More than a month after the Chinese tainted milk powder scandal was exposed, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was quoted as saying in an interview with the US journal Science: “We feel distressed about the milk powder incident. We think that although the incident occurred in an enterprise, the government is responsible, especially from the perspective of supervision.”
One wonders if the reason why it took Wen so long to make such remarks to the media was because some facts remain hidden. There also remains some doubt as to whether tthe Chinese authorities are sincere about their intention to address the matter.
In a Western democracy facing a similar incident, the government would usually apologize immediately and begin an investigation, followed by disbursement of appropriate compensation. But after the scandal occurred, only the Sanlu Group and the Shijiazhuang City Government stepped forward to apologize, while Li Changjiang (李長江), head of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, and other officials stepped down. This may have given the impression that the Chinese government lacks sincerity.
The tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants in many areas in China and affected Taiwan and many other countries. The level of the officials who have stepped down so far seems insufficient given the seriousness of the matter, nor will it be helpful in providing satisfying answers to the victims. Faced with rising public anger, Wen had to set the tone for the level of official “distress.” Hence his remarks.
More important, however, are the issues of an apology and compensation.
It is a moral and political responsibility for the government to apologize for its mistakes. Since the scandal broke, only company and city officials, no higher-ranking officials, have offered any apologies.
The reason no Chinese leaders at the state level have apologized is that the incident has spread to every corner of the world and become a hot potato, with heavier responsibilities and demands for compensation than they are prepared to deal with. The reason the Chinese government has not officially apologized is to ensure it has enough room to maneuver.
Wen was probably sincere in his remarks and there is a real possibility that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to address the problem responsibly. As such, China should apologize and show a willingness to pay compensation. This is what a powerful and responsible country should do.
It is a legal duty to pay compensation. Chinese tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants and killed four children in China. Taiwanese are worried about food safety and many companies have suffered serious losses as a result. The situation is not much different in other countries.
Chinese products have been questioned by people around the world. This is a serious business risk for China. If the Chinese government fails to properly handle the matter, its reputation as “the world’s factory” will be severely challenged. This will also be an extremely heavy blow to overall Chinese economic development.
Wen’s comments before Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan later this year or early next year have prompted expectations that Chen will show sincere concern for Taiwanese.
An apology by China could go a long way to resolve cross-strait misunderstanding. Why is it so hard to speak up?
Li Hua-chiu is a researcher with the National Policy Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS