Kiwiblog

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Unamused Chinese censors have been at work to stop people sniggering over the new Beijing headquarters of the People’s Daily newspaper, which bears an unfortunate resemblance to part of the male anatomy. 

A journalist friend commented that when studying journalism they were told sub editors needed dirty minds to ensure no possible double entendre got into print. She suggests  the same requirement should apply to architects!

Stats NZ has reported that China has just over-taken Australia as the biggest export destination in the last quarter.

It is worth recalling that the Greens and NZ First battled against the free trade agreement with China. Thank God they lost.

Labour signed the China-NZ FTA. However their economic policy moves closer and closer to the Greens. I hope they do not abandon their belief in free trade, as they have with free markets.

Here’s the change in export volumes over the last year for our top 10 export destinations:

1. China +25%
2. USA +8%
3. Singapore +4%
4. Taiwan +1%
5. Hong Kong -1%
6. Korea – 2%
7. Malaysia -7%
8. Japan -8%
9. UK -9%
10. Australia -9%

The fall in exports to Australia, UK and Japan would be devastating if it were not for the growth to China and the US.

Audrey Young writes:

Why does the world biggest country pay so much attention to such a small country as New Zealand?

Before the changing of the guard in the Beijing leadership last month, of the nine former members of the powerful group Standing committee of the Politburo, seven had visited New Zealand.

The only other country to receive such a concentration high-level visits is said to be Singapore.

The new Standing Committee has been reduced to seven and only two have been to New Zealand, but the most important two, the President Xi Jinping (three times) and the Premier Li Leqiang in 2009 both in former capacities.

New Zealand has had annual talks with Beijing for some time. Australia has just got them this week.

Prime Minister John Key is being accorded time with both the Premier and President this trip.

So why does one of the smallest countries in the world have such a good relationship with the largest country in the world?

New Zealand is also small enough for China to test out ideas without complications, such as the joint aid project to provide Rarotonga with clean water. …

China is usually secretive and defensive about its aid budget. The Cook Islands joint aid venture is a first for them.

I wasn’t aware of that. The Pacific was in danger of becoming an arena for competing aid diplomacy. A co-operative approach is in fact much better for the Pacific.

One of the least recognised reasons China is so well disposed to New Zealand is the late Rewi Alley, the New Zealander who lived in China for 60 years helping to establish co-operatives -though these day the most famous Kiwi is probably Sir Peter Jackson.

No Hobbit or Jackson haters in China.

Audrey Young reports:

New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing, Carl Worker, passed on a salient fact to Prime Minister John Key while they were waiting for President Xi to welcome them into the meeting room at the stately Bo’ao guest house.

If the southern Guangdong province (where Key arrived last night) were to break away from China – and there’s no suggestion it ever would – its economic strength is such it would immediately be in the G10, the top 10 economies of the world.

That’s quite extraordinary. That one province would make the G10.

Key recounted the fact on the balcony of his own hotel in Bo’ao before a mad dash to the airport for the next leg of his trip (to Guangdong) because the meeting with Mr Xi had gone well over time.

Mr Key was fizzing about the meeting about the state of relationship so far, the personal rapport between the leaders themselves but mainly because of the readiness of both parties to take it to a new level.

The fact that Key could raise something as serious as direct currency conversion between the Kiwi dollar and the reminbi with a senior minister at lunchtime and have it ticked off by Xi for further work in the talks a few hours later would make any former banker go giddy.

The possibility of direct currency conversion is fascinating. Not so much for what it means for China and NZ, but equally the decline of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This is what happens when you start to print money because you are spending too much.

The scale of development is huge – Xi said yesterday within five years it is projected that China’s imports could be worth $US10 trillion.

He could see a day when 400 million Chinese a year could be outbound tourists.

I noticed in South Africa that a huge proportion of tourists were Chinese. As a Chinese middle class numbering several hundred million gets wealthier and spends more, the potential economic growth is immense.

Fran O’Sullivan also reports:

Like other leaders Key planned to acknowledge Xi’s recent ascension to the presidency. But his main game was to position New Zealand as a valuable partner to China in developing global supply chains to feed its people. “It makes sense to team up with Chinese capital and use other countries’ land masses to produce food we can’t produce in New Zealand,” Key says.

New Zealand has limited arable land left for developing new farms. If the nation’s agricultural businesses want to expand, they should take their expertise overseas and form partnerships in countries with bigger land masses.

Which is why the Landcorp partnership with Shanghai Pengxin should be seen as a great opportunity, instead of being condemned by xenophobic MPs from the left.

This graph shows annual exports to China. Readers will recall that the Greens and NZ First railed against the Free Trade Agreement with China signed in 2007.

Stuff reports:

The latest BNZ and Real Estate Institute residential market survey found 9 per cent of house sales were to people offshore. 

Of those offshore buyers, 18 per cent were from Britain, 15 per cent from China and 14 per cent from Australia.

Will we hear the parties of the left going on about banning Brits from buying property in New Zealand?

BNZ’s chief economist Tony Alexander said real estate agents reported that at least 69 per cent of British buyers planned to move to New Zealand, while 37 per cent of Chinese buyers and 51 per cent of Australian buyers intended to. 

“Taken all up that means at most 5.6 per cent (but perhaps as low as 4 per cent) of all dwelling sales are to people offshore not planning to shift to New Zealand.”

So between 94% and 96% of sales are to people residing in NZ or intending to reside here. How disgraceful that some politicians have tried to blame house prices on the 4%.

“The sprawling anecdotes regarding Auckland properties being snapped up by Chinese buyers are not supported by the evidence,” Alexander said.

While most overseas buyers in Auckland came from China (19 per cent – compared with 18 per cent from Britain), sales of property in our biggest city to Chinese buyers comprised just 2.1 per cent of total sales there.

And just 1.2 per cent of house sales in Auckland were to Chinese buyers not intending to move here.

1.2%. Remember that number the next time the xenophobes try to blame them.

Reuters reports at Stuff:

The Communist Party chief of Guangdong province has reportedly stepped in to mediate a standoff over censorship at a Chinese newspaper, in a potentially encouraging sign for press freedoms in China.

A source close to the Guangdong Communist Party Committee said Hu Chunhua, a rising political star in China who just took over leadership of Guangdong province last month, had offered a solution to the dispute that led to some staff at the Southern Weekly going on strike.

The drama began late last week when reporters at the liberal paper accused censors of replacing a New Year letter to readers that called for a constitutional government with another piece lauding the party’s achievements.

Under Hu’s deal, the source said, newspaper workers would end their strike and return to work, the paper would print as normal this week, and most staff would not face punishment. “Guangdong’s Hu personally stepped in to resolve this,” the source said.

“He gets personal image points by showing that he has guts and the ability to resolve complex situations. In addition, the signal that he projects through this is one of relative openness, it’s a signal of a leader who is relatively steady.”

The standoff at the Southern Weekly, long seen as a beacon of independent and in-depth reporting in China’s highly controlled media landscape, has led to demands for the country’s new leadership to grant greater media freedoms.

China will never be a democracy as we have them in Europe and down under. Change will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. But it has been moving in the right direction for most of the last couple of decades and may end up with a Singapore system of governance one day – semi-democratic.

The Labour Party constitution:

Co-operation, rather than competition, should be the main governing factor in economic relations …

Bloomberg reporting on the Chinese Communist Party:

Zhou’s comments underscore pledges by the ruling Communist Party, which last week completed the most important phase of a once-a-decade power transition, to promote freer movement of capital in and out of the country for investment purposes and to make the exchange rate more market-based.

Ironic, as NZ Labour argues against foreign investment and having the Government set the exchange rate.

“Expectations are high” for change as government intervention, ranging from excessive regulation to rigid price controls, has become “unbearable” over the last couple of years, said Li Jiange, head of the country’s biggest investment bank and a vice chairman at the government-run company that holds stakes in state-owned lenders.

Rigid price controls? You mean, like on houses?

“We need to review what the Chinese Communist Party decided 20 years ago: that is, to let market forces play a fundamental role in allocating resources,” he said.

So 20 years ago the Chinese Community Party decided to go in the opposite direction of what NZ Labour is now promoting. Note their growth rate!

The new leadership will probably unveil market-oriented changes in late 2013 after a plenary session of the party’s central committee, Li said. Reforms will focus on reducing government intervention in the economy and breaking up state monopolies, he said.

Excellent. A growing Chinese economy will be good for New Zealand.

The yuan has appreciated about 33 percent against the dollar since the revaluation.

And Parker and Norman think we can stop the US dollar depreciating against the NZ dollar!

They may face economic expansion of 7 percent in 2013, the slowest in 23 years, according to Pacific Investment Management Co., which runs the world’s largest bond fund. Standard Chartered Plc sees a risk of annual expansion slumping to between 3 percent and 4 percent within 10 to 15 years without market-driven change to introduce more competition for state enterprises.

Hmmn, competition for SOEs. We could do with more of that in NZ!

Stuff reports:

Winning a gold medal at the Olympics should be one of the happiest moments of an athlete’s life.

But that was not the case for Chinese diver Wu Minxia.

After winning the women’s synchronized three-metre springboard competition in London on Sunday, the 26-year-old Olympian got devastating news: her family decided it was the right time to tell her that her grandparents had died – over a year ago – and her mother had breast cancer for eight years, AFP reported.

Wu had no idea. Her father admitted the news was kept from her to avoid any distractions during her quest for gold.

“Wu called us after her grandmother died, I gritted my teeth and told her: ‘Everything’s fine, there aren’t any problems’,” father Wu Jueming told the Shanghai Morning Post.

“It was essential to tell this white lie. We never talk about family matters with our daughter.”

Her mother defended the decision, saying she waited until her cancer was in remission before telling Wu.

The story of the Wu family’s secrets has added to a public “backlash against the win-at-all-costs mentally” in China.

Thousands of Chinese web users took to Sina Weibo – a Chinese microblog similar to Twitter – to condemn what they say is an example of the harshness of China’s government-funded sport system, AFP reported.

I guess she didn’t see her grandmother often! But good to see that there is a backlash to this sort of mentality.

“Apart from making people crazy, our Olympic strategy also makes people lose their humanity,” one online commentator said.

“Our national sports system is disgusting,” another said.

Cultural change is occurring, albeit slowly. Many are also angry at the badminton team being told to lose, so they would get an easier opponent in the next round.

Fiona Rotherham at Stuff reports:

Chinese investors have shown encouraging interest towards the Auckland Council’s planned $10.8 billion worth of infrastructure projects and other trade and investment opportunities, Auckland Mayor Len Brown says. …

But the council has also been touting for early stage interest in three of its own major projects: the inner city rail link that central government has rejected funding for; a second harbour crossing; and for the new Innovation precinct in the Wynard Quarter on Auckland’s waterfront. …

China, as our second largest trading partner, was one of the few countries with significant capital to invest offshore and was particularly interested in tourism investment, Brown said.

The first project off the block will be the $2.4b inner city rail loop and Brown favours a PPP (public/private/partnership) deal over borrowing, issuing infrastructure bonds, or raising rates and taxes in order to fund it.

An excellent idea. I look froward to the local Labour MPs supporting an innovative PPP such as this.

The Herald editorial:

Listening to the Greens, it could also be thought that one of China’s most senior figures has followed the Crafar farms saga in great detail, so much so that he is now prepared to place “enormous pressure” on the ministers making the final decision. This, again, seems fanciful. In pursuing the interests of a country with a fifth of the world’s humanity but only 7 per cent of its arable land, Mr Jia’s interests are surely far wider than one farm deal.

The Greens should have read his comments with a rather more open mind. Had they done so, they would have found plenty of encouragement for the future development of trade between New Zealand and China. Mr Jia refers to the “smooth implementation” of the ground-breaking free trade agreement signed in 2008 and the need for both countries to make good use of it to meet ahead of schedule a trade target of $20 billion by 2015. …

In terms of that balance, he could have been thinking of Fonterra’s plans, announced last Friday, to spend $100 million on two more farms in China’s Hebei province. This is part of the co-operative’s ambition to set up an integrated milk business in China that taps a growing middle-class demand for high-protein food. It wants its farming hubs throughout the country to be producing up to 1 billion litres of high-quality milk every year by 2020.

The Greens campaign against China is economically dumb. We even have the proof of how dumb it is. They railed against the FTA with China (as did then Foreign Minister Winston Peters).

So let us look at what these economic geniuses railed against:

The FTA was agreed in April 2008 and came into force in October 2008. Note up until then modest export growth and strong export growth with the trade deficit increasing steadily. Again remember this when Greens and NZ First complain about the trade deficit.

Then after the FTA, exports surge, and imports continue much the same growth. The result is exports break $6b for the first time ever and the trade deficit is cut by over two thirds.

This shows the annual growth. So the data for Jan 2007 is how much the value of trade was in the 12 months to Jan 2007 compared to the 12 months to Jan 2006.

So imports growing far faster than exports. Then as the FTA is signed, export growth skyrockets up to 35% and even three years on is still at over 20%. These are incredible figures. The Greens argue it is pure coincidence and would have happened regardless. I’d stick a Tui billboard around that.

Here’s another couple of stats. In the year prior to the FTA coming into force our average monthly exports were  $186m. In the last 12 months they were an average $505m a month.

The annual exports in the year before the FTA were $2.24b. If they had stayed at that level over the next three and a third years our exports would have been $7.45b. Instead they have been $15.79b. So that is an extra $8.3b of export income that the Greens and NZ First railed against, and still rail against.

God knows how many fewer jobs we would have without that FTA, let alone the greater deficit and debt.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has warned that planned Foreign Affairs job losses and the closure of overseas posts will cost more in the long run than they save.

A State Services Commission report last year said the ministry was looking at slashing 200 jobs out of almost 1000.

An announcement on the details is expected soon.

Peters, a former minister of foreign affairs who negotiated a big increase in funding for the portfolio, said a “slash and burn exercise” would seriously affect this country’s overseas trade.

He said the move was a “serious, retrograde step” at a time New Zealand was desperately trying to increase its export trade.

Phil Goff has also joined in the bleating, arguing that more bureaucrats in MFAT will increase exports. If only, it was so simple.

As it happens exports have been growing quite nicely. In the last three years, they have increased 15.1% to $46.1b. That’s pretty good considering the wobbly global economy. Why have they increased?

Well exports to China have increased 169.5% to $5.6b. The dollar increase of $3.5b makes up 59% of the overall increase in exports.

It was three years ago we signed a Free Trade Agreement with China. An agreement that Peters as Foreign Minister not only refused to vote for, but actively campaigned against with a newspaper ad campaign urging people to sign up in opposition to the FTA.

So Peters’ record is having opposed the China FTA which saw exports to China increase 170%, and instead his solution is more bureaucrats in MFAT.  I doubt I have seen a more moronic economic prescription in recent times.

This is the annual trade deficit with China over the last decade. Both the Greens and Winston rail against imports and say we need to export more and reduce the trade deficit.

They also both voted against the China-NZ Free Trade Agreement in 2008. They both still maintain it was a mistake, and a bad thing to do.

The results speak for themselves. After the trade deficit rose from $1b to almost $4b, it has reduced to $1.5b in just three years.

The Greens, like all of us, care deeply about the environment. But on economic policy, they and Winston are consistently wrong. They are skilled at talking about problems, but their solutions are toxic.

Exports to China in the three years prior to the FTA were $5.7b. In the three years since, they have been $13.1b. Those exports have helped keep kiwis in jobs, have grown the economy and provided billions more in tax revenue to help pay for schools, hospitals and welfare. And if the Greens and Winston had their way, it would not have happened (unless you wish to argue the massive unprecedented growth in exports was a coincidence).

A comment in the PREFU about our relative trade with China and the US got me curious, so I downloaded the export data from Stats NZ. This is purely how much we export to each country. The years are June years.

• In 1990 we exported 12 times as much to the US than China – $1.9b v $0.16b
• In 2000 we exported 5 times as much to the US than China – $3.7b v $0.77b
• In 2008 we exported twice as much to the US than China – $$4.0b v $2.1b
• In 2011 we exported 7/10ths as much to the US than – $3.9b v $5.6b
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to the US has increased only 5% (and these are nominal dollars)
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to China have increased 635%
• Since the FTA was signed in 2008, exports to China have increased a massive 170% in just three years
• In actual dollar terms, that is $3.6b more exports to China in 2011 than 2008
• Comparing three year periods, 2009-11 saw $13.1b of exports compared to $5.7b the previous three years

I suggest people ask candidates of parties that opposed the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement, why? The Foreign Minister in the last Government campaigned against it. The Greens voted against it.

I regard the China/FTA as the best achievement of the 5th Labour Government, and a probably the best legacy from both Clark and Goff who should be very proud of making it happen. If we had not had that extra $13b of exports in the last three years, we’d be a lot worse off.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

The families of Chinese students killed in the Christchurch earthquake will not get extra compensation, despite claims that they need it because of China’s one-child policy.

At least 24 Chinese nationals, mainly students studying in the CTV building, were believed to have been killed in last month’s quake, though only seven have been formally identified so far. Most were aged between 15 and 30.

Cheng Lei, co-ordinator of the Chinese embassy’s disaster relief centre, told Radio New Zealand that the one-child policy meant the victims’ families had lost their source of economic assistance for retirement. He called on the New Zealand Government to increase the ACC compensation available to them. …

Prime Minister John Key said the Government felt great sympathy for the families but would not change its policy.

It was never going to happen of course. Could you imagine the outcry if the Government approved higher payouts to foreigners, than to its own citizens. You’d be more popular selling steaks to vegans.

The request from the Chinese Embassy is I am sure made in good faith. Losing your only child must be a massive blow to a family, and they’ll never recover from it.

However even if one accepted that parents who have lost their only child should get more compensation than those with multiple children (and I don’t – children are not like tyres, where you just replaced the broken one with a spare), the question might arise about whether the compensation should come from the country where the earthquake happened – or from the Chinese Government which has implemented the one child policy.

It is worth noting that the Chinese Embassy were passing on requests from the families of the dead students, rather than making an official request.

I was delighted to see Liu Xiaobo win the Nobel Peace Prize. A much better pick than 2009, and what was especially pleasing is that it was granted despite the threats from China.

We need a bit more of this fortitude back home, as reported by NZPA:

New Zealand’s opposition MPs have congratulated the jailed Chinese winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, but Prime Minister John Key will not yet comment.

The Prime Minister should comment, should congratulate Liu Xiaobo, and should use the opportunity to politely state that our desire is for China to continue its path towards more freedom. Yes it will annoy the Chinese Government, and it may even lead to some sort of temporary sanction against NZ, but we must not let that prevent us from sticking up for what is right.

Opposition MPs can of course say what they want, without fear of adverse consequences for the country. I say this not to defend the lack of comment from the PM, but to point out a different PM could well do the same thing.

Mr Key said yesterday he would not comment about Mr Liu until he received more advice.

“I’m not aware of why he’s in jail and it’s not appropriate for me to comment on what is appropriate in terms of other countries putting people in those facilities.”

With all respect MFAT should have immediately given Ministers a briefing, once the winner was known. And it is entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to comment on the jailing of political dissidents in other countries.

[DPF: The PM has now congratulated Mr Liu, and in fact did so before this post apppeared. It was time delayed from this morning, and Key congratulated him on the way into Caucus. Of course Liu won't know this as he is in jail.]

The 45th Otago Foreign Policy School is on from Friday 25 to Sunday 27 June.

China’s rise and future role on the world stage will go under the spotlight at the University of Otago’s 45th Foreign Policy School later this month. The event gathers together leading national and international China scholars and New Zealand diplomats, policymakers, business people and members of the public.

Titled “China’s Ascent: New Superpower or New Global System?” the School is being held in association with the New Zealand Contemporary China Research Centre at Victoria University of Wellington. The gathering takes place at Dunedin’s Salmond College from 25-27 June. …

“Among the key questions to be tackled at the School is ‘will a new China fundamentally change the rules of the game in the global system, or will China simply become another great power using the traditional tools of money, force and diplomacy’?,” Professor Patman says.

New Zealand-China relations are the focus of a roundtable composed of leading Chinese academics and New Zealand figures including Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO Charles Finny and journalist and analyst Colin James.

The School’s opening address will be given on the Friday evening by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Murray McCully.

The keynote address, ‘China’s Global Identities: the Schizophrenic Superpower’, is being presented by Professor David Shambaugh of George Washington University. Professor Shambaugh is an internationally recognised authority on contemporary Chinese affairs and the international politics and security of the Asia-Pacific region.

How very timely.

The full programme is here and you can register here.

Some common sense from Phil Goff on the China protest issue:

Labour leader Phil Goff said there mistakes on both sides.

“The Chinese security guard had no right to seize the flag from Russel Norman. There is an absolute right of peaceful protest in this country that we must uphold.”

And I agree. They had a right to stop Norman from advancing any closer, but they had no right to try and hide his flag. They were clearly wrong to do so.

But Mr Goff said Dr Norman could have acted with more restraint.

“Did Russel Norman behave with the dignity you might have expected of an MP? I think he might have learned from (former Greens leader) Rod Donald’s lesson of standing back, giving a bit of space, making the point, but not being confrontational.”

Exactly. He was advancing on the Vice-President and got very very close to him. If he had done what Rod Donald did, then the fracas would never have happened. The suspicion is that maybe he did it deliberately.

Mr Goff said there needed to be a clear protocol allowing peaceful protest but at the same time giving space and dignity to visitors.

Yep. If MPs wish to protest on the forecourt they have every right to. But they don’t have the right to impede the right of overseas leaders from entering buildings, or to be so close to them they represent a threat to their dignity (such as having a flag thrown over them) – NZ in fact has an obligation under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention:

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

This is why John Key apologised – not for the protest by Norman, but the failure in security that allowed him to get within spitting or throwing distance.

He said there was some confusion which could have been avoided on Friday.

“A quiet word beforehand between Russel Norman and the diplomatic police could have set a situation where a protest could have been made without the incident occurring.”

Exactly. Bravo to Phil Goff for taking a fair approach on this.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key telephoned the most senior minister in the visiting Chinese delegation to apologise for the scuffle during the arrival of Vice-President Xi Jingping at Parliament.

I can understand why the PM felt it was necessary – because the screaming yelling protester was not just a member of the public, but a leader of a parliamentary party.

But having said that, I don’t think it was appropriate for the PM to apologise. He is not responsible for Norman, and by doing so may confuse the difference between the Government and the Parliament.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has also called for a full report on the incident from his ministry and he would like to see a protocol developed between the Speaker and protesting MPs for future visits.

This I think is a very good idea. The right to protest must be protected, but this doesn’t mean you allow protesters to get within a couple of metres of visiting VIPs – even if an MP.

If Norman had not been advancing on the Vice-President, this incident probably would not have happened. As a contrast Chris Trotter remembers Rod Donald:

My abiding memory of this remarkable man – my friend – Rod Donald, will be of him standing alone at the foot of the parliamentary steps, his face a mixture of sadness and defiance, holding up the forbidden Tibetan flag. It was a noble protest – and all the more effective for being conducted not by some raggle-taggle band of New Age anarchists, but by a senior Member of Parliament and party leader, dressed proudly and patriotically in his best, New Zealand-made, suit.

No advancing on the Vice-President, no shouting, no scruffling. That is the way to do it if you want to be an MP making a protest.

I am no fan of China’s repression. I think there should be protests when their VIPs visit. If the Greens had organised a Free Tibet protest outside Parliament, I might have even gone along to it.

Now having said that, it is clear that engagement with China is the only sane course of action. Refusing to trade or talk to them would be stupid. The trick is getting the balance of engagement and protest right.  And broadly you expect the Government to engage and civil society to protest. There is a time when Governments also protest – but that tends to be in response to specific events.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner blogs:

I know it’s fashionable to hate the Chinese, and everyone wants a free Tibet.

So much so you’d think they were handing them out in Weetbix packets.

But while I’ll probably get into trouble with the Left for saying this, I’m sorry, but Green Party co-leader Russel Norman was an embarrassment to himself, Parliament, and New Zealand with his protest against the Chinese vice-president’s visit last week. …

When I heard that Norman’s flag had been “trampled” I thought that was a bit on the nose, too, so I took a look at the video.

Strange how none of the many cameras there – both still and TV – managed to capture the so-called attack, or the flag trampling.

What they did capture, though, was an MP behaving in a way that no self-respecting member of Parliament with any dignity should behave.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully support Russel Norman’s right to have his say. This is a free country, unlike China.

But sometimes, I think the RIGHT to free speech and EXERCISING it are confused.

For example, I can walk down the street and tell someone I don’t know that they’re fat. I have that right. But to do so would be impolite and irresponsible.

One of the deals of having freedom is the responsibility that comes with it over how you use it.

A point well made.

If Russel Norman was a private citizen he’d be banned from the steps of Parliament as a protester. He’d be behind the gates further down, where he could yell and scream to his heart’s content.

But he’s not a private citizen. He’s a member of Parliament. An employee and a representative of the people.

That meant Norman got to go right up to the Chinese VP, yell in his face, and wave a flag at him.

Unless the video I saw has been doctored, I saw Norman lunging at the VP and then yelling “give me my flag back” after one of his security guards grabbed it.

Colin makes the same point I have made – it was a long way removed from what Rod Donald did.

Superb as usual:

Foreign Minister Murray McCully has been severely reprimanded by Chinese Ambassador Zhang Limin for exercising poor judgement when using his Ministerial credit card, the Chinese Embassy announced today.

Previously Prime Minister John Key has defended McCully’s $2000 laundry bill and high alcohol expenditure but the Chinese Ambassador has overruled Key’s position, calling McCully’s spending ‘unseemly and non-magnificent’, and issuing a formal reprimand of the Foreign Minister.

‘We feel the Minister’s level of decadence is inappropriate and counter-revolutionary,’ the Ambassador announced. ‘This behaviour is not acceptable from Party functionaries and will not be tolerated.’

McCully has accepted the censure and thanked the Ambassador for his criticism. ‘Only through the wisdom of his Excellency can I reform my thoughts and become a better servant,’ McCully told reporters, speaking from a pool of mud outside his home where he has kneeled prostrate since receiving the rebuke yesterday. ‘I am chastened but also joyful and eternally grateful.’ …

… ‘We thank McCully for his good and faithful assistance in enlightening Dr Norman’s speech,’ the Ambassador said in his statement. ‘With great perseverance and skillful self-discipline the Snail will once again enjoy the favor of the Dragon.’

To ensure widespread coverage of the censure Chinese Embassy officials decreed that publication of the statement was mandatory for all media outlets. The Dim-Post is joyful to be of service in this matter.

I trust all blogs will comply with the mandatory reporting.

The Herald reports:

Dr Norman’s protest was in contrast to that of the late former co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, in 2005 against Wu Bangguo, chairman of the National People’s Congress.

Mr Donald’s was a silent protest and he sought advice from the Speaker at the time about where to stand – some distance from his target.

New Zealand security and police stood with Mr Donald and refused to let Chinese security stand in front of him and the Tibetan flag he was holding.

Dr Norman was jostled as he held the flag aloft and moved chanting towards Mr Xi, arriving at Parliament’s Beehive entrance.

He was a metre or two from him.

One of at least two dozen officials travelling with Mr Xi covered the flag with his umbrella.

Seconds later someone grabbed the flag from him and dropped it.

Dr Norman stopped chanting “Freedom for the people of Tibet!” and started yelling “Give me my flag back” and “Don’t bring your undemocratic practices to our country”.

I think Rod Donald showed how to do a protest with dignity.

The Chinese officials should still have not touched Norman’s flag or person, but you do wonder if Norman was trying to get them to do exactly that by advancing on the Vice-President.

Stuff reports:

Green MP Russel Norman had a Tibetan flag torn from his hands by a member of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping’s entourage when he arrived at Parliament today.

Dr Norman said he believed it was one of the vice president’s security guards.

Arriving in a convoy of around six vehicles with a police escort, the guards initially tried to shield the flag with their bodies and umbrellas before it was torn from Dr Norman’s hand with a member of the vice president’s entourage standing on it as the VIP was rushed through the front entrance of Parliament.

“I think it’s pretty outrageous that Chinese security can come to our country and push around an elected Member of Parliament simply because you’re standing up for democracy and freedom in our own country on our own parliamentary grounds,” Dr Norman said afterwards.

“I mean, the Chinese security guards, they elbowed me out of the way, they put an umbrella over the top of me and they took the flag out of my hands and trampled on it.”

With some blood on his hand following the scuffle, Dr Norman said he had never experienced such treatment on Parliament’s grounds, he said.

“We were roughed up, they grabbed us and pushed us around.”

The Chinese security guards obviously exceeded their brief, and there should be consequences for that. Unless Dr Norman was a physical threat to the Vice-President, they had no right to manhandle him. Keeping an embarrassing sign out of sight is not a legitimate reason.

We had much the same in Dunedin in 2008 when Pete Hodgson manhandled a protester who was holding a sign up behind Helen Clark, which the cameras could see. Hodgson was investigated for assault in that incident, and the Chinese security should also be investigated for assault.

Personally I think Dr Norman looks like a prize idiot when he acts as a lone protester rather than a party leader – but he has the right to do so.

I blogged on Monday about complaints local Chinese media had not been able to get access to the visit of the VP of China.

DIA sent me on Tuesday an e-mail which I have attached to the original post. The key part is:

We can assure you there is no attempt to block the local Chinese media from attending various activities during the Vice President Xi JinPing’s visit or adopt any form of censorship. Invitations have been issued today to local media including Auckland and Wellington based Chinese media.

Better later than never!

A reader writes:

The local Chinese media are saying that the NZ government is blocking their accreditation to cover the visit of the vice president Jinping this week. According to them no local Chinese media allowed at any function or press conference. …

Surely there’s a way to security check the local Chinese media to see if any are crazed Falung Gong and exclude them rather than them all?

This blog entry was brought to the attention of the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Department has responsibility for the overall management and coordination of media activity for the official visit by the Mr Xi Jinping, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China. There are a series of media opportunities over the period of the visit.

We can assure you there is no attempt to block the local Chinese media from attending various activities during the Vice President Xi JinPing’s visit or adopt any form of censorship. Invitations have been issued today to local media including Auckland and Wellington based Chinese media. We have also extended invitations to Press Gallery journalists and local Auckland and Wellington media. The only media restrictions that will apply are camera pool arrangements where there are space constraints. In such situations both the official Chinese media and local New Zealand media will have an equal opportunity to participate in the pool.

Enquiries are welcomed from all interested Chinese local media and we encourage them to contact us if they are interested in attending events during the Vice President’s visit or have concerns. We will endeavour to accommodate their needs within the space and security constraints. These are the same considerations that would apply for any official overseas government visit to New Zealand.

Internal Affairs operates an open, responsive media policy and is committed to ensuring that news media has reasonable access to information about the activities of the Department.

The media advisory outlining media opportunities is available from the Department of Internal Affairs.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the concerns that have been raised.

Reuters reports:

Fifty-five countries, accounting for almost 80 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged varying goals for fighting climate change under a deadline in the Copenhagen Accord.

“This represents an important invigoration of the UN climate change talks,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said of the national targets for curbs on emissions until 2020 submitted by January 31.

It represents no such thing. As I said in NBR on Friday, the political tide has turned. Regardless of your views on the science, there is no chance of meaningful reductions in emissions. Even if the EU and Australia and NZ manage some reductions, 50% of the global total is basically China, India and the US.

What does India say:

Indian officials said they want the 1992 UN Climate Change Convention to remain the blueprint for global action, not the Copenhagen Accord.

That means they do not want to commit to any reductions at all for India.

And China:

China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.

Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.

Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.

Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.

Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.

So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.

Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons.

New Zealand’s total level of emissions is 30 million tons.

So we could go totally carbon neutral, and it would barely compensate for 0.1% of the increase from China.

In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.

And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons

So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.

As I have said before, you need to get an agreement between the major emitters first, and the rest of the world will then make sure they pick up their fair share.

And I would say there is no way China is going to agree to reductions beyond what they indicated at Copenhagen.

So regardless of what you think about the science, the fact is there will be no reduction in global emissions. Doesn’t matter what we do, what the US does, what the EU does.

Now I am not an advocate of New Zealand breaking away from the rest of the OECD, and saying we refuse to do anything, unless China comes to the party. We are too small to do that, without the risk of repercussions. But we should shy away from any emission reduction measures that significantly reduce economic growth, and focus mainly on improving technology.

China may change its stance over time – perhaps in ten years or so, if there has been clear evidence of rapidly rising sea levels for example. But for the next decade, global emissions will increase beyond doubt.

Reuters reports:

China has attacked Washington’s call to lift internet censorship and warned the Obama administration to heed alarm bells over trade, Taiwan and Tibet.

China said that US calls for greater internet freedom were harmful to bilateral ties and that the Chinese government banned any form of hacking, in response to a speech by the US Secretary of State.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for China and other authoritarian governments to lift their curbs on citizens’ use of the internet in a speech on Thursday (Friday NZ time).

It was a good speech which is in full here.Also an interesting Q&A.

This is not just about what China do behind their own borders, but the threat they may pose to the greater Internet with state sanctioned cyber attacks.

“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” said Clinton, calling growing internet curbs the present-day equivalent of the Berlin Wall, contravening international commitments to free expression.

Clinton also urged Beijing to investigate the complaint about cyber spying from China that Google said targeted it and dozens of other companies, as well as Chinese dissidents.

One of the best parts of the speech was:

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

A speech by itself won’t change anything, but the focus of the US Government at the highest levels is a good thing.