Home

The Washington Post (WP) published an article on Wednesday entitled, "Anti-China is not anti-Asian." While it appears to stand against anti-Asian hate crimes, it is, as a matter of fact, merely manufacturing more hatred.

The opinion piece is filled with groundless accusations against China. It claims, "the central cause of the current epidemic of anti-Asian violence is resentment at the pandemic's staggering toll," and because "China has not been held to account." It blamed China for not having apologized for "mishandling of the outbreak" to reduce Americans' collective rage. Such rhetoric basically argues that racist hate crimes are justified because people have good reason to be furious. In other words, it is saying anti-Asian is wrong, but anti-China is somehow justified. This is the article's deranged, core theme. Xu Liang, associate professor at the School of International Relations, Beijing International Studies University, told Global Times on Wednesday that the author showed his understanding of US politics — appeasing Asians means getting more votes, so does spinning anti-China rhetoric. So, the WP is separating China from Asia, or Chinese from Asian. "Diplomatically, the tactic may disintegrate Asia, which aims at drawing more Asian countries to the US' anti-China camp. Domestically, it may isolate Chinese Americans from other Asian ethnic groups in the US," Xu said. The author, however, pretends to be unaware of his own well-choreographed political calculations, while clamoring that, "the overwhelming volume of the rhetoric targeting Beijing has been prompted not by abstract geopolitical competition but by tangible grievances, including China's genocide in Xinjiang, intensifying repression in Tibet, dismantling of democracy in Hong Kong…." Regardless of how reckless and groundless these denunciations are, the argument is confusing cause and effect. The US has a long track record of attacking China's affairs on the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and the Tibet Autonomous Region. "The fundamental driving force is exactly US geopolitical strategy," Xu noted, further explaining that Washington has hyped up relevant China affairs since Bill Clinton's presidency. A simple search for "Tenzin Dorjee," who wrote this piece, reveals that he once worked for the US-based National Endowment for Democracy. This is defined by some reports as a "CIA front" with the function to take over the CIA's political regime-change programs. It may explain where Dorjee's political stance in this piece came from, or the hidden purpose in it. Yet it is absurd to believe that one can separate Chinese from Asian in US systematic racism. Another case: in "Reckoning with Asian America," an op-ed published on April 2 in US Science magazine, made a review of the US', "under-recognized history of anti-Asian violence and discrimination" that "dates back more than 150 years." It articulated that Asian Americans are, "the least likely among all women to be promoted to leadership positions," and that, "US history is fraught with anti-Asian violence, misogyny, nativist discrimination, and legal exclusion, all of which are often absent in textbooks and university curricula." Do those have anything to do with COVID-19? It has nothing to do with the major power game with China, that's for sure. The truth is, the US, as a country of immigrants, has actually been a gate-keeping country, as Erika Lee, Rudolph J. Vecoli Chair and Director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota, put it. Before Dorjee, or the WP, attempts to find any excuse for the ongoing, shocking hate crime in the US, they might as well explore a bit more of US own history. Racism runs deep in the heart of quite a few Americans. And now some are taking the pandemic and China as scapegoats. Take a look at the headlines such as "Workplace Discrimination Based On Names." There has been basically no mention of distinguishing Asian people's nationalities when it comes to racism. When some deranged white Americans storm toward and brutally assault people of Asian heritage, they are not thinking about whether or not they are Asian or Chinese. This is indiscriminate violence. So the WP article is wrong on so-many levels. Worst of all, it is publicly fanning hostility toward another country and its people. This is an old trick of the US, both by certain politicians and media outlets, to divert the public's attention on the government's poor performance. Yet it will be the stability of US own society, home of various ethnic groups, that will eventually be hurt. The ruse, if played for too long, will only add fuel to the fire of US escalating violence. (The author is a reporter with the Global Times)

The 50th anniversary of "Ping-Pong Diplomacy" between China and the US arrives at an apt moment for reflection. Consider the parallels between then and now. Then, as now, there was little trust, even hostility. Public opinion in each country was almost entirely negative toward the other country. Media on each side streamed calumny and unnuanced criticism.

I am afraid that US-China relations today are even worse than they were in 1971. Then, the confrontation was passive, with neither side much involved with the other. Today, the confrontation is active, given the multiple points of contact, friction, flash and potential conflict - from technology to borders to geopolitics to claimed interference in domestic affairs. Competing global narratives, spun by the US and China, tell stories of opposing political systems and divergent characterizations of human rights. So we have work to do - those of us on both sides who believe that good US-China relations is in the best interest of the American and Chinese people and critical for the peace and prosperity of the entire world. What can we learn from the historic success of Ping-Pong Diplomacy? Here are some principles: • Think outside the box - don't rely on traditional ways of diplomacy alone. • Think small - when big breakthroughs are not possible, try small ones, even if they seem insignificant. • Find commonalities - seek areas that ordinary people can understand. • Explore public diplomacy - encourage people-to-people exchanges, such as in healthcare. • Maintain momentum - build on small successes. • Lighten up - everything need not be taken so seriously. Now for my own story of Ping-Pong Diplomacy. It was my first trip to China in January of 1989. I was invited by the State Science and Technology Commission for a conference on reform. My guide was a bright, energetic young man named Zhu Yadan (Adam). Adam was fluent in English and not at all intimidated by our strange group of American investment bankers. After giving my lecture (new-venture financing and entrepreneurial risk), I decided to pursue an ambition that differed from the officially mandated visits to the Beijing Opera and the Great Wall. I wanted to play Ping-Pong with the legendary Chinese. I had played well as a child and in college, but I hadn't picked up a paddle in years. Every time I saw Adam in the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, I beseeched him that I wanted to play Ping-Pong, and every time he replied that my schedule had been set by the authorities and no deviations were allowed. I kept bugging Adam, who tried to avoid me, not argue with me, so whenever he saw me coming, he headed off in the opposite direction. Frustrated, I ambushed him in the lobby: "If you won't take a risk to satisfy someone who has traveled 7,000 miles to help your country free of charge, there's no hope for entrepreneurship in China." The next day, while I was attending a lecture, Adam snuck up behind me and whispered, "Wait 10 minutes, then walk slowly out the back; look for a small black car." Feeling more like a spy than a would-be Ping-Pong player, I ambled out into the parking lot, trying to appear inconspicuous. I walked over to an old car. Suddenly, the door swung open and Adam, who was crouching furtively in the back seat, pulled me into the car as though I were being kidnapped. Off we drove to the People's University (of China), where waiting for me, to my horror, were three of China's national team players and one of the national coaches. To make matters worse, a hundred or so students had gathered to witness the Beijing debut of this American "champion." "Do you know Jack Smith [I forgot his real name]?" one of the Chinese players asked me. "He's No.1 in the US. I beat him 21-4." Well, the best I can say is that I wasn't a total embarrassment. The Chinese players kindly allowed me an increasing number of points per game - five, then eight, then 11 (games were still 21 points). All the Chinese students were rooting for me, and like Rocky Balboa, I began believing in myself. I turned to the translator and said with mock menace, "Please tell my Chinese friend that in the next game I'm now going to get 13 points." To which I got a swift, smiley reply, "Please tell my American friend that he's now going to get zero points." My opponent then announced to all that if I got three points in the next game, he would crawl under the table to shake my hand. The story ends as Rocky I did; I lost, of course, but I had my dignity. I did get those three points - one of which I actually earned - and, true to his word, under the table the Chinese national player crawled, to the unbridled delight, with applause and laughter, of the Chinese students. Adam Zhu would become my long-term business partner. Here's to more Ping-Pong Diplomacy! The author is chairman of The Kuhn Foundation and recipient of the China Reform Friendship Medal (2018). 

Cadets seen on the deck of the French amphibious assault helicopter carrier Tonnerre, as they prepare to dock at Cochin Port, in Kochi,India on March 30, 2021. Photo: AFP

A naval exercise between all members of Quad and France is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday. Times of India on Monday said the drill was to "eye on China" and underline "the growing strategic congruence in ensuring a secure and stable Indo-Pacific in face of China's belligerence in the region." Besides France, some other European powers, such as Germany and the UK, have also expressed their intentions in engaging in the Indo-Pacific region. The US-led Quad is attempting to expand into "Quad plus." European countries may be the ones the group wants to woo. These European countries' moves, such as conducting exercises with Quad, or sending warships to the Indo-Pacific region, are mainly to emphasize their presence in the region, Sun Chenghao, an assistant research fellow at the Institute of American Studies of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told Global Times on Wednesday. The Indo-Pacific region, as the geopolitical hotspot in the world, attracts global attention. Against this backdrop, countries who regard themselves as global players will not miss the opportunity to assert their presence. Collin Koh Swee Lean, a Research Fellow at the Singapore-based S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies' (RSIS) Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, said the exercises between Quad members and France might be "designed to persuade other non-Quad nations to join similar arrangements," cited by South China Morning Post on Sunday. He suggested Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia could be on the list of potential "Quad-plus" partners. Sun said this notion sounds exaggerated. As a country outside the region, France lacks mighty appeal to ASEAN members. Moreover, Paris has always advocated independent diplomacy and is reluctant to become a pawn of the US, helping the latter to persuade other countries to join a US-led club. But what is clear is that the US is trying to rally other countries to join its anti-China chariot. Such attempts will be full of difficulties. Countries from Southeast Asia and Europe have their own calculations. Their priority is to guarantee their security and ensure their economic interests, instead of joining whatever group against any country. Countries from the two regions heavily rest on China in terms of economy. Furthermore, there are many cases illustrating that Washington turned its back on its allies for seeking its own interest. For example, to rope in China to counter the Soviet Union in the 1970s, Washington severed diplomatic relations with the island of Taiwan and established official ties with Beijing in 1979. Southeast Asian and European countries are clear the US is not a reliable ally or partner, and will be cautious in participating in the anti-China club at the risk of offending China. Deutsche Welle Chinese on Tuesday tweeted that US, Japan, India, Australia and France - not eight yet - on its report about Quad-plus-France exercise, clearly an analogy to the "Eight-Nation Alliance," which refers to troops from the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, Italy and Austro-Hungary that invaded Beijing in 1900. Just as a netizen mocked, the problem is the US cannot rally with other seven countries against China now. It appears that Quad members are collaborating with more partners. But the fact is moves such as Quad-plus-France drill are only symbolic, without much influence on regional affairs. China is no longer what it was 120 years ago. No matter how hard the US strengthens its alliance system, it will fail to create a new "Eight-Nation Alliance."

US President Joe Biden wants to spend $2.3 trillion on infrastructure, a move that is obviously stimulated by the "rival" China. But when massive construction work in the US begins, the Americans might feel the pain of "political decoupling" with China.

A Chinese saying goes: "Any problem that money can fix is not a problem." I wonder if he knows it. Unfortunately, it is not a good time now for infrastructure development in the US. The No.1 problem Biden faces is: a lack of construction workers. A Yahoo news video from last year showed that the 2008 financial crisis cost the US construction industry 1.5 million jobs. By mid-2020 when the industry started to recover, there was still a labor shortage of 350,000. The key is having skilled workers, which the US now lacks. One reason is that fewer young people are willing to do the work. With a median annual wage of $34,810, the construction industry is arguably unattractive. This video also notes more construction industry problems, such as lack of construction materials. Many primary and auxiliary materials are no longer produced in the US, or only produced in small quantities with higher prices. If President Biden wants to learn some lessons from its "rival" China on this matter, the first thing is that the advancement of large-scale national infrastructure projects requires strong government decision-making, execution, coordination and communication and the capability to deploy companies. A 2017 survey taken in the US regarding infrastructure project delays showed that there were four main problems. The first was the communication process. The second was the decision-making process. The third was the design process, including design errors, and the fourth one was the operator's efficiency, including lack of skilled workers. All the four reasons were related to the government and its governance system if national or government projects are to be taken. Besides, infrastructure projects also need a lot of steel and iron. About 30 percent of steel in the US needs to be imported from abroad. The US Department of Commerce hopes to increase the self-sufficiency rate of steel and iron from 70 percent to 80 percent, but this goal isn't easy to achieve in the short term. Whereas former president Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum to the US, the price of construction materials increased significantly. This reflects a more troubling issue: the US is in the process of de-industrialization as it starts to engage in large-scale infrastructure. In China, the large-scale investment in infrastructure took place in the middle of the industrialization process. The country was able to accelerate the process of infrastructure due to the two factors complement each other. The US now wants to expand infrastructure while many related factories have already been relocated or closed. You can imagine the difficulty. There is also more telling data: only about 15 percent of current US capital from financial institutions goes to the real economy and business investment. In the early 20th century, banks would invest most of the money in real economy or business investment. Without investing in related manufacturing sectors, Biden's ambitious infrastructure plan won't see desired results even with a huge investment. Of course, there is an option. Perhaps more imports of "Made in China" could help remedy it. But I do not know whether the Biden administration is willing to do so. After the US finishes infrastructure upgrade, including internet networks, American households may need to upgrade relevant electrical appliance, which are inseparable from Made-in-China products, even if they are foreign brands. From Obama to Trump and now Biden, the slogan of revitalizing American manufacturing has been repeated. But there are few results. This is simply because of the law of economic operation. Trump has not bucked the law. His wealth was mainly dependent on careful calculation. His construction company was largely reliant on Chinese manufacturing products that were competitively priced. According to a 2016 report in Business Week, Trump imported steel and aluminum from China for at least two of his last three construction projects before entering the presidential race. One of his projects in Chicago purchased a large amount of energy-efficient glass walls from China. That alone cost American companies an estimated order of more than $350 million at US market prices. Trump made money by saving money, and, crucially, the quality of the construction did not deteriorate as a result. The author is a senior editor with People's Daily, and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn. 

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer reiterated on Saturday that a German frigate is scheduled to sail across the South China Sea in August. She also mentioned challenges related to "systemic confrontation with China." The foreign and defense ministers of Japan and Germany are scheduled to hold a "2+2" virtual dialogue in mid-April, reported the daily Yomiuri on Monday. Furthermore, all four members of the Quad kicked off the "La Pérouse" joint naval exercise, organized by France on Monday in the Bay of Bengal. The Quad, led by the US, has attempted to expand the bloc toward a "Quad plus." Washington and Tokyo hope Europe can join the group. They seem to have made some progress at least in terms of making noise through the appearance of coordination with others. The Biden administration's notion of strengthening the alliance system to deal with China's challenges caters to the unease in the West in the face of China's rise. Under the US' push, some European countries' shows against China will be increased. The US dominates this grand game against China, but the nature and tendency of the game remains uncertain. The most extreme US elites hope to escalate the China-US frictions into a new cold war. And so far they have launched quite a comprehensive mobilization in the political-level. But the security camp Washington intends to establish remains fragmentary. The US' goal of economic decoupling and confrontation is far from being achieved. China is encountering an unprecedented strategic test. We need to firmly take countermeasures against Washington's suppression, keep its allies from collaborating with the US' anti-China policies. We should resolutely take tit-for-tat actions when our core interests are violated. At the same time, we need to pay attention to the timeliness, the extent and the effectiveness of our actions, and avoid the formation of a focal point of which Washington can take advantage to further promote its mobilization in the West. We should also prevent the situation from being hijacked by US extreme elites to get to a point that is conducive to their intentions. Political frictions between China and the US or even China and the West are inevitable. The two sides will gradually adapt to such frictions. The future diversity of the world will only be a result of struggle. China will certainly insist on its political systems and national path. No one can deprive China of this right. Meanwhile, China needs to prevent political issues from being made into security issues, particularly from infiltrating into the economy. China is the most powerful country in terms of comprehensive strength in the region. Despite the US' instigation, China has a considerable edge to avoid the security issue being amplified. China' economic strength is particularly strong and continues to develop. China has stronger initiative to ease the impact of political and security issues on its economy - as long as China opposes the division and decoupling of the world economy, US advocators of a new cold war will be unlikely able to reach their goal. The strategic confidence of the Chinese people will be critical. We must believe that no one can bring China to its knees through military means. No matter how hard the US strengthens its alliance system, all they can do is flaunt their strength through military drills, or conduct so-called freedom of navigation operations. We must also believe that China's strength is sufficient to deal with the current and future complex situations. At the same time, we must believe that facts speak louder than words. Although public opinion in the US and the West is extremely unfriendly to China with endless slanders and smears, as long as China persists in the path of not expanding geopolitically, not provoking conflicts, and being committed to equal and mutually beneficial cooperation, its goodwill will be sensed by most countries, including Western countries. There will be various affairs in the global arena which need China's cooperation. The West's perception of China cannot be totally blocked by the US' ideological iron curtain. We must not allow the US to unscrupulously lead global affairs toward conflicts. On the contrary, we must use the resources and levers in our hands to release the diversity of this world. China is strong and getting stronger. It is possible for us to lead the world in another direction. China needs the will and capability to counter provocations and the vision and wisdom to prevent political disputes and general conflicts from evolving into strategic confrontations. China's rich resources in thoughts from its long history and its political system will offer us strong cohesion and help us withstand the unprecedented test.

US President Joe Biden unveiled a roughly $2 trillion American Jobs Plan focused on infrastructure and the climate crisis in a speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. To win support, he said that the "once-in-a-generation" investment would "put [the US] in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years."Much of infrastructure in the US has been old. Both Democrats and Republicans are on the same page on this matter. US former president Barack Obama in September 2010 proposed his ambitious plan to renew the US' transportation infrastructure, but failed to achieve it in both of his terms. Neither did Donald Trump. Biden launched the third round of such attempt. His plan contains the greatest details and seems to be the most serious one. However, the Biden administration's infrastructure plan was met with opposition from Republicans when it was announced. Trump slammed the infrastructure plan as a "giveaway to China" in a statement on Wednesday, and said that the proposed tax increases designed to fund the $2 trillion proposal would end up backfiring by sending American jobs overseas. Biden may once again have mired himself down in a situation where everyone agrees that it was the right thing to do, but no one can agree on how to do it or where the money will come from. US society has been gravely divided. The more interests involved in carrying out a big plan, the more opportunities for political struggles to be created, which will hinder the goal to be achieved. This is the root of the US' problem. To engage in infrastructure construction, the internal driving force of society should have been far greater than the resistance from disputes by different interest groups, but this is not the case in the US. Exploiting "defeating China" as a thrust to push the plan sharply deviates from the appropriate track. This makes the plan hard to achieve. Has China ever thought of competing with the US as it builds high-speed trains, widen the highway network and build network base stations? They are entirely China's own national agenda. The incentive to invest is strong, and the general public is very supportive. We can say that China's infrastructure advances with ease. Our concern is often that we should not work lavishly on these projects in case they lead to interim waste or debt. The US now has China everywhere in its mind with regard to its domestic policy, attaching labels of national security randomly, and blaming China for any industrial imbalance in the US. Apart from instigating nationalism, this would do little to solve the problem. Over time, the US will not only be down with an anti-China syndrome and strike at anything Chinese, but will also only be able to make its policy with anti-China elements. This will lead to the misdirection of its goal time and again and cause it lose its way in development. The US should force itself to forget about China more often. What the US needs to do is struggling with itself. It has been more than a decade since it has called for the construction of the high-speed railway. Why hasn't a single kilometer been built? What does this inefficiency have to do with China? Trump overturned many of Obama's policies and now Biden overturned Trump's policies. Is this what China seduced the US to do? It is quite impressive that Washington is beginning to value some important lessons from China. Conflict is also a way to learn from each other. China's key experience is to mind its own work well. Biden's determination to improve infrastructure and increase investment in technology seems to have taken something from China's direction. We hope that the US could adhere to this idea. It is the right way forward. If the US really initiated a new investment in infrastructure, it is believed that Chinese society in general will be optimistic about its success. More of this kind of engagement by the US will increase its market demand, which is a positive factor in the expansion of China's economic growth. After all, the contest between China and the US should have been focused on the competition of domestic development, rather than playing chess on the diplomatic front. If Washington had refocused its attention, it might not have exaggerated the "China threat" theory as much as it does now. They will find that the benefits of China-US cooperation may outweigh the zero-sum competition with China "from a position of strength." China could be a partner, not a rival, in Biden's plan to revitalize US infrastructure, if Washington so desires. Obsessive focus on making enemies or confrontation is narrow-minded and an exhausted strategy. It is an unwise one. This is true of a person, and it is also true of a country.

The late renowned US geopolitical thinker Zbigniew Brzezinski made an insightful and exclusive analysis of geopolitical patterns in his famous book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Many of his judgments still have vitality today. Brzezinski pointed out in his book that "Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." His warnings against US diplomacy have once again garnered much attention in recent days. Whereas US relations with China, Russia and Iran have, to varying degrees, fallen into tensions, the latter three countries have made new progresses in developing relations among them. This pattern has made some media outlets and analysts believe that Brzezinski's prediction is now becoming a reality. However, if we look deeper into Brzezinski's point of view, perhaps we shouldn't focus too much on whether it has, or will, come true or not. Brzezinski himself held onto the belief that such "contingency" was remote. In fact, what he really wanted to convey by issuing such a warning is that the US shouldn't make enemies everywhere and bring ruin upon itself. Brzezinski wrote, Eurasia is the "chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played," where there are many "geostrategic players" and "geopolitical pivots." He added, "How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy." In the view of Brzezinski, China and Russia are classified into geostrategic players, while Iran is one of the geopolitical pivots. This can illustrate the importance of the three countries. In the 1990s, the US was immersed in the dream of pursuing "unipolar hegemony." Against this backdrop, Brzezinski put forward such prudent judgment and advice to the US policymakers. This shows his capability. Unfortunately, since he published his analysis more than two decades ago, US diplomacy has been walking along the track of self-centeredness — especially as "America First." For example, president Bill Clinton promoted democracy across the world. George W. Bush recklessly waged wars in the name of countering terrorism. Barack Obama used his presidency to redefine "American exceptionalism." Donald Trump attempted to reconstruct US hegemony by disruptive means. The US never seems to have a deep, accurate assessment of the real world in which it is a part. It does not seem to know what role it is supposed to play. This country lives in a world of its own imagination. When Joe Biden took office, there was much talk that "America is back," and that "diplomacy is back at the center of [US'] foreign policy." We've heard that the "alliance of democracies" would lead the world again. These loud but empty slogans still ignore the fast-changing nature of world politics revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The US may want to come back, but is the world willing or able to go back to the times when the US could rally multitudes at its calls? If a global poll were conducted, the answer to that question would probably not satisfy the US. With the foreign policy of the new administration, it is obvious that the traces of American bullying are still evident. The US has alleged to see "a stiff competition with China," to unite like-minded allies and partners and to hold China accountable on a variety of issues by building a position of strength. The US President ignored diplomatic protocols and called the Russian leader a "killer." This was a personal attack that is not helpful to bilateral relations — not now and not at any time. The US has declared to come back into compliance with the Iran nuclear deal. But it only mentions the obligations for Iran to dismantle some of its nuclear equipment, rather than the US' responsibility to lift sanctions. The US has failed to show due respect for a sovereign state. Faced with the development of friendly, non-aligned interstate relations between China, Russia and Iran, the US is once again suffering from its delusions of persecution. It went back to its old ways of looking for enemies and trying to tie the entire West to its chariot against non-Western countries. Regardless of the development of the trilateral relations, Washington should realize that the time when the US could confront several countries at the same time has long passed. This Cold War mentality no longer meets the current reality. As Brzezinski argued, in the long run, global politics is destined to become increasingly incompatible with a situation in which one country has exclusive hegemonic power. Thus, the US is not only the first and only truly global superpower. But it may well be the last as well. The US government should perhaps listen more often to such honest advice, though they may be unpleasant to hear. In addition to dealing with the pandemic and recovering the US economy, the Biden administration needs to thoroughly rethink the US foreign policy and give up illusions of hegemony. Washington needs to think seriously about how to treat other countries in the world as equals and live together peacefully. It also needs to try to be a normal member of the international community instead of an exceptional, American-style leader. The author is an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.

Indian media should not make eye-catching sensational reports on Taiwan question, and if Indian government challenges China's bottom line it will result in a tit-for-tat response from China, Chinese experts warned, after the Chinese Embassy in India condemned Indian media for seriously violating the One-China principle and provoking China's bottom line in a wrong editorial on Taiwan island.

The embassy urged the media to take a correct stance and avoid sending wrong messages to the public, a spokesperson of the embassy said in a statement on Monday. It expressed strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to the "erroneous remarks" of the media in question. The embassy did not directly mention the name of the Indian media, but the Global Times found that the Times of India recently published an editorial titled "New Delhi-Taipei cooperation is both mutually beneficial and a pointed signal to China" challenging China's red line on Taiwan island. Indian media and think tanks have been constantly egging the government on to "break the bottom line" due to various factors, but experts believe that the Indian government is still sober and cautious, and knows where the "red line" lies, and that China also has "cards" that can be played in a tit-for-tat exchange. Long Xingchun, president of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs, told the Global Times on Tuesday that Indian media is only fooling itself and attempting to attract attention in inciting the Indian government to play cards over the Taiwan question. Playing the "Taiwan card" has always existed in India's policy toward China, and such a tone will quickly rise to the surface when there are twists and turns in China-India relations or there is a demand for the Indian government to cooperate with the US to contain China, experts said. The Indian government clearly understands crossing China's bottom line will bring harm to bilateral relations, and India won't get any payoff from it, thus India will not make major moves on Taiwan question, but some small actions that beef up communications with Taiwan cannot be ruled out, Long noted. In its editorial, the newspaper claimed that "India shouldn't be overly concerned about China's political claims on Taiwan" and advocated that "cooperation with Taipei makes strategic sense for New Delhi" when Beijing clearly doesn't respect "One India." It even incited India to collaborate with Taiwan island in several fields from smart cities and farm tech to semiconductors, renewable energy and Mandarin learning. "Taiwan Education Centres can easily substitute for China's problematic Confucius Institutes," it said. The "One India" concept was first publicly proposed by the then Indian foreign minister Swaraj when she talked about China-India relations in 2014, meaning that China had to make concessions in the China-India territorial disputes and recognize Kashmir as Indian territory, experts noted. As for how China can counter India in this regard, Lin Minwang, a research fellow with the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, said that India's control of Kashmir is a headache for the Indian government. If India supports China's separatist forces, it means that it has undermined the principle of establishing diplomatic relations, and China will not respect India's sovereignty or territorial integrity. Long said that many armed forces in India, especially in the northeast, have demanded China's support. The embassy said that China firmly opposes any country that has diplomatic ties with China making any form of official contact or exchanges with Taiwan. China's red line on the Taiwan question cannot be challenged and there is no room for compromise, the embassy said. The Chinese government has firm resolve to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have the capability to thwart separatist attempts for "Taiwan independence" in whatever form, the embassy said.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) is like no other party in the world. It requires us to rethink the very idea of what a political party is. It is a phenomenon intrinsic to China. It is ineluctably Chinese. The CPC's extraordinary success is because it found a way during its 100-year history of combining a huge reforming capacity with a profound rootedness in Chinese society and culture. If the imperial dynasties defined Chinese governance for two millennia, the CPC has assumed a not dissimilar importance in China since 1949. There has been an overwhelming failure to grasp the nature of the CPC in the West. This ignorance reached new heights after 2016. The CPC was equated with the Soviet Communist Party. But they have very little in common. Why should they? Russia could hardly be more different from China. The CPSU was a historical failure: in contrast, the CPC, over the last century, has arguably been the world's most successful political party. It is impossible to understand the CPC in terms of traditional Marxism; from well before 1949, the CPC's Marxism was highly nativized. The CPC, furthermore, is rooted in and profoundly influenced by Confucianism. It might be described as a hybrid of Chinese Marxism and Confucianism. The CPC is shaped by and is as complex as Chinese civilization, of which, of course, it is a product. There is a profound belief in the West that a one-party system is unsustainable because it is incapable of reform. That is not born out by the history of the CPC. It has, more than any other party in the world, displayed a remarkable ability to reform. Perhaps the most dramatic illustration was the transition from Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping. Deng recognised that the Maoist system was stymied and introduced two fundamental reforms: he embraced the market as integral to Chinese socialism alongside the state and planning; and integrated China into the global economy. Such a profound shift could only be executed by a party possessed of huge self-confidence and with very deep roots in society. It is also a reminder of the essential pragmatism that informs the CPC. "Seek truth from facts" lies at the heart of its philosophy and has been the underlying principle of the reform period. This has never been the case more than now. Professionalism, experimentalism and the scientific method are the hallmark of Chinese governance. In the West, the debate about governance has been overwhelmingly organised around the principle of electoral democracy. State competence is regarded as very much secondary. The opposite is true in China: state competence is primary. This is closely related to the importance attached to meritocracy, both now and historically. In order to rise to the highest levels, the party requires a very high level of education and the broadest experience of managing a modern economy and society. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the extraordinary competence of Chinese governance: first, China's economic rise over the last 40 years, the most remarkable economic transformation in modern history; and second, the manner in which China succeeded in eliminating the pandemic, which was a triumph of governance. China has never regarded itself as a model for others. It has long recognised that its history, culture and sheer size make it unique. China has never required or expected other countries to be like it. The CPC has never thought its political system should be regarded as a template for others, unlike in the case of the US, UK and the former Soviet Union. China's rise will not change that. In the longer term we should expect a different tendency: As China becomes increasingly important and influential as an exemplar, other countries will inevitably seek to learn from its achievements, be it, for example, economic policy, dealing with pandemics, technological innovation, governmental competence or climate change. The CPC has set the goal of building "a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious" by 2049. That still lies almost three decades in the future. By then one can only surmise where China might be and what level it might have reached. It is likely to be by far the largest economy in the world. It will enjoy far higher living standards, though still well short of those in the US. Travel times between cities and within cities will have greatly contracted. A large majority of the population will have been born since 2000 with no first-hand knowledge of when China was still poor and half the population lived in the countryside, in other words, with profoundly different expectations. To govern and lead a very different kind of country will require the CPC to continue its constant process of change and reinvention. The fact that it combines pragmatism with the great Chinese tradition of thinking long-term will stand it in good stead. One thing is sure: Based on its achievements, its capacity for governance, and its ability to change, the CPC will still be China's leader and architect. The author was until recently a Senior Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University. He is a Visiting Professor at the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University and a Senior Fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University.

 

What next for India? Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

The Times of India (TOI) took a senseless step to test China's bottom line on the Taiwan question, calling the island "a vibrant nation" on Sunday. In an editorial entitled, "Taiwan message: New Delhi-Taipei cooperation is both mutually beneficial and a pointed signal to China," the TOI claimed "with the troop disengagement process in eastern Ladakh stalled, Beijing clearly doesn't respect 'One India.' There is no reason then for India to be overly sensitive about China's territorial claims." Editors of the piece seem to be in urgent need to brush up on both history and common sense. The Taiwan question was a result of China's civil war and is China's internal affairs. Border disputes are unsettled controversies among different countries. The two things are apples and oranges. "The TOI has gone way out of line by publicly stating that the island of Taiwan is a country," Liu Zongyi, secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told the Global Times on Tuesday. Liu noted what's concerning is that this editorial may represent the voice of New Delhi. So far, New Delhi does not have the nerve to break the one-China principle. But Liu said it has been playing tricks behind the scenes. This includes co-hosting forums to spread its concealed motives through dual-track communications. Take the Raisina Dialogue, a multilateral conference hosted by the India-based think tank Observer Research Foundation in partnership with the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. In 2016, Taiwan representative Tien Chung-Kwang was introduced as the "ambassador of embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to India" in the conference booklet. Observers believe when Indian media outlets get increasingly arrogant over the issue, it is not simply because of the so-called freedom of press. To some extent, they are backed by the government to make breakthroughs step by step, Liu suggested. After witnessing the US and some of its allies keep raising their voices on the Taiwan question, New Delhi, spoiled by Washington, which keeps cozying up to India, yet merely wants to make the South Asian nation a pawn, starts to have a swollen head to believe it also has a "Taiwan card" to play. It may fantasize it could make China compromise on border disputes by clamoring about the Taiwan question. But if India really tends to fish in troubled waters over the issue, China has enough tools to shatter its illusions. The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, including respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of each other, is the cornerstone of China-India diplomatic relations. Supporting Taiwan secession is equivalent to violating the principle of the establishment of bilateral ties. In that case, New Delhi should beware of Beijing's reciprocal countermoves. "One of the measures could be not recognizing Sikkim as a part of India," Liu told Global Times. If India supports secessionist forces in China, the latter could as well support separatist forces in northeast India in an-eye-for-an-eye manner. The one thing India should concern the most is definitely not Taiwan, but its own disastrous epidemic. India reported a record rise in COVID-19 infections on Monday. Reuters reported that there were "103,558 new infections" in a single day. At this time, constantly playing up the Taiwan question would only make India appear that it is at its wits' end - every time India suffers from domestic problems, it ramps up tensions with China to distract the public's attention. India is supposed to be a developing country with enormous potential. Even amid the pandemic, it is the world's biggest maker of vaccines. Unfortunately, the country has only been hurting itself by putting geopolitical tricks in front of everything else.

Can foreigners in China enjoy sufficient financial services? Yiwu, an export-oriented city in East China's Zhejiang Province, has made the country's first move to issue foreign merchant cards that provide foreigners with financial services to facilitate their online shopping, consumption as well as finance and investment needs.

It has been an important achievement of Yiwu's financial reforms made over the past eight years. As an evaluation expert of Yiwu's financial reforms, I have been extremely impressed with the city's diligent work. In an evaluation conference held early this month, Yiwu mayor Wang Jian solicited more support from officials from Beijing to let foreigners obtain better financial services so that they could pursue more trans-border financial cooperation projects. Yiwu's call for more financial opening measures is well-founded. As the world's top wholesale market for small commodities, more than 500,000 foreign businessmen come to Yiwu for purchasing annually, and about 15,000 merchants from more than 100 countries and regions have permanently stayed in the city. Many people do not think that this small county-level city has the most delivery businesses and is an experimental city that has piloted over 20 national reforms. For example, the individual foreign exchange settlement system was extended from Yiwu to the whole country. Yiwu's financial opening epitomizes China's reform and opening-up progress. As China is being integrated deeply into the world, no force can stop the advancement of the country's reform and opening-up - of which financial opening-up is an integral part. There are people both within the country and abroad who criticize China's financial opening-up. Those in the country worry that financial opening-up could lead to financial disturbances or systemic crisis. Some fear China's capital may exit the country or become controlled by foreign organizations. And, some foreigners have questioned the sincerity of China's financial opening-up measures, worrying that China will take a protectionist approach and restrict foreign capital from entering. Those voices have their limitations. When China's financial market was weak, the concern that developing countries' finance may be disturbed by foreign-controlled hot money is justified. The bloody lesson from the 1997 Asian financial crisis that began in Thailand has always been on the mind of China's financial researchers and decision-makers. Since China initiated the iconic reform and opening-up drive, a systematic financial crisis has never occurred in China over the past 40 years. Today, China has become one of the world's biggest credit markets and owns the largest foreign reserve. It is also the world's second-largest equity, bond and insurance market now. China has enough confidence to manage its opening-up steps. In 2018, China announced it would greatly widen the market access to overseas financial organizations, including its stock and bonds market. In 2020, the country even canceled the shareholding ratio requirement for foreign investment, a sign that China's financial sector was accelerating opening-up. A survey in 2020 showed that 67 percent of foreign companies believed that China's financial sector had opened up more with an easier access. The study further found that the biggest challenges for China's financial reforms include giving foreign companies national treatment and market access (43 percent), improving China-US relations (23 percent), compliance issue (17 percent), and competition from Chinese financial institutions (13 percent). The statistics objectively reflect the complexity and comprehensiveness of China's financial sector opening-up. I would like to remind foreign friends not to doubt the sincerity of China's financial opening-up measures. The majority of the Chinese people have realized that financial opening-up is an important part of China's national rejuvenation efforts. A very much developed and open financial system can better relocate resources across the globe and provide flexible assistance to economies that suffer from emergencies and adverse impacts. It can also mobilize domestic and foreign resources with financial tools to boost a country's long-term and steady economic growth. It can accelerate technological development and upgrade key industries and build up the national strength. If we compare finance in China and the US, China's financial sector remains quite young. It needs to learn lessons from the US and other developed countries. In this light, China must strike a triangle balance among security, development and opening-up. From the perspective of Yiwu city, I feel more hopeful. As they promote financial services for foreigners, they also guard against possible pitfalls by comprehensively assessing the credit risks of foreign organizations. We have every reason to believe that China's financial sector opening-up has just started. The author is professor and executive dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China

China does not accept any country in the world that places itself as superior to others, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a press conference on Sunday about his recent meetings in East China's Fujian Province with foreign ministers from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea, according to China's Foreign Ministry. The remarks send a signal that China's diplomacy is getting increasingly confident and decisive. Wang said he has communicated with foreign ministers from the five countries on China-US ties, and all sides agreed that China's development and growth is in line with the anticipations of regional countries as well as their long-term interests. The door for dialogue with China is open, but the dialogue must be done on an equal basis and with mutual respect, Wang said, according to a press release from the Foreign Ministry. The remarks give clear indications in three categories. To begin with, China adheres to the principle of mutual respect when interacting with others diplomatically. Such a stance will not change because of other countries' different national strengths. Also as the international order is now at a critical crossroads, what kinds of criteria should be followed in future global interactions? Wang's statement offers a clue. Wang echoes and reemphasizes what Chinese top diplomat Yang Jiechi made clear during the Alaska talks with the US in March, when Yang articulated that the US is "not qualified to speak to China from a position of strength." Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Monday that "China is getting more courageous and resolute, and is dealing with global affairs with Chinese wisdom and strategies." A new mode of interactions between the two powers is taking shape, where China is trying to communicate with the US with confidence, on an equal footing and on the basis of the new balance of power. The world is witnessing the new change in global order where the East is rising while the West is declining. This is a fact recognized by many observers, Li said. Yet when China speaks up or makes counter moves against US bullying, Washington can hardly digest the change with its "how dare China" anxiety. It wishes to be head and shoulders above others indefinitely and believes it can deal with China as it did with its puppet allies. Worse, the US is pinning the "wolf warrior" label on China's current diplomacy. Li told Global Times that the US itself is the craziest wolf warrior in the world, as it brings wars and turmoil everywhere it sets foot. "US diplomacy is belligerent and is splitting the world apart," Li said. Quite the contrary, China's diplomacy is peaceful, inclusive, reciprocal and full of mutual respect. When China said it does not accept any country placing itself as superior to others, it is not speaking for itself, but a growing number of countries. Asian nations are well aware that regional peace should be grasped in their own hands. As Wang said, China will not compromise or retreat, as it sticks to the basic norms of international relations and stands for the interests of many developing, small and medium-sized countries. If Washington still cannot figure this out, Beijing will keep reminding it, time and again.

Will the Cold War come back? Elites and politicians in the strategic domain are getting more serious about this question after US President Joe Biden declared to forge an "alliance of democracies". After the China-US Alaska talks on March 19, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit to the Middle East and his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was described by the New York Times as an attempt to forge an "alliance of autocracies." "The world is increasingly dividing into distinct if not purely ideological camps, with both China and the US hoping to lure supporters," it read. The US always had the Cold War mentality during and after the Cold War. Biden made that clear in his first presidential news conference on March 25 when he called the challenge from China and Russia "a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies." Biden's alliance strategy strengthened both the Cold War mentality and actions at the same time, trying to make the world believe that the Cold War was inevitable. "But it's almost impossible to divide the world into two separate camps, because the world is not just the US and China. There are many countries in the world and many international organizations, and they have different voices about where the international order is moving toward." Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Sunday. The objective reality of the declining soft power of the US proves that the Cold War order that the US desires ̶ an autocracy camp against a democracy camp ̶̶ will not become the mainstream value of the world. The poverty, racial discrimination, collapse of democracy and economic recession that the US faces at home will not be solved by dividing the world into two camps. Moreover, none of the US allies will be willing to follow the US on every issue or take sides against China. US has its strength, absolutely, but it should not overestimate its omnipotence. Behind the Cold War mentality was the idea of trying to resolve internal divisions in Western society by means of instigating external challenges. The result is a Washington that is unable to focus on solving its domestic issues, and a climate that makes it difficult to work with other nations on global issues. "The most effective way to deal with US' desire to divide the world is to establish a multilevel equilibrium in different directions." Li noted. Robert Kagan described the US as a "dangerous nation" in his book Dangerous Nation: America's Place in the World, from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the 20th Century. Exactly. The diplomatic policy of the US has become more and more irrational, thus making the country a dangerous one. It looks at China whenever making a policy. Will all countries need to take sides between the US and China in their policymaking and economic development? US and Western politicians with political amnesia seem to have forgotten what the ideological opposition in 1947 has brought to the world. It has caused long-term confrontation between the East and the West, impeded the integrated development of the world, caused the division of Germany, Korea and other countries, and triggered local wars. When security and survival become the overwhelming priority, how can we talk about development? In the Cold War era, the two camps were isolated from each other and formed two parallel markets, which brought incalculable negative impact on the development of the world economy. The development of the world economy evolved from the "two camps" and "three worlds" model to the current huge and unified division of labor system that spans regions and political systems and covers almost all countries is one of the biggest achievements of economic globalization. As countries become increasingly dependent on each other on market supply, manufacturing, and division of labor, a new cold war will inevitably lead to the collapse of the industrial chain and losses for both sides. Cold War mentality and forcing other countries to take sides is not a demonstration of US' power. However, as Bloomberg mentioned in an article entitled "US-China Cold War Will Have More Than Two Sides", that "such cold war ideologies can never truly replace [US'] messy reality." In short, Cold War mentality won't restore US' declining soft power.

Editor's Note:

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between Russia and China. During the recent visit to China by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the two sides agreed to extend the treaty and enrich it with the essence of a new era. What is the essence of the new era? What is the trajectory of China-Russia relations in face of US hegemony? Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Wenwen interviewed Ivan Timofeev (Timofeev), Director of Programs at the Russian International Affairs Council, over these issues. GT: What do you think are entailed in the essence of the new era in terms of China-Russia relations? Timofeev: The treaty was a significant landmark in Russia-China relations. To understand its importance one just needs to compare Russia-West and Russia-China relations. The Russia-West border is getting more and more militarized while the Russia-China border is getting less and less militarized. We have no territorial disputes and our trade and political relations are moving forward. We may need to rethink the treaty in the future due to the fact that Sino-Russian relations are getting closer to alliance relations. This alliance may be flexible; however, the quality of relations now is different than we had even 10 years ago. And this new quality needs a reflection in the legal framework of our relations. GT: Before US President Joe Biden took office, he labeled Russia as the biggest threat to US security and an opponent, while China is a "serious competitor." In Biden's tenure, what will be the trajectory of Russia-US relations and China-US relations? What will be the biggest factor of uncertainty for Russia-US relations? Timofeev: Russia-US relations are trapped by contradictions on fundamental issues and are not likely to improve in the near future. The key uncertainty is about new political incidents, which may make relations even harder. The US approach to China will be more hostile. This is a long term strategy to contain China. And the change of administration will hardly affect this strategic priority for the US. GT: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China and Russia should work together to fight color revolution and disinformation. Both are victims of the Western color revolution and propaganda offensives. In what areas can the two sides cooperate? Timofeev: Both China and Russia regard color revolutions as an interference into domestic affairs. Moscow and Beijing may cooperate closer on exposing the fake news about the two countries. Both countries need to increase youth exchanges and raise awareness about the culture, history and society of each other. GT: Europe and the US have ratcheted up sanctions on Russia and China over human rights, but avoided economic sanctions comparatively. Are these sanctions a show of their hegemony? Some Russian scholars believe the sanctions will be a new normal in Russia and China's relations with the West. What do you think? Timofeev: Human rights sanctions are rather of a signaling nature. They do not affect the economy much. However, there is a potential for targeted sanctions, which may be more painful for both countries. We will see more sanctions against China and Russia in the future. Yes, this is a new normal. GT: A joint statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov opposed politicization and double standards on human rights issues. How can China and Russia join hands to counter the West, e.g. via the UN Human Rights Council? Timofeev: Russia and China have a good and solid experience of cooperation at the UN Security Council. However, more domains should be explored and UNHRC is one of them. Human rights is an important global issue and both countries should address it via the UN. What Russia and China could do is to promote the resolution of global problems, such as poverty. Real achievements on improvement of human lives give much more than just words about human rights. Other UN institutions like UNDP may be a field of more active efforts. GT: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during his trip to Chinese city of Guilin that China and Russia should work together to move away from dollar payments. This triggered attention from the Western media. You also suggested in your article the issue of a single payment system in the EAEU and the SCO formats. Can you explain the roadmap for such measures? Timofeev: The US dollar is a comfortable instrument for international business. However, the US may use it to achieve political goals, so China, Russia and even the EU have to think about alternatives. This change should not be done overnight, not to harm business. But gradual change is needed. GT: Both China and Russia stress partnership rather than an alliance, but both do face real security threats from the US-led West. How can China and Russia cooperate in providing mutual security support? Timofeev: Sino-Russian relations are still not an alliance, but they are more than partnership. Both sides should carefully work on the parameters of new relations to address common security challenges. I would not exclude the alliance in the future, especially if the pressure from the West is growing up. GT: To what extent does the world come to a balance of power with one side being China and Russia and the other side led by the US and the West? Timofeev: I would not say that we already have such a balance. But this is one of the possible alternatives for the world in the future. Russia and China are feeling good in a multipolar world. However, they may be forced to compose a closer security alliance and promote their interests in an increasingly bipolar world. This would be an alternative to the US hegemony.

A view in New Delhi's strategic circle argues that China benefited greatly from its engagement with the US from 1972 to around the year 2000, and thus, India should   learn from China to use the US chariot to achieve its own development. There is no problem at all for New Delhi to strengthen its economic ties with Washington, as the US remains the world's largest economy today. But there is a big difference between the India-US proximity now and China and the US moving close back then. First, Beijing and Washington began their cooperation partly to jointly confront the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. The US almost had no economic exchanges with its then-rival, the Soviet Union. But now the Cold War has been long over, and China is not the new Soviet Union. China is still quite close with the US, especially economically. The large scale of trade between the two countries is self-evident. Second, after China-US relations were normalized and Beijing and Washington began economic cooperation, many of the US' low- and medium-end industries were transferred to China. But now, the US domestic manufacturing is facing a state of hollowing out. Washington now wants to bring the manufacturing back. It does not have much to transfer to New Delhi. From 1972 to 2000, China and the US approaching each other objectively alleviated China's security pressure, allowing China to concentrate more resources on economic construction. However, New Delhi's approach to Washington today will do more harm than good to India's security and economy. In terms of security, India wants to take advantage of the US, but the US is also seeking to make use of India to contain and confront China. This will inevitably intensify the China-India confrontation, requiring India to invest more in the military field. As a result, it will squeeze India's resources for economic development, which is not beneficial for New Delhi. With the continuous rise of emerging economies, the US' national strength is declining. Many actions of the US are based on its own interests. India now wants to get on the US chariot, but the present-day US no longer has the international status it had during the Cold War. If there is a military conflict between China and India, the US will at best provide India with political and diplomatic aid, as well as weapons and intelligence. New Delhi must understand that Washington will not fight a war with Beijing for the sake of India. India will have to bear the price itself if it starts a military conflict with China. India needs to understand that what India is facing is China, a country that currently plays the role the US played in the 1980s and 1990s. When China started opening-up to the US, the US was a huge economic engine in the world, which objectively pushed China's development. However, China is now the world's second-largest economy, and it has regained its position as the top trading partner of India in 2020, while the US is in a phase of relative decline. India's approach to the US today and its resistance to Chinese investment have a great impact on the Indian economy. China's all-round opening-up at that time was not limited to the US; it was open to all countries and regions. India's current approach to crack down on China's investment to get closer to the US has damaged India's investment environment. If the opportunity of achieving economic growth is missed, it will be very detrimental to India's development. India will lose a historic opportunity to become a powerful country. Therefore, the most sensible choice for India is to stick to traditional strategic thinking, which is keeping a balance. It's no problem to have a good relationship with the US, but it cannot be done at the expense of the relationship with China. New Delhi has made major mistakes in its strategic judgment of Beijing, perceiving that the latter has the intention of threatening it. However, if India continues with such a misunderstanding, it will spend a lot of economic resources on confrontation with China, which will hinder its own rise. The author is a senior research fellow with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at the Beijing Foreign Studies University, and president of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs.

As China rises on the international stage, some Western countries feel that China is being increasingly offensive. China's moves that fight for its own interests and even objectively state facts will be regarded as "wolf warrior diplomacy" or even "arrogant." In their minds, China should swallow its anger, insults and smears, or at least not be on par with the West. These Western elites still believe this is the time when they can act capriciously.

For example, The Economist released an article online for its April 3 print edition entitled "China is betting that the West is in irreversible decline." The article listed China's tough stance during the Alaska talks and China's recent sanctions on some British, Canadian and European Union individuals, concluding that China is "hubristic and paranoid" and is prepared for a "protracted struggle." Times have changed, but the mind-set of some Western elites has not. The US and other Western countries need a complete change in their understanding and attitude toward China. In the Western stereotype, China has been in a passive position in the international community ever since its gate was forcibly opened by the West in the 19th century. Western elites cannot accept that China is now righteously refuting their arrogance and nonsense. They should stop pretending that they can point fingers at China imperiously. That era has long been gone. April 1 marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of Chinese air force pilot Wang Wei who died when his fighter jet collided with a US military reconnaissance aircraft in the South China Sea. In 2001, the US showed off at China's doorsteps, leading to Wang's sacrifice. But the US did not even apologize and the American pilot who crashed Wang's jet was even praised by the US. Today, does the West still expect China to endure Western elites' provocation like 20 years ago? China is a country of etiquette and Chinese diplomats abide by diplomatic etiquette. But when China is provoked and its core interests are threatened, China will never give in. When Western countries use fake news to smear China's governance in Xinjiang, try to mess up China's stability and even impose sanctions, China is absolutely justified to respond with countermeasures. This is what every sovereign country would do. China was once invaded by the "Eight-Nation Alliance" - troops from Britain, the US, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, Italy and Austro-Hungary, and now it seems that the Group of Seven members are still staying in that era, trying to jointly criticize China's policies on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and other internal affairs. However, they can no longer use their so-called gunboat diplomacy to change today's China. They must deal with China in an equal and respectful manner. And if Western countries stubbornly twist the facts, wantonly undermine the rules and blatantly criticize China, then China's counterattack is completely justified. The right or wrong in this world is not determined by Western elites. Although it is very hard to change their mentality, they will gradually learn it the hard way from China's statements and acts. As China is gradually moving toward the center of the international arena, it is also viewing the world with a more confident, equal and tolerant mentality. However, the West is becoming increasingly paranoid. Western countries must understand that it is not their privilege but the rights of all countries - big or small - to speak out for their legitimate interests. Is the strength of the US and other Western countries declining? All countries will have their own judgments. But regardless of the balance of power, China's determination to safeguard its national dignity and core interests will never change.

From March 31 to April 3, the foreign ministers of four members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines - as well as the South Korean foreign minister will pay a visit to China consecutively. This follows Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi's recent visit to six Middle East countries and Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe's visit to four European countries. Before that, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited China from March 22 to 23. It has been seen that China is releasing signals to break the US' encirclement through these diplomatic actions. In this regard, whether China explains itself does not matter anymore, because the impact that China's actions are seen to exert  is already there. The only thing that we can probably say is that it is actually very easy to break the so-called US' encirclement, or in other words, building circles around China is a false proposition put forward by those who think too highly about themselves. ASEAN is seen as one of the first regions to be affected by the US-China competition, but the visit of the four foreign ministers to China shows that China shares common interests with those countries in a wide range of issues. These issues include fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and promoting the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Moreover, on the Myanmar issue, China also shares a lot of similar positions with these countries and believes that the issues are Myanmar's internal affairs that should be resolved peacefully within the constitutional and legal framework. China is the biggest trading partner of almost all ASEAN members. Between Beijing and ASEAN, the natural motivation and inertia to develop relations with each other are extremely strong. Washington's wish to "win ASEAN over" is purely delusional. Without the active participation of ASEAN, building circles around China will become a funny one-man show performed by the US. As for South Korea, it is one of the US' core allies in the Asia-Pacific region. On Friday, South Korean National Security Adviser Suh Hoon will meet with his US and Japanese counterparts in Annapolis, Maryland. South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong is set to visit China on Friday and Saturday. Not long ago, he just attended the South Korea-US "2+2" talks. This is a true reflection of South Korea's attitude of not choosing between China and the US. In this way, it is unrealistic for the US to transform its post-Cold War alliance system directly into an anti-China alliance. One of the biggest focal points of the Biden administration's anti-China alliance is Europe. However, it is not just south and east European countries that are working closely with China. Western European powers, which stressed that China is "a partner, competitor and systemic rival," are also insisting on their own interests. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, said on March 26 that it was important for the EU to have a common identity on China. The Middle East, except for Israel, is dominated by Islamic states, and it is a US dream to enlist them in an attack on Xinjiang-related issues. But Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries have made it clear to Beijing that they support China's policies on Xinjiang. Moreover, several Islamic countries have signed a joint letter supporting China's position on issues related to the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in 2019. The question is: How can the US turn so many countries with different interests and opinions into bricks to build a wall against China? Washington's elaborate encirclement of China has been blown to a hideous mess just by China's normal exchanges with other countries that had been delayed by the epidemic. Under the environment of the fierce competition between China and the US, China dares to adhere to principles in other directions and stay firm when it comes to core national interests. It is because we understand that the US' ambition to encircle China seriously violates the basic reality of the international relations in the 21st century, and is doomed to fail. We can develop friendly relations with other countries in a frank and open way to safeguard our national interests. Washington can never take advantage of China's disputes with other countries to instigate China's neighbors and the EU to go on the US chariot and jointly oppose China. Contemporary international relations are not one-dimensional. The interests of China and other countries are intertwined, and how could it be cut off with a geopolitical knife? The main theme of diplomacy during the Cold War was alliance and confrontation. Many small countries had no choice but to be involved. But today, the main theme of international relations is balanced diplomacy. All countries have expanded room for maximizing their own interests by taking advantage of major power disputes. The US has been managing with an effort to contain China, but China has followed the normal logic of handling internal and external affairs, going with the trend. If the situation goes on like this, it will be the US that eventually finds it hard to carry on.

As China rises on the international stage, some Western countries feel that China is being increasingly offensive. China's moves that fight for its own interests and even objectively state facts will be regarded as "wolf warrior diplomacy" or even "arrogant." In their minds, China should swallow its anger, insults and smears, or at least not be on par with the West. These Western elites still believe this is the time when they can act capriciously.

For example, The Economist released an article online for its April 3 print edition entitled "China is betting that the West is in irreversible decline." The article listed China's tough stance during the Alaska talks and China's recent sanctions on some British, Canadian and European Union individuals, concluding that China is "hubristic and paranoid" and is prepared for a "protracted struggle." Times have changed, but the mind-set of some Western elites has not. The US and other Western countries need a complete change in their understanding and attitude toward China. In the Western stereotype, China has been in a passive position in the international community ever since its gate was forcibly opened by the West in the 19th century. Western elites cannot accept that China is now righteously refuting their arrogance and nonsense. They should stop pretending that they can point fingers at China imperiously. That era has long been gone. April 1 marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of Chinese air force pilot Wang Wei who died when his fighter jet collided with a US military reconnaissance aircraft in the South China Sea. In 2001, the US showed off at China's doorsteps, leading to Wang's sacrifice. But the US did not even apologize and the American pilot who crashed Wang's jet was even praised by the US. Today, does the West still expect China to endure Western elites' provocation like 20 years ago? China is a country of etiquette and Chinese diplomats abide by diplomatic etiquette. But when China is provoked and its core interests are threatened, China will never give in. When Western countries use fake news to smear China's governance in Xinjiang, try to mess up China's stability and even impose sanctions, China is absolutely justified to respond with countermeasures. This is what every sovereign country would do. China was once invaded by the "Eight-Nation Alliance" - troops from Britain, the US, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, Italy and Austro-Hungary, and now it seems that the Group of Seven members are still staying in that era, trying to jointly criticize China's policies on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and other internal affairs. However, they can no longer use their so-called gunboat diplomacy to change today's China. They must deal with China in an equal and respectful manner. And if Western countries stubbornly twist the facts, wantonly undermine the rules and blatantly criticize China, then China's counterattack is completely justified. The right or wrong in this world is not determined by Western elites. Although it is very hard to change their mentality, they will gradually learn it the hard way from China's statements and acts. As China is gradually moving toward the center of the international arena, it is also viewing the world with a more confident, equal and tolerant mentality. However, the West is becoming increasingly paranoid. Western countries must understand that it is not their privilege but the rights of all countries - big or small - to speak out for their legitimate interests. Is the strength of the US and other Western countries declining? All countries will have their own judgments. But regardless of the balance of power, China's determination to safeguard its national dignity and core interests will never change.

Editor's Note:

With India having moved closer to the US in recent years, there have been some voices in India saying New Delhi should abandon its non-alignment policy and tie itself firmly to the US in order to cope with the challenges posed by China's development. Will New Delhi completely abandon its non-alignment policy? Although India and the US share a common goal of containing China, will India abandon its strategic autonomy and become a complete pawn of the US in the Indo-Pacific region? Global Times (GT) reporter Xu Yelu talked to Manoj Joshi (Joshi), a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation based in India, in a written interview. GT: In recent years, India's strategy and foreign policy appear to have increasingly tilted toward the US. Many regard India and the US as quasi-allies, believing that India is moving further away from its non-alignment policy. What do you think of this view? Joshi: I think India and the US have important relations, but the US is not a security provider for India. India has its own military and nuclear weapons to provide security. So it is not really interested in any kind of a military alliance with the US. Large countries like India, Brazil, China and Russia do not usually get aligned permanently to any country. The concept of non-alignment is dated. Today, countries establish flexible coalitions to serve their foreign policy interests. GT: India is one of the important pillars of the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy. However, some people believe that the US has not given India much real benefits. How do you view the gains and losses of India from the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy? Joshi: India is perhaps the most important pillar of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, but India's security concerns are larger and are in the main along its land border and the north Arabian Sea where India and the US have no cooperation. Indo-Pacific Strategy meshes well with India's Act East policy and is seen by New Delhi as a largely economic policy. Under the Biden leadership, the Indo-Pacific Strategy will be a comprehensive one, involving economic policy, trade, pandemic relief, climate change, humanitarian relief and infrastructure development. This could benefit India in the future, especially the idea of creating new international technology partnerships in areas like 5G, AI, quantum computing, and so on. India could also benefit from the Australia-Japan-India supply chain initiative. GT: Quad recently held its first leaders' summit. The Quad countries seem to share some common goals, but there are also differences among them. How do you think Quad will evolve? Joshi: The Quad countries also have great differences. It is unlikely to evolve beyond a point because the countries do not have common goals. Australia has no concern with India's security challenges; the US is not threatened by China, but seeks to maintain its geopolitical primacy in the Western Pacific. India and Japan have border disputes with China, but Japan has US security cover, India does not. But all of them have a common goal of maintaining a balance of power to check China. This is not likely to have a military solution, but one which stresses coordination of policies on different areas. It is not the emphasis to out-compete China in the economic and technology front. GT: In the Trump era, the personal relationship between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former US president Donald Trump is one of the factors that brought the US-India relationship closer. How do you predict the future of US-India relations under the Biden presidency? Joshi: There is a geopolitical congruence of interest between the two in balancing China. But there is also a huge asymmetry of power, India is a poor and weak country compared to the US. Its role can only be limited. But like all weak countries it will seek to take advantage of the rift between its more powerful interlocutors like the US and China to promote its own geopolitical and economic ends. Also Modi may not be able to develop the kind of personal relationship he had with Trump. There are also issues relating to religious freedom and human rights which may create problems for India in the US. GT: India, a populous country, is also seen as having great growth potential and has always had great power ambitions. Do you think India's strategy of tying itself to the US' chariot is a short-term strategy or a long-term one? What is the best strategy route in India's interest? Joshi: I think India should learn from China. Between 1972 and 2000 or so, China was a quasi-ally of the US. And over the years China got great benefits from the US connection. So, it is not a bad idea to use the US chariot to move ahead. In international relations, as is well known, there are no permanent friends and enemies, only permanent interests.

One day after having announced that China will not become the world's most powerful country on his watch, US President Joe Biden suggested to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a phone call on Friday that democratic countries have an alternative to the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Biden said a similar initiative should help "those communities around the world that, in fact, need help." However, is it easy for the US, which has repeatedly misinterpreted and stigmatized the BRI in the past years, to imitate China and develop its own version? Despite the fact that Washington has aired its concerns over the BRI, it has yet to convince countries that it can offer a reliable alternative to the Chinese initiative. As the US is thinking about helping the world with infrastructure construction, its own infrastructure is in urgent need of update. As a matter of fact, Biden's $3 trillion package with a giant infrastructure plan to boost infrastructure in the US is still under debate - the plan cannot even make all Democrats say "Yes." If the infrastructure scheme that Biden proposed really aims at improving connectivity between countries while promoting their infrastructure, it is worth anticipating. However, given the current moves and statements made by Washington, it is hard to say that the US has necessary capital or willingness to realize such an approach. Moreover, as the "America First" doctrine still prevails in the US, any country will have to think twice whether there would be any additional precondition to accept the US "good will" and if they can afford it. If Biden's initiative is another vision or advocacy to counter China, he can never meet other countries' real need in infrastructure by just paying lip service. The uncertainty of communities in need about Washington will deepen the US' crisis of credibility left by former administrations in the past years. But the promotion and development of such a cooperative initiative needs to be endorsed by the credibility of the US government. In November 2019, the US announced the start of the Blue Dot Network (BDN), which was widely viewed as an alternative to counter the China-proposed BRI. But the BDN, which focuses on the Indo-Pacific region while vowing to provide worldwide services, has hardly made any inspiring achievement. Its goal to promote financially sustainable development projects still sees dim hope for the future. When Liu Xiaoming, the former Chinese ambassador to the UK, gave a live interview with BBC's Andrew Marr Show on October 18, 2015, Liu asked Marr, "Do you [Britain] have the money? Do you have the technology? Do you have the expertise?" in response to Marr's question that "China wouldn't allow a foreign power to build her nuclear power stations surely?" Liu's three questions can still be applied to the current infrastructure scheme proposed by the US. While Washington cannot handle its domestic infrastructure construction well, it also engages in quarrels with its European allies over their infrastructure choices. As the US generally prioritizes its own interests in handling various affairs, it will only be a self-comforting fantasy for Washington to realize the infrastructure scheme.

Following high-level talks between China-US in Alaska last week and the ensuing sanctions and countermeasures between the EU and China on Monday, more accusations about China playing Wolf Warrior diplomacy are being heard in the US and West. The West's depiction of China's direct diplomacy as being "Wolf Warrior" is clearly racist, some observers argued. Why? Because such a mentality assumes that we have no right to respond to bullying and unilateralism by Western countries that hurt China's national interests. Can one imagine a certain group of people in Western society, like the US, not being allowed to speak up and stand up to defend their own legitimate interests? Isn't that purely racism, and a kind of white supremacy? In recent years, the West has ramped up its suppression against China's rise on several fronts: technological, economic and diplomatic. Yet China is now more determined to counter such suppression. This is also partly demanded by the Chinese public's opinion. It's as if a meek panda, the old Western metaphor for China, is now being replaced with "Wolf Warrior." As a result, the focus of the West is all on China's "aggression" rather than on the West's own problems. For example, last November when a Chinese diplomat accused the Australian military of brutally killing Afghan civilians on Twitter, the Western media made a lot of hype about China's "aggressive diplomacy." With all eyes on Beijing, attention has been diverted from Canberra's human rights violations. Facing similar kinds of assertive foreign policy, the West reacts differently to what comes from within itself, and what comes from outside the Western world. One netizen commented on the obvious double standard, saying that assertive US diplomacy is never called "Rambo" diplomacy. Indeed, when the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Europe, nobody used the term "Rambo" diplomacy. Only when China introduced tariffs on some goods from countries like Australia, some Western media began to question: is China adopting "Wolf Warrior" trade diplomacy? Wang Yiwei, director of the Center for European Studies at Renmin University of China, believes that the West's labeling of China is an unconscious outpouring of white supremacy. Western countries think they are superior, and that non-Western countries should only do what they are told. And if non-Western countries want to follow Western countries' style, this will be considered as a provocation. China's rise has greatly challenged the sense of superiority and arrogance of Western civilization. Wang argues that the West has no way to face the reality to reflect on itself. The West always tries to use outdated ways of thinking to form a bloc and find a scapegoat. In the end, the West is unable to block the progress of humanity and the rise of China. More direct Chinese foreign policy has been labeled as "menacing" and "aggressive" by the West. This is a misinterpretation of Chinese diplomacy. It attempts to deny China's right to defend its legitimate rights and interests. There is nothing wrong with Chinese diplomats taking a firmer stance to respond to the attacks and smears from outside and to defend the country's legitimate rights and interests. On Monday, the Chinese Embassy in France claimed that if there are really "wolf warriors," it is because there are too many "mad dogs" around. In short, if China's foreign policy does have some "wolfish" characteristics now, it is because the harsh external environment has forced the country to cultivate "wolfishness" in its diplomacy to protect the country's security and safeguard its interests. Western countries have been taking a tough diplomatic attitude toward China on some issues. These include the recent collective sanctions against Beijing on the so-called human rights issues in Xinjiang. In the face of the West's deliberate provocations, unreasonable accusations against China and the constant exaggeration that China's rise poses threats to the world, how can China not turn into a Wolf Warrior? China, of course, will not compromise and fight back like a real warrior. The author is a reporter with the Global Times. 

The phrase, "this is not the way to deal with Chinese people," reflects Chinese people's psychological disapproval of how the West structures the hierarchy of civilizations. Some netizens posted photos of Li Hongzhang and other senior officials from the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) signing the Xinchou Treaty (Boxer Protocol) with Western powers in 1901, including the US. This was a comparison to photos of Chinese and US officials sitting face-to-face during their talks in Alaska. The treaty signed in 1901 has long been regarded as a symbol of national humiliation. The Alaska meeting showed the Chinese people that China-US relations have changed dramatically since more than a century ago. However, the national psychology that influences the relations seems to have changed a little. This will continue to be an important factor influencing China-US relations in the future. The recently published book China and the United States: Great Power Diplomacy and the Rise and Fall of the Late Qing Dynasty, 1784-1911 utilizes a large number of historical materials to provide good insight into the American concept of civilizational hierarchy and its initial relations with China. The author is Wang Yuanchong, a historian. Wang now works as an associate professor for the Department of History at the University of Delaware. He believes that US' original trade with China was part of the expansion of "Westward Movement" based in New England. It was established on the logic of civilizational hierarchy, with strong religious colors. This was not only a geographical "Westward Movement" but also a "Manifest Destiny" moment to promote the expansion of its civilization and institutional models to other places. In that age, there was a mind-set to redeem other civilizations with their own culture in an attempt to civilize the so-called "barbarians." Around the same time, in 1885, US Protestant clergyman and author Josiah Strong wrote in his book Our Country, quoting Charles Darwin, as saying, "the more energetic, restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country [note: the US]." The author, thus, believed that the Anglo-Saxon, especially those in the US, "sustains peculiar relations to the world's future" and it is "divinely commissioned to be… his brother's [note: other races'] keeper." Over a century has passed since then. The US has not conquered the world, and the ideas pursued by the Americans have not yet been accepted by the world, but the country has become the only world superpower. In recent years, historians have unearthed greater research materials that more finely detail US ambitions to expand their civilization concealed under the layer of "warmth" that the US showed at the beginning of its relations with China. In fact, the US desire to expand its civilization was just as strong as other powers at that time. Wang believes that the concept of "Manifest Destiny" has had a huge impact on the US since the 19th century. It still influences US' religious life and foreign policy today. Of course, we can also understand that, compared with the US, China has undergone great changes. This includes the way Chinese people view the West, and the rest of the world. Religion is exclusive. The American concept of religious conquest is essentially a division of the world into different classes. It also sees the development of world civilization as a single linear process. In the eyes of the US, other countries are developing by following the steps of the US, and they are not allowed to take a shortcut to overtake the US. Therefore, they are never on par with the US. In fact, we can also feel the existence of such civilizational hierarchy in the current hate crimes against Asian communities in the US. Even though more than 100 years have passed since the first waves of Chinese exclusion in the 19th century, whenever a sensitive event that affects China-US relations occurs, it quickly arouses Americans' deep-seated disapproval of non-white races. Therefore, what we saw at the Alaska talks was: Chinese delegates responded strongly to accusations the US has made against China in a condescending manner, and emphasized that this is not the way to deal with the Chinese people. Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, in an article commemorating the late US scholar Ezra Vogel, said that Vogel reminded Americans to pay attention to the fact that China's system and policies are nurtured by China's special historical and cultural traditions. And that they are different from those in the West. These must be understood when dealing with China. Regrettably, Vogel's rare suggestion hasn't gotten due attention. It seems some people still can't evolve out of their original psychological circle - after China and the US have interacted for over 200 years. The author is a senior editor with People's Daily, and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China..

Out of an aspiration to be a great power and anxiety over China's rise, India's national strategy has been swinging in recent years. India has a vague positioning of its international status. As a neighbor of China, India is cooperating with the US' strategy to contain China. India is also trying to play an essential role in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as Quad, which triggered dissatisfaction from China and Russia. Some US elites do not want India's role to be limited with Quad - the so-called Asian NATO - and are discussing possibility to make India a NATO partner. For example, the Hindustan Times published an article on Tuesday titled, "NATO: India's next geopolitical destination." It reads, "NATO must extend a formal partnership offer to Delhi; India must shed its hesitation." The author of the article, A. Wess Mitchell, former US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs who served in the Trump administration, wrote China's rise has "heightened India's need for closer security relationships with politically reliable, like-minded states." And that by strengthening ties with NATO, India will have "as many friends as possible in the right places" to deal with China. This shows the profound influence of some hawkish politicians in the Trump administration, including former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo. Their deeply rooted anti-China insanity still echoes with many people worldwide. These US elites want to rope in as many countries as possible, and take advantage of these countries' disputes with China. It is evident they wish to expand their encirclement of China. But making India a NATO partner is very unrealistic. It is merely wishful thinking by anti-China forces. Currently, it is nothing but an absurd idea. The US is not the only country in NATO. There are many other European countries in NATO who still want to develop economic and trade cooperation with China. Becoming a NATO partner will only bring disadvantages for India. Apart from China, India is also trying to balance between Russia and the US. If India becomes a NATO partner, it will be a huge disaster for India-Russia relations. India and Russia share a special and privileged strategic partnership. There are no serious conflicts between the two sides on major international and regional issues. The two countries are close in terms of political, defense and military cooperation. However, NATO, which was founded first and foremost to deal with the Soviet Union, is now turning to Russia again with a cold eye. If India is to be included in a security system like NATO, India-Russia relations would suffer a disastrous decline. Not to mention, there has already been a backlash in Moscow over New Delhi's strategic alignment with Washington in recent years. So if India takes a substantive step toward NATO, the relationship between India and Russia will be greatly damaged. Russia can also take advantage of the opportunity to strengthen its cooperation with Pakistan in this light as a warning to India. If Russia intensifies its cooperation with Pakistan, India will face greater challenges in geopolitical security. India will not accept nor tolerate it. In recent years, NATO has increasingly taken aim at China. Although the main concern for NATO is Russia at the moment, it sees China as a growing challenge as the center of international power is increasingly shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. NATO also wants to expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific and Asia-Pacific regions. As a result, NATO is likely to regard India's unique geographical location and its position in the so-called democratic camp as important. NATO may shift its resources toward the Indo-Pacific region to adapt to the changing world landscape. But Russia will remain a major concern for NATO. The practicality of India's decision to become a NATO partner is almost zero. But if it really becomes a partner, this will mean that India's strategy undertakes a fundamental change to completely throw itself into the Western camp. In this case, India will enter a "new" circle. In so doing, it will also offend all members in its "old" circle. This will only put more geopolitical pressure on itself. The author is director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University. 

Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, published an opinion piece Monday in Bloomberg news on Taiwan question, writing, "Losing - or not even fighting for - Taiwan would be seen all over Asia as the end of American predominance in the region we now call the 'Indo-Pacific.' It would confirm the long-standing hypothesis of China's return to primacy in Asia after two centuries of eclipse and 'humiliation.'" He also wrote, "That big thing may be that he who rules Taiwan rules the world." Ferguson is not a specialist on Taiwan question, not even on China-US relations. His analysis on Taiwan question is not convincing. But his view reflects some Americans' increasing anxiety over whether or not the Chinese mainland will lose patience with the island, or whether the Chinese mainland might resort to force to realize its reunification. Cross-Straits relations have been tense in recent years. They are expected to remain this way. The US now worries about getting itself involved if heated conflicts break out between the two sides. In terms of the Taiwan question, the US has been maintaining strategic ambiguity. US' anxiety is also reflected in the debate among many elites about the outcomes that might ensue should they move toward strategic clarity. But Ferguson exaggerates the significance of Taiwan. Losing, or "not even fighting for" Taiwan does not necessarily mean Washington will end its "predominance" in the Indo-Pacific region. Previously, the US had ever abandoned the island. The US established diplomatic relations with China in 1979, and severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It is not uncommon for the US to abandon its allies or partners to pursue its national interests. Yet it has not been seen that the US has ended its regional or global hegemony. If the US has any military conflicts with China over the Taiwan question, then this would end the US predominance in the region. An outbreak like that will gravely impair US' national strength. China has engaged, directly or indirectly, in military clashes in the Korean War and Vietnam War with the US before. Neither of them could the US claim a victory. If a war breaks out between China and the US over the Taiwan question, how can the US guarantee triumph? Ferguson's arguments are also aimed at maintaining US' hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. And perhaps globally. It also exposes common concerns of the US: The national strength of China and the US is approaching, the gap between Chinese mainland and the island is widening. China is becoming more and more confident. Particularly after the pandemic. Ferguson stressed in his article that since the normalization of China-US relations, Taiwan and the US' attitude toward Taiwan have been Beijing's biggest concerns. In fact, US elites understand this well. But they still repeatedly touch China's red line on the Taiwan question. In Washington's opinion, Taiwan is a card to play against Beijing. In 1970s, the Soviet Union was the US' biggest strategic competitor. To contain the Soviet Union, the US established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and abandoned Taiwan. Now, China has replaced the Soviet Union as the US' major strategic rival. Thus, it has become Washington's inevitable choice to exploit Taiwan card to contain China. It will not give up Taiwan card too easily. By playing the Taiwan card, the US hopes to gain huge geopolitical interests. US strategic elites know this all too well. The Taiwan question has always been the most sensitive topic in China-US relations, as it involves China's core interests. China will resolutely contain and combat both the "Taiwan secessionist" forces and those who support it. The Biden administration should have a clear understanding of this matter now. Although some people in the US, such as Ferguson, have elevated the Taiwan question to a higher level, the US strategic community probably cannot make up its mind or reach a common consensus about engaging in military clashes with China on this matter. The author is an expert on China-US relations based in Shanghai.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Guilin, South China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, and met with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday. Lavrov's visit is significant. First, this is the first high-level face-to-face meeting between China and Russia since the pandemic. Second, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between China and Russia. Third, both China and Russia are witnessing escalating tensions with the US. The Alaska talks between top Chinese and US diplomats have just concluded. There is a greater urgency for China and Russia to strengthen their relations. "China is a true strategic partner of Russia," Lavrov told the press as he embarked on the visit. To be honest, the title of "strategic partner" is depreciating in today's world. Even the term "ally" is depreciating. But China and Russia are worthy of the name of strategic partners. The modern framework of building China-Russia strategic partnership started in the 1990s. The past 30 years have witnessed profound changes in the world's situation and power pattern. The relationship between China and Russia has gone deeper and deeper while overcoming all kinds of disturbances. Their strategic coordination has become stronger. It can be said that the relationship has withstood the challenge. China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era has become the most important diplomatic and strategic asset of China and Russia respectively and has supported the two countries to confront external challenges back-to-back. The two societies have felt the strategic benefits. The concept of "shared commitment to ever-lasting peace and win-win cooperation" between the two countries has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and the areas of cooperation between the two countries have been expanding. Despite the impact of the pandemic in 2020, China-Russia trade has exceeded $100 billion for the third consecutive year, and China remained Russia's largest trading partner for the 11th consecutive year. Russia exported 83.57 million tons of oil to China in 2020, remaining as China's top crude suppliers together with Saudi Arabia, which shipped 84.92 million tons to China. Their exports increased China's energy security. China is also the largest export market for Russian agricultural products, which was not the case 10 years ago. China and Russia just signed a memorandum of understanding on joint construction of an international lunar research station. Scientific and technological cooperation has become a new focus. China-Russia strategic partnership has formed an internal driving force, which, together with the strategic urgency caused by the international situation, has promoted the two countries' relations and formed a strong strategic stability. The two countries have explored a path of cooperation different from the previous experience. First, China and Russia uphold a principle of non-alliance and they share a highly equal-footed strategic partnership. This is supportive for both countries, instead of dragging them behind. In contrast, Washington dominates all relations between the US and its allies, forcing its allies too often. The US also dragged some allies into wars from time to time, or led them to the disaster of terrorism. Second, China and Russia, together with Central Asian countries, have jointly launched the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Anti-terrorism and the need to deal with extremism were the initial driving force of the SCO, but its functions and scale have gradually expanded, corresponding to the region's actual needs. Russia has also been proactive in the cooperation of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, not to mention the two countries coordinated actions in the UN. With growing international cooperation and their effectiveness, the two countries have become more confident in expanding their strategic coordination and the global significance of it. Third, it is important that China-Russia cooperation has no upper limits. This will also make the forces attempting to attack China and Russia daunted. China and Russia do not intend to form a military alliance, if any country threatens or attacks either China or Russia militarily, it needs to consider the realistic risk of how the other country would react. Both China and Russia are strong power, their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era has ruled out any possibility of any external forces militarily crushing either one of them. The US and its major allies are sparing no effort in their ideological infiltration in China and Russia. Because of historical reasons, some people in both China and Russia remain skeptical that the two countries can maintain a strategic partnership in the long term. Some Chinese worry that once Russia's leadership changes, Russia may tilt toward the West and join the containment against China. Although there is no eternal state in international relations, the strategic partnership of coordination between Beijing and Moscow that has been formed over the past three decades is by no means temporary and fragile. The two countries have resolved all territorial issues, which provide the basic conditions for long-term good neighborliness and friendship. Russia has never been truly accepted by the West. The country is too big for the West to handle, and it no longer holds the illusion of integrating into the West. Russia's national interests require a multi-polar world where Russia itself is one pole. This fits China's aspirations fundamentally, yet it diverges essentially from what the US believes in. Regardless of history, Beijing and Moscow have become strategic partners that cannot be separated from each other. The two countries not only maintain and develop their relations back-to-back, but also meet challenges shoulder-to-shoulder. There are countless forces consolidating this situation. This is the inevitable choice of the two countries and their peoples in the 21st century, and it is what the world expects from these two great powers.

Photo: AFP

After a fierce, tit-for-tat opening, the close-door strategic dialogue afterward between China and the US in Alaska went smoothly and the result was far better than people's expectations. Both sides completed three rounds of talks. Both admitted in their press conferences that the talks were "candid" and each sought to work with the other side in some fields. The very role of a strategic dialogue is to boost mutual understanding and avoid strategic miscalculation. To this end, the latest one between China and the US made some progress. The Alaska meeting was initiated by the US. It had made great efforts in it, in fear that the Chinese side would underestimate the US' tough stance toward China. From the US' previous words and deeds and its performance during the talks, the Chinese side has further understood Washington's determination to use every possible way to maintain its hegemony and realized the Biden administration's continuity of the Trump administration regarding its China policy. The US views its alliance system as a prominent bargaining chip to pressure China. It has shown no intention to eradicate the Trump administration's extreme China policy in a short period of time. But it said it does not want to push bilateral relations to the point of confrontation. But apparently, the US would go into confrontation when necessary. It is believed the US will understand China more through this dialogue. The US should be clear that China is not afraid of being blackmailed and is determined to safeguard its sovereignty and core interests. In particular, China does not want the US to interfere in China's internal politics and there is no bargaining on this. Any relevant moves from Washington will meet serious resistance and countermeasures. The US should get to know China's political confidence and its resolve and ability to develop and thrive steadily in accordance with its long-term plans. It also knows that China despises the pressure imposed by the US and its allies. China doesn't care about its geopolitical tools. The US must have had a sense of futility about containing China. Obviously, there are deep differences between both sides. The intensity of the opening is record-breaking since the two established diplomatic ties. But the delegations of the two countries and the two societies are rapidly adapting to this rivalry. This dialogue revealed conflicts between the two countries and both sides showed their stance. Adaptability and acceptance of the current situation can be seen as a way to stabilize the situation. If both have strategic rationality, negativity may turn into constructive factors. This can be seen as the second significance. The misunderstanding between China and the US for a long time is that the US believes it can contain and suppress China with its strength and Cold War experiences. China, on the other hand, is confident to dilute US strategic containment because of its established comprehensive capability and development potential as well as its confidence regarding its political system. This misunderstanding cannot be solved via dialogue and can only be addressed via future competition. In recent years, China's self-confidence is more powerful than the US'. The US has made up false justice in wooing its allies and containing China with the tool of so-called human rights. In terms of the essence of the China-US conflict, it is the US' malicious strategic objectives of maintaining its hegemony and suppressing the fast development of China as the world's most populous country. On the contrary, China is trying to maintain its right to develop and the right of the Chinese people to live a better life. As China-US struggles drag on, the Chinese people's unity and the global moral call will expose the US' weaknesses. It is a fantasy to strike China down. Putting China in awe is day-dreaming. Both sides have to accept the status quo that neither will compromise, and work for cooperation areas in an unfriendly atmosphere and find a way out. Strategic patience and restraint are required for 21st century major powers. There needs to be a framework that is able to tolerate and dilute conflicts. We hope China and the US can work toward that goal.

After talks between top Chinese and US diplomats in Alaska, held on Friday US time, China, the US and other major countries are busy with their respective agendas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will travel to Brussels from Monday to Thursday to attend a NATO foreign ministers' meeting. The theme will undoubtedly be China and Russia. During his India visit, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh on Saturday, and China was one of their main topics in the closed-door meeting. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov embarks his China visit on Monday, the US will top the agenda in the upcoming China-Russia dialogue, although Beijing and Moscow usually do not proactively aim at Washington when discussing their strategic partnership. The US has been arrogant and overbearing lately, publicly and simultaneously piling pressure on both China and Russia. On March 17, US President Joe Biden said "I do" when asked if he believed the Russian president was a killer in a television interview. The US also repeatedly claimed recently that China poses the 21st century's greatest geopolitical challenge, pinned the "genocide" label on China's governance in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, as well as clamored about ganging up with its allies against China. Washington's offensive policies have further exacerbated the global geopolitical shock. Washington is playing a game that is surely to harm itself and likely does no good to its Asian allies. The US' sense of crisis stems fundamentally from the decline of its comprehensive competitiveness. Its hegemonic framework remains roughly the same, yet its internal supportive power is weakening. The problem will not be resolved by strengthening ties with its allies. The tactic may give the US more courage, but it is essentially exposing US diffidence. The most influential bilateral relationship in Eurasia is the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era. China and Russia understand the weight of their ties. When the two sides continue to deepen their relations, they also take care of the feelings of other countries in the region modestly and in a restrained manner, reiterating that the relationship between Beijing and Moscow is a partnership, rather than an alliance. To be honest, no country in the region can stand alone against either China or Russia, let alone fight against the two powers at the same time. It would be disastrous for any country which tends to confront China and Russia through forging an alliance with the US. When Washington shows hostility to Beijing and Moscow simultaneously, Japan has sent a very negative message to both China and Russia by binding itself tightly with the US. China and Russia are strengthening their strategic cooperation in a frank, open and normal manner. However, the US is desperately upgrading its alliances with a handful of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. When the US is attempting to build a geopolitical axis there, it has already lost morally while showing its lack of confidence as well. US senior officials have recently paid visits to Japan, South Korea and India. Whatever South Korea and India talked behind closed doors with the US, they did not mention China in their joint statements. Only the US-Japan joint statement viciously attacked China. Japan is much stronger than South Korea in terms of national strength, and its economic power is also far bigger than that of India. But it has become the most cooperative country to the US' offensive Asia strategy. Japan's acts on one hand have aggravated its cold relations and intermittent conflicts with China and Russia, on the other hand, they have also made Japan lose leverage to demand respect from the US. The Japan-US relationship cannot be promoted as a model in Asia. In the long run, it will be the general trend that Japan will develop a more independent diplomacy. The present-day world is no longer been about a life-or-death geopolitical game. It is difficult to bind countries together as a monolithic whole simply through a security vision. Every country's interests are diverse. Each country needs to carry out cooperation with others flexibly in multiple directions instead of putting all its eggs in one basket. The role of strengthening the alliance between the US and its allies, which is now promoted by the new US administration, will be limited. If the US relies on its alliance to solve the problems caused by its outdated hegemonism, it will be a crazy act. On the contrary, China and Russia's move to forge a partnership rather than an alliance is displaying their confidence, and is more in line with the spirit of this era. Of course, global strategic goodwill is the foundation of a comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Russia in the new era. Yet perhaps the US will never learn to show such goodwill.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin kicked off his three-day visit to India on Friday, just a week after the first summit of the Quad, an informal security grouping consisting of the US, Japan, Australia, and India. Austin is the first US official from the Joe Biden administration to visit India. Austin called the India-US relationship a "stronghold of free and open Indo-Pacific region." This displays the great importance the Biden administration has attached to India and its intent to reinforce bilateral ties with India. In contrast to the US-Japan joint press statement issued on March 16, the joint remarks between Austin and his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh on Saturday did not mention China. Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times on Sunday that just as many major powers, India tries to avoid taking sides between China and the US, whose competition has been ramped up. New Delhi is to hold the BRICS summit this year, involving Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and it is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in which China is one of the founding members. In this context, India needs to keep its balance between China and the US. Swaran Singh, a professor in international studies from the New Delhi-based Jawaharlal Nehru University, echoed this view. Singh said that as India prepares to host the next BRICS summit, it would be restrained and "carefully calibrate any statements so as not to further complicate India-China relations" in an article posted by the South China Morning Post on Friday. Ahead of Austin's visit, some media outlets predicted Austin would fan the flames between China and India on issues such as territorial disputes and convince India to retain its hard-line stance on China. Austin said on Saturday that the US does not think that "India and China were at war" in response to a question about the China-India border tensions in 2020, according to the Hindustan Times. Austin's narrative was based on fact - even though the border tensions between China and India were intense, they did not resort to war. But this rhetoric does not mean the US military will cease using China-India border issue as an excuse to play up "the security threat" posed to India by "China's aggressive expansion" in dealing with India, Qian said. Washington and New Delhi are exploiting each other. India hopes to increase its bargaining chips to negotiate with China by virtue of the US' efforts to woo India to counter China. India also intends to boost its international status and global impact by strengthening its defense cooperation with the US. Meanwhile, Washington wants New Delhi to play a bigger role in its Indo-Pacific Strategy and in the Quad to contain China. The US has been gradually promoting defense ties with India. The country is willing to lend a helping hand to assist India's attempts to check China. The two countries have expanded defense coordination directed at China. However, Qian said that most US senior officials, including Austin, are fully aware that India is not a country that can be easily manipulated by the US. If Washington blindly pushes New Delhi to the frontline to confront Beijing and pile too much pressure on New Delhi, the result may backfire. If the US fans the flame of border tensions between China and India to intensify military conflicts, it will go against India's national interests and will eventually result in India's alienation from the US.

On Thursday local time, the first meeting of the China-US high-level dialogue opened with a head-to-head quarrel in Anchorage, Alaska. That came as a complete surprise for many who were watching the show. A number of media outlets and individuals thought it was bizarre that what they were worried about the most actually happened. But to me, what happened was not strange at all. The Chinese and US presidents both emphasized during a phone call on the eve of the Chinese New Year that the most pressing task for both sides was to avoid confrontation and conflict. To achieve that, I think the key is for both sides to not miscalculate. For the Chinese side, they expressed their views, stated their stance and reaffirmed their position, and offered a lesson. The purpose of this is very clear, which is to ensure that the US would not misjudge from the start. This lesson offered by the Chinese side was so impassioned and satisfactory due to three characteristics. First, it was very timely and vivid. The Chinese side seized on the opportunity when the media was still there to talk about a wide range of issues from China-US engagement to anti-epidemic efforts, from economic development to democracy and human rights, and from unilateral buying to the UN Charter. It was crystal clear which side was right and which side was in the wrong. The most confident sentence was that the Communist Party of China has the wholehearted support of 1.4 billion Chinese people. The underlying message here is that: can the US side achieve that? Second, the lesson was delivered with great competence and skill. The most outstanding aspect this time was the complete change from some past negotiations where anger was not expressed openly and slander was not responded. Everyone kept smiles in public and consultations over issues were kept behind doors. The problem with such a case is that it causes the other side to misjudge that the Chinese side was weak and can be easily bullied. But those days of being beaten down without striking back are over. Indeed, international negotiations must be based on equality between the two sides. It is not about one side claiming the role as the headmaster and lecturing the other side at will. In front of the international media, the Chinese side offered a lesson to not just the Americans but also US allies and the entire world. Certainly, the ultimate technique of negotiations is to fight but not break down. It's not wrong that the parties have differences during the negotiations. As long as both sides are sincere, resolutions can already be found. The key is to have a sincere stance and use appropriate language. This was on perfect display in this exchange with the US establishment and it paved the way for further negotiations in the future. Finally, the significance of this lesson has exceeded that of the dialogue itself. This was a grand show of China's strength, indicating to the US that China's development and growth cannot be stopped. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity are main issues of principle. The US should not underestimate China's resolve to safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests. It should not underestimate the will of the Chinese people in safeguarding their national dignity and legitimate rights and interests. The author is a former Chinese vice minister of commerce and executive deputy director of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges.

The China-US talks in Alaska are very likely to be given great importance in history. The talks are being held at an important time when China-US relations are at the crossroads, carrying a lot of weight. How should China and the US understand and deal with each other? Can the two countries get rid of the increasingly severe atmosphere of confrontation promoted by some forces in the US? The world is observing and digesting the information released from the talks. The warm-up of the talks in Alaska has long begun. The US has released a series of tough words and deeds to put pressure on China. Such a gesture by Washington has lasted until the opening remarks of the talks. The US, in its public speech which went seriously overtime, carried out groundless attacks against China, especially mentioning many of Chinese internal affairs including Xinjiang and Hong Kong, trying to gain the upper hand. Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Leading Group for Foreign Affairs, and Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi dealt with this calmly. Yang said that in front of the Chinese side, the US is not qualified to speak to China from a position of strength. And Wang said that "the old habit of US hegemonic behavior of willfully interfering in China's internal affairs must be changed." This is an unprecedented open face-to-face confrontation between China and the US in recent decades. It has great impact, and is also a correction of the US' understanding and long-held attitude toward China. It tells Washington that the US should stop pretending that they can point a finger at China. That era is over. The US must deal with China in an equal and respectful way to resolve problems with China. With China's rapid development, the power gap between China and the US has been narrowing, and the US feels a strategic crisis. China-US relations have been turbulent. Re-stabilizing the relations, and viewing each other equally with respect, especially respecting each other's core interests, are essential. Rules must be based on the UN systems and should not represent "America First." If this benchmark is not clarified, then everything will be distorted. Washington has always twisted the facts. It has been bragging about its allies. As it undermines the rules, it is also blatantly promoting a so-called rules-based international order. Everything Washington talks about is centered on the US, and on white supremacy. The interests of the US and its few allies have become the starting point of right and wrong. The Chinese delegation has made a historic move to set things right. Their statements have formed a strong refutation of that of the US, which has impacted on the US' stereotype and will make the international community think. The world's sense of right and wrong is not in Washington's hands. Changing Washington's thinking on China is not a simple matter and is destined to happen gradually, but talks in Alaska are likely to be regarded as a milestone in this process by history. China still hopes to maintain normal relations with the US and develop mutually beneficial cooperation. This wish is also irreversible. After the fierce opening remarks, China and the US entered a closed-door substantive dialogue. The two countries have withstood the impact of confrontation at the opening, and the two countries' public opinions seem to have quickly adapted to the situation. We believe there are also positive signs in this. China and the US are two major world powers. No matter how many disputes they have, the two countries should not impulsively break their relations. Coexistence and cooperation are the only options for China and the US. Whether we like it or not, the two countries should learn to patiently explore mutual compromises and pursue strategic win-win cooperation. If the two countries are clear-headed, they will do this proactively. Whoever is stubborn will still have to do this passively. The 21st century will not give a second answer to China-US relations.

China's top diplomats Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi will meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan in Alaska on Friday (Beijing time). The meeting will last two days.

Information about the meeting has been widely spread in Chinese society. However, due to a series of offensive words and deeds by the US, the Chinese public has little expectations that this dialogue can achieve any substantive results. Chinese society as a whole is prepared for greater tensions between China and the US. We believe the Chinese interlocutors are relatively relaxed for the meeting. It is a platform for strategic dialogue rather than a stage for the US to put unilateral pressures on China. Any idea that the US could dominate this dialogue is illusory. Their perceived strengths could have been used for other things, but they cannot shape China's attitude on issues concerning China's core interests Could they ask China to withdraw the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or to recall the decision made by the National People's Congress to amend and improve Hong Kong electoral system? Every Chinese can tell the US government that this is simply wishful thinking. Do Chinese diplomats need to take time off their busy schedules to set up a stage in Alaska to announce this point? China believes that communication is always necessary because the US has an overall misjudgment about China. Whether through diplomatic contacts, through exchanges of opinion, or through the constant verification of words with real actions, China wants the US to gradually understand some of its basic positions and the sources of its confidence in defending them. First, China has no geopolitical ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region. China's development is driven by the desire of more than 1 billion people to pursue a better livelihood. Further satisfying this desire is the fundamental focus of China's political governance. China does not believe that it has the ability, or that it is necessary, to pursue development by imperialist expansion. It has been proven by history that cooperation based on mutual benefit with other countries is more reliable and effective. Second, China has explored a set of domestic governance methods that suit its national conditions. There are some ideological differences between China and the West, but China has no hostility toward the West. China has, since ancient times, always been an exponent of keeping harmony in diversity. The US initiated the strategic containment of China, which has deteriorated China' s security environment, forced China to speed up the development of its military power and carry out tit-for-tat ideological struggle. However, China has been maintaining its defensive strategy toward the West. Third, China will never accept US interference in its internal affairs. How the US consumes the so-called human rights domestically is its own business. China will never give foreign forces a window to exercise long-arm jurisdiction on its internal affairs. What China can do is to help the US understand China's political logic and the moral basis for all its governance measures. Such a dialogue does not mean that China is likely to yield to any US pressure. Fourth, it is true that China has territorial disputes with some of its neighbors, but China's consistent position on these disputes is to resolve them peacefully. China has always advocated that territorial disputes should not become the dominant aspect of bilateral relations and should not interfere with cooperation between China and other countries. China is firm in its position of managing territorial disputes. Fifth, it is China's sacred right to develop. China has never contemplated as a geopolitical goal the possibility of overtaking the US in economic growth in a few years, nor has China ever considered replacing US hegemony with "Chinese hegemony." It is Beijing's sincere hope that the 21st century will be a century of win-win results for China, the US and other countries. China's development will not be a zero-sum victory only for China, but should become shared benefits worldwide. Sixth, the Chinese are confident that they are capable of defending their own national security, and no matter how hard the US tries, it cannot contain China. If the US is willing to coexist and cooperate with China in peace, China welcomes that and will work hard to make that relationship work. If the US is determined to engage in confrontation, China will fight to the end. It is noted that the new US administration has put great efforts in its China policy. It has held a series of preparatory meetings with its allies and sent a lot of tough signals in an attempt to create a preemptive effect. However, major-country relations are not built on such swashbuckling tricks. The match of national strength and public will is the most important thing when major countries try to get along with each other. It is important to point out that the US has seriously overestimated the matching degree between its national power and its strategic fantasy of containing China.

The latest big news of the UK tilting toward the Indo-Pacific region has surfaced from its freshly released foreign and defense policy review, putting the region again in world spotlight. The concept of the Indo-Pacific was initially put forward by former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, and then used by the previous US administration. It was gradually accepted by the so-called like-minded countries in the region against the backdrop of the global power shift to the East. It is also from this context that the UK decided to tilt toward the Indo-Pacific at a time when the UK, after leaving the EU family, has to look for a new diplomatic and strategic standing and has to look for consensus out of its domestic fragmented politics. In its policy review published Tuesday, the UK government detailed why the region matters to the UK from the perspectives of economics, security, and values. For the UK, whether it is called the Asia-Pacific or the Indo-Pacific, the importance of the region has not changed much. The UK's zeal for the region now is nothing but to ride on the concept's popularity. In other words, the UK is just a follower of the countries which claim themselves to be stakeholders in the region. If the UK wants to get a share in the Indo-Pacific region, it needs a convenient excuse. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is scheduled to pay a visit to India at the end of April. For many, India is a favorable choice. It is a huge market with an increasingly growing population and with strong scientific and technological capabilities. It also shares the same "values" with the West. In addition, India's role to counterbalance China is obvious to many, including those in the UK. But the quantity and quality of cooperation between the UK and India will remain limited. UK's free trade agreement negotiation with the EU was tardy. Any new trade agreements between the UK and India are expected to take a long time. On the other hand, India's democracy is a fragile, narrow Western-style democracy, hampered by its caste system. If the UK wants to boost "values" in cooperation with India, the outcome will be extremely limited. If external powers such as the US, the UK and the EU want to wield influence in the Indo-Pacific region, they have to find a target. These countries, in whatever form, do not hide their intentions to counter China. But the Indo-Pacific region accommodates not only the small clique of Western countries but also other regional players in Southeast Asia. China has engaged in Southeast Asia for years and has a profound influence there. Southeast Asian countries have also been trying to avoid taking sides to maximize their interests. It will be difficult for the small Western clique to hedge against China's influence by wooing Southeast Asian countries. The Western-centric mentality of the UK and other European countries has not changed, so they will be unable to treat Indo-Pacific countries on an equal footing. For example, India overtook the UK in terms of GDP in 2019. The UK harbors an old imperialist mind-set about India, viewing the latter as a former colony. Up until now, many Indians still recall UK's colonial era when it helped India expand its territory and built railways. But they fail to realize that India inherited the unfit system from the UK - this has resulted in their systematic troubles that plague them to this day. India cannot become another UK or achieve its ambition to become a truly global power. For India and regional countries, what they need the most is a stable atmosphere, an open economic environment, and innovation-driven development elements. For these needs, China can play the role of an engine. The EU has been making its own plans in the Asia-Pacific region for many years, and engaged well with Southeast Asian countries, Japan and South Korea. This will add difficulties for the UK's involvement in the Indo-Pacific. The UK will face competition from the EU, China, Japan and South Korea. London's presence will become an uncertain factor for the region. If the UK does not work with a down-to-earth manner and continues to treat regional countries from above high, it will not achieve its desired goals. The author is a research fellow with the Institute of European Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

China, as expected, has remained the largest source of India's imports in 2020, highlighting the economic complementarities of the two Asian economies which is exactly what could help India to promote its "Make in India" campaign, if New Delhi could adopt a pragmatic approach and seize the opportunity to better connect with Chinese industrial chain. Despite India's keeping accelerated provocation toward China from border to economic issues in 2020, the country "imported goods worth $58.71 billion from China" in the year, local media outlet the Times of India reported, citing Hardeep Singh Puri, minister of state for commerce and industry. While China remains on top of its purchase list, the data also laid bare the absurdity of the irrational populism in India which once instigated mobs to stage boycotting products made-in-China in the past two years. According to the Indian official, the major items of import from China include telecom equipment, computer hardware and peripherals, daily goods, organic chemicals, machinery and electronic products. As a leading manufacturing power in the world, China possesses comparative advantages in many sectors, making it difficult to be displaced in production chains. With China offering high-quality products at reasonable prices, consumers in India know what to choose themselves; while with high potential for the two sides to promote mutual beneficial economic co-operation, those ill-intended political interference by Indian politicians would only end up in vain. The import data offers a clear blow to the surging populism in India. Though it may not completely disappear, it will face a narrowing market in the future with diminishing margin effects. After a year of confrontation, it's clear that it is cooperation is the only possible way for India to eke out consistent economic growths. And it's foreseeable that the bilateral trade between the two nations will keep rising which will significantly facilitate the recovery of Indian economy from the pandemic fallout. What's worth pointing out is that while India recently showed its intention to loosen obstruction by reinstating some degree of economic cooperation with China, New Delhi, on the other hand, has been playing up the reconstruction of industrial chains with the US, Japan and Australia under the so-called Quad framework. The differences of the two approaches of India are evident, as cooperation with China will boost its economic recovery from the recession, while the other is more of a political stunt. The destiny of an industry chain without a valid economic foundation is self-evident. Essentially it's each country's special economic and industrial structure that determines cooperation or competition among different economies. Taking China and India for instance, the two economies both have large domestic markets, but the two have quite different industrialization structures, leaving significant potential for the two sides to seek industrial connection and to boost each other's development through wider cooperation. Besides the potential, the BRICS also offers a framework for the two Asian members to join hands in various areas. Compared to building a new industrial chain centering Quad members, better integrating into the well-developed regional industrial chain is clearly a more practical path for the largest South Asian economy. New Delhi should reconsider its role in the global system, and instead of obsessing with populism which hinders the growth of its industries, better connecting with the Chinese industrial chains may be the right choice for the country's long-term economic development The author is director of Institute of Bay of Bengal Studies with Shenzhen University. 

The Quad is an informal security group consisting of the US, Japan, Australia and India. Under this rubric, they label themselves like-minded countries. Yet soon after its first ever leaders' summit held on Friday, some voices of discord are emerging about the block. The joint statement of the latest summit claims that, "together, we commit to promoting a free, open, rules-based order." Yet an Indian scholar, Manoj Joshi, distinguished fellow at India-based think tank Observer Research Foundation, wrote in an article published Tuesday that, "The problem is that no one is clear as to what the rules-based order means… there is no agreement on which rules, whose rules, and, indeed, the term itself." Joshi is right. There is ambiguity on what a free, open, rules-based order is. Some results were reached in the Quad summit. These included the issue of collaborative vaccine production, but when it comes to security and the Indo-Pacific security framework, all they had talked about were quite grand and vague without specific contents. The so-called common values and common security are nothing but illusory concepts. When it comes to free, open, rules-based order, each Quad member has its different focus. Joshi said, "India is in a peculiar bind here. On the one hand, it is following the US lead in implementing the RBO [rules-based order] in relation to the Indo-Pacific, and on the other, we have External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar complaining about Western organizations questioning India's adherence to a rules-based democracy." In Western countries' opinions, when it is necessary to highlight confrontation with China, they will promote and praise India's democracy. They declare that India is the largest democratic country. But when their need for India is not so strong, they criticize India's democracy as flimsy. This is, in fact, hypocrisy. Although Quad members launched a plan to boost India's COVID-19 vaccine production capacity, this didn't prevent Western media from pouring criticisms on India over the country's vaccination drive. An opinion piece on the New York Times on Monday punched at India's "bureaucracy, inefficient delivery and a rich-poor disparity" that are hobbling the country's vaccination drive. It claimed the second COVID-19 wave is moving faster than India's bureaucracy. US media outlets such as the New York Times and CNN are essentially pro-Democratic Party. They are inclined to focus on reporting the negative side of India. They often run articles that accuse India of moving in a more authoritarian direction. Media in the US and other Western countries have been criticizing India's "degraded" democracy for a while. They lambaste it by saying that India's democracy is becoming more and more authoritarian. Whether it is the growing influence of the Bharatiya Janata Party in India, the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, the mistreatment of Muslims, or the internet shutdown during the farmers' protests, India has attracted a lot of criticism from the West. Under such context, the Quad members still hypocritically stand together, emphasizing that they are like-minded allies. But in fact, these are just slogans used to achieve their geopolitical purposes. China was not mentioned in the joint statement the Quad issued after its summit, but people understand that they are actually targeting China. However, when it comes to dealing with specific China-related issues, the four countries have different considerations. All the four have close economic relations with China. Even though they claim that their so-called common values and interests are a priority, they still need to properly handle the Chinese market. This really means their interests are with China. This, however, conflicts with their political will to openly confront China. The Quad grouping has put forward a grand goal to establish a free, open, rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region. Please also don't ignore the fact that there are already many mechanisms (such as ASEAN in Asia) that are more mature than Quad that can be utilized. These mechanisms hold the potential to better reflect the common interests of the people in the region. Time has changed. With so many other mechanisms in Asia, this question might be raised: How attractive will Quad be? The fact is this: The future of Asia lies in economic frameworks such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. How far the Quad grouping will actually go also depends on the results of China handling bilateral relations with each of the Quad members. China and India are making efforts to bring the ties back to a normal track after the border standoff from last summer. China is sending goodwill to Japan over many issues, with Japan's hosting of the Olympic Games in particular, in an attempt to create sound conditions for stable Japan-China ties. When it comes to China-Australia relations, there is still room for a turnaround given the fact that there are still many rational voices calling for an end to Australia's hostile policy toward China in Australia's business circles. Besides, China and the US will soon have their Alaska meeting. As long as China can properly address bilateral relations with each Quad member, this can help dilute their joint containment of China. The article was compiled based on an interview with Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University.

Despite the first Quad summit held on March 12 dominating headlines of global media reports, it is evident that its members are loosely knit with temporary purposes and interests. The fact can hardly be changed even if Indian media outlets are busy hyping up the Quad-plus-France military exercise, which will take place in the Bay of Bengal from April 4 to 7, in an attempt to show off the group's military cooperation.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will visit India from Friday to Sunday. Against the backdrop, Indian media are sensationalizing the importance of the Quad-plus-France military exercise to show that India plays a dominant role in such military cooperation. Joint military exercises among the US, Japan, India and Australia are usually dominated by the US because it has the strongest military power. Even in the Indian Ocean, the US has a much stronger military presence than India does. But New Delhi has always believed that the Indian Ocean should be dominated by India. It therefore wants to make a preemptive statement to show that India's role in the Quad framework is important. After the US proposed its Indo-Pacific Strategy, India has dreamed to take advantage of US influence to achieve some of India's strategic goals. Although Washington and New Delhi have a strong need for cooperation, the two sides are by no means real friends. They are making use of each other for their own ends. The upcoming naval drill between Quad members and France is more like a publicity stunt. For the moment, Washington is hoping to draw more NATO members into its Indo-Pacific military framework and to invite them to cooperate with the US' future military operations in this region. However, many European countries are not enthusiastic about it. Since the US plays a dominant role in NATO, France has to show some cooperative gestures. But France won't carry out hostile actions which are directly targeted at other major military powers in the West Pacific. It is impossible for France to maintain a long-term military presence in this region. As such, France's participation in the Quad-plus-France drills is only to give face to the US. Although some Indian media outlets claim that certain Western countries are eager to cooperate with Quad to tackle a "belligerent" China, those countries may pay more attention to India's defense market, because India cannot produce many kinds of large combating equipment and weapons by its own and has to import them from other countries. Therefore, reports and rhetoric made by some Indian media outlets were too arrogant and too overconfident. Many Indian media outlets have portrayed China as a "threat." This, in fact, will make it impossible for defense cooperation between European countries and India to go further. Currently, China's military presence in the Indian Ocean is only for peaceful purposes, including fighting piracy and providing escorts for vessels. These actions do not target India or pose a maritime threat to any other country in the region. On the contrary, India has always been aggressive in the Indian Ocean. India's major-power ambitions are growing. It even hopes to build a hegemonic system in the Indian Ocean. However, the US desires to maintain its hegemony in the Indian Ocean. As a result, although there is some military cooperation between the two countries targeting China, ultimately, contradictions between New Delhi and Washington in the Indian Ocean region will be irreconcilable. When India's military power grows, New Delhi will challenge the US in the region sooner or later. This actually reflects that the security-based framework of Quad is not as solid as it looks. There is still a big gap between US' and India's military presence in the Indian Ocean. But if India deploys more aircraft carriers, more advanced nuclear submarines and fighter jets there in the future, it will seriously ponder which country has the final say in the waters. However, the US will never allow any other country to dominate strategic patterns in the Indian Ocean. By then, Washington and New Delhi will inevitably turn against each other. Fundamentally speaking, Quad is a loosely knit group which was established for temporary interests of its members. The military moves of Quad are obviously aimed at China. What China needs to do now is to improve its own military capabilities and to strengthen its comprehensive maritime combat abilities while proving to the world that a stronger Chinese navy will safeguard world peace and stability. The author is a Beijing-based military analyst.

Former Indian diplomat K. C. Singh published an article on Monday entitled, "Will India 'self-correct' in order to To fulfill the promise of Quad ?" The author observed that "soft power is at the root" of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, also known as Quad comprising the US, Japan, India and Australia, and the Quad members were "united by democratic values". He suggested that when other countries debate whether democracy is degrading in India, "denial and anger is not the answer… self-correction is." First, it is necessary to point out that the Quad is definitely not "united by democratic values." If this is the case, then why have other democratic countries, such as the Philippines, not participated? The fundamental reason for these four countries to "unite" is not because of their so-called democratic values, but geopolitics. They are unwilling to see China's rise and are afraid of China's strength. Indeed, India's democracy has been touted by many Western countries, especially the US. But they have their selfish purposes. They want to use India's democracy as a pretext to put the spotlight on the so-called undemocratic condition of China, and to prove that India's democracy is beneficial to development. But ironically, India's development is worse than China's in almost all aspects. Nor has India's democracy really contributed to the improvement of its social welfare and human rights. The most fundamental problem with India's democracy is that many of the country's policies and laws cannot truly serve the interests of the people at the bottom of society. Another problem is that many Indian politicians do not have much practical experience in national governance. They mainly focus on political commitments to win votes, but they lack long-term development plans. This also explains the inefficiency of the entire country. Within the different castes of Hinduism, the rights of the lower castes have long been severely trampled upon. Farmers committing suicide due to poverty and the vast discrimination against women are vivid examples that democracy and human rights have by no means been guaranteed in India. A report by the US-based NGO Freedom House on March 3, entitled "Freedom in the World 2021," has downgraded India from a "free" country to a "partly free" country, after judging India on various political rights and civil liberties. And according to Sweden-based Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, India has turned from being the world's largest democracy into an "electoral autocracy." Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar responded sharply to these rhetorically: "...because you have a set of self-appointed custodians of the world, who find it very difficult to stomach that somebody in India is not looking for their approval, is not willing to play the game they want it to be played" Here, India's retort is justified. It is wrong for the US and some Western countries to ask other countries to promote Western democracy according to the standards the West has set. The development of a country's political system has to be adapted to its national conditions, as well as its historical and cultural traditions. The West has long regarded India as the "largest democracy." However, it has a selfish intention for doing so. The claim of India's democratic status is mainly aimed at China, with the ultimate purpose of trying to prove that China is not a democracy. Now the West sees that the so-called largest democracy also has many problems. In fact, Western countries may have known this long before. They just chose to ignore it. When it comes to issues over China, Western countries may still butter up the specialty of democracy of India. But when they talk about India alone, they will mercilessly point out these problems. This reflects the fact that India is not recognized by the West. If India's problems are spotted in Australia or the UK, the attitude of these European countries and the US would be different. They would not attribute these problems to democracy, either. Countries are not only divided by whether they are democratic or not, but also by Western or non-Western. Thus, even though India has adopted many Western models in its political system, the country is still seen as different by the West in terms of race and culture. In his article, Singh concludes that self-correction is the answer for India's democracy. Otherwise, "the Quad will merely be a limping Triad-plus". This is also fundamentally wrong. The Quad has turned into the way it is today due to geopolitical reasons. Whether they will become a "limping Triad-plus" does not depend on whether Indian democracy is corrected or not. Democracy is just an excuse for these four countries when they are in conflict with each other. The Quad only has common geopolitical aims against China, not common democracy. Of course, in order to damage China's image, they will portray India's democracy as perfect. This is complete opportunism.   The author is a senior research fellow with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at the Beijing Foreign Studies University, and president of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs. 

The leaders of the Quad countries, the US, Japan, India and Australia, issued a joint statement after their first online meeting on Friday. The statement did not mention China, but it contained a number of phrases that were specifically directed at China. For example, it mentioned that the Quad countries "will strive for an Indo-Pacific region unconstrained by coercion." Other issues, such as helping India expand vaccine production, had already been tagged toward China in advance of the meeting. Media outlets had commonly interpreted it as an effort to counter China in "vaccine diplomacy." Some media outlets even suggested that "China looms large at this meeting. "US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Friday's press briefing that "the four leaders did discuss the challenge posed by China, and they made clear that none of them have any illusions about China." He reiterated that "the Quad is not a new NATO," and also stressed that "it is an opportunity for these four democracies to work as a group." His expression is a little confused and contradictory.

Sullivan's denial of the appellation is also a kind of realism. He must know it's as difficult for Washington to build an Asian NATO as it is to turn all Asian countries into US states. The statement of the four countries did not mention China at all is obviously not what the United States wanted, but the very fact reflects the different positions of the four countries on China. Their national interests require different strategies toward China. In fact, no country in Asia is willing to compete with China on the strategic front. They are all tempted or coerced by the US, and they are trying to decide on whether the benefits of following the US outweighs disadvantages of damaging their relations with China. The Quad mechanism is still in its infancy and the US is determined to make it work by picking up any possible topic. It talked about climate change and COVID-19 vaccines, pinning the direction of the competition with China on these issues, with the intention of weakening China's influence in the whole region and pushing more Asia-Pacific countries to "decouple" from China. The Indo-Pacific vision of the US was likely to come true if the US economy was booming while China's development was collapsing and was militarizing itself like Japan did 80 years ago. However, Washington misread both the global trend and the nature of its strategic competition with China. China is the largest trading partner for Japan, Australia and India, as is the number one trading partner of most other Asia-Pacific countries. None of them has any real fear of being invaded by China. Japan and India have historical territorial disputes with China, and they obviously know it is better in their national interests to manage such disputes than to fight with China while relying on the US' support. The four Quad countries will have long-term differences and confusion over what the fundamentals of the Quad mechanism should be. Those who dare not say but think of an Asian version of NATO in their minds are extremely poor in strategic thinking. George Frost Kennan, whose "Long Telegram" propelled the Cold War, seems to have become the "Jesus" of US' strategy. That "Long Telegram" can also be used as a trans-century "Bible." But the Asia-Pacific region is booming, and China is marching forward. China has just drawn up a new five-year plan, a plan to develop the country even further, and we are working on how to do our own thing. The US has lost its way and the only sense of its strategic direction is how to undermine China. The Quad, a cooperating group with an undeclared goal of confronting China, provides a scenario in which leaders of these four countries pretend to have done something important. It gives the lost countries a comfort of seeming to have found their way, and it creates a psychological massage that doesn't bring the will to solve the real problems they face but helps them to escape reality. China will strengthen normal relations with Japan and India. Strategic confrontation with China is a bad gamble for Japan and India. China will not dwell on the disputes with the two countries in its relations with them. This will have a long-term disruptive effect on US' containment of China in what it refers to as the Indo-Pacific region. China will also strengthen its overall cooperation with ASEAN and other Asian countries, which will put more pressure on forces that adopt a hard line toward China in Japan, India and Australia. The US has been swayed by a consideration of gain and loss between confrontation and cooperation with China. This basic reality tells people that whoever wants to isolate China throughout the region is destined to be isolated itself.      

In an article titled "Quad summit may kill visions of `Asian Century'", Dhanajay Tripathi, a scholar at South Asia University, argues that the Quad Summit is the first concrete step in killing the dream of the "Asian Century", a vision about a united Asia dominating world politics and culture in the 21st century. This is actually an exaggeration of the Quad's influence. The Quad will have an impact on Asian affairs, but after all, there are only four countries in the Quad. Asia is a very vast continent with many countries, so these four countries will not be able to influence the future development trend of Asia. Besides, the Quad countries themselves are not always on the same page: each has its own interests and different policy preferences. The Quad is now mainly focused on cooperation in the security field, but even in the security field, the four countries in fact have a lot of different interests. India, for example, has always had a very close relationship with Russia, which is considered a security threat by the United States. India is also not a US ally, unlike Japan and Australia. And over the years, India's suspicions or misgivings about US strategy have always been very strong. All four Quad countries have their calculations, and if there is still no certainty on whether they can fully cooperate, then how will they be able to affect, change or "kill" Asian unity and cooperation between Asian countries? What's more, although there are some conflicting views on security issues in the past few years, such as China-India border frictions and the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan, China and the countries involved are strengthening their interactions in these areas, such as economy and trade, science and technology, as well as humanities. China is still the largest trading partner of Australia, Japan and India, and one of the most important trading partners of the US. So, as the Quad focuses on security, it certainly does not want to compromise cooperation and interaction in other areas. For the same reason, Asian countries other than Japan and India are also unlikely to stand with the Quad, or to be fully aligned with the four countries. Asian countries will respond to the Quad's involvement in Asian affairs based on their own interests. Although it is difficult to make a consensus on taking concrete action among all Asian countries, most parts of Asia right now share three same goals at least. First, the vast majority of Asian countries are developing countries, and for them, the first basic demand is to have a peaceful and stable region. Even a small military conflict will cause a strong, negative so-called spillover effect, which no country wants to see. On the other hand, Asian countries want economic prosperity. Asia's desire for economic growth has become more urgent facing the economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is another area that all countries want to cooperate in. All of these are areas that China can make great contributions in. As a matter of fact, most countries around the world are not worried about the rise of China, and most Asian countries do not see a so-called Chinese threat at all. Most countries see China's economic development, social stability, as well as achievements in COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control instead, and won't fully accept the narratives of the US.  For them, China represents more an opportunity than a threat. Most countries are rational, and they do not want to choose sides between China and the US, or be involved in a potential conflict between China and the US, just as Premier Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore recently pointed out on March 14, 2021. India and Japan, which have participated in the Quad, may lose some development opportunities because of their promotion of the Quad being bound to raise concerns from China. The Quad focuses on security and military cooperation, and is well known to be aimed at China. That being said, China won't sit idly by without implementing countermeasures, which will for sure affect bilateral ties between China and the Quad members. Furthermore, multilateral cooperation on the regional or international level will also be affected by a poor relationship between China and these Quad countries. Issues, including economic policy coordination, joint response to climate change, the Iranian nuclear issue and so on, require transnational cooperation, especially between major powers. If these issues cannot be handled properly, then no country can remain without damage. The author is deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University. 

China and the US have confirmed a high-level strategic dialogue between Chinese top diplomat Yang Jiechi, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan next week. This will be the first senior-level meeting between the two countries since Yang met with then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo in June 2020. Hence, the meeting has drawn great attention since some sources revealed it. Some observers in the US said that Washington has fully communicated with its allies and consolidated its alliance system. Therefore, the meeting with Beijing would be an engagement from a position of strength. The US side has also released such a message: It hopes China will make change on issues that concern the US; otherwise, the dialogue would not have tangible outcomes and following dialogues would be meaningless. It must be pointed out that both sides' intent is indispensable for the meeting to be held. It's not a unilateral wish. China has clarified its long-term attitude of strengthening China-US engagements. Such an attitude has formed a confluence with the US' current needs to construct its China policy, leading to the Alaska meeting. The US side should abandon the mentality of them having special advantages in the dialogue. Mutual respect will be more conducive to reaching some outcomes in the meeting. The US has emphasized the strength of its alliance system. But this factor is exaggerated. China doesn't have so serious disputes with US allies that they have to resort to severe conflicts for a settlement. The differences between China and US allies are determined by diversity of the world. And both sides are willing and able to manage these differences. Allies of Washington are more motivated to cooperate with Beijing than to contain China with the US. As a result, if some in the US want to frighten China with its alliance system, it won't work. To ask China to change its policy of governing Xinjiang and stabilizing Hong Kong amounts to interference in China's internal affairs and cannot be accepted by Chinese society. Any exchange of ideas at any time over these issues is only a form of communication to help the US understand the truth and reduce misunderstanding and miscalculation. China and the US are major powers. Committed to changing each other, especially through pressure, is dangerous. It is reasonable for China and the US to accept their differences. The purpose of engagement should be to manage differences, seek common interests, and promote cooperation where both sides can and should. Through these efforts, the two countries should create a framework for China-US relations featuring coexistence and non-confrontation, allowing time to smooth over differences, easing conflicts and ensuring that China-US competition is conducted in a peaceful manner. Talking about strategic mutual interests can be difficult at a time when some Americans still have a serious zero-sum mentality. But competing in a peaceful and rules-based way is probably the biggest common denominator between China and the US. It cannot be the reality or the future of China-US relations that one side dominates the communication, and one side sets the questions while the other answers. We feel that the US still does not understand China, and it has misread the nature of China's system and its goal of rejuvenation. The US has given what is happening in China and frictions with its neighbors over border issues a high and illusory external directive. In addition, the traditional culture and the historical experience of the US do not support the vision of "win-win" competition among great powers. Washington is too used to giving orders. They should get used to listening and not refuse to try to solve fundamental problems in a compromising and mutually beneficial way.

US President Joe Biden is scheduled to join the first-ever virtual meeting of leaders from Japan, India and Australia on Friday as the country's latest attempt to wield influence in the Indo-Pacific region to contain China. While the US is trying to contain China through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as Quad, or the "Asian NATO," such ambition is impossible to realize, experts told the Global Times. And given the different demands, political and religious situations in the Indo-Pacific region, it is impractical for the US to replicate the NATO model in Asia. First launched in 2007, the Quad featured semi-regular summits. It's not until recent years that foreign ministers from the Quad began to meet regularly. But this time, the virtual meeting marks the first time that the top leaders of the four countries have come together. US President Joe Biden's decision to make the Quad one of his earliest multilateral engagements "speaks to the importance we've placed on close cooperation with our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific," said White House press secretary Jen Psaki, according to media reports. While Biden tried to rely on the loosely organized Quad for its Asian ambition, the divergences among the member countries, which are so conspicuous, could dampen this dream. "Given its chaotic domestic situation and bipartisan division, the US wants to rely on other countries to reach its aim, but other countries also want to rely on the US to reach their goals. This will lead to problems in resource distribution," Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Friday. Asked about the Quad meeting, Zhao Lijian, spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministry, told Friday's press conference that the exchanges and cooperation between countries should help enhance mutual understanding and trust among regional countries, and should not target or undermine the interests of any third party. We hope relevant countries will follow the principles of openness, inclusiveness and win-win, refrain from forming closed and exclusive cliques, and do more for regional peace, stability and prosperity, Zhao said. On Friday's meeting, it's reported that the four countries will discuss a range of topics, from the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, to reducing dependence on China-produced rare earths and providing funds to boost India's vaccine production. Analysts pointed out that unlike the traditional military allies that the US has formed, it now seeks to include more areas, especially in terms of the economy, to contain China, which is in sharp contrast to the multilateralism that Biden vocally advocated for. He Weiwen, a former economic and commercial counselor at the Chinese consulate generals in San Francisco and New York, told the Global Times on Friday that China remained the largest contributor in terms of economic output in the region in the coronavirus-plagued 2020 and a key factor underpinning the strong economic rebound in the region, with its GDP forecast to grow at over 8 percent in 2021. Its trade with ASEAN is double the size of that between the US and the trading bloc. "It is ridiculous for the four nations to make such a countering-China move in the Asia-Pacific region," he said. Will the Asian NATO be effective? A senior US official told Reuters that Friday's meeting will send "a very strong signal of common cause and purpose. And its goal is basically to introduce the Quad as a new feature of regular diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific." While the Quad is not a formal military alliance, it's increasingly viewed by many as a weapon to contain the growth of China in the Indo-Pacific region. Philip Davidson, head of the US military's Indo-Pacific Command, on Tuesday expressed his hope that the Quad could "build into something bigger." But the reality could hit these US politicians' confidence. Countries like India and Japan have close economic ties with China. The border clash should make India realize that being China's enemy won't do the country any good, analysts said. For ASEAN countries, they have good relations with China, and they won't be used by the US as good relations with China are beneficial for their countries and people, Li said. Meanwhile, in Asia, most countries do not share the US version of "democratic values" like NATO, and also given the different religious beliefs, they won't easily follow the US way, he added. East Asian countries and Southeast Asian countries should consider economic interests instead of blindly following the US-led circle in containing China, said He. An expert told the Global Times that the Quad meeting and the "2+2" meeting between the two Chinese and two US chief diplomats next week send a message that the US is still wrestling with how to deal with China. It does not want to totally break away with China, while expressing a firm confrontation against China. "The next two weeks will be the formative phase of America's China policy," said Zhang Jiadong, a professor at the Center for American Studies of Fudan University. The participation of leaders of the four countries showed the Quad mechanism is moving ahead. But whether the bloc can get closer depends on China, he said. Economic alliance not feasible The Quad nations planned to cooperate in funding new production technologies and development projects for rare earths, as well as lead the way in drafting international rules, according to the Nikkei Asian Review. The Quad's intention to counter China in the rare-earth sector is logical given the dominant role the country plays in supplying more than half of the world's such key materials, yet the lack of relevant technologies and talent pool could obstruct their progress in building up a supply chain from scratch, which needs to take quite a few years to complete, industry observers told the Global Times. Among the four nations, Australia and India are the suppliers while Japan and the US are big consumers of rare earths, dubbed "industrial gold" composed of a group of 17 chemical elements used in everything from high-tech consumer electronics to military equipment. According to the US Geological Survey, China accounted for 58 percent of rare-earth production worldwide in 2020, down from around 90 percent some four years ago as the US and Australia have gradually boosted their own production. The US has united with Australia, home to the world's sixth-largest reserves of rare-earth minerals, over recent years to improve rare earths supply. "It's more like a tone-setting meeting today for the four nations to team up for rare earths as they have realized the need to secure supply, but uncertainties loom in the implementation period," Liu Enqiao, a senior energy analyst at Beijing-based Anbound Consulting, told the Global Times on Friday. "Each nation has its own interests to prioritize. For Australia and India, if they only play the role of rare-earth exporters instead of considering the practical market interests, it would not be sustainable," Liu noted. It is objective that the tie-up of the Quad could pose some challenges to the near-monopolistic position that Chinese rare earths have long held on the world stage, but it is not possible to shake off their reliance on China's supply chain in a short period. In the next 10 years, China will still be an important supplier in this system, said Chen Zhanheng, deputy head of the Association of China Rare Earth Industry. "China has invested substantially in improving its refining technology over the past years, forging a definite advantage in this regard. The West currently lacks the relevant talent pool and efficiency to compete with China, plus they face much higher costs to do by themselves instead of importing," Chen told the Global Times on Friday. China has no intention to use rare earths as a countermeasure against any country, which would only serve to accelerate development of rare earths in other markets, said experts. The four countries also reportedly would fund India to boost its vaccine productivity to contain what they called China's "vaccine diplomacy." Tao Lina, a Shanghai-based medical expert on vaccines, told the Global Times on Friday that vaccine supply is still far from enough now. These countries should not just focus on vaccine completion. "When they try to increase vaccine production, they should not be soft on the control of vaccine quality but should avoid the occurrence of vaccine quality accidents which will influence the public's confidence in the vaccines," he said.

Mining of rare earths is conducted in Baiyunebo, North China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region on July 16, 2011. File photo: VCG

It may be logical for the Quad alliance, grouping the US, Japan, Australia and India, to team up to counter China in the rare-earth sector, given the dominant role the country plays in supplying more than half of the world's such key materials, yet the lack of relevant technologies and talent could obstruct their progress in building up a supply chain from scratch, which needs to take quite a few years to complete, industry observers told the Global Times. The Quad nations planned to cooperate in funding new production technologies and development projects for rare earths, as well as lead the way in drafting international rules, according to a report by the Nikkei Asian Review. Among the four nations, Australia and India are the suppliers while Japan and the US are big consumers of rare earths, dubbed "industrial gold" composed of a group of 17 chemical elements used in everything from high-tech consumer electronics to military equipment. According to the US Geological Survey, China accounted for 58 percent of rare-earth production worldwide in 2020, down from around 90 percent some four years ago as the US and Australia have gradually boosted their own production. The US has united with Australia, home to the world's sixth-largest reserves of rare-earth minerals, over recent years to improve rare earths supply. "It's more like a tone-setting meeting for the four nations to team up for rare earths as they have realized the need to secure supply, but there are uncertainties in the implementation period," Liu Enqiao, a senior energy analyst at Beijing-based Anbound Consulting, told the Global Times on Friday. "Each nation has its own interests to prioritize. For Australia and India, if they only play the role of rare-earth exporters instead of considering the practical market interests, it would not be sustainable," Liu noted. Since rare-earth minerals need to be processed after they are extracted from the ground, the refining process of which will create large amounts of radioactive waste and thus pollute the environment, developed countries usually transfer the capacity to emerging countries. Australian miner Lynas produces light rare earths at a plant in Malaysia. "For countries like Malaysia, it has to consider the balance between environmental sacrifice and local economy pickup," said Liu. It is impossible for the US to contain China through the Quad given the different demands, political and religious situations in the Indo-Pacific region, and it is impractical for the US to replicate the NATO model in Asia, experts said. The tie-up of the Quad could pose some challenge to the near-monopolistic position that Chinese rare earths have long held on the world stage, but it is not possible to shake off their reliance on China's supply chain in a short period. In the next 10 years, China will still be an important supplier in this system, said Chen Zhanheng, deputy head of the Association of China Rare Earth Industry. "China has invested substantially in improving its refining technology over the past years, forging a definite advantage in this regard. The West currently lacks the relevant talent pool and efficiency to compete with China, plus they face much higher costs to produce by themselves instead of importing," Chen told the Global Times on Friday. China has no intention to use rare earths as a countermeasure against any country, which would only accelerate development of rare earths in other markets, said experts. Concerns arise among Western countries over China's possible move to restrict exports of the strategic material following the release of a draft rare-earth management rule in January by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). The ministry refuted such speculation, saying the draft aims at standardizing the industry in line with long-term development and market demand. "Economic globalization is a major trend. We need to work together to meet resource, energy and product needs in the process of economic and market development. I think this is mainly about promoting healthier and more sustainable development, in view of our current problems," said MIIT Minister Xiao Yaqing.

Ahead of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) meeting on Friday, the US and India have both reportedly hyped up their new limits on China's telecom provider Huawei. Experts interpreted their moves at such a point as "all bluff and bluster" but warned that further containment of the Chinese tech giant may be talked about during the meeting by the US and its allies. By releasing such a signal without official announcements, the US government may adopt Huawei as a bargaining chip at the Quad meeting, Ma Jihua, a veteran telecoms industry analyst who closely follows Huawei, told the Global Times on Friday. The Biden administration further restricted companies from selling components like semiconductors, antennas and batteries that support Huawei's 5G devices, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the move. The ban will come into effect this week. Responding to the reported ban, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on Friday said that "facts have proved again and again that the US is an unreliable and untrustworthy country." Having expressed a solemn position on the matter many times, Zhao urged the US to stop unreasonable pressure on the Chinese company and suggested it do more things beneficial to bilateral exchanges in technology and trade cooperation. Meanwhile, India is likely to ban its mobile carriers from using telecom gear by Huawei, according to Reuters. Two of India's major telecoms carriers - Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea - use Huawei equipment. Both leaders from the US and India will attend the Quad meeting, together with another two leaders from Japan and Australia. "Drawing allies over to the US side to contain China's robust tech growth could reduce harm on the US itself, as its allies would bear and share the losses too," Ma noted, adding the US President Joe Biden is very aware of that. Unlike the way of former US President Donald Trump, Biden's way to get allies roped in is by resourcing exchanges to reach his goals, experts said. Under the Quad framework, Japan, India, and Australia are willing to play "pawns" for the US to counter against China, "creating an atmosphere with friendly cooperation; meanwhile sharing a bitter hatred of the enemy," Gao Lingyun, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times on Friday. "But the meeting will turn to be an empty talk with bravado at the end. Having neither a standing body, nor a secretariat, what the four countries under the Quad will do is to talk big at the meeting," Gao said. Even if industry analysts from multiple countries warn that adopting telecom equipment by other companies instead of Huawei's will increase costs to both local companies and consumers, cracking down on China's 5G and other advanced technology developments has become a consensus among the US elites, Ma said. "As a result, the Biden administration is unlikely to take a sharp turn on Huawei issues within the short term. The company will still be a key target of the Biden administration," he warned, despite the chip restrictions on Huawei having brought about a severe global chip shortage. One of the signals on Biden's attitude toward Huawei may fall on Meng Wanzhou, Huawei CFO, according to Ma. "If the US government changes its mind to give up Meng's extradition, further relaxes on Huawei's businesses and trade bans can be expected as well." Andy Purdy, Chief Security Officer of Huawei US division, told CNN in February that it is important for Huawei to get Meng released, and the company hopes that the Biden administration will take a different approach on the issue, compared to Trump. Huawei has not responded to the Global Times inquiry as of press time.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as "Quad," comprising of the US, Japan, India and Australia, will hold its first leaders-level meeting on Friday. India will host the BRICS summit in 2021. But it has been moving closer to the US and the US-led Quad in recent years, worsening India-China and India-Russia relations and affecting the development of some China-led or Russia-led groupings or mechanisms that India takes part in, such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). With India moving closer to the US, as well as its own anti-China stance in recent years, it's fair to say that BRICS and the SCO have fallen into stagnation since the Doklam standoff in 2017. India has clear demands in the SCO and BRICS. One is anti-terrorism; the other is to use the financial platforms of these groupings, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank, to win as much financial support as possible. But in other respects, India has basically adopted a non-cooperative attitude, which has greatly restricted these groupings' development in recent years. India has become a negative asset of these groupings. China in February said it is backing India to host the 2021 BRICS summit. It seems India has failed to understand China's goodwill. India takes all support from China for granted. It is, in fact, carrying out a kind of strategic blackmail against China. On the other hand, India has attached more importance to Quad, and is very sure about its core demands of the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy - to counterbalance, contain and deter China. India fears China will become the dominant force in Asia, and it does not want to see this happen. However, India cannot compete with China on its own, and thus it hopes to contain China together with like-minded countries. India also hopes to win more support from the US, Japan and Australia. It does not want Quad to only focus on military cooperation, but also economic and financial ones. New Delhi wants Western countries to provide it with funding and technology and help it to build value and industry chains that can replace China. After the COVID-19 outbreak, India has been actively negotiating this with the other three Quad members. One of the focuses of this upcoming Quad summit is reportedly to announce financing to boost India's vaccine output. India has been very proactive both bilaterally and multilaterally to promote the development of Quad. In 2019, it upgraded its engagement with Quad to ministerial level, which can be seen as a major move of India. In 2020, India signed the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation with the US, included Australia in the Malabar military exercise and signed a mutual logistics support arrangement with Japan. However, these moves have worsened India's relations with China and Russia. In 2020, the India-Russia annual summit was postponed for the first time ever after Moscow expressed severe reservations on New Delhi joining Quad. India may still want to maintain a swaying state and a balance between the Indo-Pacific and Eurasia. However, the so-called balance does not exist anymore. India is now very inclined toward the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy. India is now gradually breaking the balance. If it goes further down this road, it will eventually lose strategic autonomy, completely become the US' hatchet man against China in the Indo-Pacific region, or even cannon fodder. Biden upgraded Quad to the leaders' level not long after he assumed office. It's expected the US will continue to strengthen the four-country grouping in the future. India is considered by the US as the most important Quad member. The US' strategic goal is to use India to counterbalance and contain China. Quad is likely to expand in the future. No matter how it expands, the regional security structure it wants to establish is exclusive to China and Russia. India now has moved three major steps forward, tilting toward Quad. It supported the resumption of Quad dialogue at the official level in 2017, upgraded its engagement to ministerial level in 2019 and now to the leaders' level, most recently. It's time to stop and pay more attention to the reactions from China and Russia. India is moving too close to the US, and a de facto alliance has been formed. If it continues to seek courtship with the US and Quad so proactively, it will yield negative results and completely tie itself to the US' chariot. New Delhi needs to take a more cautious attitude and think twice. China showed its goodwill by expressing support for India to host the BRICS summit. There have been many areas where China and India could tap cooperation. India shouldn't play with fire, or it will end up burning itself. (The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Yu Jincui based on an interview with Liu Zongyi, secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, a visiting fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China, and a distinguished fellow of the China (Kunming) South Asia & Southeast Asia Institute.)

Editor's Note: A recent joint Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Levada Analytical Center survey finds that the Russian public sees little downside to the growing bilateral relationship with China. According to the survey, three out of four Russians polled express a favorable view of China. Although some in the Russian political circles and public in the past years worried closer ties would lead to a heavy dependence on China, a majority of Russians (56 percent) polled say Moscow's active cooperation with Beijing is not increasing Russia's dependence on China. What have these figures indicated? Can China-Russia relationship be a model for major power relations? The Global Times interviewed a Russian expert to share his views. Oleg Ivanov, Vice-Rector of Research, Moscow-based Diplomatic Academy There may be various views of China and the West in Russia today. Some people are more Western-oriented than others. But over the past roughly 10 years after sanctions against Russia and pressure on our country, the number of such people diminished. Many Russians are offended by such attitude of the Western leaders. We look at China as a partner and can help each other overcome sanctions. We have a common position on many urgent issues especially in international security field. Our interdependency here is very important. We can ensure our security and prosperity if we work together. If we are separated we will make it possible for the West to impose its will on us. The West does not need powerful rivals that will cast doubt on its supremacy. The West has adopted a confrontational strategy toward Russia for quite a long time. China also found itself under pressure from the West, mainly from the US. While Russia was regarded as a rival to the US' supremacy more in military terms, China was regarded as a rival mostly in economic terms. Under the administration of former US president Donald Trump, who took an intransigent attitude toward China, many believe that the China-US relations reached a new low. The misunderstanding of the role that Russia and China played in world politics became the top agenda both in European capitals and in Washington. This pressure from the West toward Russia and China pulled the two countries together. Beijing and Moscow understood that they should unite their efforts to resist this pressure from the West. As a result of such cooperation, according to the survey mentioned above, since 2014, around 40 percent of Russians consider China as Russia's closest friend. This is more than the number for any other country. However, some voices from the West think that China and Russia are only "friends with benefits." There is a close understanding between China and Russia, but its point is not of any material profit. The point is that both countries share a common position on what the world should be like, that is, a world moving toward multipolarity. Multi-polarization is an objective process, and nobody can stop it. The common goal of China and Russia is to make this transition toward multipolarity smooth and without any conflicts. All the attempts to stop it or slow it down are considered as confrontational behaviors toward Beijing and Moscow. Therefore, in order to guarantee the success of multi-polarization, regional and international security is now one of the priority areas of cooperation between China and Russia. This is demonstrated in multiple joint military exercises and two joint aerial patrols in the Asia-Pacific region. Beijing and Moscow have quite a few more areas where they can cooperate. In economic terms, there is a connectivity between the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union and the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, which has very good prospects to be realized between the two countries through Central Asia. It may give a good impetus to the economic and social development of China, Central Asian countries and Russia. As close as China and Russia already are, the more pressure that comes from the West, the closer they will become. Facing suppressions from the West that keeps weaponizing certain issues, there are areas where Beijing and Moscow can cooperate even further. For example, China and Russia are accused by Western countries of violating human rights and democracy, which is denied by both countries. To stop the spread of disinformation, the two countries can join hands and work in close cooperation with international organizations, such as the United Nations, BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moreover, the US also said that it faces cyberattacks from China and Russia, so cyberspace is another very important area where Russia and China can and should cooperate. There are still many potentials of cooperation in that area. Both Russia and China came up with an initiative to work out the international code of behavior in cyberspace. Unfortunately, the US and its allies rejected the joint proposal, leaving cyberspace open for attacks. A closer relationship between China and Russia is not what the world does not want to see. Developing China-Russia relations are in favor of promoting multi-polarization and maintaining justice in the world. Multipolarity gives more chances to other countries to have a strong voice in international relations, and that is what both Beijing and Moscow applaud. Multipolarity will also create a more just world order. Under the new world order, there will be no more endeavors from Western countries to dominate the world, to impose their so-called democratic values on others and to arrange color revolutions, destabilizing the situation in other countries. Can our relations be a model? Maybe a model is a word too strong to describe them. I would use the word "basis" on which many other countries can build their relations with their partners.

 "Don't behave like CNN" is the lesson the Chinese people has learned after the news network's truth-twisting approach in its coverage and analysis of the unrest in Tibet in 2008. Thirteen years have passed, and it seems that CNN has made few improvements, and this perception still holds.  "With fewer academics willing to travel to China, and those who do make it after the coronavirus pandemic encountering a more closed nation, the result could be fewer Western minds reporting on and studying China firsthand at a time when, arguably, the world has never had a greater need to understand the country." Here are a few lines from yet another China-bashing article published by CNN Wednesday titled "Westerners are increasingly scared of travelling to China as threat of detention rises," which is an all-too-familiar attempt to vilify China. But what is ironic is that if we replace "China" with "the US," the article works perfectly. "Chinese people are increasingly scared of travelling to the US as threat of detention rises." This is actually very true. The US should look into the mirror to see who indulges in arbitrary detentions. As the US ramps up its efforts to crack down on China in recent years, there has been a significant number of Chinese being arrested by manipulating the excuse of national security. In October 2020, the FBI arrested five Chinese on charges they were part of China's "Operation Fox Hunt" anti-corruption campaign and "harass, stalk and coerce" certain residents in the US. The Department of Justice said in a statement that in many instances the targets of the campaign were "dissidents" and "critics," who, however, were economic criminals in China. In 2015, the FBI arrested Zhang Hao, a Tianjin University professor, who landed at Los Angeles International Airport, on charges of economic espionage. The arrest was an apparent trap set by the FBI and a ploy by the US to suppress the Chinese chip industry. Zhang was forced to stay in the US for the following years and sentenced to 18 months in prison with restitution last year. The US targets also expand to the group of Chinese students screened for hours at US airports for their alleged potential involvement in China's "economic espionage." The most prominent case of "arbitrary detention" in the world could be Canada's arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou directed by the US. Canada is helping the US open Pandora's Box. While Canada took the initiative to woo dozens of countries to sign a declaration denouncing the arbitrary detention of foreign citizens, it is slapping its own face. The Chinese are increasingly wary of going to not only the US, but also its hatchet men, including Canada, Australia and the UK. Now, Washington is standing with evils and what it has been doing is sheer political persecution. If CNN thinks China's action of protecting its national security is threats, but turns a blind eye to US suppression and arrests of Chinese people using national security as an excuse, it is exercising double standards. China encourages normal exchanges between the Chinese people and Westerners. As long as they abide by China's laws, any Westerner in China need not worry about their security. It is the US that dares not encourage communication between Chinese and its citizens and tries to isolate China by hyping fears toward China. It is the Chinese people that should have security worries in the US.

At the US invitation, Chinese Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi and State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi will meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the meeting. The arrangement shows that the two governments need to reengage in dialogues after suffering the huge damages to China-US relations under the past four years of the Trump administration. There is hope that through high-level talks, the direction of the two countries' relations can return to stable and constructive development track. At present, China-US relations are facing major difficulties owing not only to  prevailing populism, white supremacy, and anti-globalization movements in the US. The Trump administration had been demonizing China for four years, laying very negative impacts on US society and political circles. Currently, right-wing Republicans are still taking advantage of anti-China stances to pile up their own political resources in order to emphasize the political correctness of their campaigns. Moreover, due to the raging COVID-19 epidemic, hatred, suspicions, and fear toward China are becoming more deeply rooted in the US. The Biden administration has to handle a series of serious challenges with the coronavirus crisis, environmental protection, and economic recovery. The Biden administration doesn't have much room in regard to fully adjust its China policies. After all, it is domestic politics in the US that have exerted an unprecedented negative impact on the China-US relationship. However, it must be remembered that the China-US relationship is important not just because the two countries are the largest and second-largest economies in the world. Stable cooperation between the two countries can help assure world peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century. It is now a major test for both countries regarding how they can put political antagonism and the extreme moves of anti-China right-wings behind them. Although Biden's China policies can hardly go beyond US domestic politics, the engagement with China should not be wastefully sacrificed because of US domestic political struggles. This coming meeting next week can be seen as the first step to reset China-US relations. In order to repair and move forward the two countries' relations, the following courses of action should be set in motion. First, to restore dialogues especially high-level ones. Second, it is necessary to restart working-level dialogues regarding disputed issues in the fields of trade, science, and technology. There should be pragmatic responses to each other's concerns. Third, regarding the Taiwan question and South China Sea issues, Washington should stick to one-China policy and respect our core interests. The participation of Sullivan in the meeting conveys that the talks are not just about diplomacy - it will also eye security. This is now the most sensitive topic concerning China-US relations. It is hoped that both sides can meet each other halfway in this regard. The 2+2 meeting will also be an opportunity for the two sides to draw lessons from the past, reduce wrongdoings due to sentimental reasons. There will be room to figure out a pragmatic path that can really stabilize China-US relations during Biden's presidency. The efforts to reach such a goal represent the two governments' willingness and beliefs to bring their relations back under a constructive framework. The choice of meeting location mirrors the political resilience of bilateral ties. Alaska is located in the middle of China and the US. It will also become the first US state to offer COVID-19 vaccinations to all adults. From the perspective of safety, this is a good place to hold the high-level meeting. That being said, the meeting is worth looking forward to. It is hoped that the relationship between China and the US can break the ice and thaw the frost with its "Alaska moment." Since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Beijing and Washington in 1979, the relationship has gone through twists and turns. No matter how many disputes there are between the two sides, only stable and cooperative relations can serve the fundamental interests of the peoples and governments of both countries. Blinken once said, "our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be." The Chinese government has also showed its goodwill to meet the US halfway, bringing the ties back on stable and constructive tracks. Some media outlets are interpreting the meeting from highly skeptical standpoints. But it is believed that the dialogues carry extraordinary significance from both countries. Simple skepticism can hardly overwhelm the hope to see the two major powers normalize ties after four years of total turmoil. The author is a professor of international relations at Nanjing University.

Normally, the Premier's press conference after the closing of the annual session of the National People's Congress would focus on broad issues, and the hottest topics would generally be related to the economy and people's livelihood. But since China-US relations are the most consequential ties in the world and will have an impact on China's own development, Premier Li's remarks on the upcoming meeting reflects China's sincerity to fix the ties with the US.As China and the US have different histories, cultures, stages of development and social systems, it is inevitable that there will be disagreements, and sometimes even sharp ones, when we get along with each other. What matters is how we handle them, Li told the press conference. "We hope that China and the US will engage in multi-faceted and multi-tiered dialogue. Even if consensus cannot be reached for the time being, we can exchange views, increase trust and explain confusions, which will help manage and resolve differences," Li said. At the invitation of the US, Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, and Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, will meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan March 18-19 in Anchorage, Alaska for a high-level strategic dialogue, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian announced on Thursday. According to the released information, Chinese experts said it's confirmed that the US was the one to have sent the invitation, and the location is in a US state far from its mainland, as the US understands the sensitivity of such a meeting with China, but also needs to engage with China as soon as possible. This proves that the US is being very careful and highly values ties with China, since it wouldn't meet with China unless it's fully prepared. The US Department of State released the same information on Wednesday. Jin Canrong, associate dean of the School of International Studies at the Renmin University of China, told the Global Times on Thursday that the Biden administration obviously needs this meeting more than China does, so the US released the information quickly. "The Biden administration is at least better than the previous one as they are willing to talk with us. China has sincerity for rebuilding ties, so no matter what the result might be, the intention for dialogue is always welcomed," Jin said. Yang Xiyu, senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times on Thursday that Alaska is a suitable venue for an attempt for China and the US to cautiously make the initial step to reset ties. "Compared with the other 48 states on its mainland, Alaska and Hawaii are less politically sensitive. In the past, direct flights from Beijing to New York or Washington in the US mainland had to stop at Anchorage. So this city has special significance in the history of China-US relations," Yang noted. The meeting will take place following Blinken's meetings with two of the US' "closest regional allies in Tokyo and Seoul," but the US didn't specify what issues will be discussed in the meeting with senior Chinese officials, according to the US State Department. Yang said that small players are always worried that they might be betrayed or used for exchanges on the table of the big players, so before the talks with China, the US has to pacify its allies, and at least confirm the stances held by Tokyo and Seoul to make sure they will follow the US. "This will give some cards to the US at the negotiating table with China." Jin said the Biden administration has attached great importance to the US-led alliance system, and some US allies are waiting for "the latest instructions from their boss," and some, like Australia, have already been seriously punished by China due to the extreme hostility of the previous Trump administration, so the US needs to show them a new attitude toward China. The Biden administration has just completed its most important economic stimulus plan in its first 100 days in office, which has given it a break to focus on diplomatic issues, Sun Taiyi, an assistant professor of political science at Christopher Newport University, told the Global Times on Thursday. Sincerity needed By unilaterally releasing the information one day earlier than China did, the US wants to gain some advantage, because if the meeting doesn't take place or the result is not positive, the US could let the world to blame China, said Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University's School of International Relations and Public Affairs, adding that China takes no responsibility for worsening bilateral ties, so if the US wants to normalize the relationship, it should be sincerer. Jin said the US should understand that China wants some problems to be solved rather than just have some arguments with the US, otherwise a phone call would be enough, so if the two sides can't reach concrete agreement to solve some problems that China is concerned about, and if China just receives another round of "lecturing" from US officials in Alaska, the meeting would be pointless. At the Lanting Forum held jointly by the China Public Diplomacy Association, Peking University and the Renmin University of China in Beijing last month, former US senior officials and scholars put forward a number of specific suggestions on the proposal raised by State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi to form lists for cooperation and issues requiring dialogue and crisis management between China and the US. US scholars and former senior officials suggested that China and the US can cooperate in fighting COVID-19, climate change and boosting global economic recovery. However, the Biden administration and the US Congress have also sent some other complicated signals ahead of the meeting. These include provocative comments on China's reform for Hong Kong's electoral system, and the sensitive issue of the Dalai Lama that is related to China's Tibet. On Wednesday, a US Navy guided-missile destroyer plowed through the Taiwan Straits, marking the third passage of an American naval vessel through the Straits since Biden took office. Shen said the Biden administration obviously won't give up many adversarial approaches, and we should not expect China and the US to solve every problem in just one meeting. He also noted that the China-US relations will continue to be a complexity of competition, adversary and cooperation. Yang from China Institute of International Studies said the US has never given up its efforts to prevent China from realizing a peaceful rise, so the two countries will talk to each other, but the US won't change its objective of containing China's development and preventing China from surpassing the US. New '2+2' mechanism In the past, China and the US have tried to carry out the "2+2" dialogues between officials in charge of foreign affairs and national defense, but this time, the "2+2" meeting is different from those in the past, and could become a normal dialogue mechanism, experts said. "There are many issues that both sides can talk about from the perspective of diplomacy and national security strategy, and such a mechanism better suits the needs for dialogue between decision-making levels," Yang said. Yang noted, "This meeting would be significant in general, and since there are so many problems, we won't see the effect instantly. But it could at least pave a way for the reset of China-US relations." If the new mechanism becomes institutionalized, it would provide a great opportunity to bring predictability and stability in the most consequential bilateral ties in the world, he said. "Let's see whether the two sides will be able to take the opportunity." Diao Daming, an expert on US studies at the Renmin University of China, said on Thursday that if this dialogue can produce desirable results and these results can be successfully implemented, it is very likely that the heads of the two states would meet in the future and embrace a better atmosphere.

Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, also known as Quad, between the US, Japan, India, and Australia has been seen as a group to counter China. But the four-country group hasn't formed a cohesive force from within. Instead, the four have been busy with their own calculations. The US will hold the first leaders-level meeting of the Quad on Friday. Various topics involving China will be discussed. Days before the meeting, Japan, India, and Australia couldn't help but again hype the "China threat." Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga spoke with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi on the telephone on Tuesday, when they shared "serious concerns regarding unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the East and South China seas, China's Coast Guard Law and the situation in Hong Kong and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region." On the same day, Japan's ambassador to Australia, Shingo Yamagami, told The Australian Financial Review Business Summit that Australia "is not walking alone" in dealing with China as Japan had similar experiences "about 10 years ago." These interactions before the Quad summit have reiterated the cliché over China, trying to create an image that the group is united. The three countries aim to strengthen deterrence against China by bolstering each other's boldness.  They were also aiding the US strategy to step up pressure on China. The current framework of the Quad was built during Trump's presidency to serve US strategic competition with China. The US is fond of forming an alliance against a certain country, because it believes it can stack the odds in its favor and economize the consumption of its diplomatic and financial resources. Prompted by the intent to contain China, the Biden administration has continued this aggressive and confrontational posture. But today, as the interests of countries are diversified, it is impossible for them to blindly follow the US' steps just because of Washington's claims. There is not much the US can give to its allies in exchange. Not to mention that the US' selfish nature has become increasingly known to the world. Against this backdrop, US allies who have a complex relationship with China apparently cannot count on the US to compensate for their losses when they follow Washington to confront China. Hence, it is not in line with their pursuits to judge what they should do from only the dimension of US geopolitical struggles against China. Even though Canberra is a resolute follower of Washington, people in Australia are struggling with the deterioration in China-Australia relations. For example, on the same occasion when Yamagami tried to show sympathy to Australia, Jane Golley, director of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University, called for an end to the megaphone diplomacy on China and for trying to work behind the scenes. Japan and India's attitudes toward China are more complicated. It is obviously not in their interests to make them stand one-sidedly against China. Particularly India. New Delhi's move to reopen the door to Chinese investment after border disengagement has clearly shown that India needs cooperation with China rather than long-standing confrontation. The Quad is not an alliance of like-minded countries as the US claims. The three countries other than the US would probably take a tactic of coordinating with the US in narratives while sticking to their own approaches on China, so as to deal with the embarrassment of being between the pressure from the US and their own interests with China. Before they can assure that they will not be brought into another pit by the US, perhaps they have no other choice but to find relief in bolstering each other's boldness.

The US ideological attack on China is becoming fiercer, and counterattacks from China have also become more open. The opinion war between the two sides is like a war of words. The US not only makes use of the country's ideological mechanism, but also harnesses the opinion forces of some Western countries. China's advantages lie in that the country develops fast and steadily. The US attacks are gaining momentum, but the actual harm they can have on China is far below US expectations. China's counterattacks have their due weight as they are based on solid facts. From a long-term perspective, this opinion war is a rivalry between lies and hard evidence. Amid the US and the West's increasingly stronger narratives against China, we should keep a highly sober mind. We should assess the actual impact of their narratives against China and what real damage it can cause. Then we can determine what we should do to respond accordingly. They shouldn't be allowed to decide which way the war of words will affect China-US and China-West relations. Meanwhile, we must resolutely stick to our strategic goals. We should clearly see that US-led ideological attacks on China cannot represent global public opinion. Such attacks have mobilized some people in the Western world and spilled over into the non-Western world. But this in fact only reflects the challenges imposed by the US and the small circle of its allies against China and doesn't mean that China has fallen from grace. On the contrary, most developing countries welcome and have attached great attention to China's practice of persisting on its own path. The opinion war launched by the US and the West has had limited effect. China's biggest strategic goal is to improve the country's development, improve the people's livelihood and complete China's modernization in the face of the curse of the US and its major allies and all kinds of anti-China conspiracies and schemes. However, the US' biggest goal is to bring down China's development and let China's rise fall by the wayside, fall into the "middle-income trap" and find no way out, and miss the historic opportunity of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The fundamental index of the game between China and the US is development competition, rather than rhetorical competition. China's ability and impetus to achieve further, faster and better development are clearly better than that of the US. China actually holds the long-term initiative in this game. It is obvious that the US is more anxious than China. Once we see that development is the main battlefield of the China-US game, the Chinese people will have a more open and clearer mind in dealing with the US' verbal battle. China should resolutely counter the verbal attacks by the US and focus on the practical effects of consolidating social cohesion and enhancing international confidence in China. We should not be held back by the agenda and direction set by the US. What is particularly important is that some political elite of the US and their main allies hope the opinion war could become the frontline and focus of China-US competition. They want to expand China-US conflicts and see a new Cold War in China-US relations. When they manage to turn the space of cooperation between China and the US narrower and narrower, China-West relations will be fundamentally changed, and the gap in ideology between the two sides will dominate this relationship. China must be committed to maintaining the basic areas of cooperation between China and the US, and to increasing the cohesion and resilience of cross-ideological cooperation so that it becomes more attractive to the West than politics. We should do so with confidence because this is the cooperation with US and Western societies and their people at large, and it should not be changed by the will of some Western political elites. We should see that though China and some European countries also have great ideological differences, the willingness of those countries to cooperate with China has not been seriously affected; instead, it has actually increased. It is clear that the clamor for decoupling from China by some figures in the US is against the global trend and against the will of their people. As the US and its major allies keep taking the initiative to "sanction" China, among other measures, it is inevitable for China to carry out economic counterattacks. We must properly handle relations of the economic integration between China and the US, and between China and the West on the strategic level and the offensive and defensive aspects at the tactical level. We must establish our deterrence and stick to reform and opening-up, so that we can expand the cooperation scale between China and the West on the one hand, and destroy the attempt of some Western political elites to economically and technologically isolate China on the other. China's development speed and potential takes an advantageous position compared with the US and its small circle. The Chinese are broad-minded, and have wide history, culture and political foundation. The US and its likes want to win over China via the opinion war, which is just a naïve illusion.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi answered 27 questions in a systematic way at a press conference held on the sidelines of the two sessions on Sunday, which showcases magnanimity of China's diplomacy as a major power, and provides a rare opportunity for the world to have a comprehensive understanding of China's foreign policy. Most of the questions at the press conference were related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which reflects that the pandemic has penetrated deeply into the lives of societies around the world over the past year and has profoundly affected the international relations agenda. China is the most successful country in the fight against the epidemic, which has had a significant impact on shaping the current diplomatic outlook of China. China is a friendly and modest country, which was fully demonstrated when Wang answered questions about the regional situation and bilateral relations between China and the countries concerned. Cooperation was a key word at the press conference, but instead of empty talks, Wang spoke of many concrete actions. When has the international community ever seen such a warm and humble major country? China is undoubtedly the most faithful practitioner and defender of the norms of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. While answering questions on China-US relations, Wang stressed the importance of strengthening cooperation and managing differences between China and the US. He also expressed the firm attitude that China does not allow interference by the US in its internal affairs, and criticized the US for wantonly interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the banner of human rights and democracy. On the Taiwan question, he urged the US to change the previous administration's practice of "crossing the red-line" and "playing with fire." When talking about the South China Sea issue, he criticized the US and other Western countries for making trouble in the South China Sea in the name of "freedom of navigation". His remarks impressed Western media outlets. China is developing rapidly while the US is leading its major allies in intensifying ideological confrontation with China. What kind of country China is has thus become a focal point in today's world. The US and some Western public opinion institutes constantly accuse China of breaking the international rules, unilaterally changing the status quo. They try to mislead the world public with these labels. International rules must be based on the Charter of the United Nations, not the hegemonic clauses of the US based on its own interests. In addition, it was the DPP authority on the island of Taiwan that changed the status quo by denying the 1992 Consensus. These facts need to be explained clearly to the world, which however has been disturbed in every way by the powerful media tools of the US and the West. China's activities in remote areas are all cooperative. And it is gradually discovered and understood by the world that all conflicts are brought to China's door by the US itself or by some forces it gathered. Questions from and involving developing countries at the press conference were all about cooperation while questions concerning the US are the most perplexing. Since the new administration took office, the general attitude of the US toward China is continuation of a tough posture. China's general attitude can be summed up as managing the differences. China has a dignified low profile, and the world is coming to this conclusion. The bilateral relationship between China and the US is of course the biggest issue in today's international relations, which has wide implications. China has been dealing with this problem in a constructive manner. At the same time, China will definitely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. China strengthens global cooperation and continues to grow its own strength, so that this ability to safeguard its own rights will be strengthened. China is more open and broad-minded. We are doing our own things well, and in the meantime, making maximum efforts to help safeguard world peace and promote solutions to various issues. As China is a sovereign country, solutions that best solve Hong Kong and Xinjiang related problems clearly should be in our own hands. The US that holds selfish strategies cannot represent the world at all. There is no need for us to overly worry about losses and gains. The press conference on Sunday clearly shows people the broadness of the world, as well as China's mind. To us, it's really important.

How should China, that is increasingly getting stronger, view the world and handle relations with outsiders? Some Westerners hope China can put itself in a submissive position and behave as humbly as it once did in the past, while there are also voices in the West hyping China has begun to act aggressively and arrogantly on the international stage. The reality is, however, China has long sought to stand on equal footing with other countries, when it no longer needs to look up to the rest of the world, it will not look down upon them, either. Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Saturday that before young Chinese, including those born in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s went out to see the world, China was able to view the world with a mindset of equality, so they are not as 'provincial' as older generations. Xi made the remarks when he joined national political advisors from education, medical and health sectors in a joint group meeting. His words have aroused resonance from many Chinese people. China has been able to view the world with a mind-set of equality. This means Chinese people have become more confident in their country. They no longer simply believe everything in the West is better than China, nor will they look down upon other countries or impose China's will on them. Over the past more than 70 years since the establishment of the People's Republic of China, China has been actively integrating into the world. It leapfrogged to become the world's second-largest economy from a weak and poor country. China has been advancing by leaps and bounds in areas such as the construction of social civilization, the improvement of governance system, and scientific and technological development. China's per capita GDP has exceeded $10,000 for two consecutive years. The country has gained a complete victory in eliminating absolute poverty. Given these accomplishments, no wonder Chinese people have become increasingly proud of their country. The superiority of the Chinese system has been underlined in the past 70 years of development, serving as the fundamental guarantee for the country's success in various fields. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular has shed light on China's institutional advantages, while exposing governance loopholes of the US and other Western countries. China has tamed the virus successfully, but the pandemic has been considered the "Chernobyl moment" of the West. Many Western countries have been mired in a quagmire that their economy is shrinking and people's health and lives are hard to guarantee. In view of the sharp comparison between China and the West, it's no exaggeration to say that the Chinese society's political confidence has gotten an unprecedented boost. Today's China has grown into a giant. The Chinese people have increasing confidence in the path and system that China has insisted on and deals with the rest of the world in an increasingly confident but equal manner. But the West, which is accustomed to China's submissiveness, cannot accept to treat China equally. It cannot correctly face up to China's rise. The West overlooks China's intention for peaceful development, harboring misgivings and suspicions over how China will use its growing strength. The history of Western countries' rise has repeatedly seen countries seek hegemony after becoming strong. Some Westerners worry China is bound to follow this path. But this logic does not apply to China. China was once a victim of colonialism and now still suffers from hegemony. It spent decades seeking an equal footing with other countries, and it will never seek hegemony and inflict what it suffers on others. China has been on an equal footing with the rest of the world. The West is bound to face a more confident and dignified China in the world in the future. It is hoped that the West could adapt itself to facing a growing China, and won't misjudge or deliberately twist China's development intentions.

During his press conference on the sidelines of the ongoing two sessions, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, it is not surprising that there is competition between China and the US as their interests are intertwined, but the two sides should have healthy competition on the basis of fairness and equity. Many people may have not yet perceived the subtleties of this crucial statement. For a long time, China's diplomatic policymakers have been avoiding topics related to competition with the US. However, Wang's statement means China has publicly made it clear that the scenario of the China-US competition for global leading role has been taking shape, although China may not necessarily wish for such competition and is hoping for more cooperation. It is also a response to the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, issued on March 3 by US President Joe Biden's administration. It describes China as "the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system." Over the past 20 years, the US strategic definition of China has been swaying among "partner," "competitor" and "rival." During his first major foreign policy speech on March 3, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken listed eight priorities for US diplomacy, stressing China is US' "biggest geopolitical test." It mirrors the fact that the US strategic positioning of China is no longer vague or swaying. It is clear-cut now: China is US' No.1 competitor. After 20 years of contact, games, friction and even low-intensity conflicts, the US no longer treats China as a partner, but a primary competitor. How would China respond? In English, competition is not necessarily a bad thing. Among the words that could measure ties between any two countries, there are at least five Cs: cooperation, coordination, competition, confrontation and conflict. Competition is neutral. Over the past 40 years of reform and opening-up, especially the 20 years since the 21st century, China's economy, trade, finance, industry and culture are rising rapidly. An important reason for that is: China has been facing competition squarely. It has been embracing the international competition, re-understanding the world through competition, learning from its competitors, catching up with them in some sectors, and making progress together with others in other fields. The Chinese people in the new era are supposed to be more confident. They are not supposed to turn pale at the mention of competition, or associate competition with strategic confrontation and conflicts. Even if China adopts competition as its strategic positioning of the US, it won't exclude the possibilities of cooperating with the US. Hegemony will never be China's choice - even when the country become stronger. China will not bully other countries. It is pursuing a path of healthy competition with major powers. As far as I am concerned, the new type of major power competition, or healthy competition, includes at least four categories. First, the competition for model, which focuses on governance of domestic affairs. Or in other words, it is a competition to see which country can better meet their people's ever-growing needs for a better life and can provide experience to other developing countries. Second, the competition of cooperation, which focuses on which country has the stronger capability to organize and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation, helping to boost vaccination coverage, and to realize economic recovery, technological innovation, poverty alleviation, etc, in the post-pandemic era. Third, the competition of dividends focuses on which country can offer more impetus to world economic growth, promote global trade and investment, as well as peace and stability. Fourth, the competition of vision, focuses on which country has more far-sighted views to resolve the polarization between the rich and the poor, ethical challenges posed by intelligent technologies and deteriorating ecology, leading mankind to the next era of civilization. As long as the competition is fair and square, China has no reason to refuse, fear or avoid it. The Charter of the UN was signed in 1945 with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council playing the role as the core in major power coordination. The move was an attempt to create a more advanced major power competition. The future competition between China and the US should also be more civilized than any major power competition in the past. And it should reflect the progress of humankind. The author is professor and executive dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China.

Chinese director Zhao Ting, also known as Chloe Zhao, and the film she directed, Nomadland, have triggered controversy recently. I believe her experiences made her a self-contradictory figure. During the period when she shot to fame in the US, China became the world's largest movie market. These two events are expected to generate impacts on her future speech and values.Netizens dug out Zhao's speeches in the past. And many were furious about those words and thus changed their impression of Zhao. Such fury and change in attitudes are normal. You reap what you sow, and what happens now is the cost she needs to bear. Meanwhile, I don't think her movie should be removed from the film market. As China remains open, the country should be able to tolerate divergences. Zhao said something believed to be "an insult to China" in 2013, but she is not one of those dissidents who turn their values into political stances and exploit it. As Zhao has become famous, more of her past will be dug up. Facing the fermentation of a mix of information, Chinese audiences will come to their own judgment of how to view Zhao and her films. This controversy will eventually end in a commercially marketed manner. I think Chinese people should be given more of such opportunities to deal with controversies of this kind on their own. The market will tell, and our authorities shall stand more aloof more often. Hence, our society will grow more dynamic and become more resilient. People will also understand more profoundly that many things are not just about being black or white. There is a large-scale intermediate zone regarding quarrels of public opinions. The more room the market has to deal with problems, the stronger the market itself will be. And this will also help China grow stronger, more attractive, more tolerant, and more inclusive in various dimensions. At that time, it will be harder for any force to intend to crush China. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

The National Interest magazine published on Sunday an article discussing whether a "Pacific NATO" is the only way to counter China. It said that, "a combined US, Japanese, Australian, and Indian military force might certainly help deter China in terms of sheer numbers, not to mention coordinated air and sea operations." Since World War II, it has been a common practice for the US to deal with a certain country with an alliance structure. The reason to do so is not complicated. First, the US wants to take the so-called moral high ground by forming an alliance against a certain country. On the other hand, Washington believes that making an alliance will stack the odds in its favor. Meanwhile, Washington also hopes other countries can help the US shift the huge burden with efforts of sending troops and sharing operational costs. In simple words, the US is adopting wolf pack tactics. The US has made itself the alpha of the pack and hopes that more countries will join it as packmates. The more packmates it has, the more odds the US believes it will stack to itself. From a military perspective, the above mentioned four countries do have a foundation for an alliance such as an "Asian NATO." But the key problem is that the four countries do not have an eye for the same direction. Their community of common interests can hardly be established. In other words, they lack sufficient reasons to jointly cope with a sole rival. For instance, despite border frictions with China, India deeply knows that its economic development needs China. Japan cannot live without the vast Chinese market either. Remaining somewhat neutral without taking a side fits Japan's interests. Australia is a stern follower of the US, but due to its limited strength and influence, China does not have to care too much about it. The National Interest article claims that these US-aligned countries, perhaps with even the addition of the island of Taiwan, could draft up an agreement somewhat analogous to NATO's Article 5 - which means collective security. The US could view Taiwan as its ally or even include the island into one of the US-led treaties. But it needs to be pointed out that China does not promise to renounce the use of force and reserves the option to use all necessary measures. Once China resorts to forces against secessionists, the US will not necessarily come to defend them. The US does not support China's full reunification. Nor does it support "Taiwan independence." The US does not support Taiwan to use force, either. The US would feel embarrassed if Taiwan authorities declared "independence" that prompted the PLA to solve the issue via forces. Under such circumstances, Japan, India and Australia would not get involved into Taiwan as they would invite fire onto themselves. Hence, it is difficult for the US to create an Asian NATO by exploiting the Taiwan question. China will not make the slightest concession on this issue and will not hesitate to fight even in the face of a strong enemy. With such determination, courage and confidence, the US must not misjudge the situation. Nor should other countries follow the US' lead. China now is making full preparations, strengthening its preparation for military struggle and training troops in order to target Taiwan secessionist forces that might someday take the "independence path." In this scenario, the PLA will use fast and intensive methods to address the Taiwan question. No matter who gets involved, it will not stop China's determination. China has a long-term plan for its national defense and economic development. As long as it follows the established plan, China will continue to strengthen its military capabilities, especially the ability to win wars. What the US is doing with several other countries is in short-term. Washington is likely to change as the situation changes, so this short-term behavior is nothing to be afraid of. China needs to study its adversaries and constantly strengthen its ability to win wars. The PLA is now increasing the frequency and intensity of its military exercises. This includes the breadth of its capabilities in joint operations as preparation for any unexpected risks in the future and potential hot issues that need to be resolutely settled. The author is a Chinese military expert and commentator.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday said US President Joe Biden will join him, and the leaders of Japan and India, in a first-ever “Quad” bloc virtual summit, the Hill reported on the same day. This demonstrates the Biden administration will intensify collaboration with other members under the Quad framework. Even since days before taking office, Biden has repeatedly said the US would return to multilateralism in his presidency. Rebuilding cooperation and coordination with allies and partners will be an important part of such return. In the Asia-Pacific region, apart from strengthening alliances with countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia, the US’ other leverage is the Quad. In the past, the highest level of Quad meetings was among foreign ministers of the four countries. This time, the bloc is going to hold a meeting among the top leaders of the four countries, including President Biden. This shows the US has attached great importance to the mechanism. The first-ever Quad summit among four top leaders is anticipated to talk about nothing more than intensifying members’ cooperation in politics, the economy, military and security, jointly dealing with the uncertainties within the region, and drawing up a coordinated China policy and strategy. Washington’s aim is to maintain its dominance in the region, while the other three want to prevent China’s rise from affecting their interests. Morrison also said, “The Quad is very central to the United States and our [Australia’s] thinking about the region, and looking at the Indo-Pacific also through the prism of our ASEAN partners and their vision of the Indo-Pacific,” cited by Bloomberg. Australia takes Quad as central first because the country follows the US due to its ideological differences with China, and keeps a high level of vigilance regarding China’s rise. Second, Australia hopes to boost its strategic status in the Asia-Pacific region and intends to play a bigger role in regional affairs. Despite close economic exchanges between China and Australia, the latter has tied itself to the US’ anti-China chariot. Canberra wants to exploit Washington’s anti-China efforts to impair China’s regional influence. It cannot rule out the possibilities that Quad members including the US and Australia will further rope in ASEAN members to counter China as Southeast Asia is of great significance to the US’ Indo-Pacific Strategy. Yet ASEAN will not easily take sides. ASEAN members have frequent exchanges with China in terms of economy. The two sides have launched the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area since 2010, in which Southeast Asian countries have received a wide range of benefits. China has become vital to Southeast Asian countries. But on the other hand, these countries hope the US can balance China in terms of security in the face of a rising China. Canberra’s national strengths and regional influence are limited. It also has friction with Indonesia. In this context, Australia will not be able to make a big splash in the region. Besides the US, attention should be paid to Japan and India. As China has been far ahead of Japan, especially in economy, and the two countries are also involved in island disputes, Japan has regarded China as a threat. Counterbalancing the rise of China has become part of Japan’s China policy. Resting on its alliance with the US, Japan also hopes to woo in more forces to contain China. India seems to have deviated from its traditional non-alignment policy. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term, India’s economy is not doing well, and its domestic contradictions have seen a rising trend. As its border disputes with China have not been settled, anti-China voices in India still remain a force. The Modi administration intends to divert attention from its domestic contradictions by underlining China’s threat. Against this backdrop, India and Japan are both likely to collaborate with the US under the Quad framework. Even if the four members’ interests are not exactly identical, the desire to counter China will tie them together. The international community is suspecting whether the Quad will expand into an “Asian NATO.” This is unlikely. The current scenario differs from that in the Cold War. China and the US will unlikely engage in an all-out cold war. When compared with the Cold War era, economic and people-to-people exchanges are markedly boosted. Due to globalization, China’s relations and interests have been intertwined with other countries, including the members of the Quad. Actually, whether an “Asian NATO” can be established also depends on China’s relations with the four members of the bloc as well as other neighboring countries. China unswervingly pursues a foreign policy of peace and puts forward and practices a neighborhood policy featuring amity. This will to a large extent frustrate the US’ attempts to expand the Quad into an “Asian NATO.” The author is Deputy Director and senior fellow of the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered his first foreign policy speech on Wednesday, in which he put forward eight most urgent foreign policy priorities. Although he talked about confronting China in the last part of his speech, in this way he was actually emphasizing this point. Blinken claimed that China is the US' "biggest geopolitical test" of the century. He called China "the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system." Also on Wednesday, the US released the "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance," describing China in the same tone of Blinken. But neither Blinken's speech nor the interim guidance report has outlined specific policies toward China. Blinken ambiguously said, "Our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be." It can be seen that whatever terms the Biden administration has used to define China, it has inherited the Trump administration's thinking on its China policy. But the new administration will not resort to every possible means to deal with China. What the new administration differs from its predecessor is that it has expressed willingness to conditionally collaborate with China and has in public delivered its reluctance to engage in all-out confrontation with China. The Trump administration was extremely self-confident and arrogant, and its way to interact with China was to blackmail China without any bottom line. The Biden administration has apparently perceived that the Trump way didn't work out well. They are going to try to engage in a systemic game with China, including relying more on allies to strengthen an international siege of China. Such manner toward China actually releases three messages. First, after the presidential transition, Washington has completed its domestic mobilization to reset China-US relations. Their position seeing China as a "strategic rival" has been consolidated. Second, the Biden administration has realized that it is not realistic to defeat China. The US needs an approach to deal with China, in which the US can maintain its advantage over China in the long run. Third, the current government underlines more on building US power, including solidifying its alliance system. The room for China to relieve its tensions with the US through talks appears to be very narrow, but the possibility of conflicts between the two countries has also declined. China and the US will get involved in a long-term game in which pressure will be piled on all domains. The one who will make more achievement in terms of strength building will stand in a relatively proactive position to influence the future trend of the bilateral ties. The Biden administration has adjusted its predecessor's unmannerly attempts trying to crush China, and has reconstructed its tactic on putting pressure on China. This has resulted from China's efforts of withstanding the pressure of the US-launched trade war and boosting its own might. China should devote itself to defining the new round between China and the US by continuing to realize China's expansion in terms of national strengths and frustrating Washington's plan to solidify its allies to counter China. Despite the new US administration's grand ambitions and big talks, it is not sure about achieving such goals. The mechanism that drives US economic development is outdated and it is difficult to generate any positive energy now. US allies have divergences with Washington over China. The US lacks reasons to demand its allies to counter China with the same strength as it does. China should continue its reform and opening-up efforts, and push forward its 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) as scheduled. China should work with the US to ease tensions, while holding an easy mind in the face of serious disputes. By doing so, China will have a strategically relaxed mind-set and more room to interact. It is easier for China to paralyze the US' China containment strategy than for the US to go against the trend and advance such a strategy. It is high time that the Chinese people focus on doing their own things well. China's two sessions have begun, an annual occasion when China elaborates its development plans. The US is thinking of how to contain China, while China is thinking of how to develop itself. It is crystal clear whose design is healthier and can be better implemented.

Since May 2020, India had repeatedly provoked China in border areas, resulting in months of standoffs between the two countries. However, Indian media outlets have been distorting facts, thus misleading the Indian people. This has to a large extent stirred up waves of anti-China sentiments among Indian netizens who do not know the truth. China-India relations are deeply influenced by online public opinion, which also has an impact on India's policy options. These rhetoric has brought about extremely negative effects to the overall China-India relations.

At present, Chinese and Indian troops have carried out disengagement at the northern and southern banks of the Pangong Tso lake. This has clearly eased tensions in the border areas. However, some Indian and Western media deliberately misinterpreted the move, hinting that it was an act to save their reputations and to gain political support at home. Some Indians even took the opportunity to characterize the Indian officers who unilaterally provoked the border skirmishes as heroes defending their country. They hyped their stories up on social media. This further incited hostility toward China among Indian people and undermined peace and stability on the China-India border. Since the latest round of border conflicts, India has implemented a series of discriminatory measures against China, including blocking a number of Chinese apps and restricting Chinese investment. Bilateral relations with China have fallen to rock bottom. Anti-China sentiments in India continue to rise. Indian media outlets have played a role in fanning these flames. As the world enters the era of social media, it is necessary for media outlets of any kind to report objectively, fairly and independently on the daily happenings around the world. However, Indian media outlets are mostly privately owned. In order to attract readers, they often violate professional ethics, ignore facts, and publish information that is beneficial only to themselves. In addition, some Indian politicians often use media to show their extreme reactions to China. This has resulted in a severe lack of strategic mutual trust between the two countries. Since taking office in 2014, Indian Prime Minister's Narendra Modi's administration proactively pumped Hindu nationalism into Indian people's daily lives. This, too, deeply influenced the mutual understanding between China and India. Some Indian people's unfavorable view toward China makes them less willing to communicate with or to rediscover China. Anti-China discourse has become a new political correctness in India. In the era of informationization and globalization, new media, newspapers and magazines have become the main channels for people to obtain information. Indian media's sensational propaganda of the so-called China threat has created a distorted image of China in the minds of the Indian people. The image of China in Indian media is neither objective nor real. Instead, it is a mirage for India to vent its sadness, resentment, desire and fear. In addition, the war between the two countries in 1962 had left a psychological shadow on the Indian people. Since then, the Indian public generally has had a low preference for China, and it continues to decline. Whenever disputes occur in the China-India border area, the Indian government, think tanks, and media outlets always collaborate: The media fabricates fake stories and news; certain politicians support the media reports; social media does not carefully verify the source of the information. This trend exacerbates the declining mutual trust between the two countries. Now, whenever the two countries encounter disputes, India's domestic public opinion tends to put pressure on the Indian government, leaving Indian leaders with no alternative but to take tough actions on issues with China. Therefore, China and India need to deal with their differences calmly and steadily. In particular, media outlets should play an active role in it. They should create larger public opinion basis for enhancing mutually beneficial cooperation. The author is a research fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

The US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) delivered a report on Monday to Congress, calling for roughly $27 billion in additional spending between 2022 and 2017, with an eye to "boost deterrence against China," according to Defense News. The INDOPACOM is now calling for "new missiles and air defenses, radar systems, staging areas, intelligence-sharing centers, supply depots and testing ranges throughout the region, as well as exercises with allies and partners." INDOPACOM's request is for additional expenditures to back up new US military actions in the Indo-Pacific region. The US aims to create a large quasi-alliance system by integrating its allies and close partners. For instance, it hopes to bring together military forces of countries including Japan, Australia, even India, through joint military drills and trainings. It's assumed that the $27 billion deterrence fund will first be used for organizing multilateral exercises in the Indo-Pacific region. Besides, it will also be used for purchasing new weapons, facilitating new construction and closer military collaboration with US allies in the region. This is not the first time that INDOPACOM has sought additional spending to boost deterrence against China. A $20 billion wish list, which was taken as, "the basis for a new Pacific-focused pot of money to deter Chinese military action in the region," was submitted to Congress last April, according to Defense News. It's fair to say that INDOPACOM could not find any other pretense except China to strengthen its military capabilities. As China's military strength has grown stronger, the US military has put some dangerous labels on China. Labeling China as a "threat" and creating a sense of fear toward China among Americans could help the US military gain more budgets. This is an old trick played by the US military for a long time, and it will continue in the future. China's increasing military strength, in fact, hasn't posed any threats to its surrounding countries, nor nations in the Indo-Pacific region. China has insisted on solving disputes through peaceful means and negotiations. China has never used military strength to coerce or directly attack others as the US often does. China is in a state of peaceful rise. But the US is turning a blind eye to this and insists on putting labels on us. It mainly wants to hype up the "China threat" theory and find excuses for itself to improve military offensive capabilities and consolidate US military hegemony. INDOPACOM chief Adm. Philip Davidson, who drafted the report to call for the $27 billion deterrence fund, said his top priority is to establish an Aegis Ashore system on Guam by 2026, which would help protect US citizens and forces there. The US now attaches great importance to Guam. It believes that Guam is a major strategic springboard for military deterrence against China, because American strategic bombers can take off from the island to deter China in the air, especially strategic stealth bombers. China's missile capabilities are now very strong too. Our ballistic missiles are able to reach Guam. But China is not targeting Guam at all. However, the US is afraid that once it provokes or intimidates China, Guam - one of the US' major base camps - will be a target of China's retaliation. Thus, Washington wants to build a complete anti-missile system so that it can provoke Beijing unscrupulously. Militarily, the US regards China as its major strategic rival. This does not mean that it will launch a direct military offensive against China, but it reflects the fact that the US still has a Cold War mentality toward China. The US does not wish to see China's maritime and air strength go far and it wants to stop China at its doorstep. But from the perspective of China's marine forces, China has two aircraft carriers and the Type 075 amphibious assault ship. The US cannot prevent China's marine forces from going out to distant seas. Similarly, China is expected to develop more advanced strategic bombers. China's rising national strength will help boost the development of its military capabilities. The military maneuvers of US forces in the Pacific region come completely from a Cold War mentality. The US is unhappy about China's rise and its growing influence and military power. As China is not a US ally, it views China as its rival and works to contain us both militarily and strategically. Consequently, the US will invest in more forces. China should develop according to its own strategic rhythms. It should continue to enhance its comprehensive national strength, including its military capabilities. Even if the US wants to make provocations, it should give a second thought. The purpose of China's military development is to protect its overseas interest, as well as counterbalance some hegemonic powers with ulterior motives. China and the US will engage in competition at the strategic and military level. They will remain wrestling without their ties being broken. In other words, there is little likelihood of a war or a conflict will occur between the two. At the military level, China and the US have remained rational. The crisis management mechanisms between the two are mature, despite frictions from time to time. The author is a Beijing-based military analyst. 

The US is working with other members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) - Japan, India and Australia - to develop a plan to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to Asian countries as part of a broader strategy to counter China's influence, the Financial Times (FT) reported. FT said the White House has held discussions with other members of the group in recent weeks, and the plan to use vaccine distribution to counter Beijing's efforts is among a series of measures the countries hope to announce soon, according to people familiar with the situation. This plan shows that in the Asia-Pacific region, the administration of US President Joe Biden lacks the leverage to bring its allies together. In this context, the US is trying to exploit the pandemic to revitalize its alliance system. Novel coronavirus is an enemy of all mankind, which means every country needs to join together to fight against the disease. Even so, the Biden administration still seeks to use battling the disease as an excuse to cement its alliances, in a bid to counter certain countries including China. Such a mentality will bring more division and distrust to the world, further hindering global joint fight against the pandemic. This embodies the cold war mind-set of the Biden administration. The US' plan to exploit the pandemic to counter China's influence is particularly ridiculous, given that China has supplied vaccines to a number of regional countries, including Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia, to help them overcome the pandemic. The Quad is an informal security grouping comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia, with a focus on military security. The group is also described as a quasi-military alliance. In most cases, any military or quasi-military alliance can only be solidified when its members have or create a common foe. The initiation of the Quad was widely viewed as a response to so-called increased Chinese economic and military power. But the majority of China's neighboring countries do not regard China as their enemy, either in military or economic terms. The attempts of the Biden administration to rope in other countries to counter China on this agenda at this crucial time will not only be a setback for the global fight against the pandemic, but also for the US itself. Without fresh ideas, the Biden administration is just following the US' old path of uniting allies to engage in confrontation. The FT cited a person familiar with Biden's strategy to counter China, saying "The Biden administration is making the Quad the core dynamic of its Asia policy." Though Biden has only just taken office, he appears to have inherited a cold war mind-set in terms of his policy on China as well as the Asia-Pacific region. If the Biden administration expands the Quad into an "Asian NATO," there is no doubt that division and confrontation will be seen in Asia. It will be bad news not only for Chinese people and other Asian countries because it will create more insecurity in the region - it will also be bad for Americans, as it will mean that the US will spend vast resources trying to maintain its global hegemony, rather than improve Americans' well-being. Instead of tackling the US' domestic problems, Biden's cold war mentality against China will create more problems for the world. The author is a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University.

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on February 24 to review the global supply chains of four key products including semiconductors, in a bid to shake off dependence on overseas suppliers, especially Chinese ones. According to US media reports, Washington is consulting its allies to establish a supply chain that excludes China, and hopes that US allies could reduce cooperation with China. Washington is reportedly unlikely to name the countries that join this plan so as to ease their worries about retaliation from China. We would say nothing negative if the plan is solely about securing the US supply chain. But the plan may have the evil purpose of destroying and cracking down on China's manufacturing supply chain. China should keep high vigilance on this plan and study how to take countermeasures. It needs to be pointed out that this US plan goes against the market principle. US accusations that China imposes a coercive influence on the supply chain are groundless and inverting right and wrong. The US is at the upper stream of key technologies such as semiconductors. It has never been threatened by the so-called war on the supply chain, and it is the very brutal player that cuts China's throat in terms of supply chain. Many high-tech Chinese companies, such as Huawei, have been added to the US Entity List. Their normal cooperation with US companies has been cut off or severely restricted. The US has also put pressure on its allies to expand the attacks on China's supply chain. China's actions in this regard have been warnings and countermeasures. China is not the attacker in the conflicts of the past few years, it is always on the offensive defensive. In terms of rare earths, the possibility of China's suspension of supply to the US worries Washington. But everybody knows that this is just a potential counterattack card in China's hands and China will not proactively use it against the US. The supply chain security Washington wants is an evil security that allows the US to arbitrarily attack China's supply and an evil security that China has no ability to fight back. This is Washington's wishful thinking. The world has formed a common market and China is one of the largest parts. The interests of China's manufacturing industry are closely related to all parties. The US wants to remove China from the Western economy and at the same time make the process painless or less painful. This is contrary to the basic laws of the market economy and the trend of globalization. In the past few years, the Trump administration had tried hard to crack down on China's international trade, but China's share of international trade worldwide has risen instead of falling. China has given its best answer. China's average tariff rate fell from 8 percent to around 7.5 percent. Conditions for foreign investment in China have been further improved and the country has become more open in defiance of the trade war. As a result, the Chinese market has become more attractive to the outside world. The new US administration is trying to achieve what the former Trump administration had worked so hard but failed with some deceptive words. That is to underestimate the intelligence of the world and the power of the laws of economics. China is part of the globalization as well as the multi-centralization of global technology. It is in the interest of most of the world's economies, including US allies. US hegemony is not a protective umbrella for other countries. Even if it does offer protection, it must come with humiliating conditions for the protected ones. What all countries want is the security for their economic development. Expanding cooperation with China and increasing China's orientation is more conducive to achieving such security than participating in containment and suppression of China. As the US is the high-end country of the global supply chain, the security of its supply chain is the highest. Washington is the one that holds the key to such security. If the US takes cracking down on China's supply chain security as the core of its own security and implement it willfully, it will surely lead to a fierce scuffle. China will not be at the mercy of attackers. Whoever attacks China should be prepared to pay the price. China has been quite self-controlled, but it is clear to all that the world's largest trading nation is not unarmed.

Age discrimination is a universal problem in our society. Some recruitment advertisements even publicly state that only those under the age of 35 are wanted for work. Elderly laid-off workers often find it very hard to get a new job. China's draft 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) includes a recommendation to raise the retirement age.  It should also, at the same time, crack down on age discrimination.

The employees in China's services industry, such as airlines, high-speed trains, museums and real estate agencies, are mostly young people. However, I have seen not only married air hostesses, but also granny stewardesses in aging societies around the world. In the future, the proportion of young people in China will decline, and some jobs must be reserved for the elderly. Only in this way can a society be healthy and function normally. Young people should not worry about seniors competing for jobs if their retirement age is postponed. Some jobs are in need of more experience. But in most sectors, young people are more competitive. Our society is aging. This is the big reality. We need to alter our actions according to the changes around us. We must adapt to changes, and find new harmony with these changes too. Our society is not a cold world that pursues social Darwinism. When the Chinese government formulates policies, it weighs different interests to benefit the most people. Everyone can express their opinions. But I oppose some people's tough attitude as if they are the most compassionate, as if they care about the world the most. Worse, they tend to believe the government is against the people. I do not know where their moral superiority comes from. Aging is a demographic trend that cannot be changed, it can only be adapted to. Every problem associated with aging is deeply embedded in our lives. We must optimistically face these adjustments. A family should not quarrel about the elderly. And our society should carry out the governance transition to the process of aging more peacefully than the West did. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times. 

The office of the US trade representative on Monday released President Biden's 2021 trade agenda report, accusing China of undermining US national interests through coercive and unfair trade practices. It also said the Biden administration would use all available tools to pursue "strengthened enforcement" of China's existing trade obligations. There are other reports which say that the US is strengthening communication with its allies to ensure advanced technology in basic areas such as the semiconductor industry stays dominated by the West. The Biden administration has repeatedly said it is reviewing the previous administration's China policy, but recent messages emanating from Washington suggest that the new administration is keeping the hard-line stance against China. The Trump administration's strategic goal of containing China will be inherited, and only the means of dealing with China may be adjusted. Taking a look beyond China's stance, we can find the conventional geopolitical logic behind the US' hard-line policy toward China. The US is unaccustomed to China's rise. Its emotional reluctance to accept it, its strategic misgivings about a stronger China, and its desire to take precautions, including some extreme ones, can all be found in this conventional logic. But we are in the 21st century now. It's not the 19th and early 20th centuries when barbaric geopolitical games prevailed. Today's world has been interconnected. Globalization has greatly boosted the well-being of all human beings. It needs more rationality and bottom line to carry out geopolitical games than in the past. Otherwise, playing geopolitical games will become an evil strategy that tramples on basic morality. Be they Americans, Chinese, Latin Americans or Africans, all people have the right to pursue a better life. Regarding US' China policies that aim at promoting US development and increasing US strength, even if they have brought pressure to China, China hasn't said anything negative about them. However, it must be pointed out that policies targeted at preventing China's continuous development and even pushing China's economy backward are evil. They pose a direct harm to the interests of the 1.4 billion Chinese people, depriving the natural right of the Chinese people to seek a better life. It is understandable that Washington hopes to maintain its leading position in semiconductors and artificial intelligence. It is also reasonable that they have taken measures to ensure that resources related to technological progress are concentrated in the hands of the US and the West. But if they exclude China from the list of normal exports of technological products with the goal to make China's relevant technology application lag behind Western countries and cripple China's overall capacity for scientific and technological progress, this is also evil. Restricting China from the perspective of intellectual property rights protection is different from jeopardizing China's scientific and technological research and development capabilities. The former is part of the intellectual property rights protection regime, while the latter is an evil result of the geopolitical mentality. China has 1.4 billion people, more than the West combined, and much more than the population of the major Western countries combined. China's development is the grandest project of the global human rights cause, and China's development needs a relatively friendly international environment, including fair conditions for trade and technology exchanges. People in the US and some Western countries hope that they will always be at the center of global development, and China and other developing countries should work for their national interests, providing them with cheap goods, raw materials and markets, and solidifying this pattern of interests. It is fine to think about it this way. Protecting some of their own interests without causing conflicts can also be tolerated. But it is malicious to take tough measures to suppress the ability of developing countries, and to tell large countries like China that "you deserve to be poor." This kind of malicious policy cannot be followed up in a broad and lasting way in the 21st century. We hope the US ruling team can see clearly the general trend, stop talking about human rights when it is trying to deprive the sacred rights of 1.4 billion Chinese people. Many Chinese people believe that the US wants to contain China's development. Isn't that Washington's biggest goal? At last, we have to say that such evil is doomed to failure in the 21st century.

Sheep Without a Shepherd is a remake of the 2013 film directed by Jeethu Joseph, which also spawned an Indian Hindi-language remake of the same name from Nishikant Kamat in 2015. All three films tell the story of a father who fights against police using the anti-reconnaissance techniques learned from watching movies in order to protect his daughter. According to Chinese ticketing platform Maoyan, Sheep Without a Shepherd earned 1.33 billion yuan($206 million) in the Chinese mainland, making it the ninth highest-earning Chinese film in 2019. "As a remake of Drishyam, the success of Sheep Without a Shepherd lies in its construction of a humanistic environment familiar to Chinese audiences and telling a story that could happen to them, which gave it emotional resonance. Meanwhile, it put aside the original film by adding more humanistic characteristics to make the story more reasonable," Shi Wenxue, a film critic and professor at the Beijing Film Academy, told the Global Times on Wednesday. Due to the high popularity of Sheep Without a Shepherd, both Indian films rose in popularity among Chinese moviegoers, who have given the films over 8/10 scores on Chinese review site Douban. While the two Indian versions have scored high among Chinese audiences, Drishyam 2, which debuted online on February 19 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has not been able to compete as well as its predecessors, only earning a 7.3/10 score on Douban. "The problem of Drishyam 2 is that the plot has twists, but compared with Drishyam, there are too many twists and so the theme gets lost and the pace of the film is slightly slowed down," according to a review from the popular WeChat film blog duliyudianying. Some Chinese fans of the original film have recently started debating on social media whether Sheep Without a Shepherd 2 would follow in the steps of Drishyam 2. "Just like the sequels to Finding Mr Right, The White Storm and Overheard, Sheep Without a Shepherd 2 is more likely to keep the same name but tell a totally new story. We have been constantly improving our original ability, no need to keep remaking," said Shi. Xiao Fuqiu, a film critic based in Shanghai, told the Global Times that rather than try and remake Drishyam 2, it would be better to produce a new remake of some other Bollywood blockbusters like Andhadhun and Ittefaq. According to Maoyan, Sheep Without a Shepherd 2 is scheduled to be filmed in October and November overseas and will be released during summer 2022. The cast will see the same actors of the first film return, but they will be playing different characters as the second film will not be a direct sequel to the original story.

It is a time to recall with pride their collective achievements and chart new horizons for taking their truly unique friendship and partnership forward. The essence of this friendship is the mutual goodwill, complete trust and shared cultural ethos imbued with values of humility, modesty, sharing and caring. In a world prone to arrogance of power and where might is right, these Eastern values as epitomized in Pakistan-China friendship and cooperation are a rarity and an example of model inter-state relations that are time tested and have weathered regional and global turbulence. The new era tensions and uncertainties can only be relieved by renewing our faith and confidence in universal ideals and values. Pakistan and China are young states with deep civilizational roots and a history of mutually enriching interaction spanning several millenniums. Reviving the Silk Road has been a common dream of the two peoples with a view to resurrecting the golden age of multi-faceted mutually beneficial and harmonious cooperation for a glorious future. The Pakistan-China "special" relations, based on abiding trust and mutual respect, have enabled the two countries to join hands to give shape to their dreams for spreading peace, progress and prosperity, in ever widening circles, for their peoples, the region and beyond. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are 21st century models of international cooperation, underpinned by ideals and principles and invested with political commitment and requisite resources, for positive transformation of the regional and global landscape. China's meteoric rise and phenomenal economic growth, in a short time span, has no parallel in human history. The wisdom of the Chinese leadership and hard work of the Chinese people have contributed to the making of an Asian century. Pakistan is proud of the national accomplishments of the friendly Chinese nation. The rising tide lifts all boats. The neighbors of China must benefit first and so should the world. The veritable renaissance of the Chinese civilization will have a beneficial impact on humanity. China together with Pakistan have endeavored to renew the faith of peoples around the world, especially in developing countries, in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and its promise for a better future. China as a responsible stakeholder in the international system has always upheld the imperatives of multilateral cooperation ensuing from interdependence and ensuring equitable and positive dividends from globalization. China is the No.1 economy in terms of purchasing power parity. At home, it has succeeded in lifting over 800 million people out of poverty. It is now the driving engine for the global economy - a global manufacturing and services hub and will soon become a major financial pole. Its technological prowess continues to power exponential growth in advanced earth, marine and space sciences. China's rich culture has added new colors to the beautiful mosaic of human accomplishments in multiple domains. China has brought uniquely refreshing perspectives in understanding and drawing lessons from the march of human history. It has demonstrated that if development becomes a "strategic priority," any nation can attain its dreams. Rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has been the dream of the Chinese people. Today, China has attained its goal of becoming a moderately developed country. By 2049, our Chinese friends will attain this goal comprehensively. The key lesson from China's experience is that by avoiding bitter contestations and geopolitical rivalries and opting for peaceful cooperation, based on voluntary, equal footed, mutually beneficial and inclusive partnerships, nations can achieve great progress and prosperity. This is the foundational thesis of the BRI launched in 2013. It is a visionary initiative that holds the promise of bringing about a historic transformation in the global economic and political landscape. As a concept and in its working, this represents an original and most consequential contribution of China to the future of mankind. The CPEC is a flagship project of the BRI, signed in 2013 and launched in 2015. Approximately $25 billion have already been injected in various projects. Another $40 billion is expected to be invested in the next phase. CPEC has come to epitomize the new priorities in Pakistan-China economic cooperation and encapsulates the essence of leadership level understandings and agreements over the past few decades. Chinese concessional credits have made it possible for Pakistan to benefit from China's economic rise in a substantial manner. CPEC is bound to go transnational and span other adjoining regions thus enabling Pakistan to realize its geo-economic potential as a conduit for trade and commerce and a transportation hub. Economic and trade cooperation has witnessed a quantum jump with the launching of CPEC, which centers on developing infrastructure, energy, agriculture and industrial development in Pakistan. The development of Gwadar deep sea port holds immense potential for serving as another gateway not only to Pakistan but all of the landlocked states of Central Asia and Afghanistan. Energy cooperation has been extremely helpful in overcoming shortages. China has also been assisting Pakistan in developing clean coal energy and hydro-electric potential. Oil and gas exploration has also been an important aspect of cooperation. China is also assisting Pakistan to develop its railroad infrastructure. The Pakistan-China Free Trade Agreement has now entered the next phase, which gives all items of Pakistan export interest a zero-tariff access to the vast Chinese market. The Karakoram Highway has been widened and is being linked by high grade expressways to Pakistani ports. Technological cooperation has been an extremely valuable aspect of China -Pakistan cooperation. There are framework agreements covering all aspects of technology including earth, marine and space sciences. Pakistan and China have developed a long-term plan for cooperation in space. In wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, China has stepped up cooperation with Pakistan in the field of health. Bilateral cooperation between Pakistan and China has many dimensions. Defense cooperation is robust. Political consultations on regional and global issues are a regular feature. It reveals a remarkable identity of views between Pakistan and China. Pakistan has supported Chinese position on core issues of Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. China has repeatedly expressed support for Pakistan's sovereignty and independence. Cooperation and coordination at the UN and international forums have been a hallmark of the strategic partnership. The Pakistan-China friendship will grow from strength to strength and scale new heights. Its new dimensions will be revealed in the realm of thoughts and values, and the full spectrum merger and distilling of the virtues of two ancient civilizations for the benefit of mankind, as a whole. The author served as Pakistan's Ambassador to China, India and Denmark and as Foreign Secretary of Pakistan.

(The following is the  version of this Editorial carried in the English Global Times, reproduced pending translation of the Chinese original.)

  A total of 47 people, including scholar Benny Tai Yiu-ting, who are charged with conspiring to subvert state power, were taken to a Hong Kong court on Monday. The case involves the largest number of suspects since the enactment of the national security law for Hong Kong, and has generated wide attention. The US, the UK and the EU have expressed their objections to the charge. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday, "The US stands with the people of Hong Kong." US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan blatantly said, "We stand in solidarity with these brave activists." But an important lesson for the world over the years is that whenever the US proclaims to stand with whichever country, Washington is misleading and entrapping that country. Sullivan's statement is typical - he is wooing "brave activists" to stand with the US and serve as US tools to confront China. Before the US supports and praises those who impair Hong Kong's rule of law, it should first thank America's "brave activists" who stormed Capitol Hill in January. At least, these Americans were protecting their president and opposing "election fraud," while the Hong Kong suspects have made no constructive contribution to Hong Kong at all. Just with conventional wisdom, we know the 47 people may have already committed a crime. They conducted the so-called primary election in July 2020, but there is no such "primary election" in Hong Kong's local election laws. It is an illegal act. Some Western countries do have primary elections, but they are part of their electoral systems. Those lawbreakers in Hong Kong had organized activities to interfere in elections outside of the democratic system, and their purpose was to carry out political mobilization and to gather forces that could eventually subvert Hong Kong's constitutional system and paralyze the HKSAR government. They have violated the provisions of the national security law for Hong Kong. Whether they constitute a serious crime and whether they need to go to jail must be determined by Hong Kong's judicial authorities in accordance with the national security law for Hong Kong and other local laws. This is an inevitable act of a society under the rule of law. Western intervention at this juncture is a real destruction to Hong Kong's judicial system. Western countries want to turn Hong Kong into an ideological vassal that follows them. Hong Kong should have long realized the legislation of the Article 23 of the Basic Law on its own initiative and maintained basic political stability. But the extreme opposition in the city, with the support of Western forces, had destroyed the opportunity for Hong Kong and had messed up the city, forcing the Chinese central government to enact the national security law for Hong Kong. Hong Kong's opposition forces have no ability to fight the law, and the US's and UK's intervention mainly focuses on verbal accusations, and their ability to exert real pressure is very limited. The implementation of the national security law for and in Hong Kong is unwavering. More importantly, the central government has genuinely taken responsibility for the future of HKSAR, while the West either keeps finding fault with Hong Kong or harbors deep malice toward Hong Kong, trying to fool some radical activists in the city into acting as what they say. The Chinese people, including the people in Hong Kong, do not fear further challenges to the implementation of the national security law for Hong Kong. The country has strategic control over the state of affairs in Hong Kong. The situation in Hong Kong will eventually change to a better direction, not at the will of some external forces. The central government has no intention of destroying Hong Kong's democracy. Adhering to "one country, two systems" principle is the true will of the Chinese society. It is both natural and justified for Hong Kong patriots governing Hong Kong. Is it possible for people in the US and the UK to be ruled by people who do not love their own country? China does not recognize the bizarre logic imposed by the US, the UK and other Western powers on Hong Kong affairs. We have known well that all they want is to bring chaos to Hong Kong. We have already lost the patience to argue with them, and will give a snort of contempt to whatever they clamor. The national security law for Hong Kong is not a toothless tiger. Those who take radical actions in Hong Kong against the law will be sanctioned. Let the West give them cheap praise of short endurance. The long history of the Chinese nation will nail them to the column of humiliation as traitors.

Caroline Wilson, UK ambassador to China, on Tuesday post an article in Putonghua (Chinese) on why international media criticism on Chinese authorities is not China hating. The article quoted my narratives on advocating China of accepting more diverse views. Yes, that's exactly what I said. Working for a media outlet, I can understand foreign correspondents' desire to have as much space as possible to engage in their coverage in China. But Wilson's rhetoric on freedom of the press is too simple, which conceals or even distorts the real relationship between media and reality.

In the article, Wilson spoke highly of the role that UK media outlets play in supervising public opinion, in a bid to compare the limited role that Chinese media outlets play. China has implemented a different political system in comparison to those in the UK and the US. The role of media is a compatible part of their systems. Media of China and the West should not be simply compared in terms of technology, but on whether their media are conductive to the advancement of their societies. China has rapidly developed over the past decades. Chinese public opinion has made its contribution to the achievement. During the same period, the development of the UK and US has exposed their problems. Their media should shoulder their related responsibility to the results. It is a very complicated problem whether Chinese or the Western media serves better. Wilson admitted that Chinese media played a big role in the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak, but she believed such a role is limited. My opinion differs from hers. The coverage from Chinese media on the epidemic was not as extensive as their counterparts in the UK and the US, but Chinese media's reporting have had vital effects. Chinese media's reporting, involving the internet, made the country adjust promptly and contributed to drawing up a determined road map to fight COVID-19. By contrast, there have been many reports in the UK and the US, and some words they used are also quite harsh, but have they actually worked in practice? Trump has been giving contempt to criticism from media outlets. Where is the practical and effective supervision of public opinion? The result is that the US and the UK were bad at fighting the epidemic, and China quickly made decisive achievements in this fight. Which side - China or the West - values and respects the voice of public opinion more? Which side's practical policy is more in line with public opinion? Personally speaking, I don't think all Western correspondents in China are "extremely anti-China." I understand that it is not easy for them to be caught between what they see in reality and the overall attitude of the West toward China. However, I would like to point out the fact that they have not played an active role in the communication between China and the West as a whole. Subjectively or objectively, they have only added fuel to the deepening of the cognitive gap between China and the West. These foreign correspondents are in China, where many things are different from their values.  However, they can and should feel the complexity of China's reality and understand that China and the Communist Party of China are not as simple as the West has labeled. China has its own internal logic, and whether the West likes it or not, this logic has supported China's development and progress. Thus, a crude and fundamental smear against it would be unfair, even absurd, in any case. China has been pinned increasingly more labels by Western world, which shaped the West's perception of China. Intentionally or unintentionally, some Western journalists in China have been supporting such trend. I think they have at least shown collective cowardice, being afraid to explain to the West the complicated truth about the country. Some of them are indeed hostile toward China, and are standing at the forefront of the West's envious, jealous and hateful mentality toward China's development over the years. The overall coverage of China in the Western media reports is biased and even false. Such reports shaped the huge lie that China is the "second Soviet Union" that the West has to confront. Of course, this is not entirely those journalists' fault. They are the only ones who stand at the frontline of Western public opinion on China. They are supposed to break the relevant stereotypes, but they didn't. Apart from their personal reasons, it mirrors the so-called freedom of the press in the West with political limitations which Western journalists in China cannot escape. The system of Western public opinion is formed in the process of the evolution of Western politics. All modern media tools are invented by the West. China adopted them and has been adjusting their functions. But the adjustment is undergoing all kinds of accusations from the West. This is a difficult process, which reflects how hard it is for China to explore its own development path. China has its own pride. We have created the miracle of rapid development, which started from falling far behind other countries. We have been observing the outside world with humility, and we will do the same in the future. The West, on the other hand, should stop taking itself as an example which China should follow. This is the basic self-respect they have to own.

After months of border standoff from May 2020, Indian and Chinese troops had successfully carried out disengagement at the northern and southern banks of Pangong Tso lake, a move that aims to ease tensions along the border.

And in another attempt to bring peace and stability along the Line of Actual Control, India and Pakistan implemented a cease-fire agreement from midnight February 24/25. New Delhi made these moves after careful calculations of its interests. It knows well that long-term confrontation with China consumes its resources, and there is no way that it could force Beijing to step back or compromise. Against the backdrop of lagging logistics and weapons procurement and the pandemic-stricken economy, India has no chance of winning a large-scale conflict or war. Similarly, India did not gain anything from its skirmishes with Pakistan. The fact that India's national strength exceeds that of Pakistan does not necessarily mean India has absolute advantages in particular regions. This is especially the case since Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India dare not wage a war against such a well-armed country. Some analysts believe these developments at the borders with China and Pakistan show that India's regional strategy is rapidly adapting to the reality of the post-Trump era. It could be argued that India's cease-fire with Pakistan is influenced by US factors. The administration of US President Joe Biden is likely to extend the May 1 deadline set by the Donald Trump administration for withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan. As the Afghan issue remains unsettled, the US has to maintain its presence on Afghanistan, so it needs cooperation with Pakistan. After Biden took power, the US may treat India and Pakistan equally. India is also weighing the China policy the Biden administration would adopt. It is anticipated that the Biden administration's foreign policy will stress multilateralism and international cooperation, and will be different from the confrontational approach of the Trump administration. Biden's team has signaled its readiness to explore areas of cooperation such as climate change with China, and it describes China as "the most serious competitor" to the US rather than labeling it as a "security threat." Therefore, the role that India can play in the US strategy to contain China will be reduced. And India's policy of regional aggression by taking advantage of the US will also meet some setbacks. Washington will attach more importance to its relationship with New Delhi under the framework of the great power competition, as it always does. But the realpolitik-centric US will attach importance to India only for US' own agenda. For instance, American support for India to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council has proven to be nothing but lip service for more than a decade. What may be a relief for India is the fact that it still has a place in the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, which the Biden administration will likely continue though it was introduced by the Trump administration. There has also been discussions about whether the US and India will form a real military alliance. But this actually puts New Delhi into dilemma. It not only matters to other Asian countries, but also signals the formation of the Cold War-like military camps in Asia. India cannot bear the responsibility of destroying regional stability. During the Trump era, India made the strategic mistake of rash advances by having border conflicts with China, Pakistan and Nepal. Although military cooperation between New Delhi and Washington was boosted with US arms sales to India and some defense agreements signed, such cooperation did not effectively enhance India's own strength. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Make in India" ambition is in structural conflicts with Trump's policies to bring manufacturing back to the US. If we predict the India-US relations in the Biden era, we can refer to the Barack Obama administration. As the international landscape has not changed that much, the impact of leadership changes on bilateral ties will only be partial. If India truly wants to lift its international status, it must enhance its own strength. India has been relying on the US or Quad, an informal security grouping of the US, Japan, Australia and India, to counterbalance China. This shows it understands its lack of strength. Major powers are master practitioners of realpolitik. India will only end up being a US pawn, rather than the grandiose power it desires to be. The author is a senior research fellow with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at the Beijing Foreign Studies University and president of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs.

The West's rhetoric about China has entered a paranoid dead end. Whatever China does or says, the first thing the West will do is to question it. China's poverty alleviation efforts have lifted about 100 million Chinese people out of extreme poverty. This is strong evidence that by focusing on people-centered human rights principles, China has successfully established its own human rights development path that is in line with China's own national conditions. But with a sour grape mentality, the West refused to positively evaluate China's achievements in poverty alleviation. Instead, it has been discrediting this historical achievement of human rights development China has made. The BBC published on Sunday an article entitled "Has China lifted 100 million people out of poverty?" in the name of "Reality Check." Although the article wrote at the end that "by any measure China has made huge strides to lift millions out of the toughest standards of living over the last few decades," it meant nothing complimentary but raised doubts. In a similar tone, the New York Times published an article on December 31, 2020 to question the sustainability of China's poverty alleviation efforts. As we know, when China says it is a developing country, the West rebukes that China is a developed one. And after China announced its victory over extreme poverty reduction, the West narrow-mindedly described it as insubstantial propaganda. So unsurprisingly, the West's distorted perception of China has been vividly reflected in the West's biased rhetoric of China's victory in poverty alleviation. The BBC attributed the success in bringing a large number of people out of poverty to Chinese people's hard work due to China's economic reform "in favor of versions of capitalism." This is completely a slander on the Communist Party of China, and a great insult to the diligent Chinese nation.

China's victory in poverty alleviation is a miracle not only because of the huge number of people it has helped but also due to the difficulties encountered and huge sacrifices made in the process. In eight years, over 3 million civil servants have been deployed to remote places to fight poverty and at least 1,800 of them have sacrificed their lives by the end of 2020. This is unthinkable in the West. But the Western media has declined to speak anything of such humanitarianism but focused on groundlessly accusing China.

John Copper, the Stanley J. Buckman Professor (emeritus) of International Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, wrote in April 2019 that "China is best placed to tackle rural poverty globally, and the West isn't happy about it." Two years have passed, the West has become even unhappier. Their ineptitude in the COVID-19 fight has consumed their moral high ground of human rights to effectively stigmatize China. Unable to find any reliable excuses to distort the reality of China's victory in poverty alleviation, the malicious BBC cited the World Bank's criterion in a bid to prove that China can achieve the victory because its definition of poverty is much lower than that of the World Bank. It even questioned, "While China has made substantial work of tackling the deepest poverty first, should it be holding itself to a higher standard?" Such sophistry is absurd. It is just taking advantage of the World Bank's authenticity to help the West smear China. But according to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, if purchasing power parity and price difference between rural and urban areas in China are considered, the standard we use is much higher than that of the World Bank. Problems involving people's livelihood have become severer in the West, and the ravaging pandemic has made the so-called human rights myths in the West to be punctured one by one like bubbles. However, constantly distorting Western people's perception of China cannot heal the West's own diseases. Those with malicious intent have even been unable to find a decent excuse to discredit China. To stigmatize China for the sake of slander, the result will be that indisputable facts are increasingly acknowledged to the world.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) on Saturday published an article titled "Criticism of Five Eyes points to flaws in China's strategic thinking." ASPI refuted a recent Global Times editorial headlined "Five Eyes today's axis of white supremacy," declaring that the editorial reflects "four critical flaws" in the Communist Party of China (CPC)'s "strategic thinking about China's future."The "four critical flaws" include "fundamental confusion over dominance hegemony," lending to "binary choices" of friends or enemies, "thinly veiled threats and coercive actions" and "divisive wedge strategies and identity politics."Interestingly, all these accusations can be applied to the US' practices and are slaps in the Five Eyes' own face. Considering that the ASPI is partially funded by the US government, its logic is not so surprising. First, ASPI declared that the CPC has a fundamental confusion over "dominance and hegemony." It is the US that has confused dominance and hegemony. The US publicly uses hegemony to serve its own interests, and it believes it represents the international community. However, not only does Washington fail to represent the international community, fewer and fewer Western countries are following the US' stick, except for Australia, the UK and Canada in the Five Eyes. Suppressing China is to maintain the US' hegemony as well. And as emerging countries are developing, it has become the Five Eyes' top priority to contain rising countries and maintain hegemony. To put it simply, the Five Eyes is undermining the development rights of the 1.4 billion Chinese people. Second, ASPI said that international relations are not an activity that lends itself to "binary choices" of friends or enemies, adding that such an attitude is "largely abandoned in Western culture." This seems even more hilarious and self-contradictory. It is the US, Australia, Canada and the UK in the Five Eyes that have always held such an attitude. The five countries share a great sense of superiority toward Anglo-Saxon civilization, and they have tried to comprehensively suppress China and other countries with different ideologies. Instead of being "abandoned," the attitude has been widely adopted in the Five Eyes. Third, ASPI's blaming of China for "threats and coercive actions" is completely groundless. China has never required other countries to pick sides between China and the US, let alone imposing threats. The US coerces other countries to follow Washington's policies, including suppressing Huawei and confronting China on the Hong Kong and Xinjiang affairs. But only three countries of the Five Eyes have closely followed the US. The Five Eyes, however, has been intimidating other countries with its "carrot-and-stick policy" to confront China over matters including Huawei, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The US-led alliance's "threats and coercive actions" are obvious to all. And finally, talking about what ASPI describes as "identity politics," the Five Eyes can be regarded as the best example itself. Due to the shared culture and ideology, the five countries believe they have common interests and thus have carried out a series of political activities. They regard attacking China, Russia and other countries as a common mission. The evil concept of racism is rising among the five countries. However, more problems are emerging among the five countries and their identity politics, but these, as ASPI said, "do not create power." For example, as the smallest country in the Five Eyes, New Zealand is unwilling to participate to any great extent in international conflicts. It seems that ASPI narcissistically regards the Five Eyes as the whole world. But does the Five Eyes still have much "dominance" worldwide? Led by the US, the five countries' dominance in economy, technology, culture and human rights has been gradually weakened. And to suppress China's rising international role and to maintain its own hegemony, the intelligence alliance since WWII has strengthened cooperation and turned itself into a political and security alliance. The Five Eyes cannot represent the whole world. More and more countries will realize that what the Five Eyes declares as multilateralism is limited to the narrow interests of their own small circle. The five countries are trying to obliterate the diversity of the world.

China has recently declared "complete victory" in eradicating absolute poverty. For a developing country with a large population and uneven geographical development, the reasons for China's achievements are worth exploring.Eradication of extreme poverty has been one of the main objectives of the entire development strategy of China and it has involved massive mobilization of resources. It represents a historically unique experience of global significance because of its magnitude, and also the systematic and persistent efforts that enabled its success. According to the World Bank, more than 850 million people were lifted from poverty in China over the past decades, which is a historically unprecedented achievement. Moreover, eradication of extreme poverty in China did not impede the rapid development in other spheres that happened at the same time. This means that the development strategy was well conceived. But all this is not the end of history. It will be important to see how the future tasks of the alleviation of poverty (other than extreme poverty that has been eradicated) will be approached in China's  14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25). China added a larger number of consumers to its own economy, and this helps countries who export to China. In Latin American countries, for example, exports of commodities to China have been a major factor in their own development and poverty alleviation programs. But will the experience of China, "the Chinese model" influence policymaking in other countries? This is more difficult to say. Each country - large or small - has its own profile of poverty. And poverty is not only about the shortage of material resources, it is also about a number of other, country-specific factors, such as geography, climate, history and environmental degradation. Moreover, policymakers often don't approach extreme poverty as a problem that can and must be solved, but rather as a problem that needs to be contained or managed. So, for example, state subsidies of basic foodstuffs or fuel alleviate the plight of the people, but don't lead to elimination of extreme poverty. China's experience is not properly studied around the world. It is true that China is unique, but this should not prevent policymakers from poverty stricken countries to study the Chinese experience more attentively. Good national planning and proper mobilization of people would help poverty reduction. But we must be aware, not all countries have the needed planning capacity or ability to articulate sufficiently strong political will to mobilize their whole population. As I said, they should study the experience of China more attentively. International organizations could help. The UN Development Program is doing good work in that regard, and so are other relevant organizations in the UN System. But clearly, more is needed. There are also a certain amount of poor people in some Western countries. In the past three or four decades the West has been influenced by what is called "neoliberal ideology" placing all the expectations for development in the market forces, in the efforts of each individual, etc. The emphasis on deregulation and the weakening of public policy have added to the problems that are now more serious than before. But we must also understand the resilience of the Western societies and the fact that the situation is not the same everywhere. In the continental Europe, in the EU, "the European social model" remains in place. Healthcare is universal, quality education is free, and social safety nets are strong. In the US (and to a much smaller extent in the UK) this was not the case. Right now the policies for the post pandemic recovery will have to address these problems. For example, a major raise in the minimum wage proposed currently in the US would signify an important policy re-direction with a potential to improve the social situation of many and contribute to the elimination of poverty altogether. The article was compiled by Global Times reporter based on a written interview with Danilo Turk, former president of the Republic of Slovenia.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on the phone on Thursday. During the conversation, Wang mentioned that India has vacillated and even moved backward over its policy on China, which has affected and disrupted bilateral pragmatic cooperation and is in the interest of neither side. He also said that mutual trust and cooperation between China and India is the right path for both countries. Jaishankar said the Indian side hopes to strengthen dialogues and consultations with China, and that India would act in a view of the long-term development and the panorama of relations with China. Recently, it seems that both China and India have released some positive signals to improve bilateral relations. For example, China and India have achieved a smooth completion of disengagement of frontline troops in the Pangong Lake area. After the intense standoff, there is bound to be a gradual de-escalation in China-India relations. However, the signal of détente from New Delhi is rather weak, and we need to make an accurate judgment of what this could mean. During the border skirmish, Beijing displayed firm confidence and strength to safeguard its territorial sovereignty, and New Delhi realized that the confrontation with China on the border area put India in a very dangerous situation. Thus, disengagement could be seen as India taking advantage of this chance to extricate itself from this tense situation. Yet only when the Indian side truly recognizes its own mistakes in the border standoff, and when the Indian side is truly willing to meet the Chinese side halfway, then such a signal could be a starting point for the two sides to restore their strategic mutual trust. At present, there are some uncertainties between India and China that could affect bilateral relations. To begin with, whether restraint can be exercised along the border to avoid a repeat of last year's violent clash. If it happens again, China-India relations will suffer a heavy blow. Moreover, whether India will continue its confrontational posture and actions with China remains unknown. India's foreign policy has undergone some substantial changes in the past years. The country has ganged up with some Western countries to contain and interfere with China's development. These actions have already caused a considerable impact on China-India relations. China's attitude toward China-India relations has always been very clear. "We hope the Indian side will work with us to properly manage differences, promote practical cooperation, and get the bilateral relations back on the right track," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on January 29. However, India's attitude, along with its China policy, keeps changing. This makes it difficult to understand what India plans to do with China-India relations. Whereas a Cold War mentality pervades India's strategic circles, some Indian strategists constantly urge the country to seek external enemies to achieve its own interests. The strategic community in New Delhi, in general, shares an aversion toward Beijing. On Wednesday, Indian Chief of Army Staff MM Naravane has described China as "having been in the habit of creeping forward, making small incremental changes." Words from politicians like this have undoubtedly increased uncertainties between the two countries. Since the 2017 Doklam standoff, China-India strategic mutual trust has been severely damaged. It is hard to reestablish high-quality mutual trust between the two. China and India are neighboring countries, and history tells that there tend to be disputes between big countries. Whereas India's policy toward China is currently set on a wrong course, it requires New Delhi to profoundly change its strategy against Beijing before high-quality mutual trust can be regained. But this can hardly be realized in the short term. Regardless of whether India wants to rebuild mutual trust with China, or to what extent it is willing to do so, China should take the lead to initiate better China-India relations. We shouldn't pin much hope on India, but instead we must accept the situation. We should try to improve the China-India relationship when there is an opportunity. But if there is no chance can be seen for now, we should keep calm and wait. From this perspective, there are two pragmatic choices. First, differences should be well managed in order to avoid escalating the situation to a risky state like last year. Second, cooperation should be maintained in any area possible while interrupting or hurting each other should be avoided. (The author is deputy director of the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies at China Institute of International Studies)

The US House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a new act on Thursday which requires the State Department to report the human rights record of an Olympic-hosting country to American athletes 180 days ahead of the event. A number of US senators have boycotted the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games. Canada's House of Commons passed a motion which called for a relocation of the Olympics from Beijing. Parliamentarians from the Five Eyes members, coordinating with anti-China forces like the Xinjiang separatists, are fanning the first round of flames to assault the Beijing Olympics. But the governments have adopted a cautious attitude. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Wednesday that the UK "is not normally in favor of sporting boycotts." Not any government explicitly echoed or indicated calls to boycott the Beijing Olympics. Each country is clear that once it boycotts the Olympics, the first victim is its own athletes, then the Olympics. It may also trigger retaliation and leave international sport events in the shadow of mutual resistance for many years. The US and its allies cannot do anything about China. So far, Washington has failed to find any effective means to hurt China while not being hurt. During the Trump era, the former president resorted to the senseless trade war, and three years later, many view it as a failure. What next? The new US administration boasted of coordinating with its allies, but with no concrete plans. This leaves room for lawmakers who do not shoulder any responsibility for their country's strategies. They are only spokespersons of Western politicians and radicals who are furious but have no way out. In their circles, they play high by issuing some proposals with no or little effect, or write a few open letters to deliver their hostility toward China and prove their presence. It is the International Olympic Committee and athletes from all over the world that care most about how an Olympic Games is held. It is known to all that the US, followed by other members of the Five Eyes alliance, creates trouble with China. If they boycott the Beijing Olympics, it will show to the world their hysteria of pursuing geopolitical goals. China will not suffer more than them. A new survey done by a UK consultancy shows that despite the repeated Western offensives of China over the pandemic and Xinjiang, China's soft power is still strong among developing countries. Western opinion failed to defame China outside its own camp. Ahead of the Olympics, the Five Eyes and the opinion forces in some Western countries will certainly create waves. The more they make a fuss, the more they are at their wit's end in dealing with China. China needs not to fear them. The global sports world and the general public will feel disgusted with them as they go far in this direction. They will end up being clumsy. What the US truly intends to do is to destroy the international environment of China's development and China's booming economy. But it cannot. What happened in the past three years is enough to frustrate it. If a Western journalist goes to any shopping mall or dines at a restaurant in Beijing or Shanghai, and compares the situation with his own country, he would know the vitality of the Chinese economy is unstoppable. China acts restraint and keeps a low profile. But its steps of going forward are steady and firm. The US will feel more and more pain if it resorts to real action, while the human rights rhetoric does not need any cost. For the world, detaching from the Chinese market is becoming more and more inconceivable than detaching from the US market. The US dares not force its allies to pick sides between it and China, because the impact and consequences will be highly unpredictable.

Do you want to travel back in time and celebrate the Lantern Spring Festival with Chinese ancestors? Pottery figurines of arts maids in Tang Dynasty (618-907) have been brought back to life by a beautiful tune of a flute and led audiences to visit the Henan Museum in Central China for a wonderful Lantern Festival. The 2021 Henan Lantern Festival Gala, premiered on Thursday evening and produced by Henan Satellite Station, hit the internet once again, following the dance show "Night Banquet in Palace of Tang Dynasty" going viral on Spring Festival. It has been watched millions of times, with the number of audiences on China’s Twitter-like Sina Weibo reaching a staggering 400 million as of press time. It is the first time in China a gala was shot in a real museum. It took only five days to reshoot the variety show of new creativities in six different places in Henan province. Following the exploration of the reborn maids, audiences saw national treasures such as Lotus and Crane square pot, the gold slip of Empress Wu Zetian, as well as traditional Chinese opera and martial arts. Audiences were transferred with the maids to the Yingtian Gate of Luoyang City in Sui and Tang dynasties to enjoy the splendor of the Tang Dynasty and jumped into the painting of Riverside Scene on Qingming Festival to experience how ancient people celebrate the festival. “This is the perfect combination of ancient Chinese elements with modern advanced technology and creativity. It's an interesting idea to link the whole gala with reborn maids visiting the museum,” 29-year-old Gao Linsen, a PhD student in Harbin, Northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province, told the Global Times on Saturday. Songs, dances, martial arts and drama, each program was full of Chinese cultural elements. After watching, Gao felt that people should cherish the traditional Chinese culture and also respect the new culture. Exquisite songs and dances dazzled the audience, while a Henan opera brought them to tears. “Young people look forward to guarding the border and old people are happy to see the loyalty of the next generation,” four actresses playing She Saihua ,a legendary heroine from ancient China's Northern Song Dynasty (960-1127), sang. “Why there are four actresses playing the role?” An audience asked through the bullet-screen comments. “It must be representing our four Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) martyrs who sacrificed their lives to safeguard China's national sovereignty and territory in the Galwan Valley skirmish with India in June 2020,” others replied. Martyr Xiao Siyuan and Wang Zhuoran were from Henan Province. “This seems to express the inheritance of the spirit of defending the country from ancient times to the present. It strengthens my pride to be a Chinese,” 28-year-old Chinese woman Luo Linqi who has been working in Japan for three years, told the Global Times on Saturday. Luo failed to return to China for Spring Festival this year due to COVID-19. She said she is happy there was such a fantastic Lantern Festival for her since she was spending the night alone in Tokyo. She recommended the show to her Japanese friends. “I’m proud of the broad and profound Chinese traditional culture, which is the stem of our cultural confidence,” Luo said, ‘’looking forward to visiting Henan museum.’’ Henan is a major province of martial arts, and the festival set off a battle between traditional martial arts and modern fighting at the Star Observatory in Dengfeng, which is the oldest stargazing platform in China. A team of about 400 martial artists performed traditional martial arts under the star-watching stage. The unity of man and nature was like a rainbow, showing the heroic spirit of the Chinese people. The cultural identity that flows in the blood of every Chinese is inspired by the Tang Palace Banquet and the magic night gala of the Lantern Festival. The application of science and technology brings history to life. It’s not about the exquisiteness of the festival, but the fact that people can see our culture and history in a whole new way, Shi Wenxue, a Beijing-based cultural critic and an industry analyst, told the Global Times.

The rights and wrongs of the China-India border issue last year are very clear, and lessons should be drawn from the past, China's State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a phone call on Thursday with Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.China and India must cherish the hard-won situation, maintain the momentum of consultation, improve border control mechanisms, and advance the border negotiation process, to realize peace and tranquility along border areas, Wang said. He said during the phone call that the front-line forces of the two sides have recently completed disengagement in the Pangong Lake area and the current situation has eased significantly. India's policy toward China recently has undergone swings and regression, and the cooperation between the two countries has been affected and disrupted, which is not in the interests of both parties, Wang noted, adding that the experience of the past few decades has repeatedly indicated that highlighting differences will not help solve problems, but will erode the foundation of mutual trust. China and India should follow the right path of mutual trust and cooperation instead of the path of suspicion, or retrogressive path, and properly handle border issues to prevent bilateral relations from falling into a negative cycle, Wang noted. Border issues are not the whole of China-India relations and should be placed in an appropriate position in bilateral relations, Wang said. China and India, two emerging economies, need to move forward side-by-side instead of restraining each other, and develop cooperatively instead of building walls against each other. Step-by-step, the two sides can accumulate conditions for further improving bilateral relations and advancing pragmatic cooperation, Wang noted. The recent disengagement of the two militaries in the Pangong Lake area is an important result of the two sides earnestly implementing the consensus reached by the two foreign ministers in Moscow, Jaishankar said during the phone call. India hopes to strengthen dialogue and consultation with China to achieve complete disengagement in other regions as soon as possible, push a sustained cool-off in the border situation, and maintain peace and tranquility in border areas. The Indian side is willing to proceed from the long-term development of bilateral relations and the overall situation, implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two sides, and push bilateral relations back on track as soon as possible, he noted. During the phone call, the two sides agreed to establish a communication hotline to exchange views in a timely manner. Relations between China and India deteriorated since a deadly confrontation in Galwan Valley last year. The two sides began formulating a disengagement plan to withdraw troops and establish no-patrol zones in November 2020. On February 10, Chinese and Indian border troops on the southern and northern shores of Pangong Lake began their disengagement as planned.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi talked with Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar over the phone on Thursday, six days after the two countries held the tenth round of corps commander-level talks, in which the two countries had an in-depth exchange of views on issues along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Western Sector, and agreed to follow the consensus reached by their state leaders. An insider in India told Global Times that Indian and Chinese foreign ministers chose this time to hold talks in order to send an important message. He said that after the completion of the India-China disengagement on the northern and southern sides of the Pangong Lake, The two sides immediately held the 10th round of ministerial talks and agreed to submit their respective plans for the next stage of disengagement to the policy-making level. This indicate that this round of border confrontation has come to an end. In this context, the phone call is the political continuation of the meeting between the two foreign ministers in Moscow in September 2020. This also demonstrates the efforts and determination of both sides to restore peace and tranquility in the border areas and rebuild mutual trust in bilateral relations. The insider believes that although there are still differences between India and China on the border issue, both sides agree to "not letting the differences become serious disputes," which is the basis and key for a continued development of bilateral relations. Experts reached by the Global Times said on Friday that the dialogue between Wang and Jaishankar was aimed at ensuring the full implementation of the consensus reached at the tenth round of talks. According to the information released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang stressed that China and India must cherish the hard-won situation, maintain the momentum of consultation, improve the border control mechanisms, and advance the border negotiation process, to realize peace and tranquility along border areas. Jaishankar noted that India hopes to strengthen dialogue with China to achieve complete disengagement in other regions as soon as possible, pushing forward a sustained cool-off in the border situation, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Although it is not clear who initiated the call, it is obvious that both sides want to move forward with the process of disengagement and peace along the border, Zhao Gancheng, director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told the Global Times on Friday. Zhao disclosed that the tenth round talks involved the settlement of the area where the months-long standoff first broke out, the Galwan Valley. What's more, disengagement at the three points of contact is an acceptable consensus for both sides. "In the past 10 rounds of talks, there have been difficulties in the process of implementing the consensus, which shows that the two sides were quite far apart on the border issues in practice," Zhao said. The latest phone call shows that, with mutual trust between the two sides hurt, the key decision-makers from the two countries are working hard to heal China-India relations and seek more progress, looking to possibly realize stability and development, Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times on Friday. During the phone call, Wang and Jaishankar also agreed to establish a communication hotline to exchange views on certain matters. For experts, ensuring the mechanism works in a timely manner will be challenging for both sides. Both Chinese and Indian commanders on the ground, even at the higher level, will have access to the hotline mechanism, which has played a role during many border frictions in the past, Zhao said. However, the case involving the Galwan Valley caused causalities and a great wave of hostility, resulting in the hotline being abandoned. "When border frictions erupt, it is easy to turn to a game of mutual blame. The side who calls the hotline first will be regarded as the weak party, so no one is willing to call first," Zhao said, noting that soothing mechanisms on both sides also needs to play a bigger role and the demarcation of the LAC is fundamental to solving the dispute. One analyst said that it is the common responsibility of both sides to maintain peace and tranquility on the border. Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Thursday that rights and wrongs of the China-India border issue are very clear, and the recent wobble in India's China policy has led to a setback in relations between the two countries. Observers noted that China has shown full goodwill recently in both delaying the announcement of martyrs in the border clash and backing India's hosting of the BRICS summit. And the two countries should take the summit as a chance to repair mutual trust and get back to the right path. India holds the rotating chairmanship of BRICS in 2021, and will hold the BRICS summit in the second half of the year. China will host the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February 2022. The two events will provide more opportunities for the two sides to ease relations, as leaders from both sides will possibly join the events if the COVID-19 pandemic is well under control, Zhao noted. Observers said that some Indian media and netizens kept hyping up China's casualties, but the Indian government and military did not overreact or display a hard-line attitude toward China. "They [Indian authorities] maintained a pragmatic and rational attitude, which also shows that the Indian government and military also value the opportunity to restore relations after a smooth completion of disengagement of frontline troops from the Pangong Lake area, with the border standoff coming to an end," Qian said. Zhao, who previously held several exchanges with Jaishankar, told Global Times that the Indian foreign minister is neither pro-China nor anti-China. "Jaishankar is very practical and realistic… He told me personally that before he became ambassador to China, he had read all the files of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs on the China-India border issue five times," Zhao said. Jaishankar held the post of Indian Ambassador to China from 2013 to 2015. Bilateral trade between China and India totaled $77.7 billion in 2020. Replacing the US, China became India's largest trading partner in 2020, Bloomberg reported, citing Indian official data.

This is the most unforgettable and unpretentious humanitarianism. China is a socialist country and its people-centered approach is not a rhetorical slogan, but its true commitment. It has taken several years and successive steps in this great cause, which has never been seen before in the history of China and mankind.There are countless touching stories of helping poor people. However, what many people may not expect is how many human tragedies will be prevented and how many conditions and hopes will be added to people's pursuit of equality because of this decisive battle against poverty. Some may worry about the quality of the achievements made in poverty alleviation, raising the possibility that they may return to poverty. Yet those familiar with the grand project know that the government has paid attention to these issues much earlier than those proposed online, and that the effort to deal with them is one of the most lasting clues to local governance. At the international level, China's declaration of eliminating absolute poverty in the country coincided with the climax of fierce attacks on China's human rights by the Five Eyes alliance countries such as the US, the UK, and Canada as well as some other Western countries. When the US and other countries are playing up "political and human rights" in China, China has made concrete achievements in eliminating poverty. While the US death toll from the COVID-19 epidemic has reached 500,000, China has successfully protected its own people. This is an unprecedented collision between "saying" and "doing" in the field of human rights. Poverty can be seen as the root cause of human rights violations. Most people around the world can understand what it means to be poor. Often the overriding desire of the poor is to lift themselves and even their offspring out of poverty. The Chinese government has lifted a population the size of the UK and Canada combined out of absolute poverty over the past eight years and set a new course in life for them, many of which are Uygur people in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. This is how China has carried out human rights construction. The construction of human rights in China, a country with a huge population, is complicated. Those "small Western countries" always set the agenda for China and tell China what to do. Don't they think it's ridiculous? Is there a more important human rights agenda in the world than lifting 100 million people out of poverty in eight years? In recent years, the Chinese people have become more and more disgusted with the US and the West's manipulation on the issue of human rights. We can tell that they are not expecting China's best because we now have our own measurement of human rights in mind. China's human rights construction in recent years has been focused on lifting its people out of poverty. China's rise from near the bottom of the world in per capita GDP before reform and opening-up to a level above middle-income countries today has brought all kinds of welfare, dignity and hope to the Chinese people. To live is to live with dignity. This is the strongest desire of the Chinese people, and it is also the cornerstone of the Chinese people's collective view of human rights. The Chinese people look to the world with humility and learn from the strengths of other countries. It is difficult for us to understand why some "small Western countries" belittle China's human rights development in the face of such obvious achievements, and regard China's booming development as doomed. Is it narrowness and crankiness? Otherwise, how could they completely engage in anti-Chinese thoughts, and trade a bunch of meaningless concepts for our precious fruits? How can they not think about why a developing China can uphold human rights, while they failed to do so?

Shuanghu County, Tibet Autonomous Region, was removed from poverty list on December 9, 2019. As of Oct, 2020, about 35,000 resettlement areas have been built nationwide, and more than 2.66 million units of resettlement housing have been built for the poor. Over 9.6 million impoverished people have relocated into new homes.

Editor's Note: Chinese President Xi Jinping solemnly declared "complete victory" in eradicating absolute poverty during a conference in Beijing on Thursday. China has lifted all rural poor people out of extreme poverty under the current standard, with 832 counties, 128,000 villages, and nearly 100 million impoverished people shaking off poverty. How did China make it? What does the role of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) play during the arduous process? Four foreign experts shared their views with the Global Times on China's successful poverty alleviation. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, chairman of The Kuhn Foundation and recipient of the China Reform Friendship Medal (2018) China's success in eradicating extreme poverty is founded on three powerful principles: CPC leadership, General Secretary Xi's commitment, and CPC mobilization. First, the operational leadership of the CPC is not just about giving directives and pronouncements but actually implementing programs and projects through the CPC organizational structure - central government and five levels of local government (provincial, municipal, county, township, village). The five levels are run directly by Party secretaries - five levels of Party secretaries — and I followed their work on poverty alleviation, tracked each Party secretary's specific domains of responsibility as well as how their collective work articulated together. All these Party secretaries considered poverty alleviation to be their most important task — and I have been around China long enough to know that they weren't putting on a show for me, they weren't faking it, trying to impress me (perhaps thinking I might write, report or film something). Second, the commitment of General Secretary Xi, who by voicing his personal leadership repeatedly and by allocating his personal time overtly, sets an example that leaders and officials must follow. Visiting poor villages has been a key part of Xi's more than 80 domestic inspections since he was elected general secretary of the CPC Central Committee in late 2012. Similarly, during the coronavirus epidemic, when Xi visited hospitals and spoke with frontline workers, the whole country got the message. Almost everywhere Xi goes, he stresses poverty alleviation and encourages Party cadres to visit impoverished areas regularly and interact with local people directly. Xi has made poverty alleviation an emblem of his leadership. Alleviating poverty is what Xi cares most about and on which he spends the most energy. He said in 2017, "We should mobilize the energies of our whole Party, our whole country, and our whole society, and continue to implement targeted poverty reduction and alleviation measures." Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO Summit in November 2017, Xi made the remarkable statement: "I have spent more energy on poverty alleviation than on anything else." I know no other national leader who has made such an assertion. Since the 18th CPC National Congress in late 2012, Xi has visited scores of poverty-stricken villages and households; on almost every domestic trip he makes, he makes a point to understand the local poverty situation and what is being done to alleviate poverty. Third, the mobilization capacity of the CPC and the ability to command the country's resources in personnel and materials. For example, during the pandemic, assigning "sister" relationships between strong provinces and specific cities in Hubei, a strategy long employed in poverty alleviation between eastern and western provinces and cities. Although other developing countries have different conditions and cultures, China rightly believes its poverty alleviation experience can help. Among developing countries, only China has achieved rapid development and large-scale poverty reduction, with the poor sharing the fruits of reform and opening-up over the four decades and with the intractably poor finally brought out of poverty over the last seven years or so. For good reason, China's poverty alleviation accomplishments have been called a developmental miracle. When China's 2020 poverty alleviation mission is completed, China will have achieved the poverty reduction goal of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 10 years ahead of schedule. No other country has brought so many people out of poverty, and did so in such a short period of time. China asserts that these historic achievements validate the country's socialist political system, which means the continuing leadership of the CPC. What can the world learn from China's success in poverty alleviation? Many things, to be sure. Certainly, China hopes to share its poverty reduction experience - all aspects of it - with the world community, especially the poorest nations. But first, a caveat. Each country is different. Each culture has its own history; the natures of different peoples are indeed different. We cannot take programs from one country and impose them wholly, without adaptation, on another country. However, the principles are what's important. And China's principles of poverty alleviation are clear: "targeted" poverty alleviation employs specific measures to fit specific circumstances and needs, and a clear organizational structure to implement those measures, monitor them, and check them. Nonetheless, to me, what is even clearer is this. For a country to make a success of poverty alleviation, the No.1 criterion is that the leadership of the country must make an absolute and resolute commitment to accomplish it. Again, General Secretary Xi's unambiguous assertion: "I have spent more energy on poverty alleviation than on anything else." This sends a powerful message to officials at all levels, indeed to the entire country. So, this is the big lesson to learn: the senior leader of the country needs to make the overall mission of poverty alleviation a high priority for the nation. Nothing less will do. Then, one individual needs to be empowered, by senior leadership, with the authority and resources to implement the national program. Liu Yongfu, head of the State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development, explained to me his action-oriented mission; "22 provinces with large poverty-stricken populations have made a solemn pledge to the central government to complete poverty alleviation before the end of 2020. We treat this task as if it's a military order." We think of poverty programs in terms of criteria, measures, mechanisms and procedures. And indeed, China has pioneered micro-businesses, education, relocating whole villages, eco-compensation, and social security. These can be adapted to other countries, as can the Party-led organizational system of implementing poverty alleviation through the "five levels" of local government. Bottomline, though, what all countries should recognize in the fight against poverty is the critical importance of motivating officials to make poverty alleviation a priority in the hierarchy of values in their work. This can come only from the top down. This is a big lesson that China offers to the world. While rightly celebrating China's historic eradication of all extreme poverty, a monumental accomplishment for the ages, President Xi set immediately to work in redressing relative poverty, recognizing the country's ongoing imbalance between urban and rural areas by calling for "rural vitalization" as "a historic shift" in focusing on agriculture, rural areas and farmers. Xi sent an unambiguous signal that wide urban-rural gaps are not acceptable, that rural areas and farmers are "the ballast" for the country, as he called for "rural vitalization" to ensure that farmers become affluent and well-off. Exemplifying this new development stage, China has established the National Administration of Rural Revitalization, a new agency to maintain momentum generated by the State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development. It reminded me of what Xi told me in 2006 when he was Party chief of Zhejiang Province. "It is fair to say that we have achieved some successes," Xi said when we met in Hangzhou; "nevertheless, we should have a cautious appraisal of our accomplishments." Xi emphasized that China cannot be satisfied with the status quo: "We should never overestimate our accomplishments or indulge ourselves in our achievements," he said. He called for China to aspire to "our next higher goal," and to appreciate "the gap between where we are and where we have to go." He described this as "a persistent and unremitting process." His words back then are fitting commentary on what he says as President in 2021, as China transitions from poverty alleviation to rural vitalization and ushers in a new stage of rural development. Jorge Heine, former Chilean ambassador to China, a research professor at the Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University and a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) in Beijing Humanity has made enormous progress in reducing poverty and extreme poverty in the past 40 years - notably in the current phase of globalization that started in 1980. This has been especially apparent in Asia, and particularly in the two Asian giants, China and India, but also, albeit to a lesser degree, in Africa and Latin America. There is little doubt that the increase in the flow of goods, services, capital and communications across borders has brought in its wake an enormous increase in economic activity, in progress, and in wealth creation. China's role in poverty reduction is especially noteworthy, and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were achieved in large part because China lifted some 800 million people out of poverty since it kicked off reform and opening up. This has changed the face of China, and with a $10,000 per capita GDP, China today is a very different country from what it was in 1980. Whereas in 1978, the incidence of rural poverty was 97.5 percent, this figure was reduced to 3.1 percent in 2017. From 1978 to 2017, China has shown an annual average poverty reduction of 19 million people. To an important degree, this is a consequence of sheer economic growth. By growing at an average of 10 percent a year for 30 years in a row, something no economist thought was possible for any country, let alone one the size of China, enormous wealth has been created. The Chinese people are so much better off as a result. Yes, this growth has not been equally spread across all of China. City dwellers earn, on average, three times as much as their rural counterparts; the coastal areas are better off than the interior; and the South and the East do much better than the North and the West. Yet, over the past few years, an effort has been made to address this issue, and provinces like landlocked Guizhou, which had been especially affected by high poverty rates, have managed to eradicate extreme poverty, as measured by Chinese standards. The point is that, far from relying solely on economic growth by itself to reduce poverty, public policies targeted the counties mostly affected by it. This meant investing in infrastructure like water supply, roads, and networks, as well as equipping educational, health and cultural facilities, above and beyond normal budgetary allocations. The result has been that in areas like western China, the number of people living in poverty dropped from 50.86 million in 2012 to 16.34 million in 2017, and the incidence of poverty from 17.6 percent in 2012 to 5.6 percent in 2017. One concern expressed by international agencies is whether this enormous effort, which has required a vast allocation of resources, is sustainable. Many would say that is the next big challenge in China's poverty alleviation program, one on which the jury is still out. In China, poverty has been closely associated with the rural areas and with remote locations. Integrating its vast, 9.6 million square kilometers territory via adequate transport and communications has been China's challenge since times immemorial. By doing this through its 120,000 kilometers of railway lines (30,000 kilometers of high-speed) and mobile telecommunications technology wielded by 1.3 billion mobile phone owners (as has happened over the past decade and a half), China has created many more economic opportunities for previously isolated communities. By 2017, 98.5 percent of Chinese villages had phone access and 86.5 percent had access to cable TV signals. The fast growth of e-commerce, of which China has 40 percent of worldwide totals, has also played a key role, allowing the access of remote communities to consumer markets in the big cities and urban areas. A key point to keep in mind here is the issue of physical and digital connectivity. As the world moves toward a service economy, being connected is of the essence. And this is where China's Belt and Road Initiative comes in. Although it started as a project to recreate Eurasia, it soon evolved into something much more ambitious. What China is saying to countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America is: railways, mobile telephones and broadband access worked for us. Perhaps they will work for you as well.

The picture, taken on September 7, 2020, shows the allocation areas for locals in a village in Yuexi country, Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture of Southwest China's Sichuan Province. Photo: Xinhua

John Ross, a senior fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, former director of Economic and Business Policy for the Mayor of London President Xi hailed the country's achievement of eradicating extreme poverty as a miracle that shall "go down in history." That is totally, literally true. It was not an exaggeration. This is mainly because it's a socialist country. This is the biggest achievement in poverty reduction in the whole of human history. There have been so many people and such a large proportion of humanity being lifted out of poverty in such a short period of time. It was done by the CPC and the government of China. It was done by enormous, hard work, and by having a correct social and economic system. It shows that socialism is something which delivers for people. Now it's the same as the way that China has been protected in COVID-19. I wouldn't call it a miracle. I would say that it shows the correctness of the policies which have been pursued. I think it's just very inspiring. It's the biggest contribution to human rights made by any country in the world. In comparison with some Western countries, China has its advantages in dealing with poverty. Again, it comes down to the great advantages of the political system in China. But that has a real meaning. It was the socialist system in China which is able to make its economy grow so fast. To lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty can only be done with the growth of the whole economy. And also it involves the direct role of CPC and a conscious policy of the current government. Over 1500 members of the CPC died during the anti-poverty campaign because of the very adverse circumstances. It's the same as in the situation with COVID-19. The CPC can mobilize people in every part of society. There are still many regions and countries suffering from poverty. There are many things they can learn from China. The most important thing is China sets poverty alleviation as the top goal. They put it as priority. China has a very big group of cooperated people, whose total job is to get some people out of poverty. China also has an overriding target. I know that due to the COVID-19 situation, China did not set the target for economic growth. But it has a clear target of eliminating poverty. And therefore, that means a total priority was given to poverty elimination. So it means it was set as an absolutely dominating policy of the state. And that's what requires other countries to take - make the elimination of poverty as the top priority of the government. China accounts more than 70 percent of the reduction of poverty in the world. The situation in the world on poverty would be remote without what China has done. So China's contribution to poverty elimination and therefore to the real improvement to human rights is absolutely overwhelming. Some Western media said it remains to be seen whether China's work on poverty relief can continue. This is very funny. Many books from the West have predicted that China is about to collapse for decades, but it would not happen. China has done poverty reduction by enabling people to produce. What China has done is more sustainable because it's been done by creating infrastructure. It's been mainly done by greatly improving their actual conditions of life, their housing and their ability to make a living. That means it's much more sustainable. Ei Sun OH, a senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs In general, China's successful eradication of extreme poverty is indeed a very laudable achievement. I think the main motivation, and the main reasons, were perhaps a sort of collective determination as well as the resolute focus by means of a very systematic effort over recent years to eradicate this poverty. I heard, for example, government officials and from different levels of government were tasked with this poverty eradication effort. They're politically accountable and responsible for the success of poverty eradication efforts in their respective jurisdiction. So these are incentives for a lot of government officials to cooperate from what I learned with the various corporations, institutions and other organizations to eradicate this poverty. Another reason was the willingness of those who used to live in extreme poverty to seek to eradicate themselves from the level of extreme poverty. I think in a lot of Western countries, the mentality depends on government largesse and government hangout is very strong; therefore the willingness to extricate yourself out of poverty is awfully absent from a lot of these countries, unfortunately. China's lessons to the world in terms of poverty eradication are indeed the combination of the government's willingness, determination and focus and accountability of various officials. This combined with creative solutions by various corporations and organizations in conjunction with the willingness of those who live in poverty to pull themselves up. I think all three factors are important - government, various creative solutions by various organizations and corporations as well as those who used to live in poverty. They must all work together to make this happen. China, being the world's most populated country and having achieved this total eradication extreme poverty, has of course made very significant achievement. We look forward to sharing some of China's lessons in this respect, especially with other developing countries.

US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday that he has directed lawmakers to craft a package of measures to counter China's rise, capitalizing on bipartisan hard-line sentiment on Beijing in Congress to strengthen the US tech sector and counter "unfair practices." This echoes US President Joe Biden's call for "extremely fierce competition" with China. China welcomes justified, even extreme competition from the US. If the US wants to reinforce its overall leadership by maintaining its high-tech edge, China is willing to dance with it to achieve a long-term win-win result through competition. However, the US should not take destructive actions to disrupt the basic order of the global economy and science and technology, or shoot a poisonous arrow at China with some so-called sanctions to contain China's development. China is destined to move forward. We have some long-term cultural and institutional advantages. The US should view them objectively and respect its strength, instead of trying to suppress them in a conspiratorial and evil way. China has always been positive about some strengths of the US and tried to learn from them. In turn, the US should correct its attitude. China has realized rapid development and will maintain a faster growth than the US for a period in the future. Here are some basic reasons. Ordinary Chinese people are very hardworking, able to endure hardships, and strive for progress. Such factors form the collective motivation of Chinese people to catch up with the world class advanced targets. Chinese people often work longer than other peoples for a better life. They are willing to take challenges. From ancient times, Chinese people have lived in a relatively populous environment with a tight supply of resources. This has made them more tenacious. If China-US competition is a marathon, such characteristics of Chinese people would be the country's advantage in the game. The Chinese population is over four times that of the US. And the demand of consumption is growing, becoming a lasting potential that the US cannot compete with. Automobile sales in China will be twice more than in the US, and the gap will widen. This is a clear signal of differences between the two countries' market potential. The US has no option other than to admit the gap and adapt to it. China's political system, which has been repeatedly attacked by the US, combined with China's cultural traditions, has helped China achieve effective organizational and mobilization capabilities, enabling the country to respond wel