Beijing: Trade not rights

Five Live and the Today programme have been using 'uman rights as a blunt instrument this morning in pursuit of their policy of sabotaging the UK's trade mission to China. Perhaps if the BBC was a more open and democratic organisation it might explain why their mission to destroy all hope of paying off our debts. Sadly, as an unelected dictatorship they are unlikely to do so.

I would like to make two points first;
1. MP,s are still showing their utter contempt for the law and the voting public. The Woolas debacle just keeps on trundling along. They guy broke the law yet because he is an MP he feels that he should b above it. Even other MP's are falling into this trap, we are not talking about parliamentary privilege which I totally agree with as long as it is not abused. But this MP broke their own rules which they, the MP's now feel should not be enforced. They should start to understand that they are not above the law and are answerable to it just as we are. If, as I believe should have happened more MP's had been prosecuted for fraud and embezzlement they may not now be so cocky. They still think they do not have to answer to anyone. Lets face it if anyone else had claimned for a house where their parents lived or the fact that their main residence was the back bedroom of their sisters house you would just laugh at them and wave them good bye as the shoot off the jail.

Secondly, why are we always the ones who take the moral high ground. In the EU we are the ones who always follow the rules often slavishly while the others including Germany and France flout them blatantly. On a Global basis IE China it is us who are looking to take the high ground re China's human rites record Etc while the rest of the world sneaks by and tries to fill their boots. Are we in such a sound position that we can cock our noses up at trade to fight the battle for everyone else. I think not. You just have to look at resent weeks and China's trade agreements and figures. The French announce a number of large deals, Germany agrees deals and BMW releases figures that show their only growth market is China. Oh yes and once again the UK will take the moral high ground.

It is about time that we woke up to the real world and look after ourselves for once.

It is not suprising that all the European leaders are rushing towards China for money and investment. We had the Germans earlier this year; the French only last week and the U.K. this week.

The simple matter is that China has the money to invest. The European countries are sinking below a mountain of debt and are desperate for the Chinese to invest in western businesses.

Do not assume that this is a social call on behalf of the U.K. This is purely a business visit. The U.K. wants China to invest. Just check out how much investment the French President managed to negotiate from a recent visit of the Chinese to France! This trip could be worth billions to the U.K.

It is also noticable that the EU had to go to China to persuade the Chinese government to continue investing in the Euro. Last year they had threatened to pull out of Europe. Now they are keen to invest.

So start brushing up on your Chinese - Mandarin or Cantonese?

I think the most important points that Cameron could make isn't one about matters within China, but many about the influence of China over certain rather dodgy countries. We are a bit player in global politics. The Iraq/Afgan activities have made it all the more easy for China to spread its influence around the world. Its main weapon is the favourite american one of trade and economic imperialism. If you were an under developed country with dubious democratic credentials which would seem the more appealing, thriving China or declining America?

Cameron's hand is weak. But the crumbs he picks up might be worthwhile.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"It may not be a surprise but it is a reminder of how limited is the power of our government to even express deep concern let alone do anything about China's continued policy of repression and opposition to democracy."

Yeah, well no great surprise there, Sherlock. Such is life. And anyway, our erstwhile predecessor's attempts at exporting democracy to the oppressed were a tremendous success, were they not?

Why the deep concern anyway, Auntie? I thought you lot would have looked up to China as being the paragon of what socialism can achieve? Never so much as a whimper about the amount of lives ended by communism and now you're suddenly all so right-on about 'uman rights in China?

Nauseating.

"It is no surprise that David Cameron's deepest concern now, like that of every recent prime minister, is to secure for Britain a growing share of China's growing wealth."

Not to mention the hope that they dont end up liquidating all that sterling they're sitting on thanks to Gormless Brown's antics... Just keep trying to sell Bentleys to the Chinese Communist Party nomenklatura, Dave. Keep it simple, eh? Less chance of you making another pigs ear of it.

The British government should only have one loyalty and that is to Britain.

Whilst one can appreciate the sentiments expressed by dissidents in China they are not the responsibility of the British government.

The ownership of human rights and its related dialogue in China belongs to the Chinese. Britain can only engage in this out of respect for the independence of China providing honest advice in a friendly fashion and hopefully encouraging the authorities into more tolerant attitudes.

However, anyone who knows the history of China is aware that there is a deep-seated and justifiable horror within China about anything resembling political chaos. There is also a deep distaste as to the interference of foreign powers in the affairs of China: again this is the product of dire experience.

The Communist Party in China wishes to maintain its own dialogue on political reforms. These are ongoing and as the country becomes more wealthy reforms will have to be forthcoming but the Party accepts that this has to be managed. For as long as the elite in China manage to keep the current show on the road a slow process of reform is likely. Any collapse into chaos will undo everything as we can now see has happened in the West.

One can have philosophical perceptions as to the nature and behaviour of elites and I don't like them. However, where they exist the measure has to be in the capability of that political elite to deliver improvements in the lives of the people. In that respect China does very well at the moment.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

China could not care less about the UK position on their human rights and lets be honest neither does any trading partner of China. We need them more than they need us. UK trade to Eire is double that of UK tade to China. We are small fry. Show me the money.

Transferring more of what's left of our wealth to China is economic suicide and I can pretty much guarantee the Chinese will not help rebalance the global economy.

Sooner or later Western Govts will wake up to the fact that dealing with the Chinese is not to our advantage.

How the BBC now miss James Reynold's blogs from China. The most important economy in the world and fast being the most powerful country in the world and what do the BBC do pull the blog. Shame on you.

Nick Robinson.

"David Cameron has brought the largest-ever British delegation to China.."


why does it take a whole planeload of sycophants in suits to hold one begging bowl??

As long as China can play off one western economy against another nothing meaningful about the state of human rights can be said. It requires a 'NATO' style collective approach to a publicly expressed criticism not to mention sanctions!

The West are not that interested in human rights. The issue did not motivate the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq or the hands off approach to Zimbabwe. Cameron appears to dispense even with a gesture of recognition of the position in China.

Can you please tell me why entry 2 has been pulled I have not had an e-mail?

Capitalism - short term gain and bonuses for the boys. China - long term investment and planning. See who's going to come out on top?

Forget Human rights and international opinions.

The Chinese are looking for European bargains to invest in. This is a shopping trip.

This is the U.K.'s equivalent of 'Bargain Hunt' for the Chinese.

Remember how the world operated sanctions against South Africa because it treated a part of its population abominably. And I seem to recall something similar with Rhodesia, now Zimbawe.

In China the ruling classes treat the rest of the population in perhaps an even worse way.

What do we do ? Apply sanctions? No we go with begging bowl in hand pleading for trade.

Funny old world.

It would be really good if comments were kept short and to the point. Should comments really be long winded and rambling? Anyone who types more than 14 sentences in their comment should be moderated.

Oh dear, how to solve a problem like China. Of course the simple way would be for Countries to get into protectionism or stop China manipulating its currency. Having an undervalued currency allows China to export cheaply while making imports expensive. However as China holds all the cards because of Western debt, it may be wise to wait and see. China has a very unbalanced economy and it would be sensible for them to stop investing so much.

Cameron should keep out of the Human Rights issue, there is far more to worry about with China than this. However, if Cameron believes that by presenting his begging bowl, it will secure for Britain a slice of the wealth China is generating, he may be sadly mistaken. China takes products for short periods then develops a much cheaper and better model. Unless of course we are just talking about luxury goods. Furthermore a lot of Chinas people cannot afford imports as they are too expensive for them. I cannot see China becoming a consumer society anytime soon. Nor would it be profitable for the Chinese Government to encourage such behaviour.

Having seen Ai Wei Wei work as an artist, I feel it may not be his campaigning which has caused him problems.

The organisation of a country reflects centuries old habits. In Russia they exchanged the Tsars for the Communists - different peoiple in charge, but the methods didn't change much. Now they are happyish with Putin still not much change. You could look round the world, scratch the surface and you will find the same old methods that have run the country for decades or even centuries (rapid changes don't seem to last long where they get a foothold). Look at China's history and you will understand the present. When you criticise Chinese repression you are also criticising Chinese history and culture.

That does not mean that as a westerner I like what is going on. But look at the reaction to the some of the Pope's comments and you will understand why DC has to tread carefully.

When will people learn that the very worst way to deal with the Chinese is to hard-ball them in public? The East Asian culture is very much geared towards the saving of face, to the extent that when we say something is "embarrassing", the Chinese say very "face-losing". If you hard-ball them in public via grand statements about their human rights record they will just hard-ball you right back, and much harder than you could even hope to match, as we saw with the closing of the human rights dialogue.

Had Cameron publicly denounced China's record he would have come back empty handed, and would have been an international joke, and he knew that. The Chinese, as the second largest economy in the world (and will be the largest within 20 years) hold all the trump cards, and they know it. Everyone wants to trade with them, and they don't need to trade with anyone to survive. They can feed their population without the need of other countries (they've held over 95% of the grain necessary consistently for the last 10 years) and have a work force that, at least for the next six or seven years before it peaks, is bigger than any other in the world.

The Chinese don't need us, we need them - we have little or no diplomatic influence in China, and the sooner the rest of the country realises that the better.

“Hey, can you give me some money, as I am deeply in debt as my family member spent too much in past years. And you also gave money to my neighbours, so now it’s my turn.”

“Hmm, we could discuss.. We can do business if I like you.”

“Oh, by the way, I don’t quite like the way you treat your kids, you should give them the rights to pull you down from that position.”

“So you don’t like me in this position?”

“Well, on a second thought, it’s your own family business at all, non of my business, let have the discussion on money please. Actually you are doing great…”

Cameron is there as a spivvy salesman and to get some nice photos for his 'legacy'.

He chooses to allow the EU to decide foreign policy and trade policy.

Fubar @ 6 wrote:
Why the deep concern anyway, Auntie? I thought you lot would have looked up to China as being the paragon of what socialism can achieve? Never so much as a whimper about the amount of lives ended by communism and now you're suddenly all so right-on about 'uman rights in China?

Nauseating.

>>>

Seems like the BBC had three options here.
a) condemn Cameron for not voicing more concerns about human rights
b) applaud Cameron for putting the UK's business interests first
c) explain the difficulties faced by any UK PM who wants to promote business with China without being accused of selling out

Nick's piece went for (c), which I think was a good choice. You found it 'nauseating'. Would you have found 'a' nauseating too? How about 'b'? Do you just find anything written by a BBC employee to be an emetic? Your desk must be in a right state by lunchtime considering how much of the morning you spend on the BBC website.

China is not interested in what other countries have to say about its human rights record. The delagation should steer clear of this and do the best they can for trade links full stop.

Apart from a penis envy perspective, why do world leaders still have to walk in front row upon row of soldiers when they land in a country? Is Dave (man of the people) really going to stop and complain about a soldiers boots not being shiny? It would be a good terrorist plot for a book to infiltrate the line up.

Susan-Croft, China is a consumer society. You do not know understand how much buying power China has. Yes, there are a lot of poor people there, and also far more than the wealthy ones. But given the massive scale of the economy, the relatively small amount of wealthy ones could generate overwhelming demand. If you have been to China, and seen the real economy, not just sightseeing, you will understand.

From Britain’s perspective, China’s problem is not for Britain to worry, and more importantly Britain does not have the ability to fix anything in China. So it is wise for the politicians to keep mouth shut.

I think I'll have noodles for lunch.

It may not be a surprise but it is a reminder of how limited is the power of our government to even express deep concern let alone do anything about China's continued policy of repression and opposition to democracy.

Given the mess we have made on other occasions we have imposed or attempted to impose our "standards" on other Countries I'm glad the concensus appears to be that our 'power is limited'.

Much of the west's politics is still in denial that the planet is finite and we need to behave accordingly. We are the most short sighted civilisation in history.
China needs its one party internal democracy system to live within its physical means. There is no way a multi-party democracy can sustain the will required to stop China's population growth, to commit the amount of infrastructure investment required to alleviate poverty, and to make China resource efficient & reduce pollution.

This is why Xiaobo's public demands of Chapter 08, & challenge to China's government's legitimacy are very damaging. Same mistake as Tianamen Sq.

Recklessly brave but clearly the wrong guy to change China. Those who are effective in changing China do so by working within the Party not against it outside.

24#

Yes, very amusing, very droll... If certain contributors from a particular political leaning cant be bothered getting out of bed, let alone turning on their PC's before 11:00AM, I'm hardly going to lose any sleep over that.

As my original comment says about Nicks piece, I pick up on his last sentence as a mastery of stating the obvious. I dont recall the human rights angle being played quite so readily under previous administrations... but I dare say, I would venture you would be thinking "well, you wouldnt though, would you?"

25. jim3227 wrote:

China is not interested in what other countries have to say about its human rights record. The delegation should steer clear of this and do the best they can for trade links full stop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right; China also knows that that there is nothing the UK can do about the human rights issue anyway apart from stamping our feet & having a hissy fit.
China holds all the cards here & the UK doesn’t even have a blind hand, so hopefully Dave will stick to the business line of things & not go off on a tangent – good luck to him on this one.

#13 Watriler wrote:
"The West are not that interested in human rights."

I suppose that is a sentence for which evidence can be produced, for or against.

Various international human rights conventions? Asylum seekers? Kosovo?

The Western media have been rather selective in their outrage over the years. I think Tibet has been near the bottom of the list, probably because there is no obvious anti-American angle over which the BBC can salivate.

forgottenukcitizen #32.

"..nothing the UK can do about the human rights issue anyway apart from stamping our feet.."

wouldn't have a leg to stand on, anyway.

"..Blair and his entourage in Downing Street covered up Britain's complicity in the abuse and torture of terror suspects.."

David Cameron's aim has to be in the best interests of the British people. He might not agree with the Chinese Government on human rights but he cannot complain as he is fighting against a much larger opponent. Britain is dwarfed by the Chinese economy and the only way to benefit in the future as a small island north of France is to create new and improve relationships. The communist party is China is one of the main reasons that they were able to keep hold of their society and keep their economy booming for so long. Without strict regulations they would have gone off the rails. Yes life is hard, but the end result for the people of China will be much greater. They look at the bigger picture and society is much less selfless. China is a great place to start building an upcoming relationship with their upcoming technologies which can benefit the UK beyond belief. A lot is resting on this trip and strong foundations need to be set.

Look at what Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy ended up with in the past when they blasting at China’s policy. One returned home empty-handed, and became a joke. The other missed Wen’s pan-Europe visit. So they all learned their lesson. This is the reality, I am afraid. Human rights is purely bull shit in front of money. The politician used it as a political mean to hijack China. When they found out it had not worked at all. They might need to consider alternative means. Do European leaders really care about how much “rights” Chinese people have? I deeply doubt so….

What else do you expect him to do Nick ?

China could not care two hoots what DC or any other Western Leaders thinks about it's Human rights. China holds all the aces DC is just being pragmatic.

Maybe the BBC should give him some credit for attempting to increase exports which are the lifeblood of any Economy, rather than look for any reason to criticise

30. EdwinaTS wrote:
Much of the west's politics is still in denial that the planet is finite and we need to behave accordingly. We are the most short sighted civilisation in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwina, China certainly isn’t in denial about the finite resources available to them & that’s why they are investing Billions of Yen into West African nations to secure oil & minerals for their manufacturing industries future.
I have seen this investment 1st hand myself on a recent business trip.

While western companies can’t see past their quarterly figures, China is already looking decades ahead.
Never mind though, I’m sure our Finance & Service sectors will drag us out of our recession (LOL).

How dare Ai Wei Wei interfere in British foreign policy by presuming to tell our Prime Minister what to say. He is a foreign national and just because Alan Yentob and Nick Serota are campaigning on his behalf and funnelling British taxpayers' cash in his direction doesn't mean he is widely revered in this country or that anyone should obey orders from him. No wonder the Chinese regard him as a nuisance if that's the way he behaves.

So David Cameron is going to China to tout for business. Goodness what a truly visionary initiative.

I would be interested to know what it is we are going to sell to them - opium?

Is it really our place to go round the world telling other countries how to deal with their internal affairs? No it is not.

China is a huge country that is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party which currently presides over a wild-west style free market economy that has sucked in jobs and industry from all over the world. China is having a 21st century industrial revolution built on VERY cheap labour and the iron grip of the Chinese State in "facilitating" development and "providing" labour by taking millions of peasants who existed in self-sufficiency agriculture.

So multinational companies were faced with a choice: move your manufacturing to China or lose your market competitiveness and ultimately fo out of business.

To further "facilitate" the inward investment process, the Chinese government used the levers of state power to create huge tax incentives for inward investment, directed infrastructure provision and "managed" China's foreign exchange and terms of trade to ensure Chinese goods would be super-competitive.

As Communists, WHY are they getting into bed with foreign multinational capitalists?

Marx has the answer: his theory of historical materialism REQUIRES capitalism to "develop the means of production" - he saw it as an essential phase in the "march to socialism" - and ultimately to communism.

So what the Chinese Communist Party is doing fits 100% with Marxist theory - and we are going along with it by allowing our jobs and industry to be driven out of the market by rigged foreign exchange rates, exploited labour and massively environmentally damaging policies in China.

However the world is now a very volatile place because the Chinese need to export their goods to the west, but we cannot go on borrowing more and more money to pay for them, so in the end something will have to give.

Cameron's trip to China is about trying persuade the Chinese Communist Party to redefine their development policy, so that the vast sums flowing into China are then used to b uy imported goods % services from us, or are invested in our economy's private sector.

A laudible aim, but one that I am very much afraid will get nowhere unless the developed economies make it clear to the Chinese that there MUST be change because the present situation is unsustainable at many levels.

Firstly we cannot have millions of unemployed whilst our manufacturing jobs go to China - we cannot afford the borrowing needed to fund BOTH the imports AND the welfare bill.

Secondly the planet won't stand the growing level of CO2 being produced in China to make the goods they send to us.

Thirdly, unless a new way fo balancing world trade is put in place, the world's financial system could simply collapse under the strain.

But the Chinese Communist Party also has its own problems. Just as with the old Soviet policy of "flats & Fiats" once the Chinese people get a taste for consumer goods the Genie is out of the bottle and if there was a cooling off of the Chinese economy, with no welfare state and the raised expectations of a better quality of life, there could be a "Prague Spring" type counter-revolution against the Communist government by hundreds of millions of frustrated chinese.

This is a dangerous "no win" situation for all concerned. Knowing how the French have not been afraid to use their political and economic muscle in the past, I would suspect that the "stick" of trade sanctions was at least inferred in the discussions they had to win the trade deals they got - the problem I have with Cameron is that he is a free marketeer through and through, so wouldn't be prepared to do that.

Where does this leave us? Cameron is clearly hoping he can break down the barriers to trade, sell the Chinese - and the Indians - on the idea of increasing their imports from the UK. Will it work? I don't think so because we don't produce very much that they would want.

If is doesn't work then there will be a yawning chasm in UK PLC with rapidly rising unemployment, rising government and private debt and we willl b e trapped in an economic depression that could take a generation to recover from.

Sarah 27

I would suggest you go back and read what was said in my post as it seems you chose not to before commenting. It is pretty obvious you do not know or understand the Chinese economy, as it happens I do. Also judging by your post at 22 that does not surprise me.

Please do not come back with the usual comment about you have been there or worked there, and you know. I am wise to that one.

Mods I am still waiting with baited breath.....

14. At 10:21am on 09 Nov 2010, you wrote:
Can you please tell me why entry 2 has been pulled I have not had an e-mail?

24. pdavies65

Lols! (as they say)

Cassandra wrote:
So David Cameron is going to China to tout for business. Goodness what a truly visionary initiative.

I would be interested to know what it is we are going to sell to them - opium?

===

hahaha, i like that...

Excellent comments, Nick. All PM's must weigh up whether to hold to a set of standards that the West believes are essential or to play a more pragmatic role.
Holding to a set of ideals is all well and good, if you are happy to see your country no longer have any of the benefits that trading with China can bring. However, if you want Britain to be financially better off, you must be prepared to put certain concerns "into the long grass".
There is also a question of whether being clear in your disagreement with China's policy on human rights will actually have any effect, or whether being involved with China will mean that British views on the matter will rub off on them, over time.
Tough choices to make, which is why the PM and ministers are paid more money than the rest of us!

Is anyone aware of the way LiuXiaoBo wants to implement his idea of system for China? Firstly, let US colonize China for at least 300 years.Secondly, utterly replace Chinese culture with Western culture. Thirdly, change the human race of Chinese people. And Liu once greatly encouraged Iraq War and said his biggest dream was to be an American soilder. Do u think Chinese people can accept that? Nobel PEACE winner? Hilarious.

'He has not come to pick a fight with China on human rights.'
He'd look a bit silly when George W. Bush (The man behind the illegal war that David Cameron foolishly voted for) is out extolling the virtues of torturing prisoners of war in order to sell a few more units of his grubby book.

China ias a country run by a communist elite that is akin to a failed state, it is using almost slave labour to take work from other nations and enrich a very few at the top.

The sort of country that sagamix and others on the left that they inspire the UK to be like.

it is only using "wild wests style markets" to enrich the top , it does not want to impover the minions they are just slave.

We should not be trading with them and it will be our downfull if we continue to do so.

it is a wealth transfer system from the west to a few very rich people

Chris London #14, #44.

"Can you please tell me why entry 2 has been pulled I have not had an e-mail?"

you won't get an email unless your comment has been found to have broken the house rules, that is as yet not the case ("..referred for further consideration.").

42. richard bunning wrote

"This is a dangerous "no win" situation for all concerned. Knowing how the French have not been afraid to use their political and economic muscle in the past, I would suspect that the "stick" of trade sanctions was at least inferred in the discussions they had to win the trade deals they got - the problem I have with Cameron is that he is a free marketeer through and through, so wouldn't be prepared to do that".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good post,
Trade sanctions would be fine if we had a big enough manufacturing base in the UK to support ourselves in the mean while, but we don’t.
A policy like that would only work with the cooperation of countries like the USA, but this is a National delegation & not an International one.

Apart from that, the “Genie” of cheap consumerism is well & truly out of the bottle in the western world & Joe public still doesn’t seem to understand the unsustainable economic imbalance that it has produced.

I’m just wondering how long the workers of China are willing to live as second class citizens building us cheap (to us anyway) goods that they themselves can’t afford to buy?

"it is a reminder of how limited is the power of our government to even express deep concern let alone do anything about China's continued policy of repression and opposition to democracy."

Nick (and indeed anyone else banging this drum), let us suggest, for example, the shoe was on the other foot and another country (for the purposes of this analogy we'll just go for Sweden) verbally laid into the UK government for it's abuses of human rights as people seem to be suggesting we do to China. If, for example, said country's government criticised the way UK police conduct stop and search, our anti-terror laws or our surveillance culture would we then turn around and say "you know something Sweden, you're completely right, you should have a say in how our country is run"?

Somehow I doubt it.

So, suggesting that we are a powerful enough country that we should dictate to China how they treat their citizens is very rich coming from the UK. I'm not suggesting China is right in how they treat their citizens (nor am I suggesting the UK is either), but frankly to suggest we should have an effect on Chinese policy is utterly ridiculous.

Susan-Croft #43
I fully understand you point, and could see how much you are concerned about the economic shape of China. And worried DC’s economic dialogue is short-sighted, or British goods will be copied.

Given that I do not quite understand how to produce cheaper British pigs or the wealthy will go for Chinese Cherry car instead of Rolls-Royce, everything else DC brought over is service instead of “goods”, like banking, retail, luxury. The consumer of those is also well-define: people who could afford. You do not need to worry about 90% of people who can’t afford British pigs, because you are only selling to the 5% who could.

Also admittedly, Britain does not have much “goods” or technology to export like Japan, Germany or USA. This is the long-term problem DC need to worry about. Currently, he is only focusing on how to solve his debt in 5 years.

Politics is the art of what is possible. At the moment China is growing fast and we have goods and services to sell to them that will help that process and help us.

My guess would be that as Chinese people become more used to the trappings of developed economy lifestyles they will bring pressure to bear on civil liberties and rights.

As a Chinese person said this week - "You British need to learn to be patient."

17. xT
'Remember how the world operated sanctions against South Africa because it treated a part of its population abominably. And I seem to recall something similar with Rhodesia, now Zimbawe.'

Many Tories both inside and outside government supported the white minority regimes back then. Mineral and political strategic concerns were more important than the rights of the disenfranchised.

So not much changes, really.

We have seen what sort of problems we get ourselves in when we get involved in other countries' affairs - iraq being casing point. The chinese are not going to take kindly to our interference on human rights and we need to look after our economy first. Cameron is right to take a pragmatic approach to this. We need orders not another enemy.

48. At 12:02pm on 09 Nov 2010, Yakexi wrote:
Is anyone aware of the way LiuXiaoBo wants to implement his idea of system for China? Firstly, let US colonize China for at least 300 years.Secondly, utterly replace Chinese culture with Western culture. Thirdly, change the human race of Chinese people. And Liu once greatly encouraged Iraq War and said his biggest dream was to be an American soilder. Do u think Chinese people can accept that? Nobel PEACE winner? Hilarious.

===

Nobel peace prize has been a joke for many years. so if I were Chinese Government, I wouldn't be overly bothered by that. Liu is still in prison, it's not like the prize would be able to change anything.

I reckon one of the things Cameron might be trying to sell could be student places for rich Chinese paying say £20-30k a year in fees. That way he can perhaps spin a reduction in the cap for UK students to say £8900 from £9000. (Although I did hear something on C4 news about a replica of Nottingham Uni campus out in China for poorer Chinese students - I did check my dinner for strange mushrooms after that).

If CamPRMan wants to go to China to help UK business then fine but dont try and spin that there's goanie be a big push on human rights when there clearly isn't.

Western capitalism pleading with China to keep it alive, very very ironic.

#1 - and you are from which planet?
If anyone thinks the Chinese are going to be bothered in any way by any UK politician criticising them on human rights, they, too, are on another planet. We aren't important enough for them to care - moreover, as we forced opium on them in the 19th century, the Chinese doubtless don't regard us as having much of a moral high ground anyway.
Those trying to compare the Chinese attitude on human rights to the occasionally criminal but certainly unethical behaviour of many UK politicians might wish to recall that opposition is tolerated here - not imprisoned or shot - & opposition parties won the last election. There is only a single party in Chinese elections.
I'm sure the Chniese would recognise from reading many of these comments that the British are still world leaders in humbug.
(& they might also reflect that if our political views about opposition parties are so poisonous, as regularly reflected in comments here & elsewhere, there may be advantages in alternatives.)

56#

My, we're on one today arent we? T-I-C??

It's a bit of a game, I suppose, us ticking off China on human rights - we don't have a great deal of influence - but it's worth doing. It's the only sanction after all and I'm sure China don't like being constantly castigated, so it might make a small difference. China is a great country which has come a long way, however, we should remember this. Whilst we were embroiled in our swinging sixties, they were doing their cultural revolution - zero human rights during this period by most accounts.

whats the difference between cheap good from china and cheap cotton from the southern states back in C16-C19 period ? and how history will view that ?

#57 so its ok to buy goods made by slave and put good workers out of jobs in the UK so you can buy cheap trash then?

why do you think we have a huge social security bill at present?

LATEST:Some Labour backbench MPs 'mutinous' over treatment of Phil Woolas, BBC learns
=========================================================================
So maybe my rant had some substance?

MP,s are still showing their utter contempt for the law and the voting public. The Woolas debacle just keeps on trundling along. They guy broke the law yet because he is an MP he feels that he should be above it. Even other MP's are falling into this trap, we are not talking about parliamentary privilege which I totally agree with as long as it is not abused. But this MP broke their own rules which they, the MP's now feel should not be enforced. They should start to understand that they are not above the law and are answerable to it just as we are. If, as I believe should have happened more MP's had been prosecuted for fraud and embezzlement they may not now be so cocky. They still think they do not have to answer to anyone. Lets face it if anyone else had claimned for a house where their parents lived or the fact that their main residence was the back bedroom of their sisters house you would just laugh at them and wave them good bye as the shoot off the jail.

Give Dave a break will you ? - it's a fine line between diplomacy and hypocrisy. Ok Ok you're right he's a hypocrite ! - says one thing in opposition and another when it suits his narrow poiticical and economic ends as PM. This is not the moral high ground it is very cynical and calculative. As Ruskin said in 1862 " It being the privilege of fishes, as it is of rats and wolves, to live by the laws of supply and demand ; but the distintcion of humanity to live by those of right." This is unashamed kow-towing to economic masters having abandoned all principles of what is right.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

56 Blame
Yes I did consider adding to my post that the sanctions were ignored if it was commercially advantageous to do so. Oil I seem to remember was a frequent sanctions buster.

In fact the only person I can recall being given a hard time was Paul Simon, ( Simon and Garfunkle), for going to Soweto and working with the oppressed to make an album called Gracelands at a studio there.

Funny how artists always get the blame. Weiwei is the current Chinese bete noire. His work is interesting, much easier on the eye than say Hirst or Emin. Hardly revolutionary tho. Seem to recall that Kruschev was anti art as well. What are these "leaders" afraid of ?

Chinese Trade Mission? More like appeasement - once again the big battalions rule and no-one really cares what they do as long as someone somewhere is getting rich. Cameron & Co Ltd talk a good 'human rights' agenda, but really only care about their wealthy supporters. When shareholders in the form of huge multinationals hold sovereign countries to ransome on a global scale at the expense of the people who actually create the wealth, don't cry when dictatorships flourish and democracy declines into soap opera.

the arguement of lecturing about human rights is laughable to say the least.

in the whole history of mankind, most wars and deaths have involved the united states and europe.

1st world war 15 million
2nd world war 80 million

just in iraq and afghanistan in the last 8 years the death toll is 1 million.

if china killed 1 million of its own citizens that would be seen as a human right abuse. but if you kill 1 million foreigners, then thats just a casulty of war.

the only thing that sepreates human right abuses is the borders on a map.

if you supress your own citizens its human rights abuse. if you kill people that arent from your country, its apparently legal and just casualties for war.

i think we need to really look at where the human rights abuses are, starting with how they are measured.

64 IR35 survivior

Ah but the currrent govt have a cunning plan to introduce slave labour here. IDS is going to make those already at the bottom of the heap work for a fraction of the minimum wage.

Before I get hammered with loads of Dail Mail stereotypes on 90k a year benefits. The vast majority exist on a pitance. If IDS's plan gets off the ground it will cause misery and crime if the no benefit sanction is applied for refusal to co-operate.

So when Lady Thatcher went to see Mr Gorbachev was she supposed to ask him about all those guys banged up in the gulags?

Why did Nixon accept a giant panda instead of protesting about Chinese human rights?

Why did Tony Blair complete the return of Hong Kong back to the Chinese in 1997 if we were so bothered about the lack of human rights?

Why didn't we invade them after Tianamen Square?

Why does the BBC constantly conflate two totally separate issues in a futile attempt to undermine Mr Pragmatism personified, David Cameron?

Why does sagamix confuse passion for one's beliefs with 'tribalism'?

It's a great time to be a tory...

61. Fubar_Saunders

No not really... xT mentioned the use of sanctions before but in reality a lot more could have been done in those two situations, but US strategy, economics and old fashioned prejudices got in the way. The difference with the China relationship now is that we're not the ones holding the cards.

Not picking on you btw, pd's post just made me laugh. Droll indeed.

IR35_SURVIVOR #63, #50, #64.

"whats the difference between cheap good from china and cheap cotton from the southern states back in C16-C19 period ? and how history will view that ?"

quite, not a mention of 'The Empire' though. a bit too close for comfort?? LOL

"why do you think we have a huge social security bill at present?"

domestic economic mismanagement and an all too large 'reserve army of labour'. I think blaming other countries' work-forces is a cheap shot.

I must protest - 42. At 11:36am on 09 Nov 2010, richard bunning wrote..., much too long a post.

What an absolute disgrace this visit is. In a week that we remember those who fought and died for the freedoms of others, a British Prime Minster visits one the the worlds most repressed, state controlled regimes, cap in hand on a trade mission. Have we no morals? Can we simply ignore what continues to go on in China, all for the sake of deficit reduction.

IR35_SURVIVOR 64

It is true to say that China causes unemployment in other Countries. An undervalued currency such as China has, keeps their exports cheap in foreign markets while making imports expensive to them. Thus other Countries see unemployment and China sees its employment levels rise.

However very little can be done about this unless people stop buying cheaply produced Chinese products, or protectionism is introduced by the rest of the World, or the manipulation of Chinas currency is stopped, or other Countries impoverish themselves to compete.

As none of these things seem on the cards, it is perhaps best for any individual Country to play the game at the moment.

China is dedicated to seeing its Country the leading force in the World. They are putting all their efforts into this, by outstripping the rest of the World in science etc. At the moment their ideal is on track, however their are possible problems on the horizon.

Gerald987 @ 35 wrote:
Britain is dwarfed by the Chinese economy and the only way to benefit in the future as a small island north of France is to create new and improve relationships.

>>

I'm not sure the first part of this sentence is true. The US is the only single economy which can be said to 'dwarf' others, although I tend to avoid that term in favour of saying that it makes other economies appear to be of diminished stature (it's more PC). US GDP is roughly equivalent to the whole of Europe. It exceeds its nearest three rivals (Japan, China and Germany) put together.

sagamix...

thank you for the mono-vision version of the history books.

Where were we four thousand years ago, precisely? Where were the Chinese? 'China has come a long way' ... this is the kind of patronising and ill-informed nonsense that wins clear thinking progressives the prize for short sighted, well meaning fools.

These are some of the hardest working people on the planet. They have some of the oldest recorded history on the planet and they are eating our breakfast because clear thinking progressives took their cheap finance and wasted it on a million public sector jobsworths. Now we have to pay the price.

When we will have 'come a long way' is when clear thinking progressives recognise the urgent need to engage the Chinese with respect to them being a valued trading partner, rather than somewhere for Gordon Brown to disappear to, shake a few hands and avoid the domestic media for a while.

It's a great time to be a tory...

Are these comments a waste of time? Will China be quaking in their boots (made in china) that a tiny percentage of the BBC website audience thinks China's HR's are not acceptable? Are grand statements on this forum pointless and self serving? Is this engaging with the man on the Clapham omnibus or the same old people giving their same old opinions (closed minds for the majority of times)?

67 Sarah

I take your point.

However not buying Chinese goods as some sort of personal protest would be very difficult as the shops are filled with all manner of goods made in China. A replacement battery for a mobile phone that I purchased recently was made there.

All too often it would be buy Chinese or go without. Dont forget when anyone buys a Dyson for example they are buying a product now made in
Malaysia .

In current climes people buy what is the best bargain and dont give two hoots about where or how it is produced.

Anyway havn't a lot of peasants voluntarily migrated to the industrial centres of China and whilst by our standards their conditions are appalling they are much better off financially than when they worked the land ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

its funny how in a population of 1.5 billion, you mentioned that there was a public criticism from the UK of China giving the death pernalty to someone who is mentally ill, as though it was the core issue with china.


* Since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States.

* It is conservatively estimated that 5-10% of death row inmates suffer from serious mental illness.

* Research has shown that nearly all Death Row inmates suffer from brain damage due to illness or trauma, while a vast number have also experienced histories of severe physical and/or sexual abuse.

* Mental illness is not only a problem on Death Row. In 1998, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 283,000 mentally ill individuals were incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons.

this was taken from amnesty international.

so i suggest we should cut ties with america and that we demand they sort out there death penalty laws, because clearly we should be lecturing everyone and base all relationships on our own moral judgements.

next time cameron visits obama he needs to tell the US that their death penalty laws are unacceptable by the UK and if they dont change their ways we wont trade with them, or at least our relationship will be severly soured...

This morning Mr. Robinson stated on the Radio that this Trade Mission to China with some 50 people in total was the largest for 60 years, which is incorrect. The largest to my knowledge was the China Mission lead by the Rt Hon. Michael Heseletine, the then Deputy Prime Minister, which visited Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong from 17th to 25th May 1996 and consisted of 149 delegates representing all facets of British Industry and Commerce.

As I took part in this event I can assure that this is true and I marvel at the progress made by China in the last fourteen years, I would prefer them to be our friends and not our enemies.

#62 sagamix wrote:
"It's a bit of a game, I suppose, us ticking off China on human rights - we don't have a great deal of influence - but it's worth doing. It's the only sanction after all and I'm sure China don't like being constantly castigated, so it might make a small difference."

This seems a sensible post. I understand that China is sensitive to international opinion, both as it encourages domestic dissident, and affects China's growing international economic interests.

However, I'm not sure bilateral meetings are the best place to express human rights concerns.

Susan-Croft #77.

"It is true to say that China causes unemployment in other Countries."

absolutely false. however, it would be true to say western employers selling or relocating their production facilities to China causes unemployment in their respective countries.

Why did Tony Blair complete the return of Hong Kong back to the Chinese in 1997 if we were so bothered about the lack of human rights?

>>

For that sentence , Robin, you receive today's Alastair Campbell award for misleading spin.

The handover was agreed under Thatcher in 1984 with a lead time of over twelve years in order to smooth transition. It was completed on 1 July 1997, less than two months after Blair was elected. He had zero input into or influence over the process.

#53 Dean

Dean you make the perfect point. No soveriegn nation (whether democratic or not) will take criticism of it's internal politics. Whether you think the UK is powerful on the world stage or not is a moot point. Only through mutual respect can you expect to have influence.

The UK has influence - through the EU, NATO, UN Security Council, nucleur deterrence, 6th largest economy in the world. This means we should be a voice for universal human rights, it's part of being a responsible global player. Premier Wen Jiabao in an interview with CNN accepted that there was some way to go in China towards universal human rights but that it was a goal, this should be encouraged. What China won't accept, and to be fair neither would we, is to be admonished in public.

China has built it's wealth on Western economies, it is in it's own interest that the Western economies are successful (just look at the eye-watering size of their own fiscal stimulus), it is here that the West (incl. the UK) will have the most influence.

Global power is not always a zero-sum game, the rise of one power will not necessarily mean the demise of another. It just means the rules of engagement have to change.

"in the whole history of mankind, most wars and deaths have involved the united states and europe."


Really? In the whole history of mankind you say? Dont tell me, most of them started by Thatcher and Bush, right???

China is an economic world power; the UK needs to do business with it. Why is that so controversial for some here? Oh, yes - alleged human rights abuses. I can understand that point of view - just about, although if we really want to prosper we need to get over the idea that we (and pretty much we alone) should be the moral guardians of the world, but what I can't understand is why those complaining about trade with China today don't object to trade with the USA which gave presidential approval to torture of prisoners. Nor did they complain about such trade when, only a few short decades ago, there was effectively an apartheid system in place in the southern states. Why is complaining about "human rights abuse" so selective for some?

Trade with other countries is exactly that, and shouldn't be compromised by trying to impose our own domestic standards and values on trading partners. I have no wish to sit on the moral high ground if it means that I am starving and in rags.

"Are these comments a waste of time? Will China be quaking in their boots (made in china) that a tiny percentage of the BBC website audience thinks China's HR's are not acceptable? Are grand statements on this forum pointless and self serving?"

Given the propensity for most of the window licking fraternity on here to reach for the soundbite book, you're absolutely right...

"Have we no morals?"

Do you really need to ask that question?

73#

None inferred or taken :o)

#80
Arrrgh, jigsaw puzzles are a good way to pass the time!

#81. xTunbridge

As consumers, we don't have a choice on where the products are made. The business has. But all businesses are purely profit-driven, and they will go for the cheapest ever place to produce their goods.

Look at the recent incidents at iphone maker Foxconn. The Taiwan manufacturer was forced to increase salary and improve worker conditions in Shenzhen based factory, where they were only paying £200 per month. What they did? They moved on to another province, where salary requirement is only £100 per month. Did iphone say anything about it? No.

Have you noticed more and more low-end clothes are no longer made in China? They are made in India, Vietnam, and Cambodia instead. Why? Because the new Labour Law in China has set out minimum wage, and benefit for workers, and Chinese factories are no longer able to produce at that low cost. So the business just made a sharp turn to other countries where labour is even cheaper.

When you and I are enjoying the cheap the quality goods from China and other third world countries, it is a bit ironic to criticise their strategy of cheap labouring. If you and I are prepared to pay 50% more on your clothes, electronics and many other things, then we could stand up and protect the “rights” of cheap labour. But sorry, I am not prepared.

#53 Dean wrote:
"So, suggesting that we are a powerful enough country that we should dictate to China how they treat their citizens is very rich coming from the UK."

It's not a question of being powerful or powerless, or dictating to another.

China's treatment of Tibet is, at least in my opinion, a material breach of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We, and all member states, have a duty to promote these values both by national and international measures.

The UK's record is actually quite good, but I don't expect the mood, in some quarters, of introspective self-loathing adolescence to be able to acknowledge this.

rr7 @ 79

Yes, right. Isn't that what I said but just lurified up into Robinese?

China is not - repeat not - to be looked down upon. Great country. What about how hard they work? What about that Bird's Nest? Awesome. That opening ceremony too - bet our 2012 effort doesn't come close. No, let's not look down on China.

But it's also okay, as Osborne is doing I understand, to make disapproving noises about their human rights record. The Chinese will probably expect it and would be non-plussed if it weren't mentioned. Might get the idea that we in Britain don't care a great deal about human rights in China.

D C's pilgrimage to China, the current shrine of economic opportunity, serves to highlight the priorities that we hold dearest. Sadly, the status quo has not changed; money is more important than morals. We are, in general, a weak, greedy and frightened species; self interest at every level is the prime concern of our kind. Only fools rationalise away their own weaknesses.

The duplicity and backtracking frequently revealed in politicians is universal, that is what we can expect when we elect them and that is what we always get; plus ca change! Here's to the few brave, honest and selfless people from around the planet who continue to struggle peacefully for our human rights against the opposition of the selfish majority and their representatives.

'To free myself from harm
And others from their sufferings,
Let me give myself away,
And cherish others as I love myself'

Shantideva (6th/7th CE)

Best Wishes
Lojong

Nick

I know you have stopped reading these comments, but if you do then can I draw your attention that another MP (woolas) is in trouble with the law.

So perhaps you will finally be convinced that they should not be trusted as you once did unquestioningly.

jr4412 86

Please do not take part of my post out of context to make political points of your own.

My post was on the Chinese currency and nothing to do with the point you are trying make.

If you want to make a purely political point, do it by yourself.