the party and its powerful backers, McGovern was crushed.
Bill Clinton, hero of the Blairites, learned the lesson of this. The myths spun around Clinton's "golden era of liberalism" are, in retrospect, laughable. Savor this obsequious front-page piece by the Guardian's chief political correspondent, reporting Clinton's speech to the Labour Party conference in 2002:
Bill Clinton yesterday used a mesmerizing oration . . . in a subtle and delicately balanced address [that] captured the imagination of delegates in Blackpool's Winter Gardens . . . Observers also described the speech as one of the most impressive and moving in the history of party conferences. The trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, described it as "absolutely brilliant."
An accompanying editorial gushed: "In an intimate, almost conversational tone, speaking only from notes, Bill Clinton delivered the speech of a true political master . . . If one were reviewing it, five stars would not be enough . . . What a speech. What a pro. And what a loss to the leadership of America and the world."
No idolatry was enough. At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival, the leader of "the third way" and of "progressive internationalism" received a long line of media and Blair people who hailed him as a lost leader, "a champion of the center left."
The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.
In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade," public transport, nonmilitary factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that NATO went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."
Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping," "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention," the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neocons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because NATO was "onside." In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down.
A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch." Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat." Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in southeast Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats.
John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list." Like Bush and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid."
People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the filmmaker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the NATO bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war [in Iraq] was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."
Antiwar.com
March 5, 2004
A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush. Watch this big lie grow as Kerry is crowned the Democratic candidate and the "anyone but Bush" movement becomes a liberal cause celebre.
While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.
One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."
What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.
Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it.
What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness its crude honesty, if you like in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.
Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats' warmongering manifesto. "The time has come," he writes, "to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism" along with a "tradition" that honors "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt . . . and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war." Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats' manifesto:
As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars . . . [Truman's policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty."
Mark the historical lies in that statement: the "victory" of the US with its brief intervention in the First World War; the airbrushing of the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the Second World War; the American elite's nonexistent "triumph" over internally triggered events that brought down the Soviet Union; and John F Kennedy's famous devotion to "liberty" that oversaw the deaths of some three million people in Indo-China.
"Perhaps the most repulsive section of [his] book," writes Mark Hand, editor of Press Action, the American media monitoring group, "is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam war and the antiwar movement." Self-promoted as a war hero, Kerry briefly joined the protest movement on his return from Vietnam. In this twin capacity, he writes: "I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the US military engagements of the 20th century."
"In this one passage," writes Hand, "Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the US military and its surrogates during the 20th century [and] suggests that concern about US war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary . . . Kerry and his colleagues in the 'progressive internationalist' movement are as gung-ho as their counterparts in the White House . . . Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?"
The "anyone but Bush" movement objects to the Coke-Pepsi analogy, and Ralph Nader is the current source of their ire. In Britain, seven years ago, similar derision was heaped upon those who pointed out the similarities between Tony Blair and his heroine Margaret Thatcher similarities which have since been proven. "It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the Guardian commentator Hywel Williams. "But the imperialism of the liberal may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature its conviction that it represents a superior form of life."
Like the Blairites, John Kerry and his fellow New Democrats come from a tradition of liberalism that has built and defended empires as "moral" enterprises. That the Democratic Party has left a longer trail of blood, theft and subjugation than the Republicans is heresy to the liberal crusaders, whose murderous history always requires, it seems, a noble mantle.
As the New Democrats' manifesto rightly points out, the Democrats' "tough-minded internationalism" began with Woodrow Wilson, a Christian megalomaniac who believed that America had been chosen by God "to show the way to the nations of this world, how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." In his wonderful new book, The Sorrows of Empire (Verso), Chalmers Johnson writes:
With Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual foundations of American imperialism were set in place. Theodore Roosevelt . . . had represented a European-driven, militaristic vision of imperialism backed by nothing more substantial than the notion that the manifest destiny of the United States was to govern racially inferior Latin Americans and east Asians. Wilson laid over that his own hyper-idealistic, sentimental and ahistorical idea [of American world dominance]. It was a political project no less ambitious and no less passionately held than the vision of world communism launched at almost the same time by the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution.
It was the Wilsonian Democratic administration of Harry Truman, following the Second World War, that created the militaristic "national security state" and the architecture of the cold war: the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council. As the only head of state to use atomic weapons, Truman authorized troops to intervene anywhere "to defend free enterprise." In 1945, his administration set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as agents of US economic imperialism. Later, using the "moral" language of Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy invaded Vietnam and unleashed the US Special Forces as death squads; they now operate on every continent.
Bush has been a beneficiary of this. His neoconservatives derive not from traditional Republican Party roots, but from the hawk's wings of the Democratic Party such as the trade union establishment, the AFL-CIO (known as the "AFL-CIA"), which received millions of dollars to subvert unions and political parties throughout the world, and the weapons industry, built and nurtured by the Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's leading fanatic, began his Washington political life working for Jackson. In 1972 an aberration, George McGovern, faced Richard Nixon as the Democrats' antiwar candidate. Virtually abandoned by the party and its powerful backers, McGovern was crushed.
Bill Clinton, hero of the Blairites, learned the lesson of this. The myths spun around Clinton's "golden era of liberalism" are, in retrospect, laughable. Savor this obsequious front-page piece by the Guardian's chief political correspondent, reporting Clinton's speech to the Labour Party conference in 2002:
Bill Clinton yesterday used a mesmerizing oration . . . in a subtle and delicately balanced address [that] captured the imagination of delegates in Blackpool's Winter Gardens . . . Observers also described the speech as one of the most impressive and moving in the history of party conferences. The trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, described it as "absolutely brilliant."
An accompanying editorial gushed: "In an intimate, almost conversational tone, speaking only from notes, Bill Clinton delivered the speech of a true political master . . . If one were reviewing it, five stars would not be enough . . . What a speech. What a pro. And what a loss to the leadership of America and the world."
No idolatry was enough. At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival, the leader of "the third way" and of "progressive internationalism" received a long line of media and Blair people who hailed him as a lost leader, "a champion of the center left."
The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.
In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade," public transport, nonmilitary factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that NATO went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."
Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping," "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention," the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neocons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because NATO was "onside." In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down.
A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch." Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat." Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in southeast Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats.
John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list." Like Bush and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid."
People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the filmmaker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the NATO bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war [in Iraq] was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."
4,000 years of crop taxes set to fade into the past
SCMP - Wednesday, March 10, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Beijing
Before Confucius, before the Great Wall, before chopsticks, it was a part of China: a tax on farmers' crops. Now this vestige of feudalism, established 4,000 years ago during the Bronze Age, is headed the way of the emperors.
The government's plans to abolish the tax within five years are being lauded by some as history-making and dismissed by others as an empty gesture for a neglected sector that provides cheap migrant labour for the factories and construction sites of the booming urban east.
Beginning this year, the 8 per cent agricultural tax rate will be reduced gradually until it is scrapped entirely within five years. Only tobacco will still be taxed. The move is expected to cut the financial burden on farmers by 4.8 billion yuan annually.
Farmers' woes are high on the government's mind as it strives to create a "well-off" society - and, by extension, reduce the potential for unrest that could threaten its grip on power. Peasants still make up nearly two-thirds of the mainland's 1.3 billion population, and maintaining control is a continuous struggle for the central leadership.
Abolishing the tax is seen as a direct message to farmers that the government is paying attention.
"It is clearly a positive step," said Dwight Perkins, a professor of political economy at Harvard University. Getting rid of the taxes is "part of the effort of the government to do something about the increasing gap in income between the cities and the rural areas".
Other analysts said the abolition was merely a symbolic gesture with little impact on the huge income gap between farmers and urban residents.
"Even if this agricultural tax policy were fully implemented, the net result would be roughly a reduction of 40 yuan per farmer per year, " said Li Ping an expert on the mainland's farming sector.
Per-capita income for farmers last year averaged 2,622 yuan, while city dwellers make more than 8,000 yuan.
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Beijing
Before Confucius, before the Great Wall, before chopsticks, it was a part of China: a tax on farmers' crops. Now this vestige of feudalism, established 4,000 years ago during the Bronze Age, is headed the way of the emperors.
The government's plans to abolish the tax within five years are being lauded by some as history-making and dismissed by others as an empty gesture for a neglected sector that provides cheap migrant labour for the factories and construction sites of the booming urban east.
Beginning this year, the 8 per cent agricultural tax rate will be reduced gradually until it is scrapped entirely within five years. Only tobacco will still be taxed. The move is expected to cut the financial burden on farmers by 4.8 billion yuan annually.
Farmers' woes are high on the government's mind as it strives to create a "well-off" society - and, by extension, reduce the potential for unrest that could threaten its grip on power. Peasants still make up nearly two-thirds of the mainland's 1.3 billion population, and maintaining control is a continuous struggle for the central leadership.
Abolishing the tax is seen as a direct message to farmers that the government is paying attention.
"It is clearly a positive step," said Dwight Perkins, a professor of political economy at Harvard University. Getting rid of the taxes is "part of the effort of the government to do something about the increasing gap in income between the cities and the rural areas".
Other analysts said the abolition was merely a symbolic gesture with little impact on the huge income gap between farmers and urban residents.
"Even if this agricultural tax policy were fully implemented, the net result would be roughly a reduction of 40 yuan per farmer per year, " said Li Ping an expert on the mainland's farming sector.
Per-capita income for farmers last year averaged 2,622 yuan, while city dwellers make more than 8,000 yuan.
Protests stall Thai privatisation plan
SCMP - Wednesday, March 10, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS and REUTERS in Bangkok
About 50,000 demonstrators rallied yesterday against the planned privatisation of Thailand's state electricity company. It was the largest public protest against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government since it took power in a landslide election victory in 2001.
Protesters gathered at Bangkok's Royal Plaza before marching 2km to Government House to demand a meeting with Mr Thaksin to lodge a formal complaint. Protest rallies over the past weeks have continued despite the postponement of the deal.
"Stop selling state property to foreigners!" the marchers shouted yesterday. Many of them wore red shirts and waved flags to symbolise their solidarity with employees of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat).
Mr Thaksin, who has blamed the protests on quarrels between Egat executives using employees against each other and union members who want a bigger share of the stock market flotation, sent only ministers to meet representatives of the protesters.
Egat workers fear that foreign investors would seize control of the company's assets much like they did with others following the Asian financial crisis in 1997. They say privatisation will lead to layoffs and higher electricity prices.
The protesters also claim the deal is not sufficiently transparent and it is unclear whether businessmen with political connections could have an unfair advantage in acquiring shares.
The government had planned to launch an initial public offering (IPO) of Egat shares in April and list the company on the Thai stock exchange on May 12. But it announced on Saturday that it was postponing the deal.
The offering - constituting 25 per cent of the company - would be worth about 70 billion baht (HK$13 billion), making it the country's largest flotation.
Thailand's initial public offering record is held by oil and gas giant PTT, which raised 32 billion baht when it listed in 2001.
Egat, which runs Thailand's electricity grid and owns 59 per cent of its generating capacity, would be the second state firm to be partially privatised this year after Airports of Thailand, whose market float raised 17 billion baht.
Energy Minister Prommin Lertsuridej said the government was postponing the IPO because it needed time to make it more transparent, and that the new schedule would be announced soon.
Mr Thaksin, a billionaire former telecommunications tycoon, has been lobbying to privatise many state enterprises, but acknowledged at the weekend that he had moved too fast with Egat.
But on Sunday, the president of Egat's trade union, Sirichai Maingam, pledged to continue daily demonstrations that began in late February, saying the postponement of the privatisation plan did not mean it had been stopped.
Mr Sirichai yesterday demanded that the government halt the "sell-off" of state enterprises.
ASSOCIATED PRESS and REUTERS in Bangkok
About 50,000 demonstrators rallied yesterday against the planned privatisation of Thailand's state electricity company. It was the largest public protest against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government since it took power in a landslide election victory in 2001.
Protesters gathered at Bangkok's Royal Plaza before marching 2km to Government House to demand a meeting with Mr Thaksin to lodge a formal complaint. Protest rallies over the past weeks have continued despite the postponement of the deal.
"Stop selling state property to foreigners!" the marchers shouted yesterday. Many of them wore red shirts and waved flags to symbolise their solidarity with employees of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat).
Mr Thaksin, who has blamed the protests on quarrels between Egat executives using employees against each other and union members who want a bigger share of the stock market flotation, sent only ministers to meet representatives of the protesters.
Egat workers fear that foreign investors would seize control of the company's assets much like they did with others following the Asian financial crisis in 1997. They say privatisation will lead to layoffs and higher electricity prices.
The protesters also claim the deal is not sufficiently transparent and it is unclear whether businessmen with political connections could have an unfair advantage in acquiring shares.
The government had planned to launch an initial public offering (IPO) of Egat shares in April and list the company on the Thai stock exchange on May 12. But it announced on Saturday that it was postponing the deal.
The offering - constituting 25 per cent of the company - would be worth about 70 billion baht (HK$13 billion), making it the country's largest flotation.
Thailand's initial public offering record is held by oil and gas giant PTT, which raised 32 billion baht when it listed in 2001.
Egat, which runs Thailand's electricity grid and owns 59 per cent of its generating capacity, would be the second state firm to be partially privatised this year after Airports of Thailand, whose market float raised 17 billion baht.
Energy Minister Prommin Lertsuridej said the government was postponing the IPO because it needed time to make it more transparent, and that the new schedule would be announced soon.
Mr Thaksin, a billionaire former telecommunications tycoon, has been lobbying to privatise many state enterprises, but acknowledged at the weekend that he had moved too fast with Egat.
But on Sunday, the president of Egat's trade union, Sirichai Maingam, pledged to continue daily demonstrations that began in late February, saying the postponement of the privatisation plan did not mean it had been stopped.
Mr Sirichai yesterday demanded that the government halt the "sell-off" of state enterprises.
Mainland 'at risk of boom-bust economy'
SCMP - Tuesday, March 9, 2004
ALLEN T. CHENG in Beijing
Drastic measures are needed to slow down growth in sectors of the mainland economy that are suffering from overinvestment, a senior government minister has warned.
Ma Kai, head of the State Development and Reform Commission, said failure to rein in "irrational investments" could cause a crisis.
"If these problems are left unchecked, they will lead to a crisis down the road. If we manage well, we can sustain growth. If not, our growth will slow down. The economy will again witness a boom and a bust," he said yesterday.
Investments in steel, electricity and cement plants shot up 96.6 per cent, 92.6 per cent and 120 per cent respectively last year. The mainland has poured money into infrastructure investment, sparking a building boom.
"These are all signals of overinvestment and possibly overproduction in the longer term because of the scale of the projects under construction," Mr Ma said.
China accounted for 4 per cent of the world's GDP last year but it accounted for 7.4 per cent of global oil consumption, 31 per cent of coal consumption, 21 per cent of steel consumption, 25 per cent of aluminium consumption and 40 per cent of cement consumption.
Since the middle of last year, the government has restricted new bank loans to the property sector in an effort to slow expansion.
Despite the clampdown, fixed assets rose 26.7 per cent to 16 trillion yuan in 2003, and the government will continue to tighten liquidity this year.
Yesterday, the central bank said it would auction 60 billion yuan of one-year, six-month and three-month bills, part of efforts to rein in money supply and credit growth.
The mainland economy grew at an official rate of 9.1 per cent last year, but foreign economists believe the rate actually exceeded 11 per cent.
Premier Wen Jiabao announced on Friday that the target for this year would be 7 per cent, among the lowest growth targets in recent years.
Despite the problems in certain sectors, Mr Ma said the overall economy was not overheating. The government would use market mechanisms to massage the problem areas, he said. This would avoid the stop-and-go policies of former premier Zhu Rongji.
"We will not use ... measures such as cutting or braking. We will properly calibrate our speed."
The long-term economic strategy, he said, was to increase retail consumption, move industry higher up the value chain and urbanise the bulk of the nation's farmers.
Even with a well-managed economy, Mr Ma said the nation must continually divert more resources to the poor to avoid becoming "Latin-Americanised".
He said China was developing an income gap between rich and poor that was as pronounced as those in Africa or Latin America. "Last year, the nation cleared the US$1,000 per capita gross domestic product mark," Mr Ma said.
"[The milestone] is very important because ... it means the nation is in a golden period of development. [But] it also means the nation could be beset by problems."
ALLEN T. CHENG in Beijing
Drastic measures are needed to slow down growth in sectors of the mainland economy that are suffering from overinvestment, a senior government minister has warned.
Ma Kai, head of the State Development and Reform Commission, said failure to rein in "irrational investments" could cause a crisis.
"If these problems are left unchecked, they will lead to a crisis down the road. If we manage well, we can sustain growth. If not, our growth will slow down. The economy will again witness a boom and a bust," he said yesterday.
Investments in steel, electricity and cement plants shot up 96.6 per cent, 92.6 per cent and 120 per cent respectively last year. The mainland has poured money into infrastructure investment, sparking a building boom.
"These are all signals of overinvestment and possibly overproduction in the longer term because of the scale of the projects under construction," Mr Ma said.
China accounted for 4 per cent of the world's GDP last year but it accounted for 7.4 per cent of global oil consumption, 31 per cent of coal consumption, 21 per cent of steel consumption, 25 per cent of aluminium consumption and 40 per cent of cement consumption.
Since the middle of last year, the government has restricted new bank loans to the property sector in an effort to slow expansion.
Despite the clampdown, fixed assets rose 26.7 per cent to 16 trillion yuan in 2003, and the government will continue to tighten liquidity this year.
Yesterday, the central bank said it would auction 60 billion yuan of one-year, six-month and three-month bills, part of efforts to rein in money supply and credit growth.
The mainland economy grew at an official rate of 9.1 per cent last year, but foreign economists believe the rate actually exceeded 11 per cent.
Premier Wen Jiabao announced on Friday that the target for this year would be 7 per cent, among the lowest growth targets in recent years.
Despite the problems in certain sectors, Mr Ma said the overall economy was not overheating. The government would use market mechanisms to massage the problem areas, he said. This would avoid the stop-and-go policies of former premier Zhu Rongji.
"We will not use ... measures such as cutting or braking. We will properly calibrate our speed."
The long-term economic strategy, he said, was to increase retail consumption, move industry higher up the value chain and urbanise the bulk of the nation's farmers.
Even with a well-managed economy, Mr Ma said the nation must continually divert more resources to the poor to avoid becoming "Latin-Americanised".
He said China was developing an income gap between rich and poor that was as pronounced as those in Africa or Latin America. "Last year, the nation cleared the US$1,000 per capita gross domestic product mark," Mr Ma said.
"[The milestone] is very important because ... it means the nation is in a golden period of development. [But] it also means the nation could be beset by problems."
Doctor urges government to reconsider its June 4 verdict
SCMP - Monday, March 8, 2004
ALLEN T. CHENG in Beijing and REUTERS
The Beijing doctor who forced the central government to admit it was lying about the Sars outbreak last year has submitted a letter to the authorities calling for a reappraisal of the verdict on the June 4 crackdown.
"The mistake made by our party should be resolved by the party itself," Jiang Yanyong wrote in a letter dated February 24. "The sooner and the more thorough the better."
The letter is an embarrassment to the authorities attending the annual NPC conference. The central government has repeatedly stressed the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests were a counter-revolutionary movement and the use of force was justified. However, the letter from Dr Jiang - who is widely respected on the mainland - could attract the attention of deputies attending the conference. The NPC session is traditionally a sensitive time when people from all walks of life submit petitions and letters to state leaders. These petitions often make their way to sympathetic NPC and CPPCC delegates.
Dr Jiang refused to comment on his letter last night but confirmed to the South China Morning Post that he had written it.
"Yes, I did write it," he said. "That's all I will say."
Asked if he believed authorities would listen, he said "I have no idea whether they would reappraise June 4, but I wanted to write this."
Dr Jiang, 72, wrote to the international media last April alleging that authorities were hiding the true number of Sars cases in Beijing hospitals. The letter, combined with queries from international media, forced the government to come clean and admit the scale of the outbreak. Dr Jiang's typewritten letter of February 24 referred to several party leaders who were against the crackdown, such as former president Yang Shangkun. Dr Jiang, a Communist Party member and a former official at the People's Liberation Army Hospital 301, said he saw dozens of protesters die of gunshot wounds in the aftermath of the June 4 crackdown.
"We have been lying for far too long," Dr Jiang told the South China Morning Post last April.
ALLEN T. CHENG in Beijing and REUTERS
The Beijing doctor who forced the central government to admit it was lying about the Sars outbreak last year has submitted a letter to the authorities calling for a reappraisal of the verdict on the June 4 crackdown.
"The mistake made by our party should be resolved by the party itself," Jiang Yanyong wrote in a letter dated February 24. "The sooner and the more thorough the better."
The letter is an embarrassment to the authorities attending the annual NPC conference. The central government has repeatedly stressed the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests were a counter-revolutionary movement and the use of force was justified. However, the letter from Dr Jiang - who is widely respected on the mainland - could attract the attention of deputies attending the conference. The NPC session is traditionally a sensitive time when people from all walks of life submit petitions and letters to state leaders. These petitions often make their way to sympathetic NPC and CPPCC delegates.
Dr Jiang refused to comment on his letter last night but confirmed to the South China Morning Post that he had written it.
"Yes, I did write it," he said. "That's all I will say."
Asked if he believed authorities would listen, he said "I have no idea whether they would reappraise June 4, but I wanted to write this."
Dr Jiang, 72, wrote to the international media last April alleging that authorities were hiding the true number of Sars cases in Beijing hospitals. The letter, combined with queries from international media, forced the government to come clean and admit the scale of the outbreak. Dr Jiang's typewritten letter of February 24 referred to several party leaders who were against the crackdown, such as former president Yang Shangkun. Dr Jiang, a Communist Party member and a former official at the People's Liberation Army Hospital 301, said he saw dozens of protesters die of gunshot wounds in the aftermath of the June 4 crackdown.
"We have been lying for far too long," Dr Jiang told the South China Morning Post last April.
Expect more of the same if Kerry takes over the reins
SCMP - Friday, March 5, 2004
ANALYSIS by PETER KAMMERER, Foreign Editor
As much as Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry tries to present himself as an alternative to US President George W. Bush, a glance at his website reveals numerous similarities.
Senator Kerry, 60, is just three years older than Mr Bush. Both were born into wealthy families, earned bachelor's degrees from New York's Yale University and have second academic awards, Senator Kerry's in law and Mr Bush's in business.
With such backgrounds, there is little wonder they have similar views on how the United States should act on the international stage. Mr Bush's critics claim he has damaged relations with nations from the Middle East to South America by adhering too strictly to an "America first" approach. But judging by Senator Kerry's election promises, little would change if he became president.
On his website, johnkerry.com, he writes that Americans deserve diplomacy shaped by national security and "backed by an enlightened self-interest and undoubted military might". As president, he would "pursue a bold, aggressive internationalism that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity".
Such principles are in line with Mr Bush's ordered invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, desire for increased military spending for the world's most powerful military and calls for democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Senator Kerry, a much-decorated Vietnam war veteran, voted in Congress last year for war in Iraq but has become increasingly critical of American military involvement. Much of that has been due to criticism from Democrats, including fellow presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, who last month said his rival was too similar to Mr Bush in his stance on Iraq.
Senator Kerry says peace will remain elusive and lives will continue to be lost while there is a lack of leadership. "America can and must do better," he writes. Like Mr Bush, Senator Kerry believes he can provide the leadership to make the US "safe from foreign threats". Considering the billions of dollars Mr Bush has poured into ensuring there is no repeat of the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, his rival would seem hard pressed to do better.
But the climate of fear sparked by those attacks leaves no presidential candidate any option but to push the security line to the limit, no matter what the cost.
Senator Kerry therefore has a six-point strategy to "ensure that we are safer, stronger and more secure on our own soil". As part of that, he believes Americans should become "citizen soldiers", a term referring to the patriotism felt at home when soldiers were drafted in record numbers to fight in the Pacific and Europe during the second world war.
"I'm running for president to make the country we love stronger, safer and more secure," Senator Kerry writes. "I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again, committed to leaving no American behind."
It is on domestic issues where the two candidates differ most. Senator Kerry's goals, though, doubtless differ little from Mr Bush's.
ANALYSIS by PETER KAMMERER, Foreign Editor
As much as Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry tries to present himself as an alternative to US President George W. Bush, a glance at his website reveals numerous similarities.
Senator Kerry, 60, is just three years older than Mr Bush. Both were born into wealthy families, earned bachelor's degrees from New York's Yale University and have second academic awards, Senator Kerry's in law and Mr Bush's in business.
With such backgrounds, there is little wonder they have similar views on how the United States should act on the international stage. Mr Bush's critics claim he has damaged relations with nations from the Middle East to South America by adhering too strictly to an "America first" approach. But judging by Senator Kerry's election promises, little would change if he became president.
On his website, johnkerry.com, he writes that Americans deserve diplomacy shaped by national security and "backed by an enlightened self-interest and undoubted military might". As president, he would "pursue a bold, aggressive internationalism that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity".
Such principles are in line with Mr Bush's ordered invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, desire for increased military spending for the world's most powerful military and calls for democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Senator Kerry, a much-decorated Vietnam war veteran, voted in Congress last year for war in Iraq but has become increasingly critical of American military involvement. Much of that has been due to criticism from Democrats, including fellow presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, who last month said his rival was too similar to Mr Bush in his stance on Iraq.
Senator Kerry says peace will remain elusive and lives will continue to be lost while there is a lack of leadership. "America can and must do better," he writes. Like Mr Bush, Senator Kerry believes he can provide the leadership to make the US "safe from foreign threats". Considering the billions of dollars Mr Bush has poured into ensuring there is no repeat of the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, his rival would seem hard pressed to do better.
But the climate of fear sparked by those attacks leaves no presidential candidate any option but to push the security line to the limit, no matter what the cost.
Senator Kerry therefore has a six-point strategy to "ensure that we are safer, stronger and more secure on our own soil". As part of that, he believes Americans should become "citizen soldiers", a term referring to the patriotism felt at home when soldiers were drafted in record numbers to fight in the Pacific and Europe during the second world war.
"I'm running for president to make the country we love stronger, safer and more secure," Senator Kerry writes. "I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again, committed to leaving no American behind."
It is on domestic issues where the two candidates differ most. Senator Kerry's goals, though, doubtless differ little from Mr Bush's.
Oh, what nations will do for oil
SCMP - Friday, March 5, 2004
MICHAEL RICHARDSON
Japan is heavily dependent on imported oil, mainly from the volatile Persian Gulf region. But it is also heavily reliant on its longstanding ally, the United States, to guard the sea lanes that bring the oil to Japan.
Until recently, Tokyo did not have to worry too much about a conflict between its need for energy security and its interest in sustaining the alliance with the US to provide a nuclear umbrella and a deterrent against possible missile attack from North Korea, as well as long-range maritime protection.
But that easy balance started to shift in 2001 when Japan lost its oil rights in Saudi Arabia, Opec's leading producer with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Half of Japan's commercial energy comes from oil. And just over 87 per cent of this oil came from the Middle East last year, chiefly from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which have close ties to the US.
Even before Japan lost its Saudi oil rights, it had started negotiations with Iran in 2000 that raised concerns in Washington. Those concerns intensified after the Bush administration took office, named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea, and accused Tehran of supporting international terrorist groups and secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Japan's recent decision to become a major player in plans by Iran to expand its oil production and secure its position as Opec's second-biggest producer after Saudi Arabia was made despite clearly expressed US reservations. By giving its energy needs priority over its alliance with the US, the government of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appears to be sending a new signal to China and other concerned countries in Asia that it intends to pursue a more nationalistic and assertive foreign and defence policy.
America has longstanding sanctions against investment in Iran. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that Washington "remains deeply concerned about deals such as this, and disappointed that these things might go forward". He was referring to the announcement on February 18 that a deal, estimated to be worth around US$2.8 billion had been signed in Tehran by Japan's Energy Minister Kazumasa Kusuka. It will give Japanese companies the right to develop the southern half of the Azadegan oil field in southwestern Iran near the border with Iraq. Azadegan is rated one of the world's largest untapped oilfields, with reserves estimated at between 25 and 35 billion barrels.
Under the terms of the deal, a Japanese consortium - including Inpex Corp, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co (Japex) and Tomen Corp - gained the right to develop the field for 16 years. Both Inpex and Japex are controlled by the government-linked Japan National Oil Corporation. The Japanese consortium will hold a 75 per cent stake in the project while an Iranian company will hold the balance. They plan to pump 150,000 barrels a day by mid-2008 and reach 260,000 by early 2012. Japan's current oil imports amount to about five million barrels per day.
Japan has justified its move into Iran on the grounds that Tehran signed an agreement in December giving International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors more-open access to its nuclear facilities. It also agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and make a full account of nuclear programmes it had kept largely secret for 18 years.
The US, however, believes that Iran is not making a full disclosure and is still intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The IAEA board is to consider the issue in Vienna next week. Japanese and US officials have indicated that the Japan-Iran oil deal could be scuttled if Tehran fails to honour its nuclear promises. "There are problems that the US is worried about, so Japan will deal with the matter cautiously," said Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yasuo Fukuda.
Still, the Bush administration seems reluctant to have a diplomatic confrontation with Japan. After all, the US has its own energy security compulsions. And not long before announcing the Iran oil deal, Japan deployed troops to Iraq in an act of solidarity welcomed by Washington.
Playing down differences between America and Japan on the Iran issue, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton noted that Tokyo was obviously worried that if it did not secure the oil field concession, "somebody else from Europe or somewhere else will".
In its quest for energy security, Japan finds itself competing increasingly with China and India. State-controlled companies from those countries are bidding for development rights to the northern half of the Azadegan field.
Michael Richardson, a former Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune, is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
MICHAEL RICHARDSON
Japan is heavily dependent on imported oil, mainly from the volatile Persian Gulf region. But it is also heavily reliant on its longstanding ally, the United States, to guard the sea lanes that bring the oil to Japan.
Until recently, Tokyo did not have to worry too much about a conflict between its need for energy security and its interest in sustaining the alliance with the US to provide a nuclear umbrella and a deterrent against possible missile attack from North Korea, as well as long-range maritime protection.
But that easy balance started to shift in 2001 when Japan lost its oil rights in Saudi Arabia, Opec's leading producer with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Half of Japan's commercial energy comes from oil. And just over 87 per cent of this oil came from the Middle East last year, chiefly from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which have close ties to the US.
Even before Japan lost its Saudi oil rights, it had started negotiations with Iran in 2000 that raised concerns in Washington. Those concerns intensified after the Bush administration took office, named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea, and accused Tehran of supporting international terrorist groups and secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Japan's recent decision to become a major player in plans by Iran to expand its oil production and secure its position as Opec's second-biggest producer after Saudi Arabia was made despite clearly expressed US reservations. By giving its energy needs priority over its alliance with the US, the government of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appears to be sending a new signal to China and other concerned countries in Asia that it intends to pursue a more nationalistic and assertive foreign and defence policy.
America has longstanding sanctions against investment in Iran. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that Washington "remains deeply concerned about deals such as this, and disappointed that these things might go forward". He was referring to the announcement on February 18 that a deal, estimated to be worth around US$2.8 billion had been signed in Tehran by Japan's Energy Minister Kazumasa Kusuka. It will give Japanese companies the right to develop the southern half of the Azadegan oil field in southwestern Iran near the border with Iraq. Azadegan is rated one of the world's largest untapped oilfields, with reserves estimated at between 25 and 35 billion barrels.
Under the terms of the deal, a Japanese consortium - including Inpex Corp, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co (Japex) and Tomen Corp - gained the right to develop the field for 16 years. Both Inpex and Japex are controlled by the government-linked Japan National Oil Corporation. The Japanese consortium will hold a 75 per cent stake in the project while an Iranian company will hold the balance. They plan to pump 150,000 barrels a day by mid-2008 and reach 260,000 by early 2012. Japan's current oil imports amount to about five million barrels per day.
Japan has justified its move into Iran on the grounds that Tehran signed an agreement in December giving International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors more-open access to its nuclear facilities. It also agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and make a full account of nuclear programmes it had kept largely secret for 18 years.
The US, however, believes that Iran is not making a full disclosure and is still intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The IAEA board is to consider the issue in Vienna next week. Japanese and US officials have indicated that the Japan-Iran oil deal could be scuttled if Tehran fails to honour its nuclear promises. "There are problems that the US is worried about, so Japan will deal with the matter cautiously," said Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yasuo Fukuda.
Still, the Bush administration seems reluctant to have a diplomatic confrontation with Japan. After all, the US has its own energy security compulsions. And not long before announcing the Iran oil deal, Japan deployed troops to Iraq in an act of solidarity welcomed by Washington.
Playing down differences between America and Japan on the Iran issue, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton noted that Tokyo was obviously worried that if it did not secure the oil field concession, "somebody else from Europe or somewhere else will".
In its quest for energy security, Japan finds itself competing increasingly with China and India. State-controlled companies from those countries are bidding for development rights to the northern half of the Azadegan field.
Michael Richardson, a former Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune, is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
The politics of outsourcing
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
TONY LATTER
In this presidential election year, US politicians are having to tread carefully around the issue of the outsourcing of US jobs to Asia. Should they, as top White House adviser George Mankiw did last month, point to and support the inescapable business logic and long-term benefits of the process, or should they pander to the more immediate and vote-sensitive concerns of the jobs lobby? Outsourcing, 25 years since the first documented use of that term, is often an emotional issue.
In the years following the first world war, Henry Ford was reportedly happy to pay his workers around double the going rate in order to secure their loyalty, reduce staff turnover and ensure that the company could function all along the production line without being vulnerable to the disruptions that might arise from dependence on possibly unreliable suppliers. The company even owned land on which to graze the sheep that provided the wool for the cars' upholstery. No hint there of outsourcing - or subcontracting as it would then have been called.
A generation or so ago, the predominant model preached by economists and business schools still tended to be that of integrated production. This meant keeping everything in-house in pursuit of economies of scale and scope - possibly even down to the catering and cleaning - unless there were very compelling reasons to sub-contract.
Nowadays it is quite the opposite. Do only those things you excel at, and encourage others to compete fiercely to provide you with the rest at the lowest possible cost. This change has been wrought largely by the intense competition of the marketplace, both domestically and internationally.
While outsourcing within the domestic economy is usually contentious only for the workers directly affected, outsourcing across international boundaries additionally provokes all sorts of jingoistic reactions, not least because there is a loss of jobs nationally without any immediately visible replenishment. But that is what progress and international specialisation are all about. Other job opportunities arise, as has been plainly evident over the years in those economies, including Hong Kong, where activities have been routed offshore on a significant scale.
But might outsourcing have gone too far? In the cross-border context, concerns may be expressed about the exploitation of cheap or underage labour; but a job is preferable to no job, and most multinational companies are punctilious in ensuring that proper minimum standards are observed, even if those minimums are lower than some observers may wish to see. The adverse publicity from not conforming would in any case not be worth the few dollars saved.
Outsourcing has been much used, particularly in some European countries, as a means of ridding the company of complex and potentially costly labour responsibilities in the field of social security, redundancy procedures, and so on. Of course, the firms to which tasks are outsourced may face similar strictures, but these may be less significant in the case of small firms, of self-employment, or if the tasks are to be performed in separate jurisdictions.
In cases where the plethora of laws and regulations to protect employees has been a significant catalyst for outsourcing, the dismemberment of activity may arguably have gone too far, and the economy may not be operating as efficiently as it otherwise might.
In Hong Kong there is less official nannying in the labour market, so that decisions taken about whether or not to perform tasks in-house may be more optimal. We have plainly benefited from the transfer of manufacturing across the border and should not be frightened when other tasks, notably in services, move offshore, too. It is all about the holy grail of moving up the value-added ladder.
Back in the US, I presume Ford Motor Company long ago ceased any involvement in shepherding and upholstery manufacturing; but the logic of that story is not something US presidential hopefuls may necessarily be keen to spell out.
Tony Latter is a visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong.
TONY LATTER
In this presidential election year, US politicians are having to tread carefully around the issue of the outsourcing of US jobs to Asia. Should they, as top White House adviser George Mankiw did last month, point to and support the inescapable business logic and long-term benefits of the process, or should they pander to the more immediate and vote-sensitive concerns of the jobs lobby? Outsourcing, 25 years since the first documented use of that term, is often an emotional issue.
In the years following the first world war, Henry Ford was reportedly happy to pay his workers around double the going rate in order to secure their loyalty, reduce staff turnover and ensure that the company could function all along the production line without being vulnerable to the disruptions that might arise from dependence on possibly unreliable suppliers. The company even owned land on which to graze the sheep that provided the wool for the cars' upholstery. No hint there of outsourcing - or subcontracting as it would then have been called.
A generation or so ago, the predominant model preached by economists and business schools still tended to be that of integrated production. This meant keeping everything in-house in pursuit of economies of scale and scope - possibly even down to the catering and cleaning - unless there were very compelling reasons to sub-contract.
Nowadays it is quite the opposite. Do only those things you excel at, and encourage others to compete fiercely to provide you with the rest at the lowest possible cost. This change has been wrought largely by the intense competition of the marketplace, both domestically and internationally.
While outsourcing within the domestic economy is usually contentious only for the workers directly affected, outsourcing across international boundaries additionally provokes all sorts of jingoistic reactions, not least because there is a loss of jobs nationally without any immediately visible replenishment. But that is what progress and international specialisation are all about. Other job opportunities arise, as has been plainly evident over the years in those economies, including Hong Kong, where activities have been routed offshore on a significant scale.
But might outsourcing have gone too far? In the cross-border context, concerns may be expressed about the exploitation of cheap or underage labour; but a job is preferable to no job, and most multinational companies are punctilious in ensuring that proper minimum standards are observed, even if those minimums are lower than some observers may wish to see. The adverse publicity from not conforming would in any case not be worth the few dollars saved.
Outsourcing has been much used, particularly in some European countries, as a means of ridding the company of complex and potentially costly labour responsibilities in the field of social security, redundancy procedures, and so on. Of course, the firms to which tasks are outsourced may face similar strictures, but these may be less significant in the case of small firms, of self-employment, or if the tasks are to be performed in separate jurisdictions.
In cases where the plethora of laws and regulations to protect employees has been a significant catalyst for outsourcing, the dismemberment of activity may arguably have gone too far, and the economy may not be operating as efficiently as it otherwise might.
In Hong Kong there is less official nannying in the labour market, so that decisions taken about whether or not to perform tasks in-house may be more optimal. We have plainly benefited from the transfer of manufacturing across the border and should not be frightened when other tasks, notably in services, move offshore, too. It is all about the holy grail of moving up the value-added ladder.
Back in the US, I presume Ford Motor Company long ago ceased any involvement in shepherding and upholstery manufacturing; but the logic of that story is not something US presidential hopefuls may necessarily be keen to spell out.
Tony Latter is a visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong.
Trade war breaks out as WTO approves EU action against US
SCMP - Tuesday, March 2, 2004
REUTERS in Brussels
The European Union imposed sanctions on the United States for the first time yesterday as a dispute over tax breaks for US firms turned into a trade war that eventually could cost American exporters billions a year.
The lower tax rates for exports for several companies, including Boeing and Microsoft, were judged by the World Trade Organisation to be an illegal subsidy. It ruled that the EU could impose US$4 billion in sanctions a year on US goods.
But European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy decided to apply gradual pressure by phasing in sanctions, which will hit a wide range of goods, including textiles, jewellery and toys.
"The EU's objective remains the withdrawal of the US illegal subsidy," the commission said. "The EU has opted for a response which is measured, gradual and geared towards focusing the US legislature to comply."
Officials have tried to play down the consequences of the trade row. "This is not the beginning of a trade war. WTO disputes are all part of the system," one Washington official said. But EU firms have expressed worries over the escalation of a dispute that could lead to extra costs as the economy splutters back to life.
Mr Lamy has said sanctions should be seen in the light of daily transatlantic trade of US$1 billion, and the EU has coped since 1999 with more than $100 million of US sanctions a year imposed in a fight over beef.
The dollar's weakness is likely to lessen the pain on US exporters, but the White House has urged Congress to change the disputed tax laws. "The retaliatory tariffs on American exports pose a threat to ... growth and may retard the creation of jobs in certain sectors of the economy," Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in a letter to Congress last week.
The US Senate is expected to debate the issue next week, but similar action in the House of Representatives is less certain.
EU-US trade ties have been tense recently. The EU came close to imposing sanctions after Mr Bush ordered a rise in steel import duties, but the duties were ended before the sanctions were applied.
REUTERS in Brussels
The European Union imposed sanctions on the United States for the first time yesterday as a dispute over tax breaks for US firms turned into a trade war that eventually could cost American exporters billions a year.
The lower tax rates for exports for several companies, including Boeing and Microsoft, were judged by the World Trade Organisation to be an illegal subsidy. It ruled that the EU could impose US$4 billion in sanctions a year on US goods.
But European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy decided to apply gradual pressure by phasing in sanctions, which will hit a wide range of goods, including textiles, jewellery and toys.
"The EU's objective remains the withdrawal of the US illegal subsidy," the commission said. "The EU has opted for a response which is measured, gradual and geared towards focusing the US legislature to comply."
Officials have tried to play down the consequences of the trade row. "This is not the beginning of a trade war. WTO disputes are all part of the system," one Washington official said. But EU firms have expressed worries over the escalation of a dispute that could lead to extra costs as the economy splutters back to life.
Mr Lamy has said sanctions should be seen in the light of daily transatlantic trade of US$1 billion, and the EU has coped since 1999 with more than $100 million of US sanctions a year imposed in a fight over beef.
The dollar's weakness is likely to lessen the pain on US exporters, but the White House has urged Congress to change the disputed tax laws. "The retaliatory tariffs on American exports pose a threat to ... growth and may retard the creation of jobs in certain sectors of the economy," Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in a letter to Congress last week.
The US Senate is expected to debate the issue next week, but similar action in the House of Representatives is less certain.
EU-US trade ties have been tense recently. The EU came close to imposing sanctions after Mr Bush ordered a rise in steel import duties, but the duties were ended before the sanctions were applied.
