From Gulf News, in 11/11
From Forbes Magazine
Very interesting case from The Washington Post
(Bigstock)
From RT News
Dubai Tram: Free wifi for passengers
UAE telecom company du to provide free wifi to tram-users during first two days of its opening
Dubai: UAE telecom company du will provide free wifi to tram-users during the first two days of its opening on November 12 and 13.
Du has announced on the eve of Dubai Tram opening on Tuesday that it has been chosen by the RTA as the exclusive provider of wifi connectivity on the newly launched Dubai Tram service. Du’s wifi service will be rolled out across the entire length of the Dubai Tram network in phases.
Commuters can enjoy complimentary WiFi for two days by connecting through their WiFi-enabled device, then following the simple steps to log in to the service. Full details will be available through a landing page that is automatically opened upon connection. On the special occasion of the inauguration, du will offer complimentary high speed broadband on the Dubai Tram from November 12 to 13
From Forbes Magazine
5 Reasons Why Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff Should Not Be Re-Elected
Over the last 20 years, Brazil has undergone a huge social and economic transformation that culminated with the country lifting tens of millions of people out of extreme poverty and reaching seventh place among the world’s largest economies. Such transformations began to take place during the government of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was elected in 1994 (and previously acted as Brazil’s Finance Minister) and is arguably credited with laying the groundwork that put Brazil’s hyperinflation to bed, though often at the neglect of social problems.
Cardoso was elected for a second term in 1998, during which he adopted a critical position to maintaining the fundamentals of monetary stability, especially after the 1997 crisis erupted. Then in 2002, former metalworker and trade unionist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was elected with the promise of governing for the people, but keeping the principles and achievements of his predecessor’s government, which earned him the confidence from investors and the global markets. Helped by a positive global economic scenario, Lula da Silva’s share in turning Brazil into a booming, world-class economy is unquestionable.
As Cardoso, he served two terms as president, and left office in 2010 after playing a major role in successfully electing his sidekick, Brazil’s current president Dilma Rousseff. A technocrat who had never before occupied elective office and with no impressive resume except a history of fighting against the dictatorship in Brazil’s so-called “Years of Lead,” Rousseff’s task was to continue and expand the achievements of both Cardoso’s and Lula da Silva’s governments, and keeping Brazil on track toward growth with income distribution.
Under Rousseff, though, Brazil went from booming to gloomy, with its economy stalling even as Latin America as a whole is growing. Investors from all the globe, who once lined up to buy a piece of the Brazilian Dream, are now looking to more attractive markets, such as Mexico (and celebrating every time she appears losing ground in polls). More recently, Brazil’s economy has slipped into a recession, the country’s annual inflation is accelerating and its outlook is deteriorating. It is as if Brazil is on its way to revisiting the past, due to a crisis bad management that are already costing the achievements of its people since the country’s re-democratization in the 1980s.
In other words, Rousseff, who is campaigning for reelection in the Brazil’s October 5 elections, failed to keep things together and put it all at risk. As if that was not enough reason for Brazilians to not vote for her, here are five other reasons why she should not be reelected:
1. Brazil Didn’t Grow As It Could and Should Have Under Rousseff’s Government
Not long ago, Brazil was the country of the moment, with its vibrant economy providing significant growth and jobs. As a leading exporter of agricultural and manufactured goods, as well as iron ore and services, Brazil’s economy expanded by 7.5% in 2010. It is a very different scenario now, as the country’s economy shrank by 0.6% from the first quarter to the second quarter, according to the Brazilian government’s statistics agency. It is the first time in five years that the economy has retracted. The drop was bigger that what most economists were expecting, and was mostly caused by a 5.3% dip in investment, although government spending also fell. Consumer spending also remained weak, increasing by just 0.25% in the second quarter, after declining 0.2% in the first quarter. Despite the tourism attracted by the FIFA World Cup, Brazil’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the measure of all goods and services produced) shrank 0.9% in the second quarter when compared with the same period a year ago. The Index of Economic Activity, as measured by Brazil’s Central Bank, dropped 1.5% in June from May, the fifth consecutive monthly negative result and the worst since summer 2013. It’s the first time Brazil’s economy contracted for two straight quarters since the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2008.
And even though Rousseff says the weak economic performance of her government is to blame in a globally inospitable scenario for investors, numbers prove her wrong. By the end of her term this year, Brazil’s growth under Rousseff is expected to be two percentage points lower than Latin America’s overall growth between 2010-2014. It will be the first time in 20 years that Brazil was left eating its neighbors’ dust – during both Cardoso and Lula da Silva’s government, the country grew at the same rate registered for Latin America.
If we are to consider the world economy during the period, which grew 3.9% in 2011, 3% between 2012 and 2013, and should hit the mark of 3.6% this year, Brazil grew by a modest 1.7% during Rousseff’s years. That’s way behind than the growth registered in Chile (4.1%), Colombia (4%) and Peru (5.6%) between 2008 and 2013. By the way, Morgan Stanley MS -0.28%sees Brazil’s GDP going negative in the first half of 2015, contracting -0.4%.Moody’s yesterday changed its outlook to Brazil to negative from stable citing “a sustained reduction in Brazil’s economic growth, which shows little sign of a return to potential in the near term;” “a marked deterioration in investor sentiment which has negatively impacted fixed capital formation in Brazil;” and “fiscal challenges these economic headwinds pose, impeding the reversal of the upward trend in government debt indicators.”
2. Brazil’s Largest Company, State-Controlled Oil Giant PetrobrasPetrobras, Is Being Seriously Damaged By Rousseff
The number one propaganda success of Brazil’s outlawed Communist Party was the slogan O Petroleo e Nosso (The Oil Is Ours). A product of the-oil-is-ours nationalism was Brazil’s 1953 law, which set up an oil monopoly, Petrobras. Ever since then, the company become a symbol of nationalism and pride for many Brazilians. It gained on new force in 1997, when then president Cardoso declared the end of the state monopoly and opened the company up to local and foreign private investment. Then in 2007 Petrobras discovered massive offshore oil reserves 180 km from the coast and 7,000 km below sea level, under a thick layer of salt. It was the proof that “God is indeed Brazilian,” as former president Lula da Silva excitedly said at the time. But the truth is Petrobras is neither the people’s nor God’s — it was taken by Lula da Silva’s and Rousseff’s Workers’ Party (PT) as soon as they ascended to power in 2002 and has been continuously used as a party machine at the expense of taxpayers’ money. The latest political scandal in Brazil originated within the walls of Petrobras, and involves allegations of bribery in a multi-billion dollar corruption scheme. A congressional inquiry into the company’s activities has already been called, after one of its former executives turned into whistleblower made an arrangement with authorities to give information on government allies’ allegedly receiving kickbacks on contracts in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Petrobras’ finances under PT are anything but disappointing. Today the company has a market capitalization of about $119 billion (it must be said the company has regained value recently mostly on the prospect that Rousseff could lose the October elections). That’s way below the $190 billion it was worth four years ago, when oil prices hit an all-time high and it had just announced its oil discoveries in the pre-salt. Petrobras reported a decline in net income of 26.7% to $2.2 billion owing to increasing financing costs. Its net debt is expected to rise to $117.2 billion by end of 2014 compared to $94.7 billion reported last year. As result, Petrobras investment-grade is now under question. Citing the increasing debt load,Moody’s downgraded the Petrobras’ debt last October to Baa1, the third-lowest investment grade rating offered by the credit agency.
Petrobras has long being used by Lula da Silva and Rousseff and a factory hunger jobs. Those are faithful and necessary for the government, are awarded jobs at the oil behemoth, as well as lucrative (and, sometimes, suspicious) contracts. That has deteriorated Petrobras’ potential, as some of its top executives are there simply because of their political connections. The company is being used by the government as a way to control inflation, by holding up increases in the pricing of oil and aggregates, which generated a loss of $20 billion to the company in 2013, according to Folha de S. Paulo newspaper. Petrobras erratic investments include the 2006 acquisition of Pasadena Refining System Inc., for which the company reportedly paid $1.25 billion, or 20 times the true value of the Pasadena, Texas-based refinery. The deal is currently being probed by Brazilian authorities.
The irony on this case came in the form of the only logical solution for the Petrobras imbroglio, suggested by the unlikeliest of presidential candidates, the Social Christian Party member and preacher known as Pastor Everaldo. “If I win, Petrobras will be privatized. It is the only way to end corruption there and from within the company,” he said during an interview aired by TV Globo last month. Recent polls show that Christian fundamentalist Everaldo would get only 1% of the vote.
3. Rousseff’s Approach To Keep Inflation High In Order To Keep Jobs Is Questionable
3. Rousseff’s Approach To Keep Inflation High In Order To Keep Jobs Is Questionable
That has been a long debate among analysts. The consensus, though, is that inflation and low unemployment may work when there is growth in the economy, which is not happening in Brazil. As Roberto Altenhofen, a partner at Empiricus Reseach, recently pointed in an article, since the 1976 argument of Robert Lucas (which became known as “Lucas critique”), economists began to incorporate the idea that the trade-off between inflation and unemployment exists only in the vert short term. “When working with a systematically higher inflation, we quickly return to a new equilibrium, with higher levels of prices and the same level employment,” Altenhofen wrote.
Inflation in Brazil has worsened due to the fact that over the years wages have risen at a steady clip and corporate profits have declined. For Rousseff the solution would be to raise interest rates, tighten Brazil’s fiscal policy and allow prices to adjust, accelerating inflation before the situation normalizes. That’s not an easy task, as consumption represents the largest part of the country’s economy — 63%. For a populist governant such as Rousseff, it sounds like a harsh medicine that the patient, as much as he needs to, will not have access to it.
4. Brazil’s Public Debt Keeps Growing, And National Savings Are Still Low
Brazil’s public debt is still relatively low ($951.4 billion in July), at 35%. But it is growing. The federal budget is constantly in deficit, and Rousseff has committed to meet a primary surplus target of 1.9% of GDP this year and 2% next year, should she be reelected. In the first six months of the year, the primary surplus hit R$ 29.4 billion, the lowest sum in history. The nominal deficit has hit 4% of the GDP, flirting with increased debt, higher taxes and more inflation ahead. After taking power in 2010, Rousseff concentrated all her work o the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC), which was created by Lula da Silva. The $225 billion plan to promote development through housing, sanitation and every, and transportation, is still mostly on paper. Many projects are mired in controversy and cost overruns. Many others are delayed and, in all of them, fiscal pressures keep pouring in.
Brazil is not a great saver either, having only about 13% of its GDP in savings, well below China’s mark of 51% and Russia’s 30%. In order to keep costs afloat, the government has recurred to privatizations, especially of new roads and railways, airports and ports projects. But the biggest problem, though, is what Rousseff’s opponents call swelling of public administration. Rousseff’s government has a total of 39 ministries aiding her, many with no significant function. Currently, there are nearly 2 million government employees, many of whom getting paid generous salaries. Both Aecio Neves and Marina Silva, who are disputing the presidency with Rousseff, have said they would halve the ministries. Neves, who is third in polls, went as far as to say he would dismiss a third of the government employees.
Brazil’s government swallowing causes inefficiency and corruption, bureaucracy and is responsible for a byzantine tax system. Last March,Standard & Poor’s downgraded Brazil for the first time in a decade citing Rousseff’s sluggish economic and expansionary fiscal policies, which the agency believes are fueling an increase in debt levels.
5. Rousseff Didn’t Promote The Changes Required To Make The Lives Of Brazilians, Especially The Poorest, Better
PT has long proclaimed itself as the party whose mission is to defend the poor and socially excluded, by promoting the changes that could ultimately make their lives better. That has not been the case during Rousseff’s government. One of the reasons, only to keep it recent, is the return of the ghost of inflation. It has been scaring Brazilians since the 1970s, when it was relatively stable, and began rising in the early 1980s until it accelerated uncontrollably to reach hyperinflation status after 1985. The problem was tackled by Cardoso in the early 1990s, thanks to a reform package that included the creation of the Brazilian real and stipulated measures to maintain the economy in balance. Such measures were embraced by Lula da Silva during his two terms as Brazil’s president, when he stood still by PT’s mission in regards to workers.
On the other hand, Rousseff doesn’t seem to have made her homework. According to a 2012 survey, the PNAD (Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicilios), Brazil’s income inequality improved continuously from 2002 through the next decade. Based on the Gini coefficient, a statistical dispersion measurement that ranks income distribution on a scale between 0 and 1, income distribution in Brazil stopped getting betters i 2012. At the same time, the income generated by the richest 1% of the population and the poorest 50% increased 50% from 0.66 to 0.69, which implies that Rousseff’s government broke a string of 10 years of progress in income distribution in Brazil. In a related topic, during Rousseff’s government the number of illiterates grew for the first time in 15 years, a personal defeat for her and Lula da Silva, who have both famously promised to eradicate illiteracy in Brazil, which is primordial for promoting income equality.
“Brazil’s current heterodox economic policy is not growing the cake and is ot dividing it equally either,” Altenhofen wrote. “The economic growth under Rousseff was the lowest since president Floriano Peixoto, whose government ended in 1894.”
Simply put, not only is Brazil not growing but it also reduced its income distribution.
Rousseff, who is campaigning and acting as Brazil’s president simultaneously, already signaled she will change her economic team in case the wins the October elections. The sentiment is, however, the time for promises is behind her. There’s no doubt about Rousseff’s importance for Brazil, as the first woman who won an election to be president years after being tortured by the dictatorship for her left-wing activities in the 1970s. But politicians, especially those elected for public office, should be evaluated by the deeds they accomplish once they put themselves up for a job, and by how their actions will positively affect the majority of people, and not by what they say or want.
Rousseff seems like someone who wants the best for Brazil, but her country will be better off once she is gone.
Very interesting case from The Washington Post
Why a guy making $100,000 a year can’t get a bank account
(Bigstock)
Zikomo Fields pulls in more than $100,000 a year as a software engineer in Kansas City. But the 36-year-old has no bank account. It's not that he doesn't want one. Fields simply hasn't found a bank willing to house his money. Instead, he walks around with $23,000 saved on a prepaid debit card.
Fields is exactly the kind of customer banks say they want, a high earner ripe for a car loan, mortgage and all sorts of investments. But he is also among many people whom banks ignore -- because his name appears in a little-known database that tracks financial transgressions, ChexSystems.
Thousands of banks and credit unions screen would-be customers through databases like ChexSystems that document repeated overdrafts, bounced checks, unpaid balances and other behavior that could signal fraud. ChexSystems has declined to say how many people were listed in its database, but regulators say just about every lender subscribes to such services as a measure of fraud prevention.
But instead of weeding out fraudsters, authorities say, institutions are using these databases to bar people who have had even brief money troubles from getting accounts. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, for example, has accused six big banks, including Capital One and Wells Fargo, of improperly using the database to deny consumers an account.
People with low incomes, who are more susceptible to overdrawing their accounts, are usually victims of the restrictive policy, according to consumer lawyers. Banks have become more wary of these types of customers as regulations have made it tougher for them to earn money through various fees, including overdraft protection.
No one would consider Fields low-income. He doesn't neatly fit the usual profile of the nearly 10 million Americans who don't have bank accounts. But he, like so many of them, ran into trouble that pushed him to the fringes of the financial system. Four years ago, Fields worked contract assignments that from time to time left him in between jobs. He said those stints of unemployment caused him to overdraw his account at U.S. Bank as he scrambled to pay bills.
"I literally had no other option but to let the account be overdrawn until I was employed again," Fields said.
He eventually wound up with a negative $1,200 balance, half of which was in overdraft fees he couldn't afford. U.S. Bank closed the account and sent the case to a debt collector. (A U.S. Bank spokesman declined to comment on Fields's case, citing customer privacy rules. But the spokesman said that when an account is overdrawn for an extended period of time, the bank is required by regulators to close the account and charge off the balance due.)
After five months of being in default on the account, Fields landed a job and repaid U.S. Bank. Yet it was not enough to erase the blemish on his file.
It takes up to seven years for negative marks, like an involuntary account closure, to be removed from a screening database, much like blemishes on credit reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives people the right to request a free copy of their file and dispute any inaccurate information. It also requires banks to let would-be customers know whether their report played a factor in their rejection. That's how Fields found out he was blacklisted.
From RT News
Anti-rape jeans and bra: Indian college girls invent range of security gear
Published time: June 28, 2014 15:25
Edited time: June 29, 2014 10:39
Edited time: June 29, 2014 10:39
College girls in India have unveiled anti-rape jeans, footwear and underwear to protect women from the growing menace of rape, which occurs every 22 minutes in the country. Unfortunately, the situation doesn’t seem to be improving.
Sandals that deliver electric shocks and jeans that have an inbuilt SOS button were showcased by college girls in the state of Uttar Pradesh – one of the highest in terms of crime levels.
Two computer science students at a private engineering college in the city of Varanasi, Rijul Pandey and Shalini Yadav, engineered and designed the sandals, which apart from the electric shock, send out an SOS signal to all the victim’s phone contacts.
"We conceived of this idea six months ago. While there are pepper sprays and other such things on the market, we thought of developing safety devices that don't need to be carried separately. The moment we hit someone with our sandal, it would send messages to friends and family members. It will also give a shock to the criminals and immobilize them for a few seconds. It can be used by any girl," the creators told The Guardian.
Two other students at the same institute, Diksha Pathak and Anjali Srivastava, developed an electronic tool that can be easily sewn into a pair of jeans.
They explained how the device functions, showing “a small button in it to raise an alarm and alert friends as well as family members on their mobiles and telephones.” Plus, the tool can be connected to the local police lines.
Both devices – the sandals and the jeans – are linked to the GPS system, as is the new “wonder” bra called SHE (Society Harnessing Equipment).
This crime-busting garment can also send out the wearer’s GPS data and transmit powerful shock waves causing burns. The bra is calibrated in a special way to avoid its accidental activation.
The device was developed by budding engineer, Manisha Mohan, who, along with two fellow students, came up with the idea following the brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi in December 2012.
The 21-year-old said she came up with the garment because she felt it was her "moral responsibility" to do something to prevent crimes like that.
"I also believe that all problems can be handled through engineering solutions," Manisha told the Mail Today.
The engineer and her fellow students are working to improve the device, incorporating Bluetooth technology into the bra and link it to a smartphone application.
The bra is set to appear in the well-known 'Innovation Scholars In-Residence' program expected to start on July 1. Only four people in the whole of India can be selected for the program.
Incidences of rape are alarming in India. Uttar Pradesh Governor Aziz Qureshi said that this crime against women is “deplorable,” adding “the situation is worsening.”
The state’s Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav stated that between January 1 and March 31, 2014, 736 cases of rape occurred in India – that’s a 30 percent rise over the same period last year. Over 24 incidents of rape or attempted rape have taken place in the state since Tuesday alone.
The not so peaceful rise of China
Minxin Pei : Mon Dec 16 2013, 01:38 hrs
RELATED
TOP STORIES
Tactically, China's recent moves vis-a-vis Japan are brilliant. Strategically, Beijing has lost more.
For roughly a decade, the Chinese government has spared no effort in trying to convince the rest of the world that China's rise will be peaceful. Realists steeped in the history of great power competition have always been sceptical about Beijing's pledges of pursuing what it calls "peaceful development". Yet, liberal-minded analysts are willing to give China the benefit of the doubt. They believe that, given the right incentives, such as the economic benefits of globalisation, China will behave responsibly and become a stakeholder in the existing international order.
This debate remained inconclusive until about three years ago. Partisans on both sides could marshal sufficient evidence to buttress their arguments. However, as Chinese foreign policy began to grow more assertive, particularly on territorial disputes, realists who insisted that China would behave like a traditional great power gained greater credibility.
With the most recent escalation of tensions between China and Japan over the ownership of a group of small uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, there is little doubt that advocates of China's peaceful rise are losing the debate. What makes the latest round of escalations special is the way Beijing chose to challenge Japan's sovereignty claims over the Senkaku Islands, as Japan calls them (they are called the Diaoyu in China). To be sure, this particular dispute began in 1972, when the United States handed over administrative authority (but not legal ownership) to Japan. For four decades, China and Japan had adhered to a tacit agreement over the status of the islands: Japan would retain administrative control and claim sovereignty, and China would contest the sovereignty but not challenge Japan's administrative control.
This understanding broke down in late 2012 when Tokyo was forced to "nationalise" the islands in order to prevent an extremist right-wing leader from purchasing some of the islands from their private owners, a development the Japanese government thought would lead to a confrontation with Beijing. Little did Tokyo realise that Beijing would regard its move, however well-intentioned, as a step tantamount to formally establishing sovereignty claims over the islands.
As part of its response, Beijing has gradually escalated. After repeatedly sending ships and planes into the territorial waters and airspace of the islands to challenge Japanese claims of exclusive administrative control, the Chinese government took the fateful step, on November 23, of announcing its East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). Even though sovereign nations are not prohibited by international law to set up ADIZs, and more than a dozen countries have done so (including Japan and the US), China's ADIZ in the East China Sea overlaps with those of Japan and South Korea. Most alarmingly, it also covers the airspace over the disputed islands.
Beijing's intentions are crystal clear. By setting up an overlapping ADIZ over the disputed islands, it has mounted a legal challenge to Tokyo's claims of administrative control. Under the rules announced by Beijing, all aircraft flying through China's ADIZ must communicate their flight plans and identify themselves to the Chinese military, which will enforce the ADIZ. Obviously, Beijing views compliance with these rules as recognition of China's legal control over the airspace over the islands and, by implication, the islands themselves.
Beijing's escalation has infuriated Tokyo, which promptly announced that it would not recognise China's ADIZ, and instructed its civilian airlines not to comply with China's rules. Japan also openly challenged China by sending military aircraft through China's ADIZ without notifying the Chinese military (South Korea has also dispatched military jets into the Chinese ADIZ).
Caught in the middle is the US, a treaty ally of Japan. Eager to show solidarity with Japan but reluctant to allow the dispute to escalate further, Washington has opted for a middle course. It has flatly rejected China's new ADIZ and sent two unarmed B-52s through the Chinese ADIZ almost immediately after Beijing's announcement. However, to avoid potential catastrophic accidents in the zone, the US government has also "advised" its civilian airlines to comply with the Chinese ADIZ.
By pure coincidence, the ADIZ controversy occurred right before US Vice President Joseph Biden's scheduled visit to Japan, China and South Korea. Judging by the announcements following Biden's stops in Tokyo and Beijing, it seems that he has achieved only modest accomplishments in trying to calm the troubled waters in the East China Sea. While he managed to reassure Japan of America's unwavering support and criticised China's escalation, he treaded carefully in Beijing and avoided directly challenging China's decision by asking top Chinese leaders to rescind its ADIZ.
All this leaves the troubling impression that China has got away with a tactical move that changed the status quo over a longstanding dispute. Observers are worried about three consequences.
First, Beijing's attempts to enforce the ADIZ in future could result in accidental military clashes with Japanese and US military aircraft in the zone, thus starting a conflict no one really wants. Similar attempts could also lead to aviation disasters similar to the infamous KAL 007 incident (when a Soviet MiG shot down a South Korean jumbo jet in 1983).
Second, encouraged by this precedent, China could set up a similar ADIZ in the South China Sea, using the same tactic to assert its maritime claims. Third, emboldened by the lack of a unified response from the international community to its unilateral move, China might be tempted to flex its muscles even more recklessly in future.
Of course, these are all valid concerns. But they overlook one important aspect of the Chinese ADIZ controversy. The ultimate question to ask is whether China gains or loses more in this case.
Tactically, we must concede that Beijing's move is brilliant: it is controversial, but not illegal. Its new ADIZ should help China achieve its objective of contesting Japan's sovereignty claims through clever legal manoeuvres. But strategically, we would find it hard to deny that Beijing has lost more. It has not only succeeded in demolishing any lingering hope that China's rise could be peaceful, but also pushed Asian nations, bound by their fear of an assertive China, closer to each other and to America. If Chinese leaders are truly farsighted, one has to wonder whether this is their desired outcome.
The writer is professor of government and non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US.
For roughly a decade, the Chinese government has spared no effort in trying to convince the rest of the world that China's rise will be peaceful. Realists steeped in the history of great power competition have always been sceptical about Beijing's pledges of pursuing what it calls "peaceful development". Yet, liberal-minded analysts are willing to give China the benefit of the doubt. They believe that, given the right incentives, such as the economic benefits of globalisation, China will behave responsibly and become a stakeholder in the existing international order.
This debate remained inconclusive until about three years ago. Partisans on both sides could marshal sufficient evidence to buttress their arguments. However, as Chinese foreign policy began to grow more assertive, particularly on territorial disputes, realists who insisted that China would behave like a traditional great power gained greater credibility.
With the most recent escalation of tensions between China and Japan over the ownership of a group of small uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, there is little doubt that advocates of China's peaceful rise are losing the debate. What makes the latest round of escalations special is the way Beijing chose to challenge Japan's sovereignty claims over the Senkaku Islands, as Japan calls them (they are called the Diaoyu in China). To be sure, this particular dispute began in 1972, when the United States handed over administrative authority (but not legal ownership) to Japan. For four decades, China and Japan had adhered to a tacit agreement over the status of the islands: Japan would retain administrative control and claim sovereignty, and China would contest the sovereignty but not challenge Japan's administrative control.
This understanding broke down in late 2012 when Tokyo was forced to "nationalise" the islands in order to prevent an extremist right-wing leader from purchasing some of the islands from their private owners, a development the Japanese government thought would lead to a confrontation with Beijing. Little did Tokyo realise that Beijing would regard its move, however well-intentioned, as a step tantamount to formally establishing sovereignty claims over the islands.
As part of its response, Beijing has gradually escalated. After repeatedly sending ships and planes into the territorial waters and airspace of the islands to challenge Japanese claims of exclusive administrative control, the Chinese government took the fateful step, on November 23, of announcing its East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). Even though sovereign nations are not prohibited by international law to set up ADIZs, and more than a dozen countries have done so (including Japan and the US), China's ADIZ in the East China Sea overlaps with those of Japan and South Korea. Most alarmingly, it also covers the airspace over the disputed islands.
Beijing's intentions are crystal clear. By setting up an overlapping ADIZ over the disputed islands, it has mounted a legal challenge to Tokyo's claims of administrative control. Under the rules announced by Beijing, all aircraft flying through China's ADIZ must communicate their flight plans and identify themselves to the Chinese military, which will enforce the ADIZ. Obviously, Beijing views compliance with these rules as recognition of China's legal control over the airspace over the islands and, by implication, the islands themselves.
Beijing's escalation has infuriated Tokyo, which promptly announced that it would not recognise China's ADIZ, and instructed its civilian airlines not to comply with China's rules. Japan also openly challenged China by sending military aircraft through China's ADIZ without notifying the Chinese military (South Korea has also dispatched military jets into the Chinese ADIZ).
Caught in the middle is the US, a treaty ally of Japan. Eager to show solidarity with Japan but reluctant to allow the dispute to escalate further, Washington has opted for a middle course. It has flatly rejected China's new ADIZ and sent two unarmed B-52s through the Chinese ADIZ almost immediately after Beijing's announcement. However, to avoid potential catastrophic accidents in the zone, the US government has also "advised" its civilian airlines to comply with the Chinese ADIZ.
By pure coincidence, the ADIZ controversy occurred right before US Vice President Joseph Biden's scheduled visit to Japan, China and South Korea. Judging by the announcements following Biden's stops in Tokyo and Beijing, it seems that he has achieved only modest accomplishments in trying to calm the troubled waters in the East China Sea. While he managed to reassure Japan of America's unwavering support and criticised China's escalation, he treaded carefully in Beijing and avoided directly challenging China's decision by asking top Chinese leaders to rescind its ADIZ.
All this leaves the troubling impression that China has got away with a tactical move that changed the status quo over a longstanding dispute. Observers are worried about three consequences.
First, Beijing's attempts to enforce the ADIZ in future could result in accidental military clashes with Japanese and US military aircraft in the zone, thus starting a conflict no one really wants. Similar attempts could also lead to aviation disasters similar to the infamous KAL 007 incident (when a Soviet MiG shot down a South Korean jumbo jet in 1983).
Second, encouraged by this precedent, China could set up a similar ADIZ in the South China Sea, using the same tactic to assert its maritime claims. Third, emboldened by the lack of a unified response from the international community to its unilateral move, China might be tempted to flex its muscles even more recklessly in future.
Of course, these are all valid concerns. But they overlook one important aspect of the Chinese ADIZ controversy. The ultimate question to ask is whether China gains or loses more in this case.
Tactically, we must concede that Beijing's move is brilliant: it is controversial, but not illegal. Its new ADIZ should help China achieve its objective of contesting Japan's sovereignty claims through clever legal manoeuvres. But strategically, we would find it hard to deny that Beijing has lost more. It has not only succeeded in demolishing any lingering hope that China's rise could be peaceful, but also pushed Asian nations, bound by their fear of an assertive China, closer to each other and to America. If Chinese leaders are truly farsighted, one has to wonder whether this is their desired outcome.
The writer is professor of government and non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US.
Essa notícia saiu no Times of India, dia 15/12/2013.
What makes Love,Actually a classic
Since its release in 2003 to mixed reviews,the Richard Curtis-directed romantic ensemble comedy Love Actually has quietly become a Christmas classic,in that it is the movie of choice for Christmas viewing,along with films like Frank Capras Its a Wonderful Life and Chris Columbus Home Alone.On its 10th anniversary,Love Actually is back in the news,and not just because of the decennial.It is at the centre of a heated discussion of what goes into the making of a classic.
Writing at vulture.com,Lindsay Weber looks back at the spate of bad reviews the movie received on release.Salon.coms Mary Elizabeth Williams called it the worst Christmas movie ever,saying that the movie may be one of the nastiest,most depressing commentaries on love in film history. The Washington Posts Anne Hornaday lamented the sheer number of stars in the film.Peter Travers at Rolling Stone said that the movie just makes you gag.
Now,Christopher Orr,writing at The Atlantic,called the movie the least romantic of all time. The title may be clickbait,but Orr criticizes the messages the movie sends out.The movie offers up the idea that love is about physical attraction and not about emotional or intellectual affinity.It also says that obstacles to romantic attachment are not worth the effort,he claims.
But for every critic taking apart the movies message,there are others who spring to its defence.At Mother Jones,Ben Dreyfuss issues a point-bypoint rebuttal of Orrs criticisms,saying that the movie says yes,youre crazy,but other people are crazy,too,and you should find out if maybe theyre crazy about you. And Maren Caldwell at ThoughtCatalog says that the movie has survived for five reasons.A strong cast,quotability and in the internet world,gifability and meme-ability good music and musical numbers,the romance factor and watchability (you can watch it on endless repeat without getting tired of it and you dont have to engage in any critical thinking while watching it) are key to its appeal.Even Wired magazine weighs in,saying that the movie remains popular because it doesnt tie things up with a neat bow.It also has the geekiest cast ever,with representatives from every major franchise,from Harry Potter and The Hobbit to Game of Thrones and Star Wars.
For more: thoughtcatalog.com,vulture.com
No comments:
Post a Comment