US needs a solution to China’s problem – Asia Times

Whoever wins will have the breeze at their backs, according to Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, who both have pledged to lead a developing revival.

Thanks in large part to grants provided by the Chips and Science Act, the Prices Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, many new companies are already under development in the United States. With continued emphasis from Washington, the country could observe ground broken on still more innovative companies.

Do n’t, however, undervalue the threat China poses to the revival of American industry. China has a lot of professional overcapacity, and the state there is investing in even more. That will increase the cost of a wide range of manufactured products, making it harder for new companies to succeed outside of China.

China denies it has overcapacity. The Chinese claim that foreigners who employ that phrase are attempting to prevent China’s rise by suggesting there should be limitations on how much it can generate and export.

But China now dominates world developing. It produces 35 % of the country’s factory output. That’s almost six times the US’s 12 % share of the top two producers, the US, and more than the combined stock of the next nine largest manufacturing nations.

Economist Richard Baldwin calls China” the world’s ultimate producing power”.

According to international economists, China’s obsession with production has caused its economy to be extremely imbalanced and heavily dependent on investment at the expense of consumption. They say this underlies the government’s slowing growth, rising poverty and real-estate debt problems.

China’s officials reject that research. They are planning to export items that the domestic market ca n’t handle while doubling down on their manufacturing investments. They are attempting to rule the high-tech sectors of the future by pushing for upward growth.

” China’s increased investments will not be a little storm, but rather a US$ 450 billion wave over the next three years”, says Harry Moser, chairman of the Reshoring Initiative, a non-profit dedicated to bringing production jobs up to the US.

The Chinese president’s support for its makers was in a group of its own, even before the most recent double-down, according to the Wall Street Journal. In 2019, China spent 1.7 % of its GDP on business policy. The US spent 0.4 %.

And China’s 1.7 % does n’t take into account a variety of indirect subsidies – cheap loans from state-owned banks, tax breaks of various kinds, cheap steel from state-owned steel companies and cheap energy from state-owned utilities. One estimate cited by the Journal puts China’s actual industrial-policy spending close to 5 % of national income.

And China’s spending is n’t just deep, it’s broad. ” Ninety-nine percent of publicly listed companies report some kind of subsidy”, the Journal information.

As much about authority as economy are involved in the doubling over. China wants to reduce its reliance on different nations. They should rely on China more, it wants.

Other countries, especially the US, do n’t want to be more reliant on China. They fear more poverty and suburbanization, but that’s not their just stress.

Washington has been reminded that a solid business foundation is essential to national security by the Russian war of Ukraine and Israel’s conflict with Hamas. In a turmoil, Cocavid taught the US that it’s foolish to concentrate on other nations for essential supplies.

Government politicians in the US, Europe, and other countries are having a hard time coming up with solutions to the China issue. With varying degrees of success, the last two US governments have tried tariffs and incentives in various ways.

Trump is promising yet higher taxes and is threatening businesses that are moving their manufacturing abroad, including John Deere. Harris claims that she will grant tax credits to motivate opportunities in brand-new factories. It’s unclear how significant these efforts may be.

Anyhow, these are techniques. As I’ve argued earlier, what the nation needs is a plan. A bipartisan committee of experts will be set up to examine the issue and suggest solutions.

More than remain with the ready-fire-aim technique both parties have been taking, we need first to agree on solutions to some important questions.

How many production is required to avoid relying on China? Without the assistance of the government, how many new production can be created? Which companies deserve help? Which of the many probable techniques can you provide that support the best?

Another crucial issue for this fee may be whether to collaborate with other nations to reduce China’s dependence or to go it only. In my next article, I’ll address that query.

A base has been laid for this fee: Both parties agree there’s a problem. It’s for trying to see if they can agree on options. China Shock 2’s potential risks are such significant that a coordinated effort from all parties is required. This grant bipartisanship a possibility.

Previous lifelong Wall Street Journal Asia journalist and editor&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, is writer professor of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

This&nbsp, content, &nbsp, previously published on&nbsp, October 2 by the latter news business and then republished by Asia Times with authority, is © Copyright 2024 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. Follow&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, on&nbsp, X @urbanize

Continue Reading

Tour firm put illegal tanks on whole fleet

According to Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, authorities seized the remaining five cars owned by Shinbutr Tour after discovering that each had 11 fuel tank installed, exceeding the legal restriction of six, just like the tragic school bus that just caught fire and killed 23 people.

He claimed that because the buses were not properly inspected on Thursday afternoon at the property transport office in Lop Buri, officials used their GPS to track and trace them in a garage in Nakhon Ratchasima.

Mr. Suriya claimed that when the authorities arrived, car workers were seen removing the gas tank from the five cars, leading to the sequestration of the cars. The minister stated that just six oil tanks per vehicle can be installed.

Authorities will determine whether the car may be subject to legal action, he said, and charges will be brought against the organization and those involved in the illegal adjustments.

Following the tragic vehicle accident, in which 20 kids and three teachers died on Tuesday, the company was ordered to give the buses for inspection.

A gas leak was identified as the cause of the horror when investigative officers examined the tragic bus.

The bus had 11 tanks containing compressed natural gas ( CNG ), and a fuel line, which carries gas from the tank to the engine, had come loose, causing the leak. Six of the eleven CNG vehicles that were installed on the vehicle had been registered, whereas the remaining vehicles did not.

There was no proof of a front wheel explosion, as recently reported, but the front-wheel wheel was broken and showed signs of having scraped against the street area. What caused the fires that set off the lights and why the oil was leaking have not yet been determined.

Within 60 days, the Department of Land Transport ( DLT) announced that it will check every vehicle in the country that uses CNG.

Mr. Suriya acknowledged the procedure takes time, but he said there should still be signs of tampering, despite concerns that other businesses may have removed their improperly installed fuel tank by the time of inspection.

A combined House-Senate commission on transportation will convene on October 25 to discuss security procedures that aim to improve street safety for both learners and the general public.

A member of the committee, Nikorn Chamnong, expressed confidence that the future appointment would be successful and that the committee would develop strategies to significantly increase transport safety.

The school bus flames, according to Chuan Leekpai, Democrat MP for Trang, was one of the worst safety incidents in the country and may offer as a lesson to all involved to remember not to ignore security breaches.

He argued that school-sponsored academic visits should not be canceled, but that protection should be top of the agenda.

Continue Reading

Inside the US State Department’s weapons pipeline to Israel – Asia Times

This article was first published by ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning analytical news website.

Reporting features

  • More weapons: Because Israel has a “decades-long proven track record” of avoiding killing citizens, Ambassador Jack Lew urged Washington to send hundreds more weapons to them.
  • A thank-you: After State Department officials spent months working through weekends and after time on hands sales, the Israelis sent cases of wine to them just before Christmas.
  • A lobbying force: Defense companies and activists have also helped drive down important sales by leaning on State Department officials and lawmakers whenever there’s a flow.

Israel’s military demanded 3, 000 more weapons from the British government in soon January as the death toll in Gaza soared to 25, 000 and Palestinians fled their destroyed cities in search of safety. US Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew, along with other major officials in the Jerusalem ambassador, sent a wire to Washington urging State Department leaders to review the price, saying there was no probable the Israel Defense Forces would use the weapons.

The wires did not address the Biden administration’s common concerns over the escalating civilian casualties, nor did it solve well-known reports that Israel had dropped 2, 000-pound bombs on crowded Gazan areas weeks earlier, causing house collapses and the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom were children. Lew was aware of the issues. Authorities say his own team had repeatedly noted episodes where large numbers of citizens died. Jewish airstrikes had targeted the homes of the ministry’s personal Israeli employees.

However, Lew and his senior administration argued that Israel may be trusted with this fresh package of weapons, known as GBU-39s, which are smaller and more accurate. They claimed that Israel’s air force had a “decades-long proven track record” of avoiding shooting civilians when using the American-made weapon and had “demonstrated an ability and willingness to use it in]a manner that minimizes money destruction.”

While that request was pending, the Israelis proved those assertions wrong. In the months that followed, the Israeli military repeatedly dropped GBU-39s it already possessed on shelters and refugee camps that it said were being occupied by Hamas soldiers, killing scores of Palestinians. The IDF then bombed a mosque and school where civilians were frightened in early August. At least 93 died. Parents had trouble identifying children’s bodies because their bodies were so mutilated.

Weapons analysts identified shrapnel from GBU-39 bombs among the rubble.

In the months before and since, an array of State Department officials urged that Israel be completely or partially cut off from weapons sales under laws that prohibit arming countries with a pattern or clear risk of violations. Top State Department political appointees have consistently rejected those appeals. Government experts have for years unsuccessfully tried to withhold or place conditions on arms sales to Israel because of credible allegations that the country had violated Palestinians ‘ human rights using American-made weapons.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a town hall for the organization at the State Department’s headquarters on January 31 the day after the embassy’s assessment was made, where he received sharp questions from his subordinates about Gaza. He said the suffering of civilians was “absolutely gut wrenching and heartbreaking”, according to a transcript of the meeting.

” But it is a question of making judgments”, Blinken said of his agency’s efforts to minimize harm. On October 7, we premised that Israel had the right to defend itself, and more importantly, the right to try to prevent October 7 from occurring again.

The embassy’s endorsement and Blinken’s statements reflect what many at the State Department have understood to be their mission for nearly a year. The unwritten policy, according to a former embassy official, was to “protect Israel from scrutiny” and to encourage the flow of arms no matter how many human rights violations are reported. ” We ca n’t admit that’s a problem”, this former official said.

The embassy has even historically resisted accepting funds from the State Department’s Middle East bureau earmarked for investigating human rights issues throughout Israel because embassy leaders did n’t want to insinuate that Israel might have such problems, according to Mike Casey, a former U. S. diplomat in Jerusalem. Our main objective is to address human rights violations, Casey continued. ” We do n’t have that in Jerusalem”.

The US Agency for International Development and the State Department’s refugees bureau, according to a ProPublica report from last week, concluded in april that Israel had purposefully stopped the flow of food and medicine into Gaza and that weapons sales should be stopped. But Blinken rejected those findings as well and, weeks later, told Congress that the State Department had concluded that Israel was not blocking aid.

The episodes uncovered by ProPublica, which have not been previously detailed, offer an inside look at how and why the highest ranking policymakers in the US government have continued to approve sales of American weapons to Israel in the face of a mounting civilian death toll and evidence of almost daily human rights abuses. This article draws inspiration from a trove of State Department records, including internal cables, email threads, memos, meeting minutes, and other documents, as well as interviews with current and former officials from the organization, the majority of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak in public.

The records and interviews also show that the pressure to keep the arms pipeline moving also comes from the US military contractors who make the weapons. Behind the scenes, lobbyists for those companies have frequently pressed lawmakers and State Department officials to approve shipments both to Israel and other contentious allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia. When one company executive pushed his former subordinate at the department for a valuable sale, the government official reminded him that strategizing over the deal might violate federal lobbying laws, emails show.

The Biden administration’s repeated willingness to give the IDF a pass has only emboldened the Israelis, experts told ProPublica. Critics claim that the risk of a regional war is as high as it has been in decades as Israel and Iran trade blows, and that the cost of that failure has increased.

” The reaffirmation of impunity has come swiftly and unequivocally”, said Daniel Levy, who served in the Israeli military before holding various prominent positions as a government official and adviser throughout the’ 90s. He later served as the president of the US/Middle East Project and one of the founding members of the advocacy group J Street.

Levy said there is virtually no threat of accountability for Israel’s conduct in Gaza, only” a certainty of carte blanche”. Or, as another State Department official said,” If there’s never any consequences for doing it, then why stop doing it”?

The conflict in Gaza has continued for almost a year without abating. There are at least 41, 000 Palestinians dead, by local estimates. In contrast to Hamas, which killed more than 1,100 Israelis, mostly civilians, on October 7 and continues to hold dozens of hostages, Israel claims its actions were legal and legitimate.

The US has been a stalwart ally of Israel for decades, with presidents of both parties praising the country as a beacon of democracy in a dangerous region filled with threats to American interests.

In response to detailed questions from ProPublica, a State Department spokesperson sent a statement saying that arms transfers to any country, including Israel, are done “in a deliberative manner with appropriate input” from other agencies, State Department bureaus and embassies. We anticipate that any nation that receives US security articles will use them in full compliance with international humanitarian law, and we have a number of ongoing investigations underway to check whether it is done.

The spokesperson also said Lew has been at the forefront of ensuring” that every possible measure is taken to minimize impacts on civilians” while working on a ceasefire deal to secure” the release of hostages, alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, and bring an end to the conflict”.

Israeli military leaders generally support the Israeli military’s aerial assault on Gaza as a “military necessity” to put an end to terrorists hiding among the population. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also publicly pressured the Biden administration to hasten arms transfers. ” Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job a lot faster”, he said in June.

ProPublica also emailed Israeli government representatives in-depth inquiries. A spokesperson said in a statement:” The article is biased and seeks to portray legitimate and routine contacts between Israel and the Embassy in Washington with State Department officials as improper. Its intention appears to be to cast doubt on the security cooperation between two close allies and friendly nations.

Weapons sales are a pillar of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Historically, the US gives more money to Israel for weapons than it does to any other country. The majority of those American tax dollars are used to purchase US-made weapons and equipment, according to Israel.

While Israel has its own arms industry, the country relies heavily on American jets, bombs and other weapons in Gaza. More than 50 000 tons of weapons have been shipped by the US since October 2023, according to the Israeli military, which is” crucial for sustaining the IDF’s operational capabilities during the ongoing war.” The air defenses that defend Israeli towns and cities — known as the Iron Dome — also depend largely on US support.

There is little sign that either party is prepared to curtail US weapons shipments. Kamala Harris, the vice president, has called for a ceasefire, lamented the death toll in Gaza, and said she supports the decision of President Joe Biden to halt a shipment of 2, 000 bombs in June. She has also echoed a refrain from previous administrations, pledging to “ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself”. Additionally, Harris added that she had no intention of opposing Biden’s Israel policy.

Republican nominee for president Donald Trump, who has described himself as the “best friend that Israel has ever had”, reportedly told donors that he supports Israel’s “war on terror” and promised to crush pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Trump was also recently a featured speaker at the Israeli-American Council’s summit, where he cast himself as the most pro-Israel choice in the coming election. He said to the crowd,” You have a big protector in me. ” You do n’t have a protector on the other side”.

In the early 1970s, the United States first started offering significant amounts of weapons to Israel. Until then, Israel had relied on an array of home-grown and international purchases, notably from France, while the Soviet Union armed Israel’s adversaries. Over the past half-century, no country in the world has received more American military assistance than Israel.

The US provides the Israeli government with$ 3.8 billion annually and much more during conflicts to keep its military might in the area. Congress and the executive branch have imposed legal guardrails on how Israel and other countries can use the weapons they buy with US money. If there is a pattern or real danger of breaking international humanitarian law, such as preventing food deliveries to refugees, or requiring the State Department to review and approve the majority of those large military sales, the State Department is required to shut off a nation. The department is also supposed to withhold US-funded equipment and weapons from individual military units credibly accused of committing flagrant human rights violations, like torture.

Initially, a country makes a request and the local embassy, which is under the State Department’s jurisdiction, writes a cable called a” country team assessment” to judge the fitness of the nation asking for the weapons. Because of the local expertise of the embassies, this is only the start of a complicated process.

Then, the bulk of that review is conducted by the State Department’s arms transfers section, known as the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, with input from other bureaus. If the sale is worth at least$ 100 million for weapons or$ 25 million for equipment, Congress also receives final approval, as are NATO allies and Israel. If lawmakers try to block a sale, which is rare, the president can sidestep with a veto.

For years, Josh Paul, a career official in the State Department’s arms transfers bureau, reviewed arms sales to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. He eventually developed into one of the agency’s most in-depth experts on arms sales.

Even before Israel’s retaliation for October 7, he had been concerned with Israel’s conduct. He claimed that he had heard that the law required the government to withhold weapons transfers on numerous occasions. In May 2021, he refused to approve a sale of fighter jets to the Israeli Air Force. ” At a time the IAF are blowing up civilian apartment blocks in Gaza”, Paul wrote in an email,” I cannot clear on this case”. After Amnesty International published a report accusing Israeli authorities of apartheid, he would n’t agree to another sale the following February.

In both cases, Paul later told ProPublica, his immediate superiors signed off on the sales over his objections.

He wrote to a deputy assistant secretary at the time,” I have no expectation of making any policy gains on this topic during this Administration.”

During that same time period, Paul circulated a memo to some of the agency’s senior diplomats with recommendations to strengthen the arms sales review process, such as including input from human rights groups. Paul warned that the Biden administration’s new arms transfer policy — which prohibits weapons sales if it’s “more likely than not” the recipient will use them to intentionally attack civilian structures or commit other violations — would be “watered down” in practice.

The December 2021 memo stated that the sale of precision-guided weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia “posses an undisputed significant risk of civilian harm.” The US government has been historically unable to hold itself to its own standards, he wrote, “in the face of pressure from partners, industry, and perceived policy imperatives emerging from within the government itself”.

The memo’s recommendations do n’t appear to have been followed either. Paul resigned in protest over arms shipments to Israel last October, less than two weeks after the Hamas attack. It was the Biden administration’s first major public departure since the start of the war. Local authorities claimed that at least 3,300 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli military operations in Gaza as of that time.

Internally, other experts began to worry the Israelis were violating human rights almost from the onset of the war as well. According to those who participated in the creation of some of them, Middle Eastern officials sent at least six dissert memos to senior leaders praising the administration’s decision to continue arming Israel. The content of several memos leaked to the media earlier this year. The agency says it welcomes input from the dissent channel and incorporates it into policymaking decisions.

A group of experts from various bureaus claimed in a previously unreported memo from November that they had not been consulted before several policy decisions regarding arms transfers made immediately after October 7 and that there was no effective vetting process in place to assess the repercussions of those sales.

That memo, too, seemed to have little impact. State Department staff worked overtime, frequently after hours and on weekends, in the early stages of the conflict to process Israeli requests for more weapons. Some in the agency have thought the efforts showed an inappropriate amount of attention on Israel.

The Israelis, however, felt different. Staff in the arms transfers bureau entered their Washington, DC, office in late December, and they discovered cases of wine from a winery in the Negev Desert, along with personalized letters on each bottle.

The gifts were courtesy of the Israeli embassy.

According to the State Department, employees are permitted to accept donations from foreign governments that are less than the dollar amount. ” To allege that any of their allegiances to the United States should be questioned is insulting”, he added. ” The accusation that the Department of State is placing a disproportionate attention on Israel is inconsistent with the facts”.

The embassy frequently sends individual bottles of wine ( not cases ) to many of its contacts to celebrate the end of the year holidays, according to an Israeli government spokesperson.

One month later, Lew delivered his endorsement of Israel’s request for the 3, 000 precision GBU-39 bombs, which would be paid for with both US and Israeli funds. Lew, who has served in various administrations, is a significant figure in Democratic circles. He was President Barack Obama’s chief of staff and then became his treasury secretary. He has also been a top executive at Citigroup and a major private equity firm.

Rear Admiral Frank Schlereth, the US’s defense attaché to Israel, also authorized the January cable. In addition to its assurances about the IDF, the memo cited the Israeli military’s close ties with the American military: Israeli air crews attend US training schools to learn about collateral damage and use American-made computer systems to plan missions and “predict what effects their munitions will have on intended targets”, the officials wrote.

Many experts criticized Israel’s use of American-made, unguided “dumb” bombs, some of which were thought to be as much as 2, 000 pounds, as indiscriminate in the beginning of the conflict. But at the time of the embassy’s assessment, Amnesty International had documented evidence that the Israelis had also been dropping the GBU-39s, manufactured by Boeing to have a smaller blast radius, on civilians. Months before October 7, a May 2023 attack left 10 civilians dead. Then, in a strike in January of this year, 18 civilians, including 10 children, were killed. Amnesty International investigators found GBU-39 fragments at both sites. ( Boeing referred ProPublica to the government and declined to comment. )

At the time, State Department experts were also cataloging the effect the war has had on American credibility throughout the region. Hala Rharrit, a career diplomat based in the Middle East, was required to send daily reports analyzing Arab media coverage to the agency’s senior leaders. Her emails frequently featured graphic images of Palestinians dead and wounded along with US bomb fragments in the rubble, and described the collateral damage from airstrikes in Gaza.

” Arab media continues to share countless images and videos documenting mass killings and hunger, while affirming that Israel is committing war crimes and genocide and needs to be held accountable”, she reported in one early January email alongside a photograph of a dead toddler. These videos and images of carnage, particularly those of children who are repeatedly injured and killed, are traumatizing and enrage the Arab world in unheard ways.

Rharitt, who later resigned in protest, told ProPublica those images alone should have prompted US government investigations and factored into arms requests from the Israelis. She said the State Department has “willfully violated the laws” by failing to act on the information she and others had documented. Rharitt continued,” They ca n’t say they did n’t know.”

Rharitt said her superiors eventually told her to stop sending the daily reports. ( A spokesperson for the State Department claimed that the organization continues to take perspectives from Arab media into account when conducting regular internal analyses. )

Lew’s January cable makes no mention of the death toll in Gaza or the incidents of the Israelis dropping GBU-39s on civilians. Eight current and former State Department officials with expertise in human rights, the Middle East or arms transfers said the embassy’s assessment was an inadequate but not a surprising distillation of the administration’s position. Charles Blaha, a former human rights director at the agency, described it as an exercise in checking the boxes.

The State Department declined to comment on the status of that request other than to say the US has provided large amounts of GBU-39s to Israel multiple times in past years.

While the US hoped that the smaller bombs would stop unnecessary deaths, experts in the laws of war contend that it does n’t matter if a civilian is killed more than the military targets ‘ justifications. Lieutenant Colonel Rachel E VanLandingham, a retired officer with the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, said the IDF is legally responsible for doing all it can to know the risk to civilians ahead of any given strike and to avoid indiscriminately bombing densely populated areas like refugee camps and shelters. ” It seems extremely plausible that they just disregarded the risk”, VanLandingham added. It “induces serious concerns and indicators of a violation of the law of war”

According to officials at the embassy in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Washington, Lew has been the subject of similar concerns before, but his first reaction was to defend Israel. In a separate cable obtained by ProPublica, he told Blinken and other leaders in Washington that” Israel is a trustworthy defense articles recipient” and his country team assessments ahead of past weapons sales have found that Israel’s “human rights record justifies the sale”.

Lew went even farther and said the IDF’s system for choosing targets is so” sophisticated and comprehensive” that, by defense attaché Schlereth’s estimation, it “meets and often exceeds our own standard”, according to the cable. Lew and Schlereth have made similar statements at internal meetings, according to two State Department officials who spoke to ProPublica. ( The Navy did not make Schlereth available for an interview or respond to a list of questions. )

In addition to numerous other incidents involving civilians, diplomats at the embassy also reported that Israel had dropped bombs on some of the embassy’s own employees at the start of the war.

As to why Lew’s cables failed to reflect that kind of information, one official said,” My most charitable explanation is that they may not have had the time or inclination to critically assess the Israelis ‘ answers”.

In Israel’s New York consulate, weapons procurement officers occupy two floors, processing hundreds of sales each year. One former Israeli officer who worked there claimed that while his American counterparts tried just as hard to sell them, he tried as hard to buy as many weapons as possible. ” It’s a business”, he said.

According to ProPublica, lobbyists for powerful corporations have intervened in the background to pressure and advance the deal if government officials took too long to process it.

Some of those lobbyists formerly held powerful positions as regulators in the State Department. In recent years, at least six high-ranking officials in the agency’s arms transfers bureau left their posts and joined lobbying firms and military contractors. In July, Jessica Lewis, the bureau’s assistant secretary, resigned and began working at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. The company is the largest lobbying firm in Washington, by lobbying revenue, and has represented the defense industry and countries including Saudi Arabia. ( Lewis and the company did not respond to requests for comment. )

Paul Kelly, who was the top congressional affairs official at the State Department between 2001 and 2005, during the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, said he regularly “got leaned on” by the private sector to push sales to lawmakers for final approval. ” They would n’t bribe or threaten me, but they would say … ‘ When are you going to sign off on it and get it up to the Hill?'” he told ProPublica.

Three other State Department officials who currently or recently worked on military assistance said little has changed since then and companies that profit from the wars in Gaza and Ukraine frequently call or email. ( The agency representative told ProPublica that arms transfers are” not influenced by a particular company. ) The pressure also reaches lawmakers ‘ offices once they are notified of impending sales. Those measures include frequent phone calls and regular daytime meetings, according to an official familiar with the communications.

The efforts may have veered into dubious legal territory in some instances. In 2017, the Trump administration signed a$ 350 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, an extension of Obama’s former policy before he suspended some sales because of humanitarian concerns. In the process of attacking Houthi militant targets in Yemen, the Saudis and their allies have used American-made jets and bombs for years, killing thousands of civilians.

The following February, the State Department was weighing whether to approve a sale of precision-guided missiles produced by Raytheon to Saudi Arabia. A vice president at the company named Tom Kelly — the former principal deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s arms transfers bureau — emailed a former subordinate, Josh Paul. Kelly requested to schedule a meeting with Paul and a coworker to “talk through strategy” for advancing the sale, according to an email exchange.

Paul wrote back that such a meeting could be illegal. According to him,” we are prohibited by the Anti-Lobbying Act from coordinating legislative strategies with outside groups,” he said. ” However, I think the potential bumps in the road are relatively obvious”. Those bumps were a reference to recent media articles about mass civilian casualty incidents in Yemen.

” No worries,” Kelly said. ” I’m sure I’ll see you around”.

In response to requests for comment, Kelly and Raytheon did not respond.

The State Department ultimately signed off on the sale.

Mariam Elba contributed research.

Continue Reading

Indonesian court sentences foreign national behind 80-man illegal gold mining operation to 5 years’ jail, US.2 million fine

SINGAPORE: A foreigner who led an 80-man illegal gold mining operation in Indonesia’s West Kalimantan has been sentenced to five years ‘ jail and a 50 billion rupiah ( US$ 3.2 million ) fine for mining without a permit.

The Indonesian government only lists the Chinese national as YH when they detained him in May, and if he does n’t pay the fine, the ministry of energy and mineral resources says he will spend an additional six months in jail.

Those found guilty of mine without a force are subject to a 100 billion rupee fine and up to five years in Indonesian prison.

In comparison to the number of reports on illegal mining incidents, the dangers of small-scale miners using mercury to collect silver, and some arrests made by the police, news of illegal metal miners being found guilty and sentenced in Indonesia is fairly uncommon.

In the improper operation in the Ketapang district, YH allegedly had 80 Chinese citizens working for him. Some of them worked in Indonesia without a card.

Additionally, he sought assistance from nearby inhabitants who offered laundry and food services.

According to Mr. Sunindyo Suryo Herdadi, director of engineering and culture for nutrients and fuel at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, investigators discovered evidence of gold ore mine at the page, which has a Mining Business Permit and is now undergoing maintenance functions.

The force, however, belongs to two golden companies that do not have limit certifications for output from 2024 to 2026. The two regional businesses, according to preliminary investigations, do not have any connections to YH.

The state suffered an estimated loss of 1.02 trillion rupiah ( US$ 65.6 million ) as a result of the illegal operation, with the miners stealing 774.27 kg of gold and 937.7 kg of silver, news site Kompas.com reported.

The amount of silver ore excavated was about 2, 687 m³, substantially more than the dimensions of an Olympic-sized swimming.

” The illegal underground mining ( performed by YH) involved using blasting techniques to process and extract the gold. After refining the golden beneath, the metal was then smuggled out of the caves and sold”, Mr Sunindyo said.

Material testing revealed that the silver material was of high caliber. The gold was separated from other minerals using metal, a dangerous substance for health that is used by some small-scale gold miners.

Continue Reading

EU to vote on import taxes on Chinese electric cars

Later, a crucial European Union ( EU) vote is scheduled to be held to decide whether to impose high taxes on China’s imports of electric vehicles.

The introduction of tariffs is intended to stop what EU officials believe are cruel Chinese-state subsidies for its own cars, and to guard the European car industry from being hampered by it.

If EU members support the proposals, charging rates of up to 45 % could be applied to electric vehicles made in China for the next five years. However, there have been concerns that this would raise electric vehicle ( EV ) prices for buyers.

The selection also runs the risk of stoking a trade war between Beijing, which has criticized the levies as being unfair.

China has relied on high-tech goods to revive its sluggish economy, and the EU is the biggest international marketplace for the nation’s electrical car industry.

Over the past 20 years, China’s domestic vehicle industry has grown rapidly, and its car brands have begun entering foreign markets, posing as a threat to their own businesses as a result of the EU’s concern that they will be able to compete with the lower prices.

In the summer, the EU imposed trade tariffs of various degrees on various Chinese manufacturers, but Friday’s vote will determine whether they are implemented.

The costs were determined based on estimates of the amount of Chinese state aid each company has received as a result of an EU research. The German Commission established specific tasks for the three main Chinese electric vehicle companies: SAIC, BYD, and Geely.

Statistics show that in August this year, EU registrations of battery-electric cars fell by 43.9 % from a month earlier.

Demand for new electric automobiles in the UK reached a new report, but sales, according to the business system, were primarily driven by business deals and significant manufacturer discounts.

Union people remain divided on taxes. Germany, whose car-manufacturing market is heavily reliant on exports to China, is doubtful to vote in favour of them.

European carmakers have been outspoken in opposition. Ford has said they are” the wrong method”.

But, France, Greece, Italy and Poland are likely to vote in favour of the transfer fees. The EU’s plan can only be withdrawn if a qualified majority of the 15 members cast a ballot against it.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, SAIC, which owns the MG company, announced on Friday that it would not modify the price tags of its electric cars this time.

Continue Reading

Big Tech manipulating research into its harm to society – Asia Times

Scientists have been gathering information for almost ten years that the social media platform Facebook heavily amplifies low-quality information and false information.

So it came as a surprise when a study from the journal Science in 2023 discovered that Facebook’s systems were n’t major contributors to propaganda during the 2020 US election.

This study was funded by Facebook’s family firm, Meta. The author team included a number of Meta employees. It attracted extensive media coverage. It was also celebrated by Meta’s leader of international affairs, Nick Clegg, who said it showed the company’s systems have” no discernible effect on polarisation, social attitudes or beliefs”.

However, a team of researchers led by Chhandak Bagch from the University of Massachusetts Amherst has just questioned the results. They assert in an eLetter that was also published in Science that the study’s findings were likely the result of Facebook’s engine being honed while it was being conducted.

The initial study’s authors acknowledge in a response to an eLetter that their findings “might had been unique” if Facebook had used a various algorithm. However, they continue to support their findings.

The entire scandal highlights the issues that Big Tech financing and facilitating exploration into their own products cause. Additionally, it emphasizes the critical need for more independent social media platform supervision.

Stores of uncertainty

Major technology has begun to invest a lot in scientific research into its goods. Additionally, it has made significant investments in institutions more broadly. For instance, Meta and its commander, Mark Zuckerberg, &nbsp, have collectively donated tens of millions&nbsp, of money to more than 100 colleges and universities across the United States.

This is comparable to what Big Tobacco once accomplished.

In the middle of the 1950s, smoke manufacturers organized a countermeasure to discredit the growing body of research that suggested smoking had a number of serious health issues, including cancers. It was more about carefully funding studies and bringing about conclusive findings than directly falsifying or manipulating study.

There is no conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer, so this helped to reinforce the idea. This in turn helped tobacco companies stay in the forefront of a public image of duty and “goodwill” well into the 1990s.

Vintage magazines with tobacco advertising from the sixties.
Big Tobacco ran a plan to spread fear about smoking’s health outcomes. Photo: Ralf Liebhold / Shutterstock via The Talk

A good flip

According to the Meta-funded study that was published in Science in 2023, Facebook’s news feed algorithm reduced consumer exposure to unreliable media content.

The Facebook Open Research and Transparency group “provided large help in the execution the entire job,” according to the authors, who acknowledged that Meta did not have the right to prepublication approval.

Twitter users were randomly chosen to be a control group or therapy group as part of the study’s empirical design.

The treatment party received a news feed with material presented in reverse chronological order, while the control group continued to use Facebook’s analytic information supply. The research sought to compare the effects of these two news feeds on how frequently users encounter probably false and deceptive information from untrustworthy news sources.

The study was strong and well-designed. However, Meta changed its news feed algorithm to produce more trustworthy information information during the brief period of its conduct. In doing so, it changed the handle state of the test.

The decline in misinformation reported in the initial study was probably the result of the analytic changes. But these alterations were short-term: a few months later in March 2021, Meta reverted the news feed algorithm back to the original.

Meta said in a speech to Science about the controversy that it made the modifications apparent to the experts at the time and that it adheres to Clegg’s assertions regarding the findings in the paper.

Exceptional power

The study served as a model for reducing the impact of analytic content curation on issues like misinformation and political polarization by downplaying the impact of social media algorithms on issues like misinformation and social polarization.

To be clear, I do n’t want the people who conducted the original 2023 study to be misled. The real issue is that social media companies have access to experts ‘ information and are able to control their techniques in a way that affects the results of the reports they fund.

Additionally, social media companies have the authority to promote specific reports on the same platform that the studies are focused on. In turn, this helps shape public opinion. It may lead to a situation where people start to doubt and be skeptical about the effects of systems, or to become sceptical.

This kind of energy is exceptional. Even large cigarette was unable to influence the public’s perception of itself in such a direct way.

All of this underscores the need for websites to be required to offer both real-time updates about changes to their computational systems and large-scale data entry.

When platforms handle entry to the “product”, they also control the technology around its effects. In the end, these self-research cash schemes help platforms distract attention from the need for more accountability and accountability for their decisions.

Timothy Graham is a Queensland University of Technology associate professor of electronic media.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

South Korea’s Yoon shops for a bigger role in SE Asia – Asia Times

In addition to strengthening diplomatic ties with the Philippines and Singapore, President Yoon Suk Yeol’s planned vacation to Southeast Asia for the week of February has a goal to strengthen South Korea’s position there.

Yoon’s attend to the Philippines is especially important, marking the first state visit by a South Korean president in 13 times. The visit aims to deepen their previously solid partnership in conjunction with the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The main goal is to strengthen financial relations. Yoon’s meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr is expected to yield several agreements, including memoranda of understanding ( MOUs ) aimed at fostering cooperation in energy, supply chains, maritime affairs and various industries.

This coincides with South Korea’s wider desire to secure its financial future by forming alliances in sectors crucial to addressing global supply chain problems. South Korea can benefit from diversifying its strength and raw material sources thanks to the Philippines ‘ swiftly expanding economy and abundance of natural resources.

Also, the visit emphasizes the significance of private-sector engagement. Yoon will participate in the Korea-Business Philippines Forum, which is anticipated to get around 40 Asian companies. This business-focused view demonstrates South Korea’s devotion to expanding its economic relations with the Philippines beyond traditional political programmes.

The website is expected to create opportunities for Asian enterprises to discover new ventures in the Philippines, particularly in technology, system, and natural power.

Deepening diplomatic ties with Singapore

Singapore, the most advanced sector in Southeast Asia, is a vital prevent on Yoon’s political trip. This attend coincides with Singapore’s upcoming 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations, which highlights the significance of their long-standing relationship.

President Yoon’s discussions with President Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong may center on improving and expanding diplomatic assistance in response to changing global dynamics as Singapore continues to be a key player in world trade and technical development.

Technology is expected to be a significant area of collaboration. South Korea, a global leader in advanced manufacturing and digital innovation, stands to gain a lot from strengthening ties with Singapore, which is renowned for its progress in developing smart cities and digital economies.

During Yoon’s visit, treaties and memoranda of understanding will be signed to formalize this cooperation, paving the way for both countries to explore new opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and the digital economy.

Additionally, Yoon’s participation in the Singapore Lecture series will offer a vital platform for outlining his vision for regional security and unification.

For the first time, he will make a presentation about the” August 15 Unification Doctrine” of his administration, which envisions a unified Korean Peninsula contributing to regional harmony and stability.

In light of the rising geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, Yoon’s address is anticipated to address the strategic implications of unification. Yoon hopes to position South Korea as a leader in fostering peace and prosperity in the region by encouraging more international cooperation and solidarity.

Elevating Korea-ASEAN relations

Yoon’s participation at the Korea-ASEAN Summit in Laos will be his most significant and significant diplomatic tour. South Korea and ASEAN are anticipated to formally establish their relationship in this regard as a long-term strategic partnership.

Building on more than three decades of cooperation, South Korea’s relationship with ASEAN is significantly improved by this milestone. The elevation of this relationship reflects ASEAN’s growing importance as a strategic partner for South Korea, particularly in the realms of economic cooperation, regional security, and cultural exchange.

The market for South Korean goods and services is rapidly expanding thanks to ASEAN, which consists of ten member states and has a combined population of over 650 million. Its strategic location within the Indo-Pacific strengthens its position as a crucial partner for South Korea in efforts to uphold regional stability and security.

The comprehensive strategic partnership focuses on deepening cooperation in green growth, digital transformation, and sustainable development, aiming to promote mutually beneficial growth in both regions.

South Korea’s participation in the ASEAN Plus Three Summit, which features leaders from China and Japan, underscores the value of trilateral cooperation in addressing regional issues.

Yoon’s expected summit with Japan’s likely next prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, could signal a new phase in South Korea-Japan relations. Both nations share concerns about regional security, which could encourage greater collaboration despite the country’s historically contentious relationship and grievances that have not been resolved.

South Korea hopes to play a more proactive role in shaping the Indo-Pacific’s security landscape by engaging with Japan and China.

South Korea’s commitment to boosting its involvement in the region is reflected in the formalization of a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN while strengthening bilateral ties with nations like Singapore and the Philippines. However, to fully leverage this enhanced partnership, South Korea must broaden its focus beyond economic trade and agreements.

South Korea needs to play a more active role in regional security issues, particularly those involving the South China Sea, where several ASEAN members are currently at odds with China over their territorial disputes. South Korea could act as a mediator by utilizing its diplomatic contacts with both ASEAN and China to promote dialogue and conflict resolution.

South Korea should also invest in ASEAN nations ‘ educational and cultural exchanges, as these initiatives can help establish long-term relationships that go beyond government agreements. By nurturing people-to-people ties, South Korea can ensure that its partnerships with ASEAN are resilient and sustainable.

Former Indonesian Foreign Ministry diplomat Simon Hutagalung The views expressed in this article are his own.

Continue Reading

South Korea seeks to bolster defences and boost arms export

South Korea’s defence ministry is expected to spend about 350 trillion won ( US$ 260 billion ) between this year and 2028 to improve capabilities and maintain troops, equipment and facilities.

It has signed deals to get weapons, including military satellites, F-35A cunning fighter planes from the United States, and death robots from Poland.

Trekking UP ARMS EXPORT RANKS

South Korea is now the nation’s 10th largest producer of wings, and Seoul is aiming to become the fourth-largest by 2027.

South Korea’s defense market has been gradually expanding, according to industry participants who took part in the exhibition, with international companies taking it seriously as a rival.

The Asian government has always stated that it is self-sufficient and self-supporting when it comes to defense supplies, according to Mr. Lonn, managing director of Saab’s North Korean business.

” Based on domestic needs, Korea has experienced very rapid growth. Over the years, ( it has ) improved on quality, delivery capability, price levels and so on”.

Some CNA spoke with experts who agreed that the country will be able to achieve its goal of becoming a major supplier of weapons because the government places a premium on the sector.

” In Korea, there has been a major investment in human resources, but developing these people sources is not something that happens overnight, and has been a steady accumulation over day”, said Jee Hyo-keun, a professor at Konyang University’s division of military science and art.

The difference is between whether the accumulated systems are aimed at the defense or the civilian sectors. The Korean government has now made it abundantly clear that it wants to concentrate heavily on the defense industry.

To get there, South Korea is hoping to win deals with more places. It is looking to expand its list of countries that export defense systems right now.

One possible sector may be Vietnam. Up until 2022, when Moscow invaded Ukraine and Vietnam attempted to expand its options of supplies, the Southeast Asian nation used to get most of its products from Russia.

Prior to this agreement, Hanoi and Seoul had agreed to work together on a number of issues, including the high-tech and defense sectors.

The defense exhibition will continue through Sunday ( October 5 ).

Continue Reading