Latest news with #Sept11
The Star
22-07-2025
- Business
- The Star
Enhancing economic resilience crucial in trying times
How should China strengthen the resilience of its economy? In April, the Trump administration announced a surge in global tariffs, triggering strong responses from governments around the world and causing sharp turbulence in financial markets. Within three days of the announcement, global stock markets lost over $9.5 trillion in market capitalization, and volatility intensified significantly across bond, foreign exchange and commodity markets. In the United States, stocks, bonds and the dollar all fell simultaneously. The yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds also posted its biggest weekly gain since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. The shockwaves from the tariff moves continue to ripple across the world, with escalating confrontations on all sides. Faced with the Trump administration's high tariffs and erratic behavior, China must resolutely implement countermeasures. Any concession would only lead to further pressure from the other side. Only through firm resistance can space for negotiation and cooperation be created. On April 25, a high-level meeting for the first time proposed coordinating domestic economic work and international economic and trade struggles, aiming to use the certainty of high-quality development to cope with the uncertainty of dramatic changes in the external environment. On May 7, the People's Bank of China, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and other government authorities jointly introduced a package of incremental policies to stabilize market confidence. On May 12, China and the US released a joint statement after economic and trade talks in Geneva, in which the US agreed to remove some additional tariffs, and China reciprocated accordingly, temporarily easing tariff pressures. However, over the medium-to-long term, challenges in Sino-US economic and trade relations persist. It is worth noting that tariffs may not be the Trump administration's ultimate goal, but rather a bargaining tactic aimed at achieving the dual objectives of reducing the US trade deficit and maintaining the dominance of the greenback. In fact, since the onset of the trade conflict in 2018, the US government has been exerting significant pressure and imposing extreme restrictions on China in both trade and technology sectors. We must be fully aware of the worsening international economic and trade environment in the foreseeable future and recognize that China and the US will continue their strategic contest for a long time. So, against this backdrop, how should China enhance the resilience of its economy? We believe the most important approach is to focus on doing our own job well, remain self-reliant and persist in expanding domestic demand. At the same time, we must unswervingly expand high-level opening-up. Expanding domestic demand is the top priority for 2025. Following the directives from the Central Economic Work Conference in December 2024, expanding domestic demand became the top priority of economic work this year. This is because insufficient domestic demand is currently the main stumbling block in China's economy. In 2024, total retail sales of consumer goods grew by only 3.3 percent year-on-year, significantly lower than the 9.7 percent average between 2015 and 2019. From the perspective of the three engines of GDP — consumption, investment and exports — final consumption in 2024 contributed an average of only 2.3 percentage points per quarter to GDP growth, much lower than the 4.2-percentage point average between 2015 and 2019. Breaking down the three factors influencing household consumption — changes in income, wealth and expectations — we find that in the short term, the main constraint on consumption growth is the sharp slowdown in household income growth since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, cumulative year-on-year growth in per capita disposable income was 4.6 percent in urban areas and 6.6 percent in rural areas, well below the 7.9 percent and 9.6 percent levels of 2019. Over the long term, two main factors constrain consumption: first, weak expectations and confidence about future employment and income; second, evident imbalances in income distribution across households, the government and enterprises, as well as within the household sector itself. Rising risk aversion among residents has led to an increase in precautionary savings, reflected in the sharp rise in new deposits and continued decline in new loans since 2022. In terms of income distribution, profits generated by enterprises have not been sufficiently transferred to households, and the income distribution within the household sector also needs improvement. Beyond the income gap between urban and rural residents, an even more important issue is the much wider gap in property and social security entitlements. To sum up, we believe that to stimulate consumption, macroeconomic policy stimulus is needed in the short term, while structural reform should be accelerated in the medium term. Based on the logic of moving from short-term stimulus to long-term reform, the following policy recommendations are proposed. First, a more proactive fiscal policy and a moderately accommodative monetary policy are keys to driving a rebound in China's nominal GDP growth. The main issue facing the Chinese economy is insufficient aggregate demand and a negative output gap. In the short term, to address the lack of domestic demand, central government finances should increase borrowing and spending to drive a rebound in consumption and investment. In addition to promptly implementing the expansionary policies outlined in the Government Work Report, additional stimulus measures should be planned for the second half, especially through greater issuance of special treasury bonds. To make full and effective use of proactive fiscal policy, we recommend accelerating the issuance of the remaining quota of local government special bonds and special treasury bonds in the second quarter, and issuing an additional 2 to 3 trillion yuan ($411.6 billion) in special treasury bonds for the year. Second, increasing short-term incomes for low and middle-income households through fiscal subsidies is advised. We recommend issuing universal consumption vouchers to encourage spending, especially among low and middle-income earners. To maximize the multiplier effect of consumption vouchers, they should be issued without being tied to specific products or services. Third, lifting asset prices from the bottom can also help restore consumer confidence. On real estate policy, housing prices in core areas of the largest cities should be stabilized promptly, and support should be given to leading well-managed private developers. All purchase and loan restrictions should be lifted to unleash demand from first-time and upgrading buyers. Special-purpose bonds should be issued to provide low-cost, long-term financing for high-quality developers. The government can also purchase idle commercial housing in second and third-tier cities and convert it into rental-based public housing. In the stock market, efforts should be made to cultivate a long bull market. In addition, with an aging population and slowing investment-driven growth, China's potential economic growth rate is trending downward. To reverse this trend and restore confidence among microeconomic actors, bold structural reforms are needed. These include reforms in income redistribution, education, healthcare, pensions, housing, development of a unified domestic market and support for private enterprises. The writer is deputy director of the Institute of Finance and Banking of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily. - China Daily/ANN
The Star
20-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
How do you silence a conspiracy theory?
AS a presidential candidate, Donald Trump loved a conspiracy theory. He started his political career by stoking the lie that then president Barack Obama was not born in the United States. By 2024, he complained, falsely, that non-citizens would vote in the November election and throw the result to Democrats. He declared on a debate stage that immigrants in Ohio were eating people's pets. He promised to release government files on Sept 11 and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and told Fox News that 'I guess I would' release the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, too. As president, though, he's finding out that it's a whole lot easier to start a conspiracy theory than it is to put one to rest. That was the challenge facing Trump, as his political supporters staged an open revolt over his administration's decision not to release further materials about Epstein, a convicted sex offender who hobnobbed with the global elite before he died by suicide in prison in 2019. Putting the genie back in the bottle They could be forgiven for expecting more details. Trump installed two vocal Epstein conspiracy theorists and right-wing media personalities, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, to run the FBI after both men spent years telling their audiences there really was a there there. This spring, Attorney General Pam Bondi promised big revelations about the case that have come to nothing. It turns out, though, it is a whole lot easier to be a conspiracy theorist when you're not president, you don't control both houses of Congress, and you haven't handpicked the leaders of the nation's premier investigative agencies. Trump had tried to put the genie back in the bottle. He admonished a reporter for asking about the matter at a recent Cabinet meeting – 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?' – and then, over last weekend, told off his followers, in a lengthy social media post. 'What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?'' Trump asked, urging them to 'not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.' On his podcast, however, Steve Bannon, an influential former Trump adviser, suggested that the furore wasn't going anywhere – and that it posed a real political risk for Trump. 'You're going to lose 10% of the MAGA movement,' he said, warning that this could cost Republicans dozens of House seats in the midterm elections next year. The problem with a conspiracy theory is, of course, the more you talk about it, the more interest people take in it. The whole thing is born of distrust – so who wants to listen to someone telling them there's nothing to see, even if that someone is Trump himself? This is not usually a problem for Trump and his allies. The president has reaped political gains from many a conspiracy theory without having to offer up proof for any of them. And rarely has he needed to squelch one he or his allies stoked. Years of theories Trump has spent years railing about what he describes, without evidence, as systemic fraud in the 2020 election — a fiction that gave his supporters a grievance to rally around and insulated him from having to reckon with his electoral vulnerabilities or admit defeat. His claims about non-citizens voting have shaped executive orders and legislation in Congress though he never came up with proof that it happens on a significant scale. And he echoed unproved claims about Social Security fraud as Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency riffled through the department's data this year. At times, members of the Trump administration have laboured to show that they were trying. In late May, Bongino said on the social platform X that the FBI was redoubling its investigations into several enduring Washington mysteries, including the pipe bombs found in Washington on Jan 6, 2021, the cocaine found at the White House in 2023 and the enduring question of who leaked the Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case, which ultimately overturned the constitutional right to abortion. 'I try to read as much of your feedback as possible but the workday is busy, and my office is a SCIF with limited phone access,' Bongino said, using the official acronym for the secure area – or 'sensitive compartmented information facility' – where he works. Still, the Epstein matter is a rare instance in which the Trump administration has actually been expected to offer proof of a conspiracy theory that moves the president's followers. That might be why, in his social media post last Saturday, Trump sought to divert their attention back to a conspiracy theory he's never had to prove. 'The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024,' Trump wrote, promising that Bondi, his attorney general, was 'looking into' that – 'and much more.' — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Washington Post
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
A court called off a key 9/11 suspect's plea deal. Here's where the case stands
NEW YORK — The United States' long legal case against accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed remains in limbo after an appeals court this week scrapped a plea deal that the government had negotiated but had later withdrawn. Essentially, the ruling leaves the case on track for trial before a military commission. It is unclear when that might happen.
Arab Times
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Appeals court throws out plea deal for alleged mastermind of Sept 11 attacks
WASHINGTON, July 12, (AP): A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks. The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the US military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States. The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon's senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants. Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania. Relatives of the Sept. 11 victims were split on the plea deal. Some objected to it, saying a trial was the best path to justice and to gaining more information about the attacks, while others saw it as the best hope for bringing the painful case to a conclusion and getting some answers from the defendants. The plea deal would have obligated the men to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks. But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary. Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers. But, by a 2-1 vote, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge's ruling. The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump. "Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the 'families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.' The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,' judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote. Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump.
CBS News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Plea deal for alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed thrown out by appeals court
A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al Qaeda's 2001 attacks. The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the U.S. military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States. The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon's senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants. Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania. Relatives of the Sept. 11 victims were split on the plea deal. Some objected to it, saying a trial was the best path to justice and to gaining more information about the attacks, while others saw it as the best hope for bringing the painful case to a conclusion and getting some answers from the defendants. The plea deal would have obligated the men to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks. But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary. In January, the U.S. Justice Department filed a motion seeking to stop the plea deal. "The allegations against the respondents set forth their extensive roles as the counselors, commanders, and conspirators in the murder of 2,976 people, the injury of numerous civilians and military personnel, and the destruction of property worth tens of billions of dollars," the filing said, arguing later that "this Court should issue a writ of mandamus and prohibition to the military commission directing it to recognize that the Secretary validly withdrew from the pretrial agreements with the respondents and prohibiting the military commission from conducting hearings in which the respondents would enter guilty pleas pursuant to the invalid pretrial agreements." Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers. But, by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge's ruling. The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Trump. "Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the 'families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.' The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment," Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote. Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Mr. Trump. In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, "The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred." Brett Eagleson, who was among the family members who objected to the deal, called Friday's appellate ruling "a good win, for now." "A plea deal allows this to be tucked away into a nice, pretty package, wrapped into a bow and put on a shelf and forgotten about," said Eagleson, who was 15 when his father, shopping center executive John Bruce Eagleson, was killed in the attacks. Brett Eagleson was unmoved by the deal's provisions for the defendants to answer Sept. 11 families' questions; he wonders how truthful the men would be. In his view, "the only valid way to get answers and seek the truth is through a trial" and pretrial fact-finding. Elizabeth Miller, who was 6 when the attacks killed her father, firefighter Douglas Miller, was among those who supported the deal. "Of course, growing up, a trial would have been great initially," she said. But "we're in 2025, and we're still at the pretrial stage." "I just really don't think a trial is possible," said Miller, who also favored the deal because of her opposition to the death penalty in general.
