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.

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 well to disasters and accidents such as the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, and to ensure the smooth progress of the country. China also has a strong strategic planning ability to turn the blueprint into reality, unlike the US, which often has seesaw policies that lead to emptiness and waste. The uninterrupted history of civilization has shaped the grand historical view of Chinese society, which is the reason that the Chinese people can have strategic calm in the face of the crazy suppression and "extreme competition" of the US. A few decades or a century may seem like a long time to Americans, but to the Chinese people, it is just a short span. The Chinese people are very good at balancing the present life with the long-term goals of the country. We have seen this many times and have a sincere desire for peace and common prosperity for mankind. The clamor of some radical political elites in the US to "destroy China" is an extreme manifestation of that group's narrow-mindedness. What we want to say is that they lack historical understanding, as ridiculous as it is pathetic. China has never wanted to beat anyone. In our opinion, everyone has his merits and every country has its strengths. But to anyone who wants to fight fiercely against China, our continuous history of civilization is the best answer. As for the US, it has the advantages of a dynamic society and a strong spirit of innovation. Americans should remember that the aforementioned advantages of China are incomparable. If the US really wants to compete, engage in a fair competition and make the rules fair, rather than being centered on the US. Time is the fairest judge.

US President Joe Biden's recent statements during the G7 meetings and at the 2021 Munich Conference on international security reflect its electoral campaign thought: strengthening US-Europe linkages in order to confront China and Russia. Again, it seems we are going to live with the weight of a renewed-old McCarthyism during this new-old presidency.The old capitalist-vs-communist competition has been relabeled democracy-vs-autocracy. Under some respects, the "new" slogan "America is back, ready to lead the world" can be more dangerous than "America First". The first represents the willingness to regain a role the US had after World War II, a role already gone during the last 20 years since the foundation of G20. It was also eroded after the disasters created by a US-led neoliberal globalization, the foundation of the BRICS group, and through the re-emergence of China's international role. The second ("American First") was an attempt to focus on domestic weaknesses and divisions (something still in place for the new administration), even though it was played largely abroad, especially with China. In addition, we all know the bipartisan anti-China attitude in the US Congress and we all remember Biden's role, as vice president, in the rebalance to Asia-Pacific strategy under former president Barack Obama. Unfortunately, for them, they are outdated and backward in comparison to the current world power balance. Just think the recent establishment of the world's biggest free trade zone, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the conclusion of negotiations of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment between China and the EU. Recently, Biden recalled the US' international "strategy," already explained in an article published in Foreign Policy almost one year ago (March/April 2020). His speech at the 2021 Munich Conference focused on US-Europe cornerstone partnership to "re-engage with Europe, to consult with you, to earn back our position of trust and leadership." What is the strategic aim of this will? To counter Russia and China, as stated also in his speech at the State Department at the beginning of February. The "threat from Russia" and the "long-term strategic competition with China" are also references to Indo-Pacific alliances. Instead of building bridges, Biden's multilateralism should be reframed as "the multilateralism of the unilateralist." Biden's vision of global affairs is summarized as follows: "build a united front of US allies and partners to confront China's abusive behaviors and human rights violations, even as we seek to cooperate with Beijing on issues where our interests converge, such as climate change, nonproliferation, and global health security". The problem is that the common interests cannot converge if China (and Russia) is assessed so disrespectfully and through ideological lenses. Mutual respect should be re-established. Theoretically, Europe could help to create a bridge between the US, Russia and China, but to do so the EU should find an independent voice. This is very unlikely, at least in the short term. Therefore, we have many elements to argue that the US attempts to dominate the world will not cease, even though, like the EU, they have to deal with greater internal fractures and weaknesses. As noted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the Russian International Affairs Council on December 8, 2020, the key reason why the West is unable to find a consensus with Russia and China is related to its attempt to maintain (or to try to re-establish) a unipolar world order. The US' launching a geopolitical contest with China "without first working out a long-term strategy" is called "America's biggest mistake" in Kishore Mahbubani's book Has China Won?. He correctly ascertains the US irrationality of approaching today's world affairs with yesterday's strategy. According to me and other scholars, the pandemic accelerated established trends and increased China's status in the world. Why? Because China has demonstrated to protect its citizen and recover its economy better and faster than any other country. It is difficult to find a real US commitment to global welfare in the last decades. The Biden team "should make solidarity" not "leadership" its watchword for approaching the world. Will the world powers be able to find international consensus for peaceful co-existence? The idea and practice of promoting a community of shared future for humanity remains the most advanced vision and the only way out. The author is associate professor of International Studies at CFAU, Beijing, teaching also at the International Institute Lorenzo de' Medici, Florence. He is also member of CCERRI think tank, Zhengzhou, and EURISPES, Laboratorio BRICS, Rome. 

Screenshot

In the video of the Galwan Valley clash released by China, Qi Fabao, the regimental commander from the People's Liberation Army Xinjiang Military Command, along with fellow PLA soldiers, opened up their arms in the river to intercept the Indian soldiers who were trespassing the border. In the video, an Indian Captain named Soiba Maningba Rangnamei faced the camera. He was quite eye-catching and therefore benefited from the video. He was applauded by Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. Before that, he was commended with the "Gallantry Award" in January. Rangnamei is from one of the Naga tribes, an ethnic group native to northeastern India and northwestern Myanmar. In order to integrate into the mainstream society of India, they often showcase their warfare prowess with acts. In the video, it can be clearly seen that Rangnamei and Indian soldiers were forcibly crossing the river and charging ahead. Qi and PLA soldiers were clearly stopping them in the river. The river is usually the demarcation of the border, or line of actual control. The video is solid evidence that the Indian army was destroying peace on the border area and trying to change the status quo there. The Indian side's awarding of Rangnamei has encouraged the Indian army to be reckless. If  Indian side promotes such an ideology, it will put the country at long-term risks. At least 20 Indian soldiers died during the Galwan Valley clash, far more than China's loss. While Indian society boasts with pride, deep down it actually feels frustrated about its army's inabilities. As one of the frontline Indian soldiers who initiated the bloody fight, Rangnamei took a chance to became famous by stamping on the corpses of his companions. I'd like to suggest that Indian soldiers like him should be prudent. If they always trigger bloody clashes at the border, they won't be that lucky next time. I understand that every country and nation gives credit to their border troops. But in an era when peace is the most important and most valuable, the bravery of soldiers is not reflected in their rashness to cross the border or the Line of Actual Control. Real bravery should instead involve their determination to safeguard peace at the line. In that video, Rangnamei, who ferociously rushed forward, showed the "bravery" of a bandit. By contrast, Qi stood in the river and opened up his arms to stop him—he was displaying real gallantry. Some Indians feel honored rather than ashamed by this video.  This indicates the rotten extremes of nationalism in the country. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Canada's House of Commons on Monday approved a non-binding motion accusing China of committing genocide against Uygurs in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The motion also calls on the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Winter Olympic Games from Beijing. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Cabinet abstained from the vote and the motion is sure to meet the objection of the International Olympic Committee. Canada, the UK and Australia, three members of the Five Eyes alliance, have recently taken action to put pressure on China. They have formed a US-centered, racist, and mafia-styled community, willfully and arrogantly provoking China and trying to consolidate their hegemony as all gangsters do. They are becoming a racist axis aimed at stifling the development rights of 1.4 billion Chinese. Five Eyes alliance members are all English-speaking countries. The formation of four states, except the UK, is the result of British colonization. Those countries share the Anglo-Saxon civilization. The Five Eyes countries have been brought together by the US to become the "center of the West." They have a strong sense of civilization superiority. The bloc, which was initially aimed at intelligence sharing, has now become an organization targeting China and Russia. The evil idea of racism has been fermenting consciously or unconsciously in their clashes with the two countries. Except for New Zealand, the smallest of the five countries and unwilling to get too involved in international conflicts, the other four are increasingly coordinating their attacks against China and have rapidly transformed from the intelligence-sharing mechanism into a political clique. With a common language, a common historical background, and a coordinated attack target, such an axis is destined to erode international relations and allow hooliganism to rise to the diplomatic stage in the 21st century. Since the Five Eyes countries are spread across continents, they have the hubris of being the world in their own right. Media organizations in the US and the UK are particularly developed and capable of dominating global public opinion in English, which increases their insolence to represent the international community and world public opinion. The total population of the Five Eyes countries is only a third of China's. After all, they are only a tiny fraction of the inhabitants on this planet. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned on Monday that white supremacy and neo-Nazi movements are becoming a "transnational threat" and have exploited the coronavirus pandemic to boost their support. Unfortunately, the most serious white supremacy threat occurred in the Five Eyes countries. Hostility towards immigrant groups and non-Western countries became the realistic carrier of this white supremacy, and even neo-Nazi movements. If Tom Cotton, a US senator, who clamored for 90 million Chinese Communists to be consigned "to the ash heap of history," is not a neo-Nazi and extreme racist, then who else is in this world? The Trump administration is an extremely typical white supremacy government, which is defined by American public opinion. The domestic and foreign policies of the Trump administration are connected to each other, and the activities of the Five Eyes alliance are also driven by them. Trump's team has gone, but their core diplomatic legacy of suppressing China has been largely preserved. The mechanism of the Five Eyes alliance to jointly suppress China has not only solidified, but also accelerated its operations. Global diplomacy in the 21st century must not be hijacked by a fake international community with an axis of white supremacy. We cannot allow their selfishness to masquerade as the common morality of the world, and they cannot set the agenda of mankind. What they want is sham multilateralism, and what they actually pursue is hooliganism in their own interest circle. By resisting them, China is not only defending its own interests, we are also defending the diversity of the modern world, which is based on the free choices of people and paths taken by different countries.

European Union (EU) foreign ministers agreed on Monday to impose human rights sanctions on Russia over the Alexey Navalny case. In response, Leonid Slutsky, head of the Russian State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs, believed that the next round of EU sanctions "won't be left without response of the Russian side." Russia-Europe relations have taken a sharp turn for the worse after Josep Borrell, high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, made a trip to Moscow earlier this month. Jade McGlynn, a researcher at the London-based Henry Jackson Society think tank, even described the relations between Moscow and Brussels as "coldly combustible." Russia-Europe relations are rather complex. For example, EU members are showing different attitudes toward Russia. Some countries, including some Eastern European countries in the former Soviet Union's sphere of influence, have long been hostile toward Russia due to historical reasons. On the other hand, countries like Germany and Russia have both conflicts and yet still manage a considerable degree of cooperation in energy and security sectors. Nowadays, the complexity of Russia-Europe relations is more pronounced than in the past. This may be related to changes in international politics. Among these changes, the US is an important factor in the development of the ties between Russia and Europe. The EU is the oldest and strongest ally of the US. Since taking office, President Joe Biden has stressed the importance of US-EU alliances several times, continuing to treat Russia as a security threat. Biden's attitude toward Russia seems to be even more assertive than that of his predecessor Donald Trump. The US would like to see its allies align with it on policy toward Russia and therefore may exert more influence over them. In this case, Europe has to adjust its attitude toward Russia based on US-Russia relations. In the coming period, as the confrontation between Russia and the US increases, it can be anticipated that the conflict between Europe and Russia will deepen. Europe's security concerns about Russia haven't been eased. In such a context, new contradictions between the two are gradually increasing and being formulated. In the future, the importance of economic factors will wane in Russia-Europe relations while geopolitical and ideological conflicts will increase. Although confrontational elements have frequently appeared in Russia-EU relations in recent years, the two sides are unlikely to completely cut off cooperation and slip into an all-out confrontation. Russia-EU relations are in a state of structural contradictions. Conflicts and cooperation coexist in bilateral relations, which cannot be easily changed. Russia and the EU have traditionally had cooperation in areas such as energy and space exploration. In terms of security issues such as combating terrorism, organized cross-border crimes and drug trafficking, the two sides are interdependent and cannot be separated from each other. Europe cannot ensure its security without the cooperation of Russia. Therefore, Brussels must maintain certain security cooperation with Moscow. Similarly, Europe is also important to Russia, which cannot afford to screw up relations with Europe in its global competition with the US. Russia will be ready to revive the ties if the EU decides to take this step, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier in February, following talks with his Finnish counterpart Pekka Haavisto, reported TASS news agency. "It is up to the European Union to make a choice. If it decided that relations are to be resumed after all and steps towards their severing are to be reversed, we will be ready to that too," Lavrov said. Russia's such response is appropriate. Moscow has made quite a tough response out of the need to safeguard national dignity and national interests after Brussels made a tough stance on it. Given the various accusations and sanctions that the EU has imposed on Russia, the EU in fact is in the proactive position in the bilateral relationship, while Russia is in the passive one. At least till now, the initiative is on EU's side. The author is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

India holds the rotating chairmanship of BRICS in 2021, and the country will hold the BRICS summit in the second half of the year. "We support India hosting this year's BRICS meetings and stand ready to work together with it and other members to strengthen communication and cooperation in various fields," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin on Monday. The statement has attracted the attention of the Indian media. China's attitude shows that with the rising uncertainty in the international community, emerging countries need to look to one another for development. BRICS countries are among the largest emerging markets worldwide. Expanding cooperation within the BRICS will not only bring additional development momentum to the five countries, but will also improve their strategic initiative. What has attracted Indian media's attention is that despite the border disputes and challenges in China-India ties, Wang still made the above statement. This shows that China doesn't want to see bilateral disputes affect the cooperation mechanism among the BRICS countries. This is a strategic choice made by a responsible major country from the perspective of the whole picture. China's efforts are clear to all in the two decades since the establishment of the BRICS mechanism, acting as an important driving force for the solidification of the mechanism. "Under the current changes worldwide and the COVID-19 pandemic, China will seek and expand common interests with other member states as always, and is still willing to develop together with other BRICS countries, including India," Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times. China and India have achieved a smooth completion of disengagement of frontline troops in the Pangong Tso area. The two countries also held the 10th round of China-India Corps Commander Level Meeting on Saturday, and both agreed to follow the important consensus of their state leaders and push for a mutually acceptable resolution of the remaining issues. "China still attaches great importance to China-India relations and India's important role in international and regional affairs," Qian said. As the COVID-19 pandemic is still raging, there is much room for cooperation among BRICS countries, including China and India. For example, during the 2020 BRICS summit, the five countries' leaders reached a consensus on cooperation on COVID-19 vaccines. This is an example of the BRICS countries' joint development amid rising uncertainties. In addition, China and India are the two largest economies in BRICS. In this context, India should also have the strategic wisdom to set aside bilateral disputes and stick to the BRICS cooperation framework. "India regards BRICS as another important mechanism to enhance its status as a major power and participate in global governance. As India has actively embraced the QUAD framework in recent years, the BRICS is a platform for India to maintain its status as an emerging market and to better balance the country's diplomacy," Qian said. India should meet China halfway and downplay geopolitical issues and China-India disputes under the BRICS framework. New Delhi should not prevent member countries from reaching a consensus. After all, this is also what India should do as the country has assumed the chairmanship. China-India disputes should not affect the BRICS framework. If India fails to see this, it will be an irresponsible act for the development of the country and the other four members.

European political elites who hold the power are likely to potentially complicate the world's big-power competition. Last Thursday, European Commission issued a trade policy review. This document might be the first one that systemically explains the strategic visions of current EU executive leadership for handling foreign economic relations. It also holds the potential to establish an overall framework for policy-making of the next five years in trade, technology, industry, investment, and strategic planning. Highlighting the top leadership's long-term anxieties and concerns, it discloses three inherent dichotomies. First, it indicates why EU policymakers are "assertive in defending their interests" as they keep up hope to manage globalization by mending the multilateral architecture of global governance - even as it slows down. In other words, they want both "fair" and "free" trade, and are formulating stronger protectionist measures to fend off imports that may threaten their own manufacturing sectors. At the same time, they are expressing detailed opinions on how to repair the WTO system. However, the "political trilemma" of the world economy, coined by economist Dani Rodrik, is already showing the intrinsic structural discord taking place within trade liberalization. The parallel moves of assertive trade defense instruments and political efforts to revive the WTO may create disharmony in the EU's overall blueprint. This may ultimately harm their aim to fulfill objectives. Even within Europe's domestic politics, business interests that advocate free trade and grassroots voices that call for more protections are in conflict with each other. This adds to the complexity of thorny policy issues regarding these fields. Second, this dynamic also manifests the EU's strategic tight-rope balancing act between China and the US. Clearly, the polarization between Beijing and Washington weights heavily on their decision making process. In fact, EU leaders view the rise of China as one of the major "trends" shaping "global uncertainty" and "tensions." This could be interpreted as one of the greatest challenges the EU faces. And they intend to deal with China through both "engagement" and "autonomous" protective policy instruments. Furthermore, they hope that the "transatlantic cooperation" with the US will be reinitiated during Joe Biden's presidency. Actually, it will not be easy for the EU to hedge their bets within the China-US strategic rivalry, no matter how skillfully or ingeniously its diplomatic tactics are designed and executed. Europe's competitive moves with both China and US have seen greater intensity, especially as the old continent seeks greater share in third-party markets and more leading edges in technology. Despite this, Europe is frequently embarrassed of being forced to takes sides with China-US confrontation on issues ranging from Asia-Pacific maritime territorial disputes to issue of Huawei. Inevitably, in future, the EU will be even more heavily pressed by and deeply entangled into the destabilizing contentions of these two giants. Third, EU leaders may have to cautiously deal with possible internal divergences as the continent devises its own "open strategic autonomy." In this age of disruption and uncertainty, the EU is making endeavors to increase its capacity to be self-determined by its own actions. While the von der Leyen Commission is moving to centralize more resources for decision-making (particularly in fields related to industrial strategies), it is also faced with potential tensions between the EU large and member states for a proper division of power and jurisdictions that satisfies both sides. Although it is undisputed that traditional trade policies and external trade negotiations are well within the EU's exclusive authority, this document recognizes that trade policy of this new age is widely implicated to strategic planning and geopolitics in a much broader picture. Therefore, divergences between EU and its member states may unavoidably occur over how to divide or share decision-making power and authority on many specific issues. In this process, the overall effect may weaken its capacity to act as a whole.  Indeed, it may exacerbate existing rich-poor and eastern-western divides within different member states themselves. This implies that the EU may or may not follow a straightforward path for developing its external economic relations. Lastly, the von der Leyen Commission document claims that EU trade policy shall support its "geopolitical interests" and "ambitions." In this sense, it is reasonable to anticipate that the EU will attempt to manage its relations with big powers such as China and the US through trade or other economic means, and new tactics or strategies of economic statecraft from its political elites. But this belies the innate contradictions and elusive ambivalence of these dichotomies - particularly as the ever-intensifying big-power strategic rivalry bears down. Simply said, it is likely that global geopolitics will turn out to be ever more unpredictable. The author is professor and executive director of the Center for European Union Studies, Shanghai International Studies University.

The 10th round of the China-India Corps Commander Level Meeting was held on Saturday on the Chinese side of the Moldo-Chushul border meeting point, according to a joint press release published by China's Ministry of National Defense on Sunday. The two sides positively appraised the smooth completion of disengagement of frontline troops in the Pangong Tso area, noting that it was a significant step forward that provided a good basis for resolving other issues along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Western Sector of China-India border areas, the press release said. China-India disengagement delivers a positive signal that bilateral ties are moving toward détente. It shows that India has realized that its provocations against China on the border have not brought India its desired results. An editorial of the Indian Express said, "India, China should repair bilateral relations on basis of disengagement process." But how much can they be fixed? Can the bilateral relationship return to the one before the border clash since June 2020? "It can hardly be achieved," Liu Zongyi, secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told Global Times on Monday. Many political elites and analysts in India see China as a top threat, regarding the competition between the two countries as a geopolitical rivalry and believing the differences between China and India are irreconcilable. Some Indian political elites and media outlets have repeatedly incited nationalism against China in their country. Indians' nationalism seems to have been inflamed to the extreme amid border tensions. Indian society's attitude toward China has remarkably changed. Even against the backdrop of disengagement, attempts to play up nationalism still continue in that country. Some Indian media outlets even portrayed the disengagement between the two countries as a victory only for India. Liu said, at present, there is little constructive atmosphere in Indian society for a rapprochement between China and India. New Delhi has fueled nationalism to serve its political purpose. However, to improve its ties with China, it has to curb such sentiment among the public. Nationalism poses a challenge to the Modi administration and the repair of bilateral ties. The international community has seen that India recently ramped up its cooperation with the US. Some voices suspect New Delhi, which claims to adhere to an independent foreign policy, has become a quasi-ally of Washington. However, since the US' Indo-Pacific strategy did not provide India any real benefits, its strategic independence has been affected. New Delhi needs to return to the policy which best suits its national interests. China has never treated India as its strategic rival, and wants to see their bilateral ties return to the right track. Liu said how far the bilateral ties can be fixed does not depend on China, and the ball is in India's court. Indian society should change their mindset and view China and India as partners instead of rivals.

The New York Times printed nearly a half-million dots running down the length of the front page on Sunday. Each of the nearly 500,000 individual dots represents a life lost in the US to the coronavirus. Such a report can easily arouse sympathy, but the fact is that the media in the US didn't play a useful role to prevent those deaths from happening. The polarization of the two-party system in the US has marked the media supervision there with the profound brand of partisan struggle. There has been no real supervision of public opinion independent of politics in the US. So half a million deaths were staged under the noses of the top Western media outlets. To put it bluntly, the actual effectiveness of public opinion supervision in the US is in many cases less powerful than the power of public opinion on the Chinese Internet. If there is a mistake in China that damages people's livelihood in a large scale, public opinion in the internet will definitely react, and the government will definitely pay enough attention to it, and adjustment will follow. I don't mean to say that public opinion supervision in China is fully functional, and it is better than the US. I am well aware that China still has many shortcomings in this regard. But the US opinion-elites should stop being arrogant, as they have serious flaws. In the past, the Chinese did not see those flaws as they looked up at the US, but today we see a lot more. We have at least seen clearly the how the US media outlets put political stance before the facts and how they are politically selective in their so-called objective reporting. They have largely acted as tool in the partisan struggle within the US, which has weakened their authority. Internationally, they are die-hard fans and loudspeakers of American hegemony. They really have nothing to be morally narcissistic. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Screenshot

Five Chinese frontier officers and soldiers stationed in the Karakoram Mountains have been recognized by the Central Military Commission of China for defending national sovereignty and territorial integrity in the Galwan Valley border clash in June 2020. Four of them died when dealing with the Indian military's illegal trespassing of the Galwan Valley Line of Actual Control. As a response, some Indian media and public opinion either hinted at or directly suspected China's "concealment" of actual casualties. Some Indian media even maliciously distorted the facts and exaggerated the casualties on the Chinese side, trying to save face. This shows that many people in India are weak-minded. Considering India's humiliating defeat in the 1962 China-India War, many Indian people are desperately longing for a victory. Therefore, they insist that New Delhi has won this time, regardless of the facts. Indeed, China's national strength is far stronger than that of India. China's GDP is about five times that of India, and China's defense budget is nearly three times that of India. This being the case, the two countries' armies have still started to disengage simultaneously, which can be regarded as a "victory" for India to some extent because India could have suffered a huge loss. Strategically, it is China's good wish to not have military conflicts with India and try its best to resolve disputes through peaceful means. However, Indian public opinion regards this as Beijing's "weakness." New Delhi cannot accept the failure and thus it portrays itself as a winner. There is actually no basis for India to exaggerate casualties of the Chinese side. Some Indian people are eager to win and they feel that only by exaggerating Chinese casualties can they prove India has won. Therefore, Indian media and public opinion are deceiving themselves and distorting the facts, trying to regain a little confidence. An Indian netizen said on Twitter that "if only 4 had died" then China "wouldn't have pulled back." This represents a general tendency of Indian public opinion. They believe that if China really obtained such a big advantage, then Chinese soldiers would have to launch a full attack. But China did not do so, so they doubt the information released by Chinese officials. Indian public opinion not only fails to understand China's restraint, but is even wantonly discrediting the Chinese side. India has been influenced by a Western mentality, including the zero-sum mentality. Indian public opinion does not understand China's sincerity in resolving disputes. It is difficult for many Indian people to understand why China would exercise restraint when the country has an advantage in its national strength, military and economy. China could have easily resolved the border dispute with India through war, but China did not. Also, the Chinese side chose to unveil the details of the four People's Liberation Army martyrs now because China did not want to hype domestic national sentiment. If China unveiled the details during the Galwan Valley border clash, then it would cause anger across China. China still hopes to resolve disputes with India through peaceful means and we do not have the intention to wage war against India. But Indian public opinion does not understand this. This reflects that many Indian people believe in the law of the jungle -- they believe that whoever is strong has the reason to attack. They do not understand China's restraint, nor do they understand a country's development relies mainly on domestic reform, economic development and people's diligence and wisdom. India's overall mentality has not changed much compared with 1962. India is still so conceited and arrogant. New Delhi knew it well that it lacks the strength to provoke Beijing, but it still made the wrong decision because of the strong domestic nationalist sentiment. But in 1962, China and India lacked mutual understanding and to a great extent, misjudgments led to the border military clash. Now, China and India know each other quite well and they also have a clearer understanding of each other's national strength. India should know that if it really launches a war against China due to domestic sentiment, it may suffer from a more humiliating defeat compared with 1962. This is also the reason why India dare not act too rashly despite its tough attitude. China does not need to care too much about the radical Indian media and public opinion. Indeed, some Chinese individuals can discuss the issue with Indian netizens and the facts must also be clarified. But China has the strategic determination to not care about some Indian people deceiving themselves. 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 ribbon-cutting ceremony that the US is "returning to the center of the world stage" has been staged this week. The third ministerial meeting among Quad, an informal security grouping of the US, Japan, Australia and India, as well as the meeting of foreign ministers of France, Germany, the UK with the US secretary of state, were held on Thursday, US time. A virtual G7 summit and a virtual edition of the annual Munich Security Conference convene on Friday. Both US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are too busy. However, messages conveyed in the abovementioned multiple meetings all point to the US calling on allies to jointly "tackle the China challenge." This reminds people of the fact that the US is returning to the international community with its fundamental mistakes of the past four years. The US hasn't changed its course, but wants to draw more countries to board its ship, turning the paranoid US China policy into a common line of the entire West and even more countries. It will run into snags. It will be hard for it not to hit a nail in the head next. The world has changed. If the US, which is highly strategically selfish, doesn't adjust itself to the situation, it will increasingly feel its loneliness. The US remains powerful, and it's not difficult for Washington to organize some big events to show "solidarity" among allies. But this cannot eliminate the differences in interests between various allies and the US, nor can it prevent those countries from participating in international affairs based on their own interests. Washington does not have the absolute strength to build a new Cold War alliance any more, and there also lacks an international strategic environment for it to do so. During the Cold War era of the last century, the United States shared common enemies, common interests and a common value system with major Western nations, and the U.S. economy was in an overwhelmingly strong position to single-handedly protect all its allies while bringing them security and prosperity. Today those conditions either no longer exist or have been severely weakened. China is not an enemy of the United States, but is in a complex competitive relationship with it. China became the number one trading partner of the European Union in 2020 and the number one trading partner of almost all of America's Asia-Pacific allies, and the United States and China have the largest bilateral trade volume in the world. The U.S. is divided within the country on its strategy toward China, and it would be a dream to think that it could have allies sacrifice the huge economic benefits of their relationship with China.. There is a fundamental bias in Washington's political definition of China and its relations with China. Some US elites are too sensitive about geopolitics and detached from reality, hence the recurring twist between political fervor for China and realistic interests. Washington has always emphasized the common values between the US and other Western countries and claimed China as an "alien". It is true that the political systems of China and the West are different and that there are ideological differences. But the diversity of human society is eternal and the need for mutual tolerance will long occupy a prominent place in the common values of humanity. After all, the United States cannot go as far as it wants to go against such inclusiveness. Its excessive consumption of "values" has gradually become pretentious, and there will be more and more "people who understand" in the Western world. If the US wants to exert greater leadership, it will have to conform to the needs of other countries. Development is the common aspiration of the world, and it also has become the top connotation of national security. China is a development cooperator and facilitator to all countries, including the US. If Washington cannot overcome its zero-sum major power competition mentality and stubbornly takes carrying out vicious competition to crash China as its long-term strategy, it is doomed to suffer setbacks in mobilizing the Western world against China.   For China, it is a fact that the U.S. is powerful but not powerful enough to contain China at will. Therefore, China will not confront the US, but will dedicate itself to doing its own thing and expanding friendly cooperation with foreign countries as much as possible. This is a reliable and feasible strategy. The US finding trouble with China geopolitically will increase our development cost, but we definitely can withstand it. If the United States tries to target China geopolitically, it will increase the costs of our continued development, but it is a cost we can undoubtedly handle.    

On February 10, Chinese and Indian troops have started simultaneous and planned disengagement in the Pangong Lake area. On Wednesday, Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla said, "We do believe that in the next two or three days this process would have come to a conclusion." The withdrawal of the troops has at least ended the military confrontation between the two countries that have gripped them since the summer of 2020. In doing so, it has created preconditions for the future restoration of peace and stability in the China-India border area. This is a positive sign that the bilateral relationship may relax. The disengagement agreement is a wise and pragmatic decision made by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration after weighing the country's interests at both home and abroad. Some Indian politicians and strategists, including Shringla, believe the move fits India's national interests. Shringla said on Wednesday that the disengagement plan is a "step in the right direction."  Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh also noted on Thursday that, "It is expected that this will restore the situation to before the standoff of last year." The border confrontation has severely disturbed previous peace and tranquility on border areas, and jeopardized their mutual strategic trust. Economic, trade and people exchanges have been greatly affected. When it comes to economy and trade, the Indian side has unreasonably set restrictions on Chinese investment as a form of revenge. Such a revengeful mentality has long existed in Indian government and society. Contrary to New Delhi's expectations, the economic retaliation against Beijing has not been very effective. In fact, India took advantage of conflicts with China to artificially reduce economic ties and promote its initiative of Make in India. However, India's imports from China increased rather than decreased in the second half of 2020 following the China-India border skirmish in May. Moreover, China has emerged as India's biggest trade partner in the first half of financial year 2020-21, overtaking the United States. On the one hand, this shows that the economic complementarity between Beijing and New Delhi is not a matter of political considerations. On the other hand, India has to lower its anticipations to strengthen economic and trade ties with the West due to the ravaging COVID-19 pandemic. As Reuters reported on Tuesday, India is ready to clear some new investment proposals from China in the coming weeks. This is actually the result of India's profound reflections. India has realized that setting limits on investment from China at this stage is not good for the China-India relations. Nor does it serve the interests of India itself. In 2020, under the influence of the pandemic, India witnessed a 23.9 percent fall in GDP in the first quarter of financial year 2020-21, the lowest in 24 years. In this case, the unjustified suppression of Chinese investment against the natural laws of the economy through political factors can be considered harmful to the recovery of India's economy. So it is in India's own interest to lift the ban on Chinese investment. After all, the biggest obstacle in China-India relations last year was an accident and harmful to both. However, this does not mean that India has completely put down its guard against China. According to Reuters, India will only clear new investment proposals, "which are not sensitive to national security." This shows that New Delhi still has a lot of vigilance against Beijing in the security field and there are still many obstacles in the process of easing China-India relations. The China-India border confrontation has not only damaged the strategic mutual trust between the two countries, but also seriously undermined the foundation of India's public opinion toward China. This has also led to New Delhi's top-down vigilance against Beijing. Although frontline troops from both Chinese and Indian armies have started to disengage, India's vigilance will continue for a while. The two sides still need a long time to bridge the gap. It should also be recalled that the US plays an important external factor in the development of China-India relations. But New Delhi is still cautious on whether to choose Beijing or Washington. This is because there are still many uncertain factors among the three countries. For example, although US President Joe Biden wants to strengthen cooperation with India through mechanisms such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), India itself has the pursuit of becoming a major power. New Delhi will not blindly follow Washington's will on some major international issues. Overall, China-India relations have shown signs of easing. Although India-US relations are improving, India will still want to maintain some strategic flexibility before the Biden administration releases its specific India policy. India does not want to be restrained by the Quad too soon. Therefore, China-India relations intrinsically depend on the two countries themselves. The author is director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University.

The third ministerial meeting among Quad, an informal security grouping of the US, Japan, Australia and India, was held online on Thursday morning US local time. What is the aim? Quite a few Western media put it bluntly before the meeting started: to balance China's growing power and "out-compete" Beijing. However, no joint statement has been issued as of press time. Again, some Quad members issued their separate press release of the event without naming China. This is the perfect time to recall the last Quad ministerial meeting in October 2020, when former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo personally attended it in Tokyo. There was also not even a joint statement, as the four member states couldn't reach a consensus on anything directed against China. What former US president Donald Trump failed to achieve won't be accomplished by Joe Biden either. Washington made no fruitful results regarding the Quad during Trump's tenure. This was not because Trump's attitude or approaches were wrong. Instead, it reflects the fact that other countries were less interested in promoting the bloc as the US did. It is the same today. As the entire world continues to face a common threat from COVID-19, it is not rational to stand by the US, which handled the coronavirus terribly, to directly or indirectly gang up on China, the country that has made the greatest contribution to the fight against the public health crisis. The US cannot even promote sufficient consensus over the case in Quad members. Others won't be enchanted by the US now, or profoundly change their stances just because of Biden's softer voice or greater charm. This is a matter of consideration over each country's national interests based on rational calculations. How can Japan, India and Australia acquire benefits from devoting themselves to boosting the Quad? There are two ways. First, China is a juicy low-hanging fruit, a pushover which has the potential to hand over huge profits when being bullied. Second, the US could make tempting offers to those countries that they find hard to refuse. Unfortunately, neither of the two scenarios is realistic. Japan has just signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement with China. India is mulling over the idea to ease restrictions on investment from China, as the country is mired in a pandemic-induced economic recession. Australia is putting all its eggs into one US basket in terms of China policy. Yet the US can hardly replace China to digest all Australian exports to China. Does the US need that much Australian iron ore or does the US have that many steel mills? During the Quad's initial stage, it seemed a serious play was in motion. But it has already become a farce now. It runs counter to this era of multilateral global engagement. We are no longer living in the Cold War. Promoting a quasi-alliance like the Quad will only make people feel they are living in an anachronistic world. The new US government is eagerly promoting the Quad within the first month after assuming office; simply because the Biden administration is anxious to make good scores to safeguard its own defensive line amid US political infighting which has been re-stimulated by Trump. Look at how many people viewed Biden's Presidents Day speech on Monday. Compare that with how many more Trump's supporters gathered near his Mar-a-Lago home, cheering for Trump on the same day. The 2022 US Congress elections are approaching. The new administration is running out of time to do something. Trump was acquitted twice in his impeachment trials, leaving Biden no more chances to knock him or his influence down in the foreseeable future. Now the new administration has to turn to the easiest way to make itself look good. Repairing frayed ties with allies, retuning to multilateralism, and lifting US leadership are tactics. So is promoting the Quad. The main function of Thursday's meeting is to collect one more group photo for the US. The conference will be convened. But again, it can be certain there won't be substantive achievement. Diplomacy has two major parts: procedures and content. Since Biden is expected to adjust Trump's diplomatic tactics, the West's confidence toward Washington will rebound and seemingly get closer to the US in terms of procedures. But Western countries, as well as Quad members, are well aware (maybe more aware than China is) of the severe domestic problems in the US. Even if Biden is a truly capable leader, he will only be in the post for eight years at most. No one knows where the future situation of the US is headed. No rational strategist will unconditionally and completely take the US side at once. It is quite different between a Chinese leader attending a meeting and a US leader doing the same. The Chinese side will always bring up substantial progress and outcome. But for US politicians, a hollow joint statement, or even just a group photo could be remarkable enough. Eventually people will ask the question: Can the US, which cannot even put forward a joint statement for Quad meeting, form a larger camp like the Global Democracy Summit? Apparently, the Biden administration needs to make more practical changes to turn the tide. The author is professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University.

The report noted, "Fighter jets such as the F-35, a Lockheed Martin aircraft, rely heavily on rare earths for critical components such as electrical power systems and magnets. A Congressional Research Service report said that each F-35 required 417kg of rare-earth materials." Last year, the full-rate of production of Lockheed Martin's F-35 was put on indefinite hold, and some Russian media speculated that it was related to China's sanctions toward the company.Whether China will utilize rare earths as a weapon and how will China use the weapon are old topics. Relevant assessments must have been conducted in China. China is the largest producer and exporter of rare earths, and the US is obviously heavily relying on Chinese rare-earth products. If China does cut supply of the rare earths to the US, the move will undoubtedly cause disturbance and troubles to the latter. Yet on the other hand, China does not have absolute monopoly on rare-earth exports. The possible impact of limiting the export of rare earths is uncertain, and may not be as strong as some people think. On January 15, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology started to solicit public opinion on a set of draft rules to further strengthen regulations over the rare-earth industry. In my opinion, the goal is aimed at standardizing the order of the industry, strengthening the strategic protections, and setting guidelines for rational use of rare-earth resources. This is also a prerequisite to strike back when necessary at foreign companies which harm China's national interests. The Financial Times' report has hyped the confrontational atmosphere between China and the US, which is welcomed by some Western media outlets. I believe that China and the US have not yet come to a full-scale confrontation which requires China to launch a "rare-earth war" against the US regardless of its efficiency. No matter how much lethality the "rare-earth card" can pose, the power is in China's hands. I wish it could always be a reserve force without being comprehensively activated to crack down on our opponents as much as possible regardless of the cost. In China-US ties, cooperation benefits both, and confrontation serves neither. This is not empty talk. Former US president Donald Trump's administration once frantically sought to decouple with China. Evidently, it failed to contain China's technological development. Worse, the US side had paid a considerable price. It is hoped that the Joe Biden administration can return to rationality, and stop pushing the two countries toward decoupling. The US won't be able to coordinate with its allies such as Germany to gang up against China. The economic prosperity of those countries will hardly last without cooperating with China. If the US insists on going its own way, it will end up becoming a lonely new cold war worrier. And if China is severely hurt, its powerful revenge will be inevitable. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

On March 19, 2003, US forces began invading Iraq. At that time, I was having dinner with a friend at Times Square in New York City. At around eight o'clock in the evening, the busiest time in Manhattan, TV screens in bars were also showing busy scenes including scenario planning on sand tables, maps, animations, experts and journalists on the frontline.

After the first 35 minutes of the 9-year war, then US president George W. Bush delivered a speech, claiming, "We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail." After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Americans had been feeling refreshed and arrogant - US civilization finally secured victory globally. But after the September 11 attacks in 2001, quite a few Americans' optimism about their future in the world plummeted. I still remember when I participated in a discussion, an American woman cried as she asked, "Why do they hate the US that much?" Around the time of the Iraq War, Left Behind, a series of religious novels, became bestsellers in the US. Since the first book, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth's Last Days, debuted in 1995, a total of 16 works of the series have been published. As early as 2016, close to 80 million copies of the books had been sold, according to National Public Radio. The book prophesied the end of the world, depicting the battle between good and evil, Christ and Satan - the battle of the Antichrist. The popularity of the books mirrored religious sentiments at the bottom of American civilization. Americans have always had a sense of superiority in terms of civilization. They feel they are God's messenger to the world and can lead others with light. However, their concerns about the decline of US civilization were not alleviated by the so-called US victory in the Iraq War and the death of Osama Bin Laden. This kind of fear regarding US civilization intensified after the 2008 financial crisis, and expanded from concerns toward external world, such as the rise of China, to the US' internal problems. According to polls and reports, moral values, family values and religion, instead of economy, had played crucial roles when Americans decided whom to vote for in the 2004 presidential election. In the just-concluded 2020 US election, both Democratic and Republican camps described themselves as the last defenders of American and Western civilizations. Former president Donald Trump warned that "the future of our country and indeed our civilization is at stake," during a speech in Arlington, Virginia in August 2020. As early as in December 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the same warning that "civilization as we know it today is at stake." Americans' fear of their civilization's decline stems from Christianity's apocalyptic complex. During the election campaigns, Trump and his team's hype over the "threat" posed by the emergence of China and the Communist Party of China is aimed at consolidating their voter base by utilizing American's concern and panic over the decline of their own civilization. But what needs more attention is that when the US and an increasing number of Western societies discuss the future of the US and Western civilizations, they focus more and more on their domestic issues. Niall Ferguson, a Scottish-American historian, argued that Western civilization appeared to have lost confidence in itself and this is mainly because "major universities have ceased to offer the classic 'Western Civilization' history course to their undergraduates." He continued, "In schools, too, the grand narrative of Western ascent has fallen out of fashion." There are more worries about the increase in immigration, which has changed the demographic structure of the US. This in turn has caused a drop in the numbers of people who believe in Western culture and beliefs. Safa Motesharrei, a systems scientist at the University of Maryland, used a computer model to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that could lead to the collapse of civilizations. According to a research published by Motesharrei and his colleagues in 2014, ecological strain and economic stratification - the growing gap between the rich and the poor - can lead to a societal collapse. These two factors are both relevant to US domestic affairs. The intellectual, liberal elite of the US have also been attacked for their criticism of US politics and culture. In an article entitled "Why We Must Teach Western Civilization," published on National Review in April 2020, the author Andrew Roberts worried that "Western civilization, so important to earlier generations, is being ridiculed, abused, and marginalized, often without any coherent response." Western civilization has swept the globe for more than 500 years now. But the conflict between civilizations during the 2020 US election has revealed some problems that are emerging in the West. We have reached an important juncture of globalization. How the US is to deal with these problems will influence globalization for some time in the future. However, the world will probably not stop and wait. The author is a senior editor with the People's Daily, and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. 

Housng prices in the first-tier metropolises, some provincial capitals and coastal cities are prominent. But in most small cities, the property prices are going down.

From a long-term perspective, this trend will continue, as the big cities continue to attract more people to settle in. Second, most families across the country have already owned their own homes. Those without a house or having difficulties buying a house are young migrant workers. In megacities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, for young people who seek a better future, no matter what jobs they hold and how much salary they earn, they will find it difficult to buy a house instantly, and will need assistance from their parents and relatives. It is especially tough for those whose parents cannot help. Third, this is a global phenomenon. Property prices in first-tier megacities and economically prosperous towns in many countries in the world remain shockingly high and newcomers just cannot afford to buy a home. When I visited Hamburg and Los Angeles, local representatives told me that the biggest problem was that young people from other places working in these cities could not afford a home. They also asked me if China had similar problems. For young migrant Chinese who struggle for a living in places like Beijing and Shanghai, they must rent a house first and then buy one with bank mortgages. They will be into their 40s when they can pay all the loans back. The young people certainly deserve our admiration. Their anticipation to dwell in the first-tier cities is a formidable challenge but they are brave to take it. They, energetic and full of strength, form the driving force in upgrading the cities. As they work to change their destiny, they will also help revitalize the cities. When I was still a child, Beijing had a population of only 7 million, while now, the city's population is three times larger. The newly built properties are mostly snapped up by the young people, determined to climb up the ladder of their careers. Fourth, to ease the pressure on young people buying houses, Beijing has carried out various measures such as offering government subsidized homes. Some young people I know have bought such houses. But not all people have the opportunity to buy these houses, so they just wait and save money to buy commercial houses. Fifth, in Beijing, if one can earn a decent salary and save money in a few years' time, in addition to their parents' assistance, they can buy a house with bank mortgages in districts outside the city proper. A driver who works for the Global Times is in his 40s. He came to Beijing at 19, and later bought a house with bank loans and obtained a Beijing residence permit. He couldn't imagine such changes in life when he was young. Sixth, as most families have their own houses and some young people rush to buy houses, the fluctuation of housing prices will make some happy, while upsetting others. Those in possession of a home always hope that home prices keep growing, while those without a home hope the housing prices drop. The best case scenario for housing prices is stability. Skyrocketing housing prices only bring abnormal economic cycles and deal a blow to young people who want to buy a home in the cities. If the housing prices fall sharply, the assets of most families would shrink which may result in a financial crisis. Seventh, our society should respect those young people determined to work and live in big cities. The government should try its best to help them. I'd also like to remind these young people that they have to work and struggle for a good number of years so as to realize their dreams. To be honest, there are various instances of unfairness in the real world. As a socialist country, China has tried its best by alleviating poverty in rural areas and cracking down upon property speculation in the cities. But when it comes to individuals, the only way out is to work hard and stay positive. One has to believe that our destiny is in our own hands, and it will help a lot if we just stop complaining but keeping working hard and smart. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Saturday expressed "deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them." He said in a statement, "It is imperative that this report be independent, with expert findings free from intervention or alteration by the Chinese government." It is apparent that this US high-level official is trying to manipulate public opinion into questioning the World Health Organization (WHO) experts' report. Identifying the origins of COVID-19 is a serious matter requiring hard and scientific work. But the US has been politicizing this scientific work, presupposing and spreading the political narrative that the virus originated in China. Washington has strived to make the WHO's identification of the virus origins a process to justify the US' own stance. As the WHO refused to cooperate, the former Trump administration fell out with the organization. The Democratic administration of the US restored the relationship with the WHO, and vowed to respect science. But it seems that the current administration's actual attitude still cannot reverse the track set by its predecessor. The current US administration has continued the Trump administration's practices of passing the buck to China. It has revealed its intention to continue stigmatizing China with the COVID-19 pandemic and thus weaken China's influence around the world. The difference is that they are restrained in words. But the anti-scientific attitude is almost untouched. When the national security advisor came forward to question the work of the WHO expert team and labeled the work an "investigation," Washington hardly concealed its geopolitical intentions. Sullivan's statement is misleading Americans to view the pandemic from the political angle of competition between nations. The US shows no respect to science unless science is needed by Washington. Shortly before Sullivan's statement, the New York Times published an article in which it misquoted some WHO experts in a bid to slander China. The article said the Chinese government "makes it difficult for them to uncover important clues that could help stop future outbreaks of such dangerous diseases." Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and a member of the WHO expert team, and Thea Kølsen Fischer, a Danish epidemiologist on the team, slammed the New York Times for misquoting them. "Shame on you @nytimes!" Daszak posted on Twitter. Represented by Sullivan and the New York Times, US political and media elites are trying to turn scientific virus origin tracing into political slander against China. This is a filthy war of words that Washington launched but will never win. China has been sincerely cooperating with the WHO expert team to identify the virus origins, while the country has been successfully battling the epidemic. In this arduous winter, China has again reduced daily new local infections to zero, ensuring Chinese people a relatively harmonious and happy Chinese Lunar New Year. By contrast, there is still about 100,000 daily infections and thousands of COVID-19 deaths in the US. While China maintains sound cooperation with the WHO, the US has gone back and forth. The only goal of the US to attack China with COVID-19 is to cover its own ineptitude. But the world will not always be fooled by the US. While the new US administration claims that it is different from its predecessor, it has hardly kept its distance from the previous policies on major issues involving China and COVID-19. Such self-contradictive moves will only cripple the current administration's abilities to make clear and resolute policies. The dominant authority of science and rationality is fading in American society, and desire often goes ahead of facts. This is the most significant sign that the US is declining. China won't be bothered by irrational US moves. When the US does so, the outcome is already more than predictable.

 Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden held a phone call on Thursday morning Beijing Time. The choice to talk on the eve of the Spring Festival is indicative of the goodwill and respect that Biden shows to Xi and China. The attitudes of China and the US have become clear. Biden and Xi are also very familiar with each other. It is no secret that there are some strategic divergences between China and the US. Both countries need to face up to and manage these differences. The significance of the phone call today not only lies in that it has further promoted the personal communication between the two leaders, but also provided a sense of ritual to China-US relations and expresses mutual respect. Doing so on this special day for Chinese, I think is of considerable positive significance for realizing the goals of managing differences. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke with US President Joe Biden by phone Thursday morning Beijing time. This was the most anticipated phone conversation since Biden took office on January 20. It’s regarded as the strategic focus of Biden’s phone call diplomacy after assuming office. Both sides didn’t disclose the length of the conversation. China released more about the conversation than the US did. The White House statement was relatively brief and selective. In short, the disclosures of both sides are within expectations. The most informative point of the phone conversation was its timing. It happened on Chinese New Year’s Eve. The White House release also said at the beginning that Biden shared his greetings and well wishes with the Chinese people on the occasion of the Lunar New Year. This was widely interpreted as a gesture that Biden showed respect for President Xi and China. It seems that he was using such goodwill to balance the tough messages the new US administration sent in recent days and various interpretations on those messages. Xi and Biden had many contacts in the past. They are very familiar with each other. The phone call is a continuation of the personal relationship between the two leaders, which plays a significant role in exchanges between major powers. Its significance in increasing mutual trust between China and the US under the current situation cannot be replaced.  It also gives rise to more expectations that China and the US will have more communication channels than they did under the Trump era. There are no doubt  some strategic divergences between China and the US. Donald Trump’s four-year tenure severely magnified and intensified divergences. The Biden administration is at the crossroads of how to re-manage and control those differences. Biden said previously that China and the US “need not have a conflict, but there's going to be extreme competition." The phone conversation between the two leaders took place on Chinese New Year’s Eve starting with Biden and Xi extending greetings for the Spring Festival, which once again proved that Biden’s basic attitude is the US would have extreme competition with China, but won’t allow competition to develop into conflict. This is Biden’s bottom line. There is a clear trend that China-US relations have become increasingly complicated. A new Pentagon task force was set up on Wednesday to review US defense policy and actions toward China. This is an unprecedented institutional arrangement for the US military. It will also have an impact on the overall US policy toward China. Friction between China and the US is on the rise. Some American elites believe that the tougher the US is against China, the better. But should this trend continue, it will bring strategic risks that the US cannot bear. Therefore, the Biden administration will have to talk with China over how to manage China-US  seriously. What’s most important is, how to view the relationship between frictions and cooperation, and whether strategic rationality of both sides could gain the upper hand will be the decisive factor for the future of China-US relations.  A win-win situation between China and the US will be a victory for modern human civilization and wisdom. If the two countries end up in serious conflicts, it will be a tragedy for humanity. The top leaders of both countries demonstrated a gesture of goodwill to promote mutual understanding and control divergences on this special day. We hope the two societies would follow the lead, and the world’s public opinion could also support the positive messages conveyed in the phone call.

The phone call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden on Chinese New Year’s Eve serves as a tone-setter for future bilateral relations in short term and shows that the two sides are willing to push bilateral ties forward in a more positive direction that can manage ties through constructive dialogue and cooperation.  Chinese observers said the phone call, arranged on Chinese New Year’s Eve, shows the Biden administration’s goodwill toward the Chinese government and the Chinese people. Biden conveyed festive greetings to the Chinese people and wished the Chinese people a happy and prosperous New Year. Xi congratulated Biden once again on taking office as US president, and wished the people of China and the United States a happy and auspicious Year of the Ox, according to Xinhua News Agency. The China-US relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world for the 21st century. The four-year term of former President Trump brought China-US ties to their lowest point since diplomatic ties were established. There is also strong resistance from US conservatives forces that call for confrontation between the two countries, setting huge obstacles in the way for the two sides to repair their relationship. In the phone conversation, citing Biden’s saying that the biggest trait of the US is possibility, Xi said he hopes such possibility will lead the bilateral ties to a positive direction. It’s reported that in his first day of office, Biden brought up an anecdote about President Xi when they were both vice presidents.  In a private dinner on the Tibetan plateau years ago, Biden defined America in one word: possibilities -- in a conversation with Xi. “We believe anything’s possible if we set our mind to it, unlike any other country in the world,” Biden was quoted as saying then. Xi’s reference to this anecdote indicates the familiarity between the two leaders. It also carries great political significance, as currently there’s great uncertainty in US politics and society, China also hopes Biden can give play to his imagination and bring bilateral relations back to the right track of normalization, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times. “The two leaders had relatively close contact in the past, and they know each other well. Their phone conversation was not political formula,” Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for US Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times. During the call, Xi said that cooperation is beneficial for both China and the US; while confrontation will hurt both. Cooperation is the only right choice. Xi also said that China and the US have different views on certain issues, but the keys are mutual respect and equal treatment of each other. Issues regarding Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang are China’s domestic affairs that concern China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US should respect China’s core interests and deal with those issues prudently, said Xi. Biden also said that China and the US should avoid confrontation and increase cooperation in fields such as climate change. Upholding the spirit of mutual respect, the US is willing to have candid and constructive dialogue with China, to enhance understanding and avoid misunderstandings and misjudgments. Both leaders believe the phone call will be a positive signal for the world. “Judging by the content of their phone conversation, Biden is seeking more cooperation with China, while staying in line with US interests, “said Zhang Tengjun, an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies. Zhang said the call will at least serve as a tone-setter for future China-US relations in the short-term, and lay the foundation for upcoming contact between the two countries. Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times that usually Chinese leaders will hold phone calls with their US counterparts shortly after the latter are elected. Yet the first phone call between Xi and Biden occurred nearly one month after Biden took office, said Li, noting the reason lies mainly with the US side. “Anti-China atmosphere was created under former US President Donald Trump’s rein. So Biden is facing domestic pressure to avoid getting too close to China. But choosing to hold the phone call with the Chinese leader on Chinese New Year’s Eve demonstrates Biden’s willingness to improve ties, and to bring divergences under control,” said Li, noting it is a good sign that bilateral relations won’t deteriorate and spin out of control. Xin said that Biden’s mentioning of issues such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang is merely following US leaders’ old track of pressuring China, but unlike his predecessor, Biden is willing to bring those divergences under control through dialogue, instead of unilaterally slapping sanctions on China. This shows Biden’s goodwill when it comes to preventing the further deterioration of bilateral ties, said Xin. As perhaps one of the signals of goodwill, on Tuesday, Biden withdrew US policy that required US schools and universities to disclose their partnerships with Confucius Institutes. Yet the US President announced Wednesday a new Defense Department task force aimed at assessing the US military’s China strategy. “That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition in the future,” Biden said during his first visit as commander in chief to the Pentagon. Zhang said this background also highlighted that the US is adopting a strategy mixing soft and harsh approaches toward China. Cooperation will expand, but the tough stance toward China will still prevail, said Zhang.

Tensions triggered by border disputes have been clouding China-India ties since May 2020, and India has been portraying China as the "aggressor." Yet on Sunday, a high-level Indian politician slapped his country's face by spilling the beans - he revealed that India has transgressed the Line of Actual Control (LAC) far more often than China did, but the Indian government has not announced it. The Hindu newspaper quoted V.K. Singh, union minister of state for Road Transport and Highways, and a former four-star general in the Indian army, as saying, "Let me assure you, if China has transgressed 10 times, we must have done it at least 50 times." He said so when accusing China of attempting to expand its area near the LAC. Singh sounded just like an aggressor admitting and bragging about his aggression. The rhetoric unveiled belligerence and an expansionist policy, which is the opposite of India'sprevious narrative - India was standing up to China's "bullying." The latest remarks from Singh not only embarrassed India, but also made the US and other Western countries, which have been endorsing India for a long time, look bad. Just a few days ago, Emily J.Horne, spokesperson of the National Security Council, expressed Washington's concern over "Beijing's pattern of ongoing attempts to intimidate its neighbors" in the new US administration's first response to the China-India border standoff. Yet Singh quickly proved who the real "intimidator" is. The latest round of conflicts between the two Asian neighbors began from the moment in 2020 when India violated bilateral agreements and consensus, illegally crossed the border and fired shots to threaten the safety of Chinese border troops. Even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi acknowledged so in June, saying, "Nobody has intruded our border… nor have our posts been captured." In other words, it was India that had provoked and unilaterally changed the status of the border area at that time. However, some Indian politicians, media outlets and strategists kept promoting the wrong narratives. They twisted the facts and complained that China was the aggressive and expansionist one. As a result, voices such as "why is China expansionist? And India a relative pacifist?" and "India 'firmly' thwarted China's expansionist policy" have been circulated within Indian and Western public opinion domains. Finally, someone uttered the truth. Ironically, when Singh admitted India was the provocative side, he took such aggressive behavior as being glorious. The purpose couldn't be more evident - he was pleasing Indian nationalists by stressing how "powerful" his party, India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, is. India is entangled in its internal puzzles. It has lost control of its COVID-19 epidemic, its economy is severely hampered by the public health crisis, and more domestic issues, such as farmers' protest against new farm laws, are surfacing. The Indian government cannot solve any of the problems but can retain its approval rating by hyping nationalism and populism, sacrificing its ties with China. More importantly, India has over the past few years made a wrong strategic calculation by believing it can raise its global status and influence, and even become more aggressive in the region, with the help of the US' Indo-Pacific strategy. Yet when it comes to territorial issues, China will not back down, and India has once again been taught a lesson. More unfortunately, its trick of playing the victim has been exposed. Now Chinese netizens share the same stance - we have proof and reason to counterattack. Even Indian and Western Twitter users have started to ask: So India is the aggressor and China had the right to beat those Indian troops up?

US social audio app Clubhouse has suddenly been chased after by some Chinese people. A chat room that focuses on parodying me has especially become hot today. However, although some people are discussing Clubhouse, it's only popular among a small group. It must be admitted that a small number of Chinese have extremely high requirements for "freedom of speech." But their desires cannot be satisfied in reality. In China, arrangements surrounding free speech must be compatible with China's governance system. The free speech cannot impact or jeopardize the country's governance. This is the bottom line. People need to have a basic knowledge and understanding of this fact. It's impossible for completely uncontrolled online speech forums to emerge in China under the current conditions. Our society needs to constantly explore how to make internet speech platforms subject to legal supervision while at the same time having enough space to voice opinions and carry out public opinion supervision. There is much room for us to achieve such a constructive scenario. US social networks banned the account of former US president Donald Trump as well as the accounts supposedly from the Chinese mainland. Internet services were temporarily suspended in some parts of New Delhi amid farmers' protests. All these tell people that the freedom of the internet in every society has a bottom line. China's governance system has brought decades of rapid development and people's well-being. We must understand the role of such governance in managing the opinion sphere. Supporting the freedom of speech should also be one of the goals of this governance mode. Joint efforts by government institutions and the public are needed to explore the balance. People often said I am too idealistic because this cannot be achieved. But I'd like to say that during China's rejuvenation process, we must make historic explorations and do things that other countries cannot. To make article 1 and article 35 of the Constitution fully coordinated will be one of the most important indicators of China's success. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Western democracy once boasted that it stood on the right side of history and was advanced enough to "end" history. But since the start of the COVID-19 fight, people have had increasingly profound reflections on the effectiveness of Western democratic governance. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6 and many social medial platforms banned Trump as well as his supporters' accounts. The dramatic developments of the domestic political situation in the US - the only superpower after the Cold War - have also made people rethink the political system of Western countries which tend to be mature, stable and rational in theory. Except for those who wish to whitewash Western democracy to support their own personal political beliefs, most observers with objective and rational perspectives might think of US political scientist Francis Fukuyama's book in 2014: Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Fukuyama is known for his "end of history" theory. As one of the main advocates of neoliberalism, he said in an interview with French media Le Point in April 2020 that we have seen the tail of the comet of neoliberalism. Political decay is a political theory originally raised by Samuel P. Huntington, who also proposed the thesis of "The Clash of Civilizations." Political decay refers to a kind of political turmoil that develops during a country's political modernization. This is due to people's enthusiasm for participating in politics exceeding the degree of political institutionalization. Abiding by this analytical framework, combined with US practices and Professor Fukuyama's viewpoints, the current performance of the US can be seen as the inevitable result of its deepening political decay. Such political decay in developed countries is not related to the operation of specific institutions and political mechanisms in the US at the micro level. It has a profound root; that is the radicalization of elite democracy and the decline of its endogenous self-adjustment ability. Take the US. Professor Fukuyama wrote an article entitled "American Political Decay or Renewal?" in June in 2016, arguing "social class is now back at the heart of American politics." He analyzed why Trump's campaign slogan attracted the working-class especially white men with a high school education or less and believe "American democracy is finally responding to the economic stagnation of most of the population." But after Trump won the election in 2016, this interpretative framework was completely abandoned by supporters of the elite establishment faction. They firmly believed that Russian interference, rather than the choices of the US people, had contributed to Trump's election. When the 2021 chaos broke out on Capitol Hill, the establishment faction was equally adamant that it was the result of Trump's personal incitement. Similarly, the Biden administration insisted that the reasons were white supremacy and Trump's incitement, rather than a need of profound structural reform within US political and economic systems. The decline and decay of Western democratic mechanisms in US practice is more reflected in the COVID-19 epidemic which is still ravaging across the country. Effective governance over the epidemic has been absent in the US. As of press time, more than 463,000 Americans have died due to the virus, a number greater than US military casualties in World War II (407,316). But the US government's solution was to pump money into the economy to "help the nation survive financially." As a result, the total net worth of the US' 651 billionaires rose from $2.95 trillion on March 18, 2020 - the rough start of the pandemic shutdowns - to $4.01 trillion on December 7, 2020, a leap of 36 percent, Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies reported on December 8, 2020. Even if the US democratic practice follows the development of Western politics, it has long deviated from philosopher Aristotle's description of politics as the source of Western politics: that is, to make people live a good life. The decay of the US democratic system, which is reflected in a dramatic way in 2021 - the year that marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the Cold War - is evidence that nothing can last forever. The author is professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University in Shanghai.

We could have never imagined that the US would evolve into a "socialistic democratic" country like Sweden. But we will soon have to face a US that has a strong socialist democratic tendency.

I predicted in an article a few months ago that once the pandemic eases, all the countries will attach more importance to social security. Improving people's livelihood, especially upgrading the medical and healthcare system, will become global trend in quite a long time. It is especially so in developed countries. Among developed countries, the adjustment and changes in the US deserve the most attention. The US administration has unveiled a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief proposal. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the US could reach full employment next year if Congress passes the bill. Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, insisted not to limit the income threshold of getting assistance. Based on this plan, each American whose annual income does not exceed $75,000 could get a $1,400 stimulus check. Obviously, the passage of this massive relief plan will not only benefit the American public, but also enable the government to play a more important role in ensuring and improving the economy and social security. With more policies to be released soon, the existing medical insurance system is expected to be improved. I don't think the US will become a welfare country like European countries, or a socialist democratic country, any time soon. But all signs indicate that the US is likely to steer its wheel into this direction. The pandemic accelerated the US speed of policy adjustment, which is expected to bring structural changes. As early as November 2015, Sanders delivered a long-planned speech on the topic of democratic socialism at Georgetown University which included these policies. More importantly, his socialist thought gained wider support from the millennials and Generation Z. This is why during the recent US presidential election, many voters characterized US division as the contest between capitalism and socialism. More than 10 years ago, I suggested the idea of China's de-Americanization in a short article. As a matter of fact, almost all developing countries face the challenges of Americanization as their economy develops. To put it simply, under the market economy, capitalist forces have had a strong impact on all fronts of society, including the social system and people's values. The developing countries must pay high heed to social equity from the initial stage of economic development. They must establish social security, employment insurance and other-related systems, otherwise sustainable development cannot be achieved. Now, the US itself is facing the challenge of "de-Americanization." The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the fragility of the US social welfare and health systems. On one hand, there are institutional problems in these systems. On the other, the fragility is also related to the US' negligence to building a fairer secondary distribution system. However, the US is still a capitalist country. US society values individualism, competition and freedom. In particular, conservative groups that support Republicans firmly oppose any European-style welfare policies, because such policies will directly lead to the formation of a big government. They certainly will fight against such a socialist tendency desperately. Capitalism has an innate fear of socialism. Capitalist forces will not easily withdraw from the stage of US politics, especially after the outbreak of the epidemic. The Wall Street will become greedier. It will further accelerate the accumulation of wealth through seeking expansion. The existing US management and distribution systems are insufficient to counterbalance the impact the Wall Street will have on social equity. Therefore, in the future, we will see a more severe battle between two routes. 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.

It is quite astonishing for the international community to witness a shockingly ridiculous event, in which an ugly specter of Cold War thinking has jumped out of its coffin to haunt the world again in January 2021. The so-called Longer Telegram, a poorly written parody of American diplomat George Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" in 1946, received world's attention not because it has any profound wisdom that the world, including American policymakers, can learn from, but because the world is shocked that such a problematic report filled with warmongering, imperialist ambition, and conspiracy theory is published not by online platforms such as QAnon but by well-known and prestigious American think tank the Atlantic Council. "Longer Telegram" is not only a parody of Kennan, but also one with anachronism. In the 21st century in which the collective will of the international community stands for peace, cooperation, and development and opposes war, hegemonic imperialism and cold war, this blatant clamor advocating a division of the world into two camps, seeking one country's hegemonic and imperialist dominance, and using wars as a means of blacking to win a "cold war" is contrary to the zeitgeist of this century. First, the methodology and the worldview of this report is based on a stunningly naïve black-and-white approach. It seems that the author of this verbose report is still mentally living in the old days of the Cold War era. Just like the US labeled the world as being divided into the capitalist bloc and the socialist bloc during the Cold War, this report uses similarly simple and unscientific methodology, arbitrarily dividing the world into the so-called camp of democracy and camp of authoritarianism. One may argue that the Cold War methodology had some element of truth as both then Soviet ambassador to the US Nikolai Vasilevich Novikov and American diplomat Kennan wrote reports pointing to the direction of a cold war, but one must admit the fact that in the 21st century the vast majority of the international community, China included, does not wish to see a new cold war and China itself never seeks to impose its political model on any state. China's core interest is to exercise Chinese people's unalienable right of determining China's own political system free from foreign intervention, and the success of China's model proves that alternatives to the Western political system exist and can succeed, but blaming China for exporting its political system abroad is certainly contrary to reality. Second, the report's aim to seek hegemony is imperialist in nature and contrary to the international community's collective will. This report blatantly claims that its goal is to keep the hegemony of the US in the world and its most fundamental reason of hostility toward China is based on the wrong assumption of China seeking to replace the hegemonic role of the US. We would like to remind the author of this report that former US president Richard Nixon, as the Foreign Relations of the United States archives documented, warned Chinese leaders the danger and instability of a unipolar world and stressed the importance of moving toward a multipolar future. Unipolar hegemony is a very rare phenomenon in the history of human civilizations and empires and it is certainly contrary to multilateralism. China, unlike the author of this report who naively wishes to keep the privilege of one particular state forever, never aims to replace the hegemony and always seeks to embrace and promote a multipolar world in which all states are free from the fear of being subordinated to one single hegemon. Third, this report, allegedly written by a "former senior government official with deep expertise and experience dealing with China," lacks basic understanding of China's core interests and blatantly advocates treating Chinese internal affairs such as the Taiwan question as "redlines" of the US. Such a hawkish view is extremely dangerous for the stability of East Asia. American historian Robert Dallek, in his article "JFK vs. the Military" published in the Atlantic in 2013, pointed out that the bellicose hawks in the US government are enemies "more relentless than Khrushchev" for President John F. Kennedy. Similarly, the largest threat to peace, happiness and welfare of the American people today is not a remote country on the other side of the vast Pacific, but those arrogant and hawkish warmongers who would never hesitate to sacrifice the lives and well-beings of the American common people just to satisfy their own morbid obsession of provoking China. The author is an executive director of the West Asia Studies Center of the H&J Institute and research fellow of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs. Bao Haining from the International Affairs program at George Washington University contributed to this article.

Those who founded the Communist Party of China (CPC) 100 years ago, and those who joined the Party in its early years, are no longer alive. Today's Party members are late-comers. I myself am also a Party member, but I know I am no match for those earlier Party members. I admire those who participated in the Nanchang Uprising and the Autumn Harvest Uprising, and those who went through the Long March and survived deadly battles. I also salute those who took great risks in the enemy areas and engaged in underground work, especially those who sacrificed their precious lives. They are always role models for the members who come after them. When the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, there were 4.488 million CPC members. Today, there are more than 90 million. In this current time of peace, there are so many Party members. This is not only because the Party has grown stronger and become the ruling party of China, but also because the ultimate goal of the Party today is to mobilize all the people to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. This goal is in line with the heroic struggles of the early Party members. It requires the overall participation of the whole society and their all-around indomitable spirit and endurance. Today's CPC members need to take the lead in ordinary work. Party members and officials should actively create achievements as well as maintain the cohesion of the political system. If every CPC member does their own individual duty, then China's great rejuvenation will take another step forward. I believe it is an honor for CPC members, especially officials, to shoulder more responsibility and serve the country in a daily and ordinary way. But after a long time of peace and stability, it is inevitable that some CPC members and officials will become fearful of accidents and become too afraid to do their jobs. I can see why this is and have the same concerns as well. But I also believe that as long as we take a firm position, sincerely work for the Party and stand in line with the country's interests, what serious accidents could happen? These are the calls of the Party. Even if we shoulder more responsibility and fail to do a good job, how big can these losses be? It could not be more serious than a demotion or loss of position. How can this be compared with the price paid by those CPC members who risked their lives in the early years? I really believe that we are engaged in a very great cause today. But this is also a period when the personal risk is the smallest for party members. Just think about the pioneers of the Red Army and the CPC members in the Kuomintang (KMT)-ruled areas during the civil war launched by the KMT against the CPC from 1927 to 1937. Today, we feel embarrassed to talk about the so-called risks. Today, the CPC members are doing a tough job. China is walking on a bumpy road with the utmost of pressure. We should focus our attention on our work and try not to be detached from work due to individual anxieties. I know this is a bit idealistic. In peaceful times, even CPC members cannot completely abandon a secular sense of interests. But this year, it is worth comparing us with our predecessors. We think of their sacrifices, we reflect upon their heroic deeds. The CPC requires all members, especially officials, to shoulder responsibilities. The people need responsible officials. Today's cause needs another form of our sacrifice. As CPC members, none of us should place personal safety as a priority. In revolutionary times, the CPC members all marched forward. They always live as our spiritual heroes. Perhaps we should improve ourselves while paying tribute to them. We should step forward and not ever let them down. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

A man rows a boat at Dal Lake during sunset in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Feb. 7, 2021. (Xinhua/Javed Dar)

A man rows a boat at Dal Lake during sunset in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Feb. 7, 2021. (Xinhua/Javed Dar)

People sit at the bank of Dal Lake during sunset in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Feb. 7, 2021. (Xinhua/Javed Dar)

A fisherman throws net to catch fish at Dal Lake during a sunset in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Feb. 7, 2021. (Xinhua/Javed Dar)

Chinese smartphone vendors in 2020 grew their market share in India despite the headwinds caused by New Delhi from border clashes to economic conflicts. "Chinese vendors collectively contributed to about 77 percent of total phone shipments in 2020, against 72 percent in 2019," Varun Kannan, industrial analyst from Canalys Research said in a statement. Not only have the political headwinds between China and India have produced little to no impact on the momentum the vendors like Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo gathered in 2020, their "share likely to continue moving north as the nation prepares itself for the onset of 5G," said Kannan. Against the backdrop of New Delhi constantly rolling out confrontation measures targeting Chinese enterprises, and playing up nationalism aimed at instigating boycotts of Chinese products, the growing market share of Chinese vendors is certainly not easy, but it is not a surprise either. Essentially it is the competitiveness of Chinese-made smartphones that determined their dominant position in the India market. Ill-intended Indian politicians cannot reverse the fundamental trends of the market, and the consumers will eventually identify the products that are most appropriate for them. Chinese producers always develop products and services based on the locals' specific demands and preferences. Producing high quality products at reasonable prices, they are undoubtedly the best value choice for vast Indian consumers. Even amidst the government orchestrated boycott, sales of new Chinese smartphone brands have kept rising. From another different perspective, it highlighted the economic and trade complementarities between China and India which has been a positive factor for the economic growth of India. With advanced technology and sufficient capital, Chinese investors can facilitate faster domestic economic growth and contribute to India's further development too. Also, China's colossal and robust market represents great opportunities for India businesses to grow and thrive. While holding a confrontational mindset, New Delhi has shown trend of indulging in playing geopolitical games. In 2020, the Modi administration recklessly rolled out many measures to restrict or ban Chinese apps, heightening scrutiny over Chinese investments, and prolonging custom clearance of shipments from China. However, Chinese investors are not the only party bearing economic losses. Indian consumers, its industries as well as its general economic growth rates are all feeling the pinch of the ill-designed policies coming out of New Delhi, from less choice for consumers, to weakened facilitation for local industries. The trend of history is irreversible which always benefits those who can seize the momentum. For the past year, some India politicians tried to disregard the historical trend and balefully undermined bilateral relations between the two nations. It will only end up down the drain of history. The past year was a unique and challenging time for the world due to not only the once-in-a-century pandemic crisis, but also the ceaselessly unstable geopolitical issues across the world. Now with wide expectations that the world will see fewer disturbances, it is crucial for New Delhi to acknowledge the historical trend and redefine its foreign policy, in particular with China. The author is Director of the Institute of Bay of Bengal Studies at Shenzhen University.

China's down-to-earth diplomatic approach is gradually showing its effectiveness. The US strategy of comprehensively suppressing China, which started from the previous US administration, has crumbled. The main reason is that The US' actual performance is poor and the country is only high-profile in preaching ideology, while China has fulfilled responsibilities of a great power on many issues. US deception cannot last long and facts eventually speak louder than words. The new U.S. administration has made high-profile pronouncements about repairing alliances, yet Washington has quietly backed off when the allocation of vaccines tested the U.S. and Europe as a community of interests. The U.S. side has been hyping the values alliance for the last two years, as if values are everything, but when it comes to the distribution of benefits, "America First" immediately comes to the fore. Now, when the epidemic is equally critical in the U.S. and Europe, the U.S. vaccination rate is several times faster than that in Europe. Washington is saying one thing and doing another, and the impact of such an act outweighs any preaching. China has been falsely accused and labelled by the US of violating human rights, eroding world democracy and engaging in bullying and coercion. However, China has done a good job in fighting COVID-19 and the efforts have greatly benefited its people. This fact cannot be concealed by Western public opinion institutions. There is more and more positive talk on this in international society. China does not interfere in other countries' internal affairs. During the COVID-19 fight last year, China provided other countries with a large amount of urgently needed materials with no political conditions attached. How can China's positive role be denied? Now, China's vaccines are continuously exported to developing countries, but the American and British vaccines are used for themselves first. The contrast is sharp. This is another important example for the world to understand which side is more reliable - China, or the US and the UK? Over the past few years, Washington's messages toward Beijing have been confrontational, while China has been relatively restrained and has repeatedly expressed its willingness to cooperate with the US and manage differences. In addition, US policies have changed from time to time and China's policies have been consistent. No matter how the US and its allies distort China's attitude, Beijing will inevitably gain a positive impression. The US and its major allies have attacked China fiercely on issues including Hong Kong and Xinjiang, but the numbers of those pushing such attacks to an extreme are few. Their polluting effect on international public opinion has peaked and It is only logical that there is a reaction to such extremes and things begin to develop in the opposite direction. What's important is the situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang is improving, which will help correct the misunderstandings. China's development has not been overwhelmed by the United States, and the building of national power continues to accelerate, which will certainly have a positive long-term effect on international opinion regarding China. The fact that China is not aggressive in its international  competition struggle, but is on the whole on the defensive, is also a fundamental plus for the outside world to form a favorable impression of China. On these bases, if China does one thing right, it will add a positive accumulation to the international perception of China. The demonization of China by calling China names and using prejudice as evidence of facts will not last long. Most countries are increasingly aware that cooperating with China guarantees equality and reciprocity best. The so-called debt trap and coercive diplomacy are malicious propaganda and framing.  The more damaging and deceptive areas for the U.S. and others are still using the same Western rhetoric to launch human rights attacks on China and label China as a country with "alternative values". But the effectiveness of this trick is also limited, as it is too far from the logic of reality to exaggerate it as the main contradiction in today's world, given the basic understanding of the diversity of human societies by the public in all countries. The value differences between China and foreign countries, and even between China and the West are not as serious as Western people think Westerners proclaim. It is the US and its major allies that are radicalizing polarizing the issue and paranoid about it. China's mentality of harmony in diversity is more in line with the common values of most people worldwide. So because China has done it with candor, has achieved results in many directions, Instead of acting selfishly, China is committed to overall balance, the world's understanding  perception of China is gradually de-labeling and returning to reality. There have been more objective evaluations from the West on China's COVID-19 fight, the effectiveness of Chinese vaccines and Chinese economy's positive promotion to the world economy last year. But there will continue to be shameless reports like those in the BBC, but China's overall good performance will gradually put an end to the credibility of anti-China reports.  

Such a misjudgment is a serious strategic blunder. The US advocates a "free and open Indo-Pacific." It's only an umbrella term to justify US attempts to mobilize all possible forces it can to prevent China from controlling the region. But the fact is, China has no strategic intention or plan to dominate the region at all. It just peacefully advocates the Belt and Road Initiative. This is one of the most fundamental misjudgments of the US. If the US continues to uphold such a false reading, it may lead to a severe strategic confrontation between China and the US. Reports now say that this larger meeting is in New Delhi's hands. Yet India has its own calculations concerning its participation in the grouping. New Delhi wants to take advantage of Washington's power to make itself stronger, rather than being used to check another major state. India aims to become "a US" power, instead of simply being made a US ally. Although New Delhi is moving closer to Washington, the non-alignment core is still in India's fundamental interests. Furthermore, New Delhi knows very well that its neighbors are immovable. It's not in India's interest to completely tie itself to the US' anti-China chariot. Although the US and India need each other to deal with China, they still have their own independent calculations. Tokyo is not in lockstep with Washington either. Despite being a US ally, messing up its relations with Beijing and taking sides with the US in the China-US race is not a favorable path for Japan to take. The post-Cold War era finds itself in a multipolar world. No country can survive by taking sides with any of the major powers. Both India and Japan have different calculations from within the QUAD. This dynamics will determine how far the group can actually go. It should be pointed out that Australia is a bit different from both India and Japan. Australia has its own strategic misjudgment of China: It thinks that China wants to engage in a strategic expansion in the South Pacific and challenge Australia's hegemony in the region. Because of this, it is dependent on the US and wants to take advantage of the worries in Washington. This means that Australia is the most active country to follow the US' Indo-Pacific Strategy. Regardless of how QUAD countries strengthen their cooperation, we can see that an "Asian NATO" will never be established. There is a special historical phenomenon in the establishment and the renewal of NATO itself: Europe faced a common threat at the time, the former Soviet Union. The formation of an "Asian NATO" will therefore depend not only on the subjective desires of the US and the willingness of US' Asian allies to follow its lead, but also this objective factor: China's relations with other Asian countries. In Asia, an "Asian NATO" will not emerge until the day when China's relations with all other major countries deteriorate. China's current foreign policy determines that it will not be the enemy of all Asian countries. Washington's attempt to form an "Asian NATO" to contain China will not succeed. Facing pressure from Washington, Beijing has to improve relations with all countries. It must deal with New Delhi, Tokyo and Canberra. When all these countries consider China a threat, the possibility that they will form a multilateral alliance with the US might grow. China now needs to unite all forces that can be brought together and improve relations so that they can perhaps sit at the same table to talk. This is the most critical point to safeguard China's external environment. The article was compiled based on an interview with Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.

Two COVID-19-related articles recently published by Western and Chinese media outlets have discussed what human rights are from different perspectives. Unsurprisingly, the Western outlet has adhered to its traditional double-standard narratives. But this rhetoric has actually come to a dead end as such tricks can no longer fool people from developing countries. The Economist magazine published on January 16 an article entitled "Many in China are strikingly accepting of harsh virus controls." The writer continued stigmatizing China over human rights issues, even though the West is engaging in a dilemma of being unfair on COVID-19 vaccine allocation. On Thursday, CGTN, a Chinese media, released an article written by Maitreya Bhakal, an Indian commentator, with the title "Many Americans are strikingly tolerant of massive COVID-19 casualties." Bhakal said in the article, "Americans are proud of their freedoms... If only more of them had the freedom to survive a pandemic." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on January 6, "The most basic human right is the right to life, and that means the right and freedom to stay healthy and safe amid the pandemic." But the West has always denied this, and the reason is very simple. The West has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives during its so-called defense of human rights amid the pandemic. A year has passed since the initial outbreak of the deadly coronavirus. But the West is still stuck in a humanitarian catastrophe due to its ineptitude in dealing with the virus. Meanwhile, Western media outlets are still trying to use double-standard tricks to cover the serious violation of human rights in the West. This is pathetic. What are human rights? The West has indulged too much in its double-standard rhetoric to know the essence. In the view of Western media, even though people are dying due to COVID-19, and vaccine allocation is in a mess, as long as the West emphasizes the so-called freedom - the core of West-upheld human rights - it can secure the moral high ground. Hence, they attempt to convince people anything that infringes the West-endorsed human rights is evil and harmful to people. This goes in line with what the Western governments have been injecting into their people's minds. Many Westerners are "proud of the freedom to believe whatever they want," Bhakal wrote. This is precisely what Western politicians and media want. "They talk in ways like they were true believers in human rights, but their actions make a travesty and mockery of human rights," Hua noted. The West adopts double standards almost everywhere, in a bid to enhance their "exceptionalism" and maintain their dominant position in the world. Western governments are benefiting from such moves domestically, which help keep their people "in check and distract them from domestic problems," just as the CGTN article said. Such an approach is like shooting oneself in the foot. Deeply engaged in it, the West has no way to really protect human rights as it flaunts. But for the political purpose of attacking non-Western countries, especially China, the West intensified its efforts to push the double-standard approach to extremes. However, the pandemic is a mirror, revealing the ugliest side of the West. The West's double standards over China-related issues originate from its lack of confidence in the face of China's peaceful rise. And such insecurity comes out of the decline of the West, which will never be reversed as along as the West goes farther with its double-standard actions. The US-led Western world fears that China will take over their leadership globally but are reluctant to figure out a way to compete in a benign way. By contrast, they resort to filthy means to slander and suppress China. However, the louder their double-standard rhetoric, the more clearly the decline of the West will be seen.

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, held a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the invitation of the US on Saturday. China's summary of the conversation displayed the common ground between both sides; that is, both countries value China-US relations and are willing to develop stable and constructive bilateral relations. Meanwhile, China conveyed its firm position on the Taiwan question and made clear that issues about Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet are China's domestic affairs that must not be interfered with by external forces. However, the summary released by the US only made obvious the US' unilateral attitude and highlighted differences. I believe China's report is much more decent and conveys China's idea of the coexistence of harmony and diversity in international relations. During the first official phone conversation between the two countries' senior officials, I believe that Blinken, as a senior diplomat, has expressed his due respect to China and reiterated the Biden administration's basic attitude of adhering to the one-China policy. By initiating the phone call, Blinken's primary purpose was to make constructive communication with China. It is unlikely that he wanted to call just to blast China in opposition on multiple fronts. However, in the US Department of State's short release about the phone call, apart from kindly extending his "best wishes" for the upcoming Lunar New Year, everything else presented his tough approach on China. I believe the briefing was written in this way due to the US' so-called political correctness on China issues; it indeed showed the US' ideological willfulness and hypocrisy when dealing with China. Objectively speaking, the US' strategy of containing China has shown its tendency toward a serious failure. It is obvious to the world that China's development is unstoppable. It is wishful thinking for the US to try and rope in its allies to oppose China. European countries have made it clear that they do not wish to blindly follow Washington in fighting against Beijing because doing so is not in line with their core interests. The same goes for most countries in the Asia-Pacific. If the Biden administration really wants to handle the US' domestic affairs well first, maybe their only option is to reduce the current tension between China and the US and ease the two countries' conflicts. Otherwise, the Biden administration might find itself falling into the holes dug by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo during their final "frenzy." The Biden administration is well versed in terms of strategy. We believe that they can distinguish the pros from the cons. No matter what they say to the American people, we hope their actual actions can bring the US' China policy from the cloud of fantasy back down to pragmatic ground. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

US diplomat George F. Kennan wrote a "Long Telegram" from Moscow in February 1946, which was the basis for the US containment strategy toward the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. Now in 2021, the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council released "The Longer Telegram" to suggest a "new American China strategy" which is full of Cold War mentality and smearing of China. "The Longer Telegram" was written by "Anonymous," or "a former senior government official with deep expertise and experience dealing with China." The report can be regarded as the remnants of the Trump administration trying to seek confrontation with China. The core ideas of the report are in line with the Trump administration's China policy. However, it is very inappropriate to release it anonymously. Chinese people, the Communist Party of China (CPC) and Chinese leaders share common interests. The US attempt to separate Chinese people from the CPC is doomed to fail. If the US wants to justify itself by attacking Chinese leaders, it would be harming Chinese people's interests as well. In the end, the US' overall interests will be harmed. The anonymous report's core ideology and methods are seriously misleading. The author, whoever he or she is, lacks a deep understanding of China's current situation. Such people claim to be "China experts," but they lack an understanding of China's national conditions. They can only talk about China through imagination. The report's policy recommendations are obviously distorted. US anti-China forces are still instigating a new Cold War and ideological confrontation, trying their best to contain China as well as to engage in a "color revolution" against China. Is the US trying to take external intervention measures to shake the CPC's rule and change China's political system? This would be exactly "self-defeating." A "color revolution" against China would never succeed. The Atlantic Council is an establishment think tank, but it has proposed an outdated cliché. Some of the US elites have realized the previous US policy toward China was not successful, and they may want to make some adjustments. However, they are like a drowning man desperately clutching at a straw. They have completely misunderstood the current major interests of the US. They also failed to learn from the failure of the US' China policy in history. This is a tragedy. What is surprising is that there is a market even for such a "new American China strategy." This shows the extent to which the US policy circle has been poisoned. The report is a collection of lies. It is against the times. The fact is that Chinese people share common interests with the CPC and Chinese leaders. From a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to the second largest economy today, which achievement was not reached under the leadership of the CPC? Can the US achieve poverty alleviation the way China did? Without the decision of the CPC and Chinese leaders as well as Chinese people's support, how can China perform outstandingly in the COVID-19 fight? The improvement of Chinese people's lives and the promotion of China's international status are due to the CPC's leadership. This is generally accepted by the Chinese people, but is also exactly what Westerners cannot understand. For another example, during the financial crisis, China's 4-trillion-yuan stimulus package was also due to Chinese leaders' decision. The US cannot understand why China has the ability to make such a bold move. Neither can the US understand the unity between Chinese people, the CPC and Chinese leaders. If these American political elites can make an objective comparison between China and the US with a rational and balanced mind-set, they would understand that ordinary Chinese people share common interests with the CPC and the country's leaders. In the US, however, this is not the case. The interests of American leaders and people are not always consistent. We hope the Biden administration can formulate a relatively healthy overall foreign policy, instead of being led by the distortion and misjudgement of the report's anonymous author. The report attacked the CPC, but it has no right to do so. Just take a look at Trump during the COVID-19 fight - where did he lead the US to? Thus, many US political elites have a malicious starting point and intent. They hope China will be in chaos. And this is exactly what the Chinese people will never agree to. Many American political elites' mentality is still stuck in the so-called threat of Communism. This is very unhealthy. The world has long entered the 21st century and they should not stay in ideological opposition as it is a stupid, dangerous and short-sighted behavior. These people have completely misread the times and China. Opinions like "The Longer Telegram" will completely ruin the positive and constructive hopes of the new US administration's China policy and overall global policies. The author is a professor with the Institute of International Relations at the China Foreign Affairs University

US President Joe Biden delivered the new administration’s foreign policy speech on Thursday from the State Department. He emphasized, “America is back” and how important US ties with its allies are. He used the phrase “world” multiple times, vaguely referring to US allies. Biden called China the “most serious competitor” of the US, which has continued the previous administration’s basic attitude toward China, yet he also expressed US willingness to cooperate with China in some areas. Biden’s speech is in line with the current mainstream perception and sentiment of American society over US foreign relations. On the one hand, it is a foreign policy speech. Yet on the other, Biden was talking to his domestic audiences. It is more of a statement of his stance, with most of the content being major principles, rather than specific policy announcements. For instance, how will the US deal with the Iran nuclear issue, how will it sanction Myanmar’s military leaders and how will it handle the North Korea nuclear issue, Biden did not spell them out. Biden did not elaborate on China-US ties, but as a matter of fact it is the focus of the speech. His few words sketched extreme US vigilance toward the scenario of China catching up with and even surpassing the US. It mirrored the US’ strategic anxiety toward the “challenges from China”  has penetrated and permeated across the entire country, which will be difficult to resolve. Biden said: “We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.” This is an immeasurably vast difference in the perception of China from the Democrat’s last administration. Also on Thursday, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said a “priority” of the new administration is “dealing with China’s trade abuses” that harm American workers. All above echoes the already formed new “political correctness” in US China policy. However, Biden expressed his willingness to cooperate with China twice in his 20-minute remarks. The first time, he said the US will engage its adversaries and competitors diplomatically, “where it’s in our interest, and advance the security of the American people.” The second time, he said the US will “work with Beijing when it’s in America’s interest to do so.” This is obviously different from the later period of Trump’s administration, which had only hyped up antagonism between China and the US. Cooperation with allies has been mentioned most frequently since before Biden assumed office. Biden specifically stressed the US will “repair” its alliances. The US “can’t do it alone” in solving the world’s challenges. The US has never pinned that much attention on ties with allies before Biden’s team assumes office. It is unknown how much resources the US will be able to devote to support such a strategy. In recent vaccine battles, Brussels is strongly dissatisfied with the US. Generally speaking, after taking power, Biden has showed caution in policy announcements in terms of China. The new team in the White House seems to be shaping an expectation among US society – the new government will keep playing tough with China, but at the same time, it will adjust the previous administration’s practices and carry out cooperation with China in some areas. They will not easily reveal how to do it, maybe because they have not yet figured it out, or maybe they have felt the political sour point in adjusting their China policies. But even if they make relevant adjustments, they will still show a tough attitude in their rhetoric. Biden stressed to compete with China from a “position of strength by building back better at home.” This shows how his understanding on major power competition differs from that of the Trump administration. The latter attributed all US problems to external forces, especially China. The new perspective may partially affect the policy focus of Biden’s team. How will Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products be dealt with? Will the blockade on Huawei be relaxed? Will the sudden anti-China policies implemented before Trump stepped down be further carried out or shelved? The Biden administration has so far left them unanswered. Nevertheless, since Biden stressed he would take care of US domestic affairs first, China should be more firm to hold on to its fundamental strategy of doing its own things well. Biden’s attitude toward China inherits some parts from his predecessor, yet he has also adjusted the approach and made room for interacting with China. For China, the most solid our own strength is, the more positive influence we will have on how the US reviews its China policy.

In his first foreign policy speech as president on Thursday, US President Joe Biden called China the “most serious competitor” to the US. He said the US will “confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.” He also said the US is “ready to work with Beijing when it’s in America’s interest to do so.”Many cabinet members of the Biden administration are “old faces” from the Obama administration. But until now, Washington hasn’t shown a strong will to improve relations with China or return to an engagement policy. Biden’s foreign policy speech, as well as recent remarks delivered by several key cabinet members, including secretary of state Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan, have all demonstrated a tough posture toward China. It has become clearer that Biden’s China policy inherits the framework of strategic competition formulated during the Trump administration. That is to say, like the Trump administration, the Biden government also believes China is a “competitor” that poses great challenges to the US. Specifically speaking, there will be no major differences between the Biden and Trump administrations when it comes to human rights issues. On issues related to Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, we may see more policy continuity from Washington. Biden in his foreign policy speech emphasized the US “will compete from a position of strength by building back better at home, working with our allies and partners, renewing our role in international institutions, and reclaiming our credibility and moral authority, much of which has been lost." This indicates that Biden’s approaches toward China are more like those of Obama. The Biden administration will more resort to multilateral methods, allies, and non-military means to deal with China. To a great extent, the Biden administration’s China policy will be a mixture of Obama’s and Trump’s, but at the same time reflects the new realities of China-US relations. In general, Biden’s China policy will inherit certain parts of Trump’s strategy, while in terms of tactics, there is a continuation from the Obama era. Biden will put more emphasis on developing a controllable and stable competition with China under the framework of strategic competition, instead of seeking confrontation and piling extreme pressure on China as Trump did. The Biden administration’s China policy will be more coherent, systematic, predictable, and pragmatic than the former Trump administration. Biden said the US is “ready to work with Beijing, when it’s in America’s interest to do so.” But there is still no sign of willingness to mend ties with China. Trump’s four-year tenure has gravely jeopardized China-US relations, worsening US public opinion and the US elites’ perceptions about China. Under such circumstances, isuch extremes It’s obvious that although the US needs China’s cooperation in many aspects such as tackling climate change and fighting the pandemic, the Biden administration doesn’t want to leave an impression that the US is enthusiastic about mending ties with China. It doesn’t want to lower its posture, but hopes to gain a psychological advantage in contacts and future negotiations with China by showing toughness toward the nation. From Biden’s foreign policy speech, it can be seen that the Biden administration hopes the US can be in a more favorable position in future dialogues or talks with China. It avoids sending any signal that Washington will anxiously seek a détente with China. The White House said the Biden administration will adopt a policy of “strategic patience” with China. This is actually a relatively passive and inactive state. It places greater emphasizes on coordinating and cooperating with allies to deal with China instead of having direct dialogue with China. It is seeking to build an anti-China coalition. This is in fact irrational. China has said it will always keep its door wide open for dialogue and cooperation. The ball now is in the US’ court. If the US, no matter out of considerations for domestic politics or major power competition, was still reluctant to take moves to improve relations with China, the window period for a reset in bilateral relations will be drastically shortened. This will affect the overall stability of China-US relations in the future, further harming US interests. The author is an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.

The stance was again stressed by the new president during his foreign policy speech at the State Department on Thursday local time. "We are ready to work with Beijing when it's in America's interest to do so. We will compete from a position of strength by building back better at home, working with our allies and partners," Biden said. This is consistent with the previous attitude of the White House's new team, which more than once has said it will approach ties with China with "patience." Biden believes repairing the damage done by his predecessor Donald Trump comes above confronting China. The bruises began when Trump separated the US from its allies in a harsh manner when handling China relations. This has caused US credibility to decline sharply in the eyes of its allies. Previously, most US allies sat on the fence with ambivalent stances. On the one hand, they hope the US can keep rushing to the forefront when it comes to piling pressure on China - in this way they can reap benefits from Beijing-Washington conflicts. On the other, they were concerned about being forced to take sides. Their wish was ruined by Trump's approaches, which also jeopardized US partners' room to profit from cooperating with China. Now Biden is hoping to win back their trust again. Trump has left a mess for Biden, especially with regard to China ties. It will take time for the Biden team to clear all the land mines laid by Trump. In addition, Biden's priority will be dealing with US domestic issues. That being said, stressing "patience" could be argued as a goodwill message from the US side, in my personal opinion. China has already sent its messages to the US. Now all attention is pinned on Washington, with the world looking forward to seeing how it will respond. It seems the White House is in no hurry to reply. A major reason for this is Washington wants more than just goodwill from Beijing. It wants the latter to make concrete steps of compromises, so the new US administration can have the excuse to improve its ties with China while appeasing nationalism and hard-line figures in the country. Otherwise, the new team could be stuck with labels such as kissing up or kowtowing to China. But it is unlikely for China to meet its desires. The Trump administration failed to bring China to its knees. The new government does not have the capability either. Moreover, the US hopes to solidify its advantageous position with its China ties before further engagement. As White House press secretary Jen Psaki put it on Tuesday, "We are working to ensure that we are approaching that relationship from a position of strength." The new US administration believes China has played too great a role - greater than that of the US - in determining the nature of China-US relations. Biden does not accept such a status quo and wants to change according to the US' plan. Washington now wants to take the initiative in shaping China-US relations, instead of being led by China. Beijing had once proposed establishing a new type of major power relations, but Washington did not really respond to it. Neither did it propose any new ideas, which made Washington seem passive. The US now hopes to break the current situation. This is the US' expectation, or even a fantasy, though Washington does not think so. The US believes it's time to alter the previous way of engagement with China, as much as it can, and it needs the effort of its allies to accomplish this. In years to come, the US may work with its allies to put more pressure on China on human rights, and continue to decouple with China in the high-tech field. Economically speaking, Biden will not continue Trump's "lose-lose" approaches, but will try to minimize internal divergences with allies. Building a united front against China on economics and trade won't be possible, but the West will keep reducing their dependence on the Chinese market in certain sensitive industrial chains. On militarily matters, the Biden administration won't be able to rope in more allies to participate in meddling in the South China Sea or the Indo-Pacific region. US allies are simply not interested in coordinating with the US in doing so, since China has never challenged the US militarily. Other countries are even less interested in interfering in the Taiwan question. Then how to deal with China? In fact, the Biden administration has no mature idea yet. The relationship between China and the US is complicated. China is not like any of the US' historical competitors. It is neither the Soviet Union nor Japan. The US needs to balance its considerations from various aspects, and this explains why the Biden administration wants to be in "lockstep" with allies before engaging with China. The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Li Aixin based on an interview with Liu Weidong, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

There are always certain forces outside of China and a handful of dissidents within China who believe that China is just superficially stable. In their minds, China is so fragile that even a small-scale conflict or protest will trigger a domino effect—and this will lead to the collapse of the Communist Party of China (CPC)'s leadership. Such understanding of China is too shallow: They think China is a forced compound like some historical European empires. I'd like to tell these people how the People's Republic of China developed. I will also tell the essential difference between Chinese people's choice of CPC and the West's regular election of new administrations. At the end of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), China fell into chaos with several thoughts competing with each other. When the CPC was founded in 1921, it was a very small and weak party with only dozens of members. It was just a small seed sowed by the movement of the Communist International (1919-43) in China. Every regime in China during that period wanted to eradicate the CPC, which has, through a bumpy road, finally grown strong and managed to govern the whole country. Think about it: Without the people's unwavering support and history's strong push, how could the CPC be able to overcome so many difficulties and go from victory to victory? According to China's official data, an estimated more than 21 million people had sacrificed themselves to found the PRC. Of these people, some 1.6 million of them have been honored as martyrs, while the names of the rest still cannot be confirmed. Despite a handful of traitors among the CPC members, the firm and arduous fighting was definitely the theme of the revolution during that period. No one was sure whether the CPC would win during the war, but still numerous people joined the CPC without hesitation. Ordinary people across the country chose to follow the CPC. If there wasn't Chinese people's extreme anger against the past regimes and their strong desire for fairness and justice, and if the CPC's propositions didn't deeply meet the Chinese nation's common wishes, how could so many Chinese people choose to go with the CPC to make a historic overthrow at a huge price and lay the foundation for the socialist PRC? When there were great setbacks during the revolution, huge sacrifices and decisive battles, Chinese people repeatedly confirmed their choice of the CPC. From 1921 to 1949, the CPC adjusted its routes and measures to promote revolutionary actions. Is there any comparable case in the West today that is proud of its political election system? The founding of the PRC was realized by great efforts, and the Constitution of socialist China was forged with blood and tears. As they were hard-won, it is not easy to overthrow the Constitutional order led by the CPC. No, it's wishful thinking that will never come true. Some people are always convinced that a comprehensive crisis is approaching China. They are excited to see chaos in any part of the country. They are keen to upload videos of mass incidents in China to prove their theory: "Look, China is about to be messed up." They look ridiculous to fanatically wishing for China to fall into chaos. There has been a common impression that Western countries are not afraid of streets protests, but China is. Yet it is believed that riots which cannot break the West, will not break China either. China has strong power to curb the destructive political movements on the streets from the very source. If they do occur in China, the impact will only be temporary. The point is what China looks like today. It has developed peacefully for a long time with its people's livelihood improving at a particularly rapid pace. The ruling Communist Party of China emphasizes serving the people. A few corrupt officials are severely punished without any chance to be forgiven. This is undoubtedly the best period of development in modern China as well as the harvest season after the last revolution. China has gone through great changes, so has its national strength and international status. Today, China is the morning sun at seven or eight o'clock on the global stage. Public opinion in every country is dissatisfied with certain specific matters. But where can some people look for, or instigate fundamental anger, for all the Chinese people to go against their country? How can one possibly mobilize enough energy to subvert the country in a tsunami level and shape a so-called regime change? Some people are pinning their hopes on the internet. They dream that the generation which has grown up in the internet era can "take down" the country. But they failed to realize that the rich information has provided people with more materials to display the comparison of governance's efficiency and humanization. The term "color revolution" has become one of the most negative words in the Chinese public opinion field, and is a synonym meaning "political fools." China is undoubtedly on the right path. This is clearly proven by the country's rapid development and people's rising living standards. Quite a few like to complain. But the collective rationality of the Chinese people is maturing. In other words, Chinese people are not silly. Most problems in China are partial and temporary. People are well aware of their stake with the country's development. China will continue to face challenges and tests. But those who are anxious to seek signs to predict that the country will fall really are thinking too much. China has withstood the turbulence 32 years ago. It has learnt its lesson. Some say the Soviet Union did collapse. Right, but that's because its leadership was collectively confused. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union collapsed, yet how can the country stand still? China has learnt the lessons of its own country and from other nations. We can hardly be fooled so easily. Any force that wants to break apart socialist China will find itself daydreaming. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Fox News reported that the head of US Strategic Command Charles Richard is calling on the US military and federal leaders to reimagine methods of deterring aggressive action from rivals such as China and Russia. He wrote in the February issue of Proceedings, the US Naval Institute's monthly magazine, that, "There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons." It's not uncommon to hear the noise preaching so-called threats of China and Russia. Yet it's still shocking to see a US senior military official publicly urging leaders of his country to consider a nuclear war. His narratives have drawn wide attention. Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and commentator, told the Global Times on Thursday that Richard's rhetoric may be out of the following intention. First, he may hope to increase the strategic value of the Strategic Command in the US military. Second, Richard wants the US Congress to allocate more funds to create a new US nuclear weapons system, in a bid to reinforce a new triad of strategic nuclear forces. Third, he seeks to pursue the Strategic Command's larger control over US nuclear weapons. For whatever reason, a top military official from the US, the most powerful country and whose new administration has pledged to restore its global leadership, is irresponsible to express such a crazy idea, as it poses huge challenges to world peace and security. It should be condemned by the international community. Most nuclear-weapon countries including China, tend to keep their nuclear force for the purpose of safeguarding their national security. Only when their safety, sovereignty or territory is threatened, will they consider resorting to using nuclear weapons. But the principle of the US totally differs. The US military might be the strongest, possessing the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. In spite of vowing to pursue disarmament, Washington actually spent trillions of dollars in upgrading its nuclear arsenal. Apart from terrorists, no country is capable of posing any threat to the US homeland. Just as Song said, spending trillions of dollars to upgrade its nuclear arsenal is mainly to maintain its global hegemony. This is the fundamental difference between the US and other nuclear-weapon countries in terms of keeping nuclear forces. Washington covers a wide range when it comes to defending its hegemony. It includes safeguarding its national security as well as its core interests on a global scale. Just as former US president Barack Obama said at the US Military Academy at West Point in 2014, "America must always lead on the world stage… If we [the US] don't, no one else will." If any country gravely threatens US hegemony, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the US may use nuclear weapons to remarkably impair its rivals' military capability. This is the huge threat of US radical nuclear policy posed to the world. It is a big challenge for all countries, including China and Russia, and to global peace and safety. The US is the biggest trouble-maker in the world, which has the potential to overturn global peace.

An HQ-16 medium-range air-defense missile system attached to an air-defense brigade under the PLA 72nd Group Army fires a surface-to-air missile at a mock aerial target during a recent live-fire training exercise in an undisclosed desert area. File photo:China Military

China announced that it successfully conducted a land-based, mid-course antiballistic missile (ABM) technical test on Thursday within its border. I believe this test has come at a very timely manner. Brilliant! Charles Richard, head of US Strategic Command, published an article on Tuesday saying the US has sought new ways to deter China and Russia, including the "real possibility" of a nuclear war. To put it simply, he wants the US to carry out nuclear blackmail against China and Russia, and to utilize the hype over a "nuclear war" to deter the two countries, especially to intimidate China. I tend to take China's successful missile test as a strong response to the above-mentioned arrogant clamor of the US commander, although China has expressed in its statement that the test is not aimed at any country. No matter where China-US relations head next, I believe that China's nuclear power and anti-missile technology need to be strengthened. The US will blackmail China with its nuclear power sooner or later. China must possess sufficient nuclear warheads, which must be more than 1,000, and sufficient methods to deliver and penetrate defense. If that happens, China will make its second-strike capability - the ability to respond to a nuclear attack with powerful nuclear retaliation - highly credible. External forces which are attempting to attack China will tremble with fear in the face of China. Only then will our national security be unbreakable. In this regard, the Chinese people should not be naïve. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Reflecting on this, I think the CPC has made contributions to the country in four critical aspects. First, the CPC established a new China which is politically united and independent. This is the foundation that allowed for China to release all of its advantages now and in the future. For instance, China has become the world's biggest market. It is able to cultivate competitive business giants and has more ability than any other rising power to resist hegemonism. In other words, the founding of new China paved the way for the country to achieve its goals. Second, the CPC has found a development path for China which suits its national condition, which was especially prominent at the end of the 20th century and this century. The CPC altered China's dispirited poverty and reshaped the Chinese people's livelihoods, enabling China to become a country full of development potentials. China is poised to make its 1.4 billion population rich. We have foreseen what a good life is. People within and outside China said the country should just copy the Western path. But the CPC has been clear-minded: China, as such a big country, couldn't copy the path taken by some small Western countries. Over the years, the CPC has led China to walk its own way with a down-to-earth manner. Till now, China has built up its confidence. We feel lucky that we were not led by the nose by some Western and domestic voices. China used to be one step away from becoming divided like the Soviet Union and witnessing a war like the one that disintegrated Yugoslavia. China, as led by the CPC, has walked out of dangers again and again, and achieved both development and stability. Third, the CPC has embedded the idea of fairness and justice into the development of Chinese society. Fairness and justice have become long-lasting public concepts and the main theme during this process of social development. The world is unfair, and this is normal for human society. Fairness is the goal that humanity desires and strives to get close. China, as a developing country, spends most of its adjustment efforts to reach this goal. Chinese people should not be fooled by some forces. Let's take poverty alleviation as an example. No other big society around the world is as determined to alleviate poverty as China. Some people may say that there's formalism in the fight for poverty alleviation in some places. It is quite thinkable that there were small flaws in such large-scale movements. Moreover, there is the possibility that some people may return to poverty. However, the poverty alleviation campaigns have laid a solid foundation for China's future moves to further eliminate poverty. Its positive effects are overwhelming. In China, issues involving serious unfairness will draw storms of criticism as long as they are exposed online. The Chinese public opinion has an everlasting enthusiasm about condemning unfairness. This can form explosive social pressure. This is closely related to the basic values of the country's system. There are still many inequalities and acts of unfairness in China. These include the pension gap, and the difficulties migrant workers face integrating into cities. But solving these problems are among China's development goals. People should have a look at how severe inequalities have been solidified in many other developing countries that used to be much wealthier than China. They should examine how people in those countries have become accustomed to seeing unfairness. If they do, then they will better know what kind of efforts the CPC-led China is doing. Fourth, the CPC has promoted the momentum of China's sound development. The international situation has witnessed drastic changes. China is not only facing a US strategic crackdown, but also many new problems of domestic development. However, China's intrinsic domestic energy is being unleashed at a speed faster than the challenges can come or be imposed on us. As long as we do not make subversive mistakes, no challenges will be fatal to us. China should double its efforts to further develop. The country's system decides we will do so. The prospect of China is inspiring. The past century has not only seen China's national fate completely reversed, but also consolidated the momentum of further development. What I am talking about are the CPC and the country, but among my words, and between the lines, are our personal life and destiny. A China with booming development is not made up of abstract data, but improvements in numerous people's lives. When I was working abroad as a correspondent for the People's Daily in 1993, my monthly salary, plus various subsidies, totaled only about $290. That was the level of pay China at that time could afford. My dream then was to have a car and a house with a separate bathroom. Now, this kind of life has been realized and is coming to more people. In the future, we will have better medical care, better pensions, more guaranteed paid vacations, more secure and high-quality lives, and a better ecological environment. I have witnessed epoch-making changes. I wish and believe today's young generation will experience greater and more important vicissitudes in China's future. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

China and the US are two powers with super strength. Both of them are quite complicated, so is the competition between them. However, I think it's too simplistic if we use the concept of a clash between two civilizations or between two systems to describe China-US relations. I believe what bolsters the two countries' competition is the strength built on their political systems and the nature of their civilizations. Both China and the US have the political demands to demonstrate the superiority of their own systems. But China's demand is inward. China's aim is to consolidate the Chinese people's confidence rather than dwarf the US. At least in this period, China has no strategic ambitions to eliminate Western capitalism. The primary stage of socialism takes quite a long time to achieve, transcending several generations. Therefore, for the Chinese people, different systems can coexist without having to see each other as enemy. So what on earth are China and the US competing for? In my view, the main dilemma revolves around the right to development in this stage of history. That is to say, China, in order to fulfill people's demands for a better life, must continue to develop as quickly as possible - but the US wants to thwart China's development. The US hopes to reestablish its position as the center of the global development. The US' natural desire for development involves the country's deep worries about China's development from a geopolitical perspective. In my view, Americans will only feel at ease as long as the US can quicken its own development, enjoying a rising GDP while China's GDP growth rate slows down. But this is not what the Chinese people want. China needs to develop faster than the US. This is not only a political desire, but also a reflection of the Chinese people's wishes to live a better life. Some netizens said Trump's four-year tenure created a strategic opportunity for China, so they nicknamed Trump as "Chuan Jianguo," (meaning Trump builds China). I see it this way: The China containment strategy advocated by Trump definitely added unexpected pressure on China and had an unfavorable impact on China's development. There is no doubt that it was a negative factor to China's development. But China is strong, sober-minded and dedicated. China stresses doing its own things well as the basic pathway, and launched serious countermeasure toward US strategic suppression efforts. During this process, the Trump government destabilized the US and smashed many Chinese people's worship of the US system. US suppression also broke some illusions of the Chinese people. Chinese society has become ever more united, which is an important spiritual resource for China's fast and steady development in the following phases to come. From this perspective, Trump's rule indeed brought some strategic benefits for China. From a broader perspective, I think this is a strategic vision that extends beyond short-sighted gains, and a philosophical analysis weighted with a historical sense. Of course, comments made on the internet are a simple way of expressing self-encouragement and confidence. And the result speaks everything: When Trump left the White House, all relevant assessments of China's development were better than when he entered the White House on the first day. In this sense, he deserved the nickname "Chuan Jianguo." As for the new US President Joe Biden, Chinese netizens gave him another monicker: "Bai Zhenhua" which literally means Biden who makes China prosper. It is anticipated that the Biden administration will continue strategic suppression policies toward China. But Trump failed in his attempt to suppress China, Biden has even fewer means and resources to pressure China compared with four years ago. Trump and his followers like Mike Pompeo have used all possible means to trip up China, while the Biden team can only make minor adjustments that they believe suit US interests. It remains to be seen how much courage and wisdom they have, and how they might make adjustments. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

Editor's Note: This statement calling for managed competition and greater US-China cooperation was one of Ezra Vogel's last intellectual initiatives. It was drafted by Ezra, in consultation with Wang Jisi of Peking University, but had not yet been completed at the time of Ezra's death. Robert Ross and Michael Szonyi, Ezra's colleagues at the Fairbank Center, edited his final draft for clarity and concision, while seeking to remain true to his efforts and his vision for US-China relations. It's made public as one of the ways to honor distinguished scholar Ezra Vogel. Ezra was hoping to produce a consensus document that could be endorsed by scholars in both countries. His statement does not address some of the most important and troubling issues in US-China relations. But the statement does convey some convictions that many share with him: that war between the US and China will do great harm to both countries; that indiscriminate decoupling is not the solution to the problems in the relationship; that cooperation is essential if we hope to address the many pressing global issues such as climate change and global health, and that the continued exchange of legitimate scholars, journalists, and many others is essential to a healthy relationship. In 2020, US-China relations reached their worst point since the re-opening of relations in the early 1970s. Instead of cooperating to cope with the coronavirus, we blamed each other for the origins. Instead of cooperating to maintain stable international economic relations, we carried on a trade war and disrupted supply lines, creating uncertainties for businesses around the world. Instead of increasing the number of reporters in each country who could promote mutual understanding, both countries imposed new restrictions that limit the number. Scholarly contact has been greatly reduced. Tensions over Taiwan and in the South China Sea have increased. The risk of conflict of devastating consequences to both countries has also increased. None of these developments is in the interest of either of the two countries. Given the broad-based competition and rising tensions between the two countries, and the different perspectives of the leaders and the public in the two countries, great progress in improving relations in the near future may be impossible. However, the arrival of a new administration in the US in January 2021 provides an opportunity to make adjustments in the management of the relations that would reduce the risk of conflict and increase cooperation to pursue common interests. Political forces in both countries will make it difficult to promote cooperation with the other. President Joe Biden will be under pressure to ensure that he is not seen as weaker than his predecessor in dealing with China. He is unlikely to remove trade barriers without some concessions by China to remove restrictions on US companies in China. Many American leaders believe that China treats American companies unfairly and, despite some recent improvements, has been lax in protecting intellectual property. Chinese officials believe they are in a strong position in dealing with the US and should not yield to US complaints. Chinese officials also believe the US seeks to interfere with Chinese businesses throughout the world. Yet the two countries can avoid a vicious cycle of potentially endless further restrictions that would harm both. We can begin by 1) cooperating in areas that are of clear mutual interest, 2) taking steps that prevent our relations from getting worse, 3) agreeing on some basic principles to govern international institutions. Cooperating in areas of clear mutual interest a. Reopening of contacts that have been removed To deal with ongoing issues between the two countries we need enhanced contacts at four levels: top leaders; senior diplomats and military leaders dealing with major issues; working-level diplomats and specialists in various locations - in China, the US, and in international institutions, and in the private sector between business groups, academics, students, and other groups of private citizens. Top leaders: Fortunately, Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China, and Joe Biden, President of the United States, have had numerous hours of contact when they were both vice presidents. They can set the general tone for relations between the two countries, begin to set the agenda for working-level cooperation on various issues, and lay the basis for addressing key policy issues. Political and military leaders: Fruitful meetings are already taking place between military representatives of the two countries on how to avoid accidents. Conversations should proceed on how our countries can avoid conflict over other issues, including Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Western Pacific, and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Northeast Asia. The US can reduce Chinese concerns about their security in the waters around China, while China should reassure the US and other countries about freedom of navigation in East Asian waters. Functional-level contacts: Dialogues between experts in our two governments have all but ceased, including contacts on health care, climate change, nuclear proliferation, energy security, international drug trafficking, and human trafficking. These contacts should be reopened quickly. This includes the reopening of the Chinese Consulate in Houston and the US Consulate in Chengdu, the restaffing of our respective embassies and consulates, and the revival of the Fulbright Program and the Peace Corps programs in China. Restrictions on journalist visas that have been put in place in the last several years should be removed. b. Cooperation on environmental issues China is currently the world's biggest polluter, but it has made a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2060 and has already made rapid progress in wind and solar development and in electric vehicles. The US has contributed more than any other country to current levels of atmospheric pollution. Biden has already committed to rejoining the Paris Accord. The commitment of both Beijing and Washington provides a basis for cooperation and for working with other countries to advance sharing of scientific information and advancing the control of global warming. Since air quality is now a major concern of China's leaders and US technology could contribute to Chinese environmental protection, the issue of air quality could be a good starting point for bilateral cooperation and for promoting world-wide cooperation to improve the global environment and combat climate change. c. Cooperation on public health, including control of pandemics Many Chinese and American specialists already cooperate on health issues. The US is ahead of China in many areas of medical science and healthcare delivery, but China is more advanced in the utilization of health data and digital healthcare. Furthermore, China's size and the prevalence of certain diseases enables it to make medical advances that could help Americans as well as citizens of other countries. Since the coronavirus is a global issue, cooperation between China and the US is essential to provide vaccines and medications for control of the virus throughout the world. Preventing further deterioration of relations It will take time to develop better relations between the two countries. It is important in the meantime that the two nations avoid further deterioration of relations. The two countries must above all avoid military conflict. This will require mutual adjustment to each other's security interests and strategic restraint. Second, despite extensive conflicts of economic interests, they must maintain robust economic relations and technological engagement. And they must cooperate to sustain global financial stability. The two countries should collaborate to ensure the stability of an evolving international monetary system. Third, the two countries must maintain cooperation on humanitarian efforts and educational exchanges. International institutions US-China competition necessarily affects international institutions. It is in the interest of both countries to develop international institutions that can reduce the conflicts between the two countries and find ways to work together to promote broad-based global cooperation. In the decades ahead, a key issue between the US and China will be the degree to which they can work together in the international organizations and the degree to which they will establish separate organizations. Chinese officials have felt that the US has impeded international organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from giving China the important role that its economic success warrants. The Chinese have taken the initiative to form and fund new organizations, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and new associations with individual countries. The AIIB has made an effort to be inclusive and to establish rules that conformed to international standards. The US, fearing that the AIIB could be used to pursue national purposes, chose to not join and to discourage other countries from joining. This is now widely acknowledged in the US to have been a mistake. China has also taken the initiative in conceiving a broad program of infrastructure assistance for countries in the Euro-Asian continental mass and beyond, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While there are valid criticisms or suspicions of some aspects of the BRI, many countries have benefited from BRI projects. The US needs to take a balanced view of BRI. The US, China and the world would benefit from strong US-China competition and collaboration in improving global infrastructure. The quality of the projects and relations between China and the US could improve if firms from the US could take part in joint construction projects. The role of scholars Both governments should welcome scholars to pursue lawful, legitimate academic activities. Putting scholars and their activities at risk is deeply counter-productive to healthy relations between the two countries. While it is to be expected that each country will seek to protect itself and its citizens against espionage, unreasonable and indiscriminate limitations on scholarly exchange is not the answer. We believe that scholars from the two countries can work together to contribute to US-China cooperation on a wide range of shared interests. Scholars working in the US and China want their country to prosper, but we also realize that our own country needs the cooperation of the other country and many countries in the world. We believe it is in the interest of the scholars of both countries to contain our differences and work together to form stable institutions, to help manage competition and increase cooperation between our two countries, and to build and share knowledge. Here are some thoughts from four Chinese scholars who know Ezra well. Yuan Ming, dean of Yenching Academy and professor of the School of International Studies, Peking University Prof. Ezra Vogel was a man of enlightenment: erudite and tolerant, aspired to wisdom and pursued truth. In his writings and in his deeds, he exemplified the brightest qualities of the human spirit and those of a contemporary "junzi". My first encounter with Ezra was back in late fall of 1983 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mr. Xiang Ziming, then chairman of the Peking University Council, had been invited to visit Harvard, and I was his interpreter. Our first campus moment saw the welcoming sign of the national flag of China hung in the bright autumn sunshine. After a meeting with John K. Fairbank, we were introduced to the door of a local resident, and there Ezra opened his arms and greeted us with "Huan Ying" in a slightly accented Chinese. Those words ushered in the beginning of our lasting friendship of 37 years. Our first encounter, however, had broader significance beyond personal amity. In broader terms, that visit, together with other booming activities of academic exchange, started a new journey of joint efforts of the two oldest institutions of higher learning in China and the United States. In fostering these efforts, Prof. Vogel was a central figure and assumed an active role. For brevity sake, I will mention just two examples, from my personal experience, of the energies he invested toward those noble aims. In 1998, Ezra was invited to attend the 100th anniversary of Peking University. For the past decade, he had witnessed new obstacles emerge to the stable bilateral relations he had helped painstakingly construct. In a flash of inspiration, he reached out to both Professor Tanaka Akihiro of Tokyo University and me, to join him in his new research project to revive the impetus for improving relations between the United States and China, and with Japan. The project was called "Ha-Bei-Dong". "Ha" for Harvard, "Bei" for PKU and "Dong" for Tokyo University. Two workshops were organized, respectively in Tokyo in 1999 and in Cambridge in 2000, followed by the publication of a volume titled "The Golden Age of the U.S.-China-Japan Triangle, 1972-1989". The purposes of the project and the book were, as Ezra noted in his introduction, to reexamine "the patterns of cooperation developed during the period of 1972-1989, when the U.S., China and Japan enjoyed positive relations with each other," and to see if relations going forward could re-capture some of the magic. In early spring of 2001, the National Committee of U.S.-China Relations organized a super team to visit China. In Washington, the Republican administration replaced the Clinton team. Concerned people on both sides felt the imperatives of avoiding mutual misunderstanding which might navigate into wrong waters. The group was well received in Beijing. In addition to the meetings with the Chinese leaders, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Ezra Vogel and the others had one more highlight at Peking University. It was a face-to-face dialogue - a lively meeting between senior Americans and young Chinese students. In a particularly thoughtful exchange, Ezra humbly noted that, "For countries that we (Americans) don't have that much historical contact with, we tend to have more extreme reactions from one time to another. China is one of those countries. Because we have relatively little contact with China, our public opinion tends to go from one extreme to the other much more easily." Ezra dedicated his life's work to moderating the excesses of those reactions, and to keeping relations on track inspite of misunderstandings and differences. His life, therefore, remains a testament of the possibility of successful cross-cultural exchange within a world full of complexities. By his example, Ezra gave us the confidence to continue to honor his legacy and never give up even in face of strong headwinds. I present one last personal anecdote of his, which captures the spirit and depth of his unwavering commitment to that calling. Ezra was 85 in 2015 when he made a field study in Sichuan to collect materials for his new book. Unexpectedly he had to accept an emergency medical treatment because of a relapse in one of his medical conditions. Two weeks later, when he returned to Beijing, Ezra recounted this extraordinary experience to me. He just walked into a local clinic, pulled out his phone, and showed the doctors what treatment he needed. Given his advanced age, some of the doctors were nervous to operate on him. Ezra looked into their eyes, smiled, and said, "I trust you." The surgery went without a hitch. In human affairs, as Ezra demonstrated fruitfully, "trust" is the ingredient necessary to overcome many difficult problems. May we remember that and him. Jia Qingguo, director of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding and a professor at the School of International Studies, Peking University In recent years, the plummeting China-US relations have made many observers worried. They worry that the two biggest powers in the world may walk toward confrontation or even war. So did Ezra, who has been dedicated to promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between China and the US. In the face of the powerful anti-China forces in the US, he did not choose to be silent, but actively called for the two sides to handle their relations in a rational and pragmatic way. The election of Biden presented a chance for Ezra to see the opportunity of a stable and improved China-US relationship. With the statement, he hoped to provide some thoughts for the new US administration to stabilize and improve ties between the two countries. Regrettably, he passed away before Biden took office. Overall, the description of the current situation of China-US relations in Ezra's statement is objective. His analysis is reasonable and his suggestions are rational and pragmatic. I hope the two governments can pay attention to the statement, carefully analyze the concrete proposals raised in the statement that aim at stabilizing and improving bilateral ties, and take action as soon as possible. They include rebuilding a dialogue and consultation mechanism, carrying out effective measures to manage divergences, and strengthening cooperation in areas where they have common interests. Some believe the China-US relationship could not return to its past, and I believe so, too. With decades of development, China's comprehensive national strength has risen rapidly, which is a fact that both China and the US need to face. The US should respect China's core interests and treat China on an equal footing. China needs to carefully consider US concerns and eliminate US worries toward China's rise. Due to differences in history, cultural values, political systems and development paths, divergences and contradictions between the two countries are inevitable. But both are stake holders in the international system and the interests of cooperation far outweigh the interests of conflict. This is the basis for peaceful coexistence and cooperation between China and the US. We need more people like Ezra to promote bilateral understanding and cooperation. Zhu Feng, a professor of international relations at Nanjing University Although Ezra passed away, his knowledge, thoughts and dedication to improving China-US relations over the past 40 years will live on forever. The document initiated by him is concise, providing a very accurate and objective perspective on the disastrous impact of the Trump administration's four years in power on bilateral relations, including that the US did not work with China to fight against the epidemic, but making China a scapegoat and blaming China for coronavirus. Instead of working together to maintain stable international economic relations, the US has insisted on trade wars, disrupted supply chains, and created uncertainty for business around the world. Instead of increasing the number of journalists in respective countries to promote mutual understanding, new regulations were introduced to limit the number of journalists. Academic exchanges have been severely curtailed, friction over the Taiwan question and the South China Sea has been intensified, and the possibility of a catastrophic conflict between the two countries has risen, seriously violating the basic interests of both countries. How should the relationship be handled under the Biden administration? Ezra's initiative has made very timely and relevant recommendations, which are: The two sides should restart the ties severed between 2016 and 2020, avoid further deterioration in bilateral relations, strengthen cooperation on environmental protection, anti-epidemic, promote global governance and other issues, and avoid escalation of confrontation on the Taiwan question, the South China Sea and other issues. Ezra refuted the Trump administration's over-characterization of the "China threat" as a "whole-government" or "whole-society" threat, noting that both governments should welcome scholars who engage in reasonable and legitimate academic activities. Putting scholars and related academic activities under threat would seriously harm the healthy relationship between the two countries, Ezra noted. He firmly believed that scholars from the two countries can contribute to China-US cooperation by working together on the basis of common benefits. At present, the most serious obstacle to the improvement and development of China-US relations is the domestic political factors within the US. When US officials, scholars and media outlets frequently emphasize that the Biden administration's toughness on China is a "bipartisan consensus" and a "cross-border consensus," and frequently over-interprets the so-called China threat theory, Ezra's call is one of the few. It is a valuable clear stream in the relations between the two countries, and more importantly, it is a candid and precious rational voice from the US and Chinese academic fields led by him. We should firmly believe that China and the US will return to the competitive and cooperative relationship, which is the most important and complex relationship for mankind in the 21st century. Yao Yunzhu, former director emeritus of the Center on China-America Defense Relations, Academy of Military Science, and a retired major general of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. I was lucky enough to know Ezra when I was a visiting scholar at Harvard University more than 20 years ago. He dedicated his whole life to promoting understanding between different countries and peoples. He was worried about the worsening China-US relationship, but was among the few who remained optimistic. As the US election wrapped up, he found an opportunity to bring bilateral relations to a normal track. The new US administration has been sworn in. His team that works on China policy is into formation. China has gained experiences in dealing with the previous US administration, and will cope with relations with the US more maturely and calmly. China-US relations are the world's most important bilateral ties. Neither side could defeat the other, nor should it hold the strategic objective of wiping out the other side. Coexistence is not only an inevitable choice of China and the US, but also what most countries would like to see. In a new era when China and the US must redefine this bilateral relationship, we must abandon ideological struggles, stop labeling and attacking each other, reducing pointless accusations and emotional expressions, and discuss how to coexist and advance together and how to open a new situation that fits the common interests of both countries and the trend of humanity.

In the post-Brexit era, Britain's relationship with the US has become "less a partnership and more a prison," wrote Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times in a piece titled, "The UK is both partner and prisoner in the US special relationship."Will US allies continue the uneven relations? How much can US President Joe Biden actually do to fix US relations with its allies? Two Chinese experts shared their views with the Global Times on these issues. Shen Yi, professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University Referring to a "prisoner" to portray the UK's relations with the US makes sense, to some extent. Britain is declining. Its disposable resources and room to adopt an independent policy are shrinking. Before Brexit, Britain could count on both the US and the EU to prove its presence and influence on many global issues, and gain more bargaining chips to deal with both sides. As it has exited from the EU, Britain has to rely more on the US to realize its role to play on the international stage. The reference "prisoner" means that London has been restrained with its special relationship with Washington. Almost all US allies see such unevenness in their ties with the US. In fact, the alliance has been established mainly on calculations of interests. As long as these countries can benefit from their alliance with the US, they do not care too much about their position in the alliance. But their close ties were undermined during the Trump administration, which cranked up the "America First" policy. Although Biden has pledged to repair alliances, what he has done so far is nothing but lip service. He has not made any substantial efforts to mend the frayed ties. Remarkable changes have taken place since the Cold War. US allies will not blindly follow the US' lead at all costs. At present, with China's rise and its willingness to assume more international responsibility, these allies have set high expectations for China to provide solutions for many global issues, and offer them more economic gains. Against this background, these countries cannot blindly follow the US' lead to counter China. Nevertheless, the US has maintained its alliance for over seven decades, and its allies still hope to seek benefits from it. Therefore, these countries will not discard their alliance with the US, but such a relationship has weakened. Yuan Zheng, deputy director and senior fellow of the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences The US-UK relationship is nothing close to a "prison." Due to historical reasons, the US has a relationship with the UK that is more special than with Australia or Canada. As times change, Britain can no longer be on an equal footing with the US. After WWII, the unbalanced pattern in which the US dominates and the UK follows has remained intact till today. After Brexit, London seems to have become more dependent on Washington, and thus will get closer to the latter. The US under Trump's presidency witnessed serious hits to its alliance system. This saw many US allies become dissatisfied. Except for the UK, Australia, and Canada, other US allies have become more independent. Meanwhile, Washington has refused to assume more international responsibilities and security obligations. Most US allies wouldn't stand at the frontline against China if they had other options. Allies' dependence on the US is declining. But mainstream voices in the US strategic circle believe the alliance system is still a pivot point that can maintain the country's hegemony - and therefore a vital role in international affairs. The Biden administration has emphasized coordination with allies. Many European leaders have shown great expectations for the US in this new era. Although they know the US won't support them as in the past, they look forward to an enhanced trans-Atlantic relationship. The Biden administration will try to fix the cracks in the trans-Atlantic alliance left by Trump. For example, Biden is actively pushing forward efforts to tackle climate change not only because it is a legacy of the former Democratic Obama administration, but also because Europe attaches importance to the issue. If Biden can strengthen talks with European countries on multilateral issues in a less aggressive attitude, Europeans will probably improve their ties with Americans. But it is still hard for the two sides to go back to the good old times. Both will reshape their relationships based on their own needs brought about by the new situation.

Before US President Joe Biden took office, many people expected he might increase opportunities to enhance China-US relations. Although Biden differs from his predecessor Donald Trump, there are continuities in many aspects of Trump's policies. The improvement of China-US relations is possible, but it is uncertain. The huge gap between expectations and reality is mainly due to objective and subjective reasons. Objectively speaking, the characteristics of China-US relations that Biden faces are not very different from those of his predecessors. First, the power gap between China and the US is gradually narrowing. The September 11 attacks were a turning point in the US' unipolar posture, and marked the beginning of its decline. Later in the same year, China formally joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), giving China a strong impetus for its economic take-off. The 2008 financial crisis further accelerated China's pace of development as the US continued to slip. When Trump came to power in 2017, he took measures to contain China's development. They did not work, only proving to be a nuisance that harmed the US economy and in fact did nothing to slow down China's rise. As Trump left office, the gap of strength between China and the US was narrower than the time when he took office. Second, the ideological differences between China and the US continue to expand and may turn into a wider ideological competition. In the past, China's economic success has given it confidence in its political system. The post Cold War era consensus that countries should no longer focus on ideology has been broken again. "Beijing Consensus" and "China path" have become new concepts in contrast to the Washington Consensus and the American Model. During the past four years of Trump, the ideological differences between China and the US have not narrowed, but expanded, with a trend toward struggle and competition. Under such circumstances, the situation of China-US relations that Biden now faces may be more unfavorable to the US than that under Trump. This will make it difficult for Biden to get rid of Trumpism in his China policy. Many people think that China-US relations will restore under Biden following historical lows not seen since the 1979. However, damage has been done, and this will be a challenge for Biden to repair. The new administration will bring some changes to the China-US relationship. However, Trump himself was not the reason, but rather a manifestation and result of deteriorated ties between the world's top two economies. The presidential transition in the US will only change some interactions between Washington and Beijing, but will not alter the essence of their respective directions. Many people in both China and the US are now inclined to find reasons to hurt ties. Simultaneously, Chinese people should not neglect the influence of China's rise, while Americans should be more introspective about their Cold War mind-set. The US should stop attempting to manipulate China with its diplomacy and policymaking. Many in the US are too pessimistic about China. They now believe it is another Soviet Union. This has led to their prejudices against China. To them, if Chinese talk tough, it is challenging the world. If Chinese talk soft, then China is carrying on its efforts to deceive the world for its own strategic opportunities. Such cognitive misunderstandings are the biggest dilemma facing China-US relations. China and the US are clearly in a new era with memories of old times. But many in the public sphere are forgetting the big picture of the great relations that were carefully cultivated since China's reform and opening-up and particularly after China joined the WTO 20 years ago. Scholars and policymakers in both countries should work to form a new definition of China-US relations. After all, China and the US have massive room for cooperation. To improve their ties, China and the US should work with both hands. One hand should focus on recovering bilateral strategic dialogue mechanisms and high-level direct communication channels to reduce misunderstandings and mistrust. Meanwhile, the other should hold onto people-to-people exchanges. People's relations are the most vital foundation of China-US relations. The author is professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University.

Speaking at an online forum organized by the National Committee on US-China relations on Tuesday morning Beijing time, Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, called on China and the US to restore their relationship to a predictable and constructive track of development. He said, "China is prepared to work with the US to move the relationship forward along the track of no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation for the well-being of both countries and peoples." The speech conveyed a consistent message that has been made multiple times by other senior Chinese diplomats, including State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. This signals that China hopes to promote the reset of China-US relations as soon as possible. China-US relations have been gravely jeopardized over the past four years. The Trump administration launched an irrational and destructive crackdown on China with a string of unilateral and bullying measures. This plunged bilateral relations to the lowest point ever since Richard Nixon's groundbreaking visit to China in 1972. With the Biden administration now in office, there is a fresh chance for a rapprochement to be made. Therefore, China has called for both countries to restore normal relations. This reflects China's goodwill and expectations. However, it must be pointed out that it requires the US to meet China halfway to bring bilateral relations back to the normal track of development. Joint efforts are needed to prevent bilateral relations from deteriorating into a downward spiral, and to resume the momentum of mutual benefits and win-win cooperation. A view in the US contends that China should do some specific things first before America acts. But America, who started the troubles, should fix the problem first. The deterioration of China-US relations has mainly been caused by hostile actions taken by Washington, especially under the previous administration. In this light, Biden's team has the responsibility and obligation to suspend or eliminate the US' punitive policies and measures that have been imposed on China during the past four years. There are many things the Biden administration should do, or take the first step to fix. These include ending the trade war, stopping the harassment on Chinese students and visiting scholars, and working to reopen Confucius Institutes and lift impulsive sanctions upon Chinese universities and companies, etc.. However, judging from the current situation, the US' willingness to mend fences with China is not strong. Remarks made on China by several cabinet members of the Biden administration are so far not constructive. Since being tough on China is the consensus of the two parties in the US, therefore, it seems theonly difference between Trump and Biden now is that the Biden administration may make some minor adjustment to US approaches of dealing with China. A case in point: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that China "poses the most significant challenge" to the US internationally. This reflects a tough US posture that it is still guarding against perceived China threats to US hegemony. This is, in fact, not different from the Trump administration's policy positions. Therefore, we shouldn't harbor too many expectations for China-US relations, or have any unrealistic illusions about the Biden administration's China policies. China hopes for a thaw in bilateral relations. However, if the US stubbornly follows the old path of the Trump administration to confront China, Beijing will have to fight it to the end. Although China has called for the restoration of China-US cooperation and relations on many occasions, the country is prepared if the US insists on confrontation. Currently, many of China's measures are actually based on "bottom line" thinking. We are prepared for the possibility that China-US relations may continue to be turbulent, or deteriorate further. For example, China has adopted "dual circulation" policy, which is to a large extent based on bottom line thinking. In the past, China's policymakers have placed great emphasis on international market. If China-US relations further deteriorate, the US' trade sanctions and high-tech embargoes against China will continue. Thus, China can only depend on internal circulation economics and high-tech development on the basis of self -reliance. The bottom line thinking is also reflected in some of China's other plans for the next five years; these include supply chain and industrial chain security, and food security etc... China has always had a bottom line for the development of China-US relations. In his speech, Yang called on the US to respect the three China-US joint communiqués; stop interference in China's internal affairs including Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet questions; and stop harming China's development interests. Yang also stressed that the US should understand where China's redline is and should not cross the line. This draws China's bottom line regarding the development of China-US relations. The Trump administration ignored this bottom line and acted recklessly. If this trend continues, it may likely lead to further China-US conflicts. China must send a signal of willingness to cooperate. Also, after four years of struggle, we have realized that some US politicians and elites dangerously lack a bottom line awareness. China needs to explain these bottom line points clearly to the US. After all, today's China is different from that in the past. Today, we have more bargaining chips in our hands as well as a stronger ability to deal with unreasonable provocations from the outside world. The author is deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University.

Type 15 lightweight tanks of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) were spotted participating in a recent exercise in a low temperature mountainous plateau region. This type of tank has significant advantages over other types of tanks or armored vehicles in such regions, experts said.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Xinjiang Military Command recently received delivery of and commissioned its first batch of China's newly developed Type 15 light tanks, which excels at rapid reaction combat in plateau regions, a Chinese expert said on Monday. With the commissioning, both Xinjiang and Tibet military commands safeguarding China's western borders are now operating these advanced tanks specializing in plateau combat, analysts said. In January, a regiment attached to the PLA Xinjiang Military Command received the delivery of a batch of Type 15 light tanks while stationed in a plateau region, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Sunday. Immediately after the commissioning, the regiment sent the tanks to a freezing region at 4,300 meters altitude for adaptation exercises, so they can rapidly form combat capability, CCTV reported. The report did not mention the number of tanks delivered. Compared with the PLA's Type 96 and Type 99 tanks, the Type 15 is of lighter weight, boasts better mobility in high altitude regions with low oxygen levels, and is more suitable for plateau combat, CCTV said. "The Type 15 tank is easy and flexible to operate and has high mobility, as it is equipped with a new engine designed for plateau missions and an oxygen producer. It also uses new armor materials and stealth technologies, so it has reduced weight but better protection and stealth functions," said Zhang Hongjun, a master sergeant class one at the regiment, in the CCTV report. It also has advanced fire control and weapons systems as well as extra battlefield situational awareness capabilities, particularly the ability to identify friends or foes, providing significant convenience to the troops, Zhang said. Since the recent China-India border tensions, Type 15 tanks have been deployed by the PLA Tibet Military Command starting mid-2020, and now the Xinjiang Military Command has also received the advanced tanks, which means both of West China's border military regions now have the tanks, analysts noted. Commissioning plateau-operable Type 15 tanks can significantly boost China's rapid reaction capabilities in high-altitude regions, Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Monday. The Type 15 strikes a balance between fire power, mobility and protection to best suit plateau regions, where harsh environments hinder weapon performances compared with operating in plains, Song said. The latest commissioning also indicated that the Type 15 tanks, which made their debut at the National Day military parade in Beijing in 2019, are being mass produced and commissioned into the PLA at a fast pace, analysts said. A type of wheeled armored ambulance also entered service with the regiment together with the Type 15, and more weapons and equipment suitable for plateau combat are expected to be commissioned in the near future, Lieutenant Colonel Liu Xudong, a deputy commander of the regiment, told CCTV.

In the era when groups of senior thinkers occupied the mainstream of American think tank circles, the US view of China was generally rational and tolerant, defined by frequent dialogues, which I miss very much. The scholar I miss the most is Douglas Paal. Paal used to work in the CIA, and later served as senior director for Asian affairs in the White House during the George H. W. Bush administration, and director of the American Institute in Taiwan. He is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is tall and burly, like Dwayne Johnson, and somewhat awe-inspiring when talking with him - especially for the first time. However, after talking with him for several times, Paal started to give me a different image, that he is elegant and gentle. In 2012, I had a two-hour conversation with him. What impressed me up to now was when he said "huo lu" several times in Chinese, meaning the way of living together. He thought it was the biggest challenge that China and the US would face in the future. This sentence has become a prophecy, and a dilemma that China and the US have to deal with in their competition. From the US' perspective, China's development is ambitious and aggressive, directly threatening the US' global leadership. From China's point of view, the US constantly provokes China, deprives its basic development rights, and curbs the rejuvenation of the nation. The world is worried that the relationship between the two countries seems to be one step away from the state of "life and death." The "Paal Dilemma" seems to have emerged. Is it possible that only one of the two countries can survive at last? Now there are four realities China and the US must face. First, neither China nor the US can contain one another's self-evolution. There is no way for the US to curb China's development. China should also pay attention to US anxiety. Second, what Trump left are negative assets. If the two countries want to move forward, they must discard Trump's legacy. After US President Joe Biden assumed office, he called most leaders of the G20 countries, but not China. This is probably because of Trump's poisonous influence. Trump should not become the obstacle for bilateral ties. Third, if China and the US continue to battle each other ferociously, the two and the rest of the world will suffer. In the past four years, no country in the world has chosen either Washington or Beijing. This fully demonstrates that the international community hopes for normalized development with China-US relations. Also, John Kerry's role as US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate is very important so the two countries can address climate change to benefit humanity. Fourth, both China and the US have strengths that each can learn from. For China, the technological innovation and financial development of the US are worth learning from. For the US, China's policy of "targeted poverty alleviation" and infrastructure development hold many valuable lessons. In the US, the disparity between the rich and the poor is increasing, society is becoming more divided, and racial conflicts as well as partisan rivalry are also intensifying. The Biden administration needs to do its utmost to solve its domestic problems, and suppressing China will not help solve the US' problems. China is facing problems too, such as the gap between the rich and the poor, north and south disparity, and urban and rural uneven growth. Regarding these, China still needs to consider anti-crisis measures, anti-pollution policies, anti-poverty campaigns, and anti-corruption drives as its main development tasks. Fighting with the US will not help China's development in any way. After Biden assumed office, some think tank scholars I know have joined the US government. In bilateral dialogues among young scholars from China and the US over the years, I have witnessed their wisdom, vitality and academic skills. However, it will take some time to see whether or not they will inherit the manner of American scholars of the last generation, turning US views toward China back on a rational track. The last time I met Paal was in January 2019. He lamented that he and a number of China hands like him were aging, and that future China-US ties will depend on the younger generation. I think the next generation of think tanks must have the ability and wisdom to offer reasonable advice to policymakers, so as to fulfill the missions of helping the two countries escape Paal's forecasted dilemma. The author is professor and executive dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. 

Expansionist and interventionist moves have long been exploited by Western countries to consolidate their dominance across the world. In such ways, countries in the West have stabilized their relatively superior position. But in recent years, particularly since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many problems accumulated for some time in the West have been exposed. There even was an unprecedented political crisis in the US, the leader of the so-called free world. The West hasn't abandoned interventionism, but this clearly can no more stop the West's chronic diseases from worsening. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Friday during a webinar organized by the US Institute of Peace that "right now, the most profound national security challenge facing the United States is getting our own house in order, is domestic renewal." The same day, the British newspaper The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins called on the UK government to focus on addressing its own business rather than on China's affairs related to Xinjiang or Hong Kong. Jenkins wrote, "Sovereign countries change not from without but from within." Creating and using external contradictions and problems to divert internal attention is a tactic often used by Western countries, but now this trick seems difficult to work. The cruel reality of declining Western influence shows that the health and vitality of society and political solidarity in a country directly affect the stability of the country and its international image. It is painful for Western elites to admit this. But they have to face the reality as their countries' problems are too severe to be neglected. If they are still reluctant to introspect while keen on interfering in others' internal affairs, it will be no help in addressing their own problems. Nonetheless, the West may be reluctant to give up their old interventionist approach. Li Haidong, a professor at Institute of International Relations, China Foreign Affairs University, noted on Monday, "The essence of those remarks are to assure the US and the West's leading position and dominance in international affairs. They eye power competition and sustaining their leadership." Interfering in the outside world and reshaping the politics and values of other countries are always the goals of the US, as well as the means for the West to maintain its dominant position. Driven by political interests, Western elites can hardly make wise choices that are responsible for their own country and  people. Li believes that the root of the difficulty for Western elites to fundamentally reflect on themselves lies in their belief that: "If interventionism is abandoned, then the US will not be the US anymore, and the West will hardly be the West it used to be." However, as the West has wrought havoc around the world, it has also set a fire within itself. Such chaos does no good to any country. The world's peace, stability, prosperity, and development are the common interests of all countries, including Western countries. Today, the West, which is keen on inciting chaos in other countries, is increasingly engulfed by chaos from within. Solving its predicament needs long term stability and development. While the West often disrupts the development of other countries, it squanders its own resources and capital necessary for its own development. It is time for the West to stop its engagement in interventionism and let the world focus on development.

A World Transformed: Reflections on the International System, China and Global Development

Editor's Note: In his book "A World Transformed: Reflections on the International System, China and Global Development," former president of Slovenia Danilo Türk discusses how to better deal with global challenges amid great changes that are engulfing the world. What can be done to move international cooperation across all sectors to new levels of performance? What role can China play? To address these questions and more, the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China hosted a Webinar themed on "China and the world at the time of great change" Saturday. It also launched the Chinese edition of Türk's book. Below is part of Türk's talk at the webinar, as well as remarks by other key speakers. Danilo Türk, former president of Slovenia My book consists of a number of reflections developed in the period of the past decade. I have selected and organized them with an aim to present the picture of my thinking on the key issues of the international system - and to present them in a structured manner, as coherently as possible. They are organized in three parts: The international system, China and global development. The first part deals with the changes in the international system in the past decades when the world has moved away from a short unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era. A new multipolar world has arisen in that period. The multipolarity of our era is different from the multipolar systems of the past. It is not limited to the multipolarity of power, a basic feature of any multipolarity. The world is experiencing the co-evolution and competition of different models of development and of modernity. This competition does not have to be violent. So far it has been mainly peaceful. It could, and, indeed, should be based on mutual respect among different models of development and can be developed further in a peaceful and productive manner. The rise of China is a central element in this picture. The rise of China has been peaceful and has represented a major contribution to global progress in the past decades. It has eliminated extreme poverty in China and has contributed to global growth and to the realization of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. And, importantly, the global strategic balance has been largely maintained. So, overall, the rise of China has been and continues to be a positive global phenomenon. China was transformed in this process and has become a major power in terms of economy, trade and technology. The Belt and Road Initiative offers new opportunities for partnership with the world. At the same time, new priorities have emerged. The world has to come together if it wants to prevent a planetary disaster caused by global warming. The key challenges today are therefore in the way the world will manage global development. The role of China will be critically important. It is impossible to imagine an effective global strategy to curb global warming without an active participation of China. Such a strategy will, in turn, require an effective system of multilateral institutions and reforms of the existing ones. The United Nations system has to be strengthened and empowered - politically and financially - to play a leading role. The World Trade Organization has to be reformed so as to manage global trade flows better. These, ladies and gentlemen, are the main lines of narrative in the book we are launching today. I understand, with humility, that academics and policymakers in every part of the world are attentively considering the issues discussed in this book. This global discussion, to which my book attempts to give a small contribution, will continue. So, let me use this opportunity to propose four questions that require further study, both in the academic world and among policymakers. 1. A proper historical perspective of the current transformations; 2. The basic question of war and peace; 3. The understanding of the fundamental importance of the rule of law; 4. The vital need for innovation. First, a few remarks on the historical perspective. The rise of China and the consequent effects on the global economic and political development has surprised many. In the past decades China has emerged and has become accepted as "the factory of the world." Much less attention has been paid to its rapid technological development, its competitiveness and its financial clout. Some commentators still have a difficulty to recognise that China is no longer only a "rule-taker" in the world but is increasingly becoming one of the "rule-makers," a natural consequence of the exponential growth of its weight and importance. This calls for attention to history and a better understanding of it. In my book I mention the importance of the restitution of objects of art that were taken illegally from China in the past centuries. Restitution of these antique objects of art is of great symbolic importance. It is a necessary aspect of recognition of past injustices that have to be remedied and of a new era in which cooperation must be based on mutual respect, equality and mutual advantage. The era of colonial domination is long over, and a new era of cooperation and competition has already begun. The role of the part of the world that is sometimes condescendingly described as the "global periphery" or "Global South" has changed. Its role will continue to grow. The rise of Asia, and China in particular, is the clearest expression of this change. It is important to understand the long flow of history in order to accurately assess the nature of the current transformation of the world and the growing importance of the Global South. For China, with the five millennia of development of its civilization, it is not difficult to understand that. In Europe, and in the West more generally, we have to take advantage of the work of our historians - such as the French historian Fernand Braudel, who taught us about the long-term historical time (histoire de la longue durée), an approach that draws conclusions from historical patterns through analysis of vast time periods. Imbalances from the colonial and immediate post colonial periods will not last. Today, both the art of statecraft and the art of management of international relations require finding the right balance among existing and emerging historical drivers, so that the future will be better for all. This brings me to my second question, to the basic question of war and peace. Preservation of peace is the basic requirement of wise policymaking and of the statecraft of our era. At the time of writing of the essays that make up my book, much of the international discussion focused on the relationships between China as the rising power of our era and the United States of America as the leading established power. Can the competition between a rising and an established power lead to peaceful co-evolution and co-existence or does it necessarily end in conflict and war? This question was described as the challenge of avoiding the "Thucydides trap" a term coined by the American political scientist Graham Allison. Remarkably, Allison himself makes a strong emphasis on the moral obligation to "steer away from the Thucydides trap." Indeed, decision-makers would be well advised to "steer away from the Thucydides trap." This is a strong moral base requiring clear political choices. Wars are never inevitable. Wars start as a matter of choice. Every effort needs to be made to prevent the choice of war. This requires a clear and long-term commitment to peaceful management of relations among the main powers and a whole range of preventive instruments to be put in place. These instruments have to enable an accurate understanding of intentions and capabilities of the relevant political players, a mature and sophisticated communication among the key decision-makers and a sound code of conduct that enables prevention of incidents that could, if mishandled or unaddressed, lead to a large-scale armed conflict. For example: This is why the current efforts to develop a code of conduct for the navigation and other activities in the South China Sea are so important. Rules matter and observance of rules - carefully prepared and freely entered into - is a basic requirement of peace and development. Therefore, my third point relates to the importance of the rule of law. Both in the West and in China we have a long history of learning the importance of the rule of law. In Europe, the concepts of Roman law, developed more than two millennia ago represent the continued basis for improvement of the rule of law and its adaptation to the modern needs. In China, the philosopher Han Fei developed the fundamental concepts of law roughly at the same time when Roman law started to gain shape in Europe. Naturally, we must be careful to learn the lessons of history with a proper understanding of the historical context in which different phenomena, including the legal concepts, have emerged. But equally important, we have to understand the need to apply them in accordance with the needs of our, modern era and to develop new legal principles and norms when needed. Today, we cannot fail to see the importance of the rule of law for each society, for the international community as a whole and for the management of relations among states. Today, the notion of the rule of law represents an essential basis for management of relations between China and its partners in all regions of the world. Just a few weeks ago, China and the European Union have concluded a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. This agreement provides a good legal basis for a new level of their cooperation in the future. Moreover, the notion of the rule of law is fundamental to a whole range of interactions among states. Some of these interactions are mainly transactional - such as, for example, the mentioned agreement on investment. Other interactions among states are conceptual - such as, for example, the international treaties on human rights that China and European and other states have ratified and are now a matter of implementation in their respective territories. These treaties and their implementation contribute to development and well-being of people as well as to trust and confidence among states. Finally, a few words of the need to innovate and on the importance of innovation in politics and in law. Our era has been characterized by rapid development of technology such as those in the fields of communications, artificial intelligence neuroscience and others. The transformative effects of these innovations have been reflected in the economy and require innovations in policy and law as well. The ongoing Belt and Road Initiative is a good example of innovation in policy with a positive potential for the world. Important lessons have already been learned in its implementation. They include the realisation that the projects constituting the BRI are demand-driven, environmentally sustainable and culturally sensitive. But there is space for additional innovation. The core idea of the BRI is connectivity - and connectivity is applicable in different domains. At present, the "health silk road" and the "green silk road" - both announced in general terms in recent past - require further elaboration and innovative approaches to their realisation. In the field of international trade, innovative solutions will have to be proposed and negotiated within the World Trade Organisation. They will have to address such familiar topics as state subsidies and trade related intellectual property rights in innovative ways. And, last but not least, the problems of the "social clause" in trade and investment agreement will have to be revisited and innovative solutions found in order to better protect workers and the well-being of people more generally. This book is being launched at the time of the greatest global health crisis in centuries. The economic and social consequences of the health crisis are only starting to be felt. The world is experiencing serious difficulties in the efforts to overcome the accumulated problems. This is a time for the world to join forces and move international cooperation to new levels. In other words, this is the time for a world transformed. Bertie Ahern, former Prime Minister of Ireland Pursuing shared benefits through cooperation and consultation is a fundamental principle. The global governance system must be built by all countries. No country should pursue selfish interest or seek unilateral dominance. It is important to increase the voice and representation of developing countries, ensure that countries enjoy rights and opportunities while being bound by rules on an equal footing, and different countries, classes and groups can share the dividends of global governance. Safeguarding international rules and order is the cornerstone. Relations among countries and their interests should only be regulated by mechanisms and rules. Sovereign equality, non-interference in domestic affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes and other basic norms of international relations should be respected. All must oppose hegemonism and power politics, reject unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction, and jointly uphold international fairness and justice. Commitment to openness and connectivity is the right direction. To address deficiencies in global economic governance requires discarding all forms of protectionism, safeguarding the WTO-centered multilateral trading system, increasing trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and enhancing openness and connectivity for mutual benefits. Forging a sense of a community with a shared future provides the right guidance forward. Countries must discard ideological biases, and transcend ethnic and cultural differences, uphold the values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom shared by all of us, and jointly look after our home planet and make it better. Alenka Suhadolnik, Slovenia's Ambassador to China In the long flow of history, there has always been a competition between rising and established powers. The pandemic has additionally accentuated the existing frictions and created the new ones - and the right balance among existing and emerging historical drivers has yet to be found. The strategic choices that the US, China, the European Union and others make will shape the evolving global order. Ideally, this competition would take place within an agreed multilateral framework of rules and norms similar to those that govern UN and the WTO. It is natural for powers to compete. However, it is their capacity for cooperation that is the true test of statecraft. Liu Wei, president of Renmin University of China Currently, COVID-19 is still ravaging through the world, imposing huge impacts on the world's political and economic layouts. Meanwhile, China is standing at a new starting point for building a modernized socialist nation, so we are in dire need for the insights and wisdom from world-class think tank scholars, including Türk, on how to understand a world transformed, as well as China in this new era. Yue Yanghua, secretary general of Silk Road Think Tank Association Türk has been adhering to the multilateral stance. Based on this, he has comprehensively taken into consideration the factors such as global elements, regional issues, as well as appeals of countries and different peoples, and thus made prospective studies of world development trends. He shared his insights about how to deal with risks and challenges, providing pragmatic suggestions for China and the world in terms of sharing prosperity and security. Türk's words are really touching as they reflect a strong spirit of internationalism and humanistic feelings. We are facing unprecedented global changes, which bring brand new common opportunities of development for humanity as well as fresh uncertainties and instabilities. People like Türk are urgently needed on the right side of history to explore a brighter tomorrow for a community with a shared future for mankind. Essam Sharaf, former Prime Minister of Egypt Our world is facing unprecedented challenges that threaten rule-based global governance and the multilateralism mechanisms. I believe that this book provides vital information on the current international system and how it is changing, and the significant role of China in this suspect. The book also includes a very important section on the Belt and Road Initiative, which is considered as the main mechanism for boosting international cooperation. And finally, the book title and the outstanding caliber of the author make me sure that the book is a valuable addition to the state of the art. Peter Koenig, former World Bank economist China will continue to vouch for strong macroeconomic growth - and pledge assistance for those that are suffering the most during this pandemic-induced crisis - in view of a balanced development of all countries. There is no place in this world for large countries dominating smaller ones, or for economic threatening and sanctions, nor for economic isolation. China is pursuing a global free trade economy. But - and this is important - when one talks of "globalism" - respect for political and fiscal sovereignty of nations, must be maintained. Wang Wen, Executive Dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China The book brings Türk's new thinking on global development with positive insights for readers to deepen their understanding of the international system and China. Dominique de Villepin, former prime minister of France We often formulate our vision based on short-term judgments, but we should develop a long-term perspective based on global situation and history. Facing increasingly serious problems such as clashes of civilization, anti-globalization trend, and climate change, the international community needs to make more joint efforts to find solutions.

Police try to stop local residents as they clash with farmers who continue their protest against the central government's recent agricultural reforms blocking a highway at the Delhi-Haryana state border in Singhu, India on Friday. Photo: AFP

How can a country improve people's livelihood and properly deal with the public opinion while developing the economy and advancing reforms? How to reach a balance between fairness and efficiency? Indian farmers' protests over the past few months have shown that these questions are common issues in maintaining social stability. Farmers' protests are still going on in India. In response, the Indian government suspended mobile internet services in several areas around New Delhi where the farmers are protesting new agricultural laws. The Indian government said the internet shutdown would continue until Sunday night to "maintain public safety." New Delhi is well aware of the lessons from over a decade of unrest: from the 2010 Tunisia street demonstrations which triggered the turbulent situation in West Asia and North Africa, to the street protests in Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and the US in 2020. These were all exacerbated by mixed factors of online media, domestic economy and social governance that became time bombs detonating social crises. With additional destabilizing facets, there will be a higher probability of crises and the damage will be more serious. Therefore, as the Indian farmers' protests intensify, the Modi administration had chosen to suspend the internet and strengthen network media control in order to prevent the protests from affecting social stability and impacting the foundation of governance. The Indian government has repeatedly used internet shutdowns to control protests. In 2019, the internet was shut down for about 100 times in India. Like the recent protests in many countries, farmers' protests in India are also mainly organized through social media. But such frequent network shutdowns show that the Modi administration does not have too many ways to deal with such crises. All it can do is simply shut the internet down. The Modi administration believes that the new agricultural laws benefit the country and the people. The laws allow farmers to directly sell agricultural products and other crops to the private sector. This supposedly reduces the intermediate links of food circulation, and improves India's agricultural production through the market, ultimately improving farmers' livelihood. But the Indian farmers don't see it this way. In addition to the Indian government's lack of soliciting opinions on the laws, there are two other reasons why the farmers are strongly protesting against the laws. One reason is the encouragement behind the curtain by some agricultural commodities brokers who have been chartered by the Indian government. These brokers were worried about their positions and interests and thus colluded with each other to form special interest groups. The other reason is the push from opposition parties in India, which have aimed to take advantage of the event to blow a strike to the Modi administration. Relying on its majority in parliament, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party quickly passed the farm bills by voice vote disregarding the oppositions' appeal for further discussion. This has become an excuse by the opposition groups to attack the Modi administration, accusing it of acting against farmers and democracy. The farm bills can be viewed as a continuation of Modi's measures of economic and social development. These are defined with tough politics and high stakes publicity. But the protesters won't concede easily to Modi's strong-arm tactics, and the crisis will not be settled in a short time. Previous cases demonstrate that India's development doesn't necessarily benefit basic-level Indian people. Agriculture in India is dominated by small-scale farms, 80 percent of which have less than 2 hectares of land. It is difficult to achieve economies of scale with futures like this. Moreover, agricultural facilities including logistics and storage in rural areas are severely underdeveloped. In this context, farmers find it hard to avoid being exploited by ruthless brokers. From this perspective, given India's long-term development, it is somewhat biased to plainly accuse Modi of ignoring farmers' interests. Simultaneously assuring fairness and efficiency is fundamental for a country to maintain social stability while it develops its economy, promote reforms, and properly addresses people's livelihood demands. This is what the protests triggered by the farm bills in India have demonstrated. And this is a world-class puzzle. Given the complexity of India's political system, multiparty politics, and religious features, even seemingly simple reforms often affect the whole country. Even a political strongman like Modi is having his hands tied. He is being forced to stop while trying to solve long-term economic and social knots. The author is director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University.

What will happen to Europe? Will it continue with a broadly pro-American orientation, or will it pursue an increasingly independent position?

Either way, the consequences will be far-reaching. At the heart of the West lie the US and Europe. If Europe seeks a more autonomous role, then the West will be seriously weakened. The end of the Cold War marked a major moment in US-Europe relations. Europe was no longer dependent on the US for its defense and ever since, slowly but remorselessly, a growing distance has opened up between them. This was accelerated by two key events ̶ the US invasion of Iraq, opposed by most Europeans, and the Donald Trump phenomenon, which most Europeans found beyond the pale. President Joe Biden wants to mend the fences and return to something closer to the pre-Trump relationship. He may have some success because, unlike Trump, Biden will seek to befriend rather than castigate Europe. But there will be no simple return to the pre-Trump era: too much has happened, too much has changed. A recent opinion poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations across 11 European countries reveals what can only be described as a sea-change in European attitudes in the post-Trump era. Six in 10 Europeans believe that the US political system is broken and that China will become a stronger power than the US in the next10 years. A majority now want their country to remain neutral in any conflict between the US and China. A majority of Germans believe that, after voting for Trump in 2016, Americans can no longer be trusted; across Europe likewise more people agreed than disagreed with this statement. The survey grouped the respondents into four categories. The smallest, 9 percent of the total, believed that the EU was broken and the US would bounce back. A second group, around 20 percent of the total, believed that both the US and the EU would continue to thrive. A third group, 29 percent of the total, thought that both the US and the EU were broken and declining. A fourth group, 35 percent of the total, believed that the EU was healthy, but the US was broken. The latter two groups, almost two-thirds of the total, expected that the US would soon be displaced by China. There has clearly been a profound shift in European attitudes consequent upon the decline of the West since the 2008 financial crisis, the Trump presidency and the rise of China. These, we must remind ourselves, are very recent developments which have happened with remarkable speed. Far from reinforcing the Atlantic alliance and the relationship with the US, their main impact on Europeans has been to weaken those bonds, elicit a growing acknowledgement that the world has changed profoundly and foster a belief that Europe needs to be more independent. Of course, these trends are still young and fluid. Many conflicting forces are at work with attitudes ebbing and flowing both within and between countries. Criticism of China has grown apace in the recent period in Europe, as it has in the US. But there is one fundamental difference. While the US is bent on defending its global primacy, Europe long ago abandoned any such pretensions, thereby greatly reducing the sources of friction and animosity between it and China in comparison with the US. The survey reveals that by far the dominant trend is toward a more independent-minded Europe, a growing skepticism about the US and a sign of recognition that China will soon become the dominant power in the world. The European leader who most symbolizes this outlook, and has pioneered this way of thinking, is German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The recently agreed EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, very much in Merkel's image, is a powerful demonstration of the EU's willingness to pursue its own independent relationship with China rather than following the Americans. The trend toward a growing distance between Europe and the US will be slow, tortuous, conflict-riddled, and painful. Europe has looked westward across the Atlantic ever since Christopher Columbus. It was European settlers who colonized Northeast America and subsequently established the US. The latter was a European creation which over time was to outperform its ancestral continent. If Europe colonized much of the world, the post-1945 world order was a Western creation, with the US the dominant partner and Europe very much a junior partner. In sum, an enormous historical, intellectual, political and cultural hinterland binds the US and Europe together. But we are now in new territory. American decline means that it has increasingly less to offer Europe. The gravitational pull of China, and Asia more generally, is drawing Europe eastward. Nothing illustrates this phenomenon better than the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative. Slowly but surely, bit by bit, Europe is becoming more and more involved ̶ first the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, then Portugal, Greece and Italy, and others over time will in all likelihood follow. What drew Europe westward is now drawing it eastward: the centre of gravity of the global economy, once in the west, is now in the east. 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.

Furthermore, the London-based Spectator magazine recently reported the UK is poised to join the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), an informal security grouping of the US, Japan, Australia and India. UK government insiders have not denied this. As the world is undergoing a strategic realignment after the power transfer in the US, whether the UK will participate in the Quad has drawn world-wide attention.Unlike Paris and Berlin, London has never announced an Indo-Pacific strategy. Yet the fact is that the UK has tended to tilt toward this region. Just as the UK-based think tank the Policy Exchange said, there are some narratives on Britain's assumed post-Brexit irrelevance. Still regarding itself as "Great Britain," the UK is reluctant to see itself neglected by the international community and wants to play a bigger role in international affairs and revitalize its dominance. With Brexit, tensions between the UK and the EU have mounted, which would constrain the former's meddling with European affairs. Meanwhile, the UK's post-Brexit era takes place at a time when the rising China in terms of military, economy and diplomacy has become a global focus, Asia has huge potential in economic development, and the Indo-Pacific region has become a geopolitical hotspot. In this context, the UK will not miss the opportunity to prove its presence and display its status as a "great power" by pushing anti-China rhetoric and moves and interfering in Indo-Pacific affairs. However, Britain no longer has its empire on which the sun never sets. Its might has not been strong enough to achieve its ambitions. Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told the Global Times on Sunday that if the UK joins the Quad, it may exploit its influence on Australia and India to mediate their divergences and contradictions with the US and Japan, and trigger other European countries' interests and focus on the group. Aside from that, as a force outside the region, London's role would be limited. Not to mention the US and Japan, the UK's economy is projected to be overtaken by India in 2025. If it joins the Quad, the UK's economy will be further dragged down. John Ross, former director of Economic and Business Policy for the Mayor of London, in 2019 published an article titled "Brexit explains why Britain has played such a provocative role in Hong Kong," on China-based media guancha.cn. He said, "Given the forces which [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson rests on, his policy is of even greater subordination of Britain to the US. His policy might be summarized as… that Britain should act like the equivalent of the 51st state of the US except that it would not have the right to vote in US elections." The decline of the US is an indisputable fact. Washington is already overwhelmed by  the need to bridge domestic divisions and restore its global influence, and it is an unreliable partner to help London recover its strengths. Britain needs to think twice before making any decision to follow the US' lead in dealing with China.

US diplomat George F. Kennan's 8,000-word "Long Telegram" from Moscow in February 1946 was the basis for the US containment strategy toward the former Soviet Union for the duration of the Cold War. Now 75 years later, a "Longer Telegram" was released by the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council that aims to give suggestions for the new US administration's China strategy. Not surprisingly, the report, written by an anonymous "former senior government official with deep expertise and experience dealing with China," identifies China's rise as "the single most important challenge facing the United States and the democratic world in the 21st century." It aims to press China to "operate within the existing US-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order." The report's malicious attack on China and its attempt to alter China's system are full of Cold War thinking. The anonymous report is trying to create a Cold War atmosphere between China and the US by exploiting the existing ideological frictions between the two and the consensus in Washington regarding China. So far, the report has not generated much enthusiasm, which shows that there are people in the US that go against the idea of pushing China-US relations into a Cold War-like rivalry that existed between the US and the Soviet Union. Since US President Joe Biden took office, his team has sent some hard-line messages toward China. During a video conference on Friday, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Trump-era national security adviser Robert O'Brien and Bush-era Condoleezza Rice all showed their tough attitude toward China. Sullivan said one of the best ways to push back against China is to set a good example. Two considerations are behind the Biden administration's diplomatic posture regarding China. First, Biden's foreign policy, including his China policy, has not yet formed. Taken into account the domestic political climate, especially the bipartisan consensus on China, if Biden takes a less tough attitude toward China, he might be accused by the Republicans as being weak. By positioning himself as tough during the early days of his tenure, Biden could have more bargaining chips in future negotiations with China. If Biden and his team adopt a relatively soft tone, they fear that they might be viewed as subject to China. Are current tough words on China from the Biden team a trend that will be followed by the Biden administration? Biden will stress more on strengthening alliances to counter China's influence. In terms of competition with China in the tech sector, the US is likely to continue its previous policy. What is uncertain is domestic opinion on China and interactivity between China and the US. During the first year of Biden's presidency, positive interaction with China or worsening frictions could impact the Biden administration's China policy. Judging from the professional way Biden chose his team, the Trump-era's impulsive, reckless and haphazard policies are not expected to remain. This makes Biden's policy more predictable, although it does not necessarily mean his stance toward China will be more conciliatory. This can reduce strategic miscalculations between the two sides and stop the two from heading toward a military clash. Policy predictability serves the role of the bumper. Yet, if Biden takes a tougher position to deter China and increase China's costs of responding to the US, it may add to the challenges China faces in dealing with the US. This requires China to craft a comprehensive policy toward the US, take precautionary measures and send a clear signal to the US about its bottom line. Biden will try every possible way to shake off Trump's influence on US foreign policy, even though the former president is still active. Trump is expected to keep an eye on Biden's foreign policy, including that on China. He may launch some media campaigns and organize some political gatherings with his supporters to pressure Biden. But his clout is now limited. The author is an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.

Not surprisingly, the report, written by an anonymous "former senior government official with deep expertise and experience dealing with China," identifies China's rise as "the single most important challenge facing the United States and the democratic world in the 21st century." It aims to press China to "operate within the existing US-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order." The report's malicious attack on China and its attempt to alter China's system are full of Cold War thinking. The anonymous report is trying to create a Cold War atmosphere between China and the US by exploiting the existing ideological frictions between the two and the consensus in Washington regarding China. So far, the report has not generated much enthusiasm, which shows that there are people in the US that go against the idea of pushing China-US relations into a Cold War-like rivalry that existed between the US and the Soviet Union. Since US President Joe Biden took office, his team has sent some hard-line messages toward China. During a video conference on Friday, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Trump-era national security adviser Robert O'Brien and Bush-era Condoleezza Rice all showed their tough attitude toward China. Sullivan said one of the best ways to push back against China is to set a good example. Two considerations are behind the Biden administration's diplomatic posture regarding China. First, Biden's foreign policy, including his China policy, has not yet formed. Taken into account the domestic political climate, especially the bipartisan consensus on China, if Biden takes a less tough attitude toward China, he might be accused by the Republicans as being weak. By positioning himself as tough during the early days of his tenure, Biden could have more bargaining chips in future negotiations with China. If Biden and his team adopt a relatively soft tone, they fear that they might be viewed as subject to China. Are current tough words on China from the Biden team a trend that will be followed by the Biden administration? Biden will stress more on strengthening alliances to counter China's influence. In terms of competition with China in the tech sector, the US is likely to continue its previous policy. What is uncertain is domestic opinion on China and interactivity between China and the US. During the first year of Biden's presidency, positive interaction with China or worsening frictions could impact the Biden administration's China policy. Judging from the professional way Biden chose his team, the Trump-era's impulsive, reckless and haphazard policies are not expected to remain. This makes Biden's policy more predictable, although it does not necessarily mean his stance toward China will be more conciliatory. This can reduce strategic miscalculations between the two sides and stop the two from heading toward a military clash. Policy predictability serves the role of the bumper. Yet, if Biden takes a tougher position to deter China and increase China's costs of responding to the US, it may add to the challenges China faces in dealing with the US. This requires China to craft a comprehensive policy toward the US, take precautionary measures and send a clear signal to the US about its bottom line. Biden will try every possible way to shake off Trump's influence on US foreign policy, even though the former president is still active. Trump is expected to keep an eye on Biden's foreign policy, including that on China. He may launch some media campaigns and organize some political gatherings with his supporters to pressure Biden. But his clout is now limited. The author is an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies. 

A few days ago, I said on social networks that if our country hands out money to everybody, it means it doesn't send out money at all. I oppose such a national stimulus plan during the epidemic. I encountered some objections online. But I stick to my opinion. I oppose our country learning from the US and handing out cash to all people. I believe our government won't do that. The US stimulus plan had something to do with the political climate during the election. Meanwhile, by doing so, the US was asking the world to pay for it, because the dollar is a world currency actually. A few financially rich countries would send out cash to their citizens. They are mainly small economies including northern European countries and those with plenty of petrocurrency. Most countries wouldn't do that. China's finances are not as enough as to the extent of handing out cash to all its people. Imagine, if the government gives each one 1,000 yuan ($155.6), it is 1.4 trillion yuan which the government cannot bear. If that happens, it will increase the deficit, and it is the people that will have to foot the bill. During an epidemic, handing out money serves two purposes - helping the impoverished and stimulating consumption. China has a strong network of social organizations. It should make best use of it and put in the limited money precisely to areas that could serve the two objectives and increase efficiency. Giving each person the same amount of money is a waste of China's social organization network and is simply a lazy policy. For instance, if the country wants to alleviate poverty, it shouldn't hand out money to everybody. It is not difficult to figure out where and what places people need help more. If so, the money should be precisely given to them. If the rich and the poor both get 1,000 yuan, I don't think it is fair. There are other efficient ways to stimulate consumption, for example, Beijing issued various vouchers last year, which are available to everyone in Beijing. It actually means the government offers you a discount when you make a purchase. These vouchers can be used when dining in restaurants, or buying electronics, which can help save as much as 800 yuan when buying electronics. They can produce immediate and accurate effects on boosting consumption so that the money invested will have a corresponding effect. I think it is a much smarter method than handing out cash equally among all residents. This year, different places in China have rolled out different schemes. For example, Yiwu, in East China's Zhejiang Province, gives people who stay locally for Spring Festival consumption vouchers and cancels parking fees for all parking lots during Spring Festival holidays. Hangzhou gives migrant workers who stay in the city for the holidays a cash bonus. These two cities are among China's richest cities, but they don't hand out cash to everybody. This says a lot. It's good to have a debate on this issue as long as we have a serious attitude. However, some people probably just want to use the US' plan handing out cash to everybody to prove how the US does a better job than China, who doesn't have a similar plan. But is it fair or not to give homeless people and Bill Gates equally $2,000? Supporters of this like to dodge such a question. The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times.

At the beginning of 2021, an extraordinary phenomenon debuted on Wall Street. Individual investors, who are often called "dumb money" in the stock market by US analysts, united and pushed up the shares of some small companies, challenging the 1 percent in the country. Yet, it ended up with relevant trading being restricted, again showing the rules of the game are controlled by the tight grasp of US elites. The episode reflects a chronic illness in the US - rigidity of social classes and the winner-takes-all model. Wall Street giants have strong professional capabilities, yet they are too greedy in the pursuit of profits. They scarcely use their tools to solve problems in the US' national development, focusing instead only on what benefits themselves. As a result, grassroots action finally forged a strong force to stand against them. It has never been a secret that Wall Street serves the elites in the US. Wealthy people entrust their money to seasoned professionals there. One of their practices is short selling, meaning an investor borrows a stock, sells the stock (betting that it will drop in price) and then buys the stock back later for less money. Their targets are usually small or declining companies, such as GameStop, a US videogame and merchandise retailer, which has had poor stock performance in recent years. The American middle class, however, holds a strong nostalgia for GameStop. More importantly, their hatred toward the elites was triggered. In the internet era, the top class can monopolize capital but cannot monopolize information. Retail investors started to gather fragmented information on the complicated rules of the stock market and collectively bought increasing GameStop shares, among other companies. To put it simply, the move pulled the rug from under the feet of some big Wall Street players, or hedge funds, leaving them no room to short sell, or in other words, profit. Due to the increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor, grassroots Americans are seeking change. As their actions in the stock market hurt the interests of elites, the latter ended the game by totally blocking their channel to make money. The result of the US' style of fair competition and a free market is that wealth continues to flow toward people of high capacity while the lost classes keep being marginalized, with their living standards getting worse. It seems to be an outcome of survival of the fittest, but thanks to the government's inaction, an absolutely unfair phenomenon has been shaped. To be honest, people uniting to grab money from elites is not a good way to resolve the puzzle and is surely not a favorable measure for the development of the US stock market and economy. But the people have no other way to fix the problem other than taking matters into their own hands. However, once such an approach is abused, much more dangerous situations may emerge, and the US may not be able to bring it under control. In this regard, the Chinese government has shown its foresight by promoting poverty alleviation, inclusive growth and regional economic development in recent years to address the issue of income inequality. Today, Wall Street stopped the volatility of the stock market by ending some of its trading. But it failed to dig deep to the core enigma in the US economy - the growing gap between rich and poor and the subsequent social inequality. The US is sick, thanks to the winner-takes-all market. Unfortunately, Wall Street may be unlikely to address these issues any time soon, as the Democratic Party, which has recently assumed power, has closer ties to the US capital and elites. A photo has been circulating on the internet. It shows the facade of an exquisite villa, which represents the US stock market, and a pile of ruins behind it, representing the US economy. It explains that US elites make their cakes bigger by borrowing each other's money. Once they fail and have to pay their debts, they will become the ruins. Their greed may one day become their grave. It also provoked a question: Should a country's development be driven by labor, or capital? In a US-style free market, when the 1 percent gets a huge amount of the county's wealth, they do not want to work hard anymore as they are capable of gaining profit easily and quickly by investing in stocks. Over time, more and more people will share the same mentality, believing hard work is not an efficient way to improve their living standards, and they will all want to obtain quick money from paying stock games. The US should sober up - the financial industry is supposed to serve the real economy, rather than battling for cake against it. Only when a stock market crisis comes, and only when the US elites realize the development of the real economy can help withstand the test, could the country see the silver lining of these economic and social issues being fixed. Yet without a sharp decline in US politicians' support rates, they may never face up to the hard truth. The article is compiled by Global Times reporter based on an interview with Sun Lijian, director of the Financial Research Center at Fudan University.

The relationship between China and the United States seems to be very complex and challenging, but in essence it is an issue of perception. And the only way out is to make the right strategic choice. Should a stable, open and strong China be viewed as an opportunity or a challenge for the United States and the rest of the world? This is an issue of perception. The core problem is that the United States has followed the outdated geopolitical theory, the cold-war mentality where one's gain is other's loss, and the zero-sum game in dealing with China-U.S. relations and international relations in general. It has regarded China as its major strategic competitor instead of strategic cooperation partner, which has created a lot of troubles and conflicts to China and itself, and carried out aggressive suppression as well as strategic containment against China. But what are the results of such a policy? Under the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China has made two miracles over the past 40 plus years, namely, sustained rapid economic growth and social stability, and the achievement of poverty alleviation on schedule. One fifth of the world's population has been lifted out of absolute poverty, with no one left behind. In 2020, China was the first to bring the pandemic under control, and its GDP grew by 2.3 percent and the volume of international trade by 1.9 percent. Since 2008, China has contributed about 30 percent to the global economic growth every year, more than the combined figure of all the developed countries, including the United States, Europe and Japan. Without China's reform and opening up and rapid development, many factories of the developed countries would have been closed and more people would have lost their jobs. Some people worry that a strong China will seek hegemony. This argument has no basis in history or in reality. China used to be the most powerful country in the world. In 1820, China accounted for nearly one third of the world's economy. More than 600 years ago, China sent its  navigator Zheng He on seven voyages and visited 37 countries and regions in Asia and Africa. Regrettably, however, only in more than 100 years after 1840, China fell behind and became a victim of foreign aggression, leaving untold sufferings to its people. Therefore, to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and deliver a better life to all the Chinese people have thus become the inevitable trend of Chinese history, the choice of the Chinese people and the aspiration and mission of the CPC. No one can change or stop it. The 5000-year Chinese civilization has made remarkable contribution to the progress of mankind. The essence of the Chinese civilization is treasuring peace and caring for others. Over the past four decades and more, China has achieved rapid development. The key to its success is that China has followed a path of peaceful development, instead of foreign aggression or colonial plunder. China has neither the history of colonization or plunder, nor the DNA of hegemony. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the United States has been pursuing color revolution and containment vis a vis China with endless strategies and means. It has never ceased, yet has never succeeded in its attempts. In the past two years, the Trump administration has breached the bottom line of morality and played with no rules, exerted extreme pressure on China, started a trade war, and tried to "decouple" bilateral science, technology, finance and people-to-people exchanges. This has only resulted in a situation where ASEAN and the European Union have replaced the United States to become China's largest and second largest trading partners respectively. Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did his utmost to force his so-called Western Allies to contain China. But what we have seen is that 140 countries and more than 30 international organizations have signed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) cooperation documents with China. Not long ago, 15 Asian countries signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the China-EU Investment Agreement negotiation has been concluded. And a lot of American key allies got engaged in those partnership. It is only a pity that the United States did not participate. Last year, the FDI in China reached $163 billion, ranking the first in the world, giving a vote of confidence in China's development prospects. British investment in China increased by more than 30 percent year on year. This is the response from countries around the world to the U.S. attempt to contain China. The governing authorities of all countries understand that politics and economy are always two sides of the same coin. Only by realizing economic development can people's livelihood be improved, and consequently, can the authorities win votes and stay in power. Therefore, the difficulty and dilemma in China-U.S. relations are attributable to the wrong perception. It is rooted in the outdated international relations theory that has failed to keep pace with the times. And to break the deadlock and get out of the dilemma, it is imperative for the United Stats to make the right strategic choice and meet each other halfway. Based on a simple but great belief of President Nixon that "there is no reason for China and the United States to be enemies", in 1972, leaders of our two countries started the process of normalizing China-U.S. relations with the handshake across the Pacific Ocean, which later brought enormous benefits to the peoples of both countries and the world at large. Bilateral trade volume has increased by over 250 times since the early days of diplomatic ties. The annual output of U.S. enterprises in China has exceeded $600 billion. China-U.S. economic and trade ties have supported 2.6 million American jobs. President Xi Jinping has underlined China's perception and strategic choice of China-U.S. relations on many occasions, that is, there are a thousand reasons to make the China-U.S. relationship a success, and not a single reason to break it. Win-win cooperation is the best choice for both sides. China is ready to work with the United States to develop a new type of major country relations featuring no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. What is the future of China-U.S. relations? Now the United States has two strategic choices. One is to continue down the old path of zero-sum game where one's gain is the other's loss. Or it can choose to follow a new path of win-win cooperation for common development. The result will be completely different. The old path will lead to endless conflicts and hurt both sides; while the new path will lead to win-win cooperation for common development. I believe that the far-sighted American people from all walks of life will change their perception on China and make the right strategic choice. (The author is President of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries)

Will the US continue to value India as it did? The Indian government would like to believe so. Particularly after newly appointed US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin put his Indian counterpart among the first names on his list of phone calls to make. Since New Delhi has put huge efforts to cozy up to the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, it doesn't want to see them go in vain. With Joe Biden as president, many observers believe that US diplomatic policies may be adjusted. This has worried the Indian government. In this context, the Indian government interprets Austin's Wednesday call as a good omen that Washington will continue to keep New Delhi close by its side. But it remains to be seen what will happen to US-Indian ties in general. During the last Democratic administration, US' preference for India reached new heights. In 2016, the US designated India as a "Major Defense Partner." At that time, India still adhered to maintaining a normal track of friendly cooperation with China, which made it take a more cautious attitude toward the Obama administration's moves to woo it. In sum, India's US policy is largely determined by its China policy. Therefore, during Trump's tenure, especially since 2020, New Delhi changed sharply its attitude toward Washington. Rarely brought up during the past four years, the US-India Major Defense Partnership has been mentioned twice by Austin in just roughly a week - once during his confirmation hearing on January 19, and another with his phone call to Indian Minister of Defense Rajnath Singh. Why was the term suddenly repeated in such a short time? One reason could be that Washington believes that New Delhi has adjusted its former non-alignment policy, something India used to be proud of. The non-alignment policy was once the cornerstone and core of India's diplomacy. But it was basically abandoned after Modi became prime minister in 2014. During the Cold War, India wanted to take a neutral path between the US and the former Soviet Union. Clearly, India is tossing its non-alignment policy aside, no longer taking it seriously at all. Though India hasn't publicly announced that it has abandoned the non-alignment policy, as a spirit and principle, this former diplomatic stance now only exists in name. While the new US administration is reaching out to Modi, this doesn't mean New Delhi will align with Washington. After all, India has to weigh the obligations it has to fulfill in a military alliance. For example, if the US sends troops to countries such as Afghanistan, India will have to do so, just as some US allies in NATO are committed to. This is not what India wants. So for now, New Delhi will be reluctant to join any formal military accord that requires it to send in combat forces to engage hostiles for US-led missions. In the past few years, US-led Western countries lavished praises on India, making the South Asian country overestimate its international role. This has only accelerated during the pandemic. Of course, India's status has not risen in the international community over the past several years. Few take New Delhi's remarks seriously. From this perspective, today's India cannot even be compared with what it was under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-64). Back then, India was quite influential among developing countries. Such appeal has long vanished, even though India's economic and relative security strength has increased. For example, with elevated annual economic growth rates, India retained the position as the world's second-largest arms importer after Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2019. India thus gained the attention of large weapon producers such as Russia, the US and France. But this didn't help India increase its international status. It backfired. Today, India is facing a variety of serious domestic problems with the raging COVID-19 virus and collapsing economy. Since last summer, the Modi administration has shifted domestic attention away from its mismanagement by taking advantage of the chaotic pandemic and border disputes with China to incite nationalist sentiments. But as these internal problems worsen, it is questionable how much longer such tricks will still work on their people. Modi's reluctance to properly address the root causes of its domestic problems while flexing muscles at the China border will only increase India's instability. Seeking assistance from the US won't help either. These cannot pull India out of quagmire. The article was compiled based on an interview with Zhao Gancheng, a research fellow at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.

The Indian government's practices have hindered the improvement of the Indian business environment and the innovative development of related industries. We urge India to immediately correct this discriminatory practice and avoid causing more harm to the relationship, Ji Rong, spokesperson of the Chinese embassy in India said. The remark came after media reported Indian government will permanently ban 59 Chinese apps. The Chinese government has always required Chinese companies to conduct foreign cooperation on the basis of abiding by international rules and local laws and regulations. The Indian government has the responsibility to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of international investors, including Chinese companies, in accordance with WTO rules and market principles, the spokesperson said. China-India economic and trade cooperation is mutual beneficial. We urge India to immediately correct this discriminatory practice and avoid causing more harm to the cooperation between the two sides, Ji said. From last year onward, Indian has used the so-called national security as an excuse for consecutive times to ban mobile applications with Chinese background, and the relevant practices obviously violate market principles and WTO rules, Ji added. India's ministry of electronics and information technology issued an updated notice announcing a permanent a ban on video app TikTok and 58 other Chinese apps in June. Reuters reported on Monday, citing Indian media reports that the government is not satisfied with the response or explanation given by these companies of their position on compliance with privacy and security requirements, as the government released the high-profile notice seven months ago.

Indian farmers attempt to break through a barricade during India's Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi on Tuesday. As the nation celebrated, thousands of farmers drove a convoy of tractors into the Indian capital amid ongoing agricultural protests that have grown into a rebellion and rattled the government. Photo: AFP

At the Delhi Republic Day parade on Tuesday, thousands of Indian farmers protesting the country's agricultural reforms stormed Red Fort in New Delhi. At least one protester died. The protest is believed to be one of the largest in India in recent years, as well as one of the most serious crises the Modi administration has to face. Indian farmers converged on the capital as early as November 2020 demanding that the new agricultural laws be repealed. The Indian government and farm leaders have held more than 10 meetings and the Modi administration has offered to delay the implementation of the new laws by 18 months. This shows that the farmers' protest, supported by Indian landlords, has already had some effect. Agricultural reform has always been regarded as the difficult part of India's economic reform. The Modi administration's economic reform has now encountered a major test. "The root cause of India's farmer protests is the conflict over land. Modi's original intention was to make farmers benefit more from the market, but as the reform involves large commercial groups, and it has become a struggle of interests between the landlords and conglomerates," Liu Zongyi, secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told the Global Times on Wednesday. In recent years, India has been advancing its major power pursuit. However, during this year's Delhi Republic Day parade, as India was displaying its military might to the outside world, Indian farmers were storming New Delhi's Red Fort. The contrast was drastic and ironic. According to China's experience, agricultural reform is indispensable in order to embark on the road to industrialization. Over these years, China has successfully transformed a backward agricultural state into an industrialized country. China has created a large number of employment opportunities in the industrial sector. "However, India is not able to create such opportunities now. There have already been many redundant workers in India, and most of them are poorly educated. If India can create enough employment opportunities in the industrial sector, the country will be able to promote economic development. But India still lacks such an ability," Liu said. The Modi administration is now facing numerous challenges. On the one hand, India needs to deal with various domestic problems, including farmer protests and the COVID-19 infections; on the other hand, the country is confronting China on border issues and also has many disputes with other neighboring countries. While India's internal problems have not been solved, trying to coordinate with the US to suppress China will not help India's development at all. On the contrary, New Delhi will plunge itself deeper and deeper into the quagmire. The Modi administration has not understood these questions properly: Can India create manufacturing and development opportunities by confronting China? New Delhi proudly regards itself as a key member in the Indian Ocean with an important geopolitical role. However, a country's development depends on national strength, not geopolitical and ideological games. India does not really take farmers' interests seriously. Although China has relatively advanced industries, the country still attaches great importance to agricultural issues. The No.1 central government document released at the very beginning of each year has featured agriculture, rural areas and farmers' issues as the country's top priorities for 17 consecutive years since the 21st century. "Compared to China, what the Indian government lacks the most is to truly consider farmers' interests. The Indian government does not really serve the interests of farmers. Instead, it serves only interest groups and the landlords," Liu said. India wants to realize its major power dream, but it is now walking on an illusory path. If the farmers are living a hard life but the country is showing off its military muscle, initiating disputes abroad and not focusing on improving people's livelihood, India will only drift farther and farther away from its dream of becoming a major world power.

Since the border clashes with China in May 2020, India had cited national security as an excuse to ban a total of 267 Chinese apps. These moves clearly violate the market principles and WTO rules, and seriously infringe upon Chinese companies' legitimate interests. It is hoped that India can assure a fair, just, and nondiscriminatory environment for businesses from different countries, including China. Essentially, New Delhi should correct its wrongful moves. For the sake of maintaining the overall beneficial China-India relationship for the sound development of the two countries' economic and trade ties, Beijing has not yet taken any countermeasures against the above-mentioned actions of New Delhi. The Chinese apps on New Delhi's ban list have been in operation in India for years. How could they suddenly begin to impose a security threat to India since 2020 - particularly after the border clashes? Obviously, the rise of anti-China sentiments in India following the clashes is the origin of the alleged threat to its national security. Imitating policies of former US president Donald Trump, New Delhi has been trying to decouple from China economically. In addition to banning Chinese apps, the Indian government also instigated a wave of boycotts against China within India. However, India is not the US. Its moves may harm Chinese companies, but cannot hurt the Chinese economy. India has shot itself in the foot. National security is the highest priority for any sovereign country, which is way more important than economic interests alone. No country would sacrifice its national security for economic benefits. If relevant Chinese apps had jeopardized Indian national security, New Delhi should provide solid evidence to prove its ban has a legal basis. Unfortunately, the Indian side has not yet unveiled any proof in this regard. Venture capital investment from China has promoted Indian internet industry's prosperity in recent years. There is a lot of room for cooperation between the two countries in this field. Some Indians believe these banned apps can be easily replaced by those of its own and of other countries. But if other countries learn from India's approach, the international ecology of the internet industry and the global market environment will be harmed. The worldwide web will become local networks with national border as boundaries. In that case, India's internet industry will hardly be able to succeed abroad. India's unwise move will make Chinese enterprises think twice about the Indian government's ability to really abide by international law. Nor would these firms take India's claims of openness and transparency seriously. Other countries are also taking note of India's bad business behavior. In particular, arbitrarily targeting Chinese enterprises with national security excuses will undoubtedly make Chinese investors more aware of the risks of doing business in India. This will surely lower their willingness to invest in the country. It will also hamper companies in other countries that have close links with China in the industrial chain from making investments in India. The Trump administration launched strategic crackdowns on China and waged a trade war and a tech war to suppress China's high-tech companies. It also attempted to restructure the global industrial chain, urging US and other foreign companies to move out of China. Seeing this as an opportunity, India has swiftly moved closer to the US, with a hope that enterprises that leave China will be transferred to India. The COVID-19 outbreak in China at the beginning of 2020 even made many Indians believe it was the time for India to replace China as the world's factory. But to the great surprise (and disappointment to some extent) of many in the Western world and in India, China has successfully put the epidemic under control while the US and India have become the top two worst-hit countries by the virus in the world in terms of total numbers of infections and deaths. China was the only economy to achieve positive economic growth in 2020, and had attracted the most foreign direct investments, with $163 billion of inflows. In contrast, both the US and India have witnessed negative economic growth. India regards China as a major competitor and its biggest threat. It plans to gain benefits by cooperating with the US in containing China. However, large countries like China and the US, and even India cannot be easily contained or defeated by external forces. Joint containment by the US and India cannot crush China. If India wants to succeed, it should, first of all, do a good job with its domestic reforms and solve its internal problems to improve its own competitiveness. Otherwise, the opportunities lost by any other country can never be transformed into chances for a global Indian success story. 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.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin held phone calls on Sunday with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts. He emphasized the importance of the alliances between the US and the two Asian countries respectively. Although Austin didn't name China in the calls, the US' intentions over China are self-evident.

The Biden administration will likely continue to enhance military input in the Western Pacific region. But the cost will be beyond affordable for the US if it has to sustain the moves all by itself. Therefore, Washington hopes that Tokyo and Seoul can take a more active role to cooperate in this regard and become more aggressive. This will allow the US to take advantage of them to contain China. If so, Washington won't have to spend too much of its own cash. Going forward with the new Biden team, the US will first of all fix the cracks between itself and the two Asian allies. During Donald Trump's tenure, both US-Japan and US-South Korea ties were affected mainly due to the Trump administration's demand to sharply increase Japan and South Korea's duties to host US troops. This friction is still not alleviated. The US' goals now are to establish a trilateral or multilateral military alliance system with Washington at the center. This will permit it to further expand strategic blockades and military containments against its main rival in the Western Pacific region. Biden's military ideas will probably seek to use more of US allies' resources. This will see Washington urgently move to fix ties with Japan and South Korea and tighten their military bonds. The US may even concede in terms of amount of responsibilities to host US troops in exchange for the two countries' cooperation. Washington is willing to see them develop deep-ocean offense abilities to cooperate with the US Navy to ensure it has a greater presence in the Western Pacific region. However, although US-Japan and US-South Korea military alliances will be enhanced, it will be impossible to integrate the two Asian countries into a complete military alliance system. On the one hand, quarrels between Japan and South Korea are worsening. Neither of them will compromise over maritime territorial disputes. On the other hand, Japan and South Korea are reluctant to be fully controlled by the US. They both have their own strategic propositions. Therefore, the best-case scenario for the three countries to cooperate will be a trilateral collaboration with limited sphere of operations. After all, Tokyo and Seoul wish to completely separate military concerns from economic affairs. Economically, they value China and its market and want to get closer to it. In late 2020, Japan and South Korea agreed to make efforts to speed up negotiations on the China-Japan-South Korea free trade agreement. Analysts believe that the three regional countries will boost long-term stability and peaceful development in Northeast Asia through common prosperity. Nonetheless, when it comes to the strategy and security spheres, neither Tokyo nor Seoul can get rid of Washington's control or their reliance on US military might. Due to historical reasons, the US has troops stationed in both countries, and influences their military policymaking. Unbinding these military ties cannot be unilaterally achieved unless Washington wills it. But this won't happen anytime soon. Therefore, the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances will not see an end in the foreseeable future. Washington won't change its containment policies against Beijing. But given the new US government's preference to convince its allies to go to the frontline, the US' fierce actions against China may simmer down. Hence, what the US promised to Japan regarding the East China Sea during Austin's call could be nothing more than simple lip service. However, China must assure its own strategic space in the first place. It needs to constantly increase defense strength, respond forcefully against external provocations and interference, and strengthen its initiative in some surrounding areas - especially sensitive ones such as the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea. China needs to create a friendlier and relatively stable external environment so that the US cannot find soil to easily sow discord. The author is a Beijing-based military analyst.

The COVID-19 crisis in the UK is quite severe now, with unemployment soaring rapidly. Its will to act as an anti-China pioneer in the West does not match its ability given this context. Can it afford this? Shouldn't its focus be at home first? The UK's concept of the so-called D10 group went through the world history of the 20th century. With the essence of Cold War ideology, the concept does not echo either the times or the development trajectory of Eastern and Western cultures. Peace and development are still the themes of the world. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic is ravaging, the international community must find a common way-out and seek mutually beneficial development. Forging new democratic alliances goes against this trend. From another perspective, fundamental changes and imbalance of regional development and security are presenting the world with unprecedented challenges and risks. Since the pandemic, most of the major economies have witnessed serious financial slumps. Against this background, Western countries are stressing a Cold War mentality and demonizing China with ideological tools. Sadly, they are hypnotizing themselves into a false reality. Given the current chaotic situations of Western democratic systems, the D10 club is just an illusionary idea. The social crisis in the US is, in essence, a crisis of its political system. The powerful interest groups have taken near total control of politics, but nobody cares about the national interests and the welfare of ordinary Americans. Low social governance efficiency, inconsistent government policies and increasingly serious problems about people's wellbeing are key words for today's US and UK. An alliance needs a charismatic country and leadership. Neither the US nor the UK fits this condition at present, and going forward looks rather shaky. Some analysts believe that the world is slipping into a new cold war. But the crux is: Is China a country similar to the former Soviet Union? Not by a long shot. China insists on a development path that fits its own situation and never seeks hegemony as its strategic objective. As a responsible major power, China has proposed the concept of building a "community of common destiny for mankind" as its solution for world governance quagmires. China insists on opening up the world economy to lead the healthy development of globalization. It is engaged in expanding the global economy and at the same time ensuring all countries enjoy a share of it on an equal footing. China is conducive to world peace. Objectively speaking, can one succeed in containing China? China is the most important factor in the rapidly evolving realm of international relations. It owns the world's most accomplished industrial production systems and an irreplaceable huge marketplace. The powerful social governance ability of the Chinese government and the national spirit of self-reliance and dedication are a fundamental assurance of China's determination and confidence. As a big and powerful country, China insists on the peaceful development path with the other countries and advocates multilateralism to solve international disputes. Does this go against the interests of democratic countries? By holding a new Cold War-like confrontational mind-set and concealing problems in its own social governance system, the West is only deepening its internal contradictions and social crises. The UK government has an old imperial tradition of playing the role of "commander-in-chief" among Western countries. The West is good at peddling its thoughts and achieving its own strategic interests by taking advantage of other countries. But Chinese diplomacy is ripe day by day, and will not dance by the rhythm of others. Nor will it sit idle when its core interests are impaired. Those who benefit from China but hurt China's interests will pay a heavy price. The author is a scholar at Shanghai International Studies University. 

The Times of India (TOI) whined on Monday in an article entitled, "China starts smear campaign against India's vaccine diplomacy." Under the name of clarifying the so-called smears, the TOI was attempting to prove the Indian vaccine outweighs that of China with a series of other pieces actually defaming Chinese vaccines.The article started by complaining that Global Times raised questions about India's capacity to manufacture vaccines after the fire at the Serum Institute of India (SII), which, according to media reports, is producing more than 50 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine a month. Yet concerns are natural for anyone who has seen thick clouds of smoke billowing from the site, 10 fire tenders rushing to the spot, and news stories that the fire had killed five people. Many Twitter users share the same uneasiness over the fire's influence on SII's vaccine manufacturing capacity. Plus, isn't raising questions one of the main functions of media outlets? Immediately afterward, the TOI began its offense. It argues that "China has had little to offer" to regional countries, in contrast to the Indian effort, then listed the example of Bangladesh, saying China-Bangladesh cooperation over the development of vaccines reached a deadlock since the latter "refused to contribute" relevant costs. In transnational joint clinical trials, it is a common practice for different companies to share the costs. And it is also normal to see disputes during related negotiations. Worse, an insider told Global Times that the China-Bangladesh cooperation was also disturbed due to interference from India. The TOI skirted around those parts, while laying bare its cockiness. It flaunted India's achievement by claiming "Cambodia recently requested India for vaccines despite having received a million doses of Chinese vaccines." It overlooked the fact that an increasing number of countries are purchasing vaccines from different developers to secure sufficient doses for their people. Yet India obviously believes that vaccine procurement is a geopolitical choice. In the end, the article argues Indian vaccines have no "quality concerns" because many countries are buying from New Delhi. The conclusion is well choreographed with its other op-eds, such as one that claimed "Chinese vaccines lack transparency." India does not need to stare at China's response toward Indian vaccines, neither should it be so vexatious to seek the approval from China of India's vaccines. Whether a vaccine is safe and efficient, facts speak louder than words. On January 16, India launched its nationwide COVID-19 vaccination. On the same day, 51 vaccine recipients experienced adverse after effects and one was admitted to the ICU. This was only the situation in New Delhi. As of press time, reports show at least eight people had died across India after they were given vaccines. Not to mention Covaxin - India's first indigenous coronavirus vaccine and was recently given the emergency approval for public use - has not completed Phase-III trials. In July 2020, Science magazine put it bluntly that scientists "scoff" at the goal of the Indian government agency to test and approve its homegrown COVID-19 vaccine at such a high speed. In comparison, not a single death occurred in China for having received cronavirus vaccines. So far, more than 40 countries have asked to import Chinese vaccines. The leaders of more and more countries have received shots of Chinese vaccines in person, including Turkish President Recep Erdogan, Seychelles President Ram Karawang, Jordanian Prime Minister Khasawneh, Indonesian President Joko Widodo and Bahrain Crown Prince and Prime Minister Salman. Serbian President Vucic and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen also expressed their readiness to get vaccinated with Chinese vaccines. If they do not trust Chinese vaccines, would they endorse them by staking their personal reputation and health? When it comes to the transparency of Chinese vaccine research and development, China has its own standard and protocol. Manufacturers are not allowed to publish data without official approval, in an attempt to ensure the process won't be influenced by political or public opinion pressure as the situation in the US. More importantly, since the epidemic on Chinese soil has been reined in, almost all the Phase-III trials of Chinese vaccines are conducted overseas. The process and the publication of data are not under China's control. More ridiculously, India has admitted that it is using vaccines as a diplomatic tool with straightforward headlines on media reports, such as "Can India Offset Chinese Influence Through Its Vaccine Diplomacy?" It is nothing new that India takes China as its imaginary rival in every aspect. It has been holding grudges for not being able to catch up with Chinese investment in Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives. But New Delhi may have suddenly found that it could reinitialize its power and prestige as a South Asian hegemon through its pharmaceutical advantage. "It's a well-crafted, calibrated series of actions you are seeing, they confirm the validity of our 'neighborhood first' policy," former ambassador Rajiv Bhatia said. "This is our moment to shine." India has huge potential for vaccines production. If the country is sincere in devoting itself in the battle against the global public health crisis, it is worth being encouraged. In the face of the pandemic, only unity can boost our efforts to protect and save more lives. But "this issue can afford no place for maligning competition, let alone the so-called rivalry," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian stressed on Monday's regular press conference. India is under pressure of a severe epidemic, inefficient prevention and control measures, and the lack of guarantee over the safety of its own vaccines. At this time, neither defaming Chinese vaccines nor competing with China geopolitically via "vaccine diplomacy" will bring any help to itself, not to mention the world. India's COVID-19 infections have surpassed 10.6 million with more than 153,000 deaths as of press time. The two figures rank second and third across the world, respectively. Quite a few reports, including those from Western countries, noted that India's  infection may have been grossly underestimated. For the moment, curbing its domestic epidemic could be India's important contribution to the world.

Chinese market watchers said India's permanent ban of 59 Chinese apps including TikTok and WeChat is "proof of allegiance" to the US. The comment came after India's ministry of electronics and information technology issued an updated notice announcing a permanent ban on Chinese apps, and the permanent ban will take effect in June. Reuters reported on Monday that the Indian government "was not satisfied" with the responses or explanations given by the Chinese companies on compliance with Indian privacy and security requirements. The Indian government released the high-profile notice seven months ago. "Hence, the ban for these 59 apps is permanent now," the Times of India reported. It said the government notice was issued last week. This is "proof of allegiance" to the US, and it is also an act of irrational revenge following a series of crackdowns on Chinese companies last year, Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times. India is taking revenge on China, and it is also setting a bad example for the world to take revenge on China, Qian said. The move is to satisfy the needs of related interest groups in India by taking a hardline position against China, he said. The ban is a sheer act of discrimination in the guise of national security, Richard Ma, an internet industry practitioner who just returned from working in India, told the Global Times on Tuesday. "What we see is unfair competition in the name of national security. It is an utterly selfish move, and it has significantly infringed upon Chinese companies' normal operations in India," Ma said. "It also takes away the freedom of the Indian people over the use of the apps." The latest move by India came as China and India on Sunday held the ninth round of the Corps Commander Level Meeting, in which both sides agreed to push for an early disengagement of frontline troops and continue to stabilize and control the border situation, China's defense ministry said on Monday. TikTok, WeChat and UC Web declined to comment when reached by the Global Times. Since June last year, the Indian government has taken a series of crackdowns against Chinese apps. On June 29, India banned 59 Chinese apps including TikTok, WeChat and Weibo. In September, India banned 118 Chinese mobile phone apps including Baidu Search. In November, India announced plans to ban 43 Chinese background mobile apps including AliExpress and Dingding. As the ban is set to be implemented in June, Qian said the time gap shows that India is observing the reactions of different sides, but regarding the results of crackdowns last year, there is still a question mark to see if they will be implemented fully. Short video app TikTok remains the second-most popular social media network in India, despite the government banning it last June. According to Digital Trends-India, December 2020 published by SimilarWeb, the China-based app's monthly active users increased 100 percent between December 2018 and October 2020. It has surpassed Facebook-owned Instagram, according to Indian media platform inc42.com on January 20. The Global Times reported in July last year that Indian app users and online influencers were baffled and hurt by the bans of TikTok and WeChat. Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said in November that India used the so-called importance of national security as an excuse to ban mobile apps with a Chinese background, and the practices obviously violate market principles and WTO rules.

Citing an anonymous official, Indian media said a colonel surnamed Babu who died in the conflict with Chinese soldiers in Galwan Valley has been posthumously given the second-highest military award. Five other soldiers were also awarded, The Times of India said.Many Chinese experts pointed out on Monday that despite no significant breakthroughs, there was some positivity shown in the ninth-round meeting. Analysts said that as China continues to send signs of goodwill to help cool things down, India's ceaseless provocative moves would leave an impression to the world and also the Chinese people that they have no intention of resolving the border dispute and maintaining peace and stability along the border. Indian media also claimed on Monday that Chinese and Indian troops engaged in a clash recently that resulted in injuries on both sides, however, such reports proved to be fake. Zhao Gancheng, director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told the Global Times on Tuesday that the epidemic, economic recession and farmer protest embarrassed the Indian government, which hopes to shift domestic attention through anti-China moves. India is also trying to test the bottom line of the US' China policy during the Biden administration, which is very likely to become more moderate, which means the bankruptcy of India's hard-line anti-China approach during the Trump era, Zhao said, noting that India will likely be "diehard until the end." As winter passes, observers say the border face-off is likely to continue, and China needs to be wary of India continuing to stir up trouble in areas other than the Galwan Valley and Pangong Tso Lake, said Zhao. Just a week ago, Indian media hyped China's construction of a village, smearing the construction that they claimed was built in the so-called "Arunachal Pradesh," which China calls South Tibet or Zangnan, within Chinese territory. China's low-profile media reporting and sincerity may give Indian hardliners an illusion that it can do whatever it wants, Zhao said. "China will be ready to strike India's adventurism head-on."

 A recent report in the Hindustan Times claimed that Bangladesh had to turn to India for help as Chinese vaccine producer Sinovac asked the Bangladeshi government to share cost of clinical trials. However, the report is different from what the Global Times has learned, and experts condemned Indian media for hyping what would be normal international cooperation on vaccine development. A Sunday report of the Hindustan Times claimed that Sinovac in October 2020 wanted to sign a contract with the Bangladeshi government to supply the latter with the CoronaVac vaccines developed by Sinovac. The report said Sinovac asked the Bangladeshi government to share the cost of the clinical trials on CoronaVac scheduled in Bangladesh and said that the same condition has been put in other countries where clinical trials had been carried out. Bangladesh refused such a condition and turned to India for free vaccines, the report claimed. However, based on previous reports and some sources, the Global Times learned that the Bangladeshi government had agreed that Sinovac conduct clinical trials on CoronaVac in Bangladesh as early as July and planned to implement the trials since August. At that time, Bangladesh did not need to share the cost. But the clinical trials were delayed until October due to the Indian government allegedly meddling in the two sides' cooperation during the period, according to some sources reached by the Global Times. As of October, Sinovac had kicked off clinical trials in some other countries, such as Brazil and Turkey, and could not find external financial support for the clinical trials in Bangladesh, so the company had to negotiate with the Bangladeshi government about sharing the cost to launch the clinical trials. The company had promised to provide free vaccines to Bangladesh for compensation but was refused, according to what the Global Times has learned. In international cooperative clinical trials, it is normal for partners to share the cost based on negotiations. Usually, vaccine producers will offer to donate vaccines, or transfer some technology or help the partners build production lines as compensation, Feng Duojia, president of the China Vaccine Industry Association, told the Global Times on Tuesday. It is normal for international partners to reach cooperation after reaching agreements, as well as normal for them to cancel cooperation if an agreement is not reached. No one should use this as an excuse to smear any of the partners, Chinese experts said. India has been smearing China's cooperation with countries in South Asia in cooperation on the anti-epidemic fight as the region is traditionally under India's influence, Tian Guangqiang, assistant research fellow with the National Institute of International Strategy at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Tuesday. "India always treats China as a simulated enemy that can affect its influence in South Asia and reduce South Asian countries' reliance on India," Tian explained. From an economic perspective, India probably also wants to monopolize the vaccine market in South Asia, so it would like to see Chinese vaccines step out of the regional market, Tian said.

(The following is the English version of the Editorial carried by the online Global Times with the title "US government's attitude toward China hard to change", pending translation of the Chinese original.)  

When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question Monday about US-China relations, she said that "China is growing more authoritarian at home and more assertive abroad," adding that China "is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts [US] technological edge, and threatens [US] alliances and [US] influence in international organizations." She also noted that Washington is "starting from an approach of patience as it relates to [its] relationship with China."

Psaki's statement shows that the Biden administration's view and characterization of China is virtually identical to those of the Trump administration. Psaki stressed that "We're in a serious competition with China. Strategic competition with China is a defining feature of the 21st century," reflecting that the Biden administration only cares about a "new approach" to holding China accountable. This shows that Washington needs to bring its allies together to contain China, which is a bipartisan consensus in the US on its approach to China. The Chinese people need to really calm down and face the challenges in the long winter of China-US relations. The US emphasis on "patience" may have several layers of meaning. It may mean that Biden's priority will be dealing with domestic problems such as the COVID-19 epidemic, it may also mean that the Biden administration wants to talk to China again after having communicated with their allies. Although the Biden administration resents the Trump team's sanctions on China, they have no idea about how to deal with China either. Even so, we think China might as well respond with patience. We have the strongest economic recovery of any major economy in the world. We have a high level of unity at home. The idea of improving relations with the US is a gesture of goodwill from China in support of global stability. But we don't have any big and urgent problem that needs the help of the Biden administration to solve right now. China has developed a strong capacity to adapt to and bear the current state of China-US relations. If Washington is not in a hurry to make a change, why should Beijing? From the perspective of China's interests as a country, China-US relations depend not only on the current issues and the amount of energy involved, but also on the outcome of the strategic competition between the two countries. That is to say, if the relationship between China and the US has reached a deadlock, but not to the point of  war, while China's relative development against the US was faster, and the power gap between the two countries was constantly narrowing, then the ties between China and the US cannot be said to be bad from a strategic perspective. In the past four years, the Trump team had continually cracked down on China and tried to decouple with China, none of which was achieved. Rather, China has made major progress while the US suffered greater strategic losses. To improve China-US relations is China's goodwill rather than a humble request to Washington. All political elites in the US must realize this. China should do its own things well, which is the way to show its patience and a pragmatic option to cope with pressures from the US. China should maintain its development momentum against the backdrop of the worsening bilateral relationship. This is the new strategic guidance for China's economic performance. China should continue its reforms, and externally go against the trend of the US decoupling attempt to open up further. In the most difficult year of 2020, foreign direct investment in China increased by 4 percent. Many big US companies plan to expand their businesses in China. All these prove that Trump's China road map has met a dead end. The essence of Trump's path is to rashly advocate strategic confrontation with China. The Biden administration wants to lead the US to a new path. But if it only changes its tactics at the superficial level without adjusting US strategic thinking, it is only putting old wine in a new bottle. If the new US government could not see that the development of China as the world's most populous country is an inevitable trend with its reform and opening-up, if the new government fails to see China's sincerity of abiding by international rules as a developing country, and if the new government turns a blind eye to China's determination and ability to maintain its fundamental interests, it will face the danger of making the same strategic mistake that the Trump administration had made. We hope this will not be the case after the Biden team starts to deal with China.

FDI refers to foreign companies' establishment of new factories and expansion of existing businesses in a country, or the acquisition of local companies. It is an important indicator of a country's economic vitality and openness. China's FDI has been increasing in recent years, which is contrary to the impression that foreign companies are "fleeing" China. However, FDI in the US in 2016 was $427 billion, and China is still far from that level. China's current No.1 position in FDI is more or less due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. But China becoming the No.1 has still caused some concern and shock. China is a peacefully developing country and all of its qualitative achievements have been accumulated from quantitative changes. In 2020, China's greatest ability was to show amazing stability amid the crisis, which helped attract investments. Over these years, China has faced the US-initiated trade war and the country's strategic containment against China. But China has generally withstood the test, calmly dealt with most of the suppression and quickly formed strategic sophistication. These all add to the outside world's confidence in China. China's GDP in 2020 easily reached more than 70 percent of the US figure. This is a new level in China's GDP. The world will be more and more interested in comparing the changes of China and the US. Related analysis and hype will flood international public opinion and Chinese people will inevitably be affected and coerced by such public opinion. The change in the balance of power between China and the US is meaningful, because it will have a profound impact on international relations and subtly transform the world power structure. Although China has never regarded surpassing the US as a strategic goal of its national development in recent years, the US is still highly vigilant and intends to put an end to China's momentum. But no matter what the outside world says or makes a comparison between China and the US, China must still regard meeting its domestic needs as the basis of its development, instead of competing with the US and never use the U.S.-China power competition as the basis for its development layout.. If we indulge in such comparison and competition, we may worry too much about our gains and losses of development. Our pride and anxiety may be divorced from people's actual interests and float from the ground to the clouds. China's GDP has international political significance. But China's population is more than four times that of the US. Chinese people do not live in the overall GDP. The growth of per capita wealth is more valuable to them, and rational distribution is particularly important. China's national path is people-centered, which is not only to continuously improve the country's international status, but also make people live a better life. What we want is a high degree of unity between the two. For example, in 2020, China became the only major economy in the world with a positive growth. We have made achievements that have attracted global attention. However, it is true that China's GDP growth rate has fallen from the previous year. The drop by 3.9 percentage points is indeed a drop and it means personal frustration for many Chinese people. The focus of China's policy has determined that we cannot be satisfied with the positive growth which is much better than that of the US and other Western countries. Instead, we must do our best to reduce losses and do our job better. China is still one of the fastest-growing economies, and rapid development is the fundamental source of better welfare and more opportunities for Chinese people. China has no room and no time for complacency or self-satisfaction that ""although development is slowing down, but it is still better than the United States". As long as there are problems with China's own development, we will face challenges no matter what the external situation is. From this point of view, it is an achievement that China has attracted $163 billion in FDI in one year. But we must be calm and clear when looking at this figure. China's biggest advantage is that our strength allows the country not to fear external pressures and calmly handle its domestic affairs well. Let all the necessary reforms be promoted and implemented, and let various internal dissatisfaction and disputes grievances and controversies be digested. Only then will China's comprehensive international competitiveness moves forward.    

Indian media reports on Monday claiming Chinese and Indian troops engaged in a clash three days ago that resulted in injuries on both sides are fake, the Global Times learned from a source on Monday. There is no record of this incident in the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) front line patrol logs, the Global Times learned. In recent days, the focus of the military's top leaders on both sides has been the ninth round of corps commander-level talks, not a new border clash, and the two sides have not been involved in such clashes mentioned by the Indian media. There have been minor frictions between the frontline forces of the two countries, but if there had been friction involving casualties, it is impossible for them not to be recorded in the Chinese patrol logs. Indian military also later made the clarification. "We have received several queries regarding a face-off between Indian Army and PLA troops in Sikkim sector. It is clarified that there was a minor face-off at Nakula area of North Sikkim on 20 January 2021 and the same was resolved by local commanders as per established protocols. Media is requested to refrain from overplaying or exaggerating reports which are factually incorrect", the Indian Army's statement reads. Indian media reported on Monday that China and Indian troops had clashed at Naku La in the north Sikkim border area on Friday, and soldiers from both sides were injured. There have even been reports claiming at least 20 Chinese soldiers were injured, but the situation is now under control. Indian media outlets are releasing unsubstantiated information to their benefit, however, those information is basically fake news, the Global Times learned. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian confirmed at a routine press conference on Monday that a new round of military talks between China and India has been held and the two sides will release the relevant information as soon as possible.

Anti-government protests took place in cities across Russia including Moscow, in support of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Western media outlets quoted unofficial sources as saying over 3,000 protesters were arrested. Navalny, 44, was a lawyer and has devoted himself to leading opposition campaigns since a decade ago. While on probation in August 2020, Navalny was poisoned and allowed by Russian authorities to go to Germany for treatment. Navalny accused the Russian government of being responsible for his poisoning, which has been denied flatly by Russia but has won support from the West. On January 17, when he returned to Russia from Germany, he was detained upon arrival. The protests in Moscow and other Russian cities on Saturday were not officially approved. After they broke out, the US and other Western countries soon voiced their concern, demanding Russia to release the detainees. The US Embassy in Russia announced the time and location of the Russian demonstrations even before they took place, under the excuse of reminding local Americans to watch out for their own safety. But as a matter of fact, the announcement helped incite and guide the protesters. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed strong opposition against the US' move. At present, the Western world is unanimously condemning Russia. The West not only demands the release of the arrested protesters and Navalny himself, but the EU is also preparing to impose new sanctions on Russia. The latest riot and the conflicts surrounding it have made it more difficult for Russia to ease relations with the US and Europe. This may become the latest sign of the decline in their relations with the US and Europe. This is not the right time for the US and its allies to attack Russia on the excuses of the so-called democracy and human rights issues. Not long ago, rioters stormed the US Capitol and five people died. In 2020, anti-racial discrimination protests lasted for a long time in the US, and the US police implemented a series of repressive actions. Now they are supporting anti-government protests in other countries. This is morally contradictory. The US' double standards are too obvious and will be mocked by the world. Political opponents naturally exist in Russia and it is inevitable that they have some supporters. Supporting these opposition groups is the most effective way for the West to act against Russia. However, Russia has adapted to the intermittent actions of the opposition and has formed a set of effective methods to deal with them. Generally speaking, anti-US sentiment is far strong than the pro-US complex in Russia. In the 1990s, former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin implemented a pro-US path but was eventually fooled by the US, and Russia's national power and international status was weakened as a result. The lesson has been deeply imprinted in the Russian society. Most Russians understand that the long-term US policy is to alienate Russia and weaken its strength. The existence of the Russian opposition is a reality, determined by the political pattern. However, the power of those opposition forces is limited, because Russian people are clearly aware that Russian opposition forces are made use of by Washington as leverage against Moscow. People now are more supportive of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his team, which are firmly safeguarding the country's strategic interests. The West has called out Moscow for being "authoritarian." Russia has realized a multi-party system, with political opposition able to legally exist. In the country's previous presidential elections, there has been situation which was not in favor of the ruling party. Still, Russia is defined by the US and the West as an "authoritarian country." Its political evolution has not provided itself with key resources for easing its tense ties with the West. In the final analysis, Russia is simply too big and possesses a nuclear deterrent that is well matched with that of the US. The US and the West do not accept Russia's existence in this powerful and independent way. Therefore, Washington and Brussels have been sticking to the strategic consideration of weakening Russia in their Russia policies. But we believe that Russia will not be defeated by the US and the West. Russia has an unimaginable resilience and endurance that Westerners cannot imagine. Russia is sophisticated in diplomacy and competition. Russian public opinion has gone through the test of a severe economic downturn when oil prices were extremely low in the country in previous years. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, Russia has not experienced more serious difficulties than the Western world. If the US and the West launch political troubles now, then time and luck will not stand by their side. The US and other Western countries will intervene in any country that has domestic troubles. It is most important for developing countries not to give them such opportunities. Let time pass. It is still unknown which will be more chaotic in the future, the US and the West, or major developing countries..

Given that it would usually take several days to send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea from the US, the operations could  be seen as a continuation of the policies of the Trump administration. It has been noted by certain analysts that even at the end of its tenure, the Trump administration sustained hard-line stances toward China. It made a string of tough narratives and moves in a bid to set a trap for the Biden administration in making its China policy. However, Biden did not stop or prevent the TRCSG's operations this time. This indicates that Biden and his team aim to do not oppose policies that pile pressure on China over the South China Sea. They are, moreover, reluctant to send any signal showing US softness toward China. Hence, the operations of TRCSG this time show policy preferences of the Biden administration. This demonstrates its commitment to the Indo-Pacific region and regional countries by virtue of the moves. The new US government still regards the South China Sea as a pivotal strategic region to contain China. The previous Trump administration had put more emphasis on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, and less on the South China Sea. This contrasted sharply with the Obama administration's pivot to Asia and heavy attention to the South China Sea. The Biden administration is likely to return to the Obama era in this regard. In this scenario, the significance of the South China Sea in the US Indo-Pacific Strategy will rise. In terms of policies, as Biden's team pushes to rope in allies and partners by invoking the "international rules and regulations," they will attach more importance to diplomacy. It will continue to pile military pressure against US rivals and adopt the so-called freedom of navigation operations as a crucial tactic. While the Biden administration will generally abandon nearly all of Trump's jingoistic foreign policies, it will still cultivate a positive attitude toward the overall Indo-Pacific Strategy. The new US government will thus continue the previous one's South China Sea policies. Biden said he would unite US allies and partners. The Philippines and Thailand are US allies, and Singapore is its partner. US ties with Vietnam are also getting closer. It can be imagined that the Biden administration will continue to pay close attention to the domestic situations in these countries. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's term in office will end in June 2022. Different forces in the country have already started competing for the upcoming election. The US must be considering how to support pro-US politicians and how to boost pro-US public opinion and forces there. Washington may also closely follow the upcoming 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). If there are turns of events favorable to the US, US-Vietnam ties may step onto a new level. Thailand and Singapore are skilled at keeping a balance between China and the US. Such a policy has withstood years of tests. Room for the US to make them change their previous tactics is quite limited. In the face of the Biden administration's policy orientation over Asia, most of its Asian allies will strategically support it, but will be careful in terms of policy. Many Asian countries are still skeptical of China's rise and would like to see US involvement as balancing China's influence. But they also understand that the China-US relationship is the world's most consequential bilateral relationship and matters to both regional and global order. If there is ever a serious conflict between the two countries, any third party will be affected. These countries will not easily take sides in the China-US rivalry. However, some countries which have sovereign and security disputes with China may take advantage of the US strength and influence to confront China. This could include Japan, which has territorial disputes with China over the Diaoyu Islands, and the Philippines, which contests China's claims in the South China Sea, Some analysts are watching whether or not Biden will continue Obama's policies to bring the South China Sea issue to an international arbitral tribunal. Playing the legal card costs the US nothing, and it can easily shape China's image as a destroyer of international law and order. This also fits the approach of the Biden administration to compete with China. But will relevant countries cooperate? The Philippines under the Duterte presidency is unlikely to make a fuss about the waters. Vietnam will focus on the leadership transition around its 13th National Congress of the CPV and is unlikely to raise an arbitration demands in the short term. But from a long-term perspective, instigating regional countries to launch an international arbitration against China is an important option for the Biden administration. The author is a research fellow and deputy director at the Institute of International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

Editor's Note: Australia has been pushing a plan to make US tech giants pay for news content. On Friday, Google threatened to stop making its search engine available in Australia. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison hit back by claiming, "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia." Quite a few analysts believe this is an "interesting" case to observe, as they did not expect Australia, a loyal follower of the US, would say "no" to major US interest groups. What's the row all about? Will it have domino effect in other Western countries? Two Chinese experts shared their views with the Global Times. Xu Shanpin, adjunct researcher at the Center for Australian Studies, China University of Mining and Technology Australia's attitude projects its perceived independence and capabilities to make decisions on its domestic issues. It is expressing that Australia is US' "deputy sheriff," but not a US vassal state. Canberra follows Washington closely in terms of defense and diplomatic strategies. But when it comes to specific issues which do not touch upon Australia's core interests, Australia has the will to safeguard its own interests. The disputes are not only about whether US companies should pay for news content in Australia, but also about US internet hegemony, in other words, US tech giants' monopoly in Australian cyberspace. The latest conflict between the Australian government and US tech giants is quite representative. In the digital era, due to the rapid development of internet technology and the lack of relevant laws, internet giants are able to control substantial quantities of sensitive information and personal data across the world. As a result, they have gained massive influence, but this does not match their actual strength and status. Unfortunately, a number of sovereign countries do not have effective laws and technological tools to regulate those companies. Yet Australia may set an example to more Western countries. Following Australia, they might come up with similar laws to strengthen their cyberspace governance and curb the current monopoly of US tech giants. Otherwise, the current situation could, in the long run, jeopardize their own cybersecurity and economic interests. Yu Lei, chief research fellow at the research center for Pacific island countries of Liaocheng University in East China's Shandong Province Although Prime Minister Scott Morrison stressed that, "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia," this is more like an empty slogan. The truth is that many rules in Australia are designed by the US. Most of Australia's media outlets are controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and Fairfax Media, both have US interest groups behind them. Therefore, this is not a row between Australia and Google, but a competition for interests between US-backed Australian media groups and US tech giants - both are US forces. Some Australian lawmakers accused Google of "blackmailing" and bullying Australia. This is nothing new. Former Australian prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull stepped down because they were both seen by US interests groups as having moved their cheese. This is why Rudd launched a petition in October 2020 calling for an investigation into Murdoch's media dominance. US influence is nowadays infiltrating into every aspect of Australian life. As early as 2019, news.com.au published an opinion piece arguing that, "all four of our big banks are majority-owned by American investors… The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the nation's biggest company, is more than 60 percent owned by American-based investors." This is also the case with Australia's mining industry. The Australian army is filled with US technologies and equipment. If the US withdraws all its elements in Australian troops, the latter may quickly be paralyzed. Moreover, the funding of US interest groups can be found in Australian political parties. This is why Australia keeps consolidating its alliance with the US and is willing to act as a pawn for Washington. It does not have another alternative path. If Canberra decides not to serve Washington's interests one day, it will confront a clampdown from the US the next. In this sense, Australia has no independence. This can be vividly proved by its foreign policy. It has been explaining to Pacific island countries and its Asian neighbors that it has independent diplomacy, but its so-called foreign strategies and diplomatic moves show that it does not.

From a certain sense, the stance of this report is a continuation of the Trump-era "America First." The difference is that it emphasizes that the US should give up regional hegemony and avoid risky military actions and instead use diplomatic and economic means to maintain US interests. Meanwhile, it pointed out that China is a challenger and an existential threat.This policy paper aims to offer suggestions to the Biden administration, but it remains to be seen how much it will be adopted. Currently, there are certain three aspects about Biden's China policy. First, Biden has made it known that for agendas like the US' East China policy, it will discuss with its allies and heed the advice and interests of allies. From this perspective, the Quincy report suggests the US to drawdown military presence and put the well-being of the American people ahead of ambitions to dominate the globe, which is inconsistent with the thinking of the Biden administration. US allies in East Asia obviously want the US to continue its military and political presence in the region to counterbalance China. Second, Secretary of State candidate Antony Blinken, Biden's CIA director pick William Burns, and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin nominee all said that Trump's tough China policy was appropriate. But how will they implement tough China policies? It is highly unlikely the new administration will totally return to the past China engagement policy. Third, the Biden administration is expected to cooperate with China on issues such as climate change and public health crises, and will not resort to the lose-lose trade war that Trump's reckless advisors such as Navarro pushed. Therefore, suggestions in the report are generally congruent with Biden's policies to stress multilateralism, cooperate with allies, and avoid unnecessary risks and losses from confrontation. One prominent point was the suggestion of military restraint. It advised to reduce military tensions in the Taiwan Straits and negotiate maritime agreements with China, reduce its close-in surveillance near Chinese naval bases and operations near disputed islands and reefs, lower military tensions in the South China Sea, and restructure the US force posture in the region. All in all, the report hopes that by showing a defensive posture, the US can reduce security risks in East Asia. If the suggestion can be accepted, it would be welcomed by China. Nonetheless, these moves mean the US leadership role in East Asia may be weakened or abandoned. So it is unknown if it will be adopted by the Biden administration and US allies. But stability and cooperation is worth trying. Because China and the US are now engaged in strategic competition, and mechanisms to manage this must be designed by both sides. The rebalancing to Asia-Pacific strategy of the Obama administration and the Indo-Pacific Strategy endorsed by the Trump administration have the same essence - both aim at countering China's rise, with different means though. The China strategy of the Biden administration is unlikely to change fundamentally from the former Obama "pivot" strategy or certain elements set in motion under Trump. This can be seen by observing bipartisan support to a slew of China-related bills in the US congress. Biden's East Asia policy will focus on returning to multilateralism, strengthening ties with allies, and even returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In the field of high technology, the Biden administration will not relax its suppression of China. Biden is unlikely to reverse the Indo-Pacific Strategy either. After he won the election, he called for a "secure and prosperous" Indo-Pacific during a phone conversation with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. He has also appointed Kurt Campbell as, "Indo-Pacific Coordinator." Biden believes Russia is an enemy and China is a competitor. What he means is that China is able to challenge US hegemony, while Russia is a declining foe. Therefore, one should not be overly optimistic about the future China-US ties. The Biden administration's East Asia policy is expected to have two strategic pillars - strengthening the QUAD and enhancing cooperation with Southeast Asian countries; negotiating with members of the Japan-led CPTPP and resuming the original TPP. Compared with the clueless diplomacy of Trump, Biden's China policy may bring more profound and strategic challenges. The author is a research fellow at the National Academy of Development and Strategy and professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China

China’s pork consumption set to be double that for the EU, while interest in meat alternatives grows