Thursday, February 23, 2012

 

U.S. apologises to Karzai for Bagram incident

From The Hindu

The United States has expressed deep regret at the Koran-burning incidents at Bagram, Afghanistan, with Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta saying, “I apologise to the Afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms. These actions do not represent the views of the U.S. military.”


According to reports copies of the Koran were “inadvertently” incinerated at Bagram airbase after alleged suspicions that “Taliban prisoners were using the books to pass messages to each other.”
‘Unfortunate'

Mr. Panetta said that International Security Assistance Force Commander General John Allen had notified him of the “deeply unfortunate incident involving the inappropriate treatment of religious materials, including the Koran, at Bagram Airbase,” on Tuesday.

General Allen and U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Ashton Carter called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday to apologise again for the incident at Bagram airbase, the President's office said.

Pointing out that the U.S. soldiers “honour and respect the religious practices of the Afghan people, without exception,” Mr. Panetta said that he supported General Allen's swift and decisive action to investigate this matter jointly with the Afghan government and would ensure that the U.S. took “all steps necessary and appropriate so that this never happens again.”

His sentiments were echoed by remarks made by White House Spokesman Jay Carney, who said at a media briefing, “We apologise to the Afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms.” He also described the incident as “regrettable.”

Labels: , , ,


 

U.S. warns Israel against Iran strike

From The Hindu

After years of relentlessly seeking to bring the weight of international pressure against Iran through sanctions, the United States and other Western powers appeared to be backing off from a hawkish view against that country as they cautioned Israel against launching a direct strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.


Speaking to CNN's Farid Zakaria over the weekend General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said such an air strike was “not prudent at this point” and “would be destabilising.” The General's comments came even as the public discourse against Iran has heated up in the West and the prospect of an Israeli airstrike has gained salience in certain policy circles.

His remarks also come in the wake of similar comments by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who was quoted saying that the potential attack, which could reportedly involve as many 100 Israeli jets in a complex and dangerous operation, was “not a wise thing at this moment.” Both senior officials spoke even as representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in Tehran on Monday for further talks with Iran on its alleged nuclear activities.

General Dempsey also underscored the uncertainty surrounding the issue of Iran weaponising its nuclear assets, saying, “We also know... that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponise their nuclear capability.” He added, “On that basis I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us.”

While the General admitted that in the U.S. view “the Iranian regime is a rational actor,” he said that the Obama administration understood that Israel had national interests that were “unique to them,” and in particular they considered Iran to be “an existential threat in a way that we have not concluded that Iran is an existential threat.”

Commenting on Israel's strike capability against Iran General Dempsey said that it would only delay the production or the capability of Iran to achieve a nuclear weapons status, “probably for a couple of years.” Some of the targets in Iran were possibly entirely beyond Israel's reach he said.

Labels: , , , , ,


 

Agony and ecstasy over Windows’ new logo



From The Hindu

Did Microsoft just “butcher” the new Windows 8 logo, or is it “pure genius?” Ordinary users and IT geeks alike greeted the new blue-squares logo that Microsoft Corporation has created for its next Windows release with a wide range of reactions, some praising the logo for its simplicity, others less generous about its flag-like appearance.


Microsoft itself appeared somewhat defensive about the new logo, with Sam Moreau, Principal Director of user experience for Microsoft, writing a column in his blog titled, “It’s a window, not a flag.” Mr. Moreau however added that his company wanted the new logo to be both modern and classic by echoing the International Typographic Style.

“Using bold flat colours and clean lines and shapes, the new logo has the characteristics of way-finding design systems seen in airports and subways,” Mr. Moreau noted of the logo’s wider visual appeal, explaining that the idea was to align the logo with the basic style of Windows 8 itself, which he said was “fast and fluid... [and the logo is] humble, yet confident.”

Some industry experts however clearly did not share Mr. Moreau’s enthusiasm about the logo. Forbes magazine’s E.D. Kain wrote, “It’s hard for me to see how this is a great leap forward in design from the Windows 1.0 logo... I realise that this is all very much a matter of taste, but to me the blue window panel in the original is more eye-catching than the tilted blue panel in the Windows 8 version.”

A commentator on Mr. Kain’s column retorted, “I think it's very appropriate to have four Blue Screens of Death coming right toward you. Pretty much captures my Windows experience, anyway.”

In a similar vein VentureBeat's Sean Ludwig said, “It's a simple one-colour logo that emphasises Windows 8’s simple design, but it’s so bland that it doesn’t convey anything important about the new operating system. Likewise, ZDNet’s Larry Dignan remarked, “The Windows 8 logo gives me a window, but I want to jump out of it.”

Such acerbic criticism notwithstanding the very fact of intense debate and scrutiny surrounding the new logo however suggests that Microsoft’s grip on the global computing market is as strong as it has ever been.

Labels: , ,


 

Xi's movie deal a hit in U.S.

From The Hindu

Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping is clearly a West-Coast man. Soaking in California's excellent sunny weather, on Friday Mr. Xi enjoyed the hospitality of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, attended a Lakers game, and even managed to mend fences with Hollywood by sorting out a long-standing World Trade Organisation dispute on Chinese movie imports, a far cry from the relatively formal, sometimes-tense exchanges that he encountered in Washington a few days ago.


Even his harshest critic on this visit, his counterpart Joseph Biden, appeared to melt a little and complimented Mr. Xi on the movie deal. He said, “This agreement with China will make it easier than ever before for U.S. studios and independent filmmakers to reach the fast-growing Chinese audience, supporting thousands of American jobs in and around the film industry.”

U.S. access to China's burgeoning movies market has been a sore point for a while now and the conflict had escalated to the WTO after the government of Chinese government last year did not meet a WTO deadline to ease restrictions. According to the White House, China is a major export market for Hollywood and the U.S. enjoys a $12-billion global trade surplus on films and other audiovisual products.

The deal notwithstanding Mr. Biden, it appeared, could not resist reiterating the message that was frequently mentioned to Mr. Xi in Washington, that China had to provide U.S. businesses with a level playing field for economic competition.

“The crux of our discussions is that competition only benefits everyone if the rules to the game are fair and followed. So we will continue to work with the Vice President and the Chinese government to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules on a level playing field,” he said, at a luncheon in honour of Mr. Xi.

Labels: , , , ,


 

One held for U.S. terror plot

From The Hindu

The FBI has been working overtime on sting operations, it was evident, when it announced on Friday that it had arrested Moroccan Amine El Khalifi (29), an illegal resident in the United States, for plotting to detonate a bomb in a suicide attack on the United States Capitol Building.


Khalifi's arrest, which occurred as he walked from a parking unit towards the main building wearing an inert bomb vest earlier supplied to him by an undercover FBI officer, comes in the wake of a string of similar operations that has netted the FBI numerous would-be terrorists in recent years.

According to the criminal complaint affidavit, in January 2011, “a confidential human source reported to the FBI that El Khalifi met with other individuals at a residence in Arlington, Virginia.” Media reports however noted that more than a year back it was Khalifi's landlord, Frank Dynda, who had alerted authorities to his presence after Khalifi threatened to beat him up.

The FBI case against Khalifi noted that during the various meetings he had at that residence, “one individual produced what appeared to be an AK-47, two revolvers and ammunition... and Khalifi allegedly expressed agreement with a statement by this individual that the “war on terrorism” was a “war on Muslims” and said that the group needed to be ready for war.”

With an undercover officer only known as “Yusuf” assigned to the Khalifi case, the FBI affidavit further said that throughout December 2011 and January 2012, Khalifi had described to Yusuf his proposed targets in a bombing attack, including a building that contained U.S. military offices, a synagogue and a restaurant frequented by military officials. He also spoke of a “his desire to conduct an operation in which he would use a gun and kill people face-to-face,” the FBI said.

Today's case underscores the continuing threat we face from homegrown violent extremists,” said Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, adding, “Thanks to a coordinated law enforcement effort, El Khalifi's alleged plot was thwarted before anyone was harmed.” Authorities were quick to reassure that the explosives and firearm that Khalifi sought and attempted to use had been rendered inoperable by officers and at no time posed a threat to the public.

“This individual allegedly followed a twisted, radical ideology that is not representative of the Muslim community in the U.S.,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge, James McJunkin. “He became known to the Joint Terrorism Task Force because of his stated desire to carry out attacks in the U.S., specifically, the U.S. Capitol building,” the officer said.

Labels: , ,


 

White House forecasts 3.1% growth for two years

From The Hindu

In possibly its most optimistic economic forecast to date the White House this week revealed that its projected rate of growth of real gross domestic product of the United States was 3.1 per cent in 2012 and 2013, after it grew at 1.6 per cent during the four quarters of 2011.


The positive numbers were part of the Annual Report, titled “To Recover, Rebalance, and Rebuild,” compiled by the Council Of Economic Advisers and submitted by the CEA to President Barack Obama, who is then due to transmit the study to the U.S. Congress.

The study also said that the Administration “expects the employment situation to continue to improve in coming years,” specifically noting that the average monthly change in payroll employment was projected to rise from 146,000 in 2011 to about 167,000 in 2012.

“At this pace, two million jobs will be created during 2012, an increase from the 1.8 million created last year,” the report said, a number that CEA Chairman Alan Krueger underscored in a conference call with media on Friday.

Notwithstanding the downside risks that could emanate from the continuing financial crisis in the European Union economic area, the CEA expressed hope that such shocks that slowed growth in 2011 would not impede “an upturn in economic growth.” With the economy now operating below its capacity and many resources still underutilised, the CEA said that it had forecasted that the recovery would continue to gain strength.

Describing consumption growth during the early 2000s as unsustainable owing to “excess leverage” and arguing that this leverage had led to the financial crisis, Dr. Krueger noted that future growth in consumption would be in line with income and de-leveraging had already occurred in the U.S. economy.

Future growth would also be consistent with the President’s goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015, Dr. Krueger noted, indicating that he expected export growth to be strong and to play a key role in driving overall GDP growth.

Looking towards longer-term trends in growth the CEA report however admits that real potential GDP was projected to rise 2.5 percent a year in 2007–2022, which is slower than the long-term historical growth rate of 3.2 percent a year.

“The projected slowdown in real potential GDP growth reflects the lower projected growth rate of the working-age population and the aging of the baby-boom cohort into retirement,” the report explained, adding that the financial crisis and the 2007–09 recession, in contrast, were expected to have little effect on the level of potential real GDP, because they were not expected to permanently reduce any of the demographically-determined elements of long-term growth.

Labels: ,


 

U.S. “concerned” about LeT rally

From The Hindu

To a question on whether the United States had raised with Pakistan its view on the Difa-e-Pakistan Council rally in Karachi last week, the State Department said it was “concerned about the recent public appearances of Jamaat-ud-Dawa leader Hafiz Saeed,” at the rally.


Pointing out that the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front group Jamaat-ud-Dawa were internationally sanctioned because of their associations with al-Qaeda, a State Department spokesperson said, “We have and continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to uphold its obligations in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267/1989. That resolution calls for all countries to freeze assets of sanctioned groups, prevent the transfer of arms to them, and prevent sanctioned individuals from entering or transiting their territories.”

In comments to The Hindu Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank based in Washington, said, “It is reprehensible and irresponsible on the part of Pakistani authorities to permit JuD leader Hafiz Saeed to hold political rallies. The U.S. and the U.N. have recognised JuD as a front organisation for the Lashkar-eTayyiba, responsible for the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai...”

Ms. Curtis cautioned that allowing Saeed to operate freely was not only damaging to Indo-Pakistani peace efforts, but it “casts overall doubt on Pakistan's commitment to fighting international terrorism.” She said when Pakistani authorities permitted terrorist leaders to operate openly and conduct rallies, they were undercutting Pakistan's counterterrorism credentials.

Especially in the light of the court testimony by David Headley, which indicated Pakistani intelligence service involvement in the Mumbai attacks, Ms. Curtis said, “It is even more unbelievable that Pakistani officials would allow Saeed this kind of political space.”

Labels: , ,


 

A second slam-dunk for sports diplomacy

From The Hindu

Even if the politics of India-United States ties sometimes falls short of the hoop, the two nations continue to score slam-dunks in terms of bilateral sport diplomacy.

This week the U.S. State Department announced that the second round of people-to-people exchanges under its Sports Visitor programme will see 14 Indian basketball coaches touring the U.S. for ten days from February 17 2012.

The programme, hosted jointly by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the National Basketball Association (NBA) will begin in Washington, according to an official statement, “where the delegation will meet with U.S. basketball coaches, work with young American athletes, participate in a basketball clinic with Special Olympics athletes, and engage in activities focused on team-building and injury prevention.”

Later, the coaches from India will travel to Orlando, Florida to attend NBA coaching clinics and sessions surrounding NBA All-Star 2012, the State Department said.

The forthcoming exchange programme builds on the first round of basketball exchange in February 2011, when NBA Hall-of-Famer George Gervin and six-time WNBA All-Star Katie Smith travelled to India conducting basketball clinics for thousands of young boys, girls and coaches.

Labels: ,


 

Recognise “one-state” policy: Xi

From The Hindu

Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, on a high-profile tour of the United States has had a slew of unprecedented honours heaped upon him by Washington. Yet he has stood firm in articulating some of China's positions on its core national interests — most significantly its insistence that the U.S. respect its “one-state policy” regarding the territories of Taiwan and Tibet.


Speaking at an event hosted by the U.S.-China Business Council and the National Council on U.S.-China Relations, Mr. Xi was quoted as saying he hoped that the U.S. would “truly honour” its commitments to recognising the territories as part of the People's Republic of China.

Linking the “one-state policy” question to the U.S. military's stated “pivot” towards the Asia-Pacific region, he was noted to have said, “China welcomes the U.S. playing a constructive role in promoting the peace, stability and prosperity.”

However he reportedly added, “At the same time we hope the U.S. side will truly respect the interests and concerns of countries in the region, including China.”

Labels: ,


 

U.S. passes payroll tax cut

From The Hindu

After months of haggling the Congress has agreed a proposal for extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits package for the rest of the calendar year, handing the administration an election-year victory and bringing relief to over 160 million middle-class Americans.


While Republicans have secured a partial success in the negotiations by not compromising on Mr. Obama's request to end tax breaks for millionaires, the breakthrough in Congress this week is likely to buoy the President's prospects heading into the November presidential elections. The latest deal will also help prevent a pay cut for doctors who accept Medicare patients.

Speaking earlier this week Mr. Obama had pressed Congress to agree the stimulus-like package saying, “When a plane is finally lifting off the ground, you don't ease up on the throttle. You keep the throttle on full. You keep going. And our plane is up there, but we're not at cruising altitude yet.”

Yet it is unlikely that the payroll tax cut deal alone will see the economy through its post-recession woes. Experts argued that given the absence of additional revenue from a higher tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, this week's tax cut would likely add $100 billion to the federal deficit. Combined with continuing economic instability in Europe the overall downside risks to the U.S. economy may still be high.

High deficit levels notwithstanding Mr. Obama continued to train his guns on boosting infrastructure and education-sector investments and putting more money in the pockets of ordinary Americans. At a briefing on Tuesday he said he had released a blueprint for an economy “built on new American manufacturing, and new American energy sources, and new skills and education for American workers, and a new focus on the values that are the bedrock of this country.”

Labels: ,


 

India can seek oil elsewhere in West Asia: AJC

From The Hindu

Following the American Jewish Committee’s bluntly-worded weekend letter to Nirupama Rao, Indian Ambassador to the United States, one of the authors of the letter, AJC Executive Director David Harris has said to The Hindu that India could seek to source its energy needs from other West Asian nations but not Iran.


“As for energy sources, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, and other oil-exporting countries are creating a sufficient swing capacity to make up for any lost Iranian oil,” Mr. Harris said in an emailed statement.

While he admitted that the AJC understood that India had geopolitical interests in the region and energy needs for its surging economy that were quite specific, he added that “nuclear-aspiring Iran poses a profound threat to the region and the world.”

When asked whether Israel would be in any position to compensate for lost Iranian oil should India curtail its ties with Iran, Mr. Harris said, “I wish that Israel were in this category of energy-exporting nations, and thus in a position to assist its friend, India. That day may come in the not-too-distant future, but, alas, it is not here yet.”

Along with his colleague and president Robert Elman, Mr. Harris had said in their letter to Ms. Rao that New Delhi was attempting to take advantage of sanctions adopted by like-minded nations for the explicit purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation by a “dangerously aggressive regime.”

In that letter the AJC heads had cited the case of Indian Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar, who reportedly said that “a huge delegation” of Indian business representatives would soon travel to Iran to capitalise on opportunities created by European withdrawal from the Iranian market.

Mr. Harris said to The Hindu that even such attempts to deepen Indian ties with Iran may fail. “Why, in any case, would India seek risky contracts in Iran that may not materialize because of the inherent instability of the situation?” he asked.

Labels: , ,


 

A blow-hot, blow-cold visit

From The Hindu

Reflecting the mixture of bonhomie and acerbic disagreement in the United States-China relationship, the ongoing talks between visiting Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterparts appeared to swing between warmth and cold dissonance — the latter mostly on the human rights question.


In the brief two days that he has spent here, Mr. Xi, acknowledged by U.S. officials to be the future head of the Chinese political system, has held talks with President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joseph Biden and other top officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta.

He has been accorded top honours during his time in Washington, including a 19-gun salute and an honour guard of 350 troops in an unprecedented Pentagon ceremony for a foreign Vice-President.

For all the repeated assertions by the White House that U.S.-China cooperation mattered for the entire world, specifically in North Korea and Iran, and for global issues such as climate change and nuclear security, it was the sharp divergence on a range of core issues that grabbed the headlines.

Leading the charge was Mr. Biden, who said at a State Department luncheon that the relationship could be mutually beneficial only “if the game is fair”. He added that in meetings with Mr. Xi, the U.S. had discussed its areas of greatest concern, “including the need to rebalance the global economy, protect intellectual property rights and trade secrets, to address China's undervalued exchange rate, to level the competitive playing field”. Mr. Biden also did not mince his words when he said the U.S. “strongly disagreed with China and Russia's veto of a resolution against the unconscionable violence being perpetrated by the Assad regime [in Syria]”.

The strongest words came from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, who said he believed “Someone in China is hacking into our systems and stealing technology and intellectual property, which at this point is a crime.”

Even President Obama did not hold back on candid critique of China's record on human rights, saying to Mr. Xi at the Oval Office, “On critical issues like human rights, we will continue to emphasise what we believe is the importance of recognising the aspirations and rights of all people.”

Mr. Xi, however, did not allow his interlocutors to escape unchallenged and hit back at Mr. Biden saying, “We should address each other's economic and trade concerns through dialogue and consultation, not protectionism.” In his rebuttal on the human rights questions, Mr. Xi struck a balanced tone, insisting China had made “tremendous and well-recognised” progress while admitting that there was “always room for improvement”.

Labels: , ,


 

Obama proposes tax hike for millionaires

From The Hindu

In the most unmistakable sign yet that he has thrown down the gauntlet to his Republican challengers in the November presidential election, United States President Barack Obama announced a dramatic increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, to about 30 per cent.


Though even with the increase the tax rate for Americans earning over $1 million annually will only fall in line with the standard income tax rate, Mr. Obama struck a defensive note about the increase in a budget speech in Virginia, doubtless anticipating obstructionism in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. had already spent nearly $1 trillion more on “what was intended to be a temporary tax cut” for the wealthiest two per cent of Americans — a reference to the Bush-era tax compromise — and that this was set to cost the economy another trillion dollars.

“Keep in mind, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households... Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's not fair. It doesn't make sense at a time when we've got to pull together to get the country moving,” said Mr. Obama.

Under his new budget proposals, taxes on dividend income for the wealthiest taxpayers could jump from 20 per cent to 36.9 per cent. Millionaire Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, was said to have paid a tax rate closer to 15 per cent, holding much of his wealth in overseas tax havens.

Mr. Romney and Republicans in Congress were quick to attack Mr. Obama's 2013 budget proposals. Even before the budget document was unveiled on Monday Mr. Romney said it would not take “any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis”. Similarly Mr. Romney's rival and former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, said Mr. Obama had “failed to lead on budget deficit”.

In Congress, Paul Ryan, Republican Chair of the House Budget Committee, said Mr. Obama had put politics ahead of country, adding in a comment to the Associated Press “It seems like the President has decided again to campaign instead of govern... He's just going to duck the responsibility to tackle this country's fiscal problems.”

Mr. Obama appeared to anticipate some of these criticisms saying in his speech, “Some people go around, they say, well, the President is engaging in class warfare. That's not class warfare. That's common sense.”

Using himself as an example, Mr. Obama said, “I'm doing fine. We don't need the tax breaks. You need them. You're the ones who see your wages stall. You're the one whose costs of everything from college to groceries has gone up. You're the ones who deserve a break.”

Labels: ,


 

Seed of class action suit against Monsanto in U.S.

From The Hindu

In recent weeks the classic tale of David-versus-Goliath played out in the Southern District Court of New York — with the small exception that the “David” in question along with other small litigants coalesced into a 300,000-strong trade association and filed a class-action-suit-type action against their common defendant — agri-business giant Monsanto.


Seeking pre-emptive protection from lawsuits by Monsanto and also seeking relief from what they alleged was Monsanto's rapidly expanding use of genetically modified seeds and herbicides near their farms, the plaintiffs in the case represented a group of organic farmers from at least 21 states and provinces across the United States.

Making a fervent plea to Judge Naomi Buchwald that Monsanto's use of the chemicals anywhere near their organic farms was contaminating the organic products' quality, the farmers under the umbrella of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OGSATA) supplied oral arguments in court on January 31.

After hearing the arguments, Judge Buchwald said on March 31 she would hand down her decision on whether the lawsuit could move forward to trial.

Speaking after the hearing OGSATA President Jim Gerritsen commented, “Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace — to decide what kind of food they will feed their families — and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose.”

The odd twist in the case, however, is the fact that though the farmers are the plaintiffs, they are in fact de facto defendants in potential lawsuits from Monsanto — lawsuits that the latest case is designed to block.

The recent history of conflict between Monsanto and these small farmers is replete with examples of such pre-emptive lawsuits by Monsanto, to the extent that Monsanto's actions have reportedly led to organic farmers ceasing to produce a range of products such as soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola.

Labels: ,


 

Xi ready for tough dialogue with Washington



From The Hindu

Washington and Beijing prepared to reengage in a week-long bilateral tango on a tightrope as Chinese Vice-President and presumptive leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping left for the United States on Monday.


Mr. Xi's visit will be closely followed for insights into the man expected to lead China for the next decade, as well as guide its relations with Washington amid growing tensions. In a pre-visit call with media, White House officials clearly indicated their appreciation of Mr. Xi's position. Daniel Russel, Senior Director for Asian Affairs, said, “Building a relationship with the official in China who seems likely destined to be a central figure in the Chinese political system for years to come obviously is important....”

However Mr. Xi left Beijing with a stern message for the U.S. aimed at its recent focus on rebuilding strategic alliances in the Asia-Pacific, seen by many in China as a move to contain its rise. “At a time when people long for peace, stability and development, to deliberately give prominence to the military security agenda, scale up military deployment and strengthen military alliances is not really what most countries in the region hope to see,” he said in a written interview with the Washington Post.

The U.S.' strategic concerns in Asia appeared to be heavily weighted in the planned policy agenda during Mr. Xi's visit. While officials emphasised their belief that the Chinese “share our view that Iran should not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon,” they added that this visit would see the U.S. “consistently [address] with the Chinese the importance of not backfilling the sanctions that are in place... and [press] the Chinese on continuing to vigorously enforce sanctions.” The White House reiterated its message that “the Chinese and the Russians made the wrong decision in vetoing the recent U.N. Security Council resolution [relating to Syria].”

Officials are likely to face the thorniest area in the bilateral relationship, economics, head-on in the discussions. Even prior to Mr. Xi's departure, top Chinese officials have expressed concern about a “trust deficit” between the two countries amid rising trade disputes. “We must not allow frictions and differences to undermine the larger interests of our business cooperation,” Mr. Xi said in the Post interview. China would address concerns on Intellectual Property Rights protection and the trade imbalance, he said, but also sought the removal of restrictions on high-tech exports to China.

On the U.S. side, the well-worn complaints about Chinese business practices seemed to be of high priority still. Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor, said, “Over the last few years there's been increasing frustration by the business community about practices that China engages in that they view as being mercantilist and creating an unlevel playing field. And that includes subsidies for their own national champions, as well as policies designed to compel the transfer of technology and their violation of intellectual property rights. So we certainly hear a much louder chorus of complaints from American companies about business with China.”

Yet American officials may face a stout rebuttal on some counts from their experienced interlocutor. Mr. Xi is seen as a more international and outgoing leader than President Hu Jintao. This week's visit is not his first to the U.S. – he travelled to Iowa, where he will return this week, 27 years ago when he was a provincial official in central Hebei. He is known to have a love for Hollywood cinema – he will also visit Los Angeles on this trip – and basketball. But whether his charisma can soothe what is seen as a long list of strains is far from clear.

His greatest challenge may be the human rights question, on which the U.S. has repeatedly pressed senior Chinese officials. On this subject Mr. Russel noted, “It is an area of grave concern for us to witness the increase of tensions in Tibet and we are... tracking this very closely with real concern.”

Labels: ,


 

A bitter pill for Republicans

From The Hindu

While candidates in the Republican nominee race continue to launch blistering attacks against each other more than a month into the voting season, their ultimate political enemy in the November presidential election notched up another achievement to his scoreboard.


On Friday afternoon Mr. Obama said that his administration would seek to amend the original contraception policy envisioned in his 2010 groundbreaking healthcare reform package with a compromise that would aim to please both Catholic Church leaders and his liberal base of supporters.

Mr. Obama, who doubtless hoped to end months of protracted negotiations between the White House and conservative leaders opposed to Church funding for contraceptive care for its employees, said that under the amended rule insurance companies would be required to directly provide contraceptive services free of cost.

“Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health,” Mr. Obama said at a briefing, however adding, “But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company... will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

While the President is likely to tout this amendment as a bipartisan compromise conservatives in the nominee race were quick to denounce the move.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is a Catholic, described the policy as “the Obama administration's attack on the Catholic Church;” former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum, another Catholic, characterised the Obama administration as trying to “use their power to force people” to violate their beliefs; and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is usually attacked by conservatives for his positions on both religious and healthcare-related issues, called the policy an “assault on religion... and a real blow ... to our friends in the Catholic faith.”

The White House hit back at Mr. Romney in particular, with Spokesman Jay Carney saying it was “ironic that Mitt Romney is criticising the President” for a policy that Mr. Carney said was identical to the one Mr. Romney established as Massachusetts Governor.

At the heart of the debate is the question of whether the amended rule will in fact result in insurance companies bearing the full cost of providing contraceptive services to the employee in question, or whether that cost might be ultimately passed on to the employer.

Also of relevance to the debate is the nationwide opinion on the fiercely contested subject of the role of religion in private life. A Fox News poll released Friday was said to show that 61 per cent of Americans approve of requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women and 34 per cent disapprove.

Labels: , , ,


 

CIA website down, Anonymous takes credit

From The Hindu

While the Occupy movement has relied primarily on peaceful protest marches to highlight post-recession income inequality in the United States, recent months have made clear that the rise of the American left is a double edged sword and a darker, angrier sub-group of the movement is willing to take on authorities more aggressively.


After its first high profile Christmas-weekend attack against Texas-based security firm Stratfor, which resulted in the exposure of the company’s global blue-chip clientele list, this rebel group of “hacktivists” called Anonymous brought down a much larger prey on Friday – the Central Intelligence Agency.

All through Friday afternoon and evening the website of the U.S.’ top intelligence agency only showed an error message and even on early Saturday morning this correspondent could not log onto the page. Simultaneously Anonymous announced via its Twitter pages and Tumblr feed that the Central Intelligence Agency's website had been taken down.

The modus operandi was likely to be a distributed denial-of-service attack and, referencing this, a Twitter posting by Anonymous-linked account noted, “We’d remind media that if we report a hack or DDOS attack, it doesn't necessarily mean we did it... FYI”

Another posting read: “CIA TANGO DOWN: https://www.cia.gov/ #Anonymous.” Others referenced news story highlighting the alleged takedown. Reports quoted CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood saying on Friday night, “We are aware of the problems accessing our website, and are working to resolve them.”

And it was not only the CIA. The U.S. state of Alabama came under a hack-attack too, and a website identified by CNN to included Anonymous' signature tag line said that the action was Anonymous’ response to “Alabama's recent racist legislation in an attempt to punish immigrants as criminals.”

Alabama last summer joined with Arizona and others in passing unprecedentedly stringent immigration laws, including granting local police sweeping powers to conduct stop-and-search operations and measures to ramp up the pace of deportation of suspected illegal immigrants.

A third target selected in Friday’s attack was Mexico's Mining Ministry. An Anonymous-linked Twitter page supplied links to documents and messages that it said it had taken off a website tied to the Ministry. Reports quoted a related Twitter post from Anonymous saying, “Hello Mexican Chamber of Mines. Want to see your emails exposed?”

Inexplicably, Friday also witnessed a hacker group using the nickname “Casi” taking credit for hacking the United Nations website and reportedly releasing vulnerabilities on the site. It was unclear why the UN was targeted, although it may have been an unrelated attack given the absence of Anonymous’ now-famous signature message: “We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”

Labels: , , , , ,


 

Nuclear weapons: U.S. must put its house in order first, says report

From The Hindu

Even as the United States continues to exert pressure against India and other emerging powers for not falling in line with its vision for a global nuclear order, a stinging report by a major watchdog has revealed that the U.S.' own nuclear weapons are potentially unstable and critical intra-agency guidance on maintaining nuclear safety has been “vague.”

In a report that sharply chastised the nodal National Nuclear Security Administration for not sufficiently briefing the Pentagon on dangers lurking within the U.S.' ageing nuclear weapons stockpile, the Government Accountability Office this week drew attention to the euphemistically-named issue of “limitations.”

Military requirements Limitations, which refer to areas where a nuclear weapon may not meet certain military requirements throughout its delivery sequence, could potentially impact critical functions such as detonation safety under abnormal conditions, weapon reliability, weapon delivery, replacement of limited life components, nuclear yield and worker safety.


The GAO's investigation into whether the NNSA had helped mitigate the 52 limitations it identified revealed, worryingly, that the guidance that the NNSA had been supplying the Pentagon on this subject comprised “statements that... contain highly technical information and vague wording and may not clearly communicate a limitation's potential impact on stockpile operation, maintenance, and war planning”.

Citing one disturbing example based on its interview with a military service lead project officer, the GAO said when this officer had sought to clarify the impact that a particular limitation may have on weapon reliability with officials at a national laboratory, his efforts “were inconclusive and... for this particular limitation, NNSA's guidance provides little additional technical information and concludes that the weapon may not operate as required in a particular delivery mode, and the recommended mitigation action is to have laboratory staff brief STRATCOM war planners”

Highlighting a potentially lethal disconnect between a relatively abstract, science-focused approach at the NNSA and U.S. laboratories on the one hand and the field-ops focused requirements of the Pentagon, the GAO quoted the officer in question complaining that the NNSA document “is not very helpful in explaining this limitation's potential operational impact” and that discussing a limitation in terms of military requirements and Stockpile-to-Target Sequence would be more helpful.

Design lifetimes

With the majority of the U.S.' nuclear weapons stockpile currently being produced over 20 years ago it is clear that many of them are being sustained beyond their original design lifetimes, according to experts.

With the inexorable progress of time and the parallel decay of atomic weapon quality the limitations will steadily acquire greater importance in governing the fate of these weapons, especially upon deployment.

In this context, the GAO's findings that the NNSA does not have a well-defined, documented process for executing its stockpile surveillance programme may be considered deeply troubling and a forewarning of a possible nuclear misfire that could embarrass the nation's global nuclear safety policy.

Labels: , ,


Monday, February 20, 2012

 

Shooting the messenger

Marking a rare departure from article-posting on this blog, I’d like to take this opportunity to comment on a discussion originating in the columns of The Hindu, from an article I wrote for the newspaper, published on February 16 2012.

The reason I’ve chosen to offer this comment is because a member of an organisation mentioned in that article, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) has chosen to embark on a bitter tirade against not the article itself but, rather oddly, a conversation that I engaged in on Twitter with one of my colleagues, in which this article was referenced.

I should mention at the outset that in my world tirades per se, especially those based on extreme prejudice and a willingness to manipulate the words of others, do not warrant a reply. However the charges being laid at my feet are, like the prejudice that nurtures them, extreme – I have been accused of being anti-Semitic – and I have no intention of allowing such a libellous suggestion to go unanswered.

The blog post that makes these breathtakingly biased allegations was authored by David Harris (or one of his team), Executive Director at the AJC.

In his entry he begins by quoting the Twitter exchange that I had with my colleague, The Hindu’s foreign correspondent in Colombo, Sri Lanka, R.K. Radhakrishnan. At first mention of our chat, there are no accusations yet. However Mr. Radhakrishnan’s name is misspelt as Krishnan and his designation misstated – he is described as my “foreign affairs editor in New Delhi” – again wildly wrong, indicating a lack of any research (yet another charge levelled at me later in the piece).

Then the core issue, in my view, is given a passing mention and then entirely sidestepped. This is the letter that the AJC wrote to the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Nirupama Rao, on February 12 2012, in which it had the audacity to lay out the following pronouncements to her, on no greater a subject that India’s foreign policy:

“We were deeply troubled by recent news reports of Indian efforts to intensify trade relations with Iran at the very moment that Washington and fellow democracies are applying new economic pressures in the banking and energy sectors to persuade Tehran to halt its pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability.” [My comment: India is a sovereign nation and this is not the business of some lobby group sitting in the U.S.]

“New Delhi is attempting to take advantage of sanctions adopted by like-minded nations for the explicit purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation by a dangerously aggressive regime -- and which could, in turn, trigger an escalating arms race -- in a highly volatile region.” [My comment: This suggests that India is engaging in some sort of anti-West, anti-Israel policies and is also not capable of engaging in responsible foreign policy. This is entirely inappropriate, in my view, and something no Indian political leader or citizen would/should take lying down]

“In light of India's history of support for International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iranian transgressions, and repeated expressions of Indian Government concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions, we are alarmed and dismayed by this apparent move to elevate commercial interests over vital security concerns.” [My comment: Virtually equivalent to saying India is aiding and abetting nuclear proliferation, a charge not grounded in today’s reality, at least not the reality of any nation that has a healthy scepticism for certain hegemonic elements in the West]

In a similar vein Mr. Harris sent me further comments on the letter, upon my request, which I made in order to further examine the motivation of the letter and seek clarifications. I should mention that one clarification that I clearly sought (and one that was referenced in my subsequent tweet to Mr. Radhakrishan, that “no solutions were offered”) was what, if anything, was Israel going to offer India to make up for its loss of Iranian oil should India ever agree to such an outlandish pronouncement?

In that second note Mr. Harris reiterated many of the same messages that the first letter had covered, and he said:

“We believe that India should not be seeking to take advantage of a vacuum created in the Iranian market by laudable steps enacted by the United States, European Union, and likeminded nations.

Why would India act in such a way as to effectively undermine the aims in Iran of its most natural global partners? Why would India, committed to regional and global security, wish to enable a defiant and destabilizing Iran to grow stronger by circumventing new sanctions? And why, in any case, would India seek risky contracts in Iran that may not materialize because of the inherent instability of the situation?”

On my question regarding the course of action India was supposed to follow after it cut off Iranian oil supply lines, he said India could seek its oil from other West Asian nations and:

“I wish that Israel were in this category of energy-exporting nations, and thus in a position to assist... India. That day may come in the not-too-distant future, but..., it is not here yet.”

So, let me get this straight my friends, India is supposed to choke off oil from a friendly nation, which has itself been forced into a corner internationally, and then further grope about the vast swathes of West Asia in a possibly fruitless search for oil? Allow its impressive growth story to peter out? Ignore the potentially catastrophic implications of such actions for all its citizens, rich, middle class and poor?

Forget about taking instructions from some lobby group on the East Coast of the U.S. – this is a cheeky request not meriting discussion by India’s capable, independent foreign policy strategists. If Ambassador Rao even acknowledged the receipt of the letter that was more than the AJC deserved, in my opinion.

All that I have said until this point refers to the main issue at hand, the AJC sending out this message to the Government of India. Of course in my view this would nevertheless be of relevance to our readers, and even if justly provoked by the AJC’s action – as indeed I would surmise they were, given the responses to my article, see the web link provided above – it would be an insight into the thoughts of some lobbyists who claim to represent the broader interest of Israel (although that too, to my mind is a questionable assumption – see here for an account of the AJC’s extreme views as enunciated by a reputed Jewish publication).

Regarding the focus of their criticism, a casual conversation with absolutely no anti-Semitic undertones, Mr. Harris’ blog post quotes me and Mr. Radhakrishnan (but not the full text verbatim). The full conversation we engaged in, publicly available for all to see on Twitter, was the following:

NL; #India can seek #oil elsewhere in West Asia: American #Jewish Committee: http://bit.ly/wsi4Vh #Israel #US #Iran @AJCWashington


RKK: @narlak @AJCWashington Will the Jews lend money to refurbish refineries too?


NL: @RKKrishnan @AJCWashington I sort of asked them about that, the compensating effect, but... ahem... no solutions offered ;)


RKK: @narlak @ajcwashington So, the answer is they don't care if the poor freeze to death or are forced to skip meals. Their Will has to prevail?


NL: @RKKrishnan @ajcwashington Not if Ahmedinejad has something to say about it...

Mr. Harris launches into a full attack on this conversation – entirely ignoring any questions about whether it is fine for them to be telling India to sever economic ties with Iran. Let us leave this criticism at the moment and consider Mr. Harris’ remarks.

First, he says, “the facts were all easily available had either Lakshman or Krishnan been interested. Obviously, they were not.” What facts? Mr. Harris answers: the leading voice that the AJC has been in U.S.-India relations, support for the civil nuclear deal, constructing a school in Gujarat after the earthquake of 2001, and “bringing the Jewish community together” across three countries.

Wait a minute, so in exchange for this “warmth” shown by Israel, India needs to bow to some bizarre diktats of some lobby in the U.S.? How decisive was Israel’s role in the civilian nuclear deal? Was any contribution they made driven by cynical self-interest? Without it would the deal have foundered? And they constructed one school in Guajarat? Just one? Sure, every little helps in such disasters but, I’m sorry my friends, there were numerous other institutions and countries that did far, far more. Please refresh your data on that here (page 5).

Regarding bringing the Jewish community together, sure, that makes a difference to the communities and possibly to the nations, but let’s not overstate our importance here. No single community, regardless of ethnic or religious origin has very often decisively altered the fate of massive, pluralistic, secular nations such as India and the U.S. – their fate is driven by a great many factors far beyond the narrow little analytical framework you have tied them to here. Again, if you wish to examine the factors affecting this enormous social-scientific and historical question please read this book.

Second, Mr. Harris suggests that Mr. Radhakrishnan’s allusions to the poor in India who might face even worse socio-economic outcomes than they already do is a mere deflection of attention away from the core issue, which is that India needs to sever ties with Iran. This to me yet again reveals a complete ignorance of the ground realities that matter to us, to Indians. Have you been to India much Mr. Harris? Seen the plight of the poor, and even the middle classes that sometimes face economic shocks and suffer prolonged results? Easy to sweep them under the carpet from your fancy Manhattan office isn’t it? Well I’m sorry but it’s us journalists, with few stakes in the game of the variety you apparently have, who are unafraid to speak the truth about such matters. And yes, I will make no bones about it, and I am confident I can speak for my colleague too, we care very much more about injustices meted out to the poor in our country over the impact that sustaining India’s ties with Iran would have on some U.S.-based lobby group. So it’s not a “red herring” as you condescendingly put it.

Oh and one stylistic matter here, it actually undermines your argument to use personal attacks and name-calling [“provocateurs”] in what ought to be a civil debate. Use this piece by me as an example of how not to shoot yourself in the foot in that manner.

Third, and finally, Mr. Harris goes after me with a flawed analysis:

In the coup de grâce, Lakshman -- with seeming indifference, if not outright glee -- suggests “the Jews” may not turn out to be a long-term issue, at least if Ahmedinejad has his say.

There are so many issues here that I don’t know where to begin. I suppose with the most glaring, obvious logical fallacy that Mr. Harris has committed – just like every previous statement in my discussion with Mr. Radhakrishnan, my reference about Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having his say was about certain Jewish lobbies’ attempts to have India sever its ties with Iran – not about the Jewish people! How could you miss this? Did you miss it? Or was it wilful “confusion?” I will leave you with the benefit of doubt on that question Mr. Harris, but please get your logic right this time, I am not anti-Semitic, I did not refer to any Iranian having his say with the Jewish or Israeli people, but I did mean, and most vehemently so, that I very much expect the Iranian establishment to stand up for its relationship with India. Similarly I expect India to do so, and we can watch whether events unfold as per your or my predictions in this regard.

The second problem with Mr. Harris’ attack on my remark – I did not use the word “Jews,” because I do not use it generally, and I do not approve of its use. The way Mr. Harris has made his remarks, however, very much implies that I did say that, and that, Mr. Harris, is a rather shameless use of verbal sleight-of-hand.

Finally, who said anything about “long-term issues?” By this point Mr. Harris is in the realm of complete make-believe, serving up fancy phrases that had never in these conversations been uttered. I rest my case.

However, lest you seize upon this blog entry by me as yet another excuse to go about making wild allegations I would like to leave the AJC with one parting thought: do not think the reading public is so unsophisticated that they will be swayed by your battle-cry of “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Semitism, history and the present teach us – as I am sure you well know – is an abhorrent quality.

Yet when anyone makes the allegation of anti-Semitism every time a fair criticism is levelled at that person (for example for espousing a misguided and ultimately futile foreign policy prescription for another proud nation) – then it is the very person making the accusation of anti-Semitism who is disrespecting the history behind that horrendous phenomenon.

I will finally reiterate that I thought it necessary to make these remarks to clarify my view of the rather nasty allegation levelled at me. While I will not be responding further in a public forum on this matter and make a spectacle of what I consider a serious issue, I am more than happy to engage in a discussion on this with you, the AJC, or anyone else in a private channel.

Narayan Lakshman

Thursday, February 02, 2012

 

Letter From America: Blistering box-office barnacles!


From The Hindu

“Ten thousand thundering typhoons!” How cherished is that war cry, the beloved image of an enraged, frothing Captain Haddock about to hurl himself on to some hapless crook for swindling him out of a bottle of rum. Many of us grew up with Tintin and his drunkard-turned-socialite master of Marlinspike Hall, and they have, possibly along with the Asterix series, become a timeless, pleasant and breezy echo of our childhood days.

The uniqueness of the comic book series created by Belgian artist Georges Remi (1907–1983) — who wrote under the pen name of Hergé — is not only that Tintin's uncompromising and constant goodness allowed us to virtually enter his character and explore the variegated tapestry of new cultures in a pre-tourism era. It then unfurled the richest fabrics of those cultures for us, warts and all, and we gasped in wonderment. They were educational and thrilling, every one of the 25 volumes.

While we in India and quite likely our counterparts in continental Europe would firmly testify to the timeless appeal of the comic series — indeed London's Covent Garden has a “Tintin Shop” — director Steven Spielberg's motion-capture 3D animated version released two weeks ago in the U.S., The Adventures of Tintin (2011), raises an interesting question about its popularity on the other side of the Atlantic.

When I went in to watch the film at a popular cinema in Washington, admittedly on a Tuesday afternoon, there were all of four people in the hall. I asked one of them, Maryland University mathematics professor Charles Wheeler, about whether American audiences were as familiar with Tintin as were we in the Commonwealth of Nations.

According to the professor, although it may be difficult to confirm that could well be the case and, “Many more Americans would be familiar with Rin Tin Tin [a dog adopted from a WWI battlefield that went on to star in 23 Hollywood films] than with Tintin.”

So what brought him to the cinema that day? Professor Wheeler said he had first met Tintin about eight years ago in Berlin while visiting friends, when he used the German translations of Tintin as an aid in learning the German language. Similarly, he explained that a well-travelled friend of his from Iowa, who was familiar with comics from the 1950s, only encountered Tintin a few years ago while visiting Paris. 

Tintin-chasm
 
But the evidence is not clear that there is a vast Tintin-chasm between Europe and the Americas either. Jake Cumsky-Whitlock, a Buyer at Kramerbooks, one of Washington's top bookstores, said to me, “People who grew up with the book, like me, definitely think of Tintin fondly, and would buy the comic, but I don't know how typical my experience is.” Yet, he too admitted, there had been a “fairly dramatic increase in demand for Tintin since movie was out,” and in recent months his store has “carried many more volumes.”

And the movie certainly could have done worse at the box-office. In the two weeks that it has been running in Washington, it has grossed over $51 million, having been made on a budget of $130 million as per estimates by the IMDB film database. This is considerable, given that hardcore Hollywood blockbusters such as the Bruce Willis sequel Die Hard with a Vengeance rank #506 in the all-time box office record and raked in around $100 million. The question really is, why has Tintin not swept the box office — and indeed the bookstores — the way Marvel Comics superheroes like Spiderman and Batman do? 

Superhero monopoly
 
One possibility is that Tintin's fate in the Americas may have been sealed owing to the monopoly muscle of Marvel Comics, since 2009 owned by the Walt Disney Company. Towards the end of the 1950s, several attempts were made to introduce Tintin to America including serious publicity campaigns and, of course, newly translated and adapted versions of Tintin's most popular adventures. They sold a miserable 8,000 copies each over the Christmas and New Year holiday shopping season.

This was an early foreboding of things to come for the blond-tufted young scribe and in many ways economics was to blame. In a detailed study, the National Post explained that the Tintin comics that hit America were lumped in with other comics and not sold in book form as they were in Europe. There was little product differentiation but only a higher price for the hardbound cover. 

Further, customers' interest may have flagged further in the wake of a parallel development in the American comic world: the highly graphic, often violent, crime and horror comics in the U.S. came under the scanner of the censors. According to the Post, a 1954 U.S. Senate Subcommittee “even investigated them as a possible cause of juvenile delinquency ... the whole genre still had something of a black mark on it.” 

Yet something deeper seems be missing. Some audiences in the U.S complained that the English translations of Tintin notwithstanding the series still “betrayed a vaguely European sensibility,” and “The language, dress and even the body language of the characters — not to mention some of the colonial plot lines — always seemed somewhat removed from the American idiom.” Was it purely a cultural dissonance with a Marvel-steeped audience that led to the failure of “Tintin in America”? 

Why then, in 1971, when a re-launched hardcover Tintin reached the zenith of his American popularity and sold reportedly 1,000 copies a day, did a major publisher decline to do a long-term deal with Tintin? Western Publishing's refusal to take it up was “on the belief that fancy European hardcover comics could not compete in a marketplace in which the monthly adventures of Superman, Spider-man and Batman were going for just 20¢ a pop.” 

Ultimately, however, questions of marketability must boil down to questions of consumer demand. It would appear the Atlantic has proved more impermeable to the passage of Tintin than the many sands he crossed to enter the farthest reaches of Asia and Africa.

Labels: , ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]