China Esquire

Well, it’s what I had expected.  Now that the media battle is over, let’s get focused on getting back to work.  I truly hope that Barack Obama ends up being a more positive figure to China and China/foreign trade now that he can stop talking tough for his constituents, and also, be a little more realistic about our nations’ mutual need for one another in a global economy.

Even CNN ran an article a few weeks back (had it sitting in my inbox) entitled “ Why the U.S. Needs China“:

China’s economy is not going to grind to a halt. But even a marginal slowdown could hurt large U.S. firms. Many of them have been able to offset sluggish growth in the United States with sales to China and other developing markets.

And it’s not certain that China’s economy will continue to keep expanding at such a rapid pace in the next few years if this credit crunch continues to persist for much longer.

There is already some evidence to suggest that the two nations may need to work together to avert more global economic pain.

When the Fed announced a coordinated interest rate cut on Oct. 8 with banks in Europe and Canada, China’s central bank also lowered interest rates that day.

The Fed’s announcement didn’t mention the Chinese rate cut and China’s central bank didn’t acknowledge the rate cuts in the United States and Europe. But does anyone honestly think that the United States and China coincidentally decided on the same day to lower interest rates?

Make no mistake. The two countries clearly realize they need each other and that economic hardship suffered by the other is not good for either. China may not have the exact problems that the U.S. does but its third-quarter GDP slowdown is definitely a sign that the credit crunch is hitting China as well.

Mr. Obama, I hope one of your people is listening.

It’s already late for many of my readers, that’s fine.  I should’ve posted earlier.

I think its already pretty obvious where I’ve stood on the McCain v. Obama issue.  I may well be a loser today, but I just can’t get over the rhetoric for Obama…  of course, Obama is a lawyer–and answers questions like one: dodging questions, not giving anything substantive wherever possible, etc.  Anyways, my thoughts were here:

mccain and obama personally weigh in on china

joe biden’s china stances

I know this flies directly against my fellow China law bloggers like Stan.  I’ll admit that Obama is more intelligent, sharp, and charismatic.  I just don’t like him as our next President.

Dan Harris at CLB recently posted John McCain and Barack Obama’s statements about China from the American Chamber of Commerce.  Since I’ve been following this election more closely than the last, I don’t think it’s quite the yawn that Dan characterizes it as.  But that being said, it is ultimately nothing surprising.  I just wanted to highlight some because I just enjoy it too much.  (And ironically, while I have a pile of China business/law articles sitting in my mailbox, it’s hard to get motivated to write about them when there’s American politics brewing…)

First, some excerpts from John McCain:

 Seizing these opportunities, however, will require strong American leadership and an unequivocal American commitment to Asia, whose fate is increasingly inseparable from our own. It requires internationalism rather than isolationism, and global trade rather than national protectionism. When our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region think of the future, they should expect more—not less—attention, investment and cooperation from the highest levels of the US government.

Okay, nothing new.  But at least McCain is willing to admit that America must commit to Asia, as opposed to go isolationist.  (a la Obama)  Of course, that does have some consequences.

It must be a priority of the next American president to expand America’s economic relationships in Asia. Unfortunately, in what has become an all-too-predictable pattern, some American politicians—including the Democratic candidate for president—are preying on the fears stoked by Asia’s dynamism; rather than encouraging American innovation and entrepreneurship, they instead propose throwing up protectionist walls that will leave us all worse off. The United States has never won respect or created jobs by retreating from free trade, and we cannot start doing so now.

We also must recognize, however, that while open trade with Asia is in America’s interest, globalization will not automatically benefit every American. That’s why we must remain committed to education, retraining and help for displaced workers, regardless of whether their job went away because of trade, technological innovation, or shifts in consumer spending patterns. For Americans who have lost a job, we need to expand opportunities for further education and training that can open new doors. We need to modernize our unemployment insurance system to reflect the reality of the 21st century economy: jobs that go away no longer come back when business rebounds. We need to help displaced workers make ends meet between jobs and move people quickly on to the next opportunity.

Definitely straight talk, which may end up angering some Americans.  But it is well appreciated.  Why?  Because those jobs ain’t coming back.  At least, its pretty darn unlikely that those jobs are coming back. Yes, Americans have lost jobs.  We know that.  We see it in CNN Money every day that the economy is reeling.  But McCain has it right: the jobs aren’t coming back even if we become protectionist.  They just aren’t.  Maybe they’ll move to Vietnam or India.  But if you play tough on China in this regard, it won’t make a difference.

China has obligations as well. Its commitment to open markets must include enforcement of international trade rules, protecting intellectual property, lowering manufacturing tariffs and fulfillment of its commitment to move to a market-determined currency. The next administration should be clear about where China needs to make progress, hold it to its commitments through enforcement at the World Trade Organization and enforce US trade and product safety laws.

China’s growing power and influence endow it with the obligation to behave as a responsible stakeholder in global politics. China could bolster its claim that it is “peacefully rising” by being more transparent about its significant military buildup and by working with the world to isolate pariah states. In addition, how a nation treats its citizens is a legitimate subject of international concern in today’s world. China has signed numerous international agreements that make its domestic behavior more than just a matter of national sovereignty. To be a responsible stakeholder in the modern international system, a government must also be responsible at home, in protecting the rights of its people.

And here, McCain does the normal “let’s be a tough presidential candidate” talk.  But I don’t see it as being outrageous…  and it’s the same rhetoric as usual: IP, human rights, etc.  Nothing new.  And McCain’s conclusion is nothing new either:

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests and I hope to see our relationship evolve in a manner that benefits both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world.

Of course, you’d think they are if you read all of the media around the U.S. nowadays. They are not, and should not be adversaries. For better or worse, we need them and they need us.  And if you can’t accept that fact, then you really shouldn’t be voting.  (or you can go to fantasy land and vote for another candidate)

So overall, I find McCain’s rhetoric to be relatively straight-forward and on point.  He isn’t making too many overbloated promises, and I think he understands the reality of a global economy.

Now its Barack Obama’s turn to speak:

In the coming years, the United States and China face challenges that require fresh thinking and a change from the US policy approach of the past eight years. How the US and China meet these challenges, and the extent to which we can find common ground, will be important both for our own countries and for others in Asia and beyond.

Well, I’m curious as to what U.S. policies Obama refers to.  Because it occurs to me that (1) revoking China’s most-favored nation status would seriously anger those in China, and lead to some tension that could cause a greater hiccup in sourcing and America’s heavy reliance on China.  (2) Or perhaps Obama thinks free trade is a bad idea.  But I still don’t see how much of this has anything to do with U.S. governmental policy as much as it is a corporate decision to source in China or elsewhere by the MNCs, not by politicians.  Just because Obama is about change doesn’t mean that everything should change.

But as China’s leaders acknowledge, China must make some basic adjustments if it is to continue sustained, shared economic growth. China must develop practices that are more environmentally sustainable and less energy intensive, that boost domestic consumption as an engine of growth, that enhance the social safety net, and that encourage indigenous technology innovation. Otherwise, the country’s future performance may fall well short of its potential.

Funny, but most people in China would pin this blame on America.  (I think erroneously though…  I think both countries have a share of the blame here)  I have to just point out that it’s America that is in the best position to actually help China become more green because America has the technology.  China doesn’t.  If anyone wants to see green tech take off in China, then someone here will have to be willing to help out.  I don’t see all that many takers yet.

 More broadly, the United States supports and benefits from security and stability in Asia. We need to address the principal causes of regional tension. As I made clear in my congratulatory letter to Ma Ying-jeou on his inauguration, we support steps to build trust across the Taiwan Strait and improvements in relations between Beijing and Taipei, now more possible with good will by both sides than at any time since the mid-1990s.

This is more standard Republican fare, which makes things very interesting.  Maybe Obama is reaching out to the Taiwanese?

I know that America and the world can benefit from trade with China, but only if China agrees to play by the rules and act as a positive force for balanced world growth. I want China’s economy to continue to grow, its domestic demand to expand and its vitality to contribute to regional and global prosperity. But China’s current growth is unbalanced, and in recent years domestic consumption has actually gone down as a percentage of GDP. To increase internal demand Beijing will have to improve substantially its social safety net and upgrade its financial services sector to bring its consumption in line with international norms.

Central to any rebalancing of our economic relationship with China must be change in its currency practices. Because it pegs its currency at an artificially low rate, China is running massive current account surpluses. This is not good for American firms and workers, not good for the world, and ultimately likely to produce inflation problems in China itself.

As President, I will use all the diplomatic avenues available to seek a change in China’s currency practices. I will also undertake more sustained and serious efforts to combat intellectual property piracy in China, and to address regulations that discriminate against foreign investments in major sectors and other unfair trading practices. And I will work with the Chinese government to establish a better system for both countries to monitor products produced for export and act when dangerous products are identified.

As President, I will take a vigorous, pragmatic approach to addressing these issues, utilizing our domestic trade remedy laws as well as the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism wherever appropriate. High-level dialogue among economic leaders in both countries is also important to achieving real progress. My approach to our economic relationship is positive and forward-looking: to remove obstructions to gaining the benefits of trade and thus to enable faster, and healthier, growth in both economies.

Okay, the WTO I can understand. And the IP thing is standard rhetoric that McCain also included.  Getting into the whole currency deflation thing is a can of worms.  (one that I don’t want to even open because I’ve seen arguments on both sides, and since I’m not an economist, am not really sure which perspective is more correct) In my view, probably not the wisest thing to mention in such an article.

I also don’t believe the last statement that Obama wants to grow the health of both economies.  All of his rhetoric so far (and you can tell, I hate political rhetoric that is only meant to convey false promises) has been to paint the U.S. v. China in a zero sum game.   And now he says that he wants a win-win situation.  Here’s some news: we are already in a pretty decent win-win situation.  It’s not great for the U.S., but do you expect from the process of outsourcing?  If you don’t expect that China will have a trade surplus, then you are dreaming.

In particular, I look to China to work with us to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, to halt the genocide in Darfur and to help reverse the slide into anarchy in Zimbabwe.

Obama really likes to mention things that anger China.  Perhaps that’s his goal.  The Darfur thing is a tough card to play.  Remember that China wouldn’t even bow to the pressure of the Genocide Olympics tag.  I think this will just make China more adamant personally.

I like Obama because he’s obviously intelligent, charismatic, and an attorney.  I just can’t stand his rhetoric.  If he doesn’t tone it down if he gets into the White House, I predict some really rocky times for U.S.-China relations.  So for the sake of those relations, I can’t stop but think that McCain is a better candidate.  We’ll see come November.

Well, I said no politics this time.  I apologize.  It was too good to pass up a chance to talk about Joe Biden, the VP pick for Barack Obama and senator from Delaware (D).  On the Issues does a good job summarizing some of his stances by taking quotes from various debates and speeches he gave in the past.  While not a sure-fire indicator, it gives you some ideas into his thought process.

On China economic v. human rights policy:

Q: Many presidential candidates have talked tough about China and its human rights record in the past but, in the end, favor securing our economic interest rather than risk upsetting China. How would you balance human rights and trade with China?

A: I’ve been pushing, on the Foreign Relations Committee for the last seven years, that we hold China accountable at the United Nations. At the UN, we won’t even designate China as a violator of human rights. Now, what’s the deal there? We talk about competition in terms of trade. It’s capitulation, not competition. Name me another country in the world that we would allow to conduct themselves the way China has, and not call them on the carpet at the UN

Q: So you would call them on th[e] carpet?

A: Absolutely.

What does this tell us?  Very little other than that he too thinks human rights is a big issue.  But really, this is quite vague.

On Chinese imports:

If I were president, I’d shut down any imports from China, period, in terms of their toys — flat shut it down. Imagine if this was Morocco selling us these toys, we would have shut it down a year ago. They have mortgage on our house because Bush mortgaged us to a $1 trillion to them. He is responsible for this. This is outrageous.

So is Joe Biden working for Trader Joes?  No.  This has got to be one of either (1) the most pandering to American products safety rhetoric or (2) the most idiotic statements I’ve heard in a while.  Ever checked out Not Made in China Toys website?  Do you really think consumers will buy these toys instead of stuff made in China?  No way.  And any parent will tell you otherwise.  Cooler, more innovative, and cheaper toys?  They will sell any day.   That’s economics.

And if Biden really thinks that he alone can shut down Chinese imported toys, he’s going to have another one coming to him.  It won’t happen.  So I really hope that this is overblown rhetoric.  If not, then perhaps a course in basic macroeconomics would be necessary.

So is George W. really responsible for the national trade deficit?  Some.  But really…  did you expect anything different?  American consumers want cheaper prices.  Guess where we get those products?  If you said Vietnam, I’d say maybe in the future.  But for now, China is our go-to place for sourcing.  Is it really the president?  Or is it also global economic forces, multinational corporations, and consumers who want to save money?  I’d take the latter answer any day.

At least Biden has the rhetoric thing going for him.  Just like Obama…

So how would Joe Biden accomplish such a task?

Q: Would you call for tariffs to protect American consumers from unsafe products from China? Are you willing to go there?

A: I’m not. No, I’m not willing to go there. You don’t need to start a tariff war. All you have to do is enforce the law. Enforce the law.

Well, the guy has a law degree.  So I need to ask: what law are you talking about?  Is this really a China issue?  Or perhaps the US FDA needs to move its tail on those inspections that it never did.  Or perhaps large conglomerates need more QC?  Is this really a legal enforcement issue?  As you can tell, I think the answer is no.  It’s not that simple.

So yes, Joe Biden has been recognized a foreign policy leader.  What sort of leader, that remains to be seen.  But as to his public China stances, I must say: no thank you.  But then again, I’m not surprised Obama chose someone like this…

Got to love the AFL-CIO’s hand in American politics.  Normally, I couldn’t care all that much about what the unions say during the presidential politics season because they don’t say anything interesting.  (around these parts in San Francisco, the unions end up being more of a nuisance because of periodic picketing and because many of my friends in management complain that they have these employees also have the worst work ethic)  So surprise surprise when I saw this CNN blog post today.  Apparently, 50,000 of these things are going out today.

So does anyone really believe that John McCain is sending 2.3 million jobs to China?  That seriously has to be one of the most ignorant views that you can take.  Does any really believe that Barack Obama, rockstar he may be, can bring those jobs back to America?  Sorry, they are gone.  The global village concept may not be in full swing, but multinational corporations know better than to bring jobs back to America.  If not China, there’s always Vietnam, India, etc.  Sourcing is cheaper.  Period.  (okay, not always, but usually)  No president is going to change this trend anytime soon.  Either McCain or Obama.  (sorry folks)  I’ve always said its up to the people in the U.S. to learn value added services and industries.  And that is in fact what has happened over the years as a result of this global sourcing move.  And so I just had to laugh at this ad because I found it so absurd.

What is more disturbing?  Some of the comments that appeared on the post.  Let me quote some:

expose the fruad Mcempty suit for the fool he is.
All for shipping American jobs abroad.
he and his wife have gained millions from selling American jobs.

THANKS AFL-CIO!!!! Keep up the great work and just think you didn’t even have to sink to the repuglicans low and lie, you just simply told the truth. hahahahahah
And john williams san diego, ca. – don’t forget bushy and cheyney and keating 5 (mccainy)

I don’t know why anyone would believe this frankly.  But then again, this is America.  At least many commenters did appear to understand economics:

Haha. Are they serious? One man is to blame for the loss of 2.3 million jobs to China? And that one man is a Republican Senator from Arizona!?! Pfftbahahaha. I wouldn’t expect anyone in the AFL-CIO to understand global economics but come on. If someone is offering to do a service cheaper and more efficient wouldn’t you go to them? It’s why people shop at Wal-mart and not at the cute mom and pop store on the corner. Give me a break. “They took our jobs!”.

And another:

WOW, implementing trade aggreements = job losses. That’s one hell of a conclusion.

DHL maybe chinese, but uh, I don’t see chinese people dropping off packages at my door.

Jobs go overseas because American Unions push them away. That’s right, the truth hurts. Unions might offer some protection to the average worker, but it also keeps the productivity down for employers. 10% of the hardworkers carry the load of the 90% that are slackers. Employers are forced to cater to the lowest demominator and the only person that really gains from it is the slackers and the union bosses.

Well, if American voters look dumb to you in China, perhaps it’s because they may be…  I think I will move back to law and business again tomorrow.

I was about to stop posting about American politics, but then Stan Abrams recent post alerted me to this post at Thomas Crampton entitled “Obama McCain advisors for China and Asia. Know them?”  So I couldn’t resist at least posting this information because it seems that the U.S. presidential election is on the minds of those of here in America.  Even my Chinese friends have been talking about U.S. politics.

The post at Thomas Crampton names the John McCain Asia team as:

Randy Scheunemann as chief of foreign and national security policy is the point man for liaison with former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage enjoys a strong, long-standing personal relationship with McCain and should be listed as a “general guru” with an obvious personal interest in Asia, especially the US-Japan alliance.

Day to day campaign work is done by former Bush Administration defense, NSC and foreign policy officials Peter Rodman, Rick Williamson, Mike Green, the former NSC Senior Director for Asia, now at CSIS, with Dan Blumenthal, former DOD, now at AEI, Armitage International’s Randy Schriver, and McCain personal staffer Rich Fontaine.

And Team Barack Obama is:

Directly in charge of the Asia team is Amb. Jeff Bader, ex-State, NSC, USTR, also in charge of China, and administering the team via Mona Sutphen, of Stonebridge International, directly to the Campaign via Denis McDonough, a former Sen. Daschle expert on energy, the environment and trade.

China is run directly by Bader, with assistance from Richard Bush, ex-AIT now Brookings; Ken Lieberthal, former NSC; Mike Lampton, SAIS; Evan Medeiros, back at RAND again; Bob Kapp, former president of the US-China Business Council; Kevin Nealer, The Scowcroft Group; Bob Suettinger, former NSC and CIA now consultant.

Sounds interesting, though I can’t imagine most Americans caring that much about the team members themselves…

In a recent post entitled “Barack Obama v. John McCain on Foreign Trade”, a number of comments suggested that the pre-election rhetoric was always more populist and protectionist than every president’s actual post-election policy. Well, it seems like we may see this pre-election rhetoric lightening up already, though a tad earlier than most of us thought it would.

CNN Money ran an article entitled “Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all”:

The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric – at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn’t want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign’s anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton’s lead in setting a protectionist tone.

Of course, John McCain has not changed his tune at all:

Republican nominee John McCain, for his part, is emphasizing his consistent position as a free-trader. In a press conference in Boston this week, he attacked Obama as protectionist: “Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally – unilaterally! – renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we’re in today, there’s a real bright spot and that’s our exports. Protectionism does not work.”

Anyways, I just wanted to post this because it follows up on my previous post. In light of this article and the precedent of history, Chinese businesses have nothing to fear if either candidate gets to the White House.

You can hardly click on a U.S. news website or a newspaper talking about Barack Obama’s historical milestone of being the first African-American Democratic Party nominee for President… at least, if you are living in America, this is all you will hear about. This is how CNN put it:

Barack Obama made history Tuesday night when he became the first African-American in U.S. history to clinch a major party’s presidential nomination. But the Illinois senator faces several challenges as the campaign now turns to the general election — notwithstanding a first order of business of helping to heal the wounds of a deeply divided Democratic Party.

So now that we have 2 clear candidates to consider for president, I wanted to go to Going Global, where Craig posted some good information about each candidate, in his post entitled, “Presidential Primary Edition — The Candidates, the Parties and Their Positions on Global Trade”. He posted, however, back when there were still multiple candidates left in the primaries. Now is probably a good time to review what he said about the 2 major candidates. First, America’s new rock star politician (who has nothing about China policy on his website):

Of the 3 U.S. Senators in the race, Barack Obama has the shortest tenure and therefore a somewhat truncated voting record. He was firmly against CAFTA. Although he wasn’t around to vote on it, he has made it repeatedly clear that he thinks NAFTA should be reopened and amended to provide more protectionist labor provisions. In his one departure from a fairly consistent anti-free trade record, he voted in favor of a free trade agreement with Oman. I’m not sufficiently familiar with the provisions of that agreement to understand what it was that distinguished that agreement from other FTA’s in the Senator’s mind, but at least it does indicate that he’s not anti free trade all the time under all circumstances.

And here is Craig’s take on John McCain, who has been on the campaign trail for some time:

Senator McCain . . . has the longest national public record of any of the candidates and therefore has established perhaps the most definitive positions on trade. If one is pro international trade, McCain has a record to be admired. Mccain According to OnTheIssues.org, the Senator has a near perfect voting record in supporting free trade agreements including NAFTA and even the recently defeated CAFTA. Last October he gave a speech making the point that “every time the U.S. went protectionist, we paid a heavy price.” Just this month he gave a speech calling for a continued reduction in barriers to free trade, recognizing that “globalization is an opportunity.”

McCain’s website seems to promise “John McCain Will Lower Barriers To Trade“. This should prove to be very interesting because ironically,

it used to be that the Republican Party was pro-trade and the Democratic Party tended to be more protectionist given its traditional base of support among labor unions

Being a Chinese-American who enjoys politics, that was how I used to view the parties and their stances as well. I have a feeling those who in favor of free trade, which does bring a heavy benefit to China and has helped sustain its burgeoning economy, will be supporting John McCain this November. If Obama does end up being protectionist, it won’t help China. Even in spite of growing nationalism, you’d really have to be blind to think that China doesn’t need America either.

But then again, with the popular coverage on Obama, it’s pretty easy to lose sight of the issues that matter to Chinese businesses…

Okay, I am about to post another potential fire starter.  Everyone has heard about China’s human rights record.  You’d have to be deaf and blind to not hear it in the west, or probably in China as well.  CNN recently did an article about Amnesty International’s annual report, and some of the results are predictable:

Irene Khan, Amnesty’s secretary-general, said that in particular, “the human-rights flash points in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar demand immediate attention.”

The report, the group said, “reveals a world riven by inequality, scarred by discrimination and distorted by political repression.”

According to its count, people are tortured or subject to other ill treatment in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to express themselves freely in at least 77 countries.

Of the 150 countries and regions listed in the report, Amnesty paid particular attention to China, the host of this summer’s Olympic Games.

This is nothing really new.  If you don’t know about Darfur, you probably haven’t been following last year’s “Genocide Olympics” rhetoric.  This, however, was the fascinating part.  (and don’t get me wrong, I am a Chinese-American with deep loyalties to both nations, and as an American trained attorney, I have a particular attachment to the U.S. Constitution and the system–this is not America bashing)

Amnesty also criticized the death penalty in the United States, where 42 people were executed last year. It noted New Jersey’s decision in December to abolish the death penalty made it the first U.S. state in more than 40 years to do away with executions.

As it has in previous annual reports, Amnesty criticized the detention of hundreds of foreign nationals at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“The USA must close Guantanamo detention camp and secret detention centers, prosecute the detainees under fair trial standards or release them, and unequivocally reject the use of torture and ill-treatment,” Amnesty said.

In fact, more is written on the United States than any other country listed in the report. Asked about that at a press conference Tuesday, Khan said, “We certainly devote a lot of time to Sudan, to China, to Zimbabwe and other countries. But we look to the U.S. to provide leadership around the world. Governments around the world look to the United States as a role model for their own behavior.”

Wow.  America got the lion’s share of Amnesty’s annual report about human rights violations?!  Well, it does seem patently unfair given that the U.S. probably has overall one of the best human rights records in all of history.  Even if you hate America, I think you can at least agree that this is pretty good in this regard.

But at the same time, its somewhat justifiable.  The world leader on human rights, which often brings these charges against nations, gets skewered for potential hypocrisy.   Interesting situation indeed.  What does everyone else think?

I have been doing some posts about networking and being able to practice law (unofficially) in China. Well, the Star had an interesting article entitled, “Practising law a risky endeavour in China”. Sure, it involves lawyers who end up taking controversial cases, but I thought it was worth highlighting because the rule of law is not yet established in China, and that is something to consider before you work out there. For example, if you want to be a public interest lawyer, you should be forewarned that there might be some headache and heartache involved.

Here’s the article:

One fine fall afternoon last year, Li Heping was making his way towards a newspaper kiosk not far from his office when a man approached, grabbed him by the arm and said sternly, “Come with me.”

In a matter of seconds, Li had a cloth sack pulled over his head, he was wrestled into a car and driven to the outskirts of town where he was brought down into a basement and beaten.

Li is a lawyer – a partner in the respected Beijing Globe Law Firm.

“They were slapping me about the head, pulling me by the hair and striking me with electrical batons.

“They were yelling, `Sell your house, sell your car and get the hell out of Beijing!’”

Towards midnight, he was bundled back into the car and dumped in a forested area, from which he eventually made his way home.

I would’ve expected that business lawyers would be exempt from this sort of bullying. Well, what did Li actually do?

He’s among a select group of lawyers in China who dare to take on politically sensitive cases.

Li is one of 49 human rights lawyers interviewed for a report released today by Human Rights Watch entitled, “Walking on Thin Ice: Control, Intimidation and Harassment of Lawyers in China.”

Part of me is cynical and thinks that this is part of the territory. But part of me also recognizes that the rule of law, building such a thing into a country that does not really have it firmly established, will involve these sort of personal costs.

Senior government officials routinely proclaim China to be a country of “the rule of law.” Even President Hu Jintao, at the 17th Communist Party Congress last year, stressed “the rule of law constitutes the essential requirement of socialist democracy.”

But many observers see China as a country of “the rule by law” – the law being an instrument that remains largely in the hands of the government.

As a consequence, it remains risky for lawyers to take on certain cases.

“Abuses of lawyers compound human rights violations,” says Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch’s Asia advocacy director. “Without due process and genuine defence rights, law remains little more than an instrument of state repression.”

I’ve heard of substance abuse, but lawyer abuse? Interesting.

Two things. First, this should not discourage you from wanting to be a lawyer in China. It shouldn’t really. The rule of law is still marching forward, albeit slowly. But it should make you think about what your motivations are. If you want to be a lawyer in China to change the government and the system, you might actually accomplish that. But there is a high price to pay and you better know that. You also better know that it might not happen in your life time. I am not anti-public interest. But I am opposed to public interest types thinking that they can be aggressive in America, and then just waltz into China and be aggressive there too. Don’t be naive.

In general, I don’t think this applies to most of us who want to practice business law in China. The actions and motivations of someone like that is probably going to be a little different than a crusader.

Second, if you do end up out there as a lawyer, even as a business lawyer, it does not mean you are suddenly immune. You choose your cases. Well, you also choose your causes. And if you insist on choosing causes that the government doesn’t like, just be ready if intimidation comes knocking on your door.

Bottom line: use your head.

As promised, I am going to write my personal impressions of what I witnessed at the Olympic torch tour (or perhaps I should say, the faked part of the torch tour). I was near San Francisco’s Ferry Building during my lunch break, and had a great view of the street (the Embarcadero) where the torch relay runners were supposed to have run on. I stayed out until I realized no torch was coming.

I know I normally write on business, law and other related topics. And I normally tend to shy away from current events because that can be covered better by China Digital Times or other news blogs/news outlets. But considering that the torch was in my backyard and that the media made the protests overblown, I just wanted to write my perspective.

First off, here is SF Gate’s take on the torch run as of 2:53pm yesterday:

Massive protests forced officials to drastically change the Beijing Olympic torch route today, with the flame leaving McCovey Cove by bus instead of being carried along San Francisco’s Embarcadero by runners.

The relay route short was cut short after chaotic morning along the original route, where thousands of people descended to support and protest the torch run. They gave no indication of the route it would take, but City Hall sources familiar with the police response said the Van Ness route had been the plan since at least this morning.

Early this morning, thousands of people gathered along the planned route on the Embarcadero, with pro-torch demonstrators facing off against protesters who are hoping to draw attention to the nation’s human rights record.

Police said no arrests had occurred and that clashes related to the protests had been minor. But the situation was tense for hours before the run, and at least one person was detained in front of the ballpark this morning. A few hours later, a confrontation between the two sides escalated to a physical violence, when a San Francisco man named Kevin Johnson, 48, walked into a crowd of torch supporters and began yelling, “Communists!”

The crowd encircled Johnson and the confrontation escalated when Johnson pulled a Chinese flag off a man’s backpack. Then, someone grabbed Johnson’s throat and another person punched him in the face before police intervened and walked him to safety.

“I know it sounds racist, but if they want the Olympics in China they should go back to China,” he said.

Okay, so we have one racist named Kevin Johnson stirring up trouble. (If you need to caveat something with “I know it sounds racist”, it’s probably because you are… especially if you are willing to swipe something off a backpack, which may well be considered battery) SF Gate also reported some of the “Free Tibet” protesters broke the police line and crowded the Embarcadero.

Yes, there were throngs of protesters. I saw all of them. It wasn’t just Tibet people. I saw people protesting (1) Darfur, (2) Tibet, (3) Burma, and (4) the skinning of Cats and Dogs in China. (no joke) I also heard some protesters yelling about (5) Brazil, but I have no idea what it was about. And of course, there were a lot of (6) Chinese people out, some with flags, others joining with the pro-torch rally. And lots of people. Tourists, families, people who worked downtown–just lots of people.

I walked down Market Street with my Italian salami sandwich and saw throngs of people. And lots of banners and flags: Save Tibet flags, Chinese flags, Republic of China (aka Taiwan) flags, even a large flag from Tsinghua University in Beijing. One lady was handing out Save Darfur signs… with a smile. The cats and dogs banner was manned by two women… also smiling. Near the Chinese supporters chanting when I left were the Friendlies (Fuwa) mascots dancing and taking photos with people. There was a stage set up in Justin Herman plaza–and there were Olympic videos displayed with Chinese music blaring. Until a live band came in around 1:30pm, playing some loud music–all covers of course. Families were out with kids. And while I was waiting in my prime spot (which later became a dud), I was chatting with a corporate consultant in the City and an architect who had just relocated from Seattle. We were having a good time, waiting for a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Even some of the police, when they weren’t busy and stressed, were smiling.

There were plenty of protesters, but also lots of people just there to see the torch. The protesters, many stayed still with signs. Some chanted. There were lines of protesters marching right next to the Ferry Building. (I was across the street) But it was peaceful. At least, for a San Francisco protest. San Francisco Bay Area people will protest over anything–for the sake of protesting. And it’s usually a lot nastier, with trashcans overturned and loud raucous that distracts for blocks. This wasn’t the case yesterday.

I think about the craziest thing I observed was when China supporters had been screaming in Mandarin “China China China! Go go go!” decided to switch chants. The leader had a megaphone. They yelled, “One dream! One peace!” Over and over. And right next to them were some Tibet protesters who screamed “Free Tibet” over and over. What you ended up hearing was “One Dream! Free Tibet! One peace! Free Tibet!” And in the background, nearly drowning out both sides, were the grooves of Michael Jackson’s classic, Billie Jean, being played by the live band on stage. I realize that both sides are quite passionate about their position, but the protest itself was almost comical.

The media has to report the sensational stuff: they sell newspapers and ad space. I understand that. So they will call the protests “violent” and “tense”. But the reality is that this protest was hardly that. (It’s hard to have a tense moment when you have the Friendlies mascots dancing to Billie Jean)

China has denounced these protests internationally. (See here) But really, these protesters can’t hurt China. They don’t even scare me. How can this really affect China? As a P.R. move, China has to defend itself. But the reality–and I think China knows this full well–the only thing China has to be afraid of is fear itself–because these protests won’t make a bit difference to China. And if they are as light-hearted as what I saw yesterday, there isn’t much to fear at all.

I will try to get some photos up later. Because they were taken with my cell phone camera, they need major color correction.

I will have my own post on the China Olympic torch up later tonight or early tomorrow. I was actually at the San Francisco Ferry Building (and the Justin Hermann Plaza) this afternoon with the hopes of seeing the torch pass by. After finding a great spot on the Embarcadero, which was the original torch path, I waited… and waited… and the torch was re-routed.

The press has an interesting spin that the protests were so violent and so forth. They weren’t that bad as there were a lot of smiles and live music going. Will have more details and maybe some cell phone camera pictures up later, but I wanted to let everyone know: the demonstrations were not that bad. More to come soon.