Recently, some Japanese politicians have frequently made erroneous remarks on Taiwan-related issues, openly sending wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" forces. On July 5, Japan's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Taro Aso stated in a speech at the assembly of members of the House of Representatives of the Liberal Democratic Party that if mainland China uses force against Taiwan, the Japanese government will consider this to be a “survival crisis” stipulated by relevant laws on security. May exercise restricted collective self-defense rights and force intervention in "Taiwan Strait affairs."
Taro Aso also clamored that if there is a "major problem" in Taiwan, it is likely to be related to Japan's "survival crisis." If this happens, "the United States and Japan must defend Taiwan together."
As we all know, there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Taiwan issue is completely China's internal affairs, and no external forces are allowed to interfere. In response to Taro Aso’s remarks, on July 6, the spokesperson of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council Zhu Fenglian and the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Zhao Lijian gave clear responses and clarified China’s firm position.
In addition, "Global Times" editor-in-chief Hu Xijin also wrote on July 6 that if the Japanese Self-Defense Forces participate in the war and attack the People's Liberation Army, the People's Liberation Army will not only destroy the Japanese Self-Defense Forces participating in the war, but also have the right to the land bases and military installations of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. The strikes paralyzed the attack capability of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
Hu Xijin emphasized that Japanese extremist politicians who know Chinese characters should better understand the truth of "don't die." Please make sure that they understand that today is neither 1894 nor 1931 or 1937. Ask them to curb the rampant confrontation with China. Japan’s survival does not depend on how China resolves the Taiwan issue, but on Japan’s first establishment of a solid self-knowledge.
Hu Xijin said that Japan has committed heinous crimes against China in the past century, and China has not done anything to sorry Japan. To this day, the Chinese actively advocate friendly relations between China and Japan. If Japanese extremist politicians think that having the United States as their backing, they can offend China again, then a stronger China will be willing to give them a lesson and accompany this neighboring country to grow up.
Using wind farms as "missile silos", the United States is "very sick"
In the satellite image obtained by the James Martin Non-Proliferation Research Center, there is a line on the right side of the image that reads "Yumen Gansu Windfarm" (Yumen Gansu Windfarm), and American researchers and related reports seem to be deliberately ignoring this.
Direct News: The US media has made another big oolong. The wind farm in Yumen, Gansu has been hyped up as more than 100 imaginary missile silos, and even the spokesperson of the US State Department has alarmed "worries" about China's nuclear arsenal. What is your observation on this?
Special commentator Guan Yao : The so-called "silos false news" spreading chain is now being replayed, and that is a chain of "sticky hammer chains" that don't take a long time.
Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asian Nuclear Non-Proliferation Program of the Center for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Research of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, California think tank, is of course a super hammer. When he was interviewed by China Post, he took the satellite photos to talk about China's east wind. The -41 intercontinental missile spreads rumors, but this "fake scholar" made a mistake because he did not understand the most basic performance and data of the Dongfeng-41: it is a solid fuel intercontinental ballistic missile, and its biggest advantage is strong maneuverability and survival. The ability is strong, the fault is placed in the silo and it is not covered, and the point of discovery can be detected by searching for human flesh.
So what I am concerned about is whether this kind of fake scholar without technical integrity and professionalism will be extinct from the American academic circle. Does he still have a face as a think tank? The reporter who concocted "China is building more than 100 missile silos" fake news, of course, is also a great hammer. The fake scholars are so utterly hyped, but isn't the most basic professional ethics of major newspaper reporters the so-called fact verification? There are more than 100 missile silos in one place in the desert. Even if it's just a sand table deduction, the worst mathematical calculations can't produce such a result.
A report by the US Department of Defense estimates that the number of Chinese nuclear warheads is the so-called "low-200s", that is, more than 200. Obviously it is a digital blow water that cannot withstand any scrutiny, but the "Washington Post", the initiator of the fake news, started the discussion with the headline, Don't panic about China's new nuclear capabilities. Don't "panic" about China's new nuclear capabilities. , US State Department spokesperson Price also expressed so-called concerns about China’s nuclear capabilities.
If the skin does not exist, Mao will be attached. Since the facts are vain, where do these so-called panics and concerns begin? "China Post" concocted fake news "Jimmy's World" that year. The female reporter fabricated the child addict "Jimmy" and was exposed. The newspaper was withdrawn from the Pulitzer Prize and the reporter who committed the incident was expelled from the news circle.
So will anyone be held accountable this time? I personally think that the question that is more important than accountability lies in the need to clarify and even clean up the Sino-U.S. relationship, the most important bilateral relationship in the world, what other similar "missile silos" exist. Existence, to what extent has aggravated the downward spiral in Sino-US relations.
Zhi Shimbun: So what do you think are similar "missile silos" in Sino-US relations, and how should they be cleaned up?
Special commentator Guan Yao : The so-called "new crown virus laboratory leak theory" recently hyped by the US intelligence agencies and the media is not the so-called "missile silo" in the field of health and epidemic prevention? The Wall Street Journal previously quoted the so-called report of the intelligence agency. It is claimed that all three staff of Wuhan virus are sick. This is the "source" of the new round of virus traceability politicization operation. It is obvious that the WHO has come to a "very unlikely" conclusion. Australian scientific workers have spoken out of justice and have given a negative answer based on personal observations. But the US is that some people, some organizations, and some political parties, based on self-interested motives, based on political calculations, insist on advancing traceability speculation.
It's no wonder that Shi Zhengli, a virus scientist known as "Batwoman", protested with great courage in an interview with The New York Times. Why did the world become like this? Didn't she explicitly request the US Newspaper to provide the list of the three "sick people" so that she can conduct follow-up investigations, but can the US Newspaper get it out? Can the US intelligence agencies get it? Netizens who signed "Pogos" commented in a post after the "missile silos" of China Post. Do the US intelligence agencies really know whether these are missile silos or other? The United States cannot repeat the scene of that year, bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan as a chemical weapons factory. The last sentence of "Pogos" is of course an overwhelming one. The scene in Sudan cannot happen to a major power. Even according to the traditional logic of the American international strategic academia, there can be no war between nuclear powers.
When analyzing the so-called "missile silo" oolong, some media pointed out that this is a projection of US China-phobia, but in my opinion, it is a projection of the so-called "new cold war" thinking of the United States, because in the eyes of the hammer, the world It's all nails. This is the case. In the latest policy speech by Biden’s senior foreign policy think tank and National Security Council’s Indo-Pacific Affairs Commissioner, Campbell has already cooled down this kind of thinking. He emphasized that he has no intention to define Sino-US relations as a “new cold war”. These two big countries can live in peace.
Zhixin News: The Korean affairs representatives of China and the United States have been talking on the phone recently and have received widespread attention from the international community. What do you think of this?
Special commentator Guan Yao : If "missile silos" are a pseudo-proliferation issue in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, then nuclear non-proliferation on the peninsula is a real issue of common concern to the international community, including China and the United States, and both China and the United States have major security interests. , To a certain extent, it is also an urgent issue.
As we all know, the core of the peninsula issue is the hostility between the United States and North Korea, and new situations and trends have emerged in this country. The United States has achieved a power change, and North Korea is also facing a considerable degree of economic pressure due to the epidemic. The United Nations even predicts that the country may face a 600,000 tons of food shortage this year. Therefore, both the United States and North Korea now have demands and pressure to break the status quo.
The US special envoy on North Korea just visited South Korea last month with the intention of breaking the deadlock in the nuclear talks. At this time, the Chinese envoy Liu Xiaoming was on the phone, apparently seeking assistance from China. We also know that Special Envoy Liu Xiaoming is a heavyweight diplomat. He was known for his outspoken and sharp words when he was appointed as the Chinese ambassador to the UK. It is believed that during the call with the US special envoy, Special Envoy Liu will surely reiterate China’s position on the Peninsula nuclear issue.
It needs to be emphasized that whether it is the Peninsula nuclear issue, climate change, international anti-epidemic and many other major international urgent agendas, they are areas where China and the United States can engage in substantial cooperation, but the large-scale existence of "fake missile silos" is obviously helpless. China and the United States start cooperation. Take Campbell's latest speech as an example. Although he stated that the US has no intention of fighting a "new cold war," he also emphasized in his speech that Biden will hold an offline version of the Indo-Pacific Summit this year, which is another upgrade of the Indo-Pacific strategy.
We also know that just last week, the National Committee of State Council Wang Yi clearly warned at the Peace Forum that the Indo-Pacific strategy created international differences and chaos, and that it should have been swept into the garbage dump of history long ago. This rare confrontation between senior Chinese and US officials on policy issues is also a projection of the current tension in Sino-US relations.
More than 40 organizations in the United States sent a letter asking Biden to know that "its China policy is destroying the world."
The joint letter on the 7th issued a new warning: They want the president to know that his China policy is destroying the world, "this is a huge mistake."
Biden data map, courtesy of Xinhua News Agency
According to a report on the U.S. "Politics" website, on July 7, more than 40 progressive groups in the United States jointly sent a letter to President Biden and members of Congress, urging them to avoid confrontation with China and give priority to cooperation with China on climate change issues. The open letter also called on the United States to shoulder its historical responsibility to do more on the issue of emissions reduction and stop demonizing China to evade climate responsibility. Against the background of the slogan "Contain China" chanted by the two parties in the United States, such rational voices have not received widespread attention from mainstream American media. "Politics" website analysis believes that this is the latest confrontation between the progressive and moderate Democratic parties that has lasted for several months. The former believes that cooperation on climate change issues should take precedence over competition with China, while the latter believes that the government can do both at the same time. "This kind of internal struggle among the Democratic Party may determine the relationship between the United States and China in the next few years."
"We are deeply troubled by the growing Cold War mentality that promotes the U.S.'s attitude toward China. This confrontational posture may endanger much-needed climate cooperation." The joint letter stated, "The United States, which is much wealthier than China, is the largest carbon emitter in history — —Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, its carbon emissions have accounted for 1/4 of all emissions. China’s historical emissions are half that of the United States—and China’s per capita emissions are less than half of that of the United States." "For each country. The steps taken in response to this global crisis should be commensurate with its historical responsibilities and wealth. In other words, the United States can and must do more than China."
The "Politics" website stated that progressive organizations including the "Sunrise Movement" and the "Union of Concerned Scientists" signed the open letter. The letter also wrote: "The future of our planet depends on the end of the new cold war between China and the United States. In order to deal with the climate crisis and build a global economy that serves ordinary workers in the United States and China, we must shift from competition to cooperation." Eric Sperling, executive director of Fair Foreign Policy, one of the organizations that signed the letter, said: "If Biden's anti-China movement continues to develop, his entire climate change agenda may be at risk."
According to reports, this is not the first time progressives have criticized the Biden administration’s attitude towards China. In May of this year, some Democratic lawmakers and 60 event organizations called on Biden not to turn China into the Soviet Union of the 21st century. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said at the time: “We need to distinguish between reasonable criticism of the Chinese government’s human rights record and Cold War mentality, which uses China as a scapegoat for domestic issues in the United States and demonizes Chinese Americans.”
The "Politics" website stated that the joint letter on the 7th issued a new warning: They wanted the president to know that his China policy is destroying the world, "this is a huge mistake." According to reports, the Biden administration has long claimed that it can separate climate cooperation and geopolitical competition with China. But progressives do not believe it, because they have seen the wider US-China quarrel seeping into climate change efforts. In June of this year, the US banned the import of solar panel materials from a Chinese company on the grounds of “forced labor”. This is believed to weaken Biden's efforts to promote clean energy in the United States.
Being pricked by China as a "pain point", Australia is in a hurry!
Everyone knows that weasel greetings to roosters are purely unkind, but "weasel" will never admit that they are concealing evil intentions when "worshiping new year", but will insist that they are out of good intentions.
Now Australia plays such a "weasel" role in the South Pacific region.
“Russia Today” (RT) website reported on the 6th that Australia denied China’s claim that Australia was obstructing China’s provision of vaccines to the South Pacific region and emphasized that what it did was “in good faith”.
▲Screenshots of "Russia Today" website report
what happened? It turned out that a few days ago, the media revealed that Australia, by placing multiple “consultants” in Papua New Guinea’s National Epidemic Prevention and Control Command Center, delayed and blocked China’s authorized access to Papua New Guinea’s aid vaccines, and even prevented Papua New Guinea political leaders from welcoming them. China vaccine.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin responded to this on the 5th, saying that some people in Australia used the vaccine issue to engage in political manipulation and bullying. This is a disregard for the lives and health of the Papua New Guinea people and violates the basic humanitarian spirit. It is extremely irresponsible to interfere with the overall situation of global anti-epidemic cooperation. China expresses serious concern and firm opposition to this.
He also urged Australia to stop disrupting China's vaccine cooperation with Pacific island countries, and work with China to make concrete efforts to protect the health and well-being of people in island countries and promote international anti-epidemic cooperation.
The Australian side reacted fiercely. According to a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) website on the 8th, Australia’s Minister of International Development and Pacific Affairs Zede stated that “when we saw such a statement, the Australian government refused to accept it.”
According to reports, Zede visited Papua New Guinea this week, which is also his first visit to the country since the new crown epidemic. As for why he only visited at this time, the report was unclear.
Australian think tanks also came out to express their views. Jonathan, director of the Pacific Islands Project of the Lowy Institute, claimed that China’s statement was “unfair” and said: “I think we only provide Papua New Guinea with a better alternative than China.”
This "alternative option" is debatable. Isn't more vaccines the better? The ABC also quoted health officials from countries in the Pacific as saying that they do not care where the vaccines come from. They only hope that these vaccines can protect their citizens. In that case, why is it necessary to substitute one for the other?
The answer is obvious: in Australia's thinking, vaccines are not regarded as a global public product, but as a tool of "vaccine diplomacy"-this is what Australia often uses when accusing China.
According to RT reports, an official from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade discussed the so-called "vaccine diplomacy" of China at a hearing in March this year, and this official relied on some "second-hand or third-hand materials."
▲On June 23, the Chinese government aided Papua New Guinea's Chinese National Medicine Covid-19 vaccine arrived in the capital of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby. (Website of the Chinese Embassy in Papua New Guinea)
Although China has repeatedly stated that it is committed to building a community of human health, insisting on using vaccines as a global public product to help developing countries save as many innocent lives as possible, without any geopolitical purpose and no political conditions. However, the Australian media insisted that China is implementing "vaccine diplomacy". The Australian newspaper also "played" and said, "With the changes brought about by Australia's 15 million dose donation, China's "vaccine diplomacy" in the Pacific has been blocked. ".
The "15 million dose donation" mentioned here comes from a recent statement made by the Australian government, according to which the vaccine will be delivered to Pacific island countries by mid-2022, using Australia's domestically produced AstraZeneca vaccine supply.
But the report also had to admit that "it would be impossible without Australia's restrictions on the use of AstraZeneca vaccine."
In addition to the "changes" brought about by the Australian side in donating vaccines, The Australian has not forgotten to belittle China, such as claiming that China has not donated Chinese-made vaccines to the Global New Coronary Pneumonia Vaccine Implementation Plan (COVAX). The aid to the Pacific region is "quite weak", and China "basically did not act" when it was most needed in the Pacific region.
However, is this really the case?
An obvious fact is that on June 1, the first batch of new crown vaccines supplied by Sinopharm Sinopharm Group to COVAX held an off-line ceremony. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at the time that the official rollout of the first batch of vaccines supplied to the "New Coronary Pneumonia Vaccine Implementation Plan" was another important manifestation of China's practical actions to fulfill its commitment to global public products for vaccines.
China's actions in the Pacific region when it is most needed are also tangible. For example, China sent medical teams to Samoa and Papua New Guinea to help the locals fight against measles and new crown pneumonia. In March this year, a video conference of experts from China and Pacific island countries on the new crown pneumonia epidemic was held. Fiji experts praised the meeting for being timely, necessary, Useful; China also donated medical equipment and other materials to PNG and Vanuatu...
As for vaccines, China-made vaccines have also responded well in Pacific island countries. On June 7, the Chinese government assisted Vanuatu's new crown vaccine to be delivered to Port Vila, the capital of Vanuatu. This was the first batch of bilateral vaccine assistance received by Vanuatu. Many officials including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Health attended the vaccine handover ceremony. At the vaccination launch ceremony held on June 15th, Prime Minister Rafman of Vanuatu also received the first dose of Chinese vaccine on the spot. He said that these vaccines will play an important role in protecting the health and safety of the people in Vanuatu.
▲The Prime Minister of Vanuatu Rafman made a "V" gesture to indicate that he feels good after being vaccinated with a vaccine made in China. (Website of the Chinese Embassy in Vanuatu)
It is worth mentioning that Papua New Guinea's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Io visited China in early June. When meeting with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Io also discussed China's long-term commitment to Papua New Guinea's economic and social development , especially the fight against the epidemic. Thank you for your great support and help.
At the regular press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 8, Wang Wenbin pointed out in response to enquiry that the media has already provided detailed and in-depth reports on how Australia has obstructed and undermined China's vaccine cooperation with Pacific island countries. Instead of denying it, Australia should publicly declare that it welcomes China's vaccine cooperation with Pacific island countries and is willing to work with China to help Pacific island countries fight the epidemic and protect the health of the people of the island countries.
Refusing to support "Taiwan Independence", the United States rarely showed its position. Within 24 hours, China quickly stated its position.
In recent years, the United States has frequently interfered with China's Taiwan issue, repeatedly ignoring mainland warnings and insisting on selling arms to Taiwan. However, nowadays the US government rarely makes an important statement on "Taiwan independence." According to a report on the World Wide Web on July 7, Campbell, the Indo-Pacific Affairs Coordinator of the US White House National Security Council, said on the 6th, “We support strong unofficial relations between the United States and Taiwan. We do not support Taiwan’s independence. We fully understand its sensitivity.” But Campbell also said, "We are very supportive of Taiwan's dignity, and we are trying to send a clear signal to'deterring the Taiwan Strait'." This is the first time the Biden administration has stated that it does not support "Taiwan independence."
In response to the US statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin made a clear response on July 7: Regarding Sino-US relations, China's development and progress does not rely on gifts and charity from anyone, but the result of the hard work of the Chinese people. China has always been committed to developing a relationship of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation with the United States. At the same time, it will continue to resolutely defend national sovereignty, security and development interests. It is hoped that the United States will meet China halfway and adopt a rational and pragmatic policy toward China. Cooperation, management and control of differences, and promote the healthy and stable development of Sino-US relations.
Wang Wenbin emphasized: China's position on the Taiwan issue has always been clear. There is only one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory, and the one-China principle is the political foundation of Sino-US relations. We urge the US to strictly abide by the one-China principle and the provisions of the three Sino-US joint communiqués, be cautious in its words and deeds on Taiwan-related issues, and stop sending false signals to the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces , so as not to seriously damage Sino-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.China will not infringe on the sovereignty of other countries and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and will never allow other countries to infringe on China's sovereignty and interfere in China's internal affairs. This is not only to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of China, but also to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the vast number of developing countries and safeguard the basic norms of international relations.
It is worth noting that Campbell's statement has attracted a lot of media attention. The US CNBC stated that since the visit to the White House in January this year, the US government has been maintaining the previous administration's tough stance on China. Biden called China the "most severe competitor" of the United States. Some German media believe that these are the most gentle words of senior US officials since Biden took office, especially his stance on the Taiwan issue, which can make mainland China feel "goodwill." As recently as May, Campbell pessimistically stated that "the era of contact with China is over" and that the U.S. policy toward China will operate under a set of "new strategic parameters." Last week, China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said: “Of course we hope to resume dialogue, but it depends on the sincerity of the United States.”
Biden officially announced!
According to the Associated Press in Washington, U.S. President Biden said on the 8th local time that the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan will end on August 31, saying that "speed represents security" and that the U.S. is trying to end this lasting nearly 20 years. Of war.
According to the report, Biden denied the claim that the US mission failed, but also pointed out that after the withdrawal of US troops, the Afghan government is unlikely to control the entire territory of Afghanistan. He urged the Afghan government to reach a peace agreement with the Taliban.
According to reports, Biden said in a speech in the East Room of the White House: "We are not here to build our country. Afghan leaders need to unite and work for the future."
"They are all over the country, surrendering without any resistance"
According to a report on the website of the US "Political News" on July 6, the US military's "Central Command" announced on Tuesday local time that the US military has completed 90% of the Afghan withdrawal plan promised by President Biden.
The news came a few days after the U.S. military vacated the Bagram Air Force Base. The base has been the focus of US troops stationed in Afghanistan for the past 20 years. The US military has officially handed over seven facilities, including the Bagram base, to the Afghan Ministry of Defense.
Although the Pentagon has completed most of the withdrawal in just two months since the beginning of the U.S. withdrawal in May, the White House said on Friday that the withdrawal will not be completely over until the end of August.
The report quoted Biden as saying on Friday: "Our progress is fully in line with expectations." The current rate of withdrawal is in line with the deadline he set, which is to end the longest period in the United States before September 11, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attack in 2001. war.
Tuesday was the first time the Pentagon announced figures showing the general progress of the withdrawal since early June. The progress report in early June stated that more than 50% of the withdrawal was completed, but "for operational safety reasons and to protect the troops", no specific information was provided at that time.
According to reports, as the U.S. military continues to transport troops and equipment out of Afghanistan, the Taliban have clearly gained momentum in recent days. According to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, which closely follows the conflict in Afghanistan, the Taliban have controlled 10% of the country's territory in the past six days alone, most of which are located in key areas.
The Taliban control a total of 188 of the country’s 407 counties and will compete for another 135 counties.
▲A self-portrait of an Afghan government soldier at Bagram Air Force Base after the U.S. withdrawal on the 5th (AFP)
"Defense of Democracy Foundation" senior researcher Bill Roggio warned that Afghanistan "there is a risk of complete collapse" and pointed out that Afghan security forces are surrendering to the Taliban across the country without any resistance. According to reports, US intelligence officials have warned that the Afghan government may collapse as soon as six months.
Roggio said in a statement: "If the Afghan government cannot control the security situation and find a way to regain control of the north, its term is likely to end in a few weeks or months."
According to a report from Agence France-Presse in Washington on July 6, the U.S. Central Command announced on Tuesday local time that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan has completed more than 90%.
The US Central Command said that it has officially handed over 7 former US military bases to the Afghan security forces, and has withdrawn from Afghanistan before the September withdrawal deadline, which is equivalent to the capacity of nearly 1,000 C-17 transport aircraft. Equipment.
Last Friday, the U.S. military handed over the huge Bagram Air Force Base north of Kabul to the U.S. side. For most of the past 20 years of war, the base was the main center of US military operations in Afghanistan.
Tuesday’s announcement highlighted that most of the withdrawal of American military and civilian personnel ordered by President Biden in April has been completed.
When Biden issued the withdrawal order, there were nominally 2,500 American soldiers and 16,000 private sector contractors in Afghanistan.
According to reports, there were about 1,000 US special forces soldiers fighting in Afghanistan that were not included in this official statistic.
Although Biden set September-the 20th anniversary of the attack on the United States by Al Qaeda that triggered the US invasion of Afghanistan-as the deadline for withdrawal, the Pentagon moved quickly to reduce its military presence this month. at the lowest limit.
White House Press Secretary Jane Psaki said after the handover ceremony of the Bagram base last Friday: "We expect that the withdrawal will be completed before the end of August."
According to reports, the United States is expected to retain 650 or more military personnel in the country to protect the US embassy and diplomats.
Russian ambassador to China: There is still a picture of me in the Chinese Communist Party History Exhibition. I am very surprised!
On July 5th, Russian Ambassador to China Denisov led more than 60 diplomats from the Russian Embassy in China to the Chinese Communist Party History Exhibition Hall to visit the "Remember the Mission in the Original Heart—The History of the Communist Party of China Exhibition". After the visit, Denisov told the "Global Times" reporter that this was his second visit to the Chinese Communist Party History Exhibition, and he felt very happy. He hoped to visit the third and fourth time in the future.
Image source/Ministry of Foreign Affairs website
"There are a lot of interesting things in the exhibition." Denisov said in an interview with a reporter from the Global Times. "I was pleasantly surprised to find that I actually appeared in several photos of the (Party History Exhibition)." He said at the same time. , I have no doubt that China can achieve the second centenary goal in 2049 under the leadership of the Communist Party of China.
The party history exhibition visited by Denisov and Russian diplomats was divided into four parts, with more than 2,600 pictures and more than 3,500 sets of cultural relics, which fully demonstrated the 100-year history of the development of the Communist Party of China. During the visit, Denisov said that the Communist Party of China has developed into a large party with more than 95 million members. This is a powerful force supported by the people. “The Communist Party of China can lead China along the right path and continue to move forward. To a new level."
Image source/Ministry of Foreign Affairs website
"It is important for Russian diplomats to have a deep understanding of China. (Through this exhibition) we learned the great story of the founding and development of the Communist Party of China, which is an important part of China's modern history." Press officer of the Russian Embassy in China Yegorov told a reporter from the Global Times on Monday.
Analysts believe that such a grand and large-scale visit not only reflects the close relationship between China and Russia, but also shows Russia's recognition of the Chinese system and the achievements of the Chinese Communist Party.
At the "World Peace Forum" held at Tsinghua University on the 4th, Denisov also gave a blunt response to the statement by the Western ambassadors to China that "the Chinese Communist Party imposes its own ideology on others". Said: "If you can find an example of'the Chinese Communist Party imposed its own ideology on others' in the past 40 or 50 years, I would like to thank you."
"China is not only an opponent, it may also win"
Joe Biden has been in office for several months, and his foreign policy seems to be clearly inconspicuous compared to his domestic policy. The president's top priority is obviously to respond to the epidemic and launch a trillion-dollar infrastructure construction and economic stimulus plan. However, one should not only focus on his domestic policy and ignore the fact that a major change in US foreign policy has taken place. This transition not only started with Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump, but also with Biden’s former boss Barack Obama.
The key elements that make up Biden's worldview are not obvious. But you don't have to look for clues in secret files, just listen to what he says.
He said in February this year: "We are currently at an inflection point. Some people claim that...authority is the best future, while others understand that democracy is essential." Next month, he told reporters, " In my opinion," China will not achieve the goal of "becoming the most advanced country, richest country, and most powerful country in the world." "Play a role in the 21st century" this turning point. Last month, he said more specifically to David Brooks of the New York Times, “We are at a moment when other countries in the world are beginning to pay attention to China.” Obviously, he not only said this in his official speech, but he I always bring up this topic in peacetime.
In Biden's view, the United States and other democracies are competing with China and other authoritarian countries. The rapid technological change in a certain period of time intensified this competition, giving China the opportunity to surpass the United States in certain areas.
In addition to making speeches, the Biden administration is also cooperating with Congress to seek to pass the Endless Frontier Act to counter China’s economic and geopolitical ambitions, especially China’s technological ambitions; the Biden administration will Prioritize the relationship between the United States and its Asian allies, rather than bilateral diplomacy between the United States and China; the Biden administration also urged Europe to take more measures to counter China.
U.S. Congress deliberates the "Endless Frontier Act"
For the president, this transition takes a process. Two years ago, he talked about why he thought reports about China’s power were exaggerated, and during the 2020 campaign he said something criticized by Republicans: “China wants to eat our lunch? Come on, man. I mean. , You know, they are not bad guys. But guess what? They are not our opponents yet."
Now he is worried that China is an opponent of the United States, and that China is not only an opponent, but China may also win the US-China competition. This belief laid the foundation of Biden's philosophy.
For many in the Democratic Party, Biden's change of position is surprising. Certain people in the Democratic Party who are responsible for formulating foreign policy hope that Biden’s views on China have not yet been finalized. He will ease his words and attitudes over time, and no longer emphasize that the US-China competition is a contest between democracy and authoritarianism. . They worry that the United States and China may fall into ideological struggles similar to those during the Cold War. Just like Biden in 2019, they also believe that China's strength has been exaggerated and that the United States can continue to exercise patience and restraint. They believe that although Washington must be brave enough to defend its own interests, it also needs to quickly transition to the stage of peaceful coexistence with China-basically the restoration of the Obama administration's practices.
An official in the Biden administration, who did not want to be named, discussed the government’s plans frankly. He told me that although diplomatic policymakers agree with the president’s views, some officials in the government share the same concerns as the restoring factions, while others share the same concerns. Officials have not yet grasped the essence of the president's remarks.
US allies in Europe, especially Germany, are also nervous about putting too much emphasis on countering China. Before he flew to Europe, Biden published an article that played down the competition between the United States and authoritarian countries and instead emphasized the need to prove the effectiveness of democracy. This may not be a coincidence.
But everyone who is worried about Biden's views has overlooked an important geopolitical development trend that Biden has already pointed out. The old rules-based international order has collapsed, and two major groups of countries are replacing it, one is a group of democratic countries and the other is a group of authoritarian countries. The motives of both parties are more derived from their own insecurities, rather than from their ambitions to transform the world according to their own appearance. China and other authoritarian countries worry that the free flow of information, the attractiveness of democracy, and economic interdependence will shake their regimes. Biden and his allies in the United States worry that China's attempts will undermine freedom and democracy, push international rules in a non-liberal direction, and strengthen the power of authoritarian nations around the world.
None of their assessments are wrong. The post-Cold War system of the United States has indirectly threatened the authoritarian regime. In fact, in the 1990s and early 2000s, many Americans and Europeans believed that this was a beneficial side effect of globalization.
Biden also understands that although the domestic democracy crisis in the United States is self-inflicted in many ways, it is also part of a larger international crisis. Only by solving the crises of unrestricted globalization, foreign interference in elections, and corrupt networks can this problem be completely resolved.
The bigger question is what will happen next. Biden took the crucial first step. He correctly diagnosed the strategic challenges facing the United States. Just like Harry Truman at the beginning of the Cold War and Bush Sr. at the end of the Cold War, the president now has an opportunity to establish a framework for a new era. But this is not easy.
During the campaign, Biden promised to hold a summit of democratic nations. This was very attractive at the time because it provided concrete ideas for how to implement a value-based foreign policy. However, a senior official in the Biden administration told me that they are also fully aware of the limitations of this approach. Many democracies are too diverse as a group; each country has a very different assessment of the overall challenge. To this end, the Biden administration will have to adopt a small, informal organization approach to cooperate with individual allies. Senior officials believe that you are leading the crowd through action, and you don’t have to build complex new institutions, at least not at the beginning.
Biden intends to deepen the cooperation of the four-nation mechanism (QUAD, a group composed of the United States, India, Japan and Australia) in vaccine distribution and infrastructure construction in Asia. So far, he lacks similar ambition and enthusiasm in dealings with Europe, because in Europe, German Chancellor Merkel's strategic assessment of China is completely different from him. Merkel is cautious about competition and supports Europe and China. contact. These differences between the United States and Europe are not so easy to resolve.
Allies are also asking what Biden’s middle-class diplomacy can do to promote the prosperity of the entire free world. Some people worry that this is just a milder version of Trump's protectionism. Biden is also skeptical of free trade agreements and prefers to impose tariffs. Biden officials admitted privately that this is a huge challenge they must face. However, as National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan pointed out last weekend, the Group of Seven’s breakthrough in supporting the implementation of the world’s lowest corporate tax is a major achievement. This policy will benefit the world’s middle class, not just The middle class in the United States.
Biden’s work is complicated and difficult to do because the era of competition we are now in is fundamentally different from that of the Cold War. This is due to the highly dependent relationship between democracies and authoritarian countries, especially considering China. . Biden must lead democracies to agree on how to maintain proper engagement with China. For example, this certainly means that there is a strategic reduction in ties in dual-use technologies that may help China achieve military modernization or violate human rights. At the same time, this usually involves controlling risks and making a collective response when an allied country is violated. For example, there is an emergency landing, punitive tariffs on Australian wine, and unfair arrests of citizens of other countries.
This complexity is not the only challenge Biden faces. If a major problem cannot be solved for a long time, it will not be enough to establish informal or specialized organizations to solve it. Biden's foreign policy should be to reach an international agreement with many like-minded countries that have received broad support from the U.S. ruling and opposition. However, considering the degree of opposition in the U.S. political arena, it is not easy to do this. Such an agreement may involve deterring and responding to economic coercive behavior, establishing a reliable supply chain, or strengthening the protection of democracy and human rights.
In order to implement his ideas, Biden must be politically flexible. Progressives have spoken one after another, criticizing his China policy and accusing President Biden of initiating a cold war that may arouse anti-Asian sentiment. But this is a very strange allegation. After all, it was Bernie Sanders who followed Winston Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech and delivered a foreign policy speech in Fulton, Missouri, condemning authoritarianism. It was Elizabeth Warren who took the fight against corruption and despotism as her core foreign policy when she participated in the presidential campaign. If Biden has done anything, Biden is just following in their footsteps. He should work hard to get both senators into his camp. In addition, Biden should remind progressives that if the competition with China is not about values and democracy, the only thing left is for China itself. This is an out-and-out nationalist approach.
On the other hand, conservatives will never fully agree with Biden's views on foreign policy, but some people are cooperating with Biden to formulate bills related to China. Many Republican senators believe in relying on US allies and emphasize the value of democracy and human rights in US strategy, even if Trump and his supporters disagree with their position. Some Republican senators even said that if it is to effectively compete with China, they will support the establishment of multilateral organizations. Biden can use this disagreement between the Republican senator and Trump to reach a consensus between the two parties to support key parts of his foreign policy together.
In the history of the United States, some presidents have never had their own opinions. And Biden has. In his view, the United States is competing with China's political system. His response is not to spread democracy at gunpoint or even to promote the development of the democratic system itself, but to show the world that the democratic system can work-both at home and abroad. The question now is whether Biden can unite his government, the entire country, and allies of the United States to integrate this proposition into American foreign policy.
Is the United States back to normal?
July 4th is the Independence Day of the United States. On that day, President Biden held a celebration party on the South Lawn of the White House. He said that compared with the situation a year ago, American lives can basically return to normal, but the epidemic is not over yet. He called on people to get vaccinated.
Biden's words aroused applause from the audience. Judging from various survey data, the American people are relatively satisfied with the Biden administration's epidemic prevention policy. Thanks to large-scale vaccination, the number of new confirmed cases per day in the United States has fallen to less than 10,000 in recent days. This is indeed a huge improvement compared to the epidemic that was still a wild horse a few months ago.
The Associated Press commented that after the 16-month epidemic brought chaos to the United States and more than 605 thousand deaths, Biden hoped that all Americans would be happy. Biden said, "Today, the whole country can confidently say that the United States is returning neatly." Indeed, the United States is recovering from the epidemic, but it is still far from completion.
In early May of this year, Biden set a goal of vaccinating 70% of adults with at least one dose of the new crown vaccine before the US Independence Day on July 4. According to the latest data released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, so far 67% of American adults, or 173 million people, have received at least one dose of the vaccine; approximately 58% of American adults have completed the vaccination. Of the approximately 330 million people in the United States, 55% have received at least one dose of the vaccine.
Although it is still a little short of the goal, from a global perspective, and taking into account the size of the United States and the complexity of society, such an achievement has exceeded many people's expectations. Objectively speaking, it is not easy for Biden to do this, but it is obviously too optimistic to say that he will return to normalcy.
Now, all 50 states in the United States and Washington, DC have detected the "Delta" strain of the new crown mutation virus. Health officials believe it is more contagious and poses a greater threat to people who have not been vaccinated. The "Delta" strain is infected. The number of cases now exceeds a quarter of the new confirmed cases of new coronary pneumonia in the United States.
Because of this, Biden told the people that the best way to defend against mutant strains is to vaccinate, which is the most patriotic thing you can do. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on the 4th that nearly 10,000 people died of new coronary pneumonia in the United States in June, and about 99.2% of them were not vaccinated.
However, the current rate of vaccination is declining and resistance is rising. The United States has recently received an average of about 1 million doses of vaccine per day. At the peak of vaccination a few months ago, this number exceeded 3 million doses. According to a recent poll on July 4, 30% of American adults said that they have not received the new crown vaccine, and they will definitely or may never be vaccinated. In this group, 73% said that US officials had exaggerated the risk of the "Delta" strain of the new coronavirus mutant, and 79% believed that they had little or no risk of contracting the new coronavirus.
Over the past year or so, the epidemic has caused heavy losses in the United States, yet so many people still reject vaccination. This reflects the huge division of American society and the difficulty and complexity of the United States’ anti-epidemic work. The United States has completed its return. The pace of normalcy will inevitably be slowed down by these factors.
The Independence Nichinan Lawn event was also the largest since Biden took office, receiving more than 1,000 guests. Judging from the screen, neither the guest nor the photographer in front of him wear a mask. Many people are therefore worried, believing that Biden’s large-scale celebrations will cause everyone to follow suit, and this Independence Day holiday will bring new and serious challenges to the US epidemic prevention and control. (Author: He Yu Chen Yujuan)