IMBA SUPERMAN KID

Ape akan jadi kalau....

Superman IMBA katang..

+

IMBA chinese kid..

Nk tau jawapan die?

Senang je..

Tgk simple equation kat bawah ni..

IMBA Superman + IMBA Chinese Kid = IMBA Superman Kid

Dari mana lahirnya equation di atas?

Haa..baru2 nie kami di blogIMBA telah dikhabarkan bahawa..

Ade 2 adik-beradik kat China (nape berita2 IMBA bnyk dtg dr China ek?)..

Gi terjun kelua tingkap rumah dyeorg & cuba terbang macam Superman..yg IMBA nye, dyeorg terjun lengkap dgn sut Superman..perghhh..

Beberapa minit lepas si abang terjun, si adik pon ikut skali..tak nak kalah dgn abang..

Si abang cedera parah tp survive..

Si adek plak meninggal on the spot..

Moral of the story: 

Jangan belikan baju superhero utk budak2..you will never know what their imagination can do..

Dan yg paling penting..

Bak kata Usop, "Itu la penting nye parental educationnnnn.."

source: here

40 Years Ago: Ping-Pong Diplomacy & China's Rise

Regard a ping-pong ball as the head of your capitalist enemy. Hit it with your socialist bat and you have won the point for the fatherland - Mao Zedong

Here's a timely scenario for you given the fortieth anniversary of ping-pong diplomacy between the US and China: What if the Cold War never ended, the Iron Curtain never fell, and the US failed to exploit the growing ideological divide between China and Russia? In general, international relations scholars treat counterfactual ("what might have been") research the same way Vogue magazine treats those with normal body weight: with complete and utter contempt. Still, prominent American IR scholar and rat-choice critic Ned Lebow encourages such research when conducted in an intellectually rigorous manner. See his recent work which I have on my virtual bookshelf, Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations (the PUP site has excerpts of chapter 1).

An obvious point you can raise is that the Iron Curtain was inherently flawed and bound to collapse anyway regardless of developments in China. However, you can also argue that the budding economic renaissance of China in the mid- to late-nineties opened the eyes of many socialist regimes to the possibilities of co-opting some capitalistic activity. At any rate, I merely sketch out here the important international political economy implications of the counterfactual absence of a US-China detente circa 1971. That is, would Chinese development have progressed so far so fast had conditions not been laid out for Western firms experimenting with transferring their manufacturing operations to mainland China when Mao "Death to Capitalist Roaders" Zedong met his end (real Communists don't believe in makers)?

It's certainly a question manufacturing-obsessed and -romanticizing leftists would avidly ponder. Had China not become an FDI destination because MNCs shunned it during the time period in question due to still-lukewarm US-China relations, would it have developed quickly or meaningfully at all? As my erstwhile LSE IDEAS colleague Niall Ferguson likes to point out, Henry Kissinger has literally thousands of critics who froth at the mouth upon hearing his name. LSE IDEAS being a centre for researching strategy, however, give credit where credit is due.

Ping-pong diplomacy was an artful way of publicizing to the world the idea that the (then) arch-capitalist and the not-so-arch-communist had more than a few strategic interests in common. Inarguably, it served both countries' purposes. As early as 1967, Nixon already envisioned "Asia After Vietnam" in the pages of Foreign Affairs by allowing PRC involvement in world affairs. However, it took an accidental bus ride by a hippie US table tennis team member with his PRC counterparts to set things in motion. From there it is not at all a long stretch to trace the rise of modern China. Nixon's Secretary of State Kissinger prepared for such a fortuitous opening and never looked back.

While we can certainly quarrel with the eventual results--did the US dig its own grave by encouraging China's emergence, for instance--modern-day American international relations lacks similar grand strategy. Witness Hillary Clinton's laughingstock "Internet freedom" of an idea and compare it to a time when, to paraphrase Sidney Sheldon, real masters of the game still existed in the United States. In the 21st century world economy, they in all likelihood reside in the PRC with its long-term vision of how to shape the world to their advantage.

In any event, I much recommend a recent LA Times article that touches on the political significance of sport as well as how ping-pong diplomacy set the stage for US recognition of the PRC as China instead of American crony Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek's Taiwan:

"It's hard for us to really understand just how little direct contact Americans and Chinese had with each other," said Clayton Dube, associate director of USC's U.S.-China Institute. "It was a place that was much talked about, and it was a place where the imagination ran wild."

In the years leading up to 1971, however, leadership from both countries was sending signals that they might wish to normalize relations. Secret meetings were held in Warsaw in the 1950s, and before his presidency, Nixon had written that "China needs to be brought into the world community."

US and China table tennis teams interacting eventually led up to diplomatically significant gestures such as the former lifting trade restrictions on China:

What happens next is unclear. But officials from both teams expressed interest in a visit, and an invitation and acceptance came quickly. On April 10, nine [American] players plus officials, spouses and journalists crossed a bridge from Hong Kong to China. The group spent a week playing table tennis and sightseeing.

The visit paved the way for Henry Kissinger to conduct a secret visit to China in July, which set up Nixon's historic visit in February 1972. The U.S. then formally recognized that there was only one China and thereby set the Taiwan question aside to normalize relations.

Nixon called it "the week that changed the world," but Wei Wang remembers the words of Chairman Mao. She was a child in the early 1970s and says she doesn't recall much about the events. But the former U.S. Olympian and current Westside Table Tennis Center instructor does remember one thing clearly. "The prime minister [sic] said, 'The little ball moved the big ball' — a pingpong ball moved the earth,' " she said. "That was the metaphor. China opened up from that — from table tennis."

The Nixon Foundation also has a comprehensive and entertaining primer on this momentous occasion if you have some time to spare. Table tennis is renowned as the world's fastest sport, and international relations is probably not far behind in terms of pace. It seems to me and probably most of the rest of the world except for America#1-style flunkies, Palin acolytes, and other gullible Yankee toadies that the US has long since lost the ability to serve up something that befuddles, let alone outpaces, China. Those who succeeded Kissinger who were largely bereft of grand strategy did not fully realize what the consequences of integrating China into the world economy were for the US.

The great game has moved on and left slow-moving and slow-witted America behind.

PRC Rare Earth Metal Hoarding: Fake Trade Issue?

Given several new developments, today's a mighty fine time to update our coverage [1, 2] of worldwide rare earth metal availability provided its importance to modern industrial production. Beginning a year and a half ago, the US, EU and Mexico filed related WTO cases [DS 394, 395 and 398 respectively] challenging the PRC's use of quotas, export duties and licence requirements to limit exports of rare earth metals required in many high-technology products. With 95-97% of these metals emanating from the PRC at the present time, it is not a trivial problem for various manufacturing concerns abroad that rely on their supply. Although the PRC has claimed that environmental protection and conservation were the grounds for limiting exports, such claims have been undermined by largely unfettered access by local firms to these rare earth metals. The NY Times cheat sheet above graphically illustrates China's dominant position in sourcing these valuable materials.

To make a long story short, China has just been found in violation of trade rules via a ruling from the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. Bloomberg offers a summary. The naturally pleased US Trade Representative claims victory while offering this version of what has just transpired:

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced today that a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel has agreed with the United States, finding that export restraints imposed by China on several important industrial raw materials are inconsistent with China’s WTO obligations. China’s actions were not justified as conservation measures, environmental protection measures, or short supply measures. The raw materials at issue include various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and zinc, and are used in a multitude of downstream applications in the steel, aluminum and chemicals industries...

The export restraints challenged in this dispute include export quotas and export duties, as well as related minimum export price, export licensing, and export quota administration requirements. These types of export restraints can skew the playing field against the United States and other countries in the production and export of numerous processed steel, aluminum and chemical products and a wide range of further processed products. The export restraints can artificially increase world prices for these raw material inputs while artificially lowering prices for Chinese producers. This enables China’s domestic downstream producers to produce lower-priced products from the raw materials and thereby creates significant advantages for China’s producers when competing against U.S. and other producers both in China’s market and other countries’ markets. The export restraints can also create substantial pressure on foreign downstream producers to move their operations and, as a result, their technologies to China.

The USTR's claims on "market distortion" grounds are straightforward: the Chinese are responsible for rare earth metal shortages worldwide that disadvantage foreign firms by limiting their availability while raising their prices. However, local producers do not face similar limitations. What's more, perhaps consistent with China's wish to be on the technological leading edge via knowledge transfer, such limitations encourage foreign manufacturers to bypass such restrictions by locating in the Middle Kingdom.

But is that all there is to this story? While the US, EU and Mexico chose the route of litigation to free up more supplies from China, Japan appears to have found a (potentially) superior solution: get these materials from non-PRC sources. And so we have another tale hot off the presses touting Japan's newfound sources that both cut out China and make these metals appear less rare than at first glance. Instead of being in Inner Mongolia, these finds are under the sea:

Vast deposits of rare earth minerals, crucial in making high-tech electronics products, have been found on the floor of the Pacific Ocean and can be readily extracted, Japanese scientists said on Monday. "The deposits have a heavy concentration of rare earths. Just one square kilometer (0.4 square mile) of deposits will be able to provide one-fifth of the current global annual consumption," said Yasuhiro Kato, an associate professor of earth science at the University of Tokyo.

The discovery was made by a team led by Kato and including researchers from the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. They found the minerals in sea mud extracted from depths of 3,500 to 6,000 meters (11,500-20,000 ft) below the ocean surface at 78 locations. One-third of the sites yielded rich contents of rare earths and the metal yttrium, Kato said in a telephone interview.

The deposits are in international waters in an area stretching east and west of Hawaii, as well as east of Tahiti in French Polynesia, he said. [Kato] estimated rare earths contained in the deposits amounted to 80 to 100 billion tonnes, compared to global reserves currently confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey of just 110 million tonnes that have been found mainly in China, Russia and other former Soviet countries, and the United States.

We then return to the geopolitics of it all:

A chronic shortage of rare earths, vital for making a range of high-technology electronics, magnets and batteries, has encouraged mining projects for them in recent years. China, which accounts for 97 percent of global rare earth supplies, has been tightening trade in the strategic metals, sparking an explosion in prices. Japan, which accounts for a third of global demand, has been stung badly, and has been looking to diversify its supply sources, particularly of heavy rare earths such as dysprosium used in magnets.

Kato said the sea mud was especially rich in heavier rare earths such as gadolinium, lutetium, terbium and dysprosium. "These are used to manufacture flat-screen TVs, LED (light-emitting diode) valves, and hybrid cars," he said.

As you would expect, there are qualifiers. First, Japan is not free and clear to mine them unlike if they were in its exclusive economic zone, i.e. its territorial waters. If it wishes to abide by international law which I presume it does, then it will have to consult with UNCLOS authorities--and likely with other countries which have manufacturing interests such as the litigants mentioned above. The Economist offers this take on potential complications:

Seafloor mining beyond countries’ territorial waters is regulated by the International Seabed Authority, set up under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So far it has issued only eight licences, all for exploration, not production, all for nodules, not massive-sulphide deposits, and all to governmental or quasi-governmental agencies (of China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and an east European consortium). No wonder. Commercial miners want both a clear title to their holding and exclusive rights to exploit it. They also have to answer to shareholders.

Second, there are likely more technical obstacles to deep sea mining and, third, its environmental sustainability than the Japanese let on. From Nature News:

Current on-land mines, and sites picked out for future mines, have rare-earth concentrations of about 3–10%, he points out [whereas those found by the Japan researchers are in the 0.1-0.2% range]. The much lower concentrations at the Chinese clay mine mentioned by Kato and his colleagues are only economically viable because the material is much easier to access than it would be in hard rock. That's not true for mud located below 4 or 5 kilometres of water, which would require expensive ship time and equipment to pull up. "There are better options," he says.

Craig Smith, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, notes that companies are exploring the idea of mining manganese nodules from the sea floor to exploit their commercially-valuable contents, including copper and nickel as well as rare earths. Commercial mining of nodules is "probably a decade away", says Smith. Ocean mud could prove another possible source of the increasingly valuable elements.

Smith and others have raised concerns about the environmental consequences of deep-sea mining, particularly around hydrothermal vents, which host unique worms, clams and other life. Kato points out that gathering the metals from mud won't involve disturbing the vents; he found the highest concentrations of rare-earth elements thousands of kilometres away from vents. Closer than that, the rare earths were diluted by other deposits. But Smith notes that sea-floor life away from vents could also be fragile. Ecosystems on the cold ocean floor regenerate very slowly, he says, so any damage done by mining could take decades or centuries to heal.

Qualifiers and all, it's a potentially significant discovery. Whether Japan itself stands to benefit from this find is a matter of interpretation concerning the law of the sea and the state of deep sea mining technology. (If you're further interested, io9 has a map depicting where these deposits lie as per the Nature Geoscience article.)

Returning to the main story, China also has the opportunity to appeal the WTO ruling, though I firmly believe that the PRC's claims are covers for protectionism plain and simple. Perhaps other countries ramping up the capacity to mine rare earth metals on land will be more viable than either the route of litigation or deep sea mining. That said, China being alone in continuing large-scale mining of such resources remains a testament to its foresight and long-term planning. In a way, it's being punished for being resourceful, dubious PRC claims at the WTO notwithstanding.

The PRC@LSE, Niall Ferguson and Me

From left to right: your humble IPE blogger (in need of a haircut), Li Fan who is Deputy Director of the Department of Policy Planning at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Niall Ferguson who is Philippe Roman Chair for 2010-2011

"Emmanuel, let's take a photo with Professor Ferguson before the LSE IDEAS sign!" said my colleague from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Dr Li Fan at our farewell party yesterday for The Ascent of Money guy. Despite being somewhat miffed at the Chinese government at the moment for largely unexplained strong-arm tactics over the South China Sea--or the West Philippine Sea as our local media now calls it--I couldn't begrudge the kindly Li Fan. Hence the photo. Having completed compulsory military training, I am of course subject to being called up to serve in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. While the prospects are remote, I have enduring anxieties about being sent to certain death defending Philippine interests in the Spratly Islands against the vastly superior PLA. I'm not keen on suicide missions.

At any rate, I am sure that I've mentioned that PRC Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is an alumni of the LSE. Being ever so fond of his alma mater (or something to that effect), they send ministry officials to visit us as Chevening Programme Visiting Fellows every half a year or so. These fellowships are partly funded by HM Foreign and Commonwealth Office and they provide an opportunity for us to interact with the current batch of Chinese policymakers. Certainly, it lets us at LSE IDEAS--staffed as it is with former diplomats--understand our counterparts in the world's rising power that little bit better.

You would expect me to say this about my employers, but the basic idea underpinning our work here at LSE IDEAS is conceptually sound: by gathering academics, diplomats and policymakers under one roof, we are able to draw from a wider range of ideas in solving questions of diplomacy, strategy and international affairs. Oftentimes academia degenerates into something isolated and impractical with lots of number-crunching for its own sake but with few policy implications. We try to strike a balance: while we attract folks like Niall Ferguson who offer distinctive (if controversial) perspectives on various economic phenomena, we too welcome diplomats who actually *do* international relations.

Though he has his detractors, Henry Kissinger who Professor Ferguson is preparing a biography about could never be accused of being a bookish academic as he hosted the now-famous Harvard International Seminar which featured many names who would soon be a who's who of global leadership in the sixties. I wonder why Americans don't have a similar programme: instead of churning blood-curdling invectives against the PRC on a regular basis, why doesn't the US have a diplomatic outreach effort centred on academic exchange to learn more about those conducting foreign policy in China? If a second-string world power does it, why not America? Though I often am at odds with what Niall Ferguson writes, I fully agree that the US has no grand strategy at the present time which it used to have with Kissinger.

I've learned quite a lot from interacting with my PRC colleagues since they are seated right next to me. Although they are quite often quick to toe the (Chinese Communist) party line when in doubt, there are moments of candour which I value as a citizen of one of China's smaller neighbours.

The occasion for this photo is the impending departure of Niall Ferguson from our happy little camp in Holborn.The day before that, Li Fan explained "What China Wants" in compressed form as she too is leaving soon for Beijing. It should thus surprise no one that my time here is limited as well since I will depart for parts unknown in due course. There's a big world out there and I shall be taking the IPE Zone show on the road for the umpteenth time. But, it will be good to recall a time when I was at the centre of it all with diplomats from the world's rising power and the famously itinerant economic historian of our age, among others.

Perhaps We Should Cheer the Rising 'China Price'

Uh-oh, here we go again with another one of these "China is pricing itself out of the cheap labour market" stories. Having recently made a mini-roundup of these, let me stick with what's supposedly new in this latest TIME story. At the national level, things are undeniably on the way up:

In what is supposed to be a land of unlimited cheap labor — a nation of 1.3 billion people, whose extraordinary 20-year economic rise has been built first and foremost on the backs of low-priced workers — the game has changed. In the past decade, according to Helen Qiao, chief economist for Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong, real wages for manufacturing workers in China have grown nearly 12% per year. That's the result of an economy that's been growing by double digits annually for two decades, fueled domestically by a frenzied infrastructure and housing build-out — one that, for now anyway, continues apace — combined with what was for a time an almost unquenchable thirst for Chinese exports in the developed world. Add to that the fact that in the five largest manufacturing provinces, the Chinese government — worried about an ever widening gap between rich and poor — has raised the minimum wage 14% to 21% in the past year. To Harley Seyedin, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in South China, the conclusion is inescapable: "The era of cheap labor in China is over."

Regionally speaking, there are beneficial effects. Dearer labour in traditional manufacturing hubs located near Eastern ports makes hiring those in the interior more attractive. A recurring story of Chinese inequality has been that of uneven development between interior and coastal provinces; this new fact of labour life may spur Chinese wage rebalancing of a sort. Plus, there may be less pressure for itinerant workers to travel far to find work:

But higher wages have also improved things in China's western region, where the government has long tried to encourage investment. In the past year, many multinational and Chinese companies have expanded or relocated inland, where labor is still cheap.

From China's perspective, that's exactly the sort of trade-off it seeks. As Andy Rothman, chief China macro strategist at CLSA Securities in Shanghai, says, "People in Sichuan or Henan or wherever can stay closer to home and find a good-paying job" instead of having to flood east each year to live in a company dormitory far away from their families. "How is this a bad thing?"

Lastly there's an interesting inversion underway according to American MNCs operating in China from AmCham surveys. Whereas three-quarters used to believe their China operations were there to serve export markets, the same proportion now believes they are there to sell in domestically in the PRC. A welcome change in helping alleviate global economic imbalances, I say:

Many multinationals, meanwhile, have long since begun to focus their China manufacturing operations on the vast Chinese market. That HP factory in Chongqing produces its laptops only for the home market. In a survey eight years ago, the American Chamber of Commerce in South China found that 75% of its members were focused mainly on export markets. By last year, that number had flipped: 75% of 1,800 respondents now say their manufacturing operations in China are focused on serving the Chinese market. That's mainly because China's workers are steadily getting richer. For them, and pretty much everyone else concerned, that's the rarest of commodities in a troubled global economy: good news.

I have some quibbles with the generalization that Chinese workers are steadily getting richer. Returns to labour in relation to other factors of production leave much to be desired, but more on that later. Still, time moves on.

Will Airbus Lose PRC Orders on Emissions Regs?

Environmentalists usually applaud countries or regions where regulations are most stringent for obvious reasons. Aside from encouraging better fuel economy or lower emissions, there can be substantial knock-on effects. Consider America. The United States remains the world's second largest car market after China. With the state of California leading the nation in regulatory standards for automobile emissions--some vehicles sold in the 49 other states don't meet California regulations--auto manufacturers often just adopt the standard mandated by California. End result? Even if other states' lawmakers are not as concerned with the environment, standards are ratcheted upwards by a major market mandating standards exceeding those of others. And it certainly is welcome: those of you who've experienced LA smog at its worst know what I'm talking about.

Now we come to a grander analogy of the California-USA emissions dynamic. The European Union will in 2012 include in its carbon emissions scheme all airlines that fly in and out of the EU--including non-European ones. Certainly this sort of Cali-esque ratcheting up is welcome from my point of view given how recalcitrant the world's two largest carbon emitters--China and the US in that order--have been at venues alike the Copenhagen summit.

That said, the EU may have shot itself in the foot as far is its commercial fortunes go. You see, aside from being the region which will soon lead the world in attempts to curb aerospace emissions, it too is home to the world's bestselling passenger aircraft manufacturer in Airbus. It's a problem familiar to millions when environmental and economic interests seem to collide. The basic contours of the current impasse go thusly: PRC leadership is making its displeasure over EU aerospace sovereignty-at-bay known by jeopardizing previous orders for Airbus jets. Privately owned airlines based in Hong Kong are reportedly not immune since the PRC leadership is busy trying to scuttle previous multibillion dollar deals.

In other words, the PRC seeks to water down carbon trading schemes being applied to its airlines serving EU-27 nations by putting Airbus' order book under pressure. From the WSJ:

China's anger with the European Union's emissions-trading scheme for airlines has delayed the revealing of a major Airbus deal and could undermine upcoming deals, according to people familiar with the situation. Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., had expected to announce at the Paris Air Show this week that Hong Kong Airlines Ltd. ordered 10 of its A380 superjumbo jetliners, with a catalog value of almost $4 billion. The deal's unveiling was put on ice by officials in Beijing, who must give final approval, these people said.

The Chinese government held off because it disapproves of the EU's intention to regulate greenhouse emissions of foreign airlines operating to and from the 27-country bloc, according to the people close to the talks.

An Airbus spokesman said the company wanted to name the A380 buyer, "but the political environment would not allow us to do that." A Hong Kong Airlines spokeswoman earlier this month said the carrier planned to announce an A380 order at the trade event outside Paris. The A380 deal was completed before Beijing interceded and appears not to be in jeopardy, said one person close to the situation. But other planned orders for big Airbus planes have been frozen, this person said.

"The Chinese have told us directly that their airlines are not allowed to get into deals with Europe," said a person close to the European side of the discussions. A spokesman for the Chinese mission to the EU recently said that the country is "opposed to the EU's inclusion of [Chinese] airlines" in its emissions-trading plan. The spokesman didn't immediately respond to questions about the situation with Airbus.

For now, China's anger is unlikely to hurt the European plane maker, which has an order book of more than 3,500 planes for customers globally. But China is the biggest growth market world-wide for aviation. Airbus in 2009 opened an assembly plant in Tianjin, China, to tap the local market and curry favor with the government.

To no one's particular surprise, the commercial (Airbus) and political interests in the EU are at loggerheads. There is also arm-twisting in the opposite direction as the PRC looks set to put a squeeze on permissions for European carriers wishing to fly to increasingly lucrative Chinese destinations. That is, Europeans may make some of the best commercial passenger aircraft, but the locations to which they will increasingly fly to are in the Asia-Pacific. In other words, this political-economic quarrel is possibly quite evenly matched:

The EU's pollution-control plan, which is set to include aviation starting in January, forces any carrier departing or arriving at an EU airport to buy credits for greenhouse-gas emissions above specified levels, with large fines for noncompliance. China's move appears to be the first retaliation against the EU program. China, the U.S., Russia and other countries have strongly objected to the plan. They see it as unilateral and potentially illegal because it may assert extraterritorial jurisdiction on carriers from other countries.

"A global issue needs a global solution," said the Airbus spokesman, who called the plan "a bureaucratic tiger." Airbus and the Association of European Airlines last month wrote to top EU officials to warn about potential retaliation from China. EU officials have repeatedly said they won't retreat on their program.

Some European airlines have recently held back on asking for permission to increase capacity on Chinese routes because they expected applications to be rejected, said one person with knowledge of the situation.

Aside from Boeing possibly taking away Airbus orders over emissions, those other whiny superpolluters, the Americans, are already complaining at the ECJ:

The U.S. government on Tuesday formally presented its opposition to the EU plan for the first time at a meeting with EU officials in Oslo. A group of U.S. airlines has separately filed suit against the EU plan. The first hearing on that case before the European Court of Justice is due on July 5.

So it seems the world's superpolluters--China and the US which are #1 and #2 respectively in carbon emissions--are keen on punishing those trying to do Mother Earth some favours. Still, I have to applaud the EU stance on this matter. Whether it can hold out on principle long enough to see similarly stringent regulation adopted worldwide--the ultimate goal--will be fascinating to watch. Airbus won't be crying uncle anytime soon, so what the heck...

Why PRC-Led Global Rebalancing is Unlikely

How can we transition into a more balanced world economy? Today, Jean-Michel Severino joined the man generally associated with the topic, Martin Wolf, in trying to suggest ways of doing so at the LSE. Martin Wolf's take is generally well-known as he regularly issues commentaries in the Financial Times where he is the chief economics commentator. However, Jean-Michel Severino, formerly of the World Bank and late of the French development agency Agence francaise de developpement (AFD), was something of a revelation to me.

Severino argues that, considering postwar history, the stand-out example of economic development remains that of export-led development. However, this poses an obvious quandary: while almost every sensibly run nation on earth professes increasing exports to be desirable, global markets represent finite demand. In other words, unless we can export to, say, Mars, we are bumping up against logical limits to what can be absorbed if developing countries continue to pursue export-led development as one would expect them to do given its track record.

The usual answer is to create demand in export-led economies as a transition that must be made in order to facilitate global rebalancing. However, the track record of the pioneers of such export-led growth is not encouraging. For many different reasons--inertia and demographics among them--Germany and Japan have singularly failed to make this transition. It is far easier to stick to "tried-and-tested" formulas for success that, truth be told, hamper processes of global rebalancing.

So we come to China. The PRC is famously prone to calling for changes in its economy. Remember Wen Jiabao calling his country's economy unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable in 2007? The Communist Party's 11th Five-Year Plan dating from 2006 already alluded to creating more domestic demand. Suffice to say that, in the five years since then, it hasn't really materialized. And yet the 12th Five-Year Plan makes similar allusions. Although one certainly hopes China can create domestic demand on an appreciable scale, you have precious few instances--if any--of major exporters making this shift. Alike Germany and Japan, China too faces demographic challenges of a largely programmed nature due to modern incarnations of its one-child policy.

However, given the sheer size of China and the magnitude of its contributions to global economic imbalances, pressures for it to help in processes of rebalancing are appreciably greater. I surely hope it manages this feat for the odds are certainly against it and there are definitely ingrained habits of relying on exports already whose lock-in effects need to be counteracted lest we lurch into another 2008-style disturbance. Martin Wolf made the fearful point that both 1929 and the advent of the WWII were in their own ways significant rebalancing acts [!] Hopefully matters don't come to such drastic conclusions, but you never know.

ImbA Chinese Kid

Bley tak korang bayangkan ape yang akan jadi, kalo korang jatuh dari tingkat 8 sebuah bangunan...

HOLY SHIT... mesti hancur lebur kan...

but yang ImbA nyer kat sini... ade sorang budak chinese kat beijing yang tergelincir jatuh dari tingkat lapan gak...

nak tau ape jadi ngan dia...

take a look guys..

dia tersangkut celah2 air cond kat bangunan tu...

miracle??? 

salah... bukan miracle.. ttp this is what we call IMBA....

dan amazingly, dua orang residen kat situ, yang tengah bergayut tu... diorang berjaya selamatkan bdak tu..

nak tgk2 detik2 cemas itu... sila la tgk kat bwh...

ops.. ops... steady... steady.. jatuh kalo berterabur nie...

yeah.. i'm handsome.. berjaya gak rescue bdak bengong nie... lompat lagi.. lompat dr tingkat 8 lg...

so kisah nie berakhir dgn ending yang best... diorg berjaya rescue bdak tu dan bdak tu pun da slamat skarang...

DEY!! ape punya bodo la lompat tingkat 8... kalo tadak bende lu mau buat.. baik ikut saya la dei mogok lapar...

mengarut tul guruji nie.. anyway kalo ade bende camnie jadi and korang terpass by time event camnie tgh jadi... jgn tlg dlu.. amek gambar dlu.. pakai handphone.. 

dan...

pass la gambor tu kat saye.... cer citer.. cer citer..

LOL



full story http://teakdoor.com/world-news/92931-boy-falls-8th-floor-gets-wedged.html

Change 'South China Sea' to 'Southeast Asia Sea'

Here we go again, another South China Sea entry after I'd written about the issue in recent months [1, 2, 3]. I am of two minds about this new petition circulating among those of us from Southeast Asia to change our term for the 'South China Sea' to the 'Southeast Asia Sea'. (This one comes from the US-based Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation named after the Vietnamese nationalist executed by French imperialists.) It comes amidst new quarrels between China on one hand and the Philippines and Vietnam on the other over dominion over these strategically important waters. To be sure, Southeast Asia is emerging on the global stage in its own right not just as an appendage of China. Geographically speaking, 'Southeast Asia Sea' is also more accurate given the rather sweeping claims China has on the region.

Should I sign on to the many who've added their names to the petition? The Spratly Islands issue continues to be a highly visible demonstration of how the 'Chinese Communist Party' is not a monolithic entity. Different ministries often do not act in a coordinated fashion. While the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is very gung-ho on the matter, other bodies alike China's trade ministry is more cautious, likely preferring that the matter would go away altogether. For, China has in recent years become Southeast Asia's largest trading partner, and those who have built up such linkages would be understandably reluctant to strain these ties as the PRC seeks to consolidate its backyard. So, in this interpretation, the PRC would lose next to no sleep if Southeast Asians began calling it whatever they wish.

But, the other thing to remember is that China would likely annihilate whatever navies the Philippines and Vietnam could muster if push comes to shove. On the open seas, insurgency tactics against superior forces are not usually effective. Would it act so rashly as to violate the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea?I surely hope not.

In any event, those promoting this petition generally believe that a change of terms can affect the tone of the debate. There are arguably better reasons for calling it the 'Southeast Asia Sea' than its current name. Aside from removing the parochial Sinic overtones--it's called the South China Sea, so it must 'belong' to China--it also has the potential to improve Southeast Asian identity at a time when its countries are also emerging alike Indonesia being included in the G-20.

The Philippine Star has an article briefly describing the petition:

A petition to change the name “South China Sea” to “Southeast Asia Sea” has been launched, with 43,109 signatures posted online so far for its approval. According to online social network www.Changeorg., the Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation, a group of volunteers campaigning for “a modern and civilized attitude” around the world, started the petition in November last year.

In its petition, the group said the United Nations has officially recognized Southeast Asia as a region encompassing almost the entire South China Sea. The South China Sea has a coastline of about 130,000 kilometers (81,250 miles) while Southern China’s coastline measured only about 2,800 kilometers (1,750 miles), it explained. “The freedom of navigation on the sea is not restricted to a specific country and is a common heritage of mankind,” the group said. “It has actually been used by the international community for centuries as the second most important water channel in the world, and therefore must be considered a common ground.”

The petition had been sent to presidents and prime ministers of the 11 Southeast Asian countries, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, Geographic Society of 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States, and over 10,000 people from 77 countries around the world.

“In this modern era, as human civilization evolved towards a multi-faceted global collaboration, the international community, since the 20th century, has geographically formed a sub-region in Asia to address mankind’s need,” the group said.

“This region was officially named Southeast Asia and consists of Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam...Southeast Asia represents approximately 600 million people who have, in a joint effort, made unique and original contributions to modern civilization in culture, science, education, economics, politics.” South China Sea must therefore be named Southeast Asia Sea, the group said.

Decisions, decisions. Sign up if you must. I certainly won't dissuade you, but I am still weighing the pros and cons at the moment. Still, I must admire this show of Southeast Asian unity because there is honestly so little of it that I can observe.

Zhu Min or China's Faustian IMF-Lagarde Bargain

In Chinese, gweilo (鬼佬) is a traditional epithet against "foreign devils" that, due to its common use, has lost much of its condescending tone. Indeed, Westerners often describe themselves as such in the PRC to deflate suspicion about themselves. Today, however, we have a potential Faustian bargain with the many (sorry) gweilo who run international financial institutions that may see to it that China sticks the knife into its fellow LDCs when it comes to the matter of IMF succession. Merde!--as Lagarde might exclaim in her less guarded moments.

I've just attended a very interesting talk by Yves Tiberghien who should be familiar to those interested in Asian political economy. This particular presentation concerned China's G-20 role. As you all know, my lost cause of the moment (I have many) is someone from an LDC becoming the next IMF chief to succceed the now-infamous Dominique Strauss-Kahn. We are down to two candidates, France's Christine Lagarde who's favoured by the Europeans and Mexico's Agustin Carstens who's favoured by a handful of Latin American countries. Supposedly, China is still considering throwing support behind Carstens (someone must be chosen by month's end). From our favourite official publication, China Daily:

Agustin Carstens, governor of the Mexican central bank, said on Thursday that China promised to take his bid to be the first non-European managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) seriously and that the Chinese government is in the process of making a final decision.

After making a quick visit to China, Carstens told a press briefing in Beijing on Thursday that he has held "very fruitful" discussions on his candidacy with his Chinese counterpart Zhou Xiaochuan and with Finance Minister Xie Xuren. He insisted that his position as a non-European will be an advantage in the race and that his experience in Latin America will be particularly useful because the IMF position should be filled by an expert in crisis management.

I have to put this down as a (fairly likely) rumour, but the word in policy circles according to Yves Tiberghien is that the die is already cast. The primary interest of China at this time is to get one of its own in a high-ranking position within striking distance of becoming IMF managing director (that is, deputy managing director #2 or #3). So, when this post becomes open once again, he will be well-placed to become the first IMF head from an LDC. Which, I must point out, is also Carstens' strategy--while he may not win this time around, he is hoping to garner enough name recognition to be the front-runner next time.

Instead, China is placing its bets on Zhu Min. He has been the deputy governor of the PBoC and was a special advisor to Strauss-Kahn before the latter's ignominious fall. In fact, the China Daily article continues to allude to this desire of the PRC:

"Carstens' trip to China may be of little use because the country will probably endorse Lagarde," said Guo Tianyong, economist at the Central University of Finance and Economics. He said Lagarde's proposal is in line with China's interests, and that her gathering of wide support will influence China's decision.

To win over China to her candidacy, Lagarde said she supported the decision to increase China's voting rights at the IMF from about 4 percent to nearly 6.4 percent. She also said Zhu Min, the former deputy governor of the Chinese central bank and the current economic adviser to the IMF managing director, should play a more significant role in the fund.

China now being the IMF's second largest contributor, the supposed deal goes like this: the PRC will throw its weight behind Lagarde for the top post, but it expects the Europeans to do the same with a deputy managing director post for Zhu Min:

While the competition for the top slot is becoming fiercer, there is also a jostle among candidates wanting to occupy a deputy-managing director post. That has drawn much attention from Chinese analysts, who believe a Chinese has a better chance at obtaining that position. "It's time for China to recommend a Chinese to be deputy managing director, or even acting managing director of the fund," Guo said. "Zhu Min's experience is well qualified for that position."

Sun Lijian, deputy dean of the School of Economics at Fudan University, said Zhu Min has a good chance at winning the position. "It is very natural that a Chinese person should be in that post, because China has performed well in the financial downturn and contributed a lot to the world economy, which is well recognized throughout the world," Sun said.

He added that the weak recovery of the US and European economies will make the IMF prefer to raise more capital from China and other emerging economies. "Zhu Min's position as deputy head looks logical, especially since China is already the second-largest economy in the world," Sun said. "European countries should give their full support."

Has China sold out its third world colleagues for the sake of its own interests? I certainly hope Tiberghien is mistaken, but I doubt that he is.

UPDATE: Also see Sebastian Mallaby in Foreign Affairs on the question of IMF succession.

ImbA CHINESE DELICACY

kawan2, i shit u not...

bende ni mmg betul2 orang makan...

makanan ni femes kat dongyang, zheijang province yang terletak di

timur China...

orang kat china nie mmg terkenal ngan makanan2 pelik diorang...

tp ni la yang plg ImbA skali ak pernah dengar..

guess what this is....

kalo korang guess this is telur rebus...

then korang da separa betul... tau tak air rebusan tu air ape?..

nak tau...

ya betul........ tu adelah air kencing.....

hahaha... air kencing young boys kat china..

dikatakan telur rebus ni bley membuatkan anda bertenaga seolah-olah da minum 12 botol redbull..

tak percaye...

gi la try....... hehehe..

LoL

US Free Trade Lies, PRC / Pentagon Bids Edition

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel - Samuel Johnson

Is it just me or is the United States fast becoming a nation of scoundrels? I've long pointed out the hypocrisy of bankrupt America continually posing as the world's free trade champion when, in reality, it has been distinctly protectionist when it comes to its funders wishing to purchase assets that yield better returns than lousy Treasuries. The case of the Chinese firm Huawei is very well-known as it has been discouraged from buying the tangential defence contractor 3Com. Ditto for 3Leaf. It has also been discouraged from bidding on US government contracts with "security" related concerns. Before that you had CNOOC being similarly discouraged from purchasing Unocal over even more dubious grounds. And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

So, it continues to boggle me what lengths Americans will go to in order to prevent the Chinese from taking their due. After all, if you continually run up such a monstrous tab, you would expect those footing your bill to have some input in governance matters, right? Well no. In yet another affront to the idea of free trade, American lawmakers have just decided to effectively freeze out Chinese firms with Communist Party affiliations from bidding on US defence contracts. Given the increasing sophistication of PRC hardware, this restriction comes as quite a blow:

The US House of Representatives has broadened the type of Chinese entities barred from receiving Pentagon contracts amid growing unease in Washington over China's expanding military might. Under the amendment, passed by voice vote Wednesday, all entities owned by or affiliated with the Chinese government are prohibited from providing defense articles to the United States and the US secretary of defense must report to Congress 15 days before any planned waiver of the ban.

"With China making significant progress in the defense and aerospace industries it is critical that we ensure US national security is protected and that the highly skilled jobs and associated technologies in these industries are not outsourced overseas," Representative Rosa DeLauro said in a statement. The Connecticut Democrat said the measure "will help guard American interests, not only for our national security, but also the innovation, job creation and long-term economic growth in Connecticut and across the country that will allow the United States to remain competitive globally."

Yes, protectionism it is, red in tooth and claw. There's also this tendency to conflate increasing Chinese technological prowess with goals of militarily dominating other countries--like its prospective customers. As I've pointed out before, this crude realism so favoured by certain Americans doesn't really follow Chinese history since even at the height of their technological advantage over the West, China did not go around the world colonizing and enslaving other people--unlike certain Westerners. But here they go again:

Chinese state-controlled firm China Aviation Industry Corp, or AVIC, is said to be weighing a bid for the contract to produce the next US presidential helicopter, prompting concerns in Washington about the possibility that Beijing may obtain US military secrets.

DeLauro's measure, also sponsored by Republican Representative Frank Wolf, was among dozens of proposed amendments to a $690 billion defense budget bill the House passed on Thursday. The amendment allows the defense secretary to waive the procurement restrictions if a good or service is both critical to the Defense Department and not otherwise available.

Companies affected by the amendment include any commercial firm "owned or controlled by, directed by or from, operating with delegated authority from, or affiliated with, the People's Liberation Army or the government of the People's Republic of China or that is owned or controlled by an entity affiliated with the defense industrial base of the People's Republic of China."

"Over the last several years, so-called 'commercial' Chinese companies have sought to compete for DoD contracts. In fact, these Chinese 'companies' are very much arms of Beijing and the People's Liberation Army," said Wolf. "That is why we believe Congress must act quickly to make clear that it will not support any contract that involves a Chinese state-controlled company for the highly sensitive presidential helicopter program or any other defense system."

As mentioned above, an immediate precursor of this move was Chinese firm AVIC considering a bid to replace ageing US presidential helicopters with a more advanced design despite utilizing American (Pratt & Whitney) engines. Worse, AVIC is also being frozen out from bidding on replacing America's ageing jet trainers in a far larger contract. From an earlier article:

Could the US president's helicopter be made in China in the future? It's a possibility, as China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC) is aiming to win US aviation contracts. The Wall Street Journal has reported that AVIC, the maker of China's new J-20 stealth fighter, has teamed up with a tiny California company, US Aerospace Inc (USAE), to try to launch bids for US defense contracts, possibly including one to supply Chinese helicopters to replace the aging Marine One fleet used by the president, people involved in the partnership were quoted as saying. Two AVIC officials previously confirmed that the company signed a strategic cooperation agreement with US Aerospace in September last year,

The AVIC's AC-313 [helicopter], which demonstrated its first flight last year, is powered by three engines made by Pratt & Whitney and can seat up to 27 passengers and two crew members. The model is capable of replacing the aging Marine One. Insiders expect the contract to be awarded in the next two to three years.

AVIC and US Aerospace have also held talks over the suitability of AVIC's new L-15 trainer jet [see picture above] as a candidate to replace the US Air Force's fleet of Northrop T-38s which have been in use for 50 years and on which American fighter pilots learn skills such as flying at supersonic speeds. That contract is expected to be one of the most lucrative [American] military aviation contracts this decade. The United States is likely to buy about 400 aircraft and other allied countries about 600 more as the jet will become the standard model for training pilots to fly the US F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters.

Like a lot of Yankee blather, I think it's utter rubbish to single out Chinese defence contractors thusly. First, it would not be difficult for the US to discern if the Chinese are deliberately providing substandard equipment not living up to specifications. That would be grounds for contract termination, period. Second, why are we to assume that the Chinese would riddle their equipment with spying software and hardware--bugs, cameras, the works? It would again be very easy to spot these devices and, in the process, terminally hurt China's prospects of exporting similar wares to other countries.

Truly, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel--and a rather dumb one at that. Free trade means selling off chunks of American equity, not just debt. It also means opening up bidding processes to all comers. But when you instead treat others so shabbily, is it any wonder why paeans to "free trade" fall upon deaf ears?

Labour Costs Pricing China Out of the Market?

I almost forgot about this one. It is with no small trepidation that I mention this bit given that the transition of China out of being the world's low-labour cost producer has been bandied about before. Time and again, in fact. Take this BusinessWeek piece from 2005:

Wait a minute. Doesn't China have an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor? Not any longer. From the textile and toy factories of the south to the corporate headquarters and research labs in Beijing and Shanghai, the No. 1 challenge today is finding and keeping good workers. Turnover in some low-tech industries approaches 50%, according to the Institute of Contemporary Observation, a Shenzhen labor research group. Guangdong Province says it has 2.5 million jobs that remain unfilled, while Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shandong provinces say they, too, face shortages of qualified workers. "Before, people talked about China's unlimited labor supply," says Zhang Juwei, deputy director of the Institute of Population & Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. "We should revise that: China is facing a limited supply of labor."

A WSJ blog piece from last year harps on a similar theme. Still, it is difficult to foresee how China can continually keep a lid on upward wage pressures as the stock of rural workers flocking to industrial work continues apace and reaches...certain limits. Then there's inflation blowback from effectively importing easy money policies from the United States. For what it's worth, here comes TIME magazine with the often-bandied idea that neighbouring countries with even lower labour costs are eager to pick up the PRC's slack. Take Penang, Malaysia for instance:

After ferociously sucking jobs and investment out of Southeast Asia over the past two decades, the China Effect is now lifting once declining industrial hubs like Penang out of their long economic slump. The northern Malaysian state attracted $4 billion in investment for its manufacturing sector in 2010, according to the Malaysian Investment Development Authority, a 465% jump from 2009. "It's been rocky at times," admits Lim Guan Eng, Penang's chief minister. "But being an underdog has kept us on edge and made us work harder."

Penang's nascent boom is partly fueled by Western manufacturers wary of China's rising costs. It also stems from dramatic changes in China's economy that are redirecting trade flows across the region. Not all of the companies relocating to places like Penang are Western multinationals; in fact, many are Chinese firms. As salaries and spending power in China rise, the Chinese are importing more goods from the rest of Asia. At the same time, those rising salaries are forcing China to outsource more of its low-end manufacturing. According to a 2010 Citigroup ranking of 12 Asian countries by manufacturing wages, China was the seventh least expensive and Malaysia the eighth. "The pure-cost reason for being in China for certain economic activities is being eroded," says Sanjeev Nanavati, CEO of Citigroup Malaysia.

The result is a virtuous trading circle for Asia as the Chinese outsource more to and import more from the region. According to HSBC, intra-Asian trade is forecast to grow at an average annual pace of 12.2% until 2020, 40% higher than the rate by which Asia's trade with the U.S. is expected to grow in the same period. Nearly 50% of Asian exports (excluding Japan's) now go to other Asian countries, according to Credit Suisse. That's more than the current demand for Asian exports in the U.S., the E.U. and Japan combined.

I'm all for inter-Asian trade, of course. Try Bangladesh, mayhaps:

Not surprisingly, the manufacturing belt that stretches from Bangladesh's western capital, Dhaka, to its southeastern port in Chittagong has begun to lure investors who sense a mini China in the making. Brummer & Partners, a $10 billion hedge fund and private-equity firm based in Stockholm, recently spent an undisclosed sum to obtain a minority stake in a Bangladeshi garmentmaker that counts such retailers as Gap and H&M among its customers. "We're starting to see these kinds of companies take an interest in Bangladesh," says Kiron Bose, the chief investment officer for Brummer's Bangladesh-focused private equity fund. From stitching jeans and T-shirts, Bangladesh hopes to crack the more complex and lucrative business of making sneakers for companies like Nike and Adidas. "Shoes are still a China story," says Bose. "That's where Bangladesh has to compete next."

The article points out that rule of law and infrastructure also figure into the decision of where to set up (sweat?)shop, but if so, certainly China never figured high on either measure? At any rate, I certainly wouldn't bet on China holding on to its status indefinitely. It's called moving up the value-added ladder--a historical signifier of progress in development.

Meanwhile, we should certainly appreciate a detailed academic study on wage costs in Chinese production centres during recent years. While interesting, the welter of news articles on the subject only paint an anecdotal picture. Comparative studies with wages in other Asian countries over time would also be appreciated.

On the Record: Fukuyama On PRC's History Ending

Non revocare--I will not recant. Despite penning probably the biggest crock of them all--the end of history in which all political-economic forms were to converge on capitalist democracies--ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama remains one of the foremost commentators on the political economy scene. Which, of course, prompted me to think it doesn't matter that you're correct, but that you are first to pen a memorable idea. Although backtracking on this idea given the weight of evidence to the contrary since that bit of post-1989 triumphalism, you get the feeling that Fukuyama still clings to the end of history thesis as a normative position. In other words, while Fukuyama admits he may have been off in a predictive sense, in the end [ahem] we should aspire for history proceeding in the way he foresaw since it maximizes the liberties he presumes we all value.

As proof, I offer his latest ruminations while having his session of Lunch With the FT--or, more specifically, Martin "Why Globalization Works" Wolf. Apparently not chastened about tackling Big Topics, Fukuyama is midway in preparing two books on the history of political order. (The first one has been out for a couple of weeks.) Coming from roughly similar orientations, you will not be surprised that Wolf throws many softballs for Fukuyama to swing away at. In particular, we have this enduring, largely Anglo-Saxon idea that economic freedom and the aspirations it promotes will eventually lead people to clamour for political freedom:

China, however, is moving rapidly towards a modern economy and I ask Fukuyama how prosperity will affect its political order.

“I think that this is one of the big drivers of democracy that are missed by people that just look at the economic conditions,” he says. “If you are a poor peasant, all you’re worried about is getting food on the table for your family. But as you get more educated, you can worry about things like, ‘Does my government allow me to participate?’ Your world outlook then changes. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t happen in China...”

He ploughs on: “I think you’re right that when you got a whole country of 800m college educated middle class people, you can’t run this thing in a very paternalistic, top-down fashion. The big problem is these same people could be motivated by nationalism – there’s a lot of other ways of mobilising people.”

So at the extremes it's jingoism or the end of history, eh? Why Fukuyama--or Wolf for that matter who works for a widely-read publication reporting on current events--doesn't cite the recent Singaporean elections is certainly intriguing. Events in the city-state can be interpreted two ways. End of History-wise, the emergence of actual opposition parties despite concentrated state efforts to muzzle them certainly suggests an interrelationship between economic development and desire for political liberties. On the other hand, Singapore achieved a very high level of development sometime ago, indicating that this episode is not only delayed but also a reproach of the ruling party rather than outright displeasure being shown.

At least he's broken away from his erstwhile ideological bedfellows on the use of military means to make history end sooner. That's progress.