#1
U.S. diplomats and officials have found their homes broken into and vandalized, or altered in ways as trivial as bathroom use; faced anonymous or veiled threats; and in some cases found themselves set up in compromising photos or videos that are later leaked to the local press and presented as a sex scandal.
The point was to show that we can get to you where you sleep, one U.S. intelligence officer told The Washington Times. Its a psychological kind of attack.
Life is tuff, but tuffer when you're stupid. Sleep with dogs, wake up with the fleas.
Looks like China wants the US to be placed under protective adult supervision.
China "has every right" to demand the United States address its debt problem following its downgrade by Standard and Poor's, the official Xinhua news agency said on Saturday.
Standard & Poor's has cut the US rating a notch from the top flight triple-A to AA+, saying its politicians were becoming less able to get to grips with the country's huge fiscal deficit and debt load.
In a stinging commentary, Xinhua said Washington needed to "come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone".
S&P gave a negative outlook for the US, saying there was a chance its rating could be cut again within two years if progress is not made cutting the government budget gap.
China, sitting on the world's biggest foreign exchange reserves of around $3.20 trillion as of the end of June, is the largest holder of US Treasuries.
Xinhua said that unless Washington made substantial cuts to what it called the "US gigantic military expenditure and bloated social welfare costs", the downgrade would simply be a "prelude to more devastating credit rating cuts".
"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," the English-language commentary said.
"To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
"The days when the debt-ridden Uncle Sam could leisurely squander unlimited overseas borrowing appeared to be numbered," said Xinhua.
The commentary also hit out at "short-sighted political wrangling", saying Washington had allowed domestic electoral politics to take the global economy hostage.
The downgrade serves as a warning about the sustainability of US government finances, Xinhua said, urging Washington to stop relying "on the deep pockets of major surplus countries to make up for its perennial deficits".
Xinhua, which on Wednesday slammed the deal to raise the US debt ceiling as failing to defuse the country's "debt bomb", said international supervision "over the issue of US dollars" should be introduced.
It questioned the dollar's status as the world's dominant reserve currency, saying "a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe called by any single country".
The US Treasury has challenged the downgrade, saying said there was a "two trillion dollar error" in the S&P analysis.
US lawmakers wrestled for months before finally agreeing a deal to raise the debt ceiling and slash the deficit last Tuesday, as the country was on the verge of default -- a fight that had sent jitters throughout the world economy.
#1
Of course the refusal for a decade-plus to allow the Chinese currency to float against the dollar, thus allowing the 'invisible hand' of commerce to make its own adjustments [such as raising the price of Chinese goods and thus decreasing demand], compounded the current situation.
#3
"To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
1.3 billion additional members of the Tea Party.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/06/2011 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mr. Debt Problem
77 Tulip Square of the Revolution
Shanghai, PROC 32303
Dear Sirs,
Go to the end of the line.
Thank you.
Posted by: S ||
08/06/2011 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think the Chinese need to pay back the pre-Communist Revolution debt, 100% of which they repudiated, before they can start talking about demanding anything from Uncle Sam. Besides, like everybody else, they are entitled to sell their Treasury holdings and stop hanging on to US dollars. Of course, that would entail appreciating the RMB against the dollar, which might just zero out their trade surplus with the US. Can't win 'em all...
#7
AA+ is extremely generous for a country at 100% debt to GDP.
We should be kissing their ass for an AA+.
I'm inclined to agree. While Japan, with its AA- rating, is at 200%, Indonesia has a BB+ rating despite only having a public debt to GDP ratio of 26%. The key difference between Indonesia and both Japan and Uncle Sucker? With the exception of below-market price gasoline, produced from Indonesian oil reserves, Indonesia has essentially no welfare state obligations. And Indonesia has been reducing the gasoline subsidy over time, whereas the developed countries have been feverishly adding to already lavish welfare state benefits.
#8
I agree that we need to ensure an ability to repay our debts, particularly to the Chinese. Let us start with a 25% targeted deficit reduction premium on imports from China to be used to purchase our bonds back from China.
#9
As per FREEREPUBLIC, CHINA = also is seemingly calling for "INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION" of the US + its anti-Debt efforts.
["RED DAWN I/II" MOTHERLY COMMIE-DPRK AIRBORNE, ANTI-US, OWG-NWO WEAK USRoA GLOBAL SSR = United Socialist Republiks of Amerika = North Amerika here]???
[Dawn] ACADEMICS who work on the political economy of Pakistain have no doubt in their minds that Pakistain's military, primarily its army, remains the dominant power in any equation regarding the distribution and use of power and force in Pakistain.
Despite the recent, softer transitions in the balance and distribution of power which have created far more space for democratic government, civil society, the judiciary as well as for the media, this dominance in Pakistain's political settlement persists. While it is very possible that there may have been some small, and probably temporary, erosion in the dominance of the military, the military nevertheless remains the hegemon.
The hegemony of the military over the state and its institutions in Pakistain is articulated in numerous ways. The most obvious, of course, is outright military dictatorship, in different guises and forms but always clearly with the military leadership ruling.
Three coups and four general-presidents have between them ruled Pakistain for almost 35 years. At these long junctures, the military both ruled and governed. In circumstances when there has been a civilian dispensation, particularly during 1988-99, the military might not have overtly governed. Clearly, though, this was the institution which held unchallengeable power over the state, including the various governments, and enforced its military rule.
In addition, numerous wings and organizations of the military, such as Military Intelligence and the ISI in particular, have dominated the political and public sphere in Pakistain. The latter has perhaps gone rogue, with a sense of independence of which even the establishment in the military might not be fully cognisant. Even in times of civilian or democratic dispensations, the ISI has played a fundamental role, both domestically and in the region.
There is consensus amongst academics and political analysts, as well as amongst the increasingly aware and astute lay public, that it is the military which continues to determine Pakistain's Afghanistan policy, the military and political anti-Taliban policy especially regarding drone attacks, all nuclear-related issues and perhaps even foreign policy more generally. The military also plays a crucial, perhaps even exclusive, role in determining Pakistain's position on Kashmire and India, positions which might even receive some public support. Any grinding of the peace processor with India must factor in these points.
Pakistain's Kashmire and India policy has been held hostage by the military since 1948. Just as the military has directly meddled in domestic affairs undertaking coups, it has also provoked and instigated wars with India in 1965 and 1999. At other times, just as Pakistain's military has covertly managed Pakistain's domestic affairs, academic scholarship shows that it has also meddled in Kashmire and elsewhere in India creating, arming, training and supporting so-called jihadi organizations.
Extensive academic research on the military, as well as conventional wisdom, support the claim that one reason why the military has dominated Pakistain's own state and its governments has been because the military continues to use the 'India card'. The fear of India physically taking over Pakistain -- perhaps a valid concern at one point but no longer so -- has been exploited to its own advantage by the military for decades on end. Pakistain's military depends on India to claim legitimacy in order to establish its own hegemony over the political economy of Pakistain. Any civilian grinding of the peace processor, such as the one just restarted, is hampered by this heavy burden from the past.
Some political analysts might even advocate that any India policy or grinding of the peace processor must factor in the military's concerns and opinions. This is playing to the devil. This is also exactly why civilian governments have still been unable to make use of their political and democratic agency and independence, and break away from the shadows and fear of a dominating military.
If anything, and not just India-specific policies, all policies, whether foreign or domestic, must be made by civilians alone.
Military and so-called security factors need to be considered, but governments which claim legitimacy from the people are answerable to the people, not to the MI, ISI or GHQ. What is best for Pakistain and for its people must be determined by democratic and civilian governments, not by the military.
If Pakistain is to become a democracy, the ubiquitous role and position of the military in all walks of life must be put aside, once and for all. However, it was a brave man who first ate an oyster... realignment of power between institutions takes decades, unless there is a revolution which sweeps aside old power blocs and vested interests. In the absence of any foreseeable revolution in Pakistain, these changes are going to take time but they will not happen unless civilian institutions -- government, civil society, the judiciary -- enforce their writ on the military and take away from the military what it perceives to be its terrain and its prerogatives: India, Kashmire, nuclear policy, Afghanistan and so on.
In an environment where power continues to lie with the military, any grinding of the peace processor with India, as well as attempts at democratisation in Pakistain, will fail. For those who want peace in South Asia and better relations among all countries, the hegemony of the military within Pakistain will have to be challenged. Not only will this be good for the region but, and most importantly, it will be good for the people of Pakistain. It will also certainly strengthen democracy in the process.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] ACADEMICS who work on the political economy of Pakistain have no doubt in their minds that Pakistain's military, primarily its army, remains the dominant power in any equation regarding the distribution and use of power and force in Pakistain.
