Latest News Clips 2016.06.13

                   

1.      Despite Obama’s Moves, Asian Nations Skeptical of U.S. Commitment

The New York Times    MAY 23, 2016

President Obama during a news conference with President Tran Dai Quang of Vietnam on Monday in Hanoi.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

SINGAPORE — When President Obama announced Monday that he was ending a half-century-long arms embargo against Vietnam, it was another milestone in his long-running ambition to recast America’s role in Asia — a “pivot” as he once called it, designed to realign America’s foreign policy so it can reap the benefits of Asia’s economic and strategic future.

Yet as Mr. Obama’s time in office comes to an end, Asian nations are deeply skeptical about how much they can rely on Washington’s commitment and staying power in the region. They sense that for the first time in memory, Americans are questioning whether their economic and defense interests in Asia are really that vital.

Mr. Obama is the first president to have grown up in the region — he lived in Indonesia as an elementary school student — and he has never doubted that America is underinvested in Asia and overinvested in the Middle East.

In visit after visit, he has capitalized on the palpable nervousness about Beijing’s intentions while also cautioning that China’s growing influence and power are unstoppable forces of history. In Mr. Obama’s view, that means both the United States and the rest of the region will have to both accommodate and channel China’s ambitions rather than make a futile attempt to contain them, while reassuring the Chinese of America’s peaceful intentions.

At the core, the policy has been building on the two-decade-old opening to Vietnam; the establishment of a new relationship with Myanmar as it lurches toward democracy; closer relations with the two largest treaty allies in the region, Japan and South Korea; and renewed military ties with thePhilippines. The administration has also pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would set new terms for trade and business investment among the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations.

Perhaps most important, Mr. Obama has received unexpected help from the Chinese themselves, who have so overplayed their hand in the South China Sea that smaller neighbors suddenly took a new interest in deepening their relations with Washington.

Countering those developments, though, is the American political mood, which has darkened toward longstanding alliances and international trade itself. For Asian allies, this means the United States might pivot away.

 “Every country in Asia views the problem differently, and through their own lenses, but they all see a twofold risk of things getting out of balance quickly,” Kurt M. Campbell, one of the architects of Mr. Obama’s strategy in his first term, said on Monday. “One is that China seriously overplays its nationalism” and that conflict breaks out in the South China Sea.

But Mr. Campbell, who is about to publish an account of Mr. Obama’s efforts titled “The Pivot: The Future of American Statecraft in Asia,” also noted that Asian nations were equally worried that America is no longer willing to be a steadying power.

“Asian countries are prone to anxiety about the behavior of major powers, for good reasons — they have seen a lot go wrong over the past thousand years,” said Daniel R. Russel, the assistant secretary of state for Asia. “And now there is angst about what comes next and the sustainability of the rebalance.”

2.      China Should Shut Down Zombie Businesses to Help the Economy

The New York Times      JUNE 9, 2016

China knows that it has to shut down steel mills, coal mines and other industrial units that are producing much more of just about everything than the world needs, depressing prices and hurting businesses and workers everywhere. But the government has been reluctant to act for fear of throwing millions out of work and damaging Chinese banks that have lent money to what are essentially zombie businesses kept alive by government policies.

That fear helps explain why Chinese officials pushed back when the Obama administration demanded during this week’s U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue that Beijing reduce industrial capacity. American officials need to keep pressing the issue, not only because China is flooding global markets with steel, aluminum and other goods, but also because China is living a fantasy that can only hurt its own people.

In 2008, China began pumping tens of billions of dollars into its economy and encouraged banks to embark on a lending spree to offset the effect of the financial crisis. As a result, the country continued to grow quickly, even as other countries slid into recession. The government intervention came at a high cost as businesses, many of them owned by provincial and local governments, borrowed excessively to invest in projects based on unrealistic assumptions about global demand.

The result is that China now faces a debt problem and an overcapacity problem. Goldman Sachs estimates that the amount of debt in the Chinese economy jumped to 235 percent of gross domestic product in 2015, from 130 percent in 2008. At its current trajectory, Goldman analysts say that number could rise to 344 percent of G.D.P. by 2020.

The bills for that debt and investment binge are now coming due, including human costs that merit a compassionate response. Reducing industrial production could force five million to 10 million workers from their jobs, says Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Banks and other investors may have to write off or restructure tens of billions of dollars in loans and bonds.

To help affected workers, China needs a stronger social safety net — retraining people for jobs in the service sector, providing generous pensions to workers close to retirement age and relocating workers in hard-hit areas to cities and towns where jobs are more plentiful. Increased spending on health and education would improve social services and create jobs. Over all, these policies should make it easier for provincial and local governments to shut down unprofitable enterprises.

On the financial side, China needs a more effective process for companies to restructure debts, merge with other businesses or liquidate their assets. The current bankruptcy system is so inefficient that many smaller businesses that fail simply disappear without settling their debts. State-owned banks keep ailing companies, some government owned, alive by rolling over their loans simply because managers do not want to acknowledge losses.

There have been signs of progress in recent months. Some state-owned businesses have defaulted on bond payments, suggesting that the government will not prop up failing companies in perpetuity, which is encouraging. But the defaults have also unnerved investors, because they cannot easily turn to bankruptcy courts to swap their debt for equity or recoup at least some of their money through negotiations with management.

President Xi Jinping says he intends to push for “supply-side structural reform” that would reduce excess industrial capacity, cut taxes and relax government control over the economy. That echoed a promise he made in 2013 to give market forces a “decisive role in the allocation of resources.” So far, he has not supported either slogan with much substance.

3.      Will Brexit Destroy Britain and Europe?

The Project Syndicate    MAY 20, 2016

          

LONDON – The long phony war about the United Kingdom’s place in Europe is over. An increasingly vicious domestic “Battle for Britain” has been underway for weeks. In a referendum on June 23, British voters will decide whether the UK remains in the European Union or, after more than four decades of membership, negotiates its withdrawal.

Opinion polls are finely balanced. With the EU increasingly seen through the lens of economic crisis, political turmoil, and unwanted migrants, a British exit – or “Brexit” – is a realistic prospect. Indeed, advocates would seem to have the wind at their backs: In an age of widespread anti-establishment rage, their claim that bossy Brussels bureaucrats are to blame for everything wrong with Britain resonates widely, tempting voters to project their personal visions of Utopia onto a post-EU future. The “remain” camp, by contrast, must somehow sell the reality of the EU as it is, warts and all.

While Britain’s debate about its relationship with “Europe” is often insular, Project Syndicate’s commentators bring a broader perspective to the question. They examine not only the likely implications of Brexit, but also how the UK arrived at this point and what the referendum – however it turns out – means for Europe’s future.

Getting to No

Carl Bildt, who was Sweden’s prime minister when his country joined the EU in 1995, provides an important reminder of what the European project has achieved – and thus what is at stake in the current threat to its integrity. “In the 1970s and 1980s,” he writes, “the magnetic promise of integration helped stabilize democracy in Greece, Spain, and Portugal.” After the collapse of communism, “the promise of EU accession eased, encouraged, and to some extent guided the transition” in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s. Likewise, the “soft power of an integrated Europe inspired democratic reform for decades in Turkey” and has had the same effect in Ukraine in recent years.

Given this record of success, why would any country want to leave? For Joschka Fischer, Germany’s former foreign minister, the Brexit debate reflects a simple reality: “The UK wants a different kind of Europe than the one that the EU currently represents. Its preference is a Europe that essentially consists solely of a common market.”

Actually, Brexit campaigners want to leave the EU for a variety of reasons. Free-market Conservatives argue that Britain would be freer, richer, and more democratic if it left the EU, regained “full” sovereignty, struck its own trade deals, scrapped burdensome EU regulation, and took control of its borders. For nativists, notably in the UK Independence Party, the priority is to restrict immigration. For some on the hard left, Brexit would enable the country to escape the EU’s “neoliberal” constraints, such as limits on state ownership and subsidies. Yet the overwhelming consensus is that Brexit would be bad for both Britain and the EU.

Better Off In

It’s not hard to see why. Most observers believe, for good reason, that Brexit would entail huge economic costs for Britain. Just the disruption and uncertainty of drawn-out and doubtless acrimonious divorce proceedings, I have argued, would depress investment and growth. Permanent separation would reduce trade, foreign investment, and migration, hurting competition, productivity growth, and living standards. And “independence” would deprive Britain of influence over future EU reforms – notably, the completion of the single market in services – from which it would benefit.

So why hasn’t that message sunk in with British voters? “Many advocates of withdrawal cherry-pick policies and regulations,” says Ana Palacio, a former Spanish foreign minister. “They want Britons to believe not only that the City of London would remain Europe’s top financial center, but also that the UK would retain access to the EU’s single market, even without free movement of labor.” This is “pure fantasy.”

In fact, in the event of Brexit, the pound would probably collapse, according to Princeton economic historian Harold James. And MIT’s Simon Johnson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cites two leading reports suggesting dire consequences for financial stability following Brexit, with no new export opportunities to show for it once the turmoil subsided.

In fact, the long-term effects of Brexit, economic and otherwise, would be no less serious. Anglo-Dutch author Ian Buruma points out that Britain would lose global influence. Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is scathing: Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum could “bring down his government, destroy his political party, and literally tear his country apart.” After all, given Scots’ (relative) enthusiasm for the EU, Brexit would likely be followed by a second independence referendum, ending the UK as we know it – a key reason why some prominent Euroskeptics, such as former Foreign Secretary William Hague, now favor remaining.

Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, argues that other Euroskeptics should hedge their bets as well. Because the consequences of leaving are highly uncertain, Britons’ “most pragmatic choice would be to remain in the EU, at least for now, thereby preserving the option of changing their collective mind later, should new information warrant it.”

The Impact on Europe

Britain’s departure would doubtless damage the EU as well. At one time, France and others may have believed that the EU could integrate faster without Britain. But that was when European integration was much more popular than it is today. With support for an “ever-closer Europe” plumbing new lows, Brexit could cause the bloc to unravel further.

Javier Solana, a former EU high representative for foreign and security policy, argues that Brexit would “weaken the security, foreign policy, and international standing of both parties.” Similarly, Richard Haass, a former director of policy planning at the US State Department, is among many to warn that Brexit would add to the centrifugal forces of nationalism and “populism” that risk destroying the European project. Haass also worries that Brexit could undermine the peace agreement in Northern Ireland.

Latest News Clips 2016.06.06

1. Muhammad Ali Dies at 74: Titan of Boxing and the 20th Century

The New York Times JUNE 4, 2016

 

Muhammad Ali, the three-time world heavyweight boxing champion who helped define his turbulent times as the most charismatic and controversial sports figure of the 20th century, died on Friday in a Phoenix-area hospital. He was 74.

His death was confirmed by Bob Gunnell, a family spokesman.

Ali was the most thrilling if not the best heavyweight ever, carrying into the ring a physically lyrical, unorthodox boxing style that fused speed, agility and power more seamlessly than that of any fighter before him.

But he was more than the sum of his athletic gifts. An agile mind, a buoyant personality, a brash self-confidence and an evolving set of personal convictions fostered a magnetism that the ring alone could not contain. He entertained as much with his mouth as with his fists, narrating his life with a patter of inventive doggerel. (“Me! Wheeeeee!”)

Ali was as polarizing a superstar as the sports world has ever produced — both admired and vilified in the 1960s and ’70s for his religious, political and social stances. His refusal to be drafted during the Vietnam War, his rejection of racial integration at the height of the civil rights movement, his conversion from Christianity to Islam and the changing of his “slave” name,Cassius Clay, to one bestowed by the separatist black sect he joined, the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, were perceived as serious threats by the conservative establishment and noble acts of defiance by the liberal opposition.

Loved or hated, he remained for 50 years one of the most recognizable people on the planet.

In later life Ali became something of a secular saint, a legend in soft focus. He was respected for having sacrificed more than three years of his boxing prime and untold millions of dollars for his antiwar principles after being banished from the ring; he was extolled for his un-self-conscious gallantry in the face of incurable illness, and he was beloved for his accommodating sweetness in public.

In 1996, he was trembling and nearly mute as he lit the Olympic caldron in Atlanta.

That passive image was far removed from the exuberant, talkative, vainglorious 22-year-old who bounded out of Louisville, Ky., and onto the world stage in 1964 with an upset victory over Sonny Liston to become the world champion. The press called him the Louisville Lip. He called himself the Greatest.

Ali also proved to be a shape-shifter — a public figure who kept reinventing his persona.

As a bubbly teenage gold medalist at the 1960 Olympics in Rome, he parroted America’s Cold War line, lecturing a Soviet reporter about the superiority of the United States. But he became a critic of his country and a government target in 1966 with his declaration “I ain’t got nothing against them Vietcong.”

“He lived a lot of lives for a lot of people,” said the comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory. “He was able to tell white folks for us to go to hell.”

But Ali had his hypocrisies, or at least inconsistencies. How could he consider himself a “race man” yet mock the skin color, hair and features of other African-Americans, most notably Joe Frazier, his rival and opponent in three classic matches? Ali called him “the gorilla,” and long afterward Frazier continued to express hurt and bitterness.

If there was a supertitle to Ali’s operatic life, it was this: “I don’t have to be who you want me to be; I’m free to be who I want.” He made that statement the morning after he won his first heavyweight title. It informed every aspect of his life, including the way he boxed.

2. The extraordinary survival of the boy left in a Japanese forest'

 

Yamato’s discovery in an army hut deep inside thick woodland came about thanks to several pieces of good fortune

The Guardian 3 June 2016

He did not flinch when he came face to face with the first person he had seen in almost a week. There were no tears, either, just a composed answer to the soldier’s question: “Are you Yamato?”

“Yes, I am,” came the reply.

More than six days after his parents abandoned him on the side of the road in a forest aspunishment for misbehaving, seven-year-old Yamato Tanooka was found alive and unhurt on Friday morning, marking the end of a search that has gripped Japan and prompted a debate over when parental discipline turns into abuse.

If his sudden disappearance was every parent’s nightmare, Yamato’s discovery, in an army hut deep inside thick woodland populated by hundreds of brown bears, came about thanks to several pieces of good fortune.

While the boy, who suffered only scratches to his arms and legs, was being kept in hospital overnight as a precaution, details emerged of his extraordinary survival.

Without food or water, possibly believing his parents had left him for good, he made his way through three miles (5km) of mountainous forest after leaving the narrow road where, minutes earlier, he had been left as punishment for throwing stones at cars and people during a family trip to a nearby park.

Hours later, he came across a gate marking the entrance to a self-defence force training ground in the town of Shikabe in Hokkaido, Japan’s northernmost island.

In the pitch darkness that descends on the forest at night, he may not have been able to see the sign on the right warning members of the public to keep out. Either by climbing over the fence or making his way through the bushes either side, he set out along a path that, a few hundred metres on, took him to the corrugated-iron hut that became his makeshift home – and probably saved his life.

The hut’s two doors are supposed to be locked when it is not being used as sleeping quarters by soldiers out on exercise. Yamato, though, would have turned the handle on one of them to find it had been left open. Outside was a single tap, his sole source of sustenance during his ordeal, when overnight temperatures dropped to as low as 7C (45F).

Seeking shelter from the rain, three soldiers from the 28th Infantry Regiment at nearby camp Hakodate opened the door early on Friday morning to find Yamato, dressed in sweatpants, a T-shirt and trainers, curled up on a mattress. At night, he had sandwiched himself between two mattresses to keep warm.

Many were beginning to fear the worst when the search, involving 180 people accompanied by dogs, had still failed to turn up any clues after a couple of days. The discovery earlier this week of fresh bear droppings only added to the growing sense that the story of the “naughty” missing boy would end in tragedy.

After confirming his name, Yamato explained that he had stayed in the hut for several nights, and had not eaten for almost a week. The soldiers gave him two rice balls and called for a helicopter to take him to hospital.

It is not clear how many nights he spent in the hut. Early reports said a search of the training ground on Monday had not produced any clues as to his whereabouts. Later, though, the Asahi Shimbun said the area had not been checked because the entrance gate was usually secured.

Troops involved in the search broke into applause when they learned that Yamato had been found, while 900 of his fellow pupils at Hamawake elementary school in his hometown of Hokuto erupted in joy when they were given the news at an assembly.

As Yamato was being treated for mild dehydration, his father appeared at the entrance of Hakodate municipal hospital and attempted to explain his actions. “The first thing I did was apologise to him for the terrible suffering I had put him through,” Takayuki Tanooka said as he fought back tears. “I said that I was really sorry. He nodded and said: ‘OK,’ like he understood.”

3. Garbiñe Muguruza Upsets Serena Williams in French Open Final

The New York Times JUNE 4, 2016

This is the first Grand Slam title for Garbiñe Muguruza, a 22-year-old Spaniard who was born in Venezuela.CreditRobert Ghement/European Pressphoto Agency

PARIS — About 11 months ago, Garbiñe Muguruza stood drying on the grass court of Wimbledon after losing to Serena Williams in the women’s final. The champion that day consoled the vanquished, telling her not to be sad, that one day she would win a major tournament.

Less than a year later, Williams’s prophecy came true at her own expense. In a rematch of the Wimbledon final that was played on red clay instead of green grass, No. 4 Muguruza upset No. 1 Williams, 7-5, 6-4, on Saturday to capture the 2016 French Open.

It is the first Grand Slam title for Muguruza, a 22-year-old Spaniard who was born in Venezuela.

“Today Garbiñe played unbelievable,” Williams said after the match. “The only thing I can do is just keep trying.”

For Williams, who was playing through a strained upper leg muscle, her pursuit of a 22nd major tournament championship will continue, presumably at Wimbledon. Only two other women have won that many majors, including Margaret Court, who won 24 (13 of those were before the Open era). Steffi Graf holds the Open-era record with 22.

Williams won her 21st when she beat Muguruza in the Wimbledon final last July, and at the time it seemed inevitable that she would have reached Graf’s mark by now. But a stunning loss to Roberta Vinci in a semifinal at the United States Open prevented it from happening there. It also squashed Williams’s hope of winning the elusive Grand Slam – all four major tournaments in one calendar year.

Another surprising loss came in Australia in January where Williams lost in the final to Angelique Kerber, then Saturday’s loss to Muguruza.

The last time Williams lost at three major tournaments in a row was in 2014 (the Australian Open, the French Open to Muguruza in the second round and Wimbledon). The losing streak led to a rededication to her craft. The biggest change was to begin working with her current coach, Patrick Mouratoglou. After that she won four straight majors.

Muguruza, who is 6 feet with broad shoulders and a power game to match Williams’s, was playing in only her second Grand Slam final. Before that, her best results were at the French Open, where she earned a spot in the quarterfinals in 2014 and 2015.

Born in Caracas on Oct. 8, 1993, to a Spanish father and Venezuelan mother, Muguruza began playing tennis in Guarenas, just east of Caracas. When she was a school-age girl the family moved back to Spain where Muguruza began to train in earnest and developed into an elite player.

She entered the main draw of the 2012 U.S. Open as a teenager for her first major tournament with a clear upward trajectory. But after reaching the final at Wimbledon, Muguruza did not immediately follow it up. She registered disappointing results at the U.S. Open, where she lost in the second round, and the Australian, where she fell in the third.

Muguruza has acknowledged the challenge of overcoming her emotions and nerves, and she kept those mostly in check on Saturday. After the Wimbledon final, she also picked up on something that may have served her at the French.

“I learned that she’s also nervous,” Muguruza said of Williams that day, after the tears had dried up, “even though she played, I don’t know how many finals.”

The answer to that is 27. But none were quite like this one.

The 2016 French Open was plagued by historical amounts of rain and chilly weather that had players wrapped in leggings and long sleeves —unusual garb for a typical Grand Slam event. The stands were often dotted by umbrellas and colorful rain gear, and some of the featured matches were played in front of half-empty stands.

Rain washed away one whole day of scheduled matches on Monday, and other days saw numerous interruptions of play.

The No. 2 seed, Agnieszka Radwanska, lost in the fourth round in a match played, at times, in steady rain. Radwanska was angry the match continued in those conditions, as was No. 6 Simona Halep, who lost to Samantha Stosur that same day.

Angelique Kerber, the Australian Open champion and No. 3 seed, lost in the first round, as did No. 5 Victoria Azarenka. Maria Sharapova was not present because of a suspension over a positive test for meldonium, a performance-enhancing drug.

Other players gladly filled the void in the spotlight, including Shelby Rogers, the 108th-ranked player in the world, who made it to the quarterfinals of a major for the first time in her career. Kiki Bertens, ranked No. 58, reached a semifinal for the first time, despite a strained left calf, and lost to Williams in straight sets.

Muguruza did not have a particularly difficult road to the final. She did not have to face a top-10 player until the final. She defeated No. 15 Svetlana Kuznetsova in straight sets in the fourth round and Rogers in straight sets in the quarters. On Friday she beat No. 21 Stosur in a semifinal match.

The only set she lost on her way to the final was her first, to Anna Karolina Schmiedlova in the first round. But just as with her loss to Williams at Wimbledon, she recovered nicely from the disappointment.