–  Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –

Prophetic words they were not. “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all…The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula.”

Thus spoke a euphoric President George H.W.Bush early in March, 1991, shortly after the 100-hour ground war that chased Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the oil-rich U.S. ally they had invaded and occupied in the summer of 1990.

The specter of Vietnam, far from being buried in the Arabian sands, has risen again as President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering the course of the war in Afghanistan, now in its ninth year, increasingly unpopular, and considered unwinnable even by America’s senior soldiers if it is fought alongside a corrupt government that lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

That the Vietnam syndrome is alive and well is obvious by the proliferation of analyses and commentaries drawing parallels, or dismissing them as nonsense, since Obama declared Afghanistan a war of necessity. (Type “Is Afghanistan Obama’s Vietnam” into the Google search box and you get more than nine million references).

The cover of the latest edition of Newsweek magazine is taken up by an iconic photograph of the Vietnam war, people clambering up a ladder to a U.S. helicopter waiting to evacuate them off the roof of a Saigon building the day before the city fell to communist forces on April 30, 1975. The story inside: what to learn from the lessons of Vietnam.

The answers to that question differ widely and the Vietnam analogy has come up routinely whenever the United States resorted to military action in the past three decades, from Lebanon and Somalia to Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.  Obama himself has dismissed the parallel.

“You never step into the same river twice,” he said in October, “and so, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. But the danger of overreach and not having clear goals and not having strong support from the American people, those are all issues I think about all the time.”

Both in scale and geopolitical context the difference between the two conflicts is vast: at the height of its involvement in Vietnam, the United States had more than half a million troops there, fighting both Viet Cong insurgents and North Vietnamese army regulars who could count on aid from China and the Soviet Union.

In Afghanistan, the United States has some 68,000 soldiers, a number that is likely to grow to 100,000 or more (depending on what decision on reinforcement is taken) by the end of Obama’s term. Neither the Taliban insurgents nor al-Qaeda can count on the kind of outside support America’s antagonists in Vietnam commanded. In Vietnam, more than 58,000 soldiers died. The U.S. death toll in Afghanistan stood at 916 in the first week of November.

VIETNAM SYNDROME AND FLAGGING SUPPORT

But there are also parallels, and the Vietnam syndrome the elder President Bush had declared kicked is doubtless one of the reasons why public support for the war in Afghanistan has been declining steadily, despite Obama’s assertion that the American commitment would not be open-ended. The latest poll, by CNN, showed that 58 percent of those questioned were opposed to war.

And the parallels? In the words of Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who turned into a war critic after his deployment, “Once again, our enemy blends in with the local population and finds sanctuary in a neighboring country. Once again, the danger of being perceived as an occupying force by a war-weary population remains perilous.

“With Afghanistan, as with Vietnam, we have a president facing pressure from the military.”
President Lyndon Johnson, Kerry wrote, failed to stand up to his military commanders when they warned that the U.S. was facing defeat without additional forces - the argument that the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal made when he put forward options to Obama, including up to 40,000 more troops.

History does not repeat itself but the similarities between Obama in 2009 and Johnson in 1963 are striking. Both inherited a war that became their own at a time when they were pushing far-reaching and costly domestic reforms. Johnson’s Great Society programs ranged from reducing poverty to improving medical care. Obama’s key project is universal health care.

Most of Johnson’s reforms were enacted in the first two years of his presidency, with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. By 1968, the war in Vietnam had eroded his popularity to such an extent that he decided not to run for re-election.

The House of Representatives passed Obama’s health care bill this month, the Senate is expected to vote on its version soon. Polls show Obama’s popularity has been slipping, though his approval rate is still above 50%. Where it will be in a year’s time, halfway through his term when the U.S. goes to the polls for mid-term elections, will partly depend on how the war in Afghanistan is going.

The ghost of Vietnam hangs over the White House.

You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com.

– George A. Cloutier, a graduate of Harvard Business School, is the founder and CEO of American Management Services, one of the nation’s largest turnaround and management services firms specializing in small and mid-size companies. The opinions of George Cloutier are his own and do not represent those of the United States Conference of Mayors or Partner America. –

President Obama gets an “F” for his small business program. The SBA has guaranteed a paltry 50,000 loans  to the nation’s 29 million small businesses – that’s .0017. Loan volume is down 36 percent from 2008 and 50 percent from 2007. Obama and his advisers have actually done the unimaginable; they have reduced the flow of aid to small businesses in the face of a deep recession. The program’s bank lenders have left $15 billion on the table due to “regulatory problems.” Even an administration plan to provide lending to 70,000 vehicle dealers has no takers and failed.

Administration “experts” allocated less than 1 percent of the stimulus bill to small business. It’s mind-boggling that Washington ignores the biggest economic sector in the country employing 60 million people, producing 50 percent of GDP, and creating 70 percent of new jobs.

In the past several weeks, I have had the honor to lead events for small businesses in 15 cities (including Philadelphia,  Kansas City, Missouri and Baton Rouge, Louisiana) directly engaging with 2500 small business owners (employers only). Ninety-five percent of these business owners feel the administration’s stimulus plan and program has badly mistreated small businesses compared to Wall Street and Detroit.

On October 21st, President Obama announced a second stimulus for small business. His new plan must have been a political speech since it lacked specifics as to how many businesses would be helped, how much money would be allocated and distributed, and when the money would actually start flowing.

Recently, the House passed a bill that purports to offer $40 billion to small businesses. The banks, having left billions of dollars on the table, astoundingly were selected again as the prime source of lending.

The bill mentions authorizing the SBA as a lender of “last resort” if certain loans are not funded by the banks, with a complicated process yet to be determined. No amount of authorization is mentioned and the process to achieve “last resort” status has no definition or timeframe. Much of the lending purported in the $40 billion will be achieved by raising the limit on certain types of loans; this way more money can be loaned to fewer businesses providing political cover for Congress and the president.

Here’s a program the president should mandate.

Create a $50 billion pool for direct loans. Mandate that it should be working within 60 days. Make sure everyone understands that you need to go down the “risk curve” just as the administration did for Wall Street and Detroit.

Select a George Patton-like leader to organize a 24-7 program starting now.

Let’s move small business from the “kid’s table” to the Cabinet. Create a full Cabinet post for small business and entrepreneurship.

Let’s get some real accountability on the success of these programs into the public domain. Your administration should publish a weekly report with the number of loans made, the banks providing the loans, the amounts of those loans and where the banks are located. It’s time to hold the bureaucrats’ feet to the fire.

Energize the SBA’s current outreach and guarantee program. The SBA Administrator should be on the road 5 days a week promoting the “Get-A-Loan” program across the country with the SBA’s public relations operatives to promote it. SBA employee and office hours should be reconfigured to include after hours and Saturday hours when small business owner have the time to apply and discuss lending. Make sure the participating banks are present. Telemarketing centers should be set up to contact small businesses directly to discuss new lending programs since most are simply not aware. A large number of SBA employees should be put on cold calling programs to introduce lending programs to small businesses. Have “Get-A-Loan” days twice a week with open houses. Forget direct mail, fancy brochures, and ill-attended conferences that usually write only a few loans if that. Forget websites directed toward emergency preparedness and focus on more immediate loan priorities.  Make sure that calls looking for help do not disappear into voicemail hell.

On October 10, 2008, you stated, “Main Street needs relief and you need it now.” It’s time to stop sending breadcrumbs and deliver the beef.

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

New studies from the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank show that, whatever else, a recovery in the economy is not being supported by a resumption in bank lending, raising concerns about how exactly growth will become self-sustaining when official stimulus ebbs.

The ECB last week released its loan survey showing banks tightened credit yet again for businesses and consumers, though at a less severe rate than in the previous quarter. Much was made of the fact that banks said they expected to ease terms to businesses, but not individuals, slightly in the last three months of the year.

Days later the Fed was out with its own survey, and again the news is getting worse more slowly, which must mean it is time to pop open the tap water. Banks are tightening terms and conditions to large firms, though fewer are doing so than before. Of course we should be thankful for small mercies, but the fact remains that this is a relative rather than an absolute survey, which means that even if fewer are being tougher the vast majority are being just as tight with money as they were three months ago when things were very tight indeed.

But wait, I can almost hear you ask, banks are making money again. If not making loans, what are they doing with it? Funny you should ask, they are lending it to the government. According to Fed data October marked the first time in years that banks held the same amount in Treasuries and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds as they did in commercial and industrial loans. Business loans have plunged 18 percent in a year, while Treasury and agency bonds are up 8 percent.

Banks are choosing to lend to the government and to government-backstopped mortgage firms because they see it as the best way to survive: hunker down, take fewer risks and content yourself with the thin gruel and thin margins of taking deposits and lending to the entity insuring those deposits. It’s a good way to get solvent but it will take a terribly long time.

Falling demand for credit is a factor too. Firms are concentrating on expanding margins by cutting back on costs, rather than positioning themselves for an upswing in demand. That means they want fewer loans to support capital expenditure. It also sadly means that they are not yet hiring.

OF JOB GROWTH AND SMALL FIRMS

The question becomes will the loans be there when companies do decide that it is time to tool up and hire again. There can be no certainty. Banks are still in pretty poor shape, more will fail and few look likely to expand.

If you believed in markets you would believe that this is simply setting the stage for new entrants to come in and make loans that the banks won’t. I’d like to believe this, but here we run into one of the terrible side effects of too-big and too-connected to fail. Who on earth wants to set themselves up in competition with government-backed firms? Some will do extremely well in making loans opportunistically to commercial real estate and industry over the next two years, but fewer than would be the case if there was a truly level playing field.

Two groups are doing reasonably well, but only because they don’t have to rely on bank credit: large credit-worthy borrowers and house buyers. Fannie and Freddie are still cranking out mortgages, and loans backed by the Federal Housing Authority have boomed. Rates are low, and though fees are high and terms tighter it has to be said that the decision to officially support the housing market by tax breaks and subsidized lending is making a difference. It may not be good policy, but it is effective poor policy.

Small firms seem to be getting particularly tough treatment; the Fed survey shows that terms, conditions, pricing and availability were all deteriorating more rapidly for the small than the large and medium-sized companies. Annaly Capital points out that while middle market firms paid only a slight premium in the loans market in 2007 and 2008, the difference between benchmark loans and middle market is now almost 6 full percentage points, meaning they pay nearly double.

A prepackaged bankruptcy for CIT Group and a chastened GE Capital will not improve things.

Two possibilities suggest themselves for how things play out. Banks may get their balance sheets in order and begin to lend again in force next year, meeting a need for investment as economic growth takes root, if indeed it does.

If demand rises and banks can’t meet it, look for more official arm-twisting, more ritual abasement by bankers called before Congress and, ultimately, more official interference in the process, probably in the form of insurance or even mandates.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

Hans Binswanger is the former senior adviser to the World Bank on rural development in Africa. He is currently an independent agriculture and development consultant based in South Africa. The opinions expressed are his own.

The World Bank’s recent study of the prospects of commercial agriculture in Africa focused primarily on the Guinea Savannahs that cover some 600 million hectares, of which about 400 million can be used for agriculture. Less than 10 percent of this area is currently cropped, making it one of the largest underused agricultural land reserves in the world.

During the past four decades, two similar, backward, landlocked, and largely rain-fed agricultural regions developed rapidly and became international agricultural powerhouses: The Cerrado of Brazil and Northeast Thailand. The difficult agro-ecological conditions, remoteness, and poverty levels of the two regions were successfully overcome, and the same should happen in the Guinea Savannahs.

The study found that farm level production costs in Africa are competitive, with family farmers generally having lower costs than commercial farmers. African farmers are also generally competitive in domestic and regional markets, but not competitive in international markets. Logistics costs are much higher than in Brazil and Thailand on account of inadequate transport, processing and marketing infrastructure; lack of competition in vehicle import and trucking industries; cumbersome transport regulations; and the need to pay bribes at border cross¬ings and police checkpoints.

In addition to resolving these problems, awakening of this sleeping giant requires appropriate agricultural policy regimes, greater state leadership and greater development expenditures for family farmers, greater involvement of local governments, communities, and the private sector.

Despite recent efforts, mainly by foreign investors, to launch large-scale agribusinesses in Africa, the study found no evidence that the large-scale farming model is either necessary or even particularly promising for Africa. The apparently successful settler farms of eastern and southern Africa were nurtured by streams of preferential policies, subsidies, and supporting investments.

Nevertheless, large-scale farming, along with other alternatives, may be considered in Africa in three circumstances:

• When economies of scale are present in processing of perishable crops, as in “plantation crops” (sugar, oil palm, tea, bananas and other horticultural crops for export). The alternative to plantations is contract farming that is widely practiced across the world. Note that plantations in the Philippines and Indonesia have lost competitiveness to family farmers in Thailand.
• When Africa’s producers must compete in overseas markets that have stringent quality requirements and demand traceability back to the farm. While this may be difficult in to do via contract in farming, it is the predominant mode for the rapidly growing exports of high value commodities in China.
• When land must be developed in areas with few people. Three solutions are possible: Immigration, as in the Guinea Savannas of West Africa, machine hire from private contractors or larger farmers, as is practiced all over the World, or large scale commercial farming.

If large scale farming is used to solve any of these problems, politically difficult problems are likely to arise in land allocation to commercial farms. Virtually all areas are claimed by some individuals or groups or used in some way. For investors, the alternative to direct involvement in farming are investments in seed and other input sectors, storage, processing and marketing, often involving contract farming.

Much of the technology that family farmers will need is already on the shelf, such as improved seeds, mechanization via animal draft or tractors, low on no till technology, fertilizers and pesticides. But dissemination requires better services and marketing facilities. Low input technologies have little potential in areas of medium to high soil fertility and are more applicable to low fertility environments. Since the main market opportunities for African farmers in the medium term will be in domestic and regional markets, organic farming will primarily have potential in niche markets in the developed world.

In the longer run African agriculture faces a daunting science and technology challenge to maintain and increase its competitiveness and to deal with climate change: It has more environments, more crops, more pests and more diseases than any other continent and will need to find its own technological solutions rather than rely on borrowing.

This will require much larger expenditures on science, research, and science education. Genetically modified organisms will be an important part of the solutions to the multiplicity of stressors in African agriculture. It would be better if European stakeholders were to limit their opposition to GM organisms to Europe, rather than impose their preferences on poor and hungry Africans.

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

Stocks and other risky assets are rallying around the world this week because the Group of 20 nations said on the weekend they would keep the economic stimulus flowing, a state of events which illustrates where we are and what a very strange place it is.

The G20, the only group of big hitters that matters because it is the only group which includes the Chinese, met in Scotland over the weekend and, as is the way of these things, did very little with immediate consequences for anybody.

In the communique they issued, the Group of 20 finance ministers, after congratulating themselves on the recovery, more or less admitted that the measures we once thought of as heroic are in the process of becoming commonplace.

“However, the recovery is uneven and remains dependent on policy support, and high unemployment is a major concern,” the statement said. “To restore the global economy and financial system to health, we agreed to maintain support for the recovery until it is assured.”

Let me put that in human terms for you:

“We’ve spent untold trillions saving the economy, but, er, we’ve really only saved the financial system and that only to the extent that we keep on saving it. Jobs, well, not so much. We therefore pledge to continue doing this thing that may or may not be working until we are sure that it is.”

Global stock markets then went off on a stonking rally on Monday, which major media attributed to the pledge of continued stimulus. I suppose we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility that the financial media was, as we often do, mistaking coincidence for causation, but professionals were citing it too.

So, what are they promising to do? Will they be able to do it? And why do the risk markets like it so much?

There are at least two aspects to the stimulus - continued easy money from central banks and actual government spending.

The easy money part - low interest rates and unconventional measures - clearly will continue. It will be politically very difficult to raise interest rates while unemployment is still so high, and given the wan nature of the recovery, unemployment will take a long time to fall.

The actual government spending part is a lot harder to bank on, as it were. One reading of the Japanese experience in the 1990s is that their stimulative measures worked but they lost heart and withdrew them for mostly political reasons, thereby bringing on a relapse from which they never really properly recovered.

The politics of another stimulative spending binge will not be easy, especially in the U.S. and especially given populist backlash. That’s not to say more stimulus won’t be needed, it very likely will, but you can’t count on it arriving. Deleveraging takes a long time and we very likely would have been better off just writing the debt down in the first place.

MARKETS LOVE CERTAINTY

Investors have decided, and I think they are probably right, that so long as the authorities are hell bent on reflation it is foolish to get in the way.

As analyst David Merkel has pointed out, the statement of the Federal Reserve meeting, released last week, characterized financial markets as “roughly unchanged” since they last met in September, revealing that they pay far more attention to equity markets than debt markets.

Because of course equity markets were going more or less sideways in October but many of the riskier parts of the debt markets were rallying strongly. Wasn’t this whole crisis, and its expensive fix, supposed to be about “unfreezing credit markets”? Not anymore, apparently.

That is because the Fed realize that they have got to keep equity markets up, indeed have got to force them to rise. It is the only way to float the equity above the debt, make the banks and the holders of debt whole, and allow the financial system to weather the crisis.

There were other options - default, temporary nationalization - but that is not the route we went down. So, within this context the rally makes great sense.

Notice how equity markets have been on a huge tear since last week, going up on news that implied that the Fed would remain on hold for a long time, going up on unemployment rising through 10 percent in the U.S. and, funnily enough, going up on faith that the G20 would stick with stimulus measures.

This brings us to the crazy part. While it may be individually rational for everyone to hitch a ride on the policy train and follow asset prices higher, I would argue that the project is collective folly.

The risks are inflation and a rapidly falling U.S. dollar which leave banks and debtors solvent in nominal terms but not better off. Those risks are best observed now through the dollar, which is falling, and gold, which is at record highs.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –

Resounding defeats for Democratic Party gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey on November 3 have killed any lingering hope Congress will enact climate change legislation this year, and may doom the prospect of passing a cap-and-trade bill this side of the 2010 mid-term elections.

Prospects for eventually passing legislation may now depend on winning Republican support with nuclear loan guarantees and more offshore drilling.

While the president remains personally popular, with high approval ratings, and does not need to face the voters again for another three years, 16 Democratic senators and 256 Democratic members of the House of Representatives will be on the ballot in November 2010.

The Virginia and New Jersey off-cycle elections are often idiosyncratic. But crushing defeats for Democrats at the top of the ticket in both states are already sparking a bout of soul-searching over the lessons that need to be learned if the party is to retain firm control of both houses of Congress next year.

What worries many Democrats is that turnout among the young voters who helped propel them to victory last year fell away sharply, self-identified independents broke heavily for the Republican candidates; and voters overwhelmingly cited the economy and jobs rather than healthcare or climate change as their major concern in exit polls.

Democrats face the classic dilemma for any party after a defeat — press ahead trying to enact a difficult agenda or pull back, re-focus on simpler and less controversial measures.

The White House insists both defeats were due to local factors (a poor candidate in Virginia, a souring economy in New Jersey) and will not change the president’s determination to press ahead with an ambitious domestic agenda centered on healthcare reform and climate change.

But the party’s congressional wing is divided. Liberals (mostly from safe seats at little risk next year) argue the administration and party should press ahead; voters will rally behind a record of accomplishment next year. Moderates and conservatives (mostly from swing seats or those carried by John McCain in 2008 or George W Bush in 2004) as well as those from heavy industrial states are pressing to scale-back and refocus on cutting unemployment.

In this context, it seems unlikely the administration can find the 60 predominantly Democratic votes it needs to pass a climate bill on the floor of the Senate; hammer out a compromise between the differing House and Senate versions in conference; then secure simple majorities in both houses to pass the agreed bill into law.

Even before this week’s election results, the prospects for passing climate change legislation this year were dimming rapidly. But the arithmetic, already challenging, has now become very tricky as the administration loses momentum.

60-VOTE DOUBT IN SENATE

In the Senate, only two Democrats are up for re-election in Republican-leaning states carried by John McCain (North Dakota’s Byron Dorgan and Arkansas’s Blanche Lincoln).

Both have already taken a cautious approach to climate legislation. Both broke ranks with the majority of their colleagues earlier this year to vote for a Republican amendment preventing the budget reconciliation process being used to push through cap-and-trade on a 51-vote straight majority rather than the 60-vote super-majority normally needed to end a filibuster.

But the party remains ambivalent over cap-and-trade, split between liberals from coastal states who want a commitment to tough emissions reduction objectives, and senators representing industrial areas or conservative states anxious about supporting anything that could be portrayed as a costly, job-killing energy tax by their opponents at election time.

In theory, the Democratic Party (together with its independent allies) has the 60 votes needed to push a climate bill through despite almost uniform Republican opposition. In practice, the party broke 26-31 in favor of the Republican amendment to the budget resolution earlier this year, in what many saw as a straw poll on cap-and-trade.

Some Democrats have fallen into line since then, and the administration may be able to pick up one or two Republican votes such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham with the promise of loan guarantees and other government help for the nuclear power industry.

With several Democrats harbouring concerns, though, there are not yet 60 votes for an ambitious climate bill.

The bill will not be openly defeated on the Senate floor. If it dies or gets delayed it will be in the cloakroom. Majority Leader Harry Reid will not bring it up for a vote unless and until 60 firm votes are in his pocket. So Democrats with doubts will be able to delay the bill indefinitely by holding out and asking for more concessions, without having to come out explicitly against it.

RISK OF REVERSAL IN HOUSE

The arithmetic looks as daunting in the House of Representatives. While the lower chamber has already approved its own climate bill (HR 2454) legislators will have to vote again to pass the consolidated version if and when it is agreed in conference.

There is nothing to stop congressmen changing their minds. As the election draws closer and the already bitter partisanship in the chamber intensifies, some of the bill’s earlier supporters may withdraw.

The original bill passed only by the narrowest of margins (219-212), with 44 Democrats voting “No.”

A total of 84 Democrats represent Republican-leaning districts carried by John McCain or George W Bush in 2004. It will take only a handful of further defections to sink the measure if it returns from conference.

If the consolidated bill has been toughened in line with the Senate version (S 1733), congressmen will have a ready-made excuse to claim it has gone too far.

Parties controlling the White House usually lose seats at the mid-term elections, so pressure on Democrats in Republican-leaning areas will be immense.

The party’s heavy losses in Virginia and New Jersey this week will make them very cautious.

CROWDED AGENDA, LOSING MOMENTUM

Arguably, the president has tried to push through too many ambitious reform proposals and stretched his political capital too thinly.

At the best of times, it would be difficult to get either healthcare reform or climate change through Congress when the president’s majority is an uneasy coalition of liberals and centrists. But when the president is having to deal with a recession, financial regulation, and whether to increase the military commitment to Afghanistan, it has proved impossible to rally support for them both at the same time.

Hopes that healthcare and climate change legislation could be rammed through early in the year, long before the mid-term elections, while the Republican Party was still consumed by infighting after losing heavily in 2008, have evaporated.

Climate change has become a second-order priority. The political capital needed to assemble winning coalitions for a bill in both chambers is being deployed elsewhere.

The best option for the administration may be seeking to broaden its coalition, buying more Republican support through a combination of nuclear financing guarantees and greater access to offshore drilling.

But if an agreed climate bill does not go through before the year end, its prospects next year, when legislators will be fixated on the looming elections, are no better.

In the protracted Washington debate over the war in Afghanistan, the most concise analysis so far has come from America’s top soldier: “If we don’t get a level of legitimacy and governance (there), then all the troops in the world aren’t going to make any difference.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was speaking two days after Hamid Karzai was declared the winner, by default, in August elections so massively rigged that a U.N.-backed electoral complaints committee threw out about a million Karzai votes. That forced a run-off from which his challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew, saying the second round would be just as fraudulent as the first.

So much for an exercise in democracy President Barack Obama had used as his rationale for escalating the war a few months after he took office. “I did order 21,000 additional troops there to make sure that we could secure the election, because I thought that was important.”

It was. It showed that the United States and its NATO allies are fighting on the side of a corrupt and discredited government in a war, now in its ninth year, for which, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, there can be no purely military solution.

An angry assessment of the Afghan leader last year by Thomas Schweich, a former top anti-narcotics official in Afghanistan, has proved prophetic. Karzai, he said, had been playing the Americans like a fiddle ever since he came to power. “The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai’s friends would get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009 he would be elected to a new term.”

U.S. officials, including Admiral Mullen, are now calling on Karzai to purge Afghanistan of corrupt officials by arresting and prosecuting them. This is an unlikely prospect. In his victory speech, Karzai said he would work to wipe off “the stain of corruption” but said that could not be done simply by removing corrupt officials.

The implicit notice that there would be no major house-cleaning followed a telephone call Obama made to Karzai to say it was time for “a new chapter based on improved governance (and) a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption…” If previous promises from Karzai are any guide, the new chapter will remain unwritten.

BOXED IN BY RHETORIC

Obama is close to making a decision on a request by General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan for as many as 40,000 additional troops. If the president followed the logic of Admiral Mullen’s analysis, he would send none. But he will, because he is boxed in by his own portrayal of Afghanistan as the “good war” (as opposed to the war in Iraq) and his definition of why the U.S. must be in Afghanistan.

“This is not a war of choice,” he said in a speech in August. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

One of the most passionate arguments against this reasoning has come from Matthew Hoh, the first State Department official to resign in protest over the war. Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain, said in his letter of resignation that if the U.S. strategy really was to prevent al-Qaeda from regrouping in Afghanistan, then America should also invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen - all countries with an al-Qaeda presence.

“Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. To…follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan.”

Instead, he wrote, the U.S. was following the example of the Soviet Union, a previous and unsuccessful occupier, by bolstering a failing state.

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

Emerging markets could be the first to suffer destabilizing inflation, courtesy of a strong economic rebound, a weak dollar and extremely loose monetary policy in the developed world.

Inflation, in faster growing emerging markets, was not high on the list of worries even months ago, but the speed and strength of the rebound and red-hot asset markets in some places show that it may be a rising threat.

“The surprise could be that inflation in emerging markets really takes off,” Amer Bisat of hedge fund Traxis Partners said on Tuesday at a Euromoney foreign exchange conference in New York.

It is not yet a central case, but should price pressures in countries like China, Korea and Brazil take hold, it will leave policy makers in a bind and would roil financial markets.

Interest rate hikes might only attract more hot capital and may be only partially effective. Rising currencies can be self-fulfilling and higher interest rates in emerging markets make carry trades — borrowing in dollars, for example, and reinvesting in something like Korean won — all the more attractive.

Other methods of stemming currency appreciation, which stokes inflation, may also become more popular; Brazil in October imposed a 2 percent tax on foreign inflows into equities and fixed-income instruments designed to keep the real from appreciating too quickly.

Emerging market central bankers can expect no help from colleagues in the developed world any time soon. The Federal Reserve will find it economically and politically difficult to hike with unemployment near 10 percent.

“Inflation in emerging markets will be U.S. inflation exported,” said Maxime Tessier of Canadian state asset manager Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec.

This might actually argue for China to acquiesce to U.S. calls for it to increase the value of the yuan, which will fight inflation at home and would win it friends and influence abroad. It would not be a surprise for China to return to a “crawling peg” under which the yuan is allowed to appreciate upward slowly. That won’t happen immediately; a negotiation and wooing period will allow China to extract maximum value from the United States for implementing a policy it may well need anyway.

And of course, with significant spare capacity, the decision will not be easy as inflation in the Chinese economy will not be evenly distributed.

RED HOT

While the data on inflation is still fairly tame, asset markets in many emerging markets are now red hot.

The World Bank this week raised its growth forecast for developing east Asia to 6.7 percent this year from 5.3 percent, but said the strong recovery brought with it new dangers in booming asset prices.

“As liquidity is working its way through the system, and demand is relatively low, the credit is finding its way to stock exchanges and real estate markets. It’s a danger,” said Vikram Nehru, the World Bank’s chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific. The IMF chimed in, citing surging property prices in Hong Kong and “a risk that prices could become driven more by short-term liquidity conditions, divorced from fundamental forces of supply and demand.”

Authorities in South Korea have also reacted to a surge in real estate price in and around Seoul, imposing regulations to tighten access to mortgage finance.

Officials have taken some steps to slow the flood of loans they unleashed via Chinese banks this year, but not entirely effectively. Loans by Chinese banks have disproportionately found their way into property and financial speculation, but moves over the summer to limit lending sent the stock market into a tailspin which may have scared off officials. China’s  four largest banks extended about 136 billion yuan ($20 billion) in yuan-denominated new loans in October, up 23.6 percent from September’s 110.4 billion yuan, the China Securities Journal reported on Tuesday.

And it’s not just property — the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up more than 60 percent this year and currencies in many emerging markets have recorded strong returns.

All of this comes with one very large caveat; if, as is very possible, the recovery in the United States and Europe falters in the new year, then the risk of actual inflation in emerging markets will recede along with their exports to the West. A relapse lower too might bring with it a recovery in the dollar, which would inflict huge pain on speculators who are running dollar carry trades and investing in emerging markets assets and property.

Taking a very long view, strong emerging markets make good sense. Capital should flow to emerging markets. Returns there over the long run will be better, at least if the rule of law prevails. Unless policies can tread a very narrow path, that growth will bring with it inflation and rising volatility.

(Editing by James Dalgleish)
(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

– Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own –

Everyone agrees that China’s economy must be rebalanced, but few have bothered to delve into the costs. Japan’s experience has shown that even well-meant changes could sow the seeds for a bubble.

China cannot stay with its current economic model forever. But as the economy has become extremely unbalanced, to some extent even more so than Japan’s in the 1980s, rocking the boat too much risks tipping it over. Instead of rushing into changes, it would be better to make reforms gradually.

Most observers believe an extremely loose monetary policy was the root cause of Japan’s bubble. But Tomo Kinoshita, an economist at Nomura, reckons that efforts to liberalise the economy, such as sharply revaluing the yen, developing a deeper bond market and deregulating interest rates were among the fundamental reasons behind the bubble.

The challenges facing China’s economy are similar to those seen in Japan in the 1980s. Foreigners are calling for a currency revaluation because the undervalued yuan gives China’s exports an extra boost. Capital markets need to play a bigger role because investment has been directed mostly by state-owned banks.

True, property price increases appear to be milder than in the Japan of the 1980s. Household loans only account for 30 percent of disposable incomes in China, versus about 90 percent in Japan in 1989, according to Nomura. But there are warning signs. New mortgages recently hit a record. And ratings agency Fitch has cited China’s property market as a cause for concern.

The Chinese stock market also looks less overvalued than Japan’s did. The ratio of Chinese stock prices to earnings is only a third of the peak levels reached in Japan. Stock market capitalization as a percentage of GDP is 62 percent, much lower than Japan’s 150 percent at end of 1989. But China is catching up fast, and the ChiNext market, China’s long-awaited Nasdaq-style market, debuted last week with a speculative surge.

Moreover, China has been more aggressive in terms of monetary easing as it tries to prop up the economy while waiting for exports to return. The broad money supply in China has been rising at almost 30 percent this year, twice as much as in Japan back in the 1980s. So if there is a bubble, it could grow bigger than the one in Japan.

Even much-needed efforts to liberalise and rebalance the economy may lead to asset price inflation. Similar to China, Japan’s banks were too big and small companies had trouble getting financing. So developing a corporate bond market and encouraging banks to lend more to small firms was seen as a healthy change.

But policymakers underestimated the negative impact on banks. After Japan developed a liquid corporate bond market, large corporations issued cheap equity-linked bonds to repay bank loans. Because Japanese financial institutions lacked other revenue sources, they targeted smaller corporations and consumers. Total bank loans made to small- and medium-sized companies and individuals rose to 71 percent of total loans in the late 1990s from 47 percent in the late 1980s.

Due to a lack of information on their new clients, the banks’ bad loans started to rise. Their lending standards deteriorated as they scrambled to make up for lost business. This could very well happen in China as the country encourages consumers to take on more debt to stimulate domestic demand.

Moreover, Kinoshita argues that in Japan interest rate deregulation “put a cat amongst the banking pigeons” because banks were forced to lend out more when their margins became compressed due to more competition. Pressure from the United States played a role, and the Japanese authorities were eager to internationalize the yen anyway. Letting banks set deposit and lending rates was one of the requirements for the yen’s internationalization.

The policy lesson for China is that when Beijing takes business away from banks, it needs to balance things out by allowing them to take on new business, such as securities underwriting and broking.

But that leads to the question of how to compensate securities firms for their lost business and prevent them from engaging in reckless behavior. This just underscores the complexity of China’s problems.

Most of the world believes that China risks moving too slowly, not too fast. President Barack Obama might give Chinese leaders another ear bashing during his upcoming trip to China. But without the right systems in place, big bang reforms could be disastrous. It is important that China, as well as the rest of the world, learns from Japan’s mistakes.

– Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own —

China has finally given a green light for Disneyland to build a theme park in Shanghai. Negotiations that started when Bill Clinton was in the White House have concluded just before President Barack Obama is due to visit. The approval looks like a coup for Walt Disney Co, but it will take all of Mickey’s magic to prevent the park from becoming another government-financed loss maker.

Disney’s last theme park in the region was anything but a hit. Hong Kong Disneyland was created in 2005 in an effort to boost employment in the epidemic-stricken region, but attendance numbers have fallen short of target. This hits the Hong Kong government harder than Disney, because the former not only took an initial 57 percent equity stake in the venture, but also spent $1.75 billion building related infrastructure like a metro line and ferry piers.

Shanghai Disneyland is likely to be financed in the same way. Estimates for the park’s price tag are around $4 billion. The government and a group of Chinese companies will contribute about 60 percent of equity, with Disney paying for the rest. The Shanghai government is also likely to pay for the roads leading to the park.

The Hong Kong park has been a disappointment for a number of reasons, some of which might equally be relevant in Shanghai. It is the smallest Disneyland in the world, so it is crowded and not worth visiting for a second day. Culturally, locals identify more with the Ocean Park, which features pandas and sharks and is cheaper. Hong Kong Disneyland’s public image has also taken a hit from a bout of food poisoning and accusations that it has exaggerated visitor numbers.

The Shanghai park will be 3-4 times bigger than the one in Hong Kong, making space for more visitors. But this will also increase the cost of relocating current residents. Some locals are busy adding a second floor to their homes so they can demand more compensation when they move out.

Shanghai has twice Hong Kong’s population, but average income is only about a quarter that of its wealthier neighbour, so it’s far from clear how many visitors will be able to afford a ticket that will cost the equivalent of two days of earnings for a college graduate. Then there is the possibility that the Shanghai park will divert visitors from Hong Kong.

There is also a risk of a culture backlash. Chinese children are less familiar with Disney characters than their counterparts in, say, Japan, home to Disney’s most successful overseas theme park. That said, the Chinese have so far appeared to be receptive to the American cultural icon: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse appears on national TVs and Disney has opened a chain of language schools in Shanghai.

China’s decision to relent after ten years says a lot about its changed priorities. Before, the government was concerned about the economy overheating, but now growth has become the top priority. While it is probably better to build a theme park than more empty highways, a second Disneyland might prove to be one too many.

– At the time of publication Wei Gu did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. She may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. —