by Fred Guterl October 17, 2005. Newsweek
Of all the stories people tell, the least grounded in fact tend to be those about origins. Only a few decades ago, Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America and a hero of the second-grade classroom. In recent years, however, Americans have moved toward a more brutally realistic view of their nation's beginnings. Now teachers are more likely to depict the slaughter of Native Americans at the hands of European settlers, and to paint Columbus as a ruthless tyrant who put peaceful, nature-loving natives in chains.
Despite this coming-to-terms, Americans have clung to certain founding myths. One is the notion that Europeans came to dominate the continent because they possessed superior technology and culture. Another is the idea that Native Americans coexisted side by side with natural wilderness without imposing on it. In "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" ( 465 pages. Knopf ), author Charles Mann demolishes both of these myths.
Mann pulls together in a thorough and readable volume years of scholarly work--little of which, to the author's surprise, has made its way into the popular sensibility. As a child, Mann (now 50) was told the story of early English settlers struggling to survive in the New World. A friendly Indian named Tisquantum teaches these Pilgrims how to plant maize and live on the edge of the wilderness. The story may be true enough, but Mann paints a more complex picture of mutual distrust. When a rogue English officer kidnaps a handful of natives, Tisquantum among them, tribal leaders declare themselves permanently hostile to all European settlers.
The Europeans might have been driven from the shores of Massachusetts forever, or at least faced the prospect of a costly war, had their diseases -smallpox and hepatitis, among others- not acted quickly to vanquish the natives. Technology, says Mann, wasn't the decisive factor. Contrary to popular wisdom, natives lost their fear of guns when they realized how hard they were to aim. Bows and arrows, by contrast, proved more accurate and had a longer range. The climatic battle never occurred. When Tisquantum returned to Massachusetts a few years later, he found that his tribe had been wiped out by disease.
Technology and social organization, Mann argues convincingly, were, if anything, more advanced in the Americas than in Europe. In 1491, the Incas ruled "the greatest empire on earth," in part by pulling off a unique feat of adaptation: they exploited the rugged terrain of the Andes by fashioning an economy based on trade among the different ecosystems- fish from the coast, maize from the foothills, llama jerky from the Andes.
The Native Americans were far more populous than previously thought, say scientists. Feeding themselves would have required cultivation of nature on a massive scale. The New World wasn't wild; it was a vast garden, shaped by human hands. Why isn't this taught in American schools? Perhaps because it isn't a convenient object lesson in conservation, Mann says. Some myths die harder than others.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Tycoon takeover
by Christian Caryl April 19, 2004. Newsweek.
It's no secret that a handful of "oligarchs" dominate the Russian economy, but until now the details have been murky. No one knew all the names in the oligarchy, exactly what they own, how many industries they dominate or to what effect. Are oligarchs leading the modernization of Russia, as they claim, or crippling progress? Answers have been hidden behind the thicket of shell companies that still obscure Russian accounting. "This is an absurd situation," says the World Bank's chief economist in Russia, Christof Ruehl.
"It is one of the biggest countries on earth and no one knows how concentrated the economy is."
The World Bank dispatched dozens of researchers to cut through the murk and produce the first clear view of just who controls Russia. Last week it released the surprising findings: the 23 biggest oligarchs control 35 percent of industrial sales, high by European standards but less than the 50 percent claimed by earlier estimates. The oligarchs do dominate the heights of the Russian economy--including oil, gas, metals, autos and banks--but not much else. They have only a 2 percent share of the fast-growing service sector. Yet they may also be a bigger threat than even some pessimists thought.
The World Bank echoes those who say Russia's recent boom is a precarious "jobless recovery," with annual growth inflated by high oil prices, productivity built on restarting empty factories, and a fat public sector growing fatter. To create lasting economic growth and diversify away from oil, these bears argue, Russia needs to create a more efficient private sector, on which the oligarchs now act as a drag.
Some of this is the fault of Soviet central planners, who built standardized factories and cities and spread them across the breadth of Russia, creating a unique industrial structure that makes no economic sense. Most factories are too big, in the 1,000-worker range, and cities too small, around 500,000 to 1.5 million people. When leaders began to privatize the economy in the 1990s, they sold factories one by one, creating one-plant companies; again, the plants are too large and the firms too small. What Russia needed were efficient conglomerates like General Electric or Siemens. What it got were oligarchs--cutthroat bosses who own many firms but run most badly.
The World Bank distinguishes the bad from the good, focusing attention on the men Ruehl describes as "classic robber barons." Typically, they are bankers who in the mid-'90s granted free loans to the Kremlin in exchange for shares in state companies, handed out in rigged auctions that the bankers themselves often ran. The report doesn't name names, but bank insiders say the "classic" examples are Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich and Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
All three are in the top 10 of the new World Bank list of 23 major oligarchs (chart). Khodorkovsky was recently jailed on tax charges after he threw his billions behind political opponents of President Vladimir Putin. The others have stayed out of election politics and thrived, gaining a general reputation in global markets as a necessary evil--a positive influence on the Russian economy at this stage in its transition from communism to capitalism
The World Bank finds the opposite: labor productivity is lower in companies run by oligarchs than in every other kind of enterprise--other than those still owned by the state. (This is controversial: two Russian researchers who worked on the report say the evidence does not fully support it.) Less debatable: small businesses are now the most significant source of desperately needed new jobs in Russia.
The oligarchs undermine such small businesses. The bank studied regions in which local government had been "captured," meaning that one business won more than half of all preferential legislation--tax breaks and the like--between 1996 and 2002. The top 23 oligarchs as a group won fewer favors than other businesses. But the robber barons won 20 percent more. And they did so at the expense of competitors, who saw sharp drops in profit and productivity. Where smaller businesses or foreign companies received preferential treatment, rivals didn't suffer -or in some cases actually gained. Why? Local legislatures normally weigh the special pleading of businessmen against other interests, but it's hard to resist big tycoons who can threaten to throw thousands out of work if they don't get their way. "They are ruthless," says Ruehl. "After all, that's how they got their fortunes in the first place."
Aluminum tycoon Oleg Deripaska, for instance, "captured" the government of the Krasnoyarsk Krai region of Siberia in 1999 and 2000. Deripaska won tax breaks, discounted rail-freight and electricity rates. Local business groups protest that they pay far higher electricity bills than Deripaska's plants, but such firms are no match for oligarchs. "They all have their people in federal government, in the bureaucracy. Their lobbying takes place in a matter of seconds," says Alexander Spiridonov, who owns a dental clinic and three stores in Krasnoyarsk.
The upshot of all this is that Putin needs to launch a broader campaign to restrain all the oligarchs. Critics like the World Bank say Russia needs to encourage both the downsizing of its oversize factories and the consolidation of its undersize companies. They recommend opening the economy to more foreign competition, encouraging mergers and acquisitions in hopes of transforming the oligarchs' holding companies into Russian versions of GE. At the same time, the country needs an aggressive trust-busting agency to break up the monopolies run by the oligarchs, much as America did with its own robber barons in the 1920s. Rather than jailing personal foes like Khodorkovsky for political reasons, Putin would do well to loosen the grip of all the top oligarchs, for the sake of Russia's economy.
It's no secret that a handful of "oligarchs" dominate the Russian economy, but until now the details have been murky. No one knew all the names in the oligarchy, exactly what they own, how many industries they dominate or to what effect. Are oligarchs leading the modernization of Russia, as they claim, or crippling progress? Answers have been hidden behind the thicket of shell companies that still obscure Russian accounting. "This is an absurd situation," says the World Bank's chief economist in Russia, Christof Ruehl.
"It is one of the biggest countries on earth and no one knows how concentrated the economy is."
The World Bank dispatched dozens of researchers to cut through the murk and produce the first clear view of just who controls Russia. Last week it released the surprising findings: the 23 biggest oligarchs control 35 percent of industrial sales, high by European standards but less than the 50 percent claimed by earlier estimates. The oligarchs do dominate the heights of the Russian economy--including oil, gas, metals, autos and banks--but not much else. They have only a 2 percent share of the fast-growing service sector. Yet they may also be a bigger threat than even some pessimists thought.
The World Bank echoes those who say Russia's recent boom is a precarious "jobless recovery," with annual growth inflated by high oil prices, productivity built on restarting empty factories, and a fat public sector growing fatter. To create lasting economic growth and diversify away from oil, these bears argue, Russia needs to create a more efficient private sector, on which the oligarchs now act as a drag.
Some of this is the fault of Soviet central planners, who built standardized factories and cities and spread them across the breadth of Russia, creating a unique industrial structure that makes no economic sense. Most factories are too big, in the 1,000-worker range, and cities too small, around 500,000 to 1.5 million people. When leaders began to privatize the economy in the 1990s, they sold factories one by one, creating one-plant companies; again, the plants are too large and the firms too small. What Russia needed were efficient conglomerates like General Electric or Siemens. What it got were oligarchs--cutthroat bosses who own many firms but run most badly.
The World Bank distinguishes the bad from the good, focusing attention on the men Ruehl describes as "classic robber barons." Typically, they are bankers who in the mid-'90s granted free loans to the Kremlin in exchange for shares in state companies, handed out in rigged auctions that the bankers themselves often ran. The report doesn't name names, but bank insiders say the "classic" examples are Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich and Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
All three are in the top 10 of the new World Bank list of 23 major oligarchs (chart). Khodorkovsky was recently jailed on tax charges after he threw his billions behind political opponents of President Vladimir Putin. The others have stayed out of election politics and thrived, gaining a general reputation in global markets as a necessary evil--a positive influence on the Russian economy at this stage in its transition from communism to capitalism
The World Bank finds the opposite: labor productivity is lower in companies run by oligarchs than in every other kind of enterprise--other than those still owned by the state. (This is controversial: two Russian researchers who worked on the report say the evidence does not fully support it.) Less debatable: small businesses are now the most significant source of desperately needed new jobs in Russia.
The oligarchs undermine such small businesses. The bank studied regions in which local government had been "captured," meaning that one business won more than half of all preferential legislation--tax breaks and the like--between 1996 and 2002. The top 23 oligarchs as a group won fewer favors than other businesses. But the robber barons won 20 percent more. And they did so at the expense of competitors, who saw sharp drops in profit and productivity. Where smaller businesses or foreign companies received preferential treatment, rivals didn't suffer -or in some cases actually gained. Why? Local legislatures normally weigh the special pleading of businessmen against other interests, but it's hard to resist big tycoons who can threaten to throw thousands out of work if they don't get their way. "They are ruthless," says Ruehl. "After all, that's how they got their fortunes in the first place."
Aluminum tycoon Oleg Deripaska, for instance, "captured" the government of the Krasnoyarsk Krai region of Siberia in 1999 and 2000. Deripaska won tax breaks, discounted rail-freight and electricity rates. Local business groups protest that they pay far higher electricity bills than Deripaska's plants, but such firms are no match for oligarchs. "They all have their people in federal government, in the bureaucracy. Their lobbying takes place in a matter of seconds," says Alexander Spiridonov, who owns a dental clinic and three stores in Krasnoyarsk.
The upshot of all this is that Putin needs to launch a broader campaign to restrain all the oligarchs. Critics like the World Bank say Russia needs to encourage both the downsizing of its oversize factories and the consolidation of its undersize companies. They recommend opening the economy to more foreign competition, encouraging mergers and acquisitions in hopes of transforming the oligarchs' holding companies into Russian versions of GE. At the same time, the country needs an aggressive trust-busting agency to break up the monopolies run by the oligarchs, much as America did with its own robber barons in the 1920s. Rather than jailing personal foes like Khodorkovsky for political reasons, Putin would do well to loosen the grip of all the top oligarchs, for the sake of Russia's economy.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Incoterms
When commercial traders enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods they are free to negotiate specific terms of their contract. These terms include the price, quantity, and characteristics of the goods. Every international contract will also contain what is referred to as an Incoterm (international commercial term). The Incoterm selected by the parties to the transaction will determine which party pays the cost of each segment of transport, who is responsible for loading & unloading of goods, and who bears the risk of loss at any given point during a given international shipment. Incoterms also influence Customs valuation basis of imported merchandise.
Incoterms are overseen and administered by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and are adhered to by the major trading nations of the world. There are currently 13 Incoterms in use, and they can be considered on the basis cited above. All the current Incoterms are described below in ascending order of seller responsibility. However, Ex-works, Free on Board, Cost Insurance Freight, and Delivery Duty Paid are the most frequently used Incoterms for NextLinx’ purposes.
Group E (Departure) - Under EXW, the seller minimizes his risk by making the goods available at his factory or place of business.
Ex-Works (EXW)
The seller (exporter) makes the goods available to the buyer (importer) at the seller's premises. The buyer is responsible for all transportation costs, duties, and insurance, and accepts risk of loss of goods immediately after the goods are purchased and placed outside the factory door. The ExWorks price does not include the price of loading goods onto a truck or vessel, and no allowance is made for clearing customs. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis of the goods in the country of destination, the transportation and insurance costs from the seller's premises to the port of export must be added to the ExWorks price.
Group F (Main Carriage Not Paid By Seller)
Free Alongside Ship (FAS)
The seller transports the goods from his place of business, clears the goods for export and places them alongside the vessel at the port of export, where the risk of loss shifts to the buyer. The buyer is responsible for loading the goods onto the vessel (unless specified otherwise) and for paying all costs involved in shipping the goods to the final destination.
Free Carrier (FCA)
seller (exporter) clears the goods for export and delivers them to the carrier and place specified by the buyer. If the place chosen is the seller’s place of business, the seller must load the goods onto the transport vehicle; otherwise, the buyer is responsible for loading the goods. Buyer assumes risk of loss from that point forward and must pay for all costs associated with transporting the goods to the final destination.
Free On Board (FOB)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods from his place of business and loading them onto the vessel of at the port of export as well as clearing customs in the country of export. As soon as the goods cross the “ships-rails” (the ship’s threshold) the risk of loss transfers to the buyer (importer). The buyer must pay for all transportation and insurance costs from that point, and must clear customs in the country of import. An FOB transaction will read “FOB, port of export”. For example, assuming the port of export is Boston, an FOB transaction would read “FOB Boston”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance must be added to the FOB value.
Group C (Main Carriage Paid By Seller)
Cost and Freight (CFR)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for clearing the goods for export, delivering the goods past the ships rail at the port of shipment and paying international freight charges. The buyer assumes risk of loss once the goods cross the ship’s rail, and must purchase insurance, unload the goods, clear customs, and pay for transport to deliver the goods to their final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight costs must be deducted from the CFR price.
Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods onto the vessel of transport and clearing Customs in the country of export. He is also responsible for purchasing insurance, with the buyer (importer) named as the beneficiary. Risk of loss transfers to buyer as the goods cross the ship’s rail. If these goods are damaged or stolen during international transport, the buyer owns the goods and must file a claim based on insurance procured by the seller. The buyer must clear customs in the country of import and pay for all other transport and insurance in the country of import. CIF can be used as an Incoterm only when the international transport of goods is at least partially by water. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the CIF price. A CIF transaction will read CIF, port of destination. For example, assuming that goods are exported to the port of Los Angeles, a CIF transaction would read “CIF Los Angeles”.
Carriage Paid To (CPT)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export, delivers them to the carrier and is responsible for carriage costs to the named place of destination. Risk of loss transfers to buyer once the goods are transferred to the carrier and the buyer must insure the goods from that time on. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight cost must be deducted from the CPT price.
Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP)
The seller transports the goods to the port of export, clears Customs, and delivers them to the carrier. From that point risk of loss shifts to the buyer. Seller is responsible for carriage and insurance costs to the named place of destination. The buyer is responsible for all costs, and bears risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance costs need to be deducted from the CIP price.
Group D (Arrival)
Delivered At Frontier (DAF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to the named point and place at the frontier. Risk of loss transfers at the frontier. The buyer must pay the costs and bear the risk of unloading the goods, clearing Customs, and transporting the goods to the final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the DAF price.
Delivered Ex-Ship (DES)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named port of destination. Upon arrival, the goods are made available to the buyer (importer) on-board the vessel. Therefore, the seller is responsible for all costs/risk of loss prior to unloading at the port of destination. The buyer (importer) must have the goods unloaded, pay duties, clear Customs and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Ex-Quay (DEQ)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in transporting the goods to the wharf (quay) at the port of destination. The buyer must pay duties, clear Customs, and pay the cost/bear the risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs, in addition to unloading costs, must be deducted from the DEQ price.
Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination where the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer. The buyer (importer) assumes risk of loss at that point and must clear Customs and pay duties and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Duty Paid (DDP)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination and for clearing Customs in the country of import. Under a DDP Incoterm, the seller provides literally door-to-door delivery, including Customs clearance in the port of export and the port of destination. Thus the seller bears the entire risk of loss until goods are delivered to the buyer’s premises. A DDP transaction will read “DDP named place of destination”. For example, assuming goods imported through Baltimore are delivered to Silver Spring, the Incoterm would read “DDP, Silver Spring”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, the costs of unloading the vessel, clearing Customs, and delivery to the buyer’s premises in the country of destination including inland insurance, must be deducted to arrive at the CIF value.
Source: Nextlinx Coorperation
Incoterms are overseen and administered by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and are adhered to by the major trading nations of the world. There are currently 13 Incoterms in use, and they can be considered on the basis cited above. All the current Incoterms are described below in ascending order of seller responsibility. However, Ex-works, Free on Board, Cost Insurance Freight, and Delivery Duty Paid are the most frequently used Incoterms for NextLinx’ purposes.
Group E (Departure) - Under EXW, the seller minimizes his risk by making the goods available at his factory or place of business.
Ex-Works (EXW)
The seller (exporter) makes the goods available to the buyer (importer) at the seller's premises. The buyer is responsible for all transportation costs, duties, and insurance, and accepts risk of loss of goods immediately after the goods are purchased and placed outside the factory door. The ExWorks price does not include the price of loading goods onto a truck or vessel, and no allowance is made for clearing customs. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis of the goods in the country of destination, the transportation and insurance costs from the seller's premises to the port of export must be added to the ExWorks price.
Group F (Main Carriage Not Paid By Seller)
Free Alongside Ship (FAS)
The seller transports the goods from his place of business, clears the goods for export and places them alongside the vessel at the port of export, where the risk of loss shifts to the buyer. The buyer is responsible for loading the goods onto the vessel (unless specified otherwise) and for paying all costs involved in shipping the goods to the final destination.
Free Carrier (FCA)
seller (exporter) clears the goods for export and delivers them to the carrier and place specified by the buyer. If the place chosen is the seller’s place of business, the seller must load the goods onto the transport vehicle; otherwise, the buyer is responsible for loading the goods. Buyer assumes risk of loss from that point forward and must pay for all costs associated with transporting the goods to the final destination.
Free On Board (FOB)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods from his place of business and loading them onto the vessel of at the port of export as well as clearing customs in the country of export. As soon as the goods cross the “ships-rails” (the ship’s threshold) the risk of loss transfers to the buyer (importer). The buyer must pay for all transportation and insurance costs from that point, and must clear customs in the country of import. An FOB transaction will read “FOB, port of export”. For example, assuming the port of export is Boston, an FOB transaction would read “FOB Boston”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance must be added to the FOB value.
Group C (Main Carriage Paid By Seller)
Cost and Freight (CFR)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for clearing the goods for export, delivering the goods past the ships rail at the port of shipment and paying international freight charges. The buyer assumes risk of loss once the goods cross the ship’s rail, and must purchase insurance, unload the goods, clear customs, and pay for transport to deliver the goods to their final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight costs must be deducted from the CFR price.
Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods onto the vessel of transport and clearing Customs in the country of export. He is also responsible for purchasing insurance, with the buyer (importer) named as the beneficiary. Risk of loss transfers to buyer as the goods cross the ship’s rail. If these goods are damaged or stolen during international transport, the buyer owns the goods and must file a claim based on insurance procured by the seller. The buyer must clear customs in the country of import and pay for all other transport and insurance in the country of import. CIF can be used as an Incoterm only when the international transport of goods is at least partially by water. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the CIF price. A CIF transaction will read CIF, port of destination. For example, assuming that goods are exported to the port of Los Angeles, a CIF transaction would read “CIF Los Angeles”.
Carriage Paid To (CPT)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export, delivers them to the carrier and is responsible for carriage costs to the named place of destination. Risk of loss transfers to buyer once the goods are transferred to the carrier and the buyer must insure the goods from that time on. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight cost must be deducted from the CPT price.
Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP)
The seller transports the goods to the port of export, clears Customs, and delivers them to the carrier. From that point risk of loss shifts to the buyer. Seller is responsible for carriage and insurance costs to the named place of destination. The buyer is responsible for all costs, and bears risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance costs need to be deducted from the CIP price.
Group D (Arrival)
Delivered At Frontier (DAF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to the named point and place at the frontier. Risk of loss transfers at the frontier. The buyer must pay the costs and bear the risk of unloading the goods, clearing Customs, and transporting the goods to the final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the DAF price.
Delivered Ex-Ship (DES)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named port of destination. Upon arrival, the goods are made available to the buyer (importer) on-board the vessel. Therefore, the seller is responsible for all costs/risk of loss prior to unloading at the port of destination. The buyer (importer) must have the goods unloaded, pay duties, clear Customs and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Ex-Quay (DEQ)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in transporting the goods to the wharf (quay) at the port of destination. The buyer must pay duties, clear Customs, and pay the cost/bear the risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs, in addition to unloading costs, must be deducted from the DEQ price.
Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination where the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer. The buyer (importer) assumes risk of loss at that point and must clear Customs and pay duties and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Duty Paid (DDP)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination and for clearing Customs in the country of import. Under a DDP Incoterm, the seller provides literally door-to-door delivery, including Customs clearance in the port of export and the port of destination. Thus the seller bears the entire risk of loss until goods are delivered to the buyer’s premises. A DDP transaction will read “DDP named place of destination”. For example, assuming goods imported through Baltimore are delivered to Silver Spring, the Incoterm would read “DDP, Silver Spring”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, the costs of unloading the vessel, clearing Customs, and delivery to the buyer’s premises in the country of destination including inland insurance, must be deducted to arrive at the CIF value.
Source: Nextlinx Coorperation
Incoterms Eng. I
Incoterms –
English version
When commercial traders enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods they are free to negotiate specific terms of their contract. These terms include the price, quantity, and characteristics of the goods. Every international contract will also contain what is referred to as an Incoterm (international commercial term). The Incoterm selected by the parties to the transaction will determine which party pays the cost of each segment of transport, who is responsible for loading & unloading of goods, and who bears the risk of loss at any given point during a given international shipment. Incoterms also influence Customs valuation basis of imported merchandise.
Incoterms are overseen and administered by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and are adhered to by the major trading nations of the world. There are currently 13 Incoterms in use, and they can be considered on the basis cited above. All the current Incoterms are described below in ascending order of seller responsibility. However, Ex-works, Free on Board, Cost Insurance Freight, and Delivery Duty Paid are the most frequently used Incoterms for NextLinx’ purposes.
Group E (Departure) - Under EXW, the seller minimizes his risk by making the goods available at his factory or place of business.
Ex-Works (EXW)
The seller (exporter) makes the goods available to the buyer (importer) at the seller's premises. The buyer is responsible for all transportation costs, duties, and insurance, and accepts risk of loss of goods immediately after the goods are purchased and placed outside the factory door. The ExWorks price does not include the price of loading goods onto a truck or vessel, and no allowance is made for clearing customs. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis of the goods in the country of destination, the transportation and insurance costs from the seller's premises to the port of export must be added to the ExWorks price.
Group F (Main Carriage Not Paid By Seller)
Free Alongside Ship (FAS)
The seller transports the goods from his place of business, clears the goods for export and places them alongside the vessel at the port of export, where the risk of loss shifts to the buyer. The buyer is responsible for loading the goods onto the vessel (unless specified otherwise) and for paying all costs involved in shipping the goods to the final destination.
Free Carrier (FCA)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export and delivers them to the carrier and place specified by the buyer. If the place chosen is the seller’s place of business, the seller must load the goods onto the transport vehicle; otherwise, the buyer is responsible for loading the goods. Buyer assumes risk of loss from that point forward and must pay for all costs associated with transporting the goods to the final destination.
Free On Board (FOB)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods from his place of business and loading them onto the vessel of at the port of export as well as clearing customs in the country of export. As soon as the goods cross the “ships-rails” (the ship’s threshold) the risk of loss transfers to the buyer (importer). The buyer must pay for all transportation and insurance costs from that point, and must clear customs in the country of import. An FOB transaction will read “FOB, port of export”. For example, assuming the port of export is Boston, an FOB transaction would read “FOB Boston”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance must be added to the FOB value.
Group C (Main Carriage Paid By Seller)
Cost and Freight (CFR)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for clearing the goods for export, delivering the goods past the ships rail at the port of shipment and paying international freight charges. The buyer assumes risk of loss once the goods cross the ship’s rail, and must purchase insurance, unload the goods, clear customs, and pay for transport to deliver the goods to their final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight costs must be deducted from the CFR price.
Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods onto the vessel of transport and clearing Customs in the country of export. He is also responsible for purchasing insurance, with the buyer (importer) named as the beneficiary. Risk of loss transfers to buyer as the goods cross the ship’s rail. If these goods are damaged or stolen during international transport, the buyer owns the goods and must file a claim based on insurance procured by the seller. The buyer must clear customs in the country of import and pay for all other transport and insurance in the country of import. CIF can be used as an Incoterm only when the international transport of goods is at least partially by water. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the CIF price. A CIF transaction will read CIF, port of destination. For example, assuming that goods are exported to the port of Los Angeles, a CIF transaction would read “CIF Los Angeles”.
Carriage Paid To (CPT)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export, delivers them to the carrier and is responsible for carriage costs to the named place of destination. Risk of loss transfers to buyer once the goods are transferred to the carrier and the buyer must insure the goods from that time on. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight cost must be deducted from the CPT price.
Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP)
The seller transports the goods to the port of export, clears Customs, and delivers them to the carrier. From that point risk of loss shifts to the buyer. Seller is responsible for carriage and insurance costs to the named place of destination. The buyer is responsible for all costs, and bears risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance costs need to be deducted from the CIP price.
Group D (Arrival)
Delivered At Frontier (DAF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to the named point and place at the frontier. Risk of loss transfers at the frontier. The buyer must pay the costs and bear the risk of unloading the goods, clearing Customs, and transporting the goods to the final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the DAF price.
Delivered Ex-Ship (DES)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named port of destination. Upon arrival, the goods are made available to the buyer (importer) on-board the vessel. Therefore, the seller is responsible for all costs/risk of loss prior to unloading at the port of destination. The buyer (importer) must have the goods unloaded, pay duties, clear Customs and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Ex-Quay (DEQ)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in transporting the goods to the wharf (quay) at the port of destination. The buyer must pay duties, clear Customs, and pay the cost/bear the risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs, in addition to unloading costs, must be deducted from the DEQ price.
Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination where the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer. The buyer (importer) assumes risk of loss at that point and must clear Customs and pay duties and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Duty Paid (DDP)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination and for clearing Customs in the country of import. Under a DDP Incoterm, the seller provides literally door-to-door delivery, including Customs clearance in the port of export and the port of destination. Thus the seller bears the entire risk of loss until goods are delivered to the buyer’s premises. A DDP transaction will read “DDP named place of destination”. For example, assuming goods imported through Baltimore are delivered to Silver Spring, the Incoterm would read “DDP, Silver Spring”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, the costs of unloading the vessel, clearing Customs, and delivery to the buyer’s premises in the country of destination including inland insurance, must be deducted to arrive at the CIF value.
Source: Nextlinx Coorperation
http://www.trademind.de/showthread.php?t=204
English version
When commercial traders enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods they are free to negotiate specific terms of their contract. These terms include the price, quantity, and characteristics of the goods. Every international contract will also contain what is referred to as an Incoterm (international commercial term). The Incoterm selected by the parties to the transaction will determine which party pays the cost of each segment of transport, who is responsible for loading & unloading of goods, and who bears the risk of loss at any given point during a given international shipment. Incoterms also influence Customs valuation basis of imported merchandise.
Incoterms are overseen and administered by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and are adhered to by the major trading nations of the world. There are currently 13 Incoterms in use, and they can be considered on the basis cited above. All the current Incoterms are described below in ascending order of seller responsibility. However, Ex-works, Free on Board, Cost Insurance Freight, and Delivery Duty Paid are the most frequently used Incoterms for NextLinx’ purposes.
Group E (Departure) - Under EXW, the seller minimizes his risk by making the goods available at his factory or place of business.
Ex-Works (EXW)
The seller (exporter) makes the goods available to the buyer (importer) at the seller's premises. The buyer is responsible for all transportation costs, duties, and insurance, and accepts risk of loss of goods immediately after the goods are purchased and placed outside the factory door. The ExWorks price does not include the price of loading goods onto a truck or vessel, and no allowance is made for clearing customs. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis of the goods in the country of destination, the transportation and insurance costs from the seller's premises to the port of export must be added to the ExWorks price.
Group F (Main Carriage Not Paid By Seller)
Free Alongside Ship (FAS)
The seller transports the goods from his place of business, clears the goods for export and places them alongside the vessel at the port of export, where the risk of loss shifts to the buyer. The buyer is responsible for loading the goods onto the vessel (unless specified otherwise) and for paying all costs involved in shipping the goods to the final destination.
Free Carrier (FCA)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export and delivers them to the carrier and place specified by the buyer. If the place chosen is the seller’s place of business, the seller must load the goods onto the transport vehicle; otherwise, the buyer is responsible for loading the goods. Buyer assumes risk of loss from that point forward and must pay for all costs associated with transporting the goods to the final destination.
Free On Board (FOB)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods from his place of business and loading them onto the vessel of at the port of export as well as clearing customs in the country of export. As soon as the goods cross the “ships-rails” (the ship’s threshold) the risk of loss transfers to the buyer (importer). The buyer must pay for all transportation and insurance costs from that point, and must clear customs in the country of import. An FOB transaction will read “FOB, port of export”. For example, assuming the port of export is Boston, an FOB transaction would read “FOB Boston”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance must be added to the FOB value.
Group C (Main Carriage Paid By Seller)
Cost and Freight (CFR)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for clearing the goods for export, delivering the goods past the ships rail at the port of shipment and paying international freight charges. The buyer assumes risk of loss once the goods cross the ship’s rail, and must purchase insurance, unload the goods, clear customs, and pay for transport to deliver the goods to their final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight costs must be deducted from the CFR price.
Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for delivering the goods onto the vessel of transport and clearing Customs in the country of export. He is also responsible for purchasing insurance, with the buyer (importer) named as the beneficiary. Risk of loss transfers to buyer as the goods cross the ship’s rail. If these goods are damaged or stolen during international transport, the buyer owns the goods and must file a claim based on insurance procured by the seller. The buyer must clear customs in the country of import and pay for all other transport and insurance in the country of import. CIF can be used as an Incoterm only when the international transport of goods is at least partially by water. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the CIF price. A CIF transaction will read CIF, port of destination. For example, assuming that goods are exported to the port of Los Angeles, a CIF transaction would read “CIF Los Angeles”.
Carriage Paid To (CPT)
The seller (exporter) clears the goods for export, delivers them to the carrier and is responsible for carriage costs to the named place of destination. Risk of loss transfers to buyer once the goods are transferred to the carrier and the buyer must insure the goods from that time on. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international freight cost must be deducted from the CPT price.
Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP)
The seller transports the goods to the port of export, clears Customs, and delivers them to the carrier. From that point risk of loss shifts to the buyer. Seller is responsible for carriage and insurance costs to the named place of destination. The buyer is responsible for all costs, and bears risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, international freight and insurance costs need to be deducted from the CIP price.
Group D (Arrival)
Delivered At Frontier (DAF)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to the named point and place at the frontier. Risk of loss transfers at the frontier. The buyer must pay the costs and bear the risk of unloading the goods, clearing Customs, and transporting the goods to the final destination. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs must be deducted from the DAF price.
Delivered Ex-Ship (DES)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named port of destination. Upon arrival, the goods are made available to the buyer (importer) on-board the vessel. Therefore, the seller is responsible for all costs/risk of loss prior to unloading at the port of destination. The buyer (importer) must have the goods unloaded, pay duties, clear Customs and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Ex-Quay (DEQ)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in transporting the goods to the wharf (quay) at the port of destination. The buyer must pay duties, clear Customs, and pay the cost/bear the risk of loss from that point forward. If FOB is the Customs valuation basis, the international insurance and freight costs, in addition to unloading costs, must be deducted from the DEQ price.
Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination where the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer. The buyer (importer) assumes risk of loss at that point and must clear Customs and pay duties and provide inland transportation & insurance to the final destination.
Delivered Duty Paid (DDP)
The seller (exporter) is responsible for all costs involved in delivering the goods to a named place of destination and for clearing Customs in the country of import. Under a DDP Incoterm, the seller provides literally door-to-door delivery, including Customs clearance in the port of export and the port of destination. Thus the seller bears the entire risk of loss until goods are delivered to the buyer’s premises. A DDP transaction will read “DDP named place of destination”. For example, assuming goods imported through Baltimore are delivered to Silver Spring, the Incoterm would read “DDP, Silver Spring”. If CIF is the Customs valuation basis, the costs of unloading the vessel, clearing Customs, and delivery to the buyer’s premises in the country of destination including inland insurance, must be deducted to arrive at the CIF value.
Source: Nextlinx Coorperation
http://www.trademind.de/showthread.php?t=204
Saturday, 26 September 2009
The Promise of Exodus
Critics charge a U.S. based group is ‘manufacturing’ Ethiopian Jews to bolster Israel’s orthodox population.
BY Joshua Hammer
ASHAGRAY ZELEKE is on the front limes of a war over Israel’s future. The local representative of the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ),
Zeleke administers a compound in Addis Ababa where thousands of Falash Mura Ethiopian Christians who claim Jewish ancestry learn the rites of the faith while awaiting emigration to Israel. Leading a visitor through the iron gates, Zeleke proudly shows off Hebrew lessons in progress and a makeshift synagogue where 300 men wearing yarmulkes and prayer shawls bow fervently before an ark inscribed in Amharic. “Some have been waiting a decade to leave for Israel,” he says. “ They really feel Jewish inside.” There’s just one problem: according to many Israeli officials, barely 40 percent of the Ethiopians languishing in this compound have Jewish roots.
NACOEJ’s ambitions have ignited an angry debate in Israel that cuts to the heart of the Jewish state’s identity. Critics charge that the U.S.-based group, in an effort to spread Orthodox Judaism and beef up Israel’s Jewish population, is “manufacturing Jews ”—luring Ethiopian Christians out of their villages, inflating the numbers of those it claims have Jewish ancestry and trading food and the promise of exodus 31for religious conversion. NACOEJ, which insists that all the Ethiopians in its compounds are Jews, has found am alliance with some powerful sectors of Israeli society The Palestinian intifada has drastically reduced the number of diaspora Jews interested in emigrating to Israel: the number dropped from 61,000 in 2000 to 21,000 last year. Amid fears that Muslims may soon outnumber Jews in Israel and the occupied territories, some Likud Party leaders and religious right wingers see resettling the Falash Mura as one way of guaranteeing the strength of the Jewish population.
Early this month, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that he would speed up the resettlement of 24,000 Falash Mura living in NACOEJ compounds in Addis Ababa and Gondar in northern Ethiopia. That followed a statement last year by Israel’s chief Sephardic rabbi that the Falash Mura were “ complete Jews without any doubt ” and a decision by the Interior Ministry then run by a leader of the Shas religious party to admit the Falash Mura in accordance with Israel’s law of entry. That law allows for family reunifications as long as the prospective immigrant can show maternal linkage to Judaism.
But Shalom’s promise provoked a backlash from lawmakers who question the authenticity of the Falash Mura’s claims, and who argue that Israel can’t afford the speedy resettlement of thousands of destitute Ethiopians. Tzipii Livne, the minister of Immigrant Absorption, estimates that 10,000 of the 24,000 in the compounds will qualify for immigration and believes strict limits must be drawn. “ You could have a chain of family members demanding to come in, ” she says. “ Where does it end? ”
NACOEJ feeds, educates and provides free health care to the Falash Mura, and indoctrinates them in Orthodox Jewish rituals In 1998 Israel reluctantly agreed to accept al 3,000 Falash Mura then in the two compounds, then ordered the Americans to shut down the facilities. Within days, however thousands more Falash Mura poured in to replace them. Relations between NACOEJ and Israel have been strained ever since. Israeli officials, and some leaders of the Ethiopian Jewish community, charge that NACOEJ aggressively recruits Falash Mura in rural Ethiopia. Unemployment is rife among those who move into the compounds. “ In villages they have respect. They’re not rich, but they farm, they are self sufficient, ” says Dani Abebe, am Ethiopian journalist for Yediot Ahronot. “ They come to Addis and they have nothing. ”
The committee’s former president, Joseph Feit, insists that NACOEJ makes no attempt to recruit villagers in rural Ethiopia. He says that the Falash Mura’s return to Judaism is heartfelt, and not motivated by material incentives, and accuses the Minister of the Interior of foot-dragging to avoid the burden of bringing in poor Africans. Livne says the government isn’t opposed to letting in Falash Mura, but she wants a strict vetting process to be put in place. After that, she says, NACOEJ must close down the compounds. That’s an order the committee has resisted before, and will likely resist again.
BY Joshua Hammer
ASHAGRAY ZELEKE is on the front limes of a war over Israel’s future. The local representative of the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ),
Zeleke administers a compound in Addis Ababa where thousands of Falash Mura Ethiopian Christians who claim Jewish ancestry learn the rites of the faith while awaiting emigration to Israel. Leading a visitor through the iron gates, Zeleke proudly shows off Hebrew lessons in progress and a makeshift synagogue where 300 men wearing yarmulkes and prayer shawls bow fervently before an ark inscribed in Amharic. “Some have been waiting a decade to leave for Israel,” he says. “ They really feel Jewish inside.” There’s just one problem: according to many Israeli officials, barely 40 percent of the Ethiopians languishing in this compound have Jewish roots.
NACOEJ’s ambitions have ignited an angry debate in Israel that cuts to the heart of the Jewish state’s identity. Critics charge that the U.S.-based group, in an effort to spread Orthodox Judaism and beef up Israel’s Jewish population, is “manufacturing Jews ”—luring Ethiopian Christians out of their villages, inflating the numbers of those it claims have Jewish ancestry and trading food and the promise of exodus 31for religious conversion. NACOEJ, which insists that all the Ethiopians in its compounds are Jews, has found am alliance with some powerful sectors of Israeli society The Palestinian intifada has drastically reduced the number of diaspora Jews interested in emigrating to Israel: the number dropped from 61,000 in 2000 to 21,000 last year. Amid fears that Muslims may soon outnumber Jews in Israel and the occupied territories, some Likud Party leaders and religious right wingers see resettling the Falash Mura as one way of guaranteeing the strength of the Jewish population.
Early this month, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that he would speed up the resettlement of 24,000 Falash Mura living in NACOEJ compounds in Addis Ababa and Gondar in northern Ethiopia. That followed a statement last year by Israel’s chief Sephardic rabbi that the Falash Mura were “ complete Jews without any doubt ” and a decision by the Interior Ministry then run by a leader of the Shas religious party to admit the Falash Mura in accordance with Israel’s law of entry. That law allows for family reunifications as long as the prospective immigrant can show maternal linkage to Judaism.
But Shalom’s promise provoked a backlash from lawmakers who question the authenticity of the Falash Mura’s claims, and who argue that Israel can’t afford the speedy resettlement of thousands of destitute Ethiopians. Tzipii Livne, the minister of Immigrant Absorption, estimates that 10,000 of the 24,000 in the compounds will qualify for immigration and believes strict limits must be drawn. “ You could have a chain of family members demanding to come in, ” she says. “ Where does it end? ”
NACOEJ feeds, educates and provides free health care to the Falash Mura, and indoctrinates them in Orthodox Jewish rituals In 1998 Israel reluctantly agreed to accept al 3,000 Falash Mura then in the two compounds, then ordered the Americans to shut down the facilities. Within days, however thousands more Falash Mura poured in to replace them. Relations between NACOEJ and Israel have been strained ever since. Israeli officials, and some leaders of the Ethiopian Jewish community, charge that NACOEJ aggressively recruits Falash Mura in rural Ethiopia. Unemployment is rife among those who move into the compounds. “ In villages they have respect. They’re not rich, but they farm, they are self sufficient, ” says Dani Abebe, am Ethiopian journalist for Yediot Ahronot. “ They come to Addis and they have nothing. ”
The committee’s former president, Joseph Feit, insists that NACOEJ makes no attempt to recruit villagers in rural Ethiopia. He says that the Falash Mura’s return to Judaism is heartfelt, and not motivated by material incentives, and accuses the Minister of the Interior of foot-dragging to avoid the burden of bringing in poor Africans. Livne says the government isn’t opposed to letting in Falash Mura, but she wants a strict vetting process to be put in place. After that, she says, NACOEJ must close down the compounds. That’s an order the committee has resisted before, and will likely resist again.
The New Blasphemy.
By Tara Pepper
Britain debates the limits of religious free speech.
Newsweek International
Omar Marzouk, a Muslim comedian from Denmark, had but one request at last month's Edinburgh Fringe Festival. "Tell me if you don't find my jokes funny." he told his audience. "I don't want to die— I'm not that kind of Muslim."
Poking fun at the world's religions was de rigueur at Edinburgh's annual stage jamboree. Reason: fears that a controversial new " anti-blasphemy " law could curtail freedom of speech. The proposed legislation, to be debated by Britain's House of Lords next month, allows prosecution in cases where behavior or written material—such as a book, play or broadcast—could potentially incite religious hatred. Home Office officials say the law would not bar legitimate criticism of religion—nor comedians' lampooning of faiths—but argue that there must be some defense against speech motivated by religious hatred. With religion intruding into politics and the arts across Europe, though, many worry the legislation is a step too far.
Europeans have long had laws against blasphemy. Most are holdovers from the late 17th century and, until recently, were all but dead. But lately religious groups have seized upon them. In Italy, journalist Oriana Fallaci, whose criticism of the country's Muslims has won support from the conservative, anti-immigration right, is awaiting trial on charges of vilifying Islam. French bishops have taken legal action against a Marithe + Francois Girbaud ad they say mocks the Last Supper. In Denmark, Muslims filed complaints against two state TV stations after they broadcast excerpts of " Submission," by the murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, portraying violence against women as endemic in Islam. Some think Britain's new law will be used similarly. "It's about saving Muslims from attack," says religious historian David Nash—a perfectly reasonable goal, he adds, "except that the law will be used indiscriminately by religious groups who want to see offense. "
Existing British blasphemy laws cover Christianity. Sikhs and Jews are shielded because they are regarded as distinct races falling under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. Muslim groups have lobbied for similar protection since 1988, with the publication of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," and they stepped up their efforts after 9/11 out of fear of an anti-Islam backlash. For critics, however, the question is whether any religion should be so protected. " Any system of ideas that requires you to ring-fence it is a mistake," Rushdie said recently. Many artists in Edinburgh questioned whether his work would even be published under the proposed law.
Supporters say such concerns are overwrought. "The lords will look for tight drafting, with guarantees that it won't be used in respect of comedians or literature of a serious kind," says Rabinder Singh, chairman of the British bar's race and religion committee. As for Marzouk, he's not fazed. Denmark already has similar laws, he notes. " Every human being holds something holy," he told his Edinburgh audience in a neat segue to the serious.
"We can all have some respect for that."
Britain debates the limits of religious free speech.
Newsweek International
Omar Marzouk, a Muslim comedian from Denmark, had but one request at last month's Edinburgh Fringe Festival. "Tell me if you don't find my jokes funny." he told his audience. "I don't want to die— I'm not that kind of Muslim."
Poking fun at the world's religions was de rigueur at Edinburgh's annual stage jamboree. Reason: fears that a controversial new " anti-blasphemy " law could curtail freedom of speech. The proposed legislation, to be debated by Britain's House of Lords next month, allows prosecution in cases where behavior or written material—such as a book, play or broadcast—could potentially incite religious hatred. Home Office officials say the law would not bar legitimate criticism of religion—nor comedians' lampooning of faiths—but argue that there must be some defense against speech motivated by religious hatred. With religion intruding into politics and the arts across Europe, though, many worry the legislation is a step too far.
Europeans have long had laws against blasphemy. Most are holdovers from the late 17th century and, until recently, were all but dead. But lately religious groups have seized upon them. In Italy, journalist Oriana Fallaci, whose criticism of the country's Muslims has won support from the conservative, anti-immigration right, is awaiting trial on charges of vilifying Islam. French bishops have taken legal action against a Marithe + Francois Girbaud ad they say mocks the Last Supper. In Denmark, Muslims filed complaints against two state TV stations after they broadcast excerpts of " Submission," by the murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, portraying violence against women as endemic in Islam. Some think Britain's new law will be used similarly. "It's about saving Muslims from attack," says religious historian David Nash—a perfectly reasonable goal, he adds, "except that the law will be used indiscriminately by religious groups who want to see offense. "
Existing British blasphemy laws cover Christianity. Sikhs and Jews are shielded because they are regarded as distinct races falling under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. Muslim groups have lobbied for similar protection since 1988, with the publication of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," and they stepped up their efforts after 9/11 out of fear of an anti-Islam backlash. For critics, however, the question is whether any religion should be so protected. " Any system of ideas that requires you to ring-fence it is a mistake," Rushdie said recently. Many artists in Edinburgh questioned whether his work would even be published under the proposed law.
Supporters say such concerns are overwrought. "The lords will look for tight drafting, with guarantees that it won't be used in respect of comedians or literature of a serious kind," says Rabinder Singh, chairman of the British bar's race and religion committee. As for Marzouk, he's not fazed. Denmark already has similar laws, he notes. " Every human being holds something holy," he told his Edinburgh audience in a neat segue to the serious.
"We can all have some respect for that."
Se habla electoral votes
Bush's immigration plan looks like a smart ploy for Hispanic support. But the political landscape is trickier than it seems.
By Arian Campo-Flores
Newsweek
Jan. 19 issue -
For Armando Gutierrez, a Democratic consultant on Latino issues, President George W. Bush's immigration proposal last week signaled the opening salvo in the battle for Hispanic votes. Uh-oh, he thought. The Bushies are serious. Here they come. As policy, Gutierrez considers Bush's plan—which would grant temporary legal status to millions of undocumented workers, but no certain path to citizenship—nothing more than a means to exploit cheap labor. As politics, however, Gutierrez—who is working on Howard Dean's campaign—concedes that it's "a very savvy, very astute move."
Consider it Bush's latest overture in his persistent courtship of Latinos, with his broken español and roots in immigrant-rich Texas. In 2000 he won 35 percent of the Latino vote, which is concentrated in key swing states like Florida and New Mexico. This time around, his pollster has said, Bush needs to garner at least 40 percent. A poll released by the Pew Hispanic Center last week proved encouraging to his team, with 54 percent of Latinos approving of Bush's job performance and 37 percent saying they'd like him re-elected (compared with 47 percent backing a generic Democrat). On its surface, Bush's immigration proposal seems like an ingenious bid to build on that support. But given the complexity of the Hispanic constituency, there's no guarantee it will pay off at the polls.
For starters, immigration isn't necessarily a winning issue with Latinos. Studies show it usually ranks far below jobs, education and health care as top Hispanic concerns. It might appeal to a recent Mexican immigrant, but not a third-generation Latino or a Puerto Rican who's born a U.S. citizen. In fact, a 2002 survey found that 48 percent of registered Latino voters thought there were too many immigrants in the United States—in line with white attitudes. When immigration has galvanized Latinos, it has typically been in response to perceived attacks—like attempts in California to strip the undocumented of public services—not in response to pro-immigrant policies. A more obvious tactical shortcoming of the Bush proposal: its beneficiaries won't be voters for years, if ever and when they are, they'll most likely vote Democratic. Add to all this the difficulty of enacting immigration reform—with conservatives fuming about rewarding illegal behavior and Democrats pushing for permanent residency—and there's reason to question the electoral payoff of Bush's strategy.
Still, nobody's underestimating Karl Rove's math skills. Foreign -born Latinos— for whom the immigrant experience is still fresh— have swelled from about one fifth of Hispanic registered voters in 1988 to about half today, according to a poll by the New Democrat Network. "They don't have a history or legacy with a particular party," says NDN's Maria Cardona. "They swing harder than any other constituency in the American electorate." Bush's proposal also helps suppress a traditional Democratic attack—Republicans as immigrant bashers—by casting his party as welcoming and inclusive. Democrats " no longer can rely on fear as a mobilization tactic," says GOP consultant Mike Madrid. It remains to be seen whether viable legislation will emerge from what promises to be a contentious fight in Congress. But, Madrid says, "the fact that we're talking about that debate is a tactical victory already." Bush's Spanish may be broken, but he's certainly fluent in the language of politics.
HELP WANTED: A spot in Dallas where undocumented immigrants, whom Bush would grant legal status, wait for work.
By Arian Campo-Flores
Newsweek
Jan. 19 issue -
For Armando Gutierrez, a Democratic consultant on Latino issues, President George W. Bush's immigration proposal last week signaled the opening salvo in the battle for Hispanic votes. Uh-oh, he thought. The Bushies are serious. Here they come. As policy, Gutierrez considers Bush's plan—which would grant temporary legal status to millions of undocumented workers, but no certain path to citizenship—nothing more than a means to exploit cheap labor. As politics, however, Gutierrez—who is working on Howard Dean's campaign—concedes that it's "a very savvy, very astute move."
Consider it Bush's latest overture in his persistent courtship of Latinos, with his broken español and roots in immigrant-rich Texas. In 2000 he won 35 percent of the Latino vote, which is concentrated in key swing states like Florida and New Mexico. This time around, his pollster has said, Bush needs to garner at least 40 percent. A poll released by the Pew Hispanic Center last week proved encouraging to his team, with 54 percent of Latinos approving of Bush's job performance and 37 percent saying they'd like him re-elected (compared with 47 percent backing a generic Democrat). On its surface, Bush's immigration proposal seems like an ingenious bid to build on that support. But given the complexity of the Hispanic constituency, there's no guarantee it will pay off at the polls.
For starters, immigration isn't necessarily a winning issue with Latinos. Studies show it usually ranks far below jobs, education and health care as top Hispanic concerns. It might appeal to a recent Mexican immigrant, but not a third-generation Latino or a Puerto Rican who's born a U.S. citizen. In fact, a 2002 survey found that 48 percent of registered Latino voters thought there were too many immigrants in the United States—in line with white attitudes. When immigration has galvanized Latinos, it has typically been in response to perceived attacks—like attempts in California to strip the undocumented of public services—not in response to pro-immigrant policies. A more obvious tactical shortcoming of the Bush proposal: its beneficiaries won't be voters for years, if ever and when they are, they'll most likely vote Democratic. Add to all this the difficulty of enacting immigration reform—with conservatives fuming about rewarding illegal behavior and Democrats pushing for permanent residency—and there's reason to question the electoral payoff of Bush's strategy.
Still, nobody's underestimating Karl Rove's math skills. Foreign -born Latinos— for whom the immigrant experience is still fresh— have swelled from about one fifth of Hispanic registered voters in 1988 to about half today, according to a poll by the New Democrat Network. "They don't have a history or legacy with a particular party," says NDN's Maria Cardona. "They swing harder than any other constituency in the American electorate." Bush's proposal also helps suppress a traditional Democratic attack—Republicans as immigrant bashers—by casting his party as welcoming and inclusive. Democrats " no longer can rely on fear as a mobilization tactic," says GOP consultant Mike Madrid. It remains to be seen whether viable legislation will emerge from what promises to be a contentious fight in Congress. But, Madrid says, "the fact that we're talking about that debate is a tactical victory already." Bush's Spanish may be broken, but he's certainly fluent in the language of politics.
HELP WANTED: A spot in Dallas where undocumented immigrants, whom Bush would grant legal status, wait for work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)