Are they terrorists or militants?


Terrorists or militaants

LATELY, the use of the words militants and terrorists has become very common and people are sometimes confused as to whether an act of violence has been committed by terrorists or militants.

In Malaysia, the two words are often used interchangeably whereas in strict media practice and proper nomenclature, there is a difference between the two.

It was reported that one foreign media had warned their employees to be extra careful on the terms extremist, militant and terrorist in their news coverage to avoid characterising people.

It is good for our local media to follow these footsteps and avoid using wrong words which can be very sensitive and inappropriate.

In this regard, naturally those who are familiar with the subject of “Organised Crime and Terrorism” would able be to differentiate between the two terms.

Militants and terrorists both have their own agendas and mostly, these agendas have political, religious or ideological goals. The difference lies in the means with which they seek to achieve their desired goals.

Either way it is clear that usually both the terrorists and militants are extremists (in the sense of holding a view at the extreme end of a spectrum on a particular subject matter) who indulge in unlawful activities and therefore become a threat to the nation.

Some of the differences between militants and terrorists are:

  • All terrorists are militants, but not all militants are terrorists;
  • Terrorism is carried out by non-governmental groups that do not wear uniforms. However, members of militants usually wear uniforms, identifying insignia or militia – coloured clothes;
  • Terrorists resort to physical violence. They utilise terror as a means of coercion and use violence as a necessary means of attaining their political, religious or ideological goals, thereby causing harm and death to innocent people and maximum damage to property. Militants may or may not actively engage in physical violence, but they are certainly very aggressive verbally or use verbal violence to achieve their desired goals, as undoubtedly, they feel themselves in “war mode”;
  • Terrorists have no regard for humankind and, usually target civilians, instil fear and psychological effect on them in order to gain the attention of the authorities. As terrorist organisations, they will commit violent acts by murdering civilians, scholars, religious leaders and sanctioning of extortion and demanding ransom.

On the contrary, militants usually do not resort to harming civilians to champion their cause but instead use confrontational or violent methods against the establishment in support of a political or social cause. For example militants may choose to rebel and use armed aggression for a country’s liberation; and

  • Where both terms converge is when militants find they have no recourse to achieve their goals and then they resort to terrorism if their needs are not met, thereby transforming themselves into a terrorist group.

By DATUK AKHBAR SATAR Director, Institute of Crime & Criminology HELP University

Related post:

Al-Shabaah terrorist members enter Malaysia as students and tourists

Enter the Chinese Century: China is now the world’s No.1 economic power


Chinese century

The natural American reaction would be to “contain” China—and that would be a mistake.
SOFT POWER For America, the best response to China is to put our own house in order., © M. Garfat/MGP (Feather), © Gino’s Premium Images (Leaves), both from Alamy; © Cary Anderson (Wing), © Michael Nolan/SpecialistStock (Eagle’sHead), © Aaron Joel Santos (Bamboo Forest), all from Aurora Photos; © Getty Ellis/Globio/Minden Pictures/Corbis (Panda and Grass); Photo Illustration by Vanity Fair

Prof Joseph E StiglitzWithout fanfare—indeed, with some misgivings about its new status — China has just overtaken the United States as the world’s largest economy. This is, and should be, a wake-up call—but not the kind most Americans might imagine.

by Prof Joseph E. Stiglitz – Coluimbia Business School

When the history of 2014 is written, it will take note of a large fact that has received little attention: 2014 was the last year in which the United States could claim to be the world’s largest economic power. China enters 2015 in the top position, where it will likely remain for a very long time, if not forever. In doing so, it returns to the position it held through most of human history.

Comparing the gross domestic product of different economies is very difficult. Technical committees come up with estimates, based on the best judgments possible, of what are called “purchasing-power parities,” which enable the comparison of incomes in various countries. These shouldn’t be taken as precise numbers, but they do provide a good basis for assessing the relative size of different economies. Early in 2014, the body that conducts these international assessments—the World Bank’s International Comparison Program—came out with new numbers. (The complexity of the task is such that there have been only three reports in 20 years.) The latest assessment, released last spring, was more contentious and, in some ways, more momentous than those in previous years. It was more contentious precisely because it was more momentous: the new numbers showed that China would become the world’s largest economy far sooner than anyone had expected—it was on track to do so before the end of 2014.

The source of contention would surprise many Americans, and it says a lot about the differences between China and the U.S.—and about the dangers of projecting onto the Chinese some of our own attitudes. Americans want very much to be No. 1—we enjoy having that status. In contrast, China is not so eager. According to some reports, the Chinese participants even threatened to walk out of the technical discussions. For one thing, China did not want to stick its head above the parapet—being No. 1 comes with a cost. It means paying more to support international bodies such as the United Nations. It could bring pressure to take an enlightened leadership role on issues such as climate change. It might very well prompt ordinary Chinese to wonder if more of the country’s wealth should be spent on them. (The news about China’s change in status was in fact blacked out at home.) There was one more concern, and it was a big one: China understands full well America’s psychological preoccupation with being No. 1—and was deeply worried about what our reaction would be when we no longer were.

Of course, in many ways—for instance, in terms of exports and household savings—China long ago surpassed the United States. With savings and investment making up close to 50 percent of G.D.P., the Chinese worry about having too much savings, just as Americans worry about having too little. In other areas, such as manufacturing, the Chinese overtook the U.S. only within the past several years. They still trail America when it comes to the number of patents awarded, but they are closing the gap.

The areas where the United States remains competitive with China are not always ones we’d most want to call attention to. The two countries have comparable levels of inequality. (Ours is the highest in the developed world.) China outpaces America in the number of people executed every year, but the U.S. is far ahead when it comes to the proportion of the population in prison (more than 700 per 100,000 people). China overtook the U.S. in 2007 as the world’s largest polluter, by total volume, though on a per capita basis we continue to hold the lead. The United States remains the largest military power, spending more on our armed forces than the next top 10 nations combined (not that we have always used our military power wisely). But the bedrock strength of the U.S. has always rested less on hard military power than on “soft power,” most notably its economic influence. That is an essential point to remember.

Tectonic shifts in global economic power have obviously occurred before, and as a result we know something about what happens when they do. Two hundred years ago, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain emerged as the world’s dominant power. Its empire spanned a quarter of the globe. Its currency, the pound sterling, became the global reserve currency—as sound as gold itself. Britain, sometimes working in concert with its allies, imposed its own trade rules. It could discriminate against importation of Indian textiles and force India to buy British cloth. Britain and its allies could also insist that China keep its markets open to opium, and when China, knowing the drug’s devastating effect, tried to close its borders, the allies twice went to war to maintain the free flow of this product.

Britain’s dominance was to last a hundred years and continued even after the U.S. surpassed Britain economically, in the 1870s. There’s always a lag (as there will be with the U.S. and China). The transitional event was World War I, when Britain achieved victory over Germany only with the assistance of the United States. After the war, America was as reluctant to accept its potential new responsibilities as Britain was to voluntarily give up its role. Woodrow Wilson did what he could to construct a postwar world that would make another global conflict less likely, but isolationism at home meant that the U.S. never joined the League of Nations. In the economic sphere, America insisted on going its own way—passing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and bringing to an end an era that had seen a worldwide boom in trade. Britain maintained its empire, but gradually the pound sterling gave way to the dollar: in the end, economic realities dominate. Many American firms became global enterprises, and American culture was clearly ascendant.

World War II was the next defining event. Devastated by the conflict, Britain would soon lose virtually all of its colonies. This time the U.S. did assume the mantle of leadership. It was central in creating the United Nations and in fashioning the Bretton Woods agreements, which would underlie the new political and economic order. Even so, the record was uneven. Rather than creating a global reserve currency, which would have contributed so much to worldwide economic stability—as John Maynard Keynes had rightly argued—the U.S. put its own short-term self-interest first, foolishly thinking it would gain by having the dollar become the world’s reserve currency. The dollar’s status is a mixed blessing: it enables the U.S. to borrow at a low interest rate, as others demand dollars to put into their reserves, but at the same time the value of the dollar rises (above what it otherwise would have been), creating or exacerbating a trade deficit and weakening the economy.

For 45 years after World War II, global politics was dominated by two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., representing two very different visions both of how to organ­ize and govern an economy and a society and of the relative importance of political and economic rights. Ultimately, the Soviet system was to fail, as much because of internal corruption, unchecked by democratic processes, as anything else. Its military power had been formidable; its soft power was increasingly a joke. The world was now dominated by a single superpower, one that continued to invest heavily in its military. That said, the U.S. was a superpower not just militarily but also economically.

The United States then made two critical mistakes. First, it inferred that its triumph meant a triumph for everything it stood for. But in much of the Third World, concerns about poverty—and the economic rights that had long been advocated by the left—remained paramount. The second mistake was to use the short period of its unilateral dominance, between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers, to pursue its own narrow economic interests—or, more accurately, the economic interests of its multi-nationals, including its big banks—rather than to create a new, stable world order. The trade regime the U.S. pushed through in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization, was so unbalanced that, five years later, when another trade agreement was in the offing, the prospect led to riots in Seattle. Talking about free and fair trade, while insisting (for instance) on subsidies for its rich farmers, has cast the U.S. as hypocritical and self-serving.

ADVERTISEMENT

And Washington never fully grasped the consequences of so many of its shortsighted actions—intended to extend and strengthen its dominance but in fact diminishing its long-term position. During the East Asia crisis, in the 1990s, the U.S. Treasury worked hard to undermine the so-called Miyazawa Initiative, Japan’s generous offer of $100 billion to help jump-start economies that were sinking into recession and depression. The policies the U.S. pushed on these countries—austerity and high interest rates, with no bailouts for banks in trouble—were just the opposite of those that these same Treasury officials advocated for the U.S. after the meltdown of 2008. Even today, a decade and a half after the East Asia crisis, the mere mention of the U.S. role can prompt angry accusations and charges of hypocrisy in Asian capitals.

Now China is the world’s No. 1 economic power. Why should we care? On one level, we actually shouldn’t. The world economy is not a zero-sum game, where China’s growth must necessarily come at the expense of ours. In fact, its growth is complementary to ours. If it grows faster, it will buy more of our goods, and we will prosper. There has always, to be sure, been a little hype in such claims—just ask workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs to China. But that reality has as much to do with our own economic policies at home as it does with the rise of some other country.

On another level, the emergence of China into the top spot matters a great deal, and we need to be aware of the implications.

First, as noted, America’s real strength lies in its soft power—the example it provides to others and the influence of its ideas, including ideas about economic and political life. The rise of China to No. 1 brings new prominence to that country’s political and economic model—and to its own forms of soft power. The rise of China also shines a harsh spotlight on the American model. That model has not been delivering for large portions of its own population. The typical American family is worse off than it was a quarter-century ago, adjusted for inflation; the proportion of people in poverty has increased. China, too, is marked by high levels of inequality, but its economy has been doing some good for most of its citizens. China moved some 500 million people out of poverty during the same period that saw America’s middle class enter a period of stagnation. An economic model that doesn’t serve a majority of its citizens is not going to provide a role model for others to emulate. America should see the rise of China as a wake-up call to put our own house in order.

Second, if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different stages of production; the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.

Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.

Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.

And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.

The United States is confronted with real foreign-policy challenges that will prove hard to resolve: militant Islam; the Palestine conflict, which is now in its seventh decade; an aggressive Russia, insisting on asserting its power, at least in its own neighborhood; continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. We will need the cooperation of China to address many, if not all, of these problems.

We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.

A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.

Related posts:

A woman walks past the headquarters of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the central bank, in Beijing, in this file picture taken …

People’s Bank of China (PBOC) joins monetary easing wave: cuts reserve requirement to spur growth


PBOC1
A woman walks past the headquarters of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the central bank, in Beijing, in this file picture taken June 21, 2013. [Photo/Agencies]

Video: http://t.cn/RwhoVB4

http://player.cntv.cn/standard/cntvOutSidePlayer.swf

PBOC cuts bank reserve requirement to spur growth – CCTV News – CCTV.com English

China’s banks’ cash holding as reserves were at a lowered level, after the central bank cut the reserve requirement ratio, or RRR, which took effect on Thursday.

The PBOC cut the RRR on Wednesday by 50 basis points, which was the first industry-wide cut in more than 2 and a half years. After the cut, big banks’ RRR was lowered to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile, the RRR was lowered by an additional 50 basis points for urban and rural commercial banks that lend to small and medium sized enterprises.

In line with investors’ expectations, analysts say the move would help in injecting more liquidity and support economic growth.

“The cut in RRR on the one side helps the steady growth of the credit sector, supports economic growth and structural adjustment. At the same time, it’s also helpful in lowering companies’ financing costs, as banks will adjust their loan pricing because they have less debt stress,” says Lian Ping, chief economist of Bank of Communication.

“The PMI contracted in the latest month, prices of bulk commodities dropped further globally, and the level of price increase was low. These gave us more space to cut the RRR and interest rates,” says Zhu Baoliang, chief economist of State Information Center.

China cuts bank reserve requirement to spur growth

Night view of skyscrapers and high-rise buildings of Jianwai Soho and Yintai Centre in CBD in Beijing, China. [Photo/IC]

China’s central bank made a system-wide cut to bank reserve requirements on Wednesday, the first time it has done so in over two years, to unleash a fresh flood of liquidity to fight off economic slowdown and looming deflation.

The announcement cuts reserve requirements – the amount of cash banks must hold back from lending – to 19.5 percent for big banks, a reduction of 50 basis points that would free up 600 billion yuan ($96 billion) or more held in reserve at Chinese banks – which could then inject 2-3 trillion yuan into the economy after accounting for the multiplying effect of loans.

“The central bank has tried to use short-term policy tools to inject more liquidity, but such tools were not enough, so it has to cut RRR,” said Wen Bin, senior economist at Minsheng Bank in Beijing, adding that signs of increasing capital outflows and a sliding domestic currency were particularly worrying.

The reduction follows a surprise cut to guidance lending rates by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) in November, but that adjustment had negligible impact on spurring productive investment, so many had predicted the more dramatic move that the central bank has now delivered.

“Today’s announcement isn’t a surprise,” wrote Mark Williams of Capital Economics in a research note reacting to the news.

“It is consistent with the more accommodative stance being taken since the benchmark interest rate cut.”

Officials had previously said they would wait for fourth quarter data to be released before deciding on further easing measures, and that data gave little cause for comfort.

An official survey of China’s mammoth factory sector, the purchasing managers index (PMI), showed it shrank unexpectedly for the first time in nearly 2-1/2 years in January, and other indicators have also been worrying, including signs of strengthening capital outflows and a weakening in China’s service sector.

“The main reason was that the PMI was much lower than expected in January, so if there is no further policy reaction, it’s very likely that China’s Q1 GDP growth could fall below 7 percent,” said Liu Li-gang, an economist at ANZ.

Policymakers had previously signalled that they were comfortable with slowing net growth in the name of economic restructuring away from capital-intensive manufacturing toward services, but if restructuring attempts set off an economy-wide slide, Beijing would find its options increasingly constrained.

External factors contributed to the timing of the decision, economists said, such as deflationary pressures from a recent collapse in energy prices and easing moves by other foreign central banks, though domestic issues were still more important.

“The recent wave of central bank easing may have played a role, but we think the above domestic factors are the main reasons behind the RRR cut today,” wrote Zhu Haibin of J.P. Morgan, adding that the timing was not surprising, given rising systemic cash demand in the run-up to the week-long Chinese New Year holiday in mid February.

However, the weak impact of previous stimulus measures has some worried that liquidity tools are losing their effectiveness in China, given that the volume of debt required to produce a unit of GDP is steadily rising, given endemic industrial overcapacity and entrenched economic inefficiencies in the state sector.

The bank injected an estimated 644.5 billion yuan into the system through medium-term loan facilities in late 2014, without producing much in the way of stimulation, and swamping the system with money it cannot digest carries other risks.

Previous easing moves are already credited with setting off a massive leverage-fuelled rally in Chinese stock markets, which has become as much a cause for concern as celebration, as it highlights the risk that easing would simply reinflate asset bubbles in stocks, real estate and industrial housing that regulators have been trying to let the air out of for years.

China’s economic growth slowed to 7.4 percent in 2014 – the weakest in 24 years – from 7.7 percent in 2013.

Analysts polled by Reuters in January expect economic growth to sag further this year to around 7 percent.

(Agencies) – China Daily/Asia News Network

Related:

Backgrounder: Decoding China’s reserve requirement ratio (RRR)

BEIJING, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) — China’s stock markets rallied after the central bank lowered the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on Thursday for the first time in over two years, underscoring the powerful sway of this unique monetary policy tool.  Full story

China cuts reserve ratio by 50 basis points

BEIJING, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) — China’s central bank on Wednesday decided to lower the reserve requirement ratio (RRR), the minimum level of reserves banks must hold, by 50 basis points from Feb. 5.  Full story

Related posts:

Climing over the Great Firewall


Great Firewall

As the Chinese government further restricts online communication, virtual private networks are trying to overcome the barriers.

There are alternatives to the blocked services, but let’s just admit that the features on the censored sites are still the most appealing and user-friendly.

IT began with Line and KakaoTalk, foreign instant messaging apps, around July last year.

Instagram was next, during the height of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in September.

I remember reaching out for my mobile phone one day after I woke up, checking my Instagram feed as part of my morning ritual, but for some reason, it just would not load smoothly.

Last month, the default mail app in my phone, which is synced to my Gmail account, also stopped working.

These bans imposed by China restricted communication even further as sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Youtube have long been inaccessible in mainland. The censorship is put in place to control what the people see online.

Frustrated, a fellow foreign journalist commented: “The Chinese government has been actively advocating connectivity, but the ban is causing the total opposite.”

To overcome the inconveniences, foreigners residing in China and some Chinese nationals rely mainly on virtual private networks (VPNs) to access the blocked sites and apps.

With a fee, VPNs help users bypass restrictions and censorship on their mobile phones and computers by connecting them to servers outside China.

The act of using VPNs is cheekily known as “fan qiang” or “climbing over the wall” as the censorship is referred to as the Great Firewall, after the Great Wall of China.

Of course, there are alternatives to the blocked services, but let’s just admit that the features on the censored sites are still the most appealing and user-friendly.

Communicating with the world outside China is also easier with the common platforms of Gmail and Facebook, but unfortunately, accessing them within the borders of China is difficult.

Lately, the grip on the Internet was tightened with the Chinese authorities clamping down on VPN services. Users reported interruptions and failures to connect to VPNs.

Responding to the interrupted services, an official from the Industry and Information Technology Ministry (MIIT) said in a press conference this week that the move is essential for the healthy development of the Internet in China.

MIIT director of telecom development Wen Ku said the ministry has to employ new methods to “maintain cyber security and steady operation” with the rapid development of the Internet.

He reminded foreign sites to abide by Chinese laws if they want to operate in the country.

“Certain negative content should be regulated according to the Chinese law,” he said.

To a question on whether blocking VPNs would affect the vitality of the Internet, Wen said the development of Internet services in China is concrete proof of the effective policies, citing Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba as an example of success stories.

But as the Chinese saying goes, “As the virtue rises one foot, the vice rises ten feet.”

While the Chinese authorities upgraded the Great Firewall, VPN providers such as StrongVPN and Astrill vowed to overcome the disruption.

“Notice to StrongVPN users, we are currently working diligently to find a resolution with certain servers not working in China,” StrongVPN posted on its website.

It also enticed possible customers to subscribe to its services to “protect your online security, personal privacy and help promote Internet freedom”.

Astrill said the increased censorship is “just a way for China to say ‘we don’t want you here’”.

It told its users, “We know how access to unrestricted Internet is important for you and we are doing our best.”

The tug-of-war continues.

Source: Check-in China by Tho Xin Yin

The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Abe’s strategy clearer after Japanese ISIS hostage crisis



The release of a video on Saturday showing a message thatHaruna Yukawa, one of the Japanese hostages captured byIslamic State (IS) militants, had been slaughtered, shocked both Japanese society and its Western allies. Official institutions in both Japan and the US consider the video is likely to be authentic.

The IS claimed last Tuesday it had abducted two Japanese and gave the Japanese government 72 hours to pay $200 million in ransom for the captives. The Abe administration was put in a conundrum. In front of requests from the victims’ families to save the hostages, the Japanese government vowed it would never give in to terrorism on one hand, on the other, it displayed a high-profile stance of striving to free the hostages. But it’s believed that the Abe administration would be unlikely to carry out a dramatic rescue, which has already decided the fate of the hostages.

The brutality of the IS has become well-known. They kill hostages in a cold-blooded manner. Now that Japan has become a victim of global terrorism, Tokyo may reassess the challenges it faces. In the past few years, Japanese rightists portrayed China as Japan’s major threat, despite the fact that China has never infringed upon Japan over the past century. It’s instead Japan that invaded China and persecuted Chinese people again and again.

The death of the hostage also offers a new excuse for Abe to lift the ban on collective self-defense. Abe will face fewer hurdles now if he decides to cooperate with the US strategic deployment and strengthen Japan’s military activities in the Middle East and its security deployment in East Asia.

Some claimed that Abe is more concerned about promoting rightist policies than rescuing hostages. For the good of peace in East Asia and the Japanese public, we hope such analysis is just speculative. Japan is not capable of playing an active role in the Middle East. East Asian countries are not supposed to be key targets of the atrocious IS. The Japanese hostage case sends a warning signal.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US has spent great efforts in ensuring its domestic security. However, US allies such as European countries and Japan have been constantly targeted by terrorism. It’s worthwhile studying the underlying reasons.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo seemingly unveiled the conflicts between the whole of European society and the Muslim community, but it was striking to see how the US tries to remain neutral over the issue.

Having a geopolitical advantage, Japan should be a country without enemies. However, the country is plagued with a terrible mess in its national strategy. It misperceives China as an imaginary enemy. Tokyo’s ultimate goal is said to be getting rid of US control, however, it is forced to defer to the US due to its confrontation with China. The killing of the Japanese hostage is more or less the price that Japan has paid for its support to Washington.

We strongly condemn the brutal killing by the IS. In the meantime, we hope Japanese public opinion will take a clear-cut attitude against any terrorist attack launched on China. – Global Times

Related post:

Chinese and Russian policemen attend a joint anti-terror drill in Manzhouli City, north China’s Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region, Oct …

Don’t worry about China slowdown !


Li Keqiang _WEF2015Last evening, Beijing time, Premier Li gave the most anticipated speech at Davos. One day after China’s GDP came in at 7.4 percent, Li assured the packed audience, of international business and government leaders, that China will avoid a hard landing, continue its ongoing reform and restructuring and ensure a prolonged period of sustainable future medium-to-fast growth.

Even before the release of the GDP numbers, a number of Western media and policy pundits were predicting a China stall. Issues with the real estate sector, local government debt, SOE intransience, shadow banking, over capacity and a weak global economy were cited as the factors which would continue to push growth rates lower in the future. But even amongst the hardened doubters, there were signs of dissension, with the Wall Street Journal grudgingly indicating respect for China’s handling of its economic affairs.

Li Keqiang _WEF2015. Don't worry

Premier Li: Don’t worry about a China slowdown

The 2014 results represented the slowest growth in 24 years and the first time the government has missed its target on the downside. But Li was in no way defensive, while acknowledging China’s 10-trillion-dollar economy will continue to face downward pressures in 2015, Li indicated that the country will avoid systemic financial risks and will improve its quality of growth to ensure an “appropriate” pace of expansion. The rise in urban and rural employment numbers, rising real income levels, moderate inflation, a 50 percent individual savings rate, a 5 percent decrease in energy per unit of GDP, significant growth in China’s tertiary industries/services and record numbers of new businesses, added meat to his assertions.

Li, in essence continued the line of thought he voiced at the Summer Davos in Tianjin, where he indicated China’s actions are predicated on the realization that its economic growth pattern wasn’t sustainable and that to avoid the “Middle Income Trap” China’s economic engine needed to be restructured to be more efficient and competitive.

Highlights

“We will continue to pursue a proactive fiscal policy and a prudent monetary policy,” Li said. “We will step up anticipatory adjustment and fine-tuning as well as targeted macro-regulation, in order to stabilize economic growth, upgrade its structure and achieve better quality and performance.”

Li is clear that China does not regard the fiscal and monetary policy tools Western governments are limited to, as an effective means of transforming its economy.

“For the Chinese economy to maintain medium-to-high speed of growth and achieve medium-to-high level of development,” Li said, “China must properly use the hand of the government and the hand of the market, and give full scope to both the traditional and new engines of growth.”

This highlights a sharp contrast between China’s “Big Hand” (government) over the “Invisible Hand” (market) approach, and Western democratic/capitalist models, which put the market on top and government as a kind of enabling and clean up mechanism.

“To foster a new engine of growth,” Li said, “we need to encourage mass entrepreneurship and innovation, and mobilize the wisdom and power of the people.”

The word innovation was repeated 33 times during Li’s Summer Davos speech and it continues to be central to Li’s vision of a more prosperous China. With 3 of the top 5 mobile phone manufactures and a host of other technological innovators like Alibaba and Tencent, there is a new sense of confidence within and outside about China’s future.

“To transform the traditional engine of growth, we need to focus on increasing the supply of public goods and services, and strengthening the weak link of the economy,” the premier said.

This references the need to make China’s SOEs, government and financial sectors more efficient and responsive to the needs and pressures of the market.

China, he added, “will continue to promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and open up its service sector, central and western regions as well as the capital market wider to the outside world.”

This is a list of areas which China will be opening up to more investment internally and externally. The Shanghai FTZ has been used as a model and will be extended to Fujian, Tianjin and Guangzhou. They represent the cutting edge of a new kind of economic development platform which will be extended inland once the models have been proven.

“China will encourage its companies to explore the international market, and work for common development with other countries through greater openness towards each other,” Li said.

Premier Li is signaling strong support for globalization and indicating a desire to work regionally and internationally to create better trade mechanisms. The New Silk Road, extension of transportation infrastructure into Southeast Asia, AIIB, BRICS Bank etc… are strong indicators of this desire which is essential to China’s resources imports and finished goods exports.

So, what can we expect from China, the second largest economy in the world in 2015?

Some say the single biggest risk for the economy is still the interlinked and rising problems associated with shadow banking, local government and corporate debts and a stagnant real estate sector. But at about 54 percent of China’s GDP, China’s debt is far below most developed nations. The key will be how local governments are funded and regulated. This touches on the real estate sector as well which is badly in need of reform but because it represents 25 percent of the economy it must be handled carefully.

Continued increase in consumption. Consumption now accounts for 51.2 percent of GDP in China. Though it is still considerably lower than the 70 percent average for the developed countries, it continues to move in a positive direction. The services sector has now overtaken the industrial sector as the largest segment of the Chinese economy and seems to be following the government’s playbook to re-balance the economy.

China is developing more confidence in its ability to innovate and lead cutting-edge FMCG markets and this trend will continue further balancing the public-investment and export-driven, forces which drove the economy in the past.

China has also taken some steps to solve its overcapacity issues. A two pronged approach which is shifting heavy industrial capacity in areas like transportation infrastructure to projects in neighboring areas and the world stage. For example the merging of China’s major railroad companies and the projects they will being doing in the Mekong delta region. The second prong is the identification and closing of first and second generation industrial plants which is how China has been able to achieve a 5 percent increased efficiency in energy use per unit of GDP.

In the financial sector expect more pressure on the big banks to be more SME focused in exchange for more liberal controls of lending and deposit rates. An example: the lifting of the deposit rate ceiling, the deposit insurance draft plan being considered and the new property registration system will standardize the markets and provide new financial product opportunities. To make things more transparent the government has adopted new budgetary laws, local government debt regulations and encouraged state-owned enterprises to adopt mixed ownership structures.

It is clear though that fiscal and monetary policy will be part of the symphony not the main players. Premier Li was clear that he opposed another monetary stimulus to push growth rates and instead, would rely primarily on structural reforms. A thought which was expressed in Davos on Wednesday, by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, who also expressed a willingness to sacrifice growth for stability.

“If China’s economy slows down a bit, but meanwhile is more sustainable for the medium and long term, I think that’s good news,” he said.

China’s growth cannot be delinked from the global context. As the main driver of the world’s economy since the US mortgage crisis meltdown, China has taken on a new role. Just as importantly and expanding China needs access to raw materials if it intends to consume and export finished goods. A resurgent US will help China, but a stagnating EU will hurt it. These seem to be the dominant trends which WTO started and which will carry on for some years.

The premier said China will go full speed ahead with liberalizing interest rates, allowing markets to play a greater role in setting prices, in forging trade agreements and opening up its financial system.

“We will not be afraid of difficulties, and we will continue to move along the path of reform and restructuring,” Li said.

All of this, he suggested, was not only in China’s interests but also that of the global economy.

“China’s reform and development will bring more opportunities for the world.”

China Economic path firm, despite lower growth

Since China revealed its 2014 annual growth rate of 7.4 percent on Tuesday, there has been heated discussion worldwide. Some observers cited the figure, the lowest in China since 1990, as proof of the lost glory of the Chinese economy.

Several Western institutes predicted that China’s economic growth would tumble to about 6.5 percent in 2015 and some even proclaimed that 2015 would be the last year that China would see growth figures above 6 percent. Last week, a column in the Financial Times said the Indian economy may outstrip China’s this year.

When China’s GDP growth was above 10 percent, many voices expounded that such a high rate would be harmful. However, just as China is committed to economic restructuring and a turn to the “new normal,” there appears to be more catcalls and scary predictions for the future. We have to be unswerving in our commitment not to return to the GDP-oriented path.

GDP figures are so favored by the media as they are easy to grasp. But China has passed the era of GDP-fixation and Chinese people now harbor more expectations for economic development. Despite continued pursuit of wealth, we highly value safety, environmental protection, equal opportunity and explicit rules. With money, there should also be dignity.

Chinese economic and social development has entered an era of multiple targets, which will become more effective. But sometimes the effects are invisible. This makes it harder to measure than what GDP does.

It’s different in India. Long overshadowed by China, it is keen to become the best in some aspects. It is in dire need of evidence to show that it is not inferior to China.

Even if the Indian economy does outstrip China’s one day, the impact on the Chinese public will be far less than on its own people, since India has been waiting for the outcome for so long. The West seems to be also long expecting the day. Some Western media attach more significance to India’s overtaking China than Chinese people do.

China’s GDP growth is unlikely to always rank top of the global list and we won’t modify our set direction in social and economic development.

The “new normal” in the Chinese economy doesn’t mean stagnation nor recession, but a strategic adjustment toward quality and sustainable development. We have such a widespread capacity to push forward economic and social development and meet people’s expectations for a better life.

China’s growth of 7 percent maintained in the period of economic and social restructuring is no less significant than 10 percent in the past times of extensive development. While the Chinese government is capable of achieving higher growth, its choice of lowering the rate deserves more praise.

China has never been applauded by the West in its development since the end of the Cold War. We have grown used to this. We need to stay firm to achieve our target of deepening reform.

West should end its hypocrisy on anti-terror war!


Anti_terrorists_China-RussiaChinese and Russian policemen attend a joint anti-terror drill in Manzhouli City, north China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Oct 20, 2014. [Photo/Xinhua]

Senior US leaders invited sharp criticism at home for not attending last week’s solidarity rally in Paris against the terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in which 12 people were killed. As a result, US Secretary of State John Kerry was in Paris this week to make up for the mistake.

However, terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Nigeria, where Boko Haram fighters killed hundreds of, if not more, ordinary people early this month, have not received the same attention in the US and the Western world as the Paris attack. Yet such double standards and hypocrisy of the Western world is nothing new.

Over the past few years, the US and some Western countries have not responded to the terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Beijing, Kunming and the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region the way they reacted to the Paris attack.

On several occasions, US State Department spokespersons have used the excuse that they need more information and investigation into the incidents in China to condemn them as terrorist attacks. But they did not ask any such question after the Paris attack.

Some Western news organizations have refused to describe the perpetrators at Kunming railway station in Yunnan province as terrorists, insisting on calling them “knife-wielding attackers”. And on the rare occasions that they have used the word terrorist, they put it within quotation marks as if the ruthless killers in China were any different from those in Paris or elsewhere in the Western world. One CNN report even posed the question, “Terrorism or Cry of Desperation?”, as if killing innocent civilians in China can be somehow justified.

Even though China and the US have common interests in fighting terrorism, some Americans still seem to believe that only those setting off bombs in New York are terrorists while those doing the same in Beijing or any other Chinese city demand a different description.

The West’s double standards are not restricted to China and Nigeria. The decade-old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but the mainstream media outlets in the US have largely ignored the tragedies and focused on the loss of their own troops.

If the number of civilian casualties is a measure of the intensity of a terrorist attack, tragedies like the Sept 11, 2001, attacks have occurred multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Western media don’t seem to care much about them.

Some Western observers have even found excuses for West’s inadequate response to the terrorist attacks in Kunming on March 1 last year in which 31 were killed and 141 injured. But by failing to immediately condemn the attacks against innocent civilians in Kunming and Xinjiang, these people have by default condoned the action of the perpetrators.

It is true that terrorists in the eyes of some could be freedom fighters in the eyes of others. That is why Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter to the US in the 1980s but a top terrorist in the 21st century. And Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela was still on the US terrorism watch list as late as 2008, years after stepping down as South Africa’s president.

There is no doubt that the US and its allies have failed miserably in their “war on terror” despite the more than 1,000 air strikes launched against the Islamic State group. In spite of the heavy bombardments, we have seen terrorists gaining strength and spreading their tentacles to more areas across the world.

And the Western world responds to this deadly threat with double standards.

By Chen Weihua China Daily/Asia News Network

The author, based in Washington, is deputy editor of China Daily USA. chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com

Related:

Double standards in the fight against terror and acquiescence in religious extremism do no good to any party. Instead, they brew a universal threat to all.

 

 The murder of Jume Tahir, the imam of China´s largest mosque in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous … Imam’s murder is death-knell for terror. Police in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region announced on Thursday that they …
It was a typical terrorist attack and also a severe crime against the humanity. It was China’s “9-11.” Any explanation for the attack, like those in previous cases elsewhere in China, would be feeble at the bloody scene, where …
 Ironically, in spite of critical changes such as the relevant fall of the US and the rise of China, a basic factor remains constant. This is the success of terrorism. It was Al Qaeda 13 years ago and it is the IS now, as far
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,281 other followers

%d bloggers like this: