2017年3月26日 星期日

Latest News Clips 2017.03.27



1.      Did London attack expose city's 'weak spot'?
CNN   March 24, 2017
Not all UK police officers are armed.

(CNN) The terrorist attack on Westminster -- the heart of government in Britain since the 16th century -- did not come as a surprise to authorities.
In the aftermath of atrocities in France last year, London's most senior police officer warned that an attack was "highly likely" -- a case of "when, not if."
Given the threat, it may come as a surprise to people unfamiliar with the British model of policing that fewer than one in 10 London police officers carries a gun in their daily duties. Keith Palmer, the 48-year-old officer stabbed to death at the gates of Parliament, was unarmed.

Weak spot
Palmer was standing guard at Carriage Gates, the wrought-iron entrance from Parliament Square that gives onto New Palace Yard, where cars carrying Members of Parliament sweep through into the underground parking lot below.

After plowing a rental car through crowds on Wesminster Bridge, 52-year-old Khalid Masood crashed the vehicle into Parliament's perimeter fence, dashed round the corner, stabbed Palmer and pushed through into the compound before being shot by an armed officer.

There were questions about why the gate, which can only be used by parliamentary pass holders, was ajar and not bolted shut. "It's a terrible, terrible day for parliament, the one weak spot on our estate is those carriage gates," said Mary Creagh, a member of parliament, said, according to The Telegraph.
When asked why an armed policeman was not on the gate, Iain Duncan Smith, a former cabinet minister, said it was a "little bit of a surprise that there was not." He said the gate was a "vulnerability" because vehicles come and go through it.
However, another lawmaker, Richard Benyon, said on Twitter he was irritated by reports of a security breach, calling it a "highly professional response."
More police?
London has stepped up security in the wake of the attacks. Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNN that Londoners would see more armed and unarmed police officers patrolling the streets.
"One of the reasons I can say London is the safest global city in the world and one of the safest cities in the world is because there are literally tens of thousands of Keith Palmers keeping our cities safe, working with members of the public who provide intelligence and information, working with our security services," he said.
Last year, shortly after the Nice truck attack, the Metropolitan Police, which covers most of London and is usually referred to simply as "the Met," increased its number of firearms officers by 600 to 2,800 -- however this is still less than 10% of the total.
However, it's unlikely that the Met will make a wholesale shift in its policing model.
The previous Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who retired in January, said last year the fact that the vast majority of police officers were unarmed "gives us a far healthier relationship with the people we police."
"Our neighborhood officers -- the ones who know their streets, who know their environment and who know many of the names of the people in their communities -- are our major weapon. They are our eyes and ears on the street," he said.
Low-tech terror
The Westminster attack was just one in a series of such relatively low-tech terrorist attacks involving vehicles in the West over the past three years that have typically been inspired by ISIS, says Peter Bergen, CNN's National Security analyst.
"These attacks are hard to defend against in free societies where crowds will gather, as was the case for Bastille Day in Nice, or the Christmas market in Berlin, or students attending Ohio State -- and now the throngs of tourists and visitors that typically crowd the sidewalks around the Houses of Parliament," he said.
He says law enforcement needs to have a deep understanding of who may be radicalizing before they carry out a lethal terrorist attack. And for that, they need the help of peers and family members.
"If extremist recruiters seek to manipulate grievances, teachers and youth workers must develop programs to address them through promoting democratic responses," Jonathan Russell, head of policy at Quilliam and Joshua Stewart, a strategic communications officer there, wrote in an opinion piece for CNN.

2.      South Korea Removes President Park Geun-hye
The New York Times     MARCH 9, 2017

SEOUL, South Korea — A South Korean court removed the president on Friday, a first in the nation’s history, rattling the delicate balance of relationships across Asia at a particularly tense time.
Her removal capped months of turmoil, as hundreds of thousands of South Koreans took to the streets, week after week, to protest a sprawling corruption scandal that shook the top echelons of business and government.

Park Geun-hye, the nation’s first female president and the daughter of the Cold War military dictator Park Chung-hee, had been an icon of the conservative establishment that joined Washington in pressing for a hard line against North Korea’s nuclear provocations.

Now, her downfall is expected to shift South Korean politics to the opposition, whose leaders want more engagement with North Korea and are wary of a major confrontation in the region. They say they will re-examine the country’s joint strategy on North Korea with the United States and defuse tensions with China, which has sounded alarms about the growing American military footprint in Asia.

Ms. Park’s powers were suspended in December after a legislative impeachment vote, though she continued to live in the presidential Blue House, largely alone and hidden from public view, while awaiting the decision by the Constitutional Court. The house had been her childhood home: She first moved in at the age of 9 and left it nearly two decades later after her mother and father were assassinated in separate episodes.

Eight justices of the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to unseat Ms. Park for committing “acts that violated the Constitution and laws” throughout her time in office, Acting Chief Justice Lee Jung-mi said in a ruling that was nationally broadcast.

Ms. Park’s acts “betrayed the trust of the people and were of the kind that cannot be tolerated for the sake of protecting the Constitution,” Justice Lee said.

As the verdict was announced, silence fell over thousands of Park supporters who rallied near the courthouse waving South Korean flags. Soon, they tried to march on the court and called for “destroying” it. When the police blocked them, some of the mostly elderly protesters attacked the officers with flagpoles, hurling water bottles and pieces of the sidewalk pavement. Two pro-Park demonstrators, ages 60 and 72, died during the unrest.

Ms. Park did not comment on the ruling, and remained in the presidential palace after her removal from power. But In Myung-jin, the leader of Ms. Park’s conservative Liberty Korea Party, said he “humbly respected” the ruling.

With the immunity conferred by her office now gone, Ms. Park, 65, faces prosecutors seeking to charge her with bribery, extortion and abuse of power in connection with allegations of conspiring with a confidante, her childhood friend Choi Soon-sil, to collect tens of millions of dollars in bribes from companies like Samsung.

By law, the country must elect a new president within 60 days. The acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, an ally of Ms. Park’s, will remain in office in the interim. The Trump administration is rushing a missile defense system to South Korea so that it can be in place before the election.

After the ruling, Mr. Hwang called key Cabinet ministers to put the nation on a heightened state of military readiness, saying the lack of a president represented a national “emergency.” He also warned North Korea against making “additional provocations.”

3.      Why China is so mad about THAAD, a missile defense system aimed at deterring North Korea
The Washington Post  March 7
 
A U.S. military video shows the arrival of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense units to South Korea on Mar. 6. The units are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles like the ones recently launched by North Korea into the Sea of Japan. (Youtube/Osan AirBase)
Given how angry Beijing gets about THAAD, you may be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. missile system, deployed to South Korea, is primarily aimed at China. However, Washington and Seoul have justified the system by saying it is necessary to defend South Korea from North Korean aggression.
With the missile system finally being deployed and tensions between the Koreas and China exploding again, here's a guide to the controversy.
What exactly is THAAD?
The acronym stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. The ground-based missile defense system, which first came into development after the Persian Gulf War, is designed to shoot down short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles during the terminal phase (i.e., when they are coming down).
According to Lockheed Martin, the U.S. company that manufacturers the system, there are four stages to its operation. First, a radar system identifies the incoming threat; then the target is identified and engaged. An “interceptor” is fired from a truck-mounted launcher, which destroys the missile using kinetic energy. Because the incoming missile is destroyed at a high altitude, the effects of weapons of mass destruction can be mitigated with the device.
The system is designed to be highly mobile, and it consists of four main components: a truck-mounted launcher; eight interceptors on the launcher; a transportable radar system; and a fire control system that links the various components with external command centers.
So why is it in the news right now?
THAAD systems have been deployed in a number of places around the world, including Guam and Hawaii. However, last year the Defense Department announced it would deploy a system to South Korea, where it would be operated by U.S. forces stationed in the country. In a statement, the Pentagon described the move as a “defensive measure” against North Korea after the country continued to pursue nuclear weapons and tested a number of ballistic missile systems.
This week, the situation on the Korean Peninsula escalated dramatically. On Tuesday, North Korean state media reported that the country has practiced attempts to hit U.S. military bases in Japan with a number of recently launched missiles. The number of missiles fired suggested that North Korea was training to see how quickly it could set up its extended-range missiles in a wartime setting.
That same day, the United States announced that it has begun deploying THAAD to South Korea this week. While the land where the system is due to be deployed is not ready yet, the equipment will be kept at a U.S. air base in Osan until the site is prepared. Full deployment is expected as early as June.
The news of the THAAD deployment sparked a threat of “consequences” from China. “I want to emphasize that we firmly oppose the deployment of THAAD,” said Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, at a daily news briefing in Beijing on Tuesday. “We will resolutely take necessary measures to defend our security interests.”
Why is China so angry?
On the surface of it, it may be hard to understand Beijing's fury with THAAD. For one thing, it's a purely defensive system — THAAD systems don't carry warheads, relying on the force of the “interceptor” to destroy the incoming missile rather than a detonation. And while, in theory, the system could be used to intercept Chinese ballistic missiles, it would only work on missiles in their terminal phase: ruling out those targeting the United States, which would still be ascending.
Moreover, while China is well-known as a key ally and “big brother” of North Korea, it has shown itself to be exasperated by Pyongyang's recent missile launches. Beijing recently blocked coal imports from North Korea, striking a major blow to the isolated nation's economy.
Instead, many experts argue that China's anger over THAAD has less to do with the missiles than with the sophisticated radar capabilities included in the system. These radars could be used to track China's own missile systems, potentially giving the United States a major advantage in any future conflict with China. Some Chinese analysts argue that THAAD itself is of only limited use against North Korea anyway, as it would not be able to take out short-range missiles and artillery that do not reach high altitudes, hinting that the radar may be the real reason for the deployment.

More broadly, Beijing is concerned that the United States is hoping to use both South Korea and Japan to contain China in the future. “If South Korea insists on becoming a US puppet, China will have to act against it,” the nationalist state newspaper Global Times wrote in an editorial early this year.

2017年3月4日 星期六

Latest News Clips 2017.03.06

                  
1.      Analysis: Trump shocks Congress with a speech that stuck to script
The apocalyptic vision of ‘American carnage’ on show at the inauguration was replaced with the kind of broad, sunny platitudes Trump has rarely indulged in
The Guardian  1 March 2017
The most shocking part of Donald Trump’s speech on Tuesday was that there was nothing shocking at all.
Speaking before a joint session of Congress to an audience of senators, congressmen and women, Supreme Court justices and generals, Trump mostly stayed on script. He did not really brag about the size of his electoral victory (except to declare that in 2016 “the earth shifted beneath our feet”). He did not attack the media or go on any of his frequent verbal detours.

President declares ‘the time for trivial fights is behind us’ in an attempt to offer an optimistic vision to all Americans

Trump – with only a few slips into “lawless chaos” – even mostly managed to avoid the dark, apocalyptic tones that punctuated his acceptance speech at the Republican convention and his inaugural. There were no references to American carnage or claims that illegal drugs are now cheaper than candy bars.
Instead, he spoke in the broad sunny platitudes typical of most politicians but that he, the anti-politician, has rarely indulged in. Trump talked of a future where “our children will grow up in a nation of miracles” and when “we just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts”.
Trump did occasionally escape from the text. The most notable example was when the President said of Ryan Owens, the Navy Seal killed in a recent raid in Yemen whom he mentioned in his speech, was in heaven, pleased with the amount of applause he received. “And Ryan is looking down, right now, you know that? And he’s very happy, because I think he just broke a record,” said Trump. It was undeniably awkward by standards of presidential addresses but would have barely been a footnote in most Trump rally speeches.

The mood in the chamber was entirely unlike a Trump rally. There was little hooting and almost no hollering. No one chanted “lock her up” or “build that wall” and no hecklers were forcibly ejected by security.
Democrats had warned members to avoid booing or heckling the president, and for the most part they did. There were audible guffaws when Trump bragged about “draining the swamp” and groans when he discussed a newly created federal office that serves to advocate for victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

But no one shouted “you lie” or audibly disrupted the speech. The most gauche displays where when two Democratic members gave thumbs down signs when Trump called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare and when New York congressman Joe Crowley shook his hand in the air after Trump said “the time for trivial fights is over”. It was apparently a reference to the many trivial fights that Trump has engaged in, including debates over the size of his hands and the number of people who attended his inauguration.
Many Democratic women notably wore white, the color of suffrage and symbolic of protest and across the chamber, Democrats rarely applauded even for things where they agreed with Trump. In contrast to past speeches to Congress, where presidents received bipartisan applause for noncontroversial platitudes, many Democrats sat on their hands, refusing to acknowledge even the most anodyne statement from the president.
The only Democrat to stand with any frequency was Senator Joe Manchin, a moderate who is running for re-election in 2018 in West Virginia, a state where Trump had his strongest performance, winning nearly 70% of the vote.

Many Democrats did not even stand for a call for a major increase in infrastructure spending, something where Trump has long diverged with many in his own party. One Democrat urged others to stand as many Republicans sat awkwardly, eventually, tentatively, standing in support of their party’s leader.
Trump’s speech is not likely to change the political landscape. We have been here before, where he has seemed presidential on one day and launched a 6am tweet storm the next, making any gains in gravitas temporary. But the occasion did show how divided the country and this Congress is. When Democrats won’t even stand or clap when Trump is talking about a fallen soldier, it’s not likely that they will be willing to make deals on infrastructure, let alone controversial topics like immigration reform.
It does not matter what Trump says or how formal the setting within which he speaks. No matter what words come out of Trump’s mouth, Democrats are only going to ever hear the echoes of “lock her up”.

2.      The empress of reality television China’s transgender Oprah
As an army colonel who became a woman, she exemplifies a society in flux
The Economist   February 2017

CHINA’S favourite chat-show host has had an extraordinary career. Jin Xing was the country’s most successful dancer before becoming a colonel in an army entertainment troupe. He won fame in America, where the New York Times called him “a Chinese genius”. He trained dancers in Brussels and Rome, before returning to China for a sex-change operation. As a woman, she resumed her career as a ballerina, set up the country’s first private ballet company, ran a bar in Beijing and married a German businessman. 
In a conservative society where even homosexuality is frowned upon, let alone sex-reassignment, her life would seem to place Ms. Jin well outside the stodgy mainstream of Chinese broadcasting (she is pictured at her home in Shanghai). Yet Ms Jin, who is 49, is the country’s most popular television judge. She began with a local version of “So You Think You Can Dance” and hit the jackpot with “The Jin Xing Show”, a variety and chat programme with an audience of around 100m. She has appeared with her husband on the Chinese version of “The Amazing Race”, in which couples race each other around the world. Her latest venture, “Chinese Dating”, is in its first season.
Ms Jin’s story reflects remarkable changes in Chinese society since her childhood. She joined the army at the age of nine and endured a training regime that, as she puts it, would count as child abuse in the West. During her surgery, an oxygen shortage damaged her left leg so badly that doctors thought she would be lucky to walk again. Gruelling retraining enabled her to resume dancing within a year.
Those struggles with adversity have helped Ms Jin win favour among older Chinese, a more conservative cohort that is also, surprisingly, her biggest fan base. Many of them, too, have suffered enormous hardship—during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, and the famine that followed the Great Leap Forward of the late 1950s, in which tens of millions died. Even those born after 1980—roughly half the population—know well what their elders endured.
Identity crises
The tension between Ms Jin’s persona as a patriotic Chinese, and the one she displays as a globetrotter with a foreign husband (in January she joined the global elite at the World Economic Forum in Davos), is one that is widely understood among her compatriots. They have become the world’s great travellers. Over 100m got visas for holidays abroad last year, more than the citizens of any other country. Ms Jin describes herself as having been “a little Chinese boy thirsting for the West”. She writes of dreaming about Coca-Cola and freedom in Paris, or surreptitiously reading porn magazines and cruising gay bars in Greenwich Village. In her memoir, “Shanghai Tango”, she says that in the gay communities of New York, she feels herself to be “a traveller in a foreign land twice over”—as a woman in a man’s body and as a Chinese person abroad (who happens to be, she might have added, ethnic Korean).
In Belgium she feels haunted by the Chinese words she sees on signs in the streets; their calls, she writes, “get louder and louder”. She looks at a Ming vase at a market in Brussels and feels “ashamed” of Chinese who live abroad and have “only contempt” for their ancestral heritage.
China has several cultural figures who are better known in the West than at home. Ms Jin could have been another. But she chose to return home for her sex-change surgery, at some personal risk since the procedure was almost unknown there. “I was born in China,” she says. “It is in China I must be reborn as a woman.”
Xi Jinping, China’s president, presents himself as a staunch defender of “traditional” Chinese culture, and warns of the danger of Western “infiltration”. His preferences were clear in a recent official directive, which calls for the protection of China’s “cultural security”. But like most of her compatriots, Ms Jin is happy to take what she wants from both China and the West.
On the face of it, she embodies everything that is untraditional. Her rejection of being a man flies in the face of Confucian culture. The television manner for which she is famous—a blunt, cut-the-crap sassiness—is the opposite of stereotypical feminine deference. Yet her life as a woman has not been a simple rebellion against convention. By adopting three children and marrying (albeit a foreigner), she created around herself what she calls “a real Chinese family”. The values she espouses are old-fashioned even in China. In her new dating game, the contestants may not choose a match without their families’ permission; indeed, it is the families who interview the contestants’ prospective partners—resulting in rampant sexism, with women being asked about children and men about money. This has been too much for some viewers; online commentators have slammed the format as chauvinist and “retro”. But Ms Jin’s popularity suggests many young people believe that tradition should not be discarded.

3.       Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron presents himself as an energetic outsider.
The Guardian   3 February 2017 

What’s the basic biography?
Emmanuel Macron, 39, is the son of a doctor and a neurology professor. Raised in the Picardy town of Amiens, he studied philosophy (you can tell from his speeches), then followed the classic postgrad route of France’s political and business elite, through Sciences Po and the École Nationale d’Administration.
Briefly a rising star in the civil service, he bought himself out of his government contract and joined Rothschild & Co – reportedly making around €2m (£1.7m) as a thrusting young investment banker – before being appointed a senior adviser by François Hollande in 2012 and, two years later, economy minister. Macron resigned last summer and launched his campaign in November.
Unknown to the public barely two years ago, never elected, no longer a member of a political party and defining himself as “neither left nor right”, he is now – according to polls – the favourite to become France’s next president. Oh, and his wife, Brigitte Trogneux, used to be his French teacher, and is 20-odd years his senior.
What are his politics?
Macron presents himself as the energetic outsider, determined to break what he calls the “complacency and vacuity” of the French political system. At the head of a youthful movement, En Marche! (Let’s Go!), he wants to “re-forge France’s politics, culture and ideology”.

So he’s a radical?
He says he is “of the left”, but keen to unite people from across the spectrum, including the right. Economically liberal and pro-business, Macron was tasked by Hollande with opening up France’s sclerotic economy; the loi Macronreforms that bear his name were so unpopular they had to be forced through by decree. But he is also fiercely progressive on social issues – eager to stimulate growth and free up business while protecting the country’s strong social safety net.


In the hands of a political establishment interested only in self-preservation, he has said, the system “has ceased to protect those it should protect”. In a country where stubborn unemployment, entrenched inequalities, increasing opposition to globalisation and the ongoing terror threat have robbed many of all confidence in mainstream politics, it is a message that resonates. Macron’s rallies are huge: 12,000 people in Paris, 4,000 in Lille.