Experts call for the reimagination of education  for youth and lifelong learners

At the third International Conference on Equitable Education, UNESCO, the Equitable Education Fund ( Thailand ), and partners work together to create more affordable and sustainable educational systems.

Bangkok, October 21, 2018- The third International Conference on Equitable Education, held by UNESCO, the Equitable Education Fund ( EEF), Thailand, and colleagues from 18 to 19 October in Nonthaburi, Thailand, was at the forefront of an immediate call for a creative reimagining of educational methods for all and the development of longtime learning.
Bangkok, October 21, 2018- The third International Conference on Equitable Education, held by UNESCO, the Equitable Education Fund ( EEF), Thailand, and colleagues from 18 to 19 October in Nonthaburi, Thailand, was at the forefront of an immediate call for a creative reimagining of educational methods for all and the development of longtime learning.

Bangkok, October 21, 2018- The third International Conference on Equitable Education, held by UNESCO, the Equitable Education Fund ( EEF), Thailand, and colleagues from 18 to 19 October in Nonthaburi, Thailand, was at the forefront of an immediate call for a creative reimagining of educational methods for all and the development of longtime learning.

Held under the style” Reimagining Education, Co-Creating Lifelong Learning for Youth and Adults”, the meeting drew about 260 on-site attendees – among them training experts, policymakers and children leaders – with over 3, 000 nevertheless joining online, to focus on versatile learning opportunities, skills development for all, and international collaboration.

A whole-of-society approach is essential to creating more equitable teaching methods and making longtime learning available to everyone, according to Marina Patrier, Deputy Director of the UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok. ” In a world where technology and business evolve so fast, lifelong learning is essential”, she stressed, while citing the vital importance of teacher’s tones to modern policy growth.

Thailand’s Deputy Minister of Education, Surasak Phancharoenworakul, underscored the importance of regional collaboration to ensure that all children have access to quality education and lifelong learning opportunities. ” It requires our joint efforts to reach our shared goals”, he stated, while underscoring Thailand’s commitment to the region’s educational equity agenda.

The conference also gave the inclusion of youth as a crucial issue a top priority. The Rohingya Mayafunor Collaborative Network’s co-founder of Youth Empowerment and Digital Literacy, Nurhayati Sultan, described how refugees are denied access to education and called for their education. Nada Binroheem, president of the Children and Youth Council of Thailand, spoke about the unique challenges faced by youth from migrant and poor Muslim communities in Pattani Province, Thailand, suggesting that they be welcomed to work with education policymakers.

Embracing the perspective of youth informed the remarks of Severine Leonardi, Deputy Representative of UNICEF Thailand, who outlined five key policy priorities: student-centered learning, inclusive digital learning, investment in early years, skills-based education, and strengthened teacher training.

Other key themes included the need for innovative and adaptable learning, the potential of technology as a tool for creating a more inclusive learning environment, and the need to collaborate with local communities to advance local solutions and sustainable development.

The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization ( SEAMEO ) Secretariat’s Deputy Director for Programme and Development, John Arnold Siena, argued that “using technology can significantly improve access to education for marginalized children” should be the main focus of investments in education. He remarked that “empowering communities with targeted support is essential to ensure that solutions are inclusive and effective for all.”

Cahyo Prihadi, Director of Monitoring and Evaluation at the Programme Management Office of Kartu Prakerja, Republic of Indonesia, observed that technology plays a vital role in enhancing program outcomes, saying,” Reducing inequality in lifelong learning requires a comprehensive, customer-centric approach that addresses access, relevance, and inclusivity”.

Dr Kraiyos Patrawart, Managing Director of EEF, called the event” a significant milestone in promoting equitable education”. The Equitable Education Alliance could serve as a forum for a collective practice for equitable education, despite the” All for Education” movement’s emphasis on engagement for impact. ” We will continue to work toward equitable education.”

The series ‘ third conference came after it was launched in 2021, making it the third one. A full version of the conference’s outcome document will be available on the conference website at https ://afe2024.eef.or.th/ at a later date.

Continue Reading

Intel forsaking its past and losing its future – Asia Times

Intel, again among the country’s leading tech firms, is struggling. The US intel, which was founded as a start-up in 1968, has since grown to success thanks to wise business and technological choices combined with proper product investments.

The business immediately established itself as a leader in the market through the creation of intelligent equipment and proper, cutting-edge products under the leadership of a beautiful founding team.

But those brilliance time are largely over. In a time filled with fresh opportunities, Intel is quickly losing ground to international rivals as it struggles to remain one of the world’s top chipmakers.

Some economical factors have hampered Intel’s position, but perhaps the most significant has been the bank’s change in strategy.

Intel’s owners were beautiful strategists focused on maintaining global tech leadership through fast, forward-looking investments. This goal, met time and time again, achieved remarkable monetary returns.

Then came along exceedingly clever foreign competitors that targeted Intel’s primary products, decreasing their success. Older manager’s response has been to expand the company’s product profile through acquisitions aimed at increasing profitability, frequently at the price of domestic efforts to improve production performance and new product development.

The outcomes of this proper change are then obvious. Intel’s production performance has clearly slipped vis-à-vis rivals like Taiwan’s TSMC and South Koreas Samsung, while several, if any, of the acquisitions have built new business speed or organization profitability.

In the meantime, Intel has largely missed the boat with regard to the phenomenal growth of AI, leaving ambitious rivals like Nvidia and perhaps AMD with the majority of the newly emerging novel chip markets.

Intel also has a chance to recover given its abundant resources and innovative federal support provided by the CHIPS Act. However, the business has previously already paid a high price by overlooking and possibly forsaking the roots of its first success in search of simple consolidation victories when faced with fierce new competition.

To be sure, Intel is not alone. There are several curriculum examples of US technology companies that once had a winning reputation but lost their way as a result of poor proper decisions.

Consider, for example, the RCA Corporation. Founded in 1919, the business grew into one of the nation’s leading tech firms, enabled and driven by RCA Laboratories ‘ amazing history of research-driven development.

At its innovative peak, RCA’s patent portfolio reached across consumer electronics (televisions ), military systems ( radar and space satellite communications ), semiconductors ( invention of CMOS ) and lasers – to name but a few.

CEO David Sarnoff epitomized RCA’s unique spirit and enthusiasm for releasing innovative systems products to the general public. His plan succeeded in building a multibillion-dollar income business, while often with unequal success.

Through acquisitions of businesses that were less prone to the fluctuations and fluctuations of technology, his successors as CEO sought to increase the company’s profitability. The business expanded into other businesses, including those involving food, car rentals, finance, and various industries, at the expense of its main technology lines during that geopolitical change. &nbsp, &nbsp,

These extensive expansions did not go as well as anticipated, leading to the merger of RCA and General Electric, which ultimately became a mediocre-performing company.

The importance of senior administration perception is the subject of this lesson. Organizations that were founded on technology and innovation must concentrate on the factors that contributed to their original success.

In my experience with private capital, tech companies ‘ ability to understand markets, manage resources, and find and retain the most talented employees who are knowledgeable about the vision of their company depends on these factors.

Contest is a biological phenomenon, especially in the technology sector. Effective tech firms are aware of this and are equipped with the tools necessary to compete and triumph. Intel’s top managers may be wise to take notice.

Henry Kressel is a technician, engineer writer and business head. He has invested in tech companies for a long time in private ownership.

Continue Reading

CNA Explains: What you need to know about the Income-Allianz deal being blocked by Singapore

When it was founded in 1970 as NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited, Income was a co-operative.

When a co-op is liquidated, members of it are entitled to receive their cash and dividends up to a cap under Area 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

Any surplus funds will be transferred to the Cooperative Societies Liquidation Account ( CSLA ), which would benefit the co-op sector in this country, after reaching this cap.

Instead of joining the CSLA, Income sought and received an provision from the Act that allowed it to take over about S$ 2 billion in surplus to the new business entity in 2022.

But, the proposed Income-Allianz offer sought to minimize the money held by Income, returning some S$ 1.85 billion to owners within three years.

According to Mr. Tong, this proposed money reduction so soon after the transaction “runs store” to the idea for the exemption being granted.

” It is also not clear what Revenue might do after the money recovery, for example, to change or reduce its healthcare profile, and what impact this could have on policy holders”, he said.

Why lower capital?

When corporatising in 2022, Income argued that it&nbsp, was &nbsp, subject to similar regulatory requirements, market competition and issues like other commercial carriers, despite being able to touch only on investment from its members.

Corporatization may give it access to additional funding to expand its business, including introducing new electronic products and expanding beyond Singapore.

Removal of investment does not automatically make the company weaker, Associate Professor Koh SzeKee, chairman of the company, contact and style cluster in Singapore Institute of Technology, told CNA.

” On the contrary, it does improve it by ensuring money is more quickly deployed, thus enhancing earnings to shareholders”, he said.

For example, if a business has built up extra cash resources, but it is not invested due to a lack of immediate prospects, holding the amounts could lead to a lower return on equity and discontent among shareholders, he explained.

” Returning this extra cash to shareholders allows them to put their money where they can, in order to earn higher returns,” said Assoc Prof Koh.

What differences exist between social and prudential considerations?

If the deal had been approved, Mr. Tong had also noted that” there are no clear binding provisions or structural protections in the deal to ensure that Income’s social mission will be discharged.”

While prudential considerations emphasize financial health, risk management, and operational sustainability, social missions examine specific social, environmental, or ethical goals and effects, with less emphasis on profit maximization or financial returns, according to Assoc Prof. Koh.

Although there may be tensions, he said,” the relationships between prudential considerations and social mission can be complementary.”

Being financially stable over the long term, such as being able to attract funding or use resources wisely, is equally important for socially engaged organizations.

Assoc Prof Koh said that “potential tensions arise when certain financial goals or risk management strategies could lead to decisions that reduce or undermine the social impact of a mission, such as raising prices or cutting costs to improve financial sustainability and making essential services less accessible.

What will now befalling Income and its policyholders?

Existing Income policyholders should not be worried, according to Mr. Chee, because MAS will continue to regulate the insurer as a licensee.

According to him,” Income has sufficient resources to meet the required capital adequacy ratio, which means it has sufficient capital to meet its liabilities and pay out to policyholders.”

Following Mr Tong’s announcement, Income said it respects the government’s decision and appreciates its understanding of both the purpose of its 2022 corporatisation exercise and its plans to partner with Allianz.

The voluntary cash general offer from Allianz is pre-conditional and subject to regulatory approval, according to Income Insurance.

In light of the most recent developments, Income Insurance will examine and consider the upcoming Insurance Act amendments and work closely with relevant stakeholders to study and decide the next course of action.

Mr. Tong had stated that the government would be willing to make new arrangements if the issues raised were fully addressed.

Continue Reading

Smart money’s looking beyond China stimulus debate – Asia Times

Businesses are resonating as a result of tension between President Xi Jinping’s long-term policy objectives and investor demand for short-term signal as Chinese securities recover.

The fight between the long and short viewpoints is not novel. For years, the” Washington Consensus” group has advised Beijing to adjust its unstable economy, which free market activists see as very reliant on giant, opaque state-owned companies and the vast incentives that sustain them.

However, restless investors who appear increasingly unwilling to give Beijing the room it needs to re-enter and overhaul its US$ 17 trillion market have frequently clashed with Xi’s work to do just that.

Until then, apparently. The conflict between Team Xi and anxious industry was clearly visible over the weekend.

Unplanned press conference by Xi’s Ministry of Finance ( MOF ) on Saturday ( 12 October ) sparked a frenzy with markets anticipating a potential significant new stimulus boost to help China reach its 20 % economic growth target for 2024 and new measures to combat the country’s increasingly ingrained deflation.

Futures markets sagged when MOF focused on larger transformation designs and declined to provide a certain amount label on the hung signal. But by Monday, companies rose.

Investors came to the conclusion that the MOF’s most recent statements reflect the pragmatism markets have long-craved from Xi’s inner circle, even if Beijing is n’t using its massive stimulus “bazooka.”

The trip news, according to economist Harry Murphy Cruise at Moody’s Analytics, “tied most of the appropriate boxes, but it lacked information on the size and range of new spending,” noting that” we anticipate more supports to be announced through the remainder of the year.”

Economist Zhiwei Zhang, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, says,” these policies are in the right direction”.

There is still a strong argument that Chinese stock valuations are now fairly valued despite the recent rally, which was buoyant from the US$ 6.5 trillion rout dating back to 2021. In addition, Chinese shares are currently trading at significantly lower multiples than those in the US, where new market highs are being made daily.

The MOF press conference was still a surprise to us, according to economist Jing Liu from HSBC Holdings, despite the lack of significant fiscal stimulus. ” The policy pivot looks very much here to stay, with the rising risk appetite having a significant impact on both the stock and property markets.”

Odds are, though, that this is a trust-but-verify moment for markets. Bullish investors are partially reacting to Beijing’s hints of further support for the troubled housing market and highly indebted local governments with new, targeted fiscal-spending jolts.

More and more stimulus is becoming more popular. In September, Chinese exports and imports came in weaker than expected, raising new doubts about the economy’s main bright spot. Overseas shipments, for example, rose just 2.4 % year on year, a sharp fall from August’s 8.7 % increase.

According to Capital Economics ‘ economist Zichun Huang, “further ahead… growing trade barriers are likely to become an increasing constraint” on export and economic growth.

Although the move from Washington to Seoul may cause more demand to be made in some of China’s key trading partners, according to economists, political restrictions on products like electric cars and other green technologies are causing new headwinds.

However, punters are beginning to realize that Xi’s inner circle is almost blatantly focused on bringing China into the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution by accelerating the transition from the high-end to highly-value technology-driven industries.

Team Xi is more interested in the long-term benefits of tech-driven economic reinvention and future dominance of the industries. Although annual growth targets matter in the short run.

Investors are digging deeper into Chinese stock valuations in comparison to other top global markets and recognizing new value as a result of these caveats.

In the most recent Global Risk-Reward Monitor newsletter, Asia Times business editor David Goldman argues that with a price-earnings ( P/E ) ratio of 11, China’s stock market “is a bit too low”.

But at the same time, he notes,” there is no reason to expect Chinese valuations to approach the S&amp, P ( 500’s ) valuation of 22 times ( forward ) earnings”.

One reason, he argues, is that China’s government has gone out of its way to prevent and reverse the formation of market-skewing tech monopolies like Google, Microsoft or Amazon.

” No surprise, then, that Alibaba trades at a P/E of 27 after the run-up of the past month, versus Amazon’s 43″, Goldman writes. We have long argued that given subdued but consistent economic growth, China’s equity market valuation was too low. The Chinese market’s valuation seems more reasonable than that of the United States after the rally last month.

That’s not to say Beijing is n’t cognizant of the moment’s sensitivity. In a note to clients, economists at Morgan Stanley say this moment represents” Beijing’s second chance to convince the market” after a rough several days.

However, Xi may have found the balance between acting as a facilitator and a facilitator while also showing restraint.

According to Hui Shan, an economist at Goldman Sachs,” the most recent round of China stimulus clearly indicates that policymakers have turned to cyclical policy management and increased their focus on the economy.”

China will increase by 4.9 % this year, according to the US investment bank, up from an earlier forecast of 4.7 %. For 2025, Goldman Sachs sees growth of 4.7 %, up from an earlier 4.3 % forecast.

One source of Goldman Sachs ‘ optimism: MOF officials plan to deploy 2.3 trillion yuan ($ 325 billion ) of special local government bond funds in the fourth quarter of this year.

This, Hui says, suggests a more “back-loaded” public spending plan, paving the way for a bigger rebound than his bank had previously expected.

Last week, China ‘s&nbsp, National Development and Reform Commission announced pre-approval of&nbsp, 200 billion yuan&nbsp, ($ 28.2 billion ) worth of 2025 investment projects. It is seen by Huawei’s team as a clear government effort to help China meet its 5 % GDP goal this year.

Carlos&nbsp, Casanova, economist at Union Bancaire Privée, notes that investors are taking solace in Finance Minister Lan Fo’an highlighting that officials have a “fairly large” capacity to increase spending if needed.

That includes “implementing some of the most ambitious measures in years aimed at revitalizing the struggling property market, recapitalizing large banks,” according to Casanova, “everyone of which is crucial for addressing China’s ongoing structural challenges.”

However, Casanova adds,” the timeline for fiscal measures remains uncertain. The upcoming National People’s Congress Standing Committee meeting, scheduled for late October or early November, may require significant announcements to wait until.

The MOF “has given as strong a signal as possible while waiting for the NPC approval,” according to economist Shirley Ze Yu of the London School of Economics.

Larry Hu, Macquarie Capital’s chief China economist, doubts that Xi’s policymakers will be too specific about dollar amounts.

” First, they do n’t need to come up with such a number for the NPC to approve”, Hu says. ” Second, it’s hard to come up with such a number, as the line between fiscal, monetary and industrial policies is often blurred in China”.

Hu adds that, given the global financial crisis, it would go against Xi’s deleveraging goals of supplying the economy with stimulus the way Beijing did in 2008 and 2009.

Investors will be keenly focused on Beijing’s implementation of structural reforms, according to Hui of Goldman Sachs. &nbsp,

” The’ 3D ‘ challenges – deteriorating demographics, a multi-year debt deleveraging trend and the global supply chain de-risking push — are unlikely to be reversed by the latest round of policy easing”, Hui argues.

However, Oxford University’s China Center economist George Magnus is concerned that Beijing may continue to implement outdated policies.

” A solution would involve the sustainable expansion of the income and consumer demand shares of the economy, an end to deflation risk, more income redistribution, the promotion of private enterprise, and extensive tax and local government reforms”, Magnus writes in an op-ed for The Guardian.

Magnus adds that” Xi’s more Leninist agenda emphasizes supply and production, and what he calls’ high-quality development,’ which is essentially about state- and party-led industrial policies to allocate capital to lead and dominate modern science, technology and innovation in the global system”.

” China already has and wants to expand advanced industrial expertise and leadership in some key firms and sectors,” according to Magnus. These technologically dominant islands are found in a sea of macroeconomic imbalances and issues that can only be actually addressed by more liberal and open economic reforms.

Bottom line: According to Magnus,” the current focus on economic policy is important not for some decimal points on GDP but as a signal whether the government can, or wants to grasp the nettle.”

Magnus is not the only one who is concerned that policy tinkering wo n’t be sufficient. China will become a more dynamic and competitive economy over the long term if only the government sector is reforming, the capital markets are deepened, and households are encouraged to save less and spend more.

On the other hand, half measures will likely leave China vulnerable to boom/bust cycles brought on by the imbalanced allocation of resources, weak debt, and misalignments between household income and spending.

Investors will want to bereassured that big-picture reforms are on the horizon with the upcoming NPC. For now, though, an increasing number of investors are already getting the memo on China’s grand plan.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Global leaders gather in Thailand to reimagine equitable education

This October, Thailand did play host to a key global function as politicians, education experts, and stakeholders from around the globe come together for the 3rd International Conference on Equitable Education. Under the theme ‘ Reimagining Education, Co-Creating Lifelong Learning for Youth and Adults’, the conference, also known as the All for Education ( AFE ) Conference, will take place on 18-19 October 2024 at the IMPACT Forum, Muang Thong Thani.

The conference, which is co-hosted by the Equitable Education Fund ( EEF ) Thailand and its partners, aims to address one of the most urgent global issues: how to ensure equitable access to quality education for all, especially for underprivileged children and marginalized youth. The occasion promises to provide practical insights and useful recommendations on fostering lifelong learning and empowering younger people at a time when versatile studying pathways and decentralised education models are becoming more important than ever.

In order to improve monitoring and assessment systems, the plan will focus on important topics like skills development, supporting mechanisms for marginalized groups, and decentralized education. A particular emphasis will be placed on addressing the challenges faced by NEETs ( Not in Education, Employment, or Training ), ensuring they are equipped with the skills and opportunities to thrive.

Representatives will have the opportunity to trade knowledge, share best practices, and observe innovations that promote equity-based schooling. Individuals from government agencies, NGOs, academia, civil society, and the private sector are invited to join the discussions and contribute to shaping a more equitable global training program.

Certificates may be awarded to those who finish the two-day function, which will have lessons in English, Thai, and sign vocabulary.

Explore the event site at afe2024 for more information and registration details. electron. or. t.

Thailand’s devotion to a fair education continues to serve as a forum for thought-provoking discussions in the world of learning. Do n’t miss your chance to be part of this critical dialogue.

Continue Reading

How Xi’s crackdown turned China’s finance high-flyers into ‘rats’

Getty Images Businessman against Chinese flag in double exposure.Getty Images

” Then I think about it, I certainly chose the wrong market”.

Xiao Chen*, who works in a private equity firm in China’s economic hub, Shanghai, says he is having a hard time.

For his first year in the job, he says he was paid almost 750, 000 yuan ($ 106, 200, £81, 200 ). He was certain he would quickly reach the million-yuan level.

He is now making half of what he did when he was younger. His earn was frozen next year, and an annual extra, which had been a major part of his earnings, vanished.

The “glow” of the business has worn off, he says. It had previously made him “feel fancy”. Today, he is just a “finance rat”, as he and his contemporaries are derisively called online.

China’s once-thriving sector, which encouraged ambition, is now slow. The government’s leader, Xi Jinping, has become afraid of personal success and the difficulties of widening injustice.

Reprisals on billionaires and firms, from real estate to technology to funding, have been accompanied by socialist-style communications on enduring pain and trying for China’s success. Even famous people have been instructed to post more photos electronically.

People are told that loyalty to the Communist Party and their country then outweighs personal ambition, which has altered Chinese community in the last few decades.

Mr. Chen’s luxurious lifestyle has undoubtedly experienced the pinch from this U-turn. He exchanged a cheaper vacation in South East Asia for a vacation in Europe. And he says he “would n’t even think about” buying again from luxury brands like” Burberry or Louis Vuitton”.

But at least ordinary workers like him are less likely to find themselves in trouble with the law. Dozens of finance officials and banking bosses have been detained, including the former chairman of the Bank of China.

The market is under strain. Give reductions in banks and investment companies are a hot topic on Chinese social media, despite the few companies that have formally acknowledged it.

Millions of views have been posted on content about falling incomes recently. Additionally, hashtags like” changing careers from fund” and “quitting financing” have received more than two million views on the well-known social media platform Xiaohongshu.

Some finance professionals have seen their money decline since the start of the epidemic, but some people view one popular social media post as a turning point.

In July 2022, a Xiaohongshu person sparked anger after boasting about her 29-year-old father’s 82, 500-yuan monthly spend at leading financial services business, China International Capital Corporation.

People were shocked by the significant wage gap between what a fund contractor was receiving and their own money. The average monthly salary in the country’s richest area, Shanghai, was just over 12, 000 renminbi.

It sparked a discussion about incomes in the field that had been started by another net users who made money earlier that year.

These posts were made shortly after Xi demanded” common wealth,” a plan to close the growing wealth gap.

China’s financing ministry issued new regulations in August 2022 that required businesses to “optimise the domestic income distribution and medically design the wage system.”

The following season, the country’s major problem watchdog criticised the ideas of “finance elites” and the “only cash matters” process, making funding a clearer target for the country’s continued anti-corruption campaign.

Getty Images Shanghai skyline.Getty Images

The changes came in a sweeping but discreet way, according to Alex*, a manager at a state-controlled bank in China’s capital, Beijing.

Even if there is an official document, you would not see the order put into writing; it’s certainly not for people on our level to see it. But everyone knows there is a cap on it ]salaries ] now. Simply put, we are unsure of the cap’s size.

According to Alex, employers are also having a hard time adjusting to the rapid pace of the crackdown:” Many banks ‘ orders could change unexpectedly quickly.”

By June or July, they would realize that the payment of salaries has exceeded the requirement, according to them. They would issue the annual guidance in February. Then they would develop methods to establish performance goals that would take people’s pay.”

Mr. Chen claims that his workload has decreased significantly as fewer companies have started trading shares on the stock market. Domestic businesses have also become cautious in China as a result of the crackdowns and weak consumption, and foreign investment has decreased.

In the past, his work frequently involved new initiatives that would generate revenue for his business. His days are currently primarily filled with chores, such as organizing the data from his earlier projects.

” The team’s morale is very low, and most discussions with the bosses are negative,” the team said. In three to five years, people are discussing what to do.

Although there have been some layoffs, it’s difficult to say whether people are leaving the industry in large numbers. Jobs are also scarce in China now, so even a lower-paying finance job is still worth keeping.

But the frustration is evident. Switching jobs and changing seats were compared by a user on Xiaohongshu, but he warned that if you stand up, your seat might be gone.

Mr. Chen claims that Chinese society in general is at odds with the authorities and that it’s also true that finance workers are at odds with the authorities.

” We are no longer wanted, even on a blind date.” Once they learned that you worked in finance, you would be advised not to leave.

The finance workers ‘ names have been changed to protect their identities.

Continue Reading

No China stimulus? Time to buy – Asia Times

It’s a wonderful time

Clouds falls, you feel like

It’s a wonderful time

Don’t let it get ahead

– U2

Do not get Taiwanese companies because you think a big fiscal stimulus is coming. Get Chinese shares because a big fiscal signal is not needed.

The bull situation for Chinese stocks is not that stimulus may save the economy. The bull event for Chinese stocks is that homeowners are sitting on US$ 20 trillion in payments with nowhere to go.

The managed destruction of the property market is ongoing. Authorities have curtailed money management products and their inherent guarantees.

Money controls prevent easy access to foreign goods. And the coming storm of high-tech technology companies in clean power, semiconductors, aviation, robotics and biotech will have a lively equity market to get off the ground.          

China ’s economic transformation will be ill-served by flood-the-zone stimulus which – if we recall – is what got us the real estate bubble and subsequent “three red lines ” credit limits in the first place. What China ’s economic transition needs is better execution of “establish the new before abolishing the old. ”

What if we generate of China ’s new stimulus methods? The grab bag of goodies – reserve requirement ratio ( RRR ) cut, lowered interest/mortgage rates, special local bond sales, cash for clunker programs– are all bullets pointing in the same direction. But the power falls well short of a bazooka.

Trillions of renminbi ( RMB) in fiscal stimulus have been dangled but apparently withheld given the non-meeting held by the National Development and Reform Commission ( NDRC ) after the holidays. What has been offered will help China achieve 5 % gross domestic product ( GDP ) growth this year, hardly a lofty goal.

The only interesting policy is the People’s Bank of China ’s ( PBOC ) unexpected support for equity markets through 1 ) a collateral replacement scheme to increase risk assets at institutional investors and 2 ) a program to encourage bank lending for share buybacks.

While some ascribe this to an effort to drink consumer confidence, the likelier inspiration is an effort by the PBoC to redeploy some of China ’s$ 20 trillion in family bank deposits.

China ’s roaring property market in the past couple of weeks has given the box of laws a vote of confidence. Note that private marketplaces are behaving far more sensibly than global markets.

China ’s markets took one year off from October 1-7for National Day breaks – enough time for global markets to roll wild and unrestrained thoughts about fiscal stimulus of RMB2 trillion, RMB4 trillion, RMB6 trillion and RMB10 trillion.

The following pain in Chinese stocks traded in Hong Kong and through global ETFs occurred in Shanghai and Shenzhen after industry reopened.

Properly attributing local business confidence is of course unthinkable. Low prices from beaten down shares provide a healthy surface.

The NDRC non-meeting may include lanced the cook of huge trigger expectations. The business has good determined that China is severe about utilizing capital markets. What it needs to figure out then is that China ’s financial woes are not as grave as made out to be.

How well has President Xi Jinping managed China ’s market? Much of the company hit is predicting Japan-style stagnation, if no inevitable decline. That, of course, has been the situation for years.

According to one famous China-based economist’s 2015 forecast, President Xi’s financial performance may have earned him God Emperor standing in the mythology of China ’s socialist officials:

My assumption is that, under President Xi’s name, 2013-2023, common growth rates are unlikely to reach 3-4 %. That’s not my prediction, that ’s the upper limit of my prediction… I think that if President Xi is able to pull off average growth rates of 3-4 % during his 10 years in office, he will have accomplished something that we should really be astonished. It would be truly impressive, almost on par with what Deng Xiaoping did in the 1980’s …

In President Xi’s first two conditions, China ’s economy grew at a 6. 2 % compound average growth rate ( CAGR ), nearly double the upper limit of said predictions. China substantially outgrew all major markets except India. Somehow, our analyst was hardly twice as dismayed.

Perhaps it was President Xi’s personal problem, extending his time in office past the usual two five-year words. Alternatively of graduating with double starred first accolades from our scholar, Xi has only extended his experiments trying to earn an extraordinary triple or even a double starred second.

Graphic: Asia Times

Han Feizi’s assessment of President Xi’s economic performance is considerably less generous. Economic growth of 6. 2 % CAGR in Xi’s first two terms is not at all astonishing; it was, in fact, modestly below expectations ( Covid 2000 to 2022, what can you do? ).

Han Feizi did not and does not share our Beijing economist’s bleak assessment of the economy that Xi inherited and thus cannot grant bonus points for outperformance:

[President Xi] inherited a much more difficult economy than we think. There’s a huge amount of debt. There’s a huge amount of unrecognized bad debt.                

While China did take on a lot of debt and take it on quickly, Han Feizi fundamentally disagrees that the amount of debt and the quality of the debt is all that problematic.

It has been his correspondent’s contention that the size of China ’s economy is significantly understated compared to OECD national accounts ( see here ).

China ’s debt-to-GDP ratio is, thus, closer to ~125-200 % instead of the often quoted ~300 %. Moreover, this debt largely financed housing and infrastructure – long-lived assets with relatively low maintenance capital – able to generate value for decades.

China still has 15-20 % of the population to urbanize. Given urbanization of 1 % of the population per year, overbuilt housing should naturally resolve itself by kicking the can down the road.

As such, China ’s debt is nowhere near capacity. Xi inherited an economy headed in the wrong direction, not an economy out of runway. With property investment hobbled by redline credit limits in 2020, China nonetheless continued to grow 5 % by redirecting lending to advanced manufacturing.

A sentiment that Han Feizi might share with our Beijing economist is that Xi’s record is incomplete. No marks can be given until he sees things through. Things being another transformation of China ’s economy and society, which Han Feizi has written about before ( see here ):

China wants America’s Silicon Valley but regulated, Japan’s car companies but electrified, Germany ’s Mittelstand but scalable and Korea’s Chaebols but without political capture. It wants to lead the world in science and technology but without cram schools. A thriving economy but with common prosperity. Industry without air pollution. Digital lifestyles without gaming addiction. Material plenty without hedonism. Modernity without its ills. This is, of course, a wish-list and unrealistically ambitious. But these mad scientists sure as hell are going to try. They’ve developed a taste for it.

Various pieces of this transformation have started to take shape. The anti-corruption campaign under Xi’s tenure has been unyielding and dare we say transformative. China ’s once low-trust and loutish public of the Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao eras is now unrecognizable, able to sustain high-trust business models like shared bikes and take-only-what-you-paid-for vending machines ( see here ).

The professional environment for China ’s young grads is surely far less treacherous than the get-rich-quick-at-any-cost mentality of the go-go days.

Output from the “new three” industries – solar, batteries and EVs – are surging, although capacity appears to be growing even faster. Deflation across multiple sectors has set off alarm bells. Although not ideal, China ’s deflation is fundamentally different from Japan’s in its lost decades.

Simplistically, deflation caused by decreasing consumption ( demand curve shifting in ) is bad; deflation caused by increasing production ( supply curve shifting out ) is good.

Unlike Japan, which suffered two recessions in the 1990s, demand in China is still growing, if weaker than optimal. Japan’s deflation started when Tokyo was the most expensive city in the world with cantaloupes selling for$ 100 each. This is not the same deflation China is currently dealing with.

China ’s real disposable household income grew 6. 1 % in 2023. In recent years, regulators have crimped the income of previously high-flying professionals in finance, tech and real estate. Upper-tier income growth has stalled while lower-tier income growth has been robust.

Economist Simon Kuznets ’s prediction that inequality would rise in the early stages of economic development before peaking and falling as wealth increases is playing out perfectly in China while it confounds expectations in more capitalist economies.      

Graphic: Asia Times

And, of course, Han Feizi does not believe China ’s economy is egregiously unbalanced ( perhaps not even unbalanced at all ) and thus has no need for massive consumption stimulus.

This is the key reason Han Feizi was not “astonished ” by China ’s ability to maintain growth over 6 % in Xi’s first two terms. There is no need for consumption to outgrow investment to signal economic health ( see here ) and thus no need for massive consumption stimulus.

China ’s regulators and anti-corruption investigators have ransacked the nation’s banks and brokerages and detained high-profile bankers, attempting to put a leash on an industry with a natural tendency to run amok. The PBoC’s support for equity markets may signal confidence in the clean-up work recently performed.

So yes, buy Chinese stocks. Valuations are still cheap, and$ 20 trillion of savings has nowhere to go. Equity markets are being prepared for China ’s high-tech future.

Growth is more sustainable in a high-trust and more equal society. No there will not be a massive consumer stimulus. But that is precisely why you should buy, not sell, China.

Continue Reading

The World Bank isn’t buying China’s stimulus talk – Asia Times

To anyone who hopes 2025 will be a less terrible season for China’s economy, the World Bank has some bad news for you.

The international lender anticipates that Asia’s largest economy’s growth will decline also further next year, creating new headwinds for the region. This is in spite of Beijing’s current moves to boost economic growth in response to negative pressures and an initial global investor response that was at least initially passionate.

” Just signaled fiscal support may raise short-term progress, but longer-term development will depend on deeper structural measures”, the World Bank said on October 8. For three years, it said,” China’s expansion has spilled over advantageously to its companions, but the size of that motivation is today diminishing”.

The World Bank might be misinterpreting China’s efforts to resurrect its financial situation. It&nbsp, cut borrowing costs, slashed businesses ‘ supply need numbers, reduced loan rates and unveiled market-support resources to put a floor under share costs. In Beijing, stronger macroeconomic stimulus measures are also being considered.

If the world’s house crisis is allowed to enhance, furthering negative forces, some economists worry about a lighter course. The uncertainty issue is demonstrated by the extreme volatility in Chinese shares over the past ten days.

When the World Bank mentions the need for “deeper architectural changes,” plunging house prices are at the top of their record. Yet&nbsp, Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears to think period is on Beijing’s part in repairing the critical business. It might not be, as Japan has demonstrated over the years, &nbsp, some economists say.

China’s existing real estate troubles and Japan’s negative loan problems of the 1990s are n’t essentially analogous. The important resemblance is a critical driver of economic growth stalling out indefinitely, triggering bad knock-on implications in different industries.

In China’s situation, this likewise means municipal governments around the country. Provincial leaders have relied on area sales and tax revenues from sizable construction projects for many years.

” China’s boom-and-bust housing market is largely driven by local governments ‘ heavy reliance on expanding the real estate business to provide a major source of income”, said Tianlei Huang, an analyst at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank.

Since 2022, Huang added,” the decline in the housing market has hurt native state funds and exposed a&nbsp, prone system&nbsp, in need of reform”.

It’s a portrait of what ails China. And still, Xi’s Communist Party continues to treat the signs of financial issues, not the underlying problems themselves. The longer they fester, the stronger the resulting headwinds.

Rather than the 4.8 % the World Bank sees China’s economy growing this year, it sees the nation expanding at just 4.3 % in 2025. Both readings are below Beijing’s current 5 % target.

Of course, for an economy at China’s level of development, 4.3 % is effectively recession territory. And if Xi’s team does n’t act boldly and expeditiously to revive growth, that figure could prove too optimistic.

One wildcard is the&nbsp, November 5&nbsp, US election. The upcoming trade wars would disproportionately hit China if Donald Trump were to win.

During his first presidency from 2027 to 2021, Trump imposed harsh tariffs on China. Xi’s government has n’t seen anything yet if Trump comes back to power. Trump has already predicted a generalized global levy on all imports into the US and a 60 % tax on all Chinese goods.

” With higher US tariffs, a number of highly open economies in the Asia-Pacific are at risk of GDP falling below their baselines”, said Deborah Tan, an analyst at Moody’s Ratings. Along with China, they include Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

According to Tan,” these are primarily economies with high participation in global value chains and high exposure to US and Chinese intermediate goods supply and final goods demand.”

Vietnam, for example, has a high export share of gross domestic product ( GDP ) with strong linkages with&nbsp, Chinese manufacturing&nbsp, supply chains. ” Our simulation shows that within Vietnam, the high-tech goods sector will take the largest hit to output”, Tan said. ” China, similarly, the high-tech goods sector takes the largest hit to output followed by the low-tech goods sector”.

As this threat percolates, Xi’s team in Beijing risks losing even more trust among global investors.

One thing is to discredit them on the stimulus front. The slower pace of fixing the housing sector, strengthening local government balance sheets, and establishing social safety nets so that households save less and spend more are the bigger issues.

However, these measures “do not replace the more thorough structural reforms that are required to promote longer-term growth,” according to World Bank economist Aaditya Mattoo. The majority of the measures and bond proceeds will carry over into the following fiscal year given the lead time for implementation of the policy.

Mattoo notes that “even then, consumers may be reluctant to splurge because a one-time transfer would not boost longer-term incomes or address concerns about aging, illness and unemployment”.

In the interim, billionaire Ray Dalio sees this as Xi’s party’s “do what it takes” to change the gloomy narrative that may be evoking global investor sentiment. Draghi’s 2012 declaration as head of the European Central Bank is referenced here.

Last week “was a big week” ,&nbsp, said Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates. ” In fact, I think that it was such a big week that&nbsp, it could go down in the market-economic history books as comparable to the week Draghi said that he and the ECB would ‘ do whatever it takes,’ if China’s policymakers, in fact, do what it takes, which will require a lot more than what was announced”.

A long-time China bull, Dalio is increasingly vocal about his worries Beijing is sleepwalking into a&nbsp, Japan-like funk&nbsp, that history shows is challenging to exit. It’s taken Tokyo 25 years to begin exiting quantitative easing and its zero-interest-rate policies, and even that is proving challenging for the Bank of Japan.

To avoid it, one must devise a “beautiful deleveraging” strategy that balances printing enough yuan to support growth without causing inflation to rise too quickly while restructuring the entire economy. ” Doing these things starts to rekindle’ bottom fishing ‘ ]in stocks ] and ‘ animal spirits,'” he said. ” That is clearly happening right now,” he says.

Any new deleveraging efforts by Xi and Premier Li Qiang, Dalio said, will undoubtedly disorient and likely lead to more wealth destruction. That, it follows, will require considerable political courage, with Xi and Li having to decide where the costs and fallout of debt losses will be concentrated.

To Dalio, it all depends on “how well China’s domestic debt-money-economy challenges will be handled”.

At the same time, demographics are complicating the deleveraging process. The numerous moving parts that Xi and Li are struggling to manage are given a unique dimension by China’s aging population and shrinking working-age population. &nbsp,

” While last week saw some amazing actions and words that I’m certain will be followed by highly stimulative policies that will greatly boost asset prices,” Dalio said.” I think there are several important other things to keep an eye on to see how well China’s domestic debt-money issues will be handled,”

That’s not to say there are n’t some reform wins that Xi and Li can tout. As Sherry Zhao, analyst at&nbsp, Fitch Ratings, pointed out, refinancing risks for China’s local-government financing vehicles ( LGFVs ) have “reduced in the short term following government debt-relief measures and policy support, which will limit systemic risk”.

Provincial governments, Zhao said, continue to issue special refinancing bonds to swap “hidden debt”. The central government, meanwhile, has increased transfers to shoulder more infrastructure spending.

However, Zhao stressed,” we believe those support measures focus on the prevention of short-term&nbsp, systemic risk rather than a full-scale bailout. There continue to be longer-term risks associated with&nbsp, LGFVs ‘ debt burdens, and their resolution will hinge on China’s overall economic and fiscal strength”.

The Third Plenum meeting in July made it clear that local and regional governments may have more revenue flexibility to better accommodate their expenditure demands. ” The credit effects”, Zhao said,” will depend on how the changes are implemented, and on local governments ‘ willingness to use any additional revenue-raising powers given to them”.

The official Fitch view is that overall&nbsp, LGFV&nbsp, debt growth will be curbed as local governments tighten control of new debt, especially in regions that Beijing views as a priority for debt resolution.

The danger, however, is that these regions ‘ long-term debt default risk “remains and may even rise because of imbalances in economic and debt growth, as well as the potential inability of local governments to generate sustainable revenue for debt service.”

There are encouraging indications that China is currently developing a plan to stabilize the financial system and lessen risks.

Zheng Shanjie, the head of the National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters on October 8 that Beijing is developing” comprehensive policy measures to help stop the decline in the real estate market.” Shanjie said this in response to the National Development and Reform Commission’s announcement to stop housing sales and prices.

Zheng added that” we will take a number of potent and effective measures to try to boost the capital market in response to volatility and declines in the stock market.”

Even so, many economists and investors were disappointed that more short-term stimulus is n’t being deployed. ” Tuesday’s press briefing from China’s top economic planner … was supposed to be the big moment, the one where Beijing unleashed a&nbsp, stimulus bazooka“, said economist Stephen Innes at SPI Asset Management. ” Instead, it was more of a pop gun”.

Innes added that” Beijing’s reluctance to roll out a bigger package is seriously questioned about the viability of this rally” in stocks.

James Sullivan, head of Asia-Pacific equity research at JPMorgan, told CNBC that” the million-dollar question in China right now is, does the stimulus only flow into the supply side of the equation, or does it ultimately flow through into consumer demand? That’s not our expectation right now”.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

American citizen jailed for NS defaulting offences, brother faced similar charges

SINGAPORE: An American citizen was sentenced to nine weeks ‘ jail on Monday ( Oct 7 ) for offences linked to defaulting on National Service ( NS ) obligations.

According to his attorney, Mr. Danny Quah of CHP Law, Garrett Alexander Gan Kok Leng, 40, was born in the United States and spent the majority of his life it.

As his papa was Singaporean, he was certified a Singapore member by descent.

For residing outside Singapore for more than three times without a true exit force, from May 31, 2003 to September 28, 2006, Gan admitted guilt to two charges under the Enlistment Act.

Another two claims were taken into consideration.

According to the jury, Gan was 16 years old when he was first issue to the Enlistment Act.

He signed up for federal assistance in February 2002, and in April 2003, he was determined fit to serve.

An enrollment notice was sent to his listed target in Singapore when he turned 18 in September 2002, requiring him to turn in for recruitment in October 2003.

Yet, he did not show up. An enrollment investigator visited Gan’s Singapore home and sent an enlistment notice that Gan’s mother acknowledged.

Gan was required to report for recruitment the day before, but he once more failed to appear.

Studies revealed that Gan left Singapore in May 2003 without a true leave visa. He continued to live without authority until September 28, 2006.

On Sep 29, 2006, as Gan did not abandon his US citizen and take the oath of abandonment, allegiance and commitment within 12 months of turning 21, he immediately lost his Singapore citizen, said his lawyer.

Timotheus Koh, the deputy public attorney, claimed Gan “did not deliberately sacrifice.” He was arrested on Jan 22 this year at Changi Airport.

He “was conscious of his NS responsibilities but did not report to or often receive clarification from the Ministry of Defence regarding them during the abovementioned times and up until his arrest,” according to Mr. Koh.

He “did not at all fulfill his Na duty.”

Attorney Mr. Quah requested nine months in prison while Mr. Koh requested a nine-to-ten-week sentence for Gan.

Used MOST OF HIS Life IN US: Attorney

Mr. Quah claimed that Gan spent the majority of his youth in the US before immigrating to Singapore with his kids in June 1994.

In June 2003, Gan left Singapore to stay in the US, said Mr Quah.

He claimed that Gan, who had a stroke, requested temporary visa applications from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority ( ICA ) to allow him to care for his father while he remained in Singapore.

” Mr Gan did not leave Singapore to prevent serving his Na duty, neglecting his duty while pursuing his own passions”, said Mr Quah. ” More, he left Singapore for the US where he was a member since birth”.

Gan, according to the attorney, has “never enjoyed the benefits of a Singapore passport,” having previously received one.

” Mr. Gan was born in the US, and he traveled with his US card.” Each time he entered Singapore, he was treated as a foreigner”, said Mr Quah.

He claimed that his customer was no consciously attempting to deceive the government, but that he had mistakenly assumed that any Na duty he might have had as a Singaporean were “extinguished” after ICA renounced his membership in September 2006.

The attorney said that his opinion was strengthened by the fact that he had never encountered any issues before entering and leaving Singapore. &nbsp,

” It was only when he was detained at Changi Airport on January 22, 2024 that he was informed of the recruitment finds that had been served to his target and that he was being looked into for crimes committed under the Enlistment Act,” he said.

Mr. Quah added that Gan’s mother passed away and that his brother spent some time behind bars for related paying offenses.

According to Mr. Quah, “it’s one of those terrible circumstances that seems to have fallen through the holes.” &nbsp,

In punishment, the prosecutor said the defendant’s situation might seem peculiar to him, but another criminals may have experienced this same situation.

However, he noted Gan’s capitulation and earlier plea of grief and imposed a phrase at the “low end” of the variety.

Since the High Court punishment framework for Na borrowers was established in 2017, a spokesperson for MINDEF said the overall number of borrowers sentenced to prison is 27, including Gan.

MINDEF “takes a strong stand against those who violate the Enlistment Act,” MINDEF stated.

” All female Singapore and permanent people have a duty to serve Na, and it is crucial that all Singaporeans have the support and commitment of course. We must adhere to the basic tenets of unity and capital in New Zealand in order to accomplish this, according to the spokesperson.

” We are not being good to the vast majority of our national troops who serve their country devotifully, and we are not going to allow Singapore people or PRs who are abroad to escape NS or select when they want to offer NS,” they say, and the establishment of NS may be undermined.

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