Translation underway

On the current shortage of computer chips affecting myriad production lines world-wide. Extracts:   .............. India is also suffering from a chip crisis. According to India's "Economic Times" report on the 18th, the Ford Motor Company's plant in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu has temporarily suspended operations from the 14th and is expected to resume normal operations on the 23rd. According to the report, in order to prevent and control the new crown pneumonia epidemic, a large number of people are forced to work at home, and small appliances such as mobile phones, game consoles, and tablet computers are "popular", causing more semiconductor chips to flow into the above-mentioned commodity production fields, and the automobile industry is resuming work. After the resumption of production, these semiconductor chips are indispensable accessories in functions such as car tire pressure monitoring, sensor wipers, and automatic start and stop. The British "Financial Times" said that last year due to the new crown epidemic, demand for cars fell sharply, prompting car suppliers to cut orders for computer chips. ................ "Chance for China's Semiconductor to become slf-reliant" Chinese companies restricted by the United States are looking at new directions. According to a report by Singapore’s Lianhe Zaobao of the 18th, Jiang Shangyi, who returned to SMIC as the Vice Chairman last month, emphasized at his first public event that SMIC must develop advanced technology and advanced packaging in parallel. Radio France International quoted a source on the 17th and reported that Huawei has acquired 20 semiconductor-related companies in one and a half years, of which 50% completed the transaction within the past five months. "China's semiconductors have a way to survive." This Nikkei headline of the 18th said that in the short term, the effects of US export controls are questionable, and in the medium and long term, ................. FULL TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

How to deal with China has long been a topic of debate in Indian politics. According to the Indian Express, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar debated with Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi and others on India's foreign policy with China, the United States, Russia and other countries at the regular meeting of the Indian Parliament's Consultative Committee on External Affairs on January 16th. Sources familiar with the scene in Parliament told the Huan Qiu Shi Bao that the meeting was the first time since last year's India-China border standoff that it (India's Parliament) had summoned a Cabinet Minister of the Government to hold a debate on foreign policy. Rahul Gandhi asked the Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government to further clarify how it could "confront an increasingly aggressive and arrogant China," the report said. He said that China and the United States may become the new "poles" of the world in the future, and then dominate the global order; China is remapping (rerouting) the traditional Silk Road and (in so doing) "beheading" (isolating) India. Although "China's (conspiratorial) designs may end up in failure, if it succeeds, it will make India irrelevant (by bypassing it)" and "it must (therefore) develop a strategy to deal with that kind of a situation". In response, Jaishankar stated that "the world will not be bipolar in the near or foreseeable future, and the role of major powers such as Russia, Japan and Germany should not be underestimated". The Hindustan Times said the Congress leader complained at the meeting that the current government's China policy is like a "laundry list of diplomacy", rather than "a coordinated strategy to deal with the Chinese threat”. Jaishankar said the debate with Rahul Gandhi "is likely to go on endlessly because neither side can accept the other's views". Jaishankar stressed that the Modi government has spent far more on infrastructure development in the India-China border region than under the Congress government. According to the report, Jaishankar also said at the meeting that the "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue" mechanism between India, the United States, Japan and Australia is not a silver bullet and should not be equated with "NATO". The mechanism is a "platform for economic cooperation, not military cooperation". In addition, the Indian National Congress (party) the Modi government to note that "some of its policies are being evaluated negatively globally" and that "these (policies) are also having a negative impact on the domestic politics of some neighboring countries". Other lawmakers also asked Jaishankar about India's plans to engage with the new Biden Administration in the United States, emphasising that "the government should balance its relations with the United States and Russia".  

(N.B. Indian media reports on the meeting can be seen here (The Hindu), here (The Hindustan Times) and here (National Herald). No official account of the meeting is available on the website of the Ministry of External Affairs or Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha.)

 

On the world-view of the younger generation, born after 1995, in USA, UK, Japan and Germany. Summary translation underway. Editor's note: They are calling for trouble on social networks, but they are also accused of being too far removed from reality; they are extremely inwardly focused and confident of their own abilities, but the older generation often criticizes them for lack of knowledge and thinking. However, they are also prone to be pessimistic because of the failure of international cooperation... They have a name, collectively -"Generation Z", which usually refers to people born after 1995. No matter what the outside world thinks about the "Generation Z", they are ultimately the .......... "owners of the future".  Future global competition is also regarded as competition among the "Generation Z". What are the characteristics of foreign "Gen Z"? What are their living conditions and worldview? "Huan Qiu Shi Bao" reporters in some countries conducted research on this topic.  

Pompeo sent out more than 30 tweets from morning to night on Saturday, US time, all but one or two of them cursing China. It looks like he has gone "crazy". The man is just days away from ending his tenure as Secretary of State, a position he is clearly pathologically obsessed with, and is desperately using his final hours to leave his imprint on the foreign policy of future Administrations. In fact, the Trump Administration has been paralyzed, with many of the Cabinet members resigning and most of the others remaining low key. Pompeo is an exception, but many of his performances are not "Secretary of State” like, but more as if they were his "personal. He has made a series of surprise decisions against China as well as Cuba, Iran, etc.; decisions that were not underpinned by or coordinated with other policies and were so abrupt that a normal Administration could not have introduced them at such a pace. So it is quite clear that Pompeo is doing this for political and especially personal reasons. Analysis avers that he has ambitions to run for President in 2024. Pompeo's madness is a manifest demonstration of the extreme irrationality and irresponsibility of U.S. policy toward China over the past few years. This Administration has been extremely aggressive in its relations with China, while China has been defensive and restrained. This is clear to all. In fact, China's response to this Administration's provocations cannot be considered excessive. It is astonishing that the U.S. system can allow such serious political damage during a transition period. Pompeo's very personal stuff was allowed to unfetteredly unfold as a superpower's foreign policy pronouncements. Such "democratic politics" is infantile. We hope that the Biden Administration, when it comes to power, will actively consider repealing all the diplomatic decisions that were made in the last period of the previous Administration in surprise attacks, instead of going along with them and legalizing or semi-legalizing them. The Biden team said it would soon rejoin the Paris Agreement and the WHO, among others, with a view to correcting certain mistakes of the Trump Administration. But this is not enough. The last-minute diplomatic offensive led by Pompeo should likewise be scrapped. Beijing will not accept the series of anti-China decisions made by Pompeo as a basis for restarting U.S.-China relations, nor will Chinese society as a whole. If all the sanctions against Chinese companies introduced in these last days are implemented, and U.S. officials' contacts with Taiwan are no longer restricted, as a new starting point for the Biden administration's handling of the Taiwan issue, then U.S.-China relations are bound to suffer an even greater crisis than in the previous four years. The refusal of this U.S. government to step down gracefully and Trump's encouraging his supporters to make trouble, is a blatant repudiation; Pompeo's digging holes and mines for the next Administration’s foreign policy is disguised repudiation. (But) its destructive power is no less than that of Trump's supporters attacking Congress. To be precise, Pompeo is a savage wrecker of the traditions and rules of the U.S. foreign policy transition. He is worse than the "thugs" who appeared on Capitol Hill. The problem is that while it is only the U.S. itself that loses by crowds storming the Congress, what Pompeo is destroying and undermining is international peace and stability. If the world (situation) deteriorates headlong into a geopolitical disaster one day and one looks back to find the instigator(s), Pompeo will figure amongst the most notorious of them. As Secretary of State with only a few days of tenure left, Pompeo’s performance has been "out of character" and China's attention has turned to the Biden team. The latter has a window to correct the rabid policies of the previous Administration, and even if both the parties in America advocate being tough on China, that should not affect such rational adjustments. For what Pompeo did in his last moments was to play with fire. As, for instance, his announcement to lift all restrictions on U.S. officials' contacts with Taiwan, something that could have led to outbreak of war had it been done in the early or middle phase of the Trump Administration. He left this fatal risk to the Biden team with extremely sinister intentions. We hope that the latter will have the courage to defuse all the time bombs set by Pompeo and (thereby) restore the bottom line of Sino-US relations.

Features a CNN article on the subject. Translation underway.

On Saturday US time, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo posted more than 30 tweets, almost all of which were directed against China. It seems that he has gone "insane." There are only a few days to go before he finishes his tenure as US secretary of state. Obviously, he holds a morbid fascination with this post and is making use of the last few days to show off his presence and leave some diplomatic legacy to the incoming Biden administration. The outgoing Trump administration has become paralyzed. Most in the Trump team have resigned, and those that remain are keeping a low profile. But Pompeo is an exception. His job performance did not match his position as secretary of state, but was rather individual. He made a series of abrupt decisions targeting China, Cuba and Iran, none of which has the assurance and coordination of other policies. A normal government would not issue these policies in such haste. It is obvious that Pompeo did so out of the interests of Republican Party and his own. Analysts believe he has ambitions to run for the presidency in 2024. Pompeo's crazy show is a manifestation of the extreme, irrational and irresponsible China policy of the US in the past few years. The Trump administration has been aggressive in its China relations, while China has been in a defensive and restrained position, which is clear to all. Whatever countermeasures China has taken against this US administration are never overdone. It is beyond everyone's expectation that the US system could have allowed such serious political destruction to take place during a power transition period. Without any obstruction, Pompeo's personal emotions are masquerading as the diplomatic proclamations of the US, a superpower. This example of "democratic politics" seems to be like a bad joke. We hope after the Biden administration takes power, it will consider abolishing all the abrupt diplomatic decisions the current administration has made during its last days, instead of making use of the opportunity to legitimize them. The Biden team has said it will rejoin the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization and rectify the mistakes of the Trump government. But this is far from enough. The diplomatic offenses led by Pompeo should be abolished as well. Beijing will not accept restarting China-US relations based on the series of anti-China decisions made by Pompeo. Neither will Chinese society. If policies such as sanctions on Chinese companies released in the last few days are implemented and US officials having no restrictions in engaging with Taiwan becomes the new starting point for the Biden administration to deal with the Taiwan question, the China-US relationship is bound to suffer a larger crisis than it experienced in the past four years. The current US administration has refused to step down in a quiet manner. Trump incited his supporters to make a farce, which is superficial resistance. But Pompeo is piling up troubles for the next administration's foreign policies, which is resistance in a disguised form and whose destructive impact is no less than the Capitol Hill riots. To put it more precisely, Pompeo is the savage destroyer of the transitional tradition and rules of US foreign policy. He is more evil than the rioters at Capitol Hill. The Capitol riots only cost the US itself, while Pompeo is jeopardizing nothing less than world peace and stability. If the world descends headlong into a geopolitical disaster one day, Pompeo will be revealed as the most infamous among its initiators. Pompeo's performance in the waning days of his tenure shows that he does not deserve the title of US secretary of state. China's focus has shifted to the Biden team which has a window to rectify the extreme policies of its previous administration. Even if both parties in the US advocate a tough China policy, this should not affect rational adjustments. This last ditch effort of Pompeo is like playing with fire. If he announced scrapping all the restrictions on US officials to engage with Taiwan in the early or middle phases of the Trump administration, it might have led to war. He is maliciously leaving this fatal risk to the Biden team. We hope the Biden team is determined enough to cast out all the time bombs set by Pompeo and make way for a clear bottom line for China-US relations.  

On a Turkish Radio and TV report on a recent Harvard University study, titled 'Chinese people rate their government as "more efficient than ever".'

Extracts:

..........A recent Harvard University study found that the Chinese people are very insightful and sensitive to how the government governs the country. Although this investigation does not directly address how the Chinese government handled the COVID-19 pandemic that has ground most Western countries to a halt economically, it does provide a window into how Chinese people view their government.

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

On the new trend in digital media of featuring news and programmes through "virtual anchors" controlled remotely and facelessly.   SUMMARY TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

Soon after the riots on Capitol Hill ended, American social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram successively blocked the account of President Trump for "inciting violence". Somewhat unexpectedly, European leaders who have suffered from the ravages of "Trumpism" for four years have stood up against this behavior. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French Minister of Economy Le Maire and others all attacked the practices of U.S. social media companies in the name of "freedom of speech". But is Trump's "freedom of speech" what Europeans really care about? In fact, European political circles have not concealed their dislike of Trump's words and deeds. While attacking Twitter, Le Maire, while attacking Twitter, also condemned Trump for "lying." What Europeans are really concerned about is how to ensure that the actions of digital giants are under the supervision of the state and the law. As a German government spokesman said, the management of freedom of expression cannot be determined by digital platforms alone, but should be carried out in accordance with the law within the framework set by lawmakers. The rhetoric of EU politics represents, to some extent, the concerns of countries around the world about how to control super-digital enterprises in the Internet age. While the nation-state has been and will remain a central player in international affairs, the role of non-state actors such as multinational corporations is becoming increasingly important, and some corporations have even more connective power than sovereign states. For example, Google's parent company, Alphabet, has a market capitalization equivalent to the combined GDP of Belgium and the Netherlands, and Twitter, Facebook, and Apple have access to information about hundreds of millions of Internet users worldwide. Therefore, data giants have a more powerful position in open view of the state and the public, depending on their astronomical data resources, user stickiness generated by their services and the ability of the platforms themselves to call the shots at the political and social level in the Internet era. The blocking of Trump's account by some U.S. social media is precisely their use of that super power in their hands. However, the speed of development of global information and communication technology and industry is rapidly outpacing the regulatory power of sovereign states for global governance -- capacity to take cognisance and make rules for it. How to define the boundaries and legal responsibilities of the power in the hands of digital super enterprises has become an issue that is still difficult for countries to reach a consensus on. However, the impact of related enterprises on national politics, economy, society and other aspects and the resulting challenges are increasing day by day. Uncontrolled digital power has caused a certain negative impact on the traditional political life, social opinion and economic activities of countries. In recent years, the EU is deeply anxious about its disadvantageous position in the digital economy. In addition to the increasingly close connection between technology and geopolitics, social media has shown great power to influence the political process and challenge the traditional development models and paths of the EU and some of its member states. Therefore, the EU's attitude towards regulating digital giants is becoming more direct and resolute. The EU has been emphasizing the concept of "European sovereignty" in recent years, which essentially means that the EU's actions in international politics will not be limited or influenced by other actors, and "technological sovereignty" is an important part of "European sovereignty". Technology sovereignty" is an important part of "European sovereignty". The EU has been strengthening its regulatory powers over digital companies extraterritorially, whether by launching targeted antitrust investigations, filing lawsuits for privacy violations or bringing Facebook boss Zuckerberg to the European Parliament for hearings, all of which are reflective of this consideration. At the end of 2020, the European Commission proposed two heavyweight bills on the regulation of digital businesses, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Marketplace Act. The two pieces of legislation provide definitions of "mega online platforms" and "gatekeeper enterprises" respectively, with the Digital Services Act proposing a series of regulations on the provision and regulation of content for Internet businesses, and the Digital Marketplace Act providing a set of general principles on competitive compliance, data use and sharing for the business of digital businesses. The Digital Marketplace Act provides a package of general principles for competitive compliance, use and sharing of data in the business operations of digital enterprises and even proposes large fines and penalties to promote the unbundling of businesses. These two laws will also set a precedent for establishing rules and regulations for the regulation of digital enterprises in major countries, and have great significance for the development of legal norms in related fields globally. In this storm of criticism of the U.S. social media platform for its "high tide of blocking", the EU political circles are actually more concerned about how to box in the social media's "life and death" power over users into the cage of the system. Bretton, the European Commission's internal market commissioner who is highly concerned about the competitiveness of the EU industry, wrote that national governments should set and lead the rules on content and "freedom of expression", while emphasizing the key role of the EU Digital Services Act and the Digital Marketplace Act for platform governance. The President of the European Parliament's People's Party, Weber, pointed out that the EU cannot let big U.S. technology companies dictate how Europe discusses issues, and that Europe needs to develop its own stricter regulatory approach. As information technology and the digital era continue to advance at a rapid pace, how to establish a rational scope of technological power and market power, so that they are in a reasonably (balanced) relationship with sovereign political and economic power, will be a long-term concern of countries around the world. Facing the issues together, and formulating a reasonable governance framework will be the task and direction of development in the future. The concept and timing of the EU "technical regulations" may remind more countries to pay attention to the problem of preventing the emergence of "digital leviathans" and their potential negative impact. (The author is a scholar at the Institute of European Studies, China Institute of Modern International Relations)  

Translation underway

The item dwells on the various restrictions imposed on Chinese visitors, companies etc in the US, as e.g. immigrant visas, transnational crime, economics and trade, ideology, human rights and other fields, for links with the military and the CCP's repressive policies;  the strategic Action Plan drawn up by the US Department of Homeland Security and State Department in particular. Mainly to criticise them, on expected lines.   Extracts: "..................Li Haidong, a Professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, said in an interview with a reporter from the Huanqiu Shibao on the 14th that the so-called strategic action plan of the US Department of Homeland Security is similar to a series of recent actions against Taiwan, that is, the Trump Administration is trying to consolidate his political "legacy" on China so as to leave less room for backtracking by makes the next Administration. He believes that, on the whole, the scope of this plan is very broad, like a "Comprehensive List of Dangers and Areas of Sino-US Decoupling", with a strong strategic nature and a strong ideological color. This plan has been brewing within the US government for quite some time. If Trump had won the general election, it might have been implemented gradually in the next four years, but because of Trump’s defeat, they appear to feel a need to announce these measures quickly before Trump leaves office. "However, after Biden assumes office, there will be some variation". Li Haidong believes that Biden is expected to re-evaluate all plans and strategies of the Trump Administration to clean up the chaos that can do more harm than good to the United States itself. There is excessive content in it, so they will absorb some of the elements, and formulate a new China policy on that basis..........."

Original article in India's The Print of January 13 titled “BIDEN PICK KURT CAMPBELL AS ‘INDO-PACIFIC COORDINATOR’ WILL REASSURE ASIA ALLIES ON CHINA". The announcement comes after the White House declassified a new document, which lists the Trump Administration's goals and action plans for the Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at containing the rise of China. This is the first time a U.S. diplomat has held this new title, suggesting that the Biden administration will pursue the same or even a more intensified course as Trump - a sustained focus on curbing China's rise in the region while building more strategic partnerships with some U.S. allies, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and India. Campbell served as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs during the Obama Administration and played an important role in shaping the "pivot to Asia" policy. During the campaign and after winning the Presidential election, Biden and his team largely did not mention the term "Indo-Pacific. This had raised some doubts. However, Biden and his team have said that while they too are concerned about China's growing power in the region, they will do things differently. Campbell and Rush Doshi of the Brookings Institution recently wrote, "Distant European leaders are less concerned about China's assertiveness than are their near neighbors in the Indo-Pacific. Accordingly, the main challenge for the United States is how to bridge European and regional attitudes toward the Chinese challenge".

The Hindustan Times reported on Jan. 13TH that the Cabinet Committee on Security, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, approved a procurement order worth nearly 480 billion rupees (about $6.55 billion) for 83 Indian-made LCA "Tejas" fighter jets for the Indian Air Force. Indian Defense Minister Singh called it the largest defense procurement agreement for domestically produced equipment and "a game changer that India has built in its own defense industry. "In the coming years, the LCA 'Tejas' fighter will become the mainstay of the IAF's fighter force, a fighter that incorporates a host of new technologies, many of which India has never tried before. The fighter will be 60 percent indigenised, up from 50 percent in the previous version," Singh said on social media. "Tejas" fighter jets equipped for the Indian Air Force In March last year, India's Defense Ministry approved the purchase of 83 "Tejas" fighter jets from Hindustan Aeronautics. In a statement, the Indian Defense Ministry said the warplanes order consists of  73 "Tejas" MK-1A fighters and 10 "Tejas" MK-1 trainers. The order will bring the total number of "Tejas" fighters in the Indian Air Force to 123. The Indian Air Force has previously purchased 40 Rafale fighters and is currently in the process of certifying them for Initial Operating Clearance and Final Operating Licence. The latest order for the MK-1A Phosgene fighter has been improved with digital radar warning receivers, external jamming pods, active electronically swept array (AESE) radar, and advanced over-the-horizon missiles. India's Defense Minister Singh said: "MK-1A 'Tejas' fighter is a self-designed, developed and manufactured using the most advanced technology of the 4 + generation of fighters, this aircraft with AESE radar, over-the-horizon missiles, electronic warfare suite and air-to-air refueling devices and other key combat capabilities It will be a powerful platform capable of meeting the operational requirements of the IAF". It took three decades to develop and equip the Indian fighter aircraft, the "Tejas". But the equipment in the fighter aircraft has been found to be lacking in performance,  with a high failure rate and other problems. Also and there was no mass replacement and use. India is currently developing the MK2 version of the "Tejas" fighter, will be enlarged and the use of dual-engine configuration, hoping to further tap to enhance its combat capabilities.  

The White House website on January 12 published the text of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy Framework" that was due to be declassified in 2043, arousing considerable attention the world over. It includes (aims such as) "defending Taiwan" and "helping India rise to counterbalance China". Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, said on the 13^th that some U.S. politicians seem to be attempting to leave a so-called "legacy" by declassifying the document way in advance of its due date, but the contents of the document reveal the sinister intentions of the U.S. "Indo-Pacific strategy" to contain and suppress China, and undermine regional peace and stability. It is in essence a "hegemonistic strategy". The White House website released a statement from National Security Advisor O'Brien on January 12, saying that the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific region was approved by the Administration in February 2018, implemented among executive agencies, and now released to the public "to communicate with the American people and our allies and partners about America's enduring commitment to keeping the Indo-Pacific region free and open for the long term". High sounding rhetoric clearly cannot conceal the U.S. intention behind releasing this "one of the most sensitive national security documents" at this time. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported on the 13th that the document, which was created in 2017, is classified as "secret" and "not intended for foreigners" and should normally have been declassified after 30 years. The 10-page, partially redacted document is "very blunt and straightforward on China" and may well confirm Beijing's claim that "the United States was trying to contain China”. The document commits to ""to formulate and implement defensive strategies that can, but are not limited to, denying China sustained air and sea control within the 'first island chain' in the event of conflict; defending the first island chain, including Taiwan; and dominating all areas outside the first island chain. The document also states that it wants to "align the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy with that of Australia, India and Japan" and that the U.S. goal in India is to "accelerate India's rise and capabilities". And also to "provide support to India through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels to help resolve continental challenges such as its border dispute with China”. With regard to North Korea, the document states that the goal is to convince Pyongyang that "the only way to survive is to give up its nuclear forces”. "to formulate and implement defensive strategies that can, but are not limited to, "There is a clear gap between the U.S. ideal and reality," the Australian Lowy Institute commented in an article on the 13^th. "Sometimes setting the bar so high that it is almost certain to fail". The ABC also quoted Australian experts as saying, " Importantly, this strategy unrealistically requires U.S. primacy in the Indo-Pacific region, while the reality is that the United States only strongly supports its allies when needed". An article on the Diplomat website on the 13^th said that the document's self-descriptions are "very interesting", such as defining the U.S. "best interests" in the region as "defending U.S. citizens; maintaining U.S. economic, diplomatic and military access to the region; enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. alliances; and maintaining U.S. dominance in the region". The media editor mocked in a Twitter post that the strategy's disclosure "does a good job of illustrating what the U.S. so-called 'liberal international order' really means in Asia". In addition, while the U.S. claims that Southeast Asian countries are at the heart of its Indo-Pacific strategy, the document disclosed on the 12th has little to say about Southeast Asia, with many countries not mentioned by name, which Evan Laxmana of the Indonesian Center for Strategic and International Studies called "disappointing, but not surprising ". Zhao Lijian said that the Asia-Pacific region is the region where the interests of China and the United States are most intensively intertwined and interact most frequently. The U.S. should abandon the zero-sum thinking of the Cold War, effectively respect China's core interests and major concerns, strengthen communication and dialogue with China, properly manage differences, and promote the Asia-Pacific region as a "stage" for mutually beneficial cooperation between China and the US, rather than an "arena" for zero-sum games between major powers.

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

The item simply reproduces the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson's response to a question on the subject that can be seen here.

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

 

Xinhua News Agency: The U.S. government reportedly declassified 30 years earlier than normal an Indo-Pacific strategy, which contains elements including defending Taiwan, accelerating India’s rise as a counterbalance to China and maintain U.S. dominance in the region. Do you have any comment?

Zhao Lijian: Some U.S. politicians want to leave behind a “legacy” by declassifying the document, but its content only serves to expose the malign intention of the United States to use its Indo-Pacific strategy to suppress and contain China and undermine regional peace and stability. In essence, this is a strategy of hegemony. I can point out at least three major mistakes in it.

First, it highlights the Cold War mentality and military confrontation, which goes against the mutually-beneficial spirit of regional cooperation, runs counter to regional people’s aspiration for peace, stability and development, and threatens regional prospects of peace and development. As such, it should rightly be thrown into the dustbin of history. The U.S. side is obsessed with ganging up, forming small cliques and resorting to despicable means such as wedge-driving, which fully exposed its true face as a trouble-maker undermining regional peace, stability, solidarity and cooperation. We believe countries in the region are clear-headed and vigilant enough not to be hijacked onto the U.S. chariot or be used as a tool to maintain U.S. hegemony.

Second, it is a serious breach of the U.S. government’s solemn commitment on Taiwan to China. There is but one China in the world, and the Taiwan region is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory. China has the determination, confidence and capability to foil any foreign interference and “Taiwan independence” separatist plots. We will resolutely defend our sovereignty and territorial integrity. All U.S. attempts to contain China with Taiwan are futile. We urge the United States to fully recognize the highly sensitive nature of the Taiwan question, strictly observe the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related matters, not to send wrong signals to "Taiwan independence" separatist forces and not to go further down the dangerous and wrong path to avoid seriously undermining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and China-U.S. relations.

Third, it maliciously distorts China’s neighborhood diplomacy and hypes up the so-called “China threat”. However, lies will always be lies and justice will prevail. China is committed to the path of peaceful development and a defense policy that is defensive in nature. We are a builder of world peace, contributor to global development and guardian of international order. As a responsible member of the Asia-Pacific, China actively practices a neighborhood diplomacy of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness, making important contributions to regional peace, stability and prosperity. Regional countries all bear witness to this.

I must point out that the Asia-Pacific is a region where Chinese and American interests are most tightly entwined and interact most frequently. We hope the U.S. side will discard the Cold War zero sum mentality, earnestly respect China’s core interests and major concerns, strengthen communication and dialogue with China, properly manage differences and help make the Asia-Pacific a stage for mutually-beneficial cooperation instead of an arena for major power rivalry.   (Indian media reports on the contents of the declassified report can be seen here (Tribune) and here (The Hindu).)

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

 

China Daily: State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi just wrapped up his visit to Seychelles. During the visit, which officials did he meet with and what outcomes did it achieve?

Zhao Lijian: Seychelles is the last leg of State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit to Africa, which brings the visit to a successful conclusion. During the visit, State Councilor Wang met with President Wavel Ramkalawan and held talks with Foreign Minister Sylvestre Radegonde. The two sides reached important consensus on deepening China-Seychelles relations and strengthening bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

China-Seychelles relations are a good example of China's observance of the principle of equality among all countries, big or small in its diplomacy. China supports the new Seychellois government's efforts on governance and appreciates Seychelles' adherence to the one-China principle and its understanding and support on issues concerning China's core interests. The two sides will continue to promote the development of the Belt and Road Initiative, implement the outcomes of the FOCAC Beijing Summit, and strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in green development, blue economy and tourism. China and Seychelles also signed a memorandum of understanding  on the construction and implementation of a low-carbon demonstration zone for South-South cooperation to deal with climate change, which is an important outcome of bilateral cooperation on climate change and another manifestation of China's international responsibility to address climate change. All in all, this visit has given a strong boost to China-Seychelles relations and practical cooperation and injected strong impetus into the joint building of a China-Seychelles and China-Africa community with a shared future.

Russian-Chinese relations have faced special challenges in the last year due to the rise of the new corona virus and its politicization in the sphere of international relations, as well as Trump's disruption of the world order. However, people are happy to see that Russian-Chinese relations have withstood severe tests and gained new achievements. The two countries have been on a trajectory of mutual political trust, economic complementarity, cultural interactions, military interaction and foreign business since the establishment of the strategic partnership. 2020 will see a new look. Political mutual trust is fundamental. In the words of the leaders of the two countries, China and Russia support and help each other in the most difficult moments in the new corona epidemic, adding strategic connotations to China-Russia relations in the new era. There is no forbidden zone or upper limit to expand cooperation between the two countries. Economic complementarity is the foundation. Although the new corona epidemic has caused a certain impact on the global industrial chain and supply chain, Sino-Russian trade still shows high resilience. According to preliminary statistics, from January to September 2020, China-Russia trade volume was US$78.84 billion, of which China’s exports to Russia were US$35.887 billion, a year-on-year increase of 0.1%; imports from Russia were US$42.956 billion, a year-on-year decrease of 3.8%. However, with the gradual recovery of personnel and goods exchanges, the trade volume between the two countries is still picking up rapidly. The trade volume of agricultural and industrial products between Russia and China in the first nine months increased by 9% over the same period of the previous year, reaching 3.8 billion US dollars. In the first half of the year, China’s exports of medical equipment, textile raw materials, electronic appliances, etc. to Russia achieved double-digit growth. Imports of energy, minerals and agricultural products from Russia continued to increase, and Russia’s first batch of beef was exported to China. The first logistics center jointly constructed by the two countries-Berrelast Logistics Center was officially put into operation at the end of July last year. In particular, the two sides are implementing some large-scale cooperation projects in energy and other economic fields. Russia is also cooperating with China and the Chinese company Huawei on 5G technology. Cultural interoperability is a bond. Currently, there are 48,000 Chinese students studying in Russia and more than 20,000 Russian students studying in China. Another 35,000 citizens of the two countries participated in various short-term education programs. Cultural and artistic exchanges are splendid. Russia's traditional national "Art Night" event has been held for 8 sessions, and all events in 2020 were presented online in early November last year. Russian citizens can also learn about Chinese culture online from various regional exhibitions and events. Military interaction is a guarantee. The two sides regularly hold joint naval and ground military exercises to continuously exchange the best experience in the field of military construction. President Putin emphatically pointed out that China and Russia have reached a high level of cooperation in the field of military technology cooperation, and the most important thing is not just exchanging products or buying and selling military products, but exchanging technology. Another important measure of military cooperation is the signing of the "Protocol on Extending the Validity Period of the Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Mutual Notification of the Launch of Ballistic Missiles and Space Launch Vehicles" on October 13, 2009. year. This reflects the high level of particularity in the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries in the new era, and demonstrates the determination of the two countries to jointly maintain global strategic stability. Foreign trade, this is the channel. Despite the interference of the new corona epidemic and the complex international environment, the all-round bilateral cooperation and coordination in international affairs between the two countries are still getting closer. The coordination between China and Russia in multilateral fields such as the United Nations, the SCO, the BRICS and the G20 has formed joint forces and has achieved remarkable results. Of particular concern is that this year the two countries worked together to deal with the new corona epidemic, and Russia resolutely resisted the US Trump administration’s drive to create a wedge in Sino-Russian relations and set up an adhoc “anti-China alliance”. In order to overcome the impact of the new corona epidemic, the two sides regularly exchange experiences and continue to actively promote related cooperation by using new forms of remote communication. Russia opposes Trump's rejection of China on the virus issue. President Putin has made it clear that "there is no evidence to support this claim". Russian media have also published articles, praising and supporting China's epidemic prevention and control efforts based on the comparison of the epidemic situation between China and the United States and European countries. They believe that China's more successful response to the new corona virus is due to the credibility of the Chinese government and the sense of responsibility of its citizens. Russia responded to the anti-China actions of the US government with a series of words and deeds. In response to Trump's intention to join Russia to involve China in the "New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty" negotiations, Putin said that if we want to talk about security and want China to join the treaty, we should not forget that Britain and France also possess nuclear weapons. In response to the intention of the United States to withdraw from the "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty," the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that if the United States deploys nuclear or conventional missiles in the Asia-Pacific region, Russia will respond quickly. In response to Pompeo’s clamor for putting together an “anti-China alliance”, the Russian spokesperson has repeatedly stated that the creation of the “anti-China alliance” is an attempt to divorce Russia-China relations. China is Russia’s partner and is a country that develops special partnerships with each other. The China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation has been further strengthened under the new situation because it is rooted in the consensus of peaceful development, cooperation and win-win, based on the practice of the "Shanghai Spirit" of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations, and common development. . There is still a lot of room for cooperation in Sino-Russian relations, which is good news for both China and Russia and their people. (The author is an academician of the International Academy of Natural and Social Sciences)  

Translation underway

(This translation needs improvement to better bring out the import of the article, beyond a literal translation. Any assistance anyone can provide will be gratefully acknowledged.)    The U.S. government will undergo a transition of power in a week's time. Discussions and expectations about the Biden administration's future internal and external policies will gradually come to be known. Among these discussions, one school suggests that Biden will "zero in" on many of the Trump administration's initiatives and even "restore" U.S. domestic and foreign policy to the state before Trump took office, which to a large extent means a return to the globalism and multilateralism of the past. Whether the United States will "resume" globalization has attracted much attention Many people are disappointed with the Trump administration's "anti-globalization" operations, , believing that it not only worsened international relations and aggravated political tensions world-wide, but also further tore apart American society and aggravated political differences. Now the possibility of Biden reverting to globalization and multilateralism has rekindled their hopes. Will the next US government really return to the multilateralism and the high "tide of globalization” it used to lead? This may be a delusion. No matter how much Biden may have once agreed with the domestic and foreign policies of the United States under Obama, today he is facing a new reality after the past four years. Although Trump is about to step down, "Trumpism" is still widespread in American society and will continue to play a role in American politics. This is not something Biden can avoid even if he wants to, because "Trumpism" reflects the United States as it is today. There are many real problems and challenges that need to be faced. The actions of the Trump Administration during the past four years have objectively brought out a key issue in the American discourse, that is, whether globalization and multilateralism have done more good than harm for the United States. This requires a new understanding of what "globalization" is. Globalization has its political limits Globalization used to be considered neutral, and primarily an economic process. However, in recent years, a large part of the dissatisfaction with globalization has unexpectedly come from developed countries. This reminds people that some grandiose imaginations about globalization in the past may have been due to lack of sufficient understanding of the nature of globalization, and that it is mainly due to a lack of understanding of where globalization started and what it is. Where did globalization begin and its lack of identity. According to the American political scientist Robert Gilpin, for most of the second half of the 20th century, the Cold War and its alliance structure provided the framework within which the world economy operated, that is, the international market (economy) was backed by international power (politics), and that globalization was not "spontaneous" but the result of power construction. The starting condition of this round of globalization was "Peace under America" (Pax Americana). Globalization, which started during the Cold War and served the goal of hegemonic competition, was also shaped by powerful political forces in the process of unfolding, and built an organic interaction and feedback between capital and the state, that is, the hegemonic state provided political support for the cross-border flow of capital. While capital drove the diffusion of technology and reaped profits, it also created better material and technical conditions for the hegemonic countries to consolidate their dominant position and resolve domestic problems. After the end of World War II, the United States took the initiative to help the former colonial powers in Europe to rebuild their industrial foundations, unilaterally opened its markets to allies in strategic locations at the forefront of the Cold War faultlines, and later accepted China’s participation in the globalization process. These are similar interpretations of the same logic in different periods. This is the origin of the phrase "integrating China into the U.S.-led international system" in the past few years, and the essence of globalization, multilateralism, and the post-war international order. Globalization began as a largely hegemonic investment, and its "origin" already included political selectivity, which determined two basic political limits to its expansion. One was the limits to equality in international politics in terms of the relationship between the dominant and the following countries, or between the developed and the developing countries; the other is the limits to mutual advancement of capital and politics in terms of political and business relations in the broader sense. In the former case, this means that the so-called equality in interstate relations since the postwar period was only formal  or partial, but in essence they were premised on self-evident inequality., and that the domination of international affairs by the powerful countries is seen as one of the fruits of victory in World War II, which cannot be allowed to be taken away by others. In the case of the latter, the establishment of certain constraints on capital was a response to the failure of international and domestic politics from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, and the freedom of capital had to be predicated on the capacity to promote the common welfare within the state. Previous trajectory of globalization not sustainable But with the end of the Cold War, and the deepening of globalization and weakening of the political and ideological dynamics behind it, the relationship between capital and the state has evolved in the late 20th century, and some new realities that are quite different from the past have appeared. They have begun to break through the political regulation of capital that once existed, so that both of these limits have been broken. The reciprocal relationship between capital and politics was broken, so that the capital movement was no longer as beneficial to the resolution of America's internal problems as it had been in the past. The breaking of the limits of equality in international politics is, to a large extent, the result of globalization breaking the limits of capital-politics reciprocal nexus  operative with protection of an unequal international power structure, i.e., after breaking through the regulatory barriers of politics and gaining an unprecedented freedom of action, capital in turn dismantles the power advantage of the countries that had dominant power in the international system, a process that can be described as a backlash. Globalization, which was supposed to be an arm of political power, became a machete to break its arm. This was not expected by the power providers of globalization. The collaborative relationship between capital and politics in the United States during the postwar period was eroded in the course of the globalization process of the past few years. Simply returning to the globalization of the past and multilateralism means that politics would be further controlled by capital. This is quite unbearable for the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States.  Globalization has its costs. In the eyes of many Americans, during the initial and unfolding of this round of globalization, the United States took the initiative to sell markets and loosen control of capital in order to achieve the political goals of the Cold War and to "regulate" China. But the loss is the decline of America's own physical industry and the weakening of competitiveness. Is this a cost that the United States is willing or able to bear today? Globalization is no longer likely to continue along its original trajectory. Much of the Biden administration's limits in making policy choices come from the limits of globalization. He may return to the concepts of "globalization" and "multilateralism," but it is very likely that new connotations will be added to these old terms or they will be "genetically rewritten. Compared to four years ago, the America that Biden sees today and the future that he envisions for the United States have changed quite a bit, which determines that he will partially inherit the policies of the Obama administration, but will have to change in response to the new situation. (The author is a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai International Studies University)   (N.B. For a non-ideological articulation that is likely shared by official China in toto, see here.)

European leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, have unexpectedly expressed support to US President Donald Trump on Monday after the latter was shut off by social media platforms. Merkel reportedly objected to the decision to ban Trump, saying that lawmakers, not private tech companies, should set the rules governing the freedom of speech. Her stance was echoed by Le Maire, who said that the state, not "the digital oligarchy," is responsible for regulations, calling big tech "one of the threats" to democracy. Banning Trump on social platforms has sparked great controversy over the freedom of speech. As far as I'm concerned, the so-called freedom of speech is an ideological discourse trap set up by the West. The freedom of speech in Western narratives is deceitful. It's constructed by the West. The West claims it is an advanced civilization and that freedom of speech is one of the standards for modern civilization. In fact, there is no "real freedom of speech" in the history of modern Western civilization. If there were real freedom of speech, why did McCarthyism surge and become rampant in the US in early 1950s? If there were real freedom of speech, why have so many reports, messages and information that exposed the violent and extreme nature of Hong Kong's protests in 2019 been deleted on the Western media platforms? In fact, Western countries regard the "freedom of speech" as a means to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries and tout Western democracy in international politics. Using an alleged lack of freedom of speech as an excuse to attack human rights record in other countries is the usual trick for the US and its allies. What's the essence of the controversy over free speech caused by the ban on Trump's accounts this time? It's in fact a political confrontation between Trump's supporters and those against him. The two groups have different political appeals, deciding their different stances over whether Trump's freedom of speech was eroded. Some European leaders voiced objection to the decision to silence Trump on social media platforms. What they are opposing is that freedom of speech is defined by tech giants rather than governments. These European leaders also have some economic considerations. The management and regulation on tech giants is related to the interests of large US tech companies in the Europe. It also matters the security of digital information. Unlike the US where wide-sweeping regulation on tech companies is missing, Europe has taken a very different stance to regulating tech giants. A CNBC report regards the EU as the most "aggressive" region on this issue. In December 2020, the EU introduced the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act with the aim to bring stricter controls on behaviors of tech giants in a number of areas. European countries want to strengthen management on mega tech companies like Google and Twitter. The EU will neither tolerate, nor allow, scenarios where big companies have unrestrained power over Europeans' life. Remarks that call big tech "one of the threats" to democracy are actually hypocritical. If the tech giants deleted articles that gave credit to China's social governance, China's development or Communist Party of China's leadership on their social platforms, no Western politicians would jump up to accuse them of being a threat to freedom of speech and democracy. As hypocritical as this accusation is, the remarks reflect worries in European countries as well as their fundamental demands. We don't know whether big tech is really a "threat to democracy," but what is certain is that they are a threat to the EU's own social management authority. That's why some European leaders have chosen to criticize US tech giants. The author is secretary general of the Shanghai Academy of Global Governance and Area Studies at Shanghai International Studies University.

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Bloomberg: U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Monday appeared to blame the coronavirus crisis on traditional Chinese medicine, saying it "originates from bats or pangolins, from the demented belief that if you grind up the scales of a pangolin you will somehow become more potent." Does the Foreign Ministry have any comment on this? Zhao Lijian: Interesting. We already reiterated our position on multiple occasions. Tracing the origin of COVID-19is a scientific issue which requires careful and meticulous studies by scientists before tenable conclusions can be reached. Groundless conjecture or hype-up of the issue will only disrupt normal international cooperation on origin-tracing.

(This Editorial was originally posted on the Huanqiu Group's website (huanqiu.com) on January 11, 2021, and (later that night) on the online English newspaper Global Times under the slightly softer title: " CHINA TO RESPOND TO US PROVOCATIONS IN NEXT 10 DAYS". Other similar slight changes in the English version are highlighted through italics font for words/phrases/sentences in the Chinese version not included in the English one and strike-outs for those in the English one not included in the Chinese version.)     After Washington announced last week that the US ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, would pay a visit to Taiwan this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Saturday he was lifting restrictions on contacts between officials of both the US and the island of Taiwan. The Trump administration is exploiting its final days to make anti-China decisions. It's the diplomatic team led by Pompeo that is playing the most proactive leading role to force this course of action. Only 10 days are left for the incumbent US government, but it may become the most challenging period for China-US relations. Pompeo has shown his madness in policies toward China. He has the potential to play out all anti-China "cards," and had done some completely incredible acts in the recent past. Pompeo's team is working like a retreating army to knock down every building, then bury land mines, in a bid to prevent potential reconstruction. China must resolutely crack down on these saboteurs and take drastic measures against them before their destruction gravely impairs China's core interests. China must not tolerate their abuses. As Pompeo's team will soon be out of power, China needs to avoid entanglement and maintain its bottom line of China-US relations amid the US power transition. This will be consistent with China's interests. But the precondition is that outgoing US officials should adhere to rules and regulations and restrain from pushing more destructive approaches. The US political system should constrain their moves. But it did not and this the reality was far from what many good-hearted Chinese people had expected from the US. is that Pompeo and his likes are frenzied and out of control. With the US establishment standing by to watch the fight, Pompeo and his supporters are in a state of willful arrogance that allows them to do whatever they want vis-à-vis the China-US relationship. Pompeo has ventured into the Taiwan question, which he believes is the best place to hurt China, and the best place to upend the entire relationship between the US and China, so that there can be no turning back afterwards. As a result, the Taiwan question has become his biggest gamble. Sadly, these people are becoming dizzy with their hubris and they have forgotten that the Taiwan Straits are where China's game tools are growing the fastest. Beijing has refrained from taking actions in the region in pursuit of peaceful reunification. But China's rapidly growing power is in the best position to be used in the region, which will deal a heavy blow to US arrogance. Let us summon our strength and resolution to confront the ultimate provocation of the US and have a showdown with the U.S. side's extreme provocations. We will discredit Pompeo and his likes for their hubris in misjudging the situation and deter them in the Taiwan Straits and beat them into submission in this part of the Taiwan Strait. No one in the US or the world will really sympathize with them. Everyone knows that they deserve to lose, and that they had it coming when they were hit back, as it is them who have initiated the fight in the first place. We need to see this as a rare window of opportunity for the Chinese mainland to do something about the Taiwan question. The US has been embroiled in serious chaos caused by the loss of control over the epidemic and a bumpy transfer of power. The Trump administration has lost its prestige, and its ability to mobilize people and take action is crippled. It is unable to have a strategic collision with China over the latter's core interests by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, it's fair to say Pompeo and his likes have overestimated the US strength to provoke the Chinese mainland over the Taiwan question. They appear to be tough outwardly, but are actually weak on the inside. They lack strong support, and many people are waiting to make them a laughing stock. When If they cross the line over the Taiwan question in the Taiwan Straits, we need to can retaliate quickly, not only to register our presence but to strike back firmly and hard. We must turn the fight against them in the last 10 days of the Trump administration into a process that draws a clear bottom line with the US and the island of Taiwan, showing both of them the severe consequences if they ever really touch the bottom line - this is a process to establish China's prestige. If we don't act this way, the US and the island of Taiwan will think Beijing would rather tolerate their provocations for the sake of long-term interests. The actions taken by Pompeo and his likes to trap the Taiwan question and China-US relations will be "legitimatized," and the Biden administration may mistakenly think it will have more room to pressure the Chinese mainland. This will make the start of China-US relations in the next four years detrimental to China. We would rather face a Taiwan Straits crisis, even a storm, in the next 10 days if Pompeo and his likes become more aggressive and provocative before leaving office. The crisis will teach Taiwan secessionists a lesson and nail Pompeo and his likes to the pillar of shame. Even if this will cause a shock to China-US relations during the period of power change in the US, it will bring more benefits to the normal development of bilateral relations in the long term.

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Extracted from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Translation underway.

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

A non-political and light hearted take on Sarojini Nagar market in New Delhi, and the likes of it in other Indian cities, admirous of their artistic display of their wares and their hawking skills. ,

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

"India is likely to face China's aggressive activities in the border area for a long time, and close coordination between us (the United States and India) has been very important." The outgoing U.S. Ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster, made this statement publicly on the 5th local time. The Hindu newspaper interpreted it as the first time a U.S. official publicly acknowledged the existence of U.S.-India cooperation around the India-China border standoff. The report mentioned that although the cooperation was "officially announced" for the first time, the U.S. has actually provided India with geospatial data, satellite maps and cold-resistant supplies in the past few months. The Hindu reported that Juster made the statement in a speech titled "Ambitions and Achievements in the U.S.-India Partnership. According to the report, Juster confirmed that the Trump Administration has cooperated with India to counter the pattern of China's "intrusion" operations along the Line of Actual Control. He added: "The U.S. and India share a vision rooted in the Indo-Pacific region to bring opportunities for growth and prosperity to all nations there and, what is more, at the same time discourage any form of invasion, intimidation or predatory investment". However, the Huanqiu Shibao reporter checked the information on the 6th and found that in the full text of Juster's speech released on the website of the U.S. Embassy in India, there are only two clear references to "China", one is to deal with the challenge of "China's rise" to the Indo-Pacific region, and the other is that the business environment for the US companies in China is "increasingly difficult" and did not directly take a position on the India-China border standoff. A source told the Huanqiu Shibao on the 6th that some of Juster's remarks came during a "question and answer session" at the end of his formal speech. It is unclear whether the local media have deliberately "changed flowers and trees" ("put the blame" on the situation), or whether the U.S. Embassy in India made a "technical cut" in the final publication of the article. The Hindu said this is the first time U.S. officials have confirmed cooperation with India in the India-China border standoff, while Indian officials have previously insisted that they are working with China to resolve tensions through a "bilateral, diplomatic approach". The standoff between India and China has been going on for months, and every move by both sides has sparked speculation from time to time. According to India's New Delhi TV on June 6, the Indian Ministry of Defense in its annual report falsely claimed in its annual report that the Chinese military used force to change the status quo in many areas along the China-India Line of Control through “unilateral actions and provocations”. And that the Indian Army responded with a “firm response” by adopting a “no escalation” approach. The report claims that the Indian army has made all preparations for any potential extreme situations, but still maintains that it is for an "amicable solution" through dialogue. The report also mentions that in response to the Chinese and Pakistani threats, the Indian Air Force will procure 56 C295 transport aircraft, worth a total of about $2.5 billion, as well as 83 domestically produced "Glory 1A" fighters under the "Make in India" policy. India's "Eurasia Times" website reported on May 5 that satellite photos from social media show that the Indian army has deployed heavy weapons at several strategic locations along the India-China border, such as Pangong Lake, Rizang La and Rechin La Pass. According to the Hindustan Times, India and China have held eight rounds of military commander-level talks so far, but have made little progress. A senior Indian government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "The timing of the ninth round of talks is yet to be determined, but we are in no hurry (to push) as the Chinese side has not yet made the necessary clarifications on disengagement and de-escalation of the situation" and "we are fully prepared for a long haul to realise the goal of ensuring that heavy equipment deployed by both armies is withdrawn from the front line of confrontation". Another Indian government security official said that "India and China need to rediscover the balance as two rising powers, otherwise there will be friction". An Indian government official familiar with the development told the Huanqiu Shibao that "both sides are still sticking to their respective positions, so a new round of military level talks is unlikely to be held in the near future". "The good news is that both sides are willing to keep communication open through diplomatic and military channels, which determines that the standoff will not escalate into a confrontation." The Huanqiu Shibao noted that while Juster's speech focused on the major progress made in the U.S.-India bilateral relationship over the past four years and on the outlook for cooperation, there were also many "overtones". He said that India should not only choose bidders offering low prices, but also focus on the quality and value of products and ensure strategic interoperability between military units and friendly forces. Juster also "suggested" that India should "consider which country will give it the best chance of realizing its ambitions for indigenization of the defense industry". According to RIA Novosti, Juster wants India to "choose between the United States and Russia". At present, India's S-400 air defense missile system purchased from Russia is about to be delivered. Because Turkey's insistence on dealing with Russia before has caused strong dissatisfaction with the United States, some analysts believe that Juster's remarks are not so much a "suggestion" as a threat. The Hindustan Times reported that the U.S. Congressional Research Service said in a report submitted to Congress on the 4th that the India-Russia S-400-related deal could lead to U.S. sanctions against India. Since 2018, the Indian government has been trying to get a U.S. sanctions waiver on the arms purchase, but the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened sanctions and proposed to the Indian side to use U.S.-supplied air defense missile systems. However, India remains determined to move forward with the Russian arms deal, stressing that the move is "in the national interest". According to South China Morning Post,  Hong Kong, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last December that "the West is trying to undermine our close partnership and priority relationship with India. This is the purpose of strong U.S. pressure on New Delhi". He added that the U.S. is behind India's "anti-China game" and that India has become "a favourite target for the West's persistent, aggressive and insidious policies.    

On India's refutation of the rumour about ban on export of domestically produced vaccines by the Government of India reported by Huanqiu Shibao the day before

On the project for redevelopment of the Central Vista area in the national Capital

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway  

Summary translation underway -- covers situation in Pakistan, but not India

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

In the past year or two, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been labelled "wolf warrior" by some Western politicians and media, and China's diplomatic style has been inexplicably labeled "wolf warrior diplomacy". Recently, some Chinese scholars have written articles in overseas media criticizing China for engaging in "wolf warrior diplomacy". In this regard, the author believes that the idea of "wolf warrior diplomacy" proffered by these people and the media is actually a false proposition. First of all, which diplomatic style to adopt depends on the necessity of a country's diplomacy. As the name suggests, "wolf warrior diplomacy" is toughness, that is, the use of strong diplomatic words or diplomatic behavior. Then, the opposite is softness, which might be called "sheep diplomacy." Whether it is "wolf diplomacy" or "sheep diplomacy", they are all different diplomatic styles. Which diplomatic style is preferable? There is no internationally recognized standard. Under one specific condition, "wolf warrior diplomacy" should be the first choice; under another specific condition, "sheep diplomacy" may be necessary. Because the external environment and mutual relations themselves are constantly changing. Second, diplomatic styles are often reciprocal. In relationships, there is a recognized principle, that is, you cannot be a gentleman in front of a villain, and you cannot be a villain in front of a gentleman. To a certain extent, this principle can also become a standard for handling state-to-state relations. The US government continues to challenge the UN Charter, violates the norms of international relations at will, launches aggressive wars from time to time, spares no effort to use the power of the "whole government" to contain China, and even slanders China with lies and "dumping the pot". For such a superpower, China must of course make a tough counterattack, must of course defend itself and must of course defend its national interests and equity and justice in the world. Only you are only allowed to talk nonsense, and I can't refute it tit for tat? Obviously there is no reason to (accept) such an argument. Third, China does not always adopt the so-called "wolf warrior diplomacy". Some people say that the Biden administration is about to take office and China should show great patience and refrain from using "wolf warrior diplomacy" to deal with the new US government. In fact, when Biden served as President Obama's deputy, China once proposed to the US that the two sides jointly build a "new type of relationship between major powers". Regardless of whether the "new type of major power relationship" is hard or soft, the concept of non-conflict, non-confrontation, and win-win cooperation is in line with the UN Charter and the norms of the new type of international relations; it not only takes into account the common interests of China and the United States, but also serves the international society through a demonstration effect of "the major power style", so why not do it? But to what extent has the US listened to China’s proposal and accepted it in practice? There is no doubt that if the Biden Administration can abandon the Trump Administration’s China policy, and not stigmatize China or suppress it or pressurise it, China will definitely reciprocate and cooperate with the United States with greater sincerity. Fourth, the criterion for judging whether a country’s diplomatic style is reasonable or not should be whether its people approve it or not. The diplomacy of any country should focus on world peace and its own interests. Therefore, whether China's diplomatic style is reasonable also depends on whether this style is conducive to maintaining world peace and whether it is accepted by the Chinese people. Facts have shown that China's diplomatic style is not to undermine world peace, but to represent the progressive forces in the world and strongly attack hegemonism, bullying and unilateralism that the United States believes in. Equally important, China's diplomatic style has received approval of the Chinese people at large. According to a poll conducted by the Global Public Opinion Center under the Global Times with the theme of "Chinese People See the World", 71.2% of the respondents believe that "wolf warrior diplomacy" is what China's diplomatic posture ought to be. Fifth, being a state with etiquette, China has always advocated harmony. The diplomacy of a country is willy-nilly influenced by its cultural traditions. It is universally recognised that the core of Chinese cultural tradition is "Harmony". Since ancient times, a culture of "harmony" has nurtured the universal view of the unity of man and nature, the concept of harmony among nations internationally, the outlook of (seeking) harmony amidst social diversity, the moral view of having a human heart and kindness and the value of righteousness. China's proposal to promote the establishment of a community with a shared future for mankind is to promote "harmony". Therefore, although China dared to fight the United States in order to defend its own interests, China's diplomacy did not abandon the belief that "peace and harmony are the most valuable things". Attaching the label of "wolf warrior diplomacy" on China is nothing but hoping that we will not fight back, we will not retaliate and that we will abandon struggle. In sum, "wolf warrior diplomacy" is a false proposition. Confronted  with the big stick of hegemonists and bottomless nonsense, how can China not stand up in self-defense. (The author is a distinguished professor of Shanghai University)  

Singapore "Lianhe Zaobao" article on January 3, original title: They remain "unmarried" while waiting for true love in freedom. They are well-educated, economically independent, have a wide range of hobbies... do not want to get married. The number of "unmarried persons" with these characteristics is increasing in China. Why are women in the majority there? How do they view marriage and love? 33-year-old Zheng Hong (pseudonym) bought her own house in Shenzhen a year ago, which strengthened her determination to live a life alone. According to the customer manager of the software company, marriage is just an economic contract. "A man gathers the courage to marry when he buys a house, and a woman gathers courage to be single when she buys a house." "If I can live well by myself, there is no need to get married." . A few years ago, she would actively got to know the opposite sex for the purpose of getting married, but she frequently heard about the unfortunate experiences of her friends after marriage, and her expectations about marriage dropped again and again. Big cities also provide her with more free space, and she has many things to do-watch movies, go to exhibitions, go to beauty... Recently, she also enrolled in a painting class to make new friends. The number of "unmarried people" like Zheng is increasing day by day in China. Most of them are women, most of whom are well-educated and economically independent. Choosing not to marry is not only because I believe that we can live well without marriage, but also because there are more disadvantages than benefits in (other people's) marriages. Zheng repeatedly emphasized that worrying about getting married would make her "unfree". Zhou Yilian (pseudonym), 33, is an ordinary civil servant in Quanzhou, Fujian. But when you click on the WeChat Moments, you will find her multiple identities: guzheng player, dancer, cosplayer... She said: "Married friends around feel that they have lost their personal freedom. If I get married, I won’t have time to maintain my current hobbies. How to manage?" The attitude of the young Chinese generation towards marriage has turned from yearning to fear, which is directly reflected in the decline in the marriage rate. The marriage rate across China in the past six years has dropped from 9.9‰ in 2013 to 6.6‰ in 2019. The more developed the economy, the lower the marriage rate. Experts say that marriage is no longer a necessity for women as it used to be. While the marriage rate is falling, the divorce rate is gradually rising, and most of them are initiated by women. As Chinese women have surpassed men’s education, finding the right partner has become increasingly difficult. The process of urbanization in China has accelerated population flow. The shifting location of work and life have also made more people see marriage as a burden rather than a guarantee. Li Miao (pseudonym) had two chances of getting married, but she thought about it again and again and refused because "it didn't feel right". Li said: "I want a long-lasting relationship." Li, 40, works as a product manager for a multinational company. Like most single white-collar workers in Shanghai, she is not worried about living alone, and is already planning to spend her retirement with friends. “If there is no suitable one, it doesn’t matter if you get married or not”.  

SUDDEN DEATH OF PINDUODUO GIRL ON RETURN FROM WORK SHIFT AROUSES NETIZENS CONCERN Zhang Moufei, a 22-year-old girl from Pinduoduo, suddenly fainted and died on the way home after getting off work late at night. This caused a strong response on the Internet. The exact cause of her sudden death requires authoritative medical conclusions, but the public's resistance and condemnation of excessive overtime work has become the main concern on the Internet. We hope that all companies and institutions will attach high importance to this public concern, take necessary measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of employees and not seek to base their achievements on excessive overtime work put in by employees. The country’s labor laws must also be enforced more strictly in deference to this trend in public opinion. The excessive working hours of Internet company employees are well known. Two years ago, there was a condemnation of "996" on the Internet, but this problem has not really been alleviated because of the fierce competition among Internet companies and because employees' competition in careers is also very intense. The above-mentioned "double pressure" has greatly squeezed the workers' space to defend their right not to work overtime or to work less overtime, and a lot of public discussions have reluctantly turned to the "equity principle" that overtime pay needs to be paid in full. Objectively speaking, frequent overtime work is not only a matter of Internet companies, but also a lot of such industries in China. It is understood that overtime is also extremely common in the police force, as well as in other civil services, and that they are usually not paid overtime, or only very little overtime. Some local and departmental leaders take this for granted, and some managers even talk with pride about how their departments work "5+2, day and night". In Chinese society, there is a traditional value of "overtime is honorable", and many stories of positive people include long hours of overtime and working late into the night. From organizations to enterprises, leaders and managers often appreciate employees who work overtime on their own initiative, and this value is very deep in Chinese society. In the past, China was very backward, and the first priority was to get rid of poverty, so the above values were naturally formed. But after the gradual formation of a large urban middle class, this value orientation is quietly changing among the people, and the importance of people's right to rest is gradually strengthened. The online criticism of "996" is actually a clear signal of this change. Today, people's demands are still diverse, and there are still many people who are willing to "work hard" in exchange for a better life, but it is crumbling as a collective value. More and more young people are looking for a balance between working hard and enjoying life, .............. We believe that this is a major trend, and the further China moves forward and the higher the GDP per capita, the more room there will be for such values. In addition, the treatment of labor is becoming a new direction of international attention focused on China, a condition often mentioned by outsiders for deep economic cooperation with China. I am afraid that the whole Chinese society has to adjust its concept on the issue of overtime work. China's economic and social development can no longer rely too much on people working extra long hours as a driving force. We need to work on improving labor efficiency, on squeezing out formalism and useless work, on finding positive elements to boost development from the more rest people want to have, and on aligning development with the protection of people's rights as highly as possible. Chinese people who often travel abroad will find that in developed societies, it is quite difficult to get accompanying drivers and interpreters to work overtime, often not even if they are paid more. I'm afraid this can not simply be regarded as their being "lazy". Our economic and social development needs to be explored towards a gradual reduction in the cost for the whole population. After all, China is still not a rich country, and the low-income group is still very large. Overtime work is inevitable in some positions, and the spirit of hardship must not be missing in our society. In particular, we cannot abandon the encouragement of the spirit of dedication, and in some key sectors, it is vital to let such a spirit continue to flourish. What we are trying to say is that we need to keep adjusting as our society progresses and keep achieving a new balance. Therefore, the strong reaction to the sudden death of the girl in Pinduoduo, the resistance to "996" on the Internet, deserves to be considered by society as a whole, and to let this thinking seep rationally into the rhythm of social progress. (The author is a commentator for Global Times)  

"I suggest that the Huanqiu Shibao also conduct a poll to ask the Chinese people what they think of the United States. Is it what the U.S. itself says it is, or has it actually become the biggest destabilizer, or even disruptor, of global peace and security". When the U.S. State Department tweeted on the 3rd that "China's Communist Party undermines the international rule of law", with a link to the webpage "China's Communist Party: A Threat to Global Peace and Security," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, replied so in reply to a question by the Huanqiu Shibao reporter on the 4th. Hua Chunying said at a regular press conference that apparently some people on the U.S. side are still keen to play the trick of "a lie repeated a thousand times can become the truth", but "a lie is a lie after all, and a lie repeated a thousand times, ten thousand times is still a lie". She stressed that it has been proven time and again that the United States is the biggest destabilizing factor threatening global peace and security. Many reports say that polls in more than a dozen countries, including Germany, Japan and South Korea, show that half or more of the respondents believe that the United States poses a major security threat. There are also some American  media, experts and scholars who have publicly stated that it is the United States itself that poses the greatest threat geopolitically. In fact, the poll mentioned by Hua Chunying has been done several times by the Global Opinion Center under the Huanqiu Shibao. According to 16,000 questionnaires collected by the Global Opinion Center in 16 countries in early December 2020, nearly 60 percent of respondents believe that the international image of the United States has "deteriorated," up from 55.5 percent in 2019. The figure was 80% among Chinese respondents, who believed that the international image of the US had deteriorated -- the highest among the countries surveyed. Respondents in many countries feel dissatisfied and helpless with the global hegemonism displayed by the United States. Among the Chinese respondents, the proportion of those "angry" was the highest, while in case of South Korean respondents, it was the proportion of those who "complained" that was the highest. Some experts say that the Trump administration has been very aggressive during its four-year tenure, at the expense of many countries, including allies, in order to achieve its governing goals. This has caused the United States to have a poor global reputation and image. In the “China sees the world” survey conducted by the Global Public Opinion Center at the end of December last year, 47.5% of the respondents believed that “China-US relations” are the “bilateral relations with the greatest impact on China”, ranking first among all options. The data further showed that the proportion of respondents who chose to hate the "Trump Administration", "U.S. Army" and "U.S. Media" was 65.6%, 53.2% and 46.9%  respectively, which is much higher than the proportion of respondents who liked them. For "American film and television works", "American electronic products", "American sports leagues" and "American universities/research institutions", far more people choose to like than to hate. Some scholars believe that this shows that the Chinese (people's) view of the United States is objective and pragmatic. Although they are very dissatisfied with the US government's unilateral damage to bilateral relations, their good impression of American society and culture has not been greatly affected by the irresponsible actions of American politicians

Translation underway

Translation underway

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Bloomberg: A Global Times piece citing analysts said that the Chinese government may require U.S. companies doing business in China to disclose links to the U.S. military. We are wondering if the foreign ministry has any comment on this? Hua Chunying: I don't have any information to offer, but I would like to stress our firm opposition to the U.S. government's malicious slanders against China's civil-military integration policy, politicization of trade issues, and suppression of Chinese companies by abusing state power and stretching national security concept. As is known to all, the United States has a very long history of civil-military fusion, with this practice dating back to a time before WWI. The U.S. government has been the major driving force for this process. In recent years, it has been pursuing all-dimensional integration in various sectors at an even faster pace. Many American multinational companies are the result of military-civil fusion themselves. On this issue, the United States is applying double standards to contain China's development in despicable means, in violation of the market principles and international trade rules it always claims to champion, which will eventually damage the image and interests of the United States itself. It goes without saying that the Chinese government will not sit back when its legitimate interests are trampled upon by the U.S. side so willfully. We will take necessary measures to firmly defend Chinese companies' lawful rights and interests. We hope that the U.S. side will see reason and work together with us to create a fair, just, stable and predictable business environment for the normal exchange, cooperation and development of companies of both sides.

In the autumn and winter, there were new cases of confirmed corona pneumonia in individual cities.  The release of the trajectories of some confirmed cases, such as a woman in Chengdu and an elderly man in Shenyang, who "wandered around the city" during the onset of the disease and even violated the "14+14" home isolation regulations, has sparked public debate. The most debated issue is the leakage of citizens' personal privacy and personal information. It is important to point out that the diagnosed patients themselves are unfortunately patients first and foremost, not criminals. It is necessary for the flow investigation and epidemic prevention and control authorities to release specific information about confirmed patients for the sake of epidemic prevention and control. At the same time, the scope of information to be released should be strictly limited to what is necessary for outbreak control, such as travel and location information, and to avoid identifying individual patients by virtue of the information released alone or in combination with other information. For outbreak control, it is important to track the virus, not the patient. Even if the patient is tracked, it is ultimately about tracking the virus. For the public, it is only necessary to know that there are so many confirmed cases and their trajectories in order to protect themselves, and there is absolutely no need to identify them as specific individuals. There is a problem with the protection of citizens' personal information, but the specifics are much more complex. In the case of the old man in Shenyang, while it is true that his personal information should be protected and that netizens should not conduct body searches or even cyber bullying/violence against him, it is perfectly understandable that the public may not know who such a person is if he does not comply with the rules of epidemic prevention and control and runs around with a disease that affects the lives and even the livelihoods of ordinary citizens. But it is morally reprehensible to condemn such a person and even hold him accountable according to the law. Personal information protection protects the specific name and identity of the person from public condemnation, not the person who violates the law. Because of their inability to make a distinction between the protection of citizens' personal information and social and moral judgments, online public opinion, though lively, are often divided. Such controversies, to a greater extent, exacerbate disagreements and fuel emotional reactions to social issues. It should be recognized that human society is undergoing profound changes due to public health emergencies like the new corona epidemic, as well as new situations and issues such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, and cyberspace. The relationship between the individual , the collective and society is being redefined. For important nodes of virus transmission like the Chengdu lady and the Shenyang old man, the related controversies actually foreshadow that new adjustments may be needed in the relationship between people and society in the new problems confronting humanity in the new era Thanks to technological advances and empowerment, one of the characteristics of humanity's entering modern society since the industrial age has been the growth of individualism and personal freedom. Especially after World War II, fueled by the neo-liberalism originating in the United States, this individualism and freedom reached its peak and turned into supremacy of the individual. People began to pay more attention to their own freedom, feelings and way of life, and less concerned with others, the collective and society. It was in this sense that the French thinker Gonstant distinguished between the freedom of ancient man, who valued the collective, and the freedom of modern man, who valued independence of the individual. However, thanks to the Internet, the world has truly become a global village, and cyberspace has become a whole new human space. And nuclear proliferation, climate change, cybercrime, and major infectious diseases are increasingly penetrating villages, cities, and nations, becoming problems that even the most powerful sovereign nations cannot solve alone. They must be addressed by individuals, societies, sovereign nations, the world, and all of humanity collectively. This is why we must move from a loose system of nations and a tight international system to a closer community of shared future for humankind. Especially for a test like a major infectious disease epidemic, it is not only sovereign countries, international organizations, and the international community that must work together. Every citizen of the earth and each member of society should feel responsible,. The relationship between people and society is undergoing a redefinition. The individual supremacy that emerged in the industrial era and was pushed to the extreme to the point of distortion after World War II needs to be rethought seriously. We should understand individual freedom and rights more in terms of the connection between people, rather than the independence between people. This is what Yan Fu* meant a hundred years ago when he translated freedom as "the right of the group to itself. Realm of the power of the group   *(N.B. Editor's Note: Yan Fu, 1854-1921, was the first Chinese translator of the works of liberals like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and Montesquieu, among others. He is considered to be the father of Chinese liberalism as the author of many commentaries and the celebrated “Learning from the West” and Meaning of Freedom.)   (The author is a researcher at the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)    

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

It has been said in recent years that the world has entered a period of turbulent change as a result of unprecedented changes in the international situation over the past century or so. The international community is going through a major tests of multilateralism versus unilateralism, openness versus closed approaches and cooperation versus confrontation, while the new corona pneumonia epidemic has accelerated the adjustments in the international landscape. First, we need to clarify what is this "century-old pattern"? The author's explanation is that the "100-year pattern" is (nothing but) the international governance system formed on the basis of the rules set by the developed Western countries led by the United States. This pattern mainly serves to maintain, consolidate and promote their interests. With the changes in the international power balance over the past century, especially the rapid rise of a large number of developing countries represented by China, developed countries such as the United States increasingly feel that the pattern they have carefully constructed has become "unmanageable" and increasingly difficult to control. Initially, they tried to retain the model of the original governance system, i.e. the shell, but in practice, they tried to promote double and multiple standards. This approach was met with resistance from a wide range of developing countries. This explains why, in recent decades, the vast majority of international multilateral organizations and institutions have almost come to a "standstill" or have been on the verge of disintegration in some cases. The vast majority of international treaties and agreements are difficult to comply with and implement. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are typical examples. In addition, many bilateral treaties and agreements reached between the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia) have been torn up. The United States under Trump, guided by the "America First" strategy, has simply withdrawn from international organizations one after another. Second, how should we evaluate the "100-year pattern"? According to my understanding, "one hundred years" is counted from the Second World War. After the end of World War II, the international community, on the basis of lessons learned from World War I, created a system of international governance based on the United Nations. Since World War II, there has been no World War III, and the world has been generally peaceful and stable, despite local wars and skirmishes. The world economy and society have seen the fastest and best development in human history. But interestingly, many people are dissatisfied with this pattern and are clamoring for reform. Those developed countries are not satisfied, not to mention the United States. The developing countries in general are also strongly demanding to increase their representation and enhance their voice. The entanglement of the two forces has brought difficulties for international governance. Populism and unilateral bullying are rampant and there is muck flowing all around. Objectively speaking, this is not the fault of the United States and party alone, but as the only superpower today, it is the instigator. For example, our neighboring country, India, is also not reconciled to falling behind. Looked upon as a former flag bearer of the Non-Aligned Movement, it appears to have ideas of (effecting) a dramatic change of course. Third, what is China's attitude? The author believes that, for China, there are advantages in change. The dramatic changes in the landscape mean huge opportunities as well as huge challenges. The key lies in how to accurately judge the changes, adapt to them, and then lead them in a direction that is beneficial to China and humanity as a whole. In the above-mentioned major test of "multilateralism and unilateralism, openness and closed approaches, cooperation and confrontation", China has chosen multilateralism, openness and cooperation. The United States under Trump's administration has chosen unilateralism, closed approaches and confrontation. The current U.S. Administration is coming to the end of its term, the 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region have successfully completed the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), and China and Europe have completed negotiations on an investment agreement at the end of 2020. It can be said that these are all "gifts" to send off the current U.S. administration. Fourth, what does the change of regime in the United States mean for China and the world? After the voting in the U.S. elections, European countries initially could not hold back their joy and cheered "America is back”. Some countries that bet on the wrong thing wilted, while others breathed a sigh of relief, but are still waiting to see what happens. Because Trump has still not publicly admitted defeat, more than 100 Republican members of Congress are reportedly planning to refuse to accept the results of the Electoral College vote on January 6. So, more people are concerned about the U.S. because of the uncertainty and the extent to which the U.S. under Biden will "flip" Trump's policies in the coming years. During the four years of his Administration, Trump disrupted the world with his "America First" banner. The government under his leadership has been making attacks all round, all over the world, resulting in “angry and discontented publics" globally. With regard to China, the U.S. government has adopted a frenzied crack-down, from trade, science and technology, people-to-people contacts, diplomacy, military and other fields, bringing Sino-U.S. relations to the lowest point in more than 40 years of diplomatic relations. Some top officials of the current U.S. administration (such as Secretary of State Pompeo) have bad things to say about relations with China. Of course, these four years have also made the vast majority of Chinese people understand that this is what the democracy, freedom and human rights the U.S. boasts of are about. The U.S. has been a free "negative instructor". And Trump has left Biden with a completely divided country. The political polarisation and tearing apart of the social fabric will be very difficult to heal. The election saw the highest turnout in U.S. history. And Trump became the re-election seeking Presidential candidate with the highest number of votes in U.S. history, and Biden also became the President-elect with the highest votes in U.S. history. It is important to note that hardcore groups inclined towards "Trumpism" are still there. Biden also announced his "100-day New Deal", under which he would address three things in his first 100 days: adjusting immigration policy, controlling the new corona epidemic, and returning to the Paris Agreement on climate change. Let's wait and see whether Biden can fire the first shot. Fifth, what will happen next in Sino-US relations? This question is of concern not only to the Chinese, but to the whole world. In a congratulatory message to Biden, the Chinese leader said, "Promoting the healthy and stable development of Sino-U.S. relations is not only in the fundamental interests of the two peoples, but also a common expectation of the international community. We hope that both sides will uphold the spirit of non-conflict and non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, focus on cooperation, manage differences, and promote healthy and stable development of Sino-US relations". This is both the answer given by China and an expression of the Chinese government's consistent position on U.S.-China relations. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in an interview on Jan. 2 that U.S.-China relations have come to a new crossroads, and he hopes the new U.S. Administration will regain its rationality and restart dialogue. As President-elect of the United States, Biden previously said in a question-and-answer session that "the United States is strongest when it works with its allies. He said he wanted to "restore American leadership to the world. Many people will ask what Biden will do when he unites with his allies. The world has changed, China and the United States have changed, and Biden is still trying to lead the world. Who does he want to lead? Who will accept his leadership? No matter what answer the U.S. gives, I firmly believe that as long as all Chinese people are closely united and do their own thing, there will be no difficulty that cannot be overcome and no adversary that cannot be defeated.   (The author is a former UN Under-Secretary-General)

Indian Livemint News January 2 article, originally titled: After the epidemic, aircraft manufacturers more dependent on China As Western airlines are expected to take years to recover from the new corona epidemic, aircraft manufacturers will be more dependent on the resilience and growth potential of the Chinese market. But China's own aviation ambitions, and the geopolitical tensions associated with those ambitions, could throw a wrench into that dependence. China has now recovered from the epidemic to become the world's largest domestic aviation market. According to PlaneStats, a division of Orwell Consulting, China's air passenger throughput will grow 8% year-over-year in 2020, while the U.S. and Europe will decline 41% and 68%, respectively. With an additional 500 million Chinese expected to join the middle class in the coming years, the Chinese market still has tremendous growth potential. China has become the second largest source of revenue for Boeing and Airbus and is now one of the few bright spots for the two aircraft makers: last November, Boeing lowered its global aircraft demand forecast for the next 20 years by 2 percent, but raised demand in China by 6.3 percent, to 8,600 aircraft. Compared to the rest of the world, China is particularly important for the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family of aircraft, which are the mainstay of low-cost carriers. China currently accounts for only 4.4 percent of total firm orders for Boeing and Airbus, a percentage that is clearly too low. Western companies fear that the gap in narrow-body airliners may be filled in the future by the C919 made by COMAC. The final outcome may depend on geopolitics. A few days ago, the U.S. released a list of Chinese companies banned from buying a range of U.S. products and technologies, including some of COMAC's subsidiaries.

Towards the end of 2020, large American technology companies such as HP, Oracle, and Tesla successively decided to move some of their businesses and employees out of Silicon Valley, which once again raised questions about whether the "Silicon Valley Aura" is on the wane. After long-term development, Silicon Valley has indeed encountered many problems, otherwise there would not be a phenomenon of many famous companies "fleeing" one after another. Specifically, the current challenges facing Silicon Valley are as follows. One is the higher tax cost. California, where Silicon Valley is located, has the highest personal income tax and capital gains tax rates in the United States. For high-income people in Silicon Valley, such a high tax rate is obviously a deduction factor. The second is higher housing prices. Silicon Valley is famous for its high housing prices. In the United States, the median house price in Silicon Valley is close to five times the national average. The pressure of high housing prices has forced some Silicon Valley employees to leave and go to cities that have similar job opportunities and relatively low housing prices. The third is strong regulatory constraints. California governments at all levels have introduced a variety of regulatory policies, from car exhaust emissions to gender equality, from consumer protection to epidemic prevention and control, all have formulated detailed and strict policies. This has led to a backlash amongst some entrepreneurs. The fourth is the influence of political orientation. Most companies that went out of Silicon Valley chose Texas. From the political pedigree, California is a typical Democratic state, while Texas is a Republican state. Going out of the "Silicon Valley" in San Francisco, California to the "Silicon Mountain" in Austin, Texas, the political factor behind it cannot be ignored. Of course, the sudden outbreak of the new corona pneumonia this year has also had a serious negative impact on Silicon Valley. The reason why Silicon Valley is special is largely due to its powerful talent and information congregating effect. People with talent and creativity gather in local cafes and meeting rooms. However, the epidemic objectively requires isolation and restriction of crowd gathering, which interferes with or even interrupts this tradition possessed by Silicon Valley. At the beginning of the epidemic, some large high-tech companies were forced to abandon their offices and choose to work from home. However, over time, many companies have found that home-based distributed offices scattered across the United States have not really affected work, but have increased work flexibility and efficiency. It is reported that some high-tech companies have even taken the initiative to consider the possibility of implementing long-term home office work in some positions in the post-epidemic era. This poses a huge challenge to Silicon Valley's original aggregation advantages. The above-mentioned challenges are mainly external challenges. For the development of Silicon Valley, the internal problems it faces may be more fundamental. The success of Silicon Valley has benefited from the "double innovation". One is entrepreneurship and the other is innovation. However, in recent years, the performance of Silicon Valley's "double innovation" has been weakened. In terms of entrepreneurship, Silicon Valley's recent entrepreneurial success cases have decreased. Regardless of the start-up story or the start-up company, it does not look so exciting. The iconic successful people seem to be the old faces. In other cities and even other countries in the United States, there are relatively more success stories that have emerged. To a certain extent, this will make Silicon Valley less attractive to all kinds of talents. In terms of innovation, over-capitalization of Silicon Valley has created an extraordinary distortion of science and technology innovation. The transformation of STI results does need capital to help, and capital also adds value in discovering and helping the commercial transformation process of STI. In this sense, science and technology innovation and capital intervention can achieve a win-win situation. But for Silicon Valley, this model of win-win and balance is being broken. Too much capital is chasing technology innovation, desperately hoping to "make money" through it. This has seriously interfered with the normal path of technological innovation and led to the spread of impetuous sentiment in Silicon Valley. Despite a series of problems, Silicon Valley is still the best model for the development of global high-tech companies, and it cannot be considered that Silicon Valley has deteriorated. Among various indicators, two indicators being close to 40% are the most convincing. First, the number of unicorn companies in Silicon Valley accounts for about 40% of the number of unicorn companies in the United States. Not only that, almost all the top unicorn companies were born in Silicon Valley. Second, the amount of venture capital attracted by Silicon Valley accounts for about 40% of the United States. This shows that venture capital continues to maintain optimistic expectations from Silicon Valley and believes that the best return on venture capital can be achieved in Silicon Valley. The California government and the San Francisco local government may have realized the various problems currently facing Silicon Valley and will take appropriate measures. In any case, Silicon Valley is still a banner of global science and technology innovation. Its past successful experience, current development difficulties, and possible future policy adjustments and market adaptations are worthy of reference for other countries and cities that are interested in building a center for science and technology innovation. (The author is the deputy director and professor of the American Studies Center of Fudan University)  

"Never yield to China." Since the India-China border standoff, the focus in the Indian media has been on how the Government (should) handle China related issues and what policies it adopts towards China. How relations between the two countries will develop in the New Year has naturally become the "highlight" of year-end accounts. In a report on the 29th, titled "Strategic outlook for 2021", the Hindustan Times said, "For India, the advent of 2021 means a phase of new uncertainties, necessitating deft diplomacy accompanied by a firm resolve not to compromise on issues of sovereignty and national interest." The article unreservedly declares that "China poses the greatest military, diplomatic and economic challenge to India and is encroaching upon India's strategic space". India's The Print news network disclosed on the 30th that India will conduct a series of military weaponry tests in 2021, including ballistic missile defense systems, air-independent propulsion systems for submarine and drone operations, and test-fires of various types of missiles such as the new Brahmos. According to the report, the India-China border confrontation revealed India's shortcomings in the attack and defense of unmanned aircraft, so the air-independent propulsion system will be an important direction for India's military research and development next year. In addition, India will also be equipped with synthetic aperture radar, electronic information systems, situational awareness systems for UAVs. Indian defense sources told the Huan Qiu Shi Bao on the 30th that India has set a record for missile tests in the past six months, covering almost all models with different ranges of short, medium and long range, no doubt with the aim of putting pressure on China during the border standoff negotiations. But he also stressed that India is still adhering to the position of resolving differences through dialogue and avoiding escalation of differences into disputes, and this position is not expected to change in the near future, "However, the eight rounds of army commanders level talks held so far show that the two sides have not yet agreed on key issues such as the modalities of disengagement and establishment of a buffer zone". Indian Defense Minister Singh also said in an exclusive interview with Indian media on the 30th* that the India-China border standoff talks have not yet made progress. India's Asia News International news agency said that India and China have so far held several rounds of dialogue at the military and diplomatic levels aimed at defusing the border conflict, "but without any substantive results. If the status quo persists, Singh said, the Indian army will not reduce the deployment of troops and equipment, but if the situation is de-escalated, the Indian army will reduce its deployment accordingly. He stressed that a new round of army commanders level talks could take place any time and that "the two countries are in close communication on this" and that "our expectation is that some positive results can be achieved through negotiations". The Hindustan Times recently reported that the new round of commander-level dialogue between India and China has been postponed due to the fact that the commander of the western theater of China is easy to take office. An anonymous senior official of the Indian government said that the 20th meeting of the India-China Border Affairs Consultation and Coordination Working Mechanism ended in a positive manner, which is crucial for the new round of military commander-level talks. It is expected that the two sides will use this round of talks to reach a written agreement on disengagement and de-escalation. Another Indian military official said that negotiations are still ongoing and that the Indian army will stay on the front line until an agreement is reached. The Indian side researched and assessed that China's change of commandership does not mean that it will change the previous tough strategy against India. The newspaper also quoted an informed high-ranking official of the Indian army and reported that India has already refused to accept the Chinese military’s proposal to "designate the first to eighth fingers of Ladakh as a military buffer zone (or no man’s land)"  for not being mindful of India’s interest. The senior official said that before the border standoff this year, half of the areas from the first to the eighth fingers were under actual control of India, and India conducted "effective patrols" of the area. Therefore, the Chinese proposal actually seeks to have "the Indian army retreat". "If India accepts China's proposal, it is equivalent to giving up its right to patrol the territory and accepting China's (depiction of) the Line of Actual Control in disguise". Although many Indian media reported on the issue of the Sino-Indian border standoff, most of them used a more "tough" posture, but the Indian Air Force Chief Bhadauria seemed to be calling out both a soft and hard line when talking about the Sino-Indian border standoff at an event on the 29th.  According to the "Times of India" report, Bhadauria said that, from a global perspective, if a serious armed conflict breaks out between China and India, it will "not be to China's advantage". He believes that the confrontation that broke out in the "Ladakh region" could have been caused by a variety of reasons, such as "a military-led accident," with lack of mutual trust between the two countries leading to an escalation of the confrontation. He also said that China has deployed radars and surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles in the "Ladakh region", and India has just made deployments accordingly. The Indian Air Force maintains a high level of alert on the frontline areas. He also emphasized that India must concentrate on improving its overall military strength and establish a rapid and effective response mechanism. The Huan Qiu Shi Bao reporter observed that the Indian media, when taking stock of 2020 and looking ahead to 2021, generally took a tough posture on the Sino-Indian border confrontation, and "no compromise" was the key word demonstrating this mindset most evidently. But analysts believe that a blind show of strength can not help to solve the current problem. On the contrary, only a pragmatic and rational approach can be/provide a way out of the current standoff.   * (N.B. The full interview can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ObIzziAjM)   

India’s Scroll.in website reported on the 30th that some reporters believed that Prime Minister Modi (pictured) seems to have not trimmed his beard since the lockdown due to the epidemic. Indian cartoonists also gave their own explanations for Modi's changing appearance over the years. Cartoonists believe that the length of Modi's beard is about to match that of the famous Indian poet Tagore. One cartoonist said: “Modi’s face is not difficult to draw, but the challenge is that when you are ready to draw, he has a completely different look than before”. The cartoonist added that while age definitely affects appearance, behavior change reflects the change in the political fortunes of a person. In addition to the cartoonist’s explanation, the Hindustan Times also published an analysis saying that the reason for Modi not trimming his beard may have arisen from a local religious custom that does not allow believers to trim their beard and hair.

Bolstered by forms and models of business, new professions like operation and maintenance personnel of industrial robot systems, ability appraisers for the elderly, and online marketers have sprouted up in China, bringing more choices for young Chinese in the job market.

Since this year, the new corona pneumonia epidemic has hit the economies of various countries hard, international trade and investment has shrunk sharply, the global industrial chain supply chain has been hit and the world economy is experiencing unprecedented difficulties and challenges. However, the difficult road to recovery is not all that obscure. With the arrival of a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial change, a series of major disruptive technological innovation and the resulting new industries, and with new cocoon-breaking trends in information technology, biotechnology, intelligent manufacturing and others gradually penetrating into various areas of economic development. It can be said that the world is entering a critical period of development of emerging industries. Among them, the digital economy, new energy vehicles and medical industry are particularly outstanding. Digital economy ushered in the blowout. The latest report of the China Academy of Information and Communication Research, "New Picture of the Global Digital Economy (2020) - New Momentum for Sustainable Development under the Great Change", shows that in 2019, the size of the digital economy in 47 economies around the world reached USD 31.8 trillion, with a nominal growth of 5.4% year-on-year, higher than the nominal global GDP growth of 3.1 percentage points in the same period. growth rate of 3.1 percentage points. This year, in particular, the digital economy has shown resilience when most offline industries have been halted by the epidemic. Telemedicine, online education, sharing platforms, co-working, and cross-border e-commerce flourished, playing an important role in promoting economic stability in all countries and facilitating international cooperation to fight the epidemic. New energy vehicles are at a premium. In recent years, countries around the world have attached great importance to climate issues and striven to alleviate global climate change through a series of means such as energy saving and emission reduction, improving energy structure, and promoting industrial upgrading to deal with a series of problems such as global warming. In this process, new energy vehicles are one of the well-deserved highlights. Globally, the rapid rise of Tesla and other new energy vehicle enterprises, traditional car companies have also accelerated the pace of transformation, including batteries, industrial design and a series of supporting enterprises and charging piles and other supporting infrastructure construction has also made a lot of breakthroughs. Especially worth mentioning is that since this year, Tesla's share price has soared, becoming the world's highest market capitalization auto group. This means that both the market and capital, all parties are very optimistic about the future of new energy vehicles. Medical industry accelerates the sprint. In recent years, the global medical market has entered a new stage of transformation and development driven by mobile medical, intelligent medical, telemedicine, etc.. Especially since the new corona pneumonia epidemic, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain and other technologies have accelerated the transformation of the whole element and process of the traditional medicine and health industry. From timely and accurate release of epidemic information, promoting popularization of science and relieving public anxiety, to online consultation, opening up contactless online medical channels for patients, to using digital tools to provide epidemic prevention services for the public, forming an efficient online and offline "medical" line for the epidemic. This medical plus has been speeding up and has become an important tool for countries to combat epidemics. In the post-epidemic era, a new generation of innovative information technology applications is leading a new round of technological revolution and industrial change. In this change, the industrial operation system of the industrial economy will undergo fundamental changes. It is foreseeable that, in the coming period, the new industry will become an important track concerning competitiveness and the development potential of each country. Only with innovation can one take the lead, and overtake others on bend the road !

Article on the US Axios website on December 29, originally titled: How China will win 2020, being the only major economy in the world to be growing rather than shrinking with the year about to end. This is very important. China is currently operating on a strong basis. Columbia University historian Adam Totz said: "No matter how many times you have heard the story of China's growth, it is still impressive". It is estimated that by the end of next year, China's economy is expected to expand by 10.6% compared to the beginning of this year.  In contrast, the US economy has shrunk by 3.6% this year, and its size at the end of 2021 will only increase by 0.25% over that at the beginning of this year. Therefore, if Biden regards China as a serious competitor, during his tenure, competition from China will be fiercer than at any time in history. A few months after the outbreak of the new corona epidemic, China was free from it. A study published in The Lancet stated that China has made full and effective use of its central response system and its experience in responding to SARS. Wuhan was the first area to be blocked to control the epidemic. Today, the nightclubs there are full of carnival crowds. Economists say that many factories in China are overloaded and are making up for the reduction in production capacity caused by the epidemic in the country and other parts of the world. China has never been so strong, and it is now the backbone of the world's largest free trade zone. The "Belt and Road" initiative has also enabled China to gain influence in other parts of the world. All these will require Biden to devote all his charm and diplomatic wisdom. (Author Felix Salmon, translated by Qiao Heng) Russian "Strategic Evaluation and Forecasting Center" website December 30th article, original title: What will China's Year of the Taurus bring? 2021 is the Chinese Year of the Ox, not an ordinary Year of the Ox, but the Year of the Golden Ox. Economists believe that 2021 will be a "golden year" for China. Observers believe that China's economy will see a breakthrough growth in the coming year, and GDP is expected to grow by 8% or more. The Central Economic Work Conference held in December in China has determined the main directions and key tasks of next year's economic policy. In order to allow people to consume more actively, the government will increase consumer confidence further in the future. In the new year, China is expected to make various achievements in science and technology. The entire country will continue to pay close attention to the first exploratory mission to Mars. China will build its own space station-in the future, it will be the only space station in the world. China will continue to increase its degree of autonomy in the field of advanced computer technology. This is especially important given the various restrictions imposed by the United States on Chinese companies. The first major event in the field of social life in China in 2021 is the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" officially came into effect on January 1. Observers believe that the upward trend in the economic and social fields will create a favorable atmosphere for celebrating the grand political anniversary in July 2021 of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. (Author Constantine Xie Bin, translated by Liu Yupeng)

(N.B. This translation needs to be improved to bring out the thrust of the article better. Anyone in a position to assist will be gratefully acknowledged.)   The upcoming year 2020 has witnessed the strength and effectiveness of China's diplomacy in its periphery. In addition to maintaining stable and positive development of many bilateral relationships, China has also actively promoted the process of regional cooperation with the help of the ASEAN series of Summits, APEC Summits and SCO Summits, and reached tangible results such as the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement", (RCEPA). The latter has elevated regional cooperation to a new level. In fact, in the process of promoting integration of the periphery, a basic aspect requires our special attention, which is the border area where China is connected to its neighboring countries by mountains and water. Our country has a land border of more than 22,000 kilometers and a coastline of more than 18,000 kilometers. This results in many of our provinces being (located) adjacent to neighboring countries on land or sea. These border areas affect national sovereignty and security and border stability and prosperity, and their peaceful development is closely related to that aspect. In our foreign relations, we emphasize that "the periphery is primary", and the border areas adjacent to neighboring countries are in the vanguard of diplomacy, being the most grassroots and direct arena of action for diplomatic activities. There are several concepts that need to be clarified in connection with conduct of neighborhood diplomacy. The first is the boundary between neighboring countries that divides their jurisdiction. The second is the narrow and long area adjoining the border, which is generally a county area with a border with the neighbouring country. The third is the frontier. It consists of a larger area, referring to the provinces bordering neighboring countries. The fourth is cross-border areas, that is, places that cross the borders of adjacent countries. These places are closely related to China's national sovereignty and security, involving territorial division, border security, and some non-traditional security issues such as all sorts of cross-border crimes, challenges from ethnic separatist forces, natural disasters and the spread of epidemics. From a diplomatic perspective, it involves in-depth cooperation and integration with neighboring countries. The issue of territorial demarcation with a few neighboring countries is a negative factor in China's neighboring diplomacy. Moreover, there is an "arc of instability" around China. From Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia to South Asia, Central Asia and even the Middle East in West Asia, there are different degrees of ethnic strife, territorial disputes and even confrontation and conflicts between countries. In addition, in the process of China's national development, there are also the so-called "old, young, marginal and poor" areas, which are often located in the border areas, and some of which are also the key areas requiring poverty alleviation. In short, in China's neighboring regions, traditional security and non-traditional security are intertwined, and poverty reduction and development issues coexist. These issues are more or less related to borders, and frontiers. China needs to focus on grassroots border places and handle them with great wisdom while dealing with neighboring countries. Based on the real needs of national border security, border construction and border development, I propose the concept of "rim diplomacy". In other words, China needs to set a gold standard on its long land frontier and long coastline and its adjacent areas off the sea, so that our frontier and sea frontier can be stabilized and developed faster, and the border can further play the role of "bonding" and tightly linking China's cross-border places with neighboring countries. In this sense, "rim diplomacy" is a kind of adhesive. The development of "border diplomacy" is determined by the natural geographic endowment and human geography between China and its neighboring countries. In the border areas, China and its neighbors are naturally connected by mountains, rivers, ethnic groups and populations, and their fields and villages are inseparable from each other. For a long time, we have been using the concept of "border defense" to define the relationship between frontier provinces and their neighbors, i.e., the border and frontier as a defensive zone whose function is to protect national security from foreign invasion, both for the sake of the world's prevailing philosophy and for practical security needs. This is certainly necessary. However, as peace and development have become the theme of neighborhood diplomacy, we should also consider a proper change of concept today, taking into account the "border defense" of "guarding the border and strengthening it" while shifting to a greater extent to the "cross-border" of "promoting the border and enriching the people "across the border". Development of border areas, and then cross-border cooperation with neighboring countries across the border, this more outward-looking active cooperation is conducive to deepening China's connections with neighboring countries, and (forge) more common interests. This requires "rim diplomacy". In the implementation of "rim diplomacy", border areas should be used as platforms and bridges for cooperation between China and neighboring countries. At present, there is already a good infrastructure support in China's border areas. We have National Highway 331 and National Highway 219 from Liaoning to Xinjiang, and then through Tibet and Yunnan to Guangxi, and basically built National Highway 228 along the entire coastline. Cross-border road and railway construction, cross-border oil and gas pipeline access, cross-border grid connection, cross-border e-commerce application, and cross-border industry establishment can promote close connections between China and the other countries all along the border. China adopts a foreign policy of “good neighborliness, prosperity and security for neighbors” based on the diplomatic policy of “being good neighbors and regarding neighbors as partners”, and (seeks to) realize the strategic docking and interconnection between countries under the "Belt and Road" initiative. The policy and institutional foundation for "border diplomacy" has been laid. The actors in the realm of "border diplomacy" are many. The first is the state. That is, through top-level design and guidance, consensus and even agreement, can be reached at the national diplomatic level. Second, local governments directly promote implementation. These (local) governments can be provincial governments, but the concrete implementation needs to be at the grassroots level in counties and even in villages and towns. Again, corporate companies can participate on their own. Enterprises of all kinds can become the main body of implementation, directly carry out economic development and trade cooperation and realize cross-border links through market behavior. Finally, it can be promoted through civil diplomacy. For example, if China and its neighbors have ethnic groups living across the border, it is important to encourage various types of civil contacts between them to promote economic and social cooperation. "Border diplomacy" can be carried out in multiple fields. It should promote cross-border connectivity in the economic sphere, cross-border cooperation and law enforcement in the security sphere, mutual assistance and synergy in the livelihood sphere and civilian exchanges and integration in the humanitarian sphere. In the 14th Five-Year Plan, "promoting the border and prospering/enriching the people" has become one of the core tasks of national development, which can become the internal driving force for implementing "border diplomacy". The recently signed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEPA) provides the external institutional framework for "border diplomacy". We should invest more in cross-border economic and trade, security, cultural and even academic exchanges and cooperation to further improve the "cohesion" of cross-border places, further promote deeper cooperation and integration between China and neighboring countries, and promote the establishment of a community of destiny in China's neighboring region. (The author is the Director of the Center for Strategic and Peace Studies at the Foreign Affairs Institute)

Translation underway

The author has recently participated in many academic seminars. When discussing bilateral issues between China and other countries, I generally cannot help but talk about the US factor. But sometimes the US factor becomes the theme of the conference. It would appear as if (the recommendation to) eliminate the US factor is a panacea for solving bilateral issues. In fact, generalizing the American factor or overestimating the American factor is not conducive to our handling of bilateral issues. We have established partnerships at different levels with more than 100 countries and international organizations around the world, and it is inevitable that we have bilateral problems of some kind or another with some countries. These bilateral issues fall into four categories: territorial or maritime rights disputes, trade frictions, historical issues and ideological issues such as human rights. These four categories of bilateral problems do not exhaust the whole of our relations with other countries, but are only a part of bilateral relations. Most of them are formed over a long period of time, such as disputes over territorial or maritime rights and interests and historical issues; some are structural problems, such as trade frictions; and some are cognitive gaps, such as human rights issues. These issues are difficult to solve completely in a short time, and we need strategic patience to solve them more through bilateral channels than by associating third-party factors, such as the U.S. factor. Our neighbor, Vietnam, once had a land border territorial dispute with us, but through many rounds of friendly negotiation, the two sides were able to sign the Sino-Vietnamese Land Boundary Treaty on December 30, 1999, which resolved the dispute.  Although there is still a sovereignty dispute between China and Vietnam over islands and reefs in the South China Sea, these disputes are manageable. In recent years, the United States has continuously wooed Vietnam to confront China on the South China Sea issue through the so-called free navigation plan, defense cooperation, and financial assistance. However, Sino-Vietnamese relations have never deviated from the normal track. Not only that, trade between China and Vietnam has increased rather than decreased during the pandemic. According to the statistics of Vietnam's Ministry of Industry and Trade, by the end of November, the two-way trade volume between China and Vietnam reached 117.09 billion U.S. dollars, of which Vietnam's exports to China amounted to 43.145 billion U.S. dollars, up 16% year-on-year; Vietnam's imports from China amounted to 73.945 billion U.S. dollars, up 7.9% year-on-year. Ironically, in October and November, US Secretary of State Pompeo and President's National Security Affairs Assistant O'Brien visited Vietnam one after another, trying to turn Vietnam against China, but failed. On December 16, the US Treasury Department listed Vietnam as a currency manipulator, trying to continue to force Vietnam to choose sides between China and the United States. Obviously, Vietnam is unlikely to "cut ties" with China, with which, after all, it has broader interests. The relationship between China and Vietnam is a microcosm of the relationship between China and Southeast Asia. As a gateway between Asia and Oceania, and the Pacific and Indian Oceans, Southeast Asia has a prominent geographical position that is significant geo-politically. Especially in the backdrop of the Sino-American game that is hotting up, Southeast Asia's role is very important. For Southeast Asia, the US factor is just a card to counter China’s rising influence, but in no way does it determine the diplomatic thrust of Southeast Asia’s diplomacy. The year 2020 is an important year for China's relations with Southeast Asia. 2020 marks the 70th anniversary of China's diplomatic relations with Myanmar, Vietnam and Indonesia, respectively, as well as the 45th anniversary of China's diplomatic relations with Thailand and the Philippines, respectively, and the 30th anniversary of China's diplomatic relations with Singapore. Due to the epidemic, some major offline celebrations had to be cancelled, but online celebrations were held with great enthusiasm. During the epidemic, investment and trade between China and Southeast Asia rose in both directions, and the two sides created a new model of "green channel" and "fast track", which became a model of regional health cooperation. At the same time, we note that some senior U.S. officials have continued to visit Southeast Asia to draw these Southeast Asian countries into "decoupling" from and "disconnecting" with China, but with little success. It is undeniable that there are some bilateral problems between China and some Southeast Asian countries, but these countries pursue a strategy of balancing the powers and it is in their own national interests not to choose sides. When dealing with these Southeast Asian countries, China adheres to the concept of seeking common ground while reserving differences in its dealings with these countries, focusing on cooperation, so as to squeeze out the US's operating space for driving a wedge between China and these countries to the greatest extent possible, and reduce the influence of the US factor. We also have border territorial disputes with India. Since the Doklam incident in China and India in 2017, India and the United States have each taken the steps they felt they needed and set up a 2+2 dialogue mechanism. However, India cannot completely fall to the United States, because non-alignment is an important principle of its diplomacy, and relations with Russia are a part of its diplomatic tradition. In response to the dispute, the leaders of China and India have repeatedly emphasized the need to effectively manage and handle differences, and seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the Sino-Indian border issue. The establishment of a legal, efficient, and reliable China-India border dispute settlement mechanism is an important guarantee for realizing the vision of the leaders of China and India. The establishment of this mechanism depends on the joint efforts of China and India, not the US factor. In short, the US factor is a constant in China's bilateral relations with other countries, but in most cases, it is not a key variable. This requires us to focus more on each other’s core concerns when dealing with bilateral relations with other countries, and truly build a community of shared future for mankind in which we are all linked together inextricably.  (The author is a researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific and Global Strategies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Director of the Southeast Asian Studies Center)      

"South China Morning Post" article on December 28, original title: "How China’s digital currency will thwart US dollar trap and help the world" As China opens up to the world and integrates into the world trade and financial system, it has fallen into the "dollar trap" and has had to convert excess national savings into safe and internationally convertible U.S. Treasury bonds. For years, the U.S. has enjoyed the excessive privilege of printing dollars almost without limit. As Nixon-era U.S. Treasury Secretary Connally said, "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem". Currently the dollar is increasingly being used (by Washington) as a weapon to impose economic sanctions on China. Now China is committed to launching a national digital currency. It is also the result of a natural development, because China has become a far-reaching global leader in digital payment systems. Driven by the latest blockchain technology, China's digital currency does not require a bank account. For the poor in countries around the world without bank accounts, this has huge potential for poverty reduction. While the U.S. and its Western allies will not soon warm up to a Chinese digital currency, more Asian, African and Latin American countries will likely readily embrace the convenience and opportunities offered by China's digital payment system, and a Chinese sovereign digital currency will make the system more convenient and secure. China's digital sovereign currency will also help promote the "dual cycle" of the economy and accelerate domestic consumption, international trade and investment. (Translated by Wang Huicong)    

The Chinese people's favorability towards Japan has been rising in recent years, while the Japanese people's favorability towards China has dropped to a new low. In response to this contrast between the sentiments of the people of China and Japan, the new Japanese Ambassador to China, Rehideo, said in an interview with the Chinese media: “I hope that the Chinese side will study the reasons for this situation and how to reverse it. Of course, we are willing to think about it together with the Chinese side, and we can also provide reference opinions if necessary". It is completely understandable for the Japanese Ambassador should speak from the standpoint of the Japanese government, and such a speech will not be regarded as "offensive" in China. However, the real reason for the contrast between the two peoples’ sentiments requires objective analysis. In recent years, the Chinese people’s favorability towards Japan has indeed risen. This is closely related to Japan’s open tourism policy. Many Chinese have the opportunity to see Japan with their own eyes and leave a good impression on Japan’s environment and culture. Chinese media also actively reported, objectively introducing post-war Japan. Especially during this year's epidemic, the report titled "Mountains and rivers are different, wind and moon are in the same sky" touched many Chinese people. People seem to see a new dawn of improvement of relations between the two countries and look to the future. In contrast, Japanese media reports on China are not very friendly. In recent years, the topics that have flooded the Japanese media have mostly been "China threat theory" and value based bias. It seems that a rising China has posed a threat to Japan's "democracy", "freedom" and national security. Therefore, the Japanese National People's Congress talked about a "free and open Indo-Pacific" and "Asian version of NATO". It would appear that if "democracies" do not unite to contain it, the world will be controlled by China's "hegemony". The best material to promote the "China Threat Theory" is the Diaoyu Islands dispute. Regarding this issue, Japan’s basic position can be summarized in three sentences: The island is Japanese territory in history and international law. There is no territorial issue that needs to be resolved between China and Japan, so there can be no question of agreement to set aside disputes. The cruise was an infringement of Japanese territorial waters. As a result of intense propaganda by the Japanese media, these three sentences have come to be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people in Japan and become "myths", while the evidence of Chinese history and international law has been completely denied. However, "myths" cannot replace facts, after all. Regarding the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, it's not far-fetched to say that it was included in China’s territory at least since its inclusion in the (Qing dynasty) "Imperial Chinese and Foreign Unification Map" published in 1863, in comparison to its incorporation into Okinawa Prefecture 32 years later by Japan’s Meiji government in January 1895.  Japan’s "incorporation" violated international law, treating the territories already included in China’s territorial map as "unowned". It also uses the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" as a basis (for its claim), believing that the post-World War II international treaties recognized the U.S. occupation and its subsequent handing over to Japan. The fact is that Zhou Enlai had solemnly declared less than ten days after the signing of the "San Francisco Peace Treaty": The treaty is illegal and invalid, so it cannot be recognized. Japan's seizure of the Diaoyu Islands is only a manifestation of its imperialist expansion policy. For territories seized by violence and greed, the Cairo Declaration stipulates that they should be expropriated. The declaration was confirmed by the Potsdam Proclamation. Article 3 of the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration also stipulates that Japan will abide by the Proclamation. This is the chain in international law that Japan should abide by. Some people in Japan believe that China is currently in a "diplomatic dilemma" and will therefore (be ready to) bend before Japan. So they manipulate public opinion to suppress China's concessions, ignoring basic facts and evidence. They can't help but remind people of Xixiang (county)'s relationship with the Qing Dynasty. During the  May 2, 1874 negotiations, it was doggedly insisted that the Qing Dynasty had never ruled the Hou mountains of Taiwan. The Qing government provided Japan with more than ten volumes of private documents and Taiwan's tax bookkeeping. The Japanese representative said, "There is no time to review" and insisted that Taiwan is no man's land. This is, surprisingly, of a piece with Japan's current attitude on the Diaoyu Islands issue. Recently, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Japan. The two sides reached five important consensuses and six specific results. They also talked about China’s position on the Diaoyu Islands issue. The Japanese media did not report on the results of the talks, but hyped up so-called "violence" . Thus, it brought to mind the China-Japan negotiations on the Ryukyu issue in 1878. The negotiator He Ruzhang had condemned Japan's annexation of Ryukyu, but that is described by the Japanese media as a "violent incident". The area of ​​the Diaoyu Islands is only about 4 square kilometers. China and Japan should proceed from the overall situation of regional peace and prosperity, treat territorial disputes rationally, effectively manage crises and not create "myths", let alone use this matter to instigate hatred and fan emotions. (The author is the director of the Japan Studies Center of Shanghai International Studies University)  

Another backhanded attack? According to India's New Delhi Television (NDTV), on December 29, local time, Chief of Staff of the Indian Air Force (IAF) Bhadauria, talking about the months-long standoff between China and India, claimed that a serious armed conflict with India would not be in China's best interests. Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe has said that the cause and truth of the current tensions along the Sino-Indian border are clear and that the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side. Photo:  IAF Chief of Staff Bhadauria According to the report, in Bhadauria's view, "evolving global geopolitical uncertainty and instability," coupled with "the inadequate contribution of major powers to global security," provide China with "an opportunity to demonstrate its strength. (NDTV: Indian Air Force Chief of Staff Badauria said that serious conflicts with India will do China no good.) Bhadauria claimed, "Any serious conflict would do China no good. If China is globally minded, then (a border standoff) is not in line with their grand plans". At the same time, Bhadauria continued to hype that day that China had deployed a large number of radars and missiles near the Line of Actual Control, "but we have taken all necessary actions". The remarks quickly drew attention and also sparked discussions on social media. Some netizens said, "(Clash with China), it may be worse for India." ↓  China and India held their eighth round of military commanders level talks on the border on Nov. 6, and the date for subsequent talks has not been set. In this context, senior Indian military and diplomatic officials have continued to cry foul. As previously reported by Indian media, Indian Chief of Defense Staff Rawat said on Dec. 14 that the country's army, navy and air force "are working at a high level of readiness" and "have sufficient strength to deal with any threat or challenge from the border. Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe has already said that relations between the two countries and militaries have recently been seriously affected by the border issue and that it is very important for the two Defense Ministers to meet face-to-face for a frank exchange of views on the issue. The cause and truth of the current tensions on the Sino-Indian border are clear, and the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side. China cannot lose an inch of its territory, and the Chinese army is fully determined, capable and confident to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

India's latest "retaliation against China" ? According to the "Times of India" report of the 28th, the Indian government has "unofficially" required all airlines to prohibit entry of Chinese passengers. The Indian media reported that this was India's response and retaliation against China's prohibition of entry of Indian citizens. The reason is that since November this year, China has taken "unconcealed actions to prevent Indians from flying to China" and "even suspend visas for Indians". In addition, it is reported that some Indian crew members are "trapped in various ports in China" due to the fact that the cargo ships carrying Australian coal are "languishing in Chinese ports." The Indian media reported that in the past weekend, all airlines, including Indian Airlines and foreign airlines, have been expressly required not to carry Chinese citizens to India. However, some airlines asked the Indian government to provide written orders of relevant regulations so that they have sufficient reasons to refuse boarding of Chinese citizens travelling to India. According to the "Huan Qiu Shi Bao" reporter, due to epidemic control reasons, China and India have currently suspended flights between China and India. However, some Chinese citizens still travel to India via temporary flights between India and European countries. What exactly is the "reason for revenge" that has made Indians very angry? Regarding the so-called "November suspension", a reporter from the Huan Qiu Shi Bao noticed that on a flight from India to China to evacuate overseas Chinese that month, about 20 people tested positive for the new corona virus. However, Air India, which flew the flight, stated that the airline "strictly abides by various epidemic prevention and safety operations" during the carriage process, and all passengers "have a negative test report for the new coronavirus issued by a certified laboratory". The Times of India also acknowledged in the report that the relevant measures of the Chinese side are in line with the flight "fuse" regulations. Regarding the visa issue, on November 4 and 5, due to the second wave of epidemics that were out of control in many countries, the Chinese Embassies in many countries issued notices respectively to suspend the holders of current valid Chinese visas and work-related visas in these countries. Private affairs and group residence permits to enter China. Including India, but also other countries such as Britain and France. A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said at the time that this was a temporary measure taken as a last resort in response to the epidemic. As for the fact that Indian crew members were unable to disembark in China, an anonymous source from the Indian Maritime Affairs and Foreign Affairs Department told the Huan Qiu Shi Bao reporter on the 28th that the two freighters carrying 39 Indian crew members arrived in Jingtang, China in June and September this year at the Caofeidian Port, but have not yet been able to enter the port for unloading. Due to being held up in the freighter for a long time , the crew suffered physical and mental problems. The Indian side believes that the cause of this situation is Sino-Australian antagonism, because the cargo on the freighter comes from Australia. The Indian side also stated that although it has negotiated with the Chinese for several rounds and hopes to at least allow the crew to land and rotate, the Chinese side “continues to repeat the rules regarding the rotation of foreign crew members during the epidemic” and “the purpose is actually to force us to retreat when we are in trouble” . The spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly responded to relevant issues. The spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated again on the 25th that the relevant local Chinese authorities have been maintaining close communication with the Indian side, promptly responding to all their requests, and providing necessary convenience and assistance under the premise of complying with the relevant epidemic prevention regulations. The crew is allowed to be replaced under relevant anti-epidemic regulations, but Jingtang Port and Caofeidian Port are not included. Whether the cargo party is willing to adjust the operation arrangements is up to its own discretion". Some analysts said that China-India relations have been severely damaged due to the border confrontation. for India, it does not seem wise to let emotions take over and interpret that China is "targeting India" and "suppressing India", and then take the so-called "retaliatory measures".  

In the past two days, the Times of India and other Indian media have coincidentally started speculating that "a Chinese delegation is visiting Nepal amid divisions within the NCP", claiming that "China is trying to push its political influence on Nepal to the top" in the wake of President Bhandari's recent announcement to dissolve the Parliament and hold early elections". Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian responded to a query at his regular press conference on the 28th, saying that this year is the 65th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Nepal, and that the relevant delegation of the International Liaison Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China visited Nepal with the aim of exchanging views with the Nepalese side on issues of common concern, such as epidemic prevention and control, governance and cooperation and development, and deepening communication and cooperation between Chinese and Nepalese political parties. The Indian media reported that Vice Minister Guo Yezhou arrived in Kathmandu on the 27th as the head of a delegation, and that the purpose of his visit had attracted great interest in view of the several attempts made by the Chinese Embassy in Nepal to bridge the differences between the two co-chairmen of the NCP Oli and Prachanda, albeit without success. Zhao Lijian said that the Chinese Communist Party had maintained close and friendly relations with all major political parties in Nepal for a long time, playing an active role in enhancing political mutual trust, deepening mutual understanding in governance, promoting practical cooperation and consolidating traditional friendship between the two countries. And that the CPC adheres to the principle of "independence, full equality, mutual respect and non-interference in each other's internal affairs" in inter-party relations, and is willing to work with all political parties in Nepal to promote the continuous development of the strategic partnership of friendship between China and Nepal aimed at advancing progress and prosperity for the benefit of the two countries and peoples. Zhao Lijian mentioned that China has noted the political developments in Nepal. As a friend and close neighbor of Nepal, we sincerely hope that all parties concerned will take the national interests and the overall situation into account, properly handle internal differences and work for political stability and national development.

An article in India's National Herald on Dec. 27 (by V V Rao), titled "Pandemic further increases the GDP gap between India and China". India had overtaken Britain as the world's fifth largest economy in 2019, but dropped back to sixth in 2020. A recent report released by the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a British think tank, said India has lost its growth momentum due to the epidemic. It is predicted to be surpassed by the UK again this year. China, on the other hand, will overtake the U.S. as the world's largest economy in 2028, five years earlier than previously estimated, due to the two countries' very different recoveries from the epidemic, CEBR said in its annual ranking of the growth prospects of 193 countries, noting China to be the only major economy in the world to grow in 2020. The impact of the epidemic on the Indian and Chinese economies is very different. India will not reclaim its position as the fifth largest economy until 2024. In short, China's economy advances five years and India's economy regresses five years. This will add 10 years to the gap between the two countries' GDP per capita. Article in the Economic Times of Dec. 28 (by Manu Pubby et al), titled "Dealing with the dragon: How India has fared so far against China and the challenge ahead". After going through what was perhaps the trickiest year in recent times, India faces a whole new challenge from China in 2021. In terms of hardware and resource mobilization, China has a clear advantage. New Delhi is exploring innovative solutions and alternative technologies to counter PLA's strength. The way it is working with Japan, Australia, and the United States, among others, is the key to meeting the China challenge. The coming year will be critical in determining what kind of assertiveness India adopts toward China. December 28, 2020 article on the website of India's CNBCTV18 (by Hamsini Hariharan) titled "A reflection on the 70th year of (establishment of) bilateral relations between India and China". At the beginning of 2020, many people were hopeful about India-China relations. But to everyone's surprise, relations between the two countries have hit their lowest point in recent years over the past 12 months. In 2021, New Delhi will have to face the difficult question of how to move forward in the relationship between the two countries. It will require multifaceted consideration. Within India, antagonism toward China is often counterproductive because people do not understand the nuances of foreign policy. Talks at the military level continue, but the root causes of the conflict remain contentious. How to deal with a possible escalation of tensions along the Line of Actual Control is an issue that will have to be faced in 2021. On the economic front, India's ban on Chinese apps and crackdown on Chinese investment has led to an exodus of companies focusing on technological entrepreneurship. How to balance government intervention, security threat concerns, and much-needed investment? New Delhi should look at the United States and Europe, and don't let such measures harm its people. A weakened economy will undermine India's strength. These will lower India's standing on the global stage. Today, more than ever, India needs to cultivate a group of people that understands China.

Indian media reported extensively on 28 December that the Indian government had informally and verbally informed Indian and foreign airlines in recent days that they should not allow Chinese citizens to board on flights to India. Due to the epidemic, many Chinese citizens now need to transit through European countries with which India has air links in order to reach India. Those foreign airlines that deny Chinese nationals are therefore asking the Indian government to provide written documentation so that they can explain to Chinese nationals the reasons for denying them boarding. This is how the Indian government's "wondrous operation" came to light. Many analysts claim that the Indian government’s “operation” is nothing more than a desire to “get even" with China, mainly because of two things: First, in early November, an Indian airline that flew to China with as many as 20 Indian passengers on board diagnosed as confirmed covid cases. Based on the need for epidemic prevention, China issued a "circuit breaking order" to Air India, which indirectly suspended the entry of Indian citizens. The second is that two Indian freighters carrying Australian coal failed to clear customs after entering Jingtang Port and Caofeidian Port in June and September respectively, and were not cleared for reasons, for they were unwilling to adjust the operational arrangements to replace the crew. Thus the Indian seafarers were left stranded for a long time. This so-called "retaliation" by India is not tenable at all. First of all, the "meltdown mechanism" for international flights is an international practice based on the need to control the epidemic. And India has always been a leader in this regard. India was one of the first countries to evacuate from Wuhan after the outbreak in China. India was also one of the first countries to ban flights to the UK after the emergence of a mutated virus in the country. Secondly, the problem of stranded Indian seafarers was caused by their own unwillingness to comply with Chinese regulations on ports of entry for the epidemic. In fact, Indian cargo ships  could well have replaced their crews by adjusting their operating arrangements. This so-called "retaliation" by India once again shows the "pettiness" of India's foreign practices. Those familiar with Indian diplomacy are no stranger to such Indian manoeuvers; in 2012, after Italian naval soldiers accidentally killed Indian fishermen on the high seas, India retaliated by not only detaining and interrogating Italian naval soldiers in violation of international law, but also by restricting the Italian Ambassador to India from leaving the country, in grave violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations regarding the immunity of diplomatic personnel. As a result, in July 2020 the International Court of Arbitration found that the Italian soldiers had jurisdictional immunity and that India had no right to detain and interrogate Italian naval soldiers at all. Similarly, in late 2013, after India's Deputy Consul General in New York, Khobragade, was arrested and detained by the U.S. judiciary for "visa fraud" and "illegal underpayment" of a family nanny, India similarly took a series of domestic "retaliatory" measures against U.S. diplomats. The Indian government also took a series of "retaliatory" measures against U.S. diplomats and even removed the protective barricades at the U.S. Embassy in India. These "petty" actions reflect India's extreme sense of self-esteem and sensitivity. There is no shortage of precedent for China to deal with such an India. In 1960, after an Indian diplomat in China sexually harassed a Chinese train conductor, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials verbally informed the Indian side. However, India insisted that it was China's intention to plant the evidence, and was very unreasonable. In the end, China had to produce all the evidence, and the two sides also hurt their peace. The "petty" approach is not in line with India, a country that often advocates "norms" in a high profile manner. India is always fond of saying that it wants to abide by the "rules-based" international order, but on the other hand, it does not abide by rules itself. For example, India has tried to isolate Pakistan globally by saying that it is the birthplace of terrorism, only to have Pakistan disclose information about its own financing of terrorism. India follows the U.S. and the West in saying that China manipulates media information, but a recent report by an independent European think tank called "The Chronicles of India" shows that India manipulates a mega network of disinformation that has been dedicated to discrediting Pakistan and China for more than a decade. India has kept other countries from interfering in its internal affairs, while it has fed the anti-government forces of its neighbours. This "petty" approach is also unbecoming of a country seeking permanent membership of the UN Security Council. If India is to pursue great power status, it must at least act and behave like a true great power. In foreign affairs, if you are not able to do or achieve something, you should first "look to yourself".   (The author is a researcher at the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University)

(This Huan Qiu Shi Bao Editorial was carried in the on-line edition in English, the Global Times, as well in a near identical version. The slight differences are shown below through italics font for words/phrases in the Chinese version not included in the English one, and strike-out format for those in the English one not included in the Chinese original.)

  The US remains the worst-hit country by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and many of its performances are almost confusing and unrecognizable to the world. It has the highest numbers of infections and deaths in the world, which contrasts sharply with its most advanced medical technology and most abundant public health resources in the world. Instead of providing support and proving its global leadership, the US has become an open spoiler of global cooperation against COVID-19. This is exemplified by the US' announcement of its withdrawal from the World Health Organization. Although the vaccine developed by a US company passed Phase-III clinical trials at the earliest, adding courage and hope to this battle, the efficacy of the vaccine is yet to be tested and cannot compensate for the international community's unprecedented disappointment toward the US. Many Westerners blame the Trump team for US' failures this year. Such a conclusion is way too simple and superficial. Although Donald Trump lost the US presidential election, he still won the support of nearly half of US voters. Therefore, the performance of the US this year is not only a mark made by the Trump team, but also a reflection of the failure of the US political system in a crisis. It is the result of the long-term accumulation of problems in the US' political operations and its lack of self-reformation. Besides, as 2020 is the election year in the US, winning the election is an overwhelming task for both parties. Its importance has been put above the urgency of immediately controlling the epidemic. Just like other Western countries, the US' way of social governance, operations and the American people's lifestyle all have weaknesses that are incompatible with the COVID-19 fight. Taking strong action against the epidemic requires a huge political commitment that is not encouraged by the US campaign rules and culture, so it is inevitable that the Trump administration would adopt a campaign strategy that focused on "developing the economy" but ignoring the fight against the epidemic. Even if the Democrats came into power, they would probably adopt the same strategy. In Europe, although some governments have been more sophisticated in their attitude, they have not taken substantial measures to contain the coronavirus. The paths taken by the Europeans and the Americans are fundamentally the same. Statistics on infection and death rates are also similar on both sides of the Atlantic. However, there are certainly differences between the US and Europe. European countries are not big enough to fight COVID-19 alone, and the European Union lacks the ability to coordinate its member states to turn Europe into a unified battlefield. As a result, Europe's demise is almost inevitable. The US should have been large and capable enough to set its own example. But its situation is as bad as that of the EU, due to the deep-seated social division and guiding role of its election system on government actions. In an election year, what is most important for the president who seeks reelection is to not leave any subject of ridicule to his opponent. If he makes a mistake first, insisting on the mistake is much safer than correcting such a mistake. The US system is forcing the nation to embark toward the extreme, painting many important and complex matters black or white, when the true color of those matters is many times gray. As a result, the COVID-19 fight and the foreign policy of the US this year are have been rendered seriously odd. The initial failure of the country's COVID-19 fight has become the basis of its national path for the whole year. The more wrong paths the US takes, the more it sticks to it. The US will have to pay the highest costs it can bear to correct such mistakes. The assumption that the Republican Party is absolutely wrong and the Democratic Party has the ability to correct it has never existed within the design of the US electoral system, nor will it become a reality. The election slogan of the Democratic Party runs contrary to that of the Republicans. It is hard to say to what extent the US can correct its mistakes or to what extent it will continue its extreme games this year. Even the presidential power transfer this year has witnessed unprecedented disorder unseen since the founding of the US in 1776. Even until now, Donald Trump still does not admit his defeat, and his attitude is backed by many voters. This is the result of severe social division. Social division will lead to the breakup of morality and rules. Eventually, the country will recognize only its stance rather than right or wrong. The failure of the US this year stems from its deep scars within. Even its allies will be puzzled on how many problems the change of parties can solve. As it is still uncertain to what extent the US will correct its ways, the country's path four years later will be even more uncertain.

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Global Times: According to Indian media, China appears to be backing away from its initial financial promises to Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Do you have a response to that? Zhao Lijian: Such reports are groundless. As an important pilot project of the BRI, CPEC has maintained positive momentum of development since its inception in 2013. Amid the COVID-19 epidemic, there is no stop of the construction, no job cut and no withdrawal of workforce of the CPEC projects, which effectively supports Pakistan in fighting the epidemic and stabilizing the economy. These are facts that my colleagues and I shared with you on several occasions. The second meeting of the CPEC Joint Working Group on International Cooperation and Coordination (JWG-ICC) between China and Pakistan was held last Friday in Xinjiang. Both sides reiterated their commitment to implementing the consensus of leaders, giving priority to industry, agriculture, science and technology and livelihood and extending to underdeveloped areas, in a bid to build CPEC into a demonstration project of quality BRI cooperation. Meetings of other working groups were also held in preparation for the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) meeting of CPEC. The two sides are firmly determined in advancing CPEC that enjoys a bright prospect. I want to stress that China's input in the BRI, including CPEC, has increased despite global economic recession. In the first three quarters this year, China's direct investment in non-financial sectors in BRI partner countries grew by around 30% year on year. China has provided as much support and assistance as possible to help many BRI partners combat COVID-19 and recover economy. Prasar Bharati: A follow-up on the question regarding the CPEC. There were certain reports in Pakistani media which, citing some Pakistani officials, suggested that China is seeking additional promises from the Pakistani government on CPEC loan guarantee. I wonder if you have any comment? Zhao Lijian: These reports are simply baseless.   On December 29, 2020, the spokesperson made he following additional remarks in response to a question as below:   Associated Press of Pakistan: Yesterday the 6th CPEC Media Forum was held online and offline simultaneously in Beijing and Islamabad. Senior government officials, intellectuals and a number of media persons attended. Do you have any comment? Wang Wenbin: The Sixth China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Media Forum, hosted by the Chinese embassy in Pakistan and organized by China Economic Net and Pakistan-China Institute, was convened online and offline on December 28. This virtual event was attended by around 100 participants including diplomatic envoys from both sides, Pakistani officials, and Chinese and Pakistani representatives from the media, think tanks and universities. Under the theme of "Post-epidemic China-Pakistan Media Cooperation", attendees had in-depth discussions on topics such as promoting friendship and cooperation between China and Pakistan, and telling the true, mutually beneficial nature of CPEC cooperation. You may read the press release published by the Chinese embassy in Pakistan for more details. We hope friends from the press in both countries will continue to play their bonding role to tell the story of China-Pakistan cooperation and consolidate our iron-clad friendship.

Translation underway

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Beijing Youth Daily: It is reported that the total amount of foreign investment to China is expected to reach at least USD$690 billion for the period of the 13th Five Year Plan, USD$60 billion higher than the 12th Five Year Plan period. China is also one of the few major economies to achieve positive growth in inbound foreign investment, and it is expected that China's paid-in foreign investment in 2020 will hit a historic high of over USD$140 billion. What's your comment on this? Zhao Lijian: These data clearly show that the dividends of China's continuous policy of opening up are being released at an accelerated rate, and the positive effects are being felt around the world. China has been and will always be a sought-after destination for investors all over the world. According to a recent briefing by the competent departments, from 2017 to 2020, China has been shortening the negative lists for foreign investment for four consecutive years, and the latest National Negative List and FTZ Negative List have cut the item numbers to 33 and 30 respectively. Major opening up measures for foreign investment have been taken in sectors like manufacturing, energy and resources, infrastructure, agriculture and finance. China's practices on opening up prove that we act on our words. At present, China is speeding up the fostering of a new dual-circulation development paradigm. Foreign businesses, as a significant part of both the domestic and the international circulation, is welcome to play an important role in accelerating the formation of the new development paradigm, seize opportunities as China opens wider to the outside world, and achieve greater success with win-win results.

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Kyodo News: The Tibetan Policy and Support Act signed into law by the US President touched on the issue of the succession of the Dalai Lama. How does China decide on the reincarnation and the future Dalai Lama? And what is China's comment on the U.S. signing into law of the relevant Act? Zhao Lijian: Since you asked about the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, I would like to reiterate China's position. Reincarnation of living Buddhas, as a unique institution of inheritance in Tibetan Buddhism, comes with a set range of rituals and conventions. The Chinese government implements the policy of freedom of religious belief. The reincarnation system is respected and protected by such legal instruments as Regulations on Religious Affairs and Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas. The institution of reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has been in existence for several hundred years. The 14th Dalai Lama himself was found and recognized following religious rituals and historical conventions, and his succession was approved by the then central government. Therefore, reincarnation of living Buddhas including the Dalai Lama must comply with Chinese laws and regulations and follow religious rituals and historical conventions. China firmly opposes the U.S. Act on Tibet that you asked about. Tibet-related issues, as part of China's internal affairs, bear on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and allow no interference by any external forces. The Chinese government is determined to safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests. We urge the U.S. side to stop exploiting relevant issues to interfere in China's internal affairs, and take no actions to implement articles in the Act that target China and hurt China's interests, so as to avoid further damaging China-US cooperation and long-term development of bilateral relationship.

Extracted from a New York Times article. Summary translation underway.

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

  Recently, the Indian government has spoken out on the South China Sea issue many times, one after another. At the recent online Summit of the Prime Ministers of India and Vietnam, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that the South China Sea Code of Conduct "should not harm the interests of other countries or third parties in the region". The two Prime Ministers also emphasized the importance of so-called "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea. Last month, at the East Asia Summit, Indian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jaishankar, also articulated India’s position on the South China Sea issue expressing concern over actions and incidents that had allegedly “eroded trust”. For India, the South China Sea is indeed an important commercial route, and India's trade with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia all pass through the South China Sea. But India's claim of "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea is a false proposition, as merchant ships enjoy complete freedom of movement in the South China Sea. In the South China Sea, India's so-called "freedom of navigation" is actually the same as the "freedom of navigation" demanded by the United States. What the Americans call "freedom of navigation" does not distinguish between commercial and military, and places special emphasis on the military, i.e., U.S. warships should be able to cruise freely in the South China Sea. In this regard, India is in line with the United States. But in the Indian Ocean, the Indian definition of "freedom of navigation" and the U.S. definition of "freedom of navigation" are not the same. U.S. warships often violate India's exclusive economic zone and even approach Indian territorial waters. India is opposed to this. So India pursues a double standard on the issue of so-called freedom of navigation. At present, the border confrontation between India and China is still going on, and India is facing serious challenges in maintaining logistical support in the Galwan Valley and Pangong Lake. India hopes to use the South China Sea issue to put pressure on China and force it to make concessions on the border standoff. India has long sought (such) leverage to counter China on land border issues. This is an important reason for the strategic "cooperation" between India and Vietnam in the South China Sea and the exploration of oil and gas resources in the waters disputed by China and Vietnam. For India, its involvement in the South China Sea does not stop at building momentum and pressurising China. Actually, India wants to counterbalance China on the seas. India believes it enjoys maritime advantages, especially in the Indian Ocean. Because the British and French colonizers invasions of India in recent times were from the seas, India has wanted to become a maritime power since its independence. Panikkar, the founder of India's maritime strategy, particularly emphasized the importance of the oceans for India. For this reason, since the 1990s, India has been making strategic adjustments to shift its strategic focus from the northern border to the Indian Ocean, but it has not been able to do so. After the Obama administration proposed the "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" strategy, Obama visited India in January 2015 and the two countries issued the "Joint U.S.-India Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Regions". To achieve the docking of policies in this document and the  US’ "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" strategy and India's "Act East" policy, the two countries particularly emphasized the importance of maintaining maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea. After the Trump administration proposed the "Indo-Pacific Strategy", India's position in the U.S. Asia-Pacific policy has been further enhanced. For the United States, the focus of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" is on the Western Pacific, especially the South China Sea, rather than the Indian Ocean. However, the United States is particularly interested in further Indian involvement in the South China Sea. In recent years, India has strengthened its strategic military cooperation with countries around the South China Sea, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and built military facilities in the area near the Malacca Strait. One of the most important purposes of that is to guard against China, even to choke China's throat. Since Modi’s re-election as Prime Minister in 2019, the Indian government significantly accelerated the pace of strategic and security cooperation with the United States, and took the initiative to promote the U.S.-Japan-Australia-India quadrilateral security dialogue. The dialogue has escalated. This year, with India formally inviting Australia to join the Malabar naval exercises, the U.S.-Japan-Australia-India quadrilateral maritime military alliance system has basically taken shape. The U.S.-Japan-Australia-India Security Dialogue is a so-called "like-minded alliance" with a clear goal: China. China is the guardian of international order and regional security, and has always abided by international law and international rules. The South China Sea issue is very special case, involving many historical disputes. Western countries use their right to speak and interpret international rules to deny China's historical rights and interests. China has been trying to solve the South China Sea issue with ASEAN countries through peaceful negotiations. And some extraterritorial countries like the United States and India are concerned that the code of conduct in the South China Sea agreed between China and ASEAN countries is not conducive to their use of military means to check and balance China in the region. These countries will continue to make trouble on the South China Sea issue, and India also hopes to use the South China Sea issue to continue to hold China in check. But with India's strength, it seems to be unable to make much of a splash! (The author is the Secretary General of the Center for China-South Asia Cooperation, Shanghai Institute of International Studies)

Translation underway

Translation underway

  The U.S. government recently awarded Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi the Medal of Merit in recognition of his Modi's "leading role in enhancing the strategic partnership between the United States and India". Not long ago, a US military official revealed that he was "preparing to train with the Indian army in the Himalayas" to improve the combat level of soldiers in cold environments. Although the Indian military has not made any response to this so far, it somewhat means that the United States and India may join forces to take action against China in the Himalayas in the future.  So then, with the United States about to usher in a transfer of power, after Biden assumes office, will the current "intimate" relationship between the United States and India continue? Taking advantage of the tension on the Sino-Indian border, India has gone further and further down the road of "pulling America against China". This will not be sustainable in the future. The two sides could not wait for the US general election to be over, and signed the "Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement on Geospatial Cooperation" on October 27, one week before the polling day. This will enable India to obtain accurate geospatial data provided by the United States and improve the accuracy of its missile and drone strikes. It also means that the Indian defense system will be monitored and manipulated by the United States. On the surface, this is India "sacrificing" its own strategic autonomy and defense autonomy to balance the so-called "China threat". However, this is essentially nothing but New Delhi's attempt to "pull the chestnuts out of the fire" in the strategic competition between China and the United States. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stressed that the rights and wrongs of the developments along the India-China border are clear and that the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side. However, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense of India has been trying to "fish in troubled waters" recently, claiming that India was subjected to China's "aggression" because of its deploying troops to the border "without provocation". For those who do not understand the situation on the Sino-Indian border, the above lies may deceive. But the root cause of the tensions along India's borders with neighboring countries can be seen in India's unilateral change of its administrative boundaries in 2019 by promulgating a new political map that puts all the disputed areas on its side of the border, thus triggering a rise in border disagreements and tensions with China, Pakistan and Nepal. At the beginning of the new epidemic, India's strategic elites, with their continued hostility toward China, mistakenly believed that "China would be in internal and external difficulties" and that this would provide India with a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to replace China". To this end, India has gone to great lengths to follow the U.S. and the West in smearing China over the epidemic, pushing for economic "decoupling", committing massive violations along the Sino-Indian border and ignoring China's representations. However, New Delhi's wishful thinking failed once again. China not only successfully contained the epidemic, but also became the only major economy that achieved positive economic growth. And New Delhi's original attempt to "take in" companies that had moved out of China has remained unfulfilled. Plus, after the dust settles down on the U.S. elections, will the Biden administration be as irrationally anti-Chinese as the Trump Administration in the future? India is always a little overwhelmed in regard to the answer to this question. The top leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party have long admitted that the Biden-Harris combination may be detrimental to India-US relations. The root cause lies in the difference in "values". The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom issued by the US State Department has been been critical of the Modi government for stirring up domestic divisions in recent years, but the Trump administration's "double standards" did not take these issues into account, and so it did not become a point of friction in India-U.S. relations. But the Biden administration, which wants to "reclaim the soul of America," should bluntly express its dissatisfaction with India on these issues. Precisely because of their emphasis on values, Biden and Harris have long long been critical of the Modi government's approach during the election. For example, Biden and Harris have been vocal critics of India's abrupt repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, various strict control measures in the Indian-controlled Kashmir region, and the implementation of the Citizenship Law (amendment) and the new citizenship registration system that are obviously religiously discriminatory. That is why Dhruva Jaishankar, a Foreign Policy Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently wrote that "India and the United States both pride themselves on being democracies, but that is not enough to bring them closer because there are structural differences between Indian and American democracy, and for that reason India and the United States need to engage in a dialogue about democracy". Likewise, Indian officials expect Harris' Indian-origin status as an "important advantage" for good relations with the Biden administration. However, the real situation may be that although Harris did not evade her Indian identity, she considered herself a representative of black Americans and minorities. Apart from differences in values, the economic and trade relationship is not destined to be a bright spot for the Modi and Biden administrations. More importantly, there is a hidden "mine" that has yet to be detonated in the most important aspect of the relationship, namely, defense cooperation. NATO has imposed severe sanctions on Turkey for its purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems. What will happen to India, which has also purchased the S-400 system? Pompeo, who puts anti-China first, may have given India the green light, but the Biden administration does not seem to have enough reason to give India such "immunity”. In addition to continuing to pull the plug on the U.S., India itself has been releasing tougher signals against China, such as reorganizing the Indian naval fleet, increasing its military procurement budget, improving hardware and software equipment of fighter aircraft and building helipads at the border. At the same time, it is also censoring Chinese telecom providers, banning apps with Chinese background, reducing dependence on Chinese goods, etc. All these can only satisfy Indian nationalism a little but hardly give India additional leverage in its claims on border negotiations. India sometimes overestimates its own ability, especially its strategic planning ability. But the question is what kind of leverage can New Delhi offer to make the United States a "pawn" in India's strategy? Returning to reason and moving in the same direction as China is another viable path. After all, China has repeatedly stressed that its policy toward India remains unchanged despite the border conflict. (The author is a researcher at the Institute of International Studies of Fudan University)        

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

(This item is extracted from an article in India's "The Print" dated December 21, published under the title: "US wants India to ‘get off the fence’ over China. But forgets Cuban crisis lesson". Portions of the original not reproduced in the Huan Qiu Shi Bao item are shown in strike-through format below for ready reference.)   At some point recently, it seemed that India had no fight with the Chinese at all. One such instance was when US Senator Mark Warner said that India needed to “get off the fence” and join a “coalition of the willing” to confront Beijing. Warner’s comments matter. Re-elected from Virginia, he is the co-chair of the Senate India caucus, and vice-chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee. Other US officials have said the same thing, and it’s no secret that this issue dominates think tank discussions. Most Indians would find these remarks strange. After all, the Indian Army is engaged in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in Ladakh, and is spending billions of rupees that it cannot afford in shoring up defences. That’s hardly ‘sitting on the fence’. But apparently, that’s not good enough for US officials. Deciphering what exactly they want is no easy task. But a look at the main planks of the China policy on both sides (US and India) could help assess the possibility of a ‘league of democracies’ that will hopefully row together for the shore instead of oaring the other into the water.

Public enunciation

There is no doubt that under President Donald Trump, Washington has been forthright about the threat from China. True, he sometimes called President Xi Jinping his ‘friend’, but his top officials have been more than forthright. A recent instance was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks at the Tokyo meeting of the ‘Quad’ or Quadrilateral, which includes Japan, Australia and India. Pompeo lambasted the Chinese Communist Party for the ‘cover up’ of the coronavirus outbreak. That was certainly taking the bull by the horns. India’s stance has been very different, avoiding condemnation of China, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) being just one example. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s enunciations have been on the same lines. For instance, at a recent interaction with an Australian think tank, Jaishankar merely said that relations with China had been damaged “significantly”, also noting that mending of ties would be difficult. On the talking front then, the US-India partnership is distinctly on a different track. But then, for India, it’s not just a difficult neighbour, but a difficult neighbourhood, where China is also invested heavily. Besides, talking big pays for little when your purse is small.

Government legislation and laws 

The US undoubtedly has a raft of government papers like the National Security Strategy 2017, which first bookmarked China as a ‘revisionist power’; the key National Defence Strategy 2018, which prioritised China as a ‘long term competitor’; the Annual eport on the PLA; and most recently, the State Department’s The Elements of the China Challenge, which is meant to fashion a “sturdy” policy that will be above election cycles and bureaucratic squabbles. These are only the major policy papers. Beyond this is the legislative process that at least tries to go in the desired direction. One such legislation allowed the Department of Defense to fund startups and lead innovation, intended to give the US a lead in critical technologies like Artificial Intelligence where China has an edge. Another instance is the imposition of sanctions on Chinese companies on different grounds. India moved to not only ban some 267 Chinese apps, but also stopped Chinese (and other) foreign investment from buying out distressed Indian companies. The government also amended the General Financial Rules 2017 to disallow participation of countries sharing land borders with India in government contracts. India, however, has no tradition of long-term policy planning documents, which might have done much to prevent the surprise of Ladakh. Our policy, therefore, is short term, and subject to election cycles and bureaucratic stove piping. That’s simply not good enough. A long-term policy paper, with elements leaked out to the media, might be a thought. Most vitally, it will put the whole government on the same page.

Alliances and plurilateralism

The US alliance system created after World War II was directed primarily against the Soviets. Europe did participate in theatres like Afghanistan, but their hearts are simply not in it. The Indo-Pacific construct is an attempt to create a semi-alliance outside traditional treaty partners such as Australia and Japan using different platforms including the Quad. Here again, India has chosen to stress ‘inclusivity’, so that it is not seen as directed against China, although Delhi did tag the need for “quality infrastructure based on sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity …as well as transparency, economic viability and financial responsibility” in a rare dig at the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). But that was as far as Delhi was willing to go. Meanwhile, it continued to attend forums like the SCO and the Russia-India-China trilateral. That puzzles US watchers as to what is actually the status of China-India relations. But the reality is that relations are never cut off, especially during a crisis, as the US should know from the Cuban missile crisis. Even during the peak of the Cold War, the two sides continued to engage. However, it might be useful to keep the US briefed about the intent and outcomes of these meetings on a case by case basis. Sometimes, transparency can speed up movement of files, and prevent nasty comments in Congress. Taking Quad to the next level?  The signing of all four foundational agreements with the US and the designation of Delhi as a Major Defense Partner does mean that bilateral relations have reached a new level, even though it falls well short of any treaty alliance. It is unlikely that India will agree to a full treaty relationship that binds it as a junior partner to the US, unless the Chinese threat increases to levels where even the nuclear deterrent is deemed ineffective. That is unlikely, since Beijing knows full well that any outright aggression will have serious consequences. Short of that, however, it’s possible to broaden the relationship to include a strong intelligence partnership within the Quad, in a manner similar to the Five Eyes Alliance, which comprises the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. All four Quad members critically need to sit together to decide on the threat ten years down the line, and the specifics of capabilities needed against an agreed-upon threat. That, in turn, could be in part the basis for India’s own long-term defence planning. Japan, Australia and India are already in talks for supply chain resilience to reduce dependence on China. Similar initiatives like cooperation for technology innovation could be considered. But the key here is Quad members sitting down to seriously consider the strategic threat, not just defence. That falls short of ‘one for all and all for one’ defence commitment. But it does put all on a common path of fending off the multifarious threats from China, like cyber attacks, linked espionage and technology theft. It is said that there is a tide in the affairs of men, including bureaucrats. It’s time to evaluate that tide, one from the west and the other from the east, and then pull together across ministries to move in the desired direction. Coordination is key for all concerned, including the US whose tendency to lecture others on issues that it has little or no understanding of, tends to push the boat in the opposite direction. That could be called ‘sitting on the fence’ too, one which would be mighty uncomfortable to accept.   (The original article an be seen here.)

According to a report in The Hindu, the sliding deck of the Indian Navy's current aircraft carrier "VIKRAMADITYA" is equipped with Russian-made MiG-29K fighter aircraft. India is building a domestic aircraft carrier and plans were to carry the same type of aircraft on it too. But in recent years the Indian Navy has frequently complained about the high failure rate of the MiG-29K, its limited range and old electronic equipment, and that it intends to choose an alternative product. The United States is very excited about this. According to the report, if India chooses the U.S. "Super Hornet" instead of Russian-made naval aircraft for its indigenous carrier, it is bound to have a serious impact on Russia's arms sales to India and even India-Russia relations too. The Hindu newspaper said on the 22nd, the U.S. Boeing Company announced that it had completed the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" naval fighter jet taxi take off test, and fully verified the compatibility of the main U.S. carrier aircraft with the Indian aircraft carrier. According to the report, the United States is trying to win the contract for the Indian Navy's carrier-based aircraft, thereby replacing the Russian warplanes in India. The report also aid that the video released by Boeing showed that the "Super Hornet" successfully took off from the ski jump runway of the land airport, proving that the fighter has the ability to take off from the ski jump deck of the aircraft carrier. The company’s official responsible for the sales of Indian fighter jets said that this move is like opening a verification procedure for the "Super Hornet" exports to India, indicating that the fighter jet can be used with Indian naval aircraft carriers. According to the report, the United States has been increasing its arms sales to India in recent years. Boeing exports 11 C-17 transport aircraft, 8 P-8I maritime patrol aircraft, 22 AH-64E Apache helicopters and 15 CH-47F helicopters only.  These successes have given it (Boeing) confidence of being able to export the Super Hornet to India.  

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

In order to further study, publicize and implement Xi Jinping’s new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, promote the use of the party’s innovative theories to arm the mind, guide practice, and promote work, and to better transform system advantages into governance efficiency, the Central Cyberspace Administration and Guangming Daily have jointly Organize the "New Theory of Practice" online theory dissemination column, and successively launch a series of theoretical manuscripts and new media works on Guangming.com to analyze the internal logic between theory and practice, so stay tuned. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that poverty alleviation is not the end, but the starting point for a new life and new struggle. It is necessary to continue to promote the effective connection of comprehensive poverty alleviation and rural revitalization, promote the smooth transformation of poverty reduction strategies and work systems, integrate into the rural revitalization strategy, and establish a system and mechanism that combines long-term and short-term measures and treats both symptoms and root causes. In the "Proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Formulating the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-term Goals for 2035" adopted by the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, it once again emphasized and put forward "to achieve consolidation and expansion of poverty alleviation. Achievements are effectively connected with rural revitalization. The plan has laid out the major policies for effectively linking poverty alleviation and rural revitalization during the 14th Five-Year Plan period. A protective net has been built to prevent the poor from returning to poverty, and this is a new development stage for the 14th Five-Year Plan. The two major strategies of poverty alleviation and rural revitalization are effectively connected to build a foundation. Why  the two strategies of poverty alleviation and rural revitalization should be effectively connected General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that the issue of agricultural and rural peasants is a fundamental issue related to the national economy and people's livelihood, and that solving the "three rural" issues must always be the top priority of the party's work..............The need to solve the "three rural" issues. Agriculture, rural areas, and farmers have always been a permanent topic for a large agricultural country like China. China still has nearly 600 million people living in rural areas, and the poor are mainly concentrated in rural areas. The productivity is lagging, the ecological environment is deteriorating, governance efficiency is low, and the population is excessive , Problems of the aged still exist. The urbanization rate in China has soared from 29% in 1995 to 60.60% in 2019, while the rural population has dropped from 860 million in 1995 to 550 million in 2019. A full 300 million people have left the countryside, and the rural population is declining. The villages that have lost the support of young and middle-aged people are left with only the elderly who are unwilling to leave, women who cannot bear to leave, and children who cannot leave. The countryside is occupied by "left-behind elderly", "left-behind women" and "left-behind children". Realizing the effective convergence of the two strategies of poverty alleviation and rural revitalization has become a need to effectively solve the "three rural" issues. To achieve the "two centenary" goals and realize the common prosperity of all people. The purpose of the Communist Party of China is to serve the people wholeheartedly. Its original intention and mission are to seek happiness for the Chinese people and to seek rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. As early as 1979, Deng Xiaoping formulated the "three-step" strategic deployment and the development path of "let some people get rich first and finally achieve common prosperity". Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has further refined the "three-step" strategic deployment, strengthened the "two centenary" strategic arrangements, and made it clear that it will be fully completed by 2020. The goal of "a well-off society" is that "the key to a well-off life is not a well-off society, but it depends on the villagers". Poverty alleviation has eliminated absolute poverty, but there is still a long way to go. Realizing the effective connection between poverty alleviation and rural revitalization is an effective measure to enable nearly 600 million farmers to lead the way to prosperity. Targeted poverty alleviation and rural revitalization correspond to different time periods, different focii and different mechanisms, but the fundamental goals of the two are the same, that is, to achieve the "two centenary" goals and promote the modernization of rural agricultural farmers. Only when the two are organically connected can we continue to consolidate the results of poverty alleviation and achieve common prosperity for all people. The basis for the effective connection of the two strategies of "poverty alleviation" and "village revitalization" For a major shift from emergency policy orientation to long-term policy design, the most urgent task is to find the commonalities and differences between the two, and to achieve an effective connection between the two .......... First, the goals of the two are the same. ...... Second, the content of the two is in harmony. ....... For example, the development of advantageous industries in rural areas is not only an objective requirement for industrial poverty alleviation, but also an inevitable choice for industrial prosperity. ......... promoting the integrated development of rural primary, secondary and tertiary industries through the development of a chain of agricultural product processing industries, so that farmers can enjoy the benefits of value-addition. The implementation of relocation for poverty alleviation is an effective means to solve the problem of "one side of water and soil cannot support one person". It is also an important form of conforming to the law of village development, promoting rural construction by classification, and coordinating the settlement of villagers' livelihoods, infrastructure construction and ecological environmental protection........... Finally, the two mechanisms promote each other. The implementation of the two major strategies of poverty alleviation and rural revitalization must rely on the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China and the system and mechanism of the advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. The key to the success of poverty alleviation lies in the party’s leadership and institutional innovation. ..... .......... There are many differences between the two, mainly in: First, the priorities of the two are different from the top-level design. Poverty alleviation is the bottom line task of building a well-off society in an all-round way and the priority task of implementing the rural revitalization strategy. It has the characteristics of urgency, priority, and stage. To win the battle against poverty, we must adhere to the current poverty alleviation standards and, in accordance with the set time, target the goal of building a well-off society in all respects, and complete it without compromise. The rural revitalization strategy is written into the party constitution as one of the seven strategies. It is a top-level design for coordinating the resolution of the "three rural" issues on the basis of grasping the law of the evolution of the relationship between workers and farmers in urban and rural areas. In the top-level design of rural revitalization, we must highlight key points and concentrate efforts to ensure that priority tasks are completed first. Second, the two standards are different. The time for poverty alleviation is to reach 2020, and the standard is to "stabilize the realization that the rural poor have no worries about food and clothing, compulsory education, basic medical care, and housing security; the growth rate of per capita disposable income of farmers in poor areas is higher than the national average. Indicators in the main areas of basic public services are close to the national average." The strategy of rural revitalization focuses on the second centenary goal, which is to comprehensively build a modern and powerful socialist country. The standard is to completely change the face of poverty and backwardness in rural areas for thousands of years, and achieve comprehensive agricultural upgrades, comprehensive rural progress, and comprehensive development of farmers. Third, the two targets are different. The target of the poverty alleviation strategy is the specific group of the rural poor under the current standards, focusing on the poor households that have been filed and registered, and focusing on the specific area of ​​poverty. The target groups for poverty alleviation are established, clear, and strict standards. Poverty alleviation policies have strict implementation boundaries between poor households and non-poor households, poor villages and non-poor villages, poor counties and non-poor counties. Rural revitalization emphasizes the promotion of comprehensive revitalization through inclusive support, benefiting more than one billion people, covering urban and rural areas, and promoting economic, political, social, cultural, ecological development and party building in the integrated development of urban and rural areas, focusing on relevance and integrity to achieve Coordinated advancement. Fourth, the two strategies are different. Poverty alleviation focuses on micro-policy. The biggest feature is to adhere to the basic strategy of precise poverty alleviation. "Five batches" and "six precisions" are the most concentrated manifestations. Poverty alleviation emphasizes the development of differentiated and skewed support policies based on the causes of poverty of every impoverished population, so as to implement policies based on people, places, reasons of poverty, and types of poverty, and implement targeted treatments. . The rural revitalization strategy focuses on overall planning, more emphasis on the coordinated development of agricultural and rural areas, adheres to the integrated design and promotion of agricultural modernization and rural modernization, highlights the leading role of planning, and emphasizes more on the premise of doing your best Do what we can, plan and step by step through continuous policies and investment to coordinate the development of various undertakings in agriculture and rural areas. Fifth, the two issues differ in focus. The key to poverty alleviation is to solve the absolute poverty problem of the rural poor and ensure that the poor can achieve "two no worries and three guarantees." Although there are also clear requirements for education, medical care and housing for the poor, increasing income is still the top priority. Rural revitalization will also improve rural infrastructure and public services, comprehensively improve rural education, medical care, pension, culture and social security levels, and solve multi-dimensional poverty. With the gradual improvement of the system and mechanism of urban-rural integration, the role of the rural revitalization strategy in the overall planning of urban and rural poverty governance will gradually appear. How to effectively connect the two strategies of poverty alleviation and rural revitalization The connection between poverty alleviation and rural revitalization must be organically transitioned from "poverty alleviation" to "rural revitalization", from "two no worries and three guarantees" to "prosperous industries, livable ecology, civilized rural customs, effective governance, and living rich". First, build an industrial system, realize the transition from industrial poverty alleviation to industrial revitalization, and lay a solid foundation for rural revitalization. ....................... Second, cultivate a team of talents, and realize the transition from “tip soldiers” in poverty alleviation to talent revitalization. ..............In revitalization, outstanding cadres who are "particularly capable of enduring hardship, particularly capable of fighting, particularly capable of responsibility, and particularly capable of dedication" are required to continue to play the exemplary and leading role of "leaders" and "commandos", but also need to pass "internal education" and "external introduction". "Cultivate a large number of new farmers, new entrepreneurs, and new technology experts who understand agriculture, love the countryside, and love farmers. Third, build a civilized rural customs and realize the transition from cultural poverty alleviation to cultural revitalization. Culture plays a leading role in poverty alleviation and rural revitalization. Cultural revitalization should be guided by the core values ​​of socialism, adopt effective methods that conform to the characteristics of rural areas and farmers, and strengthen education in patriotism, collectivism, and socialism. On the one hand, we should give full play to the role of the online and offline platforms, and use scientific theories to educate and arm farmers. On the other hand, it is necessary to sort out moral resources such as township regulations, folk conventions, genealogy and family precepts, give full play to the demonstration effect of the advanced models around the villagers, promote the traditional Chinese virtues, and educate and guide the villagers to be good, filial piety and love relatives, respect righteousness and trustworthiness, and be diligent and thrifty. Maintaining a family, fostering a civilized rural style, a good family style, and a simple folk style, and deeply promote the construction of rural social ethics, family virtues, and villagers’ morals. Fourth, cultivate ecological agriculture, ....... Fifth, improve rural governance and provide effective organizational guarantees for rural revitalization. The leadership of the party is the cornerstone and guarantee for the overall revitalization of the rural areas. The grassroots party organizations have played an important role in the fight against poverty. They are the “work teams that do not leave” and the backbone of the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy. Organizational guarantee. Therefore, we must continue to give play to the organizational advantages of the grassroots party organizations, unite the thoughts, actions, strength, and wisdom of the broad masses of grassroots party members and the masses, so that they can join forces in the construction of the rural economy and society. (Author is a Professor and Dean of the Government Institute of Management, the Beijing Normal University)

Translation underway

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

    Associated Press of Pakistan: Last week, a Chinese constructor officially handed over Sukkur-Multan Motorway to Pakistani authorities. It is the largest transportation infrastructure project completed under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor framework. Do you have any comment on that? Wang Wenbin: I noticed the good news. The Peshawar-Karachi Motorway is an early harvest project and the largest transportation infrastructure project under the CPEC. The Sukkur-Multan section has been completed and officially handed over to the Pakistani side. The motorway links two important cities Sukkur and Multan, reducing traffic time from 11 hours to around 4. Based on my information, during the construction, about 29,000 local jobs were created. The project runs through major areas producing economic crops and gives a direct boost to socioeconomic development along its route. The Chinese contracting company also improved social welfare in villages along the routes by constructing school buildings, roads and bridges, digging wells and irrigation works. The handover of the project is an epitome of the CPEC going ahead against the impact of COVID-19. China stands ready to work together with Pakistan to act on our leaders' consensus and while continuing existing projects, shift more energy onto cooperation in areas like social welfare, industry and agriculture, so as to turn the CPEC into a demonstration project of high quality BRI development and bring more benefits to people in both countries and beyond.

Translation underway

On the 15th instant, the European Union announced an draft important bill regulating digital services -- the "Digital Services Act" and The Digital Market Act -- in order to strengthen content supervision and safeguard free competition. These two bills are considered to be directed against US Silicon Valley giants such as Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Before the EU prepared legislation to say "no" to "power-abusing giants", the United States has also escalated the tug of war between regulators and the largest technology companies, as e.g. the US Federal Trade Commission and a 46-state cross-party group. On the 9th, a wide-ranging antitrust lawsuit was filed against Facebook, accusing the social media giant of acquiring or crowding out emerging technology companies that might one day become its competitors. Why is the anti-super network platform monopoly in Europe and America so urgent? Fang Xingdong, Dean of the Institute of Internet and Society at Zhejiang Institute of Media, told the Huan Qiu Shi Bao reporter that as long as these Internet giants harm competition, innovation and the interests of consumers, they should be acted against for antitrust. There are also German cyber policy scholars who said that when these digital platforms not only possess super market power but also super political power, it will naturally make decision makers in European and American countries come down upon them. Don’t want "the dragon slayer warrior to become the evil dragon" "What does it mean for the EU to legislate to strictly regulate digital platforms?" Deutsche Radio said on the 21st that for many years, debates about how to regulate large Internet platforms have existed, and the new bill proposed by the EU not only has a profound impact on the regulation of these platforms, but will also change the ecology of the global Internet. Related reports also said: "The most important thing is that the most powerful technology companies will have less voice on the Internet, while small and medium Internet companies and governments will have more voice". Prior to this, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit held that Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram was unfair and ultimately caused harm to consumers. Facebook is just the second technology giant to face major legal challenges in the United States recently. On October 20, the U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states announced an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc., requesting the court to rule that Google’s actions in maintaining search and search advertising are illegal, and that Google’s exclusive deal with mobile phone manufacturers protects its monopoly position. According to Bloomberg News, the combined antitrust lawsuits against Google and Facebook are the largest monopoly case since the US Department of Justice sued Microsoft in 1998. "The European Union wants to limit the market power of technology giants." The German "Stuttgart News" reported on the 18th that the last time the European Union formulated "comprehensive rules of the game" on digital services and online platforms was 20 years ago. At that time, there were still some small and medium-sized Internet companies in Europe competing with American giants, but now, almost all European Internet ecology is monopolized by American super platforms. According to media outlets, the EU’s current digital plan is aimed at US technology giants such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon. “This is related to the values ​​of the EU and the future of the EU’s digital economy”. The New York Times report also combed that since June 2019, US federal regulatory agencies began to increase investigations into Google and Facebook. “Even an antitrust investigation of Google in the search field can be traced back to 2013." The report also said that the US states have a long history of challenging large technology companies. In the "milestone" antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft 20 years ago, state attorneys general played a vital role. "In short, those startups that were at a disadvantage but high-spirited and dared to challenge the status quo have become monopolies that only existed in the era of oil tycoons and railroad tycoons". On October 6 this year, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee released an antitrust investigation report on the four major technology giants of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple, which seemed to remind the public not to forget that "the dragon slaying warrior can become a dragon". Some media concluded that every 20 years or so, the U.S. government would raise the banner of antitrust against a technology giant: In January 1969, the U.S. Department of Justice officially filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBM, believing that it had a monopoly. The mainframe market hindered healthy competition. This game continued throughout the 1970s. It wasn't until 1982 that the case was dropped due to a "no legal basis" sentence; in May 1998, the US Department of Justice and 20 state attorneys general Sued Microsoft for violating the "Antitrust Law", claiming that Microsoft illegally prevented other software vendors from competing with it, but this cross-century lawsuit did not let Microsoft fall into the fate of being split. Today, the "sword of Damocles" from the US government has fallen on the heads of Internet giants such as Google and Facebook. "This is related to the upgrading of technology." Fang Xingdong, Director of the Internet and Society Research Institute of Zhejiang Institute of Media and Communication, told the Huan Qiu Shi Bao reporter that technological change is basically one generation every 10 years, but the cycle of industrial change is generally 20 years. "Because the first 10 years are an upward cycle, and the second 10 years are a mature period, the general anti-monopoly starts when the technology is relatively mature, so the anti-monopoly wave in the United States is generally a 20-year cycle." Fang Xingdong It was pointed out that IBM is the monopoly giant in the mainframe era, Microsoft is the monopoly giant in the PC era, and the current giants such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple dominate the mobile era. "The next 10 to 20 years may focus on the field of artificial intelligence. There will also be new monopoly giants". "A rare consensus of the two parties in the United States" When commenting on China’s measures to strengthen anti-monopoly and prevent the disorderly expansion of capital, the U.S. Quartz Finance Network said: “In terms of restricting the 'concentration of power' of a few technology monopolies, Beijing is not the only party showing strong will. The same is true of the European Union. "Today's technology giants are too big, too strong, and too profitable". Bloomberg reported that governments have no choice but to bring these companies to court, pass new competition laws and even split them up. They have initiated started a head-on contest. The article also quoted a German congressman as saying: "The big ones are getting bigger and bigger, but not getting better". Some US media said that through a series of acquisitions, Facebook and other "tech oligarchs" have now accumulated unusual market control. Today's technology leaders are only accountable to shareholders, but their companies are "rich as the enemy". For example, the revenues of Apple and Amazon in fiscal year 2019 were as high as 260.2 billion and 280.5 billion US dollars, which exceeds the GDP of some countries. The "New Republic" magazine of the United States believes that "worries about the power of big technology companies are one of the few points on which the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States can reach consensus." The New York Times published an article on the 9th that the investigation has led Google to be prosecuted by the US Department of Justice two months ago. Although the prosecutor no longer asked to split Google in the prosecution, the Republican and Democratic parties will at least file another prosecution against Google by the end of this year. Song Guoyou, Deputy Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, believes that the current drawbacks of the monopoly of the US Internet giants are becoming increasingly apparent, including excessive abuse of dominant position, infringement of information, and suppression of innovation. He told the "Huan Qiu Shi Bao" reporter, "The United States is raising the banner of antitrust at this time, which also reflects that the US government has become more and more aware of the negative aspects of Internet giants". The US and Europe’s anti-monopoly guns against super-internet platforms sounded almost simultaneously, but some analysts believe that the EU’s regulation of technology giants is more for defensive purposes, while the US’s regulation is partly for market purposes and partly for political purposes. In this regard, Fang Xingdong’s view is that the anti-monopoly logic of the United States and Europe is roughly the same, that is, monopolistic behavior harms competition, innovation and consumer interests, but this time the two sides have different focuses. He told the "Huan Qiu Shi Bao" reporter that the EU's anti-monopoly measures are largely focused on the protection of human rights and values, and the most sensitive thing in the United States is the destruction of the US democratic political system caused by the monopoly of Internet giants. The two recent U.S. election have had a great impact, such as the phenomenon of "fake news", that has never been cured. Fang Xingdong said: "The problem of the Internet super platform has surpassed market competition and economic problems, and has profoundly affected the entire social and political order". He also mentioned the "Arab Spring" of  10 years ago when the United States advocated free flow of information, hoping to subvert the regime of other countries through social platforms such as Twitter.  But now, social platforms are beginning to turn upside down to affect the political operation of the United States. In an interview with the Huan Qiu Shi Bao reporter on the 21st, Berlin Internet policy scholar Stefan Vihain also said: “Now, there are almost no laws in the world to restrict US super-network platforms. They not only have supermarket power, but also super political power. To a certain extent, its power has surpassed the governments of many countries, and may even evoke a "color revolution". It is not difficult to understand why even US President Trump and Congress look at these platforms with a not so pleased eye and take restrictive measures". He believes that this anti-super-network platform monopoly started in the West and is a movement "from top to bottom". Vihain also emphasized: "The European Union has set an example for the world. In the future, more countries will formulate similar rules to oppose the monopoly of US technology giants". Talking about the future trend of anti-monopoly issues, Song Guoyou said that even if these Internet technology giants will not face the fate of being split, they will definitely be restricted. This is the consensus of the world's major economies. But he also said that whether it is Europe, the United States or China, the government and legislators still have to face how to better develop the digital economy. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully strike a balance between antitrust and global competition to protect domestic companies. Split the giants? The EU knows that it is not realistic "Can global antitrust actions challenge the big technology companies? Or, as in the past, will the EU's actions against monopolistic giants such as Microsoft and Google only be fines ?" An article on the US Council on Foreign Relations website also raised this question. Worried about the slow implementation of anti-monopoly law enforcement, it is difficult to directly restrict technology companies. The British "Financial Times" article believes that the warning issued by the "Digital Markets Act" is that technology companies that have been fined three times within 5 years will face demands for splitting. This shows that the European Union recognizes that the existing competition laws are imperfect and have failed to contain Silicon Valley giants. And the Harvard Kennedy School of Government scholar, Deepayan Ghosh, and the London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Nick Kawudri recently wrote in the "Washington Post" that "the prosecution of Facebook is not enough", it is the company's business model that is the problem. The lawsuit against Google in October and the current lawsuit against Facebook both relied on the “narrow antitrust model” of how digital platforms should be regulated, and therefore failed to solve the most important problem: acceleration of toxic content by large tech companies, i.e. the negative social side effects brought about by the basic business model of communication. Regarding the legislation to be drafted by the European Union, Google Europe Business and Operations President Matt Brittin told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany on the 21st: “The two EU bills are truly important basic steps for European digital development in the next 20 years. This is welcome. Protecting innovation and strengthening the digital single market are the main goals we clearly support, but the details are decisive, and we hope that the EU will remain open”. There is also speculation in the German media that these giants will step up their lobbying for the bill. It can be changed, because "Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have already spent 19 million euros in lobbying in Europe in the first half of 2020". It is also said that, after all, these laws are not expected to be approved until 2022, because the European Commission must finalize the final bill together with the 27 member states and the European Parliament. But for the lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice, Kent Walker, Google's senior Vice President of legal affairs, previously responded that the lawsuit has "serious flaws" and is not beneficial to consumers, so Google will stick to its position. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg also regarded the split of the company as a "life or death" threat and vigorously defended the relevant allegations. "Bloomberg Business Weekly" analyzed that the future of the US Internet technology giants may not be easy because "The Federal Trade Commission is trying to achieve something that has never happened in 40 years: the disintegration of one of the largest companies in the United States. The last American giant to be split was AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph Company) in 1984". On the Internet, some people believe that the government needs to break up giants such as Facebook and Google, and others call for stricter regulations to restrict the use of data by these companies. In Fang Xingdong's view, in view of the new type of monopoly presented by the Internet platform, the split may not necessarily solve the problem fundamentally, and may even backfire. He told the "Huan Qiu Shi Bao" reporter that generally speaking, antitrust measures are usually through huge fines or structural adjustments, that is, splitting, but several US Internet platforms, including Facebook, are very large. Forced to go in for independent development, they may turn into several new super platforms because each has a strong network”. Fang Xingdong said that in the past, Europe has been leading the world in Internet anti-monopoly, but its anti-monopoly measures are generally restricted to fines.  And did not take more radical measures such as splitting. One of the important reasons for this is that these giants are not based in the EU but in the United States, and fining is relatively operable. "The EU’s approach is to immobilize the structure and target only behavior", Fang Xingdong said. (But)"If you want to break up these giants, it would stretch the EU too much, and the EU should know that this would be unrealistic".

SUMMARY The implementation of the new "Foreign Investment Law" on January 1, 2020 marks a new stage of development in our country's market opening. The "Foreign Investment Law" consists of six parts: General Provisions, Investment Promotion, Investment Protection, Investment Management, Legal Responsibilities, and Supplementary Provisions. The terms "Sino-foreign joint ventures" and "Sino-foreign cooperative enterprises" have been discontinued in these laws; they are classified as foreign companies. Investment behavior has received a lot of attention. In fact, this is because .................... Regarding the issue that the “Foreign Investment Law” no longer uses the word “enterprise”, it is mainly because.............. Regarding the issue of foreign-invested enterprises’ enjoyment of national treatment, the "Foreign Investment Law" has clearly stipulated............ Regarding the prohibition of forced technology transfer, a commitment had been made as early as in China's WTO accession protocol......... (The author is the former President of the Chinese Academy of Commerce)

Translation underway

An obituary of the noted Chinese American scholar Fu Gaoyi, one time Director of the Fairbank Center for East Asian Affairs and author of the best seller "Deng Xiaoping Times", Japan's New Middle Class and other books, who is reputed to have also served as a secret emissary for former US President Bush to China. The opportunity is taken to bemoan the 'anti-Chinese' mind-set of the majority of scholars and experts in the US and the West as a whole today by positing truly 'knowledgeable on China' and falsely 'knowledgeable on China' factions in the academia, ignoring completely the reasons for the general trend of shift in the scholarly world's take on China as a result of its actions and policies over the years, particularly of late. Conclusion:   In recent years, rational and objective views on China have been blocked, and distorted extreme views on China have become rampant. .......It is indeed unfortunate that the rational and objective "intellectuals" have lost their power. Objectively speaking, the death of Fu Gaoyi is a big loss to Sino-US relations, but the more China-US relations are at a critical turning point, the more it is necessary to call for the emergence of more "Fu Gaoyi-style" truly "knowledgeable" persons in order to curb the current spread of unhealthy political atmospherics toward China in America. (The author is a Professor at the Institute of International Relations, China Foreign Affairs University)

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Prasar Bharati:China and Pakistan are conducting a month-long joint air force exercise which, as per the experts, is seen as China and Pakistan's larger strategic posture towards India and a matter of concern for India. What is China's position on this growing concern in India particularly when China has expressed apprehensions about India's Malabar exercise? Wang Wenbin: As all-weather strategic cooperative partners, China and Pakistan have friendly exchange and cooperation in political, economic, military, security and a broad range of areas. We are committed to jointly upholding peace and stability in the region. The cooperation project you mentioned is a regular arrangement between Chinese and Pakistani militaries that doesn't target any third party. We hope it will be viewed in an objective manner.

(translated by Cui Xiaodong)   .

The Indian news network, TIMESNOW, reported on December 19 that. according to a study by an Indian cybersecurity think tank called Cyber Peace Foundation, Chinese hackers launched covert cyber attacks on millions of Indian online shoppers during the Diwali online shopping season in October and November this year, collecting personal information from Indian consumers by creating "e-commerce scams". "According to the Cyber Peace Foundation report, the Chinese hackers who launched the attack on Indian Internet users were registered in Guangdong and Henan provinces. The hackers sent fraudulent links through social media applications such as WhatsApp, which misled people into believing the links were sales on Flipkart (India's largest e-commerce retailer) and Amazon, and lured Indian Internet users into clicking on them using fake prizes. Indian consumers who clicked on the links not only had their information collected and stolen, but were also tricked into forwarding the links to their own contacts, leading to more people falling for the scam. "Kumar, founder and chairman of the Cyber Peace Foundation, claimed, "E-commerce scams are not new, but what is worrisome is the repeated covert cyber warfare being waged by Chinese entities in India". He added that India currently has about 100 million online shoppers, a number that is set to increase, and that cyber attacks are likely to increase as well. "The information gathered through (e-commerce) scams can be used to conduct more such cyber attacks, and in particular can be used to target Internet users in India's second- and third-tier cities, where there is a low level of awareness of such scams". The think tank claims that after investigation, they found that all of the fraudulent link domains were registered in the Chinese provinces of Guangdong and Henan and were associated with an organization called Fang Xiao Qing. The fake links are said to be still active and continuing perpetration of the scam. For some time now, there has been a lot of hype in India in the area of cybersecurity. In June this year, The Times of India misinformed that since 2016, India has become the sixth most hacked economy by China after the U.S., South Korea, Hong Kong, China, Germany and Japan. In August, India's ZeeNews TV quoted a report released by Indian security agencies that Chinese cyber forces are stepping up their hacking activities against India and collecting sensitive information related to India's national security. In response to unfounded allegations of "Chinese hacking" by foreign media, including the Indian media, China's Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stated that China is a major cyber power and a major victim of hacking attacks. China is a firm defender of cyber security and firmly opposes and combats any form of cyber attacks and theft of secrets. It is worth noting that in February this year, an article titled "Indian APT group takes advantage of fire to launch targeted attacks on our medical institutions! Heartless! was widely circulated on Chinese social media. The article mentioned that 360 Security Brain captured a case of an attack delivered using memes related to the new corona pneumonia epidemic. The attackers used the epidemic theme as a decoy document to launch an attack on the medical work area fighting the epidemic. Subsequently, they found that the organization that launched the attack belonged to an Indian hacking group.

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  AFP: This is regarding a New York Times article published on December 19 which talked about Chinese censorship during the early days of the coronavirus outbreak. Does the foreign ministry have any comments or response? Wang Wenbin: I already talked about relevant matters many times. I will just briefly lay out the facts, which, I hope will be respected by all. After COVID-19 broke out, China notified the WHO of the epidemic, shared the genome sequencing of the virus, carried out international cooperation of epidemic prevention and control experts, all at the earliest time possible. China established strict information release mechanisms, making sure epidemic information was released in a timely, open and transparent manner. Strict regulations were adopted to prevent delayed reporting, under-reporting and cover-up of cases. Wuhan began releasing epidemic information from December 31, 2019 and gradually increased the frequency. On January 3, 2020, China started sending regular timely updates to WHO and other countries, including the US. On January 21, the National Health Commission started releasing national epidemic information of the previous day on its website and new media platform on a daily basis. At the same time, provincial health authorities released local information of the previous day on a daily basis. From February 3, the English version of the NHC's website started updating data in sync. The timeline is clear and the facts are plain. They can stand the test of time and history. Some Western media's claim that China held back information about the pandemic is just baseless. It is because the Chinese government put life and people front and center and took the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough prevention and control measures that we became the first to bring the situation at home under control and achieve resumption of work and production. China's economy resumed positive growth in the second quarter and realized stable recovery and growth, standing as the only major economy with positive growth this year. We hope certain media outlets and agencies can respect facts and science and cover China and its fight against COVID-19 in a fair and unbiased manner instead of spreading disinformation.

A Chinese take on US-RUSSIA relations. Summary Translation underway

Translation underway   (The author is the Dean of the School of International Finance and Trade, Shanghai International Studies University)

Translation underway

Translation underway

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

TRANSLATION UNDERWAY

While modern science is creating miracles, the world needs more than a vaccine in the wake of the new corona epidemic. The global economy struggled out of the quagmire of sudden stagnation in early 2020 like a drowning man trying desperately to get air, only to have a brief strong economic recovery come to an end with the re-implementation of the stay-at-home order. A restart after a sudden economic halt can hardly be considered a sustainable economic recovery. With or without a vaccine, the world economic outlook for 2021 is much more challenging than a simple rebound. Plagues throughout human history have had long-term negative effects. They cause irreversible disruptions to aggregate demand and supply, and when overlaid with a rethinking of human norms of behavior, the economic recovery process can easily be aborted. As a result, the economy is often in a fragile position of stagnation and fragile after an epidemic, and in this regard, the current wave of the new corona epidemic is hardly an exception. The first half of 2021 looks to be a repeat of history. With the exception of China, which has effectively contained the second wave of the epidemic by prioritizing public health over economic development, major developed economies, including the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada, have begun a new round of stay-at-home orders. This round of stay-at-home orders is not as harsh as the first wave of the epidemic, but it coincides with the end-of-year consumption peak, and the seasonality of consumption data this year is likely to be less pronounced than in previous years. For the US and European economies, this means the risk of a double-dip recession in the world economy. The resurgence of the real economy is in stark contrast with the rapid advancement of the stock market. The optimism of the stock market is largely due to the zero interest rate monetary policy of major economies, rather than the resilience of the real economy. The performance of the stock market can be regarded as a vote of confidence in the future. At the same time, we cannot be complacent about other risks to the world economy. The U.S.-China conflict is my biggest concern. As the trade war evolves into a technology war, the world's two largest economies stand at a critical juncture on the road to a "new cold war. The post-epidemic outlook for the world economy depends in large part on whether the U.S. and China can move from conflict escalation to conflict resolution. The election of Biden as the next U.S. president offers an opportunity, but it will not be easy to achieve a resolution of the U.S.-China conflict. Tensions between the two countries have been sinking for a long time, going back to before Trump took office. The United States and China today desperately need a new framework for interaction, and the three most important cornerstones are as follows. The first is dialogue. While there have been regular strategic and economic dialogues before, a better solution would be to establish a permanent Secretariat in a neutral zone to deal full-time with all topics involving the U.S.-China relationship, from trade and technology to cyber and human rights. The Secretariat would be responsible for data sharing, joint policy writing, bilateral agreement enforcement, and transparent dispute arbitration. The second is trade. The core issue should shift to addressing the savings imbalance by increasing U.S. savings and decreasing Chinese savings to ease the trade imbalance between the two economies. This approach could equally help the domestic economies of both countries. By reducing surplus savings, China would find new support for domestic demand, consistent with its policy of a large domestic cycle and a dual domestic and international cycle. Similarly, if the United States commits to boosting domestic savings, investment and productivity in the medium to long term, its long-term growth prospects could improve. Third, there are structural considerations. Ultimately, the focus of U.S.-China dispute resolution needs to shift from bilateral trade to key structural issues, such as intellectual property rights, technology transfer, subsidies to state-owned enterprises, and cybersecurity. The U.S.-China structural agenda framework should be based on improving market access for both countries and providing opportunities for growth. Rules-based market access should begin with the resumption of bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations. This will stand the test of time and is an approach that has been used by both countries for a long time before. The United States has 42 BITs in place, while China currently has more than 100 BITs in force. A U.S.-China BIT would remove the ownership cap on direct investment by multinational firms in both markets. This single provision would do away with joint venture structures in cross-border investments, , and the curve will resolve disputes over forced technology transfer. Without joint ventures, there would be no technology transfer to joint venture partners. A broader, enforcement-effective BIT could also be used to resolve disputes over intellectual property rights, industrial subsidies, and cybersecurity. Admittedly, it will be difficult for either side to choose to back down voluntarily after years of ongoing conflict, but both the United States and China need to take some steps to begin rebuilding mutual trust. Taking the first step toward rebuilding mutual trust is far better than staying where they are. With a fragile global economy struggling in the shadow of the epidemic, this is the time when the two most powerful countries in the world need to show leadership. The world cannot afford greater conflict in the wake of the epidemic. (The author is a senior fellow at the Yale School of Global Affairs and Management, former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, and author of "Out of Balance. This article was translated by Yizhi Ye)

 

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Prasar Bharati: According to reports, India and China are holding the 20th round of the WMCC talks today. And the last round of talks was held in September. This is happening after a very long time. I was wondering whether you have any comments or any expectations or provide some more details on it? Wang Wenbin: As you speak, the 20th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC) is underway. We will release more information in due course, please stay tuned.   N.B. The Ministry of External Affairs of India statement on this meeting is reproduced below:  

20th meeting of Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination on India-China Border Affairs

December 18, 2020

Extracts from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Regular Press Conference

  Global Times: The U.S. Department of State sent several tweets yesterday, citing Secretary of State Pompeo as saying "The Chinese Communist Party wants what we have, and it'll do whatever it takes to get it. The Chinese Communist Party poses a real threat. We want China to engage on the world stage the way we ask every other nation to." Do you have any comment? Wang Wenbin: Pompeo's remarks have no factual basis and are fraught with arrogance and prejudice. Happiness is achieved through hard work, this is a simple truth to every Chinese. China has grown from a poor country to the world's second-largest economy, as a result of the hard work of all Chinese people. We are committed to conducting friendly cooperation with other countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, but never count on others' alms-giving or charity to prosper, still less take pride in lying, cheating and stealing as someone does. The world is diverse, where democracy and the rule of law should be upheld. Exchanges between countries shall abide by the UN Charter and other basic norms of international relations, rather than follow the standards of a certain country. The relevant person on the U.S. side asked other countries to act in the way as it demanded. Such practice of dictating to other countries in a bossy manner stands in sharp contrast to the so-called democracy and freedom as often professed by him. Here are some facts you need to know about the so-called "China threat" alleged by Pompeo. First, in the 240-plus years since the founding of the United States, only 16 years have passed without a war. By contrast, China has not waged a single war since the founding of the new China. Second, the United States has been wantonly bullying other countries and willfully interfering in their internal affairs. China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs and opposed unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction. Third, the United States is engaged in massive surveillance such as PRISM, while China has never had such record. Fourth, the United States has yet to unconditionally commit itself not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones, while China is the only nuclear-weapon state that has made such a commitment. I have noticed that a recent poll in the United States shows that the majority of the American people support China-U.S. cooperation rather than confrontation. Once again, we urge relevant people on the U.S. side to get rid of the illusion of the so-called "China threat theory", listen to the rational voice of the American people, recognize the trend of the times, and do more practical things that are beneficial to China, the United States and the world.

December 13th is China's National Memorial Day. On various social media platforms, the Chinese public expressed their remembrances and condolences to the compatriots who died in the Nanjing Massacre, as well as their cherishing and prayers for peace. However, Western platforms such as Twitter actually used "bloody" and other rhetoric, deleting some historical photos of witnesses to the Nanjing Massacre released by users. This brings out the unfairness of these Western-led social media, and also makes people feel their prejudice against China and their disrespect for history. The historical tragedy of the Nanjing Massacre and the entire history of the Chinese War of Resistance are of course an important part of modern world history, and it is also an important part of the historical memory of the Chinese people and the world public. Remembering this history, the enlightenment it gives today is multifaceted. The most important thing is to remember history, so that the desire for peace and a better future for mankind can be expressed better, and important historical truths can be effectively and fully understood. However, the history that took place in East Asia has actually received very little attention and understanding in Western society. The tragedy of the Nanjing Massacre is rarely presented. Chinese American writer Zhang Chunru's work on the Nanjing Massacre has far-reaching influence, but its scope is quite limited. Many people in the West lack the basic understanding of this period of history. The West has a deep understanding of the tragedies of the Jews in World War II. In contrast, it is obvious that tragedies of the same nature that occurred in Asia are often ignored intentionally or unintentionally in the West, and even some are deliberately blocked. Some Western history textbooks are also very facile and scattered on this aspect. This is obviously related to the values ​​and "Euro-centricity" or "Western-centricity" of standards of judgement. In Western society, China's history is marginal and insignificant. Westerners have a very biased understanding of its historical significance. This idea is almost ingrained and long standing. The practice of Western social media at the present moment is actually an integral part of that de facto reality. There is another important factor that cannot be ignored. Chinese society remembers the tragedy of history. Of course, it is the prayer for peace and the expectation that mankind will transcend the sufferings of people that are caused by war. It is a sincere expectation for a better future for mankind and an important source of spiritual sustenance for the Chinese nation to move forward toward the future. These are all legitimate understandings of history. But in the West, the Chinese remembrance of history is sometimes deliberately misinterpreted as so-called extreme "nationalism". The Chinese people's painful memories of national humiliation and loss of national sovereignty in modern times, as well as the tragedy remembering the Nanjing Massacre, have also been unwarrantedly distorted as "arousing radical national sentiments". Some people in the West believe that China's memory of this period of history is out of a feeling of "revenge" for other peoples. This creates a panic about China's development and China's rise, feeding into a version of the "China threat" theory. The Chinese public's understanding of a century of humiliation is also regarded as part of the "anti-West" sentiment deliberately created by Chinese society and the result of political "incitement" or "agitation". They even regard some legitimate voices of China in the international community as a "threat" to them. This kind of understanding is far from the reality of Chinese society and is a deliberately distorted understanding, and absurd basically. Regrettably, in recent years, such claims have been rampant in the West. With the continuous development of China and the improvement of its overall national strength, this (mis)understanding and (mis)perception has led to "anxiety" among some Western media and politicians. At the moment, when China is gradually coming out of the epidemic and some Western countries are still deeply involved in the epidemic, they unreasonably promote China's "threat" and exaggerate China's use of nationalism to challenge the world. It has to be said that in the 21st century, the Chinese people's statements of true history and national memory are still part of the "threat", which indeed reflects the prejudice and hostility of some people in the West towards China. And its ultimate goal is to shield the presentation of real history so that the world public cannot see the truth of history. Distorting the Chinese love of peace into emotions and even hostility towards the world is a manifestation of this anxiety. Respect for historical memory is an important norm of the international community. It is unfair to shield the truths of history, and it also shows the importance of keeping the truths of history and historical memory (alive and)  fully understood by the world.   (The author is a Professor at Beijing University)

Translation underway

Translation underway

Translation underway

For some time now, some people have spread all sorts of ideas and arguments for “reverence for America” and “kowtowing to it”, envying American “democracy” and “freedom” or lauding the current state of human rights in the United States or exaggerating the “resilience” of the American system. What is more, they have even “opened their minds” to praise for the United States’ capacity to fight the pandemic. Facts are the most potent way of “nailing” lies. The accumulated COVID-19 death toll in the US has exceeded 300,000. The painful cry (for help) of George Floyd from the Black community, “I can't breathe”; the chaotic situation of political polarisation in that country and the perfidious and peremptory bullying practices of some American politicians have long caused the image of the so-called “beacon state” to take a beating in the hearts (minds) of the people of the world. No matter how elaborately it is whitewashed or how hard some people may try to trick, they will find it difficult to escape an “encounter” with the truth. People have an innate ability to weigh matters. Some netizens’ comments have, rightly, hit the nail on the head: "Though quite clearly they are jokers, they consider themselves to be legends". The people who "pay obeisance to America" and “ko