The China FTA

Just cause we haven't had a 200-post thread for a while in CA now :>

Unless the Chinese government is actively committing crimes against humanity and I have herd no one call it that I see no reason what so ever to let differences in policy or the internal affairs of that country effect trade.

Some people talk as if we are some sort of super power that can throw our weight around and solve all the worlds problems instead of the fledging nation heavily dependent on exports and foreign dollars that we are.

The terms may be in China's favor but that's because we are lucky to be getting a FTA with them at all. This is a huge bonus for the entire country right in the middle of an economic down turn.

Even though some of the tariffs will not be removed for a number of years the benefits will be immediate and on going in all sectors.

Foreign investors will be fully aware of this deal and it's impact on our economy in the coming years, infact this may be the only FTA to be reached in 2008.

It's going to make it a hell of a lot easier for NZ owned business's who do heavy trade with China to attract overseas investment and that will starts right now.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10503092&pnum=0

I can't believe I actually toyed with the idea of voting for the Greens at one point. Thankfully the other parties have adopted their good policies, the global warming related ones.

I doubt I'd ever vote for the greens - but I am very thankful we have them there

Rod Donald is missed

until China signs up to treaties requiring minimum labour standards (like other civilised countries) we should not be signing preferential trade deals with China - it's unconscionable

please read up about Tiananmen Square

that's close enough for me

since that massacre, there has been no indication that the mentality of the Chinese regime has changed - it's a brutal regime - why whitewash it?


see it for what it is


the Chinese government lies to its own people

the olympic flame was attacked, extinguished, and had to be relit during protests in France - this was reported back to the Chinese populace as a totally peaceful and successful event

if they are capable of "massaging" facts in that way for their own people, they are capable of doing that to us

JH you must be one of the few that gives a shit for the Chinese people - all them protestors only care for tibetians

you raise good points.... but I still think the FTE is a good move by us lot - or the pragmatic part of me does

Just on that - I saw the posts around the comparing of USA and China and while I see you where you're coming from, I think that may be splitting hairs on the issue a bit.

If the US government is fine with intruding on human rights in the way that China does, then I think that trying to differentiate between the "who" or "how" or "to what degree" is a bit of a cop out.

They're important aspects, I agree.

But hey, it's hypocritical nonetheless to say that we will have or want preferential trade agreements with the US because we're "okay with the degree of their human abuse actions" or the fact that they "only do that to non-US citizens" or the fact that they "practice double standards in their adherence to international law, but at least they uphold others" etc...

I mean, to some extent that's like saying that you'd be friends with a guy who kicks around other people's children, as long as they're not his own.

Very simplistic, I know. But to me, the human rights thing, if used as a justification for an action one way or the other - needs to be absolute one. You can't just create a degree of tolerance and say this is ok and that isn't.

Abuse is abuse.

it's not splitting hairs at all

you don't look at what a country is doing in war zones as a guide to human rights "abuses" - for obvious reasons

you look at how a country treats its own citizens on its own soil, on a day-to-day basis, during peacetime

then you will see the real difference between China and the USA

it's not hypocritical, because the USA has a strong unionised labour force with protections for workers, a decent minimum wage (relatively), proper labour laws etc


China doesn't

the pragmatic part of me probably does too

but to personify the situation, if I married a very wealthy murderer I might do very well off the marriage financially - it might be an excellent pragmatic move

but doesn't change the fact I married a murderer

It is, JH. Because we're not just talking about oppressive labour laws here.

The US has had its fair share of ongoing human right abuses, as well as breaches of international law, as any other nation too.

What I'm saying is that, if this is being used as a basis for decision-making, then I don't think that applying a spectrum of tolerance on top of that is appropriate.

To clarify, JH, I actually think you have a very valid point and argument as to why we shouldn't have an FTA with China.


But what I'm intending to argue is that, whether or not it is hypocritical not to apply the same basis for all decisions with all other nations.

By saying that one nation is better simply because they do not abuse human rights to the same degree, or perhaps more selectively, than another - it introduces a spectrum of tolerance to what you as an individual are willing to accept as being a satisfiable level of abuse.

Is there really such a thing? Is it right to have such a thing? Personally, I don't think so. Abuse is abuse. If I'm applying a moral and ethical standard to judge people on the basis of whether they abuse another human being or not - then the answer should be clear cut.

They either are or they aren't.

And not: They are to some people, but not to others, and not as frequently as some, but still do it nonetheless.

you're right

abuse is abuse, and by that definition, there is no distinction

but in reality, humans distinguish between degrees of abuse and types of abuse and it is absolutely fundamental to human society, at both the municipal levels, and the international level

we all tolerate different levels of abuse in our daily lives in relationships, in our workplaces, etc

but whereas I might choose to associate with a person who has shoplifted occasionally, I may not ever want to associate with a recidivist burglar and armed robber

I might tolerate a friend who has an anger problem and once pushed me, but not someone who stabs and murders others

our whole criminal law is set up to distinguish between different categories of abuse and criminal conduct and apply penalties accordingly

and international law distinguishes between technical breaches of human rights law, and serious international crimes such as genocide

there are also "jus cogens" - principles of international law that are so fundamental, and upon which the consensus of civilised nations is so agreed, no state may contract out of them

these include the rules prohibiting piracy and torture and systematic racial discrimination

so we see that a spectrum of conduct is relevant both at the local and international levels and it is therefore appropriate to judge nations accordingly

that argument, philosophically, is devoid of any moral content

by that standard, we would have said of South Africa's apartheid system "that's really bad, but, you know, all countries are doing bad things, its just doing different bad things, in different ways, so it's all okay really, it's no more serious than what NZ or Australia or USA are doing"

JH - I haven't fully read this Foreign Affairs report yet on Chinese democracy and modernisation but thought it would interest you as it seems to be at odds with your "no change since Tianemen Square" type calls...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87101/john-l-thornton/long-time-coming.html

free trade with russia would be 100x better

have to agree with the vadster

As long as there are zero tariffs on military equipment and mail-order brides.

Yes but you see - when you're talking about 1 nation having an "offshore" prison, plus their own contributions to wars in the Middle East... vs another nation which "oppresses" it's own people...

You can't really use the same benchmark as you would with thieves or robbers, right?

They're both murderers... just in different ways.




And that's my point too. Criminal law "punishes" criminals depending on the degree of their actions... We don't punish the USA for anything.

By saying that we're ok with a USA-NZ FTA rather than a China-NZ FTA - we're also saying that we're tolerating they way each nation chooses to abuse "humans" (as an absolute statement), differently.

We don't like China because they're so much more "honest" about their actions.

But we're ok with the USA because at least they try and hide it... and at least they do it outside their own backyard.




Well, my only response to this is to bring the argument right back down to what it's about.

Human rights.

Or in more depth, the abuse of humans rights.

Both the USA and China does it. The ONLY real difference, is that the USA keeps it out of sight, out of their backyard and they apply the conventions and defend their rights in their own nation.

China's actions are similar - only in a different context.

What I'm trying to point out is that by introducing a degree of tolerance to the abuse of human rights - you're placing some intrinsic value on the right or life itself.

Ignore international law and what have you. The basic question is, why should the USA be treated any more favourably when in REALITY they abuse, endanger and ignore basic rights just as much as China does?

Yeah that was point exactly.

The preceding words before the statement was "And not..."

I should also add that,yes, it is indeed being called that.

Today, Hillary Clinton referred to "the genocide in Darfur"

genocide = crime against humanity

so there you go

and the genocide in gaza, iraq and afaganistan - did she also mention them...

and is China's presence in Darfor any worse than those of the dozens of NGO's UN missions and the like that various warlords play off against one another whilst they continue their carnage

(please note I am now drinking so will leave CA)

maybe so, but I was just addressing the specific issue that, supposedly, "nobody" is thinking/saying that China is committing crimes against humanity - clearly absurd!

I think we can all agree that human rights need to be improved in China, and other countries like the US for that matter.

The question is, how do you get there?

What is the best way to achieve improved human rights for the Chinese people?

Strategy 1 could consist of elements such as:
- Refuse to recognise the Chinese government
- Boycott the Olympics
- No trade deals
- Public statements that attack China's HR record

Essentially pressure China's government until it begins to improve human rights.

Strategy 2, the strategy most countries seem to b e pursuing now consists of much different elements:
- Integrate China into the international community...ie let them host Olympics
- Integrate China's economy into world economy
- Apply diplomatic pressure to Chinese government privately

This strategy hopes that by engaging China, and giving it a stake in the international system, it will eventually improve HR because it sees it as the right thing to do. Ironically this is a pragmatic strategy which is based on hope.

Whatever weaknesses this strategy has however, the first strategy, which is argued for by HR activists, has even less chance of helping HR situation in China. Why would China improve HR if it has been kicked out of the international community and humiliated? I strain to think of any examples where isolation and humiliation of a country has resulted in an improvement in the HR of that country. Usually the reverse happens. Burma and North Korea are good examples. HR activists need to understand that their proposed strategy would actually be counter-productive to achieving their goals.

There is also a practical problem. The world, especially the West, loves Chinese goods. Its extreme hypocrisy for the West to preach about China's poor HR, while at the same time purchasing cheap Chinese products.

wrong

it's not just a question of "human rights abuse" - which, interpreted broadly enough, could include almost any type of wrongdoing

it's also a question of whether a country has RECOGNISED human rights, made a COMMITMENT to human rights; and made efforts to PROTECT those rights, and to GUARANTEE those rights to citizens.

it is possible to argue that the USA pioneered human rights through the protections and guarantees contained in the US constitution

to such a degree that the individual can in fact assert a right against the State, when that right is abused

the judiciary has the power to strike down legislation that conflicts with rights guaranteed by the constitution

and following the tragedies of World War Two the US was instrumental in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

thus, the USA has a human rights consciousness

China, however, does not have a human rights consciousness

China has made no firm commitment to human rights

and there can be no progress there until it does so


I therefore must disagree with you that the USA disregards human rights "just as much as China"

that's watering the issue down into a meaningless statement

I think we can "all agree" that human rights need to be improved everywhere!

but that's not the point

China has a real human rights problem

the USA does not have a significant human rights problem by comparison

there was once a fairly prevalent view that if China was to become part of the international trade/investment regime (through international institutions such as the WTO), then at the same time, it should also be made to sign up to the key human rights, environment, and labour treaties i.e. become a better international citizen

I don't know what happened to that view


the danger if countries start signing

errr what genocides?

Mate, that is absolutely ridiculous.

My aim was to highlight our agreement - China has poor HR - shifting the debate to what strategy should be used to improve them.

And this is one of the main pillars in my argument. Except all you need to do is throw in other aggravating factors I have previously mentioned, such as Australia being close to acquiring their own FTA with China, which is presently in the 10th round of negations as of 1 November 2007 [1] and the realization that we simply can’t afford to take the moral high ground as we will be left out completely (having no effect on Chinese reform and further isolating ourselves) while Australia (after securing the FTA) average wage and living standards will continue to grow at an exponential rate and drain more of our skilled work force.

As Sebastian has alluded towards, there are two main areas that seem to be the polarizing points of conflict here:

1) economic benefit vs. human right principals

2) strategy of isolation vs. strategy of integration

Yet for some of us (idealist as it may seem) these positions can be amalgamated and do not necessarily need to be diametrically opposed.

For instance, it is possible to agree that China has a massive human rights problem that needs to be addressed but believe that a strategy of integration is more suitable than one of isolation and confrontation, which as an outcome also ensures our economic prosperity via the FTA.

I think that needs to be reiterated as its being drowned out in the argument.

For the record, I want to ensure New Zealand’s economic standing by supporting the FTA but I also want China to embrace democratic reform and implement and protect human rights of its citizens, I just disagree that isolationism is the correct strategy to ensure this.

Like Milton Friedman I am optimistic of China moving towards democratic reforms. This quoted from his last interview [2].



And there are clear signs indicating Friedman might be right, such as China allowing Hong Kong to retain its economic system and even learning from its performance and also growing dissent from retired senior communist party officials criticizing the control of the media [3] and similar influential elites urging democratic reform due to growing social unrest [4].

References

[1] http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/china/fta/

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/naomi-klein-read-milton-_b_66591.html

[3] http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/14/news/china.php

[4] http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-8-16/58813.html

what you are really saying is that the USA abuses human rights "in practice" just as much as China

I simply don't agree with you, and I don't think we will ever agree on this point

I just don't think the evidence bears that out

it's the same as if you tried to tell me China was just as democratic as the USA - I would reject that statement in the same way and to the same extent as I reject the human rights comparison

why is there no need to bring the law in?

the law is fundamental to human rights, if they are to mean anything at all

a right which can not be vindicated at law, is not worth having, from a practical perspective

for example, there is no point saying I have "property rights," if at any point, the government can take all my property and land off me without compensation - and then also deny me access to the courts to assert a legal claim against the state

without law, the right is meaningless

human rights are now just as much a legal term as they are a philosophical or conceptual term

consider why "the rule of law" is fundamental to civilised nations

nor am I hiding behind history or conventions or pieces of paper - I'm pointing to historical facts as evidence of how nations actually behave - should we not do that?

if you can afford it (in all meanings of the term)

Yes, that's the way I view it, yes. So we should probably agree to disagree on that.

I'm not saying "to the same extent or degree", but the fact that they do is still a reality. Guatanamo Bay, with all regard to the legal grey areas that still puts in on the map - is enough evidence in my opinion.

If China had an island for extreme Taiwanese separatist, we will be quick to slam down on them and demand that they close it down.


And that's what it comes down to. As the 'international community', we have been way more lenient with the mighty USA whenever they have chosen to flout 'international law' or even when caught in the act of human abuse situations, than we will ever be with any other nation.

The continual existence of Guatanamo Bay itself, till this day, is a reflection of this point. To be arrested, in the USA, based on allegations of terrorism without the right to trial? We allow it because it's the USA. We condemn it when it's Malaysia, or China, or Singapore... etc.

How many sanctions did we place on the USA when it invaded Iraq without UN sanction? When it deliberately decided to invade without sanction? Knowing there would be no sanction anyway.

It is exactly the way we as an international community have pampered this superpower, that allows us to sit here right now and say that it's NOT OK to trade with China because their oppressive towards basic human rights. But with the US, it's different. It simply is.



For the record: I'd trade with both. I just simply see it as being hypocritical for someone to judge China, and not apply the same reason and lenses when judging the USA.

I understand and know all of that.

It doesn't change the fact that when you boil right down to it - the US has been guilty of:

a) Human right abuses
b) Breaching international law

And in each instance, we made media headlines of them but nothing else.

ANY other country (with the exception of GB perhaps), and we would flay them as we would with China, North Korea etc etc.

So, back to international law. Fair enough if that's the yardstick you want to use to judge each nation's worthiness. Perhaps the US scores well - but they've scored worst too. And as the the world's poster boy, they've never actually been held as accountable, to higher standards even, than poor recording nations such as China.

I prefer to see it on a more practical level. Have recent US administrations been quick and easy to flout the very rights and laws you talk about? Yes

you need to keep a sense of perspective on Guantanamo Bay

it is unusual and it is an aberration

it has been strongly criticised as a denial of human rights, not only abroad, but also by American citizens

LUCKY THEY HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO DO THAT

China on the other hand does not allow ANY criticism of state actions; and you can be thrown into jail if you DO question the State


Guantanamo Bay has also been condemned by the US Supreme Court as a breach of international law, the Geneva Conventions etc (the Administration disagrees)

LUCKY THEY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THAT CAN CRITICISE STATE ACTIONS AND HOLD THEM TO BE UNLAWFUL

whereas in China, there is no independent judiciary to fulfill that function


get my drift?


put it another way, as a tourist, imagine you were charged with a criminal offence; guilty or not, which country's justice system would you rather be tried before? under which system would you be more likely to get due process and a fair hearing?

USA or China?


I know which one I would pick

fuck them choices... I'll take NZ's legal system over both for my crimes thanks

arguments agreements balderdash ballyhoo

fat lot of good that's done them

it's all elephant talk

err...are you sure about dat?

JH: That's exactly the point I've been making that you're missing.

You're adding a degree of tolerance to how much abuse of human rights you think is acceptable.

I never said that China's a poster boy. I never said that its practices aren't atrocious.

If we ever entered into a free trade agreement with the USA - Guatanamo Bay would never be a topic of discussion. If China did the same.. it would.

I am keeping a sense of perspective. The US chooses to uphold human rights selectively. China just doesn't at all.

Am I saying that one is better than the other? No.

Do I think that the USA is the pot calling China the black kettle? Yes.

In some ways, you could argue that it is far worse for someone or something, to say on one hand that they're for something, and then backstab you with the other.

There is a sense that even honesty in evil can sometimes be good because you know what you're expecting, and they have always been that way. But something "good" to deliberately and consciously make the choice to do something "evil" - now you sit there and just tell me that all the US deserves is mere "critiscm"....

They make fun of the UN... and they give the finger to their own courts. Much good "perspective" has done for those 'innocent' people in Guatanamo Bay now... or in Iraq...

why is that wrong?

we apply the same degree of tolerance in respect of individuals in the community: there is a tolerable level of abuse that individuals can get away with and yet remain in the community; but there is a level of abuse that is intolerable and such individuals are sanctioned, punished, sent to jail etc - taken out of the community if necessary

that's the problem you see. China has not even formed an awareness of the necessity of these rights - they are one step removed from everyone else

vice versa really

the spotlight is on China's human rights record because of Tibet, the Olympics, the NZ FTA, etc

however whenever this happens, China deflects criticism by pointing to the USA - it's laughable

everyone keeps falling for it though

That's exactly right!

That's why I find the treatment of human beings, or at least those who are innocent, in Guatanomo Bay, to be intolerable. Regardless of any perspective you place on it.

Same with certain aspects of the US's decision to invade Iraq.

I don't see how someone can qualify ignoring these by virtue of the US being condemned, externally or internally.

Tell me why it's OK for anyone to pursue an FTA with the USA BEFORE it disestablishes that rightless prison?

By holding China to a certain standard and ignoring the US's own on the other, that's hypocrisy. In fact, many would argue that the US should be held to a higher standard than China. Which they are, but only superficially.

So, just using an analogy here.

It's less evil for a civilised society to make conscious decisions to abuse humans...

then it is for a barbaric community to do so?

There's a problem for sure. Misplaced perspective.

Well if you have a "pot and kettle" situation then things are mostly both ways isn't it? So vice-versa applies.

Have you ever thought if it's a case of everyone falling for it because it's true?

We as an international community can only hold the powerless accountable, and not the powerful. Unfortunately China IS in the "power" category - but their seemingly reproachable views towards international standards clouds our view as to our ability to take moral high grounds.

China has the power, the capability AND the tenacity to play things out for as long as they like. They cannot be bullied into doing something that they want to do. You cannot impose on them without first being unquestionable. The US, and many other "civilised" nations are questionable on so many accounts that playing the "rights" card with them simply will not work.

We've seen this before, and we continue to see this today with another nation. The USA.

JH: The fact of the matter is, as you keep trying to justify the situation by highlighting the US’s fundamental belief and rights system that are in place, you’re painting pure white on a large canvass sheet.

Then you’re forced to acknowledge the US’s own atrocious actions, seeming blips in their so-called human rights record, and this is akin to slapping large black oiled spots of paint onto that white canvass.

Now have a look again at that canvass sheet again. The stark contrast between black and white there is a testament to the level of double-standards that this nation has applied.

That’s hypocrisy.

I don’t see how you can call it anything else.

And thats why you are sooooo far off the mark.

Sorry. You'd need to elaborate a bit more.

"Applying human rights protection selectively is better than not applying it at all."

I don't agree with both. Which is why I said that neither is the better option - because neither should warranted at all.

What's so far off the mark with that? Do you think someone who applies it selectively is necessarily better?

If you do. Then I'd be far off the mark in your world - but I thoroughly disagree with you.

So someone who kills 10,000 people is no worse than someone who kills 1, karhoo?

this seems to be what he has been arguing

I can't see the logic myself...

Sounds like Stalin "one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic"

Two new NZ/China FTA developments came to my attention today:

1. Fisher and Paykel blames FTA (in part) for job losses from Mosgiel site (production shifted to Mexico and Thailand in order to remain competitive)

2. STATE-OWNED Chinese companies bid for ownership of Welington Vector network. Foreign investment under FTA does not differentiate between private companies and govt-owned entities - so we could see Chinese government owning lots of our assets. Do we want that?

re 1.

they should blame globalisation and NZ's high wages compared to those in the developing world

well played though F&P

I agree

we have had a globalised labour market for some time now

it can't be blamed purely on this FTA (although I think it is fair to say that FTAs such as these do not help)

btw don't you think corporations should have a moral and social responsibility to keep jobs in their own country?

1. What rubbish from them - so F&P managed to plan an entire shift to a global manufacturing strategy in 2 weeks? Because of a bilateral FTA. Pfffft, this will have been planned for months if not years...
And they sell globally? The only thing the FTA did was reduce the tariffs on imported Chinese competition in NZ and those were only at 5%? I fail to see how that made any significant difference. Low cost manufacturing is not tenable in NZ or pretty much any developed nation any more.

2. Their is arguments around freeing up of investment laws in terms of foreign ownership - do we want foreigners owning any assets? But all our laws regarding offshore investment (including the last minute executive order Strategic Control laws) still apply under the FTA though, as I explained before. JH you say "Foreign investment under FTA does not differentiate between private companies and govt-owned entities" - this is NOT an FTA-only thing, it is NOT a Chinese-only thing.

and hitler should have married a jew

corporations are above having a country...

above might not be the right word but certainly apart from. shareholding is likely pretty mixed in F&P, they will be registered as a company in various places around the world and have staff in dozens of countries...

How the FUCK did the FTA harm F&P?

Seems to be exporting high end gear to China might have been a goer.

I realise that - foreign investment can (and does) occur without bilateral agreements - but this FTA was designed to facilitate investment with China, so we are very likely, practically speaking, to see greater Chinese ownership of our assets

and I agree, there is no distinction in general foreign investment practice between SOEs/non-SOEs ... but that doesn't mean this doesn't become a political issue in cases where a foreign government is "questionable" - and where such a government can, through its state-owned companies, control our key assets

I thought that a company can have a registered office in only one country? i.e. every company has a nationality in terms of its legal personality

if a company owns or controls other companies, those in turn could be registered in different countries - is that what you mean?

of course, a company can have shareholders in a variety of different countries

i could be wrong but that was my understanding....

I don't think the FTA has already harmed Fisher&Paykel as in past tense

but they are saying it has created an environment that is not favourable to further manufacturing in NZ in the future

although existing tariffs are only 5%, if these become 0%, maybe this will impact significantly on the company...

No. I'm saying that they're both bad.

I don't understand why that's such a difficult point to get through.

I'm not saying China is better or worse. I'm saying that you CANNOT say that China is bad WITHOUT saying that the USA is bad also.

FUNDAMENTALLY - They're BOTH BAD. Full stop.

You murder 1 person or you murder 10000 - you're still a murderer.

What I do not comprehend is how you can say someone is a murderer because he killed 10000 people, but in the same breath say that the other person who killed 1 person IS NOT. It's not about saying that one person is more murderous than the other - it's about admitting that they are both, fundamentally, murderers.

Saying anything other than that is just HYPOCRITICAL.

Vad - your Stalin quote is more relevant to "1 death is 1 too many" then it is "murdering 10000 people is no worse than murdering 1".

The first, is what I'm arguing. And that's why adding a degree of tolerance IS splitting hairs on the fundamentals - that murder has been committed so both nations are tainted.

Once you extend the reasoning to include some # of deaths - you're effectively saying that 1 is ok, 20 is bad, 100 is worst, 1000 is insane - which means that you've lost the underlining view of the "1 is too many" rule. You've accepted that certain degrees are acceptable. You've started to put numbers to judge what is acceptable, and somewhere down the line - you stop calling a murderer of 10 a murderer, because you only consider genocidal individuals to be murderers.

That's, hypocritical. Unfortunately,

THIS is the world we live in. We're all already hypocritical.

I merely tried to remind JH that in essence, being supportive of a potential US-NZ FTA, whilst being against a CHINA-NZ FTA, based on human rights reasons, is hypocritical.

He doesn't agree. Because like the rest of the world, we're already to far down that path of "1 is fine, 100 is acceptable, 10 000 is borderline... as long as you don't kill 100 000 you're still on my IM list"....

well thanks for reminding me.

but actually where did I say that I would be supportive of a US-NZ FTA? why did this thread become a comparative exercise between negotiating with China and negotiating with the US?

we are examining the merits of a trade deal with CHINA in this thread. the merits of a trade deal with the USA would be entirely different, involving a totally different range of factors, and again there could be objections based on human rights grounds.

regarding your second point - scale does matter. for example, there is a difference between chopping down one tree (justifiable) and destroying a whole rain forest (unjustifiable). in the real world that is.

Benefits are happening pretty quickly from the FTA.
Also note the bit about how Fonterras exports have value added here in NZ.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10513699&pnum=0

that's good to see

I'm happy that we have managed to secure an FTA with China, we needed to diversify our trading partners more so that our economy was less dependent on the US economy

...but more dependent on china to be our manufacturing sector?

yeah thats real smart

manufacture no goods in new zealand, just import them from china, thats really going to work for an agricultural/primary industry based country (nz)

Well, I didn’t accuse you per se. I just made a statement that it’d be hypocritical to say no FTA with China based on the few reasons that were being discussed. You disagreed with me and said it wouldn’t be hypocritical. And then we got into that debate.

On the second point, on scale. Which real world are you talking about that the US has only killed >1 innocent person?

I think that as long as you cannot find moral fault within the USA’s own double standards, then we will continue on very different paths.

Ultimately, I do believe that China is worst than the USA in many things. But in essence, I find the USA as morally corrupt. To me, dealing with both is like shaking hands with the devil and his son.

What I find difficult to justify is for one person to say to China that you’re a murderer, and in the same breath say that the USA only “killed” people because it was a “different” situation…. Or something of that sort. It’s hypocritical.

Why does an agricultural/primary industry based country like NZ need a manfacturing sector? We have no comparative advantage in that sector apart from at the high end, where we are not losing jobs to China anyway (I'm thinking design of boats used in America's cup etc).

???

Interesting that only a few months into our new NZ/China FTA, Fonterra is tainted by association, in the latest baby milk powder disaster - thousands of Chinese babies poisoned.

It seems the Chinese have a talent for this kind of food poisoning fiasco - this is NOT the first time babies have got sick and died from baby milk products.

Drawing a long bow to equate this negatively with the FTA!
1. Fonterra bought their stake in Sanlu in 2006, over a year before the FTA was in force
2. It seems it was the very presence of Fonterra in that commercial arrangement that has bought action on the issue - something the FTA will only encourage further. It's a perfect example of deeper commercial engagement ensuring our standards can begin to be applied. If Fonterra wasn't there this would have been buried and had nothing done about it...

From what I've read that isn't quite the scenario - Fonterra were given the 'go away'. It wasn't until the NZ government stepped in that the Chinese took a more ethical approach to it. Goes to show, even an extremely large organisation like Fonterra has almost zero regulatory influence in a market like China.

R

Apparently it was being swept under the rug, the board at Sanlu finally found out (incl Fonterra reps), pushed for it to be recalled, when it continued to have minimal action Fonterra got Helen et al involved who pushed at a Governmental level and got action.
If it wasn't for Fonterra and the NZ Govt's trade relations then babies would have died and we'd never have found out about it. Good day for the FTA me reckons.

it's incredibly disturbing that the Chinese tried to push this under the carpet, and that the regulatory authorities over there did not implement an instant recall of these products. what does that say about their moral mindset?

no it's not just disturbing, it's actually criminal

"deeper commercial arrangements" with such companies and the regimes that govern them, in my view, is similar to party liability to criminal conduct

whatever spin you like to put on this, it is embarrassing and mortifying for Fonterra, especially with the international media reporting on it.

Go to China and you wont be in the least bit surprised as stuff like this.

I have so many stories of small things like dealing with hotels and trying to order a coffee which you'd think were as serious as being caught selling grenades to children.

They have a seriously different mentality towards almost everything - you just can't rationalise it by comparing it to our way of doing things.

R

Absolutely, was terrible. Fortunately by having a NZ company on the board, it was discovered and the NZ government could apply it's newly-found trade weight to get something done.

As a lawyer you are seriously going to run with that?

Embarrassing? For sure.

put it this way, if I were a prosecutor, I'd at least take a look at it

when I suggested that China was a very "different sort of country" that does things in a "very different way" earlier in this thread, I received an incredulous response

so it's interesting to see that you are backing up what I know to be true - because you have ACTUAL knowledge and experience of these things

I don't see how he's backing you up.



That's exactly the you missed. That you keep trying to rationalise what they do by your standards (but then exercised discretion when applying the same standard on other countries, which happen to be much closer in basic ideals with NZ).

And anyway, how are you defining ACTUAL experience? By someone who's visited/worked there for a period of time or by someone who's grown up, had family and friends in that country or environment?

Given how widespread (in the whole industry) it is now i think it makes fonterra look pretty good being the whistle blower.

agree - both them and our Govt have acted responsibly

Hmm I dunno... I'd be interested to see how the media in other parts of the world, especially Fonterra's biggest export markets, are reporting this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/asia/17milk.html?ref=asia


No mention of the NZ Govt stepping in, and apart from saying that Fonterra made an effort to get the product recalled, it doesn't actually come off as particularly favourable for Fonterra.

On the other hand, it doesn't blame Fonterra either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/asia/16milk.html?ref=asia

This one's better for Fonterra.

This Reuters one is slightly negative though, in the way that it reads. After talking about the scandal in the main part of the story, it ends by saying:



And then it goes on to say:



While it gives slight credit to the NZ Govt for pressuring China, it doesn't really make a linkage with Fonterra's role in that.

In fact, the way it reads to me is that Fonterra was subservient to Sanlu and relevant authority's demands... making them seem almost weak.

Maybe you guys have a different take from reading that?

there are environmental and systemic factors and pressures in China that cause these food crises from time to time

if you have shareholding in a Chinese food company like Sanlu, sooner or later you are going to get drawn into the maelstrom

Fonterra owns 43% of Sanlu - and its profits reflect that

if your corporate Chinese trading partner is demanding secrecy, what do you do?

yep, that's right.

I would like our trading partners to have ideals that are not poles apart from ours.

that's where I differ from most other posters in this thread I guess.

do you mean widespread in China? or around the world?

err..... at least 3 babies HAVE died, and many thousands are sick and more could still die ....

Are you referring to the Reuters article?

I'm just saying that this particular article, the way it has been put together and the way it reads, makes it look as if Fonterra was ultimately responsible for not going public earlier, which also indirectly means that they did too little, too late.

no, just making general observations

further facts emerge in today's Herald:

- poison levels high enough to kill

- four babies now dead

- chairwoman of Fonterra's subsidiary detained by police

- the company knew melamine was being added to its milk products 3 years ago

- reports of sick babies to help-line since August 2

- Fonterrra had "significant knowledge" about contamination before it alerted the government - but blocked by corrupt local government officials

Todays Herald states my observations rather more eloquently under a heading "Toxic Trade:"

"Fonterra's business relationship with San Lu ... raises questions about the responsibility and involvement of international partners in the safety of goods they sell ... any company entering a joint venture as a minority partner is aware its brand could be damaged by events beyond its control .... emerging markets promise infinite rewards: but you enter at your peril. They tend to lack infrastructure needed to ensure robust quality assurance; supply chains are often fragmented and subject to change; and central governments may exert little influence..."