China cites Tibet among major threats in defence policy paper (TibetanReview.net, Jan 21) - Separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang remain major threats to China's security, said China's Defence ministry spokesman Hu Changming as he launched "China's National Defense
in 2008," a policy paper in Beijing on Jan 20. "Taiwan independence, East Turkestan independence, Tibetan independence and other separatist forces form a major security threat to the unity of the nation and a challenge to our security organs," EasyBourse.com (France) Jan 20 quoted Hu as saying. "On these issues there can be no compromise and no tolerance."
"These problems are all linked to the fundamental interests of our people and the core interests of the nation," it quoted Hu as saying. "The People's Liberation Army will resolutely uphold the sacred task of safeguarding state sovereignty, security and territorial integrity."
In the paper, Beijing pledged to maintain "a purely defensive" stance in its robust military buildup. But China's neighbours, notably Japan and Taiwan, and the US remain seriously concerned about the real intentions behind China's relentless military buildup and modernization campaign.
| |||
Nothing like calling on that well-armed and quick-drawing Marshall Seth Law for security improvements, is there?
I might be able to martial some arguments against Marshall Law but I've to to research some aspects of contemporary usage.
Marshall Dillon, Marshall Islands, Marshall Earp, but don't ever call me Marshall Mellow. Cheers
There’s something about “globalism” that I do not yet understand. John, allow me to formulate my question (if I can). You of all people are sure to have an answer or, at the very least, an educated guess.
When I look at the world I see different regions, each with its own unique problems. Recently, we focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We learned that there were other players involved, namely Tehran and possibly the Russians. That much made sense to me.
Before that, we focused on the U.S. elections – Democrats vs. Republicans. It was covered extensively by our local media, which is only natural as it was happening right here in our own backyard. It was presented as a “center-of-earth” drama but there were hints of outside influence as well. Where did all of Obama’s money come from, for instance? You know - all those $123.47 campaign contributions.
Then there was India and Pakistan, and now you are introducing China into the mix.
There are those who suggest that globalization means that there is one entity (some would say it’s the Jews) that controls all the action worldwide for the amusement of the masses; that a shadow government (already in place), interested only in increasing its own power and reach, pulls all the strings. (As an aside, please remember that markets go up and down. Money can be generated either way. What matters is that markets move.)
Now China. John, how far has “globalism” spread? Or, are we already there? Or is all that’s happening dictated by pure chance and we are merely struggling to catch up with it as in a child’s play of “connecting the dots”?
Martin Wolf argues in passing in the FT that the imbalances created the last ten years by the excessive China Price trade have created the present crisis. Bubbles of housing the stock prices follwoed the China Price. And China and Asia defended themselves by hoarding dollars and manipulating the currency peg. The bubbles created the crisis. We are locked into the cycle:
"I have argued that the driving force behind these “imbalances” has been the policies of surplus countries and particularly of China, whose surpluses have grown particularly quickly (see chart). A managed exchange rate, huge accumulations of foreign currency reserves and sterilisation of their monetary consequences, tight fiscal discipline and high retained earnings of companies have generated national savings rates of well over 50 per cent of gross domestic product and current account surpluses of more than 10 per cent. Household savings appear to generate less than a third of total savings. In turn, investment has poured into expanding supply, including of exports: the ratio of China’s exports to GDP rose from 20 per cent of GDP at the beginning of 2002 to 37 per cent in 2007 (see chart).
"The view that the excesses of deficit countries were partly a response to the behaviour of surplus countries is shared by a number of policymakers, including Hank Paulson, outgoing US Treasury secretary. Zhang Jianhua of the People’s Bank of China is reported to have declared that “this view is extremely ridiculous and irresponsible and it’s ‘gangster logic’ ”. In this perspective, the pattern of global deficits and surpluses was solely caused by western policymakers, particularly the Federal Reserve’s lax monetary policies and unregulated expansion of credit.
"Yet, whoever was most responsible, one point is certain: huge asset price bubbles made possible the excess supply of some countries, particularly China. Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the developed world – and the US in particular – have experienced, successively, the largest stock market bubble and the biggest credit-fuelled housing bubble in their histories. This era is over. We will struggle with its aftermath for years.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd14a46e-e72f-11dd-aef2-0000779fd2ac.html
Why Obama must mend a sick world economy
By Martin Wolf
Published: January 20 2009 20:38 | Last updated: January 20 2009 20:38
Pity President Barack Obama. He won power partly because of the global economic crisis. He himself, most of his fellow citizens and much of the rest of the world agree that the US broke the world economy and now has the duty to fix it. Unhappily, this consensus is false. The crisis is a product of the global economy. It cannot be cured by the US alone.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Economists’ forum - Oct-01
Every week, 50 of the world’s most influential economists discuss Martin Wolf’s articles on FT.com
Happily, Mr Obama has the authority needed to lead the world towards a resolution: his hands are clean, and his lack of desire to exculpate his country is evident. It is also in the interest of his country and the world that the world economy be put on a sounder footing. Should this effort fail, I fear a resurgence of protectionism will be the outcome.
What then is the global failure? It is the malign interaction between some countries’ propensity towards chronic excess supply and other countries’ opposite propensity towards excess demand. This is the theme of my book Fixing Global Finance. But the biggest point about the world economy today is that the credit-fuelled household borrowing that supported the excess demand in deficit countries has come to a sudden stop. Unless this is reversed, excess supply of surplus countries must also collapse. This statement follows as a matter of logic: at world level, supply must equal demand. The question is only how the adjustment occurs.
Michael Pettis of Peking University laid out the argument in the Financial Times on December 14 2008. Professor Pettis sees the world as divided into two economic camps: in one are countries with elastic systems of consumer finance and high consumption; in the other are countries with high savings and investment. The US is the most important example of the former. China is the most significant example of the latter. Spain, the UK and Australia were mini versions of the US; Germany and Japan are mature versions of contemporary China.
I have argued that the driving force behind these “imbalances” has been the policies of surplus countries and particularly of China, whose surpluses have grown particularly quickly (see chart). A managed exchange rate, huge accumulations of foreign currency reserves and sterilisation of their monetary consequences, tight fiscal discipline and high retained earnings of companies have generated national savings rates of well over 50 per cent of gross domestic product and current account surpluses of more than 10 per cent. Household savings appear to generate less than a third of total savings. In turn, investment has poured into expanding supply, including of exports: the ratio of China’s exports to GDP rose from 20 per cent of GDP at the beginning of 2002 to 37 per cent in 2007 (see chart).
The view that the excesses of deficit countries were partly a response to the behaviour of surplus countries is shared by a number of policymakers, including Hank Paulson, outgoing US Treasury secretary. Zhang Jianhua of the People’s Bank of China is reported to have declared that “this view is extremely ridiculous and irresponsible and it’s ‘gangster logic’ ”. In this perspective, the pattern of global deficits and surpluses was solely caused by western policymakers, particularly the Federal Reserve’s lax monetary policies and unregulated expansion of credit.
Yet, whoever was most responsible, one point is certain: huge asset price bubbles made possible the excess supply of some countries, particularly China. Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the developed world – and the US in particular – have experienced, successively, the largest stock market bubble and the biggest credit-fuelled housing bubble in their histories. This era is over. We will struggle with its aftermath for years.
So what happens now? The implosion of demand from the private sectors of financially enfeebled deficit countries can end in one of two ways, via offsetting increases in demand or via brutal contractions in supply.
If it is going to be through contractions in supply, the surplus countries are particularly at risk, since they depend on the willingness of deficit countries to keep markets open. That was the lesson learnt by the US in the 1930s. Surplus countries enjoy condemning their customers for their profligacy. But when the spending stops, the former are badly hurt. If they try to subsidise their excess supply, in response to falling demand, retaliation seems certain.
Obviously, expansion of demand is much the better solution. The question, though, is where and how? At present much of the expansion is expected to come from the US federal budget. Leave aside the question whether this will work. Even the US cannot run fiscal deficits of 10 per cent of GDP indefinitely. Much of the necessary expansion in global demand must come from surplus countries.
Managing this adjustment is far and away the biggest challenge for the group of 20 advanced and emerging economies, which will meet in London in early April. Mr Obama must take the lead. He can – and should – say he expects these adjustments to be made, but understands they will take time. He can also sustain exceptional fiscal and monetary measures in the short term, if his country’s main trading partners make the necessary medium-term adjustments in their spending. China, in particular, needs to create a consumption-led economy. That is in the interests of China. It is also in the interests of the world.
Yet this is not all the US should propose. If the world economy is to be less dependent on destructive bubbles, more of the world’s surplus capital needs to flow into investment in emerging economies. The problem, however, is that such flows have also always led to crises. This is why emerging economies set themselves to accumulate vast foreign currency reserves in this decade. It is essential, therefore, to make the world economy much more supportive of net borrowing by emerging economies.
What will be needed for this is far bigger and more effective insurance against systemic risks than the International Monetary Fund now provides. A crucial step is a restructuring of the IMF’s governance, to make it more responsive to the needs of responsible borrowers. One of the ideas Mr Obama should propose is the establishment of a high-level committee to recommend a radical restructuring of global institutions, with a view to lowering risks of the emerging market crises that preceded the era of advanced country bubbles.
Let us be clear about what is at stake. It is essential to clean up the huge current mess. But it is also evident that an open world economy will be unsustainable if it remains dependent on bubbles. Collapse of globalisation is now no small risk. Mr Obama is present at the re-creation of the global economic system. It is a challenge he has to take up.
JB you remarked about Smoot Hawley and producing goods at the cheapest price. We have specifically crafted laws or created policy that got us into this mess. China is the leading wheat exporter not because we can't do it cheaper but to allow other countries supposedly share the wealth.
In fact we pay farmers or rather Ted Turner not to plant and we inflate price by having food stamps. I am not sure that we should become protectionist but quite frankly it did not help that that we allowed China to use slave labor while we were using our plastic credit cards to buy all the junk. Also not mentioned is that the Chinese laborer has come into contact with Western culture and will not tolerate living in complete poverty. At some point China will have to consume some of what they produce. That might be another reason why they are being transported to the countryside . Also China might want to counter any problems with the Uyghers by placing sufficient mandarins in that location.
There is a bank panic. It is the next big thing. It will dominate the next week. Bad bank talk will take over. Behind t all is the tumble of global trade. China announces tonight that it has failed to an annual 6.8% growth rate, which is well under what it needs to maintain employment. The unemployment rate in Europe is climbing quickly. It will peak over 9% here, perhaps more. Here is the drastic move that will work, that will not happen, that cannot happen until John Galt returns from the mountains:
1. Cut margin rates to 15%-20%-25%
2. Cut cap gains to 7.5%
3. Eliminate state taxes for two-three years
4. Eliminate sales tax on clothing, cars, houses, eateries, car rentals, airline tickets, train tickets, mobile phones.
5. Forgive college loans or delay repayment three years.
6. Lower all credit card rates to 10% or under, for two years.
7. Suspend forclosures on primary homes or condos till third quarter 09
8. Raise the pillory. Name names.
--
Bush might be the last president we elect with a past.
Clearly, very little is known about Barrack Obama.
No one knows how he will rule. No one knows where he came from even.
He was installed by fiat of time and circumstance.
Now the literati are scratching their heads.
Where did he come from – question mark.
How will he rule – question mark.
Who stands behind him – question mark.
We are told the times are dire.
It is assumed he will save us. …but we don’t know.
He asks us to sacrifice – to what purpose – question mark.
How do we define “being saved” - question mark.
How does he define it – question mark.
The dogs are barking and running for higher ground.
Governments around the world are wrestling with impossible problems – or, are they?
Do we… does he know what to do – question mark.
The slow drift toward chaos; ruin.
Or is this only the travail of a new beginning – question mark.
Clearly somebody knows.
Only, we haven’t been told yet.
We’re flying on faith
…into the abyss.
Some day we will look back and consider the reckless chance we’ve taken
By risking the farm on a single number bet.
A roll of the dice.
Isn’t that how it’s always been?
Though we like to boast that we were in charge.
The drunken gambler hails a cab and goes home.
Tibet update from Jan 18, 2009:
TCHRD PRESS RELEASE
Date: 23 January 2009
China grills 5766 Tibetans Under Winter "Strike Hard" Campaign in Lhasa
In the latest move to tighten its grip on the Tibetan people in Tibet and intensify its hard-line policies prior to any major events, the Chinese authorities' in Lhasa city launched a stipulated 42-day winter "Strike Hard" Campaign beginning 18 January 2009.
According to information given in the official newspaper, Lhasa Evening News (Ch: Lasa Wen Bao) today, "Within three days of the launch of Winter "Strike Hard" Campaign beginning 18 January 2008, Lhasa City Public Security Bureau (PSB) office had deployed 600 officers, around 160 police vehicles and conducted raids on 7 housing blocks, 2922 rented houses, 14 guest house and hotels, 18 bars and 3 internet cafs in Lhasa. After conducting the raid on these locations, the PSB were able to round up 5766 suspects and questioned them. This figure highlights the result of the launch of the "Strike Hard" campaign in Lhasa since it was launched three days ago." The official report did not mention about the number of people detained or released following the raid.
Apart from this campaign, recently Lhasa City government issued a notice requiring all the outside visitors wishing to stay for more than 3 days and not less than a month in Lhasa City to apply for a temporary stay permit from the PSB office. The notice warned that those failing to procure the same would be severely dealt with legal actions.
Although the primary objective of the current winter "strike hard" campaign was cited as securing public security and stability of Lhasa city, however, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) believes the sole objective as authorities' attempt to detain those Tibetans suspected to be involved in the 2008 spring protests, target former political prisoners and many Tibetans from outside Lhasa city and does not have official temporary stay permit (Ch: Zan zhu zheng). Under this campaign, the State law enforcement bodies abuse the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people through arbitrary arrest, detention, interrogation and torture, dismissal from jobs and expulsion from religious institutions. TCHRD condemns the launch of so called winter "strike hard" campaign and doubts the motive behind the launch of the campaign prior to major events in Tibet.
"Strike hard" campaign was first launched in China in 1983 with primary objective of fighting corruptions and crimes However, the motive of launching this campaign in China and in Tibet is totally different. In China, the official objective of this campaign is to crack down severely on general crime and end corruption practices. However, in Tibet the motive is to intimidate and eliminate those supporting Tibetan independence and human rights activists in Tibet.
--
Tashi Choephel Jamatsang (Mr.)
Researcher
Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
Top Floor Narthang Building
Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala
H.P. INDIA 176215
www.tchrd.org
John - Why are you telling us this? Is it to prepare us for what could very easily be in store for us as well? Is it to counter the propaganda coming out of some quarters saying that China is great? Efficient? And a worthy model to emulate?
Surely you don't expect us to get involved over there. We've had our own painful experience in trying to liberate people - and look where it's got us.
Perhaps it's just curatorial information (of no real use other than night-time reading).
Tyrants here silence in the unpredictable ways:
Outwardly, Joseph Stalin was also upset by the results of the Munich conference. The Soviets had not been represented at the conference and felt they should be acknowledged as a major power. The British and French, however, mostly used the Soviets as a threat to dangle over the Germans. Stalin concluded that the West had actively colluded with Hitler to hand over an Eastern European country to the Nazis, causing concern that they might do the same to the Soviet Union in the future, allowing the partition of the USSR between the western powers and the fascist Axis. This belief led the Soviet Union to reorient its foreign policy towards a rapprochement with Germany, which eventually led to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939.[8]
John - I note your tendency to answer questions obliquely. It is an art practiced by academics, diplomats and (dare I say it) politicians. I have not yet mastered this art and must admit that it would have served me well on more than one occasion. I have researched the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, but am still no closer to what you're trying to say (especially with regard to Tibet). While I understand that connections can be made to exist between virtually any two things, this one leaves me tantalizingly short of epiphany. Please elaborate.
Peter: Happy to reload. The PRC is extremely sensitive. It hears everything. It is an unelected gang of rival seventh graders, who live without rules in block housing that is dominated by their shopaholic wives. In sum, without fear they would have no fun at all. So I yell at them whenever I can. Tibet makes them cringe. The Tibetans are of an order of toughness and confidence that makes anyone over here but possibly Natty Bumpo seem fragile in comparison. They can handle the PRC goons. But the Party hacks cannot handle our complaining. And the fact that we have better information than they are permitted in the compound at Beijing and Shanghai. So I publish the tibet stuff knowing their search engines make me and us into statistics. Ruins their tea break. Cheers
I can not imagine finding this information right on time, thank you.