“Made in China” no more
Manufacturers look to dispel the low-grade image of goods by qualifying for coveted Made in Europe label

Wang Fengying, President of Chinese car-maker Great Wall Motors, poses for a picture at a newly opened factory near the town of Lovech, 150 km north-east of Sofia. Photograph: Stoyan Nenov/Reuters
China has grown increasingly friendly towards Europe as the EU’s sovereign debt crisis unfolds, and it is gently but steadily advancing its pawns in the single market. There are still few Chinese-owned factories in Europe, but Beijing has been advancing its interests over the last three years.

China first focused its attention on Greece, the aim being to make Piraeus, in the Athens suburbs, the main point for goods entering the European market. The port is now dominated by the China Ocean Shipping Company (Cosco), which has been operating two terminals there since 2009. In 2010 Prime Minister Wen Jiabao kicked off a European visit there, meeting policy makers and business leaders from France, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, and above all from Greece.

Since Cosco’s arrival in Greece, exports to China have increased by 50%. Beijing wants to step up investments in the country, in particular in telecommunications, banking, car manufacture, railway infrastructure, property, catering, electronics, textiles and glass. But as well as investments linked to Greece’s current financial woes – with central banks offering risky, but high-yield bonds – or company takeovers, the Chinese are keen to locate production facilities on the European mainland.

Last month the car manufacturer Great Wall Motors fired up an assembly line in Bulgaria. “It’s the first Chinese car factory to produce in Europe for Europe,” said an executive from the firm’s Bulgarian partner company.

As yet there are no Chinese production plants in France but there are plans to open a Franco-Chinese business park near Châteauroux, in western France. It will specialise in assembling parts and sub-systems manufactured at low cost in China. Thanks to this partnership, goods will qualify for a “Made in Europe” label, thought to be more reassuring than its Chinese counterpart.

These “companies must remedy the poor or nonexistent brand recognition they enjoy abroad,” urged a report published in 2009 by France’s economy, industry and employment ministry, “and build an image for quality thanks to products at least as good as those of European or foreign competitors already operating in Europe. They need to rise above the often negative image associated with their goods, particularly as European consumers tend to assume low prices go hand in hand with poor quality.”

Hervé Solignac Lecomte, head of international trade at HSBC France, endorses this view. “Chinese companies want to dispel the ‘low-grade’ image of their manufactured goods. So they are trying to improve their position in the value chain by relocating all or part of their output in Europe,” he says.

Chinese manufacturers had suffered some serious setbacks before starting production in Europe. In 2011 Poland tore up a contract with China Overseas Engineering Group Co Ltd for the construction of a motorway between Warsaw and Berlin, only a year after the start of the project. The Polish public works department cited “delays” to explain its decision.

Now instead of just operating as the workshop of the world, while staying at a safe distance from the markets – and consumers – it wants to win over, China is rethinking its strategy. “GWM’s Bulgarian plant is located close to potential customers and distribution channels,” Lecomte explains.

This is borne out by China’s determination “to invest primarily in sectors that will boost its foreign trade, but also facilitate international trade in general, areas such as air, rail and sea transport, infrastructure, and the associated logistics services and storage facilities,” Lecomte adds.

“China wants to secure multiple points of access to Europe for its products. It’s a more proactive and potentially less costly strategy, particularly with the high price of oil, which substantially adds to the cost of freight,” Lecomte says. France has adopted the same approach by relocating vehicle production to Morocco.

While companies may relocate production facilities, the centre of operations has remains fixed. “The [regional] headquarters of Chinese firms are often located in London, which is Europe’s main financial centre. But decisions are still taken in China and the system is still centralised. The yardstick is always the company at home in China,” Lecomte says.

“We are currently seeing the installation of Chinese production units in Europe,” he adds. “But I think that ultimately China will set up more integrated facilities here, with decision-making powers as well as production.”

This article originally appeared in Le Monde

Banking on Europe

Great Wall Motors and its Bulgarian counterpart Litex launched production of three models at their Bahovitsa plant last month.

GWM aims to manufacture 50,000 vehicles a year there. For now the factory is forecasting “several thousand” city cars, saloons and pick-ups, with prices ranging from €8,200 to €14,600 ($10,800 to $19,270). The parts will be imported from China and assembled in Bulgaria, permitting duty-free access to the European market.

Just as western manufacturers want a share of the oriental cake, their Chinese counterparts are queuing up to locate to Europe.

The GWM factory is not the first Chinese plant in Europe. MG, which was bought up by Nanjing-SAIC in 2005, assembles its MG TF and MG6 models at Longbridge in the UK. Similarly the Chinese manufacturer Geely, which bought Volvo and Manganese Bronze in 2010, is now rolling out its EC7 saloon.

General Motors baulked at selling Opel and Saab to Chinese firms, respectively BAIC in 2009, and Pang Da and Youngman in 2011. But the latter may sale now go ahead as the Swedish brand is in receivership.

By the end of 2012 DR Motors of Italy aims to produce Chery models at Fiat’s former factory in Sicily. In partnership with Israel Corp, the same Chinese company is developing a new brand, Qoros, for European markets.

Sex and the Bible

Sex and the Bible? You summarize your views of Christianity’s attitudes toward sex with the following statement:
Your [the Christian’s] principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery.36
You seem to arrive at this conclusion primarily in response to the majority Christian consensus on stem-cell research and abortion. Have you ever considered specifically what Jesus had to say about sex? Once again, let us look at the fifth chapter of Matthew’s gospel.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:27-28
Jesus’ statement definitely sounded new to his audience, a group of Jewish rabbinic teachers known as Pharisees. They had always believed that adultery was only punishable when action followed lustful desire. Jesus turned this thinking on its head by condemning lust outright.
Sex and the Bible – Pornography

Pornography is a billion dollar industry that depends solely on profit gained from the promotion of lust. You can see why the Christian Right emerges as the most vocal opponent of pornography. Yet why is that the case? Among pornography’s most vocal advocates, the Liberal Left fights for its artistic value and proclaims first amendment rights violations toward those seeking to limit its availability. Jesus recognized the degree to which lust denigrates the dignity of human persons.

Yet are humans really worthy of being treated with dignity? If we evolved solely as another mammalian species, like other animals, then should we really expect to be treated with dignity? That presumption reflects an aura of blatant speciesism, an unwarranted preference for our own species. Yet who among us would choose a lifestyle devoid of dignity? We all have an intrinsic sense of dignity as a direct result of what theologians call the imago dei (the image of God). We reflect many of the qualities attributed to God in the Bible, such as love, mercy, compassion, and even anger, although Paul warns us not to sin in our anger.37 Pornography tramples the inherent dignity of humanity by converting individuals into objects. Men who become addicted to pornography often fail in their marital obligations or commit adultery, resulting in human suffering. Many women become involved in pornography for financial reasons or due to boredom. Though this may superficially appear harmless, those women often regret their actions later in life. Further, pornography doesn’t just affect adults, it also affects children.
Tragically, the world’s oldest profession has one of the world’s youngest workforces today. Dawn Herzog Jewell, who wrote this month’s cover story [in Christianity Today], “Red-Light Rescue,” found that millions of preteen and teenage girls are trapped in prostitution, typically earning money for their families or brothel owners.38
Bored homemakers or struggling co-eds comprise only a small percentage of those involved in pornography. As the above quotation indicates, the vast majority also participate in prostitution and human trafficking. In fact, the only form of slavery that still predominates in our day involves trafficking in persons as a direct result of the pornographic industry the Liberal Left so ardently defends.
President Bush’s National Security Strategy reaffirmed our belief that promoting democracy and human rights is the most effective long-term strategy for ensuring stability. Included in the Strategy’s goals for ending tyranny, spreading freedom, and championing human dignity is our commitment to ending human trafficking: “Trafficking in persons is a form of modern-day slavery, and we strive for its total abolition. Future generations will not excuse those who turn a blind eye to it.”39
Consider your comments about the human papillomavirus (HPV). I agree with your initial statements that HPV prevails as the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. Nevertheless, the rest of your comments lack the depth necessary to truly educate your reader. The term HPV includes over 100 different types of human papillomavirus, some of which do nothing more than cause common skin warts. Only about 30 transmit sexually, causing not only cervical cancer, but also benign genital warts. Of those 30, we place those that endanger lives into a “high risk” category that includes about 10 types of HPV. Let’s examine the remainder of your comments.
We now have a vaccine for HPV that appears to be both safe and effective. The vaccine produced 100 percent immunity in the six thousand women who received it as part of a clinical trial. And yet, Christian conservatives in our government have resisted a vaccination program on the grounds that HPV is a valuable impediment to premarital sex. These pious men and women want to preserve cervical cancer as an incentive toward abstinence, even if it sacrifices the lives of thousands of women each year.40
The CDC does consider the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) safe and effective, however your claim of 100 percent efficacy and the implication that it will eradicate cervical cancer if used universally, greatly inflates the facts. It does provide 100 percent effectiveness in providing immunity to the four types of HPV it is designed to prevent, but is ineffective for at least six known types of high risk HPV. These four types of HPV cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This means that women will still need to undergo yearly Pap tests. Your statement that Christian conservatives “want to preserve cervical cancer” misleads because it implies that a means for the complete eradication of cervical cancer actually exists. The statement “Christian conservatives in our government have resisted a vaccination program” also misleads in that it implies that Christians completely oppose the development and use of the vaccine. In reality Christians only resist a mandatory vaccination program for elementary school-aged children. Consider these comments from July 15, 2006 in the Washington Post made by Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.
After extensive study, we and other pro-family groups have concluded that the clear benefits of developing an HPV vaccine outweigh any potential costs. The groups welcoming it include leading conservative pro-family organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health. . . .Pro-family groups are united in believing that parents should decide what is best for their children. We oppose any effort by states to make Gardasil mandatory (for example, making it a requirement for school attendance). If use of the vaccine becomes part of the recommended standard of care, and if the federal Vaccines for Children program pays for vaccination of those children whose families cannot afford it, then vaccination should become widespread without school mandates.41

MUSIC NOTICE

To all the musicians who have emailed, thanks for the support. As was said earlier today the new site will be up and running on Monday, March 12, 2012. Please submit your videos for Monday by Friday March 9, 2012 along with the posting fee of $10.99 . Please do not continue to email for a submission without submitting because as was said before the hosting of the videos and mp3’s etc. For featured videos the price will be negotiated . Payments should be made via paypal to account [email protected].

Below is a copy of the new site: