Comprehensive foreign media reported on September 1 that US President Biden stated that the United States and Ukraine will resume the operation of the bilateral committee on strategic partnership and are "resuming a new package of military assistance programs worth 60 million US dollars."
The ITAR-Tass news agency quoted a report from the United States Columbia Broadcasting Corporation (CBS) that Biden announced during a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky that the United States is ready to support Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and "Euro-Atlantic aspirations."
Biden meets Zelensky at the White House. Source: Reuters
Biden also said that the "firm partnership between the U.S. and Ukraine will become more stable." The U.S. and Ukraine have "the same value system" and both hope that "Europe is complete, free, and peaceful forever."
Russian media pointed out that Biden's order to provide military assistance to Ukraine will be used to "fight against Russian aggression," and the Ukrainian armed forces will receive "Javelin" anti-tank missiles, small arms and ammunition. In addition, with the help of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the United States will provide the Uzbek government with US$3 billion in funding after signing a memorandum of understanding.
Netizen comment screenshot
After the United States promised to provide Ukraine with US$60 million in military aid, readers of the British "Daily Mail" published their own comments. Some netizens said, "This is a symbolic number. In other words, Ukrainians are actually abandoned, just like Afghans. Who is next-Taiwan?"
Netizen comment screenshot
Some netizens said, "Joe (Biden) definitely doesn't like Ukraine because he only gave them 60 million U.S. dollars. He prefers the Taliban and left the Taliban with 90 billion U.S. dollars worth of military equipment." Military assistance? Two Chinook helicopters? Biden left four of them to the Taliban."
Netizen comment screenshot
Some netizens complained: "This is not Sleepy Joe's generous donation, but American taxpayers." Some American netizens said angrily, "Spend your own money, Biden, stop spending American taxpayers' money!!! I'm fed up with this guy."
Netizen comment screenshot
Other netizens wrote, “He (referring to Biden) is just eager to go to war with Russia. Obama is almost about to succeed, but then Trump came to the White House, and now the “Walking Vegetables” picked up the baton.”
Before Kerry's visit to China, he threatened to put pressure on China. As a result, China played a trump card, and the United States suddenly fell flat.
Wang Yi said that Sino-US climate change cooperation not only conforms to the interests of both parties, but also benefits all mankind and has broad prospects for development. The United States hopes to transform cooperation into an "oasis" in Sino-US relations, but if the "oasis" is surrounded by "deserts," the "oasis" will sooner or later be deserted. The Sino-US climate change cooperation cannot be separated from the general environment of Sino-US relations. The United States should meet China halfway and take positive actions to push Sino-US relations back on track.
The formation of the new Afghan government has been postponed. What are the Taliban’s considerations?
According to a comprehensive observation by a front reporter from China Central Radio and Television, the Afghan Taliban postponed the ceremony to announce the formation of the new government originally scheduled to be held in the afternoon of the 3rd. It is reported that a Taliban spokesperson said that the formation of a new government will not be announced until Saturday, the 4th at the earliest. In this regard, Ruan Zongze, executive vice president of the China Institute of International Studies, said that there are multiple considerations behind the postponement of the formation of the new Afghan government.
A new government postponed an announcement related to the Panjshir war
Ruan Zongze, Executive Vice President of the China Institute of International Studies: I think the delay in the announcement of the new government is related to the Pan Jheer war. Since August 26 and 27, the Taliban have negotiated with the anti-Taliban and wanted to reassure them and set some conditions. However, it seems that this negotiation has failed and the differences between the two sides are very large. This divergence is mainly in two aspects. One is that the anti-tower forces must retain their own strength, and they cannot say that they will be handed over with one move. This power is reflected in, for example, in the future new government, the anti-tower forces should have 30% representation, and this is 1/3 of the representation. Another is that the Taliban will appoint these officials in Afghanistan in the future, the anti-Taliban forces must also have a say, and they will refuse to hand over weapons and equipment.
I think why is there a relationship between the two? In fact, the new government wants to show a kind of tolerance, so at this time, how to share the power structure of the anti-tower forces is also a consideration. If the remaining issues can be resolved through negotiation, I think this start will be a very good start.
The overall situation of the Taliban in power is not in a hurry
Ruan Zongze, Executive Vice President of the China Institute of International Studies : This is the second time the Taliban came to power. Comparing the first and the second coming to power, there are two characteristics that are very clear. First, the Taliban's speed is slow. Now it has been more than half a month, and it is still postponing and brewing. The main reason is that the overall situation is under control, and there is no force that can form a substantial challenge to it.
The new government's inclusiveness helps to open up the diplomatic situation
Ruan Zongze , Executive Vice President of the China Institute of International Studies : Second, the Taliban made a fuss about inclusiveness, because the last time it was all Taliban who held all positions, this time it took into account the international response, including long- term governance and international Image, how to open the situation, many other countries now regard this as a condition for whether to develop relations with the new Afghan government in the future.
The former Australian Prime Minister broke his country's "dog licking" mentality: How dare China surpass the United States!
Former Australian Prime Minister Keating said that China's only "original sin" is that it has become "a country as powerful as the United States" and has the strength to "become stronger than the United States." This is an "unforgivable sin" for the United States, which always regards itself as a "victor".
"The Morrison government provokes China to please the United States." Former Australian Prime Minister Keating published a column in the "Australian Financial Review" on the 3rd, criticizing the current Australian government for bringing relations with China into a "dead end." Keating believes that the current Australian government has unnecessarily provoked China, and emphasized that it should be recognized that China has neither attacked other countries or forced other countries to establish military alliances, nor is it seeking to export universal ideologies, let alone imposing nuclear threats.. .
Profile of Former Australian Prime Minister Keating
Keating said that China's only "original sin" is that it has become "a country as powerful as the United States" and has the strength to "become stronger than the United States." This is an "unforgivable sin" for the United States, which always regards itself as a "victor". Keating lamented that this kind of thinking has spread to some Australians who are "flattering and servile" towards the United States: "How dare China surpass the United States economically."
Although Australia was once a British colony, since World War II, Australia has been closely following the pace of the United States, constantly "Americanizing" in its values and lifestyles, and "only the United States is the only one who sees ahead in its diplomatic strategy." Keating analyzes that Australia has (similar to the United States) idea first because it was "frightened by the rise of China." The status quo and size of China are completely out of the "playbook "of the United States, and China's success is even more an "offense" to the "superiority" and "chosen place" of the United States. Keating criticized the Morrison administration for its "foreign policy incompetence" and"extreme flattery to the United States", which actually brought Australia into the "cold war" with China.
Keating pointed out that Australia and China do not have any territorial disputes, and the distance between the two countries is as long as a 12-hour flight by plane. However, Sinodinos, the Australian ambassador to the United States, issued a statement on September 1 stating that "China's coercion in the Pacific is a more serious threat than '9.11'." Australian Defense Minister Dutton declared that Australia is capable of defending its waters. Keating believes that these are irrational cognitions, and he mocks Dutton's remarks as "implying that China may be a military aggressor without any basis."
Keating said that the Morrison government is "unnecessarily and irresponsibly pushing Australia to engage in a frontal confrontation with China". The reason behind it is to make Washington treat it as a "likable" assistant. Keating said with emotion that Australia's once relatively independent foreign policy has been replaced by the Morrison government's policy of "subordination to another country."
Morrison profile map
Keating served as Prime Minister of Australia from 1991 to 1996. As a proponent of realist foreign policy, he has repeatedly criticized Australian politicians and the media for instigating "China threat theory" and "anti-China thinking" on the basis of Australia's own interests . When he participated in the "Strategic Forum" event hosted by The Australian in 2019, he said in a speech that China is destined to become the world's largest economy and the dominant player in Asia. Sooner or later, countries around the world will have to face this reality. At the same time, he refutes the wrong view of the West that "China's technological achievements rely entirely on theft of the West" and believes that China's modern technological progress is largely based on its own development.Keating also believes that the "decoupling tactics" of the United States are difficult to work.
Australian media: Damaged relations with China will hit the Australian economy
Australia's "Sydney Morning Herald" article on September 3, original title: Damage to China is about to hit the Australian economy. After being punished by China for diplomatic negligence, the resilience of the Australian economy has caused some people to claim victory. But this may be said too early. The Australian Prime Minister said that China's "action to make us more compliant is completely counterproductive." Although more and more export products are restricted by Beijing, Australia's exports continue to record highs. But the dispute between the two sides and Canberra's hostile stance towards Beijing are casting a shadow over Australia's future.
Although it has not touched the lucrative iron ore industry in Australia until recently, Beijing is focusing on products that may become the mainstay of Australia's trade in the future, such as lobster and wine, and issuing early warnings to Chinese students to study in Australia. "These are areas for future growth, but unfortunately, they have all been impacted in the conflict with China," said Bob Gregory, a professor at the Australian National University.
Newcastle Port, Australia, coal loading and unloading
This is a drastic change compared to 2014, when Chinese leaders visited Australia and agreed to sign an agreement to expand Australia's exports to China and create jobs (for Australia). But now, as China's tariffs push up the prices of Australian goods and Australia's reputation in China has plummeted, previous hopes are dying. Investment flows have also gradually shrunk-partly due to Canberra's new hostility towards Chinese companies.
Australia has been profiting from China's surging financial resources for nearly 20 years. This situation continues to the present-although China has taken punitive measures against Australian products such as coal, barley, lobster and wine, iron ore has not yet been touched. But just as iron ore prices hit new highs this year and pushed import volumes to a record, China is curbing the steel industry, and iron ore prices have fallen 39% from their peak in May. As China's economy focuses more and more on the service industry, and Beijing strives to diversify its supply and reduce carbon emissions, China's demand for iron ore is likely to decrease further.
The image of Australian wines is also collapsing in China, and industry insiders say that "people quickly lose interest in Australian wines". According to reports released by KPMG and the University of Sydney, Chinese investment in Australia plummeted by 27% last year, to its lowest point since 2007...
It is not easy for Australia to diversify its trade from China. The possibility of signing a limited trade agreement with India will provide some hope for Australian exporters, but India is unlikely to fill the space left by China.
Optimists take Japan and South Korea as examples, claiming that Australia-China relations will definitely improve. However, Australia's status is not as good as Japan's, and neither Canberra nor Beijing has shown a willingness to compromise. This means that the Australian economy, which faces the risk of a second dip due to the closure of the epidemic, will soon see the trade tailwind gradually disappear. (Translated by Ding Ling)