【09.11 17 NPR】Ordinary Chinese Wait For Obama's Deeds, Not Words

vivicat

Ordinary Chinese Wait For Obama's Deeds, Not Words
http://ww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120488554


by Anthony Kuhn

November 17, 2009  



Enlarge        Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama talks to the audience
after a town hall meeting at the Museum of
Science and Technology in Shanghai.


Before the summit in Beijing on Tuesday, President Obama had met several times with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. But making his first presidential trip to Asia, this is Obama's first contact with people in China, and he did not receive the rock star reception that has greeted him in other regions such as Europe.

One of Obama's main messages has been that the U.S. does not seek to contain China or force its values on it.

Many Chinese welcome that message, but they don't necessarily trust it.

"This humility is a kind of pose," says Yu Baoping, a Beijing resident. "Of course, as America's president, he's got to protect America's interests, and I suspect that could harm China's interests. For example, he's slapped high duties on imports from China, and this has had a big impact on us."

Beijing-based blogger Rao Jin acknowledges that Obama is charismatic. But he sees little difference between Obama's China policies and those of his predecessor. Many American analysts see President Bush's China policies as relatively successful and advocated that Obama continue them. But not Rao.
"Chinese peoples' opinion of him will only change when he does things that bring substantial benefits to U.S.-China relations, such as refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama, stop taking protectionist trade measures and stop selling arms to separatist forces such as Taiwan."

Last year, Rao founded Anti-CNN, a Web site devoted to exposing perceived bias in Western media reports about China.

The U.S. Embassy in Beijing had invited Rao to blog Monday's town-hall discussion in Shanghai, but Chinese organizers had already picked the audience, and Rao didn't get in.

The U.S. also had pressed to have the discussion broadcast live, but Chinese officials declined. It was only broadcast live in Shanghai, thus limiting the reach of Obama's message. On Chinese Web portals, censors deleted parts of the discussion that dealt with Internet censorship.

Rao argues that Obama's use of the Internet has won him many online fans in China. But, he says, he has also created unrealistic expectations of a more friendly United States.

"When these fans discover that he can't make good on his promises, the mood on the Internet could coalesce very quickly and turn into a force against him."

An online survey by the Global Times showed that 86 percent of respondents were indifferent to Obama's visit, while 46 percent said they disliked the U.S. president. The Global Times is known as a nationalist tabloid, but the poll still suggests a big change since the end of last year, when an online poll by the China Daily found 75 percent support for Obama.

Other Chinese had hoped that Obama would raise the human rights issue more forcefully with the Chinese government.

"I can't say that I don't feel any sense of loss," says Pu Zhiqiang, a Beijing-based civil rights lawyer. "Over the past decade, I've had to convince myself not to hope that external forces can change China."

Pu is particularly critical of the highly staged town hall events.

"This kind of event does not represent the thinking of China's youth. It's the same as previous visits to China by American presidents," Pu says. "This sort of rehearsed performance is disrespectful to our guests and deceitful towards our own people."

Pu notes that U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton visited Beijing's top universities in 2002 and 1998 respectively, and held discussions with students.

While Clinton and then-President Jiang Zemin fielded questions from reporters in 1998, Obama and Hu each made statements to the press Tuesday, but took no questions.

vivicat

John Gee (Quixoter) wrote:

"...things that bring substantial benefits to U.S.-China relations, such as refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama, stop taking protectionist trade measures and stop selling arms to separatist forces such as Taiwan."

Sounds like a pretty one-sided relations-ship to me.

2009年11月17日 9:48:38


Joe Shuren (joeshuren) wrote:

Mr Obama didn't really answer a single question, and his talk about American history failed to make a connection with needs of Chinese to understand their own history (hint: diversity is not a big concern, maybe a luxury brand). But you have to chuckle when Mr Obama lectures these young business students (Young Communists) about the need to be social entrepreneurs instead of selfishly trying to get rich.

2009年11月17日 9:57:00


Mark Pachankis (KarlPopperFan) wrote:

the tariff on tires only hurts poor American consumers and Chinese workers while protecting a VERY small portion of the US population. This is whta tariffs do: protect a few at the expense of the majority.

A tariff on tired imported from China will raise the price of low-end tires, which means poor people may drive longer on worn down tires, which endangers their lives and the lives on other on the road.

Way to go, Obama! Way to ignore economic history that shows that tariffs do NOT work!

2009年11月17日 10:19:22


Richard Kadas (imgleader) wrote:

The impression of the ordinary Chinese on Obama seems quite accurate. Our experience with him as Americans has shown that he values the adulation he receives as a 'Rock Star' president more than he does gratification that comes from actual accomplishment.

He will go down in history as the president who said, "We can", but couldn't focus enough to make change happen. A man of too many words and too few deeds

2009年11月17日 10:22:52


Usurpers Dream (article1section9) wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath China. We in the US are still waiting too.

2009年11月17日 11:16:29

vivicat

Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

"Chinese peoples' opinion of him will only change when he does things that bring substantial benefits to U.S.-China relations, such as refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama, stop taking protectionist trade measures and stop selling arms to separatist forces such as Taiwan."

In other words we need to kiss the emperor's rear end. No citizen of China has any right, business or intellectual merit in accusing the US of being protectionist, of selling arms to the wrong people, or of meeting with the wrong people. China can FOAD. If that blogger's attitude is typical, then no one in America needs China for anything.

2009年11月17日 12:04:01


Tarriffs DO work if they're accompanied by immediate measures to stimulate replacement of the international tarriffed source with a domestic production source. Smoot Hawley was only a failure for the USA. It allowed Italy and other European states to insource production that they'd formerly acquired from the USA because of their trade retaliation. Smoot Hawley failed for the USA because at the time the USA was a huge net exporter with a massive current accounts surplus. If done now, especially as applied to China, something like Smoot Hawley would make things better for the USA, because we are a net importer with a massive trade deficit.

Modern neoclassical macroeconomic theory has never developed any kind of way of assessing the market effects of a huge, centralized, non-capitalist, state controlled economy on the international markets. People who are pushing for "free trade" with China are engaging in delusional faith based reasoning. China is not an open market and never will be. The Chinese domestic economy will NEVER be subject to market forces as long as they have a state run command economy.

We should cut all ties with China and expand ties with nations that are more open to US goods.

2009年11月17日 12:15:15


Chinese currency fixing is a big problem. It's probably undervalued, in comparison to the USD, by a full order of magnitude. Nor is this about fundamental economics. In the United States, workers have in general very strong collective bargaining protections, very strong environmental and workplace safety regulations, and a minimum wage law. China has token gestures in these directions but they are MERE tokenism.

Moreover, many US goods are heavily tarriffed or even embargoed from import to China. The US financial industry, which has been the one sector of the US economy that grew as our industries moved overseas, is not allowed for the most part, any access to China's markets. We're excluded. The US makes a vast amount of software and entertainment products that we export, but China promotes and encourages copyright violations on these products, so Americans who make these products get no revenue when copies of their products are sold in China. This is part of a deliberate strategy, on China's part, to import American goods, technology, and intellectual property, without having to pay anything for them.

2009年11月17日 15:38:01


roger morgan (CloakandDagger) wrote:

"Chinese peoples' opinion of him will only change when he does things that bring substantial benefits to U.S.-China relations, such as refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama, stop taking protectionist trade measures and stop selling arms to separatist forces such as Taiwan."

I have a hard time believing this statement is truly reflective of Chinese public opinion. I think our judgments must be somewhat reserved and tempered by the consideration that China doesn’t exactly offer an open forum for political discourse. Media outlets are state controlled and voices of dissention are rigidly policed. Even Obama’s meeting was restricted to a local television station, and his comments alluding to the great firewall of China were deliberately censored. What we hear publicly is often just an affectation; a meticulous reflection of state sponsored propaganda.

Having said that, I do believe there are several unsavory aspects of the way we do business with China that should change. And there is something to be said for the fact that China’s economy, right down to its currency, is state controlled. The trade disparity between our two nations is directly correlative to the Chinese government’s deliberate devaluation of the yuan. This effectively amounts to currency manipulation, something to IMF and our own treasury department have been conveniently ignoring. This is precisely why, Michelle Zhang, U.S. exports to China pale in comparison to the goods we import. In layman’s terms, U.S. manufacturers lose money selling domestically produced goods to a devalued currency. There is far more incentive for Chinese manufacturers to sell goods here, hence the disparity. The yuan could be far stronger than it is, but the government has chosen to pin its value to a flat percentage of the dollar. This is why the Chinese government favors a strong U.S. dollar, but is reticent to strengthen its own currency. Additionally, though China populace represents a staggering 1.3 billion potential consumers, its buying power is substantially reduced in comparison to other industrialized societies. Workers work for less and buy with an undervalued currency. This means the comparative market for higher end goods in China (like those manufactured here) is still much smaller than the lower end goods we import by the billions. Tariffs on steel and rubber are just a reaction to an equally hostile Chinese trade policy.

2009年11月17日 15:58:08


Michelle Zhang (ration) wrote:

roger morgan,
How do you explain the fact that in the past five years
Chinese currency have rise in value by 20%, which in theory should curb trade imbanlance between US and China, and yet the trade imbalance between China and US only increased a great deal in the past five years?

How do you explain that Japan ( which has a strong currency) maintained a trade surplus with China?

You said: "Additionally, though China populace represents a staggering 1.3 billion potential consumers, its buying power is substantially reduced in comparison to other industrialized societies"

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that "China have just become the largest auto market in the world? And also the fact: " GM is only earning a profit in China on the most recent balance sheet."


2009年11月17日 16:10:14


Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

Michelle -

You need to do some basic arithmetic and historical research. In detail:

1. GM makes profits in China by bypassing China's import restrictions. It does this by manufacturing GM parts and assembling the vehicles in China. If GM were trying to import GM cars made in America, GM would find them both hampered by Chinese monetary policy, Chinese domestic steel subsidies, and import quotas.

2. The US dollar has mostly in the last two decades, save for the last two years, increased in comparison with the Japanese yen. The Yuan is fixed to the dollar. Thus the Yen has decreased in value in comparison with the Yuan, while the US dollar (which should have decreased in value in comparison with the Yuan) has not. As a result, Japanese products are artificially made cheaper than American products in Chinese markets because of Chinese currency-fixing policies.

2009年11月17日 16:20:41


Michelle Zhang (ration) wrote:

"Moreover, many US goods are heavily tarriffed or even embargoed from import to China."

What good, and how it is heavily tarriffed comparing to other countries like Japan? Numbers please.
Tarrif can not explain the smaller market share that the US has in China comparing to Japan which recieves equal tarrif on its products.

"The US financial industry, which has been the one sector of the US economy that grew as our industries moved overseas, is not allowed for the most part, any access to China's markets. We're excluded."


The US is no more excluded than EU or Japan. Just like US does not favor China in trade. Also, thanks god that the US finance sector is barred in China. It is an issue of national security. Just like the US government will not allow Chinese company buy big oil company here in the US.

2009年11月17日 16:28:11


"2. The US dollar has mostly in the last two decades, save for the last two years, increased in comparison with the Japanese yen. "

This is a worng statement. Japanese yen has been artifically cheap in the eightes and nighties. Since then Japanese currency had rise in value for a big time under the pressure of the US which contributed to their "lost ten years".
Since then the exchange rate have been more or less fluctuating around. Currently, the japanese yen is high at 96 to the 1 US dollar. Similar to 1995 and not far from that of 2004 around 105.

Where is the two decade or artificially cheap of Japanese yen you are talking about?

2009年11月17日 16:44:49


Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

To begin with, all US goods imported to China are tariffed at 17%. American made products that Chinese central economy planners deem a necessary priority are only tariffed at 9%. Priot to 2007, American made auto parts were tarriffed at 100%. In 2007 the tariff was supposed to decrease to 10% but that has not yet happened. That is one of the reasons why GM has to MAKE parts in China in order to be able to sell cars in China. There are currently tarriffs of 6-10% on any of the following made in the USA: resistors, integrated circuits, and other electronic components, 15% on most farm goods (and outright bans on certain chicken and pork products), 9% on most items classified as "industrial goods," 8% on machines and machine tools, 13.3% on vehicles including bicycles, 11-14% on textiles and clothing. The list of tariffed goods is lengthy and, as you note, anyone with a search engine can look them up.

China also limits who can distribute US goods in China (which raises the costs), and has import quotas that limit supplies of US goods deemed desirable by Chinese (which also raises the retail price)

2009年11月17日 16:49:27


Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

"It is an issue of national security."

We should ban the import of all Chinese made goods as a matter of US national security then. Anyone can play that game.

2009年11月17日 16:50:51


"This is a worng statement."

You are, as usual, incorrect. The Yen is now trading at 90 to the dollar. That change occurred in 2008. The Yen was stteply undervalued against the US dollar through 2001, and somewhat undervalued (about 15%) through 2007. It has only been during the US financial crisis that its value has risen against the US dollar.

It really does not seem like you are familiar with or interested in the actual history here. Mostly it seems like you're getting "talking points" from some Chinese government manuscript.

2009年11月17日 16:57:07

Michelle Zhang (ration) wrote:

"1. GM makes profits in China by bypassing China's import restrictions. It does this by manufacturing GM parts and assembling the vehicles in China. If GM were trying to import GM cars made in America, GM would find them both hampered by Chinese monetary policy, Chinese domestic steel subsidies, and import quotas."

What evidence you have to support your claim?
Chinese dierect car import have risen in double digits (37% in 2007 and even more in 2008) how is that an result of import embargo.

There are a lot of BMWs Benz on the street (sorry no american cars except Buick) so how does these cars get in?

To my understanding, there is a 25% tarrif to direct car imports. You can by pass this disadvantage by setting up plant in China like GM did. Still GM can import a lot of auto parts directly from the US for assembling.

How does this constitute a embargo of US products? This same tarrif is slashed to all imported cars, and it still can not explain the small market share that the US has. To my understanding in 2004, Japan+korea+Germany has a 81% market share in Chinese auto market. Could not find statistics in recent years, but guess it is similar.

2009年11月17日 17:23:20


Michelle Zhang (ration) wrote:

You are, as usual, incorrect. The Yen is now trading at 90 to the dollar. That change occurred in 2008. The Yen was stteply undervalued against the US dollar through 2001, and somewhat undervalued (about 15%) through 2007. It has only been during the US financial crisis that its value has risen against the US dollar.

I just point out that in 1995, it was 95 yen to 1 US dollar. It contradicts your statement that it was undervalued through 2001. It went through up and downs. Are you charging that Japan also performed currency manipulation in the last two decades?

The fact that China slash tarrif on a list of products is hardly a suprise. America also does that. The current question is : Should America raise tarrif further and does that benefit the US?

2009年11月17日 17:36:14


Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

Benz and BMW are status cars, hardly the typical Chinese car purchase. Like everywhere else, the most wealthy Chinese can more or less ignore pricing and buy whatever suits their fancy. That said, until quite recently, the dollar was strong against the Euro. So, once again, and you seem to keep failing to understand this basic fact of exchange rates, so long as the Yuan is fixed to the dollar, when the dollar is strong against OTHER currencies, the yuan will be strong against those same OTHER currencies. That makes ALL goods, except for American ones, relatively cheap merely because of the exchange rate alone. If the value of the Yuan would increase when the dollar goes down against most other currencies, then dollar value fluctuations would help US exports to China in the same ways that dollar value fluctuations help European and Japanese exports to China. This isn't higher math dearie. It's just what happens when the Yuan is constant against the dollar and other currencies decline against the dollar.

"To my understanding, there is a 25% tarrif to direct car imports."

The US has no 25% tarriff on comparable Chinese products. At least you're beginning to come to grips with the facts.

2009年11月17日 17:43:39


Michelle Zhang (ration) wrote:

don't care if you call me an agitator or not.

My future is tied with the well being of both China and the US and I believe it is also true for the rest of the people.

If people just do the self placating game of finger pointing and revenge (slash tarrif etc) and ignore the fundamentals, then so be it.

2009年11月17日 17:43:44


Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:

"My future is tied with the well being of both China and the US and I believe it is also true for the rest of the people."

You'd do well, then, to look at the systematic factors that distory US-China trade and demand some corrections. The current "business as usual" solely benefits China and, if pursued to its ultimate continuation, will result in a complete devaluation in the US dollar. This may well be China's goal. And the good news for Americans is that IF such comes about, industry WILL be forcibly resourced to the USA, because Americans are unlikely to allow their own standards of living to be reduced to poverty as a kind of sacrificial lamb to "globalism."

"If people just do the self placating game of finger pointing and revenge (slash tarrif etc) and ignore the fundamentals, then so be it."

You need to do some research on the fundamentals. It's clear that you are unaware of them or else are simply ignoring them. If it's lack of awareness, one supposes that if you are really interested in the subject you could educate yourself. If you're ignoring them, then it's clear that you are little more than an apologist for Chinese malpractice, and that makes you an ignorable source in conversation.

2009年11月17日 17:49:07

vivicat

认领

vivicat

http://bbs.m4.cn/forum.php?mod=v ... d=208846&extra=