Latest news with #ThomasFriedman
Straits Times
4 days ago
- General
- Straits Times
Learning for joy, not just for a job
Have we become too pragmatic about what we choose to learn? If so, it's our loss. With ongoing debate about work-life balance, we risk falling into the illusion that enjoyment can only come when we are not working or studying. Singaporeans are well known for their appreciation of food. Whether it's waiting in long queues or travelling large distances just to get a bite, our hunger for good food never seems to diminish. But what about our hunger to learn? Do we have the same appetite for knowledge? A few years ago, I chanced upon the book, Thank You For Being Late: An Optimist's Guide To Thriving In The Age Of Accelerations, by Thomas Friedman, a New York Times best-selling author. I also attended his talk, where he spoke about his greatest wish for his children growing up in a developed world: to survive in a competitive environment without feeling entitled and spoiled. His advice was to have a migrant mindset – a desire to learn, demonstrate resourcefulness, and overcome challenges. Essentially, he emphasised the hunger to learn. Do we possess that same hunger?
Yomiuri Shimbun
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
How Can the Free Trade System Be Saved From Crisis?
U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff strategy has thrown the world trade system into significant disarray. As a result, the free trade system is said to be facing a serious crisis. What exactly is a free trade system in the first place, and what specifically does it mean when people say there is a crisis? The world trade system was first supported by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which came into being under the post-World War II Bretton Woods system. Since 1995, it has been backed by the World Trade Organization, which replaced GATT. The GATT regime was led by Western countries, but emerging economies and developing countries joined the WTO as active members, enabling the organization's influence to spread across many countries and regions. A particularly important turning point for the WTO was China's accession in 2001. In the context of this article, the free trade system refers to the trading system that has developed since China joined the WTO. To be specific, it is a trading system that not only facilitates traditional trade between major countries — the selling and buying of final products and resources — it also drives global economic growth through the cross-border division of labor thanks to the supply chains stretching across the world. This environment features a complex global division of labor, as well as cross-border trade within enterprises and diverse networks of direct investment. U.S. journalist Thomas Friedman focused on this environment in his 2005 book 'The World is Flat.' Since China's accession to the WTO, the global economy has undergone a significant transformation, continuing to grow at an unprecedented speed. Based on the anticipation that emerging economies were likely to underpin global economic growth, the term 'BRICs' was coined to denote the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The world economy's fast growth stumbled temporarily in 2008 due to the Lehman shock, but the 'flattening' of the world continued thereafter. In that time, the United States' view of China has changed. A senior U.S. government official told an international conference that American officials expected China to come closer to their way of doing things by joining the WTO, but it seems that China has made a U-turn midway. Protectionist policies have become evident in the United States after the inauguration of the Trump administration. But tensions between the United States and China — the world's No. 1 and No. 2 trading powers — had been apparent before that. In other words, the process of reviewing the flattening of the world economy had already begun. Increased trade liberalization seems to be a good thing for every economy in the world. However, nearly 30 years of dynamic growth in the global economy — the brisk rise of China in particular — has fostered an entirely different view within the United States. Over that period, the U.S. manufacturing industry was hit hard by the sharp increase in imports from China. This situation was analyzed by David Autor, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others in their 'China shock' theory. Their analysis sent out shock waves among scholars who had advocated free trade. Areas exposed to fierce competition from inexpensive imports from China witnessed a significant increase in unemployment and a notable decrease in wages. Moreover, labor-force participation rates — the number of people employed and actively seeking employment as a percentage of the working-age population — fell conspicuously, with low-education, low-skilled workers hit particularly hard. Of course, advocates of the China shock theory do not dismiss the benefits of trade. But while the gains from trade tend to be thinly spread throughout society, the pain of trade is concentrated in certain areas and industries. Many people live their daily lives without feeling the gains from trade, but those who are compelled to feel the pain of trade strongly resent imports. This is why protectionism, which advocates trade restrictions from the perspective of political economy, tends to come to the fore even though free trade is desirable in economic theory. Post-Trump U.S. policy Many people may think that U.S. protectionism results from Trump's unique way of thinking. However, as pointed out by the China shock theory, the global trade system, which has developed over the past 30 years or so, has brought a greater shock to the U.S. economy than previously thought. There are concerns that the trend of protectionism will remain strong even in a post-Trump U.S. trade policy. Trump's tariff measures violate the WTO regime's two important principles — one that prohibits countries from raising tariffs and the other, known as the most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment principle, that bans countries from imposing discriminatory tariffs on certain trading partners. It is no exaggeration to say that these two principles have fundamentally supported the free trade regime. The United States has now broken these principles, which it should have supported. Indeed, the United States is endangering the free trade system. Proactive corporate activity is vital for a flattening global economy. How much should a company produce in which country? Which overseas companies should it collaborate with? In which market should it expand sales? Each company makes investments based on outlooks regarding these factors. Such decision-making inevitably requires an environment devoid of uncertainty. After a tariff has been decided, it should not be raised arbitrarily. Compliance with the WTO principles, in other words no increase in tariffs and upholding the MFN treatment, is a prerequisite for global corporate activity. The increase in import duties resulting from the Trump administration's tariff measures is having a major impact on immediate trade. This itself is a major issue, but aside from this temporary impact, there is one more concern that should be addressed. The concern is: to what extent will trade be affected in the medium to long term once we have an environment in which tariffs change frequently, embedding uncertainty into the trade system? As mentioned earlier, the flattening of the world has continued over the past 30 years or so, during which time the global economy has registered high growth. If the rise of protectionism sets back the process of such flattening, there will be a significantly negative impact on economic growth. The question then is how protectionist movements will spread in the post-Trump United States and other major countries. As explained earlier in connection with the China shock theory, the political and economic factors driving protectionism are deep-rooted. So, now that the United States has begun moving toward protectionism, it is not easy to stop it. Also, it is unlikely that we can expect any other country to replace the United States in leading the free trade system. That is all the more reason for major countries to first of all deepen their understanding about how enormous the economic costs of protectionism are. The debate over the China shock theory has shown that naive theories advocating free trade are not persuasive enough. So, what is required now is to make it clear how dangerous naive protectionism is. Motoshige Itoh Itoh is a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo. He also served as a professor with the Faculty of International Social Sciences at Gakushuin University until March original article in Japanese appeared in the July 6 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
Al Jazeera
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Israel now faces adversaries that it cannot defeat
Since October 7, 2023, the war of images has eclipsed the war of weapons. From Gaza's pulverised hospitals and starving infants to mass graves and desperate fathers digging through rubble, every pixel captured on a smartphone strikes deeper than a missile. These raw, unfiltered, and undeniable images have a far greater impact than any press conference or official speech. And for the first time in its history, Israel cannot delete them or drown them in propaganda. The horrifying images of the Israeli army massacring people at aid distribution locations prompted newspaper Haaretz's Gideon Levy to write on June 29: 'Is Israel perpetrating genocide in Gaza? […] The testimonies and images emerging from Gaza don't leave room for many questions.' Even staunchly pro-Israel commentator and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman no longer buys into the Israeli narrative. In a May 9 op-ed, addressed to US President Donald Trump, he declared: 'This Israeli government is not our ally,' clarifying that it is 'behaving in ways that threaten hard-core US interests in the region'. Once, Israel's narrative was protected by the gates of editorial rooms and the gravity of Western guilt. But the smartphone shattered those gates. What we see now is no longer what Israel tells us — it's what Gaza shows us. The platforms carrying these images — TikTok, WhatsApp, Instagram, X — don't prioritise context; they prioritise virality. While older generations might look away, younger ones are glued to the stream of suffering, absorbed by every pixel, every siren, every moment of destruction. The global public is agitated, and this works against the Israeli interest. Israel is no longer just at war with its neighbours; it is at war with the lens itself. The psychological toll of this visual war is reverberating deep inside Israeli society. For decades, Israelis were conditioned to see themselves as global narrators of trauma, not subjects of international scrutiny. But now, with videos of Israeli bombardment, flattened Gaza neighbourhoods, and emaciated children flooding every platform, many Israelis are grappling with a growing ethical predicament. There is unease, even among centrists, that these visceral images are eroding Israel's moral high ground. For the first time, public discourse in Israeli society includes fear of the mirror: what the world now sees and what Israelis are forced to confront. Internationally, the effect has been even more destabilising for Israel's diplomatic standing. Longstanding allies, once unconditionally supportive, now face growing domestic pressure from citizens who are not consuming official statements but TikTok's live streams and Instagram's image feed. Lawmakers in Europe and North America are openly questioning arms shipments, trade deals, and diplomatic cover, not because of the briefings they have on Israeli war crimes but because their inboxes are flooded with screenshots of scattered body parts and starving children. The battlefield has expanded into parliaments, campuses, city councils, and editorial rooms. This is the backlash of a war Israel cannot win with brute force. To regain control of the narrative, Israeli officials have pressured social media platforms to curb content they dislike. Yet even Israel's most sophisticated public diplomacy efforts are struggling to keep pace with the virality of raw documentation. Behind closed doors, the Israeli military is no longer merely worried about public relations; it is concerned about prosecution. The Israeli army has admonished soldiers for taking selfies and filming themselves demolishing Palestinian homes, warning that such material is now being harvested as evidence by international human rights organisations. Footage and images from social media have already been used by activists to target Israeli servicemen abroad. In a number of cases, Israeli citizens have had to flee countries they were visiting due to war crimes complaints filed against them. In the age of smartphones, the occupation is no longer just visible — it's indictable. In the past, Israel fought wars that it could explain. Now, it fights a battle it can only react to — often too belatedly and too clumsily. The smartphone captures what the missile conceals. Social media disseminates information that official briefings attempt to suppress. The haunting images, digitally preserved, ensure that we never forget any devastating atrocity, or act of brutality. Images of conflict do not just convey information; they can also redefine our perceptions and influence our political positions. The powerful 'Napalm Girl' photo that captured the aftermath of an attack by the US-allied South Vietnamese army on civilians during the Vietnam War had a profound impact on American society. It helped create a significant shift in public opinion regarding the war, accelerating the decision of the US government to end it. Today, in Gaza, the stream of powerful images does not stop. Despite Israel's best efforts, the global opinion is overwhelmingly against its genocidal war. Smartphones have completely changed the nature of conflict by putting a camera in the hands of every witness. In this new era, Israel struggles to defeat the relentless, unfiltered visual record of its crimes that calls for justice. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Arabiya
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Where is Iran headed after the ceasefire
On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced an Israel-Iran ceasefire, after 12 days of intense escalation between the warring sides. The peak of that escalation came when US forces struck three sensitive Iranian nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – with precision strikes. These three sites are considered the backbone of Iran's nuclear program. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. Amid the flurry of analyses, this announcement appeared as a pivotal moment that warrants pause and reflection – not just as a step to de-escalate tensions, but also to understand Iran's place within the complex regional and global landscape. Since Khomeini's revolution in 1979, Iran has presented itself as the center of resistance forces in the Middle East. It built a political narrative based on standing firm against external pressures and supported anti-Western movements. It began with the hostage-taking of 52 American embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days and went on to directly target American interests in the region, all while chanting anti-US slogans and labeling it the 'Great Satan.' This approach undeniably granted Tehran influence within certain radical circles in the region, but on the flip side, it placed Iran in ongoing confrontation with its regional and global surroundings, leading to growing isolation – an isolation whose greatest cost was borne by the Iranian people. American writer Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York Times two days ago that Iran chose from the beginning to align itself with the 'resistance axis' that thrives on conflict, in contrast to other regional powers that bet on development, integration, and prosperity. While Tehran may have made some military progress, Friedman argues that the losses it has sustained – economically, socially, and diplomatically – far outweigh any gains. While internal burdens piled up inside Iran, neighboring moderate states were achieving growth indicators and strengthening their diplomatic presence as influential players on the global stage. Iran's insistence on its nuclear program stands as one of the clearest manifestations of the path it has chosen. The program is no longer just a subject of international suspicion – it has become a real threat to Iran itself before even threatening its neighbors. Today, the world no longer views nuclear capabilities as symbols of deterrence or admiration, but rather with suspicion – especially when such capabilities are tied to a vague political ideology and tense regional relations. How can a country demand the trust of the international community while simultaneously raising the level of threat to such heights? And how can anyone feel assured about a nation that operates under the logic that the only guarantee for survival is the pursuit of destructive tools? The truth is, the core issue does not lie in the nuclear program itself as much as it lies in the mentality behind it – a mentality focused on amassing power rather than pursuing development, seeking deterrence more than integration, and fearing its own people more than its adversaries. Unless there is a genuine transformation in this mindset, there will be little difference between the end of one war and the beginning of another, because the core of its political thinking will remain unchanged. Today, development is no longer a secondary option – it has become the most important benchmark for political legitimacy and the compass by which nations measure their ability to progress and maintain stability. Iran possesses the necessary resources to become a powerful regional economic force – if it chooses that path. But this will not happen without deep internal introspection and a redefinition of what 'power' means within its political discourse. The ceasefire, as announced by Trump, is not a victory for any side so much as it is a moment of reckoning. Tehran can either seize it as a beginning for a calm inward shift, or remain trapped in cycles of escalation and retreat, of withdrawal and suspicion – of both external and internal matters alike. At this crossroads, the true weight of nations is not measured by the number of ballistic missiles they possess, but by the clarity of their vision and their capacity to foster hope. Yes, the Iranian revolution has endured for 46 years, but the seismic blows its expansionist projects have suffered in the past two years reveal that this endurance is turning into a burden. What remains of the revolution should, ideally, be translated into a nation-building project – not into further siege and paranoia. Today, countries are measured by what they deliver to their people… not by what fear they instill in others.
New York Times
18-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Tom Friedman: ‘This Is One of the Most Remarkable Dramas in the Middle East'
By Thomas L. Friedman and Daniel J. Wakin Produced by Vishakha Darbha As tensions between Iran and Israel escalate, questions are mounting about America's role in the conflict and how President Trump should navigate the crisis. In this episode of 'The Opinions,' Dan Wakin, the deputy international editor for Times Opinion, speaks with the columnist Tom Friedman to discuss Trump's next moves, Iran's regime and Israel's intentions in the Middle East. (A full transcript of this audio essay will be available within 24 hours of publication in the audio player above.) Thoughts? Email us at theopinions@ This episode of 'The Opinions' was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud. Original music by Pat McCusker and Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
