YES, WE DID! And I was there! Here’s a shot of the rally at Grant Park in Chicago, where an estimated 125,000 people showed up to support the Obama-Biden ticket:

Photo by Erica Schlaikjer

Obama’s decisive and historic victory in the U.S. presidential election brings many hopes and promises.

What could his tenure in the White House mean for China’s environment?

Bloomberg.com reports that Obama’s “protectionist” trade policies may lead to opposition in many Asian countries.

Obama’s goal of corralling developing economies into binding pollution-reduction commitments and his pledges to insert labor and environmental standards in trade agreements may spark unified opposition in an Asia that has more tools than ever to resist Western pressure.

The article says that Obama may develop a more “moderate” approach once he is sworn into office, mainly “because the U.S. needs China’s help to solve the financial crisis that threatens economies worldwide with recession” and can’t afford to risk losing China’s support by being “too tough.”

And since “the global financial meltdown has undermined the U.S. as an economic model and advocate of free-market policies” then the U.S. is especially not in a good position to take a hard line.

“The U.S. capacity to dictate terms on trade and environment issues to Asia has weakened considerably,” said N. Bhaskara Rao, chairman of the Centre For Media Studies, a political-policy group in New Delhi. “They are done in, big-time, by the economic mess they are in.”

This means China is probably more likely to gain the support of developing countries when it comes to dealing with trade and climate change issues than America. But China’s influence and leadership in this case is a bit worrisome, seeing that the big Asian nation is not willing to sacrifice economic growth to shift its energy structure, and it also tends to point fingers at the U.S. and other Western countries as being responsible for solving the climate crisis, when instead, what we need is global collaboration.

Indeed, the environment is one of the most important items to confront on Obama’s to-do list.

From The Guardian:

“The environment is as much a foreign policy issue as a domestic one, given the 13-month deadline for a new UN climate change treaty. Obama has committed to global carbon emissions caps as a means to help China and India come on board the UN pact, but that requires a reliable plan to rein in Big Oil, King Coal, and other fossil-fuel producers with fearsome political clout. If Obama cannot coax Congress into passing a climate bill by summer 2009, expect the young president to fight climate change with one stroke of his pen through new regulations.”

To be more specific about Obama’s current plan, “He would set a goal of reducing US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050, using a cap-and-trade system and a 10-year programme worth 150 billion dollars in renewable energy research and deployment,” according to the AFP. “He would not wait for China and India to act, but insist they must not be far behind making their own binding commitments, Obama aides told Nature, the British science journal, last month.”

Ah, again, the hopes and promises. But they mean nothing if the U.S. Congress fails to act and reach consensus.

Traditionally, it takes a US president months to appoint a cabinet and gain Congressional approval for it.

Then there is the mammoth challenge of a carbon emissions bill, which powerful utilities and oil corporations may well fight every inch of the way.

…

…other countries will be demanding “some indication” that Congress will go along with Obama’s climate policies. In 1997, the US Senate — whose approval is needed to ratify a treaty — voted 98-0 against the Clinton administration’s approval of the Kyoto format.

….

To marshall support, Obama could argue that investment in renewables will create jobs and channel some of the revenues from the carbon market to the public’s benefit, said some analysts.

He could also argue that energy efficiency is linked to to national security, weaning the US away from imported fossil fuels from volatile regions.

Only time will tell if Obama’s plans will gain public support. He’ll have to make a strong business case for these policies, because people won’t want to help the environment if it doesn’t help their bottom line.

Bill McKibben from Yale Environment 360 talks about some of the big pieces of legislation that Obama should push for domestically, and I add my two cents about how it could affect China in the long-run.

1. “Massive government investment in green energy.”

If successfuly, this could lift the U.S. out of its current financial crisis, and therefore re-establish its economic clout, especially with countries like China. Also, if the U.S. becomes more self-sufficient in green technology and creates more green-collar jobs, there will be less of a need to rely on China for imports or outsourcing jobs. For example, McKibben says, “you’re not going to send your house to China for a layer of fiberglass.”

2. “A stiff cap on carbon, which will help drive the process.”

McKibben says, “Current versions of cap-and-trade are too weak and too riddled with loopholes — getting a clean, tough bill through Congress needs to be a preoccupation of President Obama.”

3. “Once the president has done all that tough stuff at home, he’ll need to do it all over again, globally.”

In December 2009, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. “This will represent the last legitimate shot the world has at putting itself on a new carbon regime in time to make any difference,” McKibben says. China and the U.S. will need to display strong leadership in order to create any real impact. Hopefully, the global economy will be in better shape by then, or else we’ll be faced with the same ol’ excuses of not wanting to save the planet for fear of further harming business and limiting development.

Some final thoughts from McKibben:

It will be incredibly difficult, mostly because we begin from such unequal places. China has lots of coal and it would like to burn it, because it’s the cheapest way to pull rural Chinese out of dire poverty (something the country’s leaders would quite like to do because otherwise they won’t be the country’s leaders much longer). If we want them to use, say, windmills instead, we’re going to need to “share some wealth,” north to south, to make it happen. The Chinese opened the bidding last week, with a suggestion that one percent of the U.S. annual GDP would be a good amount to send their way. That’s going to be quite a political ask — it means that Americans would be working roughly one hour every two weeks just to help the global South build up their clean alternatives. What we’re talking about is a carbon version of the Marshall Plan, and it would mean Obama needs to be not just FDR but Truman and Ike as well.

Big money, big change: General Electric pushes for environmental laws and revs up Ecomagination in China

The Wall Street Journal recently hosted a special event, ECO:nomics: Creating Environmental Capital, that focuses on a “CEO-level view of the rapidly developing relationship between the environment and the bottom line.” Program participant Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric, spoke on “The Environment and the Business of Business.”

The interview focused on why he believes in good old capitalism, in all its shades of green. Immelt is planning on greening his sizable pile of green bills mainly through Ecomagination and pushing for stricter climate change regulations. China is a key part of the Ecomagination plan to green and profit from the Olympics. In the long-term China and Ecomagination are planning a long-term relationship, also.

GE has received its fair share of attention for Ecomagination, a campaign lead by Immelt to promote sales of GE’s energy saving and creating technologies. Ecomagination is doing big, profitable business in China and the relationship is only growing.

Immelt is also lobbying the U.S. government for mandatory caps on carbon emissions. He helped form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of corporations and environmental organizations “that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” Stronger laws like the USCAP wants will weaken China’s argument that it doesn’t have to act because industrialized nations have not acted either. Also, stronger laws means businesses need to buy new technology, such as the technology that GE makes in China.

USCAP goals include encouraging innovation and fostering economic growth with green house gas policies, a cap-and-trade program, and research and technology.

Immelt makes a concise case for putting more money into green research and development.

I’m an investor, I’m a capitalist and I’m a businessman. So I believe that I could generate earnings for my investors through technology.

He is not alone in this stance. Some leaders, like Barack Obama, think Detroit could take a listen. Immelt keeps going, with what I think is a very strong logic.

There’s no percentage for any CEO in the world to run his or her business thinking that there are not going to be carbon caps someday. Because the day it becomes law, you’re five years late. And you either get out ahead of these things or you get stomped by them.

If the CEO of one of the world’s largest companies thinks that serious action on climate change is inevitable, the fight on Capital Hill maybe coming into the final rounds.

Of course, Capital Hill and politicians need to consider how other countries are legislating greenhouse gases, or GHG. China comes into this debate more than any other country because of its geo-political size, the size of its economy, and the size of its export business to the United States. Many politicians, including George Bush, refuse to move on GHG legislation before China does.

The WSJ reminded Immelt of this common argument by saying, “…we face extreme competition from emerging countries in Asia…” Fair enough. The obvious follow-up question asked is, “does it make sense for you to say, OK, in the U.S., we’re going to impose a cap on our businesses, but there’s going to be no such cap in China…?” Immelt answers:

What legislation will try to do, is to have some market-clearing mechanism for what’s going to happen globally. But, I’ve got to tell you that we’ll do, I don’t know, $15 billion, $16 billion of Ecomagination products this year. Probably $2 or $3 billion will go to China and India. So it’s a great opportunity for this country to develop technologies that are going to be used on a global basis.

Immelt also takes on another popular argument against action on climate change: it costs too much and will hurt the economy. He defends his position by saying,

Costs are going to be borne no matter what. I would say we’re actually already paying for it. $110 oil, we’re already paying for it. Costs are going to go up.

The question is do we get ahead of it and bring these [clean] technologies down the learning curve ahead of time, or does it just get thrust on us in an incredibly impossible way? And that’s what leaders have to decide.

The WSJ’s reporter made a legitimate point by asking:

Part of people’s business plans is to go to Washington and get legislation passed that requires people to buy their products. So one question I would have is how much of Ecomagination is actually underwritten by tax subsidies? And how, as a private investor, do you justify having public taxpayers get into this business?

Immelt defended his tax subsidies perfectly:

Government tax policy, or economic policy, ought to reflect the benefits to the economy and what the government wants to have happen.

Think about something like the production tax credit [which gives tax credits to alternative-energy companies]. One of the reasons the government wanted to use it was to get more renewable energy in place. We acquired our wind business in 2001. The cost for electricity and wind was about 16 cents, 17 cents a kilowatt-hour. Now it’s half that. The production tax credits worked.

Immelt, whose business is international, is thinking about GHG regulation internationally. He knows that he stands to benefit from regulations in the U.S., specifically boosting his production and sales in China. Not afraid to get out ahead of China on these laws, Immelt is betting China will eventually have to follow if the U.S. leads. Can Immelt and his CEO friends push the U.S. out of the blame game with China over global warming? Can we get past finger-pointing and make money for global companies in the process? Ecomagine that.

Immelt talks more about Washington here, and tree-huggers like Grist.org support him here.

Click on the links below for more stories related to global green business and Jeffrey Immelt’s interview:

• Gristmill: “ECO:nomics: Immelt vs. the ideologues”
• The Santa Barbara Independent: “Execs, Politicos, Journos, Enviros Talk Eco-Trends at Bacara“
• Green Tech Media: “Bottom Line for Green Initiatives: Good or Bad?

And here are some other corporate members of the USCAP alliance:

• Duke Energy
• Dupont
• Ford
• General Motors
• Johnson and Jonson
• The Dow Chemical Company
• to name a very few of many.

And also coming to the party are the following environmental organizations:

• The Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Nature Conservancy
• World Resource Institute
• National Wildlife Federation
• and there are more of this type too.

Image via China Digital Times

The Beijing government issued a ban against plastic shopping bags in an effort to reduce “white pollution” and step up its recycling efforts. The ban is effective June 1.

• Shoppers: It’s BYO Bag in China
  By Christopher Bodeen
  Associated Press
  January 10, 2008

BEIJING (AP) — Declaring war on the “white pollution” choking its cities, farms and waterways, China is banning free plastic shopping bags and calling for a return to the cloth bags of old — steps largely welcomed by merchants and shoppers on Wednesday.

The measure eliminates the flimsiest bags and forces stores to charge for others, making China the latest nation to target plastic bags in a bid to cut waste and conserve resources.

The ban takes effect June 1, barely two months before Beijing hosts the Summer Olympic Games, ahead of which it has been demolishing run-down neighborhoods and working to clear smog. The games have added impetus to a number of policies and projects, likely boosting odds for the bag ban’s implementation.

I recently arrived in Taiwan. One of the first things I noticed was that you have to pay a small fee for plastic bags at the store. Even the bags you use to throw out garbage cost money to purchase for household use. Though the fees are nominal, they definitely encourage me to Bring My Own Bag. Other nations that regulate the use of plastic bags include South Africa, Ireland and Bangladesh, according to the Associated Press.

To read more about the Beijing ban, click on these stories:

• China Bans Plastic Shopping Bags
  China Digital Times

• China Bans Free Plastic Bags
  Environment News Service
  
  
• They don’t grow on trees, you know - so goodbye, free plastic bags
  Times Online

• Video: A greener China bans free plastic bags
  AlJazeera English

One thing I wonder about is how this might affect the hundreds of peddlers who collect plastic bags to make a profit off of their own underground recycling operations. Even if the new law does put these guys “out of business,” I believe that Beijing is doing the right thing by taking a stand against the careless use of plastic. (Although, read this interesting piece, “In Defence of Plastic Bags,” by Megan Lane of the BBC, for a different perspective…)

Other resources:

• Plastic Bags Reduction Network
  
• China Plastics Processing Industry Association (CPPIA)
• Worldwatch Institute - Plastic Bags

Interview by Mark Hiew

This post is part of an occasional series of interviews with those working on development and sustainability issues in China, particularly southwestern Sichuan province.

Kasen Whitehouse is a 24-year-old American working in Chengdu at the Panda Breeding Center. Originally from New York, he previously researched panda hormone and reproductive behavior at the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington D.C. before coming to Chengdu in 2006 on a four month exchange program at the Breeding Center. He moved back to Chengdu more permanently in 2007 and now works at the Breeding Center on conservation education. I recently spoke to Kasen about the challenges of conservation work in China, the current state of the Giant Panda and his thoughts on the future of environmental sustainability in China.

ResponsibleChina: A lot of people are familiar with the plight of pandas in Sichuan at an abstract level, but less might know exactly how critical their plight stands as of this moment. What could you tell us about the current situation as it stands, both in the wild and with centers such as your own right now?

Kasen Whitehouse: Pandas are still on the brink, with only 1500 in the wild. There are presently about 250 in captivity. The Panda [conservation] community sees 300 as a sustainable number–it provides a stable population where they can continue to be bred, with a broad genetic pool, breeding 5 or 6 per year instead of 20. We can then focus on other pressing concerns, such as education, conservation and reintroduction.

Kasen says he is confident of reaching sustainability. The last two years have seen a “panda boom” of sorts– eight were born last year, and eight this year at the Chengdu Breeding Center alone. The the major panda centers are located in Chengdu and Wolong, a Sichuan town northeast of Chengdu. China is the only country that can legally ‘own’ a panda.

RC: Before your current position, you were conducting more research-oriented panda work at the National Zoo. Can you explain what it was you were studying there?

KW: I was doing hormone and reproductive behavior amongst captive pandas. The main goal was to find out when male pandas want to breed. I would take urine and blood samples for hormone levels to find out when they were optimal for breeding, and measured sperm quality for artificial insemination.

It’s hard to measure the ratio of natural versus artificial insemination, partly because there are only three days in a year when female pandas can become pregnant.

RC: Some within the conservation movement fear that the panda represents the fickle nature of conservation marketing: that it’s only because the panda is so cute that we empathize with it, much more than we might with less aesthetically pleasing but equally endangered creatures, which caricaturizes or reduces the movement. Here in Chengdu, the panda logo is used to sell everything, going well beyond tourism to products like panda waste. Do you agree with such comments?

KW: Everybody would love to have people be empathetic towards an animal like the praying mantis, but unfortunately this isn’t the case. Several hundred million dollars have been given to the general conservation movement because of giant pandas. It’s a hard judgment to make: if it weren’t for pandas, who’s to say other species wouldn’t have died out by now. Whatever can be done to get money–whether for conservation, research, etc.–should be done. If it involves using pandas as a hook, then do it. If anybody can come up with an ingenious way to make insects more appealing, then they should do it. But if using pandas is the best option at the moment, then we should take full advantage of it.

RC: Groups like Jane Goodall Institute’s Roots & Shoots seem to be quite popular as extracurricular groups within primary and middle schools around Chengdu. Do you think that these conservation groups are having a significant impact on students, and are they taking these messages to heart? Moreover, do you feel like current conservation education efforts are inspiring the next set of Chinese conservationists to create a sustainable China, or more to provide extra padding to their university applications?

KW: It doesn’t seem like students are truly concerned, but you have to imagine some would be. The Chinese population doesn’t seem as active; they don’t have as much motivation to take personal measures for sustainable living. They’re doing things from a self-interested mindset; [most Chinese] are not using coal or electricity because they want to save money, not out of concern for energy use. The goal is to open people’s eyes, but some don’t seem as easy to open as people might hope. But it’s not much better in the US–Chinese have much less of a carbon footprint than Americans. It’s more up to the government to be more active in leading the people in environmental change.

RC: In many parts of the world, China included, environmental conservation is often seen as standing in natural opposition to economic development. Is that still a dominant view here, and have you seen any efforts or discussion regarding ways to break down this binary in order to find more conciliatory approaches to conservation?

KW: There is some natural conflict between prosperity and [conservation]; as of right now I think its necessary. But because China’s economy has grown so big, they can make huge changes that previously may not have been possible.

Kasen cited electric scooters as a model example of successful government involvement in environmental efforts. Electric scooters are now so popular in China compared to gas scooters, in large part through government support, including subsidies for makers and dealers of electric bikes. They successfully replaced less environmentally friendly gas scooters. This might be possible with other transportation options, such as cars.

RC: What is the most difficult aspect of your job?

KW: Probably business culture differences: it’s unclear exactly what “No” means in various contexts, and other general language differences. I get along really well with Chinese people and want to work with them in the future, but a lot of other foreign people don’t really get along with the culture. It’s also a partially run government program–things don’t always add up, and it can feel a bit sketchy. This is the same everywhere you go, including the National Zoo, though a bit more evident here. If there’s a problem, it takes several weeks and a lot of effort to get anything changed. They may have some program or theory that has been done for a while, but when they find it’s not right, it takes longer to change.

RC: Finally, people must surely want to know: what’s the fuzziest moment you’ve ever had with a panda? And are their personalities as lazy and placid as we hold them to be?

KW: If you go to the zoo and see a tiger sleeping, you’ll see that all mammals tend to be lazy and placid, not just pandas. When young, though, they have a lot of energy: they climb trees, wrestle, do back flips, or run around an enclosure at full speed for half an hour.

His proudest moment? Kasen got to hang out and take pictures in a center yard with Jingjing, a mascot of the upcoming Olympics, who was less than a year old at the time.

Two recent blog posts examine the potential for foreign investors to capitalize on sustainable building projects.

Steve Dickinson from the China Law Blog recently explained how some recent changes to China’s real estate laws will restrict foreign investment.

• “Foreign Investment In China, Part II: Can You Say Last Nail In The Real Estate Coffin?”
  By Steve Dickinson
  China Law Blog
  November 13, 2007

• In May of this year, the notorious Circular 50 requires all foreign invested real estate projects, no matter the size or nature, be approved at the national level in Beijing. This allows Beijing to turn the market on and off through its approval authority.

• In July, the State Administration for Foreign Exchange issued Circular 130, regulating and limiting the use of foreign exchange in real estate investments.

Dickinson says there are a couple of reasons why Chinese authorities would want to restrict foreign investment in real estate:

First, foreign investment is believed to drive up real estate prices to the detriment of local citizens. Second, the flood of money into the real estate market was exacerbating China’s excessive accumulation of foreign reserves.

As a follow-up to Dickinson’s post, Managing the Dragon offers a suggestion that he says will help foreign developers “create incentives for the government to support their projects”: the development of sustainable buildings.

• “Sustainable Palm Greasing”
  Managing the Dragon
  November 15, 2007

As Steve Dickinson very concisely summarizes in this recent post on China Law Blog, the government is actively expanding their control over foreign investment in China’s real estate market. That isn’t to say that real estate is completely off limits for foreign players, but rather that the Central Government has put themselves in a position where they can disapprove or delay projects completely at their own discretion. In this sort of environment, with many opportunities remaining, especially in Tier II cities, foreign developers and investors will be actively seeking ways to create incentives for the government to support their projects.

One excellent approach that stands out clearly in my mind is the development of sustainable buildings. The numbers related to energy use / waste in China’s commercial buildings are clear – office buildings consume approximately 25% of all electricity in the country and about 80% of China’s power is generated by heavily polluting, coal burning power plants. As such, the development of a sustainable building sends the message that the community where it is being built is taking progressive action to cut back on energy use and pollution, and this is great PR for any politician and for China as a whole….

The vast majority of construction in China is happening in provincial capitals and smaller cities and these are the areas that foreign developers are most keen to establish a presence – margins are higher and land is in greater supply. Perhaps sustainable building is the “palm grease” that these developers need to get government support and continue to succeed in China’s increasingly impenetrable real estate market.

Read his full post here.

[tags]China, green architecture, sustainable development, foreign investment, real estate law[/tags]

Mara Hvistendahl from WorldChanging comments on the impending shifts of power in China as the National Party Congress convenes in Beijing this week.

“National government gets most of the attention outside China, inside the country policy enforcement is mostly the responsibility of local governments,” she says. “When the central government unveils a forward-thinking policy (and it sometimes does), it has to battle these local authorities, who are typically more concerned with growth than with environmental protection.”

She offers three examples of how individuals and local, municipal authorities can make a difference in fighting China’s pollution. Read about them here.

• Rethinking Change in China
  WorldChanging
  By Mara Hvistendahl
  October 15, 2007

What lessons can we take away from these cases? Sending a few hundred dollars to Qinghai has more impact on environmental and rural development than installing a representative in Beijing. And in fighting pollution, publicity is crucial. As local governments court outside investment, they don’t want to be branded as polluted. Wu Lihong made his case by tipping off the government-owned Central China Television (CCTV) and other national outlets, but international exposure is, in most cases, worse. (It will be interesting to see whether The New York Times piece has any further effect on Wuxi. Hopefully it will help Wu.)

More broadly, such examples show that China is not monolithic — that small-scale efforts can make a difference. Relationships with the authorities are still important. But the old social change mantra might be revised for China: think nationally, act locally.

(Image via China Digital Times)

Protests led by pro-democracy activists in Myanmar erupted in bloodshed and chaos last week as the military junta ordered riot police to crush the demonstrations. Buddhist monks who helped lead the protests have been bludgeoned, tortured and killed, according to some reports. It is the largest protest since the popular uprising in 1988, and some groups are referring to it as “Darfur in Slow Motion,” a tragic tagline borrowed from the genocide in Sudan, which is called “Rwanda in Slow Motion.”

According to the BBC:

On the worst day of violence, 27 September, the junta said nine people had been killed, but the death toll is thought to be far higher.

There have since been reports of thousands of arrests. Monks are said to have been rounded up and held in make-shift detention compounds to be transported to prison camps in the north.

The international community has called on China, specifically, to honor human rights in Burma and exert pressure on the military rulers to halt the violent crackdown.

• “China’s crucial role in Burma crisis“
  By Jonathan Marcus
  Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News, New York

The US and the EU have long imposed a variety of sanctions against Burma’s military regime but, paradoxically, this means that they have relatively few levers to pull to influence Rangoon.

The countries that matter more to Burma are India and Russia; both of whom have trading relations with the military regime.

Russia even plans to sell Burma a nuclear research reactor.

But it is Burma’s biggest neighbour, China, that plays the most crucial role, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council it can help to limit the relative isolation that the Rangoon regime faces.

Both China and Russia, for that matter, vetoed a UN Security Council resolution last January that was critical of Burma’s rulers.

China has key strategic interests in the stability of Burma and accordingly strong ties with Rangoon….

Indeed, over time, as US and European ties to Burma have declined, those of China, Russia and India have increased.

China, then, is very much the key player; but Beijing faces conflicting pressures.

It has to match its energy and strategic interests - access to the Indian Ocean for example - with its desire for stability and its concern for its own reputation abroad, especially with the Beijing Olympics fast approaching.

Wednesday’s informal Security Council meeting served in part to gauge the Beijing government’s current position.

China’s UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, reaffirmed China’s predictable position that this crisis was not a threat to international peace and that sanctions would not be helpful.

Formal action is one thing. But might China’s concern with regional stability encourage Beijing to whisper some tough words in the Burmese leadership’s ear?

That is clearly what Western diplomats are hoping for.

In the short-term, sanctions may not have a great impact on Burma’s rulers.

But efforts are underway to impress upon them that there could be long-term consequences if the crisis spirals out of control.

Mother Jones was more critical in its coverage of China’s relationship with Burma’s oppressive regime:

In addition to the prominence of the clergy and the international attention, perhaps the most critical difference between now and ’88 is the role of China—Burma’s largest trading partner and, according to human-rights advocates, the military regime’s best friends. “China has provided the weapons and money to make this massacre happen while using its veto to paralyze any response from the UN Security Council,” says Jeremy Woodrum, co-founder of the US Campaign for Burma, which has advocated for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics next year.

Yet in the face of international demands to put pressure on the Burmese regime, China has insisted that its policy is non-interference. “China has remained silent on human rights in Burma,” says Matthew Smith with EarthRights International, an NGO with offices in Thailand and the United States. “Applying pressure on Burma would raise questions about its own record that China is not prepared to answer. And the country has an increasing demand for natural resources such as natural gas and timber, which the junta generously provides as long as China does not disrupt the brutal status quo.”

According to retired Indian army Maj. Gen Dipankar Banerjee, director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi, if human rights groups get traction with the argument that China “continues to support a dictatorial regime in its neighborhood and they can connect that to the 2008 Olympics, that will scare the shit out of Beijing.”

On September 30, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao urged Myanmar to seek a peaceful resolution to the protests, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Web site, reported Bloomberg.

Wen’s remarks came after nations, including the U.S, and the European Union pressed China, Myanmar’s closest ally, to use its influence.

“China hopes that all parties concerned in Myanmar show restraint, resume stability through peaceful means as soon as possible, promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy and development,” Wen said. “China is very concerned about the situation in Myanmar.”

For more on China’s stance on Myanmar, read Bernt Berger’s article, “Why China Has it Wrong in Myanmar,” in the Asia Times Online:

China’s stance on Myanmar is based on several misjudgments about the internal situation under the military regime and about Beijing’s own international role. In his recent speech to the United Nations Security Council, Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya admitted to problems in Myanmar. Yet he also expressed Beijing’s belief that these problems did not constitute a threat to international peace and security and that in the current situation new Western-led sanctions against the regime were not useful….

Although China is not the only country engaged in Myanmar and should not carry sole responsibility for the emerging crisis, it is a member of the UN Security Council and thereby indirectly accountable for any actions that are, or are not, taken. In view of a regime that unscrupulously mistreats its citizens and spurns with impunity all standards of civility, Beijing clearly lacks a sense of urgency.

See the following from China Digital Times for an excellent compilation of related stories and other analysis:

• “China’s Role in Burma’s Crisis Under Global Scrutiny“
  China Digital Times
  September 29, 2007

======

(Image via Avaaz.org)

TAKE ACTION:

If you would like to sign a petition urging China “to oppose a violent crackdown on the demonstrators, and to support genuine reconciliation and democracy in Burma,” click here.

The petition is sponsored by Avaaz.org, an action campaign co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and MoveOn.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States.

Last week, Mattel Chairman and CEO Robert Eckert formally apologized for his company’s product safety lapses and tried to explain how millions of toys were recalled. (Read his full testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations here.)

“As I said at the outset of my testimony, these recent recalls have been a personal disappointment to me and, I am sure, to all of the thousands of men, women and parents who have always taken great pride in working at Mattel,” Eckert said. “We are by no means perfect.”

Bob Eckert had said “sorry” many times before. He wrote the following opinion statement, published on September 11th, saying, “We’ve even been accused of being “unapologetic” by the very same newspaper in which we ran full-page ads apologizing. I apologize again.” And again. And again (also including detailed reports about Mattel’s history, safety procedures and compliance measures.)

Days after Eckert issued his formal statements, Thomas A. Debrowski, Mattel’s executive vice-president of worldwide operations, met with Chinese officials and apologized for damaging the reputation of Chinese manufacturers…well, at least according to some news sources.

Mattel says these accounts have been “mischaracterized.” Indeed, Mattel took responsibility for some of the toy recalls: “The magnet related recalls were due to emerging issues concerning design and this has nothing to do with whether the toys were manufactured in China. Mattel does not hold Chinese manufacturers responsible for the design in relation to the recalled magnet toys.” The lead-related recalls, however, were the fault of a few manufacturers who “did not follow the company’s rules.” So “full responsibility” is really only half-way responsibility.

According to the New York Times, a Mattel spokesperson said Debrowski was sent to the meeting to apologize to consumers in China, not to manufacturers.

Mattel has since issued a written statement, saying, “Since Mattel toys are sold the world over, Mattel apologized to the Chinese today just as it has wherever its toys are sold.”

Debrowski, meanwhile, receives criticism in the United States for supposedly kowtowing to China’s manufacturers in order to protect Mattel’s business relationship.

“It’s like a bank robber apologizing to his accomplice instead of to the person who was robbed,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said in an interview. “They’re playing politics in China rather than doing what matters.” (NYT, 9/22/07).

And China has been quick to take Debrowski’s apology to restore its image.

Just check out the headlines:

• Mattel’s apology highlights innocence of “Made in China” (People’s Daily Online)
• An apology at long last (China Daily)
• China seizes on Mattel apology to emphasize safety (Reuters)
• For China, Mattel’s Mea Culpa Isn’t Good Enough (New York Times)

To learn more about the nuances and implications of Mattel’s apology, read Clay Chandler’s column, “Chasing the Dragon.“

An enlightened steward of China’s global reputation would see the US toy maker’s reversal for what it was: a PR fiasco – not just for Mattel, but China too. The problem with Mattel’s elaborately staged about-face is that it was just that: staged, and almost entirely about ‘face.’

[tags]Mattel, China, toy recall, apology, Robert Eckert, Thomas Debrowski[/tags]

The China-Africa connection deepens…

The prevailing narrative? Once upon a time, Africa suffered abuse, exploitation and mismanagement by Western colonialist powers. Enter: China, a developing country with a similar history of imperialist aggression (and subsequent liberation) that promises new hope for a “south-south cooperation” in which Africa can bypass “northern” hegemonic superpowers and forge its way to better infrastructure, good governance and greater riches, all in the name of “mutual benefit” with the PRC. But is this new partnership really sustainable? Or will it crumble as a result of greed, self-interest and bad policy?

To provide some context to China’s involvement in Africa, here’s a rundown of the biggest stories from this past week:

• Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong and South African Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka co-chaired the third meeting of the China-South Africa Bi-National Commission on Monday, vowing to further all-round cooperation. Zeng proposed that China and South Africa strengthen political consultation and enterprises exchanges and deepen the cooperation on human resources, agriculture and poverty eradication, so as to realize the agreements reached by leaders of the two countries. (”China, South Africa vow to further cooperation,” Xinhua, 9/24/07)
• Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (ENA) - A loan agreement amounting to 208 million USD was signed here on Monday between the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (CBE) and the Export Import Bank of China. During the agreement signing ceremony it was disclosed that the loan will be used to finance the expansion of Mugher Cement Enterprise and the construction of Fincha-Amerti-Neshe multi-purpose projects that include hydro-power generation and irrigation. (”Ethiopia - CBE signs $208 mil USD loan agreement with Export Import Bank of China,” EthioBlog, 9/24/07)
• A special train carrying 250 tons of aid materials donated by the Chinese government left the Khartoum Railway Station on Monday for Sudan’s restive western region of Darfur. This is one part of a total of RMB 80 million Chinese support to the Darfur region, which have been delayed by anti-government riots and tribal clashes since February 2003. (”Roundup: Special train carrying Chinese aid leaves for Darfur,” People’s Daily, 9/25/07)
• China is preparing to send more farmers to Africa as rural labourers find it increasingly difficult to find jobs in the nation’s urban centres, state press reported. At a meeting in southwest China’s Chongqing city, the head of China’s Export-Import Bank Li Ruogu pledged to help finance African emigration as part of the city’s urbanisation scheme, the People’s Daily reported on its website. (”China ready to send more farmers to Africa,” Africast, 9/20/07).
• China has signed a deal to loan the Democratic Republic of Congo $5bn to develop infrastructure and mining. Infrastructure Minister Pierre Lumbi said the money will be spent on building roads, hospitals, health centres, housing and universities. In exchange, China will get rights to DR Congo’s extensive natural resources, including timber, cobalt and copper. (”China opens coffers for minerals,” BBC News, 9/18/07)

I found two opinion pieces that more closely examine the relationship between China and Africa.

Howard W. French comments specifically on China’s $5 billion loan to Congo, saying that “China is redrawing the economic map in central and southern Africa” by bringing in big infrastructure where the region needs it most. But can it last?

Brendan Boyle focuses on China’s involvement in South Africa. He argues that African countries must unite and assume responsibility for its future, rather than compete against each other for China’s political or economic backing, which could prove unstable and dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the continent.

“The Chinese and Congo take a giant leap of faith“
The International Herald Tribune
By Howard W. French
Sept. 21, 2007

The $5 billion that China is plunking down promises a great leap forward for Congo, and this begins with about 3,200 kilometers of new rail lines and an equivalent amount of new roads. The money will also pay for 31 hospitals and 145 smaller health care centers, along with two large new universities and 5,000 new government housing units.

The Chinese promise not to dilly-dally, too. Most of this will be accomplished in a mere 36 months, they say, and I for one believe them, having seen the pace of change even in the most remote Chinese backwaters. If war or political upheaval doesn’t get in the way, Congo stands to experience more progress in 36 months than it has in 47 years of independence from Belgium, or as a colony of Brussels for that matter.

Lest anyone assume anything different, I hasten to wish the Chinese and their new Congolese partners well. Africa desperately needs a hundred flowers to bloom.

The hard questions that merit posing, however, just won’t go away. They will be proven one way or another. China’s mastery of infrastructure is unquestioned, but can there be lasting development in Africa without big strides in political development, and without the emergence of strong civil societies?

What is the good of a university without books, or hospitals without medicines? Africa, sadly, has plenty of experience with this question, and nowhere more so than Congo, where foreigners with a hunger for the country’s minerals, dreams of riches and a willingness to turn a blind eye to ugly political realities have visited before.

I think of the Inga Dam, built by the United States in the early part of Mobutu’s regime and said to be able to power most of Africa, but now unable to keep even the capital lighted. I think of a towering Information Ministry tower built by the French, where one must walk up countless stairs for lack of a functioning elevator.

I think of V.S. Naipaul, who wrote unforgettably about this same country in “A Bend on the River”: “Neither the president who had called it into being nor the foreigners who had made a fortune building it had faith in what they were creating. But had there been greater faith before?”

Boyle from the Johannesburg-based Sunday Times expresses his doubts about China’s “non-interference” policy of foreign aid, loans, export credits and trade with Africa. He says there is a common theme among African delegates who feel that China’s interest in the region is “benign” compared to the world’s ex-colonial powers. But he cautions African governments and businesses to manage their new resources carefully. “Africa should contain its gratitude and drive the best bargain it can for a continent that needs to follow and not just fuel Chinese development.”

“Beware the ties that bind China and Africa“
By Brendan Boyle
The Times
September 24, 2007

Africa and its individual countries clearly stand to benefit massively from China’s spectacular growth, but there is nothing about China’s pursuit of resources that will automatically protect this continent from the abuse it suffered when European nations began their scramble for Africa.

There is a danger in the acceptance of China’s largely unconditional trade.

When an economically weak nation such as Zimbabwe pawns its mines to a foreign government in exchange for short-term relief, and without a clear plan to redeem the pledge, sovereignty is at least weakened.

In contrast to the deeply self-serving interventions of the European colonial powers and the geo- political opportunism of the US during the Cold War, China promises a policy of supportive non- interference that is music to the ears of a Mugabe or an Omar Bongo in Gabon.

Professor Alaba Ogunsanwo, of the University of Lagos in Nigeria, said bluntly it was up to Africa to ensure that the revenue from trade with China went towards the sustainable development of its societies and not into the pockets of its elites.

China might be new to this game, but Africa is not. In their understandable enthusiasm to break old and unwelcome ties to the West, many African states seem to forget that loans might be interest-free in fiscal terms, but rarely in political terms.

The colonial powers came, took what they wanted, and left little more than inappropriate traditions and their trappings. The absurd morning dress and ancient Rolls Royce in which Mugabe arrives each year to open his country’s Westminster-style Parliament is just one example.

There is a risk that the competition for China’s business will encourage Beijing to play a poor Peter off against an even poorer Paul. African governments have an opportunity to ensure, together, that this does not happen again.

======

Also, see this great report about China’s role in Africa and in global dam building, written by Peter Bosshard, policy director for the International Rivers Network: “China’s Role in Financing African Infrastructure,” May 2007.

I will be interviewing Peter for an upcoming podcast, so stay tuned!

======

For more information about the China-Africa alliance:

• The Forum on China-Africa Co-operation is a platform established by China and friendly African countries for collective consultation and dialogue and a cooperation mechanism between the developing countries, which falls into the category of South-South cooperation.

[tags] China, Africa [/tags]