Thursday, September 8, 2016

US reaffirms Taiwan stance following Xinhua claims

US reaffirms Taiwan stance following Xinhua claims

Staff writer, with CNA
A US official on Saturday reaffirmed Washington’s stance toward Taiwan, after China’s Xinhua news agency reported that US President Barack Obama expressed the US’ “opposition” to “Taiwanese independence” in a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China.
“Our position is consistent and longstanding... We remain firmly committed to our ‘one China’ policy based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act,” White House National Security Council spokesman Myles Caggins said in an e-mailed statement.
Obama and Xi held a meeting in Hangzhou on the eve of the G20 summit taking place there, and according to Xinhua, Xi urged the US to honor its commitment to the “one China” policy and the three joint communiques, and safeguard the peaceful development of cross-strait ties and the overall interests of Sino-US cooperation with deeds.
According to Xinhua, Obama responded that the US “opposes all attempts aimed at seeking Taiwanese independence,” and reaffirmed that Tibet belongs to China.
“Our fundamental interest is in peaceful and stable cross-strait relations,” said Caggins, who is among the White House staff accompanying Obama in China.
“We believe that cross-strait issues should be resolved peacefully in a manner, pace and scope acceptable to people on both sides of the Strait,” Caggins added.
However, Caggins did not reveal the details of the meeting between the two leaders.
Earlier this year, Daniel Kritenbrink, senior director for Asian Affairs at the US National Security Council, said that Chinese officials often mention the Taiwanese issue during meetings with their US counterparts, and if US officials comment on the issue, they say: “We do not support Taiwanese independence.”

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

At G20, Crisis-Ridden Obama Warns Host China of 'Consequences'

Editor's Note: The U.S. hegemonic belligerence in the world can only cause more harm added to the rest of U.S. started wars. China will not be cowed by the U.S. Asia will not be cowed by the U.S., and, increasingly, the world will not be cowed by the U.S. Most of all, the American people now realize what a filthy corporate government they have. 


Obama lectured China, saying "the United States arrives at its power, in part, by restraining itself."

As a guest of the Chinese government during the G20 Summit, U.S. President Barack Obama issued a threat, saying there would be “consequences” if China did not back down from what he called increasingly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea in an interview with CNN aired Monday.
"Part of what I’ve tried to communicate to President Xi (Jinping) is that the United States arrives at its power, in part, by restraining itself," Obama said.
"So where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behavior when it comes to economic policy, we've been very firm. And we've indicated to them that there will be consequences," President Obama said.
The South China Sea is a contested water area where China claims it is part of its sovereign lands, while its neighbors—U.S. allies—have been angered by Beijing’s military presence there.
China has repeatedly warned the U.S. against a military escalation in the area with the excuse of aiding its allies. Xi said Sunday that China would continue to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea.
The waters are important to China because over 40 percent of the world’s trade ships pass through it each day while the sea also contain some of the world’s largest offshore oil and natural gas known reserves.
Obama’s latest threats come as he is facing a tricky last G20 where he was poorly received at the airport when he was forced to disembark from Air Force One through a little-used exit in the plane’s middle section after China failed to provide the United States' large entourage with a rolling staircase, as is customary for visiting dignitaries.
The second blow to his visit came after his Filipino counterpart President Rodrigo Duterte called Obama a “son of bitch” and said he would curse him when he met him. He also said he was not “an American puppet” and Washington has no right to criticize him on human rights.
A previously scheduled meeting between the two was cancelled following Duterte’s comments. Since winning the presidency in May, Duterte has been leading an extrajudicial campaign against drug dealers and drug users in the country, killing thousands in a few months time.
Obama also tried to strike a softer tone, saying that China and the U.S. could “be friendly competitors on the commercial side and important partners when it comes to dealing with the many international problems that threaten the two countries."

Sunday, September 4, 2016

U.S. President Meeting in China Gets Reality Check?


Editor's Note:  "Leaders told to 'avoid empty talk' by China's President" was a headline on BBC News about the G20 Meeting. What does the BBC's use of the passive voice mean? 

The active voice is more powerful than the passive voice, especially when the subject is mentioned last. Reading between the lines is the last thing British and US children are taught, especially with Gates and Clinton in charge. Children only feel it instinctively and never know the ulterior motive

HANGZHOU, China — The problems began as soon as President Obama landed in China.
There were no stairs waiting for him to emerge from his usual door at the front of Air Force One.
On the tarmac, as Obama’s staffers scrambled to get lower-level stairs in place for him to disembark, White House press photographers traveling with him tried to get in their usual position to mark his arrival in a foreign country, only to find a member of the Chinese welcoming delegation screaming at them.
He told the White House press corps that they needed to leave.
A White House official tried to intervene, saying, essentially, this is our president and our plane and the media isn’t moving.
The man yelled in response, “This is our country!”
The man then entered into a testy exchange with Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, and her deputy, Ben Rhodes, while trying to block them from moving toward the front of the plane.
On what is probably his last visit to China, for a Group of 20 summit here, there were flare-ups and simmering tensions throughout — a fitting reflection of how the relationship between these two world powers has become frayed and fraught with frustration. Over the past seven years, strained ties with China have colored and come to define Obama’s foreign policy in Asia.
On Saturday, several White House protocol officers and other staff members arriving at a diplomatic compound ahead of Obama’s meetings were stopped from entering and had heated arguments with Chinese officials before they could get in.
“The president is arriving here in an hour,” one White House staffer was overheard saying in exasperation.
A fistfight nearly broke out between a Chinese official trying to help the U.S. diplomats and a Chinese security official trying to keep them out. “Calm down, please. Calm down,” another White House official pleaded.
Twenty minutes before the arrival of Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the two sides were still arguing in the room where the two leaders would soon be touting their cooperation. The Chinese insisted that there was not enough space for the 12 American journalists traveling with Obama. U.S. officials insisted that there was, pointing to a spacious area sectioned off for the media and citing arrangements negotiated long in advance.
For all the skirmishes, in the days leading up to the trip, White House officials gave a much rosier depiction of the U.S.-China relationship, talking up mutual efforts such as a deal to address climate change.
But in so many other areas, the world’s two largest economic powers have failed to bridge increasing hostilities and in­trac­table disputes over maritime issues, cybersecurity, trade and human rights. The yelling and screaming Saturday in many ways illustrated just how differently both sides view their roles — and how little has changed since Obama’s troubled first visit in 2009.
High hopes turn to pivot
Obama began with high hopes of improving U.S.-China relations. In 2009, he tried reaching out to Chinese leaders with offers of increased engagement. He decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama to avoid angering Beijing, to the disappointment of human rights advocates. Obama became the first U.S. president to visit China during his first year in office. But his administration was taken aback by how completely the Chinese controlled all aspects of that visit.
“He wasn’t allowed to say much at all,” said Orville Schell, a longtime China scholar who was in China during the visit. “The Chinese kept him from meeting certain people, from taking questions or even radio broadcasts. He didn’t know quite how to respond. He didn’t want to be impolite. It took the U.S. a while to understand that this was the direction China and the relationship was headed.”
Some have blamed Obama for adopting such an overly optimistic and open stance during those early years. For all his outreach, current and former top U.S. diplomats say, Obama got little in return, except the feeling of being burned by Beijing.
But that could be equally attributed to the simple fact that China itself was undergoing a seismic shift during the early years of Obama’s presidency.
When the global recession plunged the world into financial crisis in the late 2000s, China escaped unscathed. Its leaders looked around and realized for the first time just how much power China had achieved in ­becoming the world’s second-largest economy. Shortly there­after, they began eagerly throwing that weight around.
No longer were they willing to make concessions or bide their time — on big things, such as territorial claims, and on smaller ones, such as the nitty-gritty of negotiations over who sits where and says what during diplomatic exchanges.
Obama’s response to this newfound Chinese assertiveness was largely a response to reality. “In a textbook, it would be great to have a strategic vision for how you see things being eight years from now,” said Jeffrey A. Bader, Obama’s top Asia adviser during those early years. “But in this case, I think the word ‘reaction’ is right. You had a China that was changing in capacity and leadership.”
If the carrot of engagement didn’t work, Obama administration officials decided, they would try the stick. And they gave this tougher policy a name: the “pivot to Asia.”
The pivot boiled down to the idea of rebalancing U.S. ­foreign-policy attention from the Middle East to Asia — an area that will have clear long-term strategic importance in coming years.
Those overseeing the pivot strategy, senior U.S. officials said at the time, had studied examples in history when one power was rising while others were declining: Germany’s rise in Europe after World War I; Athens and Sparta; the rise of the United States in the 20th century.
Out of those studies, they developed a belief that China would respond best to a position of strength. To find that leverage, the United States planned to forge stronger ties with its traditional allies in Asia and pick up new allies among neighbors alienated by China’s new aggression — including Vietnam, Burma and India.
Using that multilateral approach, the thinking went, the United States could offset China’s rising military power and assertiveness.
Doubts among allies
The main problem with the Asia pivot was one of perception and substance.
European and Middle Eastern leaders expressed concern at the idea of U.S. attention and priorities suddenly shifting from their regions to another. Chinese leaders saw the pivot as a U.S. conspiracy to interfere with China’s goals and to slow its rise.
Meanwhile, the very Asian allies the pivot was meant to reassure had their doubts as well. Many wondered how much of the pivot was empty rhetoric and how much it would be backed by economic and military substance.
In recent months, those doubts have resurfaced because the ­Trans-Pacific Partnership — a multinational trade agreement with Asian allies that Obama hopes to enact this year — may die for lack of support in Congress and from presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, in the years since the pivot strategy began, the U.S.-China relationship has soured.
Both countries are trying to avoid open hostility but are increasingly wary and frustrated with each other. Other countries in the region continue to fear China’s rise but are not fully convinced that the United States will be a sufficient counterweight.

Editor's Note: For the arrogance and condemnation the U.S. government spews in the media about China, logistical errors were turned into insults in the western media so that the would think America got an "in your face" at the reception; it is all an exaggeration and provocation. Read the following article from to see how things were twisted to make China look mean and rude.


The U.S.-China relationship may be the biggest problem Obama’s successor will face in Asia. How the next president deals with it — the exact proportion of carrots and sticks chosen and the Chinese response — will probably define the region in the decade to come.
If this visit by Obama is any indication, the situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon.
On Saturday, even as the two presidents finished their talk and prepared for a nighttime stroll toward Obama’s motorcade, Chinese officials suddenly cut the number of U.S. journalists who could cover them from six to three, and finally to one.
“That is our arrangement,” a Chinese official flatly told a White House staffer, looking away.
“But your arrangement keeps changing,” the White House staffer responded.
In the end, after lengthy and infuriating negotiations, they settled on having just two journalists witness the leaders’ walk.
Neither side was happy with the compromise.
David Nakamura in Washington contibuted to this report.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Aide to former China leader gets life sentence for graft

Aide to former China leader gets life sentence for graft

AP, BEIJING

Ling Jihua attends the closing of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on March 12, 2013.

Photo: EPA

A former top presidential aide and consummate Chinese political insider was yesterday sentenced to life in prison for taking bribes, illegally obtaining state secrets and abusing his power in a downfall set off by an alleged cover-up of his son’s death in a speeding Ferrari.
A court in Tianjin, China, delivered the verdict against Ling Jihua (令計畫) nearly one month after the trial, which was held behind closed doors because the case involved state secrets, Xinhua news agency reported, adding that Ling told the court he would not appeal.
Ling headed the Chinese Communist Party’s general office under former Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), a position comparable to chief of staff for the US president.
His fall has been a blow to the Youth League bloc within the party, which had centered around Hu and is seen as a contending force for Hu’s successor, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Members of the bloc in the top leadership have seen their powers diminished since Xi took over, said Willy Lam (林和立), an expert on Chinese elite politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Ling fell out of political favor in 2012, just ahead of a once-in-a-decade power transition, when he was allegedly involved in the cover-up of his son’s death in a speeding Ferrari with two nude or half-dressed women as passengers.
In September of that year, shortly before Xi replaced Hu as party chief, Ling was transferred to the party’s United Front Work Department in what was widely seen as a demotion.
Soon afterward, Ling lost his remaining positions within the party’s upper echelon. In 2013, he was made a vice chairman of the powerless advisory body to China’s ceremonial parliament.
While working at the United Front Work Department and on the parliament’s advisory body, Ling obtained a large amount of state secrets through his contacts at the General Office, violating China’s rules on state secrets, Xinhua said

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

China starts to shift social insurance burden from employers to workers

China starts to shift social insurance burden from employers to workers

China’s Social Insurance Law (社会保险法), which went into effect five years ago on 1 July 2011, was supposed to create a comprehensive social insurance system in which the responsibilities of employees, employers and the government were clearly spelled out.
However, the majority of employers simply ignored their legal obligations to provide employees with a basic pension, unemployment, medical, work-related injury and maternity insurance. Local government officials, likewise, ignored their obligation to enforce the law, leaving hundreds of millions of workers without an effective social welfare safety net.
Now, there is growing evidence that China’s increasingly pro-business government is looking to place the burden of social security firmly on to the shoulders of workers and individual citizens and gradually reduce the limited burden currently carried by employers.
The government’s own figures (2015年度人力资源和社会保障事业发展统计公报) show that in 2015, only 262 million workers, about one third of China’s total workforce of around 775 million, actually had a basic pension, while only 213 million workers had basic medical insurance provided by their employer.
By contrast, there are currently 357 million working age people with a government-backed pension that does not require employer contributions. The urban and rural resident basic pension (城乡居民基本养老保险), created by the merger of rural and urban resident pension schemes in 2014, relies solely on individual contributions from residents backed by limited government subsidies. So while a lot more people may appear to be covered, the absence of employer contributions means that the benefits accrued are token at best. Indeed, official figures show that the average pay-out for the 148 million people receiving pension benefits from the urban and rural resident scheme in 2015 was just 1,432 yuan for the whole year. The average annual pay-out to the 91 million retirees with a basic urban pension contributed to by their employer, on the other hand, was about 20 times higher, standing at 28,363 yuan in 2015.
Responsibility for medical insurance likewise is gradually shifting away from employers towards individual citizens. In 2010, for example, 178 million workers had basic medical insurance from their employer, while 195 million people were covered by the urban resident medical insurance scheme. Five years later in 2015, the number of workers covered by their employer had risen by about 20 percent to 213 million. In the same period however, the number of people covered by the urban resident medical insurance scheme had nearly doubled to reach 377 million.
Unemployment, work-related injury and maternity insurance for employees are obviously tied to the workplace and, as of yet, there are no alternative urban resident-based schemes. There is a proposal to eventually merge maternity insurance with the basic medical insurance scheme but no detailed plans have been published yet.
Social insurance coverage for employees and working age residents in 2015 (millions)
* The figure for resident medical insurance scheme includes those over the retirement age
In addition to emphasizing resident insurance schemes at the expense of employee/employer schemes, the government is gradually chipping away at the insurance contributions employers have to make under existing laws and regulations. A notice jointly issued on 14 April this year by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Ministry of Finance (人力资源社会保障部 财政部关于阶段性降低社会保险费率的通知) stressed the need to gradually reduce social insurance contribution rates across the board, with the greatest reductions reserved for the employer. The Notice states explicitly that the measures are aimed at “reducing costs for enterprises and enhancing their vitality.” Several provinces and cities, including Beijing, have already started to reduce employer pension contributionsby one percent from 20 percent to 19 percent. This follows a similar one percent reduction in contributions to unemployment insurance earlier in the year.
CLB’s newly revised and updated introduction to China’s social security system argues that the Chinese government should not reform the system just to make life easier for employers; social insurance is too important for such short-sighted measures. Instead, the government needs to find a way to accommodate the competing interests of labour and capital in creating a realistic and stable social security system; one that looks after workers during poor health and old age but also helps to create a content and well-paid workforce that in turn can help develop the domestic economy through greater innovation, productivity and consumption of goods and services.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

My Opinion: On Tiananmen anniversary, Tsai calls for political rights

Editor's Note: After the neo-liberal west entered China economically after Deng Xiao-Ping modified socialist ideals to foster faster growth by cooperating with capitalist exploitative ideals failed, so did China let in western ideals of false liberty and "freedom of speech." 

We now know what a lie this "free speech" is thanks to the Erik Snowden and other whistle blowers, the sham elections of the Bushes, and the joke which is Hillary Clinton's obstruction of the public will in demanding real economic change in the U.S. Capitalism cannot be reformed. 

The absurdity of one neo-liberal ruse in Taiwan supporting the attack on socialism in Tienanmen begs the questions:

* Why doesn't Taiwan give its workers better working conditions if their democracy is so much better for the people than China's central planning? 

*Why has the average wage of coastal Chinese workers almost approached and, in some cases, passed wages of workers in "free China? 

*Why have the wages in Taiwan been at a seventeen year stand-still, through an equal amount of KMT and DPP administration while Chinese workers wages have soared so much? 

*Why can workers in China dare to stage strikes and close down their expoliative workplaces but Taiwanese workers hardly ever dare improve their working conditions by striking?


 Foreign investers, from Taiwan, the U.S., Japan, and elsewhere are fleeing China for poorer nations to exploit the slave wage earners there. China is not cheap enough anymore for them. 

Let Tsai Ying-Wen concentrate on improving the lot of Taiwan workers and not be a mouthpiece for failed U.S. influence in Taiwan. Otherwise, soon enough, those sweatshops that fled China might soon be returning to cheaper Taiwan.  



On Tiananmen anniversary, Tsai calls for political rights

Staff writer, with CNA
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged Beijing to treasure Chinese who seek democracy, saying it can earn more respect from other nations by allowing its public to enjoy more political rights, on the 27th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre yesterday.
Publishing a message on her personal Facebook page, Tsai said she did not mean to criticize China’s political system, “but rather I am willing, with heartfelt sincerity, to share Taiwan’s experience in democratization.”
These were Tsai’s first comments about the 1989 massacre as the president of Taiwan after she took office on May 20.
“Democracy will not fall from the sky,” Tsai said. “The universal values of democracy and human rights are something that is fought for and won by the people.”
Tsai recognized China’s economic progress and the improvement in the Chinese quality of life, which she attributed to the efforts made by “the ruling party on the other side of the strait.”
However, she said it is undeniable that China is facing pressure to reform.
“If the other side of the strait can give more rights to people on the Chinese mainland, it will earn more respect from around the world,” she added.
She also called on China to treasure those who seek democracy, saying that they are likely to be the ones who will move China forward.
Only “the ruling party on the other side of the strait” can heal the past wounds of Chinese, she said.
“My responsibility is to protect the democracy and freedom enjoyed by Taiwanese and create peaceful, stable, consistent and predictable cross-strait relations,” Tsai said.
“Hopefully, one day, the views of both sides on democracy and human rights will converge,” she added.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who stepped down two weeks ago, also yesterday made remarks about the massacre, where Chinese soldiers and tanks fired on civilians in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square after weeks of pro-democracy protests. Estimates of the death toll range from several hundred to thousands.
In a post on his Facebook page, Ma urged China to hear the diverse voices of the public and treat dissidents well, which he said would help Beijing win respect from people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the international community.
Ma said that China would earn more respect from the world by “redressing the June 4 incident.”

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Shenzhen workers conclude collective bargaining deal after ten-day strike

Shenzhen workers conclude collective bargaining deal after ten-day strike

Around 100 workers at a Taiwanese-invested moulding factory in Shenzhen have successfully concluded a collective bargaining deal with management related to a possible change of ownership at the company.
The agreement, signed on 9 May, guaranteed the workers at Hietech Precision Industry (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd long-service compensation in the event of a change of ownership, the payment of social insurance and housing fund contributions in arrears, as well as high-temperature subsidies.
The employees agreed to give management eight months to pay all the money owed, while management agreed not take any kind of retaliatory action against the employees’ bargaining representatives.
Zhang Zhiru, the head of the Chunfeng Labour Dispute Service Centre in Shenzhen, who advised the workers in the bargaining process, said the successful outcome showed exactly why collective bargaining is such an important tool for both workers and management.
The Hietech case shows why labour disputes should be solved through collective bargaining. Solidarity and the spirit of compromise of the workers, the willingness to talk and sincerity of the management, and the active but neutral involvement of the local government, all of these factors contributed to this tripartite success.
Zhang Zhiru (centre) with Hietech worker representatives during a bargaining session with management
The dispute began last month when workers began to hear rumours about a change of ownership at the factory. Workers, concerned about job security, tried to talk to the boss but failed. They then took things into their own hands and downed tools on 27 April.
Management agreed to some of the workers’ demands on 6 May but did so in very vague terms and didn’t provide a clear timetable. The majority of the workers rejected the deal and continued the strike.
It was only after workers sought help from the nearby Chunfeng Labour Dispute Service Centre that significant progress was made. The workers elected their own representatives and drafted an agreement. Management agreed in principle to the terms of the agreement and the employees returned to work as sign of good faith.
On 9 May, both parties discussed the proposal for a total of 11 hours, ironing out the detail, and eventually signed the agreement. The entire process was documented on social media.
The Hietch disputes once again illustrates how civil society labour organizations can help resolve disputes that have already escalated into strike action by organizing the workers and helping to present reasonable and constructive demands to management.