Panicked investors should give Indonesia a second look – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Indonesia recently accomplished something unusual in international financing: it appointed prominent, well-known numbers to Danantara, the new US$ 900 billion royal money fund’s advisory board.

However, despite the caliber of the appointments—Ray Dalio, Jeffrey Sachs, and others—markets were receptive to market speculation with a lot of mistrust. The standard indicator for Jakarta dropped by as much as 4.7 %. That’s not just a shocking response. it’s a blunder.

These sessions should be seen for what they are: an motivating indication that Indonesia is serious about developing and expanding its strategy to royal success. Owners around the world should applaud this growth rather than rebuff it.

One of the most well-known traders of our time is Ray Dalio. Jeffrey Sachs has spent years advising governments on green monetary policy and growth. Both have agreed to serve as paid counselors.

This only speaks volumes about the significance of the program and the severity of the goal. It’s a clear indication that Indonesia wants to work in a world class environment and doesn’t fear being held responsible by those who work at the highest levels.

More of this should be happening in Asia. There are a number of state-linked funds and conglomerates in the area that are ready for reform, but too few have made reliable efforts to embrace accountability or foreign oversight. Indonesia’s action is a concept that is valuable to replicate.

Naturally, there are legitimate questions at the heart of the industry’s discomfort. Danantara, which was founded by President Prabowo Subianto and was launched in February, consolidates the assets of the state-owned enterprise ( SOE ) and redirects its$ 5.4 billion in dividends from the national budget to the fund.

It represents a significant change in governmental policy. Additionally, it gives the president, who will have direct control over the account, enormous authority. Investors are correct to be on the lookout for any indications of excess or obscurity, especially in a region that gave rise to Malaysia’s 1MDB position development fund, which some consider to be the biggest heist in financial history. &nbsp,

However, to believe that this effort is unsustainable or risky from day one is a misinterpretation of the larger picture. Indonesia is dealing with two fundamental economic issues. First, its SOEs, which are sprawling, cash-generating giants in finance, energy, and telecoms, are under-optimized.

They are too significant to be squandered and politically tied with around$ 900 billion in property. Next, the nation is under pressure from its economy and its budget, which are exacerbated by Prabowo’s$ 28 billion monthly free lunch program. These are actual issues.

Danantara aims to address both. Consolidating SOEs allows for more planned funding, particularly in crucial sectors like food security and vitamins.

With better governance, Indonesia could shift from silent dividend collection to effective value creation, making it a more proper and effective allocator of capital.

That is exactly why meetings are important. If you’re serious, you don’t take in Dalio and Sachs, who are men who don’t need the fame or the paycheck. The addition of well-known home figures like former presidents Joko Widodo and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono strengthens legitimacy and consistency.

Indonesia may be clear about its intentions in terms of globalization rather than fiscal recklessness or monarchy. It is attempting to enter a brand-new era of geopolitical state capitalism, where the common interest and professional management are not mutually exclusive.

Also frequently, investors demand modify but back down when it seems new. Yes, it may be unconventional to channel SOE earnings through a new construction, but the status quo was untenable.

The bank’s structure however needs more information, but the initial indications suggest that the government is subject to scrutiny and physical guidance. That is a positive item.

This may serve as a wake-up call for Asia in general. Some nations in the region rely on sizable amounts of state resources, which are frequently underused, underleveraged, or political. They may greatly benefit from hiring outside consultants.

This year, businesses got it wrong. They mistaken reform for danger, and ambition for volatility. That is a costly mistake.

Danantara may serve as a model for a new kind of sovereign wealth fund, one that invests not just in goods but also in the future with proper leadership and international cooperation.

Continue Reading

The Russian bear cannot be tamed with more food – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Vladimir Putin felt insulted in 2014 when Barack Obama, the then-president, claimed that Russia was only” a local authority that is threating some of its immediate neighbors, not out of power but out of frailty.”

Obama’s assertion is still valid 11 years afterward, and three years after Putin’s whole invasion of Ukraine. The issue is that both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump act more like they are powerful than weak.

The reality of the conflict indicates then. Russia’s defense has lost 900,000 lives since February 2022. According to new images released by Britain’s Ministry of Defense, 200 000 to 250 000 men have been killed and the rest have been seriously injured.

Russia’s military accounts for 8 % of the country’s total GDP, making up 40 % of its federal budget.

However, despite all those deaths and all that money, Russia has remained in complete control of just 20 % of Ukraine’s province and has made little progress inside Ukraine for the past three months.

Russia’s just recent successes have been in preventing Russian troops from leaving Kursk, Ukraine’s border region, which Ukraine invaded past August. A significant portion of that happened when Trump abruptly curtailed US knowledge support for Ukraine. The Russian forces are still not completely expelled from Kursk.

Russia’s economy has shown it can sustain Putin’s war’s protracted loss, but that does not imply that the nation is powerful.

The market has remained upright thanks to the exports of oil, gasoline, and other supplies to China, India, and other buyers, whereas Russian banks have been forced to provide subsidized loans for agriculture, security, and design. This is only storing up problem, though.

The Russian central bank has increased interest rates to 21 %, indicating that without the subsidized loans, the economy would come to a halt and many borrowers would go bankrupt. This is done in order to control inflation.

The truth about the conflict is that it was the product of an authoritarian leader using only his defense and patriotic rhetoric as his only means of defense. The reality is that Putin may not want to stop the fighting because Russia’s economy would be in serious trouble if war spending were to slow down or stop.

Obama was wrong to say that about 11 years before, but his response was incorrect. If he and his Western allies had firmly and strongly responded to Putin’s aggression, Russia might have been forced to back.

Instead, they continued to purchase Russian gas and invest in new pipelines, which eventually fueled Putin’s attempt to continue his tyrannical invasion and ultimately his bloody, pointless invasion.

Both Trump and Western leaders now need to keep this odd balance between Putin’s personal power and Russia’s national frailty at the forefront of their minds.

Trump’s actions in 2014 seem to have been similar to those of Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel: in his private negotiations with Putin on March 18 and in his overseas policy discussions with Russian authorities in Moscow, as opposed to obstructing him to do so.

All of Trump’s “enormous monetary deals” are about this, according to the man who suggested, perhaps encouraged by Putin himself, that if only peace may be achieved, both America and Russia would benefit from all kinds of financial benefits. The myth that the Russian carry can be tamed if only it receives plenty of food to eat is the story of the Nordstream oil refineries under the Baltic Sea all over again.

However, neither Putin nor the other ex-KGB officials around him need any more foods because they are already wealthy beyond all of their wildest dreams.

They have no reason to care about the Soviet economy as long as the Putin administration’s hold on power is strong. To the extent that they are concerned, keeping the conflict going is their top priority, since that is what the business and employment are currently primarily focused on.

Putin won’t get drawn into harmony, he won’t. He has no need to give in to the romance of “deals,” nor is he even necessary to be interested in the chat that German, Italian, and other Western companies are now having about resuming purchases of Russian oil once serenity has been reached.

Trump’s deception attempt and talk of German gas purchases will serve as a pretext for his continued assertion that his northern foes are weak and degenerate.

However, force is the only way to bring about a lasting peace, not seduction. We are awaiting confirmation from Trump and his experts as to whether they are capable of real strain on Putin by resumed military support for Ukraine and by imposing “massive restrictions” on Russia, which Trump has threatened but has shown no sign of establishing or even putting into action.

This confirms the fundamental tenet of our time, which is that Europe is ultimately to blame. We must adjust the old phrase and put our income and our martial where our mouth is in order to put strain on a strong Russia and a poor Russia.

Without the assistance of the United States, Britain, France, Poland, and others are making plans for the long term. The European Commission is also developing long-term plans to encourage member nations to borrow more money for defence projects.

The biggest challenges, however, lie in Putin’s opposition to romance, which will require both proving tomorrow’s strength’s ability to deliver forces for a security guarantee and strengthening Ukraine’s resistance today.

A great first step would be for Chancellor Friedrich Merz to grant his predecessor’s refusal to grant the transport of Germany’s long-range Corolla weapons to Ukraine.

Next, the trio of Germany, France, and Britain should make actual, trustworthy plans to send soldiers and air forces to Ukraine, demonstrating that they will be there as soon as a peace is agreed.

The Russian keep can only be truly subdued by such bravery demonstrations.

Previous The Economist editor in chief, Bill Emmott. This article is the English translation of an article that La Stampa published in Italian and was published in his Substack email Bill Emmott’s World View. It can be republished these with kind authority.

Continue Reading

1930s tech bros wanted to merge the US, Canada and Greenland – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

A movement that wanted to reunite North America and enlarge its borders to the extent of the Panama Canal may sound very common. However, this group, known as the “technocracy movement,” was made up of a group of nonconformists from the 1930s who had great ideas about how to reorganize American society. They made a perspective that may use science and technology to reduce waste and increase North America’s productivity.

The Technocrats, who occasionally go by the name Technocracy Inc., proposed combining Canada, Greenland, Mexico, the US, and some of key America into a single western unit. This they referred to as a “technate.” Instead of being divided by national boundaries and conventional social units, it was to be run by technical principles.

These notions seem to be in line with some new Trump presidency pronouncements regarding the US-Canada merger.

In addition, the US Department of Government Efficiency ( DOGE ), which Trump founded and is led by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has also laid out a vision of efficiency reductions by slashing bureaucracy, jobs, and getting rid of leaders of organizations and civil servants they believe are advance “woke” values ( such as diversity initiatives ). This slash-and-burn strategy also reflects some of the concepts of Technocrats.

Trump stated in February that “rule of the government is what we really have, as opposed to the principle of the people – democracy.” The Technocrats viewed elected officials as being ignorant. They urged their replacement to be replaced by scientists and engineers who “objectively” maintain resources for the good of society.

Musk stated to reporters after a month-long visit to the White House that” the people voted for significant federal transformation.”

What did the Technocrats want to eliminate?

The 1930s action was a research and educational organization that urged the US and Canada to ultimately reform their political, social, and economic systems. It based its conclusions on a guide called Technocracy, which an engineer named Walter Henry Smyth wrote in 1921 and that introduced fresh concepts in management and technology.

The Great Depression, a time of widespread poverty and financial issues that lasted from 1929 to 1939, attracted considerable attention during the Great Depression. At this time, radical ideas for structural change were sparked by common financial problems. The term “technocracy” was intended for those who saw scientific advancements as a possible remedy for economic injustice and inefficiency.

The Technocrats gained popularity primarily as a result of the efforts of Howard Scott, an architect and economist, along with a team of Columbia University scientists and engineers. Scott founded the Technical Alliance in 1932, which eventually changed into Technocracy Inc.

Scott and his supporters gave lectures, published booklets, and gained a sizable following, especially among technicians, scientists, and liberal thinkers. With more technology, the activity may have had an impact on the design of futuristic concepts like planned communities and economies.

The group’s intellectual base was founded on the idea of scientific control over industrial production and distribution. Despite the claims made by advocates, traditional economic systems like capitalism and socialism were ineffective and corrupt, and a clinically planned economy could provide abundance, stability, and justice.

A map coloured in red showing the area of the Americas the Technocracy movement wanted to unite.
A chart of the Cornell University set on the Technocracy activity. Image: PJ Mode Collection of Persuasive Cartography, Cornell University

In the 1930s, Technocracy Inc. people argued for a system where specialists made decisions based on data, productivity, and technical feasibility in place of market-based economies and democratic governance. Technocrats sought to control consumption and production based on power productivity rather than business forces.

Technocrats argued that automation and mechanization could cut down on animal labor while maintaining productivity. According to medical estimates of need and ecology, goods and services may be distributed.

The action immediately lost speed by the mid-to-late 1930s despite registering rapid growth in the early 1930s. Critics expressed concern about a state run by unelected experts, which may result in an institutionalized system of authoritarianism, with no people input or political control over decisions made.

Technocracy resurrected?

Are some of these thoughts returning to life in 2025, though? Musk is likely aware of the movement because of his parental association with it. Joshua N. Haldeman, his maternal grandfather, was a significant figure in the technocracy activity in Canada during the 1930s and 1940s.

Innovation and technology are at the top of Musk’s ventures, which include Tesla, his place system, SpaceX, and the neurotechnology company Neuralink, which are in line with the Technocrats ‘ goal of improving human society through scientific and technological means.

Tesla’s drive for self-driving cars that are powered by solar energy, for instance, aligns with the movement’s first aspirations for an energy-efficient, machine-managed community. Also, SpaceX’s desire to settle Mars is a sign that technology can be used to overcome the restrictions of daily life on Earth.

What Trump may agree with

However, the Technocrats and the recent US government have some important differences. Musk’s philosophy of trading is still firmly rooted in the complimentary business.

Instead of consolidated, expert-led planning, his endeavors thrive on competitors and private sector. The Trump administration clearly doesn’t believe in the abolishment of wealth, wages, and traditional forms of business, despite the Technocrats ‘ belief.

Trump thinks that lovers like him and officials like him should run the nation. Technocrats concerned that elected officials are motivated by self-interest. The recent US management seems to benefit combining business objectives with political will.

Although the technocracy movement previously achieved a majority in society, its ideas had an impact on later discussions on subjects like financial planning and scientific management. The technocracy movement’s supported idea of data-driven management is a component of contemporary planning, particularly in areas like energy performance and urban planning.

The use of AI and huge data has rekindled debates about the scope and position of technocracy in contemporary society. Management is dominated by departments led by those with technical backgrounds, who obtain an elite status in nations like Singapore and China.

The Technocrats faced substantial criticism in the 1930s. More powerful than they are today, the unions almost exclusively supported the progressive New Deal and its protection of workers ‘ rights. The US government’s renewed faith in the New Deal time was much greater than its political organizations’ declining support of them now, so those institutions would have been better positioned to deal with challenges than they are now.

Although the technocracy motion of the 1930s perhaps have faded, its guiding principles still dominate fashionable discussions about the intersection of technology and administrative planning. And perhaps more importantly, about who should be in demand.

Dafydd Townley teaches at the University of Portsmouth as a brother in global stability.

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Learn the article’s introduction.

Continue Reading

Three novels by Nobelist Han Kang explain South Korea’s fragility – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

South Korea made headlines last year for two factors. Han Kang won the renowned Nobel Prize for literature in October, and the next was much less encouraging. Yoon Suk Yeol, the region’s leader, quickly declared martial law at midnight on December 3rd, 2024, the first time this had occurred since the nation’s transition to democracy in 1987.

The court’s decision to declare martial law effective at 1 is was quashed by protesters and lawmakers in the streets.

Yoon’s arrest came at the end of the conflict on January 26. The constitutional court of South Korea has yet to rule on Yoon’s impeachment, leaving the region’s political future uncertain. Protests and counterprotests are still taking place.

At a press conference held at the Nobel Museum in Stockholm on December 6th, 2024, 54-year-old Kang made an appearance. In the end, her observations about the upcoming activities in South Korea were optimistic. ” I, also, watched as people embraced armed men, de-escalate, and stood strong against approaching troops,” she said.” I watched as people tried to stop tank with their bare hands. These instances” showed their confidence and sincerity.”

The spirit of Kang’s function is this disagreement between acts of violence and those of passion. Her books provide a crucial framework for comprehending Asian history and politics and illustrating the suffering and resilience of the Korean people.

YouTube video

embedded content ]

Animal Acts: The Uprising in the Gwangju

In her Nobel lesson, Kang describes having a photobook of the Gwangju massacre at home as a child. How are people this violent, she wondered,” How are people this violent?” After the discovery, she left her with lasting issues. And still, how are they able to stand up to such enormous violence at the same time?

Yoon’s most new action echoed Chun Doo Hwan’s call for military law 44 years earlier. The military cruelly reprimanded a university protest on May 18, 1980, killing students and employees with clubs, bayonets, and firearms.

However, the Gwangju population turned on themselves, seizing arms, and forming a politician’s army that forced the soldiers to leave the town. People occupied Gwangju for weeks before the men returned and killed more local residents.

Human Acts, which spans 23 times, explores the Gwangju experience from a variety of perspectives, capturing both the uprising’s events and its future in the minds and bodies of the participants. The military suppression is still fresh in the minds of several South Korean citizens, and it is what sparked their march on December’s streets.

YouTube video

embedded content ]

Violence against women: The Vegetarian

The Vegetarian, Kang’s best-known book in the UK, uses various viewpoints to inform Yeong-hye’s story, a woman who decides to stop eating meat first, then to stop entirely.

The Vegetarian raises complex issues of collusion and suffering. The patriarch world of Korea’s society is reflected in the frequently abusive behaviors of Yeong-hye’s spouse, brother-in-law, and father.

South Korea is still a seriously patriarchal and cruel nation with a proverbial culture of harassment, intimidation, and violence against women at work, home, and online despite its rapid economic growth.

Yoon abused these sex conflicts by running for president in 2022 on a system that denied the existence of gender inequality and threatened to end the government of family and gender equality. It should come as no surprise that people have spearheaded protests against Yoon and military rules.

The Jeju revolt is known as We Do Not Part.

We Do Not Part, Kang’s next book, fuses the events of the Jeju rebellion with Kyungha, a poet who travels from Seoul to Jeju isle at the invitation of her friend Inseon. Inseon sends Kyungha to care for her favorite pet birds, which she had been hospitalized for after an accident. Kyungha sets out on a shadowy investigation of the island’s aggressive past once more.

The residents of Jeju protested the section of the nation during the troubled time between the Japanese occupation and the Asian conflict. People suspected of being affiliated with the Workers Party of Korea was launched into a scorched-earth campaign by police and soldiers.

One eighth of the region’s population was estimated to have died between 25 000 and 30 000 people. The state didn’t acknowledge the rebellion and subsequent slaughter until President Kim Dae-jung commissioned an analysis in January 2000.

These events ‘ injustice and tragedy may properly be expressed. However, trust permeates the actions of ordinary people despite the crushing dreariness of Kang’s books. In-hye, Yeong-hye’s girl, cares for her as she gets more and more into her disease in The Vegetarian.

The family of the murdered girl Dong-ho, who was a kid, finds pleasure in Human Acts by saying,” Why are we walking in the dark, let’s go over it, where the plants are blooming.

The sweet descriptions of birds in We Do Not Part serve as reminders of both the weakness and resilience of life. Our relationship with others is a source of hope and resilience in Kang’s writing. We continue to live in this short, harsh world in this manner.

At the University of Strathclyde, Jessica Widner teaches English and creative reading.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.

Continue Reading

The high, high price of killing USAID – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Trump administration’s decision to impose a 90-day suspension in the country’s international development and humanitarian assistance has not only caused a major humanitarian issue for the recipients, but it has also hit the NGO community like a thunderbolt. Additionally, it has also highlighted how dependent the international NGO group is on American money.

Organizations have been a major part of American foreign policy for years. In general, they were divided into two groups: operating NGOs that provided guidance at the local level and lobbying NGOs whose profession was to denounce human rights violations, whether real or imagined.

Since the start of the Cold War, Washington has been a force for international support through Organizations. There was scarcely a Socialist party at the time that didn’t get any secret support from the Soviet Union.

Washington reciprocated by providing financial assistance to the likes of independent trade unions or media outlets, most recently through the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ).

President John Kennedy arranged for Washington’s international aid programs to come together under one roof in 1961. In order to achieve this, he persuaded Congress to establish USAID, which became the principal provider of British foreign aid under the guidance of the State Department. But, the CIA continued to provide funding for particular programs through its own channels in parallel.

However, these eventually became ineffective, and in 1983, a congressional act created the National Endowment for Democracy ( NED ). The NED took over from the CIA the delivery of grants to organizations that attempted to promote “democracy” because it was structured like an NGO and essentially not a branch of the US government.

The World Uighur Congress, Chinese rebels, protesters in Hong Kong, several Tibetan parties, and democracy activists in Iraq, Tunisia, and Egypt are supported financially by the NED with a recent US budget of$ 315 million.

In contrast, the NED steers clear of funding extremist organizations in nations that are tightly related to the US, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Despite the influence of the NED, Elon Musk characterized as a “scam,” it is a peripheral person in comparison to USAID.

With a staff of about 10,000 people and a budget of about$ 44 billion in 2023, USAID is a global player with presence in some 170 nations. And despite its alleged “development” goals, 10 % of its budget is used to fund humanitarian aid and 10 % for care initiatives.

In a wider sense, the United States contributes about 50 % of all humanitarian assistance distributed worldwide. This was equal to 1.17 % of the overall cost of the American federal government in 2023, or$ 71.9 billion. Additionally, the United States makes up about 25 % of the budget of the UN.

USAID uses NGOs to channel its money so that it can carry out its projects, like almost all government donors, but unlike most others, it does not immediately carry out their programs. So, each project has three stars: the beneficiary, the NGO that funds the project, and the company of funds, as in this case USAID.

USAID now distributes about 52 % of its aid through NGOs, or about$ 21 billion. The remaining 34 % of the aid is distributed through 30 UN organizations, and the remaining 30 % is distributed through for-profit companies like Deloitte.

There are currently 42, 000 active NGOs in the world that oversee a total of about$ 400 billion. About 1,300 local and international NGOs serve as USAID’s functional partners within this habitat.

Some people oversee jobs worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while others oversee programs worth nothing. Regardless of how much money they manage, the problem they are currently facing is fundamental to their very life.

Every Charities has fees. These are paid from system allocations, which cover them. The Trump presidency has not only damage the consumers by freezing funds used for aid projects. It also dealt what could turn out to be a lethal blow to hundreds of NGOs, who figuratively lost the jobs they deducted their overhead from within a day.

The world has seen the effects of money being frozen. In Thailand, NGOs that provide health care to numerous refugee camps from Myanmar are currently considering shutting down and hiring their team.

A third of its 8, 000-strong staff is already being let go by the Danish Refugee Council, which is based in Europe and has operations all over the world and receives the second-largest funding from USAID. Similar events are taking place in Africa, where not only include TB prevention initiatives been suspended, but also the organizations that run them are on the cusp of closing.

There is no denying that the charitable ecology has developed a unique existence over the past few years. Governments bear the majority of the blame for this growth because they found it simpler to signal checks than to follow whom they were addressed.

The end result was a gradual but steady expansion of the institutions, whether they were UN or NGOs. For instance, when the UN High Commissioner for Refugees established its office in Beijing in 1980 to assist in the settlement of some 260 000 Vietnamese migrants in China, it had a$ 50 million programme led by a middle-level foreign staff member and a nearby group.

The exact UN agency currently runs a$ 500,000 system in China under the direction of five foreign staff members. The same design continued to exist throughout the entire charitable habitat.

It is a given that there needs to be some transformation in the philanthropic habitat. Additionally, it is a fact that the program is not designed to either check or reform itself. Therefore, if there is some reformation, it can only be achieved through external assistance, which raises two issues: by whom and how?

Given how much money it contributes in comparison to other countries, the sole source of reformation could be the United States. It would have required skillful usage of a knife given the complexity of the situation and the fact that, in many cases, the beneficiaries were among the poorest. Rather, it witnessed the brutal use of a saw.

Without a doubt, many of the people who receive support from USAID do not realize that it is coming from the United States or are not politically active. As a result, Washington receives nothing material in return for the assistance it offers.

Although it appears that the Trump administration is in charge, it overlooks the possibility that the most powerful nation in the world may have a responsibility that goes beyond simply commercial concerns. Is at least the least doubtful whether this complete lack of empathy may contribute to making America “great” once more.

Continue Reading

Duterte falls victim to oligarchic power in the Philippines – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

It was more than just the end of a family drama when former president Rodrigo Duterte was turned over to the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) on March 11, 2025. It was the most recent chapter in the oligarchic power story that has shaped Philippine politics from the beginning of the Marcos dictatorship to the present day.

This development—catalyzed by coordinated actions of the government, executive and court to protect President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s strength and destroy his greatest rival—had been building since the prosecution of Vice President Sara Duterte, Duterte’s child.

The tenacity of autocratic dominance, as demonstrated by no less than the Marcoses, raises concerns about the Philippines ‘ political direction and its capacity to break free from its hold.

The Marcos lineage has a lot of anxiety. In 1972, two centuries into his second term as president, Ferdinand Marcos Sr appeared on television and claimed that revolutionary parts were plotting to overthrow the government, using it as a pretext to declare martial law.

What followed was not just political revolution but also a tremendous unfolding that put the country on a program of political and economic decline. Under Marcos Sr, who consolidated power and sparked the fracturing of political parties, the two-party system fell apart, leaving a legacy of division and factionalism ( Teehankee, 2024 ).

Cronyism became entrenched. Towards the end of autocratic concept. Nearby warriors had authority. The country descended into financial mismanagement, where hardship soared and prosperity disparities widened. A state liberated from two imperial experts found itself ensnared in a period of political and economic difficulties less than three decades after independence.

Marcos Sr abused the defense to thwart criticism and strengthen his position of authority. Historian Alfred McCoy notes 3, 257 extrajudicial killings, 35, 000 torture victims and 70, 000 incarcerations during the Marcos years ( McCoy, 1999 ).

Under Marcos Sr., lawlessness, a long-standing component of Philippine politics, grew into a tool of the state. He authorized and equipped private militias to thwart communist uprisings, but in reality to impose political dominance ( Parada, 2023 ).

Now, private armed organizations operate with tacit state aid, serving as democratic officers and suppressing criticism for local warlords. A rival family from the 2022 gubernatorial race ( Parada, 2023 ), according to rumors, carried out the massacre of a governor and nine others in Negros Oriental in March 2023.

The 2009 Maguindanao murder, which saw the end of the conflict between the Ampatuan and Mangudadatu groups, is the bloodiest example of this. 32 of the victims were journalists, 32 of them editors.

Warlordism and fortification are just part of the equation. Innovations like “behest money” and kickbacks made it possible for friends to become the new elites, consolidating power in controlled service sectors like crops, media, and power.

These old and new oligarchs exercise political power that results in financial control, as well as economical influence over political structures, many of which are forged through strategic alliances, including marriage.

Freedom House noted the Philippines ‘ low democratic status in 2024, highlighting that power remains tightly concentrated within patronage and kinship networks ( Freedom House, 2024 ). Around 70 % of the House of Representatives seats were held by political families with decades-long standing ( Freedom House, 2024 ).

Political donations, which have few legal restrictions, are dominated by a small network of major donors, further entangling this pattern of influence ( Freedom House, 2024 ). According to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, the dominance of political dynasties is directly correlated to underdevelopment and poverty, especially in Visayas and Mindanao, where the competitive environment remains weak ( Fonbuena, 2024 ).

The oligarchs have fought and coexisted with the state throughout the country, becoming thus entangled that they are now almost indistinguishable from one another. William Howard Taft, the then-president-general of the Philippines, passed laws in 1902 that ultimately gave the rich Filipino rulers greater control over sizable landmasses.

This entrenched a landed aristocracy that remains the basis of the government’s present political and economic oligarchs. They eventually seized important positions in the court, administrative, and government, adapting so well to historical shifts that they came to see themselves as the only genuine voice of the country as the only genuine voice of the country.

They parroted the co-prosperity ideology and framed collaboration with the Japanese as a matter of national survival during World War II ( Rafael, 1991 ). After the war, President Manuel Roxas granted them amnesty, erasing any lingering questions about their power and legitimacy ( Rafael, 1991 ).

This “oligarchic apparatus,” a complicated web of electricity made up of both old and new elites, laws and institutions, has since evolved into the very foundation of the country. Although Marcos Jr.’s election in 2022 may have appeared as a return to power, it was only an expression of this apparatus’s persistent strength and control.

But entrenched is the autocratic machine that attempts to issue this dominance have largely failed. Little has been made in the National Commission on Good Government (PCGG), which was established to retrieve property from the ousted president and his friends. Only$ 3.4 billion has been recovered despite an estimated$ 30 billion in unaccounted Marcos wealth ( Montalvan II, 2023 ).

In 2024, several cases tied to Marcos ‘ family assets were dismissed by the Philippines ‘ anti-graft court due to prosecution delays ( Elemia, 2024 ). Importantly, the president nominates PCGG chairpersons and commission, as with most senior positions in government, above judges and prosecutors and the director.

The autocratic apparatus has always moved unimpeded and generally unopposed, but it is now in its most organized and established type. The durability of this system raises an uncomfortable question for the ICC, which relies on government assent—and so the incumbent’s support—to bring out its mandate: is real social accountability exist in a nation where autocratic rule has become identical from the state itself?

None of this excludes other possible causes of this political slog. Strongman politics, amplified by his war on drugs, sparked by Dutte’s ( and his daughter’s ) strongman rule, which fueled a corrupt and violent police force and sparked new drug rivalries, setting in motion a new cycle of violence that ultimately turned against him.

Yet strongman politics and even the “anti-oligarch” rhetoric are hardly unique to Duterte, nor was his war on drugs new. Strongman candidates have pursued the presidency in every election since Marcos Sr’s fall in 1986 ( e .g., Alfredo Lim, Panfilo Lacson ) ( Garrido, 2020 ).

This bias toward strongman politics is a reflection of the Filipino’s changing perception of democracy, one that points to the limitations of reforms within the current democratic institutions, such as the unsuccessful attempts to break monopolies in key industries ( such as utilities ) through constitutional amendment.

To call Duterte’s arrest” justice”, then, is to deny a deeper truth: his politics was not an aberration but a reckoning—however flawed—of a political and economic hegemony decades in the making, perfected by no less than Marcos Sr, where oligarchs and the state preserve their dominance while stifling competition and perpetuating poverty, criminality, and even the drug trade in the nation’s peripheries.

Let’s not forget that the Marcos Sr dictatorship, with the support of the police and the military, also contributed to the rise of Jose” Don Pepe” Oyson, a petty smuggler who became the godfather of the methamphetamine trade ( Sidel, 1999 ). This history was obscured by Duterte’s arrest in a masterstroke of cooptation, which has not been corrected by his arrest.

In this, Marcos is not alone. A lineage of neo-colonized intellectuals has consistently assisted in breaking up the memory of earlier revolutionary struggles and negotiating agreements that only serve to further oligarchic rule. This includes progressive-minded enablers of the current regime who paint ilusory victories and underline how deeply they support the power structure they claim to demolish ( San Juan, 2024 ).

The oligarchs ‘ greatest strength is not just in their ability to influence perceptions and imitate the language of reform. It is also in their control. What appears as a battle for justice often is little more than a recalibration of entrenched power.

Oligarchy corrodes, deviating even from the laws of justice, truth, and perception. The silent hum of resistance grows beneath the decay: slow, steady, and steady, but still as persistent as steel sharpening over time.

Bibliography

Elemia, C. ( 2024, October 9 ). The Marcos ‘ case involving$ 5 million in ill-gotten wealth has been dismissed by the Philippines ‘ anti-graft court. Retrieved from Benar News: https ://www.benarnews .org/english/news/philippine/philippines-anti-graft-court-dismisses-5m-ill-gotten-wealth-case-against-the-marcoses-10092024144834.html

Freedom House. ( 2024 ). Freedom in the World: Philippines. Retrieved from Freedom House: https ://freedomhouse .org/country/philippines/freedom-world/2024

Garrido, Marco ( 2020 ). A conjunctual analysis of Rodrigo Duterte’s support from the upper and middle classes. International sociology 35.026858092094597.10.1177/0268580920945978.

McCoy, A. ( September 23rd, 1999 ). Dark Legacy: Human rights under the Marcos regime. Retrieved from http ://www .hartford-hwp.com/archives/54a/062.html

A. Montalvan II. ( 2023, February 10 ). What exactly did the Marcos steal? Retrieved from Vera Files: https ://verafiles .org/articles/how-much-did-the-marcoses-exactly-steal

Parada, V. K. ( 2023, April 14 ). East Asia Forum Retrieved from https ://eastasiaforum .org/2010/04/14/politics-power-and-private-armed-groups-in-the-philippines/

Rafael, V. L. ( 1991 ). Anticipating Nationhood: Rumor and Collaboration in the Manila-based Japanese occupation. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 1 ( 1 ), pp. 67-82. &nbsp, Retrieved from: https ://dx .doi .org/10.1353/dsp.1991.0002.

San Juan, E. ( 2024, February ). The “national-popular” and socialist revolution in the Philippines is based on Antonio Gramsci’s theory. Retrieved from ResearchGate: https ://www.researchgate .net/publication/378333864_P_R_O_O_F_O_N_L_Y_12_Antonio_Gramsci’s_theory_of_the_national-popular_and_socialist_revolution_in_the_Philippines

Sidel, J. 199. The Usual Suspects: Nardong Putik, Don Pepe Oyson, and Robin Hood. In: VL Rafael (ed. Between 1970 and 1990, figures of criminality were found in Indonesia, the Philippines, and colonial Vietnam. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University. Figures of Criminality in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Colonial Vietnam – American Council of Learned Societies – Google Books

In Thomas Poguntke and Wilhelm Hofmeister (eds ), &nbsp, Political Parties and the Crisis of Democracy: Organization, Resilience, and Reform&nbsp, ( Oxford, &nbsp, 2024 ), &nbsp, online edn, &nbsp, Oxford Academic, 22 Aug. 2024 ), &nbsp, https: //doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780198888734.003.0022

Continue Reading

The real US jobs disruptor? America’s own future – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The most recent taxes, which are set to go into effect on April 2, by US President Donald Trump, are a new wave of economic nationalism, aimed at goods of titanium, aluminum, cars, and other products.

The White House sees it as a step toward bilateral trade, a raise for US manufacturing, and the expansion of blue-collar employment. In actuality, there are rising costs for businesses, rising inflation threat, and growing international trade war risks.

America’s best trading partners, Mexico, Canada, and China have already launched counterretaliations, and economists warn that an even higher level of increase could cause the US to go into recession. Tariffs remain Washington’s instinctive reaction to business drop despite mounting proof that protectionism does little to recover lost jobs.

The real issue is not with work moving abroad; rather, there are too few American workers with credentials for those that do. There are 8 million job openings in the US, but 6.8 million of those are unemployed, a clear disconnect between desire and knowledge. Taxes hasn’t close the gap. A workplace that is prepared for the jobs to come can.

Skills lacked alignment

Second, academic achievement has become the key distinction between economic insecurity and work. As of January 2025, high school graduates without a college had a unemployment rate of 4.5 %, nearly twice the rate of 2.3 % for those with bachelor’s degrees or higher.

People without postsecondary learning find themselves left behind in an economy that extremely rewards technical expertise. Globalization may have eroded the American business center, but those affected employees even lost out due to a lack of education that has failed to prepare them for the vocations of contemporary business.

Next, rapid technological advancement has a part of talent instability. By 2030, 39 % of the world’s workforce will be obsolete or transformed, according to the” Future of Jobs” report from the World Economic Forum.

The expertise needed to succeed in business change significantly as they evolve. Building, logistics, and healthcare are the industries in high demand that demand specialized knowledge that cannot be acquired with a basic high school education or a public college degree.

Third, manufacturing itself has changed beyond recognition. These jobs are not the assembly-line work of the past, despite the 490, 000 job opportunities in the field as of April 2024. Instead, contemporary factories demand advanced skills in robotics, CNC machining, professional technology, and high-precision soldering.

The opulent image of a workplace that leaves the shop floor in droves is essentially inconsistent with the reality that today’s manufacturing jobs call for mechanical, electrical, and online skills. No matter how large tariffs are raised, a high school graduate without specific vocational training cannot just enter one of these positions.

When President Trump first imposed broad-based taxes under his administration, they didn’t bring up work; instead, they raised costs for both businesses and consumers. Instead of reaping any benefits, American manufacturers paid more for aluminum and steel, which led to technology, rate increases, and ultimately job losses.

Reshoring production, to be honest, is more about employment than jobs. National security, modern leadership, and supply chain resilience are the topics. The US is create everything from military equipment to semiconductors thanks to its strong business base. The infrastructure bill, which was introduced under Trump’s father, and the CHIPS Act were intended to lay the groundwork for this work.

But, tariffs have fallen short as a tool for creating jobs. According to a 2019 Federal Reserve study, President Trump’s taxes forced businesses to reduce workforce and implement, costing the US 175, 000 work.

Another study from the Federal Reserve revealed that tariffs caused a 2.7 % decline in manufacturing jobs, while the Tax Foundation predicted that the Trump-Biden Section 301 and 232 tariffs may reduce GDP and cause the loss of 142, 000 full-time work.

According to a study conducted by the US-China Business Council, 245,000 work lost simply as a result of President Trump’s business plans. Tariffs even harm businesses that are hiring. For example, construction, which is in need of a 439, 000-worker lack in 2025, depends on cheap steel.

Failure to make an investment in the future

Two crucial areas need notice if Washington is severe about reviving blue-collar work.

Second, expanding workforce change and vocational training programs for Americans without conventional tech backgrounds might have significant economic benefits. Step IT Up, a US Department of Labor-registered internship program designed to quickly transition employees without any previous IT knowledge into full-time software positions, is a striking design.

Step IT Up, which was first introduced in the US and later adopted in Singapore by online services consultancy Temus, has already hired over 5, 000 people from all over the world and has a remarkable record history.

Step IT Up adheres to a “hire, spot, and coach” model, which guarantees graduates a full-time tech position upon graduation and removes the uncertainty that frequently discourages employees from reskilling.

Beyond work security, there are other important economic advantages. Tech workers in the US makeapproximately 40 % more than the national median household income, while they in Singapore make approximately 50 % more.

These figures emphasize the economic flexibility that workforce conversion and organized vocational training can offer, making them effective tools for blue-collar workers looking to change into higher-paying, tech-enabled roles.

A organized, accelerated training approach, which equips employees with job-ready electronic skills without the need for a college degree, is what makes a system like Step IT Up particularly successful.

Washington may ensure that technology is more of a force of economic empowerment than a pressure of displacement by expanding workforce conversion initiatives like Step IT Up, particularly in manufacturing, construction, logistics, and different industries that have been transformed by digitalization.

Next, investing in infrastructure may provide a stronger foundation for the creation of jobs than protectionism could ever do. Bridges, dams, and other main water pipes are all over the nation, and dams, bridges, and roads are all in problems. The Baltimore Bridge decline, Interstate 95 losses, and growing airport delays all serve as examples of how neglected we are.

The American Society of Civil Engineers projects a$ 1.44 trillion shortfall in infrastructure funding by 2025, with only 56 % of necessary investments covered. Since 2016, there has been a$ 42 billion gap in flights only. China invested$ 8 trillion in infrastructure in a single year, but the US has allowed its foundation to collapse.

Equipment investment is an economical multiplier, which is even more important. If economic policy accommodates the fiscal boost, each$ 100 billion in infrastructure spending could increase employment growth by roughly 1 million full-time alternatives. Increased roads, ports, and electricity grids increase productivity, lower transportation costs, and boost competitiveness.

Overall, the issue isn’t so much that international rivals have squandered America’s industrial center and slain its jobs. The actual failure lies more with the abuse of the workers and infrastructure required to sustain the future industries.

Because American personnel demand higher pay and better working conditions than their counterparts in China or Vietnam, where production costs are only a fraction of those in the US, tariffs didn’t allow low-skill stock jobs to be reinstated.

Instead of pursuing an economy that America had previously grown, the focus should be on developing new industries that demand experienced labor, keeping work in line with the social and economic expectations of the American workforce today. Instead of restoring the prior, tomorrow’s work will be focused on reconstructing what will come next.

Marcus Loh serves as the director of Temus, a Singapore-based company that offers online transformation services, and is in charge of public affairs, marketing, and corporate communication. He was the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore’s former leader. Loh currently serves on SG Tech’s executive council for the electronic conversion section, which is the largest trade association for Singapore’s tech sector.

Continue Reading

Losing the war of wedges – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Donald Trump is speaking with Xi Jinping, the president of China, while Vladimir Putin, the leader of the US, is speaking with him.

The National plan is to polarize the two officials and pit them against one another. The intention could be to include Russia rebel against China and compel Beijing to renounce its position in response.

Although it’s not known whether this strategy will work, it’s now eliciting reverberations from US friends east and west of Russia. Some are urging Americans to unite and demand a more confrontational approach from Moscow. Without that, some people are considering forming an alliance of US companions even without the US.

Some EU leaders, including Angela Merkel, once hoped to change the world through business or “wandel by bach” to deal with Putin. According to Bill Emmott, the legislation infamously failed.

But right now, US rulers simply want to accept Russian as one of his own, giving in to his behavior without even considering whether to change him. The following questions are asked: Why? And what will occur?

But first, let’s take a moment again. The three countries, the US, China, and Russia, were playing a game 17 years ago, and the relationships between them were starkly different.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and US President George W. Bush were standing in front of the Beijing Olympics on August 8, 2008. Puntin was parking on a chair behind. Russia had other ideas, but the Chinese wanted to show the world their novel G2 connection with the US.

Russian troops also attacked Georgia and carved out the Ossetia place there at the same time. On August 12th, a quick peace was reached. Despite the initial shock, the event was immediately put on hold. The war was viewed as a modest trespass, an indiscretion, and a peccadillo by the West and the US. The Olympics were just three weeks long.

The Soviet annexation of Crimea in 2014 lasted a few weeks, if not more. Soviet troops crossed the border on February 27 and quickly seized the area, which was annexed on March 18 through a vote.

Additionally, it was quick, perhaps before the US had enough time to process and respond. By that time, Putin and the US had a long-term strategy. Obama’s” Pivot to Asia” wanted to entice Russia to surround Beijing despite having strained ties with China since 2010. Russia was eager to raise its value with the US.

It might have stoked the Belarusian intervention in Syria, which would support the Assad government in Damascus. Russia also supported Iran, which had already positioned its troops and weapons in Damascus to combat the native Daesh Sunni rebels.

Russia intervened on September 30th, sending bombs to Syria to launch considerable attacks against cities targeted by anti-Assad forces. De facto, Russia’s appearance in Damascus lasted until last year when Turkish-backed soldiers finally swept through the state deserted by both Russian and Persian forces.

We don’t notice a significant change in the current US harmony choices when we consider these ten to seventeen years of history. The single notable change was that the US and Europe decided to draw a line in the sand and turn Kyiv against Moscow in 2022, before the disastrous Russian disappointment in Ukraine.

Contrary to popular belief, the aid was flimsy and constrained. Ukraine received more time and money from American weapons, but larger social factors limited the scope of insurgencies and strikes.

Most importantly, the US and Europe didn’t following through despite it being obvious that Russia was rebuilding its defense industry at least since 2023.

Just now, in 2025, is Europe really boosting its military industries, following Trump’s warnings. Many European nations are dropping their prudence and may promote Kyiv to build real serious problems into the Russian heartland now that there is the possibility of an infamous bargain between the US and Russia.

In other words, Russia may now have less incentive to comply with US demands than it did ten years ago. It’s unclear why they should have one now because they didn’t reach an agreement ten years ago.

China hasn’t shown some indications that it intends to make any agreements at the same time. Beijing is prepared for significant additional surprises, according to Premier Li Qiang, who made the announcement on March 23 that Beijing will open up more space for foreign funding.

Maybe he suggests that Xi is prepared to reject US demands and that no miracle is anticipated with Trump’s mountain. Or perhaps Beijing is negotiating before making a bargain.

The reality is that the US’s alliances in Europe and Asia are breaking down, despite its best efforts to reach a swift resolution. In spite of the fissures it has opened in its intercontinental and transatlantic relations, any agreement the US does approach with Russia may drop short.

With about half of China’s community, the EU, UK, and Norway have economies that are more advanced than China’s. With almost the same people, Japan’s sector is three times the size of Russia’s. The number of countries that are close to the UK and farther away from the US is increasing.

Here’s the dramatic reality: a deal with America is less appealing to Russia or China because of the fissures between the US and its supporters. The activity appears to have reverted.

The US is correct in looking at both China and Russia while also promoting peace, but if it breaks or even strains its friendship with its allies, it may lose on both fronts.

Without a deal, Russia and China may lose their most important asset, its network of friends. They will want to emulate America while crossing paths with the ( ancient ) US. ally.

The US allegedly underestimated the friends ‘ responses to its Russian requests and created a space for China or Russia to scuttle tensions between the US and its supporters.

Also if US allies won’t rebel openly against America, the distance opens up new ground for maneuvering for Russia. America needs to think different now.

America needs a more important long-term strategy where talking to opponents is certainly important, but this didn’t be accomplished by allying with supporters. The US might have a more comprehensive perspective to consider the future.

This content was originally published on Appia Institute, and it is now licensed for resale.

Continue Reading

US turning F-16s into stealthy Chinese ship-killers – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

With subtle anti-ship missiles, the US is upgrading its aging F-16s to long-range ship killers, which raises weapons, flexibility, and significant concerns about stockpiles and survivability in a possible Pacific conflict with China.

The US Navy has made it known that it plans to add the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile ( LRASM) to the US Air Force F-16 fighters, significantly enhancing their ability to fire at longer ranges against well-defended ships, according to a recent article from The War Zone ( TWZ ).

According to a outsourcing notice from the Naval Air Systems Command, this work gives Lockheed Martin a Cost-Plus Set Rate Supply Buy for the missile’s integration and testing.

Advanced stealth capabilities, autonomous route planning, and terminal-phase targeting are all provided by the LRASM, which is derived from the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile ( JASSM).

In light of the US government’s wider efforts to increase air-launched anti-ship capabilities as it prepares for a possible conflict with China in the Pacific, the connectivity is important.

The LRASM offers excellent efficiency over the older AGM-84 Harpoon, which is now used on US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and Air Force B-1 aircraft. A 965-kilometer variety and sophisticated electronic support systems support the LRASM.

The decision corresponds to US concerns about munitions stockpiles and the need for versatile, distributed start platforms, which are still a priority. By bolstering allied abilities in areas like the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, the walk will increase US corporate punishment by equipping LRASM-equipped F-16s worldwide. However, the exact date for functional implementation is still unknown.

The F-16 lacks essential characteristics that enable survivability on a military level in a contemporary aerial warfare setting. The LRASM may, however, enable widespread F-16s to match existing secrecy aircraft and long-range bombers in a coastal hit role.

Harrison Kass argues in an August 2024 article for The National Interest ( TNI ) that the 50-year-old F-16 design lacks the stealth capabilities necessary for contemporary air warfare. Kass contends that the F-16 properly be limited to circumstances where air supremacy has been achieved because of improved air security and monitoring systems.

Nevertheless, the LRASM’s long range makes it possible for delivery aircraft to stay out of China’s anti-access/area-denial ( A2/AD ) defenses, while the use of common F-16s increases the number of launch aircraft, which could increase US conventional firepower for maritime strikes.

The F-16 will continue to be the US Air Force’s low-end, multifunctional force multiplier, according to David Nahom in an April 2022 Air &amp, Space Forces Magazine content. According to Nahom, the US Air Force’s 600 F-16s also have between 18 and 20 years of service, and a replacement is also a long way off.

The same might never be said, however, about US LRASM supplies. Seth Jones mentions in a report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) in January 2023 that the US spent its entire inventory of 450 LRASMs in a simulated conflict over Taiwan in a two-year period, with LRASMs costing US$ 3 million per round.

The F-16’s somewhat short 860 kilometers in an air-to-surface role may prove ineffective in a Pacific operating environment with its extensive range.

Although forward basing can help to address some of these functional difficulties, a report from the Stimson Center in December of 2024 mentions that US ahead air bases in Japan, Guam, and another Pacific locations are susceptible to China’s long-range missiles, which threaten to halt US forth air operations.

According to Grieco and others, the loss of US ahead airbases could reduce the US from using flying refueling tankers, which allow the author’s fighters to attack targets without allowing them to reach the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea. They also point out that a ship’s ability to fly without having underwater refueling can hinder long-range coastal strike operations.

While Greco and others point out that the US Air Force may attempt to fly aircraft from further afield, including Australia, Alaska, and Hawaii, the lengthy distances could reduce the number of missions flown every day, making it difficult to use the power effectively.

In an article this month for National Defense Magazine, Brian Clark mentions that pilots could fly 800 kilometers ( 500 miles ) further to the Taiwan Strait after completing 965 kilometers ( 1, 000 miles ) transits to get weapons into launch range.

Clark claims that this would restrict LRSAM effectiveness by making their flight paths repetitive for the enemy because maneuvering may result in them running out of fuel. This may force them to travel straight forward to reach their targets.

The post points out that it is unclear whether the US Air Force will continue with its preferred position of using B-21 or B-2 planes to overthrow China by attacking Foreign airbases on the island or concentrate on coastal strikes.

While attacking the Chinese mainland might lead to nuclear retribution, Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga and additional authors make mention of China in a November 2024 RAND report that they may be willing to accept some standard attacks on the island.

According to Beauchamp-Mustafaga and another, this circumstance suggests a willingness to deal with high-value targets on the continent without using nuclear signaling. They mention that China favors reducing costs by developing advanced heat threats to halt limited US strikes on the mainland’s coercion.

In line with that, Clark contends that China would not allow an amphibious abuse power to land on Taiwan if it were to lose some of its airbases on the island. He claims that using amphibious transport as goals does alter China’s math.

However, Dmitry Filipoff mentions in a March 2023 Center for International Maritime Security ( CIMSEC ) article that modern high-end warships have sophisticated layered air defenses that increase the amount of fire needed to overwhelm targets and score a hit.

Additionally, Mark Gunzinger and Stacey Pettyjohn point out in an Air & Space Forces Magazine article from July 2024 that the LRASM is also expensive to purchase in huge numbers and that the US Air Force and US DOD cannot simply purchase much to satisfy requirements, even if production is increased.

In a November 2021 article for the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, Gunzinger asserts that US inventories of legacy munitions are insufficient because many munitions are either too vulnerable, too few, or too expensive for large-scale, sustained operations against advanced adversaries. However, such a situation encourages the production of lower-cost precision-guided munitions ( PGM ) for “affordable mass.

In the meantime, he makes note of the fact that secrecy aircraft are exposed to deadly air defenses by shorter-range direct-attack munitions. He claims that the US lacks enough production capacity and stockpiles for fast wartime demand despite the cost-effectiveness of mid-range” stand-in” PGMs being suggested as a solution for stealth platforms.

Continue Reading

TSMC making a risky bet on MAGA – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company ( TSMC), in response to President Donald Trump’s obvious “pay for protection” bribery, recently pledged US$ 100 billion to create more chip factories in Arizona, in addition to the three it already has there.

The action lacks any firm rationale to support it. Instead, TSMC is betting that Trump’s personality and” America First” mission will persuade him that a sovereign Taiwan likewise benefits America’s interests.

But, any wager on Trump is a risky game of chance, and this one could unwittingly put Taiwan’s death in greater danger. To live the whims of the White House, Taiwan will need to awaken its best poker abilities.

90 % of the most advanced semiconductor chips used in security devices, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence are produced by TSMC. The world’s dependence on this dominance provides a” golden shield” against possible anger from China, which claims the self-governing peninsula as part of its territory.

Trump wants to cultivate peppers on US ground to lessen its dependence on international supply chains, foster high-paying local production jobs, and advance national security interests.

Add Taiwan’s competitive advantage to America’s economic and military utilize, and the result is a clumsy bumper sticker that reads” Make America Great Again ( by making Chinese chips )” ( Make America Great Again ).

Unconvincingly, TSMC asserts that the company’s current operations in Arizona are the result of sound business principles rather than political force.

After speaking with TSMC employees and visiting the construction sites, I can tell you that the project is still plagued by delays, cost overruns, skilled labour shortages, angry workers, operational inefficiencies, and an immature offer network ecology.

Certainly, the foundry’s Arizona functions will be profitable for a while. Question Morris Chang, the former CEO and founder of TSMC, who acknowledged that Arizona’s chip production cost at least 50 % more than a Chinese factory. The company’s stock price, ironically, dropped nearly 5 % the day Trump announced the most recent stock offer.

If TSMC’s main priorities were profitability and shipping, it would undoubtedly result in more businesses in Kumamoto, Japan. There were two companies built on time and within budget. Contrary to Arizona, Japan already has a silicon habitat with seasoned chip engineers and manufacturers and reputable logistics and supply chains.

The local authorities, public universities, and even small organizations all assistance TSMC’s Asian factories. When I went to Kumamoto last year to prepare for the arrival of TSMC’s Japanese employees, I discovered supermarkets stocked with common Chinese foods like chicken feet, pig liver, and life fish.

Taipei may be wise to consider Trump’s real interests, which is undoubtedly more difficult to say than do. We all know how madly different from day to day Trump’s moods are.

Take taxes on and off in the case of Mexico and Canada. Trump’s position on Taiwan currently seems to be that it treats the US badly, he claimed, but that its leading device business, TSMC, is still on par.

During the notorious dressing-down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, Trump vehemently retorted, “You’re never in a good place.” You are at the mercy of the tickets at this moment. What, in the end, does Trump think sets Taiwan but apart from Ukraine?

Does Trump actually worry about Taiwan’s long-term freedom? Had Trump be willing to trade Taiwan to Beijing for, say, a significant trade deal if Taiwan gave up its high-tech benefit to the US?

With its most recent vow, there are good chances that TSMC has just marginally appeased Trump. Trump may launch a new campaign and demand more from TSMC.

He might continue to press TSMC to get over Intel’s failing US chip factories, which would involve tens of billions of dollars and some years to revamp and upgrade.

Now, the evidence points to the ineffectiveness of TSMC’s deference. According to sources within the Trump administration, Chinese chip exports may still be subject to tariffs of up to 100 %.

Additionally, Trump is asking Congress to repeal the CHIPS Act, which was passed in 2022 to support local chip manufacturing. Thus, it’s unclear whether TSMC will receive the$ 6.6 billion that the act promised.

The Chinese government still needs to give final approval for the TSMC package. The passage is never a slam dunk. May Ying-jeou, the original Taiwanese president, claimed the agreement” could lead to a major national security crisis” and have adverse effects on” Taiwan’s coming geopolitical position.”

Some Japanese citizens are debating whether the government will back down on Trump’s rhetoric or stick to the wall and maintain Taiwan’s political significance.

Taiwan is well-versed in making tough decisions, which is a positive aspect of this situation. Remember that this is a self-governing archipelago with the second-most powerful nation in the world, has formal relations with just 13 nations, and has not received a seat in the UN.

Taiwan’s very life as a self-governing body calls for a commitment to live on the edge. Thus, one might think Taiwan, using Trump’s example, to invest$ 100 billion while secretly halting the most cutting-edge chip technologies or, better still, delaying the project itself.

Even Taiwan and TSMC can play a bluff over the course of the following four years. Perhaps the Trump presidency may ignore TSMC’s compliance or ignore it.

Sometimes. However, Tawain will inevitably need to persuade Trump that it has more cards to play.

Stanley Chao is the creator of” Selling to China: A Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses” and was originally professional vice-president of US intel Kingston Technology.

Continue Reading