OPINION

Global power play

Re: "China and fulcrum of peace, security", (Opinion, Sept 12).

A week ago, on Sept 23, China reportedly fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from a mobile vehicle on Hainan Island after a 44-year lapse. The US, having been informed by China before the test launch, reacted cautiously and rather quietly. Neither has the Western media used it as a headline against China as they usually do. The implication, however, is crucial to the balance of global military power.

ICBM is one of the three ways of launching nuclear bombs, the other two being via submarine or airplane that the US used against Japan in World War II.

This timely ICBM test probably aims to ensure a strategic deterrence against the West. The Dong Feng 35A travelled close to the sky over Lusong Island in the Philippines, sending a clear message to the US plans to deploy medium-range missiles on the Philippine Island of Luzon and to Israel who threatened China on Sept 19 by bombing areas close to China's UN peacekeeping camp in Lebanon.

All five permanent members of the UN Security Council have recently test-launched their ICBMs with mixed results. Last November, the US failed to test launch its Minuteman III ICBM. In February this year, the UK failed to launch a US-made Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine for the second time in a row. Russia's Salmach missile also failed its test on Sept 21.

With China's military power beginning to override the US, the latter will find it more difficult and dangerous to provoke China by stirring up more issues around Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The world will be able to breathe some fresh air when the US and its Nato allies realise that they have to rebuild their ageing nuclear deterrent weapons. But what they have to do first is to mend their fragile economy before they can fund their militaries. After all, as Bill Clinton says, it's the economy, stupid!

Cold calculus of war

Re: "Exploding pagers raise supply chain security fears", (Opinion, Sept 25).

In the 1970s, a popular novel called The Godfather was made into a hit movie. In it, gangsters would say about the people they killed: "Nothing personal. Just business."

That reminds me of the Israelis who, after slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, say in effect: Nothing personal. We're just trying to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah.

BoT's legal identity

Re: "Central bank legacy", (PostBag, Sept 19).

Khun Songdej Praditsmanont who has expertise in the financial domain, gave a useful brief history of the Bank of Thailand (BoT).

According to the BoT, a juristic person is a state agency that is neither a government agency nor a state enterprise under the law on budgetary procedure and other laws. The BoT, as a juristic person, also functions as an institutional investor. Clearly, the juristic person at the root of the BoT serves as a state agency, enjoying the legal protections offered in that capacity.

However, I found it impossible to discover what or who constitutes that juristic person. Is it a corporation, a group of corporate entities, individuals, trusts or other parties? The 1942 Bank of Thailand Act reveals nothing about the juristic person, nor does the BoT's website or its balance sheet disclosures. Perhaps Khun Songdej could shed some light on this matter.

CONTACT: