Three Gorges Embezzlement

BBC reports: "More than $30m has been embezzled from funds allocated for residents displaced by China's Three Gorges Dam project, state media has said." What can one possibly do about such plain, everday, devastatingly anti-social behavior?

Lan Chengzhang

I am always hoping for that turning point when Hu and Wen live up to the hopes some of us placed in them right after SARS, for that turning point when they will let us know that they've only been clamping down until the right moment arrived, that they've been waiting for some rivals to fall aside before they make their big political reformist move. That moment probably won't ever come (as just about everyone else but me has admitted).

But at least we can expect a few more moments of change like the aftermath of Sun Zhigang's death, when "detention and repatriation" was abolished. At least we can expect some tweaking of the state's coercive apparatus.

Such a moment may have come again with the journalist (or fake journalist by some accounts) Lan Chengzhang's beating death at the hands mine thugs. Hu has intervened as Wen did for a woman whose husband was owed back wages long, long ago--back when we thought the leaders might be a new wind.

The furor this time is a little too planned. Why allow discussion of the incident for so long? It's more like the death penalty debate a little while ago (which led to a policy of referring all capital cases to the Supreme People's Court) than the out-of-control Sun Zhigang case. Maybe this is being used for a long-planned change.

But what would the change be? Lan Chengzhang's death epitomizes something huge in China's new economy: corporate-official collusion. Changing this would mean actualizing the last NPC meeting's decision to relax pressure on local governments to develop, develop, develop. It would mean an end to giving capitalists a comfy seat at every big meeting, regardless of how they came to their wealth--and risk alienating them as Party supporters. And it would mean really unshackling the press.

For the best summary of coverage on Lan Chengzhang, see, as always EastSouthWestNorth's collection.

There are some things for which tabloid papers are perfect. One is populism (though under the watchful eye of Mr. Murdoch tabloid populism in New York City has tended toward the right-wing, anti-union variety). Another is tales of everyday heroism.

The story of Wesley Autrey combines both qualities perfectly. On January 3rd, Mr. Autrey, described by the NY Times as "a 50-year-old construction worker and Navy veteran" taking his two daughters home after work, saved the life of a 20-year-old student, Cameron Hollowpeter, who had fallen onto the subway tracks on the 1 line. He did this by jumping down and pushing the young man into a narrow space between the tracks and lying there with him as the train passed inches over both their heads.

This is obviously first and foremost a tale of basic, startling decency. Of a solidarity that is human and--with its split moment decision-making--far above politics, race and culture.

But it is also the kind of story that pops up now and then, most notably on 9/11, wherein working people are held up as the heart and soul of America. Firefighters, cops and construction workers. Or, less glamorously, the farmers courted in Iowa every four years. People who we say show us what it's all about.

For too much of the media, this is where it stops. Good people. Then forgotten.

The TV stations will go back to a steady stream of sitcoms about ridiculously upper-middle class citizens, facing--we are told--problems common to us all. In cars and homes beyond most of our reach. And spaced between ads for investments and technologies most of us won't ever handle.

Taking up working people's specific needs--in wages, time with family, healthcare, housing, workplace democracy--is either only a vague slogan (a la the Democrats routine half-baked plans for almost-"universal" healthcare) or, when broached by the wrong people (like the immigrant MTA employees during last year's subway strike), portrayed as downright "disruptive."

Working people aren't any more virtuous than the bourgeoisie. People are people, filled with the same faults and same valor. And, again, an act like Mr. Autrey's is a human act above all else.

But stories like his (and the response they receive) reveal a need to connect, to give thanks that goes beyond a specific moment of heroism. There is a sense of debt bigger than that of one student nearly hit by a train. And, in the sense of the community such moments offer, the possibility of a real community somewhere off in the future.

[Photo courtesy of NY Times]

No new labor contract law for now

The English-language China Daily reports that the National People's Congress has put off a vote on the second draft of the country's new Labor Contract Law (see Vote on labour contract law put off). According to the article, the postponement came--in part--as a result of strong opposition from employers' groups.

In fact, if China Youth Daily Online is to be believed, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai is not the only of these groups (see 劳动合同法该如何偏向劳动者). 190,000 comments have been made on the law to date.

Like China's Marriage Law or oft-postponed Property Law, this might shape up to be a landmark piece of legislation in terms of public debate.

It is only natural that employers will want more flexibility on hiring and firing, unions, etc. That's their role. And, for those of us with the workers who are not entirely enthralled with warm, fuzzy, delicious CSR, it should be only natural to take the employers to the mat.

Debate is good. Labor should keep its voice loud.

[Photo courtesy of Business in Asia]

Pinochet is dead--I hope

Pinochet is dead. It's a pity he wasn't behind bars when he gave up the ghost.

There's still a core of people ready to revive him as the classic developmental-state autocrat. Columnists for the Washington Post, LA Times and others are--with the necessary caveats--praising Pinochet's tough choices to save his country from "communism," his championing of the middle class--that pure, blameless, hopeful, apolitical creature beloved by liberals on sight (but especially when far off and out of sight)--and his alleged success at "restarting" the economy.

Never mind that Allende's government was the victim of a concerted campaign of economic sabotage before Pinochet took over (the Nixon administation spoke of making Chile's economy "scream"), that the first years of Pinochet's rule were marked by utter economic ruin, or that Chile's fortunes eventually turned around as much because of state re-intervention in the economy as the cleverness of "the Chicago boys."

If he wasn't an economic savior (other than in terms of his own ill-gotten gains), what did Pinochet accomplish? He left thousands dead or tortured. He divided his nation, as last week's protests and counter-protests show. And, equally importantly, I am told Pinochet created a deadened political culture in Chile and a disengaged and wary youth.

This comes as the Economist reports that confidence in democratic institutions in Latin America is higher now than it has been for years. Corruption may be down. Businesses in the region are reviving.

And the Left on the continent has arguably never been stronger.

So, of course the old coup plotters are back. They nearly knocked off Chavez (with kudos from the NY Times). They were underhanded to say the least in Mexico's last election. And they have plans for Bolivia's Santa Cruz (see today's NY Times article).

Bush tells us that democracy is rough. But south of the border, he seems eager to smooth things out. Give things back to the good old boys who shook their heads at Pinochet's excesses but still did business.

Pinochet remains a model--in the minds of some--for every state facing a little too much democracy, a "transition" figure to, uh, democracy again. But without all that messy "participation."

The Right and Labor

In regards to labor solidarity courtesy of conservatives, see Alec Dubro's The Right Stands Up For Labor on TomPaine.com.

Funny how the Republicans want the workers of the world to unite--as long as the workers are in Caracas or Tehran or Havana....

Good, new stuff on Chinese labor

Another good series seems to be on the way from Global Labor Strategies: "Fair Globalization", which sets out to move beyond "protectionism" and "free trade", with a focus on China-America trade. Also, see Andrew Leonard's excellent "The Chinese Sweatshop Paradox", which came to my attention courtesy, as always, of JKD.

Questions about FOCA

What are we to think of the recent Forum on China-Africa Cooperation? Or, rather, about China's involvement in Africa generally?

The international financial institutions are, of course, worried by the lack of conditions on China's deals with the Africa. They say this may undo efforts aimed at promoting "discipline" and "good governance" on the continent--patronizing words, but with some merit. Others, like economist Jeffrey Sachs, see China's investment in Africa as a development tidal wave, which will do more for the continent's poor than decades of Western aid--even if a bit of the money is siphoned off by corruption.

I'm most concerned with solidarity.

Under Mao Zedong, China, with its advocacy at the Bandung Conference and later its "Three Worlds Theory", proposed a special role for de-colonizing nations, beyond superpower rivalry.

In Africa, Beijing gave rhetorical backing to South Africans, Algerians and others shaking off Western rule. It also supported wars of "national liberation" against both colonial regimes and post-colonial governments--with guns, training, and money.

Unfortunately, despite Mao's grand rhetoric, this support was often as much about wearing down and distracting the Soviet Union as it was about the substance of the African insurgencies. In Angola, for example, China (and the United States, South Africa and Zaire!) sided with UNITA and the FNLA--not the more progressive but Moscow-backed MPLA.

More unambiguously positive were the scholarships China gave to thousands of African students to attend its universities. These students sometimes encountered racism from their Chinese peers (there were riots over African men dating Chinese girls in the 1980s). But bonds were established such that young people in China viewed their lives and those of Africans as part of one historical movement.

What will China's new engagement with the continent mean for CHINESE people? How will this help them situate their country?

Will the ordinary exchanges between African workers and Chinese migrant workers toiling thousands of miles from Hunan or Sichuan matter the most? Or will the neo-colonial actions of companies, like the Chinese mining firm in Zambia that shot its strikerst? Will China eventually distance itself from governments like Sudan's? Or will it use Sudan as a rallying point for "non-interference" and "sovereignty"?

And what will this mean for democracy back home?

[The above video may or may not be viewable from China]

Roughly a year after America's Sago Mine distaster, here's a powerful video on mine deaths from China. With first the Chinese national anthem and then the Internationale playing in the background and numbing images upon images of grieving miners' families it's hard not to feel simple, raw anger.

But a solution to these tragedies must come along a number of tracks--improved rural economies that will leave people more choices (at present, mines pay much more than other jobs in the countryside), effective supervision of local governments, strong penalties for bosses and politicians who turn a blind eye to safety concerns, an independent voice for workers and a willingness to push ahead on these issues, to publicize them even when they become "sensitive."

Note: I am not sure where the makers of the video got their statistics at its end.

Back to China...

What should the newly triumphant Democrats do about China?

It may be tempting for them to bash China, as opposition parties always do and presidents usually do during their first two years in office, before they find out they need the P.R.C. more than they thought--in Korea, in the U.N., on counter-terrorism and arms control, etc. It may be tempting to zig and zag as Clinton did, tying trade to rights one day and pushing PNTR the next.

But if the Democrats can hold themselves together, they could make real progress.

They could push real labor protections in China if they avoided the temptation to wrap the subject up in the futile attempt to protect every textile mill at home. They could raise human rights issues generally by approaching issues through a humble, real dialogue with the Chinese leadership (after Guantanamo and American torture planes from Europe, humility is definitely in order). They could coordinate better with the European Union's China policy.

Most importantly, they can find a balance between championing the world's hopes for Chinese democracy and maintaining the stability of China--internal and in its international relations--that is the prerequisite for a healthy democratic transition.

Here's hoping the party is up to the task!

Victory

So, we won!

And in response to those who would say that the Democrats took back the House (and maybe the Senate) by pretending to be Republicans, I would reply... yes, in some cases, but no in many more.

Democrats won in rural states by putting the language of class back into their campaigns. As Bob Moser writes for The Nation in The New Southern Strategy, candidates like Webb and McCaskill surged ahead not by becoming pro-life or bashing gays (they refused to do either) but by fighting for "working families" and campaigning hard in areas that suburban Democrats had turned their noses up at.

If the Democrats lost the South over race, they can win it back by transcending race like the best of the Southern Populists did at the beginning of the twentieth century, when banks and big landowners were recognized as the common enemy of decent laboring people, whatever their skin color.

But this will require our constant attention; we can't let the Democrats stray once in office. No more bankruptcy bills or wishy-washiness on health care.

Dirty 2006 Election Tactics

A break from Chinese issues:

I'm from Virginia and some of the stuff coming out of the Republican election campaign there is disgusting. Think Progress reports:

"The head of the Virginia Board of Elections, Jean Jensen, tells MSNBC that 'the FBI is now investigating allegations of voter intimidation and voter suppression.' State officials have documented 'dozens of phone calls that were made to heavily Democratic precincts in which the people who were receiving the calls were either given incorrect information about polling sites [or] misdirected about election laws.'"

Not mentioned here is that the calls were directed at heavily Latino and African-American neighborhoods.

This follows the not-so-subtly-race-baiting ad by Republicans in Tennessee directed at candidate Ford. Misleading flyers that try to link Republican candidate Steele in Maryland to African American leaders who have NOT endorsed him. Flyers to Orange County Latino voters warning them of the crime of voting illegally. And the minority voter intimidation of 2004---in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.

The same is true abroad. Republicans who were part of the religious-media-government machine in support Contra terrorism in the 1980s seem unable to let go of Nicaragua, where they cut their political teeth. Numerous 80s ideologues have traveled south of the border to campaign against Daniel Ortega's election bid, a blatant interference in that country's democracy (which was established, it should be re-emphasized under Sandinista control, not under Samoza).

So, these are the people we have waving the flag of democracy? These are the people who are making the whole issue one of whether or not Bush has "gone too far" in spreading democracy in the world?

Substance matters.

China's New Labor Contract Law and Corporate Hypocrisy

Multinationals have long blamed abuses of workers in their factories in China on the peculiarities of the country’s political system, arguing—quite rightly—that the Chinese government, especially at the local level, does not do enough to enforce its own laws, which are in turn argued to be too vague.

However, faced with the prospect of real labor rights regulation, the same companies who once talked so earnestly about rule of law have balked. Many corporations have joined a protest against draft revisions to the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, which would restrict corporations’ ability to hire temporary, un-contracted workers, expand the ability of unions to negotiate working conditions, and most importantly, apply tough criminal penalties to sweatshop bosses.

Shoe giant Nike, for example, used to argue that “it is not realistic nor wise” to demand that companies divest from nations like China that do not have strong collective bargaining traditions. According to Nike, “It is more effective to stay invested in these countries and build greater recognition for these rights.”

This is an entirely reasonable position. Yet the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, of which Nike is a member, objects to the new Contract Law because, “It is not feasible to state that an employer’s regulations and policies shall be void if they are not adopted through negotiation with the trade union.”

In other words, unions are great in theory, as another bullet point on some vague, aspirational “corporate code of conduct”— just not when you have to actually negotiate with them.

The Chamber of Commerce even lectures Beijing, like some wise elder brother, “National legislation would better not to be too detail-oriented. And it would be better for local authorities to work out such details according to local situations.”

Weren’t companies saying that the laws were too “loose” and varied before? And aren’t local authorities precisely the ones that supposedly can’t be trusted with formulating and fairly administering the law?

The real issue at stake here is not this one law, but who gets to shape the moral community of the shop floor—capitalists alone, or capitalists alongside labor and the state? What is “fair”? What is a “rational” way of doing business?

Multinationals have warned that the Labor Contract Law means a return to the labor-management relations that prevailed under China’s old planned economy.
Would this be such a bad thing?

There certainly were not enough incentives in the Mao era. Workers enjoyed virtually guaranteed lifetime employment at factories, regardless of their performance.

And until the 1980s, employees were locked in tight patron-client relationships that Alexander Walder, in a pioneering study, described as “Communist neo-traditionalism.”

Yet because of the close-knit nature of socialist-era factory life, workers also commanded a strong voice in plant decisions. And they had to be treated with a minimum of dignity for the whole, precarious system, based on campaigns and slogans, to function.

It is this reciprocity, the idea that a corporation can’t just plow ahead but must rally workers behind its proposals, that companies are fighting against in China—and in other parts of the world.

The Chinese government should not bend to the Chamber of Commerce’s pressure. Most of these big shots will not leave China if the law is enacted, despite their threats—the law is not really all that harsh and China has many pluses in its favor like solid infrastructure and relative political stability.

Those companies that do leave will make way for progress. China cannot compete forever for the bottom rung of the wage ladder if it wants to boost consumption at home. The country must follow the lead of cities like Shanghai in attracting high-skilled and high-paying blue collar jobs.

This will require a changed education policy, new investment incentives… and stronger worker protections like the draft Labor Contract Law.

The New Left

A great piece from the NY TImes magazine: China's New Left Calls For Social Alternative by Pankaj Mishra. It's funny how China's principled, reasonable Left gets such little press.

Instead, Western readers are treated to an extended (two-decades now!) collective cry of surpise that--shock!--China is a capitalist country run by a Leninist government (like the Leninist governments that once ruled Taiwan and plenty of other places that were anything but socialist, but that's another story). That story is old.

It is time to move beyond marveling at the contradictions of China and look to the people with prescriptions.

Labor strategies for China

Brendan Smith, Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello have an interesting piece on Global Labor Strategies entitled "China's Emerging Labor Movement." In it they argue that China is in the early stages of a full-fledged labor movement. Like workers in the United States before the introduction of the Wagner Act, Chinese workers must organize outside the law and without the representation of proper unions--for now.

Smith, Brecher and Costello approve of China Labour Bulletin's "CC-2005 Campaign" of exploiting the loophole in Chinese labor law that allows workers to collectively bargain on their own if there are no ACFTU representatives on their shop floor. In campaigns like CC-2005 the authors see the possibility of transforming China's thousands of protests (87,000 last year alone) into something more solid.

I find their historical analogy compelling. However, there are two things worth noting.

First, many of China's protests are in the countryside, not factories. This is not important because of some Marxist dogmatic distinction between farmers and proletarians. It matters because China is huge and protests are so spread out and so cut off from each other (due to government censorship and a documented penchant on the part of protesters to AVOID linking up with others for their own safety) that they do not necessarily pose any threat to the state or capital. Many countries--India, across Latin America, etc.--have done just fine with massive unrest as long as it is scattered.

Second, the Chinese state's capacity for repression exceeds that of the U.S. at the beginning of the twentieth century (when China too had a powerful labor movement). Nor is there a separate party within the state to take advantage of / moderate / channel popular discontent, as Roosevelt did.

This is not to say that a real, fairly unified labor movement can't be built. And China Labour Bulletin's plan is the clearest on the table yet. But we must keep innovating, based on what makes the Chinese case different.

Yardley's Article

I've enjoyed Jim Yardley's writing in the past, especially his pieces on environmental degradation. Yardley's articles, with their emphasis on economics and everyday people's lives, are often a refreshing counterpoint to the elite, stuffy, "final stamp of importance courtesy of the NY Times"-style scoops by Joseph Kahn.

But what to make of the article today Dead Bachelors in China Still Find Wives? What does this article add?

I'm not exactly against cultural, pseudo-anthropological stuff. Public excitement for all things China has the benefit of allowing a wider range of reporting from the P.R.C.--from pop culture to family life to political intrigue to class tensions-- than the American media will support from almost any other part of the world, save perhaps Iraq.

Yet I cringe when an obscure practice in Shanxi and Shaanxi gets splashed across the front pages of the Times, when there are so many other trends to pay attention to. Why barge in on these farmers practices, which clearly harm no one? Why not focus on aspects of China's tradition and change that lend themselves more to fruitful, comparative analysis?

Should I cringe? Am I just being defensive? But again, what does this article exactly add?

American and Chinese Nationalisms

Pei Minxin has an excellent quote on American nationalism:

"Any examination of the deeper sources of anti-Americanism should start with an introspective look at American nationalism. But in the United States, this exercise, which hints at serious flaws in the nation's character, generates little enthusiasm. Moreover, coming to terms with today's growing animosity toward the United States is intellectually contentious because of the two paradoxes of American nationalism: First, although the United States is a highly nationalistic country, it genuinely does not see itself as such. Second, despite the high level of nationalism in American society, U.S. policymakers have a remarkably poor appreciation of the power of nationalism in other societies and have demonstrated neither skill nor sensitivity in dealing with its manifestations abroad."

His full article, The Paradoxes of American Nationalism, goes on to mix criticism of U.S. patriotism with an appreciation for its spontaneous, grassroots (i.e. not top-down, propagandistic) quality and spirit of volunteerism.

Where does Chinese nationalism stand in contrast to America's? My sense is that it is more self-conscious / self-aware and more clearly defined by historical memory than its U.S. counterpart (specific historical events appear to ultimately hold comparatively little importance for America's self-image, which is more grounded in a grand "sweep of history"). But China's patriotism shares with the United States a "completeness"--for lack of a better word--that I don't know of any other countries possessing. Outsiders are only ever guests in the formation of our nations' respective nationalisms.

America's "remarkably poor appreciation of the power of nationalism in other societies" has been shown in its tragic intervention against essentially patriotic movements in Vietnam and elsewhere. Hopefully, U.S. policymakers will show more awareness as they come up against China's dreams.

The Toyota Strike

On the subject of labor solidarity...

After a long-running dispute with labor organizers in one of its plants in the Phillipines, during which Toyota fired over two hundred workers who attended a union meeting and several workers were arrested or injured by security forces, the auto giant ignored a decision by the Phillipines' Supreme Court and went ahead and set up a company-controlled union of its own.

Protests and petition drives have started in Australia, Ukraine, South Africa, Korea, Russia and elsewhere, with workers pressuring Japanese embassies in the hope that the Japanese government will rein in its company (see the articles IMF Affiliates Plan Mass Mobilizations for September 12 from the International Metal Workers Federation and International Action Support Toyota Workers from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union).

Imagine if something like this happened over companies' actions in China. Or, one day, if Chinese workers went on strike for workers in another country!

It all seems far off, but that that is the kind of people-to-people cooperation that the human rights world should have as its model---not top-down, self-righteous pronouncements from Western governments and not industry and trade union protectionism hiding as "fair trade" morality.

The point is to be in the same boat, to think of problems as problems, not countries and cultures.

The right to solidarity strikes in Britain

In regards to one of the most basic acts of solidarity, the ability to strike in support of others' grievances, the push for a Trade Union Freedom Bill in Britain is interesting. John McDonnell, chair of the Labour Representation Committee and Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, has an article on the bill, "Give Us Back Our Basic Rights", in the New Statesman.

ACFTU zigs and zags

The All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) seems about as certain of its message as Joe Lieberman on the campaign trail.

One day it puts itself forward as a business-friendly alternative to foreign labor movements. For example, a particularly galling China Daily piece featured an ACFTU official in a Korean-owned factory in China disparaging the "too-powerful union" in Korea that was responsible for driving his employer to China and landing him his job.

Another day, the ACFTU flexes its muscle for the world media by pushing Wal-Mart to accept union organizing in its Chinese stores (in its stores, mind you, not its factories but STILL a victory, I believe, for the push to unionize Wal-Mart worldwide).

The union is experimenting with collective bargaining, though the contracts it has signed have so far mainly merely re-stated the legal obligations of management and labor--no wages or hours or anything concrete. And it is opening law aid clinics for workers.

Workers Daily, the ACFTU's paper, contains some good reporting and solid advice columns for migrant workers.

And now, as David Wolf has noted, the ACFTU is in the strange position of being used as a punishment by the government for wayward corporations. In Wolf's words, "Be good to your people, or we'll unionize you" (see his post Not Norma Rae). For example, the government has forced Foxconn, the lying, reporter-intimidating, iPod manufacturing, sweatshop behemoth, to establish an ACFTU branch because of its numerous errors.

But what will it mean to establish these branches? What will they really do? As a punishment, the opening of an ACFTU branch probably mostly just means added bureaucracy for company managers, more Communist Party interference, more people to pay, etc.

Apparently, Hu Jintao is behind this push (see the China Labour Bulletin article). Where he ultimately wants to take this is an open question.