What's new

China-US Geopolitics: News & Discussions

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.

 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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


FOREIGN201610131546000105545422428.jpg


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.
 
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

FOREIGN201610201414000310510050263.jpg


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Premier Li expects early conclusion of China-U.S. investment treaty negotiations
2016-10-22 14:31 | Xinhua | Editor: Xu Shanshan

U695P886T1D231215F12DT20161022082147.jpg

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.
 
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.
 
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?”
 
(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.
 
Last edited:
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'
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom