Continued Violence over Illegal Fishing

Whether it’s the fishermen themselves or authority figures policing the area, violence continues to breach waters all over the world due to illegal fishing.  Most recently, on April 3^rd, a Chinese fisherman was shot and killed off the coast of the Republic of Palau, a nation located some 500 miles east of the Philippines.  Officers fired at the fisherman’s boat as he was thought to be fishing illegally.  The man bled to death before he could be taken to the hospital.  He was not the only incident in the area; twenty Chinese fishermen in total were found that day after the discovery of a “mother ship”.  The Republic of Palau is one of many places in which Chinese fishermen have been known to fish illegally.  There has been continued conflict in areas such as the Yellow Sea, South Korean waters. 

Why enter foreign waters?

One would assume a simple solution to these conflicts would be for the Chinese fishermen to fish in their own waters, rather than stirring up trouble in the waters of other nations.  However, these areas are very important to fishermen.  For example, the Yellow Sea is important fishing and crab grounds, therefore frequently inhabited by Chinese boats, which in turn leads to disputes over fishing rights and often violent encounters.  So why do they do it? Well, in general there is an expanding demand for seafood in China due to the country’s rapid economic growth, meanwhile pollution and overfishing have killed off most of the fish stock near their coast, causing them to pursue fish elsewhere.  Also, Chinese fish farms are seeing a huge decline in productivity, once again due to pollution being poured into the ocean from port and petrochemical facilities. Because of these issues, it is vital for fishermen to fish in foreign waters if they wish to meet their demand.  Given this, it is understandable that the fishermen want to look further into other waters, however, it is necessary for them to follow the laws and requests of those nations, otherwise this violence will not only continue, but most likely worsen. 

The Yellow Sea: fish ground or battlegrounds?

December 12, 2011 marked a violent incident, which only further intensified the ongoing issue of violent encounters between Chinese fishermen and South Korean police on the Yellow Sea.  On that day, upon boarding the illegal fishermen’s boat, a South Korean coast guard officer was stabbed to death by one of the fishermen.  It is said that when the South Korean commandos boarded the ship, the captain of the ship broke a windowpane and repeatedly stabbed the officer with a piece of glass, killing him and wounding his fellow officer.  The officers seized the ship and the nine sailors aboard.  This type of violent activity is only expanding.  It is said that in the past these illegal Chinese fishermen would only fish on foggy days or at night and be gone by daybreak as to avoid being caught and the resulting conflicts, however, now they group together, creating small armadas, and fight back to resist arrest or gang up on police through the use of violence. 

Attempting to create peace:

After the December 12^th incident, the Chinese Agriculture Ministry sent an official letter to the Korean Embassy.  They stated that they had dispatched two teams to oversee fishing in the area and that they are increasing their regulations and instructions for fishing boats.  According to the Korean Times, “the letter also said three Chinese fishing boats were fined 100,000 yuan ($15,868) each last December for fishing without permits in Korean waters”.  Although this seems like such a small step, it is a vast improvement in the way China is dealing with this issue, compared to its past of being known to brush over such incidents rather than take charge and do something about it.

What do you think?

Violence is never the correct answer to resolve any issue, and can get very complicated when it involves various nations.  Do you think China will further step in to stop its fishermen from illegally entering foreign waters, or will the situation continue to worsen until desperate measures are needed?

Please feel free to post your opinions and reactions related to this issue.

Could the tension in South China Sea cause military involvement?

One Fish, Two Fish, Vietnamese Fish, Chinese Fish

What happened?

On Thursday March 15, 2012, 21 Vietnamese were detained for illegal fishing around islands in the South China Sea; however, the Vietnamese believe that they were fishing in their own waters and not outside of their boundaries.

Vietnam and China both have claims in the South China Sea and to islands and reefs. Because of this, many feuds occur between fishermen as the industry is very competitive and there is profit potential.

As seen in the map below, the territory boundaries are hard to read and overlap. Because they are so vaguely defined, situations like this one will continue to rise and cause problems for the governments holding territories as well as the fishing industry. The South China Sea is an area of growing concern over conflicting territorial claims, piracy, poaching, resource depletion, pollution, drug trafficking, illegal migration, and terrorism threats.

How does China see the situation?

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, more than 100 Vietnamese fishing boats trespass in the Parcel Islands where they take part in illegal fishing. Because the Chinese aren’t able to keep them out of their territory, the authorities had to investigate this Vietnamese boat with the 21 fisherman and hold them to the laws so that this may serve as a warning to other trespassing fisherman and keep the Chinese in the fishing industry a market leader. With the Vietnamese fishing in the Chinese territory, they are overstepping on China’s control and maritime rights, and because of this the Vietnamese wanting to be released unconditionally most likely won’t happen.

Since the Vietnamese believe they did nothing wrong, they probably won’t take any steps to ensure that active procedures will be taken to prevent the fishermen from trespassing. Chinese authorities aren’t trying to bully Vietnam, but rather they are enforcing the law and providing a logical consequence for the illegal action. Even though it costs the Chinese money to enforce and detain the Vietnamese, they are sending a message while protecting an industry that many of its citizens actively participate in and earn an income from.

What’s the Vietnamese side of the story?

According to the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, China violated their sovereignty. Vietnam insists that China release these 21 fishermen and their vessels. In addition to releasing their people, Vietnam also is urging China to stop detaining the Vietnamese fishermen in the waters of Vietnam.

How does a Vietnamese fisherman feel about this?

The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry issued a statement demanding the release of the fishermen whom they claimed were being held for a payment of $11,000. The Vietnamese government told the families of the fishermen to not pay while the government argues to China for their release. With this recent incident, there has been a lot of pressure put on local people, says fisherman Le Van Loc from Quang Ngai province.  He had been detained by the Chinese while he was sailing near the islands in 2010. Loc says, as a Vietnamese citizen, he is angry because the islands belong to Vietnam. He says families are told not to pay the ransom while the government demands the release of those detained (Voice of America). This had made life difficult for families emotionally as well as financially.

Have there been any attempts to resolve this?

                This incident is the most recent in an ongoing disagreement about territory in the South China Sea. Last year, both sides signed a series of maritime agreements in hopes of resolving tensions.  However, Vietnam has continued to protest Chinese activity on or near the islands.

As stated by Reuters, “A representative from Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry met with the Chinese embassy to give them a diplomatic note outlining Vietnam’s position, and will continue the fight to resolve this matter and protect the legitimate rights of the Vietnamese fishermen.”  Because the fishing industry is growing and Vietnam will go after some of China’s market share, in order to resolve this situation, more needs to be done.

A Possible Resolution

                China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan all have claims to territory in the South China Sea. China’s claim is the largest, covering a big U-shape over most of the sea’s 648,000 sq. miles (Reuters). But just because China has the most, doesn’t mean it has all of it. These nations should all meet in attempt to better define borders of their territories as well as ways to police the borders. Unfortunately, China refuses to handle any disputes with more than one nation present. With one-on-one meetings, it seems that China has a “divide-and-conquer” attitude to the fishing industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/22/china-vietnam-idUSL3E8EM3YJ20120322

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/China-Urges-Vietnam-to-Stop-Illegal-Poaching-Near-Disputed-Waters--143900166.html

http://www.southchinasea.org/

China's imports sinking Brazil's fishing sector

"Seoul Set to Combat Illegal Chinese Fishing"

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that South Korea is stepping up to the plate to combat illegal Chinese fishing by strengthening their naval defense and implementing harsher penalties among offenders of the law. This new focus for South Korea was in response to the fatal stabbing of a South Korean coastguard by a Chinese fisherman. South Korea's involvement will help reduce illicit activity that the Chinese do in international waters, such as killing sharks for shark fin soup. Read the full article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203391104577122010640638178.html

Shark Finning in China

            In China’s semi- socialist, semi-totalitarian economy, one would think that China would have their undesirable reputations under control and in sync with other worldly moral views. Surprisingly, China is proud of practicing an injustice in which other countries see as a disgusting and selfish act: The act of shark finning.

The Shark Fin Craze

           

            Shark finning is a brutal yet profitable “practice of global trade in which the fins of sharks are typically hacked off a live shark” (NYTimes) only to be thrown back into the water finless, leaving it to die slowly as it sinks to the bottom of the sea. You may wonder what makes this brutal practice so attractive to these Chinese fishermen? Simply put, MONEY!
            Shark fins can be sold for $300 per pound. With each shark fin weighing around 1/8 of a pound, each shark fin equates to roughly $40. Further on down the trading line, shark fin soup, with only one shark fin, can be ultimately sold to the end consumer in a restaurant for a whopping $100!

            If China’s reputation is so bad, why does China refuse to regulate this detrimental practice? Reasoning is because shark fin is a status of wealth and a mark of tradition in China, and used as a commodity in shark fin soup. Whereas the fins are largely tasteless, they are valued for their texture. They also provide many benefits to its consumers as it allegedly boosts sexual potency, enhances skin quality, increases one’s energy, prevents heart disease, and lowers one’s cholesterol.

            With China’s economy on the rise, more affluent people can afford to purchase this symbol of a luxurious life, directly causing the demand for shark fins to increase. This century long tradition is profitable to the fishermen and businesses of China, further contributing to their superior economic status. Because of this, China’s government refuses to implement any laws that ban shark finning.

Laws Opposing Shark Finning

           

            In 2000, the U.S. Shark Finning Prohibition Act made an effort to curtail this practice. This law “restricts shark finning in all federal waters... It also calls for an international effort to ban shark finning globally. The first international ban on finning was instated in 2004 with sponsorship from the United States, the European community, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Trinidad and Venezuela” (TreeHugger). Notice that this international ban does not include China, now accountable for 95% of shark fin consumption (China.org.cn). “It is estimated that 100 to 200 million sharks annually are killed for their fins alone” (Sharkfriends.com).

             Few countries have actually banned fining entirely, and many more need to be encouraged to enact legislation. Even though many Asian countries oppose shark finning, “laws can help by curbing access to the fins that are sold. For instance, Hawaii has outlawed selling shark fin soup and California is in the process of approving a ban on selling shark fins”(AnimalPlanet).

            As a result of pressure from opposing countries, China agreed to “not land shark fins that weigh more than 5 percent of the ‘dressed’ weight of the sharks: that is, the weight of the carcass after the removal of the head and innards” (sharksavers.org). Little by little, more shark protections are being proposed and passed throughout the world.

The Problem

           

            The problem in dealing with legislation is that the practice of catching people actually finning sharks is difficult without enough law enforcers. “Once they are instituted, enforcement of these regulations must occur to ensure compliance” (Sharksavers.org). The Chinese government lacks adequate enforcement because the costs of supplying these officials are outweighed by the benefits they reap from it. In addition, bribery and corruption are common which makes it easier for these poachers to acquire these valuable fins to trade.

            “Sharks, as predators of the sea, play a vital role in regulating the ecological balance, particularly the health of important commercial fish species, population balance, and protection of coral reefs” (JournalOnline). This profitable trade is blinding China of the side effects that this practice can have to the world’s food chain. "Shark finning is not only cruel; it is irresponsible and unsustainable fishing at its highest degree. In spite of this, it has been close to impossible to attain any international binding management and conservation measures to curtail this practice” (AnimalPlanet).

WildAid

            On September 22^nd, 2011, a charity program called WildAid launched a charity campaign to persuade Chinese people to give up this delicacy. This campaign is led by NBA star Yao Ming, who is an advocate to reduce animal cruelty. WildAid reports that the shark fin market is estimated to have grown around 5% per year, and this number is only going to increase as the Chinese become more affluent. In addition, WildAid reports that 95% of all shark fin is consumed within China (WSJ). This fact proves how oblivious and selfish China is for continuing to legalize this practice. WildAid is striving to reduce the demand for shark fin soup by educating people. They are sponsoring public commercials in China targeted towards all consumers, which show hidden footage of shark finning to convey the message across to all individuals to not participate in this practice.

Potential Solution

             

            In my opinion, Chinese people will never be persuaded to stop eating shark fin soup without the power of the law against them. Because the Chinese government refuses to ban this practice, I think it may be more reasonable to boycott this industry. Many businesses, including the three largest supermarket chains of Shanghai, have taken the initiative to take shark fins off of their shelves and menus in hopes of creating nationwide awareness. “Meanwhile, Chinese restaurant chain South Beauty also removed it from its menus in November. In the U.S., Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon have enacted legislation that banned the trade, sale and possession of the ingredient” (WSJ).

            I think this luxurious item should have limited availability, which would indubitably reduce the risk of shark extinction. Instead of consuming this meal regularly, I think shark fin soup should be limited to wedding banquets and high-end restaurants to help preserve the rare identity of this gelatinous delicacy.

            “This is a peer-based practice, and therefore it is the peer-group, not the government, that will most effectively disenfranchise the practice” (Tyee). By enacting laws in which it is illegal for the end suppliers to deliver shark fin soup to its customers, demand will decrease, thus reducing the attractively of this profitable market. Hopefully legislation will prevail in the near future before it’s too late. 

China's Wage Hikes Ripple Across Asia

"Global companies already have been facing higher labor prices in China over the past year, despite a weak global economy, as workers demand a greater share of the country's economic boom. In recent months, the pressure also has intensified in countries across Southeast Asia that have marketed themselves as alternatives for companies seeking to escape China's rising costs, leaving those companies now with fewer places to move."

Read more at the Wall Street Journal:
Wage Hikes Ripple

Because of the wage hike, governments and companies are being forced to address worsening labor demands and income gaps, which are growing wider in many parts of the region and causing labor unrest. How do you think the Chinese government will address this?

EU and U.S. Aids in Combating Illegal Fishing

EU and U.S. Join Efforts against Illegal Fishing

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

2

EU Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, and U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, signed today in Washington, DC, a joint statement pledging bilateral cooperation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. This statement is the first of its kind in the longstanding partnership between the European Union and the United States on fisheries management.

"IUU fishing is a criminal activity, and we have the duty to make everything possible to stop this practice," said Commissioner Damanaki. "Today's agreement will do just that. By joining forces, we make it harder for culprits to get away with their dirty business."

"Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is one of the most serious threats to sustainable fishing and to marine biodiversity in the world's oceans," said Dr. Lubchenco. "International cooperation across oceans will help us strengthen enforcement and prevent legal fishing industries from being undermined in the global marketplace by illegal fishing."

The EU and U.S. rank first and third, respectively, as the world's top seafood importers (Japan second), and have agreed that the seafood they import will not be caught illegally. Globally, IUU fishing deprives legal fishermen and coastal communities of up to 23 billion dollars of seafood and seafood products annually.

The EU and the United States have already put in place a number of legal measures to combat IUU fishing, such as the EU's IUU Regulation and the U.S. High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. Both participate actively in international fishery management organizations and promote international instruments to address IUU fishing.

Today's agreement commits the EU and the U.S. to work together to adopt the most effective tools to combat illegal fishing. It commits them to continue to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of management measures in their role as parties to regional fishery management organizations and to various international treaties, and commits them to using tools that prevent IUU operators from benefiting economically from their illegal activities.

The new agreement includes a system to exchange information on IUU activities; promotes management measures at regional fishery management organizations that strengthen the control, monitoring and enforcement of vessels operation within certain areas; encourages other countries to ratify and implement the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Committee on Fisheries' Port State Measures Agreement; and promotes the sustainable use of fisheries resources while preserving marine biodiversity.

Beyond domestic boundaries, there is increasing need for international cooperation, especially among major fishing and seafood-importing nations, to improve global fisheries management of shared marine resources and to preserve the associated employment and other economic benefits of sustainable fisheries. The document signed today by the European Union and the United States is an important step toward achieving these goals.

Joint Statement between the European Commission and the United States Government on Efforts to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/damanaki/headlines/press-releases/2011/09/20110907_jointstatement_eu-us_iuu_en.pdf

Source: MarketWatch

The link to this article is: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/eu-and-u-s-join-efforts-against-illegal-fishing

The Chinese Government's Weak Effort to Control Illegal Fishing

 

Illegal fishing in China is posing a significant problem for the government, and is not only creating a rift in ties with Korea and Vietnam, but also demonstrates some of the weaknesses in the government to control its own people. Korea is becoming frustrated with the Chinese government because the amount of Chinese fishermen without permits, and who fish in neighboring waters are increasing. Not only are these fishermen illegal, but they are also extremely violent and tend to fight with the Coast Guards who attempt to arrest them. The crewmembers are non-hesitant to pick up metal pipes, axes, knives, and other weapons to use against the Coast Guard. There is said to be nearly 10,000 Chinese fishing boats that cross into South Korean territory, and of those boats only about 1,700 have permits. The other 8,300 are illegal fishermen that swing nets across two boats to gather fish and equipment.

            The aggressive behavior between Chinese fishermen and Coast Guard is increasing drastically. The Coast Guard members who board ships are constantly being attacked by the crew, resulting in the injury of 53 Koreans over the past 10 years, and one death in 2008. In order to further enhance the uprising efforts, numerous Chinese fishermen band together to try and defeat Coast Guard crews who come to arrest them. The Chinese government has made little effort to suppress its own people, and lacks rules to stop the fishing in neighboring countries. It seems as if China has been uninterested for years in the illegal fishing, and has now been put under pressure by Korea to make amendments.

            Although the Korean government lacks sufficient patrol teams to suppress these uprisings of fishermen, they are beginning to beef up their squads with extra patrol teams, heavier body armor, and the use of firearms when in danger. Another source states that the special force Coast Guard members will be equipped with Tasers, grenade launchers, and tear gas canisters.  In addition, the patrol teams will be stricter when apprehending the fishermen, and will confiscate their equipment.

Many fishermen who have been caught and paid hefty fines (70 million won) tend to come back out anyway. Recently the fines have increased to 100 million won, but have had little effect. It is clear that the fines imposed by the Chinese government are too lenient.  The possible reason for the spike in illegal fishing is that the Chinese resources are depleted due to overfishing, which again shows another reason why the Chinese government has not been regulating its own people. The government has made a lackadaisical effort in the past to regulate fisherman, put caps on the amount of fish that could be caught, and the amount of time in between fishing trips. Many countries have strict Coast Guard control, as well as strict measures to prevent fishermen from going out to sea and fishing every day.  The Chinese government’s lack of past effort has not only been a primary reason for the depletion of resources in the country, but also for the spike in illegal fishing in Korea.

Korea has recently asked China seven times since November to stop Chinese fishermen from entering and performing illegal behavior in Korea’s Exclusive Economic Zone, however China brushed off these complaints. China merely said that these fishermen were unregistered, and therefore could not be tracked down. The Chinese government does an extremely poor job in enforcing the law and controlling their fishermen. The mere fact that numerous fishermen are unregistered shows lack of discipline, and China ignoring Korea’s pleas show their general lack of interest in the subject.

Finally, China sent an official letter to the South Korean Embassy stating that they agree to step up patrols in the Yellow Sea (Korean territory) in order to stop illegal fishing in their waters. China stated they will provide stricter supervision and punishment for fishing illegally. After numerous pleas, and years of conflict over international waters, China finally decided it was in their best interest to maintain relations with Korea, and enforce laws regarding illegal fishing.

Vietnam has been putting pressure on the Chinese government as well because on February 22, eleven Vietnamese fishermen were denied entrance to the Paracel Islands to avoid strong winds, but were then beaten and looted by the Chinese officers. It is not uncommon to have Vietnamese and Chinese people fishing alongside each other, seeing as much of their territory in the South China Sea overlaps, however Chinese officers used unnecessary force against the Vietnamese fishermen who were accused of fishing illegally, causing a rift between the two governments. Chinese Foreign Ministry denied the claim, and stressed that no force was used to enforce the law. The peculiar thing about this incident is that China heavily enforces their own waters for illegal fishing, but does not instruct their own people to stay out of other countries’ water. China is unafraid to expel foreigners from their waters by any means, which comes off as being unethical in terms of treatment of others, whereas Vietnam and Korea use more ethical standards to handle illegal fishing in their countries.

The Chinese government is in dire need to address the illegal fishing situation that is running rampant through China. The government should focus more of their resources in controlling the people of China, and maintaining relationships with neighboring countries. This situation, if unattended, may cause major difficulties between the two countries. 

China Cracks Down on Drugs

       As of late, the Chinese government and police forces have been cracking down on illegal drug trafficking, and drug sales. In Hebei Province, China, a gang was tracked down and arrested for selling math amphetamines. Recently, many people tipped off over 100 dealers and addicts that were involved in the drug trade.

      

      

        Chinese authorities are doing an excellent job in stopping drug trades in China. Hopefully these actions by authorities continue, and drug trafficking decreases even more in China.

Faceblocked

China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Centre (CIIRC) is cracking down on websites available to internet users in China day by day. "The CIIRC is mainly focused on contents harmful to the healthy growth of minors, such as obscenity and pornography, gambling, violence, terror, criminal abetting, and contents that spread ethnic hatred, libelling and insulting, violating the others' rights, and violating intellectual property rights" (CIIRC). This great firewall is growing exponentially, blocking websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which is believed to have been conducted to protect domestic competition. 

What do you think?  How do you think people who have family abroad would feel about something like this?

The Changing Face of China's Labor Force

A Funny Take on Western Influences in China

Although comedic to a Western point of view, this SpongeBob spoof actually brings up a lot of good points. As the Chinese become more exposed to Western culture, how will the government change it's regulations? Since communist practices are lightening and exposure to the mixed/free market has increased tremendously, labor regulations and human rights are going to have to increase.

Recent iPhone Smuggling in China

Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Emily Chang reports on Chinese customs officials announcing the arrest of a man attempting to smuggle 30 iPhones into mainland China. Authorities have seized more than 3,000 devices this year. She spoke yesterday on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West."

The Ivory Trade

Ivory is a raw material that can be taken from hippopotamus, walruses, narwhals, and many other animals, however, the best quality ivory is found in the tusks of Elephants.  It is used to manufacture products such as handles for cutlery, billiard balls, gambling checks, chess-men, napkin-rings, and more.  Ivory-carving has long been a part of China’s culture, and there it is mainly used to produce ivory chopsticks, bangles, engravings and other products which people indulge in to show off their wealth and social standing.   The Chinese have been said to master the fine work in ivory carving and due to the cheap labor there it is a target marketplace for ivory sellers.  The demand for the above products increase as individual wealth in China grows, which also contributes to the appeal of China as a place to sell ivory.

Background of the Ivory Trade:

Due to the great demand for ivory, the poaching of Elephants has become a serious problem.  CITES (the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) banned the international commercial trade of ivory in 1989 by putting African elephants on its endangered species list, where items are strictly prohibited, after drastic declines in elephant populates across the world.  According to “Illegal Ivory Trade Flourishes once again”, an article from the Shanghai Daily, “between April and September of last year, 4, 759 pieces of ivory tusks were confiscated around the world,” meaning the remains of more than 2,000 slaughtered elephants were found within those six months alone, with most of them likely on their way to China to be carved into a luxury item, rather than something that is a necessity.  

Is the Ivory Trade really banned?

Although CITES initially banned trade, it is unrealistic to think that this means trade will stop.  Rather, it just leads to smuggling as a popular channel for bringing in new supplies.  In 1997, CITES agreed to a stockpile sale or “one-off sales” of ivory in which Japan was able to purchase 54.6 tons of ivory, coming from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.  Another stockpile sale was approved in 2007, allowing China to join as a trading partner. 

The reasoning behind CITES allowing for such trade to occur include requests from African countries (where the majority of elephants are found) claimed that they “needed money to fund their animal-protection activities,” meanwhile the target market countries such as China and Japan, noted that they need the raw ivory, which their own countries lack, to continue the art of tusk carving, an ancient part of their culture which they wish to keep alive.  It is ironic how countries in which there are endangered species are willing to continually hurt these particular species in order to fund their supposed protection of them.  It is also saddening on countries who continually participate in the purchasing of these raw materials, when they are mostly being used to manufacture things that are merely for show or entertainment.

Illegal Sales

In order for China to be able to participate as a trading partner in the auction they had to meet CITE requirements.  In order to do so, they created a new ivory registration system in which every piece of ivory sold needed to have documentation, and that only operations with government licenses could participate in legal ivory trade.  The International Fund for Animal Welfare performed investigation in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Fuzhou in September and October of last year, to determine the status of the ivory trade in China.  They found that of the 158 ivory factories and shops visited, only 57 were approved by the State Forestry Administration and the Ministry of Commerce meaning two-thirds of the factories and shops visited were illegally participating in the trade.

What can be done?

The Chinese government insists that it has not been ignoring the smuggling and illegal trade of ivory, however, it is apparent that not much is being done to stop it.  The government in China plays a major role in the functioning of its companies, and the fact that only one-third of the ivory factories were legal shows that they are clearly not being monitored.  It is way too easy for this illicit trading to continue, as the demand and price for goods made of ivory continually increases, with growing personal wealth in China.

 Many people do not sympathize to the fact that an innocent species is being exterminated, but when will it stop? Once elephants and other animals have been completely wiped out and there are no longer any sources of ivory?

There are people out there campaigning to save endangered species and help end trades such as the ivory trade.  To help joing the fight against the ivory trade in China you can petition against it by visiting sites such as the following, http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/168/639/035/ .

Counterfeit iPhones in China

After writing the Proview vs. Apple blog, I came across the following article from Fobes:
China's Black Market Boom

As stated in the article, "regardless of the state of the global economy, one robust sector that adjusts as efficiently as any other in the world is the Chinese black market. Despite years of official rhetoric about cracking down on pirated products, the urge to make a quick buck through imitation remains so entrenched in China that it has matured into a celebrated culture of its own... Bandits supply these markets with phones that come with the superficial look and feel of brand-name handsets but at a fraction of the price. The posters for iPhone look-alikes invariably superimpose their product name on a screen shot of an actual iPhone, without bothering to change the cell signal in the upper left of the screen that reads 'AT&T 3G.' These smart phones sell for as little as $100, where a real name-brand version might sell for three to six times that much."

In light of the Apple v. Proview feud, critics of the case should be quick to note that this is not the first time Apple has had strained relations with the Chinese. Problems with a black market had occured before with the sale of counterfeit iPhones which could cause alarm for a greater chance of a sale of counterfeit iPads if the ban continues.

Apple vs. Proview

Apple and Proview Dispute: Who owns the iPad trademark?

Who owns the rights to iPad?

Is it Apple or is it a Chinese company, Proview? Proview held a press conference saying it’s in the process of choosing from among three U.S. law firms to sue Apple in the U.S. for $2 billion. In the meantime, it handed out an ad to reporters showing its iPad — or Internet Personal Access Device. The Proview iPad, which it says it spent $30 million developing, looks more like the old iMacs than a tablet computer (Guglielmo).

According to Apple, it bought and registered all of the trademarks for iPad before it was released in 2010. Originally, Proview owned the trademark in eight different countries- two of which were in mainland China. As stated by Forbes staff, Connie Guglielmo, “it bought all trademarks for the iPad name in December 2009 from a Proview Group subsidiary for £35,000 (or about $55,000). Apple says that after talking to Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, it cut the deal with Proview Electronics, which it was told owned the China trademarks.” Shouldn’t this deal be enough to prove that Apple in fact does own the trademarks? Unfortunately, it’s not, and the Chinese courts remain loyal to the Chinese company.

An Apple spokeswoman stated: “We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.” Apple lost that case in mainland China, but it is appealing to a higher court where it can use as evidence from documents that Proview had provided to the court in Hong Kong. One of the documents follows:

A few emails, like the one above, between Apple’s special-purpose company and Proview seem to show that it did own all of the trademarks.

Apple, which had lost a court ruling in Shenzhen recently, must stop selling the iPad or pay more than 10 billion yuan ($1.59 billion) to Proview if it loses the final court rulings in China, industry insiders said.

“Perhaps further chipping away at that credibility is Proview’s statement regarding the iPad itself. Referring to a supposedly similar product for which the iPad name was designated by Proview in 2000, Yang said, ‘We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens.’ Asking the public to believe that Proview, a largely unknown display company, was poised to unveil the original iPad back in 2000 is not an argument likely to win many believers” (PC Mag).

It’s interesting to note that Proview is deeply in debt and hopes via its lawsuits to lift the possible trademark transfer value, according to research firm Analysys International.

Ban on iPads

While some retailers in China say they’ve stopped selling the iPad while the dispute lingers, Apple will continue to sell them in their four retail stores in mainland China.  According to Economic Times, Suning, the country's leading electronics seller, said Friday it was halting sales of iPad, following similar actions by major online shopping sites like Amazon.cn and 360buy.com. However, many Chinese are huge fans of Apple products, so to completely stop selling them could lead to a black market for iPads, in addition to the counterfeiting of the iPad. 

Chinese Authorities Seize iPads

The Chinese authorities started to remove iPads from stores in certain parts of mainland China. According to PC Mag, “the first report of iPad seizures were revealed by the Hebei Youth Daily, and told of inspection teams confiscating roughly 45 iPads from Shijiazhuang stores in Northern China. As news of the seizures spread, many retailers in the area began voluntarily removing the iPad from store shelves to avoid having the device confiscated.” For many retailers, the iPad customers are a huge source of revenue- to stop selling them means losing money. People that come into stores for iPads also purchase other things such as accessories for them or other products of interest in the stores. By seizing the iPads, Chinese authorities are adding further hype and upsetting many people. Who do they remain more loyola to- their country or a company whose products they love?

Is this affecting Apple's stock?

If sales are going to decrease, would this signal a decrease in the stock? 

Should Apple settle or fight it out in court?

What do you think? Comment on the following:

Do you think Apple will win the case? Will Apple be forced to come up with a new name for the iPad in China? What would you call the iPad if you had to give it a new name in China? Do you think this is China's way at attacking American business and presence in their country? Will this force Apple to rethink where it does business and avoid China? Will Apple do more work and business in Europe now?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/chinese-retailers-stop-apple-ipad-sales-as-proview-dispute-intensifies/articleshow/11942263.cms

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/02/18/apple-keeps-selling-ipad-in-china-as-trademark-dispute-escalates/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400165,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400281,00.asp

"...And Great Britain Waged A 'Wicked' Drug War"

"When Opium Was Cheaper than Whiskey..."

"These [opium] bottles, dating to the late 1800s and found in the remains of a small mining town several hundred miles north of Vancouver, are a silent testament to the end of an era, when Great Britain waged a "wicked" drug war "for the lucre of gain," opium was cheaper than whiskey, babies where "quieted" to death, and a lonely miner might have traded his last, hard-won flakes of gold for a few minutes of "heavenly bliss," only to awaken more lost and lonely with the dawn."

Soaring Drug Abuse in China's South

The Black "Organ" Market

            Illegal organ trafficking is a worldwide epidemic. According to Miracles for Life Worldwide, 19 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant. This may seem insignificant, but every 12 minutes, another person is added to the waiting list. Whether it is a kidney, liver, or heart, these afflicted individuals are involuntarily forced into a life or death situation where finding a replacement organ is the only escape.

            Those hanging on for life face a potential six to seven year wait before a suitable organ becomes available. This state of paralysis is essentially a death sentence waiting to happen. Fortunately for these patients, “the black market is a short term solution” (Goodwin).

            Although laws regarding organ donation are highly monitored, illegal organ activity is not unheard of. The Chinese market is the paramount location for illegal activity. With many small private clinics and hospitals spread throughout the nation, it is difficult for the Chinese government to regular organ trafficking. China’s black market allows patients to acquire a new organ in a matter of weeks, even days. Such speed is unheard of in countries that rely on pure altruistic giving.

Behind Closed Curtains

            The vast majority of illegal organs derive from the bodies of executed criminals that are given the death sentence for even the most minor injustices. According to CNNWorld, “only 11,000 transplant operations…are performed each year…More than 90 percent of those organs come from executed prisoners.” (Chen). The fact that executions of this nature are legal in China makes this type of illicit activity easier to get away with. Amnesty International states that more than 4,500 Chinese prisoners are executed each year with bullet to the back of the head because it preserves internal organs, as opposed to lethal injections.  

            A recent discovery revealed that a kidney from a living donor keeps someone alive for twice as long than one from a cadaver. This revelation gave rise to underground middlemen to seek out impoverished individuals willing to sacrifice organs for monetary compensation. These middlemen transport patients to an undisclosed hospital for a “broker-friendly” surgeon to conduct a series of blood tests to ensure the health of the organs. Before conducting the surgery, the middleman compensates the patients with anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000 cash, and then turns around to sell it anywhere from $100,000 to $150,000, depending on the organ. After swearing to secrecy, the patient is then provided with transportation back home.

Laws and Regulations

            In 1984, China mandated the “National Organ Transplant Act,” which states that organs of executed prisoners “could be harvested if no one claimed the body, if the executed prisoner volunteered to have his corpse so used, or if the family consented” (PrisonOrgans). This law also requires that a national registry is kept for organ matching, and that a federal contract is signed before surgery.

            These laws only facilitate organ trafficking because in China, having a family member in prison is a financial burden. Families of prisoners are indebted to pay for their rent and ‘if the individual is to be executed, the family is to compensate the government for the bullet and to remunerate the funeral arrangements” (PrisonOrgans). Because of these expenses and the shame it brings, families are usually willing to grant execution. This law is useless, as it simplifies the process of obtaining organs illegally.

            In 2007, China made it “illegal for living donors to donate organs, except from spouses or blood relatives” (Moxley). This law only provokes more illegal activity because if patients are unable receive an organ within their family, the black market is their only hope for survival.

            With illegal trafficking persisting, “The Ministry of Health recently announced it would crack down on medical facilities found conducting organ transplants without proper qualifications, levying large fines and ordering the hospitals to conduct institutional overhauls or risk closure. Staff found breaking laws will be stripped of licenses, and officials in charge will be removed and held legally responsible” (Moxley). This constraint is only making it harder for patients to live, which is why these laws must to be reformed.

Solutions

            “1.5 million patients are enlisted on China’s organ transplant waiting list, with the number of registered donor only about 10,000” (Coonan). With the Chinese laws facilitating illegal organ donations and making it hard to donate, I don’t blame the thousands of unregistered voters for not signing up. If monetary compensation is the only incentive donors seek, there is no incentive to donate legally.

            To minimize this illicit activity, I think individuals should receive incentives for signing up as an organ donor on their driver’s license. This will not only provide benefits to the donor, but it will reduce the wait for individuals patiently awaiting for a legally obtained organ.

            Not only will financial incentives be provided to registered donors, but those who voluntarily donate an organ should receive compensation as well. "Other compensation could also be considered, such as tax rebates, medical insurance or tuition wavers for donors’ family members" (Moxley). Reviving a system of voluntary donation is a long-term goal but with these small steps, illegal means of organ donation can be completely eliminated.

          What do you think? Do desperate times call for desperate measures, or should organ trafficking be considered a crime?