Oriada

"Raise a Corpse From the Dead" is one of the famous 36 Tricks, the military stratagems that have influenced generals and leaders in China since long before the Art of War.   This particular proverb’s rough meaning is that, when the time is right, one should resurrect some person, thing or idea long-abandoned or ignored and use it to one’s own advantage.

For a classic example of this idea in action, look no further than China’s reaction to Pope Bendict’s comments on Islam. Never ones to miss an opportunity to lay into the Taiwan-friendly Holy See (which is in keeping with another one of the 36 strategies: "Loot a burning house") Chinese authorities have stoked the pope’s troubles by ensuring that the voices of Chinese muslims are heard loud and clear amidst the international clamour. 

To do so, they have raised the corpse of Chen Guangyuan, head of the Islamic Association of China. Normally utterly anonymous, today he has been let off the leash so that he can have a go at the Pope and register the upset of China’s Islamic community.  The publication of his comments is surprising since religious leaders in China, even those like Mr Chen who are appointed by the Party, almost never make comments in public, particularly on matters of international politics.  But the leadership has apparently judged that in order to have a dig at the Vatican it is worth giving domestic religious figureheads like Mr. Chen the oxygen of publicity. 

"This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen said, in a report published by Xinhua. "Both the Islamic Association of China and Chinese Muslim would here express their anger and condemnation over Benedict’s words.  We strongly request Pope Benedict XVI to immediately take back his words and apologize openly and in person." 

No doubt many of China’s Muslims were angry at the pope’s comments, but it is hard to take Mr Chen’s comments seriously considering that he apparently stays schtum on almost every other matter affecting his flock in China, and only appears on the scene at politically serendipitous occasions

A quick search for Chen Guangyuan’s name on the People’s Daily website reveals that the last time this particular corpse was exhumed was in June, when he was trotted out to refute American allegations of religious persecution in China.  "We feel cheated; we made a lot of effort to ensure the commission saw the true situation and we hoped they would tell the truth in their report" said Mr Chen at the time.

The Globe and Mail ran a story last week on the frosty diplomatic relationship between Canada and China, focusing on China’s refusal to allow Cananda to market itself as a tourist destination.  It is a sobering parable of the price of doing business in China, and the  compromises that have to be made in order to succeed.

The Canadian authorities ran afoul of Beijing in 1999 when they refused to extradite China’s "most wanted man" Lai Changxing, a billionaire businessman who had fled China as the investigative net closed on his supersized smuggling operations.  That Lai has major questions to answer in China about how he accumulated his vast fortune is not in question, but Canadian authorities turned down requests for his repatriation because they believed that he would be executed for his crimes were he sent back to China, and therefore sending him back would be in violation of Canada’s human rights laws. 

Chinese authorities gave assurances that they would not seek the death penalty in this case, but since several other associates of Lai were executed for lesser crimes than those of which Lai is accused, Canadian authorities turned down China’s requests.  For this slight (and also ,in part, for cosying up to the Dalai Lama by giving him honorary citizenship) Canada was denied the right to advertise itself in China as a tourism destination , an almighty snub that has had continued and far- reaching effects on the Canadian tourist industry (and by extention the Canadian economy). This article claims that Canada is losing out on 700,000 tourists annually, each of whom would spend an average $1,800.

There is, the story says, a Canadian tourist office in Beijing but it receives only a dozen or so vistors a week since they can’t publicize their country or their services.  What’s more, despite being one of the first countries to apply for the priviledge, Canada has yet to receive Approved Destination Status, the ‘golden ticket’ that will allow cash-rich Chinese tour groups to visit the country.

So for doing something that, by Canadian legal standards at least, would be seen as "the proper thing to do", the Canadian government has cost itself incalculably large amounts of revenue from free spending Chinese tourists.  Not only that, as long as they are denied ADS, they will continue to lose ground to other countries competing for a share of the Chinese tourist market.

Things don’t show much sign of improving, either, with the incumbent Canadian conservative government taking about 5 minutes to get on the bad side of the Chinese government, with "Reds-under-the- beds"-style scaremongering about Sino-sponsored espionage. 

The fact is, though, that Canada will have to eventually make its peace with Beijing. It simply cannot afford not to, such is China’s economic and diplomatic sway. The question is how far they are willing to go, and how far they will have to go, to regain Beijing’s friendship.

This is a question that has cropped up again and again in relation to foreign companies and countries doing business with China.  From Yahoo aiding the conviction of investigative journalists to Google’s Party-friendly google.cn, to certain EU member-states lobbying to lift the EU arms embargo, observers have wondered whether the moral cost of doing business in China can be offset by the material gains, both for the companies involved and the Chinese people themselves.

Last week, Human Rights Watch put out a report criticizing foriegn Internet companies for their compliance in censorship and other nefarious activities in China. Entitled A Race to the Bottom, it called for foreign companies in China to start making "ethical choices" about the way they do business here and advises them to lobby the Chinese government to end censorship, refuse to hand over data to the authorities, refuse to censor any material and encrypt all emails.

But, noble as Human Rights Watch’s goals no doubt are, the very obvious reality is that their proposals are extremely unrealistic and there is likely not a single major multinational company willing to adopt any of them, for the simple reason that to do so would mean being turfed out of the China market (as articulately explained by the Peking Review blog).

We are sure to see this issue arise again and again in the coming months and years, particularly with IT and Media companies coming into the market here.   As foreign media penetration increases in China, for example, officials are striving to gain even greater control over it, an untenable antagonism that will only end when one or both sides agree to compromise (as, Google did).

But this game of ethical chicken is being played on an uneven field. For its part, the Chinese government can offer to any foreign companies willing to forego their ethical standards access to the "China Dream": 1.3 billion customers and an emerging class of nouveaux riches eager to splurge.  The foreign media and IT companies, on the other hand, unless they play by Beijng’s rules, can only offer Chinese authorities a world of headaches, by providing the public with greater access to uncensored foreign news and other material detrimental to the long-term health of the government.

In these circumstances,  it’s clear to see who the winner will be.