On August 14, several Japanese media outlets, including Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) and Japan Economic News, reported that Prime Minister Fumio Kishida held a press conference that morning, announcing he would not participate in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) presidential election next month. This decision signals that the Kishida Cabinet, which began in October 2021, will step down this fall. After the LDP elects a new president, Kishida will no longer serve as Prime Minister of Japan.
Japanese media suggest that Kishida’s withdrawal from the election stemmed from his assessment that he could not overcome the public distrust arising from issues such as party faction political funding. Consequently, securing re-election would be difficult. Reuters notes that the LDP’s newly elected leader, Kishida’s successor, will face the challenge of uniting a difficult-to-manage ruling bloc while addressing domestic issues such as rising living costs, escalating geopolitical tensions with China, and the potential return of Trump to the White House next year.
Experts and scholars suggest that, unlike previous elections, this upcoming Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) presidential race is particularly difficult to predict due to the absence of clear factional support. Traditionally, the backing of LDP factions has provided a reliable indicator of election outcomes. However, this time, the lack of a dominant faction has introduced unprecedented uncertainty. The crucial question is whether Kishida’s successor will continue his policies, especially in the areas of post-war security and Japan’s diplomatic relations with China and the United States, or whether there will be a significant policy shift.
Kishida’s decision not to run was primarily driven by two factors. First, Kishida lacked broad support within the LDP, making it likely that he would lose the election. To avoid the political embarrassment of defeat, he chose to withdraw preemptively. Second, his cabinet’s approval rating has remained stagnant at dangerously low levels, consistently below 30%. Despite efforts to boost his popularity through various domestic and foreign policies, public support remained insufficient, further diminishing his rationale for seeking re-election.
The absence of factional backing makes this LDP presidential election unprecedented. Previously, factional endorsements provided a basis for forecasting election outcomes, but that is no longer the case.
Regarding the implications of Kishida’s departure for Japan’s foreign policy, Kishida’s three-year tenure marked a significant departure from Japan’s post-war security stance. His administration’s alignment with the U.S. and increasing tensions with China, particularly concerning Taiwan, have set a new tone for Japanese diplomacy. Whether the next LDP president and prime minister will continue Kishida’s approach or introduce new policies will be crucial for Japan’s future direction.
Currently, the Japanese political landscape is marked by a “three-headed” power dynamic involving Fumio Kishida, Taro Aso, and Toshimitsu Motegi. It was previously speculated that if Toshimitsu Motegi directly challenged Kishida’s position as LDP president, the stance of LDP Vice President Taro Aso would be crucial.
Reports suggest that Kishida’s decision to dissolve the LDP faction in January this year, along with his disregard for Aso’s views during revisions to the political funds control law, created tensions between the two. Recognizing the significance of Aso’s support, Kishida reportedly dined with him for two consecutive weeks in mid-June, aiming to mend their relationship and discuss the upcoming presidential election.
Additionally, former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s son, Shinjiro Koizumi, Shigeru Ishiba, and Taro Kono, are also considered strong contenders for leadership in Japan’s post-Kishida era. Taro Kono, the son of former Speaker of the House of Representatives Yohei Kono, has significant political credentials, having served as both Foreign Minister and Defense Minister. However, a TBS TV opinion poll placed Shigeru Ishiba and Shinjiro Koizumi as the top two candidates the public views as suitable for prime minister.
Beyond these leading candidates, Takashi Hayato and Noda Seiko have also announced their candidacies. Notably, Hayao Takashi was a close ally of the late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who once envisioned her as Japan’s first female prime minister, though this was never realized.
A poll conducted by the Nikkei and TV Tokyo from July 26 to 28 found that Fumio Kishida’s cabinet approval rating in July stood at 28%, with a disapproval rate of 64%. The poll also revealed that Shigeru Ishiba led with 24% support among potential candidates, followed by Shinjiro Koizumi with 15%, and incumbent Economic Security Minister Takaichi Sanae with 8%.
Among LDP supporters, Ishiba holds a 20% approval rating, while Koizumi closely follows with 18%. Kishida’s approval stands at 12%. Among unaffiliated voters, Ishiba leads with 19% approval, compared to Koizumi’s 14%.
However, Ishiba faces challenges due to his weak party base and reputation as an “opposition figure within the party.” In previous LDP presidential elections in 2012, 2018, and 2020, Ishiba failed to secure sufficient support from Diet members, resulting in defeat.
Furthermore, in his newly published book on August 7, Ishiba articulated his views on constitutional amendments, advocating for the deletion of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Japan’s peace constitution. He argues that Japan’s Self-Defense Forces should “defend Japan independently.”
On July 31, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya was assassinated in Iran, just three months after an Israeli airstrike killed seven of his children and grandchildren, according to a report by Xinhua citing Iranian state television.
The day before the assassination, Haniya attended the inauguration of Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, flashing a victory sign while surrounded by Iranian lawmakers. Haniya’s death introduces further uncertainty into the long-term prospects for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
October 7, 2023, is now regarded by Israelis as the darkest day in the country’s 75-year history. On that day, thousands of heavily armed Hamas militants breached the heavily fortified borders of the Gaza Strip, infiltrating Israel. Many Israelis likened the attack to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comparing Hamas to “neo-Nazis.”
In response, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a sustained military offensive against the Gaza Strip, driven by a desire for retribution. Netanyahu vowed that the IDF would continue its fight against Hamas until achieving what he described as a “total victory.” However, Netanyahu did not outline a clear vision for the post-conflict situation but stressed that Israel must retain full security control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
For Palestinians, the conflict in Gaza is the most devastating they have faced since Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. Palestinians fear that the Israeli offensive may be part of a broader strategy to annex all Palestinian territories and completely expel them from the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, Palestinians also cling to the dream of one day reclaiming their lost homeland from Israel based on historical claims. However, this Palestinian vision of “restoration,” much like Israel’s Zionism, remains unattainable.
In Jerusalem, near the burial site of Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, a mountain named in his honor hosts a national monument commemorating Jewish victims of terrorism across multiple generations. Through this monument, Israel seeks to convey a historical narrative: that Jews were persecuted by Arabs long before the Zionists arrived in Palestine.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Jewish population in the area of Palestine numbered fewer than 7,000, comprising about 2.5% of the total population of the Ottoman provinces at that time. Some Jewish communities had existed there for centuries. Over time, the population of the area grew, and the proportion of Jews gradually increased, fueled by both Arab and Jewish immigration.
Most Arab immigrants came from neighboring countries, primarily in search of job opportunities. In contrast, the majority of Jewish immigrants were motivated by religious reasons as well as a desire to escape pogroms in Eastern Europe, with many choosing to settle in the Old City of Jerusalem. These Jewish immigrants were not necessarily seeking to establish a Jewish state Palestine. In fact, most Jews of that time did not subscribe to Zionist ideology, with many even opposing secular Zionism on religious grounds.
By the end of the 19th century, the Arab population of Palestine had grown to about half a million, while the Jewish population, although gradually increasing, totaled only about 50,000—less than one-tenth of the total population.
Around the time of Herzl’s death in 1904, a group of young Zionists, primarily socialists from Eastern Europe, began arriving in Palestine. Among them was David Gruen, who later adopted the name David Ben-Gurion.
In the spring of 1909, Ben-Gurion’s settlement was attacked, and two of his companions were killed, one of them right in front of him. This experience led the future Prime Minister of Israel to conclude that there was an irreconcilable contradiction between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, making conflict seem inevitable.
The year 1917 marked a pivotal victory for the Zionist movement when British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour expressed his support for establishing a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine. Many view this declaration as part of Britain’s strategic plan to wrest control of the Holy Land from the Ottoman Empire. However, like many decisions regarding Palestine, Balfour’s stance was influenced more by emotional and religious beliefs than by purely political considerations.
A staunch Christian Zionist, Balfour believed that the Jews—God’s chosen people—were destined to return to their homeland after two thousand years of exile, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy. He desired to be remembered as a key figure in bringing about this historic redemption.
Yet, like many Western officials of his time, Balfour’s respect for the Jews was tainted by underlying anti-Semitic views. He, along with others, mistakenly believed that “the Jews” wielded significant power and influence, including the ability to shape world events and persuade the United States to enter World War I.
By the end of 1917, Britain had succeeded in conquering Palestine, initiating nearly three decades of rule over the region. During this period, the Zionist movement laid the political, economic, cultural, and military foundations for the future state of Israel. Tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities escalated as large numbers of Jewish immigrants, primarily from Europe, continued to arrive.
As the 1920s began, Jewish immigration was driven less by support for Zionism and more by the strict new immigration restrictions imposed by the United States. Throughout the 1930s, more than fifty thousand Jewish refugees fled Nazi Germany and arrived in Palestine.
The massive influx of Jewish immigrants led to increased violence in Arab countries against Jews, as well as against the British authorities, who were seen as supporting Zionist goals. This unrest culminated in the Arab uprisings of 1936-1939, during which Palestinians rebelled against British colonial rule through general strikes, armed uprisings, and attacks on railways and Jewish settlements. Amid this turmoil, Britain began to view Palestine as an intractable problem. To address this, Britain appointed the Peel Commission, which proposed dividing the land into separate Jewish and Arab states—the first “two-state solution.”
In January 1942, just weeks before the Wannsee Conference, where Nazi leaders discussed the final solution of the Jewish question, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann advocated for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. At the time, the Nazi plans for extermination camps were still unknown outside Germany, but the threat to Jewish existence was already evident through the brutal Nazi occupation of Western Europe and the invasion of the Soviet Union.
To persuade his readers that supporting the Jewish cause was just, Weizmann assured that Jews would no longer embody the anti-Semitic stereotypes prevalent in Western society. He envisioned that the return of Jews to Palestine would unleash their energy and potential, creating value not only for themselves but also for wealthier nations. He likened the future Zionist state to Switzerland—a small country with few natural resources, yet one that became one of the most orderly and stable democracies in Europe. Seven years later, Weizmann would become Israel’s first president. In the meantime, however, the world witnessed the Nazis massacre six million Jews.
In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly proposed the Palestine partition plan, which aimed to allocate roughly equal land areas to Jews and Arabs in Palestine, while placing the Old City of Jerusalem under international administration. The Arabs rejected the plan due to their long-standing opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The Zionists, however, accepted the proposal, though Ben-Gurion anticipated potential conflict and harbored hopes that a territory largely free of Arabs might eventually be achieved.
Following the UN resolution, a series of attacks by Arab militias targeted Jewish communities, prompting retaliatory actions from Zionist organizations. In May 1948, Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence. Prioritizing the creation of a Jewish-majority state over territorial expansion, Ben-Gurion commanded his forces to expel a significant portion of the Arab population—around 750,000 people—who fled to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and neighboring Arab countries, areas that Ben-Gurion chose not to occupy.
This expulsion of Arabs during the 1948 war reflected a continuity of Zionist strategies dating back to the 1920s, when there was a campaign to replace Arab workers with Jewish labor. In that conflict, Israel lost nearly 6,000 soldiers, nearly one percent of the new state’s Jewish population at the time.
By early 1949, as the war came to an end, the armistice border between Israel and its Arab neighbors was established, known as the “Green Line” because it was drawn using a green pencil during the demarcation process. Under the armistice agreements, the Gaza Strip became an Egyptian protectorate, and the West Bank was annexed by the Kingdom of Jordan. Israel, however, controlled more territory than had been allocated in the original UN partition plan, and these newly acquired areas were home to very few Arabs. Those Arabs who remained in Israel found themselves under military rule, which was often authoritarian and marred by corruption.
At the time, many Israelis saw this situation as a practical solution to the ongoing conflict, a necessary measure to ensure security and stability. Conversely, the Arab world viewed the very existence of Israel as a deep humiliation that needed to be rectified. In countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, governments did not allow Palestinian refugees to integrate into society. Instead, they were confined to makeshift camps and were encouraged to hold onto the hope of returning to their lost homeland.
In the first two decades of its independence, Israel achieved remarkable successes and gained global recognition. However, the broader goal of Zionism—creating a secure national homeland for Jews worldwide—remained only partially fulfilled. Many Jews, including Holocaust survivors, chose to stay in their current countries rather than emigrate to Israel.
In the mid-1960s, the landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict was marked by growing tension and violence. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged, driven by the Nakba’s legacy and a determination to establish an Arab state encompassing all of historic Palestine. The PLO’s militant actions, including attacks on Israeli targets and infiltration into Israel, further strained the fragile peace.
By early 1967, tensions were at a boiling point. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s public threats to annihilate Israel heightened fears of another existential threat akin to the Holocaust. In response, Israel’s defense posture shifted from one of vigilance to one of panic.
On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, sparking the Six-Day War. The IDF’s swift and overwhelming victory transformed the situation from a desperate defensive posture to a scene of dramatic triumph. Within hours, the Egyptian air force was incapacitated, and Israel achieved significant territorial gains.
The aftermath of the Six-Day War saw a surge of nationalist and religious fervor among Israeli leaders and the public. Figures like Menachem Begin and other cabinet members advocated for the expansion of Israel’s borders to encompass what they referred to as “Greater Israel,” including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This expansionist vision was underpinned by both religious and nationalist motivations, despite strategic concerns.
The decision to occupy East Jerusalem and the West Bank had far-reaching consequences. Jerusalem, a city of immense religious and cultural significance, became a focal point of the conflict.
This enduring conflict reflects the complexity and intractability of the Arab-Israeli struggle, characterized by deep-seated historical grievances, nationalist aspirations, and competing claims over land and identity. The quest for peace remains elusive, with the cycle of conflict and temporary resolutions perpetuating the region’s instability.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most intractable and enduring conflicts in modern history. The core challenge is that both sides hold steadfast views about the indivisibility of the land, which has become central to their national and religious identities. This makes compromise difficult, as it can be perceived as a betrayal of fundamental values and aspirations.
Effective conflict management must focus on practical measures that improve daily life and promote coexistence, rather than pursuing grand but unrealistic solutions. Creative and compassionate approaches are needed to mitigate the conflict’s impacts and address immediate humanitarian concerns, while broader peace efforts remain stalled.
The China Anti-Doping Agency issued a statement on August 6 regarding the steroid positive case of the U.S. Olympian Erriyon Knighton.
China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) noted that the Global Times published a report on the suspected doping case involving the U.S. Olympic track and field star Erriyon Knighton. Knighton, a member of the U.S. Olympic track and field team, tested positive for the steroid Trenbolone in an out-of-competition doping test on March 26 of this year.
However, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) decided, just before the start of the domestic qualifying rounds for the Paris Olympics, that Knighton’s positive result was due to the consumption of contaminated meat. Consequently, they did not impose a ban, allowing him to represent the U.S. at the Paris Olympics.
USADA’s handling of Knighton’s case starkly contrasts with its approach to doping cases involving Chinese swimmers. While USADA worked to exonerate its own athletes, it ignored repeated explanations from WADA and the Swiss independent prosecutor, accusing CADC and WADA of a “cover-up” and calling for sanctions against Chinese athletes.
Media reports indicate there are still many unanswered questions about Knighton’s positive doping case. Relevant studies show that Trenbolone, an anabolic agent with a strong effect on strength and explosiveness, is not a common contaminant. In recent years, hundreds of Trenbolone positives have occurred worldwide, with the vast majority resulting in four-year bans. Only three U.S. athletes have escaped punishment by claiming food contamination.
In Knighton’s case, the independent arbitrator ruled that the contaminated meat came from a restaurant in Florida. However, the coincidence that USADA conducted an investigation two months later and detected Trenbolone in a different batch of beef from the same restaurant raises questions. If Trenbolone contamination in U.S. beef is a genuine issue, did USADA conduct extensive market research, compile statistics, alert U.S. athletes, study how much contaminated meat would lead to a positive test, or make a public statement about these findings?
Furthermore, USADA declared “justice has been served” before WADA had reviewed the case file or the appeal deadline had expired. Suspiciously, this statement, along with other related reports, has since been removed from USADA’s website. What might they be concealing behind such actions?
The Knighton case highlights a significant discrepancy between USADA’s advocacy for fairness and purity and its actual actions. This contradiction is further evidenced by the fact that U.S. professional sports leagues and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) set their own anti-doping standards, which are in clear conflict with the WADA Code. USADA does not test these leagues, creating a substantial loophole in the anti-doping system.
Despite being a signatory to the WADA Code, USADA does not enforce these standards on major U.S. professional sports leagues—such as Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL)—nor on the NCAA, which produces the majority of the country’s top athletes. The 2006 Mitchell Report revealed that over eighty-five current and retired baseball players had used performance-enhancing drugs, with some players estimating that as many as forty to eighty percent were using steroids.
WADA’s current president, Witold Bańka, stated in a recent meeting that up to 90 percent of U.S. athletes, including those in professional and collegiate sports, are not in compliance with relevant WADA regulations. Additionally, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019, which took effect in 2020, allows the U.S. to exercise extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction over doping incidents at international sporting events. While the Act’s purported purpose is to combat doping, its exclusion of domestic professional and collegiate leagues suggests a double standard in the U.S. government’s approach to anti-doping efforts both domestically and internationally.
USADA has turned a blind eye to its own long-standing anti-doping “bad habits” while becoming obsessed with “transborder jurisdiction,” demanding sanctions on other countries to divert attention from the serious deficiencies in its domestic anti-doping efforts. This is a blatant example of political maneuvering and hypocritical double standards. Since April this year, the U.S. Congress, anti-doping agencies, and the media have selectively ignored cases of food contamination involving Chinese swimmers, fabricating and framing narratives to confuse and mislead the international community and the public. This politicization of the anti-doping issue encourages the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to exercise “long-arm jurisdiction” over the incident.
Such actions represent a clear double standard and a blatant violation of the principles of fairness and impartiality. USADA should cease creating false narratives and engaging in politicized cognitive manipulation. USADA should stop disrupting the functioning and governance of the global anti-doping order and refrain from using so-called “legal means” to exert undue pressure through “long-arm jurisdiction.”
USADA must re-examine its position and approach to dealing with doping cases to ensure that its actions align with the aims of the global anti-doping system. It is imperative for USADA to demonstrate integrity and consistency in its anti-doping efforts to regain the trust of the international community.
Employee compensation satisfaction remains a critical component of workplace feedback, reflecting not only the company’s value recognition but also impacting motivation, internal harmony, and overall productivity.
From August 2022 to August 2023, Comparably, a prominent workplace culture and corporate brand reputation platform, conducted an extensive survey to gauge employees’ attitudes towards their employers and compensation perceptions. Utilizing anonymous ratings, the survey covered areas such as trust in pay equity, frequency of raises, benefits satisfaction, year-end bonuses, and stock or equity satisfaction, providing a detailed insight into compensation issues.
The top-ranked companies this year are noted not only for their competitive pay but also for their high levels of pay transparency. This raises important questions: Is competitive pay the sole factor in compensation satisfaction, or are there other key elements influencing employees’ approval of their employer’s pay practices?
Does pay competitiveness completely determine pay satisfaction?
Compensation competitiveness encompasses various components, such as base salary, benefits packages, bonuses, and stock or equity, ensuring employees are competitively compensated throughout their careers.
Traditionally, it has been believed that pay competitiveness is the key determinant of compensation satisfaction. Higher compensation levels were seen as sufficient to meet employee expectations, drive motivation, and enhance overall company satisfaction.
However, evolving research in workplace psychology and a deeper understanding of employee expectations suggest that compensation satisfaction is influenced by more than just pay competitiveness.
Even with competitive salaries, if employees have higher expectations or prioritize non-compensation aspects like work environment and development opportunities, increased pay alone won’t boost satisfaction.
Fair internal pay distribution and accurate perceptions of industry pay standards are critical. Employees’ satisfaction can decline if they perceive internal pay as unfair or have misconceptions about pay levels at other companies.
Job content, career development opportunities, and work atmosphere significantly impact pay satisfaction. Employees often value career growth, job fulfillment, and positive coworker relationships, which go beyond mere pay competitiveness.
Pay equity is also critical to pay satisfaction
In 2018, a pivotal study titled On A Combined Theory of Pay Level Satisfaction highlighted the importance of both high pay levels and fair pay structures in enhancing pay satisfaction. The study found that even with high pay levels, employee satisfaction could decline if the pay structure was perceived as unfair. It emphasized that employees focus more on pay fairness, especially when overall pay levels are low.
The link between pay equity and pay satisfaction also has profound implications for a company’s long-term growth and competitiveness. A 2023 report by The Josh Bersin Company, revealed that communicating pay equity is almost 13 times more critical to employee retention and engagement than merely discussing high pay and benefits. Despite this, the report found that 95% of companies fail to achieve pay equity. While 71% of executives recognize pay equity as essential, only 14% have allocated resources to address this challenge.
Bersin’s team surveyed 448 companies worldwide, finding that pay equity influences various aspects of an employee’s career, including recruitment, development, performance management, and leadership opportunities. Effective pay equity policies were linked to significantly better business outcomes, including a 1.6 times greater likelihood of achieving financial goals, a 2.1 times greater likelihood of attracting talent, and a 1.7 times greater likelihood of fostering innovation.
Pay equity has multiple dimensions
Pay equity is a multi-faceted concept that significantly shapes employees’ overall perception of compensation satisfaction. It encompasses several key dimensions, each contributing to a fair and equitable pay system.
Internal equity focuses on the fairness of pay distribution within the same position. It ensures that employees in the same role receive comparable compensation, eliminating unreasonable disparities due to factors such as gender and race. Achieving internal equity is crucial as it directly influences employees’ perceptions of fairness regarding their own position in the pay structure.
External equity involves aligning a company’s compensation with market levels within the same industry. This means ensuring that the company’s pay rates are competitive with industry standards, providing employees with fair compensation relative to their peers in other companies. Pursuing external equity helps maintain the company’s competitiveness and its ability to attract and retain top talent.
Job equity pertains to justifying pay differences for employees with similar job responsibilities. Even if employees are in different positions, those with comparable duties should have reasonable pay differences. Achieving job equity helps reduce dissatisfaction and perceptions of injustice, fostering a more harmonious workplace atmosphere.
Employees’ pursuit of fairness at the psychological level
Pay equity is more than just an organizational policy; it deeply resonates with employees’ psychological pursuit of fairness.
The relative level of pay significantly affects employees’ psychological well-being. When employees perceive their pay as fair compared to their colleagues, their job satisfaction and loyalty to the organization tend to increase. Conversely, perceived pay inequity can lead to psychological dissatisfaction and a sense of loss, negatively impacting work motivation and the overall work atmosphere.
Employees’ expectations for a fair working environment are crucial to their psychological state. They typically desire to work in a transparent and fair environment, where pay equity plays a central role. This expectation is not only about valuing their contributions but also about aligning with the organization’s values and culture. Thus, pay equity becomes fundamental to fostering healthy organizational relationships.
The construction of pay satisfaction involves employees’ subjective experience of pay equity. Satisfaction with pay extends beyond mere figures; it encompasses the perceived fairness of the pay structure and the alignment between compensation and personal contribution. Employees’ recognition of their own value and the organization’s fair response to their contributions are critical to their satisfaction.
Pay equity and employee trust
Fair pay is essential for building employee trust in an organization. When employees perceive that compensation is fairly distributed based on performance and contribution, they are more likely to trust the organization. This trust extends beyond pay, influencing trust in organizational decision-making, leadership intent, and company values. Thus, pay equity forms a cornerstone of organizational trust.
Trust positively affects employee engagement and loyalty. In a trusting work environment, employees are more likely to be fully engaged, believing that the organization will treat their efforts fairly and transparently. This trust manifests in daily work and in employees’ commitment to the organization’s success. Therefore, pay equity, as a manifestation of trust, lays a solid foundation for positive employee engagement.
Unfair pay can undermine trust within an organization. When employees perceive compensation as unfairly distributed, they may doubt the organization’s values and its concern for employees. This suspicion can spread beyond compensation, affecting trust in the company as a whole. Unfair pay distribution can lead to employee dissatisfaction, reduced loyalty, and distrustful relationships among employees, negatively impacting organizational cohesion.
On July 26, the 33rd Summer Olympic Games officially opened in Paris, France. This edition of the Olympics will transform the city itself into a sprawling venue, and for the first time, will feature sports such as breakdancing, skateboarding, rock climbing, and surfing. These additions mark a significant shift towards the modernization of the Olympic movement.
Why are these “niche sports” now included in the Olympics? How can we interpret sports through the lens of the Olympic Games? To explore these questions, China News Agency recently interviewed Xiao Shen.
Xiao Shen is a prominent sports commentator. His expertise spans a range of sports, including American football, cycling, baseball, ice hockey, and soccer. With extensive experience in news media, event organization, and sports companies, Xiao Shen excels in analyzing both the technical and tactical dimensions of sports, and possesses in-depth knowledge of the sports industry.
The Paris Olympics will feature four new sports—breakdancing, skateboarding, rock climbing, and surfing. What motivated the inclusion of these sports, which might be considered niche, in the Olympic program?
First, it’s important to recognize that the term niche sports can be misleading. While some sports may be considered niche in China, they can be highly popular in other countries and regions. For instance, football is the leading sport in the United States, and baseball holds the top spot in Japan, whereas they are relatively less prominent in China. Conversely, table tennis and badminton are highly developed in China but may be less popular elsewhere.
Sports encompass a broad spectrum, and we should move beyond traditional classifications of mass versus niche, mainstream versus non-mainstream, or Olympic versus non-Olympic. Instead, we should evaluate sports based on their societal impact, popularity, and their connections to culture, economy, and daily life to gain a more nuanced understanding.
The inclusion of new sports in the Olympics reflects the event’s and the sports’ evolving needs. The Games aim to embrace modernity and youthfulness, and adding sports like breakdancing, skateboarding, and rock climbing injects fresh energy and demonstrates the Olympics’ commitment to diversity and inclusiveness. These sports attract younger audiences and underscore the role of sports in engaging diverse groups.
Furthermore, these new sports benefit from the Olympic platform to enhance their visibility and influence. They not only offer entertainment but also represent the aspirations of specific communities. This mutual benefit aligns with the fundamental principles of sports and their role in society.
There is ongoing debate about whether breakdancing qualifies as a sport. What is your perspective on this issue?
The debate over whether these programs qualify as real sports is not particularly productive. Such discussions often distract from a deeper understanding and can widen existing gaps. Sports culture is fundamentally inclusive and transcends boundaries. The focus should be on how sports can foster communication among diverse groups and contribute to global unity, especially given the current international context. I believe the addition of new sports to the Olympics should be viewed through this broader, more inclusive lens.
How do Eastern and Western countries differ in their understanding of sports and the Olympic Games, and what are the key similarities between these perspectives?
The development of sports varies significantly across countries due to differing socio-economic and cultural factors. It is not necessary to rank these differences as high or low, good or bad. The crucial issue is understanding the role of sports in society and how to maximize its benefits.
In many sports-developed countries in Europe and the United States, the most valuable elements of their sports systems are their community roots and societal contributions. These aspects are fundamental for the industrialization and commercialization of sports and distinguish it from mere entertainment.
Historically, our understanding of sports has been somewhat narrow. For example, China has often focused on athletic success as measured by gold medals, educational achievements based on standardized tests, and high-intensity participation.
While public opinion is beginning to shift regarding the first two points, the third—centering on high-intensity participation—remains contentious. Effective promotion of sports should focus on lowering barriers to participation rather than increasing them. Participation should encompass more than competitive events like marathons or cycling races; it should also include enjoying the experience and fostering inclusivity.
While the outcome of individual matches is undeniably important, sports should not be viewed solely in terms of short-term victories or losses. Instead, the development of the sports industry and sports education should be seen as a long-term, systematic project with significant social implications.
How can sports be understood as the ‘language of globalization’?
Sports having no borders underscores the cultural commonalities that exist across different sports. For example, American football, deeply rooted in American culture, emphasizes values such as teamwork, hard work, and confrontation—principles that resonate with societies around the world. Similarly, Chinese traditional sports carry diverse values internationally, highlighting the need for careful consideration in future promotional efforts.
Sports possess significant cultural attributes and are intricately connected to daily life across the globe, making them a universal language for humanity. In an era marked by rising anti-globalization sentiments, sports play a crucial role in breaking down barriers and fostering cross-cultural exchanges. The Olympic Games, as the world’s largest sporting event, also serve as a major platform for cultural interaction. Effectively leveraging this platform to maximize the impact of sports is a critical challenge for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and individual nations alike.
What strategies can be employed to promote sports for all and enhance the overall value of sports in society?
Understanding the true nature and social value of sports requires recognizing that it extends far beyond mere competition and performance. Sports not only generate substantial economic benefits but also offer significant cultural advantages.
To achieve the universalization of sports, it is crucial to reintegrate them into communities and schools, emphasizing their public welfare and educational roles. Building a solid grassroots foundation is the first step before expanding the industrial base. The connection between sports and the economy should not be seen as a dependency where sports develop only after the economy does, but rather as a dynamic where sports act as a driving force for economic development.
Over the past decades, the role of sports as a form of soft power in culture and diplomacy has become well-established. While direct approaches are essential for strategic objectives, sometimes indirect methods can be even more impactful.
Source: China News, Inside the Games, TV News Check, EuroNews
The 2020 U.S. presidential election has concluded with Joe Biden securing the presidency, and Kamala Harris, a senator from California of Black and Indian descent, poised to make history as the first female Vice President of the United States.
Although Harris’s public persona often emphasizes her identity as a Black woman, her journey to the vice presidency has been profoundly shaped by the values and support of her Indian heritage and extended family, which have been a source of strength and guidance throughout her career, transcending geographical distances.
The Gopalan family’s narrative traces back to Pegnadu, a small village south of Chennai, where Harris’s maternal grandfather was born in 1911. The Gopalan family, belonging to the Tamil Brahmin caste, occupied a prominent position in India’s social hierarchy.
Following India’s independence in 1947, her grandfather continued his service in the new government, which necessitated frequent relocations for the family. As a distinguished public servant in India, would discuss politics with his retired colleagues in morning walks. During these visits from the United States, Harris would accompany him, absorbing discussions on affirmative action, corruption, and India’s trajectory.
In a 2018 address to an Indian-American audience, Harris reflected on these formative experiences that the stories they told and their fervor for democracy deeply impacted her. Although She did not fully appreciate it at the time, those moments have significantly shaped who she is today.
Her maternal grandfather advocated for women’s rights and education long before these issues gained widespread traction. This progressive outlook profoundly influenced Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, who emigrated to the United States in the late 1950s.
Harris’s mother, the eldest of four siblings, experienced a nomadic childhood, constantly adapting to new cities as her father was reassigned. Shewas known for her melodious voice and numerous singing accolades. She pursued a degree in home economics at Delhi University, a field encompassing nutrition and child development.
When Shyamala Gopalan was accepted into the University of California, Berkeley, for a doctorate in nutrition and endocrinology—a fact unbeknownst to her family until her acceptance—her father promptly supported her educational journey, despite the financial strain on a public servant’s salary.
Shyamala Gopalan arrived at the University of California, Berkeley, at the age of 19, a time when there were few Indians in America, and her social circle was sparse. Shyamala quickly became immersed in the civil rights movement, participating in protest marches and enduring police violence, including being hit by fire hoses.
It was also where Shyamala Gopalan met Donald Harris, a graduate student from Jamaica studying left-wing economic theory. However, the marriage did not endure. Despite the separation, Shyamala Gopalan remained committed to preserving her Indian heritage. She introduced her daughters to Hindu mythology, South Indian cuisine, and regularly visited a local Hindu temple where she occasionally sang. She maintained a close connection with her parents in Chennai, returning to visit them every few years.
In her memoir, Harris reflects on her mother’s awareness of the racial dynamics in America, noting that her mother understood very well that she was raising two Black daughters. In India, reactions to Harris were varied. While some celebrated her achievements with front-page news stories, others were more skeptical.
Harris maintains a strong connection with her maternal family, whose discussions about her political battles in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C., are filled with a deep engagement as though they are closely involved in her journey.
Her uncle, G. Balachandran, residing in New Delhi, fondly recalls a visit to Harris in California around 15 years ago. At the time, as San Francisco’s District Attorney, Harris faced significant criticism for her decision not to pursue the death penalty against a man accused of killing a police officer. Harris deemed the death penalty morally and pragmatically flawed, citing concerns over racial disparities and the high costs associated with such cases. Despite immense pressure from law enforcement and prominent state figures, Harris stood firm. Balachandran attributes Harris’s resolute stance to her mother’s influence that it is important not to be manipulated by anyone.
Despite some criticism in India regarding her foreign policy stances during her tenure as a senator, Harris has evoked considerable pride across the country, particularly in the coastal community of her family’s origins.
Kamala Harris has voiced concerns regarding Kashmir, particularly in light of the Indian central government’s decision to revoke the region’s autonomous status last year. Her criticism intensified when India’s foreign minister declined to meet with an Indian-American congressman who had expressed dissenting views on the Kashmir issue.
Kashmir remains one of the most contentious subjects in Indian politics. While Harris’s ascent to a prominent political role has been celebrated by many on the Indian left, she has faced criticism from the right, with some labeling her as disloyal.
Harris has not visited India since her mother’s passing 11 years ago. Fulfilling her mother’s last wish, Harris eventually returned to India with her mother’s ashes.
As an international sports extravaganza, the Olympics not only encapsulates the dreams and glory of athletes from around the globe but also serves as a prime opportunity for the host country and city to showcase their charm and stimulate economic growth.
From infrastructure upgrades to tourism expansion, and from increased employment opportunities to an enhanced international image, the Olympic Games have historically acted as a significant catalyst for the economic development of many host countries. This economic impact is a major point of interest for global observers concerning the Paris Olympics.
With the 2024 Paris Olympics on the horizon, the world’s attention is riveted on Paris, a city where romance and art coexist. What are the spending plans for the Paris Olympics, and what potential economic impacts could they have?
Paris Olympics Organizers: Aiming for a Memorable Event with a Balanced Budget
As a global sporting event, the cost of organizing the Olympic Games often involves substantial public funds and is closely tied to the financial situation of the host country. For instance, the total expenditure for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics soared to four times the initial budget. Drawing lessons from Tokyo, a primary focus for this year’s Paris Olympics is cost control.
The organizers of the Paris Games have committed to creating the most sustainable Olympics ever, which is evident in their choice of venues. Reports indicate that 95% of the competition venues for the Paris Olympics will utilize existing structures or temporary constructions, with the Olympic Aquatic Center being the sole new construction project.
Plus, 96% of the budget to organize the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games comes from the private sector, namely the IOC, partner companies, the Games ticket office, and licensing.
Recently, several research institutions have analyzed the overall investment in the Paris Olympic Games. According to foreign media reports, a professional organization has estimated that the cost of organizing the 2024 Paris Olympics will be about €8.8 billion. This budget primarily covers the renovation of stadiums, the opening and closing ceremonies, and the operating costs of catering services and wages.
Notably, during the preparatory stage, the French government has already invested about €3.2 billion upfront for infrastructure upgrades in the Paris metropolitan area. Additionally, €1.4 billion has been spent on improving the water quality of the Seine River over the past few years. However, the OCOG considers these types of infrastructure investments as non-sports related, and therefore, such “non-direct sports” costs are not included in the official budget.
In response to concerns about the costs of the Games, Étienne Thobois, chief executive of the Paris Organizing Committee, expressed cautious optimism. “Every euro counts, and we must be careful not to spend money on superficial things. Frankly, it’s a challenge,” Thobois stated in an interview with foreign media. He acknowledged that the budget for the Paris Games is increasing, but emphasized that organizers aim for the Games to at least break even.
“The goal is not to make money, but to have a great Olympics with a balanced budget,” Thobois said.
Short-Term Economic Boost from the Paris Olympics
While estimating the input costs, there has been significant speculation and discussion about the economic benefits of the Paris Olympics.
Recently, the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) released a report predicting that the Paris Olympics will stimulate the French economy in the short term, contributing 0.3 percentage points to France’s economic growth in the third quarter. This mirrors the impact of the 2012 London Olympics, which saw the UK’s real GDP grow by 1.0% in the third quarter of 2012, with the Games contributing an estimated 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points to GDP in that period.
The report highlights that ticket sales and broadcasting rights revenues during the Paris Olympics will be the primary economic drivers, contributing an estimated 0.25 percentage points to France’s economic growth in the third quarter. Additionally, the tourism boost from the Olympics is expected to enhance local revenue in accommodation, transportation, and catering, adding another 0.05 percentage points to economic growth.
Furthermore, the infrastructure development associated with the Paris Olympics has positively impacted local employment. The construction of facilities for the 2024 Paris Olympics is estimated to have created 4,300 jobs in 2023, with an additional 1,600 jobs in 2024.
However, the report also indicates that the positive impact of the Paris Olympics on the French economy will be “one-off” and will dissipate by the end of this year. It predicts that the French economy will grow by 0.5% in the third quarter but decline by 0.1% in the fourth quarter. For 2024, the “Olympic effect” is expected to contribute only 0.1 percentage points to French economic growth.
A report from another professional financial services group supports this view, suggesting that the Paris Olympics may “produce very limited economic benefits in the medium term.” While the macroeconomic impact is expected to be minimal, the Games will likely trigger positive economic responses at the microeconomic level and in specific sectors such as media, hospitality, leisure and entertainment, catering, beverages, consumer goods, real estate, and transportation.
Estimates from the Center for Law and Economics of Sport (CDES) at the University of Limoges in France are relatively optimistic. Commissioned by the IOC, CDES’s May report estimates that the Paris Olympics could bring between €6.7 billion and €11.1 billion in net income for Paris. However, it also highlights the uncertainty in the tourism industry and the unknown return on the substantial investments made.
The wide range of forecast results primarily stems from the high degree of uncertainty in the tourism sector.
The Paris Tourist Board anticipates that the Paris Olympics and Paralympics will sell a combined total of 13.4 million tickets and attract approximately 15.3 million visitors, including about 1.88 million foreign tourists. Faced with such a large influx, CDES expects the French tourism industry may experience a “crowding out effect,” where some tourists postpone their trips due to the crowds during the Games.
This phenomenon adds another layer of uncertainty to the actual impact on the tourism industry. In the most pessimistic scenario, the tourism sector could generate about €1.4 billion in economic benefits, whereas in the most optimistic scenario, it might contribute around €3.563 billion.
The potential returns on subsequent investments are also a significant challenge for France. To organize the Olympic Games, the French government and enterprises have heavily invested in venue construction and urban renewal. However, whether these investments will yield sufficient returns in the future remains uncertain.
Despite these uncertainties, the economic potential of the event continues to attract numerous companies to the Paris Olympics. Last July, the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH Group committed €150 million in sponsorship fees, becoming the largest sponsor of the Paris Olympics.
Several of its brands will play prominent roles in various aspects of the Games. For instance, its jewelry brand Chaumet has designed medals for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the leather goods brand Berluti will provide clothing for French athletes at the opening ceremony, and the luxury brand Louis Vuitton has created medal boxes and torch boxes for the events.
Source: CDES, RFI, Libération, Paris 2024 Olympics, Reuters, ABC4 Utah
The year 2023 has been significant for India in terms of domestic and great power diplomacy. India hosted two online summits for the Global South, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Group of Twenty (G20). Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in the G7 summit and the QUAD summit in Japan, and the BRICS summit in South Africa. He also attended the G7 summit in June and engaged in major diplomatic activities with China.
Additionally, Modi paid an official visit to the United States in June and then visited France in July as the chief guest for France’s National Day. Two of the most notable events were Modi’s visit to the US and the G20 summit, which garnered global attention. During this period, India and Prime Minister Modi were in the limelight, receiving a special welcome in the Western world, and India’s pro-U.S.-Western stance was evident in these key diplomatic events.
Alliance Against China
Between June 21-24, 2023, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook his sixth visit to the United States since assuming office in 2014, marking his first state visit. This visit was met with considerable ceremonial pomp, underscoring the significance of the bilateral relationship.
During this visit, the U.S. and India formalized a series of cooperation agreements across various sectors, including economics, science and technology, defense, and humanities. The agreements encompassed diverse areas such as semiconductors, critical minerals, advanced technologies, space collaboration, and defense manufacturing and sales. This visit signified a substantial advancement in the U.S.-India relations, marking a formalization of their strategic alignment against China.
Despite the broad emphasis on the comprehensive nature of the U.S.-India partnership, the current cooperation predominantly focuses on two main areas. Firstly, in the defense sector, the U.S. has provided India with advanced military technologies not offered to its formal allies, including the joint production of F414 engines by General Electric and Indian firms and the sale of 31 MQ-9B drones to India. Secondly, in response to U.S. restrictions on China’s semiconductor, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence sectors, the U.S. and India have concentrated on promoting the “Initiative for Critical and Emerging Technologies” (iCET), such as semiconductors, biotechnology, advanced materials, and rare-earth processing technologies.
The partnership seeks to deepen innovation ecosystem connectivity, establish a semiconductor supply chain and innovation partnership, and support India’s ambition to become a major player in emerging technologies, potentially supplanting China in global supply chains.
The primary objective of the U.S.-India rapprochement is to counterbalance China. For the U.S., which views China as its principal strategic competitor and aims to contain it through the “Indo-Pacific” strategy, India is envisioned as a crucial pillar.
Indian policymakers and their strategic circles have reached a consensus on aiming to establish a “multipolar Asia, multipolar world” international order. They believe that China is the biggest variable affecting the current global balance and could potentially become the dominant force in Asia. Consequently, India views China as a significant threat to its own rise as a great power and seeks to implement a strategic management approach to counteract China’s development.
India plans to leverage the U.S. “Indo-Pacific” strategy to restrain China while simultaneously securing funding and advanced technology from the U.S., Japan, and Europe. This approach aims to bolster India’s position in the global industrial and supply chains, thereby facilitating its economic rise and emergence as a great power.
Challenges in the Alliance
While both countries agree on the need to contain and counter China, this shared objective is not their ultimate aim.
First, there are differences in strategic objectives. The U.S. “Indo-Pacific Strategy” aims to maintain its position as the world’s dominant superpower, while India’s “Indo-Pacific Vision” seeks to establish itself as a major global power and promote a “multipolar Asia, multipolar world.”
Second, the focus of their strategies differs. The U.S. strategy centers on the Asia-Pacific region, which includes encouraging India’s military involvement there. In contrast, India’s strategy emphasizes the Indian Ocean region.
Additionally, the two countries have divergent views on the primary forces and methods to contain China. The U.S. hopes that India will take a leading role in confronting China, possibly even engaging in direct border conflicts. Conversely, India seeks to involve the U.S. more actively, hoping to see the U.S. take the lead in containing China and facilitate the transfer of the global industrial supply chain. The U.S. prefers using military means and alliances, whereas India is reluctant to engage in direct military conflict or to develop the QUAD into a formal military alliance. India also resists signing bilateral treaties with the U.S. that might compromise its “strategic autonomy” or impose treaty obligations.
Indians feel that the U.S. should invest significantly to earn their trust, as they believe the U.S. owes India a debt. India’s national character is often seen as calculating and ambitious, which means it will continue to present challenging demands to the U.S. Additionally, India’s strong economic nationalism and protectionist policies may hinder smooth cooperation. Indian national monopolies may restrict foreign access to the Indian market, and U.S. and Western multinational enterprises might face barriers similar to those encountered by Chinese companies. Consequently, economic and technological cooperation between the U.S. and India may encounter significant obstacles.
The historical context of U.S.-India relations and the Indian national psyche suggest that cooperation will face challenges. Despite claims from some Indian strategists that historical distrust is waning, underlying tensions remain. The U.S. is wary of India exploiting the strategic competition between the U.S. and China to rise to prominence, and while the U.S. has been generous in selling advanced weaponry and technology to India, this is a gradual process.
Contradictions in the U.S.-India Strategic Objectives
Since 2017, India has actively sought to form an anti-China alliance with Western countries. Following the institutionalization of the US-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the establishment of AUKUS, Indian strategic elites believe that the opportunity for China’s unchallenged rise is closing, if not already closed.
This belief is driven by China’s geographically constrained position, which limits its movements both on land and at sea, and the growing resistance from the West and other nations. Although China’s power and influence are expected to continue expanding, particularly in regions close to India, the prospect of Chinese hegemony in Asia seems increasingly unlikely.
With the U.S. clearly positioning China as its greatest strategic competitor, Indian strategists view the current period as an opportune moment to counter China strategically. Consequently, India’s foreign strategic focus has shifted from leading the formation of an anti-China alliance with the U.S., Japan, and Australia to countering China’s influence in the Indian Ocean region and establishing a leadership role within the “Global South.” This shift aims to assert India’s identity as a major global player and to rival the U.S. However, India has found it challenging to compete with China in the “Global South” on its own strength.
To address this challenge, India has sought assistance from the U.S. and Western countries to help establish its leadership position in the “Global South.” While the U.S. and its allies aim to use India to divide the developing world and marginalize China’s influence, they have been reluctant to provide substantial material support that would enable India to become a true leader in the “Global South.”
The U.S. has consistently employed control tactics to ensure that its allies remain firmly aligned with its interests. A significant factor contributing to the advancement of U.S.-India relations since 2003 was the U.S.’s pressure on and intimidation of the Modi government. This pressure manifested in several ways:
The U.S. issued a human rights report listing India’s “major human rights problems” and abuses. Additionally, the BBC produced a documentary titled “India:
The Modi Problem”. At the behest of the United States, Sikhs in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom intensified their support for the Khalistan Movement.
The U.S. short-selling organization Hindenburg Research targeted Indian plutocrat Adani, who is Modi’s close ally. By shorting Adani, the U.S. demonstrated its ability to influence India’s economic and political stability.
The U.S. also supported Rahul Gandhi and other opposition figures.
These controlling actions provoked resistance from India. The diplomatic dispute between India and the West over the assassination of Sikh leaders abroad reflects the broader struggle between U.S. control and Indian counter-control. India exploited its strategic value to the U.S. in containing China, using a series of incidents involving Sikh leaders in Canada and the U.S. as a pressure tactic. This resistance only temporarily subsided after the U.S. issued a clear warning.
Fundamental value differences between the U.S. and India, as well as conflicting interests between the U.S. and Indian monopoly consortiums, persist. While the U.S. aims to tie India closely to its China-containment strategy, it also seeks to control India’s development. This dynamic will continue to pressure the Modi government through sensitive issues.
On July 19, many Windows enterprise users opened their computers as usual, only to be greeted by a silent “blue screen.” No matter how often they restarted, they couldn’t access their programs. Subsequently, blue screens began appearing globally, like a digital plague, quickly spreading worldwide.
In the end, about 8.5 million computer systems crashed, impacting major economies around the world. Global finance, transportation, aviation, healthcare, retail, industrial production, and even the operations of the Paris Olympics were severely affected, with economic losses difficult to quantify. According to one expert, it was the largest IT failure in history.
Cybersecurity Firm Caused Cybersecurity Incident
Within hours of the Microsoft’s ‘Blue Screen of Death, videos of groundings, shutdowns, and production stoppages dominated social media headlines. The cause of the incident was traced to a U.S.-based cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, which had made an error in a routine software update sent to Microsoft’s Windows users. This error caused Windows systems with CrowdStrike software loaded to crash. In short, it was a cybersecurity incident caused by a cybersecurity company.
CrowdStrike, founded in 2011 and headquartered in California, is one of the most important cybersecurity companies in the United States. The company’s primary business is providing online security solutions, with its flagship product being the Falcon security software platform. Falcon provides complementary security for Windows systems and uses artificial intelligence technology to prevent cybersecurity risks. Thanks to its technological strengths and close ties with the U.S. government, CrowdStrike has grown rapidly over the past decade. It now serves 271 Fortune 500 companies and provides cybersecurity solutions to the U.S. federal government and many U.S. state governments, making it a leader in the global cybersecurity industry.
With its strong political and business ties, CrowdStrike has become a widely adopted cybersecurity provider for U.S. allies and important enterprises. Due to its close relationship with the U.S. government, CrowdStrike hasn’t had attempts to expand into the Chinese market. Instead, it often makes unfounded attacks and accusations against China’s cybersecurity policies. This strategic choice to exclude China has inadvertently made China the least affected major global economy in this cybersecurity incident.
Low Fault Tolerance In The Digital Society
After the complete recovery from this cybersecurity incident, public opinion has become increasingly concerned about the fragility of human society in the smart era. A simple update error by a single enterprise can shut down numerous critical sectors, with negative impacts spreading across oceans and around the globe.
This outcome reaffirms two fundamental characteristics of the social system in the smart era.
The first is connectivity. The world is now deeply interconnected through various forms of digital technology, creating a new economic and political field of operation where geographical borders no longer serve as firewalls against security problems and crises. Consequently, every serious cybersecurity incident becomes a global problem.
The second is monopoly. A few key players hold significant influence in the field of cybersecurity. In digital technology, after a period of intense competition, there often emerges a ‘winner-takes-all’ scenario. In this incident, two core players were involved. The Microsoft Windows system has long been a near-monopoly globally.
CrowdStrike, while not as well-known in the C-suite, has effectively eliminated its competitors within the U.S. and its allies, becoming a major supplier in the cybersecurity field. Although the digital ecosystem appears diverse, there are very few cybersecurity vendors to choose from, and a single error by a key player can have systemic repercussions.
When the characteristics of connectivity and monopoly converge, we see a system with low fault tolerance and a serious lack of resilience. Once a problem occurs, it affects the entire system. The incident, though controllable, served as a chilling preview of potential crises. If a mere update error can have such an impact, what kind of harm could be done if key players in the digital space intentionally launched attacks? Ensuring effective cybersecurity in this highly interconnected and monopolized digital age, which currently lacks resilience, will be a significant challenge affecting the future development of the world.
Unlike most traditional security crises, cybersecurity incidents often occur without warning. It’s not until serious consequences arise that their severity becomes evident, which is why cybersecurity is no small matter.
If the incident is regarded as a test, we need to pay close attention to the key nodes in the digital industry chain. Strengthening security monitoring and early warning systems for key network enterprises is essential.
Continuously improving the cybersecurity capabilities of these enterprises and preparing for various possible cybersecurity incidents is also crucial. Additionally, it is necessary to further enhance the construction of the cybersecurity system.
This involves decentralizing dependence on a single supplier and promoting the development of the domestic cybersecurity industry to ensure that the main links in the supply chain are independent and controllable. By doing so, we can firmly grasp the key to network security in our own hands.
Auf der dritten Plenarsitzung des 20. Zentralkomitees der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas (KPCh) wurde eine Resolution zur weiteren umfassenden Intensivierung der Reformen zur beschleunigten Modernisierung Chinas diskutiert.
Die Resolution legt eine Reihe wichtiger Maßnahmen für Gesetzesänderungen fest, darunter die Verabschiedung eines Gesetzes zur Förderung der Privatwirtschaft, eines Finanzgesetzes, eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung der nationalen Einheit und des Fortschritts sowie eines Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung der grenzüberschreitenden Korruption. Dazu gehören auch die Überarbeitung des Überwachungsgesetzes, die Ausarbeitung eines Kodex für Umwelt- und Umweltschutzgesetze sowie damit verbundene Genehmigungen und Ratifizierungen.
Bessere Wahrnehmung der wichtigen Rolle des Rechtsstaates
Die Reform ist ein kontinuierlicher und tiefgreifender Prozess. Der Vorschlag für größere Gesetzesvorhaben spiegelt die Notwendigkeit wider, den Reformprozess voranzutreiben und gleichzeitig die bisherigen Erfahrungen zusammenzufassen, um Ergebnisse institutionell zu verankern.
Die Resolution schlägt vor, an der politischen Hauptlinie festzuhalten, ein günstiges Umfeld zu schaffen und dadurch mehr Möglichkeiten für die Entwicklung der nichtstaatlichen Wirtschaft zu bieten, einschließlich der Ausarbeitung eines Gesetzes zur Förderung des Privatsektors. “Das Gesetz sollte sechs Grundprinzipien festlegen: Gleichberechtigung, gemeinsame Entwicklung, fairer Wettbewerb, Zusammenarbeit zum gegenseitigen Nutzen, gleiche Regeln und gleicher Schutz. Diese Prinzipien sind komplementär, essentiell und harmonisieren miteinander, so dass sie zusammen die vier Säulen des Gesetzes zur Förderung der Privatwirtschaft bilden“, sagt Liu Junhai, Professor an der juristischen Fakultät der Renmin University of China.
Die Kodifizierung des Umweltgesetzbuches ist eine wichtige Initiative zur Verbesserung des Grundkonzepts der ökologischen Zivilisation. Wang Canfa, Professor an der Chinesischen Universität für Politik und Recht, betont, dass China nicht unbedingt ein allumfassendes Umweltgesetzbuch erarbeiten müsse, da immer wieder neue Fragen im Bereich der Umweltbelange auftauchten, sondern vielmehr bereits ausgearbeitete Gesetze integrieren und sich dabei auf die wichtigsten Herausforderungen, Fragen, Systeme und Prinzipien konzentrieren solle.
Von den in der Resolution vorgeschlagenen Gesetzentwürfen wurde das Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Bestechung und Korruption in die Gesetzgebungsplanung des Ständigen Ausschusses des 14. Nationalen Volkskongresses im September 2023 aufgenommen. Dessen Gesetzesentwürfe sind relativ ausgereift und sollen noch in dieser Legislaturperiode beraten werden.
Was die legislative Arbeit betrifft, so sind von den 303 Gesetzen, die derzeit in China in Kraft sind, 78 neue Gesetze, die von der Partei nach dem Dritten Plenum des Zentralkomitees der KPCh verabschiedet wurden. Darunter befinden sich bedeutende Gesetze wie das Zivilgesetzbuch. Darüber hinaus wurden insgesamt 334 Revisionen an 147 der 303 Gesetze vorgenommen, was ein starkes Bemühen um rechtliche Verbesserungen widerspiegelt.
Verbesserung der Finanzregulierung
Li Shuguang, Professor am Forschungsinstitut für Recht und Wirtschaft an der Chinesischen Universität für Politik- und Rechtswissenschaften, weist darauf hin, dass mit der schnellen Entwicklung des Finanzmarktes und der immer aktiver betriebenen Finanzinnovation in China die Finanzaktivitäten immer komplexer werden und das Finanzrechtssystem allmählich erweitert werden muss. Es umfasst ein breites Spektrum von Bereichen wie Unternehmen, Banken, Wertpapiere, Versicherungen, Termingeschäfte, Fonds, Anleihen und Garantien, die alle unter das Finanzrecht fallen.
Am 22. Juli wurde die Entwicklung des Finanzrechts auf einer Konferenz der Rechtsberufe zur Untersuchung und Umsetzung des Geistes des Dritten Plenums des 20. Zentralkomitees der KPCh lebhaft diskutiert. Vor allem in Bezug auf die Beziehung zwischen dem Finanzgesetz und dem bereits zweimal diskutierten Entwurf des Finanzstabilitätsgesetzes zeigten sich die Experten überrascht über den Vorschlag, ein Finanzgesetz zu entwickeln. Es wird erwartet, dass dieses Gesetz ein grundlegendes Gesetz im Finanzbereich sein wird, während das Finanzstabilitätsgesetz mehr auf die Vorbeugung und Lösung von Finanzrisiken ausgerichtet sein wird.
Nach Abschluss der letzten Runde der institutionellen Reformen von Partei und Staat hat China die Zentrale Finanzkommission, das Büro der Zentralen Finanzkommission und die Nationale Finanzaufsichtsbehörde eingerichtet und die lokalen Finanzaufsichtssysteme den zentralen Finanzverwaltungsabteilungen unterstellt.
„Die Reform des Finanzsystems sollte die Schlüsselpunkte identifizieren, an denen die finanzielle Unterstützung für die Realwirtschaft maximiert werden kann, sollte die Förderung für wichtige Strategien, Schlüsselbereiche und schwache Bindeglieder verstärken und der allgemeinen Entwicklung eines qualitativ hochwertigen Finanzsystems dienen“, sagt Professor Zhang Zhanbin, Dekan der Schule des Marxismus an der Zentralen Parteischule Chinas.
Fortschritte in der nationalen Gesetzgebung zur Korruptionsbekämpfung
In den letzten Jahren haben viele chinesische Unternehmen und Einzelpersonen im Ausland korrupte Handlungen begangen. Statistiken zeigen, dass eine beträchtliche Anzahl inländischer Unternehmen von der Weltbank auf eine schwarze Liste gesetzt wurde, wobei Korruption und Betrug die Hauptgründe waren.
Shang Haowen, außerordentlicher Professor für Recht an der Beijing Normal University, weist darauf hin, dass Korruptions- und Betrugsfälle schwerwiegende negative Folgen haben. Zum einen sei die Geschäftsentwicklung von Unternehmen eingeschränkt, da die Weltbank und andere Institutionen einen Sperrmechanismus eingeführt hätten. Unternehmen, die auf die schwarze Liste gesetzt werden, können sich nicht mehr an Geschäften beteiligen, die mit diesen Banken in Verbindung stehen, z.B. als Auftragnehmer oder Materiallieferant. Auf der anderen Seite schadet dies dem allgemeinen Image chinesischer Unternehmen und des Landes, was dazu führen kann, dass mehr Unternehmen sanktioniert werden und einige Länder die Situation ausnutzen, um extraterritoriale Strafmaßnahmen auszuüben.
Experten betonten auch, dass das Gesetz gegen Korruption die grenzüberschreitende Verfolgung von Korruption und flüchtigen Personen vorsehen sollte.
Peng Xinlin, Direktor der Beijing Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law Collaborative Innovation Base, merkt an, dass die internationale Verfolgung und Wiedererlangung von flüchtigen Straftätern ein wichtiger Teil der Korruptionsbekämpfung sei. In den letzten Jahren seien Chinas internationale Maßnahmen zur Rückführung von Flüchtigen effektiv umgesetzt worden und hätten einen geschlossenen Kreislauf in der Korruptionsbekämpfung gebildet, die inländischen Bemühungen gegen Korruption auf hoher und niedriger Ebene ergänzt und zu historischen Veränderungen und Erfolgen in Chinas Korruptionsbekämpfung beigetragen.
“Gleichzeitig müssen wir uns darüber im Klaren sein, dass die internationale Verfolgung von flüchtigen Tätern in China noch viele Herausforderungen mit sich bringt. Um diesen Herausforderungen effektiv zu begegnen und die Qualität und Effizienz der Arbeit zu gewährleisten, ist es unerlässlich, den Aufbau eines langfristigen internationalen Kooperationsmechanismus zur Verfolgung von Korruptionsflüchtlingen zu beschleunigen“, meint Peng Xinlin.
