The China FTA

"You do the best you can and sometimes something like this (happens) whether you like it or not. If somebody breaks the law and puts poison chemical in the product, we're all vulnerable to that."

the Fonterra director is confusing two different moral/legal issues here

yes every producer is vulnerable to third-party interference with goods - no liability there

however once the producer of goods has KNOWLEDGE of that fact, and that people could die as a result, nothing less than IMMEDIATE action is required - anything less than that would not be morally or legally acceptable

Helen Clark now says Fonterra took "too long" to communicate what it knew to the public

she said they did not have an adequate communications strategy

she may be looking to find someone accountable on the Fonterra board

Looks like another FTA is on the way, this time with America.

yes, crowning pre-election glory for labour

The details of this will be very interesting though. US positions in the past suggest they want us to lose Pharmac, remove restrictions on GM, go back to draconian copyright laws, remove the Overseas Investment Act etc...
Hopefully it won't be so strict as to threaten any of these.

Phil Goff and Helen have done a pretty amazing amount of work on trade in the last few years - full credit.

the US Deal will be interesting to watch as it develops....

fantastic timing... national et al hadn't even had a chance to do the "we'll get you a free trade deal with the US blah blah blah" electionaring yet

I'm going to remain silent until more details are released.

According to the newspapers today:

a leaked email memo from Sanlu discloses that the company wanted to silence the parents of sick babies (paying them to shut up basically) AND offered to buy off Bandu - China's biggest ISP - so they would not carry any news items about the scandal.

nothing quite like corruption, Chinese style

meanwhile, the food threat widens as melanine is found in more and more Chinese food products worldwide. Japan has now banned importation of many Chinese products and other countries are following suit.

but luckily for NZ, we have just signed a trade deal with China so we can get more toxic Chinese goodies!!

Ministry of Health is clamping down hard over here at the moment.

ANYTHING that is food related and has come out of China but has not yet been placed on the shelves is being yellow stickered. Everything has to go for testing, no exceptions.

Re: Fonterra/San Lu

did you see the front page of the Herald today?

No.











I saw that story yesterday cause I like to keep up to date and not read about things a day late...


Certainly sounds possibly dodge although on balance of probabilities I think Fonterra's explanation seems the more plausible one - they pulled out a bunch of research on melamine in milk and this lady is now claiming that because she saw this EU limit mentioned in one paper that it was all OK. Of course the fact that the melamine level in their milk was 100 times what the EU suggested maximum was seems to undermine her argument

maybe you're right, maybe not

it doesn't matter - the action of handing such a document to the Sanlu director could theoretically be procuring or aiding or abetting - it's at least arguable

Fonterra's position is flawed and lacks credibility - if you made it crystal clear that there is to be ZERO melamine used in your milk products - why bother handing over a document stating the "guideline" is 20%

the point is not so much whether Fonterra is definitively legally liable for anything or not

but its actions have caused it to become embroiled - to the extent where Fonterra now intends to defend itself as an "interested party" in the sentencing appeal

The Fonterra side of that story is that they handed a LOT of research all about melamine levels in milk to the board. And one part of one document in that pile stated an EU level of 30mg (or whatever it was) - i.e. they didn't say "look this says you can have melamine in milk!", more "here's all the international research on melamine in milk, we continue to suggest the level should be zero".

I find that plausible during the time of the crisis, largely because without further info I trust Fonterra more than the defence-claims of a woman sentenced to life in prison. I could certainly be wrong on that of course.


The Sanlu investment has certainly be an appalling one for Fonterra - without hindsight I'd have said the JV made strategic sense, but to end up being such a big part of a company that allowed suppliers to provide deadly product suggests they didn't bring their usual levels of governance at all.
Perhaps you just don't expect suppliers to poison the product (it wouldn't cross your mind in NZ I imagine) but still, jeebus...

which means that SanLu was treacherous to its NZ business partner Fonterra by:

1. specifically going against the clear instructions not to add any melamine

2. not disclosing to Fonterra that it was adding the poison to its milk products

3. at all times knowing that any ensuing scandal would affect Fonterra, its corporate image, and its profits (which in turn affects the NZ economy)


not at all an encouraging model for NZ/Chinese business relationships

The facts as i understand them.

Even to focus on the research that is quoted. It says FOR Adults, in the context of plastic food containers leeching product into food, 20mg per kg is the maximum the EU will allow. Any good papers which discuss melamine would likely quote such facts. To conclude that that makes it ok to sell it with shit loads more in babies milk powder is a stretch in the extreme. Mind you if youre facing the death penalty youll say/clutch at anything i guess.

The sanlu board didnt know about the melamine at first as it was thier supplier cheating them. When it found out about it it was slow to act and tried to brush it under the carpet while they disposed of the tainted stockpile.

As a minority shareholder Fonterra was not in a position to instruct anything. Fonterra was pushing for a recall and cessation of the sale of tainted product. Neither happened till the NZ govt got involved directly with the central chinese govt.

I dont think this was treachery by SanLu as much as just the way that many in china do business. Everything is ok if you get away with it.

Theres been issues with intercultural business JVs for ever. This is just the latest.

the fact is, SanLu had knowledge about the melamine before Fonterra did.

SanLu did not communicate that knowledge to Fonterra - as you say "swept it under the carpet"

call that what you will, dishonest, treacherous, or just bad. doesn't matter.

as you say - "everything is ok if you get away with it" - certainly sums up the Chinese business morality.

thus the questions raised by the SanLu debacle are central to the thread topic - is the FTA really a good thing?

Fonterra has certainly learnt about Chinese business ethics the hard way

I wish i could find the source, but i read a quote from a WHO report recently that was extremely complimentary about the way in which growth in China was lifting the living standards of the poorest.

In absense of the WHO report, here's how another commentator puts it (Harpers Magazine 2005):

"China is accomphishing some measurable good with its growth. People are enjoying some meat, sending their children to school, heating their huts. Whereas we're buring nine times as much energy per capita so that we can: aircondition game rooms and mow half acre lots, drive SUVs on every errand, eat tomatoes flown in from Chile ... "

And in contrast to this America is well known for its underclass of homeless.

While some important issues are raised in this thread, a lot of it also looks like one sided China bashing.

There are many 'real differences' between China and the USA. One that i'm interested in right now is the will of America to resort to military power to protect its interests. This has been a pattern in the developement of the West generally - nowhere globally has been too far away to escape the military interest of Western nations. China on the other hand has been a comparitively peaceful global citizen. It has never as far as i know sought conquest outside of its immediate region.

Wages are dreadfully low in China. But is that the fault of the Chinese? Maybe that's how they are competing to lift themseles out of poverty. Also, their needs are less than ours - they cycle to work rather than drive. In a multitude of other ways they consume less.

Maybe the greatest problem the world faces right now is how billions of people in East Asia can achieve some improvement in their standard of living, without all of us burning up in the hell of global warming. How does the West contribute to an equalisation of global wealth? The last US President stated quite categoricaly "The American way of life will not be compromised."

the environmental cost of consumerism, materialism, over-production, and rampant consumption is indeed a world-wide problem, no more evident than in the USA

differences between living standards in different countries is another valid issue

however I'm not entirely sure why the thread developed into a China vs USA discussion (primarily)

the original issue was whether it was proper for NZ to sign a trade treaty with China, given certain historical, social, political, and ideological differences between the two countries

to me, it's a political and ideological question mostly, and a question of principle, with the Chinese political regime and attitude to human rights being the primary concerns

but is that not just the natural result of economic growth?

you would expect even those on the bottom rung of society to experience SOME improvement in material conditions when an economy is growing and imrpoving

i.e. some "trickle-down" effect

Fair enough on the topic of human rights.

However if we were to measure the behavior of America against certain moral standards it too might fail. Think about it ... the failure of the wealthiest nation on earth to prevent the development of an underclass, the excessive use of resources and the lack of any evident will to address this issue, making America a central locus of an environmental catastrophe that could destroy all of us, the questionable use of military force, etc ... and then the really deep dark stuff such as Blackwater, Guantanamo Bay ... it's cultural worship of gun ... it's birth as a nation through the colonisation and destruction of an indigeneous people ... and so on) ... it's not that hard to construct a really sinister story about America.

If we are to hold the Chinese to high standards, then why not America?

Just to be clear, i wouldn't use any of the above to not develop an economic relationship with the US.

I think an important point the WHO report was making was that despite its relative poverty and third world status, Chinese policies were actively preventing the weakest members of the populace from falling into dire poverty. Instead, people were being fed and educated - which is one of the advantages Chinese labour now has ... globally there is plenty of cheap labour, but Chinese labour is cheap, and (relatively by third world standards) educated.

Morever, i think there is evidence that this respect for the poor has been a long term pattern in China. The Chinese focus on building a national economy - as opposed to the Western focus upon gaining control over long distance networks of trade (a pattern that Adam Smith noted, describing the East Asian path as one of "natural development", opposed to the "unnatural development" of the West) recognised the importance of harmony at home and providing for all - least in part because discontent could result in revolution.

I'll look for evidence to back this up.

I agree with your points about the USA and in particular its overly aggressive and extensive foreign policy

to me, every nation state is unique and can have different failings in different areas and to differing degrees - when it comes to consideration of significant international cooperation such as the signing of a treaty, an individual assessment of the potential state partner is required.

what is acceptable/unacceptable vis a vis one nation state and another, is to a large extent a question of fact and degree, and incredibly complex.

for example, South Africa's apartheid regime involved such a widespread, systematic, long-standing form of racial discrimination, that we deemed it inappropriate to enter into certain types of international cooperation with that country. denunciation was required. sanctions were imposed.

a common political, historical, cultural heritage is also important. there may be valid reasons why we might more readily sign a treaty with say the democratic USA, despite all of its failings, than a communist state such as China.

in a sense, all countries should be held to high standards

it's more that China fails to meet certain international minimum standards in certain key areas, which the USA passes - some of these are standards set by international law

well if that's the case then I am impressed

i..e if the state has social initiatives or policy that is actually facilitating the flow of wealth to the poor and/or increasing living standards of the poor, especially in rural areas where the worst poverty is found

that's a very different thing altogether from an accidental improvement through general economic health of a country

in fact the Chinese social security system/approach to social welfare is something I am quite curious to learn more about

Its not so much a system, as a policy of intensively using labour. An "industrious" revolution, as opposed to the "industrial" revolution in the west.

hmm the phrase "intensively using labour" worries me a tad.

but putting aside any negative connotation, I think I know what you mean. sounds like a cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a policy or something imposed on people.

Will respond later to the SA example, issue of democracy, and obedience to international law.

Except to say however, that the Opium Wars (where the UK bought to heel the greater economic power of China through superior military force) began shortly after it was announced in the British Parliament that Chinese confiscation of Opium (smuggled illegally into China by the British), and incarceration of the culprits, was "an atrocious violation of justice." Britain determined in other words, to force Opium into China against the soverign law of China because otherwise the flow of trade was predominately China to England. From the 16th to the 18th Century the English purchase of Chinese silk, porcelain and tea resulted in three fourths of new world silver finding its way to China!

Democracy might just turn the Chinese into a pack of bubblegum chewin' SUV drivin' gun totin' high livin' consumers. I'm not sure that's something to look forward to.

looking through history, you will find appalling violations of international law everywhere you go

nor would I

but as a westerner, living in a western democratic country, it's natural to feel more affinity with other western democratic states - and to expect a greater degree of cooperation and involvement with them than with Eastern communist states - because we share the same values.

in an ideal world, that might be different - I don't know

I found that report I referred to (its the World Bank, not the WHO):

"China's most remarkable achievement during the past three decades has been to make the low-income groups far better off in terms of basic needs than their counterparts in most other poor countries. They all have work; their food supply is guaranteed ... their children are not only at school but are comparitively well taught; and the great majority have access to basic health care and family planning services. Life expectancy ... is outstandingly high for a country of China's per capita income level." (1981)

For a country that descended into the Third World as a result of Western imperialism (between 1500 and 1820 China's share of global GDP was between a quarter to a third, it then dropped quickly after the Opium Wars to a low of about 6% in 1950), and then suffered invasion and occupation by Japan (which unlike China was subsequently assisted back onto its feet through the US lifting onto its own shoulders the massive fiscal burden of military protection) China is doing okay.

The case that non-recognition of international law, non-democracy, and lack of cultural affinity is sufficient to exclude China doesn't stack up to me. I can find plenty of reasons to be morally horrified by the US, and other Western nations. China's 'sins' are not on the same scale as SA, and democracy has not prevented all manner of blunders and injustices by Western states.

well I guess this is where people will differ

for me, China's failure to subscribe to certain recognised norms of international law, coupled with poor observance of the rule of law domestically, widespread corruption (including of the state-funded judiciary), failure to sign up to minimum labour standards through the ILO, the refusal of the corrupt Communist regime to recognise state-sponsored brutalities such as Tiananmen Square, suppression of freedom of speech, political liberties, and other freedoms etc puts China at least on par with South Africa in terms of human rights violations, and therefore equally calls for international condemnation

btw, China's recent attempts to control its citizens' internet access and usage are highly disturbing (to say the least)

in but one example, the State recently blocked access to youtube to the entire country, because of one youtube video of Chinese soldiers brutally beating Tibetan monks

I want to pull back a bit, and acknowledge instead the contradictions of China: Its peaceful orientation to the world at large, and a generalised will to share the benefits of development internally, opposed to the excessive violence through which the iron fist of rule is exercised at home.

one further point about the rule of law and its importance to commerce

generally a state that observes the rule of law provides the conditions necessary for international trade and investment to flourish - observance of the rule of law creates stability and certainty in commercial dealings and attracts investment

China has a problem with the rule of law in the sense that the judiciary is not independent, and consists instead of state-appointed officials, with no separate budget. moreover, many of the appointed judges are corrupt and open to bribery. there is indeed a long history of judicial bribery and corruption, and results in individual cases are frequently pre-determined, thus rendering the legal process a sham. in the criminal sphere, there is of course a lack of due process when compared against international norms.

the National Treatment provisions of the FTA are interesting, because they afford a Chinese investor in NZ the same legal rights as a New Zealander. a New Zealand investor in China gets the same rights that a Chinese person would.

there is an obvious imbalance here. a Chinese investor gets access to an economy where the rule of law is observed, an independent judiciary relatively free from corruption, well-developed laws and protections, a reliable and well-evolved court system, a legal aid system (civil and criminal) etc

a Chinese worker in NZ gets the protection of highly-evolved employment laws, union protection, collective bargaining, freedom of association, anti-discrimination laws, and access to employment courts, the human rights commission etc

any Chinese person is able to take a human rights or discrimination case against NZ as far as the UN Human Rights Committee - because NZ has opened itself to international scrutiny on human rights

a New Zealander or NZ business or corporation in China would be in a somewhat different position legally.

other parts of the FTA ostensibly protect the investor through application of a sort of international minimum standard. however, China has no history of compliance with this sort of thing, and so there must be grave reservations as to whether China has the legal or state machinery to give effect to an international minimum legal standard.

for example, I would not want to be a NZ company director in China faced with a legal charge either personally, or against the company, in the Chinese courts. I would be somewhat nervous about that. especially if the offence alleged was against the State.

An interesting commentary on the huge economic opportunities and social problems faced by China:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/21050

curious that Premier Wen referred to San-Lu as an "isolated" incident in trade talks with John Key recently

it depends what you mean by "isolated"

San Lu was certainly not the first baby-milk poisoning scandal to hit China, there was one involving fake formula in 2004 which killed off a lot of babies

nor was it the only Chinese food-safety fiasco - poison toys and other products were found on foreign shelves all over the world last year

nor is the San Lu disaster the result of unusual, aberrant or one-off factors. it is more likely the result of systemic corruption and other cultural causes.

granted, the food safety problems in China provide an excellent export opportunity for NZ farmers and food manufacturers to supply safe foodstuffs to the Chinese market.

the trade deal will further facilitate this.

Warning (Australian and business related)

The Rio-Tinto quashed deal with Chinalco has been an interesting affair. One forgets how different things are though when dealing with totalitarian states. How , when the deal goes sour, its not just about the deal anymore, its about saving face , and how individuals are not that important. Theres lots of comments obviously in the Aussie press but here is a NZ herald summary

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10583765

Will be very interesting how this plays out. It always seemed a bit too easy for Rio just to say "oh no hang on we changed our minds we dont want your investment any more (now that the markets have picked up).

thanks for posting that peat - saw that today in the herald

relevant to my earlier post from 2 April

yes yes your post was very prescient
thats pretty much exactly what is happening on the face of it.
China seems to be very keen to use this financial crisis to buy resources at reasonable prices with a long term perspective
Chinese Haier just acquired a 20% stake in Fisher and Paykel Appliances when that company desparately needed a cornerstone shareholder ; Rio Tinto was in a debt fuelled crisis of its own when it found a saviour with Chinalco. It was resorting to selling actual stakes in particular mining projects to the Chinese govt owned aluminium company for badly needed capital but then , quite quickly asset prices picked up , sentiment became favourable and it stitched some other deals thus rejecting Chinese whispers

China seems to be attempting to exploit weakness and is getting miffed when it doesnt get what it wants

yes yes your post was very prescient
thats pretty much exactly what is happening on the face of it.
China seems to be very keen to use this financial crisis to buy resources at reasonable prices with a long term perspective
Chinese Haier just acquired a 20% stake in Fisher and Paykel Appliances when that company desparately needed a cornerstone shareholder ; Rio Tinto was in a debt fuelled crisis of its own when it found a saviour with Chinalco. It was resorting to selling actual stakes in particular mining projects to the Chinese govt owned aluminium company for badly needed capital but then , quite quickly asset prices picked up , sentiment became favourable and it stitched some other deals thus rejecting Chinese whispers

China seems to be attempting to exploit weakness and is getting miffed when it doesnt get what it wants

China is already in the process of making the U.S its bitch via all this bail out money they are providing.

Australia does not want to end up the same way, that's why the sale never went through.

It appears Stern Hu has been made the fall guy and they are probably looking to make an example of him.

They want to send a message to anyone else that might decide to work against the interests of China's economic development.

The Chinese are pretty brutal people when crossed as has been highlighted by the recent Uighurs Muslim uprising.

Info from an ABN AMro publication today on the Rio situation

"Aluminium Corp. of China, or Chinalco, said the detention of four Rio Tinto employees
by Chinese authorities on allegations of espionage isn't related to the miner's decision
last month to walk away from a US$19.5bn alliance with the Chinese group. Stern Hu,
the head of Rio's iron ore operations in China, has been detained since Sunday along
with three Chinese employees of Rio and stands accused of stealing state secrets for a
foreign country. "Chinalco has been in contact with Rio Tinto expressing our mutual
concern for the current situation with their staff," a Chinalco spokesperson said in a
statement. "We have also reasserted that the situation is in no way related to any
commercial dealings between Rio and Chinalco." The detentions have sparked concern
in Australia, where some opposition politicians have accused China of detaining the
employees as payback for Rio's decision to walk away from its alliance with Chinalco.
Rio Tinto said it is not aware of any evidence that would support allegations by Chinese
authorities that four of its employees stole state secrets relating to the current round
of iron ore price negotiations. A spokeswoman for Rio Tinto said the company was
following developments closely and was "surprised and concerned" about the
allegations. "We are not aware of any evidence that would support these allegations,"
she said. "Rio Tinto is committed to high standards in business integrity and takes its
ethical responsibilities very seriously." The miner has not been informed by Chinese
authorities about any charges in relation to the allegations and remains ready to assist
authorities in their investigations, she said. Rio Tinto was supporting its employees and
their families in China, she said and it has been liaising very closely with the Australian
Government"


Can you really believe its unrelated?? I have a lot of trouble with this , however the annual iron ore pricing negotiations have just been taking place as well so maybe just maybe those employees were up to some skullduggery , who knows

I'm vague on details but I read that Stern Hu is responsible for negotiating some killer deals in the past for Rio.

If he played a part in the failure of this last deal, he would probably be the least popular business man on the planet as far as China's concerned.

The failure to lay charges is highly suspicious.

China has thrown their toys over the whole debacle.

How is China going to do that when it lacks the military might of the US, and it lacks control over the organisations of world governance which were manipulated by the USA to ensure that international finance went to those regimes most favourable to America politically, and most willing to allow American TNCs access to their resources?

China's behaviour increasingly bizarre

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Chinas-spin-offensive-pd20090811-USSS7?OpenDocument&src=rab

Xinhua is also still quoting the figure of 700 billion yuan ($123 billion) in losses suffered by Chinese steel makers as a result of Rio’s spying as if it’s true, when a moment’s thought reveals that it makes no sense whatsoever. As Stephen Bartholomeusz pointed out yesterday, Rio’s total iron ore sales worldwide over the past six years was worth $US40.75 billion, or less than half what was supposed to have been skimmed.


And then yesterday we have a “political counsellor” from the Chinese embassy in Canberra turning up at the National Press Club trying to bully them into pulling today’s planned address by Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.


how can anyone confidently do business in China with the threat hanging over them of summary imprisonment for breaching vague and capricious laws governing state secrets?





So

how's our FTA going then?

Maybe Stern Hu did break the law. Should we bleed if China fucks some dishonest and corrupt capitalist up the arse?

How about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/asia/18china.html
"For poor countries like Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, and somewhat better-off countries like the Philippines, China’s loans are often more attractive than the complicated loans from the West."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/20/china.foodanddrink
"China has emerged as the world's third largest food donor."

China seems to be acting in the same vein as Venezuela, which has offered loans to Latin American countries free from the conditions (i.e. economic shock therapy) that have traditionally plagued loans on offer from US backed institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

And since this is our miscellaneous bad news about China thread, maybe its time to try some sort of comparison between the number of countries America has invaded recently compared to those attacked by China. For the sake of argument let's begin here:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090409072420AAER6XS

http://www.stwr.org/united-states-of-america/latin-america-and-asia-are-at-last-breaking-free-of-washingtons-grip.html

"Meanwhile, in Latin America left-center governments prevail from Venezuela to Argentina ... Venezuela, the leading oil exporter in the hemisphere, has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on the openly hostile US government."

"Venezuela, apart from supplying Argentina with fuel oil, bought almost a third of Argentinian debt issued in 2005, one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the controls of the IMF after two decades of disastrous conformity to the rules imposed by the US-dominated international financial institutions."


Looks like we're in good company.

To be fair there's a large amount of interdependence but china appears to be gaining the upper hand right now.

That upper hand might just buy them some serious military power in the near future.

the farmers dont need to worry about losing control of Fonterra to outsiders , coz the outsiders will just buy the farms.

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/09/09/chinese-firm-in-talks-to-buy-nzs-largest-dairy-farming-group/

The sale would make the Chinese interests one of the biggest individual shareholders in Fonterra

but still not even 1%

There's a raft of interesting issues being raised in the comments thread of that article ... and as is pointed out there NZ (via PGW) already invests in dairying in Uruguay, so why should it not be ok for the Chinese to invest in dairying in NZ?

It's not as if foreigners aren't investing here:

"Available data gives a reasonably consistent picture. By international standards, New Zealand is exceptionally dependent on FDI both for new investment and for existing investment stock. Important sectors of the economy are completely or largely dominated by FDI, the main exceptions being in areas related to primary production, although that too is changing. In some important sectors, the only New Zealand owned enterprises remaining are cooperatives, mutuals, or government owned. FDI appears to have replaced government investment rather than increasing New Zealand’s total gross fixed capital formation."

http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Backgrounders/Chapter1.pdf

Interesting article, cheers. It is of course entirely consistent with Fonterra's charter (they just care about the fact their owners are supplying farmers) and frankly the sooner we get rid of awful farmers like the Crafars the better.

this made my day

a strong encouragement for the FTA (and evidence of the continuing buyout)
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/show-me-money/2009/10/16/welcome-our-saviours/?c_id=3

now where have I heard that before?

SAVE YOUR MONEY!

there used to be the story of trees shipped offshore as logs and brought back as dining suites.
nowadays its fish brought back as fillets !
_____
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10606577

Frozen fish sold in a nationwide supermarket chain is making a 21,954km trip to our kitchen tables: caught in New Zealand, filleted in China, flown back here for dinner.
_____

how can this be economic and if it is that doesnt bode too well for NZ employment.

has Peters got a point ?
_____
Peters said Australia's "nationalistic" economic approach was the reason for that country's $85.9 billion per annum trade with China. Australia does not have a free trade agreement with China.

He labelled our free trade agreement "blind theory".
______



obviously the reason for their trade is they have the hard commodities China are requiring right now but still... it doesnt seem to be doing Aussie any harm not having a FTA

Workers to desert town as factory shuts doors

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609006

Wellsford's largest employer is to shut a week before Christmas with the loss of 56 jobs, just seven months after 105 staff were made redundant.
Mr Kelly said this stock would now be supplied from China
I know the free trade theories , but cant wonder if we're making it pretty hard to keep ourselves employed competing against them.


and yet yesterday there was somewhere an article about someone who was importing diaries from China and they were getting slapped with a large tariff, for some reason diaries are not free trade.

interest.co.nz reports a few days ago.
"Exports to China, however, are up over 50% in the last year from a year ago, while imports from China are up only slightly, suggesting the Free Trade Agreement has been a big success"

His company had been failing for years before the fta

Stern Hu up for trial now. A legal farce as it is all behind closed doors and the judges are political appointees, and the companies complaining about his stealing their information are pure vessels of the Chinese government.
He was only arrested as the Chinese company began to lose face and the deal.


"Hu was detained while leading multi-billion dollar negotiations for Rio Tinto against the Chinese Iron and Steel Association (CISA). He was initially detained on ‘national security grounds’ and arrested for ‘stealing state secrets’. It was only after international political pressure, mainly by American Secretary for Commerce Garry Locke, that Hu’s charges were downgraded to those of ‘receiving bribes’ and ‘theft of industrial secrets’. When the dust eventually settles after his ‘three day trial’, the international business community will take a significantly dimmer view of both China’s business environment and of the country’s political-economy

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Why-China-is-stepping-on-toes-pd20100323-3SQRQ?OpenDocument&src=mp

re the crafar farms :
"The application may fail the OIO's test for reasons that have nothing directly to do with the nationality of the parent company, and indeed that cannot be its concern. But it would be idle to pretend that the prospect of a foreign takeover of so many farms is not the foremost concern of farmers and many other New Zealanders.

A neighbour of one of the Crafar properties probably expressed a common sentiment when he told the Herald, "I don't really trust the Chinese ... There's a lot of money to be made in China by selling our products, but they do things a lot differently to the rest of the world and they don't seem to be too worried about what the rest of the world thinks."

bet that farmer would trust uncle sam

New Zealand and Hong Kong will today sign a closer economic partnership(CEP) agreement, building on the free trade agreement with China
and apparently the China FTA has increased trade to the tune of a billion !

great news, can't wait for that trickle-down effect!

New Zealand's export markets showed a rebalancing to China and away from the U.S., with exports to China rising 11 per cent to $441 million in March while the value of exports to the world's largest economy fell 18 per cent to $378 million. China has now leapfrogged the US as New Zealand's second-biggest export destination behind Australia.

The free trade agreement (FTA) with China does not stop our Government, through the Minister, declining to approve land sales

The likely future of President of China has toured NZ this week and visited Fisher and Paykel (now 20% owned by the huge Chinese appliance comapney Haier ) and he produced some staggering figures that underline the role the Chinese economy has played in this country since the global financial crisis.

Already Chinese exports to New Zealand are up 25.8 per cent this year to US$940 million ($1.3 billion). Importantly, this country's exports to China have also increased by 65.8 per cent to reach US$1.54 billion in the same period. Dairy exports are the main contributor

Until they start intensive dairy farming in China of course.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-editors-picks/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501981&objectid=10662874

Warning to NZ: Keep technology secrets safe from China

lol, you Western Devils can moan all you like, but you cannot defy da flows of da collective Karma!