Workers occupy supermarket after boss skips town Workers at a supermarket in Foshanreturned from the Golden Week holiday in early October to discover that their boss had skipped town and the store was completely empty. The workers, along with several local suppliers, occupied the store in the hope of catching the boss upon his return. Eventually, the local labour bureau, the police and neighbourhood committee members arrived at the scene and paid the workers a portion of their wages. The workers were reluctant to sue their boss because they had not signed labour contracts and feared the courts would reject their case. However, workers without contracts can in fact pursue legal action if they have sufficient proof of a labour relationship such as pay stubs or other documentary evidence.

Clothes store workers take case to labour inspectorate

About 20 workers occupied a clothes store in Suzhou on 25 October when it became clear the boss was planning to close the business.
The saleswomen had worked at the Qianjiahui Apparel Emporium for a month but had never been paid. When several movers arrived at the store and packed up all the merchandise, the workers were spurred into action and occupied the premises for a whole day and night.
Workers then took their case to the local labour inspectorate who called the boss in for mediation. The boss retaliated by firing all the workers. Though none had signed labour contracts, they received all their back pay, overtime, and additional compensation for being dismissed without one month’s notice, as required by Chinese labour law. 

McKenzie Wark's Take on Wang Hui and Leftist Orientalism

 There is a Yiddish phrase: The fish stinks from the head. This means that what starts wrong can never be correct. I trust China's modern revolution starting with the May 4 Movement, through the defeat and banishment of the KMT and its U.S. backers; the government that destroyed Native Americans and their culture. I trust China through its history of humanist thought, belief in synchronicity, and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought. I understand the pressure of capitalist propaganda. How it panders infantile fantasies rather than collectivism, and I support Xu Jun-Ping and the politburo to reign in the corruption inherent in market adaptation. The fish stinks from the head and any nation that can close that capitalist mouth filled with seven thousand nuclear weapons, two that were used on an already defeated Asian nation, has my support.

McKenzie Wark's Take on Wang Hui and Leftist Orientalism

The Two Capitalisms: US Magical Thinking vs. Chinese Vertical Integration

The Two Capitalisms: Electric Batteries as a Case Study in US Magical Thinking vs. Chinese Vertical Integration

Posted on August 1, 2017 by Yves Smith

By Jack Lifton, a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of the technology metals

Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, (CWCC) as the Chinese press officially refers to the use of capitalism by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to advance socialism in China, is winning the battle with the neoliberal, “free and efficient,” market that supposedly has led the USA, first and foremost, to “the end of history.” CWCC has transferred enough wealth from the west to the east to ignite self-sustaining growth in China’s GDP.

Our world dominated by two capitalisms; the “free market” variety practiced in one form or another by almost all of the industrialized countries except Russia and a few others with a strong authoritarian bent; and “Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (their official description) practiced of course by the Peoples’ Republic of China.

Let’s look at how the two capitalisms have fared in creating a secure supply of the raw materials for manufacturing energy storage and production devices for the storage of and production of alternate (to fossil fuel produced) energy. Access to supplies is critical to prevent shortages and to help assure market position.

Notwithstanding the illogical blather about globalization, its purpose outside of China in the last generation has been to enrich a small segment of western society without regard to the welfare of the general populations in those countries. Natural resource imperialism has been the  driver of globalization for centuries. But the countries that were once victims of resource imperialism are in the process of turning the tables via total vertical integration of the production, use, and marketing of consumer goods critically enabled by those natural resources.

Specifically, the overarching purpose of Chinese business is to achieve Chinese independence of global markets for the basic needs of a widespread technological society second to none.

The Chinese focused first on the security of a growing Chinese INDUSTRIAL economy by seeking to attain natural resource total supply chain self-sufficiency. The country is now addressing health and safety.

Chinese politicians pursue national objectives through a reestablished mandarinate, a reproduction in part of their own ancient approach to large scale governance by a meritocratically selected and educated elite. They have dded to that a bit of the ancient Roman cursus honorum, the path that a member of the ruling class must take in order to advance to senior roles in their one party government. No Justin Trudeau’s; Eduard Macron’ or even Donald Trump can take power in their system. It does help to be directly descended from a founder of the Chinese Communist Party or its hierarchy but experience in government, and a specialized education, is an absolute requirement for the top job(s) in today’s China.

By contrast, American politicians; public intellectuals; and opinion makers are committed to magical thinking; they hold that beliefs are more important than mere facts. When they recognize a “crisis,” which they define as “when things aren’t going the way they are supposed to go to keep us personally wealthy and powerful indefinitely” their response is to first “study” the problem (to get it out of the public eye) and then after consultation with each other throw money at “solutions” that have been proposed by properly credentialed “experts’ and others who are the “right sort (their class) of people.” Thus we get neoliberal economics with its conceit that a “free” market will always be both efficient and “ultimately” keep supply and demand in balance through directing capital to where it is needed to do so.

The FACT; it is not a belief or conjecture; but an obvious fact that a consumer society built upon technology is completely dependent upon the production of just a few key materials derived from natural resources. This is well understood by the Chinese mandarinate, and since the goal of the CCP is to build such a society, it has resulted in a national mandate for China to become self-sufficient in these key materials for technology as soon as possible. The Chinese are not natural resource globalists; in fact they are natural resource imperialists for want of a better term.

As Mao Zedong said when the Chinese communist takeover was floundering economically, “Let a thousand flowers bloom,” i.e. try everything

His brilliant successor, Deng Xiaoping, decreed that China must quietly become wealthy and powerful, and for this he allowed the first use of capitalism to advance those goals through selecting the best results of letting a thousand flowers bloom.

Today’s Chinese leaders, less charismatic but dedicated to the same goals, have promulgated a modified capitalism (with Chinese characteristics) to achieve self-sufficiency in production and then supply of goods determined to be critical to the future of Chinese society.

And now they are sorting out the various approached to capitalism and the selected target resources to make CWCC as efficient as possible to achieve the goals that have been so identified.

The mandarins convinced Deng that China’s abundance of rare earths was important, because they foresaw that the miniaturization of electronic and electrical devices, the main use of rare earths properties, conserved and extended commodity natural resources such as iron, steel, aluminum, copper, and fossil fuels, thus advancing China’s goal of self-sufficiency. Within one generation the Chinese rare earth supply chain had become vertically integrated and was a global monopoly; this was mostly achieved because China’s construction of a total downstream (from mining and refining) supply chain allowed it also to become a monopsony in the final assembly of goods dependent for their operations upon the electronic properties of the rare earths. This monopoly/monopsony was the intended goal!

Of particular interest today is that China’s rulers have now determined that they must electrify personal as well as mass transportation on the ground in order to eliminate an unforeseen (by them) problem: massive air pollution in their mega cities caused by the concentrations there of fossil-fueled vehicles (which in the general scheme of things globally produce only two percent of “pollution,” but their concentrations in cities are principal contributors to it in those locales).

China’s “President” mandated first that China’s 90 motor vehicle assemblers and 40 lithium ion battery manufacturers produce 5,000,00 electrified (mainly battery powered) motor vehicles by 2020. Then they extended the “mandate” to foreign automakers manufacturing or selling cars in China, and furthermore, required that only Chinese manufactured batteries may be used in motor vehicles made or sold in China!!

The Chinese domestic battery maker’s very first response was that they did not have the manufacturing capacity nor access to the raw materials necessary. The response of the long term goal directed CCC was to use CWCC to “encourage” Chinese mining, refining, and fabricating industries (dominated by SOES) to develop or purchase the critical natural resources and to expand their capacities to meet the needs of the mandate. The Bank of China was ordered to “facilitate” such investments GLOBALLY-but and this cannot be overemphasized-globalization of sourcing for the PROC means the acquisition globally for use IN CHINA of natural resources! It does not mean acquiring foreign sources of natural resources to produce them as raw materials for global markets, NOT AT ALL!

By contrast, free market capitalism has today been almost totally financialized. Its purpose has become the transfer of money to a few, not the creation of new wealth in the financier’s home country through building factories and creating jobs. In fact, the moneyed elites have become what the Soviets used to call “cosmopolitans,” which were the criminals who put self before cause or country. Although it is easier for a Chinese national to “escape’ than it ever was for a Soviet citizen, it is still a crime in China to make or sequester money that is not for the purpose of advancing China’s path to socialism. Expatriates are shunned if they try to return and the amount of capital that can be exported from China for personal use is strictly limited.

With that introduction, let me now look at the influence on world commodity markets of the Chinese goal of the electrification of motor vehicles for personal use. The issues in the west have been driving range and the selling price of the vehicles.

The nebulous goal in the USA is allegedly to save the planet. In China, it is to immediately reduce pollution in the cities. American free market capitalism wants a relatively short term return on capital. CWCCs wants a self sufficient Chinese economy with return on capital to be measured by including the success of the Chinese standard of living and quality of life.

Let’s look at the critical natural resources necessary for producing lithium ion batteries that can give a one to two ton motor vehicle a range of 300 km or more; these would be of the of the NCA, nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode type such as is used by the Tesla corporation.

Note that the above comparative chart shows that the Tesla Model 3 battery contains only half as much cobalt as the Tesla Powerwall home power battery, for which the Tesla organization projects an even larger market than that for motor vehicles.

Note also that the chart does not state how much lithium would be used in these batteries. For the Model 3 unit that number would be 10 kg, calculated as lithium metal, or 60 kg calculated as the more common commodity unit for lithium, which is lithium carbonate. Neither copper (more than 75 kg), which is not even mentioned, nor aluminum (6 kg) are listed as “critical.” I think that this is because the chart’s author knows that both metals are produced annually in the 10s of millions of tons; 25 in the case of copper, and 50 in the case of aluminum (Note at this point and keep it in mind that China uses and refines from ore concentrates, intermediate forms; and scrap ONE-HALF of all of both the aluminum and the copper used on this planet annually!

As the chart shows there would be 19 kg of cobalt (measured as metal) and 100 kg of nickel, measured as metal in a Model S battery, which weighs around 500 kg in total when assembled.

Let’s see how much of each metal would be used to manufacture batteries for 500,000 2018 Tesla Model 3s.

Cobalt: 19 kg/battery x 500,000 batteries =             9,500 metric tons of cobalt

Lithium: 10 kg/battery x 500,000 batteries =           5,000 metric tons of lithium

Nickel: 100 kg/battery x 500,000 batteries =       50,000 metric tons of nickel

Copper: 75 kg/battery x 500,000 batteries =         37,500 metric tons of copper

Now let’s look at the USGS estimate for the total production of each of the above metals in 2016

Cobalt =    123,000 metric tons

Lithium =   35,000 metric tons

Nickel =     2,250,000 metric tons

Copper = 19,400,000 metric tons

Therefore the 2018 production run of the Tesla Model 3 will require:

13% of the world’s new production of COBALT

14% of the world’s new production of LITHIUM

2.3% of the world’s new production of NICKEL

2% of the world’s new production of COPPER

Now let’s look at where the above metals are refined into ready for use lithium ion battery grade forms. Actually let’s just look at what percentage of all of the above metals are so refined in the PRC:

Cobalt = 60%

Lithium = 50+%

Nickel = 52%

Copper = 40%

But there’s a problem. As I have stated the Chinese do not like to export raw materials; they prefer finished goods containing those raw materials, so that when they do export finished goods (in excess of their domestic needs) they capture all of the value added prior to direct marketing. The overwhelming proportion of lithium ion battery makers are domestic Chinese firms or Chinese dominated ventures with Japanese or Korean firms. Therefore the Chinese market has a monopsony on lithium ion batteries for use in ground transportation.

As an aside at this point I note that according to the USGS the United States imported 11,000 tons of cobalt in 2016. This means that Tesla’s needs alone would essentially double the amount of cobalt imported into the USA by the end of 2018. This would have to be battery grade cobalt produced outside of China, and since the amount of new cobalt produced annually in the US is negligible and China refines 60% of the world’s cobalt, it would mean that the US would require nearly half of the new cobalt produced and refined outside of China in 2018 unless Chinese made batteries are counted as cobalt imports.

Is it possible that Tesla alone could use as much cobalt as the rest of the United States industry altogether? Yes, it is. But is it likely? No, it isn’t. Remember that these demand figures do not take into account any Powerwall Battery production, or the substantial contract Tesla announced in Australia to install a huge Powerwall facility there.

I also note in passing that the USA does not have sufficient domestic lithium refining capacity, not to mention mining capacity to deliver to Tesla 14% of next year’s total global lithium production. And China is well on the way to monopsonizing global lithium use for electrified motor vehicles’ batteries.

At this point, we need to revisit China’s mandate to produce domestically 5,000,000 electrified motor vehicles by the end of 2020. If these vehicles used the same type of battery as Tesla’s Model 3 to achieve a range on a charge equal to that of a medium size fossil fueled vehicle,1 then the Chinese OEM electrified vehicle industry would require essentially all of the 2020 new production of cobalt and lithium under any possible scenario of increases in the new production of either metal. It would also require a substantial increase in Chinese refining and fabrication capacity for battery grades and forms of the two metals. Is that possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, because it would completely disrupt the world’s supply and value chains for cobalt and lithium.

Of course China could opt for a majority of the mandated production to be of shorter range EVs for city driving. I think this is in fact likely.

But China has mandated that by 2030 30% of all cars manufactured in China must be EVs. Based on today’s 25 million units per year (the world’s largest production in one nation) this would be 7.5 million EVs per year, a figure which would have been reached by building on 2020’s 5 million units! This would mean an average production of 6 million units per year, so that by 2030 China would have manufactured 60 million EVs!! The modern lithium ion batteries for long range use are intended to last up to 10 years, so that the Chinese production alone would tie up (immobilize and therefore be unavailable for recycling) several years of global new production of cobalt and lithium and impact even the global supply of nickel and copper.

In the USA and Europe range is more important than in China, so the projections of increased penetration of those markets by long range EVs, such as the Tesla, should add just as much demand in those two markets combined as in China.

Short sighted speculators will try and corner the cobalt and lithium markets surely. Realizing this is one reason that Chinese companies are acquiring cobalt, nickel, and copper properties and mines aggressively right now. The Chinese government is very much encouraging this.

I suspect that long range EVs using cobalt based cathode technogies will ultimately be the status symbols of the wealthy, and that the world’s EV fleet will be powered by shorter range power trains using more available cathode materials.

This scenario will allow cobalt prices to increase to where they would have to be for free market capitalism to “invest.’ In the meantime capitalism with Chinese characteristics has basically won the race to be the first to mass produce a mix of city and country (longer range) EV’s that are affordable in their markets. I suspect that Chinese car and battery makers are already planning sufficient production so as to be able to export “surplus’ EVs of both types to the US, European, Asian, and African markets by 2020.

The best way to invest in the projected EV market boom is to invest in producers, refiners, fabricators and recyclers of the cathode materials for lithium ion batteries for motor vehicle and stationary power use. Stay away from the non-Asian car makers; they have not understood critical raw material constraints and that misunderstanding is about to bite them in the tailpipe.

Norway, the UK, and Germany can ban fossil fueled cars by 2040, but by the numbers it will be the Chinese car industry that benefits most from this move.

Don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

____

1 In an earlier post on the importance of cobalt to the production of electric vehicle batteries, some readers objected by saying that other battery technologies that did not use cobalt were close enough to be commercialized so as to make this concern moot in a few years.

The problem with this reasoning is that the automotive industry has long production lead times. And at least as important, the OEM automotive industry investment in innovation is subject to the herd mentality. No where is this more true than in “advanced” anything (here read “battery”) technology.”

The global OEM automotive industry was very little investment (or interest) in proulsion battery research prior to the 21st century. EVs like flying cars, were viewed as marginal and niche markets at best. Then, as always, a “major” stepped into the water about 25 years ago. Toyota took an idea pioneered by (the soon then to be defunct) International Harvester personal vehicle manufacturing division (anyone remember the Harvester “Scout?”) called the “hybrid” power train and created the Toyota Prius NOT TO MAKE THE WORLD GREENER OR TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF (THEN CONSIDERED HARMLESS) MAN MADE CARBON DIOXIDE, but to meet California’s then requirement of 2% zero TOXIC emission vehicles in a company’s product line.

Noting that GM’s EV1 was going to be (and was) an economic flop, and considering that failure to be due in part to the weight, maintenance required, hazard of fire(!), short cycle life, and power disadvantages of lead acid batteries, adopted a then “new” technology known as the nickel metal (rare earths) hydride battery, which ameliorated the dangers of lead-acid and even though it cost more to build, it added 50% to the RANGE!

Fickle, perhaps bribed, California politicians rescinded the zero emissions mandate at the last minute and GM scrapped the EV1 program as fast as it could.

But Toyota felt that its approach has created a “new” product, so it introduced the Prius into the Japanese market in 1997, where it became a success and is still in the product line today, 20 years later.

Fifteen years after introducing the Prius, Toyota began selling a plug-in version using a lithium ion battery. The company today still offers the nickel metal hydride version of the Prius, but has announced phasing it out in favor of the lithium ion battery. Total product cycle time expended since the Prius was first engineered has been TWENTY FIVE YEARS. Note that only Toyota has had this profitable result with nickel metal hydride batteries. GM introduced a hybrid Buick in 2008 using nickel metal hydride technology, and all 8,000 units had mechanical battery failures! Ford waited longer and went immediately (after 3 years of production part approval process, PPAP) to a lithium ion battery.

Disruptive some technologies may be, but their adoption by manufacturers of civilian goods is at the margins, and profitability and product differentiation are the drivers NOT JUST INNOVATION.

Globally, after ONLY 10 years of study, OEM car makers have chosen cobalt using cathode chemistries requiring liquid electrolytes and graphite anodes for long range electric power trains. Toyota is once again an outlier looking at solid state electrolyte lithium ion batteries. In 25 years or so this technology, or that of fuel cells (solid state but not using platinum group metals or scandium, neither of which are abundant enough) may displace liquid electrolyte cells. But then again they may not, even if they work and work well scale up may not be possible due to critical material constraints or mechanical or electronic issues. It’s a crap shoot and magical thinking about moving innovation from the bench top to the showroom disruptively and immediately won’t help.

Why are so many Chinese nostalgic for the Cultural Revolution?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1970331/why-are-so-many-chinese-nostalgic-cultural-revolution

China Releases Human Rights Report on US: 'Terrible Problems'

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/China-Releases-Human-Rights-Report-on-US-Terrible-Problems-20170309-0002.html

Norman Bethune Respected in China

https://www.facebook.com/telesurenglish/videos/1041267092683359/

Trump changes tack, backs "one China" policy in call with Xi

© REUTERS/Denis Balibouse Chinese President Xi Jinping addresses the media during an official visit in Bern

BEIJING/WASHINGTON, Feb 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump changed tack and agreed to honor the "one China" policy during a phone call with China's leader Xi Jinping, a major diplomatic boost for Beijing which brooks no criticism of its claim to self-ruled Taiwan.

Trump angered Beijing in December by talking to the president of Taiwan and saying the United States did not have to stick to the policy, under which Washington acknowledges the Chinese position that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it.

A White House statement said Trump and Chinese President Xi had a lengthy phone conversation on Thursday night, Washington time.

"President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our 'one China' policy," the statement said.

A spokesman for Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen said in a statement it was in Taiwan's interest to maintain good relations with the United States and China.

The U.S. and Chinese leaders had not spoken by telephone since Trump took office on Jan. 20. Diplomatic sources in Beijing say China had been nervous about Xi being left humiliated in the event a call with Trump went wrong and the details were leaked to the media.

Last week, U.S. ties with staunch ally Australia became strained after the Washington Post published details about an acrimonious phone call between Trump and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

© REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo FILE PHOTO - President Donald Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.

No issue is more sensitive to Beijing than Taiwan. China and the United States also signaled that with the "one China" issue resolved, they could have more normal relations.

"Representatives of the United States and China will engage in discussions and negotiations on various issues of mutual interest," the statement said.

In a separate statement carried by China's Foreign Ministry, Xi said China appreciated Trump's upholding of the "one China" policy.

"I believe that the United States and China are cooperative partners, and through joint efforts we can push bilateral relations to a historic new high," the statement quoted Xi as saying.

"The development of China and the United States absolutely can complement each other and advance together. Both sides absolutely can become very good cooperative partners," Xi said.

Taiwan's top China policymaker, the Mainland Affairs Council, said it hoped for continued support from the United States and called on Beijing to adopt a "positive attitude" and "pragmatic communication" in resolving differences with Taiwan.

China is deeply suspicious of Tsai, whose ruling Democratic Progressive Party espouses the island's formal independence, a red line for Beijing, and has cut off a formal dialog mechanism with the island. Tsai says she wants peace with China.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the "one China" principle was the political basis of Sino-U.S. ties.

"Ensuring this political basis does not waver is vital for the healthy, stable development of China-U.S. relations," Lu said.

"PAPER TIGER"

Lawyer James Zimmerman, the former head of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, said Trump should have never raised the "one China" policy in the first place.

"There is certainly a way of negotiating with the Chinese, but threats concerning fundamental, core interests are counterproductive from the get-go," he said in an email.

"The end result is that Trump just confirmed to the world that he is a paper tiger, a 'zhilaohu' - someone that seems threatening but is wholly ineffectual and unable to stomach a challenge."

Jia Qingguo, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University and who has advised the government on foreign policy, said Trump had created a lot of uncertainty but was now back on track.

"Trump has reassured people that he will be a responsible president," he told Reuters. "...This is good news for China, because stable U.S.-China relations are good for China. Now we can do business."

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, but is also Taiwan's biggest ally and arms supplier and is bound by legislation to provide the means to help the island defend itself.

Defeated Nationalist forces fled from China to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with the Communists. Beijing has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control.

"EXTREMELY CORDIAL"

China wants cooperation with the United States on trade, investment, technology, energy and infrastructure, as well as strengthening coordination on international matters to jointly protect global peace and stability, Xi said in the statement.

The White House described the call, which came hours before Trump plays host to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, as "extremely cordial," with both leaders expressing best wishes to their peoples.

There was little or no mention in either the Chinese or U.S. statement of other contentious issues - trade and the disputed South China Sea - and neither matter has gone away.

A U.S. official told Reuters on Thursday that a U.S. Navy P-3 plane and a Chinese military aircraft came close to each other over the South China Sea, though the Navy believes the incident was inadvertent.

China on Friday reported an initial trade surplus of $51.35 billion for January, more than $21 billion of which was with the United States.

(Additional reporting by Michael Martina in Beijing and Adam Jourdan in Shanghai; Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Alex Richardson)

WSJ Crap: Taiwan fears becoming a pawn in donald trumps game

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-fears-becoming-a-pawn-in-donald-trumps-game-1484821803?mod=e2fb

My Opinion: U.S. Hopes Taiwan delegation at Trump inauguration: could 'disturb Sino-US relations'

The rags of the western propaganda, The Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post, etc., the false news that we have been hearing about, like to tease China and other countries defending the interests of their people against U.S./NATO WASP imperialism. Make no mistake about it, the tongue sticking out of Uncle Sam's mouth in no way helps American workers decimated by low income, outsourced jobs by American corporations that are no fault of China's, polluted waterway from oil pipelines and franking, attack on the middle class and union protection,. The U.S. government couldn't care less about Americans' interest.  China is not worried about it. The American people should be worried about it instead, because for the money that goes into the military industrial complex at the expense of public programs and social service, they should be thanking China for ignoring the threats of a bully. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/19/trump-inauguration-deepens-rift-with-china-over-taiwan

17 detained in Shandong to protest 7 million yuan in arrears On 1 December, workers took to the streets in Jining, Shandong province, to protest wages owed to them by construction developer Mingcheng Xinlingyu (New Horizon). The workers were owed 7 million yuan collectively for the construction of a local government building, amounting to 20,000 yuan per person. Police arrived on the scene and detained several workers; many were injured in the process. While some of those arrested were released from custody, 17 were charged with disturbing public order and detained for a week or more. In 2016 police were called in 25% of the time during construction worker actions, according to CLB’s strike map, and workers were subjected to violence and arrest.

20 jumpers scale Nanning mall to protest wage arrears

More than 20 migrant workers climbed the Wanda mall complex in Nanning, Guangxi, 13 December, threatening to jump from the rooftop if their wages were not paid before the Lunar New Year.
Like most large developers in China, Wanda relies heavily upon layers of subcontracting to build its projects. When workers demanded their wages, the construction company pointed the finger at the project’s subcontractor, who had already disappeared without paying workers.
Workers decided to take collective action to draw attention to their predicament. Not long after taking to the roof of the building, local government officials intervened and promised to settle the wages by the following day.

Annual wave of construction worker protests in full swing, officials fret over solution

China’s largest annual migration will soon kickoff as China’s migrant workers head home to celebrate the Lunar New Year, which falls at the end of January in 2017. In the month of December, protests over wage arrears surged, particularly in the construction industry, as workers took collective action to ensure they do not go home empty-handed.
Despite years of efforts to prevent them, government officials still struggle to prevent this annual surge in worker protests. In a recent interview, top officials from the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security pointed to the industry’s widespread usage of subcontractors, flimsy governmental oversight and general economic downturn as factors that contribute to arrear disputes, and noted that worker collective actions remain extremely common for workers experiencing wage arrears.
Across the country construction workers blocked roads, protested at government buildings and even threatened suicide to get the attention of the local government and pressure their bosses to pay them their wages.

‘One China’ being negotiated: Trump

BARGAINING CHIP?President Tsai Ing-wen said her administration would be able to handle the nation’s place in US-China relations and ‘put Taiwan’s interests first’

Reuters

The national flags of Japan, Taiwan, the US and the Netherlands (L-R) hanging outside the Imperial Hotel Taipei in Taipei yesterday. Diplomatic relations between the United States and the Asian region are expected to change as US President-elect Donald Trump has said that the ‘one China’ policy on Taiwan is up for negotiation under his administration.

Photo: EPA

US president-elect Donald Trump said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he would not commit to the “one China” policy until he sees progress from Beijing in its currency and trade practices.

In excerpts from the hour-long interview published on Friday, Trump, when asked if he supported the “one China” policy toward Taiwan that has underpinned US relations with Beijing for decades, said: “Everything is under negotiation, including ‘one China.’”

“We sold them [Taiwan] US$2 billion of military equipment last year. We can sell them US$2 billion of the latest and greatest military equipment, but we’re not allowed to accept a phone call. First of all, it would have been very rude not to accept the phone call,” Trump said in the interview.

In a previous interview with Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace last month, Trump questioned the need for Washington to stick to its “one China” policy.

“I fully understand the ‘one China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade,” he said at the time.

Presidential Office spokesman Alex Huang (黃重諺) at the time said that the office had no comment about Trump’s remarks on the Fox show.

While in El Salvador on Friday, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), in response to reporters’ questions on concerns that Taiwan might become a bargaining chip in the relationship between the US and China, said she had heard the view.

“I feel that we are able to deal with such things and will put Taiwan’s interests first,” she said.

Trump has said he would label China a currency manipulator after he takes office.

In Friday’s interview, he said he would not take that step on his first day in the White House.

“I would talk to them first,” he said. “Certainly they are manipulators, but I’m not looking to do that.”

However, the president-elect made plain his displeasure with China’s currency practices.

“Instead of saying, ‘We’re devaluating our currency,’ they say, ‘Oh, our currency is dropping.’ It’s not dropping. They’re doing it on purpose,” the Wall Street Journal quoted him as saying. “Our companies can’t compete with them now, because our currency is strong and it’s killing us.”

In other news, a personal e-mail of former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton recently leaked by WikiLeaks suggested an adviser, Jake Sullivan, once shared with her an article titled “To save our economy, ditch Taiwan” by Paul Kane, a former international security research fellow at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

In the article, Kane suggested that US President Barack Obama could bolster US economic security by ending its military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan, in exchange for a write-off of US$1.14 trillion in US debt held by China.

“I saw it and thought it was so clever. Let’s discuss,” said Clinton, who ran against Trump in the US presidential election last year, in the leaked e-mail.

Additional reporting by CNA and staff writer

KMT chaos destabilizing to ties: ex-China official

KMT DECLINE:There is no longer a group in Taiwan that can balance the independence faction, and the only such force now lies in China, Wang Zaixi said

By Lin Liang-sheng and Jake Chung  /  Staff reporter, with staff writer

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is losing its status as a powerful political party and a counterweight to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), leading to the ever-decreasing possibility of peaceful unification, former vice minister of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Wang Zaixi (王在希) said in a recent interview with the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times.

Wang said that the “status quo” is largely supported by ordinary Taiwanese, and any move that would challenge it would likely be opposed.

Asked about the influence of US president-elect Donald Trump on cross-strait affairs, Wang said that at the beginning of Trump’s presidency there would be a period when his administration would seek to cause trouble for China over Taiwan.

However, US support of Taiwan is conditional and would require reciprocation, and Taiwan should consider the possible result should it wish to risk peace, Wang said.

The Taiwan issue has existed for 67 years, and a solution will not be found overnight, Wang said, adding that arbitrarily assigning a time scheme for the resolution of “a complicated issue such as the unification across the Strait is impractical and unscientific.”

Regarding Taiwanese politics, Wang said there no longer exists a force within Taiwan that could counterbalance the pro-Taiwan independence faction, adding that the only such force now lay in China.

The KMT has lost its status as one of the nation’s major political parties, and the factions favoring unification are now scattered, leaving the DPP the sole party in power, Wang said.

Despite the decreasing chance of peaceful cross-strait unification, Beijing would nonetheless attempt to seek a solution peacefully, he said.

Economic sanctions against Taiwan would damage the interests of ordinary Taiwanese, Wang said, adding that Beijing should not seek to use the economy as leverage, but should instead seek to protect it.

Otherwise, China would continue to be unpopular in Taiwan, Wang said.

Meanwhile, Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) on Thursday said that both sides of the Taiwan Strait should seek to prevent risks while protecting people’s rights, adding that in the council’s view, nothing about cross-strait affairs is “small potatoes.”

Media reports claiming that cross-strait relations have entered an ice age are overstating the matter, “at least from Taiwan’s perspective,” Chiu said.

In the new year, Taipei would work hard to maintain established structures on cross-strait relations and utilize multiple channels to conduct dialogue with China, he said.

While China places limitations on cross-trait interactions for political reasons, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration would continue to handle cross-strait issues practically and call on China to admit the realities of cross-strait relations, Chiu said.

Additional reporting by CNA

China won’t allow sovereignty ‘fuss’: Xi

’COMPLEX AND SERIOUS’:China’s Taiwan Affairs Office minister said the year ahead would see uncertainty, while the Chinese president extended his New Year’s greetings

Reuters, BEIJING

China would never allow anyone to “make a great fuss” about its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, President Xi Jinping (習近平) said in his New Year’s address, while China’s top official in charge of Taiwan ties warned of risks ahead this year.

China’s increasingly assertive moves to push its territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea — including building artificial islands — have unnerved its neighbors.

“We adhere to peaceful development, and resolutely safeguard our territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests,” Xi said, in comments carried by state media late on Saturday.

“Chinese would never allow anyone to get away with making a great fuss about it,” he said, without elaborating.

China claims most of the South China Sea. Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam have competing claims.

While Xi made no direct mention of Taiwan, aside from extending New Year’s greetings to Taiwanese, the head of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office in his New Year’s message said that this year would see uncertainty.

“Looking ahead to 2017, the situation in the Taiwan Strait is complex and serious, and the development of relations are facing many uncertain factors and risk,” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) said, Xinhua news agency reported.

China hopes that people on both sides can show resolve and courage, to ensure the “correct direction” of the peaceful development of ties, and work to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, he added.

China’s military has become alarmed by what it sees as US president-elect Donald Trump’s support for Taiwan and is considering strong measures to prevent the nation from moving toward independence, according to a media report citing sources with ties to senior military officers.

Taiwan’s future lies in China: Hung Hsiu-chu

By Alison Hsiao  /  Staff reporter

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu is surrounded by reporters at Ming Chuan University in Taipei’s Shilin District yesterday.

Photo: Liu Hsin-de, Taipei Times

Taiwan’s future lies in China, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) said yesterday, while reiterating that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are “not two countries.”

Hung made the remarks in a speech at Ming Chuan University in Taipei, where she talked about her life and views on “the nation and the world.”

She told her young audience not to impose restrictions in their life, work hard whatever job they are in and seek to create their own opportunities.

She also warned them against being captivated by power and losing themselves when in power.

During the question-and-answer session, several Chinese students expressed their affection for Hung and asked her about issues ranging from cross-strait relations to the KMT’s prospects.

When a Chinese student complimented Hung for “promoting unification,” Hung jokingly said: “Don’t you try to get me framed (你不要害死我),” but then added that while many have tried to label her as “red,” she said she is “not afraid.”

Few people “really understand the [ROC] Constitution, the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) and the ‘1992 consensus’; if they do, they would know how cross-strait policy should be developed,” she added.

While praising former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for maintaining the “status quo” during his eight years in office based on “mutual non-recognition of sovereignty,” “mutual non-denial of governing power,” and the promise of “no unification, no independence and no use of force,” Hung said it is not possible for Taiwan not to move forward forever.

“The reality is [Beijing] believes its sovereignty claim covers Taiwan, and Taiwan vice versa, so the sovereignty claims of the two sides actually overlap,” she said, calling for mutual recognition of governance and a step forward toward political negotiations rather than restricting cross-strait talks to economy-related matters.

The new KMT policy platform that was passed by the party’s national congress in September, which called for enhancing the so-called “1992 consensus” and exploring the possibility of ending cross-strait hostilities by signing a peace accord, is a step in this direction, she said.

However, the new policy platform has sparked controversy even within the party, with senior KMT members, including KMT Vice Chairman Hau Lung-bing (郝龍斌) and former vice president Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), expressing their opposition to the changes.

Hung yesterday reiterated that the ROC Constitution refers to “one China” and the “1992 consensus” is “none other than a cross-strait effort to pursue unification,” but with the two sides differing in their interpretations of how it should be achieved.

When a Taiwanese student referred to the ROC and the PRC as “two countries” in his question, Hung interrupted him by saying: “[They are] not two countries.”

When the student asked about her long-term view on cross-strait relations, “whether it would be [Taiwanese] independence, unification or maintaining the ‘status quo,’” Hung said it would either be unification or unification by force.

The future of Taiwan lies in China, the second largest economy in the world, she said.

“While we can no longer retake the mainland, Taiwan can exert its influence [over China] and change its institution,” she said.

Prior to the event, Hung was asked to comment on KMT caucus convener Sufin Siluko’s (廖國棟) remarks on Thursday that he feared the KMT would become more like the “New Party” should Hung be re-elected chairperson.

Hung told reporters that since she became KMT chairperson, the party has not seen a drop-off in membership, but instead, more people wanting to become members.

She also took issue with KMT Legislator Lai Shyh-bao’s (賴士葆) call for a series of policy debates among chairperson aspirants before the end of next month, saying time should be allowed for preparation.

Additional Reporting by CNA