SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4847)8/12/2003 6:06:48 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793662
 
Hard to get tough on trade with China when we are asking for their help on North Korea.

Another Kind of War
China's monetary manipulation.

By William R. Hawkins

In response to the manufacturing recession that has slowed the U.S. economy, and cost the country 2.5 million factory jobs in the last three years, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Treasury Secretary John Snow, and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao have been holding roundtable discussions with business and labor leaders outside the Beltway. In the Washington Post on August 1, Steven Pearlstein reported on the tour's hottest topic, "It came up at every stop on this week's Cabinet-level bus tour through the Midwest. Business lobbyists say it's all their members want to talk about....We're talking here about China, now on the fast track to becoming a dominant player in the global economy and causing major disruptions along the way."

What is being said outside Washington mirrors what has been going on in Congress all summer. On July 17, Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole and Lindsey Graham, and Democratic Senators Evan Bayh and Charles Schumer, cosigned a letter asking Treasury Secretary John Snow to investigate whether China is manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage in the American market. The day before, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had warned China on the same issue while testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, State, and the Judiciary held a hearing on "How Trade with China Affects American Manufacturing" in May. At that hearing, the National Association of Manufacturers projected that in five years, the U.S. trade deficit with China would triple to over $330 billion if current trends continued. Based on the first half of this year, the 2003 deficit with China will reach $120 billion, the largest and most lopsided deficit in the U.S. trade accounts. For every $1 worth of U.S. exports to China, $5 worth of Chinese products are sold in America.

Since 1997, the U.S. trade position has deteriorated dramatically. 1997 was the year of the global financial crisis that started in Asia, then spread to Russia and Latin America. That crisis threw many countries into recessions from which they have not recovered. The result has been smaller export markets for American goods and more aggressive efforts by distressed foreign producers to dump their goods into the U.S. market. China, however, has escaped the global downturn. In June, Chinese exports rose 33 percent from a year earlier to $34.5 billion, while production increased by 17 percent, according to Beijing. The median forecast for the Chinese economy reported by Bloomberg News was for growth of 27 percent in exports and a 13 percent rise in factory output. China's export boom is generating an expansion of domestic production, but not reciprocal imports.

China set world events in motion when it devalued its currency in 1994, giving it a decided advantage over its trade rivals on the Pacific Rim. Driven to the wall, a wave of devaluations swept through these other states, but in a disruptive rather than a planned fashion. Ernest H. Preeg, of the Manufacturers Alliance and the Hudson Institute, has estimated that the Chinese yen is as much as 40-percent below market value. But Beijing has intervened on a massive scale to keep the yen from being valued by the market.

China is able to use the profits from its successful trade policy to maintain its advantage. Its trade surplus gives it the dollar reserves it needs for financial intervention. Between 1997 and March, 2003, its dollar reserves grew from $140 billion to $316 billion.

And when China is involved, the dangers are not just commercial. Beijing is still ruled by a Communist-party hierarchy that thinks in geopolitical terms. Its strategy is to undermine American and rival Pacific Rim industry while building up its own manufacturing base so as to shift the balance of power in Asia. The Chinese term for this approach is "comprehensive national power."

In the seminal Chinese treatise on modern strategy Unrestricted War by People's Liberation Army Senior Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, published in 1999, the unfolding financial crisis is compared to military conflict: "Economic prosperity that once excited the constant admiration of the Western world changed to a depression, like the leaves of a tree that are blown away in a single night by the autumn wind. After just one round of fighting, the economies of a number of countries had fallen back ten years. What is more, such a defeat on the economic front precipitates a near collapse of the social and political order. The casualties resulting from the constant chaos are no less than those resulting from a regional war."

It is also argued in Unrestricted War that to attack another country's economy, the aggressor "must adjust its own financial strategy, use currency revaluation or devaluation as primary, and combine means such as getting the upper hand in public opinion and changing the rules sufficiently to make financial turbulence and economic crisis appear in the targeted country or area, weakening its overall power, including its military strength." A weak American economy and the resulting budget deficits make it more difficult to provide the funds to modernize or expand the overstretched U.S. military, or to pay for overseas combat operations, or to finance national building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, if economic troubles can bring "a near collapse of the social and political order" would it not be to Beijing's benefit to see the assertive President George W. Bush ? who pledged the defense of Taiwan, defeated for reelection in 2004? Despite winning the 1991 Gulf War, the senior President Bush was defeated for reelection because of a recession. His defeat brought forth President Bill Clinton, who followed an appeasement policy towards China. Beijing's strategists may have more in mind than just the economic gains from trade.

Unfortunately, despite the increased attention being paid to the impact of trade on the American economy, there has yet to be the kind of integration of international economics into U.S. global strategy that is found in Chinese writings. Until that happens, American officials will find it difficult to do more than voice complaints. Effective counteraction will require the imposition of countervailing duties to offset Beijing's currency manipulation and put some teeth into U.S. diplomacy, but few seem ready to confront Beijing on its own terms.

? William R. Hawkins is senior fellow for national-security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, Washington, D.C.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4847)8/12/2003 8:21:47 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793662
 
I think the "Times" reporter is slanting this story to try to CYA for Gilligan. But it does not work. We will see what the British press has to say tomorrow.

BBC Reporter Testifies in Inquiry of Dead Scientist
By ALAN COWELL - NEW YORK TIMES

LONDON, Aug. 12 - A journalist at the center of a brutal row over the credibility of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government today stood by his disputed report that suggested a senior Blair aide had exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons systems before the Iraq war.

The reporter, Andrew Gilligan of the British Broadcasting Corporation, testified at a special inquiry into the apparent suicide of David Kelly, a government expert on biological weapons. Dr. Kelly had been identified as the source of a report by Mr. Gilligan that the government "sexed up" a dossier last September on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And for the first time, Mr. Gilligan's account of Dr. Kelly's views on the dossier was corroborated today by a second BBC journalist.

Mr. Gilligan's testimony at the Royal Court of Justice offered rare insight into the inner workings of the 81-year-old BBC ? one of Britain's most august institutions ? a public broadcaster depicted around the world as a paragon of integrity but whose standards and reputation are now being called into question at home.

The inquiry, likely to take months, is also adding new texture to an epic battle between the BBC, the jealous guardian of its editorial and programming independence as guaranteed by Royal Charter, and a government accused by its critics of seeking to manipulate the news media at every turn.

Mr. Gilligan's original report ? broadcast May 29 on "Today," a morning radio program that often sets the agenda for Britain's political elite ? has been vehemently denied by Alastair Campbell, the Blair adviser Mr. Gilligan subsequently accused of altering the weapons dossier. Mr. Campbell has denied the charge.

And one of the reporter's own bosses, Kevin Marsh, questioned Mr. Gilligan's "flawed reporting" in an e-mail message, the inquiry was told today. Mr. Gilligan himself acknowledged today that his choice of some words in the May 29 report was "not perfect".

Dr. Kelly, the scientist and former Iraq weapons inspector whose body was found near his Oxfordshire home on July 18, had also publicly challenged Mr. Gilligan's account of a meeting they had on May 22. Dr. Kelly was found with his wrist slashed just days after he had been identified as a source of Mr. Gilligan's reporting and was called before an earlier, parliamentary inquiry.

The legislators in charge of that inquiry today published what had been confidential testimony by Mr. Gilligan in which, they said, he seemed to reverse an accusation that Mr. Campbell was responsible for inserting in the September dossier a claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. Mr. Gilligan denied reversing his testimony.

The so-called "45 minutes" claim has become one of the most debated points of the whole imbroglio. In its dossier, the government alluded to it four times, and it was included in the executive summary as Prime Minister Blair struggled to rally a reluctant nation behind the impending war by asserting that Baghdad at the time presented a real and imminent threat.

But Mr. Gilligan's May 29 report fueled questions about Mr. Blair's reasons for sending British troops to join American forces in Iraq, particularly since no weapons of mass destruction have so far been found in Iraq.

In his testimony today, Mr. Gilligan released what he said was a transcript of a conversation with Dr. Kelly on May 22 taken from notes on a palm-top computer.

The abbreviated notes quoted Dr. Kelly as saying that the September dossier was "transformed wk before pub to make it sexier the classic was the 45 mins most things in dossier were dbl sc but that was single-source." [This was described as meaning: "Transformed week before publication to make it sexier. The classic was the 45 minutes. Most things in dossier were double-source but that was single-source."]

The notes referred simply to "Campbell" and said intelligence officers were not happy with the changes because the 45-minutes claim was based on real but unreliable information and had been inserted in the dossier against their wishes.

Mr. Gilligan insisted that it had been Dr. Kelly that "raised the subject of 45 minutes and he raised the subject of Campbell" as the person who had transformed the previously "dull" dossier.

In separate testimony, Susan Watts, the science correspondent of the "Newsnight" television news program, said she had also spoken with Dr. Kelly on three occasions last May. At one meeting before Mr. Gilligan's encounter with Dr. Kelly, she said, she had taken a shorthand note that also quoted Dr. Kelly as saying it was a "mistake" to include the 45-minutes claim.

She quoted her notes as saying: "A mistake to put in, Alastair Campbell seeing something in there, single source, but not corroborated, sounded good." However, Ms. Watts said, she did not use this information in any report because "I did not consider it particularly controversial and "I found it to be a glib statement."

Journalists in Britain very rarely end up reading interview notes before public hearings and, in this case, both the BBC and Mr. Gilligan sought to keep Dr. Kelly's identity a secret until three days after his death.

Government officials told the opening day of the inquiry that the information to support the 45-minutes claim had come from a reliable single source. They denied that the government had knowingly used false information.

In his initial radio report on May 29, Mr. Gilligan did not identify Mr. Campbell by name as the adviser responsible for the weapons claim but did do so in a subsequent article for a Sunday newspaper. "I was concerned not to have a row with Alastair Campbell. That's why I did not name him on `Today.' The Guardian named him first in this context," Mr. Gilligan said.

Since the row erupted, the BBC has said it will review the common practice among some of its most senior journalists of writing newspaper articles and commentaries in addition to their work as broadcasters.

Mr. Campbell has not given his version of events, but the senior judge heading the inquiry, Lord Hutton, has said he will call him to testify along with Mr. Blair and other government leaders.

Mr. Gilligan said Dr. Kelly told him that he believed that Iraq had developed a weapons of mass destruction "program of some sort, but he did not believe the level of threat to the West was as great as the dossier said."

Throughout the argument over Mr. Gilligan's report, the BBC has refused to correct the May 29 report and has declined to apologize for it despite pressure to do so from Mr. Campbell.

Within the organization, though, there seems to have been a more nuanced perception.

Mr. Marsh, the editor of the "Today" program, sent an e-mail message on June 27 to the head of Radio News at the BBC, Stephen Mitchell, saying that the May 29 report was "a good piece of investigative journalism marred by flawed reporting." He added, "The biggest millstone has been the loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of the phraseology."

A separate document from the BBC's board of governors said, "Careful language has not been applied by Andrew Gilligan throughout."

The government's objections to Mr. Gilligan's report relate in part to the way accusations emerged in an interview on the "Today" show in which Mr. Gilligan expounded to a presenter on what Dr. Kelly had apparently told him without identifying his source.

"The words, in hindsight, were not perfect," Mr. Gilligan said today.

nytimes.com