tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165799342024-03-29T11:28:52.054+08:00Think PositiveWhen someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.comBlogger8402125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-15710671257745150372024-02-16T13:03:00.001+08:002024-02-16T13:03:24.398+08:00Global South shows it’s ready to challenge unfair US-led world order<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal">Peter T.C Chang</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The recent G77 summit calling for global governance reform
and South Africa’s ICJ genocide case against Israel underline developing
nations’ distaste for – and willingness to act against – the Western-centric
global order</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With its diminishing soft power, the US remains resolved to
preserve its dominance by leveraging hard power. Meanwhile, nations in the
Global South must persevere in transforming the current world order through
peaceful means.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Harvard University president Claudine Gay has resigned after
a firestorm of controversies, including claims of her inadequate response to
antisemitism on campus, yet the Gaza crisis remains a hot-button issue at the
university. Administrators are now wrestling with the daunting task of
safeguarding freedom of speech amid growing concerns about rising antisemitism
and Islamophobia.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the battlefield, there is no restraint on inflammatory
rhetoric, as extremists from both sides have vowed the total destruction of the
other. For instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s citation of a
biblical reference to Amalek was widely condemned as an explicit call for the
extermination of the Palestinian people.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Netanyahu’s
invocation emerged as evidence in South Africa’s case accusing Israel of
committing genocide in Gaza. Ruling on the case last month, the United Nations’
highest judiciary body did not call for a ceasefire, but instead ordered Israel
to take measures preventing any acts of genocide.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As anticipated, the ICJ’s ruling has had minimal impact on
Israel’s strategy. Netanyahu persists in rejecting a two-state solution and
continues to wage a relentless military assault.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Following the US air strikes in Iraq and Syria, in
retaliation for the loss of three American soldiers in Jordan, the Gaza crisis
is in danger of escalating into a wider regional conflict.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Though South Africa failed to secure a ceasefire in Gaza,
its case against Israel at The Hague is a pivotal moment with broad
significance: it signals the readiness of the Global South to challenge the
existing Western-dominated international order that it perceives as unfair.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thought-provoking commentary and Op-ed content, curated
daily by our world-class editorial team.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In January, the Group of 77 developing countries, including
China, gathered in Uganda to advocate for reform of the global governance
system that they say must better mirror the realities of today’s world.
Addressing the summit, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres remarked that the
current international system is “out of date, out of time, and out of step,
reflecting a bygone age when many of your countries were colonised”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also at the summit, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni urged
his fellow leaders from the developing world to “work collectively to ensure
that we achieve an international economic order that is just and equitable”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The G77 push for change reflects the continued trajectory
initiated by China’s ascent, fostering social-economic uplift in the Global
South, and progressively shifting the global economic centre of gravity away
from the West. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Gaza crisis, especially the South African case against
Israel, represents another significant reconfiguration in the geopolitical
sphere – namely, the gradual displacement of the presumed stature of the US as
the central custodian of global peace.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The roles of Kampala and Pretoria highlight two distinct
aspects in the ongoing reconfiguration of the world order. While China is often
portrayed as the primary instigator, the G77 summit and South Africa’s advocacy
in the ICJ reveal that other nations are equally eager to reshape the US-led
order.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly, there exists a de facto division of labour,
with China spearheading the economic transformation while countries like Uganda
and South Africa strive to bring about a fairer and more just global governance
system.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">America is not passively accepting these reconfigurations,
however. In response to its relative decline in the economic domain, the US is
waging an extensive trade and technology war to contain China’s rise.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the geopolitical sphere, notwithstanding a foreign policy
tainted by moral ambiguity, President Joe Biden still upholds the perception of
America as a force for good. Similarly, the Republican Party, especially its
religious right-wing, maintains a steadfast conviction in the US’ manifest
destiny as a “city upon a hill”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That said, should Donald Trump return to power, he would be
less inclined to grandstand morally. Instead, he is more likely to pursue his
MAGA vision with an amoral zeal.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Without question, the US maintains military superiority even
amid a decline in its economic and geopolitical standing. Following the
setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington has become more hesitant to deploy
ground troops. Still, the US military retains the capacity to inflict
substantial damage through proxy wars and remote bombing missions, as
demonstrated by the ongoing air strikes against Iran-backed militias.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Biden’s military response to the escalating Middle East
crisis shows that, despite its diminishing soft power, the US remains
determined to utilise its hard power to sustain global dominance.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The former Harvard Kennedy School dean Joseph Nye, who
popularised the term “soft power” in the late 1980s, recently drew a parallel
between the campus unrest over Harvard’s response to the Gaza war and the
protests during the Vietnam era in the late 1960s. However, Nye said that the
campus violence he experienced during the Vietnam war was worse.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nonetheless, in Gaza, the horrific violence inflicted on the
Palestinian people continues. According to experts, the relentless Israeli
bombardments of the Gaza strip now rank among the deadliest and most
destructive in recent history. And as the US continues its retaliatory strikes
in the Middle East, there is grave concern that the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is expanding into a broader regional war.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ICJ ruling did not halt the bloodshed in Gaza but the
global community must continue to support South Africa’s efforts to hold Israel
accountable for the atrocities committed against Palestinians. On a broader
scale, countries of the Global South must leverage the G77 momentum and
persevere in transforming the prevailing Western-centric world order into a
more equitable one, all achieved through peaceful means.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Peter T.C. Chang is a research associate at the Institute of
China Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia</i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><br /></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><a href="https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/world/article/3252000/global-south-shows-its-ready-challenge-unfair-us-led-world-order?utm_source=rss_feed">Article</a><br /></i></p><p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-90493381661716077702023-09-17T19:47:00.004+08:002023-09-17T19:47:44.850+08:00Experts debunk myth that Chinese buyers drive up Australian property prices<p>Jonathan Pearlman</p><p>For years, Australians have blamed soaring property prices on an influx of cashed-up Chinese property buyers.</p><p>A survey in July, for instance, found that 73 per cent of Australians believed that “foreign buyers from China drive up Australian housing prices”, with only 8 per cent believing that Chinese buyers do not add to prices and 19 per cent expressing a neutral view. </p><p>Carried out by the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, the survey also found that 78 per cent of Australians believe the amount of Chinese investment in residential real estate should be restricted, with 8 per cent disagreeing and 14 per cent expressing neutrality.</p><p>But it turns out that Chinese investment has had little to no effect on Australia’s decades-long property boom.</p><p>A new study published in June in the journal Housing Studies examined how Beijing’s 2017 crackdown on money leaving China affected property prices in each of Sydney’s 678 suburbs.</p><p>Eighteen months after the crackdown, which led to a fall in overall Chinese investment in Australia, restrictions had caused prices to drop by 3 per cent in areas with Chinese communities, but had no impact on property prices elsewhere.</p><p>Associate Professor Song Shi from the University of Technology Sydney, co-author of the study, said the impact of Chinese investors in Australia has been “much less – and less widespread – than many Australians think”.</p><p>“Our findings... suggest ongoing concerns about Chinese capital and Chinese investors driving up Australian home prices and exacerbating affordability problems are overstated,” he wrote last Monday in The Conversation, a website that publishes research and analyses by academics.</p><p>Other researchers had similar findings.</p><p>Dr Mona Chung, the director of consulting firm Cross Culture International who in 2017 conducted a study of the impact of Chinese investment in Australia, said perceptions of Chinese buyers driving up Australian property prices is a “media myth” that dates back decades.</p><p>She said the myth emerged as China grew wealthier and its citizens were able to afford to buy property in Australia.</p><p>“You had no Chinese buying houses in Australia, and then you had pockets of Chinese buying in areas in Sydney and Melbourne – they became more noticeable,” she told The Straits Times.</p><p>“People often look for a cause of blame for why they can’t do something (such as buy a house).” </p><p>Property prices in Australia have been soaring in recent decades. </p><p>In Sydney, the average house price increased from A$166,000 in 1993 to A$1.36 million (S$1.19 million) today. The average price of an apartment soared during this period as well, from A$163,000 to A$822,000.</p><p>In Melbourne, the average house price rose from A$117,000 in 1993 to A$925,000 today. Apartment prices increased from A$116,000 to A$604,000.</p><p>These increases happened to occur as Chinese migration began to surge.</p><p>Since 2011, China has been one of the largest sources of migrants to Australia. As at June 2021, Australia had 596,000 China-born residents, an increase of 208,000 since 2011.</p><p>Of Australia’s 26.8 million residents, about 1.4 million have Chinese ancestry.</p><p>This Chinese influx has often been blamed for the property boom even though, according to analysts, it has played a minor – if any – role in the price surges.</p><p>Dr Shane Oliver, the chief economist at financial services company AMP, said public debate in Australia often focuses on “nice, simple explanations” for the property boom, such as Chinese buyers, tax incentives for property owners and investors, or rules regulating land development.</p><p>But he said the surges in prices were primarily due to two factors: “The shift from high to low interest rates, and the fundamental shortfall of supply relative to demand.</p><p>“Blaming house price rises on foreigners is attractive to some people, but it doesn’t stack up,” he told ST.</p><p>“When you look at the overall housing finance numbers at times when house prices surge, the surge is usually due to domestic borrowers getting money from domestic banks.”</p><p>He added: “Foreign buyers have an impact on property prices, but it is relatively minor.”</p><p>Dr Chung believes the frosty ties between Canberra and Beijing in recent years may have caused people in Australia to be more likely to accept the myth that Chinese buyers have fuelled a housing boom.</p><p>“Blaming Chinese buyers is not new, but in the last few years, the reason for it has become more political,” she said.</p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-36462745803880845402023-09-17T16:13:00.002+08:002023-09-17T16:35:11.587+08:00Love(less) In China: Why Aren’t Young Chinese Getting Married? | Insight...<iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/T0wgBREqV8g?si=34Vtn9MgfFDQ0bgo" width="480"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div>She met over 100 guys but didn’t find love. In China, marriage is pie in the sky for many more</div><div><br /></div><div>With the country’s marriage rate at an all-time low, the programme Insight explores the factors in play, from the changing attitudes of young Chinese to the cost of housing, and how authorities and parents are trying to reverse the trend.</div><div><br /></div><div>Last year, as her career took off following her move to Shanghai, China’s financial capital, finance executive Zhao Miaomiao felt it was time to look for a significant other.</div><div><br /></div><div>So she went on a series of blind dates. Using a dating app, she met “quite a lot” of guys in person — more than 100 — within three to four months.</div><div><br /></div><div>After they all struck out with her, she “realised that finding a partner is a really difficult task”.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The first thing (guys) look at is whether the woman is attractive. And then they proceed to understand her personality and family background,” said the 28-year-old.</div><div><br /></div><div>“However, … (women) prioritise the sincerity of the man. For example, they hope that the man who pursues them demonstrates effort and sincerity.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Over in Beijing, media executive Liu Shutong has a boyfriend, but “it doesn’t matter” to her whether she gets married or not in future.</div><div><br /></div><div>“First of all, what I want is to live in the present,” she declared. And that is a general attitude she sees among her peers.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Nowadays, young people prioritise their current happiness, embracing a hedonistic lifestyle,” said the 24-year-old, who herself takes pleasure in ballet, yoga and shopping with friends. “We feel that … whether you choose marriage or not, you’re still happy.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Whether by choice or otherwise, more young Chinese clearly are not getting married. In the past decade, the number of marriages has halved. Last year, 6.83 million couples tied the knot — an all-time low since records began in 1986.</div><div><br /></div><div>Compared with Singapore, where 6.5 marriages per 1,000 residents were registered in 2021, the corresponding figure in China was 5.4 marriages per 1,000 people.</div><div><br /></div><div>Among the urban youth, 44 per cent of Chinese women do not plan to marry, compared with nearly a quarter of the men, according to a 2021 survey conducted by the Communist Youth League.</div><div><br /></div><div>While a decline in marriage has become a global phenomenon — almost 90 per cent of the world’s population live in countries with falling marriage rates — and the reasons can be complex, there are also particular factors in play in China.</div><div><br /></div><div>The programme Insight finds out what is getting in the way of young Chinese finding love, and the different ways the authorities — and parents — are trying to reverse the trend.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A GROWING MISMATCH</b></div><div><br /></div><div>One person who can offer an insight into why young Chinese are not coupling up is professional matchmaker Qian Lei, 27.</div><div><br /></div><div>“In general, if a man tries to find a partner in the matchmaking market, he may say he doesn’t need a rich or beautiful woman, but he’s actually picky,” she said.</div><div><br /></div><div>“He’s looking for someone who gives him a good first impression, and this is when he becomes more selective.”</div><div><br /></div><div>As to why girls may reject a guy, it may be “because he doesn’t meet their height requirements”, said Qian. “Girls tend to value height a lot, and they often prefer guys who are at least 1.7 metres tall.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Such eligibility “criteria” may seem superficial but are one aspect of the changing views on love and marriage in China.</div><div><br /></div><div>The country’s rapid development has also created a mismatch between what men and women want in marriage, with China’s social conservatism at odds with decades of female empowerment.</div><div><br /></div><div>“China’s transition from traditional to modern values has been very short. Other countries and regions may have taken 50 or 100 years, but we’ve experienced this phenomenon in just 20 to 30 years,” said sociologist Zhu Hong at Nanjing University.</div><div><br /></div><div>Prior to 1999, when the government decided to expand the higher education system, women made up as little as 20 per cent of university admissions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Female enrolment has since overtaken male enrolment at universities, hovering at 52 per cent for some years now. Accordingly, women’s economic independence has increased, and Mao Zedong’s famous phrase, “women hold up half the sky”, has become a reality.</div><div><br /></div><div>But gender roles have not kept up with women’s socio-economic status — “all the housework” and the responsibility for child-rearing will fall mainly to them after marriage, said Jean Yeung, a Provost-Chair Professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The opportunity cost of getting married is really, really high for a woman these days. And so, since marriage is no longer a necessity, a lot of women hesitate to go in (on it).”</div><div><br /></div><div>The difference between what men and women want is especially clear in the cities, added Hang Seng Bank (China) chief economist Wang Dan. “Most women are looking for love, and most men are looking for a wife.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The difference in their purpose also causes a very different attitude. And we’ve seen a lot of frustration when it comes to closing the deal, on both sides, on whether they want to get married.”</div><div><br /></div><div>More time spent at school and the focus on careers also mean a delay in marriage, which is common as countries develop.</div><div><br /></div><div>But in China, this has led to the term “sheng nu” (leftover women), used to describe single women in their late 20s and 30s. They are deemed undesirable owing to fertility concerns over their age.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>THE ONE-CHILD POLICY</b></div><div><br /></div><div>China’s falling marriage rate could also be partly due to the one-child policy, which was implemented nationwide in 1980 and ended on Jan 1, 2016.</div><div><br /></div><div>A whole generation of only children “grew up on their own”, noted Wang. “Naturally, they’re more individualistic than the previous generations.”</div><div><br /></div><div>And according to one study by the Ohio State University, only children are less likely to get married, compared to those with siblings. Each additional sibling is associated with a 3 per cent increase in the odds of getting married.</div><div><br /></div><div>The argument is that siblings provide children with opportunities to negotiate conflict at home, which could help in navigating friendships and romantic relationships later in life.</div><div><br /></div><div>Only children are also likely to be more independent and value their alone time.</div><div><br /></div><div>“To establish a marriage, they have to give up a bit of their individuality, a bit of their freedom. They also need to pay attention to the needs of their partner,” said Zhu.</div><div><br /></div><div>But she doubts their ability to do so. “Being an only child is truly special. … Grandparents and other relatives revolve around the child. That’s why we call them ‘little sun,’” she said.</div><div><br /></div><div>“In this generation, when it comes to responsibility, selflessness and compromise, they may lack these social skills.”</div><div><br /></div><div>They may find a partner “too bothersome” instead. “That’s why there are so many young people nowadays who have cats and dogs as pets,” she added.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>THE "MOONLIGHT CLAN"</b></div><div><br /></div><div>As they chase individual desires, a growing number of Chinese youths are now calling themselves the “Moonlight clan”, or “yue guang zu”. “It usually refers to young people (who’ll) spend everything they earn every month,” said Wang.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Some of them are also deeply in debt because they now have access to online borrowing, (with) platforms like Alipay (and) JD Finance.”</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the youths who identify as part of the Moonlight clan is Liu. She told Insight: “People who spend all their money each month consider it normal not to have savings. And they don’t save.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Their live-for-today attitude leaves them ambivalent about the future. And as they delay financial security, they end up delaying marriage.</div><div><br /></div><div>“If you’re someone who lives a ‘pay cheque to pay cheque’ lifestyle, your potential partner might realise it isn’t a good fit,” said Qian.</div><div><br /></div><div>“In a way, it can be (a challenge) for a Moonlight clan person to find a partner. After all, building a life together involves managing finances.”</div><div><br /></div><div>According to a China Central Television report in 2021, two in five singles in China’s first-tier cities belong to the Moonlight clan. In fourth- and fifth-tier cities, 76 per cent of single young people blow their pay cheque every month.</div><div><br /></div><div>This adds up to a sizeable number, given that China had 220 million singles that year.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>THE ECONOMIC IMPACT</b></div><div><br /></div><div>China’s economic slowdown, coming hard on the heels of the pandemic, has compounded the situation. “Every time there are financial difficulties, the marriage rates are going to go down because people will usually delay these major life events,” said Yeung.</div><div><br /></div><div>Unemployment among Chinese urbanites aged 16 to 24 stands at more than 20 per cent, which is a record and higher than in most European countries.</div><div><br /></div><div>With the gloomy economic outlook, some men may be especially pessimistic about their marriage prospects.</div><div><br /></div><div>“They may think, as a man, they need to take responsibility for their wife and … their children. Suddenly, they realise they don’t have the budget,” said Yeung.</div><div><br /></div><div>In this regard, the cost of housing is “a big issue these days”. Studies have shown that when home prices go up, the number of marriages falls.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even for Chinese youths who are “serious about their financial stability” and still thinking of marriage, “the ability to save up for a house, for their children’s education and all of that … isn’t there”, added Yeung.</div><div><br /></div><div>China’s hustle culture known as “996” — which refers to working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. six days a week — has left young working adults, meanwhile, with hardly any time for themselves, much less the energy for a relationship.</div><div><br /></div><div>“You do have to feel a bit more sympathetic (about) their status now,” said Wang. “The economic cost and the pressure to maintain a balanced life are just so high.”</div><div><br /></div><div><b>"SWIPE LEFT, SWIPE RIGHT"</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Still, most Chinese youths have not given up on love. And many who are time-starved hope to get hitched with the help of dating apps.</div><div><br /></div><div>The three most popular platforms, Momo, Soul and Tantan, have over 150 million monthly active users in total as at last year.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a 2021 survey conducted by a Chinese research institute, 89 per cent of respondents said they had used a dating app before.</div><div><br /></div><div>“You’ll see and hear examples of success. People do find long-term partners or even husbands and wives,” said Wang. “But most of the time, it’s more like a social app. People get together, become friends or establish some short-term relationships.”</div><div><br /></div><div>There is also an argument that dating apps promote a hook-up culture, where users are interested in flings rather than something long-term. This has been Zhao’s experience, which led her to lament that guys “primarily consider” the sexual aspect.</div><div><br /></div><div>She had thought using a dating app would be an efficient process because of the “large user base”. But the platform is not quite a godsend to the loveless in China.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Dating apps give … the illusion that you’ll always have the next choice. Just swipe left, swipe right, then you’ll always have more choices down the line,” said Wang.</div><div><br /></div><div>“It doesn’t necessarily create more happiness among couples or among the young generation. But I guess it’s one of these new realities that China as a whole has to (become) accustomed to.”</div><div><br /></div><div><b>MATCHMAKING CORNERS</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Even as dating apps have increased in popularity, there is a reason that traditional methods remain important in China.</div><div><br /></div><div>“When you look at different surveys, the ways people meet a potential mate isn’t that different from 20 years ago. They still meet new people at work, through friends (and) through family,” cited Wang.</div><div><br /></div><div>Parental matchmaking in particular has seen a revival since the mid-2000s, when worried parents with dreams of becoming grandparents began organising matchmaking corners in city parks.</div><div><br /></div><div>Just like in a flea market, they advertised their children’s virtues, hoping to attract prospective takers.</div><div><br /></div><div>“This trend still continues … because for many of the urban young generation, they don’t have enough time to really get into the dating market (through) trial and error, basically,” said Wang.</div><div><br /></div><div>Matchmaking corners can be found in major Chinese cities, such as Guangzhou and Shanghai. In Beijing, one famous spot is Zhongshan Park, which artist Hao Wenxi, 35, knows well because his father used to frequent its matchmaking corner.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hao shared that he had been looking for Miss Right since his early 20s but was unlucky in love for almost eight years. “I met a lot of different people, but the chances of success were relatively low,” he said.</div><div><br /></div><div>“I didn’t know how to date. I didn’t know how to (be) charming and be emotionally present. I might’ve only known that I earn more than you. I own property.</div><div><br /></div><div>“It was really no different to dating 100 years ago — saying that you have cows and land.”</div><div><br /></div><div>But he wanted to find love, so he was game to try different dating options. He met around 20 to 30 people over a period of two to three years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dating apps yielded a mixed bag of results. Eventually, it was his father’s efforts in Zhongshan Park that paid off, and he met his current wife, a doctor. They dated for a year before tying the knot.</div><div><br /></div><div>They now have a four-year-old son and are thinking of having another child, perhaps in the next three or four years.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>EXTRA LEAVE AND OTHER NUDGES</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Hao’s happy ever after highlights one particular dimension to China’s concern over its falling marriage rate: If people do not get married, they do not have children.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The correlation between marriage and birth rates isn’t as strong (in Western society),” noted Wang. “People can still have children even if they aren’t married. … But in China, the correlation is almost 100 per cent.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Besides conservatism, the Hukou system — the household registration system that allows citizens to access healthcare and education — is one big reason why. Until recently, only married women were allowed to register their children.</div><div><br /></div><div>But last year, China’s population declined for the first time in six decades. And the falling marriage rate combined with an ageing population has the government fretting even more.</div><div><br /></div><div>So authorities are trying various means to encourage marriage and childbirth, including efforts to control house prices.</div><div><br /></div><div>By May last year, at least 13 Chinese cities were providing housing subsidies for families with multiple children. Local governments have also given one-time coupons to families for home purchases.</div><div><br /></div><div>More subsidies and incentives, said Yeung, would help young people to think they could settle down. Zhu has some ideas, such as “marriage housing” specifically for young people, which she believes the government may introduce “in the near future”.</div><div><br /></div><div>“If you’re willing to get married, then this house will be rented to you at a very low cost. If you’re willing to have children, perhaps this house will be sold to you at a very affordable price,” Zhu elaborated.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for falling in love in the first place, some schools have given students extra vacation time to socialise, while some companies have offered single female employees extra days of annual leave, for them to “go home and date”.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still, employees of enterprises in China are working, on average, 48.7 hours a week this year, even with the “996” work culture officially outlawed.</div><div><br /></div><div>While China’s labour laws now require companies to pay extra for hours worked beyond an eight-hour working day, “when it comes to the execution stage, … the 996 culture is still quite prevalent”, said Wang.</div><div><br /></div><div>“As a result, I think we’re now in this sort of … stalemate when it comes to the reality in dating.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Many other Asian countries have tried ways to improve marriage rates, with more failures than successes. It remains to be seen whether China will buck the trend.</div><div><br /></div><div>Zhao thinks it is “worth encouraging” youths who still believe in love. But for her part, she is having a break from the dating scene after using a matchmaker’s services on top of her use of dating apps.</div><div><br /></div><div>“I want a high-quality marriage. But the people I currently know can’t meet my expectations. So even though they want to be with me, I still reject them,” she said.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Being single is a good state for me right now. I enjoy my current single status, and I feel happy.”</div></div><div><br /></div>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-8673533150144881012023-08-02T10:35:00.004+08:002023-08-02T10:36:59.255+08:00US should drop pursuit of ‘American primacy’ in Southeast Asia<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Asia Society report says US should acknowledge it is ‘one of many regional actors’ and reduce ‘rules-based order’ rhetoric that Southeast Asians regard as hypocritical</li><li>US should consider joining CPTPP, RCEP trade alliances and explain what Joe Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework offers to region, report adds</li></ul><div><br /></div><div>Khushboo Razdan</div><div><br /></div><p></p><p>The US should abandon the idea of “American primacy” if it hopes to counter China’s sway in the “multi-actor” Southeast Asia region, the Asia Society has urged in a new report.</p><p>Observing that the region is now “genuinely multipolar, and China may, in fact, be the region’s primary power”, the report, titled Prioritizing Southeast Asia in American China Strategy and released on Tuesday, concluded that “America is only one of many regional actors”.</p><p>The report, a product of the society’s Centre on US-China Relations and the 21st Century China Centre at the University of California at San Diego, also advised Washington to “tone down rhetoric” about the international “rules-based order”.</p><p>“Southeast Asians see hypocrisy in such American protestations and view these as Western rules imposed on non-Western countries,” it noted.</p><p>Sitting on geographic chokepoints vital for global trade and transportation, Southeast Asia finds itself at the centre of competition for influence between Beijing and Washington.</p><p>And with US concerns over China’s expanding influence, preserving the rules-based order in favour of a free and open Indo-Pacific remains a key element of the strategy for the region developed by US President Joe Biden and his administration.</p><p>But in its recommendations, the report called on Washington to regard the region as more than a geopolitical arena.</p><p>“Southeast Asia should be seen and respected on its own intrinsic merits – and not viewed solely through the prism of Sino-American competition,” the report suggested, asking the US to “play to its strengths, be confident and proactive, and adopt a comprehensive and positive approach to the region – not just reactive to China”.</p><p>Walking a diplomatic tightrope, Southeast Asian nations have responded to the US-China rivalry with ambiguity and flexibility to avoid picking a side.</p><p>To ease the pressure of choosing one of the competing global powers, the report advised the US to be “a more dependable and benign partner”, involving itself in the regional economic architecture.</p><p>That architecture now involves two trade alliances that the US is not party to: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP); and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).</p><p>“The US should join CPTPP and consider joining RCEP,” the report said.</p><p>The CPTPP rose from the ashes of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-member alliance Donald Trump withdrew the US from on his first day as president in 2017.</p><p>Biden, who took office in 2021, has ruled out joining the group. However, China has applied for membership.</p><p>Charlene Barshefsky, a former US trade representative who contributed to the report, said that withdrawal from the TPP was “certainly” a factor in Washington’s declining economic influence in the region.</p><p>Barshefsky said that China’s growing economic dominance “exerts extraordinary impact on these countries, making them reluctant to speak out, oftentimes, making them reluctant to push back in ways that might engender Chinese retaliation or Chinese coercion”, adding that the US “really has not mustered a response to it”.</p><p>China is also a member of RCEP, a free-trade agreement whose ranks include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – all members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.</p><p>Other members are Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.</p><p>As an alternative to both groups, the Biden administration last year launched an economic initiative called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).</p><p>Unlike CPTPP and RCEP, though, IPEF is not a free-trade agreement. Instead, it focuses on “four pillars” of economics – fair and resilient trade, supply chains resilience, clean energy and anti-corruption.</p><p>Fourteen countries, including Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, have participated in IPEF meetings and ministerials.</p><p>US Trade Representative Katherine Tai characterised the framework in May as “not a traditional trade deal”, saying “we’re not just trying to maximise efficiencies and liberalisation”.</p><p>“We’re trying to promote sustainability, resilience and inclusiveness,” she added.</p><p>Naomi Wilson, vice-president for Asia policy at the Information Technology Industry Council, a Washington-based global trade association, observed that countries in the Asia-Pacific were “no longer willing to bend to US demands without getting something in return”.</p><p>Thus, US policymakers “cannot afford to close the door on trade deals when the policy objectives of competing with China require greater market access elsewhere”, she said, contending that such goals were “too important to rest on the hope” that frameworks like IPEF would “accomplish the same ends”.</p><p>Indeed, the report advised the US to make IPEF “more economically concrete and credible” and to “explain in clear terms what it offers to regional states”.</p><p>The report also said that regional views of IPEF were “largely dismissive”.</p><p>David Shambaugh, director of the China policy programme at George Washington University and the leader of the report, said that the US faced a “public diplomacy problem” in the region.</p><p>Describing IPEF as a “rather complex initiative” which does not just involve trade deals, Shambaugh said that “the economics of IPEF are kind of buried and they aren’t very clear”.</p><p>“The US government and the Commerce Department have some real public policy work to do to try and spell out in much clearer and rather simplified terms,” he said, and just “give the bottom lines about what it can do economically for the partner countries”.</p><p>The report also recommended that Washington “dramatically increase” US diplomacy across the region since it was “underperforming and becoming a liability”.</p><p>Daniel Russel, a former assistant secretary of state and an Asia Society vice-president who worked on the report, said that the story of what the US was “doing for the region in the region” was not getting told, “certainly not well enough to penetrate widely and to have adequate impact”.</p><p>He attributed this lacking to multiple factors, adding that American diplomats are “not present or visible, at least not enough”.</p><p>Finally, the report suggested, the US should also “carefully consider commencing negotiations for a Reciprocal Trade Agreement with Asean or a subset of Asean states, with mutual market access”.</p><p>China has had a free-trade agreement with Asean since 2010. The report also noted that despite significantly trailing China in trade with Asean, the US is still a leading investor in the group – a fact the report said remained unrecognised.</p><p>The total stock of US foreign direct investment in the region “totals US$328.5 billion (2020) – greater than China, Japan, and South Korea combined. Annual US investments in the region average around US$25 billion per year (greater than China’s),” it noted.</p><p>Shambaugh called this “another unappreciated fact that Southeast Asians don’t know”.</p><p>“So you can’t just look at the economic realm through trade numbers or even the regional architecture,” he said, adding that the US was “definitely hurting itself” by not getting more deeply involved in the entire economic domain.</p><div><br /></div>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-85222470361409281462023-05-05T12:23:00.005+08:002023-05-05T12:25:25.823+08:00US-controlled ‘empire of hackers’ attacking China, other countries<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Investigators accuse CIA of advanced spy tactics against
governments, infrastructure, research institutions, and tech and oil companies
since 2011</li><li>China’s foreign ministry calls on US to stop using
cyberweapons for global espionage</li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;"><i>Zhang Tong</i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The CIA has used powerful cyberweapons
to attack other countries including China, according to a report released on
Thursday in China.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The report, jointly released by
China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre (CVERC) and
cybersecurity company 360, accused the US Central Intelligence Agency of
secretly orchestrating “peaceful evolution” and “colour revolutions” around the
world with the use of superior technology.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">According to the report, which
was focused on numerous cyberattacks within China, investigators captured and
extracted a large number of Trojan programs, functional plug-ins, and attack
platform samples that they said were closely associated with the CIA, revealing
an “empire of hackers” under US control.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“These cyberweapons have
undergone strict, standardised, and professional software engineering
management, which is uniquely followed by the CIA in developing cyberattack
weapons,” the report said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The investigators said their
analysis revealed that the CIA’s cyberweapons used state-of-the-art espionage
technology in attacks that were closely connected and integrated.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“They have now covered almost all
internet and IoT [Internet of Things] assets globally, allowing control over
foreign networks and theft of important, sensitive data at any time,” the
report said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“Targets of these attacks include
critical information infrastructure, aerospace, research institutions, oil and
petrochemical industries, large internet companies, and government agencies in
various countries. These attacks can be traced back to 2011 and have continued
until now.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">It said the information collected
from foreign governments, companies and citizens would be provided to US
decision-makers for national security intelligence and security risk
assessments. At the request of the US president, the CIA also carried out and supervises
secret cross-border activities, the report said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The report also said that, for
decades, the CIA had overthrown or tried to overthrow more than 50 legitimate
foreign governments – only seven instances of which are acknowledged by the CIA
– causing turmoil in the affected countries.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">While helping other nations in
inciting unrest, the CIA provided various information and communication
technologies and even on-site command help, the investigators said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">For example, a US military-affiliated company
developed an untraceable TOR technology to help protesters in some Middle
Eastern countries maintain communication and evade tracking and arrest, it
said. The servers encrypted all information passing through them, ensuring
anonymous internet access for specific users, according to the report.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The Rand
Corporation had spent years developing “Stampede” software that helped many
young people stay connected during protests, greatly improving the efficiency
of on-site command, the report said.</p><p class="MsoNormal">“The CIA has
long been collecting <span data-entity-bundle="article" data-entity-type="node" data-entity-uuid="f585dea8-830d-4dbb-919d-cfde2d8f2744" data-v-03dbdbc7="" data-v-e5d603e4="" target="_self" title=""><span class="generic-articlebody1"><span class="text"><span><span data-v-03dbdbc7="">intelligence information</span></span></span></span></span>
from foreign governments, companies and citizens, and organising, implementing
and supervising cross-border secret activities while engaging in continuous
espionage and theft,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said on Thursday.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“The international community
should be highly vigilant of these activities. The large number of real cases
disclosed in the report is yet another example of the CIA’s long-term global
cyberattack campaign. The US should pay attention and respond to international
concerns, and stop using cyberweapons for global espionage and cyberattacks,”
she added.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">In recent years, Beijing has
increasingly accused the United States of cyberattacks. In June 2022, China’s
Northwestern Polytechnical University issued a public statement claiming it had
been targeted by overseas cyberattacks.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">A report by CVERC that followed
in September said the US National Security Agency had carried out tens of
thousands of malicious cyberattacks against Chinese targets in recent years,
controlling countless network devices including servers, terminals, switches,
telephone exchanges, routers and firewalls.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">Washington has reciprocated with
its own accusations. In October 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency released an advisory on their website emphasising the
cybersecurity threat from China.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-45878767790044086112023-03-28T15:47:00.008+08:002023-03-28T15:47:55.352+08:00 Amnesty says West’s Ukraine response exposes ‘double standards’<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Amnesty International’s Annual Report for 2022 highlights double standards throughout the world on human rights</li><li>Western states have been ignoring ‘Israel’s abuses of apartheid against Palestinians’, human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, report says</li></ul><p></p><p>APF</p><p>Global outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year has only served to expose the West’s “double standards” towards human rights abuses throughout the world, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.</p><p>In its annual world report for 2022, Amnesty pointed to what it described as the West’s silence on Saudi Arabia’s rights record, repression in Egypt and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.</p><p>“The West’s formidable response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscored double standards, exposing in comparison how inconsequential their reactions have been to so many other violations of the UN Charter,” said Amnesty secretary general Agnes Callamard as she presented the group’s world report in Paris.</p><p>Russia’s assault that began on February 24, 2022 “gave us an all too rare view of what becomes possible when there is political will to act” as the West closed ranks to support Ukraine, she added.</p><p>Many countries imposed sanctions on Moscow and opened their borders to Ukrainian refugees after the invasion, while the International Criminal Court launched an investigation into war crimes in Ukraine.</p><p>But Amnesty said the conflict had highlighted shortcomings in responding to abuses in other parts of the globe.</p><p>It singled out the West’s “deafening silence on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, inaction on Egypt and the refusal to confront Israel’s system of apartheid against Palestinians”.</p><p>Amnesty, fellow rights watchdog Human Rights Watch and a UN special rapporteur have concluded that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounts to policies of apartheid, the segregation of black people and whites in white-ruled South Africa, a charge the Israeli state denies.</p><p>Last year, “successive Israeli governments rolled out measures forcing more Palestinians from their homes, expanding illegal settlements, and legalising existing settlements and outposts across the occupied West Bank,” Amnesty said.</p><p>But despite this – and Israeli forces killing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank – Western nations failed to demand an end to that “system of oppression”, it said.</p><p>In Saudi Arabia, human rights activists continued to languish in prison, people were jailed for their opinions after “grossly unfair trials”, 81 men were put to death in a single day, and migrants died in custody.</p><p>In Egypt, the group said, thousands of human rights defenders, journalists, protesters and alleged dissidents lingered behind bars, and “torture remained rampant”.</p><p>Although European countries welcomed Ukrainian refugees, they did not show the same kindness to people fleeing fighting in Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, Amnesty said.</p><p>The United States also welcomed Ukrainians, “yet under policies and practices rooted in anti-black racism, it expelled more than 25,000 Haitians between September 2021 and May 2022, and subjected many to torture and other ill-treatment”, the group said.</p><p>In Iran “women died for dancing, for singing, for not wearing a veil” as people rose up in protests against the country’s Islamic system, Callamard said.</p><p>Amnesty also stressed the failure of global institutions “to respond adequately to conflicts killing thousands of people including in Ethiopia, Myanmar and Yemen”.</p><p>The war in Ukraine “diverted resources and attention away from the climate crisis, other long-standing conflicts and human suffering the world over,” Amnesty said.</p><p>“There was no evidence to be found in 2022, that the international response to the Ukraine crisis would become a blueprint for consistent and coherent responses to conflicts and crises,” said Callamard.</p><p><br /></p><p>Additional reporting by dpa</p><div><br /></div>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-35888662097944857412023-03-21T16:23:00.000+08:002023-03-21T16:23:02.689+08:00After South China Sea setback, Beijing seeks to arm itself with international law – like the West<p><b>China is learning from Western powers that it can ignore decisions it doesn’t like and manipulate international law – as long as it cultivates an army of patriotic lawyers</b></p><p><i>Mark J. Valencia</i></p><p>A recent Chinese government decision to raise the status of international law studies has potentially significant implications for China and its foreign relations.</p><p>Its acceptance of the need to upgrade its capacity in international law is not likely to be driven by a new-found desire to abide by it. Rather, it is likely to stem from more practical political motives, such as defending against its use by Western powers, particularly when it comes to the law of the sea, and an intention to emulate them by using international law to protect China’s interests and achieve its goals.</p><p>International law is a set of rules, norms and standards governing the conduct of states and their relations with each other. It is guided by treaties and conventions, customs (state practices), general principles of law, and judicial decisions and teachings.</p><p>But there is often disagreement over it. When powerful countries cannot manipulate international law in their favour, they often refuse to recognise it or abide by its decisions – as the United States, Russia, Britain, France and now China have all done.</p><p>Moreover, there is no universal supranational enforcement mechanism. Indeed, some cynics describe international law as “the arms of politics”: where nations use self-serving interpretations and practices to achieve their political goals.</p><p>China has been unmercifully bashed by the West for its transgressions while other states seem to have all but buried theirs. The US has been particularly adept at manipulating international law, especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), to which it is not even a party.</p><p>During the Cold War, when some developing countries wanted to restrict the entry of foreign navies to their territorial seas, the US and Soviet Union issued a joint statement clarifying and cementing their interpretation of Unclos that they could not do that.</p><p>China now recognises the value of “lawfare”, or the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate, hinder, damage or delegitimise an opponent.</p><p>In doing so, China is merely following the examples of the West, particularly the US. America even transgresses the UN Charter’s prohibitions on threat or use of force and its duty to respect other states’ sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.</p><p>Recent and ongoing examples include the invasion of Iraq, secret operations to overthrow other governments, and transnational drone strikes. Given this history and context, bashing China for its Unclos violations is outrageously hypocritical.</p><p>Unsurprisingly, China views much of the international legal system as being created and manipulated by the West to its detriment and that of developing countries.</p><p>In China’s view, the US-led West heavily influenced the content of Unclos and persuaded China and others to agree to compulsory dispute settlement. China was dragged before an international arbitration panel that invalidated its historic claim to much of the South China Sea – and it was a shock to its system. Beijing played legal catch-up, arguing that it had not consented to third-party arbitration. But the reputational damage was done and China has struggled to mitigate it ever since.</p><p>China would like to change those aspects used against it or interpret them in its favour. In this, it could borrow from the US playbook, persuading like-minded countries to issue a joint Unclos interpretation that opposes compulsory arbitration or broadens the exceptions.</p><p>It could also forge a multinational statement opposing the arbitration panel’s unpopular decision on the South China Sea, which essentially says that only features with a history of a self-sustaining indigenous population are legal islands generating exclusive economic zones. Raising the status of international law studies and its role in international relations may help accomplish this.</p><p>China is encouraging its universities and graduate schools to “cultivate a new generation of legal professionals who have both a global outlook and expertise in international and national law, filling the critical shortage of experts in this field”, according to a directive issued by the General Office of the Communist Party Central Committee and the State Council Office.</p><p>It decrees that legal education and research must always align with the “correct” political direction, and requires legal education institutions, teachers, students and researchers to take a clear stance on principled issues and major issues, and to formally oppose and reject Western views.</p><p>Here, China is only stating a counter bias to that of most Western government lawyers. One just has to think about the public actions and words of many international lawyers, especially those in government service. They are paid to represent the interests of their client – the government they work for, not to be objective or balanced.</p><p>I know this first-hand from interacting with US Navy and US State Department lawyers on Unclos, a convention the US has failed to ratify but which its lawyers freely cite and interpret to the US’ advantage.</p><p>China has competent Western-educated international lawyers, well-versed in the law of the sea but it needs more and must make better use of them in policymaking. Most are in academia or think tanks, not in important government positions, and in China, there is a general disconnect between academics and government officials.</p><p>Like many of their Western counterparts, on issues that concern national interests, Chinese academics know which side their bread is buttered and use international law to support the government position. Of course, like the US, China will still need an unblinkered in-house analysis of the issues to determine the best legal strategy to promote national interests.</p><p>In sum, this new decision indicates that China has caught on and intends to catch up. For the West, the chickens are coming home to roost.</p><p><i>Mark J. Valencia is a non-resident senior research fellow at the Huayang Institute for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance</i></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-42924026860602614122023-03-15T19:32:00.003+08:002023-03-15T19:33:30.608+08:00Australia should seek security in Asia with its sovereignty, not ‘rubbish’ defence deals like Aukus: former PM Paul Keating<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Aukus submarine deal, which could cost up to A$368 billion (US$245 billion), would be ineffective in the event of a war with China, Keating says</li><li>He also says that Canberra is forsaking a proper defence strategy to help the US maintain ‘strategic hegemony’ in Asia</li></ul><p></p><p>Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has issued a blistering criticism of Australian foreign policy and the Aukus submarine pact, saying Canberra was forsaking a proper national defence strategy to help the United States maintain “strategic hegemony” in Asia.</p><p>Keating, prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and a former leader of the Labor Party currently in power, said in a National Press Club event that the Aukus pact with the US and the UK was the “worst international decision” by a Labor administration in recent times.</p><p>The pact was first agreed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s predecessor from the Liberal Party, and has been fully backed by the current administration.</p><p><i>“China has committed, in the eyes of the United States, the great sin of internationalism. And what is that sin? To develop an economy as big as the United States,” he said.</i></p><p><i>“The Americans will never condone or accept a state as large as them. That’s what China presents. They would have preferred that [China] - 20 per cent of humanity - remained in poverty forever. But the fact that China is now an industrial economy larger than the United States … it is not in the playbook.”</i></p><p><i>“This is what [Aukus] is about, the maintenance of the US strategic hegemony in Asia.”</i></p><p>Keating urged Australia to seek its security in Asia utilising its sovereignty, and not with defence deals with the likes of the US, which he said hoped to be the “primary strategic power in Asia” despite having “no land in the metropolitan zone of Asia” and is 10,000 kilometres away.</p><p>He also pointed to a similar move by the UK to edge into Asia, on the premise of putting together a “global Britain”.</p><p>“So they’re looking around for suckers and they found all here,” he said.</p><p>“So here we are, 230 years after we left Britain .. we are returning to Cornwall [G7 meeting] and now Rishi Sunak, to find our security in Asia. How deeply pathetic is that?” he said.</p><p>While the Albanese government had promoted the potentially A$368 billion (US$245 billion) Aukus submarine deal as necessary to protect Australia’s national security, it would be ineffective in the event of a war with China, Keating said.</p><p>The war in Ukraine has showcased how invasions would involve Chinese land troops and troop ships coming to Australia, with their advance taken down by Australian planes and missiles long before they get to the shores of Australia. There was also the problem of the long stretch of ocean between the two countries, he added.</p><p>“The idea that we need American submarines to protect us – three [submarines] are going to protect us from the might of China. The rubbish of it, the rubbish,” he said.</p><p>The submarines – which would not arrive until 2030s – are also large and detectable from space unlike Australia’s traditional Collins-class submarines that were designed to sit on Australia’s continental shelves and repel invasions, Keating said.</p><p>The Collins-class submarines were ageing and were due to be replaced by an original order of diesel-powered submarines from France, until that contract was torn up by the former Scott Morrison government in favour of Aukus.</p><p>It sent Australia’s diplomatic relations with France into a tailspin.</p><p>Keating also said the Australian government failed to tell the Australian public that the Aukus submarines – designed to sit off the coast of China to take down Chinese threats – could also be spotted quickly on the shallower Chinese ocean shelves.</p><p>On Australia’s response when China acts aggressively in the South China Sea over territorial disputes, Keating said it was important to know that it was not a problem until Chinese activity interfered with US presence in the sea.</p><p>“The US Defense department’s annual report to Congress in late 2022 said ‘the PRC aims to restrict the United States from having a presence on China’s periphery’. In other words, China aims to keep US navy ships off its coast. Shocking. Imagine how the US would react if China’s blue water navy did its sightseeing off the coast of California,” he said.</p><p>It was also wrong to categorise China’s recent trade restrictions as threats that warranted military retaliation or defence, he added.</p><p>“You can’t impute that a tax or a tariff on wine or barley is equivalent to an invasion of the country. China does not threaten Australia, has not threatened Australia, does not intend to threaten Australia,” he said, pointing out that commercial rows between countries are common.</p><p>China had restricted imports of Australian lobsters, timber and coal among others, after the two countries fell out in 2020 when Australia pushed for an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus just as the pandemic was raging in Wuhan, while asking for weapons inspectors to visit the city.</p><p>China also imposed anti-dumping duties on Australian barley and wine for unfair dominance in the Chinese market. These have reduced Australian exports to near zero.</p><p>Against Beijing’s two wine and barley complaints at the World Trade Organization, Australia in turn brought 87 anti-dumping cases against the world’s second largest economy.</p><p>When asked how he was so sure that China did not pose a military threat, Keating said: “What would be the point? They get the iron ore, the coal or wheat? What would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne militarily?”</p><p><br /></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-46101605862330758572023-01-10T21:03:00.000+08:002023-01-10T21:03:02.424+08:00US, West ‘uncomfortable’ with changing world, view China as a threat: Singapore’s George Yeo<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>George Yeo said the US and the West are ‘uncomfortable’ with
the idea of a multipolar world given their long dominance</li><li><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The ex-foreign minister of
Singapore also said the rise of China has prompted countries to increasingly
view Beijing as a challenge and even a threat</span></li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Dewey Sim in Singapore</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">The United States and other
Western nations are “uncomfortable” with the idea of a multipolar world given
their long dominance but they should not resist it, Singapore’s ex-foreign
minister has said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">George Yeo, who was the country’s
top diplomat from 2004 to 2011, said the West had been used to the “dominance
of their values being universal [and] of judging others against their own
standards”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“But it’s changing,” he told a
forum on Tuesday organised by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">While the rise of China has been
the starkest – which has prompted countries to increasingly view Beijing as a
challenge and even a threat – recent developments including the war in Ukraine
has shown that other powers, like India, were a “satellite of nobody”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">"The US doesn’t like
multipolarity and is fighting it. My fear is it will exhaust itself fighting
because it will fail,” he said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">China, on the other hand, has
always dealt with multiple influences due to the fact that it borders so many
nations.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">Yeo also spoke about the
inevitability of a multipolar world, pointing to some estimates which suggested
that by 2050, one in two babies born would be Muslim.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“Whether we like it or not, the
world is going to change and the multipolar world, to me, is on the cards. It’s
already been born. It’s growing up,” he said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">Instead of resisting, Yeo said it
would be better for the US to help crystallise a multipolar world because
Washington would naturally be the first among equals for various reasons
including its existing power and the wide use of the English language.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“The quicker the US and maybe the
collective West grasp this and work to shape it, the better they are to
preserve their position,” he added.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">In the slow shift towards a
multipolar world, Yeo said Southeast Asia would play an important role. His
rationale was how countries have shown the ability to intricately handle
geopolitical tensions. At November’s G20 summit in Bali, host country Indonesia
had to deal with a “complicated field”, such as how the US wanted to exclude
Russia from the forum.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">To a greater degree, Southeast
Asia has a rich history and diverse cultures that have connected with the wider
world. Yeo cited how all forms of Christianity, Buddhism and Islam can be found
in the region.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;">“It’s not just the balmy
atmosphere … It is the acceptance of those who are not like ourselves. This
gives us a special position as the world enters into a troubled phase,” he
said.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 10pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-46526735495037327792022-11-14T01:00:00.000+08:002022-11-14T01:00:01.781+08:00Why criticism of a third term for China’s Xi Jinping is rich coming from the US<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> Despite its clandestine interventions in China and elsewhere, America remains convinced of its exceptionalism and blind to how others perceive it</li><li>In a similar vein, Western commentary on Xi’s reappointment can sound foolish, given that America set term limits for presidents not that long ago</li></ul><p></p><p>Tom Plate</p><p>Maybe the lady intel officer who sought to recruit me for a CIA operation involving Chinese espionage on the US West Coast didn’t look the part – though, then again, perhaps she did. Modest in dress, controlled in comportment, she sat with me in the back of a large steak restaurant in Los Angeles without once raising her voice.</p><p>She told me she was proud to be “working for the President of the United States, that’s what we do”, and I believed her. She paid for everything (as she had for two prior dinners) with cash, not credit card, leaving no written record behind. But I left her visibly disappointed – mission unaccomplished: I just couldn’t go CIA-ing while remaining a proper American journalist and that was what I wound up telling her.</p><p>This rendezvous took place a half-dozen years ago but popped into mind while I was drinking in Agents of Subversion, an urgently needed book by Yonsei University professor John Delury.</p><p>Just as it unintentionally reminded me of how I could have added the Central Intelligence Agency to my resume, the book also added to my annoyance with those fellow Americans who hold that we don’t do dirty to China, as sometimes the Chinese (not to mention the Russians) do to us. DeLury will have none of that.</p><p>His book is about the CIA’s covert war in China. Did American undercover agents and forces try to influence the Chinese civil war? Yes. Did the US have assets working within Hong Kong after the 1997 handover that helped stir the anti-China hotpot? You bet. Even today? Please, let’s not be naive.</p><p>The security services of China are scarcely covert. Their assets and agents are all over the place. In fact, in the late 1990s, a report by the Select Committee on US National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China made extraordinary claims about Chinese espionage, especially systemic technology theft, that the American media replayed to Americans with abandon.</p><p>Lost in the anti-Communist frenzy and paranoia was the commonsensical notion that almost all nations execute deep dives into the dirty pool of espionage – and sometimes much worse. Contextualisation, rather than demonisation, is what even our enemies deserve if we are to understand them properly. Over time, demonisation leads to fragmentation of the possibility of a global community – of a better global order to cope with global challenges.</p><p>Delury offers another key dimension that echoes the spirit of Plato’s philosophical legacy of the unity of ethics: a city or – by extension any integrated entity – cannot be half virtuous. A contemporary example of this notion can be found in America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, for example.</p><p>It holds that a US corporation operating overseas that’s bribing foreign officials must be brought to account by the headquarters in the States. It cannot look the other way, ignoring the illegality, just because it’s an ocean away. To its credit, the US Department of Justice has enforced the act against American companies abroad.</p><p>Delury takes this principle further and shows how a nation’s civic norms can be corroded domestically when it practises clandestine and illicit intervention in the internal affairs of others. “The pathologies of secrecy, like the violence of war, could not be contained overseas forever,” he concludes in the book.</p><p>In America, the blowback into the backyard of domestic politics can come with hurricane force. Clandestine anti-China crusades lead to poisonous politics such as McCarthyism. Hans Morgenthau, a legendary proponent of hard-nosed realism in foreign policy, famously characterised the infection of domestic norms with overseas malfeasance as a kind of “surreptitious totalitarianism”.</p><p>Despite the continuing cascade of clandestine interventions abroad, America remains convinced of its comparative ethical exceptionalism in international relations, especially compared to China. Such self-deception is a narcotic. It prevents one from feeling others’ pain and blinds us to how others see us; for the American public, it eases the pain of recognition.</p><p>Foolishly self-regarding Western commentary on Xi Jinping’s spectacular appointment to a third term as party general secretary makes the point. In America, term limits are relatively recent – and limited – efforts to bracket power. In 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt entered his fourth four-year term (which led, of course, to the Twenty-second Amendment to limit presidents to two terms).</p><p>In reality, American politicians could be seen to make Xi look like a freshman. Obscured in the fog of the spotty term-limit law is the fact that US Congress itself has no term limits (and US Supreme Court justices get lifetime appointments).</p><p>Near-eternal incumbent US legislators include Vermont’s Patrick Leahy, first elected in 1974, more than 47 years ago; Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, since 1981; Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, since 1985. Also note that in 1987, back in the heyday of China’s Deng Xiaoping, California’s Nancy Pelosi was first elected to the House. Today she is House Speaker, at 82.</p><p>By contrast, the comparatively sprightly Xi, at 69, faces a long march before matching the runs of McConnell and Pelosi. Perhaps America might offer the world a long overdue diminishment of pretensions.</p><p>Author and journalist Tom Plate, distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at LMU, is vice-president of the Pacific Century Institute</p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-18259219918317671722022-10-22T13:09:00.007+08:002022-10-24T11:46:41.629+08:00Singapore’s George Yeo hopes China will stay out of ‘long, dark tunnel’ as Russia and the West wade into nuclear talk<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pEQ-a6sgjvc" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p></p><div><br /></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The ex-foreign minister is hopeful China will ‘have the wisdom and the statecraft to avoid entering’ the Ukraine war as it would put the world ‘in jeopardy’</li><li>He characterised the Ukraine conflict as a ‘proxy war’ that typically occurs before world powers edge towards ‘Armageddon’</li></ul><p></p><p><i>Bhavan Jaipragas</i></p><p>Russia and the West are walking into a “long, dark tunnel” with their rising rhetoric about a nuclear confrontation, and China should exercise wisdom and statecraft to avoid going down the same path, Singapore’s former foreign minister George Yeo has said.</p><p>Characterising the conflict in Ukraine – following Russia’s February invasion of its smaller neighbour – as a “proxy war”, Yeo said China’s entry into the fray would put the world in jeopardy.</p><p>“With the incorporation of the four [Ukrainian] oblasts to the Russian federation, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, I fear that Russia and the US and Europe are walking into a long, dark tunnel from which they cannot easily reverse,” Yeo said in an interview on Talking Post with the Post’s chief news editor Yonden Lhatoo.</p><p>Yeo comments came amid remarks by high-profile figures about the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.</p><p>In the latest salvo, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borell last week said Russian forces would be “annihilated” if President Vladimir Putin used nuclear weapons in Ukraine.</p><p>Putin in September warned that he was not “bluffing” when he said he would use “all available means” to protect Russia if its territorial integrity was threatened.</p><p>“This lighthearted talk of nuclear exchange is madness,” said Yeo, who has remained one of Singapore’s most followed public intellectuals since his retirement from politics in 2011. “Once you begin that exchange, there’s no stopping point, because the side that feels itself losing will become even more desperate. And then little by little, it will ratchet upwards.”</p><p>Yeo, who has remained a prolific commentator on China affairs since his 2011 retirement from politics, said he hoped the Asian superpower would “have the wisdom and the statecraft to avoid entering that tunnel”.</p><p>He added: “Because if it does, then the whole world would be in jeopardy. But I think the Chinese will find a way to stay out of this.”</p><p>Yeo, a military general-turned-politician, said before world powers dangerously edged towards “Armageddon”, there would be proxy or hybrid wars, such as the conflict taking place in Ukraine.</p><p>In such scenarios, countries “jostle for advantage, using the threat of war as leverage but not really wanting it to be made use of ultimately”.</p><p>However, when “we act dynamically against one another, we may end up in a position which we did not intend t0 be when we first started”, Yeo said. “I think this is what has happened in Europe. All parties have ended up in a position they did not wish for originally.”</p><p>In his new three-part book series Musings, Yeo shared his views on great power rivalry and Singapore’s place in the more contested geopolitical landscape.</p><p>Asked during the interview if the ongoing US-China tensions would eventually lead to “doom”, Yeo said he was not as optimistic as Singapore’s late independence leader Lee Kuan Yew.</p><p>The elder statesman had said that both the US and China were ultimately “rational”, but Yeo said he was unsure whether this was still the case, noting that ex-US president Donald Trump was brought into power by “mass emotions”.</p><p>Current US President Joe Biden is “weak”, Yeo said, and American society at large is divided by such mass emotion. “So China may be a rational player, [but] on the US side if something happens in the South China Sea, and the ship is sunk, hundreds of sailors lose their lives, I think the domestic reaction in the US will be so great it would be difficult for the White House to contain it.”</p><p><b>Hong Kong ‘not safe’ in 2019</b></p><p>Yeo, who served as chairman of Hong Kong-based Kerry Logistics Network from 2012 to 2019, also touched on the city’s political situation during the wide-ranging interview.</p><p>On the Beijing-imposed national security law (NSL), imposed in 2020 in the aftermath of the political turmoil a year earlier, Yeo said he was “relieved” when it was introduced.</p><p>Recalling the 2019 protests, Yeo said he and his wife were splitting their time between Hong Kong and Singapore during that period, spending at least a few days a month in the city state.</p><p>“In 2019, we no longer felt safe [in Hong Kong] and we were relieved when we came back to Singapore to be able to talk freely and to be able to eat in a restaurant late into the night”, Yeo said, adding that “Hong Kong was becoming strange to us” during that period.</p><p><b><u>“I was frankly quite disgusted by the way the Western media were lionising the violence, which they will never give allowance for in their own societies,” he said.</u></b></p><p>Yeo acknowledged that many Hong Kong residents, including his friends, were “still sullen” about the imposition of the NSL and were waiting to see what the longer term situation would be like.</p><p>His assessment was that the law had removed “one important question mark” about Hong Kong’s retention of the “one country, two systems” model beyond 2047.</p><p>“Now that the National Security Law is in place, which is entirely reasonable, because all countries have that … this has now ensured that beyond 2047, there will still be one country, two systems [and it’s] likely to continue indefinitely because it’s in China’s interest.”</p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-89085468817875564102022-10-18T20:15:00.007+08:002022-10-18T20:15:55.085+08:00The American chip industry’s US$1.5t meltdown<p>Thank the boom-and-bust cycle – and America’s government</p><p>In licking County, Ohio, fleets of dump trucks and bulldozers are shifting earth on the future site of chip factories. Intel is building two “fabs” there at a cost of around US$20 billion. In March, President Joe Biden called this expanse of dirt a “field of dreams” in his State of the Union speech. It was “the ground on which America’s future will be built”, he intoned.</p><p>In the spring, it was easy to be dreamy about America’s chip industry. The pandemic-induced semiconductor crunch had proved just how crucial chips were to modern life. Demand was still rising for all sorts of chip-powered technology, which these days, is most of it. Investors were less gloomy on chips than on other tech, which were taking a stock market beating. The Chips Act was making its way through Congress, promising to plough subsidies worth US$52 billion into the domestic industry, in order to reduce America’s reliance on foreign fabs and support projects like Intel’s Ohio factory.</p><p>Half a year later, the dreams look nightmarish. Demand for silicon appears to be falling as quickly as it had risen during the pandemic. In late September, Micron, an Idaho-based maker of memory chips, reported a 20 per cent year-on-year fall in quarterly sales. A week later, AMD, a Californian chip designer, slashed its sales estimate for the third quarter by 16 per cent. Within days, Bloomberg reported that Intel plans to lay off thousands of staff, following a string of poor results that are likely to continue when it presents its latest quarterly report on Oct 27. Since July, a basket of America’s 30 or so biggest chip firms have cut revenue forecasts for the third quarter from US$99 billion to US$88 billion. So far this year, more than US$1.5 trillion has been wiped from the combined market value of American-listed semiconductor companies.</p><p>The chip industry is notoriously cyclical at the best of times: The new capacity built in response to rising demand takes several years to materialise, by which time the demand is no longer white-hot. In America, this cycle is now being turbocharged by the government. The Chips Act, which became law in August to cheers from chip bosses, is stimulating the supply side of the semiconductor business just as the Biden administration is stepping up efforts to stop American-made chips and chipmaking equipment from going to China, dampening demand for American products in the world’s biggest semiconductor market.</p><p>Whether or not it makes strategic sense for America to bring more chip production home and to hamstring its geopolitical rival with export bans, the combination of more supply and less demand is a recipe for trouble. And if the American policies speed up China’s efforts to “resolutely win the battle in key core technologies”, as President Xi Jinping affirmed in a speech to the Communist Party congress on Oct 16, they could give rise to powerful Chinese competitors. Field of dreams? It is enough to keep you awake in terror at night.</p><p>The cyclical slump has so far been felt most acutely in consumer goods. PCs and smartphones account for almost half the US$600 billion-worth of chips sold annually. Having splurged during the pandemic, inflation-weary shoppers are buying fewer gadgets. Gartner, a research firm, expects smartphone sales to drop by 6 per cent this year, and those of PCs by 10 per cent. Firms like Intel, which in February was telling investors it expected PC demand to grow steadily for the next five years, are revising their outlooks as it becomes clear that many Covid-era purchases were simply brought forward.</p><p>Many analysts think that other segments could be next. Panic buying amid last year’s global chip shortage has left many carmakers and manufacturers of business hardware with inventories overflowing with silicon. New Street Research, a firm of analysts, estimates that between April and June, industrial firms’ stocks of chips were about 40 per cent above the historic level relative to sales. Inventories for PC makers and car companies are similarly full. Intel and Micron blamed their recent weak results in part on high inventories.</p><p>The supply glut and sputtering demand is already hitting prices. The cost of memory chips is down by two-fifths in the past year, according to Future Horizons, a research firm. The price of logic chips, which process data and are less commoditised than memory chips, is down by 3 per cent in the same period.</p><p>Chip buyers will work through their inventories eventually. But after they do, they may buy less than in the past. In August, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Dell, two big hardware makers, hinted that demand from business customers was beginning to soften. Sales of both PCs and smartphones had started to plateau before the pandemic, and this trend will probably resume in the coming years. Phonemakers cannot stuff ever more chips onto their devices forever. For companies such as Qualcomm, which derives half its sales from smartphone chips, and Intel, which gets a similar share from those for PCs, that is a headache.</p><p>The chipmakers’ response has been to bet on fast-growing new markets. AMD, Intel and Nvidia, another big chip designer, are battling over the cloud-computing data centres, where chip demand is still increasing. Qualcomm is diversifying into cars. In September, the firm’s bosses boasted it already had US$30 billion-worth of orders from carmakers. Intel, meanwhile, is expanding into semiconductors for networking gear and devices for the hyperconnected future of the Internet of Things. It is also getting into the contract manufacturing business, hoping to win market share from TSMC of Taiwan, the world’s biggest chipmaker and contract manufacturer of choice for fabless chip designers such as AMD and Nvidia.</p><p>These efforts, however, are now running into geopolitics. Like their counterparts in China and Europe, politicians in America want to lessen their countries’ dependence on foreign chipmakers, in particular TSMC, which manufactures 90 per cent of the world’s leading-edge chips. In response, America, China, the EU, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan together plan to subsidise domestic chipmaking to the tune of US$85 billion annually over the next three years, calculates Mark Lipacis of Jefferies, an investment bank. That would buy a fair bit of extra capacity globally.</p><p>At the same time, prospects for offloading the resulting chips are darkening, especially for American firms, as a result of America’s tightening controls on exports to China. Many American firms count the Asian giant, which imported US$400 billion-worth of semiconductors last year, as their biggest market. Intel’s Chinese sales made up US$21 billion of its overall revenues of US$79 billion last year. Nvidia said that an earlier round of restrictions, which limited sales of advanced data centre chips to Chinese customers and to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, would cost it US$400 million in third-quarter sales, equivalent to 6 per cent of its total revenues.</p><p>The latest restrictions, which target Chinese supercomputing and artificial intelligence efforts, are a particular concern for the companies which manufacture chipmaking tools. Three of the world’s five biggest such firms – Applied Materials, KLA and Lam Research – are American. The share of the trio’s sales that go to China has risen fast in the past few years, to about a third. Toshiya Hari of Goldman Sachs said that the controls are likely to cost the world’s toolmakers US$6 billion in lost revenues this year, equivalent to 9 per cent of their projected sales. After the new American export controls were unveiled, Applied Materials lowered its expected fourth-quarter revenue by 4 per cent to US$6.4 billion. Its share price has fallen by 13 per cent in the past two weeks. Those of KLA and Lam Research have tumbled by a fifth.</p><p>American chip bosses now fear that China could retaliate, further restricting their firms’ access to its vast market. It is already redoubling efforts to nurture domestic champions such as SMIC (in logic chips) and YMTC (in memory), as well as domestic toolmakers, that could one day challenge America’s historic silicon supremacy. The result could be a diminished American industry with less global clout and more capacity than it knows what to do with. That is a shaky foundation on which to build America’s future.</p><p>©2022 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved</p><div><br /></div>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-58363630030147450482022-10-15T20:53:00.005+08:002022-10-15T20:53:42.827+08:00中国人劣根性的例子<p>以下几点为常见例子。</p><p>1.自己做不好、幹不来的事,也不希望别人做得来;幹得好,宁愿大家都不做,也不能让别人做得出色;幹得比自己好,你要是做了,他不是釜底抽薪,就是到处捣鼓你、设计你,让你不得安宁。 </p><p>2.幸灾乐祸,落井下石。看别人笑话,是不少人的劣根。看到别人有了灾难,不是伸手拉一把、助人于危难之中,而是在一旁偷笑;最糟糕的是,还有很多人喜欢投石下井。 </p><p>3.小人不能得志。小人一旦得志,不是专横就是跋扈,几乎到了连自己父母都不认识的地步,危害社会和平;专横的就像霸王般强势,一旦失势,立马就变成了懦弱无能之辈。 </p><p>4.损人利己,见利忘义,为了个人的一点利益,不惜伤害别人,颠倒是非黑白,把白的说成了黑,黑的说成了白,把没有的说的像真的一样,那管曾经与之患难与共的朋友。当然有时候就是损了人也不一定就有利自己,目的就是要搞垮人家,搞得别人不如他。 </p><p>5.大声嚷嚷,总害怕别人听不到自己吵杂的声音。这种行为常常使得他人心情烦躁、不得安宁,是造成社会动荡的根本原因之一。 </p><p>6.缺乏公共意识,到处吐痰,乱丢卫生巾和纸巾,把垃圾丢到别人家门口,纸尿片乱抛,不注意个人卫生,出国乱涂鸦,乱爬他国雕塑,不尊重历史文物等等。 </p><p>7.道德观念扭曲。女儿被人强奸,不为女儿出头,还反过来骂女儿,责骂女儿丢家里的脸、让大家都没脸见人。 </p><p>8.缺乏文化素养,不分青红皂白,胡乱责骂他人,从而导致他人心灵受创。自己犯错,只怪他人,不愿承认自身的错误,把一切责任都推到他人身上。凡事不为他人设想,只顾眼前利益。 </p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-45782158523643237302022-10-15T20:46:00.007+08:002022-10-15T20:47:37.671+08:00Why China’s people no longer look up to America<p>We Chinese once sought to learn from US successes; now we
study its mistakes so that we can avoid them.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Wang Wen</i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My generation of Chinese looked up to the United
States.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I was a university student in northwestern China in the
late 1990s, my friends and I tuned in to shortwave broadcasts of Voice of
America, polishing our English while soaking up American and world news. We
flocked to packed lecture halls whenever a visiting American professor was on
campus. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was a thrilling time. China was emerging from
isolationism and poverty, and as we looked to the future we studied democracy,
market economics, equality and other ideals that made America great. We
couldn’t realistically adopt them all because of China’s conditions, but our
lives were transformed as we recalibrated our economy on a US blueprint.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Decades earlier, a reform-minded scholar said that even the
moon in the United States was rounder than in China. My schoolmates and I
wanted to believe it.</p><p class="MsoNormal">But after years of watching America’s wars overseas,
reckless economic policies and destructive partisanship — culminating in last
year’s disgraceful assault on the US Capitol — many Chinese, including me,
can barely make out that shining beacon anymore.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Yet as relations between our countries deteriorate, the
United States blames us. Secretary of State Antony Blinken did so in May,
saying that China was “undermining” the rules-based world order and could not
be relied upon to “change its trajectory”.</p><p class="MsoNormal">I have misgivings about some of my country’s policies. And I
recognise that some criticisms of my government’s policies are justified. But
Americans must also recognise that US behaviour is hardly setting a good
example.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The shift in Chinese attitudes wasn’t a given. But when
US-led NATO forces mistakenly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia,
in 1999 during the Kosovo war, our idolising of America began to wane. Three
people were killed in that attack, and 20 were wounded. Two years later, a US
spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet collided in the South China Sea, leaving a
Chinese pilot dead. These incidents may have seemed relatively minor to
Americans, but they shocked us. We had largely avoided foreign wars and were
not used to our citizens dying in conflicts involving other countries. The
shift in perception gained pace as the 2000s unfolded and more Chinese had
televisions. We watched as the carnage of America’s disastrous involvement in
Iraq, launched in 2003 on false pretences, was beamed into our homes.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In 2008, China had to defend itself against the consequences
of American greed when the US subprime lending fiasco touched off the global
financial crisis. China was forced to create a huge stimulus package, but our
economy still suffered great damage. Millions of Chinese lost their jobs.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Following his predecessors, President Barack Obama announced
a string of weapon sales to Taiwan and embarked on his so-called pivot to Asia,
which we regarded as an attempt to rally our Asian neighbours against us.
President Donald Trump declared a destructive trade war against us, and Chinese
citizens were as shocked as anyone when a pro-Trump mob stormed the citadel of
American democracy on Jan 6, 2021. The visit to Taiwan last week by House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has only further disappointed many Chinese, who saw it as
a violation of US commitments on Taiwan.</p><p class="MsoNormal">China’s critics in the United States need to realise that
American actions such as these are causing outcomes in China that even the
United States doesn’t want.</p><p class="MsoNormal">It’s no accident that China’s military spending — a source
of concern in Washington for years — began rising in the early 2000s after the
Belgrade bombing and the plane collision. It quickly took off after the war in
Iraq showcased how far ahead the US military was compared with ours. China’s
past weakness had been calamitous: Western powers attacked and forced China to
surrender territory in the 1800s, and Japan’s brutal invasion in the 20th
century killed millions.</p><p class="MsoNormal">US officials no doubt want China to follow the American path
of liberalism. But in contrast to my university days, the tone of Chinese
academic research on the United States has shifted markedly. Chinese government
officials used to consult me on the benefits of American capital markets and
other economic concepts. Now I am called upon to discuss US cautionary tales,
such as the factors that led to the financial crisis. We once sought to learn
from US successes; now we study its mistakes so that we can avoid them.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The sense of America as a dangerous force in the world has
filtered into Chinese public attitudes as well. In 2020 I remarked on a Chinese
television programme that we still have much to learn from the United States —
and was attacked on Chinese social media. I stick to my view but am now more
careful in talking positively about the United States. When I do, I preface it
with a criticism.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Chinese students still want to study at US universities but
are acutely fearful of American gun violence, anti-Asian attacks or being
labelled a spy. They are sent off with ominous advice: Don’t stray from campus,
watch what you say, back away from conflict.</p><p class="MsoNormal">And despite Chinese weariness with our country’s tough
zero-Covid policy, America’s dismal record on the pandemic has only
strengthened Chinese public support for our government.</p><p class="MsoNormal">To be clear: China needs to change, too. It needs to be more
open to dialogue with the United States, refrain from using US problems as an
excuse to go slow on reform and respond more calmly and constructively to
American criticism on things like trade policy and human rights.</p><p class="MsoNormal">But although we don’t enjoy the same rights as Americans,
many in China like where we are right now.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In the late 1970s, China was exhausted and traumatised from
the destruction and hardship caused by the Cultural Revolution, which nearly
destroyed us. Deng Xiaoping initiated reforms that brought stability and helped
lift 800 million people out of poverty. We have achieved spectacular increases
in income and life expectancy and stayed out of foreign wars. Tough firearm
regulations allow us to walk down any street in the country at night with
virtually no fear of harm. When we look at America’s enormous pandemic toll,
gun violence, political divisions and the attack on the US Capitol, it only
reminds Chinese people of our own chaotic past that we have left behind.</p><p class="MsoNormal">None of this is meant to gloat over America’s troubles; a
strong, stable and responsible United States is good for the world. China still
has much to learn from America, and we have a lot in common. We drive
Chinese-built Fords and Teslas, wash our hair with Procter & Gamble
shampoos and sip coffee at Starbucks. Solving some of the planet’s biggest
problems requires that we work together.</p><p class="MsoNormal">But that doesn’t mean following America over the cliff.</p><p class="MsoNormal">NYTIMES</p><p class="MsoNormal">Wang Wen (@WangwenR) is the executive dean of the Chongyang
Institute for Financial Studies, a think tank at Renmin University of China. He
is the author of “A Great Power’s Long March”, an analysis of China’s
re-emergence as a global power. He is a Communist Party member and a former
chief opinion editor of The Global Times, an arm of the official Communist
Party newspaper, The People’s Daily.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-86945421267974603542022-09-28T19:41:00.001+08:002022-09-28T19:41:04.842+08:00Japan then, China now: the US is resorting to economic rival-bashing tactics again<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Plaza Accord, signed in New York in 1985, did its job of hobbling Japanese competitiveness and forcing a ‘hollowing out’ of the country’s economy</li><li>While the US has been unable to use a Plaza-like weapon against China, it now seeks to protect ‘economic security’ by intervening in supply chains</li></ul><p></p><p><i>Anthony Rowley</i></p><p>On September 22, 1985, finance ministers of the then G5 nations – France, West Germany, Japan, Britain and the United States – signed the Plaza Accord in New York, devaluing the dollar dramatically against the yen and major European currencies. It was a rival-bashing tactic that has since become an American habit.</p><p>Thirty-seven years later, almost to the day, Japan is only now getting close to shaking off the massive deflationary impact of the Plaza Accord, and while China has managed to shield itself against such currency attacks, it has come under siege from different economic weapons.</p><p>All the noise we are hearing now about the yen plunging to its lowest level in decades, along with calls for currency market interventions, ignores the fact that pre-Plaza the yen/dollar exchange rate was around 260 and that within a couple of years or so the yen almost doubled in value.</p><p>Some might argue that the rate of 260 yen to the dollar was just as arbitrary as that of 360 set by occupying powers after World War II. But the fact is that Japanese price structures had adjusted to these levels by the time of the Plaza Accord, and the deflationary shock was thus profound.</p><p>No economy can withstand a trauma of Plaza magnitude without having the stuffing knocked out of it. Japan adjusted, but only at the expense of manufacturing sector employment and domestic economic growth. It now faces the need to adjust yet again to keep pace with fresh external shocks.</p><p>As a consequence of the 1985 accord, signed in New York’s Plaza Hotel, Japan suffered several “lost decades” of growth thereafter. In fact, what is mistakenly described as yen “weakness” now marks something closer to a return to an equilibrium exchange rate for the yen.</p><p>Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda is well aware of this fact. He and former vice finance minister Eisuke Sakakibara helped steer Japan through rough waters after the Plaza Accord and the trauma of deflation. He is unlikely to be in a hurry to return to a strong yen now.</p><p>Why has the US not cried foul at Kuroda’s stealth tactic of letting the yen begin a steady decline – if not to anything like pre-Plaza levels then at least to well below the 100 to the dollar or even the levels it touched at times in post-Plaza decades?</p><p>The answer is partly that the Plaza Accord did its job of hobbling Japanese competitiveness and forcing a “hollowing out” of the Japanese economy after manufacturers reacted by shifting manufacturing production offshore. And it is partly the fact that the US has bigger fish to fry nowadays.</p><p>Washington has been unable to use a Plaza-like weapon against China, which has wisely preserved exchange controls, but US administrations have found other weapons of choice to use against those who, like China, dare to challenge American supremacy.</p><p>Under the guise of protecting “economic security” – which is in reality old-fashioned protectionism by another name – the US and some of its allies have begun talking about and acting upon the idea of bringing US production back onshore where it is supposedly safe from competitors.</p><p>This is disastrously backward-looking. It implies that for the sake of political expediency, many of the evolutions that Asian and other economies have been forced to go through in order to adapt to overseas-initiated currency and trade wars will need to be reworked.</p><p>Trade links and manufacturing supply chains that have evolved in line with the requirements of efficient international production and distribution have survived arbitrary currency interventions and tariff impositions. But they are unlikely to survive security-minded interventions.</p><p>Inflation will inevitably become a more entrenched and long-lasting phenomenon as a result because from now on supply chain interruptions will reflect changes in underlying trade and economic structures rather than temporary hiccups caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>All this exposes the fallacy that currency manipulation, tariffs and other trade barriers, plus specious arguments now about the need to preserve national economic security, can substitute for international cooperation on how the global economy and production should be structured.</p><p>It also highlights the fact that, in an age of globalisation, the idea that one major currency (the dollar) whose value is controlled by a single power (the US) can successfully facilitate trade and investment among multiple players without regard to their individual economic circumstances is wrong.</p><p>It is tragic that there is a refusal in Washington and other Western capitals to accept the fact that the world economic order has changed even if the political order is reluctant to adapt. There are bigger battles, such as climate change, to be fought than currency, trade and economic security wars.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Anthony Rowley is a veteran journalist specialising in Asian economic and financial affairs</i></p><p><br /></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-60377843674832703232022-09-21T16:58:00.003+08:002022-09-21T16:58:23.345+08:00Has the Pentagon been caught using Twitter for pro-West disinformation?<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Facebook and Twitter have shut down dozens of fake accounts, suspecting they were created by the US military</li><li>The Pentagon refuses to confirm or deny the US military was behind the accounts, but launches ‘review’</li></ul><p></p><p>Agence France-Presse</p><p>The US Department of Defence has launched a review of its psychological warfare operations after the discovery of fake accounts on social media promoting pro-West disinformation, an official confirmed.</p><p>Pentagon spokesman Pat Ryder confirmed the review after a Washington Post report said social media giants Facebook and Twitter had shut down a number of fake accounts suspecting they were created by the US military.</p><p>Ryder did not say confirm or deny that the military was behind fake accounts, and said the information still needed to be reviewed.</p><p>He cautioned against assuming that the Defence Department was behind the accounts, leaving it possible that another government agency was involved.</p><p>He said the review is “an opportunity for us to assess the current work that’s being done in this arena”.</p><p>The Washington Post noted a report last month by Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory on pro-Western covert influence operations.</p><p>The report said Twitter and Facebook parent Meta had removed nearly 150 US and Britain-origin accounts in July and August engaging in “inauthentic behaviour”.</p><p>The Graphika-Stanford investigation said that, after analysing the accounts they discovered an interconnected web of accounts on eight social media platforms that had been using “deceptive tactics” to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and in Central Asia.</p><p>The accounts came from a series of campaigns over five years rather than one single effort, the report said.</p><p>The accounts “consistently advanced narratives promoting the interests of the United States and its allies while opposing countries including Russia, China and Iran,” it said.</p><p>Citing unnamed government sources, The Washington Post tied at least some of the activity to the Pentagon, and said that officials of the US Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, were “facing scrutiny”.</p><p>Ryder said the military’s psychological operations, or “military information support operations”, are structured and legal, and are to support activities in the field.</p><p>“These are not public affairs operations,” he said.</p><p>“It’s an aspect of warfare as old as warfare itself, and we conduct those operations in support of national security priorities,” he told reporters.</p><p>He noted that military deception operations were crucial in World War II, and are an integral part of the warfighting toolkit.</p><p>“There are opportunities in conducting operations against adversaries where you may want to use information in a way that is going to help them think a certain way - not truthful information,” he said.</p><p>“What I would highlight is that they must be undertaken in compliance with US law and Defence Department policy and we have safeguards in place and are committed to observing those safeguards,” he said.</p><p><br /></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-57514300751087948472022-07-14T16:26:00.006+08:002022-07-14T16:26:50.750+08:00Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine must not be allowed to undo decades of Sino-German economic cooperation<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>China is not Russia. Its economic ties with Germany run far deeper, and Berlin needs good relations with Beijing to retain its leading position in Europe</li><li>Without key raw materials from China, including metals, Europe and in particular Germany will not be in a position to advance ecological change</li></ul><p></p><p><i>Thomas O. Falk</i></p><p>Relations between China and Germany go back a long way and have intensified since diplomatic relations were established in 1972 under German chancellor Willy Brandt. Since then, both sides have benefited greatly in areas such as science, technology and education – as well as trade, key to the flourishing cooperation.</p><p>A rising China needs Germany and the rest of Europe as markets for its products to ensure economic growth. Germany needs China for its manufacturing, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and for raw materials.</p><p>Previous German chancellors Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel understood that amicable and beneficial relations with China were in Germany’s best interests.</p><p>Today, China is by far Germany’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade worth more than €245 billion (US$250 billion) last year. Germany remains Europe’s primary investor in China, with direct investment increasing from US$1.5 billion in 2010 to US$14.55 billion in 2020.</p><p>It is a relationship that works. However, Russia’s war in Ukraine is now having an adverse impact on Sino-German cooperation.</p><p>Berlin has, in the past, been highly critical of Beijing’s handling of human rights. Now China’s refusal to condemn the Russian invasion and join Western sanctions against Moscow has called into question the strategic partnership. After all, Germany’s “Zeitenwende” (turning point), postulated by Chancellor Olaf Scholz after Russia’s attack, will also see Berlin readjust its stance on Beijing.</p><p>President Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced recently that Germany must not become dependent on China for key raw materials. “In some strategically important fields, our dependence on Chinese raw materials is significantly greater than our dependence on Russian gas in recent years,” he said.</p><p>But this statement is based on reactionist views and ill-advised values rather than sound political and economic conclusions. Germany’s U-turn must not disguise that it was caught off guard by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite the red flags.</p><p>Germany has over the past decades grown dependent on Russian gas, oil and coal – particularly during Steinmeier’s time as foreign minister.</p><p>Despite evidence of Russian President Vladimir Putin increasingly being seen as a pariah, the Russia-Georgia war in 2008 and annexation of Crimea in 2014 – plus contract killings on German soil and hacking attacks on the Bundestag – Merkel and Schröder continued to champion Russian-German relations.</p><p>The tone only changed following Putin’s war on Ukraine and subsequent energy crisis, with Germany now facing the possibility of running out of gas, which could leave people without heating this winter.</p><p>But China could now inadvertently get caught up in the backlash over Russia’s aggression, amid German naivety, with the false equivalency prevailing in Germany that China is basically another Russia.</p><p>This is a misjudgment, however. Russia, with an economy smaller than Italy’s, is essentially a gas station with nuclear weapons that has initiated the most significant war on European soil since the second world war.</p><p>Yes, Germany made itself dependent on Russian energy, but this is a temporary issue and the government is working hard to rectify things.</p><p>China is the present and the future, and for Berlin to maintain its leading position in Europe, German-Sino relations must continue to flourish, rather than decline.</p><p>Of course, it’s possible to be critical of China’s stance on a number of global issues. But Germany should give Beijing the benefit of the doubt and emphasise that there’s no comparison with the regime in Moscow.</p><p>Unlike Russia, Germany’s relationship with China is very much two-way. It is not about largely unprocessed raw materials such as oil or gas, but products in complex supply chains. German companies are heavily involved through their investments, while China relies on German technology.</p><p>More than two decades ago, business with China accounted for about 1 per cent of German trade volume. Today, more than one-tenth of German imports come from China. German exports to China have also increased significantly, accounting for more than 7 per cent of total exports.</p><p>Another pivotal point, especially if Germany and the rest of Europe are serious about going green, is that the European Union is 75-100 per cent dependent on imports for most metals. Among the 30 raw materials the EU classifies as “critical”, several are imported almost exclusively from China, such as rare earths (98 per cent), magnesium (93 per cent) and bismuth (93 per cent).</p><p>The EU estimates that with the move towards cleaner energy, demand for cobalt alone will be five times higher by 2030. Moreover, Germany’s ambitious electric-vehicle vision requires lithium, and EU demand could increase 18-fold by 2030.</p><p>Steinmeier can demand alternatives to China for raw materials as much as he pleases. But, without China, Europe and in particular Germany will not be in a position to advance ecological change or continue to prosper.</p><p>Germany, which has played a positive role in promoting China-EU relations, must be aware of this, and Putin’s war must not be allowed to undo decades of cooperation.</p><p>There will always be differences of opinion between Beijing and Berlin. But it shouldn’t hide the fact that positive Sino-German relations have been and continue to be a win-win state of affairs.</p><p><i>Thomas O. Falk is a UK-based independent journalist and political analyst</i></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-84607455636366501592022-07-14T16:22:00.004+08:002022-07-14T16:22:36.766+08:00Russia’s war in Ukraine is more than just a battle of ‘good vs evil’<p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Democracy is part of the story, but the truth is that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine is complex and involves numerous factors</li><li>Ignoring Russia’s ‘civilisational turn’ and mobilised historical memory leads to a flawed understanding and ineffective policies</li></ul><p></p><p><i>Nicholas Ross Smith</i></p><p>New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern received some scorn recently when she said in a speech to the Lowy Institute that the war in Ukraine should not be characterised as a war of “democracy vs autocracy”. Much of it has centred on the belief that Ardern betrayed the courageous Ukrainians fighting the autocratic Russians for their chance at a democratic future.</p><p>Democracy is undeniably part of the story of the war in Ukraine. Remember, it was not the threat of Nato expansion that sparked Russian action against Ukraine in 2014 but, rather, the prospect of Ukraine aligning politically with the European Union.</p><p>Importantly, though, the Kremlin’s fear was not democracy in Ukraine per se. Historically, Ukraine has never been close to reaching the kind of reform which would justify calling it a “liberal democracy”. Under Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it was not threatening to change this any time soon.</p><p>Furthermore, the EU’s once-lauded ability to facilitate democratic transitions has been stymied by domestic issues. What Russia feared most was the perceived threat of having a disloyal regime in Ukraine, the most important country in its self-anointed “zone of privileged interests”.</p><p>After witnessing the Arab spring and the toppling of numerous authoritarian regimes across the Middle East and North Africa – especially the brutal demise of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya – the Kremlin chose to see the prospect of having a Western-aligned democratic Ukraine on Russia’s border as something of a Trojan horse.</p><p>Furthermore, the broader claim that Russia and China represent a serious global challenge to democracy seems to be tenuous. Russia and China are increasingly authoritarian states that have taken action to undermine liberal democracies.</p><p>But the problems in liberal democracies at the moment have more to do with internal issues – such as political polarisation, the rise of extremism and demagoguery and increasing economic hardship – rather than any external interference.</p><p>Ardern’s refusal to reduce the Ukraine war to a simple dichotomy should be applauded. She is one of only a few leaders resisting the urge to view the Ukraine war or China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific as simple tales of good vs evil. Such Manicheanism is a hallmark of neoconservatism.</p><p>The truth is that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine is complex and involves numerous factors beyond the lens of democracy vs autocracy. For instance, the “civilisational turn” that has occurred in Russia is extremely important.</p><p>When Russian President Vladimir Putin returned to office in 2012, he began explicitly evoking the concept of Russia as a unique, non-European civilisation to justify his strongman rule at home and reassert Russia as a significant global power.</p><p>Civilisational states are fundamentally exclusive and insular. While that might result in more domestic cohesion and regime stability, internationally it can be extremely divisive. As foreign policy expert Jeffrey Mankoff argued, Putin’s desire was for Russia to embark on a grand national cause of making Russian civilisation “a cultural and geopolitical alternative to the West”.</p><p>Ukraine became an important component of the idea of Russian civilisation, particularly as Russia identifies the medieval state of Kievan Rus as its historical starting point. The politics of historical memory have been front and centre of Russia’s belligerence against Ukraine.</p><p>What started as Russian action framed on the pretence that it wanted to “help the Ukrainian brothers to agree on how they should build and develop their country” has morphed into questioning the very existence of Ukraine as a nation.</p><p>History, especially when combined with the assertion of a unique civilisation, can be a trap. It might give leaders and politicians significant power at home, but it can also unleash forces they cannot control. As political scientist Maria Mälksoo argues, states that mobilise historical memory run the risk of actually doing “self-inflicted harm to the object of defence in the very effort to defend it”.</p><p>The war in Ukraine is further complicated by the legacy of colonialism and postcolonialism. Russia’s denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty and its invasion is, at its heart, an act of recolonisation. Some have likened this to reconstituting the Russian Empire.</p><p>All of this is occurring against the backdrop of great power politics. Although hard power largely went out of fashion as a key aspect of understanding international relations in the initial post-Cold-War era, it would be foolish not to realise that power relations are crucial to the calculations of states. Changing regional geopolitical contexts should not be dismissed as unimportant.</p><p>Rightly or wrongly, Russia and China interpret Western action as an effort to undermine their power. The United States casts a long shadow and can be ignorant about how this affects non-allies, especially great powers that are notoriously fearful and paranoid.</p><p>Ardern made a compelling point when she said diplomacy cannot succeed “if those parties we seek to engage with are increasingly isolated and the region we inhabit becomes increasingly divided and polarised”.</p><p>Make no mistake – in the context of the Ukraine war, Russia is undeniably in the wrong. The Ukrainians deserve to win and come out of the conflict with a liberal democratic future and a clear pathway to EU membership.</p><p>However, pushing simplistic narratives about the conflict and broader international issues will inadvertently result in simplistic policies that do not grasp the complexity of these issues. On this point, Ardern is right to try to offer a more nuanced view.</p><p><i>Nicholas Ross Smith is an adjunct fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand</i></p><p><br /></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-59954199545972769342022-07-12T23:46:00.001+08:002022-07-12T23:46:09.224+08:00China ‘not to blame’ for African debt crisis, it’s the West: study<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>High-interest loans from private Western lenders account for most of the burden on countries in Africa, Britain’s Debt Justice charity finds</li><li>Campaigners are calling on the G7 to stop using Chinese loans as ‘distraction’ while letting their own banks, asset managers and oil traders off the hook</li></ul><p></p><p>Jevans Nyabiage</p><p>African countries owe three times more debt to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the interest, according to a study released on Monday by British campaign charity Debt Justice.</p><p>This is despite the growing accusations by the US and other Western countries that China’s lending is behind the debt troubles faced by some African countries.</p><p>The study said just 12 per cent of the continent’s external debt was owed to Chinese lenders, compared to 35 per cent owed to Western private creditors, according to calculations based on World Bank data.</p><p>Interest rates charged on private loans were almost double those on Chinese loans, while the most indebted countries were less likely to have their debt dominated by China, the study found. The average interest rate on private sector loans is 5 per cent, compared to 2.7 per cent on loans from Chinese public and private lenders.</p><p>The study was released ahead of the G20 finance ministers meeting from July 15-16 in Indonesia. Campaigners are calling on Western countries, particularly Britain and the US, to compel private lenders to take part in the Common Framework – the G20’s latest debt relief scheme.</p><p>The study found a dozen of the 22 African countries with the highest debts were paying more than 30 per cent of their total external repayments to private lenders. These included Cabo Verde, Chad, Egypt, Gabon, Malawi, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia and Zambia.</p><p>South Sudan is one of the hardest hit in this category, with 81 per cent of its debt repayments going to private creditors, and just 11 per cent to China. Ghana is also paying more than half of its external debt obligations to the private sector, with 11 per cent going to China and the rest to multilateral lenders and other governments.</p><p>Chinese lenders accounted for more than 30 per cent of loan payments in six of the 22 most indebted countries – Angola, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Zambia.</p><p>The study calculations showed 59 per cent of Angola’s foreign debt payments serviced Chinese lenders. And Djibouti – where China has poured billions of dollars into building ports and free trade zones, and also set up its first overseas military base – makes 64 per cent of its external debt payments to Beijing.</p><p>Debt Justice policy head Tim Jones said Western leaders blamed China for debt crises in Africa, “but this is a distraction”.</p><p>“The truth is their own banks, asset managers and oil traders are far more responsible but the G7 are letting them off the hook.”</p><p>Jones said China had taken part in the G20’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative during the pandemic, while private lenders did not. “There can be no effective debt solution without the involvement of private lenders. The UK and US should introduce legislation to compel private lenders to take part in debt relief,” he said.</p><p>The G20 initiative, unveiled in May 2020, provided 48 economies with temporary cash-flow relief, delivering about US$12.9 billion in debt service payments by the end of December when it ended.</p><p>But the exclusion of private and multilateral lenders meant countries that applied to take part in the initiative saw just 23 per cent of their external repayments suspended.</p><p>In 2020, Zambia became the first African country to default – on US$3 billion in dollar-denominated bonds – in the pandemic era. It is now in the process of restructuring about US$17 billion in external debt as a precondition to securing IMF loans of US$1.4 billion.</p><p>Lusaka owes Chinese lenders about US$6 billion, which has gone into building mega projects including airports, highways and power dams.</p><p>The initiative’s replacement, the G20 Common Framework, allows participating countries to agree to restructure debt with bilateral lenders and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The nations are then supposed to seek similar debt treatment from private sector creditors.</p><p>Only Chad, Zambia and Ethiopia have so far applied for help through the Common Framework, but all are still waiting for debt relief.</p><p>The G7 countries have blamed China for the failure of the debt relief programme to help heavily indebted countries avoid default, doubling down in May with a statement from the finance ministers of the world’s seven most advanced economies.</p><p>“With regards to the implementation of the Common Framework, it remains essential that all relevant creditor countries – including non-Paris Club countries, such as those like China, with large outstanding claims on low-income countries facing debt sustainability challenges – contribute constructively to the necessary debt treatments as requested,” they said.</p><p>Yungong Theo Jong, head of programmes at the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (Afrodad), said multilateral and private lenders remained the biggest creditors to African governments.</p><p>“Loans from China have increased Africa’s indebtedness, but by far less than Western lenders. All lenders must participate in debt relief. Western governments must lead the way by making private lenders cancel debts,” he said.</p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-16306376503472966072022-06-10T04:24:00.005+08:002022-06-10T04:24:57.430+08:00In the eyes of others, the US is not the benign power it thinks it is<p><i>Dani Rodrik</i></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>America’s foreign policy goals are often self-serving, while its designs for a rules-based international order primarily reflect the interests of its business and policy elites</li><li>What’s good for the US may not be good for the world. The sooner Washington recognises that, the better</li></ul><p></p><p>When I started teaching at Harvard’s Kennedy School in the mid-1980s, competition with Japan was the dominant preoccupation of US economic policy. The book Japan as Number One by Harvard’s premier Japan expert at the time, Ezra Vogel, set the tone of the debate.</p><p>I remember being struck back then by the degree to which the discussion, even among academics, was tinged by a certain sense of American entitlement to international pre-eminence. The United States could not let Japan dominate key industries and had to respond with its own industrial and trade policies – not just because these might help the US economy, but also because the US simply could not be No 2.</p><p>Until then, I had thought that aggressive nationalism was a feature of the Old World – insecure societies ill at ease with their international standing and reeling from real or perceived historical injustices. American elites, rich and secure, may have valued patriotism, but their global outlook tended towards cosmopolitanism.</p><p>But zero-sum nationalism was not far from the surface, which became clear once America’s place atop the global economic totem pole was threatened.</p><p>After three decades of US triumphalism following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a similar process is now playing out on a vastly greater scale. It is driven both by China’s rise – which represents a more significant economic challenge to America than Japan did in the 1980s and is also a geopolitical risk – and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.</p><p>The US has responded to these developments by seeking to reassert its global primacy – a goal American policymakers readily conflate with that of establishing a more secure and prosperous world. They regard US leadership as central to the promotion of democracy, open markets and a rules-based international order.</p><p>What could be more conducive to peace and prosperity than that? The view that US foreign policy goals are fundamentally benign underpins the myth of American exceptionalism: what is good for the US is good for the world.</p><p>While this is undoubtedly true at times, the myth too often blinds American policymakers to the reality of how they exercise power. The US undermines other democracies when it suits its interests and has a long record of meddling in sovereign countries’ domestic politics. Its 2003 invasion of Iraq was as clear a violation of the United Nations Charter as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine.</p><p>US designs for “open markets” and a “rules-based international order” often primarily reflect the interests of US business and policy elites rather than smaller countries’ aspirations. And when international rules diverge from those interests, the US simply stays away (as with the International Criminal Court, or most of the core International Labour Organization conventions).</p><p>Many of these tensions were evident in a recent speech by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on America’s approach to China. Blinken described China as “the most serious long-term challenge to the international order”, arguing that “Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress”.</p><p>Blinken is correct that many of the elements of the post-World-War-II order, such as the UN Charter, are not purely American or Western. But it is far from certain that China poses a greater threat to those truly universal constructs than the US does. For example, much of the trouble that US policymakers have with Chinese economic practices relates to domains – especially trade, investment and technology – where universal rules hardly prevail.</p><p>According to Blinken, the US “will shape the strategic environment around Beijing to advance our vision for an open, inclusive international system”. Again, who could possibly oppose such a vision?</p><p>But China and many others worry that US intentions are much less benign. To them, Blinken’s statement sounds like a threat to contain China and limit its options, while bullying other countries into siding with America.</p><p>None of this is to claim an equivalence between current US actions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s gross human rights violations in Xinjiang and land grabs in the Himalayas and South China Sea.</p><p>For all its faults, the US is a democracy where critics can openly criticise and oppose the government’s foreign policy. But that makes little difference to countries treated as pawns in America’s geopolitical competition with China, which often struggle to distinguish between the global actions of major powers.</p><p>Blinken drew a clear link between China’s authoritarian practices and the country’s presumed threat to global order. This is a mirror-image projection of America’s belief in its own benign exceptionalism. But just as democracy at home does not imply goodwill abroad, domestic repression need not inevitably lead to external aggression. China also claims to be interested in a stable, prosperous global order – just not one arranged exclusively on US terms.</p><p>The irony is that the more the US treats China as a threat and attempts to isolate it, the more China’s responses will seem to validate America’s fears.</p><p>With the US seeking to convene a club of democracies openly opposing China, it is not surprising that President Xi Jinping cosied up to Putin just as Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine. As the journalist Robert Wright notes, countries excluded from such groupings will band together.</p><p>To those who wonder why we should care about the decline of America’s relative power, US foreign policy elites respond with a rhetorical question: would you rather live in a world dominated by the US or by China?</p><p>In truth, other countries would rather live in a world without domination, where smaller states retain a fair degree of autonomy, have good relations with all others, are not forced to choose sides, and do not become collateral damage when major powers fight it out.</p><p>The sooner US leaders recognise that others do not view America’s global ambitions through the same rose-tinted glasses, the better it will be for everyone.</p><p><i>Dani Rodrik is professor of international political economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Copyright: Project Syndicate</i></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-55276899668412545112022-06-05T14:08:00.000+08:002022-06-05T14:08:24.333+08:00Russia-Ukraine war: Europe failed by not building alliances with Asia<p><i>Chandran Nair</i></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>After outsourcing its security to the US and Nato, Europe now finds itself in a pseudo-proxy war. Asia should learn from this lack of strategic leadership</li><li>European leaders lacked the spine to embrace China, India or Russia with an independent foreign policy – instead drinking deeply from America’s warlike doctrine</li></ul><p></p><p>Lost in the fog of war is the truth that the Russia-Ukraine crisis has revealed the failings of Europe’s leaders on two fronts.</p><p>First, why did they not see this coming? Because they are in denial about the nature of their subservient relationship with an increasingly reckless and hegemonic United States.</p><p>Second, why do they maintain this relationship with America? Because they lack the spine to embrace the alternative: an independent foreign policy on a more equal standing with the rest of the world – especially with Asian powers such as China and India.</p><p>If Europe, with its history of triggering global wars, is to move towards peace once more then it must first face up to these leadership failings and chart a new course based on something more than narrow alliances rooted in a shared European heritage and race.</p><p>Wars must be avoided at all cost and it takes true leadership to maintain peace, not ideological posturing and pandering to special relationships. Countries always act in their self-interest – the protection of national security, for example – but in this instance the leaders of Europe failed to protect their citizens by imposing a national security threat upon Russia.</p><p>This is not a defence of Vladimir Putin. Instigating war and its horrors is unforgivable, and he must be held responsible for his actions. But we should not be blindsided: it is a geopolitical reality that any country would feel its national security was at risk when faced with a military coalition, which it cannot join, expanding towards its borders. This type of provocation is intolerable and Western leaders should not have expected it to be endured.</p><p>Yet many in the West still arrogantly believe all other nations must mirror their ideologies and are deserving of antagonism if they do not. This stance is naively insufficient for a multipolar, globalised world that is sadly also overmilitarised – something Europe should have already recognised.</p><p>If China, India or Venezuela began a process similar to Nato’s expansion with their neighbouring countries, it would cause geopolitical uproar – the mere presence of Chinese ships at the edges of the South China Sea triggers anti-China sentiment from the West.</p><p>War is avoided through diplomacy, communication, and an acute understanding of the fears and concerns of others. Leaders in Asia understand this, for the most part, given the wars the region has endured – many of which have their roots in the colonial era – and as such, they invariably push for peace and not military escalation. Witness Southeast Asia, which since the end of the Vietnam war – fought to liberate the country from centuries of foreign domination – has not seen a major conflict. Despite the presence of foreign military powers like the US, the region has maintained a non-aligned foreign policy and tried not to take sides.</p><p>America’s determination to dominate Asia militarily has typically been justified by a carefully crafted and crafty narrative that Asian nations are apparently incapable of building and enjoying peace without the military presence of the most warlike nation on the planet.</p><p>Europe’s leaders have gone to great lengths to conceal their lack of leadership by transforming Putin into a pariah and even calling for regime change, instead of pursuing a diplomatic approach. In doing so, they and the international commentators that echo them abdicate responsibility for not pre-empting the war; they can instead lay the blame entirely at Putin’s door and paint him as a movie-style villain. So it was with Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and anyone else seen as unsavoury by the West. The same treatment is now being meted out to Chinese President Xi Jinping. But diplomacy means forging friendships, even with enemies, to avoid catastrophic outcomes. This simple logic and calculus was cast aside as Europe outsourced its security to the US and Nato.</p><p>Which leads us to the first front: European leaders were helpless to prevent this war from occurring because of their coveted close relationship with America.</p><p>This relationship is ultimately predicated on a shared European heritage and the post-war ideological unification of the US and Europe as leaders of the “free world”, which the rest of the world now largely sees as an outdated coalition of Caucasian nations spearheaded by the Anglosphere. Europe – Britain especially – has desperately tried to maintain this “special” relationship with big brother America in recent decades, leading many European leaders to outsource decision-making to Washington on issues of geopolitical importance, from interventions in the Middle East to trade agreements, economic restructuring, and sanctions. This in turn further emboldened the US and encouraged its belligerence.</p><p>It has also prevented Europe’s leaders from creating an independent strategic foreign policy approach that places them in control of their own regional security. A key tenet of this strategy should have been cultivating ties with Russia and China 20 years ago to build world peace. Instead, the Europeans chose to tether themselves to an insecure America and allow themselves to be drawn into an ideological partnership of global dominance and supremacy, based on Cold War mindsets – a position that is singularly unsuited to guarding Europe’s self-interest and its critically important role in the emerging post-Western world.</p><p>Europe saw China simply as a trading partner and a threat, rather than an ally. More often than not, it chose to follow the prescriptions of the US – a country that has been at war for much of its existence, and that allows domestic politics to become the catalyst for militaristic intervention in other parts of the world.</p><p>Rather than working with Russia to prioritise peace, European leaders drank deeply from US doctrine and ultimately capitulated to it. Now, Europe is caught in a bind: looking to American foreign policy as its North Star when this was what got it into this unnecessary war in the first place. After all, the US is unlikely to come to Europe’s aid if the conflict worsens – funding and weapons are one thing, but ground, naval, and air support against another nuclear power is not on America’s agenda. And there is no reason to expect a domestically insecure Joe Biden will sue for peace when he is desperate to strengthen his position with the American public by showing how tough and righteous he is. If that means war in Europe against one of America’s detractors, so be it.</p><p><b>The business of war</b></p><p>European leaders should have been acutely aware that the US has the largest military-industrial complex in the world. Since 9/11, one-third to one-half of the Pentagon’s US$14 trillion in spending has gone to for-profit defence contractors, while dozens of members of Congress and their families own millions of dollars’ worth of stock in these companies. America is the most capitalist country in the world, and the arms industry is big business. But the market can only grow if conflict and military expenditure increase around the world. For European leaders to be aware of this and not act accordingly is a failure of strategic leadership. There is a lesson here for Asia, too: make military spending a large part of your national budget and economy, and ruin awaits on many fronts.</p><p>Why did the Europeans not act on this knowledge? Answering this question brings us to the second front: they do not have the backbone to stand up to Washington and sacrifice elements of their relationship with the US, which offers them a disproportionate place in the global hierarchy of nations, so they can be free of American influence in their affairs. By the same token, how much longer will Japan kowtow to a US foreign policy that is increasingly dictated by neocons and instead forge one that is independent and built with its Asian neighbours?</p><p>It should have been clear to the Europeans since the turn of the millennium that America’s political system was beginning to become a destabilising global force, rather than a unifying one. Yet no European leader has taken concrete steps to limit US interventionism or create an independent foreign-policy approach. The result is that Europe now finds itself in a pseudo-proxy war with Russia – a conflict that is right on its doorstep, not in some faraway place in the Middle East or Asia.</p><p>Where is the European leader willing to call this out with one simple statement? And better yet, follow it up with diplomatic action? What is the principle that European leaders think they are defending when negotiations break down and lives continue to be lost?</p><p><b>Moral posturing</b></p><p>Europe’s lack of leadership was not much talked about before the crisis. But just as war has united the West in its desperation to maintain the anachronistic “struggle of light over dark” (an actual quote from The Economist to describe the conflict) that so defines its moral posturing, so has it given voice to those observers and commentators seeking to bring periphery conversations to the surface. European leaders should heed such opinions, even if they are a departure from the actions of their forebears.</p><p>Europe should come to terms with the end of empire, and centuries of privilege, and reach out to Asian powers that are going to shape the course of the 21st century. That means making allies of China, India, and Indonesia – total population 3 billion – rather than condescendingly viewing them as former colonies not worthy of a “special” relationship. They may not share a common European heritage, but do such archaic and even racist ideas still matter in the 21st century?</p><p>Europe needs to come to terms with the harsh reality that America is not on its side, because what drives the US geopolitically is ultimately domestic gain – both bolstering its position as global hegemon and retaining its economic privileges, such as its dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Asian leaders, meanwhile, need to understand that despite the significant build-up of US military power in the region over the last half-century, it is not in their best interests to allow “Nato-isation” to occur. Asia needs to work collectively to curb US military expansion and make sure Washington understands that the region is not made up of client states, and is in fact capable of maintaining peace without outsourcing its security like the Europeans.</p><p>After spouting righteous rhetoric against Russia and Putin, European leaders are finding themselves face-to-face with militaristic escalation that they are not equipped to deal with. This is not a war that generals marched into; it is a war that politicians lacking strategic leadership skills allowed to happen. Across Asia, political leaders need to be aware of this all important lesson.</p><p><i>Chandran Nair is founder and CEO of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and member of the Club of Rome’s executive committee. He is also the author of ‘Dismantling Global White Privilege: Equity for a Post-Western World’ and ‘The Sustainable State: The Future of Government, Economy and Society’.</i></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-90489006957392522952022-06-05T13:41:00.001+08:002022-06-05T13:41:30.205+08:00American aggression needs to be reined in for the good of Asia and the world<p><i> Chandran Nair</i></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Decades of exceptionalism, ideological obsessions and a deep-rooted sense of superiority is catching up with the United States</li><li>The world needs to appreciate the rapid shifts in the global order arising from the US’ toxic domestic situation, and how its political elite distracts people from its decline with an aggressive foreign policy anchored in outdated doctrines</li></ul><p></p><p>US President Joe Biden visited Asia last week and triggered panic across the region when he spoke out of turn and unproductively about war with China.</p><p>At a time when the world is reeling from the effects of the war in Ukraine and when so much of the region is still trying to recover from the pandemic, including the economic fallout, Biden chose not to speak about peace and collaboration but instead deliberately fuelled tensions. This is unconscionable.</p><p>It is high time for leaders of the region to no longer remain passive to such bullying and reckless behaviour, or worse, exude subservience in the presence of Western leaders by outsourcing the management of regional issues and differences to them, including bilateral tensions.</p><p>Biden’s comments brought into clear focus Washington’s fearful obsession over the rise of China, which is an unprecedented challenge to its assumed role as global leader. This challenge is made much more uncomfortable for the US and its Western allies by the fact China is a non-Caucasian civilisation, and its rise upturns 400 years of Western dominance of world affairs, often referred to as the “rules-based” global order.</p><p>But the truth is that decades of exceptionalism, ideological obsessions and a deep-rooted sense of superiority is catching up with the US. There exists a major frontline within the nation that is tearing it apart but about which its leaders remain in full denial.</p><p>As soon as Biden returned to the US after his warmongering mission to Asia, he was greeted by the latest in an ongoing tragedy at home – 21 people, including 19 children, killed by a domestic terrorist armed by America’s home-grown merchants of death, the gun industry.</p><p>Biden’s response was to scold the nation, by lamenting, “When are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” A plea of a helpless man, coming from supposedly the world’s most powerful leader.</p><p>What, therefore, gives Biden the right to posture as the leader of the so-called free world? His statements are primarily based on an outdated reliance on projecting America’s military might and apparent willingness to go to war to defend the world against the US version of the “bad guys”. This is despite its defeat in all the major wars it has triggered over the last half a century, from Vietnam and Iraq to Afghanistan. All examples of people seeking to be free of foreign occupation.</p><p>The long-held fear across Asia of a reckless militaristic empire starting a war here is quickly being replaced by a new realisation and awakening: that all of these machinations are the desperate throes of a nation that is entirely unwilling to share power with others, and is internally wracked by conflict and social decline.</p><p>The US thus desperately seeks refuge or even reassurance in its self-appointed role as leader of the “free world”, driven by a desperate desire to retain its privileges by projecting aggression across the world.</p><p>Much of this hinges on the leveraging of fig leaves, such as leading the fight against authoritarian states, defending democracy or standing up for universal values and providing security guarantees for the nations of the world.</p><p>But in reality, the US is seemingly incapable of protecting even its children. So, Biden came to Asia, spoke and war mongered but he did not conquer. People across the world have begun to see through the veneer of American exceptionalism, as the bullying and intimidation has persisted for too long.</p><p>The hypocrisy is far too obvious to explain away. This is a tipping point, as formerly colonised populations around the world – subservient through centuries of indoctrination – are now beginning to see the emperor with no clothes on.</p><p>To understand the implications of the decline of the US on the rest of the world, one has to understand the true nature of the broken state of affairs. This means looking well beyond the supposed might of the American economy.</p><p>The reliance on economic performance indicators to assess the strength of the US and amplify its power, glosses over deep-rooted structural failings, and this is a grave mistake – and even a form of denial. These are wholly superficial and inappropriate indicators of a society’s well-being and resilience.</p><p>A true reflection of the realities in the US would include the following indicators:</p><p>• The unabated gun violence and the killing of its children, to which a corrupt political system has been unresponsive. A nation that cannot protect its children from such wanton slaughter is immoral and has no right lecturing the world about values, human rights or democracy.</p><p>• The continuing large-scale systemic discrimination of black people, including killings such as the one in Buffalo.</p><p>• An entrenched industrial military complex (IMC) that thrives on selling and exporting guns, weapons and war.</p><p>• A growing right-wing white supremacist movement now led by the former President who only last week sharing a post speaking about an impending civil war – incitement?</p><p>• Extreme and growing inequalities, yet a completely detached belief among the majority that a “thriving economy”, which in reality serves the very rich, represents success and progress. This is worsened by the degree of idolisation in American media.</p><p>• The widespread and slow death being inflicted on millions of Americans by the nature of their consumption habits, abetted by the structure of the US’ unfettered capitalist economy – in particular the stranglehold of the junk food and pharmaceutical industry. The Covid-19 pandemic further exposed the severity of this underlying health crisis.</p><p>• A public that is inured to foreign conflict and has scant regard for the death and destruction inflicted on non-Americans by the country’s never-ending wars.</p><p>This is not to say other countries do not have some of these issues. But none exist on this scale. Most importantly, no other country with these large scale internal challenges borne out of political failure and societal fissures seeks to relentlessly occupy the higher moral ground and impose upon or dictate to others in order to maintain economic dominance; not even China.</p><p>The world, and especially a fast-growing Asia, needs to appreciate the rapid and fundamental shifts in the global order arising from the US’ toxic domestic situation, and how its political elite distracts the world and Americans from its decline (and obvious lack of moral authority) with an aggressive foreign policy anchored in outdated doctrines. Their recklessness threatens all of us. This dangerous trend will reach a potentially catastrophic tipping point far more significant than those expressed at the World Economic Forum last week in response to the war in Ukraine.</p><p>It is time for the world, perhaps led by the large nations of Asia, to demilitarise the world of the American Military Industrial Complex (AMIC) by developing a 21st century doctrine of security and peace that is not tethered to the war machine that is the AMIC.</p><p>It is an oxymoron to talk about peace and security guarantees and expect to be led by a nation that has been at war for 93 per cent of the time since its independence and has the world’s largest defence spend – more than the next nine countries combined. With so much capital, the door is wide open for vested interests, and the defence industry has dangerously become a significant player in the US economy.</p><p>Europe is only beginning to understand, albeit rather late in the day, the consequences of outsourcing its security to a war industry with such interests, given that the AMIC now appears to have seen an opportunity to prolong the conflict in Ukraine and serve its interests.</p><p>The AMIC poses an existential threat to world peace because it has partially captured the political economy of the most powerful country on the planet.</p><p>Five of the nation’s biggest defence contractors spent a combined US$60 million to lobby the US government in 2020. The media worships military people – who have investments in defence stocks – and have them on their payroll. Many politicians have stakes in the military industrial complex, and the tech and finance industries are embedded in it.</p><p>For this reason, the US is believed to be one of the biggest threats to world peace. The military industrial complex has become so large that it does not care about winnable wars. It simply needs wars, period.</p><p>Overcoming the challenge presented by the AMIC can be compared with the task of decarbonising the world through a move towards more non-fossil fuel energy sources. It will be a long march, but the world did not start by asking the fossil fuel industry to come up with solutions, and nor does the world ever expect the sector to be fully supportive.</p><p>Instead, new frameworks and doctrines have been created for a new major transformation of our energy future. We need the same to tackle the AMIC and its natural penchant for war.</p><p>This is a massive industry with tentacles everywhere in the US, including among lawmakers, media groups and the tech and financial industry. Overseas it is omnipresent, with an unknown number of subsidiaries around the world, aided by corrupt governments who are clients.</p><p>It is no secret that defence budgets in most developing countries are where large-scale corruption is most prevalent. It is a money spinner just like the fossil fuel industry, and taming it will require bold new approaches about shaping the future of the world.</p><p>It will need to start with a revolution of the mind among Asian leaders, including the complete rejection of their subservience to the US and its Western alliance. Asian leaders should recognise that by curbing their need to emulate or seek guidance or legitimacy from America in foreign policy affairs, they will reduce opportunities to feed the AMIC and thereby sow the seeds for a less risky future based on regional self-determination.</p><p>This is the first step towards rebuffing the confrontational ideologies of the USA and it Western allies and for building a new framework that will once and for all toss the tensions of the past into the dustbin of history, which have been so expertly used by Western powers to continue to divide the nations of Asia.</p><p>This will allow for regional heavyweights like China, Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia to come together and map a new future for the region rather than continue to be actors in a divide and rule, neocolonial geopolitical theatre marshalled by the US.</p><p>It will compel a rising power like China to honour its commitment to a peaceful rise as the demilitarisation of the AMIC becomes an enabling doctrine for a new regional peace and security pact. This outcome is not a far-fetched undertaking, as the example of Asean has proven.</p><p>While far from perfect, Asean has slowly and surely built a doctrine of its own that has allowed for peaceful coexistence in a way that also works to improve the livelihoods of its people. It has, most importantly, avoided war despite the presence of the AMIC.</p><p>The behaviour of the Korean and Japanese leaders during the visit of the US president was awkward to watch and not befitting of these two great nations and their cultures and seemed to belong to a bygone era. Imagine a peace and security treaty involving China, Japan and Korea that does not involve current day security guarantees by the US and its Western allies, which to date have only served to divide and heighten tensions.</p><p>Asian leaders need to realise that a post-Western world is being born, and that means drawing new lines of alliances and steering a new course, which will be a departure from the highly dangerous drivers of US and Western intentions in the region, rooted in preserving an old archaic and even imperial order.</p><p>Ideally, Europe will be a willing partner, but it now seems unlikely as the war in Ukraine and the billions of dollars of US military aid flowing in is only going to make Europe behave like client states of the US, Nato and the AMIC.</p><p>Chandran Nair is the founder of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and ExCom member of the Club of Rome. He is also the author of ‘Dismantling Global White Privilege: Equity for a Post-Western World’ and ‘The Sustainable State: The Future of Government, Economy and Society’.</p><p><i>Chandran Nair is the founder of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and ExCom member of the Club of Rome. He is also the author of ‘Dismantling Global White Privilege: Equity for a Post-Western World’ and ‘The Sustainable State: The Future of Government, Economy and Society’.</i></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-57146970070647274982022-05-25T12:51:00.006+08:002022-05-25T12:51:58.799+08:00China's Gen Z has the power to make or break Western brands<p><i>BLOOMBERG</i></p><p>They’ve got money to burn, eschew foreign labels, and are driven by a swelling sense of nationalism that can ensnare even the biggest global brands. They’re China’s Generation Z and they’re shaking up shopping.</p><p>The 270-million-strong cohort born since the mid-1990s is already flexing their power: they have the fastest spending growth out of any generation in China, are top buyers of cosmetics and tourism services, and have upended online shopping.</p><p>Their influence will only grow, with spending set to rise fourfold to 16 trillion yuan (S$3.3 trillion) by 2035, according to China Renaissance.</p><p>Meeting the demands of the young, nationalistic and exacting Gen Z will require an immense shift in how Western companies - who have bet that decades of demand for foreign goods will endure - do business in China and poses an unprecedented challenge to their market dominance.</p><p>It also sets the stage for a rise in domestic companies to meet growing appetite for, and pride in, China-made goods.</p><p>“Gen Z is the first real consumer generation in China,” said Mr Zak Dychtwald, founder of trend research company Young China Group. “Similar to the baby boomers in the US, China’s Gen Z are redefining the country’s consumer economy and will continue to do so in every single life stage that they go through.”</p><p>It’s not just the sheer size of the market that sets them apart from their peers. Unlike their counterparts in the US or Europe, who grew up during the global financial crisis and its aftermath, China’s young shoppers have known nothing but sustained growth - the pandemic is the first major blight on the economy in their lifetimes - and many were only-child ‘emperors,’ doted upon by parents willing to spend to meet their every need.</p><p>That’s now reflected in their money habits. About a quarter of China’s Gen Z don’t save at all, compared with the global average of 15 per cent, according to an OC&C report.</p><p>They’re also more likely to be impulsive with their purchases. The term Moonlight Clan has been coined to describe people who spend their entire paychecks each month - or an entire lunar cycle, according to McKinsey & Co.</p><p>The group also prefers to spend their money on themselves, and is less inclined to have kids or buy property, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable.</p><p>But what truly sets China’s Gen Z apart from previous generations, and poses the greatest threat for multinationals from Sony Group Corp to Christian Dior SE and Nike Inc is their growing nationalism, fuelled by Beijing’s desire to flex the country’s rising global clout.</p><p>It has put governments and companies on an increasingly delicate footing, lest they find themselves at the centre of a storm of criticism.</p><p>Young, proud Chinese drove the backlash against Hennes & Mauritz AB and Nike after the companies denounced the use of cotton from the Xinjiang region due to accusations of human rights violations against its Uighur minority. H&M, in particular, has become a cautionary tale with its business in China yet to recover.</p><p>The gap left behind paved the way for local rivals like Anta Sports Products Ltd and Li Ning Co - who support Xinjiang cotton - to surpass them in sales by introducing products targeting local consumers, including apparel emblazoned with Chinese characters and sneakers inspired by the Forbidden City.</p><p>By the end of January 2022, Anta and Li Ning dominated 28 per cent of sneaker sales, 12 percentage points higher than before the Xinjiang outcry.</p><p>It’s a shift echoed across other consumer segments, with local drink maker Genki Forest to cosmetic brand Perfect Diary gaining market share and customer loyalty in sectors that used to be dominated by international names.</p><p>Local brands’ “key focus is maintaining their brand position relevant to the Chinese consumers, while global brands must balance not only the trends in China, but also globally to ensure it does not become different things in different countries,” said Mr Kenny Yao, a director at AlixPartners Shanghai, a consulting firm that advises clients on developing businesses in China.</p><p><b>Unimpressed</b></p><p>Unlike their parents, China’s Gen Z tends to be less impressed by products simply because they’re foreign. Western trends dominated the market once China started to open up to foreign investment in the late 1970s.</p><p>It sparked an influx of brands from McDonald’s Corp to Toshiba Corp, Adidas and Starbucks Corp. That helped fuel China’s rise into the world’s second-biggest economy.</p><p>Ms Sarah Lin, a 22-year-old student in Beijing, said her parents still get excited by items that only have foreign-language labels because they assume it’s a premium product.</p><p>But during the time she studied abroad, she realised many brands considered high end in China are mass-market names at home. Now, she prefers to research products and is happy to buy domestic names due to their improving quality and designs that appeal to her.</p><p>“In the past, people would think those who wear Li Ning can’t afford Nike, but foreign brands are not as mysterious to me as to my parents,” said Ms Lin. “I don’t want to pay any premium for a brand’s origin, I’ll only pay for its designs and value for money.”</p><p>Meeting the needs of more discerning customers is also proving a challenge for some foreign brands. Each year, companies from LVMH to Zara roll out collections of handbags to sweaters to mark the Lunar New Year, but their styles - usually emblazoned with traditional folk art and lots of red and gold - are often made fun of by young Chinese consumers who want to express their individual style rather than buy mass-produced fashion that treats them as a monolith.</p><p>Other firms have been more targeted in appealing to Gen Z. Prada SpA’s recent Lunar New Year collection involved a competition for under-30s artists to have their work judged and chosen for a project. Toothpaste brand Crest used a multi-day immersive event that had users solving a murder mystery as part of a new-product launch.</p><p><b>Growing pride</b></p><p>A growing sense of cultural pride has developed alongside a maturation of Chinese brands. And while the shift to buying local isn’t unique to China, few places in the world have the extensive government support and state media apparatus to push the idea on to consumers so comprehensively.</p><p>The revival of hanfu - a traditional, flowing style of clothing characterised by a robe worn over a skirt - is a case in point.</p><p>Initially a small-scale movement in the mid-2000s, it’s grown into a market worth 10 billion yuan a year and is drawing investor interest. Designer Shisanyu raised over 100 million yuan in an April last year, led by Loyal Valley Capital and Bilibili, while Sequoia-backed retailer Shierguangnian has emerged as a top seller.</p><p>Like their peers worldwide, China’s Gen Z grew up online and the country’s use of social-commerce has become an increasingly important tool for brands.</p><p>The sales channel, which allows users to buy products through social media platforms and interact directly with live streamers, is expected to grow into a more than US$1.6 trillion (S$2.2 trillion) business by 2025.</p><p>That’s about half of total e-commerce sales and up from one-fifth in 2019, according to China Renaissance.</p><p>It’s proved to be a fertile source of revenue for domestic brands. Florasis, a Chinese cosmetics brand founded in 2017, has become the country’s biggest, supported by livestreamers who demonstrate products and engage with users.</p><p>But Western firms, not as accustomed to the method of selling, have had more mixed results.</p><p>An hour-long livestream by Louis Vuitton in 2020 drew viewers, but also complaints that the setting was too low-end for the luxury label. Both domestic and foreign firms are also grappling with mounting short-term headwinds as China’s pursuit of Covid Zero leaves it stuck in a cycle of lockdowns and reopenings that are taking a growing economic and social toll.</p><p>The youth jobless rate hit a record in April and Gen Z has the most conservative view on increasing spending this year, according to an OC&C report in December.</p><p><b>Demanding tastes</b></p><p>Still, Gen Z’s increasing power means their preferences will re-shape the consumer sector for decades to come.</p><p>“Foreign brands need to be aware that, compared with older generations, China’s young shoppers are even more demanding,” said Ms Veronica Wang, partner at OC&C Strategy Consultants.</p><p>They “can no longer enter the market arrogantly, saying ‘hey this is our cool product, take it’. They need to try understanding better what Chinese consumers want and like, embracing Chinese culture and being more open-minded to adjust themselves to fit in the local market.”</p><p>Ms Wang highlighted South Korean eye-wear brand Gentle Monster as an overseas label able to gain ground with younger Chinese consumers through constant product innovation and themed stores, which speak to Gen Z’s desire for a memorable experience.</p><p>Foreign companies will also need to empower their teams in China, who can better read local consumption patterns and make rolling out new products more efficient.</p><p>“The greatest misperception of China is that modernisation means Westernisation,” said trend researcher Mr Dychtwald. “That’s been the gamble for all brands.”</p><div><br /></div>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-75942896933077454062021-12-05T04:14:00.002+08:002021-12-05T04:15:38.588+08:00Why weaponising democracy against China will backfire on the US<p></p><div>By Chandran Nair</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Washington’s Summit for Democracy has made half the world a
pariah by defining as ‘authoritarian’ any country that does not share its
choice of political system</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>But countries have grown sceptical of the West’s motives.
It’s time the West accepted there is value in plurality</li></ul><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unknown to most people, the United States has embarked on an
exercise to divide the world into two blocks – “democracies” and
“authoritarian” states. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What’s more, the US defines “authoritarian” as any country
that refuses to follow the prescriptions of the West with regard to the
political system it adopts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet the United Nations Charter, signed in 1945, did not
mention the word democracy – because it is each nation’s sovereign right to
pursue its own political system. And a nation’s choice is legitimised solely by
its people.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">America’s divisive exercise – the Summit for Democracy, to
be held on December 9, 2021, in Washington – goes against the principles of the
United Nations Charter.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of the 101 countries invited, 28 per cent are categorised as
“partly free”, while 3 per cent are considered “not free”. There is no
“alternative political system” category. Thirty-nine European countries were
invited, but only 17 African countries, four from South and Central Asia, and
two from the Middle East. Notably, China is absent, and as a main theme of the
summit is “Defending against authoritarianism” – this is thinly veiled
belligerence on an international scale.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This means that of the 193 countries in the world, the US
believes 92 are undeserving of its definition of international recognition and
are essentially pariah states. That is almost half the world. But the world
possesses a diversity of political systems that we must all learn to accept and
work with to make multilateral cooperation more effective. Dividing the world
into two camps is limiting, regressive, and a reflection of a Cold War
mentality that is counter-productive.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ultimately, this summit is yet another American attempt to
curtail the rise of China and demonise it: post-summit, it is likely that
countries will be expected to take action “in support of democracy”. Given the
proximity of the Beijing Winter Olympics to the summit, we can expect to hear
threats of boycotts and read scathing statements from Western politicians and
commentators on China – some are already calling it the “Genocide Olympics”.
This is part of a wider strategy to impose a pax Americana world order by
weaponising the noble notion of democracy, bolstering Washington’s declining
stature and hegemonic global influence.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This approach is not new. It is the age-old “with us or
against us” strategy, and delivers all the consequences that a hegemon can
inflict upon non-compliant states, including sanctions on the weak and the
poor. Yet the more the West attempts to convince the world that China is the
threat, the more it isolates itself in its own echo-chamber of Cold War-esque
narratives.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The strategy, which is guaranteed to fail, raises three
questions:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Why does most of the world not see China as the
over-arching global threat?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Why is acceptance of a plurality of political systems
essential for a multi-polar and more equal world?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Is there a need for the resurrection of a spirit of
non-alignment in the new post-Western world?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In answer to the first question, decades of Western
hypocrisy have undermined trust in its assessments of China. Decades of double
standards have eroded the credibility of the West, from repeated invasions of
Asian and Middle Eastern nations to exploitative behaviour across the world.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So why doesn’t the world view China as the villain despite
the best efforts of the West to vilify it?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, many non-Western nations were colonies of, or
exploited by the West (and continue to be). They recognise the West is driven
by the desire to maintain its economic superiority, which has come from
centuries of imperial power. This is why non-Western countries have to be
legitimised as “civilised and democratic” by Western gatekeepers if they are to
be offered the opportunity to live peacefully and prosperously, without
sanctions, trade wars, and real wars.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, many post-colonial nations have suffered from the
neoliberal prescriptions of the West and seen how it has used the “spread” of
democracy to deny them their own sovereign rights. They have seen how the West
selectively uses human rights arguments to undermine the legitimate actions of
other nations, while turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations by
Western-aligned states.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, non-Western countries may have qualms about the
Chinese governance model and aspects of its foreign policy, but they also
respect China’s successes. They are not fooled by biased Western reporting:
they look at the facts, see the results, and visit China to understand it.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They see a government that has worked for the people and
produced results. These non-Western nations want to produce the same results
for their people, rather than adhering to more of the misleading and
condescending Western rhetoric about democracy as a utopian fast-track.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lastly, China has been ramping up its investment and
relationship-building across the world – such as through the Belt and Road
Initiative and coronavirus vaccine agreements.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, what has China achieved that these countries seek to
emulate? For starters, its poverty alleviation rate. In 1994, the government
set a goal of lifting 80 million people out of poverty within seven years – by
2021, it had uplifted 800 million.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Additionally, over the last two decades alone, China’s Gross
National Income (GNI) per capita grew from US$940 in 2000 to US$10,410 in 2019.
This is double the rate achieved by Russia, the second-fastest growing BRICS
economy.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">China has seen success abroad, too. Since 2000, China has
spent US$843 billion on bilateral aid, spread across 13,427 projects in 165
countries. The People’s Liberation Army last fought a major conflict over 40
years ago, compared to the endless wars of the West. China made the decision to
stop building new coal-fired power projects overseas in 2021, and it has
already pledged 1.2 billion yuan (US$190 million) for climate cooperation with
developing countries, and 1.2 trillion yuan being issued in green bonds.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">China is not faultless; it has contentious issues of its own
to tackle. The Uygurs are an example: China needs to do better at accounting
for itself and communicating its version of events to the world.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Western criticism of the situation is an attempt to justify
its moral authority and legitimise its rejection of other political systems.
But it is a double standard.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The dire condition of America’s migrant camps on the border
with Mexico (including disease and sexual abuse) or its grisly use of torture
at Guantanamo Bay are not equated to failings of the democratic system. Yet a
comparison of the same magnitude is readily made between Xinjiang and the
ideologies of the Communist Party of China.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is in China’s interest to come clean and work with bodies
like the UN to reassure the world that these charges are either false or
exaggerated.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it is also only fair and in the interest of global peace
that Western nations and their allies who are accused of war crimes – in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine - allow UN investigations to be carried out.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Flying the democracy banner should not be used as cover to
run roughshod over international norms, nor should “non-interference in
internal matters” be a pathway to carrying out abuses.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The US would do well to remember that there is value in
embracing different political systems for a more equal world. Why? Because
China has demonstrated that a nation does not need to meet the West’s
definition of “democracy” to achieve success for its people.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is because democracy is not defined by simplistic
notions about free speech or Western electoral processes. Democracy is the
right of all peoples, and cannot be arbitrarily judged by the US.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to the United Nations Charter: “The UN does not
advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance
as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater
participation, equality, security and human development”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is to say that the political systems of a country and
its method of governance are important because they must ultimately serve the
people, enable them to have a sense of participation, satisfaction and
improvements to their quality of life. Democracy is just one approach to this,
so it is reasonable to conclude that China has developed a successful
governance system suited to its culture, history, and the needs of its
population.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The need for other countries to pursue their own modes of
governance may be rising. Faced with peak population, pandemics, technology
overreach, climate change, resource constraints and the crisis of
consumption-driven capitalism, each nation will have to adapt in its own way.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For many countries, the dated prescriptions of former
imperial powers or settler communities (the US, UK, Australia, Canada) are
unsuitable.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The West should recognise that diversity in political
systems is the natural order of things in a complex and changing world, and can
only enrich the global majority. Nations should learn from each other,
encourage, even teach. This is what geopolitical equality looks like.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This brings us to the last of the three questions: given
that other nations do not see China as the tyrant painted by the West, and that
political plurality is a good thing, it is time to reverse the dangerous
attempts of the West to confront China under the pretext of democracy.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This does not need to be done in a way that risks tension,
or war. It can be achieved through the spirit of non-alignment.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Non-aligned nations must refuse to allow the West – driven
by anxiety at losing its position – to divide and endanger the world. They must
now address this and no longer remain subservient.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Non-Western countries have a right to be non-aligned: to
determine the nature of their political and governance systems and be supported
in the learning and building process. Where some go astray, diplomatic means
should be used to persuade and encourage reforms built on mutual respect and
understanding.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These nations should not be bullied by self-serving Western
foreign policy into accepting a single political system that is clearly
failing, even in the West – where some demand the right to not wear masks
during a pandemic, or the right to carry guns.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The West must recognise that narrow interpretations of
democracy can no longer be weaponised.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fundamentally, the question is: what is the role of the
state?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The answer is clear: to secure the right of its citizens to
have safe and dignified lives devoid of drudgery and suffering.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When coupled with the existential threats of the 21st
century, the irony is that the Chinese system of governance is in many ways the
most suited to meeting this objective.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16579934.post-27961808859443558352021-11-10T17:25:00.003+08:002021-11-10T17:25:08.410+08:00Lawyers add to damages suit for Chinese-American scientist Sherry Chen<p>Robert Delaney and Owen Churchill</p><p> Sacked hydrologist
is seeking US$5 million from US government after her dismissal on spying
grounds was partially reversed</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 10.2pt;">Chen’s case prompted Congress
members to raise concerns that federal employees were being racially targeted<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lawyers for a Chinese-American scientist have filed a
complaint against the US departments of commerce and justice to support a
lawsuit seeking US$5 million in damages resulting from her partially reversed
dismissal from a government job.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Charges against National Weather Service hydrologist Xiafen
“Sherry” Chen – who had been accused of passing information about US dams to a
Chinese official – were dropped in 2015 after nearly two dozen members of
Congress signed a letter requesting an investigation into whether federal
employees were being racially targeted. Chen has since remained on
administrative leave.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The complaint – filed on November 1 by Chen’s lawyer, John
Hemann of the law firm Cooley LLP, and announced on Tuesday – was made after
Chen learned that the Commerce Department unit that investigated her – the
Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS) – was disbanded following a
Senate committee report that called it “a rogue, unaccountable police force
without a clear mission”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2019, Chen filed a civil suit against the two government
departments, seeking accountability for wrongful prosecution. The separate
complaint filed this month adds new accusations, including “intrusion into
private affairs, false arrest, intentional and/or negligent infliction of
emotional distress”, and is required to give the government an opportunity to
respond before the claims become part of the lawsuit.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Sherry Chen’s successful and very private life was derailed
when ITMS … launched an illegal criminal investigation of Ms Chen based
entirely on one colleague’s false and racially charged accusations,” the
complaint says. “ITMS had no legal authority to investigate her, and that what
happened to her was part a discriminatory scheme to target employees of Chinese
and Southeast Asian descent.”</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The complaint continued that “even after the …
administrative judge issued a scathing opinion that reinstated Ms Chen, the
[Commerce Department] continued to refuse to acknowledge the injury it has
caused Ms Chen. Instead, it continues to try to destroy what is left of Ms
Chen’s professional career by refusing to let her set foot in the office and
appealing the administrative judge’s decision”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The departments of commerce and justice did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tuesday’s development comes as pressure grows on President
Joe Biden’s administration to address concerns that scrutiny of Chinese
government espionage efforts has led to the racial profiling of Asian and
Asian-American scientists and researchers by federal agencies.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Biden administration has maintained a number of
China-related policies inherited from the administration of former president
Donald Trump. Those include the China Initiative, a Department of Justice (DOJ)
programme ostensibly focused on bringing prosecutions in economic espionage
cases but which advocacy groups say has disproportionately targeted those of
Chinese descent.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Calls on the administration to axe the programme surged
recently after its first case to go to trial ended in the defendant’s
acquittal.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hu Anming, a professor at University of Tennessee, was
cleared of all charges in September after a federal judge ruled that the
government failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had intended to
defraud Nasa.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But even when charges against individuals like Chen and Hu
are dropped, rights groups warn that the reputational, financial and emotional
tolls on them and their families remain.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday, civil rights group Asian-Americans Advancing
Justice (AAJC) wrote to the Biden administration urging it to end the China
Initiative, which it said had driven “fearmongering” and the criminalisation of
Asian-American and Asian immigrant researchers.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“While we recognise that there are legitimate threats from
China’s government, there are serious concerns of the DOJ profiling
Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants and criminalising integrity issues under
the ‘China Initiative,’” said John Yang, AAJC’s president.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the first actions taken by Biden as president was to
issue a memorandum denouncing anti-Asian racism and providing guidance to the
DOJ on how to process hate crime reports, amid a wave of discrimination against
the Asian-American community during the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“We urge federal agencies to follow President Biden’s
commitment to combat racism and xenophobia against those of Asian descent and
look forward to these efforts,” AAJC wrote in its letter.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Guanyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03622336318754833240noreply@blogger.com0