Financial Times launches new blog focussed on China. Adam notes that the FT has a new China blog, called Dragonbeat. Posts are expected to be at least weekly.

The first post begins:-

The global financial crisis poses two challenges for China: one of domestic economic management and another of international economic diplomacy. How it addresses these two challenges will in large measure determine whether China takes up what it considers to be its rightful place as one of the world’s leaders, or subsides instead into a Japan-like irrelevance despite the size of its economy.

The post author discusses a number of key issues facing China, problems in the domestic economy and why despite a desire to sit at the top table it may not obtain one, until it faces up to some realities, as the final paragraphs indicate.

But the hard fact is that China’s US$296bn trade surplus, and its US$2,000bn foreign exchange reserve wallet, are creatures of the same debt-fuelled consumption that Premier Wen denounces. The fallacy of conceiving of international economics as a morality play is that it is impossible for everyone to run a surplus. The supposedly virtuous thrift of savers is made possible only by the profligacy of spenders. A “virtue” that cannot exist without the “vice” of others is no virtue: it is simply one side of a trade.

China’s unwillingness to face up to this fact means that it actually has a strong interest in preventing a serious discussion of a reorganised global economic system. This is because any such discussion would probably have to consider – as a counterpart to measures constraining the ability of the US to abuse its reserve-currency privilege – some variant of a sensible proposal that John Maynard Keynes made during the Bretton Woods discussions of 1944-45: a tax on countries that insist on running big current account surpluses.

So both because it lacks technical tools, and because it has a strong interest in preventing a crucial point from being raised, China is unlikely to make a substantive contribution to the reorganisation of the world’s economic system. Its strategy will be to pony up a bit of cash and score a few political points, but otherwise sit back and hope that order can be restored so that it can continue selling its goods, and stretch out the painful transition to a more domestically-driven and consumption-oriented economy over as long a period as possible.

Read the whole post. Indeed for anyone interested in the NZ China FTA, Adam suggests reading Dragonbeat regularly might well be a good idea.

If China wants to be taken seriously and be a real global player, she will have to remedy the problems identified.

Scoopit!

Thanks to Homepaddock Adam is aware that his report yesterday from Singapore on the likely takeover of San Lu was correct.

To the best of Adam’s knowledge that may mean Adam was the first to report this in NZ, then again maybe not. Would be fun though to have a scoop in NZ terms.

NZPA reports at 3 News. NZ Herald carries the story here,and Stuff here; interestingly it does not appear to be on the TVNZ site, yet. Quel surprise!

Fonterra’s disastrous joint venture in China, Sanlu, may be sold from under it to a Chinese rival, Beijing Sanyuan Food Co, according to media reports in Beijing.

Sanlu group may be forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Sanyuan, the China Daily reported.

Just as Adam reported yesterday.

Fonterra, the world’s biggest dairy trader, owns 43 percent of Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group Co., but to day told the Wall Street Journal that it hasn’t been approached about selling its stake.

“No one has contacted our people on the board about a purchase,” Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier said.

So nobody is talking to Fonterra. Andrew Ferrier might want to think about why that might be.

The Chinese Government has shut down production at Sanlu and all products have been recalled after its baby formula was found contaminated with melamine, leading to the deaths of four infants.

Another 53,000 children — many of whom were drinking Sanlu milkpowders — have fallen ill with various urinary problems and 13,000 infants are still being treated in hospitals.

Fonterra has poured about $200 million into Sanlu since paying $150 for it initial stake in December 2005.

But this week it wrote wrote down the investment’s book value by $139 million leaving it worth only about $62 million after Mr Ferrier said the San Lu brand could not be re-constructed.

Shares of Shanghai-listed Beijing Sanyuan Food, a major dairy producer, were suspended on Friday as it reportedly received a government notice to consider a Sanlu merger plan.

Does not seem as there is much choice afforded anyone in this deal.

The suspension will continue until a decision is made, according to a company announcement.

A Sanyuan official, who refused to give her name, confirmed to the China Daily the company’s acquisition plans.

Sanyuan has emerged untainted in the recent milk scandal. As a result, its share prices have soared and sales skyrocketed.

Adam asks:-

Q:- Has Fonterra been involved in the discussions?

A:- It would appear not.

Q:- Does Fonterra and/or the NZ Government know what is going on here?

A:- Well Fonterra says it does not, but does the government?

Q:- Given provisions in the NZ-China FTA on property rights and Fonterra saying they know nothing, is this a sale or an effective sesquestration to enable achievement of state objectives?

A:- It looks like a sesquestration until we know what is going on

Q:- Will the NZ Government pressure Fonterra to agree to whatever is offered?

A:- Expect so

Adam is strongly in favour of the China FTA so he is off to the roadshow organised by MFAT and the WRCC for Monday and Tuesday of next week.

He expects to know much more about the FTA after this seminar so he will post more on this later next week.

The Lex column in the FT has this item, on China and International Law quoted in full :-

In the run-up to this summer’s Olympic Games, Tibetan protesters at the torch relay have denounced China’s human rights record. But does the Beijing government do any better on international legal issues at the heart of the world economy?

In theory, the Chinese government is a full member of the international legal community. On intellectual property, trade and securities regulation, it has written laws using European and US frameworks. China is part of the World Trade Organisation, has adopted international accounting standards and plans to join the network of international antitrust regulators.

In practice, things are not so clear. Chinese courts heard 668 intellectual property cases last year, up 89 per cent on 2006, and handed down a few big victories to foreigners. But counterfeiting remains rampant and drug and software patents rarely last as long as they should. China adopted international financial reporting standards in 2006 but the government tinkered with the rules. It dropped rules for disclosing related-party transactions because the state has interests in most things, and Chinese companies can book some assets at cost rather than fair value.

China’s new competition law, which comes into effect this summer, requires government clearance for some mergers and allows consumers to sue over anticompetitive behaviour. But the wording leaves open the possibility that the state may be able to protect the many companies in which it has a stake. Some overseas investors address the uncertainty head-on by writing clauses into their contracts that
hold their Chinese partners to international legal conventions and arbitration. They hope the possibility of repeat business will serve as a carrot if state enforcement fails to provide the stick.

What are the lessons here? First, businesses investing in the world’s biggest emerging economy still cannot count on legal certainty. Second, as in foreign affairs, China is keen to join the right clubs but self-confident enough to exempt itself from rules it doesn’t like.

Therefore, Adam recommends that those seeking to benefit from the NZ-China FTA should make sure that they do the following:-

1. Understand the provisions of the FTA
2. Take competent advice
3. Build long-term relationships in China
4. Seek input from those who have succeeded in China
5. Understand the issues and problems faced by those who failed in China
6. Do not expect overnight success
7. Invest in an on the ground presence
8. Seek to understand Chinese business culture and practice
9. Seek to understand the Chinese perspective on the world

As a starting point Adam suggests attending one of the presentation series being organised by MFAT on the FTA. The Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce is involved in the Wellington one – link

At the end of the day – take care – trader beware!

- John Edmundson

The New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed on April 7 is the first free trade agreement China has made with any developed Western country. It is an historic deal for the Chinese government in its push to be fully accepted into the capitalist club.

The deal is historic for New Zealand too, for the simple reason that China’s economy is by far the largest that New Zealand has ever signed such an agreement with. With a growing middle class already numbering over 100 million, China offers a huge market for New Zealand businesses, particularly for luxury goods and services.

Reaction to the FTA has been mixed. Opponents of the agreement have ranged from the Green Party on the left, to New Zealand First on the xenophobic right. The CTU, eager to cosy up to Labour in the lead-up to an election that Labour is uncertain of winning, has come out in support of the agreement.

The critics of the FTA have claimed that the agreement in some way condones the poor human rights record of the Chinese government. This objection has become more strident with the recent Chinese crackdown on Tibetan protests.

The New Zealand government and the FTA’s supporters have countered with the point that New Zealand trades with all sorts of countries with all sorts of human rights records. In fact, government-led boycotts of countries over “human rights abuses” have a dubious record, with the independence of small, weak countries often being threatened by countries in the imperialist world on spurious grounds.

Fear of job losses

Attacks on the FTA over China’s human rights record are not the main issue, however. Criticism of the FTA from the left has largely been around the threat to jobs that the agreement might represent.

Helen Clark has stated that the agreement will not cost any jobs. However, this statement was made within the narrow context of the employment of skilled workers coming to New Zealand on temporary work visas. The bigger fear is that jobs in sectors such as the clothing industry will be threatened by an influx of cheap imports following the removal of tariffs. These jobs are important to many small towns which have been seriously affected by the restructuring of the last two decades.

The reality of course is that this process is taking place anyway. Tariffs on imported goods are so low already that New Zealand manufacturers cannot compete on price. Ironically, though, within 24 hours of the FTA being signed, the New Zealand clothing manufacturing company Norsewear was talking up the receipt of a huge new order, which the company linked directly to the signing of the FTA.

In announcing the deal, Norsewear’s General Manager Sandra Shilling said:

This is the biggest single order we’ve had in the history of the company… What I can tell you is that for each of these products, the Chinese have ordered three times the annual numbers we currently produce. The good news is that means more jobs for New Zealanders as all the product will be manufactured locally… The export potential is absolutely mind-boggling. We are talking in the multi-million dollar region so it’s all systems go for us right now.

Norsewear’s announcement notwithstanding, the threat to jobs is distinctly possible, and such job losses must be opposed if they are announced.


“Influx” of Chinese workers?

The other issue which has raised concern is the capacity for skilled Chinese workers to come to New Zealand on temporary work visas.

The CTU has given the skilled worker clause a guarded seal of approval, stating that in their view there should have been no consideration of migration in the agreement. CTU vice-president Sharon Clair responded to the signing of the agreement by commending the placing of a cap on the number of Chinese workers allowed into the country. The cap, she said, has allayed union fears of a huge influx of Chinese into the country. This “influx” was, of course, never going to be allowed.

Now that the agreement is a done deal, the CTU’s response is to advocate strong industry standards. “What needs to happen now is for industry standards to be developed to ensure skilled workers from China coming into New Zealand are not exploited and do not find themselves being paid, for their skill, the minimum wage.”

Surely this should have been a basic principle for the union movement already? But behind the remark is the fear that Chinese workers will drive wages down for “Kiwi” workers. This is the old “yellow peril” hysteria reinvented for the 21st century.

The cap written into the FTA is 1800 workers under the scheme at any one time, and a maximum of 100 in any one sector. Currently, according to the government’s own figures, there are 85,000 people from all over the world working in New Zealand on temporary work visas. So the agreement allows into New Zealand a number of skilled Chinese workers equivalent to barely 2% of the current number of overseas workers, and then under very strict conditions.

The unions should not have left it until this late in the day to decide it is worth protecting the pay and conditions of overseas workers, whether they come from China or anywhere else.


Workers’ solidarity the best protection

Overall, New Zealand is not the victim in this FTA. New Zealand is not Colombia. In third-world countries like that, opposition to free trade by imperialist countries can have, and often does have, a clear anti-imperialist and progressive character. New Zealand however, is an imperialist country, if only on a small scale, and China is still a third-world country, despite its phenomenal growth over recent years.

Imperialist countries maximise profit by exporting capital across international borders while simultaneously denying the right of workers to cross those same borders in search of jobs. It is in the greatest interest of New Zealand workers to unite with Chinese workers, rather than with New Zealand employers or their capitalist governments, to ensure their rights.

When it comes down to it, the only really meaningful gains workers ever make are those that are won in struggle. We can react to the panicked warnings about the coming of the “yellow peril” in different ways. We can buy into the panic, and support the calls for our own Great Wall to keep the Chinese out, whether it is Chinese goods or Chinese workers. Or we can approach this as internationalists.

The first choice might appear the easiest – just call on the government to keep the foreigners and their cheap products out. But the better approach is the internationalist one.

This means we need to build strong, militant, democratic unions in New Zealand that workers want to join. These unions need to reach out to the overseas casual workers who come here and work, and link with militant unions overseas.

It means the difficult task of unionising the low-paid Chinese workers who are already here, often working for below-minimum wages under the table in the fast food industry.

It means making connections with the struggles of workers in China fighting for better wages and conditions. Ultimately it is only because Chinese workers are able to be employed for 50c an hour in China that there is the potential for fear amongst New Zealand workers of an influx of low-paid Chinese workers coming to New Zealand to work.

New Zealand workers must identify first and foremost as workers, in common cause with workers in China and elsewhere. This is a vital ingredient in the building of a meaningful response to the machinations of the capitalists, whether they be in favour of protectionism or of free trade.

As noted in an earlier post Adam was at the WRCC today to listen to Phil Goff speak to the assembled lunchtime audience.

First off your humble scribe would note that the view from the 28th floor of the Majestic Centre was superb, especially today when the sun shone and the sea in the harbour sparkled. Yet again Adam had cause to reflect how Wellington really is a perfect jewel of a city nestled as it is in the intimate embrace of the surrounding hills and situated on the shores of such a beautiful harbour.

Then given the fevered interest in the available food & drink, based on posts yesterday, Adam notes the food was better than the previous day at Te Papa, the service was better also and today the red wine was demonstrably a Pinot Noir, whereas on Tuesday Adam was not sure, in fact he and his table companion came to the conclusion that we both agreed Tuesday’s wine was red and left it at that.

Now to the main course, so to speak, Phil Goff’s speech. The speech itself can be accessed here.

Phil Goff gave a thoroughly professional speech. It was the presentation of someone fully in command of their portfolio. Although he had the speech notes, it was notable that he rarely referred to them.

No new policy as such was announced, although as The Hive has noted he was not that upbeat on the prospects for the Doha Round.

At the end of the day, Adam is of the view that the key points were comments on the FTAs which are in prospect, such as Korea, P4 and India, rather than the recounting of the NZ- China success. Further, it was very encouraging to hear that more deals are in prospect. This becomes ever more important given the issues blocking completion of the Doha Round. Indeed, it is disheartening that currently more progress seems to be made on bi-lateral and limited multi-lateral agreements, rather than on comprehensive global trade agreements. In fact one might think we were regressing in this respect. Adam is of the view that the USA, Japan and the EU need to re think their postures in this area.

He was heartened to hear that NZ is keen to progress a India-NZ FTA. Adam is firmly of the opinion that such a deal is critical for a number of reasons, including longer term strategic and security issues. For context Adam suggests reference to his post Emerging Titans, amongst other sources.

The audience for the speech was diverse, with a number of press and diplomatic representatives present. The diplomatic representatives included the High Comissioner for Singapore and the Trade Attache from the Mexican Embassy, Adam noted the presence of Fran O’Sullivan in the audience also.

What resonated with Adam in particular was the competence that Goff exemplified, but Adam noted also that Goff displayed professionalism and competence rather than passion and fervour.

Adam was pleased that Minister Goff was prepared to take questions and to his mind answered these frankly. Minister Goff came across very positively and impressed.

Adam thinks that Goff has the skill and ability to do so much more for NZ and whilst achieving much presently, could do so much more. Adam believes that NZ owes the Minister a major debt of gratitude for his efforts in seeking to improve our overall competitiveness position.

Given that trade is such an important element of our interaction with foreign governments, it was heartening to have had a presentation from not just the Trade Minister, but from someone who is probably the de facto Foreign Minister for the aspects that most impact upon the country’s well-being.

A worthwhile session to have attended.

The WRCC have provided over the last 2 days two significant sessions for members to attend. It was heartening to hear the further thought provoking sessions are planned for later in the year.

In the meantime Adam looks forward to forthcoming sessions with Michael Cullen and Bill English.

Realpolitik:definitions

Wikipedia

Realpolitik (German: real (“realistic”, “practical” or “actual”) and politik (“politics”)) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

Britannica Online

Politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals.

The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

What we are seeing in the response of Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, John Key et al is Realpolitik as regards Winston Peters. This will continue up to and past the election, unless NZ First fails to win any seats.

Despite the fondest wish of many, unless he or his minions do something to place themselves totally beyond the pale, this seems unlikely as Winston has targeted his message at a constituency he knows well and just how to press their buttons. He will take some votes from both Labour and National with this stance, especially Labour voters who are anti FTA, but cannot bring themselves to vote for the Greens.

As Fran O’Sullivan wrote in the NZ Herald on Wednesday

In Beijing, a Foreign Minister who dared to rain on the Chinese Premier’s parade by insinuating he had sold his countrymen down the river to get in another nation’s good books would soon be dispatched.

But the bottom line – as the Prime Minister finally admitted to journalists at the New Zealand embassy in Beijing yesterday – is she needs New Zealand First’s votes. “Winston Peters has made it possible for us to govern.”

That’s why Clark, painstakingly through interview after interview over her three-day sojourn in Beijing, has maintained the fiction that it’s perfectly acceptable to have the minister who presents New Zealand’s face to the world openly opposed to the major international strategic foray of her three terms as Prime Minister.

As O’Sullivan went on to write:-

China’s top leadership was primed on Peters’ gamesmanship well before Helen Clark arrived at the Great Hall of the People on Monday.

In my own conversations with China’s two most recent ambassadors – Zhang Yuanyuan and before him Chen Mingming – they’ve emphasised the Chinese Government attaches great importance to the fact the FTA was developed under the leadership of Clark and Premier Wen Jiabao and will be supported by the New Zealand parties.

As former PM Mike Moore says, “the adults are in charge”.

This is also why Clark defended Peters as noted in this NZ Herald item:-

The Prime Minister has defended Winston Peters’ stance on the free trade agreement with China.

Helen Clark said negotiations with China started before Mr Peters was appointed Foreign Minister, and he made it clear from the start he did not approve of trade deals with developing countries

Though Adam found this comment interesting:-

However, Helen Clark today said she was sure Mr Peters would not criticise the agreement on his trips overseas.

“I think you’ll find Winston Peters is pretty responsible in the way that he behaves overseas,” she said.

Has someone been heavying Winston?

Regarding the various comments made about John Key’s response, arguably he had no choice. National may need Winston, in order to form a Government, so why irritate him unnecessarily.

Though to Adam’s mind the question does need to be asked, just what does Winston do? Presumably, it is the provision of the votes to keep Labour in power. There seems little other value that he provides.

The recent events have been a harsh, indeed brutal, reminder to some of the true nature of MMP.

It would appear that National are beginning to come to terms with this as well.

Good, because they will need coalition partners and unpleasant though the concept of supping with the devil that is Peters may be, it could well be necessary. This is not weakness on Key’s part, as some have suggested, but again in Adam’s view a Realpolitik assessment over what it may take to attain power.

Adam knows some say Key should set a bottom line on collective responsibility, but given that Clark appears to have given way on this, Key would be unable to stuff that genie back in the bottle, especially should Winston be critical. Further, given the way that Clark and to a lesser extent Goff have continued to do much of the heavy lifting in Foreign Affairs, look for Key if he wins to re-structure posts so as to effectively put a cordon sanitaire around Winston.

That does not mean anyone should like the situation. Indeed, Adam ’s views remain that Peters is an obnoxious popinjay who would not be missed.

The appalling ad from Winston First

Above is the advert published by NZ First in newspapers today. In this case in the Dominion Post.

1. Does anyone know whether this complies with the EFA?
2. Peters was Treasurer when Auckland Airport was privatised
3. Who is trying to sell the dairy industry, surely that is misleading information
4. If New Zealanders owned New Zealand what does that mean other than an emotive rubbish statement
5. The advert seems to suggest that a country which depends on foreign capital to cover the deficit can adopt an anti foreign investment approach with no consequences
6. It seems to me that the purpose of the advert is to induce people to support NZ First on an ongoing basis, ie at the Election.Adam suspects that the Electoral Commission may not see it that way.
7. Does the ad mean we should not trade with Samoa, a low wage economy
8. Does it mean we should not trade with Thailand with whom we have an FTA, or does it imply we could trade with such countries, but do not need an FTA – that at best is naive especially if our competitors sign FTAs and thus gain advantage over us – the ad is simplistic and grossly misleading
9. What is to stop NZF arranging for large numbers of these slips to be returned, as there is no requirement for validation, so any claims of widespread support would need to be treated with extreme caution

]]> http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/apologist-in-chief/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:09:53 +0000 adamsmith1922 http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/apologist-in-chief/

John Armstrong in the NZ Herald continues in his role as Labour’s chief apologist with this piece making excuses for Winston Peters behaviour.

Whether Winston Peters can credibly continue as New Zealand’s Foreign Minister when his party opposes the free trade agreement with China depends largely on whether he and the rest of New Zealand First continue to bag the deal over coming months.

Judging from Peters’ actions and comments yesterday, the latter is not going to happen.

While the NZ First caucus has decided to vote against pending legislation enabling the trade pact to come into operation, it had little option, given the party’s long-established antipathy towards free trade agreements and its promotion of “economic nationalism”.

However, while opposing the deal to satisfy his domestic political audience, Peters’ language and tone was one of moderation yesterday as he tried to avoid embarrassing Labour while giving himself room to breathe as Foreign Minister.

There was more excuse making and semantics, Armstrong finished with:-

He also argues that while that arrangement obliges him to follow the official Government line when speaking on matters relating to his foreign affairs portfolio, it does not apply to trade policy.

But trade policy and foreign policy are so intertwined as to be inseparable – a point made by Helen Clark when she said the free trade agreement provided a platform for further engagement with China.

However, political convenience has seen both Labour and the Chinese turn a blind eye to Peters’ not following the Government’s line on the free trade agreement. That way no one ends up being the loser.

It will only become a problem if Peters launches a continuous and concerted campaign denigrating the agreement.

Having made his party’s opposition clear yesterday – and with a parliamentary debate yet to come – he may have judged that sufficient to let the matter rest until much closer to the election.

So running ads against the FTA, which must have been booked prior to the ‘decision’ by Winston First’s caucus is not a campaign denigrating the agreement?

Does he really think WP is going to let the matter rest?

Why should waiting until the election make it acceptable?

Why does HC call the Herald a Tory rag when several of it’s key columnists seem to be writing strongly pro Labour articles in recent times, especially John Armstrong.

By saying he will vote against the FTA, Peters has once again shown he is unfit to be Foreign Minister. By saying he will speak against it outside NZ he compounds that view.

By allowing him to do this, saying this is all a part of MMP, Helen Clark is trampling accepted norms and perpetuating a nonsensical fiction over Peters role.

He is against a key Govt policy, but still takes the baubles.

Peters has manufactured his issue for this year the FTA and Asian immigration. hopefully the electorate will consign him to history, but increasingly Adam despairs that they will.

The fact that Winston First is publishing anti FTA ads today makes this worse.

See articles from DomPost and NZ Herald.

If he had principles he would resign, but he will not. Labour and National will allow him to do this as neither is yet ready to fight an election.

Peters has now tarnished a major NZ achievement for his own vainglorious ends.

Adam expects to return to this issue later today with a longer post.

Breakthrough!

Link

NZ continues to make news with the signing of the FTA.  Here is an item from CNN.  This good publicity for NZ.  It noted that we were a small country, but had pulled off the first trade pact with an OECD country by China.

Comments in a Financial Times article included:-

Beijing may have used New Zealand as a test case because it has a relatively straightforward trading relationship with the country, but that may also limit it as a model for other deals. “We didn’t have to deal with wheat, rice or motor vehicles,” Mr Goff said.

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, is due in Beijing later in the week to promote his country’s trade links with China. Although he is expected to emphasise Australia’s interest in securing a deal with China after 10 rounds of talks, the negotiations have lost momentum over the past year.

More in the article on NZ Trade Coup

Reading some of the media comments, especially some good items in the NZ Herald who have established a FTA resource page, and commentary on the deal elsewhere in the blogosphere such as Kiwiblog, the Hive, a number of points occurred to Adam.

1. The NZ Herald, that Tory rag according to our PM, has been supportive of the FTA and of the Government on this matter.
2. Much of the blogosphere has been also, though a number of the left of centre blogs seem to be supportive while holding their noses and vomiting
3. National despite it being an election year and the vitriolic attacks on its leaders by Labour are supporting the FTA, yet the success of the FTA is in some ways bad news this year for National, but they know the FTA is very good news for NZ.
4. The Greens are lost in their own prejudices
5. The Fairfax media seem a bit ambivalent, nor is their coverage as comprehensive as the Herald’s to my mind.
6. Maori Party do not seem as willing to embrace the FTA as some Maori would like, see this quote from Fran O’Sullivan:- ‘The Federation of Maori Authorities chief executive Paul Morgan said the Maori Party should also study the deal.”It’s very good for Maoridom. But they didn’t think about the economics of the deal. They made their statements before it had even been signed’
7. NZ First are posturing for political advantage and not the country’s advantage. Peters makes himself more ridiculous by the day, especially when he seems to think people will believe he did not know what was in the FTA. If that is truly the case then he is even more of a disgrace than Adam previously thought, because it means he is really, really not up to his job.
8. Some unions are recognising the log term interest of NZ and supporting the FTA.
9. Business is supportive, but is business especially our business leadership up to the job and will they think ‘outside the box’ when it comes to opportunity
10. NZ Business does not have an especially good record in overseas expansion
11. Where will NZ access the capital necessary to reap the full advantage of the FTA.
12. NZ could become a base for entry into China, so what steps will government and business take to ensure that there will be real business here and not just invoicing and letter box fronts in NZ.
13. Conversely, NZ may provide an opportunity for Chinese companies seeking entry into say Australia also.
14. Adam came to the conclusion that our first mover advantage may well be greater than originally thought, depending on the full terms of the FTA, for NZ an open economy of only 4 million it was probably easier to strike a deal than for many other countries including Australia, USA, EU and there was probably an attraction for China in that also.

Adam really hopes that we have got a good deal, which will yield on-going benefits on a wide front. He trusts that NZ business will have the skills, vision and sheer guts to take advantage of this marvellous opportunity, rather than focus on past tired approaches.

The MFAT team, Phill Goff and Helen Clark are to be congratulated on a great effort.

Adam attended another in the Wellington Chamber of Commerce’s luncheon series yesterday. This one took place at Icon in Te Papa. It was the first time Adam had been to Icon. The location was at it’s best with the sun shining and the sea sparkling as did the guest.

Digby Jones, now Lord Jones, was previously the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, but was asked by Gordon Brown to join the British Government last year as a Minister of State responsible for Investment & trade.

The Minister gave an excellent address, speaking without notes, on issues of globalisation. He commended us for being fortunate enough to reach a FTA with China. This development he considered presented a major opportunity for NZ, it could well provide a reason for companies to establish themselves here with a view to entering China through the FTA.

The Minister was witty, but thoughtful. He was an excellent ambassador for the UK. He spoke passionately of his belief in trade as a means of promoting progress for the many.

He spoke eloquently of the shared values between UK and NZ. Indeed he opened by reflecting on the fact that if it had not been for the contribution made by the Dominions in two world wars, it could well have been the case that he would not have been there at all.

He was clear on his view that continued engagement with other countries and exposure to them of the values and beliefs of a country such as NZ was one of the best ways of demonstrating a path forward.

Again the WRCC is to be commended for being able to get Lord Jones as a speaker and for such an excellent event.

Here is a link to the WRCC Events page at their web-site.

NZ Herald reports that Mr Dunne will not go to China for the signing of the FTA. I hardly think that he will be missed. This is just grandstanding in an election year and as his party supports the FTA is meaningless.

Hopefully, he will not be re-elected.

The news from Tibet does not seem to get any better. Adam heard a radio report which spoke of long columns of military vehicles heading for Tibet.

It is clearly the case that through the developed world’s reliance on China for goods that many, if not all, countries feel constrained in their comments. Though some countries are better placed to push on this issue than others.

The most immediate external lever would appear to be the Olympics. It is not clear to Adam where the Chinese regime is going with this issue. Are they so fearful of any dissent that they have to react with a heavy hand, or is this a visible sign of a deeper malaise?

Coverage here in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal,
there are other links on the WSJ page, similarly in the NY Times.

The picture is from a Photo slideshow by Peter Wonacott.

Watching TV News, Wednesday evening, Adam saw a report in which our ‘Foreign Minister’ stated his opposition to the NZ China FTA, which he had previously supported, on the grounds that China was a low wage economy.

Now China was a low wage economy last week, yesterday, today and will be so tomorrow. NZ is a low wage economy compared to some other countries also. Does Winston want those countries with which we trade to not conclude agreements with us?

This has all the marks of WP seeking to place space between his coalition partner and perhaps finding an issue to break ranks with Labour on, or to enable him to form a coalition with someone else down the track.

This is yet another example of the absurdity of having our ‘Foreign Minister’ outside cabinet and notionally of, but not of, the Government. This absurdity is compounded by the fact that Helen Clark as PM, Phil Goff as Trade will go to China to sign and not Winston. Perhaps he is sulking over the loss of Airpoints?

Maybe he is not happy that Tim Groser from National is going as well?

In a column entitled Fire on the Roof of the World the Economist discusses what is happening in Lhasa, where they had a correspondent at the time.

The link to the story is here.

One hopes the Chinese do not repeat the mistakes of Tianemen Square .

I trust our politicians can square their consciences regarding this.

Interestingly the Economist cover story in the latest edition is

The new colonialists

The leader is followed by a 16 page report on China’s quest for resources. A link to the first article is here. The report makes for interesting reading.

UPDATE: BBC now report deaths in Tibet and some officials saying government will act harshly. A series of reports at this link.