Spymasters gather in Qatar

 
It’s day five for the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire that was originally only a four-day agreement. That deal has now been extended to a sixth day on Wednesday to allow more hostages and prisoners to be released.


CIA Director William Burns traveled to Qatar Tuesday in the hopes of hammering out an even wider deal between the two warring factions that could include the release of men and soldiers, beyond only the women and children that the four-day deal involved. 

Israel and Egypt’s intelligence chiefs are in Qatar, too, according to CNN, which notes: “Under the current agreement, three Palestinian prisoners are released for every one hostage that Hamas frees.” And Israeli officials say they’re open to extending the truce one day for every 10 new hostages released.
 
So far, Israel has released 150 detained women and children, and Hamas has released 50 of its 240 or so Israeli hostages taken captive after the group attacked Israel on October 7, killing at least 1,200 Israelis. The Israeli military response—featuring jets and tanks and a ground invasion of Hamas-held Gaza—has killed at least 15,000 Palestinians, 40% of whom are believed to be children, “with many more dead feared to be lost under rubble,” Reuters reported Tuesday.  
 

One of the released Israelis says supplies are dwindling among the remaining captives. At first, they ate “chicken with rice, all sorts of canned food and cheese,” 78-year-old Ruti Munder told Israeli news on Monday. But more recently, “the economic situation was not good, and people were hungry,” she said.

 More than 60% of homes across the Gaza Strip have been destroyed in the Israeli response, according to a United Nations-led aid group (PDF), which called the destruction “so extensive and widespread that there are, at a minimum, serious concerns regarding possible breaches of international humanitarian law.” An estimated 1.8 million people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza, which had a pre-war population of 2.3 million.

 Israel is prepared to continue its ground invasion of Gaza, likely proceeding southward, when the ceasefire lapses, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his U.S. counterpart, President Joe Biden, in a phone call this weekend and in a video message on Sunday.

 “At the end of the deal, we are returning full power to carry out our aims: destroy Hamas, ensure that Gaza won’t return to what it was and of course to free all of our hostages,” said Netanyahu.

Netherlands changing colors

  

A Shift in the EU


Last week’s election in the Netherlands produced a radical change. Traditionally, the Netherlands is among the most classically liberal states in Europe. But in a vote whose focus was immigration and climate change, Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom came out on top, though short of a majority. Governments in marginal member states in the European Union, such as Hungary, have taken similar stances in the past (particularly on immigration), but the Netherlands is a founding member of the EU and despite its small size, it has always been at the center of shaping and representing the bloc’s values. In times of economic disparity and division, the willingness of key EU members to stand together to defend certain core moral principles has held the bloc together.

However, the results of the Dutch election repudiated two core principles of the European Union. They may also give the Netherlands an economic advantage in Europe. Fighting climate change is an existential and moral imperative, but it is also expensive, dramatically raising the cost of production on a range of products. Meanwhile, curbs on immigration – particularly when the immigrants are low-skilled and come from a very different culture – will likely cut public costs on supporting immigrants.

These apparent economic perks are important, but they are not the critical thing to watch coming out of the Dutch election. In the Netherlands and elsewhere, proponents of fighting climate change or welcoming immigrants have tended to justify their positions by asserting moral and economic benefits. Critics and challengers have at times been met with not careful refutation but a kind of moral shaming, implying that the questions themselves are a sign of moral corruption.

It is in this sense that last week’s election has significance. In many ways, the Netherlands has been a core nation in the European Union. Years ago when I lived in the Netherlands, it was assumed – and I believed it true – that the country exemplified how a European nation should be (especially toward NATO). Yet, the outcome of this latest election might legitimize doubts about prevailing policies on climate change and immigration in ways that similar past election results in Poland or Italy could not. In time, the Netherlands could lose its reputation as a model European country, but it is also possible that a new definition of European virtue could emerge. Perhaps in the distant future, a redefined Europe will trace its beginnings back to this election.

On the other hand, Wilders and his party might be mistaken in their policies toward climate change and immigration. I don’t have the scientific background to have an informed opinion on global warming, though I distrust any belief passionately held by people who know as little as I do. I do know a little about demographics, particularly that the developed world is facing a worsening shortage of workers. Among the options we have are to force 80-year-olds to do menial labor, invent cost-effective robotic substitutes for humans, or bring in foreign workers. In the U.S., immigration has been the solution since the Mayflower’s passengers arrived. But foreigners tend to have distinct cultures that can clash with the host country’s values, and in some circumstances – particularly when there are large influxes of immigrants – there are bound to be criminals among the new arrivals. Compared with the other choices, however, immigration seems to work.

The shift in the Netherlands, if it holds and spreads, will make Europe a very different place not only on these matters but also with respect to its political culture and the idea that Europe is a single entity. Or I will have to avoid Europe, lest I be forced to prepare and eat their wretched sausages. Safety first; I will stay in Texas.
 

George Friedman

20 Years of Data from Portugal: Drug Decriminalization

  

20 Years of Data from Portugal: Drug Decriminalization 

 It has indeed been more than 20 years since Portugal famously decriminalized all illicit drugs. Their reason had been a noble one: HIV infections from shared needles were rampant, and the country's existing policy which focused on criminalization and punishment had failed to make any dent in that. It was reasoned that if drug addiction was treated more like a disease and less like a crime, authorities would be more directly confronting the true underlying causes of the problem. So what's the verdict after 20 years? Some ups, some downs, a lot of praise and a fair share of criticism. Today we're going to have a look at the reasons for Portugal's big move, and whether it has accomplished them — according not to pundits, but to the data.

At the time, Portugal's drug problem was a relatively new and unique one. Since 1926, Portugal had been an isolated dictatorship with little tourism and almost no illegal drug problem. Then, with 1974's bloodless Carnation Revolution, the country was opened, and more significantly, all its soldiers were brought back from fighting colonial revolutions in Africa — and many of them brought back vast amounts of drugs and serious drug addictions. The whole country had a drug epidemic essentially dumped in their lap.

By 1999, only 25 years after the Carnation Revolution, Portugal had Europe's highest incidence of AIDS among intravenous drug users, accounting for nearly half of all AIDS cases in the nation. In addition, their prisons were filling fast, with over 40% of prison sentences handed out for drug-related offenses. They were throwing more and more drug users into jail, but it hadn't helped the AIDS problem. And so they launched their new drug strategy to decriminalize all illicit drugs, the first such program of its size and significance in the world. It's called the PDPM, the Portuguese Drug Policy Model.

It is important to note the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Legalization makes the product legal, and people can manufacture, sell, and use it. This is not what Portugal did. They decriminalized the use of all drugs; meaning there are no longer any criminal penalties for drug users, however those penalties remain for those convicted of manufacturing, importing, and selling drugs. Drug dealers are still subject to the same criminal penalties as before.

If this was a little bit of a misconception for you, well, that's the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot of misinformation about Portugal's decriminalization. If you're caught using, buying, or possessing drugs, the cop is not going to say "Hey, right on, enjoy! Have a good one," you are still in trouble. If you have more than 10 days of personal use worth, you're still going to jail. If you have less than that, your drugs are confiscated and you are issued a summons to appear before an administrative panel called a Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction. Nothing will go on your criminal record.

That commission consists of an attorney, a psychiatrist, a chemical dependency social worker, and sometimes a judge. They'll consider your history and your situation, and then render their decision. They may choose to let you go with no sanctions at all other than some advice to stop doing drugs, which is usually what happens to first time offenders whose cases are deemed low risk, and this is what the commissions do in the majority of cases. They can fine repeat offenders, but the fines are typically small and tailored to your ability to pay. They can sentence you to community service. They can suspend your professional licenses. They can ban you from going to certain places or associating with certain people. They can terminate any social assistance you may receive. They can confiscate personal property and cancel your firearms license. They can require you to report back to them. About the only thing they can't do is send you to prison. Getting caught using drugs in Portugal is no laughing matter; it is not a place where you can freely roll around doing drugs with no concern. They've simply restructured the punishments from those that are proven to prolong drug problems to ones that are intended to reduce them.

The primary architect of the PDPM was João Castel-Branco Goulão, a physician and currently the Director-General of the Service for Intervention on Addictive Behaviors and Dependencies. In designing the program, Goulão's central idea was that drug abusers are not criminals, they are ill, and should be treated as such. Goulão's commission recognized three principles around which the program was designed. The first was to not differentiate between soft drugs and hard drugs. It doesn't matter what the drug is; what matters is whether the user has a healthy or an unhealthy relationship with it. Second was to recognize that an unhealthy relationship with drugs is often a symptom of an underlying cause, which could be any stressful chronic challenge a person can face in life. Third was to note that an all-out war on drugs, to get all drugs off the street, is impossible and quixotic, and thus a losing strategy that would not be a part of the solution.

So, all that background brings us to the moment of truth, which is to turn to the data and answer our big question: Has it worked?

The most honest answer to this begins with an anticlimactic disclaimer, which is that any such statement like "Drug use has declined by xx%" or "New cases of AIDS are down by xx%" is incomplete and misleading. Implementation of the PDPM was not an overnight panacea for recreational and dependent drug users, it was a complex process fraught with conflicting policies and passionate differences among public attitudes toward it. Keep in mind that Portugal is heavily Roman Catholic, and the belief that there should be zero tolerance for drug use of any kind is predominant. Consequently, ever since the PDPM was put into action, public sentiment has been a mixture of deep moral repugnance toward it, and approval by those with public health in mind.

Much of the complexity arises from the fact that, as Goulão has pointed out, decriminalization alone — doing nothing else — makes the problem worse. It's an improvement only when partnered with the needed treatment resources, which are expensive and required Portugal to invest massively. That investment has had all kinds of challenges thrown at it. First, the United Nations threatened sanctions against Portugal for decriminalization, sanctions that would have struck at the heart of their already-limited ability to pay for it; but they managed to dodge that bullet. Next, the left-wing government that approved the PDPM was voted out and replaced with a right-wing government that only just barely decided to keep it in place. Then the global economic meltdown of 2008 made Portugal insolvent and it had to accept a bailout from the International Monetary Fund, which put it under more pressure from the United Nations to bring back criminal prosecution for all drug offenses. Since then Portugal has had to continue deep cuts in government spending across the board. Through all of this, the PDPM treatment and recovery services survived, though it's been a very rocky road.

Generally, at first the PDPM did work very well in addressing its primary goal: reduction of HIV infections; and that's basically the only reason the incoming government didn't stomp it out of existence in its infancy in 2002. And that trend has continued. The reduction of HIV cases has been its greatest success, and is about the only graph that shows a steady trend, going from 600 per year in 1999 to only about 10 today. Another, which goes without saying, is the percentage of new prison sentences that are for drug related offenses, which is down from Portugal's high of some 40% in 1999 to about on par with the rest of Europe, around 15% today.

But drug deaths? They have not improved. Part of the reason for this is that Portugal has always had low numbers for this, usually less than half of what it is in the rest of Europe. Deaths today are about the same as before the PDPM. Total rate of drug use has also not improved, also because Portugal was always pretty low. It's actually up a bit, again generally in sync with the rest of Europe.

Yet if you do an Internet search to see how Portugal's doing 20 years later, the results are almost universally positive. Much of the reason for this was an extremely influential report published by the Cato Institute in 2009, which was paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project, a US nonprofit that promotes legalization of marijuana. So we should expect the Cato Institute's report on Portugal to be biased in favor of the merits of decriminalization and legalization, and it was. Whether you agree with a position or not, you want it to be based on data, not on bias. In 2010, the Obama administration, faced with pressure to mimic Portugal's policy based on the Cato report, published a white paper listing a number of flaws in Cato's report. Following about a dozen bullet points, it concludes "It is safe to say that claims by drug legalization advocates regarding the impact of Portugal's drug policy exceed the existing scientific basis."

But we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. That Cato overstated the PDPM's positive impact doesn't mean the impact hasn't still been positive. It certainly hasn't solved everything, and has had little effect in many areas, but did put an enormous dent in the HIV and AIDS cases among heroin addicts. And in doing so, it has ended up saving Portugal a lot of money. When you take all the costs associated with drug addiction, everything from police and ambulance services, hospital treatment, social services, and so on, it was found in 2015 that social costs associated with drug use dropped 18% by 2010.

The best way to characterize the first 20 years of the PDPM in summary is to note that it has had some major, though somewhat narrow, successes. Importantly, it hasn't failed anywhere; all of its outcomes have been either favorable or neutral at worst. Portugal's policy was implemented in a resource-starved test environment, among a population with a strong element that opposes it. It was done in a country that had a drug problem that was unusual due to Portugal's unique history, and may fare better if implemented in some other countries, and may fare worse in still others. It has suffered from international pushback, but has also inspired plenty of international imitation. The results, as defined by a number of metrics, are not as good as many of us might hope for; in others, they are. But that it's been able to produce results ranging from positive to neutral, with really nothing in the negative, says a lot for it; and that it produced these results under tough conditions says more. It is a model that will work best in countries with a strong interest in public health and data-driven policy, and will likely not work as well in countries that value religion-driven zero-tolerance policies above public health. In that sense, Portugal's drug program is not too far different from many other innovations.

Motown Spotlight: Marvin Gaye: ‘Here, My Dear’

 

Motown Spotlight:  Marvin Gaye: ‘Here, My Dear’ 

next month we celebrate the forty-fifth anniversary of one of his most significant albums, “Here, My Dear”.

While riding on the success of the million-selling, number one single “Got To Give It Up (Parts I and II)”, the only studio track from his “Live! At The London Palladium” in  May 1977,  Marvin was served with divorce papers by his estranged wife Anna claiming irreconcilable differences, and child support for their adopted son Marvin Gaye III, born to Berry Gordy’s niece Denise.  Anna knew Marvin was penniless, yet asked for $1 million. The eventual settlement was quite unique because Marvin’s lawyer, Curtis Shaw, convinced Marvin to pay a total of $600,000 to his wife from the proceeds of his next album.  (The sum would be made up from the advance: $305,000 and album’s earnings: $305,000)  Anna really had no choice but to agree; the divorce was granted on those terms,  leaving Marvin free to marry Janis Hunter, whom he had met in March 1973 while he was working on the “Let’s Get It On” album.

Jan, the daughter of jazz musician Slim Gaillard, went on to have two children with Marvin, namely, Nona born in September 1974, and Frankie in November a year later.  Then in October 1977, Marvin and his young bride married in a secret ceremony in New Orleans. His friends and family felt the union would stabilise him, encouraging him to become more reliable in his working environment. For his part, Marvin said the marriage had made his relationship with Janis different; he felt it was deteriorating, yet prior to this they had enjoyed each other with all the romance that went towards taking their marriage vows.  Jan rose above all the complications thrown at her to cope with her husband’s continuing idiosyncrasies and, often shoddy behaviour, while he told the media, “There are a lot of things I desire.  I desire peace and happiness and love and understanding.  That sounds ridiculous to a lot of people. ‘Who is this guy wanting all that?’ Another trouble maker.”

Obviously marriage didn’t suit him because he failed to adapt easily to a committed family life, and spent much time away from his home, using a variety of excuses.  Although his divorce from Anna was settled in principle, he still had to honour the financial commitment as decreed by the court.  Added to this financial burden, bankruptcy charges had been instigated against him from which he had no escape.  Curtis Shaw told Rolling Stone magazine that he attributed the singer’s disastrous plight to hiring unqualified friends and members of his family: “He delegated duties to people who were incompetent.  I couldn’t even get Marvin to hire an accountant.  In fact, the Federal Bankruptcy Judge told Marvin in court, ‘Mr Gaye, we are all working hard to get you out of this terrible trouble but I already know the pattern.’”

With all this pressure on him, Marvin was in no mood to complete what he called his “divorce settlement” album, later confirming that he had deliberately taken his time, not because of Anna, but due to a new spate of disagreements with Motown. “I was involved in some political fighting with (them) and then (when) the Federal Court felt the album was part of my estate for bankruptcy,  I thought I’d put out a lot of garbage for the album because all I had to give was one album.  There was no stipulation that it had to be a good one, so Anna was taking her chances here.”

However, part way through the recording sessions at his studio, he changed his mind. “I thought of my fans when I started recording.  The more I cut, the more I got involved.  After a certain point I forgot I was mad and angry, and did some decent work.  The result was, I think, pretty fair.  I listened to it for over a year and I felt poor when I realised I wasn’t going to make any money from it.”

It was a pretty hefty pay-off for a divorce particularly as Marvin speculated, but never confirmed, that Berry Gordy bankrolled his sister’s court case against him.   Uncharacteristically, Marvin wasn’t bitter about the actual action, but rather disagreed with the whole legal structure of divorce proceedings as a whole.  He said at the time that while he liked the institution of marriage, this album reflected the reverse:  “There’s a terrible imbalance with the whole divorce thing and I don’t like it.  It doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong, the man must pay the wife everything.  Pay for the divorce and give over to her the custody of the children, and yet the man can still take care of his child because a father can be a mother too.  American law cannot see that and it’s horrible.”

“Here, My Dear” was simultaneously released in America and Britain during December 1978 because when Motown /EMI was notified of the pending US release date, it immediately shipped in five thousand copies to sell with over-stickered UK record prefixes to stem import sales which wouldn’t be registered as British sales, thus losing valuable chart points. British pressings were then made available under the deluxe TMSP series when those imports were exhausted.

Containing his cynical, personal statements, often intimate details about his two wives, it was often difficult for the listener to distinguish the difference between the two.  The thematic work was devoted to discovering and sharing love, the loss of that love, with the bitterness and pain caused by that loss. In other words, it was the breakdown of a fourteen-year-old marriage and of the joy in discovering a new young love. So, due to its personal nature, “Here, My Dear” was all his own work (although this was later disputed) with the exception of three tracks, namely, “Sparrow” and “Everybody Needs Love” which he wrote with Ed Townsend, and “Anger” penned with Townsend and Delta Ashby.  Quite possibly more people were involved than the three mentioned, but all Marvin would say on the subject was, “The album was recorded under a certain amount of strain and I don’t like to work under those conditions.  It was a painful necessity, best done and best forgotten.” During a conversation with (the late) London DJ, Graham “Fatman” Canter, Marvin told him,“At least I’ve got the album away.  Let her have her money.”

A high percentage of Marvin Gaye fans were appalled with the concept;  they were tired of his self-inflicted depression, the impassive songs of doom, and once again longed for another “What’s Going On” or, better still, those glorious, carefree sounds of the sixties.  I think my colleague Cliff White’s review in 1978 was generously thoughtful:  “On the first few hearings it doesn’t seem to be a wholly commendable album; over-sentimental in some places, carelessly padded in others.  But when it’s good, it’s very good, especially if we’re to assume it’s all straight from the bleeding-heart-Marvin-Gaye-tells-it-like-it-is sensation.”  Britain’s The Daily Mirror critic stated,“It’s not as original or inventive as some of his earlier works.”  Yes, the media was confused, somewhat cynical in its opinions, and this was reflected by his fans. For me, it took a long while to get into Marvin’s mind set, and while I liked much of what I heard, I was saddened that he decided to wash his dirty linen in public.

As an aside here: when he had finished the album, Marvin insisted Anna visit the studio to hear the songs.  She held a dignified silence.   “Anna is a very beautiful person….she’s great….and it was a very painful and bitter situation that left me somewhat frustrated and beaten a bit….I just felt I’d write about what was true….I would not like to suggest this would hurt Anna because I’d love to see some happiness in her life.”

Marvin’s audacity to share with the world such private thoughts, then say he didn’t want to hurt her really beggars belief, doesn’t it?  Personally, I would have knocked him senseless! Why couldn’t he have done the decent thing and chosen another topic to write about?  However, perhaps a little in Marvin’s defense, he did outline both sides of their marriage:  the bitter tracks that stung and the respectful ones that portrayed their love.  “The trouble with marriage is that one has to put up with little differences and it’s these things you have to look out for because they eventually become monumental things…..If one’s mate isn’t really of the same mind and feeling, then I can’t see it working.  And my way of thinking is such that I wouldn’t ask any other person to adapt to my lifestyle.”

So, let’s delve further into the music. To ensure nobody was in any doubt why the double album was recorded Marvin introduced the listener with a message to Anna which went something like, “I guess I have to say this album is dedicated to you…Although perhaps I may not be happy, this is what you want, so I have conceded….I hope it makes you happy…There’s a lot of truth in it baby…I don’t think I’ll have any regrets baby.”  He then continued with a somewhat stinging attack about being prevented from seeing his son before adding: “So here it is, enjoy, reminisce, be happy, think about the kisses and joy…the other times cloudy and grey….think of me, the way I was.  This is what you wanted, here, my dear.  Here it is.”

Thus began a resume of the marriage breakdown, starting with a mellow, moody “I Met A Little Girl” where he chronologically revealed his time with Anna: when they first met, their marriage and subsequent divorce, his fantasy woman who turned into reality and the promises they sealed with the love that was strong enough to stand the test of time. Marriage vows were sacred and eternal, he said, which introduced the lengthy “When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You”, a slightly more aggressive song both musically and vocally.  It was here that Marvin attempted to unravel the spider’s web that led to the marriage breakdown and why should he be the one shouldering a $1 million debt.  “Lies And Ties” was the theme of this rather self-indulgent cross-examination, until “Anger” took over, a lightweight, slightly offbeat funky song, overflowing with the most powerful of emotions. In my opinion, his dissection was unsatisfactory.

Flipping the original vinyl, side two kicked off with “Is That Enough|” which dealt with jealousy and possessiveness, and Marvin’s inability to accept the decision laid down by the divorce judge. His drug addiction was mentioned briefly, prior to a sultry brass solo leading into a lengthy instrumental section.  “Everybody Needs Love”, was a testament to those he felt would benefit from love irrespective of their standing in life, while “Time To Get It Together” predictably dealt with his favourite subject, albeit a subdued reference this time.

“Sparrow” opened the next disc, a poignant tale of his wise-and-weathered feathered friend, against a strong melody where the lazy, often cumbersome horns almost ruined the song.  Not so “Anna’s Song”: “baths of milk, satin sheets, all night love” – a tender song of reflection.  Disc four started with the jazz/funk “A Funky Space Reincarnation” followed by the biting yet lacklustre “You Can Leave, But It’s Going To Cost You”.  In the track Marvin exposed his meetings at Anna’s sister Gwen’s house, where they thrashed out their problems;  the familiar story of attempted reconciliation and the high price of freedom.  And lastly, after the break-up the “Falling In Love Again”, with the joys of re-discovering love, including references to Janis like “she’s pretty, she’s wonderful.”

At this point, listeners were crumbled in a heap, particularly if the four discs were played in one session.  I remember saying to a colleague, that while I sympathised with the deal Marvin had been given, my thoughts were with his ex-wife, even though we had never met.  Years later, I had a quick phone chat with her, and had hoped for more.  Very sadly, Anna died in January 2014, three days after her ninety-second birthday.

The gatefold double album packaging was a stark clash of emotions. Like “I Want You” before it, the colouring was dull, dark, punctuated by splashes of insipid red.  When flattened, the sleeve showed a neo-Roman setting, where fire burned and blood stains streaked the walls, while Rodin’s The Kiss was pictured with a pair of pink roses at the statue’s base.  A black statue of Marvin wearing a toga stood in the foreground.  Behind these, two plaques were etched into facing walls; one reading “Pain And Divorce”, the other “Love And Marriage”.

The dramatic scene, drawn by Michael Byran from Marvin’s instructions, was a confusing clash of good and evil, and I’m sure some will agree, a pictorial indication of Marvin’s imaginative yet disturbed mind.  Michael was also responsible for the inner sleeve depicting a “Monopoly” board game entitled Judgement.   On the right, a red finger-nailed hand hovers over a pile of $500 bills, a couple of coins, a mansion, a limousine, two dice, insects and a dress ring. On the left, a hand clutches a record, under which is a Revex tape machine, a piece of recording equipment, a grand piano and a single dollar bill.

The album’s most commercial track, “A Funky Space Reincarnation” – where Marvin sings of a future parallel universe (he’s the captain of a “space bed” and meets a woman that reminded him of Anna)  – was issued as a single.  It struggled for sales. So much so, that the proposed follow-up “Anger” was withdrawn.   Marvin’s career had taken a huge knock.  He blamed Motown.  However, thinking logically, there’s little doubt that “Here, My Dear” widened the already growing gap between the singer and Berry Gordy, who was obviously saddened at the albums’ content.   The trouble was, the next album “In Our Lifetime” was another musical catastrophe, born from frustration and resentment, with a handful of bright moments.

I feel it’s worth mentioning this: during the eighties, Marvin and Anna  reconciled as friends.  In fact, she accompanied him to industry events after the release of his first and only CBS album “Midnight Love” during 1982.  She also went as his guest to the Grammy Awards ceremony a year later when Marvin collected two golden statuettes.  When he died in 1984, Anna was heartbroken.  Then ,she and his three children scattered most of his ashes near the Pacific Ocean, while she kept a small portion for herself.   Anna never re-married.

Sharon Davis

(PS: “Here, My Dear” was re-released in 1994 to reach number one in the US R&B chart. In 1995 it was voted as one of the greatest albums in music history by Mojo magazine, and has appeared in all three “The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time” listing in Rolling Stone magazine.  In 2008, the album was re-issued as a two-disc Expanded Edition, and included “Ain’t It Funny How Things Turn Around”, a leftover track from the original sessions.)

西方的去风险化举措开始损害中国的经济

 

 西方的去风险化举措开始损害中国的经济

今年大部分时间里，外国投资者一直对中国感到不满，但过去一个月公布的数据清楚地证明了去风险策略对世界第二大经济体产生的负面影响。对中国经济活动调查显示，10 月份制造业意外收缩，而出口则加速下滑。中国7-9月外国直接投资首次出现季度逆差，显示资本外流压力。

路透社引据美国家具公司例子称该公司负责人乔丹·英格兰认为，他的公司的中国供应商是业内最好的，但地缘政治和经济放缓促使他从东南亚、东欧和中东采购更多产品。墨西哥。但这家总部位于佛罗里达州的 Industry West 的首席执行官兼联合创始人 England 表示：“我正在寻求离开中国。”

他指出，“总是‘中国加一’，”他指的是2018年华盛顿对北京征收贸易关税后许多企业开始实施的多元化战略，以确保它们不完全依赖中国供应商。现在“就像‘+10’，然后才是中国。”

彼得森国际经济研究所高级研究员尼古拉斯·拉迪在一份报告中表示，新数据表明在华外国公司不仅拒绝将收益再投资，而且正在出售现有投资并将资金汇回国内。据拉迪说，这种趋势可能会进一步削弱人民币并削弱中国的经济增长潜力。

企业界长期以来对地缘政治、收紧监管以及国有企业更有利的竞争环境感到担忧。但自中国向外国投资开放四十年来，高管们首次对长期增长前景表示担忧。

智库世界大型企业联合会上周发布的一项调查显示，超过三分之二的受访首席执行官表示，中国的需求尚未恢复到新冠疫情爆发前的水平。

但英格兰表示，他担心同样为中国国内市场生产的中国供应商将如何应对该国严重的房地产市场低迷。“我担心这些工厂的工人数量会从 500 人减少到 200 人，再减到 100 人。”

贸易机构表示，鉴于中国推出更广泛的反间谍法、对咨询公司和尽职调查公司的突击检查以及发布出境禁令，疫情后中国总理李强曾宣布中国向外国投资者开放的提议，却遭到了一些西方董事会的怀疑。

在私募股权领域，虽然专注于亚洲的基金已向中国配置资金，但Preqin的数据显示，截至11月24日，2023年没有以任何货币筹集专注于中国的收购基金，而2022年为2.1亿美元，2019年，疫情爆发之前为132亿美元。

春华资本创始人胡祖六表示，宏观经济不确定性不断增加、“资本市场前景黯淡”，以及对过去对科技和教育等高增长行业的监管打压的持续担忧。他说：“科技公司和其他私营企业必须能够利用公共市场进行融资和流动性，因此中国目前的市场状况对实体经济造成了相当大的损害。”他还说，专注于中国的私募股权公司正在将资金转移到东南部亚洲、澳大利亚和欧洲。

据路透社说，尽管面临挑战，外国投资流动并不是单向的。许多公司，尤其是零售行业的公司，仍然瞄准中国这个巨大的市场。麦当劳上周表示，已达成一项协议，以增持他们在中国业务的股份。

一位欧洲连锁酒店的高管表示，他的公司目前很乐意将利润再投资到中国。由于该话题的敏感性，该高管要求匿名。他说：“我们知道政治上正在发生什么，是的，经济上也发生了什么事。”他补充说，最新数据“没有什么值得骄傲的”。他称，“虽然速度很慢，但只能采取‘观望态度’。”

中国成为全球最大债权国

  

中国成为全球最大债权国

为了促进贸易，中国向亚洲和拉丁美洲国家的基础设施项目提供了1.3万亿美元贷款。不过，面对这个巨大的数字，中国该如何确保借出去的钱能顺利收回呢？
 

中国的大规模“一带一路”倡议普遍被视为中国国家主席习近平的外交政策核心，该倡议支持在世界各地建设约21000个基础设施项目，此政策经常与二战后美国对欧洲的马歇尔计划相比较。

根据一份近期的报告，北京在过去十年左右的时间里提供了超过1.3万亿美元的贷款，为中低收入国家的桥梁、港口和高速公路建设提供资金。 “一带一路”倡议帮助恢复了中国与世界其他地区之间古老的贸易路线，此外它也提升了北京的全球影响力，这让华盛顿和布鲁塞尔大为不快。

 “一带一路”十年：习近平离“中国梦”还有多远？

批评人士称，在应该优先考虑环境保护之际，“一带一路”倡议不仅让发展中国家背负了难以负荷的债务，还留下了可观的碳足迹。目前，包括菲律宾在内的一些国家已经退出了该计划。
在“一带一路”倡议下，中国向巴基斯坦提供资金，于拉合尔修建了一条新的橙线地铁

在“一带一路”倡议下，中国向巴基斯坦提供资金，于拉合尔修建了一条新的橙线地铁

还有人指出，中国的策略是使其国营企业来完成这些基础设施项目合同，这往往会导致不透明的建设成本，导致各国难以在后续重新协商。

虽然中国承诺继续投资数十亿美元于新项目，但转眼已是该算帐的日子了，过去10年中的许多贷款如今已经到期。
有多少“一带一路”贷款已经成为坏账？

位于美国的研究机构AidData本月早些时候发布的一份报告评估，在中国向发展中国家提供的贷款内，有80%是提供给陷入财政困境的国家，而不包括利息的未偿债务总额至少有1.1万亿美元。

虽然报告未明确提到有多少贷款已经成坏账，但指出逾期还款额正在飙升。报告还称，有1693个“一带一路”项目面临风险，另外94个项目遭取消或暂停。

十年，一万亿：“一带一路”为中国收获几何？

根据AidData的统计，过半数的“一带一路”贷款现已进入本金还款期，而此时全球基准利率急剧上升，将加重债务国的还款负担。报告发现，在某些情况下，中国将逾期还款的罚息从3%提高到8.7%，增加了一倍多。

此外，在本世纪初中国刚开始向发展中国家提供贷款时，只有不到五分之一的项目进行了抵押，而现在几乎达到三分之二。
柬埔寨备受争议的桑河下游二级水坝发电站是由中国贷款资助建造的

柬埔寨备受争议的桑河下游二级水坝发电站是由中国贷款资助建造的

今年早些时候，世界银行的一份报告发现，中国已不得不向参与“一带一路”倡议的国家提供数十亿美元的纾困贷款。 AidData也在报告中提到，中国目前正在采取一项包括纾困贷款在内的新策略，以降低坏账带来的风险。
美国迎头赶上

AidData发现，虽然中国每年花费约800亿美元向中低收入国家提供贷款，但美国正在迎头赶上。华盛顿每年用于类似发展融资的资金约为600亿美元，其中隶属政府的美国国际开发金融公司（DFC）对私营部门项目的融资占很大的比例。

一个例子是美国本月稍早宣布的计划：斥资5亿美元，在斯里兰卡科伦坡港建造一个深水货柜码头。

这个印度洋岛国正在努力从严重的金融和经济危机中恢复。北京的“一带一路”倡议曾提供贷款，让斯里兰卡在东南沿海建设汉班托塔港，以及在填海土地上建造机场和城市。然而，这些项目的利润不足以偿还贷款。
欧盟的“全球门户”计划

两年前，七国集团（G7）发起了“重建更好世界”（Build Back Better World）倡议，这是美国及其盟国制衡“一带一路”的又一次尝试。

而就在上个月，欧盟为自己的“全球门户”计划举行了首次峰会，该计划也被视为“一带一路”的替代方案，旨在维持欧洲的影响力，尤其是在全球南方地区。

“一带一路”在欧洲遭遇困境 说好的高铁改慢车

在此期间，欧盟与欧洲、亚洲和非洲国家政府签署了价值近700亿欧元的协议。欧盟最终提供的资金有望达到3000亿欧元，将助力与关键原材料矿产和绿色能源等有关的项目。

欧委会主席冯德莱恩表示，全球门户将为发展中国家的基础设施项目融资提供“更好的选择”。尽管她没有指名批评中国的“一带一路”，但她提到，其他融资选择往往要付出“高昂的代价”。

AidData报告指出，许多“一带一路”项目传出失败消息，确实为吸引斯里兰卡等受影响国家重新接近西方提供了机会。 AidData也在报告中警告美国及其盟国不要试图与中国的“一带一路”竞争，因为中国政府正从大型建设项目转向债务追收。

中国7病毒齐发！全班2/3发烧 多地学校宣布停课

中国大陆近期爆发多种上呼吸道传染病，除了流感，另有鼻病毒、肺炎霉浆菌、呼吸道融合病毒、腺病毒、新冠病毒、人类间质肺炎病毒等7种病毒在同时流行。各地医院挤满求诊的病患，有人甚至必须等上20多个小时才能看诊。近日传出有多所小学因发烧的学童太多，纷纷宣布停课。


中国大陆近期爆发多种上呼吸道传染病，除了流感，另有鼻病毒、肺炎霉浆菌、呼吸道融合病毒、腺病毒、新冠病毒、人类间质肺炎病毒等7种病毒在同时流行。各地医院挤满求诊的病患，有人甚至必须等上20多个小时才能看诊。近日传出有多所小学因发烧的学童太多，纷纷宣布停课。台湾卫福部疾管署副署长罗一钧27日呼吁，免疫力较弱的老人、幼儿，近期非必要暂时勿前往中国大陆。

根据《北京青年报》报导，大陆各地同时有霉浆菌、流感、新冠等细菌病毒同时爆发，当中又以霉浆菌为大宗，由于有太多孩童感染，多地小学纷纷停课。杭州有民众表示，孩子就读的班级全班36人，已有20多个同学发烧，老师因此在班级群组通知，暂时停课2天。浙江绍兴一所小学也传出多名学生发烧请假，校方紧急发出停课通知，有班级全班停课4天。

从10月底以来，“支原体”(台湾称“霉浆菌”)成为大陆网上热搜词，多地疾控中心接连发布紧急通知，提醒家长注意儿童容易感染，11月开始大陆多地小学相继发布停课通知，包括江苏省泰州市有学校因班级请假人数太多，索性停课5天。根据《自由亚洲电台》报导，在河北三河市重感染区，许多身穿防护服的工作人员频繁进入校园展开清消工作。

根据《联合新闻网》报导，大陆国家卫健委在26日记者会上指出，近期中国大陆急性呼吸道疾病病患持续上升，与多种呼吸道病原体叠加有关。复旦大学附属华山医院感染科主任张文宏指出，一般来说，支原体肺炎在家用一些对症药物就能好转，但需持续注意有无发展成肺炎重症的症状。

根据《人民日报》报导，中国大陆不同年龄层流行的主要病原体不同，病源监测结果显示，1到4岁以流感病毒、鼻病毒为主；5到14岁以流感病毒、肺炎支原体、腺病毒为主；15到59岁以流感病毒、鼻病毒、新冠病毒为主；60岁以上民众以流感病毒、人偏肺病毒和普通冠状病毒为主。

报导也提醒民众，养成良好个人卫生习惯，咳嗽或打喷嚏时应遮住口鼻、勤洗手，尽量避免习惯性触摸眼睛、鼻、口。室内应定期开窗通风，老年人、儿童、孕妇、慢性病患者等高风险族群尽量少去人群密集的公共场所，如症状严重，应尽早就医。