August 9, 2007
Bashing the China-bashing
Shanghaiist is going to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt -- that she actually knows better but is just being the politician that everybody expects her to be. But the following infuriatingly pandering comment puts Senator Clinton right up there with the lovely Senator Schumer on this Shanghaiist's "too-political-for-America's-own-good" list:
"We have to have tougher standards on what they import into this country," she said. I don't want to eat bad food from China or have my children having toys that are going to get them sick," said Clinton.
Of course, USA-Today/Gallup polls indicate the senator leads the Democratic field by 22 points, and her comments merely play upon the growing anti-China sentiment sparked by the recent recalls. And this Shanghaiist would be the first to rattle off a whole slew of terrifying anecodotes and statistics to illustrate just how badly China's consumer products/pharmaceuticals regulatory bodies need improvement. We are certainly not about to defend a system that kills at least 200,000 Chinese every year from fake medicines alone that make their way into the market some way or another.
But. As we have said over and over and over again. Where exactly do people think all of those "Made in China" goods are coming from -- some mysterious company called China? Who is the "they" that Senator Clinton is referring to, other than American corporations who have gone to China to cut costs and are exporting back a huge chunk of everything America is importing? Why are people getting angry at China for subpar American branded products? Yes, China most certainly has some serious consumer safety problems that must be addressed. But if that's the case, why are all of these American corporations manufacturing their products in China, and are they really doing what must be done to mitigate the risks of doing so?
Just when Shanghaiist thought it was no longer safe for our health to make any attempt at following US politics, John Edwards managed to muster the courage to say something semi-honest:
"We should have a Consumer Product Safety Commission that's not looking out for big multinational corporations, but is actually looking out for the safety of our children here in America,"
Wow. Hold corporations accountable, and do something in the interest of people? Or for the children of America, or the beloved dogs and cats of America, it doesn't really matter. Shanghaiist is just glad somebody finally said it.
Yes, we understand that feeling threatened as undisputed world hegemony must be a little scary, creating the kind of fear that politicians love to take advantage of. But take a close look at the competition at hand -- yes, China is growing very quickly, but this rate of growth is unsustainable and inefficient in more ways than one, leaving China to deal with a whole new set of quickly worsening problems associated with advanced economic development, on top of a number of fundamental shortcomings, without having established the foundation to do so. China has a long way to go before it can think about truly threatening America's position in the world and world domination, if China really is as obsessed with taking over the world as US politicians would have us believe.
Photo from Michael Totten.com.
| 
Oh Hilary.... letting John Edwards showing you off like that. Disappointing.
And here I was, ready to whip out my " Put a real Bush in office 2008: Hilary Clinton for President" T-shirt...
"Put a real Bush in office 2008: Hilary Clinton for President" Ahem! Excuse me, (expanding upon your childish joke) according to the CIA World Factbook, Mrs. Clinton has had a shaven haven since 1991.
But all joking aside, I commend Bliss Khaw for actually writing an editorial piece, which is a rare thing from the Shanghaiist people.
That said, if you wish to shift blame away from China, at least have some facts to back it up. For instance, if you could offer a single name of the defective product producers and its ownership, that would go a long way towards proving your case. Secondly, regardless of ownership, the safety of manufactures is within China is the Chinese government's responsibility. And thirdly, you point out correctly that the product safety crackdown is related to more general issues in the US-China relationship, which is entirely normal among nations and it seems to have served as an effective lever on a country that in many ways still behaves like an enemy to the US.
Sorry--you're right. I should have posted links to things like this and this when going on my rant about American corporations being held responsible for their China-produced products.
My main gripe is that yes, while these are all problems based in China, these big corporations, US or otherwise, are certainly aware of these problems. Which is why they should be held accountable if they want to go to China and manufacture in such a risky environment. My point is simply that while the problems certainly are China's, it is American companies that are importing these problems into the US.
Bliss
What the fuck, Shanghaiist! Please don't set the precedent of using every time a politician mentions China as an opportunity for a story. There's 18 months before the US election and many people don't really care. There are numerous political blogs around.
Stick to what you think you know best: Shanghai!
Bliss, do you want your children eating bad baby food from China, brushing their teeth with bad toothpaste, eating bad sweets, driving in bad cars?
Sure, there was a little pandering to the masses there, but that's what your Presidents are for.
China IS OBSESSED with taking over the world in every facet that they possibly can.
Thankfully, they can't. I flush my toilet with cleaner water than what comes out of their taps. GDP schmee-DP, they are still backwards.
Here we go with the mindless rants over something that is totally politically driven and completely out of our hands. They're gaming each other. That's what governments do to get their point or agenda across. People getting mad over that is just senseless.
That said, and being an American myself, I think that some, if not most, of the blame for the shoddy goods coming from China falls on the large U.S. companies doing business over here (i.e., proctor & gamble, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they the ones, themselves, who come up with the ingredients, if you will, for many of these products that, eventually, end up stateside?
let's see. i think it goes something like this:
"blah blah blah...
*poorly pasted article with all the links from a webpage still in the text*
...rant rant rant
bad (or dirty) china.
lamb kebab"
This was one of the best articles I have read on Shanghaiist in a long long time. The author expressed my feelings exactly, only far better than I ever could. Bravo. I hope to read more stories like this on Shanghaiist in the future.
Why blame the importers, when the goods are intentionally being mis-labeled by Chinese sources? Just because import businesses are interested in buying something cheap, doesn't give tacit approval to, say, replacing protein sources with hard-to-detect but toxic waste chemicals.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton is running in the US, not China. She's trying to change America's policy and standards towards Chinese imports, which is a perfectly rational, reasonable response. With the latest scandals I think most people would agree that Chinese products have to be seen as inherently suspect.
The author seems angry about something, but it's hard to make out exactly what.
"Why blame the importers, when the goods are intentionally being mislabeled by Chinese sources?"
This is exactly the misconception that American politicians would have the American public believe. It's much easier to blame China than to actually do something to make US and multinational companies accountable for making the choice to manufacture goods in China. The fact that producing quality products in China comes with tremendous risks and difficulties is no recent discovery.
These tainted goods coming in from China are not just being produced and shipped over as exports by Chinese companies. A huge portion of China-made products are being manufactured by either US/multinational companies' own factories here, or factories that have been specifically invested in and selected for a partnership in which they produce US/multinational branded goods on demand. Companies select their own manufacturers, their own materials, their own suppliers and their own raw goods. This is not some passive process where multinationals fall victim to shoddy imports.
Why shouldn't these major US/multinational companies be held accountable for making good, safe decisions when it comes to producing their goods for consumption? Does it make any sense to let companies off the hook if they seek out cheaper methods of production without fully looking into the systems and processes behind production, when they are fully aware of the risks?
Bliss
I think the only thing the author is probably angry about is commenters who don't get it (or simply don't read). As the author said, it's no secret that China has massive quality control issues, corrupt or ignorant manufacturers, and myriad other problems. Obviously these problem need to be addressed quickly, and obviously China hasn't been doing a very good job with this. But since none of this is a secret, shouldn't US companies who sell the products as their own have some independent testing measures in place? Don't they owe that to their customers? And if they aren't willing or able to do such things, how about this: Don't do business with China until China fixes all of its problems related to quality control.
Carl
Most stories did not report Edwards' response to that question on China, just Hilary Clinton's.
Your point was well taken with me.
I liked the following paragraph, especially:
But. As we have said over and over and over again. Where exactly do people think all of those "Made in China" goods are coming from -- some mysterious company called China? Who is the "they" that Senator Clinton is referring to, other than American corporations who have gone to China to cut costs and are exporting back a huge chunk of everything America is importing? Why are people getting angry at China for subpar American branded products? Yes, China most certainly has some serious consumer safety problems that must be addressed. But if that's the case, why are all of these American corporations manufacturing their products in China, and are they really doing what must be done to mitigate the risks of doing so?
I generally agree with the Bliss' idea that in addition to anger towards bad and dangerous Chinese products, low standards, and poor enforcement, more negative public sentiment should also be directed at
1. Multinational corporations
2. US import regulations and safeguards
However, the details of this story have been lost in the banter and buster. There are in fact culpable parties in each case, be they in the US or China, in the private or public sectors. There is some responsible party in all cases, be it (1) responsible by regulations, (2) responsible by contract, or (3) responsible by governing mandate.
Before one can really lay blame, questions such as the following need be answered:
1. Were US inspection and procurement guidelines water-down by, say, lobbyists and special interests, and did the US government allow companies to import products that were below the domestic standards? Was there an inspection regime that was insufficient or inadequately enforced? What safeguards are currently in place?
2. Are the Chinese government's standards so low and the regulatory bodies so ineffectual that they products that producers have no disincentive against producing dangerous, substandard products? What safeguards are currently in place?
3. Did the US companies knowingly disregard quality standards deliberately or did they negligently accept and import substandard products? Were laws broken in so doing?
4. Did Chinese producers violate particular contracts that establish standards for inputs and quality? Was this done knowingly and deceptively?
5. In each case, who were the parties? Was the manufacturer also the importer or were they separate parties?
6. Where in the supply-chain did the problem occur? For instance, was an upstanding toy manufacturer duped into buying bad paint, thus removing the manufacturer and importer from direct culpability?
etc, etc, etc......
The point here is that the devil is in the details, and I haven't seen or read anything herein that would conclusively point blame. However, from what I can see, it is very much in China's best interest to improve the quality standards and enforcement firstly, for consumer safety and secondly, to preserve its "brand" as the workshop of the world. In the US, corporations need to be held responsible for what they import and not permitted to hide behind the lax regulatory environs of a product's point of origin.
Hmmmmm.... maybe it's time to consult China Law Blog on this one.
Hillary may be trying to diffuse the "China connection" that Bubba was infamous for:
http://www.softwar.net/lippo.html
As for poisoned imports, yes, MNC devils are responsible for what they import into the US and we all know why they went to China in the first place: to escape US and EU labor, environmental and product safety laws (often referred to as "communism"). Then they go to Darth Cheney and Curious George to have funding FTC and FDA funding slashed so that there simply aren't enough inspectors or laboratories available to test incoming products.
But not all products coming into the US from China are MNC products. Fruits, veggies and especially seafood are exported from China by Chinese companies and are supposed to meet Chinese standards (which on paper are good). But apparently what is good enough for Chinese consumers is good enough for the rest of the world. It was 1-2 years ago that S. Korea had alot of problems with imported kimchii and seafood products and blocked all shipments. The S. Korean ambassador to China was dressed down for disturbing the harmony of the sphere of co-prosperity (not approaching Beijing for consultation before releasing public statements). China subsequently found alot of "problems" with imports from S. Korea.
As for China's ambitions:
From the publishers of WorldTribune.com and Geostrategy-Direct.com.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE HEADLINE LIST NEXT ARTICLE
S E A R C H A R C H I V E S
Keating: China proposed splitting the Pacific with the U.S.
East-Asia-Intel.com, August 1, 2007
U.S. Pacific Command leader Adm. Tim Keating said last week that Chinese military leaders offered to carve up the Pacific into U.S. and Chinese spheres of influence, a notion the admiral rejected.
"Our Chinese guests said, 'Here's what we'll do. You take care of the Eastern Pacific, we'll take care of the Western Pacific, and we'll just communicate with each other,'" Keating said military leaders in Beijing told him.
U.S. top military commander in the Pacific, Adm. Timothy Keating, left, is escorted by former Japanese Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo. Junji Kurokawa/AP
Keating said he did not agree with the idea.
The comments reveal Chinese strategy for pressuring the United States into leaving the Western Pacific so Chinese forces can be the dominant power. The U.S. strategy for the Pacific is to support U.S. and allied interests, specifically as they relate to Japan.
Keating said the U.S. military is closely watching China's military buildup and activities, including this year's provocative anti-satellite test.
Keating said the U.S. military doesn't worry about the People's Liberation Army. "We're watching them, we're interested. They're watching us, they're interested in us. It makes sense."
Keating said that Chinese leaders recently stressed concerns about Taiwan independence. The U.S. responded by stating its position that was "accepted" by the Chinese.
"We listened to their position. We kind of agreed to maintain this somewhat ambiguous position on our part, and they understand it. And that was okay," Keating said.
Chinese military leaders were not eager to discuss the January anti-satellite weapon test, but Pacific Command officials raised the issue.
"And we noted that we didn't know that this was necessarily consonant with [a nation whose stated goal is] peaceful rise," he said.
"So there is a difference between the way the People's Liberation Army and the Pacific Command view Chinese military development and Chinese military capabilities," he said.
Keating said that when Chinese military leaders asked about building aircraft carriers, "we said to them, essentially, 'knock yourselves out.'
"It ain't as easy as it looks," Keating said. "It's very difficult technology to master. It's taken us a long time. It is an expensive, time consuming, sophisticated, dangerous undertaking. They acknowledged that and said we reserve the right to develop aircraft carriers if we so choose. They said to us there is no more prominent and visible signal of a nation's resolve and might than an aircraft carrier coming into a port."
The four-star admiral said the United States wants peace and stability in the region as a key element of strategy. "But make no mistake - make no mistake - our fundamental goal is to defend our homeland. We're a military command; we're willing to fight and defend the United States of America. We're also willing to defeat any adversary with the temerity to challenge us and we are looking hard to do so in firm consort with our allies and our partners and our friends throughout the - our area of responsibility."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
East-Asia-Intel, www.east-asia-intel.com, August 1, 2007
Copyright © 2007 East West Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
nanheyangrouchuan
@nanheyangrouchuan
If you have articles to contribute, please be so kind as to use the Shanghaiist "Contribute" area rather than disrupting discussions with off-topic articles (unformatted, I might add) that only serve to destroy the ongoing dialog. Using the del.cio.us tag for:shanghaiist to broadcast articles would better serve both the interests of the online community and better allow you to share your topics of interest with a broader audience. Thank you.
@15
Nothing I posted was off-topic as this thread started with imports/exports and went on to China's foreign policy.
nanheyangrouchuan
@nanheyangrouchuan
The article from east-asia-intel is way off topic, and you've just shamelessly posted an entire article from another website - a paid website, I might add.
Your comments are welcome, but please stop spamming!
Bliss is of course right that the US companies should be accountable.
BUT there are also cases where the Chinese product is poop and not labelled as poop.
@15 & 17
Unless you are going to identify yourself as one of the Shanghaiist staff you can stuff it.
nanheyangrouchuan
Great article!
In order to solve this problem, the CCP must be destroyed and the China expat community dissolved and forcefully returned to the home countries by all
means necessary. China expats are parasites.
nanheyangrouchuan
Bliss: so wouldn't a rational response be to increase the amount of regulation, and isn't that exactly what Hillary Clinton is proposing? Isn't that basically what you yourself are arguing? Exactly what part of Hillary Clinton's quote or policy are you so angrily disagreeing with? Do you even have a point?
Until you can make some sense please don't go near a keyboard again. I'd rather read endless Nanheyangrouchuan ramblings than this sort of nonsense.
No. 22, please don't go near a voting booth again. Idiots like you are the reasons we have so many idiotic politicians nowadays. And it's people like you who allow the half-decent politicians to pander.
It's obvious she is trying to shift blame to China, when the easiest problems that could be fixed exist domestically. And what is Chelsea doing playing with toys?
Ignore these commenters, Bliss.
Ron
@Ron:
China exports nothing of real value or quality. China deserves to be criticized for its part in this "globalization" farce.
Bad, bad China.
nanheyangrouhcuan
I'd just like to chip in that my friend works for an export company here and they intentionally label their goods 'Made in (country that is not China and has considerably better manufacturing standards)', and apparently a relatively large number of companies here do this. What then?
@25:
Then your friend's company is breaking the law.
nanheyangrouchuan
@26: Duh.
"China exports nothing of real value or quality"
Hey, they serve to taste. If you have ever been in a Walmart you'll know the type of subhuman degeneracy they serve.
I don't understand how so many contributors to this thread can be so stupid as to fail to see that quality control is ultimately the responsibility of the company that puts its brand on the product. If a multinational sources from China it has SOLE responsibility for checking the quality.
ignorance is ...