I have recently published an analysis of labor in China, the new law and the controversy surrounding it (link below). Please check out some of the other articles on this relatively new website, which offers progressive views on a variety of public policy topics!

http://www.hlpronline.com/2007/04/halegua_01.html

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE:

April 9, 2006 Sunday
Correction Appended
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 4; Column 1; Week in Review Desk; THE WORLD; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 873 words

HEADLINE: Set Out the Good China, the President's Coming

BYLINE: By JIM YARDLEY

DATELINE: BEIJING

BODY:

WHEN Hu Jintao arrives in Washington this month for his first visit as China's president, the two sides will already have come to an understanding on one of the most difficult issues. Not over trade or nuclear proliferation but on the protocol of what to call Mr. Hu's visit.

The Chinese are calling it a state visit.

The Americans say it is not.

The two sides have agreed to disagree.

The fact that even protocol remains in dispute would seem a bad omen for anyone expecting progress on the substantive differences straining the countries' relationship. But negotiating over silverware, in effect, is almost always a major issue when a Chinese leader goes to the United States.

''Everyone else sees the substantive issues,'' said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a senior National Security Council official in the Clinton administration who specialized in China. ''But you spend endless hours working on all the other stuff: Who's going to get invited to the state dinner?''

Mr. Hu was supposed to go to Washington in September, but the visit was postponed because of Hurricane Katrina. He is now scheduled to meet Mr. Bush on April 20. The protocol, according to a Bush administration official, is as follows: Mr. Hu will not get a state dinner but will be the guest of honor, along with his wife, at a formal White House luncheon. He will, however, receive full military honors at a welcoming ceremony on the White House lawn. And he will be lodged at Blair House, the president's official guest house.

The Americans contend that this treatment represents a pretty good helping of pomp, pageantry and respect. They note that Mr. Bush is especially stingy with state visits (he's been host to a mere five in five years -- for India, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland and Kenya) and is no fan of formal occasions. But they also know what the Chinese know: that Mr. Hu is getting less than his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, who was accorded a full state visit by President Bill Clinton in 1997. And to the Chinese, that matters.

''In many ways, the most important thing for the visit of the president of China to the United States is protocol,'' said Michael Green, who stepped down in December as head of Asian affairs for the National Security Council in the Bush administration. Mr. Green helped prepare for the postponed September visit, though not the coming trip. He estimated that 80 percent of negotiations in advance of a Chinese leadership trip were about protocol, largely because of Chinese concerns over their domestic television audience.

''The Chinese public, especially out in the provinces, needs and wants to see their leader being shown the fullest respect,'' said Mr. Green, who now teaches international relations at Georgetown University.

Chinese advance teams are meticulously prepared when negotiations commence. Mr. Lieberthal said Chinese diplomats kept detailed records on which leader received what during which visit -- how many guns saluted a certain leader, what kind of meal was served at the White House, which American official served as the official greeter at the airport. Each trip must outdo the last.

''Is there something you can do where you can say this is the first time that the president has done this with a famous leader?'' Mr. Lieberthal said in describing one protocol objective the Chinese have.

Mr. Jiang and Mr. Clinton established a round-the-clock telephone line as a symbol of warming relations. (Given the advances in technology, perhaps Mr. Hu and Mr. Bush can announce a joint blog.)

At first, Mr. Jiang also tasted American rejection. He spurned a 1995 offer by Mr. Clinton for a ''working visit'' to Washington. Mr. Jiang, still emerging from the shadow of Deng Xiaoping, insisted on the same state visit hoopla that Jimmy Carter had accorded Mr. Deng. He got his wish two years later.

Shi Yinhong, a specialist in United States-China relations at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said protocol and appearances were important to all countries, including the United States. He said the current squabble hinted at the deeper fissures between the countries and, perhaps, a test of wills between the leaders.

''Maybe President Bush does not want China to be too happy,'' Mr. Shi said. ''And President Hu also may not want to let the United States president look down on him and China.''

There could well be something to this first point. Even as the Americans place the onus on the Chinese for placing so much emphasis on protocol, the Bush administration does not seem eager to provide too enthusiastic a welcome at a time when anti-China protectionism is rising in the United States. So when Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, announced the visit last month, the omission of the word ''state,'' again, was obvious and pointed.

At a recent news briefing at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing, a spokesman was asked about the American announcement. ''President Hu's visit is at the invitation of President Bush,'' the spokesman, Qin Gang, replied. ''And it is a state visit.''

But the American announcement failed to mention a state visit, no? ''It's a state visit,'' Mr. Qin persisted. ''A state visit is a state visit.''

Unless, of course, it is both a state visit and not.

CHINA DAILY ARTICLE:

No effort spared for White House luncheon White House luncheon menu
(China Daily)
Updated: 2006-04-22 06:19

With music provided by the Nashville Bluegrass Band, US President George W. Bush laid on a fish-and-dumpling spread for his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao at a White House luncheon on Thursday.

The menu included:

Butter heirloom corn broth (with scallions)

Seared ginger-scented dumplings

Wild-caught Alaskan Halibut (with mushroom essence)

"A Good Fortune" melon

Warm almond cakes

Newton Chardonnay "unfiltered" 2002

Star guests at luncheon

The White House carefully selected guests at Thursday's luncheon in honour of President Hu and his wife Liu Yongqing.

On the guest list were Lang Lang, a Chinese pianist, and Michelle Kwan, the Chinese-American figure skating champion.

Bush's praise for Yao

When meeting the press in the Oval Office together with President Hu, Bush said there was great interest in the United States about Chinese art.

Turning to sports exchanges between the two countries, Bush heaped praise on current NBA superstar Yao Ming, a Chinese player with the Houston Rockets.

"Yao Ming, I mean, he's a perpetual exchange. He's a great player, and he's here all the times. The Olympics will bring a great opportunity for us to have interchange," the US president told reporters.

Frank discussion

President Hu's second day in Washington began with a lavish welcome ceremony on the White House South Lawn, complete with a guard of honour and a 21-gun salute.

The two leaders said they enjoyed frank discussions that were both philosophical and specific.

"He tells me what he thinks, and I tell him what I think, and we do so with respect," Bush said after meeting with Hu.

(China Daily 04/22/2006 page2)

So, perhaps we have entered a new phase in US-China relations in the last decade? Aside from the religious rights' handful of abortion-related policies, perhaps either "engagement" really has won out, lacking any dissenters, or perhaps the human rights agenda has really just fallen off the map to a larger extent than I realized. I would have expected those senators pushing this revokation to be immediately backed by those crying about a lack of religious freedom and other, what they see as, human rights violations. Admittedly, I have just read a few press reports, but I haven't seen this happening. Someone please correct me and pass on the links if I am wrong.

Best wishes from Beijing,

aaron

Here are two stories from the China Daily, the PRC's official state-run English langauge newspaper:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/10/content_518997.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/10/content_518884.htm

Here is one from a Western media outlet:
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/02/09/afx2515104.html

Article 1: http://bjyouth.ynet.com/article.jsp?oid=5687784&pageno=2
Article 2 :http://bjyouth.ynet.com/article.jsp?oid=5745920&pageno=2
Article 3: http://bjyouth.ynet.com/article.jsp?oid=5806575&pageno=3
Article 4: http://bjyouth.ynet.com/article.jsp?oid=5871866&pageno=2

I will have a more scholarly piece on the current state of community mediation in urban China in the next issue of the Hong Kong Law Journal. I will post the link when it becomes available.

Really, there is just one idea that I wanted to put down somewhere, before it runs out of my head. I have just spent a year living (as well as studying, researching, traveling, etc.) in China. I like to believe that having been there gives me some greater insight into the people, culture, etc.; although, I am by no means as dogmatic about this point, but there are some who see having been to a place (or understanding its language) as an ABSOLUTE prerequisite for knowing ANYTHING about the country. One problem with such an assertion is how you would define these things: Does visting a place for a week qualify you to then have an opinion about it, or do you need three years? What if those three years were spent at Western-style bars eating pizza and drinking Budweiser? What if you can read the language but not speak or understand it? etc. Another problem is that I think by reading things, talking to people, etc. you can learn a hell of a lot about a topic. If I were to sit down for 2 months and read 8 books and 25 articles about Malaysian politics, I think that I should probably be able to formulate some fairly reasonable, well-grounded opinions on that topic. I mean, look at Daniel Widome -- he writes intelligently about everything! How many stamps are on your passport, Daniel?

That being said, when possible, I still do like to use some of my own experiences in China to think about larger theoretical issues or questions (and to keep them fresh in my head for cocktail party conversations).

I have been reading (again) a whole bunch about democracy in China and just read Daniel Widome's piece in the ProJo about the vilification of China -- two closely-linked topics. If China were more democratic and less authoritarian, Americans would probably (rightly or not) fear it far less. So, what are the chances for democracy?

I will only submit a miniscule piece of evidence into a sub-question in this incredibly large, complex, monster of a question. Many claim that Chinese or Confucian culture causes people to be more accepting of authority, less likely to question it, a willingness to just accept hardship or "eat bitterness", etc. Contradictory examples are everywhere. My own personal one is being at a Shanghai airport (there are now two), where I was scheduled to take a 10am flight to Beijing. The flight had been delayed and they were not sure exactly when it would take-off (fairly routine everywhere). The reaction, in my opinion, was not so routine. The Chinese passangers were not waiting patiently, twiddling their thumbs and saying "Oh darn." They were standing and screaming at the poor man staffing the boarding gate and demanding to see the manager. They were demanding refunds, as well as free food and drink vouchers; they were speaking of how they had a right to an answer of when the flight would leave, speaking of being abused by the airline; etc. Their reaction was intense. One man had just purchased the ticket; in fact, the airline still sold him a 10am ticket after they themselves knew the flight was delayed. The man almost had tears in his eyes and I wondered if security should be called before he attacked the manager. Several months before, a very similar thing happened in a Yunnan airport. The ferver of the passangers made a signficant impression on me.

Is this at all relevant? One could, of course, question if this really qualified as "authority," whether this willingness to protect their economic rights is also true of their political rights, and also an apt question, whether the citizens of ultra-modern Shanghai are at all represntative of the rest of China (where a majority are still peasants).

I think the event is still significant. My focus is not on the content of the passangers' claim or "right" (economic or political, rational or not) but the fervor with which they demanded it. Further, peasants all over China can be seen protesting the government about confiscated land, being laid-off or over-zealous enforcement of the one-child policy.

I could go on, but have gone on too long already. My point in a sentence:

The Chinese are certainly capable of having sentiments of entitlement to political rights and if they are infringed, purusing them with great fervor.

Of course, I am not, by any means, claiming that democracy is around the corner. Far from it. However, I think the merit of the cultural, Confucian argument is limited.

...that was kind of fun, maybe I'll blog again sometime.