Friday, November 12, 2010

LAT says G20 summit was less than stellar

It doesn't sound good, though I don't think anyone's blaming Korea for it:
The leaders of the world's 20 major economies on Friday ended a frequently rancorous two-day summit in this Northeast Asian capital without reaching agreement on specific steps to avert damaging currency and trade wars.

There were far more setbacks than gains, but President Obama suffered the biggest disappointment, falling short in his attempt to forge a unified approach to boosting the global economy.

In one blow, G-20 members refused to endorse a U.S. effort to force China to raise the value of its currency, prolonging a bitter dispute that many say could eventually lead to a global trade war. Before world leaders left the city, they issued a watered-down statement agreeing merely to refrain from "competitive devaluation" of currencies.

The previous day, the U.S. and South Korea acknowledged that they remained in a stalemate over a free-trade agreement that has languished in the national legislatures of both nations.
President Obama, fresh from a trip to India where he said this major rival of China should get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, was picking a fight with Beijing over their currency devaluation and trying to get the other eighteen participants to choose a side.

Meanwhile, his "shellacking" in the midterm elections reportedly means he has lost a lot of leverage when it comes to things like renegotiating free-trade agreements.

And by the way, where are the everyone-wearing-hanbok pics? Oh, wait. That's APEC.



  2. do you know ATEK?

  3. Well, I said APEC, not ATEK, but yes, I do know the latter. In fact, I'm quite familiar with the accusations about Tony Hellmann in the link you provided above, and at one point people were accusing me of being behind it (see the comments here).

    Also related to your link, which clearly accuses ATEK itself of having engineered the infamous "ATEK death threat," I also have gone on the record questioning whether the death threat against English teachers was legitimate (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), though I did specifically say I did not think it was from ATEK (and others also expressed their skepticism).

    Nevertheless, ATEK members went overboard to publicize this threat.

    So now the link you just posted, dated yesterday, is coming out and saying that it was "fabricated" and ATEK "made up the stories." In fact, I have been told privately by two people associated with the case that the email was sent from the United States, but I never went public with this information, since I was hoping to see more substantial evidence that would allow us to skewer the case.

    But I'm confused, dose, why you are posting this. Are you trying to highlight the ruse by posting that link here? Are you trying to get me to highlight it? Or are you attacking the person ("curious") who put it up (you left the comment "furk you" on the site).

  4. Well, "dose," now that I've stuck my neck out there and written an a full-blown post on the matter you just described, would you care to present some more details, either here at this post, there at that post, or by email?

    "curious" has removed his blog altogether, which just brings up more questions than before.


Share your thoughts, but please be kind and respectful. My mom reads this blog.