Category: Asia

The CCP explains bird flu

Avian flu continues to spread from its home in the chicken shacks of Guangdong province across the globe, almost as if it were some sort of highly infectious disease or something. Luckily, the Chinese Communist Party has been on the case for over a year and a half now. These are two photographs I took on March 4, 2004 of signs posted in the Beijing train station explaining the dangers of bird flu, and how to prevent it from spreading. I’m especially touched by the little teardrop in the chicken’s eye.

On a related note, the Washington Post has the following headline on their front page as I write this: Bird Flu Drug Shipments Suspended in U.S. While the article (from the AP) itself has the more straightforward headline of Roche Suspends Tamiflu Shipments to U.S., it does contain the line “Tamiflu, the only drug shown to be effective in treating bird flu.” Funny they should say that, since the reports I’ve been reading seem to indicate that Tamiflu isn’t actually much help.

According to The Times (the British one)

The Government’s strategy of stockpiling antiviral drugs was dealt a blow yesterday, however, when a study revealed that Tamiflu, the drug they were stocking, could be ineffective.

There was panic-buying of antiviral drugs on the internet, but the Department of Health said yesterday that many of them could be dangerous fakes.

According to the Harvard Vanguard Medical Association:

Should I stock up on antiviral medications, flu drugs, like Tamiflu?
No. There are a few reasons why having Tamiflu available in your home is not a good idea.

* It’s not clear whether Tamiflu is effective against the current strain of the avian flu. In addition, flu viruses are constantly changing so that if there is ever an outbreak of bird flu in the US, Tamiflu may not be effective against that strain.
* Taking an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu if not necessary may cause the virus to develop resistance to the medication. In that case, Tamiflu may become ineffective against bird flu and against the ordinary flu when needed most, during an outbreak.
* Stocking up on Tamiflu ‘just in case’ may create a situation where those who truly need it may not be able to get it.
* If you store Tamiflu at home for an extended period, it may expire before you use it.
* You won’t know when you need Tamiflu. Many different viruses cause flu-like illnesses, and without testing no one can know if an illness is flu, or whether it’s bird flu or regular flu. Tamiflu should only be taken if a physician has diagnosed your illness.
* Taking unnecessary medications increases your risk of possible side effects and allergic reactions.
* Tamiflu is not a vaccine; it can’t protect you against flu in the future if you take it now. It is only effective while you are taking it.
* Most importantly, we don’t know if there will ever be an outbreak of avian flu in the U.S.

And according to this article on the website Recombinomics dating all the way back to February, there was never any real evidence that Tamiflu was effective against the disease.

Although Tamiflu has been used to treat H5N1 patients, the number treated has been low, and many were treated after the recommended time period, which is within 48 hours of symptoms. For the latest H5N1 patients in southern Vietnam, there were no reported discharges, so all died regardless of when they started taking Tamiflu.
[…]
Tamiflu was used in vivo in an effort to save tigers at a Thailand zoo. The zoo housed 441 tigers and some were fed H5N1 infected chickens. Initially only 3 or 4 tigers showed symptoms, but the number increased each day. Those that had not been fed chickens were segregated away from those fed infected chickens. Several days after the initial deaths more tigers became ill. The tigers were treated with Tamiflu, but eventually 45 tigers died and 102 were euthanized for humanitarian reasons. Thus, in spite of Tamiflu treatment, 33% of the entire population died, but this could have been close to 100% of the infected population.

I’m not really qualified to judge the content of an unknown site about infectious disease, but it does seem to match with what I’ve been reading in general newspapers.

Isn’t it dangerously irresponsible to write a newspaper article fearmongering about a drug shortage without even mentioning the very real possibility that the drug in question may be ineffective? But hey, Roche’s stock is at an all time high of $174.16, up 40 from the beginning of the summer. Better keep fueling that fire.

Good going CKS

A professor from Australia’s Monash University has a piece in the Sunday edition of Taipei Times that confirms what I’d always suspected about Taiwan’s ostracization from the international community. Namely, that it was all Chiang Kai Shek’s fault.

Chiang lost the ROC its UN seat

n mid-1971, the US and other countries began to push for a “dual representation” solution. The Australian ambassador to Taipei, Hugh Dunn, wrote on June 4, 1971, to then Minister of Foreign Affairs Chow Shu-kai (周書楷): “What we would see as a desirable finish is that the People’s Republic take over the Security Council seat, and that Taiwan remains on as a member, an ordinary member, of the UN … If the UN recognizes the PRC instead of the ROC as occupying the Chinese seat, and nothing else is done, Taiwan would be out in the cold. We wouldn’t favor that resolution.”

Chow showed some willingness to adjust to the new situation. When talking to the Japanese ambassador to Taipei, he said: “Although I have no way to approve of it and under the circumstances must express my opposition, we could tolerate its existence.” The English phrase, “We can live with it,” is added to the Chinese text.

In an “absolutely secret” secret document dated Aug. 3, 1971, the ministry laid out the options and Taiwan’s preferences. The first preference was that the “important question” motion be passed, which meant that the PRC would require a two-thirds vote to be admitted. The second preference was “dual recognition.” But even at this late moment, after more than 20 years of rejecting any alternative to “one China,” the Nationalist authorities would not openly embrace dual recognition.

So back in 1971 the USA, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and possibly other countries were all ready to support a motion granting the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) independent membership in the UN simultaneous with the recognition of the People’s Republic of China (aka Red China/Mainland China) as the holders of the Security Council seat. From today’s perspective, at a time in which the PRC’s economic, political, and military power is rising fast it we forget how powerless they really were back then – isolated internationally far more than Taiwan is today, their economy and social structure devastated by the Cultural Revolution. Had the ROC/Taiwan government actually put its support behind a two nation, dual representation structure at that time, China would have had absolutely no chance of opposing them, and the absurd fiction of the ‘one China policy’ would have never gotten off the ground.

A solution to the U.S.-China trade deficit?

With the successful launch and return of the Shenozhou 6 earlier this week, China is in the grips of space fever. And like most other things Chinese these days, it hasn’t taken long for someone to figure out how to make a buck/RMB/yen/Euro.

The Taipei Times is running a story today with the headline:

“US company begins selling lunar land rights to Chinese.”

A US company has set up operations in China to sell land on the moon for 115 yuan (US$15) a hectare, cashing in on renewed interest in space travel after the successful five-day voyage of Shenzhou VI.

The so-called Lunar Embassy, touted as the first extraterrestrial estate agency, started operations on Wednesday in Beijing, the China Daily reported.

It will issue customers a “certificate” that ensures property ownership, including rights to use the land and minerals up to 3km underground, said Li Jie, agent for the company in China.

“We define it as a kind of novelty gift with the potential of unlimited increase in value,” said Li.

Lunar Embassy was set up by US entrepreneur Dennis Hope in 1980, 11 years after the Apollo II mission first landed on the moon.

Hope believes a loophole in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty makes his sales legitimate. The agreement forbids governments from owning extraterrestrial property but fails to mention corporations or individuals.

Apparenly, it isn’t just the Chinese that are buying. According to the article, over 3.5 million customers have been served a little slice of the lunar pie, and Hope has branches in 7 other coutries, including the US, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

I have no idea on what basis this guy thinks he can claim the moon on a commerical basis, but there is one interesting plot twist:

The company could run into problems in China, though, with the Chaoyang District branch of Beijing’s Administration for Industry and Commerce launching an investigation.

The Beijing News cited Chaoyang bureau staff as saying sale of land on the moon was not listed as the company’s business when it was registered.

I wonder how much longer it will be before we have a headline that reads: “Chinese company begins selling lunar land rights domesically.”

Chinese capitalism in action

From the BBC:

‘Babies for sale’ on Chinese eBay

Chinese police are investigating a report of attempted baby trafficking on an internet auction site, according to a state-owned newspaper.

The advertisement was reportedly placed on eBay’s Chinese website, Eachnet.

Boys were advertised for 28,000 yuan ($3,450) while girls were offered for 13,000 yuan ($1,603), Eachnet manager Tang Lei told the China Daily.

The offer could have been a hoax, but it comes as baby trafficking is seen as an increasing problem in China.

Bush to meet with Godless heathen?

Today the Taipei Times is running a story with the headline: “Dalai Lama to visit Bush ahead of his trip to China.”

So, I start wondering: Would Bush really meet with the Dalai Lama this close to his first official visit to China? We all know how snarky the Chinese can get when you provoke them. (And the Japanese may as well forget about restarting talks over the East China Sea dispute.)

Before I could go any further, I’ve got the link open only to discover:

Tibet’s spiritual leader the Dalai Lama is to make a high-profile 10-day visit to Washington next month, during which he is expected to meet with US President George W. Bush, a rights group said.

Rights group? Oh, you must mean the International Campaign for Tibet, the organization that keeps President Bush’s schedule.

The article contines:

The 70-year-old Dalai Lama’s itinerary during the Washington visit beginning Nov. 8 “anticipates likely meetings with US President George Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other key Congressional leaders,” the International Campaign for Tibet said in a statement.

After finishing the article, I noticed it was a feed from AFP, so I ran a Yahoo! News search. Turns out all the other outlets who ran the AFP story ran it under the headline, “Dalai Lama set for high profile Washington visit, may meet Bush.”

Chinese IP law: it’s not the size of the book, but how you use it

I just got back from a talk given by Mark Cohen, an American intellectual property lawyer currently serving as U.S. Patent and Trademark Office attaché in the Beijing embassy. Very, very enlightening.

This guy literally wrote the book on Chinese IP law. One of his PowerPoint slides was a picture of the book from its side. The reason he put this on a slide: he was talking to an American businessman on a transpacific flight, and mentioned the book in conversation. The businessman said it must be one of the shortest books ever. It’s actually about 500 pages… as thick as many of the casebooks we get in American law schools.

Honestly, if I were sitting next to Mr. Cohen, I would have had the same reply. The impression most people get of intellectual property law in China is: “what intellectual property law in China?” What Cohen had to say was a paradigm shift for me: the problem is really that there’s too much IP law in China!
Continue reading Chinese IP law: it’s not the size of the book, but how you use it

Yasukuni revisited

We kind of knew it was coming: Koizumi went again. Protests broke out in Beijing and Hong Kong. Best dismissal EVER:

Koizumi told reporters in Tokyo that he made his visit as a private citizen and not in an official capacity, saying that “China and South Korea will eventually understand.”

The angry reactions in China and Korea are covered in more depth in AFP’s article.

UPDATE: Another great Koizumi jab: “In principle other people should not meddle with matters of the heart… much more, foreign governments should not say ‘you should not’ when the Japanese are offering sincere condolences to the war dead from Japan and other parts of the world.”

The Roots of Japan

The good people at Utopia Network (“Millenium Era/For New Space Age!”) have cleared up this confusing historical problem once and for all.

Around 355-360, the ocean country “Kudara” had been conquering with Saishu Island in today’s South Korea, Tsushima, Kyushu, Chugoku area, Shikoku area and Kii Peninsula in today’s Japan. In about 360, the ocean country “Kudara” founded the Yamato Dynasty with the emperor system and the centralistic country of Japan in today’s Nara Prefecture, Japan. And then the relative control of Kudara Dynasty began in Japan. Japan and Kudara had the strongest relationship just like the same country. And most of the Japanese traditional culture came from “Kudara.” “Emperor Jinmu” in the ancient book of “Kojiki” was “King Onjo,” who was the founder of Kudara. And “Emperor Sujin,” who was the founder of Japan, was seemed to be the grandson of “King Kei,” who was the 12th King of Kudara Dynasty. Also, “King Kinshoko,” who was the 13th King of Kudara Dynasty, founded the great ocean country “Kudara” in 346. The Kudara Dynasty were descendants of “Joseph,” who was sold to the Ancient Egypt, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and Adam in “The Old Testament of the Bible.”

Google and Taiwanese sovereignty

I originally started writing this post in response to this post on Ridingsun and never quite got around to finishing it, but now that Google has announced they are changing their designation of Taiwan from “Taiwan, province of China” to merely “Taiwan,” I figure I’ll just publish it.

The official US position is stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, passed in 1979, and has never been changed since.

Don’t forget Taiwan’s government is still known as the Republic Of China, and according to its constitution still considers itself a claimant to sovereignty over all of China, of which Taiwan is just a single province.

If you look at the actual text of the ROC constitution, Article 2 states
“The president and the vice president shall be directly elected by the entire populace of the free area of the Republic of China.”

By limiting voting to the populace of the “free area”, i.e. Taiwan and the surrounding islands, the implication is that mainland China is “unfree territory of the Republic of China.”

Article 11 also states
“Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
again, making clear that Taiwan still legally considers itself part of China (although apparently the best part).

If constitutional interpretation is too dry, you can follow the reasoning at the blog Those Who Dare.

Or simpler yet, they can just look at the vehicular traffic on Taiwan’s roads and take note of the license plates that read Taiwan Province.

Yes, the current president’s party (I hesitate to say ‘ruling party’ since they control oly a single branch of the government, all branches of which are basically stuck in deadlock due to partisan bickering) endorses formal independence from China, but unless they succeed in revising the constitution and changing the country’s official name, it’s very unrealistic to expect foreign businesses to do so.

Incidentally, I would be thrilled to see the ROC officially change its name to Republic of Taiwan, so don’t think that I’m actually in favor of reunification. Just try and realize this isn’t just a matter of Taiwan’s independence not being recognized internationally, it stil isn’t even recognized domestically.

Numismania

We’ve known for years that North Korea has been printing counterfeit money, but the BBC reports that we finally have proof.

The United States has formally accused North Korea of forging millions of dollars of high-quality counterfeit US dollar notes, known as supernotes.

A US court indictment said seven men, including senior Irish republican Sean Garland, distributed the fakes, which all had a face value of $100.

There is still no word on whether or not North Korea has been accused of counterfeiting the new US ha’penny coin.