# China-US Geopolitics: News & Discussions



## ChineseTiger1986

*China and U.S. not G2, but C2*
2012-05-04 04:48:01 GMT2012-05-04 12:48:01 (Beijing Time) SINA.com
By Wang Qi, Sina English

China is not seeking after G2, but is willing to build C2, or the two in coordination with the US, said Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who is also special representative of President Hu Jintao co-chairing the unfolded fourth round of Sino-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED).

China and the US will not seek to co-dominate the world or cultivate only the bilateral ties, albeit the increasingly visible importance, but we can be the two in coordination bent on more communication, coordination and cooperation, Dai was quoted as saying on Wednesday, one day prior to the annual talks.

His remarks coincide with the call of the Sino-U.S. S&ED for both sides to explore new model of peaceful coexistence , close cooperation and common development.

Dai said under new circumstances, China and the United States should promote constructive interactions in Asian-Pacific region as both are of great influence over the region.

Since the Asian-Pacific region spells out China's very existence and acts as the geographical base for its peaceful development. Hence, China would never be able to achieve peace and development without peace, stability and prosperity in the entire region, he added.

Besides, the region has seen more intensive and frequent interactions between China and U.S. in recent days, making it a new horizon to reset China-U.S. relations.

Mr. Dai also proposed four principles to follow for the bilateral interactions:

To promote mutual respect and beef up mutual trust.

To seek equality and mutual benefit in harmonious relations for common development.

To keep open, inclusive and progressive in pushing for the development of regional cooperation mechanism.

To seek common ground while preserving differences and share responsibilities, so as to promote common security by cooperation and properly handling regional flashpoints.

China and U.S. not G2, but C2 - China News - SINA English

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

I have no idea what America was thinking, when they came up with the "G-2" idea.

Then they even tried to join the SCO, but their application was rejected.

If they want a bunch of big countries to join together, to order to bully the rest... they already have the UNSC for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Götterdämmerung

I think the EU should co-operate more closely and in the long term allies with China. Both regions have a long and proud culture, history and huge markets. We are way more compatible than the US with China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sasquatch

Götterdämmerung;2911873 said:


> I think the EU should co-operate more closely and in the long term allies with China. Both regions have a long and proud culture, history and huge markets. We are way more compatible than the US with China.



The Eu combined has a very large economy bigger then the USA and China.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Götterdämmerung;2911873 said:


> I think the EU should co-operate more closely and in the long term allies with China. Both regions have a long and proud culture, history and huge markets. We are way more compatible than the US with China.



That is true. Frontier societies tend to have a culture of violence and aggression much like tribal societies do. On the other hand, the Eurasian continent from France to Russia to China is a "home" society with long and sophisticated traditions, where we value cooperation over ruthless competition.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xhw1986

China's president, Xi Jinping, has advocated the establishment of a new model for relations between China and the United States, with no conflict or confrontation the basis.

Some American and Chinese scholars have also called for the formation of a Group of Two (G2) partnership between China and the United States. We agree that China, as the world's most prominent rising power and the US as the strongest status-quo power, should work together towards addressing the major challenges facing the global community today.

Amid the trend of globalization, countries around the world have become increasingly interconnected and have shared interests. China has expressed a willingness to address its longstanding strategic distrust of the United States and both parties have pledged to respect each other's core values and build confidence in future ties.

US National Security Adviser Susan Rice said in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington DC in November that the United States is willing to forge Xi's so-called new model for major country relations, hinting that the United States would accept the G2 concept that calls for a US-China collaboration in dealing with the chief challenges facing the world.

While the United States and China are expected to continue their strategic competition, Rice's remarks indicate that Washington is willing to strengthen cooperation with Beijing on matters of common interest.

Against this backdrop, China would certainly become a responsible stakeholder as expected by the United States. Since 2003, the country has spent over US$1 trillion in Iraq and had 500,000 troops posted there at one point. Its operations, however, have so far failed to bring peace and stability to the Middle East and at least 50 suicide bomb attacks are reported in Iraq every month.

The United States' decade-old war in Afghanistan has not been successful either. Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, recently ordered the release of 72 Taliban fighters and delayed the signing of a security agreement with the United States in protest against Washington's obstruction of his peace talks with the Taliban.

Unrest and armed conflict in other Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Egypt have continued unabated and even worsened. All these developments point towards the failure of the United States' Middle East policy.

In contrast, China has become increasingly active in getting involved in Middle Eastern affairs. Since Xi took office, China has expanded its influence in the region. After inviting Israeli and Palestinian leaders to visit Beijing last May, China sent foreign minister Wang Yi to Israel and Palestine late last year to make evident its sincerity in promoting regional peace.

Israel's president, Shimon Peres, has consequently praised China as "representing opportunity and hope for the world."

All these developments signify that major international issues need the participation and involvement of China in seeking viable resolutions. They also signal the arrival of the G2 era in the international political arena.


----------



## sincity

China and US formulate can coexist as a G2 grouping, 2 economic powerhouse and 2 military powerhouse allies with each other will definitely manage less confrontation and benefit with one another. China not foolish want to butt head with US in military confrontation, US rather China cooperate with US on military because of China military in the future will eventually match US military capacity. 2 biggest economy and 2 biggest military won't be match or rival by any nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hypersonicmissiles

21st century will be dominated by China and US.


----------



## Sanchez

I think that China should support the idea of G3 to include Russia.


----------



## Götterdämmerung

Sanchez said:


> I think that China should support the idea of G3 to include Russia.



A G4 with the EU would be great. But before that the UK has be kicked out of the EU. They are a US mole within the EU.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sanchez

Götterdämmerung said:


> A G4 with the EU would be great. But before that the UK has be kicked out of the EU. They are a US mole within the EU.



Decision making in EU is pain taking. EU is not a good partner as a whole.


----------



## Götterdämmerung

Sanchez said:


> Decision making in EU is pain taking. EU is not a good partner as a whole.



That's because we have a mole in the house who works for US interests.


----------



## Sanchez

well, how about french? They are always the black horse...hh


----------



## xunzi

Götterdämmerung said:


> A G4 with the EU would be great. But before that the UK has be kicked out of the EU. They are a US mole within the EU.


I support a G4. USA, Russia, China, and EU. That's it. The World will have peace if all 4 cooperate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rott

Götterdämmerung said:


> A G4 with the EU would be great. But before that the UK has be kicked out of the EU. They are a US mole within the EU.


LOL it will be back to the same like the UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

xunzi said:


> I support a G4. USA, Russia, China, and EU. That's it. The World will have peace if all 4 cooperate.


 
How dare you not to include India?


----------



## shuttler

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> How dare you not to include India?



including india means you'll have long meetings without a conclusion and on important cricket days, 3/4 of their hearts will be at the playing grounds.
While on Olympics and World cup football events, it is only the indians attending the meeting!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AViet

And then why not G5 to include Japan. It is much bigger than Russia economically and more advanced technologically.

The list can never end.

Personally, I think that China will never satisfy with the term G2. It is only a temporary step toward G1, in which China economy will be roughly half of all the world combined and it is the only dominant country.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

AViet said:


> And then why not G5 to include Japan. It is much bigger than Russia economically and more advanced technologically.
> 
> The list can never end.
> 
> Personally, I think that China will never satisfy with the term G2. It is only a temporary step toward G1, in which China economy will be roughly half of all the world combined and it is the only dominant country.


 
if the day G1 happens, we will include Vietnam...as we have alway been


----------



## jkroo

Götterdämmerung said:


> That's because we have a mole in the house who works for US interests.


A political and economy integrated EU is really amazing. So does China has some betrayer works for US or EU's interests.


----------



## ahojunk

_This announcement came from Chinese Defense Ministry. Something is going on between the two big powers. __And this power-play could be at the expense of the pawns, who could be left holding the empty can!_

------------
*Beijing to participate in US naval drills amid South China Sea tensions*
Published time: 3 Jun, 2016 14:46 | Edited time: 3 Jun, 2016 15:28







China is sending a flotilla of five vessels, including two warships and a hospital ship, to the US-hosted naval drills in the Pacific. The decision comes despite persistent tensions between Washington and Beijing over the South China Sea islands.

The Chinese Defense Ministry announced late Thursday that it would send the flotilla to the Rim of the Pacific exercises, also known as RIMPAC. Beijing said the flotilla would participate in live fire, anti-piracy, search and rescue, and other drills, Reuters reported.

The announcement comes despite critics of the Obama administration – including Senator John McCain – urging Washington to ban China from the drills in a show of disapproval of Beijing's military actions.

The US has expressed repeated concern over China's behavior in the South China Sea, where it has laid claim to almost the entire region, despite conflicting partial claims from Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

Beijing has reportedly built military installations, including runways and missile launchers, on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, prompting international concern.

Last week, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter ruffled Beijing's feathers by stating that _“China's actions could erect a Great Wall of self-isolation.”_ That comment spurred a response from China, with Beijing accusing Carter of having a Cold War mentality.

_“China has no interest in any form of Cold War, nor are we interested in playing a role in a Hollywood movie written and directed by certain US military officials. However, China has no fear of and will counter any actions that threaten and undermine China's sovereignty and security,"_ Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday.

Hua went on to state that Carter's remarks were aimed at providing cover for Washington's plans to deploy additional military forces to the region.

Tensions between the two countries were also worsened one week earlier, when the US lifted an arms embargo on Vietnam – a move which the state-run China Daily said was aimed at _“curbing the rise of China.”_

US President Barack Obama said the lifting of the embargo was not about China, though he did mention the concern shared by Washington and Hanoi regarding Beijing's presence in the South China Sea.

Beijing has repeatedly warned Washington against interfering in the region. However, the US has conducted several warship excursions into the South China Sea and has flown numerous surveillance missions over the area. Washington has also vowed to ignore Beijing's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) when conducting military missions in the region.

Held every two years in Hawaii in June and July, RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise. China also took part in the drills in 2014, though US defense officials said its participation at that time was limited to areas such as humanitarian relief and search and rescue operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ahojunk

The two big powers are preparing to talk in Beijing. 
Topics? Their own interests, of course.

--------------
*China prepares for strategic & economic dialogue with U.S.*
2016-06-03 10:51 | CCTV | _Editor: Feng Shuang_

China and the U.S. will hold their 8th Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the 7th annual High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange in Beijing Monday to Tuesday. Representatives from the two countries are to discuss trade relations and regional issues.

Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi will chair the 8th SED, together with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

Earlier today, the 16th Lanting Forum opened and introduced the two major meetings. Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao has said the agenda also includes regional security and the South China Sea issue. Zhu also commented on China-U.S. dialogues.

"China-U.S. economic dialogues have an outstanding feature, which is, both sides will not avoid any problem. Both sides will have frank exchanges on any problem via dialogues. Besides that, the economic teams of the two countries have kept 365-day, 24-hour hotlines. The two sides will communicate on each important points. Of course, it includes different opinions," Zhu said.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AndrewJin

Dirty interests exchange behind the wall!
China will have more presence in SCS, more land.
US will also have more "nominal presence" to make her little followers happy.
US can sell more weapons, China gets more land.
Both parties win!
That's the real face of politics of big powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ahojunk

AndrewJin said:


> Dirty interests exchange behind the wall!
> China will have more presence in SCS, more land.
> US will also have more "nominal presence" to make her little followers happy.
> US can sell more weapons, China gets more land.
> Both parties win!
> That's the real face of politics of big powers.


.
You are spot on!

China and US are going to talk about their economies. I wonder what else, lol.

-------
*China and U.S. meet over economic woes*
2016-06-02 13:44 | chinadaily.com.cn | _Editor: Feng Shuang_





_Vice Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao speaks at the Lanting Forum on June 2, 2016. (Photo/Xinhua)_​
China and the United States will facilitate dialogue and enhance communication on key bilateral economic issues, a senior official said at the Lanting Forum on Thursday.

"China and the United States should have a robust exchange of ideas and make progress at the time when the global economy is recovering slowly," said Vice Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao.

Zhu expects the two countries will seek solutions to key challenges at next week's Eighth Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

Zhu says some of those challenges include moving towards more open markets and to create a better business environment for entrepreneurs from both countries.

While addressing the recent yuan depreciation amid an expected Federal Reserve interest rate hike, Zhu said the yuan would remain stable in the long term, as the nation's economy fundamentals had not changed.

"China is willing to discuss and enhance communications on currency issues with the United States," Zhu said.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

It seems that on many forums those are very passionate and eager for a Sino-US war are those so called "American" and those you know whom. Remember real Americans are used to using others, not being used.

* With UN Decision Looming, China, US Need Real Talks on South China Sea *
June 3, 2016  By Sharon Burke   Barry C. Lynn   Zheng Wang 
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/china-us-need-real-talks/128798/?oref=d-topstory
*Authors *



Sharon E. Burke is senior advisor at New America and the former assistant secretary of defense for operational energy in the Obama administration. Full Bio

Barry C. Lynn directs the Open Markets Program at New America, where he is also a senior fellow. Full Bio

Zheng Wang is the Carnegie Fellow at New America and Director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at Seton Hall University. Full Bio


China is expected to raise tensions this month if a Law of the Seas tribunal rules against their claims in the South China Sea. Time to start talking.

*Before they threw their caps in the *air last week, the graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis heard U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter throw down a challenge to China. The secretary condemned China’s efforts to construct entire islands in the South China Sea to help press its claim to most of the region’s territory. These “expansive and unprecedented actions,” Carter said, are “contrary to international law.” If pursued, he warned, China might soon find itself behind “a Great Wall of self-isolation.”



In response, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Beijing said Carter’s comments represented “stereotypical U.S. thinking” and that his “mind” was “stuck in the Cold War era.”

This tit-for-tat served as the warm-up act for the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual gathering of Asia-Pacific defense leaders occurring in Singapore this week, where Chinese and U.S. officials will likely replay their argument side by side. More worrisome, however, is what will take place later in June, following a hotly anticipated decision by an international court based in Hamburg, Germany.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, an independent judicial body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is slated to rule on the Philippines’ 2013 protest against China’s claims to the South China Sea. The Tribunal’s decision is widely expected to be unfavorable to China and may well find that China’s claim to some 85 percent of the maritime space, the area behind the so-called “nine-dash line,” is invalid under international law.

An unfavorable ruling should clearly be an embarrassment to Beijing abroad and at home where the government long has told citizens most of the region belongs to China. Anticipating an unfavorable result, China has launched diplomatic and public relations campaigns to reinforce its claims, including lining up support from some 30 countries and mobilizing scholars and diplomats to publish articles in the international media defending China’s stance. A close reading of recent statements from Beijing show that China is unlikely to compromise or tone down its rhetoric, even at the expense of its image as a law-abiding country. If anything, officials have indicated that China likely will respond to the tribunal’s decision by taking more concrete actions in the South China Sea to defend its claims, with military exercises, a visit by China’s President Xi Jinping to a Chinese controlled islet, or declaring an air defense identification zone, or ADIZ.

The United States is not likely to let such actions go unanswered. The risk of conflict, already high, will only rise.

Complicating the problem, Chinese media are repeating a popular belief that the United States has orchestrated the rise in tensions by urging the Philippines and Vietnam to challenge China, ultimately with the aim of containing the country. They cite the Obama administration’s “Rebalance to Asia” policy as evidence, along with U.S. military exercises with regional countries and critical remarks about China by visiting U.S. officials.

There is little doubt that the perception gap between the United States and China continues to widen and bilateral communications channels on this issue remain limited.

The United States and China need a true dialogue on the South China Sea. The current slew of bilateral engagements, including the Shangri-La stare-down, and the coming U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, do not offer a platform for the deep and prolonged discussion this issue requires, particularly given Washington’s stated reluctance to engage bilaterally on what it considers a regional issue. The South China Sea is an issue ripe for a so-called “Track Two” or unofficial dialogue.

Without a deeper understanding of each other’s intentions – and of the larger risks of conflict – the two countries will continue on a course towards what would be a very dangerous collision.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

Let's say a spatially-limited G2; not in the sense of global governance. The truth is that small countries are expendable. US won't let them be because it knows it needs chips to bargain with China. Currently, China's problem is, it does not have much bargaining chips although it has the capability to buy some chips and great aggregate power. It is just that China does foreign policy differently.

As China continues reactively aggressive, the US will seek compromise, because, ten years from now, China won't be reactively aggressive anymore. But proactive. Then the US will either have to find a graceful back-down or will back down wit its nose dragged against dirt.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

_The following is an interesting read....
Very true, you can't let loud mouth Pentagon people running the show. The State Department with real diplomats who understand the big picture is preferred._

-------
How the Pentagon is blowing America's relationship with China
Patrick Smith 
June 4, 2016

When China refused to allow the USS John C. Stennis to dock in Hong Kong at the end of April, it got only modest mention in news reports. But keeping the nuclear-powered supercarrier and its strike group out of a port where American ships have docked for decades is a calculated signal of worsening relations between Washington and Beijing — passive aggression in very pure form.

Given that Hong Kong is among the busiest commercial ports in Asia, we're on notice now. Every American with an interest in our dense, multisided trade and investment relationships with China should start paying close attention to the mounting tensions between Beijing and Washington.

The first thing you see is this: America's economic ties with China have been out of whack with national security policy since Deng Xiaoping's reforms began opening China in the early 1980s. Business booms, while military and geopolitical competition intensifies.

This isn't going to do any longer. There is an emerging danger that rivalry for strategic influence in the western Pacific will damage trade and investment relations.

Beijing was characteristically subtle but perfectly clear when asked why it refused the Stennis port privileges. The foreign ministry told the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's leading English-language daily, that port calls were approved "on a case by case basis in accordance with sovereignty principles and specific circumstances." A ministry official in Hong Kong then stated the visit was "not convenient."

The "specific circumstances" were lost on no one. Two weeks earlier Defense Secretary Ashton Carter stood on the same carrier's flight deck as it passed through the South China Sea and declared, "The United States intends to continue to play a role out here that it has for seven decades."

A week later the U.S. Pacific Command sent six heavily armed A-10 Thunderbolts on flights near the Scarborough Shoal, which is among the disputed land formations in the South China Sea over which Beijing claims sovereignty.

Allowing or refusing port calls has long featured in Asia's diplomatic sign language. When ties between Beijing and Tokyo temporarily warmed in 2008, a Japanese destroyer laid over at a Chinese port for the first time since World War II.

Keeping the Stennis out of Hong Kong harbor was a big, worrisome move, laden with symbolism in the Chinese fashion. There are three implications.

One, choosing Hong Kong as the venue to respond to Carter's assertion of U.S. primacy in the Pacific signals that China views its relations with the U.S. as unitary. While trade and investment are mutually beneficial, economic ties are not immune to fallout from sharpening political and diplomatic friction.

Two, China will go to the wall as it asserts its influence in the western Pacific. Regardless of what may be at stake, no challenge from the U.S. has a prayer of forcing Beijing to accept the 70-year status quo Carter indelicately referenced aboard the Stennis.

Finally, Hong Kong's status as a special administrative region in the Sino-British treaty that reestablished Chinese sovereignty in 1997 does not make the territory some kind of protected zone. The fact that U.S. warships are common sights along Victoria Harbor only magnifies the sharp edge of Beijing's gesture.

Good sinologists would understand these things. There's a lot of history and culture and 175 years of wounded pride in China's drive to "stand up," as Mao famously put it. This has to be reckoned with.

But defense secretaries and fleet commanders such as the bluntly spoken Harry B. Harris, trained in operational expertise but rarely diplomacy, do not generally make good sinologists. This is the root reason Washington's China policies are so discombobulated.

Beijing hasn't tagged a single iPhone or fashion accessory as an instrument of retaliation as strategic and geopolitical tensions mount. No one's suggesting this. But there's less room every day for complacency on this score in the American business and investment communities. Sooner or later, both sides of the relationship are bound to intersect.

The State Department once boasted an honorable tradition of diplomats trained in Asian languages, cultures, and histories. Some of these people were scapegoats during the "Who lost China?" arguments after the 1949 revolution, and the Pentagon gradually eclipsed State in the policy-planning space during the Cold War. By the Reagan years the process was more or less complete.

It's time to revive the tradition. We need big-picture diplomats capable of integrating politics, economics, and national security questions — men and women trained to understand China's perspective even if they entertain no sympathy for it.

Whether we like it or not, China has a place in maintaining security in its neighborhood. The sooner Washington accepts that seven decades of unchallenged primacy are over, the easier it will be to continue exercising a very considerable degree of influence, as others in the region clearly welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> But defense secretaries and fleet commanders such as the bluntly spoken Harry B. Harris, trained in operational expertise but rarely diplomacy, do not generally make good sinologists. This is the root reason Washington's China policies are so discombobulated.



Oftentimes, it was the Pentagon that blunted the sharp edges of US governments but it seems to have changed dramatically especially after Kerry's assuming the job.

That's interesting. I suspect Obama has even much power on the Pentagon dissenters. Otherwise, the two would not fall so dramatically apart.

The Pentagon's radicalization is a bad omen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_The following is an email to the Editor - Leslie Fong._

-------
Freedom of Navigation Ops: US Exercising Right or Might?
2016-06-01 12:18:26 Agencies Web Editor: Guan Chao

Leslie Fong

An e-mail that takes a dig at Uncle Sam for using freedom of navigation as a lame excuse to flex his muscles at China over its maritime claims in the South China Sea has somehow found its way into my mailbox.

Written by a certain Ms Oh Beigong from Taipei, it was addressed to Admiral Harry B. Harris, Commander of the United States Pacific Command, and copied to his bosses, US Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus and US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter, as well as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Now, I would like to make it clear that I have not the faintest idea who Ms Oh is but I do think she has a sharp elbow. From the little that I know, what she has written is accurate but just so readers can judge for themselves, I reproduce here the e-mail in its entirety:

_"Dear Admiral Harris,

I write to congratulate you for standing up for mariners the world over to assert the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. You showed much daring when on May 10, you sent the USS William P. Lawrence, an Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer, to within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross Reef, over which Beijing has long claimed sovereignty and which it has occupied for years.

Sure, some of my friends said the destroyer made just a single pass, which would qualify the sail-through as innocent passage under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). In other words, they were telling me, the US had made a big deal out of it as there was no real risk of the Chinese responding and going ballistic, literally or metaphorically. They also said you didn't need guts, or even brains, to dispatch the destroyer as you were just carrying out the orders of your political masters!

That's quibbling. I think you deserve credit for risking the lives of your sailors as you couldn't know for sure the Chinese would steer clear of your destroyer. Remember the mid-air collision between one of your EP-3 spy planes and a Chinese J8 fighter on April 1, 2001? Nobody saw that coming and somebody did die - the Chinese pilot, Lieutenant Commander Wang Wei. The EP-3 was forced to land in Hainan and its 24 crew members detained and interrogated. Beijing, ruled by a more conciliatory Jiang Zemin then, set the 24 free eventually, compensated Wang's family and hailed him as a hero, a "Guardian of Territorial Space and Waters".

This time round, with a tougher Xi Jinping in charge and after so many provocations, no one could guarantee that the Chinese would not send a number of "fishing vessels" or even Coast Guard Cutters to sail right across the path of the USS William P. Lawrence and force a collision. Out of the question? Back in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still on, Soviet freighters did exactly that - they rammed American naval craft in the Mediterranean for encroaching on their waters. Chinese commentators have of late been talking publicly about emulating the Soviets. And hey, with all the nationalistic fervour whipped up on the mainland, the Chinese may need another hero!

Well, you got away again this time just as you did in January when the USS Curtis Wilbur skirted Triton in the Paracel group of islands claimed by Beijing and last October when the USS Larsen charged into contentious waters in the Spratlys. So, yes, you showed you had what it took to risk your men's lives without batting an eyelid. Bully for you!

But displaying testicular fortitude is one thing and pushing your luck too far is another. You have made whatever point you think you were making. But have the Chinese stopped building the airstrips and other structures on the disputed islands and reefs that the other claimants are said to be worried about?

Let me get serious. The US is playing with fire by repeatedly poking China in the eye. We in this region are going to be the collateral damage if this spins out of control. And why should we pay the price when the US does not really have right on its side? As a thinking man, did you not feel discomfort deep inside you when the US kept singling out the Chinese as the bad guys in the maritime disputes?

You must know better than most on this planet that the US has not been able to cite one instance when China actually denied anyone the freedom of navigation or point to any statement by Beijing threatening that right. Of course Washington will sidestep that - why let facts spoil a good excuse - and say instead that it cannot allow China's claim to waters bound by that famous or infamous nine-dash line that it has drawn in the South China Sea to go unchallenged.

Excuse me, but did you not know that it was the Republic of China government, now relocated to Taiwan, that first went to the United Nations in 1948 to lodge a claim using a map of the South China Sea showing 11 dashes? Yes, 11, not nine. Not one squeak about that in all this time, none from the US, Britain, Australia - till now.

You will say, no doubt, that the Chinese are going to militarise the airstrips and other facilities to project force, thus threatening all the countries in the region. Er, coming from a senior naval officer of a country that operates some 800 bases or military facilities in more than 60 countries around the world, several of them virtually at China's doorstep, that, sir, is a bit rich!

I may be just a fisherman's daughter from Kaohsiung but I have read enough to know that capability plus intention equals threat. Guess what? The US has 11 carrier battle groups circling the globe, each with enough firepower to send four-fifths of the world's countries back to the Stone Age, the largest and second-largest air force in the world (US Air Force and US Navy's Air Wing) and the openly declared intention of not allowing any other nation to challenge US power and supremacy. Talk about threats!

By the way, all the other claimants, except Brunei, are also building and expanding their presence in the disputed areas. In fact, Taiwan has troops stationed on Taiping Island, which is also claimed by the Philippines. But the US has looked the other way. I guess, to quote your former vice-president Al Gore, that is an inconvenient truth.

I know, I know, the US is not in the habit of admitting that it is or can be wrong. Thus not a word of apology for invading Iraq under the pretext of rooting out the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Washington ever concede that it wrongly accused the Soviet Union of using biological weapons on the Hmong people in Indochina in 1981 when the yellowish substance that fell on them from the sky was found by an international panel of scientists to be just the faeces of huge swarms of bees!

Bottom line? Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law.

However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear-sighted people in this region, here is something you, in particular, can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima (Okinotori Island) and claim as their territory.

The atoll measures no more than 9 sq m at low tide, which is probably smaller than your office in Honolulu, and lies more than 1,700km south of Tokyo. But it is less than 500km from Taiwan itself.

Under Unclos, an atoll is not an island and thus cannot be used as the basis to claim the usual 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone or EEZ. But that has not stopped Tokyo from doing so, and it has proclaimed as its EEZ an area larger than the entire Japan. Taiwan is among the many that have refused to recognise this.

Last month, a Taiwanese fishing boat was seized by the Japanese Coast Guard for operating in the EEZ. It was set free only after the owners paid nearly US$55,000 (S$76,000) as a security bond. Fortunately, our government in Taipei took up the cudgels and said it would send naval vessels from now on to protect Taiwanese fishing boats.

So, please, dear admiral, send the William P. Lawrence there and have some of its crew go fishing near the atoll. All who look askance at your dubious freedom of navigation expeditions in the South China Sea thus far will applaud you.

Don't let the Chinese beat you to it!_

The Author:

Leslie Fong is the senior executive vice-president of Singapore Press Holdings' marketing and digital divisions. He imagines an open letter a vexed Taiwanese fisherman's daughter might write to the Commander of the United States Pacific Command over the recent freedom of navigation exercise when the USS William P. Lawrence sailed within 12 nautical miles of Beijing-occupied Fiery Cross Reef.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> _"Dear Admiral Harris,
> 
> I write to congratulate you for standing up for mariners the world over to assert the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. You showed much daring when on May 10, you sent the USS William P. Lawrence, an Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer, to within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross Reef, over which Beijing has long claimed sovereignty and which it has occupied for years.
> 
> Sure, some of my friends said the destroyer made just a single pass, which would qualify the sail-through as innocent passage under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). In other words, they were telling me, the US had made a big deal out of it as there was no real risk of the Chinese responding and going ballistic, literally or metaphorically. They also said you didn't need guts, or even brains, to dispatch the destroyer as you were just carrying out the orders of your political masters!
> 
> That's quibbling. I think you deserve credit for risking the lives of your sailors as you couldn't know for sure the Chinese would steer clear of your destroyer. Remember the mid-air collision between one of your EP-3 spy planes and a Chinese J8 fighter on April 1, 2001? Nobody saw that coming and somebody did die - the Chinese pilot, Lieutenant Commander Wang Wei. The EP-3 was forced to land in Hainan and its 24 crew members detained and interrogated. Beijing, ruled by a more conciliatory Jiang Zemin then, set the 24 free eventually, compensated Wang's family and hailed him as a hero, a "Guardian of Territorial Space and Waters".
> 
> This time round, with a tougher Xi Jinping in charge and after so many provocations, no one could guarantee that the Chinese would not send a number of "fishing vessels" or even Coast Guard Cutters to sail right across the path of the USS William P. Lawrence and force a collision. Out of the question? Back in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still on, Soviet freighters did exactly that - they rammed American naval craft in the Mediterranean for encroaching on their waters. Chinese commentators have of late been talking publicly about emulating the Soviets. And hey, with all the nationalistic fervour whipped up on the mainland, the Chinese may need another hero!
> 
> Well, you got away again this time just as you did in January when the USS Curtis Wilbur skirted Triton in the Paracel group of islands claimed by Beijing and last October when the USS Larsen charged into contentious waters in the Spratlys. So, yes, you showed you had what it took to risk your men's lives without batting an eyelid. Bully for you!
> 
> But displaying testicular fortitude is one thing and pushing your luck too far is another. You have made whatever point you think you were making. But have the Chinese stopped building the airstrips and other structures on the disputed islands and reefs that the other claimants are said to be worried about?
> 
> Let me get serious. The US is playing with fire by repeatedly poking China in the eye. We in this region are going to be the collateral damage if this spins out of control. And why should we pay the price when the US does not really have right on its side? As a thinking man, did you not feel discomfort deep inside you when the US kept singling out the Chinese as the bad guys in the maritime disputes?
> 
> You must know better than most on this planet that the US has not been able to cite one instance when China actually denied anyone the freedom of navigation or point to any statement by Beijing threatening that right. Of course Washington will sidestep that - why let facts spoil a good excuse - and say instead that it cannot allow China's claim to waters bound by that famous or infamous nine-dash line that it has drawn in the South China Sea to go unchallenged.
> 
> Excuse me, but did you not know that it was the Republic of China government, now relocated to Taiwan, that first went to the United Nations in 1948 to lodge a claim using a map of the South China Sea showing 11 dashes? Yes, 11, not nine. Not one squeak about that in all this time, none from the US, Britain, Australia - till now.
> 
> You will say, no doubt, that the Chinese are going to militarise the airstrips and other facilities to project force, thus threatening all the countries in the region. Er, coming from a senior naval officer of a country that operates some 800 bases or military facilities in more than 60 countries around the world, several of them virtually at China's doorstep, that, sir, is a bit rich!
> 
> I may be just a fisherman's daughter from Kaohsiung but I have read enough to know that capability plus intention equals threat. Guess what? The US has 11 carrier battle groups circling the globe, each with enough firepower to send four-fifths of the world's countries back to the Stone Age, the largest and second-largest air force in the world (US Air Force and US Navy's Air Wing) and the openly declared intention of not allowing any other nation to challenge US power and supremacy. Talk about threats!
> 
> By the way, all the other claimants, except Brunei, are also building and expanding their presence in the disputed areas. In fact, Taiwan has troops stationed on Taiping Island, which is also claimed by the Philippines. But the US has looked the other way. I guess, to quote your former vice-president Al Gore, that is an inconvenient truth.
> 
> I know, I know, the US is not in the habit of admitting that it is or can be wrong. Thus not a word of apology for invading Iraq under the pretext of rooting out the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Washington ever concede that it wrongly accused the Soviet Union of using biological weapons on the Hmong people in Indochina in 1981 when the yellowish substance that fell on them from the sky was found by an international panel of scientists to be just the faeces of huge swarms of bees!
> 
> Bottom line? Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law.
> 
> However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear-sighted people in this region, here is something you, in particular, can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima (Okinotori Island) and claim as their territory.
> 
> The atoll measures no more than 9 sq m at low tide, which is probably smaller than your office in Honolulu, and lies more than 1,700km south of Tokyo. But it is less than 500km from Taiwan itself.
> 
> Under Unclos, an atoll is not an island and thus cannot be used as the basis to claim the usual 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone or EEZ. But that has not stopped Tokyo from doing so, and it has proclaimed as its EEZ an area larger than the entire Japan. Taiwan is among the many that have refused to recognise this.
> 
> Last month, a Taiwanese fishing boat was seized by the Japanese Coast Guard for operating in the EEZ. It was set free only after the owners paid nearly US$55,000 (S$76,000) as a security bond. Fortunately, our government in Taipei took up the cudgels and said it would send naval vessels from now on to protect Taiwanese fishing boats.
> 
> So, please, dear admiral, send the William P. Lawrence there and have some of its crew go fishing near the atoll. All who look askance at your dubious freedom of navigation expeditions in the South China Sea thus far will applaud you.
> 
> Don't let the Chinese beat you to it!_



The reader has indeed a sharp, scientific mindset with ability to make historical assessments. The Okinotori case is as funny as it is tragic; it is a piece of rock submerged in high tide. Yet no word of concern. One almost feels it was China invading the entire South China Sea islands in the 1930s and threatened freedom of navigation.

It is tiring to point out discrepancies and double-standards.

That's why I like China's talk less do more attitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ahojunk

_ASEAN, Japan and Taiwan should pay very close attention to what happens in this talks. 
[Small countries would "pay the price" when big countries reach an agreement. - Singapore's diplomat, Mr Bilahari Kausikan]_

---------
*Xi Jinping calls on US and China to create greater trust as high-level talks between two nations start in Beijing*
PUBLISHED : Monday, 06 June, 2016, 10:15am
UPDATED : Monday, 06 June, 2016, 4:36pm

President Xi Jinping has said China and the United States should cultivate mutual trust and properly handle their differences as he kicked off the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the two nations in Beijing.

“We should enhance the mutual trust between our two countries,” Xi said in opening remarks on Monday morning.

He also called for both sides to have regular contact to establish “fundamental, strategic, mutual trust”.

The high-level meetings come amid tensions between China and the US over Beijing’s territorial claims in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has said China is erecting a “Great Wall of self isolation” in its policies over the disputed waters, while Beijing has accused Washington of destabilising the region with its military presence in the region.

The US military has carried out a series of “freedom of navigation” patrols near Chinese-controlled islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea in recent months, infuriating Beijing.

Xi acknowledged in his comments the inevitable “differences and sensitive issues” between the two major powers, citing differences in their histories, societies and cultures.

“There is no reason to be scared of having differences, the key is not to adopt a confrontational attitude towards any differences,” he said.

“Some differences can be solved through endeavour and both sides should work harder to solve them,’ he said. “Some differences cannot be solved at the moment and both sides should take each others’ actual situations into consideration and take a constructive approach.”

Xi stressed that the Asia-Pacific region should be a “inclusive big platform for cooperation” instead of an “arena for countries to leverage,” calling for the cultivation of a “mutual circle of friends” between China and the US.

“China and the US have extensive mutual interests in the Asia-Pacific region. [We] should hold regular dialogues, cooperation, cope with various challenges and work hard to cultivate a mutual, instead of an exclusive, circle of friends between the two countries,” he said.

State Councillor Yang Jiechi said at the ceremony that China had stepped up consultations with member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to resolve disputes in the South China Sea.

He said China signed a Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea with Asean members in 2002 and would continue to use a “dual-track” approach to resolve conflicts.

The dual-track approach refers to resolving disputes through negotiations between the parties directly involved and maintaining security through joint efforts with Asean.

“Based on the principle of the dual-track approach, the South China Sea disputes can be properly resolved,” he said.

Yang said China would stick to the path of peaceful development and expected other countries to do the same.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said at the ceremony that international norms should be upheld in handling disputes over the South China Sea.

“We are looking for a peaceful resolution to the dispute in the South China Sea and oppose any country resolving claims through unilateral action,” he said.

Several nations lay claim to areas of the South China Sea, including Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xunzi

Thank you to our American friends for the invitation. LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AndrewJin

xunzi said:


> Thank you to our American friends for the invitation. LOL


We have to ensure Trump to be the president!
He will bring the best interests to China.
He is a businessman, so are we.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

Just in case nobody notices, let me re-iterate that this "annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue between China and US" is the main show.

The side show is the one called Shangri-la dialogue in Singapore. lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> We have to ensure Trump to be the president!
> He will bring the best interests to China.
> He is a businessman, so are we.



And yesterday I was listening to him, he incredibly was to the point on many global issues, including the US-led mess created in Iraq and recently in Libya.

Obama also sounded anti-war, but he had never been as articulate as Mr. Trump has been. Obama duped many young anti-war activists, but Mr. Trump talk to the White US heartland. And it finds an echo.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> And yesterday I was listening to him, he incredibly was to the point on many global issues, including the US-led mess created in Iraq and recently in Libya.
> 
> Obama also sounded anti-war, but he had never been as articulate as Mr. Trump has been. Obama duped many young anti-war activists, but Mr. Trump talk to the White US heartland. And it finds an echo.


He is indeed a disaster to Amerios's white little sister regimes and non-white puppet regimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

ahojunk said:


> Just in case nobody notices, let me re-iterate that this "annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue between China and US" is the main show.
> 
> The side show is the one called Shangri-la dialogue in Singapore. lol.


Haha, you have put lots of people here in despair. Look what these G2 are going to talk about.
*
Agenda at Sino-US dialogue
Published
6 hours ago
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/agenda-at-sino-us-dialogue

SOUTH CHINA SEA TERRITORIAL DISPUTES*

Beijing and Washington will use the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) to suss out each other's bottom line, to avoid accidental conflict in the region, with tensions set to rise after an impending ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on a case against China's territorial claims.

*BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY *


The proposed pact aimed at expanding market access for both sides has undergone 24 rounds of negotiations and is targeted for conclusion before US President Barack Obama leaves office next January.

*G-20 LEADERS' SUMMIT*


The S&ED will discuss ways to improve Sino-US policy coordination at the Group of Twenty (G-20) summit taking place in the Chinese city of Hangzhou from Sept 4-5, to help boost flagging global growth.

*CHINA'S ECONOMIC REFORMS *

The US wants to press China into speeding up its economic reforms, such as cutting excess production capacity, with massive Chinese steel exports having hurt global markets and caused job loss.

*CLIMATE CHANGE*

China and the US, the world's two largest emitters of carbon dioxide, will discuss issues impacting the environment and ways to boost innovation in energy usage.

*TAIWAN *

Beijing will seek to dissuade the US from supporting any Taiwanese independence efforts that might intensify, with the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party in power since May.

*NORTH KOREA *

Washington will discuss with Beijing - regarded as Pyongyang's patron - ways to pressure the North into giving up its nuclear arms.

*Kor Kian Beng*


----------



## xunzi

AndrewJin said:


> We have to ensure Trump to be the president!
> He will bring the best interests to China.
> He is a businessman, so are we.


Trump spoke the truth and went against the establishment. The lackey probably hate him but for sure, he puts the America interest on top.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AndrewJin

xunzi said:


> Trump spoke the truth and went against the establishment. The lackey probably hate him but for sure, he puts the America interest on top.


How to define Amerino interests? The people? The war-mongering establishment? Interests of white, black, Hispanic or others?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> How to define Amerino interests? The people? The war-mongering establishment? Interests of white, black, Hispanic or others?



I guess he cares the whites the most. Look at the ongoing Trump University turmoil.

Trump openly says the judge overlooking the case is biased because he is a Hispanic.

This is the stage the US justice system has eventually reached. If you are a White person in the US, would you trust a Black judge if the case involves the interests of the Black people?

Trump did open up the Pandora's Box. It is perfectly a legitimate target for manipulation for interested overseas powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

TaiShang said:


> I guess he cares the whites the most. Look at the ongoing Trump University turmoil.
> 
> Trump openly says the judge overlooking the case is biased because he is a Hispanic.
> 
> This is the stage the US justice system has eventually reached. If you are a White person in the US, would you trust a Black judge if the case involves the interests of the Black people?
> 
> Trump did open up the Pandora's Box. It is perfectly a legitimate target for manipulation for interested overseas powers.


Trump will not get many American Latino's votes.


----------



## TaiShang

Tiqiu said:


> Trump will not get many American Latino's votes.



I think he does not need to. He just needs to solidify the White middle class as well as those who began to hate their own kind (illegals) after they moved to the US legally.


----------



## ahojunk

Tiqiu said:


> Haha, you have put lots of people here in despair. Look what these G2 are going to talk about.
> *
> Agenda at Sino-US dialogue
> Published
> 6 hours ago
> http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/agenda-at-sino-us-dialogue
> 
> SOUTH CHINA SEA TERRITORIAL DISPUTES*
> 
> Beijing and Washington will use the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) to suss out each other's bottom line, to avoid accidental conflict in the region, with tensions set to rise after an impending ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on a case against China's territorial claims.
> 
> *BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY *
> 
> 
> The proposed pact aimed at expanding market access for both sides has undergone 24 rounds of negotiations and is targeted for conclusion before US President Barack Obama leaves office next January.
> 
> *G-20 LEADERS' SUMMIT*
> 
> 
> The S&ED will discuss ways to improve Sino-US policy coordination at the Group of Twenty (G-20) summit taking place in the Chinese city of Hangzhou from Sept 4-5, to help boost flagging global growth.
> 
> *CHINA'S ECONOMIC REFORMS *
> 
> The US wants to press China into speeding up its economic reforms, such as cutting excess production capacity, with massive Chinese steel exports having hurt global markets and caused job loss.
> 
> *CLIMATE CHANGE*
> 
> China and the US, the world's two largest emitters of carbon dioxide, will discuss issues impacting the environment and ways to boost innovation in energy usage.
> 
> *TAIWAN *
> 
> Beijing will seek to dissuade the US from supporting any Taiwanese independence efforts that might intensify, with the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party in power since May.
> 
> *NORTH KOREA *
> 
> Washington will discuss with Beijing - regarded as Pyongyang's patron - ways to pressure the North into giving up its nuclear arms.
> 
> *Kor Kian Beng*


.
@Tiqiu 

At this G2 Strategic & Economic Dialogue, the real horse-trading will take place. I think they discuss more than the above. 

All these small countries are just pawns in the big scheme of things. The smart ones will keep an equi-distance from both and try to extract maximum benefits from the G2. The not so smart ones will just be used as pawns.

As Singapore's veteran diplomat, Mr Bilahari Kausikan notes, small countries would "pay the price" when big countries reach an agreement. Think Taiwan in the 1970s, when it was at the losing end of Sino-American rapprochement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> I guess he cares the whites the most. Look at the ongoing Trump University turmoil.
> 
> Trump openly says the judge overlooking the case is biased because he is a Hispanic.
> 
> This is the stage the US justice system has eventually reached. If you are a White person in the US, would you trust a Black judge if the case involves the interests of the Black people?
> 
> Trump did open up the Pandora's Box. It is perfectly a legitimate target for manipulation for interested overseas powers.


Never have I been so excited about a western demoncrazy election before!
Trump GO GO GO!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> Never have I been so excited about a western demoncrazy election before!
> Trump GO GO GO!!!



This year's election show has been one of the best in my memory. It demonstrates the excesses of monetized and race politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

The so-called democracy in the US is monopolized by big money politics.

I have read an article that says that a large percentage of laws passed in the US benefits the rich, but I can't remember the number.

The US political system has been hijacked by special interest groups and rich lobbyists so much so it is called "veto-cracy" by Francis Fukuyama.

At least my country is not that bad, and I hope it stays that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_Interesting US tactic - sponsoring seminars and think tanks. Anyone with an ounce of brain would be able to see through the hypocrisy of the US. _

--------
*Legal Imbroglio in the South China Sea*
Editor: Li Kun 丨CCTV.com
06-02-2016 18:36 BJT

_By Mathew Maavak, a doctoral student in Security Foresight at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)_

The rhetorical war between China and the United States over the South China Sea dispute is increasing in magnitude. Washington has wasted no time to sponsor seminars and think tanks to drive a wedge between Beijing and other claimant nations in the region. 

Ambitious young ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) scholars and diplomats have been recruited for study fellowships and stints at prestigious American universities.

Vietnam is the suitor du jour in America's new game, called the "Asia Pivot." While Beijing is building infrastructure in Vietnam, Washington has offered weapons to Hanoi, a former enemy at war. They had fought in what was called the Vietnam War from the 1960s to the early 1970s.

Despite Chinese businesses having poured in investments worth $US7.9 billion in 2014 alone, the US has only offered to clean up chemically contaminated parts of the country some 40 years after the Vietnam War ended. 

Yesterday's bitter enemies have become today's strategic partners. Yet history cannot be easily brushed aside, even if the United Nations 5-member temporary Court of Arbitration in The Hague rules in favor of the Philippines over its claims in the South China Sea. The ruling is expected to be announced this summer.

*Why Extra-Regional Arbitration May Backfire*

Manila's resort to The Hague may backfire for all claimants in the region, since it opens up a few legal Pandora's Boxes in Beijing's favor.

A shrewd legal expert on territorial claims and international law can punch holes once the UN and US are brought into the picture.

The US, the UN General Assembly, or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot contest the validity of the 11-dash line that was unveiled on Dec 1, 1947 by the Republic of China – itself a permanent council member at the time.

Without a proper de jure challenge, "the international community" – a term Washington invokes all too often – seems to have proffered at least de facto recognition over China's 1947 claims. 

Many contested islands in the South China Sea, namely the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly, were reclaimed by the Republic of China's naval forces in the immediate aftermath of Japan’s surrender in WWII. 

No disputes have arisen until Vietnam lodged a counter-claim in 1951, but this was blunted by Beijing's concession of Bach Long Vi island to Hanoi in 1957. 

Beijing's maritime claims were tempered by the Chinese government at that time, which had endorsed China's new 9-dash line.

For the next two decades, the status of contested islands slipped into limbo, since Washington was too busy fighting the Vietnamese. 

Later it was trying to draw closer the People's Republic of China — starting in the late US President Richard Nixon's 1971 visit to Beijing. The geo-political pendulum had swung in Beijing's direction. Accordingly, there was no way Washington was going to honor Hanoi's claims. 

Being the gracious loser, Washington had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Hanoi from the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 until 1995. 

Washington was also rousing international opinions, including those of ASEAN nations in favor of the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. 

More importantly in the context of the South China Sea, how did the US treat Vietnamese claims until 1995? Why is Washington offering arms and regional naval support, instead of paying war reparations to help future generations of Vietnamese babies, who may likely suffer from the after-effects of napalm? 

Why are the islands in the South China Sea so important to the US? Is it just an attempt to exploit Hanoi to embolden its Pivot to Asia strategy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

ahojunk said:


> The so-called democracy in the US is monopolized by big money politics.
> 
> I have read an article that says that a large percentage of laws passed in the US benefits the rich, but I can't remember the number.
> 
> The US political system has been hijacked by special interest groups and rich lobbyists so much so it is called "veto-cracy" by Francis Fukuyama.
> 
> At least my country is not that bad, and I hope it stays that way.


Both liberals and labor are not good, but OK if u compare to Mrs. Clinton or Bush II.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_No surprise, the two big guys are looking after their respective interests. I have no doubt that small countries will be sacrifice if required. I hope that Australia will get out of the way of these two elephants, but I do feel sorry for Philippines, Vietnam and to a certain extent Malaysia. More so, if US and China come to an agreement. Let's wait and see._

--------
*China, US narrow differences over South China Sea*
Reporter: Han Peng 丨 CCTV.com
06-08-2016 06:40 BJT

The eighth round of Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue has wrapped up in Beijing. Officials from both countries say the two-day talks have narrowed the differences between the world's two biggest economies and reduced the risks of miscalculation. One important progress is on the South China Sea.

Tensions over South China Sea remain one of the biggest disagreements at the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Both countries reaffirmed their positions, but Washington has slightly softened its tone.

"The US will make it clear that we are looking for a peaceful resolution to the disputes of the South China Sea...We urged all nations to find a diplomatic solution... in rule of law," US Secretary of State John Kerry, said.

Kerry's latest remarks comes despite the US military's tough words towards China. Last Friday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that China's actions could "erect a Great Wall of self-isolation".

The remarks were met with cautious welcome from Chinese officials.

"We hope that the United States can honor its pledge that it does not take side in the disputes in the South China Sea," Chinese state councilor Yang Jiechi said.

Despite the differences, both sides spoke highly of their newly expanded common ground, referring to their recent cooperation in nuclear issues with Iran and the Korean Peninsula, and reaching the historic Paris agreement on fighting climate change.

China says they are good examples of building a new type of major power relations, which is aimed at avoiding conflict between a rising power of China and a resident power of the United States.

"Thanks to our concerted efforts, our two countries have cooperated at bilateral, regional and global levels in a wide range of areas, and registered new programmes in our relations. We witnessed record highs in trade and two-way investment, enjoyed closer people-to-people and sub-national exchanges, and made new headway in cooperation in cyberspace, law enforcement and military exchanges," President Xi Jinping said.

Running parallel to the S&ED, was the High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange. John Kerry greeted the sports teams of Chinese universities, accompanied by Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong.

Kerry said people-to-people exchanges should go without governmental intervention, and raised concerns over China's new law on non-governmental organizations, which strengthened government supervision.

Liu rejected the remarks, saying the law is only aimed at improving the playing field for civil society, and that the NGOs which follow the law can continue to operate freely in China.

Officials from both countries say although they cannot reach agreement on every single issue, the Dialogue is important in narrowing the differences and expanding common ground. They say that keeping close communication is vital in avoiding serious miscalculation and building trust in the world's most consequential bilateral relations.


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> Never have I been so excited about a western demoncrazy election before!
> Trump GO GO GO!!!



The yesterday's mass killing in Orlando just placed the last nail on Hillary's coffin.

Some call Hillary the God-mother of the ISIS, especially with respect to her dark conducts in Libya.

Trump had his best day yesterday from political realism perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_The two big guys are playing games with each other... especially when it is just after the Strategic & Economic Dialogue._

--------
*Planned Obama, Dalai Lama meeting protested*
By Li Xiaokun (China Daily)Updated: 2016-06-16 06:56

The planned meeting between US President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama sends the "wrong signal" to Tibetan separatists and will hamper Washington's relations with Beijing, the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.

China has lodged a diplomatic protest with the United States, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said.

Obama and the Dalai Lama were scheduled to meet privately at the White House on Wednesday morning. At press time, there was no confirmation of whether the meeting had been held.

The Dalai Lama is "not only a religious figure, but a political exile who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the guise of religion," Lu told a regular news briefing.

"Any attempt to take advantage of Tibet issues and undermine stability in China will not succeed," he added.

Obama had been scheduled to travel to Wisconsin to appear at a campaign event with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. But the event was postponed after Sunday's shooting at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub that left 50 people dead.

That created an opening in Obama's schedule that the White House filled with the meeting with the Dalai Lama, AP said.

Obama made a high-profile public appearance with the Dalai Lama last year at a prayer breakfast in Washington, calling him "a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion." Three previous meetings were held privately.

The White House barred the media from the meeting and arranged for it to be held in the Map Room instead of the Oval Office, which is reserved for visiting heads of state, AP said.

Niu Jun, a professor of international relations at Peking University, noted that the meeting was arranged on the heels of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which ended last week in Beijing and had positive effects on the two countries' relations.

"But the meeting will definitely hamper Beijing's ties with Washington, as it is an issue about sovereignty and separation," he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> _The two big guys are playing games with each other... especially when it is just after the Strategic & Economic Dialogue._
> 
> --------
> *Planned Obama, Dalai Lama meeting protested*
> By Li Xiaokun (China Daily)Updated: 2016-06-16 06:56
> 
> The planned meeting between US President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama sends the "wrong signal" to Tibetan separatists and will hamper Washington's relations with Beijing, the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.
> 
> China has lodged a diplomatic protest with the United States, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said.
> 
> Obama and the Dalai Lama were scheduled to meet privately at the White House on Wednesday morning. At press time, there was no confirmation of whether the meeting had been held.
> 
> The Dalai Lama is "not only a religious figure, but a political exile who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the guise of religion," Lu told a regular news briefing.
> 
> "Any attempt to take advantage of Tibet issues and undermine stability in China will not succeed," he added.
> 
> Obama had been scheduled to travel to Wisconsin to appear at a campaign event with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. But the event was postponed after Sunday's shooting at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub that left 50 people dead.
> 
> That created an opening in Obama's schedule that the White House filled with the meeting with the Dalai Lama, AP said.
> 
> Obama made a high-profile public appearance with the Dalai Lama last year at a prayer breakfast in Washington, calling him "a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion." Three previous meetings were held privately.
> 
> The White House barred the media from the meeting and arranged for it to be held in the Map Room instead of the Oval Office, which is reserved for visiting heads of state, AP said.
> 
> Niu Jun, a professor of international relations at Peking University, noted that the meeting was arranged on the heels of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which ended last week in Beijing and had positive effects on the two countries' relations.
> 
> "But the meeting will definitely hamper Beijing's ties with Washington, as it is an issue about sovereignty and separation," he said.



Agree. China knows it is just political score-making for the populist US presidents. Obama, too, probably knows he can play with the old man a little but his use date is over.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> Agree. China knows it is just political score-making for the populist US presidents. Obama, too, probably knows he can play with the old man a little but his use date is over.


i think the old man is just asking for mo money

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

Jlaw said:


> i think the old man is just asking for mo money



Most probably. He has lots of "hungry" souls to feed up and not in the spiritual sense.

I guess the old man knows well that spirituality does not fill one's stomach, politics does.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_First, China protested the meeting of Obama with Dalai Lama. 
Now, it is giving a friendly reminder; it's our internal affairs, our core interests._

--------
China Urges U.S. Not to Interfere in Internal Affairs on Tibet
2016-06-16 19:54:47 | CRIENGLISH.com | Web Editor: Meng Xue

China has urged the United States to refrain from interfering in China's domestic affairs, such as Tibet-related issues.

Beijing has lodged diplomatic representations with Washington over a meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama at the White House on Wednesday.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang says such a meeting would send the wrong signal to Tibet separatist forces and harm China-U.S. mutual trust and cooperation.

"We urge the United States to stop using the Tibet issue to interfere in China's internal affairs, and to stop doing anything that might affect the overall cooperation between China and U.S.. In regard to the situation in China's Tibet, Chinese people have the ultimate right to comment."

Lu Kang says the 14th Dalai Lama is not a purely religious figure, but a political exile who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the guise of religion.

He says the meeting goes against the US acknowledgement that Tibet is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, warning Washington not to support "Tibet-independence," or separatist forces.

"The Chinese government and people's will to safeguard national sovereignty and ethnic unity is resolute. Any plot trying to use the Tibet issue to interfere in China's internal matters, undermine China's stability and ethnic unity, will not succeed."

This is Obama's fourth White House meeting with the Dalai Lama in the past eight years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_The reminder works. Now, Kerry has confirmed in this statement._

--------
U.S. Does Not Support "Tibet Independence": Kerry
2016-06-19 08:42:12 | CRIENGLISH.com | Web Editor: Fei Fei






_File Photo: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (R) in Washington D.C. , the United States, on Oct. 1, 2014. [Photo: Xinhua]_


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says the United States maintains that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and does not support the independence of Tibet.

Speaking with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a telephone conversation, Kerry has moved to try to reassure Chinese officials that U.S. policy on Tibet will not change.

For his part, Wang Yi has called on US officials to take practical action to try to maintain China-US ties.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> _The reminder works. Now, Kerry has confirmed in this statement._
> 
> --------
> U.S. Does Not Support "Tibet Independence": Kerry
> 2016-06-19 08:42:12 | CRIENGLISH.com | Web Editor: Fei Fei
> 
> View attachment 311702
> 
> _File Photo: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (R) in Washington D.C. , the United States, on Oct. 1, 2014. [Photo: Xinhua]_
> 
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says the United States maintains that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and does not support the independence of Tibet.
> 
> Speaking with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a telephone conversation, Kerry has moved to try to reassure Chinese officials that U.S. policy on Tibet will not change.
> 
> For his part, Wang Yi has called on US officials to take practical action to try to maintain China-US ties.



The US just wants to keep it to troll China whenever it needs. But the trump card is getting weaker and less relevant every passing day.

Development and prosperity is the response to US provocations and meddling.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

_No doubt the US will be watching this one very closely....._

--------
Russian President to Visit China
2016-06-20 15:07:38 Xinhua Web Editor: Liu Yuanhui

Russian President Vladimir Putin will pay a state visit to China on June 25, according to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang on Monday.

Putin will visit at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, Lu said in a press release.

Xi will hold talks with Putin and they will have an in-depth exchange of views on bilateral ties and issues of common concern, another Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, told a daily news briefing.

According to Hua, the two leaders will plan the development direction and priority cooperation areas of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and they will sign important political documents and witness the signing of a series of documents of pragmatic cooperation.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and top legislator Zhang Dejiang will also meet Putin, Hua said.

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Sino-Russian Good-Neighborly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and both sides will hold events to mark the occasion, Hua said.

China hopes that Putin's upcoming visit will consolidate mutual political and strategic trust, promote pragmatic cooperation in various areas, inject new impetus to bilateral ties, and contribute more to international and regional peace, security and stability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> _No doubt the US will be watching this one very closely....._
> 
> --------
> Russian President to Visit China
> 2016-06-20 15:07:38 Xinhua Web Editor: Liu Yuanhui
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin will pay a state visit to China on June 25, according to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang on Monday.
> 
> Putin will visit at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, Lu said in a press release.
> 
> Xi will hold talks with Putin and they will have an in-depth exchange of views on bilateral ties and issues of common concern, another Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, told a daily news briefing.
> 
> According to Hua, the two leaders will plan the development direction and priority cooperation areas of the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and they will sign important political documents and witness the signing of a series of documents of pragmatic cooperation.
> 
> Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and top legislator Zhang Dejiang will also meet Putin, Hua said.
> 
> This year marks the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Sino-Russian Good-Neighborly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and both sides will hold events to mark the occasion, Hua said.
> 
> China hopes that Putin's upcoming visit will consolidate mutual political and strategic trust, promote pragmatic cooperation in various areas, inject new impetus to bilateral ties, and contribute more to international and regional peace, security and stability.



Wow, as far as I know, Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin will also meet in Tashkent tomorrow or the day after tomorrow for the signing of the SCO's Tashkent Declaration. 

I anticipate big energy deals from the meeting in Beijing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

_Now, the US must be wondering what have they done to cause this to happen ......
If China is not participating, the western sanctions against Russia is next to useless.
_
--------
*China, Russia eye closer friendship amid tensions with West*
AFP on June 26, 2016, 4:45 am





_China, Russia eye closer friendship amid tensions with West_


Beijing (AFP) - Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin promised ever-closer cooperation and oversaw a series of deals Saturday, as the two countries deepen ties in the face of growing tensions with the West.

In what was Putin's fourth trip to China since Xi became President in 2013, the two men stressed their shared outlook which mirrors the countries' converging trade, investment and geopolitical interests.

"Russia and China stick to points of view which are very close to each other or are almost the same in the international arena," Putin said.

The Russian leader added that the two had discussed "strengthening together the fight against international terrorism", the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, Syria, and stability in the South China Sea.

Russia and China have been brought together by mutual geopolitical concerns, among them wariness of the United States.

The two countries often vote as a pair on the UN Security Council, where both hold a veto, sometimes in opposition to Western powers on issues such as Syria.

China has raised tensions with its neighbours and the US over its claims to virtually all of the South China Sea, where it has built militarised artificial islands to bolster its claims in the contested but strategically vital region.

Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula and support for other Ukrainian separatist movements have led to the worst East-West standoff since the Cold War.

At loggerheads with the West, Moscow is seeking to refocus its gas and oil exports from Europe -- its main energy market -- towards Asia and is diligently building an energy alliance with Beijing.

*- 'Friends forever' -*

Xi emphasised that this year marked the 15th anniversary of the China-Russia treaty of friendship and hoped that the two countries might remain "friends forever".

"President Putin and I equally agree that when faced with international circumstances that are increasingly complex and changing, we must persist even harder in maintaining the spirit of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership and cooperation," he said.

The two sides signed over 30 cooperation deals in areas such as trade, infrastructure, foreign affairs, technology and innovation, agriculture, finance, energy, sports and the media.

Notably, Russian oil giant Rosneft inked a deal with China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) on developing a gas processing and petrochemical plant in East Siberia, as China seeks energy to fuel its economic growth.

Xi and Putin signed two joint statements themselves, one "to strengthen global strategic stability" and one to promote the development of information and cyberspace.

Putin said that 58 different deals worth a total of around $50 billion were currently in discussion, adding that the two countries will seek to secure an agreement on building a high-speed rail line in Russia by the end of the year.

Xi also called for closer cooperation between news agencies in Russia and China so that both countries could "together increase the influence" of their media on world public opinion.

Under Xi, Communist China has mounted crackdowns on dissidents and tightened restrictions on the media, while critics accuse Putin's Russia of rights abuses.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> _Now, the US must be wondering what have they done to cause this to happen ......
> If China is not participating, the western sanctions against Russia is next to useless._



It has already been proven useless. Putin took a swift revenge by dismembering the EU.

The next revenge will be Putin's putting Trump as the US' next president.

The third revenge will be on Turkey leadership.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

TaiShang said:


> The third revenge will be on Turkey leadership.


.
@TaiShang 
Turkey has apologized for the downing of the Russian plane and it now looking to mend ties.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_I am sure SK is aware that it is being used as a pawn.
If it doesn't know, it could be a casualty. It is not often that the President meets the Prime Minister of another country.
I think this is purposely done to send a clear message to SK._

--------
President Xi Urges Caution on U.S. Missile System in South Korea
2016-06-29 21:13:27 | Xinhua Web | Editor: Guo Jing






_Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) meets with the Republic of Korea Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn in Beijing, capital of China, June 29, 2016. [Photo: Xinhua]_

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday urged South Korea to address China's concerns on security and "cautiously and appropriately" address the United States' plan to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in the country.

Xi Jinping made the remarks as he met with visiting South Korea Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn in Beijing.

China and South Korea should continue to work for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, work together to maintain peace and stability on the Peninsula, and solve problems through dialogue and consultation, said the president.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

ahojunk said:


> _I am sure SK is aware that it is being used as a pawn.
> If it doesn't know, it could be a casualty. It is not often that the President meets the Prime Minister of another country.
> I think this is purposely done to send a clear message to SK._
> 
> --------
> President Xi Urges Caution on U.S. Missile System in South Korea
> 2016-06-29 21:13:27 | Xinhua Web | Editor: Guo Jing
> 
> View attachment 314791
> 
> _Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) meets with the Republic of Korea Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn in Beijing, capital of China, June 29, 2016. [Photo: Xinhua]_
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday urged South Korea to address China's concerns on security and "cautiously and appropriately" address the United States' plan to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in the country.
> 
> Xi Jinping made the remarks as he met with visiting South Korea Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn in Beijing.
> 
> China and South Korea should continue to work for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, work together to maintain peace and stability on the Peninsula, and solve problems through dialogue and consultation, said the president.




SK has no choice. They sold their soul to the US. India will be doing the same thing next month.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_Why is Russia and China getting closer to each other? This is one of the reason.

"We're looking at the vast majority of the world pulling together an alternative to the self-destructive and globally destructive policies implemented [by Washington],"_

--------
*Oops! Washington's Aggressive Posture Pushes Russia & China Closer Together*
21:30 26.06.2016 (updated 21:33 26.06.2016)

*Aggressive US moves in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea have only led to Russia and China strengthening their economic and geopolitical cooperation, political commentator Mike Billington told Iranian news network PressTV.*

Commenting on Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Beijing, where the two sides have signed a series of new agreements on enhanced cooperation, Billington, an Asia expert and author for the Executive Intelligence Review newsmagazine, told PressTV that Russia and China are strengthening their ties in light of both countries' growing tensions vis-à-vis the United States.

"This is happening in the context of the total breakdown of the Western financial system; it's happening in the midst of [President] Obama and his British controllers moving the most massive military forces since World War Two right up to Russia's border; two US aircraft carrier exercising in the Philippine Sea [are] obviously another threat to China," the analyst noted.

"And as both Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi Jinping [have] said, the deployment of these anti-ballistic missile systems in Romania and Poland, as well as the THAAD missiles in Korea and missiles being deployed in Japan and elsewhere," constitute another danger to the two countries, Billington added.

Ultimately, the commentator suggested that "what Putin is doing with Xi Jinping is to successfully create an alternative world — a new paradigm, based on development, based on building infrastructure (railroads, nuclear power, space programs), collaborating with the BRICS nations, with the SCO nations that have now brought India and Pakistan into the SCO, in collaboration with the Eurasian Economic Union that Mr. Putin formed."

"We're looking at the vast majority of the world pulling together an alternative to the self-destructive and globally destructive policies implemented [by Washington]," Billington concluded.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_US has been trying to kill off BRICS. What a surprise!
US wants to be the only superpower and hegemon._

--------
Killing The BRICS Hasn't Quite Worked
Kenneth Rapoza, Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Jul 6, 2016 @ 12:08 PM





_Leaders of BRICS from left, Brazilian (suspended) President Dilma Rousseff, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and South African President Jacob Zuma pose for a photo during their meeting prior to the G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)_


In some financial circles, especially those macro traders open to a good conspiracy theory, the supposed strategy of the U.S. to “kill the BRICS” hasn’t worked out. In fact, despite sanctions and economic downturns and unheard of corruption scandals, the BRICS have money in the bank and the International Monetary Fund at bay. Meanwhile, European banks are hanging on for dear life, with the IMF saying in June that Deutsche Bank was the biggest single risk to the region’s financial system.

You won’t hear that in Brazil. Itau and even government owned Banco do Brasil is not going to bring the country down. (It has its own corrupt politicians to do that.) Russia has shuttered a few mid-cap banks over the last two years and is burning through one of its sovereign wealth funds, but like Brazil it still has over $320 billion sitting in its core central bank currency reserve fund.

China is slowing, but still growing. India is a stand-out. Policy implementation is slow as ever, but there is not political crisis or economic crisis in the works, nor on the horizon.

In South Africa, which hasn’t touched an IMF loan since 1999, the economy is actually growing. It’s not great. Incomes are in decline. But it’s better than Brazil, Spain and even Japan.

The BRICS, once heralded as drivers of global growth, are all hanging on for dear life. Their counterparts in the U.S. and Europe, meanwhile, are tethered to the whims of their respective central banks for life support. And while there is talk of a recession in Europe or even in the U.S., Brazil and Russia are expected to see the light at the end of their recessionary tunnel by year’s end.

Markets are pricing in crisis-mode, however. On the basis of the JP Morgan Emerging Markets Currency Index alone, investors perceive the big emerging markets as still being in the midst of a crisis, one that is more severe in fact than any they have undergone in the past—including the various EM-driven crises of the 1990s and early 2000s, and even the more recent global financial crisis. The Index is roughly 27% below 2009 levels.

For those who like an opportunity, this looks like there’s some upside to be had here.

The BRICS are in a bad way, but they have learned from past mistakes. Until the IMF comes to town in Brazil, the government is trusted to be in control of its debt burden. Russia, meanwhile, is consistently conservative. It de-pegged the ruble from the dollar in 2014, helping it manage the fall in oil prices. When oil prices fell, the ruble fell even deeper, helping Russian oil companies maintain their markets.

Even China has moved to a more flexible exchange rate, widening the trading band for its currency in August 2015. They “have learned the lessons of previous crises, and leveraged them to put themselves in a much stronger position to successfully weather the latest set of shocks,” says Michael Hasenstab, a fund manager for Franklin Templeton.

One reason why the BRICS have not yet required a bailout: dollar denominated debt. They’re no longer drowning in it. 

The financial crises in these countries have all been based on currency, weak local banking and sovereign debt priced in dollars or euros. The most severe crises typically involve more than one of these causes. This explains why the BRICS boosted their levels of foreign exchange reserves after the last crisis in the early 2000s, and joined forces between their central banks to provide financial support when needed.

Hasenstab says in a 32 page report released last week that the most important step the big emerging markets have taken to reduce their vulnerability to crises, both foreign and domestic, is the deepening of their own financial markets. That means they don’t have to rush to Citibank for funding anymore, unless its the home-grown subsidiary pricing its loans in the local currency.

The development of a reliable domestic investor base has benefited from the rise of a broad middle class. This is especially true in China and less so in Russia and India. The total assets held by domestic insurers and pension funds in emerging markets, including the BRICS, have swelled from just $2.3 trillion in 2005 to around $6 trillion in 2013, boosted by the expansion of the insurance sector in China and by pension funds in Brazil and Mexico.

For the BRICS, a transition toward more balanced funding has improved financial resilience and made them harder to force into the loving arms of the IMF.

Domestic institutional investors can be a stabilizing force when asset prices collapse to levels that are clearly out of line with fundamentals, Hasenstab writes. In the past, the lack of a strong domestic investor base magnified the consequences of financial volatility. When the West was out, countries like Brazil, South Africa and India, in particular, were out of luck.

The borrowing practices of these governments have also improved. According to the Bank for International Settlements, governments have raised their reliance on funding in local markets, with the share of international loans falling from roughly 40% in 1997 to a mere 8% in 2014, while the share of foreign holdings of local government debt has increased to 25%, according to JP Morgan.

The increased importance devoted to attracting foreign direct investment in long term projects like energy and infrastructure instead of speculative investments has helped curb the risk of sudden capital outflows. It’s much easier to sell out of Brazilian bonds, than it is to sell out of an entire Brazilian hotel chain.

China remains particularly hard to bring down. It has been butting heads more against the U.S. over the South China Sea, but their economy is so deeply tied to the U.S. that a weak China also ends up being bad for American companies, especially those that are just starting to export there.

China has been a stalwart within the BRICS. And while the political ties between the five countries are not as tight as those between the U.S. and European Union, they have proven that they can take their lumps when up against the ropes.

Over the last few years, the five countries created the National Development Bank, which was first seen as a challenge to the World Bank and IMF. Then China launched an even bigger project, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It received immediate criticism by the U.S. Washington has abstained from becoming a member of the bank, while the U.K., Washington’s biggest ally in Europe, is a member.

The BRICS have been seen as an alternative to a unipolar, dollar-centric world. But its latest development banks are all dollar denominated, for now. And while their economies are in varying degrees of crises, they have shown that the last decade of keeping clear of the IMF remains a policy none are willing to reverse. Until the IMF comes crashing into Brasilia or J-Berg, the BRICS are alive and will manage to grow in the current low-growth environment everyone is facing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_The G2 has many avenues to discuss and come to an agreement. Their main vehicle is the "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" which is held yearly. Now, their "think tanks" are talking with each other. Note that think tanks play a role in influencing their respective government's policies

When the G2 comes to an agreement, the US will gracefully exit the SCS and the small countries will become sacrificial pawns. Countries don't have permanent allies or enemies, they only have permanent interests, (i.e. their own interests)._

--------
*South China Sea Disputes Should Not Define China-U.S. Relations*

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Over 50 leading experts from China and U.S. think tanks participated in the seminar, co-organized by Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China (RUCCY) and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), sponsored by National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS) and Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Ideas such as "The disputes over the South China Sea should not define China-U.S. relations." and "Averting a deepening U.S.-China rift over the South China Sea issue should be a priority while coordination and cooperation between the two countries must be encouraged." were discussed by a group of International Leading Experts who concluded China-U.S. Dialogue on the South China Sea, at a closed-door seminar in Washington DC on July 5, 2016.

"The final decision of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper," said Dai Bingguo, former State Councilor of China, spoke in the opening ceremony, "China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other International Laws."

"China sees the peace and stability of the South China Sea as having a bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation," added Dai Bingguo.

"The stability in the South China Sea is in accordance with all parties concerned," said Huang Renwei, Vice President of Shanghai Academy of Social Science, "We should reduce strategic mistrust while enhancing crisis management."

The tension in the South China Sea must be cooled down," said Michael Swaine, Senior Associate of CEIP." "The U.S. and China must get beyond the heated rhetoric and build the basis for de-escalating tensions in this region."

"We need to carefully consider the implications for U.S. operations in the South China Sea," said Brendan Mulvaney, Associate Chair for Language and Culture Dept. in the United States Naval Academy.

"It serves as 'Think Tank Diplomacy' at this subtle moment," said Wang Wen, Executive Dean of RUCCY.

This seminar seeks exchanges of views among think tanks and cooperation between China and the United States. *Experts here agreed that the two countries should not get into a confrontation regarding the South China Sea issue*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> .
> @TaiShang
> Turkey has apologized for the downing of the Russian plane and it now looking to mend ties.



Yes, it seems they have seen the dead end as far as establishing a nice and clean Nusra-friendly Islamic brotherhood regime in Syria to create the great sunni-land under neo-Ottomanist Turkey president.

In Turkey, foreign policy seems to be attached to one person, hence, depending on his ambitions and little power interests, moves are made. Of course, they little notice that one can ruin relatons single-handedly, but cannot mend them alone.

Russia accepted the apology on conditions known to no one. It will interesting to see how things will develop in Syria.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

*China urges U.S. to stop supporting Taiwan independence*
2016-07-07 21:39 | Xinhua | _Editor: Gu Liping_

China urged the United States to stop "sending the wrong signals" to Taiwan independence forces, as the island's new leader Tsai Ing-wen contacted several U.S. congressmen.

"We insist on handling Taiwan's external contacts in the principle of the one-China policy, and oppose any countries having diplomatic relations with China to conduct any official association or contacts with Taiwan," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei on Thursday.

Hong told a daily press conference that China was very dissatisfied with contact between U.S. officials, congressmen and Tsai Ing-wen. China has already lodged solemn representations with the U.S. side.

Hong urged the United States to honor its commitment to the one-China policy, the principle of the three joint communiques, and to oppose Taiwan independence.

The United States should handle Taiwan affairs cautiously and stop official contact with Taiwan in any form, and sending the wrong signals to Taiwan independence and avoid harming China-U.S. relations, Hong said.

Tsai started an overseas trip to Panama and Paraguay on June 24, and made stops in Miami and Los Angeles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

ahojunk said:


> *China urges U.S. to stop supporting Taiwan independence*
> 2016-07-07 21:39 | Xinhua | _Editor: Gu Liping_
> 
> China urged the United States to stop "sending the wrong signals" to Taiwan independence forces, as the island's new leader Tsai Ing-wen contacted several U.S. congressmen.
> 
> "We insist on handling Taiwan's external contacts in the principle of the one-China policy, and oppose any countries having diplomatic relations with China to conduct any official association or contacts with Taiwan," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei on Thursday.
> 
> Hong told a daily press conference that China was very dissatisfied with contact between U.S. officials, congressmen and Tsai Ing-wen. China has already lodged solemn representations with the U.S. side.
> 
> Hong urged the United States to honor its commitment to the one-China policy, the principle of the three joint communiques, and to oppose Taiwan independence.
> 
> The United States should handle Taiwan affairs cautiously and stop official contact with Taiwan in any form, and sending the wrong signals to Taiwan independence and avoid harming China-U.S. relations, Hong said.
> 
> Tsai started an overseas trip to Panama and Paraguay on June 24, and made stops in Miami and Los Angeles.



I think Chinese think tank got it wrong here. They should allow US to encourage Taiwan independence so that the unification will be sooner rather than later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_US should stop meddling in SCS, Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc), Europe (Ukraine), Latin America, etc._

---------
*U.S. should stop treating South China Sea as next Caribbean*
2016-07-11 08:18 | Xinhua | _Editor: Mo Hong'e_

The United States should stay away from the South China Sea issue and avoid repeating its history of military intervention and political manipulation in the Caribbean in the past century.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague will announce its award on Tuesday in an arbitration case filed unilaterally by the Philippines against China on disputes over the South China Sea.

Looking back at the drama, it's not difficult to see that the United States has played an important role in disturbing the once peaceful waters since it adopted a "pivot to Asia" strategy.

And it's not the first time for the nation to do so. Having been regarding Latin America as its backyard, the United States has never stopped making waves in the Caribbean.

Cuba is one of the biggest victims. The United States occupied the country during the 1898 American-Spanish War and forced it to sign a contract to indefinitely lease Guantanamo Bay, which later became the first overseas military base of the United States and has never been returned.

Later on, the United States dispatched troops to Cuba three times after the establishment of the republic in 1902, and has adopted a hostile attitude toward the country ever since the victory of the Cuban revolution in 1959.

After failing to topple Cuba's regime in April 1961 by sending over 1,500 mercenaries, the United States started imposing economic and financial blockade and trade embargo on Cuba, which have not been completely lifted as of today.

In 1903, the United States instigated Panama's independence from Colombia, and forced the new government to sign an unequal treaty on building the Panama Canal.

Over half a century later, in a bid to seize control over the canal, the George H.W. Bush administration sent an army of 26,000 to Panama on Dec 20, 1989 in the name of "protecting American lives there from political instability." The same reason had been used to justify the U.S. occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934.

In August 1926, U.S. Marines invaded Nicaragua to bolster the pro-American conservative government when a civil war torn the small central American country apart. While in April 1965, when a civil war broke out in the Dominican Republic and overturned a U.S.-installed government, the United States sent nearly 40,000 troops to "restore order" in the country.

The same tragedy also happened to Grenada, one of the smallest countries in the Caribbean. In October 1983, the Reagan administration sent 5,000 Marines to Grenada to topple its Communist regime. In little more than a week, the government was overthrown.

Throughout the 20th Century, the United States has been incessantly cruising its warships on the Caribbean waters, trying to assert its influence over the region.

Its interference that blocked the path of independent development for Caribbean countries, and resulted in long time of turmoil as well as social stagnation in some of the countries.

Obviously all the military operations, political interference and economic sanctions made by the United States are only for one purpose -- defending, if not wanting more, its interests in the region.

As former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once put it, "the Caribbean region is a vital strategic and commercial artery for the United States."

Since it began to enjoy a rapid rise of political eminence at the end of the 19th century, the United States has been driving wedges in the Caribbean countries so that it could gain dominance over the entire region.

And now it is using the same strategy in the Asia-Pacific, specially, the South China Sea.

Since a U.S. strategy shift in 2009 toward Asia-Pacific, tensions and disputes between countries in the South China Sea have been increasing dramatically.

Recently the situation has been worsened due to a string of provocative actions made by the U.S. Navy under the banner of "free navigation."

U.S. warplanes and warships have been patrolling dangerously close to Chinese territory, emboldening some nations, even though the region is thousands of miles away from the U.S. homeland.

It seems like a habitual behavior of the United States to boss around. However, the South China Sea is not the Caribbean and U.S. hegemony will not work there.

This is not only because China's claim of sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea is legitimate, but also because China has always been a firm advocate for peace and prosperity in the region.

With regard to the current disputes in the South China Sea, China proposes a "dual-track" approach, namely peacefully and properly handling the disputes through direct talks between the parties involved and jointly maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea with the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

There has been peace and prosperity in the South China Sea for most of the time in past centuries and will prevail in the future unless outside forces come to interfere.

So the United States should stop treating the South China Sea as the next Caribbean and quit the habit of meddling in other countries' business.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_From Time magazine._

--------
China Will Never Respect the U.S. Over the South China Sea. Here’s Why
Hannah Beech / Shanghai @hkbeech 
July 8, 2016 

*The U.S. is one of the most vocal countries urging China to hew to international arbitration in the vital waterway. Beijing isn't impressed*

A great power refuses to play by international rules, declining to ratify a major U.N. convention to which more than 160 other countries are party. After years of complaints, the nation convinces the U.N. to tweak the treaty to many of its specifications. Yet even after those amendments, the great power’s legislature prioritizes protectionist sentiment over respect for global rule of law.

This renegade country, though, is not China, which has come under fire for saying it will flout an upcoming U.N. court decision on its territorial claims in the South China Sea. Instead, the longtime outlier is the U.S., one of the most vocal countries urging China to hew to the international order.

In 1982, after around a decade of wrangling, the U.N. hammered out a framework to guide global maritime affairs and ensure freedom of navigation. Called the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), the treaty covers everything from the rules of maritime commerce to the ways in which resource-rich seabeds can be divvied up between nations. In certain cases, international courts like the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, can rule in maritime disputes.

On July 12, that judicial body will decide on a lawsuit lodged in 2013 by the Philippines, one of six governments that claim territory in the contested South China Sea. At stake is whether Chinese-controlled rocks and reefs — many of which have been turned over the past couple years into military outposts through extensive reclamation — are eligible for so-called exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the surrounding sea. These zones, which are defined by UNCLOS and can extend up to 200 nautical miles, give governments the right to all natural resources found in those waters. For all of Beijing’s dredging in the South China Sea, if the court rules that the atolls under Chinese control are not naturally formed islands fit for human habitation or economic life, China will lose international legal claim over much of the contested waterway.

Many legal experts expect the court to rule at least partly in favor of the Philippines. Yet China says it won’t abide by the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling nor does Beijing even accept the U.N. tribunal’s authority over its South China Sea claims. Last month, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei reiterated China’s official position. “I again stress that the arbitration court has no jurisdiction in the case,” he said. “China does not accept any dispute resolution from a third party and does not accept any dispute resolution forced on China.”

But first back to history. Shortly after UNCLOS was unveiled in 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign what was touted as the “constitution of the sea,” claiming the convention undermined U.S. sovereignty. In 1994, after UNCLOS was revised to take into consideration American worries about losing control of valuable underwater oil and natural-gas deposits, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an updated UNCLOS agreement, although not the entire treaty. Yet even though multiple presidential Administrations — both Democrat and Republican — have since supported the convention, Republicans in the U.S. Senate have routinely scuttled efforts to ratify UNCLOS. Meanwhile, even landlocked countries like Mongolia, Burkina Faso and Bolivia have signed on to the treaty.

Washington’s outsider position undercuts its message as it urges China to respect global maritime norms. After all, China ratified UNCLOS in 1996, even if Beijing now says it rejects any judgment by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. In a speech in Washington earlier this month, retired Chinese top diplomat Dai Bingguo accused the U.S. of “heavy-handed intervention” in the South China Sea. “Accidents could happen,” said the still influential Chinese Communist Party official, “and the South China Sea might sink into chaos and so might the entirety of Asia.” Still, even as Beijing has launched a public-relations blitz ahead of the July 12 ruling, Chinese state media and diplomatic statements have not highlighted America’s AWOL status in UNCLOS. Perhaps critiquing the U.S. absence is harder when China itself is distancing itself from one of the treaty’s utilized tribunals.

It’s true that even if Congress hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, the U.S. Navy, which is the world’s largest, adheres to its principles. American top brass openly support U.S. ratification. “I think that in the 21st century our moral standing is affected by the fact that we are not a signatory to UNCLOS,” said Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

In a June speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. President Barack Obama urged Congress to move ahead on UNCLOS. “If we’re truly concerned about China’s actions in the South China Sea,” he said in his commencement address, “the Senate should help strengthen our case by approving the Law of the Sea convention, as our military leaders have urged.” But ratifying the convention will require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, an all but impossibility particularly in this contentious election year. The U.S. Navy will continue to ply the high seas, acting as the world’s oceanic policeman by engaging in freedom-of-navigation exercises to ensure open trade routes. *But American hypocrisy when it comes to maritime rule of law looks likely to endure*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dadeechi

G2 is winning

China played well to bring down USSR and Russia..


----------



## ahojunk

_Yes, the G2 will be looking after their respective interests. If necessary, the pawns can be sacrificed.

--------_
*Xi calls on China, U.S. to respect each other's core interests*
(Xinhua) 08:16, July 26, 2016





_Chinese President Xi Jinping(R) meets with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, July 25, 2016. (Xinhua/Ding Lin)_


BEIJING, July 25 (Xinhua) -- President Xi Jinping on Monday called on China and the United States to effectively manage their differences and respect each other's core interests.

Xi made the remarks when meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

China-U.S. common interests outweigh their differences, Xi said, noting that both sides needed more mutual trust and cooperation.

The goal of China's development is to benefit its 1.3 billion people, Xi said, reiterating that China had no intention of challenging the present international rules and order, and it will never seek hegemony.

Xi called on both sides to expand economic, trade and investment cooperation, as well as cooperation in climate change and international and regional affairs to make pragmatic cooperation a "ballast" in China-U.S. ties.

Rice said the United States agreed to work with China to strengthen mutual trust, enhance pragmatic cooperation and manage issues of difference through close communication.

Xi recalled his meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama over the past three years and the consensuses agreed upon.

The decision of the two sides to build a new model of major-country relations has produced many solid achievements in bilateral relations, Xi said.

Sino-U.S. relations should always stick to the principle of no-conflict, no-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation, according to Xi.

China values ties with the United States and is willing to make joint efforts to make sure the relationship enjoys sustainable, steady growth, Xi said.

Rice said the U.S. side viewed its relationship with China as its most consequential ties today and China's success is in line with America's interest.

She called for more cooperation to deal with global challenges such as climate change.

This year's G20 summit will be held in east China's Hangzhou City in September.

Xi said he was looking forward to meeting with President Obama in Hangzhou in September, expressing his hope that the meeting will boost bilateral ties and direct the stable development of bilateral ties.

Xi called on China and the United States, as the world's two biggest economies, to work together and make the summit a success, which will send a signal of confidence to the world and inject new vitality into the global economy.

Rice said President Obama was also looking forward to the G20 summit and the meeting with Xi.

When meeting with Rice on Monday, Vice Chairman of China's Central Military Commission Fan Changlong and Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi reiterated China's position on the South China Sea issue and the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in the Republic of Korea (ROK).

On July 12, the Arbitral Tribunal for the South China Sea arbitration issued its so-called award, which attempts to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.

China will continue to firmly safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, Yang said, noting that China opposes the award of the so-called arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration.

China's stance on the South China Sea issue is unshakable, Fan said, affirming China's staunch position of non-acceptance and non-recognition of the award.

Fan said the Chinese military would continue to provide strong backing to safeguarding China's national territorial sovereignty and security.

In mid July, the ROK's defense ministry announced an agreement with the United States to deploy the U.S. missile defense system, THAAD, to its southeastern region despite opposition from neighboring countries.

Fan said the THAAD deployment would directly damage China's strategic security, escalate the tension in the Korean Peninsula and undermine China-U.S. mutual trust.

Yang urged the U.S. side to take China's concern seriously and to halt the deployment of the U.S. anti-missile system in the ROK.

Rice said the United States was ready to work with China to properly manage and control differences to avoid misunderstanding or miscalculation.

Rice is visiting China from July 24 to 27.






_BEIJING, July 25, 2016 -- Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi holds talks with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Beijing, capital of China, July 25, 2016. (Xinhua/Ding Haitao)_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_The two big boys are making up._

--------
*US agrees it's time to 'turn the page'*
(China Daily) 08:46, July 27, 2016





_Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi(right) meets with US Secretary of State John Kerry inVientiane, capital of Laos, July 25, 2016. [Photo/Xinhua]_

*Kerry says he will encourage Manila to pursue negotiations with Beijing*

Washington agrees with Beijing that "the time has come" to move away from the tensions in the South China Sea and to "turn the page", US Secretary of State John Kerry said, adding that he will encourage the Philippines to pursue dialogue and negotiation with China in their dispute.

He made the comments to reporters in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, while recalling his meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday.

Both Wang and Kerry attended a range of multilateral meetings of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations from Sunday to Tuesday.

Kerry told a news conference on Tuesday that "we don't take a position, as I said earlier, on the claimants" in the South China Sea issue. He said the US "would like to see a process of dialogue" between Beijing and Manila.

"I will be leaving to the Philippines this afternoon, meeting with President (Rodrigo) Duterte tomorrow, and I would encourage President Duterte to engage in dialogue and in negotiation," he said.

The consensus between Kerry and Wang surprised many observers, since Washington has publicly pressed Beijing to accept the recent ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal of The Hague in a case unilaterally initiated by Manila in 2013.

Wang told China Daily on Tuesday night that the three-day meetings were a success, and "the biggest consensus between China and ASEAN this year is to return to the track of resolving disputes through dialogue and consultation" after the arbitration ruling.

Wang said that since ASEAN said during the meetings that it takes no position as a whole on the arbitral ruling, the hyping about the South China Sea did not resolve the issue, but instead "offered excuses to forces outside the region to impose intervention".

Chen Qinghong, a researcher on Southeast Asian and Philippine studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Research, welcomed Washington's milder tone. "The possibility cannot be ruled out that Washington may require Manila to make the ruling a condition for future talks with China, while this condition has been refused by Beijing," Chen added.

On the sidelines of the meetings, Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak of Slovakia, which assumes the chairmanship of the European Union this year, told China Daily that the EU believes the South China issue should be solved "in a direct dialogue of parties affected".

He said that "we are pleased by the joint communique" achieved on Monday in the meeting between ASEAN member states and China, which renewed commitment to managing the disputes.

"We believe that this is a step in the right direction, and we believe that in this spirit, the progress will continue in the future," he added.

Zhou Fangyin, a professor of Chinese foreign policy at Guangdong Institute for International Strategies, said the meetings "set a tone" for ASEAN's future South China Sea policies, and ASEAN's not taking a position on the arbitration ruling "will be a restraint for Manila".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

All this time there was negotiation behind the scences between the two great powers.

Manila got just used. Did they know?

What matters that the two great powers find a _modus operandi_ and work towards solving the golbal problems.

The biggest at the moment is security from extremism and global economy.

Without the two agreeing, nothing will happen.

Russia must be part of the security measures.

Economy is between US & China.

There is too much chaos under the heavens.

Time for Harmony under the Heavens. For everyone!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_The US strategy for the SCS is unraveling. ASEAN don't give a hoot.
The so-called kangaroo court ruling is a worthless piece of paper and a farce._

--------
U.S. diplomatic strategy on South China Sea appears to founder
WASHINGTON | By David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick 
Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:05pm EDT


In the lead-up to an international court ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea this month, United States officials talked about rallying a coalition to impose "terrible" costs to Beijing's international reputation if flouted the court's decision.

But just two weeks after the July 12 announcement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague - which at least on paper, appeared to be a humiliating defeat for China - *the U.S. strategy appears to be unraveling and the court's ruling is in danger of becoming irrelevant*.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials spoke repeatedly of the need for countries in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere, including the European Union, to make it clear that the decision of the court should be binding.

"We need to be ready to be very loud and vocal, in harmony together ... to say that this is international law, this is incredibly important, it is binding on all parties," Amy Searight, the then-U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, said in February.

Then in April, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken said China risked "terrible" damage to its reputation if it ignored The Hague's ruling.

The top lawyer from the Philippines, which brought the case against China, even said Beijing risked "outlaw" status.

The United States had backed Manila's case on the grounds that China's claims to 85 percent of the South China Sea, one of the world's busiest trade routes, were a threat to freedom of navigation and international law.

Yet after the international court rejected Beijing's position, the U.S. calls for a united front appear to have made little headway, with only six countries joining Washington in insisting that the decision should be binding.

They include the Philippines, but not several other countries with their own claims to parts of the South China Sea that might benefit if Beijing observed the decision.

China also scored a major diplomatic victory earlier this week, when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) dropped any reference to the ruling from a joint statement at the end of a meeting of the 10-country group's foreign minister in Laos. This followed objections from Cambodia, Beijing's closest ASEAN ally.

On July 15, the European Union, distracted after Britain's vote to leave the bloc, issued a statement taking note of the ruling, but avoiding direct reference to Beijing or any assertion that the decision was binding.


*RULING RISKS IRRELEVANCE*

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed satisfaction that ASEAN had issued a communique that championed the rule of law and said the omission of any reference to the arbitration case did not detract from its importance.

He also said it was "impossible" for the ruling to become irrelevant because it is legally binding.

But analysts said it now risks exactly that, not least because Washington has failed to press the issue effectively with its friends and allies.

"We should all be worried that this case is going to go down as nothing more than a footnote because its impact was only as strong as the international community was going to make it," said Greg Poling, a South China Sea expert at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank.

"And the international community has voted by not saying anything. The consensus seems to be 'We don’t care. We don’t want to hold China to these standards.'"

Dean Cheng, an expert on China with the Heritage Foundation think-tank, said Washington appeared reluctant to push a tougher line with Beijing - a vital economic partner as well as a strategic rival - with only a few months to go in President Barack Obama's tenure and a presidential election in November.

"What we have is China pushing very hard into the South China Sea, physically, politically, illegally and diplomatically, and the United States refraining from doing very much at all," said Cheng.

One reason for the administration's relative passivity may be its desire to prevent any major escalation of the dispute after the ruling, including further land reclamation by China or the declaration of a new air defense identification zone.

China has so far responded only with sharpened rhetoric, but analysts and officials worry that Beijing might take bolder action after it hosts the Group of 20 meeting of the world's biggest economies in September.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; editing by G Crosse)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Don't forget that Japanese strategy has also faild in SCS.

Australia is irrlevant. Just have to say what it is asked to say.

Good times ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_Good to see that China is now active on the diplomatic front.
This will help in the projection of soft power.
Two big wins so far - AIIB and OBOR._

--------
*Active policies broaden China’s diplomacy*
Source:Global Times Published: 2016-7-28 23:48:01

The width and depth of China's diplomacy have been greatly expanded since China has implemented a more active foreign policy in recent years. This has aroused deep concern from the US. Washington's elites have made stereotyped analyses of China's strategic intentions from a geopolitical perspective. Out of anxiety, they are keen on analyzing China's diplomatic failures, more like seeking grounds to comfort themselves.

A commentary published by Foreign Policy recently reviewed the foreign policy failures China has made over the past few years. It claimed the US is being welcomed in Asia because of China's diplomatic blunders. It also pointed out China's diplomatic setbacks in Europe, taking the refusal of the EU to grant China "market economy status" as evidence.

China does face a string of challenges in the South China Sea and Northeast Asia. But they do not represent the whole picture. In fact, our diplomatic strategies have become more clear-cut and active, and some strategic breakthroughs, which are beyond imagination, have been made to reshape China's diplomatic landscape.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a highlight. The bank was successfully founded despite obstructions by the US and Japan. It's a diplomatic masterpiece by a new emerging economy. The *One Belt, One Road* initiative, as an important blueprint for regional cooperation, not only has a clear vision but also conforms to reality. Giving full play to the advantages of China's economies of scale, and focusing China's foreign relations on win-win cooperation, the initiative demonstrates a new mindset of China that is different to those of out-dated expansionist powers.

EU members have maintained a sound relationship with China. Our close partners span from Africa to Latin America. China-Russia relations have been unprecedentedly consolidated; the AIIB and the "Belt and Road" initiative have gained wide popularity in China's periphery; a China-centered East Asian economic pattern has taken shape, and the connectivity between China and surrounding countries is gradually advancing.

Chinese diplomacy in recent years has witnessed new problems. The root cause is that the US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific has strategically squeezed China. So far, the frictions between China and a few neighboring countries are still controllable. By preventing the Philippines and Vietnam from further nibbling away at China's reefs, islands as well as maritime interests, and our success in island construction, China has gained the momentum in safeguarding its sovereignty. The interference of the US and Japan has complicated the South China Sea issue, but wrangling with them has helped boost China's capabilities of handling international disputes.

A rising power will always be suppressed by an established power. China as a rapidly developing country must do more in diplomacy. There will be ups and downs in the process, but the results matter more. China's peaceful rise is a fact. This is enough to give China's diplomacy a high score.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

China does not wish to replace US.

Chinese paradigm is totally different than that of the US.

China needs to master the art of communication.

Chinese diplomacy is evolving rather well.

But soft power only happens with effective communication.

Chinese cultural industry must play an important role in this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_The big 2 have many avenues to chit chat and look after their interests. _

--------
*Stable development of Sino-U.S. ties in interest of both sides: Yang*
2016-07-26 11:10 | chinadaily.com.cn | _Editor: Feng Shuang_






_Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (R) shakes hands with US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Beijing, July 25, 2016. (Photo/Xinhua)_

State Councilor Yang Jiechi said he hopes that China and the U.S. could make efforts to expand cooperation in various fields and manage and control their differences in a constructive way.

He made the comment when meeting with visiting U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Beijing on Monday.

Yang said, as one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world, the China-U.S. ties have made progress in terms of practical cooperation in various fields, but it also faces a lot of challenges.

"To maintain the stable development of China-U.S. bilateral ties is in line with the interests of both sides and this requires concerted efforts from both countries," he told Rice, who is visiting China from Sunday to Wednesday.

Yang said that he hoped China and the U.S. could stick to the principles of no conflicts, no confrontation, mutual respects and cooperation for win-win results, and focus on their common interests to expand cooperation.

He also noted that both sides should manage and control differences in a constructive way in order to push forward the consistent and stable development of bilateral ties.

During the meeting, Yang emphasized Beijing's firm opposition on the arbitration case, saying that China will continue to steadfastly safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.

China strongly urges the U.S. to seriously treat China's concern and not to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea, he said.

According to Yang, given the current global political and economic situation, to ensure fruitful results to be yielded in the G20 leaders' summit to be held in Hangzhou in September, will help to send the world a message of confidence and inject vitality to the growth of global economy.

China and the U.S., as the top two largest economies, are indispensable in this regard, he said, calling for close cooperation between the two countries to promote the G20 to play an effective role in global economic governance.

Rice said her visit aims to pave the way for U.S. President Barack Obama's participation in the G20 summit and his meeting with President Xi Jinping.

She said, just as President Obama has noted there is no more consequential relationship than U.S.-China ties, and the U.S. welcomes a prosperous and stable China to play active role in international affairs.

The U.S.-China cooperation has yielded great progress in addressing global challenges such as climate change and Ebola, Rice said, adding that bilateral cooperation has reached an unprecedented level.

Washington hopes to enhance mutual understanding and deepen cooperation with China in bilateral areas such as military-to-military as well as in regional and international issues such as peacekeeping, Rice said.

The U.S. hopes that the two sides could properly manage, control and solve their differences, she added.

The U.S. is willing to work together with China and ensure the leaders' meeting in Hangzhou a success and the G20 summit a success, Rice said.


----------



## ahojunk

_The big 2 are looking after their own interests. Obama is thinking about his legacy.
When big countries reach an agreement, small countries would "be sacrificed if required". 
Vietnam, Philippines, are you listening?_

--------
*Obama hopes for steady ties with Beijing in long run*
2016-07-28 08:37 | China Daily | _Editor: Wang Fan
_
Despite recent tensions in the South China Sea, Washington has made it clear to Beijing that President Barack Obama wants a stable transfer to the next U.S. leader of the progress made on ties with Beijing during his eight years in office.

U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice brought the message during her latest visit, a source with the Foreign Ministry told China Daily on Wednesday.

"Rice spent roughly 70 percent of her time in meetings here discussing cooperation, and only 30 percent on other issues," said the source, who requested anonymity.

Rice was in China from Sunday to Wednesday, mainly to prepare for Obama's attendance at the G20 Leaders' Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, in September. She met with President Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials, including State Councilor Yang Jiechi.

The visit came amid tensions in the South China Sea after Beijing rejected a July 12 arbitration ruling in a case unilaterally brought by the Philippines over maritime disputes with China.

"Both sides agreed that we won't let disputes define the relations," the source said.

News releases issued by both sides afterward focused on bilateral cooperation, without directly mentioning the South China Sea issue.

However, the source said the two sides did discuss issues including the South China Sea and the advanced missile defense system that the United States and the Republic of Korea decided to deploy in the ROK, a move that has drawn strong opposition from China and Russia.

"We made our stances clear that the U.S. should not cite the tribunal ruling on the South China Sea issue and that inappropriate handling of the THAAD anti-missile system will overshadow China-U.S. relations," he said.

Rice spent a long time discussing anti-terrorism cooperation in meetings with Chinese officials, and she also touched on many other topics, including a bilateral investment treaty and military cooperation, he added.

"She also said that President Obama is glad to see a prosperous China, which is in the interests of the U.S., and that Washington is willing to work with Beijing to ensure a successful G20 summit," the source said.

Liu Youfa, former vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies, said, "Rice's remarks sent a signal to some Asian countries that the U.S.-China relations are not only about the South China Sea.

"It is also a warning that these countries' plan to take advantage of conflicts between the U.S. and China to seek their interests is unsustainable and shortsighted."

Jin Canrong, dean of the School of International Studies with Renmin University of China, said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar low-profile stance on Monday while meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting.

"Washington has noticed the anger in China against the U.S. on the South China Sea issue, not only from the government but also the ordinary people. They know that is not good for U.S. interests."


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

ahojunk said:


> _The big 2 are looking after their own interests. Obama is thinking about his legacy.
> When big countries reach an agreement, small countries would "be sacrificed if required".
> Vietnam, Philippines, are you listening?_
> 
> --------
> *Obama hopes for steady ties with Beijing in long run*
> 2016-07-28 08:37 | China Daily | _Editor: Wang Fan
> _
> Despite recent tensions in the South China Sea, Washington has made it clear to Beijing that President Barack Obama wants a stable transfer to the next U.S. leader of the progress made on ties with Beijing during his eight years in office.
> 
> U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice brought the message during her latest visit, a source with the Foreign Ministry told China Daily on Wednesday.
> 
> "Rice spent roughly 70 percent of her time in meetings here discussing cooperation, and only 30 percent on other issues," said the source, who requested anonymity.
> 
> Rice was in China from Sunday to Wednesday, mainly to prepare for Obama's attendance at the G20 Leaders' Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, in September. She met with President Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials, including State Councilor Yang Jiechi.
> 
> The visit came amid tensions in the South China Sea after Beijing rejected a July 12 arbitration ruling in a case unilaterally brought by the Philippines over maritime disputes with China.
> 
> "Both sides agreed that we won't let disputes define the relations," the source said.
> 
> News releases issued by both sides afterward focused on bilateral cooperation, without directly mentioning the South China Sea issue.
> 
> However, the source said the two sides did discuss issues including the South China Sea and the advanced missile defense system that the United States and the Republic of Korea decided to deploy in the ROK, a move that has drawn strong opposition from China and Russia.
> 
> "We made our stances clear that the U.S. should not cite the tribunal ruling on the South China Sea issue and that inappropriate handling of the THAAD anti-missile system will overshadow China-U.S. relations," he said.
> 
> Rice spent a long time discussing anti-terrorism cooperation in meetings with Chinese officials, and she also touched on many other topics, including a bilateral investment treaty and military cooperation, he added.
> 
> "She also said that President Obama is glad to see a prosperous China, which is in the interests of the U.S., and that Washington is willing to work with Beijing to ensure a successful G20 summit," the source said.
> 
> Liu Youfa, former vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies, said, "Rice's remarks sent a signal to some Asian countries that the U.S.-China relations are not only about the South China Sea.
> 
> "It is also a warning that these countries' plan to take advantage of conflicts between the U.S. and China to seek their interests is unsustainable and shortsighted."
> 
> Jin Canrong, dean of the School of International Studies with Renmin University of China, said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar low-profile stance on Monday while meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting.
> 
> "Washington has noticed the anger in China against the U.S. on the South China Sea issue, not only from the government but also the ordinary people. They know that is not good for U.S. interests."




The he must stop his pivotting...useless and wasteful effort.

I, for one, am for cooperative and constructive relationship between the two great powers.

Prs. Xi has extended his hand of friendship to the americans.

A healthy and strong american market is good thing for China and the other way round.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Sinopakfriend said:


> The he must stop his pivotting...useless and wasteful effort.
> 
> I, for one, am for cooperative and constructive relationship between the two great powers.
> 
> Prs. Xi has extended his hand of friendship to the americans.
> 
> A healthy and strong american market is good thing for China and the other way round.



You can't just as someone to stop of what he's doing unless you have something in exchange either something he like or he fear.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> You can't just as someone to stop of what he's doing unless you have something in exchange either something he like or he fear.



I understand you, young brother.

I just do not wish to see the coming conflict. Only chaos and destruction. 

Trouble makers should realise that their day under the sun is over.

They can even join the Community of Prosperity. But their hearts must change first.

I know, I sound naive and foolish. I know.

Sometimes, I fear that the only path might be the one you suggest.

Indeed, the moment of great choice is nearing.

It just troubles me, as a Taoist. Thats all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_The two big boys are getting along with one another._

--------
US warship visit ‘eases tensions’
(Global Times) 08:45, August 10, 2016

Chinese experts said the first visit on Monday by a US warship to China since the arbitration court ruled on the South China Sea issue is a sign of easing Sino-US relations.

The missile destroyer USS Benfold held signals exercises with the Chinese Navy after arriving in a port in Qingdao, East China's Shandong Province, and the Chinese side held a reception on the ship, according to the Associated Press.

"This port visit is a tremendous opportunity to build relationships between sailors based on shared interests and perspectives," Benfold commander Justin Harts said in a statement released on the US Navy's official website Sunday.

The visit, which comes on the heels of China's participation in the Rim of the Pacific 2016 maritime exercises, is a sign the two countries are willing to control disparities and actively push the relationship between navies forward, Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told the Global Times on Monday.

The AP report said Harts refused to comment on the disputes in the South China Sea.

Having military exchanges with China also benefits the US, that's why it continues conducting such activities despite calls in the US to punish China for its rejection of the South China Sea ruling, Wu Xinbo, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Monday.

China rejected last month's ruling on the South China Sea by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and refused to take part in the arbitration. It has strongly criticized US involvement in the case.

Wu said that China develops its military to safeguard its sovereignty and interests, while the US wants to contain China with help from its allies, but the two sides need to maintain relatively stable relations to avoid accidental military conflicts.

Liu Feng, an expert on Chinese maritime issues, told the Global Times both China and the US have strengths on the South China Sea issue - China is geographically closer to the region and enjoys greater economic influence, while the US has a political, military and diplomatic edge.

Chinese and American troops and officials will visit the Benfold, conduct professional exchanges and participate in sports activities, an insider told the Global Times on Tuesday, adding that the two sides will hold joint exercises, including maritime search and rescue drills.


----------



## ahojunk

China, US officials downplay anti-trade rhetoric
(Xinhua) 11:07, August 12, 2016

Against the backdrop of rising anti-trade sentiment around the world, many government officials and businessmen from both China and the US still believed that trade and investment could benefit people from both countries, and called for further understanding and interaction between the two countries.

"If you address the focus of anti-trade, you show them ways how trade is good, positive and productive, and creates ... higher paying jobs, creates more opportunities, enables people to be innovative," Michael Stack, Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, told Xinhua, at an event held by China General Chamber of Commerce-USA.

Stack described the presidential campaign rhetoric about China as "sensational."
China and the US do have different views in some areas, but both countries can continue communication to clarify the differences and find common ground for cooperation, he said.

*As long as the China-US relationship is fair and benefiting both countries, it's a strong relationship both sides can keep working on*, said Stack.

Zhang Qiyue, Chinese consul general in New York, also called on both countries to understand and interact more with each other. A strong and healthy relationship can not only benefit people from both countries, but also contributes stability and development to the world, said Zhang at the event.

Protectionism in the United States is rising, especially in the presidential election year, Xu Chen, president of the Bank of China USA, told Xinhua. But he emphasized that presidential nominees' actions were worth more attention than their rhetoric.

In regard to the rising anti-trade sentiment, Xu said that globalization boosted economy around the world, but did leave some people behind. He suggested improving social safety net to help those affected by the globalization.

With China's economic restructuring going forward, more and more Chinese companies showed great enthusiasm in investing in the United States.

Data from the US Commerce Department showed that Chinese investment was the fastest-growing source of foreign direct investment in the United States in 2014. Chinese investment in the US not only created jobs for local economy but also contributed millions of reinvestment to the US market.

In 2013, US affiliates of Chinese-owned firms employed over 37,000 US workers, and invested 449 million US dollars in research and development, said the Commerce Department.

Despite rising Chinese investment in the US, Chinese companies are still facing some obstacles, such as frequent national security reviews by the US, complicated and uncoordinated policies by US federal government departments, said Xu.

Xu called on companies and government agencies from China and the US to communicate more and build trust to clear these hurdles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_There is no twist, the two big guys are constantly talking with each other at various levels.
Nations don't have permanent allies, they have permanent interests; their interests._

--------
*U.S. destroyer visit latest twist in China-U.S. military ties*
By: The Associated Press, August 9, 2016 (Photo Credit: Borg Wong/AP)





_U.S. Navy sailors stand on deck as the guided missile destroyer USS Benfold arrives in port in Qingdao in eastern China's Shandong Province, Aug. 8, 2016. Photo Credit: Borg Wong/AP_


QINGDAO, China — The visit of the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Benfold to the northern Chinese port of Qingdao this week is the latest development in a long-term effort to build trust between the countries' militaries amid tensions and a rivalry for dominance in Asia.

Though China resents the highly visible presence of the U.S. armed forces in Asia, especially the South China Sea, it has gradually overcome its reluctance and shown a willingness to engage that the sides hope will help avoid conflicts. 

Below is a look at the Benfold's visit and some of the steps the sides have taken to build their relationship:


*WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VISIT?*

The Benfold's visit is the first to China by an American warship since Beijing responded furiously to a Hague-based international arbitration tribunal's ruling that its expansive South China Sea maritime claims had no basis in law. The fact the visit went ahead appears to show that Beijing now values the military-to-military relationship too much to allow it to be derailed by other events as was once the case. Qingdao is the base of China's northern fleet and is thus less sensitive than ports to the south closer to hotspots, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.


*HOW HAVE THE SIDES RESPONDED TO THE ARBITRATION RULING?*

China was incensed by the ruling and declared it null and void. It renewed its commitment to defend its sovereignty claims and continue work on man-made islands in the Spratly island group that have been heavily criticized by the U.S. and others as adding to regional tensions. Beijing has also launched what it says will be regular aerial patrols over the South China Sea and says it will consider whether to declare an air defense identification zone over all or part of the water body. The U.S. has called on China to respect the ruling, but has not staged another freedom of navigation mission in which its ships sail near China's artificial islands, which draw warnings and rebukes from Beijing.


*WHAT HAVE THE SIDES DONE TO BUILD TRUST?*

Apart from exchanging visits, China and the U.S. have sought to reach agreements on the rules of the road and work with each other on non-combat oriented training missions. At a multilateral forum in Qingdao in 2014, the two navies agreed to a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea that seems to have allowed them to avoid confrontations. Last year, they added a similar agreement on aerial encounters between their military pilots that calls for, among other things, maintaining a secure distance, communicating clearly and avoiding rude body language. This year, China also took part in the world's largest maritime drills, known as RimPac, hosted by the U.S. every two years near Hawaii.


*WHAT'S THE OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE?*

China says it wants to turn a page on the arbitration ruling through bilateral talks with other claimants, although the U.S., Philippines and others resist that. The man-made islands will continue to be a source of tension, while the U.S. presence in the region will continue to grow. At the same time, China is narrowing the still-considerable gap with the U.S. Navy, adding to its fleet of high-tech destroyers similar to the Benfold and building homemade aircraft carriers to join the single, heavily refurbished Ukrainian one it has now. That will make it even more crucial that the sides build trust and relationships to help overcome future problems.

_Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_The 2 big boys will avoid each other, they won't fight._

---------
*Chinese and U.S. militaries must avoid crisis*
2016-08-26 10:38 | China Daily | _Editor: Feng Shuang_





_Missile frigate Yuncheng launches an anti-ship missile during a military exercise in the water area near South China's Hainan Island and Xisha islands, July 8, 2016. (Photo/Xinhua)_


News of the Sino-Russian joint exercise, Joint-Sea 2016, in the South China Sea in September is apparently irritating to the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Scott Swift, who, despite visiting China in early August, described the joint drill as an action "not increasing the stability within the region" but "could have been conducted" in other places.

Russia's involvement in the South China Sea is not something the United States is happy about. A China-Russia exercise could easily dwarf the joint exercise of the U.S. and the Philippines. It will also show China is not standing alone after the ruling of the arbitral tribunal. It also contrasts with the U.S.' failed bid to call on Japan, Australia and India to join its patrols in the South China Sea.

China has held joint exercises with both Russia and the U.S., but those exercises were fundamentally different in purpose. The Sino-Russian exercise this September reflects the strategic partnership between the two nations which is not, but next only to, an alliance. Both countries have criticized the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system in the Republic of Korea. They believe the move would destabilize the strategic equilibrium on the Korean Peninsula and damage China's and Russia's strategic security. Recent years also found the drills extended to previously uncharted waters in the Mediterranean and the Sea of Japan. The scenarios became increasingly sophisticated and were not confined to tactical level. Last May the two countries also held a joint computer-assisted anti-missile drill.

This is in sharp contrast to the subdued military exercises between China and the U.S. which are restricted to "non-sensitive" humanitarian areas such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief, and anti-piracy and rescue missions at sea. Both sides have made painstaking efforts to explore new areas, but there is a glass ceiling for further cooperation. Since 2000 the U.S. Congress has forbidden exchanges between the U.S. military and China's People's Liberation Army in 12 operational areas because the PLA could learn too much from such exchanges and "create a national security risk".

If the greatest challenge to China-U.S. relationship is trust, then the top priority for the two militaries is crisis management. Many accidents or near accidents have occurred, such as the Chinese and U.S. aircraft collision in 2001, the standoff between USNS Impeccable and USS Cowpens on one side and Chinese ships on the other in 2009 and 2013, and the deadly close encounter between a Chinese J-11B fighter jet with a USN P-8 in 2014. The accidents or near accidents occurred in China's exclusive economic zones. But given the PLA's increasing involvement overseas, the possibility of unplanned meeting between Chinese and the U.S. military vessels or aircraft has increased.

That is why confidence building measures such as Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea and the Rules of Behavior for Safety of Maritime and Air Encounter between China and the U.S. are important. CUES, for example, provides a set of communication and operational procedures to avoid a ship getting too close to any vessels in formation; avoid aiming guns, missiles, and fire control radars in the direction of vessels or aircraft encountered. They can help avoid miscalculations and misjudgments.

Can China and the U.S. conduct joint exercises on CUES and Rule of Behavior in the South China Sea? The Chinese and U.S. navies practiced CUES during two Rim of the Pacific Exercises in the waters off Hawaii. But it is the waters of the South China Sea that is most volatile. And China is more determined to safeguard its sovereignty after the arbitral ruling that Beijing rejected.

The U.S. has vowed to continue flying and sailing in the South China Sea in the name of "freedom of navigation". But despite China and the U.S. being at loggerheads, it is in the interest of both countries to avoid accidents, let alone a conflict, in the future. A manageable relationship between the two giants is also an assurance for littoral states in the region, because "the grass will suffer, if the elephants fight".

_The author Zhou Bo is an honorary fellow at the Center on China-American Defense Relations, Academy of Military Science._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

Could US-China Joint Coast Guard Operation Mean an Improvement in Relations?
27.08.2016






The US Coast Guard has confirmed that it conducted joint operations with China in the Pacific Ocean this summer, as a part of annual patrols preventing illegal fishing. A US Coast Guard spokesman told Japanese media that the USCG Mellon "rendezvoused and conducted a professional exchange," with two ships from the Chinese Coast Guard.

US Coast Guard District 17 spokesman Lt. Brian Dykens said, "The exchange focused on professional goodwill between coast guards." He remarked that the exchange was part of a shiprider agreement in which US Coast Guard vessels work with two ships from the same Chinese branch of maritime service. Afterwards, the Mellon resumed its scheduled duties before returning to its homeport in Seattle. 

China’s Xinhua News Agency quoted a coast guard official earlier this week, saying "cooperation between the two countries’ coast guards has deepened through personnel exchanges and joint operations." It was also reported that China plans to deepen their relationship with the US Coast Guard and expand its patrols in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. 

Relations between China and the US have been strained over issues with the contested East China and South China Seas. Beijing was dissatisfied with the international arbitration court at the Hague when it ruled in July that China has no historical claim to the South China Sea. China called the ruling "waste paper." 

J. Berkshire Miller, an international affairs fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations based in Tokyo, said that the joint operations were good start to the two nations mending fences, but that more cooperation is required to soothe tensions. 

Miller suggested that the operations were important, "considering the key role that China’s coast guard is playing, and indeed contributing to, with regard to regional maritime tensions. That said, it is important not to place too much emphasis on the operation. This represents baseline cooperation and is a low-hanging fruit." 

The analyst offers that genuine reconciliation would require more effort on China’s part. "In the East China Sea, for example, Beijing should work earnestly with Tokyo to follow through on commitments to implement crisis avoidance mechanisms surrounding the Senkaku Islands…Unfortunately, it seems that China continues to emphasize coercive actions rather than a more cooperative tact," he said. 

This summer’s operations were conducted in partnership with northern Pacific nations, "to detect and deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity, including large-scale pelagic drift net fishing on the high seas," according to the US Coast Guard. Regional partners include Canada, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. 

Dykens said that the partnership has so far resulted in the seizure and removal of vessels with Chinese flags engaging in illegal high seas drift-net fishing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

*China, U.S. still in talks on trade pact despite challenges: Chinese commerce official*
Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:18am EDT


China and the United States are still in frequent discussion about a bilateral trade pact, despite a challenging global trade environment, a Chinese commerce official said on Thursday.

China is keen to maintain open markets for its goods as its economy grows at its slowest pace in 25 years, but it faces rising trade tensions as its imports deteriorate faster than exports, setting it up for another record trade surplus.

Last year, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $336.2 billion, according to the U.S. Trade Representative's office. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened on Wednesday to slap tariffs on Chinese products to show Beijing the United States is "not playing games anymore".

The United States - China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union - has imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese products and also brought cases against China at the World Trade Organization.

"The global economy has not emerged from its difficulties, which has led a lot of countries to adopt trade protectionist policies," China's Ministry of Commerce spokesman Shen Danyang said in a rare conversation with reporters over coffee in a Starbucks cafe near Tiananmen Square.

Chinese steel exports have surged this year even as global growth remains weak, prompting complaints that China was dumping excess capacity.

"There is no evidence China is dumping steel products. Growth in exports is due to greater competitiveness of Chinese firms, as costs have fallen," Shen said.

In response to claims by the head of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) Chairman Fred Hochberg that China gave its exporters 10 times more financing than the United States did in 2015, Shen said there are disagreements on what constitutes subsidies.

If there are disputes, the two sides can take it to the WTO, he said.

Shen did not offer any details on plans announced on Tuesday to open more sectors to foreign investment, but said foreign companies are not investing in China as much as before because competition from Chinese companies is increasing.

China is not part of the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) accord involving 12 Pacific Rim countries. TPP members have said the pact is not meant to target China, which does not feel it is targeted. Beijing is separately pursuing a regional framework with its trade partners that omits the United States.

The biggest challenge facing China's economy is the need to effectively implement supply-side reform to improve the structure of the economy, he said.

"There is demand for quality products, but that has to be met with effective supply. It requires innovation, which is difficult," Shen said.

"In the past, when facing slowing growth, we would stimulate demand - loosen monetary policy, use fiscal measures. Now we are focusing primarily on using structural supply-side reform. This is the right direction, but it's not easy."


(Reporting by Elias Glenn; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_The two big boys met before the actual G20 summit. How about that?_

--------
*Xi meets Obama ahead of G20 summit*
Source: Xinhua | September 4, 2016, Sunday | 








Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) meets with US President Barack Obama, who is here to attend the G20 summit, in Hangzhou, capital city of east China's Zhejiang Province, Sept. 3, 2016.

CHINESE President Xi Jinping on Saturday said China is willing to work with the United Statesto ensure bilateral ties stay on the right track.

Xi made the remarks in a meeting with his US counterpart Barack Obama in the eastern city of Hangzhou on the eve of the G20 summit.

He urged the two countries to follow the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, deepen mutual trust and collaboration, and manage and control their differences in a constructive manner, in order to push forward continuous, sound and stable development of bilateral ties.

Noting that the city of Hangzhou holds historic significance to Sino-US relations, Xi spoke highly of his previous meetings with Obama since 2013, which "produced important consensus."

In particular, the decision to build a new type of major-country relations between China and the United States has led to a series of concrete achievements in bilateral ties, Xi said.

Two-way trade, investment and personnel exchanges are at historical highs, he said, and both countries have worked together in combating climate change, advancing negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty, and establishing a mutual trust mechanism between the two militaries.

Important progress was also made in fighting cyber crimes, coping with the Ebola epidemic in Africa, and facilitating a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue, Xi said.

"All these have showcased the strategic importance and global influence of Sino-US relations," the Chinese president said.

Xi said China and the United States have carried out fruitful cooperation under the G20 framework, and the two sides have maintained close coordination and communication with regard to the preparation of the G20 Hangzhou summit.

China appreciates the cooperation and support from the US side, he said, adding that holding a successful summit is the global community's shared expectation, as well as the due responsibility of China and the United States as the world's two largest economies.

He said China hopes to work with the United States and other parties to achieve fruitful results during the summit to inject momentum to the global economy while lifting confidence.


----------



## ahojunk

*What the US and China are fighting over in South China Sea*
Fu Ying
PUBLISHED SEP 3, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT

As the leaders of China and the United States meet in Hangzhou ahead of this weekend's Group of 20 summit, many would like to know whether differences over the South China Sea will cloud the bilateral relationship. The question is, what exactly are the two nations competing over in the area? And more importantly, can they find a mutually acceptable way to move forward?

The US claims that its interest in the South China Sea is to ensure freedom of navigation. Indeed, critical shipping lanes run through the area, and keeping them open is important to all countries. China, a major global trading power, attaches no less importance to freedom of navigation than the US, perhaps even more.

Obviously, however, that is not all the US is concerned about. It is worried mainly about preserving freedom of navigation for naval warships and other non-commercial vessels. Here, admittedly, there is a gap between how China and the US each interprets the relevant provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), as well as corresponding customary rules of international law.

In particular, the two sides have significantly differing views on the kind of military activities allowed within another country's 200- nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ. China, as a developing country, highly values its national sovereignty and security. It holds that, under Unclos, the principle of freedom of navigation should not be used to undermine the security of coastal countries. On the other hand, the US, as a global maritime power, has traditionally believed that its military is entitled to absolute freedom of navigation in other countries' EEZs - including for oceanographic surveying, surveillance and military exercises.

Now, just as there is no dispute over allowing freedom of navigation for commercial ships in the South China Sea, there is no reason the two sides cannot also wisely manage their differences over the rules for naval vessels.

What the US really wants, though, goes beyond its expressed concerns. In fact, it views friction with China from a geostrategic perspective, seeing the South China Sea dispute as a test of which power will predominate in the Asia-Pacific. Ever since US leaders started talking about a pivot or rebalance to Asia, they have worked under the assumption that a stronger China will inevitably pursue expansionism - and thus needs to be countered.

Against this background, any move by China naturally looks like an attempt to weaken US strategic primacy in the region. And at the same time, American rhetoric and activities clearly targeted at China are bound to trigger a strong Chinese reaction. Given such a "security dilemma", the risk of escalated China-US confrontation or even conflict is becoming increasingly serious.

The recent arbitration ruling in the case brought by the Philippines against China has aroused strong rhetorical reaction in China, which is not opposed to Unclos or even to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, but simply to the way this particular tribunal was constituted and chose to rule, which has been perceived as an abuse of power.

Hopefully, given the fierce debate over the tribunal's verdict, people in the region will see the wisdom of dealing with such issues through friendly dialogue rather than confrontational means.

*The countries bordering the South China Sea surely appreciate that the tension stands in the way of regional integration and economic cooperation, to no one's benefit*. Recently, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte appointed former president Fidel Ramos as a special envoy to China for an ice-breaking trip. When I was invited to meet Mr Ramos privately in Hong Kong, I clearly sensed the new Philippine administration's willingness to improve relations with China. China and the Philippines are both Asian countries and I believe that as long as there is good faith, it is not beyond our reach to restore a relationship marked by friendship and cooperation.

Whether the South China Sea remains peaceful is, however, to a large extent dependent on how the US and China choose to interact with each other. Specifically, when China's sovereignty and maritime rights and interests are deemed to conflict with what the US sees as its core national interests, it is vital that the two countries read the situation accurately, be clear about the stakes and find an appropriate angle from which each other's position can be appreciated.

There is room for both China and the US to manage their relations better. The US lacks experience in dealing with powers that are "neither ally nor foe", while China has never interacted with the world's superpower from a position of strength. Both sides are still exploring, and what they say and do will shape each other's opinions and actions. They both need to remain humble, keep learning and avoid simply resorting to old beliefs and behaviour.

*The South China Sea is too vast to be controlled by any single country.* Any attempt to build an exclusive sphere of influence may lead to possible confrontation and even military conflict. The only way forward is to seek coexistence and an overall harmonisation of power, interests and rules.

China is the biggest coastal state bordering the South China Sea. It has sovereignty claims over the Nansha (or Spratly) archipelago and controls several islands and reefs there. It is only fair that China is also entitled to legitimate maritime rights and interests in the area. The US should respect these and should not hamper efforts by China and neighbouring countries to seek peaceful ways to address their differences.

In the meantime, China and the US must continue to pursue meaningful dialogue, based on a shared commitment to ensure the maintenance of peace, security and unimpeded access to shipping lanes in the South China Sea. The best way to address their differences on maritime rules is by talking to each other, instead of posturing or dangerously testing each other with their military forces.

*A persistent concern troubling the US is that China is attempting to replace it as leader of the world order.* What the US strives to preserve, however, is a US-led world order, which rests upon American values, its global military alliance structure and the network of international institutions centred on the United Nations.

China is excluded from this order in at least two aspects: First, China is ostracised for having a different political system; second, America's collective defence arrangements do not cover China's security interests. Should China and the US wish to avoid sliding into the so-called Thucydides trap of a head-on clash between a rising power and an established power, they will need to create a new concept of order that is more inclusive and can accommodate the interests and concerns of all countries, providing a common roof for all.

For China, in particular, it is imperative that we make ourselves better understood by the rest of the world. China has grown from a poverty-stricken country into the world's second- biggest economy in a little over 30 years. Its modernisation has been compressed to a degree previously unheard of. However, it is not so easy to compress progress in thinking and discourse. We in China must improve our ideas and ways of thinking faster and form a broader international vision, with more effective modes of expression and behaviour.

In this way, the rest of the world will be able to better appreciate our culture and the reasons why we talk and act the way we do. This will also help them to understand China's foreign-policy goals as we move into a new era where China inevitably plays a major role in global affairs.
*
*
_The writer is the former vice-minister for foreign affairs in China. She is now chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, National People's Congress of China._


----------



## ahojunk

*What Comes after U.S. Primacy*

America has to wake up to the new normal.

Christopher Layne
The National Interest
September 8, 2016

On both sides of the Atlantic, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union has triggered anguished hand wringing, and gnashing of teeth, among foreign policy elites who believe that Brexit heralds the end of the post-1945 liberal international order. For sure, the powerful domestic forces welling up in Europe and the United States—a populist backlash against the elite-driven globalization project—are undermining support for liberal internationalism. But the liberal international order has been wobbling for some time for more fundamental reasons.

What foreign policy experts call the liberal international order is, in fact, the_Pax Americana_, which was constructed after 1945, and rested on the foundation of preponderant U.S. power. In 1945—America’s _first_ unipolar moment—the United States accounted for half of the world’s manufacturing output, controlled two-thirds of the world’s gold and currency reserves, and possessed powerful global power projection capabilities. And the United States had a monopoly of atomic weapons. It this combination overwhelming of military, financial and economic muscle that enabled it create the security and economic institutions—the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization—that underpinned the postwar order (and still do), rebuild the shattered economies of western Europe and Japan, and to play a pacifying and stabilizing role in Europe and East Asia.

As scholars of international politics would say, following World War II, the United States was in a position of primacy, or hegemony. Even during the Cold War, U.S. dominance was never seriously challenged. Lacking the economic and technological capabilities to close the power gap with the United States, the Soviet Union was more a Potemkin superpower than a real one. The Soviet collapse in 1989–91 left the U.S. more ascendant geopolitically than ever, and caused febrile minds to believe—“the end of history”—that the liberal international order had become a permanent feature of international politics.

We now know this vision was illusory. The liberal international order is fraying because the global balance of power is shifting, and the foundation of U.S. power on which the _Pax Americana_ was built is cracking. In fact, America’s edge in relative power has been declining since the 1960s. The implications of this were masked because, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. advantage was being whittled down by its allies in Europe and Japan (although in the 1980s, Japan’s economic gains provoked—a false—alarm that Tokyo was going to displace the United States as the world’s leading power). The Soviet Union’s dramatic collapse also shielded from view the macro-historical forces that already were eating away at the foundations of American power.

Some analysts—notably David Calleo, Robert Gilpin and Paul Kennedy—did grasp the nature of the geoeconomic transformation that was taking shape. Kennedy’s blockbuster 1987 book, _The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers_, catalyzed a debate about the relative decline of American power. He made two key points. First, since the beginning of the modern international system (1500) all great powers have experienced a similar life cycle: they emerge, rise, reach the apogee of their power and then experience relative decline. Second, therefore, no great power—not even the most dominant—has been able to remain Number One forever. Kennedy’s claim that the United States was not exempt from this process of great power rise and decline caused a furor among the U.S. foreign-policy establishment The ensuing debate about U.S. decline that Kennedy sparked ended abruptly ended abruptly, however, when the Soviet Union (America’s geopolitical rival) collapsed, and when Japan (the chief U.S. economic rival) experienced the bursting of its economic bubble.

The most potent challenge to the_ Pax Americana’s_ staying power already was percolating in the 1980s: the beginning of China’s economic rise. Deng Xiaoping inaugurated the sweeping economic reforms that led to China’s rapid emergence as an economic powerhouse. China’s rise has been breathtaking. Since 2010, China has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest trading nation, and the world’s largest manufacturing nation. And in 2014, according to the IMF and World Bank, it leapfrogged the United States as the world’s largest economy (measured by purchasing power parity). Meanwhile, the United States is facing its own challenges, including an aging population, stagnant productivity and political polarization.

The United States faces a looming fiscal crisis in the early 2020s and beyond. And long-term forecasts are that the American GDP will grow only at about 2 percent, annually. Having already eclipsed the United States in GDP measured by PPP, it is only a matter of time before China also vaults ahead of the United States in GDP measured by market exchange rate.

For sure, China today is hitting some speed bumps economically, and faces other headwinds such as an aging population and environmental degradation. Nor, in many respects, has China’s economy caught up with the United States in qualitative metrics of economic and technological power. But it is narrowing the gap. Already, China’s economic emergence is transforming the geopolitical balance between itself and the United States. This is why the handwriting is on the wall for the liberal international order. China (and others) are rising, and America’s relative power is declining. This is part of a bigger picture: the fulcrum of global power is moving away from the Euro-Atlantic world to Asia, a power transition that is being driven being driven by the big, impersonal forces of historical change.

The English scholar E. H. Carr understood the dynamics that are causing the U.S.-led liberal international order to wobble. In his classic study of interwar international relations, _The Twenty Years’ Crisis_, Carr demonstrated that geopolitical crisis of 1930s was caused by the growing gap between the international order established by the Versailles Treaty after World War I, and ensuing changes in the actual distribution of power in Europe. He made two key geopolitical points. First, international orders reflect the balance of power that existed at their creation, and the interests of the dominant power(s) that created them. Second, international orders never outlast major changes in the balance of power that existed when they were created. Carr warned that fast-rising challengers and declining defenders of the status quo are on a collision course. The state(s) that created the prevailing international order love the status quo because it privileges their interests. Rising challengers, however, have no attachment to the existing order, and they seek to revise it to gain the prestige, status and geopolitical prerequisites commensurate with their growing power.

The most insightful defenders of the liberal international order—G. John Ikenberry is a good example—acknowledge that the era of American primacy is coming to a close. However, for two reasons, they claim the United States can cling to a kind of zombie hegemony where the rules, norms, and institutions embodied in _Pax Americana_ can outlive the decline in U.S. power. First, they claim that the international order is “rules-based” and that all states that join benefit. This overlooks a vital point: in international politics, who rules makes the rules. Certainly, the benefits of post-1945 international order were distributed widely. However, it was the United States that gained the most, which is exactly what Washington intended when it designed the postwar system.

Second, it is claimed that China will not challenge or overturn the liberal international order, because it rose geopolitically and economically within that system. China, indeed, has risen within the _Pax Americana_ but it has not emerged as a great power for the purpose of preserving it. An increasingly powerful China will do what rising challengers invariably do: it will seek to remake the international order to reflect its own interests, norms and values—not those of the United States.

Were he alive today, Carr would not be surprised that in East Asia, China is challenging the _Pax Americana_ by pursuing its own claims for regional dominance. Similarly, in eastern Europe, Carr would understand why Moscow is trying to reassert its sway in places that—going back to czarist times—were part of Russia’s sphere of influence. And he would understand why China and other emerging powers are attempting to revamp international institutions and rules by aligning them with emerging power realities, and by constructing an alternative international order that exists parallel to the _Pax Americana_. The United States needs to adjust to the reality that the balance of forces that underpinned the liberal international order is withering. If it fails to do so, and instead tries rigidly to uphold the fading post-1945 status quo, it risks accelerated relative economic decline at home, and major conflict abroad.

_This is the eleventh in a series of essays on the future of American primacy. You can read the previous essay, “Why Primacy Is a Bad Strategy for America” by Harvey M. Sapolsky, _here_._

_Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University._


----------



## ahojunk

_The two big boys have multiple avenues for cooperation.
When they comes to an agreement, unfortunately sometimes the smaller countries may be sacrifice._

--------
Spotlight: China, U.S. still hopeful of wrapping up investment talks under Obama administration
Source: Xinhua | 2016-09-12 05:36:34 | Editor: huaxia





_Photo provided by the Center for China and Globalization, a Chinese leading social think tank, shows that China's former chief negotiator for World Trade Organization (WTO) entry Long Yongtu (4th L, first row) attending a lunch event about China-U.S. trade relations with former U.S. trade officials and think tank experts in Washington D.C., the United States on Sept. 10, 2016. (Xinhua)_


WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 (Xinhua) -- China and the United States are still hopeful that the two countries could conclude negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) under the Obama administration, a former Chinese official has said.

The Chinese negotiating team will come to Washington D.C. for a new round of BIT talks with the U.S. side in the coming week, China's former chief negotiator for World Trade Organization (WTO) entry Long Yongtu said Saturday here at a lunch event about China-U.S. trade relations hosted by the Center for China and Globalization, a Chinese leading social think tank.

"That means the Obama government still wants to get it done before he leaves office," Long told former U.S. trade officials and China experts with Washington-D.C. based think tanks.

In China, the BIT talks enjoy strong and wide support from the top leadership to the private sector, said the former Chinese vice minister for trade, adding that "there's a good chance" that the two countries could wrap up the eight years of talks under the Obama administration.

A total of 28 rounds of BIT talks have been held since China and the United States started negotiations in 2008 to increase mutual investment, which only accounted for a tiny share of their respective overseas investment.

The two sides have recently exchanged "the third revised and significantly improved negative list offers" of sectors that remain closed to foreign investment, and "made further progress in all aspects of the negotiation", according to the outcome list released after a recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama in Hangzhou, China.

China and the United States commit to "further intensify the negotiation with a view to concluding a mutually beneficial and high-standard treaty" , the outcome list said.

While provisions regarding the state-owned enterprises remain a sticking point in the BIT talks, Long believed the two sides would "find a way" to reach a deal.

He also suggested that American trade negotiators should be "a little bit less aggressive" trying to manage specific issues in the BIT negotiations, but he didn't elaborate further.

As part of the so-called second-track dialogue of China-U.S. relations, Long had met campaign teams of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the past two days, trying to figure out the future direction of bilateral relations after the general election in November.

Long expressed his concern about the rise of anti-trade and anti-globalization in the current U.S. presidential campaign. But he believed the forces of globalization "remain strong" with the fast development of new technologies, particularly the Internet, and transnational corporations, which bring investment and trade to every corner of the world.

With the help of the Internet, many small and medium-sized enterprises have also started to join the forces of globalization, which will reinforce the trend toward globalization, he said.

China will remain a driver of globalization and continue pursuing the policy of opening up to the outside world, the former Chinese official said, noting that a significant majority of Chinese people have benefited from that process.

Chinese government also sets up a fund to assist those unemployment workers hurt by certain trade agreements, Long said. "This is the government responsibility. If we don' t do that, people will be against trade agreements and globalization."

"I think we have done it quite well. That' s why in China we do not hear strong voices against globalization, we do not hear strong voices against opening up to the outside world," he said, suggesting the United States could learn from China to help those workers hurt by trade agreements and globalization.

"It's not the fault of those protesters against trade agreements. It's the fault of the government which does not do sufficiently to address those issues," he said.

Reflecting back on China' s accession to the WTO in 2001, Long said China's entry into the WTO has not only brought tremendous benefits to China but also brought significant benefits to the United States and other countries.

China has become the largest export market of American agricultural goods, helping create at least 160,000 jobs in the United States, he said, adding that the two countries should continue expanding cooperation in trade and investment.

The world's two largest economies have become more closely connected over the past few years, as China has become a huge and growing market for U.S. businesses and Chinese investment in the United States has rapidly accelerated.

The investment treaty is expected to continue to expand two-way trade and investment and cement the foundation of China-U.S. economic ties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

_The era of global dominance is coming to an end for the world's largest debtor nation, US.
Everything boils down to money._

---------
*The Era of American Global Dominance Is Over*
Huffington Post
09/15/2016 07:15 pm ET

Graham E. Fuller
Former vice chairman, CIA’s National Intelligence Council; 
Author “Breaking Faith”

You might recall the term “Eurasia” from high school geography classes. The term isn’t used much anymore in political discussions in the West, but it should be. That is where the most serious geopolitical action is going to be taking place in the world as we move deeper into the 21st century. The U.S., focused so intently on “containment“ of Russia, the so-called Islamic State and China, will be missing the bigger Eurasian strategic picture.

Eurasia is the greatest landmass of the world, embracing Europe and all of Asia — some of the oldest and greatest centers of human civilization.

So what is Eurasianism? It has meant different things at different periods. A century ago, the Kissingers of the time spun theories about a deep and inevitable strategic clash between seaborne power (U.K./U.S.) and continental/land-based powers (Germany, Russia.) “Eurasia” then meant mostly Europe and western Russia. Indeed, what need was there to talk then about Asia itself? Most of Asia was underdeveloped and lay under the control of the British Empire (India, China) or the French (Indochina) and had no independent will. Japan was the only real “Asian power” — that ironically developed its own imperial designs, mimicking the West, and thus came to clash with American imperial power in the Pacific

Today, of course, all that is different. Eurasia increasingly means “Asia” in which the “Euro” part figures modestly. Furthermore, China has now become the center of Eurasia as the world’s second-largest economy. Not surprisingly, China — like the Muslim world — projects a decidedly “anti-imperial” bent based on what it sees as its humiliation at the hands of the West (and Japan) during its 200-year eclipse — during one of its dynastic down cycles. But China is very much back now into a classic “up-cycle” mode of power and influence again and is determined to project its weight and influence. India, too, now is now a rapidly developing power with regional reach. And Japan, while quiescent, still represents formidable economic power, perhaps to be augmented by greater military regional reach.

The significance of the term “Eurasian” has changed a good deal, but it still suggests strategic rivalry. At a time when the U.S. formally declares its intent to militarily dominate the world (“full spectrum dominance“ was the official Pentagon doctrine in 2000) the concept of Eurasianism is responding with vigor. And not just in China, but in its new significance for countries like Russia, Iran and even Turkey. It suggests a sense of the eclipse of dominant western power in the face of new Asian power.

It’s not all just about military and money. It’s also cultural. Russian culture has for two centuries maintained a lively debate about whether Russia belongs to the West, or embodies a distinctly Eurasian (_yevraziiskaya_) culture that is separate from the West. Eurasianists represent a significant force within Russian strategic and military thinking (although Putin, interestingly, does not fully embrace this worldview.)

The idea is a vague but culturally important one; it grapples with Russian identity. It speaks of a Slavic culture but with deep Eurasian roots even in an old Turkic and Tatar past. Remember that historically it is the modern West that torched Russia twice: witness the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler up to the gates of Moscow. NATO today probes ever more deeply all around the Russian periphery. The Eurasianists are suspicious of, if not hostile to, the West as a permanent threat to “Holy Mother Russia.” “Eurasianism” will always lurk just beneath the surface in the Russian strategic worldview.

That is what Russia’s new Eurasian Economic Union is all about, a goal to at least economically unite Belarus, the Central Asian states and others into a greater Eurasian economic whole. (Oil-rich Kazakhstan was actually the author of the concept; it will seek to maintain ties with the West, but look at it its place on a world map to see where Kazakhstan’s real long-term options lie. Russia may not now be the best economic star to tie one’s future to, but it is just one of many Eurasian vehicles out there and they are not mutually exclusive. Options bring greater security.

*China is moving in stunningly ambitious directions in creating the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank* (that 57 states have signed onto including most European states, Canada and Australia — but conspicuously without Japan so far, or the U.S.) This creates a new Eurasian-focused central banking instrument with strong Chinese influence. China is also projecting massive new transportation networks (the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road — “One Belt, One Road“) across Eurasia to China linking China to Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia and the Far East by rail, road and sea. China’s “Eurasian strategy” is already a burgeoning reality. Yes, suspicions and rivalries exist between Russia and China and India and Japan. But the strong economic and developmental thrust of these proposals differ markedly from the American more “security” focused organization with its worrisome military implications.

Not only has Washington fought these Chinese and Eurasian initiatives unsuccessfully, but it is U.S. policies in particular — that identify both Russia and China as the presumptive enemy — that have helped bring Russia and China together on many issues, linked now by shared distrust of U.S. global military ambitions.

Japan, incidentally, before World War II had its own doctrine of “Eurasianism” — an effort to identify with and stir up Asian peoples and territories against western colonial domination. This strategy could have been quite effective had it not been accompanied by Japan’s own brutal military invasions of East Asian countries, destroying the credibility of the Japanese “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Today Japan hasn’t moved its location; it will still have to deal with the reality of Chinese power in the East. And what Japanese leader would seriously pursue a long range policy of hostility to China in support of a U.S. Pacific strategy that is inherently designed to bottle up China? Especially when China and Japan are huge mutual trading and investment partners?

Iran is keenly interested in balancing against geopolitical pressures from the U.S. and seeks membership in these Russian and Chinese economic development institutions. Iran is a natural “Eurasian “ and “Silk Road” power.

Turkey has gotten into the Eurasian game, again. Going back to the early days of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party foreign policy — in the vision of then-foreign minister Davutoğlu — Turkey was no longer limited to being a western power, but also proclaimed its geopolitical interests (nearly a hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire) in the Middle East, and indeed, Eurasia. (After all, the Turks originally come from Eurasia, having migrated west from Lake Baikal a thousand years ago.) That means serious ties with Russia, combined with deep ethnic, cultural and historical ties with Central Asia, and with China. Turkey (like Iran and Pakistan) seeks to be part of these Russian and Chinese networks. And, among some Turkish nationalist politicians and military officers (including many secular Kemalists) there is strong “Eurasianist“ leaning to expand Turkey’s geopolitical options to explore strategic and cultural ties with Eurasia. It also reflects an expression of distrust of western and U.S. efforts to dominate the region.

For Turkey this is not an either/or issue. It can seek to be part of Europe — including NATO — but will not relinquish the broad geostrategic alternative options to the East, with its ever greater economic clout, and roads and rails to link it.

In short, *the new Eurasianism is no longer about 19th century land and sea power. It is an acknowledgment that the era of western —- and especially U.S. — global dominance is over*. Washington can no longer command — or afford — a longer-term bid to dominate Eurasia. In economic terms, no state in the region, including Turkey, would be foolish enough to turn its back on this rising “Eurasian” potential that also offers strategic balance and economic options.

There are, of course, huge fault lines across Eurasia — ethnic, economic, strategic and some degree of rivalry. But *the more Washington attempts to contain or throttle Eurasianism as a genuine rising force, the greater will be the determination of states to become part of this rising Eurasian world*, even while not rejecting the West.

All countries like to have alternatives. They don’t like to lie beholden to a single global power that tries to call the shots. America’s narrative of what the global order is all about is no longer accepted globally. Furthermore, it is no longer realistic. It would seem short-sighted for Washington to continue focus upon expanding military alliances while most of the rest of the world is looking to greater prosperity and rising regional clout. (China’s military expenditures are about one-quarter of U.S.spending.)

_This article first appeared on GrahameFuller.com_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

_The US is pretty good in stirring up trouble all over the world._

--------
People's Daily criticizes U.S. as "source of turmoil"
(Xinhua) 08:38, September 19, 2016

BEIJING, Sept. 18 -- The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has criticized the United States as the "source of turmoil in the world."

The newspaper on Sunday published three articles by Chinese scholars to analyze the causes of expansive and hegemonic moves by the United States from systemic, ideological and strategic perspectives.

An editor's note on the page said that U.S. interventions are behind unrest and disputes in many places, including the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the South China Sea.

"The United States is keen to make messes in the world, cast shadows on order and stability in multiple regions and jeopardize peace and development in relevant countries," the note said.

An article by Yang Guangbin, a professor of politics at Renmin University, pointed out that the "military-industrial complex," which former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against, is "kidnapping U.S. domestic and diplomatic policy."

The "military-industrial complex" naturally demands war and military expansion, resulting in the Iraq war, "Arab Spring" uprisings and growing tensions with Russia and China, Yang said.

Yang also criticized the United States for selling its ideology, which has brainwashed the elite in some non-Western countries.

"Countries that have followed American-style 'liberty and democracy' are not turning into American-style states. Instead, their lives remain the same, or even become worse," the article said.

Yang said remarks by American diplomat George F. Kennan, who said the Soviet system "moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force," is now applicable to the U.S. system.

"Over the years, the United States has developed a 'chariot system' like a perpetual motion machine driven by the 'monster' of capital power," the scholar wrote.

The article further criticized the opinions judging China based on a so-called "mainstream theory" and called for a greater voice for China that is commensurate with its standing in international society.

Another article by Li Wen, a researcher with an institute for the study of the theoretical system of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, noted that the United States' eagerness to make trouble around the world is due to its "hegemonic anxiety."

It is "to a large degree, a reflection of a twisted mentality of an empire moving downhill," according to the article.

The United States no longer tends to build and protect world order and peace in order to improve its international status. Instead, it has turned into a disrupter of order and peace to maintain its status quo, the article read.

*The United States is making mischief in the world to sustain the U.S. dollar's supremacy and the country's hegemony in military, political and cultural fields*, the article said.

The scholar also denounced the United States' measures to contain China by causing trouble in East Asia.

A third article by Lin Hongyu, a professor at Huaqiao University, said U.S. maneuvers in the Asia-Pacific region are just part of its overseas expansion and interventionist diplomacy to maintain its leading international role.

The article called on Chinese authorities to manage disputes between China and the United States in a constructive way and to build a new type of major-country relationship together.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

*
https://www.ft.com/content/12473188-7db4-11e6-8e50-8ec15fb462f4

America’s Pacific pivot is sinking*
From South China Sea rivalry to an international trade agreement, the US policy is in trouble
Gideon Rachman

Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, caused shock and sniggers around the world when he called Barack Obama the “son of a whore”. But the Duterte comment that will have really hurt the White House came a few days later. Announcing that he was ending joint naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea, the Philippines’ president stated: “*China is now in power and they have military superiority in the region*.”

That statement will sting in Washington. Throughout the Obama years, the US has attempted to reassure all its Asian allies that America has both the means and the will to remain the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific region. President Obama set the tone in a landmark speech in 2011, when he firmly asserted that “the United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay”. Since then America has transferred more of its navy to the region and Mr Obama has regularly made the long journey from Washington to East Asia.

But Mr Duterte has now directly challenged the idea that America is still the hegemon in the Pacific. If others take his view, power could drain away from Washington, as more countries in the region begin to defer to Beijing.

* The Philippines’ president’s assessment of the military balance between the US and China is questionable*. The Americans currently have 11 aircraft-carriers, while China has one — with another on the way. But Chinese military spending has been rising fast for decades. And Beijing has also invested in the kinds of equipment, including missiles and submarines, that potentially make America’s aircraft carriers very vulnerable.

Over the past year, China’s new confidence has been reflected in its programme of “island building” in the South China Sea, designed to reinforce Beijing’s controversial claim that roughly 90 per cent of that sea falls within its territorial waters. The Americans have been unable to stop this clear assertion of Chinese power and have restricted themselves to sailing past the disputed and increasingly militarised “islands” to signal that they do not accept China’s claims.

The importance that the US attaches to the South China Sea has been repeatedly emphasised by the Obama administration. In an article on “America’s Pacific century”, published in 2011, Hillary Clinton pointed out that “half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this water”.* The US fears that Beijing intends to turn these crucial waters into a “Chinese lake”*.

The Americans have long insisted, reasonably enough, that their position on the South China Sea is about upholding international law rather than engaging in a power struggle with China. The Philippines has been vital to this law-based strategy. In July, Manila won an international legal challenge to Beijing’s claims over the South China Sea, a ruling that was widely seen as a major setback to China’s ambitions. Yet it is rather hard for America to defend the legal rights of the Philippines, when Mr Duterte curses Mr Obama in public and then curtails joint naval patrols.

The US does have other partners in the region. Last week Japan announced that it will carry out naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea. But a partnership with Tokyo, which is locked in a bitter rivalry with Beijing, makes the maritime issue look more like a power struggle with China, rather than a question of international law, particularly since the Russians and Chinese have just completed their own joint exercises in the South China Sea. Under the circumstances, *many Southeast Asian countries will be tempted to stand to one side rather than risk being caught up in a clash of regional titans*.

The sense that America’s “pivot” to Asia is in trouble is compounded by the growing doubts about the fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal promoted by the US.

The TPP brings together 12 nations, including Japan and the US, but excludes China. The deal is widely seen as a counter to China’s growing economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

Pleading the case for the TPP before the US Congress, Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, argued: “Long term its strategic value is awesome.”

But the entreaties of Mr Abe and Mr Obama seem unlikely to save the TPP. Donald Trump and Mrs Clinton, the two main candidates for the US presidency, have come out against the deal. Mr Obama may still try to force it through Congress before he leaves office. But the chances of the TPP surviving the current climate of protectionism in America seem small.

* If the US fails to pass the TPP, America’s Asian allies will feel badly let down*. They have risked antagonising Beijing by signing up to a US-led initiative. Now Washington may jilt them at the altar. On a recent visit to the US capital, Lee Hsien Loong, the Singaporean prime minister, called the TPP a “litmus test of (American) credibility and seriousness of purpose” in Asia. He pointed out that the implications go well beyond trade, extending to the credibility of America’s security guarantees to its Asian allies.

Unfortunately, long-term strategic thinking is almost impossible in the current maelstrom of American politics. As a result, President Obama faces the sad prospect of leaving office with his signature foreign-policy initiative — the pivot to Asia — sinking beneath the Pacific waves.

gideon.rachman@ft.com


----------



## Jlaw

ahojunk said:


> *https://www.ft.com/content/12473188-7db4-11e6-8e50-8ec15fb462f4
> 
> America’s Pacific pivot is sinking*
> From South China Sea rivalry to an international trade agreement, the US policy is in trouble
> Gideon Rachman
> 
> Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, caused shock and sniggers around the world when he called Barack Obama the “son of a whore”. But the Duterte comment that will have really hurt the White House came a few days later. Announcing that he was ending joint naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea, the Philippines’ president stated: “*China is now in power and they have military superiority in the region*.”
> 
> That statement will sting in Washington. Throughout the Obama years, the US has attempted to reassure all its Asian allies that America has both the means and the will to remain the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific region. President Obama set the tone in a landmark speech in 2011, when he firmly asserted that “the United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay”. Since then America has transferred more of its navy to the region and Mr Obama has regularly made the long journey from Washington to East Asia.
> 
> But Mr Duterte has now directly challenged the idea that America is still the hegemon in the Pacific. If others take his view, power could drain away from Washington, as more countries in the region begin to defer to Beijing.
> 
> * The Philippines’ president’s assessment of the military balance between the US and China is questionable*. The Americans currently have 11 aircraft-carriers, while China has one — with another on the way. But Chinese military spending has been rising fast for decades. And Beijing has also invested in the kinds of equipment, including missiles and submarines, that potentially make America’s aircraft carriers very vulnerable.
> 
> Over the past year, China’s new confidence has been reflected in its programme of “island building” in the South China Sea, designed to reinforce Beijing’s controversial claim that roughly 90 per cent of that sea falls within its territorial waters. The Americans have been unable to stop this clear assertion of Chinese power and have restricted themselves to sailing past the disputed and increasingly militarised “islands” to signal that they do not accept China’s claims.
> 
> The importance that the US attaches to the South China Sea has been repeatedly emphasised by the Obama administration. In an article on “America’s Pacific century”, published in 2011, Hillary Clinton pointed out that “half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this water”.* The US fears that Beijing intends to turn these crucial waters into a “Chinese lake”*.
> 
> The Americans have long insisted, reasonably enough, that their position on the South China Sea is about upholding international law rather than engaging in a power struggle with China. The Philippines has been vital to this law-based strategy. In July, Manila won an international legal challenge to Beijing’s claims over the South China Sea, a ruling that was widely seen as a major setback to China’s ambitions. Yet it is rather hard for America to defend the legal rights of the Philippines, when Mr Duterte curses Mr Obama in public and then curtails joint naval patrols.
> 
> The US does have other partners in the region. Last week Japan announced that it will carry out naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea. But a partnership with Tokyo, which is locked in a bitter rivalry with Beijing, makes the maritime issue look more like a power struggle with China, rather than a question of international law, particularly since the Russians and Chinese have just completed their own joint exercises in the South China Sea. Under the circumstances, *many Southeast Asian countries will be tempted to stand to one side rather than risk being caught up in a clash of regional titans*.
> 
> The sense that America’s “pivot” to Asia is in trouble is compounded by the growing doubts about the fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal promoted by the US.
> 
> The TPP brings together 12 nations, including Japan and the US, but excludes China. The deal is widely seen as a counter to China’s growing economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
> Pleading the case for the TPP before the US Congress, Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, argued: “Long term its strategic value is awesome.”
> 
> But the entreaties of Mr Abe and Mr Obama seem unlikely to save the TPP. Donald Trump and Mrs Clinton, the two main candidates for the US presidency, have come out against the deal. Mr Obama may still try to force it through Congress before he leaves office. But the chances of the TPP surviving the current climate of protectionism in America seem small.
> 
> * If the US fails to pass the TPP, America’s Asian allies will feel badly let down*. They have risked antagonising Beijing by signing up to a US-led initiative. Now Washington may jilt them at the altar. On a recent visit to the US capital, Lee Hsien Loong, the Singaporean prime minister, called the TPP a “litmus test of (American) credibility and seriousness of purpose” in Asia. He pointed out that the implications go well beyond trade, extending to the credibility of America’s security guarantees to its Asian allies.
> 
> Unfortunately, long-term strategic thinking is almost impossible in the current maelstrom of American politics. As a result, President Obama faces the sad prospect of leaving office with his signature foreign-policy initiative — the pivot to Asia — sinking beneath the Pacific waves.
> 
> gideon.rachman@ft.com


when did the American Pacific began? The world must have missed it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Jlaw said:


> when did the American Pacific began? The world must have missed it



Pivot to Asia was bound to fail because it was laden with a jingoistic militarism and US-exceptionalism to please domestic audience in the US and prop up nationalist xenopohobism.

Yet, the tactics by the neo-fascist, Obama-led shadow Hillary government has come to bite the same party in the upcoming elections in the persona of Donald Trump.

Trumps has shown and essentially said that "if you are to be China-xenophobic, I will prove to be ultra-xenopohobic against practically anybody, beating you in your own little neo-liberal game."

Now, the xenophobism, strong-man-ism and nationalism has become national politics in the US, dividing people across race and class lines.

China, in this case, can comfortably sit back and be engaged with its own paradigm and discourse-creation route as the US is now turning xenophobic, exclusivist and isolationist.

Perfect time for the _real_ China-Russia G2 to propose and promote an alternative order.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

TaiShang said:


> Pivot to Asia was bound to fail because it was laden with a jingoistic militarism and US-exceptionalism to please domestic audience in the US and prop up nationalist xenopohobism.
> 
> Yet, the tactics by the neo-fascist, Obama-led shadow Hillary government has come to bite the same party in the upcoming elections in the persona of Donald Trump.
> 
> Trumps has shown and essentially said that "if you are to be China-xenophobic, I will prove to be ultra-xenopohobic against practically anybody, beating you in your own little neo-liberal game."
> 
> Now, the xenophobism, strong-man-ism and nationalism has become national politics in the US, dividing people across race and class lines.
> 
> China, in this case, can comfortably sit back and be engaged with its own paradigm and discourse-creation route as the US is now turning xenophobic, exclusivist and isolationist.
> 
> Perfect time for the _real_ China-Russia G2 to propose and promote an alternative order.



My friend,

Sino-Rus axis is moving systematically to construct global governance where bullying and intimidation has no place. At the same time this win-win axis is also deconstructing the global empirial order that has ruled over the world for last 500 years.

Only difference is that Sino-Rus are short on rhetoric and long action. 

Empty pots make bigger noise, while the pot that is filled is quiet.

However, it will be strategic mistake to underestimate the troublemakers and their proxies. 

Forbidden Palance was not created in one day.... this grand game of Go will take at least two decades for consolidation of results and helping the exceptional states to become normal.

The key here is Financial global governace and the new rules that necessary. What we need is new global currency.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Götterdämmerung

Sinopakfriend said:


> My friend,
> 
> Sino-Rus axis is moving systematically to construct global governance where bullying and intimidation has no place. At the same time this win-win axis is also deconstructing the global empirial order that has ruled over the world for last 500 years.
> 
> Only difference is that Sino-Rus are short on rhetoric and long action.
> 
> Empty pots make bigger noise, while the pot that is filled is quiet.
> 
> However, it will be strategic mistake to underestimate the troublemakers and their proxies.
> 
> Forbidden Palance was not created in one day.... this grand game of Go will take at least two decades for consolidation of results and helping the exceptional states to become normal.
> 
> The key here is Financial global governace and the new rules that necessary. What we need is new global currency.



Well said, but I'm very much against a new global currency. What we need are sound monetary rules for all backed by gold, silver and manufactured merchandise. The era of pushing fiat money from one account to another and call it economic activity must end.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Götterdämmerung said:


> Well said, but I'm very much against a new global currency. What we need are sound monetary rules for all backed by gold, silver and manufactured merchandise. The era of pushing fiat money from one account to another and call it economic activity must end.



`My dear friend,

I am equally against a global reserve currency which is debt based instead of sovereign credit.

What I envision is a global currency that is a solid store of value. Allow me to explain:


Take Euro..we work that means we get 'monney' in exchange for the labour we provide. That is to say you sell hours of your life in exchange for money. This then can be utilised for life i.e. food, shelter, education of kids ect. This is ture value.

However, our Euro is not store of value hence our lives. Everyday our Euro is less valuable than yesterday. This ongoing process will depreciate the value of our lives in such a way that value of our lives become finanncialised by the fiat money making scheme.

This wrong way to structure our societies. We must move towards a system that values life.

As one who values life deeply I rather like to see a system which is a safe store of the life for money exchange mechansim. Gold can be such store. But there is not enough gold in the world.

The only way forward is a global agreement of SDR type thing against which local currencies can rise and fall in managed manner. Speculation i.e gambling needs to stop.

That is why my contention is that we need a new global reserve currency in a fixed issue manner thus avoiding inflaction pressure on it. Furthermore, there has to be a global agreementen on the mechanisms of issuance of money.

As it stands today in the West we have no sovereign control over the issuance of money or credit. What we have is the non-sovereign monopoly of creation of debt by bookkeeping.

I wish to see a system where life is valuable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## barbarosa

Why Only dollar$ is acceptable as international currency? It is the supremacy of USA, because of it USA is a supa pawa, I ask why?


----------



## ahojunk

Chinese premier calls for more efforts to promote China-U.S. economic ties
2016-09-20 10:25 | Xinhua Editor: Mo Hong'e 

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Monday called upon China and the United States to step up efforts to promote economic and trade ties between the two countries.

The statement was made when Li met with U.S. President Barack Obama in New York on the sidelines of the ongoing 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly that opened earlier last week.

*Economic and trade cooperation is the "cornerstone" and "propeller" of China-U.S. relations*, Li said.

The two sides should work together to ensure an early conclusion of negotiations on a China-U.S. bilateral investment treaty (BIT), expand market access to each other, and create better business environment and better cooperation prospect for enterprises from both sides, the premier said.

The two sides should also properly handle economic and trade frictions to prevent bilateral economic and trade ties from suffering unnecessary distractions, he added.

Meanwhile, the premier urged the U.S. side to relax restrictions on high-tech exports to China.

For his part, *Obama said economic relations are the stabilizing factor of U.S.-China ties*.

The U.S. president added that the U.S. side supports China's reform process, hoping the two sides make further progress in BIT negotiations.


----------



## Shotgunner51

barbarosa said:


> Why Only dollar$ is acceptable as international currency? It is the supremacy of USA, because of it USA is a supa pawa, I ask why?




It's post-WWII world order, a legacy

Since early 20th century US has risen to become the *world's largest creditor*, and holds the title for 70 years, till late 1980's (Reagan times)

The position was further strengthened after WWII when US was the only viable economy, largest industrial machine, largest exporter, largest trader ...... when rest of the world was leveled to debris.
Also read about the Bretton Woods system (1st and 2nd), petrol-dollar peg (KSA & OPEC) and reserve strategies of East Asian creditor nations (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and post-1990's Mainland China).

.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Place Of Space

ahojunk said:


> _The era of global dominance is coming to an end for the world's largest debtor nation, US.
> Everything boils down to money._
> 
> ---------
> *The Era of American Global Dominance Is Over*
> Huffington Post
> 09/15/2016 07:15 pm ET
> 
> Graham E. Fuller
> Former vice chairman, CIA’s National Intelligence Council;
> Author “Breaking Faith”
> 
> You might recall the term “Eurasia” from high school geography classes. The term isn’t used much anymore in political discussions in the West, but it should be. That is where the most serious geopolitical action is going to be taking place in the world as we move deeper into the 21st century. The U.S., focused so intently on “containment“ of Russia, the so-called Islamic State and China, will be missing the bigger Eurasian strategic picture.
> 
> Eurasia is the greatest landmass of the world, embracing Europe and all of Asia — some of the oldest and greatest centers of human civilization.
> 
> So what is Eurasianism? It has meant different things at different periods. A century ago, the Kissingers of the time spun theories about a deep and inevitable strategic clash between seaborne power (U.K./U.S.) and continental/land-based powers (Germany, Russia.) “Eurasia” then meant mostly Europe and western Russia. Indeed, what need was there to talk then about Asia itself? Most of Asia was underdeveloped and lay under the control of the British Empire (India, China) or the French (Indochina) and had no independent will. Japan was the only real “Asian power” — that ironically developed its own imperial designs, mimicking the West, and thus came to clash with American imperial power in the Pacific
> 
> Today, of course, all that is different. Eurasia increasingly means “Asia” in which the “Euro” part figures modestly. Furthermore, China has now become the center of Eurasia as the world’s second-largest economy. Not surprisingly, China — like the Muslim world — projects a decidedly “anti-imperial” bent based on what it sees as its humiliation at the hands of the West (and Japan) during its 200-year eclipse — during one of its dynastic down cycles. But China is very much back now into a classic “up-cycle” mode of power and influence again and is determined to project its weight and influence. India, too, now is now a rapidly developing power with regional reach. And Japan, while quiescent, still represents formidable economic power, perhaps to be augmented by greater military regional reach.
> 
> The significance of the term “Eurasian” has changed a good deal, but it still suggests strategic rivalry. At a time when the U.S. formally declares its intent to militarily dominate the world (“full spectrum dominance“ was the official Pentagon doctrine in 2000) the concept of Eurasianism is responding with vigor. And not just in China, but in its new significance for countries like Russia, Iran and even Turkey. It suggests a sense of the eclipse of dominant western power in the face of new Asian power.
> 
> It’s not all just about military and money. It’s also cultural. Russian culture has for two centuries maintained a lively debate about whether Russia belongs to the West, or embodies a distinctly Eurasian (_yevraziiskaya_) culture that is separate from the West. Eurasianists represent a significant force within Russian strategic and military thinking (although Putin, interestingly, does not fully embrace this worldview.)
> 
> The idea is a vague but culturally important one; it grapples with Russian identity. It speaks of a Slavic culture but with deep Eurasian roots even in an old Turkic and Tatar past. Remember that historically it is the modern West that torched Russia twice: witness the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler up to the gates of Moscow. NATO today probes ever more deeply all around the Russian periphery. The Eurasianists are suspicious of, if not hostile to, the West as a permanent threat to “Holy Mother Russia.” “Eurasianism” will always lurk just beneath the surface in the Russian strategic worldview.
> 
> That is what Russia’s new Eurasian Economic Union is all about, a goal to at least economically unite Belarus, the Central Asian states and others into a greater Eurasian economic whole. (Oil-rich Kazakhstan was actually the author of the concept; it will seek to maintain ties with the West, but look at it its place on a world map to see where Kazakhstan’s real long-term options lie. Russia may not now be the best economic star to tie one’s future to, but it is just one of many Eurasian vehicles out there and they are not mutually exclusive. Options bring greater security.
> 
> *China is moving in stunningly ambitious directions in creating the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank* (that 57 states have signed onto including most European states, Canada and Australia — but conspicuously without Japan so far, or the U.S.) This creates a new Eurasian-focused central banking instrument with strong Chinese influence. China is also projecting massive new transportation networks (the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road — “One Belt, One Road“) across Eurasia to China linking China to Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia and the Far East by rail, road and sea. China’s “Eurasian strategy” is already a burgeoning reality. Yes, suspicions and rivalries exist between Russia and China and India and Japan. But the strong economic and developmental thrust of these proposals differ markedly from the American more “security” focused organization with its worrisome military implications.
> 
> Not only has Washington fought these Chinese and Eurasian initiatives unsuccessfully, but it is U.S. policies in particular — that identify both Russia and China as the presumptive enemy — that have helped bring Russia and China together on many issues, linked now by shared distrust of U.S. global military ambitions.
> 
> Japan, incidentally, before World War II had its own doctrine of “Eurasianism” — an effort to identify with and stir up Asian peoples and territories against western colonial domination. This strategy could have been quite effective had it not been accompanied by Japan’s own brutal military invasions of East Asian countries, destroying the credibility of the Japanese “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Today Japan hasn’t moved its location; it will still have to deal with the reality of Chinese power in the East. And what Japanese leader would seriously pursue a long range policy of hostility to China in support of a U.S. Pacific strategy that is inherently designed to bottle up China? Especially when China and Japan are huge mutual trading and investment partners?
> 
> Iran is keenly interested in balancing against geopolitical pressures from the U.S. and seeks membership in these Russian and Chinese economic development institutions. Iran is a natural “Eurasian “ and “Silk Road” power.
> 
> Turkey has gotten into the Eurasian game, again. Going back to the early days of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party foreign policy — in the vision of then-foreign minister Davutoğlu — Turkey was no longer limited to being a western power, but also proclaimed its geopolitical interests (nearly a hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire) in the Middle East, and indeed, Eurasia. (After all, the Turks originally come from Eurasia, having migrated west from Lake Baikal a thousand years ago.) That means serious ties with Russia, combined with deep ethnic, cultural and historical ties with Central Asia, and with China. Turkey (like Iran and Pakistan) seeks to be part of these Russian and Chinese networks. And, among some Turkish nationalist politicians and military officers (including many secular Kemalists) there is strong “Eurasianist“ leaning to expand Turkey’s geopolitical options to explore strategic and cultural ties with Eurasia. It also reflects an expression of distrust of western and U.S. efforts to dominate the region.
> 
> For Turkey this is not an either/or issue. It can seek to be part of Europe — including NATO — but will not relinquish the broad geostrategic alternative options to the East, with its ever greater economic clout, and roads and rails to link it.
> 
> In short, *the new Eurasianism is no longer about 19th century land and sea power. It is an acknowledgment that the era of western —- and especially U.S. — global dominance is over*. Washington can no longer command — or afford — a longer-term bid to dominate Eurasia. In economic terms, no state in the region, including Turkey, would be foolish enough to turn its back on this rising “Eurasian” potential that also offers strategic balance and economic options.
> 
> There are, of course, huge fault lines across Eurasia — ethnic, economic, strategic and some degree of rivalry. But *the more Washington attempts to contain or throttle Eurasianism as a genuine rising force, the greater will be the determination of states to become part of this rising Eurasian world*, even while not rejecting the West.
> 
> All countries like to have alternatives. They don’t like to lie beholden to a single global power that tries to call the shots. America’s narrative of what the global order is all about is no longer accepted globally. Furthermore, it is no longer realistic. It would seem short-sighted for Washington to continue focus upon expanding military alliances while most of the rest of the world is looking to greater prosperity and rising regional clout. (China’s military expenditures are about one-quarter of U.S.spending.)
> 
> _This article first appeared on GrahameFuller.com_



"*The Era of American Global Dominance Is Over*" is like a jaming bomb.



Shotgunner51 said:


> It's post-WWII world order, a legacy
> 
> Since early 20th century US has risen to become the *world's largest creditor*, and holds the title for 70 years, till late 1980's (Reagan times)
> 
> The position was further strengthened after WWII when US was the only viable economy, largest industrial machine, when rest of the world was leveled to debris.
> Also read about the Bretton Woods system (1st and 2nd), petrol-dollar peg (KSA & OPEC) and reserve strategies of East Asian creditor nations (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and post-1990's Mainland China).
> 
> .



America in two world wars gamble two sides at the same time, finally it gained all victorious fruits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

Shotgunner51 said:


> It's post-WWII world order.
> 
> Since early 20th century US has risen to become the world's largest creditor, the position was further strengthened after WWII when US was the only viable economy, largest industrial machine, when rest of the world was leveled to debris. Also read about the Bretton Woods system (1st and 2nd), petrol-dollar (KSA & OPEC) and reserve strategies of East Asian creditor nations (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and post-1990's Mainland China).
> 
> The US holds the title as world's largest creditor nation for 70 years, till late 1980's (Reagan times).


.
Unfortunately, today US is the largest *debtor* nation in the world. Its debt is fast approaching 20 trillion dollars.

Remember - there was once an unsinkable Titanic.

Prior to the sinking of the Titanic, everybody said that it was unsinkable.

Edit: creditor ---> debtor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

Place Of Space said:


> "*The Era of American Global Dominance Is Over*" is like a jaming bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> America in two world wars gamble two sides at the same time, finally it gained all victorious fruits.




Read about the Dawes Plan of 1924, and involvement of Wall Street in Germany between WWI and WWII.

@victor07



ahojunk said:


> .
> Unfortunately, today US is the largest creditor nation in the world. Its debt is fast approaching 20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Remember - there was once an unsinkable Titanic.




You mean largest Debtor Nation? Yes, the Net International Position (external assets less liabilities) of United States at the end of the first quarter of 2016 was a shocking −$7.525.6 trillion, and sinking at a break-neck speed of $1 trillion per year.

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm​
The debt which is fast approaching $20 trillion you mentioned is National Debt (owed by the US Federal Government). And yes, it's also largest in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Shotgunner51 said:


> You mean largest Debtor Nation? Yes, the Net International Position (external assets less liabilities) of United States at the end of the first quarter of 2016 was a shocking −$7.525.6 trillion, and sinking at a break-neck speed of $1 trillion per year.



That's scaringly incredible. One wonders where the incurred debt is channeled into now that real wages in the US have not grown for some two decades.



Shotgunner51 said:


> The debt which is fast approaching $20 trillion you mentioned is National Debt (owed by the US Federal Government). And yes, it's also largest in the world.



I guess China holds about 1.7 trillion share of it. Donald Trump said default would be unthinkable; but he seems to believe that China is in need of the US (to sell stuff) more than the US is in need of China (to buy stuff). Hence he argues that he can coerce China into negotiating more opening up of China's market into the US products, stopping "currency manipulation," and giving up on "stealing US innovation."

Trump also promises to bring back US manufacturing. Basically, he believes that the trade deficit would be reduced if China bought more and sold less, made its exports expensive and send high-value US manufacturing back home.

Seems to me a tall order.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Jlaw

ahojunk said:


> .
> Unfortunately, today US is the *largest credito*r nation in the world. Its debt is fast approaching 20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Remember - there was once an unsinkable Titanic.
> 
> Prior to the sinking of the Titanic, everybody said that it was unsinkable.



You mean "debtor" nation . The $20 trillion is just what is counted for. Look at the unfunded liabilities:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...debt-shocker-100-trillion-owed-unfunded-16581

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

* Barack Obama’s Asia pivot is sinking beneath Pacific waves *
By M.K. Bhadrakumar _on_ September 21, 2016 _in_ AT 

_The fate of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement remains uncertain even as US President Barack Obama tries to get congressional passage for the bill. The trade deal, which is a strategic and geopolitical drive to contain China and maintain US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific, is facing hurdles as Vietnam is delaying its ratification. Hanoi’s rethink came soon after Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s recent six-day visit to China. US dominance in Asia-Pacific is challenged by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who is cozying up to Beijing. If other leaders follow suit, the US will soon lose its hold on Asia. _

In his final address to the UN General Assembly annual session in New York on Tuesday, US President Barack Obama failed to list amongst his legacies what should have been the crowning glory of his presidency – Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the mother of all trade deals covering 40% of world’s GDP. Does it mean this extraordinary statesman is walking out of the world arena with nothing to show by way of a historic Asian legacy?
*





U.S. President Barack Obama listens to applause following his address to the United Nations 
General Assembly in New York September 20. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque*​

Obviously, Obama is unsure which way the wind is blowing. TPP’s fate hangs in the balance. What ought to have been another platinum grade trade deal, Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, just capsized, hitting the rock of popular opposition in Europe.

The TPP can meet a similar fate, hitting an American iceberg. The populist mood in America regarding trade deals has become unfriendly, given their dubious reputation for creating wealth for corporate industry while taking away jobs.

Donald Trump pledges to scupper the TPP, while Hillary Clinton succumbs to populist politics and intends to renegotiate the terms of the deal to make it more agreeable to American interests. Of course, Obama himself, famous for his audacity of hope, is escalating the struggle to get congressional passage for the TPP.

On Friday, he took a meeting of TPP supporters drawn from Republicans and Democrats, business leaders, governors and mayors, national security figures and military leaders to send the message that the trade deal is important not only for the US economy but also “for our national security and our standing in the world.”

The emergent salience is that the TPP, which so far was touted as a flag carrier of free trade values, is being acknowledged, finally, for what it is – a strategic and geopolitical drive to contain China.

Some Asian allies traveled to Washington to canvass support for the TPP among America’s political class and opinion makers – Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. They stressed that TPP forms part of the US’ pivot to Asia and aims at making China subordinate to American interests.

They conceded that the great game is about maintaining US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned that the success or failure of the TPP will “sway the direction of… strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific”.

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that ratification of the TPP by the US Congress will be regarded in the region as a “test for your credibility and seriousness of purpose.” The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull saw TPP to be as powerful as “ships and planes” for exerting US influence in the Asia-Pacific.

But doubt is growing in the Asia-Pacific as to whether TPP will see the light of day. Nothing else can explain the last-minute rethink in Hanoi to shelve the ratification of TPP at the forthcoming session of Vietnamese parliament. (TPP negotiations were finalized in October and must be ratified by all 12 signatories within the next two years.)

The Chairman of the Vietnamese Parliament Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan noted that the decision to defer ratification has been taken in view of needs to examine the global situation, assess actions of the other country members and wait for the result of the US presidential election.

Hanoi’s decision comes in the downstream of the recent six-day visit to China by Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc (who succeeded the famously ‘pro-West’ Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung), which has raised hopes of a qualitatively new level of mutual trust and confidence in Sino-Vietnamese relations.

To be sure, the regional security setting has become highly fluid, which in turn buffets the US’ overall standing in Asia. Obama’s final Asian tour last month didn’t go well.

While the G-20 summit in Hangzhou ended up as an assertive Chinese narrative, the ASEAN summits that followed were a setback for US diplomacy to drum up public show of resistance to China in the South China Sea disputes.

The mercurial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has since ended joint patrols with the US in the South China Sea, opened Track II to Beijing, invited Chinese trade and investments (and even arms supplies), demanded the pull-out of US Special Forces in Mindanao, and is voicing his country’s “independent foreign policies”.

The _Manila Times_ newspaper disclosed on Tuesday that the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations sent a mission to China for a series of dialogues from September 13 to 15, comprising retired ambassadors, military officials, businessmen and academics, to supplement Duterte’s Track I initiative such as the appointment of former President Fidel Ramos as special envoy to China.

While in Beijing, the Track II delegation called on Liu Zhenmin, vice-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador Wu Hailong, president of the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, amongst others.

Liu was cited expressing the hope that “Philippines can meet China halfway, handle the dispute appropriately, and place relations back on track through dialogue, consultations and cooperation.”

Liu cautioned Manila that there are bound to be “bumps along the road to reconciliation due to vested economic, not to mention third-country interests, which may be at work to try to derail the process towards reconciliation.”

Evidently, the ground beneath the feet of the US’ rebalance is dramatically shifting. An opinion piece in the_ Financial Times_ newspaper on Monday caught the sombre mood:

- Throughout the Obama years, the US has attempted to reassure all its Asian allies that America has both the means and the will to remain the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific… But Mr Duterte has now directly challenged the idea… If others take his view, power could drain away from Washington… The sense that America’s ‘pivot’ to Asia is in trouble is compounded by the growing doubts about the fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership… Unfortunately, long-term strategic thinking is almost impossible in the current maelstrom of American politics. As a result, President Obama faces the sad prospect of leaving office with his signature foreign-policy initiative – the pivot to Asia – sinking beneath the Pacific waves.

In the unkindest cut of all, Duterte stated recently: “China is now in power and they have military superiority in the region.” Factually, it is incorrect to say so. Don’t Americans have 11 aircraft carriers, while China has only one?

But then, three-quarters of the great game has always been about perceptions, and the growing perception in Asia is that the American aircraft carriers are potentially very vulnerable.

This is where the 8-day long China-Russia naval exercises in the South China Sea, which concluded on Monday, would have a multiplier effect. The grand finale of the exercises was a spectacular amphibious and air landing operation on an island off the coast of China’s southern Guangdong Province, which the region watched with riveting attention.

The challenging drill was carried out in near-live combat situation with the Russian and Chinese navies indulging in barely-concealed military posturing that demonstrated their common interest to support each other and push back at the US.

Shortly before the drills, Russian President Vladimir Putin also introduced a game changer, expressing support for China’s position in relation to the international arbitration tribunal’s verdict on South China Sea. He made it a point to speak from Hangzhou, on Chinese soil.

_*Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar* served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001). He writes the “Indian Punchline” blog and has written regularly for Asia Times since 2001._

(Copyright 2016 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shotgunner51

TaiShang said:


> That's scaringly incredible. One wonders where the incurred debt is channeled into now that real wages in the US have not grown for some two decades.
> 
> I guess China holds about 1.7 trillion share of it. Donald Trump said default would be unthinkable; but he seems to believe that China is in need of the US (to sell stuff) more than the US is in need of China (to buy stuff). Hence he argues that he can coerce China into negotiating more opening up of China's market into the US products, stopping "currency manipulation," and giving up on "stealing US innovation."
> 
> Trump also promises to bring back US manufacturing. Basically, he believes that the trade deficit would be reduced if China bought more and sold less, made its exports expensive and send high-value US manufacturing back home.
> 
> Seems to me a tall order.





Jlaw said:


> You mean "debtor" nation . The $20 trillion is just what is counted for. Look at the unfunded liabilities:
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...debt-shocker-100-trillion-owed-unfunded-16581




Even without accounting for the unfunded liabilities in medicare, social security and pension as per GAAP, the cash-on-hand basis reporting of federal debt alone is already approaching an unprecedented $20T. Do you remember a couple of years ago US government came to Beijing and "reassured" on fiscal discipline?

_http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88726e62-4bdb-11de-b827-00144feabdc0.html#axzz4L6dhV5MA
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-geithner-school-idUSTRE64O16220100525_​
On the external position, with sustaining trade (and current account) deficits, US is the world's largest debtor nation.

_https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm_​
The US is not just a scaled up version of PIIGS, she is the issuer of dollar, value (exchange rate vs other currencies, vs commodities) of which concerns not just American public but also the international community of creditors, China included. I hope the new US government can stabilize the financials by increasing tax (from currently 35% of GDP to at least 40%+), and drastically cut back on social/medicare spendings. Defence spendings are untouchable so leave that out. The only spending increase should be interests on debt, anticipating rate hikes (the Fed should facilitate).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

Shotgunner51 said:


> drastically cut back on social/medicare spendings



This would put et another pressure on the already strained class/race relations. But, as you say, given that military spending cannot be meaningfully reduced (and both candidates promise further tax cuts), the only remaining option is to cut spending on other items.

The way the US goes, I predict them to increase spending on internal security (even larger, mightier police force like they have been doing right now in Chicago), as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jlaw

Shotgunner51 said:


> Even without accounting for the unfunded liabilities in medicare, social security and pension as per GAAP, the cash-on-hand basis reporting of federal debt alone is already approaching an unprecedented $20T. Do you remember a couple of years ago US government came to Beijing and "reassured" on fiscal discipline?
> 
> _http://www.usdebtclock.org/
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88726e62-4bdb-11de-b827-00144feabdc0.html#axzz4L6dhV5MA
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-geithner-school-idUSTRE64O16220100525_​
> On the external position, with sustaining trade (and current account) deficits, US is the world's largest debtor nation.
> 
> _https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm_​
> The US is not just a scaled up version of PIIGS, she is the issuer of dollar, value (exchange rate vs other currencies, vs commodities) of which concerns not just American public but also the international community of creditors, China included. I hope the new US government can stabilize the financials by increasing tax (from currently 35% of GDP to at least 40%+), and drastically cut back on social/medicare spendings. Defence spendings are untouchable so leave that out. The only spending increase should be interests on debt, anticipating rate hikes (the Fed should facilitate).



Rate hikes not likely. I had an argument with a former professional here a few years ago. He said US is going to raise rates, I said no. US cannot raise interest rates or it will kill the already fragile stock market and create another housing crisis.

Now we are seeing negative interest rates in some countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

TaiShang said:


> This would put et another pressure on the already strained class/race relations. But, as you say, given that military spending cannot be meaningfully reduced (and both candidates promise further tax cuts), the only remaining option is to cut spending on other items.
> 
> The way the US goes, I predict them to increase spending on internal security (even larger, mightier police force like they have been doing right now in Chicago), as well.





Jlaw said:


> Rate hikes not likely. I had an argument with a former professional here a few years ago. He said US is going to raise rates, I said no. US cannot raise interest rates or it will kill the already fragile stock market and create another housing crisis.
> 
> Now we are seeing negative interest rates in some countries.




@TaiShang Fiscal discipline (stop the deficit and debt mounting) should be top priority for US govt:

Defense-related expenditure (DoD, CIA ops, war, foreign military "aid") will maintain or even increase, reasons we both know, it's untouchable.

Debt servicing should increase, anticipating rate hike, see the next paragraph. This is s small price to pay compared to maintaining dollar value, which is of paramount importance. 

The above two will only increase, hence social security, medicare, must be cut back drastically.

Cutting expenditure wouldn't be enough, tax revenue (state, local and federal) is now 35% of GDP, I believe the American public can accept an increase.
@Jlaw Yes I agree, what should happen and what would happen are two different things. The Fed monetary policy should be responsible to the dollar, not government or interest groups. Will the Fed raise interests to reward dollar savers, dollar creditors? I don't know, but they should.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/fed-chair-janet-yellen-defensive-trump-accusations/story?id=42261001​

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## alaungphaya

This is an excellent and comprehensive article that sums up the geo-political situation of the region.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/25/obama-failed-asian-pivot-china-ascendant

*Barack Obama’s ‘Asian pivot’ failed. China is in the ascendancy*
Simon Tisdall

Tsai Ing-wen is new to the job and the strain is beginning to show. Elected president of Taiwan in a landslide victory, she took office in May, buoyed by high approval ratings. Yet in a few short months, Tsai’s popularity has plunged by 25%. The reason may be summed up in one word: China. Suspicious that Tsai’s Democratic Progressive party, which also won control of parliament, harbours a pro-independence agenda, Beijing suspended official and back-channel talks with its “renegade province” and shut down an emergency hotline.

More seriously, for many Taiwanese workers, China also curbed the lucrative tourist trade, which brought millions of mainland visitors to the island during the accommodating presidency of Tsai’s predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou. Cross-strait investment and business have also been hit.

Tsai faces contradictory pressures. The public wants the benefit of closer economic ties with China but Beijing’s intentions are rightly distrusted by a population that increasingly identifies itself as Taiwanese, not Chinese. Given President Xi Jinping’s ominous warnings that reunification cannot be delayed indefinitely, China’s military build-up and hawkish suggestions that Beijing may resort to force, Taiwanese ambivalence is wholly understandable.

This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute. It is shared by states across the east and southeast Asian region. From Indonesia and the Philippines to Vietnam, Japan, Seoul, Malaysia and Singapore, the quandary is the same. But the answers proffered by national leaders are different and sometimes sharply at odds.

The China dilemma is felt strongly in Washington. The US has striven in recent years to strengthen Asian alliances, increase trade and raise its regional military profile – Barack Obama’s so-called rebalance or pivot to Asia – in a bid to contain and channel China’s ambitions peacefully. But analysts say the pivot appears to be in trouble. For Europeans fixated on Syria and immigration, this may not seem especially worrying or relevant. That’s shortsighted. If Obama and future US presidents get China wrong, the resulting damage could be global, threatening the security and prosperity of all.

Obama is already badly off-track. His grand plan to promote interdependent economic self-interest across the Pacific Rim while excluding China – the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (similar to the controversial US-Europe Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP) – is in deep trouble.

Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, declared last week that the TTP was a crucial “pillar” of future US influence. “Success or failure will sway the direction of the global free trade system and [shape] the strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific,” Abe said.

His warning reflected alarm in Tokyo that a risk-averse Obama is again proving an unreliable partner and will fail to get the deal ratified by Congress. It has already been disowned by both his most likely successors, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.




An image from United States Navy video purportedly shows Chinese dredging vessels in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands.
Photograph: HANDOUT/Reuters

Washington’s painfully obvious inability to curb China’s controversial island-building programme straddling the international shipping lanes of the South China Sea is seen as further evidence that the pivot is failing. Each week seems to bring news of another Chinese airstrip or newly fortified reef. Ignoring neighbouring countries’ rival claims, Chinese has effectively unilaterally annexed 80% of the sea’s area, through which passes $5tn of world trade annually. “Freedom of navigation” patrols by US warships, soon to be backed by Japan’s navy, have had little discernible impact while increasing the risk of direct military confrontation.

China has flatly rejected a precedent-setting UN court ruling that deemed its claim to own the Spratly Islands, also claimed by the Philippines, to be illegal. Beijing has taken a similarly intransigent stance in its dispute with Japan over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands in the East China Sea.

Some observers detect ulterior motives. China’s military construction on the Spratlys and “its effort to exhaust and eventually displace Japan in a contest for the Senkakus can be seen as an attempt psychologically and physically to isolate Taiwan and to prepare the battle space for China’s possible use of military force to unify the PRC and Taiwan”, an analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies said.

Perceived American weakness has led some allies to take matters into their own hands. It emerged last week that Taiwan’s military is also engaged in island fortification, at Itu Aba, its sole possession in the South China Sea.

More dramatically still, the maverick Philippines president, Rodrigo Duterte, switched sides last week, announcing Manila would cease maritime co-operation with the US. China, he said, was the stronger partner. Duterte’s shift reflects his anger at American criticism of human rights abuses rather than a deep strategic rethink. But it will certainly hearten Beijing.

Other regional players are more cautious, an attitude encouraged by Beijing’s divide-and-rule tactics. Vietnam’s prime minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, meekly agreed in talks with Xi this month that “maritime co-operation through friendly negotiations” was the best way forward. But like China, Hanoi is rapidly building military capacity and cementing alliances with India, among others, in anticipation of less amicable times ahead.

Similar diplomatic hedging of bets was on display in Laos this month, when an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) summit deliberately avoided mention of the UN court ruling. This feeble anxiety to play down differences – and evident lack of confidence in US leadership – plays into China’s hands.

The China dilemma extends far beyond the South China Sea. Having made nuclear disarmament a top priority in 2009, Obama has failed dismally to halt North Korea’s accelerating pursuit of nuclear weapons. The threat was underscored by Pyongyang’s biggest ever test explosion earlier this month. China, the only country with real leverage, has helped impose additional UN sanctions on North Korea. But it has consistently balked at taking game-changing measures, such as cutting off fuel oil supplies, which could force Kim Jong-un to think again. Beijing also says it will block “unilateral” measures by other countries.

Obama’s impotence has intensified questions in Japan and elsewhere about the credibility of the American security umbrella, encouraging nationalists who argue that Tokyo should re-arm in earnest – or even deploy its own nuclear weapons. But their main concern is not North Korea – it is China.

Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi’s “One Belt, One Road” plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China’s massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

Western neoliberals are optimistic. They typically argue that market-based economic exchanges can produce a win-win situation for rival states. In this way, China’s rise may be peacefully accommodated, they say.

Xi must also calculate that time is on China’s side. “China’s economic development and military modernisation programmes have witnessed dramatic progress since the early-1980s,” said Karl Eikenberry in the _American Interest_. “China’s aggregate GDP in 1980 was the seventh largest in the world… By 2014, China’s GDP had multiplied 30 times to more than $9tn and is now the second largest in the world… The PRC’s military spending, less than $10bn in 1990, grew to more than $129.4bn in 2014, second only to that of the US.” On current trends, China’s 2035 GDP could be a third larger than the US, Eikenberry said.




People watch a TV news showing an image that North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper reports of the ground test of a high-powered engine of a carrier rocket at the country’s Sohae Space Centre in Seoul, South Korea. Photograph: Ahn Young-joon/AP

Yet for less sanguine analysts, this prospective disparity, this growing lack of balance, plus the expanding number of potential flashpoints in the South China Sea,Taiwan and elsewhere, point only one way – towards future military conflict between the US and China. The Pentagon now officially refers to the Chinese “threat”.

This is the so-called “Thucydides Trap”, a reference to the Athenian historian’s account of the seemingly inevitable conflict between the rising city-state of Athens and the status quo power Sparta in the fifth century BC. Nowadays, the US is the status quo power and China the bumptious usurper.

Open conflict is not inescapable, but it is under active discussion. A recent study by the Rand Corporation made a detailed examination of who might “win” such a military showdown. It concludes that it would probably be catastrophic for both sides. Yet the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further.

The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. It’s unclear who or what can prevent a pile-up.

*The other players in the conflict between Beijing and Washington*
*JAPAN*
Faced by what it perceives to be a growing threat from China, Japan’s government, led by its conservative prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has sought greater freedom to project military force beyond the country’s borders. This is controversial, since it involves the “reinterpretation” of Japan’s postwar pacifist constitution. Concrete steps include joint naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea and direct help for coastal states such as the Philippines.

*VIETNAM *
The communist one-party regime in Hanoi is an unlikely partner for the US, given still painful memories of the Vietnam war. But Vietnam has been wooed by Obama and George W Bush as part of Washington’s attempts to control and channel China’s regional ambitions. Vietnam has been involved in deadly fishing grounds clashes with China, with whom it fought a war in 1979. It has also sought help elsewhere. Earlier this month, the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, offered a $500m credit line for defence co-operation. But Hanoi is also carefully hedging its bets by keeping diplomatic lines open to Beijing.

*INDONESIA*
The world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia has vast human and natural resources and is seen as one of the new 21st-century economic players. Anxious to balance development needs and national pride, President Joko Widodo recently visited the Natuna Islands in the southern South China Sea, scene of repeated, minor fishing boat clashes with Chinese vessels. Widodo vowed to defend “sovereign territory” against foreign encroachment. But, officially, Indonesia calls itself a “non-claimant” country and says it is not formally in dispute with Beijing. This suits both countries, at least for now. By sidestepping their differences, they can get on with business.

*SOUTH KOREA *
The Seoul government is more worried about its unpredictable northern neighbour than it is about China. Its defence minister said last week that South Korea has plans in place to assassinate Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leadership if the nuclear threat becomes critical. Seoul sticks close to the US, which maintains military bases in the country. But abiding South Korean distrust of Japan, Washington’s other key east Asian ally, dating back to the Second World War, has undermined attempts to present a united front to Beijing – with which Seoul maintains friendly relations.

*INDIA*
Like China, India is rapidly expanding its military capabilities, spending an estimated $100bn on new defence systems since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014. Like China, its ambition is to project itself as a regional superpower looking both east and west. This potentially brings the two countries into conflict. They have long-standing border disputes in the Kashmir/Xinjiang and Arunachal Pradesh areas. In a forerunner to Obama’s pivot to Asia, George W Bush’s administration launched a strategic partnership with Delhi, partly as a counterbalance to China. For its part, Beijing maintains close ties with Pakistan, India’s historical foe.

*RUSSIA *
China and Russia are old enemies dating back to the cold war, but these days, they claim to be close friends. A visit to Beijing by President Vladimir Putin in June saw the launching of a number of trade and oil deals worth up to $50bn. China sees Russia as a valuable provider of raw materials but also as a political and military partner in relation to the US. In defiance of Washington, the two countries held large-scale war games in the South China Sea last week, practising taking over islands in disputed waters. Putin also values collaboration as a way of circumventing sanctions imposed by the US and EU after Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

*Bombing Everything, Winning Nothing: What Can the US Military Even Do?*

While the US military looks formidable, *it isn’t particularly useful.*

Fred Reed

Sat, Sep 24, 2016

Originally appeared at *The Unz Review*


What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable, huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?

*Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to specific circumstances. Comparing technical specifications of the T-14 to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without reference to specific circumstances.*

For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to those provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke you.

An American attack by air on the North, the only attack possible short of a preemptive nuclear strike, would offer a high probability of a peninsular war, devastation of Seoul, paralysis of an important trading partner–think Samsung–and an uncertain final outcome. The United States hasn’t the means of getting troops to Korea rapidly in any numbers, and the domestic political results of lots of GIs killed by a serious enemy would be politically grave. The probable cost far exceeds any possible benefit. In practical terms, Washington’s military superiority means nothing with regard to North Korea. Pyongyang knows it.

*Or consider the Ukraine. On paper, US forces overall are superior to Russian. Locally, they are not. Russia borders on the Ukraine and could overrun it quickly. The US cannot rapidly bring force to bear except a degree of air power. Air power hasn’t worked against defenseless peasants in many countries. Russia is not a defenseless peasant. Europe, usually docile and obedient to America, is unlikely to engage in a shooting war with Moscow for the benefit of Washington.* Europeans are aware that Russia borders on Eastern Europe, which borders on Western Europe. For Washington, fighting Russia in the Ukraine would require a huge effort with seaborne logistics and a national mobilization. Serious wars with nuclear powers do not represent the height of judgement.

Again, Washington’s military superiority means nothing.

*Or consider Washington’s dispute with China in the Pacific. China cannot begin to match American naval power. It doesn’t have to. Beijing has focused on anti-ship missiles–read “carrier-killer”–such as the JD21 ballistic missile. How well it works I do not know, but the Chinese are not stupid. Is the risk of finding out worth it? Fast, stealthed, sea-skimming cruise missiles are very cheap compared to carriers, and America’s admirals know that lots of them arriving simultaneously would not have a happy ending.*

Having a fleet disabled by China would be intolerable to Washington, but its possible responses would be unappealing. Would it start a conventional war with China with the ghastly global economic consequences? This would not generate allies. Cut China’s oil lanes to the Mid-East and push Beijing toward nuclear war? Destroy the Three Gorges Dam and drown god knows how many people? If China used the war as a pretext for annexing bordering counties? What would Russia do?

The consequences both probable and assured make the adventure unattractive, especially since likely pretexts for a war with China–a few rocks in the Pacific, for example–are too trivial to be worth the certain costs and uncertain outcome. Again, military superiority doesn’t mean much.

We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no.* Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.*

At any rate, nobody has. Fools abound in DC and New York.

What then, in today’s world, is the point of huge conventional forces?

*The American military is an upgraded World War II military, designed to fight other militarizes like itself in a world like that which existed during World War II. The Soviet Union was that kind of military.* Today there are no such militaries for America to fight. We are not in the same world. Washington seems not to have noticed.

A World War II military is intended to destroy point targets of high value—aircraft, ships, factories, tanks—and to capture crucial territory, such as the enemy’s country. When you have destroyed the Wehrmacht’s heavy weaponry and occupied Germany, you have won. This is the sort of war that militaries have always relished, having much sound and fury and clear goals.

It doesn’t work that way today. Since Korea, half-organized peasant militias have baffled the Pentagon by not having targets of high value or crucial territory. In Afghanistan for example goatherds with rifles could simply disperse, providing no point targets at all, and certainly not of high value. No territory was crucial to them. If the US mounted a huge operation to take Province A, the resistance could just fade into the population or move to Province B. *The US would always be victorious but never win anything. *Sooner or later America would go away. The world understands this.

Further, the underlying nature of conflict has changed. For most of history until the Soviet Union evaporated, empires expanded by military conquest. In today’s world, countries have not lost their imperial ambitions, but the approach is no longer military. *China seems intent on bringing Eurasia under its hegemony, and advances toward doing it, but its approach is economic, not martial. The Chinese are not warm and fuzzy. They are, however, smart. It is much cheaper and safer to expand commercially than militarily, and wiser to sidestep martial confrontation—in a word, to ignore America. *More correctly it is sidestepping the Pentagon.

Military and diplomatic power spring from economic power, and China is proving successful economically. Using commercial clout, she is expanding her influence, but in ways not easily bombed. She is pushing the BRICS alliance, from which the US is excluded. She is enlarging the SCO, from which America is excluded. Perhaps most importantly, she has set up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, which does not include the US but includes Washington’s European allies. These organizations will probably trade mostly not in dollars, a serious threat to Washington’s economic hegemony.

*What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?*

China enjoys solvency, and hegemonizes enthusiastically with it. Thus in Pakistan it has built the Karakoram Highway from Xian Jiang to Karachi, which will increase trade between the two. It is putting in the two power reactors near Karachi. It is investing in Afghan resources, increasing trade with Iran. .* When the US finally leaves, China, without firing a shot, will be predominant in the region.

What is the relevance of aircraft carriers?*

Beijing is talking seriously about building more rail lines, including high-speed rail, from itself to Europe, accompanied by fiber-optic lines and so on. This is not just talk. China has the money and a very large network of high-speed rail domestically. (The US has not a single mile.) Google “China-Europe Rail lines.”

*What is the Pentagon going to do? Bomb the tracks?*

As trade and ease of travel from Berlin to Beijing increase, and as China prospers and wants more European goods, European businessmen will want to cuddle up to that fabulously large market—which will loosen Washington’s grip on the throat of Europe. *Say it three times slowly: Eur-asia. Eur-asia. Eur-asia. I promise it is what the Chinese are saying.*

What is the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar military going to bomb? Europe? Railways across Kazakhstan? BMW plants?

All of which is to say that while the US military looks formidable,* it isn’t particularly useful, and aids China by bankrupting the US.* Repeatedly it has demonstrated that it cannot defeat campesinos armed with those most formidable weapons, the AK, the RPG, and the IED. *The US does not have the land forces to fight a major or semi-major enemy. It could bomb Iran, with unpredictable consequences, but couldn’t possibly conquer it.*

The wars in the Mid-East illustrate the principle nicely. Iraq didn’t work. Libya didn’t work. Iran didn’t back down. ISIS and related curiosities? The Pentagon is again bombing an enemy that can’t fight back—its specialty—but that it seems unable defeat.

*Wrong military, wrong enemy, wrong war, wrong world.

*
@Economic superpower , @Sinopakfriend , @Chinese-Dragon , @AndrewJin , @terranMarine

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Shotgunner51

TaiShang said:


> *Bombing Everything, Winning Nothing: What Can the US Military Even Do?*





TaiShang said:


> All of which is to say that while the US military looks formidable, it isn’t particularly useful, and aids China by bankrupting the US.




The US public should support the high military spend by solid action - increase tax, drastically cut back on medical/social benefits, raise interests rate - dollar maintains high purchasing power vs others, and the most indebted nation on this planet will remain as the so-called "only superpower".

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

TaiShang said:


> *Bombing Everything, Winning Nothing: What Can the US Military Even Do?*
> 
> While the US military looks formidable, *it isn’t particularly useful.*
> 
> Fred Reed
> 
> Sat, Sep 24, 2016
> 
> Originally appeared at *The Unz Review*
> 
> 
> What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable, huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?
> 
> *Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to specific circumstances. Comparing technical specifications of the T-14 to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without reference to specific circumstances.*
> 
> For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to those provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke you.
> 
> An American attack by air on the North, the only attack possible short of a preemptive nuclear strike, would offer a high probability of a peninsular war, devastation of Seoul, paralysis of an important trading partner–think Samsung–and an uncertain final outcome. The United States hasn’t the means of getting troops to Korea rapidly in any numbers, and the domestic political results of lots of GIs killed by a serious enemy would be politically grave. The probable cost far exceeds any possible benefit. In practical terms, Washington’s military superiority means nothing with regard to North Korea. Pyongyang knows it.
> 
> *Or consider the Ukraine. On paper, US forces overall are superior to Russian. Locally, they are not. Russia borders on the Ukraine and could overrun it quickly. The US cannot rapidly bring force to bear except a degree of air power. Air power hasn’t worked against defenseless peasants in many countries. Russia is not a defenseless peasant. Europe, usually docile and obedient to America, is unlikely to engage in a shooting war with Moscow for the benefit of Washington.* Europeans are aware that Russia borders on Eastern Europe, which borders on Western Europe. For Washington, fighting Russia in the Ukraine would require a huge effort with seaborne logistics and a national mobilization. Serious wars with nuclear powers do not represent the height of judgement.
> 
> Again, Washington’s military superiority means nothing.
> 
> *Or consider Washington’s dispute with China in the Pacific. China cannot begin to match American naval power. It doesn’t have to. Beijing has focused on anti-ship missiles–read “carrier-killer”–such as the JD21 ballistic missile. How well it works I do not know, but the Chinese are not stupid. Is the risk of finding out worth it? Fast, stealthed, sea-skimming cruise missiles are very cheap compared to carriers, and America’s admirals know that lots of them arriving simultaneously would not have a happy ending.*
> 
> Having a fleet disabled by China would be intolerable to Washington, but its possible responses would be unappealing. Would it start a conventional war with China with the ghastly global economic consequences? This would not generate allies. Cut China’s oil lanes to the Mid-East and push Beijing toward nuclear war? Destroy the Three Gorges Dam and drown god knows how many people? If China used the war as a pretext for annexing bordering counties? What would Russia do?
> 
> The consequences both probable and assured make the adventure unattractive, especially since likely pretexts for a war with China–a few rocks in the Pacific, for example–are too trivial to be worth the certain costs and uncertain outcome. Again, military superiority doesn’t mean much.
> 
> We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no.* Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.*
> 
> At any rate, nobody has. Fools abound in DC and New York.
> 
> What then, in today’s world, is the point of huge conventional forces?
> 
> *The American military is an upgraded World War II military, designed to fight other militarizes like itself in a world like that which existed during World War II. The Soviet Union was that kind of military.* Today there are no such militaries for America to fight. We are not in the same world. Washington seems not to have noticed.
> 
> A World War II military is intended to destroy point targets of high value—aircraft, ships, factories, tanks—and to capture crucial territory, such as the enemy’s country. When you have destroyed the Wehrmacht’s heavy weaponry and occupied Germany, you have won. This is the sort of war that militaries have always relished, having much sound and fury and clear goals.
> 
> It doesn’t work that way today. Since Korea, half-organized peasant militias have baffled the Pentagon by not having targets of high value or crucial territory. In Afghanistan for example goatherds with rifles could simply disperse, providing no point targets at all, and certainly not of high value. No territory was crucial to them. If the US mounted a huge operation to take Province A, the resistance could just fade into the population or move to Province B. *The US would always be victorious but never win anything. *Sooner or later America would go away. The world understands this.
> 
> Further, the underlying nature of conflict has changed. For most of history until the Soviet Union evaporated, empires expanded by military conquest. In today’s world, countries have not lost their imperial ambitions, but the approach is no longer military. *China seems intent on bringing Eurasia under its hegemony, and advances toward doing it, but its approach is economic, not martial. The Chinese are not warm and fuzzy. They are, however, smart. It is much cheaper and safer to expand commercially than militarily, and wiser to sidestep martial confrontation—in a word, to ignore America. *More correctly it is sidestepping the Pentagon.
> 
> Military and diplomatic power spring from economic power, and China is proving successful economically. Using commercial clout, she is expanding her influence, but in ways not easily bombed. She is pushing the BRICS alliance, from which the US is excluded. She is enlarging the SCO, from which America is excluded. Perhaps most importantly, she has set up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, which does not include the US but includes Washington’s European allies. These organizations will probably trade mostly not in dollars, a serious threat to Washington’s economic hegemony.
> 
> *What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?*
> 
> China enjoys solvency, and hegemonizes enthusiastically with it. Thus in Pakistan it has built the Karakoram Highway from Xian Jiang to Karachi, which will increase trade between the two. It is putting in the two power reactors near Karachi. It is investing in Afghan resources, increasing trade with Iran. .* When the US finally leaves, China, without firing a shot, will be predominant in the region.
> 
> What is the relevance of aircraft carriers?*
> 
> Beijing is talking seriously about building more rail lines, including high-speed rail, from itself to Europe, accompanied by fiber-optic lines and so on. This is not just talk. China has the money and a very large network of high-speed rail domestically. (The US has not a single mile.) Google “China-Europe Rail lines.”
> 
> *What is the Pentagon going to do? Bomb the tracks?*
> 
> As trade and ease of travel from Berlin to Beijing increase, and as China prospers and wants more European goods, European businessmen will want to cuddle up to that fabulously large market—which will loosen Washington’s grip on the throat of Europe. *Say it three times slowly: Eur-asia. Eur-asia. Eur-asia. I promise it is what the Chinese are saying.*
> 
> What is the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar military going to bomb? Europe? Railways across Kazakhstan? BMW plants?
> 
> All of which is to say that while the US military looks formidable,* it isn’t particularly useful, and aids China by bankrupting the US.* Repeatedly it has demonstrated that it cannot defeat campesinos armed with those most formidable weapons, the AK, the RPG, and the IED. *The US does not have the land forces to fight a major or semi-major enemy. It could bomb Iran, with unpredictable consequences, but couldn’t possibly conquer it.*
> 
> The wars in the Mid-East illustrate the principle nicely. Iraq didn’t work. Libya didn’t work. Iran didn’t back down. ISIS and related curiosities? The Pentagon is again bombing an enemy that can’t fight back—its specialty—but that it seems unable defeat.
> 
> *Wrong military, wrong enemy, wrong war, wrong world.
> 
> *
> @Economic superpower , @Sinopakfriend , @Chinese-Dragon , @AndrewJin , @terranMarine



TaiShang, my dear friend,

There is no business like the war business for the global empire of chaos and destruction. 

Qui bono?

In this business model victory is abstraction. A victory is bad for such a business model. Permanent war can only happen when there is no victory. The war machine is designed for permanent chaos and destruction... which it achieves rather well.

@Shotgunner51 has consistently prescribed the medcine for the well being of the dollar system. Yet I doubt the medcine that the good doctor is prescribing will be adminsitered.


So fundamental question here that needs our attention is:

*How can a military machine or a business model fight a war with someone i.e. China who are not interested in war? *
*
How can the shaped win over the shapeless? Rigid over the soepel?*

Here in we can clearly see the policy instruments that have been developed by China over past decades and now have reached such a maturity level that the war machine has become useless even the use of proxies is ineffective.

The paradigm did not came out of the blue. Behind this paradigm lies decades of internal debates, research and analysis... testing each and every hypothesis till the principle became clear and validated...and it could then become a policy instruement.

I could have advised just following of _*the Way..*_.but then you and I both know... I am just nobody! 


Your critique is always a delight, over to you!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

TaiShang said:


> Bombing Everything, Winning Nothing: What Can the US Military Even Do?




Bombing can one keeps flowing tax monies towards defence contractors, and two, drives capital into traditional "bomb shelter" aka the dollar. Chaos means real money, at least true for some people. However the latter stunt seems a bit out-of-fashioned these days.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ecb-and-china-extend-currency-swap-agreement-1474966760
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-biggest-buyers-are-selling-like-never-before​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

*Xi calls for reforms on global governance*
Xinhua, September 29, 2016

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, has called for closer cooperation to pursue* reforms to the global governance system* and advance the noble cause of peace and development for mankind.

Xi made the remarks Tuesday at a study session attended by members of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee.

Gao Fei, a professor with the China Foreign Affairs University gave a lecture at the session with the themes of the G20 summit and global governance system reform.

As the international balance of power has shifted and global challenges are increasing, global governance system reform has emerged as a "trend of [the] times," Xi said.

China must take the chance and ride the wave to *make the international order more reasonable and just to protect the common interests of China and other developing countries*, Xi said.

He said China has been making efforts to maintain the international order with the principles of the United Nations Charter as the core, and has been engaged in the process of setting rules for new areas such as oceans, the polar regions, cyberspace, outer space, nuclear security, anti-corruption and climate change.

Praising the recent G20 summit in China, Xi said China had "charted the course for the world economy, provided momentum for world growth and reinforced the basis for international cooperation" and had "left a Chinese mark in the G20 history."

Xi said the global governance structure depends on the international balance of power and reforms hinge on a change in the balance.

He called on the country to home in on economic development and domestic affairs, and to increase China's voice in international affairs.

"We must actively participate in global governance, we will take more international responsibilities, and in so doing we will try our best but not overreach ourselves," Xi said.

Global governance system reforms, which matter to the whole international community, must be backed by consensus and joint efforts, Xi said.

Xi said the G20's role as a major platform in global economic governance should be further developed to make it a long-term mechanism.

*Moreover, the Belt and Road Initiative, cooperation under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and regional cooperation mechanisms such as the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the East Asia Summit, should all be strengthened, he said.*

China needs to play a bigger role in making rules for new areas including the internet, the polar regions, deep sea and outer space, and will extend greater support to cooperation mechanisms and projects on educational exchange, dialogue among civilizations and ecological conservation, according to Xi.

China has been promoting the shaping of a new type of international relations, one which is characterized by win-win cooperation, building a community of common destiny, and advocating the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security since the 18th CPC National Congress, Xi said.

Noting that these initiatives had received international acclaim, Xi said China will continue to pursue cooperation instead of confrontation.

Xi stressed that China needs to improve its ability of participating in the process of rule-making, agenda setting, publicity and coordination in global governance, requiring for better building of a talent pool in this regard



Sinopakfriend said:


> So fundamental question here that needs our attention is:
> 
> *How can a military machine or a business model fight a war with someone i.e. China who are not interested in war?
> 
> How can the shaped win over the shapeless? Rigid over the soepel?*



Well said, my friend. The dichotomy reflects the present global rigidity as the US holds/stunts progress in international governance system by overemphasizing militarized instruments over development-induced stability.

The US appears to be helpless against China, but, it is effective around some of China's periphery and beyond. Obviously, without a meaningful development in the conditions of the rest of the world, China's isolated development will not have much positive externalities to be able to bring about real change and progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

TaiShang said:


> *Xi calls for reforms on global governance*
> Xinhua, September 29, 2016
> 
> Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, has called for closer cooperation to pursue* reforms to the global governance system* and advance the noble cause of peace and development for mankind.
> 
> Xi made the remarks Tuesday at a study session attended by members of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee.
> 
> Gao Fei, a professor with the China Foreign Affairs University gave a lecture at the session with the themes of the G20 summit and global governance system reform.
> 
> As the international balance of power has shifted and global challenges are increasing, global governance system reform has emerged as a "trend of [the] times," Xi said.
> 
> China must take the chance and ride the wave to *make the international order more reasonable and just to protect the common interests of China and other developing countries*, Xi said.
> 
> He said China has been making efforts to maintain the international order with the principles of the United Nations Charter as the core, and has been engaged in the process of setting rules for new areas such as oceans, the polar regions, cyberspace, outer space, nuclear security, anti-corruption and climate change.
> 
> Praising the recent G20 summit in China, Xi said China had "charted the course for the world economy, provided momentum for world growth and reinforced the basis for international cooperation" and had "left a Chinese mark in the G20 history."
> 
> Xi said the global governance structure depends on the international balance of power and reforms hinge on a change in the balance.
> 
> He called on the country to home in on economic development and domestic affairs, and to increase China's voice in international affairs.
> 
> "We must actively participate in global governance, we will take more international responsibilities, and in so doing we will try our best but not overreach ourselves," Xi said.
> 
> Global governance system reforms, which matter to the whole international community, must be backed by consensus and joint efforts, Xi said.
> 
> Xi said the G20's role as a major platform in global economic governance should be further developed to make it a long-term mechanism.
> 
> *Moreover, the Belt and Road Initiative, cooperation under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and regional cooperation mechanisms such as the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the East Asia Summit, should all be strengthened, he said.*
> 
> China needs to play a bigger role in making rules for new areas including the internet, the polar regions, deep sea and outer space, and will extend greater support to cooperation mechanisms and projects on educational exchange, dialogue among civilizations and ecological conservation, according to Xi.
> 
> China has been promoting the shaping of a new type of international relations, one which is characterized by win-win cooperation, building a community of common destiny, and advocating the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security since the 18th CPC National Congress, Xi said.
> 
> Noting that these initiatives had received international acclaim, Xi said China will continue to pursue cooperation instead of confrontation.
> 
> Xi stressed that China needs to improve its ability of participating in the process of rule-making, agenda setting, publicity and coordination in global governance, requiring for better building of a talent pool in this regard
> 
> 
> 
> Well said, my friend. The dichotomy reflects the present global rigidity as the US holds/stunts progress in international governance system by overemphasizing militarized instruments over development-induced stability.
> 
> The US appears to be helpless against China, but, it is effective around some of China's periphery and beyond. Obviously, without a meaningful development in the conditions of the rest of the world, China's isolated development will not have much positive externalities to be able to bring about real change and progress.



Firstly, thank you for sharing the article, my friend.

As we have discussed before the need of the hour is a new global governance architecture. Pres. Xi is absolutely on the mark. As he always is.

The imperial matrix requires vassalage and subjogation...where as the Paradigm of Community of Prosperity requires uplifting and co-development. This is exactly the policy of PRC.

In the olden days one of the exams that an aspiring Mandrin had to pass was the mastery of the game _of Go. Grand Game of Go vs. The Grand Chessboard._

What China has been doing and shall continue to do for decades to come is creating conditions of developement in all geographies that of strategic interests to China. The OBOR is long journey and by its completition we shall see the emergence of the new global governance architecture that creates and protects the Community of Prosperity.

For Harmony under the Heavens to pervail the conditions of Harmony are necessary. 

The key here is the transformation and new rules for global finance. If you recall Pres. Xi remined the world of this in this G20 as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

*Voice of China: Why a Third Phase of the U.S. Rebalance to Asia-Pacific Could be Destructive*

By Curtis Stone (People's Daily Online) October 13, 2016








_File Photo: A PLA Navy ship participating in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise leaves Pearl Harbor, July 12, 2016_

The U.S. is going to great lengths not to talk in terms of containment, but its behavior speaks a different language. Recently, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced a third phase of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. In the new phase, the U.S. will continue to sharpen its “military edge” in order to remain “the most powerful military in the region and the security partner of choice,” he says. He also says that the rebalance is not an effort to contain or isolate anyone, without mentioning China by name. The Chinese are not fooled.

The U.S. Government views developments in the Asia-Pacific as linked to the long-term economic and security interests of the U.S. According to the Department of Defense FY 2017 budget fact sheet, the U.S. is preparing to take measures to preserve and enhance deterrence, including targeted investments in emerging capabilities; provide $425 million for the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative over five years; enhance U.S. military presence in the region; continue to fly, sail, and operate in the South China Sea; and ensure readiness on the Korean peninsula. The goal is to “project power…and win decisively against any adversary” when and if necessary, according to the fact sheet.

* Fortunately, this aggressive posture in the Asia-Pacific is not endorsed by all members of the government and military in the U.S. The White House is taking a more cautious approach. According to a recent article published in Navy Times, the current administration has effectively banned the term “great power competition” in official discourse, used by both Defense Secretary Carter and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson to describe the challenge of China, because it oversimplifies the complex relationship and places the two sides on a course of conflict. The White House and the Pentagon are split on how to deal with China’s growing power and influence in the region.*

The U.S. has already seriously affected the security situation in the Asia-Pacific with the current approach. In the first phase of the pivot strategy, a large number of U.S. military personnel were shifted to the Asia-Pacific; in the second phase, advanced capabilities were introduced. Now, the U.S. seeks to “qualitatively upgrade and invest in” its regional force posture, according to the Secretary of Defense. This will help the U.S. achieve its goal of ensuring that the U.S. military remains “the world’s finest fighting force,” but doubling down on the rebalance effort will also raise regional tensions and increase the likelihood of serious conflict. A different solution is needed.

At the recently concluded 7th Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, an international platform for defense officials and security experts, various solutions were put forward on the South China Sea topic. For example, China’s Defense Minister Chang Wanquan says it is urgent for all of us to abandon old strategies and instead work together to establish a security network that is based on common interests. Wu Shicun, President of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Hainan, says that China and the U.S. should establish a conflict and crisis prevention mechanism. People on both sides of the Pacific are looking for a solution to avoid future conflict.

A new-type of collective security mechanism that bridges all sides rather than divides is needed. The U.S. concept of a “principled and inclusive security network” sounds appealing, but it favors the U.S. position. Recent advice by the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command underscores this point. Admiral Harry Harris Jr., who openly calls China “provocative and expansionist,” says maintaining a network of like-minded allies and partners is a core element of the strategic approach to the security environment, even though Carter says that the security network is not a formal alliance. Old thinking in U.S. foreign policy should go the way of the dodo.

The present situation in the Asia-Pacific is relatively calm, but that can change quickly. A possible third phase that seeks to guarantee U.S. military superiority in the region will make the two countries become even more suspicious of each other, and thus damage bilateral ties. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry both have said that the U.S. welcomes the peaceful rise of China, but the rebalance effort sends a different signal. The U.S. should be consistent and coherent and convince China of its benign intentions through its actions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

China should take joint leadership role with US in global economic governance, experts say
By Yuan Can (People's Daily Online) 14:14, October 20, 2016





With regional agreements and de-globalization on the rise, and new economic rules expected to be worked out, China, together with the U.S., should share its wisdom on global economic governance, according to experts at a seminar.

*China should and does have the ability to help craft international economic guidelines together with the U.S.*, as the two countries are representative of different developmental phases, according to Long Yongtu, China's former chief negotiator for entry into the World Trade Organization. Long made his remarks at a seminar held by Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization and Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The seminar was held on Oct.18.

As some issues that have emerged in recent decades possess no clear precedents or rules – for example, international trade, climate change and e-commerce – it is constructive for both the U.S. and China to bring forward new ideas on the global economy, according to Long.

“China has benefited a lot from entering WTO, and has no intention of changing it,” said Long. “The rest of the world should rest easy about this.”

At the seminar, Long reiterated that the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), both initiated by China, are *complementary to the existing global financial system* rather than a challenge to it. Long pointed out that current international financial institutions including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank cannot meet the demands of infrastructure. Therefore, China established the AIIB to open doors to every country in the world.

Echoing Long’s sentiments, Scott Kennedy, deputy director of the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS, also agreed that China has no aims to start from scratch, but rather prioritizes the concept of harmonious inclusiveness.

Delivering his keynote speech at the seminar, He Yafei, former vice minister of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, agreed that the U.S.-dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a positive approach for setting new international trade rules, but said that the U.S. wants to “set up their own circle and avoid having China influence their rules.”

This year marks the 15th anniversary of China’s accession to the WTO. In recent years, China has been blamed for dumping and imposing subsidies on exported goods. According to statistics from WTO, by October 2015, China had been involved in 33 cases as a responding party and 127 cases as a third party.

Kennedy explained that government-dominated development and time-consuming communication between the government and civilians in China contribute to international trade friction. He also said that some countries take measures to protect their national interests for reasons including national security, environmental protection and health issues. Regardless, conflicts between different interest group are not good for international trade, Kennedy added.

China has long pressed WTO member countries to fulfill their obligations under Article 15 of the Protocol on China's accession to the WTO. *Article 15 requires WTO members to stop using an alternative calculation method in anti-dumping investigations against China after Dec. 11, 2016*.

He Ning, former director of the Department of American and Oceania Affairs under China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC), held the view that the result of the talks on Article 15 might not be positive.

People should not politicize trade appeals, including those related to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases, as those cases are about enterprises rather than China as a whole, said Long.

The day after the seminar, WTO ruled that the U.S. had acted inconsistently with the organization’s rules in regard to its countervailing and anti-dumping measures on certain products from China, according to the official MOC website. China applauded the WTO’s decision.


----------



## TaiShang

*China will never allow US to run amok in South China Sea: People’s Daily*
(People's Daily Online) October 24, 2016

China will never allow the US to run amok in South China Sea waters, the People’s Daily asserted in a commentary on Sunday after a US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Decatur, sailed through the waters of the Xisha Islands on Friday without the Chinese approval.

What the US did, driven by its hegemonic mentality, cannot increase its influence in Asia-Pacific region, the article said, adding that such acts to stir up enmity and make troubles will only result in the accelerated decline of its global influence.

The Chinese government resolutely opposes such provocative behavior and takes a series of effective counter-measures, added the commentary under the byline of "Zhongsheng".

The following is the translation of the article:

A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Decatur, sailed through Xisha Island waters, part of the South China Sea as Chinese territorial waters on Friday without the approval of Chinese authorities. The Chinese government resolutely opposes such provocative behavior and will take a series of effective counter-measures.

In the statement of the Chinese government on the territorial sea baseline issued in May 1996, China clarified the baseline of the Xisha Islands. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and other international laws also stipulates that all foreign warships need to gain approval from the Chinese government before entering Chinese waters.

The illegal entry of US warships into Chinese waters without permission seriously violates China’s sovereignty and security interests, breaches both Chinese and international laws as well, and poses threats to peace, security as well as order in the relevant waters.

What the US did aims to encroach upon the sovereignty, security and maritime interests of regional countries in the so-called name of a “freedom-of-navigation operation.” But such provocative acts once again expose *the negative energy of its “Rebalance to Asia” strategy, and at the same time verify the US’ role as a real trouble-maker in the South China Sea.*

The so-called patrol launched by the US this time *came just as China and the Philippines, a country immediately concerned with the South China Sea issue, were restoring their ties.* During Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s state visit to China, the two countries inked a series of cooperation agreements.

This US provocation in Chinese territorial waters, at a time when the improvement of ties between China and relevant countries is pulling the South China Sea issue to a encouraging solution, proves that the US has been destabilizing the South China Sea by playing up tensions.

By launching the so-called patrols, the superpower is telling the world that* it can tolerate neither a tranquil South China Sea, nor a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific.* *Since it cannot find a puppet troublemaker any longer, the exasperated Washington has to create a disturbance by itself.*

President Duterte pointed out in a speech that “the US feels a little anxious over China’s sound ties with the Philippines,” and his remarks revealed the complicated psychology of the US. Its peremptory provocation, as a matter of fact,* can be regarded as a way to release its depression and an inertia to maintain its hegemony.*

Washington has to realize that it is rightly this hegemonic mentality that has resulted in its declining global influence and inability to provide public goods with positive energy. It also has to admit that *the era when one country can dominate an alliance network by creating tensions with lies will never come back.*

No one wants to weaken the US’ influence in the Asia-Pacific region, but such influence must be based on a positive dedication to common development of the whole region. Its outdated hegemonic mentality is by no means accepted by regional countries who aspire for peace, cooperation and shared progress.

It is well-known that “freedom-of-navigation,” often cited by the US as a pretext, is actually a falsehood to allow the country to pursue “absolute freedom” of its own security. But the US should bear in mind the ultimate consequences of seeking absolute security as the country has paid enough bitter prices for its arrogance and ignorance.

The arbitrary decision will certainly bring the country to deadlock, and such a stubborn country may obtain some hard power, but never soft power and smart power.

If the US really wants to be a world power, it can never resort to guns, firearms, separation or fishing in troubled waters. Efforts to expand interests can be shared by all countries. Highfalutin words but obstinate and aggressive deeds will win no respect and trust from other countries.

Over the past years, in a bid to cement its maritime hegemony, the US has been destabilizing regional peace and stability by meddling in the South China Sea, challenging China and alienating ties between China and the Philippines.

*Washington has not realized that those tricks cannot overturn the regional trend of peaceful development.* As the Philippines once appealed, “We can't be US' 'little brown brother' forever.” Its choice to adjust diplomatic policies and reinforce cooperation with China also proves that an unjust cause committed to by the US finds little support.

What’s more, the US should not bear any fantasy in terms of the South China Sea issue as this is not its first head-to-head game with China. China has a rock-solid determination to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity. China will not ask for anything not belonging to itself, but it will fight for every inch of its territory within its sovereignty.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the gathering commemorating the 80th anniversary of the conclusion of the Long March (1934-36), urged the entire military to remain vigilant and be aware of its responsibilities, stressing that the modernization of national defense and armed forces must advance in a bid to safeguard the country's national sovereignty, security and development interests.

The US’ consolidation of hegemony with military actions will only highlight China’s necessity to strengthen defense, and activate China’s resolution to improve its capability to safeguard its own interests.

The Chinese army will definitely safeguard China’s national sovereignty and security by stepping up patrols based on demand and optimizing its defensive capabilities. *China will never allow the US to run amok in the South China Sea, an issue concerning principles.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

TaiShang said:


> *China will never allow US to run amok in South China Sea: People’s Daily*
> (People's Daily Online) October 24, 2016
> 
> China will never allow the US to run amok in South China Sea waters, the People’s Daily asserted in a commentary on Sunday after a US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Decatur, sailed through the waters of the Xisha Islands on Friday without the Chinese approval.
> 
> What the US did, driven by its hegemonic mentality, cannot increase its influence in Asia-Pacific region, the article said, adding that such acts to stir up enmity and make troubles will only result in the accelerated decline of its global influence.
> 
> The Chinese government resolutely opposes such provocative behavior and takes a series of effective counter-measures, added the commentary under the byline of "Zhongsheng".
> 
> The following is the translation of the article:
> 
> A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Decatur, sailed through Xisha Island waters, part of the South China Sea as Chinese territorial waters on Friday without the approval of Chinese authorities. The Chinese government resolutely opposes such provocative behavior and will take a series of effective counter-measures.
> 
> In the statement of the Chinese government on the territorial sea baseline issued in May 1996, China clarified the baseline of the Xisha Islands. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and other international laws also stipulates that all foreign warships need to gain approval from the Chinese government before entering Chinese waters.
> 
> The illegal entry of US warships into Chinese waters without permission seriously violates China’s sovereignty and security interests, breaches both Chinese and international laws as well, and poses threats to peace, security as well as order in the relevant waters.
> 
> What the US did aims to encroach upon the sovereignty, security and maritime interests of regional countries in the so-called name of a “freedom-of-navigation operation.” But such provocative acts once again expose *the negative energy of its “Rebalance to Asia” strategy, and at the same time verify the US’ role as a real trouble-maker in the South China Sea.*
> 
> The so-called patrol launched by the US this time *came just as China and the Philippines, a country immediately concerned with the South China Sea issue, were restoring their ties.* During Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s state visit to China, the two countries inked a series of cooperation agreements.
> 
> This US provocation in Chinese territorial waters, at a time when the improvement of ties between China and relevant countries is pulling the South China Sea issue to a encouraging solution, proves that the US has been destabilizing the South China Sea by playing up tensions.
> 
> By launching the so-called patrols, the superpower is telling the world that* it can tolerate neither a tranquil South China Sea, nor a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific.* *Since it cannot find a puppet troublemaker any longer, the exasperated Washington has to create a disturbance by itself.*
> 
> President Duterte pointed out in a speech that “the US feels a little anxious over China’s sound ties with the Philippines,” and his remarks revealed the complicated psychology of the US. Its peremptory provocation, as a matter of fact,* can be regarded as a way to release its depression and an inertia to maintain its hegemony.*
> 
> Washington has to realize that it is rightly this hegemonic mentality that has resulted in its declining global influence and inability to provide public goods with positive energy. It also has to admit that *the era when one country can dominate an alliance network by creating tensions with lies will never come back.*
> 
> No one wants to weaken the US’ influence in the Asia-Pacific region, but such influence must be based on a positive dedication to common development of the whole region. Its outdated hegemonic mentality is by no means accepted by regional countries who aspire for peace, cooperation and shared progress.
> 
> It is well-known that “freedom-of-navigation,” often cited by the US as a pretext, is actually a falsehood to allow the country to pursue “absolute freedom” of its own security. But the US should bear in mind the ultimate consequences of seeking absolute security as the country has paid enough bitter prices for its arrogance and ignorance.
> 
> The arbitrary decision will certainly bring the country to deadlock, and such a stubborn country may obtain some hard power, but never soft power and smart power.
> 
> If the US really wants to be a world power, it can never resort to guns, firearms, separation or fishing in troubled waters. Efforts to expand interests can be shared by all countries. Highfalutin words but obstinate and aggressive deeds will win no respect and trust from other countries.
> 
> Over the past years, in a bid to cement its maritime hegemony, the US has been destabilizing regional peace and stability by meddling in the South China Sea, challenging China and alienating ties between China and the Philippines.
> 
> *Washington has not realized that those tricks cannot overturn the regional trend of peaceful development.* As the Philippines once appealed, “We can't be US' 'little brown brother' forever.” Its choice to adjust diplomatic policies and reinforce cooperation with China also proves that an unjust cause committed to by the US finds little support.
> 
> What’s more, the US should not bear any fantasy in terms of the South China Sea issue as this is not its first head-to-head game with China. China has a rock-solid determination to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity. China will not ask for anything not belonging to itself, but it will fight for every inch of its territory within its sovereignty.
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the gathering commemorating the 80th anniversary of the conclusion of the Long March (1934-36), urged the entire military to remain vigilant and be aware of its responsibilities, stressing that the modernization of national defense and armed forces must advance in a bid to safeguard the country's national sovereignty, security and development interests.
> 
> The US’ consolidation of hegemony with military actions will only highlight China’s necessity to strengthen defense, and activate China’s resolution to improve its capability to safeguard its own interests.
> 
> The Chinese army will definitely safeguard China’s national sovereignty and security by stepping up patrols based on demand and optimizing its defensive capabilities. *China will never allow the US to run amok in the South China Sea, an issue concerning principles.*




Under UNCLOS, innocent passage is allowed even through territorial waters of another country. I don't understand what the fuss is about.


----------



## Zsari

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Under UNCLOS, innocent passage is allowed even through territorial waters of another country. I don't understand what the fuss is about.



Innocent passage can be suspended by the coastal nation under UNCLOS. The only exception is through strait with no other reasonable alternative which is irrelevant in China's case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

*Premier Li expects early conclusion of China-U.S. investment treaty negotiations*
2016-10-22 14:31 | Xinhua | _Editor: Xu Shanshan_

_*




Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (R) meets with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at the
Diaoyutai State Guest House in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 20, 2016. (Xinhua/Ding Lin)*_​

Premier Li Keqiang on Thursday called on China and the United States to make efforts for an early conclusion of their bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations.

China and the United States have agreed to BIT talks on the basis of pre-establishment national treatment (PENT) plus a negative list approach. It is the first time that China has adopted the model in BIT talks with foreign countries, Li said, noting that this showed the importance China attaches to BIT talks.

*PENT means that foreign investors and their investments will be accorded national treatment in the pre-establishment phase of their businesses*.

Li told visiting former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at the Diaoyutai State Guest House that through the BIT talks, both sides sent a positive signal to the world that China and the United States support trade and investment facilitation and liberalization.

China hopes that the two sides will work flexibly and pragmatically to make the talks produce positive results and reach a high-level investment treaty, so as to realize mutual benefits, Li said.

China and the United States started BIT negotiations in 2008.

*Speaking highly of the Paulson Institute's role in promoting China-U.S cooperation*, Li called on the Institute to make a greater contribution to a healthy and stable China-U.S. relationship.

Premier Li's trip to New York last month yielded positive results and was beneficial to U.S.-China ties, Paulson said, stressing that the Paulson Institute was ready to enhance exchanges and cooperation with China.

On Friday, Vice Premier Wang Yang held a meeting with Paulson and members of the CEO Council of Sustainable Urbanization to exchange views on China-U.S. economic ties, as well as other issues of common concern.


----------



## TaiShang

*Can China overtake US to lead the world?*
(Global Times) 09:13, November 21, 2016

Discussions were running high on global governance among Western public opinion on the eve of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders meeting in Lima, Peru. Some Western media outlets hold the US is giving up its global leadership following Donald Trump's election as US president on promises to abolish the Trans-Pacific Partnership and withdraw from the Paris climate deal. They believe a rising superpower, China, will replace the US to lead the world.

Trump's campaign remarks do reveal his intention to retract US global strategy. He seemingly wants to focus more energy and resources on reviving the US economy and social development. But as the US has been central to globalization, Trump is unlikely to take on the traditional isolationist road.

The West likes to use "leadership" to define the function of a major power. Admittedly, different countries have different powers and obligations due to varied national strength. The world after the Cold War was dominated by US leadership. Washington designed and maintained a string of systems, including the world trade system, the financial system, the Internet system, the security pattern and so on.

The US has invested much into maintaining this leadership and also gained considerable benefits. *In the foreseeable future, it's impossible for the US to abandon its global leadership.*

The US sought supremacy over everything in the past few years. *However, it didn't have enough national strength to bolster this unrealistic goal. Trump appears to be redesigning the US leadership, withdrawing the country from fields in which he thinks resources are being wasted.* China thus will gain some room to exert its influence, *but is China ready?*

China still cannot match the US in terms of comprehensive strength.* It has no ability to lead the world in an overall way, plus, neither the world nor China is psychologically ready for it. It's beyond imagination to think that China could replace the US to lead the world.*

But as China is rapidly developing, bringing about changes to the global power structure, its participation in global governance will be *a natural and gradual process*, which Beijing cannot rush or escape.

If Washington withdraws from the Paris climate deal, China can stick to its commitment, yet* it won't be able to make up for the loss caused by the US. Or if the US takes on an anti-free trade path, the messy consequences will be beyond China's ability to repair.*

But on the other hand,* the US, under the leadership of Trump, cannot rope in China's neighboring countries to contain China or isolate China from the world trade system. Obama's administration had worked to undermine China-initiated projects, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the "One Belt and One Road" initiative, but to no avail.*

So Sino-US cooperation is the only choice for future global governance. For a long time to come, the leadership of the US will be irreplaceable, meanwhile, China's further rise is inevitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

*From the American Challenge to the Chinese Challenge?*

*The unfolding Western effort to paint a picture of a benign America and a malign China is a distortion of the historical truth.*

By Jean-Pierre Lehmann, December 15, 2016

Next year, 2017, may go down in the annals of history as Year One of the new global order – or, perhaps more accurately, of the new global disorder.

The US on the sidelines?

The moment that best symbolizes the transition from the familiar old to the unfamiliar new was a little-noticed event, the APEC summit held in Lima, Peru, this November.

With TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) dead (buried by President-elect Donald Trump), the sitting U.S. President (Barack Obama) made a hasty and rather embarrassed appearance at the summit.

Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping basked in the limelight. Beijing, Xi declared, would henceforth be the guarantor of the global trade regime.

With Trump’s promise (one which, judging by his cabinet appointments, he is likely to keep) to renege on the Paris climate change agreement, Xi also proposed to take on the mantle of leadership in the environmental domain.

2003 as the year of departure

These events did not, of course, occur suddenly. They have been building up since the beginning of this century.

Two events in particular, both in 2003, can be seen as triggering American decline:

1. On the geopolitical front, it was the invasion of Iraq

2. On the geo-economic front, it was the abandonment of the WTO rules-based multilateral trade regime at the ministerial meeting in Cancún, Mexico – a choice which now reaches its full impact under Donald Trump.

In the meantime, China’s economic ascension is astonishing. Throughout modern history, it long figured only as a steady victim of Western and Japanese imperialism (beginning with the first Opium War in 1839). In the Cold War, it became an ostracized nation, but also one that shut itself out.

China, the relentless globalizer

China’s economic comeback, generated by the reforms launched in 1979 by Deng Xiao-ping, is one of the most remarkable defining discontinuous events of modern history.

China is now moving from a nation primarily aiming to attract inward direct foreign investment to becoming the world’s major outward foreign direct investor (in terms of investment flows, not accumulated stocks).

China has gone global big time. There is not a country where China does not have a significant presence — whether it is in building infrastructure in Swaziland or acquiring high-tech seeds firms (Syngenta) in Switzerland.

50th anniversary of “The American Challenge” book

In the kind of chronological coincidence that delights historians, 2017 will also mark the 50th anniversary of what was at the time a seminal book (translated into 15 languages) by the French author Jean-Jacques Servan Schreiber (known as JJSS) entitled “Le Défi Américain” (The American Challenge).

In essence, the thesis of the book was that in the economic rivalry between Europe and the United States, Europe was completely outclassed on all fronts: management techniques, technological tools and research capacity.

Lesson then and now: Adapt and learn – or perish

Servan-Schreiber’s prescription was not immediate surrender. He argued that those firms (or indeed countries) would survive and flourish that would respond effectively to the challenge, mainly by adjusting to and learning from the American challenge.

He proved to be quite correct. One important response to meeting this challenge was INSEAD, the famous French business school. It was established as a dynamic response to the challenge, so that European business managers might learn (then) superior American management techniques.

The Chinese challenge is very different from the American challenge. The Chinese do not possess (at least, not yet) superior management techniques, technological tools and research capacity.

The new challenge: Coping with Chinese characteristics

What we will see instead is a new form of challenge, one which bears distinct Chinese characteristics.

What that means exactly remains to be seen and will unfold in the decade or two to come.

In all probability, the concept of China as the Middle Kingdom will revive. This stands in opposition to the principles enunciated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the equality of states.

A hierarchical world

China’s view of the world, and indeed of society, is far more hierarchical. The New Silk Road and Maritime Route – known in China as OBOR, one belt one road – is an early illustration and indicator of globalization with Chinese characteristics.

So disturbed is the West by this turn of events that there is a widespread assumption that China will in all likelihood prove to be a malign power, in contrast to American benign hegemony. That is why what ought to be the Chinese challenge is often presented as the Chinese threat.

China, all of humanity and the (small) Western world

Three things must be said at the outset:

1. It would be absolutely churlish not to welcome and admire the fact that China has quite brilliantly succeeded in rising from poverty to prosperity. In the course of the decades following Deng’s initial reform, close to three-quarters of a billion Chinese rose above the poverty line.

2. The erstwhile global powers bear a heavy responsibility for the previous impoverishment of China.

3. As to the Chinese “threat,” Western powers are evidently applying two different yardsticks – one that applies to China and the other to our own, no less troubling deeds.

At a minimum, we in the West ought to recognize that no great global power has risen without war and other forms of brutal suppression.

What came before China’s “sins”?

The U.S. list of engaging in such suppression is long and multi-varied. It rose by

1. Committing genocide against the native Amerindian populations

2. Widespread use of slavery to work in plantations

3. The import of indentured Chinese “coolie” labor to build railroads

4. War against Mexico

5. Interventions in Central America

6. The transformation of the Caribbean Sea into an American lake.

This imperialist pattern continued well into the period referred to as Pax Americana.

Different yardsticks?

When Mao’s People’s Liberation Army was victorious in 1949 against the U.S.-backed regime of Chang Kai-shek, Washington’s response was to have the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ostracized from the international community. This benefitted the Republic of China (ROC) under the dictatorship of Chang Kai-shek.

While Taiwan has become a democracy recently, it certainly was not one in the years of unwavering American support.

Indeed, prior to the October 1949 “Liberation,” in February 1947, a massacre occurred in Taiwan in which possibly as many as 30,000 were executed perpetrated by Chang’s regime.

There were no U.S.-sponsored sanctions or condemnations of violations of human rights, unlike what there were after the Tiananmen massacre of June 1989.

Illustrations of U.S. interventionism to pursue imperialist ends throughout the decades of Pax Americana are plentiful.

This is not to say that Pax Americana was exclusively malign. Over the years, U.S. rule had immense benefits, such as preventing the continuation of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Militarist Japan or indeed the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, what we must part with is the a priori assumptions that, whereas the American challenge was universally rather benign, the Chinese challenge will be malign; these assumptions are ill founded and could prove counter-productive.

It is in this spirit that I provided the examples of less than benign U.S. behavior on the international stage. In fact, they are parallel to what the West fears now coming from China, with so far, barring the possible exception of the South China Sea dispute, no actual evidence.

Peaceful – for now

Whether China succeeds in its “peaceful rise” remains to be seen. However, while outcomes will very much depend on developments in China, they will also depend on how China is received.

The “défi chinois” (Chinese challenge) should be met dynamically and constructively. All efforts must be made by all to ensure that China’s rise is indeed peaceful.

In that context, one must note that, on balance and in comparison with other rising powers, so far China’s rise has been remarkably peaceful.

Meanwhile, the unfolding Western effort to preach to the Chinese and paint a picture of a shining and benign America and contrasting that with a threatening and malign picture of China is, among other things, a complete distortion of the historical truth.

Source: the Globalist “From the American Challenge to the Chinese Challenge?”

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

cirr said:


> (Chinese challenge) should be met dynamically and constructively. All efforts must be made by all to ensure that China’s rise is indeed peaceful.



It is not just about whether China could rise peacefully.

It is also about whether the declining power could withdraw from (first and foremost) the rising power's immediate areas of interest gracefully.

The school of power transition argues that the times of parity are the most dangerous in terms of war among the rising and declining powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

TaiShang said:


> It is not just about whether China could rise peacefully.
> 
> It is also about whether the declining power could withdraw from (first and foremost) the rising power's immediate areas of interest gracefully.
> 
> The school of power transition argues that the times of parity are the most dangerous in terms of war among the rising and declining powers.


The core thought/risk/danger... whether or not the declining dominant power is willing to share its position with the new, rising power, a force at a level of its adversary peer. All the containment policies incl. the South China Sea provocations; the blockades of China's M&A in the Nato Clan, etc are carefully designed and plotted moves as parts of the strategy to rein in the China's peaceful rise.

I believe the coming path will be tough and full of challenges even an imminent risk of hot conflict is a real possibility!

Hopefully a remarkable Diplomacy approaches and economic cooperations by the Chinese gov propped by superior real forces will deter the warmonger parties on the other side!

~~~~~~~~~~
_"Si vis pacem, para bellum, if you wish for peace, prepare for war." - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in 'Epitoma Rei Militaris'_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Beast said:


>


Thanks for the link of the full length movie *"The Coming War on China"*, just finished watching it! An excellent movie by *John Pilger, an independent film maker from Australia, a must-watch, an eye-opening movie for every sane mind!*
(A higher resolution is available at torrent).

Some of the information presented in this movie coincides with following info:

*Share of world GDP throughout history*
https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

Since 1AD until today the world's changed quite a lot. But until 1700AD the balance of wealth hadn't. For the past two centuries the share of the world's GDP has shifted to the west to Europe through imperialism, and technological innovation. With the rise of China that's changing again and this infographic explores the story of balance and unbalance in the world economy courtesy of the data from the *Maddison Project* (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm).

*The 19th century* appears to be the key juncture when China and India declined and the West rose. Imperialism appears to be the most obvious answer given that BEFORE China was 'opened' in 1842 in the first OPIUM WAR, it had its greatest share of world wealth. Within a century of these interventions China went from 32% of the world's GDP to just under 5%.

*Based on the works of the late Angus Maddison (1926 - 2010)*
Angus Maddison was a world scholar on quantitative macroeconomic history, including the measurement and analysis of economic growth and development. He was professor at the University of Groningen from 1978 to 1997, and a founder of the Groningen Growth and Development Centre. This website "the Maddison Project" provides access to major parts of Angus' work as well as to new work that is being conducted in his spirit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

*U.S. President Obama says everyone worse off if U.S.-China ties break*
2016-12-17 11:08 | Xinhua | _Editor: Li Yan_

_




_​_U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at his final news conference of the year in White House in Washington D.C., the United States, Dec. 16, 2016. U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday no other bilateral relationship carries more significance than U.S.-China relationship, and if the U.S.-China relation breaks down, everyone becomes worse off. (Photo: Xinhua/Yin Bogu)_


U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday no other bilateral relationship carries more significance than U.S.-China relationship, and if the U.S.-China relation breaks down, everyone becomes worse off.

"Given the importance of the relation between the United States and China, given how much is at stake, in terms of the world economy, national security... China's increasing role in international affairs, there's probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance," said Obama here in his final news conference of the year.

"There's also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full conflict mode that everybody's worse off," he added.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump early this month received a telephone call from Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen.

After the phone call, the White House reaffirmed it's firm commitment to one-China policy on several occasions.

It is universally recognized by the international community that there is only one China in the world, and both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has made clear that adherence to one-China policy is the prerequisite for Taiwan to conduct contacts with foreign countries or participate in international activities.


*******

_Like it or not, the only bilateral relationship that really matters is that of the G2.
Maybe the EU matters a bit. The rest is just cannon fodder._

.


----------



## ahojunk

China protests US defense bill
(China Daily) 08:22, December 27, 2016

_




A file photo of Hua Chunying, the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry. [Photo/IC]_​
China lodged a protest with the United States for signing a defense act that included a call for senior military exchanges between the US and Taiwan, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

"*We are resolutely against the Taiwan-related section in the US National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and have lodged solemn representations with the US*," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a regular news conference.

Part of the $618.7 billion National Defense Authorization Act directs the US Department of Defense to conduct a program of senior military exchanges between the US and Taiwan, Reuters reported.

Noting that the Taiwan question has a bearing on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, Hua said that "China will by no means accept" the stipulation of the US defense act.

"Although the Taiwan-related content in the US act has no legal binding force, it severely violates the three joint communiques and interferes with China's domestic affairs," she said, adding that China urges the US to end military exchanges with and weapons sales to Taiwan. The three communiques were crucial agreements in the normalization of diplomatic relations between the US and China.

*Hua praised the recent remarks by Zbigniew Brzezinski*, the national security adviser to former US president Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski told WorldPost－a partnership between online news aggregator Huffington Post and independent think tank the Berggruen Institute－last week that "*a world in which America and China are cooperating is a world in which American influence is maximized*".

"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing," Brzezinski was quoted as saying. He criticized the phone call between US president-elect Donald Trump and Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen on Dec 2 as "a pointless irritant".

"Cooperation is the only right choice between China and the US," Hua said, adding that the two countries should adhere to the principle of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and cooperation for win-win results.

Tang Shao-cheng, a research fellow in the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University in Taipei, said that although the US defense act looks like a measure that is friendly toward Taiwan, it is hard to say whether it would benefit Taiwan.

Taiwan is a valuable chip for the US to curb the rise of the Chinese mainland, Tang wrote in an article in the Taipei-based China Times, noting that it was Tsai's refusal to accept the 1992 Consensus, which establishes the one-China policy, that led to the island's self-limitation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BuddhaPalm

*China Targeted US Aircraft Carrier In The South China Sea With Dozens Of ’Carrier Killer’ Missiles*

China targeted a U.S. aircraft carrier with dozens of missiles in the South China Sea days before an arbitration tribunal rejected China’s vast claims to the region, Chinese media revealed.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force reportedly targeted the USS Ronald Reagan in the South China Sea with “carrier killer” DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles a few days before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague officially discredited China’s nine-dashed line in a landmark ruling this summer, China Central Television (CCTV) indicated Tuesday, according to DW News.

The Philippines unilaterally submitted its dispute with China to an international arbitration tribunal in 2013. The court ruled against China’s claims to the South China Sea July 12, 2016.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the arbitration ruling a “political farce under the pretext of law.”

The U.S. and China came very close to conflict because of the South China Sea arbitration case, the CCTV report suggested.

Two U.S. carrier groups led by the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS John Stennis were deployed near the Philippines in late June, only a few weeks before the tribunal ruling.

The USS Ronald Reagan, with the other units of Carrier Strike Group 5, the U.S. Navy’s only forward-deployed strike group, conducted patrols in the South China Sea in early July.

These moves were perceived by China as a preparation for conflict. China feared that the U.S. might attempt to enforce the ruling through the use of military force.

China readied its new anti-ship missiles in response.

During this major crisis, the PLA Rocket Force aimed dozens of new missiles at a U.S. aircraft carrier in the South China Sea, CCTV revealed. The new missiles were most likely the anti-ship DF-21D missiles, DW News noted.

The DF-21D has a range of over 1,200 miles.

Prior to the ruling, from July 5 to July 11, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) reportedly dispatched three major fleets consisting of hundreds of ships and dozens of fighter aircraft to the South China Sea for drills.

De-escalation occurred in the aftermath of the ruling, and China switched to a deterrence stance, relying on its DF-21D and DF-26 missiles to keep American ships at a distance.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/29/c...a-sea-with-dozens-of-carrier-killer-missiles/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BuddhaPalm

USA is looking to deploy military forces to Taiping island as a gesture of support for Taiwan independence in the wake of the new Taiwan relations law. This is violation of the Anti-Secession Law and a red line for China to make our move. USA will probably make its move in February or March of this year. That is when the shooting war begins in South China Sea. USA will lose at least three aircraft carriers if it is determined to destroy our island based. If USA escalates to tactical nukes, we will nuke all its bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam and Australia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

The PLA claimed it 'targeted' the American ships.

Sure...Why not...???

Anyone can make any claim.

Here is the real deal...






It is difficult for people to envision a US aircraft carrier fleet at sea regarding how much ocean real estate the fleet uses. So the above illustration should make it easier by using several US states and cities as references for which component of the fleet lies where and does what. Now imagine the fleet moving across continental US while being constantly arrayed over several states at any time.

Only a dozen DF-21Ds ? Try hundreds or even thousands if China want to get lucky.






This is not even taking into consideration countermeasures that the fleet can deploy *WHILE* maneuvering.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DJ_Viper

BuddhaPalm said:


> *China Targeted US Aircraft Carrier In The South China Sea With Dozens Of ’Carrier Killer’ Missiles*
> 
> China targeted a U.S. aircraft carrier with dozens of missiles in the South China Sea days before an arbitration tribunal rejected China’s vast claims to the region, Chinese media revealed.
> 
> The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force reportedly targeted the USS Ronald Reagan in the South China Sea with “carrier killer” DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles a few days before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague officially discredited China’s nine-dashed line in a landmark ruling this summer, China Central Television (CCTV) indicated Tuesday, according to DW News.
> 
> The Philippines unilaterally submitted its dispute with China to an international arbitration tribunal in 2013. The court ruled against China’s claims to the South China Sea July 12, 2016.
> 
> Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the arbitration ruling a “political farce under the pretext of law.”
> 
> The U.S. and China came very close to conflict because of the South China Sea arbitration case, the CCTV report suggested.
> 
> Two U.S. carrier groups led by the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS John Stennis were deployed near the Philippines in late June, only a few weeks before the tribunal ruling.
> 
> The USS Ronald Reagan, with the other units of Carrier Strike Group 5, the U.S. Navy’s only forward-deployed strike group, conducted patrols in the South China Sea in early July.
> 
> These moves were perceived by China as a preparation for conflict. China feared that the U.S. might attempt to enforce the ruling through the use of military force.
> 
> China readied its new anti-ship missiles in response.
> 
> During this major crisis, the PLA Rocket Force aimed dozens of new missiles at a U.S. aircraft carrier in the South China Sea, CCTV revealed. The new missiles were most likely the anti-ship DF-21D missiles, DW News noted.
> 
> The DF-21D has a range of over 1,200 miles.
> 
> Prior to the ruling, from July 5 to July 11, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) reportedly dispatched three major fleets consisting of hundreds of ships and dozens of fighter aircraft to the South China Sea for drills.
> 
> De-escalation occurred in the aftermath of the ruling, and China switched to a deterrence stance, relying on its DF-21D and DF-26 missiles to keep American ships at a distance.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/29/c...a-sea-with-dozens-of-carrier-killer-missiles/



over 30 support, defensive and offensive ships per each CBG, armed to teeth with the top line tech and weapon systems. Each ship, with additional overhead and underwater support vessels is connected in real time, each has the ability to track over 100+ targets and lock onto multiple dozens of incoming objects, as well as fire dozens of weapons onto strategic targets within seconds, and with layered physical, air and underwater defense (including a Nuclear attack submarine)... and you think you'll somehow get to an AC with a dozen or two DF-XX stuff?

If getting to a CBG was this easy, China herself wouldn't have bought one (and building two in the docks). Remember, each CBG has AWACS coverage around 400 miles. So before the CBG made it closer to the Taiwanese strait, for days, every single offensive capability that posed a threat to the US CBGs, would've been charted out with plans to immediately jam or destroy those, in case it became a real life conflict.

Common guys, mature up. I know you are smarter than this. Write facts, because fiction writing belongs to Tom Clancy

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BuddhaPalm

Ram Mahadev said:


> Why got up before rest of the dreams?
> 
> Like China invaded Japan Australia South Korea Vietnam India and US and became only superpower of the world.


Somebody is humiliated from 1962 spanking and spankings at DBO in 2013 and Chumar in 2014 



gambit said:


> The PLA claimed it 'targeted' the American ships.
> 
> Sure...Why not...???
> 
> Anyone can make any claim.
> 
> Here is the real deal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult for people to envision a US aircraft carrier fleet at sea regarding how much ocean real estate the fleet uses. So the above illustration should make it easier by using several US states and cities as references for which component of the fleet lies where and does what. Now imagine the fleet moving across continental US while being constantly arrayed over several states at any time.
> 
> Only a dozen DF-21Ds ? Try hundreds or even thousands if China want to get lucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not even taking into consideration countermeasures that the fleet can deploy *WHILE* maneuvering.


LOL so what happened to all your boasting about policing the South China Sea after the PCA tribunal decision in November? And what happened to your trusty ally Philippines who suddenly realized how weak and impotent you are... exactly during November right after the tribunal decision and your boasting 



DJ_Viper said:


> over 30 support, defensive and offensive ships per each CBG, armed to teeth with the top line tech and weapon systems. Each ship, with additional overhead and underwater support vessels is connected in real time, each has the ability to track over 100+ targets and lock onto multiple dozens of incoming objects, as well as fire dozens of weapons onto strategic targets within seconds, and with layered physical, air and underwater defense (including a Nuclear attack submarine)... and you think you'll somehow get to an AC with a dozen or two DF-XX stuff?
> 
> If getting to a CBG was this easy, China herself wouldn't have bought one (and building two in the docks). Remember, each CBG has AWACS coverage around 400 miles. So before the CBG made it closer to the Taiwanese strait, for days, every single offensive capability that posed a threat to the US CBGs, would've been charted out with plans to immediately jam or destroy those, in case it became a real life conflict.
> 
> Common guys, mature up. I know you are smarter than this. Write facts, because fiction writing belongs to Tom Clancy


LOL after so much boasting about your superiority, you could not even stop us from confiscating your intelligence gathering drone right under your nose! Where were all your long range hyper tech weapons then?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 52051

DJ_Viper said:


> over 30 support, defensive and offensive ships per each CBG, armed to teeth with the top line tech and weapon systems. Each ship, with additional overhead and underwater support vessels is connected in real time, each has the ability to track over 100+ targets and lock onto multiple dozens of incoming objects, as well as fire dozens of weapons onto strategic targets within seconds, and with layered physical, air and underwater defense (including a Nuclear attack submarine)... and you think you'll somehow get to an AC with a dozen or two DF-XX stuff?
> 
> If getting to a CBG was this easy, China herself wouldn't have bought one (and building two in the docks). Remember, each CBG has AWACS coverage around 400 miles. So before the CBG made it closer to the Taiwanese strait, for days, every single offensive capability that posed a threat to the US CBGs, would've been charted out with plans to immediately jam or destroy those, in case it became a real life conflict.
> 
> Common guys, mature up. I know you are smarter than this. Write facts, because fiction writing belongs to Tom Clancy



The poster just post a news citing source from CCTV news, the fact is the short-lived confrontation ended with the US CV fleets runs like rabbits and fleeing all their way out of South China sea in just one day after the US commander brag they can and will fight Chinese tommorrow.

So to be honest, its just the Chinese CCTV kindly provided a explaination for the US CV fleet's sudden retreat.

So it is hardly a Tom Clancy story, if it were a Tom Clancy story, it would have been by the time the US fleet retreated then some super american "hero" like rambo or the governor of California equipped with over-sized machine gun with infinite and matter-less amount ammos to shot down all the Chinese missiles and sink all the Chinese warship and bang some chicks and save the day and world

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## DoTell

BuddhaPalm said:


> Somebody is humiliated from 1962 spanking and spankings at DBO in 2013 and Chumar in 2014
> 
> LOL so what happened to all your boasting about policing the South China Sea after the PCA tribunal decision in November? And what happened to your trusty ally Philippines who suddenly realized how weak and impotent you are... exactly during November right after the tribunal decision and your boasting



You can't "humiliate" the thick skinned. They know no shame. You can't shut the big mouthed either. They'll keep talking. But you can kick their butt. They are still butt hurt from 1962

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## DJ_Viper

52051 said:


> The poster just post a news citing source from CCTV news, the fact is the short-lived confronts ended with the US CV fleets runs like rabbits and fleeing all their way out of South China sea in just one day after the US commander brag they can and will fight Chinese tommorrow.



US CV fleet ran like rabbits. Nice, like I said, every single threat assessment is done days before the CBG gets anywhere. You think we went to the SCS and we didn't have over a few hundred SM's and a few hundred attack missiles ready in case the Chinese fired upon us? Like I said, Tom Clancy writes better. Post facts, not "wana be" Tom Clancy stuff. The US was really hoping we would be engaged in the SCS sea to show off some muscle. You, your government and everyone on here knows that. You guys maintained a defensive posture so that avoided confrontation.



BuddhaPalm said:


> LOL after so much boasting about your superiority, you could not even stop us from confiscating your intelligence gathering drone right under your nose! Where were all your long range hyper tech weapons then?



So you'll attack an unarmed ship and steal a $ 150K drone. How about you man-up, next time try to "confiscate" a drone from a US Destroyer or a Warship. Let me know if the confiscating team had a ship to go back to. Power projection doesn't happen when you attack a ship without combat capability to even respond to pirates. I guess I can call this a Pirates of SCS operation. Next time, you can try this on a US destroyer, lose a few of your ships and you'd be welcomed to "collect" your team off California's shores

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BuddhaPalm

DJ_Viper said:


> So you'll attack an unarmed ship and steal a $ 150K drone. How about you man-up, next time try to "confiscate" a drone from a US Destroyer or a Warship. Let me know if the confiscating team had a ship to go back to. Power projection doesn't happen when you attack a ship without combat capability to even respond to pirates. I guess I can call this a Pirates of SCS operation. Next time, you can try this on a US destroyer, lose a few of your ships and you'd be welcomed to "collect" your team off California's shores


LOL so your hyper tech long range weapons are only good for boasting but cannot even stop us from confiscating your intelligence gathering drone from right under your navy vessel nose... carry on with your boasting and how you will get us "next time"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## oprih

Even america is receiving bitch slaps from China these days.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## DJ_Viper

BuddhaPalm said:


> LOL so your hyper tech long range weapons are only good for boasting but cannot even stop us from confiscating your intelligence gathering drone from right under your navy vessel nose... carry on with your boasting and how you will get us "next time"



Here you go, have fun and enjoy. We sent you a Third aircraft carrier with love on this new year eve. Combined the three CBG's, there are over 180 4.5th gen combat jets on these and a range of lethal attack destroyers . Thanks


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Navy is deploying a third Carrier Strike Group to Asia to reinforce the two already patrolling the South China Sea as the United States continues to strengthen its already formidable naval air forces in this volatile area.
Like Us on Facebook


The Carrier Strike Group of the Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) will deploy to Asia on January 5 and 6, 2017 from Naval Base San Diego, principal homeport of the United States Pacific Fleet, announced the Navy.

Escorting the Carl Vinson to Asia will be the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108). Another guided missile destroyer, the USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) will later join the three warships.

The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group consists of 7,500 sailors and airmen attached to various squadrons under Carrier Air Wing 2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## gambit

oprih said:


> Even america is receiving bitch slaps from China these days.


The fact that we are in the SCS at our pleasure means it is US who are giving out the bitch slaps.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BuddhaPalm

DJ_Viper said:


> Here you go, have fun and enjoy. We sent you a Third aircraft carrier with love on this new year eve. Combined the three CBG's, there are over 180 4.5th gen combat jets on these and a range of lethal attack destroyers . Thanks
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. Navy is deploying a third Carrier Strike Group to Asia to reinforce the two already patrolling the South China Sea as the United States continues to strengthen its already formidable naval air forces in this volatile area.
> Like Us on Facebook
> 
> 
> The Carrier Strike Group of the Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) will deploy to Asia on January 5 and 6, 2017 from Naval Base San Diego, principal homeport of the United States Pacific Fleet, announced the Navy.
> 
> Escorting the Carl Vinson to Asia will be the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108). Another guided missile destroyer, the USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) will later join the three warships.
> 
> The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group consists of 7,500 sailors and airmen attached to various squadrons under Carrier Air Wing 2.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL floating coffins they are. Poor sailors, dying for corrupt politicians in Washington.


gambit said:


> The fact that we are in the SCS at our pleasure means it is US who are giving out the bitch slaps.


Really? Then why jump up and down about our island bases, ADIZ, patrols, exercises and confiscation of intelligence gathering drones?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DJ_Viper

BuddhaPalm said:


> LOL floating coffins they are. Poor sailors, dying for corrupt politicians in Washington.



You have some serious comprehension and trolling problems. Try shooting on one of these, you'll see a lot of floating coffins with a quarter of your navy under water, swimming with the sharks.


----------



## sweetgrape

DJ_Viper said:


> You have some serious comprehension and trolling problems. Try shooting on one of these, you'll see a lot of floating coffins with a quarter of your navy under water, swimming with the sharks.


It is show, Fist VS Fist, there are proper freedom of navigation to military ship in SCS, China is challenging your so-called rule in SCS which you see as part of your Global hegemony, you are challenging China's claim in SCS, that's it.

We will prepare coffins and land for our soldier, so what about you? Manage your army, don't think navigation freedom for civilian ship can apply to military ship, China is not Iraq or Lybia, you know that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 52051

DJ_Viper said:


> Go write bullshiit and propaganda to someone else. Give me your destroyed ship counts on this forum if a conflict ever starts. I have nothing more to say.



I just hope your ship is as tough as your words through...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> I just hope your ship is as tough as your words through...


You should direct those words at yourself and your fellow Chinese on this forum.


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> You should direct those words at yourself and your fellow Chinese on this forum.



Our ship sitting at South China sea comfortablly watching the targetted US cv fleets run out of South China sea, thats the whole starting point of this thread, dont you remember, my short-memory vietcong-american (wtf of this combination)?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sweetgrape

DJ_Viper said:


> Go write bullshiit and propaganda to someone else. Give me your destroyed ship counts on this forum if a conflict ever starts. I have nothing more to say.


Hehe, you see it as propaganda, not different to you kind normal American believe so-called "democratic" propaganda, You Navy come to SCS for peacekeeping, misguide people that Military ship has freedom of navigation like civilian ship. Propaganda, who is better than you western? 

If nothing to say, so better to shut your mouth up, do you know, when you BlahBlah, so hypocritical and disgusting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> Our ship sitting at South China sea comfortablly watching the targetted US cv fleets run out of South China sea, thats the whole starting point of this thread, dont you remember, my short-memory vietcong-american (wtf of this combination)?


You sit when you should be doing something. But then, against the US Navy, there is nothing the PLAN can do but sit anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

gambit said:


> The PLA claimed it 'targeted' the American ships.
> 
> Sure...Why not...???
> 
> Anyone can make any claim.
> 
> Here is the real deal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult for people to envision a US aircraft carrier fleet at sea regarding how much ocean real estate the fleet uses. So the above illustration should make it easier by using several US states and cities as references for which component of the fleet lies where and does what. Now imagine the fleet moving across continental US while being constantly arrayed over several states at any time.
> 
> Only a dozen DF-21Ds ? Try hundreds or even thousands if China want to get lucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not even taking into consideration countermeasures that the fleet can deploy *WHILE* maneuvering.



yayayyayaa more grandmother stories from u.

anyway the point here is China was prepared to take on the US when it goes down to business- not who will win

Your vehement and defensive response, as demonstrated by your wall-text long of information and diagrams- shows the typical American anxiety and resulting eagerness in playing down China's readiness to engage in a conflict with the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

eldarlmari said:


> ...your wall-text long of information and diagrams...


Must be tough knowing that others appreciate them because they understand what I posted while you ain't gots the brains to do the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DJ_Viper

eldarlmari said:


> anyway the point here is China was prepared to take on the US when it goes down to business- not who will win.



We wanted it to go down to business when we decided to slow sail right through the Taiwanese strait. But you guys chickened out and per your defense analysts "the PLAAN decided to keep a defensive posture". Well, a few miles off your coast and you being in a defensive posture.....speaks volume 

Then there was the second CSG sent to the SCS, and now a third will soon provide you with a nice new year's gift with love from the USN. And you guys will just sit and write these verbals on here "hoping for the best"


----------



## 52051

DJ_Viper said:


> We wanted it to go down to business when we decided to slow sail right through the Taiwanese strait. But you guys chickened out and per your defense analysts "the PLAAN decided to keep a defensive posture". Well, a few miles off your coast and you being in a defensive posture.....speaks volume
> 
> Then there was the second CSG sent to the SCS, and now a third will soon provide you with a nice new year's gift with love from the USN. And you guys will just sit and write these verbals on here "hoping for the best"



Maybe in 1996 you can since at that time we dont have a serious means to sink CVs, but be awared 2016 is about 20 years later, and unlike the average americans, 20 years is enough for Chinese to make a whole lot difference.

Just like you said in other post:
20 years ago, when we ride bikes you ride F-22
And now, when we ride J-20 you still ride F-22 (althrough lack of oxygen or something)
Maybe 20 years later, when we ride J-30 or J-60, you may still ride F-22 or their poor fatter buttbuddy like F-35

You know, judging by the fact here, I have a feeling that China is about to leave the poor americans in the dust in basically every category of competition, and the US will return to a second-rated regional power in the very near future.

Anyway the average dumb americans should not be fooled by their greedy politicans and try to stand in every possible way of China, it will only hurt the every poor dumb americans and wont even slow one bit of China's progress, we will take back whatever belong to us regardless whether the US try to come to be some pretender.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DJ_Viper

52051 said:


> Maybe in 1996 you can since at that time we dont have a serious means to sink CVs



 You talk about sinking an aircraft carrier like you are playing a video game. Your DF-BS missile system hasn't sunk a fishing boat yet (without AD). Go sink one and let us know the success rate. I've not seen any nation making these crazy statements over systems that have never been tested in real warfare!! Remember recently one of your heavy artillery demo failed and your customer country's President was there to "witness the success" . Nuff said!



> but be awared 2016 is about 20 years later, and unlike the average americans, 20 years is enough for Chinese to make a whole lot difference.
> 
> Just like you said in other post:
> 20 years ago, when we ride bikes you ride F-22
> And now, when we ride J-20 you still ride F-22 (althrough lack of oxygen or something)
> Maybe 20 years later, when we ride J-30 or J-60, you may still ride F-22 or their poor fatter buttbuddy like F-35



So by reading the above, I realized, its not just the Chinese defense industry that's behind. People like you are too.I believe that the F-35 would be our last manned jet. We are building even Hypersonic bombers and those are unmanned also. Here is what the US is working on. Check these out (this is just the stuff that's out in the Public, there are many other Ghost projects also which we'll never know about, till they are released to public):

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42013/next-us-bomber-fleet-to-be-unmanned/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-lockheed-martin-team-new-bomber


----------



## 52051

DJ_Viper said:


> You talk about sinking an aircraft carrier like you are playing a video game. Your DF-BS missile system hasn't sunk a fishing boat yet (without AD). Go sink one and let us know the success rate. I've not seen any nation making these crazy statements over systems that have never been tested in real warfare!! Remember recently one of your heavy artillery demo failed and your customer country's President was there to "witness the success" . Nuff said!
> 
> 
> 
> So by reading the above, I realized, its not just the Chinese defense industry that's behind. People like you are too.I believe that the F-35 would be our last manned jet. We are building even Hypersonic bombers and those are unmanned also. Here is what the US is working on. Check these out:
> 
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav
> 
> http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42013/next-us-bomber-fleet-to-be-unmanned/
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-lockheed-martin-team-new-bomber



Do you honestly believe China dont have any of simliar weapon system you develop now?

My friends works in AVIC and many defence industry/research university, and let me put this way:

Name any single f*cking weapon concept you brag in your PPT, we have the same or better ones.

China now basically fund every and any possible weapon projects, and it is tough luck you need to have to take any lead of any of them, just like the "global strike" concept you first brags and now lag far behind the Chinese, and just like how China dominate the supercomputer competition now.

And remember, these are projects started at 1990s and just imagine the weapon project in China starting now.

Just learn to live with it, China has far more and far far better talents pool and you are hopeless in trying to match that.

Like I said before, don't try to play as some joking superman and try to stand in China's way, you will be burnt.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

52051 said:


> Do you honestly believe China dont have any of simliar weapon system you develop now?
> 
> My friends works in AVIC and many defence industry/research university, and let me put this way:
> 
> Name any single fucking weapon concept you brag in your PPT, we have the same or better ones.
> 
> China now basically fund every and any possible weapon projects, and it is tough luck you need to have to take any lead of any of them, just like the "global strike" concept you first brags and now lag far behind the Chinese, and just like how China dominate the supercomputer competition now.
> 
> And remeber, these are projects start at 1990s and just imagining the weapon project in China start at now.
> 
> Just learn to live with it, China has far more and far far better talents pool and you are hopeless in trying to match that.
> 
> Like I said before, dont try to play as some joking superman and try to stand in China's way, you will be burnt.



A "better talent pool" and we're "hopeless" to match it? Who are you trying to fool?

The US military is undergoing a full scale modernization of its forces over the next couple decades. Your looking at trillions of dollars in defense investments over that time period, and a defense industry that has access to world class scientists and engineers. China doesn't have a chance in hell of gaining military overmatch against the United States.

Your mind is shackled to your own deluded fantasies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

DJ_Viper said:


> I think I can recommend cure for many diseases just by googling. This one that I am dealing with on here, is not curable. When someone's high off blind patriotism and grandiosity about what they "think" it is, vs. what it really is, you can't fix that dangerous combo.
> 
> Like I said, you can continue on with the mental mas*******. And last I remembered on the talent pool, the MIT, the Harvard, the Yale's of the world are still in the US. Not in China.



Whatever make you sleep, I am done with you poor stupid americans here, luckly enough for you, at least your greedy politcans are not just as stupid as you, thats why they love to retreat.


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> Do you honestly believe China dont have any of simliar weapon system you develop now?
> 
> My friends works in AVIC and many defence industry/research university, and let me put this way:
> 
> Name any single fucking weapon concept you brag in your PPT, we have the same or better ones.
> 
> China now basically fund every and any possible weapon projects, and it is tough luck you need to have to take any lead of any of them, just like the "global strike" concept you first brags and now lag far behind the Chinese, and just like how China dominate the supercomputer competition now.
> 
> And remeber, these are projects start at 1990s and just imagining the weapon project in China start at now.
> 
> Just learn to live with it, China has far more and far far better talents pool and you are hopeless in trying to match that.
> 
> Like I said before, dont try to play as some joking superman and try to stand in China's way, you will be burnt.


Never mind the absurdity of what you said which would take far too long to destroy in detail, the one thing that your China most certainly do not have is -- combat experience.

All the things that you cited are exactly just that -- things. Inanimate objects.

A squad of US Marines refreshed from combat a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would make quick work of the best of Chinese Marines.

Put any of your Golden Helmet pilot in Red Flag and he would be 'dead' on the first day. And when he leaves for home in China, he will be sufficiently mentally shaken by what he experienced in peace time, let alone facing US pilots in a real war.

You talk as if you know what you are talking about. You do not.

Ever experienced what aviators, civilians and military, calls 'the leans' ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_leans

I have. Sooner or later anyone who handles a stick/yoke in training will experience 'the leans'. I went thru the experience in high school while getting my private pilot license. You learn to recognize the dissonance between what your body tells you vs what your instruments says on what the aircraft is doing.

Your PLA want to gain some real combat experience ? Pick a fight with US and find out. You will lose -- badly -- but you will gain combat experience.


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> He sent own daughter to Harvard because unlike US, China's top univeristy require entrance exam and everyone, whether is a son of peasant or a daughter of Xi, is treated equally in such highly competitive exam, thats why many of them want to sent their childern to easy american schools with even easier entrance bar for the rich and powerful people.


Really...???

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...elite_u_s_universities_in_large_numbers_.html


> But there are people far more important than the children of Chinese party leaders attending Harvard and other elite U.S. universities: Chinese leaders themselves.


So you are saying that the Chinese leaders themselves were and are *STILL* too dumb to attend Chinese universities ?



> The Harvard curriculum, specially designed for this program, resembles a midcareer executive course. Housed at the Kennedy School’s Ash Center—the same graduate school Bo Xilai’s son attended—Harvard faculty teach Chinese officials leadership, strategy, and public management.


The reality, according to the Slate article, was that those leaders recognized the inadequacies of Chinese higher education and they worked with Harvard to create a custom education program to prepare the next generation of Chinese leadership. It says much about Chinese higher education when Party officials of all ranks know that Chinese universities are propaganda centers and that if finances are possible they do not want their children to be so intellectually shackled.

Excellent example of that propaganda result: *YOU*.



> Harvard may be a competitive institution, but it’s nothing compared to being selected by the party’s Central Organization Department—the highly secretive body that is in charge of making all party appointments across China and chooses the handful of officials sent abroad to study each year.


The competition is reserved for Chinese peasants like yourself. Did you really think that Miss Xi Mingze is going to sit in the same examination with you vying for those university slots ? That you posted that 'equality' as true is evident that the brainwashing and the propaganda worked.



> Lu sits proudly when he tells me more than half of the officials sent to Harvard receive a promotion not long after they return to their duties at home, although he admits, *“We don’t know if it’s because of the training or because they are already so good. But we try to claim it is because of the training.”*


Ain't that grand ? Or how do you say it in Chinese ?

Half of the Chinese graduates got promotions and those who promoted them have no clue whether the Harvard education worked or not.

This Slate-type expose article is probably forbidden reading in China, so consider yourself properly educated -- by Americans on an anonymous Internet forum. 



52051 said:


> Anyway I am done with this thread, the talk leads nowhere.


Maybe if we debate some Harvard educated Chinese, our debates would get somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sanchez

With humble and low profile business attitude China would screw her hostile haters one by one. If not satisfied f'ck you all together! A Chinese general reiterated our war & nuclear policy on a TV show of the Dec 28th: any country that hosted US nuclear sub/carriers/war planes would be considered as cobelligerent in a US-China war scenario. If nuclear weapons were used by the US China would counter attack including the countries mentioned above no matter if you have or not have nuclear weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

This thread is not a discussion on universities. Please get back on topic.


----------



## ahojunk

Sino-U.S. cooperation on infrastructure, trade promising: expert
(Xinhua) 14:40, January 06, 2017

China and the United States have great potential in infrastructure and trade cooperation in the new year to drive economic growth, said former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of World Bank Justin Yifu Lin on Thursday.

Lin, also the honorary dean of National School of Development at Peking University, made the remarks while delivering a keynote speech at a meeting hosted by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and Peking University's China Center for Economic Research in New York.

He emphasized the *importance of infrastructure investment in lifting economies out of crisis*.

"China has been using infrastructure as counter-cyclical method effectively since the Asian financial crisis, and the country will continue to do that, not only domestically, but also internationally," said Lin.

Lin said that both China's *Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank focus on infrastructure*.

"We hope these initiatives will embrace all countries including the U.S.," he added.

He said the *United States now understands how important infrastructure is to domestic economic growth, and that the country will expand infrastructure investment and construction under the new administration*.

"China and the U.S. should work together so that we have a truly global infrastructure initiative," said Lin.

He explained that such an initiative will do good to the developing countries because there are a lot of bottlenecks in their infrastructure. On the other hand, high-income countries will benefit from investing in developing countries as they expand exports.

Asked about possible trade frictions between the two countries after President-elect Donald Trump assumes office, Lin said people should expect trade cooperation instead of conflict.

"*In terms of trade, what is good for the U.S. is good for China, and vice versa*," he said, adding *the two countries can find common ground to support dynamic growth for both nations after serious talks*.

He said Trump certainly does not want U.S. consumers to suffer and imposing higher tariffs on goods imported from China will hurt the interests of U.S. consumers.

Lin said if high tariffs are imposed, the United States will have the choice of continuing to import goods from China or importing goods from other countries that are currently more expensive than goods made in China. In both cases, consumers in the country have to pay more.


********

_Between the G2, there is a higher chance of trade cooperation rather than a trade war._
.


----------



## ahojunk

*Kerry: Both US parties back 'one China'*
(China Daily) 08:40, January 06, 2017







The one-China policy, which has been challenged by US president-elect Donald Trump, is supported by the Democratic and Republican parties, US Secretary of State John Kerry assured Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Thursday.

Analysts said that through the phone call, Kerry aimed to warn Trump, who will be sworn in on Jan 20, not to undermine the cornerstone of Sino-US relations as the president-elect has done in the past month — from speaking with Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen on the phone to questioning the necessity of supporting the one-China policy.

Support for the one-China policy is based on the three joint communiques between the United States and China, Kerry said in his call to Wang. The communiques, issued in the 1970s and 1980s, laid the foundation for the restoration of China-US diplomatic ties.

Wang, noting that the Sino-US relationship is in a transition period, replied that the two sides should make joint efforts to keep bilateral ties going in the right direction.

Ruan Zongze, vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies, said that as a veteran diplomat, Kerry is "quite clear about how serious the consequences would be" if the one-China policy is challenged by a US president, and that's why he made the phone call.

He said the phone call also could be seen as a warning to Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen, who made a congratulatory phone call to Trump on Dec 2. The call broke four decades of Sino-US diplomatic precedent.

Tsai will transfer in Houston and San Francisco on her way to and from Latin America in a trip that will begin on Saturday. It was not clear whether she planned to meet with anyone in the US.

Wang Hailiang, a researcher of Taiwan studies at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said that challenging the one-China policy would not benefit the US, since China would take countermeasures to safeguard national sovereignty.

"The Sino-US relationship has always experienced turbulence at US power transitional periods in past decades, but it finally goes onto the right track," he said.


----------



## grey boy 2

*Trade with China helps 2.6m US jobs*
(China Daily) 08:23, January 12, 2017







_Tourists and downtown workers are pictured in front of the New York Stock Exchange in New York, July 8, 2015. [Photo/IC]_

*Trade with China supports some 2.6 million jobs in the United States, including jobs that Chinese firm have created directly in the US, according to a report released on Tuesday by the US-China Business Council.*

*And as the Chinese middle class grows rapidly over the next decade, likely exceeding the entire US population by 2026, US companies will have opportunities to tap into a new and lucrative customer base that can further boost employment and economic growth, said the report, entitled Understanding the US-China Trade Relationship.*

The report shows that nations trading closely with China outperform those with less integrated trade ties, and the trend will continue.

The USCBC, founded in 1973, is a private, nonpartisan and nonprofit organization of more than 200 US companies doing business with China.

John Frisbie, president of USCBC, said: "Much was said about the negative effect of trade with China, with estimated job losses receiving considerable attention. But the positive effects of the commercial relationship with China were largely ignored, and therefore there really hasn't an assessment of the overall context provided."

*According to the report, China purchased $165 billion in goods and services from the US in 2015, representing 7.3 percent of all US exports.*

Although some US manufacturing jobs have been lost because of the trade deficit, US firms sell high-value products to China, which support jobs.

*By 2030, US exports to China are expected to rise to more than $520 billion.*

Michael Zielenziger, managing editor of Oxford Economics, said China contributed more to global growth over the past 15 years than the eurozone and the US combined. And China accounted for one-third of global GDP growth in 2015.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0112/c90000-9165785.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AndrewJin

Unpresidented

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state set a course for a potentially serious confrontation with Beijing on Wednesday, saying China should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine.

Asked whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China, he said: "We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

The former Exxon Mobil Corp () chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands it has built up from South China Sea reefs, equipped with military-length airstrips and fortified with weapons.

Trump's transition team did not immediately respond to a request for specifics on how China might be blocked from the artificial islands.

China claims most of the energy-rich waters through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. Neighbors Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims.

Tillerson also said Washington needed to reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, but stopped short of Trump's questioning of Washington's long-standing policy on the issue.

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging that China takes the position that there is "one China" and Taiwan is part of it. But the United States is also Taiwan's biggest ally and arms supplier.

"I don’t know of any plans to alter the 'one China' position," Tillerson said.

Tillerson said he considered China’s South China Sea activity "extremely worrisome" and that it would be a threat to the "entire global economy" if Beijing were able to dictate access to the waterway.

He blamed the current situation on what he termed an inadequate U.S. response. "The failure of a response has allowed them just to keep pushing the envelope on this," Tillerson said.

"The way we’ve got to deal with this is we’ve got to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in Southeast Asia," he said.

Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration conducted periodic air and naval patrols to assert the right of free navigation in the South China Sea. These have angered Beijing, but seeking to blockade China's man-made islands would be a major step further and a step that Washington has never raised as an option.

Under his strategic "pivot" to Asia, Obama has increased the U.S. military presence in the region, and Trump has vowed a major naval buildup.

Tillerson's words also went beyond Trump's own tough rhetoric on China.

RELUCTANT TO CHALLENGE

Obama has sought to forge a united front in Southeast Asia against China’s pursuit of its territorial claims, but some allies and partners who are rival claimants have been reluctant to challenge Beijing.

Tillerson called China's South China Sea island-building and declaration of an air defense zone in the East China Sea it contests with Japan "illegal actions."

"They’re taking territory or control, or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s," he said.

The response was muted from the Philippines, a traditional U.S. ally that last year won an international arbitration case that included a challenge to China's island-building within its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

"These are not policies yet and let us wait if they will implement what was said in the hearing," Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana told reporters on Thursday.

"Let's wait until Trump is in office."

His comments reflect the sharp change in Manila's approach to China under new President Rodrigo Duterte, who wants good diplomatic and business ties with Beijing and says challenging it is provocative and pointless. He makes no secret of his lack of trust in the Obama administration and has chided it for what he considers inaction in the South China Sea.

Tillerson also said the United States could not continue to accept "empty promises" China had made about putting pressure on North Korea over that country's nuclear and missile programs.

He said his approach to dealing with North Korea - which recently declared it is close to carrying out its first test of an intercontinental ballistic missile - would be "a long-term plan" based on sanctions and their proper implementation.

Asked if Washington should consider imposing "secondary sanctions" on Chinese entities found to be violating existing sanctions on North Korea, Tillerson said: "If China is not going to comply with those U.N. sanctions, then it's appropriate ... for the United States to consider actions to compel them to comply."

He accused China of failing to live up to global agreements on trade and intellectual property, echoing past remarks by Trump, who has threatened to impose high, retaliatory tariffs on China. But Tillerson also stressed the "deeply intertwined" nature of the world's two biggest economies.

"We should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-congress-tillerson-china-idUSKBN14V2KZ


----------



## Götterdämmerung



Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Dalit

LOL Bring it on, Americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Place Of Space

Tell this to the missiles on the islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## TaiShang

US is on the way to become a text book example of a rogue state. Mad dogs are supposed to be put to sleep before they hurt anybody.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> Unpresidented



China helps MWAGA: Make White America Great Again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

TaiShang said:


> View attachment 367767
> 
> 
> View attachment 367768
> 
> 
> View attachment 367769


 Good one bro

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dungeness

These stupid geopolitical newbies are making the once great Superpower look more like the supapowa.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## TaiShang

Dungeness said:


> These stupid geopolitical newbies are making the once great Superpower look more like the supapowa.




The US regime in-fighting is becoming more interesting than SCS could ever be.

I suspect they will be able to put up a united front. Obama talked nicely on his way out, but that usual ultra-nationalist rhetoric is something that seasoned power elites in Washington do not buy.

The Washington power elite bark soft, bite hard.

***

*McCain Admits He's the Lout Who Gave FBI False Intel on Trump and Russia
*
Enrico Braun




Caught red-handed

According to a report just published in the Washington Examiner, none other than Sen. John McCain is the source of the most recent report charging that the government of Russia is holding incriminating info on Donald Trump for blackmail use.

McCain admitted in a statement that he passed a 35 page report to the FBI alleging Russia was capable of blackmailing the president-elect and that Donald Trump's team coordinated with the Kremlin to defeat Hillary Clinton:

"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."

Reports surfaced Tuesday night that a foreign contact of McCain's passed along the report detailing alleged compromising information the Russian government has on Trump. That report was published in full by Buzzfeed Tuesday evening, despite being unverified information.

*This admission by McCain should be seen as a glaring confirmation of the fact that this entire mass media campaign directed against the incoming president boils down to a political witchhunt by embittered opponents of Trump's nomination and his announced policies.* McCain is an old school neocon globalist cuck, who it should come as no surprise is the nefarious brain behind this most recent mainstream fake news offensive.

The Arizona senator has done Trump a huge favor however in outting himself. Trump is becoming more and more aware of exactly who his enemies are.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 8888888888888

WOW Trump has enemies inside and outside.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## patero

This is going to be an entertaining four years to say the least, assuming Trump lasts the full term, and he doesn't start world war three and gets everybody blown up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Dalit said:


> LOL Bring it on, Americans.


We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

F-22Raptor said:


> In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine.
> 
> Asked whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China, he said: "We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”


Please understand that Rex Tillerson is trying to get his confirmation as Secretary of State. It's like running for election, you need the Senate votes. So, tell them what they want to hear. That's a good strategy.



F-22Raptor said:


> Tillerson also said Washington needed to reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, but stopped short of Trump's questioning of Washington's long-standing policy on the issue.


This one will get John McCain's vote.



F-22Raptor said:


> "I don’t know of any plans to alter the 'one China' position," Tillerson said.


Now back to reality. Of course, US is not going to alter the "one China" policy. It's just too damn expensive to them.



F-22Raptor said:


> He accused China of failing to live up to global agreements on trade and intellectual property, echoing past remarks by Trump, who has threatened to impose high, retaliatory tariffs on China. But Tillerson also stressed the "deeply intertwined" nature of the world's two biggest economies.


This is to win some more Senate votes for his confirmation.



F-22Raptor said:


> "We should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership," he said.


Again, back to reality. US will do business with China as it is in US' interests. 
You don't fool around with the world's biggest trader and get away unscathed.



patero said:


> This is going to be an entertaining four years to say the least, assuming Trump lasts the full term, and he doesn't start world war three and gets everybody blown up.


The truth of the matter is the big boys don't fight with one another directly, they use proxies.
Whatever it is, China's military strength is now quite potent. US won't take risks with that.
Unfortunately, small countries such as NZ and SEA countries could be sacrificed in the process. And this list may include Australia too if we are not careful.


These are my two-cents. Feel free to disagree and move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DayWalker90

Oh the hypocrisy of the MSM.

Increase in/build up of South China Sea island features/holdings by unilateral action 1980 -> 2012 before the US engineered ‘Pivot to Asia’:

Vietnam: 20+

Philippines: 10+

China: <5

There is a Youtube video of an interview with Wang Yi (Chinese FM) a few years back; China had complained bilaterally to Vietnam and the Philippines about island grabbing and feature building for decades, to which China was mocked in response: ‘You have no land, no airstrips, what are you gonna do about it?’ China’s response, only in light of the pivot to Asia in 2012 to contain China’s security space, is to do what the others have already been doing for decades and do it 10x better and bigger. – This never gets mentioned anywhere and paints the picture that China is the one to unilaterally take action and change the status quo.


The declaration of the ADIZ is a non-issue as many other countries such as Japan who has ones that are multitudes bigger and excessive, and have had them for decades. The Japanese spent millions pouring concrete over uninhabited rocks thousands of kilometres out from its mainland to prevent them from being submerged (akin to what China is doing), to claim additional EEZ, yet no mention of this anywhere in western MSM


China has never opposed the free navigation of shipping in international waters (unlike the US); what China has an issue with is so-called military ‘freedom of navigation’ patrols with the goal of intelligence gathering and simulation attacks near others’ sovereign sea areas. Every single article in the MSM regarding the South China Sea states that trillions of commerce passes through the SCS every year, and China’s actions endanger them. BULLS**T. 80% of the shipping in those areas are either bound for China or are shipping departing Chinese ports – what kind of stupid idea is that? To suggest that China would choke itself to death?


There's so much potential benefit for China and the US to cooperate together in a win-win scenario. It's a shame recent US administrations have been dominated by people who have a containment/zero-sum game mentality - i.e. I don't care if we both lose as long as you lose more than me.


The one sign of hope is that people are starting to wake up and smell the bull from MSM with trust down to an all-time low at 30%. Those who read and believe in the crap spewing from the likes of CNN and BBC are now actually in the minority. Just yesterday president Trump called CNN fake news on live national television broadcasted around the world hahaaaa  - couldn't have said it better myself Mr. President.


Can't post links yet but you can search for 'Trump calls CNN fake news'

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Shotgunner51

Good news, entertaining as always.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dalit

gambit said:


> We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.



That's not bringing it on. Do something about it in a meaningful way instead of making circles round the island.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

And just how exactly is the US gonna stand in our way getting access to our islands in SCS if i may ask?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## lonelyman

gambit said:


> We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.


Sitting duck in scs

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The SC

Here is the most inadequate statement of the article, like if he was talking about Taiwan!!!
" In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dungeness

The SC said:


> Here is the most inadequate statement of the article, like if he was talking about Taiwan!!!
> " In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine."



So who is the Ukraine of SCS?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## oprih

Lmao, a good joke is a great way to start a day. Thanks america!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## The SC

Dungeness said:


> So who is the Ukraine of SCS?


There is no equivalent of Ukraine in the SCS, even the US would have loved to have some islands there, China just took in the international law of the sea concerning inhabitant islands, that they should be habitable to be claimed, so China did just that, otherwise they, according to Western concocted International law of the sea, were just islands that belonged to no one, otherwise some no man's lands..
If China took Taiwan , that can be to some extent comparable to Russia taking back Crimea.. but to compare it to empty Islands claimed for centuries by China does not make sense..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

Götterdämmerung said:


>


What's more hilarious
"The way we’ve got to deal with this is we’ve got to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in Southeast Asia," he said."

Supapowa coward US need others to fight for them .

Uncle Sam has no balls. 



TaiShang said:


> US is on the way to become a text book example of a rogue state. Mad dogs are supposed to be put to sleep before they hurt anybody.


US is a coward against big countries like China. Best for them to stick to middle East.



gambit said:


> We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.


Fire first shot or shut the **** up.
Best you guys continue shooting rag tag taliban.





terranMarine said:


> And just how exactly is the US gonna stand in our way getting access to our islands in SCS if i may ask?


Certainly not tough talking Tillerson lol

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cybernetics

gambit said:


> But China has no issues with cyber espionage ?


During the recent senate hearing on Russian hacking (Jan 5,2017) the US Intelligence Chief James Clapper was questioned on whether China's hacking of 22 million government workers' information should trigger a similar response. The official responded with a no, due to the passive nature of hacks from China. He justified that the Russian hack was active hacking in nature, it had tried to influence the internal politics of the US.

He said China's hacks are within the norms of the intelligence community conduct. He stated "_we *did not retaliate *against an act of espionage anymore than other countries necessarily retaliate against us for *when we conduct espionage*", _to the dismay of senator John Sullvan.(1:47:14)

James Clapper also detailed the cyber security agreement between China and US when asked whether China had curtailed cyber espionage on the United States (1:45:11). The defence chief replied, "They(China) have... *interrupted by senator John Sullivan*...they continue to conduct cyber espionage, they have curtailed as best as we can tell. There has been a reduction, I think the private sector would agree with this, there had been some reduction in their cyber activity. The agreement simply called for a stopping such ex-filtration for commercial gain." (1:46:40)

Espionage is a widely accepted norm in the intelligence community. There is a clear distinction between espionage(information gathering) vs active hacking(influence and disruption).

Reactions: Like Like:
 5


----------



## Dungeness

The SC said:


> There is no equivalent of Ukraine in the SCS, even the US would have loved to have some islands there, China just took loopholes in the international law of the sea concerning inhabitant islands, that they should be habitable to be claimed, so China did just that, otherwise they, according to Western concocted International law of the sea, were just islands that belonged to no one, otherwise some no man's lands..
> If China took Taiwan , that can be to some extent comparable to Russia taking back Crimea.. but to compare it to empty Islands claimed for centuries by China does not make sense..



That is the problem to turn a retired businessman into a half way decent politician, they don't know much about international politics beyond dollars and cents. Now you have a bunch of these people with political knowledge not much better than an average internet dude, poised to take over the most powerful government in the world. 

It's one thing to turn an election into a circus, and it's quite another to run an office that could determine the fate of many.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The SC

Dungeness said:


> That is the problem to turn a retired businessman into a half way decent politician, they don't know much about international politics beyond dollars and cents. Now you have a bunch of these people with political knowledge not much better than an average internet dude, poised to take over the most powerful government in the world.
> 
> It's one thing to turn an election into a circus, and it's quite another to run an office that could determine the fate of many.


He should do like Henry Ford who was almost illiterate but surrounded himself with the best advisors, vice presidents, directors and scientists and hence made a huge success of his company..
First of all Trump should get some good PR advisors and get some wise speak-person..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Cybernetics said:


> During the recent senate hearing...


You missed the point, buddy. But then again, you guys usually misses the point.

The original argument was that China do not like US ships performing passive EM intelligence operations off Chinese coast, even if the those operations were/are outside of Chinese territorial 12 nm waters. Hence, China have been acting aggressively against US naval operations in the SCS.

The argument is absurd in light of Chinese cyber operations against US targets.

I will put it another way...

Embassies are operation centers for espionage. Everyone knows this. Embassies are also considered sovereign properties of the guest countries.

If China is so angry at US Navy operations off Chinese coast, then why not China break down the doors of US embassy and consulate in China and arrest CIA officers ?

Here is the deal...

Ultimately, embassy/consulate grounds are properties of the host country, not the guests. In the interests of diplomatic respect and reasonably friendly relations, the host *ALLOWS* the recognition of embassy/consulate grounds to be sovereign soil of the guests. That allowance is only as good as the guest want to be in the country and the host want the guest to be in the country.

So if China is angry that the US Navy conducts passive intelligence operations off Chinese coast, then China should be livid at CIA operations going on inside US embassy/consulate grounds in China.

But if China respect those embassy/consulate grounds to be US sovereign soil, then China should respect US Navy operations as long as those ops do not trespass that 12 nm territorial waters zone.

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means that area of the sea is exclusive to a country only for economic exploitation, not for that country to exercise absolute authority. Foreign ships can come and go as they please, as long as they do not perform acts that would damage the potential economic wealth of the area. We are not drilling for oil or do we cast nets for fish in China's EEZ.


----------



## Dalit

gambit said:


> Your man-made islands ? Yes, they are sitting (Peking) ducks.



LOL We'll see man. China ain't Iraq.


----------



## faithfulguy

The SC said:


> Here is the most inadequate statement of the article, like if he was talking about Taiwan!!!
> " In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine."



So US will not take any military action in SCS as US didn't do it in regard to Ukrain.


----------



## Pangu

The Americans had better walk the talk, & try to bar us from our islands, but I guess loud words sounds scarier than some carriers sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indika

*China’s Global Times: Are Paper’s Warnings of War With U.S. Legitimate?*
by Mark Hanrahan









*Is China Militarizing in the South China Sea?* 0:36
Donald Trump's administration has yet to take power, but his Cabinet picks are already risking a "large-scale war" with China — at least if one state-run media outlet is to be believed.

During his Senate confirmation hearing Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for Secretary of State, likened China's activities reclaiming land in disputed regions of the South China Sea to Russia's annexation of Ukraine.




A man looks at a newsstand with a copy of the nationalistic Global Times tabloid displayed on a basket in Beijing, China, on April 5, 2016. Ng Han Guan / AP, file
He added: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

The prospect of the U.S. blocking China from accessing the islands it has built in the region drew a predictably furious response from the Global Times, a state-run newspaper and website that frequently publishes nationalistic and bombastic editorials on international affairs.

"Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories," the paper wrote in an editorial Friday.

It added: "Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."


The paper's response was notable, both for its attention-grabbing threats, but also for how strongly it differed in tone from Beijing's official response.

Chinese foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang paraphrased some of Tillerson's other remarks, saying: "China and the U.S. have some differences but also share a lot of common interests and consensus, and we should see the positive dimensions in our relationship rather than let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership."




Chinese construction teams work on Johnson South Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Armed Forces Of The Philippines via The New York Times
So how closely do the provocative editorials in the Global Times reflect the thinking inside the ruling party?

"The Global Times as a newspaper has its own way to respond to issues like this," Dr. Xin Xin, a reader at the Communication and Media Research Institute at the U.K.'s University of Westminster told NBC News.

She added: "Though it is part of a party organ — it follows different rules ... In terms of how it formulates the party's view, they have more flexibility. In order to generate readership it does adopt techniques you would be familiar with in Western newspapers."

The paper's editor-in-chief, former army officer and Chinese Communist Party member Hu Xijin, claims the discrepancy can be attributed to his paper publishing what party officials privately think, but don't express publicly.

In an interview with online news outlet Quartz, Hu said that he regularly spends time with officials from the foreign and security ministries, and that their views aligned with his paper's editorial stance.

Other experts suggest that Global Times' controversial editorials should not be seen as a direct statement of the positions or intentions of the Chinese government, but as communications that reflect, and speak to, certain sections of both China's general population, as well as the ruling party and military.




China's Liaoning aircraft carrier conducts a drill in the South China Sea in December. China Stringer Network / Reuters, file
"Global Times' editorials are used to assuage a nationalist demographic, which is generally young and extremely hawkish, at a time when nationalist passions are inflamed," Dr. Jonathan Sullivan, director of the China Policy Institute at the U.K.'s University of Nottingham told NBC News. "What Tillerson said is effectively calling for a blockade — an action usually interpreted as an act of war. The Chinese government would be inviting trouble from this demographic if it didn't respond."

Experts told NBC News that the Global Times has a "substantial" readership in China and that the paper would not pursue such an extreme editorial line if there was no demand for it.

Estimates suggest that the Chinese-language edition of the paper sells between 1.5 and 2 million copies a day, while its English-language edition sells around 100,000. Its websites reportedly attract around 15 million visitors a day.

The English-language edition of the paper is widely read by foreigners in China and beyond, resulting in its controversial pronouncements generating significant column inches in overseas media compared to other Chinese media outlets.


Some commentators, however, suggest that Western media has an outsized perception of the paper's actual influence.

A 2014 report by a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Western Australia found that only 0.8 percent of over 1,400 respondents in five Chinese cities said they got their information on the South China Sea dispute from the Global Times.

Sullivan predicted that the Global Times will be an increasingly useful tool for China's government in the coming months.

"Beijing is still not sure how to interpret Team Trump, and does not want to respond with actions that could spiral," he said. "It also still holds some hope that Trump's pronouncements are negotiating tactics rather than actual policy. Thus a response within the rhetorical arena is, for now, a useful tactic for China; which is where Global Times serves very well."


----------



## Dungeness

I am glad that China has a news paper like "Global Times", as it is the only influential tabloid that can return the favor if someone tried to play dirty mouth to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Pangu said:


> The Americans had better walk the talk, & try to bar us from our islands, but I guess loud words sounds scarier than some carriers sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS....


Considering China claimed the SCS as private property, when the world sees the US sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS....


----------



## Sanchez

Glad to see the US is under controls by the chosen idiots and maniacs who are more enemies to the US than to others.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.


You want your carrier to be target board for our DF-21D. Well done, boy. Come nearer

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shadows888

gambit said:


> Considering China claimed the SCS as private property, when the world sees the US sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS....



lmao, why don't you try to do something about them islands? sailing some ships don't matter in the grand scheme of geopolitics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NakedLunch

Bullshit. South China Sea belongs to China up to wherever they want. What the Americans should explain is why the hell they think they can sail around the world telling everyone who owns what? They think they own the whole world or what? SCS belongs to China and not just that , China will get full access to the Indian Ocean as well. All of China's sea lanes must and will be protected. It's not just the West that is entitled to economic or strategic security. The Western-centric world must come to an end. Enough of this crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

USN ships are being routinely shadowed by PLAN ships the moment they enter the South China Sea, which means GPS coordinates are constantly being sent back to PLARF for ASBM targeting.


> Warships from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) have begun to routinely shadow U.S. Navy ships through much of the region.
> 
> U.S. commanders said Wednesday Chinese warships closely followed the powerful USS John C. Stennis carrier strike group from nearly the minute it entered the disputed South China Sea on a regular patrol in early March.
> 
> “We did see PLAN ships quite routinely throughout the South China Sea. In fact, we were in constant visual contact with at least one PLAN ship at any one time, 24/7,” said Rear Adm. Marcus Hitchcock, commander of the Stennis strike group.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/15/china-united-states-warships-asia/85928138/

GF-4 satellite has a continuous, uninterrupted coverage of the South China Sea from geosynchronous orbit.

http://www.popsci.com/gaofen-4-worl...ontinues-chinas-great-leap-forward-into-space

Only ignorant people with no critical thinking skills are impressed with the pointless freedom of navigation exercises in the region. In reality, these USN ships are being put in harm's way. The fact that China recently seized an underwater drone is further evidence that USN ships are being tracked. How did they seize the drone if they didn't know the location in the first place?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Only ignorant people with no critical thinking skills are impressed with the pointless freedom of navigation exercises in the region. In reality, these USN ships are being put in harm's way.


Only ignorant people with no critical thinking skills are impressed by what the PLAN is doing in the SCS in trying to enforce a pointless territorial seizure plan that have no international recognition. In reality, these PLAN ships are being put in harm's way.


----------



## terranMarine

gambit said:


> Only ignorant people with no critical thinking skills are impressed by what the PLAN is doing in the SCS in trying to enforce a pointless territorial seizure plan that have no international recognition. In reality, these PLAN ships are being put in harm's way.



Where have we heard that one before?  Oh right international community condemns China's SCS land reclamation, international community siding with PH on the questionable tribunal case, international community doesn't recognize China's enforced ADIZ, international community telling China to accept the verdict of the questionable court. yada yada yada. Old man it's only pointless to you because US can't do anything about China's actions and activities for safeguarding our territories. Now be a man and condemn your sugar daddy for robbing Native American lands, Aussie lands. Don't forget to slam your daddy for wrecking your Native homeland for 2 decades as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

terranMarine said:


> Old man it's only pointless to you because US can't do anything about China's actions and activities for safeguarding our territories.


But we are doing something about it -- we are traversing the SCS at our convenience. Not yours.


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> But we are doing something about it -- we are traversing the SCS at our convenience. Not yours.



All you so-called sail up and down are in EEZ and actually accompanied by Chinese warship and pointed by Chinese ASBMs and carefully avoiding any terrorital water of China's newly made islands, so it seems not so free to me, looks like the only purpose of such sail up and down is burn fuel and fool the idiots within the US to believe as if the US is doing something

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> All you so-called sail up and down are in EEZ and actually accompanied by Chinese warship and pointed by Chinese ASBMs and carefully avoiding any terrorital water of China's newly made islands, so it seems not so free to me, looks like the only purpose of such sail up and down is burn fuel and fool the idiots within the US to believe as if the US is doing something


What you built on those islands, of course we will respect their boundaries as agreed by international norms, but until/unless China actually *DO* something to our ships, essentially, it is China who is impotent.


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> What you built on those islands, of course we will respect their boundaries as agreed by international norms, but until/unless China actually *DO* something to our ships, essentially, it is China who is impotent.



Since your ships dont dare to enter China terrorital waters around these newly built islands, so all your navy are just a bunch of law-abiding chickens, why we need to do anything about them as long as they are very law-abidding and actually they tamely admitting China's indisputable soveign there through their actions?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> Since your ships dont dare to enter China terrorital waters around these newly built islands, so all your navy are just a bunch of law-abiding chickens, why we need to do anything about them as long as they are very law-abidding and actually they tamely admitting China's indisputable soveign there through their actions?


But we are not law abiding citizens. You claimed the entirety of the SCS as private property, did you not ? But since we are trespassing at our convenience -- shoot.


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> But we are not law abiding citizens. You claimed the entirety of the SCS as private property, did you not ? But since we are trespassing at our convenience -- shoot.



We claim it as our EEZ and the islands and its nearby waters as our terrorital waters, please check the official stands on this.

Althrough I think we are open to claim the entire sea as our terrorital waters one day in the not so far future

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

terranMarine said:


> Where have we heard that one before?  Oh right international community condemns China's SCS land reclamation, international community siding with PH on the questionable tribunal case, international community doesn't recognize China's enforced ADIZ, international community telling China to accept the verdict of the questionable court. yada yada yada. Old man it's only pointless to you because US can't do anything about China's actions and activities for safeguarding our territories. Now be a man and condemn your sugar daddy for robbing Native American lands, Aussie lands. Don't forget to slam your daddy for wrecking your Native homeland for 2 decades as well.


US will draw another red line lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CBU-105

Jlaw said:


> US will draw another red line lol


watch out for the new guy, once bitten, twice... tremendous retribution


----------



## Jlaw

CBU-105 said:


> watch out for the new guy, once bitten, twice... tremendous retribution


More talking . He can't even bully Mexico to pay for the wall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CBU-105

Jlaw said:


> More talking . He can't even bulky Mexico to pay for the wall.


I don't think he's looking to get in a shooting war with China but underestimate Trump at your own peril.


----------



## terranMarine

CBU-105 said:


> I don't think he's looking to get in a shooting war with China but underestimate Trump at your own peril.



what peril? I'm actually more worried about India than i am of Trump. There are Indians here advocating sending a-bombs to Beijing with missile, to be honest with you i'm so "scared" 

https://defence.pk/threads/chinas-294-megatons-of-thermonuclear-deterrence.107079/page-30

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## In4ser

If Rex Tillerson wants to block the S. China Sea from PLAN, China should start promoting patriotic cruises to man-made islands. It's going to look ridiculous if the 7th Fleet starts harassing Passenger Ships with Destroyers and Hornets. Moreover, short from hostile action like ramming and boarding ships, they won't be able to China from assert its claim with hundreds of Chinese back and forth from it without looking like the Villain. Especially since the US's pretext is "protecting international waters" and so US would be violating Freedom of Navigation in doing so.


----------



## eldamar

like someone already said, the way to block chinese access is to declare war on china

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

Foreign
3 MINS AGO BY AGENCIES







BEIJING: China will “take off the gloves” and take strong action if US President-elect Donald Trump continues to provoke Beijing over Taiwan once he assumes office, two leading state-run newspapers said on Monday.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on Friday, Trump said the “One China” policy was up for negotiation. China’s foreign ministry, in response, said, “One China” was the foundation of China-US ties and was non-negotiable.

Trump broke with decades of precedent last month by taking a congratulatory telephone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, angering Beijing, which sees Taiwan as part of China.

“If Trump is determined to use this gambit in taking office, a period of fierce, damaging interactions will be unavoidable, as Beijing will have no choice but to take off the gloves,” the English-language China Daily said.

The Global Times, an influential state-run tabloid, echoed the China Daily, saying Beijing would take “strong countermeasures” against Trump’s attempt to “impair” the “One China” principle.

“The Chinese mainland will be prompted to speed up Taiwan reunification and mercilessly combat those who advocate Taiwan’s independence,” the paper said in an editorial.

The Trump transition team did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment on the Chinese articles. The Republican president-elect is sworn in on Friday.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the United States was clearly aware of China’s position on “One China.”

“Any person should understand that in this world there are certain things that cannot be traded or bought and sold,” she told a daily news briefing.

“The One-China principle is the precondition and political basis for any country having relations with China.”

Hua added, “If anyone attempts to damage the One China principle or if they are under the illusion they can use this as a bargaining chip, they will be opposed by the Chinese government and people.

“In the end, it will be like lifting a rock to drop it on one’s own feet,” she said, without elaborating.

The administration of President Barack Obama has repeatedly reinforced the US commitment to the one China policy since Trump’s call with the Taiwanese leader.

A senior Obama administration official said on Monday the use of state media rather than a more formal statement or a speech indicated the Chinese want Trump to know they are not “spoiling for a fight, but are trying to warn him against provoking one that would end badly for everyone.”

The situation may be more volatile than the president-elect realises, the official said Monday on the condition of anonymity to avoid publicly criticising Trump’s remarks. Chinese president Xi Jinping is concentrating more power in his own hands, including command of the military, and increasingly invokes nationalism as China tries to shift toward a domestic consumption-based economy from an export-driven one, the official said.

*TAIWAN MAY BE “SACRIFICED”*

The Global Times said Trump’s endorsement of Taiwan was merely a ploy to further his administration’s short-term interests, adding: “Taiwan may be sacrificed as a result of this despicable strategy.”

“If you do not beat them until they are bloody and bruised, then they will not retreat,” Yang Yizhou, deputy head of China’s government-run All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots, told an academic meeting on cross-straits relations in Beijing on Saturday.

Taiwan independence must “pay a cost” for every step forward taken, “we must use bloodstained facts to show them that the road is blocked,” Yang said, according to a Monday report on the meeting by the official People’s Daily Overseas Edition.

The United States, which switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, has acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only “One China” and that Taiwan is part of it.

The China Daily said Beijing’s relatively measured response to Trump’s comments in the Wall Street Journal “can only come from a genuine, sincere wish that the less-than-desirable, yet by-and-large manageable, big picture of China-US relations will not be derailed before Trump even enters office”.

But China should not count on the assumption that Trump’s Taiwan moves are “a pre-inauguration bluff, and instead be prepared for him to continue backing his bet”.

“It may be costly. But it will prove a worthy price to pay to make the next US president aware of the special sensitivity, and serious consequences of his Taiwan game,” said the national daily.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/201...-trump-continues-on-taiwan-state-media-warns/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

They shouldn't wait for Trump they should act now especially on Taiwan


----------



## gambit

Correct. China is going to throw a seriously harsh hissy fit over Taiwan.


----------



## Path-Finder

A top advisor of Donald Trump’s transition team, on a visit to China, has revealed that the U.S. President-elect had declined the Dalai Lama’s request for a meeting, signalling the new administration’s openness to a policy review on Tibet.

Chinese website _mingpao.com_ is reporting that in an interview with China Central Television (CCTV), Michael Pillsbury said that the Dalai Lama had once expressed his wish to meet Mr. Trump, but this was turned down. However, Mr. Pillsbury, who was in China last week to participate in the Pangoal Think Tank forum, insisted that he was not a representative of the Trump administration in waiting.

Any shift in U.S. position on the Dalai Lama is bound to have a downstream impact on India, which hosts the Tibetan leader in exile. Last month the Chinese foreign ministry expressed its “strong opposition” to the Dalai Lama’s meeting with President Pranab Mukherjee at a Rashtrapati Bhavan function.

In an article in _The National Interest_, which was published on the eve of his arrival at the forum, Mr. Pillsbury said that one of China’s longstanding demands is a ban on White House meetings with the Dalai Lama.

“As President, (Mr.) Trump could decline to meet with the Dalai Lama. He could also imitate his predecessor by merely ‘privately’ meeting with the Dalai Lama and having him leave the White House through the back door amidst piles of trash, then release a photo of the embarrassing scene, as (Mr.) Obama did.”

He added, “The Dalai Lama has already held a press conference at which he stated his desire to come to Washington to meet President Trump. The Chinese have specifically asked that this visit by the Tibetan leader not take place. The United States’ approach to the Dalai Lama — and Tibet as a whole — is one of several sources of Chinese anxiety.”

Mr. Pillsbury pointed out that Mr. Trump’s position on the status of Arunachal Pradesh, and arms sales to India, would also be of major concern to China.

“China claims Arunachal Pradesh, a large province of north-eastern India. Beijing calls it South Tibet. Indians have been engaged recently in a military build-up to protect this province. They have asked other countries to support their claim to the territory. So far, the United States has not taken a position, despite subtle advances from Indian Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi.”

He added, “Interestingly, (Mr.) Modi’s election platform in 2014 — as (Mr.) Trump’s new chief of strategy, Steve Bannon, pointed out at the time — was part of a rising global populist movement. The Indian media has suggested that (Mr.) Modi seeks an early meeting with President Trump. The topics of the Chinese territorial claim and the Chinese military build-up against India in the past decade would clearly be on (Mr.) Modi’s agenda. Whether President Trump supports India’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh and continues U.S. arms sales to India already requested by (Mr.) Modi, now America’s largest customer of weapons, is another Chinese worry about the coming year.”

U.S. Ambassador to India Richard Verma had visited Arunachal Pradesh on October 21 to attend a three-day local festival in Tawang, drawing strong criticism from China.The website _mingpao.com_ underscored that during his stay in China, Mr. Pillsbury also disclosed that India wants the Trump administration to acknowledge South Tibet — the Chinese name for Arunachal Pradesh —as part of Indian territory.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...pt-on-Tibet/article17049352.ece?homepage=true


----------



## Path-Finder

what actual clout does Dalai lama in exile hold?


----------



## eldamar

Path-Finder said:


> what actual clout does Dalai lama in exile hold?



In reality, none- he's jsut a posterboy for the US to maintain political instability in Tibet and he survives on the CIA's payroll

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

eldarlmari said:


> In reality, none- he's jsut a posterboy for the US to maintain political instability in Tibet and he survives on the CIA's payroll


I though the same once the Dalai lama passes away then what will india and US have to dangle at China with!


----------



## faithfulguy

Trump will not pander to the Hollywood liberals, who are tight with Tibet. Trump most likely will sell weapon to Taiwan or raise up SCS issues and ignore the liberal pet project "Tibet"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

China is strangling the amount of nations willing to allow for the Dalai Lama to visit. 

I can't find the news I read this morning about how Mongolia apologized and agreed to not invite the Dalai again after crowds who recognize him as a spiritual leader came to see him.


----------



## neem456

Path-Finder said:


> I though the same once the Dalai lama passes away then what will india and US have to dangle at China with!


Dalai lama has already appointed his successor.
So no matter when he passes away, his legacy will continue forever.


----------



## Path-Finder

neem456 said:


> Dalai lama has already appointed his successor.
> So no matter when he passes away, his legacy will continue forever.


is his successor from Tibet? Will he live in India as well?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

neem456 said:


> Dalai lama has already appointed his successor.
> So no matter when he passes away, his legacy will continue forever.


This is a false statement.
Please support your statements by providing some reputable links.


----------



## eldamar

eldarlmari said:


> In reality, none- he's jsut a posterboy for the US to maintain political instability in Tibet and he survives on the CIA's payroll



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program

said to be discontinued- but we will never know.

*Covert United States involvement in regime change*
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1949–1953 Albania
1951–56 Tibet
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1956–57 Syria crisis
1960 Congo coup d'état
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Bolivian coup d'état
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1966 Ghana coup d'état
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1973 Chilean coup d'état
1980 Turkish coup d'état
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
2001 Afghanistan
2011 Libyan civil war
2011–present Syria


----------



## 8888888888888

Look like some kind of deal was made privately.


----------



## Anaita_S

8888888888888 said:


> Look like some kind of deal was made privately.


Just wondering what all Trump is gonna do!


----------



## ahojunk

Little for US to gain from a trade war
By Ed Zhang (Chinadaily.com.cn) 14:47, January 21, 2017

Will there be a trade war between the world's two largest trading powers? Anxiety is spreading among business people around the world as the Trump administration takes office in the United States, with many saying a showdown with China is unavoidable and imminent.

In his inauguration speech on Friday, Donald Trump signaled no retreat from his populist agenda on trade, immigration, and on scaling back commitments overseas.

"Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs," he said.

If he means what he says, then how many regular business ties will be affected? No one can tell. However, Chinese business people can use this moment to reflect on what they have to lose and gain from a trade war, if one does materialize.

First, what they will lose? If there is a hike in tariffs across the board, then Chinese companies will lose a lot of orders for the same goods they have been shipping to the US market for the last decade.

What will they gain? Some of these goods are made from imported materials, like iron ore, and actually don't sell for much of a profit. And environmentally, they may even produce a negative value. Officials with China's National Development and Reform Commission may thank the Trump administration if it can help China offload obsolete, unsustainable industrial capacity quicker.

Chinese business executives, at the same time, may use the opportunity to apply for more tax breaks and preferential policies and turn to producing more competitive products. With the right policy incentives, China's ample savings can be used for a new round of industrial investment.

Now is a good time for China to upgrade its industry – with some 7 million college graduates (more than half of its total new labor) joining its labor market each year.

The rise in labor costs, at the same time, no longer permits the kind of production widespread in China in a decade ago.

Second, what will be the reaction? No war can be one-sided. The Chinese government will adopt counter-measures, and local companies will find more import substitution opportunities in the selected industries.

And if a real war is waged alongside a trade war, that will only create more defense orders for local companies.

Third, what cost will the war-maker will bear? Every war comes with a cost. And trade wars backfire easily, especially for a more advanced economy. If heavy protection is required for US manufacturers to make the same goods as can be made equally well in China or in Mexico, then it will hurt, rather than benefit, the competitiveness of the US economy.

A temporary protection may be needed, admittedly, for workers to swap jobs and companies to turn out new products. But long term, it is a dose of poison for entrepreneurship.

In the future world market, US companies cannot compete by making the things that can be made in many developing countries. Even Chinese companies can't afford to think that way, now that its wages are above some other Asian countries.

In what areas the US economy will enjoy future competitiveness is for US leaders to point out.

Fourth, the war-maker will inevitable make a loss: A trade war will also backfire because it will turn away potential customers in a country with a population of 1.3 billion. Many international brands have benefited from their sales to China. It would be foolish to deny US brands the opportunity to do the same.

Last, what is the purpose of a trade war anyway? If it is for China to buy more Made-in-the-US products, then why must anyone, especially anyone calling himself a businessperson, engage in a trade war? What real business-people should do is negotiate to strike the best deal they can.

Indeed, since Trump was quoted as having said everything is negotiable, what's the point of a trade war?


********


_Withdrew from TPP - yes.
Giving the fossil fuel industry (Big Oil) a big boost - yes.
Building a border wall - yes. (BTW, China can building it quickly, she has lots of heavy equipment and automation).
Extreme vetting of refugees and migrants from seven countries - yes (but not Saudi Arabia).
Buildup of military - yes, but where is the money coming from?
Lifting sanctions on Russia - maybe.
...
Trade war with Mexico or Canada - yes. Easy to dismantle NAFTA, both are "small" countries.
Trade war with Germany or France - maybe. (This is getting difficult with a medium size power).
Trade war with China - nah, won't happen.

._


----------



## onebyone

*Interview: Kissinger warns of dire consequences if China, US don't act together*

The US and China need to see themselves as partners, not enemies, veteran US diplomat Henry Kissinger told CGTN in an exclusive interview, adding that despite its combative rhetoric the new Trump administration will eventually stick to past US policy on China.

“I think it is essential for China and the United States to think of each other as potential partners, not as potential adversaries and to solve their disputes on the basis of long-term cooperation,” the former US secretary of state said.

“If we do not do this, the whole world will be divided and other countries will be tempted to take advantage of that situation.”






_Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger waves after receiving an award during a ceremony at the Pentagon honoring his diplomatic career May 9, 2016 in Washington, DC. /CFP Photo_

The future of US-China relations has been thrown into confusion following comments by Trump that China was a currency manipulator and that he would impose massive trade tariffs on Beijing. He has also appeared to question the long-standing one-China policy, which sees Taiwan as part of China.

Kissinger, who amassed massive knowledge about China during his diplomatic career, including as secretary of state under US President Richard Nixon, warned that past principles should be respected.

“The United States and the Chinese leaders developed a formulation on the one-China principle that should be the guidance today… I believe we will come to a point in which it is understood that the early principles of the US-China relationship have to be maintained,” he said.





_Henry Kissinger. /CFP Photo_

“I think in the end, President Trump will also follow comparable principles” to previous administrations, Kissinger noted, adding “I have every hope that the objectives that I described will find their way into the ultimate American policy.”

Trump met with the 93-year-old diplomat, who has acted as foreign policy adviser for a number of US administrations, shortly after the election last November. Media reports said their conversation covered Russia, Iran and the European Union, as well as China.

At the same time, Kissinger was critical of some of Trump's policies during the election campaign, including a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US, which was partly put in place with Trump’s recent executive order barring residents of seven majority Muslim countries from entering the US.

Widely seen as a trailblazer for Sino-American ties, Kissinger paid a secret visit to China in 1971, paving the way for the establishment of US-China formal diplomatic ties in 1979.

A regular visitor to China, Kissinger was last in Beijing in December when he met with President Xi Jinping.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d516a4e31456a4d/share_p.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

*Kissinger sticks to China-US decade-long principles in maintaining sound ties*


CGTN
Published on Feb 2, 2017

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Thursday shared his insights on China-US bilateral trade relations under the Trump administration with CGTN reporter Wang Guan. The 93-year-old veteran diplomat said he believed President Trump will in the end follow comparable principles to previous administrations in the end.


----------



## TaiShang

*Can China take the opportunity when Trump messes around with US allies? *

By Shi Yinhong Source: Global Times Published: 2017/2/7 

US Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrapped up his first foreign visit to Japan and South Korea on Saturday. During his stay in South Korea, he and his South Korean counterpart Han Min-koo signed an agreement to complete the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system within this year. In Japan, Mattis reaffirmed that Article 5 of the US-Japan Security Treaty applied to the Diaoyu Islands.

Mattis' visit has, to a certain degree, relieved the anxiety and unease of Japan and South Korea triggered by the unpredictability of the new US president, though their concerns toward the US still remain. Before Donald Trump was elected, *he signaled that he would ask the two Asian allies of the US to pay more for deploying US troops there. *He has taken a step back from the pledge, turning his rhetoric into behind-the-scenes negotiations. Ostensibly, the Trump administration is stressing its commitment to the US alliances with Japan and South Korea. *However, it cannot completely wipe out the two Asian countries' worries.*

The US' future relations with Japan and South Korea depend on whether the Trump administration will ask for more money from the two countries, or demand them to shoulder more responsibilities in their own national security. The US relations with the two countries in the Trump era will not be as close as those under Barack Obama. *Nevertheless, if Washington requests Tokyo and Seoul to make greater financial or defense contribution, the two countries would have no alternative but to comply.* In this case, the US alliances with Japan and South Korea will be strengthened. In particular, taking on more defense responsibilities is playing into the hands of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Compared with Obama, Trump has been alienating US' allies, be it in Europe or in East Asia. But, he may build stronger alliance with countries in East Asia and the West Pacific rather than with European countries.

*It is expected that Trump may shrink the US strategic presence in the West Pacific, which can help reduce tensions in this region.** However, this will push the US to concentrate its forces in places such as East Asia, a region in which the US is determined to expand its strategic influence with air-missile deployment.* Meanwhile, the US will toughen its stance on North Korea. In the long run, the conflict between China and the US will intensify.

During his visit to Japan and South Korea, Mattis was critical of China's actions in the South China Sea, but said that the South China Sea disputes should be solved by diplomacy. But this doesn't mean a calm in the waters since the US has no effective tools to rival China for the time being. It takes some time to observe and discern the US strategy toward the South China Sea disputes.

As Article 5 of the US-Japan Security Treaty requires the US to defend territories under Japanese administration, Mattis' reaffirmation of the article's application to the Diaoyu Islands means that the US and Japan are decidedly bound to oppose China militarily.

China needs to make some preparations for the Trump administration's possible strategic adjustment. It needs to be aware of not having strategic overdraft in the West-Pacific region and also improve its relations with neighboring countries. *Under his tenure, Trump will handle US ties with its allies poorly. But China may miss the opportunity thereby created if it couldn't manage its relations with the neighboring countries well.*

_The author is director of the Center for American Studies at Renmin University of China. _

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

_At the end of all the hoopla, the Big 2 always have avenues to discuss their mutual interests._

========
*Xi-Trump phone talk a good first step in fostering China-U.S. dialogue*
(Xinhua) 09:41, February 11, 2017

The phone talk held by Chinese President Xi Jinping with his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump is a good first step in fostering the China-U.S. dialogue and provides a platform for further cooperation, U.S. experts said Friday.

"The phone call was a good first step...for fostering dialogue between Presidents Trump and Xi," Dan Mahaffee, an analyst at the Center for the Study of Congress and the Presidency, told Xinhua in an interview.

Trump and Xi held a lengthy and "extremely cordial" phone conversation Thursday night on numerous topics, during which they agreed that *the two sides will engage in discussions on various issues of mutual interest*.

"The fact that it was cordial, and the discussion' s tenor reflects that both leaders understand that while differences remain, they need to be addressed through dialogue and diplomacy," Mahaffee said.

Douglas Paal, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace, told Xinhua that the call "was very important to provide a foundation of stability in the U.S.-China relations as well as a platform for further wide-ranging cooperation and the management of emerging tensions."

The call was the first between the leaders of the top two economies in the world since Trump's inauguration in late January. Before Thursday, Trump had already talked on the phone with about 20 foreign leaders except Xi, fueling concerns that the absence of contact between the two leaders could lead to renewed tensions in the China-U.S. ties.

The Xi-Trump phone conversation was important to break the ice in the China-U.S. ties, Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, told Xinhua in an interview.

"*The call helped to open the door on high-level consultation, which is good for both countries,*" West said.

"It is important that China and the U.S. remain in close contact. They are the two leading nations in the world and it is crucial that there are open communications so there are no misunderstandings or (something) that could spiral out of control," he added.

The experts agreed that *Trump's affirmation of the one-China policy, the bedrock of theChina-U.S. ties, paved the way for the phone call*, which probably came after Trump and advisers concluded that the costs of not doing so could bring greater costs than benefits.

Trump had previously aggravated China by taking a call from Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen after winning the U.S. presidency last November and telling the U.S. media in December that the one-China policy was open for negotiation.

"The fact that Trump now embraces the one-China policy will allow the relationship to unfold more naturally," West said, citing that resolving the issue was a prerequisite for addressing every other issue.

If Trump continues to question the one China policy, there would be no basis for President Xi to interact with him, said Paal, a former director of the American Institute in Taiwan.

Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Xinhua that Trump probably was convinced by his top aides that it was necessary to make the one-China statement "in order to move forward with the U.S.-China relationship in other areas."

"The costs of not adhering to the one China policy were very high," Glaser said, though adding that this should not be seen as Trump making a concession.

Media reports revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had said in written answers to questions after his Senate nomination hearing that the U.S. should adhere to the one-China policy.

As China and the U.S. start negotiations to address their frictions and advance cooperation on various issues of mutual interest, there is a broad range of issues that demand early attention, the experts said.

They include the nuclear program of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, U.S. trade deficit with China, mutual investments and boosting American exports, Paal said.

Mahaffee said at the top of the agenda of the China-U.S. talks should be the issues of maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas, cyber security, as well as trade, investment and currency.

"I think there can be discussions aimed at avoiding miscalculation between the nations in the sea, air, space and cyber domains, and I also think that agreements on trade and investment could be reached that would make it easier for companies from either country to invest in the other," he said.


----------



## ahojunk

Interactions between Chinese, U.S. leaders "very positive" signs of ties
(Xinhua) 09:32, February 12, 2017

The recent interactions between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly their latest phone conversation, are very positive signs of the potential to develop a new type of bilateral relations, a German expert said Friday.

"President Trump's letter and subsequent phone call with President Xi Jinping are very positive signs that he indeed wants to develop a constructive relationship with China," Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Germany-based think tank Schiller Institute, said in an exclusive interview with Xinhua.

The expert said she was confident that the positive signs would help realize China's proposal to build a new type of major-country relationship featuring non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation.

"I think we are at the beginning of a completely new set of relations among major nations of the world. Geopolitics will soon be a matter of the past," Zepp-LaRouche said, responding to a question about the prospect of China-U.S. ties in the long run.

Reviewing the current dynamics in major-power relationship, Zepp-LaRouche believed that a new platform of international relations can be reached, based on win-win cooperation.

"This has the potential for a new era of mankind, the realization of President Xi's vision" of building a community of shared future for humanity, she said. "A new paradigm, something I would call the adulthood of civilization, is within reach."

In their phone conversation Friday, the first since Trump took office in January, Xi and Trump pledged to boost win-win cooperation in such areas as economy, trade, investment and international affairs, and develop a constructive China-U.S. relationship.

********

_This is a very good development. 
The G2 may not like each other but need to get along with each other.
There is no other choice for the rest of the world._
.


----------



## MultaniGuy

*Turnbull: Potential for China to join TPP after US exit*

*Australian PM opens door to Beijing amid efforts to recast Trans-Pacific Partnership without the United States.*

Australia and New Zealand have said they hope to salvage the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by encouraging China and other Asian countries to sign up, after President Donald Trump formally pulled the US out of the huge trade deal.

The agreement, the biggest trade deal in history, was signed in 2015 by 12 countries, which together account for 40 percent of the global economy.


*TPP SIGNATORIES*

Australia, Vietnam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Brunei, _United States (withdrawn)_

Malcolm Turnbull, Australia's prime minister, said on Tuesday his government was in "active discussions" with other signatories - including Japan, New Zealand and Singapore - on how to salvage the agreement.

"It is possible that US policy could change over time on this, as it has done on other trade deals," Turnbull told reporters in Canberra, adding that the nominee for US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other Republicans supported the TPP.

"There is also the opportunity for the TPP to proceed without the United States," he added. "Certainly there is the potential for China to join the TPP."

The agreement, which has not yet gone into effect, was seen as a counter to China's rising economic influence. 

OPINION: If TPP fails, China takes advantage

Steven Ciobo, Australian trade minister, said Australia, Canada, Mexico and others had canvassed for a pact without the US at a World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Davos.

"There would be scope for China if we were able to reformulate it to be a TPP 12 minus one, for countries like Indonesia or China or indeed other countries to consider joining," Ciobo told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"This is very much a live option and we are pursuing it - it will be the focus of conversations for some time to come."

INSIDE STORY: Why is Donald Trump against the TPP deal? (24:16)


Bill English, New Zealand's prime minister, expressed similar views, saying that China's government "hasn't been slow to spot the opportunity" to cast itself as a free trade supporter.

There was a willingness towards "making an effort to find out what we can do with TPP, rather than just dropping it and waiting and hoping to get a call [from Washington] about bilateral agreements sometime", he told reporters in Wellington.

Trump declared on Monday he had "terminated" TPP in line with election pledges to cancel the "job killer" pact.

The US president said he would pursue bilateral deals with TPP signatories to secure terms more favourable to Washington.

But English said a US-New Zealand pact would be challenging, given Trump's insistence that his government would dictate terms.

COUNTING THE COST: China - The world's new champion of free trade? (24:34)


China has long been noncommittal on the idea of joining the TPP, choosing to back an alternative trade pact.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a more modest deal, calls for lower and more limited regulatory standards.

It includes the 10 members of the Southeast Asian grouping ASEAN plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, but notably excludes the US.

At a regular press briefing on Tuesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying remained coy about Beijing joining the TPP, simply noting that China supports "open, transparent, and win-win" trade pacts.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/turnbull-potential-china-join-tpp-exit-170124112444155.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Japan will oppose China entry. In the first place, this stupid TPP are organised as anti-China organisation by Abe and the now disposed "Obama".

China will rewrite another trade organisation treaty and officially banned Japan from joining. We want to see our 11 trillion economy is more attractive to rest or Japan 4.6 Trillion economy?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AndrewJin

This man is crazily obessesed with a dead crap.
Does he still want to sell beef and hay to China?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

TPP is set up in the first place with the inclusion of Chinese in mind. The exclusion of China in the drafting process is simply so the US can control the treaty's drafting process. Here is an extremely insightful video that anyone who is interested in this issue should watch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

I think China has a more comprehensive and less antagonistic vision of regional integration than the US regime's TPP which was hijacked by Washington and turned into a smoking (plastic) gun directed at China.

Eventually, the US got beaten in this geopolitical duel. No need to be on the losing side. Australia is better promote China-led FTAAP.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

terranMarine said:


> Don't know why there are still people assuming China would be filling the role US left vacant. TPP is dead from the very beginning only those brainless people kept on believing it's the silver bullet to put China down
> Trump did the right thing by announcing the death certificate on his first day when he assumed office. Does Turnbull need another yelling, only this time from Xi


Trump as US president is the correct choice for the progress of the whole world. Hillary as US president will be disaster for the whole world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Beast said:


> Trump as US president is the correct choice for the progress of the whole world. Hillary as US president will be disaster for the whole world.



As Trump would put it, Hillary is a *total disaster* which is why his latest lash out reflects the inheritance of the mess created by previous administrations. Even though many people initially thought Obama inherited the Bush legacies, his aid Hillary also made a mess herself. Not surprising Trump would come out as the last man standing while the rest of the candidates succumbed.

P.S. the overly active mod here needs to stop editing silly things and start planning his itinerary for his european trip

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahojunk

*China, U.S. agree to work for greater development of relations*
2017-02-18 08:29 | Xinhua | _Editor: Wang Fan_

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his U.S. counterpart Rex Tillerson agreed Friday that the two countries should work together for greater development of bilateral relations during the term of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Wang and Tillerson met on the sidelines of the foreign ministers meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20) to exchange views on bilateral ties and issues of mutual concerns. The meeting is the first of its kind since Tillerson assumed office.

Wang said the recent telephone conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Trump had been of great significance.

During the conversation, Wang said the U.S. side had made it clear that it would continue to honor the one-China policy and the two leaders agreed that China and the United States could be great partners and should promote greater development of their bilateral relationship from a new starting point.

This key consensus has safeguarded the political basis of Sino-U.S. relations, charted the course of the relationship in the new era, and created the necessary pre-conditions for the two nations to engage in strategic cooperation on bilateral, regional, and global issues, Wang noted.

Wang said that China and the United States, both shouldering the responsibilities of securing world stability and enhancing global prosperity, had more common interests than disputes.

China is ready to work with the U.S. side to implement the consensus reached between President Xi and President Trump, and move bilateral relationship forward in the direction that features no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, Wang said.

He said the two sides should increase communication, enhance trust, handle differences properly, and deepen cooperation in a bid to ensure greater development of bilateral relations during Trump's presidency, bring tangible interests to the two countries' peoples, and make more contributions to world peace and prosperity.

For his part, Tillerson reiterated the U.S. stance to abide by the one-China policy, which carries specific significance, not only to the bilateral relationship, but also to regional stability and development.

The U.S. secretary of state said the U.S. side looked forward to working with China to conduct high-level exchanges, facilitate understanding, and maintain, improve and consolidate mutual dialogue and cooperation mechanisms in all fields.

Tillerson also expressed the U.S. side's hope for strengthened cooperation with China in areas such as economy, finance and security and pushing for greater development of bilateral ties.

Wang and Tillerson also exchanged views over the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula.


********

_Looks like a friendly meeting between Wang and Tillerson.
Good for rest of the world._
.


----------



## phancong

Best way to narrow trade deficit with China is to find ways to export more US products to serve 1.3 billion Chinese and not by trade war with China that is a lose-lose scenario for both country.


----------



## F-22Raptor

As China flexes its military muscle in the South China Sea, the U.S. is responding with its own show of force that includes ships, fighter jets and submarines, as well as the test launch of nuclear-capable missiles.

According to internal military reports reviewed by NBC News, almost every week brings another display of U.S. hardware in the waters off China, in a response that has only grown more aggressive since the inauguration of President Trump.

A U.S. Navy carrier battle group centered on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson is now moving through the South China Sea, the stretch of Pacific bounded by China, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Three attack submarines, the USS Alexandria, USS Chicago and USS Louisville, have deployed in the Western Pacific in the past month, and at least one has entered the South China Sea.

Also in February, the U.S. sent a dozen F-22 Raptor stealth fighters to Tindal AB in northern Australia, the closest Australian military airbase to China, for coalition training and exercises. It's the first deployment of that many F-22s in the Pacific.

And if that didn't get the attention of the Chinese government, the U.S. just tested four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles during a nuclear war exercise, sending the simulated weapons 4,200 miles from the coast of California into the mid-Pacific. It's the first time in three years the U.S. has conducted tests in the Pacific, and the first four-missile salvo since the end of the Cold War.

The U.S. effort is deliberately broad and overt, according to Pentagon officials, and is meant to be obvious to the Chinese government.

Mark Lippert, the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and deputy national security advisor during the Obama administration, said America is trying to send a message about freedom of navigation, "free and open commerce and [the] rule of law."

"You have to remember what is stake here is principles," Lippert told NBC in an interview. "Adhering to those principles has led to the unprecedented economic and democratic growth in the region. The Chinese are challenging our freedom of navigation."

In the last decade, China has converted dozens of tiny islands and coral outcroppings - many claimed by other countries — into forward military bases, adding airfields, piers and other facilities. The new bases range from the Paracel Islands in the northern part of the sea, claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam, to the Spratlys in the south near the Philippines and Malaysia. The construction, sometimes on reclaimed land, has extended China's defensive perimeter hundreds of miles from the mainland.

In January, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearings that the U.S. would block China's access to the disputed islands, and send a "clear signal" that "island-building stops."

Lu Kang, a senior official with the Chinese foreign ministry, told Richard Engel of NBC News that the islands were Chinese territory and China was free to do what it wanted.

Lippert says the Pentagon's recent actions are meant to checkmate any attempt by the Chinese to exploit any turmoil from the U.S. presidential transition, particularly one as dramatic as that from Obama to Trump.

"During a transition," he explained, "the Chinese and United States will test each other, feeling around a bit. Is the Obama policy, which has been fairly aggressive on protecting these principles, going to continue, or is there going to be change?

"What this says is that, for now, nothing has changed."

The recent operations are just the tip of the spear. An NBC News analysis of military movements in the region notes other major operations and basing decisions, including:

-- A new, continual bomber presence at Andersen AFB in Guam, after two decades of absence. Last fall, in fact, the U.S. deployed all three of its strategic bombers - the B-52, B-1 and B-2 - at Andersen. It was the first time all three were deployed to the Pacific.

-- Other transits of the South China Sea by U.S. warships and submarines, culminating with this winter's Vinson transit;

-- The build-up of modernized ballistic missile defense systems in South Korea and Japan as well as increased integration with the militaries of Japan and South Korea.

-- Increased port calls in Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei, all countries that have challenged Chinese sovereignty over the islands and outcroppings in the region. The U.S. military presence in the Philippines is now bigger than it's been in 25 years.

-- An almost continual air and naval presence in Singapore, increasingly a major U.S. ally. The littoral combat ship USS Coronado has spent all of 2017 in and out of Singapore. It's the only forward-deployed ship of this new, futuristic class.

-- Deployment of the new F-35B Lightning II fifth-generation fighters at Iwakuni AB on the Japanese island of Okinawa. It's the first permanent deployment of the aircraft overseas.

While some of the operations are primarily prompted by North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling, all of them are meant to be noticed by Chinese authorities. A senior Navy officer told NBC News that the Trump administration had inherited the Obama "pivot" to Asia. "This is a perfect example of how routine can stay routine or be a flash point for greater tension," the officer said.

On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry acknowledged the USS Vinson's patrol.

"China always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight of all countries in the South China Sea in accordance with international law," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang.

"But we oppose those who threaten and harm the sovereignty and security of coastal countries under the pretext of freedom of navigation and overflight."

The Chinese, of course, have not been inactive. On February 10, U.S. and Chinese military planes had what the Pentagon describes as "an unsafe close encounter" near Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. A war of words ensued.

There have also been joint Chinese-Russian naval exercises in recent months. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Peoples Liberation Army has nearly finished building two dozen structures on three atolls in the Spratly Islands that U.S. military analysts believe could house surface-to-air missiles, a dramatic uptick in capability.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-flexes-its-military-muscle-china-n724911

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

And yet China's island building and militarization of the SCS continues every day. Thanks for the new territory I guess?

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## F-22Raptor

Chinese-Dragon said:


> And yet China's island building and militarization of the SCS continues every day. Thanks for the new territory I guess?



Go ahead and build your islands. The US cares more about freedom of navigation, and denying China the capability to control their nearby sea's. An with these deployments, the US is doing just that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

US flexes muscle.

China becomes Germany's top trade partner.

SCS islands grow bigger.

I think we are fine with this arrangement. After all, it is not our taxpayers' money that the US military is burning.

Reactions: Like Like:
21


----------



## rott

F-22Raptor said:


> Go ahead and build your islands. The US cares more about freedom of navigation, and denying China the capability to control their nearby sea's. An with these deployments, the US is doing just that.


That's pure BS. Freedom of Navigation was never an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## F-22Raptor

rott said:


> That's pure BS. Freedom of Navigation was never an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.



It's absolutely an issue. It's why China intends to deploy anti-air/ship missiles to those islands. China wants the ability to dictate what flies and sails through the SCS. An with these deployments, the US is denying China the capability to do that. An why are people surprised? The US has been doing this for decades.


----------



## salarsikander

F-22Raptor said:


> Go ahead and build your islands. The US cares more about freedom of navigation, and denying China the capability to control their nearby sea's. An with these deployments, the US is doing just that.


Just like US freed Iraq of non existent WMDs

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## samsara

_I wanna see how long and how intensive the US can maintain its "routine" patrol in the South China Sea by its CSG because the operating bills are not cheap, it's something that vaporizes into the thin air when such operation *is not able to deter China from doing what it wanna do in those islands.* So while China is getting something real in developing those islands the US will be simply burning out its resources... 

Between the two largest giants they can't really risk for any direct military clash for the subsequent consequences may/will be unimaginably devastating, not only affecting the two heavily nuke armed nations but also the rest of the world!

Therefore as the USA has its usual chest-pumping showdown around the South China Sea, China --*just like the sane and self-refraining Russia in Baltic Sea and Black Sea*-- [regardless the words & headlines exchanges between the two] will just tolerate the high profile presence yet at the same time carries on its own business in developing those islands in the SCS. 

So let's monitor together how long the US CSG patrol  may sustain its cash burning there... *who will have the longer endurance eventually*   _

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## maximuswarrior

F-22Raptor said:


> It's absolutely an issue. It's why China intends to deploy anti-air/ship missiles to those islands. China wants the ability to dictate what flies and sails through the SCS. An with these deployments, the US is denying China the capability to do that. An why are people surprised? The US has been doing this for decades.



Bro, concentrate on fake news CNN. China is beyond US scope.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## nature is

Another brainless "flexing of muscles" article. Fanboy will always be a fanboy

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## TaiShang

maximuswarrior said:


> Bro, concentrate on fake news CNN. China is beyond US scope.



So fake that now Trump does not even allow them to join White House briefings - along with a bunch of others.

On a side note, if the US regime does not allow CNN and the likes to participate White House press briefings, I guess China has every right to kick them out of the country.

News outlets excluded from White House press secretary's gaggle



nature is said:


> Another brainless "flexing of muscles" article. Fanboy will always be a fanboy



I wonder what is really "flexing" here. There is really no flexing, but only showing-off behind the glass with no real-time on the ground impact.

The US uses the existing capacity. China, on the other hand, build up extra capability in the SCS. So, this arrangement is not really innovative for the US especially in the medium to long run. But, what to expect from a polity that has been going down in intellectual and strategic quality for a long time.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## maximuswarrior

TaiShang said:


> So fake that now Trump does not even allow them to join White House briefings - along with a bunch of others.
> 
> On a side note, if the US regime does not allow CNN and the likes to participate White House press briefings, I guess China has every right to kick them out of the country.
> 
> News outlets excluded from White House press secretary's gaggle



Goes to show which direction the US is heading. Agree 100%.

This is just another feel good article. The truth is that the US is preoccupied with Trump and his antics. The US is divided and it is struggling to make sense of Trumpland. World issues aren't on US agenda.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## rott

maximuswarrior said:


> Bro, concentrate on fake news CNN. China is beyond US scope.


Lol....



F-22Raptor said:


> It's absolutely an issue. It's why China intends to deploy anti-air/ship missiles to those islands. China wants the ability to dictate what flies and sails through the SCS. An with these deployments, the US is denying China the capability to do that. An why are people surprised? The US has been doing this for decades.


The more you post the more BS you spew.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TaiShang

maximuswarrior said:


> Goes to show which direction the US is heading. Agree 100%.



Fascism in foreign diplomacy cannot be sustained without fascism at home. This is the particular Western crisis. For a while, the monetary interests kept fascism at home at bay while it was raining free across the globe.

But now, the US and its allies are feeling monetary/financial constraints; hence, neo-fascist tendencies are becoming more visible.

Trump will utilize similar tactics. He will demonize half to keep the other half solidified. He will continue to have mass rallies. We have been seeing a similar practice in a particular country in the Middle East.

US is just another failing polity.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## samsara

maximuswarrior said:


> Bro, concentrate on fake news CNN. China is beyond US scope.


But *CNN was just banned from attending White House press briefing* (24 Feb) for it's labeled as Fake News (TM) manufacturer by Trump administration.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-24/white-house-bans-cnn-nyt-participating-media-briefing

_JUST BEWARE OF FAKE NEWS!!! There are overwhelmingly many._

Baffled Washington Post Still Arguing That Only Dumb, White Men 'Approve' Of Trump
Trump Slams "Fake News" At CPAC Speech, Blasts Use Of Anonymous Sources

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## T-72M1

TaiShang said:


> On a side note, if the US regime does not allow CNN and the likes to participate White House press briefings, I guess China has every right to kick them out of the country.


would love to see that happen. 



TaiShang said:


> Trump will utilize similar tactics. He will demonize half to keep the other half solidified. He will continue to have mass rallies. We have been seeing a similar practice in a particular country in the Middle East.


which country ?


----------



## nature is

TaiShang said:


> I wonder what is really "flexing" here. There is really no flexing, but only showing-off behind the glass with no real-time on the ground impact.
> 
> The US uses the existing capacity. China, on the other hand, build up extra capability in the SCS. So, this arrangement is not really innovative for the US especially in the medium to long run. But, what to expect from a polity that has been going down in intellectual and strategic quality for a long time.



Taking a dump in the toilet is flexing muscle too. Cheap journalism and fanboy love to flex bowel muscle.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## terranMarine

Freedom of navigation is the only excuse the US government can come up with. Patrolling in SCS so China does not control it is nothing more than a fabricated lie to justify US Naval presence. Now he's adding China's militarization is proof to this so called theory. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124567404
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/

What were NUKES doing on Okinawa then? I bet they are still there to this day.

US is legendary for fabricating lies, building missile shield in Europe to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles, invading Iraq because of WMD (yeah Yankees are seeing things which aren't there). Now there's solid proof DPRK has been testing nukes why isn't US flexing her muscles in front of the world audience? 

Someone here has a weird definition for flexing muscles

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

T-72M1 said:


> would love to see that happen.
> 
> 
> which country ?


Domestic USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

samsara said:


> But *CNN was just banned from attending White House press briefing* (24 Feb) for it's labeled as Fake News (TM) manufacturer by Trump administration.
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-24/white-house-bans-cnn-nyt-participating-media-briefing



Thank you, Trump! I appreciate your efforts. You give us a lot of ammunition to be used in the future.

Fake News Outlets Like CNN, New York Times ‘Danger to Our Country’ - Trump


FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017

Next time US regime cries over how China handles neo-fascist news outlets like CNN (unlikely under Trump, though), we will say that even Trump considered them a danger to the US.

If these are a danger to the US, the country to which they pay their corporate tax, imagine the danger they pose for the rest of the developing world。



T-72M1 said:


> which country ?



Better not to name to prevent a flame-war.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## maximuswarrior

TaiShang said:


> Thank you, Trump! I appreciate your efforts. You give us a lot of ammunition to be used in the future.
> 
> Fake News Outlets Like CNN, New York Times ‘Danger to Our Country’ - Trump
> 
> 
> FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad!
> 
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017
> Next time US regime cries over how China handles neo-fascist news outlets like CNN (unlikely under Trump, though), we will say that even Trump considered them a danger to the US.
> 
> If these are a danger to the US, the country to which they pay their corporate tax, imagine the danger they pose for the rest of the developing world。
> 
> 
> 
> Better not to name to prevent a flame-war.



It is irony all over again. Today, Trumpland has transformed into a dictatorship. The media is gagged, the judiciary is threatened, people are mass banned and the list of mediocrity goes on and on. The entire world is holding its breath and laughing at the same time. This is the same country that goes around labelling other nations, but today it has become a victim at the hands of an orange dictator.

It is beyond hilarious to see some Americans fantasize about flexing their muscles against China. These Americans are living in a different universe. Completely ignorant and oblivious of their domestic challenges.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

rott said:


> That's pure BS. *Freedom of Navigation was never an issue.* You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


And we will make sure it will never become an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


----------



## 艹艹艹

TaiShang said:


> Thank you, Trump! I appreciate your efforts. You give us a lot of ammunition to be used in the future.
> 
> Fake News Outlets Like CNN, New York Times ‘Danger to Our Country’ - Trump
> 
> 
> FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing@nytimeshas become a joke. Likewise@CNN. Sad!
> 
> 
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)February 25, 2017
> 
> Next time US regime cries over how China handles neo-fascist news outlets like CNN (unlikely under Trump, though), we will say that even Trump considered them a danger to the US.
> 
> If these are a danger to the US, the country to which they pay their corporate tax, imagine the danger they pose for the rest of the developing world。



*FAKE NEWS *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rott

gambit said:


> And we will make sure it will never become an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


This is called *PROFESSIONAL BS post. *

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

gambit said:


> And we will make sure it will never become an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.



How US can make it as non issue just with patrol once a month or twice a year while China is permanently there?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Accountant

gambit said:


> And we will make sure it will never become an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.


Sir with all due respect to you as a person ,,, US needs to behave ,,, US needs to accept power of other countries and should stop poking his nose in every other matter ...

Why the heck is freedom of navigation ,, what US has to do in SCS sea ,,, thousands of miles away from home ??? at least have guts to speak truth it is to compete with China ...

If freedom of navigation is the issue and every country has right to chose its own weapon then what the hell was Cuban missile crisis ??? Cuba was an independent nation and Russia was having a legitimate deal ... haven't US has nuclear weapons in Europe ... You have one rule for yourself and different for others ...

US is no more sole super power and the earlier US accepts this fact the better will be for US and for other nations of the world ... If US want to maintain itself as the most mightiest military power then he should do it on its own without bullying others ...

In order to contain China, US is pushing the world to a dangerous corner ,,, giving so much favours to India is increasing risks of nuclear war in south asia ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

F-22Raptor said:


> Go ahead and build your islands. The US cares more about freedom of navigation, and denying China the capability to control their nearby sea's. An with these deployments, the US is doing just that.



How lovely...US can only afford to patrol few times a year in SCS and just a quick pass by, the remaining of other 365 days of the year, 24/days, it was under Chinese control and you call that as "denying the capability of control their sea?  and those so call US patrol ships have always been received with a warm welcome from our navy there and immediately have to leave that area.

Americans face saving as world sole superpower is nothing but to add insult to injury to themselves : not only wasting tax payers money to show off US military power in SCS but get no any tangible result such as making China back down from further reclaim these islands nor deter China military activities there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

long_ said:


> *FAKE NEWS *
> View attachment 379803
> 
> 
> View attachment 379804
> 
> 
> View attachment 379802



Wow, Trump crusade against media continues.

He told so many brutal facts so far:

*US economic figures, such as employment numbers, are doctored.

* US administration helped establish the ISIS.

* US media is a big lying machine in the service of some special interests.

* John McCain is a coward, not a war hero, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viet

four Trident II were fired? wow that is crazy.


----------



## gambit

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> How US can make it as non issue just with patrol once a month or twice a year while China is permanently there?


Whether it is once a month or once a yr is irrelevant. As long as one country is able to transit the SCS unmolested, other countries can and do it at any time. If China attack any non-US flagged ship when the US Navy is not in presence in the SCS, the US would surely make it more than once a month in the SCS.

All it takes it just one time...



rott said:


> This is called *PROFESSIONAL BS post. *


The real bullshit is that China have no interests in the freedom of navigation in the SCS.

If the US say we have no interests in those little islands, everyone would believe.

But if China say you have no interests in the freedom of navigation principle in the SCS, everyone would laugh. Then they call the US.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

gambit said:


> Whether it is once a month or once a yr is irrelevant. As long as one country is able to transit the SCS unmolested, other countries can and do it at any time. If China attack any non-US flagged ship when the US Navy is not in presence in the SCS, the US would surely make it more than once a month in the SCS.
> 
> All it takes it just one time...



Which countries have been molested by China for transiting SCS? If they feel insecure is it China's problem? . US can come as many times they want to make them feel secure... only if their can afford all these long patrol trips.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Srinivas

gambit said:


> And we will make sure it will never become an issue. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.



It is like a comedy how these Chinese are pretending like nothing has happened


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Srinivas said:


> It is like a comedy how these Chinese are pretending like nothing has happened



We Chinese don't make drama like Indian when our Subs docked in Sri Lanka ports...LMAO, it's not the first time nor the Last time that US come to SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Accountant

Srinivas said:


> It is like a comedy how these Chinese are pretending like nothing has happened


Ok then tell me what difference does it make ... China is strengthening its defences ... the whole idea is to have a base to defend Malacca Straits in case of war ... China is achieving its objective ... what objective US is achieving except for satisfying its ego at the cost of tax payer money.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## YeBeWarned

i think US should focus more on ISIS and ME ... the mess that goes out of their hand , China and SCS is going nowhere , nor islands .. Chinese are there to stay while US will be there to Put pressure that's it .. the world need to focus more on Terrorism which is consuming more lives and destroying countries , ideologies and Civilizations .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Which countries have been molested by China for transiting SCS?


Irrelevant. There is a first time for everything. We just want to prevent China from having that 'first time'.


----------



## samsara

Srinivas said:


> *It is like a comedy how these Chinese are pretending like nothing has happened *



I had posted below earlier, and I wanna add few more lines here:

As long as the USA is just sailing its CSG and China keeps on its diligent works on those islands, thing will be safe and nothing happens except word exchanges.

*If only the USA is so reckless to take over any of those islands, then it becomes direly dangerous for crossing China's redline!*

Just sailing the CSG doesn't cross any China's redline... mostly the two sides just exchange the news headlines  the USA with its burning showdown while China is busy with its construction in those islands and the world remains safe from the nuke armageddon, India is also safe.

We all should pray there won't be direct clash among the GIANTS: USA RUS CHN otherwise the mankind just say bye bye to the Planet Earth...

Keep my words, the USA at best is doing the chest-pumping showdown of sailing the CSG in the South China, nothing more than that, and it won't last longer than 6 months... unless some other nation wanna take the fleet operation bills  ha ha
so don't be worry, no need to get anxious... everything remains the same, eat well, sleep tight 


~~~~~~~ posted earlier ~~~~~~~
_I wanna see how long and how intensive the US can maintain its "routine" patrol in the South China Sea by its CSG because the operating bills are not cheap, it's something that vaporizes into the thin air when such operation *is not able to deter China from doing what it wanna do in those islands.* So while China is getting something real in developing those islands the US will be simply burning out its resources... 

Between the two largest giants they can't really risk for any direct military clash for the subsequent consequences may/will be unimaginably devastating, not only affecting the two heavily nuke armed nations but also the rest of the world!

Therefore as the USA has its usual chest-pumping showdown around the South China Sea, China --*just like the sane and self-refraining Russia in Baltic Sea and Black Sea*-- [regardless the words & headlines exchanges between the two] will just tolerate the high profile presence yet at the same time carries on its own business in developing those islands in the SCS.

So let's monitor together how long the US CSG patrol may sustain its cash burning there... *who will have the longer endurance eventually*   
_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

gambit said:


> Irrelevant. There is a first time for everything. We just want to prevent China from having that 'first time'.



Well, when the first time China reclaimed Islands in SCS, what US did to prevent that from happen?..don't you think what u just said is hilarious?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rott

Starlord said:


> i think US should focus more on ISIS and ME ... the mess that goes out of their hand , China and SCS is going nowhere , nor islands .. Chinese are there to stay while US will be there to Put pressure that's it .. the world need to focus more on Terrorism which is consuming more lives and destroying countries , ideologies and Civilizations .


@gambit, learn from professional post like this above post instead of posting professional BS. 




Srinivas said:


> It is like a comedy how these Chinese are pretending like nothing has happened


Why the professional orgasm after reading your masters professional BS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lonelyman

maximuswarrior said:


> Bro, concentrate on fake news CNN. China is beyond US scope.



CNN was, is and will always be very fake news, we knew it since 2000. Sadly the fact hits trump until now..



nature is said:


> Taking a dump in the toilet is flexing muscle too. Cheap journalism and fanboy love to flex bowel muscle.


Excellent, actually which Americans in real life care about the South China Sea issue? Those American flags are known as Viets pretending to be whites 



gambit said:


> Whether it is once a month or once a yr is irrelevant. As long as one country is able to transit the SCS unmolested, other countries can and do it at any time. If China attack any non-US flagged ship when the US Navy is not in presence in the SCS, the US would surely make it more than once a month in the SCS.
> 
> All it takes it just one time...
> 
> 
> The real bullshit is that China have no interests in the freedom of navigation in the SCS.
> 
> If the US say we have no interests in those little islands, everyone would believe.
> 
> But if China say you have no interests in the freedom of navigation principle in the SCS, everyone would laugh. Then they call the US.



you are a viet, why pretend to be a white?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rott

lonelyman said:


> you are a viet, why pretend to be a white?


He's a white wannabe. The only thing white about him is his passport.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

F-22Raptor said:


> As China flexes its military muscle in the South China Sea, the U.S. is responding with its own show of force that includes ships, fighter jets and submarines, as well as the test launch of nuclear-capable missiles.
> 
> According to internal military reports reviewed by NBC News, almost every week brings another display of U.S. hardware in the waters off China, in a response that has only grown more aggressive since the inauguration of President Trump.
> 
> A U.S. Navy carrier battle group centered on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson is now moving through the South China Sea, the stretch of Pacific bounded by China, Vietnam and the Philippines.
> 
> Three attack submarines, the USS Alexandria, USS Chicago and USS Louisville, have deployed in the Western Pacific in the past month, and at least one has entered the South China Sea.
> 
> Also in February, the U.S. sent a dozen F-22 Raptor stealth fighters to Tindal AB in northern Australia, the closest Australian military airbase to China, for coalition training and exercises. It's the first deployment of that many F-22s in the Pacific.
> 
> And if that didn't get the attention of the Chinese government, the U.S. just tested four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles during a nuclear war exercise, sending the simulated weapons 4,200 miles from the coast of California into the mid-Pacific. It's the first time in three years the U.S. has conducted tests in the Pacific, and the first four-missile salvo since the end of the Cold War.
> 
> The U.S. effort is deliberately broad and overt, according to Pentagon officials, and is meant to be obvious to the Chinese government.
> 
> Mark Lippert, the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and deputy national security advisor during the Obama administration, said America is trying to send a message about freedom of navigation, "free and open commerce and [the] rule of law."
> 
> "You have to remember what is stake here is principles," Lippert told NBC in an interview. "Adhering to those principles has led to the unprecedented economic and democratic growth in the region. The Chinese are challenging our freedom of navigation."
> 
> In the last decade, China has converted dozens of tiny islands and coral outcroppings - many claimed by other countries — into forward military bases, adding airfields, piers and other facilities. The new bases range from the Paracel Islands in the northern part of the sea, claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam, to the Spratlys in the south near the Philippines and Malaysia. The construction, sometimes on reclaimed land, has extended China's defensive perimeter hundreds of miles from the mainland.
> 
> In January, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearings that the U.S. would block China's access to the disputed islands, and send a "clear signal" that "island-building stops."
> 
> Lu Kang, a senior official with the Chinese foreign ministry, told Richard Engel of NBC News that the islands were Chinese territory and China was free to do what it wanted.
> 
> Lippert says the Pentagon's recent actions are meant to checkmate any attempt by the Chinese to exploit any turmoil from the U.S. presidential transition, particularly one as dramatic as that from Obama to Trump.
> 
> "During a transition," he explained, "the Chinese and United States will test each other, feeling around a bit. Is the Obama policy, which has been fairly aggressive on protecting these principles, going to continue, or is there going to be change?
> 
> "What this says is that, for now, nothing has changed."
> 
> The recent operations are just the tip of the spear. An NBC News analysis of military movements in the region notes other major operations and basing decisions, including:
> 
> -- A new, continual bomber presence at Andersen AFB in Guam, after two decades of absence. Last fall, in fact, the U.S. deployed all three of its strategic bombers - the B-52, B-1 and B-2 - at Andersen. It was the first time all three were deployed to the Pacific.
> 
> -- Other transits of the South China Sea by U.S. warships and submarines, culminating with this winter's Vinson transit;
> 
> -- The build-up of modernized ballistic missile defense systems in South Korea and Japan as well as increased integration with the militaries of Japan and South Korea.
> 
> -- Increased port calls in Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei, all countries that have challenged Chinese sovereignty over the islands and outcroppings in the region. The U.S. military presence in the Philippines is now bigger than it's been in 25 years.
> 
> -- An almost continual air and naval presence in Singapore, increasingly a major U.S. ally. The littoral combat ship USS Coronado has spent all of 2017 in and out of Singapore. It's the only forward-deployed ship of this new, futuristic class.
> 
> -- Deployment of the new F-35B Lightning II fifth-generation fighters at Iwakuni AB on the Japanese island of Okinawa. It's the first permanent deployment of the aircraft overseas.
> 
> While some of the operations are primarily prompted by North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling, all of them are meant to be noticed by Chinese authorities. A senior Navy officer told NBC News that the Trump administration had inherited the Obama "pivot" to Asia. "This is a perfect example of how routine can stay routine or be a flash point for greater tension," the officer said.
> 
> On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry acknowledged the USS Vinson's patrol.
> 
> "China always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight of all countries in the South China Sea in accordance with international law," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang.
> 
> "But we oppose those who threaten and harm the sovereignty and security of coastal countries under the pretext of freedom of navigation and overflight."
> 
> The Chinese, of course, have not been inactive. On February 10, U.S. and Chinese military planes had what the Pentagon describes as "an unsafe close encounter" near Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. A war of words ensued.
> 
> There have also been joint Chinese-Russian naval exercises in recent months. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Peoples Liberation Army has nearly finished building two dozen structures on three atolls in the Spratly Islands that U.S. military analysts believe could house surface-to-air missiles, a dramatic uptick in capability.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-flexes-its-military-muscle-china-n724911


I thought US-China cold war was cancelled.


----------



## Srinivas

rott said:


> @gambit, learn from professional post like this above post instead of posting professional BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Why the professional orgasm after reading your masters professional BS?



You need know the history dude, India opposed USA most of the times, even during Vietnam war.

Your post is your fantasy!


----------



## lonelyman

rott said:


> He's a white wannabe. The only thing white about him is his passport.


he could use some bleach

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rott

Srinivas said:


> You need know the history dude, India opposed USA most of the times, even during Vietnam war.
> 
> Your post is your fantasy!


That was the past. This is the present. 
But anyways, I don't feel like commenting anymore. We're just going in circles and nothing productive.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## yantong1980

Media hype, nothing new, all American can do just provocation, an provocation. Black sea, SCS ? For US, it's nothing than hegemony, only dumb sheep can swallow entire their BS. The only thing US can stop China on SCS is to attack any China ships, navy or not, or invade that man-made island, but it's mean WAR! I mean who's the one stupid enough to create economic disaster in this region? I talking about entire Asia region. Politic isn't Wild West, if Trump wise guy he should solve his own domestic political matter and learn to cooperate with China or anyone, rather started pointing gun on everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> Fascism in foreign diplomacy cannot be sustained without fascism at home. This is the particular Western crisis. For a while, the monetary interests kept fascism at home at bay while it was raining free across the globe.
> 
> But now, the US and its allies are feeling monetary/financial constraints; hence, neo-fascist tendencies are becoming more visible.
> 
> Trump will utilize similar tactics. He will demonize half to keep the other half solidified. He will continue to have mass rallies. We have been seeing a similar practice in a particular country in the Middle East.
> 
> US is just another failing polity.


Demonizing one group while solidifying another. Sounds very familiar to another European country from 1930s,



Starlord said:


> i think US should focus more on ISIS and ME ... the mess that goes out of their hand , China and SCS is going nowhere , nor islands .. Chinese are there to stay while US will be there to Put pressure that's it .. the world need to focus more on Terrorism which is consuming more lives and destroying countries , ideologies and Civilizations .


Funny thing is that the US administration and general populace feel Muslims are the biggest threat to western civilization yet they want to name China as the boogeyman.

Not a smart idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tokhme khar

It is impossible for the U.S. to face or break the Russia/ China/ Iran troika. It's almost game over for the U.S. 

The Troika has defeated the West everywhere..........From AfPak to Syraq to Yemen to Lebanon to the Donbas!

This SCS confrontation is dead in the water before it even begins! What a joke folks.......lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

terranMarine said:


> The US dick muscle must have been malfunctioning as it couldn't flex it when Fat Kim keeps testing ballistic missiles and nukes.



They could have done that when China liberated Huangyan island from the Philippines, or Paracels from Vietnam occupation.

At those times, US muscle was relatively bulkier as China was just starting off. 

Now US is an indebted country and sailing a CBG is extremely costly. As much maintenance is involved as the duration of deployment. 

Besides, US is internally divided. 

Hence, there's little practical ground for China to take US seriously. 

China will keep the build up. That's manifest destiny.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tokhme khar

Taisheng, the U.S. couldn't even fight Iran and its proxies in the ME.......how the hell will it fight China or Russia.......lol

I bet Xi, Putin and Khamenei share belly laughs at the U.S. these days.......lol



TaiShang said:


> They could have done that when China liberated Huangyan island from the Philippines, or Paracels from Vietnam occupation.
> 
> At those times, US muscle was relatively bulkier as China was just starting off.
> 
> Now US is an indebted country and sailing a CBG is extremely costly. As much maintenance is involved as the duration of deployment.
> 
> Besides, US is internally divided.
> 
> Hence, there's little practical ground for China to take US seriously.
> 
> China will keep the build up. That's manifest destiny.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

When did US ever stop flexing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oprih

The only ones amused at this thread are the american themselves, they can flex as much as they want but at the end of the day, the construction of islands by China will continue. No amount of america flexing their muscles can stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

The US suffers from a penile fracture and can no longer properly flex its muscles after banging too much.  US has no mood to bang DPRK speaks volume


----------



## AlyxMS

US: *flex*
China: Nice!
US: *flex*
China: Good!
US: *flex*
China: Awesome!

And while US is pouring money into flexing, China is using its budget for R&D and building ships.

Keep flexing pal.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

AlyxMS said:


> US: *flex*
> China: Nice!
> US: *flex*
> China: Good!
> US: *flex*
> China: Awesome!
> 
> And while US is pouring money into flexing, China is using its budget for R&D and building ships.
> 
> *Keep flexing pal.*


Yes, we will. But what make you think we cannot do both ? China do not have anything even halfway resembling DARPA.


----------



## AlyxMS

gambit said:


> Yes, we will. But what make you think we cannot do both ? China do not have anything even halfway resembling DARPA.


Not saying you can't.
Just saying all the money that went into useless flexing could've gone to some places that are more useful.
More flexing = less everything else
Just logic, unless you are planning on expanding military budget just to allow more flexing, in that case, more flexing = potentially less for everything else.

Also, the way US is flexing is just plainly inefficient. China is flexing quite a bit lately -with marine surveillance, fishery law-enforcement and militia ships. What's the point of using a carrier battle group?

US: *Sends Freedom class LCS*
China: Ahh American ship in SCS.
US: *Sends nuclear carrier*
China: Ahh big American ship in SCS.

It just doesn't justify the increase in cost. Well, I suppose the carrier crew wanted a vacation in South East asia, fine then.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

AlyxMS said:


> Just saying all the money that went into useless flexing could've gone to some places that are more useful.
> More flexing = less everything else
> Just logic, unless you are planning on expanding military budget just to allow more flexing, in that case, more flexing = potentially less for everything else.


Same could be said for China. But it is understandable that you would not want to emphasize that.


----------



## AlyxMS

gambit said:


> Same could be said for China. But it is understandable that you would not want to emphasize that.


It appears you replied to me while I was editing my previous reply to you.

I added that China is doing a poorman's flexing that achieves more or less the same effect: Maintain military presence. Not to the same extent of course, but I don't think the extent matter in the South China Sea case, and I'm guessing the US Navy does not agree with me.

I agree that the same could be said for China. I wasn't trying to avoid emphasizing on it, I simply didn't think of that while I was replying to you. I actually edited my post to add that before seeing your second reply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

AlyxMS said:


> What's the point of using a carrier battle group?


To enforce the freedom of navigation thru the SCS.


----------



## TaiShang

AlyxMS said:


> US: *flex*
> China: Nice!
> US: *flex*
> China: Good!
> US: *flex*
> China: Awesome!
> 
> And while US is pouring money into flexing, China is using its budget for R&D and building ships.
> 
> Keep flexing pal.



Their flexing is very much like stuffing a bear doll with more fluffy stuff. At the end of the day, outside reality remains the same -- that it is just a puffy bear with little biting capability against near equal competition.

Besides, US flexing is getting old and looking uglier as its overall capability declines. Think of puffed up Schwarzenegger at the age of 70.

Just like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tokhme khar

Yeah sure, we have all seen how the U.S. fights in the ME, where you lost Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria to Iran half laying down. 

Iran not impressed with DARPA or the U.S. military. Thanks for the amateur show and effort. 



gambit said:


> Yes, we will. But what make you think we cannot do both ? China do not have anything even halfway resembling DARPA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rott

gambit said:


> To enforce the freedom of navigation thru the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Jlaw said:


> Funny thing is that the US administration and general populace feel Muslims are the biggest threat to western civilization yet they want to name China as the boogeyman.
> 
> Not a smart idea.



Neither Muslims nor China are their enemy .. its just trick to keep US involved in some sort of WAR to keep the weapon Industry making billions of dollars ,and than there is Oil flowing everywhere ..
US needs to focus on how to defeat ISIS, Stable Iraq and Syria , take care of their Economy , and most important as Trump say put American interest first .. 
China is growing and keep Growing, same as American's try to be world police and they will keep doing so no matter what anyone say to them .. its best for two giants to resolve their matters and move on together, and because of such big alliance small regional Countries can get prosperity ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

lonelyman said:


> CNN was, is and will always be very fake news, we knew it since 2000. Sadly the fact hits trump until now..
> 
> 
> Excellent, actually which Americans in real life care about the South China Sea issue? Those American flags are known as Viets pretending to be whites
> 
> 
> 
> you are a viet, *why pretend to be a white*?


The real White Americans care nothing about the South China Sea, for them it's a far away sea that has nothing to do with their lives! They do not want to shed any blood for that irrelevant cause! For the White American, this South China Sea issue is a farce!

How to say about the pretense of being White? Possibly it's some *psychological childhood regret* for not being born as White, a kind of self-denial complex, or represents *some inferior complex* denying one's own nature. This manifestation is a troubling psyche that will affect one's whole life the entire lifetime unless one is able to mend it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jlaw

samsara said:


> The real White Americans care nothing about the South China Sea, for them it's a far away sea that has nothing to do with their lives! They do not want to shed any blood for that irrelevant cause! For the White American, this South China Sea issue is a farce!
> 
> How to say about the pretense of being White? Possibly it's some *psychological childhood regret* for not being born as White, a kind of self-denial complex, or represents *some inferior complex* denying one's own nature. This manifestation is a troubling psyche that will affect one's whole life the entire lifetime unless one is able to mend it.


To understand Caucasian mentality study the real history of the Muslim conquest of Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Don't know much about geopolitics, but one thing is coming up even brighter -CPEC!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tokhme khar

USN wouldn't last 2 minutes against Iran. 100's of thousands of anti ship missiles will slam into their garbage floating crap they call a navy........What to speak of a fight with the PLAN or the Russians.
Iran is having mercy on them, for now, because Iran uses them in SyRaq against its rivals, however, if this Drumpf starts misbehaving, then Iran will take action. These hillbilly understand this reality very well and toe a fine line in the Persian Gulf. Any time Iran see them fall out of line, the IRGC navy treats them like a bunch of refugee trespassers.


----------



## ahojunk

*Chinese state councillor to visit U.S.*
2017-02-27 08:54 | Xinhua | _Editor: Gu Liping_

Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi will visit the United States from Monday to Tuesday *at the invitation of the U.S. government*, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang announced on Sunday.

Yang will exchange views with senior U.S. officials on *bilateral ties and issues of common concern*, Lu said.

Yang is the first senior Chinese official to visit the U.S. since President Donald Trump took office on January 20.

President Xi Jinping and Trump had spoken over the phone earlier this month. Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his U.S. counterpart Rex Tillerson met in the sidelines of the foreign ministers meeting of the G20 last week.

Yang will have an extensive range of topics to discuss with the U.S. officials but the foremost would be to reaffirm the tone of bilateral relations set by the two heads of state in their phone conversation, said Jia Xiudong, a research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies.

Xi told Trump that building a sound China-U.S. relationship is in the fundamental interests of the two peoples, and it is also the responsibility China and the U.S. need to assume as the world's major countries.

Yang's visit will coincide with the 45th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's ice-breaking visit to China in 1972, which paved the way for Beijing and Washington to officially establish diplomatic ties in 1979.

Despite twists and turns over the past four decades, China-U.S. relations have progressed ahead as both the Republican and Democratic parties understand the importance of the relationship, Jia said.

During Yang's tour, China and U.S. will have *exchanges on trade, security and international issues*, on which Trump may take policies different from the Obama administration, according to Jia.

Jia said Yang would be the point man to be sent to the U.S.. He was a former Chinese ambassador to Washington and former foreign minister, a respectable diplomat in the U.S. and has rich experience in dealing with the country.

Xi-Trump meeting will be on top agenda of Yang and U.S. officials, who are to discuss when and where the two heads of state will meet as they looked forward to a meeting at an early date in their phone conversation, according to Jia.

Nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, climate change, energy and Syria are also possible to be on the agenda, Jia said.


----------



## ahojunk

*China, U.S. agree to enhance all-level exchanges, broaden cooperation*
2017-03-01 08:38 | Xinhua | _Editor: Gu Liping_






_Visiting Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (L) shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during their meeting in Washington D.C., the United States, on Feb. 28, 2017. (Xinhua/Yin Bogu)_

China and the U.S. on Tuesday expressed the willingness to enhance dialogues and exchanges on all levels with an aim to broaden cooperation in regional and global affairs.

The two sides reaffirmed the pledge during a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and visiting Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi.

Yang noted that during the phone conversation held not long ago between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump, the two sides agreed to make joint efforts to achieve greater results in further developing the China-U.S. ties.

Yang said that, through *implementing the consensus reached by the two presidents and upholding the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, China is willing to work with the U.S. in the next stage to enhance exchanges on all levels from top down, deepen dialogues and mutual cooperation in all areas, broaden communication and coordination on regional and global issues, and respect each other's core interests and major concerns.*

This will help promote sustained, steady and healthy development of the China-U.S. relations, which will benefit the peoples of not only both nations but also the whole world, the senior Chinese official added.

For his part, Tillerson said that the two presidents have set a positive tone for the development of the bilateral relations.

*The U.S. is willing to work together with China to look at the bilateral ties from a broader angle, strengthen bilateral high-level dialogues and exchanges, continue to expand the scope of cooperation in all areas, and properly handle sensitive issues through consultation and coordination*.

Thus, the two sides could ensure smoother development of the bilateral ties and make greater contribution to promoting regional and global peace and prosperity.

Before meeting Tillerson, Yang had already met with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and National Security Advisor Herbert Raymond McMaster, to discuss how to promote the China-U.S. ties and other issues of mutual concern.


********

_The big two will take care of their own interests.
If other small countries need to be sacrificed, so be it.
This is the harsh reality._


----------



## TaiShang

*High-end manufacturing is not leaving China for US: economist*
By Xing Xue (People's Daily) March 08, 2017

The high-end manufacturing is not leaving China, a renowned Chinese economist said in a contributed article published on People's Daily Overseas Edition, refuting the claims that high-end manufacturing is flowing back to the US.

The comments came after the "Buy American Hire American" pledge of the new US administration recently fueled the assertion that high-end manufacturing is flowing back to the US from China.

Hu Angang, also Director of Center for China Studies of Tsinghua University, pointed out that as the largest export country of manufactured goods, especially high-tech products, *China has also set up a manufacturing system with the most complete product line and supporting production facilities.*

*China's share in global manufacturing market is now increasing, he said, explaining that its high-tech export percentage in the world has grown to 19.5 percent in 2015 from 3.0 percent in 2000, whereas the percentage of the US dropped from 16.8 percent to 9.5 percent during the same period.*

A New York Times piece pointed out that whether in terms of labor structure or government investment, the US is not ready for the reflux of the manufacturing industry. Against the background of shortage in technical workers and rising labor cost, the world is now watching if US enterprises may conduct another round of global allocation.

So far, China has completed the "1+X" framework of the Made in 2025 strategy. Hu believes such move indicates that the top level design of the strategy has been basically finished.

"It is leading the general direction of China's manufacturing industry, which is to *develop from made in China to created in China*,* from speed-oriented to quality-centered*, *from product-focused to brand-concentrated*, *from polluted and energy-consumed industries to green industries*, and* from Chinese enterprises to transnational and even global industries*," the economist added.

Hu, in the article, also urged China's manufacturing industry to improve its innovation capacity at first.

Based on the concepts of "intelligent manufacturing " and "Internet plus", the industry should advance structural upgrade and competiveness improvement to seize a new highland in the world, he suggested.

Furthermore, along with the "Belt and Road" construction, China's manufacturing industry should also place equal emphasis on "going global" and "bringing in" , he advised, adding that the supply of high-level talents should be increased to boost the quality of the industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> China's share in global manufacturing market is now increasing, he said, explaining that its high-tech export percentage in the world has grown to 19.5 percent in 2015 from 3.0 percent in 2000, whereas the percentage of the US dropped from 16.8 percent to 9.5 percent during the same period.



It's not just about manufacturing they r losing, but the expertise, the unspeakable knowledge and experiences gained from years of work in manufacturing......
Once lost, such expertise can never be regained.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

AndrewJin said:


> It's not just about manufacturing they r losing, but the expertise, the unspeakable knowledge and experiences gained from years of work in manufacturing......
> Once lost, such expertise can never be regained.



This is true. 

Also, this is the reason why China should defend its bottom plank. 

If assembly jobs go to South East Asia, the components and other stuff would be next. 

You should allow temporary South East Asian workers in the country for the assembly jobs, which still require a lot of labor.


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> It's not just about manufacturing they r losing, but the expertise, the unspeakable knowledge and experiences gained from years of work in manufacturing......
> Once lost, such expertise can never be regained.



As of 2015, over 30% of China's exports were high tech exports (as defined by the World Bank) which makes about 500$ billion USD, or one third of China's total export.

How much of this is indigenous content is the BIG question. Increasing the indigenous/domestic content in this high-end export is the big challenge.

As you say, this is a process of accumulation of knowledge and expertise, which takes time. It is a learning process. Of course, China's relative gain means their relative loss.

China needs really more and more aggressive, R&D-oriented entrepreneurs.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## MarcsPakistan

They can't afford to leave China even if they want to...


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

TaiShang said:


> As of 2015, over 30% of China's exports were high tech exports (as defined by the World Bank) which makes about 500$ billion USD, or one third of China's total export.
> 
> How much of this is indigenous content is the BIG question. Increasing the indigenous/domestic content in this high-end export is the big challenge.
> 
> As you say, this is a process of accumulation of knowledge and expertise, which takes time. It is a learning process. Of course, China's relative gain means their relative loss.
> 
> China needs really more and more aggressive, R&D-oriented entrepreneurs.




I agree totally. 

That is why China should extend loans to companies like Huawei and DJI, instead of spending them on totally incapable state owned companies, some of which survive only because of state support.


----------



## xunzi

Bussard Ramjet said:


> I agree totally.
> 
> That is why China should extend loans to companies like Huawei and DJI, instead of spending them on totally incapable state owned companies, some of which survive only because of state support.


Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOL

Huawei and DJI are a PRIVATE company, a company that don't need much funding. If they WANT FUND, they can easily go IPO and raised billion! These two DON"T need the govt fund. They NEED govt policy aim to aid their expansion. For that 5G plan and promotion of drone in the next 5 years are already enough to help Huawei and DJI.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

xunzi said:


> Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOL
> 
> Huawei and DJI are a PRIVATE company, a company that don't need much funding. If they WANT FUND, they can easily go IPO and raised billion! These two DON"T need the govt fund. They NEED govt policy aim to aid their expansion. For that 5G plan and promotion of drone in the next 5 years are already enough to help Huawei and DJI.



SOEs served as the backbones and founding blocks of national economy. How can one ignore or underestimate their importance for China's industrial capacity? The ongoing SOE reforms are not to phase the SOEs out, but to restructure them for greater competitiveness.

In the end, some public goods and services cannot be left entirely in the hands of the private enterprise, let alone foreign enterprise.

So, the two are equally important for national economy, especially for a socialist national economy. People like it or not, this is how China operates. They are free to pursue their own way in their own liking. For once, I do not care what they are doing with their economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

xunzi said:


> Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOL
> 
> Huawei and DJI are a PRIVATE company, a company that don't need much funding. If they WANT FUND, they can easily go IPO and raised billion! These two DON"T need the govt fund. They NEED govt policy aim to aid their expansion. For that 5G plan and promotion of drone in the next 5 years are already enough to help Huawei and DJI.



Everybody needs funding. 

Ofcourse they are private companies. 

What I'm saying is that they should be encouraged to aim even higher. 

Let's talk about DJI for example. 

It did need money. It raised around 200 million dollars worth of cash, largely from foreign VCs. 

Wouldn't it have been good to have a state owned back give them the bucks? It would perhaps have been the most profitable transaction for the bank, and would have kept growing chinese wealth in China. 


Further, DJI is so good, in executing and implementing stuff, that they should be encouraged to aim higher, by giving them funds.



TaiShang said:


> SOEs served as the backbones and founding blocks of national economy. How can one ignore or underestimate their importance for China's industrial capacity? The ongoing SOE reforms are not to phase the SOEs out, but to restructure them for greater competitiveness.
> 
> In the end, some public goods and services cannot be left entirely in the hands of the private enterprise, let alone foreign enterprise.
> 
> So, the two are equally important for national economy, especially for a socialist national economy. People like it or not, this is how China operates. They are free to pursue their own way in their own liking. For once, I do not care what they are doing with their economy.



I'm not asking for totally overthrowing SOEs. 

I am asking to stop funding them exorbitantly and _only them. 
_
Despite getting trillions of dollars in loans, they have very little to write home about. 

Rather, I am suggesting a singaporean model of SWFs. 

There should be funds that invest and retain ownership of companies, BUT the companies must function like private enterprises, in an efficient way. 

This would take the best of both the worlds.


----------



## AndrewJin

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Everybody needs funding.
> 
> Ofcourse they are private companies.
> 
> What I'm saying is that they should be encouraged to aim even higher.
> 
> Let's talk about DJI for example.
> 
> It did need money. It raised around 200 million dollars worth of cash, largely from foreign VCs.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been good to have a state owned back give them the bucks? It would perhaps have been the most profitable transaction for the bank, and would have kept growing chinese wealth in China.
> 
> 
> Further, DJI is so good, in executing and implementing stuff, that they should be encouraged to aim higher, by giving them funds.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for totally overthrowing SOEs.
> 
> I am asking to stop funding them exorbitantly and _only them.
> _
> Despite getting trillions of dollars in loans, they have very little to write home about.
> 
> Rather, I am suggesting a singaporean model of SWFs.
> 
> There should be funds that invest and retain ownership of companies, BUT the companies must function like private enterprises, in an efficient way.
> 
> This would take the best of both the worlds.


http://www.caishimv.com/wap/party/1454556652.html
Cheap land for DJI

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

AndrewJin said:


> http://www.caishimv.com/wap/party/1454556652.html
> Cheap land for DJI



Good. 

Unfortunately this is not what I'm talking about. 

I already know that local governments provide such incentives to private, even foreign owned companies. 

What I'm talking about is banks. 

They should give DJI a 100 billion dollars loan, at good interest rates, for a period of 20 years. 

DJI can do wonders with that money.


----------



## T-Rex

*US rejects China's call to halt joint drills with SKorea*
*ASSOCIATED PRESS*
UNITED NATIONS
Published 5 hours ago





Fighter jets on board the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) are prepared for patrols off the disputed South China Sea on March 3, 2017. (AP Photo)
*Related Articles*

_Asia Pacific_ China suggests North Korea - US compromise to defuse tensions 
The United States on Wednesday rejected China's proposal for a halt to joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises if North Korea suspends its nuclear and missile activities. It called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un irrational and demanded "positive action" before the U.S. can take his regime seriously.

In Washington, U.S. State Department acting spokesman Mark Toner said, "At this point we don't see it as a viable deal." A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Gary Ross, said U.S. activities to defend South Korea "cannot be equated to North Korea's repeated violations of its obligations and agreements."

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, told reporters after an emergency Security Council meeting on North Korea's latest ballistic missile launches that the United States must see "some sort of positive action" by Kim's regime before discussing ways to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

"They've given us enough reason to think how irresponsible that they are that we ever try and think that we're dealing with a rational person on this," she said.

Earlier Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi proposed the freeze-for-freeze, likening escalating tensions between the North and Washington and Seoul to "two accelerating trains, coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way."

The idea was rejected by South Korea and Japan as well as the U.S.

Haley said the military drills are especially needed now after North Korea conducted two nuclear tests and 24 ballistic missile launches last year and two sets of missile launches and the assassination of Kim Jong Un's estranged brother using a chemical weapon this year.

She also defended the upcoming deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in South Korea, a move that has been strongly opposed by China. She said America would not leave its ally facing the threat from North Korea without help.

"We have not seen any goodwill at all coming from North Korea," Haley said. "I appreciate all my counterparts wanting to talk about talks and negotiations, (but) we are not dealing with a rational person."

With any other country, the United States would be seeking negotiations, she said.

"This is not a rational person, who has not had rational acts, who is not thinking clearly," Haley said of North Korea's leader. "This is someone who is trying to get attention. This is someone who is trying to get a reaction."

Haley said the United States is re-evaluating how it is going to deal with North Korea going forward "and we are making those decisions now and will act accordingly."

"We're not ruling anything out and we're considering every option that's on the table," she said.

South Korean Ambassador Cho Tae-yul also rejected the idea of a North Korean nuclear freeze in exchange for halting U.S.-South Korea military exercises, which he stressed are defensive in nature.

"Linking this exercise to anything else, which is illegal nuclear and missile provocation by North Korea, is inappropriate and unacceptable, and I think this is just trying to link the unlinkable," he said.

"All kinds of options have been exhausted so far," Cho said, "So the only available means to change the North Korean behavior fundamentally is to continue to keep up the pressure and sanctions on North Korea."

Japan's U.N. ambassador, Koro Bessho, said that "at the starting point we need some assurances they are serious about the denuclearization."

"So Japan's position is that it's not freeze-for-freeze but it's denuclearization that we're looking for," Bessho said.

But Chinese Ambassador Liu Jieyi warned that "if you look at ... the development of events now on the Korean Peninsula there's a real danger, there's a real risk."

The alternative to China's proposal "would be escalation of tension, and the situation may get out of control," he told The Associated Press and two other reporters.

"We should avoid any worsening of the situation, or still any conflict, any sparks triggering a larger-scale conflict or even war on the Korean Peninsula," Liu said. "That's not something that's in the interest of anyone."

He said implementing China's proposal "shouldn't be hard" if there is political will, but "it would take the agreement of all the sides to get this result."

When asked whether China had a commitment from North Korea to freeze testing, he told the AP that "we have been talking to various parties concerned about this."

Haley said talks are one option on the table for U.S. consideration along with many others that she declined to specify. She said other Security Council members would also all be discussing with their capitals what to do next on North Korea.

Japan's Bessho said three of the missiles launched Sunday night landed in his country's exclusive economic zone where fishermen troll for squid. He said the North Korean military unit that conducted the launches is tasked with striking U.S. military bases in Japan when necessary.

"This shows us they are serious in these aggressive actions," Bessho said, calling the North's actions "a serious matter for the whole world."

He welcomed the Security Council's reaction late Tuesday, which was stronger than after previous launches.

The council strongly condemned the North's missile tests, "increasingly destabilizing behavior" and defiance of the council's resolutions. It said the missile activity increases tensions in the region and beyond, and risks a regional arms race.

The Security Council has already imposed six rounds of increasingly tougher sanctions on North Korea. It urged all countries to "redouble efforts" to implement them and warned of possible "further significant measures."

British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, the current council president, said members discussed "a potential role" for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in pursuing "a united council position," but gave no details.

Speaking on behalf of Britain, Rycroft said it's "very important that the first step" come from North Korea to demonstrate its commitment to denuclearization.

China's Liu told the AP the Security Council must follow the situation closely "but it is key that the main players in the region refrain from doing anything that would exacerbate the current highly tense situation on the Korean Peninsula."

https://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2017/03/09/us-rejects-chinas-call-to-halt-joint-drills-with-skorea


----------



## third eye

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39214525






US officials have dismissed China's suggestion that North Korea could halt its missile and nuclear test in exchange for a suspension of US military activity in the region.

The US state department said it was not "a viable deal" while the UN ambassador said North Korea was not "rational".

China's suggestion came after North Korea launched four ballistic missiles,breaking international sanctions.

Meanwhile the US has begun deploying a missile defence shield in South Korea.

It is also conducting its annual large-scale drills with the South Korean military, which routinely infuriate North Korea.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Wednesday that the security situation on the Korean peninsula was like "two accelerating trains, coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way".

A mutual halt of military operations by all parties would be the first step towards easing tensions and reopening negotiations, he said.





US ambassador Nikki Haley said all options remained on the table in handling North Korea
But US state department spokesman Mark Toner said this was like comparing "apples and oranges".

"What we're doing in terms of our defence co-operation with South Korea is in no way comparable to the blatant disregard that North Korea has shown with respect to international law."

But he said the US needed to look for new strategies on North Korea.

"All of the efforts we have taken thus far to attempt to persuade North Korea to engage in meaningful negotiations have fallen short, to be honest," he said.

"So we need to look at new ways to convince them, to persuade them, that it's in their interests."

*'Irresponsible arrogance'*

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on Wednesday, having issued a stronger than usual condemnation of the latest North Korean test.

It accused North Korea of "increasingly destabilising behaviour" which risked sparking a regional arms race.

The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley later told reporters that *"all options were on the table" *regarding North Korea.

*But she said that the world was "not dealing with a rational person" when it came to the North Korean leader.*

"It is an unbelievable, irresponsible arrogance that we are seeing coming out of Kim Jong-un at this time," she said.

Ms Haley also repeated US assurances that the installation of the US-made Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system (Thaad) in South - to shoot down missile attacks from the North - was not a threat to China.

China has been angered by the system, as it believes its powerful radar will enable the US to monitor its military activities too.

Ms Haley said the US was "not going to leave South Korea standing there with the threat of North Korea facing them and not help".

Japan and South Korea also rejected the idea of a deal with North Korea.


----------



## xunzi

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Everybody needs funding.
> 
> Ofcourse they are private companies.
> 
> What I'm saying is that they should be encouraged to aim even higher.
> 
> Let's talk about DJI for example.
> 
> It did need money. It raised around 200 million dollars worth of cash, largely from foreign VCs.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been good to have a state owned back give them the bucks? It would perhaps have been the most profitable transaction for the bank, and would have kept growing chinese wealth in China.
> 
> 
> Further, DJI is so good, in executing and implementing stuff, that they should be encouraged to aim higher, by giving them funds.


For every 1 successful DJI, there is a hundred failure. If the bank fund EVERY single one of them in their startup expansion, the banks would go bankrupt! That is the why startup like to raise from VC because of the associated risk and reward.

Also it is important for you to understand the DJI does not LACK FUNDING. The market demand is not there yet, and that is why it's pointless for them to have BILLIONS of available fund in hand. And like I said, if DJI want fund, go IPO. No needs for bank to take risky business decision. Banks dont' operated that way.

Your understanding of how real world business work is extremely limited.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

*China's central SOEs profits up 29%*
Xinhua, March 10, 2017





Xiao Yaqing, head of State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) [Photo: youth.cn]

China's centrally administered state-owned enterprises (SOEs) performed well in the first two months of 2017 thanks to a stabilizing economy and better management, the state assets regulator said Thursday.

*Combined profits of China's centrally-administered SOEs surged 29.1 percent year-on-year to 168.6 billion yuan (about 24.37 billion U.S. dollars) in the first two months,* Xiao Yaqing, head of State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual parliamentary session.

The country's *102 central SOEs* saw revenues up 15.2 percent to 3.7 trillion yuan in the two months from the same period last year, according to Xiao.

Xiao said the strong growth was a result of *reductions in cost and management expenses*, which also reflects the stabilization of the national economy.

Total profits of China's central SOEs climbed 0.5 percent year on year to more than 1.23 trillion yuan in 2016, while revenues rose 2.6 percent to 23.4 trillion yuan, SASAC data showed.

Xiao voiced "full confidence" in the performance of China's SOEs this year, but he also warned of economic uncertainties and stressed the need to keep potential risks under control.

China pledged to *deepen SOE reform in 2017* in a government work report delivered by Premier Li Keqiang Sunday, *promising measures such as introducing a mixed ownership system* and more efforts to make SOEs leaner, healthier, and perform better.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GS Zhou

xunzi said:


> Your understanding of how real world business work is extremely limited.


but that could not stop him making blabla on topics that he has NO knowledge at all!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

*Foxconn chairman raises uncertainties over building displays for Apple in USA*

By Malcolm Owen 

Thursday, March 09, 2017, 08:20 am PT (11:20 am ET)

Apple manufacturing partner Foxconn has yet to decide whether or not to proceed with plans to jointly invest in a $7 billion facility in the U.S., with Chairman Terry Gou expressing concerns over government incentives, supply chain issues, and a shortage of skilled labor in the country. 






Speaking at an event commencing the construction of a new display panel production facility in southern China, Chairman Gou revealed he had returned from a visit to Washington, D.C., reports _Nikkei_, though it was not confirmed whether he had met officials in the Trump administration. 

Gou questioned whether government officials were capable of attracting foreign investors in a short timeframe. Major projects, such as the proposed Apple-Foxconn facility that relies heavily on investment from overseas, could be put at risk if the government is considered by investors as too slow to be helpful in completing such deals. 

"I am concerned as to whether the U.S. can resolve all the investment issues in only a few months' time," said Gou. "Does the U.S. offer incentive programs for foreign investors? They'll need to pass bills first, and we'll need to wait for American authorities to make a decision first." 

Gou also claimed the U.S. lacked the supply chains and skilled labor required for display panel production, which would be the main focus of the proposed facility. A lack of a skilled workforce and the inability to acquire materials would give the U.S. a considerable disadvantage when attempting to attract investment, whereas China's existing manufacturing industries already have the supply chains and the eager workforce in place. 

Despite the drastically different manufacturing environments, Gou is still keen to work with both the United States and China for production, and does not wish to "see a trade war happen" between the two. "I am not willing to choose between [the U.S. and China], why should I give up on any market?"

The chairman does still hope the "top two economies in the world" can work together peacefully. "I can forsee that the two will eventually work together to grow [their] economies and deliver beneficial outcome for many. If they don't, then everyone will be losers." 

The Apple-Foxconn facility in the U.S. is believed to potentially create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs, with the higher cost of production thought to be a better option than paying to import display panels from China. A second molding plant is also on the cards, with Pennsylvania thought to be a possible location for the facility. 

The talks of increased manufacturing in the U.S. is likely to be a response to campaign promises of President Donald Trump, to increase domestic job opportunities by driving companies to manufacture goods in the country, including Apple. Part of the campaign involved threats to make it more expensive for companies to import their goods from abroad, including Mexico and China, while also hinting at concessions on land and electricity, as well as tax, to encourage home-grown production efforts. 

Other Apple suppliers have also expressed an interest in bringing manufacturing to the United States, because of Trump's policies. Sharp, owned by Foxconn, and chip maker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) have also been linked to potential manufacturing investments.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17...nties-over-building-displays-for-apple-in-usa

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

xunzi said:


> For every 1 successful DJI, there is a hundred failure. If the bank fund EVERY single one of them in their startup expansion, the banks would go bankrupt! That is the why startup like to raise from VC because of the associated risk and reward.
> 
> Also it is important for you to understand the DJI does not LACK FUNDING. The market demand is not there yet, and that is why it's pointless for them to have BILLIONS of available fund in hand. And like I said, if DJI want fund, go IPO. No needs for bank to take risky business decision. Banks dont' operated that way.
> 
> Your understanding of how real world business work is extremely limited.



Incorrect. There are not hundred failures. 

Secondly, I am not talking about banks funding startups. 

I am suggesting that banks should first form a big venture fund, that operates like other venture funds. 

Second, after seed and A stages, banks can themselves fill in. 

Just so that you know, backing good private companies, with a track record of success, is far far better than backing SOEs, who rely totally on government favor for everything.


----------



## TaiShang

cirr said:


> Gou also claimed the U.S. lacked the supply chains and skilled labor required for display panel production, which would be the main focus of the proposed facility. A lack of a skilled workforce and the inability to acquire materials would give the U.S. a considerable disadvantage when attempting to attract investment, whereas China's existing manufacturing industries already have the supply chains and the eager workforce in place.



Indeed, in terms of supply chain and logistics, the US cannot match China. Honhai is better stay focused on their state-of-the-art facility being built in Nanjing and increase investment in fast growing western China.

To be in China not only allows to utilize manufacturing chain in China but also in Northeast Asia.


----------



## Jlaw

cirr said:


> *Foxconn chairman raises uncertainties over building displays for Apple in USA*
> 
> By Malcolm Owen
> 
> Thursday, March 09, 2017, 08:20 am PT (11:20 am ET)
> 
> Apple manufacturing partner Foxconn has yet to decide whether or not to proceed with plans to jointly invest in a $7 billion facility in the U.S., with Chairman Terry Gou expressing concerns over government incentives, supply chain issues, and a shortage of skilled labor in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking at an event commencing the construction of a new display panel production facility in southern China, Chairman Gou revealed he had returned from a visit to Washington, D.C., reports _Nikkei_, though it was not confirmed whether he had met officials in the Trump administration.
> 
> Gou questioned whether government officials were capable of attracting foreign investors in a short timeframe. Major projects, such as the proposed Apple-Foxconn facility that relies heavily on investment from overseas, could be put at risk if the government is considered by investors as too slow to be helpful in completing such deals.
> 
> "I am concerned as to whether the U.S. can resolve all the investment issues in only a few months' time," said Gou. "Does the U.S. offer incentive programs for foreign investors? They'll need to pass bills first, and we'll need to wait for American authorities to make a decision first."
> 
> Gou also claimed the U.S. lacked the supply chains and skilled labor required for display panel production, which would be the main focus of the proposed facility. A lack of a skilled workforce and the inability to acquire materials would give the U.S. a considerable disadvantage when attempting to attract investment, whereas China's existing manufacturing industries already have the supply chains and the eager workforce in place.
> 
> Despite the drastically different manufacturing environments, Gou is still keen to work with both the United States and China for production, and does not wish to "see a trade war happen" between the two. "I am not willing to choose between [the U.S. and China], why should I give up on any market?"
> 
> The chairman does still hope the "top two economies in the world" can work together peacefully. "I can forsee that the two will eventually work together to grow [their] economies and deliver beneficial outcome for many. If they don't, then everyone will be losers."
> 
> The Apple-Foxconn facility in the U.S. is believed to potentially create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs, with the higher cost of production thought to be a better option than paying to import display panels from China. A second molding plant is also on the cards, with Pennsylvania thought to be a possible location for the facility.
> 
> The talks of increased manufacturing in the U.S. is likely to be a response to campaign promises of President Donald Trump, to increase domestic job opportunities by driving companies to manufacture goods in the country, including Apple. Part of the campaign involved threats to make it more expensive for companies to import their goods from abroad, including Mexico and China, while also hinting at concessions on land and electricity, as well as tax, to encourage home-grown production efforts.
> 
> Other Apple suppliers have also expressed an interest in bringing manufacturing to the United States, because of Trump's policies. Sharp, owned by Foxconn, and chip maker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) have also been linked to potential manufacturing investments.
> 
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/17...nties-over-building-displays-for-apple-in-usa


Chicano and low educated white Americans just can't do the job. Best to stay in china.


----------



## shadows888

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Good.
> 
> Unfortunately this is not what I'm talking about.
> 
> I already know that local governments provide such incentives to private, even foreign owned companies.
> 
> What I'm talking about is banks.
> 
> They should give DJI a 100 billion dollars loan, at good interest rates, for a period of 20 years.
> 
> DJI can do wonders with that money.



It's a private company, leave them alone.


Bussard Ramjet said:


> Incorrect. There are not hundred failures.
> 
> Secondly, I am not talking about banks funding startups.
> 
> I am suggesting that banks should first form a big venture fund, that operates like other venture funds.
> 
> Second, after seed and A stages, banks can themselves fill in.
> 
> Just so that you know, backing good private companies, with a track record of success, is far far better than backing SOEs, who rely totally on government favor for everything.



the job of SOE's is to carry out the policies of the state, not make profits. any profits are bonus. DJI's in the business to make profits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GS Zhou

shadows888 said:


> the job of SOE's is to carry out the policies of the state, not make profits.


Hi bro, I can not agree with you here. Making profits is part of the duty to SOE as well.

If the SOE is concentrating on military stuff, e.g. Chengdu Aircraft or Shenyang Aircraft, profit is not the key object. But if the company is in other none-sensitive areas, e.g. automobile, profit is of course the top priority. 

For automobile SOE, we now see the rise of some very competitive players, with nice products and double digit sales growth, e.g. Chang'an, GAC, SAIC (长安, 广汽, 上汽); meanwhile we also see some "layman" SOE, with slow responses to market needs, poor design,etc, e.g. FAW (一汽). For such low-performing SOE like FAW, SASAC (国资委) needs to insert pressure to them to ask for a performance change.


----------



## The SC

The US labour wages can not match the Chinese at any level, be it High-end or low-end manufacturing.. that explains it best..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

shadows888 said:


> the job of SOE's is to carry out the policies of the state, not make profits. any profits are bonus. DJI's in the business to make profits.



Sadly, the best way to carry out the policies of the state is also to keep in mind efficiency and profit. 

Here, SOEs are given trillions in loans, which they are unable to pay back later, to keep them afloat. 

This is a loosing proposition.


----------



## TaiShang

*CRI听力:China manufacturing industry moves toward intelligent, innovative and high-end*
2017-03-09 我要投稿 

China has recently released 11 guidelines for implementing the "Made in China 2025" strategy, identifying *smart manufacturing, branding and high-end equipment as the core of the plan*.

During the ongoing session of the top legislature, the role of this strategy in boosting the country's competitiveness is still a hot topic among deputies.

In this year's government work report, Chinese premier Li Keqiang said the country will intensify efforts to push forward the Made in China 2025 initiative.

"We'll work hard on the implementation of projects to build a robust foundation for industrial development and projects in developing and making major equipment, and we'll make a big push to develop advanced manufacturing, thus moving toward mid- and high-end manufacturing. We'll improve policies to turn China into a manufacturer of quality," said Li.

Chen Fengying, a researcher from China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, says breakthroughs have been achieved in brand recognition and quality.

*But how to apply new technologies into the production, management and marketing models is crucial for the next step.*

"We have established manufacturing innovation centers across the country, which is important to the enhancement of smart manufacturing," said Chen. "And this year, around 25 more centers will be set up to reach a more comprehensive nationwide layout. We also carried out several remarkable intelligent manufacturing projects with the world leading position, such as the key technologies in realizing robot intelligence."

*Based in Xuzhou, XCMG Group is a Chinese heavy machinery manufacturing company, ranking 5th in the world's construction machinery industry.*

Company Vice Director Yan Lijuan says the real economy is the cornerstone of China's development, and the manufacturing industry is the core of the real economy.

"The revitalization of the real economy is in close relation with the realization of the Chinese dream. To implement the initiative, our company aims to become top-3 in the global engineering machine industry by 2025. We have implemented sound measures to make sure our equipment manufacturing skills are developing toward the high-end level, and our products can compete in the world market. We also pour money and efforts into innovation, quality improvement and personnel training," said Yan Lijuan.

Deputy Yan Chengzhong, a professor of Donghua University in Shanghai, said the upgrading of the manufacturing sector needs advanced talents.

He called for deeper reforms for the higher education system.

"This time, one of my suggestions will concerning with how to re-educate or retrain our BA degree graduates," said Yan Chengzhong. "It also needs policy leading, because so far, we don't have a systematic policy design for the big nation skill masters in manufacturing. How could they really enjoy good rewarding and social positions? So I believe the central government will realize this is something really substantial."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> *CRI听力:China manufacturing industry moves toward intelligent, innovative and high-end*
> 2017-03-09 我要投稿
> 
> China has recently released 11 guidelines for implementing the "Made in China 2025" strategy, identifying *smart manufacturing, branding and high-end equipment as the core of the plan*.
> 
> During the ongoing session of the top legislature, the role of this strategy in boosting the country's competitiveness is still a hot topic among deputies.
> 
> In this year's government work report, Chinese premier Li Keqiang said the country will intensify efforts to push forward the Made in China 2025 initiative.
> 
> "We'll work hard on the implementation of projects to build a robust foundation for industrial development and projects in developing and making major equipment, and we'll make a big push to develop advanced manufacturing, thus moving toward mid- and high-end manufacturing. We'll improve policies to turn China into a manufacturer of quality," said Li.
> 
> Chen Fengying, a researcher from China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, says breakthroughs have been achieved in brand recognition and quality.
> 
> *But how to apply new technologies into the production, management and marketing models is crucial for the next step.*
> 
> "We have established manufacturing innovation centers across the country, which is important to the enhancement of smart manufacturing," said Chen. "And this year, around 25 more centers will be set up to reach a more comprehensive nationwide layout. We also carried out several remarkable intelligent manufacturing projects with the world leading position, such as the key technologies in realizing robot intelligence."
> 
> *Based in Xuzhou, XCMG Group is a Chinese heavy machinery manufacturing company, ranking 5th in the world's construction machinery industry.*
> 
> Company Vice Director Yan Lijuan says the real economy is the cornerstone of China's development, and the manufacturing industry is the core of the real economy.
> 
> "The revitalization of the real economy is in close relation with the realization of the Chinese dream. To implement the initiative, our company aims to become top-3 in the global engineering machine industry by 2025. We have implemented sound measures to make sure our equipment manufacturing skills are developing toward the high-end level, and our products can compete in the world market. We also pour money and efforts into innovation, quality improvement and personnel training," said Yan Lijuan.
> 
> Deputy Yan Chengzhong, a professor of Donghua University in Shanghai, said the upgrading of the manufacturing sector needs advanced talents.
> 
> He called for deeper reforms for the higher education system.
> 
> "This time, one of my suggestions will concerning with how to re-educate or retrain our BA degree graduates," said Yan Chengzhong. "It also needs policy leading, because so far, we don't have a systematic policy design for the big nation skill masters in manufacturing. How could they really enjoy good rewarding and social positions? So I believe the central government will realize this is something really substantial."


SOEs bear the responsibility of developing key sectors in China.
Companies like XCMG and CRRC are upgrading China's manufacturing capacity to a new level.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

*Tillerson meets with Xi Jinping, says Trump looks forward to enhancing understanding*

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 19 March, 2017, 11:51am
UPDATED : Sunday, 19 March, 2017, 1:14pm





_China's President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (L) before their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing Photo: AFP_

Chinese president Xi Jinping told US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that China and US can be good partners and called for enhanced cooperation between the two sides.

In a meeting on Sunday, Tillerson said President Donald Trump looks forward to enhancing understanding with China and the opportunity for a visit in the future.

Xi said he was glad to see good progress from Tillerson’s meetings in China so far and that he and Trump expect a new stage of constructive development in bilateral relations.

As long as both sides bear in mind that they can be good partners, bilateral relations can move towards a”correct direction”, Xi told Tillerson.

Tillerson said Trump places a “very high value on the communications that have already occurred” between Xi and Trump.

“He looks forward to enhancing that understanding in the opportunity for a visit in the future,” Tillerson said.

“We know that through further dialogue we will achieve a greater understanding that will lead to a strengthening of the ties between China and the United States, and set the tone for our future relationship of cooperation.”

The call for more understanding was made ahead of a summit between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, expected to be held next month. Tillerson, despite giving warnings that US may make pre-emptive strike against North Korea prior to his visit to China, also strike a positive note on China US relations.

Xi said Tillerson had made a lot efforts to achieve a smooth transition in this new era of relations.

“You said that China-U.S. relations can only be friendly. I express my appreciation for this,” Xi said.

Xi added he had communicated with Trump several times.

“We both believe that China-U.S. cooperation henceforth is the directions we are both striving for. We are both expecting a new era for constructive development.”

Tillerson and Xi were meeting in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People at the end of Tillerson’s first visit to China after taking office last month.

In an interview shortly before his Beijing trip with the Independent Journal Review, Tillerson said Trump and Xi should have further conversations.

“[The] overall China-US relationship really needs better clarity that can only be achieved by a meeting between our two leaders – a face-to-face meeting – and some time for them to be together and some time for us to exchange views,” he said.

On Saturday, Tillerson had meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and State Councillor Yang Jiechi. Speaking after a two-hour talk with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Tillerson said the pair had “a very extensive exchange” on the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula and that the two sides had agreed work together to stop Pyongyang from provocations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 艹艹艹

*Welcome to China, but we don't believe him*（_Rex Tillerson_）*.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Russell

Hopefully he isn't too 'fatigued'


----------



## powastick

Enhanced *mis*understanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

you guys have notitce the difference between these pictures:

First 1: Read his body language and look at his eyes, Tellerson sent a clear message "watch out what you gonna say about THAAD, my South Korean friend"






Picture #2: shake and with smiles






*conclusion: Strong nation get more respect.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> you guys have notitce the difference between these pictures:
> 
> First 1: Read his body language and look at his eyes, Tellerson sent a clear message "what out what you gonna say about THAAD, my South Korean friend"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picture #2: shake and with smiles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *conclusion: Strong nation get more respect.*



Very observant. Tillerson can say China's economic sticks spanking South Korea is *inappropriate* during his short stay in kimchi land but when arrived in China his attitude shifted.  Viet members here should take notice how Trump is now focusing on DPRK and hasn't said much about the SCS. Obviously DPRK's nuclear ambition and its missile tests are of concerns to the Trump administration. Again the US regards China as one of the key players in this whole debate so it should not come as a surprise the US wants to keep close contact with China hoping for a denuclearization. The Trump administration seem to be going nuts regarding Fat Kim and deluded Viets believe the US would help Vietnam getting nukes lol

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## onebyone

*Sealing investment deal ‘within reach’ at Trump-Xi talks*

Analysts say concluding discussions on such an accord would support US leader’s job promises

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 19 March, 2017, 11:59pm
UPDATED : Monday, 20 March, 2017, 3:09am






19 Mar 2017

One accomplishment of a summit between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping could be a road map for a bilateral investment treaty, business analysts in the United States say.

They believe there is a favourable environment for both sides to conclude the discussion on such a deal, which started nine years ago and entered substantial negotiations in 2013, because it would support one of the few Trump campaign pledges that has survived into his presidency – more American jobs.

“They both could agree over the next six to 12 months to produce an agreement that would increase American access to China and encourage Chinese investment in the US that would generate jobs,” said Dr David Lampton at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

Politics aside, Trump and Xi could bond as ‘strong men’

Moreover, now that Trump has backed off pledges to brand China a currency manipulator, and with no recent reiteration of threats to erect a 20 per cent tariff wall, the path to a positive meeting of the two presidents is clearer.

Given that Trump had shown a preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral ones, “they could rekindle something like the bilateral investment treaty [initiated under the administration of former US president Barack Obama]”, Lampton said.

“There was substantial work on a bilateral investment treaty, which I think Trump could repackage as his own and get some concessions from the Chinese government on market access.”

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s meeting with Xi in Beijing on Sunday has strengthened expectations that Xi and Trump will meet in the US next month.

Tillerson also met Foreign Minister Wang Yi over the weekend for what he described as “a very extensive exchange” on the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Preparation under way for Donald Trump, Xi Jinping to meet at G20 summit in July, sources say

While an agreement on a new approach to North Korea would likely feature in any summit, Trump will need to address concerns around jobs and market access to please his home audience.

Chinese investment in the US has already proven to align with Trump’s goals.

Chinese companies invested a record US$45.6 billion in the US economy in 2016, according to the Rhodium Group, an authority on investment flows between China and other countries.

That amount is triple the figure recorded for 2015, when US$15 billion worth of Chinese investment in the US led to 13,000 full-time jobs, according to an earlier report by Rhodium and the National Committee on US-China Relations.

Pure extrapolation would put the number of full-time jobs created by Chinese investment in 2016 at 39,000.

That represents about one-sixth of the total new non-farm jobs that were reported in the latest monthly payroll data from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics.

The dark side to Trump and Xi’s summit in sunny Florida

Xi may make other moves that would support US jobs.

Overcapacity among Chinese producers of steel has been blamed for allowing state-owned companies in China to undercut competitors in global markets.

“Chinese overcapacity that affects the US industrial base is a particular focus for President Trump, and President Xi may be willing to take some action on that front given the renewed focus at the recent meeting of the National People’s Congress on addressing overcapacity,” Jeremie Waterman, the senior policy adviser for Asia at the Washington-based US Chamber of Commerce, said.

“I don’t think there are going to be many concrete outcomes at what amounts to a first date, but there’s clearly a desire on the Chinese side to bring more stability to the relationship,” Waterman added.

Still, many of the issues Trump will be under pressure to resolve in the trade and investment relationship between the world’s two largest economies will likely be papered over or ignored.

When Xi meets Trump: why the casual approach in Mar-a-Lago could pay dividends

“There are significant concerns with a range of Chinese policies right now that even a high-standard investment agreement won’t address,” Waterman said.

“For example, large subsidies for domestic companies in targeted advanced and foundational industries to expand around the world as well as acquire foreign technology.

“Also, China is using a broad definition of national security and related information security standards to shield its ICT and data-reliant industries from foreign competition, including areas like cloud and electronic payments.

“At present, there is little indication that China is willing to alter its approach in these areas.”

In the end, the personalities of the two leaders may help them reach some form of agreement on trade and investment, even if it doesn’t directly address subsidies, information security standards or other issues concerning groups like the US Chamber of Commerce.

“Xi has his own sensitive domestic circumstances, and Trump does too,” Lampton said.

“They’re both nationalistic leaders, they’re both prone to be sensitive to criticism.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2080331/sealing-investment-deal-within-reach-trump-xi-talks

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

China and US are been like this for over 40 year, we knife throwing at each other over geo-politic arena but keep close cooperation in economy. We could have been better if US is not paranoid about China's rise, I don't think it's China's geo-political objective to replace US as #1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

onebyone said:


> *Moreover, now that Trump has backed off pledges to brand China a currency manipulator, and with no recent reiteration of threats to erect a 20 per cent tariff wall, the path to a positive meeting of the two presidents is clearer.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

Well that's just great, didn't some members here claim China is gonna come crashing now that Trump is at the helm?

"China stealing our jobs, will bring them back to USA", "China currency manipulator", "We are gonna slap China with >40% import tax" ... All these campaign promises are totally forgotten? The captain must be experiencing amnesia. 

The only promise he hasn't forgotten is shredding the TPP proposal into pieces

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## onebyone

terranMarine said:


> Well that's just great, didn't some members here claim China is gonna come crashing now that Trump is at helm?
> "China stealing our jobs, will bring them back to USA", "China currency manipulator", "We are gonna slap China with >40% import tax" ... All these campaign promises are totally forgotten? The captain must be experiencing amnesia
> The only promise he hasn't forgotten is shredding the TPP proposal into pieces


 Good viet wet dream

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

Give US more medium-paying low-end manufacturing job outsourced from China to help Trump with his MAGA policy. In return, take China off the list of non-market economy countries.

Win-win.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jlaw

terranMarine said:


> Well that's just great, didn't some members here claim China is gonna come crashing now that Trump is at the helm?
> 
> "China stealing our jobs, will bring them back to USA", "China currency manipulator", "We are gonna slap China with >40% import tax" ... All these campaign promises are totally forgotten? The captain must be experiencing amnesia.
> 
> The only promise he hasn't forgotten is shredding the TPP proposal into pieces


But Trump is bringing jobs back. Since 2015, Chinese investments in murica created 13000 jobs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

Jlaw said:


> But Trump is bringing jobs back. Since 2015, Chinese investments in murica created 13000 jobs.



What do they expect to get? Free lunch for idiotic MAGA?

This is what they get.

***
*Moscow Inks $400 Billion Deal With China; Washington Gets Awkward Handshake* 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson leaves Beijing with an awkward Facebook photo

Rudy Panko
Mon, Mar 20, 2017 | 



Poor Rex.

We have to give credit to Rex Tillerson for at least* trying to pretend* that Washington has good relations with China. 

On Sunday, the U.S. Secretary of State concluded his visit to China. He has returned to Washington with an awkward handshake and a flurry of meaningless formalities:

*"You said that China-U.S. relations can only be friendly. I express my appreciation for this," Xi said.*

What did Tillerson expect, though?

While it's true that America is still hooked on cheap Chinese products, the reality is that *Beijing has made it clear that its security and longterm economic viability will be achieved through close cooperation with Russia and greater Eurasia.* The foreign policy geniuses in Washington actually managed to push Russia into China's arms — an accomplishment that we described as the "biggest geopolitical blunder since 1776".

Yes, it's true that Xi told reporters that China is "expecting a new era for constructive development" with Washington. *Are we supposed to be impressed by this bland, vanilla statement, though?* You can find similar language from joint statements between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. But are there any actions to back up the words? 

*Show us the money.* ( @ahojunk )

Regarding "constructive development" with China, Rex could use a few pointers from Putin:








The photographs don't lie. And neither does the $400 billion gas deal. Or the endless list of infrastructure and trade agreements. Or BRICS. Or the fact that Beijing has stated openly that it is "coordinating" its foreign policy with Moscow. 

But apparently we're supposed to be impressed by Tillerson bagging some "warm words":

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## yantong1980

Lol, after all 'mumbo-jumbo' about China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

*US official: Trump to meet China’s Xi first week in April*
Originally published March 28, 2017 at 12:03 pm 
Updated March 28, 2017 at 2:12 pm

FILE – In this March 5, 2017 file photo, Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. A senior State Department official says Chinese President Xi will meet with President Donald Trump the first full week of April. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet with President Donald Trump the first full week of April, a senior State Department official said Tuesday.

The first in-person encounter between the leaders comes after Trump sharply criticized China during the presidential campaign. But he is now seeking Beijing’s help in pressuring North Korea over its nuclear weapons and missile programs.

Trump and Xi also are likely to discuss the U.S. president’s threats to counter what he claims are unfair Chinese trade practices. Trump has promised to raise import taxes on Chinese goods and declare Beijing a currency manipulator. It’s unclear if Trump will follow on either threat while seeking China’s cooperation on North Korea.

Though the White House hasn’t formally announced Xi’s visit, the leaders are expected to gather at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — where Trump hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in February.

The State Department official confirmed the timing of Xi’s trip while discussing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s upcoming travel plans.

Tillerson had planned to skip a meeting of NATO foreign ministers scheduled for April 5-6 so he could attend Xi’s meeting with Trump, the official said. The NATO gathering in Brussels was rescheduled for Friday so Tillerson could attend, said the official, who briefed reporters on a conference call on condition of anonymity even though Trump has criticized media for using anonymous sources.

Under Trump, regular opportunities for journalists to question Tillerson or other State Department officials in public have been significantly curtailed.

The agency held no televised briefings, a State Department mainstay for decades under administrations of both parties, for six weeks after Trump’s inauguration. They resumed in March under a new format: Two televised briefings per week and two over-the-phone briefings.

Now the televised briefings have again been canceled, due to staffing changes. Instead, they’re only holding telephone briefings, restricted to one topic per day as chosen by the State Department.

Those calls are held on “background,” meaning journalists can question senior officials but are prohibited from naming them in any stories, and the State Department has declined requests to conduct the calls on the record.

The State Department has said typical, on-the-record briefings may resume soon.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...-trump-to-meet-chinas-xi-first-week-in-april/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

*US-China economic cooperation is the only way going forward*

In spite of President Donald Trump’s anti-China rhetoric during and shortly after he was elected, a more constructive and cooperative US-China relationship will likely emerge after his meeting next week with President Xi Jinping. In addition to Trump’s recent conciliatory letter to Xi followed by a cordial telephone conversation, economic and geopolitical realities demand that the relationship improve.

The world’s second-largest economy is too big to coerce and impossible to contain. China has responded to what it sees as external threats by building islands in the South China Sea and deploying missiles, jet fighters and other military assets on them. In addition, China has increased — and will continue to boost — the number of submarines and surface warships to defend what it sees as US aggression. Its second aircraft carrier is expected to be launched this year. More and bigger destroyers and nuclear submarines are under construction. China is said to be building its first 40,000-ton assault ship, capable of carrying 30 armed helicopters. Even if all of Asia sides with the United States, taking down a country of more than 1.36 billion people armed with conventional and nuclear weapons without sacrificing millions of Asian and American lives is delusional.

The US and Chinese economies are closely intertwined. In spite of relentless China-bashing, two-way trade has jumped from less than US$35 billion in 1990 to almost US$600 billion last year. More than two-third of Chinese exports to the US are produced by American or US-China joint-venture firms. Moreover, the supply chain is deeply interdependent between the two countries. There was practically zero Chinese investment in the US in the 1990s, but that had risen to more than US$100 billion by 2016. US investment in China has also grown from zero in 2000 to US$228 billion by 2016 with American Fortune 500 companies leading the way.

*China plays pivotal role in US economic health*

China is the top export market and major investor in 33 states, according to Bloomberg. China has played a pivotal role in spurring or sustaining economic growth in California, Washington, Texas, Michigan, and other states. The cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia recently signed contracts with a Chinese railway company’s US subsidiary to produce hundreds of trains. More will likely follow given America’s degraded infrastructure and Trump’s campaign pledge to rebuild it.

China’s increasingly affluent market explains why more American politicians, business people, tourists, and students travel to China. The growing Chinese economy offers the best opportunity for US enterprises. For example, Boeing has sold more than US$60 billion in aircraft to China since 2000. And states with large agricultural businesses have profited from selling chicken parts, soybeans, and other foodstuffs to China’s growing middle- and upper-middle classes now numbering almost 700 million and increasing.

Indeed, politicians representing export-dependent and investment-hungry states who denounced China have softened their criticism on trade and human-rights issues. Rick Perry, former Texas governor and US presidential hopeful, had accused China of unfair trade practices and human-rights abuses. But he changed his tune last year during a trip to China promoting Texas, calling China a great “friend” of his state. Presidential candidates, from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, campaigned on get-tough-on-China platforms but made U-turns once in office.

*Anti-China rhetoric makes no sense*

Their 180-degree policy flip-flop is influenced not only by economic and geopolitical realities but also by nonsensical anti-China rhetoric. China did not “rape” America or “steal” its jobs as Trump and his trade chief, Peter Navarro, claimed. Unskilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were automated. Indeed, it was America Inc.’s decision to replace polluting manufacturing with service industries that led to the closing of US factories. Accusing China of manipulating its currency to gain an export advantage and distort current-account deficit values is misleading. US trade-deficit figures are distorted, not only with China but with other countries as well. The “imports” are mostly goods produced by US-owned firms or outsourcing firms offshore. These practices are usually recorded under inter-company trade.

Moving manufacturing operations overseas has made America richer and less polluted. Low-priced imports save the average American family more than US$1,000 a year, allowing consumers to buy more goods and services. By closing its polluting factories, America is exporting pollution to other countries such as China.

China has neither the ability nor the desire to challenge US global hegemony. Its military, though capable of inflicting catastrophic damage to the US and its allies, is weaker and less advanced. China has too many problems — rampant corruption, ethnic tensions, environmental degradation, etc. — to make new enemies. President Xi is correct: US-China cooperation is the only way forward. Conflict between China and the US would a have a devastating effect not only on both countries but also on the rest of the world. Trump’s meeting with Xi April 6 and 7 would appear to indicate the US president realizes the relationship must remain open and productive. Moreover, the majority of the American public and its states want a better US-China relationship.

http://www.atimes.com/us-china-cooperation-way-going-forward/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

When reality sinks in, the only way forward is cooperation between the big two countries. Their economies are just too integrated - you can't hurt one without hurting the other.

If I recall correctly, there are about 300 avenues/platforms where these big two are able to have "dialogue".

At the end of the day, only their interests matter. Don't think the other countries matter, this is the harsh reality.

And, money still talks, bullsh*t walks.


----------



## ahojunk

*Ties that matter to the world*
2017-04-06 10:43 | Global Times | Editor:Li Yan






Editor's Note:

The People's Republic of China and the U.S. established diplomatic relations in 1979. They are both members of UN Security Council, G20, APEC and various other international groups and have agreed to work together on addressing their common interests such as the North Korean nuclear issue, the Syrian civil war, climate change and maintaining global economic stability. (Graphics/GT)





GDP and growth (Graphics/GT)





Tourism and Education (Graphics/GT)





Investments (Graphics/GT)


----------



## ahojunk

*Charting progress of Sino-U.S. relations*
2017-04-07 10:06 | China Daily | Editor:Li Yan


----------



## BHarwana

*China mocks Trump missile strike after Xi leaves US: ‘A weakened politician who needed to flex his muscles’*
DAVID EDWARDS
09 APR 2017 AT 13:33 ET 






China’s state-run news agency waited for President Xi Jinping to leave the U.S. before unleashing criticism on President Donald Trump’s Syrian missile strike.

Although President Xi was visiting Mar-a-Lago when Trump ordered the strike on a Syrian air base, Xinhua waited until China’s president was safely out of the country before mocking the military action.

“Xinhua, the state news agency, on Saturday called the strike the act of a weakened politician who needed to flex his muscles,” _The New York Times_ reported. “In an analysis, Xinhua also said Mr. Trump had ordered the strike to distance himself from Syria’s backers in Moscow, to overcome accusations that he was ‘pro-Russia.'”

Over the weekend, Trump declared that the two leaders “made tremendous progress”

“I just want to say that President Xi and all of his representatives have been really interesting to be with,” the U.S. president said following the meeting. “I believe lots of very potentially bad problems will be going away.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/chi...ed-politician-who-needed-to-flex-his-muscles/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BHarwana

I would agree with Chinese. The analysis 100% on point.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

BHarwana said:


> I would agree with Chinese. The analysis 100% on point.


Besides, set up on display "those 100 million fireworks" while hosting a dignitary guest is completely out of courtesy act... it's an unspoken rudeness that won't go unnoticed and be forgotten. At the end more or less it simply shows some kind of madness (wacko) and unreliable quality.

Among the big guys, such fireworks won't scare anyone... any big guy keeps lots of stocks at base.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Trump at the beginning of his Presidency should have had the largest amount of political capital to push his healthcare bill, yet he was unable to pass it.

His fellow Republicans destroyed it. 

Trump's weakness even at the beginning of his Presidency is truly "Unpresidented". He has the record of the lowest ever approval ratings after his inauguration.

This strike was an attempt to consolidate his support base at home, but at what cost? His relationship with the Russians, which he spent years building up... now it's all gone down the toilet after a single day. Fantastic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BHarwana

samsara said:


> Besides, set up on display "those 100 million fireworks" while hosting a dignitary guest is completely out of courtesy act... it's an unspoken rudeness that won't go unnoticed and be forgotten. At the end more or less it simply shows some kind of madness (wacko) and unreliable quality.
> 
> Among the big guys, such fireworks won't scare anyone... any big guy keeps lots of stocks at base.


The best joke was when after an hour CNN reported the fighter jets from the same base took off and bombed the same town where chemical attack took place and Trump did nothing. Trump has made USA a joke after these attacks. The next statement came from Russia with the destroyer being deployed to the coast of Syria. Iran and Russia both said openly that USA should try bombing now. Nothing happened. After some time Trump dispatches the Naval group to North Korea and suddenly there were reports of an unknown Submarine in the vicinity of the Battle group.

Poor USA feels so alone. NATO is still arguing over the budget lol West has become a joke.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

here is some fact so you guys can begin to comprehend why China will continue to be amicable to the USA regardless of how dumb Trump is or how astute xinhua comedians are. The Chinese trade surplus with the USA is three times the US exports to China. You think China will do anything to jeopardize this?


----------



## BHarwana

*US missile strikes violated all red lines on Syria: Russia, Iran, allied forces*

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/...violation-red-lines-Russia-Iran-allied-forces



Tiger Genie said:


> here is some fact so you guys can begin to comprehend why China will continue its subservience to the USA regardless of how dumb Trump is or how astute xinhua comedians are. The Chinese trade surplus with the USA is three times the US exports to China. You think China will do anything to jeopardize this meal ticket?


World is going to start world war 3 and Indians are only concerned about Chinese trade surplus and Cows. Dear Indians this a new century you need to start treating animals as animals and humans as humans. Please stop being jealous about Chinese trade surplus.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yantong1980

He get 'owned' by 'mainstream' elites , he need to act to show he was 'good guy' in front the elites. Just see and look MSM and his rival politician comment after Syrian strike.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

China will offer the Trump administration better market access for financial sector investments and US beef exports to help avert a trade war, according to Chinese and US officials involved in talks between the two governments.

US President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, decided at their first meeting in Florida last week that they needed rushed trade negotiations to produce results within 100 days. The two concessions on finance and beef are relatively easy for Beijing to make.

At present, foreign investors cannot hold a majority stake in securities and insurance companies in China. The country’s largest companies in these sectors, such as Citic Securities and China Life Insurance, have achieved enormous scale in the 15 years since the world’s second-biggest economy joined the World Trade Organisation, making them formidable competitors for new entrants to the market.

The concession to allow majority foreign ownership was discussed during Barack Obama’s administration, when Chinese and US negotiators held several rounds of talks about a bilateral investment treaty, or BIT. 

Mr Trump has not yet said if he intends to pursue the treaty, which US negotiators hoped would address China market access issues in a wide range of industries.

“China was prepared to [raise the investment ceilings] in the BIT but those negotiations were put on hold [after Trump’s election victory],” said one Chinese official involved in the talks. “Had Obama been in office for another six months we would have gotten there.” 

China is also willing to end a ban on US beef imports that has been in place since 2003, officials said, and buy more grains and other agricultural products as it seeks to reduce tensions stemming from the $347bn annual trade surplus in goods that it enjoys with its biggest trading partner. 

Mr Trump’s campaign threats last year to slap tariffs on Chinese goods and declare Beijing a currency manipulator have raised fears of a destructive trade war between the world’s two largest economies. But since taking office the former reality television star has moderated his rhetoric and cabinet officials have signalled they plan to take a more pragmatic approach.

If concluded, the mooted deal would be welcomed by US financial services companies, which have grown increasingly frustrated in recent years about what they say are rising barriers to doing business in the country. Beef exporters have also complained about the lingering Chinese ban on US imports, which was introduced after a BSE scare in the US herd.

While a comprehensive Sino-US investment treaty remains a distant prospect, both sides are hoping to achieve a number of smaller trade deals in the coming three months. 

On Saturday, Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Xi’s two-day visit to his resort at Mar-a-Lago had been “tremendous”, before adding a warning shot. 

“Goodwill and friendship was formed,” the US president said in a follow-up tweet. “But only time will tell on trade.” 

US officials are pressing their Chinese counterparts to lower their current 25 per cent tariff on automotive imports. Beijing in return would like greater protection for Chinese investment in the US, which tripled last year to more than $45bn, and also for Washington to relax restrictions on the sale of certain high-tech products to China. 

The Chinese government may simply commit to buy more US imports in the same way that Japan did in the 1980s. 

Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said such a transactional approach would potentially help reduce the US trade deficit in the short term and appeal to Mr Trump’s instincts as a dealmaker. But it would have its limits. 

“We’re not going to export a whole lot of steel to China,” Mr Bown said. 

Thanks to a state-directed investment stimulus unleashed in the wake of the global financial crisis, Chinese steelmakers now produce more steel than the rest of the world combined. With the Chinese economy now growing at its slowest pace in a quarter century, reduced demand at home has led to a surge in steel exports, causing global prices to collapse. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...with-us/ar-BBzBJet?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Beast

F-22Raptor said:


> China will offer the Trump administration better market access for financial sector investments and US beef exports to help avert a trade war, according to Chinese and US officials involved in talks between the two governments.
> 
> US President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, decided at their first meeting in Florida last week that they needed rushed trade negotiations to produce results within 100 days. The two concessions on finance and beef are relatively easy for Beijing to make.
> 
> At present, foreign investors cannot hold a majority stake in securities and insurance companies in China. The country’s largest companies in these sectors, such as Citic Securities and China Life Insurance, have achieved enormous scale in the 15 years since the world’s second-biggest economy joined the World Trade Organisation, making them formidable competitors for new entrants to the market.
> 
> The concession to allow majority foreign ownership was discussed during Barack Obama’s administration, when Chinese and US negotiators held several rounds of talks about a bilateral investment treaty, or BIT.
> 
> Mr Trump has not yet said if he intends to pursue the treaty, which US negotiators hoped would address China market access issues in a wide range of industries.
> 
> “China was prepared to [raise the investment ceilings] in the BIT but those negotiations were put on hold [after Trump’s election victory],” said one Chinese official involved in the talks. “Had Obama been in office for another six months we would have gotten there.”
> 
> China is also willing to end a ban on US beef imports that has been in place since 2003, officials said, and buy more grains and other agricultural products as it seeks to reduce tensions stemming from the $347bn annual trade surplus in goods that it enjoys with its biggest trading partner.
> 
> Mr Trump’s campaign threats last year to slap tariffs on Chinese goods and declare Beijing a currency manipulator have raised fears of a destructive trade war between the world’s two largest economies. But since taking office the former reality television star has moderated his rhetoric and cabinet officials have signalled they plan to take a more pragmatic approach.
> 
> If concluded, the mooted deal would be welcomed by US financial services companies, which have grown increasingly frustrated in recent years about what they say are rising barriers to doing business in the country. Beef exporters have also complained about the lingering Chinese ban on US imports, which was introduced after a BSE scare in the US herd.
> 
> While a comprehensive Sino-US investment treaty remains a distant prospect, both sides are hoping to achieve a number of smaller trade deals in the coming three months.
> 
> On Saturday, Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Xi’s two-day visit to his resort at Mar-a-Lago had been “tremendous”, before adding a warning shot.
> 
> “Goodwill and friendship was formed,” the US president said in a follow-up tweet. “But only time will tell on trade.”
> 
> US officials are pressing their Chinese counterparts to lower their current 25 per cent tariff on automotive imports. Beijing in return would like greater protection for Chinese investment in the US, which tripled last year to more than $45bn, and also for Washington to relax restrictions on the sale of certain high-tech products to China.
> 
> The Chinese government may simply commit to buy more US imports in the same way that Japan did in the 1980s.
> 
> Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said such a transactional approach would potentially help reduce the US trade deficit in the short term and appeal to Mr Trump’s instincts as a dealmaker. But it would have its limits.
> 
> “We’re not going to export a whole lot of steel to China,” Mr Bown said.
> 
> Thanks to a state-directed investment stimulus unleashed in the wake of the global financial crisis, Chinese steelmakers now produce more steel than the rest of the world combined. With the Chinese economy now growing at its slowest pace in a quarter century, reduced demand at home has led to a surge in steel exports, causing global prices to collapse.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...with-us/ar-BBzBJet?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp


Typical American BS reporting. Making sound like China made concession to American. Those investment approve for American investment are non critical sector.

And regards to beef, I don't think we need an expert to tell you with more and more middle class Chinese , they can afford better meat.

It just part of of trade process, nothing abt making concession. The real fact is trump don't have balls to fight trade war with China. It's is no more in the nineties. China is on a same level or better field when comes to trade and economy. 

Bring it on if American wants trade war. See who hurts who more!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Brainsucker

F-22Raptor said:


> China will offer the Trump administration better market access for financial sector investments and US beef exports to help avert a trade war, according to Chinese and US officials involved in talks between the two governments.
> 
> US President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, decided at their first meeting in Florida last week that they needed rushed trade negotiations to produce results within 100 days. The two concessions on finance and beef are relatively easy for Beijing to make.
> 
> At present, foreign investors cannot hold a majority stake in securities and insurance companies in China. The country’s largest companies in these sectors, such as Citic Securities and China Life Insurance, have achieved enormous scale in the 15 years since the world’s second-biggest economy joined the World Trade Organisation, making them formidable competitors for new entrants to the market.
> 
> The concession to allow majority foreign ownership was discussed during Barack Obama’s administration, when Chinese and US negotiators held several rounds of talks about a bilateral investment treaty, or BIT.
> 
> Mr Trump has not yet said if he intends to pursue the treaty, which US negotiators hoped would address China market access issues in a wide range of industries.
> 
> “China was prepared to [raise the investment ceilings] in the BIT but those negotiations were put on hold [after Trump’s election victory],” said one Chinese official involved in the talks. “Had Obama been in office for another six months we would have gotten there.”
> 
> China is also willing to end a ban on US beef imports that has been in place since 2003, officials said, and buy more grains and other agricultural products as it seeks to reduce tensions stemming from the $347bn annual trade surplus in goods that it enjoys with its biggest trading partner.
> 
> Mr Trump’s campaign threats last year to slap tariffs on Chinese goods and declare Beijing a currency manipulator have raised fears of a destructive trade war between the world’s two largest economies. But since taking office the former reality television star has moderated his rhetoric and cabinet officials have signalled they plan to take a more pragmatic approach.
> 
> If concluded, the mooted deal would be welcomed by US financial services companies, which have grown increasingly frustrated in recent years about what they say are rising barriers to doing business in the country. Beef exporters have also complained about the lingering Chinese ban on US imports, which was introduced after a BSE scare in the US herd.
> 
> While a comprehensive Sino-US investment treaty remains a distant prospect, both sides are hoping to achieve a number of smaller trade deals in the coming three months.
> 
> On Saturday, Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Xi’s two-day visit to his resort at Mar-a-Lago had been “tremendous”, before adding a warning shot.
> 
> “Goodwill and friendship was formed,” the US president said in a follow-up tweet. “But only time will tell on trade.”
> 
> US officials are pressing their Chinese counterparts to lower their current 25 per cent tariff on automotive imports. Beijing in return would like greater protection for Chinese investment in the US, which tripled last year to more than $45bn, and also for Washington to relax restrictions on the sale of certain high-tech products to China.
> 
> The Chinese government may simply commit to buy more US imports in the same way that Japan did in the 1980s.
> 
> Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said such a transactional approach would potentially help reduce the US trade deficit in the short term and appeal to Mr Trump’s instincts as a dealmaker. But it would have its limits.
> 
> “We’re not going to export a whole lot of steel to China,” Mr Bown said.
> 
> Thanks to a state-directed investment stimulus unleashed in the wake of the global financial crisis, Chinese steelmakers now produce more steel than the rest of the world combined. With the Chinese economy now growing at its slowest pace in a quarter century, reduced demand at home has led to a surge in steel exports, causing global prices to collapse.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...with-us/ar-BBzBJet?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



Well, that's a win-win solution then


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

> China offers concessions to avert trade war with US



Sound more like Xi offers a face saving to Trump with this visite despite the fact he was not very nice with China before he entered into the presidential office, Americans care only about Interest but we Chinese care about both Interest and friendship.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Sino-US trade deficit will remain or even widen so long as our American friends/consumers stick to their way of life, i.e. living on borrowed money.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## TaiShang

_This is what really matters... Not contaminated US beef. Come and compete Russia. Russian soybean and corn taking over US soybean and corn exports to China... 

Trump is easy to manipulate._

_***_

*First trainload of Russian wheat arrives in China *
Xinhua, April 9, 2017

A freight train fully loaded with Russian wheat arrived at Manzhouli land port in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Saturday.

*This is the first bulk shipment of Russian wheat to enter China via the land port after the two countries reached deals on quarantine inspection requirements for exporting Russian wheat, corn, rice and soybean to China in December 2015.*

China's state-owned foodstuff conglomerate COFCO Corp. is responsible for quality control, import and distribution to the Chinese market.

COFCO president Yu Xubo said the group plans to import 1 million to 2 million tonnes of wheat from Russia a year. This may increase to 4 million or 5 million tonnes a year in the future, he said.

*Russia replaced the United States as the world's top wheat exporter last year with 25 million tonnes of exports, according to figures provided by the Russian side. *

"Compared with ocean shipping, land transport via Manzhouli cuts travel time and costs," said Chen Lixin, Party chief of Manzhouli City.

He said China's import of Russian wheat is a new breakthrough in bilateral trade and economic cooperation achieved within the framework of the Belt and Road initiative.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 武成王

It's not a big deal, concession is required to reach to an agreement, cut a deal, stakes exchanged.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dy1022

Americans are so easy to get fooled !

Job well done !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FalconsForPeace

cirr said:


> Sino-US trade deficit will remain or even widen so long as our American friends/consumers stick to their way of life, i.e. living on borrowed money.



America has the cash to buy. Borrowed money may be, but they pay back their borrowed money...


----------



## shadows888

"concessions"

whatever you want to call it to feed your ego. 

diplomats call this "compromise". trump may offer easier access and greater protection for Chinese investment in the US in return. it's right in your article.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

shadows888 said:


> "concessions"
> 
> whatever you want to call it to feed your ego.
> 
> diplomats call this "compromise". trump may offer easier access and greater protection for Chinese investment in the US in return. it's right in your article.



Trump will likely scrap that stupid "national security concern" that US Congress inflicted each time China offers good money to buy some dying companies and save US jobs.

Western Digital and Texas Instruments must be liberated!


----------



## nature is

When you have a trade deficit of $347 billion with China, any new trade deal is a concession to muricans, LOL.

Cheap journalism (fake news) at its best!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Götterdämmerung

TaiShang said:


> _This is what really matters... Not contaminated US beef. Come and compete Russia. Russian soybean and corn taking over US soybean and corn exports to China...
> 
> Trump is easy to manipulate._
> 
> _***_
> 
> *First trainload of Russian wheat arrives in China *
> Xinhua, April 9, 2017
> 
> A freight train fully loaded with Russian wheat arrived at Manzhouli land port in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Saturday.
> 
> *This is the first bulk shipment of Russian wheat to enter China via the land port after the two countries reached deals on quarantine inspection requirements for exporting Russian wheat, corn, rice and soybean to China in December 2015.*
> 
> China's state-owned foodstuff conglomerate COFCO Corp. is responsible for quality control, import and distribution to the Chinese market.
> 
> COFCO president Yu Xubo said the group plans to import 1 million to 2 million tonnes of wheat from Russia a year. This may increase to 4 million or 5 million tonnes a year in the future, he said.
> 
> *Russia replaced the United States as the world's top wheat exporter last year with 25 million tonnes of exports, according to figures provided by the Russian side. *
> 
> "Compared with ocean shipping, land transport via Manzhouli cuts travel time and costs," said Chen Lixin, Party chief of Manzhouli City.
> 
> He said China's import of Russian wheat is a new breakthrough in bilateral trade and economic cooperation achieved within the framework of the Belt and Road initiative.



Russia has banned all GMO and Monsanto. It's better to eat traditional organic food from Russia than eating US junk.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 大汉奸柳传志

I am in favor of a balanced trade, question is what can the US possibly offer that could make China interested beside crude, LNG and hollywood movies

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

utp45 said:


> I am in favor of a balanced trade, question is what can the US possibly offer that could make China interested beside crude, LNG and hollywood movies



With fracking revolution in the US, they can be major crude and natural gas exporters, as a matter of fact. Now that Trump does not believe in nature, China, along with other US companies, can explore and exploit Alaska's rich hydrocarbon resources.

China has a giant SPR program to fill in. The US has a giant budget deficit to patch up.

Win-win.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

So what exactly caused the contamination of American beef in prior years?


----------



## Shotgunner51

ChineseToTheBone said:


> So what exactly caused the contamination of American beef in prior years?


China first imposed a beef embargo in 2001 in response to *mad cow disease in Europe*. The agriculture ministry announced the ban would include American beef after the disease appeared in the U.S. in 2003.



Beast said:


> Typical American BS reporting. Making sound like China made concession to American.


US farmers have been hoping to resume exports to China, and China already planned to lift the ban last year, as well as buy more grains and other agricultural products, items that US is good at. Now US says it's a "concession".

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/cnn-...on-beef-imports-from-u-s.451266/#post-8726402
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/22/news/china-us-beef-imports/index.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

Wow. It really has been a long time since then, which confused me into believing there was a separate incident. I still remember those news reports, but I never expected the ban to last this long.


----------



## TaiShang

scope said:


> If this is a concession, then Trump's missing 45% tariffs and promise to label China a currency manipulator on day one must be full body kowtow.



Concession to this guy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

scope said:


> @TaiShang Was thinking more along the lines of this guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as crazy as it sounds. See, it's a strong Western tradition.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Unspeakable-Father-Daughter-Incest-American-History/dp/0801893003/



Hope President Xi manhandled him gently so he would not understand.



TaiShang said:


>



I understand why President Xi looked so tolerant and understanding. It is a combination of sympathy and magnanimity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

TaiShang said:


> I understand why President Xi looked so tolerant and understanding. It is a combination of sympathy and magnanimity.



Sometimes you just have to play along for a certain type of audience, we don't want to take that kind of impression away from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keel

*Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat*
October 2015

*1. What do you consider as red meat?*
Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

*2. What do you consider as processed meat?*
Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

*3. Why did IARC choose to evaluate red meat and processed meat?*
An international advisory committee that met in 2014 recommended red meat and processed meat as high priorities for evaluation by the IARC Monographs Programme. This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat.

*4. Do methods of cooking meat change the risk?*
High-temperature cooking methods generate compounds that may contribute to carcinogenic risk, but their role is not yet fully understood.

*5. What are the safest methods of cooking meat (e.g. sautéing, boiling, broiling, or barbecuing)?*
Cooking at high temperatures or with the food in direct contact with a flame or a hot surface, as in barbecuing or pan-frying, produces more of certain types of carcinogenic chemicals (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines). However, there were not enough data for the IARC Working Group to reach a conclusion about whether the way meat is cooked affects the risk of cancer.

*6. Is eating raw meat safer?*
There were no data to address this question in relation to cancer risk. However, the separate question of risk of infection from consumption of raw meat needs to be kept in mind.

*7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?*
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

*8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?*
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

*9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?*
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.

*10. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating red meat?*
The strongest, but still limited, evidence for an association with eating red meat is for colorectal cancer. There is also evidence of links with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

*11. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating processed meat?*
The IARC Working Group concluded that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer. An association with stomach cancer was also seen, but the evidence is not conclusive.

*12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?*
According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.

These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

*13. Could you quantify the risk of eating red meat and processed meat?*
The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

*14. Is the risk higher in children, in elderly people, in women, or in men? Are some people more at risk?*
The available data did not allow conclusions about whether the risks differ in different groups of people.

*15. What about people who have had colon cancer? Should they stop eating red meat?*
The available data did not allow conclusions about risks to people who have already had cancer.

*16. Should I stop eating meat?*
Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.

*17. How much meat is it safe to eat?*
The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.

*18. What makes red meat and processed meat increase the risk of cancer?*
Meat consists of multiple components, such as haem iron. Meat can also contain chemicals that form during meat processing or cooking. For instance, carcinogenic chemicals that form during meat processing include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Cooking of red meat or processed meat also produces heterocyclic aromatic amines as well as other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are also found in other foods and in air pollution. Some of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens, but despite this knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat.

*19. Can you compare the risk of eating red meat with the risk of eating processed meat?*
Similar risks have been estimated for a typical portion, which is smaller on average for processed meat than for red meat. However, consumption of red meat has not been established as a cause of cancer.

*20. What is WHO’s health recommendation to prevent cancer risk associated with eating red meat and processed meat?*
IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence available on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. National governments and WHO are responsible for developing nutritional guidelines. This evaluation by IARC reinforces a 2002 recommendation from WHO that people who eat meat should moderate the consumption of processed meat to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Some other dietary guidelines also recommend limiting consumption of red meat or processed meat, but these are focused mainly on reducing the intake of fat and sodium, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and obesity. Individuals who are concerned about cancer could consider reducing their consumption of red meat or processed meat until updated guidelines related specifically to cancer have been developed.

*21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?*
The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated.

*22. Should we be vegetarians?*
Vegetarian diets and diets that include meat have different advantages and disadvantages for health. However, this evaluation did not directly compare health risks in vegetarians and people who eat meat. That type of comparison is difficult because these groups can be different in other ways besides their consumption of meat.

*23. Is there a type of red meat that is safer?*
A few studies have investigated the cancer risks associated with different types of red meat, such as beef and pork, and with different kinds of processed meats, like ham and hot dogs. However, there is not enough information to say whether higher or lower cancer risks are related to eating any particular type of red meat or processed meat.

*24. Could the preservation method influence the risk (e.g. salting, deep-freezing, or irradiation)?*
Different preservation methods could result in the formation of carcinogens (e.g. N-nitroso compounds), but whether and how much this contributes to the cancer risk is unknown.

*25. How many studies were evaluated?*
The IARC Working Group considered more than 800 different studies on cancer in humans (some studies provided data on both types of meat; in total more than 700 epidemiological studies provided data on red meat and more than 400 epidemiological studies provided data on processed meat).

*26. How many experts were involved in the evaluation?*
The IARC Working Group consisted of 22 experts from 10 countries.

*27. What actions do you think governments should take based on your results?*
IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. The IARC Monographs are, however, often used as a basis for making national and international policies, guidelines and recommendations to minimize cancer risks. Governments may decide to include this new information on the cancer hazards of processed meat in the context of other health risks and benefits in updating dietary recommendations.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

ChineseToTheBone said:


> So what exactly caused the contamination of American beef in prior years?





Shotgunner51 said:


> China first imposed a beef embargo in 2001 in response to *mad cow disease in Europe*. The agriculture ministry announced the ban would include American beef after the disease appeared in the U.S. in 2003.


Yes, there was mad cow disease.

But IMO, what is more important is American cattle is fed with *Ractopamine.*

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine

"Ractopamine use has been banned in most countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia[3][4] while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, Canada, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption."

Good that this "ractopamine" is banned in Australia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

ahojunk said:


> Yes, there was mad cow disease.
> 
> But IMO, what is more important is American cattle is fed with *Ractopamine.*
> 
> Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine
> 
> "Ractopamine use has been banned in most countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia[3][4] while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, Canada, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption."
> 
> Good that this "ractopamine" is banned in Australia.



Idiotic Taiwan government also resumed the import of US beef with ractopamine after a short ban and intense US pressure.

But, me and people around myself, we never buy US meat but New Zealand or Australian.


----------



## meis

*China tosses a trade bone to the White House*
https://www.ft.com/content/40e77a5c-1de6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

Beijing’s decision is economically insubstantial but politically savvy.

Nearly 40 years since starting to liberalise its economy, China’s adoption of a fully fledged market economy is still far from complete. But one thing it has picked up from the democratic capitalist west along the way is an ability to spin small changes in policy to placate its international partners.

China showed its prowess in this area by offering some trade liberalisation measures following Xi Jinping’s meeting with Donald Trump in the US last week. Beijing is ready to lift a hygiene-related ban on American beef imports, which has been in place since 2003, and remove some restrictions on foreign companies investing in its financial services sector. By giving Mr Trump some impressive-sounding victories to tout at home, China may hope to forestall some of the wilder protectionist acts the US president has been threatening. Yet ironically, one of the outcomes it is keen to avoid — having the administration label China a currency manipulator — is one for which there is no basis and hence it can do little to affect. It is genuinely innocent.

China’s decision was designed to make a big noise without necessarily changing very much. The pronouncement on beef involved a highly symbolic American product. The agreement to open its financial services sector, meanwhile, may not make a dramatic difference in reality. Western companies are likely to be chary about plunging into a debt-laden Chinese financial system.

The selective nature of Beijing’s policy change underlines the fundamental problem with its trade and regulatory policy. Despite more than 15 years’ membership of the World Trade Organization, China’s economy remains resistant to foreign investment in many sectors and its trade is distorted by regulatory interference.

This week’s offer is not a substitute for substantive liberalisation, particularly in the service sector. Rather than threatening WTO-illegal actions on tariffs, Mr Trump’s administration would do better to pick up negotiations with Beijing on a bilateral investment treaty, which were left over from Barack Obama’s administration and could deliver considerable access to Chinese service markets.

In the nearer term, Mr Trump faces the decision of whether to follow through with a manifesto promise that will have very little effect in practice, except to inflame diplomatic tensions. On the campaign trail, he promised to designate China as a currency manipulator on day one of his administration. The US Treasury’s biennial currency report, due to come out later this week, provides him with an opportunity.

There are, however, two rather substantial problems with doing so. One is that such a designation has no impact whatsoever beyond compelling the US Treasury to negotiate with China, which it is already doing. The second is that China is desperately trying to prop up its currency to prevent financial instability, not hold it down to give it competitive advantage. It is in no one’s interest, including the US, if Beijing suddenly stops intervening to defend the renminbi and a destabilising rush of capital flight and sharp devaluation follows.

The US administration is learning that making substantial and constructive gains in trade negotiations is slow incremental work. It is to be hoped that Mr Trump does not get frustrated with the pace of change and unleash the destructive policies he promised before he came to office.

China will not offer him rapid and widescale liberalisation. But accepting what it can get and carefully and continuously pushing for more is America’s best course of action.

My 2c:
Trump and his new found bone. He must be very proud of it. Oh, thanks for that GMO beef.
Read the comment section over there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## meis

*China tosses a trade bone to the White House*
https://www.ft.com/content/40e77a5c-1de6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

Beijing’s decision is economically insubstantial but politically savvy.

Nearly 40 years since starting to liberalise its economy, China’s adoption of a fully fledged market economy is still far from complete. But one thing it has picked up from the democratic capitalist west along the way is an ability to spin small changes in policy to placate its international partners.

China showed its prowess in this area by offering some trade liberalisation measures following Xi Jinping’s meeting with Donald Trump in the US last week. Beijing is ready to lift a hygiene-related ban on American beef imports, which has been in place since 2003, and remove some restrictions on foreign companies investing in its financial services sector. By giving Mr Trump some impressive-sounding victories to tout at home, China may hope to forestall some of the wilder protectionist acts the US president has been threatening. Yet ironically, one of the outcomes it is keen to avoid — having the administration label China a currency manipulator — is one for which there is no basis and hence it can do little to affect. It is genuinely innocent.

China’s decision was designed to make a big noise without necessarily changing very much. The pronouncement on beef involved a highly symbolic American product. The agreement to open its financial services sector, meanwhile, may not make a dramatic difference in reality. Western companies are likely to be chary about plunging into a debt-laden Chinese financial system.

The selective nature of Beijing’s policy change underlines the fundamental problem with its trade and regulatory policy. Despite more than 15 years’ membership of the World Trade Organization, China’s economy remains resistant to foreign investment in many sectors and its trade is distorted by regulatory interference.

This week’s offer is not a substitute for substantive liberalisation, particularly in the service sector. Rather than threatening WTO-illegal actions on tariffs, Mr Trump’s administration would do better to pick up negotiations with Beijing on a bilateral investment treaty, which were left over from Barack Obama’s administration and could deliver considerable access to Chinese service markets.

In the nearer term, Mr Trump faces the decision of whether to follow through with a manifesto promise that will have very little effect in practice, except to inflame diplomatic tensions. On the campaign trail, he promised to designate China as a currency manipulator on day one of his administration. The US Treasury’s biennial currency report, due to come out later this week, provides him with an opportunity.

There are, however, two rather substantial problems with doing so. One is that such a designation has no impact whatsoever beyond compelling the US Treasury to negotiate with China, which it is already doing. The second is that China is desperately trying to prop up its currency to prevent financial instability, not hold it down to give it competitive advantage. It is in no one’s interest, including the US, if Beijing suddenly stops intervening to defend the renminbi and a destabilising rush of capital flight and sharp devaluation follows.

The US administration is learning that making substantial and constructive gains in trade negotiations is slow incremental work. It is to be hoped that Mr Trump does not get frustrated with the pace of change and unleash the destructive policies he promised before he came to office.

China will not offer him rapid and widescale liberalisation. But accepting what it can get and carefully and continuously pushing for more is America’s best course of action.

My 2c:
Trump and his new found bone. He must be very proud of it. Oh, thanks for that GMO beef.
Read the comment section over there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

meis said:


> *China tosses a trade bone to the White House*
> https://www.ft.com/content/40e77a5c-1de6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c
> 
> Trump and his new found bone. He must be very proud of it. Oh, thanks for that GMO beef.



Let him (figuratively) gnaw on it a while. Besides, his hands are now full with foreign issues like regime building in Syria and North Korea.

MAGA was just a different tune of the same song. Or as they say, same crap, different shades of color.

Also, I do not think the trade balance will improve in any meaningful way as the US spends more on military, not less.

And the FT article (paid) sums it up: "Beijing’s decision is economically insubstantial but politically savvy."


----------



## ahojunk

*Xi and Trump discuss Korean Peninsula, Syria over phone*
(Xinhua) 13:49, April 12, 2017

_




Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with US President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago Resort
in Florida on Thursday afternoon April 6, 2017. [Photo: Xinhua]_​

BEIJING, April 12 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday held a telephone conversation with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, and discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula and in Syria.

Xi said that China sticks to the *target of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula* and that China is committed to peace and stability of the peninsula.

China holds that the issue should be solved through peaceful means, said Xi, adding that his country is ready to maintain communication and coordination with the United States on the issue.

On Syria, Xi said that *any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable* and that the path of political settlement should be followed.

He expressed the hope that the *UN Security Council would speak in one voice* as it is important for the Security Council to remain united over the issue.

Xi also asked teams of China and the United States to *work together closely to make sure that Trump's visit to China later this year could achieve fruitful results*.

He also urged the two sides to *promote economic cooperation*, *expand exchanges in military, law enforcement, cyber and people-to-people areas*, *enhance communication and coordination in major global and regional issues*, through the *newly established four-pronged dialogue mechanism*.

He expressed the hope that the dialogue mechanism will yield as many early-stage results as possible so as to inject impetus to bilateral relations.

The *four-pronged dialogue mechanism, which covers the fields of foreign affairs and security, economy, law enforcement and cybersecurity, social and people-to-people exchanges*, is an important result of Xi's meeting with Trump in Florida.

Xi said his recent tete-a-tete with Trump in the latter's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida has produced important results, which have won positive response among the Chinese people and the international community.

*The two leaders held in-depth discussions and reached important consensus on bilateral relations* in the new era and on major global and regional issues, said Xi.

*He and Trump have increased mutual understanding and established sound working relations*, he added.

In Wednesday's phone conversation, *Trump said the meeting with Xi at Mar-a-Lago was a success*. It is very *important for the two presidents to maintain close communication*, he added.

Trump agreed that the *two sides should work together to promote pragmatic cooperation* in wide-ranging areas.

He said he was looking forward to his state visit to China this year.

The two presidents agreed to keep close communication through all kinds of channels.


********

_The big two are in close and constant contact, like it or not._
.


----------



## bobsm

*Trump backs away from labeling China a currency manipulator*

By David Lawder | WASHINGTON

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his administration will not label China a currency manipulator, backing away from a campaign promise, even as he said the U.S. dollar was "getting too strong" and would eventually hurt the economy.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump also said he would like to see U.S. interest rates stay low, another comment at odds with what he had often said during the election campaign.

A U.S. Treasury spokesman confirmed that the Treasury Department's semi-annual report on currency practices of major trading partners, due out later this week, will not name China a currency manipulator.

The U.S. dollar fell broadly on Trump's comments on both the strong dollar and interest rates, while U.S. Treasury yields fell on the interest rate comments, and Wall Street stocks slipped. [FRX/][US/][.N]

Trump's comments broke with a long-standing practice of both U.S. Democratic and Republican administrations of refraining from commenting on policy set by the independent Federal Reserve. It is also highly unusual for a president to address the dollar's value, which is a subject usually left to the U.S. Treasury secretary.

*"They're not currency manipulators," Trump told the Journal about China.* The statement is an about-face from Trump's election campaign promises to slap that label on Beijing on the first day of his administration as part of his plan to reduce Chinese imports into the United States.

More @ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-currency-idUSKBN17E2L8

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

bobsm said:


> *"They're not currency manipulators," Trump told the Journal about China.*



Same old, same old.

Oligarchic US regime model is a blessing. They can easily walk back on their promises even if they are made publicly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

That is hilarious. He has walked back on every statement he made about China during his campaign.


----------



## 8888888888888

I think China gave him a lot of concessions for his family behind the scenes and gave him a lot of respect by making him look good.


----------



## shadows888

8888888888888 said:


> I think China gave him a lot of concessions for his family behind the scenes and gave him a lot of respect by making him look good.



we have a winnerrr!!!


----------



## terranMarine

8888888888888 said:


> I think China gave him a lot of concessions for his family behind the scenes and gave him a lot of respect by making him look good.



You hit the nail  , yes we did not bribe Trump but instead gave him and his family concessions. In return for our services he told the press China is not a currency manipulator.


----------



## bbccdd1470

TaiShang said:


> Same old, same old.
> 
> Oligarchic US regime model is a blessing. They can easily walk back on their promises even if they are made publicly.


True, Trump is breaking or failing almost every promise he made during election, such as the investigation of Hillary Clinton, stopping the war in Syria, cancel the Obamacare (his fault if he can not control his party), make Mexico paying for the wall, and trade war with China etc. I suspect he is either part of the establishment or the shadow government have too much power over him, anyway I'm now pretty sure that "America is going to great again" will be a failure like the other promises I listed above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

meis said:


> *China tosses a trade bone to the White House*
> https://www.ft.com/content/40e77a5c-1de6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c


Very interesting narrative, more interesting is that this came from a UK-based media.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

BHarwana said:


> *US missile strikes violated all red lines on Syria: Russia, Iran, allied forces*
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/...violation-red-lines-Russia-Iran-allied-forces
> 
> 
> World is going to start world war 3 and Indians are only concerned about Chinese trade surplus and Cows. Dear Indians this a new century you need to start treating animals as animals and humans as humans. Please stop being jealous about Chinese trade surplus.



not jealous but it continues to be a drain on our resources. Restoration of manufacturing jobs - whatever is left of it after the massive automation - is still something we need. India, China, Europe - these are big markets but exporting only high tech to them is insifficient


----------



## 8888888888888

FT is own by Japan


----------



## Shotgunner51

Breaking news, the most pressing deal pending for US government review as per Bloomberg - Stillwater Mining Co - has just been given green light by CFIUS, see the attached news links. Stillwater is the *sole U.S. source of platinum and palladium, materials that have strategic importance and military applications*. Its proposed acquirer, Sibanye Gold Ltd., is a South African gold miner whose biggest shareholder is a consortium with ties to China’s government.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stillwater-mining-company-announces-cfius-120000013.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...security-nod-to-buy-stillwater-platinum-mines
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/montana-mines-to-test-trump-teams-appetite-for-china-deals.488842/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

*Sino-U.S. trade greatly benefit people of both countries, world economy*
By Dr. Ulf Henning RICHTER and Yuanyu MU (Xinhuanet) 19:21, April 13, 2017

Chinese President Xi Jinping met lately with U.S President Donald Trump in Trump’s private mansion Mar-a-Lago in Florida, the first official meeting since the new U.S.government took office in January.

The two world leaders aimed to open a new page of their bilateral relationship and discuss issues of common concern, in particular the large U.S. trade deficit with China which may cause protectionist measures by the U.S. and other issues in the " four pillar" dialogue mechanisms.

Trade between the two economic giants has increasingly drawn the public’s attention. The bilateral trade volume amounted to 519.6 billion dollars in 2016, and continues to grow. However, the U.S. trade deficit with China is rather troublesome for a president that has been swept to power by the slogan “America First”.

Sino-U.S. trade has greatly benefited the people of both countries, and the world economy at large. The trade deficit has been caused by the growing hunger of the U.S. for cheap consumer goods such as electronics and clothing, as well as machinery.

The trade deficit only tells half of the tale though since many U.S. manufacturers have outsourced production, shipping raw materials or low value parts for assembly to China, and re-importing the finished goods back to the U.S., most famously Apple’s iPhone manufactured by Foxconn.

President Xi has successfully turned China’s inward-looking politics focusing on economic development and urbanization towards a positive, open, outward oriented program through his One Belt, One Road initiative.

His government is on the fast track in developing frameworks for its future role in global governance, focusing on connecting China and Eurasia and economic cooperation, emphasizing China’s growing maturity on the global stage.

The foundation of the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB) as one of its key policy instruments manifests Beijing’s drive for a multipolar system. As of today, the AIIB has deployed more than 2 billion dollars in infrastructure loans with an expected 10-15 billion dollars a year for the first five or six years.

China strongly believes in the benefit for both nations to stay open and collaborate on key issues of global security and economic prosperity. Xi mentioned to Trump there are "a thousand reasons" to make the China-U.S. relationship work, and "no reason to break it."

Economic globalization, and Sino-U.S. trade in particular, has powered global growth and facilitated movement of goods and capital, advances in science, technology and civilization, and interactions among peoples.

For instance, in Los Angeles, Chinese firms are already among the largest real estate investors. China’s CRRC Corporation is now building metro cars for the mass transportation systems in Chicago and Boston, having invested in local factories and thereby creating jobs for the American people.

Many new Hollywood movies star Chinese actors to make them attractive for the Chinese public, and are often funded by Chinese investors. Most prominently Dalian Wanda acquired Legendary Entertainment, the Hollywood production company behind such blockbusters as “Jurassic World” and “The Dark Knight”.

The U.S. education system remains highly attractive to Chinese students. U.S. universities host an increasing number of self-financed Chinese students.

China and the U.S. also cooperate in running schools, such as the Chinese campus of Duke University in Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province, and the Shanghai New York University, and most recently the MIT supply chain research center in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province.

The growing economic interdependence is accompanied by an exchange of technology and talents which creates ample opportunities for both the U.S. and the Chinese people. In the U.S., public confidence in economy has increased, especially after the Federal Reserve rate hike in March. As a result, “concerns about U.S. debt, job losses and trade deficits have generally eased”, as a survey powered by Pew Research Centre suggested. The proportion of U.S. citizens who see the trade deficits as a severe problem has declined by 17 percent compared with the figure five years ago. The same survey suggested that young U.S. citizens seem to become more open and closer to China. With growing mutual understanding and economic prosperity enjoyed by both sides, a peaceful coexistence and common prosperity will be possible. The Xi-Trump meeting has provided a healthy starting point for consensus building especially in the issue of bilateral trade to open a new chapter in the relationship of the two giants.


----------



## Keel

8888888888888 said:


> I think China gave him a lot of concessions for his family behind the scenes and gave him a lot of respect by making him look good.



This is the appetizer:

*Donald Trump’s 38 China Trademarks Are Good News for Foreign Businesses*
Scott Cendrowski
Mar 10, 2017
http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/trademarks-china-donald-trump/

There are only 4 to 8 years on a president's term or less. His family businesses are meant for a much longer term


----------



## Shotgunner51

*



*

*Report: Paul Manafort Now Advising Chinese Billionaire On Trump Infrastructure Contracts*
Pacific Construction Group wants in on the president’s $1 trillion plan, the Financial Times reports.
By Mary Papenfuss

_



_
_Paul Manafort was described as 'Trump's special envoy' by Yan Jiehe © Bloomberg_

Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is now advising a Chinese billionaire on how to get a piece of the business if the president successfully launches a $1 trillion U.S. infrastructure plan, the Financial Times reports.

The man booted out of his U.S. campaign slot over close ties to Russian interests reportedly met last week with *Yan Jiehe*, the founder of China’s Pacific Construction Group. Yan told the Financial Times in advance that the two men planned to discuss how the Chinese billionaire could profit from Trump’s prospective program to use federal funds to launch infrastructure projects.

A spokesman for Manafort initially denied to the newspaper that the meeting had anything to do with business, the Times reported. He then modified his statement, saying the meeting was “impromptu” and was added to Manafort’s China travel schedule because the Chinese “are interested in U.S. infrastructure,” spokesman Jason Maloni told the newspaper.

“However, his work does not involve any current or future infrastructure projects or contracts in the United States. As he has said before, he is not engaged in government affairs or lobbying for corporations, governments or individuals.”

A source linked to Yan told the Financial Times that Manafort would return in a month for further talks.

Manafort resigned from the presidential campaign in August after it emerged that he had led lobbying efforts in the U.S. from 2010 to 2014 on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a front group for former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Associated Press later discovered that Manafort had also been paid $10 million between 2006 and 2009 by billionaire Oleg Deripaska, an associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, to promote Putin and the Russian government. Manafort wrote a memo about his plan in 2005 to obtain the contract, boasting about influencing politics and the media on Russia’s behalf in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Trump often spoke extremely positively about Putin during the campaign in a series of puzzling pronouncements.

In the wake of the Deripaska revelations in March, White House spokesman Sean Spicer attempted to downplay the importance of Manafort’s role as presidential campaign chairman, saying he had a “limited role” for “just under five months” in the campaign — a period that included the Republican National Convention, at which Trump’s GOP nomination was formalized. 

Spicer denied that Trump knew anything about the $10 million contract. Manafort’s ties to Deripaska were first in the news in 2008.

Manafort is in the process of registering as a foreign agent operating in the U.S.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...mp-infrastructure_us_58f5498be4b0b9e9848de262


----------



## F-22Raptor

WASHINGTON — The Chinese government systematically dismantledC.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.

The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before awell-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.

At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.

The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. both declined to comment.

Details about the investigation have been tightly held. Ten current and former American officials described the investigation on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing the information.

The first signs of trouble emerged in 2010. At the time, the quality of the C.I.A.’s information about the inner workings of the Chinese government was the best it had been for years, the result of recruiting sources deep inside the bureaucracy in Beijing, four former officials said. Some were Chinese nationals who the C.I.A. believed had become disillusioned with the Chinese government’s corruption.

But by the end of the year, the flow of information began to dry up. By early 2011, senior agency officers realized they had a problem: Assets in China, one of their most precious resources, were disappearing.

The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. opened a joint investigation run by top counterintelligence officials at both agencies. Working out of a secret office in Northern Virginia, they began analyzing every operation being run in Beijing. One former senior American official said the investigation had been code-named Honey Badger.

As more and more sources vanished, the operation took on increased urgency. Nearly every employee at the American Embassy was scrutinized, no matter how high ranking. Some investigators believed the Chinese had cracked the encrypted method that the C.I.A. used to communicate with its assets. Others suspected a traitor in the C.I.A., a theory that agency officials were at first reluctant to embrace — and that some in both agencies still do not believe.

Their debates were punctuated with macabre phone calls — “We lost another one” — and urgent questions from the Obama administration wondering why intelligence about the Chinese had slowed.

The mole hunt eventually zeroed in on a former agency operative who had worked in the C.I.A.’s division overseeing China, believing he was most likely responsible for the crippling disclosures. But efforts to gather enough evidence to arrest him failed, and he is now living in another Asian country, current and former officials said.

There was good reason to suspect an insider, some former officials say. Around that time, Chinese spies compromised National Security Agency surveillance in Taiwan — an island Beijing claims is part of China — by infiltrating Taiwanese intelligence, an American partner, according to two former officials. And the C.I.A. had discovered Chinese operatives in theagency’s hiring pipeline, according to officials and court documents.

But the C.I.A.’s top spy hunter, Mark Kelton, resisted the mole theory, at least initially, former officials say. Mr. Kelton had been close friends withBrian J. Kelley, a C.I.A. officer who in the 1990s was wrongly suspected by the F.B.I. of being a Russian spy. The real traitor, it turned out, was Mr. Hanssen. Mr. Kelton often mentioned Mr. Kelley’s mistreatment in meetings during the China episode, former colleagues say, and said he would not accuse someone without ironclad evidence.

Those who rejected the mole theory attributed the losses to sloppy American tradecraft at a time when the Chinese were becoming better at monitoring American espionage activities in the country. Some F.B.I. agents became convinced that C.I.A. handlers in Beijing too often traveled the same routes to the same meeting points, which would have helped China’s vast surveillance network identify the spies in its midst.

Some officers met their sources at a restaurant where Chinese agents had planted listening devices, former officials said, and even the waiters worked for Chinese intelligence.

This carelessness, coupled with the possibility that the Chinese had hacked the covert communications channel, would explain many, if not all, of the disappearances and deaths, some former officials said. Some in the agency, particularly those who had helped build the spy network, resisted this theory and believed they had been caught in the middle of a turf war within the C.I.A.

Still, the Chinese picked off more and more of the agency’s spies, continuing through 2011 and into 2012. As investigators narrowed the list of suspects with access to the information, they started focusing on a Chinese-American who had left the C.I.A. shortly before the intelligence losses began. Some investigators believed he had become disgruntled and had begun spying for China. One official said the man had access to the identities of C.I.A. informants and fit all the indicators on a matrix used to identify espionage threats.

After leaving the C.I.A., the man decided to remain in Asia with his family and pursue a business opportunity, which some officials suspect that Chinese intelligence agents had arranged.

Officials said the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. lured the man back to the United States around 2012 with a ruse about a possible contract with the agency, an arrangement common among former officers. Agents questioned the man, asking why he had decided to stay in Asia, concerned that he possessed a number of secrets that would be valuable to the Chinese. It’s not clear whether agents confronted the man about whether he had spied for China.

The man defended his reasons for living in Asia and did not admit any wrongdoing, an official said. He then returned to Asia.

By 2013, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded that China’s success in identifying C.I.A. agents had been blunted — it is not clear how — but the damage had been done.

The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.

China has been particularly aggressive in its espionage in recent years, beyond the breach of the Office of Personnel Management records in 2015, American officials said. Last year, an F.B.I. employee pleaded guilty to acting as a Chinese agent for years, passing sensitive technology information to Beijing in exchange for cash, lavish hotel rooms during foreign travel and prostitutes.

In March, prosecutors announced the arrest of a longtime State Department employee, Candace Marie Claiborne, accused of lying to investigators about her contacts with Chinese officials. According to the criminal complaint against Ms. Claiborne, who pleaded not guilty, Chinese agents wired cash into her bank account and showered her with gifts that included an iPhone, a laptop and tuition at a Chinese fashion school. In addition, according to the complaint, she received a fully furnished apartment and a stipend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html?_r=0

Well, the spy wars carry on endlessly. Considering this was 5 years ago, I'm sure the CIA has been cultivating a new network of spies.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## simple Brain

Creating a well trained assets against China is extremely hard. China has extremely sophisticated surveillance system. And they are vigilant against any kinda espionage. Things are getting extremely hard for US intelligence services as it seems. I wonder how much money would US have had spent so far just to catch that mole in there agency?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

simple Brain said:


> Creating a well trained assets against China is extremely hard. China has extremely sophisticated surveillance system. And they are vigilant against any kinda espionage. Things are getting extremely hard for US intelligence services as it seems. I wonder how much money would US have had spent so far just to catch that mole in there agency?



The traitors are going to reveal themselves eventually, they can't hide it forever that they are serving the interests of a foreign country over the interests of China.

They are going to have to get paid by their financiers somehow, they are going to have to contact their financiers somehow. They are going to get caught, it's only a matter of time.

After that, being killed would be a mercy.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

CIA got sloppy, after a decade of no comparable counterpart then another against AK wielding rats hiding in caves.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Offshore

F-22Raptor said:


> WASHINGTON — The Chinese government systematically dismantledC.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.
> 
> Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.
> 
> But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.
> 
> Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.
> 
> Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.
> 
> The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before awell-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.
> 
> At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.
> 
> The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. both declined to comment.
> 
> Details about the investigation have been tightly held. Ten current and former American officials described the investigation on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing the information.
> 
> The first signs of trouble emerged in 2010. At the time, the quality of the C.I.A.’s information about the inner workings of the Chinese government was the best it had been for years, the result of recruiting sources deep inside the bureaucracy in Beijing, four former officials said. Some were Chinese nationals who the C.I.A. believed had become disillusioned with the Chinese government’s corruption.
> 
> But by the end of the year, the flow of information began to dry up. By early 2011, senior agency officers realized they had a problem: Assets in China, one of their most precious resources, were disappearing.
> 
> The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. opened a joint investigation run by top counterintelligence officials at both agencies. Working out of a secret office in Northern Virginia, they began analyzing every operation being run in Beijing. One former senior American official said the investigation had been code-named Honey Badger.
> 
> As more and more sources vanished, the operation took on increased urgency. Nearly every employee at the American Embassy was scrutinized, no matter how high ranking. Some investigators believed the Chinese had cracked the encrypted method that the C.I.A. used to communicate with its assets. Others suspected a traitor in the C.I.A., a theory that agency officials were at first reluctant to embrace — and that some in both agencies still do not believe.
> 
> Their debates were punctuated with macabre phone calls — “We lost another one” — and urgent questions from the Obama administration wondering why intelligence about the Chinese had slowed.
> 
> The mole hunt eventually zeroed in on a former agency operative who had worked in the C.I.A.’s division overseeing China, believing he was most likely responsible for the crippling disclosures. But efforts to gather enough evidence to arrest him failed, and he is now living in another Asian country, current and former officials said.
> 
> There was good reason to suspect an insider, some former officials say. Around that time, Chinese spies compromised National Security Agency surveillance in Taiwan — an island Beijing claims is part of China — by infiltrating Taiwanese intelligence, an American partner, according to two former officials. And the C.I.A. had discovered Chinese operatives in theagency’s hiring pipeline, according to officials and court documents.
> 
> But the C.I.A.’s top spy hunter, Mark Kelton, resisted the mole theory, at least initially, former officials say. Mr. Kelton had been close friends withBrian J. Kelley, a C.I.A. officer who in the 1990s was wrongly suspected by the F.B.I. of being a Russian spy. The real traitor, it turned out, was Mr. Hanssen. Mr. Kelton often mentioned Mr. Kelley’s mistreatment in meetings during the China episode, former colleagues say, and said he would not accuse someone without ironclad evidence.
> 
> Those who rejected the mole theory attributed the losses to sloppy American tradecraft at a time when the Chinese were becoming better at monitoring American espionage activities in the country. Some F.B.I. agents became convinced that C.I.A. handlers in Beijing too often traveled the same routes to the same meeting points, which would have helped China’s vast surveillance network identify the spies in its midst.
> 
> Some officers met their sources at a restaurant where Chinese agents had planted listening devices, former officials said, and even the waiters worked for Chinese intelligence.
> 
> This carelessness, coupled with the possibility that the Chinese had hacked the covert communications channel, would explain many, if not all, of the disappearances and deaths, some former officials said. Some in the agency, particularly those who had helped build the spy network, resisted this theory and believed they had been caught in the middle of a turf war within the C.I.A.
> 
> Still, the Chinese picked off more and more of the agency’s spies, continuing through 2011 and into 2012. As investigators narrowed the list of suspects with access to the information, they started focusing on a Chinese-American who had left the C.I.A. shortly before the intelligence losses began. Some investigators believed he had become disgruntled and had begun spying for China. One official said the man had access to the identities of C.I.A. informants and fit all the indicators on a matrix used to identify espionage threats.
> 
> After leaving the C.I.A., the man decided to remain in Asia with his family and pursue a business opportunity, which some officials suspect that Chinese intelligence agents had arranged.
> 
> Officials said the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. lured the man back to the United States around 2012 with a ruse about a possible contract with the agency, an arrangement common among former officers. Agents questioned the man, asking why he had decided to stay in Asia, concerned that he possessed a number of secrets that would be valuable to the Chinese. It’s not clear whether agents confronted the man about whether he had spied for China.
> 
> The man defended his reasons for living in Asia and did not admit any wrongdoing, an official said. He then returned to Asia.
> 
> By 2013, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded that China’s success in identifying C.I.A. agents had been blunted — it is not clear how — but the damage had been done.
> 
> The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.
> 
> China has been particularly aggressive in its espionage in recent years, beyond the breach of the Office of Personnel Management records in 2015, American officials said. Last year, an F.B.I. employee pleaded guilty to acting as a Chinese agent for years, passing sensitive technology information to Beijing in exchange for cash, lavish hotel rooms during foreign travel and prostitutes.
> 
> In March, prosecutors announced the arrest of a longtime State Department employee, Candace Marie Claiborne, accused of lying to investigators about her contacts with Chinese officials. According to the criminal complaint against Ms. Claiborne, who pleaded not guilty, Chinese agents wired cash into her bank account and showered her with gifts that included an iPhone, a laptop and tuition at a Chinese fashion school. In addition, according to the complaint, she received a fully furnished apartment and a stipend.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html?_r=0
> 
> Well, the spy wars carry on endlessly. Considering this was 5 years ago, I'm sure the CIA has been cultivating a new network of spies.



Next time send James Bond instead C.I.A

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## simple Brain

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> CIA got sloppy, after a decade of no comparable counterpart



I agree with you on this one, after the collapse of Soviet Union Americans thought that finally they can rest for another few decades because they have no other rivals left. And war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen was one of the many reasons too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cloud4000

F-22Raptor said:


> Well, the spy wars carry on endlessly. Considering this was 5 years ago, I'm sure the CIA has been cultivating a new network of spies.



Probably. Wars end, but not those fought in the shadows.



simple Brain said:


> Creating a well trained assets against China is extremely hard. China has extremely sophisticated surveillance system. And they are vigilant against any kinda espionage. Things are getting extremely hard for US intelligence services as it seems. I wonder how much money would US have had spent so far just to catch that mole in there agency?



Hard, but not impossible regardless of China's "extremely sophisticated surveillance system" you mention, whatever that is. Regardless, successful agents don't reveal themselves. This is one of the ironies of intelligence: No one knows your successes, but they definitely know your failures.



Thəorətic Muslim said:


> CIA got sloppy, after a decade of no comparable counterpart then another against AK wielding rats hiding in caves.



US overreliance on ELINT and SIGNIT intelligence -- think NSA -- has severely degraded its HUMINT capabilities, specifically the CIA. It's not hiring the right people to do the job. You can't take some white dude from Nebraska and just stick him Afghanistan and Iraq and expect him to be effective. And simply knowing the language is not enough.


----------



## Khanate

New York Times have certainly timed the publication for maximum eyeballs, i.e., Trump's first foreign trip.


----------



## F-22Raptor

cloud4000 said:


> Probably. Wars end, but not those fought in the shadows.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard, but not impossible regardless of China's "extremely sophisticated surveillance system" you mention, whatever that is. Regardless, successful agents don't reveal themselves. This is one of the ironies of intelligence: No one knows your successes, but they definitely know your failures.
> 
> 
> 
> US overreliance on ELINT and SIGNIT intelligence -- think NSA -- has severely degraded its HUMINT capabilities, specifically the CIA. It's not hiring the right people to do the job. You can't take some white dude from Nebraska and just stick him Afghanistan and Iraq and expect him to be effective. And simply knowing the language is not enough.



I think "severely degraded" HUMINT capabilities is an inaccurate picture. Sloppy is a better word to describe it.
The CIA has certainly had its successes over the last 15 years. The CIA had a mole inside the Russian SVR that was overseeing its illegals program for 10 years. An just recently it was reported that the CIA had a couple moles inside FSB cyber operations. An they developed up to 20 informants in the Chinese government up to 2010 until the breach. An of course that doesn't count the successes they've had that are still secret, considering the CIA has operations running around the world.


----------



## onebyone

Jason Bourne - Official Trailer (HD)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

F-22Raptor said:


> I think "severely degraded" HUMINT capabilities is an inaccurate picture. Sloppy is a better word to describe it.
> The CIA has certainly had its successes over the last 15 years. The CIA had a mole inside the Russian SVR that was overseeing its illegals program for 10 years. An just recently it was reported that the CIA had a couple moles inside FSB cyber operations. An they developed up to 20 informants in the Chinese government up to 2010 until the breach. An of course that doesn't count the successes they've had that are still secret, considering the CIA has operations running around the world.



This is just how the spy game played

This actually happened quite a lot, it's not about how sloppy CIA got, but rather, how much CIA do when these source are exposed. At this point, nothing.

Source cannot generate intel forever, the first time a source talk, the government they are spying on will know something go astray, and started to notice things. Every time a mole talk, he or she put themselves more on the spot light. The more the same mole talks, the more they reveal themselves, at a point, if they weren't extracted or relocated, they will be caught.

Depending on the status of the mole, the higher the mole ranked, the more exclusive the information they can produce, but then it will also shortened the mole "Shelf Life" because the more exclusive an intel they produce, the easier it is to trace it back to the mole, because not too many people know that intel to begin with, some high profile mole will only ever produced 1 single piece of intel, then they are expired. 

Now, the focus is, what would US do to the expired mole? In some case, if they are useful (like scientist or something like that) they will be passed to priority extraction and will be extracted to US or friendly country, for others, there are no incentive for US to bring them out of the country they are spying, and mostly, during the Cold War, ended up dead in East Germany and Soviet Union. 

Those people are leave in place is because if they are not useful to the US, then they will become baits for the CIA and when country like China, Russia or anywhere these people are spying from is looking for them, they won't be looking for the one that still active. Also, the one that was killed or imprisoned are usually produce low grade intel, otherwise the Chinese would have turn them as double agent and feeding bad info back to the US.


----------



## beijingwalker

I guess those so called disappeared human rights activists are actually CIA agents, good riddance of them. High treason is subject to death penalty in every country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## simple Brain

cloud4000 said:


> Hard, but not impossible regardless of China's "extremely sophisticated surveillance system" you mention, whatever that is.



And that's what I was trying to explain it to you, that you don't know the sophistication of their surveillance system that how do they monitor there highly classified sensitive information. 



cloud4000 said:


> Regardless, successful agents don't reveal themselves.



No I never said that successful agents do reveal themselves because they are highly stupid, but when a system is so sophisticated that only few in your top rank officials knows about it, than the chances of even smartest agents being caught is without a doubt inevitable. 



cloud4000 said:


> This is one of the ironies of intelligence: No one knows your successes, but they definitely know your failures.



Nop, you are wrong, only ordinary Citizens don't know about ones success, the entire intelligence community does, the roar of the breach echoed everywhere, no wonder you make such a statements because it seems perhaps you have no idea whatsoever regarding how intelligence community work.


----------



## Makarena

sounds like China had known the network for a long time, and finally when the time was right, decided to wipe them all in one go. Make wonder what kind of intel the Chinese were feeding the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-22Raptor

A former developer for IBM pled guilty on Friday to economic espionage and to stealing trade secrets related to a type of software known as a clustered file system, which IBM sells to customers around the world.

Xu Jiaqiang stole the secrets during his stint at IBM from 2010 to 2014 "to benefit the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China," according to the U.S. Justice Department.

In a press release describing the criminal charges, the Justice Department also stated that Xu tried to sell secret IBM source code to undercover FBI agents posing as tech investors. (The agency does not explain if Xu's scheme to sell to tech investors was to benefit China or to line his own pockets).

Part of the sting involved Xu demonstrating the stolen software, which speeds computer performance by distributing works across multiple servers, on a sample network. The former employee acknowledged that others would know the software had been taken from IBM, but said he could create extra computer script to help mask his origins.

Xu, who is a Chinese national who studied computer science at the University of Delaware, will be sentenced on October 13.

The Justice Department's press release does not identify IBM, but instead refers to "the Victim Company." But other news outlets name IBM as the target of the theft, while a LinkedIn page with Xu's name shows he worked at IBM as a file system developer during the relevant dates.

IBM did not immediately respond to request for comment on Sunday.

This isn't the first time that Chinese nationals have carried out economic espionage against American companies. In 2014, the Justice Department charged five Chinese hackers for targeting U.S. nuclear and solar energy firms. And late last year, the agency charged three others for hacking U.S. law firms with the goal of trading on insider information that they obtained.

http://fortune.com/2017/05/21/ibm-employee-theft-secrets-china/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skull and Bones

Because of these ungrateful assholes, we, international grad students are mostly barred from working on projects funded by DoD and DARPA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Skull and Bones said:


> Because of these ungrateful assholes, we, international grad students are mostly barred from working on projects funded by DoD and DARPA.


Your greedy fellow slum dogs ain't angels either LOL
*Indian charged of selling B-2 bomber info to China*
http://www.news18.com/news/india/indian-charged-of-selling-b-2-bomber-info-to-china-336707.html

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Skull and Bones

grey boy 2 said:


> Your greedy fellow slum dogs ain't angels either LOL
> *Indian charged of selling B-2 bomber info to China*
> http://www.news18.com/news/india/indian-charged-of-selling-b-2-bomber-info-to-china-336707.html



Exactly, because of these ungrateful assholes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloud4000

US needs to pass tougher laws regarding espionage, specifically in the area of punishment. There's a need for stiffer jail sentences. US is much too lenient.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

*CIA: More than 15 agents lost in China since 2010, spy network ruined completely*
By
News Desk
-
21/05/2017
0



DAMASCUS, SYRIA (3:25 P.M.) – The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has lost about 20 agents and informants in China since 2010, New York Times reported on Saturday.

No less than 12 people were killed, with one of them shot in the backyard of a government building before the eyes of his colleagues. This was allegedly meant to give a signal to other supposed spies.

Some informants were arrested. Overall, CIA lost from 18 to 20 agents in the People’s Republic of China in the period between 2010 and 2012.

NYT’s sources describe positions of U.S. intelligence in China as being the weakest over the course of decades. Chinese government managed to dismantle a spy network that took years to be established.

Investigators are sharply divided over the cause of such a failure. Some believe that a mole within the CIA helped Chinese authorities discover the spy network. Others suggest that the Chinese were able to hack the covert system that the CIA used to communicate with its foreign sources.

An investigation was initiated against one of the former CIA employees; however, he has never been charged due to lack of evidence, so the investigators ultimately dropped the case.

The exact reasons of U.S. intelligence exposure in China have remained unclear.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

good stuff if its true, and will be wonderful if we can clean them all with any means of mecessary

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

_*Key points from this New York Times report:*

1. US Embassy/Consulates in China are indeed all "Spy Center"
2. this "breach" happened in 2010-2012, meant US Intel already patched the holes since 2013
3. this is another NYT / US Intel collaborated story on the New York Times

But remember the report cannot be authenticated. Even if it is true, they are spies already doing lots of damage to the country and it is the consequences of the game.

I like how in the entire report from the New York Times, the word "TRAITOR" are not used even once. Let's just turn the table and imagine if there were 20 White men in the US government that aided the Chinese intelligence operations then got caught. People would be cheering for their execution. Of course, in the actual report, these men were Chinese, and they betrayed their country to aid the USA. The bias is so obvious that I would call it propaganda, but even that is not possible, because in the West, only China can produce propaganda, while the American can only report the truth.

Now why would the CIA leak such information?
Wanna make China feel safe pretending everything is in control so they lower their guard?
I may be paranoid but I find it hard to trust anything the media says, in particular by the captured media....

Surprised that only 20 got caught. There are likely many many more CIA operatives operating in Beijing uncaught now.

The captured media only gets a small bit of the story. Why are CIA officers sharing information with the NYT now? How was the head of Chinese State Security personally attached to some of these assets? Human intelligence is often risky and always complex but necessary, as bad or no intelligence can lead to war. CIA spies in China have dwindled but not extinct and have learned to get their families to the US or other nations capable of their protection. This story does not end...

If this is intended to be the usual anti-China propaganda, I have say, it's pretty weak. I mean, imprisoning and executing traitors is pretty standard practice for every country. It's just insulting to the readers' intelligence for US media to take any kind of moral high ground on China busting a CIA Spy Ring, especially when it happened years ago.

Just make a list of all the "ANONYMOUS SOURCES" in "news" stories especially from the corporate establishment press in the US. I can write that President Xi kicked his dog and that I found out but really really I can't tell you who told me. But that is the entire story, somebody secretly told me and now I am passing on what they said even though I have no way to verify what they told me is true. Look at who is out of favor with the establishment Neoliberal Warmongering DEEP STATE and there you'll find a never ending supply of "ANONYMOUS SOURCES"  LOL_

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html

Cross-posted at SCMP:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2095100/china-killed-or-jailed-20-us-spies-2010-2012-report

Cross-posted at ZeroHedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-20/cia-incompetence-allowed-china-murder-dozen-cia-assets-nyt


READ ALSO the related older post at the other captured media at below:

*CIA Mulls Pulling US Spies Out Of China After Massive OPM Hack Likely Compromised American Identities: Report*

_"When it was first revealed last month that Chinese hackers spent 18 months lurking inside unsophisticated computer networks at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Obama administration denied any data on American intelligence officials was at risk. Now, though, U.S. intelligence leaders and congressional officials have admitted there’s serious concern throughout Washington about what the Chinese government might find if it combines data obtained during the OPM hack with information gathered through other breaches. *The CIA is especially worried about American spies working in Beijing with DIPLOMATIC COVER, sources told the New York Times.*"_​
http://www.ibtimes.com/cia-mulls-pu...r-massive-opm-hack-likely-compromised-2024894

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pyr0test

Skull and Bones said:


> Because of these ungrateful assholes, we, international grad students are mostly barred from working on projects funded by DoD and DARPA.



Ungrateful assholes or not, the very idea of granting non citizens security clearance is ridiculous


----------



## Jlaw

[
The news intentionally forgot to mention this dude worked at IBM in China and was caught there.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kankan326

Jlaw said:


> The news intentionally forgot to mention this dude worked at IBM in China and was caught there.


And was trying to convince people that only China has commercial spies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

We should use KGB poison method...make it like a heart attack or something.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## war&peace

Well done China...that's the way to go!!! 
Pakistan should learn this from China... 
Kill every traitor and spy, observe every white skinned foreigner and dark skinned traitor getting too cosy with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sinait

Jlaw said:


> [
> The news intentionally forgot to mention this dude worked at IBM in China and was caught there.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKBN0TR2X820151208


> *A former software engineer for IBM Corp in China* has been arrested by U.S. authorities for allegedly stealing proprietary source code from his former employer, prosecutors announced on Tuesday.
> 
> Jiaqiang Xu, 29, was charged in a criminal complaint filed in federal court in White Plains, New York, with one count of theft of a trade secret, as prosecutors accused him of trying to sell the stolen code to other companies.
> 
> He was arrested on Monday after meeting with an undercover officer at a White Plains hotel, where authorities said he was recorded saying he used the code to make software to sell to customers.


He should not have left China for the USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## businessmann

Spy. A very old occupation!


----------



## onebyone

Mission Impossible Theme(full theme)






Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation Official Payoff Trailer (2015) - Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg Movie HD


----------



## onebyone

*US Housing and Development Secretary says there is an opportunity for two powers to be "great friends" and that China "is not a very belligerent society"*

*In a further sign of warming bilateral ties, US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson delivered an upbeat speech on US-China relations in Washington, D.C. on Friday.

“When you look at China you see a very, very accomplished society and not a very belligerent society,” Carson said at an annual conference hosted by the Committee of 100 (C100). “I think there’s an opportunity for China and the US to become very good friends – and the administration is looking for that.”
The comments by Carson, who was sent by the White House as a fill-in speaker for US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, appeared to be another positive policy signal by the Trump administration on China.

The HUD’s secretary’s speech followed Ross’s announcement last week of a 10-part trade agreement with China on beef, poultry and financial market access issues.

Carson, whose domestic agency has nothing to do with China, told the audience that he had spoken with Ross, who couldn’t attend, before making his speech. The C100 is an organization of prominent Chinese Americans active in Sino-US policy matters.

“I hope the US and the Middle Kingdom can learn from the mistakes and triumphs of the past,” Carson said at another point in his speech.

He also sought to allay fears of future US-China friction. “When we say America First, it does not mean America only,” Carson said, alluding to a slogan used by Trump during his presidential campaign.

Carson is a famous African American surgeon who backed Trump’s presidential bid and was later appointed to head HUD, which oversees home ownership, low-income housing and housing development.

Senator warns of ‘Thucydides Trap’
Another speaker at the C100 conference was Dan Sullivan, a Republican US senator from Alaska who serves as co-chair of the Senate’s China Working Group, a bipartisan panel that helps frame US China policy.

Sullivan said both the US and China were working to avoid the so-called “Thucydides Trap”, a strategic metaphor where a rising power challenges an established one – in a scenario that usually leads to war.

“Some say the US should contain China. I don’t think this is the right strategy,” Sullivan said, arguing that it’s better for the US to engage China.

Sullivan also offered some hints on how the GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump administration may craft future US economic policy toward China.

He noted in his speech that reciprocity from China on bilateral trade and investment issues and China’s alleged theft of US intellectual property remain sticking points between the two nations.

But the senator noted on the reciprocity issue that China currently has an opportunity to create jobs in the US through investment. “There’s a great opportunity to do that with the US-China relationship,” Sullivan noted.

Sullivan said another potential area for bilateral cooperation was energy. “(The US has) enormous reserves of clean-burning natural gas” that can be exported to an energy-hungry China, Sullivan said, adding that he and his colleagues would continue to work on such ideas in Congress.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who is on deck to be the next US ambassador to China, was slated to be one of the main speakers at the C100 conference but was unable to attend due to a full schedule.
Reports say the full Senate is set to vote on Branstad’s confirmation as ambassador to China on Monday.

Doug Tsuruoka is Editor-at-Large of Asia Times
*
*http://www.atimes.com/article/trump-cabinet-member-carson-upbeat-us-china-ties/*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

businessmann said:


> Spy. A very old occupation!



True....

They call spying worlds second oldest profession. It last just as long as the first and will last until the end of time, just as the worlds oldest profession.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

Increased shipments of the fuel to the mainland one of the main breakthroughs in a trade deal agreed after two nations’ presidents met last month in Florida

After an executive from US liquefied natural gas exporter Cheniere Energy spoke to a few hundred people at a conference in Beijing last week, the first question from the audience turned out to be an invitation to visit one of China’s biggest energy firms and a main LNG buyer, the state-owned giant known as Sinopec.

“We are very happy to always come to your office, Mr Chen Bo, and discuss the supply of US LNG to China,” Andrew Walker said in front of an amused audience, responding to the chief of Sinopec’s trading arm.

The exchange highlighted a budding relationship between US gas sellers and Chinese buyers after an agreement struck this month by the Trump administration and President Xi Jinping’s government welcomed the Asian country’s investments and purchases of American gas.

“The trade deal paves the way for Chinese support into US LNG in both existing and potential future projects,” said Kerry Anne Shanks, a Singapore-based analyst at Wood Mackenzie. That includes immediate LNG sales or signing long-term contracts to underpin financing of new plants.

Gas is poised to play a larger role in US-China trade relations as the Trump administration works to trim a trade deficit and as the world’s largest energy consumer seeks to boost the share of natural gas in its energy mix and lower prices that last year were the world’s highest.

Beijing, US reach trade deal to boost American imports to China in wake of Xi-Trump summit

While the trade deal announced May 11 does not appear to alter access for Chinese companies to US gas cargoes, it welcomes China to receive shipments and engage in long-term contracts. That may be able to ease concerns in China that involvement in the US LNG industry would be met with wariness.

“There’s never been anything formally that said there are restrictions on Chinese buyers,” Shanks said. “But there’s always been that fear.”

US supplies accounted for almost seven per cent of China’s LNG imports in March, customs data show. But these cargoes were supplied to end-users through intermediaries or spot deals as China currently has no long-term contracts to directly buy American gas.

Longer supply contracts, which can run more than 20 years, traditionally help underpin the financing of export projects by providing lenders with confidence the developments will have stable customers. They also strengthen the relationship between the buyer and the plant operator or gas producer, opening the door to investing directly in the export plants.










China National Petroleum Corp chairman Wang Yilin said earlier this month that the country’s biggest oil and gas company wants to import more US supplies and will consider participating in projects. Sinopec’s trading unit, Unipec, is considering the US, among other producers, for possible long-term LNG contracts for supply starting in about 2022, Chen said on Wednesday at a gas exhibition in China.

China International United Petroleum & Chemicals, as Unipec is officially known, may use the cargoes for both domestic demand as well as for its trading book. The company resold about 20 per cent of its 10 million tonnes of annual supply last year to Europe, the Middle East and Mexico, Chen said.

China could offer America a trade deal it cannot refuse – on natural gas

ENN Energy Holdings, one of the country’s biggest gas distributors and a budding LNG importer, is considering US supplies if it offers acceptable price and flexibility, vice-president Ma Shenyuan said at the same event in Beijing.

“US gas will be the cheapest of all because they have abundant supply” and the Trump-Xi trade agreement was encouraging LNG shipments between the two countries, Zhu Xingshan, a senior director in the planning department of CNPC, said in Beijing last week. “Thus we should increase imports of US LNG.”

Most of China’s long-term LNG supply contracts price shipments as a ratio to oil, with one Qatari deal struck in 2008 pricing it at as much as 16.3 per cent the cost of crude, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. US LNG exports are priced off benchmark Henry Hub gas in Louisiana.

But with oil prices currently depressed, US LNG imports have no cost advantage, said Ye Yishu, president of China National Offshore Oil Corp’s gas and power trading arm. American gas may present a buying opportunity if crude rises above US$70 a barrel, he said at the summit.

Options for China to secure US LNG may include buying spare volumes from Cheniere’s Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana, which is currently the only US exporter outside Alaska, financing an expansion of that project, or buying into one of a handful of new developments that have permission to export but still need financing, according to Wood Mackenzie’s Shanks.

China taps into cool future for global energy

China oil explorers are not the only ones lured by cheap plentiful reserves and the possibility of greater sales from North America. Qatar Petroleum International has teamed up with Exxon Mobil Corp to build a US$10 billion natural gas export plant in Texas, which won approval by federal energy regulators in December.

“We get asked a lot ‘Is there an unwritten rule that Chinese buyers can’t buy from the US?’ and this clearly laid out the words ‘We welcome Chinese purchases,”’ Cheniere’s Walker said of the recent trade deal. “We very much look forward to continuing our conversations with our various potential customers.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2095162/how-gas-helping-warm-chinas-trade-ties-us


----------



## sinait

F-22Raptor said:


> Part of the sting involved Xu demonstrating the stolen software, which speeds computer performance by distributing works across multiple servers, on a sample network. The former employee acknowledged that others would know the software had been taken from IBM, but said he could create extra computer script to help mask his origins.


Title is very misleading and trying to cast the affair as China espionage.
It is clear Xu is taking the software for himself and nothing to do with China other than it is committed in IBM China.
He got caught trying to sell the software to company in USA.
I suggest using title from Reuters. 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKBN0TR2X820151208
*Ex-IBM employee from China arrested in U.S. for code theft*
.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

sinait said:


> Title is very misleading and trying to cast the affair as China espionage.
> It is clear Xu is taking the software for himself and nothing to do with China other than it is committed in IBM China.
> He got caught trying to sell the software to company in USA.
> I suggest using title from Reuters.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKBN0TR2X820151208
> *Ex-IBM employee from China arrested in U.S. for code theft*
> .



@Shotgunner51 , @ahojunk , could you please correct the doctored title?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

sinait said:


> Title is very misleading and trying to cast the affair as China espionage.
> It is clear Xu is taking the software for himself and nothing to do with China other than it is committed in IBM China.
> He got caught trying to sell the software to company in USA.
> I suggest using title from Reuters.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKBN0TR2X820151208
> *Ex-IBM employee from China arrested in U.S. for code theft*
> .



He is allegedly spying for China, read the second paragraph of OP's article



F-22Raptor said:


> *Xu Jiaqiang stole the secrets during his stint at IBM from 2010 to 2014 "to benefit the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China," according to the U.S. Justice Department.*



IBM would not sell software that can be used in Governmental Level in China due to sanction, which make what he is doing is a form of espionage, just because he decided to cash in from it as well does not make it not a espionage operation sponsored by China.



Pyr0test said:


> Ungrateful assholes or not, the very idea of granting non citizens security clearance is ridiculous



Most don't, depending on how or what kind of access you have.

The incident happen overseas (in China) not in the US, that mean it may have either low security status to begin with or the person in question using backdoor access to access something above his paygrade.

However, judging by the fact that the program was sold by IBM to all over the world, that would mean the source code should not be in any form off security level.

In the US, there exist 5+2 Security Clearance.

Level 7 - Special Privileged - Only selective few can access (ie President of the United States)
Level 6 - FYEO (For Your Eyes Only)/Compartmentalized - high level clearance for specific people. (Yankee White)
Level 5 - Top Secret/SCI - Holder must have NSA vetting (SSBI)
Level 4 - Secret - Holder must be vetted by Federal Agency (other than NSA/SSBI class rating)
Level 3 - Confidential - Local Governmental Vetting (Can be obtained by Non-US Citizens)
Level 2 - Public Trusted Position - Access to Sensitive Information without Clearance (like a janitor working in a secure premises)
Level 1 - Unclassified - Open for Everyone.

For a Non-Citizen, the most they can get is Level 3, for a Citizen born outside the US, the most they can get is Level 5.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

Good movie materials. Let's make some movies.  Zhang's identity?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xuxu1457

You can't make yourself seems very justice, on both sending spies and catching spies
US: "China send spies to US, they are bad" 
"China catched our spies, they are bad" 
-----we are always justice

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jhungary

nang2 said:


> Good movie materials. Let's make some movies.  Zhang's identity?



It's different....

Jason Bourne is actually an CIA officer (he served in Foreign Service Corp) and a member of Medusa.

Those people killed in China are not CIA Agent, they are the CIA agent's asset. CIA Agent would have been untouchable in China as they would have diplomatic immunity and spend most of the time inside US Embassy.

Those guys got arrested and executed is source that leak information to the CIA agent. Which is fair game for Chinese government.



xuxu1457 said:


> You can't make yourself seems very justice, on both sending spies and catching spies
> US: "China send spies to US, they are bad"
> "China catched our spies, they are bad"
> -----we are always justice



Would it be different in China?

China : "US send spies on China, they are bad"
China " "US caught our spies, they are bad"

It's not about justice, it's about the side you have choosen. Or you are telling me when US caught Chinese spies, Chinese expression in general is "Good one, you got us good this time, we will do better??"


----------



## sinait

jhungary said:


> He is allegedly spying for China, read the second paragraph of OP's article
> IBM would not sell software that can be used in Governmental Level in China due to sanction, which make what he is doing is a form of espionage, just because he decided to cash in from it as well does not make it not a espionage operation sponsored by China.
> However, judging by the fact that the program was *sold by IBM to all over the world*, that would mean the source code should not be in any form off security level.





> Xu Jiaqiang stole the secrets during his stint at IBM from 2010 to 2014 "to *benefit *the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China," according to the U.S. Justice Department.


Exactly, it is to benefit his customers and himself. Otherwise it would be reported as " stole the secrets *for the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the PRC*".
That is he is NOT doing it on instructions from the PRC agencies.


> In a press release describing the criminal charges, the Justice Department also stated that Xu tried to sell secret IBM source code to undercover FBI agents posing as tech investors. (*The agency does not explain if Xu's scheme to sell to tech investors was to benefit China or to line his own pockets*).


Like I said earlier, OP is trying to cast a bad light on China. On first para its already stated that this is commercial software that is sold to customers around the world.
Better if you read the same less biased article from Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKCN18F2LZ


> Part of the sting involved Xu demonstrating the stolen software, which speeds computer performance by distributing works across multiple servers, on a sample network. The former employee acknowledged that *others would know the software had been taken from IBM*, but said he could create extra computer script to help mask his origins.


Clearly this code is commonly available and is easily recognized by IT professionals.

Not sure the code is prohibited for sale in China as it is being accessed in IBM China. Why would IBM China have the code in question if it is not for sale. Clustered file system is not used by mom and pop stores.
He is in China and naturally most of his customers will be Chinese companies or Government agencies.
According to Reuters it is simply reported as theft of proprietary software.

I am not familiar with software sanction. I would think that Clustered File System code is secret and proprietary to IBM but is not strategic as it is commonly used for database management. If IBM cannot sell it to Chinese Government Agencies, why have the code developed and used in China.
Might as well close IBM China.

Oracle offers, free and open source, their Oracle Cluster File System since 2002.
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/025995.htm
OCFS2 (Oracle Cluster File System 2) is a *free*, *open source*, general-purpose, extent-based clustered file system which Oracle developed and contributed to the Linux community, and accepted into Linux kernel 2.6.16.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jhungary

sinait said:


> Exactly, it is to benefit his customers and himself. Otherwise it would be reported as " stole the secrets *for the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the PRC*".
> That is he is NOT doing it on instructions from the PRC agencies.
> 
> Like I said earlier, OP is trying to cast a bad light on China. On first para its already stated that this is commercial software that is sold to customers around the world.
> Better if you read the same less biased article from Reuters.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKCN18F2LZ
> 
> Clearly this code is commonly available and is easily recognized by IT professionals.
> 
> Not sure the code is prohibited for sale in China as it is being accessed in IBM China. Why would IBM China have the code in question if it is not for sale. Clustered file system is not used by mom and pop stores.
> He is in China and naturally most of his customers will be Chinese companies or Government agencies.
> According to Reuters it is simply reported as theft of proprietary software.
> 
> I am not familiar with software sanction. I would think that Clustered File System code is secret and proprietary to IBM but is not strategic as it is commonly used for database management. If IBM cannot sell it to Chinese Government Agencies, why have the code developed and used in China.
> Might as well close IBM China.
> 
> Oracle offers, free and open source, their Oracle Cluster File System since 2002.
> http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/025995.htm
> OCFS2 (Oracle Cluster File System 2) is a *free*, *open source*, general-purpose, extent-based clustered file system which Oracle developed and contributed to the Linux community, and accepted into Linux kernel 2.6.16.
> .



Well, I am not in a position to judge a case, I don't think we have all the necessary information of what he did and how he did it, or who they did it from.

Fact is, the DOJ is alleged that he steal these information which in turn will benefits the government of China, doing so would have been the same as "Spying for China" whether or not it is his duty or on the instruction of the government of China or he got pay to do it. It does not matter in the definition. The term is classed when a person stolen information that might otherwise benefit another country that does not have access on this information.

For example, if a person stolen critical information in Apple inc and sell them to Samsung, that person is spying for Samsung whether or not he got paid by Samsung or if he had a job with Samsung and as a Samsung Employee. Just because it may have been a third party, it does not take the organisation benefit from the information out of the equation 

So, by definition, what DOJ is accusing of what Xu was doing is in fact an act of espionage, which benefit China. Whether or not DOJ can proof the case is another issue. 

As for how or other nitty gritty on the case, well, he might have access to the program in the US, he was working for IBM China at that time does not mean he does not have access to IBM mainframe or IBM asset in the US. It didn't say exactly how he got to these info. 

The why and the how would be determined in Federal Court, but what the DOJ is accusing Xu is that he spied for China. Whether or not he works for Chinese Ministry or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sinait

jhungary said:


> Well, I am not in a position to judge a case, I don't think we have all the necessary information of what he did and how he did it, or who they did it from.


Agreed. That's why I have issue with the misleading title meant to disparage China. 
"Ex-IBM Employee Guilty of Stealing Secrets For China".
It is for himself and benefit all his customers including this company in the USA.


> For example, if a person stolen critical information in Apple inc and sell them to Samsung, that person is spying for Samsung whether or not he got paid by Samsung or if he had a job with Samsung and as a Samsung Employee. Just because it may have been a third party, it does not take the organisation benefit from the information out of the equation


Your hate for China knows no bounds. Such a long winded irrelevant example to pin the blame on China.
I know you are knowledgeable, but this is going too far in a subject I think is not your forte.


> So, by definition, what DOJ is accusing of what Xu was doing is in fact an act of espionage, which benefit China. Whether or not DOJ can proof the case is another issue.


He already pleaded guilty to theft.


> As for how or other nitty gritty on the case, well, he might have access to the program in the US, he was working for IBM China at that time does not mean he does not have access to IBM mainframe or IBM asset in the US. It didn't say exactly how he got to these info.


Then they would say it is *hacking US servers*, and a big hoo ha. 


> The why and the how would be determined in Federal Court, but what the DOJ is accusing Xu is that he spied for China. Whether or not he works for Chinese Ministry or not.


Doing it for his benefit is not spying for China, period.
The source code is available to him, except he used it outside of IBM biz for his personal gain.
I repeat here again, Clustered File System is common to database management software. 
It is not strategic code.
Oracle offers, *free and open source*, their Oracle Cluster File System since 2002.
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/025995.htm
OCFS2 (Oracle Cluster File System 2) is a *free*, *open source*, general-purpose, extent-based clustered file system which Oracle developed and contributed to the Linux community, and accepted into Linux kernel 2.6.16.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

sinait said:


> Agreed. That's why I have issue with the misleading title meant to disparage China.
> "Ex-IBM Employee Guilty of Stealing Secrets For China".
> It is for himself and benefit all his customers including this company in the USA.



He wasn't selling to a company in the US, he is selling to a undercover agent. He could have done so but still it was benefiting the Chinese government, well, at least this is how DOJ accusing Xu.




> Your hate for China knows no bounds. Such a long winded irrelevant example to pin the blame on China.
> I know you are knowledgeable, but this is going too far in a subject I think is not your forte.



My wife is a Law Professor, she have a Juris Doctor Degree and a PhD in International Policy. And I have seek her advice. Does that forte enough?

And for me, I used to work as a Counter Intelligence Agent for the Army, I think I know how espionage work....

It have nothing to do with how I feel for China.




> He already pleaded guilty to theft.



This is still espionage. In fact, most of the espionage act include theft and stealing.



> Then they would say it is *hacking US servers*, and a big hoo ha.



Umm, that's just one of the scenario. You and I both don't know how he came up with the information, so...It could have been anything.



> Doing it for his benefit is not spying for China, period.
> The source code is available to him, except he used it outside of IBM biz for his personal gain.
> I repeat here again, Clustered File System is common to database management software.
> It is not strategic code.
> Oracle offers, *free and open source*, their Oracle Cluster File System since 2002.
> http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/025995.htm
> OCFS2 (Oracle Cluster File System 2) is a *free*, *open source*, general-purpose, extent-based clustered file system which Oracle developed and contributed to the Linux community, and accepted into Linux kernel 2.6.16.
> .



Again, benefiting himself does not mean China was not benefited as a part....

As I said, DOJ alleged that Xu steal secret and sell them to the Chinese Government, that part would mean the information he stole would have benefit China.

And the definition of Open Source code does not mean it was not a protected information, as we do not know the extend to this issue, he may have stolen more than that, or doing it in a way would put National Security at risk.


----------



## sinait

jhungary said:


> He wasn't selling to a company in the US, he is selling to a undercover agent. He could have done so but still it was benefiting the Chinese government, well, at least this is how DOJ accusing Xu.





> My wife is a Law Professor, she have a Juris Doctor Degree and a PhD in International Policy. And I have seek her advice. Does that forte enough?
> And for me, I used to work as a Counter Intelligence Agent for the Army, I think I know how espionage work....
> It have nothing to do with how I feel for China.
> This is still espionage. In fact, most of the espionage act include theft and stealing.


No need to bring in irrelevant qualifications. I am referring to the software involved.
I do read and appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to this forum.
Your bias against China is very obvious. I mean most of what you say is relevant but you always put it in an anti-China stance. That is no problem except that it is somehow uneasy when you sport a China flag. It had me puzzled for a while. Why would a Chinese national disparage China publicly, its like "washing dirty linen in public". I would understand that if one is Vietnamese, Uyghur or Falun Gong. 


> Umm, that's just one of the scenario. You and I both don't know how he came up with the information, so...It could have been anything.


Exactly, again that's why I have issue with the title.
Title used by Reuters is more reasonable. 
I would think Reuters is more reputable than Fortune.com.



> Again, benefiting himself does not mean China was not benefited as a part....
> 
> As I said, DOJ alleged that Xu steal secret and sell them to the Chinese Government, that part would mean the information he stole would have benefit China.
> 
> And the definition of Open Source code does not mean it was not a protected information, as we do not know the extend to this issue, he may have stolen more than that, or doing it in a way would put National Security at risk.


This is going in circles. 
Open Source code means it is available for everybody to use as is or include it into their own software. 
No point to continue. Its like flogging a dead horse.
Lets just agree to disagree. 
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Götterdämmerung

Why would the US reveal their failure? It's disinformation!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jhungary

sinait said:


> No need to bring in irrelevant qualifications. I am referring to the software involved.
> I do read and appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to this forum.
> Your bias against China is very obvious. I mean most of what you say is relevant but you always put it in an anti-China stance. That is no problem except that it is somehow uneasy when you sport a China flag. It had me puzzled for a while. Why would a Chinese national disparage China publicly, its like "washing dirty linen in public". I would understand that if one is Vietnamese, Uyghur or Falun Gong.



The software involve is not the center of the matter of this.

The law is. Regardless of what he steal, the term espionage is defined as per common law is a Stealing or Obtaining information that was otherwise restricted and without the permission of the holder of the information

This is not about which software he took or what it have to do with availability, the term and scope of "Espionage" does not include both, as long as he stole information pertained to have a restricted access and obtaining it without prior permission to the owner, that act, itself, by law, is defined as "Espionage". He could have stolen the information about the lunch menu in IBM if that menu is a restricted information and he has accessed it without authorization, that act is alone would have been considered as espionage

Doing it for money, or Doing it for King and Country is not considered relevant. Again, just because he want to benefit from this and he is selling it to other people for a quick buck, does not change the fact that such information are benefitted Chinese government. This is what DOJ alleged, if you want to claim his information did not benefit the Chinese government, then send proof to his lawyer, otherwise if he was convicted, HE IS SPYING FOR CHINA, regardless of whether or not is it his job or he is a third party asking for payment. Because it benefit the Chinese Government.

I am into the truth and by the book,. it have nothing to do with which flag I sport or what type of view I hold with a country, if you want too debate the law, then I can debate the law with you, if you don't, just admitted you don't know, but don't drag other thing into it.



> Exactly, again that's why I have issue with the title.
> Title used by Reuters is more reasonable.
> I would think Reuters is more reputable than Fortune.com.



Each news paper takes on a given angle of an incident, Reuters does not pursuit whoever he is spying on does not make the title more reasonable.

This is the original document of the written court report from DOJ

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/866976/download

Count 1



> From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2Q15,
> in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending
> and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent,
> namely the People's Republic of China ("PRC")*



Count 1 accused Xu Economic Espionage, with intending and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, namely the People's Republic of China.(sic)

which is in law term, the DOJ is accusing Xu spying for a foreign government, which is China.

And as per US Court Achieve,

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=NY&d=102863

Xu was found guilty (He pled Guilty) on all 6 count (3 Economic Espionage, 3 Theft of Trade Secret), which is accepting the fact that He is indeed spying for China.

So, I don't see why Reuters Articles is more "reputable" just because it left out the fact that Spying for China charge is filed by DOJ and Xu's guilty verdict on that charge.

Or is my knowledge on law is wrong? DOJ did not accuse Xu with Spying for China and he did not plead guilty?



> This is going in circles.
> Open Source code means it is available for everybody to use as is or include it into their own software.
> No point to continue. Its like flogging a dead horse.
> Lets just agree to disagree.
> .



For the last time, what he steal does not matter, how it will be used and how he steal does.

Just because it is available to everyone does not mean it would not benefit anyone. And that is what the law entail, keep arguing what he has stolen is actually what turning in a circle. As I said, in term of Law, it could be anything, as longas it's restrictive and he acquire it without authorization.


----------



## sinait

jhungary said:


> The software involve is not the center of the matter of this.
> The law is. Regardless of what he steal, the term espionage is defined as per common law is a Stealing or Obtaining information that was otherwise restricted and without the permission of the holder of the information
> 
> This is not about which software he took or what it have to do with availability, the term and scope of "Espionage" does not include both, as long as he stole information pertained to have a restricted access and obtaining it without prior permission to the owner, that act, itself, by law, is defined as "Espionage". He could have stolen the information about the lunch menu in IBM if that menu is a restricted information and he has accessed it without authorization, that act is alone would have been considered as espionage
> 
> Doing it for money, or Doing it for King and Country is not considered relevant. Again, just because he want to benefit from this and he is selling it to other people for a quick buck, does not change the fact that such information are benefitted Chinese government. This is what DOJ alleged, if you want to claim his information did not benefit the Chinese government, then send proof to his lawyer, otherwise if he was convicted, HE IS SPYING FOR CHINA, regardless of whether or not is it his job or he is a third party asking for payment. Because it benefit the Chinese Government.
> 
> I am into the truth and by the book,. it have nothing to do with which flag I sport or what type of view I hold with a country, if you want too debate the law, then I can debate the law with you, if you don't, just admitted you don't know, but don't drag other thing into it.
> 
> Each news paper takes on a given angle of an incident, Reuters does not pursuit whoever he is spying on does not make the title more reasonable.
> 
> This is the original document of the written court report from DOJ
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/866976/download
> 
> Count 1
> 
> Count 1 accused Xu Economic Espionage, with intending and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, namely the People's Republic of China.(sic)
> 
> which is in law term, the DOJ is accusing Xu spying for a foreign government, which is China.
> 
> And as per US Court Achieve,
> 
> http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=NY&d=102863
> 
> Xu was found guilty (He pled Guilty) on all 6 count (3 Economic Espionage, 3 Theft of Trade Secret), which is accepting the fact that He is indeed spying for China.
> 
> So, I don't see why Reuters Articles is more "reputable" just because it left out the fact that Spying for China charge is filed by DOJ and Xu's guilty verdict on that charge.
> 
> Or is my knowledge on law is wrong? DOJ did not accuse Xu with Spying for China and he did not plead guilty?
> 
> For the last time, what he steal does not matter, how it will be used and how he steal does.
> 
> Just because it is available to everyone does not mean it would not benefit anyone. And that is what the law entail, keep arguing what he has stolen is actually what turning in a circle. As I said, in term of Law, it could be anything, as long as it's restrictive and he acquire it without authorization.


Where in the article say Xu is spying for China?
The incredible extent you are willing to go to tar China.
Your contorted reasoning is stretching credulity to the limits.

According to you, one would be guilty of spying if one took a simple screw and sold it to a PRC Government Agency just because the "economic espionage" law is drafted unreasonably broad and China is USA favorite fall guy.
Of course the software which is the stolen item is central to this matter.
This Clustered File System which is part of GPFS is the reason why Xu is charged and it is later that espionage charges are added when they realised that Xu had a Government Agency among his customers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKCN0Z02KA

Xu is using this GPFS instead of other better free software simply because he is familiar with it, having worked at IBM China previously. His customers couldn't care less if Xu used GPFS or other free versions. Its like someone still using obsolete but proprietary iPhone OS 1 instead of latest free Android 7.

GPFS which debut in 1998 is obsolete, replaced with IBM Spectrum Scale.
This guy is just dumb and unlucky and arrest IBM as well since IBM is trying to benefit China.

Its like getting arrested for maximum jail term of 75 years for selling a pirate copy of MS DOS, or Windows 95.
I will leave it to members who have basic knowledge of IT file systems to decide for themselves whether this theft of an obsolete file system for his personal financial benefit justify espionage charges and to tar China based on it.


> I used to work as a Counter Intelligence Agent for the Army


 Not sure if you are still working for them.
Just post your points, I cannot verify the actual status of you or your wife. Its not that I doubt your knowledge or qualifications, but rather your agenda, don't keep justifying your post with you and your wife's unverified so called qualifications.


> So, I don't see why Reuters Articles is more "reputable" just because it left out the fact that Spying for China charge is filed by DOJ and Xu pleaded guilty on that charge.


Reuters is definitly not pro China. So ...
Because Reuters got more knowledge and common sense than you?
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Makarena

Götterdämmerung said:


> Why would the US reveal their failure? It's disinformation!



I thought you called it accountable

but it probably didn't matter to China. It will still benefit China, now those traitors wannabe will think twice before accepting money for selling out their country.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## war&peace

Khanate said:


> New York Times have certainly timed the publication for maximum eyeballs, i.e., Trump's first foreign trip.


Trump is the best mole for Russia in USA...I think Russians couldn't do better than that.


----------



## Khanate

war&peace said:


> Trump is the best mole for Russia in USA...I think Russians couldn't do better than that.




Could be. Even American politicians think that behind close doors:

*House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump*

Though Trump is in full-on banana republic mode. 
*
Read:*

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence (Washington Post)
Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion (CNN)
Trump Asked Top Intel Officials to Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe (NBC News)
Trump Reportedly Asked Intel Chiefs To Publicly Deny Russia Ties (Huffington Post)


----------



## sinait

Jlaw said:


> That is vietnamese 月狗style. Ignore this no life"professional"長氣鳩


Yup. 
*冇得頂*
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

sinait said:


> Where in the article say Xu is spying for China?
> The incredible extent you are willing to go to tar China.
> Your contorted reasoning is stretching credulity to the limits.



On the DOJ affidavit

The 3 count of Economic Espionage is on the DOJ affidavit on the court case The United States Government v. JIAQIANG XU,

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/866976/download

COUNT ONE

(Economic Espionage)
*The Grand Jury charges:*

l. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2Q15,
in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending 
and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, 
namely the People's Republic of China ("PRC"),* knowingly did steal, and without authorization
appropriate, take, carry away, and conceal, and by fraud, aiiifice and deception obtain a trade
secret, and attempted to do so, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, XU stole and converted to
his own use the source code for a piece of proprietary software, which source code was a trade
secret of a company for which XU previously worked (the "Proprietary Source Code"), with the
intent to benefit the PRC's National Health and Family Planning Commission (the "NHFPC").
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1831(a)(l), (4) & 2.)
-::r n ~l?r/vletJ<Y 6 / 14 /It ( C7vPr l( I() vJ 1. ,M J VI V\f--6 Case 7:16-cr-00010-KMK Document 15 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 6 s:, kid
ORIGINAL
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Sl 16 Cr. 10 (KMK)

Case 7:16-cr-00010-KMK Document 15 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 6
COUNT TWO
(Economic Espionage)
*The Grand Jury further charges:*
2. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2015,
in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending 
and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, 
namely the PRC*, knowingly and without authorization did copy, duplicate, sketch, draw,
photograph, download, upload, alter, destroy, photocopy, replicate, transmit, deliver, send, mail,
communicate, and convey a trade secret, and attempted to do so, and aided and abetted the same,
to wit, XU copied the Proprietary Source Code, with the intent to benefit the NHFPC.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 183l(a)(2), (4) & 2.)

COUNT THREE
(Economic Espionage)
*The Grand Jury further charges:*

3. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2015,
in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending 
and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, 
namely the PRC*, knowingly did receive, buy, and possess a trade secret, knowing the same to
have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, and converted without authorization, and attempted
to do so, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, XU received and possessed the Proprietary
Source Code, with the intent to benefit the Nl-IFPC.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 183l(a)(3), (4) & 2.)

Xu pled *GUILTY* on all 3 Economic Espionage charge, which means he admit he is conducting espionage that would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, namely, the *PEOPLE REPUBLIC OF CHINA*.

Again, do you know what does espionage means?



> According to you, one would be guilty of spying if one took a simple screw and sold it to a PRC Government Agency just because the "economic espionage" law is drafted unreasonably broad and China is USA favourite fall guy.
> Of course the software which is the stolen item is central to this matter.
> This Clustered File System which is part of GPFS is the reason why Xu is charged and it is later that espionage charges are added when they realised that Xu had a Government Agency among his customers.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibm-crime-china-idUSKCN0Z02KA
> 
> Xu is using this GPFS instead of other better free software simply because he is familiar with it, having worked at IBM China previously. His customers couldn't care less if Xu used GPFS or other free versions. Its like someone still using obsolete but proprietary iPhone OS 1 instead of latest free Android 7.
> 
> GPFS which debut in 1998 is obsolete, replaced with IBM Spectrum Scale.
> This guy is just dumb and unlucky and arrest IBM as well since IBM is trying to benefit China.
> 
> Its like getting arrested for maximum jail term of 75 years for selling a pirate copy of MS DOS, or Windows 95.
> I will leave it to members who have basic knowledge of IT file systems to decide for themselves whether this theft of an obsolete file system for his personal financial benefit justify espionage charges and to tar China based on it.
> Not sure if you are still working for them.
> Just post your points, I cannot verify the actual status of you or your wife. Its not that I doubt your knowledge or qualifications, but rather your agenda, don't keep justifying your post with you and your wife's unverified so called qualifications.



This is not according to me, this is according to the USC Title 18 definition of Economic Espionage.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ294/pdf/PLAW-104publ294.pdf

To be charged or indicted for Economic Espionage, USC Title 18 offer the requirement as to;

*1831. Economic espionage*

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—*Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly*—

‘‘(1) *steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret*;
‘‘(2) *without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret*;
‘‘(3) *receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization*;
‘‘(4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or

18 USC 1 note.
Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
Oct. 11, 1996 [H.R. 3723]
110 STAT. 3489PUBLIC LAW 104–294—OCT. 11, 1996
‘‘(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ‘‘(b) ORGANIZATIONS.—Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $10,000,000.

*1832. Theft of trade secrets*

‘‘(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—

‘‘(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
‘‘(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
‘‘(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
‘‘(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or ‘‘(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. ‘‘(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the requirement said what he need to steal to be a trade secret. So yes, if Microsoft still consider MS-DOS is trade secret (which they legally can, as the kernel code remain largely the basis of today windows) then stealing DOS 1.0 source code would be an act of espionage.

So, in answering your question, yes, as long as they are defined as Trade Secret, according to USC Title 18, you are conducting espionage by stealing it. And for Xu to have been charged with Economic Espionage, he would have to had intent to sell them to China. Thus, working as an agent ON *BEHALF OF CHINA*.

Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secret are the same charge with the latter does not have intend to sell these secret to a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent



> Not sure if you are still working for them.
> Just post your points, I cannot verify the actual status of you or your wife. Its not that I doubt your knowledge or qualifications, but rather your agenda, don't keep justifying your post with you and your wife's unverified so called qualifications.



I remember distinctly that it was you who said This is not my forte.

Would you be better off if I show you some Identification, such as Graduation Diplomas?

I argue the law, which I did not write them, you argue my qualification, I think it's quite easy to see who is doing what?

Again, I have no hidden agenda, Xu mean nothing to me, I do not feel bad about him getting caught, I did not feel happy about him getting caught, I simply stated the law and his charge, which he *WAS CHRAGED WITH SPYING FOR CHINA*, to which he pled guilty, hence in his own word, not mine, he was spying for China. Which my agenda is, why you cannot accept that, even Xu does. 



> Reuters is definitly not pro China. So ...
> Because Reuters got more knowledge and common sense than you?
> .



SO, because Reuter is not pro China and it is more believable than the rest?? LOL

I talk law, you can argue with me in law, I am not in a business to discuss private emotion. You might think whatever, he does not spy or conduct an act of espionage on behalf of China, but under the US law, HE DID.

That is not up to you, me, Reuters or any news agency. The point is, he has been charged Economic Espionage and accused of spying for China, he pled guilty, he is currently awaiting sentence, that is FACT, and regardless of what you think, those facts cannot be changed.



Jlaw said:


> That is vietnamese 月狗style. Ignore this no life"professional"長氣鳩



@waz @The Eagle

Please check out this post. Thank you


----------



## sinait

jhungary said:


> On the DOJ affidavit
> 
> The 3 count of Economic Espionage is on the DOJ affidavit on the court case The United States Government v. JIAQIANG XU,
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/866976/download
> 
> COUNT ONE
> 
> (Economic Espionage)
> *The Grand Jury charges:*
> 
> l. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2Q15,
> in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending
> and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent,
> namely the People's Republic of China ("PRC"),* knowingly did steal, and without authorization
> appropriate, take, carry away, and conceal, and by fraud, aiiifice and deception obtain a trade
> secret, and attempted to do so, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, XU stole and converted to
> his own use the source code for a piece of proprietary software, which source code was a trade
> secret of a company for which XU previously worked (the "Proprietary Source Code"), with the
> intent to benefit the PRC's National Health and Family Planning Commission (the "NHFPC").
> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1831(a)(l), (4) & 2.)
> -::r n ~l?r/vletJ<Y 6 / 14 /It ( C7vPr l( I() vJ 1. ,M J VI V\f--6 Case 7:16-cr-00010-KMK Document 15 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 6 s:, kid
> ORIGINAL
> SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
> Sl 16 Cr. 10 (KMK)
> 
> Case 7:16-cr-00010-KMK Document 15 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 6
> COUNT TWO
> (Economic Espionage)
> *The Grand Jury further charges:*
> 2. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2015,
> in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending
> and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent,
> namely the PRC*, knowingly and without authorization did copy, duplicate, sketch, draw,
> photograph, download, upload, alter, destroy, photocopy, replicate, transmit, deliver, send, mail,
> communicate, and convey a trade secret, and attempted to do so, and aided and abetted the same,
> to wit, XU copied the Proprietary Source Code, with the intent to benefit the NHFPC.
> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 183l(a)(2), (4) & 2.)
> 
> COUNT THREE
> (Economic Espionage)
> *The Grand Jury further charges:*
> 
> 3. From at least in or about November 2014, through on or about December 7, 2015,
> in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, *JIAQIANG XU, the defendant, intending
> and knowing that the offense would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent,
> namely the PRC*, knowingly did receive, buy, and possess a trade secret, knowing the same to
> have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, and converted without authorization, and attempted
> to do so, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, XU received and possessed the Proprietary
> Source Code, with the intent to benefit the Nl-IFPC.
> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 183l(a)(3), (4) & 2.)
> 
> Xu pled *GUILTY* on all 3 Economic Espionage charge, which means he admit he is conducting espionage that would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, and agent, namely, the *PEOPLE REPUBLIC OF CHINA*.
> 
> Again, do you know what does espionage means?
> 
> This is not according to me, this is according to the USC Title 18 definition of Economic Espionage.
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ294/pdf/PLAW-104publ294.pdf
> 
> To be charged or indicted for Economic Espionage, USC Title 18 offer the requirement as to;
> 
> *1831. Economic espionage*
> 
> ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—*Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly*—
> 
> ‘‘(1) *steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret*;
> ‘‘(2) *without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret*;
> ‘‘(3) *receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization*;
> ‘‘(4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or
> 
> 18 USC 1 note.
> Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
> Oct. 11, 1996 [H.R. 3723]
> 110 STAT. 3489PUBLIC LAW 104–294—OCT. 11, 1996
> ‘‘(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ‘‘(b) ORGANIZATIONS.—Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $10,000,000.
> 
> *1832. Theft of trade secrets*
> 
> ‘‘(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
> 
> ‘‘(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
> ‘‘(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
> ‘‘(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
> ‘‘(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or ‘‘(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. ‘‘(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> None of the requirement said what he need to steal to be a trade secret. So yes, if Microsoft still consider MS-DOS is trade secret (which they legally can, as the kernel code remain largely the basis of today windows) then stealing DOS 1.0 source code would be an act of espionage.
> 
> So, in answering your question, yes, as long as they are defined as Trade Secret, according to USC Title 18, you are conducting espionage by stealing it. And for Xu to have been charged with Economic Espionage, he would have to had intent to sell them to China. Thus, working as an agent ON *BEHALF OF CHINA*.
> 
> Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secret are the same charge with the latter does not have intend to sell these secret to a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent
> 
> I remember distinctly that it was you who said This is not my forte.
> 
> Would you be better off if I show you some Identification, such as Graduation Diplomas?
> 
> I argue the law, which I did not write them, you argue my qualification, I think it's quite easy to see who is doing what?
> 
> Again, I have no hidden agenda, Xu mean nothing to me, I do not feel bad about him getting caught, I did not feel happy about him getting caught, I simply stated the law and his charge, which he *WAS CHRAGED WITH SPYING FOR CHINA*, to which he pled guilty, hence in his own word, not mine, he was spying for China. Which my agenda is, why you cannot accept that, even Xu does.
> 
> SO, because Reuter is not pro China and it is more believable than the rest?? LOL
> 
> I talk law, you can argue with me in law, I am not in a business to discuss private emotion. You might think whatever, he does not spy or conduct an act of espionage on behalf of China, but under the US law, HE DID.
> 
> That is not up to you, me, Reuters or any news agency. The point is, he has been charged Economic Espionage and accused of spying for China, he pled guilty, he is currently awaiting sentence, that is FACT, and regardless of what you think, those facts cannot be changed.
> 
> @waz @The Eagle
> 
> Please check out this post. Thank you








.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Godman

Offshore said:


> Next time send James Bond instead C.I.A


He is actually British


----------



## 21stCentury

Catch a CIA, murder it on sight. They are no different from terrorist cells.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## F-22Raptor

A Los Angeles-area woman was arrested Tuesday by federal agents in a scheme to illegally export sensitive space communications technology to her native China, the U.S. Justice Department announced.

The equipment, worth more than $100,000, included components the government said are commonly used in military communications jammers.

The 14-count indictment described how Si Chen, also known as Cathy Chen, allegedly received payments for the illegal export of products. Payments were allegedly made through a bank account in China held by a family member.


The 32-year-old Chen was arraigned Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. If convicted of the charges, the defendant faces a statutory maximum penalty of 150 years in prison.

Chen is charged with conspiracy, money laundering, making false statements on an immigration application and using a forged passport. She also is charged with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which dates back to the 1970s and restricts and controls the export of certain technology and goods to foreign countries.

"Federal export laws are designed to protect American interests by preventing the proliferation of technology that may fall into the wrong hands, said acting U.S. Attorney Sandra R. Brown in a release.

"We will vigorously pursue those who traffic items that could harm our national security if they land in the wrong hands."

According to the indictment, Chen purchased and smuggled the sensitive items to China without obtaining the required licenses from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The documents allege she tried to avoid detection by removing the export-import warning stickers prior to shipping the components.

The government further alleges Chen rented an office in Pomona, California, under a false name and took delivery of the export-controlled items at this location. After obtaining the goods, the indictment alleges she then shipped the devices to Hong Kong, using a false name and providing false product descriptions and monetary values on the parcels.

The charges were contained in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury on April 27 and unsealed Tuesday after Chen's arrest. The probe began back in 2015 when federal agents intercepted a parcel that contained communications equipment sent by "Chunping Ji," the false name allegedly used by the defendant in the smuggle scheme.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/la-w...f-smuggling-us-space-technology-to-china.html


----------



## Beast

I guess its another malign charges against Chinese people. $100000 worth of equipment? I thought she is buying spare parts for automobile. WHat can $100000 worth of American product secret export especially in high end space sector?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sixth

kind of bs news try fool the stupid people, make those stupid people believe china steal everything from america.

one day special agent setup a trap, tell an asian student, he have high-tech screw for space ship, which china can't make it, he can sell it to him for $10,000, than he can resell it to china for 100,000, he can make 10 times profit out of it.

at the moment of transaction, "law enforcers" show up, catch the asian student with money and the purchased screw (indeed its' an ordinary crew, it could be used for anything).

this kind of drama happens many many times.

a lot of people who lack of common sense still believe it.


----------



## Fledgingwings

Its a free world ! Anyone can steal anything despite its a bad habbit.Naughty Woman! btw I love that female for being so brave


----------



## Fledgingwings

This is expected to occur in covert ops.


----------



## Styx

World News | Wed May 24, 2017 | 9:32pm EDT






FILE PHOTO: Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy May 21, 2015. ...

By Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart | WASHINGTON

A U.S. Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, the first such challenge to Beijing in the strategic waterway since U.S. President Donald Trump took office.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the USS Dewey traveled close to the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, among a string of islets, reefs and shoals over which China has territorial disputes with its neighbors.

The so-called freedom of navigation operation, which is sure to anger China, comes as Trump is seeking Beijing's cooperation to rein in ally North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.

Territorial waters are generally defined by U.N. convention as extending at most 12 nautical miles from a state's coastline.

One U.S. official said it was the first operation near a land feature which was included in a ruling last year against China by an international arbitration court in The Hague. The court invalidated China's claim to sovereignty over large swathes of the South China Sea.

The U.S. patrol, the first of its kind since October, marked the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing's efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters.


The United States has criticized China's construction of the man-made islands and build-up of military facilities in the sea, and expressed concern they could be used to restrict free movement.

U.S. allies and partners in the region had grown anxious as the new administration held off on carrying out South China Sea operations during its first few months in office.

Last month, top U.S. commander in the Asia-Pacific region, Admiral Harry Harris, said the United States would likely carry out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea soon, without offering any details.

Still, the U.S. military has a long-standing position that these operations are carried out throughout the world, including in areas claimed by allies, and they are separate from political considerations.

The Pentagon said in a statement it was continuing regular freedom of navigation operations and would do more in the future but gave no details of the latest mission.

"We operate in the Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea. We operate in accordance with international law," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in the statement.


*U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS*

Under the previous administration, the U.S. Navy conducted several such voyages through the South China Sea. The last operation was approved by then-President Barack Obama.

China's claims to the South China Sea, which sees about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade pass every year, are challenged by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, as well as Taiwan.

The latest U.S. patrol is likely to exacerbate U.S.-China tensions that had eased since Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping for a summit at the U.S. leader's Florida resort last month.

Trump lambasted China during the 2016 presidential campaign, accusing Beijing of stealing U.S. jobs with unfair trade policies, manipulating its currency in its favor and militarizing parts of the South China Sea.

In December, after winning office, he upended protocol by taking a call from the president of self-ruled Taiwan, which China regards as its own sacred territory.

But since meeting Xi at his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump has praised Xi for efforts to restrain North Korea, though Pyongyang has persisted with ballistic missile tests despite international condemnation.

U.S.-based South China Sea expert Greg Poling of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the operation was also the first conducted by the United States close to an artificial feature built by China not entitled to a territorial sea under international law.

Previous freedom of navigation operations have gone within 12 nautical miles of Subi and Fiery Cross reefs, two other features in the Spratlys built up by China, but both of those features are entitled to a territorial sea.

Mischief Reef was not entitled to a territorial sea as it was underwater at high tide before it was built up by China and was not close enough to another feature entitled to such a territorial sea, said Poling.

He said the key question was whether the U.S. warship had engaged in a real challenge to the Chinese claims by turning on radar or launching a helicopter or boat -- actions not permitted in a territorial sea under international law.

Otherwise, critics say, the operation would have resembled what is known as "innocent passage" and could have reinforced rather than challenged China's claim to a territorial limit around the reef.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Additional reporting and writing by Matt Spetalnick and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Sandra Maler)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-southchinasea-navy-idUSKBN18K353


----------



## Shotgunner51

*国防部:中国海军对擅进南沙海域美军舰予以警告驱离*
*Ministry of Defence: Chinese Navy warns of and drove away U.S. warships in Nansha Sea area*
2017年05月25日15:30 来源：人民网-军事频道

人民网北京5月25日电 （邱越）今天下午，国防部举行例行记者会。国防部新闻局副局长、国防部新闻发言人任国强上校表示，5月25日，美国“杜威”号导弹驱逐舰擅自进入中国南沙群岛有关岛礁邻近海域，中国海军“柳州”号导弹护卫舰、“泸州”号导弹护卫舰对美舰进行识别查证，并予以警告驱离。

BEIJING, May 25 (Chu Yue) This afternoon, the Ministry of Defense held a regular press conference. Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, press secretary Ning said, May 25, the United States "Dewey" missile destroyer entered sea adjacent to the Nansha Islands, Chinese navy "Liuzhou" missiles frigate, "Luzhou" missile frigate performed indentification check on the United States ship, warn and drove away.

English from google translate. Read the article at http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0525/c1011-29300161.html









Above: Type 054A "Liuzhou" missiles frigate 573
Below: Type 056 "Luzhou" missile frigate 592


*Chinese warships warn US patrols to back off from South China Sea reef to avoid 'accidents'*
By Nandini Krishnamoorthy May 25, 2017 10:51 BST




For the first time, a US guided-missile destroyer sailed near a land feature in the South China Sea that was included in a tribunal ruling last year against China in The HagueReuters file photo

Chinese warships are reported to have warned a US navy guided-missile destroyer to abandon its freedom of navigation operation to avoid "accidents" near an artificial island built by Beijing in the disputed South China Sea.

China's foreign and defence ministries strongly protested on Thursday (25 May) after reports emerged that Washington sailed the USS Dewey within 12 nautical miles of the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, a day earlier. It is thought to be the first such challenge to China's unilateral claims while sending a signal about US' intentions to keep patrolling the seas since Donald Trump became president.

The foreign ministry accused the USS Dewey of entering Chinese waters "without permission". It said the US patrols severely disrupted negotiations between stakeholders in the South China Sea territorial dispute.

"The relevant action taken by the US vessel undermines China's sovereignty and security interests," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing. Lu also urged the US to avoid "provocative" actions, adding that they would only cause unexpected *"air and sea accidents"*.

Read the full article at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-wa...-south-china-sea-reef-avoid-accidents-1623321


----------



## Banglar Bir

*South China Sea: US warship sails close to disputed Mischief Reef*

*7 hours ago*
*




Image copyright REUTERS
Image caption China has built extensively on Mischief Reef and installed military positions
A US warship has sailed close to an artificial island built by China in the South China Sea, the first challenge to Beijing's claim to the waters since President Donald Trump took office.

According to unnamed sources cited by US media, the USS Dewey passed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef.

China said the US vessel had entered its waters "without permission" and its navy had warned it to leave.

The US insists it can conduct operations in any international waters.

It says it does not take sides in territorial disputes, but has sent military ships and planes near disputed islands in the past, calling them "freedom of navigation" operations to ensure access to key shipping and air routes.

It has also repeatedly criticised what it sees as Beijing's efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also claimed by other nations.*
*



*
*Image copyright US NAVY*
Image caption China said the USS Dewey (left) entered the area "without its permission

*Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang condemned the US move.*
*"The act damaged China's sovereignty and security interests, and could have easily led to an air or sea accident," he told reporters.

"[China] resolutely opposes any country sailing or flying freely that could pose damage to China's sovereignty and security interests. At present, through the joint efforts of China and Asean countries, the South China Sea situation has cooled down.

"The acts of the United States have seriously disrupted the process of dialogue and consultation."

What is Freedom of Navigation?*

*The US Freedom of Navigation programme challenges "excessive claims" to the world's oceans and airspace.*

*It was developed to promote international adherence to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.*

*In the past years, the US conducted Freedom of Navigation operations against China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.*
*China has been causing alarm in the region by building up South China Sea reefs and islets into artificial islands and installing some military positions.

Both the US and China have accused each other of "militarising" the South China Sea and there are concerns the area is becoming a flashpoint with potentially serious global consequences.

Last year, an international tribunal rejected China's claims to the area, in a case brought by the Philippines.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources within its "nine-dash line".

China rejected the ruling as "ill-founded" and said it would not be bound by it.





The latest US manoeuvre is likely to weigh on US-China relations as the Trump administration is seeking Beijing's co-operation to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Earlier this month, Chinese fighter jets intercepted a US aircraft which, according to US military officials, was on a mission to detect radiation in international airspace.

China did not comment on that particular incident - it has in the past accused the US of carrying out reconnaissance flights over Chinese coastal waters.

The South China Sea dispute
Media caption In 2015, the BBC got a view of a new Chinese runway on Mischief Reef

Sovereignty over two largely uninhabited island chains, the Paracels and the Spratlys, is disputed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia

China claims the largest portion of territory, saying its rights go back centuries - in 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims

The area is a major shipping route, and a rich fishing ground, and is thought to have abundant oil and gas reserves

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea typically gives states an exclusive economic zone up to 200 nautical miles from their coastline - this would leave most of the Spratly Islands in the territorial waters of the Philippines and Malaysia
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-22Raptor

A U.S. warship carried out a "maneuvering drill" when it sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea, to show it was not entitled to a territorial sea around it, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The operation near Mischief Reef on Thursday, Pacific time, among a string of islets, reefs and shoals over which China has disputes with its neighbors, was the boldest U.S. challenge yet to Chinese island-building in the strategic waterway.

It drew an angry response from China, which President Donald Trump has tried to court in recent weeks to persuade it to take a tougher line on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. [nL1N1IQ2FH]

Analysts say previous U.S. "freedom-of-navigation operations" in the Spratly archipelago involved "innocent passage," in which a warship effectively recognized a territorial sea by crossing it speedily, without stopping.

On Thursday, the destroyer USS Dewey conducted a "man overboard" exercise, specifically to show that its passage within 12 nautical miles was not innocent passage, U.S. officials said.

"USS Dewey engaged in normal operations by conducting a maneuvering drill inside 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The ship’s actions demonstrated that Mischief Reef is not entitled to its own territorial sea regardless of whether an artificial island has been built on top of it."

China claims nearly all of the South China Sea and Washington has criticized its construction of islands and build-up of military facilities there, concerned they could be used to restrict free movement and broaden Beijing's strategic reach.

U.S. allies and partners in the region had grown anxious as the Trump administration held off on carrying out South China Sea operations during its first few months in office.

Greg Poling of Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank said that under international law, Mischief Reef was not entitled to a territorial sea as it was underwater at high tide before it was built up by China.

"This was a statement to the Chinese," he said.

"The previous two freedom-of-navigation operations only challenged China's demand for prior notification for innocent passage through the territorial sea; this one asserted that there is no territorial sea at all."

The Trump administration vowed to conduct more robust South China Sea operations after President Barack Obama was criticized for potentially reinforcing China's claims by sticking to innocent passage.

Even so, this was the first freedom-of-navigation operation since October and since Trump took office in January.

It comes ahead of a visit to Singapore next week by U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to discuss security with regional counterparts.

Beijing said two Chinese guided-missile warships had warned the U.S. vessel to leave the waters and that it had lodged "stern representations" with the United States.

China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-southchinasea-navy-idUSKBN18K353


----------



## DoTell

Congratulations to our American friends! Your mission has been accomplished. Your dill has scared us so much that we have decided to stop building, check that, we will dismantle and surrender all existing structures on the islands in SCS. It is our belief that by us giving up all claims in SCS your mighty pigeons will bring peace upon us and leave us alone forever

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## powastick

*国防部:中国海军对擅进南沙海域美军舰予以警告驱离
Ministry of Defence: Chinese Navy warns of and drove away U.S. warships in Nansha Sea area*
2017年05月25日15:30 来源：人民网-军事频道

人民网北京5月25日电 （邱越）今天下午，国防部举行例行记者会。国防部新闻局副局长、国防部新闻发言人任国强上校表示，5月25日，美国“杜威”号导弹驱逐舰擅自进入中国南沙群岛有关岛礁邻近海域，中国海军“柳州”号导弹护卫舰、“泸州”号导弹护卫舰对美舰进行识别查证，并予以警告驱离。

BEIJING, May 25 (Chu Yue) This afternoon, the Ministry of Defense held a regular press conference. Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, press secretary Ning said, May 25, the United States "Dewey" missile destroyer entered sea adjacent to the Nansha Islands, Chinese navy "Liuzhou" missiles frigate, "Luzhou" missile frigate performed indentification check on the United States ship, warn and drove away.

English from google translate. Read the article at http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0525/c1011-29300161.html








Above: Type 054A "Liuzhou" missiles frigate 573
Below: Type 056 "Luzhou" missile frigate 592


*Chinese warships warn US patrols to back off from South China Sea reef to avoid 'accidents'*
By Nandini Krishnamoorthy May 25, 2017 10:51 BST




For the first time, a US guided-missile destroyer sailed near a land feature in the South China Sea that was included in a tribunal ruling last year against China in The HagueReuters file photo

Chinese warships are reported to have warned a US navy guided-missile destroyer to abandon its freedom of navigation operation to avoid "accidents" near an artificial island built by Beijing in the disputed South China Sea.

China's foreign and defence ministries strongly protested on Thursday (25 May) after reports emerged thatWashington sailed the USS Dewey within 12 nautical miles of the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, a day earlier. It is thought to be the first such challenge to China's unilateral claims while sending a signal about US' intentions to keep patrolling the seas since Donald Trump became president.

The foreign ministry accused the USS Dewey of entering Chinese waters "without permission". It said the US patrols severely disrupted negotiations between stakeholders in the South China Sea territorial dispute.

"The relevant action taken by the US vessel undermines China's sovereignty and security interests," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing. Lu also urged the US to avoid "provocative" actions, adding that they would only cause unexpected *"air and sea accidents"*.

Read the full article at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-wa...-south-china-sea-reef-avoid-accidents-1623321

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

powastick said:


> *国防部:中国海军对擅进南沙海域美军舰予以警告驱离
> Ministry of Defence: Chinese Navy warns of and drove away U.S. warships in Nansha Sea area*
> 2017年05月25日15:30 来源：人民网-军事频道
> 
> 人民网北京5月25日电 （邱越）今天下午，国防部举行例行记者会。国防部新闻局副局长、国防部新闻发言人任国强上校表示，5月25日，美国“杜威”号导弹驱逐舰擅自进入中国南沙群岛有关岛礁邻近海域，中国海军“柳州”号导弹护卫舰、“泸州”号导弹护卫舰对美舰进行识别查证，并予以警告驱离。
> 
> BEIJING, May 25 (Chu Yue) This afternoon, the Ministry of Defense held a regular press conference. Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, press secretary Ning said, May 25, the United States "Dewey" missile destroyer entered sea adjacent to the Nansha Islands, Chinese navy "Liuzhou" missiles frigate, "Luzhou" missile frigate performed indentification check on the United States ship, warn and drove away.
> 
> English from google translate. Read the article at http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0525/c1011-29300161.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above: Type 054A "Liuzhou" missiles frigate 573
> Below: Type 056 "Luzhou" missile frigate 592
> 
> 
> *Chinese warships warn US patrols to back off from South China Sea reef to avoid 'accidents'*
> By Nandini Krishnamoorthy May 25, 2017 10:51 BST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time, a US guided-missile destroyer sailed near a land feature in the South China Sea that was included in a tribunal ruling last year against China in The HagueReuters file photo
> 
> Chinese warships are reported to have warned a US navy guided-missile destroyer to abandon its freedom of navigation operation to avoid "accidents" near an artificial island built by Beijing in the disputed South China Sea.
> 
> China's foreign and defence ministries strongly protested on Thursday (25 May) after reports emerged thatWashington sailed the USS Dewey within 12 nautical miles of the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, a day earlier. It is thought to be the first such challenge to China's unilateral claims while sending a signal about US' intentions to keep patrolling the seas since Donald Trump became president.
> 
> The foreign ministry accused the USS Dewey of entering Chinese waters "without permission". It said the US patrols severely disrupted negotiations between stakeholders in the South China Sea territorial dispute.
> 
> "The relevant action taken by the US vessel undermines China's sovereignty and security interests," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing. Lu also urged the US to avoid "provocative" actions, adding that they would only cause unexpected *"air and sea accidents"*.
> 
> Read the full article at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-wa...-south-china-sea-reef-avoid-accidents-1623321



Just the same old stuff that has been going on for 70 years. We drive through the South China Sea and they "warn" us. Nothing has changed. Move along..this is just the same old stuff as last year and the year before that and the years before that. They've been "warning" Taiwan too every year for about the same amount of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

*U.S. government mouthpiece requests millions to expand anti-China propaganda*
By Curtis Stone (People's Daily Online) 15:20, May 25, 2017






The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is one of the largest media organizations in the world. The agency is also at the forefront of U.S. government efforts to promote US propaganda. Despite’s U.S. President Donald Trump’s promise not to impose America’s way of life on others, the latest BBG budget shows that the U.S. government remains strongly committed to using American power to interfere in the internal affairs of countries that do not share US values.

In the latest budget request, the BBG is requesting $5 million to “rebalance content and programming for Asia,” and the Voice of America (VOA) will maintain Mandarin as a priority and resources will be shifted toward next generation digital/social media content and technology. VOA Mandarin will launch an Internet-delivered 24/7 video news stream to China to provide “a fact-based alternative to domestic media propaganda about the U.S.” Furthermore, VOA will distribute a circumvention app to deliver its propaganda.

This “soft power pivot” is in addition to various other efforts over the years by the American propaganda outlet to spread American values and sow divisions, and its role seems to echo that of the former U.S Information Agency, which was designed solely to influence foreign audiences.

Increasingly, the BBG is focusing on social media to target youth audiences, who will become decision makers in the future. Over the years, VOA Mandarin has greatly increased social media accounts inside China, and QR code links with proxies have been used by the agency to improve access to certain reports. In addition, VOA Mandarin uses WeChat, China’s largest social media platform, as well as English learning programs, to increase social media engagement.

These methods have been successful, at least according to the BBG. In the most recent budget request, the BBG said that VOA and Radio Free Asia (RFA) used domestic social media connections, including the public WeChat messaging service, to “get reporting tips, ask questions, and provide content links.” The BBG also said that VOA Tibetan capitalized on the growing use of virtual private networks and other circumvention tools to reach audiences within Tibet. For example, VOA Tibetan leveraged the method that VOA Mandarin pioneered to crack Chinese restrictions and link to the VOA Tibetan website with a QR code that mobile phones can scan.

China’s Xinjiang Region has also been the target of the agency over the years. In 2014, China was rocked by a series of violent terrorist attacks, including the May 22 car bombing of an outdoor market in the capital Urumqi. In response to the increased violence in China’s Xinjiang, the BBG expanded RFA’s Uyghur Service in the region, as well as RFA’s Cantonese and Mandarin Services,* to challenge China’s domestic policies rather than the extremists who carried out the attacks.*

As such continuous efforts show, the U.S. has yet to fully discard its zero-sum Cold War mentality. In a changing world order, the U.S. should give up its longstanding love affair with imposing American values on countries that do not share American values, because using American power to influence foreign audiences does nothing to enhance US’s value in the world. Even though America’s soft power is on the wane, US’ “soft power pivot” is not the wisest path forward. The BBG and the Cold War relics that fall under its purview should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

@terranMarine , @Jlaw , @AndrewJin , @Chinese-Dragon , @samsara

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 52051

This is only for their domesitc comsuptions, in South China sea, well within the range of China's AShBMs, such action is of little military signficance.

If the US were really try to fight a war with China, they will take back their ships and use submarines and long range bombers instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Bir

*Chinese warships chase US destroyer out of Chinese waters*
25.05.2017 | Source: 
*Pravda.Ru*





Source: Navy.mil
China issued a warning to the Dewey, a US destroyer that entered the waters of the disputed Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea. The ship reportedly entered the waters "without permission."

According to China's Defence Ministry, two frigates of the Chinese Navy conducted friend or foe identification before they demanded the vessel should leave the waters.

The US destroyer approached the Spratly archipelago at a distance of about 22 kilometres. This territory still remains a subject for dispute between the states of the region.

Incidents between China and the United States occur not only at sea, but also in the air. Not that long ago, the US launched an investigation into the incident over the East China Sea, when two Chinese Su-30 fighters literally mocked the pilot of the American WC-135 aircraft. Chinese pilots approached the aircraft at a distance of 50 meters, while one of the planes was flying upside down above the US aircraft.

*Pravda.Ru*




*Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru*

- See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/news/wo...7822-chinese_warships-0/#sthash.TztkM5mq.dpuf

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Banglar Bir

*Chinese warships chase US destroyer out of Chinese waters*
25.05.2017 | Source: 
*Pravda.Ru*





Source: Navy.mil
China issued a warning to the Dewey, a US destroyer that entered the waters of the disputed Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea. The ship reportedly entered the waters "without permission."

According to China's Defence Ministry, two frigates of the Chinese Navy conducted friend or foe identification before they demanded the vessel should leave the waters.

The US destroyer approached the Spratly archipelago at a distance of about 22 kilometres. This territory still remains a subject for dispute between the states of the region.

Incidents between China and the United States occur not only at sea, but also in the air. Not that long ago, the US launched an investigation into the incident over the East China Sea, when two Chinese Su-30 fighters literally mocked the pilot of the American WC-135 aircraft. Chinese pilots approached the aircraft at a distance of 50 meters, while one of the planes was flying upside down above the US aircraft.
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/asia/25-05-2017/137822-chinese_warships-0/
*Pravda.Ru*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

When China, Philippines, Vietnam start to solve territory issue and with other relevant nations to negociate SCS code of conduct, American feel dysphoric and start to make troubles.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## powastick

US credibility was badly hurt when they 'liberate' Iraq and Libya. "Spreading freedom and democracy" has now become a slur word. Imposing values is an excuse for predatory countries to enslave other people.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

powastick said:


> US credibility was badly hurt when they 'liberate' Iraq and Libya. "Spreading freedom and democracy" has now become a slur word. Imposing values is an excuse for predatory countries to enslave other people.


China shall return the favour to seriously damage the western credibilities. Make more documentary in English about the evil of west. Broadcast in Africa about how the whites enslaves and lynch the black. Treating them like dogs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

Beast said:


> China shall return the favour to seriously damage the western credibilities. Make more documentary in English about the evil of west. Broadcast in Africa about how the whites enslaves and lynch the black. Treating them like dogs.



China needs to further master deconstructive journalism and narrative making. In this sort of journalism, wording and prose is very important. You need to use loaded words: For instance, say 'US regime' instead of 'government', 'mouthpiece' instead of 'institution', 'screamed or angrily reacted' instead of 'criticized', 'race riots' instead of 'protests', 'armed men' instead of 'terrorists,' 'US government claimed "terrorists"' instead of just 'terrorists'...

Media needs to use allegories, as well, to create a vivid image, and resort to implicit mockery and subliminal messaging. For instance, if the news is about blacks being escorted by the police, put there an image of a violent riot or obvious police brutality. 

Repeat.

It is all about image making and discourse shaping. All is fair in this game.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## powastick

TaiShang said:


> China needs to further master deconstructive journalism and narrative making. In this sort of journalism, wording and prose is very important. You need to use loaded words: For instance, say 'US regime' instead of 'government', 'mouthpiece' instead of 'institution', 'screamed or angrily reacted' instead of 'criticized', 'race riots' instead of 'protests', 'armed men' instead of 'terrorists,' 'US government claimed "terrorists"' instead of just 'terrorists'...
> 
> Media needs to use allegories, as well, to create a vivid image, and resort to implicit mockery and subliminal messaging. For instance, if the news is about blacks being escorted by the police, put there an image of a violent raid or obvious police brutality.
> 
> Repeat.
> 
> It is all about image making and discourse shaping. All is fair in this game.


I have allergies towards US mainstream media.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

powastick said:


> I have allergies towards US mainstream media.



Yes, but their methods work on most people.

China's English media has excessive integrity, treating people very respectfully. In fact, they need to be manipulated into (alternative) reality. Nice language and standard journalism will not help because those people are already greatly stupefied.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## powastick

TaiShang said:


> Yes, but their methods work on most people.
> 
> China's English media has excessive integrity, treating people very respectfully. In fact, they need to be manipulated into (alternative) reality. Nice language and standard journalism will not help because those people are already greatly stupefied.


Small countries like Malaysia, our media is repeating propaganda from the west. That is the problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

OMG, r those useless media still alive?
I thought VOA and likes have been extinct for ages....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

No matter what kind of BS US MSM are spreading about China, they can't take our country down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

The US is always up to no good. So back to work and build more assets and swarm SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chhatrapati

Place Of Space said:


> When China, Philippines, Vietnam start to solve territory issue


By saying back off from SCS to every member who claims it. Threatening Philippines with war. Woah! Some negotiation.


----------



## Steelrain

I think this is nonsense news, the US does not have to send a ship there when their submarines are always in that region.


----------



## Nilgiri

Trailing another's ship = chasing them out.....okay


----------



## TaiShang

scope said:


> Why do Asian countries NOT fight back? Why is VOA even allowed in China? Am I missing something?



The propaganda moutpieces are not allow but apparently they try to circumvent. I would even argue that the US mouthpiece, especially the RFA, should be treated no differently from any ISIS media outlet because the RFA is doing no less terrorism propaganda than a typical AQ news outlet would do. 

China should not only ban them, but also criminalize them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viva_Viet

Place Of Space said:


> When China, Philippines, Vietnam start to solve territory issue and with other relevant nations to negociate SCS code of conduct, American feel dysphoric and start to make troubles.


How to solve it ?? Return all islands that another countries robbed from VN ??

If can not, then Nothing is sovled till now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

*国防部:中国海军对擅进南沙海域美军舰予以警告驱离*
*Ministry of Defence: Chinese Navy warns of and drove away U.S. warships in Nansha Sea area*
2017年05月25日15:30 来源：人民网-军事频道

人民网北京5月25日电 （邱越）今天下午，国防部举行例行记者会。国防部新闻局副局长、国防部新闻发言人任国强上校表示，5月25日，美国“杜威”号导弹驱逐舰擅自进入中国南沙群岛有关岛礁邻近海域，中国海军“柳州”号导弹护卫舰、“泸州”号导弹护卫舰对美舰进行识别查证，并予以警告驱离。

BEIJING, May 25 (Chu Yue) This afternoon, the Ministry of Defense held a regular press conference. Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Defense, press secretary Ning said, May 25, the United States "Dewey" missile destroyer entered sea adjacent to the Nansha Islands, Chinese navy "Liuzhou" missiles frigate, "Luzhou" missile frigate performed indentification check on the United States ship, warn and drove away.

English from google translate. Read the article at http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0525/c1011-29300161.html









Above: Type 054A "Liuzhou" missiles frigate 573
Below: Type 056 "Luzhou" missile frigate 592


*Chinese warships warn US patrols to back off from South China Sea reef to avoid 'accidents'*
By Nandini Krishnamoorthy May 25, 2017 10:51 BST




For the first time, a US guided-missile destroyer sailed near a land feature in the South China Sea that was included in a tribunal ruling last year against China in The HagueReuters file photo

Chinese warships are reported to have warned a US navy guided-missile destroyer to abandon its freedom of navigation operation to avoid "accidents" near an artificial island built by Beijing in the disputed South China Sea.

China's foreign and defence ministries strongly protested on Thursday (25 May) after reports emerged that Washington sailed the USS Dewey within 12 nautical miles of the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, a day earlier. It is thought to be the first such challenge to China's unilateral claims while sending a signal about US' intentions to keep patrolling the seas since Donald Trump became president.

The foreign ministry accused the USS Dewey of entering Chinese waters "without permission". It said the US patrols severely disrupted negotiations between stakeholders in the South China Sea territorial dispute.

"The relevant action taken by the US vessel undermines China's sovereignty and security interests," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing. Lu also urged the US to avoid "provocative" actions, adding that they would only cause unexpected *"air and sea accidents"*.

Read the full article at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-wa...-south-china-sea-reef-avoid-accidents-1623321

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

powastick said:


> Small countries like Malaysia, our media is repeating propaganda from the west. That is the problem.


In fact such thing happens in many developing countries! I believe the Deep State and its vast organs are using abundant & easy MONEY created out of thin air (just "print" the WRC) to buy those decision makers incl. editors, reporters, writers, journalists etc, either through explicit regular monthly payments (i.e. bribes) and/or through various more disguised methods such as paid seminars, short-courses, summer-classes and so on in the Washington or other venues.

I once read this kind of practices are also applied in those NATO countries to buy out the media there.... they even bought or invested in some largest media in Europe such as Bild, the largest newspaper in Germany, CIA or its shell companies threw in big money to invest in Bild publication many years ago. Or in Greece, they paid out the reporters to attend some classes in USA to write favorable opinions. Just search deeply the internet for further reading!

I have no doubt at all reading above article posted by @TaiShang ... it is simply a renewed, an intensified efforts to storm China and Chinese language audience/readers with propaganda news and other Fake News!

Believe me, these propaganda efforts are still deadly effective to brainwash the low information takers, the overwhelming majority of public are still pretty dumb, as stupid as sheep and they will just swallow all the *lies, twists, spins, propaganda, disinformation, misinformation*!!! And sadly the targeted mass do not learn or read enough to equip themselves with the defense capability and knowledge to detect and identify the massive and sophisticated mega trumpets of huge armies of lies and Fake News!!!

Mind you, folks like us here are just the very small minority!!! Most people just have no time to read, and when they read they just read the pieces of mainstream news fed to them!!

*NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POWER & CAPABILITY TO INFLUENCE AND INFILTRATE AND DO SERIOUS DAMAGES TO THE TARGETED SOCIETY!!!*


*




*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

scope said:


> @samsara It is true. See CIA by Carl Bernstein. Here's a more recent admission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Udo Ulfkotte: World Class Journalist Spills the Beans, Admits Mainstream Media is Completely Fake | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-...s-mainstream-media-is-completely-fake/5516749


Thank you for doing me a favor providing the additional link... I just feel rather lazy to feed additional links as I hinted above  yeah, years of reading... at beginning from those Fake News manufacturers... sound unbelievable how at one time I mainly sourced my info, news, knowledge from the Time Magazine, Asiaweek, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, Deutsch Welle International, NYT, WaPo and many others... religiously, faithfully... no questioned asked, just swallowed all the propaganda news... basically just after the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 I got awaken and abandoned all the craps and read at those alternative media, but this time much better equip my self to detect and identify false & malign substances... *and never stop comparing the news with the REALITIES, FACTS *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

52051 said:


> This is only for their domesitc comsuptions, in South China sea, well within the range of China's AShBMs, such action is of little military signficance.
> 
> If the US were really try to fight a war with China, they will take back their ships and use submarines and long range bombers instead.



Lol! It's more for your domestic consumption! 

We've been driving through the South China Sea for 70 years without much huff until you guys started island building. Now everytime we drive through you announce you gave us a big warning and "chased" us away. Meanwhile our ships just drive the same routes as always while you guys get all excited over nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nan Yang

Hamartia Antidote said:


> Lol! It's more for your domestic consumption!
> 
> We've been driving through the South China Sea for 70 years without much huff until you guys started island building. Now everytime we drive through you announce you gave us a big warning and "chased" us away. Meanwhile our ships just drive the same routes as always while you guys get all excited over nothing.


United States all alone again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Hamartia Antidote said:


> Just the same old stuff that has been going on for 70 years. We drive through the South China Sea and they "warn" us. Nothing has changed. Move along..this is just the same old stuff as last year and the year before that and the years before that. They've been "warning" Taiwan too every year for about the same amount of time.


LOL.. You told us to stop building any more on spratly island and say USN will stop China from militarise the islet. Then what has been done to those claim, cowboy? 

Spratly island is still militarise by China and construction still going on. You lack of balls?
I challenge you cowboy american to do something to backup your words instead of just sail pass it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Beast said:


> LOL.. You told us to stop building any more on spratly island and say USN will stop China from militarise the islet. Then what has been done to those claim, cowboy?



We only said stop building because other countries around there have a claim...it's not like we have a claim. Since that land isn't recognized internationally as belonging to anybody we just drive our ships by like we have for the last 70 years.


----------



## Beast

Hamartia Antidote said:


> We only said stop building because other countries around there have a claim...it's not like we have a claim. Since that land isn't recognized internationally as belonging to anybody we just drive our ships by like we have for the last 70 years.


So cowboy now start to twist words? Maybe you lack of balls to take action that is why you start twisted words to back off?  Your gung ho navy chief brag about taking military action against China if we militarise the islet and China exactly do that by placing HQ-9 SAM and put Chinese flanker there.

Until now I haven see any so called military action by your cowboy. As I say , no balls to do it,right? 

Like Philippine president insulted all American by naming your president as son of whore and you Cowboy lack of balls to protect your honor? May again just a big mouth? American are becoming laughing stock.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Beast said:


> So cowboy now start to twist words? Maybe you lack of balls to take action that is why you start twisted words to back off?  Your gung ho navy chief brag about taking military action against China if we militarise the islet and China exactly do that by placing HQ-9 SAM and put Chinese flanker there.
> 
> Until now I haven see any so called military action by your cowboy. As I say , no balls to do it,right?
> 
> Like Philippine president insulted all American by naming your president as son of whore and you Cowboy lack of balls to protect your honor? May again just a big mouth? American are becoming laughing stock.








No need to get yourself all excited....I know that nationalism thing gets you guys all worked up!! We are just passing through...just like we have always been doing for the last 70 years. You may now return to your regularly scheduled squabbling amongst yourselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Drongo

Hamartia Antidote said:


> No need to get yourself all excited....I know that nationalism thing gets you guys all worked up!! We are just passing through...just like we have always been doing for the last 70 years. You may now return to your regularly scheduled squabbling amongst yourselves.


It's a bit ridiculous to pretend the US has no interest in what's happening in the SCS. Beyond whatever strategic considerations there are, it's obviously indicative of the power balance in the region and the region as a whole does notice who gets the upper hand.


----------



## TaiShang

samsara said:


> In fact such thing happens in many developing countries! I believe the Deep State and its vast organs are using abundant & easy MONEY created out of thin air (just "print" the WRC) to buy those decision makers incl. editors, reporters, writers, journalists etc, either through explicit regular monthly payments (i.e. bribes) and/or through various more disguised methods such as paid seminars, short-courses, summer-classes and so on in the Washington or other venues.
> 
> I once read this kind of practices are also applied in those NATO countries to buy out the media there.... they even bought or invested in some largest media in Europe such as Bild, the largest newspaper in Germany, CIA or its shell companies threw in big money to invest in Bild publication many years ago. Or in Greece, they paid out the reporters to attend some classes in USA to write favorable opinions. Just search deeply the internet for further reading!
> 
> I have no doubt at all reading above article posted by @TaiShang ... it is simply a renewed, an intensified efforts to storm China and Chinese language audience/readers with propaganda news and other Fake News!
> 
> Believe me, these propaganda efforts are still deadly effective to brainwash the low information takers, the overwhelming majority of public are still pretty dumb, as stupid as sheep and they will just swallow all the *lies, twists, spins, propaganda, disinformation, misinformation*!!! And sadly the targeted mass do not learn or read enough to equip themselves with the defense capability and knowledge to detect and identify the massive and sophisticated mega trumpets of huge armies of lies and Fake News!!!
> 
> Mind you, folks like us here are just the very small minority!!! Most people just have no time to read, and when they read they just read the pieces of mainstream news fed to them!!
> 
> *NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POWER & CAPABILITY TO INFLUENCE AND INFILTRATE AND DO SERIOUS DAMAGES TO THE TARGETED SOCIETY!!!*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



There are lots to learn from Russia. The are utilizing media amazingly well. 

***






*Simonyan Mocks Podesta's Claims Sputnik, RT are 'Favored Sources' in White House*
© Sputnik/

09:42 25.05.2017
The Russians Did It

*Sputnik and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said that Hillary Clinton's former campaign chief John Podesta's claims that the media have become "favored go-to sources" in the White House press room, "made her day."*






© AFP 2017/ MANDEL NGAN

Former Clinton Campaign Chair Podesta Calls Sputnik, RT 'Favored Go-To Sources in White House Press Room'

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Sputnik news agency and RT broadcaster editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said that Hillary Clinton's former campaign chief John Podesta's claims that the media have become "favored go-to sources" in the White House press room, "made her day."


"RT and Sputnik are White House's favorite media. These are some news. Made my day, as they say," Simonyan told RT.

On Tuesday, Podesta said that the Sputnik news agency and RT broadcaster have become "favored go-to sources" in the White House press room following the election of Donald Trump as the US president.

"We know the Russians are engaged and active, both in the over sense through the use of RT, the Russian Kremlin-sponsored television station, through Sputnik and other information sources, which now seem to be the favored go-to sources in the White House press room," Podesta told The Washington Post in an interview answering the question on Russia's alleged meddling in the US presidential election.

He added though that these media "ask tough questions these days."

Podesta also blamed Moscow for disturbing the democratic process all over Europe, including Norway, Germany and France.

The European governments have repeatedly accused Russia of interfering in their political process.






© SPUTNIK/

RT Editor-in-Chief Comments on CIA Claim Russia Meddling in US Election 'Established Fact'

During the French presidential campaign then contender Emmanuel Macron’s lead campaigner Richard Ferrand has accused RT of spreading fake news to allegedly influence democratic life in France. RT’s press office flatly denied the claim, while Simonyan said she was flattered by how the centrist’s campaign was built exclusively on lies about the news channel.


On May 16, CIA spokeswoman Heather Fritz Horniak said the involvement of Russian intelligence services in hacking related to the US elections was an "established fact."

Russian officials repeatedly denied allegations of meddling in the elections, calling them absurd. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the Russian government had no official contacts with the Trump campaign during the election. As for the statements that Russia allegedly interfered in the French presidential campaign, Peskov said they did not do credit to their authors.


----------



## samsara

samsara said:


> In fact such thing happens in many developing countries! I believe the Deep State and its vast organs are using abundant & easy MONEY created out of thin air (just "print" the WRC) to buy those decision makers incl. editors, reporters, writers, journalists etc, either through explicit regular monthly payments (i.e. bribes) and/or through various more disguised methods such as paid seminars, short-courses, summer-classes and so on in the Washington or other venues.
> 
> I once read this kind of practices are also applied in those NATO countries to buy out the media there.... they even bought or invested in some largest media in Europe such as Bild, the largest newspaper in Germany, CIA or its shell companies threw in big money to invest in Bild publication many years ago. Or in Greece, they paid out the reporters to attend some classes in USA to write favorable opinions. Just search deeply the internet for further reading!
> 
> I have no doubt at all reading above article posted by @TaiShang ... it is simply a renewed, an intensified efforts to storm China and Chinese language audience/readers with propaganda news and other Fake News!
> 
> Believe me, these propaganda efforts are still deadly effective to brainwash the low information takers, the overwhelming majority of public are still pretty dumb, as stupid as sheep and they will just swallow all the *lies, twists, spins, propaganda, disinformation, misinformation*!!! And sadly the targeted mass do not learn or read enough to equip themselves with the defense capability and knowledge to detect and identify the massive and sophisticated mega trumpets of huge armies of lies and Fake News!!!
> 
> Mind you, folks like us here are just the very small minority!!! Most people just have no time to read, and when they read they just read the pieces of mainstream news fed to them!!
> 
> *NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THEIR POWER & CAPABILITY TO INFLUENCE AND INFILTRATE AND DO SERIOUS DAMAGES TO THE TARGETED SOCIETY!!!*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



*HINT: Just wanna say that the attached pictured text above is a good piece to share among certain circles through the handy chat medium, but one just needs to pay attention to its readability due to some automatic image compression by such medium.*

*Suggestion, to overcome such compression just split the image into two parts as necessary, doing so may retain its higher resolution and keep it readable upon circulation as images *


----------



## onebyone

*Even more confusing was the Triple A credit rating given to US investment banks engaged in the developing and trading of risky derivatives such as collateral debt obligations (CDOs) in the years prior to the 2008 financial crisis. CDOs were made up of a basket of debts such as car loans and mortgages selling to investors. The Triple A rating implied CDOs were not only safe but yielded high returns. This “false advertisement” misled investors into believing CDOs were a good investment, culminating in a surge in both demand and supply. The rest as they say “is history.” To that end, it could be argued that the US rating agencies’ misleading rating might be the root cause of the financial crisis.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

Country Government Debt/GDP Ratio (2016)

China 66%

Canada 87

France 90

Germany 82

Italy 127

Japan 238

UK 85

US 107

On total debt/GDP ratio, the IMF put China’s at 250 of which over 150% is owed by non-financial corporations (mostly state-owned enterprises). This figure also compared favorably with those of the US and Japan, respectively estimated at 331% and 517%.

On external debt, the total amount of government and private debts owed to non-residents, China is also the lowest compared to the G7. According to IMF statistics, the amount of external or foreign debt in trillions of US dollars owed in 2016 was: US = 18.2, UK = 7.5, France =5.1, Germany = 5, Japan = 3.6, Italy = 2.3, and China =1.4.

China’s first-quarter growth rate was 6.9% in 2017 and most reputable organizations and analysts predicted 6.7% growth for the year. In addition, the government has put in place measures to cull and control the “soaring” debt. Last but not least, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ended successfully with 130 participating nations and seven international organizations. There is no reason to believe that the Chinese economy will be encountering any headwinds anytime soon.

Even the corporate debt of over 150% of GDP (which includes the amount guaranteed by local governments for private-public partnership (PPP) development projects) is not a valid reason for the credit rating downgrade. To that end, the governments are really lending to itself since they own the banks and a partner in PPP projects. In the event of default payments, the assets would be taken over by the local governments or the loans rolled over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jetray

onebyone said:


> *Even more confusing was the Triple A credit rating given to US investment banks engaged in the developing and trading of risky derivatives such as collateral debt obligations (CDOs) in the years prior to the 2008 financial crisis. CDOs were made up of a basket of debts such as car loans and mortgages selling to investors. The Triple A rating implied CDOs were not only safe but yielded high returns. This “false advertisement” misled investors into believing CDOs were a good investment, culminating in a surge in both demand and supply. The rest as they say “is history.” To that end, it could be argued that the US rating agencies’ misleading rating might be the root cause of the financial crisis.*


Simple reason , dollar is the currency of trade. Some one will pay for it, all that they to do is print money or issue bonds.
Bottom line its their game ur playing , so they make whatever rules they want.


----------



## ito

I guess moody is going to further downgrade China's rating


----------



## onebyone

*Moody appears to apply a double standard when it comes to rating China’s creditworthiness.

China’s credit rating should be higher than those of other major developed economies. In addition to lower debt levels and higher annual growth rates, China’s financial profile is stronger: over US$21 trillion in deposits, US$3 trillion in foreign reserves, consumer debt/income ratio at 26% (over 100% in the West and Japan). Its BRI would energize economic growth in China and the over 100 participating countries.*

http://www.atimes.com/moodys-china-credit-rating-inconsistent-not-flawed/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/cbo-omb-gop-budget-estimates.html

*The U.S. hit its debt limit again. Now the Treasury Department is maneuvering to avoid a default until Congress acts*
*
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-debt-limit-trump-20170316-story.html*


----------



## Götterdämmerung

It's just a desperate move of the US deep state and it means little but losing a bit face for China (if at all) since China doesn't need to borrow money from external institutions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## onebyone

*Harvard's Allison Says Trump's Fearful of a Growing China*

Bloomberg Video•May 30, 2017


May.30 -- Harvard Kennedy School Professor Graham Allison discusses U.S. President Donald Trump's approach to China and looks at the growing global influence of China. He speaks on "Bloomberg Surveillance."

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/harvards-allison-says-trumps-fearful-100804136.html


----------



## TheBlackCoat

US fearful of China? lol


----------



## MultaniGuy

The sooner China rises to the world stage the better


----------



## AndrewJin

CIA is fearful of america's innocent civilians who begin to realise how immoral their regime is.
Spreading wars and hatred around the world is something they are getting sick of.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Jlaw

Trump and Americans also fear this.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fort...illing-middle-aged-white-american-men.462880/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dungeness

TheBlackCoat said:


> US fearful of China? lol




China "raped" USA, remember? That's quite scary in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## China and Pakistan

*Justice will prevail! The United States will fail*

*Is the United States really concerned about the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? Let the Iraqi people and the Afghan people judge the identity of America's "world police"! The South China Sea has always been free to sail, and the United States does not need to participate. What happened in the United States? Tears, bleeding, broken up, ruins, ruins. This is what America brings to the world!!!!! The United States is undermining the peace and stability of the region under the guise of freedom of navigation.*


----------



## Tresbon

Shri Puri | TNN | May 27, 2017, 07.36 AM IST

DHARAMSHALA: US President Donald Trump has left Tibetans in a shock after proposing zero aid to Tibet in 2018 at a juncture where efforts were underway to arrange a meeting of Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama and the US President, on Friday. 

Media reports published from Washington stated that United States has reversed the decade-old policy to give financial aid to Tibetans. It was said that the State department, which has sent a detailed proposal to the Congress as part of the annual budget referred to the decision as one of the tough choices, as its total budget itself was slashed by 28%. 

The Tibetan administration has expressed worry, but maintained silence over the issue. Secretary for international relations Sonam Dagpo said they were yet to receive the detailed report. "I am awaiting the official document as of now. There is a 24-hour time gap between here and Washington. Once it comes, then we will go through it. I have read reports but can't react over that," he said. 

Though only a proposal, the announcement has worried the Tibetan community. "Trump seems to be making series of unpopular decision that may be of immediate benefits but with no future. Even his Congress and people are protesting against it," said Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan writer and poet. 

A Tibetan social entrepreneur in exile, Lobsang Wangyal said Trump could be expecting a thaw in US-China relations by cutting funding to exiled Tibetans, but to slash funds for an anguished community is robbing them of the hopes they have in their lives as well as the trust they place in the United States and the western world. "The move is contrary to American ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. Time will tell if Trump's policy is really in line with his 'Make America Great Again'," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...es-decade-old-policy/articleshow/58864516.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ckf

Canada, us and eu should establish should take in exiled tibetans rather than abandoning them in India. Not sure these people want to return home, an option for them to return should also be given.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## royalharris

USA EU they are not so rich,don't want to waste money&resource,let super power India burn some money if they like
Super power,pls

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AndrewJin

Overseas Tibetan are mostly former slave owners and upper class trash. They should not be allowed home.
They can suck the blood of those who cherish slavery and caste division.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## terranMarine

Tibetans can start using this fantastic product

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

This may help middle class white Americans live a bit longer and healthier. 

Why spent money on people who even own slaves? Fake Tibetan administration live comfortably in the land of their utmost dream. If there is going to be aid, it should be from Tibet to the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

> Media reports published from Washington stated that United States has reversed the decade-old policy to give financial aid to Tibetans.



That's new to me, I didn't know that Tibetans got special treatment compare other immigrants but I'm happy for them since American taxes payers have to shoulder more burden .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## powastick

The real question is "what did Trump traded Tibet card with?"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

powastick said:


> The real question is "what did Trump traded Tibet card with?"


to establish more Trump buildings in China? Whatever it is, Trump will be wealthier after his presidency. He just received over 1billion worth of gifts from ksa

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raphael

TaiShang said:


> This may help middle class white Americans live a bit longer and healthier.
> 
> Why spent money on people who even own slaves? Fake Tibetan administration live comfortably in the land of their utmost dream. If there is going to be aid, it should be from Tibet to the US.



The price that the US has paid for lavishing all that 'aid', openly or covertly, on exiled ex-slavemaster Tibetan aristocrats, Uyghur jihadists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, Syrian 'rebels', color revolutionaries, Ukraine Maidan government, Hong Kong Umbrella rioters, Taiwan sunflower rioters, etc, is their deteriorating domestic situation: in infrastructure, health, education, the US ranks among the worst of the developed countries. American taxpayers deserve better.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Han Patriot

China is a gold mine, if Trump is smart, his brand can be worth billions in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ckf

powastick said:


> The real question is "what did Trump traded Tibet card with?"


Texas gas for 20-50 Billions of gas purchases, and cut $24 million to Ned and $100 million + cia budget to India, nepal, bhutan. Ivanka got secret hand outs.....sounds about right.


----------



## Jackdaws

ckf said:


> Canada, us and eu should establish should take in exiled tibetans rather than abandoning them in India. Not sure these people want to return home, an option for them to return should also be given.





royalharris said:


> USA EU they are not so rich,don't want to waste money&resource,let super power India burn some money if they like
> Super power,pls



India is happy to provide a home to these persecuted people and will continue to welcome refugees from China - giving them an opportunity to live their life in a democratic society. Persecuted people flee to greener pastures all the time; it would be inhumane to deny refuge to Chinese citizens from Tibet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raphael

Jackdaws said:


> India is happy to provide a home to these persecuted people and will continue to welcome refugees from China - giving them an opportunity to live their life in a democratic society. Persecuted people flee to greener pastures all the time; it would be inhumane to deny refuge to Chinese citizens from Tibet.



Good for you  As they say, one man's trash is another's treasure, and there's plenty more treasure for you to take in. And who knows, it may just turn out that ex-slavemaster feudal aristocrats are the secret ingredient you need to realize your agonizingly elusive dreams of becoming a supapowa!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## kankan326

Raphael said:


> The price that the US has paid for lavishing all that 'aid', openly or covertly, on exiled ex-slavemaster Tibetan aristocrats, Uyghur jihadists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, Syrian 'rebels', color revolutionaries, Ukraine Maidan government, Hong Kong Umbrella rioters, Taiwan sunflower rioters, etc, is their deteriorating domestic situation: in infrastructure, health, education, the US ranks among the worst of the developed countries. American taxpayers deserve better.


Look at the list. Were US politicians infected by zerg?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

*For first time, China and EU to join forces on climate*

By Jean Chemnick, E&E News

May. 31, 2017 , 2:30 PM
_*Originally published by E&E News*_

The European Union and China will issue a statement Friday declaring climate change "an imperative more than ever" in the face of expected U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

A final draft statement seen by E&E News, prepared for a meeting Friday, is the first-ever bilateral agreement on climate change between the European Union and China. It will be backed by all 28 E.U. member states, including the United Kingdom.

The draft also called the Paris Agreement a "historic achievement" and "proof that with shared political will and mutual trust, multilateralism can succeed in building fair and effective solutions to the most critical global problems of our time." President Trump's national populism has been seen as a rebuke to post-World War II multilateralism.

It comes amid reports that Trump plans to withdraw the United States from participation in the agreement among nearly 200 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The administration also is reportedly considering pulling the United States out of the underlying U.N. framework calling on nations to address climate change globally.

The European Union in the draft reaffirmed its commitment to the joint developed-world pledge to mobilize at least $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of global warming.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has exchanged barbs with Trump in the days since last weekend's Group of Seven summit ended in division over Paris and trade issues, is meeting today with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. The two are expected to make a statement of their own.

_Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2017. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals _

Li Shuo, senior global policy adviser for Greenpeace in East Asia, said the E.U.-China pact is a direct response to the Trump administration, which has single-handedly dismantled the bilateral relationship that the United States and China forged throughout the Obama years.

"The moment when Trump announces the Paris pull-out will mark the divorce of [the] U.S.-China climate relationship and the beginning of a reinvigorated partnership between China and the E.U.," he said.


For first time, China and EU to join forces on climate | Science | AAAS


----------



## terranMarine

Raphael said:


> The price that the US has paid for lavishing all that 'aid', openly or covertly, on exiled ex-slavemaster Tibetan aristocrats, Uyghur jihadists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, Syrian 'rebels', color revolutionaries, Ukraine Maidan government, Hong Kong Umbrella rioters, Taiwan sunflower rioters, etc, is their deteriorating domestic situation: in infrastructure, health, education, the US ranks among the worst of the developed countries. American taxpayers deserve better.



Many part of US can be categorized as Third World, no surprise Joe Biden and Trump viewed US as a backward nation due to the crumbling infrastructure. The situation is so worse that an American Airline had to violently drag a Vietnamese American out of the plane because some staff couldn't get to their destination without telling their customers to buzz off.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Place Of Space

ckf said:


> Canada, us and eu should establish should take in exiled tibetans rather than abandoning them in India. Not sure these people want to return home, an option for them to return should also be given.



Return for what? Already no left rooms for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Raphael said:


> Good for you  As they say, one man's trash is another's treasure, and there's plenty more treasure for you to take in. And who knows, it may just turn out that ex-slavemaster feudal aristocrats are the secret ingredient you need to realize your agonizingly elusive dreams of becoming a supapowa!



Where would be a better place than India for a class-oriented cult nobility to go when their greener pastures in China were dried and they were forced to cast out all the titles and live like a decent human being on the products of their own hands?


----------



## Offshore

TaiShang said:


> Where would be a better place than India for a class-oriented cult nobility to go when their greener pastures in China were dried and they were forced to cast out all the titles and live like a decent human being on the products of their own hands?



Dalai Lama can own as many slave in India.. good for them
Win-win solution

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Jackdaws

Raphael said:


> Good for you  As they say, one man's trash is another's treasure, and there's plenty more treasure for you to take in. And who knows, it may just turn out that ex-slavemaster feudal aristocrats are the secret ingredient you need to realize your agonizingly elusive dreams of becoming a supapowa!


Do you have any proof that all these poor Chinese citizens who seek refuge in India are "ex-slavemaster feudal aristocrats" or is it just mentioned in Mao's Little Red book?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Jackdaws said:


> Do you have any proof that all these poor Chinese citizens who seek refuge in India are "ex-slavemaster feudal aristocrats" or is it just mentioned in Mao's Little Red book?


Why do you ask for proof when you are blinded to see the truth? If we give you sources to read you would still say it's Chinese propaganda, lies from Mao. What's the point by trying to act as if you are an unbiased truth seeker?
You still believe the DollarRama is a holy person, yet no Indians here continue the debate why he is very good friend with a Japanese terrorist when photos was posted of those two together.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jackdaws

terranMarine said:


> Why do you ask for proof when you are blinded to see the truth? If we give you sources to read you would still say it's Chinese propaganda, lies from Mao. What's the point by trying to act as if you are an unbiased truth seeker?
> You still believe the DollarRama is a holy person, yet no Indians here continue the debate why he is very good friend with a Japanese terrorist when photos was posted of those two together.


So I take it you don't have any proof?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Jackdaws said:


> So I take it you don't have any proof?


Exactly my point, why bother to ask for the truth


----------



## Jackdaws

terranMarine said:


> Exactly my point, why bother to ask for the truth


Because that's how things work in civilized democracies. When you make an assertion, you kind of need to back it up with sources. I understand the whole "free speech" and "accountability" thing might be novel to the Chinese - but it is how things are done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Jackdaws said:


> Because that's how things work in civilized democracies. When you make an assertion, you kind of need to back it up with sources. I understand the whole "free speech" and "accountability" thing might be novel to the Chinese - but it is how things are done.



Well i did show the proof about the Dalai Lama and his Japanese terrorist friend, after that no Indian bother to respond further. I guess civility works differently in India?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Accountant

it


Tresbon said:


> Shri Puri | TNN | May 27, 2017, 07.36 AM IST
> 
> DHARAMSHALA: US President Donald Trump has left Tibetans in a shock after proposing zero aid to Tibet in 2018 at a juncture where efforts were underway to arrange a meeting of Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama and the US President, on Friday.
> 
> Media reports published from Washington stated that United States has reversed the decade-old policy to give financial aid to Tibetans. It was said that the State department, which has sent a detailed proposal to the Congress as part of the annual budget referred to the decision as one of the tough choices, as its total budget itself was slashed by 28%.
> 
> The Tibetan administration has expressed worry, but maintained silence over the issue. Secretary for international relations Sonam Dagpo said they were yet to receive the detailed report. "I am awaiting the official document as of now. There is a 24-hour time gap between here and Washington. Once it comes, then we will go through it. I have read reports but can't react over that," he said.
> 
> Though only a proposal, the announcement has worried the Tibetan community. "Trump seems to be making series of unpopular decision that may be of immediate benefits but with no future. Even his Congress and people are protesting against it," said Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan writer and poet.
> 
> A Tibetan social entrepreneur in exile, Lobsang Wangyal said Trump could be expecting a thaw in US-China relations by cutting funding to exiled Tibetans, but to slash funds for an anguished community is robbing them of the hopes they have in their lives as well as the trust they place in the United States and the western world. "The move is contrary to American ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. Time will tell if Trump's policy is really in line with his 'Make America Great Again'," he said.
> 
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...es-decade-old-policy/articleshow/58864516.cms


its surprising for me.


----------



## Realtalk108

Jackdaws said:


> Because that's how things work in civilized democracies. When you make an assertion, you kind of need to back it up with sources. I understand the whole "free speech" and "accountability" thing might be novel to the Chinese - but it is how things are done.



Let me help you out here. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungshar

One of the reformers between the 13th and 14th Dalai Lama (the 14th being the current one), due to his reforms and ideas that Tibet should be a strong constitutional monarchy with everyone having a say in the nation's events, got his *eyes gouged out* by order of the Tibetan government due to this power struggle. This happened back in 1930s.


----------



## Jackdaws

terranMarine said:


> Well i did show the proof about the Dalai Lama and his Japanese terrorist friend, after that no Indian bother to respond further. I guess civility works differently in India?





Realtalk108 said:


> Let me help you out here.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungshar
> 
> One of the reformers between the 13th and 14th Dalai Lama (the 14th being the current one), due to his reforms and ideas that Tibet should be a strong constitutional monarchy with everyone having a say in the nation's events, got his *eyes gouged out* by order of the Tibetan government due to this power struggle. This happened back in 1930s.



The claim was that those seeking refuge in India are slave-owners. Neither of your posts prove this. Do you have any source?


----------



## Nan Yang

The Accountant said:


> it
> 
> its surprising for me.


Not really. This is the second time United States betrayed Dalai lama. 

*How the CIA sponsored and betrayed Tibetans in a war the world never knew about*
It was code-named 'ST Circus'. But there was nothing funny about the way the CIA funded, trained, armed and ultimately used and betrayed the Tibetan cause

http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/usdefence/usd7.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Motti

> Donald Trump decides to stop aiding Tibet, reverses decade old policy



Low-Stamina, Loser, Flip-Flop, All Talk No Action ad nauseum. Whatever happened to "getting tough on China"?


----------



## darksider

Jackdaws said:


> India is happy to provide a home to these persecuted people and will continue to welcome refugees from China - giving them an opportunity to live their life in a democratic society. Persecuted people flee to greener pastures all the time; it would be inhumane to deny refuge to Chinese citizens from Tibet.


Can you guys take afghan refugees from Pakistan. 
We hate them but they still shamelessly not going back. 
If you guys can take Tibetans then not afghans also? 
Pls take these filthy afghans. 
And they love indians and inda.


----------



## Jackdaws

darksider said:


> Can you guys take afghan refugees from Pakistan.
> We hate them but they still shamelessly not going back.
> If you guys can take Tibetans then not afghans also?
> Pls take these filthy afghans.
> And they love indians and inda.


We already take Afghan refugees in 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ugees-are-cooking-up-a-better-future-in-india


----------



## darksider

Jackdaws said:


> We already take Afghan refugees in
> https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ugees-are-cooking-up-a-better-future-in-india


take this filth from Pakistan also.
take them all.after all they love india and indians love them.


----------



## Jackdaws

darksider said:


> take this filth from Pakistan also.
> take them all.after all they love india and indians love them.


We also take in refugees from Pakistan. So no problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Realtalk108

Jackdaws said:


> The claim was that those seeking refuge in India are slave-owners. Neither of your posts prove this. Do you have any source?



Yup.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism

"Until 1959, when China cracked down on Tibetan rebels and the Dalai Lama fled to northern India, around 98% of the population was enslaved in serfdom. Drepung monastery, on the outskirts of Lhasa, was one of the world's largest landowners with 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. High-ranking lamas and secular landowners imposed crippling taxes, *forced boys into monastic slavery* and pilfered most of the country's wealth – torturing disobedient serfs by *gouging out their eyes or severing their hamstrings*."

This is from the British paper 'The Guardian'. This is the gang that entered India in 1959.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jackdaws

Realtalk108 said:


> Yup.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism
> 
> "Until 1959, when China cracked down on Tibetan rebels and the Dalai Lama fled to northern India, around 98% of the population was enslaved in serfdom. Drepung monastery, on the outskirts of Lhasa, was one of the world's largest landowners with 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. High-ranking lamas and secular landowners imposed crippling taxes, *forced boys into monastic slavery* and pilfered most of the country's wealth – torturing disobedient serfs by *gouging out their eyes or severing their hamstrings*."
> 
> This is from the British paper 'The Guardian'. This is the gang that entered India in 1959.


Thanks. So it proves - that most of the people fleeing China were themselves slaves, not slave-owners. Obviously, they would seek refuge in India then. Makes complete sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Dalai L'lama and his cult fit in India well. It is like a perfect infusion between matching bloods. If one wants to hold slaves, where else would one like to go?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Realtalk108

Jackdaws said:


> Thanks. So it proves - that most of the people fleeing China were themselves slaves, not slave-owners. Obviously, they would seek refuge in India then. Makes complete sense.





Is it something in our air, water or food, dunno, why are Indians this daft?

You do realize that the Tibetans who came to India were the *ruling class*, including the 14th Dalai Lama, right? That's *literally* what the article says. They ran away because PRC stopped the practice.

Are you on the spectrum?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jackdaws

Realtalk108 said:


> Is it something in our air, water or food, dunno, why are Indians this daft?
> 
> You do realize that the Tibetans who came to India were the *ruling class*, including the 14th Dalai Lama, right? That's *literally* what the article says. They ran away because PRC stopped the practice.
> 
> Are you on the spectrum?


Lol. Where exactly in the article does it state that the refugees who came to India were the ruling class? Literally? Lol. The article states that the regime before Chinese occupation was as brutal and Tibet was no Shangri-la. Read it again. Or are you using some Communist translate tool which translates these articles to Mao speak?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Jackdaws said:


> Lol. Where exactly in the article does it state that the refugees who came to India were the ruling class? Literally? Lol. The article states that the regime before Chinese occupation was as brutal and Tibet was no Shangri-la. Read it again. Or are you using some Communist translate tool which translates these articles to Mao speak?


Thanks to PRC, Tibet is free

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jackdaws

Beast said:


> Thanks to PRC, Tibet is free


Lol. Sure. That is indeed the narrative the civilized world believes.


----------



## Realtalk108

Jackdaws said:


> Lol. Sure. That is indeed the narrative the civilized world believes.



This line - "the Dalai Lama fled to northern India"

Ab tu bolega Dalai Lama bhi ruling class nehi tha. Lol lol lol.

Waise tujhe pata nehi tha kya ki Dalai Lama aur uske sathi India mein aye the?

Rehen de.


----------



## faithfulguy

AndrewJin said:


> Overseas Tibetan are mostly former slave owners and upper class trash. They should not be allowed home.
> They can suck the blood of those who cherish slavery and caste division.



They might be upper class at home, but in India, would they be the lower caste, even untouchables?



Realtalk108 said:


> Is it something in our air, water or food, dunno, why are Indians this daft?
> 
> You do realize that the Tibetans who came to India were the *ruling class*, including the 14th Dalai Lama, right? That's *literally* what the article says. They ran away because PRC stopped the practice.
> 
> Are you on the spectrum?



A breath of fresh air from India. I would guess that you are not a fan of India superpower movie.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AndrewJin

faithfulguy said:


> They might be upper class at home, but in India, would they be the lower caste, even untouchables?


It doesn't matter.
The important thing is they finally find a place where caste, division of classes, slaves & slave owners can coexist peacefully and ethically.
This is also the best outcome for the freed people at home who no longer suffer from those former slave owners.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 21stCentury

LMFAO this 'aid' does not represent any goodwill to the tibetan community in tibet--but the aids goes to the Tibeten Exiled regime. The US long supported the tibetan rebels to subvert the Chinese nation, but its a major fail. 
Tibetan exiled regime chose their own path of violence and subversion, they will NEVER be allowed to step foot in Tibet. Let them stay and rot in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

AndrewJin said:


> It doesn't matter.
> The important thing is they finally find a place where caste, division of classes, slaves & slave owners can coexist peacefully and ethically.
> This is also the best outcome for the freed people at home who no longer suffer from those former slave owners.



India tolerate suppression base on background more than any where else. But for these Tibetans, they go from suppressor to the suppressed. Owner to slavery.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DoTell

Jackdaws said:


> Lol. Sure. That is indeed the narrative the civilized world believes.



Don't you know it's an oxymoron to have India and civilized in the same sentence? Man you crack me up! Ive heard supa pawa, but civilized? Ask the millions and millions of your undernourished uneducated people, your low caste, your raped women, how civilized are you??? Just because you pulled it out of your rear doesn't make it so!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tauren Paladin

I guess Trump becoming president is a victory for China. Everyone thought he was going to make America Great Again. It's more like give China what it wants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

Tauren Paladin said:


> I guess Trump becoming president is a victory for China. Everyone thought he was going to make America Great Again. It's more like give China what it wants.


More like make China greater than great

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Jackdaws said:


> Lol. Sure. That is indeed the narrative the civilized world believes.


Sure indeed. You been living in the world of a manipulation by the west. Let me ask you one simple question. Did Dalai Lama receive money from CIA?


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> The important thing is they finally find a place where caste, division of classes, slaves & slave owners can coexist peacefully and *ethically*.



I loved this line.


----------



## Jackdaws

DoTell said:


> Don't you know it's an oxymoron to have India and civilized in the same sentence? Man you crack me up! Ive heard supa pawa, but civilized? Ask the millions and millions of your undernourished uneducated people, your low caste, your raped women, how civilized are you??? Just because you pulled it out of your rear doesn't make it so!


I can see why such a narrative would make sense in a Communist nation to prevent more of their countrymen and citizens from seeking refugee status in India. But that's not the narrative in the civilized world.



Beast said:


> Sure indeed. You been living in the world of a manipulation by the west. Let me ask you one simple question. Did Dalai Lama receive money from CIA?


The same CIA which has given money to your Pakistani allies over the years. Sure, They may have paid him. What's your point?


----------



## Brainsucker

Weird. India took these exiles home (Southern Tibet) and declares to support their independent? Shouldn't India cedes the Southern Tibet first and give it to Dalai Lama, if you really-really want to support Tibetan Independent? Is it a double standard or what?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ckf

Let I


Brainsucker said:


> Weird. India took these exiles home (Southern Tibet) and declares to support their independent? Shouldn't India cedes the Southern Tibet first and give it to Dalai Lama, if you really-really want to support Tibetan Independent? Is it a double standard or what?


Tibetans in exile now can fight independence in India. Dharmsala and Darjeeling is now capital of independent South Tibet.


----------



## unbiasedopinion

Trump is doing sever damage to its foreign policies by reversing it long standing postures in many international agreement in a jiffy. This is not a good sign of a mature administration and they will loose the trust of people/countries around. Also this indicate Trump acts immaturely without considering the impact of his decision for future generations. He is a just a plain shrewd businessman and will go and lick anyone who gives him business.


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> I loved this line.


Isn't that true cow-protecting beef-banning RSSers and slavery supporters live ethically together to promote these primitive and backward social ethics?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ckf

unbiasedopinion said:


> Trump is doing sever damage to its foreign policies by reversing it long standing postures in many international agreement in a jiffy. This is not a good sign of a mature administration and they will loose the trust of people/countries around. Also this indicate Trump acts immaturely without considering the impact of his decision for future generations. He is a just a plain shrewd businessman and will go and lick anyone who gives him business.


Maybe Trump is really doing what's best for America rather than throwing useless aid $ to a lazy worship me all day *** like the Dalai Lama, exiled religious dictator of Tibet. Democratic India should know better than this. Anyways, the Hans are breeding the Tibetans out of Tibet, Uighurs out of Xinjiang and will make sure the Indians masterb*te jealously across South Asia while drooling over Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, and Myanmar lands, but China will bi*ch slap their dirty hands away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Jackdaws said:


> I can see why such a narrative would make sense in a Communist nation to prevent more of their countrymen and citizens from seeking refugee status in India. But that's not the narrative in the civilized world.
> 
> 
> The same CIA which has given money to your Pakistani allies over the years. Sure, They may have paid him. What's your point?


What's my point? They are paid to serve agenda. Trying to compare Pakistan a nation receiving aid vs an individual receiving aid is just like an apple and orange comparison. Pakistan needs to account to its people and the distribution aid is transparent. Did Dalai Lama show you his account how his CIA account distribute? 

Dalai Lama is just serving US anti China interest not as such naive freedom campaign fighting as you think. If Dalai need to wipe out his people to serve US master happy. I have no doubt he will do it.


----------



## Super Falcon

A big delt on Indian policy supporting dalai lama a terrorist giving him exile a slap by Trump to India finally the lesson for india


----------



## unbiasedopinion

ckf said:


> Maybe Trump is really doing what's best for America rather than throwing useless aid $ to a lazy worship me all day *** like the Dalai Lama, exiled religious dictator of Tibet. Democratic India should know better than this. *Anyways, the Hans are breeding the Tibetans out of Tibet, Uighurs out of Xinjiang* and will make sure the Indians masterb*te jealously across South Asia while drooling over Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, and Myanmar lands, but China will bi*ch slap their dirty hands away.



No wonder you will advocate the skinning of natives out of their lands. After all America has history of driving native red indians from their lands.


----------



## ckf

unbiasedopinion said:


> No wonder you will advocate the skinning of natives out of their lands. After all America has history of driving native red indians from their lands.


Morally corrupt liberal American ideals are as real as Indian democracy, and so is Canada. They certainly are not vacating Americas for the natives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

Trump finally realized that China is too tough to be hurt by dogs like dalai. No free bones for useless doges anymore.


----------



## Realtalk108

Jackdaws said:


> LOL - Shayad tujhe Angrezi samajh nahin aati. Maine kaha _*sab* _ruling class nahin ho sakte. Aur acha kiya Indian flag lagaya - main bhi agar tere mulk se hota, toh sharam ke maare Indian flag hi lagata.



Tu kya bak raha hain I honestly don't have a clue. Lekin mera flag असली हैं.


----------



## Great Sachin

any news on Pakistan aid?


----------



## beijingwalker

With this miraculous socio-economic development of the region soon it'll be Tibet aiding Americans.


----------



## TheBlackCoat

China has more value to the USA than Tibetan cause. Time to move on than getting stuck in history.

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the USA in a long long time.


----------



## beijingwalker

TheBlackCoat said:


> China has more value to the USA than Tibetan cause. Time to move on than getting stuck in history.
> 
> Trump is the best thing that has happened to the USA in a long long time.


That's true, by engaging in Tibet, US had long been fighting a battle that it can never win, a hell waste of borrowed money.


----------



## lcloo

An extract from Michael Parenti's article on truth of Tibetan Slaves etc. This one is not a CIA propanganda widely spread in the West.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

But what of _Tibetan_ Buddhism? Is it not an exception to this sort of strife? And what of the society it helped to create? Many Buddhists maintain that, before the Chinese crackdown in 1959, old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.” 4

A reading of Tibet’s history suggests a somewhat different picture. “*Religious conflict was commonplace in old Tibet,” *writes one western Buddhist practitioner. “History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different.* Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation*.” 5 In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet.

His two previous lama “incarnations” were then retroactively recognized as his predecessors, thereby transforming the 1st Dalai Lama into the 3rd Dalai Lama. This 1st (or 3rd) Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his claim to divinity. *The Dalai Lama who succeeded him pursued a sybaritic life, enjoying many mistresses, partying with friends, and acting in other ways deemed unfitting for an incarnate deity. For these transgressions he was murdered by his priests.* Within 170 years, despite their recognized divine status, five Dalai Lamas were killed by their high priests or other courtiers. 6

For hundreds of years competing Tibetan Buddhist sects engaged in bitterly violent clashes and summary executions. In 1660, the 5th Dalai Lama was faced with a rebellion in Tsang province, the stronghold of the rival Kagyu sect with its high lama known as the Karmapa. The 5th Dalai Lama called for harsh retribution against the rebels, directing the Mongol army to obliterate the male and female lines, and the offspring too “like eggs smashed against rocks…. In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.” 7

In 1792, many Kagyu monasteries were confiscated and their monks were forcibly converted to the Gelug sect (the Dalai Lama’s denomination). The Gelug school, known also as the “Yellow Hats,” showed little tolerance or willingness to mix their teachings with other Buddhist sects. In the words of one of their traditional prayers: “Praise to you, violent god of the Yellow Hat teachings/who reduces to particles of dust/ great beings, high officials and ordinary people/ who pollute and corrupt the Gelug doctrine.” 8 An eighteenth-century memoir of a Tibetan general depicts sectarian strife among Buddhists that is as brutal and bloody as any religious conflict might be. 9 This grim history remains largely unvisited by present-day followers of Tibetan Buddhism in the West.

*R*eligions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that “a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches.” Much of the wealth was accumulated “through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending.” 10

*Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace*.” 11

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. 12 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” 13 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. 14 The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. 15 *The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.*16* Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. *17

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kris

AndrewJin said:


> Overseas Tibetan are mostly former slave owners and upper class trash. They should not be allowed home.
> They can suck the blood of those who cherish slavery and caste division.


am eager to know slave owning in tibet 
can some chinese start a topic on it 
thanks


----------



## Jackdaws

Realtalk108 said:


> Tu kya bak raha hain I honestly don't have a clue. Lekin mera flag असली हैं.


Lol. I figured you won't understand



Beast said:


> What's my point? They are paid to serve agenda. Trying to compare Pakistan a nation receiving aid vs an individual receiving aid is just like an apple and orange comparison. Pakistan needs to account to its people and the distribution aid is transparent. Did Dalai Lama show you his account how his CIA account distribute?
> 
> Dalai Lama is just serving US anti China interest not as such naive freedom campaign fighting as you think. If Dalai need to wipe out his people to serve US master happy. I have no doubt he will do it.


Oh, do let me know where and when Pakistan did account for the money that the CIA has provided it over the years, and I shall buy your argument.


----------



## HAIDER

kankan326 said:


> Trump finally realized that China is too tough to be hurt by dogs like dalai. No free bones for useless doges anymore.


Dalai Lama fail to perform and fail to mobilizing masses against China. End result was expected. Tibet was lost cause long ago. It was only alive due to Indian lobby in Washington.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

A picture denotes a thousand words. Just google old tibet photo, and find the huge contrast between the rich ruling class/ land owners and the serf and slaves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vengeful One

Climate change is a natural phenomenon exaggerated by (((globalists))).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jetray

Oh I bet they want to extract some thing from China may be a new trade deal. Tactics of trump administration is quite simple.

First create an uproar saying the treaty is unfair.
Withdraw or threaten to withdraw.
Renegotiate for more benefit.

Simply put it is just plain bluff. If other countries dont yield it will fall flat on their face. Hope China & India do not renegotiate any thing in exchange, should just say take it or leave it.


----------



## Beast

Jackdaws said:


> Lol. I figured you won't understand
> 
> 
> Oh, do let me know where and when Pakistan did account for the money that the CIA has provided it over the years, and I shall buy your argument.


Really. Shown me yr Dalai fantastic distribution aid list from CIA. If u don't reply in 24hours ,you lost the arguement and prove you are a idiot and troll making every stupid comment. 

I win and you lose badly

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

lcloo said:


> *Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace*.”



This is like "India 2020" propaganda movie.



AndrewJin said:


> Isn't that true cow-protecting beef-banning RSSers and slavery supporters live ethically together to promote these primitive and backward social ethics?



Indeed, otherwise why would they be so yearning for a lifestyle that belongs to pre-modern age? It is like kettle finding its perfect pot and fitting nicely. I guess no body will be weeping over the exodus of slave-owning religious cult class into India. They may come handy for some CIA ops, but, it works in backward societies like India, not in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> This is like "India 2020" propaganda movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, otherwise why would they be so yearning for a lifestyle that belongs to pre-modern age? It is like kettle finding its perfect pot and fitting nicely. I guess no body will be weeping over the exodus of slave-owning religious cult class into India. They may come handy for some CIA ops, but, it works in backward societies like India, not in China.


CIA，trump people, RSSers and former tibertan slave owners do not fit in this modern world. Maybe they can live together in Supa Powa 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

On Jun. 8, two U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancers assigned to the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, deployed from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, flew a 10-hour mission from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, through the South China Sea, and operated with the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Sterett (DDG 104) “to increase interoperability by refining joint tactics, techniques and procedures while simultaneously strengthening their ability to seamlessly integrate their operations.”

The B-1B Lancers (“Bones” in accordance with the nickname used by their aircrews) have been supporting he U.S. Pacific Command’s (USPACOM) Continuous Bomber Presence mission since Aug. 6, 2016, when the first B-1s, belonging to the 28th Bomb Wing from Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, deployed to Guam, for the first time in a decade, toreplace the B-52s.

The B-1B had been taken out from the Continuous Bomber Presence (CBP) rotation at Guam’s Andersen Air Force Basebecause they can’t carry any kind of nuclear weapon: the Lancer deployment in the regions brings a conventional heavy bomber within striking distance of the Korean peninsula.

While deterring North Korea out of Guam, the B-1s have also been involved in several regional exercises. For instance, in November 2016, one Lancer carried out close air support training in the vicinity of Australia, a type of mission in which they cooperate with JTACs.

CAS are among the most frequent missions flown by the “Bones” against ISIS during their 6-month deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve last year: when they returned stateside in January 2016, the B-1s had flown 490 sorties dropping 3,800 munitions on 3,700 targets.

https://theaviationist.com/2017/06/...-guided-missile-destroyer-in-south-china-sea/

A powerful deterrent. B-1's can carry up to 24 JASSM-ER cruise missiles, and will begin deploying the LRASM anti-ship missile next year.


----------



## antonius123

For LCS case, I think destroyer or ship cruise presence will bring more detterence than bomber. They can bring many cruise missile + anti missile, and stay long nearby the target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jackdaws

Beast said:


> Really. Shown me yr Dalai fantastic distribution aid list from CIA. If u don't reply in 24hours ,you lost the arguement and prove you are a idiot and troll making every stupid comment.
> 
> I win and you lose badly


What exactly do you want me to show? Try and be coherent


----------



## TaiShang

*Op-Ed: Chaotic Washington is not a shining example of democracy*
By Curtis Stone (People's Daily Online) 16:30, June 13, 2017







Is the US still a model of democracy? That question, previously a far-fetched idea for many, is being asked more and more. It is the realization that Western democracy—even American democracy—can fall into chaos and undermine the international community’s goal of peace and development.

Even though China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, the US has long been critical of China for its unique political system. China’s official argument is that the US elevates itself as a model of democracy in order to spread its interpretation of democracy to other countries in an attempt to make the world in its own image. Scholars who support the American narrative of exceptionalism have also called on China to be more like the West in terms of politics, arguing that China’s system is doomed to fail. “The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun,” US scholar David Shambaugh argued in a March 2015 article.

But what works in one country will not necessarily work in another. “Whether the shoes fit or not, only the wearer knows,” President Xi Jinping said on his first trip abroad as China’s top leader in March 2013. What Xi meant is that only the citizens of a country know if their country is on the right development path and the West has no right to force-feed its interpretation of democracy on other countries as a way to solve the world’s problems.

*In reality, the so-called strength of Western democracy is a grand illusion. Research shows that Western democracy is always just one step away from tragedy. *According to Yale University’s Timothy Snyder, the modern history of Western democracy is one of decline and fall and most democracies failed. There is also growing dissatisfaction with Western democracy itself, not just in America but around the world, according to published research by political scientists Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk. All this shows that Western democracy is not as secure as people may think and political chaos is the most likely outcome.






The chaos that ensued in the US presidential election of 2016 highlights the perils of Western democracy. In a People’s Daily commentary, Yuan Peng, vice president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, wrote that the election would be deemed the darkest and most chaotic in recent history. “It certainly will not be viewed as a victory of democracy,” Peng wrote. He then added: “The campaign has undeniably revealed the dark side of so-called democracy in the US.”

*That chaos and uncertainty later became the norm in Washington. But whereas the presidential election revealed the dark side of Western democracy, growing political divisions under US President Donald Trump is perhaps evidence of something much more frightening: chaos in Washington is undermining US power and prestige in the eyes of people around the world.*

Rising political chaos in the US has made people openly question the strength of Western democracy and the future role of the US. From the GOP's controversial plan to repeal and replace Obamacare which, if passed, would take away the right to health for 23 million Americans, mostly the poor and disabled; to mounting domestic scandals that could sap Washington’s ability to respond to challenges and opportunities alike; to the battle over Trump’s controversial Muslim travel ban; to the kidnapping of the global climate agenda, the selfish and irresponsible actions coming out of Washington make a solid case for why nations of the world should step up efforts to advance the democratization of international relations.

As Xi said in his speech, the fate of the world depends on all peoples and every single country has a responsible role to play.* The importance of advancing democracy in international affairs is perhaps nowhere more evident than with global climate change, an issue that the former US president described as the kind of challenge that is big enough to remind us that we are all in this together, but which Trump threw under the bus.* If there is a lesson to be learned from the chaos in Washington, it is that while Western democracy has its strengths, it also has its flaws, and a more balanced and equitable international order is much needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

The US Army and Air Force just tested out a telling new capability by landing a C-17, pulling out a high mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS), firing at a target, and flying away all within 20 minutes.

The tactic essentially turns the US's tried and tested HIMARS into a scoot and shoot weapons system with wings, and it's the perfect solution for the problems posed by the South China Sea. 

"This is a critical step in validating our role in the Asia-Pacific response force," 2nd Lt. Joe McNeil, a platoon leader involved in the exercise said in a statement. "It validates our ability to integrate into different units from the Army, Air Force and Marines, and to support any kind of mission with fires."

To China's potent missile forces, large US bases in the Pacific look like appetizing targets, so the US has been coming up with ways to fight smarter from smaller, spread out, and even improvised locations. The C-17 lends itself perfectly to this application, as it can land on dirt runways under difficult conditions. 

"If it wasn't for the safety verifications, we would have shot the first fire mission within two minutes of leaving the aircraft," said 1st Lt. Robert Sincero, the A Battery executive officer in the statement. 

Over at the Navy, military planners and private consultants are working on a concept called "distributed lethality," to give even the smallest US Navy ships potent missiles. Again this idea disperses the targets for the enemy, while adding bite to the Navy's fleet. 

Another aircraft that fits the bill for the South China Sea's vast, undeveloped battle space is the Marine Corps' F-35B, which can land vertically, take off over a short distance, and reload with the engines running to reduce turnaround time.

These qualities enable the F-35B to use improvised bases and strike the enemy from unpredictable locations. By fall, the F-35Bs will see their first-ever carrier deployment in the Pacific. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-tactics-to-dominate-south-china-sea-2017-6

The HIMARS has the capability to fire the ATACMS ballistic missile, which is now being upgraded to strike ships at sea. The US military's ability to distribute it's forces, at high speed, then redeploy within minutes will make life difficult for its adversaries.


----------



## Raphael

I'll believe it only when I see our presence forcibly ejected from our islands. The reality is that US never lacked tech and firepower, but they do lack heart and will. Their plan was always to send their expendable Asian pawns to die against China in a 'first wave' so that China could be softened up first. US will never make the first strike because they are afraid of even a single scratch from engaging an evenly-matched fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

This is hit and run tactic..
The problem is that the C-17 might be downed before even landing with its HIMARS.. it is slow and has a big signature..


----------



## NirmalKrish

The SC said:


> This is hit and run tactic..
> The problem is that the C-17 night be downed before even landing with its HIMARS..



China does not have the balls to down a civilian jet - let alone a Military jet and that too of the United states air force. Wishful thinking of our Chinese armchair general at play.


----------



## Naara-e-Mastana

NirmalKrish said:


> China does not have the balls to down a civilian jet - let alone a Military jet and that too of the United states air force. Wishful thinking of our Chinese armchair general at play.


Apparently the people who hv wishful thinking are indians( joint india+japan+ usa+ Australian forces against China  )
Chinese are very much practical and usa turns out all show no go  .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NirmalKrish

Naara-e-Mastana said:


> Apparently the people who hv wishful thinking are indians(* joint india+japan+ usa+ Australian forces against China*  )
> Chinese are very much practical and usa turns out all show no go  .



The love is infectious isn't it, Yep too bad for highlighted parties, Ji Jo and Jackie Chan was not there to assist & Chris rock for the comedy.. Its all doom and gloom!

On topic - if there any exchange of fire from either side is just full scale war... having said that there will always be argy baggies from both sides.


----------



## Nan Yang

F-22Raptor said:


> The US Army and Air Force just tested out a telling new capability by landing a C-17, pulling out a hi lovegh mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS), firing at a target, and flying away all within 20 minutes.
> 
> The tactic essentially turns the US's tried and tested HIMARS into a scoot and shoot weapons system with wings, and it's the perfect solution for the problems posed by the South China Sea.
> 
> "This is a critical step in validating our role in the Asia-Pacific response force," 2nd Lt. Joe McNeil, a platoon leader involved in the exercise said in a statement. "It validates our ability to integrate into different units from the Army, Air Force and Marines, and to support any kind of mission with fires."
> 
> To China's potent missile forces, large US bases in the Pacific look like appetizing targets, so the US has been coming up with ways to fight smarter from smaller, spread out, and even improvised locations. The C-17 lends itself perfectly to this application, as it can land on dirt runways under difficult conditions.
> 
> "If it wasn't for the safety verifications, we would have shot the first fire mission within two minutes of leaving the aircraft," said 1st Lt. Robert Sincero, the A Battery executive officer in the statement.
> 
> Over at the Navy, military planners and private consultants are working on a concept called "distributed lethality," to give even the smallest US Navy ships potent missiles. Again this idea disperses the targets for the enemy, while adding bite to the Navy's fleet.
> 
> Another aircraft that fits the bill for the South China Sea's vast, undeveloped battle space is the Marine Corps' F-35B, which can land vertically, take off over a short distance, and reload with the engines running to reduce turnaround time.
> 
> These qualities enable the F-35B to use improvised bases and strike the enemy from unpredictable locations. By fall, the F-35Bs will see their first-ever carrier deployment in the Pacific.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-tactics-to-dominate-south-china-sea-2017-6
> 
> The HIMARS has the capability to fire the ATACMS ballistic missile, which is now being upgraded to strike ships at sea. The US military's ability to distribute it's forces, at high speed, then redeploy within minutes will make life difficult for its adversaries.


And in other recent news....

*China's Mach 6 Monster Air-to-Air Missile Could Make the U.S. Air Force Come in for a ‘Crash Landing’*

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...r-air-air-missile-could-make-the-us-air-18536

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

HaHaHaHaHaHa, who knows?




*Trump Is a Chinese Agent*

The big story everyone is chasing is whether President Trump is a Russian stooge. Wrong. That’s all a smoke screen. Trump is actually a Chinese agent. He is clearly out to make China great again. Just look at the facts.

Trump took office promising to fix our trade imbalance with China, and what’s the first thing he did? He threw away a U.S.-designed free-trade deal with 11 other Pacific nations — a pact whose members make up 40 percent of global G.D.P.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership was based largely on U.S. economic interests, benefiting our fastest-growing technologies and agribusinesses, and had more labor, environmental and human rights standards than any trade agreement ever. _And it excluded China. It was our baby, shaping the future of trade in Asia._

Imagine if Trump were negotiating with China now as not only the U.S. president but also as head of a 12-nation trading bloc based on our values and interests. That’s called l-e-v-e-r-a-g-e, and Trump just threw it away … because he promised to in the campaign — without, I’d bet, ever reading TPP. What a chump! I can still hear the clinking of champagne glasses in Beijing.

Now more Asian nations are falling in line with China’s regional trading association — the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership — which has no serious environmental, intellectual property, human trafficking or labor standards like TPP. A Peterson Institute study said TPP would “increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion” by 2030, without changing total U.S. employment levels. Goodbye to that.


But Trump took his Make China Great campaign to a new level on Tuesday by rejecting the science on climate change and tossing out all Obama-era plans to shrink our dependence on coal-fired power. Trump also wants to weaken existing mileage requirements for U.S.-made vehicles. Stupid.

O.K., Mr. President, let’s assume for a second that climate change is a hoax. Do you believe in math? There are now 7.5 billion people on the planet, and there will be 8.5 billion by 2030, according to the United Nations population bureau — and most will want to drive like us, eat protein like us and live in houses like us. And if they do, we’ll eat up, burn up, smoke up and choke up the planet — and devour our fisheries, coral reefs, rivers and forests — at a pace we’ve never seen before. Major cities in India and China already can’t breathe; wait for when there are another billion people.

That means that clean power, clean water, clean air, clean transportation and energy-efficient buildings will have to be the next great global industry, whether or not there is climate change. The demand will be huge.

So what is China doing? Its new five-year plan is a rush to electric cars, batteries, nuclear, wind, solar and energy efficiency — and a cap-and-trade system for carbon. Trump’s plan? More coal and oil. Hello? How can America be great if we don’t dominate the next great global industry — clean power?

The U.S. state leading in clean energy innovations is California, which also has the highest vehicle emissions standards and the strictest building efficiency codes. Result: California alone has far more advanced energy jobs than there are coal miners in America, and the pay is better and the work is healthier. In January 2016, CNNMoney reported that nationally the U.S. “solar industry work force is bigger than that of oil and gas construction, and nearly three times the size of the entire coal mining work force.”

“More than half the electric vehicles sold in the U.S. are sold in California,” said Hal Harvey, C.E.O. of Energy Innovation. “If there are two jurisdictions hellbent on transformation, it is China and California. There have been 200 million E.V.s sold in China already. They’re called electric bicycles, which cost about $400 — quiet, not contributing to congestion or pollution, and affordable.”

China is loving this: It’s doubling down on clean energy — because it has to and it wants to leapfrog us on technology — and we’re doubling down on coal, squandering our lead in technology.

It was bitterly ironic that on the same day that President Trump took America on a great leap backward to coal, The Wall Street Journal reported that “Tencent Holdings Ltd. bought a 5% stake in Tesla Inc., giving the backing of China’s most valuable company to the Silicon Valley electric-vehicle maker as it prepares to launch its first car aimed at the mass market. … Having a powerful friend in China could help Tesla as it eyes further global expansion. Big Chinese tech companies have backed a wave of green-car start-ups in the country recently.”

If you liked buying your oil from Saudi Arabia, you’ll love buying your electric cars, solar panels, efficiency software and batteries from China.

Finally, Trump wants to slash the State Department and foreign aid budgets and make it harder for people to immigrate to America, particularly Muslims. This opens the way for China to expand its influence across the developing world and signals the smartest math and science students in the world to start their start-ups overseas and not in America.

NBC News reported last week that applications from foreign students, notably from China, India and the Middle East, “are down this year at nearly 40 percent of schools that answered a recent survey by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.”

So you tell me that Trump is not a Chinese agent. The only other explanation is that he’s ignorant and unread — that he’s never studied the issues or connected the dots between them — so Big Coal and Big Oil easily manipulated him into being their chump, who just tweeted out their talking points to win votes here and there — without any thought to grand strategy. Surely that couldn’t be true?

_Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. _

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/trump-is-a-chinese-agent.html?_r=0

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## noksss

Good the pressure on Russia will reduce a bit


----------



## Realtalk108

"China is manipulating its currency to make their exports cheaper! I will put a flat 40% tariff on them!"

"He will use Taiwan as a leverage against China."

"A new sheriff's in the town."

Get's a few trademarks granted and folds.


----------



## AndrewJin

noksss said:


> Good the pressure on Russia will reduce a bit


don' see any trend, US-Russia relations is at their record low.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

AndrewJin said:


> HaHaHaHaHaHa, who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump Is a Chinese Agent*
> 
> The big story everyone is chasing is whether President Trump is a Russian stooge. Wrong. That’s all a smoke screen. Trump is actually a Chinese agent. He is clearly out to make China great again. Just look at the facts.
> 
> Trump took office promising to fix our trade imbalance with China, and what’s the first thing he did? He threw away a U.S.-designed free-trade deal with 11 other Pacific nations — a pact whose members make up 40 percent of global G.D.P.
> 
> The Trans-Pacific Partnership was based largely on U.S. economic interests, benefiting our fastest-growing technologies and agribusinesses, and had more labor, environmental and human rights standards than any trade agreement ever. _And it excluded China. It was our baby, shaping the future of trade in Asia._
> 
> Imagine if Trump were negotiating with China now as not only the U.S. president but also as head of a 12-nation trading bloc based on our values and interests. That’s called l-e-v-e-r-a-g-e, and Trump just threw it away … because he promised to in the campaign — without, I’d bet, ever reading TPP. What a chump! I can still hear the clinking of champagne glasses in Beijing.
> 
> Now more Asian nations are falling in line with China’s regional trading association — the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership — which has no serious environmental, intellectual property, human trafficking or labor standards like TPP. A Peterson Institute study said TPP would “increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion” by 2030, without changing total U.S. employment levels. Goodbye to that.
> 
> 
> But Trump took his Make China Great campaign to a new level on Tuesday by rejecting the science on climate change and tossing out all Obama-era plans to shrink our dependence on coal-fired power. Trump also wants to weaken existing mileage requirements for U.S.-made vehicles. Stupid.
> 
> O.K., Mr. President, let’s assume for a second that climate change is a hoax. Do you believe in math? There are now 7.5 billion people on the planet, and there will be 8.5 billion by 2030, according to the United Nations population bureau — and most will want to drive like us, eat protein like us and live in houses like us. And if they do, we’ll eat up, burn up, smoke up and choke up the planet — and devour our fisheries, coral reefs, rivers and forests — at a pace we’ve never seen before. Major cities in India and China already can’t breathe; wait for when there are another billion people.
> 
> That means that clean power, clean water, clean air, clean transportation and energy-efficient buildings will have to be the next great global industry, whether or not there is climate change. The demand will be huge.
> 
> So what is China doing? Its new five-year plan is a rush to electric cars, batteries, nuclear, wind, solar and energy efficiency — and a cap-and-trade system for carbon. Trump’s plan? More coal and oil. Hello? How can America be great if we don’t dominate the next great global industry — clean power?
> 
> The U.S. state leading in clean energy innovations is California, which also has the highest vehicle emissions standards and the strictest building efficiency codes. Result: California alone has far more advanced energy jobs than there are coal miners in America, and the pay is better and the work is healthier. In January 2016, CNNMoney reported that nationally the U.S. “solar industry work force is bigger than that of oil and gas construction, and nearly three times the size of the entire coal mining work force.”
> 
> “More than half the electric vehicles sold in the U.S. are sold in California,” said Hal Harvey, C.E.O. of Energy Innovation. “If there are two jurisdictions hellbent on transformation, it is China and California. There have been 200 million E.V.s sold in China already. They’re called electric bicycles, which cost about $400 — quiet, not contributing to congestion or pollution, and affordable.”
> 
> China is loving this: It’s doubling down on clean energy — because it has to and it wants to leapfrog us on technology — and we’re doubling down on coal, squandering our lead in technology.
> 
> It was bitterly ironic that on the same day that President Trump took America on a great leap backward to coal, The Wall Street Journal reported that “Tencent Holdings Ltd. bought a 5% stake in Tesla Inc., giving the backing of China’s most valuable company to the Silicon Valley electric-vehicle maker as it prepares to launch its first car aimed at the mass market. … Having a powerful friend in China could help Tesla as it eyes further global expansion. Big Chinese tech companies have backed a wave of green-car start-ups in the country recently.”
> 
> If you liked buying your oil from Saudi Arabia, you’ll love buying your electric cars, solar panels, efficiency software and batteries from China.
> 
> Finally, Trump wants to slash the State Department and foreign aid budgets and make it harder for people to immigrate to America, particularly Muslims. This opens the way for China to expand its influence across the developing world and signals the smartest math and science students in the world to start their start-ups overseas and not in America.
> 
> NBC News reported last week that applications from foreign students, notably from China, India and the Middle East, “are down this year at nearly 40 percent of schools that answered a recent survey by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.”
> 
> So you tell me that Trump is not a Chinese agent. The only other explanation is that he’s ignorant and unread — that he’s never studied the issues or connected the dots between them — so Big Coal and Big Oil easily manipulated him into being their chump, who just tweeted out their talking points to win votes here and there — without any thought to grand strategy. Surely that couldn’t be true?
> 
> _Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. _
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/trump-is-a-chinese-agent.html?_r=0



Liberal neo-fascists are fuming, LOL. China actually no longer needed Trump's four year term; even a Hillary presidency would mean little in terms of deterring China's from its strategic objectives.

But Trump presidency makes it easier. The most vital eight years for China was during the post-9/11 until Obama administration. China got capacity to strike back at the US. Hence, Obama's Pivot did very little damage, in fact, new militarist wave under the US allowed China to more comfortably develop rocks into full-fledged islands.

US is talking a lot with little meaningful action. At least Trump is doing something for his clan. In the end, what matters in US politics is self-enrichment. 

China does not have to make US great again. Just make Trump great again, and that would suffice.


----------



## AndrewJin

TaiShang said:


> Liberal neo-fascists are fuming, LOL. China actually no longer needed Trump's four year term; even a Hillary presidency would mean little in terms of deterring China's from its strategic objectives.
> 
> But Trump presidency makes it easier. The most vital eight years for China was during the post-9/11 until Obama administration. China got capacity to strike back at the US. Hence, Obama's Pivot did very little damage, in fact, new militarist wave under the US allowed China to more comfortably develop rocks into full-fledged islands.
> 
> US is becoming like India; talking a lot with little meaningful action. At least Trump is doing something for his clan. In the end, what matters in US politics is self-enrichment.
> 
> China does not have to make US great again. Just make Trump great again, and that would suffice.


Yes.
Politics is chaotic in Trumpish kingdom now.
Another great years for China to build up economic and military capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

WATCH LIVEhttps://web.facebook.com/cgtnamerica/videos/1348736641888271/: A high-level delegation of Chinese leaders who are responsible for the continued development of the Belt and Road Initiative and discussions with the Trump Administration on the 100-Day Plan for U.S.-China economic relations is currently visiting the United States. The Asia Society is hosting a panel discussion on the Belt and Road Initiative and 100-Day Plan with keynote speakers including Asia Society Policy Institute President and former Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Kevin Rudd and Vice Chairman of the Twelfth National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and former Chief Executive of Hong Kong C. H. 





__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

onebyone said:


> WATCH LIVEhttps://web.facebook.com/cgtnamerica/videos/1348736641888271/: A high-level delegation of Chinese leaders who are responsible for the continued development of the Belt and Road Initiative and discussions with the Trump Administration on the 100-Day Plan for U.S.-China economic relations is currently visiting the United States. The Asia Society is hosting a panel discussion on the Belt and Road Initiative and 100-Day Plan with keynote speakers including Asia Society Policy Institute President and former Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Kevin Rudd and Vice Chairman of the Twelfth National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and former Chief Executive of Hong Kong C. H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/


haha, will low-educated low-skill ill-health middle-aged white Mericans have some jobs later?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

onebyone said:


> WATCH LIVEhttps://web.facebook.com/cgtnamerica/videos/1348736641888271/: A high-level delegation of Chinese leaders who are responsible for the continued development of the Belt and Road Initiative and discussions with the Trump Administration on the 100-Day Plan for U.S.-China economic relations is currently visiting the United States. The Asia Society is hosting a panel discussion on the Belt and Road Initiative and 100-Day Plan with keynote speakers including Asia Society Policy Institute President and former Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Kevin Rudd and Vice Chairman of the Twelfth National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and former Chief Executive of Hong Kong C. H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/





AndrewJin said:


> haha, will low-educated low-skill ill-health middle-aged white Mericans have some jobs later?



Trump does want money; but I am not sure he wants it for his clan or the country. In any case, dealing with a smaller Trump clan is easier than dealing with a chaotic US government. At least Trump gets things done like how he killed the TPP, backtracked on SCS islands and Taiwan etc. 

China wants to make him look good in his own political turf.


----------



## TaiShang

*Chaos in Washington not good news for China*
By Yang Chuchu Source:Global Times Published: 2017/6/14


The most powerful country in the world is mired in unprecedented domestic chaos and scandals. Since the start of Donald Trump's presidency, he has faced multiple accusations of collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice. To many Chinese, the chaos does not fit the image the US projected in the past. 

The current mess started right after Trump's surprising presidential election victory. At the beginning, the news, such as the sudden dismissal of FBI director James Comey, attracted Chinese netizens' attention. However, as scandals broke one after another, they seem to be taking it as the new normal situation of American domestic politics. 

Some hold the view that as the US is struggling to cope with domestic chaos and promote "America First," the country's dominance on international affairs will be consequently reduced, which may be good news for other countries.

However, the US, as it now prioritizes domestic interests and leans toward isolationism, will exert negative impacts on the international community. Stock markets throughout the world have experienced a downward trend recently, a direct response to the woes in Washington.

At a deeper level, the "America First"-focused Trump has made many controversial decisions, such as the travel ban to seven Muslim-majority countries and the US' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. All these will leave far-reaching influences on the world. The world's largest economy quitting the climate agreement will no doubt have negative effects on other countries, especially on its allies, damaging the influence and appeal of the agreement. In addition, as the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, the US' exit will undoubtedly cast a shadow on the future of global environmental governance.

The current confusion in Washington also makes it hard for Trump to concentrate on diplomatic issues. This leaves some major negotiations in suspense. For example, the North Korean nuclear crisis is facing an uncertain future because of the US' indispensable role in solving this longstanding issue. Plus, the Pentagon's deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system in South Korea is another key factor overshadowing the China-South Korea-US trilateral relationship. Nevertheless, the disorder in Washington makes the US ill-prepared to deal with these problems.

And the confusion forebodes uncertainty in US diplomatic policies in the future. During his campaign, Trump accused China of stealing jobs from the US and infringing on intellectual property rights, among other allegations. Facing a more unpredictable US, China needs to be more cautious in handling its trade issues with the US.

In the long-term, the current chaos in US politics will bring more uncertainties to the world. For China, the US will be a harder nut to crack.

***
_
Well, I do not agree with the author, who appears to be a unicorn snowflake pacifist. Chaos means opportunity as well as risk. _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

While the United States engages in an ideological civil war about the role of the government in the economy, China has continued to advance its economy under a stable regime, albeit authoritarian. Many analysts have noted that China has an opportunity to become a world leader on several fronts—economy, international relations, environment—while America’s legislative juggernaut grinds to a halt, and the differences in legislation passed in the U.S. and China after President Trump took office could not throw this into starker relief.

America, polarized and paralyzed

On the economic front, the U.S. is divided into Trump supporters, who advocate for privatization of markets and public goods, including national monuments, Medicare, air traffic control, and infrastructure. Trump supporters also back policies that focus on reducing trade and reshoring jobs. On the other hand are Trump opponents, who push for accessible health care, free trade, environmental protection, “green” sector job creation. Donald Trump has acted as a lightning rod for this polarizing controversy, which has resulted in legislative gridlock and national discontent.

How much economic legislation, after all, has been passed under President Trump? Nothing truly consequential. Trump did issue executive orders that impact the economy, including an order to enforce countervailing duties, which were implemented on Chinese steel imports last year, one potentially permitting offshore drilling, and an order for the U.S. government to buy and hire more American products and workers. None of these is considered major, which would require approval of the Legislature.


China, full-speed ahead

By contrast, since Trump's inauguration date on January 20 of this year, China’s various government departments have passed hundreds of minor measures and several major economic measures , including measures setting up a large fund to promote high valued added service exports, regulating dangerous asset management products, altering the exchange rate valuation, furthering overcapacity policies, and reforming state owned enterprises, among others. These are major, economy-shaping changes that reflect China’s desire to restructure its economy while reining in risks. Furthermore, China’s One Belt One Road policy, which aims to build up infrastructure across Europe, Asia and Africa will have a major economic impact on both China and the world, with the U.S. playing a supporting, rather than a leading, role.

Ongoing differences, dangerous new similarity

To some extent, the difference between China and the U.S. is due to a contrast in regime type. China, with an authoritarian government, can carry out policies from the top down without having to enter into a long debate or even a conversation, while the U.S. must pass most major policies by obtaining the cooperation of Congress and the President, which can take months or years.
However, in less savory ways, China and the U.S. under President Trump are becoming more alike. China has passed legislation that infringes on human rights—for example, banning certain Muslim names for Uighur babies and banning Muslim beards and body coverings. This type of policy would normally have little place in the United States, except of late, as Trump attempted twice to implement a Muslim ban.

Implications for the U.S. and China

This means that the U.S. is at a level of ethics that it has called China out on previously, but at a rate of legislation that is far overshadowed by that of China. Put simply, America is losing its economic and moral superiority to China, with no end in sight. Many Americans would like to see the President support policies and regimes that are more human-rights friendly. This just underlines the fact that the current civil war in the U.S. is one of ideas, one that drills down to the level of basic values and world views.

China is poised to move its economy forward faster in the short to medium run than America, a nation caught in political paralysis. While China may not become surpass the U.S. as an economic power, it is coming closer than ever.

Follow me on Twitter, at @SaraHsuChina.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahs...ivil-war-china-advances-economy/#5dedc25667c3


----------



## onebyone

*China Says Trump Open to Cooperating on Silk Road Projects*
Bloomberg News
June 23, 2017, 12:11 PM GMT+10 June 23, 2017, 5:05 PM GMT+10

President Donald Trump told China’s State Councilor Yang Jiechi in a meeting that the U.S. is willing to cooperate with Beijing on projects related to its Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, according to a statement from China’s foreign ministry.

Since his April meeting with Xi in Florida, Trump has toned down the anti-China rhetoric he campaigned on, and sent Matt Pottinger, National Security Council senior director for East Asia, as the U.S. representativeat China’s first Belt and Road Forum in May. Engagement with President Xi Jinping’s signature project to build new trade and investment links between Asia, Europe and Africa would mark a contrast to the Obama administration, which turned down the opportunity to be a founding member of the related Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Yang told Trump in a White House meeting Thursday that China highly appreciated the U.S. attendance at the gathering and would be willing to work with the U.S. on the initiative, the ministry said in the statement. The president responded that he would also be open to working together on related projects, according to the statement.


The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Trump told Yang that he’s happy with the positive progress made in relations since meeting Xi and is looking forward to meeting him again in the Group of 20 nations summit next month in Hamburg, Germany, and visiting China within the year, according to the statement.

*China Visit*
As signs that a visit by the U.S. President were not on the cards multiplied, China had invited Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, both of whom have official jobs in the White House, to visit later this year, Bloomberg reported this week, citing people familiar with the matter.

Support from the White House for Belt and Road would be "a boon for China-U.S. relations," said He Weiwen, deputy director of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, and a former business attache in the Chinese consulates of New York and San Francisco. "The Belt and Road projects are so big that Chinese companies can’t do them alone. They need to find partners elsewhere, including the U.S."

U.S. companies have already been deeply involved in the projects along the path, and business leaders in both sides have been calling for cooperation in third countries, he said.

*Full Cooperation*
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center for International Economic Exchanges, a Beijing-based think tank staffed by a number of retired senior government officials, said in a joint statement Wednesday that the two nations can engage in full cooperation under the Belt and Road initiative and through a number of other means including the AIIB, World Bank, and other multilateral investment and financing institutions.

Trump isn’t the only U.S. leader who’s expressed openness to Belt and Road. California Governor Jerry Brown told Xi in a meeting in Beijing this month the most populous state is willing to join the initiative and expand cooperation on green technology, innovation and trade, according to a statement from the governor’s office and a report from the official Xinhua News Agency.

Yang and Trump also discussed North Korea, with the president saying the U.S. looks forward to better cooperation with China on addressing nuclear issues and working toward the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the ministry said. Yang reiterated that China is willing to keep working with parties including the U.S. to ease tensions in the region.

Yang and other top officials were in Washington this week to take part in the new U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, a forum aimed at addressing key disputes between the world’s two largest economies, as well as security issues where they can work together.

— With assistance by Miao Han
*https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-willing-to-work-on-belt-and-road-initiative*


----------



## Redpills

Donald Trump considering China sanctions over North Korea, say officials

Inaction over Pyongyang and trade war thought to have prompted the US president to look at options including tariffs on steel imports
Reuters
Wednesday 28 June 2017 04.03 BST
US president Donald Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with China over its
inaction on North Korea and bilateral trade issues and is now considering possible trade actions against Beijing, three senior administration officials told Reuters.
The officials said Trump was impatient with
China and was looking at options including tariffs on steel imports, which commerce secretary Wilbur Ross has already said he is considering as part of a national security study of the domestic steel industry.
Whether Trump would actually take any steps against China remains unclear. In April, he backed off from a threat to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) after he said Canadian and Mexican leaders asked him to halt a planned executive order in favour of opening discussions.
The officials said there was no consensus yet on the way forward with China and they did not say what other options were being studied. No decision was expected this week, a senior official said.
Chinese steel is already subject to dozens of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy orders. As a result it has only a small share of the US market.
“What’s guiding this is he ran to protect American industry and American workers,” one of the US officials said, referring to Trump’s 2016 election promise to take a hard line on trade with China.
On North Korea, Trump “feels like he gave China a chance to make a difference” but has not seen enough results, the official said.
The US has pressed China to exert more economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea to help rein in its nuclear and missile programs. Beijing has repeatedly said its influence on North Korea is limited and that it is doing all it can.
“They did a little, not a lot,” the official said. “And if he’s not going to get what he needs on that, he needs to move ahead on his broader agenda on trade and on North Korea.”
The death of American university student Otto Warmbier last week, after his release from 17 months of imprisonment in Pyongyang, has further complicated Trump’s approach to North Korea, his top national security challenge.
Trump signalled his disappointment with China’s efforts in a tweet a week ago: “While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!”
Trump had made a grand gesture of his desire for warm ties with China’s president, Xi Jinping, when he played host to Xi in April at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, Florida. “I think China will be stepping up,” Trump said at the time.
Since then, however, North Korea’s tests of long-range missiles have continued unabated and there have been reports Pyongyang is preparing for another underground nuclear test.
Trump dropped by last Thursday when White House national security adviser HR McMaster and Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner were meeting Chinese state councillor Yang Jiechi, an official said. China’s inability to make headway on North Korea was one of the topics that was discussed, according to two people familiar with the meeting.
Officials in Beijing did not respond to a request for comment on the meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ons-over-north-korea-say-officials?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Khanate

*U.S. announces sanctions on Chinese bank, arms-sales package for Taiwan*
*By David Nakamura and Greg Jaffe | June 29, 2017
*







The Trump administration on Thursday announced new sanctions on a Chinese bank accused of laundering money for North Korean companies and approved a $1.4 billion arms sales package for Taiwan, a pair of measures that could ruffle feathers in Beijing.

Officials said the actions were unrelated and emphasized that the administration was not targeting China. But the moves are likely to raise concerns among Chinese leaders who had sought to get off to a good start with President Trump.

Trump has shown signs of losing patience with China after personally lobbying President Xi Jinping to put more pressure on North Korea to halt its nuclear and ballistic-missile weapons programs. Trump wrote on Twitter last week that China’s efforts have “not worked out,” a declaration that came after the death of American college student Otto Warmbier a few days after returning to the United States following 17 months of detention in North Korea.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/877234140483121152
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the administration was moving to cut off the Bank of Dandong from U.S. financial markets in an effort to block millions of dollars of transactions that funnel money into North Korea for use in its weapons programs.

Under the sanctions, U.S. citizens also will be generally prohibited from doing business with Sun Wei and Ri Song Hyok, who are accused of establishing and running front companies on behalf of North Korea, and Dalian Global Unity Shipping Co., which is accused of transporting 700,000 tons of freight annually, including coal and steel products, between China and North Korea.

The administration announced the sanctions just hours before South Korea’s new president, Moon Jae-in, arrived at the White House for a two-day summit with Trump. Moon campaigned on a platform of greater engagement with Pyongyang, and he has questioned the need for the U.S.-backed THAAD missile defense system that is being installed on the peninsula, which Beijing and Pyongyang have opposed.

Mnuchin said that the United States is “in no way targeting China with these actions” and that U.S. officials “look forward to continuing to work closely with the government of China to stop the illicit financing in North Korea.”

He added that this “very significant action” sends the message that the United States will follow the money trail leading to North Korea and continue to crack down on those assisting the country.

“North Korea’s provocative, destabilizing and inhumane behavior will not be tolerated,” Mnuchin said. “We are committed to targeting North Korea’s external enablers and maximizing economic pressure on the regime until it ceases its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs.”

In a separate announcement, administration officials said they had approved an arms package for Taiwan that includes advanced rocket and anti-ship missile systems.

The package is slightly larger than one that was put on hold at the end of the Obama administration, the officials said, but includes largely the same weapons capabilities.

The sale is considered relatively modest compared with past arms packages. Still, China views the self-ruled island as part of the country and is likely to oppose any such arms transfers.

As president-elect, Trump broke with protocol and accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in December, angering Xi.

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, said Thursday that China had significant economic leverage over North Korea and suggested that it could put more pressure on Pyongyang.

The Trump administration had long signaled that it wanted to move forward with an arms sale to Taiwan but held off because officials worried the sale would make it harder to secure China’s cooperation on North Korea.

“It shows, we believe, our support for Taiwan’s ability to maintain a sufficient self-defense policy,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday of the arms deal. “There’s no change, I should point out, to our one-China policy.”

Trump is scheduled to meet with China’s Xi on the sidelines of an economic summit in Hamburg next week, White House officials said.


*Source: Washington Post / New York Times*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yaseen1

china should increase price of its goods to u.s in reaction


----------



## Khanate

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/880573751720636417
Also,

*Russia Today: US to sell Taiwan $1.4bn in arms, China says deal runs counter to Trump-Xi meeting*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kris

Muhammad bin Hamid said:


> china should increase price of its goods to u.s in reaction


as if USA does care


----------



## Han Patriot

This guy is a good salesman. He creates issues and then sell weapons, Americas most competitive product. 

1) Did it in Arabia
2) Did it to Modi
3) Doing it to Taiwan

Although the impact is small, you have to respect his guts and made $ in the process.


----------



## shjliu

jetray said:


> Dandong goes dingdong and taiwan gets more weapons to safe guard its independence. Trump will sell weapons to whoever pays the moolah, brace for more weapon sales.


so in your opinion, US can sale advance weapons to Pakistan as well? which might endanger to India.


----------



## initial_d_mk2

shjliu said:


> so in your opinion, US can sale advance weapons to Pakistan as well? which might endanger to India.


The U.S already sold weapons to Pakistan long before they sold weapons to india


----------



## Muhammed45

*US sanctions Chinese bank, plans to sell $1.4bn worth of arms to Taiwan*
Published time: 30 Jun, 2017 00:03Edited time: 30 Jun, 2017 08:21
Get short URL




© Tyrone Siu / Reuters
pic.twitter.com/5IVfLdYFiI

— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) June 29, 2017
_"The administration had formally notified Congress of seven proposed defense sales for Taiwan. It's now valued about $1.42 billion,"_ US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday, adding that there was no change to America’s long-standing _"one-China"_ policy.

Read more


Taiwan repels mock attack by China in war games (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
The weapons are to support the autonomous island’s self-defense capability, said the State Department.

The sale, when first announced in March, had already provoked criticism from Beijing that said the weapons won’t prevent the self-ruled island’s re-unification with China.

_"Separatist Taiwan independence forces and their activities are the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait,"_ Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said in March. _"It is futile to use weapons to refuse unification, and is doomed to have no way out."_

Taiwan has been self-ruled since the end of China’s civil war in 1950, but Beijing has maintained its sovereignty over the island.

The weapons sale requires congressional approval, and comes two years after President Barack Obama announced a $1.83 billion arms sale to Taiwan, provoking an angry reaction from China.

The previous package included two Navy frigates as well as anti-tank missiles and amphibious attack vehicles.

The US has pursued the so-called one-China policy since 1979 which meant that Washington agreed not to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Yet, the US has offered military support to the autonomous island despite Beijing’s objections.

Read more


Beijing slams US for ‘irresponsible remarks’ on S. China Sea
Earlier on Thursday, China protested to Washington after a US Senate committee approved a bill calling for the resumption of port visits to Taiwan by the US Navy for the first time since 1979.

In December, breaking the diplomatic embargo between Washington and Taipei, President Donald Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan's leader, Tsai Ing-wen.

It was the first contact between a leader of Taiwan and an incumbent or incoming US president in almost four decades, and caused a diplomatic uproar.

However, Trump agreed to honor the _"one China"_ policy, and hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping at his Florida resort in April.

The Trump administration has since demanded that Beijing put more pressure on North Korea to rein in its nuclear and missile programs.

Also on Thursday, Washington announced sanctions against a Chinese bank for allegedly laundering money for Pyongyang, and against two Chinese citizens as well as a shipping company for allegedly helping North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.


----------



## hassamun

*US clears arms deal for Taiwan worth up to $1.3B*

WASHINGTON — The State Department on Thursday cleared a massive arms deal for Taiwan, worth up to $1.3 billion. 

The move comes as at a time when the Trump administration continues to rely on China to pressure North Korea into dismantling its nuclear weapons program. 

The potential package includes seven different items sought by the Taiwanese government: 


Early Warning Radar Surveillance Technical Support ($400 million)
AGM-154C Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW) ($185.5 million)
AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation (HARM) Missiles ($147.5 million)
MK 48 6AT Heavy Weight Torpedoes ($250 million)
MK 46 to MK-54 Torpedo Upgrade ($175 million)
SM-2 Missile Components ($125 million)
AN/SLQ-32A Electronic Warfare (EW) Shipboard Suite Upgrade ($80 million)
As with all foreign military sales, the agreement must be cleared by Congress and then go through actual negotiations over the equipment and dollar figures. As a result, the sale will likely shift and end up below the $1.3 billion estimate. 

A U.S government official, speaking on background ahead of the announcement, said the weapons offer does not reflect any change in the long-standing “One China” policy. China does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. 

“Taiwan’s defensive capability gives it the confidence to engage with the mainland in dialogue to improve cross-Strait relations,” the official said. “In this context, our arms sales to Taiwan support peace and stability — not only in the Taiwan Strait, but also in the entire Asia Pacific region. We support further development of cross-Strait relations at a pace and scope acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.” 

The approval comes at a time when the White House is vocally putting pressure on China to control North Korea. 

Speaking Wednesday at a conference organized by the Center for a New American Security, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said China represents a vital lever to pressure North Korea to step back from nuclear weapons. 

“I think one the key elements of the strategy is that decision, how much China is able, really willing, able to help,” McMaster said. “China does have a great deal of control over that situation, largely through coercive power related to its economic relations.” 

“The North Korean problem is not a problem between the United States and North Korea. It’s a problem between North Korea, China and the world. And China recognizes that this is a big problem for them,” McMaster added. 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-clears-massive-arms-deal-for-taiwan


----------



## rott

Meanwhile China builds railways in African countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Johny D

WASHINGTON: An American warship on Sunday sailed close to a disputed island in the South China Sea occupied by Beijing, as part of an operation to demonstrate freedom of navigation in the waters, a US official said.

The destroyer USS Stethem passed less than 12 nautical miles (22 kilometers) from tiny Triton Island in the Paracel Islands archipelago, which is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam, the official told AFP.

The operation, which is likely to provoke Beijing, is the second of its kind carried out by the United States since President Donald Trump took office.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...nges-beijings-claims/articleshow/59412753.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

antiterror said:


> The military operation is the second since Mr Trump took office. In May, the uss dewey sailed less than 12 nautical miles from an artificial island built by China called Mischief Reef, which is part of the Spratly Islands.- CNN.
> 
> The amerericans sailing into chinese water and daring them to do something.



Why dont US just attack the chinese base on the island?


----------



## NKVD

A U.S. warship sailed near a disputed island in the South China Sea claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam on Sunday in an operation meant to challenge the competing claims of all three nations, a U.S. Defense Department official said.

The USS Stethem, a guided-missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, the official said.

The operation was first reported by Fox News on Sunday.

*It was the second "freedom-of-navigation operation," or "fonop," conducted during the presidency of Donald Trump, following a drill in late May in which a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea.*

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement the U.S. ship had made an unauthorized entry into China's territorial waters.

*The operation was a "serious political and military provocation," said the statement, issued late on Sunday, citing ministry spokesman Lu Kang. It said China had sent battle ships and fighter jets to warn off the Stethem.*

left
right
2/2







*"China strongly urges the U.S. side to immediately stop this kind of provocative action which seriously violates China's sovereignty and puts at risk China's security," Lu said. China would take all necessary measures to defend itself, he said.*

China's Defence Ministry said in a social media post on Monday the U.S. action had seriously damaged peace and stability in the South China Sea and reiterated its resolute opposition to the warship's entry.

"The U.S. conduct seriously damages strategic trust between the two sides and seriously damages the political atmosphere of the development of China-U.S. military relations," the ministry said, without elaborating.



'POLITICAL GAMES'

Chinese state-run tabloid the Global Times said in an editorial on Monday the United States was playing political games in the South China Sea and such patrols would not stop Chinese construction work there.

"U.S. provocations cannot change the present situation in the South China Sea," it said.

Twelve nautical miles marks the territorial limits recognized internationally. Sailing within those 12 miles is meant to show that the United States does not recognize territorial claims there.
"Unlike in the Spratlys, where China has created new artificial territory in the last several years, it has effectively controlled the Paracels since 1974," said Mira Rapp-Hooper, a South China Sea expert at the Center for a New American Security. "It claims illegal straight baselines around the Paracels, and the fonop may have been contesting these."

The Paracels are also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam. China fully occupied the Paracels in 1974 after forcing the navy of the-then South Vietnam off its holdings.

Trump has heaped praise on Chinese President Xi Jinping, but his administration has also stepped up pressure on Beijing as he has become frustrated that China has not done more to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs.

*On Thursday, the administration imposed sanctions on two Chinese citizens and a shipping company for helping North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, and accused a Chinese bank of laundering money for Pyongyang.*

*The Trump administration has also approved an arms package for Taiwan worth about $1.4 billion, the State Department said last week. China deems Taiwan its own and has never renounced the use of force to bring the self-ruled island under its control.

Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Sunday, ahead of meetings he will hold with both leaders on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, next Friday and Saturday.*



(Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and David Brunnstrom; Additional reporting by Tony Munroe, Christian Shepherd and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING, and Adam Jourdan in SHANGHAI; Editing by Leslie Adler, Peter Cooney and Paul Tait)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-southchinasea-navy-idUSKBN19N0O0

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Globenim

You can be proud of American saber rattling over here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-w...aims-again-sails-near-south-china-sea.504463/


----------



## terranMarine

Time for DPRK to launch more missile tests

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

What was the purpose of US sending an armada near DPRK some time ago? Ohh just to show off but too chicken to attack

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

antonius123 said:


> Why dont US just attack the chinese base on the island?


I'm bored. I wish US would just launch an attack on China. It's a good test to see if the Chinese are just bluffing with their new weapons or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

Jlaw said:


> I'm bored. I wish US would just launch an attack on China. It's a good test to see if the Chinese are just bluffing with their new weapons or not.


After Korean War i'm sure they already figured it out that we ain't bluffing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Penguin

It is not illegal (not even for a warship) to pass through the 12 nmi zone.

The Chinese navy passed with less than 12 nmi from the US Alaskan coast: not an issue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-nautical-miles-Alaska-coast-Obama-visit.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chines...sed-through-u-s-territorial-waters-1441350488

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Penguin said:


> It is not illegal (not even for a warship) to pass through the 12 nmi zone.
> 
> The Chinese navy passed with less than 12 nmi from the US Alaskan coast: not an issue.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-nautical-miles-Alaska-coast-Obama-visit.html
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/chines...sed-through-u-s-territorial-waters-1441350488



how about Guam?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> how about Guam?


Well, how about it? Do you have a point?

Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) — The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer _Shenzhen_ (DDG-167) enters Apra Harbor, Guam.






Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) -- The guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) leads the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer Shenzhen (DDG 167) into Apra Harbor, Guam.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Jlaw said:


> I'm bored. I wish US would just launch an attack on China. It's a good test to see if the Chinese are just bluffing with their new weapons or not.


How about China just take a shot at US just to see if the PLA know how to use those new weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shadows888

gambit said:


> How about China just take a shot at US just to see if the PLA know how to use those new weapons.



whats the point, those islands gonna still be there from now to next century. don't matter how many FON there goes lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Penguin said:


> Well, how about it? Do you have a point?
> 
> Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) — The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer _Shenzhen_ (DDG-167) enters Apra Harbor, Guam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) -- The guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) leads the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer Shenzhen (DDG 167) into Apra Harbor, Guam.



Can we get within 12k without telling US too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

Penguin said:


> Well, how about it? Do you have a point?
> 
> Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) — The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer _Shenzhen_ (DDG-167) enters Apra Harbor, Guam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Santa Rita, Guam (Oct. 22, 2003) -- The guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) leads the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer Shenzhen (DDG 167) into Apra Harbor, Guam.



Why don't you sail your great navy to the great Mongolia? Great Mongolian navy invite yours!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shahbaz baig

*'Chinese submarine's presence in Indian Ocean not linked to Sikkim stand-off'*

*China deploys a submarine in Indian Ocean as tensions over borders flare*


----------



## turbofan7a

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Because India is just unimportant and unchallenged...US is seeking a worthy opponent



Good joke! USA never considered china of even being a opponent forget about even being worthy!


----------



## qwerrty

still waiting for this 



> *Beijing will be barred from its South China Sea fortresses, says incoming US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson*
> January 13, 2017 8:28am
> 
> “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first the island-building stops and second your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> How about China just take a shot at US just to see if the PLA know how to use those new weapons.



That will be a stupid movement if china start attack us fleet passing by.


----------



## Penguin

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Can we get within 12k without telling US too?


Just as much as you can drive through a city and ignore traffic rules completely.

Triton Island





Guam Island





At a regular State Department briefing in Washington Thursday, spokesman Mark Toner said: ‘This is certainly the first time we have _observed _Chinese navy ships in the Bering Sea, but that said, we do certainly respect the freedom of all nations to operate military vessels in international waters in accordance with international law.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Alaska-coast-Obama-visit.html#ixzz4lqJ5vjpd
Does that sound like they announced themselves in advance?

Stop whining.



terranMarine said:


> What was the purpose of US sending an armada near DPRK some time ago? Ohh just to show off but too chicken to attack


Why attack when showing the flag suffices? Paraphrased from some famous Chinese person, who wrote a lot about war in all its aspects.



Place Of Space said:


> Why don't you sail your great navy to the great Mongolia? Great Mongolian navy invite yours!


My great navy consists of 4 6k ton frigates, 2 3.5k ton frigates, 4 3.75kton OPVs, 2 LPDs and 1 big joint support ship. And 4 fairly big submarines.
You obviously have no idea whom you're talking about/to.


----------



## Place Of Space

Penguin said:


> Just as much as you can drive through a city and ignore traffic rules completely.
> 
> Triton Island
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guam Island
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At a regular State Department briefing in Washington Thursday, spokesman Mark Toner said: ‘This is certainly the first time we have _observed _Chinese navy ships in the Bering Sea, but that said, we do certainly respect the freedom of all nations to operate military vessels in international waters in accordance with international law.’
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Alaska-coast-Obama-visit.html#ixzz4lqJ5vjpd
> Does that sound like they announced themselves in advance?
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> 
> Why attack when showing the flag suffices? Paraphrased from some famous Chinese person, who wrote a lot about war in all its aspects.
> 
> 
> My great navy consists of 4 6k ton frigates, 2 3.5k ton frigates, 4 3.75kton OPVs, 2 LPDs and 1 big joint support ship. And 4 fairly big submarines.
> You obviously have no idea whom you're talking about/to.



Ok, well, you needn't have replied the post, that just's joking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammed45

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a get-tough-with-China economic message, had suggested publicly that he might offer better terms to Beijing in his promised renegotiation of U.S.-China trade policy if it could successfully tamp down North Korea’s nuclear program. | AP Photo

*In tweet, Trump criticizes China for trading with North Korea*
By LOUIS NELSON 

07/05/2017 08:15 AM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
On his way to Europe to attend meetings with G20 world leaders this week, President Donald Trump lashed out at China Wednesday morning for its trade relationship with North Korea.

“Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us - but we had to give it a try!” Trump wrote on Twitter, the second in a two-post flurry.


“The United States made some of the worst Trade Deals in world history. Why should we continue these deals with countries that do not help us?” Trump wrote minutes earlier, an apparent reference to China’s inability or unwillingness to cooperate with the U.S. on corralling North Korea.

Presented in his administration’s opening weeks with a fresh wave of bellicose rhetoric from the repressive regime of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Trump announced that he would seek China’s help in tightening the screws on Pyongyang in order to curb its nuclear ambitions. China, responsible for almost all of North Korea’s foreign trade and its chief international patron, is uniquely positioned to exert influence on the Kim regime.

Trump, who campaigned on a get-tough-with-China economic message, had suggested publicly that he might offer better terms to Beijing in his promised renegotiation of U.S.-China trade policy if it could successfully tamp down North Korea’s nuclear program. After months of promising to immediately label China a currency manipulator upon taking office, Trump opted against doing so, instead taking a wait-and-see approach to seek the Chinese government’s cooperation.

But North Korea’s behavior, which included the nation’s first-ever test of an intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, has not shifted dramatically since Trump’s inauguration. And while Trump administration officials have suggested that Trump has not given up on working with China, the president himself has seemed to say as much in posts to his Twitter account.

“While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!” Trump wrote online last month.

 
He thinks that owns whole the world, dumb head


----------



## terranMarine

Penguin said:


> Why attack when showing the flag suffices? Paraphrased from some famous Chinese person, who wrote a lot about war in all its aspects.


If showing the flag suffice it would have stopped DPRK launching missiles after missiles and now they demonstrated an IRBM to show US a middle finger. Got guts to attack Iraq under false pretense of WMD, well the world already knows our neighbor's nuclear tests are not fake so what does the US do? Keep begging China to help with the issue instead of ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

*CHINA IS WINNING, NOT DONALD TRUMP, ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE*

*http://www.newsweek.com/china-trump-winning-europe-632980*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-22Raptor

Two U.S bombers have flown over the disputed South China Sea, the U.S. Air Force said on Friday, asserting the right to treat the region as international territory despite China's claim to virtually all of the waterway.

The flight by the B-1B Lancer bombers from Guam on Thursday came as U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping prepare for a meeting on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Germany.

The two leaders were expected to discuss what China can do to rein in North Korea's missile and nuclear weapon programs.

North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday that some experts believe has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

While Trump has been seeking China's help to press North Korea, the U.S. military has, nevertheless, been asserting its "freedom of navigation" rights in the South China Sea, at the risk of angering China.

Asked about the flight by the two U.S. bombers, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said there was no problem with freedom of navigation or overflight for the East and South China Seas.

"But China resolutely opposes individual countries using the banner of freedom of navigation and overflight to flaunt military force and harm China's sovereignty and security," he said.

China's Defence Ministry, in a short statement sent to Reuters, said China always maintained its vigilance and "effectively monitors relevant countries' military activities next to China".

"The Chinese military will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and security as well as regional peace and stability," it added, without elaborating.

The United States has criticized China's build-up of military facilities on South China Sea reefs and tiny islands it has constructed, concerned that they could be used to extend its strategic reach.

Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan also have claims in the sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year.

The two Lancers that made the flight had earlier trained with Japanese jet fighters in the neighboring East China Sea, the first time the two forces had conducted joint night-time drills.

Two U.S. Lancers flew from Guam over the South China Sea last month, while a U.S. warship carried out a maneuvering drill within 12 nautical miles of one of China's artificial islands in the waterway in late May.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-southchinasea-idUSKBN19S0IU


----------



## Dotachin

F-22Raptor said:


> Two U.S bombers have flown over the disputed South China Sea, the U.S. Air Force said on Friday, asserting the right to treat the region as international territory despite China's claim to virtually all of the waterway.
> 
> The flight by the B-1B Lancer bombers from Guam on Thursday came as U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping prepare for a meeting on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Germany.
> 
> The two leaders were expected to discuss what China can do to rein in North Korea's missile and nuclear weapon programs.
> 
> North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday that some experts believe has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.
> 
> While Trump has been seeking China's help to press North Korea, the U.S. military has, nevertheless, been asserting its "freedom of navigation" rights in the South China Sea, at the risk of angering China.
> 
> Asked about the flight by the two U.S. bombers, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said there was no problem with freedom of navigation or overflight for the East and South China Seas.
> 
> "But China resolutely opposes individual countries using the banner of freedom of navigation and overflight to flaunt military force and harm China's sovereignty and security," he said.
> 
> China's Defence Ministry, in a short statement sent to Reuters, said China always maintained its vigilance and "effectively monitors relevant countries' military activities next to China".
> 
> "The Chinese military will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and security as well as regional peace and stability," it added, without elaborating.
> 
> The United States has criticized China's build-up of military facilities on South China Sea reefs and tiny islands it has constructed, concerned that they could be used to extend its strategic reach.
> 
> Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan also have claims in the sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year.
> 
> The two Lancers that made the flight had earlier trained with Japanese jet fighters in the neighboring East China Sea, the first time the two forces had conducted joint night-time drills.
> 
> Two U.S. Lancers flew from Guam over the South China Sea last month, while a U.S. warship carried out a maneuvering drill within 12 nautical miles of one of China's artificial islands in the waterway in late May.



I think the whole world has called the China's bluff. It would be interesting to see if they act on their threat. Though I think it highly unlikely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

and then...?

the world still waiting for this 


> *Beijing will be barred from its South China Sea fortresses, says incoming US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson*
> January 13, 2017 8:28am
> 
> “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first the island-building stops and second your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Place Of Space

I have a foto too, yours is not special at all, sorry off topic. You have oil, just try best to consume it 7/11 / 365, remember being off our territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-22Raptor

Jehan Li and Mia Qi took advantage of a U.S. law, nicknamed the “golden visa,” that offers green cards to foreigners who invest $500,000 in the United States. They say they want to give their son, Oscar, a shot at a brighter future.


BEIJING — Their son was barely a year old when Jehan Li and Mia Qi plunked down a half-million dollars for the boy to have a shot at a brighter future in America — away from the grinding competition of a Chinese education and this city’s smog-choked air.

Last December, having made just a single visit to the United States on their honeymoon, the Chinese couple took advantage of a U.S. law, nicknamed the “golden visa,” that doles out green cards to foreigners who invest $500,000 in the United States.

Critics say the fast track to citizenship favors the ultra-rich. It is also emerging as one of the most attainable paths to U.S. residency for members of China’s growing professional class — and now it could disappear.

The nearly three-decade-old program has come under new scrutiny in recent months, in part because of a sales pitch to Chinese investors by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s family real estate business.

Congress and the Trump administration are considering changing the rules for the investor visas as a means of cracking down on money laundering and visa-for-sale fraud. Potential changes, such as raising the investment threshold, would have little impact on China’s wealthiest. But they could shut out families such as Li and Qi, who despite riding the curve of upward socioeconomic mobility in China still see the United States as their best opportunity and this visa program as their best option.

The debate over the investor visas raises basic questions about the purpose of U.S. visa policies. Some say this program should be eliminated in favor of other immigrant groups, such as high-skilled workers or refugees escaping persecution — and not let people buy their way into the United States. Others say those with substantial amounts of money are best positioned to boost the American economy, by investing their wealth and creating jobs.

“Are we looking for the people? Or are we looking for the money?” said William Cook, former general counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service under President George H.W. Bush when Congress created the EB-5 visa program.

“In the end, the simple truth is the government is looking for the money. And that may unfortunately exclude people who can no longer afford it, even if they may be the best people in the world.”

During his lunch break at a Pizza Hut in one of Beijing’s ubiquitous shopping malls, Li, a 38-year-old civil engineer, explained the draw of the EB-5 investor visas for upwardly mobile Chinese without vast inherited fortunes.

“There are a lot of ways to immigrate to America, but this EB-5 program is the easiest,” said Li, who invested in a Miami residential skyscraper under construction.

The only requirement is cash. Unlike other immigration visas, one does not need to have relatives in the United States or have any extraordinary ability, educational degree or professional achievement.

“There are a lot of ways to immigrate to America, but this EB-5 program is the easiest,” said Li, who invested in a Miami residential skyscraper under construction.

The only requirement is cash. Unlike other immigration visas, one does not need to have relatives in the United States or have any extraordinary ability, educational degree or professional achievement.

The EB-5 program became attractive to U.S. real estate developers after the 2008 financial crisis as a reliable source of cheap capital when bank loans were difficult to come by. The developers pay low annual interest on investments from EB-5 visa holders, typically just 4 to 8 percent compared with 12 to 18 percent for conventional financing. After authorities confirm that the money has created at least 10 American jobs, a visa holder will be eligible for permanent residency — and to recoup his or her investment.

“It is good to own some U.S. dollars as the U.S. economy recovers from the financial crisis,” Li said.

Far from being scions of China’s ruling class, Li and his wife, a customer service representative at a Beijing real estate company, earn about $100,000 a year. That is well above average for Beijing but not in the ranks of the wealthiest elites.

They were able to scrounge up the $500,000 by selling a four-bedroom house on the outskirts of Beijing that Li’s parents had helped him buy a decade ago. (It is common in China for parents to help their children, especially sons, buy homes.)

The family of three rents a modest, two-bedroom high-rise apartment in a middle-class compound in the southwestern part of China’s sprawling capital city. Although homeownership is prized among Chinese as a secure financial investment, Li and Qi said they view renting as a sacrifice for the sake of their son, Oscar.

The couple, who married in 2014, said they committed to immigrating during their 10-day honeymoon in California, where they soaked up the grandeur of Yosemite National Park, visited the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and even checked out the University of California at Los Angeles.

“We went to America to vacation with the purpose of understanding the country,” said Li, whose notions about the United States came only from movies and television news. “The values of independence, equality, freedom and democracy have attracted me deeply. I was already hoping to raise our child there.”

Qi, also 38, said they knew then that they needed to find a way for their future child to study in America.

Chasing the American Dream
Of the 8,500 EB-5 visas issued in 2016, 82 percent went to investors from mainland China, according to the State Department. A decade ago, Chinese nationals accounted for just 12 percent of such visas.

Chinese immigration brokers say upper-middle-class investors have flocked to the program in recent years as their incomes increased and their real estate appreciated.

But that route to the United States may soon close for families such as Li and Qi.

Congressional authorization for the EB-5 visa expires in September, and lawmakers, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, are weighing new rules that could raise investment requirements from $500,000 to as much as $1.35 million.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who assailed the investor visa as “citizenship for sale” to the wealthiest bidders, has introduced a bill with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to scrap the program.

Legislators who have long agitated for change were further riled in May after one of Kushner’s sisters pitched a New Jersey luxury apartment project managed by the family’s real estate company to potential Chinese investors in Beijing.

Such sales presentations by U.S. developers seeking to woo Chinese investors are common, immigration brokers say. But the Kushner Companies event drew criticism for attempting to cash in on Kushner’s White House connections. One speaker advised those in attendance to invest early — under the “old rules” requiring $500,000 — in case regulations change under President Trump, Kushner’s father-in-law.

Michael Short, a White House spokesman, told The Washington Post that the Trump administration is “evaluating wholesale change of the EB-5 program,” including “exploring the possibility of raising the price of the visa.”

The uncertainty has prompted a scramble among some Chinese investors, said Jerry Liu, an immigration consultant in Beijing.

“Right now, the market is really hot, and more people can afford it because of China’s growing economy,” Liu said. “Everyone in China has the American Dream.”

Because of a cap on the number of visas by nationality, Chinese applicants must wait seven to 10 years from the time they invest to when they secure green cards, Liu said. The program has a big backlog; until 2015, the wait time was five years.

That has prompted parents, worried about their children turning 21 and aging out of the visa program before their green cards are approved, to start applying years before their children reach high school.

About a third of Chinese applicants are even applying in their teenage children’s names, anticipating that their green cards would not be available until they are adults and can move to the United States on their own, said Ronnie Fieldstone, a Miami attorney representing developers and Chinese immigration agents involved in EB-5 projects.

Li and Qi are relieved to have gotten in line before the United States changes the investment rules.

The Miami development they invested in is slated to be finished in early 2019, according to Paramount Miami Worldcenter, the developer. Construction is complete for 12 of its 60 stories. More than 60 percent of the luxury condominium’s 500 units have sold.

Once the U.S. government approves the family’s petition, they will receive two-year conditional green cards.

The couple have already researched housing and schools in Los Angeles, where they hope to settle. And they are exposing Oscar, 21 months old, to English through nursery songs. He is learning the alphabet and likes to sing a counting song about catching fish.

“We hope to be in America,” Qi said, “by the time our son finishes elementary school.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...4576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.040ee7f66e03

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shadows888

soon 2050 America will be minority white. The only way out is to build that Trump wall.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

Everyone? I'm not the "everyone".

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Penguin

terranMarine said:


> If showing the flag suffice it would have stopped DPRK launching missiles after missiles and now they demonstrated an IRBM to show US a middle finger. Got guts to attack Iraq under false pretense of WMD, well the world already knows our neighbor's nuclear tests are not fake so what does the US do? Keep begging China to help with the issue instead of ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK


Yeah, that's what it is about, giving the US the middle finger. Really, that's why you starve your own people to develop missiles to reach .... Alaska. Real clever.

I don't think China can do a lot either about the disaster they've helped create called North Korea.


----------



## Jlaw

F-22Raptor said:


> “We went to America to vacation with the purpose of understanding the country,” said Li, whose notions about the United States came only from movies and television news.



Be prepare for a rude awakening

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## powastick

Jlaw said:


> Be prepare for a rude awakening












American dream.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cloud4000

Those Chinese that are rich are coming to US legally, but those who are not rich are coming to US illegally. Why would anyone leave China given that its economy is a dynamo; and the US, according to some, is in the state of decay?


----------



## John Reese

*Two US B-1 bombers flew over disputed waters in the East and South China Seas on Thursday, conducting a joint military operation with Japanese fighter jets amid escalating tensions with North Korea and souring relations with China.*

The bombers were joined by two Japanese F-15 fighters and carried out a cooperative mission over the East China Sea -- an area both Japan and China claim as their own.
While joint flights between the two allied nations have become increasingly routine, this mission marked the first time US B-1 bombers from the Pacific Command have carried out an operation of this kind with Japanese fighters at night, according to a statement from US Pacific Air Forces.


What are Japan's options against North Korea?
"Flying and training at night with our allies in a safe, effective manner is an important capability shared between the US and Japan," said Maj. Ryan Simpson, Pacific Air Forces chief of bomber operations.
"This is a clear demonstration of our ability to conduct seamless operations with all of our allies," he added.
The Japanese Air Self Defense Force claims that the mission was not intended to send a message to any specific country despite previous face-offs in the East China Sea with Chinese ships and warplanes.
Earlier this year, US Defense Secretary James Mattis reaffirmed US commitment to defending Japan and its disputed islands.
Following the joint operation, the US B-1 bombers then flew over the South China Sea "to exercise the rights of freedom of navigation" before returning to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.
The US has routinely challenged China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea and the issue has put a strain on relations between the two powerful nations for years.

"We have noted relevant reports but I have no information on this specific case, said Geng Shuang, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman on Friday.
"China has always respected and supported other countries' freedom of navigation of overflight in accordance with international law," he added. "But we are firmly opposed to saber-rattling that harms China's sovereignty and security by certain countries on the pretext of freedom of navigation and overflight."


US destroyer sails close to disputed island in the South China Sea
On Sunday, a US Navy destroyer sailed within 12 miles of a disputed island in the South China Sea that is claimed by China, a US military official told CNN.
China called the action "a serious political and military provocation." The US "stirs up trouble" and runs "in the opposite direction from countries in the region who aspire for stability, cooperation and development," the ministry statement said.
*End of the honeymoon and North Korea*
Thursday's demonstration of military might by the US and one of its key regional allies comes on the heels of a tense week in US-China relations, which analysts said signaled the end of the honeymoon period between the two nations that began with a summit at President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in April.


US, China relations begin to cool as Trump's honeymoon with Xi ends
Xi said that ties with the US have been strained by "some negative factors" in a telephone conversation with Trump on Sunday following a flurry of controversial moves from the US.
"Xi Jinping stressed that since his meeting with President Trump, important results have been achieved in China-US relations," reported Chinese state media outlet CCTV.
"Meanwhile, bilateral relations have also been affected by some negative factors, for which the China side has expressed its position to the US side."
Last week, a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, was approved after months of delay, the same day as China's Dandong bank was sanctioned by the US for alleged ties to North Korea.
The US also labeled China as one of the world's worst human traffickers and challenged Beijing in the South China Sea, by sailing close to a disputed island chain that China claims.
Many took these moves as evidence of the US pursuing a harder line on the Asian superpower, likely caused by mounting frustration over a perceived lack of action by Beijing to contain North Korea.




North Korea state media celebrates 'gift' to 'American bastards'
According to the White House statement, Trump raised the growing threat of North Korea's nuclear and ballistic arsenals with the Chinese president in their phone call on Sunday.
"Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a denuclearized Korean Peninsula," the White House said in a readout of the phone call.


Trump and Xi at G20 in Hamburg: Time to abandon illusions
Trump also spoke to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by phone on Sunday, with the two pledging deeper cooperation on North Korea in the wake of growing frustrations over the rogue state.
But North Korea's successful launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday has raised the stakes ahead of Trump and Xi's scheduled meeting at the G20 Summit on Saturday as relations between China and the United States continue to cool in the months following the February's cordial meeting between the two leaders.
*Not giving up hope*
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Friday that the United States has not given up hope on China helping to solve the situation in North Korea, calling US efforts to persuade China to help a "peaceful pressure campaign."
Tillerson's statement contrasted with some of Trump's tweets, where the President has indicated he had largely given up on China's willingness to help in North Korea.
"No, we have not given up hope. I call it the peaceful pressure campaign," Tillerson said. "This is a campaign to lead us to peaceful resolution because if this fails we don't have very many good options left."
Tillerson said China's contributions have been "a bit uneven."
"China has taken significant action and then I think, for a lot of different reasons, they paused and didn't take additional action. They then have taken some steps and then they paused. ... We have remained very closely engaged with China both through our dialogues that has occurred face-to-face but also on the telephone," he said.
Tillerson added, "There is a clear understanding between the two of us on our intent and I think the sanctions action that were taken here just in the last week or ten days certainly going their attention in terms of their understanding of our resolve to bring more pressure to bear by directly going after entities doing business with North Korea, regardless of where they may be located."

CNN's Steven Jiang and Ben Wescott contributed to this report.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/07/politics/us-bombers-japan-training-south-china-sea/index.html


----------



## Jlaw

cloud4000 said:


> Those Chinese that are rich are coming to US legally, but those who are not rich are coming to US illegally. Why would anyone leave China given that its economy is a dynamo; and the US, according to some, is in the state of decay?


Why so many nationalist Indians from pdf and high caste Brahmin leave India and live in other countries? Given that India is the fastest growing economy with second in the world in GDP based on PPP? ON top of that India is a superpower since 2012! Why you guys are the number one illegals in HK? Why do you Indians make up the most illegal and legal immigrants in Canada?
Why? Why?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

Jlaw said:


> Why so many nationalist Indians from pdf and high caste Brahmin leave India and live in other countries? Given that India is the fastest growing economy with second in the world in GDP based on PPP? ON top of that India is a superpower since 2012! Why you guys are the number one illegals in HK? Why do you Indians make up the most illegal and legal immigrants in Canada?
> Why? Why?



The best democracy in the world too, why give that up and live in Canada which is freezing cold compared to the warm climate India has to offer? Or what about HK which is a city of their ENEMY. Weird so weird

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## F-22Raptor

The lead vessel of the U.S. Navy’s newest class of amphibious assault ships, the USS _America_, designated Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6, departed San Diego on July 7 for its first regularly scheduled deployment to the Pacific, Middle East, and the Horn of Africa, the U.S. Navy reports.

The new _America_ Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) consisting of the USS _America_, the _San Antonio_-class amphibious transport dock USS _San Diego_, and the _Harpers Ferry_-class dock landing ship USS _Pearl Harbor_, along with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), an expeditionary quick reaction force, comprise around 1,800 sailors and 2,600 marines.

The _America_ ARG and its MEU will conduct maritime security operations, crisis response capability, and theater security cooperation with allied navies, as well as contribute to the U.S. Navy’s overall forward naval presence. The ARG’s first destination will be the Western Pacific. “We are looking forward to conducting persistent forward naval engagement and being always prepared to respond as the nation’s force in readiness,” Colonel Joseph Clearfield, the commander of the MEU said.

“The America ARG/15th MEU is set to provide senior U.S. military leadership and coalition partners with a flexible force which can rapidly respond to contingencies and crises within a region,” a U.S. Navy statement read. “With ships, aircraft, troops, and logistical equipment, the ARG/MEU is a self-contained and self-sustained task force capable of conducting everything from combat operations to humanitarian assistance.”

The new warship is armed with 12 defensive weapons systems, including two rolling aircraft missile RIM-116 Mk 49 l launchers; two Raytheon 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts; and seven twin .50 cal. machine guns. The ship’s most potent weapon system, however, is the supersonic fifth-generation F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). In November 2016, the U.S. Navy conducted operational testing of the F-35B aboard the ship, followed by a number of weapons load tests involving the fifth-generation fighter jet.

As I noted elsewhere, (See: “US Navy Build Largest-Ever Amphibious Assault Ship for F-35 Fighters”), the USS _America_, next to the F-35B, can accommodate MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, CH-53 Super Stallions, and UH-1Y Huey helicopters. In detail, an _America_-class amphibious assault ship can carry up to nine F-35Bs, four AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters, four CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, 12 MV-22 Ospreys, and two MH-60S Search and Rescue helicopters.

“There are currently two other _America_-class amphibious assault ships under construction. Both the LHA 7, the USS _Tripoli_, and LHA 8, USS _Bougainville_, are currently being assembled at the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi,” I reported earlier this year. “LHA 7 is slated for delivery to the U.S. Navy in December 2018, whereas LHA 8 will reportedly be handed over in 2024. The U.S. Navy plans for a fleet of 11 _America_-class amphibious assault ships in the coming decades.”

http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/us-n...ous-assault-ship-deploys-to-the-asia-pacific/


----------



## ashok321

*US apologised for mistakenly calling Xi leader of Taiwan: China:* 







The US has apologized to China for mistakenly describing President Xi Jinping as the leader of Taiwan in a statement issued by Washington, a top Chinese official said today.

Reacting strongly to the statement issued by the US after Xi and President Donald Trump met in Germany on the sidelines of the G20, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a media briefing here that the Chinese side has "lodged a solemn representation with the US".

"The US said sorry for the technical error and they made the correction," he said when asked about the faux pas by Washington.

In a statement issued after Xi and US President Donald Trump met in Germany on the side-lines of G20, the White House press office described Xi as the president of the Republic of China, the formal name for Taiwan. China, led by Xi, is officially called the People's Republic of China.

Taiwan is a sensitive issue for China as it considers it as part of the mainland under its One-China policy


----------



## Jlaw

terranMarine said:


> The best democracy in the world too, why give that up and live in Canada which is freezing cold compared to the warm climate India has to offer? Or what about HK which is a city of their ENEMY. Weird so weird


Plus it's a criminal offense to grope and rape women in Canada. Yeah so I am not sure why they come here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

*Reviewing Destined for War: An Interview with Graham Allison*

*Brett Wessley* - The Bridge - October 30, 2017

_Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap_. Graham Allison. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

In many ways the Peloponnesian War was a maritime struggle—the Athenians built their empire through their navy, the culminating point of the war was the failed Syracuse expedition where Athens lost 200 ships, and the war finally ended when Athens surrendered a decade later after the remainder of its fleet was destroyed by Sparta at Aegospotami. In _The History of the Peloponnesian War_, Athenian exile Thucydides details how his native city-state’s empire and power expanded throughout the Hellenic world, often at the relative expense of status quo power Sparta.

“It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, that made war inevitable.”[1] This quote pithily summarizes Graham Allison’s phrase “The Thucydides’s Trap” and the hostile dynamic created by rising and displaced powers. In Allison’s latest book, _Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?_, he delves into the changing dynamics of the U.S.-China relationship, and the implications this has for the security situation in the Indo-Pacific and worldwide.

Naval power is a prominent metric of the relative strength of the U.S. and China. Territorial conflicts between China and its neighbors, many of whom are U.S. allies, take place across the vast waters of the Pacific. Islands serve as benchmarks for Chinese territorial expansion, whether in the South China Sea throughout the Spratly Islands, the East China Sea and the Senkaku Islands, or surrounding the isolated democracy Taiwan. Over the last decade, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has expanded both its capacity and capability for maritime operations, and years of Chinese economic growth have funded programs aimed to deter U.S. intervention against its interests.

The role foreign navies played in China’s Century of Humiliation cannot be understated—historically a land power, the Qing Dynasty was unable to contend with gunboat diplomacy. Beginning with European and U.S. navies, foreign powers carved out trade and territorial concessions from China in the 19th Century. Most maddening was how the Japanese—viewed as _wokou_ or “dwarf pirates” by the Chinese—leveraged modernized naval warships and doctrine to defeat China in several conflicts from the late 19th century through World War II.

Today China has fielded a navy second only to the United States, both in quantity and quality, and at a pace the regional navies in the Indo-Pacific cannot match. The Chinese Navy continues to roll out new platforms and capabilities, many designed to counter U.S. power projection, in the form of missiles, counter-space weapons, and cyberspace capabilities. Simultaneously, the Chinese are developing power projection capabilities of their own, refining carrier strike group training, tactics, and procedures, while deploying flotillas into the Indian Ocean and beyond. The impact China’s rise has had on the balance of power in the Pacific cannot be understated. As Allison writes, “There is no ‘solution’ for the dramatic resurgence of a 5,000-year old civilization with 1.4 billion people. It is a condition, a chronic condition that must be managed over a generation.”[2] It’s from this perspective that I began my conversation with Graham Allison, and discussed _Destined for War_.

*Brett Wessley: Since your article “**Thucydides’s Trap**” was published in The Atlantic in 2015, have any new developments changed your views on the topics addressed in Destined for War?*

Graham Allison: Basically, the idea in the 2015 piece is pretty much the same idea. Thucydides’s Trap is the dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power. In 2015, I had only found 15 cases; in the book I have 16 cases. And actually, if you look at the website, we say this is an open story and so we are looking for more cases. These are all the cases we have found and certified of a rising power threatening to displace a major ruling power. Of course, there will be other cases where it is not a major power, so regional conflict would also be interesting. The purpose of the article and book in producing the Thucydides’s case file is not to produce a statistical data set for statisticians, but instead to have a series of comparative cases, each of which has certain differences and nuances that are very important, but which all have a similar storyline: that of a rising power threatening to displace a ruling power.

*Can you speak to the role of sea power, and how the U.S. Navy and the People’s Liberation Army Navy have played in China’s rise?*

Thucydides has helped us understand what is happening with China’s rise—better than the conventional wisdom from many China scholars who argue that because China had not been a sea power historically, and had not been interested in being a sea power, we should not expect much on the naval front.

I think that this was clearly a mistake, and has been since 1996 and the humiliation the Chinese felt over their having to back down when they tried to intimidate Taiwan, and we [the United States] sent aircraft carriers to the region to emphasize our superiority. Thucydides would say, and I think Realism would say, as China has become bigger and stronger, the presence and predominance of a potentially hostile power on its border or in its adjacent waters has become less and less acceptable...and they have sought to counter it. This was taken to be a threat to Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, which they regard as much a part of China as we regard California to be a part of the U.S., a sovereignty they saw challenged by the U.S. in 1996 when they tried to bring Taiwan to heel and the U.S. came to Taiwan’s rescue.

What China has done is very methodically build up an A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] and anti-ship missile capabilities that have successfully pushed the U.S. Navy back behind the First Island Chain when planning for war. They are intending to push us further back because they think in terms of the Three Island Chains. I was in Beijing recently and someone told me about the Fourth Island Chain. I asked, “What’s the Fourth Island Chain?” They think of that as San Diego.

*You talk about AirSea Battle in your book—or now termed the **Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons** (JCAMGC). When paired with the Third Offset, and capabilities such as autonomous drones and human/machine teaming, is this enough to counter China’s military?*





_Graham Allison_

Well, I would say we need a better acronym for what’s replaced AirSea Battle. The Third Offset is an understandable idea, I think, but if you are thinking of asymmetric technologies and asymmetric technological advances for the competition, the question is, “Would you choose the incumbent or the disruptor?” I think you would say the incumbent is much more likely to be wedded to current platforms and much less adept at adjusting and adapting to disruptive new technologies than the rising power.

So, if you were able to play the American-Chinese naval competition in the Western Pacific with both parties starting from scratch, that might be one thing. But we are wedded to big, expensive carriers and highly expensive aircraft, whereas China will be more likely to be more agile at unmanned technologies. When you look at the drone business in the commercial domain, I can buy a much better, cheaper Chinese commercial drone than I can an American drone. DJI [Dà-Jiāng Innovations Science and Technology] makes very good and cheap drones. So while at least some part of their navy seems to be captivated by carriers, I think they could more likely take advantage of technological advances, for example in unmanned sea and subsea robotics. When I look at the ways in which technologies could impact the naval balance there, I don’t see why the Third Offset opportunities are not as great for them as for us, maybe even greater.

*On the topic of the fleet we’re wedded to, there’s been a lot of talk lately about the 355 ship navy and possibly reaching that number through construction of Littoral Combat Ships and de-mothballing frigates. What’s your view on the Navy’s ship count and the implications for the future?*

I’ve always thought trying to count units makes no sense. I understand why it is politically attractive and why some in the Navy and some politicians like the idea. But while a kayak and a carrier might each count for one, they are not equal. So I don’t think collecting a bunch of old hulls and calling them combatants does much. I would much rather focus on capabilities, for which I would certainly prefer to have one or two good units than a hundred of these old hulls. I think the more interesting part of it is where the technologies will challenge the platforms we are wedded to. And those are big capital expenditures. Whether carriers, or advanced manned aircraft, or ships vs. mines. I think smart mines are something we should be much more actively exploring and deploying. I would rather have unmanned subsurface units that operate against ships or subs, than I would a whole bunch of Littoral Combat Ships or de-mothballed hulls.

*I think the ship count sometimes feeds into the Navy’s posture vs. presence debate. If we’re not constantly patrolling the South China Sea eventually it becomes a de-facto Chinese lake, simply because we aren’t contesting their claims.*

I was going to ask you about the case of the South China Sea, because you have to watch it every day. I was in Beijing two weeks ago with a lot of people talking about Thucydides’s Trap, and some people—Chinese—believe the contest in the South China Sea is basically over...and that they won. Now, has anyone said that at U.S. Pacific Command? Would they be considered nuts, or is that at least a plausible idea?

*I think that would be news to us, but I’m interested in hearing why the Chinese think it’s over.*

There was an Australian there, a former Australian foreign minister, and he said he thought it was over too. He basically said the Chinese have achieved their objective: all the governments in the region now ask first what will China do, and look first to China rather than the U.S. over the contest in the area. I said, “Geez, I didn’t think that was the prevailing American view,” and he said Americans are often slow to wake up. So, I just started looking at it again. If you think of the economic balance of power between China and the U.S. as a seesaw, and that's why I have that graphic in my book, that basically shows the seesaw is tilting and our feet are now lifting off the ground. That is the reality. That reality is even more extreme in the case of relations between China and every one of its Asian neighbors. So China is important to every Asian neighbor as the market and the source of investments, as the party that can squeeze them if it decides to squeeze them. Whether it's the Philippines—or now even Singapore—feeling this, it is a fact of life for them every day.






I say in the book that the economic balance of power, at least in the Asian region, has become even more relevant in everyday life than the military balance of power. The economic balance of power continues to shift in China’s favor, and the American abandonment of the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership]—which we had put so much of our energy and prestige into, telling everybody this was the pillar of our pivot, and getting other parties to invest in their own politics in getting TPP ratified and then pulling the rug out from under them—has left deep, deep wounds in all the parties. And you can see this in [Japanese Prime Minister] Abe, who is stressed in seeking and reaching an agreement with the E.U., exactly the kind of response you would see from people looking to go the wrong way in the economics component in this. I would say this looks ominous for the U.S. and its Southeast Asian allies, and for the likelihood of the South China Sea becoming a Chinese lake.

*It is very ominous. Is it time that there needs to be a rebalance in the sense that we need allies—Japan, Australia, India—to have closer defense ties?*

Maybe. We have explored that in the past and discovered, in the way the balance is shifting, Australia is a fascinating case to watch. We tried to get them to perform joint operations in the South China Sea for the past three years, and they said, “Forget about it!” The Australians are even looking at the situation again very carefully. There was a set of polls that came out in Australia last month where basically the Australian public feared the United States’ actions more than they feared China’s. Which makes you think—WHAT? Australia has fought with us in every war since the First World War. So, I would watch Australia as a bellwether in terms of what’s happening. I think that for Japan, the Japanese and Chinese roots of that conflict are so deep that Japan is a potential bigger ally. On India, Bob Blackwill, who was my expert out there, used to say the quickest way to get an Indian foreign policy expert to jump out the window is to talk about China. India talks out the one side of its mouth and talks out the other side, and actually both the Indians and the Chinese are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. I would say we have to watch them closely, but they are likely to stick to neutrality. So, it’s not really clear where our allies are going to come from in the region.

*At the end of your book, you recommend a move away from the “Engage but Hedge” strategy, where essentially we give China everything, but do nothing to contain them. What’s the role that the Navy plays in this strategy, and something we’re doing in the status quo that we will need to reassess in the future?*

The first thing to recognize that “Engage but Hedge” is basically an excuse to go with the flow. It’s very appealing; it lets everybody do whatever they want, and whatever happens you can say we are either engaging or hedging. So I think it’s been a delusion, and I think recognizing this is very important. As we go forward, I believe to the extent that we can maintain a military advantage and not be provocative, that's in every case better. So the thing the Navy could do most would be to try to ask what new technologies and new modes of operation we could develop, especially those that would allow us with a smaller budget to buy more teeth and effectiveness. China’s naval budget will soon exceed our own, especially with regards to regional competition, and it’s unlikely we can buy our way out of this problem. I would think that’s in the areas of unmanned everything—aircraft, seacraft, underwater-craft—and would be in the area of smart mines, which I know that the Navy doesn’t like because they mess up normal operations. In the area of cyber I know we are active, but I would say we need to be even more active—in the area of defensive cyber operations and closing vulnerabilities. So every hole we leave vulnerable, shame on us, whether it’s cyber or satellites. I think that would be the direction I would go in.

_Destined for War_ is an excellent read for those interested in the consequences of a shifting power balance in the Indo-Pacific. While most of the audience is likely aware of China’s military and economic growth, Allison’s detailed metrics describing how the U.S. is being displaced will surprise readers. While the strategic picture painted by Allison is discouraging, at least for those supporting a strong role for the U.S. in Asia, the author is clear that we have options for staying engaged in the region. Looking back to previous instances of Thucydides’s Trap, status quo powers have demonstrated resolve and successfully managed rising powers—including most recently the U.S. during the Cold War with the U.S.S.R.

Allison is skeptical of the role allies will play in upholding a U.S.-led international system, especially within the Indo-Pacific, and undoubtedly his research has shown a reluctance of regional powers to push back against China. One still cannot ignore the role alliances have played in sustaining U.S. power worldwide, though, and a belligerent rise of China will create openings with both traditional and new allies in Asia. How the U.S. will handle the situation diplomatically is up for debate, but previous actions like withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership have squandered opportunities at the expense of economic nationalism.

Ultimately the U.S. will play the largest role in its own fate internationally. Whether the U.S. is destined for war, retreat, or peaceful engagement may be the largest question looming over the 21st Century.


_Brett Wessley__ is an officer in the U.S. Navy, currently assigned to U.S. Pacific Command. The contents of this paper reflect his own personal views and are not endorsed by U.S. Pacific Command, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government._
。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------

