Shanghai Scrap

[UPDATED SEPTEMBER 8 : Due to some unexpected events in the US, Shanghai Scrap is going to remain on hiatus for one more week, until the 16th. But believe me - we'll be back. Stay tuned ...]

Mind and body are going to be outside of China for a while, focusing on some long delayed projects and issues, so – rather than bore my readers with commentary on what other people are saying about China (Shanghai Scrap is, and always will be, a reported blog), I’m going offline for a few weeks. I do this with some reluctance: thanks to Twitter (follow me here) and – I hope – some good posts- Shanghai Scrap has enjoyed a significant spike in readership over the first half of 2009. Hopefully, some of it – especially those who subscribe to the RSS feed – will stick around. Believe me, I’ll be back! If you’d like to reach me before then, you can do so via the Contact Form.

In the meantime, there are several other English-language China blogs worthy of your time, and some of the best can be found in the blogroll to the lower right. Click one, click all: they’re good reads and, in several notable cases, good friends, as well.

See you in September.

I spent the last 24 hours out in Sheshan, in southwest Shanghai, where I was covering the eclipse for a dispatch that should be out shortly. Below, an image of a few of the several hundred observers who gathered atop the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory (built by the Jesuits in the 1890s, and operated by them until the 1950s). In the background, the Sheshan Basilica. In any case, don’t be fooled by the photo: the crowd enjoyed perhaps 15 minutes of clear skies, at the beginning of the eclipse. By the time we’d become accustomed to watching the event, a downpour started. As one gentleman put it: “The eclipse has been eclipsed.”

But I’m not complaining!  Rain or not, it was a remarkable sensation, being plunged into darkness for five minutes at mid-morning. And, best of all - experiencing the rapid return of daylight. It felt as if someone had just turned on the overhead lights. I’m hooked – when’s the next one? More shortly …

[UPDATE: "Shortly" is now ... "Eclipse at Sheshan Hill" is now up at the Atlantic.]

A small but significant set of data points in the ongoing discussion of how – potentially – China’s economy has altered the global economy, especially as it impacts the current economic downturn.

I received this first one last week from my pal Bob Garino, Director of Commodities at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries [ISRI] in Washington, D.C. It tracks the relationship between (in blue) the US IP Manufacturing Index, a measure of metals intensive US manufacturing; and (in green) the CRB Metal Index, a measure of key scrap metal commodities, including copper, lead, and steel. Note that the two indices were relatively correlative until December 2008 – or right around the time that China began to stockpile key metal commodities (click for enlargement).

The data is interesting in its own right, but even more so when seen in the context of how the two indices behaved during the prior three recessions. Below, that data, as supplied by the ISRI Broadsheet (click for enlargement). (more…)

Dear Mr. Mayor:

As you are no doubt aware, the longest eclipse of the century will pass over your city on Wednesday morning. This singular event is not exclusive to Shanghai, of course: the narrow path will wind over much of Asia, into the Pacific. But, needless to say, international media organziations with an interest in covering this singular event aren’t going to station their cameras in, say, backwater Chongqing. No, they want to cover the century’s longest eclipse from the Century’s City; they want to cover it from Shanghai. Thus, whether you planned for it or not, you and your colleagues at City Hall are now faced with an unprecedented opportunity to promote Shanghai’s image to the world.

Unfortunately, it has come to my atttention that forces outside of China are conspiring to spoil this eclipse and Shanghai’s opportunity to shine on the world stage. I am, of course, referring to the jet stream. According to a briefing prepared by your city’s dilligent and devoted metereologists, and posted to the official Shanghai website: “Dense cloud threatens to keep eclipse watchers in the dark.”

[UPDATED July 20: The City of Shanghai website appears to have resigned itself to clouds and rain.]

Sir, this is a PR disaster in the making. Do you really want camera crews broadcasting darkening rain clouds over, say, the Oriental Pearl TV Tower, when viewers in, say – Minneapolis – expect to see the moon’s disc obscuring the sun’s? Are you willing to tolerate the national humiliation of watching CNN resort to, say, footage of the eclipse taken in Japan (where “maximum eclipse” will actually last longer than in Shanghai), rather than at the Yangshan Deep Water Port? Me. Neither.

So, with humility, I offer a solution. (more…)

Two things I want to make clear from the outset. First, despite appearances, Shanghai Scrap is not becoming all US Expo 2010 Pavilion, all of the time. It just seems that way. Rest assured: I’ll be back with some quality iron ore/Rio Tinto blogging next week (for the record: I was blogging Rio Tinto and price-fixing in China back in 2007 [ie, before it was cool, ed.]). And second, nobody was more pleased to see the United States break ground on an Expo 2010 pavilion than me. I was there, and I clapped.

Now, for some reason, the pavilion groundbreaking – and other Expo-related news – just doesn’t seem to capture the imagination of the US media. So, in the interest of bringing Expo to the world, Shanghai Scrap offers the following images with limited commentary (orders from above: commentary and reporting must be saved for a future publication). First, the actual “groundbreaking.” From left to right, Beatrice Camp, US Consul General in Shanghai; Jose Villarreal, Commissioner General of the US Pavilion; Gary Locke, US Secretary of Commerce; Yang Xiong, Vice Mayor of Shanghai; Ma Xiuhong, Vice-Minister of Commerce; and Hong Hao, Director General of the Shanghai Expo Organizing Committee.

No, that sandbox is not the future location of a budget-rate US Expo pavilion. But it is a sandbox, no doubt about it. In fact, the actual pavilion site, not more than 10 meters away, has had construction crews working on it for some time, already (not sure how long – but clearly, the Shanghai organizers were determined that the site be used by someone, US or otherwise), and wouldn’t have made for a very attractive setting. But whatever. See after the jump for three images of the actual site. (more…)

Coming at the end of a tumultuous week in China marked by earthquakes, riots, and continued economic uncertainty, the news that the US had finally confirmed its participation in Expo 2010 (a/k/a, next year’s world fair) didn’t seem particularly significant. And, with much of Shanghai’s foreign correspondent corps preoccupied with more pressing news elsewhere in China, it didn’t receive much coverage. Fair enough, I think. However, insofar as the US pavilion – or lack thereof – had become an increasingly thorny diplomatic issue between China and the United States, the signing ceremony was an important signal that some kind of resolution was finally at hand. (more…)

From a media standpoint, Urumqi riots seem to signal a shift in the manner in which reporters are allowed to cover “sensitive” events in China. Unlike, say, last year’s riots in Tibet, the relevant authorities in and out of Xinjiang very quickly made the decision to allow foreign and domestic media wide leverage in covering a very chaotic, very sensitive situation. They’ve even organized group reporting trips into the riot zones (for a needlessly snarky, but eminently useful compendium of stories from one such trip, see this Robert Mackey post at the New York Times Lede blog). Though some might view the new openness as an outgrowth of the darker side of the Control 2.0 theory put forth by the excellent David Bandurski at China Media Project (h/t this very good post from Evan Osnos), I’ve been here long enough to believe that (almost) all access is good access.

In that spirit – below, a very interesting email sent out to at least some registered foreign correspondents in China by a self-described non-profit in Beijing that specializes in facilitating media coverage (and which clearly has good relations with high and relevant quarters of the CPC). I’ll refrain from posting the organization’s name, though I’m some of my China-based readers will know who it is. Regardless, it’s a revealing and supremely confident example of just how the CPC – and its authorized, er, tour operators – are approaching this very fluid, very new moment.

Dear Journalists,

There was a terrorist attack happened in the capitol city Urumqi of Xinjiang Uygher Autonomous Region in Northwest China on July 5th, 2009, leaving 156 people dead, 1080 others injured and more than 200 vehicles broken. According to the facts that Chinese government has found, the terrorist attack was organized and prepared. This incident attracted more attention of the foreign and domestic media. Up to now, more than 60 overseas media have sent journalists to Urumqi, capital of China’s Northwest Xingjiang Region, after a riot broke out in the city on July 5th. (more…)

Despite the fact that Twitter is blocked in China, and the internet is completely shutdown in Xinjiang, a handful of foreign correspondents have managed to tweet real-time updates on events outs there – either directly, or via colleagues back in their bureaus. No doubt, newspapers and magazines will soon have stories about what has and hasn’t happened in Urumuqi over the last 24 hours – but if you want to get a real-time feel for events as they are happening through the eyes of people risking life and limb to cover them, then you might consider following the harrowing real-time tweets being relayed to Malcolm Moore (@malcolmmoore), Shanghai correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, by his colleague, Peter Foster. In addition to Foster’s reports, Moore has very quickly become an informal one-man clearinghouse for tweets from other correspondents in Urumuqi, and for additional, Urumuqi-related news from China-related blogs and news sites. Must reading if you take an interest in this issue.

[UPDATE 7/8: Malcolm Moore emailed this afternoon to say that he is no longer able to access twitter. 2nd Update ... not long after the first email, a solution was found, and Malcolm is twittering again.]

Other reporters tweeting in the area (full disclosure: culled from Malcolm’s tweets): Time’s Austin Ramzy (@austinramzy), Al-Jazeera’s Melissa Chan (@melissakchan). If you know of others, please let me know via the Contact Form (let Malcom know, too), and I’ll add them.

[7/8: One of the contributors to China Sports Review is in Urumqi, and he tweeted some remarkable images overnight. Follow @chinasports.]

There are, of course, many correspondents in Urumqi who are not tweeting (several of whom are my friends), and who are doing important and brave work. Here’s hoping everybody’s safe.

[UPDATE 7/7: For blog-based coverage of the unrest, the best digest is maintained at the mighty EastSouthWestNorth blog. Be warned, though: the digest includes some violent images.]

As noted last week, my Shanghai apartment building is currently undergoing a much needed face lift in advance of Expo 2010. On balance, this is a good thing: My dumpy building gets a makeover, and I get to know the brave daredevil migrants who swing past my windows (and those across the way). Along the way, they’ve posed for photos, I’ve passed out bottles of iced tea, and – so far – nobody’s been hurt. Click for enlargements, and stay tuned for a worldwide exclusive, window-side interview.

Below, the ledes from two New York Times stories concerning ethnic uprisings in Western China, separated by 16 months.

First, the lede to Jim Yardley’s “Protestors clash with police in Tibetan capitol,” published March 14, 2008

BEIJING — Violent protests erupted Friday in a busy market area of Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, as Buddhist monks and other ethnic Tibetans clashed with Chinese security forces. Witnesses say the protesters burned shops, cars, military vehicles and at least one tourist bus.

[It continues in the next paragraph …]

The chaotic scene marked the most violent demonstrations since protests by Buddhist monks began in Lhasa on Monday, which was the anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule in 1959. The ongoing protests have been the largest in Tibet since the late 1980s, when Chinese security forces repeatedly used lethal force to restore order in the region.

——————————-

Next, the lede to Edward Wong’s “Ethnic Clashes in Western China are said to kill scores,” published July 6, 2009. [UPDATE7/7: link connects to a new story; old story deleted. See end of this post for additional details and commentary.]

BEIJING — The Chinese state news agency reported Monday that at least 140 people were killed and 816 injured when rioters clashed with the police in a regional capital in western China after days of rising tensions between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese.

[Skipping a paragraph, we get …]

The rioting broke out Sunday afternoon in a large market area of Urumqi, the capital of the vast, restive desert region of Xinjiang, and lasted for several hours before riot police officers and paramilitary or military troops locked down the Uighur quarter of the city, according to witnesses and photographs of the riot.

———————————

I don’t know enough about the current situation to comment upon it with any authority. However, I do know something about reporters and bias, and though I’m not pointing any fingers, I’ve been struck – in the early days of this protest – how restrained and comparatively unsympathetic the foreign press coverage of the Uigher uprising has been in light of the highly sympathetic reporting on the Tibetan uprising last year. One explanation, and a fairly reasonable one, I think, is that the foreign media, like many in the West, simply harbors more sympathy for Tibetan Buddhists than Uigher Muslims. But I’m sure there are others, and I’d be interested to hear them. Comments are open now closed. (more…)

American Independence Day doesn’t officially commence for another 48 hours or so, but if my blog traffic – and unanswered emails are any indication – vast swaths of the US  have already unplugged, and are unlikely to turn up again until Monday or Tuesday. Fair enough. As an American who values his own independence, I’m officially declaring myself independent of this blog until Monday Tuesday.

Unrelated, but interesting: below, an image of the rush hour ‘people-fall’ I experienced in People’s Square this afternoon.

And since it’s almost the 4th of July, let’s not forget Dave Alvin’s immortal 4th of July. Regularly played over the, er, PA here at Shanghai Scrap HQ. So, heck – free ’4th of July’ download for the first person to email the number of exits at the People’s Square station [UPDATE: okay, okay, bad contest. Change to: first person to send me an email via the contact form.][2nd UPDATE ... and we have a winner. Contest over!]

[UPDATE 7/3: Sure enough, this morning, Xinhua issued a new story, denying that the US had confirmed: "US participation in Shanghai World Expo Remains Unconfirmed."]

Earlier today, Chinese media (Xinhua) announced that the US will participate in Expo 2010, running a brief story entitled: “U.S. to participate in 2010 Shanghai 2010 World Expo.” Shortly thereafter, at least one international wire – the AFP – took the story one step further and ran the headline: “US confirms participation in Shanghai World Expo.” And by the end of the day, several blogs – including my good friends at Shanghaiist – were running the story as if US participation at Expo 2010 was a done deal.

Well, sorry to say, but it’s not. The Xinhua story, and especially the subsequent AFP distortion of it, are based upon an incorrect understanding of what “confirmation” – a technical term, in this case – means in regard to the US presence at Expo 2010. I’ll get to that in a moment. But first, it’s worth noting that the source for the two stories is a July 1 US State Department press release announcing the appointment of Jose Villarreal as the Commission General of the US pavilion. In it, Secretary of State Clinton speaks of the US pavilion as a completed enterprise. And, partly due to the fact that she has been making fundraising phone calls on behalf of the pavilion, it likely will be.

But confirmation is a different matter, altogether. In the case of Expo 2010, confirmation means that the US has signed a “participation agreement” with the Expo organizers. And, despite its support for the authorized pavilion group, the State Deparment has, nonetheless, been consistent in its refusal to sign a participation agreement until all funding is in place to commence construction of the actual US pavilion. Now, it may very well be the case that the State Department has changed this policy (it has changed its official rules related to pavilion fundraising on at least one other occasion). But whether or not the policy has changed, the US still must sign a participation agreement with the Expo 2010 organizing committee. And, so far, no agreement has been signed because the money has not yet been raised (despite a recent US$5 million infusion from Pepsi).

Now, to be fair, the appointment of a Commissioner General would seem to be a pretty strong signal that State – or, at least, Secretary Clinton – is optimistic about the pavilion’s prospects. And, no doubt, she is right to be. In fact, in recent days the Expo organizers have backtracked on their earlier construction ultimatums, with one senior Expo official going so far as to assure potential participants that they can confirm participation “even a week before the event.” No doubt, the US will manage to pull that off. However, due to the inexplicable veil of secrecy that the State Department, and the pavilion group, have thrown over their effort, nobody knows how much of the US$61 million pavilion budget has been raised and, thus, how close the US is to signing a participation agreement. Hopefully, the new US Commission General will be more forthcoming on these matters than his new State Department-authorized colleagues.

[Mea culpa addendum: And yes, for several hours today, I, too, was under the impression that the participation agreement had been signed - until I read the State Dept press release.]