गुरुवार, 13 जुलाई 2023

Critical moment for Thai democracy as parliament fails to elect new prime minister.

Critical moment for Thai democracy as parliament fails to elect new prime minister

The Move Forward party's leader and prime ministerial candidate Pita Limjaroenrat speaks to supporters during a rally in Bangkok, Thailand, on July 9.
CNN — 

The sole nominee to be the next prime minister of Thailand failed to secure enough parliamentary votes to form a government Thursday, a set back for the future of democracy in the country following nearly a decade of turbulent military-backed rule.

The vote was seen as a critical moment for Thailand, in which members of the bicameral National Assembly declared their pick for prime minister, and was expected to reveal whether the ruling establishment would accept the choice of the people who overwhelmingly voted for progressive, opposition parties in a May election.

In a shock election result, newcomer party Move Forward won the most seats and the largest share of the popular vote, capitalizing on years of rising anger over the kingdom’s governance.

Move Forward’s leader Pita Limjaroenrat received just 324 votes out of the 376 needed for a majority in both the upper and lower houses. The House Speaker will now call for another round of voting scheduled for a later date.

The party had pledged deep structural reforms to how the Southeast Asian country of more than 70 million people is run: changes to the military, the economy, the decentralization of power and even reforms to the previously untouchable monarchy.

Following the vote, Pita told reporters outside parliament that he accepts the result “but won’t give up.”

“We will not change our policies, we have to keep our promise given to the people,” he said, in reference to his party’s radical campaign pledge to amend Thailand’s strict lese majeste law despite the taboo surrounding any discussion of the royal family in Thailand.

Monarchy looms over the vote

Section 112 of the Criminal Code criminalizes criticism of the King, Queen or heir-apparent and lese majeste convictions carry long prison terms of up to 15 years. Currently, anyone can bring a case, even if they aren’t connected to the alleged crime.

The subject of royal reform is so sensitive that several senators and conservative parties ruled out voting for Pita for this reason.

“He is not suitable to become a prime minister of Thailand. First, the Move Forward Party has a policy amending and abolishing Section 112, secondly, after the Election Commission has forwarded the case to the court to look into his eligibility, this has proved at a certain level that he is not qualified,” Senator Seri Suwannapanon told CNN before the vote.

“The tendency of the senators, they will protect Section 112 and won’t vote for an ineligible person.”

Outside parliament Thursday morning, Senator Kittisak Rattanawaraha said he wouldn’t vote for Pita, “because they are behind attempts to meddle with independent agencies, military, police and Section 112.”

But Move Forward’s policies won huge support among the country’s youth who have long felt disaffected by years of authoritarian politics and frustrated with the stuttering economy and tough job market.

The May election, which saw a record turnout, also delivered a powerful rebuke to the military-backed establishment that has ruled Thailand since 2014, when then-army chief Prayut Chan-o-cha seized power in a coup.

Thailand has witnessed a dozen successful coups since 1932, including two in the past 17 years.

Prayut was elected prime minister in 2019, a win largely credited to a military-drafted constitution that entrenched the military’s power in politics.

On Tuesday, Prayut announced his retirement, adding he would remain as prime minister until the new government is formed.

Regardless, he was not expected to gain enough support in the lower house to win another term as prime minister, as his party only won 36 seats in the May election.

Head of Thailand's victorious Move Forward Party speaks to Zain Asher
08:39 - Source: CNN

Roadblocks to the progressive movement

Pita’s supporters say a victory for the 42-year-old Harvard alumni in Thursday’s parliamentary vote would usher in a progressive and democratic new era for Thai politics.

Despite a clear win at the polls for Pita, it remains far from certain who will be Thailand’s next leader.

In Thailand, a party or coalition needs to win a majority of 376 seats in both lower and upper houses of parliament – 750 seats – to elect a prime minister and form a government.

Move Forward’s majority was not big enough to form a government outright, even with a coalition of seven other opposition parties.

To secure victory, the coalition will need support from the unelected 250-member Senate – which was appointed by the military under a post-coup constitution and has previously voted for a pro-military candidate.

That proved to be major roadblock in Pita’s path to prime minister.

Thailand’s powerful conservative establishment – a nexus of the military, monarchy and influential elites – has a history of blocking fundamental changes to the status quo.

Move Forward’s proposed structural changes target the heart of this establishment, with priorities to “demilitarize, demonopolize and decentralize” Thailand, Pita recently told CNN.

That includes getting rid of mandatory conscription, reducing the military budget, making the military more transparent and accountable, and reducing the number of generals.

In another major setback on the eve of the vote, Thailand’s Constitutional Court Wednesday accepted two complaints against the Move Forward Party and its leader Pita.

The case is set to be reviewed next week and if it moves to trial, Pita will be suspended from political duty. That outcome will likely add fuel to the fire of his young support base, with the potential for mass street protests.

One of the complaints, forwarded to the court by the Election Commission, accuses Pita of violating election law for allegedly holding shares in a media company and requested he be disqualified. Pita has denied he broke election rules and a statement from Move Forward accused the Election Commission of rushing the case to court.

In recent weeks, Pita has been rallying supporters across the country, with thousands of people gathering in Bangkok on Sunday, despite heavy rain.

He has previously been confident of securing enough parliamentary votes, but on Sunday warned senators not to vote against the will of the people.

“The voting is not for Pita, not for MFP, but it is for Thailand to move forward into normalcy of democratic system, just like any democratic countries in this world,” he said on Twitter.

If Pita is not elected on Thursday, the Speaker of the House has announced two more rounds of voting – on July 19 and 20 – for a result to be declared.

After that, coalitions may start to crumble and a political deadlock could derail the progressive movement’s election success, potentially sparking protests.

Move Forward encouraged citizens to show their support at parliament on Thursday and a prominent Thai protest leader Wednesday called for demonstrations if the senators refused to vote in line with the election results.

Why war with China over Taiwan could ruin the global economy.

Why war with China over Taiwan could ruin the global econGardiner,  and 

HSINCHU, Taiwan — A military conflict over Taiwan would set the global economy back decades because of the crippling disruption to the supply chain of crucial semiconductors, according to the head of one of the island’s leading makers of microchips.

Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy about 100 miles off China, makes the world’s most advanced microchips — the brains inside every piece of technology from smartphones and modern cars to artificial intelligence and fighter jets.

China claims Taiwan as its territory and has said it would be prepared to use force to take control of the island, although it has not laid out any timeline for doing so. Officially, the U.S. discourages conflict but takes a neutral stance, although President Joe Biden has repeatedly suggested he would step in to defend Taiwan.

If the industry were to be disrupted by military conflict, the impact on the global economy would be “huge,” said Miin Wu, the founder and chief executive of the Taiwanese chipmaker Macronix.

“My opinion is, you will be set back at least 20 years,” he told NBC News on Monday in the company’s showroom at Hsinchu Science Park in northwestern Taiwan.

The island is a microchip fabrication hotbed, producing 60% of the world’s semiconductors — and around 93% of the most advanced ones, according to a 2021 report from the Boston Consulting Group. The U.S., South Korea and China also produce semiconductors, but Taiwan dominates the market, which was worth almost $600 billion last year.

These technological wonders consist of tiny patterns, measured in nanometers, that are etched onto thin slices of silicon called “wafers.”

Wu, 75, played a major part in establishing Taiwan’s chip industry when he founded his company in 1989, having spent more than a decade working in Silicon Valley, including as senior manager at Intel. He brought some 40 senior Taiwanese engineers back with him.

Taiwan's Semiconductor Manufacturers Continue Production As Supply Chain Problems Persist
If Taiwan’s semiconductor industry were disrupted by military conflict, it would set the global economy back at least 20 years, according to Miin Wu, founder of the Taiwanese chipmaker Macronix.Annabelle Chih / Getty Images file

The Macronix campus has a Silicon Valley vibe, with employees bouncing between work and an on-site gymnasium, a roller-blading area and a large park. Displays in the company’s showroom explain how the chips are made and showcase products in which they are used, from Fitbits and Nintendo game consoles to cars and medical equipment.

“I thought the only thing I want to do is I want to develop technology based on the U.S. standard and then move up,” Wu said.

He said he never anticipated that semiconductors would become one of the most important industries in the world — and one that is now at the heart of spiraling tensions between the U.S. and China, the planet’s two biggest economies.

Relations between the two countries have been at a low ebb in recent years as disputes have arisen over a range of issues including trade, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as Taiwan, whose government the U.S. doesn’t recognize officially but is bound by law to supply with defensive weapons.

Taiwan’s semiconductor industry has been described as a “silicon shield” that gives the U.S. and other supporters added incentive to promote the island’s security in the face of growing threats from China.

Since the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 after a civil war, its ruling Communist Party has claimed sovereignty over the island, where the defeated Nationalist forces set up a rival government.

Like his predecessors, Chinese President Xi Jinping says China desires “peaceful unification” with Taiwan but has not ruled out the use of force.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity” in terms of how it would respond if China attacked Taiwan, the idea being to deter Beijing from invading and discourage Taipei from doing something — like declaring independence — that might provoke a military response from its neighbor.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, right, gives a speaks alongside Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., in April.Eric Thayer / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

Any instability in the Taiwan Strait “resulting from escalation, accident or use of force would have major economic and security implications for the region and globally,” according to a State Department readout of a call last week between Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and her European Union counterpart, Stefano Sannino.

Biden, however, has appeared to move away from strategic ambiguity by saying on several occasions that Washington would step in to defend Taiwan. Each time, the White House later said that U.S. policy on the island had not changed.

Though Taiwan may be small, Malcolm Penn, chief executive of the British semiconductor industry consultant Future Horizons, agrees with Wu that a war over the island would “bring the world to its knees” because of the disruption to global chip supply.

“It would make Covid seem like a walk in the park,” he said, “and it would hurt China just as much as anyone else.”

Robert Tsao, a Taiwanese billionaire who made his fortune in semiconductors, agreed that a war would “ruin everything” and be “disastrous for the international interests” of the U.S. and the world.

As part of its territorial claims, China also says it owns most of the South China Sea, a vital shipping route abundant with natural resources. This claim isn’t recognized in international law, and Washington’s attempts to demonstrate this by sailing ships and flying aircraft through the region have been met by Chinese vessels and planes “buzzing” their unwelcome backyard guests.

China Taiwan Tensions
A Chinese soldier during combat exercises in the waters around Taiwan in August.Xinhua News Agency / via Getty Images file

It is against this backdrop that the Biden administration says it wants to “de-risk” its relationship with China — keeping trade essentially open but restricting certain areas that Washington believes could give China the upper hand when it comes to national security or future-defining technology.

Last year, Biden imposed a sweeping set of export controls designed to block China’s access to certain kinds of semiconductor chips made with U.S. technology.

These export controls and other technology restrictions have had implications for companies all over the world and Macronix is no exception. Like other Taiwanese chipmakers, it is barred from selling advanced chips to China, the island’s largest trading partner.

China has criticized the export controls as an abuse of trade measures that is meant to protect U.S. “technological hegemony.” Many industry figures agree Washington’s attempt to control the market is counterproductive.

The U.S. export controls will “delay but not stop China” from achieving technological parity, said Penn at Future Horizons.

“It may take 10 years, but they’ll do it: They have the resources to do it, they have got the scientific know-how, they have got the money, they have got the market, and now they’ve got the need,” he said.

Penn is among the experts deeply critical of Washington's export controls, calling them counterproductive. And this week the chief financial officer of American tech firm Nvidia, Colette Kress, said at an investor conference that introducing new restrictions would result in a "permanent loss of opportunities for the U.S. industry to compete and lead in one of the world’s largest markets."

The U.S., which produces about 10% of the world’s semiconductor chips and none of the most advanced ones, is also trying to boost domestic manufacturing, offering tax incentives for projects like the $40 billion factory being built in Arizona by the Taiwanese chip giant TSMC.

But building such a complex industry will take time, Wu said. “I would say 10 years,” he added.

Ultimately, he said, the stability of the semiconductor industry — and people’s access to the devices powered by it — depends on the leaders of China, Taiwan and the U.S.

“They have to make the right decision with their wisdom,” Wu said. “That is the solution.”

Richard Engel and Charlotte Gardiner reported from Hsinchu, Taiwan, Jennifer Jett reported from Hong Kong, and Alexander Smith reported from London.

STAIR LIFT COST/New Mobile Stair Lifts Require No Installation (Take A Look)
SECURITY CAMERAS | SEARCH ADS/New Generation Security Cameras, Click To See How Much They Cost
CROSSFIT/Every Indian Should Get This Incredible Rs.1999 SmartwatchThis new smartwatch is taking over India. See why it's gaining popularity quickly and selling out everywhere
CYBER SECURITY | SEARCH ADS/Patna: Cybersecurity Jobs (Apply Now): Salaries May Surprise You
­

बुधवार, 12 जुलाई 2023

Eplainer-What Are Solid-Fuel Missiles, and Why Is North Korea Developing Them?By Reuters

Eplainer-What Are Solid-Fuel Missiles, and Why Is North Korea Developing Them?

Reuters

Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile is launched from an undisclosed location in North Korea in this image released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency on July 13, 2023. KCNA via REUTERSREUTERS

By Hyonhee Shin

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea's Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), launched for the second time on Wednesday, uses solid-fuel technology, giving it the capability to launch with little preparation.

Here are some characteristics of solid-fuel technology, and how it can help the North improve its missile systems.

WHAT IS SOLID-FUEL TECHNOLOGY?

Solid propellants are a mixture of fuel and oxidiser. Metallic powders such as aluminium often serve as the fuel, and ammonium perchlorate, which is the salt of perchloric acid and ammonia, is the most common oxidiser.

Political Cartoons on World Leaders

The fuel and oxidiser are bound together by a hard rubbery material and packed into a metal casing.

When solid propellant burns, oxygen from the ammonium perchlorate combines with aluminium to generate enormous amounts of energy and temperatures of more than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 degrees Celsius), creating thrust and lifting the missile from the launch pad.

WHO HAS THAT TECHNOLOGY?

Solid fuel dates back to fireworks developed by the Chinese centuries ago, but made dramatic progress in the mid-20th century, when the U.S. developed more powerful propellants.

North Korea uses solid fuel in a range of small, shorter-range ballistic missiles.

The Soviet Union fielded its first solid-fuel ICBM, the RT-2, in the early 1970s, followed by France's development of its S3, also known as SSBS, a medium-range ballistic missile.

China started testing solid-fuel ICBMs in the late 1990s.

South Korea has also said it has secured "efficient and advanced" solid-propellant ballistic missile technology, though in much smaller rockets so far.

SOLID VS. LIQUID

Liquid propellants provide greater propulsive thrust and power, but require more complex technology and extra weight.

Solid fuel is dense and burns quite quickly, generating thrust over a short time. Solid fuel can remain in storage for an extended period without degrading or breaking down - a common issue with liquid fuel.

Vann Van Diepen, a former U.S. government weapons expert who now works with the 38 North project, said solid-fuel missiles are easier and safer to operate, and require less logistical support, making them harder to detect and more survivable than liquid-fuel weapons.

Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said any country that operates large scale, missile-based nuclear forces would seek solid-propellant missiles, which do not need to be fuelled immediately ahead of launch.

"These capabilities are much more responsive in a time of crisis," Panda said.

North Korea said the development of its new solid-fuel ICBM, the Hwasong-18, would "radically promote" its nuclear counterattack capability.

After the first launch South Korea's defence ministry sought to downplay the testing, saying the North would need "extra time and effort" to master the technology. On Thursday, a ministry spokesperson said they were still analysing the latest launch.

(Additional reporting by Josh Smith; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

Copyright 2023 Thomson Reuters.

Read More

Copyright 2023 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.

क्रोध का शरीर में असर

क्रोध (Anger) के समय हमारे मस्तिष्क और शरीर में कुछ प्रमुख रसायन (Neurochemicals और Hormones) रिलीज़ होते हैं, जो तुरंत शारीरिक और मानसिक प...