Which China Are YOU Dealing With?
Posted by MyLaowai on Thursday, August 13, 2009
There was a very good Op-Ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day, by a bloke named Peter Hartcher. You can find it here. In it, he talks about China’s behaviour towards Australia of late. He’s right with everything he says.
But here’s the bit that gives me the screaming heebies – his last paragraph reads:
“This is a powerful wake-up call for Australia. The China we must live with is not the China we thought we were dealing with.”
I’m sorry, Mister Hartcher, but just exactly which China did you (and the rest of the world) think you were dealing with last year? Obviously not the China that keeps millions of people imprisoned without trial in slave labour camps – the infamous Laogai. Clearly not the China that exports the industrial output of those same slave labour camps at such low and attractive prices. I’m sure it wasn’t the same China that is the worlds largest exporter of collagen (used in lipsticks and other cosmetics), the same collagen that is taken from human skin torn from the bodies of still-living political prisoners. And not the same China that then uses the organs from those same prisoners to turn a healthy profit. Hopefully not the same China that worships that man who murdered more than a hundred and twenty million of his own people.
Was it the China that has the world’s largest standing army? The one with a track record of having invaded virtually every single neighbour in the last sixty years? The one that annexed three neighbouring countries and has since proceeded to nearly exterminate their native peoples? The one with an ambitious nuclear weapons program (and a publicly stated desire to use those weapons against the West)? The one with the world’s largest military manned space program? The one with territorial claims on Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia? Is that the China you were referring to? Surely not.
Or, how about the China the prides itself on prohibiting you from selling ninety nine percent of your products there? The China that, in turn, exports to you poisonous food, dangerous children’s toys, exploding tyres, lethal dairy products, and tainted animal feed. The China that welcomes foreign investment under the condition that it gets to steal your trade secrets and then kicks you out on your ear. That China, perhaps? No?
I’m confused, Mister Hartcher. Which China did you think you were dealing with?
Wo Shi Laowai - Wo Pa Shui 
LoveChinaLongTime said
From today’s SCMP. Are the feelings of the Chinese people hurt yet again???
China ‘regrets’ WTO ruling, says may appeal
Reuters in Beijing
2:21pm, Aug 13, 2009
Beijing, defending its controls on imported films and books, said on Thursday it may appeal a World Trade Organisation ruling against its restrictions, continuing its sparring with Washington over trade access.
The Ministry of Commerce said China “felt regret” the WTO had upheld a US complaint about its restrictions, which Washington says hurts publishers, Hollywood and entertainment multinationals.
“China will conscientiously assess the ruling report of the expert panel and does not exclude the possibility of appealing on China’s points of concern,” said the statement in Putonghua issued on the Ministry’s website (www.mofcom.gov.cn ).
“The channels for foreign publications, films and audio-visual products entering the Chinese market are extremely open,” the statement said.
Mainland’s ruling Communist Party maintains a sprawling apparatus of propaganda and censorship to control television, publishing, entertainment and the internet. While the country’s mass media have become increasingly commercial, the state keeps a wary, if sometimes unsteady, grip.
The WTO disputes panel said China could not use its censorship goals to justify trade barriers that violate WTO rules, US officials said.
“That’s not going to go down at all well in these precincts,” David Wolf, a Beijing-based business consultant who advises media and communications companies, said of the WTO ruling.
“China has always been adamant that trade in goods with cultural or political significance should be treated differently … To them, it’s ideological trade.”
If mainland appeals against the ruling, it will add to the trade disputes pitting Beijing against Washington.
President Barack Obama must decide by September 17 whether to restrict imports of car and light truck tyres from mainland in a case that could unleash a flood of requests from other industries if he gives the nod.
The US trade deficit with mainland totalled US$103 billion in the first half of this year, down 13 per cent from last year but still a source of tension between the two.
The WTO panel said on Wednesday mainland’s import and distribution regime for books and films breaks international trade rules, as well as the terms of mainland’s entry to the WTO in 2001, and should be revised.
It was the third time a WTO panel had ruled against mainland, which is also increasingly assertive in pressing trade complaints at the trade body.
The ruling did not reject the import quota of 20 foreign films per year that goes through China Film, a state company, and it accepted mainland’s right to keep out foreign films and publications if it finds them objectionable.
But it said that “China Film can no longer be the monopoly importer, which would create other possible film import channels into China, a US official said.
“The United States film industry won a major victory in its years-long battle to open the Chinese movie market today,” Dan Glickman, the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement issued on Wednesday.
“The WTO struck down China’s film import monopoly as well as the barriers that keep US companies from importing and distributing DVDs in China,” he said.
Among the Hollywood films recently shown in mainland are Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. But many people in mainland watch such films on pirate DVD copies sold for a fraction of the price of a cinema ticket.
The case, dating to 2007, also involved products such as books and newspapers, audio and video products including CDs, DVDs and video games, and music download services.
The panel findings called on mainland to allow US companies to partner with local enterprises to distribute sound recordings over the internet.
Either side can appeal the ruling within 60 days, and the case would be heard by a higher appellate body, which can uphold or reverse all or part of the ruling.
Mr Wolf, the Beijing-based consultant, said that whatever eventually emerges from the WTO process, Beijing was unlikely to really ease its controls on products it fears could corrode ideological control.
“Here there’s considerable wiggle room to ostensibly open the market while applying restrictions at any number of points,” he said.
justrecently said
At any rate, current events are a powerful wake-up call for Mr Hartcher. Better late than never.
Invisible Sky Nigga said
Why should China open up its borders to kike and white brainwashing? I thought handwringing kike and white “human rights” organizations were worried about “cultural genocide”?
I say let the Uighur fundamentalists “deal with” these arrogant Jewish peddlers.
H.JIN said
“The China that, in turn, exports to you poisonous food, dangerous children’s toys, exploding tyres, lethal dairy products, and tainted animal feed. ”
One can not export without the other importing.I am wondering who imports these goods. In the Australian case, are these biggest importers Big W, Target, Myre, K-Mart……..? Who controls those companies? Chinese? are Chinese the biggest shareholders or decision makers within these companies?
It seems to me that every person living in this planet knows that the Chinese produce only the inferior. But interestingly, the sales is great! This tells me at least one thing: how successful Chinese are as a salesperson.
By law, any products imported must mark Country of Origin. At Big W for example, the products you buy actually tell you they’re made in China and YOU know Chinese make only the inferior. WHY do we buy?
In today’s buyers’ market,if there are no buyers, sellers cannot survive.