Posts Tagged ‘U.S.’
China's Globalization #2
In the book written Navarro at 2008, Navarro saw that China able to conquest one by one powerful countries slowly, and rise up in the midst of globalization as the ‘shop floor’. The revival appears to dupe the international trade by using the slogan ‘China product’s price’ which is relatively cheap compared to any state.
The high of China economic growth is never experienced by other countries in the world. This China’s achievement is considered to be unfair with accusation that China have been practicing mercantilism, including export subsidies, copyright piracy, and various aspects that were accused has become a crutch of the cheapness of ‘China product’s prices’.
The interesting point is ; in the declining consumer purchasing power,China still actively seeking opportunities to sustain economic growth and expand the market network, including the search for new cooperation center to prop up domestic demand, especially new energy sources.
The China regionalization in the Asia-Pacific should provide interesting options, including the Beijing proposed idea, namely the need for new global currency which is a de facto replace the U.S. dollar as the international medium of exchange. China also actively begins to look for some ways progressively to give role for renminbi currency in the international arena.
It can not be avoided; China is a dominant force in Southeast Asia. This is a stage to make China as a global power equal U.S. China showed its ambitions to become a locomotive of regional growth. This is the approach to making China as markets for regional countries as well as providers of investment and technology.
Incidentally in the middle of the current global recession, the rise of China and the sinking of the U.S. as a world power took place almost simultaneously. This presents a significant shift in the balance of world economic power as well as between both of state. We hope that the changing of the guard does not cause severe shocks that endanger economic growth and trade in everywhere.
China’s Globalization # 1
Some of the world community may be amazed to see the China’s growth, which became a new development model in the world. This China’s model differs from the modernization that has ever done by western countries through the stages of colonization, and imperialism of the last century.
In context of regionalization, free trade, and China’s bilateral relations with countries in Asia such as Indonesia, China, seems just like an elephant which be there in the room suddenly. Not only that, many people who see that China as a threat to anyone, including U.S. financial that is scourged the deepest the financial and economy crisis in this 21st century. It can be ascertained that China will be able to transform the world fundamentally with greater strength when compared with the global power states during these two centuries.
Signals issued by China during this time always gave the impression that the authorities in Beijing want a resurrection of the PRC on this information technology era. It is also stressed, that intention will not cause drastic changes in the global order that had been driven by west. But slowly but surely, the rise of China began to shift the position which has been controlled by the west.
The developed countries do not seem to confess the existence of China as the elephant in the room. The west countries evaluate that the globalization growth which is now driven by China, should follow universal norms, including the matter of ethics, humanity, democracy, human rights, freedom, and all other norms homage to liberalism. West considers impossible the principle of socialism-communism will be able to change the world order that was built during the last two centuries. But without realizing it, now began to happen remarkable shift in the global balance of power that occurs sotto voce, almost not even visible.
This phenomenon indicates the significant difference between the rise of China and the rise of Germany or Japan in the two world wars. Resurrection of China is also different with the resurrection of the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.
Since the start of openness and reform in China’s economic and trade system in 1978, China struggle long and heavy enough to be accepted as the international community with all the privileges and an equal position with the other superpower countries. As a new rising power, China is required to change and accept the international norms.
On the other hand, gradually many world’s analysts and politicians began to see China as a veiled threat and tell the world toward what is now referred to as ‘the coming china wars’, as the title of a book written by Peter Navarro in the year 2008.
Incoming search terms for the article:
The Relationship Crisis of America and Israel ( 2#)
Efforts approach done by Israel to Kennedy in order not sending the inspectors’ team to Israel nuclear installation was failed. Kennedy still rejects requests of AIPAC and insisted send inspection team within 2 months. After perform inspections, U.S. team reported that there was no evidence if Israel will make nuke. But then uncovered that allegedly there was a conspiracy between Israel secret agent (Mossad) and U.S. secret agent (CIA) to trick Kennedy about nuclear program Israel in the time. Even President Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas Texas, presumably because of the involvement of the Mossad because Kennedy vigorously opposed to Israel’s nuclear program.
Israel’s obsession achieved when next U.S. President, Lyndon B Johnson, showed extraordinary cooperation. President B Johnson not only rejects fiddling Israeli nuclear program but also willing help Israel fully within Arab-Israeli war in 1967 which were won by Israel landslide. Israel succeeded occupying Deserts Sinai, Golan Plateau, Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
The fourth crisis occurs when Israel initially refused to participate in peaceful conferences in Madrid on 1991. Lobby of foreign ministers U.S. in that time, James Baker, to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir within visiting into Israel was failure. In that moment, U.S. has already give promise as compensating to the leader of Arabic that peace process in Middle East must keep continue after departure of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, with benefits that Arab supports AS in effort expel Iraq from Kuwait. Finally U.S. president George Bush threatens will freeze credits for Israel counted 10 billion U.S. dollars if Israel still refuse to depart into Madrid forums conferences. The U.S threat is forcing Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir went to Madrid.
The fifth crisis occurs when U.S. president Bill Clinton has a different opinion with Netanyahu government at end 1990s about the peace tactics. This opinion differences caused the collapse of Netanyahu government in 1999.
Incoming search terms for the article:
The Crisis of America and Israel Relationship ( #I)
The crisis of United States-Israel relationship at recent time related issue of the construction of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem is actually not the first things to happen. U.S. and Israel is already involved in the tension relations since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The first crisis happen when the state of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, U.S. President at that time, Harry S Truman, asking Israel in order to become the democratic state which muster all its citizens, both from the Jews and Arabs. As the founder of the State of Israel, David Ben Gurion, was more likely to establish that new country into a Jewish state. Yet Ben Gurion was finally complying with U.S. demand.
The second crisis occurred when triangle military attacks happen, France, Israel and England, to the Suez Canal, Egypt., In 1956, following Egypt’s decision at that time, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the canal is well-traveled international ships. U.S. President at the time, Dwight D Eisenhower, asked the prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, immediately withdraw Israeli forces from the Sinai Desert, and the Suez Canal. There was no choice for the Ben Gurion at the time except to fulfil U.S. president demand, Einsenhower, ie pulling Israeli forces from the territory of Sinai Desert.
The third crisis, differences of opinion occurred when U.S. president John F Kennedy asked Prime Minister Ben Gurion to stop nuclear weapons program of Israel. In mid-February 1961, Kennedy wrote a letter to Ben Gurion and asked that Israel’s nuclear installations in Demona is under the supervision of the IAEA (the institution atomic power nationally) based in Vienna, Austria. Ben Gurion was surprised to receive the letter and refused his request. Ben Gurion as one of the architects of nuclear program of Israel has ambition that Israel’s nuclear weapons is as an ultimate antidote to face the Arabs military attack which is considered to threaten the existence of the State of Israel.
After passing through a long discussion, finally taken a middle course, namely the U.S. (IAEA) will send the particular inspection team to oversee the nuclear program of Israel. Still, Ben Gurion remained disappointed because the nuclear program of Israel to be uncovered. He then lobbied the AIPAC (Jewish lobby in the U.S.) to keep close to Kennedy so that Kennedy cancel his intension of sending the U.S inspection team into Israel’s nuclear installation.
source : kompas 2010, several newspaper
Incoming search terms for the article:
Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion
Martin Wolk
One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.
In the months leading up to the launch of the war three years ago, few Bush administration officials were willing to comment publicly on the potential costs to the United States. After all, no cost would have been too high if the United States faced an imminent threat from an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, the war’s stated justification.
In fact, the economic ramifications are rarely included in the debate over whether to go to war, although some economists argue it is quite possible and useful to assess potential costs and benefits.
Story continues below ?advertisement your ad here
In any event, most estimates put forward by White House officials in 2002 and 2003 were relatively low compared with the nation’s gross domestic product, the size of the federal budget or the cost of past wars.
White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an “upper bound” estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, “The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.
U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey’s upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.
Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey’s view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate “very, very high.” Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with “a number that’s something under $50 billion.” He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.
Those early estimates struck some economists as unrealistically low. William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who published perhaps the most extensive independent estimate of the potential costs before the war began, suggested a war and occupation could cost anywhere from $100 billion to $1.9 trillion in 2002 dollars, depending on the difficulty of the conflict, the length of occupation and the impact on oil costs.
The most current estimates of the war’s cost generally start with figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which as of January 2006 counted $323 billion in expenditures for the war on terrorism, including military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this week the House approved another $68 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total allocated to date to about $400 billion. The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day, according to the CBO. That is about the same as the gross domestic product of Nigeria.
Scott Wallsten, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, put the direct cost to the United States at $212 billion as of last September and estimates a “global cost” of $500 billion to date with another $500 billion possible, with most of the total borne by the United States.