On the sidelines of the G20 Summit at the weekend, the United States and India unveiled proposals for what has been termed the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) with the backing of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan, as well as officials from the EU.
The project, billed as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeks to build a commercial route from India through to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and then the Mediterranean Sea. Unsurprisingly, the project’s significance was inflated by the press as “historic” and a “blindside” challenge to Beijing that would doom China’s own mega-infrastructure project. But such conclusions are misleading, for many reasons. First, not every participant in this new initiative is squarely opposed to China and sees it, as the US does, as a zero-sum game. The Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, are not anti-Beijing at all and are part of the BRI themselves. These countries, seeking to diversify their economies from dependency on oil revenue, are seeking new options to consolidate their wealth and thus courting large-scale foreign investments, including from China itself. They want to make themselves the “crossroads” of the world, they do not see such a project through the lens of containment or even geopolitical rivalry, but as creating more benefits for themselves. If Saudi Arabia can get Chinese and Indian cargo going through their country, that’s a double win – it never had to be an “either-or” arrangement for Riyadh.Second, parts of this new route are co-opted from China itself. The Haifa Port in Israel was, until recently, mostly under China’s control (India’s Adani Group acquired 70% of the stake in July), while Piraeus Port in Athens was controlled by Chinese shipping company, Cosco. The railroad infrastructure linking Greece with Central Europe is also part of the BRI. Another Chinese-owned commercial port exists on that same route in the Indian Ocean – Gwadar Port in Pakistan, which is part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This means that China itself can use multiple parts of the proposed transport route, and the IMEC project does not really undercut Beijing to the extent it’s being portrayed – and all of the co-opted countries would be pretty happy for that. Third, this project could end up in the growing graveyard of pledged, and failed, BRI alternatives, which come at a rate of approximately one per year. It wasn’t that long ago that the US and its allies in the G7 were launching Build Back Better W (B3W), or the Global Partnership for Infrastructure Investment, or the Blue Dot Network. None of these projects have the coordinated hierarchical superstructure that the Chinese state does, which allows projects to be cooperated and rolled out at breakneck pace, nor do they have the readily accessible financial resources to take off. If China seeks to build a high-speed railway, for example, the Communist Party can coordinate a bank to fund it, a railway company to build it, and a supply chain to stock it, all in one organized motion. The US does not have the power to do that, unless of course it comes down to military and defense spending, such as the bottomless pit of aid to Ukraine, and therefore is unable to compete. All other spending in Washington is part of the never-ending political battle in the Congress, where every single non-military penny must be fought for, tooth and nail, in a serious process. It’s why its own national infrastructure is increasingly shoddy, and, to use the above example for comparison, American high-speed railways remain underdeveloped by generous definition and non-existent compared to China.Finally, the IMEC is tiny compared to what the BRI aims to achieve. While IMEC wants to connect the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent (which also benefits China), the BRI has been working on not just one, but multiple economic corridors all over the planet. This includes comprehensively connecting the Eurasian landmass through huge railways spanning Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia, making it possible for a train from Shanghai to arrive in London, but also creating a new route to the sea through Pakistan (CPEC), connecting South East Asia by land through new railroads going through Laos and into Thailand, as well as a route which spans West Asia through Turkey and another Indian subcontinent foray with the China-Myanmar Corridor. In conclusion, the US has been desperate to rival the Belt and Road Initiative, but has never been able to produce anything of the same scale or vision, all the while repeatedly ignoring the reality that transcontinental infrastructure routes are not “zero-sum games” because their results ultimately benefit everyone, which in China’s perspective has always been the focus of the BRI itself as a “win-win” initiative. Despite that, each new branded “alternative” comes with the same hype that “this time” China’s project has met its match. No, it really hasn’t, but thanks for creating a new route which Chinese cargo can use in the meantime.
0 Comments
Hawkish US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo has recently undertaken an official visit to China. She is the fourth such US official to visit in the past few months, marking a stabilization – but not a breakthrough – in ties between the two powers. Here, she berated China for making its market “uninvestable” for US firms and called “on Beijing to act to reduce the risk of doing business in the country.”
This is ironic for too many reasons to list. The most obvious one is that the Biden administration recently released restrictions on US inbound foreign investment into China’s high-tech industries, including semiconductors, quantum computing, supercomputing and artificial intelligence. Although the measures are considered narrow, they are nonetheless the opposite of confidence-inducing, as Republican critics have already argued they are not enough and have demanded they be widened. This in itself tells a story about America. China isn’t making itself ‘uninvestable’; the US is doing it by deliberately creating a toxic geopolitical environment. The US does not want to see inbound investment into China and – through the stroking of tensions and military uncertainties – is heightening the risks of such investments. This makes Raimondo’s trip to Beijing immensely hypocritical. Washington’s narrative on China, peddled through compliant media, is that Beijing is primarily responsible for scaring foreign investors away due to its increasing centralization under the rule of Xi Jinping. China is being described as isolationist, rigid, unreasonable and ‘in decline’ and accused of ‘unfair’ economic practices. If only Beijing would open up more and let all these investors in, right? Everything would be fine, and the US-China economic relationship would get back on track, wouldn’t it?Possibly, but only if the US had not: 1) Placed hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on Chinese exports, which it refuses to remove, even with high levels of inflation; 2) Opportunistically blacklisted products from entire regions of China, such as Xinjiang, on the premise of ‘human rights abuses’; 3) Put Chinese technology companies on the commerce department ‘entity list’ prohibiting US companies from exporting to them, then blacklisted the entirety of China’s semiconductor industry and forced third-party countries to do the same. On top of all the sanctions, the US is deliberately militarizing China’s entire periphery with military bases and stoking up tensions with Taiwan, capitalizing on global uncertainty following the Ukraine war. Last but certainly not least, the mountain of news articles and commentary demonizing, attacking, accusing and doom-mongering about China grows every single day. Can the US honestly say with a straight face amidst all this that it is China who is scaring away investors? Sure, as this global environment has deteriorated, Beijing has tightened its control, and the ruling party engages in harsh regulatory crackdowns against a number of companies, which hardly creates an investment-friendly environment, but that’s a product of the insecurity being driven by tensions. So when officials like Raimondo visit China and complain the conditions are unfavorable for US businesses, the level of hypocrisy borders on extreme, when Washington itself has done more than anyone else to undermine trust in Beijing. But if that is so, why should she even complain about it? The answer is because the US does not want to have an equal economic relationship with China. Washington’s ideal relationship with Beijing is one in which it gets full access to the Chinese market and gets to sell it anything it wants, not where Chinese companies are able to compete fair and square on a global scale. This is the same level of subordination it has long sought to impose on Europe, where, for example, it is casually destroying German industry by forcing its decoupling from Russian resources, selling overpriced gas and then using protectionism through the “inflation reduction act” to disincentivise production. The US wants to economically dominate China; that’s the only “investment” it has in mind and is primarily why visits like Raimondo’s never truly make any headway and are a waste of time. Western propaganda is burying the Chinese economy at the exact moment that BRICS is expanding, is it a coincidence? ‘Experts’ have been predicting the collapse of the Chinese and Russian economies for years, but the reality is invariably different.
The Economist has put out another cover story on China’s supposed economic decline. I wonder when they’ll all get tired of this theme? It’s even become a meme. In 2001, Gordon Chang, a famous American lawyer and political commentator with Chinese roots, wrote a book called ‘The Coming Collapse of China’. In fact, it was this book that made him famous. In it, the ‘expert’ argued that the country’s collapse was imminent. He even named the year – 2011. When the predicted events did not happen, Chang said he was wrong, but only by one year. In an article for Foreign Policy (FP) magazine, Chang claimed that the end of China was already near, and that everything would happen in 2012. He even urged readers to bet on it. But those promises never came to pass. Then, in 2016, the indefatigable Gordon again announced the coming collapse of China, but wisely did not give a date. Amusingly, in another FP piece, Chang urged people not to believe the IMF’s prediction that China’s economy would overtake that of the US by 2016. And in 2016, he wasn’t deterred by the fact that China had overtaken the US in terms of GDP converted into dollars at purchasing power parity. “Rising tensions within the regime, economic turmoil, and a more vibrant society. China appears to be entering a new period of extreme political instability,” wrote the perennially wrong expert in the National Interest. The Economist, continuing Chang’s glorious work, waits from cover to cover for the collapse of the Celestial Empire. It’s reminiscent of Jehovah’s Witnesses waiting for Armageddon, and seems oblivious to the fact that its content is detached from reality. But there is no creativity at all – just pandas and dragons. The West has been burying China’s economy for decades, in the same way it decided Russia’s economy was dead after the start of the military operation in Ukraine. A strong Beijing and Moscow is the United States’ worst nightmare. Only a close alliance between Beijing and Moscow could be more frightening – and today that not only exists, but is gaining more supporters. Thus, it is impossible to judge the new wave of ‘forecasts’ and ‘analyses’ about the imminent decline of China in isolation from the latest BRICS summit, where it was announced that six more countries will join the format. The Wall Street Journal now says that the decision to include new players in BRICS is a victory for China and Russia. That doesn’t really fit with the new cover of The Economist, does it? Saudi Arabia and Iran are among six countries to join BRICS as new members next year, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced, on the final day of a summit of the group that considers itself a counterweight to Western powers.The group encompassing five major emerging economies – China, Brazil, South Africa, Russia and India – which makes decisions by consensus, agreed on “the guiding principles, standards, criteria and procedures of the BRICS expansion process”, during the three-day annual summit held in Johannesburg this week, Ramaphosa said on Thursday. As part of the first phase, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates will join Saudi Arabia and Iran to become full BRICS members in January 2024. Other phases will follow. “This membership expansion is historic,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping. “The expansion is also a new starting point for BRICS cooperation. It will bring new vigour to the BRICS cooperation mechanism and further strengthen the force for world peace and development.”
A senior adviser to Iran’s president on Thursday welcomed the country’s admission to the grouping. “Permanent membership in the group of global emerging economies is considered a historic development and a strategic success for the foreign policy of the Islamic republic,” Mohammad Jamshidi wrote on X, which was previously known as Twitter. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed hailed what he called “a great moment” for his country. “Ethiopia stands ready to cooperate with all for an inclusive and prosperous global order,” Abiy said on Twitter. The core group of five BRICS countries has been discussing the issue of expansion for more than a year, Ramaphosa said, and the new members were invited this week after an agreement was reached at the summit. The expansion of the group is part of its plan to build dominance and reshape global governance into a “multipolar” world order that puts voices of the Global South at the centre of the world agenda. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran and Egypt marks the first MENA representation in the group, and the inclusion of Argentina was championed by member Brazil. Expansion was pushed heavily by Russia and China, analysts said, as they are facing pushback from Western nations in the form of sanctions. Other BRICS countries were initially more ambivalent, but leaders came out in vocal support of the plan this week. The grouping of emerging economies has been in formal existence for 15 years. Some experts told Al Jazeera that it has not achieved much and the diffuse nature of their political and social interests means BRICS leaders do not always agree on issues. Some say that has prevented them from becoming a more powerful or effective entity. The US is not working to create a “NATO for the Pacific” as a way to target China, the White House has claimed, after President Joe Biden declared a “new era” of security cooperation with South Korea and Japan.
Biden hosted Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol at Camp David on Friday for the first summit of its kind, where the heads of state agreed on several new initiatives in the military, economic, and technological spheres. “This is the first summit I’ve hosted at Camp David, and I can think of no more fitting location to symbolize our new era of cooperation,” Biden said at a joint press conference, adding that Washington’s commitment to Seoul and Tokyo remains “ironclad.” The US president went on to state that the three allies would enhance their “trilateral defense collaboration” in the Indo-Pacific region, including with “annual multi-domain military exercises.” The drills would build on periodic wargames already staged in the area, which have triggered the ire of both Chinese and North Korean officials. During a separate media briefing earlier on Friday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was asked whether the three-way partnership would be “the beginning of some kind of mini-NATO for the Pacific,” but replied in the negative. “It’s explicitly not a NATO for the Pacific. We’ve said that. We will continue to underscore that and so will both Japan and Korea,” Sullivan said, adding that Friday’s summit was “not against anyone.” Though Biden also claimed the meeting was “not about China,” the president and his allied counterparts referred to the People’s Republic repeatedly in comments to reporters. During a one-on-one meeting with Kishida earlier in the day, Biden said the two leaders would work together to combat Beijing’s “dangerous behavior in the South China Sea,” and stressed the need for “peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” Asked whether Tokyo’s stepped-up military ties with Washington might trigger an “economic cold war” with Beijing, Kishida said Japan would continue to cooperate with China on “common challenges” and “strongly request responsible conduct.” President Yoon also outlined what this new defense cooperation would entail, stating that the three allies would create a framework to respond to attacks on any of their countries, as well as sharing information about North Korean ballistic missile launches in “real time.” He also announced plans for “systematic training and drills” to be carried out on a regular basis.
Why? Because Kissinger was one of the key figures in the construction of the US-China diplomatic relationship which followed on from Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking visit to the country in 1972 and his meeting with Mao Zedong. This marked one of the biggest geopolitical shifts of the 20th century, leading to the opening up of China and its integration into the global economy. For this legacy, Beijing is extraordinarily grateful to Kissinger and treats him as an “old friend.” This of course, provides the backdrop as to precisely why he is visiting now, and what this means politically.
Kissinger’s legacy paved the way for an open, stable, and cooperative relationship between the US and China which lasted over 40 years, but that era is now gone. In fact, the mood among some in Washington is to try and dismantle this legacy, framing US engagement with China as a mistake which emboldened a hostile power. That is the message Mike Pompeo sought to convey in 2020 when he was secretary of state. Attempting to reset the US-China relationship into a new “epoch,” Pompeo gave a provocative speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential library in California titled ‘Communist China and the Free World’s Future’. Since the Trump administration, US-China ties have been going steadily downhill, as strategic competition in the fields of military, diplomacy, and technology have accelerated. The Biden presidency has arguably been more aggressive than its predecessor in some of the measures it has taken. It is little surprise that US politicians see engagement with China as a form of appeasement and politically unfavorable. Therefore, while officials talk of so-called ‘guardrails’ in dialogue with China, their strategic intentions do not change, and neither do they make any concessions in the diplomacy they pursue. Given this, China is courting Henry Kissinger for a critical reason. He is a living symbol of the relationship Beijing would like to have with Washington, and of what diplomatic ties ought to be like. His presence in Beijing is a political statement. China is displeased with the actions of the US, but ultimately continues to seek engagement, stability, cooperation and openness in its relationship, and nobody is a bigger representation of that than the man with whom it all began, who now believes the US and China must find a path to co-existence to avoid conflict. In doing so, Beijing calculates that it is a waste of time to try to engage with US politicians directly. The mudslinging and paranoia such attempts are met with is of such a scale that it is damaging for anyone, especially at the level of Congress. Instead, it has utilized a pragmatic strategy of targeting individuals that it believes can promote stability in the relationship, and inviting them on highly publicized visits. This has included businessmen and public figures such as Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, who have all visited China in recent months. They are used to convey a message that China is open and still willing to do business, and that ties with the US do not have to be the way they currently are. In addition, these individuals act as back channels. They may not have direct political power, but through their networks and ties they wield influence, especially when it comes to lobbying. Kissinger is elderly, but he is a highly respected member of the foreign policy community. Despite the geopolitical competition with the US, China is above all cautious of rocking the boat. It is aware that the US political class cannot be swayed in its disposition, but Beijing seeks to contain and minimize its influence through diplomacy, as opposed to confrontation. Empowering Washington’s hawks is one of the worst strategic mistakes China can make. Thus, it is critical to Beijing’s objectives to slow down the ‘decoupling’ and prevent the US from gaining political capital to force other countries, in both Europe and Asia, to get on board with its agenda. Beijing does not see this as a sprint, but as a marathon. From its perspective, the use of Kissinger sends a message of hope and reconciliation, an idealistic perspective on how US-China ties should be. Of course, there is no turning back the clock, and stability might be all there is to hope for at this stage.
Vietnam has banned the Hollywood live-action comedy ‘Barbie’ after state film censors took issue with scenes in which a map of the disputed South China Sea is drawn to favor China, Vietnamese media reported on Monday.
“The film review board watched the film and made the decision to ban the screening of this movie in Vietnam due to a violation regarding the ‘nine-dash line’,” the nation’s Department of Cinema director, Vi Kien Thanh, told state outlet Dan Tri. The nine-dash line is a U-shaped border through the South China Sea that claims most of its oil and gas deposits, shipping lanes, and strategically desirable land masses for Beijing, including the Paracel and Spratly islands, Pratas Island, and the Macclesfield Bank.Barbie, which stars Margot Robbie as the titular doll and Ryan Gosling as her doll boyfriend Ken, was supposed to be released in Vietnam on July 21 but has been removed from theater websites after Hanoi’s decision was published. Vietnam’s National Film Evaluation Council is tasked with screening films for excessive violence and sexual material, as well as politically sensitive content. Multiple scenes in ‘Barbie’ feature the offending maritime border, according to state outlet Tien Phong. Scenes featuring the nine-dash line got the action film ‘Uncharted’ banned from Vietnam last year, while the animated Dreamworks film ‘Abominable’ was pulled in 2019, and Netflix was forced to remove multiple episodes of its series ‘Pine Gap’ from distribution in Vietnam. The 2018 romantic comedy ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ was allowed to be shown after a scene that showed the offending border printed on a designer bag was removed. Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, and Taiwan have also challenged Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea. While a tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines on the issue in 2016, rejecting China’s claims, Beijing has allegedly ignored the ruling. China has become such a lucrative market for Hollywood films that American directors now make content decisions based as much or more on how they will play in the Chinese market (and whether they will pass the Chinese censors) than on how they will be received at home. Not all US blockbusters become hits in Beijing, however. Disney’s ‘Little Mermaid’, criticized in state media for its “forced inclusion of minorities” and “lazy and irresponsible storytelling,” did so poorly that it made international headlines. The Mini EV Yep is a true testament to the innovative strides made in the realm of electric vehicles. With its compact size and impressive features, it offers a unique and refreshing take on urban mobility. As a proud owner of the Yep, I can confidently say that it has exceeded my expectations in multiple aspects.
First and foremost, the Mini EV Yep's design is nothing short of delightful. Its small footprint makes it ideal for maneuvering through crowded city streets and tight parking spaces. The sleek curves and modern aesthetic give it an attractive and stylish appeal. It's a head-turner wherever it goes, and I've received numerous compliments on its charming exterior. Despite its compact size, the Yep doesn't compromise on interior comfort. The cabin is surprisingly spacious, providing ample legroom and headspace for both the driver and passengers. The seats are supportive and comfortable, making longer journeys a breeze. The overall build quality is impressive, with a solid and sturdy feel that belies its small stature. One of the most impressive features of the Mini EV Yep is its range. Despite its diminutive size, it boasts an impressive electric range that has proven more than sufficient for my daily commutes and errands. The lithium-ion battery pack delivers reliable performance and can be easily charged at home or at public charging stations. The regenerative braking system further enhances efficiency, allowing for maximum utilization of energy. Driving the Yep is an absolute pleasure. Its nimble handling and responsive steering make it an agile companion in congested city traffic. The instant torque provided by the electric motor ensures swift acceleration, allowing for quick maneuvers when needed. It's an absolute joy to zip around town in the Yep, effortlessly navigating through tight turns and narrow streets. In terms of technology and connectivity, the Mini EV Yep doesn't disappoint. The infotainment system is intuitive and user-friendly, providing access to various entertainment and navigation features. Bluetooth connectivity and USB ports allow for seamless integration with smartphones and other devices. The Yep also offers a range of driver-assist features, including parking sensors and a rearview camera, making parking and maneuvering easier and safer. While the Mini EV Yep is undoubtedly a remarkable vehicle, it's essential to note its limitations. Due to its compact size, storage space is somewhat limited, making it less suitable for long trips or carrying bulky items. Additionally, the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles is still developing in many regions, which can occasionally pose a challenge for extended journeys. Overall, the Mini EV Yep is an outstanding choice for urban dwellers seeking a compact and eco-friendly vehicle. Its charming design, impressive range, and agile performance make it a standout in its class. With its affordability and low running costs, it's a practical and environmentally conscious choice for daily commuting. If you're in the market for a small electric vehicle that doesn't compromise on style or functionality, the Mini EV Yep is definitely worth considering. Chinese carmakers sold 1.76 million vehicles in foreign countries in the first five months of 2023, marking growth of 81.5% compared to the same period last year, according to statistics from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM).
Industry experts highlighted that the Chinese vehicle market has begun to accelerate since April, but cautioned that challenges remain for carmakers to achieve sales growth for the entire year. Statistics released by the CAAM on Friday showed that passenger vehicles accounted for the majority of exports from China. From January to the end of May, sales increased by 96.6% and totaled 1.46 million units. Meanwhile, exports of commercial cars amounted to 291,000 units, marking growth of 30.9%. Exports of new energy vehicles – including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen vehicles – increased by half to 457,000 units in the first five months of the year. The CAAM noted that the year-on-year growth rates are mostly attributed to lower comparative bases in 2022, which resulted from the considerable impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on production and sales. Car sales in China totaled 26.86 million units in 2022, marking modest growth of 2.1% compared to the previous year. Vehicle sales and production began to bounce back in June 2022, following Covid-19 outbreaks which effectively disrupted supply chains for almost two months and led to a shortage of components across the country, especially in Shanghai, which faced the most severe lockdowns.
Along with other EU members, Italy has been caught up in rising tensions between the US and China that have been exacerbated due to Beijing’s close ties with Moscow. “Given the state of relations between the US and China, we cannot remain an ally of the US and at the same time remain in the BRI,” Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to NATO, was cited as saying by the FT. “We have to try to negotiate a peaceful — or [the] least damaging possible — exit with the Chinese.” Bloomberg reported last month that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni intended to make an announcement on Italy’s participation in the BRI before the G7 summit in May, but was still undecided as to whether the memorandum of understanding should be scrapped or renewed. Reports earlier this week claimed that the Italian premier had previously assured US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that her government was in favor of an exit. The purported plans have triggered deep concern in Italy’s business community, already reeling from sanctions on Russia, as the post-Covid reopening of the Chinese market is viewed as offering significant prospects. Italian exports to China saw a year-on-year surge of 92.5% in the first quarter of 2023, mostly boosted by a short-term increase in sales of pharmaceuticals.
“A possible withdrawal would lead to a cooling of bilateral relations at a historic moment in which companies and professionals are experiencing a frenzy and a desire to return to the Chinese market,” Mario Boselli, president of the Italy China Council Foundation, told the FT. The Belt and Road Initiative, unveiled by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, envisages linking China with Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas through a network of seaports, railways, roads, and industrial parks. It is expected to provide effective connectivity and boost China’s cooperation with more than 80 countries around the world. The main goal of the project is stated as promoting peace through trade and development. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has told CBS News that the conflict in Ukraine may be approaching a turning point, and that Chinese-brokered peace talks could begin by the end of 2023. "Now that China has entered the negotiation, it will come to a head, I think by the end of the year," the 99-year-old diplomat told CBS in an interview broadcast on Sunday. By that time, he continued, "we will be talking about negotiating processes and even actual negotiations."
With the release of its ‘Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’ in February, China put itself forward as a potential mediator between Moscow and Kiev. The Chinese plan was rejected outright by the US and EU, while Russian President Vladimir Putin described some of its 12 points as “in tune” with Moscow’s position, and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky welcomed only a handful of its points, but maintains that Kiev will not compromise with Russia in any way. Zelensky’s refusal to negotiate with Putin’s government – the Ukrainian leader banned contact with the Kremlin in a decree last October – is just one stumbling block faced by China or any other potential middleman. Russia considers the conflict in Ukraine a proxy war between itself and NATO, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Friday that any negotiations would not be held “with Zelensky, who is a puppet in the hands of the West, but directly with his masters.” In Washington, the administration of President Joe Biden publicly claims that it is up to Ukraine to decide when to seek peace. Zelensky has been offered no incentives by the US to do so, with Biden offering to continue supplying him with weapons “for as long as it takes” to achieve his war aims. Among these aims is the capture of Crimea, a Russian territory since 2014. American military leaders have publicly admitted that the chances of this happening are slim to none. Kissinger drew the ire of Kiev last year when he suggested that Ukraine should accept a return to the “status quo ante,” or relinquish its territorial claims to Crimea and grant autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, in the name of peace. He has since suggested that these territories become the basis of negotiations after a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal. Moscow has repeatedly said that it is open to talks with Kiev but only if Ukraine “recognizes the reality on the ground,” including the new status of the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as parts of Russia. Otherwise, the Kremlin has stated, Russia will settle the conflict by military means. A military conflict between China and Taiwan could take place in 2027, the self-governing island’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu has claimed. Appearing on the UK’s LBC radio station on Thursday, Wu said: “We are taking the Chinese military threat very seriously… I think 2027 is the year that we need to be serious about.” He expressed hope that “like-minded partners, the UK included, can stop China from initiating any war against Taiwan.” Reuters revealed last month that the British government had approved a considerable increase in exports of submarine parts and technology to Taiwan in 2022. It followed a call by former prime minister Liz Truss for a “global NATO” to arm Taipei in the same way the alliance was arming Kiev.
Wu’s assessment of China-Taiwan relations echoes that outlined by CIA Director William Burns in February. Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, he claimed that “President Xi has instructed the PLA, the Chinese military leadership, to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan.” He added, however, that this alone does not mean Beijing had “decided to invade in 2027 or any other year.” A month prior to Burns’ comments, NBC cited an internal memo by General Mike Minihan, the head of the US Air Mobility Command (AMC), in which he told his staff that fighting over the island could break out within two years. However, while an AMC spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of the memo, an anonymous Pentagon official told the outlet that “these comments are not representative of the department’s view on China.” On Friday, Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang warned that “those who play with fire on the question of Taiwan will burn themselves.” He insisted that Beijing “will never back down in the face of any act that undermines China’s sovereignty and security.” Earlier this month, the country’s state-run CCTV channel quoted President Xi as calling on the military to step up “training oriented toward actual combat.” Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949, when the losing side in the Chinese civil war fled to the island and established its own administration. While only a handful of nations have recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state, the US has long maintained close, unofficial ties with Taipei, both militarily and economically. Formally, Washington still professes to adhere to the ‘One-China’ principle. Beijing considers the island to be an inalienable part of its territory that has been seized by separatists. While the Chinese leadership says it prioritizes a peaceful ‘reunification’, it has not ruled out military options. Paris is an ally and not a “vassal” of Washington, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday, defending his comments about “strategic autonomy” of the EU regarding the rising tensions between the US and China.
“Being an ally does not mean being a vassal... doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to think for ourselves,” Macron said in Amsterdam at a joint press conference with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Asked for the French position on Taiwan, Macron said Paris supports the status quo, meaning the “One China policy and the search for a peaceful resolution to the situation.” Returning from his trip to China on Sunday, Macron argued that the EU can’t just be “America’s followers,” and that it is not in the bloc’s interest to stoke tensions over Taiwan. “The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” he told reporters. The remarks earned a swift rebuke from US Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican on the foreign affairs committee, who suggested Washington might leave the EU to handle the Ukraine conflict by itself. Taiwanese Parliament Speaker You Si-kun on Tuesday argued that France had forsaken its motto of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’, and that advanced democracies should not “ignore the lives and deaths of people in other countries,” adding that Macron’s comments left him “puzzled.” Meanwhile, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said that Macron was “perfectly right to demand European independence and sovereignty,” while the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, noted that “quite a few” leaders of EU countries think like Macron, even though they “wouldn’t say things the same way.” When asked about the French president’s comments on Monday, the US State Department said France is a long-standing ally and that occasional disagreements do not detract from the “deep partnership” with Paris. As for the EU position, a State Department spokesman cited a recent speech by the bloc’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, which described China as “a national and economic security threat,” and said there is “immense convergence” between Washington and Brussels on the matter. Russia is ready to increase settlements in yuan in its foreign trade, President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday during talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, who is in Moscow on a three-day official visit.
“We are for the use of Chinese yuan in settlements between Russia and the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. I am sure that these forms of settlements in yuan will be developed between Russian partners and their counterparts in third countries,” Putin said. Two thirds of current trade between Moscow and Beijing is carried out in national currencies – the yuan and the ruble, the Russian president noted. China’s trade with Russia hit a record high in 2022, growing by nearly a third amid Western sanctions against Moscow. Bilateral trade is on pace to hit over $200 billion this year. The latest data from the Bank of Russia shows the yuan has become a major player in Russia’s foreign trade, with its share in the country’s import settlements jumping to 23% by the end of last year from only 4% in January 2022. The yuan’s share in export settlements also surged, from 0.5% to 16%.“It is important that national currencies are increasingly used in mutual trade. This practice should be further encouraged, and the mutual presence of financial and banking structures in the markets of our countries should be expanded,” Putin added. Meanwhile, the share of the US dollar and euro in Russia’s export settlements last year dropped substantially, from 65% in January 2022 to 46% in December. In February, the Chinese currency overtook the dollar as the most traded currency on the Russian stock market for the first time ever, according to data from the Moscow Exchange. |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|