Labor Rights in China

Kernaghan explains to the Senate the work conditions that laborers in China work in, as well as the pay the receive. The conditions described are appalling, working in "sauna" -like atmospheres, and sadly these conditions are similar in all the situations presented. The pay structure for the factory workers is similar as well. For the most part, these people are getting paid under the minimum wage required by law in China. Also, they do not receive overtime for the overtime that they work, which is a constant thing. Though Kernaghan did go to Congress with all this information, giving light to these conditions in China, I don't think much will be done to correct this. I think that maybe it will be publicized a little more, however I highly doubt that action will be taken. I think the Senate knows that without these workers companies will falter and no longer be able to produce the way they are now. Though I do not agree with this, I do think it will be the reality of the outcome of the situation.

As a result of the situation China is in regarding the labor situation, it is sadly benefitting the world economy as a whole. The actors described in this situation are all the countries who allow outsourcing of labor to China. They are helping the economy in China, however they are allowing the laborers there to be exploited. Surprisingly however, it is the Chinese government that is looking to rectify the situation, though the plans they have to go about doing so do not seem like they will help much, if any.

Living with reform.../Documentary

The main classes in China are the elite class, the middle class, and the poor. The elite class enjoy lots of luxuries, which don't include working in a factory. For the most part, these are people of the party, or the children of people of the party. The middle class is the biggest class of people in China, and while they aren't as rich as the elite class, they still have many luxuries afforded to them, and they live a life that the working class strive for. The poor are those living in the countryside, who come to work in cities to make wages, more than they would make where they are from. The working class has it the hardest as they are poor and they are the ones, as seen in the documentary, that work in the awful factories.

There are no questions for the documentary, so i'll just respond to it.

I have to say, I thought this documentary was so interesting. It was very eye opening to the labor abuse in China, more than any piece of literature I could ever read. Seeing a first hand account of how a girl, who is just a year younger than I am, working and living on her own is interesting, and at the same time sad. I also think that it is unbelievable that nothing is being done about the violation of labor laws in China. The inspections made by foreign businessmen are ridiculous and when they showed an account of it, it was unbelievable how those people rarely found anything wrong. For the most part, I think this goes without saying that they don't want to find anything wrong because then they can't buy from this cheap source. It's also unbelievable how little these people get paid for how much work they do, and how employers get away with it. But the thing is because there are no regulations in China for workers, and they can't have unions, legally employers can get away with it. I can't seem to undersstand how this can go on without regulation from the government, but also why they would ever make strikes and unions illegal?.. It seems absurd.
Also, in the film, the girls said they paid for their food and dorm, but it was ridiculous how much they paid for how little they got in return, and the idea of a midnight snack being free because they worked overtime.. was ridiculous.

The Dragon Still has Teeth

In the movie we watched last week in class, I do not believe that leaders can halt or reverse what they have started to reform. Once reform in an area is started, there are other uncontrollable factors leading to its continuance. Some of those factors can be from the government, but if the people accept the reform and it's ideas, it'd be too difficult to stop such reform. China does not simply rule through the communist ideology these days, as some of the actions taken by the Chinese government are not part of the communist ideology. During the Tienanman movement, the government allowed the students to protest in the beginning. They eventually stopped the protest after they thought it was getting out of control, but not as soon as the uprising started. Which seems contradictory in a communist state.

Beijing's two-pronged strategy is " a softer line toward docile civil society organizations and a harder line toward those who challenge the state." In the article, it became obvious of this. For example, the Chinese government allowed Muslims to practice their religion in a certain part of China, if they attended government-led Muslim activities. As these people practiced their religion and were not harmful to the existence to the state, the government simply regulated it and let it occur. Though in the article, it states that the government "smashes" and religious group it does not control. As an example for those who "challenge the state" the Chinese media is one of the largest groups. Though it is not necessarily the media, but the access to information. The government does not want the Chinese people to be able to access all the information they would like, so it is censored. This practice has become increasingly strict, as they have even begun to monitor the sites citizens visit. If a citizen repeatedly tries to access a blocked site, they could be arrested. If the Chinese government allowed the citizens to access the information available on the internet, I think there would be more of a push towards democratization. Though the Chinese people only have rumor and the insignificant amount of information provided to them by the government. Though because the government is becoming more lenient, I think that it is leaning towards democracy, even slightly as it is.

Multinational corporations should be held responsible in ensuring that they are not violating human rights, but because for the most part the regulation is so out of date, or non existent, a corporation can not be expected to do so without such regulation. Though, morally it is wrong, if the company is not regulated by the government to do so, they can not be expected to. Those corporations should be expected to follow the local laws, however since for the most part the local governments do not inforce such laws, the corporations do not follow them.

Tienanman

Though the Tienanman Square Movement is considered a student movement, I think the government decided to respond to the people so violently was because they believed without doing so, they were allowing the people more freedom than they had ever intended to give them. Ten years before the movement, an act like this would be quickly subdued and all who followed it would be severly government. But around the time when the movement happened, the government had become more lax in enforcing the laws. The government also had realized that the information about the movement was reaching other nations, and they didn't want this to happen. They wanted to control the media and their international image seen by other countries. The other threat that the Chinese Government felt was because so many people joined the movement. The movement began as student led, however many regular citizens had joined after seeing the students actions. The movement had begun to threaten the Communist party, and they felt it was time to subdue it.

The reforms did not stop altogether after the movement. Deng had decided to appease the people minimally by stopping the political reforms within the country, however he refused to halt the economic reforms within China.

There are "two Chinas" in existence according to the film. One is a richer, more modern China which those who belong to this group benefit greatly. The other China is a more poor, "disenfranchized" China, in which the peasant groups are constantly rebelling against the government, but seemingly to no avail.

Prospects for Democracy

The Tiananmen Square incident is an incredible incident in China's history. Not incredible in it being 'awesome', but that it seemed to have a significant impact around the turning point of their economic status. They were an authoritarian government, but it was obvious that the government had become increasingly lax with their strict rules, especially for such an event to occur. The fact that it was the younger population that started the incident, suggests that something was different about the education that they were recieving in relation to that of older generations. Though one of the most interesting parts about the incident is that the young Chinese citizens wanted to remember the previous ruler, even though he would be considered as an authoritarian ruler. I think that this incident complicates the meaning of security as the people acted in defiance, but the government did not act right away. It took them nearly a month to do so, but when they did, their actions were horrifying. For the most part, when people think about security, they can list what they think of, and when they think of how they will get this security, as in who will protect them, most think it is in the hands of their government. Yet, when the government acts maliciously, and against the people, where do they seek security then? The government is the highest agency in the land, and if they aren't protecting the people, then there is no protection for them. It is a terrifying thought to have, but during this incident, I'm sure it was even more terrifying to the Chinese people. I think looking back on this incident, it is memorable, but not a highlight of the history of China because of all the violence that the government took in response to the people.

Pei/Guthrie/Hu

In the Pei article, China has had social unrest, yet has economically grown as the Chinese government has exercised essentially anything goes policy. By imposing large taxes on the Chinese people, they are making more revenue for the government, in turn angering the people to extreme discontent.

Under the radical rule of Mao, the Chinese people experienced a long bout of unrest. The government had instituted a policy of nearly complete isolationism, and those who interacted with foreigners were usually punished, or kept under close watch. The communist government also instituted nearly complete socialist control. Deng chose to lead the country in the opposite direction as a direct result of the unhappiness of the people. His control was completely opposite from that of Mao. There was no longer only government controlled facilities but privatization was being phased in. Interaction with foreign countries for trade was encouraged. Deng first decided to elimate Mao's "cult" rule over the Chinese people. Deng was especially advocating foreign relations as his made many international trips throughout his rule. Part of the reason why Deng was not completely successful was because of his unwillingness to embrace democracy, and strict loyalty to socialism. With the evolving economy, and changing social society, the shift was more towards a democratic state than a socialist one, however, Deng would not let China become a known democracy. Although, Deng did work to end some social unrest. Instead of all the power being centralized in the federal government, it was diffused into local authorities to be more responsive to the needs of the individual people. Though, his rule was hypocratic. Most of his ideals and the way he had begun to shape the government were not that of the regular communist rule. With these contradictions, the economy began to fail as an indirect result.

The Pei article confirms the economic problems within China, as these problems are still in existence.

Revving up the China Threat/Discourses of Security in China

Regarding the "Revving up the China Threat" I had a question on the first event discussed in the document. I was unsure of what it was meant by the "resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait" and was wondering if you'd be able to clear that up for me? Thank you.

Upon first reading the Revving up the China threat article, my reaction is that I see the points that are being made, but I don't really see any evidence backing up those points. What is being constituted as a threat can be seen as legitimate however, because why would a country amp up its military without preparing for some action. It would be seemingly pointless to do so. Though this can also be seen as an overraction by the United States Government in constituting China as a threat for those reasons. In the part about Rumsfield I see him simply telling why the US thinks China is a threat, but without solid evidence provided. In a part of the article, it states that the US should supress any country that is seemingly a threat to become a global power, which can seem a bit ridiculous. But if looked at from the other side, it can be seen as simply protecting the country from a threat becoming reality. When you first read the article, the first ideas list why China is a threat, without sufficient reasoning but as you go on, the author gives several reasons. First, China's weaponry in the past was completely obsolete, but recently they have purchased new weapons from Russia that make them more of a military threat than they had ever been. Also, China has struck deals with numerous countries for petroleum imports, which also poses a threat to the the US. Not only because the US relies on petroleum heavily, but the Chinese could be using this for it's military. Though in the beginning I think it is a bit ridiculous to assume no countries threaten China because as the US is strengthening it's forces, it can be seen as a threat. I think that US leaders are acting conventionally as they are looking for the best interest in protecting the country, by trying to appeal to the people and making the China situation known as well as taking security to the next level.

Zhang acknowledges that China not only had recognized the traditional aspects of how security is handled, but also the non-traditional. However, he also recognizes that China has become a security threat for other countries for quite some time now. Now because China wants to be linked in the global market, other countries have increasingly noticed this threat. Though America sees China as a threat, elitists in China have been analyzing how the US has become a threat to them in the sense of global power.

The second article was much more difficult to understand than the first, however I found it interesting, I'm finding it difficult answering the questions provided.

The Countdown to Beijing

The first article, "The Countdown to Beijing" discusses what the government of Beijing is doing to prepare for the 2008 Olympics. The ideas they have to cut down on air pollution are seemingly good, such as planting trees to absorb the CO2 and banning cars from operating to cut down on emissions. However, this seems like short term solutions to the air pollution problems they are experiencing. I think that the Chinese government should not be looking towards temporarily fixing the problem, but rather finding a long term solution, or the problem is just going to keep coming back. I also think that this should be more regulated, though I'm not too sure how it would be done to make sure that the Chinese government has come into compliance. It can be done because the Olympics is going to be held there, but there should also be some regulation on the air pollution in China after the 2008 Olympics have ended. In this essay Cha states that when a country holds such a big event as the Olympics, they are going to come out a changed nation. He specifically referenced Japan stating it took them out of warfare, and says that once the Olympics are over in China, it will be recognized as a technologically advanced country. The change in Korea was the type of government in which is switched over to after the Olympics were held. What once had been an authoritarian government became increasingly democratic in the years following the 1988 Olympics. I think that if a country holds something so widely known, such as the Olympics, they may come out changed as they will become more widely recognized as a result of the tourism that takes place in the country that would not happen on such a widespread scale without such an event.

In "the Weight of History" Beeson discusses the events that led up to the success of Japan as a nation. The article mainly discusses that battles that Japan went through to be recognized as the nation that they are. Japan experienced a bout of isolationism to protect their culture until the mid 19th century.