Mixed emotions
Although conventional wisdom says political and economic relations between Japan and China are two different animals, and are completely unconnected, a recent NY Times News Service editorial has evidence to the contrary. The editorial, which appears in the Taipei Times, argues that the recent anti-Japanese protests in China this past spring seems to have hit a nerve with Japan’s capitalist classes:
After a five-year boom, Japan’s export growth to China stalled in May. Recent polls of Japanese investors show a growing reluctance to make further investments in China.
Two surveys, seperated by six months, of 414 Japanese business operating in China discovered:
The percentage of Japanese companies planning to expand operations in China dropped sharply, to just under 55 percent in late May, from 86 percent last December, according to the Japan External Trade Organization, the country’s trade and investment promotion agency…Although only 10 percent of the companies said that business had suffered from the protests, largely in reduced sales and tarnished brands, 36 percent said they were worried about future effects, and 45 percent said the business risk of operating in China had increased.
The editorial concludes that the rising of nationalism in China, which seems to be permitted or even encouraged by the Chinese government, amounts to “a bucket of cold water for many Japanese investors who had assumed that they were secure in China because they were providing jobs and quality products.”
It’s kind of funny that in times like this we tend to swallow our democratic principles, and wish the Chinese government would just crack down on all those anti-Japanese protesters in order to preserve the business climate. Or in order to just shut them up. Business trumps politics, or so they say.
While the editorial quotes a Morgan Stanley Japan executive (an American) as saying “people are scared. . .they don’t know where China is going with this,” the Keidanren representitive is called in to cool things down, and says “most big (Japanese) companies are not worried about the situation.”
Good if you’re a big company, I guess.
The editorial doesn’t really explain how all of this could be bad for China. Although the writer argues China needs to reassure Japanese and other foreign investors in order to continue to attract investment, the editorial also points out that by 2050 China’s economy should be 30 times bigger that it is today, or 6 times the size of Japan’s economy, which is forecast to be about the same size in 2050 as it is now.
Anybody want to start taking Chinese lessons?
Good post, and thanks for the heads up. One thing, though, in newspaper terminology, that was not an “editorial”, but a normal news story, written by a reporter with a real name (although his name was cut off in that relay). Google and you can find his or her real name. Probably one of the NYTimes reporters based in Tokyo.
An “editorial” is an unsigned commentary, written by a member of the editorial board, that gives the corporate take on some issue or something.
This story you link to was not an editorial, and it was not from the NYTimes News Service. It appeared in the New York Times the day before and then the New York Times News Service relayed it to client newspapers that pay for the service to reprint NYTimes articles. It was a news story. Not an editorial. I notice that a lot of non-journos do not understand the difference between an editorial, a letter to the editor and a news story. Three separate animals. Oh, and did I mention the comics?
QUOTE: “The editorial, which appears in the Taipei Times, argues that the recent anti-Japanese protests in China this past spring seems to have hit a nerve with Japan’s capitalist classes…”
June 30th, 2005 at 9:51 amNon-journo…? I thought being a blogger automatically elevated one to quasi-journalist status. Oh well, as others on the JP blogroll often point out, while real journos never confuse their nomenclature, they often can’t get their facts straight.
I did Google to find where the “article” originally came from, but couldn’t find a thing, and I wasn’t able to find it in the Times, either.
Anybody know the source of the offending infotorial?
June 30th, 2005 at 10:58 amJounalists?
Any journalist found in these parts will be tarred and feathered!
db
June 30th, 2005 at 11:36 amhttp://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/explainer/
Yes, we bloggers are quasi-journos now, only quasi. And true enough, the facts in print are not always accurate. Good joke, above.
Opinion pages explained
Separate but equal
Some readers get confused about the relationship between the editorial page and the rest of the newspaper, especially since the term “editorial” is often used to describe everything in a newspaper that is not advertising. But the news operation, led by the top editors, is completely separate from the editorial (opinion) pages, led by an editorial-page editor. The two do not coordinate coverage or influence the others’ professional judgments. A newspaper’s endorsements of candidates, for example, are made without consultation with any news reporter or editor, and reporters are expected to cover campaigns without regard to whom the editorial page has endorsed. This “separation of church and state,” as it is sometimes called, is a cherished tradition at most major newspapers and helps protect the integrity of both operations.
Editorials represent the official view of a newspaper as a community institution, which is why they aren’t signed by individual writers. The editorial board consists of nine members, each with his or her own area of expertise (foreign affairs, education, health care, etc.). Members meet daily and determine editorial direction, priorities, and how to respond to breaking news. Each member conducts independent research and often the whole board gathers for briefings with policymakers, advocates, or academic experts on a topic before reaching a position. The publisher of the newspaper, of course, reserves the right to veto an editorial and usually determines political endorsements for high office, working in consultation with the editorial board and editor of the editorial page.
Op-Eds (literally, opposite the editorial page) represent the views of individual columnists or writers. Unlike the editorial page, this page is designed to present a broad array of views from staff columnists and members of the public. The columnists are not members of the editorial board and function independently.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:38 amThis is the story here, written by Tokyo reporter James Brooke in the NYTimes bureau there.
Next time, don’t merely google. You must go to the Times site and search the Times data base. Or the way I did it just now, go to http://www.news.google.com and taste the waters in the NEWS window under the term “Japan China”
HERE:
China’s Economic Brawn Unsettles Japanese
By JAMES BROOKE
June 30th, 2005 at 11:46 amPublished: June 27, 2005
TOKYO, June 26 - As politicians in Washington watch the Chinese bid for a big American oil and gas company play out, the reaction in Japan to the swelling economic muscle of China provides an early warning sign of the mixed emotions that China evokes as it rises on the global stage.
Yeah, yeah, all right already. I can Google your ass off any day, Mr. Anonymous. And the New York Times site? There ain’t a link I can’t click.
Pretty soon (if such a beast doesn’t exist already) they’ll be offering blogging classes at the local community college.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:55 amLOL!
I think Seatttle Community College already does offer blogging classes.
June 30th, 2005 at 12:14 pmFYI, the NY Times is now referring to blogs as “citizen journalism’ — so JP better watch out that Diamondback doesn’t come creeping up with a bucket of tar and a feather pillow…
June 30th, 2005 at 4:17 pmQuote:
“It’s kind of funny that in times like this we tend to swallow our democratic principles, and wish the Chinese government would just crack down on all those anti-Japanese protesters in order to preserve the business climate”.
Off point. Chinese government shouldn’t have cracked down on them. Chinese government should have not instigated and supported them. It’s different, very different.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:13 amprotests are working
Who says civil activism can’t be effective in China? KokuRyu at Japundit notes that the recent wave of anti-Japanese protests in China are getting results.:Although conventional wisdom says political and economic relations between Japan and China are …
July 1st, 2005 at 2:30 pm