Introduction
With the growing market of petroleum products, the Chinese government intended to expand the petroleum refinery plant in Ningbo. The Chinese government planned to expand the petroleum plant using 8.9 billion of dollars.
The local government of Ningbo city backed the expansion of the petroleum plant because it aimed at promoting industrial development in the city. The New York Times in October this year argued that since environmentalists understood the potential pollution that the project posed on Ningbo and its environs, they objected to the government’s expansion plans (Jacobs Para. 7).
The production of a toxic chemical, which is a potent pollutant to the environment, had serious effects on health of the people. Moreover, other industries in the city have contributed to massive pollution, which has led to the emergence of cancer and other illnesses associated with pollution. Understanding the danger that the project posed on the environment and their health, the citizens went on a three-day protest on streets where they battled with the police.
The government used force to disperse protestors who continued to protest even after the government announced that it had shelved the expansion plans. The situation led to the question as to whether the response by the police was justified or was inappropriate. Therefore, this essay examines the arguments for and against the government’s actions with a view of presenting my view on them.
Arguments that Supports Government Actions
The government has the prerogative to exercise its economic plans without undue influence from members of the public. The local government of Ningbo planned to expand its industrial capacity so that citizens could get employment in the sector. Moreover, the expansion of the petroleum plant was economically important because it would increase the gross domestic product of China.
Since the government had good intentions of enhancing the economic capacity of China, protestors interfered with the plans, thus affecting economic development. Reports airing in the British Broadcasting Corporation immediately after the protests indicated, “Some claim that the people in Ningbo scored a victory, but we hold that when deciding a heavy chemical project through such protests, there is no winner, but the whole country loses” (British Broadcasting Corporation Para. 3).
The Chinese government lost billions of dollars following the protestors’ objection to the expansion of the petroleum plant, yet they need economic development now than ever before. Thus, the response by the government to disperse protesters was justifiable as the project had economic significance to China and its people including the protestors.
Although the main reason why the Chinese citizens held demonstrations was to stop the government from implementing the proposed extensions of the petroleum refinery plant, the protestors continued demonstrating even after the government shelved its expansion plans.
One protester revealed, “there is very little public confidence in the government …who knows if they are saying this just to make us leave and then keep on doing the project” (Wong Para. 5). The shift in the demonstrators’ reasoning did not give the citizens the right to demonstrate. The three-day protests were legal; however, the extension of the protests even after the government cancelled its plans to expand petroleum product, was illegal.
An article on World Times 2012 noted that on interviewing the government officials concerning the extension of demonstration, they said, “A few people disrupted public order by staging sit-ins, unfurling banners, distributing fliers, and obstructing roads” (Wong Para. 12). Hence, genuine protestors heeded the plans of the government to cancel the expansion of the project.
The demonstrations posed great danger to the economic stability of China, particularly in the city of Ningbo. In this view, the government had the right to protect investors and business people in the city because demonstrations cause disruptions and threaten the otherwise lucrative environment for economic development.
With the protests proceeding on the third day with no signs of stopping, it was the right time for the government to intervene. According to China Digital Times in October 2012, “In Ningbo, protests continued even after the authorities pledged to halt the PX project, in part due to the suspicion that the government runs so high” (Beach Para. 6).
Continued demonstration without any intervention would cause serious economic repercussions to China and Ningbo. Hence, to restore the economic stability of China and Ningbo, the government had to quell protests. Use of the police force was the best alternative to prevent demonstrations from affecting the economy.
Economic and political competition between China and the United States is another point that supports the government’s actions. The two nations differ in political and economic ideologies.
China has authoritarian government while the United States employs democracy. Jacobs, of The New York Times 2012, posits, “The protests, which followed similar demonstrations in other cities in the past year, point to increasing willingness of the Chinese to take to the streets despite the perils of openly challenging the country’s authoritarian government” (Para. 7).
Hence, environmentalists are behind Western policies in the name of protecting human rights and projecting the Chinese government as an authoritative body.
An environmentalist asserts, “The time bomb has already been planted …the pollution that has accumulated during China’s decades of rapid growth is now extremely costly and difficult to manage” (Waldmeir, Hook, and Anderlini Para. 7). Thus, the issue of environmentalists is not only about environmental pollution, but also economic growth of China. Economically, China is a communist state while the US is a capitalist state.
The two are in constant efforts to prove their systems and ideas are the best. Fox News 2012, which carried a detailed account of the protests, posits, “A victory by protesters against the expansion of a chemical plant proves the new rule in China” (Ji Para. 1). The new rule means political and economic transformation of China. Therefore, the government response was justifiable because protestors aimed at discrediting the current government.
Lastly, the riots took place during a campaign season where politicians can take advantage of protests to cause instability in the government. The demonstrations affected the incumbent Chinese Community Party because the 18th National Congress was due on 8 November, when people anticipated leadership transition.
In a bid to alleviate the impact of the demonstrations on the National Congress, “the state security authorities called local governments to stop any protest ahead of the congress, because public demonstrations could destroy the already fragile “unity” of the rival CCP factions” (Chan Para. 8).
Since the campaign season in most countries is vulnerable to violence, suppression of the protests was critical. A single incidence of violence could trigger massive occurrence of violence activities across China. Therefore, the best way to stop the demonstration was by use of the police force.
Arguments that are against Government Actions
Those against the actions by the government support protestors because they argue that the primary reason for the protests was the government’s plans to expand the petroleum plant without first seeking the opinion of the people. Their argument means that the decision to extend the state-owned petroleum refinery plant was done without the knowledge of the people.
The local government is after increasing gross domestic product without considering the impact of the plant on the environment (British Broadcasting Corporation Para. 4). The involvement of the citizens would have enabled the government to avert occurrence of the protests in Ningbo. Hence, the government overlooked the views of the citizens.
Moreover, the government did not make any efforts to involve environmental surveyors to assess the environmental impact of the proposed expansion of the petroleum plant. Protestors argued that the plant produces some toxic emissions, which have been proven to be harmful to people and the environment.
According to an article carried in The New York Times 2012, “Residents were particularly unnerved by one major component of the project: the production of paraxylene, a toxic petrochemical known as PX that is a crucial ingredient in the manufacture of polyester, paints and plastic bottles” (Jacobs Para. 7). The residents of the Ningbo city have the right to champion for their environmental and human health.
According to an investigative article carried in The Guardian October 2012, one protestor noted, “We can only depend on ourselves now…we cannot count on the government to think about us” (Associated Press Para. 3). Hence, the demonstrations were a means through which citizens could defend themselves against potential pollution impacts of the proposed petroleum plant in Ningbo.
Another argument that objects the government’s move is that the government is using authoritarian rule in implementing its decisions. As evident in the protests, the government used excessive force in dispersing the protests. According The Guardian article, “On Saturday, residents reported that protests involving thousands of people had turned violent after authorities used teargas and arrested participants” (Associated Press Para. 6).
Although the protests were peaceful, the police employed force by beating and shooting teargas at the protestors to disperse them and prevent them from agitating for their rights. The police also arrested others and intimidated them to name the leaders of the protest. One of the arrested women said that the government made her sign a guarantee that she would not take part in the demonstrations.
The woman says, “They won’t even let us sing the national anthem …they kept asking me who the leader of the protests was, and I said that this is all voluntary…we have no leader” (Associated Press Para. 11). Hence, use of excessive force by the police was not justifiable because it amounts to intimidation of protestors, thus denying them their rights to freedom of expression.
The manner in which local authorities handled the issues of environmental pollution has made the citizens skeptical on the intentions of the government. Residents around the Zhenhai chemical industrial region protested about the foul smell hanging in the air because the government had failed to take necessary measures.
Immediately after the protests, The Washington Post stated, “A handful of angry young men manned a makeshift barricade complaining that the local government had never followed through on a 10-year-old promise to pay a subsidy to local residents because of pollution” (Waldmeir, Hook, and Anderlini Para. 4).
Given the government’s failure to honor its promise, the citizens could no longer trust it. Despite the fact that it had promised to shelve the plans of expanding the petroleum project, the government could still go ahead with the planned expansions. Skepticism forced the protesters to continue with demonstrations even after the government declared that it would stop its expansion plans in response to the demands of the citizens.
The other argument for the protests against the action by the government is that the government could not listen to the opinion of its citizens, so the demonstrations were the only available avenue through which the citizens could voice their complaints. Since the government did not provide any forum for citizens to express their opinions, they resorted to demonstrations. In spite of the police force, the protesters were determined to express their opinion.
As reported, one protester said that the government was more concerned about making money than considering environmental and health impacts of the project (British Broadcasting Corporation, Para. 2). Although the petroleum project has serious health and environmental consequences, the government was adamant about its expansion. Thus, it was justifiable for the protesters to demonstrate so that the government could understand the seriousness of their demands.
My View
In my view, the arguments presented by the protesters are not correct and seem out of context. Firstly, the argument that the government did not involve the residents in planning for the extension is not only misinformed, but also deficient. Such argument sought to project the government as an autocratic body, which is not the case. The government has the prerogative to conduct its activities without undue influence from citizens.
The supporters of this claim argue that the government did not involve the services of environmental surveyors to establish the environmental impact for the extension. This argument is incorrect, and I think it has it basis on hearsay. In the various reports presented on the issue, none presents quantifiable evidence that the Chinese government did not actually engage the services of environmental analysts.
Secondly, one of the main reasons that led to the relocation of the company to China was to obtain cheap and locally available labor. This move simply means that the town of Ningbo and its residents are beneficiaries of the petroleum plant. First, it would provide employment opportunities as well as some other economical advantages.
Given that the company is an international company, which is set to use 8.9 billion dollars, the government and its citizens will reap significant economic benefits from it. These benefits include infrastructural development and opening up the province to foreign investors. Thus, protesters made the Ningbo town and China to lose a multibillion project, which would have transformed the lives of many and build a better society.
The third argument is that the government understands no other language except demonstrations, which is a misinformed and deficient contention. The fact that the government can respond appropriately to demonstrations does not mean that protesters should abuse it.
In the case of Ningbo protests, continued demonstrations even after the government had relinquished the plans of expanding the petroleum project amounted to abuse of freedom of expression. The protesters were insincere in extending their demonstrations because the government already solved the problem. Hence, it was justifiable for the government to use all the available means to stop the protesters from perpetuating demonstrations in the city.
Fourthly, given that the political atmosphere was unstable, presence of any demonstrations could trigger violence. As the incumbent regime under the Chinese Community Party was to conduct its nominations on November 8, there was a probability that the rival political parties would cause tension to discredit the regime.
In this view, peace was of great essence to allow politicians to conduct their campaigns without taking advantage of the volatile demonstrations of the citizens. Additionally, even if political campaigns were absent, unregulated demonstrations could trigger violence across the country. Hence, the government had to remain active in regulating peaceful demonstrations to prevent them from degenerating into violence.
Although the protests started peacefully, violence erupted later on. When police officers started to disperse the protesters, they turned violent and started throwing objects at the police officers causing tension in the city. Therefore, use of the police force to quell the protests was a reasonable and the best available strategy to bring calm in the city in the midst of political campaigns.
Conclusion
There are several justifications for government actions to suppress the Ningbo protests. The first one is the illegal and baseless continuation of the protests even after the government shelved the extension plans. Secondly, the expansion aimed at enhancing economic development and creating employment opportunities rather than causing pollution.
In essence, the government could not sit back and watch the protests threatening the already ailing economy of the province, and thus the continued revolt would paint the country negatively to its Western competitors. The arguments against the government actions are faulty and misinformed. Thirdly, the first argument that the government could only listen to the public through a protest is deficient.
It does not justify the continued protests even after the government put the extensions on hold. Fourthly, as it was a campaign season, it was not the right time for the government to condone reckless protests. Hence, the essay concludes that the actions that the Chinese government took in response to the Ningbo protests were justifiable.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “Chinese protest over chemical factory: Riot police clash with residents protesting over plans to expand chemical factory in Zheijiang province.” Associated Press, 28 Oct. 2012. Web.
Beach, Sophie. “Ningbo protests point to middle class disconnect.” China Digital Times, 2012. Web.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). “China morning round-up: Ningbo factory protest.” BBC News, 2012. Web.
Chan, John. “Protests in Chinese city halt multi-billion chemical project.” World Socialist Web Site, 2012. Web.
Jacobs, Andrew. “Protests over chemical plant force Chinese officials to back down.” The New York Times, 2012. Web.
Ji, Flora. “Successful pollution protests shows China takes careful line with rising middle class.” Fox News, 2012. Web.
Waldmeir, Patti, Leslie Hook, and Jamil Anderlini. “Ningbo protest, response both typical of China’s environmental debate.” The Washington Post, 29 Oct. 2012. Web.
Wong, Gillian. “Chinese Protest Factory Even After Official Pledge.” World Times, 2012. Web.