The U.S. presidential bid started with 31 candidates counting Donald Trump the incumbent. The early round of campaign and fund raising filtered out half of the contenders quickly. The Democratic Caucasus and initial debates conditioned on sufficient fund raising support and decent voter opinion poll left six Democrats in the Jan. 14, 2020 Iowa debate hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register in Des Moines, Iowa. Andrew Young the Chinese American did not make into the debate as well as the last black candidate, Cory Booker (Senator from New Jersey) who formally dropped out of the race. The yellow mustang, Andrew Yang, with no political background but self-claiming as a ‘math’ guy, offered to save the U.S. from the robot revolution. He blamed the Democrat party for being not included in the Iowa debate. Currently, the top tickets are occupied by Joe Biden (former Vice President), Bernie Sanders (Senator, Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (Senator, Massachusetts), Pete Buttigieg (former Mayor of South-bend, Indiana), Amy Klobuchar (Senator, Minnesota) and Tom Steyer (Billionaire).
 
Andrew Yang did pass the first of the three criteria, 225,000 individual donors, ranking of 5% in four polls and 7% in two early voting states but failed the latter two. In the Iowa debate, all six candidates claim to be the right candidate to beat Trump in November than distinguish themselves from each other. The next three debates are scheduled on Feb. 7th sponsored by ABC at Anselm College, New Hampshire, Feb. 19, sponsored by NBC and MSNBC at Las Vegas, Nevada, and Feb. 25 by CBS, the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Twitter. At this moment, Andrew Young is the only non-white candidate in the race. No matter who emerges as the winner, it would seem to be a left-wing liberal facing Donald Trump who has a solid-minority right-wing supporters. One of the logistic issues in the debates is hinged on the Impeachment proceeding in the Senate since the three sitting Senators are supposed to be jurors in the Impeachment trial.
 
Besides the above presidential contenders, there is a low-key contender who appeals to the centrists or independents of the voter population in a different manner. That is Michael Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942, grew up in Medford, Massachusetts, graduate of John Hopkins and Harvard Business School), a billionaire (roughly $22B, founder and CEO of Bloomberg L.P., with experience and success in providing information technology and services to the financial industry) and former mayor of New York City (2002-2009). Bloomberg, seeking Democrat Party nomination started late and seemed to be taking an old-fashioned campaign methodology by touring the country meeting folks face to face. We will try to follow Bloomberg’s recent trail, to understand his political views and to assess whether he has a chance to win the U.S. 46th Presidency. On Mike Bloomberg’s campaign website, you find the slogan, “We can’t let Trump Win”, videos featuring him as a problem solver, effective Mayor and ambition to rebuild America as well as various news reports, “Bloomberg is spending $100M anti-Trump ad and spending $15-20M to register half million voters.” Bloomberg's history of political affiliation is Democrat (prior to 2001), Republic (2001-2007), Independent (2007-2018) and Democrat (2018-present); this is a very unique record which may attract the independent voters.
 
Bloomberg bets 2020 campaign on an unprecedented strategy. He will participate in Democratic primaries but will skip the earlier ones, Iowa and New Hampshire. His recent 17-hour touring around the country is executing that strategy; we will review some of the reports about this tour to get a feel of his campaign. He first visited a soybean farm in Minnesota where we could see how his strategy of “see it and be seen” was played out. Mr. Bloomberg held a round-table discussion with the Johnson family at their soybean farm in Wells, Minn. Bloomberg, speaking to the farmers, said, “you are the backbone of our country........It is easy for us living in big cities to forget about the rest of the world. .....You don’t see it everyday.” To be seen, Mr. Bloomberg climbed behind the wheel of the tractor — glistening with a fresh wax job from the proprietor’s teenage children (photo op for reporters) — then eventually back into a waiting vehicle bound for an airplane to somewhere else. Matt Flegenheimer, a Times reporter accompanied Bloomberg in his tour remarked in his report: “There is a way that people generally run for president. And there is whatever Mr. Bloomberg is doing.” We take it meaning that Bloomberg's campaign is unconventional. Then Bloomberg was moving on to Chicago to assess and address economic growth and factory jobs issues. Bloomberg appears to be campaigning with greater efficiency in mind (Flegenheimer's statement) as well as generating useful video footage for advertising since advertising seems to be his campaign focus (this author's observation). The gathering in Chicago might suggest that Bloomberg might have a constituency outside of Manhattan, as a woman shouted out: “We need somebody like you!” and Bloomberg replied : ”If you say so.”
 
Mr. Bloomberg's final stop of the tour was in Ohio which has a primary day of March 17. Bloomberg accepted the endorsement of Mayor Daniel Horrington of Akron. He drew a few hundred people at the city's Innovation Club. He autographed baseballs for eager attendees. One Akron Bloomberg fan remarked that “He needs to get out there. Call in, go on CNN, get your face out there. But so far more likely Bloomberg can only be seen during a commercial break on his ad. Bloomberg is not a gifted politician as reported by Flegenheimer. He is betting that “his zag-while-they-zig electoral strategy and functionally bottomless resources can make him the standard-bearer of a Democratic Party whose 2020 primary has been defined in part by progressive disdain for the billionaire class.” Two very graphical descriptions were used to depict his presidential bid: 1.“Mr. Bloomberg is a chess-master (grand strategy) whose opponents play checkers (jump step by step).” and 2. “he is more accurately working to bury the (game) board with a gusher of cash (used in campaign and ads) so overpowering that everyone forgets how the game was always played in the first place”. Up to this point, it is not obvious that either one is a good description for Mr. Bloomberg's Presidential campaign.
​
In my opinion, despite of the Impeachment, President Trump holds a solid support from the republican voters. The democrats need a revolution but can’t find a revolutionary leader. Biden is a baggage person who cannot shake off the Obama heritage. Sanders is too much a replay of his 2016 theme; he can’t excite people. The rest of candidates are busy attacking Trump's Administration than delivering substantive solutions for the country as evidenced by the Iowa debate. Bloomberg made a remark that the two early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, among most homogeneous (race) states in the nation, dominated the candidates time and resources. This is unfair to the African Americans, Latino, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, especially the electoral weight of Iowa and New Hampshire is relatively insignificant. Bloomberg called for changes; it might be too late for 2020 but he had made a good point. By skipping these two states, Bloomberg saves resources for the other primaries. It remains to be seen whether Bloomberg's strategy will win him the Democratic Nomination by focusing on ads to win primaries. Not like other candidates, how to debate Trump is not on his mind until he won the nomination. Thus, his chance to win the presidential bid hinges on his strategy of touring the country, creating local news and spending ads to win primaries.
 


​

 
The US-China Relation is at the lowest point since the U.S. recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only China representing the Chinese people and her sovereignty in 1979. The current trade war initiated by the U.S. against China is fermenting the US-China relation into a hot bed for hostile competition short of declaring each other as enemy. On the whole, the U.S. is the initiator of accusation and hostile actions based on rhetoric such as China conducted unfair practices in trade, investment, technology acquisition and development. As China rises in economy, her warm relationship with countries in Africa and Asia as well as her sovereignty assertion in East China Sea (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS) appear to be a challenge to the U.S. The trade and technology competition are escalated to military competition. The crux of the matter – how to deal with US-China Competition - lies in how the U.S. diagnoses China’s intention and develops her China policy and how China analyzes the U.S. objective in Asia and develops her US policy.
 
In the U.S., there are two opposing assumptions made about China. One, China has aspiration to dominate the world becoming the world leader. World history offered many examples such as the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. However, in Chinese history, only Mongolians had conquered China and invaded into West Asia and Europe. Mongolians lost their aspiration to dominate the world when absorbed into the Chinese race. The second assumption is that China was bullied for more than one hundred years by the Western powers and her neighbor Japan and Russia. China is ultra sensitive to being bullied again thus striving to be strong and competitive. Not like the U.S. having no serious competitor within arm’s length geographically, China is surrounded by strong competitors like Russia, Japan, Korea, India and Vietnam in Indochina. If the U.S. or Russia would ever target China as the strong competitor or as an enemy, what would China do? Judging from China’s history and her large population, China would never accept being bullied, likely putting up a strong fight to defend herself from any aggressor!
 
The U.S. viewed the Communist Soviet Union as a serious threat since WW II but never viewed China as a threat, not even during Korean and Vietnam Wars. China actually was instrumental to ending those US wars which hurt the U.S. economy. China also aligned with the U.S. in ending the Cold War succeeded in 1990. What has changed? The obvious answer is that China has risen economically and in contrast the U.S. is stressed in her economy after switching from a manufacturing dominated to a financial service led economy. The U.S. has achieved the superpower status after WW II and has become the only superpower in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US dominating position in Europe (the leader of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defending Europe) and her solid hold in Asia (having Japan and South Korea bonded by mutual defense alliances) have made the U.S. the de facto world leader allowing her to handle most international affairs freely despite of the existence of the United Nations.
 
The post Cold War development of the relationship between the U.S. and China can be traced along two tracks. China placed her first priority on economic development with the objective of lifting her people from poverty; more specifically with the goal to become a member of the West dominated World Trade Organization (WTO). China developed friendly trade relations with the entire world particularly with the U.S., the EU as well as Asian and African nations. The U.S., on the other hand, assumed the world leader role exerting her power in world affairs under the banner of keeping world peace. The U.S. was perhaps sincere in maintaining world peace but her approach tend to be unilateral sometimes placing her national interest above all other objectives, for example in settling acute conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. China believed in developing her economy along with the world. The two different tracks China and the U.S. were pursuing led to the current situation: China has risen economically as the world second largest economy gaining good wills and friendship with many countries, especially with the third world; whereas the U.S. has gained an unwanted reputation as a war initiator rather than a peacekeeper gradually losing her influence in the world.
 
The U.S. and China should not behave emotionally rather they should adopt a rational policy to resolve the competition between the two great nations. In today’s world, great powers possess devastating nuclear weapons. The Ancient Greek Thucydides Theory cannot be a rational choice or a destiny in international competition. Human intelligence must be able to take a Smart, Skilled and Silent approach to deal with world affairs settling conflicts and competition among nations and great powers. Let’s call this a 3 ‘S’ strategy. The fact that the current US-China relation is deteriorating is because of wrong assumptions made and mistrust developed between each other. Making threats and taking bullying actions can only increase mistrust unable to turn back the clock or undo the deeds. What must be done is to honestly reassess the assumptions and resolve mistrust. Is China really destined to dominate the world replacing the U.S.? Is the U.S. really a war monger always settling world issues through military actions?
 
The U.S. China policy taking a turn from open engagement to unfriendly competition had its reasons. However, painting China as an aggressive, threatening and dangerous nation is not a smart policy. If the picture were true, then there would be no need to add untrue fabrication to the picture. If it were not true then painting such a picture would lead to a hostile relation begging for war and mutual destruction. China has indeed risen; there will be competition between China and the U.S. Both the U.S. and China must handle it smartly, skillfully and silently. The current trade war and rhetoric are not productive. A tariff war will not produce winner as the U.S. Administration claims. When rhetoric is increased with bullying language and action (‘everything goes’ and ‘nothing is barred’) can only worsen the relationship gaining no purpose. When the US sanction laws are unilaterally applied to China’s international corporations (the arrest of Ms Meng, CFO of Huawei) it does not help the US reputation in the global arena. The U.S. and China must recognize that healthy competition and beneficial collaboration can coexist.
 
We will discuss below why the U.S. and China should take a Smart, Skillful and Silent (3 ‘S’) approach to deal with competition and why the 3 ‘S’ strategy is the only healthy strategy to guide the US and China to cope with competition in a healthy way.
 
The US-China competition is very complex and must be dealt with smartly. The competition is not a simple trade issue or an economic issue (complex economic development model); it extends to technology competition and more fundamentally to many domains, education, philosophy, governance and sociology (healthcare, retirement and lifestyle). China always wanted to reform and seek for solutions for nation building. But she has her special interests groups and unique problems. China has the responsibility to evaluate the applicability of any system she may adopt. So there is mutual dependency and reliance in all competitions. Tariff war does not produce winner, Mutual exploration of technology to find market place is a smart way to produce win-win outcome. The US-China competition should not be treated as a Cold War competition either; otherwise it would lead to arms race and mutual destruction. Using Taiwan Travel Act, Taiwan Assurance Act, etc to pressure China is not a smart way to eliminate competition, no physical benefit to the U.S. It is absurd that the U.S. Congress would introduce bills meddling in China’s domestic issue and not encourage China to create legislation based on her Constitution to resolve the cross-strait reunification issue. The unilateral American First approach did not fare well lately and would not work well with China competition either. The U.S. should work skillfully to discharge competition and turn it into mutually beneficial collaboration, for example in the education and healthcare domains. While two countries are focusing on their own problems and develop technic solutions, it is smart to keep the other country’s problems in mind and skillfully channel one country’s solution to work for another country’s problems.  The U.S.-China competition is not a life or death competition. Vocal rhetoric only creates false emotional outbursts. With competition and collaboration coexisting, competition should be conducted silently focusing on data not political rhetoric, such as import export figures, job employment numbers, graduation rate in STEM areas, patents issued, GDP numbers, etc. Focusing on indisputable data leads to healthy competition that produces progress in human civilization.  
 
The citizens of both the U.S. and China are peace loving people, the above 3 ‘S’ Strategy is an obvious approach to manage a healthy competition and guide it into a healthy relationship. The political analysts and think tank fellows specialized in the U.S. and China relations in both countries should give this 3 ‘S’ a serious consideration.
 
 

 
Carlos Ghosh (64) was the CEO of three international auto corporations, Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi Motor. He was arrested in Japan on November 19, 2018 at the Haneda airport, when he was flying in his private Gulf Stream jet to Japan to attend a board meeting where he was going to call for a vote to remove the CEO he promoted, Horton Saikawa and reinstate his aide Kelly. He was arrested on the grounds of false accounting and his close aide, Greg Kelly, a retired Director and former head of Human Resources, was also detained. Ghosn was allowed to stay in his Tokyo apartment with a hefty bail $13.8 M. The news of Ghosn’s arrest was very significant in business world in 2018 but his Hollywood style escape from Japan under heavy surveillance on the day before New Year Eve (12-30-2019) was mysterious and dramatic, not surprisingly appeared on headlines on most world-wide media. Although Ghosn’s escape plot is an intrigue story involving a former American Green Beret, Michael Taylor, deserving media’s and readers’ attention, but his career peaked as an CEO of multiple international corporations simultaneously tells more than an CEO’s greed and power as presented by the Japanese prosecutors. Ghosn’s case clearly demonstrated the problems of global corporate governance, executive compensation, employee protection, and cultural clash under different political systems and business philosophies. Thus, it is worthwhile for us to trace beyond Ghosn’s personal successful career and his intriguing escape from Japan to Lebanon (now an Interpol wanted man) to launch a discussion on some of the larger issues mentioned above.
 
Ghosn was born in Porto Velho, Rondonia, Brazil (1954) and moved to Rio de Janeiro in 1956 then returned to Lebanon at six with his family. He was educated in Lebanon and later studied in France at prestigious Lycee Saint-Louis and the Ecole Polytechnique to become an engineer. He started his career in tire business and worked his way up in Michelin, becoming its COO of South America at age of 30 returning Michelin-SA to profit. With effort in mastering English, he then became the COO of North America for Michelin in 1989 and CEO in 1990 overseeing the restructuring after Michelin acquired Uniroyal Goodrich Tyre Company. The Ghosns lived in Greenville, North Carolina. In 1996, Ghosn became the Executive VP of Renault’s Research, Engineering and Manufacturing and President of its South America Division and in a year he became the first CEO of the privatized Renault with a successful restructuring operation. In March 1999, Renault and Nissan formed an alliance, then Renault purchased 36.8% of Nissan (May 19999) Ghosn as CEO of Renault assumed COO of Nissan (6/1999) and became President in June 2000 and CEO in June 2001 after successfully accomplished a Nissan Revival Plan (achieved profitability of 4.5% and debt reduction from $5.6B to $2.76B) by cutting 21,000 jobs (14% in Japan), eliminating age/seniority promotion, abolish Nissan Suppliers crosslink relationship (earned him a nick name as keiretsu killer), and changed corporate language from Japanese to English. Nissan returned to profit and debt was reduced to half. Then Ghosn introduced the 180 plan (1 million vehicles, 8% profit and 0 debt) to be accomplished by 2005, which were all being met under his leadership.
 
Ghosn’s success drew attention in the auto industry. Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian bought 9.8% of GM in 2005 with intention to get Ghosn to be the new CEO but the plan was rebuffed by the GM Board. Next year, Ford offered CEO to Ghosn but he refused for not getting both the Chairman and the CEO positions. In the mean time, Ghosn embarked a push for zero emission vehicles and made Nissan as the world leader in electric cars, twice as big as Tesla’s sales in 2017. Renault invested in Russia AvtoVAZ and bought 25% share, Ghosn became chairman of AvtoVAZ from 6/2012 to 6/2016 making him the chief of several international corporations including two in the Fortune 500 list. In October 2016, Nissan bought 34% of Mitsubishi Motors, which later chaired, making the alliance group to be the 4th world largest auto group next to Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors. Ghosn was the 4th foreigners to be CEO of a Japanese company (the other three were appointed by Ford to run Mazda). While Ghosn was successful in restructuring, his actions certainly have irked other Japanese corporate executives and employees as well as challenged some Japanese social and cultural norms. These elements probably brought his demise. Ghosn did announce in February 2017 his plan of stepping down from Nissan CEO position as of 4/1/2017 but remaining as Chairman and promoting his protege, Horton Saikawa, to be the CEO. However, Ghosn was removed from his Nissan Chairman position as of November 26, 2018.
 
The charges made against Ghosn by Nissan and the Japanese prosecutors included using Nissan funds ($18M) for purchasing his residences in Paris ($5M), Beirut, Amsterdam and Rio de Janeiro ($15M), setting up shell companies in Netherlands for making investments with Nissan funds, under reporting of income with complicated deferred income payment schemes and various financial accounting problems. Ghosn till this day claim innocence, however, he did settle with the U.S. SEC to pay $1M fine for failing to report $140M Nissan pay barring him to serve as director for any US public company. Ghosn’s lavish life style and a salary equal to 240 times of that of a Renault employee and 11 times of that of Toyota chairman illustrate a fundamental issue in applying the American corporate culture to Japan and China. China and Japan both have a legitimate corporation law in many ways similar to the Western system but what is different is how these laws operate in the Asian societies with their unique political system and cultural background. Japan is not a communist country but she has a similar philosophy regarding protecting jobs and employees like China does.
 
We should not look at Ghosn’s case as a simple personal greed or financial accounting fraud case. When Ghosn cut 21000 jobs (3000 in Japan) and abolished lifetime employment system in Renault-Nissan, he should have realized that he was challenging the Japanese culture and its society. Changing corporate language from Japanese to English not only will not educate the Japanese to accept the Western business philosophy but will further increase resentment of the Japanese employees. Calling Nissan’s action against Ghosn as treason or coup or jealousy or corruption is a gross simplification of the deep problems existed in the international conglomerates operating world-wide especially in Asia, South America and Africa. As China is rising as a giant economy trying to establish and manage her global corporations as Japan did in the past decades facing competition with American corporations, it is advisable for the U.S., Japan and China to take the Ghosn career as a case study to examine the deep issues of corporate governance for global conglomerates. Perhaps, the young successful Conglomerate, Huawei, should be used as a reference for such a study.



​