Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Thursday, March 31, 2016

North Korea nuclear tests: US and China to co-operate

  • 20 minutes ago

  • From the section Asia
a test-fire of the new large-caliber missile at an undisclosed location in North Korea - March 2016Image copyright KCNA
Image caption North Korea has conducted a number of missile tests in recent weeks

China and the United States will work together to try and prevent further missile tests by North Korea, US President Barack Obama says.
In recent weeks, North Korea has carried out a hydrogen bomb test and has repeatedly test-fired missiles while making threats to the West.
Mr Obama met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a nuclear summit in Washington on Thursday.
Mr Obama said both countries were keen to see a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
He said he and Mr Xi were seeking to agree "how we can discourage action like nuclear missile tests that escalate tensions and violate international obligations".
Mr Xi, quoted by China's state news agency Xinhua, said it was critical all parties "fully and strictly" implemented newly-agreed sanctions. China is North Korea's closest ally and largest trading partner.
Zheng Zeguang, China's assistant foreign minister, said the presidents had a "candid and in-depth exchange of views on a variety of issues...and reached an important consensus". He called the meeting "positive, constructive and fruitful".
North Korea's nuclear test on 6 January and a satellite launch on 7 February were violations of existing UN sanctions.
Since then, the UN and Washington passed further sanctions on Pyongyang. The UN steps were drafted with support by China and reportedly came after two months of negotiations between Beijing and Washington.
Media captionJonathan Marcus assesses North Korea's nuclear capabilities in light of the latest test claims
Previous UN sanctions imposed after North Korean tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013 did little to dispel its nuclear ambitions.
Much of the burden of making sure the sanctions are implemented is falling on China.
Under the new measures, any North Korean ships arriving in China must be inspected for contraband and imports halted if there is proof profits from those exchanges go towards the North's nuclear programme.
Washington has long pushed for Beijing to put more pressure on North Korea. A White House statement in February said China's "unique influence over the North Korean regime" gave it the chance to do so.
China's foreign ministry last week said it was keen to push for wider talks on North Korea, involving a number of regional powers, during the meeting with Mr Obama. There was no confirmation whether new talks were agreed on Thursday.
Mr Obama also vowed to closely work on the same issue with its allies South Korea and Japan after meeting their leaders on Thursday.
"We are united in our efforts to deter and defend against North Korean provocations," he said.

Free trade in America: Open argument


The case for free trade is overwhelming. But the losers need more help



IN 2011 Ronnie Dunn, a country singer, recorded “Cost of Livin’”, a poignant song about a former factory worker’s search for a job. Sensing there will be many more jobseekers than job openings, his can-do pitch gives way to desperation: “Bank has started calling/And the wolves are at my door”. Similar refrains can be heard all over America’s industrial heartland: almost 6m manufacturing jobs were lost between 1999 and 2011.
The scale of these job losses is not itself surprising: America’s dynamic economy creates and destroys around 5m jobs each month. But a recent set of studies by economists at leading American universities has found something disturbing. A fifth of that 1999-2011 decline in factory jobs was caused by Chinese competition, and those who lost jobs generally did not find new ones nearby (see article). Nor did the newly unemployed go in search of work elsewhere. Instead there was almost a one-for-one increase either in unemployment or, more frequently, in people leaving the workforce entirely—often to claim disability benefits, which 5% of Americans aged 25-64 now receive.
The anxieties that such findings stoke have made trade a touchstone issue in America’s presidential election. Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, promises to slap prohibitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. Bernie Sanders, the rival to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic candidate, wears his opposition to trade deals as a badge of pride. Mrs Clinton has herself backed away from her previous support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal negotiated by Barack Obama. Freer trade was one of the engines of the prosperous decades following the second world war, in America and beyond. Yet mainstream politicians are now not only afraid to champion it, they pour fuel on the fire. That is lamentable. Free trade still deserves full-throated support, even if greater care needs to be taken of those it hurts.
Toxic topic
Advocates of freer trade have always known that some lose out even as the great majority benefit. In moving for repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 (a campaign which this newspaper was founded to support), Sir Robert Peel acknowledged concerns about the harm this might do to agricultural labourers. “I wish it were possible to make any change in any great system of law without subjecting some persons to distress,” he said. Yet he also argued, correctly, that no one suffered more from tariffs on corn than the poorest farm workers.
What the latest research makes clear, however, is that in America’s case the losses from free trade are more concentrated and longer-lasting than had been assumed. In large part, that reflects the speed of China’s rise: its share of world manufacturing exports soared from 2% in 1991 to 19% by 2013. The shock caused by China’s emergence also exposed fault lines in America’s economy. Workers seem less willing to switch jobs or move states than in the past. Part of the explanation may be rising home ownership, by anchoring people to declining areas or pricing them out of vibrant ones. Whatever the explanation, free trade can impose big costs on a few places.
The worst possible response to such fears is the protectionism that Mr Trump is peddling. The surge in cheap imports of clothing, shoes, furniture, toys and electronics from China has greatly increased the spending power of those on low incomes. It has also added to the variety of goods they are able to buy. One study by economists at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Columbia University calculated that median income earners in America would lose 29% of their purchasing power if America was closed to trade, but that the poorest would forfeit as much as 62%, because they spend proportionately more on goods that are traded. Add to the reckoning the eventual benefits of a richer Chinese market for exporters, the spur to innovation in America from global competition and the low-cost inputs for consumer goods, such as the iPhone, that raise the productivity of American designers, and the arguments in favour of free trade are overwhelming.
Displacement activities
But what ought to be done to protect those workers who lose out because of competition from abroad? The safety net provided by trade-adjustment assistance, a federal programme, is threadbare—which is why many displaced American workers opt for more generous disability benefits and leave the job market altogether. In effect, America has imported some of the worst aspects of Europe while ignoring the best. Germany is Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse but has successfully absorbed the twin shocks of competition from China and the accession of countries to its east into the European Union. This is in part because Germany has been able constantly to upgrade the skills of its workforce, thanks to its system of apprenticeships. In America community colleges in depressed areas show promise in bridging the skills gap, but there is still too much emphasis on an expensive four-year university education and too little on vocational training.
America has also lagged behind other rich countries in “active” labour-market policies. More could be done to help workers who lose jobs to find new ones, through job exchanges and courses to add to skills. In America’s panoramic jobs market, there may be a case for providing relocation grants for workers hurt by trade. A big gripe of displaced workers is that an alternative job in the service sector does not pay as well or come with the same health-care or pension benefits that big manufacturers used to provide. That is a strong argument for a system of portable benefits that go with workers when they change jobs. A system of wage insurance might have merit.
Such policies are needed not only in America—workers in Britain’s steel plants are confronting the demise of the domestic industry (see article). Nor are they required only to smooth trade shocks. Many of these policies are necessary to deal with other sources of disruption, from cheaper robots to new technologies such as 3D printing. Protectionists want to turn back the clock. Far better to reap the permanent overall gains from trade while preparing the workforce for change.

Chinese politics


Beware the cult of Xi

Xi Jinping is stronger than his predecessors. His power is damaging the country



“IF OUR party can’t even handle food-safety issues properly, and keeps on mishandling them, then people will ask whether we are fit to keep ruling China.” So Xi Jinping warned officials in 2013, a year after he became the country’s leader. It was a remarkable statement for the chief of a Communist Party that has always claimed to have the backing of “the people”. It suggested that Mr Xi understood how grievances about official incompetence and corruption risked boiling over. Mr Xi rounded up tens of thousands of erring officials, waging a war on corruption of an intensity not seen since the party came to power in 1949. Many thought he was right to do so.
Today, however, China is enduring its biggest public-health scandal in years. Tens of millions of dollars-worth of black-market, out-of-date and improperly stored vaccines have been sold to government health centres, which have in turn been making money by selling them to patients.
Mr Xi’s anti-graft war has often made little difference to ordinary people. Their life—and health—is still blighted by corruption. In recent days there have also been signs of discontent with Mr Xi among the elite: official media complaining openly about reporting restrictions, a prominent businessman attacking him on his microblog, a senior editor resigning in disgust.
Mr Xi has acquired more power than any Chinese leader since Mao Zedong. It was supposed to let him get things done. What is going wrong?
Credibility gap
In fairness, Mr Xi was bound to meet with hostility. Many officials are angry because he has ripped up the compact by which they have operated and which said that they could line their pockets, so long as corruption was not flagrant and they did their job well.
But Mr Xi has also found that the pursuit of power is all-consuming: it does not leave room for much else. In three and a half years in charge, he has accumulated titles at an astonishing pace. He is not only party leader, head of state and commander-in-chief, but is also running reform, the security services and the economy. In effect, the party’s hallowed notion of “collective” leadership (see article) has been jettisoned. Mr Xi is, one analyst says, “Chairman of Everything”.
At the same time, he has flouted the party’s ban on personality cults, introduced in 1982 to prevent another episode of Maoist madness. Official media are filled with fawning over “Uncle Xi” and his wife, Peng Liyuan, a folk-singer whom flatterers call “Mama Peng”. A video, released in March, of a dance called “Uncle Xi in love with Mama Peng” has already been viewed over 300,000 times. There have been rumours recently that Mr Xi feels some of this has been going a bit far. Some of the most toadying videos, such as “The east is red again” (comparing Mr Xi to Mao), have been scrubbed from the internet.
Many would take that as a sign that the personality cult is little more than harmless fun. Mr Xi is no Mao, whose tyrannical nature and love of adulation were so great that he blithely led the country into the frenzy and violence of the Cultural Revolution. Although some older Chinese squirm at a style of politics so reminiscent of days long past, there is no suggestion that China is on the brink of another such horror.
But Mr Xi does not need to be as extreme as Mao for his concentration of power to cause harm. He has been fighting dissent with even more ruthlessness than he has been waging war on graft. Not since the dark days after the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 has there been such a sweeping crackdown on critics of the party. Internet censors have been busy deleting messages posted on social media by outraged citizens in response to the vaccine scandal. These have included posts reminding Mr Xi of his words in 2013 about the party’s fitness to rule. Police have also been investigating the appearance early in March of an anonymous letter on a government-affiliated website calling on Mr Xi to resign (raising, among several transgressions, the personality cult and his stifling of the media). Some 20 people have been arrested. Yet this work is never-ending. Even now citizens are pushing back. With the help of the internet, no matter how heavily it is blocked and censored, their voices keep crying out.
No liberal, Xi
By cracking down and puffing himself up, Mr Xi is neither buying himself security nor helping to keep China stable. He is using the party’s own thuggish investigators to take on graft. But they have a greater interest in settling political scores than in ensuring laws are applied fairly. That gets in the way of good administration, if only because officials are scared of spending money in case it attracts a probe. By cowing the media, Mr Xi created a press reluctant to challenge officials by exposing the dodgy-vaccine trade as soon as it was discovered at least a year ago. By the time such scandals eventually come to light, they pose even greater threats to the party’s, and Mr Xi’s, credibility.
Mr Xi has pledged to give market forces a “decisive role”, and put “power in a cage” by establishing the rule of law. But he is providing neither the country with prosperity and freedom, nor reassuring the rest of the world with stability. Abroad, anxieties about him keep growing: his muscular efforts to assert control in the South China Sea have been driving countries across Asia closer to the American camp.
Earlier in Mr Xi’s rule, observers had wondered whether, after establishing himself, he would turn to carrying out the reforms that he says he wants. But hopes are fading that a big reformist push will ever materialise. Mr Xi appears to have little time for the politically irksome business of making the party follow the law, closing down loss-making state-owned firms, or bringing about much-needed social changes, such as scrapping restrictions on access by rural migrants to urban public services. The task of preserving his power is a full-time job.
In the past 66 years of Communist rule in China, the most troubled times have usually come about when tensions break out within the elite. Mr Xi’s style of rule is only serving to stoke them. The more Mr Xi tries to fight off enemies using scare tactics and brute force, the more enemies he is likely to make.