China - Human Rights - Bad, Economy - Gooooood

Much has been made of Bush's criticisms of China, but it wasn't all bad news for the Chinese government:

US President George W Bush has expressed "deep concerns" over China's human rights record in a speech on the eve of the Beijing Olympics.

"The US believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings," he said in the Thai capital, Bangkok.

Mmm, very good. Almost makes you look like you give a shit. But what's this:

In his address, Mr Bush said the US recognised that the growth sparked by China's free market reforms was "good for the Chinese people" and the country's' purchasing power was "good for the world".

Ah yes, the free market reforms that were one of the driving forces behind the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square all those years back. Yes, Bush condemns the abuse of human rights whilst also giving a back handed compliment to one of the major factors in those abuses. You got to hand it to old Bushie - he sure knows how to pull the wool over the eyes don't he??

Taiwan - China's Other Problem

"We are also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

President G W Bush 8th March 2005

Whilst the media has been focused on the ongoing situation in Tibet and its struggle for freedom, the situation in Taiwan has been generally overlooked, and yet it exposes the double standard at the heart of US/UK foreign policy.

Taiwan first applied for UN membership in July of last year. The Chinese government, however, saw this as a threat to the unity of China and gave very clear warnings to Taiwan should they continue to proceed along these lines, threatening to use force if it continues to pursue a course of independence. Despite these continued threats, the Taiwanese government decided to press forward with a referendum on UN membership which was scheduled to take place today. What is particularly interesting about this fight for freedom and democracy, is the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the light of the Bush administration's 'commitment to democracy' (as opposed for their lust to control the earth's resources), one would expect there to be noises of encouragement emanating from the White House - no such luck. Instead, the United States government has been echoing similar sentiments to that of the Chinese government - this is not a welcome development. When discussing the proposed Taiwanese referendum towards the end of last year, Condoleeza Rice said the following:

"We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

'
Provocative'? 'No real benefit?'. Unusual terms to describe the desire of the Taiwanese people to be free, an ideal that the Bush administration apparently believed in. How quickly these high ideals are abandoned when faced with a more serious foe than the pathetic offering of the Iraqi army. Could it be that the US only supports democracy when it knows it can defeat the enemies of this high ideal? When it could lead to a conflict they would likely lose, suddenly democracy doesn't seem that important anymore. And yet, Bush claims to 'support the growth of democratic movements' across the world.

It now appears that the movement towards independence has been nothing more than a blip in the recent history of Taiwan. Reports suggest that Ma Ying-jeou, of the Kuomintang party, has won the election by 17%. Ma has committed himself to even stronger ties with China and has proposed a formal peace treaty with Beijing. Although it is difficult to say how much impact the reaction to the referendum from Beijing and Washington has had on the poll (the referendum did not garner enough votes to be valid), the threat of military invasion from China would have done much to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the Taiwanese. Furthermore, Ma has been particularly clever in his campaigning. Understanding that there was growing concern regarding the situation in Tibet, Ma criticised the authorities in Beijing to ease fears at home whilst also claiming he would not push the issue with China (thus preserving the facade of independence and pleasing both his masters in Beijing and Taiwan).

The real winners in this election has been the capitalists, who have been pushing for closer ties with China for some time. China has been a major source of business for Taiwanese capitalists in recent years, as one Taiwanese resident pointed out:

"Nowadays Taiwanese capitalists hire at least ten million workers in China and almost all Taiwan’s top 50 manufacturing companies have subsidiaries there. The mainland’s abundant cheap labour, cheap land, tax-breaks and subsidies for foreign companies, mean that China has actually become the main source of profit for Taiwanese capitalism".

Even in communist China's sphere of influence capitalism rules, no wonder the US was keen to turn a blind eye to the calls for democracy in Taiwan. As a result of which, it appears that the flame of democracy has been extinguished in Taiwan, and both China and the US have conspired to snuff it out.

Not So Yahoo! In China

Internet giant Yahoo is seeking to have a lawsuit brought against it on behalf two jailed Chinese dissidents thrown out of a US court saying the case falls under Chinese law.

In a motion filed in San Francisco on Monday the company said it was compelled by Chinese law to hand over information that was then used to arrest and jail the two men.

Yahoo said that while it "deeply sympathises" with Wang Xiaoning, 57, Shi Tao, 39, and their families, the company could not be held liable for the Chinese government's "independent acts".

Sympathise? Sympathise my arse. There is no reason whatsoever for Yahoo! to hand over the IP addresses of activists in China, activists who are simply utilising their rights to protest.

Censorship is rapidly extending into the realms of the internet and Yahoo! are one of many companies guilty of seeking to boost their bank balance whilst putting human rights in jeopardy. This news comes on the back of a 'self-discipline' pact that was signed by several internet comapanies in China. The pact will put an end to Chinese bloggers being able to post anonymously, as the Internet companies will be 'encouraged' to register and store the real names, addresses and other details of their users. This, of course, means thatthe Chinese government will be able to request the details of any member of the public that they perceive to be a threat to their political system. That companies like Yahoo! and MSN are so willing to agree to such a move, exposes their attitude towards censorship and human rights.

Vincent Brossel, of Reporters Without Borders, said:

"They have to 'encourage,' and everybody puts the word 'encourage' between brackets, because 'encourage' in China means you have to do it in some way, non? ... When the government wants this type of information they will be able to get it, because we know that in the past these companies, including Yahoo and MSN, have delivered information, I mean private information, about Internet users."

As the cases at the top of the post have shown, there is no doubt as to what this will mean for those that wish to blog anonymously. Censorship is alive and well and hiding behind the $.

To find out more about internet censorship, visit the irrepressible.info link in the sidebar or savetheinternet.com.

Former Head of China's State Food and Drug Administration Executed

Truly shocking news from China:

The former head of China's State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, has been executed for corruption, the state-run Xinhua news agency reports.

He was convicted of taking 6.5m yuan ($850,000; £425,400) in bribes and of dereliction of duty at a trial in May.

The bribes were linked to sub-standard medicines, blamed for several deaths.

China has been criticised over a number of recent cases involving tainted goods, and correspondents say Zheng had become a symbol of the crisis.

While I am utterly opposed to his actions (assuming that he was actually guilty), the death penalty is never justified. The severity of the punishment goes way beyond the severity of the crime. If China is so concerned about how it is viewed by the world in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics, perhaps it could do something about its disgraceful human rights record.

Murdoch Stands Shoulder to Shoulder with Chinese Government

Murdoch has bent over and spread his arse cheeks for China:

MySpace, the world's most popular online social network, has launched a version of its website in China, despite fears among human rights campaigners that users will be censored or spied on by the totalitarian Communist state.

Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corp, which owns MySpace, said last year that the company was looking for a way to enter China without running into political obstacles of the type faced by Google, which agreed to self-censor its content; and by Yahoo, which gave the Chinese government information about the site's users. Both internet companies have been targeted by Irrepressible.info, the joint campaign run by The Observer and Amnesty International calling for freedom of speech online.

Murdoch has set up a separate business to avoid any problems. MySpace China is a 'locally owned, operated and managed company' in which News Corp is only one among several investors, according to its chief executive, Luo Chuan, the former head of Microsoft's MSN China. He said: 'Our team here will have the sole right to decide the operation model, the technology platform as well as the product strategy. It's very unlike the other multinationals you might have heard about or seen in the Chinese market.'

Campaigners fear that the site, which allows users to share text, pictures, music and videos, will provide another means for China's army of internet police to gather information on users. Dozens of Chinese bloggers have been jailed for posting political comments online.

What a guy.

Don't forget to sign here.

Coke Continues to Profit in Sudan

While people around the world gather to call for action in Sudan, it is worth remembering that some companies continue to do business there. Coca Cola continues to operate in Sudan, despite sanctions, thanks to the exemption on gum arabic. Furthermore, as Killer Coke has noted:

Warren Buffett who left Coca-Cola's board in 2006, but remains the company's largest shareholder with 8.3% of common shares outstanding worth about $10 billion, is also a major investor in the PetroChina Oil Company which gets oil from Sudan and is targeted by the Sudan divestment community. "Oil has turned it [Sudan] into one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa - if not the world - emboldening the nation's already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist the Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur.

In fact, Berkshire Hathaway, of which Buffet is CEO, is the largest foreign shareholder of PetroChina owning 1.3% of shares. Buffet continues to resist calls to divest in PetroChina. He claimed that:

"I can be a direct descendant of William Jennings Bryan, but I will not be changing the Chinese government's policy… I doubt I could change the policies of the Douglas County [ Nebraska] Board."

However, CFO Asia (a leading magazine for CFO's in Asia) contradicts this assessment. It claims that:

"If Buffett were to sell for any reason, PetroChina's stock would almost certainly tank - and the company's reputation would sink along with it…PetroChina already had a foretaste of this in August [2003] when its stock price fell 2.1 percent in one day. Buffett disclosed to US regulators that he had sold US$5 million worth of PetroChina's American Depositary Shares in the second quarter of 2003. Flustered investors rushed to the exits. Was Buffett's confidence in PetroChina wavering? The markets were reassured when it was revealed that Buffett's ADS sales were made before he accumulated the 2.3 billion in H-shares he bought in Hong Kong."

There is clear evidence that were Mr Buffet to re-assess his investments in PetroChina, there would be a knock-on effect to China's attitude towards the humanitarian disaster. The Chinese government is already becoming sensitive to international pressure on Sudan and if Buffet was to divest, PetroChina would have to rethink its opertions in the region. However, it would appear that as long as Coca Cola and PetroChina continue to bring in the money, Buffet will continue to overlook the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. After all, business is business.

For more information: PetroChina, CNPC, and Sudan: Perpetuating Genocide - a report by the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

Breakthrough in Censorship on 'Net

The Observer reports today that three giants of the internet have agreed to work on a code of conduct for protecting human rights online. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft will hold talks with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders to:

'seek solutions to the free expression and privacy challenges faced by technology and communications companies doing business internationally'

Google have no accepted that the censorship of its search engine in China was a massive mistake. According to The Observer, Sergey Brin, its billionaire co-founder said that:

'On a business level, that decision to censor ... was a net negative.'

This policy in China has been a huge blow for freedom on the internet. It has led to many arrests, such as the journalist Shi Tao, who is serving a 10 year sentence of forced labour. Tao was arrested after sending an email on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square which was passed on to the Chinese authorities by Yahoo's Chinese partner company. This is just one example from a long list of attacks on free speech not only in China, but across the world.

Since establishing the irrepressible.info campaign, over 60,000 people have pledged their support. Whilst the figures are encouraging, they are well short of what is needed to show the governments of the world that freedom of speech is a right and not a privilege.