milestone to globalization

I had tarot card reading before I started the new job. Now that I have been on the job for a month, I could say that it was right about the improved working environemnt and the massive workload I was going to have, and wrong by saying that the job was far from my expectation and I would stay on the job for less that a year. Apparently I don't know about the second part yet, but I would say I'm enjoying what I do, though not to the extend of liking it, or maybe put it another way, I like the responsibility I have now.

"It's a milestone for you", Helen said. Helen's been extremely supportive on what I do, and even, she's the only friend who's enthusiastic about my job as much as I am.

So if she's correct, yesterday was a milestone for me.

I interviewed the Minister of Trade Negotiation of New Zealand, Jim Sutton, yesterday. Not that anybody would know him in Hong Kong, but he's a politician in the highest rank I have ever interview so far.

The interview got me so nervous the night before and in the morning. I stayed up doing last minute research to finalize my questions till three, and then I had to get up at 7 to attend this WTO workshop at HKU. Everything was in rush that day and my heart was beating fast the whole time from anxiety. (even after work when I had to rush to CWB to catch a movie)

It turned out, writing down every complete questions on the notebook, something I rarely do, saved my axx. The writing process enhanced memorization, so even though I left my notebook in the workshop, very unfortunately, I didn't miss any questions, not even one figure, in the interview. =D

"That was impressive, you're a great asset to your company", New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Regional Director (North Asia) Merv Stark, who accompanied the Minister, told me after the interview. I know he said it out of courtesy, but it made my nervousness end with a good note.

Now I think I'm more prepared for the interviews in France.

I have been thinking about the issue of globalization. I studied it in college, but then I forgot, what are the arguements against it?

Besides posing a threat to the local culture of all countries and exploiting the labor in LDCs?

The Australian Consul General remarked sarcastically in the workshop yesterday, if WTO is so evil, why do the underdeveloped countries still choose to remain in the institution after 10 year time has passed?

Of course, what's good to be excluded from the game, at least you get a say, even though no one listens. And after all, it's better off to have an unfair trade than a sanction.

So did the consul general have a point?

WTO director general Pascal Lamy once said in Hong Kong, WTO's core business is not distributing wealth, it's creating wealth. In other words, it's creating wealth in a distorted manner, the rich gets more, the poor gets less. So it's well true that WTO is not distributing wealth, because it's deepening the imbalance in essense.

But what about, if WTO's really creating wealth and making the economic pie grow larger, then as the rich gets richer, the poor also gets richer?

Anti-WTO advocates accused WTO of exploiting LDCs, but how can the labor and farmers in LDCs be protected if there's WTO? What other solutions do they provide?

Trade is inevitable, WTO's not perfect, but one cannot deny it altogether. What is needed is a set of regulations that will open the world to fairer trade. Of course, fairer trade does not equate fair trade, just to be realistic, a country cannot expect fair trade until she has the bargaining power. And more importantly, nothing is really fair in the world.

I know this is getting long and boring, but I need to share one more thought.

When I was researching on the trade between Hong Kong and New Zealand, I found a ppt explaining why NZ needs to put more resourses in developing trade in China. (another point is that they need HK as a springboard, but that's another issue) The ppt states out China vast population size, trade figures and all those, to sum up, it's a market not to be missed, they have to act quick in order to get a share of the pie.

It sounds like a deju vu. Wasn't it the same theory when the West first invaded China at the beginning of last century? (or was it the century before? forgive my inadequacy in chinese history) Only that now physical force has turned into economic encrochment, and thus became more civilized and legitimate.

I only hope, China is now strong enough to ward off any form of aggression.