One more. I am listed in the special book that features 60 experts (60 years PRC…) in China’s recent history. A bit surprised but happy to be listed among some very well known experts.
The book is called “60 Foreign Experts in China”, published in 2009 by the Foreign Languages Press and compiled by International Talent monthly. Forword by Zhang Jianguo, Deputy General Director of the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs.
Listed are of course the “usual suspects” such as Israel Epstein, Sidney Shapiro, David Dollar, William Lindesay, Norman Foster, Edwin Maher and even Henricus (Hein for the insiders) Verbruggen.

Download the pdf (I made a scan) of the book with my “story” in English and Chinese:
2009_60experts.pdf
For those who read Chinese, see also the article published in “International Talent” in October 2008:
081001talent.pdf

Global Times “interviewed” me. Despite the assumption I would have 700 words, nearly all was dumped. Won’t respond to their interviews anymore.
Recent developments make us worried. It’s getting hard to defend China.
See here the full text.
The Google polemic – by Gilbert Van Kerckhove – for the Global Times
(original and edited version – only a tiny part to be published)
“It’s not so Google that’s withdrawing from China, it’s China that’s withdrawing from the world”.
The tone between China and the USA is becoming more confrontational.
China is trying to deflect criticism by demanding respect for its national laws and by playing the victim of repeated cyber attacks.
For people who believe in China and try to counter at least some of the unfounded media and political attacks, it is becoming a tough task.
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, “Chinese Internet is open and China has tried creating a favorable environment for the Internet”.
This is a ridiculous statement that tarnishes China’s image, aspiring to become a leading economy through innovation, creativity and the continuous development of its industry and trade.
International security specialists point at indications in software codes and the purpose of the cyber attacks, such as trying to steal data (the recent news on U.S. oil companies that were “tapped”),  clamping down on dissidents, controlling journalists and on any “unwanted” information. Invoking the fight against pornography is seen as an excuse.
Google’s move is applauded by those who are tired of the Internet restrictions. Many websites, vital for business and research, are blocked, despite promises for the 2008 Olympics. Even SMS would be subject to censorship, a direct invasion of privacy. But little is done to stop the proliferation of junk messages offering fake invoices and real estate deals.
But the dispute brings into the open the rights of netizens and a debate on censorship.
By erecting the many barriers to the globalization of information, China is sterilizing the local Internet and shows insecurity and self-confidence, making China haters happy as it seems to prove their opinion. Clamping down on the Internet looks like advocating to ban all car traffic because it causes accidents and road deaths.
Said senior White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers:
“It seems to me that the principles that Google is trying to uphold are not just important in a moral or rights framework, but are also of very considerable economic importance,” He said that information flow is central as the economy on the mainland matures and transforms from industrial-based to more knowledge-based.
Liu Deliang, an internet law professor at the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications:
“It is fair to say that the government’s control over the internet and the flow of information is way too strict, and the way authorities regulate cyberspace will have a negative impact on the people’s confidence in the political and legal systems.”
China has to make a choice to take up a responsible and confident leadership role or to decide if the country should be inward looking, losing out to the new Internet world. Favoring Chinese search engines will affect many serious business people and researchers. Google.com and some of its services (e.g. gmail) will still be available in China, unless China starts blocking them as it did with other services.
It is unlikely that other major U.S. companies will follow Google but they will need to review operations. The USA has strongly appealed to take a position in favor of an open Internet, as explained by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. The issue does not need to be blown up as a massive anti-China strategy.
China should educate its netizens, combat hacking, cooperate with other countries on international cyber attacks, moderate biased nationalistic bloggers and curtail spam SMS.
In the West, a voice is coming up to make it a WTO case because China erects one more trade barrier through its Firewall.
Foreign chambers of commerce increasingly worry about trade protectionism in China. While China claims to suffer from trade protectionism it erects its trade and Intellectual Property Rights barriers to impede fair market access. The recent “Joint circular (Notice No. 618 – Ministry of Science and Technology, National Development and Reform Commission and Ministry of Finance), establishing an Indigenous Innovation Product Accreditation System” is a perfect example, among others like the encryption debate. China would be wrong to think only the USA is losing patience. Europeans could soon follow.
China can buy a radio station in the USA. And here? Foreigners face here many limitations while Chinese companies go abroad and invest in mining, carry out construction projects in a way foreign companies would never be allowed to in China.
Expect a backlash, rather sooner than later. Of course China will appeal to the “nationalistic feelings” of its citizens to get support.
I hope a solution can be worked out discreetly and calmly.

29 December 2009 – Economy faces tricky balancing act in 2010
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2009-12/495189.html
by:  Li Yanjie / Annabel – Global Times
The following is the original, corrected version. The interview as published is much shorter. The comments of Ding Yifan have been removed here.
Editor’s Note:
China emerged as an undeniably great economic power in 2009, but there were still doubts. China has been praised for its efforts in dealing with the economic crisis, but its underlying economic structure has been criticized both outside and inside the country. Ding Yifan (Ding), a researcher with the Development Research Center of the State Council and Gilbert Van Kerckhove, a foreigner who has been in China over 25 years, previously Senior Adviser for the Olympic Economy for the Beijing Municipal Government and also the managing director of Beijing Global Strategy Consulting Co, Ltd, talked with Global Times (GT) reporter Li Yanjie, on China’s economic performance in 2009 and expectations in 2010.
GT: As we near the end of 2009, how do you assess China’s economic performance?
Van Kerckhove: China is one of the few countries that has escaped major turmoil. Other countries have had quite a number of problems. Of course there has been some fallout from the financial crisis, but overall, China’s economy has been performing pretty well.
GT: Little was done to restructure industry this year, since growth was a priority. What policies would you propose should be pursued next year to achieve restructuring?
Van Kerckhove: Well, we had the new Labor Law. Hong Kong reacted against it because many companies there have factories in Guangdong Province, and they complained that because of the labor law, their costs were going up.
But that was actually the plan of the central government; the aim was to improve the salaries and conditions of the workers to boost domestic consumption, and also to force industries to move away from cheap products to more high value products.
The restructuring may be slow, and there were large job losses in some provinces, especially along the East coast, but this is positive in the long run because it forces those provinces to restructure their economy and focus on higher value products.
GT: Beijing’s stimulus package was gigantic, and it has continued with a relatively free monetary and credit policy, and there are worries about future inflation. What policies, in your view, should China take to safeguard against this?
Van Kerckhove: I’m not really expecting a lot of inflation in China. We’ve seen some temporary inflation in the food sector, like garlic and pork prices but overall it should remain modest.
One big challenge for China is to rebalance the internal economy. Some salaries are still too low, like in the construction sector. Construction workers are poorly trained, and no one invests money in training. The price of utilities like water and electricity need adjustment so people pay more attention to the environment.
I think adjusting price levels is a good way for China to rebalance the economy, to force it to change. Look at the Scandinavian countries. They are very efficient. People are well paid, and the products are good. You pay a lot of taxes, but healthcare is good and the country is environmentally sound.
GT: Beijing has been trying to promote domestic demand ever since the economic crisis. How do you evaluate its policies on this regard, such as home appliances going to the countryside and replacement of old appliances? Until now, investment was the major driver of economic growth. What more can be done to promote domestic demand further? High housing prices curtail consumption demand for other goods. The central government has been trying to regulate housing prices, but achieved a contrary result. What policies will be effective?
Van Kerckhove: The measures to improve the countryside, like promoting home appliances and cars are OK but are only temporary. They can do it once but not every year. Concerning the economic growth, the government has to be careful how to allocate the money.
There was a weak point in the stimulus plan, because too much money went to State-owned Enterprises that sometimes didn’t need it. Too much money went to the stock market to stabilize it. Not enough money went to the private sector. A lot went into infrastructure construction. I think it’s good, because still a lot needs to be improved in China, like railway, electric power, roads, highways, water. They are important for the economy, especially for inland enterprises to improve logistics and manufacturing. The government has to continue the stimulus plan but should be careful not to channel too much money to SOEs and it should give more to healthcare, private companies and other sectors in need. China’s private companies are a major part of the economy today. They provide a lot of employment and they need more help from the government.
GT: Since the financial crisis, some developed countries plan to revitalize their manufacturing to decrease trade deficit. Many developing countries may try to win more international market share in a number of ways, including devaluation of their currencies. China’s export volume is down by a wide margin, and many overseas Chinese companies are facing hostile treatment. The US has provoked trade conflicts against China. In your view, will China face more trade conflicts next year? How can China resolve or reduce these conflicts? Will world demand for “Made in China” continue to fall?
Van Kerckhove: As the economy is still weak in the US and unemployment remains high, consumers are not likely to spend a lot of money – they are not ready to buy like before. People, like me, are not too optimistic on China’s export figures, no boom is expected next year. It will not be very bad, but export volume will not return to previous levels.
For the trade relations, I think the problem will continue, which is also a result of the crisis. China is complaining about protectionism from foreign countries. There are more trade barriers, but on both sides. If you look at trade between Europe and China, the imbalance is huge. China says, “you don’t want to export high tech,” actually this is not so true. Europe wants to export high tech to China, but China is reluctant to pay a fair price. Sometimes when high tech is brought into China, it is copied.
China also takes a dangerous road by not allowing fair market access. It will result in more trade disputes. How can China explain the trade imbalance? Any country would be very unhappy if in the same situation. It gives Western politicians ammunition to criticize China.
GT: Do you think Chinese enterprises have grown strong enough to buy foreign companies? China has lost several bids. What do you see as the causes of failure? Any suggestions on this for Chinese enterprises?
Van Kerckhove: I think China will try to continue to invest abroad. There have been problems in the past because of several issues. One issue is political. Some people like in the U.S. and Australia claim “the Chinese are buying up everything here” This is true in part only. Sometimes we explain to our Chinese counterparts that Western countries see the Chinese buying up factories and natural resources, but foreign companies can’t do the same thing in China. Often foreign companies have to accept a joint venture scheme with a minority share, or are not allowed at all to invest. Chinese companies carry out projects abroad that foreign companies could never do in China. That is creating resentment.
The Chinese are making the same mistakes the foreigners did in China a long time ago. One problem is that Chinese companies investing abroad use little local labor and massively use Chinese labor instead. They only eat Chinese and talk Chinese. They take away jobs from the local people. The local people become angry and some attack Chinese, burning down shops. This even happens in Europe. A Chinese company bought a car factory in the UK. The first thing they did was to bring over 10 Chinese cooks. Of course everybody likes its own cuisine. But it’s like you invite me in China for dinner and I say I don’t eat Chinese food, I only eat Belgian food. You will react, “Oh, he hates our food, he hates our culture!”
There are also cultural problems. Our Chinese friends have to learn to integrate better with the local community.
Chinese people are slowly tackling these problems. Some Chinese companies in Europe are using more and more local people.
Some Chinese people ask me, “How should we do abroad?”
“You should do what you told me 28 years ago what I should do in China: ‘You have to employ local people, you have to understand the local market, you have to bring your technology to our country. It must be a mutual benefit. You must respect Chinese culture.”
Now our Chinese friends have to do the same.
GT: The US economy is going steady. Do you think the dollar will increase in value next year? And will the Federal Reserve raise interest rates? If the Federal Reserve does so, China will face the risk of international capital pulling out. How should China prepare for the risk? How much influence does international hot many have on China’s capital markets?
Van Kerckhove: The US economy is still weak and will not improve so quickly. It will affect China. The outlook of the dollar is difficult to predict. I think the US government can’t really increase the interest rate because that would endanger economic recovery. It’s in the same tricky situation like Japan. The dollar might recover a little bit, because now it’s pretty low, but it won’t recover a lot because the US has too much debt and it’s not going to improve soon. The US still needs to continue the stimulus plan, resulting in more debt, and this leaves China worried with all its US dollar reserves.